ESPN has an Ombudsman. Actually, they have had a series of Ombudsmen for quite a few years now. It's hard to really know about the Ombudsman since ESPN has the Ombudsman only post something once or twice a month. The current ESPN Ombudsman is Robert Lipsyte. I'm sure he's a nice guy. He posted his first column on June 28, 2013 and has written a grand total of 20 columns since then. He's written four columns since April 28, 2014. I don't know what to expect from the ESPN Ombudsman, but I expect more than this. Since ESPN is a 24 hour sports network I figure the Ombudsman could have more to discuss than writing a column twice in a month. Maybe I should give him credit for doing three chats over the last year too. I'm sure that took a toll and was a heavy workload. I still feel like ESPN has an Ombudsman only to claim they do care about their image and want to be held accountable. Perhaps I'm jaded, but it seems like the hiring of an Ombudsman is an obligatory measure by ESPN. They care! Look at the Ombudsman they hired!
So Robert Lipsyte has written about ESPN embracing debate and where this embrace of debate goes wrong. While I don't necessarily expect Lipsyte to lay into ESPN on a weekly basis, it would be nice if he didn't pretend Stephen A. Smith's comments about the Ray Rice situation were out of the ordinary for Smith and out of the ordinary for the inflammatory comments that are encouraged on "First Take." I would appreciate it more if the ESPN Ombudsman would treat "First Take" and other "embrace debate" shows for what they are, which is two ill-informed talking heads yelling opinions at each other in an effort to troll viewers into paying attention. But, that's not going to happen, so Lipsyte acts like "First Take" went a little wrong while embracing debate. He will ignore that the show is a breeding ground for outrageous comments, racism, and statements being made purely for shock value.
I don't believe the Ombudsman is properly doing his job if he doesn't acknowledge that "First Take" has been a breeding ground for outrageous behavior that at times has created an environment for ugly comments. Also, in this column the Ombudsman not once mentions that ESPN should have initially had female point of view on the Ray Rice suspension represented on "First Take." Apparently it didn't merit a mention that when discussing the issue of a female being abused by her fiance it might be good to get a woman's point of view on "First Take" prior to Stephen A. Smith's comments.
As covered in this space before, ESPN has championed an “embrace debate”
mantra for a number of its programs, including the popular morning show
on ESPN2 called “First Take.”
I would argue it's popular only in that people hate-watch it. That's good enough for ESPN though.
This has at times served the network well, growing audience and offering sometimes thought-provoking, entertaining television.
The emphasis here being on "entertaining" television, much in the same way "The Jerry Springer Show" was entertaining television. At very few points have I ever heard anything approaching thought-provoking when Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless have been at the table yelling at each other regarding a sports topic.
Of course, that also means ESPN has to live with -- or at least take
more responsibility -- when that particular septic tank overflows.
By stating "take more responsibility" I have no idea what the Ombudsman means. Does "taking more responsibility" mean punishing those who appear on the show for acting in the manner that the environment ESPN has created? Or does "taking more responsibility" mean recognizing "First Take" is a breeding ground for comments like Smith to use the n-word, Rob Parker to accuse Robert Griffin of not being black enough or for Skip Bayless to blatantly lie about his sports past while on the air, and then remove the show from the air? I would argue the latter. I have an issue with what Smith said, but "First Take's" environment breeds idiotic comments like this. It's not expected, but bold comments like the ones Smith made about provocation and the abuse of women aren't exactly shied away from either on "First Take."
The latest example came on Friday, when the Ombudsman mailbag
justifiably exploded after ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith seemed to cast blame
on victims of domestic violence in his “First Take” commentary about the
NFL’s punishment of the Baltimore Ravens’ Ray Rice.
He didn't "seem to" cast blame on victims. He DID cast blame on victims and it's well-documented at other sites on the Interwebs that this isn't the first time Smith has made comments such as this. When being an Ombudsman and claiming to be a neutral observer I think it would be important to take the time to do research to see if Smith's comments are a one-time thing or he has a history of such comments. A simple search of the Internet can find that Smith has made comments similar to these he made regarding the Rice incident about another situation involving Chad Johnson (and Floyd Mayweather). Apparently that's too much work for ESPN's Ombudsman to put in to research this and ask the question of whether Smith really feels the way he expressed on "First Take" about provocation.
Smith repeatedly said that he thought the NFL’s punishment of Rice was
too light, but created a storm of criticism when he added, “Let’s make
sure we don’t do anything to provoke wrong actions. If we come after
somebody has put their hands on you, it doesn’t negate the fact that
they already put their hands on you. So let’s try to make sure that we
can do our part in making sure that that doesn’t happen.”
I like how the Ombudsman adds that Smith thought the NFL's punishment of Rice was too light and "repeatedly" stated this. As if these words override the other words Smith later used about the victim provoking his/her attacker. I don't expect much from an ESPN Ombudsman. Just a simple analysis of a situation, a look into the history of that situation with the parties involved and that Ombudsman's take on the situation and how it was handled by ESPN. The fact Lipsyte glosses over "First Take" as a breeding ground for idiocy and Smith's history of similar comments makes me believe Lipsyte didn't do his job fully in this situation.
The attention shifted from Rice and the role of the NFL in the off-field
transgressions of its players to Smith and ESPN when Michelle Beadle,
co-host of the network’s “SportsNation” show, quickly posted a series of
tweets challenging Smith’s remarks.
Here is another related issue I have with the Ombudsman's analysis in this column. He acts like attention being shifted from the sports story the ESPN talking head is commenting on to that ESPN talking head him/herself is a new thing. As if the "embrace debate" mantra isn't entirely built around shifting attention from the story being reported on to the reporter doing the reporting/opining. ESPN has a roster full of analysts that have hot sports takes (Merril Hoge, Ron Jaworski, etc.) who can then have their hot sports take discussed on "First Take" and other ESPN shows. It's all part of ESPN's echo chamber.
So I find it interesting that Robert Lipsyte writes about the attention shifting to Smith and Beadle as if this is out of the ordinary for ESPN overall, when in fact the reason the attention shifted in this situation is unusual. Usually, the ESPN echo chamber is shifting attention internally to things Skip Bayless has said on "First Take" or a remark that was made by an ESPN analyst. In this situation, the attention shifted externally to comments made by ESPN employees. I really wish Lipsyte had mentioned this attention shift isn't rare, but the attention shift coming externally to affect ESPN internally is rare. Again, that would require some sense of awareness about the role ESPN plays in the sports world, which apparently even the most neutral observers who are employed by ESPN simply don't have.
