All This Amazing Has Me Hoarse

Those of you who thought at the start of the series that Zaza Pachulia would be gracing the front page of ESPN.com, raise your hands. Those of you who thought that the Celtics would be the ones losing their cool, raise your hands. Those of you who thought that Joe Johnson could turn in a Kobe/Lebron fourth quarter, putting the team on his back and willing them to victory (complete with a beautiful Randolph Childress in the '95 ACC Tournament Final moment), raise your hands. Those of you who saw the Hawks coming back from spotting the Celtics a 16-3 lead to start the game and a 75-65 lead to start the fourth quarter, raise your hands. Those of you who thought that Philips Arena would become something along the lines of a raucous college gym (with nicer TV screens and more temperamental shot clocks), raise your hands. Those of you who thought that hundreds of Hawks fans would be chanting "Let's Go Hawks!," "Overrated!," and "Boston sucks!" on the escalators after the game, raise your hands. (Personally, I thought that both fan bases could bond over a "Yankees suck!" chant that would have the added benefit of our friends from Massachusetts not knowing that the joke was on them.) Those of you who thought that this series was going back to Boston 2-2 with Celtics fans likely wearing expressions of extreme constipation when their team takes the floor on Wednesday night, raise your hands.

OK, with that out of the way, here are some random thoughts:

1. Josh Smith has to be hearing a cash register with every big play he makes. His line from last night: 28 points, seven blocks, six rebounds, and one turnover. He played good defense on Kevin Garnett when called upon. He didn't take too many dumb shots, although he fell in love with the three a little much for my tastes and didn't hit from outside like he did on Saturday night. At this stage, the Hawks have to pay to keep him. Hopefully, with the interest generated by this playoff performance, money won't be an issue.

2. While the Hawks had a few terrific individual performances last night, they still don't run anything approaching a coherent offensive system. That works when Joe Johnson is absolutely unstoppable, but I'd like to see more movement and structure from this team. That said, you can't fault Mike Woodson last night for simply riding a hot hand. A lot of coaches would have screwed that up by complicating was was a very simple situation: Boston could not guard our best player, so our best player should get the ball on every possession.

3. The Celtics hit 12 of 23 from behind the arc. I can't say I ever thought that the Hawks could win a game against Boston in which the Celtics were so hot from outside.

4. I cannot escape the '91 Braves vibe from this Hawks team. While the '91 Braves were excellent for four months and this Hawks team has been excellent for exactly three days, there are a number of parallels the deserve mentioning. Both teams were very young teams that had been built patiently. Both teams broke nine-year playoff droughts. Both teams energized previously moribund fan bases. That last point is where the analogy works the best. Philips Arena was always a fun place to watch a game because the facility is so nice and NBA basketball is really impressive in person, but the Hawks never generated much excitement in the crowd. All of a sudden, the crowds have gone from 0 to 60. The noise is intense, people are standing and screaming from start to finish, and the opponents seem legitimately rattled by the experience. All we need is the Tomahawk Squawk to bring it all together.

5. Another historical analogy: the Hawks and Celtics played an epic, seven-game series 20 years ago that started with two wins in Boston by the home team, followed by two wins by the Hawks at home. The Hawks then stole game five at the Garden before suffering heart-breaking losses in games six and seven. The game seven loss is famous for the scoring duel between Dominique and Larry Bird, but game six was the real killer. The Hawks had a chance to close the Celtics out at home, but lost after falling behind early and spending the whole game trying to dig out of the hole. Cliff Levingston missed a running one-hander on the Hawks' final possession that would have tied the game. The team responded to the "close, but no cigar" moment with the acquisitions of Reggie Theus and Moses Malone, neither of whom lived up to their reputations in Atlanta. The '89 Hawks lost in the first round to Milwaukee and spent the next several years in the wilderness. Hopefully, the downward trajectory from the '88 Boston series isn't repeated this time around. The fact that I'm invoking a tight seven-game series between two good teams is evidence enough that these Hawks have taken a significant leap in the past three days.

Three Final Thoughts on Matt Ryan

1. By drafting Ryan, the Falcons are falling back into the exact same trap they faced with Mike Vick. With Vick, the Falcons faced the problem that they had committed a huge amount of money, including an enormous signing bonus, to a player who produced decent, but not outstanding results. The team was paying Vick to be Brady or Manning, but he was far short of that level. The Falcons could only win with Vick if they surrounded him with great talent, but Vick's cap number, combined with less than stellar drafting from Rich McKay, prevented that possibility.

With Ryan, the Falcons are going to pay an arm and a leg for a quarterback who will almost certainly not produce initially (rookie quarterbacks so rarely do) and whose upside is almost certainly not Brady/Peyton Manning and very likely isn't Roethlisberger/Eli Manning. Even if Ryan turns into a pretty good quarterback, he's going to be paid like a star, which means the Falcons are right back at square one. And that analysis ignores the opportunity cost involved with passing on an excellent defensive tackle to take a decent quarterback.

2. Ryan is not coming into a good situation with the Falcons. Leaving aside the mediocre receiving corps and substandard offensive line, Falcons fans are not happy with the drafting of Ryan. Speaking in broad stereotypes (always a recipe for disaster), the Falcons' fan base is primarily composed of two groups. The first group are African-Americans, some of whom still like Mike Vick and most of whom are well aware of the racial coding that goes on when the media slobbers all over Ryan for being a "leader" and "polished." They aren't going to be overly excited for a great white hope, given the circumstances. The second group are college football fanatics who view Falcons games as dessert after the main course on Saturday. (I would put myself in this group. I would also assert that there isn't tremendous overlap between group one and group two because college football unfortunately tends to be a white sport, especially in the South. I digress.) Southern college football fans, almost universally, view Ryan as an average college quarterback who has been hyped beyond his merits because he played in the Northeast. This group is also not happy with the Ryan selection.

Whereas most top five picks are greeted with unabashed, oft-irrational enthusiasm by the fans of the teams that draft them, Ryan is not going to get the same love in Atlanta. Atlanta fans tend to be a lot more positive and forgiving than, say, Philly fans, but the particulars of Ryan's drafting mean that he is going face an especially empathetic fan base. This is why the purported rationale of the Falcons to take Ryan for marketing purposes is so weak. I am promising myself that I am going to root for Ryan, even if his success will mean that I will be spectacularly wrong about the decision to pick him, but my leash will be short. OK, that's a bad choice of words when discussing a Falcons QB.

3. Steak Shapiro was, as one could expect, insufferable this morning when discussing the Ryan pick. He was totally dismissive of the idea that Arthur Blank had anything to do with the selection, even while admitting that Blank wanted the Falcons to take Ryan. Gee, if the managing partner of my firm didn't order me to take a particular course in a case, but expressed an opinion that I should do something, do you think I might do it? Steak then naturally started his defense of the Ryan selection with the subjective analysis that most support of Ryan takes. He cited his "leadership," as if players are going to follow a young quarterback if that quarterback doesn't produce on the field. For the cherry on top of the sundae, Steak was mortified when a caller compared the pick to David Carr and pointed out that Ryan just wasn't that good in college. His two defenses:

a. Ryan's 67% completion percentage. For the record, Steak, Ryan completed 59.3% of his passes last year, not that it's your job to know about sports or anything. Maybe you picked the wrong name for the bar your station partnered.

b. Ryan played well against Georgia Tech. So did Sean Glennon (22/32, 296 yards, 9.3yards per attempt, 2 TDs, no picks) and I'm not going out on a limb by saying that Glennon isn't going to be a top five pick in the Draft any time soon. Ryan was poor for 115 of the 120 minutes he played against Virginia Tech and just about the entire game against Florida State. I would say that he ran up his numbers against bad teams, but he was mediocre against N.C. State and UMass. I guess BC's receivers must have been so bad that they couldn't get open against the Minutemen.

Amazing Happened

I was all ready to proclaim yesterday as Black Saturday for the Atlanta pro sports teams. The Falcons did what we all feared they would do, picking a guy (Matt Ryan) to be the "face of the franchise" as opposed to a guy (Glenn Dorsey) who would accomplish that oh-so conventional goal of making the team better. The Braves dropped to 0-1,000,000 in one-run games with a loss to the Mets. All that was necessary to complete the trifecta was the Celtics walking over the Hawks in the local basketball collective's first home game in nine years. How many times have we ever got to say that the Hawks were the saving grace of the local teams?

It will be hard for me to put into words how fantastic last night was. Philips Arena was packed and the number of Celtics fans was not excessive. There were plenty of specks of green in the arena, but the crowd was at least 90% Hawks fans. This was not the NLDS against the Cubs. The crowd was into the game from the word go. It was, if you'll excuse me an incredibly obvious cliche, a true playoff atmosphere. The crowd was egging on the players and vice versa. After the game, fans were spontaneously screaming and chanting on the concourses and escalators as they were leaving the game. Since when did Hawks fans cheer without being told to do so by Ryan Cameron? Indigenous excitement? This was a proud night for Atlanta sports fans.

Of course, it helps to have a great performance from the team. In that respect, we have to start by showering praise on Josh Smith. Last night was his "Hello, America" moment. I suspect that most casual NBA fans around the country have seen Smith in the dunk contest in Denver, on game highlights, and maybe in a game against their favorite team. On a national stage for one of the first times, Smith played his best game in a Hawks uniform. He poured in 27 points, including five momentum-generating dunks and three three-pointers. If Smith shot like that from the outside on a consistent basis, he'd be one of the top 15 players in the league. Then again, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Al Horford also deserves mention for his performance last night. His line of 17 points and 14 rebounds doesn't quite do justice to his performance. He battled gamely inside and gave the Hawks an inside presence that they desperately needed. He worked successfully with Josh Smith to fire up the crowd, culminating his performance with a clinching jumper and taunting of a fallen Paul Pierce. OK, I probably shouldn't be endorsing the provocation of a 67-win team, but this Hawks team is young and needs the confidence that Horford's bravado generates. What's the worst that happens from Horford letting Pierce know that he had just stuck in the dagger? The Celtics win in five, one more game than anyone thought before the series?

