Bleacher Report - Articles by Joon Song

Cleveland Browns Say Bye Bye Braylon Edwards, Hello ...

Joon Song — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:26:49 -0400

In response to Kendall’s piece titled “Cleveland Browns: How Did It Come to This?">Braylon Edwards and the Cleveland Browns: How Did It Come to This?” …

Kendall, I’m not a Browns fan, but I feel your pain. This is a classic conundrum. You’ve got an elite talent in Braylon Edwards who should be great and has been at times, but other than one monster breakout season in 2007 has been disappointing and frustrating.

Like others have said Braylon reminds me of Terrell Owens in terms of his mercurial ability and temperament—but minus the psychiatric baggage. In fact, Edwards is actually a more polished receiver.

The big difference, however, is that TO is a proven performer. He produces EVERY year so you tolerate his antics. Even in a down year like last season, TO delivered 1,052 yards and 10 touchdowns.

At this point Braylon isn’t a consistent producer and he drops way too many passes. Considering he has good hands and is capable of spectacular catches, this is particularly annoying. Moreover, I don’t like his on-field behavior.

I watched him play a few games last year and my lasting memories of him are all the drops and the public displays of being a bad teammate. Whenever quarterback Derek Anderson failed to connect with him, he’d bark and gesture animatedly in frustration and disgust.

Granted Anderson was frequently off target last season, but it’s not cool to trash your QB like that. Braylon needs to be more mature and deal with that stuff behind closed doors.

As I reflect on Chad Johnson last offseason—err, I mean Chad Ocho Cinco—the Bengals screwed up by not dealing him to the Washington Redskins for two first-round draft picks. That deal was actually on the table and Cincy rejected it.

Now nobody is offering that kind of value because Ocho Cinco’s public perception has taken more hits. According to ESPN’s John Clayton, the going rate for No. 85 now may be a first and a third. If I were the Skins, I wouldn’t make that deal now.

There’s no question that Braylon is still capable of fulfilling his huge potential and Browns fans will surely wince and grimace if he puts it all together elsewhere, but one must wonder at this point whether he’ll just tease you for the rest of his time in Cleveland and then bolt for big money in free agency anyway.

Sure Cleveland can place the franchise tag on him, but that only works if Edwards has another big year. Should he replicate 2008 in 2009, then you’re looking at a repeat of the Ocho Cinco situation where his value has diminished.

If Cleveland can get something in the ballpark of a first-and a second-round pick for Edwards, I think the Browns should move him.

Those picks should translate into two high-caliber starters and you shed the headache and heartache of No. 17.

Then the Browns could make a play for Texas Tech wideout Michael Crabtree in the upcoming draft. His stock seems to be sliding so the Browns might be able to trade down a bit, acquire another draft pick in the process, and then snag Crabtree to fill the wide receiver void.

He’s not as explosive as Edwards, but a lot more reliable and consistent. In the end, he might not turn the 8-yard slant into a 75-yard touchdown, but he’ll catch everything, keep the chains moving, and be a great red zone target because of his size and athletic ability. Browns fans will sleep a lot better at night knowing they won’t have to deal with the ups and downs of Edwards.

In basketball terms, Braylon is the kind of guy who may average 20 points per game, but he’ll give you 30 one night and 10 the next—or even worse, 35 then 5. But Crabtree is more likely to give you 20 points every game and, occasionally, will explode for 30 or more. Browns fans will be able to trust Crabtree a whole lot more.

Also, Crabtree’s makeup suggests he could step right in and produce significantly as a rookie. You can’t say that about a lot of rookie wideouts. And, of course, having a young stud like Crabtree softens the blow of losing a dynamic talent like Edwards.

All this being said, I don’t want Edwards dealt to the New York Giants or Philadelphia Eagles. As a Redskins fan, I don’t want to see him twice every year. Because when he’s good, he’s great.

Good luck, Kendall and Browns fans.

No Thanks, Jay Cutler, Redskins Should Stick with Jason Campbell

Joon Song — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 05:43:56 -0400

So Jay Cutler is now a Chicago Bear, and Jason Campbell is still a Washington Redskin.

Thank you, Chicago, for paying a ransom for crybaby Cutler. And thank you, Daniel Snyder, for having the sense to not out pay the Bears.

I don’t dispute the fact that Cutler is a talented quarterback who has achieved more statistical success in a shorter period of time and at a younger age than Campbell—but this was the wrong move at the wrong time.

Ultimately, Campbell may never become as good as Cutler. But for a change, as Redskins owner, Snyder must be patient, grow the team organically, and let everyone—fans included—reach a natural conclusion with some closure.

Both Campbell and Head Coach Jim Zorn must be given sufficient time to toil and either succeed or fail.

