Re-Post: RTW Trip: The A-B-C's, Pt/ 1

I've done this type of thing before, with the A-B-C's of the 2010 FIFA World Cup and the 2010 NFL Season, but this is different. This is longer. There is a good chance this is the longest post I've ever done by the time it is done. Anyway, here are the A-B-C's of my trip (the first of a few trip-overview posts). I'll try to be a little creative with these, so none of these will simply be cities.


A is for Aussie Rules Football 

Well, this is a sports blog, so I'll start with the one international sport that dominated my trip. Sure, seeing the Royal Challengers Bangalore (still a terribly idiotic name) beat the Mumbai Indians by four runs was fun, but it was Aussie Rules Football that I really took too. I still feel that if Aussie Rules was an American sport (which would certainly be tough given 'Aussie' is in the name) it would be my 2nd favorite sport after 'American Rules' Football. The strategy is incredible in that game, the action end-to-end. Even sluggish defensive games seem fun and exciting. My cousins' favorite team Essendon is still #3 in the league, and if they continue to be good that will probably get me to get up (or stay up) to watch some of the AFL playoffs. Australia loves sports in a way that seems entirely American, since they follow many different sports (compared to Europe, where it is mainly just football), and it helps that I stayed in Victoria, but Aussie Rules, with their crazy fans, their 'Inside the NBA'-lite weekly show, and strategy any sports fan would love quickly became my favorite.


B is for Black Pepper Crab

One of my mental images when I was planning the trip was eating a giant Black Pepper Crab on Singapore's East Coast Seafood Center, with the planes descending into Changi flying overhead. In the beginning, this was an image of the last thing I would do on the trip (apart from flying), but I soon added a second near-full-day layover in Singapore on the way to Melbourne, making the image double in my mind. I was able to go to Jumbo Seafood both times, and eat those massive crabs. I have no real idea how they make the Black Pepper sauce taste so good. It permeates through the entire crab without being too saucy and messy. The cleanliness factor is important, because as a messy eater working with a crab that weighs nearly a kilo, there is a high chance for it being an extremely messy exercise. Somehow, I classed myself up to the point that I barely made any mess. So much so that I was able to save one of the lobster (or in this case, crab) bibs they gave me because it was so pristine. Jumbo seafood spoiled me, as now I want any trip to India to end with a day in Singapore and a black pepper crab at Jumbo seafood. No final leg of a trip will be complete without it.


C is for Columns at Ranakpur

I didn't really want to go to Rajasthan when I was planning my trip. I have disliked doing any touristy activities in India after a disappointing trip to Kerala after my cousin's wedding in Early 2011. Rajasthan was the idea of my Mom, and I went along because it is hard not to. Luckily, Rajasthan was surprisingly entertaining, with good food, good sights, good shopping (which for me meant good hand-crafted coasters) and a lack of humidity. However, nothing from that part of the trip was as memorable as the Jain temple in Ranakpur. It took us about two hours to get there from Udaipur, and we had to wait around for another 45 minutes, meandering around the temple, before the cameras (and the foreigners) were let inside. Nothing in those Jain temples are more impressive than their array of Columns, none similar to any others. I would estimate there were around 1,000 columns in that temple (quick note: estimate could be very, very wrong, but it was a large number), all carved with exacting detail. The whole temple was a brilliant testament to what India could be as a tourist destination.


D is for Dalat Easy Riders

My only regret with the Dalat Easy Rider tour is that I didn't get to ride the motorcycle. The Dalat Easy Rider tour was the first trip I did after I recovered from my first of two stomach upsets. The first bout (which took up my entire stay in Ho Chi Minh City was the worst of the two, and I was still a little unsure if I was totally healthy when the day started, but the feeling of the cool Dalat air rushing through my body, and the incredible views of the Vietnamese forest hills above, below and underneath me. The temples were all situated on these hills, serenely isolated from the rest of Dalat. The most fun was the incredible little roller-coaster descent to the Datanla Waterfall, but that whole day was memorable. I didn't really know too much about Dalat, and my tight schedule made this basically the only large trip I could take when I was there, but my God was I so happy I did. They have tours where you can rent the motorcycle yourself, but it probably was more fun being the passenger, just enjoying idyllic, forested Vietnam.


E is for Eating and Observing

No city can really go wrong with a CN Tower type tower. It is strange because the only thing those towers are selling is the ability to view the city from up above. They have no residential or commercial purpose because all they are are elevator shafts and a few revolving floors. Still, their allure is pretty hard to avoid. I went to many cities with these types of buildings, and what my Mom and I quickly realized is that the price of actually having food at one of the revolving restaurants is a damn good deal when considering the price of not having food at one of the revolving observation decks. We did this little scam at the Menara KL in Kuala Lumpur, but there we only had tea. I took the scam to its natural conclusion with a lunch buffet at the Sydney Tower. The buffet there was really good. They gave a ridiculous amount of meat choices, all presented really well. In the end, the view actually became kind of secondary to the food in Sydney. I went to two observation decks sans food in Melbourne (The Eureka Tower) and Tokyo (The Tokyo SkyTree), but they weren't the same.



F is for Flinders St. & Federation Square

Melbourne isn't Sydney. It doesn't have the array of sights to see, the world-famous Opera House, or the hustle and bustle. But it is probably the best walking city I went to on my trip (some of this is probably due to the fact that I walked in Melbourne more than any other city). And during my various walks around Melbourne, Federation Square, right opposite the ornate entrance to Flinders St. Station, was my center point. From there, you got a view of everything. The cluster of buildings to the East, the other cluster of government buildings and financial offices to the West, and the Eureka Tower and the newer buildings to the South. You had the MCG off to one side, and the wiry Eiffel-Tower styled top of the Arts building on one side. From there, I enjoyed a few brews at the International Brew House who's name I now forget, but it was just a great way to end an evening in Melbourne.


G is for General Pol Pot

Call it ignorance, but I didn't really know a lot about the Khmer Rouge genocide that Cambodia endured in the 70's before heading to Phnom Penh. It never had the cache or the scope of the Holocaust, but seeing what I saw and experiencing what I experienced, there is a definite argument to be made that it was worse. What Pol Pot and his cronies did in Cambodia defies explanation, defies everything, really. To bash babies' brains into tree stumps. To smash peoples' skulls with hammers and axes. To play loud propaganda music to cover up the shrieks and cries for help. All of it for no real reason. What is left of the Pol Pot regime is basically the 'Killing Fields' outside of Phnom Penh and the old school-house-turned-torture-prison-turned-museum in Phnom Penh, and both make for a chilling, lasting, day of witnessing just how evil evil can get.


H is for Haribeil

I mentioned how when leaving Tokyo, I was not sure if having those last 10 days in India was a mistake or not. I left India a month-and-a-half earlier wanting more time with my family, but came back dreading the heat, the humidity and all the countless other pains that one has to deal with in India. But if anything made me happy to spend those last 10 days was my trip to my cousin's friend's estate in little Haribeil.There is no better way to describe the scenery and beauty of the estate region of India than by saying that it is unlike anything you would imagine would be in India. There is nothing Indian about it, apart from the semi-frequent power outages. When I was in the estate, it was hard to imagine that this is the same country that I was sweating my skin off two days in earlier, wilting under the oppressive heat. No, this is a different India. This is the India you see in the 'Incredible India' tourism ads that are on TV every now and then. Put aside the fact that the people there and what we did during those few days was also memorable, but I've done the same with those same people in Bangalore. No, the estate was the star. That and her shortbread.


I is for Intestinal Issues

When I travel to India, I go in knowing that I will most likely get sick at some point. It is just going to happen. I usually don't get sick enough to throw up, but sick enough to ruin a few days. Well, this time I never really got sick in India. That's the good news. The bad news is I got sick two other times outside India. The first came as a real punch to the gut, as all of a sudden on my flight from Johannesburg to Bangkok, I started feeling ill. Within an hour, I was fixed in a catatonic state, zombied out and lightheaded. The stomach illness ended up lasting throughout my three days in Ho Chi Minh City, ruining that city for me. In the end, I've put that bout on having tap water in Cape Town the night before I left. The second was more normal, coming from indulging in one too many spicy Thai dishes in my first day in Bangkok, and I only exacerbated that bout by having oily food on the second evening of the bout and a Gin and Tonic on the third. I don't know what consumed me to do that, but it did lead to me eating a $7 Naan. So there's that.


