One of the last times Rick Telander was heard from on this blog, he was growing more and more discontented with John Fox as the Bears head coach and reminiscing about the days when Bruce Jenner was a manly athlete and not a woman. Rick has a history of complaining about small problems in sports (and apparently others agreed with Rick that the height of the rim was too short in the NBA) and now Rick has noticed that NHL players are sporting playoff beards. Rick says he isn't "splitting hairs" (get it? GET it? GET IT?...it's a play on words about a beard consisting of human hair and it's funny...or not) and that the NHL players need to find a new tradition rather than growing playoff beards. Rick wrote this on June 11, which was smack-dab right in the middle of the Blackhawks march to another Stanley Cup title and all he could do was talk about playoff beards and how bad they suck. One would think there are more meaningful columns to be written during this time. One would be wrong.
Is it possible to have a meaningful discussion about Stanley Cup-winning hockey and beards?
No, because they are beards and pretending these players having playoff beards is important in any way is just laughable, no matter what any NBC executive claims otherwise. It's like having a meaningful discussion about whether Chipotle, Moe's, or Qdoba has better food. Everyone knows it's Chipotle, so there is no point in having the conversation.
In case you missed it, the players on the Blackhawks and Tampa Bay
Lightning, who are tied at two victories apiece in the Stanley Cup
Final, have beards. (Unless there’s a hairless renegade hiding in the
blade-sharpening room, which I don’t believe there is.)
They have beards! Oh no!
And not just beards. They have gross, tangly, unkempt things often
referred to as ‘‘neckbeards,’’ historically featured on anti-social
mountain men, deceased presidents and biblical characters. And Captain
Ahab had a dandy.
I don't think the purpose of these beards is to look attractive, so the argument, "they should be more attractive" fails as a real, cogent argument as to why these beards should be shaved. The beards don't negatively impact how they perform on the ice and somehow presidents, though deceased (no telling on whether it is the fault of their beard for their present condition or not), managed to achieve something while having beards.
This is a playoff tradition, so to speak, even though its roots
(roots?) can be traced back to something as banal as the New York
Islanders growing out their whiskers during playoff runs back in the
1980s.
Yes, the Islanders won four Cups during that period, but have you
heard from them lately? Plus, former Islanders defenseman Denis Potvin
has been quoted as saying none of the hirsuteness was by design.
Oh, well if it wasn't by design then obviously a terrible mistake has been made. Playoff camaraderie as shown by not shaving isn't something that should just happen, camaraderie has to be built purposefully over a period of time. It's not real unless it's planned and contrived.
‘‘It was just something that kind of happened,’’ he said.
The end of civilization is nigh'. Unplanned beards are popping up everywhere.
None of this would matter, except that fully bearded hockey players look ugly.
Yep, and as I said, if the argument against playoff beards are "they look ugly," then these beards truly don't matter. The players aren't trying to look attractive, they are growing beards to show camaraderie. "You look ugly" is a dumb retort to hockey players essentially saying through the action of not shaving, "We don't care how we look."
But it’s the essential ugliness and disguise that come with the
beardedness that has NBC Sports chairman Mark Lazarus’ whisker-free face
in a grimace.
Oh no, a wealthy television executive is upset. How can he be appeased? Mark Lazarus' opinion on the facial hair of athletes must be addressed and corrected immediately.
And his opinion matters because NBC Sports has a $2
billion deal to broadcast NHL games.
Actually, Lazarus' opinion still doesn't matter because he doesn't play hockey, isn't married to any of the hockey players and should only care (like the fans do) whether the games are exciting and garnering good ratings. Good ratings do not depend on playoff beards. I can't imagine someone not watching a hockey game because the players' beards are too ugly to look at. It's hockey. Players have broken noses, bloody lips, missing teeth and probably a concussion, being attractive isn't a part of the deal while on the ice.
Lazarus told sports-media writer Ed Sherman on Tuesday: ‘‘I wish they
all would stop growing beards in the postseason. Let’s get their faces
out there. Let’s talk about how young and attractive they are, what
model citizens they are.’’
You can still talk about how young they are and what model citizens they are. The beard may takeaway attractiveness to some, but I would have to think the big helmet over their head probably hurts the whole "sexy" nature of the sport while it's being played on the ice more than anything else.
‘‘I think [the beards do] hurt recognition,’’ Lazarus went on. ‘‘They
have a great opportunity with more endorsements. Or simply more
recognition, with fans saying, ‘That guy looks like the kid next door,’
which many of these guys do.’’
This is a good reason why NFL players have so many problems getting endorsements. What does Russell Wilson even look like? Who knows, because he always has that stupid helmet on his head. Remove the helmet, then maybe an NFL player will have an opportunity to get some endorsements and more recognition. It's the same issue with hockey. Nevermind there is an entire regular season game schedule consisting of 82 games where there are no playoff beards, it's the playoff beards that cause these players to lose endorsements. It seems Mark Lazarus is under the impression there is no regular season in the NHL.
But I agree with Lazarus — who is, sadly, not related to Sun-Times
hockey writer Mark Lazerus — that the beards are dumb and stale.
If anyone knows about things that may be dumb and stale, it's Rick Telander. After all, his writing career is becoming dumb and stale if all he has to discuss in the middle of the Stanley Cup Finals is playoff beards. This is the same Stanley Cup Finals where the hometown team was attempting to win their third Stanley Cup title in less than a decade. Playoff beards, that's what should really be the topic of discussion for a Chicago-based writer though.
Everybody looks the same with a beard, like genetic splicing run amok.
Perhaps Rick thinks all white people look alike or he has face blindness. I don't watch that much hockey (though I do enjoy it whenever I do) and I can tell the difference in the players. Plus, there are these things on the back of the uniform right above the player's number. It's called "the player's name" which really helps me figure out which players are which. It's the same thing everyone has to use when watching the NFL because it's hard to tell the players apart on the field otherwise. Somehow football fans don't get too confused. Try to pay attention to the names on the back of the uniforms. It may help more than Rick thinks.
My question is this: Why doesn’t a team such as the Hawks have the
courage and creativity to do something different with their manliness
and be a true difference-making dynasty?
The Blackhawks are not a true difference-making dynasty because they have playoff beards. Obviously.
My question is this: Why should the Blackhawks have to do something different with their manliness and spend time thinking of ways to be courageous and creative when that time could be used figuring out how they will win another Stanley Cup title? Is the Blackhawks' dynasty really going to be dependent on whether they wore playoff beards or not?
‘‘The worst has got to be Teuvo [Teravainen],’’ backup goalie Scott
Darling said. ‘‘He’s got the [Justin] Bieber ’stache going. I said, ‘By
the time you can actually grow one, it’s going to be illegal.’ ’’
The players enjoy playoff beards. Let them enjoy it and stop being an old man.
The point is, break away. Do your own thing. Be original.
My advice would be to continue to win hockey games, since that's the entire point of being in the playoffs and all. The Blackhawks are doing their own thing. They are winning Stanley Cup titles, not trying to set a fashion trend. And no, playoff beards aren't holding them back from getting endorsements and or winning "People Magazine's Sexist Man of the Year" award.
That’s how a team can win titles, too — by thinking outside the, uh, barber’s chair.
Apparently a team can win titles by growing playoff beards, because the Blackhawks have won plenty of Stanley Cup titles when the entire team was growing a playoff beard. And saying they need to "think outside the barber's chair" is an indication the team should not go to the barber's chair, thereby not getting their face shaved. Rick Telander wants hockey players to think inside the barber's chair. Oh, and it's so stupid to equate shaving as a way to win titles. It's just stupid and whether the hockey players shave or not is so irrelevant I don't see how this is an issue for Rick.
Coach Joel Quenneville certainly went all over the place in the
Hawks’ victory in Game 4, mixing up his lines as though he had flung a
deck of cards in the air.
As we know, we can’t trust either coach to tell us the truth about
injuries, strategies or much else. And we won’t know whether Lightning
goalie Ben Bishop, who was held out of Game 4, will play in Game 5 until
the puck drops.
Rick doesn't have enough material to write an entire column on this issue, so he has to go off-topic briefly in order to hit the word count he wants to hit. Modern sports journalism at it's best. Telander writes an uninspired and irrelevant article bemoaning the existence of playoff beards and still has to pad it with enough rambling to hit the required word count.
But back to the beard thing. Think about it, Hawks. Think about a new tradition.
Yes, think about not having playoff beards because Rick Telander doesn't like them. I also like the idea of starting a new tradition, all while Rick provides no real suggestions for a new tradition. Just do it. It's Rick's decree, so make it be.
Be creative. More creative than Rick Telander, who wrote this uninspired column and can't even be creative enough to suggest another playoff tradition. All he is worried about is ensuring the sexiness of the NHL players shines through. Obviously these playoff beards, not the helmets or the fact hockey isn't the most popular sport in the United States, is the reason these players don't get endorsements.
How about reverse bearding? Start the playoffs with a fully grown beard,
then reduce it each series — first to a goatee, then to a mustache
before finishing with (ta-da!) soul patches.
Right, but the players would have to grow a beard during the regular season, thereby hurting the chances fans will recognize the players, reducing their sexiness and preventing the players from receiving endorsements. So Rick's only solution to growing playoff beards is for NHL players to grow regular season beards. If you know why regular season beards will not hurt endorsements and recognition for NHL players, like Mark Lazarus and Rick Telander claim occurs when playoff beards are grown, then please tell me. It sounds like Rick is suggesting the players grow a beard for a longer period of time during the regular season (in order to grow a full beard) as an alternative to growing playoff beards. Because apparently endorsements and recognition aren't important during the regular season. The regular season consists of a larger number of games than the playoffs by the way.
And Coach Q? Well, if he had a full beard, we’d know who Santa Claus really is.
Yes, Rick does know dumb and stale best. This last sentence shows this clearly.
Showing posts with label it's sexy time. Show all posts
Showing posts with label it's sexy time. Show all posts
Monday, July 6, 2015
Thursday, August 1, 2013
2 comments Bob Klapisch Doesn't See a Need for Matt Harvey to Tempt the Ladies with His Sexuality
Some baseball writers enjoy tackling hard-hitting important issues
surrounding baseball and then other baseball writers like to make a story out
of nothing. Bob Klapisch seems to be (at least today) in the latter group. He
thinks Matt Harvey posing nude in ESPN's Body Issue, which I will not be
providing links for these pictures, wasn't a good decision. After all, what
Hall of Fame pitcher would ever dare to pose in his underwear?
Simply put, great pitchers just don't do
that. Klapisch even asks Ron Darling who agrees that posing nude or paying
attention to celebrity outside of baseball is something that should be avoided at
all costs. Of course in Darling's GQ article there were comments critical
of Davey Johnson, and Matt Harvey simply took pictures without bashing his
manager, but Ron Darling warns others about trying to gain the type of
celebrity he chased. It can affect your pitching and being naked is wrong!
My copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude.
And because we know the best way to find out what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude is to look at pictures of Harvey posing nude. He's so expressive!
I tried to use this reasoning for why I was looking at a Playboy when I was 11 years old, but for some reason my friend's mom didn't buy my reasoning.
"No, I'm not trying to look at naked women Mrs. Thompson! I just want to find out what attracted her to posing nude in the magazine and figured the best way to figure this out would be to stare at her naked body."
Oh, the layouts were creative and tastefully done: no argument about the graphics.
Well, thank God. I know I was concerned the graphics wouldn't be tasteful.
Harvey? He was photographed in his windup —his arm forming a perfect “L.” In the second shot, Harvey is holding a room-service tray over his privates as he peers out of an expensive-looking hotel room. Clever enough.
These naked pictures of Matt Harvey have Bob Klapisch's approval. Combined this with the very tasteful graphics and I think Bob is starting to see what attracted Harvey to posing for these pictures.
Still, I’m told the Mets were aghast to learn of Harvey’s participation in this project; they had nothing to do with it.
The Mets didn't encourage Harvey to pose naked in a magazine and he made an adult decision by himself? You don't say?
It was the pitcher’s marketing people and agent Scott Boras who convinced Harvey that modeling –modeling his body, that is –would somehow help his career.
And look, an article is being written about Harvey modeling in ESPN's Body Issue. Harvey gets noticed like he wants. I can't believe Scott Boras is encouraging young men to get naked and pose for pictures. He's worse than a Hollywood producer sleeping with the women talent in order to convince them they will get a role in his next film. One more reason Scott Boras is evil. He convinces his clients to model and take pictures in their underwear for his perverse pleasure. He convinces a vulnerable A-Rod to pose kissing himself in the mirror, now he has Matt Harvey posing naked for ESPN, and who can forget that time Boras convinced Derek Lowe and Barry Zito doing a video of "2 Guys, 1 Cup" would be good for their career? Clearly, Scott Boras is a pervert.
He’s also been blessed with a keen self-awareness, which means he knew exactly what he was getting into with ESPN, not to mention a follow-up photo fashion shoot with the New York Post.
Turns out Harvey’s talent and brains are matched by his ego and vanity.
Yeah, I know. It's so vain to be on the cover of magazines and newspapers. Don't you like how Matt Harvey is only a rookie and the New York media is already finding ways to tear him down?
Let’s be honest, it takes a good deal of narcissism to step out of your clothes and stand in front of a camera. Your message becomes clear: Look at me.
This is possibly true. Bob Klapisch is around 56 years old and he just now realized that athletes have an ego and can be narcissistic? Harvey is a rookie and whether he posed naked one time or not has nothing to do with how well he pitches. Posing in ESPN's Body Issue does give the media something to criticize Harvey for, which is probably his biggest issue, as opposed to his modeling affecting his ability to pitch.
If Harvey wants to prove he’s enlightened and open-minded, there are a million other ways to express that without putting a bull’s-eye on his back.
Does Colin Kaepernick have a bull's-eye on his back now? Do any of the other athletes in ESPN's Body Issue have bull's-eyes on their back now? I would bet you Bob Klapisch can't name three male athletes who posed in the 2011 and 2012 ESPN Body Issue. The only bull's-eye on Harvey's back is the one Bob Klapisch is trying to put there.
No one knows this better than Ron Darling, who calls games from the SNY booth, but remembers what it was like to be the Yale-educated pretty boy of the ’80s-era teams.
Darling appeared on the cover of GQ in August 1986, and although he was fully clothed, he still made history as the magazine’s first prominently featured Asian.
So because Ron Darling was on the cover of GQ and regrets it, every other professional athlete who appears on the cover of a magazine or does any modeling (even in a sports magazine) is going to eventually regret it? Everyone is the same and every athlete has the same experiences and what happened in 1986 is completely relevant to what may happen in 2013?
Looking back, Darling regrets the “lust” he had for GQ’s celebrity, because, “Inside, the article [that accompanied the cover shot] was critical of Davey [Johnson]. You end up selling yourself to the devil,” Darling said. “I was embarrassed.”
Matt Harvey had no quotes in the article that was critical of anyone. There were two pictures of Harvey in the ESPN magazine. Ron Darling should not project his experiences on others. Simply because Darling had a lust for celebrity and was critical of Davey Johnson in a GQ article doesn't mean this will be an experience Matt Harvey will share. Harvey took two naked pictures in a sports magazine along with other athletes in various sports and his photos in the New York Post were just douche-like, not anything that involves him selling his soul to the devil.
When Darling says, “You have to keep your mind on the prize,” it’s a gentle warning that outsiders will be looking at Harvey differently from now on,
I am an outsider and didn't even know Harvey took the pictures in the Post nor had I seen the pictures in ESPN's Body Issue. All I know is he played college baseball at UNC-Chapel Hill, so he must be a douchebag at heart.
“The toughest part is the clubhouse, the simple minds you have to wade through,” Darling said. “There’s going to be criticism that comes out of nowhere, [from] teammates that are small-minded and don’t get it.”
Matt Harvey is an adult and he will handle the criticism or comments from his teammates. It's also very important to note that Harvey's modeling hasn't affected his pitching as of yet ("OR HAS IT?" says Bob Klapisch) and plenty of other athletes have posed half-clothed including The Jeter.
Yet, Harvey was less than dominant in a 121-pitch performance against the Giants on Monday because, as it turns out, he has a blister on his right index finger. It’s more of a nuisance than a problem, but the Mets might skip Harvey’s start Saturday and keep him out of the All-Star Game.
It didn't happen. Harvey pitched in the All-Star Game and the blister caused by modeling didn't affect his pitching. Miraculously Harvey wasn't so distracted by his burgeoning modeling career that he completely forgot to show up for the All-Star Game. He showed up and started the game, all while managing to keep his massive ego and narcissism in check. It's almost like Bob Klapisch is creating stories where there isn't one (adds the tag to this post).
That’s smart thinking, but had it not been for the blister, the whispering campaign might’ve already begun. That’s the surcharge for Harvey’s desire for the spotlight –the second-guessers who’ll be asking hard questions about his priorities.
Bob Klapisch is writing a column asking hard questions about Matt Harvey's priorities. In this column Klapisch is writing he states that there will be second-guessers who'll be asking hard questions about Matt Harvey's priorities. See how this works? In the column on Harvey's priorities Klapisch is warning second-guessers will write exactly what he is writing in the column. It's all circular. It's like if I wrote an article on how Jake Locker might be a closeted homosexual because he drives a Dodge Neon and then in the article I state that some people are going to accuse Locker of being a homosexual for driving a Dodge Neon. I would be the person I am warning Locker about.
Remember how A-Rod allowed himself to be photographed shirtless by the New York Post in Central Park? Kissing himself in the mirror for Details magazine? Bad decisions, all.
It's all about A-Rod. It always is and it always will be. "Don't be A-Rod." That's the lesson. Remember that time Derek Jeter posed shirtless with other MLB shortstops? Whatever happened to that Jeter guy? It ruined his career didn't it?
(My favorite pose is that of Rey Ordonez. He's trying to give his best "sexy eyes" to the camera and it looks like he has to take a huge shit and would appreciate it if the cameraman would stop taking pictures so he can run to the bathroom)
There’s plenty of room for expressionism, but at age 24, Harvey probably could use some help picking his spots.
I'd love to know from Bob Klapisch which "spot" is best for Matt Harvey to do some modeling in. My guess would be "never and at no time."
“If I was playing today, I would be aware of Instagram and Twitter. I would make sure I had someone in charge of things that are in the public eye,” Darling said.
Oh sure, of course you would Ron. Darling was taken and "lusted" for fame and celebrity in 1986, but in an era where it is much easier to get your picture and thoughts out into the world Ron would have been MORE careful about what he put in the public. I completely don't believe this at all. Logic would indicate if Ron Darling wanted celebrity in 1986 at the age of 26 he would still want celebrity in 2013 if he was 26 years old. Let's not take part in some revisionist history here. Darling would most likely have acted the same way if he played baseball in 2013, except he would have had an Instagram and Twitter account and probably would not have minded appearing in the ESPN Body Issue.
Sure, knowing what he knows now Darling may have wanted to do things differently, but I'm betting if Darling were a 26 year old playing for the Mets he wouldn't have been as "in charge of things" as he wants us to believe he would be. It's nice to pretend otherwise though.
Drill down another level and the question becomes one of legacy. Who does Harvey want to be —a star pitcher or a celebrity?
He can actually be both. He can be a star pitcher who has appeared in the ESPN Body Issue and New York Post doing some modeling, and unlike Ron Darling, he managed not to criticize his manager.
Does he want the back page or Page Six? Is he a great guy or just a guy with a great body?
