Joe Bucked by Comedian on Premiere of his Show June 30, 2009
Posted by Paul in : Uncategorized , 1 comment so far
With the end of two major pro sports in North America coming to a head a couple of weeks ago, the national sporting landscape had all of a sudden become quite bare. Major League Baseball is expected to take center stage for the next couple of months, before football fervor picks up in early August, with training camps opening up and early fantasy drafts occurring around the country. But in the 162-game grind of baseball, no one game is necessarily going to grab you by the collar and compel you to watch….
Enter Joe Buck. When it was announced that Buck would step into Bob Costas’ rather large shoes and host his own talk show on HBO, most sports fans thought the Show might be a welcome diversion, particularly on a slow Monday night. Little did we know it was going to become one of the most talked about show premieres in HBO Sports’ history. Joe Buck started with the sports landscape all to himself, and ended up being bullied by a stand-up comedian with greater verbal firepower and a penchant for creating chaos.
The segment pitting Artie Lange and Joe Buck overshadowed the whole program and created such a stir in the media and at office water coolers, that I felt compelled to let the dust settle before commenting fully. A lot of theories and commentary were thrown around post-”Joe Buck Live” premiere. I’m going to try to clear the air, wade through the off-the-cuff ruminations, and give you a more balanced, comprehensive view on the happenings that night, a couple of weeks ago. Consider this a cold, rational post-mortem, after all of the initial emotion and chatter has passed….
Artie Lange, to many viewers (including the New York Times) stole the show, as he wouldn’t let Buck regain command of his interview. Buck just was unable to maintain control of the chaos that Artie kept bringing. You could sense the awkwardness created by Lange, and he largely overshadowed the other two guests–Paul Rudd and Jason Sudeikis–on set with him during the segment.
Since the segment happened, many theories have been floated about Lange’s show hijacking. One of the most prevalent ones that’s been uttered has people stating that the segment had been orchestrated to create buzz. This is simply not true. The Show doesn’t have another episode until September. The time lapse is too great to imagine that any buzz created a few months prior would somehow last in a collective American psyche known for its caffeinated ways and short attention span. Also, if I’m any portion people reader, I can say with full certainty that Buck was truly uncomfortable during the whole fiasco. If you’re afraid to take my word for it, just look at the still below, and dare tell me this is manufactured uncomfortableness from Joe Buck. I think not!
Buck had a mix of too much pride, a desire to fight back verbally without possessing the required ammunition to match Lange, and an inability to handle such a guest. Aikman’s broadcasting counterpart largely wants to work in a controlled atmosphere. You hear it in his cadence, his delivery, and the way he broadcasts overall. The man is all about control, and a lack of zaniness. When delivered a plateful of complete mayhem, he was at a loss for the right words and demeanor that would have perhaps quieted the heavy set comedian.
Also, let’s tell it straight: to those that will tell you that this type of intervention is expected by Lange must be smoking something more potent than what the comedian was lighting on set during his fiasco. I’ve heard Lange on different airwaves, and despite his being a little edgy, he was respectful to the host, and quite frankly, very funny. It’s one thing to kid or chide the host of the Show. Sometimes, it’s even expected to create dialog or an amicable/jocular atmosphere, as the guest and host start their interaction. It’s a totally different proposition to come out and steal the Show from the host by embarrassing him. And that’s what Artie Lange did three Mondays ago.
Let’s make this clear: while many have not liked Joe Buck, finding him too smug or arrogant, I have liked him on my sports telecasts. He gives you a good broadcasting presence and a clean message. And he’s great at getting the most out of his analysts, whether it’s Tim McCarver, Troy Aikman, or someone else. The interesting thing was going to see whether Buck could flourish in this new type of format. He would have to be an interviewer, in a live setting. The show is set up to be conversational and relaxed, on a nice but casual set, with a distinctive New York feel. Everyone knows that Buck was going to be stepping in large shoes; following the legendary Bob Costas on HBO, with his own sports interview show. While he may be good during broadcasts, because he doesn’t get in the way of the sport he’s bringing to you, I found him lacking both the dynamism and the engaging nature necessary to generate great conversation. I found myself asking for more, from the interviews. It’s almost like he was playing it close to the vest, not wanting to expound too much, or provoke entertaining sizzle.
The topic of his show is “Celebrity in Sports”. Booking Favre as his first guest not only guaranteed him an audience on his premiere episode but delivered a little sizzle, considering how much attention the former Green Bay signal-caller has been getting in the past few months, and how little he had talked to the media. Favre was able to tell us that his coming back to play for the Vikings would hinge on how his arm felt. He asserted having undergone surgery with Dr. James Andrew a couple of weeks ago. Now, the debate is about whether or not his arm will feel okay for him to announce his return to the Vikes. Subsequent reports from ProFootballTalk.com and Minnesota radio stations have told us there is a deal in place between Favre and the Vikings. Provided Favre’s arm continues to feel better, the team is to hold a press conference on July 3rd, declaring the Ol’ Gunslinger’s arrival in Minnesota. Reportedly orchestrated at that time to evade a larger media circus, as we enter the 4th of July weekend, I’m having a hard time believing that Chris Mortensen [insert your favorite NFL information man here] would not interrupt his family BBQ to catch a plane to cover such a media-worthy happening. But I digress…. Despite a little slip of tongue from Brett, which seemed to have been choreographed and thus wasn’t much of a value-add, there was little new information revealed to the American public. I found Buck unable to get his marquee guest to tell us something we wouldn’t have gotten otherwise. And that, folks, is the mark of a great interviewer….
Perhaps the larger lesson here is that we should give the multi-dimensional sports broadcasters most credit than they are already given. For every Bryant Gumbel who finds great comfort in a controlled television studio with rehearsed segments, but ends up telling you that “Al Gore” is running between the tackles, when calling live NFL action, there are the Bob Costas’, Dick Enbergs, Jim Nantzs, Al Michaels’ or Ted Robinsons of the world who can flourish in any type of sports setting. Whether they are conducting a green jacket ceremony in Butler Cabin, calling the action at Roland Garros alongside John McEnroe, describing another highly-rated NFL game on a Sunday afternoon, interviewing a provocative sports personality on the latest steroids scandal, delivering another essay on Wimbledon’s tradition, or hosting the studio show for Sunday Night Football in Prime Time, these men are never fish out of water, regardless of how bright the lights are, what medium is to be dealt with, or the format constraints from which to operate…. Maybe just maybe, we could give Joe Buck a little more room to grow in this new role, as an accomplished interviewer. Then again, I might be asking too much from the American public. We’ll probably just get back to our Starbucks and Twitter, and forget about this Joe Buck guy until he reappears onto our television screens in the month of September. We’ll probably give him another shot then, wondering what will define his Show for us. For now, it’s been all about a spotlight hijacking and the creation of awkward moments on our boob tube….
