12-10, winners of 8 of their past 10, is more like it.

The Celtics haven’t completely recovered from their slow start, but they’re playing about as well as us fans could hope, especially considering the recent absence of Rondo.

We’re still only twenty-two games into this season.  There is a lot of basketball left to be played.  Here are some thoughts and issues from the past eleven games.

Thoughts and Issues:

- The thought I want to start with is this (a rhetorical question): Has any team in the past few decades destroyed more organizations than the ‘Big 3-era’ Celtics team?  Last week, the Celtics single-handedly destroyed the Orlando Magic franchise, first by holding them to 56 points in a game and then by completing a 27-point comeback.  Dwight Howard is not staying in Orlando, and for years people will refer back to these two games against the Celtics as the epitome of why.  The Celtics put the final two nails into that coffin.  Seem reminiscent of another time?  It is.  Remember back in 2010 when the Celtics single-handedly destroyed the Cleveland Cavaliers franchise, sending LeBron James fleeing to South Beach with his tail between his legs?  No other team since 2008 has altered the NBA landscape to the degree that the Celtics have.  Two franchises with superstar talent lost their superstars because those ‘super’stars realized they couldn’t beat the Celtics without a LOT of help.  I don’t care that the Celtics fell to the Heat in last season’s playoffs.  I’ll always know that LeBron ran away from Cleveland because of what the Celtics did to him.  Regardless of how many titles the ‘Big 3-era’ Celtics end up with, I will always remember how they exposed King James and Superman Dwight to be the cowards and second-bananas they always were.

- Staying with the above thought, it is undeniable that the ‘Big 3-era’ Celtics have been the true barometer in the NBA since 2008.  Teams judge themselves by how they perform against these Celtics.  Before Perk was traded last year, NO TEAM in the NBA had beaten a healthy Celtics team in the playoffs.  Not one.  With a healthy starting five, the Celtics were unbeatable in the playoffs.  Even today, do you think there’s a team in the Eastern Conference that wants to face the Celtics in a seven game series?  If they do, then they have a Sisyphus-complex.  You may beat this older version of the Celtics, but you’re going to have to work for it.  The past eleven games, especially the two against Orlando, have reminded us of what the Celtics are capable of.  It’s a fantastic feeling as a fan.

- The problem with having every team afraid of you is that when they sense weakness they bring everything that have at you, and the Celtics need to be able to withstand another team’s best shot.  So far this season, they haven’t been able to.  At this age, I don’t know if they can.  But, I am feeling better after the past two weeks.  Equal to health will be the team’s willpower.  Can these Celtics bring it every game?  Come playoffs, that’s all that matters.

- After the first eleven games, I wrote that Rondo was the wrong PG for this team.  I believed it in the off-season, and I still believe it, but let’s not get carried away with how well they played in his absence.  The team still needs a PG, and Rondo is an above-average PG (fantastic distributor + poor shooter = above-average PG).  I know that a PG who shot the ball more consistently and hit the occasional three-pointer would be a better addition to this current squad than Rondo, but I am prepared to go the season with Rondo (as I’m sure Ainge is).  He’s certainly better than a mix of Bradley/Moore with Pierce doing most of the offensive initiating.  Come playoff time, that formula won’t work.  Many fans want to rebuild with Rondo come next season, but I don’t see him as the Alpha-type through which to rebuild.  We’ll see.  I definitely believe he’ll be with the team through year’s end.

- Doc has been doing a much better job handling the veterans’ minutes and allowing the rookies to play.  I know his hand has been somewhat forced, but this is stubborn ol’Doc we’re talking about, and he easily could have run Pierce and KG into the ground by now.  Seeing Bradley and Moore on the floor more often bodes well for the team’s future, both short- and long-term.

- The team could still use additional rebounding and low post drills.  The Celts rank at the bottom of the league in all rebounding numbers and points in the paint.  The team still settles for too many jumpers.  KG and Bass have been playing well, but as this shortened season drags on it will begin to weigh heavily on their legs.  And, when the legs go, the jumpers stop falling.  Anyone who plays basketball knows that.  Doc needs to initiate a few more simple low post plays in order to get these big guys closer to the basket.

- Mickael Pietrus has been a wonderful addition, as I always knew he would be.  If only he could have joined the team in 2009 after Posey left.  Pietrus is exactly the type of player the Celtics always needed but couldn’t find each off-season.  He plays defense, runs the floor, and hits open threes.  Great to see him out there doing his thing, being all sexy and knowing it.

- Just added!  Jermaine O’Neal is having a MRI done on his knee due to swelling and/or pain.  Can’t say I’m surprised.  I am disappointed, regardless of how little he fills the stat line.  The Celtics need size and Jermaine has that.  Without him, Ainge will be forced into making a move for a big man, and without many options and very little money he may be forced into trading someone.

The next eleven games brings them through the All Star Game and finds them facing the Grizzlies, Mavs, Lakers, Thunder, and Bulls (twice), while playing three back-to-backs.  This will be a difficult eleven games.  Anything over .500 will be a success.

I hope my next update finds them with a record of 23-10.  Go Celtics!

Ok, 4-7 is the not the record many fans envisioned (or wanted) at this point in the season.  In fact, for a perennial playoff team over the past few seasons the record is downright disgusting.  The Celts are behind both the Cavs and Bucks, and currently sit at 10th in the Eastern Conference.  They’ve lost to every playoff-caliber team they’ve played (and the Hornets), and they’ve beaten only the lowly Wizards, Nets, and Pistons.  Is all lost?  I know that some fans believe it is, but there are other fans adamantly hopeful about the Celts’ possibilities come this May-June.  I am neither hopeful nor pessimistic, as watching the Celts play each game this season has left me equal measures apathetic and sad; apathetic because the team plays apathetically, and sad because I am reminded of the fall of the original Big-3 back in the late-80s/early-90s.  We fans cannot forget the slow death of Celtics basketball as the 1990s rolled around, and the 21-year drought between championships.

Before the season (just a few weeks back), I gave the Celtics a ‘puncher’s chance’ to win a championship this season.  Much like Rocky against Apollo, this team is the underdog going up against the more talented, athletic competition.  They still have that puncher’s chance, but they’re certainly facing an uphill battle, and they’re not helping themselves considering this early hole they’re digging (which corresponds to the early hole they’ve been digging themselves in the first quarter of almost every game).

There are key issues that the Celts will have to remedy in order to keep alive this puncher’s chance going through the next 1/6 portion of their schedule, which doesn’t get any easier with games against OKC, ORL, IND, PHO, and NYK, including three back-to-backs.  They’re somewhat lucky that the Eastern Conference is top-heavy, allowing them a good shot at slipping into the lower levels of the playoff field even if they finish right around .500.  If healthy when entering the playoffs, I’d still give them a puncher’s chance against the field.  If they miss the playoffs entirely, staying behind the likes of the Cavs and Bucks, I’d be very, very surprised (barring injuries).  However, it is too early to be discussing what will happen in May-June.  We’re only eleven games into this season.  Here are the issues the Celtics need to deal with to increase their chances of making a championship run.

Issues:

- Rondo is absolutely the wrong PG for this team.  [I know this is a BIG issue to lead off with!]  He plays at a different speed than all of his teammates, and this is not a good thing.  He wants to race down the court on the fast break, but his teammates aren’t able to, so he often goes it alone, missing at the rim and getting ravaged physically.  He is not a finisher at the rim on par with Rose or Westbrook, and at the line he’s hitting only 59% of his free throws, so his absorbed fouls on the fast break rarely bring the team more than one point.  The Celtics will not win games on these single points racked up by Rondo on the fast break.  The Celtics win and lose as a team, a half-court team.  With the pace and spacing that the Celts use on offense, they need a PG that can knock down the outside shot (anything outside of 16 feet).  Rondo still hasn’t developed a consistent jumper, though it has gotten slightly better this year, and he has no three-point shot to speak of.  The perfect PG for this current Celts team would be Steve Nash because of his veteran savvy, short-term contract, and what he can do on the court.  This team needs a PG that controls the half-court, being able to hit open shots and create their own offense.  For as much as Rondo drives to the basket – usually in desperation because a play broke down – he doesn’t finish at the rim, and his free throw shooting leaves something to be desired (as discussed).  With Phoenix currently outside of the playoff picture, perhaps they’d take on Rondo to lead their young team of athletes, while allowing Nash a shot at joining three future HOFers in Boston for one last push.  With Nash at the helm, this Celts team would be tremendously improved, as he can find the open man, hit the open shot, and create his own offense.  Rondo simply cannot do two of those three things.

Why, you may ask, would I propose trading the team’s sole young, signed talent?  In my opinion, by the time Ainge builds a capable team of runners and shooters to surround Rondo, he will have lost a step or two.  The Celts are not coming back next year with Gerald Wallace, Josh Smith and Dwight Howard, and the Big-3 coming off the bench.  That’s not feasible.  The team is not in the position they were in when they traded for Allen and Garnett.  They don’t have the young talent to trade away.  And, regardless of how much money they have for free agency, it seems many young talents don’t want to play in Boston, for whatever reason – Boston wasn’t on the trade lists of Paul or Howard, and West openly chose Indiana.  The Celtics will most likely come away with a few minor free agents, and I find it likely they bring back Allen and Garnett on one-year contracts.  How much will that improve the team if Rondo is still the center piece?  Re-building around Rondo doesn’t seem like the best idea.  He’s certainly good and can be an All Star for years to come, but I’ve watched Rondo play into his sixth year, and I don’t believe he’s the kind of player or person that an organization builds a team around.  He’s limited offensively, gambles defensively, and he’s shown a predilection to petulance and immaturity.  He needs to be surrounded by mature veterans and athletic runners, a difficult roster mix to put together (and one the Celtics had in 2008).

Additionally, there is another big thing that bugs me about Rondo.  He’s fully capable of putting on a defensive tour-de-force and putting up a triple-double while playing the Miami Heat or Chicago Bulls, but he plays down to his lowlier opponents, like the Wizards or Cavs or Raptors.  If Rondo can eat up great teams and match wits with superstars like Rose and Westbrook, then why can’t he consistently destroy lowly opponents?  Is it a lack of focus and desire, or is he simply not good enough to dominate on a consistent basis?  Personally, I feel it’s a lack of focus and desire.  He gets up for the great teams, and is often taken behind the woodshed by the bad teams.  If he can guard LeBron in the playoffs, hounding him to no end, then he should damn well be able to shut down Darren Collison or Jarrett Jack.  But, he can’t, not consistently anyway.  This is a troubling trait for a potential team leader.

One final comment: Rondo’s over-aggressiveness on defense does more to hurt the Celts’ defense than it does to bolster it.  Too often Rondo’s man ends up with an open shot or an open lane where O’Neal or Bass pick up an extra foul (usually on an And-1).  If Rondo truly understood the Celts’ defensive strategy, he wouldn’t gamble as often.  He’s immensely talented, but too often I feel that he feels he has to go it alone because of the age and conditioning of his teammates.  By gambling he puts his teammates in poor position for defensive close-outs and rebounds.  If Rondo’s the leader of this team, then he needs to stick to the system.

If anyone is traded on this team before the season is through it needs to be Rondo, but only in exchange for a top-flight, half-court-capable PG like Steve Nash; preferably, one with a short contract.  I don’t believe this will happen, but if I were Ainge I would look into it.

- Doc needs to update his offensive system.  Watching the Celts on offense brings to my mind the following adjectives: stagnant, predictable, old.  These are the same plays from 2008.  They worked in 2008 because they were new and other teams hadn’t seen them, and the Celtics stars were four years younger and able to better execute.  There are three reasons why these plays are no longer effective: 1) predictability – other teams know how to defend the Celts’ plays; 2) age – the Celts are older and less effective overall; 3) roster turnover – there has been too much turnover in the roster during the past three seasons, and the new guys simply haven’t had time to grasp all the concepts.  The Celts’ offense is built heavily on screens and jump shooting, but they don’t have anyone other than KG who can set a solid screen, and jump shooting can be hit-or-miss (duh!) and long rebounds often lead to fast breaks on the other end.  O’Neal and Bass don’t set screens like Perk or Davis did, and Allen is the only consistent jump-shooting threat on this team (though I know Pierce will get back to being consistent once he deals with his conditioning).  When your offense is based on spacing for jump shooters, wouldn’t it help to have more capable jump shooters?  And, wouldn’t it be nice if Doc actually called a post play for one of his big men?  We have three big men (KG, Bass, O’Neal) who prefer jump shots over post plays, but the coach doesn’t need to cater to that.  Brandon Bass is 6’8:, 250lbs.; put him down on the block and force him to take his man to the rim.  There isn’t one post threat on this team, which makes it very easy for other teams to guard the Celts.

In my opinion, Doc needs to institute a few simple post plays for the likes of Bass and change up the half-court sets so they’re not so heavily dependent on screens from guys who do not set solid screens.  With this current roster, I’m not certain anything will work, but something needs to be shaken up on offense.  Doc needs to get his players closer to the basket, so that finishing becomes easier.  This isn’t a team that can win the way it’s currently playing.

I was very concerned over the past few years with Doc’s offensive play-calling.  I initially did not want him to come back to coach this team, thinking that a new offensive-minded coach could do wonders shaking up the team, while the core group of the Big-4 could lead the team on defense.  Well, this year’s team has a horribly inept offense and a pathetically inept defense.  The offense will not fix itself.  It is predictable and inefficient, a terrible combination for a team hoping to make a run in the playoffs.  The defense?  Well, that can only be fixed through…

- Practice.  The team’s defense will improve with practice time only, and that time is drastically limited in this shortened season.  Game time flies by at a different speed and doesn’t allow for as much repetitive learning and communication.  Only in practice can guys learn their roles and where they need to be on defensive switches and rotations.  The team is trying, but the new guys haven’t had enough practice time and the old guys cannot be in two places at once (when their teammates aren’t in their correct positions).  The Celts’ defense is built on teamwork and rotation, and this team is not prepared to get it done on a consistent basis.  The origin of this issue is the massive roster turnover that has been employed over the past three seasons.  I know Ainge is aiming toward massive cap space in 2012, but he short-changed the team for this season (even before considering the unfortunate absence of Jeff Green – Pietrus is a fine replacement for Green).  Practice time must be as important as game time to members of the Celtics this season.  They must find a way to instill their defense into the new guys before the season is over.

- How about rebounding drills?  Holy crap, how does this team rebound so poorly?  They’re certainly not the shortest team in the NBA.  In fact, they’re over the league average for teams with players 6’10” or taller (average = 4.2; Celts = 5).  The teams with the fewest players 6’10” or taller are the Chicago Bulls and Indiana Pacers (both have only 2 players over 6’10”), and they’re two of the top rebounding teams in basketball.    I can understand having a system in place where your team abandons offensive rebounding opportunities in order to fall back on defense, but how are the Celts this bad at defensive rebounding?  From years of playing ball I have come to believe that rebounding is 40% position/60% hustle (luck is miniscule).  You have to position yourself appropriately based on the shot being taken and the position of your opponent, but more importantly you have to want the rebound more than the guy next to you.  The Celts don’t properly position themselves for rebounds, perhaps because there are so many new faces and they don’t yet have a feeling for each other.  The Celts also don’t ever seem to want the ball (besides Rondo’s occasional hustle for loose boards).  Most of the time, they seem averse to grabbing the ball.  Their opponents go after the ball, and that is why the Celts are suffering.  Can this be fixed?  I don’t believe so.  The team must have discussed rebounding a few times over the past few years, but they continue to suffer from a lack of it.  Apparently, there is nothing Doc can do to get these guys to rebound the ball.  Teams don’t win without rebounding.  As Celtics fans, we’ve learned this first-hand over the past few seasons.  Regardless, I’d love to see the younger guys, like Bass and Pietrus and Stiemsma, go after rebounds with controlled abandon, and it’d be great if the veterans could set the tone by showing more effort.

