Bleacher Report - Articles by Ari Horing

Has Cedric Benson Really Become An Elite Back?

Ari Horing — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:04:53 -0400

The fact that I have to address this question is exactly what is wrong with the notion of the running back position in the NFL.

Over a year ago, I wrote an article where I compared every opening day starter in 2007 to their primary backup. After researching and analyzing the statistics, I found that 25 out of the 32 opening-day starting NFL running backs were replaceable with running backs on their own team.

I concluded that 11 backups outperformed their starters, with 14 performing as well as their starters. Not surprisingly, 21 of the starters from 2007 have been replaced.

Cedric Benson was one of the starters replaceable then, and despite leading the league in rushing, he definitely still is now.

Has Benson improved? Yes, but that shouldn’t surprise anyone, because generally experience and maturity will make you a better player? But has he improved into an elite or even very good back?

I believe the answer is obviously no.

I don’t judge running backs by their raw stats, because that can be misleading.

The one thing that can’t actually lie is the actual footage of the player.

Here is is a link to a video of Benson’s best highlights from his 189 yard rushing performance this past Sunday.

Before watching the footage, it’s important that you look for several things.

First of all, you should notice the gaping holes that even my grandmother could run through.

Second you will see that Benson practically breaks no tackles, jukes any defenders, and gets any tough extra yards. Thirdly, If you watched the game closely, you would have seen that Benson leaves plenty of yardage on the field because of his vision and especially poor balance.

However since we only have the video of his best highlights, it makes it harder to notice.

There are two plays I specifically remember that I don't have the highlights of, where Benson got tripped up by an almost fully blocked defender sticking his arm out in the trenches, instead of keeping his balance and likely gaining a long run like a real elite back would do.

What truly separates a great running back is their vision, their cutting ability, their speed, their ability to break tackles, and their ability to fight for those extra yards.

Does Benson have any great attributes?

He has decent speed for a back his size, but his vision and cutting ability are mediocre, and despite his size, he truly lacks real power.

I can only imagine the numbers great open field backs like Darren Sproles, Steven Jackson, Chris Johnson, and Adrian Peterson would have done with those glaring holes. If Adrian Peterson had the holes Benson was given on Sunday, he would have likely broken his own single game rushing record.

It’s obvious that the Bengals offensive line has improved tremendously, and they are now one of the best in the league in run blocking.

Even so, now many people are saying that the Bears were smart after all for taking Benson with the fourth pick in the 2005 draft.

Sorry Benson fans but Benson is still a bust in my mind. All Benson did this past Sunday, like he has been doing most of this season, is run through open holes and gain the yardage he is suppose to get.

Besides a few select plays, in general, Benson hasn’t done anything extra that we should expect from a fourth pick in an NFL draft.

If you want to see what a true elite running back does do separate themselves from everyone, then watch these highlights of Adrian Peterson against the Chargers his rookie year.

Top Five Must See NBA Games

Ari Horing — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 08:46:32 -0400

1. Dec. 25, Cavaliers vs. Lakers

One of the most anticipated regular season games I can recall since the first Shaq vs. Kobe game. Besides this game being a possible finals preview, it has enough storylines in this one game to keep us happy for the whole season.

We’ve got the two best players head to head against the each other, the MVP of 2008 Kobe vs. the MVP of 2009 LeBron. We’ve got Kobe against Shaq again on Christmas, but this time Kobe is the one with the bragging rights.

Other story lines include Shaq vs. Phil and Mitch Kupchak, Bynum vs. Shaq, and of course let's not forget about the Laker’s newest addition, Ron Artest. He always makes things interesting.

2. Nov. 11 Cleveland vs. Orlando

For some reason, this game seems to be forgotten as a must see game. I have read numerous lists, and most have forgotten to include this game.

Besides this being the first game between the Cavaliers and Magic since LeBron James refused to shake the Magic’s hands after the Eastern Conference Finals was over, we get to see Vince Carter on the Magic and the new Superman Dwight Howard take on the old Superman Shaq.

Shaq is still so upset about Howard taking his nickname before he supposedly has “earned it”, he openly rooted for his former nemesis Kobe to win the championship over Howard. Howard and Shaq don’t seem to like each other and the battle of two of the best big men in the league will be fun to watch.

Let’s also not forget about last year’s game in which Shaq supposedly flopped and he and Stan Van Gundy gotten into a heated war of words over the issue, because Shaq and Van Gundy definitely haven’t forgotten it.

3. Feb. 7, Orlando Magic vs. Boston Celtics

This game is a rematch of the seven-game series between the two last year, except the stakes have been raised this year.

KG (Kevin Garnett) should be back and Rasheed Wallace is now a Celtic. While for the Magic, Vince Carter has been acquired to try and take them to the next level. Rasheed Wallace has predicted 70 wins, but this one definitely isn’t guaranteed.

4. Dec. 12, Celtics vs. Bulls

This game is also another rematch of a seven-game series. This intense series had more overtimes and lead changes than most teams have for the entire playoffs. Considering this was just a first round series, the fact that it is considered one of the best series we’ve seen in years, shows you just how great it was.

This game would be higher up except that the Bulls usually don't show up in the NBA regular season, and well the Celtics this time have Rasheed Wallace and KG back and the Bulls don’t have Ben Gordon. So although this game could be must see, it could very well lean the other way as well.

5. Apr. 11, Lakers vs. Trail Blazers

Not many Western Conference games are truly must see games. While there are a lot of good games, none of them are really anything to write home to mom about.

Rockets-Lakers was a great series last year and now has the Ariza-Artest switch factor, but the Rockets most likely won’t make it a very good game without Yao and Artest.

If I had to choose a game, it would be the Lakers-Blazers game because it could be a potentially must see game. The Blazers are still a very young team and should only improve from last season.

Oden has had a solid preseason so far, and if any team has the potential to challenge the Lakers, it is the Blazers. By the end of the season on Apr. 11 this could be a vital game as the young Blazers try to show the champion Lakers just how legitimate they really are.

Ari Horing is a Feature Writer for SportsScribes.net and can be contacted atakhoring@eiu.edu

Bone Head Writers Volume One: Shaq at Six?

Ari Horing — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:57:00 -0400

Bone Head Writers is an article written every week that points out one writer that has shown that they have no idea what they are talking about.

The Bone Head in this volume that I would like to point out to is Kelly Dwyer of the blog Balls Don't Lie on Yahoo Sports.

On Oct. 6 he published an article listing the NBA-players-of-the-last-decade?urn=nba,194287">top ten players of the decade.

Besides the fact that it seems that Balls Don't Lie is getting desperate for Top 10 lists, the main reason Kelly Dwyer is our selected bonehead is that he put Shaq at No. 6.

Ringless Dirk Nowitski, and LeBron James were put ahead of the four time champion Shaq!!

Kevin Garnett, who has no finals MVPs, was put over the three time finals MVP Shaq.

Shame on you Dwyer!!

I'm not sure if Dwyer forgot that 2000-2002, when Shaq won three titles, was actually part of the last decade.

I'm not sure if Dwyer forgot that Shaq has the highest scoring average for a center in NBA Finals history.

According to Dwyer,

"Shaquille O'Neal, man among men, is only sixth on this list. It's been a pretty good decade.

Shaq turned in one of the great seasons of all time in 1999-00, but he's only averaged about 65 contests a season since then, he's been out of shape for a few of those years, and ultimately disappointed a bit to these eyes.

He also was a beast down low, won four championships, produced some poorly rated summertime TV fare, Tweeted like a fiend, picked several lame fights and contributed to several playoff teams. Big man, big noise, big production."

Dwyer recognizes that Shaq turned in one of the great seasons of all time in 2000 but failed to recognize that his next two seasons were almost just as great.

Those three seasons, if you include the playoffs and Finals, were better than any other season by any one else in the decade, and it would be hard to argue against it.

Dwyer seems to think that averaging 65 games a year is a really big deal, even though it never once cost Shaq a playoff appearance, and was never a reason he didn't win a championship. Sixty-five games, in reality, isn't bad for a 300 plus pound center who spent most of the decade in his 30's. Take a look at the last five injury filled years of Hakeem Olajuwon and Patrick Ewing's career, and you'll see what I mean.

I'm not sure if Dwyer didn't realize that an "out of shape" Shaq appeared in half of the NBA Finals of the last decade, missed only one playoff, and all star appearance.

I don't know how some people are allowed to be called experts in their field when they can let their bias show so tremendously.

Dwyer needs to admit that he frankly doesn't like Shaq, because there is no other reason to disrespect one of the all time greatest players, ever, by putting ringless Dirk Nowitzki, LeBron James, and zero time finals MVP Kevin Garnett over him.

Ari Horing is a Feature Writer for SportsScribes.net and can be contacted at akhoring@eiu.edu

Michael Jordan's HOF Speech Was Not Insulting but Rather Inspirational

Ari Horing — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 07:42:14 -0400

Michael Jordan's controversial Hall of Fame speech he gave this past Friday has been characterized by some as petty, bitter, and cruel. One article on Yahoo! Sports in particular has been getting a lot of attention.

He has been criticized for supposedly taking "shots" at people, thanking the wrong people, concentrating too much on his competitive nature, and trying to get one last "slam dunk" on everyone.

Although I disagree, I can completely see how some people reacted that way to his speech. If you're not a competitive person or just don't understand Michael Jordan, that could likely be your reaction.

While some people may have thought Jordan seemed unsatisfied and bitter that he no longer played basketball anymore, I was in awe at the hunger still gleaming in his eyes six years later.

Jordan's speech—besides being very funny—was honest, candid, and original.

Although David Robinson, John Stockton, and Jerry Sloan all gave touching speeches, in reality we have heard those same types of speeches a hundred times before from other players.

But Jordan, just like he showed on the court, showed again why he is so unique during his speech. The truth is that Jordan's speech symbolized exactly who he is.

Michael Jordan didn't become the greatest player ever just because he was the most talented, but because he worked harder than everyone else.

The recurring theme is his speech was that he found motivation in everyone and everything to make him want to work harder.

Now I know that the people he supposedly slighted during his speech weren't actually being "thanked" for giving him that motivation like some might say, but the speech wasn't about them.

It wasn't meant for his supposed "victims."

It wasn't meant for his family and friends.

It wasn't meant his teammates and coaches.

It wasn't even meant for Jordan himself.

Michael Jordan's speech was directed at that ordinary person who is looking for inspiration and motivation.

Now I know there are those that would say that winning and being the best, like Michael Jordan was, aren't everything, but I hope those same people don't believe that following your dreams isn't as well.

Jordan's dream was to be the best, and he found motivation in every little thing, whether it be a major thing like being cut from his high school varsity team, which he mentioned in his speech, or not being allowed to hang out with opposing players he was friends with by opposing coaches, which he also mentioned.

Jordan's speech should remind all of us not to be content with our lives, but to constantly find motivation in everything to make our dreams and reality the same thing.

LeGarrette Blount's Impulsive Act Garners Unfair Punishment

Ari Horing — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:09:37 -0400

If you have haven't heard about it yet, Oregon RB LeGarrette Blount sucker punched Boise State's Byron Hout following the Broncos' 19-8 victory Thursday night in Idaho.

Now although it was a classless move, I do think that the result that has already and will ultimately come from this in the end will not serve justice.

Although Blount's punch was clearly despicable, there is no doubt that he was provoked by a player who initiated the contact. But even worse for me was the fact that the winning player initiated contact after the game was over.