Wimbledon 2009: The Fortnight Ahead June 20, 2009
Posted by Neil in : Uncategorized , 3comments 
The most hallowed grounds in tennis is still reeling from the announcement by Rafael Nadal on Friday that he will be unable to defend his crown due to a knee injury. This has buoyed the chances of three men in particular as Wimbledon is set to begin on Monday. Andy Roddick is now a prohibited favorite to get to the semifinals. The Scot Andy Murray now has a much clearer path to get to the final and send Great Britain into a bigger tizzy then when Susan Boyle was on stage in “Britain’s Got Talent”, as he attempts to become the first Brit since Fred Perry in 1934 to win a Grand Slam title. Roger Federer might benefit the most from Nadal’s absence. He has a chance to win a second straight Grand Slam without having to go through his Spanish nemesis. If he takes home the title in two weeks, he will go down as the greatest player of all time (GOAT), having surpassed Pete Sampras by winning a 15th Grand Slam title. This is an incredibly interesting men’s draw. Here is my analysis:
Top Half
1st quarter:
Andy Roddick got a perfect draw here. He is the #6 seed and was in Rafa’s quarter. Juan Martin Del Potro has taken Nadal’s spot in the draw, but Roddick gets through to the semis. The match to watch in this quarter is a second round encounter between unseeded Lleyton Hewitt and #5 seed Juan Martin Del Potro. Lleyton is playing his best ball in a couple of years coming into this fortnight. The former Wimbledon champion moves well on the grass, and will dispatch the lanky Argentine in 5 tasty sets. No matter what, I like Roddick to get through a fairly pedestrian first 4 rounds and then take out Del Potro or Hewitt in the quarters.
In this section, also watch for #25 seed Dmitry Tursunov and #23 seed Radek Stepanek. These two players are two of the most fun-loving players on the Tour. They both love the slick lawns at the Big W and are capable of beating Del Potro and/or Hewitt to reach the quarters before falling to Roddick.
2nd quarter:
Most intriguing section of the draw. This is the Andy Murray section. He is coming off his first grass court title when he hoisted the largest trophy in tennis in winning Queen’s. However, while playing brillantly, the weight of Great Britain is on him, and he has a draw littered with early landmines. My mouth is already watering over a Murray-Kendrick 1st round encounter on Centre Court. The brash American plays his best ball on the lawns as evidenced by him taking Rafa to the brink a few years ago. The cocky Fresno native will relish the opportunity to spoil the British late afternoon tea party at the outset of the event. Murray will likely survive, but Kendrick will land some strong body blows in the 4 or 5 set encounter.
It continues to get more difficult for Murray in Round 2. How about big serving Latvian Ernestis Gulbis? If the furry Scot is lucky to survive that encounter, then he could meet the most dangerous qualifier in the draw. Remember Taylor Dent? He is back and survived the gauntlet of the qualies. He could prove to be as stiff a test as Ron Jeremy (or Stan Van Gundy) proves to be to the actresses he works with.
If Murray gets to Round 4 then #14 seed Marat Safin awaits. The mercurial Russian was given a nice seeding by the All-England Club in his final Championships. Safin was a semifinalist last year having dispatced Novak Djokovic in Round 2.
If Murray can battle his way through 4 rounds then he can take a breather in the quarters. I predict his opponent (if he gets that far) will be #33 seed Nicholas Kiefer. The ornery German loves the grass and will take out #8 Gilles Simon and #10 Fernando Gonzalez to reach the last eight. The newly minted seed (Kiefer was previously unseeded until Nadal’s withdrawal) does have a brutal first two rounds as well. He must take out “The Magician” Fabrice Santoro in Round 1, followed by the winner of Russian Mikhail Youzhny and former Wimbledon quarterfinalist Juan Carlos Ferraro in Round 2. However, I like Kiefer to run the gauntlet and get to the quarters against Murray. In that round, he will surely be outclassed in 3 sets.
I like Murray to get to the semis, but he faces a brutal path to get there. That is why I am predicting that Andy Roddick will reach his 3rd career Wimbledon final. ARod will either defeat a depleted Murray or Safin to reach the title round.
Bottom Half
3rd quarter:
This is the weakest quarter in my opinion. I am forecasting a quarterfinal between #24 seed Tommy Haas and #4 Novak Djokovic. These two will meet in a rematch of their Gerry Weber Open final in Halle where Haas upset the Serb. This time I like the tables to be reversed and for Novak to defeat the German en route to a semifinal appearance. Djokovic should be wary of Round 3 where he will face either #28 Mardy Fish or Janko Tipsarevic. That is the only dangerous landmine though for him en route to his eventual quarterfinal win over Haas.
Tommy will survive a 5 set 3rd round war over #11 Marin Cilic and then take out #29 Igor Andreev in Round 4, who will have dispatched of #17 seed James Blake in the 3rd round (that is if Blake can survive the tricky Frenchman Marc Gicquel in the second round). Djokovic will dismiss Haas in 4 and will await Roger in the semis.
4th quarter:
A flat out dream draw for Roger. No dangerous grass courters in the 1st 3 rounds. He will face little quizzes from lefty Spaniards in Round 4 and the quarters but will mow down #21 Feliciano Lopez in the 4th and #7 Fernando Verdasco in the quarters. Roger will not need to go 5 in any match to reach the semis.
Of note in this section, watch out for a luscious matchup. Buckle your seat for an intriguing 3rd round encounter between #22 Dr. Ivo Karlovic and #9 Joe-Willy Tsonga. However, this is Fed’s quarter coming off his triumphant title in Paris. Roger will then dispatch Djokovic in 4 or 5 delicious sets in the semifinals.
Championship:
The decade at Wimbedon will close with the 3rd Championship round installment of Roddick-Federer. While the American has played well in his previous 2 Wimbledon finals against Federer, he is simply overmatched by the Swiss’ artistry. Roger in 4. Expect a lot of emotion and tears from Federer come Sunday, July 5th, as by dusk he will have etched himself as the best player in history. He will set the mark of 15 Slam titles by the close of the fortnight. Expect Pete to come to the finals if Roger is playing for the title.
Whether It’s Beef or Basketball, Kobe Means Excellence June 17, 2009
Posted by Neil in : Uncategorized , 3commentsA quick reaction to the Lakers 15th NBA championship:
Let me preface this whole entry by declaring that I cannot stand the Lakers. From Jack Nicholson’s annoying courtside antics and Diane Cannon’s weathered face to the annoying “We Love LA” that blasts from the Staples Center when the Lakers triumph, I despise the Purple and Gold that inhabit the most sterile arena in sports. I can’t stand Lamar Odom’s demeanor and the fact that he is largely a waste of talent. Luke Walton and Paul Gasol irk me as well. However, I have nothing but admiration when it comes to Phil Jackson, and especially Kobe Bryant.
Phil is the greatest coach in the history of team sports. Not just because he has 10 titles and is not afraid to flaunt that lofty stat, but because he is the ultimate zen master. Barbara Streisand should want Jackson to woo her, and forget about Andre Agassi’s courtship some 15 plus years ago.
Jackson may not be one of the top 5 X’s and O’s coaches in the game. Who cares? NBA coaching is about managing personalities. Phil has managed the biggest in the history of the game. Don’t undercut his accomplishments by claiming that he had MJ, Shaq, and Kobe for his 10 titles. He should be celebrated for having the ability to captain a ship through the most volatile of rough waters and maximizing the best possible outcomes for his often cantankerous teams.
While Jackson’s 10th title is certainly history making and attention grabbing, I am most intrigued by Kobe. While he is not the saint he would like you to believe he is in his personal life, I have as much respect for him as for anyone I have ever seen on an NBA hardwood. He validated his whole career on Sunday night by leading HIS team to the title in impressive fashion. He is only 30 (MJ won his first title at 29), and has 4 Larry O’Brien trophies. While MJ is the most revered player in the history of the sport (with apologies to Wilt Chamberlain and his impressive harem), I maintain that Kobe may end up being the best player in the history of the NBA for the following reasons:
1) He is a better shooter than Jordan: MJ was a master at finding ways to score, as is Kobe. However, Kobe’s shot is much purer and has unlimited range. Give Kobe any opening and the Black Mamba will bite you.