- Health is always an issue, but there is nothing that can be done about this, besides Doc limiting the veterans’ minutes.  The team is old, on average, and there will be aches and strains along the way.  We fans already knew that everything had to align perfectly – incl. health – in order for the team to make a deep playoff push.  With injuries to Pierce, Wilcox, and Dooling in the first few weeks, we can only hope that the team is getting this out of their system early.

- KG’s lack of aggression has been an issue over the past few seasons, but is truly hurting the team this year.  His leg injury can be blamed for his hesitancy in the past, but this year he is healthy.  He’s older, yes, but he can still be a 15ppg/10rpg guy if his minutes are properly handled and he attacks the basket more often.  More than age, I believe KG’s aggression has dwindled due to the loss of Perk.  When Perk was on the court, KG knew he had a brother-in-arms with him in the post.  Without Perk, KG stands with O’Neal and Bass, both fine players, but soft players who prefer jump shots over dunks.  For the first time in his career, KG looks scared at times on the court.  Defenders know he won’t attack the rim on offense, and he’s lost a step on defense (though he’s still terrific).  He’s not the KG of old, but he needs to be more aggressive than he’s being now.  Knowing he’s approaching the last few years of his career, if not the last, I hope he leaves it all on the court.  It’s all you can ask from a great player as they near the end.

- The starters are playing heavy minutes even though they’re under-conditioned and there are young, energetic legs on the bench.  I know playing youngsters is a tough paradox for Doc to wrap his mind around.  With so little practice time, how does he trust court time to the young guys without sacrificing the best chance the team has to win?  Well, they haven’t been winning and the starters look gassed each game.  Like it or not, with little practice time available, Doc has to throw the young guys into the fire and hope that they learn quickly.  This will only benefit the team in the short- and long-term.  Short-term, it rests the starters for the fourth quarter and the remaining season.  Long-term, the organization gets to see what it has in its young players.  Doc may need to simplify a few things for the young guys – on offense and defense – but, as I said earlier, simplification may be a good thing for this team.  Throw JaJuan down on the block and see what he can do to get to the rim.  Let E’Twaun take the ball off a pick and find his way to the hole.  Give the guys a chance.  And rest the veterans.

There are quite a few issues this team needs to rectify over the coming weeks in order to align themselves for a playoff run.  They have certainly derailed early, but there is time for them to get back on track.  Much of what I mentioned above deals with basic team basketball.  As these guys play together over the course of the season, one would expect defensive rotation and positioning to work itself out, and screens and rebounding can be practiced ad nauseum (when they do practice).  The team’s shooting will hopefully come around as their conditioning improves.  Health is out of everyone’s hands.  Well, that’s not entirely true.  Doc can play his veterans less minutes, increasing their odds of making it through the season injury-free.  Getting young guys more involved now may improve their chances of becoming solid contributors come playoff time.  It’d be great to see E’Twaun contribute during 12 minutes of action in a playoff game victory, which Norris Cole is bound to do for the Heat.  If that’s going to happen, then the kid has to get court time now.  As for my most controversial issue above – Rondo, there is little more to say.  I don’t believe Ainge will trade him, but if Phoenix offers Nash (and a big man like Gortat), Ainge better listen.  If he really cares about this Celtics organization then he has to take off his beer goggles and really look at Rondo’s game.  There are still key aspects to his game that Rondo needs to improve – free throw shooting and consistent focus/desire being the top two (I doubt he’ll develop a three-point shot this season).  Outside of re-loading during the season, we fans can only hope that the team finds a wave and rides it into the playoffs.  It’s possible, but who knows if it’s likely.  The way they’re playing now doesn’t bode well for the future.  They aren’t simply losing games.  They’re playing bad basketball on both ends of the court.  If they can get it together, if Doc can work some magic, if there is anything left in the tanks of the Big-3, then we may see this team play deep into June.  They’ll always be the puncher’s chance for this underdog Celtics team.

And, please, for those who say that all these issues become moot once the team starts winning, that isn’t necessarily true.  The team lost the Finals in 2010 because of a lack of rebounding (which Perkins’ injury simply highlighted).  The team lost to the Heat last season because of an inefficient offense.  Health, and a starting unit that is gassed come playoff time, has been a recurring issue for this squad.  These are issues that have followed this team for seasons, and age and roster turnover are highlighting them in this shortened season.  They’re important issues, regardless of wins and losses.

I hope my next update finds them with a record of 15-7.  Go Celtics!

For my pre-season Celtics prediction, please visit here.

Christmas is upon us and the 2011-12 season has arrived with it (as a present to all fans).  I am excited, very excited for the season.  I am, however, only mildly optimistic for the Celtics’ chances of winning a Championship; mildly optimistic equaling a less than 20% chance of winning.  Too many other teams have younger star collections of their own, and with the way the condensed schedule will test the legs of even younger players, imagine what it will do to guys who have been in the league for 13+ seasons (four of the Celtics starting five).  There is always a puncher’s chance once the playoffs begin, and I’m certain (barring unforeseen catastrophic injuries) that the Celtics will be in the playoffs, so they have a puncher’s chance, especially if their health isn’t an issue.  If the starting five is healthy for the playoffs, and the bench coalesces as a nice unit, the Celtics will have a puncher’s chance come playoff time.

Below are my thoughts on the coming season:

At the end of last season, I had the following thoughts about the yet-unsigned Doc Rivers: “Due to Rivers’ reliance on his starters and the general offensive ineptness of the team [they finished 17^th in offensive efficiency], I wish that he would be let go [at season’s end].  I want a more exciting and competent offensive coach.  My rationale is that, with KG’s authority on defense and a mediocre defensive-minded coach (Ass’t or Head), the team will be fine on defense.  I am concerned about their offense, which was stagnant at times, DOA at others.”

However…

My feelings have changed in the ensuing months; a complete 180 actually.  I am excited that Doc is excited to be back (for 5 years, no less).  I respect athletes and coaches who are excited to be with a specific team.  I root for a specific team, so, as a fan, I enjoy their enthusiasm for that team.  And, Doc, facing what will most likely be growing pains in the coming seasons, seems genuinely excited to be the coach of the Boston Celtics.

In the NBA, successful teams become championship contenders when all players buy into their coach’s systems (if that coach is a good coach); think: Phil Jackson’s triangle offense, Jerry Sloan’s pick-and-roll, Gregg Popovich’s inside-out approach, Rick Carlisle’s heavy use of zone D last season (don’t laugh, most teams scoff at using zone, but he had the length down low and speed up top to utilize it), and Doc Rivers’ Ubuntu – that accounts for 17 of the last 21 Championships.  It’s not enough to have one or two or three great players.  Those great players, and all their teammates, need to buy in entirely to a good system that works with their talents.  There is nothing more telling of a .500 team than that the team and its coaching staff does not share the same vision.  There is little accountability, ball hogs and stat stuffers run rampant, and coaches cannot seem to bring together a unified vision of success.  If anything, championship teams are always on the same page with the same goal in mind.

Doc has his system: balanced defense with precise rotation and accountability and an offense built on getting his three stars the ball in their preferred locations.  This teamwork on D and sharing of the ball on O came to be known as Ubuntu.  Ubuntu worked in 2008, and would have led to Championships in 2009 and 2010 if not for injuries to KG and Perkins.  But, the Celtics have changed.  No more Perkins.  Everyone’s a few years older.  The bench has completely changed three times in the past three years.  Ainge is anything if not aggressive as a GM, and no player can guarantee they’ll be here tomorrow.  The psyche of the team has changed, even if Doc and the Big-4 won’t admit it publicly.  For a team built on chemistry, Doc needs to build that chemistry quickly.  Luckily, chemistry was Doc’s best class in high school.  He took malcontent (Big Baby) after malcontent (Nate Robinson) after malcontent (Sheed) and forced them to buy into his system, as best he could.  If health were never an issue, this team would have won the 2008, 2009, and 2010 Championships.

Now that the Celtics signed Doc for five more seasons, Doc will need to do the following in order to keep the Celtics in contention: limit the starters’ minutes while not undermining what makes the Cs successful (precise ball movement/screens and defensive rotation); force Rondo to shoot 1,000 jump shots and 2,000 free throws every day until he becomes better than league average; very quickly incorporate all new players into the Celtics’ way of life and rotation; inspire the team on a daily basis to fight, fight, fight.  From the most recent reports, he seems to be doing just that.

As for the lineup:

Predicted 2011-12 Depth Chart (from 5/27/11 article Celtic Change):

PG: Rondo / Delonte West / Bradley

SG: Allen / Anthony Parker / Wafer

SF: Pierce / Josh Howard

PF: Garnett / Green / Kwame Brown

C: J. O’Neal / Joel Przybilla / Krstic / Draft Pick #25 (became JaJuan Johnson)

Guys not returning: Glen Davis, Sasha Pavlovic, Troy Murphy, Carlos Arroyo

Actual 2011-12 Depth Chart:

PG: Rondo / Keyon Dooling

SG: Allen / Bradley / E’Twaun Moore

SF: Pierce / Marquis Daniels / Pavlovic

PF: Garnett / Brandon Bass / JaJuan Johnson

C: J. O’Neal / Chris Wilcox

Things obviously changed due to the lengthy lockout and the new collective bargaining agreement, which didn’t necessarily help an over-spending luxury tax team like the Celtics.  It was nearly impossible during the ensuing days post-lockout to imagine what Danny Ainge was going to do, or be able to do, to rebuild the team’s depth chart.  In my book, Ainge did a terrific job (B+).  He brought in a new supporting group for relatively little money, and he kept all his cap flexibility for next season (only Rondo, Pierce, and Bradley are guaranteed).  Considering most top-level free agents are forcing trades prior to free agency, who knows who will be around to sign in 2012 (here’s a list), but Ainge stuck to his original goals while still improving the overall roster of the team for this coming season.

This Year’s Squad:

- Rajon Rondo – His on-again, off-again trade rumors are understandable, and he’s handled them maturely.  I understand why Ainge would want to trade Rondo for a scoring threat at PG.  The team needs additional scoring, and Rondo’s offensive output varies from inconsistent to nonexistent.  Rondo is an amazing pass-first PG (perhaps the best pure PG in the league), but the Celtics are aging and the Big-3 cannot create their own shots night-in, night-out.  The Celtics need a PG who can create his own offense when the team’s offense stalls.  Saying all that, I still am very happy that Rondo stayed in green.  I root for the Celtics as an organization, but I also root for the players as I grow to admire and appreciate their effort and respect for the team’s history and the game.  Rondo is a gamer and a Celtic.  Chris Paul, who Rondo was baited for in a trade, openly said he didn’t want to play for the Celtics.  Fine, Chris Paul, then we don’t want you either.  Rondo needs to work to develop a jumper and a free throw shot, but besides that he’s well-rounded and a tough leader.

- Ray Allen – Still one of the best pure shooters and 3-pt assassins in the league.  But, the team has to work harder at setting solid picks to get him open, and it wouldn’t be a horrible thing for Allen to spend a little time harnessing his one-on-one game to ease the scoring load off Pierce.

- Paul Pierce – The Captain is back.  He’s still the team’s only one-on-one isolation scorer.  There’s going to be a lot of pressure on him to score, so I hope his injured heel recovers completely.

- Kevin Garnett – KG wasn’t going anywhere, and it’s good to see him back and fully healthy.  This may be his one last hurrah overall (it is his 16^th season), so I hope he leaves it all on the court.

- Jermaine O’Neal – As I predicted, he returned to play 18 mpg and collect $6.2 million.  Problem is he may be required to play 20+ mpg.  Will his body hold up?  I think not, which necessitates a trade deadline move to shore up the C position.  But, for now, I’m happy he’s back.  He’s a good player and locker room presence.  Here’s hoping his knees hold up until reinforcements are brought in.

- Avery Bradley – Bradley should be ready for more minutes, but it’s impossible to know how he’ll produce.  It’s time to see, for better or worse.  Problem is that if he doesn’t produce on the floor, he loses all his trade value, and his only value so far has been as an additional chip in a trade package.  The Celtics don’t often play their young guys, but with the condescended schedule they won’t have much of a choice.

- Brandon Bass – The sign-and-trade of Big Baby for Bass was Ainge’s best move of the off-season.  I have desired Bass for two years, and I am shocked Orlando traded him for Baby.  Bass is physical down low and can hit an open jump shot at a better rate than Baby.  He’s also a more consistent rebounder.  He’ll fit in nicely playing alongside or backing up Garnett.  And, he’s signed for two years at a very reasonable price of $4 million per year (though he can opt out).  Baby wanted more than that and got it from Orlando.  When I look at this sign-and-trade, I think, “What was Orlando thinking?”  That’s a good sign for the Celtics.

- Keyon Dooling – He’s a terrific pick-up for the trade exception they earned by trading Marquis Daniels last season.  Dooling can back up Rondo at PG and create his own offense with the second unit.  Solid pick-up.  However, his output will always be compared to that of Delonte West last season, since he, in essence, replaces West in the lineup.  Can he give the team the defensive toughness West gave to the back-up PG and SG spots?  I believe he can, while upgrading West’s offensive contributions.  And, it’s telling that Doc has a man-crush on him.

- Marquis Daniels – Speaking of Daniels, he’s back.  And, count me in as one who believes this is a terrific pick-up for the money.  He may be injury-prone, but when he’s on the court he’s tough, intelligent, and knows the system.  No one gets to the basket like he does on cuts, and he’s a terrific finisher around the rim.  He’s a lunch pail guy, a Celtics guy, and Doc trusts him enough to throw him in any situation.  Daniels is the team’s James Posey, which is why Ainge avoiding going after James Posey.

- Chris Wilcox – I like the Wilcox signing.  He’s a tough guy down low and should play a lot of Center for this team.  He’s also excited to be on a playoff-bound team for the first time in his career.  Fans can easily compare him to Reggie Evans or Chuck Hayes or the like, but Wilcox is a good signing for the money.

- Sasha Pavlovic – I wrote the following back in May: “If the Celtics run out of salary cap space and need to resign one of their own guys to soften the cap hit in lieu of signing Przybilla or (Josh) Howard, I believe it will be Sasha.”  Perhaps he can contribute throughout the season, backing up the backup at SF.  He was once the second-best player on a Cavs team that made it to the Finals.

- JaJuan Johnson – I love the Johnson pick.  He has experience (4-year college grad) and talent.  He’s mature and has extreme length.  He’s an explosive leaper with shot-blocking skills.  He can score with either hand.  He rebounds.  He should fit right in and learn from the vets.  It’s great to see that KG has taken him under his wing.  If anything, Rondo was given another running partner on the break.  Let’s see how many minutes he’s given this season.  He’ll have to prove himself to Doc in practice, especially on the defensive end, before he sees any floor time.

- E’Twaun Moore – They didn’t draft a Euro to stash in Europe, like I thought they would, but they did draft a tweener guard who may spend some time in the D-League.  With the 55^th pick, it’s terrific to get a 4-year college grad from a winning program.  The guy has skills, and has seemingly earned the respect of his teammates.  If Moore can deliver come game time, then his selection may be the steal of the draft.