Talking trash to players before and during the game is ok by me, but afterwards should definitley be forbidden. Once the game is over, it's over, and the winners need to be respectful to the team they just beat.

But regardless of whether he should have been provoked or not, Blount still had no right sucker punching Hout. However, the reason I belive that what will come from this will ultimately be unfair, is that this one impulsive moment has essentially destroyed his career in college and likely the NFL.

Now it's not as if, Blount came over and just randomly punched someone. This was not premeditated. This was a impulsive moment that Blount will regret the rest of his life.

In the end Blount embarrassed Oregon a bit, and probably gave Hout a large bruise. But in reality, Oregon's reputation will be fine, and Hout's bruise will heal. However, Blount's life will likely never be the same again.

He has already been suspended for the remainder of his senior year, and now rumors are going around that his NFL stock has dropped off tremendously and he is essentially undraftable.

This incident reminds me of what happen to a guy I knew in high school, who was actually a very good guy.

One impulsive moment got him expelled and would almost ruin his life. I'm not specifically going to go into what happen, but the the reason I find this similar is that what happened to the "victims" involved went away within a week, but that one moment would haunt that guy the rest of his life.

In the end, who really becomes the real victim. Ultimatley by punishing someone so severley because of a impulsive moment, they end up being the true victims.

In a few weeks, Blount's punch will be forgotten, Oregon will move on, Hout will likely laugh about it with his friends, but blount...well...he will likely never be the same again.

Why It's Better to Be a Good Returner Than a Great Returner

Ari Horing — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:30:36 -0400

While it might seem ridiculous, it really is better to be just a good special teams returner, than a great one.

But how can this possibly be true?

Well let me start by saying that a special teams returner is the only position that can practically be completely taken out of the game by the other team.

The two greatest kick returners in my mind are Dante Hall and Devin Hester. As I was watching the top 10 kick returners of all-time, on the NFL network, I was surprised to see Dante Hall at number 10.

According to the NFL Network, Dante Hall was number 10 because his career as a great returner was so short. However, how can a man who is tied for second all-time in return touchdowns be number 10?

Dante Hall's 12 regular season return touchdowns (13 including postseason) are tied for the second most all-time. However, nine of these came in a three year period from 02-04.

It seemed as though, especially early in the 03 season when Dante Hall had four straight return touchdowns in four games, and was even the front runner for the MVP award, that he was destined for greatness. Hall was on pace to shatter the touchdown return record and it looked like nothing could stop him.

However, Dante Hall was so dominant that it backfired. For the rest of the season and the next few seasons, Dante Hall would rarely get any real opportunities to return the ball for a touchdown. Whenever he did get the opportunity to run the ball back, it was generally a very short kick, with no room to run.

You could blatantly see Dante Hall's frustrations after every play because he was no longer able to do the one thing he excelled so much at. Although, it was disappointing, the Chiefs didn't mind it that much because they were getting great field positions from all of the short punts and kickoffs.

Dante Hall, although not as dominant after his four game touchdown streak in 03, still did what a kick returner is suppose to do. He gave great field position to his team.

A returners' team's field position is a stat that truly tells how great a kick returner is. The problem is that this stat is virtually impossible to find.

After a couple years went by, Dante Hall eventually was no longer that "x factor" he once was. It seemed as though the lack of touches on the ball, and the frustrations of not being able to be the "x factor", had taken a toll on him.

Dante Hall didn't seem like he was having any fun anymore, and was putting too much pressure on himself. Teams realized that he was no longer as good as he was before, and people started kicking to him like they did before.

But by then, Dante Hall wasn't the same player he was once. He had lost his so called "Mojo".

In the past two seasons, injuries have kept Dante Hall, who is currently a St. Louis Ram, out for most of the last two seasons. At one time Dante Hall was destined for greatness, but he was robbed of it by being too great.

If he was not great, but was just good like the number two player on the top 10 list, Brian Mitchell, he wouldn't have been the number 10 player on the list.

Brian Mitchell never had more than two touchdown returns in one season and never had to worry about not getting a good return. He lasted 13 years as a solid kick returner and ended it with 14 career return touchdowns, which is the most all-time.

Was Brian Mitchell really a more dominant return man then Dante Hall?

The answer is obviously no. Dante Hall is not getting the recognition he deserves as great return man, and you have to fear that Devin Hester who is number one on the NFL network list, may not in the future either.

Devin Hester, who currently is third behind Dante Hall for the most return touchdowns all time was number one on the list.

I can't really disagree with that, but his career is looking like it could shape up to be similar to Dante Hall's.

While Dante Hall may have had the greatest four game stretch ever, Devin Hester clearly had the best two year stretch of any returner with 11 return touchdowns in two seasons, despite having only 20 kickoff returns in his first season.

However, for the last season and a half, like Hall, Hester had stopped getting the ball as much, and when he did, just like Hall had, their was no room to run.

Hester had zero return touchdowns last year. I fear that Hester, like Hall, was too great in his first two seasons. Hester has a chance to redeem himself this year, but history tell us that Hester most likely won't ever be the "x factor" he once was.

Five years from now, it could be Hall at number 10 and Hester at number nine on that list, despite how unfair it may be.

Sometimes greatness really can be a curse.

Original article can be found at sportsscribes.net

Why Kobe Bryant Is Still One of the Most Overrated Players in NBA History

Ari Horing — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:43:35 -0400

As I sat there watching Kobe Bryant win his first championship without Shaquille O'Neal, I felt a sudden sadness—a sadness, that the game of basketball doesn't usually cause.

It wasn't the same sadness you get when your favorite team loses, but it was the type of sadness you get when you realize that justice isn't going to be served.

As I watched Mark Jackson and Jeff Van Gundy at the end of the game infer that arguing about who is better between Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan is a legitimate argument, that sadness grew even more.

It was obvious due to the talent the Lakers had that sooner or later Kobe would get his ring without Shaq, and I knew the aftermath that would occur. Since the NBA Finals, the Kobe-Jordan comparisons have not stopped, and let me tell everyone, it's only going to get worse.

When I finally realized the game was out of reach, I went to my room, sat down in utter silence, and realized that the history of basketball had been changed.

The Kobe Bryant we see today is a much better player than Kobe Bryant, who was on the Lakers during Shaq's heydays.

Now that Kobe has won this title, people will forget this, and he may very well in the mind of these so called "experts" such as Mark Jackson and Jeff Van Gundy be elevated to one of the top five players of all time, if not higher.

He now has four titles, and because of his title without Shaq, Shaq's legacy will only diminish and Bryant's will grow as people start to forget who really led the Lakers to those first three titles.

Before I get into the details of why Kobe Bryant's legacy should not be defined by this title, let me answer this one question, first.

As I was reading an article about Kobe and Shaq, a question arose in the commentary.

"Why is it that no one questions the validity of the rings won by other stars that played with stars?" (Besides Kobe).

The answer I read, by Michael T. Penn, could not have been any better.

"I think it is because most great second options aren't hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread like Kobe is. A lot of people love Kobe so much they want to talk about his three championships without even mentioning Shaq. That in turn leads others without the rose colored specs on to say 'what? those were Shaq's teams!' That's really all you're looking at here.

It's kind of like if someone were to turn around and say 'Scottie Pippen is the best player ever because he won six rings'. Of course the rebuttal would be 'Sorry but Scottie was second banana to Jordan, those were Jordan's teams'. Then someone such as yourself may write an article about how even though Jordan was the man, Scottie was still a star. Like that clears up the issue.

Kobe was of course a great second option on those teams! The problem arises when people try to use those three rings as part of an argument to say Kobe is a better individual player than LeBron James or that he's the greatest player not named Mike or other such over the top declarations of his unstoppableness."

On the next few pages, I'm going tell you exactly how a man with four NBA rings, who at times can be unstoppable, can really be considered overrated. To me, Kobe Bryant has been overrated since he first entered the league.

When he first entered in 1997 towards the end of Michael Jordan’s career, the media and fans were looking for that next Michael Jordan. Kobe showed the flash and potential it could take to be the next one. He was immediately deemed the next Michael Jordan, a title that still sadly hasn’t faded away.

However, for you to truly understand why Kobe is overrated career wise, you have to realize what a person being overrated really means. Being overrated career wise, in a sense, means that a person's career is perceived as being better than it really is. Below I have listed the many reasons why Kobe Bryant has come to be overrated.

Before you read what I have to say, I just want to ask you one favor. Please read the rest of the article with an open mind, especially Lakers’ fans, or you will fail to see the truth.

Kobe Bryant Wasn’t As Big of a Factor As Perception Makes it Seem

If you took Shaq off the Lakers during their title runs, the Lakers wouldn’t be guaranteed to make the playoffs. When O'Neal was injured during his three peat, the Lakers had a regular-season record of 12-11 (52.17 percent).

When Kobe was injured, the Lakers' regular season record was 25-7 (78 percecnt). Interestingly, the Lakers’ entire regular season record during their three-peats was 181-65 (73.5 percent), which is a lower record than when Kobe wasn’t playing. The Lakers, therefore, actually had a better record when Kobe wasn’t playing.

But how could this be possible? Well, as a big Lakers’ fan during their championship runs, I watched the games very closely.

The Lakers were most dangerous when the Lakers would play through Shaq, wait for him to get double teamed, and have players such as Rick Fox, Robert Horry, Kobe Bryant, and Derek Fisher spot up for the open shot, or cut in the lane.

However, the Lakers often failed to play through Shaq enough, and it would cost them games sometimes. However, never was this more obvious than at times when Kobe would try to steal the show.

A young immature Kobe Bryant would constantly take difficult contested shots, instead of just playing through Shaq, then cutting into lane or spotting up for that open shot.

I‘ll admit that when Kobe Bryant was playing through Shaq, he was a great asset to have. Unfortunately for all the times he was an asset, he was also a cancer when he tried to be the “man.”

The Lakers’ record without Kobe and without Shaq is not a stat many people know of, as I couldn’t find it anywhere. I personally had to look at every game by game during the Lakers’ championship runs to find those stats out.

As I said earlier, I watched the Lakers very closely. One thing I noticed was that when Shaq was on the bench, the team was just a mediocre team.

I also noticed that when Kobe was on the bench, the team was just as good without him. I therefore decided to do the research and find out if this was true or not.

Not coincidentally, the records I found proved my theory to be correct. As I showed earlier, the Lakers became a sub .500 team without Shaq, but had a better record without Kobe.

Bryant to me is one of the luckiest players of all time. Not many all time greats can say that they started their career playing with the best player in the NBA.

Every time Kobe looks at his first three rings, he should thank God everyday that he had the opportunity to play with Shaq. In reality, the young Kobe Bryant who won three championships isn’t as good as the Kobe leading the Lakers right now.

The record books, unfortunately, will not have an asterisk that says “led by Shaq." When Kobe is compared to the all time greats such as Michael Jordan, his first three championships to the naked eye will looks just as good as Michael Jordan’s first three championships.

If Kobe never played with Shaq, he likely would have one ring. Thus, without most of his rings, Kobe wouldn’t be perceived to be the top five player, like many want.

Kobe Bryant is One of The Most UnderPerforming Finals Player Ever

Kobe Bryant has shot 40.5 percent or under in four out his six NBA Finals appearances (around 36 percent in his first and 38 percent in his fourth appearance). How many all-time greats have shot 40.5 percent or under once, let alone four times in the NBA Finals?

Also, keep in mind that in three of those four in which he shot that poorly, Shaq (not Kobe) was the one being double-teamed.