2) He won a title without a superstar running mate: Scottie Pippen is one of the most underrated players in history. Sure, he was voted to the Top 50 All-Time team, but he played his whole career in MJ’s shadow. Kobe had Shaq for his first three titles, but the second best player on the Lakers this year was Gasol. Jordan won every title with Pippen. Kobe had a lot of talent around him this season, but no true great Robin like MJ always had to help him out in crunch time.
3) He will end up with more titles: Kobe is only 30. He and MJ are the two hungriest players I have ever witnessed in the sport. I expect Kobe to play a minimum of 8 more years. With the Lakers being young and good (if Andrew Bynum can continue to improve and most importantly stay healthy), I expect a minimum of 2 more championships for Kobe. If he does that, then he equals Jordan. If he wins 3 more, I think he must be considered the best ever to lace them up.
While Kobe may eventually go down as MJ’s equal or superior in the record books, there is one area where Kobe will never equal MJ. Jordan was the most marketable athlete in history. He brought the NBA to the world stage and that is why so many foreign players are now in the NBA and contributing to the wonderful growth of the sport. Jordan is one of the biggest brands in the history of marketing. Kobe while certainly not a slouch in raking in endorsements, will never have that same global appeal and business acumen. Partly because of Eagle, Colorado, but mostly because there can only be one “Air Jordan” and Kobe is following too closely in time to his trendsetting predeceesor.
There is one thing that Kobe needs more than anything to be remembered in the same sentence with Jordan on the court. A defining moment. MJ had many. Slam dunk contests with ‘Nique, 63 points at the Boston Garden in the playoffs, his return to MSG after playing baseball for a few years, and most of all, his push-off of Byron Russell and memorable jumper to defeat the Utah Jazz in the NBA Finals for his last title when he was sick as a dog. Kobe has 4 titles, but not one defining Finals moment. Sure, he scored 81 points at home against the Raptors in the middle of a season. However, he needs to leave NBA fans with a couple (or at least one) unforgettable playoff moments if he ever wants to get the same respect from basketball fans as MJ.
Someone Please Muzzle Manny! June 11, 2009
Posted by Paul in : Uncategorized , 2comments
Look, I’ve always been a supporter of Manny’s attitude. His nonchalance has often allowed him to perform at his best in the clutch. That quality has also enabled him to inject the right amount of levity in any clubhouse he’s been a part of…. With so many high-paid athletes either taking themselves too seriously, or worse, not delivering when they are asked to, Manny is a breath of fresh air.
With that backdrop in mind, Ramirez decided to address reporters for the first time in a while, after popping his head into the Dodgers’ clubhouse, before Tuesday night’s game at Chavez Ravine. Here are his comments, in his brief exchange with the press:
“I don’t want to be a distraction for this team,” Ramirez said. “What happened, happened. I spoke to [owner] Frank McCourt, I apologized, I spoke to Joe, my teammates and I’m ready to move on.
“I didn’t kill nobody, I didn’t rape nobody, so that’s it, I’m just going to come and play the game.”
Let me preface my observations with the following: I’m a big proponent of the first amendment. And I give most people a large leash as it pertains to self-expression. Few things offend or bother me. I am thankful we have folks like Howard Stern, that constantly push the envelop, as it pertains to the freedom of speech.
Now, having said that: putting one’s actions in the context of rape and murder is just plain inane and ridiculous. Using those two horrible actions in contrast to your infraction, in order to have it pale in comparison, is a ploy that not only is not working; it’s creating the opposing effect. The general public feels like their intelligence has been insulted. What Manny did certainly doesn’t approach the atrocity of both crimes that were cited. But to think that we’re going to brush things aside because one puts those out there, as some kind of explanation or rationale is just plain idiocy. It shows a total lack of forethought, self-awareness, and judgment.
No one can truly tell you that they are totally surprised about this type of commentary by Ramirez. He’s been known for having a loose mouth for a long time. What I’m most amazed at in this press relations snafu is that his handlers hadn’t decided to prepare a statement in the event he would choose to talk to reporters. I know that Manny doesn’t like to follow scripts. But how does someone as sharp as Scott Boras allow for this to happen? Boras is a as strong a strategic thinker as there is, when it comes to his clients. How does he allow one of the biggest assets in his client portfolio to routinely open his mouth and embarrass himself? Not only is it purely bad public relations, these are the types of comments that will limit Ramirez’s ability to sign additional endorsement deals, which directly affects Boras’ bottom line. If I was the most powerful agent in Baseball, I would make sure to have a seasoned PR person at Manny’s side every single time there was an opportunity to speak publicly. Or, as an alternative, have him wear one of Michael Vick’s ankle bracelets. Any time, he strays from a prepared statement, one of Boras’ minions can zap him remotely, “gently” steering him back to political correctness….
Are Top Tennis Players Too Stubborn? June 5, 2009
Posted by Paul in : Uncategorized , 2comments
One individual’s stubbornness is another person’s determination. You’ve heard the saying when speaking of most top-performing athletes: that “resolve”, a “single-minded determination”, an unflinching “focus” on the task at hand. Those traits are usually associated with top sports stars. Those characteristics get magnified when you talk about individual sports pursuits. There is no teammate to communicated with. No team chemistry to be had. You’re on an island, and you’re supposed to look within yourself in order to obtain optimal performance. In tennis, you’re supposed to track and follow a yellow ball throughout each point. The ball is in constant movement, and tracking it through bad bounces, different spins, wind conditions, all the while chasing it around the court, takes focus rarely seen in other sports. But could this trait ever end up being a double-edged sword? Can the quality that makes you so focused on one goal, also create blinders that can end up costing you when it comes to overall awareness? Could well-developed neuronal pathways wire you in a certain way that predisposes to being more closed-minded than others?
Let’s take a close look at a player who has been known for his bullheadedness: American stalwart Andy Roddick. Andy–who has just tied the knot with swimsuit model Brooklyn Decker–has long been considered one of the most competitive players on Tour. Most tennis pundits will tell you that he’s been one of the best at getting the most out of his ability. It’s undeniable to most keen observers that the Austin resident possesses limitations in his game. His often one-dimensional game has been criticized for lacking nuance, or texture. Tennis commentators have frequently gone after Roddick for not being able to switch to a Plan B, if things turn for the worse in an encounter. But who better characterizes the workmanlike approach to tennis than A-Rod does these days? Could one call Roddick the construction worker of the ATP Tour? He carries a big sledgehammer of a serve, with a sturdy ground game, anchored by an incredibly heavy forehand. But when it comes to subtlety, in the relationship sport that is tennis, the Texan often finds himself outclassed, unable to participate in the deft art of sophisticated conversation. Much like a well-versed trial attorneys, other players the likes of Andy Murray and Fabrice Santoro have learned how to get the upper hand in the dialog of tennis exchanges. A well-placed interjection, an objection, or a change of pace often earns them points down the road. Roddick is often content to keep hammering away, even if that means losing the argument in the end, when it comes to more refined tennis repartee. Although this strongheaded-ness often enables him to put his blinders on and demolish lesser opponents, it has frequently cost him dearly when dealing with players that have managed to diffuse his power and that possess more options in their games.
