Friday, February 17, 2012

Eli Manning?s ?athletic amnesia? set him apart early on

No matter the sport, those who wish to succeed over a long period of time must develop what I would call "athletic amnesia" -- the ability to learn from one's mistakes at the same time you avoid the mental and emotional backlash than can happen if you take those mistakes to heart�too often. In the NFL, quarterbacks and cornerbacks really have to have that amnesia -- when you throw a pick, or when you get burned by a receiver, you have to stick that in your back pocket and move on. The game moves far too quickly; if you're busy pouting, it will pass you by.

In his first postseason MMQB column of 2012, SI.com's �Peter King looks back through a 10-year history of scouting notes, game recaps, and quotes from the man himself in an attempt to get to the heart of Eli Manning's character. What is it about this particular quarterback that drives him to come up big in the biggest moments, when those with even more talent than his will falter under pressure?

As King recalls, you can trace the "clutchiness" back to a 2002 game between Eli's Ole Miss team and Jason Campbell's heavily favored Auburn Tigers.

A couple of days later, [New York Giants then-GM Ernie] Accorsi types his report in all capital letters to be submitted as part of the team's scouting report on Manning. In a section of the report covering the second half, he writes: "NEVER GETS RATTLED. RALLIED HIS TEAM FROM A 14-3 HALFTIME DEFICIT BASICALLY ALL BY HIMSELF. LED THEM ON TWO SUCCESSIVE THIRD QUARTER DRIVES TO GO AHEAD, 17-16. THE FIRST TOUCHDOWN, ON A 40-YARD STREAK DOWN THE LEFT SIDELINE, HE DROPPED THE BALL OVER THE RECEIVER'S RIGHT SHOULDER. CALLED THE NEXT TOUCHDOWN PASS HIMSELF, CHECKING OFF TO A 12-YARD SLANT. MAKES A LOT OF DECISIONS ON PLAY CALLS AT THE LINE OF SCRIMMAGE.''

That was the first clue for the Giants. In the same way that Bill Walsh leaned fairly heavily on a series of Notre Dame comeback victories in 1978 when evaluating Joe Montana, Accorsi knew the importance of this game. Clearly, it factored heavily in the Giants' decision to trade up with the San Diego Chargers in the 2004 draft and make Eli their future. He didn't care what had happened before to put him in that hole -- all the young quarterback was thinking about was how to right the ship.

Fast-forward in King's piece to Eli's rookie year, and a nationally televised game against the Pittsburgh Steelers, and a fellow first-year quarterback named Ben Roethlisberger. Eli was coming off a series of disastrous games, especially a loss to the Baltimore Ravens in which the Ravens made him look like a high school backup.

Did Eli pout? Nope. Did he beat himself up publicly, as some of your dumber coaches would prefer their players do when they screw up? Not at all.


Two hours after the Ravens game, Eli had turned on the amnesia for everything but the things that would allow him to learn.

On the two-hour ride to Newark, Manning spoke with Gilbride and then-offensive coordinator John Hufnagel. Rather than sulk about the disastrous game he'd played, he told them his eight favorite plays. He told them, "If you could put these in the game plan next week, it'd give me eight plays I'd be comfortable with -- rhythm plays, plays I know I'd have an open receiver even if it was just a short gain.''

Notable that Manning could think about the next game 90 minutes after the most embarrassing game of his life. "I was down, really down,'' he said. "But I knew if we could put some plays in the plan for the next week that I liked, I'd feel better about it -- and the offense would see in practice we'd be able to move the ball.''

The Giants lost a 33-30 thriller that day, but that's where it really started. And that's why Eli Manning is able to zero in when the moment demands it. He keeps just enough from his mistakes to learn from them, and he throws the rest away to avoid all that baggage.

It's a pretty good lesson for all of us.

