Arky Job To Smith? Wrong?

It seems that Arkansas has taken a front seat in the world of sports talk recently. Their coaching hire has propelled them once again to the forefront of discussion.

Nine out of ten times when a program’s administration makes a hire, my reaction is the same – let’s all stand back and see what happens. Let’s give the new guy a chance to prove himself, to show us that maybe we jumped to conclusions by saying “he can’t do it.”

"I'm sorry, you said something about 'five and'.... what was that again?"

But, nine out of ten leaves one left over – and that one has become the Arkansas Razorbacks, with the hire of John L. Smith.

There’s plenty of reasons why the hiring make sense. Actually, there’s, like, two.

Most importantly, Smith worked with Petrino during his time at Arkansas. I’ll address that here in just a moment.

Second, Smith has been the coach at a major D-1 program in the past. We’ll get to that in just a moment as well.

That’s the list. That’s both of the reasons the Smith hiring makes sense to Arkansas.

The list of why this is a bad hire is much, much longer.

Let’s start by deconstructing the two reasons that Arkansas feels this is a good hire.

First and foremost: the assumption that John L. Smith’s time under Bobby Petrino has prepared him to take over at Arkansas. In fairness – the familiarity of the players with Smith might be a good thing. Of course, Smith was the special teams coach, so who knows how much input he had with the offense. But, hey, he was there, and he did at least interact with the majority of players.

But, then again – John L. Smith WAS THE SPECIAL TEAMS COACH. He didn’t run the offense. He didn’t have any SAY in the offense. He may have, occasionally, helped Petrino game plan. But his direct interaction with the offense, if it followed the model at most schools, was not near enough for the players who are returning to get familiar with him and his coaching style.

But Smith has been the acting head coach at major schools before. So, maybe he’ll be able to draw from that experience to push Arkansas forward?

Unlikely. The most success that Smith had was during his time at Louisville. His  41-21 (.661) and five consecutive bowl games could be considered impressive. But, let us not forget that at the time, Louisville was a C-USA competitor – not exactly the most impressive place to win just a touch over half of your contests.

But, the success was noted by Michigan State, who brought him on as the new visor-wearer for the Spartans. His time at Michigan State was, to be nice, not good. (Of course, he split Louisville before the season was over, informing his players of his decision at halftime of their bowl game. Arkansas seems to have a knack for finding coaches who’s loyalty to their programs isn’t exactly model.)

Smith took a program that was floundering to… well, they kept floundering. His opening year he was named the Big Ten Coach of the Year with an 8-4 record. Things would not go well the rest of his time in East Lansing. The Spartans didn’t receive a bowl invite in his second year, had a losing year without a bowl invite his third, and went 4-8 his fourth. The season was capped by Smith slapping himself in the face during a press conference – something many MSU fans wanted to do themselves at that point. Smith’s time at MSU, his last as the head of a major program, was by no means one that should instill confidence in the Razorbacks.

The next question about the hiring of Smith has to take into consideration the contract that he was offered by Jeff Long and the Razorbacks – a ten month deal, that in no way guarantees that he will be the long-term coach of the Hogs. In fact, it seems as if the opposite is true – that Long and Arkansas realized that this was a short term fix and not the long term solution. Maybe that thought was inspired by the timing – finding a high level coach at this point in the football calendar isn’t an easy proposition. Maybe it was brought on by the fact that Smith knows how Petrino was running the program and continuity is something they’re striving for. But either way, Arkansas did themselves no favors. Smith was offered, and accepted, a ten month contract. Sure, we all know that it was issued with the thought that Smith now has a year to prove himself, and earn a new, long term contract at the end of the year. But we all know that a coach can only succeed when he has the confidence and backing of the athletic department.

Arkansas has not only issued a short contract to Smith, but has demanded that he leave the entire Petrino coaching staff intact, preventing him from creating his own staff. Forget being given the reigns to the program – Smith has been told to sit quietly in the back of the wagon, and somehow guide it in that manner.

So what, exactly, is Arkansas thinking here?

It’s very simple. They panicked. They realized that boosters were getting anxious, and were thinking that the administration couldn’t find somebody to put into place.

The panic caused them to make a bad decision. They decided to put the unofficial “interim” tag onto Smith to show the boosters that they’re still looking. But, this is another case where letting the inmates run the asylum is ultimately going to cause a negative situation.

The Razorbacks have their best chance to be competitive in the past decade this year. The athletes are about as good as they’re going to get. The schedule (with their toughest two opponents, LSU and Alabama, coming to Fayetteville,) is about as good as it’s going to get.

But Arkansas is going to play this one as if they’ve got another year to put it all together. This hire came with the assumption that this team is going to be as good next year (and the year after) as it is this year.

Not to upset Arkansas fans, but you’re not that good. You’re not an elite level program. As least, not the way that your AD thinks that you are. Arkansas falls behind Alabama, Florida, LSU, Georgia, Tennessee, and Auburn on the “elite program” list of SEC schools. That doesn’t take into consideration the dozens of schools from the rest of the country that prospects are more prone to look at on name value alone.

And what does this do for recruiting? Remember a few articles ago, when I explained why Sean Payton was a terrible idea for interim head coach at Arkansas? And remember how one of the biggest reasons that I said Payton coming to Arkansas was a bad idea was because Arkansas would have an immense amount of trouble recruiting top tier talent?

The reality is, they were having trouble bringing in top tier talent anyway.

