The prolific Jeff Brown

Today's post is courtesy of my good friend Jeff Brown, who has been bombarding me with e-mails the last few days about how bad the Cavaliers are. I've meant to respond to each, but before I get a chance, he hits me with another one. So I am forced to post each message, one after another.

From January 9, under the subject line "Didn't quite work out like Cavaliers fans hoped, Steve":

You might recall that on December 2, 2010, LeBron James and his Miami Heat visited Cleveland for his first game in an opposing uniform.

The matchup was highly anticipated, and was an opportunity for the Cavaliers to send a message that they were still a good team even without LeBron.

Well, Steve... it didn't exactly work out that way, did it?

The punchless Cavaliers got shellacked by LeBron and the Heat, who have now won 20 of their last 21 games (20-1).

On the other side of the coin, the Cavs are now the joke of the NBA, supplanting last year's New Jersey Nets as the worst team in the Association.

The Cavaliers have lost 19 of their last 20 games (1-19), and at the rate they're going, they might not even reach 20 wins on the season!

That, my dear Steve, proves one point in flawless fashion: Namely, that the Cavs success was entirely to do with LeBron after all.

Not that everyone didn't know that already on some level.

However, the degree to which that statement is true is exponentially more than even I could have imagined.

With LeBron, they win 61 games and a first seed in the playoffs.

Without LeBron, they slip to a laughingstock team that loses 19 of 20.

Steve, the Cavaliers of 2005-10 were the classic definition of a "one man band" or a "one trick pony."

If it wasn't for David Stern rigging the draft lottery that enabled the Cavs to draft LeBron, Cleveland might not even have an NBA team any more.

Do you agree?

Well, no. First, I don't believe David Stern rigged the draft lottery. Remember that no one had more balls in that lottery than the Cavaliers that year, courtesy of a 17-65 season in 2002-03. Second, I don't think it's likely that the Cavaliers would have moved. Possible? Sure. You never know. Likely? Doubtful. And with a later pick, the Cavs might have gotten Carmelo Anthony, or possibly LeBron's new teammate Dwyane Wade, who might have shown Cleveland more loyalty than LeBron did if he'd happened to land here.

From January 12, under the subject line "Steve's known Jeff a long time":

You've known me a long time (longer than most people I still know), and I imagine you've noticed an occasional tendency toward exaggeration.

So perhaps you thought I was exaggerating a few months ago when I wrote and told you that the Cavaliers were going to be an absolutely atrocious team.

And perhaps you felt I was being a little bit too hard on them lately.

Well now, they've hit rock bottom, and they're trying hard to drill down even further: a 112-57 loss where if the Lakers would have made one more basket, they would have literally doubled the Cavs scoring!

* The Cavs have lost 21 of their last 22 games
* Franchise record-low scoring of 57 points
* starters combined for a measly 23 points against the Lakers
* leading scorer was Alonzo Gee (who the (heck) is that?)
* worst record in the NBA (has any team ever gone from "First to Worst" like this?

They won 61 games last year Steve, and they're on pace to LOSE 65 games this year! (and the way they're going, they'll lose 70!!)

Steve, this team makes the Ted Stepien-owned teams of the early 80s look like champions.

I'm starting to remember Keith Lee, Ben Poquette, John Bagley and the crew with fondness compared to these guys.

How many wins do you predict the Cavs will have this season?

Well, they've already got eight, so I'd say maybe 14 or 15. They'll manage to squeak out a few that we don't expect them to win. Every team does, even a team as bad as this one. Regardless, it's likely that these Cavaliers will threaten the team record for futility. The expansion 1970-71 Cavaliers went 15-67, and the 1981-82 team matched that record.

From January 15, under the subject line "Oops! Antawn Jamison sticks both feet in mouth":

Remember way back on October 27, 2010 when the Cleveland Cavaliers opened the season by defeating the defending Eastern Conference Champion Boston Celtics?

Well the Cavs were proud and confident. Here's what team leader Antawn Jamison said that night:

"This was for the city. It was for the fans to let them know the Cavs will survive and this is a place where you can still watch good basketball. And most of all, you can watch a team that wins."

"Guys in this locker room believe. We've been listening to what people are predicting for us. We're going to let our game do the talking. It's probably going to take a month or so for people to realize, 'Hey, this is a team that can win and compete for the playoffs."

Even owner Dan Gilbert was still under the illusion that the Cavs could do well post-King:

"Not a lot of teams have the quality of Antawn Jamison and Daniel Gibson coming off the bench," he said. "When you think of it in that sense, and having the kind of quality coach we have, anything can happen."

--

Uh, well... Steve, you know what's happened since.

I wonder if Jamison still feels the way he did after their first game, Steve.

The Cavs showed their true colors, which is simply that the were the Cleveland LeBrons and not the Cleveland Cavaliers all those years.

Without LeBron, they would have sucked all those years.

Before LeBron, they sucked (17-65 the season before he arrived, which the King promptly turned into 35, 42, and 50 wins the next three seasons)

After LeBron, they suck (8-31 and losers of 22 of their last 23 games.

