Matthew Berry is Atrocious at His Job, Don't Ever Listen to a Single Word He Says

Berry, aka ESPN's "Talented Mr. Roto," presumably has been a successful fantasy sports GM in the past. I mean, I won't speculate as to exactly how he got his nickname, or exactly how he acquired his position at ESPN. But I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume he has won/fared well in numerous fantasy football and baseball leagues. Probably.

Now, HAVING SAID THAT, this guy is a fucking idiot. Here's the thing- I've known this for a looonnnnnnnnng time. A long time. And I came to know it by seeing his televised fantasy blurbs on various terrible ESPN programs. But until today, I had never bothered to read anything he wrote. And having finally done so, I have no choice but to make this post.

Before I begin, let me clarify "fucking idiot." Berry's problem is not lack of knowledge. (Well, actually, as you'll see below, that is in fact his problem some of the time. But not all the time.) His real problem is his inability to apply that knowledge. He knows the stats. He obviously does his research. He just can't take those stats and that knowledge and use it to offer any kind of meaningful advice. Don't believe me? Of course you do. All eight of you who read this blog seem to pretty much take my word on everything. But just in case you don't believe me, read on. His week 15 NFL "Players I Love"/"Players I Hate" column is a great example of his incompetence. I'll provide some analysis of his analysis, and then list the relevant stats his recommendations/non-recommendations piled up last weekend. At the end, I'll total everything up for both groups. I'm writing this before looking up the stats, but based on what I know offhand, I'm fairly certain the players he hated did better than the players he loved. When your whole job is giving people fantasy advice... that means you're a fucking idiot.

Week 15 Players I Love:

Pierre Garcon, WR, Colts: Jaguars give up the fourth-most fantasy points to opposing wide receivers and I have Garcon ahead of Reggie Wayne in my rankings. He's healthier, he will see fewer double-teams, he's been the better fantasy wide receiver the past six weeks, he has a French first name, he's nice to children and pets, there are only two games all year where Jacksonville has not given up at least one touchdown to an opposing wide receiver, even with his poor game last week, Garcon still leads the Colts in targets, Rashean Mathis probably isn't going to play and I play softball with a guy who played college football with Garcon and says he's a really nice guy. At least some of these reasons are relevant.

Hilarious. And insightful. Not terrible analysis (far from the worst you'll read here), but Wayne went off (more on that below) and Garcon went for a whole 2 catches and 16 yards.

Robert Meachem, WR, Saints: Even without scoring last week, Meachem still has seven touchdowns in his past six games. Cowboys are 21st against the pass and Drew Brees looks for Meachem often; he's second on the Saints in targets over the past six weeks.

Hmmm. Meachem went for 5 catches and 43 yards. He was targeted fewer times than either Marques Colston or Devery Henderson.

Pierre Thomas and Reggie Bush, RB, Saints: Pierre has four scores in his past three home games, Bush will be a good outlet for Brees when the Cowboys try to blitz, and I don't think Mike Bell plays. If he does, I'm not as excited about Bush.

Bell: only Saints RB to score a touchdown during the game. Thomas and Bush combined: 116 total yards of rushing and receiving.

Laurence Maroney, RB, Patriots: A podcast listener came up with the term "Fantasy Zombie."

A pox on that asshole.

As in ... a guy left for dead who has somehow risen from the grave to actually have real, legit fantasy value. And backing up Cedric Benson in the backfield for the Fightin' Fantasy Zombies is Laurence Maroney. With Brady banged up, I expect the Patriots to rely on the run even more, especially considering how bad the Bills' rush defense is.

Shitty analysis, considering the Bills are bad at everything. Maroney is Berry's first pretty decent recommendation, with 81 yards and a TD.

In fact, I even like Sammy Morris to get four or five points in this game, useful if you are in a deep league.

NO! Quit while you're ahead! Don't say extra stuff when you don't have to- it's almost definitely going to be wrong. Morris: 15 total yards, no TDs.

Terrell Owens, WR, Bills: Speaking of Zombies, Owens makes my flesh crawl. But the Patriots have given up 10 touchdowns to opposing wide receivers in the past five games and Owens has scores in three of his past four games (the one exception being the game he was out on Revis Island).

Hooooo boy. The first of many times Berry will bumblefuck his way through the whole "this team has a good pass (or rush) defense!" thing. Yeah, you know what feeds into those numbers? Whether or not you're a good team or not, or more accurately, whether you're usually playing with a lead or not. It doesn't often speak to the defensive talent the team he's evaluating has. The Patriots gave up 10 pass TDs in their last 5 games for two reasons: 1) they played the Saints, in the Superdome, and 2) they're a good team, having won 3 of the other 4 games, and thus causing the other team to throw to try to catch up. This isn't the worst example of this mistake, but it's certainly one example. Oh yeah- Owens: 2 catches 20 yards, no TDs.

Beanie Wells, RB, Cardinals: Wells has gotten at least 13 touches in five of his past six games. Against the Lions, 13 touches might be enough.

His first truly successful pick: 123 yards and a TD.

Early Doucet, WR, Cardinals: Especially if Larry Fitzgerald doesn't play for some reason, this is a gut call more than anything.

A "gut call." You're fucking awful at your job. I sure hope Ben Bernanke doesn't make decisions about the economy on his "gut." Insert political joke here.

But he's been involved more recently and I could see him getting four or five points for those in super-deep leagues.