After coming off of their best back to back seasons in the past couple of decades, Arkansas snagged a pretty impressive recruiting class – one that Rivals ranked 34th, and ranked behind Cal, Virginia, and Purdue, among others.

If recruiting truly is the lifeblood, then Arkansas could use an infusion. (Oh, come on. YOU make a better recruiting allusion here.)

This was with a steady head coach, back to back major bowl wins, and no drama in Fayetteville whatsoever.

Now, the head coaching position is up in the air, and stability is as likely in Hogland as someone who can identify a Monet.

This guy... I just...... I just GET him.

So why would you hire a man with no (or, being gracious, very little) success at this level, to come in and take over a program in turmoil, and not give him everything that any other head coach would demand to take over this job?

And, more importantly – why would Arkansas do this at a time where their program has the greatest chance of success they’ve had in decades?

Perhaps if Arkansas was scraping and clawing to keep up with the rest of the SEC, this move would make sense.

But as it stands?

None.

Good luck, Arky.

–rb

Payton Decision Would Be A Bad One For Arky

Very, very rarely do  I find something someone says on the air so ridiculous that I have to cut them off, and blast their take. I’m not that kind of host. I’ll let you say anything, provided you say it respectfully, and understand that my show is a place for discussion and debate, not screaming and yelling and insults. But, it happened today. I had to end the call of someone I know personally off the air, and like, because of how ridiculous the rumor was that he was spreading. Michael in Crestview, who is a VIP caller and longtime friend of the show, called to ask me – no, rephrase that – to tell me about the sense it would make for the University of Arkansas to bring Sean Payton to town. I had to stop Michael, because he – much like the rumor he was perpetuating – made absolutely no sense. Let me make this clear – it makes absolutely no sense for the Razorbacks to consider Sean Payton for their head coaching position. None at all. In fact, it makes negative sense, if that’s a thing.

Yes. Yes, things CAN make "negative sense."

Let’s think, for just a few moments, about why Payton to Arkansas could make sense.

1. He’s not coaching the Saints.
2. Arkansas doesn’t have a coach.
3. He’s a coach.

That’s it. That’s the list. What’s significantly longer is the list of reasons why Sean Payton coaching the Razorbacks makes absolutely no sense at all. Some of them lean on assumptions about the future – but none are assumptions that I think are unfounded, or even not a consensus.

WHY IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE FOR SEAN PAYTON:

First and foremost, the biggest assumption of all:  Sean Payton wants to be an NFL coach. He’s not going to go down to the collegiate level and stay there. Why? Because. He’s an NFL coach. There’s a difference, and very, very rarely is there overlap – and the few times there are, it’s college coaches moving UP, not NFL coaches moving down. Payton has spent the past fifteen years of his career fighting up the professional levels – not working his way through the collegiate system. I make the assumption that – and think it’s fair to do so – Sean Payon wants to remain an NFL coach.

So why in the world would he take a one year deal at Arkansas? It’s an entirely different game. It’s a different speed. You’ve never heard any collegiate player, from any conference, say “..playing at XYZU really prepared me for the speed of the NFL.”  You’ve never heard “..playing the XYZ conference really got me ready for the assembly of talent in The League.”

The same is true for coaching. Look at Nick Saban. Look at Steve Spurrier. Two of the best coaches in the history of collegiate football simply couldn’t keep up with the NFL. It’s not a shot at either of them, nor are their situations unique. It just, as Bill Parcells would say, “is what it is.”

So, would it help to “keep him sharp?” I don’t think so. The mind of Sean Payton, offensive guru, is not going to get passed by after one year on the sideline. Hell, sitting at home and getting to take in the games in his own way on his own time might even elevate the way that he conceptualizes game plans.

Would it help him managing personnel? No. Not at all. You’re talking about an entirely different game at this level as well.

Sean Payton would gain one thing by coaching Arkansas: a paycheck.

And let’s be honest – when his extension comes up with New Orleans, he’ll have plenty of money.

Sean Payton’s system wouldn’t be easy to install, either. He’d be taking over after spring ball is completed, losing, essentially, his only opportunity to install his game plan before fall ball, when the focus shifts away from installation and towards execution of the plan. Payton would be starting at ground zero, in the toughest conference in America, when everyone else in the conference has been in “install mode” for no less then six months. The chances that Sean Payton could be successful are exactly the same as me getting a date with Kate Upton. None at all. (Plus, my girlfriend would be pissssssssed.) And if he can’t be successful … what’s the point?

WHY IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE FOR ARKANSAS:

Pretty much the exact same reasons, just on the reverse. Arkansas has an opportunity to be really competitive in the SEC, and nationally. Coming off of two years resulting in a Sugar and Cotton Bowl win respectively, and with two of the best recruiting classes that Arkansas has ever had, the Hogs have a chance to try and catch up with LSU and Alabama, and continue that divisions dominance over the SEC East.

So, why would you bring someone on board who has never coached at this level, in this game? Why would you go out and find someone who has no idea how to be successful at this level, when you have the chance to take your team to a plane you haven’t been on in decades?

Sure, he brings star power and name power. But what does that do for Arkansas? Assuming my initial point – that Sean Payton isn’t staying at Arkansas for more than one year, and is headed back to New Orleans ASAP – star power does nothing for you in D-1 ball.

Star power certainly helps when you’re recruiting. However, it pays you no benefit when you know, for a fact, that your coach is there for one year and one year only. You’re not walking into a recruits house and telling him “you get to play for a team that Super Bowl winning coach Sean Payton USED to coach,” and getting a LoI signed that day. What you will get, however, is a question: “who WILL I play for?”