J is for the Japan Rail Pass

Japan's railway system is world famous, for all the right reasons. It is ridiculously precise, pulling into the station at the exact right position at the exact right time. Of course, one of these right reasons isn't its price. Traveling by rail is not cheap, but Japan does its tourist a service by offering the Japan Rail Pass, allowing unlimited access to their JR Trains, including the slower (but still super-fast) versions of their Shinkansen Bullet Trains. The passes aren't cheap, but they are still a damn good deal. The big problem is that Japan doesn't really advertise this pass, and you have to buy the voucher to buy the pass outside of Japan. The trains, after all the messiness of getting the pass and getting on a train, were wonderful, with Wi-Fi, seats that recline far further back than any economy seat on a plane, and girls rolling food and drink carts through the cars, even selling beer. The hours I spent on the train allowed me to watch most of Season 1 of Game of Thrones and get near Mt. Fuji. By the end of my time in Japan, I became a veteran at riding the JR Rail, knowing how to confidently flash my pass to the guards, knowing where to line up to easily enter the train, and knowing just where the AC Outlets are located on the trains.


K is for Kangaroos!

Other than meeting my family, there was probably nothing I wanted to do more in Australia than fiddle around with the native wildlife. Australia's probably more famous for its wildlife than anything else, and nothing is more recognizable than those weird, hopping marsupials. My Uncle and Aunt took my sister to a wildlife farm on Phillip Island, near Melbourne, that had free range kangaroos that you can go up to, pet and feed them (and the Emus, but I was terrified of the Emus, with their velociraptorian faces and height). I never expected to see so many kangaroos and so many of them be willing to hop right over to you and beg for food. The kangaroos really were like hopping dogs. My sister told me that when she went, the kangaroos shied away from her and everyone else at the park. I was astounded by this, because they flocked to me like sheep coming to a shepard. The best moment, though, was my cousin Lisa noticing the little head of a baby kangaroo popping intermittently out of the pouch of the mother kangaroo. That basically forced me to be a paparazzi for a while, trying to snap a picture of a kangaroo baby. I was able to, and I was also able to throw feed at a sleeping koala in hopes of waking it up (failed), and was able to have a picture of me being terrified of an emu (success). All in all, a great, uniquely Australian, day.


L is for Leopold Cafe

I never really knew about Leopold Cafe until November 26th, 2008, when Mumbai was attacked. The Leopold Cafe was one of the targets, and a few people died amidst the hundreds of rounds fired into that Cafe. I had no idea it was so close to my Grandparents' apartment, but now I do. Now I also know who the manager is, what the rules of the upstairs is, the protocol for entering with a backpack, and who some of the main waiters are. Mostly because of the attack, but also due to the preponderance of foreigners, common opinion is that Leopold Cafe is more of a tourist attraction than a place to eat, but I have to disagree. Leopold Cafe's food in genuinely good. That whole little hamlet off the Causeway near the Taj hotel is littered with good restaurants that are probably a little too commercial to ever get the credit that they deserve. Both times before I left Mumbai for the airport was go to Leopold for one last meal, one last few hours spent people watching the foreigners having fun in my old family hometown.


M is for Milk & Honey

Nothing I drank had the impact of Milk & Honey Beer, courtesy of Mitchell's Scottish Ale House in the V&A Waterfront in Cape Town. I went there too many times, and drank Milk & Honey too many times. I actually enjoyed some of the other craft beer they had, but the Milk & Honey beer was the best beer I have ever had. My last day there, I had too many mugs of Milk & Honey, and because of fearing being hungover during my flight because of those beers, I had tap water in my hotel, which I believer directly led to my sickness that ruined my time in Ho Chi Minh City. Would I trade not having those extra Milk & Honey's for being able to get out of bed in Ho Chi Minh City? Yeah, I probably would. But Milk & Honey led to a lot of great things in Cape Town, most of which is ensuring that I have to go back.

Celebration of the Spurs, Pt. 2

What makes the Spurs so special? Of course, like most dynastic sports team, talent plays a role. Gregg Popovich is one of the 5 best NBA coaches ever, easily the best coach of the past 15 years (in that admittedly random period he has 4 rings to Phil's 5), and his influence pervades through that entire organization. They also employ Tim Duncan, who while he's 'regressed' into being a Top-5 Power Forward at age 38, he was the best Power Forward Ever good for a 10-year period from 1998-2007. They also employ two other future Hall of Famers in Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. Ginobili is the best South American basketball player in NBA history, and Parker is probably the 2nd best European player ever, with only Dirk outclassing what Parker has done. That all said, it is more than talent that has allowed the Spurs to stay competitive and relevant far longer than they should have. It is a system, and organization, a culture that works better than anything I have seen in sports.

A decade from now, when Popovich is retired and Duncan is retired and the Spurs are, most likely, just another ordinary small-market team trying to compete, people may finally start realizing what the Spurs did. When we know the breadth of their accomplishments, and when Popovich (and Duncan/Parker/Ginobili, but most importantly Popovich) is removed enough to open up honestly about what he accomplished and how, the Spurs will be studied in business schools around the country. The Patriots may have had a higher profile being in the NFL, and the Rays may provide a more interesting study given their success in an unfair, capitalist market, but to me no team matches the Spurs in terms of a case study. They are sports, they are business, they are where they meet.

Over the years, the Spurs have always managed to stay one step ahead. The only NBA trend they didn't see coming was the '7-Seconds or Less' era and the impact of faster pace, which they took a while to turn to, but they only didn't because they still had success, and success against it. They started shooting threes more and more before anyone else. They started going small before almost anyone else. They started focusing on eliminating layups and threes and allowing 15-20 footers before anyone else. They unlocked so many keys that the rest of the NBA copies, the only thing that comes close is the Oakland A's. In a weird way, what hurts them is the ridiculous, grinding, dominant and, sadly, boring success. They don't have a 'My Shit Doesn't Work in the Playoffs' moment like Billy Beane. The Spurs' shit did work, and work and work and work.

Now the Spurs have made their fair share of mistakes over the years. No team is perfect. I already pointed to a huge on-court mistake that cost them a likely title in 2006, with Ginobili fouling Dirk on a drive up three late in Game 7. They of course had myriad mistakes that cost them the Title last year. Change just two things (I'm less inclined to add Fisher's 0.4 second shot to this both because that was more the Lakers pro-actively making it happen, and there's less proof the '04 Spurs beat Minnesota or Detroit) and the Spurs win six titles already and they're being hailed as one of the Greatest Dynasties Ever.

The Spurs have also made some odd personnel decisions over the years, like sign Hedo Turkoglu in a miscast role, or way overpay for Rasho Nesterovic, or way overpay again for Richard Jefferson, but these are merely tiny mistrokes on a beautiful 16-year canvas. For every Torkuglo there was the signing of Stephen Jackson in 2003, or Fabricio Oberto in 2006, or swapping Hill for Leonard, or brining back Danny Green and Patty Mills from the dead. There is no NBA team that has had such a sterling record in offseason acquisitions.

Popovich created a culture more than he created a system, because the system has changed. There isn't much resemblance between the 2005 Spurs and the 2014 Spurs apart from Manu Ginobili driving to the hoop (of course, back then Ginobili had long flowing locks, not a hilarious bald spot). Those Spurs were a defensive force, these are a high-paced offensive machine. Popovich just created an atmosphere where players would by into the new way the Spurs were going to play. To seamlessly transition from a slower, defensive team to a fast one overnight and do it well without totally overhauling the roster takes a foundation that was already rock-solid, and that is all Popovich and Duncan.

Tim Duncan is a Top-10 player All Time. He is. There's really no good argument against it. He's also most likely the most humble player on those lists, and he's the one who carries himself the least like a Top-10 player. He receives coaching, he's never chased stats, he willfully takes less minutes, he's allowed Pop to bench him late in games when the situation calls for it (and even, as we saw in Game 6 last year, when the situation didn't). He's rarely demanded anything from his team. He only once even thought about leaving San Antonio. He's quietly re-upped instead of having long drawn out contract negotiations. When the best player on the team, and one of the All-Time Greats carries himself like that, it sets the tone for the entire franchise, and the rest of hte Spurs took note.

The success of the Spurs is more than just Popovich and Duncan, but it is nice to have those two constants to look on. They also both exemplify why the Spurs are slow to get the credit they deserve, as outside of NBA-nerds it took until their success became too much to avoid that they gained general acceptance. It doesn't help when Duncan rarely gives long interviews, when he shies away from teh public light. It doesn't help when Popovich's public persona is a gruff, ironically short-answering, caustic genius. Sure, most media members will tell you when the cameras are off Popovich is one of the most engaging and open NBA personalities out there, but that doesn't help him with the people who aren't there when the lights turn off. But all of that is part of the Cultural Brilliance. Everything is about the team, not the media, not the spotlight, but the team.

