The Vikings Lost A Great Pass-Catching Running Back In Percy Harvin

It's been almost a year since my last post, but I've been itching to get back into it.  And lately...there's been something bothering me that I felt I needed to address.

What is it?

Percy Harvin is not a wide receiver.  There, I said it.


The Minnesota Vikings didn't lose one of the best WR's in the NFL when Harvin was traded to the Seattle Seahawks this week.  They lost one of the best pass-catching RB's in the NFL.

In 8 games last season (before he got "hurt"), Harvin caught 33 of the 62 passes he received BEHIND the line of scrimmage.  In ONLY 8 games...that DOUBLED the amount of passes caught behind the line of scrimmage than 46 of the top 50 WR's.  The next closest receiver to Harvin's 33 receptions behind the line of scrimmage: Antonio Brown of Pittsburgh, who played in 13 games.

This, to me, says one of two things:

1.)  Percy Harvin is not a true NFL Wide Receiver.  He was placed in that position by the Vikings out of necessity due to a lack of options over the last 4 years.  There's no denying his talent, speed, or elusiveness on the field.  He has plenty of skills, without a doubt.  But to call him a "wide receiver" when, in fact, he caught more balls behind the line of scrimmage than any running back in football, is somewhat ridiculous.

Of the 280 career receptions Harvin has, only 65 of them are on passes thrown OVER 10 yards.  That's only 23%.  Compare that to someone like Calvin Johnson, who has 488 career receptions, with 204 of them being over 10 yards.  That's 42%.  Now, on the flip side of that coin, is a player like Wes Welker, who is probably more of an apples-to-apples comparison for a receiver like Harvin.  Welker's percentage of receptions over 10 yards in his career is only around 16%.  Would we consider Welker to not be an NFL wide receiver?  Of course not.  However, given the weapons the New England offense has had during Welker's career, he had a particular role of being more of a "possession" receiver, so naturally, the bulk of his receptions were going to come within yards of the line of scrimmage.

But most Vikings fans wouldn't consider Harvin a "possession" receiver...at least not ON the field...(insert off-the-field pot-smoking joke here).  Listening to local media, listening to fans, the consensus in Minnesota is that Harvin is this unbelievable, top-tier wide-out that deserved to be "paid" big-time dollars.  Again, no denying the talent, but is he truly a Top 10 receiver?  Really?

2.)  With Harvin catching over 50% of his 2012 receptions behind the line of scrimmage, the second thing that tells me is that the Vikings have a MAJOR issue at the quarterback position that the team doesn't quite seem willing to admit...yet.  The fact that they've now signed Matt Cassel to a one-year contract may show a bit of uncertainty with Christian Ponder.  But with a quarterback like Ponder, whose arm strength many have questioned, were Harvin's numbers over the last two years perhaps inflated?  Will Harvin be as "effective" with Seattle as he was in Minnesota?

In my opinion...no.

Harvin benefited greatly from a quarterback who was unable to attack downfield.  Think about this: In just 8 games, Harvin finished the 2012 season 3rd in YAC (Yards After Catch), behind Welker and New Orleans' running back Darren Sproles.  Welker's YAC (619) accounted for only 46% of his total yards (1,354).  Harvin's YAC (531) was responsible for 78% of his 677 total receiving yards.  What that tells me is that Harvin made more of the short dink-and-dunk type passes Ponder was throwing him than what many people realize, which should say a lot about both Harvin and Ponder, from different aspects.


So, the bottom line is this:  Is Percy Harvin a talented NFL player?  Absolutely!  Is he a top-flight wide receiver?  That's highly debatable.  Will the Vikings struggle without him, even if they don't sign a top-tier free agent wide-out?  I think they'll struggle a lot less than what people think.  Will Seattle be a much better team with Harvin?  Most definitely!

2011 NFL Predictions

With the 2011 NFL season getting underway Thursday night with a very entertaining game between the Packers and Saints, it seems only fitting to put my 2011 predictions out tonight.

The fact that the NFL's opening game was able to take place on time wasn't necessarily a miracle, but two months ago, seemed almost unlikely.  Once the lockout was resolved, teams were able to get their business in order, sign the appropriate players, and start training camp on time, only without any of the other off-season workouts.

As a result, 2011 seems as though it will be as cut and dry as they come.  The "haves" will be those teams that have led the pack for a while, teams like the Patriots, Packers, Saints, and Eagles.  The "have nots" will be those teams with younger cores, who, with the lockout affecting spring and summer workouts, were unable to get their younger players the reps necessary to become viable challengers.  The Titans, Panthers, Bengals, and Seahawks come to mind.

