SB Nation Bay Area - Features

College Basketball Scores And Results: Saint Mary's Maintains Lead On Gonzaga In WCC Standings

2012-02-13T13:00:58Z

The West Coast Conference is entering the home stretch of the season with everybody but Pepperdine having at least three conference games remaining. The race for the regular season conference title is heating up as Gonzaga defeated Saint Mary's in Spokane to split their season series and climb to a game and a half back of the Gaels. BYU is a game behind Gonzaga with one more matchup between the two schools up in Spokane.

SMC is in the driver's seat for the regular season conference title. Although they lost to Gonzaga on Thursday, they bounced back with a win over Santa Clara on Saturday, and are currently 12-1 in conference play. The Gaels split with Gonzaga and swept BYU while also adding in a road win over surging Loyola Marymount. Saint Mary's hosts LMU this Wednesday with a chance to complete a much needed season sweep of the Lions. SMC's remaining conference games after LMU are at Portland and at San Francisco. Those are not gimmes, but they they are not so difficult as to create any expected problems.

SMC has a non-conference game mixed in this Saturday when they travel to Kentucky to face the Murray State Racers in a Bracketbuster matchup. Although the game has lost some luster with the Racers dropping their first game this past week, taking down Murray State could still provide a little bit of luster to the Gaels postseason profile. The Gaels are just about a lock for an at-large bid if they lose in the WCC tournament, but every extra win helps. Murray State can benefit more with a win given their relatively poor RPI, but SMC can keep boosting their profile with a win.

Gonzaga might have just about solidified their NCAA tournament chances with their big win over Saint Mary's on Thursday. They followed that up with a sound thumping of the surging Loyola Marymount Lions. Gonzaga now sits at 20-4 with an RPI of 17. Barring a collapse down the stretch and an early exit from the WCC tournament, Gonzaga seems to be in excellent shape.

The WCC is looking at two bids and possibly a third one. Saint Mary's and Gonzaga have all but locked up at-large bids and Brigham Young is looking like it is on the right side of the bubble for now. Gonzaga might have locked up an NCAA tournament appearance with their home win over Saint Mary's. BYU could solidify their own opportunity with a win on the road against Gonzaga on February 23.

Saint Mary's, Gonzaga and BYU will all enter the WCC tournament as the favorites to pull it out, although Loyola Marmount could end up spoiling somebody's chances. LMU was on a strong run but were thumped handily by Gonzaga on Saturday. They travel to Saint Mary's this Wednesday, but it would appear their only chance of an NCAA tournament berth is by winning the WCC tournament. LMU got a huge road win over BYU earlier this season, but an RPI of 107 is likely too much to overcome over the next three weeks.

West Coast Conference Standings

(updated 2.12.2012 at 12:31 AM PST)

	Conf		Overall
	W	L	W	L
St. Mary's, Calif. Gaels	12	1	23	3
Gonzaga Bulldogs	10	2	20	4
BYU Cougars	9	3	21	6
Loyola Marymount Lions	9	4	16	10
San Francisco Dons	7	6	17	10
San Diego Toreros	5	8	10	15
Portland Pilots	3	9	6	19
Pepperdine Waves	2	12	8	17
Santa Clara Broncos	0	12	8	17

Tom Brady Lost Super Bowl XLVI, But He's Still The Best Bay Area High School QB Ever

2012-02-09T17:36:49Z

Tom Brady's long been a sore subject for Bay Area NFL fans. Say his name to the Black Hole dwellers rooting for the Oakland Raiders and you'll probably hear two special words and an hour's worth of conspiracy theories. Say his name to San Francisco 49ers fans, and you get two distinct reactions:

1. How the hell did the Niners let him slip all the way until the sixth round? Dude rooted for us as a kid, he loved Joe Montana and everything! Weren't they scouting him in 1995?

2. He ain't Joe.

In the NFL, the Super Bowl matters. A lot. So Tom Brady isn't Joe Montana, even though they share the same chin.

Brady may not be the best Super Bowl quarterback in NFL history, but he is the best quarterback ever to play high school football in the Bay Area.

Serra High, you win again.

While Northern California isn't Pennsylvania -- where almost half of the elite quarterbacks who ever existed hail from -- there have been more than a few good quarterbacks who went to prom around here.

Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl and went to Aptos High. That's the Bay Area, right? I went to UC Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz is right next to Aptos), and I felt like I was in the Bay Area because I could listen to KNBR and go to Giants games on weeknights without missing class the next day. Alright, maybe I'd miss class the next day ... but it wasn't the Giants' fault. I had a terrible alarm clock that constantly changed the time I set from "AM" to "PM." Come to think of it, all my alarm clocks seem to have that problem.

Ken Dorsey went to Miramonte (a high school that's clearly in the Bay Area -- the Bay Area where everyone is safe and swims competitively) and won a Heisman. He also played for the 49ers, but let's focus on that Heisman instead. It's much prettier than any of the ducks he threw to Arnaz Battle.

Both Dorsey and Dilfer had better pro careers than 99.99% of the quarterbacks who played high school football in the North Bay, South Bay, East Bay, Peninsula or The City. But if we're talking Top 5, they don't quite make this list.

Top 5 Quarterbacks From Bay Area High Schools

1. Tom Brady: Junípero Serra

Because of Gisele, Ugg Boots For Men, and the strange way the world treats its sports superstars these days, Brady's career accomplishments are almost overlooked. Okay, overlooked isn't the correct word, but his stubborn perfectionism, at least based on appearance, makes it easier (more fun?) to focus on Brady's few failures since he made the jump from Michigan Wolverines platoon-QB to future NFL Hall-of-Famer.

3-time Super Bowl winner, 2-time MVP, 2-time Super Bowl MVP. 14th in career passing yards, 4th in career passer rating, 5th in career passing touchdowns. Brady may not be perfect in Super Bowls, but he's a Top-10 all-time NFL QB.

2. Dan Fouts: Marin Catholic, St. Ignatius

He led the NFL in yards per game six times, and he's already in the Hall of Fame. Fouts wasn't as precise as Brady is now, but who was in the 1970s and '80s? He also gets points for working as a sports anchor for years and years. Can you imagine Alex Smith replacing Mark Ibanez after his career ends? Didn't think so.

3. John Brodie: Oakland Tech

Very good, very battered quarterback who many probably would put fourth on this list, behind this guy...

4. Jim Plunkett: William C. Overfelt, James Lick

Yes, Plunkett won two Super Bowls, and that's generally considered the way to judge quarterbacks. Until you bring up Dilfer, Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien or Brad Johnson, and you'd be the only person to bring those guys up. Nice going, conversation-killer.

The reasons why Brodie ranks slightly ahead of this South Bay product are statistical in nature. Brodie had more yards and TDs, a higher QB rating, a better TD/INT ratio and close to the same record (Brodie was 74-77-8, Plunkett went 72-72). Brodie had over 3,000 yards and 30 TDs in separate seasons, something Plunkett never did.

Plunkett went 8-4 in the playoffs, much better than Brodie's 1-4. But Plunkett was never 1st-team All-NFL, like Brodie was in 1970.

Anyone who's seen both guys play and thinks I'm full of it, feel free to let me know in the comments. I'm mostly basing these opinions off Pro Football Reference research and my mom's story about owning a Brodie doll as a little girl, so this isn't exactly NFL Films.

5. Jeff Garcia: Gilroy

Better than Trent Dilfer? You betcha! This jump-passing ginger had a much higher completion percentage than Dilfer, passed for 5,000 more yards, 48 more touchdowns, 46 fewer interceptions AND ran for more over twice the yards (2,140 to 853) and five times the TDs (26 to 5). As much credit as a quarterback should get for heading a Super Bowl winner, he should get at least half taken away when his team lets him go the next year because they'd rather have Elvis Grbac.

With Dilfer's performance in his six years post-Ravens (23 mediocre starts, including 6 inexplicable starts with the 49ers in 2007 after he'd long proved his uselessness), it's clear: Dilfer was a decent quarterback who was in the right place at the right time in 2000. Garcia was a very good quarterback who didn't have the good fortune of looking the part.

Check out BASG's writing on Bay Area Sports Guy. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

Tiger Woods Returns To Pebble Beach, A Return To Glory To Follow?

2012-02-07T14:00:51Z

From youthful phenom to golfing demi-god, then to tabloid fodder and utter dispair, Tiger Woods is finally coming out of the censorious cloud that has hung over him for two plus years.

He's reached the winner's circle once more, regained control over his golf swing with some (finally) healthy legs and new coach, and has seemingly come to terms with where he is now in his life. He's 36 years old, four majors shy of his life-long goal of Jack Nicaklaus' record of 18, and amongst a field of competitors where the talent gap has shrunk to a sliver.