There have been great stories the past few years about how the Spurs treat former Spurs. It seems like anyone who passes through the Spurs organization becomes a Spur for life. Guys like Robert Horry and Bruce Bowen are legends in teh Spurs Organization. If Avery Johnson is in town he'll have dinner with teh Spurs, same with Michael Finley, or Brent Barry, or Mario Elie, or Sean Eliot. The Spurs are a family, they are an organization in teh old-school sense of the word.

The rest of the NBA should take notice, but what the Spurs have done is basically impossible. It is not easy to get an All-Time coach, win the lottery in a year when an All-Time talent like Tim Duncan is there, and then nail late pick after late pick, but the Spurs did it. They changed the way NBA teams could be constructed, but they also changed the way NBA teams are built and run. The Spurs were dominant, but they've been dominant in wildly different NBA's. They were dominant in the iso-heavy, defense era, in the run and gun era, and in today's analytically savvy era. They've been the best example of Organizational Culture in sports in the 21st Century and it is hard to see any team coming close to repeating what they have done short of putting together a Big-3 like Miami did. The Spurs made the NBA a more cultured sport but also a changed sport. 

Why I think the Rangers will win the Stanley Cup Finals

So many times during that awesome Western Conference Final, I read fans, bloggers and media members write, tweet and posit that that was the true Stanley Cup Final, that both teh Kings and Blackhawks would be heavy favorites and likely win in five, maybe six. That the only way the Rangers can win is if Lundqvist stands on their head and they score on quintuple-deflections enough times to win. I've really had enough of that. Now, the Kings are a better team, they have depth, they've won a Cup recently, but I think way too many people are assuming the Rangers have no chance. Here are my five reasons why I'm picking the Rangers to win the Cup.


1.) They have the better goalie

Jonathan Quick is a very good player. He had an absurd playoff run in 2012, with a .946 save percentage, unheard of for an entire postseason. That's all good, but he is not that guy right now. Quick has been terribly streaky in these playoffs. He started dreadfully, then had a dominant 6-game stretch to end the Sharks series and begin against Anaheim, but ever since the Kings took that 2-0 lead against the Ducks, he has been decidedly average. Quick's played 12 games since and given up at least two goals in 11 of them. The Blackhawks are a very good offense, but Quick had a .885 save percentage against them, which is bad against any team in today's NHL. For the postseason, he has a 2.86 GAA and a .906 save percentage, both below average numbers. Quick was also very good in last year's playoffs, but it is becoming increasingly likely that the 2012 playoffs was an aberration.

On the other side is Lundqvist, who has a 2.03 GAA and a .928 save percentage. His career postseason numbers are basically the same as Quick's. He's been more consistent through his career. He hasn't won a Cup, but he's been dominant in every Game 7 he's played. I'll talk more to this later, but the Rangers are as tested in long series and Lundqvist has done well with the Rangers facing elimination. If he has one black mark in his postseason career, it is faring poorly when facing a non-Game 7 clinching situation, but the Rangers would be lucky to be in that situation. Henrik Lundqvist is an excellent goalie, and can absolutely steal a series.


2.) Tiredness from LA

I'll give the Kings a ton of credit in winning three Game 7's this postseason, all on the road, and coming back three different times against Chicago to win yesterday. That is an incredibly feat, and just getting here is amazing for the Kings. That all said, they looked and seemed tired at the end of the Blackhawks series. They were able to win because they got some odd bounces on three of their goals yesterday (especially the first and OT winners), but they were dominated late in that series in overall shooting numbers. The NHL media is pushing two different 'advanced' stats right now, Corsi and Fenwick Ratings. Now, these aren't really all that advanced, but simply instead of using 'Shots on Goal' they count overall shots, including Shots that miss and shots that are blocked. The Kings are dominant in this, but they lost the ratings in Game 5-7 against Chicago, and lost badly in Game 7. Now, the Blackhawks are a very good team in these ratings, but so are the Rangers, ranking 6th in the NHL this season. For the playoffs, both teams are pretty much the same, with the Rangers trending up. They can claim territorial play better than people believe in this series. The Kings may get the bounces, but they'll also have to work against a better goalie in Lundqvist than any goalie they've faced so far (Niemi, Anderson/Gibson, Crawford). LA playing Game 7 after Game 7 can hurt them, especially given how physical the last series was.


3.) It's Never as Easy as it Seems

The NHL Stanley Cup Finals are known for lopsided seeding matchups, as we've many times had a lower seeded team square off against a higher seeded one from the opposite conference. This isn't even one of those cases, but the way people are viewing these teams let's just say it is. In my mind, this whole matchup is analogous to the Cup Finals in '03, '04 and '06. Three straight times, a high-seed from the East beat another high-seed from the East in a physical, often excellent Eastern Conference Final, took on a lower seeded miracle run team from the West, and though the East team won each time, it took 7 each time. In '03, the 2-seed Devils beat the 1-seed Senators in an excellent Eastern Conference Finals (that oddly featured the same game progression as this one did, with teh Devils blowing a 3-1 lead before winning Game 7 on the road), then needed 7 to dispatch the Ducks. The Lightning did the same in '04, and Carolina in '06. Physicality takes a toll, but also teams in the NHL, a low-scoring sport, are never all that far apart. No team in the NHL wins 70% of its games. Big win-loss disparities are rarer in Hockey. Just look at recent Finals, only one since the Lockout has ended before six games (2007).


4.) The Rangers are Faster

Speed doesn't tire as easily as  Size. Case in point was last year's Cup Final, when the speedier Blackhawks kept their speed the entire series while the bigger, stronger Bruins seemed to tire, most notably in Zdeno Chara. The Rangers have ridiculous team speed. They might have the three fastest skaters in this series. They can roll lines and skate at the Kings in all of them. The Kings size will neutralize some of this, and the Kings should win most battles in the corners, but the Rangers can skate past the Kings often enough to win the series. The Rangers can roll lines at the depth of the Kings, something no team has been able to do so far against them. Admittedly, this isn't a strong point because size does matter as well, but it is nice for the Rangers to have one clear area with an edge as the way people are speaking it doesn't seem like the Rangers should have nay.


5.) The Kings really aren't That Much Better

In the regular season, the Kings got 100 points while the Rangers got 96. You can claim the Rangers were in teh easier conference, but oddly the Rangers did very well against the Western Conference this season. There's also an interesting quirk behind those 96 points in that the Rangers started the season with 9-straight road games, in which they went 3-6. They went 42-25-6 in the other games, which is a better representation of what they are. They've also done far better in the playoffs. The Kings have been clutch in getting to the finals, but winning three Game 7's obscures the fact that they had to play three Game 7's. Now, the Rangers have played just one fewer game so far, needing 7 games in each of the first two rounds, but that also brings up another point,. For the first time, the Kings sterling record in Game 7's have met their match. Henrik Lundqvist's stats in Game 7's are better than Quick's. They've only lost 1 game 7 since Lundqvist arrived, and won a bunch in that time, including 5 in the last three seasons. They have enough ability and enough experience to match the Kings, apart from the Kings once-in-a-lifetime roll in 2012.


The Kings are probably better, but nowhere near the amount they are made out to be. I think the Rangers have a very real chance to win this series, and I think they will.

Rangers in 6

Celebration of the Spurs, Pt. 1

**I was going to wait until after the Finals, if the Spurs win, to write this long, multi-part appreciation to everything Spurs, but why wait? Their accomplishments are already amazing. if they fail to beat the Heat, the two-time defending Champs with one of the 10 best players in NBA history far closer to his prime than the Spurs legend to his, that isn't a failure. The Spurs have already exceeded expectations, again. Let's celebrate them now, let's celebrate the Greatest Franchise of the 2000s, better than the Patriots, Lakers, Heat, Cardinals, Red Sox, Red Wings, Yankees, anyone. No one comes close to what the Spurs have done, win or lose the Finals.**



How to best define what the Spurs just did? There are so many ways, really. It's not only that they've made NBA finals 15 years apart with the same coach and same legendary player. It's not that they repeated trips to the Finals for the first time in their franchises history even as their players got older. It's not that they became the first team since the 1998 Utah Jazz to make it back to the Finals the year after losing it. It's that they did all of that when their 3rd best player, Kawhi Leonard, was about to turn 8 when this run started.