Thrown to once. No catches. No yards. Three TDs. Just kidding, zero TDs.

Calvin Johnson, WR, Lions: Scores in three of his past four, in each of his past two home games and in five of his past six games in December.

Monthly stats, especially those reaching back into previous seasons, are completely and totally useless. Three caches, 35 yards, no TDs.

Chris Jennings, RB, Browns: I can't believe I am recommending a Browns running back. Again. Hey Lucy, hold the football. I want to try and kick it. Good grief.

Way to recommend a Browns RB. Unfortunately you recommended the one who ran for 18 yards and no TDs, instead of the one who ran for 286 yards and 3 TDs.

Jamaal Charles, RB, Chiefs: First! I was, too.

A second good call (not that it was a tough one to make- gee, you think you want to start KC's only good RB against the fucking Browns?)- 170 yards and a TD.

Dwayne Bowe, WR, Chiefs: Welcome back. We missed you. OK, "we" does not include Chris Chambers. He's sulking a bit. But the rest of us? Very excited.

Sulky McChambers went for 114 and a TD. Bowe went for 56 and no TDs. Look, you'd think he'd get ONE of these right, huh?

Arian Foster, RB, Texans: Like the upside, the matchup against the Rams and that Gary Kubiak has said they are going to give him a long look. Just realize you are playing with fire.

In other words: Start him! Except be careful! And maybe don't start him! But I "Love" him this week! So start him! I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about!

This coach pulled Steve Slaton after one play (albeit a fumble) and let Ryan Moats play all game in Week 8, a juicy, tender matchup against the Bills.

Twenty total yards. No TDs. BUT YOU KNEW YOU WERE PLAYING WITH FIRE ALL ALONG!

Houston Texans D/ST: This is what I wrote in my pickups column earlier this week ... "A week after scoring 15 fantasy points against Seattle, Houston, a team that is still in the hunt and desperately needs a win, visits St. Louis. That would be for a matchup with a Rams' team featuring a banged-up Steven Jackson and a third-string quarterback. It's a squad that just gave up 21 points to the Titans' defense. In fact, no team gives up more fantasy points to opposing defenses than the Rams. The defense facing them has scored at least nine fantasy points in five straight weeks."

Start the defense playing against the Rams? Crazy talk! And yet, a very middling performance. Two turnovers forced, 3 sacks, 13 points allowed. Nothing to write home about.

Braylon Edwards and Jerricho Cotchery, WR, Jets: Falcons have given up at least 17 fantasy points to opposing wide receivers each of the past five weeks. I have decided I like that fact more than I hate Kellen Clemens. Wow. This is one ugly week.

Edwards accounted for the Jets' only TD with a 65 yard catch. Without that this would be a horrendous recommendation. As things happened: these two combined for 154 receiving yards and a TD. Mediocre at best. Look, it doesn't take a fucking guru to figure out that offense would be in short supply in the Meadowlands, in December, after a gigantic snowstorm, with Mark "Holy Balls it's Cold Out Here, Where the Fuck am I?" Sanchez starting. But Berry doesn't think about stuff like that, I guess.

Vernon Davis, TE, 49ers: A score in four straight games, Eagles give up the most points to opposing tight ends and clearly, Davis is the starting tight end on our fantasy zombie team.

I detest the idea of this zombie thing, but how the fuck would Davis even qualify? This is only his 4th season in the league, and his first full season with a competent coach. Anyone who completely wrote him off after three "meh" seasons is an idiot. In any case: 43 yards, no TDs.

Knowshon Moreno, RB, Broncos: Without Correll Buckhalter in the lineup, Moreno will touch the ball plenty enough against the Raiders to have perhaps his best week yet.

Oh, he got his touches. This is the kind of analysis which forces me to give Berry credit for knowing what he's talking about. But the Raiders have a decent rush defense (in spite of the fact that they suck, and thus usually trail late in games, causing other teams to run against them more than usual) and Moreno hasn't been that good. So of course he came up with just 42 yards rushing on 19 carriers, and 81 total yards.

Denver Broncos D/ST: Happiness is being at home against Charlie Frye.

Sadness is losing to Frye/JaMarcus Russell and the Raiders at home, giving up 20 points while getting 2 turnovers but just 1 sack. Can't blame Berry too much here, though. This was a good pick in theory.

Heath Miller, TE, Steelers: More of a gut call than anything here, but the Packers do give up the 11th-most fantasy points to opposing tight ends.

Fine, good call. Decent analysis.

Hines Ward is still a bit banged up and I expect Charles Woodson to be all up in Santonio Holmes' business.

Holmes had 77 yards and Ward led the team with 126 yards. So... no so decent analysis. But Miller did have 118 yards, so I'll give Berry his third good recommendation here.

Justin Forsett, RB, Seahawks: I also like Julius Jones in this matchup against the Bucs, but I'm putting Forsett here because he is a part of the pass game, Seattle wants (needs) to get him even more involved to see what they have. Obviously, from my ranking of Forsett above, I believe he will be the starting running back next year and I am a huge fan of his skills. And by the way, he has five scores in his past five games. Regardless, the Bucs give up the seventh-most fantasy points to opposing running backs and have allowed five scores to them in their past four road games. This is a bad team on a long trip and both Seahawks running backs will have nice games.