That's a lot of sucking, Steve, so Cavs fans ought to be grateful the King spent seven seasons turning a truly (crappy) team into a contender.

Let's face it, Steve -- the reason Cavs fans are so bitter toward James is because they know, deep down inside, that he alone is what gave them hope and enjoyment about pro basketball in Cleveland for seven years.

Him and him alone.

It wasn't the coach. It wasn't the complementary pieces. It wasn't the new arena. It wasn't the free agent acquisitions (remember Larry Hughes?)

It was one thing and one thing only -- LeBron James singlehandedly made basketball relevant in Northeast Ohio.

Now, what's left is the ruins of a departed superstar, the likes of which the Cavaliers will never, ever see again.

I ask Cavs fans to be grateful for what they had.

Do you agree, my good man?

Grateful for what we had? Perhaps that's the healthiest way to look at it, but it's hard to get past the bitterness. And regardless, LeBron didn't deliver what he promised. He literally promised us a championship. And we had reason to expect multiple titles. None of that happened, in part because LeBron turned out to be no Jordan when push came to shove. And of course because he left without finishing the job.

The next one is not Cavaliers-specific, but about the city in general. From Saturday, under the heading "It's official, Steve -- Cleveland 1/2 the city it used to be":

It's official, Steve -- Cleveland, Ohio is now less than half the city it used to be.

The fine city peaked in 1950 with a population of more than 914,000.

Today's estimate is 431,000, a mere 47% of what once was, my good man.

That ranks as the 43rd largest city in these fine United States, whereas at one time it was the sixth-largest.

No wonder the sporting teams in Cleveland haven't won a championship since 1964 -- that's 47 years and counting.

It's difficult to win a championship when you're not only dealing with the oppressive weight of the "Curse of Rocky Colavito," but also the generally grim and dim situation in the city in which you play for.

Adding insult to injury the recent foreclosure crisis hit Cleveland much harder than the typical city, resulting in thousands more vacant homes littering the city and an increase in the homeless population.

What is next for Cleveland, Steve?

Well, I don't know what's next, but this is the obvious result of a dying local economy, fueled by moron politicians who continue to be elected by moron voters. That's the way I see it, and I can't see any change in that trend on the horizon.

Also from Saturday, under the line "First to worst -- one comparison for Cavs":

OK, so I did some research Steve and found out this (which I kind of remember now that I see it again):

The 1995-96 San Antonio Spurs were 59-23

The 1996-96 San Antonio Spurs were 20-62

That's a reduction of 39 wins, Steve. (David Robinson only played 6 games that season)

Here's the problem, Steve -- the Spurs lucked out and got Tim Duncan the next year and were back up to 56 wins in 1997-98 and won the NBA title the year after that in 1998-99.

That ain't gonna happen with the Cavaliers. Even if they get a high draft choice in the lottery, whoever it is won't be enough to drag the Cavs out of the doldrums.

I remember that Spurs team too. Losing Robinson for most of the season was the best thing that ever happened to that franchise, because it allowed them to draft Duncan. The next few years, they had Robinson and Duncan together as twin towers, and since Robinson's retirement, Duncan has carried that team to continued success. Since drafting Duncan, the Spurs have won four titles, two of which were without Robinson. Duncan has to be considered one of the 20 or 30 greatest players of all time. I disagree with Jeff to this extent: If the Cavaliers get somebody who turns out to be as good as Tim Duncan, he will drag them out of the doldrums. He might not carry them to a title, but a player like that can turn a bad team into a playoff team in a hurry.

Finally, from late last night (technically early this morning), under "Actually, Steve's Cavaliers are improving":

Well, since the NBA situation in our hometown is so dim lately, I'm choosing to celebrate some recent improvements with the Cavaliers, Steve:

In the past two games, they have only lost by 22 and 28 points, respectively...

...whereas three games ago, they lost by 55 points!

So they've only lost by 50 points the past two games, which shows rapid and impressive improvements in their game.

Do you agree this is cause for celebration, my good man?

Why the heck not. Break out the champagne.

We're number five! We're number five!

After last night's wildly entertaining national championship (I was rooting for Oregon, but not as much as I was rooting for a good game, so I went to bed happy), the pollsters rated the Ohio State Buckeyes No. 5 in the country, which is exactly where the Fighting Tressels finished last year. Obviously, a national championship is the ultimate goal every year, but finishing fifth out of the 140 FBS teams (73 in the so-called AQ conferences) is nothing to sneeze at.

With 10 seasons under his belt in Columbus, Tressel is now 106-22 at the FBS level, after going 135-57-2 in 15 seasons at Youngstown State. Under his leadership, the Buckeyes have won a national title and reached two other title games, gone 9-1 against Michigan, and gone 6-4 in bowl games -- 5-3 in BCS bowls, in which they've played more times than any other school. After ending the 2001 season 7-5 and unranked with John Cooper's players, Tressel's Buckeyes have ranked the following in the year-end AP poll: First, fourth, 20th, fourth, second, fifth, ninth, fifth, and fifth.