More so than in years past, the 2011 season should see no real surprises.  With the news Thursday that Colts' quarterback Peyton Manning will be sidelined for most, if not all, of the 2011 season after undergoing a second surgery on his neck, the only thing that's seemed to shift is the balance of power in the AFC South.

With that said, below are my picks for the 2011 season:

	NFC West				AFC West
1	Cardinals	9-7		1	Chargers	8-8
2	Rams	8-8		2	Broncos	7-9
3	49ers	4-12		3	Raiders	5-11
4	Seahawks	3-13		4	Chiefs	5-11
	NFC North				AFC North
1	Packers	13-3		1	Ravens	13-3
2	Lions	9-7		2	Steelers	13-3
3	Bears	8-8		3	Browns	5-11
4	Vikings	6-10		4	Bengals	4-12
	NFC East				AFC East
1	Eagles	13-3		1	Patriots	13-3
2	Cowboys	8-8		2	Jets	12-4
3	Giants	8-8		3	Dolphins	8-8
4	Redskins	5-12		4	Bills	5-11
	NFC South				AFC South
1	Saints	13-3		1	Texans	11-5
2	Falcons	12-4		2	Colts	5-11
3	Bucs	12-4		3	Jaguars	4-12
4	Panthers	4-12		4	Titans	2-12

NFC Championship: Packers vs. Saints
AFC Championship: Ravens vs. Patriots

Super Bowl: Packers vs. Patriots

Ladies And Gentlemen...Your Minnesota Vikings

For those that know me, you know how much of a Vikings fan I am not.  There's not a single thing I like about the home town football team, so much so that I think the Los Angeles Vikings sounds like a terrific name for an NFL franchise.  I've never lived anywhere other than Minnesota, so I must preface this by saying...this very well could be the case in other cities, but, I don't know that any other fan base in America drinks its team's Kool-Aid more than the Minnesota Vikings' fans.  With the 2011-2012 NFL season upon us after a long lockout, the talk locally has begun again about the local gridiron club, and, as always, it's far more optimistic than it is realistic.

Without Brett Favre heading up the offense this season, the Vikings were left with a huge question mark at quarterback.  A year ago, there were many people locally that thought bringing Favre back for a second season would've been a mistake, and that the Vikings should've made a play for then Eagles' quarterback Donovan McNabb.  It was known that the Eagles were interested in unloading the aging McNabb to make room for the younger Kevin Kolb, but the Vikings instead opted to send a couple of guys down to Mississippi to bring Favre back up to Minnesota.

Philly dealt McNabb to the Washington Redskins for the 2010 season, and, for a short time during the season, it seemed to be a decent fit.  That all changed toward the end of the season, when McNabb was benched in favor of Chicago Bears cast-off Rex Grossman.  Anyone with a working set of eyes and a reasonable amount of intelligence could tell that the overall situation in Washington wasn't favorable to McNabb.  There was no question his style clashed with that of head coach Mike Shanahan.  McNabb may have been getting older, but there was really no logical reason to move him out of the starting position, especially after signing him to a five-year, $78 million contract extension in November.

With the Vikings in need of a quarterback, knowing they wouldn't be bringing back the aging texter Favre, they drafted Christian Ponder out of Florida State in the first round of the NFL Draft, pegged by many knowledgeable NFL minds as the most overrated quarterback in the 2011 Draft.  They seemed somewhat confident that he was going to be "the guy" for them in the 2011 season, and those going forward.  They weren't comfortable with Joe Webb leading this team at the QB position, clearly, which explained the draft choice.  It was clear, however, that what the Vikings needed to do was sign a veteran quarterback to mentor the young rookie.

Instead, what the Vikings decided to do has left a few people very puzzled.  Instead of signing a veteran, they ended up trading for one.  That veteran was the one-year older Donovan McNabb.  Yes, the same McNabb that only a year earlier many Vikings fans clamored for, only now, he's "too old" and this move "makes no sense".  Then, you have those who actually believe that McNabb agreed to the trade so he could actually become Ponder's mentor at the QB position, and actually just turn the starting spot over to Ponder somewhere near the mid-point of the season.

All I can do is laugh.  I talked earlier about those with a working set of eyes and reasonable intelligence. Those same people are looking at this deal the way it should be viewed.  Sadly, those people aren't most of Viking Nation.  For Vikings fans thinking that McNabb accepted a trade to the Vikings in order to become a back-up quarterback and a mentor to Alex Smith, Part Two (Ponder), you're clearly the same delusional fans that believe this 2011 version of the Purple has substantially improved itself over it's 2010 predecessor.

