I must admit, I'm a hater.  There are some sports teams that I just love to see lose and some of those teams losing just isn't even satisfying enough.  The team at the top of that list, the Green Bay Packers.  I was hoping that the poor season that they have put together would absolve me for having to hear about them so much, but no dice, still have to hear about the Packers.

     Really my main beef with the Packers isn't so much the team themselves, it's the endless butt-kissing by most of the sports writers / anouncers / all of espn.  I can almost understand why, for most of those guys growing up the Packers were The Team.  Just like there is a disproporationate number of mid to late 20 some year old football fans who like the Bears.  My beef came to the became seething hatred during a playoff game a year or two ago.  The Eagles vs. the Packers,  the 4th and 20 game, or whatever it actually was. 

     The game was actually pretty boring and hard to watch, the Eagles ever inconsistent, and the Packers who had a great record on the strength of beating teams with losing records.  As the game went on, and on, and on, one thing became clear, the two good ol' boys in the annoucing both Aikman, Johnston where clearly routing for the Packers to win.  Mr. Joe Buck was no different either.  I could give some leeway to the former Cowboys, but only a little.  But, when the "regular" sports commentator was clearly routing for the Packers, it was way too much for me to handle.  Is it something that is really the Packers fault?  No.  It does make me hate them though. 

     Does it matter that I think that Brett Farve is one of the most over-rated players in the history of the NFL?  Nope.  Does it matter that the Pack seemingly always plays a K-State cupcake special schedule?  Nope.  The media has made me hate the Packers.  Those other things just add fuel to the fire. 

     Although some bad seasons as of late have somewhat dimmed this analogy think of it this way, The Packers are the NFL's version of The Beatles, it doesn't matter what they do, they're still considered to be the best.  If you don't agree with that, let me add this to the equation.  The 49ers are The Rolling Stones.  Held in the highest regard and great themselves in their time, but considered second best.  And guess what folks, I hate The Beatles too, for the same reason I hate the Packers, just because everyone thinks they are number one without a doubt....

     What have we learned from the NFL over the years, it's that being a great QB is not important to how well a team does.  It seems that almost everyone capable of playing QB in the NFL can succeed as a starting QB.  Ever since Trent Dilfer lead his team to a big win in the super bowl, the flood gates have opened for winning and not being a dominate QB or for that matter a starting QB. 

     Let's just look at the QB situations this year, Brian Griese goes down for Tampa Bay, and what has Chris Simms done, he keeps his team winning.  Why, he controls the game and throws mostly short controlled passes.  He manages the game and shows that as long as he doesn't try to be a hero, his team can always stay in the game (Brett Farve please take notice).

     Now the most obvious example currently in the NFL would be Brad Johnson of the Vikings.  Culpepper goes down and what does Johnson do, nothing but win.  Johnson who is a capable QB having won a super bowl himself, still doesn't win by dazzling plays.  He does what it takes to win.  When he did win the Super Bowl with Tampa he wasn't a stand out player, although he did put up some good numbers, he wasn't the focal point of the team and didn't try to be.  Too many QB's think that they are the team end of story, it seems that those who know their role make the best QB's.

     It wasn't all that long ago that some guy named Brady took over for Drew Bledsoe and has done what, you guessed it, win, win, win and win some more.  Don't get me wrong Tom Brady is an excellent QB, but he was a manager of Charlie Weiss' system.  The Pats are a shinning example of no one player more important than the other. 

     Even just last year, Big Ben stepped in for an injured Tommy Maddux and yup, won every game he started up all the way to the AFC Championship game losing to that guy named Brady.  QB changes and team success seems to be more and more common.  The bottom line, good teams win despite who is at their QB.  Brady, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler (sorry for butchering the name) and Frank Reich have all taken their team to the Super Bowl filling in for their injured starter. 

     So can an NFL team just plug in any of their back-ups and win?  Well, if i think that the Colts would be 13-0 with their back-up in, I'd say no.  Would they still be one of the top teams in the league?  I'd have to say yes.  Having James, Harrison, Wayne, Stokely....... (I could go on for awhile here) makes them a good team, regardless of who's at QB.

     Do I think that the Green Bay Packers would be better off with Aaron Rodgers at QB instead of Brett Farve?  In this instance, I would emphatically say YES!  I know plenty of Packer Fans will have something to say about this, but who leads the league in INT's this year, yup, you guessed it, Brett Farve.  Who's consistently tried to make something out of nothing and his team has paid the price for it, Brett Farve.  Brett Farve does make some of those seemingly stupid plays into touchdowns as well.  I do give him that.  However, overall and over time, his team suffers.  Granted that injuries has not helped much this season for the Packers but that should not be the excuse to try and make something from nothing all the time, it's the reason why he should or Aaron Rodgers should, be managing the game and go for the calculated attack on offense and keep the ball in the offenses hands.  I think that Rodgers could have lead this team to 3 wins.