Kobe is perceived as one of the best clutch players of all time, yet on the biggest stage there is, Kobe consistently performs his worst.

In year 2000, during the regular season, Bryant averaged almost 29 points and five assists per game. How did these stats translate over to the NBA Finals? They lowered to 15 points and four assists per game.

Shaquille O’Neal, on the other hand, raised his scoring average, from 28 in the regular season to 38 in the finals.

In 2001, the Lakers once again won the NBA Finals. Kobe’s scoring average dropped in the clutch once again, forcing O’Neal to step up his scoring from 27 per game in the regular season to 33 in the finals.

In 2002, for the third straight year, Kobe’s scoring and assists declined in the series and O’Neal, of course, stepped it up in the finals.

Most greats like Shaq, Jordan, and Duncan all raised their level in the finals, but Kobe lowered his tremendously. Charles Barkley once said that stars are made in the regular season, but superstars are made in the playoffs.

Well, I would like to add on to that statement and say that stars are made in the regular season, superstars are made in the playoffs, but Legends are made in the NBA finals.

In his first three years, Kobe had the privilege of watching Shaq put up three of most dominant finals performances ever. In fact, at the time of Shaq’s third championship, he was averaging the most points per game in NBA finals history. However, in Kobe’s last two NBA Finals, he cost his team the championship with his poor performances.

In the 2004 NBA Finals, Shaq averaged 26.6 points per game with a .631 field goal percentage, while Kobe Bryant averaged 22.6 points per game with a .381 field goal percentage.

However, the main reason Kobe cost the Lakers the title was that he out shot Shaq by nearly six shots despite Kobe shooting 38.1 percent, while Shaq was shooting 63.1 percent.

In that series, Kobe’s failure to play though Shaq hurt not only the team’s stats, but his own stats, as well. Playing through Shaq more would have helped his FGP and open up more easy scoring opportunities.

Not to mention: logically, why should a player shooting with a much lower FGP average six more shots than a former three times finals MVP who was shooting a much higher percentage?

During the 2004 NBA Finals, Kobe decided that he was going to be the man, even if it cost the team. Not surprisingly, according to Phil Jackson‘s book “The Last Season: A Team in Search of Its Soul," in Bryant’s exit interview with him Bryant said, “I’m tired of being a sidekick.” Shaq already had three Finals MVP’s and Kobe for once wanted that finals MVP.

Watch the tape of that series and you will see a mad man determined to be the “man," despite the consequences the team would ultimately render.

In last year’s NBA finals against the Celtics with this time Kobe being the “man," he again let his team down. Against the Celtics, he shot .405 from the field and averaged 3.83 turnovers a game. In fact, in three out of their four losses, he shot under 35 percent from the field.

All series, Kobe seemed to start off playing well in the first quarter, and then fall off and never recovered. Kobe is perceived to be the best closer in the game, but yet it seemed as though he often disappeared in the fourth quarters of last year's finals.

In game four last year, Mark Jackson, a man who once said that Kobe Bryant will be better than Michael Jordan, even called out Kobe Bryant for not trying to take over the game in the fourth quarter.

I heard all of Kobe’s fans excuses last year. “His teammates didn’t show up," “Kobe can’t be expected to do everything.” However, no matter what anyone wanted to say about Gasol, Odom, or any of the other Lakers players, Kobe was the one who let his team down. If Kobe wants to take all the credit when his teams wins, he should also take all the credit when his team loses.

Now this year was easily Kobe's best finals performance. Kobe led the team to the title and I can't take any credit away from him. But even so, Kobe still underperformed in the NBA finals, as he shot 43 percent from the field. If you at actually look at it, Kobe has had two good finals appearances out of six.

Although his numbers went down in the 2001 finals, he still played well as he shot at a .514 clip from the field. Then of course this year, despite Kobe's FGP going down, Kobe led his team to a championship. Now two good finals out of six isn't acceptable for a true all time great.

The true all time greats, like Jordan and Shaq, generally always showed up in the NBA finals, while Kobe has repeatedly failed to.

Kobe Is Still Compared to Michael Jordan

There are still people out there who claim that Kobe is as good as and or better than Jordan. I would dismiss these claims and not even mention it, except for the fact that there a large percentage of people who actually believe this.

Every time a Jordan Kobe debate starts, there is always that one guy who claims that Kobe is better than Jordan. No matter what stats you pull out, that guy thinks he’s right and you’re wrong.

Now that Kobe has lead a team to a championship, this will only be more argued.

The Jordan—Kobe debate, to me, is one of the most lopsided sports debates. If you look at it logically, the question shouldn’t even be asked, and on page three I will show why.

Michael Jordan	Kobe Bryant
16 seasons	13 seasons
6 Championships	4 Championships
6 Finals MVPs	1 Finals MVP
10 Scoring Titles	2 Scoring Titles
1 Defensive Player Of The Year	0 Defensive Player Of The Year
5 MVPs	1 MVP

Jordan has better career averages than Kobe in virtually every single category besides three-point percentage (Bryant: .341, Jordan: .327) and and free throw percentage (Bryant: .840, Jordan: .835). Kobe also has inferior playoff averages in virtually all statistics, and inferior career finals averages in virtually all statistics to Jordan. For those of who want to claim that Kobe’s stats are skewed because of his younger days from 18-21 (even though Jordan’s are too because of his Wizards days), look at this stat.

If you take an age-by-age comparison of Jordan and Kobe starting with the age of 22 to the age Kobe is now, Jordan has better stats in virtually every category besides some years of free throw percentage, a couple years of BPG, some years of three-point percentages, and the one year Kobe averaged 35.4 points per game.

Jordan also, besides free throw percentage (.868 to .857), has the higher single season high in every category. Plus, Jordan never played with a player even close to an elite center, while Kobe has had Shaq and Gasol.

Kobe Bryant’s FGP Isn’t Up There With the All-Time Greats

One reason that goes under the radar for why Kobe Bryant is overrated is that his FGP is simply not up there with the greatest guards and small forwards of all time.

Kobe has a career average of a .455 FGP, while, obviously depending on your list, no other player generally considered one of top 20 players of all time has shot that poorly.

Julius Erving shot .506 , Magic Johnson shot .520, Oscar Robertson shot 485, Larry Bird shot .496, and Michael Jordan shot .497 for their career. Kobe has also shot worse than the two players playing today that will eventually make this list, if not for a drastic injury, Dwyane Wade and LeBron James.

LeBron has a career average of .471, which should go up as he gets older and Wade has a career average of .483. The main reason Bryant’s FGP is worse than Wade’s, LeBron’s, and Jordan’s, is that as good of player as Kobe is, he simply isn’t as good of an inside player as those players.

Kobe relies on his jumpshot more than these players and because of this his FGP is worse. This is especially noticeable when he plays against physical defenses, such as the Rockets this year or the Celtics last year.

Before game seven of the Rockets-Lakers series, ESPN showed that against the Rockets, only 21 percent of his shots were within five feet of the hoop. Now 21 percent just isn’t good enough, and that is one reason the undermanned Rockets took the Lakers to seven games.

As it often said, “you live by the jumpshot, you die by the jumpshot.” When Kobe isn’t driving the ball enough, this statement is never more true. Now Kobe is still a great inside player, but just read what his own coach Phil Jackson has said when comparing Kobe to Jordan in an interview in 2008.

“There are somethings that Michael Jordan had, that Kobe Bryant doesn’t have. He has a bigger body, He’s stronger. Kobe’s strong. He (Jordan) had these incredible hands. Those hands were million dollar hands, where he could do so many things with it. Besides being fouled and still making baskets; Taking the ball to the basket and getting hit and not losing control of the basketball; Being able to pick the ball of the dribble. Those are just things that physically are irreplaceable….When you look at Michael, he shot 49, 50 percent, and Kobe just hasn’t been able to do that. There’s a big difference when you compare those two. The shooting percentages were quite a bit different.”

Kobe’s Team Wins When He Doesn’t Shoot too much.

If you were watching the pregame show before game seven of the Rockets-Lakers game, you would recall that Jon Barry showed a statistic that when Kobe Bryant shoots less than 21 shots, the Lakers were 39-3.

Up to that point, he had taken 150 shots total in the previous six games against the Rockets. Now, can you remember there being a stat like that for a player considered as great as Kobe?

Is there a stat like that for Jordan? LeBron? Wade? Well, of course the answer is no. Not to the surprise of me and Jon Barry, the Lakers beat the Rockets in game seven with Kobe only scoring 15 points.

Kobe Doesn’t Have Any “Amazing Moments”

Kobe is consider one of the most clutch players in history, but I can’t recall him having any meaningful game-winners. Now, Kobe has had some winning go-ahead baskets in the playoffs, but he has never had one of those “Jordanesque” moment that you can replay in your head over and over again.

If you have been watching a lot of NBA games this year, you would have noticed those amazing NBA moments commercials. Well, the one Kobe Bryant moment that they keep showing over again is his game-winning shot against the Suns a few years ago in the first round. Here’s my problem with it. The Lakers lost the series!

Is that really the best Kobe moment that they could find? Well, sadly, it could be. On the other hand, I can point out to a few plays that LeBron James has made in the playoffs in his career, that would have been better amazing moments, and he is much younger than Kobe.

In reality, during the Lakers’ championship run, it was Derek Fisher, Robert Horry, Brian Shaw, and the roles players who had those amazing moments.

Once again in game four in the finals this year, it was Fisher, not Kobe who had that amazing moment.

In that game, I saw an interesting stat that tells it all. The three players with the most three pointers in NBA Finals history are Michael Jordan, Kobe's current teammate Derek Fisher, and his ex-teammate Robert Horry.

Kobe Simply Doesn’t Have the leadership Skills Required To Be One of the Greatest Ever.

There are just some thing’s you can’t teach. Leadership skills are one of those.

As talented as Kobe is, he simply isn’t as good of a leader as most of the all time greats. As I was watching ESPN a few weeks back, I heard a quote similar to this that simply said it all. LeBron’s teammates want to play for him, while Kobe’s teammates don’t seem to want to.

While LeBron gets the most out of his less talented Cavaliers teammates, Kobe doesn’t seem get the most out of his much more talented teammates. Granted, the Lakers won the title; there were many times when they underperformed.

I generally help prove that Kobe isn’t a very good leader by showing an excerpt from Curt Schilling’s post on his official blog, 38pitches.com, after Game Two of the NBA Finals last year.

I can say what I want about Kobe being a leader from watching him on TV, but in reality I don’t have the first hand experience for you to believe what I have to say. The reason I find Schilling’s post so informing is that it’s not often you get to read such a controversial post from an objective well respected athlete about a first hand experience he had. Here is the excerpt from Schilling’s blog.

"From the first tip until about four minutes left in the game I saw and heard this guy bitch at his teammates. Every TO he came to the bench pissed, and a few of them he went to other guys and yelled about something they weren’t doing, or something they did wrong. No dialog about “hey let’s go, let’s get after it” or whatever. He spent the better part of 3.5 quarters pissed off and ranting at the non-execution or lack of, of his team. Then when they made what almost was a historic run in the fourth, during a TO, he got down on the floor and basically said ‘Let’s f’ing go, right now, right here” or something to that affect. . . . But as a fan I was watching the whole thing, Kobe, his teammates and then the after effects of conversations. He’d yell at someone, make a point, or send a message, turn and walk away, and more than once the person on the other end would roll eyes or give a ‘whatever dude’ look."