But when Tiger takes the tee Thursday morning at the AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am, he not only returns to the tournament for the first time in a decade, it also may mark the beginning of the next act in the epic saga of Eldrick Tiger Woods.

Tiger has two very attainable, and very prestigious, records left ahead of him in his career; the aforementioned record set by the Golden Bear, and Swingin' Sam Snead's record of 82 PGA Tour victories. Out of the top five majors winners of all-time, only one man has was less than 4 majors after his 36th birthday, Walter Hagen with his 1929 Open Championship. Jack Nicklaus and Gary Player both won four after turning 36, while Ben Hogan has a whopping six. This is certainly not beyond Tiger's reach.

As for good ol' Sammy Snead? Well, he won a meager 38 PGA Tour tournaments after his 36th birthday, Tiger only needs to win 11.

But through all the swing changes over his career, the one thing more than anything else that has won Tiger his championships is his short game, most notably the flat stick. Tiger's been in a two-year funk with his putter, something that significantly hindered his game despite the injuries and distractions. Here's a look at Tiger's strokes gained- putting stats: a metric that measures a players putting proficiency:

2011: .258 (45th on Tour)

2010: -.033 (109th)

2009: .874 (2nd)

2008: .844 (3rd)

Some feel that it's age creeping up with him, such as two-time Masters Champion Ben Crenshaw, arguably one of the best putters to have ever lived:

"From my time on tour, it seemed when a player reaches about 35 years old ... it's [putting] going to start leveling off. No question, it's a curious thing."

"Right now, he's maybe a very slight notch below the way he putted in the past," Crenshaw said. "But I'll say this: I don't think there's ever been a player who putted better for a long stretch of time than Tiger. Anyone. In my mind, I've never seen so many important putts go down."

That may be bad news for the record books, and everyone else playing against Tiger.

Pebble Beach is of course the site of his historic 15-stroke U.S. Open victory where he putted brilliantly. But that was then. Tiger has openly complained about the Poa annua greens at Pebble in the past, most notably during the 2010 U.S. Open when he called them 'awful,' much to the chagrin of the USGA's executive director David Fay. And during this time of year the Poa can be very bumpy and soft, very tough to read at times, even for top professionals.

He's been putting noticeably better in his last two events; the 18-man Chevron World Challenge he won back in December and the Abu Dhabi HSBC Championship two weeks ago in which he lost the 54-hole lead. A few more putts drop here or there, it could have been 2-2 for Tiger as of late.

Tiger will be in a relaxed atmosphere playing with his buddy Tony Romo all this week, on a course he knows all too well. Pair that with his intense desire to win and you have the fixings for an all out Tiger attack.

That is, of course, if he can manage to sink some putts.

Warriors And Kings Meet Twice This Week - But Are Their Seasons Already Over?

2012-01-31T15:00:20Z

The only team with a worse record in the Western Conference has no owner, unless you count the heavy hand of the trade-vetoing NBA. The Golden State Warriors are 6-12. The Sacramento Kings are 6-14. After facing each other on Tuesday in Oakland, one of the region's two NBA squads will come away with win No. 7, still very much outside the playoff picture. The losing team will sink even further, with their record getting ever-closer to the cellar-dwelling New Orleans Hornets.

Ownership

The Warriors' owners are new. They promised the playoffs and appear poised to break that promise -- which means season ticket prices won't go up next year, if you're looking for a positive. Looking for another? The Warriors are also in the top 10 in tickets sold per game (18,864). Joe Lacob and Co. also negotiated a sweet TV deal with Comcast SportsNet Bay Area that paid them $50 million up front. That should cover the P.A. system at a new arena in San Francisco, the one the Warriors hope to move into sometime in the next 5-10 years.

The Maloof brothers almost moved their team to Anaheim, but they didn't. Sacramento was excited to keep the team around, but it seems like they're on borrowed time. As a result of all the uncertainty and crappy basketball, they aren't drawing: only 14,583 tickets sold per game. Jimmer-mania? Not exactly.

Identity

The Warriors might be the softest team in the league. They don't get to the free throw line at all -- especially Andris Biedrins, who's come down with a chronic case of Freethrowphobia. Mark Jackson talks constantly about a new commitment to defense, but the Warriors have no interior scorers and a group of perimeter players who avoid contact like elementary kids avoid cooked carrots. It's almost as if the Warriors look at everything we know about winning basketball (get at least one superstar, focus on toughness, don't live and die via three-pointers) and remain hell-bent on doing exactly the opposite.