Collectively, the Hawks' offensive performance was so much better from the first two games that it was hard to believe that this was the same team. It's fine to be fired up and egged on by an emotional crowd, but that doesn't necessarily lead to sharing the basketball. Last night, the Hawks' movement and passing was light years better than the team showed in the games in Boston. How about 28 assists one game after having 10? Mike Bibby deserves some credit here. His scoring is still suffering, but he had five assists in the first quarter to set the tone. All of the Hawks' starters except for Marvin Williams had six or more assists. If the team played like this on a consistent basis, they would be a contender in the East. If my aunt...

All in all, I've been to a lot of Hawks games at Philips Arena and last night was easily the best experience I've had. From the crowd to the team, it could not have been any better. I know I'm being repetitive on this point, but I can't wipe away the feelings of surprise, pride, and excitement the morning after. For one night, I got a peek at what the Hawks can be and I really liked it. When was the last time I had occasion to write a sentence like that? For a night, all the potential of this team that I've hoped for came flowing out. Even better, all the potential of this city as a basketball hotbed came flowing out.

You've Got a Lotta Nerve

It takes a lot of gall to park the best roster in Europe in front of their own goal for 90 minutes, especially against an opponent with a highly vulnerable defense, and then claim that you're going to attack in the second leg at home. Didn't you promise some attacking football in the first leg before deploying the first-choice strikers for England and Argentina as defensive wingbacks? Are you aware that no one can take you seriously anymore?

The Working Man's Liveblog

Anthems, starting lineups, major goosebumps. I've dreaded this match-up for weeks because of Barca's form, but I'm a sucker for my teams and now I'm amped...five hours after the game started and thousands of miles away. The Nou Camp, which isn't noted for being especially loud, is absolutely rocking. The fans are really getting behind their struggling team.

Barca's big surprise is Deco in the starting lineup. He has barely been seen in the past several months. He made a sudden return against Real Madrid in December and did not play well. United have an attacking lineup, with Rooney, Tevez, and Ronaldo all on from the start.

2 min. Well that was an eventful start. Barca give the ball away from the kickoff, they give up a free kick, then a corner, then a penalty. Milito, Barca's best defender, lets Ronaldo get his head to the ball and then handles it. A smidge of a harsh call, but not entirely unjust. Ronaldo then misses the frame on the penalty.

10 min. - Barca have dominated since Ronaldo's let-off. They force several corners and Messi is buzzing.

12 min. Van der Sar gives the ball away, Barca come in three on two, but Eto'o's pass is a little off. Get that out of your system before the summer, Edwin.

14. min. More pressure from Barca. Marquez hits a free kick into the wall, then Messi creates more pressure. Messi is all over the place, definitely not sticking to the right wing. Tim Vickery would be pleased.

16 min. It just occurred to me that the Nou Camp crowd have plenty of experience whistling a visiting side wearing all white.

18 min. Toure is bossing it in the middle. Barca are a much better team with a proper defensive midfielder.

21 min. Odds that Paul Scholes will get a card in this match fouling Messi: 78%.

24 min. Ronaldo is off his game since the penalty miss. His contribution since then have been a series of dives, a lot of complaining, one dust-up with Valdes, and an instance where he dribbled the ball off his ankles.

28 min. Iniesta frees Ronaldo with a dreadful pass, but Ronaldo takes a swan dive in the box and nothing comes of it. I can see why everyone in the EPL hates Cristiano.

31 min. Barca have had the lionshare of the possession and corners, but United have had the better chances. A familiar refrain for Barca. Barca have come close to hooking up in the box with passes, but nothing to test van der Sar.

32 min. I'm a little perplexed by Sir Alex starting both Tevez and Rooney and then giving them defensive duties on the wings. Is this for counter-attacking purposes? Is Sir Alex really that much of a skirt on the road...or is this exactly the strategy that always works against Barca at home? Can I really begrudge Sir Alex for doing what works?

35 min. Hargreaves has had the measure of Iniesta on the left. Is that Bojan's music coming on the hour?

40 min. Marquez, whom I worried would be the weak link when I saw him in the starting lineup in Puyol's place, has been very solid so far, as have both of the United centerbacks. Who makes the mistake first: Marquez or Wes Brown?

44 min. Wing free kick for United. I am very fearful. Ronaldo elects to shoot instead of sending in a cross to a surely unmarked attacker (going on Barca's recent marking on set pieces). Thank you, Cristiano.

Halftime - Janusz Michalik is exactly right at the half: Sir Alex has his tactics right and is waiting for Barca to futilely attack ten behind the ball before his team counters.

47 min. Xavi undresses Scholes in the middle, but the attack fizzles out in the final third. So much skill and yet no clear chances. As soon as I say that, Eto'o gets free in the box, but his pass cannot find Messi in front. Good defending by Hargreaves and Messi should have done more to free himself.

51 min. There was Eto'o's chance. Free on the right of goal and he shot into the side netting. Messi and Iniesta made sweet love on a pair of passes to free Eto'o. Iniesta's touch was especially sublime. We may not be able to beat anyone in the Primera, but dammit, English champions-elect, we have more touch than you.

52 min. Marquez makes the mistake that we all feared, completely whiffing as Carrick goes right by him and into a one-on-one with Valdes, which he hammers into the side netting with free men at the far post. A big let-off for Barca. We survived the big Marquez mistake. Wes Brown, you're up.

61 min. Messi off, Krkic on. Not a bad move. Best to save Messi. I thought that Krkic would come on for Iniesta, but Henry might be tagged for that slot on the left. Thierry is warming up.

68 min. I can't remember the last time United had possession in the Barca half. That said, Barca have been reduced to toothless efforts from outside in the last ten minutes.

74 min. I thought that EPL sides were big on pressing. They've really conceded possession to Barca, even moreso in the second half.

81 min. The game is petering out a little, most likely before a final flourish.

87 min. United have played as if Ronaldo hit the target in the first minute. I'll never listen to Sir Alex or United fans talk about their commitment to attacking or atractive football. At least Chelsea have scored when they came to the Nou Camp.

Full time. I'm not sure how I feel about this. 0-0 is not a bad result at home, especially with Barca struggling at present and United facing a tough match this weekend...where they'll probably play like pu**ies again. Barca having a ton of possession and not scoring is an old song this season.

The 2006 Good Luck Charm Returns

And G-d knows we need it this year.

Four keys to the game for Barca:

1. They absolutely, positively cannot get caught forward with too many players committed to attack. This has been their downfall for two years in home games and it will play right into Manchester United's counter-attacking style. If you see Barca leaving only its central defenders back when in possession of the ball or you see four-on-fours, then the Red Devils are on their way to Moscow.

2. Samuel Eto'o has to shoot the ball accurately when he gets chances. Eto'o is not a great finisher, despite being an excellent striker overall. He will get one or two clear chances tomorrow night and he has to bury them. Conversely, Wayne Rooney can be similarly profligate in front of goal, so Barca have to hope that he misses when he gets a clear sight of the net.

3. Yaya Toure's back has to be healthy. One of the major differences between the solid Barca of the first half of the year and the suspect team of the second half has been Toure's back injury and resulting weakness in defensive midfield. Xavi and Iniesta have played fairly well in the last several weeks, but they need proper support behind them in order to properly boss the game.

4. With Carles Puyol suspended after getting two yellow cards in the Schalke ties (the yellow in the first leg was a bizarre decision by the ref that Puyol was time-wasting), Lilian Thuram will likely play in the center of defense. Thuram is in the "I play well once every three games" stage of his career, not unlike Zidane at the end of his career. This game has to be the one out of every three for Thuram. If Barca get the player who was an absolute pillar in the 2006 World Cup, then they have a chance. If not, then Rooney and Ronaldo are going to have their chances.

Work permitting, there will be a pseudo-live blog tomorrow night when I watch a recording of the game.

Liverpool-Chelsea Thoughts

That was about the match that we expected...until 90 minutes. A minimal number of chances, a scrappy goal from Liverpool in front of the Kop that had a whiff of offsides and the overpowering stench of good fortune, and then a 1-0 scoreline for the 'Pool to take to Stamford Bridge, where they've never scored under Rafa Benitez. The script completely changed in injury time when a seemingly harmless cross to the middle was turned by John Arne Riise into his own net. Liverpool live on very small margins because of their style, so they put themselves into the situation where one bad move can cost them dearly. I'm tickled by the idea of the Reds having to go on the road in Europe and, gasp, attack. I was also tickled that Chelsea got their goal as the 'Pool fans were singing "You'll Never Walk Alone." The Chelsea support, incidentally, looked almost embarrassed to cheer for the goal. Either that or they were terrified of being on the receiving end of flying poo.

To properly convey the quality (or lack thereof) of the match, here are some choice cuts from the Guardian's minute-by-minute report:

4 min - A Liverpool throw-in, deep in their own half. The ball is flung up the touchline, Terry hoofs it up in the air and a game of head-tennis ensues. "It's going to be very, very tight and congested in that midfield," says Jim Beglin in the ITV commentary box, prompting Clive Tyldesley to go off on one about how effective games like this are for curing insomnia. When an enthusiast like Tyldesley can't even be bothered to try selling a match, you know you're in trouble.

37 min - This is predictably grim fare.

GOAL! Liverpool 1-0 Chelsea (Kuyt 40) A shocking, comical attempt at a clearance from Claude Makelele allows Kuyt to squeeze in behind him, latch on to a Mascherano miskick and smash the ball through Petr Cech's legs at the near post from about three yards out.

It was the scrappiest, messiest goal you'll ever see...

54 min: "Barry, to update your statistics, Liverpool and Chelsea have now played 615 minutes of Footie and scored an incredible four goals, dropping the minutes-per-goal stat to a jaw-dropping 153.75 from 190," writes Satyajit Mujumdar. "This is exciting stuff."

64 min: Ballack, Drogba and Lampard are all looking a little ring-rusty tonight, which is hardly surprising considering they've missed a lot of training for various reasons in recent weeks. Frank Lampard incurs the derision of the Kop when, running on to a Drogba pull-back from the edge of the six-yard box, his leaden-footed touch thumps the ball into an advertising hoarding.

