Leave it to the NFL to have one of the greatest playoff games in it's history partially ruined because of wonky rules and awful officiating. Baseball maybe; but not in the NFL, land of a thousand rules and infinite number of reviewable plays. Had this been a Week 17 game between the Rams and Redskins it would have been a little less egregious, but for a PLAYOFF game to end the way it did is completely unacceptable. Obviously my fan boy is showing, but I can't help but feel that this game will forever be stained because of a clear miss (misses?) on an official's part directly led to the end of a game.
Can't blame it all on the referees, in fact they'd be about 11th on my list of reasons the Packers lost, with Dom Capers being reasons 1 through 10. Throughout the game I was having periodic flashbacks to both games against the Vikings watching Green Bay drop 7 in zone coverage and bring 4 on the pass rush. Logic would seem to point to a 4 man rush against a 6 man line will favor the offense 100 out of 100 times. Kurt Warner is not the devil spawn of Michael Vick and Warren Moon so he's not going to burn you with his legs if you can get pressure and collapse the pocket. He can however laugh at you're soft zone coverage while he systematically dissects you if there is no one in his face.
Need proof? Think back to the 49ers game. Anyone think that San Fransisco's front 4 or defensive secondary is anywhere near as talented as the Packers'? No, didn't think so. The difference in why the Niners were so successful as opposed to the dismal Green Bay performance was pressure. San Fransisco brought heat throughout the game and forced Warner to rush throws, throw in to coverage, or simply throw the ball away. Pressure makes Warner turn the ball over, it's a proven fact throughout his career. No pressure on him equals him throwing more TD's than incompletions. But I digress, back to the scrubs wearing the stripes.
Home cooking happens, it's undeniable. Take this article from Yahoo! Sports for example; it's a different sport but the results are there. That's not to say there is some giant conspiracy to keep the Packers from winning the Super Bowl, but to see the number of calls that should have gone against the home team that were either completely overlooked or just wrong, it makes you wonder what is going on down on the field. Of course, there is no good argument without facts and/or substantial evidence. With that in mind I'm going to open up the NFL rule book for you and let you decide if I'm completely off base with my home cooking ideas.
2) Alabama should be #2, or possibly #1, in the country: Ah, the unpopular practice of moving an unbeaten team down in rankings. Always an exercise that brings about an enormous amount of hate and conference favoritism accusations from hateful, conference elitists. Well, too bad, it needs to be done to properly recognize the Crimson Tide's success this season. And just so I'm not going to be accused of playing favorites towards the SEC and hating on the Big 12, I am all for putting 'Bama above both Florida and Texas at this point.
The reason for the change at the top: Why not? Realistically, the top 3 teams in the country are totally interchangeable at this point and an argument could be made for each team to be at the top of the polls. However, I don't know how you like your elite tier football programs, but I like to see them go outside of conference and play somebody of value. So far, Alabama is the only one to fulfill this criteria by taking on top 10 Virginia Tech, and as their season opener no less. Yes, they followed that game up with North Texas and FIU, but that one game against a opponent of worth puts the Tide one game ahead of both the Gators and the 'Horns. A definitive win over Ole Miss this weekend and anything less than a #2 ranking would be grounds for an NCAA investigation into their pollsters.
Just a heads up, I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Alabama got more first place votes (5) in the AP poll this week than Texas (1), so send the hate mail elsewhere.
From 10/14/2009
- Alabama will play Florida for the SEC title and straight up dominate.
7) Finally, justice for the Crimson Tide: Sure, they only moved up to #2 in the polls, but it's progress. Obviously they weren't going to leapfrog Florida after they beat LSU, but at least the voters finally realized that Alabama beating a decent, yet highly overrated, Ole Miss team is far more important than Texas destroying Colorado and their nepotism driven offense. If Texas beat Oklahoma this weekend, more than likely they'll retake the number 2 spot, but they probably shouldn't. That would be their first "good" win of the season, and it's really not all that impressive now that the Sooners have 2 losses.