The Kings may be the league's most selfish team. I played around with the idea of their mismatched roster leading to one hell of a (premium cable) reality show before the season. In reality, the team has no offensive flow whatsoever. Sacramento has the fewest assists per game of any team in the league, and not coincidentally they also have the NBA's worst shooting percentage (.399, which is phenomenally bad).

Looking in the Mirror

Neither team has done much of anything in recent years, which makes it all the more astounding that they've shared so many head coaches.

Rick Adelman didn't win all that often over two seasons for Golden State in the mid-90s, but the Kings made the postseason in all eight of Adelman's seasons in Sacramento. However, since Sacramento let Adelman go after the 2005-06 season and hired former Warriors coach Eric Musselman, the Kings have been a lost franchise in more ways than one. Now they have Keith Smart at the helm, a year after leading the Warriors to 10 more wins in 2010-11 than they enjoyed the season before.

Besides coaches, the teams share a common irrelevance. Both teams have loyal fans, but as far as NBA regions go, Northern California means little more than Seattle these days on a national scale. That's what happens when you miss the playoffs for years on end. One could blame the lockout for the NBA starting out somewhat of slow in terms of fan engagement throughout Northern California (although the Warriors are still drawing, almost despite themselves). However, if either team won more games than they lost, most local fans would probably be overly excited at this point.

Neither team is making the playoffs in 2012. Between the Warriors and the Lakers (the No. 8 seed) are the Spurs (12-9 with an interior presence neither NorCal team can match), Grizzlies (10-9 this year after an impressive and surprising playoff run the year before), Timberwolves (don't let their 9-11 record fool you, they're the most exciting non-elite team in the NBA right now and they're on the way up) and Suns (7-12 and lost in many of the same ways the Kings and Warriors are).

That's too many teams to leapfrog, and they'd still need the Lakers, Blazers or Rockets to falter as well. Good luck with that.

The Warriors' owners have promises and money. The Kings' owners have wandering eyes and lots of cool Vegas stories. In a fight between two local also-rans, the only thing Warriors and Kings fans can take solace in is the fact that, unlike the Hornets, at least their teams have owners.

Check out BASG's writing on Bay Area Sports Guy. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

Warriors Vs. Kings: Who's Got It Better? A Non-Scientific Comparison

2012-01-31T13:30:13Z

With a combined 12-26 record thus far in the season, one thing is clear for the Golden State Warriors and Sacramento Kings. The battle bragging rights in the Bay is more like a battle for lotto balls next spring at this rate.

Myself and fellow contributor Avinash Kunnath took a little time for a light-hearted breakdown of both the Kings and Warriors this season to finally decide once and for all what team is better at being worse. I'll be providing the W's commentary, while Avi the Kings:

Jackson Vs. Smart:

ME: Mark Jackson: He's learning on the fly with limited time and talent, but speaks of his team as if they're the Miami Heat. "Mama there goes...another loss."

AVI: Keith Smart: Took a guy who wasn't good enough to coach the Dubs, made him coach after a few painful losses. Proceeded to be almost just as inept. This team is a bit diseased this year.

Winner: Push

Curry Vs. Evans:

Stephen Curry: Son of Dell, Brother of Seth. A truly superb talent with Toothpick ankles.

Tyreke Evans: Evans is really good at holding the ball. Sometimes he passes. Sometimes he drives into traffic and tries to finish in traffic. Most of the time he dribbles, dribbles, dribbles, dribbles, pulls-up, clanks.

Winner: Curry

Ellis Vs. Thornton:

Monta Ellis: Arguably the W's best player, and likely the first one shipped out of town. Loves to hold the ball until 0.4 seconds to chuck the buzzer beater. And how could I forget the Brett Favreian off-court discrepancies?

Marcus Thornton: Like Evans, without the passing and the driving, plus more turnovers.

Winner: Ellis

Wright Vs. Salmons:

Dorell Wright: "Hey man, you can have three's or you can have D. You can't have both."

John Salmons: ALL I DO IS MISS.

Winner: Push

Lee Vs. Thompson:

David Lee: The quietest double-double machine in the NBA, almost whisper quiet. That is when he's not bitching about fouls that weren't called, of course.

Jason Thompson: Can shoot. But can't rebound. Exactly what you want from your PF.

