It's Miller Time

For weeks, months, and even years, fans of the Chicago Bulls have waited for a major trade from GM John Paxson. He swung and missed on the likes of Kevin Garnett, Pao Gasol and Kobe Bryant and others.

Well Bulls fans the "big" trade has arrived ... and no Amare Stoudemire won't be showcased on a big poster off the Kennedy Expressway.

Instead, the Bulls acquired Brad Miller and John Salmons from the Sacramento Kings in exchange for Andres Nocioni, Drew Gooden, Cedric Simmons and Michael Ruffin.

So what exactly does this trade accomplish? A lot more than meets the eye. The Bulls finally find the help they have so desperately needed at center with Miller, who can still be expected to post double-doubles on a semi regular basis. Salmons, a guard/forward who was being heavily pursued by western conference contenders, gives the Bulls some scoring punch off the bench.

So not only will Derrick Rose have a big man who can shoot off the pick and roll, but he'll also have a backcourt mate who can slash to the basket and finish. Teams will have to honor that more as apposed to focusing solely on stopping Rose.

In the bigger picture though, it frees up money for the Bulls. Miller will be one of a myriad of free agents after the 2009-2010 season. Salmons is signed through 2010-2011. Shedding Nocioni's remaining 3 years and $21 million allow the Bulls to be even bigger players in the 2010 free agent class.

While Nocioni's leadership, toughness, and versatility will be sorely missed, as well as Gooden's scoring and rebounding, the Bulls made out well in this trade, both for now and the future.

With that in mind, the trade deadline is at 2pm Thursday. Larry Hughes anyone?

Clash At The Line Of Scrimmage

Throughout the history of organized football there have been a bevy of offensive innovations. From the T-formation, to the West Coast offense, the shotgun formation and the spread offense, teams have tried a variety of ways to utilize different ways to put points on the board besides garden variety smash-mouth football.

I came across a good article recently detailing a California high school football team's implementation of a new style of offense, and it's struggles to continue to use it.

http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=911196

Now isn't this a true sports fan's dream? The chance for anybody on the field to make a difference in the game ... a true equal opportunity offense.

For schools who can't get the best players, they have the right to do everything they can within the rules to be able to compete. That's exactly what this high school team has done, so who has the right to stop them?

In the classroom, at jobs and not to mention in competitive sports, the goal many times is to be a team player and a creative thinker. Creating a scarcely used offense that allows everyone a chance to participate in certainly fulfills both of those objectives.

More coaches at the high school, college and professional level could only wish to be able to leave this type of indelible mark on their team and their players. As long as it remains within the rules, this ability should not be taken away, period.

At one point in history, the only way to tell a story was either word of mouth or through pen and paper. Television did not exist, and the only way to get a portrayal of an event was through a creative imagination.

Today, not only does television give the pictures, but the Internet can take those pictures, and use visual affects, sound and writing to tell the story a journalist is attempting to convey. A perfect example of this is in the Roanoke (Virginia) Times "Hellgate 100k Ultrarunning Competition" feature.

http://roanoke.com/multimedia/hellgate/interactive.html

Here, they use an interactive visual affects map to plot as well as describe each spot in the course. The writing itself is detail oriented and straight forward, leaving little room for creativity but informative. Horton's explanations are helpful.

As far as using the photo-video-reporting approach to telling a story about a person or event, I think it would be beneficial especially for an event. That allows for an in depth look at an event, breaking it down to give interest to the reader and showing why, statistically it is useful.

An Official Mess

In an ideal world, which is always difficult to have if not damn near impossible, a championship game of a sport is not decided by the officials but by the athletes of that particular sport.

Evidently, the officials of Super Bowl XLIII left that important motto at their hotel prior to the game. Those who are extreme conspiracy theorists could argue that perhaps they were encouraged to by those with a higher league office.

Either way, the game itself was marred with a bevy of questionable penalties that primarily went against the Arizona Cardinals. A team that came in averaging a shade under 50 penalty yards per game doubled that output in the game, a peculiar jump even for a game as big as this one was.

Yet it was two calls/decisions that weren't made that turned out to be huge factors in Pittsburgh's 27-23 win. The first was the 100-yard interception return for a touchdown by James Harrison right before halftime. No, I'm not even questioning whether he was down before crossing the goal line, which officials determined he was not. But it was the missed illegal block in the back by Troy Polamalu on Larry Fitzgerald during the interception return. Fitzgerald, to his credit, got back to his feet and nearly made a touchdown saving tackle on Harrison. However, if the illegal blocked had been called by the officials, the touchdown would not have counted. Barring a miracle final play, the halftime score would've been 10-7 Pittsburgh, not 17-7. Considering the Steelers won the game by 4 points, that is a very striking difference.

The other decision, one that promises to be talked about for weeks if not longer (and one that still has me bewildered and downright mad), was in regards to the second to last play of the game. On the play Kurt Warner was hit as he was trying to throw the ball downfield into the end zone. The official call on the field was a fumble, yet replays at best showed that at best it was inconclusive (in fact, after seeing it several times I still believe that Warner pushed the ball forward which under NFL rules is a forward pass).

So, with the game under 2 minutes and all booth reviews coming from upstairs, this is an automatic shoe-in for instant replay, right? Oh no ... not happening. The next thing you see is the Steelers kneel down and the game is over.

After the game officials claimed to have reviewed it upstairs and confirmed that it was a fumble. Huh, that's funny, I don't remember hearing an official announce that the play was under review or that the play on the field stands as called. Those are the announcements traditionally made on an instant replay review (and what was done after what turned into the game winning Touchdown catch by Santonio Holmes).

No "true" instant replay on the second to last play of the game? Really? Does it take a Harvard law degree to figure out that it might be easier to look at several replays to determine a pass or fumble as apposed to at a game speed glance?

After having their hands on the prints of much of Super Bowl XLIII, the officials on the field took them off at the game's most critical point. That's what I'll remember most from the Steelers sixth super bowl title.