86 min: A corner kick for Liverpool after Fernando Torres beat the Chelsea offside trap to latch on to a Steven Gerrard pass from the centre-circle. With 40 yards to the goal and only Petr Cech to beat, Torres miscontrols the ball and leaves it behind him.

Assorted observations on the match that will hopefully omit the adjectives "grim" or "dour":

1. Claude Makelele showed his age in the game. He was beaten by Kujt for the Liverpool goal and he was beaten by Gerrard for Liverpool's best chance in the second half. Chelsea is obviously better with Essien as the midfield anchor, so give another advantage to the Blues in the second leg if he is healthy (or even if they play John Obi Mikel in that role).

2. Avram Grant has been underwhelming as the Chelsea boss and he certainly can't claim to have made any tactical changes to get a draw tonight, but he has done a better job than the Special One of creating conditions for Frank Lampard and Michael Ballack to play together. Ballack and Lampard linked up very nicely to set up Florent Malouda for Chelsea's best chance in the second half and they've been connecting on free kicks with frequency in the Champions League.

3. Petr Cech is a terrific keeper. No ifs, ands or buts about it. His save on Gerrard was outstanding and he made two big saves on Fernando Torres on either side of halftime. His performance in the match reminded me that Cech made the best save I've ever seen:



I wasn't alive to see Lev Yashin play or Gordon Banks' save from Pele in '70, so take my endorsement with a grain of salt.

4. Kudos to ESPN for showing the pre-game atmosphere, namely the fans singing before the match and the players assembling in the tunnel, looking very serious. Let's see if ESPN does the same at venues other than Anfield.

5. Steven Gerrard was fairly quiet, but his pass to free Torres for his first half chance and his shot from the right in the second half were really, really good. Don't let my constant griping about Liverpool obscure the fact that there is some genuine skill in the side. Maybe I'm being overly harsh on Makelele if I'm describing Gerrard as "fairly quiet" in the match?

6. Were ESPN's broadcast team correct when they said that Fabio Aurelio is the first Brazilian to ever play for Liverpool? Really? It must be nice to be me and be proven right on a daily basis. How am I supposed to take a major club seriously when it has so little interest in playing properly that they have never deployed a player from Brazil? Who needs players who can pass and move properly?

A Brief Political Digression

What would the media's reaction be if we replaced Scranton with Birmingham or Columbia in this story:

Barack Obama’s campaign opened a downtown office here on March 15, just in time for the annual St. Patrick’s Day parade. It was not a glorious day for Team Obama. Some of the green signs the campaign had trucked in by the thousands were burned during the parade, and campaign volunteers — white volunteers — were greeted with racial slurs.

Actually, there is a bit of a sports parallel. We often complain about the media sticking too closely to its narratives about games and teams, but that tendency shows up in politics as well as sports. Racism is often treated as a specifically Southern phenomenon, so when open racism makes an appearance above the Mason-Dixon Line, it doesn't register. That said, racism in Scranton doesn't come with the same legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, so maybe the different narrative isn't entirely irrational.

We Waited Nine Years for That?

When Der Wife and I had half-season tickets for the Hawks in 2005-6, we went to roughly 18 games. As you might imagine, there were a fair number of lulls in action watching a 26-win team in a half-empty arena. I recall staring out into the vast expanse of Philips Arena on more than one occasion, typically after the euphoria of one section winning free burritos from Chipotle had worn off, and musing "man, I can't tell you how excited I'll be when the Hawks finally play a playoff game."

I thought about that sentiment on Sunday night as the Hawks got beaten around by the Celtics. The fact that Boston won came as no surprise. There is a reason why Boston finished 29 games ahead of the Hawks in the standings this year. If the Hawks take one game in the series and stay competitive in one or two others, I'll be reasonably pleased. What galled me about Sunday night was the manner in which the Celtics dispatched the Hawks. Boston didn't appear to have to shift out of third gear to win comfortably. Between Rajon Rondo eating Mike Bibby alive in the pivotal match-up in the game or Josh Smith hoisting up wild shots as a result of the Celtics' defense baiting him into playing out of control basketball, the product on the floor just wasn't very enticing. Moreover, the team seemed to lack excitement at the start of the game, which is not what I was expecting from a team with nothing to lose.

By the third quarter, Mike Fratello was astutely observing that Mike Woodson was going to be frustrated when watching the tape by the number of possessions that involved zero or one passes by the Hawks. What Fratello was surely thinking, but did not mention, is the fact that the Hawks have nothing approximating an offensive system, so Woodson will have to point the finger at himself for the wretched offensive performance. By the fourth quarter, I was watching Pretty Woman, consistent with my tradition of watching chick flicks when a sporting event is really disappointing me. (The Devil Wears Prada proved quite therapeutic during the fourth quarter of the Michigan-Oregon game this September.)

The only Hawks who acquitted themselves well in the game were Al Horford, who was by far the best Hawk on the court, and Josh Childress, who is the only one of the Hawks' swing men who appears to know what he's doing against a good opponent. It's not even fair to compare Childress's basketball IQ to that of Smith and Marvin Williams.

Game two is Wednesday night and if the Hawks can be within single-digits going into the fourth quarter, I'll be thrilled. Game three is at home against the Celtics on Saturday night. Der Wife and I will be in attendance, as we promised when we were two of the hardy souls in attendance at the worst game in NBA history. I'm hoping against hope that the Hawks show some fire on Saturday.

Peter King has a Feeling!

You'll never guess who Peter King thinks he thinks the Falcons are taking on Sunday:

3. Atlanta. QB Matt Ryan, Boston College. Did everyone get the hint nine days ago when Falcons GM Thomas Dimitroff borrowed owner Arthur Blank's G-4 jet for the day and took coach Mike Smith over to Baton Rouge for a love-in with Dorsey ... and then Dorsey visited the Falcons' facility last week to see everyone else in the organization?

How's this for a surprise: I say Atlanta will take Ryan even if Dorsey's on the board. Then everyone will say it was the owner's pick. Not so. With Dimitroff's background in football, I'm convinced he'd never have taken this job if he felt Blank's heavy hand on his shoulder for the first pick. It's logical to think Blank wants Ryan for the billboard-on-I-85 factor. But if this pick is Ryan, it will be because Dimitroff and Smith think it's best for the franchise.

Now for Ryan. My buddy Don "Donnie Brasco'' Banks is always telling me how gullible I am. Brasco likes baseball, and I called him a couple of years ago after seeing Juan Acevedo pitch in a spring-training game and told him, "Juan Acevedo's gonna win 15 games this year.'' He didn't come close. I admit to getting sucked in a bit by players I like. So write this down, you who keep records of how badly I screw up predictions: Matt Ryan is going to be a star in the NFL. You can feel it being around him -- he's got that I-won't-be-denied demeanor Peyton Manning had 10 years ago. He's got a plus arm, he knows how to get players around him to play better, and he loves having the ball in his hands with the game on the line.

A couple thoughts:

1. Consistent with his pattern of relying upon entirely subjective, fuzzy reasoning when it comes to all matters Matt Ryan, Peter King thinks that Matt Ryan is going to be a star because "you can feel it being around him" and he apparently has Peyton Manning's demeanor. You know what else Peyton Manning had, Peter? Good stats. A productive college offense. He did not provoke universal reactions of "meh" from everyone who watched him play in college.

2. Here's my concern about the Arthur Blank dynamic here. If we are all assuming that Blank wants to take Ryan because he is smitten with the young man (and Blank's affections for his franchise quarterbacks have always led to such good results; why can't he be the jilted lover who gets burned by a cheating spouse and vows to never date again?) or because he wants to do so for marketing purposes (because what more would an African-American-heavy fan base like more than a quarterback with the nickname "Matty Ice"?), then that presents problems for Thomas Dimitroff. If Dimitroff takes Ryan and Ryan is a bust, then Blank can always excuse the mistake by saying "I was wrong about Ryan as well." If Dimitroff takes Glenn Dorsey and Dorsey is a bust, then Blank will raise an eyebrow and say "I told you so." It's always safer to follow the boss's lead, even if the Boss is not explicit in his interference. If I were Dimitroff, I'd play off of Blank's love for Keith Brooking and sell the Dorsey pick as a pre-requisite to making Brooking a passable option at middle linebacker.

3. As if you needed any more confirmation that taking Ryan would be a bad move for the Falcons, Beau Bock heartily endorsed the move on the radio this morning because the "Falcons need a quarterback." Beau, the Falcons need a lot of things. The mere fact that you have a need does not lead to the conclusion that you should take a player about 40 picks too early because he plays a position of need.

This Seems Fair

Honestly, who else deserves the weakest schedule in the NFL more than the team that just completed the first 16-0 regular season in history. I understand that the mechanics here do not involve some sort of conspiracy by the NFL to make Bill Simmons happy every weekend. The Patriots play in a division that includes the 1-15 Dolphins and 4-12 Jets, so their opponents' winning percentage is weighted down significantly. They are also scheduled to play the AFC West and NFC West this year, both of which are full of teams that had bad 2007 seasons. So add four games against the Jets and Dolphins to games against the Raiders (4-12), Chiefs (4-12), 49ers (5-11), and Rams (3-13) and fully half of the Patriots' schedule is against teams that were terrible in 2007. This isn't the fault of the Pats or anything, but it at least ought to prevent their backers in the media from whining next fall. Their weak schedule also illustrates the maxim that the NFL barely weights the schedules of its teams any more, so it attributing success to a "last-place schedule" or failure to a "first-place schedule" is a total misnomer now. Finally, the Pats' schedule as compared to that of the Colts illustrates the significant advantage that the Pats have in that their division is much weaker than the AFC South, so they start the year with a leg up in terms of getting homefield advantage in the playoffs.

