(Editor's note:  Please welcome my good friend Tim Landrum to the 18to88 fold.  He'll be our official soccer correspondent through the World Cup this summer)

As many of you know, the 19th FIFA Wold Cup will kick-off on June 11th in South Africa.  In most of the countries that are participating, life will grind to a halt when their team takes the field.  If they win, the nation will rejoice.  If they lose, they will mourn, some more than others.  Some of the most soccer-obsessed countries will slide into a period of depression when their team gets knocked out of the tournament.  If previous years are any indication, close to 1 billion people will be watching the final match.  I want you to be one of those people.  Why?  I love soccer and the more people that watch, the more likely that I'll be able to talk soccer with random people that I encounter in Indianapolis.  That's definitely a simplification of how I feel, but its not really that far from the truth.  In no particular order, I have compiled a list of the 18 top reasons that 18to88.com readers should watch the World Cup.

1.  You love America

Foreign readers of 18to88.com can ignore this first one.  (Are there any?) Ed. note-Um, yes. there are a lot of us.  For those of you that don't know, the USA is one of the 32 teams competing in the tournament.  (Although, I imagine that the readership of this blog watches ESPN regularly and if you've been watching ESPN regularly you've likely seen one of the World Cup commercials that are on endless rotation.)  If you've ever had a patriotic bone in your body, the thought of our boys competing on the biggest stage in sports should give you goose bumps.

2.  Its a great excuse to skip out of work in the middle of the day

South Africa is six hours ahead of the Eastern Timezone.  Games will be on from between 7:30 AM to 5PM for a solid month.  If you're like me, then you're always looking for a convenient excuse to take a long lunch break.

3.  It's kinda like a World War, but with out all of the dying

If you compared international sporting competitions to armed conflicts, then the World Cup would be something akin both World War I and World War II happening at the same time, but with more involvement from South America.  The Olympics?  That's more like the U.N.

4.  Because you like to see bone shattering tackles.

A tackle in soccer might be a little different than what it is in the NFL, but soccer has great tackles, too.  Like this one. And this one. And this one.

5.  Clint Dempsey is raptastic!

Clint Dempsey (aka "Deuce"), has one of the best stories in American soccer.  He will be on the field for the US in South Africa and he scores big game goals.  Mostly, though, he's known for his skills behind the mic.

6. International soccer is home to a wide variety of fascinating hair styles

Whether you laugh at them or secretly covet them, its undeniable that the World Cup regularly produces some incredible hair.  Proof can be found here and here.

7. Messi

Pint-sized Argentine forward Lionel Messi is at the top of his game and is arguably the best-player in the world at the moment.  A dominating performance in the World Cup this year could propel him into the pantheon of soccer greats like Maradona, Cryuf, and Pele.  Messi moves with the ball at his feet like few other players ever have, like its on a string or pulled in by a tractor beam.  He was brilliant for Barcelona this past season (again) and everyone is waiting to see what he'll do in South Africa.  Here's a decent goal compilation from this year.

8. Because Thomas Jefferson once said "The tree of national soccer pride must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

OK, so that's not exactly how he said it, and it's a little bit inflammatory, but you get the picture, right?  The US has its opening game of the tournament against England at 2:30PM that Saturday.  Its the first time that we've played them in the World Cup since 1950, when we gave them a shock, 1-0 upset.  Has there been a better reason to root against England since the Revolutionary War?  Its not like we get that many opportunities to be on the opposite side of a conflict with them anymore.

9. Everybody loves controversy, right?

The World Cup is run by FIFA, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association. FIFA is to corruption and scandal like Mr. Rogers is to wholesome.  The 2010 World Cup already has had all kinds of controversies swirling around, from all sorts of shenanigans in the organizing of the event to unscrupulous handling of the qualifying process in Europe.  Its like driving by a car wreck, you can't help but watch.

Part two coming soon.

Entering the draft, the biggest need for the Colts was seemingly left tackle. Tony Ugoh has not yet lived up to his potential. While Charlie Johnson played admirably, he does not seem like the long-term solution. Adding a franchise left tackle would also allow the Colts to move Johnson to his more natural and effective position of guard. As we all know, however, the Colts addressed different positions in the draft, specifically in the first and second round, where elite left tackles can be found.