My point is this. The situation around Smith's comments is being treated by Lipsyte as a situation where Smith doesn't have a history of similar comments, Smith doesn't appear on a "debate" show where crazy and controversial comments are encouraged, and the attention shifting from the story to the hot sports take the ESPN employee has is an abnormal set of circumstances. That's simply not the case. ESPN just didn't like the attention shift this time, but they love to shift attention away from a story to their employees' take on that story. Lipsyte has talked about the comments Smith made on "First Take," but refuses to discuss at any length the underlying issues that create an environment where Smith can make these comments freely.
Her first tweet that Friday afternoon, was: “So I was just forced to
watch this morning's First Take. A) I'll never feel clean again B) I'm
now aware that I can provoke my own beating.”
That became a media story because of ESPN’s stance against its personnel engaging in internecine sniping.
I find this to be a very tone-deaf statement. No, this became a media story because Michelle Beadle is a prominent female sports journalist who spoke out against the statements that Stephen A. Smith made. It was a bigger media story because it was ESPN on ESPN crime, but Beadle's tweets were a reflection of a point of view "First Take" didn't give a shit about representing in their eagerness to "embrace debate." That point of view was that of a female sports journalist. Again, at no point during this article does Lipsyte mention that ESPN could have been well-served to go to their roster of female sports journalists to get a female take on the Ray Rice suspension during "First Take." Isn't this the job of the Ombudsman? To help determine how ESPN can better fairly serve their viewers? Apparently embracing debate is the goal, just as long as that debate doesn't come from a female.
But really, how could ESPN have seen that a female perspective in this situation would have been helpful to the viewer? What point of view could a female provide that Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless can't provide? It's not like ESPN is a massive organization with the opportunity to "embrace debate" on a larger scale with espnW writers and other male ESPN employees rather than have two middle-aged men yell at each other on camera about Ray Rice's suspension.
Stars such as Bill Simmons have been disciplined in the past for criticizing colleagues.
It appears those blinders Lipsyte is wearing fit well. What show was Simmons suspended for criticizing again? Oh yeah! "First Take." Interesting how the Ombudsman, a man who is supposed to be a neutral commenter and observer, leaves out the little tidbit that "First Take" has taken criticism from ESPN employees in the past. Why would the history of "First Take" and ESPN employees being critical of the show in the past have anything to do with Stephen A. Smith's comments and how the environment around "First Take" played a role in his comments? It would be nice if ESPN would hire an Ombudsman that looks beneath the surface on issues as opposed to simply commenting on ESPN and whatever issue is on his brain at that time in a manner that scratches the surface of the issue.
The Ombudsman mailbag was firmly behind Beadle as a champion of victims’
rights, and indications are that ESPN will not take action against her.
I think Beadle’s tweets were appropriate, even if she did violate
ESPN’s social media policies.
I do think Michelle Beadle needs a stern talking to for violating ESPN's social media policies. Not criticizing ESPN means not criticizing ESPN, even if someone at ESPN stays something incomprehensibly stupid. Women have no place debating domestic violence or criticizing someone else's debate points regarding domestic violence. Beadle needs to know her place and her place isn't on "First Take" debating Ray Rice's suspension. Her debate points will NOT be embraced.
ESPN initially issued a remarkably noncommittal statement, noting that
“Stephen's comments last Friday do not reflect our company's point of
view.” The network showed more teeth
Tuesday, announcing that Smith will not appear on “First Take” or ESPN
Radio for the next week. He will return to ESPN next Wednesday.
But this won't take care of part of the problem. Part of the problem is "First Take." It breeds shit like this. It breeds and encourages through the "embrace debate" philosophy one of the ESPN talking heads saying some stupid shit on the air. Get to that. Point this out. This is something the Ombudsman is failing miserably to do. The "embrace debate" mantra went wrong, but is this "embrace debate" mantra part of the problem? There is a history that shows this could very well be the case.
Smith’s attempts to clarify his remarks on Twitter later on Friday --
and then to apologize Monday in a taped statement before “First Take” --
did not satisfy his critics. Said Smith, “I made what can only amount
to the most egregious error of my career. I ventured beyond the scope of
our discussion by alluding to a woman’s role in such heinous matters,
going so far as to use the word ‘provoke’ in my diatribe. My words came
across that it is somehow a woman’s fault. This was not my intent. It
was not what I was trying to say.”
This is the point where a different Ombudsman might point out that if Stephen A. Smith wasn't trying to say it was a woman's fault, then his history of comments like this one says something completely different. Failing to do an examination of Smith's history of comments on provocation in this Ombudsman piece is an egregious error in my opinion. It frames this as a solitary issue and not one event out of three that could lead a person to believe Stephen A. Smith didn't just slip up once.
"Stephen has called what took place 'the most egregious mistake' of his
career," said ESPN president John Skipper in a memo to staff. "I believe
his apology was sincere and that he and we have learned from what we've
collectively experienced. I'm confident we will all move forward with a
greater sense of enlightenment and perspective as the lasting impact of
these last few days."
Well, until the next hot sports take gets out of hand on "First Take" and another of the panelists is forced to apologize for something he didn't mean to say. Though as we learned regarding Skip Bayless outright lying about his basketball career, as long as someone isn't offended, then there are no repercussions for bad behavior on the show. "Embrace debate" may become "Embrace fiction" at times, but it's all for entertainment's sake.
I think Smith’s problems have always been more mechanical than moral. His mouth runs faster than his mind,
Apparently his fingers move faster than his mind on Twitter too. Let's keep making excuses and not get to the underlying issue here and why "First Take" exists, which is to take advantage of the fact Smith's mouth moves faster than his brain.
His cadences can mesmerize, whether he’s convoluting an already
complicated trade or, as he did in 2012 talking about a football player
head-butting his then-wife: “There are plenty of instances where
provocation comes into consideration, instigation comes into
consideration, and I will be on the record right here on national
television and say that I am sick and tired of men constantly being
vilified and accused of things and we stop there. I'm saying, ‘Can we go
a step further?’ Since we want to dig all deeper into Chad Johnson, can
we dig in deep to her?’”
Oh good, we are going to talk about this! The Ombudsman will discuss how Smith's apology rings false because he has been down this road before regarding women being physically assaulted by their husband. Right? Isn't a long discussion on how Smith has a pattern of such comments relevant?