Source: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/eli-manning-athletic-amnesia-set-him-apart-early-163057740.html

Domata Peko Corey Peters

Champions League malaise gives Premier League cause for concern | Daniel Taylor

Arsenal's thrashing by Milan leaves English football potentially facing its worst European Cup performance in 16 years

Perhaps the most damning assessment came from Arrigo Sacchi, the man who created possibly the finest Milan team in history. Sacchi had already used his "Sopra La Panca" column in Wednesday's Gazzetta dello Sport to say this was the worst Arsenal team for a decade but, after seeing them close-up, he wanted to revise his criticisms. "I said 10 years," he told television viewers. "Maybe I was being too generous."

Sacchi, a two-times European Cup winner with the team of Gullit, Van Basten, Rijkaard, Baresi et al, had called it exactly right. Zlatan Ibrahimovic, he predicted, could be "devastating" against a defence this vulnerable.

"Arsenal cannot match Milan for experience, technical quality and individuality. They are not sharp. They do not move as a unit, their defence is slow and not protected by their midfield."

In the past, he said, Ars�ne Wenger's teams played a "fast and brilliant way". The current team was "not fluid" and "still searching for a convincing system".

It was difficult to argue with a single word of it after a night that Wenger described as "our worst in Europe ever". Arsenal's manager has never been particularly good at hiding his distress after bad defeats and it was difficult to remember the last time he looked quite so mortified. No side has ever turned around a four-goal deficit to win a Champions League knockout tie. Arsenal have played 222 times in Europe and never lost so comprehensively. Wenger could hardly maintain eye contact. He was grey.

Yet Sacchi's observations extended further than the current malaise at Arsenal. "Look at the Premier League," he said. "They are a long way behind the two Manchester clubs, both of whom are already out of the Champions League. This just underlines the decline of English football."

The more popular view, certainly in the self-congratulatory Premier League, is that it is actually Italian football that has been regressing. Sacchi, however, had a point. This is threatening to be the first season since 1996 when English football has not been able to provide a single quarter-finalist.

Arsenal's chances rank somewhere between minimal and nonexistent and, though Chelsea will hope to do better when they take on Napoli at the Stadio San Paolo on Tuesday, the dislocation between Andr� Villas-Boas and his increasingly mutinous group of players hardly inspires confidence.

This could probably be written off as a one-off, nothing too potentially serious or long-lasting, if Manchester United had not already been eliminated from a group featuring Basel, Benfica and a Romanian team, Otelul Galati, that Sir Alex Ferguson admitted he had never heard of when the draw was made. Manchester City did manage 10 points from a challenging group featuring Napoli and Bayern Munich, which would ordinarily be enough to qualify, but it still represents a failure given the enormous spending under the ownership of the Abu Dhabi United Group.

Whether this constitutes a genuine decline is difficult to say. A decline usually means a number of years, rather than one bad campaign, and it is not so long ago English football was slapping itself on the back for having provided three of the four semi-finalists in three successive seasons, from 2007 to 2009. United have reached the final in three of the past five campaigns and Arsenal, United and Tottenham have all knocked Milan out of the last 16 in the same period.

What happens with Chelsea next week will give a clearer picture but, for now, Arsenal's lamentable efforts and the sight of the Premier League's top two clubs grubbing around in the Europa League does raise the question of whether everything in the self-acclaimed best league in the world is as good as it is cracked up to be.

Arsenal's performance had been shocking and yet also predictable. The Manchester clubs did not even make it out of the group stages and that leaves English football relying upon a Chelsea team whose deterioration, much like Arsenal's, is close to the point of being staggering. Napoli have already eliminated City and, if they do the same to Chelsea, it will represent the least distinguished performance from English clubs since Blackburn Rovers had a go 16 years ago and demonstrated exactly how not to do it ? David Batty, Graeme Le Saux and all that.


guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/feb/16/champions-league-premier-league

Aaron Rodgers Ben Roethlisberger Tony Romo Sage Rosenfels

Kevin Pietersen is England's greatest modern batsman ? flaws and all | Barney Ronay

KP's record is dizzyingly fine, the last of the high-water-mark 2005 Ashes team still playing in all formats of the game

This week I went to the kind of sporting sub?event that puts you in mind, rather uneasily, of the old joke about being the type of person who turns up to the opening of an envelope, or the launch of a rubber dinghy, or the unfoiling of a Pot Noodle.