There’s your next problem for Arkansas – who IS next? Sure, Sean Payton would make it easier for you – you’d have a free year to find your next head coach. But, in reality, the uncertainty is still there. Does anyone really want to come in and take over a program that’s had as much turmoil over the last year as Arkansas, from a coach who has such a SPECIFIC system, that NO ONE else in the country runs? So not only do you not give your “interim” coach a chance to be successful, but it’s going to be VERY difficult to talk another elite level coach into taking over and following him.

WHY IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE FOR THE ATHLETES:

The group that Bobby Petrino brought to Hogtown already hast to deal with an incredible amount of instability. Their coach has left in a hurry, their program has yet to show how they’re moving forward, and they’re already going to have to learn a new system on the fly. So, why would you then force them to learn a new system in the fall, only then to learn another one just a few months later?

And let’s say, hypothetically, the players WERE willing to learn two systems – do you think they could pick up Sean Payton’s system quickly enough to make it effective? It’s a system that took Drew Brees, arguably the best quarterback in the National Football League, a year to learn. It’s a system that requires a very specific set of players to be successful. And it’s a very complicated system for everyone else. Do you really think that a group of college players in the midst of a tumultuous period are going to able to learn in in a mere month and a half, and execute it?

It just doesn’t make sense:

It’s a fun consideration. Think about it – the athletes that Bobby Petrino had brought in to run his wide open system, running the wide open system of Sean Payton!

If Sean Payton had spring AND fall to put it together, maybe. If he was suspended for TWO years, maybe. If he had a top tier recruiting class and a first round quarterback available, MAYBE.

But none of those things are true.

So, stop the madness. I get it. Arkansas fans would LOVE to see a Super Bowl ring parading down the sidelines.

But, it doesn’t make sense. Not for him. Not for you. Not for anyone.

–rb

The one where I talk about LeBron

There’s not been a character in the National Basketball Association as frowned upon and, perhaps, “hated on” as much as LeBron James since Detroit rolled out the Bad Boys. And, in fairness, LeBron has earned SOME of it (with quite a bit of help from ESPN.)

“The Decision” might possibly go down as the most misguided charity effort in history. Leaving Cleveland without winning a title will always haunt the legacy of LeBron. And, let’s be honest – the self-awarded nickname of “King James” didn’t exactly do him any favors with the people, regardless of the convenience.

I can’t believe I’m about to write this post. But I am.

People to need to get off of LeBron’s back. Really. We’ve given him a hell, and he deserved it. But, we’ve had enough. There’s very little reason to talk about LeBron anymore, outside of the fact that this year, he’s been arguably the best basketball player in the Association.

We’ve heard every ring joke. We’ve heard every “four quarters” joke. Now, let’s focus on LeBron as a basketball player, and what he’s accomplished and not accomplished.

This is what's in LeBron's pocke...... wait a minute... seriously Wisconsin? This is what you decided to represent yourself with? Cheese, corn, and cows? Really? I know you're the cornerstone of the dairy industry, but for the love of God, why couldn't you put the Packers logo on it, or SOMETHING?!?!

The whole ruckus around BronBron that’s flared up this week came on the heels of comments he made about wanting to win a third MVP award.

“It would mean a lot, honestly, it would mean a lot… If I’m able to win it this year it would be very humbling knowing the caliber of guys who have won it three times.”
–LeBron James

How DARE he say so? He could he POSSIBLY have the gall to say that it would be humbled and honored to join a group that includes Kareem Abdul-Jabar, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and other legends?

“But Rob, he hasn’t won a ring yet!”

Neither did Shawn Kemp. Or George Gervin. Steve Nash still hasn’t. Reggie Miller is on that list, too. Patrick Ewing’s hand is light, Chuck Barkley feels his pain, and both Karl Malone and John Stockton ended their Hall of Fame careers without hoisting a banner. And my favorite player of all time, “Pistol” Pete Maravich, was never able to bring the Jazz a ring.

And, for those of you who are keeping track in the “Rob After Dark; Home Edition,” every single player on that list were on teams far more talented than LeBron’s Cleveland teams, and played for longer than LBJ has been in the league.

Yet, he takes immense amounts of criticism, and everyone on that list is celebrated as a hero of the league.

Have we really not beat LeBron enough up for “The Decision” yet?

We celebrate Ray Lewis, Michael Vick, and a number of other athletes who’ve committed (allegedly) heinous off-the-field acts. Yet, we harbor such resentment towards LeBron for – what – being a free agent? For going to a team where he felt he could win championships?

If you’re like me, and a defender of your hometown, then I can see how you’d take offense to LeBron skipping out on Cleveland without winning them a title.

However, that doesn’t take into consideration how the organization was run while LeBron was there. Where was LeBron’s help? It’s a league that’s proven that only rarely can a team win with one superstar. Who was LeBron’s help? Carlos Boozer skipped town after LeBron’s first year, and a loss in the conference semi-finals.

Who else? What else? LeBron was asked, his entire time in Cleveland, to do it by himself with only Big Z to help.

And, oh yeah, by the way? LeBron took THAT team – the team that was a stellar 17-65 the year before LeBron arrived, and 19-63 the year he left, to the NBA Finals. Yeah, he definitely didn’t get it done there, did he?

“But Rob! The Decision!”

Yes, that was in painfully poor taste. There was no need for it. He tried to turn an event that could’ve been VERY positive (a charity event for a local Boys and Girls Club,) and made it an “all about me” moment.