Smith clearly has been down this low road before.
I'm just kidding with you guys. This is the only other comment Lipsyte makes regarding Smith's prior comments about violence against women. Smith has been down this low road before ON "FIRST TAKE," but how in the hell could that be relevant to a discussion about comments Smith made about violence against women on "First Take"? It's certainly not troubling and doesn't indicate anything negative about "First Take." Inconceivable.
I think he was doing what he is paid to do -- pontification on the fly
aimed to attract an audience and provoke it into coming back.
Oh, well it's all good then. As long as it's in the name of trying to attract an audience and provoking them into coming back. The fact Lipsyte just matter of factly states this, without actually wondering if this is the right way to achieve these goals, tells me most of what I need to know about his role as the Ombudsman. He's not interested in actually creating change or calling attention from within the ESPN organization. He wants to discuss topics every other week or so (you know, if he has time), not delve too deeply, treat every incident as an isolated one, and not bother with actual criticism of ESPN for the programming that encourages bad behavior.
In harness with Skip Bayless, he has made “First Take” an extremely
popular show. But that again left the network to clean up a mess of his
making.
Well, the popularity is a great excuse for creating such a mess. It's all worth it.
And it should not be lost that ESPN actually had several very good
responses to the Rice situation. On Thursday night, on his ESPN2 show,
Keith Olbermann had harsh words for the light punishment, and on Monday’s night’s show even harsher words for NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.
But Olbermann didn't have harsh words for Stephen A. Smith, ESPN or "First Take." That's the Ombudsman's job. That is the topic at hand. No one cares in the Ombudsman's space if Keith Olbermann had harsh words for Roger Goodell and the light punishment when discussing Stephen A. Smith's comments about provocation and women. What forum were the women of ESPN given to present their point of view on Rice's suspension? These comments were buried on espnW.
On espnW.com, there were two excellent columns, one by Jane McManus and the other by Mina Kimes.
So in summary, men like Keith Olbermann, Skip Bayless, and Stephen A. Smith got television spots to discuss Rice's suspension (though Cari Champion did get the honor of "moderating"), while the female ESPN employees got to write columns about the situation. I guess it was too much to ask that McManus or Kimes could be on-camera discussing the suspension during "First Take." That wouldn't be enough "embracing debate" for ESPN. Again, this is a very basic and logical criticism the Ombudsman fails to make. Why didn't ESPN at any point have a female point of view on the Ray Rice suspension on "First Take" alongside the take of Smith and Bayless? It was a suspension derided for how the NFL was treating women, what better than the point of view of a woman on this topic? Why were Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith responsible for representing the male and female point of view on Rice's two-game suspension, which eventually led to Smith's comments about provocation?
And this topic led to some unexpected twists in the Ombudsman mailbag.
One reader called out a recent column by Bill Simmons. In a typically breezy Grantland story
on sports movies as romantic comedies, Simmons described the Susan
Sarandon character in “Bull Durham,” who takes on as lover and project a
fresh new minor league player each season, as a “tramp.”
Anyone who has read "The Book of Basketball" knows that Bill comes off as a misogynist, so this comment in his column isn't entirely out of character for him. Bill likes to portray women as nagging hags who get in the way of a man's success and constantly try to drag him down. It's nothing new.
Wrote Dan Lee of Pickerington, Ohio, “Would Simmons refer similarly to a
male who has had a number of girlfriends? Is Derek Jeter a tramp? He
has had a number of high-profile romantic interests. Does Simmons hold
it against him? The column appears to have been published on the same
day that Stephen A. Smith made his much-publicized comments regarding
the responsibility of women to make sure they don't provoke their
boyfriends into beating them unconscious. Is this how women are viewed
at ESPN?”
Boy, wouldn't this be a great topic for the Ombudsman to cover? How does ESPN seem to view women, from an outsider's point of view? But that's a topic the ESPN Ombudsman finds too lengthy or difficult to tackle, despite the fact it's a relevant discussion that has been covered in several books and the question should be asked yet again after Smith's comments about women and provocation. Mike Freeman's book about ESPN brought these questions to light, yet 13 years later some of the questions posed in that book still remain. It sounds like something the Ombudsman might tackle when the chance is given. Apparently not.
Some would say that criticism is a stretch, that it pokes too far into
the Jock Culture boys club that marks much of ESPN coverage and
commentary. Others would say it’s time for ESPN to address what seems to
be an underlying attitude toward women as not quite the audience it
needs. What’s the right answer?
Don't expect Robert Lipsyte to look into the right answer or take his job as Ombudsman seriously enough to determine if the criticism is a stretch. He wants YOU to give HIM the answer. Then he can briefly discuss your emails a month from now and his job will be complete.
If you have specific comments and questions, let’s hear them. We will be
revisiting that topic, among others, in far greater detail in upcoming
columns.
I hope so, because a more serious conversation about "First Take" and attitudes towards women at ESPN (whether they be good or bad) was sorely missed in this Ombudsman column. I guess as soon as the ESPN readers do the research for Lipsyte he'll take the time to consider the issue. It's out of line, I guess, to consider "First Take" as a breeding ground for comments such as Stephen A. Smith's comments regarding provocation.
Then Lipsyte writes a little more and mentions Jason Whitlock's so-called "Black Grantland" that is becoming the Dr. Dre's "Detox" of ESPN. I keep hearing about how it will happen, but there's no release date yet, which makes me wonder if it will ever happen.
Showing posts with label Stephen A. Smith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephen A. Smith. Show all posts
Monday, September 8, 2014
Monday, September 22, 2008
0 comments Josh Howard: Possible War Criminal
Hey kids. Been slim pickings of late, some of the usual melodramatic stuff. I kind of thought Alex Marvez' head would explode after the Dolphins whipped the Patsies, but alas, no such luck. He's prophecising doom for the Colts now. In my desperation to find the ridiculous sports stories that I feed on for sustinence, I'm not proud to say that I took the easy way out. That's right a double shot of Stephen A. Forgive me my friends.
We know Howard can play, but there's little value in what he has to say
this statement, taken by itself is not only wholly uncontroversial but also very likely to be true. How can Stephen go astray? We are talking about an all-world nutjob here, give him time. Like Rocky, he is planning a crazy comeback in this article. Never doubt the heart of a champion idiot.
