Every so often here at the Toy Department, two Baltimore Sun staffers will engage in a segment we like to call The Conversation, where they'll swap e-mails with one another and debate something that is in the news. Today, Kevin Van Valkenburg and Chris Korman wonder whether it's fair to bring up Michael Vick's past repeatedly as he once again emerges as one of the top quarterbacks in the game.

Korman,

In March of 2009, when Michael Vick was planning his return to the NFL after spending two years in prison, the Toy Department asked a serious question: In an alternate universe where the team didn't draft Joe Flacco, would Ravens fans be open to having Vick as their quarterback?

I was thinking about that blog entry as Vick shredded the Redskins defense Monday night, a performance that was both jaw-dropping and a little scary for how dominant it was. No matter what you think of him, he truly is one of the best athletes in the history of the NFL. To paraphrase Bobby Jones when asked once about Jack Nicklaus, he's playing a game with which I am unfamiliar.

The comments on that initial post were actually pretty evenly divided. A lot of Ravens fans said they'd stop watching the team immediately if Vick suited up in purple, while an equal number acknowledged he was too dynamic of a talent to not take a chance on. They pointed out that Vick had paid his debt to society, and his crimes, while horrific, were no worse than those crimes committed by numerous players still in the league. There were even a few Ravens fans wondering how anyone who cheered for Ray Lewis and Jamal Lewis could pretend they were above cheering for Vick. As far as Internet debates go, it was actually pretty evenly divided.

Continue reading "The Conversation: Michael Vick and the application of our morals" »

Posted by Chris Korman at 1:28 PM in The Conversation | Permalink | Comments (39)
        

Every so often here at the Toy Department, two (OK, maybe three) Baltimore Sun staffers will engage in a segment we like to call The Conversation, where they'll swap e-mails with one another and debate something that is in the news. Today Kevin Van Valkenburg, Chris Korman and Childs Walker discuss the violence of the NFL and whether or not an 18-game schedule is a good idea.

Gentlemen,

Well, the 2010 NFL season is officially six percent over, unless of course you're New York Jets defensive tackle Kris Jenkins (ACL tear), Colts safety Bob Sanders (torn bicep muscle), Green Bay Packers running back Ryan Grant (ankle injury), or Philadelphia Eagles fullback Leonard Weaver (ACL tear), in which case your season is already over.

I know injuries aren't a new thing in the NFL, and every time we lose Pro Bowl-caliber players in the first week of the season, we wring our hands and fret over the question "Is the game too violent?" (Short answer: Um, yes. Duh.) But this year, it feels like the question has taken on a greater importance with the collective bargaining agreement expiring and the threat of a lockout next year. The owners want to expand the season to 18 games, and the players are rightfully a bit wary of putting their bodies through two extra cranks on the meat grinder that is life in the NFL. I think it's complete madness on the owner's part, extra revenue be damned.

Continue reading "The Conversation: The brutality of football (HealthKey)" »

Posted by Chris Korman at 6:00 AM in The Conversation | Permalink | Comments (5)
        

Every so often here at the Toy Department, two Baltimore Sun staffers will engage in a segment we like to call The Conversation, where they'll swap e-mails with one another and debate something that is in the news. Today, Kevin Van Valkenburg and Brent Jones discuss the state of quarterbacking in the NFL, whether you'd rather have Manning or Brady, whether Brady Quinn is good at anything other than cheap shots, and why Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco hasn't quite made The Leap yet.

Continue reading "The Conversation: Manning, Brady, Flacco and the state of NFL quarterbacks" »

Posted by Kevin Van Valkenburg at 12:18 PM in The Conversation | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Today, Sun scribes and Brent Jones and Kevin Van Valkenburg bring back one of our favorite reoccurring features at the Toy Department: The Conversation. Two writers swap e-mails and give their take on something recently in the news. This week, Brent and Kevin discuss the recent ESPN "30 for 30" documentary "Muhammad and Larry" about the 1980 heavyweight bout between Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes, and why mixed martial arts can never live up to the sweet science.