Injured (Out for Season):

- Jeff Green – I was very excited to have Green back on a one-year deal, until his unfortunate health scare forced him to miss the season.  Best of luck to him health-wise.  This is a blow to the team, but how much of a blow?  A lot was expected of Green, performance-wise, whether it should have been or not, but there was no guarantee he was going to be anything other than the player he was last season.  He has the size and athleticism to be a difference-maker, and another year in Doc’s system would have improved his chances of making a difference.  Now, we fans wait until next year, when it looks like he’ll be back in the mix, perhaps with an entirely new team around him.

Possible Late Additions to Roster:

- Greg Stiemsma – The question here is, “Can he provide the team with what Semih Erden provided the team?”  I liked Erden quite a bit.  He showed a lot of heart playing with an injured shoulder and he produced as well as one could expect, if not better, when he filled in as a spot starter.  Can Stiemsma do the same?  If he makes the team, he will be expected to play a few minutes, being the only true C behind O’Neal.  He’s known for his defense, which is good.  But, the Celtics struggle on offense and it’s not known whether he can provide any measure of an offensive game in the post.

- Gilbert Brown – The unsigned player of Pittsburgh has been practicing with the team during the pre-season, but it’s unknown if he’ll make the roster.  He’s 6’6”, 215lb, which is good size, and he plays with energy, but will Doc even trust him enough to warm the bench.  The team could take a flier on him until someone better becomes available.

Didn’t Resign:

- Glen Davis – Many fans will write eulogies of Big Baby’s time on the team, praising him for what he delivered or chastising him for what he did not.  I believe it was time for a parting of the ways, and receiving Bass in exchange was a steal on Ainge’s part.  Baby had some special moments in Green, and I thank him for those, but it was time for both sides to move on.  No tears shed here, unlike with the Perkins trade where I actually cried at work and stepped out for a drink.

- Delonte West – The Celts went with Dooling.  Will I miss West?  Yes.  Do I believe Dooling can fill his shoes and perhaps be a better offensive contributor?  Also yes.

- Von Wafer – Sent as part of the trade that brought Bass.  Can’t complain.  I’d rather see what Bradley has to offer than give those minutes to Wafer.

- Troy Murphy – In my opinion, Ainge’s choice to re-sign a player from last year’s team in order to round out this year’s squad came down to Pavlovic or Murphy.  Can’t fault Ainge for choosing Pavlovic, even though Murphy would have brought that elusive height the team is lacking.  Murphy never seemed happy last season after signing with the Celts, and he didn’t perform well when on the court, so no one can be saddened by his not returning.

Missed Out On:

- Chris Paul – A few years back, I would have traded the entire team outside of the Big-3 for Chris Paul, but this year I was against it because of his deteriorating knees and his unwillingness to sign an extension.  And, I will once again state that if Chris Paul doesn’t want to play for the Celtics (which he let be known), then I, as a fan, don’t want him on the Celtics.  He let it be known that he’d rather play for the Clippers (and Donald Sterling, by association).  Really???  The Clippers???  Good luck playing for the Clippers, where he’s one knee injury away from becoming a forgotten great.  The Clippers, as they’re currently constructed, have absolutely no chance of getting past the Lakers, Mavs, Thunder, or Grizzlies during the two seasons in which they’ll have Chris Paul.  And, then, you can bet that Chris Paul is as good as gone.

- David West – I had been pining for David West to be on the team for years, but there was always one (good) problem, the team had Kevin Garnett.  West was unnecessary.  This off-season, West would have been a fantastic pick-up, but the team didn’t technically need him considering they had already went out and grabbed Brandon Bass and Chris Wilcox, both PFs.  And, kind of along the lines of Chris Paul’s desire to avoid playing for the Celts, West (apparently) chose to go to the Pacers as opposed to accepting a little less money to play for the Celts.  Really???  The Pacers???  Good, young team or not, the Pacers are no Celtics, and their squad doesn’t have 4 All Stars and 3 Hall of Famers.  Good choice, Mr. West.  Enjoy backing up Tyler Hansbrough.

Never Approached (Went Another Way):

- Joel Przybilla – I wish they were able to get this guy, and they still may come January.  He has the perfect nasty streak that this team lacks without Perkins in the lineup, and he’s a rebounder, which they desperately need.  He’s an injury risk though, and is actually waiting until the new year to sign with a team (due to his latest leg-related surgery).

- Josh Howard – The Celts could have used him, but they picked up Daniels instead.  Look, they’re both injuries waiting to happen, so I can’t fault Ainge for going with the guy who already knows Doc’s system.

- Kwame Brown – Once the options became limited, I thought Ainge would sign Brown, but he went to the Warriors for more money than the Celts had available.

- Anthony Parker – Once again, Ainge decided it was better to bring back Daniels.

Final Analysis:

The Celtics will finish 3rd in the Eastern Conference behind both Miami and Chicago, but ahead of New York, Orlando, Indiana, and Atlanta, though they’ll be closer to the second pack than the first.  The Celts have the same starting five from last season’s playoffs, but an improved bench, but is that enough for us to believe they can make it to the Finals?  The Heat and Bulls basically stood pat, while possibly becoming slightly better with their additions of Battier and Hamilton, respectively, but it is not the top two teams that I fear from the position of a fan – they’re inarguably better teams with younger superstars, and losing to either of them wouldn’t be an embarrassing disappointment.  Losing to the upstart young-ens would be a disappointment.  The Knicks and Pacers have become decidedly better, and though they still have glaring holes, they have another season together to work out kinks before the playoffs start.  The Magic and Hawks are veterans of the playoffs at this point, and their rosters suggest that they’ll be about as good as they were last year.  The Magic’s success depends entirely on the destination of Dwight Howard come playoff time; if he’s on the Nets, then the Nets will be more dangerous than the Magic.  This Celtics squad could easily lose a playoff series to the upstart Pacers (or Knicks) if health and focus come into question.  I’d hate to see that happen.

Once again, the Celtics will have to find a way to battle through the regular season, attempting to avoid any serious injury, to set themselves up for a deep playoff run.  Ainge has five months to either shore up the bench or blow up the team.  All will be dependent on how they’re playing.  Trying to predict what Ainge will do in that scenario is a ludicrous notion; he’s liable to do anything.  I’m hoping everyone stays healthy and Ainge isn’t forced to do anything drastic.  Shore up the bench with a scorer and a big man and, in my opinion, this team will be set come playoff time.

Can this opening day roster, at full health, win the East and make it to the Finals?  There is a puncher’s chance.  And, at this late stage in the era of the Big-3 that is all for which we fans can hope.  Go Celtics!

For past Celtics-related articles, click Celtic Change, Celtics 2011, Celtics!, Reggie Lewis: 17 Years Ago…, One Win Shy, Celtic Pride, and Celtics v. Cavs: The Last Hurrah?.

It is time.  I am finally sick and tired of the Occupy Wall Street protestors, for no other reason than they are beginning to siphon NYC tax money away from where it needs to go (education, public safety, transit, back into the taxpayers’ pockets) and into ridiculous efforts to clean up after lazy protestors and supply First Aid stations and port-a-potties to people who have chosen, by their own volition, to sleep outside in the streets.  Heck, the homeless don’t even get the privileges of these fools, and the homeless actually make the streets their home year-round; they’re not “playing” homeless for the cameras.

Did you know… That Occupy Wall Street was initially conceived by Canadians?

– http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/occupywallstreet.html –

Anti-consumerist Canadians, to be exact.  The not-for-profit advertising company Adbusters, which first conceived this mess of a protest, self-describes its company as follows:

Pranksters?  I thought we were all getting punk’d.  As for their ‘aim’, oh, is that all?  How exactly will all this get done?  I don’t think they sat down and properly thought this through.  Why should they?  It’s not their responsibility once they get the giant shit ball rolling.  It’s everyone else’s responsibility, after the fact.  These are the worst kinds of people – those who cause a mess then refuse to clean it up while blaming everyone else for its existence (kind of like the Wall Street fat cats!).

In Adbusters’ own words, “On September 17, we want to see 20,000 people flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months.”  Well, your few months are up.  Go home to your families.  Go home to your jobs.  If you don’t have a job, go home and look for one.  Try visiting Monster.com or CareerBuilder.com as opposed to Adbuster.com, Twitter.com, and Facebook.com.

In their infinite wisdom, these Canadian anti-consumerists decided it was best to convince a bunch of online yuppies and wannabe hippies to gather in the Wall Street-area to protest everything, from consumerism to corporate greed to politics to… basically, capitalism, in its entirety.  I believe in the saying, “Capitalism isn’t perfect, but it’s the best we’ve got.”  Anyone who is a proponent or advocate of Communism is a fool; an outright fool.  To see why, please look at the history of every nation that has ever attempted to implement Communism, and try to tell me that there isn’t a 1% there that is more vicious and dangerous than anything in America.  The Berlin Wall wasn’t built by West Germany to keep people out; it was built by Communist East Germany to keep people in.  Anarchy is also not a suitable answer, as it breeds a survival-of-the-fittest mentality, but with no social rules or standards.  So, what exactly is being protested here and what is being proposed as an alternative?  Are we, the supposed 99%, to follow the “99% Declaration” originally set forth by the protestors, or are we to follow the “Liberty Square Blueprint” proposed during latter stages of the protest?  Both call for very generic, yet sweeping changes to be made to our political and social systems.  Let’s look at them separately, shall we.

The 99% Declaration calls for a new National General Assembly to convene in Philadelphia on July 4, 2012, with the purpose of electing delegates who will then meet in a meeting house paid for by the donations of members of the assembly.  Wait, what?  How are assembly members supposed to pay for anything when they haven’t been working for the past nine months?  And, what power does this new assembly hold?  Oh, they’re putting together a Petition of Grievances to file with the U.S. Government.  I guess this is going to be a lot like our country’s first go-round, except this time the government being petitioned won’t be 3,500 miles away.  Look, I agree, in theory, with a number of the grievances in this petition – term limits, elimination of political perks, a fair tax code, elimination of the Electoral College, repeal of DOMA – but the entire document is unrealistic.  Heck, why not ask the government to give every family in the country a free puppy?  This Declaration is a senior thesis paper for the make-believe class ‘Idealized Political Systems and the Legalization of Marijuana’, not a Declaration for a new society.  Most important to this document is the outright threat that comes at its completion: “If the Petition…is not acted upon within a reasonable time and to the satisfaction of the Delegates…said Delegates shall utilize the grassroots network established in the election of the National General Assembly to organize a new Independent Political Party to run candidates for every available Congressional seat in the mid-term election of 2014 and again in 2016 until all vestiges of the existing corrupt corporatocracy have been eradicated through the power of the ballot box.”  Really?  A new independent political party?  Organized and capable of electing its own members by 2014?  Really?  If this is the best threat they have, then they have no threat at all.  Feel free to read for yourself: http://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/.

The Liberty Square Blueprint begins with the following statement: “In less than one month global solidarity and a global dialog has emerged – never in the history of the world have all of the worlds citizations and cultures come together in an unidealogial movement like this.”[sic]  Wow!  Really?  That is an absolute claim made of absolute horse poop.  There hasn’t been “global solidarity” on any issue during the history of mankind.  And, to claim that this movement is “unidealogical” is absurd.  First, you misspelled the word unideological.  Furthermore, the protest is based entirely within an ideology.  Here are three definitions of ‘ideology’, gathered from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: a) a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b) a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c) the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program.  And, methinks this Blueprint needs a proofreader.  There are so many errors as to make it insulting to any intellectual who peruses it.  As for the content, its ludicrous nature is summed up best by these few lines: “Corporations do not make jobs – people make jobs. Money does not support livelihood – our Earth supports livelihood. The proprietary technology used to hijack and manipulate the human spirit into thinking otherwise no longer belongs to the shadow government – the technology belongs to us.”  It’s hard to argue with crazy.  To read on, please visit: http://freenetworkmovement.org/commons/index.php?title=Liberty_Square_Blueprint.

These protestors barely understand what they’re protesting, have no realistic solutions for the problems they rant against, and will never effect change because they don’t even have a consensus between them.  They are a rambling mass of incoherent hipsters and yuppies who, for the time being, are enjoying playing their own little 1960s Protest Game, complete with tents and pepper spray.  They aren’t a real movement.  Heck, they’re not even as organized and galvanized as the Tea Party movement, an incoherent and dangerous group on the opposite end of the political and social spectrum.  They have the media following their every move, but that’s only because the media (which leans liberal, as is) will follow anything that delivers ratings.  The protestors have confusedly adopted the mantra “any media coverage is good media coverage,” much like the reality show stars of MTV and E!.  They couldn’t be more wrong.  These protestors are coming off as foolish and naïve.  As opposed to abandoning their jobs and sleeping in a park for a few months, how about they contribute to our society by paying their taxes and volunteering their time with children or those less fortunate.  Or, run for political office and attempt to effect change at a local level.  Do something productive.  Their outright naivety is counter-productive.  Don’t force the city to use hard-working citizens’ tax money to clean up after them and supply them with port-a-potties.  Don’t force the police to have to use pepper spray and physical force to remove them from a place they shouldn’t be in the first place.  If I set up a tent in the middle of Central Park, I’d expect the police to show up and remove me.  I have no right to be there.  It’s not my property.  If you set up a tent on my front lawn, I’d call the police to remove you.  If you refused or acted belligerent, you may very well get pepper-sprayed.  It’s a natural cause-and-effect.

Occupy Wall Street is protesting, and annoying, people who are simply trying to get to work.  They’re not effecting market change or political change, and they’re not stopping the corporate fat cats from continuing to feast.  They’re simply blocking low-level workers who are trying to get to and from work to support their families.  The protestors aren’t even going about this silly protest in the best way possible.  It would be more reasonable if they marched on Washington D.C., hired a number of lobbyists to promote their cause, and camped out on the streets in front of where the corporate fat cats actually live.  Occupying a tiny little NYC park and marching up and down Broadway is a waste of everyone’s time.

The Occupiers are NOT the 99%.  They may share concerns and frustrations with the majority of middle-class-and-below Americans, but the way they’re going about demanding change does not coalesce with how 99% of Americans behave.  If 99% of Americans quit their jobs to sleep in a park for a few months, where would any of us be?  That brings me to my next question: Where will these protestors be in a few months time when they tire out, grow bored, or simply give up and go home?  They’ll be in unemployment lines, accepting free money from our government.  Free money that is actually tax payers’ money put to ill use.  These protestors are currently living off of others’ tax money and will continue to do so when the winds of failure blow them away from Wall Street.  Why not support the percentage of Americans, 53% or otherwise, that actually pay taxes, thereby supporting everything governmental in this country?  It’s damn certain that 99% of Americans don’t pay taxes.  And, if even one protestor is collecting unemployment while eating peanut butter and playing guitar down in Zuccotti Park, then the movement is already a failure.  I don’t go to work 40 hours per week, and pay 30% of my income in taxes, to support your holiday.

Occupy Wall Street is irresponsible.  More than that, it’s dangerous.  Dangerous because it doesn’t truly care about the general well-being of 99% of Americans, it only claims to care.  In front of the cameras, and on Twitter and Facebook, they demand change to our economic and political system, but they bring no ideas, no possibilities, and no intellect to the argument.  They bring tents, and mocha lattes, and silly slogans.  They organize sing-a-longs and read from their Kindles while posting updates to their Facebook.  These are people who think they’re cool and hip for being a part of something cool and hip.  These are the same type of people who voted for Obama because it was the hip thing to do.  True, many believed that he could institute change that would shift the direction of our country, but most voted for him because he was young, black, and different; not better, not qualified, but different, which made him hip.