One year for Campbell in Zorn’s rookie offensive system is inadequate to measure Campbell. Really, he needs three full years with Zorn before we can confidently declare Campbell’s a bust, but neither he nor Zorn will be given that much leash because Snyder just doesn’t have that kind of patience.

But at a minimum, Campbell has to get a second year under his belt in this hybrid west coast offense developed by Zorn—and hopefully with an improved offensive line and more production from second-year receivers Devin Thomas, Malcolm Kelly, and Fred Davis.

While there’s a lot to blame on the Snyder front, I don’t blame management for not committing long-term to Campbell in terms of a new contract.

The jury is clearly out on whether No. 17 is a franchise quarterback worth investing many millions over the next half decade. Basically, if you make a mistake at the quarterback position, it takes 4-6 years for a team to recover.

The Detroit Lions are still spiraling downward following the Joey Harrington disaster. Even if they draft Matthew Stafford this year, it will take another three years to determine whether he’s the real deal or not.

Here’s what we learned about Campbell last yeear.

THE GOOD:

He proved he can protect the ball. His 1.19 interception percentage (only six picks in 506 pass attempts) was the best in the entire NFL.
His big arm has the potential to win games. Many NFL quarterbacks couldn’t complete the 67-yard beauty to Santana Moss which beat the New Orleans Saints in Week Two...certainly not Colt Brennan, who is beloved by many Redskins fans.

His mobility extends drives. On countless occasions, Campbell scrambled for long gains on third down, which turned would-be sacks into first downs.
He’s on the upward swing. Statistically and intangibly he improved in all phases of his game.
His poise and even-keeled demeanor. He seems to project a quiet balanced confidence that is well-suited for performing under pressure.

THE BAD:

He’s not an ideal fit for the west coast offense, which emphasizes quick reads and short passes. He’s better suited for a vertical passing system favored by the likes of Norv Turner and the Oakland Raiders.
He’s not a vocal or fiery leader, but this is overrated. Tom Brady isn’t either.
Thirteen touchdown passes in 506 pass attempts is paltry.
When the offense became stagnant, Campbell couldn’t carry the team on his own and too often he couldn’t ignite a spark. But few quarterbacks can succeed with faulty pass protection, limited receiving weapons, and a faltering running game. Again, look at Brady and the Super Bowl loss to the New York Giants in 2008. The Patriots offensive juggernaut was stymied for only 14 points by New York’s defense.
Supposedly he locks into receivers and doesn’t always make the best read—but without personal exposure to game film and study, I can’t comment authoritatively about this. Unfortunately, this is among the most important factors. World-class physical tools don’t mean a thing if you can’t translate athleticism into execution. Think Michael Vick.

So 2009 is Campbell’s make-or-break year...but Snyder nearly pulled the plug on this evaluation at the most critical juncture.

It’s hard to believe that a guy so smart in making money could be so dumb in running a football team.

He keeps making the same mistake—operating the Washington Redskins like a fantasy football team.

You can’t just pluck Cutler away from Mike Shanahan’s proven offensive system, stud receiver Brandon Marshall, and a better offensive line—then expect 4,500 yards, 25 touchdowns, and another Pro Bowl performance as a Redskin.

The way Zorn coordinated his offense last year, even Brady or Peyton Manning might not muster that type of production.

So I’m relieved that the Cutler saga is over and Redskins Nation can move forward to draw a conclusion on Campbell by year’s end.

Even if the result is another non-playoff season and Campbell demonstrates he’s not worth building a foundation upon, then the Redskins can cut ties with Campbell and the organization and fan base can move on.

Too often I’ve been frustrated by a lack of closure because the Redskins can’t plot and maintain a steady plan of action.

In 2002, Marty Schottenheimer got sacked after only one season as head coach and was replaced by Steve Spurrier.

Then, Spurrier abruptly resigned and Joe Gibbs returned to the sidelines in 2004. Patrick Ramsey was drafted in the first round, but never got a fair shake as the starting quarterback.

In 2008, Coach Gibbs prematurely called it quits...again.

And throughout the Snyder era, a ton of players have come and gone through the revolving doors at Redskins Park.

As a youngster, my first sports love was the Baltimore Orioles and first baseman Eddie Murray.

After years of disgust with owner Peter Angelos, my fondness for the Orioles eroded and now I only halfheartedly root for them.

My Redskins fervor eclipses anything I ever felt for the Orioles, but I hope that Snyder doesn’t drive me away like Angelos did.

Is Jason Campbell a franchise quarterback? Can he lead the Redskins to a Super Bowl?

Nobody knows right now, but let’s put Campbell in perspective with Brady.

Campbell’s 2008 performance is comparable to Brady’s first three years as New England’s starter in all passing measurables except for touchdowns and interceptions (Brady threw considerably more TDs and Campbell had half as many picks).

Maybe Campbell can also take his game to the next level in his fourth year as an NFL starter with more experience and continuity in the same offensive system.