In reality, the polls will mean absolutely nothing until the SEC title game happens. If Florida and Alabama meet up in that game, it's not really going to matter who is #1 at that point. The winner of that game will be the number 1 team, the loser will drop to around 4th or 5th, and Texas will be number 2, barring a loss at some point. So Longhorns fans, relax about being dropped in the polls. It's really not that big a deal right now, especially with Oklahoma and their conquering hero Sam Bradford coming to town this week.
From 10/19/2009
1) The NCAA hates Nick Saban: I can't think of any other reason for the continued disrespect of this incredible team. Florida is gift wrapped a win thanks to homer calls from incompetent SEC referees (to be discussed later), Texas looks flat and uninspired against a deflated Oklahoma team, USC takes a page out of the Minnesota Vikings playbook and gives up in the fourth quarter, Virginia Tech loses to a team without an passing game, and Miami looks less than impressive against a terrible UCF team. Meanwhile, in Tuscaloosa, the Crimson Tide absolutely dismantle a South Carolina team that is better than most people think, and it is largely glossed over.
Why? You've got me.
Need proof that the BCS is either horribly flawed, or a total joke; Florida has beaten one ranked team and is nearly .040 percentage points ahead of Alabama, a team with 3 ranked wins in 7 games. The only thing keeping me from jumping into the "total joke" camp is the fact that there is no other team within .060 percentage points of either of these teams. Clearly Florida and Alabama are the best two teams in the country, but the problem is they're no longer interchangeable as most people believe. At this point in the season, Alabama is without question the number one team in the nation. Get that "their the champs until someone beats them" argument out of here. This isn't boxing, it's college football. New year, new teams, new number 1. The Tide have better wins and have looked better in their wins, simple as that.
Watching Alabama play, I keep having this thought that they are a Big 10 team trapped in the SEC. Not a bad thing, just a stylistic observation. Looking at the SEC, the top teams usually step on the field with a high octane offense and an athletic defense that can fly around the field an threaten a pick-six on every throw. Alabama is a different kind of monster in the SEC. Yes, they can punish you for making a bad throw, but it's usually the result of their front seven being dominant to a point where the offense has to try and force passes down field. No one will ever accuse the Tide's offense of being explosive, but make no mistake, they have playmakers everywhere and can put up some serious points.
The problem with Top 25 pollsters is that often times they get blown away by statistics and don't really take into consideration how games play out. Alabama beat South Carolina 20-6, and that's about the extent of knowledge a pollster needs when making up their Top 25. Sure, I have absolutely no proof of this, but it's the only logical conclusion I can make when the polls continue to have the Gators at #1. The score of the game was 20-6, but really that game was nowhere near as close as the score indicates. Alabama totally dominated the Gamecocks on both sides of the ball, but apparently that has little or no bearing on their ranking. Florida gets soundly outplayed by a brutal Arkansas team, but holds on to their top spot because "a win is a win".
Final score doesn't mean everything. When voters figure that out, I can stop wasting time complaining about the best team in a conference sitting behind the second best team in the national polls.
2) OK, one more point on Alabama...: Mark Ingram is a freak. The big questions going into this season were if Alabama would be able to replace John Parker Wilson at QB, and if losing Glen Coffee would allow defenses to key in on the new play caller. Well, so far they've answered with a "kinda" and "not at all". Nothing helps a new QB get his bearings than having the option to hand the ball off to a stud running back and piggy-back a passing attack off him. That is exactly what Ingram was brought to Alabama this season. Not only has he opened up the passing game for the Tide by forcing teams to stack the box to stop him, he has the ability to beat an 8 man front and break away if he gets the edge. 245 yards against a Steve Spurrier defense should be a red flag for every team that they need to know where Ingram is at all times. With most of the top Heisman candidates floundering, this sophomore might just sneak up and steal it away if he keeps playing like he has.