Winner: Lee

Biedrins Vs. Cousins:

Andris Beidrins: Hates contact, especially with the basketball. Has an incessant case of the Monday's. The only constant? Hair gel.

DeMarcus Cousins: Probably the best thing about this team. And he got suspended by the team on a bizarre public release and shoots under 45% from the field.

Winner: Cousins

W's Bench Vs. Kings Bench:

Warriors Bench: A mix between The Island of Misfit Toys (Brandon Rush, Nate Robinson, Kwame Brown, Dominic McGuire) and Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead (Klay Thompson, Charles Jenkins, Jeremy Tyler). Wait, Earl Barron is on the team? Oh, and Ekpe Udoh.

Kings Bench: Jimmer! Can shoot. And miss. Like everyone else in this team. J.J. Hickson crashes the boards. Then misses the putbacks. Donte Greene! Misses threes all the time. Isaiah Thomas! Interesting because he's short, but shoots just as badly as the rest of them. Francisco Garcia! Makes me sad. Travis Outlaw. Why is he on this team.

Winner: Push

Overall Tally: Warriors 3, Kings 1.

Warriors Win!

It isn't much of a win, but a win all the same. Now let's see how it plays out on the hardwood.

For more on the Kings, head over to Sactown Royalty. For more on the Warriors, check out Golden State of Mind.

Oakland Raiders Hire Head Coach, but Why Dennis Allen?

2012-01-25T18:12:51Z

The Oakland Raiders have a new coach, Allen Dennis. Or wait, I think it is Dennis Allen. Yeah, that sounds more like it. Easy mistake though right? A guy no one has ever heard of with two first names? How was I supposed to remember which was actually his last name?

I was obviously kidding with that first paragraph. Just my attempt to make light of the fact that the Raiders new general manager, Reggie McKenzie, has hired a guy no one has heard of to be the next Raiders head coach. Unfortunately, that is the part of the story that is getting the most play. The "who is Dennis Allen?" game will be in full force over the next few days as football commentators look for anything to talk about to avoid two straight weeks of Eli Manning vs. Tom Brady talk. Lord knows the pro bowl isn't going to fill that void.

That, however, is the wrong question to be asking. I care less about who Dennis Allen is and more about why Dennis Allen was hired. The tendency of pundits is to focus on the work history of a new coaching hire. This makes sense, a job history tells a lot about a candidate. It does not, however, come anywhere near telling the whole story. In this case, Allen's coaching career is, well, lackluster. His highest coaching position was defensive coordinator, a post he held for one season before being hired as Raiders head coach. Therefore, I have to think that McKenzie was impressed by something intangible, something that cannot be seen on a resume.

I have not had any personal conversations with Reggie McKenzie (shocking right?), so I really do not know for sure why he chose Allen as the next Raiders head coach. I do, however, have my theories based on reading articles and listening to interviews.

Discipline

One of the qualities that I have consistently heard attached to Allen's name is discipline. Former NFL scout Dave Razzano was on 95.7 The Game this morning to discuss the hiring of Dennis Allen. When asked about it, Razzano commented that he believed one of the reasons the Bronco's defense improved so much the past year was because of the discipline instilled in them by Allen. Rozzano went on to say that he believed this discipline would be a big difference maker in Oakland for two reasons. First of all, the Raiders defense is talented, but undisciplined. One of the major faults on the Raiders defense was the tendency to give up big plays, often due to undisciplined play in the front seven. Secondly, Rozzano hypothesized that McKenzie believes Allen could be the man to finally bring the penalty woes in Oakland to an end.

Stability

ESPN blogger Bill Williamson made an excellent point in his post about the hiring of Allen. In it, Williamson notes that the Raiders are a team that has been plagued with controversy. Each of the past three head coaches, Lane Kiffin, Tom Cable and Hue Jackson, have all brought un-necessary drama and controversy to the team that took the focus away from football. Another quality that is consistently tied to Dennis Allen is hard work and stability. It is highly likely that McKenzie believes that he has found in Allen, a guy who can handle the pressure of being an NFL head coach without allowing that pressure to lead to some of bad decisions recent Raiders coaches have made.