Look, I’m frustrated by our nation’s politics and how much I’m taxed, and I’m disgusted by politicians and the laws they make that allow the wealthy to compound their power and wealth (incl. Bloomberg, who should have left office in 2009!), but I’m sane enough to realize that it’s not going to change by more than 1 or 2% in either direction.  Politics and wealth have been handled in this manner since the beginnings of mankind, and the truth is that our generation has it better than almost any generation dating back thousands of years, in any nation.  The most dangerous effect of Occupy Wall Street is that it undermines the true call for change in this country by showcasing itself as a celebration of our me-first society.  These protestors aren’t there for the 99%.  They’re there for their fifteen minutes of fame.  They’re there so that they can say they belonged to a movement.  A movement of false promise, I say.  A movement of selfishness and unrealistic ideologies.  A movement that causes further divide amongst our people, just as the Tea Party has done.  These two movements are two sides of the same wooden nickel – worthless and false.

I’m not a religious man, but I am reminded of the following quote from a magnet that my parents had on our fridge while I was growing up: “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”  These protestors lack the wisdom.

The NFL Hall of Fame has an extensive selection process, and a ridiculous rule of selecting between 4 and 7 enshrinees each year.  You can read about the process here: http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/SelectionProcessFAQ.aspx.

What I take away from the process is the following: there are too many rounds of voting, it is impossible to watch every game of every players’ career, having to select between four and seven players negates the true nature of the Hall of Fame – it’s not about quotas, and having voters meet to vet candidates the day before the Super Bowl is ill-timed and counter-productive since they’re all journalists who have to cover the big game.

Why don’t they just select the deserving ones and leave the others out?  Why force the committee to select four, if only three are worthy?  Why stop at seven, if eight are worthy?  The distribution of the positional selections is askew, as more offensive players are selected, with QBs leading the way, and lineman are relegated to obscurity.  It certainly pays to touch the ball more often and put up gaudy numbers that can be statistically accounted for.  It’s difficult to pinpoint the career success of an offensive lineman or middle linebacker or free safety, unless you watch every game.  There aren’t passing yards, sacks, and interceptions to fall back on.  You can count Pro Bowls, but as the past few years’ selections show, there are always snubs and questionable selections.

Championships mean quite a lot in football, more so than in the NBA or MLB, in my opinion, which is weird since there are so many more individuals on the field-of-play and each one holds a piece of the championship puzzle.  Numbers mean quite a lot, but aren’t as stringently delineated as in baseball (but in baseball the same guys play offense and defense – uh oh, what is that about the DH?).  It’s good to have a lot of numbers, but a lot of numbers don’t get you in.  Longevity is a big key.  Consistency is a bonus.  Accolades help.  Name recognition is huge.  But everything in this sport is so dependent on everything else, so it’s difficult to focus on what’s important.  Quarterbacks cannot put up numbers without help; same for running backs.  Linemen get their names blocking for good QBs and RBs.  Defense is a unit, but individuals are voted on.  Should interceptions and sacks count, when so often it’s the teammates that allow for those individual stats?  Name recognition and media appreciation help to aim the focus, but, in the end, what really matters?

Here’s a quote from Cnnsi.com writer Peter King discussing the merits of wide receivers eligible for the HOF (9/26/11): “You can number yourself to death at the receiver position. That’s why I favor the Hall of Fame voters — of which I am one — judging receivers as much by what they saw in the players as the numbers players accumulated.”  Fine sentiment.  In many ways, I agree.  However, and here’s the HUGE problem with the voting process, not all of the local sports writers are able to see every receiver play every game of his career.  The Indianapolis Star writer (that team/city’s designated HOF voter) will watch every catch of Marvin Harrison’s career, but he will miss a majority of Chris Carter’s and Tim Brown’s.

It’s a very confused mess.

In my humble opinion as a fan and student of the game, here are my selections for current players and coaches, and a few recently retired ones:

*the 4/7 rule makes this difficult, as it’s impossible to assume when a player will retire and become eligible.

LOCKS (100%, and if you vote ‘no’ you deserve to have your right to vote revoked):

Peyton Manning – Numbers?  Check.  Accolades?  Check.  Name recognition?  Check.  He’s in.

Tom Brady – Numbers?  Check.  Accolades?  Check.  Name recognition?  Check.  He’s in.

Brett Favre – Numbers?  Check.  Accolades?  Check.  Name recognition?  Check.  He’s in.  But, Favre is a different case from Brady and Manning, at least so far in their respective careers.  Favre has become a bit of a nightmare/joke over the past three years, but he was a great, albeit erratic and sometimes heart-breaking quarterback, so he’ll get in, but let’s not forget…he sold out on Michael Strahan’s record single-season sack.  He’s the all-time leader in consecutive games started and career passing yards (by a country mile).

Ray Lewis – The linebacker of his generation, based on name recognition (stats don’t really play into the role of linebacker – though he did become the first linebacker ever with 30 interceptions and 40 sacks).  His influence on his opponent’s offensive game plan is without question.  It shames me to put him as a lock considering he was heavily involved in a stabbing following his Super Bowl victory.  Lewis pled guilty to obstruction of justice and had the murder charges dropped in exchange for testimony against his co-defendants.  It’s telling that he reached a financial settlement with the four-year-old daughter of one victim, born months after the death of her father, preempting a scheduled civil proceeding.  Lewis then reached an undisclosed settlement with the other victim’s family.  Shameful.  My placement of him in the Lock section is based off what I believe will happen, not on what I would do if placed in the position to vote.  Based on issues of ethics and morality, I would abstain from voting based on his checkered career off the field.

LaDainian Tomlinson – He’ll get in.  There’s no question.  He’s one of the best running backs in NFL history.

Jonathan Ogden – 11 years in the league, 11 Pro Bowls, 9 All-Pros.  Coaches and media members love him.  He’s the prototypical modern offensive tackle.

Will Shields – In his entire career, he never missed a game.  Blocked for three 1,000 yard rushers (all HOF candidates).  Blocked for five 4,000 yard passers (none HOF candidates).  He did everything exceptionally and consistently.

Larry Allen – There seems to be a push lately to select offensive lineman, as their position is increasingly revered and their stats better quantified.  Allen’s stats with sacks allowed are amazing, as in, he doesn’t allow many sacks.  He’s one of the best ever (with four lineman next to him) in fewest sacks allowed.  That means something, especially since he was protecting the immobile Troy Aikman and the old Randall Cunningham.

Warren Sapp – This is just a gut feeling, but he will make it.  He has fantastic name recognition, and lived up to it during the peak of his playing days.  His peak didn’t last as long as others, but he did enough during his time on top.

Tony Gonzalez – He holds most of the all-time Tight End records, but HOF voters don’t select many TEs.  He’s 45th on the NFL’s Top-100 Players of All-Time List, and the only players ahead of him not already in the HOF have the surnames Manning, Lewis, Favre, and Brady.  He’ll be the TE of his generation to make it.

NEAR-LOCKS (97% there, but some fools could vote ‘no’):

Junior Seau – He’ll get in, but I’m not 100% certain that he’ll get in during his first year.  I don’t exactly know why.  It may be the denouement of this career, when not much happened.  Once again, it’s difficult to measure a linebacker’s worth, other than their overall impact on the game.  Seau was a monster during his peak years.  The fact that I, as do many others, remember him as a monster bodes well for his candidacy.  He is an all-time great.

Jason Taylor – He has an interesting case to make, and depending on his competition during his eligible years, I think he has a healthy chance of being inducted.  He’s currently tied for eight on the all-time sack list.  Something that will hurt him is his lack of deep playoff experience.  He, unfortunately, was always the co-anchor (with Zach Thomas) of phenomenal defenses that never made it to the Super Bowl.

Randy Moss / Terrell Owens – Gosh, I don’t know.  Is Moss worthy, by the numbers?  Yes.  Is Moss one of the greatest wide receivers in history?  Yes.  Perhaps.  Maybe.  His character has a lot to do with my hesitancy in declaring him a ‘fo sho’.  I do believe many voters will hold his antics, on-and-off-field against him, especially considering the merit of receivers who aren’t in yet (Chris Carter/Tim Brown).  My gut feeling?  Moss is in.  And, if Moss makes it, doesn’t Owens have to make it too?  He’s second all-time in receiving yards (Moss is fifth).  I don’t know.  The media onslaught that will inevitably surround their votes will have me tuning out ESPN for weeks on end.

Derrick Brooks – He’s in the top-5 for career tackles.  He’s was the best known linebacker in the league prior to Ray Lewis.  He should be a guaranteed selection, but you never know.  His name recognition doesn’t equate to that of Ray Lewis.  [Name recognition affects beat writer voters just like it does ESPN marketing executives and NFL apparel executives].

Kurt Warner – He didn’t have a long career, but he had an amazing peak.  He finished his career seventh on the all-time passer rating list and second on the all-time completion percentage list.  When he dropped back he was deadly, accurate, and feared.  Is that enough?  How about his exceptional post-season numbers: first in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and passer rating.  And, he’s got a Super Bowl victory, which always elevates a QB in the mind of both voters and the general public.

Brian Urlacher – Seems to me that he’s extremely talented, highly respected, and much revered within the football community.  He hasn’t been the linebacker of his generation (because of Ray Lewis), but he’s in the top-3.

Cris Carter / Tim Brown / Marvin Harrison – Carter and Brown have almost identical numbers, numbers that surpass many current HOFers, but they’re not receiving the necessary votes for induction, possibly because their numbers are marginalized by those who believe they are products of their era.  Well, heck, every receiver is a product of his era, and Carter and Brown were two of the best of their era.  They showed up every week and delivered – receptions, yards, first downs, touchdowns, blocks.  They did it all.  They deserve induction.  Harrison’s greatest argument is that he was the go-to receiver for one of the greatest QBs in NFL history.  It does matter who you play with.  He’s actually probably more likely to make it than Carter or Brown because he spent his career with Manning.  Voters remember things like, “Manning to Harrison for the touchdown.”  It plays on a loop in their minds as they sleep.  Who threw to Tim Brown for most of his career?  Jeff Hostetler, Jeff George, Rich Gannon…  Who threw to Carter?  An old Warren Moon, an old Randall Cunningham, a young Culpepper, and Rich Gannon (again).  Neither Carter nor Brown had the benefit of receiving passes from a HOF-type QB in his prime.

Jeff Feagles – He and Anderson are the ultimate punters in recent NFL history.  If the voters vote in a punter, they’ll both get in.

Morten Anderson – He and Feagles are the ultimate punters in recent NFL history.  If the voters vote in a punter, they’ll both get in.

FUTURE LOCKS (51% there, steady as she goes):

Drew Brees – Because the NFL’s HOF voting is so odd, it’s tough to predict the outcome for some players.  I mean, on paper, Drew Bledsoe looks like a HOF-er, but he’ll never get in (mainly because he never won a Super Bowl).  How much will Brees’ Super Bowl campaign of 2010 affect his selection?  He’s a gunslinger, and gunslingers do get into the HOF (Tarkenton, Fouts, Moon), but not as often as Super Bowl winners.  Brees has one Super Bowl, probably won’t get another, and may need a few more solid years of winning football and good numbers to warrant serious consideration.  He’s climbing up all of the meaningful statistical QB charts.  Regardless, he belongs in the Louisiana Sports Hall of Fame for his charitable actions in and around the city of New Orleans.

Aaron Rodgers – He arrived at 51% with his Super Bowl victory over the Steelers (the league’s best defense).  This listing assumes that he’ll continue to throw completions without interceptions, and that he’ll win another Super Bowl; one, at least.  If he does that, he’s in, because he’ll have the numbers (if he stays healthy).  It helps that he’s the capable QB and leader of a historic football team.

Ben Roethlisberger – His percentage may reflect how many more Super Bowls he wins, regardless of how he plays in them.  He’s had one very good Super Bowl (XLIII, won), one lousy Super Bowl (XLV, lost), and one horrendous Super Bowl (XL, won).  If the Steelers keep him as their QB, he has the chance to play in a few more.  If he ends up with 4 rings in 6 opportunities (or something close), then he’s a lock.  If he never makes it to another Super Bowl, he probably won’t get in, even if he has a few more solid regular seasons.

ON THEIR WAY (37.5% there, don’t derail):

Troy Polamalu – He’d be a future lock if I knew he’d stay injury-free, but he’s been hampered during the past few seasons.  His numbers will never reach Rodney Harrison’s, and no matter his “influence on the game,” his numbers are only slightly above-average.

Ed Reed – He’s 27 off the all-time career lead in interceptions, but I’ll bet he ends up within 15.  He’s an amazing defensive player and ball hawk, but with Ray Lewis a guaranteed lock, is there room for another player from a defense that won only one Super Bowl.

Champ Bailey – He’s been selected to ten of the past eleven Pro Bowls.  He’s going to finish pretty high on the career interception list.  I feel he’s going to end up in the Hall of Very Good, like Aeneas Williams.

AN OUTSIDE SHOT (20% there, with ground to cover):

Charles Woodson – Hall of the Very Good.  He’s only 45^th on the all-time interceptions list, but he’s a seven-time Pro Bowler and a recipient of the Defensive Player of the Year award.  He could go either way in the voting, depending on how guys like Peter King remember him.

Darren Sharper – This far along in his career (14 seasons), and I only have him at 20% of the way there.  I’m not sure how much more ground he can make up.  He’s currently tied for sixth place on the all-time interceptions list.  Perhaps indicative of his overall play, he’s only made five Pro Bowls during his fourteen seasons, while a guy like Bailey has made ten in his eleven years.

Michael Vick – Let’s see what he does during the rest of his career, on-and-off-the-field.  I still don’t buy that he is the man his (and the NFL’s) marketing team depicts to be, and that would affect my vote; I can’t speak for the actual voters.  To me it matters if you spent your off-season electrocuting and shooting dogs.  It reveals a basic lack of humanity, and there must be a bylaw in the voting process stating that only human beings be elected.  Career-wise, when it’s all said and done, his QB rushing numbers will be impressive, but his passing numbers will not, so unless he leads the Eagles to two or three Super Bowls, he doesn’t placement amongst the likes of Montana, Young, Manning, Brady, Favre, Marino, and others.  He’s also much too fragile and probably won’t play a consistent, long career.

Larry Fitzgerald – He is prolific at age 27, but will he wallow in Arizona without Kurt Warner?  Kevin Kolb will determine Fitzgerald’s HOF relevancy.

Terrell Suggs – I don’t think he’ll get there, but he’s having a nice career.  And every year he seems to get better.  After this seasons, I may bump him up a level.

Philip Rivers – I don’t care how many yards he throws for, how about winning a playoff game.

Dwight Freeney – He continues to build a nice HOF resume for an until now perennial Super Bowl contender.

Wes Welker – If he continues his semi-prolific partnership with Tom Brady, he has an outside shot at the HOF.  He has fast become one of the most unstoppable offensive forces in the NFL, thanks to Brady and the Patriots’ system.

GOOD, BUT NOT… (12% there, but not likely to make it):

Andre Johnson – He has impressive career numbers for a 29-year-old (matches up nicely to Larry Fitzgerald), but he doesn’t have the name recognition or the deep playoff run to impress the rather fickle judges.

Reggie Wayne – His numbers are very impressive considering he played his early career alongside potential HOFer Marvin Harrison, but the remainder of his career could depend heavily on the health and longevity of his QB, Peyton Manning.