During the first two rounds, the Colts had a reasonable chance at four left tackle prospects: Roger Saffold, Zane Beadles, Charles Brown, and Jared Veldheer. In my opinion, any other prospects would either have been a reach or have taken a costly trade to acquire. The Colts passed on each of these players. I’m going to try and figure out why.

To start off, here are the statistics for those four players plus some Colts taken in similar rounds. These are the same categories as last week. Because of reader request, I added 20 yard short-shuttle and bench press. I chose Pat Angerer because he was taken in place of these linemen. Tony Ugoh and Mike Pollak are added because they are the only two lineman the Colts have selected recently in the second.

Player	Height/Wt	Speed	Prod	Degree	Captain	Conf	School Year Drafted
Pat Angerer LB	6'1/2 /235	4.69	5	Yes	Yes	Big 10	Senior
Tony Ugoh OT	6'5/301	5.04	5	Yes	No	SEC	Senior
Mike Pollak OG	6'4/300	4.92	4	Yes	Yes	Pac 10	Senior
Roger Saffold OT	6'5/316	5.21	4	Yes	Yes	Big 10	Senior
Zane Beadles OT	6'5/ 310	5.28	5	Yes	No	MWC	Senior
Charles Brown OT	6'5/303	5.16	5	Yes	No	PAC 10	Senior
Jared Veldheer OT	6'8/312	5.06	4	Yes	Yes	GLIAC	Senior

Player	Bench Press	20 Yrd Shuttle
Pat Angerer LB	26	4.29
Tony Ugoh OT	32	DNP
Mike Pollak OG	29	4.14
Roger Saffold OT	27	4.67
Zane Beadles OT	20	4.86
Charles Brown OT	21	4.64
Jared Veldheer OT	32	4.51

Why the Colts did not select:

Roger Saffold: The Colts had the chance to select Saffold either by using their first pick or trading into the top of the second. Saffold seems like he has what the typical Colts player must: He graduated, has great production (4), was a team captain, played in a BCS conference and has adequate size. However, Saffold lacks speed and burst. His short shuttle is above average, but nothing special. His forty time was average for a lineman, which we have seen is unacceptable for the Colts. His 10 yard split time, 1.80, shows a lack of athleticism and burst for his size. Saffold just doesn’t have the necessary athleticism to merit a first round selection.

Zane Beadles: Beadles was consistent, productive, tough, and has an awesome name. Nonetheless, there is no way Beadles could be a Colt left tackle. Beadles doesn’t come from a BCS conference. While extremely productive, he lacks any sign of true athleticism. His bench press was matched by three wide receivers. He’s slower than Saffold with a worse 10-yard split. His 20-yard shuttle is plain bad. If you’re not an athlete, you’re not a Colt. Beadles neither.

Charles Brown: Most experts saw Brown as a late first round player. As the draft progressed, however, he remained available as the Colts chose late in the second. While rumors of a medical issue could have caused the slip, the Colts passed on Brown for other reasons. Like Saffold, Brown has much of what the Colts look for. However, his 21 bench reps denote a lack of strength. I think the Colts shied away from Brown, and this is coming from someone who watched him live a lot, because he doesn’t always play physical football. He uses his technique and scheme to beat opponents instead of just mauling. This is reflected in the poor bench number and in his draft plummet.

Jared Veldheer: Veldheer has every measurable the Colts want. He’s fast, strong, big, quick and athletic. He ran a 4.51 20-yard shuttle at 6’8. That’s impressive. Like Howard Mudd, Veldheer went to small Hillsdale. While Veldheer is a supreme athlete, he has never faced anyone with the quickness, strength and burst of Jerry Hughes, let alone Mathis and Freeney. With the Colts primed to make another Super Bowl run, a project player was just not an option.

Polian ultimately passed on the left tackles because they did not fit the Colts’ draft philosophy. While all of these players were appealing, especially Saffold and Veldheer, the Colts are the best team in the league at drafting because they stick to their beliefs. The Colts want smart, determined players who can fly around the field, even at lineman. Ugoh and Pollak both show a great mix of strength and speed. Pollak, in fact, is a physical freak with a faster 20-yard shuttle than Jerry Hughes. Every Colts selection in the Polian era reinforces the fact that a Colt must be an athlete, have great speed with at least good strength, be productive in a big conference, and have graduated.