Looking no further than Your Sports NightCap’s home tournament, Roddick went down in consecutive years (2006 & 2007) in the semifinals of the SAP Open at the hands of Andy Murray. In a tremendous display of brain versus brawn, unfolding in front of our very eyes, Murray was able to make Roddick look powerless. Standing several feet behind the baseline, Andy Murray was able to deaden the sting of Roddick’s first serve delivery with his soft hands, and bunt returns back deep to start rallies in a neutral position. From there, the craftier Scot was able to impose his will, with his natural variety and exquisite feel around the court. In both encounters, Roddick was left without an answer. And it didn’t seem like he tried to adapt his game, and change things up. Had he decided to pick off those floating returns from Murray at net, Roddick would have stood a chance to take the advantage in most points where he was serving. Instead, he was content to try to pound his heavy forehand from the back of the court, as Murray had managed to return yet another one of his stinging first serve deliveries. A-Rod was more racehorse at post time than chameleon in the rain forest. Full-speed ahead with blinders on, he lacks the capacity to adapt his game to his surroundings and opponent….
Another symptom of A-Rod’s intransigence can be linked to his hiring of coaches, over the past few years. When Roddick first started working with Jimmy Connors, it was an odd pairing to most observers. Connors, known as an irreverent maverick on the court, didn’t seem to be the type that would curtsy to a player’s wishes, when working with him. At first, most thought that there would now be two very large egos in the Roddick Camp, making it difficult to get things done, if both personalities butted heads on several fronts. As we all know, Jimbo’s coaching experience was next to null. Plus, there’s significant empirical evidence that suggests the greatest players don’t necessarily make for the best coaches. Jimmy has never been thought of as a dynamic communicator, or even remotely patient enough to be a good teacher. That’s why most tennis thinkers were scratching their heads, when this high-powered tennis marriage first came together. Some started formulating theories about Roddick; that A-Rod could have gone with lesser names, but couldn’t because he wanted to respect the individual whose coaching voice he’d be hearing.
After several months of a part-time coaching relationship, where brother John filled in the gaps, the Connors-Roddick coach-pupil relationship was now over. Connors had been reticent to travel to all of the events on the ATP’s calendar; most particularly the smaller ones, in far-flung locations. Despite having greatly benefited from mentoring provided by the 8-time Grand Slam champ–most notably on his backhand wing–Roddick finally realized that he really wanted a constant companion and mentor while traveling on Tour. His older brother had done an okay job for a while. But a familial voice, particularly that of an elder sibling was tough to hear full-time and completely acquiesce to…. Andy needed a change. He needed someone he was going to respect from the start.
Enter Larry Stefanki, who is now rightly credited for pushing Andy through a renaissance of sorts with his game. Stefanki brought more than just a deep savvy for the game and a past of mentoring young males to the top: he carried some of the best coaching credentials on Tour, having taken both Kafelnikov and Rios to the summit of the rankings mountain. Not to mention stints with the likes of John McEnroe, Fernando Gonzalez, and Tim Henman; all players that greatly improved under Stefanki’s tutelage. And Larry had played the game at a high level himself, reaching a career-high ranking of 35, and taking home one singles title and three in doubles. He was not the teacher that just couldn’t cut it in the real world. He was the guy that applied his years of experience as a pro, in helping his students sharpen their skills and get the best out of themselves. That trackrecord spoke to Roddick, because as stubborn as the man can be, he must have known that he would have respect for his coach, right from the get-go. Stefanki instantly laid down the ground rules. And A-Rod has responded by getting himself leaner, watching his nutrition, and putting up all the hard work during the tennis off season. He’s handsomely rewarded with one of the best early seasons of his career. Just this week, the American #1 managed to make it into the second week for the first time, at what used to be a terrifying setting for him: Roland Garros. His fitness and movement are at career-bests despite being considered one of the Tour’s veterans, as he turns 27 in August of this year. And a little more texture seems to be surfacing from his game….
Let’s now move to examine the case of the man who has long inhabited many of Roddick’s nightmares. Roger Federer is the latest and most glaring casualty of his own stubbornness. The Swiss Maestro has just had a few years of virtual domination over the Tour; a span of tennis brilliance perhaps never seen in the history of the game. From 2004 to early 2008, Federer had an 87% win percentage, claimed 11 of the 17 Slams partaken in, failing to reach the semis only once. Until his loss to Novak Djokovic in the semifinal round of the 2008 Australian Open, Roge had reached 10 straight Major finals; taking 8 of them, losing only twice at the French Open to bête noire Rafael Nadal. Plain and simply, Federer has always prided himself in succeeding at the ultimate game of Survivor. Perhaps no sport tests an athlete’s mental and physical capacities simultaneously, as much as tennis. And Federer has taken pride in succeeding at it all alone. He’s the ultimate self-sustaining sportsman. No need for a large entourage of handlers, yes-men, or hangers-on, who are usually largely there to inflate a professional athlete’s ego. Roger has been a throwback, in the way he’s won, in many ways. While other top players have had their “camp”, populated by coaches, trainers, stringers, masseuses, managers, agents and PR people, Roger usually hits the road with his full-time PR person and new bride Myrka Vavrinec, who will soon give birth to their first child in September. That’s it! Somehow, the traditionalist in Roger must get some pleasure out of triumphing over opponents while not carrying a huge overhead. He’s a one-man band; the lone maverick who makes things happen by digging within himself instead of relying on others.
There have long been whispers why Federer hasn’t wanted a steady coach around. And for a while, during his years of dominance, that question was brushed away as few could imagine what value-add would bring to his game. Roger was already playing out of this world. What could a coach possibly bring to the table, for a man that is already sitting atop of the tennis world? But I can vividly recall when these background conversations finally took the forefront. Federer had just lost this year’s Australian Open final to Nadal that included a 5th set collapse, where the Swiss player completely disappeared. In the immediate post-mortem on the television broadcast, ESPN Tennis Analyst Patrick McEnroe coldly dissected the loss by strongly suggesting that Roger perhaps needed a new voice to turn things around, in his suddenly stagnating career. 2008 had still provided a variety of rationales for Federer’s sub-par season. The former #1 had prepared poorly due to a case of mononucleosis at the beginning of the year. Others pointed to an overcrowded 2007 schedule that had Roger not only play a more than full platter of tour tournaments, but also engage in a series of exhibitions against Sampras in South East Asia, in what was supposed to be the beginning of Fed’s off season. He had been a few points away from winning two majors. Perhaps the talk of his decline were overblown in 2008. But when he went down in Melbourne, in that fashion, even conservative experts the likes of Patrick McEnroe were starting to think that Federer needed a change in his camp….
And yet, what has Roger Federer decided to do? Has he desperately sought the help of the slew of capable coaches who would have jumped at the opportunity of coaching him? Did he pick up the phone and call tennis legends like John McEnroe, who had offered publicly to advise Roger during this tougher time? No. Like several times during this career, Roger stayed the course and told us that he didn’t need somebody at his side. He now finds himself in the finals of a Nadal-free Roland Garros; with the best shot at capturing the title that has long been out of his grasp. I’ve never disputed that Federer has a complete game. Or that he knows how to play tennis with the best of them. That’s often been his argument to the press, when he’s been asked about recruiting a coach. In fact, I’ve often said that Federer might well possess the most complete and diverse color palette of shots, with which to paint on the canvas that is the tennis court. But at these stratospheric levels of the game, it sometimes comes down to some fine-tuning. With a high-performance car like a Ferrari, the difference between winning or losing comes down to tweaking a few valves, loosening up the suspension for a race track, or changing to the right octane fuel. The same goes for top athletes. It may come down to as little as getting better rest, or waking up on the right side of the bed. As small a thing as added confidence provided by better practice habits, or a tiny tactical adjustment, or a different mental philosophy in approaching an opponent…. Could Federer benefit further from a confidant that will bring him such a thing? Could Roddick have improved at an earlier time in his career, had he been more receptive to certain coaches? Perhaps. One trait seems to have been at the center stage in all of this: stubbornness. But could these guys have risen to their respective levels and assured themselves large chapters in tennis’ history, without the trait? Probably not.