Let’s also remember that Campbell led Auburn to an undefeated season (13-0) and a share of the national championship in college, so he’s no stranger to winning on the biggest stage.

I’m going all-in with Campbell. Whatever the outcome, I can live with putting all my chips at this time with him.

Hopefully we win the jackpot together. If not, then bring on the Brennan frenzy (or next disgruntled gunslinger) in 2010!

Is Albert Haynes-worth the Money?

Joon Song — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 05:29:14 -0500

Free agent defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth hit the NFL jackpot courtesy of the Washington Redskins and owner Daniel Snyder. But is he worth $100 million??

Before I break this down, I must admit I was shocked by the news—not that Haynesworth bagged the money, but that he landed in Washington. The Redskins seemingly weren’t in the running because of their awful salary-cap situation.

But give credit (for once) to Snyder, Vinny Cerrato, and salary cap guru Eric Schaffer. They targeted Haynesworth as one of their top two free agent priorities—resigning DeAngelo Hall being the other—and they executed all the necessary roster and contractual juggling to make it a reality.

I can already sense all the Snyder-haters/bashers foaming at the mouth, ready to blast him on the comment board. But before you do, hear me out.

So back to the question, is Big Al worth a staggering $100 mill?

Well, in a free-market economy determined by supply and demand, you are worth whatever somebody is willing to pay you.

So, from this perspective, Haynesworth is clearly worth nine figures because reports indicate that six actual suitors were bidding on his services upon the opening of free agency.

Unlike the numerous free agency debacles in the past that have become a painful signature of the Snyder-led Redskins era, this signing is different. Washington didn’t vastly overpay for Haynesworth and he’s not past his prime.

Albert was gonna hit the lottery somewhere and he picked Washington among similar offers.

So score one for Snyder and crew. No Lombardi trophies yet, but they wine and dine free agents with the best of ‘em. Once again, Washington cements its status as world champions of the NFL offseason.

Looking closer at the contract, the correct questions isn’t whether big 92 is worth $100 million, because he likely won’t see the final three years of the seven-year contract he inked last Friday.

According to ESPN’s Chris Mortensen, league sources told him “that a $29 million ‘poison pill’ in the fifth year of Haynesworth's contract effectively makes it a four-year deal worth $48 million.”

If this is true, I can live with that. The nature of free agency requires teams to overpay players. Keeping this reality in mind, acquiring arguably the NFL’s most dominant interior lineman at $12 million per season at the prime age of 27 isn’t so stomach turning.

Yes, it’s still a huge sum of money for one player when you’re more than one player away from being a Super Bowl contender, but Haynesworth’s addition dramatically changes the dynamic of the entire defensive roster and his ripple effect potentially makes every player on that side of the ball better.

So here’s the best-case scenario of the “Haynesworth Effect"...

Fellow defensive tackle Cornelius Griffin will no longer be the focus of double teams. Although he’s clearly not the force he was in 2004, his impact may rebound to those heights because most offensive lines will game-plan against Haynesworth and leave Griffinwith a one-on-one matchup.

Cornelius is probably salivating at this notion.

With Haynesworth and Griffin collapsing the pocket and mauling the interior of the offensive line, undersized pass rushers Jason Taylor and Andre Carter will also get to work one-on-one on the edges.

Prior to Haynesworth’s acquisition, many 'Skins fans were calling for all three of these veteran lineman to become salary cap casualties. Last season, this disappointing trio accounted for a paltry 8.5 total sacks.

By comparison, Haynesworth alone notched 8.5 sacks in 14 games.

Now all of a sudden, the three veteran deadweights are perceived to be valuable assets primed for big rebound seasons. With Haynesworth in the fold, a healthy Taylor and overlooked Carter could total the 15-25 sacks the Redskins envisioned last year when Taylor was acquired at the beginning of training camp.

You think the D-line is happy, what about middle linebacker London Fletcher?

Now that both guards and the center must concentrate on the tandem of Haynesworth and Griffin, Fletcher will have fewer steamrolling offensive linemen to contend with. As an undersized linebacker, this was Fletcher’s biggest weakness.

He could be erased by big physical blockers. With the improved d-line shielding him from the opposition o-line, Fletcher should be able to pursue ballcarriers more freely, resulting in more tackles and more stops near the line of scrimmage.

Next, the outside linebackers and secondary should be able to wreak havoc as blitzers since the d-line in general should be much improved in generating a pass rush.

And if the D-line is disrupting the quarterback enough on their own, then defensive coordinator Greg Blache won’t have to dial up as many blitzes as last year, which should improve the overall pass coverage.

Finally, the Haynesworth Effect will impact the bottom line of turnovers, which has long been a glaring deficiency for the Redskins defense. Under both Blache and previous defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, the 'Skins' D could keep Washington in the game, but they rarely could win the game.