Lucky for everyone I started redesigning the site almost immediately after Alabama made the National Title game (after straight up dominating Florida!) so my gloating was kept to a minimum. Texas played great after losing their heart and soul on the first drive, but the Tide showed why I was so high on them all season. Punishing run game led by Heisman winner Mark Ingram, stifling defense at all levels, and they refused to give the Longhorns' backup QB any room to breathe or get comfortable (until the 2nd half). For as bad as Nick Saban tried to conservative the game away, Alabama had their way with Texas whenever they actually had their foot on the gas.
A few words of warning though; the amount of hype Alabama is going to get for a repeat National Championship this off-season is going to challenge this year's Florida Gators for the most insufferable of all time. It's not exactly without merit, it's just going to be completely unbearable.
Apologies for the absence. I've been attempting a redesign for the page and so far DreamWeaver has owned my soul, thus the lack of content. I should be back sometime after the National Championship game, hopefully to gloat and repost all my "Alabama is the best team" posts. In the meantime, please accept the musical mastery of Skratch Bastid.
First off, congratulations to Mark Ingram on his Heisman victory. The award was well earned and despite my personal feeling about who should have won, I can't bring myself to be too upset about him winning. Ingram proved to be an absolute monster for the best team in the country all season (as I said all year) and his speech showed just how important and special taking home the Heisman was to him. However, the voting for this year's award proved that there are some serious problems with both the actual voting process, and how voters fail to acknowledge the actual spirit of the award.
According to the Heisman Trust mission statement, "The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity". It's not the full quote for brevity's sake, but nowhere in the statement is there a mention of the award winning player must play for a top ranked or dominant team. When I fail to find that concept anywhere in mission statement it makes me wonder where that ridiculous concept came from and why voters have that idea in their heads. "Outstanding college football player" means exactly that, outstanding player; not the best player on the best team. A head to head comparison of the two invited running backs shows that Toby Gerhart's numbers absolutely dwarfed Ingram's. Even the inexplicably uninvited C.J. Spiller had more TD's than Ingram. Unfortunately, it's abundantly clear that voters are focused more on a combination of team wins and total stats, as opposed to only individual stats as is stated in the mission statement. What else can explain Tim Tebow being invited over a Spiller, Case Keenum, Kellen Moore, or Jimmy Clausen? Each of these players had better, more consistent seasons as individuals but were punished because of the less than stellar performance of their complimentary parts. (Clausen-porous defense, Keenum-"gimmick" offense, Spiller-everyone else around him was mediocre, Moore-...I dunno, people hate Boise State?) I know why Tebow was invited, and it's another serious problem with the Heisman voting; career achievements considered for a single season award.
Read the mission statement for yourself, here's the link. I defy you to find a line anywhere in the statement that says that a player's career accomplishments are to be factored in when voting for the present season's Heisman Trophy. Don't strain yourself looking too hard for that part, because it's not there. It's unquestionably a factor in voters' minds, but that doesn't make it right. Tim Tebow was a complete ghost in several games this season, but because of a few stat padding games early and his image as the Second Coming, he got a ticket to New York. Concussion or not, Tebow's stats took a serious nosedive from previous seasons. Add in the fact that he wasn't even the most outstanding "player" on his team (the defense was the best "player") and you've got a head-scratcher. Obviously the voters realized as much since Tebow only received 390 total votes (43 1st place votes is a complete joke though). It would also explain why Ndamukong Suh finished over 300 votes behind Colt McCoy, even after Suh made the Texas QB his personal tackling dummy in the last game of the season. I'm not hating on McCoy by any means; in fact, he was my preseason pick to win the Heisman. What I am saying is that Suh made McCoy and Texas look as bad as every other team he has faced this season, while Colt only showed up in 1 of 3 big games this season (non-existent against Oklahoma and Nebraska). But how can Ndamukong Suh ragdoll McCoy and still end up significantly behind him in the voting? Easy, it's because he plays defense.