Nadal Out; It Is Now or Never for Roger in Paris May 31, 2009
Posted by Neil in : Uncategorized , 3comments 
The “King of Clay” Rafael Nadal was shockingly dismissed from the Round of 16 at the French Open today by Swede Robin Soderling in four sets. Here is an immediate reaction to the epic loss by Rafa and the opportunity that awaits Roger Federer to complete his career Slam and tie Pete Sampras’ mark of 14 GS titles:
I cannot think of a bigger upset in our lifetime in tennis. Nadal winning at the French has been the most sure thing in sports until today.
It is one thing for a Murray, Fed, or Djokovic to end his perfection in Paris, but another for a player like Soderling who is quite solid, but has never shown a penchant for being able to come up with a victory like this on clay. Robin has had a ton of good results at Wimbledon, and I wouldn’t have been surprised to see this result and score line at the Big W, but at Roland Garros it is amazing.
I now think that the winner of Murray-Gonzo will very likely be in the final. I am interested to see what Novak and Rafa’s losses will do to Federer. Will he be able to raise his mediocre play now that he is the favorite to take home his first French title? Will he actually play worse now that there is immense pressure on him to win it this year with Novak and Rafa gone by the quarters?
I have no doubt that he will tune Haas tomorrow. I am most interested by a potential QF against Monfils. If I had to put my pecking order for the title contenders right now, here they are:
1. Fed
2. Murray
3. Monfils
4. Tsonga
5. Del Potro 6. Gonzo
7. Roddick
8. Davydenko
Federer better root hard for Roddick to beat Monfils tomorrow. If Roddick takes care of the Frenchman, then I think it is pretty smooth sailing for Roger to get to the final and what could be an intriguing date with Andy Murray. However, if Monfils takes out Roddick, I really feel that Fed will succumb to the pressure of winning the title and will lose to Monfils in the QF. Then, the winner of the national French orgasm semifinal between Monfils and Tsonga will take on Murray in an intriguing final of Western European allied nations that will have Winston Churchill and Napolean breaking bread from the great courtside seats above.
I will say one thing with absolute conviction. I truly believe that if Fed doesn’t win this title, he will never win the French. He now has the perfect concoction for the title with no Novak and especially no Rafa. Nadal may not lose this early in this event for the rest of Fed’s career. It is now or never for Roger. It will be interesting to see if he is able to raise his game. The way he is playing right now is not good enough. This next week will provide one of the most interesting and most difficult tests to his legacy.
Shaq-tastic: O’Neal on your Television Set May 21, 2009
Posted by Paul in : Uncategorized , 4comments
Many of us have been fast to criticize Shaquille O’Neal. And guess what? He’s been an easy target, at times. His periodic laziness throughout his basketball playing days has been well-chronicled. His well-documented feud with Kobe in Los Angeles has left many Lakers fans with a bad taste in their mouths. Speaking of just that, he’s done a few unsavory things, in his public time, off the courts. One recent such incidents had him rapping to a nightclub full of patrons, calling out Kobe Bryant, by asking his former Laker teammate how his derriere tastes. Dressing on the side, please! Another older snafu had Shaq showing insensitivity towards the Chinese when he mockingly imitated Chinese speech when asked about then NBA-newcomer Yao Ming. So how are we to react when we’re told that the self-proclaimed Big Aristotle is taking Syracuse’s accelerated sports broadcasting course, during his off season?
At first glance, you may think to yourself, “Wow! This guy, a true broadcaster? Really? A guy who drones on in a monotone delivery, after games, without even an inkling of emotion?” Is Shaq going to be able to entertain us, through broadcasts, while he doesn’t just speak to us about his basketball, but has to be a sturdy broadcasting presence?
Here are a few reasons why Shaq Diesel will end up being a very good broadcaster:
1) He’s willing to work at it. The saying is simple. In every endeavor, practice makes perfect. The most incisive critics will oversimplify things; reminding us all of the times where Shaq has lacked focus on his basketball. Just because Shaq has shown patches of boredom or laziness through his career doesn’t mean he can’t focus on something and master it. After all, he’s managed to do just that, with his basketball career. When Al Michaels was asked what he had admired most about his former broadcast partner John Madden, Michaels instantly spoke of Madden’s knowledge of the broadcasting profession. To Michaels, Madden had been a broadcaster first, and a former head football coach second. By showing the willingness to study the craft, Shaq fully understands that there are nuances to the art of broadcasting that merit learning. In an era where many athletes would think of broadcasting, as purely spewing back their experience, accumulated throughout years of play, Shaq has decided to go back to school, for something that wasn’t his first calling. An admirable trait, for a thoughtful man….
2) O’Neal is incredibly thoughtful and eclectic. Usually, athletes will fall in one of two categories. Those that have had a singular focus on their craft throughout the length of their careers. And those others that have been dilettantes but have amassed a number of side interests during their professional lives. Shaq falls in the latter, and can certainly call upon many life experiences when conducting himself in front of a camera or microphone. Whether it’s his several movie roles, or rap albums, Shaq has at least had the intestinal fortitude to try a few things, despite the tough time he’s gotten from critics. He’s lived by one of my favorite quotes, from Ted Roosevelt: “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” O’Neal has been brave enough to try his hand at things others would have been afraid to even attempt. Some have worked out, others have not. That’s all part of life. Shaq should not only be lauded for the charitable work he’s done, but also for the example he sets as a human being. Success and failure are all part of our existence. And Shaq has had portions of both. But at least, he keeps going, and is curious enough to try new things….
3) He’s a born self-promoter. Let’s face it: the term Shaq has virtually become part of our official English vernacular. I’m almost tempted to delve into Webster’s Dictionary to see if it hasn’t been added there. Not only had O’Neal built himself into a global brand, he has become an icon in our culture. It’s a well-known fact: anyone that has attained one-name status is a superstar. Examples include “Prince,” “Madonna,” “Ronaldo”… And “Shaq” is certainly no exception. Now, the interesting thing about the term “Shaq” is that, unlike these others, but similarly to other staples of the English language, it has acquired plenty of derivatives: “Shaq Fu,” “The Big Shaqtus,” “Dr. Shaq,” and, most recently, “Shaqovic.” And these don’t even include the myriad of other ones, which have been hatched up over the years. Monikers like: “The Diesel,” “The Big Aristotle,” “The Big Daddy,” “Superman,” “The Big Agave,” “The Big Cactus,” “The Big Galactus,” “Wilt Chamberneezy,” “The Big Baryshnikov,” “The Real Deal.” The most compelling aspect about all these names is that most of them have emanated from his lips. Other larger-than-life athletes would probably just sit back and let the media come up with descriptive names and monikers for them. Shaq has a knack for keeping us interested in him, by coming up with new takes on the world at large. When we all think he’s aging and hasn’t said anything in a few weeks, O’Neal re-inserts himself in the conversation with that winning smile, an off-the-cuff remark, or a new handle for himself. In essence, he has a gift for PR and self-marketing. Watch him to leverage that ability when the cameras are rolling, and the red light comes on….
4) Nobody has ever accused Shaq of not having a personality. That trait is key to being good on television and radio. Let’s not forget how crucial that characteristic can be when conducting interviews. During his Laker days, everybody spoke of Shaquille’s contagious personality, and his willingness to take his teammates out to dinner, while Kobe was more of a loner. O’Neal has always been great at connecting with people, and that trait will serve him well, in any media role he pursues, whether he hosts his own radio show, or participates on a television set as an analyst.