And last season despite their impressive No. 4 rating in total yards allowed per game, the defense cracked at the end of games which resulted in four losses down the stretch and no playoffs.

If Washington can consistently pressure the quarterback, a dangerous ballhawk like Hall can intercept wayward passes and utilize his elite speed for big returns. The rest of the secondary will benefit in this regard as well and they won’t have to sustain coverage as long as in the past when quarterbacks had ample time to pick them apart.

So in theory and on paper—which, of course, is the annual caveat for all Redskins fans—next season looks very promising on the defensive front. But here’s the flipside and reality check...

Haynesworth is getting $41 million in guaranteed salary with the first $32 million coming in the first 13 months of the contract. Yikes!

He’s set for life. Phat Albert could become Fat Albert and within his first season, opposing offenses might realize that Haynesworth is on cruise control and doesn’t need to be double-teamed.

Then the ripple effect is moot and all those diminishing veterans who stunk last year will be stinky reminders of Snyder’s frequent free agent foolishness.

Remember Dana Stubblefield?

He’s the classic and cautionary case of a guy who peaks in the final year of a contract, then gets super rich as a coveted free agent, and ultimately spirals downward for the rest of his career.

In 1997 as a San Francisco49er, Stubblefield won the Defensive Player of the Year award after a very impressive 15-sack campaign.

Washington offered a truckload of money and the rest is infamous history. “Stubby” recorded a whopping seven total sacks in three disappointing seasons as a Redskin. Ugh!

Even if Haynesworth plays at a dominant level, it’s possible that all or some of the following will happen:

· Taylor proves he’s washed up and everyone—including Redskins management—realizes he should have been cut.

· Carter continues to be what he always has been...undersized and ineffective against above-average tackles.

· Griffin gets injured again and plays at less than full strength for the majority of the season.

· Fletcher’s age (34) and mileage (176 consecutive games played) finally catch up with him and his effectiveness deteriorates during the course of the season until the Skins must consider cutting him next offseason.

· Rocky McIntosh’s bum knees give out and everyone—including Redskins management—rue the day they passed on the Lance Briggs trade.

· Hall reverts to being a selfish and disruptive teammate, and stunts the progress of fellow cornerback Carlos Rogers. Then Shawn Springshelps the New England Patriots win the Super Bowl by playing both cornerback and safety at an All-Pro level.

Then there’s the possibility of the middle ground...Haynesworth plays well, but not dominant enough for fans to be satisfied with the massive $41 million guaranteed salary and the seven-year salary cap hit (despite the fact he gets cut halfway through this contract).

In this scenario, he joins the pantheon of Dan Wilkinson and Sean Gilbert as talented and expensive d-tackles who fell short of potential and expectations.

So the upside is that Haynesworth is entering the prime of his career and he apparently is focused on living up to the giant contract with talk of wanting to be mentioned in the same sentence as Hall of Famer Reggie White.

He has the potential of transforming a good Redskins defense into a great one.

But the downside is undeniable too. Let’s remember, Haynesworth wasn’t even the NFL Defensive Player of the Year last season. He finished fourth in voting behind Steelers linebacker James Harrison, Cowboys defensive end DeMarcus Ware, and Ravens safety Ed Reed.

Also, he hasn’t played in all 16 regular season games since his rookie season in 2002. Since then he’s only averaged 12.3 games per year—hardly the kind of durability you want from a guy you’re guaranteeing $41 million.

So will Haynesworth walk the talk?

“When I line up in front of somebody, put that helmet on, it’s to kick butt," Haynesworth confidently said. "It’s to make sure that guy knows that I’m the best player he played against.”

“After the game, you can think about the money. But during that game, I’m going to make sure he knows that I’m the best player. Any team that faces me, they’re going to have to worry about me.”

Frankly, I don’t know, but I think he’s worth the risk. While I don’t think he’s the caliber of the legendary Reggie White, his addition gives the Washington Redskins the hope of leapfrogging some of their rivals in the competitive NFC East and snatching a playoff berth.

Without Haynesworth in the picture, would the modest upgrade of a player like Chris Canty make a significant difference?

I doubt it. Sometimes adding one expensive great player is better than adding a few economical good ones. Now if only the 'Skins can do wonders with the scant four draft picks they have to plug holes in the offensive line and linebacking corps, and the offense makes dramatic strides in year two under head coach Jim Zorn...but that’s a separate article.

Open Mic: Do Golf and NASCAR Make the Cut?

Joon Song — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:45:06 -0400

What separates a “sport” from a “competition”? Who should be considered an “athlete”?

Following his heroic and gutsy championship performance at the 2008 U.S. Open, the respect, admiration, and legend of Tiger Woods has ballooned.

On the same weekend that Kobe Bryant shrunk in the spotlight of the NBA Finals, Tiger claimed a stranglehold on the title of best competitor in the sporting world. As a result, numerous commentaries have praised Tiger as the best athlete worldwide, too.