Now it’s very important to realize again what "overrated" means. Like I said before, overrated means that people perceive you to be better than you are. If you talk to the average NBA fan and even some of the so called “experts” as well, many of them will believe things that simply are illogical.

There are those people who believe Kobe is as good or better than Jordan. There is an also even higher percentage of people who believe that Kobe led the Lakers to the title and not Shaq, or that they both had equal roles.

There are also people who believe that career wise, Kobe, a man with one finals MVP, is better career wise than three times finals MVP's Shaq and Tim Duncan, and other all time greats. Kobe hasn’t done enough yet to prove that he belongs in that same company yet.

As it stands, Kobe has led one incredibly talented team to a championship.

Therefore, before we put him up there with Chamberlain, Shaq, Jordan, and the rest of those guys, let's see what he does in the next few years.

Sorry, David Stern: No Kobe or LeBron in the NBA Finals

Ari Horing — Wed, 27 May 2009 00:24:23 -0400

From the very beginning of the year, I have said two things:

The Lakers won't win a championship because Kobe isn't Michael Jordan, and won't be able to carry the Lakers unless Andrew Bynum becomes a key part of their offense.

The Cavaliers won't win a championship because they don't have that second star to compliment LeBron.

Even as the Cavaliers and Lakers both dominated opponent after opponent on their way to the two best records in the NBA, I still wasn't satisfied.

As I have said many times, being great in the regular season doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be great in the playoffs. Certain teams are built for the playoffs, and I didn't believe the Lakers and Cavaliers were.

However, before the playoffs, I started wondering whether my predictions weren't going to come true. The Lakers and the Cavaliers were almost everybody's favorites to clash in the finals, and I wondered if I was just afraid to take my predictions back.

Throughout the season, most Cavaliers fans have accused me of not actually watching the games, being biased, or not realizing how good Moe Williams was.

I would tell them that I actually liked the Cavaliers, but respected the history of basketball and believed that Moe Williams was not a true superstar. Besides Hakeem in 94, history has shown it is impossible for one man to carry a team on his back to a championship.

LeBron needs that second guy that he just doesn't have. So far Moe Williams has shown that he is no Scottie Pippen, as he has shot poorly all series long.

Most Lakers fans have failed to see the lack of mental toughness the Lakers have. Besides Kobe's horrid shooting (.405 FGP) in the finals last year, the main problem for the Lakers was that they couldn't handle the Celtics physical play.

When Andrew Bynum got hurt, I immediately pronounced that the Lakers weren't going to win a championship. Bynum brings that big physical presence that the Lakers need in order to win a title.

However, once he came back before the playoffs, I was no longer sure the Lakers weren't going to win it all.

Obviously, I knew it was going to take Bynum a while to get back to where he was before he got injured. However, even so, I expected him to be a key contributor, especially deeper in the playoffs.

However, the Lakers haven't let Bynum play enough. And When is playing, he is not getting the ball enough. For a young player like Bynum, it is very important for the Lakers to let him get in rhythm.

However, when he has started off poorly, the Lakers foolishly tend to ignore him the rest of the game. If the Lakers do lose to the Nuggets, it's because they never tried to get Bynyum going.

As it stands, the Cavaliers are down 1-3 to the Magic, with the series likely over. The Magic just have too many weapons and the Cavaliers frankly don't have enough.

Although the Lakers are tied with the Nuggets 2-2, the series could very well be over already.

The Nuggets, after leading in both 4th quarters of game one and three, basically gave both games away.

This series isn't like the Rockets-Lakers series, because there is no underdog. No team is at a disadvantage at any position, like the Rockets were down low.

The winner of this series will just come down to who is playing better. Right now, I don't see how you can't say that the Nuggets are playing better than the Lakers.

Right now, my predictions from the beginning of the season look accurate.

Sorry David Stern, but no Kobe or LeBron in this year's finals.

The Houston Rockets Have the Heart That the Los Angeles Lakers are Missing

Ari Horing — Mon, 11 May 2009 00:44:47 -0400

If you didn’t enjoy the Houston Rockets - Los Angeles Lakers game on Sunday, than you’re clearly not a fan of good basketball. The Rockets, a team already without Tracy McGrady that had just lost their best player in Yao Ming for the playoffs, dominated a heavy favorite Lakers’ team in game four.

The Rockets not only showed no fear against the Lakers, they simply embarrassed them.

The Rockets are filled with underdogs and overachievers who showed more heart that I have seen from a team in a long time.

Their center filling in for Yao Ming, Chuck Hayes is only 6’6”, yet he didn’t let Paul Gasol get any easy baskets. The starting point guard Aaron Brooks, although only 6’, was unstoppable in the paint, and scored 34 total points.

Besides Ron Artest and Shane Battier, the Rockets are filled with overachievers who, due to hard work, have become the players they are today. Chuck Hayes is an un-drafted player, who was supposed to be too undersized to play in the NBA.

Aaron Brooks, a 26th overall pick in the 2007 draft, was supposed to be too small to be a point guard in the NBA. Kyle Lowry, another 6’ guard, was the 24th pick in the 2006 NBA Draft.

Forward Carl Landry was the 31st overall pick in 2007. Von Wafer was the 39th overall pick in the 2005 draft. Luis Scola, who played nine years in Europe before coming to the Rockets, was the 55th overall pick in 2002.

In reality, the Rockets will likely still lose this series.

However, regardless if they lose or not, they have shown that they have the key ingredient that the Lakers are missing that is required to win a title: heart.

The Rockets, who have lost McGrady, Yao Ming, and Dikembe Mutumbo for the season, have shown that heart and toughness are the true keys to being a champion. There are some players who frankly a scouting report does not give justice to.

The Rockets are filled with players that get on the court and simply know how to play basketball. There are certain things you can teach and certain things you can’t.

The Lakers, as talented as they are, are just simply missing heart and toughness.

No matter what happens the rest of the series, nobody will ever be able to take away the heart the Rockets showed on Sunday.

Kobe Bryant's Frustrations May Cost Him a Championship...Again

Ari Horing — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:21:17 -0400

Kobe Bryant once again let his frustrations get the best of him. Towards the end of Game Two between the Houston Rockets and L.A. Lakers, Bryant cheap-shotted Ron Artest with an elbow to his throat.

Kobe Bryant has a history of flailing his arms out of frustration.

In 2006, Kobe was suspended two games for elbowing Mike Miller.

In 2007, Kobe was suspended one game for flailing his shooting arm and striking Manu Ginobili.

Less than six weeks later, Kobe was suspended again for flailing his shooting arm, which resulted in Marco Jaric getting whacked in the nose.

By no means do I consider Kobe to be a dirty player. He doesn't come into games with intentions of flailing elbows. The problem is that he easily gets frustrated and let his emotions control him.

Kobe is so used being able to do whatever he wants on the court, that when he gets challenged by a tough defense like the Rockets, he gets frustrated.

Kobe may have had 40 points last night, but as Charles Barkley noted, it wasn't an easy 40 points.

Kobe's frustrations result in him not only faliling elbows, but in general negativity being brought to the team.

Curt Schilling's post on his official blog, 38pitches.com, after Game Two of the NBA Finals last year, shows a detailed look on how exactly Bryant behaves when he is frustrated.

From the first tip until about 4 minutes left in the game I saw and heard this guy bitch at his teammates. Every TO he came to the bench pissed, and a few of them he went to other guys and yelled about something they weren’t doing, or something they did wrong. No dialog about “hey let’s go, let’s get after it” or whatever. He spent the better part of 3.5 quarters pissed off and ranting at the non-execution or lack of, of his team. Then when they made what almost was a historic run in the 4th, during a TO, he got down on the floor and basically said ‘Let’s f’ing go, right now, right here” or something to that affect. . . . But as a fan I was watching the whole thing, Kobe, his teammates and then the after effects of conversations. He’d yell at someone, make a point, or send a message, turn and walk away, and more than once the person on the other end would roll eyes or give a ‘whatever dude’ look.

As you can see from Schiling's blog, when a team like the Celtics plays hard-nosed defense similar to the Rockets, Kobe becomes frustrated. A great team leader has to always keep his cool and not let his emotions get the best of him.

The player that he is often compared to, Michael Jordan, never let his frustrations show. Jordan wasn't just the greatest because he was the most physically talented player, but because mentally he knew how to carry himself on the court.

Kobe's frustration and inability to keep his composure may have cost him the championship last year. This year it may cost him the title again.

Brought to you by SportsScribes.net

Favre's Un-Retiring Won't Cause As Much Backlash

Ari Horing — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:33:22 -0400

When Brett Favre retired, there were doubters out there who said they didn't believe him. I'll admit I wasn't one of them.

After an embarrassing end to Favre's 2008 season, there was no way I could see him playing for the Jets in 2009.

The Jets didn't seem to want him as their quarterback, and Favre didn't seem to want to be there anymore either.

Even if Favre wanted to play somewhere else, since he was under contract, he wouldn't have been able to choose the place he would go to. There was no way Favre was going to go through the same fisasco as the one last summer.

Thus it seemed as though Favre, although still wanting to play, retired. I always assumed that if Favre's doubters were right and he suddenly decided to come back again, there would be even more backlash than we saw last year against Favre.

However, it seems that since the Jets have released Brett Favre from the reserve-retired list, effectively allowing the future Hall of Famer to sign with any team, people don't seem as upset as last year at the idea of him un-retiring.

When he un-retired last year, most people were not really as upset about him changing his mind as much as they were mad about the trouble he caused the Packer's franchise.

They had already moved on and had named Aaron Rodgers their guy, and suddenly Favre wanted the team to be his again.

Now that his return doesn't have any affect on anyone besides his family, a lot of people including me support Brett Favre's return.

The man can still play and up until his lingering shoulder injury, he was playing like a Pro Bowler.

It seems to me that it is almost a guarantee that he is going to un-retire and end up with Minnesota Vikings. If it does happen, I will be definitely be watching the Vikings-Packers matchup on Monday night in week four.

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com

NBA Thoughts of the Day: The Truth Is Clutch, Starbury Is Scared

Ari Horing — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 03:50:55 -0400

Paul Pierce has proven once again that he is the most clutch player in the game today. Sorry Laker’s fans, but Pierce was the player who rose to the occasion in the NBA finals last year, not Kobe. Sorry Cavaliers fan’s, LeBron is the MVP of the league, but not the one player that I want to have the ball at the end of the game.

Paul Pierce hit so many clutch fadeways in the Celtics 106-104 victory over the Bulls, that I lost track of just how many he had. Pierce totaled 26 points, with six coming in overtime, to give the Celtics the 3-2 lead in the series.

Speaking of being clutch, how un-clutch is Stephon Marbury, the man formerly known as “Starbury?” I’m not sure what his new nickname should be after his performance at the end of the fourth quarter on Tuesday.

I’ll admit that I was a supporter of his signing earlier this year because I thought he would be more of a team player on a veteran Celtics team. Well, I was right, because he has changed into an unselfish player. However, I didn’t realize that it would make him change for the worse.

With the game tied 91-91 and under a minute to go, Starbury had a chance to take a wide open three from the baseline, but instead the former ball hog passed it off.

Marbury has gone from having too much confidence, to being an unsure, hesitant player.

If not for Peirce’s heroics, he might have cost the Celtics the game. Marbury has gone from being a team cancer because of his arrogance, to being a team cancer because of his lack of confidence.

He has to find the a balance between the two, and become a confident, unselfish player if the Celtics want to have a chance of beating the Cavaliers.

