John Wall is the Worst Shooter in the NBA

32.9%. That's John Wall's shooting percentage this season. He also hasn't taken a single 3-point attempt this season and is shooting an incredibly average 70.5% of his free throws. John Wall was also the #1 overall pick of the 2010 NBA Draft, which makes those numbers very worrisome for the Washington Wizards.


Actually, the entire 2010 NBA Draft is really worrisome. Five players from the University of Kentucky were drafted in the 1st Round and none of them have lived up their potential yet. Wall, as stated before, is the worst shooter in the NBA. DeMarcus Cousins has become known as the biggest diva in Sacramento. Patrick Patterson was assigned to the D-League in his first season. Eric Bledsoe has found a role as a backup guard, but will probably never mature beyond that with Chris Paul as the new PG of the Clippers. Daniel Orton was also sent to the D-League in his first season, not recording his first NBA points until a preseason game against the Miami Heat in December 2011.


In draft order, the first person selected in the 2010 Draft who has lived up to expectations is Gordon Hayward, the #9 overall pick. After that pick there's a whole lot of nothing, marked by small bright spots like Greivis Vasquez, Landry Jones, and Devin Ebanks.


So what are the Wizards to do? Owner Ted Leonsis claims that he wants to clean house, keeping only Wall and the guards, rebuilding the team around Wall while removing people who contributed to the thug culture created by Gilbert Arenas and Andray Blatche.


Maybe the NBA will give every team a mulligan in a future draft because of how little talent there was in the 2009 and 2010 Drafts.

MORE Drama in Sac Town

Well, Demarcus Cousins will not be traded by the Sacramento Kings. Instead, they fired head coach Paul Westphal and replaced him with assistant coach Keith Smart, previously the head coach of the Golden State Warriors.


Wait, what?


Yes, apparently the sophomore Cousins has enough pull within the Kings organization to get PAUL WESTPHAL fired. This move made absolutely no sense, despite the Kings being an atrocious team since the departure of Rick Adelman. No coach could possibly lead the Kings to the playoffs in the shape they're in, what with how stupidly young the team is and how undisciplined the entire team is. Jimmer Fredette might be a bright point for the team behaviorally, but Tyreke Evans and Demarcus Cousins seem to be totally incapable of controlling their emotions on the court.


Cousins has also been infamous for being a volatile player dating back to high school. He came out of college after his rookie season, and now many of his former teammates are saying they're glad Cousins is gone because he disrupted their team's dynamic.


Why does Demarcus Cousins have this kind of pull with the Kings? It's not like he's an elite young player; he isn't Blake Griffin or Derrick Rose. Cousins has the potential to be a starter on any team in the NBA, but he will probably never reach elite status. Do the Kings really think they can move forward with Keith Smart as their head coach? He couldn't coach his way out of a paper bag when he was with Oakland, so what's the deal?


It's not like there are any coaches out there who are "free agents" either, other than assistant coaches. Phil Jackson and Jerry Sloan are the biggest name coaches not affiliated with any team right now, but both have avowed they are done with coaching. John Calipari's name is frequently thrown around for being a potential college coach to make the jump to the NBA in the future, but he swears he will be retiring from coaching in 2014.


You can see how little Chris Webber even cares, admitting on air on Inside the NBA that he has no idea what the King's record is, just that their team is awful. For the record, no team has played more than 7 games as of this writing, so it's not that hard to even just guess their record. Webber, probably the most well-known King of all-time, doesn't care about how awful his former team is now. He's just as puzzled to why Westphal was fired, despite the losing record.


The Kings are being run to the ground by the Maloof family, who are trying to pressure the city of Sacramento in building a new arena for the Kings using taxpayer money, because that's exactly what the state of California needs right now: a taxpayer funded arena for a team that has never won a championship while located in Sacramento. Los Angeles is getting a new football stadium only because AEG is self-funding the construction. If the Maloofs can't get their stadium, they're threatening to move to... Anaheim? The Lakers and Clippers have both already said they will veto a move by the Kings to Anaheim, due to the Kings taking away TV time from the Lakers and Clippers and TV money.