But, since then, he’s been out of the “selfish” limelight. He’s stayed down, talked about the team, and played as well as he possibly can. (He is, of course, the favorite for his next MVP award, despite playing on a team with two other superstars, and a shorter season producing more career-best seasons for players around the association.)

Oh, and out of curiosity – did a single person call out Chris Paul for leaving New Orleans, joining the Clippers and combining forces with Blake “The Dunk Factory” Griffin? So why was it so evil when LeBron did it?

“But Rob, he doesn’t finish!”

Well, in case the whole “taking the FREAKING CLEVELAND CAVALIERS to the NBA FINALS,” thing isn’t enough for you, I have one question:

Why is LeBron the only one gets blasted for that defeat?

In a game two loss, LeBron out rebounded everyone on the team except big man Chris Bosh, was second in assists only to point guard Dwyane Wade, led the team in steals alongside point guard Mike Bibby, and was second on the Heat in scoring behind only Wade.

In a defeat in game four, LeBron had only eight points. But he led the team in assists – most of which were setting up Chris Bosh in his unquestionably best game of the series, where he scored 24 points. (He also led the team in rebounds.)

In game five, another loss, LeBron again led the team in assists, the only Heat member CLOSE to double digits, and trailed only Wade in points. He again tied Chris Bosh for most rebounds.

Game six saw LeBron lead the team in points, and check in second in assists and steals.

You can blame that series on LeBron, but he was no worse than third on the team in any given major statistic in any of the four losses.

So why do we hate LeBron?

He hasn’t won a title. But he took a team incapable of winning twenty wins to an NBA Finals.

He made the decision (not unlike many decisions by many free agents since, minus the TV special,) but since then has stayed out of the limelight.

The Heat came up short in the finals against a very good Dallas team, but LeBron’s stat-line wasn’t the reason why.

I get that he’s come across as selfish.

But get off of LeBron. There’s no reason to dislike the kid anymore. He’s busted his ass to win, he’s tried to set himself up to win (even when his initial franchise wouldn’t,) and took advantage of a situation provided to him by free agency.

And can a SINGLE critic tell me, right now, that you wouldn’t want him on YOUR team, if another decision was neccesary?

—rb3

You Reap What You Sow, SEC. (It’s a pig joke!)

It doesn’t matter who reigns victorious – the chants come anyway.

“S-E-C! S-E-C! S-E-C!”

Florida hands the hardball title to South Carolina.

“S-E-C! S-E-C! S-E-C!”

Kentucky knocks off Kansas to take home the roundball crown.

“S-E-C! S-E-C! S-E-C!”

Alabama is handed the crystal football from Auburn who received it from the Tide the year before who took it from Florida who got it from LSU who accepted it from the Gators before them.

"...and Stallings, who begot DuBose, who begot Franchione....."

Each and every time a piece of hardware is raised by a member institution, regardless of sport, the rest of the conference claim their piece of glory – it was if all 12 schools get to raise a banner in the gym, paint a marker on the outfield wall, or build a new statue to their coach and quarterback.

(No mention, of course, is given to the fact that no less then eight of those other teams, if not all 11 in the smaller sports, did the best they could to PREVENT that title from being won. But that’s another blog post for another time….that will never come. Torch and pitchfork wielding mobs scare me.)

Why the long-winded set-up?

Because I think the entire Southeastern Conference is going to be judged, nationally, by the decision that the Arkansas Razorbacks reach in regard to Bobby Petrino. I think the rest of the conference will have to answer to claims from the outside that “winning matters more than character in the SEC.”

(Of course, whether or not SEC fans care is, again, another topic for another time.)

Here’s the question I proposed on the air last week, and the point of view I took on it:

Doesn’t the SEC, if they’re going to claim success as a whole unit, also have to accept the fault of one of their members when things aren’t going so smoothly? Don’t fans, if they’re going to chant “SEC” when a member institution achieves glory, also have to chant the same when one of their institutions is placed in a position that’s looked down upon?

Case in point: the scenario playing out in Fayetteville with Bobby Petrino, and the results of his motorcycle accident last week.

According to reports, after the accident, Bobby Petrino told the university athletic director that he was the only rider on the bike. This turned out to be entirely untrue, as it was soon discovered that 25 year old Jessica Dorrell, who held the title of “Athlete Development Coordinator” at the univeristy, was also on the motorcycle when Petrino lost control and crashed on the side of an Arkansas highway.

Dorrell flagged a passing car down who took Petrino to a hospital – but not before dropping her off at her car, to avoid – according to the coach – the “inappropriate relationship from going public.”

Inappropriate relationship. His words, his emphasis. Not the media’s or the university staff’s. His.

Yet another mark on the character of Bobby Petrino. Should what he does off the field, in his private life, matter? That’s up for debate. Some people want leaders of men – some want winners of championships and to hell with what they do away from campus.

But, this isn’t the first time that Bobby Petrino’s decision making process has led the public and the media to question him ethically.

When Bobby Petrino was the head coach of the Louisville Cardinals, he was negotiating – undercover, on the runway of an airport – with trustees and Auburn athletic staff to become the successor of Tommy Tuberville’s program. It wasn’t until a leak about the meeting came out weeks later. Louisville was, rightfully, bothered. But, unlike a high profile program that could put the pressure on the coach, they had to attempt to appease the coach. They did so by offering Petrino a ten year contract extension for roughly 1.6 million dollars per year plus bonuses and incentives – something a school the size of Louisville must’ve REALLY thought about before doing.