KVV,

First off, good piece last weekend on mixed martial arts making its debut in Maryland. Although I’m largely indifferent about the sport, I appreciate the skill and toughness these athletes need to have to make it work. What saddens me about it, though, and prompted me to write is that the sport’s rise coincides with a substantial decrease over the last decade in the popularity of another pugilist mainstay – boxing. I love the sweet science. Always have. Good news is, I got a fix on Tuesday when ESPN’s "30 for 30" series ran a wonderfully depressing documentary on the Muhammad  Ali-Larry Holmes fight in 1980. (A quick aside before we delve into the topic; the "30 for 30" series may wind up easily being the best original production ESPN has ever done. This is, in no small part, because it outsourced all of the work to experienced filmmakers. Barry Levinson’s piece on The Colts band's remaining relevant after the team’s move to Indianapolis was the most comprehensive work I’ve seen about the departure. I know you were in Montana and I was in Florida in 1984, and frankly I think I was 7 and you were 6. It’s safe to say we don’t know much about what happened. I found the piece fascinatingly informative and a must topic for another thread, although the piece ran three weeks ago, so we’d be running a little late.)

Back to the present and Ali (it’s re-running this week on the Deuce, for those of you who missed it). And yes, I didn’t mention Holmes because much like the fight itself, Ali’s presence overshadowed Holmes. I don’t remember Ali fighting live, as I’m sure you don’t either, but being sportswriters, I know we’ve both seen our share of Ali films, books, interviews and, of course, fights. I had not seen much footage of the Holmes fight. And while the beating he took was disturbing in and of itself, one of the most head-scratching things I’ve ever seen in sports came leading into the fight.

Photo courtesy of ESPN 

I thought for a moment that Ali was joking. His pranks and sense of humor were legendary, so surely he was just clowning around when he was having trouble hitting the speed bag. Indeed, he was not. Few moments in sports have struck me as more pathetic. Here was the greatest boxer of all time, one who relied on quick hands and speed as much as any heavyweight in history, unable to do the most basic of boxing training regimens. It took him three tries to actually work up a decent rhythm with it. Along with that sweet mustache Ali was sporting, I don’t think I’ll ever forget that image.

Obviously, Ali’s career went on entirely too long, and it helped contribute to the Parkinson’s disease he has now. But after watching the beating he took during his training and the fight itself, how much do you fault this fight for putting him over the edge and in the mental state he is in now? And do you find it as unreal as I do that his handlers actually allowed him to enter the ring considering how awful he looked in training?  And why are we just now seeing this footage for the first time? I have my conspiracy theories about why it never made it on television for 29 years.

Attempting to become the greatest buffalo wing eater of all time,

Jones

Continue reading "The Conversation: Muhammad and Larry, Boxing and MMA" »

Posted by Kevin Van Valkenburg at 11:36 AM in The Conversation, Today's Special | Permalink | Comments (4)
        

With a whopping 12 picks left to project, Ken Murray and Childs Walker are staggering down the home stretch. They felt reasonably confident about their top 10, a little less so about 11-20, and now, who knows? But fear not, gentle reader, they've given whole minutes of thought to whom the Ravens will select at 26. Push on to find out.

21) Philadelphia Eagles

Childs' pick: Andy Reid let his starting tight end go to Baltimore. Now, he gets to fill the spot with the best all-around player left on the board, Brandon Pettigrew. Reid loves to draft lineman and hey, Pettigrew can really block in addition to catching passes.

Ken's pick: The Eagles may be sitting on this pick to see who drops. If RB Knowshon Moreno drops, he's an easy choice. If not, the Eagles could take UConn's Donald Brown, or they could package the pick in a deal for disgruntled Cardinals receiver Anquan Boldin. All three moves would improve the team.  

22) Minnesota Vikings

Childs' pick: Minnesota could go receiver, linebacker or tackle, so this is a possible destination for Darrius Heyward-Bey. But the Vikings will opt to solidify the right side of their line with tackle Eben Britton. I know it ain't glamorous.

Ken's pick: If Darrius Heyward-Bey doesn't go to Oakland at 7, as rumored, he will likely fall to the 20s. This is one of his potential landing spots. He will have to hope the Vikings find a quarterback before the season.

23) New England Patriots

Childs' pick: Bill Belichick loves having versatile playmakers to stick in the middle of his defense. Rey Maualuga is such a player. I sense a perfect marriage.

Ken's pick: The Patriots need linebackers. Rey Maualuga is the next linebacker in line, and he will make New England very, very solid up the middle.