Josh Howard may not be the Dallas Mavericks' best player, but he's their most complete player.
this made me "woah! woah! woah!" but I imagine some people would agree with it. I dunno how in touch I remain with the NBA community, but there was an awful lot of Dirk hate after that MVP/losing to the Warriors thing, and he wasn't exactly to everyones taste before. Still you can see the germ of things falling apart here no matter what side of the "Dirk can't defend or score in the paint" great debate of our time you fall on.
He has a better post-up game than Dirk Nowitzki and better all-around skills than anyone else on their roster.
better post-up game than Nowitzki? How did your TO go against Al and Charles this week big fella? Two catches for seventeen yards, write it in stone, best receiver by far in the NFL!
Until six months ago he was universally recognized as the Mavs' best chance at capturing a championship, so much so that seemingly every team in the National Basketball Association inquired about his availability.
six months ago was late March, you'd struggle to find six people in the whole of North America who believed in the benchless Mavs and Jason Kidd's knees. This is a kind of rewrite of history, Howard was a non-story.
Now he's known these days as the franchise's resident idiot, someone who is gainfully employed solely because of his ability to bounce and shoot a basketball.
now we're getting to the good crazy! This is classic stuff. Newsflash Stephen, this is the only reason he was ever "gainfully employed". His comments were totally irrelevant to his job security. More relevant? The fact that he shot 29.2% in the playoffs. Talk about that. Oh wait, that's not a "story".
A character seemingly destined to embarrass his way into exile from a league that's garnered him millions of dollars because he won't stop perpetuating his ignorance and hostility to the masses, simultaneously casting an ominous shadow over his contemporaries.
I went to Wikipedia and looked up the entry for Satan.
For most Christians, he is believed to be an angel who rebelled against God. His ultimate goal is to lead people away from the love of God — to lead them to fallacies which God opposes. Before his alleged insurrection, Satan was among the highest of all angels and the "brightest in the sky." His pride is considered a reason why he would not bow to God as all other angels did, but sought to rule heaven himself.
The comparison is almost ominous isn't it?
A show of hands from any NBA player out there who's inclined to invite Josh Howard to his next shindig?
Ron Artest, Rasheed Wallace, Steven Jackson, DeShawn Stevenson, Carmelo Anthony, J.R.Smith, Vince Carter, Stephon Marbury, Michael Beasley, Gilbert Arenas, Tim Duncan.
Just kidding.
Allen Iverson couldn't be reached Thursday for an explanation as to why Howard would use Iverson's annual flag-football event as a forum for vulgarly disrespecting America's national anthem. I am not surprised. Who on earth would want to associate themselves with the radioactive Howard right now?
yeah, that Allen Iverson, always concerned about his reputation amongst flag waving conservatives.
I know, I know, Howard's comments were offensive to lots of people, not just the old faithful gun toters, but yeah, I don't think Allen Iverson really gives a shit, and I'd be willing to test that theory given the opportunity.
For those who didn't see the story, Howard -- against the backdrop of a presidential election rife with banter about patriotism and heightened sensitivities -- decided Iverson's event was the appropriate venue at which to express his disdain for the anthem. Speaking to a cell phone camera while others around him respectfully stood in recognition, Howard provided an on-camera cameo that went something like this: "'The Star-Spangled Banner' is going on. I don't celebrate this [expletive]. I'm black …"
Stephen A. Smith, meet Chuck D, arguably the most respected figure in hip hop. I'll let you two get acquainted.
This is the Josh Howard who validated those concerns last spring when he inexplicably turned into the NBA's version of Honest Abe and admitted to the Dallas Morning News that he was quite fond of smoking dope. The guy who stupidly implicated his NBA colleagues by saying most of them actually do, too.
again, let's make the assumption that Josh Howard doesn't realy give a fuck what you think - to a degree a reasonably noble position IMO. Now, he has crossed a line and become exasperating, but this is such a non-issue. Twenty something, supremely rich athletes, party hard, involving narcotics. I'M STUNNED.
Get real and your head out of the sand Smith, it might have lacked tact, but who really gives a fuck. Get over yourself.
Now Howard has the audacity to publicly challenge America's affinity to its own anthem, clearly oblivious to all the eyes that will be on him the 82 times each season he'll be expected to stand up for it.
I don't really think he was making some sophisticated political statement as just a stupid, ill-conceived, "the man is keeping me down" style comment to be controversial and belligerent. He would hardly be the first (and will not be the last) athlete to speak on race in extremely controversial terms.
That's not to mention the awkwardness his ignorance places upon players, the league, and, in particular, loquacious Mavs owner Mark Cuban once the 2008 NBA season arrives.
wow, how awkward for the NBA, to have to deal with race for the very first time ever. However will they cope? That's not even to mention the retiring, behind the scenes Cuban who abhors the spotlight. This is the beginning of the end for the NBA folks.
"All I can tell you about is the Josh Howard I've come to know," said new Mavs coach Rick Carlisle, speaking as he prepared to depart on a flight from Winston-Salem, N.C. after just spending the past few days with Howard. "Josh has been working extremely hard on his game. He's getting better every single day. He may not be our very best player, but he's certainly our most important player. I can speak about him in that regard and can tell you, from what I know, he's about doing whatever he can to help this franchise."
If only Howard took that the same approach toward representation of the African-American community!
uhh...what?
Whether or not Howard is sensitive to whatever plights exist regarding African-Americans is not for me or anyone else to say definitively, because none of us are flies on his wall. In Howard's world, he may think he's being sensitive to black people and what plagues this community, and that may have been what he was aiming for in spewing his rhetoric.
now you are taking a completely inverse, yet equally stupid analysis of his comments, it wasn't the harbinger of the end-time. It wasn't the expression of some call to arms from black militants and it wasn't some attempt to empathise with the black community at large and offer some solution.
He was trying to look cool and edgy in front of his friends. There, I just saved you weeks of banging your head into a wall.
Howard is not a spokesperson for the Democratic presidential candidate, despite offering some unclear message about "Obama" to that little cell phone camera.
right, so we shouldn't really give a shit what he says, because he is irrelevant in mobilising any true social movement.
He's not former NBA player Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, who in 1996 refused to stand for the national anthem, citing religious reasons.
Instead, he's simply an athlete so busy spreading his rhetoric, he hasn't taken into account the collateral damage it could potentially cause.
the ominous fog of hate...like that thing in Ghostbusters II. Oh Josh! What have you unleashed!