In this case it was the unveiling of a shirt: not just any shirt, but the one Kevin Pietersen will wear for his new IPL franchise, the Delhi Daredevils. The shirt's coming-out was staged at the ICC cricket academy in Dubai and was a spectacle that, it must be said, required a certain amount of politicking to witness. Initially English press were banned from attending. This shirt launch was simply too big, too thickly caked in event-glamour.

Then a twist: English journalists could attend, but they must not ask questions. They may look upon the shirt, but only in the role of penitent mutes, struck dumb by its splendour. And so it was that after a tantalising delay, flanked by a cartel of grinning bigwigs, Pietersen finally appeared decked out in full Daredevils get-up, as ever surprisingly tall and lean and tanned and goofily charismatic.

We'd come not to bury KP, but perhaps to smile a little and to draw arch analogies between his recent travails in 50-over cricket and this knee?trembling Twenty20 canonisation. But as he ran through his lines, doing really rather well, name-checking the right people, posing for a photo with all four attendant bigwigs clutching at a single corner of the shirt, as though it were some holy healing shroud, it was hard not to soften and feel a little proud of this most peculiar cricketing personage.

This is the thing about Pietersen. You may think you have the measure of him, but for all his enduring celebrity-ism he remains both appealing and surprisingly persistent. It is perhaps only when he is finally gone that we may feel he has been slightly underrated, rather than, as many would suggest, the opposite.

Naturally, none of the attendant shirt-launch shenanigans were actually Pietersen's fault. He is simply the product here, retailed aggressively by his time-share owners. Plus, he fits this world so well it is tempting to imagine he harbours ambitions of becoming soon a facsimile of Chris Gayle, the world's most post-modern cricketer, who has basically pared himself down into a hired global six-hitting machine: just dial the 24-hour emergency number and Gayle will emerge from the nearest disco carrying his baseball bat.

But we know Pietersen better than this by now. The fact is, he hasn't disappeared from view, hasn't shied from difficult times in 50-over cricket, but has instead embraced his reinvention as an opening batsman at precisely the moment in his career he seems least equipped for its demands.

Many have remarked on the technical flaw in a defence that sees him present his bat with a dramatic swish from the right, like a matador brandishing his cloak. And there is something epically poignant about Pietersen being humbled by the forward defensive, this telescopicallyassembled uber-athlete with his nylon warrior's gait, baffled by cricket's ancient first position, like Tarzan starving to death because he just can't hold his knife and fork properly.

Some see this as symptomatic of a fatal flaw, a hubristic failure to refine and adapt his kung-fu forward lunge. Some will say he has always had a flawed technique, relying instead on those astronaut's reflexes. But this overlooks his fervent dedication to practice. Frail, ungrooved techniques are for lazier players. Instead Pietersen is simply

at a time when he is suffering chronic uncertainty at the crease, induced by the brutal new world of UDRS with its unblinking pedant's eye for lbw.

It is a system that has on certain pitches made cricket into a game of lbw, turned pads into stumps and cricket into french-cricket, stumps and bails a backdrop to the real G-spot, the batsman's legs.

Pietersen has not yet rebuilt his batting to counter this assault on the shins. Will he be given time? Certainly there is no real pillow of enduring public affection to sustain him through the lean times. Instead, Pietersen is often viewed a bit like a piece of machinery bought in at great expense: when he doesn't work he seems suddenly useless, like a combine harvester with a broken axle. This is despite the fact that his career record is not just fine, but dizzyingly fine. In ODIs Pietersen has the highest batting average of any England player with more than 50 matches. He is England's greatest player yet in Twenty20. And only Ken Barrington and Wally Hammond have played as many Tests and had a higher batting average. Forget for a moment comparing attacks across the ages. Judged solely on his stats, Pietersen is England's greatest batsman of the modern age.