5) He’s not afraid to ruffle feathers. The last thing we all need on the boob-tube is yet another person who is afraid of saying something that has substance. There are a plethora of broadcasters and analysts out there, who are bland talking heads; giving us reheated feedback that would hardly qualify as insightful analysis. The best analysts out there have strong opinions, out-of-the-box viewpoints, and are articulate enough to defend them. On that short list of top analysts: Charles Barkley and John McEnroe. What do these two possess over all the others? A maverick quality rarely seen in many human beings. A touch of irreverence which always makes them compelling. They are not fearful of speaking their mind on any topic. And they are certainly not going to engage in the tough practice of walking on eggshells. If you’ve ever seen Shaq speak, you know that he’s not the type to conform to the masses.
With so many athletes not only holding on for too long, but also thinking very little about their post-athletic careers these days, it’s incredibly refreshing to see a man not only ponder his next chapter, but take concrete steps into making that transition in a very proactive fashion. The modern professional athlete is usually pampered throughout his life, from high school onwards through the pros. Things have come easy to him. Why should they change? Most ex-athletes are content to sit back and let their pasts carry their future in broadcasting, sharing their anecdotes of yesteryear. But the issue, there, is that they’ve never actually moved on. Instead of transition to the interesting things that life has to offer after a career in sports, they rely on that past experience, and relive those moments of glory. Shaquille is different animal. He has so many other interests than basketball that he won’t let his athletic career define him as a person. He’ll move on the next thing that strikes his fancy, and probably be very good at it.
Let this be my prediction: I have a feeling that Shaq may be eyeing TNT’s colorful “Inside the NBA” set, as his next move, post-NBA career. I wouldn’t be surprised if preliminary behind-the-scenes talks have already been seeded between Shaq’s handlers and the folks at Turner Broadcasting. Can you imagine the Round Mound of Rebound and the Big Aristotle going at it, on that set? Wouldn’t that make for compelling television? Don’t get me wrong: Chris Webber is a telegenic presence. But does he really do a whole lot when it comes to ratings? To their credit, TNT has already shown that they are willing to take chances, in order to improve their programming. Wouldn’t it be alluring for TNT to bring on Shaq, and throw him into the mix with Ernie, Kenny, and Charles? If you took a poll out there, amongst casual sports fans, I would be willing to bet that most would tell you that Shaq’s addition to “Inside the NBA” would have them tune in even more frequently than they already do. When O’Neal joins that TNT set, Barkley may still be driving the Show, but expect Shaq to be the Diesel that keeps it running strong…
A King About to be Crowned May 8, 2009
Posted by Neil in : Uncategorized , 2comments 
All hail King James! While his ultimate coronation may not arrive for a few weeks until he holds the Larry O’Brien trophy aloft, the prodigal son of the NBA took home his first MVP award (of many to come) earlier this week. His Cavs are dominating having won their first 6 playoff games (all by double digits), and Bron is the toast of the sports world in a time period where baseball is being scarred by Manny being forced to sit on his fanny.
LeBron’s dominant display in the playoffs thus far is some of the most superb individual work I have witnessed in any sport in my quarter century on this planet. The only NBA player who has left me in such a state of awe and admiration was Michael who continually tormented me as a young Knicks fan who wanted to see Patrick Ewing and Co. get past the Bulls just once and win a championship. While it seemed so easy for Jordan from my vantage point as a youth, I feel I can now appreciate the diffuculty and the process that LeBron has had to endure. In a way, I feel that I have kind of grown up with him.
I remember watching him play against D.J. Strawberry in high school at Pauley Pavilion with Bill Walton at the mic courtside, and wondering what it must be like to be a 17 year old that has so much talent, yet an avalanche of pressure everytime he steps out on to the hardwood. He impressed me that first night with his unselfishness and ability to distribute, but most of all with his NBA (or maybe even NFL) ready body. I kept thinking he was the preeminent example of a man among boys, and for the first time in his professional career I have felt that this season.
Prince LeBron has had an excellent first 5 or so years in the league. He has been one of the best players in the East since he stepped on the court as a rookie, and while his jumpshot and free-throw shooting (although markedly improving) have always left something to be desired, his freakish ability has been able to avoid the pitfalls that befell most who make the jump from high school. Despite his always outstanding play on the court, what has always impressed me most is his poise and maturity. He may want to be one of the guys (which has been one of the biggest criticisms), but he carries himself with an aura that demands respect from older teammates and opponents. He may still be a kid, but like his old commercials portrayed he has an old man somewhere inside of him steering the youthful LeBron the right way at all times.
I was sick of hearing all of LBJ’s critics during the first few years of his career. He needs to try and finish at the rim in the closing seconds, be more demanding, etc. Dare criticize now. He has become one of the greatest team leaders in modern sport. He fosters an atmosphere among his teammates that has led the Cavs to have the best chemistry in the Association.
The Q is rockin’, and LBJ has running mates with Big Z, Delonte West and Co. He has his Batman finally in Moe Williams. The Cavs also have the best bench in the league with all former solid NBA starters (Joe Smith, Big Ben Wallace, Wally’s World, etc). King James has that look like Clemens, Jordan, and Montana in their prime, he is going to find a way to win and defeat is not even an option.
I am not necessarily about making predictions (although who am I kidding, I love to), and I didn’t write this piece to forecast a Cavs NBA title. However, it is going to happen this year. Over the last couple of weeks as I have begun to watch LBJ more and more, I am getting that same feeling I had watching him play in high school. He is a man among boys. Every time he makes another unreal play, I want to ask David Stern and the NBA brass whether there is another league for him to move on to. He is just too good for the NBA. It is unfair that others have to compete with. Can we beam down some aliens with mad game, or create some 7 foot robots with handles and a deft outside touch to challenge him?
Michael Jordan may be considered the greatest basketball player of all time. That may be the case. However, Wilt “The Stilt” is the most dominating player ever. I still can’t believe he averaged 50 in a season. While King James will never do that, I think when all is done, LBJ will stand in a class with Wilt alone. These guys dominate with their physicality more than anyone ever. The game just comes so easy to LBJ for a man his size. It is a joy to watch. I just wish there was more to challenge him.
Perhaps it will be more difficult during these economic times to keep him from amassing $1 billion as he wants to then to keep him from racking up NBA titles. However, with his off the court desires, and burgeoning network (insert Warren Buffett), I bet his financial portfolio will be every bit as attractive as his mantle that will be adorned with multiple NBA championships. Get set for the coronation of the King in June.
Manny Being Shifty May 7, 2009
Posted by Paul in : Uncategorized , 6comments
I was still in a mid-daze this morning, when the news broke about Manny Ramirez. I hadn’t yet had my customary two espressos. Yet, I instantly fully grasped the enormity of the story. But I can’t say that my clouded noggin had me thinking that I was dreaming this scenario up. Far too many of our superstars have been implicated in drug scandals for me to be shocked anymore. Surprised at potential players that are outed? Okay. But shock is an emotion that has been removed from my sentiment palette. And I have a feeling that I’m not alone in that camp…
Manny’s PR machine was already hard at work; attributing this positive drug test to medication prescribed by a Miami doctor for a personal health issue.
Now, let’s think about this long and hard. Let’s examine the facts of this developing scandal, and evaluate if we’re being told the truth.
1) Major League Baseball has a very public list of banned substances. It took me less than a minute to find it on the Internet, after “googling” after it. Ignorance on what substances are part of the drug policy’s banned list just doesn’t cut it, as an excuse, if I’m able to search for, and clearly read the list within minutes of scouring the web.