I probably should have said just to leave the Heisman website open, because I'm going to reference it again. We've reached a point where this award is given to either the best quarterback or running back in college football without fail. That's it, no exceptions. Despite being an absolute defensive freak, capable of shutting down even one of the best offensive players and his team, (you know, that McCoy guy that finished ahead of him in the voting) Ndamukong Suh had no chance to win the Heisman. Yes, he was invited to the ceremony in New York, but we all know his presence there was simply posturing by the Heisman trust to keep the state of Nebraska from seceding from the U.S. Heaven forbid a player who can keep a Heisman favorite from doing anything by shedding double teams and tossing him around have a equal chance to win as an offensive player who is surrounded by other superstars to pad his stats. Whoever said "defense wins championships" clearly doesn't vote for the Heisman Trophy.
Huh, guess I was wrong in saying I couldn't get too upset by Ingram winning.
(Somehow, this 4 minutes makes me feel slightly better about losing 15 minutes of my life watching this fight live)
Is it the new year yet, because my prediction percentage has been in a tailspin as the end of the year gets closer and closer. Thanks to Houston "KalibStarnes" Alexander and legitimate disqualification of Jon Jones because of a ridiculous rule, I suffered yet another losing card (4-6, 2-3 main card).
Where I was right
- Hey, I may be riding a failboat like I'm trying to qualify for the America's Cup, but when I nail a fight prediction, I absolutely nail it. Roy Nelson is quickly becoming one of my favorite fighters, not only because he has some serious game that no one seems to want to acknowledge because of his appearance, but also because I know how much it upsets Dana White that he has a UFC contract now. It wasn't exactly how I thought it would happen but "Big Country" planted Brendan Schaub with a right hand late in the 1st round. While Rogan and Goldberg were jumping out of their skin to praise "The Hybrid" (hmmm, I wonder if he got the nickname because he has a minotaur painting in his house like A-Rod) for scoring with jabs and a few sloppy hooks against the cage, Nelson was able to overcome Schaub's scramble out of his early takedown and land a perfect shot behind the ear to end the night. Sure, I called a TKO, but I'm giving myself the benefit of the doubt because I added the trademark belly rub. If only I could have been somewhere near Dana White when he saw that display on top of the cage. No doubt some obscenities were flying when that happened.
- Despite looking like they were in two different weight classes, Frankie Edgar pretty much dominated Matt Veach until he secured a rear naked choke in the second round. Veach earned a few style points with some flashy slams, but he was unable to keep Edgar down once the fight hit the floor. When the fight was on the feet it was very clear Veach wanted absolutely nothing to do with his adversary's striking. I would have been interested in seeing the judges' scorecards for round 1 because while the slams were very impressive, Edgar picked apart on the feet to a point where I think there was no way you could make a case for Veach winning the round. The second round left no doubts who the superior fighter was as Edgar worked his stand up early, scored a takedown against the cage, quickly moved to mount, and finished when Veach rolled and gave up his neck. For a man who needed an impressive victory to get his name in the conversation for a lightweight title shot, Edgar did exactly what had to make a case. 1 or 2 more wins against good opponents and "The Answer" should be given a chance at the title.
- Mark Bocek won, but that's not surprising considering he was a monster favorite to win. What was surprising (apparently, because I haven't seen the fight) though was John Howard's final seconds hail-Mary knockout of Dennis Hallman. After losing the first 2 rounds (according to most Internet play-by-play sites), "Doomsday" labeled a gassed out Hallman on the feet and followed up on the floor to earn the win.
Where I was wrong
- If I would have said before this event that Kimbo-Houston Alexander would be the worst fight on the card, I might have slapped myself for being stupid. However, that's exactly what this fight was. Houston Alexander spent the 1st round circling the cage and landing leg kicks on Kimbo, that's it. In the second he was slammed to canvas, had his back taken, and was nearly choked out. In all seriousness, if that had been anyone other than Kimbo Slice attempting that rear naked choke, the fight was over. I've literally rolled less than 10 times in my life and even I know how to properly apply that choke. However, just knowledge of how to apply the choke isn't enough; you have to be able to feel when it is available. Clearly, Kimbo is not at that point yet. The third round of the fight was just tragic as both fighters, visibly gassed, struggled to gather the energy to even attempt a meaningful strike. Funny thing is, as bad as Houston looked with his running around and leg kick heavy gameplan, I still scored the fight for him! Sorry Kimbo, the onus isn't just on the other fighter to bring the fight. Seeing as Houston was circling exclusively to his right in the 1st round, if he would have stepped to his left to cut the ring off and threw a left hook, the fight probably would have been over quickly.