Of course, Petrino would be gone from Louisville a year later, on his way to coach in the bigs with the NFL’s Atlanta Falcons. No one can blame a college coach for skipping out at a chance to coach in the big leagues. Some of the most famous in the game – Saban, Spurrier, Carroll – have all done so. They want to test themselves at the highest levels of the game. But to skip out on Louisville, without telling them, after they scraped up every resource they had to offer a contract they shouldn’t have?

Then, there was the infamous way that Petrino left Atlanta. Shortly after the midway point of Petrino’s first (and only) season in the NFL, Arkansas offered him a way out. But, instead of accepting the position and finishing the season with Atlanta, resigning and moving on, Petrino took the cowards out. He left a handwritten note on the lockers of the Falcons, and skipped town before one of them had the opportunity to call him on it.

Not a joke. This is the actual note, complete with an ... editorial aside ... from a Falcons player. "Out of my respect for you, I am letting you know that, with a heavy heart, I resigned today as the Head Coach of the Atlanta Falcons. This decision was not easy but was made in the best interest of me and my family. While my desire would have been to finish out what has been a difficult season for us all, circumstances did not allow me to do so. I appreciate your hard work and wish you the best."

Bobby Petrino sent the Falcons the coaching equivalent of a break-up via text message.

Now, it turns out that at Arkansas, not only was Petrino running around on his wife, but was doing so with a woman that he awarded a very comfortable job on his staff to. (The fact that said woman was already engaged to another man on Arkansas’s athletic staff and that Petrino has children of his own to whom he now has to answer just adds to the scumbag factor.) On top of that, he lied, boldfaced, to his employer immediately after in an effort to save his own skin, by his own admission.

So – what does Arkansas decide? What’s more important – the character of your coach, the leader of your student athletes and groomer of these young men as they leave school and enter “the real world…or the winning of bowl games and championships?

Arkansas has a rare opportunity. Not only do they get to decide what is more important, but – fortunately or unfortunately, depending on what they decide and how you feel about the importance of coaches – they get to issue a referendum that will represent the rest of the SEC.

Family, and all that.

So, what DOES matter to the SEC family? Do they want coaches who will help shape and guide players to the next level, to teach them how to go about their business like men? Or is winning everything, and the only thing, that matters?

Guys like Nick Saban earn nicknames like “The Nicktator.” The Ol’ Ball Coach has a history of running up the score that causes other schools to look down on him. The Urbanator saw nearly 30 players arrested under his watch. Gene Chizik oversaw the Cam Newton story at Auburn, and had his involvement questioned the whole time. The SEC already has coaches who’s reputations aren’t exactly sterling. But they win, and they win often, and they beat the best the rest of the country has to offer.

Is that all that matters to them?

We’ll get to find out when Arkansas decides, and the chants of the SEC family return next football season.

What’s “wrong” with the Lakers?

Since I’ve started radio, and therefore paying attention to other radio shows and stations, I’ve made a realization: nearly every show host in the country relies upon “radio rolodex” topics.

Rolodex topics are topics that are leaned on by show hosts on days where there’s nothing happening, or on days where the show host is under the weather and wants to rely on callers to carry the show.

“What’s the best rivalry in sports?”  “Who’s got the best stadium?” “Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame?”

Those are Rolodex questions – questions that no matter how many times they’re asked, people will respond to.

There’s one more that’s asked every single year, regardless of the success or failure of the subject of the question:

“What’s wrong with the Lakers?”

It’s an annual topic, and one that’s very effective. The Lakers are “the franchise” of the association. Everyone has a feeling for the Lakers, be it love or hate. No one is apathetic towards the LakeShow. Either you want them to win, or you want them to fail miserably.

It’s a very polarizing franchise, and therefore, a very polarizing talk show topic.

Unfortunately, polarizing discussions are often discussions that won’t go away – even when they have no basis or reason to BE a discussion.

So, is it a good time for that discussion to be brought to the forefront? Is there truly something wrong with the Lakers? Is it a fair question to ask with the drama that’s been taking place on the L.A. bench for the past few weeks?

The folks asking the question will point out the fact that the Lakers are 3-3 in their last six, and 2-2 in their last four home games. The folks asking the question will point out that the Lakers aren’t the dominant team they’ve been for the past what feels like half a century. The folks asking the question will point to Kobe’s outburst the Sunday night after his benching by head coach Mike Brown, or Andrew Bynum’s visit to the pine after launching a three while watching a six point lead vanish in a game against Golden State.

Any strong reactions to these events are overreactions. Every team has had a 3-3 run so far this season, including the Chicago Bulls, who hold the league’s best record. Almost every team has had a 2-2 record through four home games – it’s possible to count the teams who haven’t on one hand. Why then, when the Lakers do it, is it suddenly worthy of a world-class freakout that dominates most of the sports talk platform?

“But wait – this Lakers team isn’t hanging on to the best record in the league!”

If that’s your argument, quell your worries. Possessing the best record in your division or conference means little to nothing in the NBA. Last year at the All-Star Break, the title belonged to the Spurs and Celtics. San Antonio was knocked out of the playoffs in the first round by an eight seed, and Boston got devastated by Miami in the second. Records mean nothing at this stage of the game. Sure, you’re fighting for seeding – 75% of the series in last year’s playoffs were won by the home team – but the Lakers are right now the third team in the West, and no one sees the Spurs posing much of a threat to them, despite being the two seed as is.

So that’s not really the problem either.

The Lakers DO have a problem – don’t misunderstand. The problem, however, isn’t any of the ones that sportscasters want to lean on to drive conversation.