Eli Manning – Last name notwithstanding, he is not a HOFer.  What’s that I hear?  Giants’ fans laughing at me… No, that’s the sound of Giants’ fans bemoaning another ill-timed Eli fumble.  However, despite his marginal talent and numbers, he has name recognition as the leader of a big-time team and he has a Super Bowl ring.  QBs have gotten in with less.

Chris Johnson – He was on his way to a prolific career, but as so often happens with RBs, he burned out, due, in part, to his lengthy holdout this season.  Maybe he’ll bounce back and put up a number of good seasons.  That will be the only chance he has.

YOUNG-ENS (5% there, but a long way to go):

Matt Ryan – Terrific first few years in the league (in the regular season, at least).  Let’s see what he does over the next 8-12 season.  He’ll need a Super Bowl or two to garner consideration.

Haloti Ngata – May be the torch bearer of the Ravens’ defense.  He’s been very impressive in his first few years and has just re-signed with the Ravens.  Health and consistency will be keys to his candidacy.

Darrelle Revis – He has amazing name recognition and he’s building his most visible stats (INTs, TD Returns).  If the Jets stay successful throughout his career, or he manages to stay on successful teams, he may become a Lock someday.

Clay Matthews – The leading linebacker for the defending champions.  That speaks a lot.  We’ll see how he manages the next 12 years of his career.  He has a shot.

DeMarcus Ware – He has a shot, but isn’t anywhere near HOW-worthy yet.

Ndamukong Suh – Great name recognition and a budding career.  He has a number of goals to reach in his career prior to real consideration, but he has a nice beginning.

THANKS, BUT… (so close, but never quite made it):

Rodney Harrison – He’s got good numbers and two Super Bowl rings, but he doesn’t seem likely to be inducted.  It’s a vibe I have.  Perhaps there are too many safeties.  Perhaps his numbers don’t match up to what will be selection material in 5 years.  Only 22 Defensive Backs (Corners and Safeties combined) have ever been inducted, so the path is difficult.

Jerome Bettis / Curtis Martin / Edgerrin James – If I had a vote, I’d vote ‘no’, but it’d be close and I could be swayed toward a ‘yes’.  Their careers are nearly equal, though their styles are completely different, and they’re all great, but not HOF-great.  However, I will not be shocked if Bettis and Martin get in.  James would be a bit of a reach.

Donovan McNabb – Possibly the most-discussed QB of the past 25 years not named Favre.  Every football fan has an opinion on Donovan’s talent and career.  I, personally, think he’s a good QB, but not nearly HOF-worthy.  If he manages to have a career resurgence, it will bolster his candidacy.

Michael Strahan – Yeah, he’s fifth on the all-time sack list, and bound to stay there for a bit, but I don’t think he warrants consideration.  He was very good, but this isn’t the Hall of Very Good, and his single-season sack record, though highly-impressive, came on a gimme from Brett Favre.

Ronde Barber – He’s been a class-act and team leader since his first years in the league, and though he’s played well for over fifteen years, I don’t believe he’ll get in.  There will be a healthy amount of discussion over his candidacy, as many players with similar careers have already been enshrined.

Andre Reed / Hines Ward – Very good and highly respected, but my vote is an unfortunate ‘no’ for these two.

Antonio Gates – Was on his way, but recent injuries have derailed his career.  He may be a closer vote than I’m assuming, but I have to make a decision here.  I go with ‘No’.

Walter Jones – Close, but no.  He was a great lineman, though.

Zach Thomas – Very good linebacker for a very good defense, but he’s not an all-time great.

James Farrior – Nice career, but no.

Brian Dawkins – Good, but no.  He lacks the numbers to bolster his impressive talent.

Shaun Alexander / Fred Taylor / Thomas Jones – Great careers, but no.

Orlando Pace – Good, but no.

Alan Faneca – A solid LG, but not likely to make it.

Isaac Bruce / Torry Holt – Only two All-Pros between them?  They don’t seem likely.  They were both good, possibly very good, but they weren’t great.

Mark Brunell – A good, long career, but he’s a no.  His career is oddly akin to Rich Gannon’s, who isn’t HOF-worthy.

Drew Bledsoe – If he had won the 1996 Super Bowl, and had a lengthier career, I’d be writing a lengthier comment regarding his chances of getting in.

Kerry Collins – He should have won the Super Bowl in 2000…and had a more consistent career.

COACHES:

The HOF voters are notoriously fickle at inducting coaches.  Only 21 have been inducted throughout the history of football, and only seven of those men retired after 1980.  21!  And only seven in the last thirty years (admittedly, there are many good candidates still coaching today).  More than winning games or Super Bowls, a coach has to place their stamp on the game.

Bill Parcells – Lock.  More for his all-around presence throughout the game.  He’s an institution, brought in at this point in his career to fix teams (though it didn’t work with my beloved Dolphins).

Bill Belichick – Lock.  Mostly for his three Super Bowls in four years and his 167 wins, currently 11th on the all-time list (soon to pass Bill Parcells).

Tony Dungy – Near-Lock.  Finished with one of the highest winning percentages in history and has collected accolades for his work with players throughout the league and youth throughout the nation.  It also helps (and don’t bemoan me for being honest) that he’s black.  He’d be the first black coach ever inducted, and look at the rest of my list – only Mike Tomlin is a minority.  The league is just getting around to hiring blacks as head coaches, and it will be a monumental day, I’m sure, when Dungy is inducted for his contributions to the game.  I’m almost certain he’ll get in.

Mike Holmgren – An Outside Shot.  Though he’s 12th on the all-time win list, I don’t think he’ll get in.  Remember, only 21 coaches have been selected.  But Marv Levy made it, so you never truly know.

Bill Cowher – An Outside Shot.  He’ll be a close ‘no’.  He won a Super Bowl and has a fantastic winning percentage, but I don’t think he left enough of a mark on the game of football.  He retired relatively young and never returned from the television booth.

Marty Schottenheimer – Good, But Not.  Win a playoff game, how ‘bout ‘ya.  Ok, you got 5 playoff wins, but you also have 13 losses.  Retired with 200 wins (good for 6th all-time), but no Super Bowls.

Jeff Fisher – Thanks, But.  Hasn’t done enough.  Never won a Super Bowl.

Tom Coughlin – Thanks, But.  No.

Andy Reid – Thanks, But.  No.

Mike Tomlin – Young-Ens.  Already one Super Bowl in two appearances, with the good fortune of coaching a Steelers team that is good every year, in part to his coaching ability.

Sean Payton – Young-Ens.  Depends on how he coaches once Brees retires.  If he had had Brees since he was a rookie he may have won a few more Super Bowls, but he’ll soon have to replace the prolific passer and build a team around another QB; not an easy task.

Mike McCarthy – Young-Ens.  Has a chance to build something special with this current Packers franchise.  We’ll see.

Rex Ryan – Young-Ens.  If you were to ask him, his entire Jets team should be elected today.  We’ll, in my opinion, he hasn’t done much yet, so let’s see his team cash some of those checks his mouth keeps writing.

John Harbaugh – Young-Ens.  Actually has been steadily re-building the 49ers into a winning franchise.  Let’s see what he can do with a little Luck.

Check back in 20 years to see how I did!

For my MLB and NBA HOF articles, click the links.

2011 WRAP-UP:

This is an easy place to start, and an even easier place to ignore and move on.  We are all witnesses to what happened and, in all honesty, I’m over it and ready for next season.

MANAGER:

[Note: This all became moot Friday afternoon when it was announced that Francona was not returning as manager of the Boston Red Sox.  But I decided to post it in its entirety anyhow.]

I was going to write this as a separate post entitled Defending Francona, although that may sound more like a 1980s courtroom drama starring Al Pacino and Melanie Griffith than a short defense of Manager Terry (Tito) Francona.  Let’s face it, Francona is more likely to be portrayed by Mike Myers in Dr. Evil garb (or a chubby Ben Kingsley) than Pacino, although recently he’s been portrayed by many as the villain or the scapegoat in the epic Red Sox collapse of September 2011.  Fret not; I’m not here to call for the man’s head.  I am here to rally support for the man who guided my beloved team to two World Series championships in the past eight years.

Though I am not above calling for a manager’s head (I am a Dolphins fan clamoring for the removal of Tony Sparano), I am not quick to do so and must find ample evidence in order to do so.  In Sparano’s case, there are consecutive losing seasons, his below-.500 managerial record, an 0-4 start to the current season, the 10-14 home record during his tenure, constant red-zone failure, poor play-calling on offense, general poor play on defense and special teams, poor conditioning, and leaked news from within the locker room (never a good sign during the season!) stating that players are either unhappy or uninspired.  In football, that falls on the coach, and he needs to be the first to go.  The coach (and his staff) regulates practice and off-season conditioning, infuses new players into their roles, calls offensive plays, selects defensive packages, and controls the workload of his players.  Basketball and hockey coaches have a very similar job – offensive plays, defensive packages, training through practice, etc.  Football, basketball, and hockey coaches put their players in specific positions and then tell them which plays to run in order to better succeed.  The players are, in many ways, the conduit to the coach’s beliefs and game plans.  The coach is the mastermind, the players his puppets.

Baseball is a different beast.  The manager controls the set-up of things (lineups, pitching staff, bullpen use, etc), but he has little in-game control, especially over how players perform, and he has very few subs on whom to call on.  Baseball managers only do so much coaching.  A baseball manager can pinch run a guy, bring in a new pitcher or defensive substitution, but he rarely, if ever, calls plays, orchestrates elaborate packages, or specifically trains his players.  In many ways the sport is an individual sport.  Yes, it is the team that wins or loses, but each at-bat is one batter versus one pitcher, while in other sports it is 5-on-5 or 11-on-11.  The manager simply puts his players in a position to perform and they either do or don’t.  So much of what occurs in baseball occurs due to the individual actions of the players.  Therefore, I hold football, basketball, and hockey coaches to a higher stander when it comes to team failure.

I believe Francona institutes the right attitude in the clubhouse and, for the most part, plays the guys he has to play.  There is little he can do when Crawford or Pedroia or Gonzalez slumps.  He has to stick with the guys given to him by upper management.  It’s true that Francona has some of the best guys available in the sport, and some would say he’s under-achieved (record-wise) during the regular season, but he’s been dealing with injuries, streaky players, and season-long slumps, and there is little he can do.  I, as most of you do, sometimes question his in-game decisions – pinch-running for a player or sending a specific reliever to the mound, keeping Bard in one pitch too many – but most of those end up being 20/20 hindsight calls.  In real-game time, his options are limited.  In the hours since the conclusion of the collapse, Francona has admitted to his mistakes – batting order, pitching choices, etc. – but I still don’t entirely hold it against him.  Who else was he supposed to pitch in the 8th and 9th innings?  Who else was supposed to start?  Who else was supposed to play LF?  When it comes down to it, he had the guys he had in the dugout, and those guys weren’t performing.  That failure cannot be held against him.

From what’s been reported in the days since they played their final game of the season, it certainly seems like Francona tried time and again to get this team to gel and play good baseball, yet the team never responded, and that proverbial leader never stepped forward.  It’s interesting after all of our discussion on this site [Overthemonster.com] about leadership (or the lack thereof) on this team, it has become the focal point for all sportswriters and commentators when discussing the failures of this year’s team.  Curt Schilling had perhaps the most direct comments on this topic in a radio interview given on 9/30 – http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/14744/schill-lack-of-player-discipline-not-on-tito.  Here’s a quote from Francona (9/29): “I’m not sure if anybody knew, because there were some things I was worried about. I think we were spending too much energy on things that weren’t putting our best foot forward toward winning. We spent a few minutes in the clubhouse that day (9/6), talking about that. There were some things that did concern me. Teams normally, as the season progresses, there are events that make you care about each other, and this club, it didn’t always happen as much as I wanted it to. And I was frustrated by that.”  Jackie MacMullan wrote a great article about all this on 9/30 – http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/7036983/underachieving-boston-red-sox-flunked-chemistry.  I am very perturbed by the stories leaking out over the past few days regarding players’ constant complaining and the (unconfirmed) drinking of alcohol in the clubhouse [http://www.overthemonster.com/2011/9/30/2459465/francona-to-leave-the-red-sox].  If any of these stories are true, then something must be done (a full management sit-down with the entire roster of players), but I’ll give Francona the benefit of the doubt and another season to see what he can do with this club.  Many will disagree with me, stating that a lost clubhouse is the manager’s fault.  I can understand their viewpoint.  However, Francona’s job this season was obviously much more difficult than many of us ever knew.  To me, it sounds like the team let Francona down, not the other way around.

Here are a few reasons to keep Francona:

- He’s won 743 games with the Sox, at a .575 percentage, which would put him at 16th all-time for managerial winning percentage (his Phillies days actually drag down his career percentage).

- Eight seasons coached, only three of which fell below the 95-win threshold.  In the AL East, that’s impressive.  95 wins won’t always get you the division crown, in fact it rarely will, but it’s a necessary plateau.

- He’s managed players with personalities as disparate as Manny Ramirez, Curt Schilling, Johnny Damon, Dustin Pedroia, JD Drew, David Ortiz, Jonathan Papelbon, John Lackey, and Dice-K.  Not many managers deal with as many highly-talented and bizarrely-unique players.  To keep winning despite their differences is impressive.

- The two World Series championships came with completely different pitching staffs – a rare feat for a modern-day manager.  From Pedro, Schilling, Arroyo, Wake, Lowe, and Foulke to Beckett, Dice-K, Lester, Wake, Schilling, and Papelbon.  The man knows how to handle a pitching staff when he’s given players to work with… Let me repeat, when he’s given the players to work with.

- The team’s epic collapse this year was surreal, and little can be done in the face of the surreal.  The collapse was not the failure of the manager.  There are 25 guys in that clubhouse who have to look at themselves in the mirror and say, “I have to do better.”

- Lastly, and this can be considered most-important or least-important, he’s managed the Sox to two pennants and two World Series during his eight years in Boston.  No decision should be made based entirely on history, but the two World Series in eight years means something.

After writing all of this, I can still understand why the organization and Francona parted ways.  After what came out about the clubhouse relations it is nearly impossible to keep him on.  The players, and it seems to be mostly the newer guys (and possibly Ortiz), caused a lot of problems that Francona had no solution for.  Everything sort of collapsed around him, and he found himself a lone man struggling against the unforgiving tide of change.  A parting of ways may be the best outcome for all parties involved.

Yet, now that they changed managers, it will be a “changing of the guard”-type moment for the Sox.  The only manager in the past 93 years to bring two World Series to town has been shown the exit door.  Some may believe that Francona lost the respect or ears of his players, but that’s an unknown for anyone not within the clubhouse.  As Curt Schilling said in that same radio interview on 9/30: “I would argue that with this group of players, with this group of players in this market, that Terry Francona is one of the few guys that can manage this team. If you’re going to get rid of him I think you have to blow it all up.” [This sentiment affects a few of my decisions below.]  I agree with Schilling.  I don’t know how this team moves forward without Francona unless everything is blown up.

Due to Francona’s departure, the Sox now need a manager to not only pick up the pieces of this broken season, but also handle the numerous personalities on this club (of whomever remains).  I absolutely do not believe the next manager will come from within the organization, as the player discord that stained Francona also stained his entire staff.  I’d be surprised if any of the coaches are brought back.  I also do not believe that Joe Torre is a candidate in-the-running.  He currently works in the League Office and it seems almost unfathomable that he would man the Sox bench for even a game; it was odd enough seeing him as the Dodgers coach.  Since the Sox can afford anyone (even the magnificent Carl Crawford), any coach is in play, even those currently with other teams (as deals can always be brokered; e.g. Ozzie Guillen to the Marlins).