Fresh off the heels of a fantastic summer in Beijing, where the NBA clearly established itself as the architect of globalization in sports, we now return to the American sports world, where juvenile behavior reigns. Where an individual such as Howard can expect to earn $21.8 million over the next two years despite having essentially admitted to violating league rules by smoking weed in his off time. Where a league and its fans sit in utter disgust at Howard's apparent lack of appreciation.
I'm ambivalent, and I bet I'm not the only one. But don't worry Stephen, you have enough righteous indignation for us all. Let melodrama reign!
Once upon a time, Howard was considered quiet and timid. It was only after the checks got cashed and his future was secured did Howard reportedly once reveal: "I think like a Democrat but because of my tax bracket, I'm a Republican."
gotta be honest, I find that refreshingly honest and actually pretty funny. You Stephen? Give me your best crazy man shout now, let's get ANGRY!
One could easily ask just how such a statement benefits anyone other than himself. Then again, that would be an exercise in futility. After all, to ask would be to presume Howard cares.
Since he opened his mouth, we know better.
I'm sorry Stephen. There is no Santa Claus and some NBA players (and you may wanna sit down for this one) are selfish pricks who don't give a shit about you or what you think. Deal with it or go have a cry you big baby.
We know Howard can play, but there's little value in what he has to say
this statement, taken by itself is not only wholly uncontroversial but also very likely to be true. How can Stephen go astray? We are talking about an all-world nutjob here, give him time. Like Rocky, he is planning a crazy comeback in this article. Never doubt the heart of a champion idiot.
Josh Howard may not be the Dallas Mavericks' best player, but he's their most complete player.
this made me "woah! woah! woah!" but I imagine some people would agree with it. I dunno how in touch I remain with the NBA community, but there was an awful lot of Dirk hate after that MVP/losing to the Warriors thing, and he wasn't exactly to everyones taste before. Still you can see the germ of things falling apart here no matter what side of the "Dirk can't defend or score in the paint" great debate of our time you fall on.
He has a better post-up game than Dirk Nowitzki and better all-around skills than anyone else on their roster.
better post-up game than Nowitzki? How did your TO go against Al and Charles this week big fella? Two catches for seventeen yards, write it in stone, best receiver by far in the NFL!
Until six months ago he was universally recognized as the Mavs' best chance at capturing a championship, so much so that seemingly every team in the National Basketball Association inquired about his availability.
six months ago was late March, you'd struggle to find six people in the whole of North America who believed in the benchless Mavs and Jason Kidd's knees. This is a kind of rewrite of history, Howard was a non-story.
Now he's known these days as the franchise's resident idiot, someone who is gainfully employed solely because of his ability to bounce and shoot a basketball.
now we're getting to the good crazy! This is classic stuff. Newsflash Stephen, this is the only reason he was ever "gainfully employed". His comments were totally irrelevant to his job security. More relevant? The fact that he shot 29.2% in the playoffs. Talk about that. Oh wait, that's not a "story".
A character seemingly destined to embarrass his way into exile from a league that's garnered him millions of dollars because he won't stop perpetuating his ignorance and hostility to the masses, simultaneously casting an ominous shadow over his contemporaries.
I went to Wikipedia and looked up the entry for Satan.
For most Christians, he is believed to be an angel who rebelled against God. His ultimate goal is to lead people away from the love of God — to lead them to fallacies which God opposes. Before his alleged insurrection, Satan was among the highest of all angels and the "brightest in the sky." His pride is considered a reason why he would not bow to God as all other angels did, but sought to rule heaven himself.
The comparison is almost ominous isn't it?
A show of hands from any NBA player out there who's inclined to invite Josh Howard to his next shindig?
Ron Artest, Rasheed Wallace, Steven Jackson, DeShawn Stevenson, Carmelo Anthony, J.R.Smith, Vince Carter, Stephon Marbury, Michael Beasley, Gilbert Arenas, Tim Duncan.
Just kidding.
Allen Iverson couldn't be reached Thursday for an explanation as to why Howard would use Iverson's annual flag-football event as a forum for vulgarly disrespecting America's national anthem. I am not surprised. Who on earth would want to associate themselves with the radioactive Howard right now?
yeah, that Allen Iverson, always concerned about his reputation amongst flag waving conservatives.
I know, I know, Howard's comments were offensive to lots of people, not just the old faithful gun toters, but yeah, I don't think Allen Iverson really gives a shit, and I'd be willing to test that theory given the opportunity.
For those who didn't see the story, Howard -- against the backdrop of a presidential election rife with banter about patriotism and heightened sensitivities -- decided Iverson's event was the appropriate venue at which to express his disdain for the anthem. Speaking to a cell phone camera while others around him respectfully stood in recognition, Howard provided an on-camera cameo that went something like this: "'The Star-Spangled Banner' is going on. I don't celebrate this [expletive]. I'm black …"
Stephen A. Smith, meet Chuck D, arguably the most respected figure in hip hop. I'll let you two get acquainted.
This is the Josh Howard who validated those concerns last spring when he inexplicably turned into the NBA's version of Honest Abe and admitted to the Dallas Morning News that he was quite fond of smoking dope. The guy who stupidly implicated his NBA colleagues by saying most of them actually do, too.
again, let's make the assumption that Josh Howard doesn't realy give a fuck what you think - to a degree a reasonably noble position IMO. Now, he has crossed a line and become exasperating, but this is such a non-issue. Twenty something, supremely rich athletes, party hard, involving narcotics. I'M STUNNED.
Get real and your head out of the sand Smith, it might have lacked tact, but who really gives a fuck. Get over yourself.
Now Howard has the audacity to publicly challenge America's affinity to its own anthem, clearly oblivious to all the eyes that will be on him the 82 times each season he'll be expected to stand up for it.
I don't really think he was making some sophisticated political statement as just a stupid, ill-conceived, "the man is keeping me down" style comment to be controversial and belligerent. He would hardly be the first (and will not be the last) athlete to speak on race in extremely controversial terms.
That's not to mention the awkwardness his ignorance places upon players, the league, and, in particular, loquacious Mavs owner Mark Cuban once the 2008 NBA season arrives.
wow, how awkward for the NBA, to have to deal with race for the very first time ever. However will they cope? That's not even to mention the retiring, behind the scenes Cuban who abhors the spotlight. This is the beginning of the end for the NBA folks.