Continue reading "The Conversation: Mock draft, Ravens up!" »

Posted by Childs Walker at 6:00 AM in The Conversation, Today's Special | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Ken Murray and Childs Walker rolled through their projected top 10 for Saturday's NFL Draft. Now, they pick it up with the wild and woolly middle of the first round.

11) Buffalo Bills

Childs' pick: Most seem to agree that the Bills will go with a defensive lineman, but few agree on which one. Tyson Jackson could be the guy, but he's thought to be a better fit for a 3-4 defense. Robert Ayers is supposedly soaring up draft boards. But I like local boy Aaron Maybin at this spot. The Bills need a pass rusher, and Maybin can do that better than Jackson. He has a more consistent record of production than Ayers. He's simply the best overall fit.

Ken's pick: Maybin will be a tantalizing choice here, Childs. But the Bills play a 4-3 and most people project Aaron as a 3-4 outside backer. He's not going to be strong against the run the first year or two. If the Bills can wait, he's a great pick. I think they go for Robert Ayers, a more traditional 4-3 end, from Tennessee.

12) Denver Broncos

Childs' pick: We've talked about Denver as a team that might trade up to get Sanchez. If that doesn't happen, the Broncos will almost surely fortify their defensive front. They would love to see Raji fall to this spot, but I doubt that, so Tyson Jackson is a nice fallback. He's a good all-around player from a strong program and will strengthen the interior of Denver's 3-4.

Ken's pick: The Broncos have been decimated on defense in recent years. As much as they need a QB, defense almost has to be the pick. I like Tyson Jackson here as well. He's a perfect fit in Denver's defense.

13) Washington Redskins

Childs' pick: Yet another team that could enter the Sanchez sweepstakes, but I don't see the Redskins getting it done (nor should they; Jason Campbell is fine.) The Redskins could go for a pass-rusher to give them what they hoped for from Jason Taylor. Or they could snag a much-needed tackle. Michael Oher is tempting here, because he has the size and strength to help immediately on the right side. But the Redskins will take the best pass rusher on the board, Robert Ayers.

Ken's pick: The Redskins have been searching for a pass rusher, seemingly since Dexter Manley. Well, now they get a shot at Aaron Maybin (Mount Hebron), who is the best pure pass rusher in the draft. Maybin will play close to home, so his father won't have to put too many more miles on that van he used for the college search.

Continue reading "The Conversation: Mock Draft, part two" »

Posted by Childs Walker at 1:31 PM in The Conversation | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Each week here at the Toy Department, two Baltimore Sun staffers will engage in a segment we like to call The Conversation, where they swap e-mails with one another and debate something that is in the news. Today, Childs Walker and Ken Murray ignore the muck of other mock drafts and tell you exactly how the first day of this weekend's NFL draft will go down. OK, actually, Ken wants you to know that all of what follows is an elaborate guess. And Childs would like you to know that his version of the impending NFL draft is sketchier still, because at least Ken has studied this stuff since the NFL combine. Such reservations aside, Ken and Childs will defy those who would mock the mockers (we're looking at you, Van Valkenburg.) Spoiler alert: Saturday's first round may or may not look like this: 

1) Detroit Lions

Childs' pick: Ken, I know we both sat through seemingly infinite conference calls with Mike Mayock and Mel Kiper last week.  One thing that struck me during those death marches was the absolute lack of confidence in presumptive No. 1 pick Matthew Stafford. Mayock, whom I trust as a scout, loved Stafford's arm, but seemed unable to get past the fact that he disappeared for whole halves of big games. I have to say, that doesn't sound like the kind of player a desperate franchise should build around. It makes me think that Jason Smith, an excellent athlete at the premium left tackle position, might be a better pick for Detroit (I can't imagine Ozzie Newsome, for example, picking Stafford over one of the tackles.) On the plus side, Stafford has a world-class arm, started a bunch of games at a big-time program and completed 61.4 percent of his passes last season. So he doesn't feel like a total bust-in-waiting. Regardless of the widespread misgivings, he will be Detroit's choice.

Ken's pick: My biggest problem with this pick is that the Lions will shorten and diminish Stafford's career. I have had this discussion with one of his representatives. Going to Detroit is a no-win situation for a quarterback, no matter how talented. Stafford's big arm won't mean much when three defenders are ripping parts of his uniform off. Fact is, the Lions need an offensive tackle to protect a franchise quarterback, and lo and behold, there are three pretty good choices sitting right there. Still, I fully expect the pick will be Stafford because, after all, people who buy tickets don't come to see offensive tackles pass protect. For my two cents, I'd take a tackle here and Josh Freeman at 20.