The Spurs have defined a generation of basketball. You can count on two hands the players that were active when the Spurs first won a title in 1999 that still play today. The Spurs also defined a generation by molding to many different ones. They won NBA Titles in defense-first eras, in the start of the 'Seven Seconds or Less' era, and now are competing for them in the Super Team era. They've won titles scoring under 100 points a game but limiting the opponents to scoring under 90, and now are reaching the finals with the best, most exact offense in the NBA. And they've done it all with a bunch of low picks, cast-offs, and random players, all gelling to create a beautiful system with even more beautiful results. I doubt that we will ever see something like this ever again, especially in basketball where transendant talent generally trumps systems, so we should treasure it all the more now.

In truth, the current version of the Spurs are four years old. The true Spurs Dynasty, built off a commitment to brilliant team defense, timely shooting, and Tim Duncan being awesome, peaked from the 02-03 season through the 06-07 season, where they won three titles and came alarmingly close to possibly winning five in a row (Fisher's miracle 0.4 second shot keeping them from a 3-2 lead in the '04 Conference Semifinals, and Ginobili's idiotic foul on Dirk keeping them from beating the '06 Mavs). They hung on for three more years with aging players, role players that were old as well, and while showing flashes of brilliance, like their Game 7 win on the road in New Orleans in 2008, or their first round win over the 2nd seed Mavs in 2010, they were pretty much done. It all ended when they were swept by a team whose offense resembles a lot of what the Spurs do now, as Steve Nash's Suns finally got one back in 2010.

Those three years where the Spurs were hanging on for life with their slower, more technically exacting style, they still managed to win 56, 54 and 50 games. Of course, when you consider they won 58, 58, 60, 57, 59, 63 and 58 games in the seven years prior, this was a sign of the times ending. And it would have been a naturally timed end. Duncan was 35, Ginobili was 33, Parker reached 30. Time was not on their side. The rest of the league wasn't yet clustered the way it is now, and the Celtics and Lakers dominated those three years. LeBron joined the Heat the next season (2010-11). Durant and Westbrook hit their stride the next season. Blake Griffin started playing the next season, as did Chris Paul joining him in Los Angeles. Derrick Rose won an MVP with Tom Thibadeau's defense running the Bulls the next year. The NBA landscape was about to get harder. So, of course, the Spurs won 61, 50 (in just 66 games), 58 and 62 games in the proceeding four years. How? That's the real mystery behind the Spurs mysticism, being able to start their run all over again.

If you look at the adjusted stats for the Spurs over all these years, three things stand out. First, is that their offense was always better than people remember. We remember their absolute slog of a Finals against the Pistons in 2005, but let's remember those Pistons themselves were utterly brilliant defensively. Early in their run, in the pre-Parker and Ginobili days, they were average offensively, but even then they never dropped below 12th in Offensive Efficiency (points per 100 possessions). The nadir of their offense came, as expected in that post Title window before the Great Conversion of the 10-11 season.

Second, their defensive proficiency is ridiculous. That defensive consistency in their true dynasty is staggering. The defensive dip doesn't match up totally with the offensive dip which makes sense as even when they were losing their post-title effectiveness in that three year stretch they remained good defensively.

The most important takeaway when trying to understand how the Spurs reinvented themselves and extended their reign of awesomeness is that last column, their pace. Pace is essentially just a measure of how many possessions a team will play on average over a 48-minute game. The Spurs were consistently slow, if not plodding, back when they were defensively dominant and winning titles. In a weird coicidence, the three year malaise from 08-10 matches up with two of their slowest years. This is the only area where there is an obvious shift from the title-winning Spurs, the three year malaise Spurs and the reinvention. Right when they started being tops of the league again is when they started to play faster. From 1999 to 2010, they never ranked higher than 19th in pace. In 2010-11, they went to 14th, and were Top-10 each of the last three years. There's the conversion.

Pace is not a new technique. Teams today are still slower than in the 1980's, but isolation basketball killed pace off in the 90's and early-2000's. The Spurs capitalized on it, but they built off what their most infamous rival started. This all goes back to those Suns, the team the Spurs beat in 2005, 2007 and 2008. The Suns unleashed pace on the NBA in 2004-05, with Mike D'Antoni correctly realizing that the best times to score in a 24-second shot clock is early or very late. They chose early, and they made it work. The Spurs agreed, and while they aren't as fast as those Suns teams, they're downright sprinting compared to what they were. It hurt their defense initially as the players weren't used to having to expend that much quick energy on offense, hence their two lowest defensive efficiency years in 10-11 and 11-12, but they've seemed to correct that problem the last two years.

For the Spurs, the way they effortlessly changed from a slow team to a fast one is ridiculous. Overnight, they replaced old, defensive players with young shooters. Quite a few of the early members of the conversion are gone, like George Hill, Gary Neal and (essentially given his low minutes) Matt Bonner. They started the experiment. Kawhi Leonard, Patty Mills, Marco Belinelli and Boris Diaw are perfecting it.

The Spurs aren't the only high profile sports club to do something like this. There are too many parallels between the Spurs and the Patriots to write them all down, but one of the most interesting one is how they've reacted to when their title winning stopped. For the Patriots, this happened earlier, as their conversion you can point to won game. Oddly enough, just like it was losing to the Suns that killed the old Spurs, losing to the Colts in 2006 AFC Championship Game ended the dynastic Patriots, and they reinvented themselves as an offense-first team built on capitalizing on what the NFL didn't value at the time, underneath routes, YAC and Tight Ends. Like the Spurs, it has worked incredibly well, but while the Patriots have changed their personnel apart from Brady, the Spurs took it a step further, they changed the system, changed their mindset, but were able to keep their core personnel and still make it all work.

Gregg Popovich is still a defensive coach at heart. Just like Pat Riley won a lot with run-and-gun teams in the Lakers but showed his true colors in New York, Popovich showed his true colors from 1998-99 through 2008-09. Those 11 years the Spurs were so absurdly good at defense year in and year out, no matter who was alongside Duncan, Parker and Ginobili. And you can see Popovich's defensive inclination appearing the last two seasons. Their offense was for two years the best in the NBA. In 2010-11 and 2011-12, they had the best offense in the NBA, better than what they have now. They moved the ball just as beautifully as now, shot as many threes, and it was a joy to watch. But the defense suffered. The defense killed them in their shock 6-game loss to the Thunder in 2012.

Popovich and the Spurs sacrificed some of that offensive brilliance to recommit to defense and the results are there in full, as their offensive efficiency has dropped but the defense has returned to Top-5 levels. The Spurs results make it easy to see where it all came from and how it happened. They pushed the pace and took the league by storm offensively, and now settled and are starting to take it by storm defensively too.

The Spurs have been so good at their faster-pace, more offensively proficient, aesthetically beautifully style for enough years that it is hard to remember when they were sloggers, when they were playing 85-78 Games against the Pistons, or when people called them boring. Of course, I'm grateful for this as it has been easier for the Spurs brilliance to be nationally revered when they became more fun to watch, but it also obscures that a conversion happened. It comes down to mainly pace, but it happened. It was a concerted effort by a team wanting to stay one-step ahead of the league without having to overhault its roster (something a lot more complicated in the NBA than any other sport) and it did just that.

There's a lot more to come about the Spurs, and the Finals in general, in the next three days. This was just a start.

The QB Power Rankings - pre 2014

32.) Teddy Bridgewater (MIN)
31.) Chad Henne (JAX)
30.) Brian Hoyer (CLE)
29.) Ryan Fitzpatrick (HOU)
28.) Matt Schaub (OAK)
27.) Michael Vick (NYJ)
26.) EJ Manuel (BUF)
25.) Josh McCown (TB)
24.) Jake Locker (TEN)
23.) Sam Bradford (STL)
22.) Carson Palmer (ARZ)
21.) Ryan Tannehill (MIA)
20.) Andy Dalton (CIN)
19.) Robert Griffin III (WAS)
18.) Alex Smith (KC)
17.) Joe Flacco (BAL)
16.) Matthew Stafford (DET)
15.) Eli Manning (NYG)
14.) Nick Foles (PHI)
13.) Jay Cutler (CHI)
12.) Colin Kaepernick (SF)
11.) Cam Newton (CAR)
10.) Tony Romo (DAL)
9.) Russell Wilson (SEA)
8.) Andrew Luck (IND)
7.) Matt Ryan (ATL)
6.) Ben Roethlisberger (PIT)
5.) Philip Rivers (SD)
4.) Tom Brady (NE)
3.) Drew Brees (NO)
2.) Aaron Rodgers (GB)
1.) Peyton Manning (DEN)

The 10 Most Dominant Playoff Teams of the Last 10 Years

How do you qualify dominance? Well, let’s start with never have to go 7 games in the MLB/NBA/NHL, or never even trailing in the 4^th quarter in football. All of the following teams did that. So what separates them further? Well, which teams then did that while beating the best teams on the way. Sure, this isn’t always in a team’s control, as who you play in the playoffs depends on how well other teams do, still, all these teams had dominant playoff runs. They are the best playoff teams in recent times.