"All I can tell you about is the Josh Howard I've come to know," said new Mavs coach Rick Carlisle, speaking as he prepared to depart on a flight from Winston-Salem, N.C. after just spending the past few days with Howard. "Josh has been working extremely hard on his game. He's getting better every single day. He may not be our very best player, but he's certainly our most important player. I can speak about him in that regard and can tell you, from what I know, he's about doing whatever he can to help this franchise."
If only Howard took that the same approach toward representation of the African-American community!
uhh...what?
Whether or not Howard is sensitive to whatever plights exist regarding African-Americans is not for me or anyone else to say definitively, because none of us are flies on his wall. In Howard's world, he may think he's being sensitive to black people and what plagues this community, and that may have been what he was aiming for in spewing his rhetoric.
now you are taking a completely inverse, yet equally stupid analysis of his comments, it wasn't the harbinger of the end-time. It wasn't the expression of some call to arms from black militants and it wasn't some attempt to empathise with the black community at large and offer some solution.
He was trying to look cool and edgy in front of his friends. There, I just saved you weeks of banging your head into a wall.
Howard is not a spokesperson for the Democratic presidential candidate, despite offering some unclear message about "Obama" to that little cell phone camera.
right, so we shouldn't really give a shit what he says, because he is irrelevant in mobilising any true social movement.
He's not former NBA player Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, who in 1996 refused to stand for the national anthem, citing religious reasons.
Instead, he's simply an athlete so busy spreading his rhetoric, he hasn't taken into account the collateral damage it could potentially cause.
the ominous fog of hate...like that thing in Ghostbusters II. Oh Josh! What have you unleashed!
Fresh off the heels of a fantastic summer in Beijing, where the NBA clearly established itself as the architect of globalization in sports, we now return to the American sports world, where juvenile behavior reigns. Where an individual such as Howard can expect to earn $21.8 million over the next two years despite having essentially admitted to violating league rules by smoking weed in his off time. Where a league and its fans sit in utter disgust at Howard's apparent lack of appreciation.
I'm ambivalent, and I bet I'm not the only one. But don't worry Stephen, you have enough righteous indignation for us all. Let melodrama reign!
Once upon a time, Howard was considered quiet and timid. It was only after the checks got cashed and his future was secured did Howard reportedly once reveal: "I think like a Democrat but because of my tax bracket, I'm a Republican."
gotta be honest, I find that refreshingly honest and actually pretty funny. You Stephen? Give me your best crazy man shout now, let's get ANGRY!
One could easily ask just how such a statement benefits anyone other than himself. Then again, that would be an exercise in futility. After all, to ask would be to presume Howard cares.
Since he opened his mouth, we know better.
I'm sorry Stephen. There is no Santa Claus and some NBA players (and you may wanna sit down for this one) are selfish pricks who don't give a shit about you or what you think. Deal with it or go have a cry you big baby.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
0 comments The Eagles Win Despite Losing
Run. Run as fast as your can. Grab your family and go, and don't you dare look back. To those that cannot run, grab essential supplies like food, water and batteries. Stephen A. Smith not only continues to roam out there, unchecked, but he is growing. His tentacles have now hitched on to the NFL and he shows no signs of letting go. It's time to turn back kids, Stephen A. Smith is firmly in control now.
Despite loss, Eagles show they are a force in the NFC East
IRVING, Texas -- America's Team showed up for once last Monday night game at Texas Stadium.
for once. 15-4 in their last nineteen games, #1 seed in NFC last year, but this, finally, week two of 2008, they showed up. It's about time, the lazy good for nothings. Not like those plucky 9-9 Eagles huh?
Also, last Monday night game? Last Monday night game...really Stephen? Lock it in? Okey dokey.
And when the Dallas Cowboys were finished, surviving in thrilling fashion for a 41-37 victory over the Philadelphia Eagles, they proved to be everything everyone thought they were.
I get it. Denny Green was mad. It's been two years now. 'Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land - enough! '
They were sensational, courtesy of Terrell Owens. They were explosive, courtesy of an offense that proved it could score in bunches, against anyone, at any given moment. They also were erratic (i.e., Tony Romo), inconsistent (i.e., Tony Romo), prone to implosion (i.e., Tony Romo)
cool your jets hotshot. Romo was 21 of 30 for 312 yards. Yes, he threw an interception and had a critical fumble but he also found receivers for three touchdowns. His QB rating was 123.2, he was generally awesome, and it's ridiculous for you to imply he was "hot and cold" or anything of the sort. He's currently third in passing yards, has yet to be sacked, is equal third in passing TD's and second in YPA. He's pretty fucking good, no matter what you claim, and it wasn't just TO = good, Romo = "inconsistant" (and we know you're implying bad).
flat-out defenseless (no explanation needed). So much so that Monday night's performance should give pause to all those folks who plan on riding their big blue stars to Tampa in February.
sure, this you can have. They were poor defensively, though they did register four sacks, recovered a fumble and 337 total yards, while not good, isn't quite "flat-out defenseless". It's a little over the top. But "a little over the top" would be a remarkable accomplishment for SAS, and would make Mr and Mrs SAS beam with pride I'm sure.
Especially with the Eagles nipping at the Cowboys' heels in the same division.
1.0 games. As opposed to the 2.0 maximum possible lead. The Eagles still trail the Giants, mind you, and are tied with the Redskins. WOW, who thought it would be so close in the NFC East after a marathon of two games? It's a wild division clearly.
At the moment, you can write in stone that Owens is the best receiver in football
stone? Stone? I like TO, have defended him on this blog before, he's good; sometimes I forget how good he is because he's so strong, you don't quite expect the same "spectacularness" you might of a Fitzgerald or Edwards or Smith. But in stone? My God man! Owens is tied with Hines Ward, Anquain Boldin and Chris Chambers for receiving TD's, with three, I guess that's what the case hinges on. Here are players that have more receiving yards this year, and I'm using this year, because Smith deliberately says "at the moment".
You know who isn't on this list either and tops them all? Of course you do, because you follow football. Would you like a new piece of stone Stephen?
"This was 'Monday Night Football,' baby," Owens said, walking through the tunnel after the game. "The bright lights were on. I told y'all to get your popcorn ready. You should've listened."
You can't help but listen to Owens, because his game speaks loud and clear.
fun bullshit quotables are still bullshit quotables.