But hold up! Not so fast.

Although I’m a Tiger Woods fan, I'm stuck on the term "athlete." As far as competitors go, Tiger is a beast. He has few peers in terms of clutchness, mental toughness, and showing up large on the big stage.

But can he be compared to freakish athletes like LeBron James and Reggie Bush? Does Tiger stack up with the cream of the crop in terms of strength, speed, leaping ability, and overall athletic explosiveness?

I can’t answer that, because golf isn’t a medium that demonstrates or requires much athletic prowess—and I haven’t seen Tiger compete in any other sport.

I’ve played golf and the most strenuous aspect for me was toiling in the hot sun for four hours and lugging my own golf bag and clubs. I’ve endured more taxing afternoons of yardwork.

And professional golfers don’t even carry their own gear! With that alone, I disqualify golf as a sport. If the framework of a competition saves you sweat by employing another stiff to do the heavy lifting, then that event is not a sport. So, I do distinguish “sports” from “competitions.” Golf is a competition.

There’s no question that golf requires a great deal of skill, practice, and other sport-like qualities. But if you can be a premier competitor while possessing a modicum of athletic ability, then you are engaged in a competition, not a sport—and you are a competitor, not an athlete.

The John Dalys and Craig Stadlers of the world are hardly athletic specimens, yet they are major champions.

Let's get back to the question of Tiger as an athlete. He’s the LeBron James of golf, but that’s like claiming that I’m the LeBron James of bowling...which, by the way, is also not a sport.

Again, skill and practice are required to excel in this competition, but minimal physical exertion and athletic ability are expended. And frankly, bowling is just not that hard.

I bowl maybe once a year, if that, and my best score is 222—or something in that neighborhood. Because I bowl so infrequently, I can’t even remember exactly. And I pulled off this score during a holiday get-together with family when I hadn’t bowled in years. Enough said. That’s all the breath I’m wasting on bowling.

Billiards...same deal. A competition, not a sport. Case closed.

In my mind, it breaks down like this. To qualify as a sport, it must possess all of the following attributes:

1) Competition against other participants to win as an individual or team

2) Skill and physical training required to succeed

3) A combination of at least three athletic qualities such as strength, speed, quickness, leaping ability, hand-eye (or other body) coordination, agility, and stamina required to excel

4) Running or an alternative athletic/physical exertion (e.g. swimming, boxing, cycling)—beyond merely walking or sitting

Initially I thought I would have to create more exhaustive criteria, but the litmus test is actually quite simple and point No. 4 is often the definitive qualification. Thus golf, bowling, billiards, competitive eating, and poker do not qualify as sports. And, no, Takeru Kobayashi and Johnnie Chan are not athletes.

So what about NASCAR, which ranks as one of the most popular (supposed) sports?

Nope, not a sport.

Driving absurdly fast in tight quarters, while risking life and limb, is no doubt a skill. And the duration of races does require physical stamina. But the entire spectacle is done while seated.

Beyond hand-eye coordination and stamina, no athletic prowess is needed to be a successful driver. And driving for a long time is a borderline qualifier for physical exertion and it is hardly athletic. So NASCAR fails both requirements No. 3 and No. 4 as specified above.

Really, come on. NASCAR can be boiled down to the following eight words: Drive fast. Turn left. Go straight. Don’t die.

In conclusion, team sports such as basketball, football, baseball, hockey, and soccer are indeed sports. Tennis, track and field, and gymnastics also qualify as sports. However, curling, hunting/fishing, and professional video game playing are competitions, not sports.

And if you don’t compete in a sport, you are not an athlete. Sorry, Tiger!

O.J. Mayo: Point Guards Are Born, Not Made

Joon Song — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:27:45 -0400

Every frickin’ year leading up to the NBA Draft, I hear about some shooting guard’s prospects as a point guard at the pro level. Usually it’s because that shooting guard is somehow flawed from an NBA perspective and is ill-suited to play the 2-guard position.

And every frickin’ year when I hear this chatter, I just grumble because it’s an experiment likely doomed to fail.

More than any other position in basketball, the point guard is distinctive. It’s not just a matter of possessing the requisite skillset. It goes beyond ballhandling and passing ability.

Natural-born playmakers possess an uncanny feel for the game, otherworldly court vision, and an inherent desire and instinct to facilitate a team’s offense and involve teammates.

To say that point guards are born, not made—is not truly correct. But I would argue that the best point guards are not made, they naturally evolve. Steve Nash, Chris Paul, Jason Kidd, and Magic Johnson are all different, yet they are somehow cut from the same cloth.

They are driven to share the rock with teammates. They derive greater pleasure from dropping a dime, then scoring a bucket themselves.

This is a foreign concept to scorers. Thus, shooting guards are cut from a different mold and they operate with a different mentality.

