Being Accountable

Part of properly being “Sports Sturm” is the accountability that is seldom offered in this line of work. You know, thump your chest when you are right, and conveniently forget about it all when you are wrong, like so many of my contemporaries like to do?

But, just like I will let you know when I nail something (he said nail), I thought I better turn back the clock and remind you how wrong it appears I was about Senor Bledsoe the day they signed him.

February 23, 2005

Don’t get me wrong. This is much better than running Vinny back out there in 2005, and honestly, that is what I expected Parcells was going to do. But, does he seriously think that Drew Bledsoe is the answer to anything? Does he seriously believe the Philadelphia Eagles defense will have a tough time figuring out his game?

I think not.

Look at his numbers , and you will see a guy who has numbers that do not impress.

Check out his game log that indicates that he eluded sacks just twice all season. The Patriots and the Raiders sacked him 7 times each in a game last year. He cannot move anymore in the pocket. I saw that with my own eyes at Texas Stadium on November 9, 2003, when he sucked so bad that I felt bad for him. His numbers that day were 17-34-104 yards for a passer rating of 56.5 in a 10-6 loss to Quincy Carter and the Dallas Cowboys.

Sorry, but if you are scoring 6 in a game at Dallas, and if you are being pushed out of Buffalo for J.P. Losman, then I am pretty certain that the Cowboys are making a mistake.

But, let’s see what the contract says. If it is reasonable, then this is a poor decision. If it is one of those 4 year/$24 million deals with $8 million signing bonus, then this will be devastating. We should know soon enough.

It sure looks like the Cowboys are continuing their efforts to assemble the “AFC East Old-Timers Team”. What a surprise, another “Parcells guy” has a job in Valley Ranch. Surely, Keith Byars and Adrian Murrell cannot be too far away…Oh wait, Murrell has already been here.

Yikes.

February 24, 2005

Let's start with Bledsoe. Might I need to backpedal? It looks like the Cowboys got him for nothing. He must either really want to be a starter and/or play for Bill Parcells, because I would never have guessed that he agreed to a $2 million signing bonus. In football, that is chump change for a QB. Especially one you project to be a starter!

JJ Taylor’s details of the deal …

Bledsoe's deal will pay him about $14 million, including a signing bonus of $2 million, and count $2.5 million against the club's 2005 salary cap. He's guaranteed $5 million over the first two years of the deal, which also includes incentives should Dallas make the playoffs.

Again, the more I think about this, the more I am convinced it doesn’t hurt Henson’s future, and it doesn’t kill them financially if he sucks. Nice job, Cowboys. The figures here are incredibly reasonable, and while I am not optimistic about Bledsoe’s production, in this risk/reward sports world, this looks like a very realistic risk. And, they can still pursue what they really need.

There. I admit it. I said it, and I clearly should not accept any paychecks from last February. I will refund everyone’s user fees immediately.

Barnhouse cautions Texas fans of the BCS …

BOWL PROJECTIONS
Rose: Texas vs. Southern Cal. Fair warning, though, for the Burnt Orange Nation. The BCS rankings rarely make sense. There's a chance the Longhorns could finish 12-0 and No. 2 in the polls but get edged out by Virginia Tech or Alabama, thanks to the computer rankings.

Aggies search for answers – besides the obvious …

A&M started 10 freshmen and sophomores against CU. That's a recipe to lose on the road, and A&M has trips left to Kansas State, Texas Tech and Oklahoma.

CU, meanwhile, started 15 juniors and seniors.

The Aggies had 61 players participate - seven true freshmen, 12 redshirt freshmen and nine sophomores.

They should have played better, but it's easy for young players to get starry-eyed.
A&M has the luxury of being at home this week, but Franchione and his staff have a lot of work to do. A&M at Kansas State in two weeks ultimately could decide if the Aggies are bowl-eligible.

Everyone assumes A&M will beat Oklahoma State and Iowa State, but after the last two weeks, nothing is a sure thing.