2) St. Louis Rams

Childs' pick: With Orlando Pace gone, it seems a virtual certainty that the Rams will take a left tackle. Some mocks have Eugene Monroe, perhaps the best pass blocker in the draft, going in this spot. But Jason Smith's package of agility, quick feet, toughness and character is the best in this tackle class. So I'll go with him.

Ken's pick: Smith is the logical choice, unless the Rams like Eugene Monroe more. The Rams have to hope that someone wants Smith or Monroe so much that they'll trade up to the second spot to get him. It's very unlikely, but it is possible. If you want one of the elite tackles, you need to get up to at least the third pick. And the Rams would be better served with more picks down the line.

Continue reading "The Conversation: NFL mock draft" »

Posted by Childs Walker at 6:00 AM in The Conversation, Today's Special | Permalink | Comments (1)
        

Each week here at the Toy Department, two Baltimore Sun staffers will engage in a segment we like to call The Conversation, where they'll swap e-mails with one another and debate something that is in the news. Today, Kevin Van Valkenburg and Rick Maese discuss the Ravens' 2009 schedule, which was released yesterday.

KVV,

Whew, I feel good this morning. I'd been growing my annual NFL Schedule Beard since the Super Bowl ended, and I was finally able to shave last night, content in knowledge that there will indeed be football games beginning in September. I'm not quite sure when the release of the NFL schedule became a national holiday, but as long as Major League Baseball doesn't adopt its own prime time unveiling show -- including analysis of every team's 162 games -- I think we're OK.

Well, I look over the Ravens schedule and one thing immediately comes to mind: AFC North championship. There's a couple of reasons for this. First, there's the Columnist Code. I'm not supposed to talk about this out loud, but most of my breed's founding fathers don't know what the Internet is anyway, so let me explain. The Columnist Code was written in 1779 by Woodicus Paige (with forward by Michaelangelo Lupica), and it clearly states that a columnist must declare the hometown team as the preseason favorite as early as possible. This is important for a couple of reasons. If the team does well, the columnist can then declare to fans "I-told-you-so," an important staple for the sportswriter. And if the team struggles, the writer can then blame the coach and players for underachieving. So you see, it's win-win.

But even if there wasn't a Columnist Code, I'd still place the bar high for the Ravens. Put simply, this is the best possible schedule; much better than the hand they've been dealt in recent years. I mean, this team was in the AFC championship game and not only will they play the league's 28th-toughest schedule, but it unfolds quite favorably. Maybe the league felt bad about the Ravens missing their bye week last season. Whatever it was, they laid a yellow-brick road of sorts to the postseason for the Ravens. Ray Lewis, Joe Flacco, Toto & Co. just need to stay on the right path.

Only 151 days until Week 1,

Maese 

Continue reading "The Conversation: Discussing the Ravens schedule" »

Posted by Kevin Van Valkenburg at 6:00 AM in Ravens, The Conversation, Today's Special | Permalink | Comments (14)
        

Each week here at the Toy Department, two Baltimore Sun staffers will engage in a segment we like to call The Conversation, where they'll swap e-mails with one another and debate something that is in the news. Today, Kevin Van Valkenburg and Rick Maese discuss whether Tiger Woods will win the Masters (he tees off today at 1:52 p.m.), and why some scribes are ready to hand him the green jacket before he tees off.

Maese,

So, my friend, the Masters begin today, one of our favorite sporting events of the entire year, and I must confess, I'm having a little bit of deja vu. Every Masters, it seems, we're told that it looks like THIS year really could be the year that the planets align and Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson finally have that legendary duel we've always anticipated but never quite seen materialize. Will it finally happen this time?

A few years ago, I floated the theory that if you like Tiger, you're a Beatles guy, because he represents excellence and arrogance (John), creativity and artistry (Paul), risk-taking and the fierce desire for privacy (George) and he's kind of a goofy-looking guy who married a babe (Ringo). And if you like Mickelson (who, by the way, married UP too), then you're an Elvis guy, because as talented as he is, and as fun as he is to watch, he's also self-destructive and flawed in a way that inspires both loyalty, even when he goes all Heartbreak Hotel on the 72nd hole, but also snarky jokes. Every year we want to see them go up against one another, and every year, one of them is just a little off his game. I so want to see it happen but I suspect I'll be let down yet again by one of them.

