Santa delivers early present

About a week ago when I was looking at the likely scenarios of how the NFL season would end I said that the Browns were looking at a draft pick anywhere between #4 and #9.

But then Santa delivered on Christmas Eve a combination of wins and loses I never figured likely let alone possible. First, the Texans beat the Colts to improve to 5-10. Never thought that would happen. That game went final just moments after the Browns dropped an embarrassing home game to then 3-11 Tampa Bay. With Tampa Bay at 4-11 entering the late afternoon slate of games — this was Santa’s second gift — suddenly the Arizona-San Francisco game took on new importance. If only Arizona could pull off the upset! Clearly swept up in the giving spirit, Santa gave the Browns one more gift: an Arizona win!

With one game to go the Browns are in the driver’s seat for the #3 pick in the 2007 draft. So long, picks #8 and #9. As I see it the worst the Browns can finish is with the #7 pick (that would happen with a win next week against the Texans and with Arizona, Washington, and Tampa Bay all losing). If the Browns lose next week — and this is more than probable if Ken Dorsey is the starter — the Browns will finish with an identical record as the Bucs (I have TB losing to Seattle) but would get the #3 pick with the tie breaker.

I have no idea who Detroit and Oakland will take in the draft. There are a lot of websites dedicated to making these sort of predictions. Google them if you are interested. All I know is that there will be a lot of talent at the top of the board: Brady Quinn, Calvin Johnson, Joe Thomas, Adrian Peterson, Gaines Adams, Alan Branch, Dwayne Jerrett, Ted Ginn, Marshawn Lynch, etc. No matter what happens with Detroit and Oakland there will be a slew of high-caliber players from which to chose. Or the Browns could trade down, which is even more likely with the #3 pick than it is with any lower pick (or so I think).

Anyway. Thanks, Santa.

Larry Hughes is not a good basketball player

Outside of a few people who blog about the Cavs and a couple of friends, I have yet to witness anything remotely close to a sustained, thoughtful discourse on basketball in Cleveland. Not that I’m surprised: anything popular generates a lot of noise and finding the signal always takes a committed effort. It is unfortunate that there is no mechanism in place for sorting out the signal from the noise — like a really nice forum — but from time to time noise and signal become unified; the boisterous opinions speak as one and that voice is coherent and intelligent.

So it was at the Cavs-Pistons game on Thursday night. In the middle of the third quarter Larry Hughes missed a jump shot, which is to say he took a jump shot, and the people in my section actually paying attention to the game all slumped a little bit and let out a smattering of grumbles and moans. By the time the fourth quarter rolled around whenever Hughes took (that is, missed) a jump shot the grumbling and moaning that was apparent in my section in the third quarter was apparent to everyone in the arena because just about everyone was grumbling and moaning. A few people even booed.

I could not have been happier.

Larry Hughes is not a good basketball player. Any thoughtful discussion of the 2006-07 Cavs has to address Larry Hughes and the quicker the consensus is reached that’s he’s not a good basketball player the better that discussion will be. And allow me to be clear about one thing. Larry Hughes’s contract has nothing to do with how bad of a basketball player he is. This isn’t a Moneyball situation. Sure, his (in)ability would be more tolerable if he were paid $2M per year instead of $13M, but he would still not be a good basketball player.

He’s not terrible, mind you. He’s OK on defense. He can dribble. He is capable of making a positive contribution to the team, but he seems entirely unwilling to do the sort of things necessary to ensure that he is making a positive contribution whenever he steps on the court. It’s not just that he’s quick to shoot the jumper — I’ve heard some people complain about how whenever Hughes gets the ball he seems to do nothing other than shoot and that this is his problem — it’s that he shoots the jumper at all. He is not a good shooter. He is not a good shooter. He is not a good shooter. You don’t need any fluency in statistics to understand that when he throws the ball at the hoop he misses an awful lot. This point is really that simple. He is not a good shooter. When all he does is shoot — and this is essentially all he is doing on offense — it is impossible for him to be anything other than a bad basketball player. When you do something poorly and it’s all you do the only outcome is to be bad. That’s Larry Hughes as long as he’s shooting jumpers.

Now that we’ve established that Hughes is not good let’s move the discussion beyond “Hughes: good or bad?” to something more nuanced, such as How the Cavs can have success with Hughes given the current roster? Doing so will certainly increase the signal-to-noise ratio.

******************

We are in the heart of this holiday season of giving and good cheer and so I think it’s worth taking a moment to say thanks to everyone who frequents this humble site. So thanks. Have a happy holidays.