His value lies in intangibles, too. Few other sportsmen have provided such distinctive and memorable physicality: that bravura forearm-extension to meet the clouting cover drive, or the quick step and loft over midwicket he produced on Wednesday night off the bowling of Abdur Rehman.

Then there are the innings: the 158 at The Oval in 2005 will remain his most dizzying extreme, an innings of fearless skunk?haired dufus-genius. Since then there have been more rhythmic masterpieces ? and this is the lovely paradox about Pietersen. He may have been painted as brash and new world?ish, a twitching future?phile. But it is his Test match deeds that will endure.

Plus, he has the added lustre of having simply not gone away, the last of the high-water-mark 2005 England team still playing in all formats. For two years now he is supposed to have been on the wane, already engaged in the roadrunner years, that modern sporting phenomenon where from a distance it is clear you've already gone skittering out over the edge of the cliff, held up by nothing more than fame-momentum and celebrity ballast. But Pietersen is dogged as well as explosive, as all great sportsmen are. And beneath the excitingly zippered, multi?chevroned inanities of his latest act of shirt-shifting, this is still a truly great English cricketer.


guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/feb/17/kevin-pietersen-england-delhi-daredevils-ipl

Chris Massey Ryan Mathews Reagan Mauia Le Ron McClain

Roddy White isn?t thrilled with Roger Goodell?s $20 million salary

It probably won't surprise you to learn that Roger Goodell makes a lot of money, but you might be surprised at just how much. Pro Football Talk ran an item Monday saying that Roger Goodell, by 2019, will be making $20 million a year.

If that figure seems high to you, you're not alone. Atlanta Falcons wide receiver Roddy White is not on board with Goodell's salary. He fired off a bunch of tweets about it, which I've compiled here and edited as best I could for purposes of readability. Here's Roddy:

How in the hell can you pay a man this much money, that can't run or tackle or catch? Roger Goodell is getting over, never seen anything like it, 20 million for looking over the league with tremendous help. I guess the NFL is banking. The NFL is not a company, it's a nonprofit organization that makes a lot of profit.

I'm not into arguing who is and isn't overpaid. I mean, it's a free-market economy, and if you can generate revenue, then you get paid. Yes, we end up with linebackers making 370 times the salary of a school teacher, and that's obscene, but that's capitalism. I know that no one is suggesting socialism as an alternative.

The same system that allows Roger Goodell to make $20 million a year is the same system that allows Roddy White to sign a six-year deal worth $48 million. Who's overpaid? The guy making $20 million who wears a suit and makes decisions in board rooms, or the guy who wears a helmet and catches oblong pigskins?

I offer no answer of my own. I just hope both men are able to find peace with themselves and their salaries while driving around in their Bentleys.

Gracias, PFT.

Other popular content on the Yahoo! network:
? How Allen Iverson blew through his $154M NBA career fortune
? Soccer player causes stir with sexist Valentine's Day picture
? A shameless businessman wants to patent 'Linsanity'
? GrindTV: Diver frees entangled orca crying for help

Source: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/roddy-white-isn-t-thrilled-roger-goodell-20-215348299.html

Aaron Rodgers Ben Roethlisberger Tony Romo Sage Rosenfels

Celtics Vs. Bulls: Bulls Down Celtics, 89-80

Source: http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/2/16/2803901/celtics-vs-bulls-bulls-down-celtics-89-80

Colt McCoy Stephen McGee Donovan McNabb Matt Moore

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Could concussions actually kill football?