Belief

You hear this all of the time in reference to coaches. It is one of the biggest compliments you can pay an NFL head coach. "He got his players to buy in" or "He got his players to believe in what he was trying to accomplish". I think that Erick Davis, former Super Bowl winning safety for the San Francisco 49ers and current host on 95.7 The Game, said it best when he said that players do not need to like their coach. They do not even need to respect their coach. They only need to believe that their coach will make them better. In Allen, McKenzie has found a guy that players seem to believe in. Just look at the reaction from the Broncos' defensive players when they found out about Allen's departure:

Champ Bailey: "He knew how to get us ready. I give him a lot of credit for the success we had this year. He’s one of the most intense coaches I’ve had. I know what type of team he’s going to have (with the Raiders). Very intense, hard-nosed, tough. That’s the way he is. That’s what I expect his team to be."

Von Miller: "They are getting a guy who is going to come in right away and get it done. That’s what he did for us. He came in, he laid out a plan for us, he told us, ‘This is how we’re going to do it, and this will work,’ and that’s what happened. We improved our defense an incredible amount. It was a night and day team from a year before. I think he’ll do the same thing with the Oakland Raiders."

Andre Goodman: "(Allen’s) thing is discipline, discipline, discipline. Do everything right, all the time, and never let up."

It is important to remember that being a head coach is about much more than just the x's and o's. Being a head coach is like being a CEO. The qualities necessary to be a good head coach are not only related to football smarts. The intangible qualities that Dennis Allen bring to the table likely played a major role in McKenzie's decision to hire what will be the youngest head coach in the NFL (Youngest head coach in the NFL a Raider? Sound familiar? I'm just saying...)

2012 NFL Playoffs: 10 Years Later, Tuck Rule Game Still Looms Large

2012-01-25T17:42:39Z

The New England Patriots are back in the Super Bowl. Again. If they defeat the New York Giants it won't just bring sweet revenge for the Giants ruining New England's almost-perfect 2007 season. New England will forever be known as one of the greatest NFL dynasties, with four Super Bowls victories in 11 seasons. Bill Belichick would become the second head coach with four rings; Tom Brady would join Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana as the only quarterbacks to lead their teams to four Super Bowl wins.

Whether or not the Patriots succeed in these achieving these milestones, the Patriots' saga could have unraveled in far less dynastic fashion if a certain incomplete pass was called a fumble.

On Jan. 19, 2002, in the closing minutes of an AFC Divisional Round game that was played in near whiteout conditions, Oakland Raiders cornerback Charles Woodson hit Brady from behind. Brady let go of the ball, and Greg Biekert recovered the fumble. Cut and dry ... until Walt Coleman announced after review that, since the quarterback's arm was moving forward, it was an incomplete pass. In reality, Coleman's ruling was later clarified: the "Tuck Rule," a piece of NFL legislation that went into effect in 1999:

NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.

The Patriots kept the ball, and a short time later Adam Vinatieri tied the game on a 45-yard field goal. Another short Vinatieri field goal in overtime later and New England's playoff theft was complete.

The "Tuck Rule Game" wasn't the first time a team felt like the game was taken away from them by the officials. But it may be the one game and decision that's stuck longest with the team and fans who were negatively affected.

The wound's still open. Say the words "tuck" and "rule" to a Raiders fan and the same complaints and anger bubble up like chronic acid reflux. It's tough to blame them, since even some Patriots fans admit that the Raiders got screwed. Is this fixation with a 10-year-old call healthy? No, but health and football often travel separate paths.

Is "Forward Progress" the new "Tuck Rule"?

San Francisco 49ers head coach Jim Harbaugh joined the Raiders as their quarterbacks coach the very next season, 2002, joining a team that was on its way to better things (earning a trip to the Super Bowl against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Jon Gruden, Oakland's head coach the year before). Harbaugh also joined a franchise still steaming over the "Tuck Rule." The fact that the Patriots went on to win their first Super Bowl against the St. Louis Rams a few weeks after that Divisional Round game made the pain even worse. Many would argue that the Raiders have never fully recovered.

Fast forward 10 years. Both Harbaugh coaching brothers suffer deflating Championship Game losses. John's Ravens lost to the Patriots after Billy Cundiff missed a potential game-tying field goal ... after Lee Evans had a potential game-winning touchdown catch knocked away. It was a borderline play, but deemed not worthy of review.

Jim Harbaugh's opportunistic 49ers thought they finally got their first takeaway on Sunday evening when NaVorro Bowman separated Ahmad Bradshaw from the football deep in Giants territory. However, the play was whistled dead. Forward progress had been maximized, ruled Ed Hochuli.

On Monday, Harbaugh brought up the dirtiest 2-word phrase in Raiders history to explain the Niners' view of that play.