And while we're on the subject of the NFL, I was decidedly unimpressed by the interview I heard with Mike Mularkey on the radio this morning. After two decades of watching Michigan football, suffice it to say that I'm not overly enthusiastic when I hear an offensive coordinator whose philosophy is based on "imposing our will on the opponent" and "being more physical." Maybe I'm reading too much into these remarks, but it seems to me to foretell a fall of lots of running between the tackles to show that our members are bigger than those of our opponents. This is all fine and good when you're Dirk Diggler (read: Michigan or USC in the 70s when they had 150 players on their rosters and could monopolize talent), but it doesn't work in college football today and it certainly doesn't work in the NFL. As Der Wife said this morning, the Falcons really don't have the big wiener.

The Headline we Dreamed of (Baby Steps Version)

Hawks End NBA's Longest Playoff Drought

Now, please put up a fight against Boston. I'm not asking for a series victory or anything, but is one win at home plus a really tight game in Boston too much to demand? I really can't stomach the idea of Sam Cassell dancing all over the floor like he did on Saturday night when he single-handedly made me depressed about the Hawks' rebuilding project. (If our starting five can be torched in crunch time of a big game by a 38-year old who the Celtics got for nothing...) Saturday night also gave me two other thoughts:

1. If Randy Moss got into so much trouble for pretending to moon the fans at Lambeau Field, then how does Cassell get away with a dance that's meant to show that he has really big balls? Joe Buck, you're on the clock on this one.

2. Watching Josh Smith and Rajon Rondo both play well for their teams reminded me that Jay Bilas panned both of them at the NBA Draft. He might be the dumbest smart guy with a microphone, even when he's not commenting from an extreme conflict of interest as he was when Tommy Amaker was involved.

The Best 5-7 Baseball Team on the Planet

The Braves are 5-7. They have the run differential of a 7-5 team. They are second in runs scored and 5th in team OPS. They're fifth in runs allowed and third in opponent's OPS. They have had a grand total of two bad starts: one from Chuck James in Colorado (a recipe for disaster if there ever was one - an extreme flyball pitcher at altitude) and one yesterday when Tom Glavine injured his hamstring. The starting rotation looks much better than last year, although it is brittle as one would expect from a rotation based around four aged pitchers. The bullpen might be a partial explanation for the team's dreadful record in one-run games, but they don't look that bad to me. Chris Resop ("Poser" spelled backwards) is the only guy in the pen who looks a little out of his depth. The lineup looks pretty good. Mark Teixeira isn't going to hit .213 all year, Yunel is off to a great start, and Mark Kotsay hasn't been a total bust with the bat so far. The only negative is that Francoeur looks like he's hacking at everything again.

Overall, I find it hard to write about the Braves in April because I am constantly having to resist the urge to draw conclusions off of a very small sample size. That said, I'd give the team a solid B+ for the first two weeks, even though they have a losing record. There isn't an obvious weakness to the team, other than the fact that they don't have six or seven reliable starters (just like every other team in baseball).

Your Latest Yankees-Red Sox Saturation Update

Saturday morning - I watched ten minutes of SportsCenter at the Y while on an exercise bike. About half the time was devoted to highlights of the Yankees-Red Sox game from the night before, followed by an in-depth feature by Bob Holtzman about Sean Casey playing in his first Yankees-Red Sox game, as if that experience isn't true for numerous players every year.

Sunday morning - I flipped on the Sports Reporters while on the Elliptical machine. You'll never guess what they were discussing ten minutes into the show. If you had "a discussion about why we should all care about the Yankees-Red Sox games in April," then give yourself a gold star. When Mitch Albom tried to change the topic to the 2-9 Tigers, the big story in the first two weeks of the season, Gary Roberts then chided him by saying "it's only April." That wouldn't have any implications for obsessing about Yankees-Red Sox games this weekend, would it?

Monday morning - the discussion on both local sports talk stations around 7 a.m. was the burial of a Red Sox jersey in the foundation of New Yankees Stadium. It's not just ESPN that shoves the rivalry down our throats, it's also the ostensible local stations, as well. And it's not as if there weren't other sports stories over the weekend...

Stumbling Forward

The Champions League Semis are now set: beauty (Barca-Manchester United) and the beast (Chelsea-Liverpool). I didn't see the Barca second leg last night because ESPN decided, in their infinite wisdom, to show a tie that was conclusively decided in the first leg. ESPN's normal approach has been to show one quarterfinal on ESPN2 and then the second on ESPN Classic, but they instead decided that old Masters highlights were a better option. So anyway, my bitching at ESPN aside, I can report that the descriptions of the game last night seem consistent with the first leg: Barca won 1-0, but looked very shaky doing it.

Here is Sid Lowe:

Barça went into last night's match seven points behind Real Madrid in the league, with fans launching a white-hankie protest at the weekend, calling for the head of the president, Joan Laporta, and abusing their "lazy" players at training, demanding "less millions, more bollocks". The crisis grew even deeper in the run-up to the game when a high-ranking official admitted that the club had invented injuries as an excuse to leave "certain players" out of the side.

Xavier Sala Martín, head of the club's economic commission, did not name them but it is widely understood that he was pointing the finger at Ronaldinho and Deco. He said that some players had been "ostracised" because they were too often "out partying" and missed training sessions. He claimed that injuries had been invented in order to provide a pretext for leaving them out.

Rijkaard last night replied that "there are no players who have been separated from the rest of the squad". The sporting director, Txiki Begiristain, insisted there was "medical evidence" to prove Ronaldinho and Deco are indeed injured.

With the club seemingly teetering on the edge of the abyss, such revelations were the last thing Barça needed and the game against Schalke was presented as death or glory. And although Barça emerged alive, their lacklustre performance did little to placate the fans, especially as the night's star performer, Bojan Krkic, was taken off early, prompting a monumental bout of whistling and booing from the Barcelona fans.

The home side looked shaky in defence and disjointed going forward and the scrappy goal from Touré - the younger brother of Arsenal's Kolo - after good work by Krkic down the right and two failed clearances from the Schalke defence, did nothing to alter that impression.

Here is Nic from FCBNews.com:

Barça have reached the semi-finals of the Champions League after beating Schalke 04 1-0 (2-0 on aggregate) and will now face Manchester United for a place in the final in Moscow on May 21st. However, the performance, especially in the first half left a lot to be desired. Whether the recent declarations from directors had a negative effect I cannot say, but for the first half an hour Barça played so badly it looked more likely that they would get knocked out...

The only player who can really take any credit from tonight’s game is Carles Puyol. Bojan was good in the second half but disappointing in the first. Toure Yaya deserves applause for scoring and for lasting for 80 minutes but he doesn’t clean up in midfield as he did before his injury and at time looks like an injured elephant lumbering behind the pack. Worst of all was Eric Abidal whose form has dropped frighteningly in the second half of the season. Surely it is time for Sylvinho to take over at left back though I dread to think what Cristiano Ronaldo might do if he has a good day.

Barca haven't played a really good match since the first leg against Celtic in February. They've had good halves, but they cannot seem to put together a good 90 minutes. The club is plagued by rumors of internal dissension and the recent comments by Sala Martin seem to confirm that the club has sidelined its two biggest stars from the '06 European Champions because of indiscipline. I keep waiting for something to turn around, but at a certain stage, I have to consider the possibility that I'm waiting for a train that won't arrive in the station. The English media keep referring to the tie with Manchester United as "mouth-watering," but that's in name only. Barca are seven points down in a crap La Liga for a reason: they haven't a good team in 2008. Barring some sort of miraculous turn of events, United will win both legs. This is the only miracle I can think of:



As for the other side of the bracket, I did watch the Arsenal-Liverpool match and it confirmed everything I hate about Liverpool. The Reds progressed because of a dreadful penalty call that came right in front of the Kop. Arsenal's anger is especially justified because the penalty given against Kolo Toure involved far less contact than the penalty that wasn't given for Dirk Kujt's tug. Combine the crap penalty call with the highly dubious red card given to Marco Materazzi in the round of 16 (also at Anfield) that left Inter playing with ten men for an hour and you get the impression that Liverpool really do have a 12th man advantage at Anfield, only the 12th man is not the crowd. Chelsea know that it isn't enough to beat Liverpool; they have to do so decisively because the big decisions will likely go in the Scousers' favor.

And another complaint about Liverpool: their goals were the hallmark of a conservative team. They scored off of a corner, a long ball from the keeper, and a crap penalty. Liverpool scored without taking any risks and it can't be a coincidence that their only goals (aside from Babel's final marker when Arsenal had everyone pushed forward) came in response to Arsenal goals. Liverpool are fundamentally a reactionary team. Their goals weren't close to those created by Arsenal. This is probably the unrealistic romantic in me, but I'd rather lose playing properly than win playing like Liverpool. I can understand clubs with no money taking route one, but Liverpool fancy themselves as a superpower. Whether a club can be a superpower without winning its league for two decades is another matter. (I realize that this paragraph might come back to bite me if Barca beat Manchester United 1-0 on a set piece.)

My irrational bitching aside, the tie was also decided because the match-up that every Arsenal fan feared - Phillipe Senderos trying to mark Fernando Torres - was every bit the mismatch that the Gunners feared. Senderos was awful, which raises the following question: does Arsenal not have a back-up right back? Arsenal's first choice central defensive pairing - William Gallas and Kolo Toure - was available, but Toure was at right-back because of Bacary Sagna's injury. If Arsenal does have a replacement right-back, then what the hell was Toure doing playing out of position? And if Arsenal don't have a back-up right-back, then what the hell is Arsene Wenger doing with the coffers of the richest club in England? Is he really spending all that money on scouts to pilfer more teenage central midfielders from Barca's cantera?

And while we're criticizing Arsene Wenger, what will it take for him to stop playing Emmanuel Eboue? Eboue is terrible, he's a diver, and he's keeping the far superior Theo Walcott on the bench. WTF?

Quickie Thoughts on Kansas-Memphis

1. At the end of the game last night, I was hoping that the focus of the post-game analysis would be on Kansas making some terrific plays to get back into the game, capped by a phenomenal shot from Mario Chalmers to force overtime. I was hoping that the focus would not be on Memphis "choking." Based on a scan of the radio dial and the AJC sports page, I was wrong. The focus seems to be much more on Memphis losing the game than on Kansas winning it. That's pretty unfair to Memphis, who are being penalized for being good enough to have put themselves into the position to blow a lead in the first place. The Tigers played really well to go from 47-44 down to 60-51 ahead against an outstanding team. They then missed a few free throws down the stretch that wouldn't have mattered if Mario Chalmers wouldn't have channeled Scottie Thurman. If Chalmers misses, then Memphis is exalted as a great champion, a 39-1 dynamo that won the most loaded Final Four in history (at least in terms of seeds). Because Chalmers makes the shot and then Kansas keeps right on rolling in overtime, Memphis are chokers. Makes perfect sense to me.