While the Colts do make exceptions like Hughes, they only do it when outstanding tape convinces them otherwise. With multiple physical and competitive shortcomings, none of these tackles had enough outstanding tape to merit selection. Ultimately, the Colts look to see if every player meets the three pillars of being a Colt: Speed, production and character. The Colts believe that if all 53 men on the roster embody these three pillars, they’re going to win a lot of football games. Finding these players starts with the draft, with making a philosophy, and sticking to it. The same reasons the Colts have won 12 games for seven straight seasons are the same reasons they did not select at left tackle in the draft. Speed. Production. Character.

 

As a rule, I don't get too excited about wins in May, but this afternoon I'll make an exception.

The Reds took a series from the Cardinals today and in the process took over first place in the National League Central.  In the process, Bronson Arroyo threw a complete game.  This was the Reds third complete game in their last five.

Cincy has still been outscored on the season, so consider my enthusiasm appropriately curbed.  Still, two weeks ago, it seemed like the Cards were headed for a double digit lead in games by June, so for the Reds to knock them out of first for the first time since last July is big.

If the Reds keep pitching well, their Pythagorean Wins will catch up to their real ones.  Once that happens, then I'll really start to hope.

Most teams are hoping to play meaningful games in September or October.  At this point, I'll settle for July.

I confess:  I've never really understood Facebook.

The first time I heard about Facebook was at a conference about engaging young leaders.  I was supposed to represent the young leaders.  I ran my own blog.  I had a podcast.  I had an informational website with video and everything.  I instantly felt old when I heard about Facebook.

Why?  Because not only was it a new tech that I wasn't using, but it was a new tech that I emotionally couldn't comprehend.  Even to this day, I "understand" it only on the most basic of levels.

A couple of years ago, I signed up for an account, largely to promote 18to88.com.  I even signed up as Demond Sanders because they wouldn't let me use Deshawn Zombie.  Eventually, I switched to my real name, terrified of breaking some law about impersonating a celebrity (though at no time did I ever claim to be the real Demond Sanders-so please don't kill me, Bob.  Please.).

A few months ago, I set up my Facebook account to link directly to every new post on 18to88.  I've seen good results from that as many of you come here directly from Facebook.

Over the last few months, I've added several new friends from high school.  I haven't spoken to many of them in 15 years.  Now, suddenly, every Facebook post they read from me is about the Colts.

I would like to think I have a rich, full existence.  I do have a real job.  In fact, anyone who cares to follow that can feel free to also do so on Facebook.  I have a wife and kids.  I read weighty philosophical books and watch truly artistic films. I'm not just deep, I'm the freaking Marianas Trench of deep.

But no one on Facebook would ever know any of that.  No, to all my old friends and acquaintances I'm just a guy who lives to blog about football.  They'll continue on thinking of me as a one trick pony, never knowing that I also love baseball, soccer, and auto racing as well.

Of course, I realize there is an easy solution to this conundrum.  I could just spend time on Facebook, updating everyone about my life and moods with pithy status updates.  I could even sync them with my Twitter account, so everyone would know how to stay on top of my goings on.  The ability to inform the world of the breadth of experience I have in my life is within my grasp.  If only I would choose to use it.

After all, nothing says "Hey, this guy leads a deep, rich life!" like pithy status updates.

All of this is just my way of saying: Did you know you can connect to 18to88 via Facebook and Twitter?

Good.  Just making sure.

A few random thoughts by reader request:

Derek wants to know about a way to watch games overseas called IPCTV. For $29.99 (today only!), you allegedly get access to hundreds of TV channels world wide.  I've posted links to a few sites in the sidebar before for free services and paid services.  There's a review of the various pay options on line, but I don't know how impartial it is.

If anyone knows anything about any of these sites, please comment.

