In your opinion does this season look interestingly similar to seasons past for the Washington Redskins?

In watching a few of the preseason games it seems to me that the Redskins actually look like they could be decent. The main issues I see are in the expected areas. The biggest problem is potentially the weapons at receiver. We all know that Mike is going to force the run game down every opponents throat and he will do it by committee so there is no real issue there despite it being one of the most talked about issues so far. Frankly, I have never been a fan of Santana Moss, he is simply one of those players who has the potential to break free but never seems to catch the ball at the right time. And I don't think McNabb is going to change his abilities all that much. Then there is Joey Galloway. Joey has been solid for many years and a good addition but he isn't a game changing receiver, not by a long shot. After these two guys who is there?

Behind Santana there is Anthony Armstrong and Joey is backed up/supported by Bobby Wade. Well if you were thinking who are these guys then we are getting on the same page here. After breaking things down it becomes more and more obvious that Chris Cooley is potentially the Skins primary receiver, a scary thought indeed. Now don't get me wrong Chris is a very reliable and solid option but he too isn't a game changing receiver.

The bottom-line is that if McNabb might find himself in a very similar situation to when he was playing in Philadelphia. That being said, also keep in mind that just because a receiver has a recognizable name it doesn't make him a high quality player.

Thanks for reading.

Comments?(0)

As I sit here listening and reading about the profitability of the Pittsburgh Pirates only one solution comes to mind….. the MLB should abandon its revenue sharing and adopt a plan that institutes a salary cap with an add-on clause forcing teams to dedicate a certain percentage to player payroll. If a team wishes to extend itself beyond the cap then there are substantial penalties and if a club falls shy fulfilling their cap minimum allocation, while remaining profitable, then they should too be faced with a forcible penalty.

In the case of the Pirates it isn’t hard to establish the idea that the baseball fans in Pittsburgh are getting the short end of the stick. According to cbssports.com the Pirates made 29.7 million both in 2007 and 2008. Think about the talent the Pirates could have brought in with those funds, or at the very least the talent they could have kept. The fact remains that Pittsburgh ownership, like the owners of the Royals and arguably the A’s, are not interested in fielding a competitive team. But the bottom-line is that it shouldn’t be up to the fans to force a team into submission or, more accurately, into competition.

The league should recognize these facts and act to stop the manipulation. The ole’ theory that weak market teams can’t be competitive has been totally abolished by the recent success of the Diamondbacks, Rockies, and Rays. In other words, if these teams can win against the likes of the Yankees, Phillies, Braves, and Red Sox then a historic program like Pittsburgh should have no problems.

However, adversely even if and when new regulations are enforced teams like the Pirates are still going to have trouble signing adequate talent. Players are in the market for long-term deals with high rewards but this doesn’t mean subjecting themselves to substantial misery in the process. In other words, the league can force a team to pony up but can’t impose rules and regulations for building the proper chemistry, coaching or cohesiveness necessary to handle the variety of egos and talents the league harbors. While directly we might all think that cleaning up the talent issue in Pittsburgh will automatically result in a better team there remain other expensive factors that might not be included in the new regulatory rules, thus ownership can still find a way to copout on their duty to the fan.

So for better or worse Pittsburgh seems to be in a mess for the duration despite a recent article in Sports Illustrated that suggests that Pittsburgh’s new ownership is working toward building a better franchise. What’s even more appalling is that even with league intervention we will find ourselves asking who will ultimately be the end benefactor?

Thanks for reading. 

Comments?(0)

It’s that time of year again. Last night officially marked the beginning of the NFL season for me. I know the starters only played for 2 or 3 sets but it certainly hit the spot. However, last night proved more than just the start to another grueling NFL campaign; it just reminded me of why I am a monstrous proponent of the NFL’s campaign to expand the regular season by two games. The NFL has had the four preseason game schedule only for a blip of its overall existence but as a “paying” customer it isn’t hard to see why the NFL wants to extend the season into the month of August. The question is whether despite my personal feelings it will be better or worse for the NFL as a whole?

While fans would love to think that schedule expansion is truly about them it remains important to keep the wool off their eyes. Sure your favorite team potentially gets one more important home game out of the affair but that game will in effect come at a high cost. Over the course of its recent history the NFL has done nothing to demonstrate a willingness to simply engulf change for free. If you look at expansion a little deeper some of the additional costs have already floated to the surface. The Players Union will immediately return fire with the need for expanded rosters, better player insurance, and greater overall compensation. An increase in these basic costs alone will quickly and not so quietly be passed onto the consumer and they aren’t costs that big wig corporations and their hefty box seats are going to feel the brunt of. Instead, the dad who wants to take his three kids the game will suffer or even better yet the blue collar worker who already has to invest his whole paycheck to buy nose bleed seats will no longer be able to attend games. The list will go on and on. In the end the actual economic costs of attending events and/or watching them on television will become adequately more consuming and expensive, thus making the games loss some of their current luster.

While the expenses go up there are definite benefits to expansion as well. For years I have been an adamant proponent of increasing health benefits for former players. If the Players Union plays their cards right expansion could provide the best chance to get a deal worked out. Instead, of constantly worrying about direct player compensation first the Union could help all player evenly across the board by protecting their medical needs further down the line. The current NFL system provides insurance benefits for players ranging as far out into retirement as 5 years. Ironically enough, most health issues, particularly those associated with head injury; don’t show up within that realm. That means players are left to suffer extreme costs associated with injury caused by playing. Sure for a player like Peyton Manning this might not be a huge deal because the money he makes certainly allows him to purchase an extensive medical coverage plan well into his retirement. However, an offensive lineman who merely makes the league minimum might not be able to pay for extended coverage deep into his retirement due to the high risk nature of his profession. Here is where a deal would help. The Union should secure a deal that extends medical benefits in return for the two additional games. If they make this a top priority then something can finally be done to help prevent so many sad cases of brain trauma victims losing their coverage simply because they chose to play football. In this regard not only will the NFL help appeal more to their fans by giving them more of the product they so desperately want but the league would be taking on a more progressive atmosphere which could help pave the way for safer negotiations later on as matters become relatively more sticky.

In the end, I can see why schedule expansion can be bad but I see the potential as outweighing things substantially. I am not sure about you but I am willing to embrace some additional cost to get a slightly longer, yet still not overwhelming, schedule expansion in place. That being said, ultimately two more regular season games is definitely for the better.

Thanks for reading.  

Comments?(0)