The Onion: New NFL Stadium in Los Angeles Could Create Thousands of Local Law Enforcement Jobs

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

This is probably the best and most accurate report I’ve seen so far about the NFL coming back to Los Angeles via the Oakland Raiders or San Diego Chargers, St. Louis Rams. Or some other club that doesn’t play in one of the big NFL glam markets, lets say. Meaning they are not in Washington, New York, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, to use as examples. Even though this report comes from The Onion. But keep in mind, The Onion’s reporting is just as accurate as Fox News. For all of you right-wingers who think The Onion makes things up.

Putting the NFL back in Los Angeles, even though it is the second biggest city in America and the second largest market in America and the biggest county in America, is about one thing and one thing only. The color green, meaning money of course. Commissioner Money Bags otherwise known as Roger Goodell sees a market of fifteen-million people and a city of four-million people. That currently doesn’t have an NFL franchise and hasn’t had one for twenty-years now. And sees all the potential for network TV money if there’s a franchise in Los Angeles. Thinking if LA has a team all the people there, or a lot of them will watch the team or teams there, plus the other football game there on Sundays.

What Commissioner Money Bags doesn’t understand is, is that Los Angeles is not exactly crying or even asking for another NFL franchise. Especially someone else’s that isn’t doing very well right now. Like the Raiders or Rams, two clubs that use to be in Los Angeles and Anaheim before they moved to Oakland and St. Louis twenty-years ago. Los Angeles, already has the NBA Lakers, MLB Dodgers, NHL Kings, that won the Stanley Cup a couple of years ago. They have both USC and UCLA football that is very popular there. So why would Los Angeles want to build a new seventy-eighty-thousand seat football stadium with hopes of drawing 40-50 thousand people a game and seeing the people shut out from watching their team on TV. Which is what happened to both the Raiders and Rams the whole time they were in the LA area.

If Commissioner Money Bags and the NFL was truly interested in making the NFL succeed in Los Angeles, they would think and act small and build on the progress that they make.

Start with preseason games in LA, neutral site regular season games between other teams like with the regular season kickoff or something.

Play the Super Bowl there again before LA gets another team.

Put a USFL spring team there and see how that club does there in the spring and summer.

And the last two things that are just as important as everything else. Put an expansion franchise in Los Angeles after everything else goes well. Instead of taking someone else’s team. So the people there can grow up with the new team and call it their own.

And only put one NFL franchise in Los Angeles. Because LA has never been a two-team NFL market and probably will never be one.

Los Angeles is Los Angeles and not New York. The cultures and people there are very different. LA is not as sports-crazed as New York or even Philadelphia and Chicago. And has a hell of a lot other things to do and keep them occupied outside of sports. Similar to San Francisco and Las Vegas. So for sports to work there, you have to think outside of how big and wealthy the market is. You have to plan and market sports very well there for them to succeed.

Read Full Post »

The Onion: Staff: John Elway Casually Mentions To Peyton Manning How Great it Was Going Out on Top

The Onion: Staff: John Elway Casually Mentions To Peyton Manning How Great It Was Going Out On Top

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

I’m going to be serious for a minutes, all right fine maybe two minutes just to say that Peyton Manning even if he is the best regular season quarterback of all-time, which would be like being the best team of all-time that didn’t win the Super Bowl in the NFL, Peyton who I respect as a great quarterback, is simply overrated. Peyton Manning is a fan favorite of the stats and now generation. People who judge athletes by their numbers and the fact that they are playing now, must mean they are better than players who played before simply because of that.

If you judge players especially quarterbacks by how well they play in the playoffs and their record in the playoffs and not how many times they threw for four-thousand yards and thirty touchdown passes, Peyton would be pretty far down on the greatest quarterbacks list. Even if he is the best regular season quarterback of all-time. And keep in mind, all of Peyton’s personal success as a quarterback as far as stats has not come in the passing age, which was the 1980s and the 1990s. But the Roger Goddell age where the NFL has simply decided that offense is more important than defense for financial reasons. And have made it very difficult for defenses because of the rules to be successful.

I mean how many great quarterbacks do you know of have losing records in the playoffs and are headed to the Hall of Fame if they are not already there? Peyton Manning would be one, can you name any others. Tom Brady could easily tell Peyton, “look, you have better numbers, but I have the numbers that count the most. I’ve won twice as many playoff games that you have and have won 2/3 of my playoff games. I’ve played in five Super Bowls, won three of them and have a winning record in them. But you look better on SportsCenter, YouTube, social networks and so-forth. So congratulations, but I’ll keep my victories and championships”. I doubt Brady has ever said that, but he could and would be right about that.

Is Peyton Manning one of the best quarterbacks of all-time and lets say that is top ten if not twenty, dumb question and he’s probably somewhere around ten for me, if not further back. And of course he’s a top two or three quarterbacks of his era. Only behind Tom Brady and Brett Favre, because of what Brady and Favre accomplished both in the regular season and playoffs. But I’m getting tired of hearing Peyton mentioned as the greatest quarterback of all-time and I’m not that comfortable about him as the greatest regular season QB of all-time. Simply because of the era he played in. And he’s certainly not the best quarterback of all-time and neither is Tom Brady.