2. I really enjoyed the game last night. I didn't do a bracket this year for the first time in about 20 years because: (1) I don't know much about college basketball anymore; (2) college basketball is a shadow of its former self in a number of respects (the best players only spending one year, the prevalence of flopping as a concerted defensive strategy, and the meaninglessness of the regular season are three reasons that come to mind); (3) Michigan sucks; and (4) I'm tired of listening to boobs in the office discuss their brackets endlessly, as if I care or am impressed that they knew about Western Kentucky all along. (The only more reprehensible behavior among men in an office environment is discussion of their golf games.) I have to say that not doing a bracket was a liberating experience. I didn't have to participate in any of the banal "I got this right!" discussions. More importantly, I was able to watch games without having my rooting interests complicated. I was able to watch Memphis and Kansas play last night without worrying about who I picked or would the result make me smarter or dumber.

I also enjoyed the game because it was played at a very high level. I've found a lot of college basketball games this year to be close to unwatchable because the level of play just isn't very high. Last night, Memphis and Kansas rolled a bunch of excellent players out onto the floor and they went at each other for 45 minutes. The defense and rebounding were especially good. Every basket was earned. The game was somewhat defensive, but not in a Big Ten/Battle of the Somme sort of way. It was defensive because the teams were really athletic and up in each other's faces. They also stayed on their feet for the most part, which I appreciate. Speaking of which...

3. Do Carolina fans realize that their team flops almost as much as Duke does? With the amount of mockery that UNC backers make of Duke players for tumbling whenever an opponent gets in the nearest area code, you would think that the Heels play defense by, you know, staying in front of their men and contesting shots. Instead, UNC is led by a 6'10 white guy who never tries to block shots, but instead flopped (by my count) five times on Saturday night. You're 6'10 and you draw charges instead of trying to block shots? How manly of you, Psycho-T. (Keep in mind that UNC was the first team I ever hated because my first sports allegiance was Virginia basketball in the early 80s when Ralph Sampson played for the Hoos, so I'm not entirely objective on this point.)

4. I might be the only person who thinks this, but Billy Packer, warts and all, isn't a bad color guy. He does go off on weird tangents, but the themes he drove home on Saturday night (Kansas's weak side defense was killing UNC) and last night (Derrick Rose needed to assert himself more, which he promptly did in the run that put Memphis ahead late) were spot on. Packer was also right when he noted that the Memphis players were leaning backwards on their late free throws. Generally speaking, Packer does not fall into the trap of deciding the story lines before the game. He actually pays attention and dissects what's going on on the court. Do the Packer haters not realize that that is actually somewhat rare these days? And isn't the fact that fans of every program consider Packer to be biased against their teams actually a sign that he's doing his job properly?

5. To my untrained eye, Kansas is a weird team. They have several good post players, several good lead guards, and relatively few dangerous swing men. They're the reverse of the Hawks. Isn't it much easier to find a swing man as opposed to a good point or center?

6. Maybe Florida has set the bar too high, but how many schools have had a better year in the two major sports than Kansas has this year? 12-1 and Orange Bowl champions in football; 37-3 and national champions in basketball.

What Color are Mike Hampton's Eyes?

I'm going with hazel:

Here I am, once again
I’m torn into pieces, can't deny it, can't pretend
Just thought you were the one
Broken up, deep inside
But you won't get to see the tears I cry
Behind these hazel eyes

I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist.

Random Thoughts while Watching Arsenal-Liverpool

For all the bitching we all do about sports coverage these days, if you told me when I was a kid that I would be able to watch a recorded soccer game from England while writing an online journal, keeping track of the Braves and Hawks games, and monitoring my work messages, I would have been pretty impressed by the future.

We're 19 minutes in and nothing has happened other than a mistake by each keeper. Did I mention that Liverpool is playing? Or that I hate them?

I am seriously trying to find a single hardcore college football fan who thinks that Matt Ryan should be a top ten draft pick. Just one.

Bergkamp would have scored on that long ball, Robin.

Good for Emmanuel Adebayor. Other than the fact that I'm rooting for Arsenal to save the world from another 180 minutes of shit on a stick, I'm happy that Adebayor scored because he looks better with the new hairdo and I don't want the new style to be blamed for an extended goal drought.

Did I really just say that nothing was happening? 1-1. These styles do mesh nicely with one another.

A reminder for people who don't think that English football is crap: in this game between Arsenal and Liverpool, there are two English players (Carragher, Gerrard), as compared to three French players (Gallas, Flamini, Clichy), three Dutch players (Kuyt, Babel, Van Persie), and five Spaniards (Fabregas, Almunia, Alonso, Torres, Reina).

I'm liking the first four innings of the Jair Jurrjens era. I also like his name.

Am I the only one who watches pitchers pitch from the stretch and immediately thinks of that one year when the umpires went nuts calling balks for not coming to a complete stop at the belt? I'm imagining what would happen if SEC refs suddenly called 15-yard penalties every time a coach got a toe over the sideline.

I h8 Xavier Nady. We have put him on pace for a triple crown.

Is it me or has Mike Bibby single-handedly turned the Hawks into a Western Conference team? Even when we lose (as we're losing tonight to the slumping Raptors, but a four-game winning streak does buy you a little grace), we do so in high-scoring, entertaining fashion. Speaking of the local pro basketball collective, one of their ticket reps e-mailed me the other day to tout the Hawks being on the verge of their first playoff "birth" in "centuries." Atlanta Spirit, you inspire confidence with every e-mail your minions send. I'm going to check out the end of the Hawks game...

The last four seconds of regulation of the Hawks game were CRAZY. Mike Bibby hits a three to tie the game with a half a second to go after pump-faking. The Hawks then allow T.J. Ford to get an unmolested alley-oop for the win...only the ball sits in Ford's hand for sixth-tenths instead of five and the basket does not count. As best we can tell from the replay, Josh Smith was supposed to switch to protect the front of the rim and he just stood at the foul line, doing absolutely nothing. J-Smoove then makes amends with a "no, no...yes!" three to give the Hawks the lead with two minutes to go in OT. I'm quite captivated right now. Bibby hits another three for the lead after Bosh had a three-point play, then Smith hits another three for a four-point lead. There can't be many people watching, but this has been a fantastic game. 127-120! Five in a row! Boston, beware! We might not get swept!

Opening segment of Baseball Tonight: extended highlights of the Blue Jays-Yankees game that had just been broadcast on ESPN2, followed by highlights of the final out of the Angels 1-0 win over the Twins, followed by extended highlights of the Mets' 11-0 win over the Marlins, followed by extended coverage of Pedro Martinez's hamstring. Paging Captain Louis Renault...

I accidentally caught the final score of the two matches today on ESPN's bottom line, so here are my thoughts after watching the second half of Arsenal-Liverpool and all of Fenerbahce-Chelsea on fast-forward:

1. Typical Liverpool. They get their goal 26 minutes in and then don't create a chance the rest of the game. Naturally, one of their "forwards" was in the box to foul Alexander Hleb for a penalty that everyone at the Emirates save the ref saw. I can't tell you how much I dislike this Liverpool team.

2. I like Arsene Wenger and all, but what does it say when you put Nicklas Bendtner on as a sub and that sub not only fails to score, he clears off the line...the opponent's goal line. Tommy Smyth insists that Bendtner was offsides when there was a Liverpool player behind him on the line and a second over the goal line. (Can we get a ruling on whether a player out of bounds can keep an attacker onside?)

3. ESPN, I was most looking forward to the Fenerbahce game because of the atmosphere, so you naturally pulled a GolTV and took all of the crowd noise out of the feed. Great move.

4. If you love footie, sports, or screaming Turks, then please watch this clip:



Wow. If all it takes to produce successful, attacking football is signing a bunch of Brazilians and appointing a member of '82 Brazil as manager, then what's the rest of Europe waiting for? Where is Falcao, anyway?

Stumbly Wumbly Blaugrana

I really don't want to be the stereotypical Barca fan who whines any time the side don't win a match 5-0 with at least three of the goals coming at the end of 20+ passes. That said, Barca won a road first leg at Schalke and managed to underwhelm while doing so. I should be happy because road victories in the knock-out stages are not a common occurrence. Manchester United had all of two such wins this decade until last night, while Barca have two in this year alone. In their defense, Barca played well in the first 45 minutes, so my criticism is really of the second half performance. Barca maintained possession in the first half, which limited Schalke's attacks, and they created several good chances. The goal was a classic Barca 4-3-3 goal:



Iniesta was given too much space and his pass to Henry was a thing of beauty. (Mirko Slomka didn't listen to my advice that he pack his team behind the ball. On an unrelated note, I think he's the best dressed coach in football.) Henry's shot wasn't especially impressive, but he handled the rebound perfectly and Bojan was in the right place at the right time. Barca then spent the rest of the half monopolizing the ball and creating a few half chances. sadly, the attack was impotent on the right side, where Samuel Eto'o was stationed. You can see how much Barca miss Messi, as Eto'o just isn't especially dangerous when pushed off onto the right wing. He works really hard, but he needs to be in the center to be effective. Even though Bojan scored the goal, he's a much better fit on the right side. I'm also joining the Barca fans who would like to see what a 4-4-2 looks like with Henry and Eto'o up front. Rijkaard was willing to change to 3-4-3 last year, so why can't he try another formation change? Would it really be that hard to instruct Iniesta to play wide? And wouldn't it be better to be able to play a more defensive formation against Manchester United?