Does it really matter if it doesn't impact how he pitches? I'm not sure one appearance modeling in a sports magazine means Matt Harvey's priorities aren't where they should be.
My copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude.
And because we know the best way to find out what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude is to look at pictures of Harvey posing nude. He's so expressive!
I tried to use this reasoning for why I was looking at a Playboy when I was 11 years old, but for some reason my friend's mom didn't buy my reasoning.
"No, I'm not trying to look at naked women Mrs. Thompson! I just want to find out what attracted her to posing nude in the magazine and figured the best way to figure this out would be to stare at her naked body."
Oh, the layouts were creative and tastefully done: no argument about the graphics.
Well, thank God. I know I was concerned the graphics wouldn't be tasteful.
Harvey? He was photographed in his windup —his arm forming a perfect “L.” In the second shot, Harvey is holding a room-service tray over his privates as he peers out of an expensive-looking hotel room. Clever enough.
These naked pictures of Matt Harvey have Bob Klapisch's approval. Combined this with the very tasteful graphics and I think Bob is starting to see what attracted Harvey to posing for these pictures.
Still, I’m told the Mets were aghast to learn of Harvey’s participation in this project; they had nothing to do with it.
The Mets didn't encourage Harvey to pose naked in a magazine and he made an adult decision by himself? You don't say?
It was the pitcher’s marketing people and agent Scott Boras who convinced Harvey that modeling –modeling his body, that is –would somehow help his career.
And look, an article is being written about Harvey modeling in ESPN's Body Issue. Harvey gets noticed like he wants. I can't believe Scott Boras is encouraging young men to get naked and pose for pictures. He's worse than a Hollywood producer sleeping with the women talent in order to convince them they will get a role in his next film. One more reason Scott Boras is evil. He convinces his clients to model and take pictures in their underwear for his perverse pleasure. He convinces a vulnerable A-Rod to pose kissing himself in the mirror, now he has Matt Harvey posing naked for ESPN, and who can forget that time Boras convinced Derek Lowe and Barry Zito doing a video of "2 Guys, 1 Cup" would be good for their career? Clearly, Scott Boras is a pervert.
He’s also been blessed with a keen self-awareness, which means he knew exactly what he was getting into with ESPN, not to mention a follow-up photo fashion shoot with the New York Post.
Turns out Harvey’s talent and brains are matched by his ego and vanity.
Yeah, I know. It's so vain to be on the cover of magazines and newspapers. Don't you like how Matt Harvey is only a rookie and the New York media is already finding ways to tear him down?
Let’s be honest, it takes a good deal of narcissism to step out of your clothes and stand in front of a camera. Your message becomes clear: Look at me.
This is possibly true. Bob Klapisch is around 56 years old and he just now realized that athletes have an ego and can be narcissistic? Harvey is a rookie and whether he posed naked one time or not has nothing to do with how well he pitches. Posing in ESPN's Body Issue does give the media something to criticize Harvey for, which is probably his biggest issue, as opposed to his modeling affecting his ability to pitch.
If Harvey wants to prove he’s enlightened and open-minded, there are a million other ways to express that without putting a bull’s-eye on his back.
Does Colin Kaepernick have a bull's-eye on his back now? Do any of the other athletes in ESPN's Body Issue have bull's-eyes on their back now? I would bet you Bob Klapisch can't name three male athletes who posed in the 2011 and 2012 ESPN Body Issue. The only bull's-eye on Harvey's back is the one Bob Klapisch is trying to put there.
No one knows this better than Ron Darling, who calls games from the SNY booth, but remembers what it was like to be the Yale-educated pretty boy of the ’80s-era teams.
Darling appeared on the cover of GQ in August 1986, and although he was fully clothed, he still made history as the magazine’s first prominently featured Asian.
So because Ron Darling was on the cover of GQ and regrets it, every other professional athlete who appears on the cover of a magazine or does any modeling (even in a sports magazine) is going to eventually regret it? Everyone is the same and every athlete has the same experiences and what happened in 1986 is completely relevant to what may happen in 2013?
Looking back, Darling regrets the “lust” he had for GQ’s celebrity, because, “Inside, the article [that accompanied the cover shot] was critical of Davey [Johnson]. You end up selling yourself to the devil,” Darling said. “I was embarrassed.”
Matt Harvey had no quotes in the article that was critical of anyone. There were two pictures of Harvey in the ESPN magazine. Ron Darling should not project his experiences on others. Simply because Darling had a lust for celebrity and was critical of Davey Johnson in a GQ article doesn't mean this will be an experience Matt Harvey will share. Harvey took two naked pictures in a sports magazine along with other athletes in various sports and his photos in the New York Post were just douche-like, not anything that involves him selling his soul to the devil.
When Darling says, “You have to keep your mind on the prize,” it’s a gentle warning that outsiders will be looking at Harvey differently from now on,
I am an outsider and didn't even know Harvey took the pictures in the Post nor had I seen the pictures in ESPN's Body Issue. All I know is he played college baseball at UNC-Chapel Hill, so he must be a douchebag at heart.
“The toughest part is the clubhouse, the simple minds you have to wade through,” Darling said. “There’s going to be criticism that comes out of nowhere, [from] teammates that are small-minded and don’t get it.”
Matt Harvey is an adult and he will handle the criticism or comments from his teammates. It's also very important to note that Harvey's modeling hasn't affected his pitching as of yet ("OR HAS IT?" says Bob Klapisch) and plenty of other athletes have posed half-clothed including The Jeter.
Yet, Harvey was less than dominant in a 121-pitch performance against the Giants on Monday because, as it turns out, he has a blister on his right index finger. It’s more of a nuisance than a problem, but the Mets might skip Harvey’s start Saturday and keep him out of the All-Star Game.
It didn't happen. Harvey pitched in the All-Star Game and the blister caused by modeling didn't affect his pitching. Miraculously Harvey wasn't so distracted by his burgeoning modeling career that he completely forgot to show up for the All-Star Game. He showed up and started the game, all while managing to keep his massive ego and narcissism in check. It's almost like Bob Klapisch is creating stories where there isn't one (adds the tag to this post).
That’s smart thinking, but had it not been for the blister, the whispering campaign might’ve already begun. That’s the surcharge for Harvey’s desire for the spotlight –the second-guessers who’ll be asking hard questions about his priorities.
Bob Klapisch is writing a column asking hard questions about Matt Harvey's priorities. In this column Klapisch is writing he states that there will be second-guessers who'll be asking hard questions about Matt Harvey's priorities. See how this works? In the column on Harvey's priorities Klapisch is warning second-guessers will write exactly what he is writing in the column. It's all circular. It's like if I wrote an article on how Jake Locker might be a closeted homosexual because he drives a Dodge Neon and then in the article I state that some people are going to accuse Locker of being a homosexual for driving a Dodge Neon. I would be the person I am warning Locker about.
Remember how A-Rod allowed himself to be photographed shirtless by the New York Post in Central Park? Kissing himself in the mirror for Details magazine? Bad decisions, all.
It's all about A-Rod. It always is and it always will be. "Don't be A-Rod." That's the lesson. Remember that time Derek Jeter posed shirtless with other MLB shortstops? Whatever happened to that Jeter guy? It ruined his career didn't it?
(My favorite pose is that of Rey Ordonez. He's trying to give his best "sexy eyes" to the camera and it looks like he has to take a huge shit and would appreciate it if the cameraman would stop taking pictures so he can run to the bathroom)
There’s plenty of room for expressionism, but at age 24, Harvey probably could use some help picking his spots.
I'd love to know from Bob Klapisch which "spot" is best for Matt Harvey to do some modeling in. My guess would be "never and at no time."
“If I was playing today, I would be aware of Instagram and Twitter. I would make sure I had someone in charge of things that are in the public eye,” Darling said.
Oh sure, of course you would Ron. Darling was taken and "lusted" for fame and celebrity in 1986, but in an era where it is much easier to get your picture and thoughts out into the world Ron would have been MORE careful about what he put in the public. I completely don't believe this at all. Logic would indicate if Ron Darling wanted celebrity in 1986 at the age of 26 he would still want celebrity in 2013 if he was 26 years old. Let's not take part in some revisionist history here. Darling would most likely have acted the same way if he played baseball in 2013, except he would have had an Instagram and Twitter account and probably would not have minded appearing in the ESPN Body Issue.
Sure, knowing what he knows now Darling may have wanted to do things differently, but I'm betting if Darling were a 26 year old playing for the Mets he wouldn't have been as "in charge of things" as he wants us to believe he would be. It's nice to pretend otherwise though.
Drill down another level and the question becomes one of legacy. Who does Harvey want to be —a star pitcher or a celebrity?
He can actually be both. He can be a star pitcher who has appeared in the ESPN Body Issue and New York Post doing some modeling, and unlike Ron Darling, he managed not to criticize his manager.
Does he want the back page or Page Six? Is he a great guy or just a guy with a great body?
Does it really matter if it doesn't impact how he pitches? I'm not sure one appearance modeling in a sports magazine means Matt Harvey's priorities aren't where they should be.
My
copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was
curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to
know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude. - See more
at:
http://www.northjersey.com/sports/Klapisch_Posing_nude_wasnt_Matt_Harveys_best_decision.html?page=all#sthash.XzvxMOKZ.dpuf
My
copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was
curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to
know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude. - See more
at:
http://www.northjersey.com/sports/Klapisch_Posing_nude_wasnt_Matt_Harveys_best_decision.html?page=all#sthash.XzvxMOKZ.dpuf
My
copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was
curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to
know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude. - See more
at:
http://www.northjersey.com/sports/Klapisch_Posing_nude_wasnt_Matt_Harveys_best_decision.html?page=all#sthash.XzvxMOKZ.dpuf
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
6 comments Hall of Very Good Alert for Steve Garvey
Let's start off with a comparison of two baseball players.
Player A: 2332 games played, 1143 runs, 2599 hits, 440 doubles, 272 home runs, 1308 RBI, 83 stolen bases, .294/.329/.446 career line, one MVP award, five Top-10 MVP award finishes, four Gold Gloves, and 10 All-Star Games over 19 seasons.
Player B: 2557 games played, 1285 runs, 2586 hits, 407 doubles, 173 home runs, 1194 RBI, 281 stolen bases, .298/.365/.417 career line, zero MVP awards, zero Top-10 MVP award finishes, zero Gold Gloves and 3 All-Star Games over 23 seasons.
Obviously these two players aren't directly comparable. Player A was a player seen as having a bigger yearly impact given his MVP award finishes and All-Star game appearances, but Player B played 225 more games over his career and had similar statistics to Player A. It seems the big differences are in MVP award finishes, Gold Gloves, and All-Star appearances. Two of those three categories are essentially popularity contests, especially in the age Player A played, which consisted of 1969-1987. Player B played from 1982-2007, right in the middle of the Steroid Era, so I am sure he could be suspected of steroid use. My basic point is Player B played in an era when home run and offensive numbers were jacked up, which I suspect prevented him from making an All-Star appearance or two. Regardless, All-Star Game appearances and Gold Gloves are popularity contests and those are the two major categories that separate these two players.
So Player A is Steve Garvey, who Steve Wulf thinks should be in the Hall of Fame, while Player B is Julio Franco, who Steve Wulf doesn't mention at all in terms of deserving to be in the Hall of Fame...and rightfully so. I don't think either player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame and Steve Garvey should be a founding member of the annoyingly titled "Hall of Very Good."
The Hall of Fame would have no trouble writing the plaque:
"Steve Garvey was pretty good for a while. There are a lot of other players who were much better than Garvey but we suspect they cheated. So because there were cheaters who cheated, we have lowered the standards for the Hall of Fame. Garvey was pretty good for a while. Fuck you Fred McGriff. You were clean and can't sniff the Hall of Fame."
HOLDS NATIONAL LEAGUE RECORD FOR CONSECUTIVE
GAMES PLAYED (1,201).
Irrelevant. The inability to not get injured doesn't make Steve Garvey a bigger contributor to baseball history.
VOTED THE 1974 NL MVP
AND SELECTED TO THE ALL-STAR GAME 10 TIMES.
The All-Star Game is a popularity contest.
A FOUR-TIME GOLD GLOVE WINNER, HE
ONCE HELD THE RECORD FOR MOST CONSECUTIVE GAMES
AT 1B WITHOUT AN ERROR (193).
It's easy to not commit an error if you don't make an effort to get to a ground ball. I'm not saying Steve Garvey did this, and while consecutive games without an error streaks are impressive, again, he doesn't hold this record any more and this isn't impressive enough to merit his Hall of Fame induction.
The problem with Steve Garvey, though, is that he's not going to Cooperstown anytime soon,
No, the problem with Steve Garvey is there are three first basemen (off the top of my head) who deserve induction before he does. Jeff Bagwell, Don Mattingly, and Fred McGriff deserve induction before Steve Garvey deserves induction.
"I don't think I was imagining it," said George Brett, who is in the club. "I know I read a lot of stories about 'future Hall of Famer' Steve Garvey."
Because we all know if sportswriters write "future Hall of Famer" a few times in front of a player's name during his playing career that means the player definitely deserves induction once he retires. Sportswriters couldn't be wrong about something this serious, could they?
For a lot of us who saw him on a regular basis, Garvey was a clutch hitter who could hit for average or power, depending on what the Dodgers needed;
There are three parts of the "traditionalist" argument for a player's Hall of Fame induction contained in this sentence.
1. You had to see Garvey play in order to appreciate him. If you didn't watch him, there's no way you appreciated him. His statistics only tell part of the story. The other part of the story is anecdotal evidence based on that sportswriter's recollection of how impactful that player was and you will never understand this because you didn't see the player play.
2. He was super-duper clutchy. Like really clutchy in certain cherry-picked circumstances.
3. He was a team player. He would hit a home run if the Dodgers needed that or get on-base if the Dodgers needed that. Sometimes a home run just clears the bases out, killing a rally, so Garvey was happy to provide a base hit in lieu of a rally killing home run.
and a paragon who played the game the right way and treated people with consideration.
Garvey treated people the right way as long as you weren't married to him or were owed money by him. Outside of his personal and business life, Garvey treated everyone with consideration. He considered whether to not pay debts he owed and then he considered whether it would feel nice to cheat on his spouse. Do these things mean he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? Of course not, but don't say he treated people with consideration when there is a record that says the opposite.
I don't even know what "played the game the right way" means. Were there Dodgers players showing up to the ball park on game days trying to field a ground ball with a fishing rod or something? This phrase is bullshit for when a writer isn't competent enough to find something more interesting to say about a player.
He single-handedly carried his second team, the Padres, into the 1984 World Series --
Tony Gwynn and his .351 average is sad to learn he didn't contribute to the World Series run. The Padres pitchers, all of whom who had more than 31 starts and four of them had ERA's below 4.00, are also sad to learn they didn't contribute to that Padres team at all. It was Steve Garvey, he of the .284/.307/.373 line, that singlehandedly got the Padres to the World Series. Garvey had a great NLCS, but the Padres didn't win 92 games solely because of him. Plus, Steve Wulf is cherry-picking the shit out of some statistics by leaving out how Garvey hit .200/.200/.300 in the 1984 World Series. This part of the cherry-picking of statistics that goes on among traditionalists in order to advocate for their player of choice.
when "The Natural" was shown on a plane from Chicago to San Diego for the start of the Series, the passengers chanted, "Gar-vey! Gar-vey!" at the climax.
Then Garvey went on to stink it up in the World Series. But since the passengers on a plane chanted Garvey's name, that definitely should count on Garvey's Hall of Fame resume since it is so incredibly relevant and isn't anecdotal evidence at all.
In Bill James' seminal book on the Hall of Fame, "The Politics of Glory," first published in 1995, he used a point system called the Hall of Fame Monitor to predict which current and recently retired players would be voted in by the Baseball Writers' Association of America. He had Garvey going into the Hall in 1997, along with Phil Niekro. But Garvey would never finish higher than fourth (1996), or come close to the 75 percent of the vote needed for induction (a high of 42.6 percent in '95), even though he did outpoll future HOFers Jim Rice, Bruce Sutter and Bert Blyleven in some years.
Oh sure, now traditionalist Steve Wulf uses Bill James' research as empirical evidence something is true when it fits the point Wulf wants to prove. Bill James and Sabermetricians are the enemy when what they write doesn't match the conclusion Steve Wulf wants to reach. Sabermetrics are stupid unless they can be used to prove a point a traditionalist writer wants to prove.
"To be honest, I am disappointed," Garvey said. "I always thought of my career as a body of work and not just about numbers."
Yes, but your body of work is your numbers. Perhaps I am stupid, but I don't get how I am supposed to evaluate Steve Garvey's body of work and not make it about the numbers. I'm not sure what else the Hall of Fame committee should consider. Morality? Well, Dale Murphy should be in way before Steve Garvey. He didn't cheat? Again, there is a list of players who didn't cheat at least 10 players long who would get in before Garvey.
What happened to Garvey is partly schadenfreude: Writers turned on him for a complicated personal life that smudged an image so golden that he once had a middle school named after him.
Well, if Garvey doesn't want it to be all about the numbers then he will have to accept this as part of the consideration. If Garvey wants his "body of work" to represent him, not his statistics, and this means we look at the 10 All-Star Game appearances he made only...well that's just dumb. All-Star Game appearances should not be the main argument for a player entering the Hall of Fame.
But he's also one of the great players from that period who have been hurt by the inflation of statistics fueled by the increasing use of PEDs,
This is a lie. Plain and simple. Garvey fell off the ballot after his 15th year on the ballot in 2007. There were no accused PED users eligible for the Hall of Fame from 1992-2007. Well, maybe there was 1-2 suspected users, but none made it into the Hall of Fame at the expense of Steve Garvey. Garvey had 15 years of not being compared to PED users, including six years of eligibility before the Steroid Era even began, to get voted into the Hall of Fame and he failed to make it. Steve Wulf is lying. In reality, Garvey didn't make the Hall of Fame because of his statistics pre-Steroid Era.
which happened to coincide with the HOF eligibility for the earlier era. And, as Garvey points out, "That was also a period when the veteran writers who relied on what they saw gave way to younger writers who focused on statistics."
What the fuck does Steve Garvey want us to focus on? He doesn't want anyone to focus on statistics, but to focus on "what they saw" to get him into the Hall of Fame. I saw Jeff Bagwell, Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Tim Raines, Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly, and Edgar Martinez play and they all deserve to be in the Hall of Fame before Steve Garvey does.
Now Garvey is lying. The so-called "Statistical Revolution" didn't begin until 2002 or so. Why wasn't he elected to the Hall of Fame during the years of 1992-2002? Voters weren't relying on statistics at that point. Garvey is simply in denial. His numbers didn't qualify him and what the voters saw, those who voted based on "what they saw" didn't qualify him to make the Hall of Fame.
The irony, of course, is that the writers are now punishing the players whose numbers they feel were artificially bolstered. Wouldn't it be nice if they could channel their disillusionment into a more positive re-examination of those who have been relegated to the scrap heap?
Absolutely, let's do this. Garvey would be further down this list as well, especially considering some of the players up for Hall of Fame induction over the next three or four years. I would vote for at least six other borderline players before I voted for Garvey. He's not good enough, deal with it. Maybe if Wulf and Garvey try hard enough they can find a criteria that would allow Garvey to make the Hall of Fame, but I doubt it.
Not to diminish Jim Rice, but as someone who covered Parker and Rice in their primes, I can testify that Parker was the superior player in almost every regard.