2) Any player is able and encouraged to check in with the Players’ Union before putting any new substances in their bodies. Having already seen mishaps (honest and otherwise) from players who had taken non-FDA approved supplements and ended up testing positive for a banned substance, the Players Association has put forth a few safeguards in place for players who would decide to put something new into their bodies. Doctors are employed by the Association to double-check and test medication, supplements, and other substances so that its members don’t run the risk of “unknowingly” taking a banned substance.
3) The money at stake is just too substantial for such an oversight to happen. The numbers have already been crunched. Any player that is suspended under the Major League Baseball’s drug policy isn’t compensated during the time of the suspension. For Manny, who was to receive $25 million in salary over the course of this season, his 50-game suspension will cost him about $7.7 million worth of pay, about 31% of his annual gross income. Are we supposed to really think that with those sums of money at stake, players are not instructed by their agents and handlers to take the most careful of precautions before introducing anything in their bodies? Scott Boras, the baseball super agent, who has built an athlete representation empire, has a huge financial interest in his clients’ earning their salary. Agents typically make anywhere between 3-5% of their clients’ annual salary. As shrewd and rigorous as Boras is, you don’t think he’s taken the time to find a few physicians, who are “on call” for such purposes? The modern day professional athlete may be reckless. But don’t forget that these athletes–particularly high-profile ones like Ramirez–have become brands, that generate a whole lot of money for quite a few people. You’ve got business people invested at many levels. These folks have way too much vested in these athletes not to think about protecting their downside. Precautions and safeguards are in place. Anybody that believes otherwise just doesn’t understand the business of sports, these days.
As is often the case when it comes to damage-control PR, our intelligence is insulted once again by the statements put forth by the Ramirez camp. That type of excuse used to float at the very beginning of this Steroid Era, where players could have fallen into the trap of “unknowingly” putting a banned substance into their bodies. Today, it is inexcusable by any Major Leaguer to put forth that type of rationale for a failed drug test. More is sure to come on this story. Regardless of what follows, we’re dealing with one of two things: blatant disregard for the rules, or sheer recklessness in one’s banned drug-intake regimen. Either one you pick, it’s not a pretty picture, as we’re left with yet another dark mark on what used to be our romantic National Pastime…
Young Hired Guns: The New Coaching Trend in the NFL May 5, 2009
Posted by Paul in : Uncategorized , 4comments
We’ve all heard the story of the bright new whiz kid, in Corporate America. He comes in with new ideas, fresh perspectives, shoots down the stuffy “establishment”, and replaces it with new infrastructure and processes that will give your company that edge in the marketplace. He’s lauded for being the ambassador of the new way of doing business. He’s hip; cutting-edge, and socially savvy. He can relate to the entire workforce. His iPod is filled with the same songs, as those of his colleagues. His cultural references don’t hearken back to the past, but are of someone that is “plugged in”. He can outwork his older counterparts because he’s younger, fitter, and more equipped to handle the late nights, early mornings inherent of 18-hour workdays.
This is exactly what NFL owners are buying into these days. The trend is: get yourself a young charismatic guy, who can relate to your players, and energize your whole football organization. At the cost of bringing in so-called “retreads”, owners and GMs, today, are more than happy to try to catch lightning in a bottle, in hiring on what-look-like promising young men to coach their franchises. Position coaches are elevated to head coaching gigs. Prominent college coordinators are asked to take the reigns of NFL teams. All of this upward mobility is all well and good, but at what point do we start asking ourselves if it’s justified? I’m one of the biggest proponents of the plasticity of the human mind, the limitless potential of human beings, and the accelerated promotion of those that separate themselves from the pack. But at some point, should we start asking for a track record? Some proof that the person in question has performed duties that would qualify him for the position?
Apparently not. In this copycat league, if there’s anything that shows us that the current trend is here to stay, it is this year’s Super Bowl match-up. Both Mike Tomlin and Ken Whisenhunt are under 50; at 36 and 46 years of age respectively. They are both qualified as player’s coaches, and can relate to the younger generation of players. They are more likely to rally their troops, and inspire them, than to drive them into the ground. In a league that now protects its players more than ever with pad-less practices and new rules being instilled, the players are the prized pupils.
The NFL’s parity is well-documented. Some will wonder if we’ll ever see true team dynasties, again. With those forces, as the backdrop, this season has seen two unfathomable turnarounds in both Atlanta and Miami. The Dolphins, the league’s doormat in 2007 at 1-15, quickly sprung to its feet in 2008 by capturing the AFC East crown. The Atlanta Falcons, once marred by their quarterback’s inhumane and distasteful behavior, and left rudderless by the shameless resignation of their head coach, now appear to be one of the league’s best-run franchises, with this season’s 11-5 record, and subsequent playoff birth. These are two of the foremost examples which give owners the impression that they can turn things around very quickly. It has them thinking, “If my current coach can’t get it done in a year or two, then there’s certainly someone out there, that can…”.
Armed with this lack of patience and insatiable thirst for results, owners have become very trigger-happy as they hire and fire coaches at will. Looking back at its 55-year history, coaching turnover has never been stronger in the NFL. Since the season ended, 10 teams have hired on new head coaches. Since New Year’s morning 2008, the total of new coaches brought in is up to 16. An impressive stretch of fickleness by the owners. And what would be the average age of these new 10 football coaches? Just under 43 years of age…
Now that we’ve established this trend, let’s take a closer look at it. Is this craziness over the young guns all justified? Are owners mining for a fountain of youth? Are they getting seduced by younger men who reflect back a positive image of themselves? Let’s look at a few recent examples, that have clearly shown some strange behavior at the top of football organizations.
Enter Raheem Morris, the latest young kid who’s gotten an accelerated shot at head coaching greatness. As we took the turn towards ‘09, the 32-year old Morris had just been promoted from Defensive Backs coach to Defensive Coordinator, after Monte Kiffin announced he would be joining his son Lane at the University of Tennessee. And then, on January 16, Raheem gets a call right after leaving a barber shop at 2:30pm, from the Glazer family. One of the Glazer brothers wanted him to return to the Buccaneers facility. Morris, naturally, thought that they wanted to go over staffing on the defensive side of ball. After all, Morris has just taken over the Bucs’ defense. Raheem Morris returned to the facility only to find out that he was being offered the head coaching job. Bruce Allen and Jon Gruden were being let go, and the Glazers wanted some new blood atop their organization. On getting the gig, at his young age, Raheem Morris responded, “Getting a job at this age, I don’t know if you’re ready. But I don’t know if you’re ever ready. They could have given me the job at 65, and there would still be things I’d be unsure about. All I know to do is deal with each situation as it comes. Deal with the situation honestly, with candor, and be direct. Keep your core beliefs the same. They hired you because they believe in you. That’s what I plan to do.” A direct, honest take on things. One that would have you trusting him from the get-go. But it is still astonishing to see this type of accelerated promotion from within by team owners. During the ‘08 season, Morris was responsible for coaching one position: DBs. Now he was being thrust into the spotlight. He is going to be the new face of the franchise, stepping into the rather large shoes of Jon “Chucky” Gruden. I’m not one to judge before someone has had a chance to perform, and I wish Morris the best, but can we perhaps be skeptical at the Glazer family’s thought process? Is it wise to promote this quickly, without preparing the young coach into handling the enormous responsibilities awaiting him? Particularly for someone that hadn’t been a head coach at any level?