Schalke totally dominated the second half. I suspect that Rijkaard decided to shut up shop and take the 1-0 lead back to the Nou Camp, Unfortunately, Frank appears to be the only person on earth who doesn't realize that his defense, on current form, cannot function when the opponent has the lionshare of possession. Schalke created chance after chance. It's a miracle that the Germans didn't score. Barca's marking on set pieces is truly appalling. This has always been a problem for them, especially against Northern European sides (the two legitimate goals they allowed in the '06 knockout stages were wing free kicks by Chelsea and Arsenal), but last night was a new low. You would think that after blowing two points at Almeria as a result of excessively casual marking of attackers on corners, the side would learn its lesson, but the defenders appear too disinterested to mark properly. Abidal is the worst offender. He can't be this lax for France, right? By the end, the announcers were almost shocked by the end at the number of free headers that Schalke had. I can't explain how a team of professionals struggles so badly at what should be a fairly basic task: don't let your guy get a free header.

I've read that United were flattered by the scoreline against Roma last night, but after watching Barca's defense struggle for a solid month now, I can't shake the feeling that United is going to smoke Barca if the Catalans don't blow it next week against Schalke. I like the idea of Barca being the decided underdogs in a tie, as they would be against United, but that doesn't trump the reality that a backline that can't mark Kevin Kuranyi and Heiko Westermann is going to be unable to keep out Cristiano Ronaldo and Wayne Roonney. I am left hoping for Leo Messi to come back healthy (Alex Ferguson is famously conservative on the road in Europe; facing a Barca side with the one player in the world as dangerous as Ronaldo will make him even tighter) and Barca's defense to shake off their bizarre funk and return to the unit that was so effective in January. United isn't an aerial team, so that's something, I guess. I'm looking for small consolations at this point.

My Losing Streak Continues

On May 23, 1991, my Dad took my brother Dan and I to a Braves-Padres game at Fulton County Stadium. The Braves gave up four runs in the top of the tenth inning at which point my Dad decided that we had seen enough, so we drove back to Macon. This was not the first time that my Dad had decided to bail on a game early. (The concept of getting up early to go to work was still foreign to my teenage mind at the time.) On June 20, 1990, Dad reached a similar conclusion after the immortal Rick Luecken walked Mariano Duncan to lead off the tenth inning after the Braves had blown a lead in the eight and ninth innings. Somehow, Luecken and Joe Boever were no match in the late innings for Randy Myers and Norm Charlton. I digress.

In the car on the way home from the Padres game, we listed as the Braves improbably scored four in the bottom of the tenth to tie the game. (Incidentally, a clip of David Justice's home run to tie the game in the tenth is used in A Few Good Men while Tom Cruise is working at home.) My brother and I got to experience the odd occurrence of watching a game in Atlanta and then seeing the conclusion in Macon.

I mention this because I had the same experience last night. I left the Braves game along with most of the rest of a large crowd in the eighth inning as Manny Acosta's meatballs turned a 4-4 game into an 8-4 deficit. Cue all the "it's a crazy game!" cliches, because I got to listen to Pete van Wieren lose his mind in the ninth as the Pirates allowed the Braves to score five times to send the game into extras. Just like the 1991 game against the Padres, the Braves had an amazing comeback and then lost the game in the 12th. I should have known that it would not be the Braves night when Blaine Boyer pumped his fists excitedly after striking out the Pirates' relief pitcher in the top of the 11th, then Brayan Pena lined out with a runner on second in the bottom of the 11th. I watched the Pirates get the leadoff man on in the 12th against Boyer and then promptly turned off the light and went to sleep. The lesson: we all turn into our parents.

The Developing "Red Sox and Yankees are Homegrown" Meme

You could see this line coming as soon as the Red Sox won their second World Series in four years and Tom Verducci claimed that the victory was the result of the Red Sox farm system. Intelligent baseball writers have to be aware that there is resentment towards the Red Sox among, well, just about every other fan base that two teams (along with their spoiled red-headed stepbrother in Queens) receive the lion share of attention in what is supposed to be "America's Game." These writers know that many fans view the Red Sox, Yankees, and Mets as benefiting from tremendous natural advantages, namely huge populations that allow them to out-spend their rivals into the ground.

So how do writers counter this perception? By latching onto the fact that the Red Sox and Yankees finally have a couple prospects on their teams. Forget the fact that these teams spend significantly more on payroll than any other clubs in baseball. Forget the fact that both teams are stocked with players that they acquired either through free agency or through trades in which the Yankees and Red Sox acquire top players from smaller teams by virtue of their ability to pay for those players. Let's focus entirely on the fact that the Red Sox used to be entirely composed of players acquired through trades and free agency, but now, they are only 90% composed of such players. I exaggerate, but only slightly. The 2008 Baseball Prospectus chapter on the Cubs contains a chart that analyzes the percentage of players for the eight 2007 playoff participants acquired through various means. You'll never guess which teams had, by far, the greatest percentage of players acquired through trades and free agency. Yup, the World Champions. The Tom Verduccis of the world want you to believe that the Red Sox are a team built by the draft and player development because fans respect teams that are built organically as opposed to through the exercise of naked economic power. Reality does not conform to the bill of goods that Verducci is trying to sell.

There's also one other point to be made that further pierces the meme that the Red Sox and Yankees are smart as opposed to rich. As Verducci's article admits (and buries at the very end), the Red Sox and Yankees' financial advantages give them a significant leg up in the draft:

Since 2005 the Yankees and the Red Sox have continued to sink more money into scouting and the draft. Says one rival AL G.M., "They've become what the U.S. and Russia were during the cold war: There is them, and there's everybody else. My goodness, the Yankees took a guy in the first round [Andrew Brackman in 2007] who needed Tommy John surgery, and they gave him a four-year major league contract. Nobody else can do that."

The chapter on the Tigers in the 2008 Baseball Prospectus confirms this point: Detroit has joined the Yankees and Red Sox as teams that get better talent out of the draft because they are willing and able to pay huge signing bonuses that are prohibitive to other teams. MLB's economic structure rewards big-spending teams in a number of ways. One such way is the fact that the NBA (formally) and NFL (informally) set the salaries for draftees based on their draft slot. MLB does no such thing, which gives yet another advantage to the clubs that were born on third base and Tom Verducci thinks they hit a triple.

I am F***ing Sick of Hearing This

"It's a big disappointment. It just seems like we didn't have the energy tonight," Johnson said. "We came out lackadaisical and we let Drew get off to a good start. Once a guy gets a rhythm, it's hard to stop him. He had a big night for them."

That's Joe Johnson on last night's loss in Chicago. How does a team come out lackadaisical at the end of the season when they are fighting for their playoff lives? I understand that the NBA season is an interminable grind, but if ever there was a time for a team, so be focused, it ought to be a game against a fellow playoff contender at the end of March. Are you going to be saying the same shit after game one in Boston? I keep coming back to Mark Bradley's statement earlier in the year that the Hawks' repeated "we weren't into the game" statements are a direct reflection on the head coach.

Is Atlanta Spirit Going to Kill Hockey in Atlanta?

That was my thought as I was reading Scott Burnside's evisceration of the Thrashers' management team. As a formerly intense, but currently casual Thrashers fan, my view from 30,000 feet is that the Thrashers are handicapped by Don Waddell's poor drafting and free agent decisions.

I did read Bruce Levenson's defense of Waddell in Sunday's AJC and was perplexed by the stance of Atlanta Spirit. Waddell has been in charge for eight years, during which the Thrashers have played exactly four playoff games and at the end of which, the roster is one of the weakest in the NHL. By every indication, the Thrashers' fan base is angry at the direction of the team and a number are unlikely to renew season tickets because of the direction of the franchise. Fan discontent is amplified by Atlanta Spirit's ham-handed decision to increase ticket prices on the heels of putting out a dreadful product this season. The natural response for ownership would be to bring in a new general manager and coach so they can sell a new beginning to the fans. Instead, Atlanta Spirit is apparently set on keeping Waddell, which would really anger me if I were a season ticket holder. It's almost like a president who knows that a military strategy isn't working and just keeps trying the same thing. That never happens.

The mismanagement of the Thrashers has serious implications. Atlanta Spirit's dogged devotion to Mike Woodson is frustrating and indicative that the ownership group is too big and/or divided to make major, necessary decisions. However, the Hawks are protected by the NBA's lucrative television contract and other shared revenue streams. Basketball is a good TV sport. Hockey is not. Whether because of the small puck or Gary Bettman's small brain, the NHL does not provide significant revenue streams to its teams. Thus, local ticket revenue is critical for every franchise. Atlanta Spirit can do real damage to its own bottom line and to the sport of hockey in this market if it continues on its present course of defending a failed manager.

Ordinarily, I would assume that Atlanta Spirit is defending its general manager because it's always a good idea to defend one's employees up until they are former employees. In this case, there is no reason not to make a move now. The Thrashers are clearly going nowhere, so there's nothing to lose by cutting bait on Waddell. If Atlanta Spirit moved quickly, they would get a leg up on other NHL teams looking for new GMs. Also, since the GM is also going to have to hire a coach, it would be better to hire one sooner rather than later. Thus, it appears that Atlanta Spirit is actually being serious when they defend a regime that has produced the third-worst record and worst goal difference in the NHL.

Burnside does an excellent job of explaining the extent of the Thrashers' mismanagement. I found the following facts striking/depressing:

1. The Thrashers are last in the NHL in terms of draftees currently in the NHL. The Thrashers have five players from its system in the regular lineup, one-third of the totals for the Devils or Sabres.

2. This is simply unbelievable:

Levenson seemed surprised when asked about the team's dotty record in the draft and the widespread belief the team's relationship with its AHL affiliate in Chicago is among the worst in the NHL.

The Wolves are not owned by the Thrashers, but are an independent entity. Their focus is not on developing players for the Thrashers, but in putting a winning team on the ice for their fans. Wolves coach John Anderson is not evaluated by how players perform in the NHL when they're called up, but by how the Wolves perform in the AHL. Sources close to the Thrashers told ESPN.com that players who are called up regularly ask to see tape of the Thrashers' system so they can figure out what they're supposed to do.