I like what he's saying about Forsett here, generally. He'll probably be a legit fantasy starter next year. However, again we see a failure to realize why a team gives up lots of points to either RBs or QBs/HBs. The Bucs are terrible. That's why RBs pick up good stats against them. Is it that hard to figure out? Since Seattle's anemic offense prevented them from getting a substantial lead, and thus focusing on the ground game, this pick failed miserably. Sixty nine total yards and no TDs for Forsett. (65 total yards and no TDs for Jones.)

Deion Branch, WR, Seahawks: Nate Burleson won't play and it's not like the Bucs' pass defense is all that. Branch actually showed signs of life on Sunday with five receptions on seven targets. The targets were second-most on the team. I ranked him 42nd, incidentally, and will move him up on Friday following the official news that Burleson is out.

Branch was targeted ten times, leading the team. Awesome. The result? Four catches, 28 yards. The only talented WR the Seahawks have on their roster, T.J. Houshmandzadeh, had 73 yards.

Seattle Seahawks D/ST: What? Really? They are bottom 10 in total points allowed. Yes, but they are at home to Tampa Bay. Bucs allow the sixth-most fantasy points to opposing defenses. The defense facing them has scored at least 15 points in three of the past four. They average more than 12 points a game at home and they are available in more than 80 percent of leagues. I'm not saying it'll be pretty but if you're stuck, it will do in a pinch.

Then why is it on your "Love" list?

It's kind of like the Perkins waitress in the Tiger story.

TOPICAL!!!!

You're surprised to see her there but some days, there's just not a lot else around. If Laurence Maroney is a fantasy zombie, the Seahawks' defense is a fantasy Perkins waitress.

They gave up 24 points, forced 1 turnover, and had 0 sacks. Hope that worked in a pinch for someone out there, but I doubt it.

Jason Campbell, QB, Redskins: Has outscored Tom Brady each of the past three weeks. Just saying. The Giants, by the way, have given up at least 17 fantasy points to opposing quarterbacks in five of their past six.

The Giants' last 6- Eagles x2, Chargers, Broncos, Falcons, and Cowboys. Soooooo... 5 games against good QBs, 3 against "elite" (or close to it) QBs. You know, QBs who are way way way better than Jason Fucking Campbell. Maybe not a stat worth investing in. And of course, Campbell came up with a stellar 15/28, 1 TD, 2 INT night. One of the picks was the worst I've seen in the NFL this season; the Redskins called a TE screen, and Campbell, under only minimal pressure, threw the pass 10 feet over the head of a wide ope Fred Davis for a pick six.

Quinton Ganther, RB, Redskins: Giants have given up 17 rushing touchdowns this year, third most in the NFL.

Forty total yards and a TD. Shrug.

Fred Davis, TE, Redskins: I admit to being a Redskins homer but I like teams at home on "Monday Night Football."

GREAT ANALYSIS. STELLAR ANALYSIS. After Washington's blowout loss, MNF home teams are 8-8 this year.

National audience under the lights and all that. Plus, Davis has four scores in his past three games and New York gives up the second most fantasy points to opposing tight ends.

Fine. A tepid thumbs up, for Davis's 65 yards and a TD.

So let's total it up: 26 players (including defenses). One QB who had a terrible night. A total 1292 yards and 5 TDs from his 22 RBs, WRs, and TEs. (I'm pretty sure that math is right. If it is, that's 59 yards per player. Meaning, not a total which will help you win.) Three defenses, none of whom had good days. At least two players with marginal roles and questionable skills which he recommended "on a hunch." Berry, you are an assclown. And your analysis only gets worse.

Week 15 Players I Hate:

Reggie Wayne, WR, Colts: It will not surprise me in the least to wake up Friday morning to see that Wayne has gone off (just like he did in Week 1 against the Jags).

I hate him. But if he succeeds DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU!

He certainly has the skill and Jacksonville is terrible against the pass. But as I wrote to Tristan Cockcroft for his "Called Out!" column, Wayne has single-digit fantasy points in five of his past six games and last week,

Fine, fair enough.

Pierre Garcon, Dallas Clark and Joseph Addai ALL had more targets than him. He's banged up and there's no motivation to play Wayne the whole game. I have him outside my top 20 and feel he's a flex play at best.

I don't disagree with the thinking here. But Wayne went for 132 yards and a TD. A better day than any HB, WR, or TE on the "Love" list. After one entry on the "Hate" list.

Mike Sims-Walker, WR, Jaguars: Same thing here as with Wayne. Could he explode? Sure.

Will he? Don't ask me, this is only my job!

But something's not right and frankly, I just don't trust him.

My gut says don't start him! Just a hunch.

Single-digit fantasy points in three straight games, including a total of 18 yards receiving in his past two home games.

Sort of like Deion Branch. And so of course Sims-Walker goes for 64 yards and a TD.

Randy Moss, WR, Patriots: He was in this list last week and I'm by far the lowest on him (I have him 19) this week. My reasoning is this: He had less than 70 yards for four straight weeks,

He stink! Ask Chris Gamble, authority on everything.

the Bills are fifth best against the pass,

Because no one needs to pass on them, because their opponents are always beating them. I already asked, but I will again: how hard is this to figure out?

allow the second fewest fantasy points to opposing wide receivers

Correlation? Causation? Don't ask Berry, he's busy having hunches and telling you to start Arian Foster.

and Brady ain't right. I bet they do everything in their power to get Moss a score after all the media attention this past week, but his yardage total won't be high and counting on TDs is like chasing wins in baseball.

