San Fransis-go

So it seems the fabled 49ers have had enough of Candlestick Park and want to move to Santa Clara. Shame, as one of the more successful teams of the 1980s, the Niners have a rather large following here in the UK (as it was during the eighties that the UK got its first taste of American football thanks to Channel 4). Whilst I don't like the idea of such a legendary franchise (I'll ignore the snickering, they might not be so great recently, but they were pretty dominant over the last twenty years. Besides, they're on a roll right now thanks to Frank Gore and hold a victory over last season's NFC Super Bowl representatives) upping sticks and leaving, I do think it's right that should they leave San Fransisco, they lose the right to call themselves the San Fransisco 49ers. A lawyer by the name of Mark Leno who represents the area of S.F. that the Niners play in, has announced he shall do all he can to help pass a bill preventing sports teams using the name San Fransisco without mayoral permission if they play outside of the city. It's early days for all this yet, as the franchise hasn't even confirmed it is leaving yet (owner John York has left the door open for negotiations with the city, although he is going full steam ahead with talks with Santa Clara officials), but I just think it's daft to have teams named for cities they aren't even playing in.

And even dafter when you end up with stupid double-barrelled names like Major League Baseball's Los Angeles Angels...of Anaheim. Ugh. Hey, Jay-Z's talking about moving the New Jersey Nets to New York, where they originally started. They could be the New York/New Jersey Nets of New York!

For fans, the name of their team is important. We don't need lists of cities that a team is near to in order to feel like it belongs to us. Just name the damn team after the city it plays in. It's meaningful to fans, but these name squabbles are asinine from the business perspective. Everyone knows the only reason the Angels are named as such is because the team didn't want to lose its association with one of the largest television markets in America by moving to Anaheim (and what's the deal with the Anaheim Ducks dropping the 'Mighty' from their name? A discussion for a future post methinks). Are fans are really going to stop supporting because it's the name of a different nearby city on the jerseys of their players?. Personally I'd be far more likely to drop my my beloved Chicago Bears if I found out they'd become the Champaign Bears of Chicago, Illinois USA. Sigh. At least they're not emblazoned with sponsors and brand names...yet.

Chicago (no) Hope

So, all hope is lost in Chicago, right? The Bears lost their first game last night, to the disappointing Dolphins and now their season is over. Or so the American sports media (admittedly known for their over dramatics and blowing things out of all proportion) would have you believe. Take Sports Illustrated's Don Banks for example. In his Week 9 'Snap Judgements' column, he claims that after the defeat, we're no longer laughing at the lowly 'Fins (touted by SI writer Paul Zimmerman as a Superbowl candidate prior to the season) or queuing up to 'deify' the Monsters of the Midway. Excuse me for a second, but I've had a hard time finding comment on the Bears excellent start to the season at all, let alone putting them right up there with the big bearded guy in the sky. Well, barring the parallels drawn up this week with the Superbowl-winning 1985 side. And those parallels were only drawn up because Chicago were facing Miami - the only team that beat 'Da Bears' in '85, derailing Chicago's bid for a perfect season (and yes, I do see the irony in that happening again 21 years later, against the same damn team).

From this side of the pond it feels more like we're being fed a constant diet of Manning versus Brady, with a side order of whatever accident has befallen Ben Roethlisberger this week. Chicago has been quietly dismantling potential playoff contenders (such as Buffalo, whom were embarrased 40-7) and even last year's NFC Superbowl representatives Seattle, who were soundly sent home on the wrong side of a 37-6 demolition (and not having Shaun Alexander running the ball is not an excuse, it takes more than one guy to lose a football game). Yet all the Bears get is a big fat "Well, duh." This is because the Bears have a comparatively easy schedule. Although quite how anyone could describe their upcoming three week East Coast road trip (at the New York Giants, at the New York Jets, at New England) as 'easy' is beyond me.

The Bears have been impressive this season. No one expected Rex Grossman to play as well as he has, certainly not to post the league's best passer rating after 6 weeks. Yes, he was a major factor in the near-defeat at Arizona and almost solely responsible for the loss to Miami (3 INTs and a lost fumble), but he's doing well for a quarterback who has played just 8 professional, competitive games (largely due to season-ending injuries). He's going to make mistakes. Even, dare I say it, Peyton Manning makes mistakes. The question for the Bears is whether they can limit and overcome those mistakes - a feat not made any easier by the loss of Mike Brown for the season - and hold it together for the rest of the year. If they can, then they'll be back in Miami come February for Superbowl XLI. I very much doubt the Dolphins will be, Don.

more info:
www.cnnsi.com
www.nfl.com
www.chicagobears.com
www.miamidolphins.com

Cheap shot? Wait a sec, 'Geather' your thoughts

We've barely gotten through Week 1 of the NFL Season and there's already controversy brewing. You might not have heard of Cincinnati Bengals Defensive End Robert Geathers before today, but you'll certainly hear his name on sports shows for the next few days. He's the guy that put Trent Green out of commission with a concussion-inducing collision in during the season opener at Kansas City. Damon Huard came in to replace the QB, who will be out for a substantial period of time.

People are calling for Geathers to be fined, suspended and put to death (well, maybe not quite that extreme, but still, there's an angry mob calling for punishment). This is where YouTube comes in handy. Barely minutes after the incident, clips of the hit were up on the popular video site. Here's the best one I've found. Ignoring the flying white circles the commentators put on screen, it has the clearest angle, and you can see exactly what occurred.

Now, I know we're living in this post-modern era of football, where it's all about the highlight reel. Players get themselves recognised by putting the big hit on a guy. There's even a segment on ESPN called “Jacked Up” ranking the top five hits each week. Screw the fundamentals, the wrap-up tackling, just whack the guy, right? Never mind that if you miss, he's going a long way downfield.

But I must be the only guy online who's leaping to Geathers' defence. I hate that Trent Green is injured, but Geathers did NOT deliberately knock him out. My reasons are twofold: Watch the clip: it's not a late hit by any means, and Geathers actually tucks his head out of the way to AVOID the Chief's QB. There's no spearing here, it's solid, shoulder-to-head. If it were malacious, why would he lead with his shoulder? Secondly, watch the clip again, and focus on the Chief's player behind Geathers (it might be Eddie Kennison).

I cannot believe that with the clarity of the video, the NFL could penalise Geathers in any way. And the legion of idiots on the internet calling this a cheap shot would do well to shut up. It's actually refreshing to see a player NOT go for the cheap hit, to try and prevent the injury of a fellow player, even if he is on the opposing side.

In any case, this all pales in comparison to the real issue. Trent, you're a great quarterback, and you don't always get the credit you deserve. I doubt you're going to read this, but get well soon. I hope you're back on the field and on our TV screens within weeks, not months.

More info:

NFL.com's game report