Is this based on the super-special "I saw him play" criteria that can't be quantified or is this based on the idea of comparing the two player's numbers? If it is based on statistics, then Rice appears to be slightly superior to Parker.
"It would've been nice to have gone as a fellow Hall of Famer. I think I belong there. Let's put it this way -- on almost every team I played, I was 'The Guy' or one of them. The system needs to be changed."
Right, the Hall of Fame should use "The Guy" criteria to vote players into the Hall of Fame. Whatever the hell kind of bullshit criteria this is. It tells you a lot about Dave Parker that he thinks he was "The Guy" on on Pirates teams with Willie Stargell and he also thinks he was "The Guy" on the A's teams that had Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire.
Voters need to take a closer look at players they may have bypassed because they didn't see them.
But if they didn't see them play then how the hell are they supposed to reconsider them? Trust the memory of sportswriters from 30 years ago that this player was Hall of Fame-worthy? Memories can't be wrong, can they?
And just as they agonize over what the "Valuable" means in Most Valuable Player, they need to think about what the "Fame" in Hall of Fame really means. (Uh, 10 All-Star Games is a pretty good definition.)
So we should vote in famous players too. Gotcha. Let's see, Steve Howe is pretty famous for his drug problems and he tested the Major League Baseball drug policy, so I can assume he is a unanimous selection to the Hall of Fame. And no, All-Star Game selections are not an indication of "fame," but rather an indication of popularity to be voted onto a team for purposes of an exhibition game. All-Star voting also tells us the strength of a certain position on the baseball field in both the American and National League.
"I know voters are worried about steroids this year," Garvey said. "I would much rather they think about the shot of adrenaline that a few more players would give the Hall of Fame."
I think that is absolutely a great idea, which is why Fred McGriff, Tim Raines, Jeff Bagwell and Jack Morris (it pains me, it really does, but I would vote him in before Garvey) should be voted in this year. In fact, let's put Edgar Martinez in there as well. Yep, Steve Garvey and Steve Wulf, even if the Hall of Fame opens up to let more non-steroid players get inducted, then Steve Garvey is still down the waiting list.
Perhaps Garvey's career isn't forgotten, it just wasn't Hall of Fame-worthy?
Player A: 2332 games played, 1143 runs, 2599 hits, 440 doubles, 272 home runs, 1308 RBI, 83 stolen bases, .294/.329/.446 career line, one MVP award, five Top-10 MVP award finishes, four Gold Gloves, and 10 All-Star Games over 19 seasons.
Player B: 2557 games played, 1285 runs, 2586 hits, 407 doubles, 173 home runs, 1194 RBI, 281 stolen bases, .298/.365/.417 career line, zero MVP awards, zero Top-10 MVP award finishes, zero Gold Gloves and 3 All-Star Games over 23 seasons.
Obviously these two players aren't directly comparable. Player A was a player seen as having a bigger yearly impact given his MVP award finishes and All-Star game appearances, but Player B played 225 more games over his career and had similar statistics to Player A. It seems the big differences are in MVP award finishes, Gold Gloves, and All-Star appearances. Two of those three categories are essentially popularity contests, especially in the age Player A played, which consisted of 1969-1987. Player B played from 1982-2007, right in the middle of the Steroid Era, so I am sure he could be suspected of steroid use. My basic point is Player B played in an era when home run and offensive numbers were jacked up, which I suspect prevented him from making an All-Star appearance or two. Regardless, All-Star Game appearances and Gold Gloves are popularity contests and those are the two major categories that separate these two players.
So Player A is Steve Garvey, who Steve Wulf thinks should be in the Hall of Fame, while Player B is Julio Franco, who Steve Wulf doesn't mention at all in terms of deserving to be in the Hall of Fame...and rightfully so. I don't think either player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame and Steve Garvey should be a founding member of the annoyingly titled "Hall of Very Good."
The Hall of Fame would have no trouble writing the plaque:
"Steve Garvey was pretty good for a while. There are a lot of other players who were much better than Garvey but we suspect they cheated. So because there were cheaters who cheated, we have lowered the standards for the Hall of Fame. Garvey was pretty good for a while. Fuck you Fred McGriff. You were clean and can't sniff the Hall of Fame."
HOLDS NATIONAL LEAGUE RECORD FOR CONSECUTIVE
GAMES PLAYED (1,201).
Irrelevant. The inability to not get injured doesn't make Steve Garvey a bigger contributor to baseball history.
VOTED THE 1974 NL MVP
AND SELECTED TO THE ALL-STAR GAME 10 TIMES.
The All-Star Game is a popularity contest.
A FOUR-TIME GOLD GLOVE WINNER, HE
ONCE HELD THE RECORD FOR MOST CONSECUTIVE GAMES
AT 1B WITHOUT AN ERROR (193).
It's easy to not commit an error if you don't make an effort to get to a ground ball. I'm not saying Steve Garvey did this, and while consecutive games without an error streaks are impressive, again, he doesn't hold this record any more and this isn't impressive enough to merit his Hall of Fame induction.
The problem with Steve Garvey, though, is that he's not going to Cooperstown anytime soon,
No, the problem with Steve Garvey is there are three first basemen (off the top of my head) who deserve induction before he does. Jeff Bagwell, Don Mattingly, and Fred McGriff deserve induction before Steve Garvey deserves induction.
"I don't think I was imagining it," said George Brett, who is in the club. "I know I read a lot of stories about 'future Hall of Famer' Steve Garvey."
Because we all know if sportswriters write "future Hall of Famer" a few times in front of a player's name during his playing career that means the player definitely deserves induction once he retires. Sportswriters couldn't be wrong about something this serious, could they?
For a lot of us who saw him on a regular basis, Garvey was a clutch hitter who could hit for average or power, depending on what the Dodgers needed;
There are three parts of the "traditionalist" argument for a player's Hall of Fame induction contained in this sentence.
1. You had to see Garvey play in order to appreciate him. If you didn't watch him, there's no way you appreciated him. His statistics only tell part of the story. The other part of the story is anecdotal evidence based on that sportswriter's recollection of how impactful that player was and you will never understand this because you didn't see the player play.
2. He was super-duper clutchy. Like really clutchy in certain cherry-picked circumstances.
3. He was a team player. He would hit a home run if the Dodgers needed that or get on-base if the Dodgers needed that. Sometimes a home run just clears the bases out, killing a rally, so Garvey was happy to provide a base hit in lieu of a rally killing home run.
and a paragon who played the game the right way and treated people with consideration.
Garvey treated people the right way as long as you weren't married to him or were owed money by him. Outside of his personal and business life, Garvey treated everyone with consideration. He considered whether to not pay debts he owed and then he considered whether it would feel nice to cheat on his spouse. Do these things mean he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? Of course not, but don't say he treated people with consideration when there is a record that says the opposite.
I don't even know what "played the game the right way" means. Were there Dodgers players showing up to the ball park on game days trying to field a ground ball with a fishing rod or something? This phrase is bullshit for when a writer isn't competent enough to find something more interesting to say about a player.
He single-handedly carried his second team, the Padres, into the 1984 World Series --
Tony Gwynn and his .351 average is sad to learn he didn't contribute to the World Series run. The Padres pitchers, all of whom who had more than 31 starts and four of them had ERA's below 4.00, are also sad to learn they didn't contribute to that Padres team at all. It was Steve Garvey, he of the .284/.307/.373 line, that singlehandedly got the Padres to the World Series. Garvey had a great NLCS, but the Padres didn't win 92 games solely because of him. Plus, Steve Wulf is cherry-picking the shit out of some statistics by leaving out how Garvey hit .200/.200/.300 in the 1984 World Series. This part of the cherry-picking of statistics that goes on among traditionalists in order to advocate for their player of choice.
when "The Natural" was shown on a plane from Chicago to San Diego for the start of the Series, the passengers chanted, "Gar-vey! Gar-vey!" at the climax.
Then Garvey went on to stink it up in the World Series. But since the passengers on a plane chanted Garvey's name, that definitely should count on Garvey's Hall of Fame resume since it is so incredibly relevant and isn't anecdotal evidence at all.
In Bill James' seminal book on the Hall of Fame, "The Politics of Glory," first published in 1995, he used a point system called the Hall of Fame Monitor to predict which current and recently retired players would be voted in by the Baseball Writers' Association of America. He had Garvey going into the Hall in 1997, along with Phil Niekro. But Garvey would never finish higher than fourth (1996), or come close to the 75 percent of the vote needed for induction (a high of 42.6 percent in '95), even though he did outpoll future HOFers Jim Rice, Bruce Sutter and Bert Blyleven in some years.
Oh sure, now traditionalist Steve Wulf uses Bill James' research as empirical evidence something is true when it fits the point Wulf wants to prove. Bill James and Sabermetricians are the enemy when what they write doesn't match the conclusion Steve Wulf wants to reach. Sabermetrics are stupid unless they can be used to prove a point a traditionalist writer wants to prove.
"To be honest, I am disappointed," Garvey said. "I always thought of my career as a body of work and not just about numbers."
Yes, but your body of work is your numbers. Perhaps I am stupid, but I don't get how I am supposed to evaluate Steve Garvey's body of work and not make it about the numbers. I'm not sure what else the Hall of Fame committee should consider. Morality? Well, Dale Murphy should be in way before Steve Garvey. He didn't cheat? Again, there is a list of players who didn't cheat at least 10 players long who would get in before Garvey.
What happened to Garvey is partly schadenfreude: Writers turned on him for a complicated personal life that smudged an image so golden that he once had a middle school named after him.
Well, if Garvey doesn't want it to be all about the numbers then he will have to accept this as part of the consideration. If Garvey wants his "body of work" to represent him, not his statistics, and this means we look at the 10 All-Star Game appearances he made only...well that's just dumb. All-Star Game appearances should not be the main argument for a player entering the Hall of Fame.
But he's also one of the great players from that period who have been hurt by the inflation of statistics fueled by the increasing use of PEDs,
This is a lie. Plain and simple. Garvey fell off the ballot after his 15th year on the ballot in 2007. There were no accused PED users eligible for the Hall of Fame from 1992-2007. Well, maybe there was 1-2 suspected users, but none made it into the Hall of Fame at the expense of Steve Garvey. Garvey had 15 years of not being compared to PED users, including six years of eligibility before the Steroid Era even began, to get voted into the Hall of Fame and he failed to make it. Steve Wulf is lying. In reality, Garvey didn't make the Hall of Fame because of his statistics pre-Steroid Era.
which happened to coincide with the HOF eligibility for the earlier era. And, as Garvey points out, "That was also a period when the veteran writers who relied on what they saw gave way to younger writers who focused on statistics."
What the fuck does Steve Garvey want us to focus on? He doesn't want anyone to focus on statistics, but to focus on "what they saw" to get him into the Hall of Fame. I saw Jeff Bagwell, Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Tim Raines, Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly, and Edgar Martinez play and they all deserve to be in the Hall of Fame before Steve Garvey does.
Now Garvey is lying. The so-called "Statistical Revolution" didn't begin until 2002 or so. Why wasn't he elected to the Hall of Fame during the years of 1992-2002? Voters weren't relying on statistics at that point. Garvey is simply in denial. His numbers didn't qualify him and what the voters saw, those who voted based on "what they saw" didn't qualify him to make the Hall of Fame.
The irony, of course, is that the writers are now punishing the players whose numbers they feel were artificially bolstered. Wouldn't it be nice if they could channel their disillusionment into a more positive re-examination of those who have been relegated to the scrap heap?
Absolutely, let's do this. Garvey would be further down this list as well, especially considering some of the players up for Hall of Fame induction over the next three or four years. I would vote for at least six other borderline players before I voted for Garvey. He's not good enough, deal with it. Maybe if Wulf and Garvey try hard enough they can find a criteria that would allow Garvey to make the Hall of Fame, but I doubt it.
Not to diminish Jim Rice, but as someone who covered Parker and Rice in their primes, I can testify that Parker was the superior player in almost every regard.
Is this based on the super-special "I saw him play" criteria that can't be quantified or is this based on the idea of comparing the two player's numbers? If it is based on statistics, then Rice appears to be slightly superior to Parker.
"It would've been nice to have gone as a fellow Hall of Famer. I think I belong there. Let's put it this way -- on almost every team I played, I was 'The Guy' or one of them. The system needs to be changed."
Right, the Hall of Fame should use "The Guy" criteria to vote players into the Hall of Fame. Whatever the hell kind of bullshit criteria this is. It tells you a lot about Dave Parker that he thinks he was "The Guy" on on Pirates teams with Willie Stargell and he also thinks he was "The Guy" on the A's teams that had Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire.
Voters need to take a closer look at players they may have bypassed because they didn't see them.
But if they didn't see them play then how the hell are they supposed to reconsider them? Trust the memory of sportswriters from 30 years ago that this player was Hall of Fame-worthy? Memories can't be wrong, can they?
And just as they agonize over what the "Valuable" means in Most Valuable Player, they need to think about what the "Fame" in Hall of Fame really means. (Uh, 10 All-Star Games is a pretty good definition.)
So we should vote in famous players too. Gotcha. Let's see, Steve Howe is pretty famous for his drug problems and he tested the Major League Baseball drug policy, so I can assume he is a unanimous selection to the Hall of Fame. And no, All-Star Game selections are not an indication of "fame," but rather an indication of popularity to be voted onto a team for purposes of an exhibition game. All-Star voting also tells us the strength of a certain position on the baseball field in both the American and National League.
"I know voters are worried about steroids this year," Garvey said. "I would much rather they think about the shot of adrenaline that a few more players would give the Hall of Fame."
I think that is absolutely a great idea, which is why Fred McGriff, Tim Raines, Jeff Bagwell and Jack Morris (it pains me, it really does, but I would vote him in before Garvey) should be voted in this year. In fact, let's put Edgar Martinez in there as well. Yep, Steve Garvey and Steve Wulf, even if the Hall of Fame opens up to let more non-steroid players get inducted, then Steve Garvey is still down the waiting list.
Perhaps Garvey's career isn't forgotten, it just wasn't Hall of Fame-worthy?
Thursday, January 31, 2013
5 comments Gregg Names His TMQ Non-QB Non-RB MVP, I Name My BotB Highly-Drafted Glory Boy-Only MVP
Last week Gregg Easterbrook said that some people had criticized John Harbaugh this season for firing Cam Cameron, while forgetting that he himself had criticized John Harbaugh this season for firing Cameron and trying to shift the blame off himself. Gregg also criticized Notre Dame for the school's reaction to the Manti Te'o incident, while asking why they ignored an accused sexual assault on campus. This is ironic because in a November 2012 TMQ Gregg lauded Manti Te'o and Notre Dame, while ignoring the accused sexual assault on campus. As always, Gregg only brings up certain information when it goes to prove the point he wants to prove. This week Gregg talks (again) about the Harbaugh brothers, but mostly focuses on how they probably secretly hate each other, and responds to the pleas of zero people he names the TMQ Non-QB Non-RB MVP.
In this column I will name my BotB Highly-Drafted Glory Boy-Only MVP. I will give out the criteria below and this award is supposed to honor a highly-drafted, highly paid and high-performing NFL player who plays either the running back or quarterback position. Obviously it is a counter to Gregg's bullshit, even though his TMQ Non-QB Non-RB MVP is usually a highly drafted player anyway.
Jim and John Harbaugh have only nice things to say about each other. And the first time they squared off was uneventful.
But several schools of psychology teach that adults carry deep-seated traumas from childhood, which may manifest as subconscious motives even among the best-adjusted men and women.
And so naturally this must be true for Jim and John Harbaugh. Now that Gregg has proven his assumption is true, let him tell you exactly why these two brothers have deep-seated traumas from childhood. Psychology also teaches us that people who constantly ogle cheerleaders and make comments about their attractiveness have deep-seated sexual issues. So now that we know Gregg Easterbrook is at the very least a pedophile, let's talk a little bit about why this may be true too.
It's not uncommon for two siblings to each believe the other was favored by parents.
And because this has happened before, this is obviously the case with the Harbaugh brothers. Gregg Easterbrook is not only shitty at football analysis, analysis of television shows, and writing in general, but now he is a shitty amateur psychologist. There are few things Gregg is actually good at, but boy he loves showing off what he is bad at.
Which raises the question: What deep-seated childhood resentments are harbored by John and Jim Harbaugh? Will they boil to the surface if, say, the Super Bowl comes down to a disputed call and the referee -- obviously a father figure! -- favors one Harbaugh over the other?
Well, obviously because these two brothers have deep-seated resentments (and this is a proven fact based on Gregg's assumption) if a disputed call goes against Jim Harbaugh he will attempt to violently murder the closest person standing next to him during the Super Bowl. In other news, Gregg Easterbrook has won the Bottom of the Barrel Award Super Bowl Award. This goes to the sportswriter who has written the worst over the past year and the prize is that Gregg gets to stay right next to Jim Harbaugh during the entire Super Bowl, never to leave his side and will stay next to him the entire game.
Or what if Jacqueline Harbaugh, their mother, is shown on national television wildly cheering for a touchdown by either San Francisco or Baltimore, then impassively observing a big play by the other side? That's a year in therapy right there.
What if the Ravens win the Super Bowl and Jacqueline Harbaugh is interviewed after the game and she claims that John was her favorite son, but she had been sleeping with another man when John was born so she doesn't know if he is Jack Harbaugh's son? At that point, John and Jim are only half-brothers. How does that change the dynamic, and more importantly because psychologists believe in the Oedipal Complex, which half-brother wants to sleep with his mom and murder his father?
And even if Mom and Dad spend exactly the same amount of time in each team's locker room afterward, human nature dictates they will be giddy with the winning brother, glum and hand-patting ("there there, dear, you'll get the fire truck next Christmas") with the vanquished brother.
Whichever brother gets the hand-patting from his mother, THAT is the half-brother who was sleeping with his mother. Case closed.
Now, add that John is the big brother, expected by birth-order theory to be stoic, disciplined and respectful of authority. Jim and Joani, their sister, get a lot more latitude: Birth-order theory says they can be uninhibited and forgiven for outbursts, while John should hold everything inside. That's not a good formula for a very emotional event staged on live television before hundreds of millions of viewers.
Let's not forget that birth-order theory is infallible and never incorrect. I'm the first-born and I am prone to outbursts and am fairly uninhibited in what I say and do, while my younger sibling is the exact same way that I am. We all know birth-order theory can never be wrong, so I shouldn't even bother questioning it in any fashion.
It's fun to see the rabbit-hole Gregg has us going down.
-Psychologists say brothers can have deep-seated emotional issues with each other or their parents.
-The Harbaugh brothers probably have deep-seated emotional issues with each other or their parents based on the fact psychologists say this can happen.
-During the Super Bowl this deep-seated issue could show up in the form of a violence or a temper tantrum because of a call that goes against one of the brothers.
-Due to the birth-order theory, it will most likely be John Harbaugh who will have an emotional event on national television.
So after all of this amateur psychology and these assumptions, Gregg has gotten to the point where he thinks John Harbaugh is going to throw a hissy-fit during the Super Bowl because his mommy didn't love him as much as he thought she should.
On paper there are strong reasons to favor the Forty Niners. Better stats -- San Francisco finished third on defense, 11th on offense, versus a mediocre 17th-ranked offense, 16th-ranked defense for the Ravens.
If the games were played on paper, then the Broncos would be the AFC representative in the Super Bowl because they had the most balanced offense and defense. The game isn't played on paper though, it is played on the field with gritty players who love dirt and hustling.
