2009 Cleveland Browns...Rebuilding...Again.

I'm convinced that the Browns are stuck in a spiraling labyrinth of rebuilding, raising expectations, felling said expectations, and rebuilding again. It is an endless cycle which has consumed my life since 1999 and will continued to do so henceforth. Somewhere along this familiar path there are bright spots, coaching changes, GM swaps, and economic downturns. Oh yeah and the era of the "other sports team" in Cleveland. In the Browns' absence it was the Indians. In their new perennial mediocrity, it is the Cavaliers. However, that is life in Cleveland. It's like the mediocre looking girlfriend that you are in love with but aren't currently with because you still love having the flavor of the week. If that makes any sense.

With the trade of Kellen Winslow today, Eric Mangini has signaled that the team is once again in rebuilding mode. This is history repeated. After the 2002 season where the Browns made the playoffs under Butch Davis, they faced heightened expectations and a tougher schedule. That is tailor made for a flop. So what happened? The fans threatened to revolt and the team got another coach and began to rebuild. Two years after making the playoffs in a tough division! Two years! Anyway, this course of events should sound familiar to any of those who care.

I can't really put my finger on what the problem is here. It is unbelievable that one organization is so inept at putting together even a mediocre team. I mean the Redskins throw money at veterans as callously as Pac Man does at strip clubs, but at least they field a team that almost makes the playoffs. The Bills are just wracked by terrible coaching and the Buffalo curse. The Bengals just love to draft and sign criminals. The Browns really don't do anything wrong. They drafted two players who made the pro bowl within their first two seasons and put together an impressive offensive array in 2007. But when it came down to playing good teams that talent doesn't translate?

I mean its not that the better teams shut the Browns offense down or anything. They were just bad on their own. Edwards and Winslow forgot how to catch a ball and Anderson flat out aimed at the ground. What happened to the unstoppable aerial attack of 2007? Who the fuck knows? That's what I'm wondering. Is it a culture of failure and complacency? You'd think that a team at the mercy of its rioting fans would try to build upon a winning season and do better the next go round. No, they come to camp fat and have no full pads practices. They get decimated in the preseason by every team they play and write it off as "just the preseason."

Like I said before on this blog, the Browns need an identity. I don't care if we're the first team in the NFL with an openly gay quarterback. Just give us something that makes us the Browns. That's the only way I can see us breaking out of this sisyphian cycle of achieving mediocrity only to fall back down to sheer incompetence.

Why A-Rod Matters

Our nation's "pastime" has taken a severe beating this decade. The All Star Game fiasco, the Winter World Series, and, of course, the substance abuse scandals. The latter having done more damage to the reputation of the sport than the other two combined. Drug use famously sparked a debate in Congress about the state of Major League Baseball. Normally this wouldn't have been such a big deal but Congress probably should have devoted its resources to a couple of other things going on in the world.

The most recent superstar to take the tumble is Alex Rodriguez. It's been a pretty rough month for the guy. First Torre rips on him through a proxy in his tell all book. Now Sports Illustrated drops the bomb that he tested positive for steroids in 2003. Who knows if he's done them since then, but its safe to assume that he doesn't have the gumption to challenge the stricter drug testing policy put into place. But it was so long ago, why does it matter?

First, and most obvious, is that A-Rod's moniker has transformed into A-Fraud. His legacy of being the "pure one" is completely destroyed. I'm not sure many people like Rodriguez, but there's no question fans would rather live with his name at the top of the home run list. That was before the asterisk had been permanently tattooed to the back of his baseball card. ESPN had some interesting stats showing how every year outside of 2000-2003, Rodriguez never topped 40 home runs. Obviously the roiding gave him an advantage.

Second, this inevitably redefines what a superstar is. Is it possible to hit over 50 home runs a season? Without the aid of performance enhancing drugs? In the age of the raised mound and better pitchers? Albert Belle, Sammy Sosa, Brady Anderson, and Mark Mcgwire all did it. They were also all on something that is deemed illegal now. So the question becomes: what constitutes a superstar? Power hitting has become something associated with the lost generation of baseball from the 90s. Sure it is still revered but in the age of moneyball, renaissance talents like Hanley Ramirez, Curtis Granderson, Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins, and Grady Sizemore are going to take the place of the big bad power hitter of years past. The exposure of Rodriguez as a fake may very well catalyze a paradigm shift for what makes a star.

It is inherently unfair to retrospectively judge people for acting a certain way in the past that was condoned. But we do it. Especially in baseball. A-Rod truthfully did nothing wrong at the time he did it. If he were to get caught now, that's a different story. However, for some reason we have deemed to hold athletes to a different level than normal people. We can't be certain if drug use was condoned or even a part of baseball culture at the time.

Canseco states that about 80% of the players in the majors used some sort of performance enhancer. If this is true, then a young player such as Rodriguez, coming off signing the biggest contract in sports history, probably deserves a little reprieve from the strictest of scrutiny. I make no excuses for what he did, but given the culture at the time we should give the guy a break. His legacy is ruined and his image tarnished. He'll probably get booed a little extra everywhere he goes this season. Ultimately, he'll have to answer only to himself (and the Hall of Fame electors).

The Best Post Ever

I’m feeling a little bit of déjà vu here, but why is everyone rushing to proclaim this the greatest Super Bowl ever? Even if it was hands-down, the greatest Super Bowl ever, what’s the point of saying it? Can’t we just enjoy it for what it was? It’s like if your girlfriend/mistress asks you afterwards … “was that the best ever?” You have to say yes even if isn’t true, and even thinking about saying no will get you in trouble.

For starters, I’m not even entirely convinced it was the greatest Super Bowl. First of all, I’ve only seen a few of them (at least that I can remember in great detail) and I’m convinced that most of the people making these claims couldn’t give specific details about Super Bowl XXV or XIX any better than I could. Hell, I don’t remember details from last year’s game and I’m sure I thought it was the Best Ever at the time. Second of all, does no one remember that (aside from Harrison’s INT TD) this game COMPLETELY SUCKED for the first three quarters!?! How many damn holding penalties were there? And call me a purist, but I would have liked to have seen some exciting runs at some point in the game – there was maybe one running play longer than ten yards.

I’m not just saying this because I predicted the Super Bowl would be terrible, and I whole-heartedly agree it was a great, even terrific finish. But just because the last ten minutes were exciting doesn’t make it the best GAME ever.