-Q: What do you think about the Bradshaw play and the forward-progress call?

-HARBAUGH: In my opinion, that was a fumble. And I’m sure the league will defend it and the officials will defend it. But to me the play was continuing.

There was still struggling going on by Bradshaw. So feel like that was a fumble.

We had a game against the Giants, the first time we played them, and Donte Whitner stripped the ball, where the hit’s made at the 6, and then he rips the ball out at the 9 going backwards, yeah, didn’t like that it wasn’t a fumble, but felt like that was forward progress, etc.

This one, I did not agree with. Felt like it was a fumble. Felt like it was… this is like analogous with the Tuck Rule.

If we didn't know it already, Monday's press conference marked was the day "Tuck Rule" officially became the brand name describing any team feels like a vital game was taken away via questionable means -- not just the Raiders. Many Raiders fans probably cringed at the thought of their misery repackaged for use by the 49ers, but it begs the question: would be better for everyone involved if another team can share their rulebook-related pain?

Perhaps, but if the Giants win Super Bowl XLVI, and Harbaugh tries to keep harping on the Bradshaw call and 49ers fans create a "Forward Progress Game" wiki page in the style of this one, that will not be tolerated. As much as the Raiders and their fans hate the "Tuck Rule" and all it stands for, it's their cross to bear. No one else's.

Check out BASG's writing on Bay Area Sports Guy. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

Tim Lincecum Contract: Without Long-Term Deal, San Francisco Giants Could Soon Be Without 'The Freak'

2012-01-25T13:30:11Z

If you've ever watched Tim Lincecum play baseball, then you know he is a bird of a different color. One person who most certainly knows this is Rick Thurman, Timmy's agent, who is already setting his client up for possibly the biggest payday ever received by a pitcher. But as a San Francisco Giants fan, that likely isn't good new for you.

With his new two-year, $40 million contract, Lincecum is likely setting himself up for a grandiose exit from the Bay to whomever the highest bidder may be; and that almost certainly won't be the Black and Orange.

Two years from now when Lincecum becomes a free agent he will be set up for a uber, mega-contract; possibly even the first pitcher to reach the $200 million range likely too rich for the Giants blood as of now.

Per CBS Sports' Jon Heyman:

Lincecum is the gambler. He's the swashbuckler...He seems to want to bet on himself, and if he puts together two more typical years, he may cash in big. Some could even see him as the game's first $200-million pitcher.

Assuming that he continues on his current level of brilliance wouldn't be considered stupid, but avoiding serious injury is far fro a given. But, given his status as the 'Freak,' I'd like to that's rather unlikely (knock on wood).

It's almost always a baseball no-no to give a pitcher a long term deal (insert Barry Zito jab here), so I'm more than fine with the two years Timmy has now. He's paid like the elite player he is, didn't completely break the team's bank and the Giants have time to decide what his worth will be once he hits the market after 2013. If he wants to get paid, he'll have to keep performing at a high level the next two seasons, meaning fans will have two exciting years of watching Tim blow away batters. After that, it's all a mystery.

Many fans will assuredly been watching the countdown clock on Timmy's contract, which runs up to day he can become a free agent, fearing the strike of midnight that could leave him wearing pinstripes of even (heaven forbid) a Dodgers cap. But we shouldn't pout over the current state of Timmy's status, for he remains with the Giants for two more seasons at least.

Here's Grant Brisbee over at McCovey Chronicles to give us all some perspective:

Pretend that Lincecum was already a super-free-agent. He's on the market already, courting, dining, and negotiating. There are rumors. There are rumors of the rumors. There is that guy that knows a guy who didn't want to tweet this but here goes. The Yankees are in. The rumor du jour is six years, $155 million. Can the Giants top it? Will they? Someone with knowledge of the organization's thinking about a source close to Lincecum says that the Giants are willing to come over the top. Seven years, $180 million. Chaos. Looting. Horrible Barry Zito jokes.

Then after all of that, the announcement is made: Tim Lincecum signs. Two years, $40.5 million. Imagine how giddy you'd be. Imagine how reasonable that would seem, what little risk there would be. It would seem like a coup.

Whether Timmy takes the money and runs is irrelevant now, what's important is that the Giants retained one of the most talented players in baseball, which is really all the fans could ask for right now. Nevertheless, imagining a future without him is more than a bit unnerving.

For more on the Giants, head over to McCovey Chronicles.