So what are the Kings to do? There's been rumors they could move to Las Vegas, but David Stern has said on multiple occasions that he will never allow legalized gambling on NBA games. There's also been the idea of straight up contracting the Kings. No one on the team is older than 33, so if the team were to split up, 18 teams could use all that young talent.


The internet could also use a lot less Kings fans, noted for being the most annoying NBA fans on the interwebs. It's been 10 years since the Kings lost in the Western Conference Finals and they still can't get over it. Really? Ten years? Ten years ago the Yankees had just lost a 7 game series to the Arizona Diamondbacks. No one in New York is complaining about it. Ten years ago, the New England Patriots defeated the St. Louis Rams with a last second field goal in the Super Bowl. The Rams have fallen into similar obscurity, but I don't see any Rams fans complaining about it.


Please, just take the Kings away from the NBA, everything will be much better if they do. I can't stand the Kings constantly getting a top 5 draft pick every year and then proceeding to utterly squander them.

Why the New England Patriots Will Fail HARD in the Playoffs

Unlike my modest picks only choosing which teams would win in the Wild Card round, some websites have already decided to make public their picks to go to the Super Bowl. Most of them favor 4 teams, 2 from each conference: the Green Bay Packers, New Orleans Saints, New England Patriots, and Baltimore Ravens. Of those 4 teams, the Packers and Saints are favored to win the Super Bowl the most over either the Patriots or Ravens. The Patriots are favored to win by a few analysts over the Packers or Saints, while the Ravens are not favored by anyone (that I've seen) to win the Super Bowl.


Unsurprisingly, there is little love for the San Francisco 49ers, despite having a statistical similar team to the Ravens. The Steelers are also written off, despite being overwhelmingly favored to defeat the Broncos in the Wild Card round and having defeated the Patriots in the regular season.


Those picks are all idiotic. Here is how every team finished their season, starting with those 4 favorites:


Packers' Schedule

• 6 games vs over .500 teams
• 5 games vs .500 teams
• 5 games vs under .500 teams (1 loss, away)

Patriots' Schedule

• 2 games vs over .500 teams (2 losses, 1 home & 1 away)
• 7 games vs .500 teams
• 7 games vs under .500 teams (1 loss, away)

Saints' Schedule

• 7 games vs over .500 teams (1 loss, away)
• 1 game vs .500 team
• 8 games vs under .500 teams (2 losses, both away)

Ravens' Schedule

• 7 games vs over .500 teams (1 loss, away)
• 4 games vs .500 teams (2 losses, both away)
• 5 games vs under .500 teams (1 loss, away)

Wait, what? The Packers lost their only game to a team with a losing record? The Patriots only faced TWO teams with a winning record and they lost both of them? The Saints lost to 2 teams with losing records and all their losses were on the road? The Ravens lost half of their road games? These are all pretenders. Here's how the other playoff teams performed, for comparison.

Listed in order of remaining playoff seeding, NFC then AFC.

49ers' Schedule

• 5 games vs over .500 teams (1 loss, away)
• 6 games vs .500 teams (2 losses, 1 home & 1 away)
• 5 games vs under .500 teams

Giants' Schedule

• 4 games vs over .500 teams (3 losses, 1 home, 2 away)
• 7 games vs .500 teams (2 losses, both home)
• 5 games vs under .500 teams (2 losses, 1 home & 1 away)

Falcons' Schedule

• 6 games vs over .500 teams (4 losses, 2 home & 2 away)
• 3 games vs .500 teams (1 loss, away)
• 7 games vs under .500 teams (1 loss, away)

Lions' Schedule

• 5 games vs over .500 teams (5 losses, 3 home, 2 away)
• 6 games vs .500 teams (1 loss, away)
• 5 games vs under .500 teams

Wait, what? The Lions lost every single one of their games against teams with winning records? The Falcons only won 2 games against teams with winning records? The Giants only won 1 game against a team with a winning record (Patriots)? Well shit, based on team's strength of schedule and winning percentage, the 49ers look like the best team since they're the only one who did not lose to a team with a losing record in the NFC and won at least ONE game against a team with a winning record. Here's the AFC:

Texans' Schedule

• 6 games vs over .500 teams (3 losses, 1 home & 2 away)
• 1 game vs .500 team (1 loss, home)
• 9 games vs under .500 teams (2 losses, 1 home & 1 away)