Oh, please believe I will be reading your baseball advice when April rolls around. Could it be worse than this? Hopefully, for the sake of the blog. Meanwhile, Moss led all WRs in this game with 70 yards. He also had a TD. If chasing TDs in football is like chasing wins in baseball, chasing them with Moss is like chasing wins with Tim Lincecum.

Maurice Morris, RB, Detroit: There's Perkins waitresses and then there's "Come on, man, what are you doing? Seriously. Go home."

Wow. 161 total yards and a TD.

Matt Cassel, QB, Chiefs: Don't get cute because you see the Browns on the schedule and Dwayne Bowe is back.

DON'T TRUST YOUR GUT!

He has zero fantasy points for two straight weeks and while I think Bowe has a good game, it won't be enough to lift Cassel.

22/40, 331 yards, 2 TDs, 0 INTs. I mean, he's no Jason Campbell, playing at home on a Monday night. But realizing that a QB playing the Browns is probably going to have a good game (see Matt Stafford) shouldn't be too difficult.

Any Falcons Running Back: I don't know if Michael Turner is playing as of this writing, but it's a muddled mess that I don't trust regardless of who is or is not playing.

Fair enough, the Falcons only ran for 86 yards against the Jets. Jason Snelling had 59, I'll count that towards my total at the end of the post.

Roddy White, WR, Falcons: Insert "stud facing Darrelle Revis" here.

Yeah fine blah blah whatever.

Alex Smith and Michael Crabtree, 49ers: Short week, on the road, Eagles very tough. No thanks.

Smith basically played like Campbell, with an extra INT. Who the fuck would even have Smith on their team in the first place? This is like saying "Don't start Kyle Boller!" But Crabtree (he carries a curse!) did have a shit game. Berry's on a roll!

LeSean McCoy, RB, Eagles: Don't trust any Philly running back, especially him.

Except when he goes for 56 yards and a TD.

Matt Forte, RB, Bears: As someone who owns Forte in a league, I'd like to request Forte also post a message to his Web site apologizing for his transgressions.

Pretty glad I didn't end up with this guy on my team. He did end up with 69 total yards, though, which is just as many as "Love" guy Forsett. But it doesn't take a huge brain to tell owners not to start Forte, who hasn't done anything in weeks, against the Ravens.

Jay Cutler, QB, Bears: New mystery book racing up the best seller charts: The Cutler Did It!

Horrendous joke. The recommendation, though, was correct. A little surprising given how bad Baltimore's secondary has been, but I'm sure resident FJayM Ravens fan Jack is OK with the way things turned out.

Carson Palmer, QB, Bengals: Single-digit fantasy points in four of his past five games, the Chargers are top 10 in the NFL in both passing yards allowed per game and fewest fantasy points allowed to opposing quarterbacks. In fact, they've been even better at home; opposing quarterbacks are averaging just 11 fantasy points a game at San Diego this year. Plus, the Bengals are running a lot more than passing these days.

Reasonable analysis, but Palmer went for 27/40, 314 yards, 2 TDs, and 1 INT.

Rashard Mendenhall, RB, Steelers: Chances are, if you have him, you're in a deep hole in the playoffs this week, thanks to last week's brutal performance against Cleveland. But if you managed to survive, I got sour news for you, Jack. Packers have not allowed a 100-yard rusher since Week 3. They've given up just four rushing touchdowns all season, they give up the second fewest fantasy points to opposing running backs and I expect Green Bay to score a lot of points against a reeling Steelers defense, meaning Pittsburgh will be playing from behind.

Nice sentence. Mendenhall went for 111 total yards and a (GASP!) rushing TD.

Jonathan Stewart, RB, Panthers: Four points or less in his past three games with DeAngelo Williams ... maybe he gets a score, but I don't trust him against the Vikings.

DeAngelo Williams has been hurt for the past month. He got hurt again early in this game. (WHO COULD HAVE SEEN IT COMING?) And Stewart went for 123 totals yards and 2 TDs.

Kevin Boss, TE, Giants: Redskins allow the fifth-fewest fantasy points to opposing tight ends.

Boss goes for 57 yards. Shrug.

So let's total it up. Four QBs, one of whom was Alex Smith, who isn't on anyone's roster. So I'll total up the other 3- 739 yards, 4 TDs, and 4 INTs (3 of which were Cutler's). Nothing to write home about, but in general more effective than Jason Campbell. Twelve RB/WR/TEs- 962 total yards, 8 TDs. Ten fewer players of this type than those he "Loved," and yet 3 more TDs. That's incredible. An average of 80 yards per player, 21 more than the "Love" guys. It's mind-boggling. Take out one or two of the successful "Love" guys, like Charles or Wells, and a team made out of these 12 "Hate" guys beats a team made out of those 20 or so "Love" guys. How awful is that? The performance of the two groups wasn't even roughly similar on a per-player basis. And this is why Matthew Berry is a useless cockbucket. Don't listen to him, not that you were in the first place. You could make better decisions about starting or sitting players by flipping a coin.

Damien Cox Needs a Make-Believe World Where This Article Is Needed

I actually started relating to this article at first. Then I had to stop and see if I had switched tabs. ESPN.com's Damien Cox must have thought this would be a great article idea.

For me to poop on! (OH man! I got him! I got him good, too!)

It's been a few years since the fantasy went out of sports for me.

Maybe it's just age. Or laziness. Or maybe the constant need for reading glasses. Or a realization that poring over possible trades with my buddies rather than paying attention to my kids probably wasn't a quality life decision.