That Baltimore struggled in December and shined in January suggests the Ravens, like the Packers and Giants before them, have honored sports lore by saving the best for last.
This must be as opposed to the 49ers who have been at their best for the entire year and "the best" for them would be to play their best in the biggest game of the season. I'm not entirely sure why saving the best for last is honoring sports lore, but I really need to stop asking questions about all the stupid shit Gregg says or writes.
Johnny Football, the Heisman winner -- of course, Texas A&M doesn't want him to get hurt running the ball. But Texas A&M has six quarterbacks on its roster, all obtained nearly free in economic terms, all former prep heroes. If Manziel goes down, the Aggies could turn to Matt Davis, a four-star recruit. The running quarterback is a strong offensive threat either in college or the pros. But in college, there's little economic reason not to let the quarterback run.
Naturally, Gregg is basing this reasoning on assumptions while leaving out any important information from entering the discussion that may disprove his theory. Gregg is assuming there is no difference in Johnny Manziel and Matt Davis when it comes to running the Texas A&M offense. It's entirely possible Matt Davis would be incapable of running the Texas A&M offense, just like it is possible an NFL quarterback's backup would be entirely capable of running the offense. I don't think the NFL uses fewer running quarterbacks because of economic reasons, but because the NFL has a better group of athletes on defense and it is more difficult for a running quarterback to have the athletic advantage over the defense he could have in college.
In the pros, a franchise typically has $20 million to $50 million invested in the starting quarterbacks and hopes a good quarterback will stay in town for a decade. Draft-choice investments, no factor in college, in the NFL may be extreme. Washington invested three first-round picks in RG III; if he sustains a serious injury rushing the ball, that's calamity.
Right, and notice this didn't stop the Redskins from running the ball with him at all. It didn't change very much of what Washington wanted to offensively because they have a capable backup in Kirk Cousins. Gregg is also talking about running quarterbacks in the context of discussing Colin Kaepernick and his use of the Pistol offense. Well the 49ers have a reason to let him run and that reason is because he is good at it and they have a capable backup in the form of Alex Smith. So I don't buy Gregg's "economic theory" when it comes to why NFL teams supposedly don't let their quarterbacks run with the football. I don't see how Gregg can believe his own theory considering quarterbacks who can run with the football are becoming more and more popular and Gregg has acknowledged this in TMQ. NFL teams want to win games and they will do what it takes to win these games. While they want to reduce hits on their quarterback, a team isn't going to shy away from using their quarterback as they see fit in order to win a game.
In the NFL, no team is five-deep at quarterback like in college. Backups tend to be players who haven't seen the field in years, unlike in college, where many backups were stars the season before.
What? In what world are many backups the stars of the season before? Every backup in college football hasn't come directly from high school nor started for that specific college the year before. Usually if a college quarterback is a star the season before then he gets to keep the starting quarterback job. I don't know what college football Gregg is watching, but usually if a quarterback plays well the season before he isn't relegated to backup duty the next season. The fact a high school quarterback was a star at his high school the year before is irrelevant when determining how fit this quarterback is to run the college offense because of the talent differential in high school and college football teams.
Backup quarterbacks in the NFL may not have seen the field in years, but they have proven at one point or another they can be a competent quarterback. After all, they are playing in the NFL. This is not something a backup college quarterback can claim as true. As bad as Jimmy Clausen has been in the NFL, he proved at Notre Dame that he can play quarterback on the college level at least. The backup for Texas A&M or another college hasn't necessarily proven this yet and the backup quarterback at the college level certainly usually wasn't the star of the team the season before. Maybe they were stars in high school, but more times than not if a quarterback is worth a shit he will be red-shirted for his freshman year. So if a backup is red-shirted and then becomes the backup in college, he will at least be 18 months removed from being the star of a team.
Also, being five-deep at quarterback doesn't mean jack-shit if the quality of the depth chart isn't very good. NFL teams could be three-deep at quarterback and have three better options than a college team that is five-deep at quarterback. I'm starting to forget what Gregg was even originally talking about.
Marx said everything is economics. He'd understand in an instant why so many colleges want their quarterbacks to run, and so few pro teams do.
For God's sake, it isn't that NFL teams don't want their quarterback to run the football, it is just NFL teams have more athletic defenders who make it more difficult for a quarterback to run the football.
As regards Canton, TMQ hopes this will be Andre Reed's year. He played on a run-oriented team in a bad-weather city, yet left Buffalo as the NFL's No. 2 all-time receiver.
Gregg Easterbrook from earlier in this very column:
One reason is that fad offenses have bubbled up into the pros before -- the Bills were no-huddle always-shotgun 20 years ago,
So the Bills must have been one of those run-oriented shotgun no-huddle teams which you never hear about in the NFL. I don't know what playing in a bad-weather city has to do with anything nor do I know if Andre Reed should be elected into the Hall of Fame, but I do know I wouldn't consider the Bills teams he played on to be run-oriented since they were famous for throwing the ball all over the field with Jim Kelly, Reed, Don Beebe, and James Lofton. They ran the ball with Thurman Thomas, but weren't run-oriented.
If on that draft day, Reed had gone to San Francisco and Rice to Buffalo, there is a strong chance Reed would have become professional football's consensus all-time best receiver, while in 2013, the Hall of Fame selectors would be debating whether this Jerry Rice guy belongs in Canton.
No, there is not. There is not a strong chance Andre Reed would have been the consensus all-time best receiver if he had been drafted by the 49ers. I don't understand how Gregg believes he can get away with saying bullshit like this, other than the fact he completely gets away with writing bullshit like this. Gregg says things like this nearly every single week. He makes just makes pronouncements that are pure speculation and have no factual or logical backing. How the fuck is there a strong chance Andre Reed would be considered the best receiver of all-time? Reed played with a Hall of Fame quarterback just like Jerry Rice did. What evidence does Gregg have this statement is true? None.
TMQ Non-QB Non-RB MVP: Only players whose teams reach the postseason are considered, on the reasoning that he who would wear the mantle of "most valuable" had better have created some value.
And of course it is impossible to create value if your team didn't go to the playoffs. I'm not going to argue this point because I only have so much room to write here and refuse to let him take me down that rabbit hole, but let's just say Gregg can shove a hockey stick up his ass for saying this and believing it to be true.
Here are the past winners:
2001: Alan Faneca, Steelers
2002: Lincoln Kennedy, Raiders
2003: Damien Woody, Patriots
2004: Troy Brown, Patriots
2005: Walter Jones, Seahawks
2006: Jeff Saturday, Colts
2007: Matt Light, Patriots
2008: James Harrison, Steelers
2009: Dallas Clark, Colts
2010: Dan Koppen, Patriots
2011: David Diehl, Giants
Remember how Gregg hates highly-drafted glory boys? Of his TMQ Non-QB Non-RB award winners, by my count without looking it up five of them were drafted in the 1st round. 11 winners and 5 of them have been first round draft picks. Remember that next time Gregg starts talking about how great undrafted or unwanted players or indicates highly-drafted players are lazy and only want money.
Here are this year's finalists from the teams that made the playoffs but not the Super Bowl:
Atlanta -- Tony Gonzalez
Cincinnati -- Geno Atkins
Denver -- Von Miller
Green Bay -- Randall Cobb
Houston -- Johnathan Joseph
Indianapolis -- Anthony Castonzo
Minnesota -- Phil Loadholt
New England -- Wes Welker
Seattle -- Max Unger
Washington -- Tyler Polumbus
Of these 10 players, 5 of these players were first round draft picks. I feel like this is important since I am going to name my BotB Highly-Drafted Glory Boy-Only MVP in a few moments. Gregg hates highly drafted players until it comes time to name the best players for a team, in which case he forgets how much he hates them and lauds them for being great players at a non-RB or QB position.
This year's runner up is Marshal Yanda of the Baltimore Ravens, one of the three or four best offensive linemen in the NFL, and master of a lost art, the pull trap.
The pull trap is a lost art apparently. You learn so much reading the lies that Gregg writes on a weekly basis.
This year's winner is NaVorro Bowman of the San Francisco Forty Niners. Bowman led the Niners in tackling, stayed on the field on passing downs, and broke up the Falcons' last-minute fourth down pass -- while covering speed receiver Roddy White -- to secure the Niners' trip to New Orleans.
Bowman is the master of the lost art of covering the other team's receiver. NFL defenses just don't do this anymore.
Sentimental factor: your columnist attended one of Bowman's games in high school.
At least this award was based entirely on merit and not based on any other factors outside of merit.
Now it is time to name the answer to Gregg's TMQ Non-QB Non-RB MVP. It is the BotB Highly-Drafted Glory Boy-Only MVP. There are 32 nominees because I am a logical person who understands a player doesn't have to help his team make the playoffs to create value. These nominees were all drafted in the first or second round and created a large amount of value to their team this year, but more importantly they are also highly-paid players and players who get a lot of credit and attention. So they get a lot of money and were drafted highly in their respective draft. I will give most of the focus to players who play skill positions that get too much of the spotlight already. Please note, these aren't the best players on each team, because I am choosing my nominees through my own private criteria that makes no logical sense, much like how Gregg does with his TMQ Non-QB Non-RB MVP.
The nominees are:
San Francisco: Michael Crabtree, WR
Chicago: Jay Cutler, QB
Cincinnati: A.J. Green, WR
Buffalo: C.J. Spiller, RB
Denver: Peyton Manning, QB
Cleveland: Trent Richardson, RB
Tampa Bay: Josh Freeman, QB
Arizona: Darnell Dockett, DT
San Diego: Philip Rivers, QB
Kansas City: Dwayne Bowe, WR
Indianapolis: Dwight Freeney, DE
Dallas: Dez Bryant, WR
Miami: Karlos Dansby, LB
Philadelphia: Nnadmi Asomugha, CB
Atlanta: Roddy White, WR
New York Giants: Eli Manning, QB
Jacksonville: Marcedes Lewis, TC
New York Jets: Antonio Cromartie, CB
Detroit: Calvin Johnson, WR
Green Bay: Aaron Rodgers, QB
Carolina: DeAngelo Williams, RB
New England: Jerod Mayo, LB
Oakland: Darrius Heyward-Bey, WR
St. Louis: Sam Bradford, RB
Baltimore: Joe Flacco, QB
Washington: DeAngelo Hall, CB
New Orleans: Drew Brees, QB
Seattle: Sidney Rice, WR
Pittsburgh: Troy Polamalu, S
Houston: Jonathan Joseph, CB (A highly-paid, highly-drafted glory boy on both Gregg and my list!)
Tennessee Titans: Chris Johnson, RB
Minnesota Vikings: Adrian Peterson, RB
The runner-up for the BotB Highly-Drafted Glory Boy-Only MVP is Adrian Peterson. Not only was he drafted in the top 10 of the NFL Draft and plays a position that Gregg Easterbrook thinks is losing value due to the NFL becoming a passing game, but he gets a lot of attention. Peterson earned $11.150 million last year and helped lead the Vikings to the playoffs.
The winner of the BotB Highly-Drafted Glory Boy-Only MVP is Sam Bradford. While being the fifth highest paid player in the NFL in making $15.595 million, Bradford also managed to not help lead his team to the playoffs. He was the first overall pick in the draft and was 15th in the NFL in passing yards, 20th in completion percentage, 26th in yards per attempt, threw the 18th most touchdowns in the NFL, the 15th most interceptions in the NFL, and was 18th in QB rating. Bradford is a highly-drafted and very highly-paid quarterback who performed in a very average fashion. Congratulations Sam Bradford, you are my MVP and the kind of highly-paid, glory boy we just don't see coming out of college much anymore.
Misery loves company: all seven of the NFL's seven highest-scoring teams failed to win the Super Bowl that season. Here they are, from first to seventh in points scored:
2007 Patriots -- lost Super Bowl
2011 Packers -- lost divisional, at home.
2012 Patriots -- lost conference title game, at home.
1998 Vikings -- lost conference title game, at home.
2011 Saints -- lost divisional, on road.
1983 Redskins -- lost Super Bowl.
2000 Rams -- lost wildcard, on road.
What Gregg fails to mention is that the seven highest-scoring teams in NFL history all made the playoffs and over half of them made it to the conference title game or the Super Bowl. So it isn't all bad.
Yet, teams that finish No. 1 in offense as measured by yards do well in the Super Bowl. Eight No. 1 offensive teams have won the ultimate contest, most recently the 2009 New Orleans Saints. Here are the eight first-overall offenses that won the Super Bowl:
Team sports is, ultimately, about scoring points. So why have all the best scoring NFL teams faltered, why many of the best yardage teams did well?
This sounds like an interesting question actually. My best guess would be that while games are won by teams who score a lot of points, teams that show they can run up a lot of yardage and move the football on offense have a better chance of running up a lot of yardage and moving the football against the good defenses that team will see in the playoffs and the Super Bowl. There may be another logical explanation as well, but of course Gregg goes for the bullshit explanation.
Your columnist is going to go all squishy and propose that the reason the record-scoring-total NFL teams failed to win the Super Bowl is psychological. They became spoiled, expecting to score quickly, expecting to see defeat in the eyes of opponents by the third quarter.
Yes Gregg, I am sure this is the exact reason record-setting teams fail to win the Super Bowl. They become spoiled psychologically and expect to score quickly. We all know the one attribute we think of when talking about Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, and Drew Brees (quarterbacks on those record-setting offensive teams) I think of guys who are spoiled and expect to score quickly. These guys are always lacking the killer instinct and aren't used to winning close games.
But during the playoffs, intensity cranks to maximum, and the accustomed easy scoring stopped. Cornerbacks who backed off during the regular season were up on the line jamming receivers.
Defensive ends were going all-out trying to knock the quarterback on his keister and make him hear footsteps.
Gregg believes in the playoffs defenses change their entire defensive schemes around. Cornerbacks who the defensive coordinator didn't trust to jam receivers in the regular season are now suddenly more trust-worthy. Defensive ends that were easily blocked in the regular season now try hard in the playoffs. These are all real things that happen in Gregg's idea of the football universe.
The 2007 Patriots are hardly the only highest-scoring team whose offense, spoiled by quick-and-easy, seized up at the last. The no-huddle Bills of 1990 scored at least 40 points four times, then scored 19 points in losing the Super Bowl.
Yeah, but that Bills team was a mostly run-oriented team as Gregg told us when discussing Andre Reed's Hall of Fame chances.
Top-yardage teams, by contrast, may not expect effortless touchdowns. They're accustomed to fighting their way down the field and to controlling tempo rather than scoring quickly, then jogging back to the bench to relax.
This is true except for the fact top-yardage teams are used to piling up large amounts of yardage against teams. So under Gregg's half-assed theory wouldn't these teams get frustrated and not know how to act when the opposing team doesn't allow them to pile up a lot of yardage?
I admit that's a psychobabble explanation for the otherwise-vexing reality that the NFL's seven top-scoring seasons ended in playoff defeat. But sometimes, all we've got to explain the human animal is psychobabble.
Yes, sometimes when there is no explanation that is available we should just make up something.
Is Not! Is Too! At the top of the column, TMQ wonders whether childhood feelings will manifest at the Super Bowl. Sound unlikely? Gary Myers reports that a year before the next Super Bowl, both the Jets and Giants have already thrown kindergarten-level hissy fits about not wanting other kids into their rooms.
Because sibling rivalry caused by deep-seated hatred due to a parent's unequal treatment and the Jets/Giants not wanting other teams to use their facilities, they are the exact same thing.
Then, the standard was raised to 16 core credits, the number in effect today, with a minimum GPA of 2 in core courses. (The NCAA insists on saying minimum GPA of 2.000, which makes it sound like not many NCAA officials have themselves passed core courses in numerical literacy.)
In August 2016, the requirement changes again, to a minimum GPA of 2.3 in core courses (preposterously, the NCAA calls it a "2.300" minimum)
This is not preposterous. The reason the NCAA does this is because if a student-athlete has a 2.295 GPA, then they could argue they have met the requirement for a 2.3 if you round up. The NCAA wants to cover their ass and be more specific to say a student needs a GPA of 2.300, so a student who has a 2.295 can't claim it should be rounded up to 2.30.
The NCAA's whole sliding-scale concept is puzzling. The current minimum of 2 GPA/1010 SAT asks a high school student who is doing poorly in the classroom (the 2 part) to finish a strong 48th percentile on the SAT (the 1010 part). How likely is that?
It could be very likely. A high school student could have a good GPA, but not score well on the SAT. I know people who had high SAT scores and low GPA's and I know people who had high GPA's and low SAT scores. I would guess it is quite common. What world does Gregg Easterbrook live in?
Then, the higher the GPA, the lower the SAT number the NCAA mandates. A high school student with a core GPA of 3 (excuse me, of 3.000 according to the NCAA) can receive an NCAA scholarship with an SAT of 620, which is third percentile. Third percentile is awful -- barely better than leaving every answer blank. Thus, the NCAA thinks a high school student can do well in school (the 3 part) will do terribly poorly on the SAT (the 620 part).
Or they think a person who has worked hard enough to get a 3.0 in high school shouldn't have to score as high on the SAT portion. The NCAA is trying to give students credit for hard work it seems.
The practical effect of the new rule should be to force a lot of football and men's basketball candidates into the new academic redshirt year, in which they will know that if they don't start paying attention to schoolwork, there will be no second year of college. If that's the way the coming standards turn out to work, they will be a progressive reform.
It's very important for these student-athletes, some of whom did not come to school for anything other than to play sports, to get kicked off out of school for not performing well in academics. I'm sure this won't result in any grade inflation or shady "tutoring" stories coming from these new rules.
Then Gregg details the last episode of "The Last Resort" and gives us all of the plot points and a plot summary of the show. It's incredibly unnecessary.
As brothers prepare to meet at the Super Bowl, don't overlook another coaching family milestone: Monte Kiffin, defensive coordinator of USC, was forced out by the head coach, his son, Lane.
Monte may have been hindered by the fad for Xbox Offense in the college ranks -- a recruiting focus on offensive players to win games 45-38. In the NFL, teams remain happy to win 17-13.
Sure Gregg, teams in the NFL are happy to win 17-13, but in college football the teams don't want to win 17-13. Hasn't Gregg talked all year about high-scoring teams with high-powered offenses in the NFL? I guess those don't type of offenses only exist in the NFL when Gregg needs them to exist.
The Baltimore Ravens have come out ahead by firing their offensive coordinator in December. Usually, head coaches fire coordinators or position coaches in order to shift blame.
As I detailed last week, Gregg twice criticized John Harbaugh for shifting the blame for the Ravens' offensive troubles by firing Cam Cameron. Nowhere in this TMQ does he mention that he was wrong about Harbaugh shifting blame or that he didn't think the Ravens came out ahead until it was shown they did come out ahead. In fact, Gregg lumped Harbaugh and the Ravens in with teams who fire coordinators in order to shift blame. Being honest with his readers is not a strength of Gregg Easterbrook. He's a master at deception.
In recent years, most football-factory colleges (the big exceptions are Alabama and LSU) have put most of their talent on offense, seeking to make the scoreboard spin.
Those two teams are the big exceptions in Gregg's mind, except there are other exceptions like Florida, South Carolina, Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc, but Gregg naming a longer list would make his claim most football-factory colleges put most of their talent on offense seem false. Gregg can't allow the perception that his claims are false, so he deceives as best he can.
Next Week: That Super Bowl thing you might have heard about.
Just as long as it isn't one of those God-forsaken "unwanted" player lists that Gregg annoys us with at the end of every NFL season. Actually, that list is probably going to be arriving in two weeks. That list is among the best examples of where Gregg tries to deceive and mislead his readers.