The problem is off the court. The problem is the relationship that Mike Brown has with his players. The problem is that while Mike Brown sits in the big office and holds the whistle at practice, he is currently NOT the head coach – at least not in the way the Lakers need him to be.

Every team in the NBA has its own dichotomy, its own relationship between players and coach and management. Each superstar has to be treated a certain way by their coach to keep them happy – and the best coaches are the ones who figure out, psychologically, how to keep them happy.

It’s what Phil Jackson did, and it’s why he’ll go down as arguably the greatest coach in NBA history. And it’s how he did it with the same team that Mike Brown is currently struggling with to keep together.

The Lakers got spoiled with PhilJax. Mike Brown doesn’t bring the philosophical and psychological edge to the team that PhilJax did, and it’s hurting the LakeShow.

Let’s start with the benching of Kobe Bryant last Sunday in a game that turned out to be a loss to the Memphis Grizzlies – which, of course, as the Lakers try to catch San Antonio for the two-seed, was a very painful one. Down fifteen points, Mike Brown elected to sit Kobe, and go with a smaller lineup. Kobe came to the sideline and punched a chair, his frustration written all over his face – and no one could blame him.

Mike Brown was trying to prove a point. Kobe had, at the time, 16 points (he would finish with 18,) and wasn’t playing poorly, but certainly wasn’t taking over the game like Kobe tends to do. Mike Brown pulled him to…. well, is there really a good reason, in a game like that where Kobe is shooting 50%, but just not getting many looks, to pull him with plenty of time left for him to take over? It seemed that Mike Brown did it for no specific reason, but to prove to his team “I’ll do what I want to do, regardless of what you think.”

Then Tuesday, he sat Andrew Bynum with the Lakers’ six point lead shrinking as the Warriors poured in bucket after bucket. Bynum took an open pass at the top of the key, and as seven-footers are want to do, launched a three. In Mike Brown’s defense, that’s not a shot Bynum needs to be taking at that juncture of the game. If the Lakers are up 20 with five to play, sure. Have a laugh. But not when you’re fighting for the two-seed, watching your double-digit lead dwindle, and about to lose to a bad team. Mike Brown did the right thing by pulling Bynum there, and going with Barnes and McRoberts, both of whom had exceptional minutes off of the bench.

But, to play Bynum for less then six minutes in the entire second half? That was Brown trying to prove a point, trying to send a message. “Goof around, and you sit.”

That’s understandable. But not the way that Brown did it. You don’t sit one of the most critical pieces of your game plan in a game where, outside of Kobe, guard play was clearly going the way of the Warriors. You don’t put him on the bench, and then play him sparsely when the rest of your team is struggling to pull anything together to fight off the advances of a team that might finish with 25 wins, and lost to the lowly Hornets the very next night.

Mike Brown is no Phil Jackson, and certainly no one is saying that he is. But, he does have to understand that the Lakers are a very complicated team, and that the lessons he wants to teach them aren’t worth costing yourself more games over.

He also needs to understand, and understand very, very quickly and clearly, that coaches are second in the NBA franchise hierarchy to superstars. If Kobe is unhappy, if the Lakers are unhappy, Mike Brown is far more replaceable than most anyone who sports a jersey on game night.

Learn this team’s psyche, Mike Brown. Send your message, but not in a way that makes you look like the bad guy, like you’re willing to sacrifice wins to prove your point. This isn’t high school ball. This isn’t about learning life lessons. This is about winning, and nothing else.

So what’s wrong with the Lakers?

Mike Brown is the only one who can figure that out. And for his career’s sake, I hope he does so soon.

Well, isn’t this interesting…

In order to make a good roux, one has to be patient, to take their time. It’s the foundation on which many savory French and Cajun dishes are based, and it’s the most important part of the dish. The rest of the meal, regardless of ingredients, depends on making sure the roux is perfect.

The most important part of making a roux, as anyone who’s cooked one will tell you, is patience. It has to be done properly and it has to be done slowly and it has to sit.

And the chef must have patience. He must make sure that everything is perfect.

And if the roux is not perfect in every way, it must be thrown out, and it must be made again.

That’s why I’ve waited to issue a thought via blog on the Saints bounty scandal. I wanted to make sure that I let it sit, let it simmer. I wanted to make sure I understood everything there was to understand, and to compare the situation to any that had happened previously in the league, and under Roger Goodell’s watch.

But, I also think that it wouldn’t hurt Roger Goodell to step back, look at the punishments, and ask – is it right? Is it perfect? Or should we throw it out and start again?

First off, let me make my stance on Roger Goodell’s punishments very, very clear: the Saints deserved to be hit, and hard. And they deserved discipline that put them at a competitive disadvantage this year. They earned it. They broke a rule, plain and simple.

And, more importantly, they lied to Roger Goodell. He told the Saints to end the program, and they didn’t. They said they did, and they didn’t. That, in and of itself, deserves to add to the penalty like a pinball multiplier.

The punishment of the Saints isn’t the problem that I have. I knew one was likely, and I agree that one was deserved.

The problem I have is the severity of the punishment. The anger is caused by the fact that the Saints had the opportunity – and a good opportunity, maybe better than any other host team in NFL history – to be the first team to play a “home” Super Bowl.

Now, they don’t. Now, they’re just another Cleveland Browns team, doomed to disappointment before the first snap of opening day.

Yeah. I know. We suck again. Ha-ha, funny guy.