Honestly, I saw no way Kimbo could have won that fight, especially not 30-27 like one judge had it. Even if you scored the second round 10-8 (which is completely ridiculous because it wasn't 5 minutes of domination) the fight should have been scored a 28-28 draw. Kimbo did literally nothing in the first round while Alexander landed meaningful strikes (yes, leg kicks are meaningful strikes Cecil Peoples). 10-9 Alexander. No need to analyze the second because it was clearly Kimbo's, just not to a 10-8 level. The third was close but Kimbo got dropped with a leg kick and got the worst of every pathetic exchange from that point forward. 10-9 Alexander. Much to my own detriment (because I look stupid when I make claims to my friends that there is no way Kimbo wins before and after the fight) I have way too much faith in judges to score fights properly. I can't get too fired up about this blown decision because both fighters looked absolutely terrible and will have no tangible effect on either the heavyweight or light-heavyweight divisions. Even though it's very clear that Kimbo will be can-fed in the immediate future, he will never come close to being a contender, or even a decent gatekeeper. Yeah he tossed Houston around, but he is also a weight class below Kimbo. He has absolutely no chance to do that to a Cain Velasquez, Junior Dos Santos, Brock Lesnar (unless he really has lost 50 pounds, and even then it doesn't happen), or pretty much any other fighter that isn't a complete jobber. What's disturbing is we're not too far away from having Kimbo on the main card of a PPV event. Think about that, paying to watch Kimbo Slice while the likes of Joe Lauzon, Martin Kampmann, Sean Sherk are placed on the undercard. *Shudders at the thought*
- Matt Hamill "earned" a "win" over Jon Jones because of a disqualification due to illegal 12 to 6 elbows thrown from the mount. The words earned and win are in quotes because Hamill won the fight despite getting completely mauled and having his face torn off the entire fight. Anyone who watched that fight knows who won, and it wasn't even close. Jon Jones lost that fight like FedorEmelianenko lost his first fight with TsuyoshiKosaka, he lost by a complete fluke. Yes, the 12 to 6 elbows are an illegal blow, but the rule is beyond stupid. Not exaggerating one bit, if he would have slightly arched the strikes so that they weren't directly ceiling to floor, the elbows would have been legal. Apparently a 1 degree off vertical elbow is infinitely less devastating than a 12-6 elbow. Jones is appealing the decision with the NSAC but there is little to no chance the DQ gets overturned to a no contest. If ever there was a moral victory in the sport of MMA, Jon Jones earned one against Matt Hamill. This guy is legit and at 22, he's only going to improve.
- Matt Mitrione knocked out Marcus Jones early in the second round. The term "glass jaw" gets used far too frequently when discussing MMA, but in Jones' case, he has a glass jaw. Mitrione was clearly gassed and he was able to turn out the lights with what basically amounted to a back peddling jab. It never ceases to amaze me how fighters can completely forget what they're best at, do the exact opposite of whatever that skill might be, and lose because of that decision (Jorge Gurgel immediately springs to mind).