My Top-11 Managerial Candidates (who I’d go after and the likelihood the Sox sign them):

1. Joe Maddon – No, I’m not kidding.  He’d be perfect.  Unorthodox.  Always optimistic.  Gets amazing results from lesser players.  He’s probably not looking to leave, but it would be a major coup by the Sox to steal this guy somehow.  He’s signed through the end of next season.  Likelihood: 5%.

2. Ron Gardenhire – Up until the debacle of this season, he has kept the Twins in every playoff race for the past ten years, often beating up on teams with larger payrolls and more all-stars.  His career record is over .500 and I think he’d be a good fit for Boston.  He’s currently signed through 2013, but with the mess the Twins are currently in, with all their injuries, they may be willing to let him go in hopes of rebuilding with a new skipper.  Likelihood: 35%.

3. Kirk Gibson – One surprising season does not make a great manager, but what he did this year with the Diamondbacks does show his potential as a game-changing manager.  Once again, he gets everything out of his players.  He’s probably not looking to leave, however, as he has the chance to build something nice around a young core.  He’s signed through the end of next season, with a club option for 2013.  Likelihood: 15%.

4. Cito Gaston – Currently retired, he spent his entire career managing in the AL East, winning two World Series with the Blue Jays.  He’s a respected veteran able to handle big personalities.  Likelihood: 25%.

5. Mike Scioscia – He’s a good manager, but it’s not as if he does a lot with a little.  The Angels’ 2011 payroll was $140+ million, only $20 million less than the Sox.  He’d probably work well for the Sox, and is a great “player’s manager,” like Francona.  He’s signed through 2018, with an opt-out after 2015.  Likelihood: 10%.

6. Clint Hurdle – Currently manning the Pirates’ ever-sinking ship, it’d be a god-send for him for the Sox to come calling.  He’s a veteran manager with a below-.500 record, but that’s the exact manager Francona was when the club came calling back in 2004.  He’s signed through 2013, but come on, this is the Pirates and the Sox could have their manager for a crate of Schlitz.  Likelihood: 25%.

7. Eric Wedge – He did alright with the Indians, but not that well with the Mariners this season.  He actually played a few Major League games with the Sox way back when, so there’s a connection, though miniscule.  He’s a hard-nosed guy, and that’s one direction the Sox could go.  Likelihood: 25%.

8. Willie Randolph – Currently the bench coach for those damn Baltimore Orioles.  He’s used to the pressure of coaching in a big-time sports city and he doesn’t seem to be the kind of guy to take crap for his players.  Likelihood: 25%.

9. Dave Sveum – Former Ass’t Coach on the Sox, and a part-time Manager of the Brewers, maybe he’d be a guy they bring in for a shot.  Likelihood: 15%.

10. Dave Martinez – Currently bench coach for the Rays, he’s due a shot at a head coaching gig.  I don’t think the Sox will be the team to give him that chance, but his hat will be in the ring.  Likelihood: 5%.

11. Bobby Valentine – He’s certainly an off-the-wall choice, and the media’s darling when it comes to every big-time managerial opening.  I’m not sure the Sox would go down this road, but there are worse choices than Bobby V.  Likelihood: 15%.

In the end, I have no idea who they’ll select, and if Theo will even be around for the press conference.  It’s all a crap-shoot right now.

TEAM:

It’s the team that failed in September 2011.  Individuals faltered and failed at their respective jobs, but it is the team that is held responsible.  You win as a team and lose as a team.  So, with that clearly being my belief, in which direction do I see this team going?  Are they a World Series contender or are they a poorly-constructed albatross around the neck of this city?  They certainly have enough individual talent to win the AL East and contend for a World Series, but they need a catalyzing event to set them on their path together.  A wandering group of talented strangers will not succeed.  A team will.

PROJECTED 25-MAN ROSTER:

Definites: These guys are signed for next season and I don’t believe they’ll be cut or traded.

- Adrian Gonzalez – He’ll be at first base through 2018.

- Dustin Pedroia – Staple at second base.

- Marco Scutaro – The team has a club option on him, which I think they’ll pick up, so I’m placing him here.  Lowrie isn’t ready for a full season and there is no point in bringing in a new SS, considering Lowrie and Iglesias are in the system.  I like Scutaro quite a bit.

- Kevin Youkilis – Plagued by injuries, he’s still the starting third baseman when healthy.

- Carl Crawford – He’ll turn it around.  I have full faith in him not being as god-awful as he was this season.  Even if he doesn’t turn it around, he’s impossible to trade with that contract.

- Jon Lester – The #1 starter.

- Josh Beckett – The #2 starter.

- Clay Buchholz – The #3 starter.  And let’s hope his back holds up.

- John Lackey – There’s no getting rid of his contract.  If the team signs another good starter, then perhaps he starts the year in the ‘pen.  For now, he’s a starter.

- Bobby Jenks – He won’t last the season, but he’ll be on the club come April.

- Dan Wheeler – The club has a $3 million option to retain him, and though I find that to be over-paying for his services, the only other option seems to be to over-pay for someone else’s services, so I think they’ll bring him back.  Hopefully, he stays healthy next year.

Arbitration: These guys are arbitration-eligible and I believe they’ll be kept through either arbitration or a contract extension.

- Jacoby Ellsbury – This is an absolute MUST.  Bring this man back and hope that even in a post-contract year he puts up numbers that are 80% of what he did this season.

- Daniel Bard – The club will keep him.  Keep grooming the guy for the closer’s role.  I’m interested to see how he bounces back from his disastrous late-season swoon.  Pitchers can be mentally fragile, but something tells me Bard has it in him to bounce back in a masterful way.

- Alfredo Aceves – Here’s the man!  Re-sign him to a 2-or-3-year deal at all costs.  He almost single-handedly carried the pitching corps into the post-season.

- Jarrod Saltalamacchia – Bring him back and throw him behind the plate for 110-120 games.  But, please get the man a bigger glove with which to catch the knuckleball.  I think he should get at least a 2-year deal.

- Franklin Morales – Bring him back for another year.  He’ll probably make the club coming out of spring training.  If not, stash him in AAA until they need him.

- Josh Reddick – Bring him back as the opening day platoon starter in RF.

- Mike Aviles – Re-sign him to a 1-or-2-year deal and platoon him throughout the infield.

Inside Free Agents: These guys are free agents and I believe the Sox will re-sign them.

- David Ortiz – They must re-sign him.  A two-year deal would be more than fair.  He’s still the best DH in baseball.  Anyone else would be a step down.  *I was much more confident about this prior to Francona getting the ax.  A full-on house-cleaning may be coming, in which case Ortiz is gone.

- Jonathan Papelbon – You think the Sox are ready to hand over the closer’s role to Bard after the display he put on in September?  I think not.  And, bringing in an outside guy is hit-or-miss.  Stick with Pap.  *I was much more confident about this prior to Francona getting the ax.  A full-on house-cleaning may be coming, in which case Paps is gone.

- Jason Varitek – Here’s my hope for the Cap: He re-signs with the team as Josh Beckett’s personal catcher, while also taking on Ass’t Coach duties of some kind.  He’ll make a capable manager some day, but can still be used once every five days to catch Beckett while learning his future trade in the dugout.  He keeps the Captain’s Badge, but an everyday player is named as Co-Captain (probably Pedroia).  *I was much more confident about this prior to Francona getting the ax.  A full-on house-cleaning may be coming, in which case Tek is gone.

- Tim Wakefield – One more year…  Bring him back.  He’s still an innings-eater and not a season has gone by in the past 17 where the Sox didn’t need to rely on him eating some innings.  But will a new manager be as faithful to him as Francona was?

- Erik Bedard – I’m a big ‘Yes’ for bringing Bedard back on a 2-year deal.  He won’t be healthy for a full season (I guarantee that), but he’ll have 18-22 solid outings.

Outside Free Agents: These are the free agents I believe the Sox will sign.  And here’s where everything I write can be taken with a huge grain of salt.  Nothing is certain and these are all hypothetical.

- Michael Cuddyer / Josh Willingham / Cody Ross – A right-hitting RF is needed to platoon with either Reddick or Kalish.  These are all guys who could accept a two-year deal to come start opening day with the Sox.

- Hiroki Kuroda / Jon Garland / Brandon Webb / Livan Hernandez – A sixth starting pitcher is certainly needed after what we all witnessed this season.  There aren’t any truly game-changing pitchers available who aren’t tied to a club option.  Do the Sox really want to overpay for another 30-year-old pitcher, or do they want to stockpile young arms in their system and hope a few pan out?  I see them signing either a veteran pitcher coming off a solid year or a guy recovering from injury who may be able to contribute more than expected.  Either way, I see them going after a right-handed pitcher, as I have them keeping Lester and Bedard in the rotation.

Call-Ups: These are guys in the system who should be called up to make the 25-man squad in April.

Unfortunately, there is NO ONE in the system who should start the year with the team.  Some guys may have the talent (Kalish, Iglesias, Weiland), but they need more time in the minors to either work themselves back post-injury or gain additional experience.  Those are two things they will not be able to do while sitting on the bench in Fenway.

AAA: These guys will start the year in AAA (or lower), but are possible call-ups during the season.  Some are free agents, some are signed.  I think the Sox keep them all within the organization.

- Ryan Lavarnway – He’s not ready to catch 60-70 games in the Majors next season, and he’ll need the additional grooming and at-bats that he can only get in AAA.  Sitting on the bench in the Majors won’t help him.  But he’ll probably be up come July or August.

- Scott Atchison – I was going to treat him how I treated Franklin Morales, but I ran out of roster spots because another starting pitcher needed to be signed.  Bring him up when he’s needed.

- Andrew Miller – Bring him back on his club option and stick him in AAA until they have room for him to come up in the ‘pen.  He can continue to work on his mechanics.

- Kyle Weiland – Needs to re-work his pitches and re-gain his confidence.  He’ll be a bullpen call-up at some time during the summer.

- Jose Iglesias – Still not-yet-ready-for-primetime.  He’ll be called up again late in the season for additional Major League grooming.

- Joey Gathright – I know he’s 30 years-old, but the Sox need to fill out their system and he’s a fine pinch-running call-up for September.

- Michael Bowden – Work on the delivery and getting some movement on the fastball, then maybe call him back up.

- Felix Doubront – Let him start in AAA and see how he does for a few months.  Maybe call him up as a spot starter next summer.

- Ryan Kalish – Let him get his feet back under him in AAA before throwing him into the fire.  If he out-performs Reddick during the season, then switch their roles and bring Kalish up as the platoon guy in RF.

- Luis Exposito – Keep grooming him as trade bait or the eventual starting catcher.

- Stolmy Pimentel – Keep grooming.

- Oscar Tejada – Keep grooming.

Bye-Bye: These are the guys currently on the team that I believe will be gone by next Spring.

- J.D. Drew – Sad, in some ways, that his time as a Sox has ended in such ignominious fashion.  He should hang up his cleats, but I’m certain he’ll catch on as a pinch hitter somewhere in baseball, at least to begin next season.

- Dice-K – They cut their losses and either have him recover from his injury all of next season, or waive him and let him return home to Japan.  He will not end up with another team.  He’s damaged goods.  But I bet you he heads back to Japan and pitches masterfully for a few more seasons.

- Conor Jackson – He wouldn’t be a horrible guy to bring back, but I think he’ll want more money than the Sox offer, and they need someone better to platoon in RF.  He made $3+ million this past season.

- Trever Miller – Many of you are probably scratching your heads right now, but this man did suit up for a few games this season.  He won’t suit up next season.

- Junichi Tazawa – Another Japanese-import experiment gone wrong.  He’ll be brought back for spring training, but I don’t see him making the squad.

- Matt Albers – Sorry, but the team should go younger here (Albers will be 29 years-old).  There must be a 22/23-year-old that can give the club what Albers gave them this season (a 4.73 ERA and 31 walks), while also having room to grow and get better.

- Rich Hill – Who?

- Darnell McDonald – Bye, Darnell.  Bye.

- Jed Lowrie – Here’s one of the toughest calls on the team.  It’s all based on his arbitration cost and what they get if they give him up.  I desperately wanted Lowrie to become an everyday player, but I think he’s proven that he’s not durable enough and perhaps not talented enough to ever earn a full-time position.  If the team can pick up some draft picks by letting him walk, then do it.  He was almost in direct competition with Mike Aviles, and I went with Aviles.

- Hideki Okajima – I like the guy, but I think his time has passed.

- Dennys Reyes – Never really had a chance, but probably wasn’t going to show much anyhow.  And who names their kid after a fast-food restaurant?

PROJECTED LINEUP:

- Jacoby Ellsbury

- Dustin Pedroia

- Adrian Gonzalez

- Kevin Youkilis

- David Ortiz

- (right-hitting RF)

- Carl Crawford

- Jarrod Saltalamacchia

- Marco Scutaro

- Josh Reddick

- Mike Aviles

- Jason Varitek

PROJECTED STAFF/BULLPEN:

- Jon Lester

- Josh Beckett

- Clay Buchholz

- Erik Bedard

- John Lackey

- A right-handed sixth starter

- Tim Wakefield

- Jonathan Papelbon

- Daniel Bard

- Alfredo Aceves

- Bobby Jenks

- Dan Wheeler

- Franklin Morales

2012 OUTLOOK:

We’re likely to see neither a season’s worth of the superb .700 ball from the summer of 2011 nor the abysmal .200 ball of the opening week/final month of 2011.  100 wins?  No.  But this looks like a team that can win the World Series…  If everything falls into place health-wise and they play as a team.  I project 96 wins and a wild card berth in the 2012 Playoffs.

Please share your thoughts and/or reactions.

Firstly, let me be quite clear in stating that I DO NOT want Hollywood to remake, reboot, remodel, re-envision, or recreate this masterpiece, though I would be extremely excited to see a re-release.  The Great Escape is one of my favorite films of all-time, a film I watched dozens of time as a child, many of those with my Dad.  This film should not be remade because it is already perfect for what it is, a huge Hollywood war picture starring many of the coolest actors in film history.  A remake could never top it.  Rumors have been floating around the internet for the past few years that studios and producers are eyeing this property for the remake merry go-round, but it’s a pointless endeavor.  First, as I said, they could never outdo the original (which should always be the aim of a remake or reboot – do something different, do something better).  Second, many of today’s younger audience members (ages 10-30) know nothing of the original and know little more than that Steve McQueen is some sort of old, dead symbol of a lost generation of cool.  Maybe they’ve seen his face on a poster, or caught of glimpse of his car chase in Bullitt.  But they probably don’t know anything about the actor or the man.  I, on the other hand, have a stack of McQueen biographies and had a poster of McQueen from his motorcycle scene in The Great Escape hanging on my wall throughout college.  I still have the poster (though I’m currently not allowed to hang it up).  It will adorn the wall of my man cave when I finally have a room set aside to be my man cave.  Third, World War II is not a popular subject amongst today’s youth, so the producers wouldn’t be able to set the film during that time period.  My guess, they’d update it to today’s war in the Middle East.  Problems are inherent in that, as no two wars are alike and if you’re going to change the war than you might as well change the story and the characters and the title.  Do something original.  Along these lines, there is no need to create a revisionist film.  If it’s set in WWII, then be true to that.  African-Americans were not a part of the true story which lead to the original film and, therefore, cannot be included in the film.  I love Chiwetel Ejiofor as much as the next man, but he cannot be the lead in the remake (though he’d be awesome).  Fourth, and finally, Hollywood cannot make this kind of film anymore.  I’m not going to be the kind of guy who says new-Hollywood can’t do what old-Hollywood did.  Every generation has its share of great films.  But honestly, in many ways new-Hollywood cannot match old-Hollywood when it comes to grandeur and epic scale*.  They certainly call everything epic, but it’s mostly garbage, from the Transformers movies to all the retread blockbuster sequels.  Hollywood has gotten too big and flashy and pretty boy-obsessed and special effects-driven to ever make a picture like The Great Escape, which was done with grand sets and real actors and epic stunts.  Sets this size cost money.  Movies this long and involving cost time and money.  Actors this popular and capable cost money, and the actors in The Great Escape had gritty, real qualities a majority of today’s actors lack.  Now, there has been one picture of late that took a film from the 1960s, infused an expensive, A-list cast, set the film in the modern day, and was quite enjoyable.  That movie, Ocean’s Eleven.  Great job by Soderbergh and his team.  Two things though: they ruined the fun by making two unnecessary sequels (an argument for another day), and the original Rat Pack film was a hackneyed mess containing very few redeeming qualities.  Soderbergh wasn’t remaking a classic.  He was taking a good, old idea and rejuvenating it for today’s audiences.