So, like every retiring pro athlete, I gave up the fantasy to spend more time with my family.

No, really. Stop giggling.

Not a problem, Damien. I wasn't.

I think everybody has given up on a fantasy team here or there. You forget to check one week, then that turns into five or six, then you get an e-mail from the commish calling you out. You check it once to see 3 guys on the DL and then you don't do anything. So this article must be about fantasy sports.

But I never said I wouldn't consider a comeback -- listen up, Mr. Favre -- and with some prodding, here we go.

Now we know who to blame when Brett Farve comes back.

We're not talking about drafting a lineup for the playoffs. We're talking about drafting the entire playoffs, picking the eight first-round matchups that, in this fantasy world, would be the most fun to watch.

Fantasy playoffs? Is this the same article? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the playoff system is currently set up in the NHL to allow for the best 8 teams of each conference to play against each other, with the better team winning each round until, ultimately, a winner is decided. But instead, let's fuck around with them!

Now, be aware, these matchups have only a passing relationship to the current NHL standings.

I needed that disclaimer.

I'm putting Washington and Chicago into the Stanley Cup dance not because they'll make it, but because I like watching Alexander Ovechkin and Alexander Semin and Mike Green and Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane and Brent Seabrook.

Or: I'm putting in two teams that didn't deserve to make it in because if I didn't, my article would be more of a pile of shit than it is.

The Capitals and Blackhawks are more fun than Minnesota, Boston and Dallas, for sure, but you can't boot out all the boring teams.

Instead, Carolina and Nashville, two teams that actually aren't particularly boring at all, have to pay the price to get the Caps and Hawks in.

Sorry, but that's just the way I roll in my make-believe world.

Dallas is never a boring team in the playoffs. Watching a goalie self destruct year after year is great TV.

So in the fantasy playoffs, you have to be fun to make it in if you're out. But if you've a fun team to watch and you're in already, you're out. Also, boring teams are allowed.

Pittsburgh vs. Montreal

Right now, the Bell Centre in Montreal is arguably the best place to watch a hockey game in the world, so having Sidney Crosby in that atmosphere to start the postseason just makes sense.

How does that begin to make sense? The best place to watch HD in the whole world is my room, so having the Stanley Cup finals in that atmosphere just makes sense.

Crosby played junior in Quebec, plus his dad was a Canadiens draft pick.

Oh boy! Just what the playoffs need - a story than can be shot using fades, wipes, star wipes, old photos, newspaper clippings, and home video! PLUS! His dad was drafted by the team! How bananas is that?

Plus, these are two teams with offensive, creative personalities and, frankly, it would be a lot more interesting watching Marian Hossa and Evgeni Malkin trying to outdance Andrei Kostitsyn and Tomas Plekanec than watching enemy checkers shut them down. Finally, it would be a superb, intriguing matchup between two young goalies, Marc-Andre Fleury and Carey Price. Maybe Mario Lemieux would even make the trip north to his home province.

Somebody had better tell The Pensblog that Damien Cox has Marc-Andre Fleury starting for them in the playoffs.

Washington vs. New York Rangers

If Crosby's tied up in La Belle Province, well, Ovechkin should be on Broadway.

This guy knows that teams go to each other's arenas during the series, right?

The Russian star has never been in the postseason, and GM George McPhee's multiple moves at the trade deadline deserve some kind of playoff reward.

At least a humbling first round sweep.

Rangers superstar Jaromir Jagr, of course, played for the Caps before deciding not to try anymore.

I see know why this article had to be written. He had a great Jagr one liner and no place to put it.

In general, getting the Caps into Manhattan for a significant playoff struggle would have to help that franchise get some badly needed face time. Finally, Bruce Boudreau, the Caps' coach, is the patron saint for all those minor league bench bosses who had to wait and wait and wait for their chances to coach in the big leagues while others less qualified got their shot.

The Caps don't need any more face time. Ovechkin's hat trick was the top story on SportsCenter Monday night. They never show hockey on SportsCenter. And all it took to make it the top story was a 10-2 score, Versus in HD, and one of the two ESPN approved NHL Superstars scoring a hat trick.

New Jersey vs. Ottawa

OK, not every one can be a dream series.

Then why write the article? Next matchup.

Boston vs. Philadelphia

This would be the throwback series, a chance for two teams that last won Stanley Cups in the 1970s to get at each other. Philly, you can imagine, should be hopping in the playoffs after the team finished dead last in the league last season. Boston, meanwhile, needs a rollicking playoff series to return that sense of spirit to the Beantown hockey public, and a collision with a team that would allow fans of both cities to travel back and forth would be perfect for that. Both teams were once among the meanest, baddest teams ever to don skates, but these days, it's the Flyers who do all the nasty stuff. The memory of Philly blueliner Randy Jones' awful hit on Boston's Patrice Bergeron earlier this season would add some emotional spice.

If he really wanted to make the fantasy come true, they should play by the rules on the 1970's NHL. Allow Boston to make their ice whatever dimension they want it to be, and give the Philly fans handguns as they come into the arena. One more couldn't hurt, right?

Western Conference

Calgary vs. Anaheim

Yeah, I'm thinking watching Ducks GM Brian Burke clash with old buddy (and now Flames coach) Mike Keenan could make for a spirited affair for two teams that like it rough and tough with a sprinkling of fights per period, not games.

How would a GM and coach from opposite teams clash?