In this column I will name my BotB Highly-Drafted Glory Boy-Only MVP. I will give out the criteria below and this award is supposed to honor a highly-drafted, highly paid and high-performing NFL player who plays either the running back or quarterback position. Obviously it is a counter to Gregg's bullshit, even though his TMQ Non-QB Non-RB MVP is usually a highly drafted player anyway.
Jim and John Harbaugh have only nice things to say about each other. And the first time they squared off was uneventful.
But several schools of psychology teach that adults carry deep-seated traumas from childhood, which may manifest as subconscious motives even among the best-adjusted men and women.
And so naturally this must be true for Jim and John Harbaugh. Now that Gregg has proven his assumption is true, let him tell you exactly why these two brothers have deep-seated traumas from childhood. Psychology also teaches us that people who constantly ogle cheerleaders and make comments about their attractiveness have deep-seated sexual issues. So now that we know Gregg Easterbrook is at the very least a pedophile, let's talk a little bit about why this may be true too.
It's not uncommon for two siblings to each believe the other was favored by parents.
And because this has happened before, this is obviously the case with the Harbaugh brothers. Gregg Easterbrook is not only shitty at football analysis, analysis of television shows, and writing in general, but now he is a shitty amateur psychologist. There are few things Gregg is actually good at, but boy he loves showing off what he is bad at.
Which raises the question: What deep-seated childhood resentments are harbored by John and Jim Harbaugh? Will they boil to the surface if, say, the Super Bowl comes down to a disputed call and the referee -- obviously a father figure! -- favors one Harbaugh over the other?
Well, obviously because these two brothers have deep-seated resentments (and this is a proven fact based on Gregg's assumption) if a disputed call goes against Jim Harbaugh he will attempt to violently murder the closest person standing next to him during the Super Bowl. In other news, Gregg Easterbrook has won the Bottom of the Barrel Award Super Bowl Award. This goes to the sportswriter who has written the worst over the past year and the prize is that Gregg gets to stay right next to Jim Harbaugh during the entire Super Bowl, never to leave his side and will stay next to him the entire game.
Or what if Jacqueline Harbaugh, their mother, is shown on national television wildly cheering for a touchdown by either San Francisco or Baltimore, then impassively observing a big play by the other side? That's a year in therapy right there.
What if the Ravens win the Super Bowl and Jacqueline Harbaugh is interviewed after the game and she claims that John was her favorite son, but she had been sleeping with another man when John was born so she doesn't know if he is Jack Harbaugh's son? At that point, John and Jim are only half-brothers. How does that change the dynamic, and more importantly because psychologists believe in the Oedipal Complex, which half-brother wants to sleep with his mom and murder his father?
And even if Mom and Dad spend exactly the same amount of time in each team's locker room afterward, human nature dictates they will be giddy with the winning brother, glum and hand-patting ("there there, dear, you'll get the fire truck next Christmas") with the vanquished brother.
Whichever brother gets the hand-patting from his mother, THAT is the half-brother who was sleeping with his mother. Case closed.
Now, add that John is the big brother, expected by birth-order theory to be stoic, disciplined and respectful of authority. Jim and Joani, their sister, get a lot more latitude: Birth-order theory says they can be uninhibited and forgiven for outbursts, while John should hold everything inside. That's not a good formula for a very emotional event staged on live television before hundreds of millions of viewers.
Let's not forget that birth-order theory is infallible and never incorrect. I'm the first-born and I am prone to outbursts and am fairly uninhibited in what I say and do, while my younger sibling is the exact same way that I am. We all know birth-order theory can never be wrong, so I shouldn't even bother questioning it in any fashion.
It's fun to see the rabbit-hole Gregg has us going down.
-Psychologists say brothers can have deep-seated emotional issues with each other or their parents.
-The Harbaugh brothers probably have deep-seated emotional issues with each other or their parents based on the fact psychologists say this can happen.
-During the Super Bowl this deep-seated issue could show up in the form of a violence or a temper tantrum because of a call that goes against one of the brothers.
-Due to the birth-order theory, it will most likely be John Harbaugh who will have an emotional event on national television.
So after all of this amateur psychology and these assumptions, Gregg has gotten to the point where he thinks John Harbaugh is going to throw a hissy-fit during the Super Bowl because his mommy didn't love him as much as he thought she should.
On paper there are strong reasons to favor the Forty Niners. Better stats -- San Francisco finished third on defense, 11th on offense, versus a mediocre 17th-ranked offense, 16th-ranked defense for the Ravens.
If the games were played on paper, then the Broncos would be the AFC representative in the Super Bowl because they had the most balanced offense and defense. The game isn't played on paper though, it is played on the field with gritty players who love dirt and hustling.
That Baltimore struggled in December and shined in January suggests the Ravens, like the Packers and Giants before them, have honored sports lore by saving the best for last.
This must be as opposed to the 49ers who have been at their best for the entire year and "the best" for them would be to play their best in the biggest game of the season. I'm not entirely sure why saving the best for last is honoring sports lore, but I really need to stop asking questions about all the stupid shit Gregg says or writes.
Johnny Football, the Heisman winner -- of course, Texas A&M doesn't want him to get hurt running the ball. But Texas A&M has six quarterbacks on its roster, all obtained nearly free in economic terms, all former prep heroes. If Manziel goes down, the Aggies could turn to Matt Davis, a four-star recruit. The running quarterback is a strong offensive threat either in college or the pros. But in college, there's little economic reason not to let the quarterback run.
Naturally, Gregg is basing this reasoning on assumptions while leaving out any important information from entering the discussion that may disprove his theory. Gregg is assuming there is no difference in Johnny Manziel and Matt Davis when it comes to running the Texas A&M offense. It's entirely possible Matt Davis would be incapable of running the Texas A&M offense, just like it is possible an NFL quarterback's backup would be entirely capable of running the offense. I don't think the NFL uses fewer running quarterbacks because of economic reasons, but because the NFL has a better group of athletes on defense and it is more difficult for a running quarterback to have the athletic advantage over the defense he could have in college.
In the pros, a franchise typically has $20 million to $50 million invested in the starting quarterbacks and hopes a good quarterback will stay in town for a decade. Draft-choice investments, no factor in college, in the NFL may be extreme. Washington invested three first-round picks in RG III; if he sustains a serious injury rushing the ball, that's calamity.
Right, and notice this didn't stop the Redskins from running the ball with him at all. It didn't change very much of what Washington wanted to offensively because they have a capable backup in Kirk Cousins. Gregg is also talking about running quarterbacks in the context of discussing Colin Kaepernick and his use of the Pistol offense. Well the 49ers have a reason to let him run and that reason is because he is good at it and they have a capable backup in the form of Alex Smith. So I don't buy Gregg's "economic theory" when it comes to why NFL teams supposedly don't let their quarterbacks run with the football. I don't see how Gregg can believe his own theory considering quarterbacks who can run with the football are becoming more and more popular and Gregg has acknowledged this in TMQ. NFL teams want to win games and they will do what it takes to win these games. While they want to reduce hits on their quarterback, a team isn't going to shy away from using their quarterback as they see fit in order to win a game.
In the NFL, no team is five-deep at quarterback like in college. Backups tend to be players who haven't seen the field in years, unlike in college, where many backups were stars the season before.
What? In what world are many backups the stars of the season before? Every backup in college football hasn't come directly from high school nor started for that specific college the year before. Usually if a college quarterback is a star the season before then he gets to keep the starting quarterback job. I don't know what college football Gregg is watching, but usually if a quarterback plays well the season before he isn't relegated to backup duty the next season. The fact a high school quarterback was a star at his high school the year before is irrelevant when determining how fit this quarterback is to run the college offense because of the talent differential in high school and college football teams.
Backup quarterbacks in the NFL may not have seen the field in years, but they have proven at one point or another they can be a competent quarterback. After all, they are playing in the NFL. This is not something a backup college quarterback can claim as true. As bad as Jimmy Clausen has been in the NFL, he proved at Notre Dame that he can play quarterback on the college level at least. The backup for Texas A&M or another college hasn't necessarily proven this yet and the backup quarterback at the college level certainly usually wasn't the star of the team the season before. Maybe they were stars in high school, but more times than not if a quarterback is worth a shit he will be red-shirted for his freshman year. So if a backup is red-shirted and then becomes the backup in college, he will at least be 18 months removed from being the star of a team.
Also, being five-deep at quarterback doesn't mean jack-shit if the quality of the depth chart isn't very good. NFL teams could be three-deep at quarterback and have three better options than a college team that is five-deep at quarterback. I'm starting to forget what Gregg was even originally talking about.
Marx said everything is economics. He'd understand in an instant why so many colleges want their quarterbacks to run, and so few pro teams do.
For God's sake, it isn't that NFL teams don't want their quarterback to run the football, it is just NFL teams have more athletic defenders who make it more difficult for a quarterback to run the football.
As regards Canton, TMQ hopes this will be Andre Reed's year. He played on a run-oriented team in a bad-weather city, yet left Buffalo as the NFL's No. 2 all-time receiver.
Gregg Easterbrook from earlier in this very column:
One reason is that fad offenses have bubbled up into the pros before -- the Bills were no-huddle always-shotgun 20 years ago,
So the Bills must have been one of those run-oriented shotgun no-huddle teams which you never hear about in the NFL. I don't know what playing in a bad-weather city has to do with anything nor do I know if Andre Reed should be elected into the Hall of Fame, but I do know I wouldn't consider the Bills teams he played on to be run-oriented since they were famous for throwing the ball all over the field with Jim Kelly, Reed, Don Beebe, and James Lofton. They ran the ball with Thurman Thomas, but weren't run-oriented.
If on that draft day, Reed had gone to San Francisco and Rice to Buffalo, there is a strong chance Reed would have become professional football's consensus all-time best receiver, while in 2013, the Hall of Fame selectors would be debating whether this Jerry Rice guy belongs in Canton.
No, there is not. There is not a strong chance Andre Reed would have been the consensus all-time best receiver if he had been drafted by the 49ers. I don't understand how Gregg believes he can get away with saying bullshit like this, other than the fact he completely gets away with writing bullshit like this. Gregg says things like this nearly every single week. He makes just makes pronouncements that are pure speculation and have no factual or logical backing. How the fuck is there a strong chance Andre Reed would be considered the best receiver of all-time? Reed played with a Hall of Fame quarterback just like Jerry Rice did. What evidence does Gregg have this statement is true? None.
TMQ Non-QB Non-RB MVP: Only players whose teams reach the postseason are considered, on the reasoning that he who would wear the mantle of "most valuable" had better have created some value.
And of course it is impossible to create value if your team didn't go to the playoffs. I'm not going to argue this point because I only have so much room to write here and refuse to let him take me down that rabbit hole, but let's just say Gregg can shove a hockey stick up his ass for saying this and believing it to be true.
Here are the past winners:
2001: Alan Faneca, Steelers
2002: Lincoln Kennedy, Raiders
2003: Damien Woody, Patriots
2004: Troy Brown, Patriots
2005: Walter Jones, Seahawks
2006: Jeff Saturday, Colts
2007: Matt Light, Patriots
2008: James Harrison, Steelers
2009: Dallas Clark, Colts
2010: Dan Koppen, Patriots
2011: David Diehl, Giants
Remember how Gregg hates highly-drafted glory boys? Of his TMQ Non-QB Non-RB award winners, by my count without looking it up five of them were drafted in the 1st round. 11 winners and 5 of them have been first round draft picks. Remember that next time Gregg starts talking about how great undrafted or unwanted players or indicates highly-drafted players are lazy and only want money.
Here are this year's finalists from the teams that made the playoffs but not the Super Bowl:
Atlanta -- Tony Gonzalez
Cincinnati -- Geno Atkins
Denver -- Von Miller
Green Bay -- Randall Cobb
Houston -- Johnathan Joseph
Indianapolis -- Anthony Castonzo
Minnesota -- Phil Loadholt
New England -- Wes Welker
Seattle -- Max Unger
Washington -- Tyler Polumbus
Of these 10 players, 5 of these players were first round draft picks. I feel like this is important since I am going to name my BotB Highly-Drafted Glory Boy-Only MVP in a few moments. Gregg hates highly drafted players until it comes time to name the best players for a team, in which case he forgets how much he hates them and lauds them for being great players at a non-RB or QB position.
This year's runner up is Marshal Yanda of the Baltimore Ravens, one of the three or four best offensive linemen in the NFL, and master of a lost art, the pull trap.
The pull trap is a lost art apparently. You learn so much reading the lies that Gregg writes on a weekly basis.
This year's winner is NaVorro Bowman of the San Francisco Forty Niners. Bowman led the Niners in tackling, stayed on the field on passing downs, and broke up the Falcons' last-minute fourth down pass -- while covering speed receiver Roddy White -- to secure the Niners' trip to New Orleans.
Bowman is the master of the lost art of covering the other team's receiver. NFL defenses just don't do this anymore.
Sentimental factor: your columnist attended one of Bowman's games in high school.
At least this award was based entirely on merit and not based on any other factors outside of merit.
Now it is time to name the answer to Gregg's TMQ Non-QB Non-RB MVP. It is the BotB Highly-Drafted Glory Boy-Only MVP. There are 32 nominees because I am a logical person who understands a player doesn't have to help his team make the playoffs to create value. These nominees were all drafted in the first or second round and created a large amount of value to their team this year, but more importantly they are also highly-paid players and players who get a lot of credit and attention. So they get a lot of money and were drafted highly in their respective draft. I will give most of the focus to players who play skill positions that get too much of the spotlight already. Please note, these aren't the best players on each team, because I am choosing my nominees through my own private criteria that makes no logical sense, much like how Gregg does with his TMQ Non-QB Non-RB MVP.
The nominees are:
San Francisco: Michael Crabtree, WR
Chicago: Jay Cutler, QB
Cincinnati: A.J. Green, WR
Buffalo: C.J. Spiller, RB
Denver: Peyton Manning, QB
Cleveland: Trent Richardson, RB
Tampa Bay: Josh Freeman, QB
Arizona: Darnell Dockett, DT
San Diego: Philip Rivers, QB
Kansas City: Dwayne Bowe, WR
Indianapolis: Dwight Freeney, DE
Dallas: Dez Bryant, WR
Miami: Karlos Dansby, LB
Philadelphia: Nnadmi Asomugha, CB
Atlanta: Roddy White, WR
New York Giants: Eli Manning, QB
Jacksonville: Marcedes Lewis, TC
New York Jets: Antonio Cromartie, CB
Detroit: Calvin Johnson, WR
Green Bay: Aaron Rodgers, QB
Carolina: DeAngelo Williams, RB
New England: Jerod Mayo, LB
Oakland: Darrius Heyward-Bey, WR
St. Louis: Sam Bradford, RB
Baltimore: Joe Flacco, QB
Washington: DeAngelo Hall, CB
New Orleans: Drew Brees, QB
Seattle: Sidney Rice, WR
Pittsburgh: Troy Polamalu, S
Houston: Jonathan Joseph, CB (A highly-paid, highly-drafted glory boy on both Gregg and my list!)
Tennessee Titans: Chris Johnson, RB
Minnesota Vikings: Adrian Peterson, RB
The runner-up for the BotB Highly-Drafted Glory Boy-Only MVP is Adrian Peterson. Not only was he drafted in the top 10 of the NFL Draft and plays a position that Gregg Easterbrook thinks is losing value due to the NFL becoming a passing game, but he gets a lot of attention. Peterson earned $11.150 million last year and helped lead the Vikings to the playoffs.
The winner of the BotB Highly-Drafted Glory Boy-Only MVP is Sam Bradford. While being the fifth highest paid player in the NFL in making $15.595 million, Bradford also managed to not help lead his team to the playoffs. He was the first overall pick in the draft and was 15th in the NFL in passing yards, 20th in completion percentage, 26th in yards per attempt, threw the 18th most touchdowns in the NFL, the 15th most interceptions in the NFL, and was 18th in QB rating. Bradford is a highly-drafted and very highly-paid quarterback who performed in a very average fashion. Congratulations Sam Bradford, you are my MVP and the kind of highly-paid, glory boy we just don't see coming out of college much anymore.
Misery loves company: all seven of the NFL's seven highest-scoring teams failed to win the Super Bowl that season. Here they are, from first to seventh in points scored:
2007 Patriots -- lost Super Bowl
2011 Packers -- lost divisional, at home.
2012 Patriots -- lost conference title game, at home.
1998 Vikings -- lost conference title game, at home.
2011 Saints -- lost divisional, on road.
1983 Redskins -- lost Super Bowl.
2000 Rams -- lost wildcard, on road.
What Gregg fails to mention is that the seven highest-scoring teams in NFL history all made the playoffs and over half of them made it to the conference title game or the Super Bowl. So it isn't all bad.
Yet, teams that finish No. 1 in offense as measured by yards do well in the Super Bowl. Eight No. 1 offensive teams have won the ultimate contest, most recently the 2009 New Orleans Saints. Here are the eight first-overall offenses that won the Super Bowl:
Team sports is, ultimately, about scoring points. So why have all the best scoring NFL teams faltered, why many of the best yardage teams did well?
This sounds like an interesting question actually. My best guess would be that while games are won by teams who score a lot of points, teams that show they can run up a lot of yardage and move the football on offense have a better chance of running up a lot of yardage and moving the football against the good defenses that team will see in the playoffs and the Super Bowl. There may be another logical explanation as well, but of course Gregg goes for the bullshit explanation.
Your columnist is going to go all squishy and propose that the reason the record-scoring-total NFL teams failed to win the Super Bowl is psychological. They became spoiled, expecting to score quickly, expecting to see defeat in the eyes of opponents by the third quarter.
Yes Gregg, I am sure this is the exact reason record-setting teams fail to win the Super Bowl. They become spoiled psychologically and expect to score quickly. We all know the one attribute we think of when talking about Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, and Drew Brees (quarterbacks on those record-setting offensive teams) I think of guys who are spoiled and expect to score quickly. These guys are always lacking the killer instinct and aren't used to winning close games.
But during the playoffs, intensity cranks to maximum, and the accustomed easy scoring stopped. Cornerbacks who backed off during the regular season were up on the line jamming receivers.
Defensive ends were going all-out trying to knock the quarterback on his keister and make him hear footsteps.
Gregg believes in the playoffs defenses change their entire defensive schemes around. Cornerbacks who the defensive coordinator didn't trust to jam receivers in the regular season are now suddenly more trust-worthy. Defensive ends that were easily blocked in the regular season now try hard in the playoffs. These are all real things that happen in Gregg's idea of the football universe.
The 2007 Patriots are hardly the only highest-scoring team whose offense, spoiled by quick-and-easy, seized up at the last. The no-huddle Bills of 1990 scored at least 40 points four times, then scored 19 points in losing the Super Bowl.
Yeah, but that Bills team was a mostly run-oriented team as Gregg told us when discussing Andre Reed's Hall of Fame chances.
Top-yardage teams, by contrast, may not expect effortless touchdowns. They're accustomed to fighting their way down the field and to controlling tempo rather than scoring quickly, then jogging back to the bench to relax.
This is true except for the fact top-yardage teams are used to piling up large amounts of yardage against teams. So under Gregg's half-assed theory wouldn't these teams get frustrated and not know how to act when the opposing team doesn't allow them to pile up a lot of yardage?
I admit that's a psychobabble explanation for the otherwise-vexing reality that the NFL's seven top-scoring seasons ended in playoff defeat. But sometimes, all we've got to explain the human animal is psychobabble.