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com

Bears Trade for a Quarterback Just a Little Too Late

Ari Horing — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:57:38 -0400

Brought to you by TheSportingtruth.com.

When the Denver Broncos traded Jay Cutler to the Chicago Bears, what shocked me first was how much more the Broncos got than the New England Patriots did when they traded Matt Cassel to the Chiefs.

Cutler, just like Cassel, has had one Pro Bowl-caliber season, but Cassel doesn’t come with the baggage Cutler brings. So why did the Patriots get just a second-round pick, while the Broncos got two first-round picks and a third-round pick?

The other reason the trade surprised me is because I don’t understand why, all of the sudden, the Bears felt the need to get a quality quarterback. Over the last few years, they easily could have gotten a quality quarterback like Cutler for a package similar to the one they offered to the Broncos.

As glad as I am that the Bears finally have a capable quarterback, I'm just as upset that it took them this long.

I’m not a Bears fan, but I do hate seeing talented teams waste seasons of potential promise because their managment's failure to fix their glaring holes.

The timing of this deal reminds me of the Kansas City Chiefs in 2006. From 2002 to 2005 the Chiefs had one of the greatest offenses ever assembled. NFL experts at the time claimed that if the Chiefs could just put together an average defense instead of an awful one, they could be the best team in the NFL.

It took Chiefs management until after 2005 to finally make some moves that made the defense somewhat capable. However, by then it was too late, as the Chiefs no longer had an elite offense.

So, how does this relate to the Bears? Well, the Bears' defense in 2005 and 2006 was as incredible as the Chiefs' offense was from 2002 to 2005. However, over the last two years, the defense has started to regress and they are no longer as elite as they once were.

The Bears have finally made the move everyone has been asking for—I just fear that they may be just a little too late.

Bold Prediction: The Phoenix Suns Will Make the Playoffs

Ari Horing — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:53:35 -0400

Remember, when it happens, that I said it right here: The Phoenix Suns will make the playoffs.

The Suns are currently three games back with six games left. So how is it that they are going to make the playoffs?

Well, the Suns luckily play the Mavericks on Sunday. If they can beat the Mavericks, they will be only two games back with five games left.

If you look at the remaining schedules between the Mavericks and Suns, you’ll see that the Mavericks' schedule is much harder. Besides the Hornets, the Suns' schedule is extremely easy.

The Suns play the Grizzlies twice, the Timberwolves, and the Warriors. On the other hand, besides the Timberwolves, the Mavericks' schedule is extremely hard. The Mavericks play the Hornets twice, the Rockets, and the Jazz.

If the Suns beat the Mavericks and their remaining opponents besides the Hornets, and the Mavericks go 3-3, they will be tied for the eighth spot. However, because they split the season series, the Suns will win the tie breaker because they have a better conference record. Suns: 26-20, Mavericks: 24-22.

However, my bold prediction is relying on the Suns to beat the Mavericks tomorrow. Tomorrow’s game very well could decide who makes the playoffs.

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com

Are the Greatest Players the Ones Who Were Most Dominant in Their Era or Not?

Ari Horing — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:19:29 -0400

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com

What truly makes someone the greatest player in his position or sport as a whole? As I was reading a fascinating article by Bryn Swartz, which claimed that Don Hutson, a wide receiver from the 1940s, was the greatest receiver in NFL history, I couldn’t help but wonder this exact question.

It seems to me that everyone has a different definition as to what makes someone the greatest player.

Even in the dictionary, the word "best" doesn’t have one definition, as it is defined as surpassing all others in excellence, achievement, or quality.

Therefore, are the greatest players the ones who were most dominant in their era or not?

Should Don Hutson really be considered better than Jerry Rice because he was more dominant in his era? Would Babe Ruth be considered the greatest baseball player of all time if he had played in the modern era?

The problem with saying that a player is the greatest of all time if he was the most dominant in his era, is that generally the rules, the training methods, the schedules, the strategies, and the pure physical abilities, in past eras were not as advanced as they are now.

In addition in many sports, African–American and Latino athletes were denied the right to play. How can Don Hutson actually be considered the greatest wide receiver of all time when, if he and Jerry Rice were able to be on the same field during their prime, Rice would clearly be better?

The truth is that in spite of Hutson’s dominant statistics few consider him to be the greatest ever at his position. But on the other hand, guys like Babe Ruth and Wilt Chamberlain are often mentioned as either the greatest in their position or sport.

It seems to me that it’s not fair to make that claim about Ruth or Chamberlain, but not consider Hutson to be the greatest. In reality, the only reason Ruth and Chamberlain are considered the greatest is because statistically, they are also two of the greatest.

The problem is that while Hutson’s run-heavy era and smaller schedule hurt his statistics, Chamberlain’s era, which was full of big man-friendly rules and shorter players, inflated his stats. In fact, the key was only 12 feet and was moved to 16 feet in 1965, in large part due to Chamberlain.

The offensive and defensive schemes weren’t as advanced as now, and frankly Chamberlain was much taller than everyone and exploited that. Also, during Chamberlain's early years, the NBA was fairly new to African Americans. The first African American had only broken the color barrier in the NBA in in 1950, and thus many potential great players weren’t even playing in the NBA.

As good as Chamberlain was, do you really think that he would be better than a player like Shaq in his prime?

Although the rules of baseball have not changed considerably since Ruth’s time, he played with some advantages as well. I have no doubt that playing in a strictly white-dominated era made it easier for him to be the greatest.

It seems as though we should either have all players who were most dominant in their era be considered the greatest, and not make exceptions, or have none of them.

Maybe we should just go by athletic ability and talent. The pure definition of the greatest player would be the one who is better than everyone else. If we were going by the pure definition, players like Ruth, Jim Brown, and Chamberlain wouldn’t be considered the greatest. As good as these players were, the players nowadays are frankly more talented.

However, there are two main problems with saying that the best player of all time isn’t the most dominant in his era

First of all, in reality we can’t compare eras. While it’s easier to assume that teams in the '60s are inferior to teams now, it’s not as easy to assume that the best teams in the '80s are worse than the teams right now.

Secondly, if we don’t base it on dominance in eras, then eventually as athletes inevitably get bigger and stronger, the greatest players of all time are going to be the ones who are playing or have recently played their sport, and the history of the game will be forgotten.

An easy solution to this problem would be for us not to try to name the greatest players of all time, but rather just of their eras. But of course that is not a real solution, because the arguments are inevitable.

We are all infatuated with the question of who is the greatest. And as we continue to argue it, unfortunately nobody will ever be right, and nobody, no matter how unintelligent their answer is, will ever be wrong. However, despite this and the fact that there are so many problems with this question, we are always going to keep asking it, because being the greatest is the ultimate goal of playing the game.

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com

Should We Really Have To Choose Between LeBron James and Dwyane Wade?

Ari Horing — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:53:27 -0400

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com

I have read numerous articles about the MVP race throughout the year and the two main candidates have generally been Kobe Bryant and LeBron James.

However, about a month ago, Dwayne Wade seemed to have entered the race with his stellar play and the Heat’s sudden rise. On the other hand Kobe seems to have left the race.

As good as Bryant has been, he is averaging less steals, points, assists, and is shooting a lower field goal percentage than both Wade and James.

He, himself, may not have done anything to lose the award, but by default he is no longer a true candidate because LeBron’s team, who’s surrounding talent is inferior to Kobe’s, actually has the best record in the NBA.

If a player is putting up worse stats, and doing less with more, than they clearly are not as deserving.

Wade on the other hand is a different story. He actually has better stats than LeBron in virtually every category besides rebounds.

However, even though his statistics are better, in order to give the MVP award to Wade you would have to believe that he is doing as good or better than LeBron would be doing with this same Heat team.

The Heat are currently 38-33, while the Cavaliers are 58-13. The problem is does anyone really think that the Cavaliers surrounding talent is 20 games better than Wade’s?

At first glance, the answer would appear to be no.

However, maybe we don’t give LeBron’s teammates enough credit. Despite LeBron’s .411 FGP and .257 three point percentage in last year’s playoffs, the Cavaliers took the NBA champion Celtics to seven games.

Not only that, but the Cavaliers made a key trade last year in the middle of the season and thus only had less than half a season to truly get together.

Also let’s not forget that the Cavaliers did well against the Celtics despite leBron’s poor play without All Star guard Moe Williams, who has been arguably the best off-season acquisition.

Maybe we get so caught up on focusing on the offensive side of basketball, that we truly under-appreciate the team defense being played by the Cavaliers.

The Cavaliers are averaging the least amount of points against this season, and who knows how they would be without LeBron.

However, since he is never injured, we never really get to see how the Cavaliers would be without him.

On the other hand, Wade’s team is truly only seven men deep, with three of those players all 22-years-old or younger. If Wade were to get injured, I don’t even want to imagine how bad the Heat would be without him.

Despite all of this, Wade has single-handily taken this team to its current position as the fifth seed in the East.

However, the dilemma we find in picking between the two is that we can never actually know how the Cavaliers would be without LeBron, or how the Heat would be with LeBron instead of Wade.

I still have not picked my winner yet, and I do not think it is fair for me to do so. These two players both truly deserve the award, and I would hate to see either one of them lose.

In other sports as in the NFL, ties have happened before, and I believe that this year should be the first year that there should be tie for the NBA MVP award.

Unfortunately most likely someone is going to have to lose.

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com

The Top NBA Five Teams in the Last 20 Years To Never Win a Title

Ari Horing — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:13:14 -0400

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com.

There have been many teams in history that, had they played in a different year, most likely would have won a title. However, due to the fact that these teams failed to win a championship, they will most likely be forgotten in history.

Below are the top five teams in the last 20 years that do not have a Larry O’Brien trophy to show for their great talent, but deserve to be recognized as the incredible teams that they were.

Note: A team that has a title to show for their talent, but didn’t win a title every year, (like the 2004 Lakers) aren’t allowed on this list.

5. 1996 Seattle SuperSonics

The 1996 Sonics went 64-18 to finish with the best record in the Western Conference. Their starting five of Shawn Kemp, Gary Payton, Detlef Schrempf, Hersey Hawkins, and Sam Perkins was one of the best starting fives never to win a title.

After going down 3-0 to the Chicago Bulls, the Sonics came roaring back to win two straight games and make the series stand at 3-2. Unfortunately, Michael Jordan’s Bulls would finish the series off in game six to win the title.

4. 1993 Phoenix Suns

The Suns, led by the MVP that year Charles Barkley, went 62-20 and finished with the best record in the NBA. This team had incredible depth with their top seven players averaged at least 11.8 points a game.

The 1993 NBA finals was an epic battle highlighted by the Suns' three-overtime win in game three against the Bulls. With the series likely to go seven games, John Paxson buried a three-pointer with 3.9 seconds left, giving the Bulls a 99-98 lead and eventually the victory.

3. 2000 Blazers

The 2000 Blazers were one of the deepest teams in NBA history. They went 59-23 and finished second in the Western conference. They had great outside shooters in Scottie Pippen, Damon Stoudamire, Steve Smith, Detlef Schrempf, Greg Anthony, and had great big men in Brian Grant, Rasheed Wallace, and Arvydas Sabonis.

Although, this team didn’t even make the NBA finals, I would argue that they were the closest team on this list to winning an NBA title, since the conference finals were essentially the finals in the early part of this decade.

The Blazers’ had the game in hand when the Los Angeles Lakers would go on a 15-0 run in the fourth quarter en route to the biggest game seven comeback in history.