Perhaps I’m being too harsh. Perhaps, the Saints will have the opportunity to become the first team ever to make a Super Bowl being played in their home town.

But I doubt it. It’s going to be tough to do without Sean Payton on the sidelines. The man’s an offensive guru, and while Drew Brees is indeed the most important piece in executing it, it’s Payton that makes the in-game adjustments that make the Saints offense so dangerous.

Oh, and speaking of Drew Brees – it’s now even more in doubt that he’ll come back than it was when we were only worried about the contract situation. When the only thing the Saints had to fret about was a five million dollar difference between what Brees wanted and what they offered, most everyone was optimistic it’d be done. Now, if it’s true that it’s “not JUST about the money” for Brees, it’s going to take a lot of convincing to bring him back to a team that may be, once again, two or three years away from winning another championship.

If Brees doesn’t come back? Well, you can just about kiss the chances of success in the future “adios” for New Orleans. The players who are offensive free agents will be gone, and the chance to recruit new, big-name free agents will decrease significantly. One player does not a team make, but one player can certainly a team break.

But, it’s not just the fact that the Saints may not be competitive. It’s the fact that Roger Goodell has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth for as long as he’s been in charge of the league – and it’s starting to become more obvious as the Saints issue continues.

Now, I’ve been one of the very few to defend commissioner Goodell since he’s begun fining James Harrison, who’s become the symbol for “dangerous” play that Goodell is trying to outlaw. The problem isn’t the removal of dangerous play. It’s the fact that Roger Goodell is coming off as quite hypocritical in this situation.

Goodell’s first claim is that this is about player safety. I find that greatly ironic, considering this is the same man who’s pushing for an 18 game schedule despite protests from every players’ association representative in the world. But, that’s another blog, for another time – simply a piece of the puzzle that one must take into play when listening to Goodell’s cries.

The big issue here is that this isn’t the first time that a bounty story has been discovered and uncovered by the NFL – but it IS the first time that discipline has been slammed down, severity notwithstanding.

In 2007, over a year after Roger Goodell took over for the retired Paul Tagliabue,  the Green Bay Packers were found to be running an incentive program – one, that to the letter of the law, broke the “bounty rule” that the NFL had in place.

In the program detailed by the USA Today, Packers coaches offered money to players to prevent opponents from reaching benchmarks. In the story, it’s detailed that defensive lineman would each be paid if Adrian Peterson of the Vikings was held to less than 100 yards, and would be paid again if the Carolina Panthers were held to under 50 yards rushing as a team.

The Packers were targeting benchmarks. That’s fine. But, out of curiosity, what do you think the linemen were thinking? Really, if the goal is to keep one of the best running backs in the league under 100 yards, what’s the methodology to do so?

Do you think, for a second, that lineman weren’t thinking “he can’t run for 100 if he can’t run at all?” Do you think for just a minute that linebackers weren’t thinking “he can’t get 100 if he’s on the sideline?”

So what you’re telling me is that verbiage is what’s important. If the Saints would’ve said “you get paid if you keep Brett Favre under 250 yards,” instead of “you get paid if he doesn’t finish the game,” than it’s fine? That’s certainly what it sounds like. Had Vilma offered $1,000 to every member of the defense for keeping Favre from 250 yards, instead of offering up $10,000 for knocking him out, despite the underlying message being obvious to anyone who’s spent even one high school snap on the field of play, he – and this whole organization – would’ve been fine.

The fact is this: the Saints had to be punished for their crimes. No one is disputing that.

What is disputed is the severity of the punishments. It’s unbelievable that Roger Goodell has gone from zero-to-six-hundred with them, and really, with no cause at all.

You want to punish the Saints? Punish them. They’ve earned them – even the most die-hard Saints fans will agree with you there.

But don’t take away the competitiveness of this team. Don’t take away their opportunity to make history, playing a Super Bowl in their home stadium. Don’t take away their chances to bring Drew Brees, the most important player in franchise history, back for more. Don’t take away their chance to please their fans. Don’t take away their opportunity to continue to build on the success that they’ve established over the past few years.

That’s too much.

 

–rb

 

Fin’ished?

The last seventy-four days have been filled with stories of meteoric rises and devastatingly quick relapses.

It was not even eighty days ago that Tim Tebow led the Denver Broncos in a stunning victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers, setting up a matchup in the AFC Divisional Round with the New England Patriots, and solidifying “Tebowmania” in the lexicon of American sports fans (even the ones who didn’t want it.) Within two months, Tebow would be taking a backseat to Peyton Manningia, and the discussion would switch from “what he did,” to “where he would be next.”

It was not but 40 days ago that Tebowmania took a backseat only to “Linsanity,” when a backup point guard who had been dumped by one team and moved to another after playing D1 hoops without a scholarship took over the NBA, and revolutionized the way common fans looked at the Association. Within a month, Jeremy Lin would be fighting for his starting job, his head coach would have resigned and moved on, and the future of the whole organization would be back in question.

But perhaps no rise and fall was as impressive – or depressing – as that of the off-season of the 2012 Miami Dolphins. It’s difficult, in recent memory, to think of a build-up in the emotions of a fan base followed by such a rapid crushing of those hopes as ‘Fins fans, who went from putting up billboards filled with optimism to protesting outside of the facilities of the organization after multiple botched efforts to attract a top level QB free agent to the team.

When the 2011 season came to its end, Dolphins fans were disappointed. It didn’t go exactly the way they had expected – after starting 0-7, a three game winning streak against the Chiefs, Redskins and Bills elevated hopes of a sprint to the finish line. But it wasn’t to be, as the Dolphins would split their last six games, 3-3.