Yes, sometimes when there is no explanation that is available we should just make up something.
Is Not! Is Too! At the top of the column, TMQ wonders whether childhood feelings will manifest at the Super Bowl. Sound unlikely? Gary Myers reports that a year before the next Super Bowl, both the Jets and Giants have already thrown kindergarten-level hissy fits about not wanting other kids into their rooms.
Because sibling rivalry caused by deep-seated hatred due to a parent's unequal treatment and the Jets/Giants not wanting other teams to use their facilities, they are the exact same thing.
Then, the standard was raised to 16 core credits, the number in effect today, with a minimum GPA of 2 in core courses. (The NCAA insists on saying minimum GPA of 2.000, which makes it sound like not many NCAA officials have themselves passed core courses in numerical literacy.)
In August 2016, the requirement changes again, to a minimum GPA of 2.3 in core courses (preposterously, the NCAA calls it a "2.300" minimum)
This is not preposterous. The reason the NCAA does this is because if a student-athlete has a 2.295 GPA, then they could argue they have met the requirement for a 2.3 if you round up. The NCAA wants to cover their ass and be more specific to say a student needs a GPA of 2.300, so a student who has a 2.295 can't claim it should be rounded up to 2.30.
The NCAA's whole sliding-scale concept is puzzling. The current minimum of 2 GPA/1010 SAT asks a high school student who is doing poorly in the classroom (the 2 part) to finish a strong 48th percentile on the SAT (the 1010 part). How likely is that?
It could be very likely. A high school student could have a good GPA, but not score well on the SAT. I know people who had high SAT scores and low GPA's and I know people who had high GPA's and low SAT scores. I would guess it is quite common. What world does Gregg Easterbrook live in?
Then, the higher the GPA, the lower the SAT number the NCAA mandates. A high school student with a core GPA of 3 (excuse me, of 3.000 according to the NCAA) can receive an NCAA scholarship with an SAT of 620, which is third percentile. Third percentile is awful -- barely better than leaving every answer blank. Thus, the NCAA thinks a high school student can do well in school (the 3 part) will do terribly poorly on the SAT (the 620 part).
Or they think a person who has worked hard enough to get a 3.0 in high school shouldn't have to score as high on the SAT portion. The NCAA is trying to give students credit for hard work it seems.
The practical effect of the new rule should be to force a lot of football and men's basketball candidates into the new academic redshirt year, in which they will know that if they don't start paying attention to schoolwork, there will be no second year of college. If that's the way the coming standards turn out to work, they will be a progressive reform.
It's very important for these student-athletes, some of whom did not come to school for anything other than to play sports, to get kicked off out of school for not performing well in academics. I'm sure this won't result in any grade inflation or shady "tutoring" stories coming from these new rules.
Then Gregg details the last episode of "The Last Resort" and gives us all of the plot points and a plot summary of the show. It's incredibly unnecessary.
As brothers prepare to meet at the Super Bowl, don't overlook another coaching family milestone: Monte Kiffin, defensive coordinator of USC, was forced out by the head coach, his son, Lane.
Monte may have been hindered by the fad for Xbox Offense in the college ranks -- a recruiting focus on offensive players to win games 45-38. In the NFL, teams remain happy to win 17-13.
Sure Gregg, teams in the NFL are happy to win 17-13, but in college football the teams don't want to win 17-13. Hasn't Gregg talked all year about high-scoring teams with high-powered offenses in the NFL? I guess those don't type of offenses only exist in the NFL when Gregg needs them to exist.
The Baltimore Ravens have come out ahead by firing their offensive coordinator in December. Usually, head coaches fire coordinators or position coaches in order to shift blame.
As I detailed last week, Gregg twice criticized John Harbaugh for shifting the blame for the Ravens' offensive troubles by firing Cam Cameron. Nowhere in this TMQ does he mention that he was wrong about Harbaugh shifting blame or that he didn't think the Ravens came out ahead until it was shown they did come out ahead. In fact, Gregg lumped Harbaugh and the Ravens in with teams who fire coordinators in order to shift blame. Being honest with his readers is not a strength of Gregg Easterbrook. He's a master at deception.
In recent years, most football-factory colleges (the big exceptions are Alabama and LSU) have put most of their talent on offense, seeking to make the scoreboard spin.
Those two teams are the big exceptions in Gregg's mind, except there are other exceptions like Florida, South Carolina, Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc, but Gregg naming a longer list would make his claim most football-factory colleges put most of their talent on offense seem false. Gregg can't allow the perception that his claims are false, so he deceives as best he can.
Next Week: That Super Bowl thing you might have heard about.
Just as long as it isn't one of those God-forsaken "unwanted" player lists that Gregg annoys us with at the end of every NFL season. Actually, that list is probably going to be arriving in two weeks. That list is among the best examples of where Gregg tries to deceive and mislead his readers.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
5 comments Bill Simmons Gives the History of His Mailbag...Because, You Know, We Care and All
Bill Simmons does mailbags a lot now. Bill Simmons likes doing mailbags. Bill Simmons gives the history of his mailbags today. I don't particularly care. Because mailbags are Bill's favorite gimmick to use (and they are his favorite because he doesn't have to think of a column idea, which is convenient given the fact he seems to have run out of column ideas), he did another mailbag to go with his NFL Playoffs Divisional Round Picks. As always I will be mocking the SimmonsClones that write the questions and desperately want Bill's acceptance, as well as critiquing Bill himself.
{I am aware this isn't Bill's latest column and are his picks for the Divisional Round. I accidentally posted something else last week when I wanted to post this column, so figured I would rather post this on Tuesday rather than post TMQ on Monday. Bill's column, since it was mostly a mailbag felt less immediate than TMQ does. Plus, I like to give TMQ time to breathe during the week and not post over it too quickly with another long post, so the idea of posting TMQ late Thursday, this post on Friday and then my conference picks before the games on Sunday seemed like a lot of writing in a short time period. I'm just rambling at this point. Look! Something shiny!}
I had a more ambitious plan for my Round 2 playoff column, but my readers sent along so many quality mailbag questions that I didn't have a choice.
(Bill thinking) "Do I have any column ideas this week? I don't think I do. I could sit here and think of an idea or I could simply have my lemming-like readers write in questions and I will respond in a manner that reminds everyone I am the smartest guy in the room at all times. Yeah, mailbag it is."
Quick background on mailbags:
This "quick background" takes up 1088 words by the way. I can't cover it all. I have patience, but not that much patience.
Before my site launched, I sketched out a few running gimmicks that, in my opinion, could definitely work for a frequent online column. One idea was a straight rip-off of one of my favorite David Letterman gimmicks: "Viewer Mail."
Don't ever think this whole "famous for being a sportswriter who writes like a fan" thing happened accidentally. Bill wasn't just writing and then got discovered for how well he wrote. It's all a plan. He plays the role of writing like the fan and the mailbags and other gimmicks were part of his plan to get readers. I'm not knocking it, (thinks introspectively) we all play a certain role when we write, but Bill didn't just one day come up with his mailbags, it was a plan to have a running gimmick in order to get noticed. Again, not knocking it, just saying Bill had a plan and his success wasn't all an accident. He wrote in a way to get readers to read what he writes and did an outstanding job of reaching this goal.
I was especially excited for three ideas: I wanted to write a running diary of watching the NBA draft at my dad's house, I wanted to write about the 30 Worst Sports Movies of all time, and I wanted to write a "Viewer Mail" column. But I needed enough decent e-mails to pull it off. I posted my first four columns and stuck my AOL e-mail underneath every one of them, hoping I'd get enough e-mails for an entire "Viewer Mail."
I'm not sure why this story hasn't been turned into a movie yet. Get Aaron Sorkin writing the script immediately. I need David Fincher to direct.
But in 1997 the Internet was a bizarre cross between the Wild Wild West and a maximum-security prison. There were no rules, no accountability, and more incoherent, typo-infested, all-caps e-mails than you can possibly imagine.
Two comments from me:
1. How the hell is this different from how the Internet is today? This is a perfect description about the Internet in 2013. In 2013, where is there accountability, rules or a lack of trolls at nearly any site you choose to visit?
2. I'm glad Bill is around to tell us all what the Internet was like 1997. Without him, we wouldn't have an idea of what the Internet was like 16 years ago. As I always say, nothing truly exists until Bill acknowledges its existence. He had to tell us what the Internet was like because we are all too stupid in his mind to remember what the Internet was like. Either that or Bill believes he was the only one who used the Internet in 1997.
I thought about calling the first one "Reader Mail" (as a Letterman homage) before ultimately settling on the totally forgettable moniker "Feedback."
This is as opposed to the original moniker "The Boston Sports Guy" and the even more original-pretending-to-be-less-Boston-centric moniker "The Sports Guy." Those are some unforgettably original and non-generic monikers.
Just for unintentional comedy's sake, here was the e-mail (and my response):
Bill could take the Sega Genesis and Howard Stern reference out of this answer and I would think it was from a 2013 column. Bill has become less creative and more repetitive since 1997, but if he thinks his writing style and jokes have changed that much in 16 years then he isn't very self-aware.
Who was that guy?
That guy is the same guy writing right now. There are differences, but possibly fewer than Bill wants to admit.
We posted the "Feedback" column and … boom! Coherent e-mails started trickling in! The next "Feedback" was significantly meatier. From there, we were off and running. To be clear — I'm not taking credit for creating mailbags or anything. It couldn't have been a more obvious gimmick for an online column.
Bill isn't taking credit for creating mailbags. Not at all. He knows he is the creator of mailbags, but he's not taking credit at this point.
But there was no model to point to in 1997, either. How long should these be? How long should my answers be? Could I make fun of readers within the column, or would they take it personally? Could I use the same person twice in the same column, or would it seem like I was desperate for e-mails? If a reader wrote something offensive, could I still run that e-mail and make fun of it, or was I condoning that e-mail by running it?
Boy, these are tough questions. I say Bill doesn't answer these questions right now and just saves the answers for the inevitable "30 for 30" episode about him and his reader mailbags.
"What if I told you readers could interact with a sportswriter in a way that has never been accomplished before? What if the readers made that sportswriter famous through a symbiotic process where they each justified the other's existence? What if the sportswriter threw the fact he had success beyond his wildest dreams back in the reader's face by bragging about how many famous people he knows and they were too stupid to realize it?"
I have never made up an e-mail simply because I never needed to make one up.
Sure, I believe this. Bill "never" made a question up (wink, wink).
I genuinely love writing them. And actually, I always write them long and end up cutting backward — there's usually 1,000 or so words that get chopped every time.
I'm intrigued by this idea of cutting backwards, as if it is different from editing. What is the alternative to cutting backwards? Cutting forwards? Cutting out words from a column when those words haven't been written yet? So basically Bill is thinking of a creative way (I guess he can still be somewhat creative when he needs to be) to say he edits his mailbags.
This week? We were about 10 e-mails too long. So fuck yeah, we're doing a two-part mailbag before Round Two picks.
He said "fuck." What a rebel. Creating Grantland was totally worth it in order to be able to write down curse words in his columns. It's so edgy you could cut yourself on the printed words.
Q: Why isn't it a bigger deal that Aaron Rodgers is going up against the team that passed on him with their first pick in the 2005 NFL Draft?
—Mike, Oregon, WI
SG: Hmmmmmmmm …
Are you telling me Aaron Rodgers hasn't gone to bed every night since April 23, 2005 waiting for a moment like this give the 49ers a huge F-U? This has the potential to be the biggest revenge story since Arnold in Commando.
— Matt Gullickson, Laguna Niguel
SG: Whoa, video evidence plus a forced reference to a 1980s movie? You know the key to my heart, Matt Gullickson.
Self-awareness does no good if it doesn't result in any type of change. Plus, it was considered a pretty big deal that Aaron Rodgers was going against the team that passed on him with the first pick and right near the hometown he grew up in as well (not really, because supposedly Aaron Rodgers grew up 170 miles from San Francisco, but never let the truth get in the way of a story). The media talked about this a lot. Like more than they should have considering Rodgers grew up three hours from San Francisco. Think of what city is three hours from where you live. Is that close to your hometown? Then that's why this story was somewhat silly. Other teams passed on Rodgers too, so it isn't like the 49ers were the only ones who didn't draft Rodgers.
Let's quickly zip through Rodgers's potential for an Eff You game.
Motivation: Through the roof. He's been waiting for eight solid years to play this specific game. And it's do-or-die to boot.
What about Colin Kaepernick's motivation to play a great game since he grew up a Wisconsin fan? Does that story just not fit the narrative?
Danger of Him Being Adrian Balboa'ed: (a.k.a. domesticated by a new wife or girlfriend who is either giving him phenomenal, mind-altering sex or saying things to him like "You have to stop blaming the Niners, it's juvenile, you're better than that" or "Your offensive line can't block, you're playing on the road … YOU CAN'T WIN!!!!!!").
No Bill Simmons column would be complete without a little bit of woman-hating. The only thing that can stop athletes from reaching their potential is some woman nagging him or using her special woman powers to divert him from his real ambitions. It was tongue-in-cheek the first 100 times Bill brought this exact same issue up in his columns over the last decade.
Niners star Justin Smith is either missing the game or playing hurt (huge blow to their pass rush) … Green Bay's receiving crew is the healthiest it's been all year … Rodgers is going against a first-year starter, so really, you'd be taking A FIRST-YEAR STARTER AGAINST AARON F-ING RODGERS …
Notice through this entire summary of why Aaron Rodgers may have an "Eff You" game there isn't one mention of Green Bay's defense. It's almost like defense is important and the Packers have to try to defend the 49ers from scoring points as well. What ended up happening? The Green Bay defense couldn't stop the 49ers offense.
oh, and he's playing in the Bay Area against his hometown team, which didn't take him in the draft, in case you forgot.
This narrative drives me crazy. This isn't his hometown team. Aaron Rodgers grew up three hours away from San Francisco. Three hours is a long drive to say the 49ers are Rodgers' "hometown" team. Yes, Rodgers is from California, but it isn't like he grew up wandering around Candlestick Park or anything.
Q: Can we get a Levels of Losing ruling for the Redskins-Seahawks game: Watching the amazing athlete who saved your team shred his ligaments bit by bit, knowing he has no chance of pulling it out, yet the defense holds you in there until the end, realizing it was a wonderful season but now, with the bad snap everyone saw coming for three quarters, it may never happen again, confirming your fears that this was just too good to be true. The game doesn't matter. If only RGIII had made it out OK, I'd be alright.
—Milse, Brooklyn
I can give you a ruling that you need to put your big boy pants on and stop whining to Bill Simmons. I can also get a ruling for you that even if RGIII had made it out of that game ok, then you would still not be alright because you whine to a national columnist about your favorite sports team as if he was actually a friend of yours.
SG: After Tom Brady blew out his knee eight minutes into the 2008 season, I created a new Level of Losing called "The Left at the Altar Loss", which I described at the time as "When you're waiting for months and months for the season to start (like planning a wedding), then you have your fantasy drafts (the bachelor party), then you have the rehearsal dinner the night before (making your starting fantasy lineups, making your bets, figuring out which games you'll watch Sunday), then you go to the church for the actual wedding (getting in front of the TV for the 1 p.m. ET games) … and as you're standing on the altar, you find out your bride either changed her mind or got run over by the limo driver.
Or as every other sports fan would have described what happened to the Patriots in 2008, "Our best player got injured the first week of the new NFL season." Bill likes to over-describe a situation in order to give the illusion of creativity. Mind you, the Patriots went 11-5 that year and somehow didn't make the playoffs. So using his typical technique of whining about it whenever his team doesn't win the championship in a given year, Bill is basically wanting everyone to feel bad for him because the Patriots lost Tom Brady and went 11-5. Yes, the Patriots lost Tom Brady in 2008, but I have a hard time feeling bad for an NFL team that has been to five Super Bowls since 2002...yet this sympathy is what Bill expects because he is always so freaking tortured by his teams.
Q: Was watching the Seahawks-Redskins game with a couple friends. As it was coming to an end, we were trying to figure out who the Hawks were going to play next. We easily named off SF and GB, but we couldn't remember who the other NFC playoff team was. It took us all about two minutes to finally say, "oh yeah, the Falcons!!!" Nobody believes in them. I can't be the only one who finds this hilarious. They could have finished 16-0 and still only Rembert would believe in them.
—Derek, Seattle
SG: (Suddenly nervous about the Seahawks +2.5.)
Right, because you, Derek, didn't remember the Falcons were the #1 seed in the NFC then this means no one else knew this either, because your thoughts have to be the same as every other sports fan's thoughts. I can see why Bill is your hero. Both of you have very self-centric points of view on the world.
Q: So I was preparing for my first sexual experience this weekend
I'm assuming this first sexual experience was with a hooker or with yourself because no self-respecting person would write to Bill Simmons about his first sexual experience and actually have a woman want to sleep with him.
and I encountered something more nerve-wracking than the experience itself … buying the condom. How does one go about it?
You put on your big boy pants (my phrase of the day apparently), go into a store, and then buy a box of condoms. It's very, very nerve-wracking unless you have nerves of jello or are 13 years old. I'm feeling bad for this kid. He's not only writing to Bill Simmons about his first sexual experience, but he also seems to not understand how to buy condoms. Here's a little tip. If you are too nerve-wracked to buy condoms, then you are going to be super-screwed (no pun intended) once you begin experiencing your first sexual experience and the girl throws a curveball in the gameplan.
Do you go to a convenience store far away so no one recognizes you? Do you buy other things with it so it looks like you haven't been dreading this moment all day? Do you look the cashier in the eye like "Yeah … you know what's up." No sports question here, just an important life question.
You go to a store where condoms are sold and then purchase a box. If the cashier is male and looks at you funny or with a smirk, simply say, "I need these for sex because aluminum foil didn't work so well last time. You probably know better than me actually, what kind of condom does your sister prefer?" If the cashier is a female and looks at you in a judging fashion, simply say, "I would ask you to join, but we do have a weight limit" and that should diffuse any tension immediately.
SG: Two tips: Always buy a few other things and ALWAYS make eye contact. And make the eye contact with one of those "That's right, I'm getting laid tonight" looks on your face.
Not terrible advice. The scariest part is that someone actually wrote into Bill Simmons with this question.
I watched every play of that game with Mays and Jacoby from Grantland; we didn't even have the "Should they pull Griffin for Cousins?" conversation until Seattle went up by seven. (They said no. I said yes, but only because I thought Cousins had proven himself in a similar situation.)
Bill with the name-dropping as usual. Bill is incapable of simply saying he watched a sporting event with other people. He always has to name that other person for some reason, usually because the person he watched the sporting even with is a celebrity or has some level of fame.
Q: This should have been an easy victory for the NHL. The season will happen, hockey is back, Hallelujah Amen. BOOM! Instead they picked the worst possible time/manner to announce the deal. First, they made the announcement on 6 am on a Sunday. I don't know about you, but I'm almost always guaranteed to be passed out at that point. By the time I'm awake/not hungover it's football time. Why would the NHL announce the deal on a day that some major playoff games were happening? Are they shortsighted when it comes to EVERYTHING? I need ANSWERS!