-- If the sport of football ever dies, it will die from the outside in. -- Jonah Lehrer

If an increasing number of economists and trend analysts are to be believed, we may one day look back at something like Colt McCoy's concussion against the Pittsburgh Steelers in 2011 as one of many galvanic events that blew football apart, and reduced the country's most popular sport to a marginal pastime. It's unlikely that such a colossal financial concern as football could be killed off entirely, but as Malcolm Gladwell first wrote in the New Yorker in 2009, it's not crazy to think that an increasing number of player concussions -- and the NFL's real lack of concern about those injuries despite its public face -- could have Americans looking at football very differently down the road.

Gladwell's article, which compared football to dogfighting and revealed some truly horrifying information about the effects of concussions on the minds and bodies of football players (even more than has already been revealed through other outlets), was dismissed in most football circles as the nerdy ramblings of a weird-haired Englishman who doesn't understand the game. But Gladwell understood the common threads of different competitive dangers well enough to make some interesting connections.

In one way or another, plenty of organizations select for gameness. The Marine Corps does so, and so does medicine, when it puts young doctors through the exhausting rigors of residency. But those who select for gameness have a responsibility not to abuse that trust: if you have men in your charge who would jump off a cliff for you, you cannot march them to the edge of the cliff?and dogfighting fails this test. Gameness, Carl Semencic argues, in "The World of Fighting Dogs" (1984), is no more than a dog's "desire to please an owner at any expense to itself."

Okay -- that's one, and football fits that suit to a degree. But let's pass Gladwell by and look at two articles recently written for Grantland, ESPN's "boutique" website. A piece by Jonah Lehrer, entitled "The Fragile Teenage Brain" and quoted above, reported estimates indicating that up to two million football players, from the high school level up, suffer concussions every season -- and those are the concussions that are actually reported. For those unaware of what those concussions can do to kids, Lehrer lays it all out.

In 2002, a team of neurologists surveying several hundred high school football players concluded that athletes who had suffered three or more concussions were nearly ten times more likely to exhibit multiple "abnormal" responses to head injury, including loss of consciousness and persistent amnesia. A 2004 study, meanwhile, revealed that football players with multiple concussions were 7.7 times more likely to experience a "major drop in memory performance" and that three months after a concussion they continued to experience "persistent deficits in processing complex visual stimuli." What's most disturbing, perhaps, is that these cognitive deficits have a real-world impact: When compared with similar students without a history of concussions, athletes with two or more brain injuries demonstrate statistically significant lower grade-point averages.

At the NFL level, there are dangling issues still unresolved. Colt McCoy's concussion is perhaps paramount among them because of the obvious nature of the injury, the team's initial reluctance to diagnose it, and the league's lukewarm reaction to the idea that McCoy had suffered a head injury at all. From our initial report of the incident, when McCoy was knocked into another zip code by Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison in early December:

When Harrison�led with his helmet into McCoy's facemask in the fourth quarter of that game, McCoy left the game for just two plays before returning to action. Hidden in that narrative was what happened to McCoy when he came back in the game ? it was clear that the kid got his bell rung pretty good, and that's where the story becomes confusing.

After the game, McCoy�told reporters that he couldn't remember the hit, but Browns coach Pat Shurmur said that McCoy was "fine to go back in." After the game, the media was asked to turn the lights off in their cameras. Why? Well, sensitivity to light is one of the most obvious concussion symptoms.

More germane to this story was the reaction of McCoy's father, Brad, a longtime high school coach in Texas.

"I talked to Colt this morning and he said, 'Dad, I don't know what happened, but I know I lost the game. I know I let the team down. What happened?'

"He never should've gone back in the game," the elder McCoy continued. "He was basically out [cold] after the hit. You could tell by the ridigity of his body as he was laying there. There were a lot of easy symptoms that should've told them he had a concussion. He was nauseated and he didn't know who he was. From what I could see, they didn't test him for a concussion on the sidelines. They looked at his [left] hand.''

Now, think about that. If a high school coach is outraged about the treatment of his son at the hands of the NFL, how do you think the "average" parent is going to feel about letting his or her child play at a level where finances dictate a less stringent series of protocols?