But, as is the case with Dolphins fans since #13 left the franchise, optimism abounded. They knew 2012 was to be different.

Then it was announced. Peyton Manning would be leaving the Indianapolis Colts.

He wanted to stay in the AFC.

He wanted to go somewhere he would be welcomed.

He wanted to go somewhere warm.

He wanted to go somewhere with young talent that was ready to win.

He wanted to go to Miami.

At least, that’s what Miami fans thought.

So the billboards went up. “Manning to Miami!” The tshirts came out with Peyton adorned in teal and orange. The next Marino was on his way. The so-called experts predicted Peyton would end up in Miami, and after Payton played golf with Dan Marino, a childhood idol of his, it seemed all but a lock.

IT MUST BE TRUE! IT'S ON A BILLBOARD!

Then the news came.

It was a play. Peyton wasn’t coming to Miami. He didn’t even consider them a favorite in the first place. In fact, the only reason he even talked to the Dolphins was because Stephen Ross, the ‘Fins owner, put in a call to Marino, begging him to ask Manning to chat.

Peyton felt obligated. He went, he played golf, and he left. And then he called the Dolphins and told them “thanks, but no thanks.”

Like the girl who lets the nice guy take her out to a really nice dinner before she lets him down with an “it’s not you, it’s me,” Peyton was gone.

Elway beats Marino again. Ouch.

“That’s ok!” said Dolphins fans. “We’re good! Matt Flynn is a better option anyway – he’s younger, he’s established, and he worked in our new head coach’s system!”

The excitement level built again. The second most talked about free agent quarterback in the NFL was available.

Except that he wasn’t. Within a day, Flynn accepted a contract to become the starting quarterback of the Seattle Seahawks. He picked the ‘Hawks over Miami. Dolphins fans were, for the second time in as many days, bagged by a big name free agent – a town that has been looking for it’s replacement for Dan Marino for over 12 years was shot down by another one.

No worries. There was still the possibility of Alex Smith, the 49ers quarterback who took San Francisco to the NFC Championship Game last year, making his way to Miami. As soon as Flynn was signed and Manning was out the picture, the rumor was that Smith was upset the ‘Niners even talked to Peyton and was on his way to talk to the Dolphins.

Clearly, this one was meant to be! How else could it shape up? Sure, Manning and Flynn both passed, but it had to have been because they just didn’t “fit.” Smith HAD to? He was used to change! He’d done it who knows how many times so far in San Francisco!

Except whatever the Dolphins put on the table wasn’t enough. Smith, it turned out, according to Adam Schefter and others, either didn’t take the Dolphins seriously, or was simply using them as leverage to raise the price on the extension the ‘Niners would have to offer him.

Alas, perchance the Dolphins were simply waiting for the draft! Yes! There were a number of quarterbacks available in the draft! Ryan Tannehill, the Texas A&M quarterback, would certainly fill the void! He’s the prototype, and while he’s no Andrew Luck or RG3, he certainly would be capable of taking a year or two to learn the system and become the next “guy!”

Except, for one problem. Tannehill, according to many mock drafts, won’t be available when the Dolphins draft at the eighth position. Ahead of the Dolphins sit the Cleveland Browns, a team which has either given up on Colt McCoy, or has decided to spur on some competition at that position. The common thought is that while Tannehill isn’t WORTHY of a fourth overall pick, he’s essentially the end of the quarterbacks worthy of a first round pick, and the last of the group considered to have a good chance at becoming a franchise quarterback immediately. So, Cleveland wants him. And, so might a handful of other teams. The Dolphins passed on an opportunity to move forward in the draft to pick RG3, and if they wish to draft Tannehill as a guarantee, they’d have to trade up with Minnesota into the three spot. Considering the Vikings are almost locked in stone to draft Matt Kalil of USC, it’d take quite a powerful deal from Miami. And, even then, the ‘Fins would be giving up a TON of resources to take a quarterback at four that many people feel would be a stretch at eight.

So, just to be sure that they had SOMEBODY, the Dolphins of course pursued the hottest name left on the free agent market at the quarterback position.

That is to say, of course, if by “the hottest name” you mean a guy who didn’t play last year due to injury, after having been cut five days before the season by his previous team.

Well, he DOES have a lot of similarities to Peyton! I mean, both play QB.. and.. umm.. OH, 18 is divisible by 9!

On top of all of that, the Dolphins announced on Monday that Yeremiah Bell, their defensive leader and a guy that James Walker of ESPN called a “..key to keeping the Miami locker room together, despite a rough 0-7 start.” Bell was not only arguably the Dolphins best defensive player, but also the key to their team not falling apart when they went nearly half the season without a win.

So, what next for the Dolphins? It’s hard to know.

It’s not as if the Dolphins haven’t had success in the free agent market lately. Reggie Bush was drawn there after his moderately successful stint in New Orleans. Karlos Dansby came over from Arizona after making a name for himself as one of the most outstanding linebackers in the game. The Dolphins have made moves.

The problem is that they haven’t made the RIGHT moves. The TARGETED players, at least at the one position that Miami has been trying to solidify for over a decade now, just don’t want to be there.

And the fans?

The fans are losing patience. The fans are tired of being set up. They’re tired of being lifted up, only to be dropped down.

So, what next? Where do the Dolphins go from now?

I’m not sure. Let’s just hope they’re not ‘Fin’ished.

It couldn't be more obvious if it was written in the sk..... oh, wait....

 

–rb