Read Full Post »

CBS News: Sunday Morning: ‘Take Our Poll- Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame’

Source:CBS News– Pete Rose, when he was with the Cincinnati Reds.

Source:The New Democrat

“The Reds’ announcement came after MLB commissioner Rob Manfred last month rejected Rose’s application for reinstatement. Manfred concluded that baseball’s career hits leader continued to gamble even while seeking to end the lifetime ban imposed in 1989 for betting on numerous Reds games while playing for and managing the team.
The Reds’ team hall of fame induction is planned for the weekend of June 24-26 in the 74-year-old longtime Reds’ hometown.

The National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1991 adopted a rule keeping anyone on the permanently ineligible list off the ballot. Rose said after Manfred’s decision that he still held out hope he would one day be inducted into the national hall.”

From CBS News

The only reason why Pete Rose is not in the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame and he would’ve gone in I believe 1992 which I believe would’ve been is first year of eligibility, but the only reason he’s not there has to do with his gambling on Major League Baseball games. Which he gambled on even as manager of the Cincinnati Reds and even betted on Reds games. Pete being out of the Hall of Fame has nothing to do with his playing career and nothing to do with his playing career is keeping him out of the Hall of Fame.

I could understand banning Pete from ever being a MLB manager, coach or executive for life. Because betting on your own team’s games is a pretty bad offense. Especially if you are betting that they lose and have a say in the outcome of their games. But to keep him out of the Hall of Fame in general, when he’s arguably the best all around player of his era and generation and we are talking about a career that covers twenty-four seasons from 1963-86, makes no sense from a Hall of Fame perspective.

Keeping Pete out of the Hall of Fame also does more damage to Reds fans and the Cincinnati Reds organization than Pete. Because of all the respect and luster that comes from not just seeing one of your own players in the Hall of Fame, but having that person in the Hall of Fame. “That player was not just a great player, but he played for us and we won a lot of games with him and he’s in the Hall of Fame as one of us”. Things that the Reds organization and the Reds fans can’t say right now because they are denied of seeing Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame.

We are not talking about whether Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame as a manager or even as a human being. He would never make it to the Hall of Fame based on that criteria. We are talking about Pete Rose the player and based on his playing career and because of the facts that he’s the best player who’s been retired for at least five years from playing, not in the Hall of Fame. And of course what he did as a player would’ve put him in the Hall of Fame over twenty-years ago. Pete Rose should definitely be in the Hall of Fame. Just don’t allow him to manage or be an executive.

Read Full Post »

Sports Illustrated: Boomer Esiason- “Seahawks Had Greatest Defensive Performance in Super Bowl History”: Football Championships Still Won on Defense

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat

Roger Goodell and company may want to try to outlaw defense in the National Football League and try to make the NFL look like flag football, where perhaps even tackling may soon become illegal, because they believe offense makes money and defense holds down profits, turning the NFL into the AAML or the All About Money League instead of the NFL. They are trying to get non-traditional football fans who are really only interested in celebrity culture and so-called reality TV, and perhaps are casual football fans at best, because they think some of the players are awesome or whatever. Defense still wins championships and it always will.

As Phil Clark said on his blog, you don’t need a great defense to win the Super Bowl but you can’t have the worst defense. And the only thing I would add to that is you can’t have a bad defense either. You need to at least have a good defense. A defense that gets stops, meaning consistently, prevents the other team from scoring. It doesn’t get run over in the running game on a regular basis and doesn’t consistently give up big plays in the passing game because it has a weak secondary or a weak pass rush, or a combination of the two.

If you look at all the Super Bowl Champions, all 48 of them had defenses that were in the top 10 or near that and didn’t give up a lot of points either. You can’t say that about the Super Bowl runner ups, because several of them were toward either the bottom of the NFL or in the low twenties when it came to yardage and points given up. The 1984 Miami Dolphins come to mind very quickly and so do the 2007 New England Patriots, which were 18-0 going into Super Bowl 42 before they were upset by the New York Giants and did have one of the top defenses in the NFL that year.

There also have been explosive, high-scoring and yardage Super Bowl runner ups that were ranked pretty well in defense the year or years they went to the Super Bowl but not only lost the Super Bowl but lost it badly. The Buffalo Bills of the early 1990s come to mind very quickly, where they gave up a total of 140 points in their 4 losses, 30 or more in the 3 blowout losses, not because they had a bad defense but because they had an undersized defense going up against big physical teams with great running games: New York Giants in 1990, Redskins in 1991 Dallas Cowboys in 1992 and 1993.