[Related --�Brain Trauma And The Future Of Youth Football In America]

The second article for Grantland on this subject, written by Tyler Cowen and Kevin Grier, and entitled, "What Would the End of Football Look Like?" brings the concept of liability into the equation. Picture a large subset of schools already in hock from a budget standpoint, and imagine how easy it would be for many of those schools to drop football altogether if the financial risks outweigh the potential rewards.

The most plausible route to the death of football starts with liability suits.�Precollegiate football is already sustaining 90,000 or more concussions each year. If ex-players start winning judgments, insurance companies might cease to insure colleges and high schools against football-related lawsuits. Coaches, team physicians, and referees would become increasingly nervous about their financial exposure in our litigious society. If you are coaching a high school football team, or refereeing a game as a volunteer, it is sobering to think that you could be hit with a $2 million lawsuit at any point in time. A lot of people will see it as easier to just stay away.

More and more modern parents will keep their kids out of playing football, and there tends to be a "contagion effect" with such decisions; once some parents have second thoughts, many others follow suit. We have seen such domino effects with the risks of smoking or driving without seatbelts, two unsafe practices that were common in the 1960s but are much rarer today. The end result is that the NFL's feeder system would dry up and advertisers and networks would shy away from associating with the league, owing to adverse publicity and some chance of being named as co-defendants in future lawsuits.

Now, there are some slightly unrealistic Armageddon scenarios in the piece written by Cowen and Grier, as intriguing as the article is. Their contention that Napster was eventually brought down by legal constraint fails to recognize that file-sharing is far more common now than it was a decade ago, due primarily to the number of sites employing servers in areas of the world where the rules don't seem to apply. And businesses die all the time without any lack of moral imperative behind the losses.

That said, the hypothetical presented by the authors isn't entirely nuts if a series of dominoes fall entirely the wrong way.

This slow death march could easily take 10 to 15 years. Imagine the timeline. A couple more college players ? or worse, high schoolers ? commit suicide with autopsies showing CTE. A jury makes a huge award of $20 million to a family. A class-action suit shapes up with real legs, the NFL keeps changing its rules, but it turns out that less than concussion levels of constant head contact still produce CTE. Technological solutions (new helmets, pads) are tried and they fail to solve the problem. Soon high schools decide it isn't worth it. The Ivy League quits football, then California shuts down its participation, busting up the Pac-12. Then the Big Ten calls it quits, followed by the East Coast schools. Now it's mainly a regional sport in the southeast and Texas/Oklahoma.

It's just as easy to put forth the proposition that colleges, starting with the small and less profitable, would bail from the game if lawsuits were the new loss leaders. And at the NFL level, there are an increasing number of suits against a league still reluctant to admit that it willfully ignored �the effects of head injuries far too long despite an avalanche of data proving the long-term effects.

At this point, the NFL faces at least 20 separate concussion lawsuits by former players who say they were misrepresented. And some of those plaintiffs have combined to make their efforts more formidable.

The language on either side is fairly boilerplate. The players allege that the NFL knowingly lagged behind in concussion awareness for the financial betterment of the game without a thought to the personal consequences. The league, led by well-paid mouthpiece Roger Goodell, maintains that such awareness has always been a league priority.

Colt McCoy and his father, two men who have been bonded by the game throughout their lives, would most likely disagree.

Isaac Asimov once told Howard Cosell that in his opinion, robot players would one day replace humans in football. If the nightmare scenarios recently painted come true someday, we may look upon Asimov's option as a most appealing saving grace.

Source: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/could-concussions-actually-kill-football-195407804.html

Ben Roethlisberger Tony Romo Sage Rosenfels Matt Ryan

ANIMATED: Joakim Noah Is Still Doing The Pistol Dance

Source: http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/2/16/2803844/joakim-noah-pistol-gif

Derrick Ward Danny Ware Leon Washington Beanie Wells