After a painful breakup between Mike Shanahan and Pat Bowlen, Josh McDaniels arrives on the Denver sports scene with high hopes and higher promise. The man is part of the Belichick coaching tree. (At that moment, most forget to tell you that Bill’s coaching progeny is not quite as sturdy as Bill Walsh’s, to say the least.) Regardless, the expectations have been set Mile High. Much like a Shanahan of yesteryear, he’s the bright young offensive mind, who took his lumps under a coaching guru (in New England), and who is likely to re-energize a stale organization with new ideas and his natural swagger. So far so good. Until this bright young mind decides to try to bring his former pupil into town. McDaniels wheels and deals, has several conversations with the Patriots and other teams in an attempt to bring in Matt Cassel to the Broncos. Understandable thus far. In Corporate America, people go after their former colleagues, and attempt to recruit them all the time. Except this happens… In this rumor-mill, 365-day-a-year nature of the NFL, with several information men working around the clock, data flows more freely than ever. Jay Cutler, the promising franchise quarterback for the Denver Broncos, who by the way, had just made his first Pro Bowl this year, gets wind of his new coach’s private dealings and ruminations. Already upset by the changes made at head coach by ownership that had Shanahan and former quarterbacks coach Jeremy Bates leaving town, Cutler naturally starts fuming. “How could his new coach think about undermining me, by bringing another guy into this organization?”, Cutler must have thought. “What else do I need to do, to prove that I’m the franchise quarterback, here?”, he must have exclaimed. The former Vanderbilt Big Man on Campus starts clamming up, and decides to ignore inbound calls and texts from Bronco high ups, including McDaniels and owner Pat Bowlen. Not the most mature thing to do, granted, but a reaction that could be expected by a young, proud quarterback. Here’s where things start going wrong… After long lapses of time without a word from Cutler, despite many attempts made to contact him by both the owner and the head coach, a meeting reportedly ensues between coach and quarterback where differences are not patched up. The rift is perhaps exacerbated, as Cutler shortly thereafter formally asks the Broncos for a trade. Cutler is shipped out of Chicago. In return, the Broncos get Kyle Orton, 2 first-round picks, and a third round selection. The Broncos end up losing one of the most promising quarterbacks in the NFL, in an era where the league is signal-caller poor.
Now let’s imagine a similar scenario in Corporate America. A Fortune 500 company’s CEO has been recruiting a former colleague and friend to head up global sales and business development. This CEO already has someone in place for that position, his trusty Senior Vice President of Sales, who has done an admirable job growing the business over the past few years. But somehow he’d like to bring in the one he’s got more affinity with. The two friends have a few discrete meetings in New York City, away from visible hotel bars and cafés. The last thing they’d like to do is show signals of instability at the top that Wall Street could grab a hold of. While this is happening, the Sales SVP is on business in Asia, where he’s opening up a new office in Singapore. Even though the meetings are occurring under the greatest discretion, the two executives are spotted chatting in the corner of a pub by a journalist–who, like any good reporter–wonders what these two are doing together… The business journalist does his job: namely investigates who the parties are, and tries to put two-and-two together. He writes one of his colleagues, and describes the scene he just witnessed. That colleague has a previous relationship with the current Sales SVP, and shoots him an email, asking him to comment about the situation involving his boss and a friend. The Sales SVP who has been delivering great results for years, and has played an integral role in growing the business globally, is now alerted that the CEO might not have his best interest in mind. His ego is a little wounded. He decides to inquire with the CEO about the rumors he’s heard through a few journalists. The CEO takes some time to respond. When he finally does, he does so with a quick blurb saying, “I’m flying out to Singapore tomorrow. Can we get together in the next day or so? I would like to take you out to lunch.” The Chief Executive boards a flight on a Friday, and is taking his current Senior Vice President of Sales to a lavish brunch at Singapore’s Four Seasons hotel by Sunday morning. During the sit down, the CEO makes sure let his SVP know that “he’s his man. That he’s incredibly happy with his performance…that there’s nothing for him to worry about…” The point is, despite the flirtation happening between the CEO and one of his old fraternity buddies, the deal fizzled after pragmatism was applied to the situation. A mature person–this CEO–has quickly recognized the situation–and made a quick, reactive move to assuage any tensions that existed between him and one of his most productive executives. Josh McDaniels, who could be considered the Chief Executive of the Broncos organization never taken such a step. Despite the unresponsiveness by his young gunslinger, the appropriate thing would have been for McDaniels to make the trip to Cutler. Go to the doorstep of his off season home, if you have to, and knock on the door. Don’t let the situation fester. Be proactive in resolving key human issues. McDaniels, showing the immaturity of his young age, never made the move to appropriately handle an emotionally-charged situation. Instead of cool-y diffusing it by reassuring one of his most productive team assets, he let the saga evolve out of control. A more seasoned leader of men would have certainly reacted in a better manner. McDaniels let his ego get the best of him, and the end result isn’t so pretty: a Pro Bowl quarterback with his best days sitting in front of him, is now in Chicago, while he’s left holding onto mediocre talent at the position.
Jim Armstrong, the outstanding columnist for the Denver Post came onto our Show a few weeks ago, during the climax of the Cutler Saga, and he told us a few revealing things. He made it clear that quite a lot of blame should be laid on the Broncos’ new head football coach. Armstrong reminded us that it was Cutler who came back to Denver, during his vacation time, for two whole weeks, to work with Josh McDaniels when he was first hired. It was him who had initially been gracious to the new coach, and made an effort to welcome him to the Mile High City. Armstrong also make another strong point. Last season in the NFL, the average points per game allowed by a defense was 22. During his career, when his defense had allowed 22 points or fewer per game, Jay Cutler is 12-1. If that doesn’t give you a glimpse at the quality of this signal-caller, I don’t know what will… For McDaniels to even think that the problem on his team was his quarterback is ridiculous. He should be paying closer attention to the other side of the ball, which cost the team dearly in critical stretches last season, and had them rank 30th out of 32 teams in team defense. Thankfully, Armstrong made the promise that McDaniels would not be allowed to get away with his recent foolish actions. He intimated strongly that the media would hold him accountable for letting his ego and personal loyalties get the better of his judgment.
Let’s face it; the old image of the football coach is dead. In the pros, the disciplinarian has made his way through the EXIT doors. The “Bud Kilmer” character (played by Jon Voight) from “Varsity Blues” is now a dinosaur. With soaring player salaries, it’s more likely that you’re going to want someone that is going to cajole your players into being inspired; instead of someone that is going to instill the fear of God in them. But don’t start telling me that experience (especially when it comes to management of egos) doesn’t belong in the game. The Joe Torres and Phil Jacksons of the world have made their (great) livings off that aspect of coaching in this era of professional sports. A coach that is young runs the risk of not possessing that full tool-set; as it pertains to handling human beings.
But don’t take it from me. I’ll end this piece with words from KKFN’s Joe Williams, a man who knows a thing or two about Denver sports. He says it best, when he questions Bowlen’s decision to hire Josh McDaniels, “Here’s what I can’t get over,” Williams said. “He hired a 32-year-old head coach. You don’t see 32-year-old generals in the army. The only 32-year-old general I ever heard of was George Custer. And look what happened to him.” This keen observation doesn’t only apply to Bowlen, but should be extrapolated to all the NFL owners who have decided to latch on to the youth movement. Yes, it’s worked well in Pittsburgh with Mike Tomlin. But couldn’t he just be the exception to the rule? Shouldn’t there be more attention paid to track record and experience? NFL Owners–please do your due diligence when hiring on your head coaches. As you might risk putting your franchise back several years, with one bad hire at head coach. It wouldn’t be fair to you, nor would it be for your loyal fan base…