After the most disappointing season of his career, if you think that the fire doesn't still burn inside McNabb to be a starting quarterback for the next three seasons, then you are sadly mistaken.  McNabb is an incredible competitor, and has been one of the most successful quarterbacks in the NFC over the last 10 seasons.  With that being said, and again, coming off such a horrendous season in Washington, there is no question in my mind that McNabb wants to prove to all the naysayers out there that he isn't washed up, and that last season wasn't the McNabb we can expect to see for the rest of his career.  This is a proud man that won't just fade into the background for a rookie quarterback to take his place half-way through a season.  It would probably be even more of a blow to his ego to be relegated to the back-up role in favor of Ponder than it was for him to sit back while Grossman lead the Redskins for their final three games last season.

I'm not saying that Christian Ponder won't make a good NFL quarterback.  He's not the type of guy, like a Peyton Manning, who you just know as soon as he leaves college that he's a game-changer.  When you look at the quarterbacks taken in the first round of the three previous drafts, only one currently isn't starting for his team, and that's Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow.  Otherwise, Matthew Stafford, Matt Ryan, Sam Bradford, Joe Flacco, Josh Freeman are all starting, with Ryan and Flacco starting right away their rookie seasons.  All signs point to these guys being the elite quarterbacks of their generation.  Will Ponder be in that category?  My guess is that he won't, but it's way too early to tell.  What I can tell you though is, if he will be one of the QB's in that category, he'll have to probably wait his turn for at least a full season.

Unwritten Rules Need To Be Erased

Every sport seems to have its "unwritten rules".  You know which ones I'm talking about.  The rules that say you can't run up the score, or that you can't steal a base when you're winning by a lot, or even that you have to "defend" a teammate by going after one on the other team.  Unwritten rules need to virtually erased!

Sunday afternoon, after Carlos Guillen of the Tigers stared him down following a no-doubter home run, Angels pitcher Jered Weaver, clearly upset by being shown up by Guillen, decided to pay him back by throwing the very next pitch almost into the ear hole of Alex Avila, the next Tiger hitter.  I've heard many people over the last 48 hours saying Guillen was completely wrong by admiring his handy work, rather than heading toward first base immediately, thus saying Weaver was entitled to either throw at the next batter, or to throw at Guillen when he got up next.  I have a better idea for Weaver:  Keep the ball off the center of the plate next time.

What drives me up a wall when it comes to professional sports are the "codes" or the unwritten rules that teams and players are supposed to abide by.  As far as I'm concerned, if you're being paid to play a game, anything goes.  Jered Weaver makes $7.37 million this year.  That ought to be enough money to keep someone from Carlos Guillen from driving the ball out of the ball park.  The fact that you couldn't accomplish that shouldn't give you the right to get ticked off and throw at the next guy, just to show both Guillen, and the Angels, that you mean business.  After the game, Weaver was quoted saying:

"He caught me in the All-Star Game (referring to Avila), and we gained a little respect for each other there. So I'm not here to hurt nobody. I just felt like I needed to prove a point.  I think if I wanted to hit him, I could have hit him. I just threw a fastball up and in and it got up and away. It probably looked a little worse than it was, but it was clearly about a foot or two over his head."

You were trying to prove a point?  What point was that?  You threw at a guy who you supposedly had gained a little respect for, not the guy who supposedly disrespected you.  And the pitch was only two feet over his head because he ducked down as it was nearing his helmet.  Seriously Jered, you might want to bring a box of Kleenex out to the mound with you in case someone decides to disrespect you with a five-hit game.

The troubling thing to me wasn't just the fact that Weaver decided to throw at Avila to avenge the home run Guillen hit.  The fact that a second unwritten baseball rule was supposedly broken later that game.  With Justin Verlander in the midst of his second no-hitter of the season, and the Tigers leading 3-0 in the top of the eighth inning, Erick Aybar of the Angels attempted to lead off the eighth with a bunt single.  How could he possibly consider bunting in a 3-0 game, especially off a guy who has no-hit kinda stuff?  How inconsiderate of Aybar, to try and break up a no-hitter with such a cowardly act, rather than try to reach base like a man and just get a hit.  Forget the fact that the Angels just needed base runners in order to try and come back.  He was probably more interested in showing up Verlander and preventing the no-hitter than he was trying to win the game.