Since you're a big Beatles fan, let me throw this to you: Why are so many people already more or less conceding the tournament to Tiger? That kind of hyperbole drives me insane when it comes to him. I know he has four green jackets, and he stole a win from Sean O'Hair at Bay Hill two weeks ago, but he hasn't won at Augusta since 2005, and he's only won one green jacket in the last six chances. Sure, he's a smart pick, a safe pick, but to act like it's a foregone conclusion is absurd. To jump from music analogies to comic books, Tiger isn't Superman, despite what some people would like you to believe. He's more like Batman. He's going to do remarkable things, but he's also going to take his licks sometimes, too. He's not invincible. (Yet Sports Illustrated is writing this week -- as if it's a real possibility -- that he could tie Jack Nicklaus' record if he wins the Grand Slam this year. Puh-leaze.)

The Masters has changed since Tiger used to tear up the course in the early part of this decade. The rough (excuse me, secondary cut) makes a big difference, and if you're not accurrate with the driver, you're going to have a tough time. I actually think Mickelson and Tiger are both going to let us down this year. They'll hang around the top 10, but neither will be in the final group on Sunday. (Tiger will have one round where he shoots 73 and the CBS crew will stumble all over itself making excuses for him.)

I've never been down to Georgia to smell the azaleas or walked the emerald green hills of the National, and since you have, I'm wondering if you could describe the experience a little so I can live vicariously through you. Is it as awe-inspiring as we make it out to be? And do you think the tournament is less fun than it used to be without the back-nine birdie charges? Since I've already written off Tiger and Phil, let me throw this out there: my pre-tournament pick is Geoff Ogilvy, the smooth-putting Australian. Not exactly going out on a limb, since he seems to be the trendy dark-horse outside the obvious duo, but anyone else you think can make a run?

I predict this e-mail exchange will be a tradition unlike any other,

KVV

Continue reading "The Conversation: Tiger Woods and The Masters" »

Posted by Kevin Van Valkenburg at 6:00 AM in The Conversation, Today's Special | Permalink | Comments (3)
        

Each week here at the Toy Department, two Baltimore Sun staffers will engage in a segment we like to call The Conversation, where they'll swap e-mails with one another and debate something that is in the news. This week, Kevin Van Valkenburg and Childs Walker discuss fan loyalty, and why Kevin suddenly loves Jay Cutler, and why Orioles fans are supposed to hate Mark Teixeira.

Childs,
 
A number of things happened last week that made fan loyalty the perfect topic for this week's Conversation. As you know, on Thursday, I was complaining about Jay Cutler in the office, and how I was pretty annoyed at the way he and Josh McDaniels were acting like Lauren and Heidi from The Hills. (How dare you ignore my calls! No, how dare you talk about me with Matt Cassell!) I believe I even went so far as to say that Cutler was a clown. And then, of course maybe two hours later, word came down that Cutler had been traded to the Chicago Bears. I've been reluctant to admit this to an audience of Ravens fans, but the Bears have always been my favorite team. I grew up in Montana, where the closest professional sports franchise is a 10-hour drive (five days by covered wagon!), so my allegiances have always been pretty scatter shot. Walter Payton and Mike Singletary were two of my idols growing up, although I have equal affection for Neal Anderson, Tom Waddle and Jim Harbaugh as well. I even defended Rex Grossman as much as I could until it became impossible. Which brings us to fan loyalty. When the news was announced that Cutler was coming to the Windy City, my perspective on him was immediately altered. Suddenly, all I could think of was his upside. Isn't that absurd? It reminds me of the famous Jerry Seinfeld bit where he concludes that we're really just cheering for laundry.

 
I notice this a lot though with Ravens fans and Steelers fans. If Hines Ward played for the Ravens, he'd be a cult hero in this town, and we'd think that all his crack-back blocks were just another measure of his toughness. But because he plays for the hated rival, he drives Ravens fans nuts. And the opposite is true, too. When I wrote this piece from the AFC Championship game about Ray Lewis, and the potential that this might be the end of his amazing career in purple and black, I must have received 20 e-mails the next day from Steelers fans screaming that Ray was a thug who was completely overrated and he should have ended up in jail. (A few even claimed that Lewis wasn't even one of the top five all-time middle linebackers, which is lunacy.) But you just know if he was a Steeler, those same people would have sainted him by now.
 