First, some notable Honorable Mentions

14.) 2008 Detroit Red Wings

The Red Wings only Stanley Cup in the Lidstrom-Datsyuk-Zetterberg era was really just them fulfilling their destiny in the least interesting way possible, by just drumming teams that were worse than them. They were pushed to 6 games three times, but they never trailed in any of those series, winning the first two games at home at the Joe Louis each time. What hurts them, in my eyes, is that they played a really week run of teams. They were the best team in the NHL that season, but they get the 8, 6 and 5 seeds, followed by, granted, the 2^nd seed from the East, but a weak one. They beat teams with 91, 95, 97 and then 102 points. This will be a lot more glaring when we get to my top two NHL teams.

13.) 2006 Miami Heat

The Heat probably deserve a spot in the Top 10, but there’s a couple things going against them. First, they lost Game 1 of three of their series, and they struggle against a bad team in the 1^st round. Also, there’s the ref thing. This was the most reprehensible Champion in the NBA in recent times, with Dwyane Wade getting roughly 8,000 free throws in the final four games of the NBA Finals. They really didn’t deserve that Championship, and I don’t feel like giving them the credit that a team that beat a 64-18 Pistons team and a 60-22 Mavericks team without going to a 7^th game should deserve.

12.) 2008 Philadelphia Phillies

Much like the Heat above them, the Phillies are getting docked for something infamous surrounding their win, this time the terrible rain-delayed postponed for two days clinching game. They also had a rather easy route, beating the 90-win Brewers and 84-win Dodgers in the NL Playoffs. They did roll through dropping just one game in each round, but a lot of their wins were close, and they took advantage of beating up on bad teams.

10.) 2013 Seattle Seahawks

10.) 2004 New England Patriots

I’m grouping these two together because they are the only top seeded NFL teams in this Top-10. Not a surprise since it is probably harder to be ‘dominant’ in one-game playoffs than in series. Still, both teams were dominant enough. They both had one really close playoff game, which pushes them down, though. The Patriots trailed in the Super Bowl and were tied through three quarters, albeit against a very good Eagles team. What helps the Patriots is they were so absurdly dominant in the AFC Playoffs, beating two good teams easily, holding the league’s top offense to 3 points and then dropping 41 (34 on offense) on the league’s best defense.

The Seahawks did something similar in a way, holding the league’s top (and arguably best ever) offense to 8 points in the Super Bowl. However, they also came close to losing the NFC Championship Game. Forget the last pass-breakup by Sherman, but the Seahawks were trailing 17-13 through three quarters, and needed a slightly fortunate 4^th-down TD bomb-pass and a Kaepernick meltdown to get there. Still, the dominance of the Super Bowl is enough to warrant them a spot.

9.) 2009 New York Yankees

The Yankees have only won one Super Bowl in the last 10 years, but they made that one count. The 2009 Yankees were infamous for dropping $400 Million on Sabathia, Teixeira and Burnett, but they all played well in their first season in New York, and helped the Yankees roll to a 103-win regular season (the best Regular Season record since 2005). This isn’t about the Regular Season, though. The Yankees in the playoffs dropped just four games, first sweeping the Twins, and then beating two good teams in 6 games. The Angels won 97 games in 2009, and the Yankees knocked them out in 6, never trailing in the series. Then, in the World Series, they took on the defending Champs, who were better than their 93-wins given Cliff Lee showed up in midseason. The Yankees did lose Game 1 of the World Series, but won all their four games by at least two runs. In fact, 9 of the Yankees 11 wins were by at least two runs. 

8.) 2010 Green Bay Packers

The top-ranked NFL team was in the midst of one of the scariest runs in sports. First, they were right in the middle of a 3-season long streak of never trailing by more than 7 points in any game (ended with a  38-10 loss to the Giants in 2012). Also, they were in the beginning of a streak of never trailing in the 4^th quarter until their 13-0 season ended in 2011. The 2010 Packers closest playoff game was arguably their Wild Card win, where the Eagles missed two field goals and Vick was picked driving near the 30 late down 5. After that, they dominated the 13-3 Falcons in Atlanta 48-21, and then jumped to early leads against both Chicago and Pittsburgh. Both games ended up being 7 point games, but the Packers were never less than a 75% chance of winning those games. They never trailed in the 2^nd Half of any playoff game, something no other Champion can say since the 2002 Bucs (before the purview of this list – though they would have been the top-ranked NFL team). The Packers in the Aaron Rodgers era are just 1-4 in the playoffs outside of this year, but what a run it was.

7.) 2010 San Francisco Giants

The Giants, who are currently in 1^st place in another even year, made a habit of rolling to World Series in even-numbered years. They were dominant in the last seven games of the 2012 run, but they needed to come back from 0-2 and 1-3 down to win both their NL Series before sweeping Detroit. In 2010, they eschewed the drama and rolled to a World Series. They never trailed in any of their three series, never went to a do-or-die game, and played a 91-win Braves team, a 97-win Phillies team, and a 90-win Rangers team – the Rangers, like the Phillies in ’09, were better than that with the midseason addition of Cliff Lee. The Giants did it mostly with pitching, but then they could score in bunches too, scoring 20 runs in the first two games of the World Series. They were good at home (5-2), but better on the road (6-2). They were just a great team for three rounds, quickly winning the World Series before anyone was ready for the Giants to have that success.

6.) 2010 Chicago Blackhawks

The 2010 Chicago Blackhawks ended the Stanley Cup drought in Chicago in an underratedly dominant fashion. They never went to 7 games. They won all but four of their 16 wins by at least two goals. They had dominant players throughout the lineup, and they went through three 100-point teams on the way to the Cup Finals in the Western Conference. They get major points for being awesome on the road, going 8-3. Finally, their trump card for me is sweeping the Sharks in the Western Conference Finals. That Sharks team earned 113 points, topping the Western Conference, and while anyone can say how the Sharks are chokers, the ’10 Sharks weren’t, beating the Wings in 5 games the round before. They just dominated that Sharks team, quickly killing arguably the best Sharks team in this run. The Blackhawks title is most remembered for the Cup-clinching Goal no one knew happened, but it was quality all the same.

These Next 5 are all a Level Above. These 5 teams combined ended all but three of their series without dropping two games. They didn’t all have the hardest roads, but they made no mistake at all as to who was the best team that season.

5.) 2012 Los Angeles Kings

It pains me to bring up the Kings since they beat the Devils in the Stanley Cup Finals, but they were that good. They won the first three games of every series, including winning the first two games on the road each time. They didn’t avoid anyone either, getting the #1, #2 and #3 seeds in the Western Conference (admittedly, the Coyotes had the #3 seed because they played in a bad division – they weren’t, by record, that good of a team). Now, New Jersey was just the 6^th team in the East, but they too were a 100+ point team that had beaten quality teams on the way to the Stanley Cup Finals. The Kings were so dominant on the way to the Finals that it didn’t matter that, excluding the 6-1 win in Game 6, the Devils essentially played the Kings to a draw through five games. They swept the Blues, who were tied for 2^nd in the NHL with 109, winning each game by at least two goals. They did everything well in the playoffs, scoring, defending, goaltending. They were so good.

4.) 2007 San Antonio Spurs

The 2005 Spurs had the harder road in terms of the quality of their opponents, getting better teams at each round than they did in 2007 (apart from the 2^nd round). The Spurs did get lucky, probably, that Golden State knocked off the 67-win Mavericks. Still, they dropped just four games on the way to the Title, winning 8 of 9 in the Conference Finals and NBA Finals. Again, they didn’t play the best teams, getting the 51-win Jazz and 50-win Cavaliers, but my word did they leave no doubt as to who was the best team. The Spurs dominated the Western Conference Finals (garbage time points made Game 1 and 2 seem closer than it actually was), and then swept the LeBron Cavs who had rolled themselves to the Finals. The LeBron Cavs entered those Finals 12-4 in the playoffs, and the Spurs whipped them. Now, I do have to mention they were fortunate with the suspensions to Stoudamire and Diaw for Game 5 of the 2^nd round against the 61-win Suns, but the Spurs also led by 10 in the 4^th Quarter of 5 of the 6 games. They controlled most of that series. Ironically, the only game the Spurs didn’t have a 10-point 4^th Quarter lead was the game where Amare’ didn’t play. The Spurs deserved to win that series, and deserved that title by executing everyone to death.