He's always in phenomenal shape. At 34, he's still faster than most in the game. But you still have to wonder whether he'll be enough once things get really thick and difficult come postseason time, particularly if these Eagles are still around.
he's the best receiver in the fucking game apparently! Why would I have reason to doubt him! We wrote it in stone Stephen! We even wrote it on the other stone! We're all out of stones! Don't turn back now!
How about McNabb, who was 25-of-37 for 281 yards (one TD) and clearly was the more poised quarterback on the field -- despite what Romo's 312 passing yards might have indicated.
based on what exactly? He was sacked twice on the final, decisive drive of the game, once when he had an age to pass to his, admittedly incompetant receiving corps, and simply danced around for like, 8 seconds until DeMarcus Ware finally caught him for a sack near the sideline. He was a critical part of the fumble to Westbrook. McNabb has been very impressive (as he invariably is when he actually plays), but I personally disagree with your "clear", "written in stone" impression of the game.
Or an Eagles defense that held Owens to two catches for 17 yards after the game's opening drive, yet still appeared so disgusted that the players could barely disguise their snarls with every word they uttered after the game.
probably to do with the 41 points they surrendered. Or the 380 total yards. Or that they let the Cowboys convert 6-10 on third down. To put it simply, no matter what they held Owens to after a 72 yard reception, they were pretty awful last night. Worse than Dallas if you ask me (though admittedly that is a close call).
"Let me tell you this," Eagles safety Brian Dawkins said after the game. "We made too many early mistakes -- it's that simple. The bomb to T.O. The kickoff return for a TD (by Felix Jones) right after that. Those are mistakes we don't usually make, and it cost us. It's why we lost this game, and that's why we're disgusted. We know we gave it away."
"That fact that we let T.O. get off isn't something I pay attention to, because whenever he scores against us, I just don't look. I don't see the dances, the flapping of the arms or anything anyone tries to tell me he does. I'm not interested in seeing that at all. But I'll tell you we're pretty ticked off with ourselves because we know we're better than what we showed tonight defensively. We know what kind of team we have, especially if our offense continues to perform the way they did tonight."
may I kindly suggest, Mr Dawkins, that you do pay more attention to Terrell Owens, he's the guy getting eight yards open downfield to catch a bomb for a touchdown, one of two on the night - that dude is pretty good, keep an eye on him.
Listen to the man.
listen to TO's game, listen to Brian Dawkins, I only have two ears Stephen!
The Eagles, renowned for their blitz packages and the suffocating pressure they put on opposing quarterbacks, did not record a sack Monday. Instead, they allowed Romo (who, of course, threw one interception and gave the Eagles a touchdown with a fumble in the end zone) to complete 21 of 30 passes for 312 yards, to sit back in the pocket and take a few pictures from time to time, and to connect with Jason Witten (seven receptions for 110 yards) once they figured out what to do with Owens.
they "let him". Let's put this in the same bag as Kari's "once you stop Peterson" line. Romo's good, this is a fatal flaw in your argument, not understanding that Romo is good and makes adjustments very well. His success in this league is not predicated on everyone he plays against playing poorly.
No offense, but it's predictable Owens would feel that way. He had two touchdowns in the first 17 minutes of the game. The Cowboys ended the evening with 41 points, causing owner Jerry Jones to blush -- thinking about the final outcome in Week 2 instead of the residual effects bound to show up later on down the road.
while the defense wasn't good, this was a great game for Dallas with many, many good points. Not least of which is scoring a win against a fierce division rival. It is by far the biggest impact of the game, not the "residual effects" that may or may not "show up later". Why can't it just be a sloppy (though not irredeemable) defensive game? Why does it have to be some telltale sign of a major design flaw. Last week they went, on the road mind you, against Cleveland and held them to 10 points. The same Cleveland (in fact, better, at least on paper, with Donte Stallworth) that was 8th in total offense and scoring offense per game last year.
If the Eagles were able to put up so many points short-handed, what will the Packers and the Giants do against Dallas later?
I dunno, it's too early to tell. I certainly wouldn't let one messy game, which I won, put too much panic into me.
"We know our team, our defense," an annoyed-looking Eagles tight end L.J. Smith said after the game. "We know what happened tonight won't happen very often. We'll see if (Dallas) can say the same things once all is said and done."
Four sacks of McNabb and two key stops to end the game might have provided the Cowboys with an early season victory, but that doesn't make Smith's last comment any less legitimate.
what makes his comment less legitimate is, how can I put this delicately...his possible lack of impartiality on judging the Dallas Cowboys performance. I'll also add that not only did Dallas get all the key plays in this game, they also got them from their defensive unit, doomed to failure according to Stephen A. Smith.
Write it in stone.
Despite loss, Eagles show they are a force in the NFC East
IRVING, Texas -- America's Team showed up for once last Monday night game at Texas Stadium.
for once. 15-4 in their last nineteen games, #1 seed in NFC last year, but this, finally, week two of 2008, they showed up. It's about time, the lazy good for nothings. Not like those plucky 9-9 Eagles huh?
Also, last Monday night game? Last Monday night game...really Stephen? Lock it in? Okey dokey.
And when the Dallas Cowboys were finished, surviving in thrilling fashion for a 41-37 victory over the Philadelphia Eagles, they proved to be everything everyone thought they were.
I get it. Denny Green was mad. It's been two years now. 'Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land - enough! '
They were sensational, courtesy of Terrell Owens. They were explosive, courtesy of an offense that proved it could score in bunches, against anyone, at any given moment. They also were erratic (i.e., Tony Romo), inconsistent (i.e., Tony Romo), prone to implosion (i.e., Tony Romo)
cool your jets hotshot. Romo was 21 of 30 for 312 yards. Yes, he threw an interception and had a critical fumble but he also found receivers for three touchdowns. His QB rating was 123.2, he was generally awesome, and it's ridiculous for you to imply he was "hot and cold" or anything of the sort. He's currently third in passing yards, has yet to be sacked, is equal third in passing TD's and second in YPA. He's pretty fucking good, no matter what you claim, and it wasn't just TO = good, Romo = "inconsistant" (and we know you're implying bad).
flat-out defenseless (no explanation needed). So much so that Monday night's performance should give pause to all those folks who plan on riding their big blue stars to Tampa in February.
sure, this you can have. They were poor defensively, though they did register four sacks, recovered a fumble and 337 total yards, while not good, isn't quite "flat-out defenseless". It's a little over the top. But "a little over the top" would be a remarkable accomplishment for SAS, and would make Mr and Mrs SAS beam with pride I'm sure.