Broncos' Schedule

• 5 games vs over .500 teams (4 losses, 2 home & 2 away)
• 6 games vs .500 teams (2 losses, 2 home)
• 5 games vs under .500 teams (2 losses, 1 home & 1 away)

Steelers' Schedule

• 8 games vs over .500 teams (4 losses, 1 home & 3 away)
• 2 games vs .500 teams
• 6 games vs under .500 teams

Bengals' Schedule

• 7 games vs over .500 teams (6 losses, 4 home & 2 away)
• 3 games vs .500 teams (1 loss, away)
• 7 games vs under .500 teams

Wow, that's um... The Broncos and Bengals were absolutely terrible. The Texans and Steelers actually finished strong, not losing any games to teams with losing records and both winning half their games against teams with winning records.

Based on winning percentages and strengths of schedule, the real favorites should be the 49ers and Steelers. The Steelers unquestionably had the hardest schedule of all the playoff teams, but won every game they were supposed to win, as did the 49ers.

I don't want to reveal my Super Bowl picks until the NFC and AFC Championship Games come, but just consider these facts until then.

Saints Row the Third

With a third iteration of the Saints Row series, Volition has stepped things up even more to the point that they've created one of the most ridiculous and hilarious games I've ever played. It's also one of the least re-playable games I've ever played because of one crucial mistake. While Grand Theft Auto IV had 2 endings and several people you could choose to kill or keep alive, Saints Row the Third allows you to repeat the final mission whenever you want to get the alternate ending. This cheapens the replay value of the game tremendously and lessens the incentive to start the game all over again.


You can change your sex whenever you want. You can change your character's voice/personality whenever you want. There is literally no reason to play the game more than once other than picking the "other" option when given a choice through various points of the game, most of which have no effect on the plot.


Despite that, the game is a lot of fun and is rarely unenjoyable. There are maybe 2 or 3 story missions that are incredibly difficult if you don't upgrade your health and damage taking abilities,  but few of them are difficult enough to make you throw your controller at the TV. When their ad campaign talks about "Out GTAs GTA," they're referring to how absolutely ridiculous Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was, rather than how realistic Grand Theft Auto IV was. Just by progressing through the story, you get to permanently store a VTOL in your heliports.


Story: 7/10
Gameplay: 8.5/10
Presentation: 8/10
Replay Value: 5/10


Average Score: 7.1/10


Just because I gave it a 7/10 doesn't make it a bad game, per se. The story is incredibly predictable (save for one weapon used against you late in the game), the gameplay is nothing special, the graphics are really bad, and the game is impossible to play through twice. But besides those flaws, the game is FUN. Too many games are concerned with revolutionizing the video game industry; why can't we just enjoy a game that is nothing new and does that well? Saints Row the Third is easily one of the best GTA clones out there, for reasons of how much fun one can have playing it. It'd be nice if they fixed the replay value though.


I can't emphasize enough how much fun I had playing this game despite the flaws. Just don't buy it. It's a game you can finish in under a week, so it's a great rental.

NFL Playoffs Set, NBA Season Continues to be Insane (in the Membrane)

The NFL Playoffs have officially begun! And the teams that are entering the playoffs are exactly the same ones that would have qualified like 3 weeks ago!

• NFC

1. Green Bay Packers
2. San Francisco 49ers
3. New Orleans Saints
4. New York Giants
5. Atlanta Falcons
6. Detroit Lions

• AFC

1. New England Patriots
2. Baltimore Ravens
3. Houston Texans
4. Denver Broncos
5. Pittsburgh Steelers
6. Cincinnati Bengals

These playoffs mark the notable return to the playoffs of the 49ers and Lions and the first ever appearance of the Texans, a team that has consistently been marked by 8-8 seasons since they first began play less than 10 years ago. At this point, no team is considered a lock to the Super Bowl since every team has glaring weaknesses: The Packers have incredibly poor defense, the 49ers have an exploitable quarterback, the Saints have lost questionable games to some very bad teams, the Giants are incredibly bipolar, the Patriots also have terrible defense, the Ravens have an exploitable quarterback, the Texans aren't sure if their QB will be back, the Broncos have one of the worst QBs in the league, the Steelers have mounting injuries, and the Bengals are one of the youngest teams in the league.