3.) 2011 Dallas Mavericks

Other than the Spurs, the other teams in the Top-5 only won one title in recent times (assuming the Kings or the team at #1 don’t this year in their sport). They were all one-hit wonders. The Mavericks might have been the most stunning, as they weren’t a trendy pick going into the playoffs. Hell, they were a trendy pick to be upset by Portland in the 1^st-round. That was sensible, actually, as the Blazers took the Mavs to 6 games, but they needed a giant comeback by Brandon Roy to win one of their two games. No, what the Mavericks, a team with one-all star and a bunch of aging players, took over the league in the last three rounds. First, they beat the two-time defending champs, and not only beat them, but swept them, ending Phil Jackson’s coaching career by becoming the first team to sweep him. They then beat the Thunder, the team that would win the Western Conference the next season, in five games. Finally, to finish it off, they beat the team that would win the next two titles, and beat them in 6. They’re the only team to beat the LeBron-Heat in a playoff series, and beat them without much fuss. They needed a large comeback to win Game 2, but they won a thrilling Game 5 in Dallas, and finished them off blowing them out, relatively, in Miami. Mark Cuban may have only gotten one title out of the Dirk era, but man did they really get it.

2.) 2005 Chicago White Sox

In terms of pure win-loss dominance, no team matches this Chicago team. They ran through the playoffs going 11-1. Yes, that is right, they lost just one game in the whole postseason. It was Game 1 of the ALCS to the Angels. Their wins weren’t without controversy, as they won Game 2 after AJ Pierzynski took first base because he thought he swung through a ball that hit the ground. There is no real evidence of this, but the umpire agreed. The White Sox walked off two batters later. Still, outside of that blip, the White Sox could do no wrong, first sweeping the 95-win, defending Champion Red Sox, then beating those Angels, before finishing it off with another sweep of the 89-win Astros, who were 89-73, but started 15-30, so they were probably the best team over the last ~100 games of the season. Now, the reason why they aren’t number one is because while they swept the Astros, it was arguably the closest sweep ever. They won Game 1 by one run. They won Game 2 on a walk-of Home Run entering the 9^th inning tied. They won Game 3 in 15 innings, and then won Game 4 1-0. It was a damn close sweep, but a sweep nonetheless. The most amazing part of the White Sox run, though, was their pitching in the ALCS. Freddy Garcia, Jose Contreras, Jon Garland and Mark Buehrle pitching 44 1/3 of the 45 innings played. Their starters were so dominant against a very good team. The White Sox never recovered that magic under Ozzie Guillen, but for one month they were one of the best baseball teams ever.

1.) 2007 Anaheim Ducks

The Ducks went 16-5 in the playoffs, which is one game worse than the Kings. What separates their run is that they played the toughest four-team group of opponents of any NHL team I’ve seen, and skated by all of them with barely any fuss. This was at the height of Conference Imbalance. The Ducks, who had 110 points themselves, had to play a team with 104 points in the first round (Minnesota), and they rolled them in 5. They then played the Canucks and their 105 points, and rolled them in 5. Next they got the President’s Trophy Red Wings and their 113 points, and beat them in 6, winning two games in Detroit. Fnally, they got the 105 point Senators in the Stanley Cup Finals. Now here is where some transitive property exits. Just for dominance in the first three rounds of the playoffs, the 2007 Senators themselves are Top-5 worthy. That team played the Penguins (105 points), Devils (107 points), and Sabres (113 points), and beat them all 4-1. They were scalding hot entering the Stanley Cup Finals. So, what the Ducks do? They beat them in 5. In a way, the Mavs did this too in 2011 (the Heat won their three series 4-1), but the Ducks just dominated the Stanley Cup Finals, finishing it off with a 6-2 win in Game 5. That Ducks team’s roster was probably the best of any team in the NHL post-lockout, rolling a very good 1^st line (Kunitz-McDonald-Selanne), a great 2^nd line (Penner-Getlzaf-Perry) and the best 3^rd line I have ever seen (Pahlsson-Moen-RobNeidermayer), with two Hall of Fame defensemen (Scott Niedermayer and Chris Pronger). That was a great team who rolled past four very good to great teams, beating them all without needing 7 and only once needing 6. That’s how it is done.

2014 NFL Draft - 1st Round Grades

1.) Houston Texans select JaDaveon Clowney (DE – S. Carolina)

So after all the dust settles, the Texans end up taking the guy who we all thought was the best player in this draft since, oh, October, 2012. That must have been a long 18 months for JaDaveon. Anyway, maybe his consistency and work-ethic isn’t great. Maybe he was just saving himself from injury knowing he was a lock top pick if he didn’t get injured. Whatever it was, this is a good, but daring pick. This isn’t a real need for the Texans, who already have the best defensive player in the NFL. Still, we have to assume they didn’t think any QB was good enough this year at any value they had (considering the top three are all off the board), so this is the best player. It’s that simple.

Grade: A

2.) St. Louis Rams select Greg Robinson (T – Auburn)

Once again, we have to assume that the Rams are, for now, founded in their belief in Sam Bradford. If that's the case, this is the perfect pick. We don't really now how good Bradford is since he's never had even average protection. If Jake Long can come back from his ACL tear, this will be a great pair of Tackles for Bradford, which is sorely needed considering what division they play in. The Rams need to see what Bradford has to offer and this helps, and even if Bradford isn't the answer, whoever the next QB for the Rams will be will have good player protecting their blindside.

Grade: A- 

3.) Jacksonville Jaguars select Blake Bortles (QB – Central Florida)

Well, this was an interesting pick. I give credit to the Jags, who are taking a long-term look at their rebuild and picking a guy who is a couple years away from a fully-finished player, which is good since the Jags themselves don't need a QB to play great in 2014 because the rest of that roster is a couple years away at best. My issue is that they probably could have traded down and gotten Bortles around 9 and essentially done the move the Browns ended up doing with Buffalo. This isn't great value, but the Jags got their guy.

Grade: B

4.) Buffalo Bills* select Sammy Watkins (WR – Clemson)

The Bills are the only team to really give away a major draft pick in a trade, giving up next year's 1st round pick to move up five spots. That's a lot to give up, especially for a team that would be lucky to go .500 next year. They probably gave up a pick in the 7-15 range next year. That all said, this is one of the best WR prospects to come out in a few years. He's a monster after-the-catch, he can be the Bills true #1 receiver for years. Giving up a lot will hurt their grade, but if they were the #4 from the beginning, this would be a great pick.

Grade: B-

5.) Oakland Raiders select Khalil Mack (LB – Buffalo)

The Raiders were the first of a few teams to get a guy they might not have thought possible due to the Jaguars picking Bortles. The Raiders get arguably the 2nd best prospect in the entire draft, a guy that can be their version of Von Miller. If he can be 75% as good as Von Miller, this is a great pick. The Raiders need these type of giant-impact players, something they haven't had apart from a few Nnamdi years in over a decade. Good, solid pick for a team that is starting to turn it around.

Grade: A 

6.) Atlanta Falcons select Jake Matthews (T – Texas A&M)

I may be feeling more generous than normal, but I really think a lot of teams did well in drafting good players at good spots and filling needs. This isn't a perfect example because while it is a need, Matt Ryan has, other than last year, done a very good job without ever having a great O-Line. Matthews might help more in the running game, or be more important there. The Falcons probably would have loved to end up with Mack as they still don't really have any game changers in their front seven, but they still end up with a good player.

Grade: B

7.) Tampa Bay Buccaneers select Mike Evans (WR – Texas A&M)

This is the first pick I don't like. Mike Evans seems like a very good player, but he seems a little too similar to Vincent Jackson. Now, if Mike Evans is a player worthy of this pick, his career will last longer than Vincent Jackson's in Tampa, but they basically just got two players that are good at the exact same things. It could work, but I am skeptical. They still don't have any receivers that are good in the short areas.

Grade: B- 

8.) Cleveland Browns select Justin Gilbert (CB – Okla. State)

The Browns did get an extra 1st round pick, which makes this pick better, but them trading up from the 9th spot made no sense. I can't see the Vikings taking Gilbert. Anyway, I have no idea if Gilbert can be a good player, but he should play well across from Joe Haden. The Browns already have a good defense and they've made it stronger. This can be a very good unit if Gilbert lives up to the hype..