- I still suck at picking undercard fights. In other news, the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
Breakdown: After a long and brutal season (on the eyes of the viewers mostly), it's down to two fighters to decide who will win the Ultimate Fighter contract. The former heavyweight champion of the IFL (no, not Ben Rothwell, Rogan and Goldberg) takes on former NFL player and current member of Greg Jackson's camp, Brendan Schaub. If you go just by the performances on the show, this match up would appear to be extremely close. However, a closer inspection of both fighters widens the gap, and significantly. While Schaub had to press somewhat hard to make the finals, Nelson appeared to try and coast to finals in the most Dana White infuriating way possible. Kick and scream as much as you want about how Nelson wasn't impressive Mr. White, but there's a reason he may not have blown you away; he didn't try to. Nelson was so much better than every other member of the cast this season, that he was able to make it through his fights taking minimal damage while still flexing a serious ground game. Make no mistake, Nelson has a stand up game; just ask Brad Imes. But what provides a better opportunity to make through 3 fights in 8 weeks: standing and banging with your opponent, or use your superior ground game to make people look helpless when getting put in a crucifix and TKO'd? If Marcus Jones and his fledgling ground game was able to score a takedown and work his way to mount on Schaub, Nelson will more than likely hustle him on the ground even worse.
Pick: If the analysis was completely one sided, it's because it was, just like how I see this match playing out. Schaub has some things going for him (decent hands, good cardio)and could be dangerous in time. But pardon me for not having much faith in a guy who waxed a few scrubs in regional promotions and on TUF against a guy who has faced some of the best heavyweights on the planet. Don't let Nelson's appearance fool you, the man has some serious game, and he will prove it on Saturday. "Big Country" will win, the only debatable part is how he wins. Just out of desire to see the look on Dana White's face, I'll go the route of he locks up the crucifix and pounds Schaub out early. Roy Nelson by TKO and belly rub - Round 1 Matt Hamill (+250) vs. Jon Jones (-325)
Breakdown: Light-heavyweights take the stage when another former TUF contestant, Matt Hamill, takes on rising, 21 year old prospect training out of Cortland, New York. Hamill is coming off back-to-back stoppage victories including a vicious head kick knockout of Mark Munoz at UFC 96, while "Bones" Jones is undefeated at 9-and-0. Despite being only 21, Jon Jones brings some of the most unusual and electrifying striking to table, along with his impressive Greco-Roman wrestling background. What will likely be the deciding factor in this fight will be Hamill's ability to get inside, clinch up, and attempt to get Jones to the ground. "The Hammer" earned some stoppages with strikes, but his stand up is still very elementary. Plus, his bread and butter is working top control using his wrestling base. Not that Hamill is a complete bum in the stand up, he's just completely over matched by a bigger, longer, and more talented striker. When I say Jones is a big LHW, I mean he's a BIG LHW, standing a lanky 6'4. Against Stephan Bonnar, who is big LHW in his own right, he looked small against "Bones". Oh, and he got completely ragdolled with suplexes and spinning elbows for 15 minutes in a lopsided decision. If Jones can use his length, speed, bizarre strikes, and wrestling in reverse, he could make this one look like sparring practice.
Pick: Don't let the line on this one fool you, it's a lot closer than the 3 to 1 odds suggest. We've only seen one fighter in the UFC shoot a takedown on Jon Jones, and he dove right in to a fight ending guillotine choke. Hamill's a strong guy and I expect him to plant Jones on his back a couple times over the course of the fight. The interesting thing will be if Jones' cardio holds up and if he can do enough damage on the feet to still win rounds despite being taken down. If Hamill can get inside, this fight has a chance to be close. If not, it will be a "Bones" Jones blowout. Look for something in the middle of those two scenarios, with Jones improving to 10-and-0. Jon Jones by unanimous decision
Frankie Edgar (-650) vs. Matt Veach (+450)
Breakdown: A late replacement for the injured Kurt Pellegrino, Veach takes on the man charge with providing New Jersey with something to be proud of after MTV's "Jersey Shore" set the entire state back 5-10 years. Veach is 11-and-0, but he probably in over his head against "The Answer" in this fight. Edgar has amassed 5 wins in the UFC, including victories over top lightweights Tyson Griffin, Sean Sherk, Hermes Franca, and Spencer Fisher. His only loss came at the hands of the unbeaten Gray Maynard, who is widely considered to be the next challenger for the lightweight title after Diego Sanchez. As we saw in the Sherk fight, Edgar's striking has become very polished, which compliments his wrestling ability nicely. Veach has stopped 10 of his 11 fights (4 (T)KO, 6 subs), but it's hard to imagine him being able to stop "The Answer" where Franca, Griffin, and others have failed.