2. 1998 Utah Jazz

The 1998 Jazz were one of the only teams to ever be favored against Michael Jordan’s Bulls in the '90s. The Jazz had one of the best combos in NBA history, with the current MVP that year in power forward Karl Malone and point guard John Stockton.

These two may not be the best 1-2 combo ever, but it would be hard to argue that they didn’t have the best chemistry. Jeff Hornacek was also not a bad third option himself. Although this team lacked depth on paper, every player performed his role precisely.

The Jazz went 62-20 that year and finished with the best record in the NBA. Yet, they would lose 4-2 in the NBA finals to the Chicago Bulls after Michael Jordan hit his legendary game winning shot.

1. 2003 Sacramento Kings

It’s debatable whether this team was better in 2002 or 2003, but 2003 was their best opportunity with the Lakers being knocked out by the Spurs in the second round. In 2003, the Kings went 59-23 and entered the playoffs as the No. 2 seed in the Western conference.

This team was one of most exciting teams to watch in NBA history, as they were known for their fast pace offense, incredible passing, and great chemistry. The Kings had everything you could ask for.

They had great outside shooters in Peja Stojakovic, Mike Bibby, Doug Christie, Bobby Jackson, Hedo Turkoglu, and Jim Jackson, and had two great passing post players in Chris Webber and Vlade Divac.

In the second round against the Mavericks, the Kings would lose Weber to a knee injury, ultimately allowing the Dallas Mavericks the seven-game series. Webber’s injury was essentially the beginning of the end of the exciting Kings teams and Webber's career was mostly ended due to the injury.

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com.

Stephon Marbury's Unselfish Play is a Good Sign of Things to Come

Ari Horing — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 05:07:01 -0400

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com

Has Marbury finally learned his lesson and realized he needs to be more of a team player?

Stephon Marbury has gone from being a supposedly selfish ballhog on the Knicks, to arguably the most pass-happy player on the Celtics.

In 31 minutes of action in their 112-108 victory over the Heat Wednesday night, as he filled-in for the injured Ray Allen in the starting lineup, Marbury only took three shots the entire game.

In a game against the Cavaliers a couple of weeks ago, his own teammates even had to yell at him from the bench to shoot the ball, as he passed the ball to Mikki Moore three consecutive times in one possession.

Marbury may not have his legs under him yet, and he’s not even close to where he should be physically, but mentally Marbury is as fresh as ever. Obviously one of the reasons Marbury isn’t shooting much is because his shot isn’t on, and he is still getting his rhythm back.

However, regardless of why, it’s a good sign of things to come because the old Marbury wouldn’t have been this patient.

On Wednesday, Marbury even showed that he can be effective without shooting the ball as he had five assists in the opening quarter and a block of Daequan Cook's jumper early in the second half.

"You can see it slowly coming," Rivers said about the play of Marbury.

"And I keep telling him the shot's going to be the last thing that comes. That's what frustrates him the most, he feels good, they're just not going in. He's really frustrated by that and we just tell him every day that it looks good, just keep doing what you're doing and eventually it will fall." he added.

When Marbury's shot does start falling, other teams better beware, because an unselfish Marbury combined with a good shot is just what the doctor ordered.

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com

An Open Letter to Josh McDaniels

Ari Horing — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:02:44 -0400

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com

Dear Josh McDaniels,

Who exactly do you think you are? You need to look in the mirror and realize that you're not Bill Belichick and frankly you’re just a rookie head coach who hasn’t proven a thing yet.

So you were the offensive coordinator for a great Patriots’ offense. So was Charlie Weiss, and I think we all know how he turned out. So you worked under arguably the greatest coach of all time in Bill Belichick. So did Romeo Crennel and Eric Mangini and we know how they turned out.

The truth is that there are only a few elite head coaches like Belichick that have earned the right to basically do whatever they want. I'm sorry for breaking the news to you like this, but unfortunately you are not one of them. Contrary to what you may believe, a franchise quarterback is much more valuable than a rookie head coach.

As Joe Montana proved by winning four Super Bowls with two different head coaches, it doesn't always matter who the head coach is. Jay Cutler, in only his third year last season, threw 25 touchdowns and made it to his first Pro Bowl.

Jay Cutler has the physical tools to be the next John Elway, but you foolishly wanted to trade him for a guy, who had one great year in arguably the best offense in the league. But regardless, as foolish as that was, that’s not what I’m upset about.

You would think that after the trade didn’t work out, you would have given Jay Cutler your support and full confidence in him being the franchise quarterback. But you didn't. It’s time for you to man up and tell Cutler that you want him to be your starting quarterback.

All Cutler wants to know is that you're behind him 100 percent and that he’s your guy. If you’re looking for someone else to be your guy and that’s why you haven’t ensured your confidence in him, than you’re hopeless. Contrary to what you may believe, franchise quarterbacks don’t grow on trees.

Maybe Matt Cassel’s surprise breakthrough has made you delusional, because I have no idea why else you would be treating Cutler the way you are. Now I'm not saying Cutler is completely innocent. In reality the NFL is a business and Cutler has been a little too sensitive. But regardless, that doesn't make it right for you to treat such a great quarterback in Cutler, the way you have been.

It's time for you to grow up and take care of the situation.

Sincerely,

Ari Horing

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com

The Top Five NBA Players: Overrated? Underrated? Or Just Plain Rated? You Decide

Ari Horing — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:54:55 -0400

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com

Have you ever noticed that while some people consider players to be overrated, others consider them to be underrated. The truth is that you can make a case for any player being overrated or underrated. Down below I’m going to show that even the best five players in the league can be considered both.

1. LeBron James

Underrated

Last year James finished fourth in the MVP voting even though statistically he had a very similar year to this year. His averages of around 28 points, seven rebounds, and seven assists have never consistently been reached by any other player in NBA history.

However, people have still found reasons to criticize him, whether it be because of his outside shooting, or his hesitancy to consistently drive hard to the lane. Arguably, no one has done more with less, and it is possible that he is underrated.

Overrated

LeBron James has showed in the past, by virtue of his .411 field-goal percentage and .257 three-point percentage in the playoffs last year, that he doesn’t always translate his great regular season stats into the playoffs. If he had played better last year in the playoffs, the Cavaliers most likely would have beaten the Celtics. If he is considered the best player in the NBA, than he needs to show up in the playoffs.

Verdict: Just Plain Rated

2. Kobe Bryant

Underrated

How is it that Kobe Bryant has only won one MVP award in his career (one less than Steve Nash)?

Even though his team has the best record in the NBA right now, he isn’t the favorite to win the MVP. Usually the best player on the best team wins the MVP award, but that seems unlikely to happen this year. He has virtually no physical flaws in his game, and he can pretty much do whatever he wants.

However, because there are so many fans that don’t like Kobe Bryant because of his cockiness and arrogance, in some ways he has become underrated.

Overrated

How is it possible that a player who has zero NBA Finals MVP’s is often compared to Michael Jordan, who has six? Many Lakers fans truly believe that he is as good as Jordan even though his stats, individual achievements, and team achievements are all inferior.

If he is considered one of the best closers and clutch players in the game, than why is it that he has shot under .405 percent in four out of his five Finals appearances. Even if he has no physical flaws in his game, he clearly has exhibited mental ones.

He often fails to be a true team leader (read Curt Schilling’s blog), and when things go badly like in the finals last year, he tends to disappear.

Verdict: Overrated

3. Dwyane Wade

Underrated

Do people forget just how good he was in the NBA playoffs four years ago? John Hollinger of ESPN ranked Wade’s Finals performance as the greatest ever.

Yet players like LeBron James and Kobe Bryant, who have not stepped up in the NBA Finals, are considered better. Wade has proven that he can lead a team to a title, while the other two haven’t yet (sorry, Shaq lead the Lakers, not Kobe).

He has been banged up the last couple years, and thus he started off this season under the radar. Now that Wade is healthy and playing like the old Wade, I would be scared to face him come playoff time.

Overrated

If he is put in the same category as James and Bryant, why is it that his team is only 35-29? Is LeBron's team really that much better than Wade's? You would think with teammates like Jermaine O’Neal, Dequan Cook, Michael Beasley, Mario Chalmers, and Udonis Haslem, that his team’s record would be better.

Verdict: Underrated

4. Chris Paul

Underrated

How has he disappeared from the MVP voting this year? He is having almost the exact same season statistically this year, and is easily the best point guard in the league. His team record may be worse, but it’s not his fault his bench has virtually disappeared and most of his teammates' numbers have dropped this year.

Overrated

Why is Chris Paul already getting compared to Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, and all the other great point guards in NBA history? He is only in his fourth season and the comparisons need to stop until he does something to earn it.

Verdict: Just Plain Rated

5. Dwight Howard

Underrated

Some people claim that he is overrated because he doesn’t have a polished offensive game yet. However, what truly makes Howard great is his ability to rebound and dominate defensively. He leads the league in blocks and rebounding, a feat that not many have accomplished. Howard may not have the offensive stats that Shaq had at a similar age, but his team’s record is just as good.

Overrated

For a player who is already supposedly taken over for Shaq as the league's most dominant player, he still has a lot of work to do. He still lacks a fundamental post game, and he doesn’t always demand the ball, as evidenced by his 12.5 attempts per game. Shaq at a similar age, averaged 29.3 PPG with a .599 FG percentage, but Howard only averages 20.9 PPG with a 57.2 FG percentage.

He always gets the attention when his team wins, but people tend to forget that his team is pretty good. Rashard Lewis, Hedo Turkoglu, Jameer Nelson/Rafer Alston, and his bench, are no slouches.

Verdict: Overrated

What do you think?

History against LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers

Ari Horing — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:22:57 -0400

For all those fans who actually believe that the Cavaliers can win the title this year, just realize that history is against them.

There are generally two ways a team can win a title.

The most obvious is the classic one-two punch used by Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen, Shaq and Kobe Bryant. In this scenario both star players need to be superstars.

The second classic is the three-man combo used by the L.A Lakers and Boston Celtics of the '80s, the San Antonio Spurs this decade, and most recently the Celtics last year.

In the three-man combo, not all three need to be superstars as you see with the Spurs' success this decade.

There is also the rare “team” championship, which the Detroit Pistons accomplished in 2004 and the Portland Trail Blazers would have pulled off in 2000 if not for blowing their fourth-quarter lead against the Lakers in Game Seven.

Besides the Houston Rockets in 1994 (thanks to Jordan’s retirement), no team has won a championship with one star in the last 30 years.

Sorry folks, Mo Williams is a very good player but he is not a legitimate star. Even if you think he is, remember that history shows us that a one-two combo can only win a championship if both players are superstars.

Now, I’m not saying that the Cavaliers don’t have good role players supporting LeBron James, because they have one of the best supporting casts in the league. However, the keyword is “supporting.” They are still missing that one other star to help LeBron.

The Cavaliers do have a great foundation to build upon for years to come, and James will most likely win a title eventually. However, Cavaliers fans need to lower the bar this year.

Cavaliers fans are basing their expectations off their great regular season record. In the NBA, certain teams can be built for the regular-season but not for the playoffs. One great player like LeBron can lead a team to a great regular-season record, but in the playoffs the team will ultimately fail.

The Cavaliers in a way remind me of Jordan’s 1989 Bulls, who lost in the Eastern Conference Finals, except with a little better supporting cast. Although Pippen was technically on the team at the time, in his second season he wasn’t close to being a star yet. If Michael Jordan, the greatest of all time, couldn’t do it by himself, how is LeBron going to able to?