—James Cutler, Philly
SG: That e-mail was Reason No. 193 why Gary Bruce Bettman is the NHL's serial killer. Reason No. 194: Instead of "leaking" a tentative schedule for that first weekend of games (January 19 and 20) before the players ratified the new CBA, the league smartly decided not to leak anything — now we're eight days away from the start of the season, and no NHL season-ticket holder can make plans that weekend or effectively answer questions like, "Should we make dinner reservations for that Saturday night or do you have a hockey game?" or "Are we still going camping this weekend or do we have to stick around?" And god forbid you have kids with scheduled playdates, birthday parties, soccer games or whatever — you're at the whim of Gary Bruce Bettman, the most incompetent sports commissioner who ever lived.
Doesn't Gary Bettman know that Bill Simmons, extremely casual hockey fan whenever the Kings or Bruins are winning, needs to know the NHL schedule now so that no playdates or soccer games interfere with the games? Because we all know yanking your kid from a birthday party to go to a fucking hockey game would go over incredibly well. Or was Bill looking to force the birthday kid to change the date so he can attend a hockey game?
"Sorry little Alex, if you want my son, and therefore me, to attend your birthday party you have to reschedule it around the Kings' hockey schedule. Change the date or I won't be there. I will send you a list of acceptable dates for your party by email later tonight."
True story: My father is visiting next weekend to see his grandkids and possibly watch the Broncos-Patriots game if the Patriots can get past Houston this weekend.
That's a true story and not at all made up? Riveting. True story: We don't need an update on what your family is doing or who is visiting. Though I could go for another picture of Bill's dad's mustache because it is awesome.
The Sports Gal and I ended up having this exchange.
So Bill's readers get an update on who is visiting the Simmons household AND a lengthy transcript of a conversation he had with his wife? Is this Christmas in January? I will mention an interesting comment my wife or someone else made from time-to-time on Twitter, but I'm not going to include a lengthy transcript of a conversation because NOBODY CARES.
I hate to ruin the entire conversation for everyone, but it ends this way:
Her: "So we can't plan anything on Saturday until we find out if there's a hockey game."
Me: "Basically."
Her: "Even thought it's basically a week from now?"
Me: "Right. And even though they've been holding my season-ticket money since last April."
Her: "SERIOUSLY, WHY IS HOCKEY SO STUPID?????"
Why can't the Sports Gal write Bill's columns for him anymore? I still think the reason she quit writing in Bill's columns like she used to do is because Bill realized the readers found her to be more interesting than him. Bill has to be the smartest and most clever guy in the room, so the Sports Gal had to go.
Q: Since Nate Silver is predicting a Pats-Seahawks Superbowl (and seeing that he has been 100% right lately) what are you going to do if that happens?
—Dave, So. Florida
Well, it turns out this ended up not happening. I'm not sure I get the question though. What would Bill do? Umm...maybe watch the Super Bowl on television or try to attend the game?
SG: And if it ends up being Pats-Seahawks, I need you to understand something. There's only one thing worse than losing a Super Bowl to anyone named "Manning" … and that's losing a Super Bowl to Pete Carroll. If the Seahawks are standing in the way of our fourth Bowl, I will turn on Russell Wilson faster than Magic Johnson turned on the Mike D'Antoni hiring.
"We're so tortured! It would be so terrible to lose to Pete Carroll, because when the Patriots fired Pete Carroll it led to the Patriots hiring one of the greatest head coaches in NFL history, five Super Bowl appearances and a Patriots dynasty. It's so terrible if we had to play Pete Carroll and lost the Super Bowl even though it led to the greatest period of success in Patriots history! Sympathy me!"
Is there nothing Bill Simmons will refrain from whining about? He works so hard to give New England fans a bad reputation. It would have been interesting if the Patriots had lost a Super Bowl to their ex-head coach, but it isn't the worst thing that could happen next to losing to a Manning. The firing of Pete Carroll led to the greatest period in Patriots history, yet Bill still finds a way to whine about potentially losing a Super Bowl to Carroll. Things could not have worked out better for the Patriots after Carroll got fired, but Bill still plays the whining/sympathy card.
Then Bill brings up a pretty good point about Christian Ponder and how the perception of him has changed slightly because Joe Webb stunk it up in the playoff game against the Packers. Ponder was seen as the weak link for the Vikings, and while there is still this perception, his stock has increased some with Webb's performance against the Packers. When Bill doesn't have his head up in his own ass, he can still make an interesting point.
Q: It's finally here, the moment I've been waiting for all season; the chance to bet a road underdog against the Falcons in the Playoffs. But now I'm second guessing myself. Thinking this is the year Matt Ryan finally breaks through because they are the "Nobody believes in us" 13-3 #1 seed. I hate this.
—AJ, Peabody, MA
SG: Keep your eyes on the prize. Don't get suckered in by the whole "West Coast team playing a 1 p.m. East Coast game" thing, Chris Clemons's knee injury, or even the fact that it's the most important game Matt Ryan has ever played (and he knows it). And don't worry about the "Nobody Believes In Us" thing. The Giants murdered that theory this season. Everyone's onto it now. Can't work if everyone has their guards up. Take the Seahawks, take the points. They are better.
Bill Simmons created the "Nobody Believes in Us" thing himself, so now he is the one proclaiming it to be dead because it didn't work for the Giants? Does he really believe the 2012 New York Giants were the first team to do the whole "Nobody Believed in Us" thing and not have it work out? Nearly every sports team at some point plays the "Nobody Believed in Us" card and sometimes it turns out not working for them. But no, in 2012 because it didn't work for the New York Giants then the theory has been murdered.
Look for Bill to use the "Nobody Believed in Us" mantra at some point in the future in one of his columns (spoiler alert: or this column). He'll think of an excuse for why the theory is no longer murdered.
Q: After the formal introduction of Andy Reid as Kansas City's new head coach, do you realize the Chiefs have hired two more of your "Flabbergasted Four" as head coaches, giving them three in all (Herm Edwards, Romeo Crennel and Andy Reid)! Can I get a "ladies and gentlemen your Kansas City Chiefs?"
—Chris James, Blackstone, NY
SG: And don't rule out the Chiefs firing Andy in 2016 and hiring Brad Childress to complete the Flabbergasted Four Trifecta! (Wait, what? They're already talking to Brad about joining Andy's staff? Are we sure?) In all caps … LADIES AND GENTLEMEN … YOUR KANSAS CITY CHIEFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've always noticed how a lot of what Bill writes becomes a circular discussion and very self-contained in the topics discussed...at least in the mailbags he runs. A mailbag usually consists of Bill's readers telling him how right he was about something, contributing to an idea that Bill has created or Bill improving upon an idea his readers already have. Bill's writing usually progresses this way:
1. Bill creates a "team" of athletes or celebrities or makes a joke/observation in his column.
2. Bill's readers add names to that team or add on to the joke/observation.
3. Bill then uses this team or joke/observation the reader added, improves on it 10%, because he can't allow someone to be smarter than him and then claims ownership.
4. Bill's readers tell him how smart he is for thinking of this joke/observation or team.
5. Bill's own perception that he is the smartest and most clever guy in the room is reinforced, which is all that seems to matter anyway. The readers see that Bill listens to them and acknowledges their ideas, but because he is so much smarter than them, he had to improve on the idea. It's like one big circle-jerk so that Bill's readers can remind him of how clever and funny he is.
Q: Have you realized that if Peyton's Broncos beat the Patriots this year, Tom Brady & the Patriots will most likely have been denied four additional Super Bowls directly because of the Manning brothers? This got me thinking of a movie idea, involving Bill Belichick as an evil mastermind (not too far off from real-life), who creates a time machine and sends Brady back to the 1970s to stop Archie Manning from conceiving his two sons. With all the different time-travel rules the movie could play with, the possiblities are endless. Wouldn't this be a must-own Blu-ray?
—Adam, Lexington, MA
Uh-oh, this reader has a good idea and seems to be very clever. Bill will not stand for this.
SG: I knew this was a great idea because it could easily be a movie or animated series, but also, it's something I spent about 15 seconds mulling over while thinking, Wait, what if this could actually happen in real life?
Commence with Bill improving the idea by 10% so that he can claim it as his own and also show Adam from Massachusetts that he (Bill) is the smartest and most clever guy in the room at all times.
But you left out a crucial part of the plot: Roger Goodell catching wind of Belichick's scheme, then going back in time himself to stop Brady (like Robert Patrick in Terminator 2) so he can protect a future world where the Mannings rule football. Oh, and he could spend his spare time convincing thousands of 1970s players to sign documents releasing the league from all accountability for their future health issues while he's there.
Bill can not allow this good idea to stand on its own. He has to improve upon this reader's idea for some reason. This is a common occurrence in Bill's mailbags. His readers submit an idea and then Bill improves on the idea because his ego can't stand the idea of presenting a reader idea without showing how much smarter than the reader he is.
You want to make sure they can throw the ball downfield (they can) and that their big-play guys can make two big plays (yes for the Ravens with Ray Rice, Torrey Smith, Anquan Boldin and even Bernard Pierce), and that they're on something of a mission (Ray Lewis's announcement clinched that). You want to make sure they can handle the January elements (no problem there). And if there's a dash of "Nobody Believes In Us!," even better (and there is).
From earlier in this column:
And don't worry about the "Nobody Believes In Us" thing. The Giants murdered that theory this season. Everyone's onto it now. Can't work if everyone has their guards up.
It seems everyone is on to it now, except when Bill needs to use this theory when it becomes convenient to use this theory. When Bill needs to use "Nobody Believes in Us" reasoning for why a team should win a game, then the idea isn't murdered anymore. So was the "Nobody Believes in Us" thing only dead as it pertains to the Giants? If so, why wouldn't this logic pertain to the Ravens as well? After all, it is hard to believe no one really believes in the Ravens since they made the AFC Championship Game last year. This is the issue with creating theories and not sticking by them, it creates confusion and allows the theory-creator to apply the theory whenever it is convenient for him to do so. Basically, the theory turns into this malleable idea that has no impact on the reader.
Then Bill had the same strange feeling about the Ravens beating the Broncos that I had, which disturbs me beyond belief. This led to a riveting exchange with Mike Lombardi:
Me: "Am I crazy or can the Ravens win this game?"
Lombardi: "You are NOT crazy."
I'm just glad Bill relays these conversations to us. I do find it interesting that Mike Lombardi is supposed to be such a good friend of Bill Belichick's, but Belichick hasn't seen fit to hire Lombardi over the past few years. Maybe Lombardi just liked working for the Cleveland Browns and NFL Network.
My fears for picking against the Falcons: Taking three road teams in Round 2 … going against Matt Ryan in what's clearly a "My Career Is On Trial" Game … the "Nobody Believes In Us Even Though We're A No. 1 Seed" thing …
Again, this despite the fact Bill said "Nobody Believes in Us" was dead earlier in this very column when discussing these same Falcons. The idea is dead until Bill needs it again.
My fears for picking the Falcons: ...the fact that Seattle has "the look" (as Lombardi loves to say) …
Mike Lombardi, genius in his own mind.
Seattle's oversizedcheating cornerbacks matching up nicely with Atlanta's oversized receivers …
After the 2004 AFC Championship Game where the Colts receivers were manhandled by the Patriots secondary, it's hard for me to read Bill referring to the Seahawks corners as "cheating." Or is this a reference to the fact the corners both claim they took Adderall and that's why they tested positive for a banned substance? It's probably a little of both.
PATRIOTS (-10) over Texans
Keep this in mind: The Patriots haven't submitted a dominant playoff performance against a quality team in years. (No, you can't count the Denver Tebows last January.)
And why doesn't this game count? It was a dominant playoff performance. I am guessing it doesn't count because Bill doesn't want it to count, which is pretty much bullshit. He can't say "this game doesn't count" simply because if the game counted it would ruin the point he wants to prove.
"Keep this in mind: Peyton Manning has never won a Super Bowl. (No, you can't count the Super Bowl against Rex Grossman and the Bears)."
It's been 11 years since that first Super Bowl victory in New Orleans, back when Bledsoe and Ty and Willie were still around, when the Patriots franchise was still something of a joke, when the Boston sports scene was stuck in a rut, when it seemed absolutely inconceivable that the New England Patriots would ever win anything other than a booby prize. They ended up winning three Bowls. With a couple of breaks, they could have won three more.
And with a couple of breaks not going their way, they could have won one Super Bowl (Bill continues to consistently try to make people hate New England sports fans, doesn't he?). Keep that in mind as well. The breaks in Super Bowls didn't just go against the Patriots, though I know Bill can't fathom the idea one of his favorite teams may have gotten a break or two. In Bill's mind, his teams are always so tortured that the breaks always go against his favorite teams. So it is unfathomable to Bill that the Patriots benefited from a break or two along the way. Bill is enamored with "what if?" scenarios because it allows him to control sports history in the way that he sees fit.
But the mission will remain the same. And it starts this weekend.
Bill was right, the Patriots won. I don't know who I want to win the Super Bowl, but I always lean towards anti-Patriots just so I don't have to hear Bill Simmons gloat and make up drama-filled narratives about how resilient and outstanding the current Patriots team was as compared to every other team in NFL history. I already have to deal with that bullshit when he discusses the Celtics (which now that they are winning games, he should be discussing the Celtics more often very soon).
{I am aware this isn't Bill's latest column and are his picks for the Divisional Round. I accidentally posted something else last week when I wanted to post this column, so figured I would rather post this on Tuesday rather than post TMQ on Monday. Bill's column, since it was mostly a mailbag felt less immediate than TMQ does. Plus, I like to give TMQ time to breathe during the week and not post over it too quickly with another long post, so the idea of posting TMQ late Thursday, this post on Friday and then my conference picks before the games on Sunday seemed like a lot of writing in a short time period. I'm just rambling at this point. Look! Something shiny!}
I had a more ambitious plan for my Round 2 playoff column, but my readers sent along so many quality mailbag questions that I didn't have a choice.
(Bill thinking) "Do I have any column ideas this week? I don't think I do. I could sit here and think of an idea or I could simply have my lemming-like readers write in questions and I will respond in a manner that reminds everyone I am the smartest guy in the room at all times. Yeah, mailbag it is."
Quick background on mailbags:
This "quick background" takes up 1088 words by the way. I can't cover it all. I have patience, but not that much patience.
Before my site launched, I sketched out a few running gimmicks that, in my opinion, could definitely work for a frequent online column. One idea was a straight rip-off of one of my favorite David Letterman gimmicks: "Viewer Mail."
Don't ever think this whole "famous for being a sportswriter who writes like a fan" thing happened accidentally. Bill wasn't just writing and then got discovered for how well he wrote. It's all a plan. He plays the role of writing like the fan and the mailbags and other gimmicks were part of his plan to get readers. I'm not knocking it, (thinks introspectively) we all play a certain role when we write, but Bill didn't just one day come up with his mailbags, it was a plan to have a running gimmick in order to get noticed. Again, not knocking it, just saying Bill had a plan and his success wasn't all an accident. He wrote in a way to get readers to read what he writes and did an outstanding job of reaching this goal.
I was especially excited for three ideas: I wanted to write a running diary of watching the NBA draft at my dad's house, I wanted to write about the 30 Worst Sports Movies of all time, and I wanted to write a "Viewer Mail" column. But I needed enough decent e-mails to pull it off. I posted my first four columns and stuck my AOL e-mail underneath every one of them, hoping I'd get enough e-mails for an entire "Viewer Mail."
I'm not sure why this story hasn't been turned into a movie yet. Get Aaron Sorkin writing the script immediately. I need David Fincher to direct.
But in 1997 the Internet was a bizarre cross between the Wild Wild West and a maximum-security prison. There were no rules, no accountability, and more incoherent, typo-infested, all-caps e-mails than you can possibly imagine.
Two comments from me:
1. How the hell is this different from how the Internet is today? This is a perfect description about the Internet in 2013. In 2013, where is there accountability, rules or a lack of trolls at nearly any site you choose to visit?
2. I'm glad Bill is around to tell us all what the Internet was like 1997. Without him, we wouldn't have an idea of what the Internet was like 16 years ago. As I always say, nothing truly exists until Bill acknowledges its existence. He had to tell us what the Internet was like because we are all too stupid in his mind to remember what the Internet was like. Either that or Bill believes he was the only one who used the Internet in 1997.
I thought about calling the first one "Reader Mail" (as a Letterman homage) before ultimately settling on the totally forgettable moniker "Feedback."
This is as opposed to the original moniker "The Boston Sports Guy" and the even more original-pretending-to-be-less-Boston-centric moniker "The Sports Guy." Those are some unforgettably original and non-generic monikers.
Just for unintentional comedy's sake, here was the e-mail (and my response):
MZAMIARA WRITES: You've got it out for the Tiger. Let's see you make that kind of money on your sticky candy-coated couch potato Sega joy stick. Do you get nervous when that pizza man is about to bang on your door when you go to make that 12 foot putt?
SG: Hah! When I'm playing Sega Genesis, I can tune out just about everything — Charlestown parents screaming at their children ("Bow-bby, Maaaaak, Jenni-fah, come he-ahhh!"), the sweltering heat of my 4th floor apartment, the cackling sounds of my roommate as he watches Howard Stern's "E! Television" show, girlfriends leaving nasty messages on my answering machine ("Bill, I think we need to talk … I don't like how you make me wear Larry Bird's jersey to bed every night … "). Let me tell you, the pizza man ringing the doorbell doesn't even faze me. I welcome the distraction.For God's sake, read that thing again! Did I even write that?
Bill could take the Sega Genesis and Howard Stern reference out of this answer and I would think it was from a 2013 column. Bill has become less creative and more repetitive since 1997, but if he thinks his writing style and jokes have changed that much in 16 years then he isn't very self-aware.
Who was that guy?
That guy is the same guy writing right now. There are differences, but possibly fewer than Bill wants to admit.
We posted the "Feedback" column and … boom! Coherent e-mails started trickling in! The next "Feedback" was significantly meatier. From there, we were off and running. To be clear — I'm not taking credit for creating mailbags or anything. It couldn't have been a more obvious gimmick for an online column.
Bill isn't taking credit for creating mailbags. Not at all. He knows he is the creator of mailbags, but he's not taking credit at this point.
But there was no model to point to in 1997, either. How long should these be? How long should my answers be? Could I make fun of readers within the column, or would they take it personally? Could I use the same person twice in the same column, or would it seem like I was desperate for e-mails? If a reader wrote something offensive, could I still run that e-mail and make fun of it, or was I condoning that e-mail by running it?
Boy, these are tough questions. I say Bill doesn't answer these questions right now and just saves the answers for the inevitable "30 for 30" episode about him and his reader mailbags.
"What if I told you readers could interact with a sportswriter in a way that has never been accomplished before? What if the readers made that sportswriter famous through a symbiotic process where they each justified the other's existence? What if the sportswriter threw the fact he had success beyond his wildest dreams back in the reader's face by bragging about how many famous people he knows and they were too stupid to realize it?"
I have never made up an e-mail simply because I never needed to make one up.
Sure, I believe this. Bill "never" made a question up (wink, wink).
I genuinely love writing them. And actually, I always write them long and end up cutting backward — there's usually 1,000 or so words that get chopped every time.
I'm intrigued by this idea of cutting backwards, as if it is different from editing. What is the alternative to cutting backwards? Cutting forwards? Cutting out words from a column when those words haven't been written yet? So basically Bill is thinking of a creative way (I guess he can still be somewhat creative when he needs to be) to say he edits his mailbags.
This week? We were about 10 e-mails too long. So fuck yeah, we're doing a two-part mailbag before Round Two picks.
He said "fuck." What a rebel. Creating Grantland was totally worth it in order to be able to write down curse words in his columns. It's so edgy you could cut yourself on the printed words.