A 7-5 season appears to be the best A&M can do. Last year, that was welcomed. Not this year.

The honeymoon is over, but that doesn't mean the marriage is on the rocks.

Let me get this straight from Mr. Cessna, whose work I enjoy. The Aggies started 10 Freshmen and Sophomores while Colorado started 15 Juniors and Seniors. Assuming that we are not counting the K and P, football offers 22 starters. If Colorado starts 15 Juniors and Seniors, that leaves 7 Freshman and Sophomores in their line-up, too, or just 3 fewer than these “ultra young” Aggies. Sorry, there is likely a good reason the Aggies got killed Saturday, but having 3 more Freshman or Sophomores in their lineup than the Buffaloes was not it, in my humble opinion.

Oklahoma begins to figure out how to qualify for the Weed-eater Bowl …

Texas' 45-12 rout left Oklahoma in a place unseen since the John Blake Era. At 2-3 for the first time since 1998, it's officially time to start calculating the number of wins needed to attain bowl eligibility.

The arithmetic is simple enough. The magic number is six, in case you were wondering. The last few years, OU got there this week, in the sixth game.

But with six games left, it's fair to wonder if the Sooners will get there at all. Unless you're a football coach, which equates to incurable optimist.

"We've got an opportunity with six more (games) to win nine," Bob Stoops said Sunday afternoon. "We're gonna do our best to win as many as we can. Hopefully nine, or more. ... We can all add, right?"

Before you get to speculating about New Math and other alien concepts, understand the formula Stoops used. To total nine wins, he was thinking of six more regular-season games, then a bowl game.

Kind of fun seeing the Sooners knocked off their high horse. Sue me for feeling that way.

Citizens of Lubbock, rejoice as you now have a Sturm disciple, Andrew “Drew” Dougherty, anchoring your sports ! I am proud of that young man…Although I wouldn’t believe a thing he tells you. Kidding. Or am I?

And now, some email:

dear sweet sturm,

i actually have a serious hockey question. What is going to happen in a few years when some of the all time offensive records are broken? Will there be a controversy regarding the new rules, ie baseball records being tarnished by the steroid controversy? Also, what is the slip differential in a symbiotic equation?

one day closer to death,

p.

The truth is that we should hope to have that problem. The idea of tarnishing certain hockey records is so far off the radar right now that it is not even being considered. Sure, there is more scoring this year, but as you will see below, the difference is big (over a goal more a game), but the truth is they have a long, long ways to go to reach the numbers of the 1980’s. And even further to go to consider tarnishing the record books. As an example, only one player in 2003-04 scored over 90 points, as Martin St Louis led the league with 94. Whereas the all-time record is 215 points by Wayne Gretzky in 1985-86. So, we won’t have to worry about the tainted books unless the scoring in the league doubles. That won’t happen unless they abolish goaltenders.

Below are the stats that Mark Janko, Stars PR man, rounded up for me from the league office. The 05-06 numbers reflect the first 2 nights of the season. If the numbers make your head spin, just study the final column, which is average total goals scored per game by season:

SEASON GAMES GOALS AVG/GM
2005-06 18 114 6.33
2003-04 1230 6318 5.14
2002-03 1230 6530 5.31
2001-02 1230 6442 5.24
2000-01 1230 6782 5.51
99-2000 1148 6306 5.49
1998-99 1107 5830 5.27
1997-98 1066 5624 5.28
1996-97 1066 6216 5.83
1995-96 1066 6701 6.29
1994-95 624 3727 5.97
1993-94 1092 7081 6.48
1992-93 1008 7311 7.25
1991-92 880 6123 6.96
1990-91 840 5805 6.91
1989-90 840 6189 7.37
1988-89 840 6286 7.48
1987-88 840 6237 7.43
1986-87 840 6165 7.34
1985-86 840 6667 7.94
1984-85 840 6530 7.77
1983-84 840 6627 7.89
1982-83 840 6493 7.73
1981-82 840 6741 8.03
1980-81 840 6457 7.69