BobMan asked for my thoughts on Brian Cushing.  My thoughts are:  he's a huge liar and a cheat.  I found the whole 'revote' for the rookie of the year award to be preposterous, but once the AP decided to revote, I don't buy the whole "vote for Cushing in protest" angle.  The rules are the rules.  If the AP wants a new vote, the members should vote accordingly, and there is no defense for voting a skeeze like Cushing. Ultimately, the reason it doesn't matter is that no one gives a crap about the NFL Rookie of the year award.  The fact that they give out two awards (one for O and one for D) cheapens it.  It's so unprestegious that Peyton Manning didn't even win it.  And let's face it, if the media is voting for an award and Peyton Manning doesn't win it, it must not matter much.

The funniest part of the whole affair was Bob McNair and Gary "Jackie Childs" Kubiak sitting there watching the whole thing in utter humiliation.

"This is the most public of my many humiliations."

Bob also wants to know about Shawne Merriman, wondering if at this point, we wouldn't rather have him WITH the Chargers being miserable and causing problems.  That certainly is a brilliant take.  Normally, I want guys like that shipped to bad teams  or to the NFC, but with a head case like Norv in charge, I think the more destabilizing forces in the Chargers locker room, the better.  Great point.  It is amazing how far this guy has fallen.

Speaking of Norv Turner, Aaron wrote today wondering if the Colts didn't hire Ron Turner to help against Norv Turner's Chargers.  He wanted to know the track record of Ron's teams offenses against teams where Norv was the coach.

Unfortunately, Ron Turner's Bears only played Norv teams twice:  1996 against the Redskins (10-3 loss) and 2007 against the Chargers (14-3 loss).  I don't know why the Colts hired Ron Turner, but it wasn't to help them beat the Chargers.

 

Jon Bennett (The Stadium Guy) made Victory Field his 108th stadium he's visited. Before I get to his review, let me share this sweet photo he took of the Luke.  He especially noticed how huge Lucas Oil Stadium is compared to Victory Field.  If you have never been to downtown Indy, the size of the Luke is stunning.  He also loved how well the stadium blended in with the factory in the foreground.

On the whole, I liked the park very much and it has a mix of the timelessness of such ballpark classics as Kauffman and Dodger Stadium with the city skyline designs of PNC, Comerica, Camden Yards and Busch.  As a Class AAA ballpark, it falls a bit short of AutoZone Park (Memphis).  I visited Louisville Slugger Field the day after visiting Victory Field.  LSF as it is frequently referenced as, is another highly rated Class AAA stadium and is about four years newer than Victory.  I like the lower deck seating bowl slightly better at Louisville Slugger, but for everything else, I would go with Victory Field as the better ballpark.  Victory Field is well worth a visit.  Stay downtown and enjoy your visit.  There is quite a bit to do and see in downtown Indianapolis, not to mention the opportunity to visit a certain race car track a few miles west of downtown.

We are really fortunate in Indianapolis to have three beautiful sports arenas.  If you haven't been down to Victory Field yet, get down there and support minor league baseball.

I'm coming home in July for five weeks.

I can't freaking wait.  I love Indianapolis.

Reader Robert I hits the inbox with this today:

Hey DZ,

I did a little research on Thad Turner, the UDFA CB out of Ohio that the Colts signed. As you know, he is competing for a roster spot after Kevin Thomas went down in minicamp.

Well after reading Brett Mock's great article on the camp battle between Brandon King and Thad Turner, I found a video on youtube where Turner does one-on-one drills against WR's



I found a rather disturbing trend during the first half of the video. If you notice, when plays up in press man coverage, he always seems to extend his arm out and grab the receiver. The first couple of attempts a slightly subtle, but it gradually turns out to be almost flat out blatant. Just thought you might find it interesting as this may hurt his chances of making the roster.

Thanks for the email Robert.  First, you have to realize that there is no "illegal contact" penalty in NCAA football.  The defender can bump and touch the WR until the ball is in the air.  This is part of the reason you often see rookie corners get 'grabby'.  They are used to being able to play WRs much more physically, and it often leads to them getting beat.  Even in the NFL, however, the corner is allowed to extend his arm to feel the wide out.  What he cannot do is grab the receiver, shove the receiver, or impede his progress.

I imagine that if you looked at the college tape on any of these young corners, you'd see similar techniques.  College corners are taught to maintain as much contact as possible with the recievers.  You can even hear him talk about it in the video, "Look how I try and squeeze my man to the sidelines," he says.  He clearly gives guys shoves with his extended arm and also with his shoulders in an effort to move them off their route and more to the outside.  In the NFL this is illegal five yards beyond the line, but in the NCAA it is considered perfect technique right up until the ball is in the air.