*I would be remiss not to mention the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which was every bit as grand and epic as anything in film history.  But these movies were not a remake of an earlier trilogy, and much of their epic-ness came through the advancement of computer technology as used in film.  The Great Escape is an epic film, but not in the same way.

So, you can see that I DO NOT want this film remade.  And if it were remade I believe it would be a disaster and a disservice to the original.  Take, for example, the 2004 remake of Flight of the Phoenix (originally 1965).  Oh, boy, what an unmitigated disaster.  We go from James Stewart, Richard Attenborough, Peter Finch, Ernest Borgnine, and George Kennedy to Dennis Quaid, Jared Padalecki, Tyrese, and someone called Sticky Fingaz.  Not to mention the director’s chair descended from Robert Aldrich, director of The Dirty Dozen, Kiss Me Deadly, and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?, to John Moore, director of Behind Enemy Lines and Max Payne.  Just because a man calls himself a director does not mean he is capable of directing a film (see: Brett Ratner).  Leave these old films alone!  However, since I believe Hollywood is prone to eventually remake everything, I’ve put some time in crafting the perfect cast for a modern take on The Great Escape.  Hollywood can take it or leave it, though they’d much rather leave it, I’m sure.  Why put any conscious thought into remaking a movie?  All the work’s already been done for them; i.e. the original was already made.  All Hollywood needs are a camera and a couple of Twilight actors.  Ready?  Action!

DIRECTOR:

Original: John Sturges
My Remake: Ridley Scott
Reason: This is difficult, as new exciting and talented directors appear on the scene each year.  Directors like Bryan Singer and Christopher Nolan seem to explode out of nowhere with small gems like The Usual Suspects and Memento, only to be directing monstrous epics like X-Men and Batman Begins just a few years, and films, later.  Recently, Zach Snyder joined the list, moving from small Dawn of the Dead to the mega-huge Man of Steel.  Sometimes this turns out wonderfully (aforementioned directors), sometimes not so much (Louis Leterrier, Tim Story).  The problem is that with a movie this big you cannot have a nobody directing.  I hate to see this movie turn into Tim Story’s Fantastic Four as opposed to Bryan Singer’s X-Men.  With new, young directors, it can be a crap-shoot.  Therefore, there needs to be a highly-capable director with a few rather large movies under his belt and a respect for his source material.  Also, it would be great if the director has both critically-acclaimed films and box-office successes on his résumé.  The list grows shorter…

There is probably only one perfect director to pull this off: Steven Spielberg.  I say “perfect” for three simple reasons: He’s bigger than Hollywood and does whatever he wants on-set (build enormous sets, shoot anywhere in the world); he is keen on the subject of WWII and the varied stories therein; and he’s proven he can be honest to his source material (Saving Private Ryan, Schindler’s List).  But I’m hesitant to believe he’d actually be interested, as he’s already made a number of WWII films and television shows, and he’s never outright remade somebody else’s film.  I’m also hesitant because though Spielberg has many positives his last few movies have left me very disappointed – see: Indiana Jones 4, Munich, War of the Worlds, The Terminal.  Sometimes being bigger than Hollywood can hurt you when it comes to storytelling and staying true to your source material (see: James Cameron, George Lucas…), and it’s evident that on some projects Spielberg misses the mark from the get-go.  So, based on his busy schedule and my hesitancy in trusting him not to make this into another Indiana Jones 4, I am bypassing Spielberg in favor of…

Ridley Scott.  Scott’s another highly-capable director quite famous for his best films.  When Scott is on, he’s on, and there are very few directors who can match him.  The problem is that he seems to take every couple of movies off, leaving the audience with Robin Hood, Kingdom of Heaven, or Hannibal.  I’m putting my faith in the great Ridley Scott showing up.  He works wonderfully with ensembles, creates action scenes containing both visceral feeling and intellectual stimulation, and has a good understanding of history.  He also draws the best talent available, as every actor wants to work with him.  He’s very detailed in his historical films and, despite being a Hollywood director, he creates films that are decidedly un-Hollywood in use of color, location, and editing.  When left alone, the man molds a story into an entertaining film.  I’d hire the guy and leave him be.

CAST:

Captain Virgil Hilts, USAAF, “The Cooler King”
Original: Steve McQueen
My Remake: Thomas Jane
Reason: The Cooler King or the King of Cool.  Call him what you want.  McQueen exemplified American cool, on-and-off-screen.  There isn’t anybody quite like him around today, but Thomas Jane is close in both look and bad-ass, independent, don’t-take-shit-from-anyone attitude.  This character needs to be American, as he’s the only true American POW in the camp.  Hollywood annoys me by constantly casting British/Australian actors in decidedly American roles (Superman, Batman), and I really want this trend to end.  First and foremost, I’m looking American, then bad-ass, independent spirit.  Jane exemplifies both.  My fear is that Hollywood would do one of two things: They would cast a Brit/Australian (Christian Bale) to play the American character, or, if they couldn’t get a big-enough name, they’d cast whoever’s the hottest model-turned-tv actor-turned Hollywood pretty boy.  Regardless, it’d be a disgrace.  That’s why I’m going with Thomas Jane.

Flight Lieutenant Bob Hendley DFC RAF, “The Scrounger”
Original: James Garner
My Remake: Lee Pace
Reason: An American character living in England and flying for the RAF (British Royal Air Force), this character needs to be suave and deceptive.  From what I’ve seen of Pace, he’s a charismatic actor with a bright future, much like Garner back in 1963.

Squadron Leader Roger Bartlett DFC RAF, “Big X”
Original: Richard Attenborough
My Remake: Michael Sheen
Reason: He’d be fantastic as the leader of the POWs.  He has a strength and charisma that reverberates across the screen.  I have a feeling Hollywood would first attempt to put an American in the role (e.g. George Clooney), and would perhaps diversify with a Denzel-type.  But if they stayed true to the original film and cast a British actor, they would probably go with Colin Firth.

Group Captain Ramsey DSO MC RAF, “The SBO [Senior British Officer]”
Original: James Donald
My Remake: Jason Isaacs
Reason: It would be nice to see Isaacs give a performance that did not involve him being evil.  He’s a great actor and could pull off this sensible role nicely.  He may be a few years too old, but his role is Senior British Officer.  Paul Bettany would be a fine back-up.

Flight Lieutenant Danny Velinski DSC DFC RAF, “The Tunnel King”
Original: Charles Bronson
My Remake: Tom Hardy
Reason: Hardy is best as a character actor, and he would serve well here as the muscled, go-to tunnel digger with a fear of enclosed spaces.

Flight Lieutenant Colin Blythe RAF, “The Forger”
Original: Donald Pleasence
My Remake: Toby Jones
Reason: What can I say, Jones reminds me of Pleasence.  Actually, Jones could really knock this role out of the POW camp.

Flying Officer Louis Sedgwick RAAF, “The Manufacturer”
Original: James Coburn
My Remake: Michael Fassbender
Reason: It’s a smaller role than he’s probably recently accustomed to, but it’s a great role nonetheless.  If Fassbender were busy with X-Men movies, I’d turn to Ewan McGregor, who has already worked in an ensemble film with Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down).

Oberst von Luger, “The Kommandant”
Original: Hannes Messemer
My Remake: Christopher Waltz
Reason: Is there another German actor you were thinking of?  Waltz gets the part almost by default.  But, in all honestly, he’d eat this role up.  His face-offs with Thomas Jane and Michael Sheen would be a pulpy, B-movie equivalent to the infamous Alec Guinness- Sessue Hayakawa face-offs in Bridge on the River Kwai.  Once, and only once, Hollywood and I see eye-to-eye.

Lieutenant-Commander Eric Ashley-Pitt DSC RN, “Dispersal”
Original: David McCallum
My Remake: Martin Freeman
Reason: I love Martin Freeman.

Flight Lieutenant Sandy ‘Mac’ MacDonald RAF, “Intelligence”
Original: Gordon Jackson
My Remake: David Thewlis
Reason: David Thewlis rocks.

Flight Lieutenant William ‘Willie’ Dickes RAF, “The Tunnel King”
Original: John Leyton
My Remake: Rory Keenan
Reason: Saw him in The Guard.  He was good.

Flying Officer Archibald ‘Archie’ Ives RAF, “The Mole”
Original: Angus Lennie
My Remake: Simon Pegg
Reason: Because I know he can pull off a Scottish accent, and I also know he has the dramatic depth to make this role work in the remake.  This character’s fate is at the heart of the movie and takes an actor with talent to pull off.  It’s not the biggest role, but it’s a good role.

Flight Lieutenant Denys Cavendish RAF, “The Surveyor”
Original: Nigel Stock
My Remake: Jeffrey DeMunn
Reason: He’s a veteran of numerous Fran Darabont projects and, though perhaps too old for the film, would make a wonderful addition to the cast.

The rest of the cast can be filled in by veteran character actors and theater veterans.

Despite the time and thought I put into writing this article, I beg you, Hollywood, not to remake this film.  I will, inexplicably, force myself to buy a ticket opening weekend, and I very well may find myself digging a tunnel out of the theater.

Please share your thoughts on possible actors/director for this (hypothetical) remake.

I am sick and tired of both “ghetto low pants” and adult males wearing shorts that reach their calves.  Are you kidding me?  How old are you people?  In one group, we have a range of ages wearing pants that sag off the bottom of their arses.  They can barely keep them up, they have to constantly adjust to hold them up, and they have no possible way of hurrying anywhere, ever.  But why would they hurry?  They don’t have jobs.  And, to boot, they wear two sets of boxers, because they, like any normal, well-adjusted adult, realize that their outward pair of boxers are exposed to the elements around them.  So, one pair of boxers is inevitably for show, while the other is for duty.  Really?  In the other group, grown men wear shorts (always of a denim nature) that reach to their calf muscle.  Really?  Grown men wearing capris?  Because that’s what they are, caballeros.  They’re denim capris.  Are you telling me you cannot afford a full pair of pants?

For either group, buy a pair of pants that fit.

For past rants of Sick and Tired, click Parts III, II, and I.

Labor Day has arrived, and with that I am recapping my 2011 Summer Box Office Predictions.

The theatrical releases on this list were released during the summer movie season, between May 1st and September 1st.

Let’s begin with my original list of predictions and see how I did.

My original predictions are written in normal black type.

In blue I give you the following: the release’s actual summer box office total and finishing position amongst only this year’s summer releases, and my thoughts on why I was so horribly, horribly wrong.

(The dollar amounts are in millions and account only for domestic gross as of 9/1/11.)

1. Transformers: Dark of the Moon – $341
- The trailer has a lot of action and ever so many robots, so the teenagers will continue to pay up.  That being said, like other massive trilogies of this kind (think Pirates of the Caribbean, Shrek), I expect the third movie to gross less domestically than the sequel yet more than the original, as viewers realize that the second film never lived up to the promise of the first.  Also, there is a plethora of teenager-oriented sci-fi and adventure films opening this summer, and some moviegoers will be saving their dollars for specific ones.  If it defeats Harry Potter during the summer it will very likely win the year, as there isn’t a huge movie (think LOTR, Avatar) opening before year’s end.
- $350 (2nd)
– Almost exact with its gross, but off by one with its position.  As has been happening of late with Hollywood’s bloated trilogies (Pirates, Matrix, Shrek, The Mummy…), this third film took a rather steep drop-off from the second film.  The third films usually settle in the middle territory between the original’s gross and the sequel’s distended gross.  You see, the audience is excited to see the original, then chomping at the bit to see the sequel (either excited by the originality of the original or the explosive possibilities of the sequel), but when the third rolls along they’re either disappointed with the direction of the trilogy or worn out by the three-hour running times, the ludicrous character development, and overblown marketing campaigns.  Oddly enough, the drop-off in gross hasn’t seemed to stop Hollywood from increasing these bloated trilogies into exhausted series, where the fourth films tend to gross even less than the third.  Milk that cow while she’s still breathing, boys!

2. Kung Fu Panda 2 – $327
- More exciting than Cars, with a more popular voice cast and equally impressive graphics, the Panda is back and prepared to deftly remove the money from your wallet.  With the original grossing $215 domestic in 2008, and DreamWorks’ own How to Train Your Dragon grossing $217 in 2010, I expect this sequel to surpass both as well as the original Shrek ($267), but it won’t reach Shrek 2 ($441).
- $164 (9th)
– I massively overestimated the continuing appeal of pandas.  Just kidding.  I overestimated the continual appeal of animation.  This was a notoriously poor year for animated films, not by quality, but by gross earnings.  Usually, whatever is thrown out there makes money, but not this year.  It’s almost as if the animated studios had to earn their money.  That’s an interesting thought, and a dilemma for Hollywood.  For a moment, it seems family audiences are waking up.  As it is, this movie barely covered its budget, and has yet to cover its marketing costs.  It will, in DVD sales, but this low gross doesn’t bode well for the franchise.

3. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II – $303
- Deathly Hallows: Part I made $295 just last year (November release) and had almost no competition throughout the winter months.  This one should retain the entire audience from Part I and lure in a few other cinema-goers interested in seeing this series wrap up, but it has an awful lot of blockbuster competition during the summer.  It won’t be too big, as only the first and sixth movies grossed over $300 domestic ($317 and $301, respectively).
- $372 (1st)
– #1 by a country mile.  Stormed to the #1 position due to the largest opening weekend in film history.  Even the largest-ever second week drop by a “blockbuster” film couldn’t derail it from claiming the year’s #1 domestic gross.  There were enough people hidden away who just wanted to watch the final chapter, and I’m sure the repeat viewings were strong, as it was an enjoyable end to the series.  Read my review of the entire Harry Potter series here.

4. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides – $295
- This one’s a bit of a wild card, as the trilogy came to an ignominious close with the bloated  garbage pile that was At World’s End.  Is Disney pushing its luck with a fourth entry into this franchise?  With the cool characters (Sparrow and Barbossa) in tow, and a new director aboard (Rob Marshall of Chicago fame), I expect this one to breathe new life into the franchise, though I could be completely off, and audiences could stay away due to the salty taste in their mouth from the last go-round.  As it is, my prediction for domestic gross is $10 less than the original grossed.  The market may still be there, but the excitement has waned.
- $240 (4th)
– Here’s that exhausted fourth film I was writing about above.  The excitement has certainly waned with this franchise.  But there was still a market, though not nearly as large as I predicted.  It grossed $65 million less than the original (2003).  Disney seems dead-set on two more films, and Depp will certainly cash two more paychecks, so get ready for the ignominious end of Captain Jack Sparrow.