So when people, even NBA executives, start dabbling with the notion that a guy who hasn’t played the point since he was the primary ballhandler in middle school or early high school—this simply because he was the best player on his team—will suddenly and miraculously transition to the point as a pro is ludicrous and downright stupid.

When hospitals evaluate medical school graduates and seek to fill a brain surgeon vacancy, do they consider heart specialists because they also have a steady hand and deal with a major organ?

Of course not. A brain surgeon and a heart surgeon may share a lot in common, but their function is intrinsically different. In the same way, point guards and shooting guards are backcourt mates, but they are a different breed.

So the discussion that sent me off the deep end this year was the noise about rookie O.J. Mayo playing the point alongside Dwyane Wade.

Personally, my annoyance isn’t particularly directed at Mayo. Frankly, I haven’t watched him play enough to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he isn’t going to succeed at the point as a pro. In general, my argument is aimed at past failed dalliances. But I’ll use Mayo as my case in point since he is currently relevant.

Apparently, O.J. Mayo claims he can and wants to play point guard in the NBA.

Wow!

If we relied on the self-proclamations of players, we’d have a thousand stiffs who are the “next Michael Jordan.” Kwame Brown laughingly stated that he would play like a “beast” again following his trade from the Washington Wizards to the Los Angeles Lakers in the summer of 2005. That’s hilarious!

So let’s look at the facts. Mayo finished his acclaimed prep career as a dominant shooting guard. Again last year as a frosh phenom at USC, Mayo played the 2.

I won’t even consider his high school stats. Someone of Mayo’s caliber is so overwhelmingly superior to his high school competition that his stats are inflated and potentially misleading.

The USC Trojans didn’t have a standout point guard this past season, yet Mayo didn’t take that lead role on a full-time basis. Yes, he led the Trojans with 3.3 assists per game, but that’s like a leading scorer averaging less than 10 points a game. WEAK!

According to DraftExpress.com, “For those wondering where self-proclaimed point guard Mayo would rank on the point guard’s list, his 3.6 assists per-40p would put him dead last by a decent margin.”

(By the way, I stumbled upon DraftExpress.com and won’t vouch for their reputation—but I will happily use their data to augment my argument.)

When you consider that Mayo averaged 3.5 turnovers per game (more turnovers than assists!), he’s got a hideous assist-to-turnover ratio of 0.93. By comparison, the best ratio in the NBA this past season was 5.38 by Jose Calderon of the Toronto Raptors. I tried to find the worst ratio for point guards, but I couldn’t locate that listing. It’s safe to say that Mayo would be at the bottom of the barrel.

Thanks, O.J.! You just saved me the labor of an exhaustive statistical and analytical breakdown of your flawed candidacy as a competent NBA point guard.

From what I’ve personally seen, he’s a talented combo guard. Clearly he can score and he makes some fancy, head-turning, highlight-worthy dishes. But so did Chris Webber and a lot of other NBA guys who never were confused with point guard material.

Even if Mayo makes a relatively successful transition to the point, I don’t think that necessarily bodes well for the Memphis Grizzlies or whoever ultimately secures his professional services. Teams who are led by crossover or hybrid point guards usually fall short of championship glory.

Allen Iverson is the best pseudo-point-guard of the current era, and his teams struggled because Iverson dominated the rock too much. Even though he managed very good assist numbers, his team’s offense bogged down because he shot the rock even more than he passed, and teammates tended to stand around and watch.

Look also at Steve Francis, another guy who convinced NBA execs that he could and should play the point. He was a fantasy stud, but he just dribbled way too much for nothing. By comparison, Nash and Paul dribble with purposeful intent to set up a score or playmaking opportunity. Francis dribbled for the sake of demonstrating his ballhandling ability and contemplating rather mechanically what to do next.

If I were a GM, I’d stay away from wanna-be point guards. Ultimately they get outshined by the naturals and the wanna-be’s team falls short.

That’s why I am so conflicted as a Washington Wizards fan. Gilbert Arenas is a dazzling player—when healthy. I enjoy watching him play. But coach Eddie Jordan’s motion offense stagnates a bit when Gil runs the point, because he’s one of those dreaded shoot-first, pass-second combo guards who dominates the ball too much.

There’s been a lot of chatter that the Wizards are actually better off without him. I’m not in that camp, but I do agree that the offense sometimes flows better without Arenas.

Getting back to the argument at hand, it’s truly puzzling to me why experienced NBA execs and talent evaluators repeatedly experiment with would-be point guards. But then again, every year teams take risks on raw, athletic big men hoping to hit the jackpot.

More often than not, we’re talking about crash-and-burn. I guess that’s another reason why “lottery pick” is so appropriate. Your odds of winning aren’t good.