This has to be the first-round matchup the Ducks would like to avoid, if only because heading into Canada against a team with a host of its own big bodies would be a toughie to win en route to a potential repeat. You've got Ryan Getzlaf versus Dion Phaneuf, Miikka Kiprusoff versus Jean-Sebastien Giguere, Chris Pronger versus Jarome Iginla and, of course, George Parros versus Eric Godard. That last one would be only if either player ever saw the ice or left the press box. There wouldn't be nearly as much speed and skill in this one as ferocity and blood. Lots of personality and lots of crash-and-bang hockey.

I think the Ducks would like to avoid it because it wouldn't happen.

Detroit vs. Colorado

Well, duh. Of course it would be great to see this rivalry rekindled, particularly with the Wings showing their mortality down the stretch and with Adam Foote and Peter Forsberg returning to Colorado. The curiosity element in this one would be the goaltending, with no one particularly certain whether the Jose Theodore-Peter Budaj matchup will stand up under playoff pressure or 35-year-old Chris Osgood and 43-year-old Dominik Hasek have a serious playoff run left in them. But it's the history between these two clubs that would matter most, and you could expect endless video replays of Claude Lemieux's hit on Kris Draper and Patrick Roy boxing with Osgood.

This is a matchup that you want to see later than the first round so that you can root for injuries instead of a team to win. Also - did he just compare Jose Theodore and Peter Budaj to Chris Osgood and Dominik Hasek?

Finally, it would include two of the classiest NHLers ever facing off in the late stages of their careers -- Joe Sakic and Nicklas Lidstrom. A little something for everyone.

Finally! That old guy in the stands that just wants to see a classy hockey game can! Good thing Nashville got eliminated for not being boring enough. Or was that too exciting?

Minnesota vs. Dallas

There's history here, too. Actually, a little incestuous history, for these teams are relatives, with the Stars having first been born as the Minny North Stars 41 years ago before pulling up stakes for Texas in the 1990s.

Who knew the Dallas Stars came from Minnesota? They only kept the same logo and it wasn't that long ago.

They've honored the North Stars past, including keeping Bill Masterton's No. 19 retired rather than giving it to new kid on the block Brad Richards. Mike Modano, of course, was a North Stars draft pick who played for the team the last time The State of Hockey hosted a Stanley Cup finals. The Wild, meanwhile, have done a better job of understanding and capitalizing on Minnesota's rich hockey history than the North Stars ever did, while Dallas has actually planted some reasonably deep roots for the game in the heart of Texas.

Which is why Dallas sells out every game they've ever had. They don't? Oh, well good thing he mentioned the Wild and Stars fan base in the same breath.

While the coaches, Dallas' Dave Tippett and Minnesota's Jacques Lemaire, aren't known to be controversial types, the GMs, loquacious Stars co-GM Brett Hull and Minnesota's fiery Doug Risebrough, might have a quote or two to offer before it's over.

Again, GM's don't do much for the playoffs. I can see Brett Hull saying something stupid, but the Stars will probably just trap him in a crease somewhere until the Finals are finished.

San Jose vs. Chicago

There used to be some serious cross-pollination between these teams in the days when Bob Pulford ran the Blackhawks and his relative-by-marriage, Dean Lombardi, managed the Sharks. But this would be a series about personality, with San Jose still looking to establish a playoff persona and the Windy City looking to recapture the glories from when it was one of the league's signature franchises playing out of the old bandbox known as Chicago Stadium.

That's really what the first round of the playoffs in any sport are about, right? Personality and class.

And the Sharks' playoff persona is beating St. Louis repeatedly and effectively.

For the NHL, getting some Bay Area-Chicago flavor would be terrific after so many years of seeing major cities like New York, Los Angeles, Boston and Chicago on the sidelines when the postseason began. These are young hockey teams, with the Sharks looking to fulfill their promise and the Hawks, featuring Toews and Kane, trying to demonstrate they are a team of the future. Joe Thornton of the Sharks, meanwhile, is going to have that playoff bugaboo lurking over his shoulder until he gets something serious done in the spring.

Unless blood was drawn, I don't think there would ever be a San Jose - Chicago rivalry.

Wait - this whole article is about playoffs that won't happen and he didn't even give us a winner in any of the series? I don't care if the predictions were as poorly thought of as the article, but give us something. Example:

Calgary in 3. Mike Keenan has a koala crap a rainbow in his brain and gives his whole team Stimutacs, so they need one less game to win the series.

Damien Cox's fantasy may not be that bad, after all. I just doubt I could fill out his whole playoff board using Sealab 2021.

the tuesday morning quarterback sympathizes with mike vick for some reason

(disclaimer: let me just make two things clear before i begin. one, i like mike vick, at least as as player. i've always wanted him to break through and silence the critics that say he's a terrible QB. two, i am not a dog person. can't stand 75% of the dogs i've ever met. more importantly i can't stand 99% of the dog owners i've ever met. i'm actually a huge cat fan. so i just wanted to clarify that i'm writing this critique of a pro-vick article, not because i hate vick or am a dog lover, but because it is horrendously written. let's begin.)

i've had a love/hate relationship with gregg easterbrook, aka the tuesday morning quarterback, ever since i started reading him regularly about 2 years ago. on the bright side: he's incredibly smart, reasonably funny, likes to mix in some interesting side topics along with his football analysis, and often calls out teams and coaches who overuse conventional wisdom in situations that would be better handled with outside the box thinking. on the dark side: he often comes off as heavily condescending, overuses unfunny and unclever nicknames he himself made up, and worst of all, absolutely abuses stats to prove his misguided points a lot of the time. a classic example would look something like this:

The turning point in [game X] came with [time] left in the 4th quarter. [Team Y] was trailing by 7 and had a 4th and 3 from [somewhere deep in their own territory]. Shockingly, they chose to punt, and no sooner had they done so that the TMQ closed the book on this game. The average NFL play gains 3.7 yards! [Team Y] probably isn't going to make the playoffs anyways; why not give your fans something to cheer for, and better yet, make the statistically correct decision by going for it there? The logic some coaches in this league use is completely wrong so often it's no wonder turnover is so high.

i mean, that was a made up example. but anyone who reads him regularly would have to agree with me; he constantly uses broadly accrued statistics to analyze very specific situations. that is dumb. a comparitive example would be to try to claim that "the average ameican has a median income of $x,000. therefore, the average resident of oldmoneysville, connectticut, as well as the average resident of shantytown, alabama, probably makes about that much money as well." stuff like this makes no sense and is the cause of a good part of the hate in my aforementioned love/hate relationship with him.

now, basically all of that irrelevant here. i just wanted to vent about easterbrook in general for a minute. let's move on to the article at hand, which is much different than the material he usually covers. today he wants to tell his readers he feels bad for mike vick. yes, that's right, feels bad for. why? i'll let him tell you (excerpted), and then i'll explain why he's being an idiot.

Vick: Villain or scoundrel ... or sympathetic figure?

I have an inclination to sympathize with Michael Vick, and not just because People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is denouncing him. They are popping champagne corks over at PETA, as Vick is the best thing to happen to the organization's profile and fundraising in years.

oh yeah, i should have added this to my clarifications at the beginning of the post: i hate PETA with a passion. what a bunch of dimwitted, out of touch morons.

Remember, the charges against Vick are accusations. The Duke lacrosse mess reminded us that accusations are not the same as guilt and that prosecutors might be unscrupulous.

the reason these two are not even close to similar: in one, the accused proclaimed their innocence throughout. in the other, even though easterbrook wrote this before vick agreed to cut his deal today, every other member of the accused party copped a plea within a month of the charges being filed. you don't usually see that type of behavior unless people are, you know, guilty. the prosecutor thing, well, we don't know much about that yet. but during the duke case, i remember the credibility of that nifong idiot being questioned almost instantly. i haven't heard jack crap about whoever the DA is in this case other than maybe they're putting extra effort into this because vick is a pro athlete. duuuuhhhhhh. any DA anywhere would do the same. doesn't make them wrong like nifong was.

moving onto easterbrook's reasons for sympathy- i will rank them all on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 meaning most legitimate.

One is that Vick became an athletic celebrity at age 16. Since then, has anyone ever said the word "no" to him? Did he ever hear "no" from his coaches, his teachers, Virginia Tech, the Atlanta Falcons, Reebok, Nike, Rawlings, the National Football League, ESPN or any of the sports-media companies, all of which were only too happy to indulge Vick so long as it benefited them? Vick might have believed he had become a Big Man -- someone no one could touch, someone above the rules. People who believe they are above the rules need to learn what integrity means. But only the gifted or philosophical can teach themselves character: The overwhelming majority of men and women need help from others to learn the lessons of character. Many such lessons begin with the word "no." Who in last 10 years has said "no" to Michael Vick? Of his friends, coaches, owners, university presidents or entourage, has anyone taken him aside and said, "Michael, it doesn't matter if you are on national television, it doesn't matter if you are rich, right is right and wrong is wrong." My guess is that no one close to Vick has told him this.

i give this a 2 on my scale. it basically amounts to "celebrities will be celebrities!" barely a reason for sympathy. how much slack are we supposed to cut people that are given everything and idolized? sure, it's a sick system, but it's not an excuse for illegal behavior. the ideal systemic change that would bring about an end to society's outrageous celebrity worshipping culture isn't coming anytime soon- therefore, it's up to athletes to keep themselves out of trouble. if they can't do it themselves, they should at least try to pay someone to tell them when they're doing something stupid.

In the end, Vick is responsible for his actions.

well there you go. why didn't you just say so?

Next, I feel some sympathy for Vick because of the "send a message" aspect of the case. There's no doubt that many celebrity athletes are getting away with too much. Celebrity athletes as a group have become arrogant, spoiled and even antisocial. This should be a major concern for the NFL, NBA, MLB and ESPN. But even if other celebrity athletes have gotten away with too much in other instances, Vick's case must be treated on its own merits. Some commentators argue that Vick must be dealt with severely to "send a message" about athlete's behavior. No: Vick must be dealt with fairly, to send a message about justice.

this is a 3, at most. has it occurred to gregg that maybe the case is being pursued harshly by the prosecutors in order to send a strong message about dogfighting? even if that isn't the case, and vick really has been targeted because he's an athlete, i doubt the prosecutor had the relatively underprosecuted transgressions of previous athletes (like ray lewis, as easterbrook points out) in mind. they're probably more concerned about something much more valuable to them and their job(s), such as public opinion. there's a fine line between the public not wanting an athlete to get away with crime and the public wanting them prosecuted excessively harshly. has this case crossed that line? i doubt it. it's subjective, but i don't see any bloodthirsty tactics being utilized. i don't hear vick or his attorneys complaining about the process.