5. Cars 2 – $248
- The original Cars is middle-of-the-pack for domestic gross of Pixar films ($244), but the third-highest domestic gross of 2006.  It’s been five years.  Are kids/teens clamoring to see a Cars sequel?  I don’t think so.  Will families go simply because it’s a Pixar film?  Absolutely.  It will have competition, arriving in theaters sandwiched between Green Lantern and Transformers: Dark of the Moon, but I think it will have enough to rev into the top-5.
- $187 (5th)
– Nailed the position!  [That’s what she said.]  But I was way off on gross.  Pixar’s first true bomb (and stinker, as reviews go).  Taking inflation into account it is the lowest-grossing of Pixar’s movies, dating back to the original Toy Story in 1995.  I’m certain Pixar will bounce right back, but here’s hoping they learned their lesson about forcing unnecessary sequels (and vanity projects) down our throats.

6. The Smurfs – $210
- Am I underselling or overselling this movie?  Alvin and the Chipmunks grossed $217 in 2007.  Its squeakquel grossed $219 in 2009.  Scooby-Doo grossed $153 in 2002, before 3-D and the corresponding ticket increase.  The Smurfs are equally as popular, if not more so.  After this movie arrives on July 29, not one more family movie arrives for weeks.  It will clean house before kids return to school.  What kind of world do we live in?
- $128 (12th)
– The people have woken up!  Didn’t reach the stratosphere like I predicted, but did clear $120 million, which, in my humble opinion, is still too much.

7. Green Lantern – $201
- The highest-grossing of the super hero movies this year?  I have it here, but I’m not so sure.  Between its mix of science fiction, action, and comedy, I believe it will surpass the serious Thor and the historical Captain America.  It could also bomb with an off-note performance by Ryan Reynolds and weaker-than-usual special effects.
- $116 (14th)
– The biggest dud of my predictions goes to the biggest dud of the summer.  I massively overestimated the appeal of both the character of Green Lantern and this film.  It was slammed by critics and abandoned by audiences.  I expected better from director Martin Campbell (GoldenEye, Casino Royale) and star Ryan Reynolds, who may have proven that he is not fit for hero roles or big-budget films.

8. The Hangover Part II – $187
- It figures to gross money, but R-rated comedy sequels don’t have a lengthy track record that can be studied, for not many R-rated comedies spawn sequels.  American Pie 2 out-grossed the original by $43.  Beverly Hills Cop II grossed $81 less than the original.  Scary Movie 2 grossed $86 less than the original, but Scary Movie 3 grossed $39 more than the sequel.  It’s difficult to compare the Judd Apatow comedies of the 2000s, since there are differing characters and plots; none of them have been direct sequels to earlier films.  As it is, The Hangover grossed $277 domestic in 2009, making it the highest-grossing R-rated comedy ever.  Much of its take was done on repeat business; people found it that funny.  If the sequel grosses over $153 it will become the highest-grossing R-rated comedy sequel ever (passing Beverly Hills Cop II).  Opening in May, it is the only big R-rated comedy released before July 8th’s Horrible Bosses.  Theaters will crack down on carding for this movie and many young fans will be forced to buy tickets to PG-13 fare and subsequently sneak in; this lost money will not be reflected in the movie’s gross.  I expect this sequel to have a huge opening weekend, but I don’t believe its repeat business will be as strong as the original’s.  This seems to be a case of been there, done that, which is one of the reasons most of the great comedies don’t get sequels; run-of-the-mill PG/PG-13 crap always does (Pink Panther, Meet the Parents, Cheaper by the Dozen…).
- $254 (3rd)
– It came closer to the original’s gross ($277) than to my estimate.  The reviews were not good, with many critics stating that the movie was a tired retread of the original.  I guess that is what some audiences want.

9. Cowboys & Aliens – $181
- I have a feeling it’s going to be very stupid, but it should have a teenage boy-infused large opening weekend going up against The Smurfs, and it doesn’t have any competition arriving in the weeks after its premiere, unless Rise of the Planet of the Apes surprises and over-performs.
- $94 (18th)
– They won’t be making a sequel to this under-performing behemoth.  Hollywood won’t learn its lesson about strip-mining comics and graphic novels, thinking Americans want to see this mashed with that or that mashed with this, but it should think twice about spending $200 million dollars to produce one.  One thought: Can Green Lantern truly be the bomb of the summer when compared to this film’s underwhelming performance?

10. Thor – $167
- It has a full two weeks before a competitive film opens, and it will clean up during that time, but once the summer weeks start rolling along this movie will disappear.  It is garnering fantastic reviews and may bring in the adult audience, which will boost its gross, but Thor is one of the least-known Marvel heroes, and his box office will surely reflect that.
- $181 (6th)
– I came pretty close.  Considering Thor is not an extremely popular Marvel character, I am still surprised that it grossed so much money.  I believe its tie-in to the upcoming The Avengers film boosted it a bit.  The casting of Natalie Portman, who happened to win an Oscar a short time before the release, probably helped as well.

11. Zookeeper – $157
- Kevin James + talking animals.  I don’t get it, but the producers of this movie do.  It is the only family-friendly, non-animated movie other than Mr. Popper’s Penguins (which opens against Green Lantern) to arrive this summer, and it does so on a weekend all to itself.  Somehow this movie is built to make big summer bucks, and without a competing Adam Sandler or Will Ferrell movie, it will do just that.
- $77 (19th)
– What is going on this year?!?!  I continue to massively overestimate the lasting appeal of what was ridiculously popular five years ago.  Kevin James + talking animals.  I thought it couldn’t fail.  I was wrong.  It grossed a heck of a lot less than Sony Pictures was hoping, and now we have almost no chance of seeing Zookeeper 2.  Thanks, America, thanks a lot.

12. X-Men: First Class – $150
- Another wild card, as the X-Men films are not notoriously high-grossing affairs ($157, $214, $234, respectively, with the standalone Wolverine pulling in $179).  Additionally, this film doesn’t have the draw of Wolverine, Cyclops, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, or Halle Berry, and it is set during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  I have a feeling it will be the lowest-grossing of all the X-Men-related movies.
- $146 (11th)
– Nearly nailed it.  Though this movie was terrific (check out my review here), my opinion that X-Men movies are notoriously low-grossing affairs was accurate, especially when they’re centered more on drama than action, which this was.

13. Captain America: The First Avenger – $137
- I enjoyed the trailer and am probably more interested in this movie than Thor or Green Lantern, but its historical setting and realistic connection to WWII will hurt its box office.  Thor promises magic and mystical gods.  Green Lantern excites with never-before-seen powers and otherworldly aliens.  Captain America has a WWII grunt fighting a deformed Nazi scientist.  It opens directly after Harry Potter and before Cowboys & Aliens; that’s a lot of competition.  I just don’t see this one exploding at the box office.  Also, director Joe Johnston doesn’t have a great box office track record; his highest-grossing film ever is Jurassic Park 3 ($181).  Captain America will be his second-highest.
- $169 (7th)
– A nice surprise.  Where Green Lantern bored, Captain America soared.  The tie-in/lead-up to next summer’s The Avengers delivered a few more butts into the seats, something I should have foreseen.

14. Super 8 – $135
- I’m on the fence with the blockbuster power of Spielberg and Abrams, producer and director, respectively.  This could wind up being E.T. ($359) or Cloverfield ($80).  It’s such a mystery that I have no idea.  The question here is: “Which audience will show up?”  Kids?  Adults?  Teenage boys?  Couples?  Families?  Without knowing much about the film no one can say.  The marketing onslaught that will attack our country within the next few months will determine the outcome of this movie moreso than its June 10th release date.
- $126 (13th)
– Nearly nailed it again.  It could have grossed more.  It had an intriguing concept and great reviews and Spielberg and Abrams…  Perhaps it didn’t have enough robots and Smurfs.  Yeah, that’s probably it.  Read my review here.

15. Mr. Popper’s Penguins – $127
- Jim Carrey is still a big-enough star to open this movie, where he shares billing with a flock of penguins.  It may not be Liar, Liar, but it’s family-friendly and contains adorable penguins.  Still, it won’t have enough to take down Zookeeper, which contains talking animals.  If only these penguins could talk!  Also, it opens up against Green Lantern in the weekend before Cars 2.  The money has to be spread about somehow.
- $67 (21st)
– Oh, Jim Carrey.  I grossly overestimated his current appeal.  This movie bombed when it should have cleaned up the family dollars.  I told the producers that the penguins should have talked.  I’m certain that would have added an additional $65.

16. Monte Carlo – $92
- Young American girls need something to go see, and since Twilight: Whatever doesn’t come out until November, this will have to do.
- $23 (33rd)
– Apparently, girls only need their iPhones and boys.

17. Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World – $88
- Why?  Because these movies make money.  I don’t know why.
- $24 (32nd)
– Finally, the angel that is Jessica Alba crashes down to Earth.

18. Winnie the Pooh – $86
- The Winnie the Pooh brand has an amazing tradition, but how will a 2-D, hand-drawn animated feature withstand the onslaught of the digital 3-D craze?  Perhaps by opposing it.  It has a shot, but I think at year’s end it will be considered another nail in the coffin of 2-D animation.  And I think Disney knows this, as there are rumors that they are pulling out all the stops to produce a feature-length 2-D animated feature starring Mickey, Donald, and Goofy.  Think of it as an animated defibrillation.
- $26 (31st)
– What we can take away from this movie’s gross is that the children of the 21^st century don’t give a pooh bear’s butt about Winnie and his adventures with Christopher Robbins.

19. Rise of the Planet of the Apes – $79
- I cannot see this being a breakout hit, though, for my money, it is an intriguing movie.  If the reviews are good, I’m in, but I’m more likely to spend my money on a sci-fi picture like this (if the reviews are good) than a superhero movie or talking animal picture.  But I’m not typical America.  Will typical America pay to see this?
- $152 (10th)
– Better-reviewed and -received than I expected.  It became the breakout hit of the late summer.

20. The Help – $71
- This is a feel-good, heart-warming tale with a talented cast, based on a book with a large following.  It has a chance to become The Blind Side, but will more likely stay a small gem.
- $103 (16th)
– It’s good to see an explosion-less film do well during the summer.  I already have this movie saved in my Netflix queue.

These releases did not make my original Top-20 (by choice):

Bridesmaids – not in my Top-20
- $164 (8th)
- I severely underestimated this movie.  My gut was telling me that it was going to be a breakout hit, but my darn brain got in the way and made me consider the all-female cast and lack of a major film star.  Well, my brain was certainly proven wrong.  I saw this movie – it’s hilarious, and I’m glad it made as much money as it did.  I hope Kristen Wiig continues to make successful films.  Read my review here.

Horrible Bosses – not in my Top-20
- $114 (15th)
– This film was sold to audiences on concept alone.  This movie is entirely forgettable, but I’m not surprised it made this much money, thought I didn’t expect it to.  Read my review here.

Bad Teacher – not in my Top-20
- $98 (17th)
– If Justin Timberlake continues to develop into a movie star, I may just have to drive my head into a concrete barrier.

Crazy, Stupid, Love – not in my Top-20
- $71 (20th)
– It would seem that a Steve Carell/Ryan Gosling movie would do gangbusters at the box office, but sometimes you can tell from a trailer that a movie is more than likely going to miss its target audience, especially when it opens against The Smurfs.  I just had a feeling about this one; that feeling that tells me it’s more likely to be a Netflix movie than a theater movie.

All the rest fell out of the Top-20 for the summer of 2011:
Friends with Benefits, Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, The Change Up, Larry Crowne, Final Destination 5, Something Borrowed, Fright Night, Conan the Barbarian, Apollo18, The Tree of Life, Priest, The Beaver.

The Top-20 Summer Releases for 2011 (as of 9/1/11):

1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
2. Transformers: Dark of the Moon
3. The Hangover: Part 2
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
5. Cars 2
6. Thor
7. Captain America: The First Avenger
8. Bridesmaids
9. Kung Fu Panda 2
10. Rise of the Planet of the Apes
11. X-Men: First Class
12. The Smurfs
13. Super 8
14. Green Lantern
15. Horrible Bosses
16. The Help
17. Bad Teacher
18. Cowboys & Aliens
19. The Zookeeper
20. Crazy, Stupid, Love

Wrap-Up:

The top five films were all sequels, but four of the five grossed less than their predecessors, so maybe the time of the sequels is passing.  Not likely, but it is good to see a healthy dose of original films sprinkle the Top-20, including female-dominated films like The Help and Bridesmaids.  Each and every one of the comic book-based films landed in the Top-20, which isn’t surprising considering the marketing dollars spent to promote them and the number of theaters in which they opened, but many of them, if not all, underperformed, which should be a scary thought for the film world.  Harry Potter 7: Part 2 won the summer, out-grossing all of its predecessors, but how often can Hollywood count on a franchise-ending blockbuster to save its summer?  If I make one conclusion about this summer, it’s that there were many big disappointments and a few small surprises, which should be a thought that keeps producers and studio execs up at night.  They hate to see $200 million productions gross less than they estimated.  If I make another conclusion, it’s that audiences flocked to well-reviewed, well-received movies more often than usual.  Films like Thor, Bridesmaids, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes did better, with critics and in theaters, than I, and many others, expected.  This summer didn’t have many star-headlined releases, which is unusual in its own right, but the films that were headlined by “stars” tended to gross lower-than-expected amounts, while those starring either up-and-coming stars or well-rounded casts performed well.  Pirates 4 underperformed, which won’t stop Disney from paying Johnny Depp for countless more.  Cowboys & Aliens massively underperformed, perhaps forever damaging Daniel Craig’s Bond-less career and ending Harrison Ford’s relevancy during the summer.  Ryan Reynolds proved he wasn’t up to the task of carrying a summer blockbuster, while Chris Evans proved that maybe he was.  Steve Carell’s comedy performed poorly, while Kristen Wiig’s performed surprisingly well.  This, perhaps, bodes well for the future of film.  Overall, considering the gross of every release so far this year, 2011 is far behind the past two years, which were equally the highest-grossing years in history (not counting inflation).  Never before had any year grossed $10 billion.  Then, 2009 and 2010 surpassed that amount – $10.5 billion in each year.  2011 is not keeping pace.  Here’s the breakdown of big-time grossing films over the past three years (in millions):

 

Gross (in millions)	2011	2010	2009
$400+	0	1	2 (one at $750)
$300+	2	4	3
$200+	5	10	10
$100+	21	30	32
$50+	43	66	61

 

Hollywood is in a slump this year.  There haven’t been those huge films, and even the number of steady, smaller-grossing films has dwindled.  There may be a few releases this Fall and Winter that help make up ground, but right now the business is playing catch up.  Why?  The death of the iconic actor/actress coupled with recycled material and endless sequels.  The constantly rising cost of tickets.  The poor economy.  Those are all reasons.  If any one of those three things changes, it could all come roaring back, and I expect it to.  Next summer’s The Avengers should gross a heck of a lot, as should next winter’s The Hobbit: Part I (which has my repeat viewings already in-hand).  As is always the case, even when Hollywood is down, it’s never counted out.

To compare this year’s predictions to last year’s, click 2010 Summer Box Office Recap.