This just illustrates how hard scouting is.  You have to judge players on their physical tools, recognizing that some of their techniques will be useless if not detrimental to life in the NFL.  A corner can press his man toward the sidelines, but he has to do so in much more subtle ways than a big shove with an outstretched arm 10 yards down field. The kind of manhandling Turner does in this video would draw all kinds of flags at the next level, but certainly does show his willingness to hit and be physical.  Those are the skills the Colts look for in a corner, even if they are applied differently in the pros.

In summary, the only thing you can take from this is that Thad Turner is a physical, fundamentally sound college corner who obviously applied his coaching well.  His extended arm is just a sign that he was doing exactly as he was told.

EDITOR'S NOTE:   As a follow up to Monday's "Profile of a Colt", reader Allen Yousif has compiled data on all the Colts' first and second round picks under Polian.  Allen did a ton of work to go back and find measurables from some of the older players.  Enjoy.  By the way, I'm always willing to post good work and research by readers.  Just drop me a line if you have something you'd like everyone to see.

Picks & Analysis by Allen Yousif

1998 1.01. Peyton Manning (SEC/ Tennessee) 6-5 1/4, 230, 4.9
Desperately needed a quarterback after trading Jim Harbaugh (35) to the Baltimore Ravens for two draft picks. Chose Manning over Ryan Leaf (Pac-10/ Washington State).

1998 2.32. WR Jerome Pathon (Pac-10/ Washington) 6-0, 187, 4.45
Desperately needed a second wide receiver opposite Marvin Harrison. Pathon started 15 games as a rookie, although it was one-year fill-in veteran Torrence Small who contributed the most with what was the best season (45-681-15.1-7) of his workman career. Playing with a rookie Peyton Manning, mind you.

For more, click here.

 

Aaron Schatz of the footballoutsiders sits down with Tony Dungy for quite simply the best Xs and Os interview I've read in years.  Just specatcular in every sense of the word.

Among the highlights:

• Why Dungy didn't worry about stopping the run as much as Monte Kiffin.
• Which player improved the most during his time with the Colts
• What they didn't know about Pierre Garcon.
• What he thinks about Ugoh
• Does the shotgun formation create problems for the defense?

This is just about as interesting as a football article can possibly be.

 

We interrupt this offseason to bring you a brief movie review of Iron Man 2.  Though not a fan of Marvel comics specifically, I do enjoy comic books outside the Marvel Universe.  I loved the original Iron Man, specifically because of the outstanding performances by Robert Downey Jr. and Gweneth Paltrow.

Iron Man 2 hasn't had the same stellar reviews as the first, but frankly I'm surprised.  I thought the second movie, while lacking the same spark that came from the origin story in the first movie was just as strong overall.  The movie was rife with strong acting from Downey and Paltrow who once again display great chemistry.  I thought several times how I actually miss Paltrow in movies.  She's long been one of the few actresses I could tolerate, and she looks great with red hair.  Of course, I have a thing for red heads, so I admit my bias.

The biggest weakness of the first movie was the interminable 'robot battle' at the end.  Though Iron Man 2 came down to a similar clash, it was shorter and more entertaining.  Mickey Rourke was excellent as Ivan Vanko, and proved a more interesting villain than Jeff Bridges did in the first movie.  Ultimately, the climatic fight was not the real point of the movie, as Iron Man 2 is basically a set up film for the coming Avengers movie (you have to love Sam Jackson as Nick Fury).  Bearing in mind that this movie was not an end unto itself and therefore lacked the same satisfying conclusion as the first, it was still entertaining.

The only slow part of the movie came when Downey and Don Cheadle (who pointlessly replaced Terrance Howard) did battle against one another in their respective Iron suits.  Seriously, CGI robots fighting each other was what made Transformers suck so much.  Yawn.  Sam Rockwell was over the top in his role as well.

If anything, Iron Man 2 improves on the original.  The raw material was not quite as strong, but the final result stands up quite well.  I was pleasantly surprised.  Anyone who enjoyed the first Iron Man should enjoy the second as well.