Grade: A- 

9.) Minnesota Vikings select Anthony Barr (LB – UCLA)

I like this pick a lot. Anthony Barr is good value right here. He also fills a need. I am assuming they are either going to make him into a Von Miller role or move him up to DE, but either way he adds a pass rushing punch to a team sorely needed it. Mike Zimmer will love having this player that he can get creative with. They had no bigger need and they filled it with a good player.

Grade: A-

10.) Detroit Lions select Eric Ebron (TE – North Carolina)

Ebron is a good player, but did this really fill a need. There were good defensive players available for a team whose offense was already good enough to go to the playoffs. Detroit needs help in the back-seven defensively more than they needed another target who will be stealing targets away from other people because it isn't like the Lions can really pass more than they already do.

Grade: B-

11.) Tennessee Titans select Taylor Lewan (T – Michigan)

Maybe he is a good player, but where is Lewan going to play? They drafted a guard in the 1st round last year (Chance Wormack), signed a free agent guard to huge money before 2013 (Andy Levitre), and they have Michael Oher and Michael Roos at the tackle spots. Now, if Lewan is good enough to warrant the #11 pick, he should unseat Oher for now, but still, O-Line is one area that the Titans absolutely did not need. 

Grade: C

12.) New York Giants select Odell Beckham (WR – LSU)

I like the pick for position, as the Giants lost Hakeem Nicks, and while Ruben Randle developed a bit last year, they could use another weapon for Eli Manning. They could have done the Giants thing and picked another D-Lineman (which is actually a need for the Giants), but they still addressed a need. My only quibble is that the history of LSU Wide Receivers is really bad, and the Giants aren't a team with a good history of draft WRs themselves.

Grade: B-

13.) St. Louis Rams select Aaron Donald (DT – Pittsburgh)

Love this pick. I'm a big proponent of making a strength into more of a strength. Outside of getting a Bradford replacement, the only other area of obvious need for the Rams is a linebacker, but this guy is a lot better value than any linebacker. Putting him on a line with Brockers, Quinn and Long is just scary. The Lions tried this a few years ago when they drafted Fairley, but their issue is their DT situation deteriorated. Long and Quinn (especially Quinn) are still in their primes. This should be a scary thing for any team in the NFC.

Grade: A 

14.) Chicago Bears select Kyle Fuller (CB – Virginia Tech)

Another good need pick though this might be an overdraft. The Bears needed help on defense and Fuller comes from a good pedigree of corners, considering his family members that have played corner in the NFL. The Bears probably needed Tackle help more (man, wouldn't they have loved Donald), but getting a quality Cornerback is not a bad thing.

Grade: B

15.) Pittsburgh Steelers select Ryan Shazier (LB – Ohio State)

Some Steelers fans that I follow on Twitter hated this pick. One guy didn't like it because he thinks Shazier is too small, the other because the Steelers have bigger needs outside Linebacker. Both might be true, but the Steelers needed some more young talent on defense. It seems odd to say this, but the defense is the side that needed help. Now, they would have been better off with a d-back, especially a safety, but this pick is still a need.

Grade: B- 

16.) Dallas Cowboys select Zack Martin (T – Notre Dame)

After all the madness of them maybe taking Manziel (which would have been a bad pick), they end up taking a good player. It's not really a position of need, but it does make the one real strength of the Cowboys (their O-Line) into even more of a strength. There are still massive problems with the Cowboys, but this is a nice pick.

Grade: B+

17.) Baltimore Ravens select CJ Mosley (LB – Alabama)

This is higher than I would have thought Mosley would go, and it isn't exactly a position of need considering how good Daryl Smith was last year. I guess to Ozzie Newsome, this was Best Player Available, and who am I to argue with Newsome's track record. Still, I will. I think D-Line is a bigger position of need for the Ravens right now with the talent they've lost there the last two seasons, and there were good players there available, or at least a trade back.

Grade: C+

18.) New York Jets select Calvin Pryor (S – Louisville)

I like this pick a lot. The Jets haven't had consistent safety play in the entirety of the Rex Ryan era, apart from like a half-season of good play from Jim Leonhard. Pryor can be really used well with Rex Ryan's defensive schemes. He's seems like a versatile player, and Rex will utilize as much of that versatility as humanly possible.

Grade: A-

19.) Miami Dolphins select Ja’Wuan James (T – Tennessee)

I have no idea if he is a good player or not, but the Dolphins absolutely needed to pick a o-lineman after the mess they went through last year. Ja'Wuan James should start instantly and for the Dolphins, and Ryan Tannehill's sake, I hope he does and plays well. 

Grade:B

20.) New Orleans Saints select Brandin Cooks (WR – Oregon State)

Really like the idea of picking a WR for them. It's a position of need after losing Lance Moore and with Marques Colston seemingly a step slower than in his prime, and the uncertainty around Jimmy Graham's franchise tag. Cooks is really small, but can be an almost Sproles-like player for them but at the receiver position. A better comparison may be Randall Cobb. My only concern is injury issues for a guy that small playing the spot.

Grade: A-

21.) Green Bay Packers select Ha Ha Clinton-Dix (S – Alabama)

Love this pick for the Packers, who have needed an impact safety ever since Nick Collins had to prematurely retire. Also, this is an excellent time to mention what an inspired name that is. Clinton-Dix doesn't seem to have the coverage skills that Collins did, but he might give the Packers a bit more physicality in the secondary.

Grade: A

22.) Cleveland Browns select Johnny Manziel (QB – Texas A&M)

I guess this is a good pick? There's not a big history of people as short as Manziel playing well for a long time (and Russell Wilson is not history). I also have concerns over his ability to stay healthy at that size. Still, I applaud the Browns for trying to make something happen and going up and snagging a QB. This is the third time the Browns have taken a hopeful franchise QB with their 2nd pick of a 1st round (ironically, the 22nd pick each time). For the Browns sake, I hope Manziel is better than Brady Quinn or Brandon Weeden.

Grade: A-

23.) Kansas City Chiefs select Dee Ford (DE – Alabama)

I don't get this pick really. He might be a good player, but he's undersized and this isn't a position of need. It isn't really making a strength stronger either because it isn't like they can play three 3-4 OLBs at the same time. I guess this spells the end of either Houston or Hali's time in KC, but it is probably premature for that. 

Grade: C

24.) Cincinnati Bengals select Darqueze Denard (CB – Michigan State)

This is great value, since many people that Denard would go a lot higher than 24th, but the Bengals aren't filling an immediate need. They are full of corners, assuming Leon Hall returns close to 100% from his achilles injury. That said, this is good value, and Denard's career, if he plays well, will last far longer than some of the deeper corners they have now.

Grade: A-

25.) San Diego Chargers select Jason Verrett (CB – TCU)

Honestly, them picking any good defensive player would be a good grade. They have tons of holes on defense and no impact players outside of Eric Weddle and maybe Corey Liuget. I don't know much about Jason Verrett, but I like the idea of a longer corner.

Grade: B+

26.) Philadelphia Eagles select Marcus Smith (LB – Louisville)

Many people had a 2-3 round grade on him, as this is the first clear overdraft so far. Now, sometimes these picks turn out OK (like Frederick for the Cowboys last year), but overdrafting at a non-impact position just seems strange. We don't really know how good of a talent evaluator the Kelly/Roseman team is, as their first draft hasn't given much yet, and this wasn't a good start to year 2.

Grade: C

27.) Arizona Cardinals select Deone Bucannon (S – Washington State)

This also seemed to be an overdraft, though not as much as Smith, but I like the pick far more. The Cardinals have done an amazing job of filling their defense with talented, versatile players over the last three years, and Bucannon is another one. If Mathieu can come back healthy, they can have a scary secondary. 

Grade: B+

28.) Carolina Panthers select Kelvin Benjamin (WR – Florida State)

Them picking a WR was really obvious, but it is nice value and a perfect player for Cam, someone with a large catch radius and good hands that can work as a possession receiver, something that even with their 2013 WR corp was lacking. He can be a great red-zone target for Cam. Love the pick, the idea of filling that need straight out in the smartest way possible.

Grade: A

29.) New England Patriots select Dominique Easley (DT – Florida)

People rave about his talent, how he can be dominant if he stay healthy. I have a few concerns. I don't doubt his talent, but I doubt the Patriots picking an injury prone player a year after having to deal with so many injuries on defense. Also, what is his position as he's too small to be the natural replacment for Vince Wilfork. For talent this is great, for durability? who knows.