Good luck, Memphis Grizzlies, Seattle Sonics, and Portland Trail Blazers. Each of you invested in an extremely talented combo guard with a lottery pick. Mayo, Russell Westbrook, and Jerryd Bayless are all freakish athletes, so they all can resort to playing the 2.

Let’s see how successful each is at the point. I’m guessing Westbrook has the best shot of succeeding as a true point guard. And I think Mayo is the worst fit. Having been selected third and fourth overall, they represent the greatest risk.

As the eleventh overall pick, Bayless was a relative steal. At worst, he can provide spot duty at the point and spend the majority of his time as an undersized, but explosive 2-guard.

When it comes to sandwiches, I usually pass on the mayo. As a point guard, I pass on Mayo, too.

Wizards Offseason: Do-or-Die Decisions for Washington

Joon Song — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:36:36 -0400

The Washington Wizards franchise is at another crossroads this offseason.

Back in the summer of 2005, the Wiz faced critical decisions regarding free agent guard Larry Hughes and suspended power forward Kwame Brown.

That fateful summer, President of Basketball Operations Ernie Grunfeld made the right calls by letting Hughes walk away with big money from the Cleveland Cavaliers and unloading Brown onto the Los Angeles Lakers for small forward Caron Butler. Neither were slam-dunk decisions at the time.

Hughes was coming off a career season, in which he averaged 22.0 points per game and led the NBA with 2.9 steals per contest. In addition, he stuffed the stat sheet with 6.3 rebounds and 4.7 assists per game.

Seemingly, Hughes was the perfect backcourt complement to All-Star running mate Gilbert Arenas. Both were combo guards with point guard skills who could take turns running the offense or looking for their own shot. They also swarmed on defense—taking risks, harassing opponents, and creating uncontested layups off turnovers.

But Hughes was commanding a max contract and he was injury prone. Also, Arenas was evolving into one of the best players in the league, and was soon to command his own long-term maximum deal.

Should the Wiz commit the franchise’s fortunes on two little men?

Would the combination of Hughes and Arenas lead Washington to the promised land?

I didn’t think it was wise to break the bank on two guards, but I didn’t want to see Hughes go. Seemingly he was on the cusp of greatness and I didn’t want to see another former Wizard/Bullet become a cornerstone star for a different franchise—like Richard Hamilton, Rasheed Wallace, Chris Webber, or Ben Wallace.

But the dollars were too rich, and Grunfeld wisely put his checkbook away.

The end result? Hughes was a bust in Cleveland and they moved him to Chicago to try to repair the mistake. In fairness to Hughes, his 20-year-old brother Justin succumbed to heart illness in May 2006, and I believe Hughes hasn’t recovered from that personal loss.

Then there was the Kwame Brown saga. Grunfeld inherited this tortured No. 1 overall draft pick from previous team president Michael Jordan. Although Kwame had shot himself in the foot by acting like a knucklehead and getting suspended during the playoffs, he still possessed the potential that had seduced MJ into drafting him first overall—and Kwame was merely 23 years old.

Although all signs pointed toward an exit, the Wizards had to exercise caution about jettisoning another prospect. Remember, Washington has a history of unloading young talent that thrives elsewhere, leaving egg on the faces of executives and angering fans of the franchise.

Once again, not only did Grunfeld make the right decision, but he fleeced the Lakers Mitch Kupchack, acquiring future All-Star Caron Butler in return for the underachieving Brown—which brings us to the current dilemma.

Butler is now entrenched as the Wizards’ future, and Washington must decide whether to retain the services of Arenas and free-agent forward Antawn Jamison.

If Arenas hadn’t had two surgeries on the same knee within a span of seven months, this would be a no-brainer. Although I have doubt whether Arenas is championship material, he unquestionably is the bread and butter of the organization.

Arenas is the face of the franchise, the biggest draw for ticket sales, tremendously active in the community—and you don’t have to worry about him getting fat and lazy with a massive contract. Gil’s got that persistent chip on his shoulder and he wants to prove everyone wrong, so he’s a relatively safe investment.

Unfortunately, he is damaged goods, and I’m concerned he could be the next Grant Hill. The Orlando Magic were supposed to contend for championship glory with Hill as the frontman, but instead he was a $93 million anchor for six painful, injury-riddled seasons of frustration. If the Wiz sink a boatload of money into a crippled Arenas, this ship is going down like the Titanic and the Wizards will be bottom-feeders for the next half decade.

Then there’s the Jamison matter. Antawn had his best campaign in Washington this past year, and helped the Wiz succeed even though Arenas missed 69 regular season games.

Jamison brings a lot more to the table than just his plethora of double-doubles (21.4 points and 10.2 boards a night, to be exact). His intangibles include leadership, a positive and stabilizing presence in the locker room, and a reputation as an all-around good guy.

