Just saw this in the Wizards Insider blog.
The sad reality is that the Wizards are in big trouble without Butler and Jamison in the lineup, so this is obviously incredible news. Combine this with a very easy schedule upcoming, and I think things will start to get better.
Of course, this didn't stop my onetime favorite writer Michael Wilbon from writing a doom and gloom column in the Post today.
Wilbon used to be a really great columnist, but since moving to ESPN, his columns have gotten worse and worse. This one might be the most egregiously bad one yet. Wilbon forcasted a Wizards drop by extrapolating from one game played without their second and third best players. Based on one game, Wilbon suggests that the Heat are on their way back, despite losing to the Knicks two nights ago. On one level, I understand the need to write these colums, but why do we need to forecast doom and gloom based on watching one game?
I guess I wouldn't have as big of a problem if Wilbon was at least specific. If there was something in there about how missing Butler means everything needs to go through Arenas, or how missing Jamison robs the offense of their best pick and roll player, it would be worth writing about. If there was something in there about how exactly Shaq was able to dominate in the post (e.g. he was catching the ball in great position,), then it would be worth writing about. But no, instead we see a lot of generic blanket phrases, a couple meaningless interviews (obviously, the Heat are going to talk themselves up), and a negative premise based off one game of observation. Why would anyone read something like that if they can go to a team blog and get a more in-depth look? And you wonder why the newspaper business is failing.