Even Maese's post about Michael Vick playing for the Ravens in an alternate universe got some interesting responses. A lot of people claimed "No way, not ever!" would they cheer for him, but a few admitted that if he was a Raven, they'd get behind him. I tend to think of myself as a rational person, and feel like I should know better, but I understand that mentality. Plenty of people claim they would never root for someone right up until the day when they do exactly that.
 
Can I blame fantasy sports for some of this? And is there anyone you wouldn't cheer for under any circumstances? I'm not sure I could root for J.J. Redick even if he was my twin brother, but beyond that, I'll have to think about it.
 
KVV

Continue reading "The Conversation: Are we cheering for laundry? Cutler, Teixeira and fan loyalty" »

Posted by Kevin Van Valkenburg at 3:42 PM in The Conversation | Permalink | Comments (5)
        

We see the Rally Girls bringing players treats before the game, the cheerleaders practicing, the town shutting down in preparation for Friday's big game, and the muted browns and grays of the West Texas landscape. Coach Taylor gives his big speech about the big loss the team has suffered, and we see an entire town nervous with anticipation. It might be my favorite five minutes of network television in a long time. I can attest, as a high school football player, that nothing has ever nailed what it feels like quite like that scene. Of all the songs this show has nailed over its three seasons, the musical director, W.G. Snuffy Walden, gets major props from me for picking "Devil Town" for that montage.

 

Anyway, I kick it back to you. Any scenes stick out in your mind that hooked you? Do you want to see the show come back for a fourth season?

 

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose, 

 

Continue reading "The Conversation: Friday Night Lights and why we love television" »

Posted by Kevin Van Valkenburg at 9:35 AM in The Conversation | Permalink | Comments (12)
        

Each week here at the Toy Department, two Baltimore Sun staffers will engage in a segment we like to call The Conversation, where they'll swap emails with one another and debate something that is in the news. This week, Childs Walker and Kevin Van Valkenburg debate the state of Maryland basketball, and what the Terps will do going forward.

Hey Kevin:

As I watched Memphis take Maryland to the woodshed this afternoon, I couldn't help but think the beatdown was a perfect representation of where the Terps stand.

They turned into a fun team this year, they really did. They played hard. They rallied around Gary Williams when his critics took out the long knives. Greivis Vasquez produced memorable performances and even more memorable quotes. Dave Neal found a way to keep scoring with his self-described YMCA game.

But when they ran into an elite team playing at the top of its game, they not only lost; they couldn't compete.

The game was Maryland's worst nightmare really. We knew the Terps were overmatched body for body, but we couldn't have expected Memphis to shoot 70 percent and make 8 of 11 threes in the first half. The Tigers were so efficient that they didn't even need to pound the offensive glass to outclass Maryland. The Terps, meanwhile, struggled to score for long stretches ... just as they have all season.

It's hard to see any of this changing until Williams stocks his team with a few blue-chip recruits. Given the same set of players, he might well be a better coach than Memphis' John Calipari. But when was the last time Williams had a group as talented as this Memphis team? Probably 2002.

The short-term prognosis for Maryland is fine. Gary will be back as will most of this year's team. Maryland will add two desperately needed inside players in Jordan Williams and James Padgett. If one of them (probably Williams) helps immediately, if Sean Mosley matures, if Landon Milbourne improves a bit more, if Eric Hayes shoots with a little more confidence, if Vasquez eschews the NBA, they could finish in the top half of the ACC next year.

We know Gary will maximize what he has and whip his crew to a few upsets. But it's equally obvious that without a better grade of talent, Maryland won't make deep runs into the NCAA tournament. They'll run into teams like Memphis in the second or third round and they'll be hopelessly outclassed.

So my questions to you are: Do you see any of this changing? Do you think there's anything philosophically wrong with the state of Maryland's program (or is Gary really kind of a noble figure)? Should Greivis come back?

Fear the Turtle, I suppose.

Childs

Continue reading "The Conversation: The state of Maryland basketball" »

Posted by Kevin Van Valkenburg at 9:00 AM in Terps, The Conversation | Permalink | Comments (22)