Although I like the Jamison package as a whole, I’m not a fan of his game on the court. Defensively, he’s a liability. He plays like a small forward against 4s (not big and physical enough) and like a power forward against 3s (not agile and athletic enough).

Also, he’s a streaky perimeter shooter. It can be feast or famine for Jamison. And when it’s famine, he puts the Wizards in a hole. And when your best rebounder is launching bricks from beyond the arc, you’re missing his offensive rebounding presence as well.

So should the Wizards extend a bonanza of millions to a very good, but flawed third wheel?

Public indications are that Grunfeld will bite the bullet and attempt to re-sign both Arenas and Jamison. But that was the initial public stance in the summer of 2005 regarding Hughes and Brown—and neither was welcomed back.

And should the Wizards stand pat with this “Big Three,” and hope they can overcome Boston’s Three Kings or King James in Cleveland?

History suggests that Washington may have Boston’s number (the Wiz were 3-1 against the Celtics last year), but they don’t have a chance against the Cavs (three straight years of playoff futility against LeBron James and crew).

Or should Grunfeld break up the “DC Big Three,” and reload around Butler?

I think the Wizards are screwed either way. Washington ultimately won’t prevail over the “Boston Three Party,” and they are simply doomed against LeBron unless they can acquire a couple defensive stalwarts this offseason whose mission is to confound King James the way the Celtics stymied Kobe Bryant in the NBA Finals.

Considering the dead-ends on both fronts, the Wiz might as well keep the familiar trio in tact, shoot for a 50-win season, and host a first-round playoff series at home. This formula should avoid LeBron in the first round at least. After that, any advancement in the playoffs is gravy for the Wiz—because nobody expects anything more.

Stability in the 2008-2009 season is a key advantage, because so many playoff hopefuls are retooling this offseason. In the East, the perennial powerhouse Detroit Pistons are remaking both the coaching staff and roster. In the West, the Phoenix Suns and Dallas Mavericks both dumped winning coaches.

Unless Grunfeld can conjure some magic again, cutting ties with either or both Arenas and Jamison will set the Wizards backwards. Who can fill those players' shoes?

And frankly, the roster may not be the only problem. Eddie Jordan is a very good offensive coach, but Washington’s defense is notoriously below average. Until they solve the defensive inadequacies, they are just another pretender—not a true contender.

Since I don’t foresee any NBA championships in Washington anyway, I’d roll the dice with “Agent Zero” and enjoy his highlights and antics. Hibachi!

NBA Finals: Celtic Green is Kobe Bryant’s Kryptonite

Joon Song — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:13:48 -0400

Before the NBA Finals started, the Los Angeles Lakers looked like the favorite. They had steamrolled through the superior Western Conference and were led by the league MVP, Kobe Bryant.

Meanwhile, the Boston Celtics were pushed to seven games by both the inferior Atlanta Hawks and Cleveland Cavaliers, and failed to win their first road game until their 17th game of these playoffs.

Also, Boston’s “Big Three” was reduced to a duo, as Ray Allen shot from the perimeter as if he was Ray Charles. In the closing minutes of a game, the Celtics were further diminished to a solo act as the “Big Ticket” (Kevin Garnett) transformed into the “Big Houdini” and disappeared in crunch time.

But suddenly, the Celtics have rediscovered the form that propelled them to win a league-best 66 regular-season games. Garnett has steadily exposed Pau Gasol’s softness. Ray Allen is playing like Jesus Shuttlesworth again. And, of course, the world was introduced to the miraculous healing prowess of Paul Pierce.

The only thing he should have done differently in Game 1 after injuring his knee was to re-enter the game in the wheelchair and drill his pivotal two 3-pointers from a seated position. Now that would have been a comeback for the ages!

Most importantly, however, Boston’s mostly stellar defense (except the horrid first-half performance in Game 4) has clamped down on Bryant, who shot an anemic 33 percent (15-for-45) in Games 1 and 4.

Kryptonite renders Superman powerless, and the Celtics' defense throttles the lethalness of the self-nicknamed “Black Mamba” (by the way, bequeathing a nickname unto oneself is totally lame—but that’s a separate article).

So Kobe’s magical breakthrough season is on the verge of ending on a sour note. A Lakers championship surely would have garnered Kobe a Finals MVP award.

When added to the best record in the West, regular season MVP, and recent widespread praise as the best player in the world, KB24 would have triumphantly capped a nearly perfect season. But Boston has three chances to deliver the knockout blow, with two of the games occurring at home.

Can Kobe save the Lakers' season and deliver the championship that has eluded him since the acrimonious divorce from Shaquille O’Neal?

Only if Tim Donaghy was still refereeing.

(Just kidding!)

If he can, his legend would immediately be cemented. And Kobe could nickname himself “I am Legend.”

Personally, I’m not a Celtics fan, but I want Boston to win. I want KG, Ray Allen and Paul Pierce to break through this year. Kobe can wait.