Why does it seem like head coaches in the NFL are more valuable to their teams than in any other professional sport?
I disagree with your premise…Looking at the highest paid Soccer managers around the world, they get paid sometimes more than double that of the highest paid coaches in the NFL.Compare that to the highest paid Head CoachesANDY REIDKansas City, 2013-present2017 salary: $7.5 millionBILL BELICHICKNew England Patriots, 2000-present2017 salary: $7.5 millionSEAN PAYTONNew Orleans Saints, 2006-present2017 salary: $8 millionAs you can see, the top NFL head coaches are only getting paid around a quarter of what their European counterparts are ‘valued at’. I put this down to the managers in European football having far more control around personnel decisions / transfers. Realistically, the Head Coach of an NFL team is responsible for football operations only and whilst his opinion will be listened to by a GM regarding potential draft picks or free agent pickups, the GM has the final say. Traditionally, in European football, the manager says “this is what I want, go get it” and the CEO tries to make the money work.
Why isn't there an NBA team in Las Vegas?
Kinda owning right now? The Laker's been PWNING the Clips for millions of years now dude!? You just got out of your cave??? The gambling nature may play a part for LV not having a NBA team or any other professional team. But honestly, I think LV is considered a small market city. Specially now that LV is struggling with the housing and unemployment? Na ah...who would wanna invest in that city? Rich people who gamble there don't necessarily live there so what's the point putting up a prof team?
My soccer team doesn't like me?
I've joined a new soccer team this season, and all the team members have been playing together since they were young. Most of them go to the same schools. I've run into this before, but within the first three practices I made some friends pretty quickly. The reason I feel they don't like me is because I'm always picked last or second to last for most drills (even though I'm not bad, I'd like to think I'm sort of good and we're all about the same skill level). Usually when they're talking and I add something to their conversation they stare at me and act like I never said anything. During practice if I screw up, the people on my scrimmage team glare at me and won't talk to me. Then they won't pass me the ball as they don't trust me with it. After games they go to the assistant coach'a house (they seem to have a special relationship with her) and the invitation is not extended. This needs to stop as it's really been getting to my confidence, before games I panic (which I never used to do) knowing that if I screw up they'll be furious with me. Quitting this team isn't an option as my high school doesn't have a team and at my age everyone goes to play high school. My other team wasn't that great so they thought I was really good (I was okay) and I did a lot with my team. It's different doing nothing except practices and games. I'm not sure if this is useful but the coach has a niece and she is one of the better players, I try talking to her bit she seems sort of cold. Any advice?
Why do NFL teams draft quarterbacks early even though it seems like such a gamble? It’s much easier and less risky to spend early draft picks on quality position players who have a better chance of panning out.
One bad cornerback won’t sink a teamOne bad offensive lineman won’t sink a teamOne bad running back won’t sink a teamOne bad linebacker won’t sink a teamYeah, having subpar starters will hurt, but one single position can be held up by star power at othersExcept for one.A bad quarterback can torpedo an otherwise fantastic roster. That’s just how important a QB is.Look at the Jaguars as a prime example: They went 12–4 in 2017 and made the AFC championship. In 2018 they added pieces and went 5–11 and missed the playoffs. Why? Blake Bortles.Look at the Chiefs as the opposite extreme. They had arguably the worst defense in the NFL last season, suffered a lot of injuries along the interior offensive line, and lost their star running back Ray Rice style. They still went 12–4 and took the Super Bowl champions to overtime in the AFCCG. Why? Patrick Mahomes.Lets pretend there’s a team with a perfectly average quarterback that goes 8–8. If you throw in someone like Aaron Rogers or Tom Brady or Mahomes, you could possibly add 3 or 4 wins to that squad. If you throw in Blake Bortles or Deshone Kizer, you might take away 4 or even more. If you take that team and replace, say, an average CB with a great one, you might gain a win or two. If you replace a safety with a Hall of Fame player in his prime, the team will obviously improve. But finding a great QB is how you sustain success in the NFL. That’s why gambles are taken in the first round. Patrick Mahomes was a massive gamble. The Chiefs bet their future on one hand and hit blackjack. On the other hand, swinging hard for a franchise QB can set a team back for a couple of years. However, consistently using mediocre quarterbacks can hold a team back for decades. It’s a big risk, but one that is sometimes necessary
In basketball, does repeatedly fouling the other team when behind ever work? It seems like I've seen hundreds of teams employ this strategy but never win anyways.