And again the casual NFL fan who may only be interested in offensive football may say, well, what about the St. Louis Rams on 1999 or the Green Bay Packers of 2010 or the San Francisco 49ers of the 1980s or the Redskins of the 1980s. They were all very offensive-oriented teams that all racked up a lot of yards and scored a lot of points. True, but all of these teams, and the 49ers and Redskins specifically, were all consistently ranked high on defense in the top 10. I mean, the 1991 Redskins Super Bowl Championships team scored over 500 points, over 30 points a game, but they gave up only 14 points a game and won a lot of blowouts.

The record and evidence are very clear, that if you are think about building a Super Bowl winner and you think you are going to put together a great offense and see how many points you can score that season or in that era, make sure you also invest well in your defense so you are not giving up nearly as many points and yards against your opponents as well, because when the playoffs come around, chances are you’ll face at least one good defensive team that can move the ball and score points as well that may match up well with you. And you may need to get a lot of stops in that game to have a good chance at winning, as the 2007 Patriots found out the hard way in Super Bowl 42.

As much as Roger Goodell and company may want to change this, football still has three sides of it and the NFL is not arena ball, where it is mostly about offense. You still need to play good defense and have a good special team as well, no matter how many points you score and yards you put up. Breaking offensive records doesn’t lead to championships but to having a good balanced team that scores, defends, covers kicks, kicks the ball, blocks and tackles, and so forth, which is still what it takes to win the Super Bowl.

Read Full Post »

AP: Video: NY Yankees 3B Alex Rodriguez Out For Entire 2014 Season

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Is anyone surprised by this. We knew A-Rod was going to get hit big for use of drugs that are illegal in Major League Baseball. And what A-Rod has been doing what the last six months or so is trying to buy time in hope that he would be bailed out. And have some shot of playing in 2014. If you are dumb enough to illegal drugs in MLB, then you’re dumb enough to get caught and more than deserve the time that you get for them. He knows about his physical health and the state of his playing career better than anyone. And what a one year suspension could do to him in his late thirties. Especially since his career has been in decline the last few years anyway. And yet he takes this big risk with the rest of his career and will now pay the price for getting caught.

Read Full Post »

CBS News: ‘Tony La Russa Retires as St. Louis Cardinals Manager’

Source:CBS News– Tony La Russa: Manager of the St. Louis Cardinals (1996-2011) announcing his retirement as manager after winning the MLB World Series.

Source:The Daily Press

“Tony La Russa announced his retirement as manager of the St. Louis Cardinals three days after winning a seven-game world series against the Texas Rangers.”

From CBS News

The only thing keeping Tony La Russa out of the Hall of Fame as a manager was himself, because he’s been managing for 33 years consecutively, his whole career, and I believe he’s been the best manager in Major League Baseball that whole period, and that includes people like Tommy Lasorda, Billy Martin, Earl Weaver briefly, Bobby Cox. Joe Torre, Roger Craig, Jim Leyland, and many others. Some may say Joe Torre because of the championships: 4 World Series Championships, 6 American League Championships, 11 Eastern Division Championships, and 13 playoff appearances. Only Tony La Russa and Bobby Cox come close to those accomplishments in this time period.

But when Joe Torre was with the New York Yankees from 1996 to 2007, you could make a case that he had the best team in MLB every year he was there, especially from 1998 to 2007, but they came up short several times, as in 2001 losing to the underdog Phoenix Diamondbacks, 2003 losing to the underdog Miami Marlins, both in the World Series, 2002 losing to the underdog Anaheim Angels in the American League Championship, and 2004 blowing a 3-0 Series lead to the Boston Red Sox in the American League Championship, something that will always be hated by Yankee Fans and loved by Red Sox Fans. I know a few of those fans myself. And of course the Yankees always had the most money in this time period and could always basically put all-star teams together to win the World Series.

Other than the time period during which Tony La Russa was with the Oakland Athletics from 1988 to 1990 or 1991, he was there from 1986 to 1995, but in those 4 years you could make a pretty good case that the Athletics should have won at least three World Series if not four, because from 1988 to 1990 they had the best three teams in baseball. And they only won one World Series. Of course, one is better then nothing but in the two World Series that the Athletics lost in 1988 and 1990, they won a total of one game.

They lost 4-1 in the 1988 World Series to, I believe, the worst World Series Champion since 1969, the Los Angeles Dodgers, who only won something like 85 games that season. And of course you had the famous Kirk Gibson home run in game one to win that game against the best closer in baseball at the time, Dennis Eckersly. When Tony La Russa was in St. Louis with the Cardinals from 1996 to 2011, he didn’t always have the best team and he still won 7-8 Central Division Championships, three National League Championships, and two World Series, and made the playoffs 9-10 times again. When only four teams make the playoffs in each league, they may go up to 5-6 teams in 2012, but we’ll see.

Tony La Russa was the best manager in MLB in his era as well as today because of what he got out of his players for the most part, not including his time in Oakland, but definitely in St. Louis, a midsize market. But with a great fan base, if not the best in MLB, it was just a matter of when Tony La Russa would retire. That would determine when he was going into the Hall of Fame, because he’s a first ballot Hall of Famer in waiting.

Read Full Post »