Pick: Considering how close Frankie Edgar is to a title shot, or at least should be, don't expect a letdown from the Jersey native. "The Answer" will use his superior striking to keep Veach at a distance and stave off the takedown attempts. Don't look for Veach to take his first loss without putting up a fight, but when the final horn sounds, he will have a crooked number in his loss column. Frankie Edgar by unanimous decision
Houston Alexander (-340) vs. Kimbo Slice (+260)
Breakdown: You've got to give it to the UFC front office, when they know they have something that can make them money, they know how to milk it to it's fullest. Such is the case of the man who was knocked out with a backpedaling jab by Seth Petruzelli and crucified on TUF by Roy Nelson, the YouTube sensation Kimbo Slice. So, Kimbo gets schooled on the mat on TUF, how can they possibly get any use out of a guy who is a fish out of water when his opponent won't stand in front of him and brawl. I know, let's stick him against a guy with an equal non-existent ground game who will stand in front of him and brawl. What's Houston Alexander doing?
There's not many certainties in life, but one thing is for certain in this fight; it's not going to the ground unless one fighter is in a lessened state of consciousness. Kimbo sucks on the ground, and so does Houston. Kimbo has serviceable stand up (it's not good from a technical standpoint) and Houston actually has good muay thai skills, until he gasses out of course. What separates these two, besides the presence of quality MMA wins, is punching power. For some reason, because Kimbo brutalized some people in backyards and boat yards, made Bo CANtrell (see what I did there) tap to strikes, KO'd 40+ brawler Tank Abbott, and got a BS standing KO of James Thompson, he has dynamite in his gloves. Sorry folks, I'm going to play Mythbuster on this one. If it takes a godawful referee stoppage for you to "KO" James Thompson, you either A) have overrated power, B) lack the technique to throw a proper power shot, or both. The correct answer is "both". Kimbo does not use his legs or hips when he throws punches; his punches are almost exclusively arm punches. Unless you have explosive power, which Kimbo really doesn't, arm punches aren't going to cut it against strikers who have proper technique and possess real power (Alexander).
Pick: I love a good freak show, and this one will be good while it lasts. Houston's chin isn't exactly granite, so if he gets sloppy, he may get clipped and put to sleep. However, considering the leg issues that Kimbo was shown to have on TUF and Houston's affinity for throwing leg kicks (Sherman Pedergarst - TKO (leg kicks and punches)), K-Ferg might be in for a short night. A few good leg kicks cause Kimbo to drop his hands just long enough for "The Assassin" to land the kill shot very early. Hey, you can't say the UFC didn't try to find Kimbo a good match up. Houston Alexander by KO - Round 1 Marcus Jones (-340) vs. Matt Mitrione (+260)
Breakdown: Here's what I see:
Marcus Jones subbed a UFC veteran and KO'd a unbeaten prospect on TUF. Matt Mitrione gassed in 2 minutes against a UFC vet and won the trainwreck fight before diving into a guillotine against a 3-4 fighter with no ground game.
Who do you think wins?
Pick: If Marcus keeps his chin tucked for 2-3 minutes in the first round, I'd say he's safe in this one. "Big Baby" scores a takedown then proceeds to hustle Mitrione until he snatches up whichever arm is available. Marcus Jones by submission (armbar) - Round 1
Undercard Bouts
Justin Wren vs. Jon Madsen - Justin Wren by unanimous decision Darrill Schoonover vs. James McSweeney - Darrill Schoonover by submission (RNC) - Round 2 John Howard vs. Dennis Hallman - John Howard by TKO - Round 3 Brian Stann vs. Rodney Wallace - Rodney Wallace by superior nickname (Sho Nuff the Master) and TKO - Round 2 Mark Bocek vs. Joe Brammer - Mark Bocek by unanimous decision