The Wolves' lineup is filled with journeyman players; Jason Krog is the team's leading scorer, and Steve Martins and Joel Kwiatkowski are on that list, too. Brett Sterling couldn't stick with the big club this season and neither could Darren Haydar.

WTF? Every NHL team needs a capable farm system because of the pressure of the salary cap. The Thrashers especially need help from the minors because they play in a non-traditional market and therefore don't have the money to throw around at free agents that established teams do. Instead, the Thrashers have a minor league team that is not designed to produce prospects. Is it possible that the problem isn't Waddell's drafting, but rather a farm team that has no interest in developing talent when it is trying to win with journeymen? This is especially obvious in Atlanta, where we are blessed with a baseball franchise whose farm system regularly produces quality players (as long as those players aren't pitchers).

I don't like knee-jerk "fire [insert name of coach/GM]" arguments. It's the easiest stance to take, the ultimate sports radio cliche, an emotional reaction that any mediocre mouth can voice. I am, after all, the blogger who thinks that Billy Knight gets a bad rap. All that said, as one of Waddell's GM friends says, "I love him, but I can't defend him." Atlanta Spirit does not have endless goodwill for hockey in this city and they are coming dangerously close to exhausting the supply.

Don't Look Now...

But the Hawks have won three in a row. After hitting rock bottom in the blowout loss to Orlando, the team played Houston very close and has since beaten the Clippers, Knicks, and Wizards fairly convincingly. The Hawks haven't allowed an opponent to hit triple-digits in this four-game stretch, which is nice, although not having to play against an opponent with an above-average offensive point guard has certainly helped. The schedule is quite manageable the rest of the way, which makes me think that a 10-5 finish that would leave the Hawks at a respectable 39-43 (nine games better than last year) is a reasonable goal. A win in New Jersey on Wednesday is absolutely critical for very obvious reasons. The Nets have eked past Cleveland and Utah in their past two games after a five-game Western swing that was even more disastrous than the Hawks' two Western trips this year. This Nets team is simply not very good, so there's no excuse for the Hawks not to beat them. My one concern is that Devin Harris is very quick and could present some problems for Mike Bibby. If you can't tell, I start each Hawks game by worrying about the footspeed of the opposing one. Last night, seeing Antonio Daniels in the starting lineup for Washington was quite reassuring.

So what the hell has happened to the Hawks that they are finally playing a lick of defense? Easier schedule? Lack of opposing ones to exploit the Hawks' primary weakness? Mike Bibby starting to mesh with his new teammates? Maybe I overrated the degree to which the team had tuned Mike Woodson out? Help me out, here.

Just for the record, every time the Hawks start playing well, I think of one of my favorite lines from Raiders of the Lost Ark:

Satipo: Let us hurry. There is nothing to fear here.

Indiana: That's what scares me.

Or do I think of this one from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade:

Walter Donovan: As you can now see, Dr. Jones, we are on the verge of completing a quest that began almost two thousand years ago. We're just one step away.

Indiana Jones: That's usually when the ground falls out from underneath your feet.

Somehow, a line about a two thousand year quest seems appropriate when discussing the Hawks and the playoffs.


A proper metaphor for being an Atlanta sports fan this winter, no?

A Thought on Georgia's Schedule

Since the prevailing theme this summer in discussing the 2008 Dawgs is going to be "they're going to be very good, but the schedule is so tough," I need to get something off my chest that I've been considering for a while: this schedule is penance. Georgia hasn't played a road game outside of the South since the Lyndon Johnson Administration, so maybe they don't deserve endless hosannas for finally doing what most of the rest of major college football programs do (with the exception of Florida, but they have a better excuse than Georgia because playing Florida State every year is not the same thing as playing Georgia Tech).

Georgia has also benefited from the SEC schedule rotation in the past several years. In 2006, Georgia would have been in real danger of not making a bowl at the end of the year if not for the fact that they played both of the Mississippi schools (combined record: 7-17). In 2005, Georgia won the SEC title, but they won the East by one game over Florida. Do you think that Florida having to play LSU, Alabama, and Mississippi State (combined record: 24-12) as opposed to Georgia playing Auburn, Arkansas, and Mississippi State (combined record: 16-18) might have been a factor in Georgia finishing one game ahead? Or how about in 2003, when Georgia pipped Florida for the East after playing LSU, Alabama, and Auburn (combined record: 25-15) while Florida played Ole Miss, LSU, and Arkansas (combined record: 32-8)?

My point is simply this: Georgia has benefited from the SEC schedule rotation several times in recent years. I can't quite remember Georgia fans (myself included) acknowledging that fact. So this year, when the schedule rotation is against the Dawgs, I don't think that Georgia fans are in a great position to complain. And let's be honest: repeating endlessly "we have to go to Columbia, Tempe, Baton Rouge, and Jacksonville" is complaining. Similarly, with a legitimate out-of-conference trip finally on the schedule, the natural retort to "we're going to Tempe! We're so bold!" is "what took you so long?"

Insta-Champions League Draw Blathering

As you might guess, I am quite happy with the draw. Barca are in no position right now to take on one of the four EPL sides. With Messi and Yaya Toure (arguably the two most indispensable members of the team because of the lack of cover at their positions) injured and the backline struggling, Barca would have been a relatively easy foil for Arsenal, Chelsea, or Manchester United. Instead, Barca have drawn Schalke, a side that: (1) is struggling worse than the Blaugrana; and (2) have a history of winning bugger-all on any level (as frequent commenter Klinso likes to say). The readers of FCBNews.com agree, as they conclusively picked Schalke as the preferred opponent before the draw. (See the sidebar.) If Barca can get through this tie and then get Messi back for the semifinal (his injury was supposedly going to have him out for six weeks and the semifinal is exactly six weeks after the second leg against Celtic), then they would be a formidable opponent for United (assuming that United dust Roma again).

I also have this pet theory that Barca are much better when they can play the first leg on the road because they are at their best when the other team has to score and take chances. That plays perfectly into Barca's possession game. When Barca have the first leg at home, they commit too far forward and are very vulnerable to counter-attacks. Against Schalke, they can pass the ball around all day and force a defensive team to come get them. Here's the record from the Rijkaard era in the Champions League:

2005 - Second leg on the road; lost to Chelsea

2006 - Second legs at home against Chelsea, Benfica, and Milan; won all three

2007 - Second leg on the road; lost to Liverpool

2008 - Second leg at home; beat Celtic

I like the idea of Barca playing the first leg in Gelsenkirchen. Schalke are a defensive team that will have to attack because they will need a victory to take onto the road for the second leg. That will create space for Barca's attackers, with the result possibly being similar to Barca's first leg against Celtic (although Schalke obviously have better players than Celtic). If I were Mirko Slomka, I'd play nine behind the ball in the first leg, hope for a 0-0 draw, and then be patient in the second leg, hoping for either penalties (where German sides tend to do OK) or Kevin Kuranyi knocking in a header (a real weakness for Barca against northern European sides). Gabi Milito is going to have to be on his best behavior against Kuranyi. Schalke can present problems for Barca because they are the sort of defensive team that can frustrate the Blaugrana. If Slomka thinks about this and doesn't try to attack too much in the first leg, then an upset is quite possible.

As for the other ties, Fenerbahce/Chelsea is absolutely fascinating to me. Chelsea have the best defense in the tournament; Fenerbahce have the best offense. Chelsea can play some attractive football when they face an opponent who comes out to play. It's only when they meet a similarly dour team (read: the Scousers) that nothing happens, not unlike what happens when France and Italy play. There is some upset potential here. It goes without saying that if Barnsley can beat Chelsea's first team, then the best team in Turkey can do the same. I wish I could comment intelligently on Fenerbahce, but I've never seen them play, aside from highlights of the ties against Sevilla.

Roma/United - yawn. United have handled Roma in the past two years, so they should go through. The football will be fun to watch, but I was sorta hoping to see Roma and Arsenal because I think they would produce some really good games. I'd love to see Roma win this tie, but the track record isn't encouraging.

Arsenal/Liverpool - This is the tie of the quarterfinals, pitting arguably the two favorites in the tournament right now. As someone who really dislikes this Liverpool team, this is the draw I wanted to see. Arsenal are 7-1-3 against Liverpool in the last five years. Liverpool lose their Champions League advantage when they play an opponent who is familiar with their crap style and with Benitez's tactical tricks. Wenger isn't going to be out-foxed by Benitez the way that so many Continental managers are. Cesc and Flamini's battle in the midfield against Mascherano should be interesting.

The one concern I have for Arsenal is that Fernando Torres is positively torrid right now. As good as Phillipe Senderos is in Europe, that match-up would scare me if I were a Gunner. Oh, and the other thing that would concern me is that Liverpool's European pedigree is far, far, far, far better than Arsenal's. As good as Wenger is as a manager, he's made exactly one Champions League semi-final, which happens to be the only European Cup/Champions League final in the club's history. Liverpool, as their fans constantly remind us, have history in Europe.

If you asked me to pick right now, I'd take Arsenal, Barca, United, and Fenerbahce as the one upset. I can imagine that TV executives across Europe would love a Barca-United semi-final and probably a Barca-Arsenal or Barca-Liverpool final. Let the conspiracy commence!

WTF?

Did anyone expect the Hawks to get significantly worse after finally acquiring a quality point guard? In the aftermath of the Bibby trade, the team's defense has completely collapsed, which seems to be a wee criticism of Mike Woodson, who is supposed to be a defensive coach. The latest evidence is last night's shelling in Orlando, a game in which the Hawks trailed 74-53 at the half. There are two possible explanations for the Hawks' nosedive:

1. Mike Bibby is a terrible defender. We knew when the Hawks made this trade that Bibby does not have a good reputation on defense, but the assumption was that his offensive skills would make up for defensive issues. In any event, the Hawks always had problems defending opposing point guards, so how much difference could Bibby make? As it turns out, Bibby has made a significant difference. Opposing ones have had an absolute field day against Atlanta. Combine an inability to stop penetration with an absence of an interior shot-blocker and you have the Hawks. Yay!