It took Jordan seven playoff appearances until he had the team around him to win a championship. Right now LeBron has just clinched his fourthplayoff appearance, and I truthfully believe it will take him two or three more years before the Cavaliers are ready to host the Larry O’Brien trophy. (Don’t worry, LeBron James is going to re-sign with the Cavs).

After reading my article, Cavaliers fans are most likely going to accuse me of being a Celtics fan or an anti-Cavaliers fan. However, the truth is I’m just a writer who has respect for the history of the NBA.

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com

How One Bad Call Labeled Dirk Nowitzki a Choker

Ari Horing — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:13:35 -0400

Is Dirk Nowitzki really the so called “choker” some fans make him out to be? It seems as though every time I watch him play, he’ll hit some incredible fade-away in the clutch.

The reason he is considered a choker is directly related to the 2006 NBA Finals.

In game three of the 2006 NBA finals, against Miami, Nowitzki missed the game-tying free throw with three seconds left in the game.

After the game, Nowitzki was heavily criticized, and this was the start of people labeling him a choker.

However, in game five Nowitzki showed everyone that he is as clutch as you can get.

With 50 seconds left in regulation, Nowitzki would hit the game-tying shot right over Udonis Haslem.

Then with 12 seconds to go, Nowitzki would draw three players to him and find a wide-open Eric Dampier for the go ahead basket. After Wade sent the game into overtime, Nowitzki once again proved to be clutch.

With 10 seconds to go Nowitzki would hit a tough, baseline fade-away with Shaquille O’Neal right in his face to take the 100-99 lead. Unfortunately for Nowitzki, one of the worst calls in NBA finals history would stop him from being the hero.

Nine seconds left in the game. Wade gets the ball behind half court. He dribbles down the baseline, maneuvers past three guys, misses the layup—and that's the game. What a win for the Mavericks. The Mavericks can now finish the series off at home next week.

But wait, let's rewing that. That's not what actually happened.

There was a foul somehow called on the play. The referees dared not only to call a very questionable call in any circumstance, but they did so with two seconds left in the game. Wade would go on to hit his two free throws and win the game.

If that call wasn't made, the Mavericks would have won game five and likely gone on to win the series with two games remaining at home.

Nowitzki would have been named NBA finals MVP and the so called "choker," who can't carry a team, wouldn't exist.

However, we can't change what happened, but we can start appreciating Nowitzki for the winner he is.

Nowitzki may not be on the same level as LeBron James or Kobe Bryant, but he knows how to take over games.

Just to show you how clutch Nowitzki really is.

Here is a compilation of a few of the game winners he has had in his career.

And just to put some icing on the cake, here is one my favorite Nowitzki game winners.

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com

Was Signing Terrell Owens a Smart Move by the Buffalo Bills?

Ari Horing — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:38:23 -0500

Wide reciever Terrell Owens has agreed to a one-year, $6.5 million deal with the Buffalo Bills.

Out of all of Owens’s possible destinations that I heard about, I definitely don’t remember the Bills being one of the prime candidates.

I don't know if they offered him more money or there really weren't any other teams interested in him, but either way, he's suprisingly going to be on the Bills next season.

While this is probably a bad move by TO, is it a good move by the Bills? We all know about the negatives that Owens brings with him when joining a team, but is there any positives about this signing?

The Positives

The Bills aren’t the Raiders.

Owens is a unique type of player similar to Randy Moss. He just doesn’t mix well with losing. If he had signed with a team like the Raiders or the Lions, his situation would have been reminiscent of Moss’s tenure in Oakland, except even worse.

As much of a cancer as TO is sometimes, he never complains when the team wins. He would have fit better with higher level teams such as the Patriots or Steelers, but the Bills have just enough talent where it might work. Key word being “might.”

The Bills play in Buffalo.

Owens playing in big market cities such as Philly and Dallas clearly didn’t work. The Bills are a small market team and the less focus on their team, the less chance of Owens being a problem, and the less likely that a reporter in Buffalo is going to act like Ed Werder by stirring up the pot.

Not to mention, the attention the Bills are going to be getting from this will be good for the team in some ways.

The Bills are finally going to be more in the spotlight, the Owens Bills jersey is going to be a hot seller, and now the Bills are more likely to play in some prime time games.

Terrell Owens is still a great player

No matter what you want to say Owens' character, he is still one of the elite receivers in the league. No one ever questions his work ethic and heart. At least the Bills know that when Owens lines up on Sunday, he’s going to leave everything on the field.

Lee Evans is going to be even more of a deep threat.

Lee Evans is one of the best deep threat receivers in the NFL, and with the addition of Owens he is likely to be even better. Teams are still going to have to concentrate on TO, and Evans is going to benefit from it.

It’s only a one-year deal.

If this deal doesn’t work out, TO and the Bills can just part ways after the season.

The Bills have nothing to lose.

The Bills haven’t made the playoffs since 1999. They weren’t going to have much chance of winning a Super Bowl with who they had anyway. In reality, it obviously most likely won’t work out, but why not take the risk?

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com

Who Will Be The NFL Comeback Player Of The Year In 2009?

Ari Horing — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:31:37 -0500

Every year it seems as though that one or two NFL players make an incredible comeback that nobody saw coming. In the NFL this past year Chad Pennington won the comeback player of the year by leading the Dolphins to an 11-5 record.

But even so, the real comeback player of the year that sticks out in my mind was Kurt Warner, who arguably could have won the MVP award as well.

The comeback player of the year award is a special award, because it symbolizes that player’s determination to overcome challenging obstacles. In order to be a true comeback player, the player had to have come back from the dead to achieve greatness.

Here are the candidates for the next great comeback players of the year:

LaDainian Tomlinson-

In one year LT went from being the Charger’s franchise player, to a player on the trading block. LT is no longer considered an elite back anymore.

LT just wasn’t the same player this year as he averaged a career low of 3.8 ypc besides his rookie year. He didn’t seem to have the same quickness and burst he once had. However, to be fair he was banged up from the beginning of the season and running back do have occasional off years.

If you take a look Emmit Smith’s career, you would notice that in his eighth season he had an off year as he rushed for only 1074 yards.

However, Smith would go on to make the Pro Bowl the next two seasons. It will be LT’s ninth season next year, and whether he stays on the Chargers or not, he could surprise everyone.

Daunte Culpepper-

According to Reports, Culpepper’s former teammates say that Culpepper is going to be the starter next year.

Although he played bad for the Lions last year when he played, (which I can’t really blame him for) he physically looked good. It seems as though his knee injury is no longer an issue and if there is one player who wants to prove his doubters wrong, it is Culpepper.

Culpepper has been saying that all he needs is a chance to prove his doubters wrong, and it looks like he is going to get it next year.

Michael Vick-

If there was one player set up for this award, it would be Vick. My question is if he has a great season, should he even get the award?

Why should Vick in a sense be rewarded for being a criminal? I believe that Vick has already served his time, a long with losing countless other things, and it’s time for us to forgive him.

I personally believe that if Vick does end up on an NFL roster next year, he is going to have a great season. He is still an incredible talent and if there is one think I know for sure, he is going to be playing with a chip on his shoulder.

If Vick does play well after missing football for the last two years, it will be an inspirational story to me, but I can’t see PETA seeing it my way.

Marvin Harrison- I’m not convinced Marvin Harrison is done just yet. From watching him play last year, he still looks like he has something left in the tank.

I believe that one of the main reasons Harrison wasn’t as successful last year, is because, after being hurt for most of 2007, he wasn’t Manning’s favorite or even second option this past season.

WR Reggie Wayne, was clearly his first, and TE Dallas Clark was his second. Manning and Harrison didn’t seem to have the same chemistry they had for most of their career.

I can remember watching a game earlier this year where Manning missed a wide open Harrison because they weren’t on the same page. Harrison is still a free agent, but if I was a G.M, I would take the risk and sign him for the right price.

Who do you think is going to win the award?

Who Are the Real NBA Superstars?

Ari Horing — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 22:30:28 -0500

After Tracy McGrady was declared out for the season two weeks ago, the Rockets have not missed a beat without him. The Rockets are 6-1 without McGrady with wins over Cleveland, Portland, and Dallas.

This got me thinking about whether McGrady is a real superstar and who exactly are the real superstars in the NBA today? How exactly do we classify who is or isn’t one?

In my opinion, a real superstar is a player that not only puts up big numbers, but makes his teammates better. A superstars by himself has the ability to lift his team up to the next level.

Although, it’s not definite, the best way to tell who is a real superstar is by how their team plays without them.

Some players who we naturally assume to be superstars might not be. For example, is Kevin Garnett a real superstar at this stage in his career? I'm not saying the Celtics are better off without him. However, the Celtics are 14-4 without him since being acquired.

The greatest example for me of a player that was assumed to be a superstar because of his great scoring ability, was Kobe Bryant during the Lakers' three-peat?

During the Lakers' title runs when Kobe was injured, the Lakers' regular season record was 25-7 (.78%). Interestingly, the Lakers' entire regular-season record during their three-peat was 181-65 (.735%), which is a lower record than when Kobe wasn’t playing. The Lakers actually had a better record when Kobe wasn’t playing.

On the other hand, if you took Shaq off the Lakers during their title runs, the Lakers had a regular-season record of 12-11 (.5217%).

The truth is that MVP Kobe Bryant we see nowadays is a much better player. Kobe used to be a very one dimensional player, but has matured and now makes his teammates better.

Another great example of a player who has been previously assumed to be a superstar is Allen Iverson. Regardless of whether you believe Iverson was a superstar with the 76ers, if would be hard to argue that he has been once since he went to the Nuggets.

The Nuggets, who were knocked of the first round the three previous years before they had Iverson, were knocked out in the first round the last two years they had Iverson as well.

The Pistons had a 59-23 record last year and a 3-0 record before they traded for Iverson. Now with Iverson, the Pistons are much worse and currently have a 24-28 record with Iverson playing.

In the last two games with Iverson being injured, the Pistons not coincidentally beat two of the best teams the league in the Celtics and the Magic. What real Superstar wouldn’t make another team better if traded to them?

The greatest example of a player who became a superstar because of his ability to make his teammates better is Steve Nash. The year before Nash came to the Sun’s, they were 29-53 and Nash was nothing more than an all-star.

With the addition of Nash the Suns immediately became a championship contender, and Nash became a superstar.

The Suns are 6-17 in games when Nash hasn’t played since 2004-'05. When he was injured during his two MVP seasons, the Suns were clearly not the same team without him.

I’m not sure if Steve Nash would have won his two MVP’s if he had never gotten hurt during his first season on the Sun’s.

His absence showed people that he was the real superstar on the team, not Amare Stoudemire. I remember the media at the time promoting Steve Nash as the MVP for that very reason.

Speaking of Amare Stoudemire and Nash. With both of them out the last three games, Shaq has helped the Suns get two of their best wins of the season against the Blazers and Lakers while scoring 78 points combined in his last two games.

Does this prove that Nash and Stoudemire aren't Superstars right now?

I'm not sure whether it does or not because there are so many latent reasons for the Sun's recent success. The difference in the variation of touches and offensive scheme are all key factors for why the Sun's have been playing well. I think their absence more than anything else is showing that Shaq is still a Superstar.

When Shaq is getting the touches he has gotten in the last two games, he's proving once again that he is one of the elite players in the league.

In the NBA today, people often mistake players as superstars for their ability to put up big numbers. However, in reality, a player should be judged not by what his team does with him, but what his team would do without them.