Tressel's OSU program has had its problems. We all remember Maurice Clarett's fall from grace after he led the Buckeyes to the national championship over Miami as a freshman, and of course five of our best players are suspended for the first five games of the 2011 season. But those could only be blamed on Tressel to the extent that he bears ultimate responsibility as head coach. His program has been cleaner than many, if not most.

Judging him purely on his on-field results, a case could be made that Tressel is the most successful head coach in Ohio State history. Woody Hayes was there for 28 years and won more national titles (one outright, two shared), but at 205-61-10, he had a lower career winning percentage at Ohio State (.764, to the sweater vest's .828). If you put a gun to my head and made me pick, I'd still give that honor to Hayes, but Tressel is off to a much better start than Woody was at this point in his Buckeye career. And I frankly wouldn't trade him for any coach in the country.

Thank you, Arkansas Razorbacks

The Buckeyes won an enormously thrilling Sugar Bowl last night. But they didn't win because they outplayed the Arkansas Razorbacks, per se -- they won because the Razorbacks out-mistaked them. (You're right, that's not a word. Sue me.)

It's not that Ohio State didn't make any mistakes, of course. Arkansas just didn't make the Buckeyes pay, or at least not enough. The obvious example is Terrelle Pryor's fumble that wound up leading to OSU's first touchdown. Two Razorbacks had their hands on the ball, but neither could corral it. When Dane Sanzenbacher came up with it in the end zone, five Arkansas players were in the shot. Ironically, had Pryor not fumbled that ball, it wouldn't have been a touchdown.

Of course, there's Boom Herron's fumble on fourth-and-1 from the OSU 38, with the score 31-26 and the Buckeyes quickly losing their grip on the game. The result was just the same as if he'd been tackled behind the line of scrimmage, but regardless, the Razorbacks were not able to turn that into points. And there was Herron getting tackled in the end zone for a safety. The initial hit came in the field of play, but Herron disengaged from that tackler in time to get swallowed up by several others. If he'd just gone down on the first hit, it would not have been a safety. That was a mental error by Herron.

But those mistakes were nothing next to the errors made by Arkansas players. Razorback "receivers" dropped five passes, including one that would have gone for a touchdown and one that looked like it would have set up at least a fourth-and-short on Arkansas's next-to-last possession of the game. And of course, Ryan Mallett made the biggest mistake of the game by throwing the ball right to Buckeye defensive lineman Solomon Thomas on what could be the last pass of his college career. Not to mention the numerous penalties the Razorbacks accumulated throughout the game. Those miscues added up to a loss for Arkansas.

The difference between the two halves was amazing. Ohio State was unstoppable in the first half. Pryor and the offense were simply toying with Arkansas. Everything they did worked. In the second half, nothing worked except Pryor's legs. He busted off a few good runs -- some on designed runs, some on scrambles -- that kept the ball in the Buckeyes' possession long enough to hold off the Razorbacks. But the offense just wasn't moving. That's in contrast to Mallett and the Arkansas offense, who didn't make many long plays, but used solid, time-consuming drives to get back in the game.

As we all know, Pryor, Thomas, Herron, Buster Posey and Mike Adams will all miss the first five games next year. I don't think anyone can deny the Buckeyes would have lost last night without those guys. Their absence will hurt. But at least they can enjoy this win. It probably put them in the top 5 in the season-ending poll. That's not too shabby.

So who's it gonna be?

Eric Mangini is out, as we all knew he would be. I don't know whether he truly got a fair chance here, as he really had limited on-field talent to work with. I heard a caller to Mike Trivisonno's show last night express the opinion that team president Mike Holmgren set Mangini up to fail this year because he wants to get his own guy in there so he can take all the credit for whatever success the team has later. That's ridiculous to me. If he were going to do that, he'd have changed coaches last year.

Regardless, it's done, and it's time to look ahead and see who's out there. There's speculation that Holmgren himself might want to be the coach, and of course he's had a fair amount of success in the NFL in that role. He won a Super Bowl with the Packers and lost two others, one with Green Bay and one with Seattle. But Holmgren says he's not interested in that job at this time, and I don't see any reason to doubt him.

So if it's not Mangini and it's not Holmgren, who is it? The first name that comes to mind is Bill Cowher, who's apparently interested in returning to the sidelines, but not with the Browns, even though he spent seven years here as a player or assistant coach. Fine. He's not the only intelligent coaching candidate out there. There's guys like Jon Gruden, who's had success in the NFL; and Jim Harbaugh, who's had success in college. Other names that have already been mentioned include Giants defensive coordinator Perry Fewell, who went 3-4 as interim head coach of the Bills last year; and Eagles offensive coordinator Marty Mornhinweg, who's done very well as an offensive coordinator but is 5-27 as an NFL head coach.

Of those four guys, I think I'd like Gruden the most, followed in order by Fewell, Mornhinweg and Harbaugh. But Holmgren says he's going to cast a wide net, so we'll see what other names come up. All I know is, I'm getting tired of the coaching carousel around here. Whoever gets hired, I hope he stays a good, long time.