Verlander was clearly upset after the inning, despite the bunt attempt resulting in an error on his own throw to first base, thus not breaking up the no-no.  Motioning to Aybar as he took the field in the bottom of the inning, Verlander indicated that the next pitch Aybar saw from him would be square in the middle of his back.  Kinda childish, actually.  Perhaps if the game were more than a grand slam away from being an Angels win, say maybe an 8-0 score, then I could understand the "cheapness" of what the Tigers and their fans considered Aybar's act of bunting to be.  But, that wasn't the score, and as far as I'm concerned, Aybar was doing everything in his power to keep his team in the game, not to bust up history in the making.

Professional athletes shouldn't be allowed to have "hurt feelings" in situations like this.  When an NFL team is leading 35-0 at half-time, that shouldn't mean that they take to strictly running the ball in the second half to preventing running up the score.  NFL teams pay their players quite well, actually, so, if a team is paying its defense $50+ million collectively to stop the other team's offense, then by God, they better be able to stop the other team's offense.  If they can't, then that's too damn bad.  Now, if we're talking high school, or even college, then we're talking about something different entirely.  But, we're not talking high school or college.  We're talking about professional athletes getting paid very lucrative professional contracts to perform.

The same could be said for baseball as a whole.  If a team is up by nine runs in the fifth inning, should that mean that the team leading shouldn't be allowed to steal bases?  Last I checked, Joe Mauer was making $23 million this year.  If a team is leading 9-0 and chooses to steal on him, and he can't throw the guy out, then that's tough luck for Mr. Mauer and the Twins.  Does that mean a hitter who drives a ball into the gap for a sure-fire double in a 12-2 game should hold up at first so he doesn't appear to be "rubbing it in"?  That's an absolutely ridiculous notion!

The sooner sports decide that the unwritten rules or the unwritten code aren't what keeps the game going, the better.  Is it embarrassing when your team gets shellacked by 10 runs?  Absolutely.  Is it any more embarrassing when they get beat by 15?  It shouldn't be, but for some reason, that's what we make it.  So...let's get these unwritten rules unwrittenly erased.

All-Star, Or All-Whosever-Available?

All-Star games are supposed to be showcases for the fans.  In all sports, fans have the opportunity to vote for their favorite players to see them play on a stage of superstars.  Dream team-like rosters dueling it out to see whose stars are superior.  Whether it be the NBA, Major League Baseball, the NHL, or the NFL, All-Star games are meant to showcase the best talent each sport has to offer.

So, why does it feel as though every year, in every sport, All-Star games have become more of a "who wants to play" than a "who we want to see" atmosphere?

Of the four major sports, Major League Baseball's All-Star Game is the one that has the most significance, given the recent change to the format making the All-Star Game the determining factor for home-field advantage in the World Series.  The NFL's showcase of stars, the Pro Bowl, occurs after the season and the Super Bowl have been completed.  The NBA's All-Star Weekend arrives every February, just past the mid-point in the season, as does the NHL's All-Star Game.

With tickets to the MLB All-Star Game on Tuesday night going for between $67 and $5,500, the event is pricy for the average Joe.  It is an event, no doubt about it, but one where people would more than likely be interested in watching stars like Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Jose Reyes, Ryan Braun, and Justin Verlander and not as interested in watching guys like Jhonny Perolta, Pablo Sandoval, Miguel Montero, Ricky Romero, and Craig Kimbrel.  Unfortunately, injuries sometimes determine who it is we all get to see, and more often than not, that's the case.  In the event of some pitchers, however, their normal starts on Sunday prevent them from taking part in the showcase.

This year, it seems as though more of the superstars of the game are absent from the event.  Pitchers like Justin Verlander, C.C. Sabathia, Cole Hamels, and Felix Hernandez will all be out of the game itself, having pitched on Sunday.  That's a combined 44-19 record that won't be throwing during the game.  Yankee stars Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, and Mariano Rivera will be out of the game, nursing injuries (Rodriguez opting to have surgery on his knee on Monday).  Perennial all-stars Joe Mauer, Albert Pujols, Mark Teixeira, Ryan Howard, and Jimmy Rollins will not be present, thanks to sub-par years on their parts (although Pujols has come on late in the first half, despite a wrist injury).  So, is it really an "All-Star" game if the game's best players won't actually be playing?