It only works in certain but fairly common scenarios, mostly in college and high school. For example, in high school and college it’s generally fair to say that your average player isn’t usually good or bad at free throws mostly average probably shooting around 60–70 percent (roughly). While in the nba it’s fair to assume most players shoot at a better or at least more consistently at the line(depending on your position) but as is with everything in basketball it’s about the numbers. When using the foul to free throw strategy there is always the chance that either the player being fouled is going to miss both shots, because it is more than likely an endgame type pressure/ intenseful situation, the chance that they miss is increased by a significant margin. Also most NBA teams are good enough that they know not to inbound or give the ball to a player that has a bad track record with free throws (Shaquille O’Neal for example, was almost never given the ball in close endgame high pressure situations because of his for free throw shooting) so they give the ball to a better shooter. But even still there’s a chance they could miss. giving the other team a chance to score and possibly win
Why does it seem that people outside of California dislike the Golden State Warriors?
Because that's what happens when a certain team dominates a sport. You can see that in other sports, too. Real Madrid have won 4 out of the last 5 UEFA Champions League(UCL), winning 3 consecutively. That's something that no team ever done before. When the last UCL final was being played, everyone except the Real Madrid fans was against them.People don't like to see one team winning the cup over and over again. Golden State Warriors are arguably the strongest NBA team ever and they're one the verge of winning their 3rd Championship in 4 years. They made the league look like so one-sided. Nobody seemed to give them a tough time, let alone beating, until the Rockets put up a fight recently.Also, when a new team rises to glory, or when a team rises to glory after a long period of time, they tend to attract a lot of fans. Same thing happened with the Golden State and people supporting other teams can't bear this.And, some people argue that they get lucky every year because their opponents get injured. That’s arguable. If Kyrie Irving was injured in 2015, so was Steph in 2016; he wasn’t fully fit. Kawhi getting injured in 2017? Ok, maybe the Spurs could take the Game 1 but do you really think they would be able to beat the Warriors in the series? This year it’s Chris Paul who got injured and this time Iguodala got injured.So, there you go. Some people would say that the Golden State play dirty or get lucky on foul calls or opponents’ injury, but in fact, every team that ever dominated a sport, had luck in favor with them. That's just the way it is. Luck favors the winners and you can't dominate a sport for years without a little touch of luck.
Why does everyone hate Ovechkin?
I don't hate Ovechkin, although I am not really his biggest fan because he draws too much attention to himself and has a big ego. He goes out to the ice before his teammates, when he scores he is like "everybody look at me." Right down to the tinted visor. If you watch Crosby, he seems happiest when one of his teammates score and let's face it, he is better. The media likes to draw comparisons because they both came in the NHL at the same time and are both superstars. To answer your question about the fact that Crosby has more points because being surrounded by better talent is off the mark. I do think Crosby would have as many points, yes. Funny how you mention an 18 year old (Staal) who Crosby does not play with, a rookie (Malkin) who Crosby plays with mostly just on the PP and Colby Armstrong who has 11 goals. The Caps do have guys that can score and they would score more with Crosby. Ovechkin is a shoot first guy. Crosby is a playmaker and thus makes everyone around him better. No way Recchi has 22 goals without Crosby. Ovechkin leads the NHL by a bit in shots on goal-he has 366. Crosby has 229. So you can see the difference. I don't think people are gettinng down on or underrating him, they are just saying that he is no Crosby, which he isn't. In 10 years the numbers will really show this and Sidney will still be 2 years younger. One of the biggest myths is that playing on a good team means more production when in fact, in most cases, especially for young players, it is the opposite because a good young player on a bad team gets more ice time, more PP time etc.
Does it seem like NBA players sometimes don't hustle or are there unspoken rules?
Is it a "NBA courtesy" for players not to do some things through most of the games? For example, players don't really try to guard when the other team is trying to inbound the ball, they usually just let them inbound and run their play (unless it's right under the basket). I notice they DO try to guard the an inbounding play near the end of close games, if you watch a lot of basketball you'll know that teams often commit 5 seconds violations when inbounding the ball near the end of close games or they are forced to call time-outs. So why don't teams make that kind of effort every play to try to force turnovers/burn timeouts? Another example is rebounding during free throws and rebounding in general. Often times the offensive team do not even try to rebound after free throws, they just start jogging back once the free throw leaves the player's hands. Also, you can see often times players do not try to box out their men. But again, near the end of close games, everyone turns it up 3 notches and bodies are flying everywhere trying to get the rebound. And these do not just happen during the regular season, you can notice them during playoff games as well. I can maybe understand star players want to conserve some energy for offense, but I find it odd even bench players who only play 5-10 minutes a game do not do some of these things. I have barely watched other leagues such as Euroleague or CBA so I cannot speak for them.