To me the real superstars playing in the NBA today are Dwayne Wade, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, Tim Duncan, and Dirk Nowitzki. (If Shaq continues dominating, I may have to add him to this list)

If any of the players listed above, were to miss significant time, their teams would suffer tremendously.

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com

Did Kurt Warner Deserve to Be Benched So Many Times?

Ari Horing — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 04:27:29 -0500

Whenever the topic of whether Kurt Warner belongs in the Hall of fame comes up, the side opposing Warner always brings up the fact that Kurt Warner was benched four times in his career.

In this article, I’m going to address Warner’s benchings and show why not everything is what it seems to be.

In 2002, the year when Kurt Warner's drought began, he started the season 0-3 with seven interceptions before breaking a finger in his throwing hand in the beginning of the fourth game.

He did play poorly, but four of his interceptions did come against the future Super Bowl Champion Buccaneers, who were the No. 1 defense in the league.

Let's also not forget that Warner had just lost the Super Bowl the year before, and most Super Bowl losing teams, generally have "hangovers" the next season.

Eight out of the last 10 Super Bowl losers (not including the Cardinals) have failed to make the playoffs the following season.

Even with how poorly Warner had played, he still averaged 294 yards in those three games. He did return late in the season for a few games, but it was clear that his hand was still bothering him.

His benching was solely because of injury and not because of his play.

In 2003, Kurt Warner infamously fumbled the ball six times in the opening game, prompting Mike Martz to start Marc Bulger the next game and the rest of the season.

Although he did fumble the ball six times, he had a concussion six and half minutes into the game and should have been taken out in the first place. He didn't seem right the entire game and after hearing he had suffered a concussion, we all knew why.

Although Bulger had played well the year before, was it fair to bench Warner, who had a concussion and was less than two seasons removed from being an MVP?

In 2004, Kurt Warner signed with the Giants and led them to a 5-4 record, despite having poor pass protection and a weak receiving corps.

I will admit that Kurt Warner isn’t very mobile, as you should already know, and he needs at least average pass protection to be successful.

However, the Giants pass protection was plain awful. Every time Warner took a snap, it looked like he was going to be sacked.

In nine games, he was sacked 39 times, the most in his career, despite having the 28th least amount of pass attempts per game in the NFL.

At the time I remember reading an article in the middle of that season saying that Kurt Warner was the MVP for leading the worst team in football to a 5-2 record at the time.

Although Warner led the team to a respectable 5-4 record, the Giants knew they weren’t going to win a Super Bowl with their roster and thus Warner was benched for Eli Manning, who not surprisingly finished the season 1-6.

In 2005, Warner had trouble finding a team to start for and was forced to sign with the Arizona Cardinals.

Despite playing with a horrid offensive line and the last ranked run offense in the league, in 10 games Warner averaged 271.3 yard per game, which was third in the league, and recorded 11 touchdowns and nine interceptions.

In 2006, The Cardinals drafted Matt Leinart to be their quarterback of the future.

Kurt Warner was benched for Matt Leinart after four games, but to his defense the Cardinals offensive pass protection and running game was once again putrid, ranking 30th in the NFL in rushing yards a game.

In 2007, Matt Leinart played poorly early in the season with a 53.6 completion percentage, which led coach Whisenhunt to split the quarterback duties between Leinart and Warner.

During this time, Warner seemed to have regained some of his old form. After Leinart broke his collarbone and was put on IR, Warner would start the remaining games and finish the season with 27 touchdowns and 17 interceptions.

Did Warner really regain his old form or was there another reason for his success? The Cardinals added two new tackles and a center before the season and overall their pass protection was clearly improved.

Warner despite having a running game that was still ranked near the bottom of the league, was much better because of the pass protection.

2008 saw the rebirth of the former MVP Kurt Warner. If I had to attribute the main reason for this, it would have to be the Cardinals pass protection.

The Cardinals pass protection continued to improved in 2008, giving Kurt Warner the time to find arguably the best receiving core in football.

If you want to claim that Warner was playing in a system similar to the show on turf, I’d have to disagree.

Warner may have amassed 30 touchdowns and only 14 interceptions, but the Cardinals finished the 2008 season dead last in rushing yard per game.

For Warner to have had the season he had with the running game he had supporting him, it was quite remarkable.

I know that it may seem as though I am making excuses for Warner, but in reality, injuries and poor pass protection were the main reasons for his benchings.

The truth is that Warner never truly got the respect he deserved. Many people attributed most of his success to the Ram’s stellar offense.

Even after winning two MVPs, there were still many doubters out there. When he played poorly, people started wondering if maybe he is who they thought he was.

They didn’t look at why he was playing poorly or why he had got benched because of their self conscious doubt. It has finally taken until this year for Warner to truly get the respect he deserves.

Warner has come back from the dead twice and has proven his doubters wrong each time. People this season are finally starting to appreciate Warner as more than just an underdog story, as but a Hall of Fame football player.

Why Didn't the Cleveland Cavaliers Pull the Trigger To Get Shaq?

Ari Horing — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:21:17 -0500

If the only thing that stopped the Cavaliers from acquiring Shaq was replacing Ben Wallace in the trade with Wally Szczerbiak, then the Cavaliers let their fans down.

According to reports, the talks stalled when the Suns insisted on replacing Wallace with Szczerbiak.

Financially, keeping Wally made sense because his $13 million salary will expire after this season, while Wallace’s $14 million contract expires after the 2009-2010 season.

If they had replaced Wallace with Szerbiack, they would have had to pay Shaq's $21 million salary and Ben Wallace's salary next year.

The Cavaliers are also almost guaranteed to be paying luxury tax this summer. If they had traded Szczerbiak for lets say a non-expiring contract with a similar salary to Szczerbiak's, the Cavs would have had to pay around $13 million additional in luxury tax next summer.

Even so, Danny Ferry, the GM of the Cavaliers, had a chance to put a championship team together this year. Do you know how many GMs in the league wish they were one move away from a championship?

Just ask the GM on the other side of the deal, if he would have traded spots with Ferry.

Shaq is still arguably the second best center in the league this year, even if he isn’t what he used to be, and a team with Lebron and Shaq would have proven to be difficult to defend.

I don’t want to hear the whole "Shaq would have ruined the team's chemistry" nonsense. If you remember, Shaq had a secondary role to a very similar player to LeBron in Wade on Miami and in their fist year together they had the best record in the East.

Not to mention, the Cavaliers aren’t going to win a title with who they have right now. The Cavaliers may have a great regular season record, but I’m not buying the fact that they can actually win a championship this year. The Cavaliers remind me of the Hornets last year.

Just like the Hornets, they're a surprising great young team that revolves around one superstar. However, the Hornets, who finished with the second best record in the west last year, proved that regular season records aren’t everything,

There is no way the Cavaliers can beat both the Celtics and the Lakers in the playoffs, and that is most likely what they are going to have to do. Adding Shaq would have changed that.

I’m not sure if the Cavaliers ever really intended to trade for Shaq. People have been speculating all day that the Cavaliers were just trying to show LeBron that they're trying to win a championship to ensure they resign him in 2010.

According to CBS Sports, two rival GMs believed this exact thing.

"I think it was blowing smoke," one rival executive said.

"I think they're swinging for the fences, knowing that they're probably not going to get a pitch to hit," another Executive said. "Then LeBron sees that they're trying to do stuff. They're at the plate, but they'll take a walk before they swing at a pitch over their head."

However, Steve Kerr did throw them a pitch to hit. If the Cavaliers replace Wallace with Wally Szczerbiak, the deal is very likely to go through.

If the Cavaliers really wanted to ensure that LeBron was going to sign with the Cavaliers in 2010, opening up their wallet, adding Shaq, and winning a championship would have done just that.

Brought to you by TheSportingTruth.com

Shaquille O'Neal Going to the Cleveland Cavaliers?

Ari Horing — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:44:26 -0500

Is the Big Diesel about to be moved to the Cavaliers?

At first all of the signs were pointing to Amar'e Stoudemire being traded.

However, now that Terry Porter has been fired and Alvin Gentry, the former assistant of Mike D’Antoni, is the new head coach, the Suns are back to their fast-break offense.

Stoudemire clearly fits better in that system, which is evident by his 40-point outburst against the Clippers Wednesday night.

The person who now seems likely to be traded is Shaquille O’Neal. Originally I read two reports claiming that the Cavaliers have offered Shaq to the Suns for Ben Wallace and Sasha Pavlovic.

However, new reports are saying that the trade talks have stalled, because the Suns are pushing Cleveland to substitute Wally Szczerbiak for Ben Wallace.

If the Cavaliers pull this deal off, you might as well Fedex the Larry O’Brien Trophy to Quicken Loans Arena.

Tracy McGrady Done for the Year: Time To Replace Him with His Cousin

Ari Horing — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 02:00:51 -0500

According to reports, Tracy McGrady will undergo micro-fracture surgery on his left knee and miss the remainder of the season. If the Rockets don't make a move before the trade deadline, their season of potential promise will go to waste.

Reports earlier today claimed that the Rockets and the Nets had been discussing a trade earlier involving Vince Carter. With T-Mac out for the season, the Rockets need Carter if they want to salvage their season.

Although a deal reported earlier involved Mcgrady, reports are now saying that New Jersey is also discussing a Carter and Josh Boone for Ron Artest, Shane Battier, Luther Head and Carl Landry deal.

This very well could be the start of the end for T-Mac with the Rockets. T-Mac's career has always been injury plagued, but now people are starting to get fed up with him.

Earlier this year, Yao Ming showed his frustration with T-Mac's durability and I wouldn't be surprised to see McGrady gone next year. His $20 million plus contract will expire after next season and he will be a valuable trading piece next season.

T-Mac's career is looking grim right now. Injuries are starting to take a toll on him and it's looking likely that this career will always be filled with "what if'?"

Trading Tyson Chandler May Actually Be a Smart Move

Ari Horing — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:55:07 -0500

At first glance I was kind of surprised that the Hornets traded Tyson Chandler to the Thunder for Joe Smith and Chris Wilcox.

The Hornets may be underachieving this year, but are still a great team and have a bright future ahead of them.

However, Chandler is under-performing, he's making $10,950,000 this year, and his salary is set to go up next year and the year after.

By the numbers, the Hornets aren't really going to be losing much with the trade and if anything they will be adding more depth with the addition of veteran Joe Smith.

Here’s a break down of some key statistics.

Tyson Chandler 2008 statistics: 35.2 mpg, 11.8 rpg, 11.7

Tyson Chandler 2009 statistics: 31.1 mpg, 8.8 ppg, 8.3 rpg,

Chris Wilcox 2009 statistics: 19.4 mpg, 8.4 ppg, 5.3

Wilcox, in more than ten less minutes a game, is averaging almost as many points and three less rebounds than Chandler.

Also, the Hornets depth has really been hurting them this year and Joe Smith is a very underrated player.

If given the minutes and the ball, Smith can be a force on offense. At times last year when he was starting for the Bulls, he was arguably their best player.

There was a 10-game stretch last year when he was averaging 16.7 points and 7.3 rebounds, while shooting 51.4 percent.

Even if you think that the Hornets are going to miss Chandler, you can’t deny that he was getting overpaid. By trading for two players who have expiring contracts, the Hornets will be able to free up space under the salary cap.

"With this transaction, we accomplished some other objectives as well and were able to put ourselves in a position to have greater flexibility down the road, and to be in a situation where we have flexibility financially," Hornets GM Jeff Bower said. "But it was driven first by the decision that we need to get better, we need to improve."