     Are the 49ers any better off with one QB starting over the over, apparently not.  Could the Texans have won more than 1 game with David Carr starting?  I don't see why not, although I can't say I have a clue who their back-up QB is, but then again, I don't know who outside of Houston knows that off the top of their head and I'd be willing to bet that not many in Houston know either.  All in all, it doesn't make much difference who really is your teams starting QB just as long as they play within their means and don't happen to be playing in San Fransico.  Unless of course you're a QB who thinks they are a running back, but that is a discussion for another day....

     We heard it over and over, the NHL needs a salary cap.  It was beat into the brains of hockey fans all around, whether or not they wanted to hear it.  No one did.  The salary cap was supposed to help those small market teams compete.  Well with each team now having played 30 or so games let's take a look at how well this "New Order" has panned out for the NHL.

     Let's start by taking a look at the final standings for 2003-2004 season.  Here are the top 8 from the east:
1. Tampa Bay
2. Boston
3. Philadelphia 
4. Toronto
5. Ottawa
6. New Jersey
7. Montreal
8. New York Islanders.

Here are the current standings :
1. Ottawa
2. New York Rangers
3. Carolina
4. Buffalo
5. Philadelphia
6. Montreal
7. Tampa Bay
8. Toronto

     If the season ended today we'd still have 5 out of 8 teams returning to the playoffs.  Not too bad, but consider this,  none of the three teams that didn't make the playoffs last season made any real significant moves in the off-season.  Of the 2003-2004 playoff teams not currently in the top 8 only one team really felt the impact of the salary cap, the Boston Bruins.

     The Bruins during the lockout only had a handful of players signed to contracts for when the NHL resumed.  The team seemed to be doomed with chemistry issues before the season even started. 

     The New Jersey Devils were a team on the decline.  The abscence of Scott Stevens is hurting the Devils.  It was evident last season with the teams poor play after he was lost for the remainder of the season.  The devils currently sit in a tie for 9th place, just one point out of the playoffs.  The salary cap didn't hurt the Devils as much as the rule changes have.  They can no longer hold up opposing players in the nuetral zone but this is a team that seems to have what it takes to be a success in the New NHL, young speedy players.  When the regular season ends don't expect these Devils to watching at home.

     The New York Islanders are currently tied with the Devils for 9th place one point out of the playoffs.  Not much has changed for the final playoff team in 03-04, a constant underachiever.

     Of the teams in the playoffs now that weren't there in 03-04,  the Sabre's are continuing to climb and build off of their 9th place finish in 03-04.  Carolina has made leaps and bounds however they made no significant additions in the offseason.  The Hurricanes are the equivilent of the University of West Virginia football team, pretty darn good every 4 years or so.  The New York Rangers rise to the top is a bit of a surprise considering the Rangers were one of those teams targeted by the salary cap. 

So to recap the Eastern Conference, 4 small market teams as opposed to 3 in 03-04.  Now let's have a look at the Western Conference standings currently and from the past season. Here are the final standings from 03-04 in the Western Conference.
1. Detroit
2. San Jose
3. Vancouver
4. Colorado
5. Dallas
6. Calgary
7. St. Louis
8. Nashville

Currently the standings in the West are:
1. Detroit
2. Vancouver
3. Dallas
4.Calgary
5. Nashville
6. Los Angeles
7. Edmonton
8. Colorado

     The West has changed too much, too much.  Only two teams from the 03-04 season are not currently in the top 8.  The only real big change is the abysmal display of hockey out of St. Louis.  Last year the Blues hung on to keep their steak of consecutive playoff apperences intact.  However they were a team on the way down. 

     The Sharks seem to be feeling the same kinda blues that their 2nd place Eastern Conference counter parts  (in 03-04).  Not too many changes to their line-up in the off-season.  With the recent addition of Joe Thorton expect this team to start rolling and be back in contention come playoff time. 

     The real winner in the West with the New salary cap is the Los Angeles Kings.  Who added big names and got some help in goal when Roman Chechmanek did them a favor and stayed back in the Cech Republic. 

     Net gain in the West zero small market teams.  So what has the NHL actually accomplished in an attempt at parity in the league?  Pretty much nothing.  With a gain of just one small market team over the 03-04 season and the addition of teams from the top two markets in the country, i'd say that the New World Order in the NHL looks pretty much like the Old World Order in the NHL.  So far....