Sure, it's disappointing for fans who tune in to the game to watch their team's stars or to see players they don't normally see, when those players aren't playing for a variety of reasons, but that's not the true point of the game.  The All-Star Game, regardless of sport, is to showcase the best talent in the league that season.  To reward those players who are deserving of that spotlight, regardless of popularity.  The fact that the fans get to vote in the starters is one thing, but the overall game itself is where players performing at their best get to become household names.  Let's be honest and say that, aside from his 3,000th hit coming just three days prior to the game, Derek Jeter has not done much at all this season to warrant a starting spot in the All-Star Game, and that's coming from somebody that would consider himself a Derek Jeter fan.  Asdrubal Cabrera of the Cleveland Indians has been the best shortstop in the American League throughout the first half, and is truly deserving of the start.

What becomes irritating is when players decline to partake in the All-Star Game to "avoid" injury.  You tend to see this more in the NFL and NBA than you do in Major League Baseball, but it occurs anywhere.  With the NFL, the Pro Bowl takes place after the season.  When you're on a team that has just played two, even three games in the playoffs, you tend to see players decide to just end their season after that final loss, as opposed to suiting up just one more time for the fans.  That's where it becomes unfair to the fans.  For the NBA, it's even worse.  When each conference has 15-16 players on their roster, in a league with only about 15-20 superstar names like Kobe, KG, and LeBron, it can be devastating for one of these superstars to back out of the game to avoid injury or to just "rest up" for the second-half of the season.

We as fans deserve to see the best players on this special stage.  If there are injuries, it's understandable that you not participate.  If you're electing to stay away to remain healthy and not risk hurting yourself, stop being selfish.

Biggest Chokes In Sports History

Coming off an NBA Finals where the "best player in the game" decided to phone it in for a few games, I started thinking about the biggest choking performances I've seen in sports.  I didn't think a whole lot about it, until I started watching a little bit of coverage of the U.S. Open, seeing the first round leader's name on the leader board.  Twenty-two year old Rory McIlroy shot a six under par 65 to open the first round of the 2011 U.S. Open.  Outstanding performance for anyone, but even more so for McIlroy, coming off what could've been considered a major choke in this year's Masters.  So, what are some of the other "chokes" in sports, either specific plays, matches, games, or series?

Given McIlroy's age (22) and virtual inexperience at the top of the leader board in major championships, it might be hard to actually consider his 2011 Masters fourth round performance a "choke", but it does have to be put into the conversation.  However, when it comes to the Masters itself, one performance in my mind  sticks out as an even bigger collapse.  Back in 1996, Greg Norman entered the final round of the Masters up by six strokes.  After his final round on Sunday, he finished a total of five shots behind eventual winner Nick Faldo.  For someone widely considered to be one of the better golfers of his generation, this was easily one of Norman's darkest hours, and definitely ranks up there as one of the greatest chokes in all of sports, not just golf.

Boxing saw one of it's biggest choking performances back in 1990, when Mike Tyson was knocked out for the World Heavyweight title in Tokyo to little-known James "Buster" Douglas.  For a lot of people, this was one of those events in history where, if you were old enough, knew exactly where you were when you heard the news.  Tyson was always a little off-key, but the loss to Douglas was just the beginning of the downward spiral Tyson's career would see.  Was it a choke?  Maybe.  Or, maybe Tyson just took Douglas a little too lightly.  Hard to say, but regardless, it goes down as one of the biggest upsets in sports history.

When it comes to choking in a playoff series, the most recent that comes to mind is that of the 2004 New York Yankees.  Up 3-0 in the best-of-seven American League Championship Series against the hated rival Boston Red Sox, it was considered a lock that the Yankees would end up in yet another World Series.  It had never been done before in Major League Baseball history, that a team trailing a series 3-0 had come back to win the series...until 2004.  Boston scrapped and clawed their way back, eventually winning four straight games, and moving on to the World Series, where they went on to win their first World Championship in 86 years.  Definitely an amazing performance by Curt Schilling, David Ortiz, and the rest of the Boston Red Sox...but, an equally impressive meltdown by the New York Yankees.

Sometimes, it's difficult to distinguish between a "choke" and a hard-fought comeback.  This was definitely the case in the 1993 NFL Playoffs, when the Buffalo Bills overcame a 32 point deficit, to comeback and defeat the Houston Oilers in a Wild Card playoff game.  The Oilers had looked very impressive for the first half of football, seemingly steam-rolling over the powerful Bills.  The second half, however, saw a completely different game.  The Oilers looked nothing like they had in the first half, and the Bills looked twice as hungry as they had to start the game.  So, was it a choke, or did the Bills just outplay the Oilers?  Always a tough call, but I think any time you lose a 32 point lead, there has to be some choking involved.

So...help me out everyone.  What are some of the other choking performances in sports history?  Give me your thoughts.  Let's see how many we can come up with.