Especially with the Eagles nipping at the Cowboys' heels in the same division.
1.0 games. As opposed to the 2.0 maximum possible lead. The Eagles still trail the Giants, mind you, and are tied with the Redskins. WOW, who thought it would be so close in the NFC East after a marathon of two games? It's a wild division clearly.
At the moment, you can write in stone that Owens is the best receiver in football
stone? Stone? I like TO, have defended him on this blog before, he's good; sometimes I forget how good he is because he's so strong, you don't quite expect the same "spectacularness" you might of a Fitzgerald or Edwards or Smith. But in stone? My God man! Owens is tied with Hines Ward, Anquain Boldin and Chris Chambers for receiving TD's, with three, I guess that's what the case hinges on. Here are players that have more receiving yards this year, and I'm using this year, because Smith deliberately says "at the moment".
- Greg Jennings
- Calvin Johnson (btw, if you watch the games, and there's a stat for "holy fucking shitness", Johnson would be destroying fools right now, he's AMAZING to watch)
- Anquain Boldin
- DeSean Jackson (ok, not gonna last, happy to scratch his name off)
- Plaxico Burress (maybe be my choice for best receiver over the last year and a half...just for sheer guts and importance to his team...maybe)
- Jason Witten (MORE YARDS AND HE'S ON HIS TEAM!!!)
- Santana Moss (strike this name too as a flukey game last week)
- Anthony Gonzalez (ditto)
- Larry Fitzgerald (as athletic as any player in the game)
- Eddie Royal (nuff said)
- Lee Evans
- Reggie Wayne
You know who isn't on this list either and tops them all? Of course you do, because you follow football. Would you like a new piece of stone Stephen?
"This was 'Monday Night Football,' baby," Owens said, walking through the tunnel after the game. "The bright lights were on. I told y'all to get your popcorn ready. You should've listened."
You can't help but listen to Owens, because his game speaks loud and clear.
fun bullshit quotables are still bullshit quotables.
He's always in phenomenal shape. At 34, he's still faster than most in the game. But you still have to wonder whether he'll be enough once things get really thick and difficult come postseason time, particularly if these Eagles are still around.
How about McNabb, who was 25-of-37 for 281 yards (one TD) and clearly was the more poised quarterback on the field -- despite what Romo's 312 passing yards might have indicated.
based on what exactly? He was sacked twice on the final, decisive drive of the game, once when he had an age to pass to his, admittedly incompetant receiving corps, and simply danced around for like, 8 seconds until DeMarcus Ware finally caught him for a sack near the sideline. He was a critical part of the fumble to Westbrook. McNabb has been very impressive (as he invariably is when he actually plays), but I personally disagree with your "clear", "written in stone" impression of the game.
Or an Eagles defense that held Owens to two catches for 17 yards after the game's opening drive, yet still appeared so disgusted that the players could barely disguise their snarls with every word they uttered after the game.
probably to do with the 41 points they surrendered. Or the 380 total yards. Or that they let the Cowboys convert 6-10 on third down. To put it simply, no matter what they held Owens to after a 72 yard reception, they were pretty awful last night. Worse than Dallas if you ask me (though admittedly that is a close call).
"Let me tell you this," Eagles safety Brian Dawkins said after the game. "We made too many early mistakes -- it's that simple. The bomb to T.O. The kickoff return for a TD (by Felix Jones) right after that. Those are mistakes we don't usually make, and it cost us. It's why we lost this game, and that's why we're disgusted. We know we gave it away."
"That fact that we let T.O. get off isn't something I pay attention to, because whenever he scores against us, I just don't look. I don't see the dances, the flapping of the arms or anything anyone tries to tell me he does. I'm not interested in seeing that at all. But I'll tell you we're pretty ticked off with ourselves because we know we're better than what we showed tonight defensively. We know what kind of team we have, especially if our offense continues to perform the way they did tonight."
may I kindly suggest, Mr Dawkins, that you do pay more attention to Terrell Owens, he's the guy getting eight yards open downfield to catch a bomb for a touchdown, one of two on the night - that dude is pretty good, keep an eye on him.
Listen to the man.
listen to TO's game, listen to Brian Dawkins, I only have two ears Stephen!
The Eagles, renowned for their blitz packages and the suffocating pressure they put on opposing quarterbacks, did not record a sack Monday. Instead, they allowed Romo (who, of course, threw one interception and gave the Eagles a touchdown with a fumble in the end zone) to complete 21 of 30 passes for 312 yards, to sit back in the pocket and take a few pictures from time to time, and to connect with Jason Witten (seven receptions for 110 yards) once they figured out what to do with Owens.
they "let him". Let's put this in the same bag as Kari's "once you stop Peterson" line. Romo's good, this is a fatal flaw in your argument, not understanding that Romo is good and makes adjustments very well. His success in this league is not predicated on everyone he plays against playing poorly.
No offense, but it's predictable Owens would feel that way. He had two touchdowns in the first 17 minutes of the game. The Cowboys ended the evening with 41 points, causing owner Jerry Jones to blush -- thinking about the final outcome in Week 2 instead of the residual effects bound to show up later on down the road.
while the defense wasn't good, this was a great game for Dallas with many, many good points. Not least of which is scoring a win against a fierce division rival. It is by far the biggest impact of the game, not the "residual effects" that may or may not "show up later". Why can't it just be a sloppy (though not irredeemable) defensive game? Why does it have to be some telltale sign of a major design flaw. Last week they went, on the road mind you, against Cleveland and held them to 10 points. The same Cleveland (in fact, better, at least on paper, with Donte Stallworth) that was 8th in total offense and scoring offense per game last year.
If the Eagles were able to put up so many points short-handed, what will the Packers and the Giants do against Dallas later?
I dunno, it's too early to tell. I certainly wouldn't let one messy game, which I won, put too much panic into me.
"We know our team, our defense," an annoyed-looking Eagles tight end L.J. Smith said after the game. "We know what happened tonight won't happen very often. We'll see if (Dallas) can say the same things once all is said and done."
Four sacks of McNabb and two key stops to end the game might have provided the Cowboys with an early season victory, but that doesn't make Smith's last comment any less legitimate.
what makes his comment less legitimate is, how can I put this delicately...his possible lack of impartiality on judging the Dallas Cowboys performance. I'll also add that not only did Dallas get all the key plays in this game, they also got them from their defensive unit, doomed to failure according to Stephen A. Smith.
Write it in stone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)