Despite those weaknesses, I'd like to officially make my picks for the Wild Card round of the playoffs:

• Saints over Lions
• Falcons over Giants
• Texans over Bengals
• Steelers over Broncos

I actually have my opinions already about what teams will meet in the Super Bowl, but I'd rather just make picks for the immediate future for now.

In the NBA, a wild beginning to the season continues. The Miami Heat and Chicago Bulls both beat the Charlotte Bobcats and Memphis Grizzlies respectively by 40 points. The Dallas Mavericks continue to look like the worst team in the NBA, losing to the Minnesota Timberwolves. Kobe Bryant had the worst shooting night of his career, although he did become the fastest player to 28,000 points in the same game. The Clippers knocked off the Trail Blazers, who have been looking excellent even without Greg Oden and the retired Brandon Roy.

I don't know what the result of this season will be, but at this point it looks clear that youthful teams will benefit the most from this insane schedule. Is anyone ready for a Clippers-Heat Finals? LeBron James has already proven that people aren't interested in watching him play in the Finals, being a part of two of the lowest rated Finals ever.

DeMarcus Cousins Begins 2012 By Asking for a Trade Demand

DeMarcus Cousins of the Sacramento Kings has asked for a trade demand, citing that he has no idea what direction the Kings want to go in. The Kings are notably one of the youngest teams in the NBA, having an average age of 25.5; the oldest member of their team is the 32 year old John Salmons.


After asking for a trade demand, Cousins has been asked to avoid contact with the team and will be unlikely to play for the Kings while trades are being looked into.


Cousins was the 5th overall pick of the 2010 Draft in a draft that is becoming notable for being one of the worst drafts in NBA history, featuring John Wall and nobody else. Even so, the Kings should fetch a large haul in exchange for Cousins since he is a top 5 draft pick and plays very physically.


Divas, everyone!


Update: Cousins is now claiming that he never asked for a trade demand, despite head coach Paul Westphal confirming as such to the media. Cousins may simply be trying to save face and get himself on a good team, because he has become synonymous with diva in both high school and college basketball.

Cee Lo Green Begins the Year by Bastardizing a John Lennon Song

Cee Lo Green, the former lead singer of Gnarls Barkley, now solo act famous for his song "Fuck You," decided to sing a John Lennon song during New York Ciy's New Year's Eve party at Times Square. When one decides to sing a John Lennon song, generally singers know what they're in for since Lennon's solo career was marked by songs that were done for protest or to send a message. The song Cee Lo Green sung was "Imagine," a song that is infamous for it's anti-religious message.


And then Cee Lo Green decided to be cute and change the lyrics. Instead of the lyrics "Nothing to kill for or die for, And no religion too" Green changed the lyrics to "Nothing to kill for or die for, And all religion's true." The change was very insulting to fans of Lennon, who know that the song is meant to be about imagining a perfect world, which includes one with no religion. Green was blasted on Twitter where he explained that he "meant no disrespect" but he disagreed with Lennon's anti-religious views and wants a world where people believe what they want to believe.


The problem with that statement is that-that is exactly what John Lennon was protesting against. Lennon had seen how much conflict religion had caused between countries and even within countries over his lifetime and over human history. Lennon (and many people with anti-religious views) felt that if the world had no religions and if everyone was agnostic or atheist, there would be no conflict in the world. I happen to disagree with Lennon's view, knowing that even if there were no religion, people would fight over political and nationalistic issues.


Nevertheless, I am offended when singers change other singer's lyrics because they disagree with the song. If you disagree with the song, DON'T SING IT. Pick a song that is pro-religion. Pick one that doesn't have a religious message. When a singer changes the lyrics to a song because they don't like the message, it is exactly like misquoting someone or changing the plot of a book or movie; It's insulting that singer's writing as well as their personal views.


In somewhat related news, Kelly Clarkson lost a lot of fans in an instant because she declared herself a Ron Paul supporter. Ron Paul was previously a dark horse candidate only supported by young Independents and Libertarians, but is now getting mainstream attention because of his controversially racist views seen in writings he approved of 20 years ago.


What is it with singers with no talent suddenly having political views? Next thing you know, Katy Perry is going to announce she's an anarchist or something.