Pages

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Mailbag #1



From Tiger’s overclubbing to the Notre Dame coaching circus, this week in sports has been pretty wild, and our readers sent in some questions. If you want your questions answered (and featured), email us at firstteemulligan@yahoo.com. As always, these are actual questions from actual fans.

Has not playing Adrian Peterson enough somewhat ruined him? Was Brett Favre's performance Monday night an indicator that he'll have a repeat of last year with the Jets?

Tucker- No and no. Peterson has already scored two more touchdowns this year than he did last year, and his yards per carry has only decreased from 4.8 to 4.5. The only major change in his production is total rushing yards, but the drop-off in workload may have actually helped the Vikings. As for Favre, this season, he has the best passer rating, completion percentage, and yards per attempt of his CAREER. Unless he throws two interceptions in each of his last four games, Favre will also have a new personal record for fewest interceptions. Both are fine.

Meg- For Adrian Peterson, I would have to agree with Tucker and say no, he has not been “ruined” by his decrease in playing time. [Because Mr. Warner stole my stats, I will elaborate haha]. But you can look at it in two ways, he can use his “off time” wisely and train, or you can sit around and pout…The Vikings use 2 running backs, Peterson and Taylor, which both have high success. With this you can create more plays which lead to more offensive creativity. Apparently that’s working. Call it a “handicap” if you will, for Bret Favre and his ageing arm.
And as for Mr. Favre, if you couldn’t tell already, I absolutely can’t stand the man. But with that aside, it’s a different year and a different team. The Vikings success seems to carry him better now than before. Plus his team likes him now…which is always a plus…


Who’s THE SEXIEST sports person alive?

Tucker- Can’t wait for Meg’s answer for this one. My choice is Gina Carano, the UFC fighter. Luckily, there are UFC fights for women too!

Meg- Oh Lord! That’s a tough one! There are just so many wonderful looking men out there! Well, hockey holds a few of the handsome men, that is the ones with their teeth, like Jordan Staal (I know, the Pens :P)… but I am Portuguese so Cristiano Ronaldo is almost a definite… Yet I can’t seem to leave out Tim Tebow, seeing that I have his posters all over my walls…and I’m a Boston College fan ;)

Why does the Ecuadorian soccer team suck so bad when Liga, a team within Ecuador, won 3 international titles? I mean, how did they not pick talent when talent clearly exists?

Tucker- Ok, this one took a little research, and I think the reason the Ecuadorian national team is so awful is because they have no real talent. Only ten members of their 25 player roster play for clubs in a different country, and only five of those play on clubs in the few premier leagues. And only one of those five plays on a top team in their league- Antonio Valencia, who is a good midfielder for Manchester United. Without talent, you can’t get very far in international competition.

Meg- I do on occasion watch soccer, but not as frequent as other sports (and because of this question I feel as though that’s what I should be doing now in my spare time do to this blog). So to answer your question to the best of my ability as this time, I did some research myself. Going with Tucker’s statistic, it seems as though they wanted to build more of a team not based around superstars but unknown and “teamwork” talent I suppose you could call it. Sometimes it busts and sometimes it works out perfectly fine. Use the 1980 USA men’s hockey team for an example. The kids were straight out of/ still in college, and that worked out fine (they won gold!). Yet, it’s more prevalent today to see a team build off of young and underdeveloped talent to construct a team for the future. I say give it a couple of years (I know, years :P) and it’ll look more hopeful; or else you’ll see their General Manager get fired.

Do you think it's a valid argument that the ACC's conference championship seemingly is equivalent to 5th place in the SEC east?

Tucker- No. I could see a case for fourth place in the overall SEC standings, but Georgia Tech would easily be the second best team in the SEC East. After Florida, the SEC East contains Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Vanderbilt. Georgia Tech would easily beat any of those teams. Easily.

Meg- I love the ACC, but their football doesn’t seem to match up to the SEC. Now Georgia Tech is an exception I agree (with Virginia Tech and Miami behind, but not on a consistent basis with their level of play) but they couldn’t surpass the play of Florida (not this year anyway, who knows after Timmy leaves). So agreeing with Tucker, I believe that the ACC championship is more in the lines of 2nd place of the SEC East.

Who’s better: the Steelers or the Ravens...???

Tucker- The Ravens. As I type, The Steelers are losing to the Browns, and it doesn’t look good. Pittsburgh has only beaten ONE division opponent all year, and it was the Browns in Week 6. The other teams in the AFC with an equal or worse division record are the Browns, the Raiders, the Texans, and the Chiefs. So, that’s not good.

Meg- As of now, the Ravens. Without Polamalu and a chunky Big Ben (of course this is my opinion, but he is looking a little sluggish, concussion and whatnot might have been the case) the Steelers have been struggling. The Ravens have however found a new shining light, or maybe that’s just because of the uplifting story of Michael Oher. In the end, the Steelers haven’t lived up to their expectations, and the Ravens didn’t have any to begin with.

Who do you think is going to win the Super Bowl?

Tucker- Right now, and this might change, I have the Saints winning. Obviously, they and the Colts are the only undefeated teams in the NFL. They’ve already proven they can win even when playing an awful, terrible game. But the real difference makers for me are point differential and total scoring. The Saints lead the NFL with a +189 scoring differential, 59 more than any other team. Then comes the total scoring. New Orleans has scored 440 points this year on 52 touchdowns! Only two other teams, the Chargers and the Vikings, have scored 340.

Meg- I believe the Saints will win (ugh). I say this with disgust only begin my beloved Patriots were smacked by them. Anyways! The Colts almost always have a decent/solid year, but down the homestretch something always happens and they end up division champions and seem to mingle out before the big bowl (with the exception of 2007). Personally, the Saints need a ring, for the good of the city and to add a few fans. Hello?! They have Reggie Bush…he’s not to bad looking either Tucker ;) hahaha

Does the Tiger Woods scandal give a whole new meaning to the term “playing 18 holes”? Ahahahahah

Meg- :] good way to sign off

Yep, these are our readers.


Meg-- just for the record... i reread this and we both agree on everything... interesting... haha

No comments:

Post a Comment