2. The team has quit on Mike Woodson. Believe it or not, this is the preferred explanation. If Bibby is really the problem, then we are screwed this year and next and we're back to square one on trying to find a point guard. If Woodson and the coaching staff are the problem, then the solution is simple: fire the coach and bring in someone who generates a response from these players. It cannot be a coincidence that the Hawks' form has plummeted in the aftermath of the revelation that Billy Knight has tried to fire Woodson on three separate occasions. A number of players already had issues with Woodson. Once the players found out that Woodson's boss doesn't hold Woodson's coaching ability in any higher esteem than they do, the players likely packed it in.

Our professional basketball team is now a rudderless ship. The players don't like the coach. The GM doesn't like the coach. The ownership doesn't listen to the GM. The ownership are embroiled in litigation with themselves. The fan base is ready to move onto the Braves and spring practice. Every time I think that the Hawks are at that "it's always darkest before the dawn" moment, I look at the alarm clock and it's 2:00 a.m.

A Mourinho Thought

While I've been upfront about my queasy feelings regarding the possibility of Jose Mourinho replacing Frank Rijkaard, one factor that might change my judgment would be the possibility that Mourinho takes over at Real Madrid. Those rumors are now flying after Real were booted out of the Champions League before the quarterfinals for the fourth year in a row, all while being unimpressive in La Liga (despite an eight-point lead).

On the one hand, Mourinho would be an unlikely fit at a club with a circus-like management. Mourinho might also run afoul of sensibilities at Real when they figure out that his commitment to defensive football is no greater than that of Fabio Capello. (The fact that Mourinho isn't Italian will help. The Spanish have a major complex about Italians and negative football, which is part of what sunk Capello.) That said, the guy is a winner and I don't want a real winner at Real Madrid. The fact that Mourinho could end up there with Real on the heels of consecutive titles is even more nauseating. So the question becomes: should Barca make nice with Mourinho and tolerate a more defensive approach to avoid allowing one of the best managers in football to end up at the Bernabeu? It's a legitimate question.

As for Barca-Villarreal over the weekend, it was the same match that Barca played against Real when Los Merengues came to the Nou Camp in December. The visitor sat back in numbers, let Barca have possession, and then waited for the ineffective attacks to peter out before creating great chances on the counter. Villarreal had the better chances, just as Real did in December. Barca have little ability to vary their offensive play and none of their forwards can beat defenders with the dribble when Messi is out (with the occasional exception of Eto'o). When Barca get caught forward, their backline gets completely exposed in space. Thus, Barca are having the same struggles this year against the top teams in La Liga (1-0-4 against Real, Athletico, and Villarreal) that they had last year (1-2-3 against Real, Valencia, and Sevilla).

Torched

The easiest post for me to write this morning would describe how the Hawks got destroyed defensively last night by the Warriors, allowing 135 points. While I normally would cut the Hawks a little slack because Golden State is an excellent offensive team and made a ton of shots last night, I'm in no mood to do so this morning (Leo Messi's hamstring, Rafael Soriano's elbow, and working class voters in Ohio have me in quite the state), so I'm going to write that easy post.

What the hell?!? You want to know how a team scores 135 points while only attempting ten free throws? They play an opponent who allows one uncontested lay-up after another because of a complete lack of defensive rotation. I know that the Warriors make it difficult to rotate when they go small because they space the floor properly and have a number of shooters on the court, but there is still no excuse for an NBA team to allow as many lay-ups as the Hawks allowed last night. Mike Bibby is a defensive liability and Mike Woodson couldn't hide him. He was roasted by Baron Davis early and then by Monta Ellis as the game progressed. You normally take that tradeoff with Bibby because he makes the offense run properly, but he was not much assistance on offense, either. The Hawks tried Josh Smith, Josh Childress, and Mario West on Davis, all to little effect. When the Hawks finally did rotate, the Warriors rained threes on their heads. The saddest part is that this was virtually the same game that I attended three years ago. It's good to know that the Hawks' ability to defend penetration from opposing guards and then kick-outs for open threes has improved over the years.

On offense, the Hawks kept pace with the Warriors for a half and then fell apart in the second half in a morass of forced outside shots and turnovers. Does that sound familiar? Am I the only one sensing a pattern in which the Hawks play well offensively for a half and then lose their ability to score once the opponent clamps down defensively? Do the Hawks have ADHD? Are we seeing the effects of a coach who can't match his opponents tactically?

And one other gripe: outside of Josh Childress, this team has no bench. They ought to have a bench. Salim Stoudamire and Zaza Pachulia ought to be able to to give the team 15 quality minutes apiece. Last night would have been a perfect chance for Stoudemire to go off, but he didn't do much. Is it a coincidence that both of them have had run-ins with Mike Woodson before and have now fallen off the face of the earth in their third years with the team? Am I becoming a stuck record on Woodson? Does this post set a record for question marks?

Late Game Execution Strikes Back

I was just about ready to lose my shit on Friday night. The Hawks were muddling around in a tight game with the wretched New York Knicks, despite the fact that the game was critical for the Hawks. The team had, as usual, gone into offensive hibernation in the fourth quarter, alternating bad perimeter shots and turnovers. The Hawks had the ball down one with about 90 seconds to go, so I was waiting for the Joe Johnson iso, followed by something rash. Kudos to Mike Woodson, because the team ran clever plays on the next two possessions to take a three-point lead that they then nursed home.

On the first possession, Josh Smith came to the top of the key as if to set a high screen for Mike Bibby, but just before setting the screen, he rolled hard to the basket. Zach Randolph, true to form, did not follow and Bibby hit Smith for an alley-oop dunk. The Hawks properly spread the floor so there was no help for Randolph. After a stop, the Hawks then ran a play in which Bibby screened for Joe Johnson on the right side and then flared away. Johnson dribbled towards the corner, taking two defenders with him, and then swung the ball back to Bibby for an open jumper to put the Hawks up by three. Both possessions represented simple basketball, but it was effective and it was just nice to see the Hawks create good shots at the end of a close game. We'll ignore the fact that the shots came against the defensively and motivationally challenged Knickerbockers. Both possessions were also aided in no small part by the team finally having a point guard who can handle, pass, and shoot.

After the win over the Knicks, the Hawks put up a credible effort last night in Boston before losing by ten. The Celtics are an excellent defensive team and they mostly squashed the Hawks' offense at crunch time. Boston simply created better shots. Whether that's because they have better players or because they're better coached is a separate question. The Hawks might have equivalent offensive personnel if Marvin Williams and Joe Johnson were playing close to their potential, but both of them have been anchors around the team's collective neck for the last month. It's awfully hard to win in the NBA with a shooting guard shooting 41.4% and a small forward shooting 35.5%, but that's where the Hawks were in February.

And while we're on the subject of the yuck, I ought to offer a few words on Sekou Smith's scoop that Billy Knight was blocked from firing Woodson by ownership three times this season. As an initial matter, it was hilarious to listen the discussion about the article on the same radio show that pronounced Smith to be "syncophantic" towards the Hawks with nary a mention of the change in course. Kudos to the AJC, whose sports page is typically reticent to print anything like Smith's article on the disagreement between Knight and ownership.

As for the news itself, I have no reason to doubt the article, since this isn't the sort of story that sources within the organization would invent. The fact that the Hawks didn't really deny the story lends further credence. So what does the leak itself mean? Is the article intended to motivate Mike Woodson to save his job? Is it meant to undermine Woodson in advance of the Hawks firing him? Those two scenarios seem equally plausible to me. What is the import of the story? Another indictment of a fractured ownership group with excessively diffuse power? Almost certainly. A vote of no confidence in Billy Knight? I suppose that's possible, although Knight ought to have as much credibility as he'll ever have right now after completing his roster with the Bibby heist. Evidence of ownership having confidence in Mike Woodson? They do watch the games, right?

Memo from Turner

You're a lashing, smashing hunk of man;
Your sweat shines sweet and strong.
Your organs working perfectly, but there's a part that's not screwed on.

So much for the Patriot Way. The Falcons went out and signed the top free agent running back on the market, inking Michael Turner to a deal that includes $15M guaranteed and a total of $34M over six years that Turner, like just about every other NFL player on a long term deal, will never see. The deal doesn't strike me as prohibitively expensive in light of the silly money that is being thrown at players like Bernard Berrian. Turner likely came a tad cheap because of the glut of quality running backs available in the Draft. Supply goes up, price goes down, as the purveyors of the dismal science like to graph.

I like Turner a lot. He has a very good reason to have been a back-up for his career:


You remember the guy whom the Falcons effectively traded for Leavenworth inmate no. 45659603643, don't you?

His career as a back-up has been marked by relatively limited carries (low mileage!) and excellent productivity. (5.5 yards per carry!) The Pro Football Prospectus described Turner thusly this summer:

On a per-play basis, Turner has been more effective than LaDainian Tomlinson, which may say more about the Chargers' offensive line than it does about either Turner or Tomlinson...He's going to be a big prize as an unrestricted free agent in 2008.

The Prospectus also hits on my primary concern regarding the Turner signing: an excellent running back behind a crap offensive line is pearls before swine, or Edgerrin James in Arizona if you prefer. The Falcons' offensive line was not good last year and Turner isn't going to give the team competent tackles or make Justin Blalock into the guy who dominated at Texas. Could I reiterate my request for this guy?


Anyone know of a homoerotic Stones tune about a guy named Jake?

That said, I suspect that Glenn Dorsey or Sedrick Ellis are going to be the pick. The heart of New England's defense is Richard Seymour and his buddies on the defensive line. The heart of Jacksonville's defense was John Henderson and Marcus Stroud. Both Dimitroff and Smith know the importance of quality defensive tackles and there are two premium DTs at the top of the Draft.

And since I often gripe about Arthur Blank in this space, let's have some kudos for the guy who signs the checks. Assuming that Thomas Dimitroff and Michael Smith identified Turner as a primary target, then Blank performed his perfect role: the charming closer. If Blank isn't falling in love with players and affecting personnel decisions with his whims, but is instead used to charm players into coming to Atlanta, then everyone wins. Unlike a lot of owners, Blank has charisma and can be an asset to his organization by using that charisma instead of his amateur scouting skills. Let Peter King decide who can play football across a conference room table.