Next, I feel sympathy for Vick because there is racial animus in the current turn of events. If Vick really is guilty of cruelty to animals and associating with lowlife gamblers, these things leave him open to a kind of condemnation that has nothing to do with race. But don't you just sense there are loads of people who are happy to have the chance to condemn the first African-American quarterback who was drafted first overall -- via an accusation that has nothing to do with race?

i'll put this at a 5. the racial undertones to the case do generate some sympathy for vick on my part. however, unlike in the duke case, i doubt there are any racial motivations on the part of the prosecutors themselves. the people that have always hated vick because he is black still hate him. people that didn't hate him before might now, but not because he is black. i mean, it's unfortunate that race is even a part of this whole situation, but i don't think it's a driving or motivating force. (on a side note, espn.com's "e-ticket" feature ran an unbelievably good piece about this a little while ago.)

That there might be racial animus against Vick is not an excuse; he is responsible for his actions regardless of what others do or think.

again. thanks for making my point for me.

But suppose everything about the Michael Vick controversy was exactly the same except Vick was a white quarterback from an upper-middle-class family in Winnetka, Ill., Newport Beach, Calif., or Coral Gables, Fla. Can you say with a straight face that the public reaction and government action would the same?

on the part of the government, i absolutely without a trace of doubt can. zero doubt. on the part of the public? well, again, depends on which part of the public we're talking about. racists? no. crazy animal lovers? yes. anyone who doesn't fall into those two categories? yeah, probably. i say that with a straight face.

Next, I feel sympathy for Vick because he tripped into a "summer scandal." Starting around mid-July, legislatures recess, business executives and heads of state go on holiday, Hollywood airheads fly their private jets to Sag Harbor, N.Y., to relax in 10,000-square-foot mansions while complaining about greenhouse gas emissions: The news world slows down.

this scores out at a 1. maybe. next.

Next, I feel sympathy for Vick because he made his own problem worse.

read that again. you don't need to see the whole of the paragraph i excerpted that from. it doesn't help explain why this makes vick any more sympathetic. i'm going with a 0.

Next, I feel sympathy for Vick because he apparently is getting questionable legal advice.

wow... just... wow. you know who i feel bad for because they get questionable legal advice? every person charged with a crime who's ever had to utilize an overworked, inexperienced, mostly clueless public defender. easterbrook goes on to transcribe vick's official statement he read after pleading not guilty (initially) and picking it apart, showing why it's not a stereotypically good "i'm innocent" statement. guess what? none of that matters when it comes to how much sympathy vick deserves. if he hired the wrong top notch legal team, that's his problem. this is like saying a hollywood starlet who buys an ugly $4,000 dress for the oscars deserves sympathy. puh-lease.

Next, I feel sympathy for Vick because he apparently received poor advice long before lawyers stepped onto the stage. When the dogfighting and gambling charges first surfaced, Vick should have gone before the cameras, made a tearful apology, begged for forgiveness and offered the believable explanation you'll see in the next paragraph. Teary before the cameras, Vick would have offered his time and money to a campaign against the abuse of animals. Had he done this in April, the scandal would have gone away, and Vick would be admired for honesty. I feel sympathy for Vick because it's obvious no one gave him this kind of sensible public-relations advice.

this is a 1, maybe a 1 and a half. where to begin? that we're supposed to feel bad for vick because he didn't hire good PR people despite his millions of dollars? that we're supposed to believe there was anything vick could have said to diffuse the situation once he was indicted? as a cherry on the top of this mostly nonsensical article, read the "plausible explanation" easterbrook offers (in case you needed further proof that he's kind of out of touch with reality).

What believable explanation could Michael Vick have offered when the news broke? Not, of course, that cruelty to animals, or associating with gamblers, is OK. Rather, Vick could have said, "It's wrong what I did to those dogs, but we live in a world where governments, business and sports organizations don't hesitate for one second to do the same to human beings -- to exploit them, then throw them away. We need to change the way we treat animals, but most of all, we need to change the way we treat people."

gregg, send me a postcard from fantasyland. i'm sure things are nice there. meanwhile i'm stuck here in reality, where if a guy did what vick did and got exposed for it like vick did, he's screwed. no generic societal rambling will get him out of trouble. even if the charges were dropped, he'd still be surrounded by a cloud of negative press for years and years and years. a statement like this might improve public perception about him, for the tiny segment of society willing to synthesize this kind of complex message. on the other hand, the racists and the PETA members.... would probably be unmoved.

look, after rambling all over the place for a couple of hours during the writing of this article, i guess it pretty much comes down to a simple distinction. easterbrook says he feels "sympathetic" for vick because there's are a number of circumstances that, in his opinion, are exacerbating the situation for vick and making things worse than they should be. basically, it's like saying you feel sorry for someone who not wrecks their car while driving drunk but has the bad luck to get charged with a DUI as well! for starters even if we accept this definition/concept of sympathy, as i've spent this whole post explaining, i really don't feel like any of easterbrook's points illicit such sympathy. but more importantly, i want to argue with gregg's definition of "sympathy." i think an accused felon only really deserves it if we have strong reason to believe they are innocent. the fact that vick probably ran an illegal dogfighting ring (even though he hadn't made his plea at the time this article was written) trumps any other aspect of the situation. it's like the imaginary drunk driver incident i brought up earlier- the fact that the imaginary person drove drunk outweighs any other unfortunate situations they might have gotten themselves into. easterbrook might disagree with me, i guess. well... whatever. i'm spent.