Grade: B

30.) San Francisco 49ers select Jimmie Ward (S – No. Illinois)

The 49ers don't have obvious needs, but Safety probably wasn't one of them, and this might be an overdraft as well. Their more pressing need in teh secondary is at corner. Also, I would have invested in a D-Lineman given the age they have there. Either way, my biggest problem with the pick is the overdraft.

Grade: B-

31.) Denver Broncos select Bradley Roby (CB – Ohio State)

They had to go defense, and while LB was a bigger need, this was the better value as there were no good LBs availabe. Roby has major character concerns, but for a team drafting to win for now that is less of a problem. Still, it would have been nice to get someone who might not have such character issues.

Grade: B

32.) Minnesota Vikings select Teddy Bridgewater (QB – Louisville)

Love this pick. The Vikings got their QB, got him at a great value, and didn't even have to give up much. Personally, I think Bridgewater is the best QB in this class in terms of game management, post-play reactions and decision making. The Vikings could have an intriguing team as soon as 2015 if he turns out good.

Grade: A

NBA 2nd Round Picks

Eastern Conference

(1) Pacers over (5) Wizards in 6

The Pacers came together in the last two games to give themselves another week or so without questions of 'how the hell did this team fall apart so quickly'. The Wizards are better than the Hawks, but I saw a different, more confident India in what little of Game 6 and 7 I saw. I like this Washington team, but I don't think they have the consistency to take down Indiana.


(2) Heat over (6) Nets in 7

I think the Nets really give the Heat a run. In a sense, I think the Nets 4-0 record against the Heat is being both overrated and underrated. It is overrated because the Heat have shown they are a different team in the playoffs, and three of those games were either 1-pt games or OT games. Of course, it's being underrated, because even had the Nets lost two of those games, the 2-2 record isn't too bad either. They've shown over 4 games that they can hang with the Heat in both Miami and Brooklyn. This small & big lineup, with Pierce at the 4 and Williams and Livingston starting has been a revelation, where they can switch on everything. Of course, the Heat are the perfect team to play with that defense, as the Heat love playing small and they don't have the size to abuse the Nets small lineup. In the end, the Heat are better, and they have LeBron, but we've seen too many times in teh past that Pierce and Garnett can beat LeBron.


Western Conference

(1) Spurs over (5) Blazers in 5

The Mavericks were a good matchup for the Spurs, and the Spurs struggled with them, but there's a few caveats. First, if Carter doesn't hit that ridiculous buzzer-beater in Game 3, that series might have been over in 5. Also, the Mavericks have Rick Carlisle. I think Terry Stotts is a good coach, but he's not Carlisle good, and doesn't have Carlisle's familiarity with the Spurs. They split the season series, but the Spurs won the last two after they got people healthy. Much like Indiana, I think theyll free up themselves after getting by the 1st round. The Spurs can also take advantage of a more spotty defense than what Dallas showed them last round.


(3) Clippers over (2) Thunder in 6

This really isn't even that much of an upset. The Clippers won just two fewer games than the Thunder, and had a better scoring differential. Now, Westbrook missed part of the season, but so did Chris Paul. To me, it really comes down to can Durant and Westbrook do 120% of what Griffin and Paul will, as the rest of the Clippers team is better than the rest of the Thunder. Who checks Griff? Can Westbrook stop the smarter, wilier, and more skilled Paul? This should be a great series, and it wouldn't shock me one bit if the Thunder win. The only shocking result to me is if there is a lot of blowouts in games. That shouldn't happen given how close these two teams are.

NHL 2nd Round Picks

So, with the Annual Sharks Collapse out of the way, we are left with four intriguing 2nd round series. Also, for at least a year we'll avoid a scenario where a team in one division wins the other division's championship. Anyway, with Game 1 of the Canadiens @ Bruins about to start, let's get to the games.


Atlantic Division Championship - (3) Canadiens vs (1) Bruis

The Bruins were much better this season, there is no debating that fact. They earned 117 points, most in the NHL. The Canadiens had 100. The Bruins scored 84 more goals than they allowed, while the Canadiens scored just 11 more. That all said, this could be a real close series. First, the Canadiens play very well against the Bruins. They were 3-1 (one OT win) against the Bruins this year, after winning the season series with them last year. Also, just as recently as last year, the Canadiens had a better record than Boston. The Canadiens are the faster team, but the Bruins are the stronger team, and the deeper team, with their 3rd and 4th lines capable of winning their matchup against almost all other teams' 3rd and 4th lines. This could be one of the only teams, though, where the Bruins don't have the definite goalie edge. Tukka Rask has been great so far these playoffs, but Carey Price had a breakout season last year and continued it this year. He's among the best goalies in teh NHL, and can absolutely steal this series. The Canadiens also have very offensive-minded defensemen, something the Bruins have struggled with in recent postseasons (Chicago last year, Washington the year before). Still, the Bruins are just better across the board. They shouldn't lose this series, even in the NHL when a goalie can steal it.

Bruins in 7


Metropolitan Division Championship - (2) Rangers vs (1) Penguins

This series has a lot of the same factors that Canadiens vs. Bruins does. Namely, the underdog is a more defensive minded team with a goalie capable of stealing the series, the Penguins are higher powered. Of course, this is a better contrast of styles. The Penguins don't have the depth that the Rangers do, with really weak 3rd and 4th lines. The Rangers have the depth on offense to throw different lines at the Crosby line and not depend on any one matchup. As Martin St. Louis has gotten more comfortable in New York, the Rangers power-play has started getting really good, and if the Penguins start taking penalties, something that has plagued them in recent postseasons, they can really capitalize. It all really comes down to how the Rangers defense does against McDonagh, Girardi and the rest of the Rangers defenseman. Personally, I like where the Rangers are right now. They seemed a really confident team in that Game 7, adn the Penguins, despite winning the round, still have to have so many questions about Marc Andre-Fluery in goal, and their 3rd and 4th lines are at such a disadvantage here.

Rangers in 6


Central Division Championship - (4) Wild vs (2) Blackhawks

The Wild are the only Cindarella left, the only 4 seed to win their 1st round series, and they did it in dramatic fashion, with a come-from-behind win on the road in OT in Game 7. The Wild have depth in that their 2nd through 4th lines are about equal, but none are as good as the similar line on the Blackhawks, who with Toews and Kane healthy in the last series, they were rolling 4 lines about as good as they've done all year. Until a late season swoon that was caused largely by injury, the Blackhawks were challenging for the #1 spot in the division. They are a really good team, about as good as the one that won the Cup a year ago. The Wild face a really different issue here, as the Avalanche are not an offense, despite their skill players, that keeps the puck a lot, which the Blackhawks do, which should be good against a defense of no-names, mostly. The Blackhawks are just really running well right now, and Crawford played well throughout the series, while Darcy Kuemper was really up and down against Colorado. They'll need Kuemper to be a lot better this series, and I don't know if he has that level yet, and if he doesn't and Ilya Bryzgalov makes an appearance, real problems could occur.

Blackhawks in 5


Pacific Division Championship - (3) Kings vs (1) Ducks

Many people, after the Kings run from 0-3 down to winning the series are ready to give the Kings this series easily, if not the Cup as well. They've definitely become trendy picks to win all the cups in last playoffs and this one. Well, I fervently disagree (this isn't some Kings hate, I would have picked the Ducks to beat the Sharks as well). First, the Ducks are really, really good. Yes, it is somewhat comical how many goalies they have, but they all play pretty well. Also, they're really, really good, netting 116 points in the harder division and conference. They have a lot of depth on offense, and while it seems they overly rely on Getzlaf and Perry, they have a lot of other players provide support throughout the seasons, with players like Andrew Cogliano, Mathieu Perrealt, Ben Lovejoy, Daniel Winnik and more having nice seasons. They are definitely bigger than given credit for. They also have Getzlaf and Perry, top players that can muscle up to Kopitar/Brown, who will likely be thrown at them throughout the series. The Ducks have the advantage in goal, no doubt, but the Ducks have played the Kings well throughout the series, winning four of the five meetings. I think a lot of people are doubting the Ducks mainly because Bruce Boudreau is their coach, but this team has the stones and the size and the defensive responsibility that his Washington teams rarely had. I think the Ducks surprise people, as I'm getting a very 2007 vibe from them.

Ducks in 6


Enjoy the Best Playoffs in teh World