Q: Why isn't it a bigger deal that Aaron Rodgers is going up against the team that passed on him with their first pick in the 2005 NFL Draft?
—Mike, Oregon, WI
SG: Hmmmmmmmm …
Are you telling me Aaron Rodgers hasn't gone to bed every night since April 23, 2005 waiting for a moment like this give the 49ers a huge F-U? This has the potential to be the biggest revenge story since Arnold in Commando.
— Matt Gullickson, Laguna Niguel
SG: Whoa, video evidence plus a forced reference to a 1980s movie? You know the key to my heart, Matt Gullickson.
Self-awareness does no good if it doesn't result in any type of change. Plus, it was considered a pretty big deal that Aaron Rodgers was going against the team that passed on him with the first pick and right near the hometown he grew up in as well (not really, because supposedly Aaron Rodgers grew up 170 miles from San Francisco, but never let the truth get in the way of a story). The media talked about this a lot. Like more than they should have considering Rodgers grew up three hours from San Francisco. Think of what city is three hours from where you live. Is that close to your hometown? Then that's why this story was somewhat silly. Other teams passed on Rodgers too, so it isn't like the 49ers were the only ones who didn't draft Rodgers.
Let's quickly zip through Rodgers's potential for an Eff You game.
Motivation: Through the roof. He's been waiting for eight solid years to play this specific game. And it's do-or-die to boot.
What about Colin Kaepernick's motivation to play a great game since he grew up a Wisconsin fan? Does that story just not fit the narrative?
Danger of Him Being Adrian Balboa'ed: (a.k.a. domesticated by a new wife or girlfriend who is either giving him phenomenal, mind-altering sex or saying things to him like "You have to stop blaming the Niners, it's juvenile, you're better than that" or "Your offensive line can't block, you're playing on the road … YOU CAN'T WIN!!!!!!").
No Bill Simmons column would be complete without a little bit of woman-hating. The only thing that can stop athletes from reaching their potential is some woman nagging him or using her special woman powers to divert him from his real ambitions. It was tongue-in-cheek the first 100 times Bill brought this exact same issue up in his columns over the last decade.
Niners star Justin Smith is either missing the game or playing hurt (huge blow to their pass rush) … Green Bay's receiving crew is the healthiest it's been all year … Rodgers is going against a first-year starter, so really, you'd be taking A FIRST-YEAR STARTER AGAINST AARON F-ING RODGERS …
Notice through this entire summary of why Aaron Rodgers may have an "Eff You" game there isn't one mention of Green Bay's defense. It's almost like defense is important and the Packers have to try to defend the 49ers from scoring points as well. What ended up happening? The Green Bay defense couldn't stop the 49ers offense.
oh, and he's playing in the Bay Area against his hometown team, which didn't take him in the draft, in case you forgot.
This narrative drives me crazy. This isn't his hometown team. Aaron Rodgers grew up three hours away from San Francisco. Three hours is a long drive to say the 49ers are Rodgers' "hometown" team. Yes, Rodgers is from California, but it isn't like he grew up wandering around Candlestick Park or anything.
Q: Can we get a Levels of Losing ruling for the Redskins-Seahawks game: Watching the amazing athlete who saved your team shred his ligaments bit by bit, knowing he has no chance of pulling it out, yet the defense holds you in there until the end, realizing it was a wonderful season but now, with the bad snap everyone saw coming for three quarters, it may never happen again, confirming your fears that this was just too good to be true. The game doesn't matter. If only RGIII had made it out OK, I'd be alright.
—Milse, Brooklyn
I can give you a ruling that you need to put your big boy pants on and stop whining to Bill Simmons. I can also get a ruling for you that even if RGIII had made it out of that game ok, then you would still not be alright because you whine to a national columnist about your favorite sports team as if he was actually a friend of yours.
SG: After Tom Brady blew out his knee eight minutes into the 2008 season, I created a new Level of Losing called "The Left at the Altar Loss", which I described at the time as "When you're waiting for months and months for the season to start (like planning a wedding), then you have your fantasy drafts (the bachelor party), then you have the rehearsal dinner the night before (making your starting fantasy lineups, making your bets, figuring out which games you'll watch Sunday), then you go to the church for the actual wedding (getting in front of the TV for the 1 p.m. ET games) … and as you're standing on the altar, you find out your bride either changed her mind or got run over by the limo driver.
Or as every other sports fan would have described what happened to the Patriots in 2008, "Our best player got injured the first week of the new NFL season." Bill likes to over-describe a situation in order to give the illusion of creativity. Mind you, the Patriots went 11-5 that year and somehow didn't make the playoffs. So using his typical technique of whining about it whenever his team doesn't win the championship in a given year, Bill is basically wanting everyone to feel bad for him because the Patriots lost Tom Brady and went 11-5. Yes, the Patriots lost Tom Brady in 2008, but I have a hard time feeling bad for an NFL team that has been to five Super Bowls since 2002...yet this sympathy is what Bill expects because he is always so freaking tortured by his teams.
Q: Was watching the Seahawks-Redskins game with a couple friends. As it was coming to an end, we were trying to figure out who the Hawks were going to play next. We easily named off SF and GB, but we couldn't remember who the other NFC playoff team was. It took us all about two minutes to finally say, "oh yeah, the Falcons!!!" Nobody believes in them. I can't be the only one who finds this hilarious. They could have finished 16-0 and still only Rembert would believe in them.
—Derek, Seattle
SG: (Suddenly nervous about the Seahawks +2.5.)
Right, because you, Derek, didn't remember the Falcons were the #1 seed in the NFC then this means no one else knew this either, because your thoughts have to be the same as every other sports fan's thoughts. I can see why Bill is your hero. Both of you have very self-centric points of view on the world.
Q: So I was preparing for my first sexual experience this weekend
I'm assuming this first sexual experience was with a hooker or with yourself because no self-respecting person would write to Bill Simmons about his first sexual experience and actually have a woman want to sleep with him.
and I encountered something more nerve-wracking than the experience itself … buying the condom. How does one go about it?
You put on your big boy pants (my phrase of the day apparently), go into a store, and then buy a box of condoms. It's very, very nerve-wracking unless you have nerves of jello or are 13 years old. I'm feeling bad for this kid. He's not only writing to Bill Simmons about his first sexual experience, but he also seems to not understand how to buy condoms. Here's a little tip. If you are too nerve-wracked to buy condoms, then you are going to be super-screwed (no pun intended) once you begin experiencing your first sexual experience and the girl throws a curveball in the gameplan.
Do you go to a convenience store far away so no one recognizes you? Do you buy other things with it so it looks like you haven't been dreading this moment all day? Do you look the cashier in the eye like "Yeah … you know what's up." No sports question here, just an important life question.
You go to a store where condoms are sold and then purchase a box. If the cashier is male and looks at you funny or with a smirk, simply say, "I need these for sex because aluminum foil didn't work so well last time. You probably know better than me actually, what kind of condom does your sister prefer?" If the cashier is a female and looks at you in a judging fashion, simply say, "I would ask you to join, but we do have a weight limit" and that should diffuse any tension immediately.
SG: Two tips: Always buy a few other things and ALWAYS make eye contact. And make the eye contact with one of those "That's right, I'm getting laid tonight" looks on your face.
Not terrible advice. The scariest part is that someone actually wrote into Bill Simmons with this question.
I watched every play of that game with Mays and Jacoby from Grantland; we didn't even have the "Should they pull Griffin for Cousins?" conversation until Seattle went up by seven. (They said no. I said yes, but only because I thought Cousins had proven himself in a similar situation.)
Bill with the name-dropping as usual. Bill is incapable of simply saying he watched a sporting event with other people. He always has to name that other person for some reason, usually because the person he watched the sporting even with is a celebrity or has some level of fame.
Q: This should have been an easy victory for the NHL. The season will happen, hockey is back, Hallelujah Amen. BOOM! Instead they picked the worst possible time/manner to announce the deal. First, they made the announcement on 6 am on a Sunday. I don't know about you, but I'm almost always guaranteed to be passed out at that point. By the time I'm awake/not hungover it's football time. Why would the NHL announce the deal on a day that some major playoff games were happening? Are they shortsighted when it comes to EVERYTHING? I need ANSWERS!
—James Cutler, Philly
SG: That e-mail was Reason No. 193 why Gary Bruce Bettman is the NHL's serial killer. Reason No. 194: Instead of "leaking" a tentative schedule for that first weekend of games (January 19 and 20) before the players ratified the new CBA, the league smartly decided not to leak anything — now we're eight days away from the start of the season, and no NHL season-ticket holder can make plans that weekend or effectively answer questions like, "Should we make dinner reservations for that Saturday night or do you have a hockey game?" or "Are we still going camping this weekend or do we have to stick around?" And god forbid you have kids with scheduled playdates, birthday parties, soccer games or whatever — you're at the whim of Gary Bruce Bettman, the most incompetent sports commissioner who ever lived.
Doesn't Gary Bettman know that Bill Simmons, extremely casual hockey fan whenever the Kings or Bruins are winning, needs to know the NHL schedule now so that no playdates or soccer games interfere with the games? Because we all know yanking your kid from a birthday party to go to a fucking hockey game would go over incredibly well. Or was Bill looking to force the birthday kid to change the date so he can attend a hockey game?
"Sorry little Alex, if you want my son, and therefore me, to attend your birthday party you have to reschedule it around the Kings' hockey schedule. Change the date or I won't be there. I will send you a list of acceptable dates for your party by email later tonight."
True story: My father is visiting next weekend to see his grandkids and possibly watch the Broncos-Patriots game if the Patriots can get past Houston this weekend.
That's a true story and not at all made up? Riveting. True story: We don't need an update on what your family is doing or who is visiting. Though I could go for another picture of Bill's dad's mustache because it is awesome.
The Sports Gal and I ended up having this exchange.
So Bill's readers get an update on who is visiting the Simmons household AND a lengthy transcript of a conversation he had with his wife? Is this Christmas in January? I will mention an interesting comment my wife or someone else made from time-to-time on Twitter, but I'm not going to include a lengthy transcript of a conversation because NOBODY CARES.
I hate to ruin the entire conversation for everyone, but it ends this way:
Her: "So we can't plan anything on Saturday until we find out if there's a hockey game."
Me: "Basically."
Her: "Even thought it's basically a week from now?"
Me: "Right. And even though they've been holding my season-ticket money since last April."
Her: "SERIOUSLY, WHY IS HOCKEY SO STUPID?????"
Why can't the Sports Gal write Bill's columns for him anymore? I still think the reason she quit writing in Bill's columns like she used to do is because Bill realized the readers found her to be more interesting than him. Bill has to be the smartest and most clever guy in the room, so the Sports Gal had to go.
Q: Since Nate Silver is predicting a Pats-Seahawks Superbowl (and seeing that he has been 100% right lately) what are you going to do if that happens?
—Dave, So. Florida
Well, it turns out this ended up not happening. I'm not sure I get the question though. What would Bill do? Umm...maybe watch the Super Bowl on television or try to attend the game?
SG: And if it ends up being Pats-Seahawks, I need you to understand something. There's only one thing worse than losing a Super Bowl to anyone named "Manning" … and that's losing a Super Bowl to Pete Carroll. If the Seahawks are standing in the way of our fourth Bowl, I will turn on Russell Wilson faster than Magic Johnson turned on the Mike D'Antoni hiring.
"We're so tortured! It would be so terrible to lose to Pete Carroll, because when the Patriots fired Pete Carroll it led to the Patriots hiring one of the greatest head coaches in NFL history, five Super Bowl appearances and a Patriots dynasty. It's so terrible if we had to play Pete Carroll and lost the Super Bowl even though it led to the greatest period of success in Patriots history! Sympathy me!"
Is there nothing Bill Simmons will refrain from whining about? He works so hard to give New England fans a bad reputation. It would have been interesting if the Patriots had lost a Super Bowl to their ex-head coach, but it isn't the worst thing that could happen next to losing to a Manning. The firing of Pete Carroll led to the greatest period in Patriots history, yet Bill still finds a way to whine about potentially losing a Super Bowl to Carroll. Things could not have worked out better for the Patriots after Carroll got fired, but Bill still plays the whining/sympathy card.
Then Bill brings up a pretty good point about Christian Ponder and how the perception of him has changed slightly because Joe Webb stunk it up in the playoff game against the Packers. Ponder was seen as the weak link for the Vikings, and while there is still this perception, his stock has increased some with Webb's performance against the Packers. When Bill doesn't have his head up in his own ass, he can still make an interesting point.
Q: It's finally here, the moment I've been waiting for all season; the chance to bet a road underdog against the Falcons in the Playoffs. But now I'm second guessing myself. Thinking this is the year Matt Ryan finally breaks through because they are the "Nobody believes in us" 13-3 #1 seed. I hate this.
—AJ, Peabody, MA
SG: Keep your eyes on the prize. Don't get suckered in by the whole "West Coast team playing a 1 p.m. East Coast game" thing, Chris Clemons's knee injury, or even the fact that it's the most important game Matt Ryan has ever played (and he knows it). And don't worry about the "Nobody Believes In Us" thing. The Giants murdered that theory this season. Everyone's onto it now. Can't work if everyone has their guards up. Take the Seahawks, take the points. They are better.
Bill Simmons created the "Nobody Believes in Us" thing himself, so now he is the one proclaiming it to be dead because it didn't work for the Giants? Does he really believe the 2012 New York Giants were the first team to do the whole "Nobody Believed in Us" thing and not have it work out? Nearly every sports team at some point plays the "Nobody Believed in Us" card and sometimes it turns out not working for them. But no, in 2012 because it didn't work for the New York Giants then the theory has been murdered.
Look for Bill to use the "Nobody Believed in Us" mantra at some point in the future in one of his columns (spoiler alert: or this column). He'll think of an excuse for why the theory is no longer murdered.
Q: After the formal introduction of Andy Reid as Kansas City's new head coach, do you realize the Chiefs have hired two more of your "Flabbergasted Four" as head coaches, giving them three in all (Herm Edwards, Romeo Crennel and Andy Reid)! Can I get a "ladies and gentlemen your Kansas City Chiefs?"
—Chris James, Blackstone, NY
SG: And don't rule out the Chiefs firing Andy in 2016 and hiring Brad Childress to complete the Flabbergasted Four Trifecta! (Wait, what? They're already talking to Brad about joining Andy's staff? Are we sure?) In all caps … LADIES AND GENTLEMEN … YOUR KANSAS CITY CHIEFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've always noticed how a lot of what Bill writes becomes a circular discussion and very self-contained in the topics discussed...at least in the mailbags he runs. A mailbag usually consists of Bill's readers telling him how right he was about something, contributing to an idea that Bill has created or Bill improving upon an idea his readers already have. Bill's writing usually progresses this way:
1. Bill creates a "team" of athletes or celebrities or makes a joke/observation in his column.
2. Bill's readers add names to that team or add on to the joke/observation.
3. Bill then uses this team or joke/observation the reader added, improves on it 10%, because he can't allow someone to be smarter than him and then claims ownership.
4. Bill's readers tell him how smart he is for thinking of this joke/observation or team.
5. Bill's own perception that he is the smartest and most clever guy in the room is reinforced, which is all that seems to matter anyway. The readers see that Bill listens to them and acknowledges their ideas, but because he is so much smarter than them, he had to improve on the idea. It's like one big circle-jerk so that Bill's readers can remind him of how clever and funny he is.
Q: Have you realized that if Peyton's Broncos beat the Patriots this year, Tom Brady & the Patriots will most likely have been denied four additional Super Bowls directly because of the Manning brothers? This got me thinking of a movie idea, involving Bill Belichick as an evil mastermind (not too far off from real-life), who creates a time machine and sends Brady back to the 1970s to stop Archie Manning from conceiving his two sons. With all the different time-travel rules the movie could play with, the possiblities are endless. Wouldn't this be a must-own Blu-ray?
—Adam, Lexington, MA
Uh-oh, this reader has a good idea and seems to be very clever. Bill will not stand for this.
SG: I knew this was a great idea because it could easily be a movie or animated series, but also, it's something I spent about 15 seconds mulling over while thinking, Wait, what if this could actually happen in real life?
Commence with Bill improving the idea by 10% so that he can claim it as his own and also show Adam from Massachusetts that he (Bill) is the smartest and most clever guy in the room at all times.
But you left out a crucial part of the plot: Roger Goodell catching wind of Belichick's scheme, then going back in time himself to stop Brady (like Robert Patrick in Terminator 2) so he can protect a future world where the Mannings rule football. Oh, and he could spend his spare time convincing thousands of 1970s players to sign documents releasing the league from all accountability for their future health issues while he's there.
Bill can not allow this good idea to stand on its own. He has to improve upon this reader's idea for some reason. This is a common occurrence in Bill's mailbags. His readers submit an idea and then Bill improves on the idea because his ego can't stand the idea of presenting a reader idea without showing how much smarter than the reader he is.
You want to make sure they can throw the ball downfield (they can) and that their big-play guys can make two big plays (yes for the Ravens with Ray Rice, Torrey Smith, Anquan Boldin and even Bernard Pierce), and that they're on something of a mission (Ray Lewis's announcement clinched that). You want to make sure they can handle the January elements (no problem there). And if there's a dash of "Nobody Believes In Us!," even better (and there is).
From earlier in this column:
And don't worry about the "Nobody Believes In Us" thing. The Giants murdered that theory this season. Everyone's onto it now. Can't work if everyone has their guards up.
It seems everyone is on to it now, except when Bill needs to use this theory when it becomes convenient to use this theory. When Bill needs to use "Nobody Believes in Us" reasoning for why a team should win a game, then the idea isn't murdered anymore. So was the "Nobody Believes in Us" thing only dead as it pertains to the Giants? If so, why wouldn't this logic pertain to the Ravens as well? After all, it is hard to believe no one really believes in the Ravens since they made the AFC Championship Game last year. This is the issue with creating theories and not sticking by them, it creates confusion and allows the theory-creator to apply the theory whenever it is convenient for him to do so. Basically, the theory turns into this malleable idea that has no impact on the reader.
Then Bill had the same strange feeling about the Ravens beating the Broncos that I had, which disturbs me beyond belief. This led to a riveting exchange with Mike Lombardi:
Me: "Am I crazy or can the Ravens win this game?"
Lombardi: "You are NOT crazy."
I'm just glad Bill relays these conversations to us. I do find it interesting that Mike Lombardi is supposed to be such a good friend of Bill Belichick's, but Belichick hasn't seen fit to hire Lombardi over the past few years. Maybe Lombardi just liked working for the Cleveland Browns and NFL Network.
My fears for picking against the Falcons: Taking three road teams in Round 2 … going against Matt Ryan in what's clearly a "My Career Is On Trial" Game … the "Nobody Believes In Us Even Though We're A No. 1 Seed" thing …
Again, this despite the fact Bill said "Nobody Believes in Us" was dead earlier in this very column when discussing these same Falcons. The idea is dead until Bill needs it again.
My fears for picking the Falcons: ...the fact that Seattle has "the look" (as Lombardi loves to say) …
Mike Lombardi, genius in his own mind.
Seattle's oversized
After the 2004 AFC Championship Game where the Colts receivers were manhandled by the Patriots secondary, it's hard for me to read Bill referring to the Seahawks corners as "cheating." Or is this a reference to the fact the corners both claim they took Adderall and that's why they tested positive for a banned substance? It's probably a little of both.
PATRIOTS (-10) over Texans
Keep this in mind: The Patriots haven't submitted a dominant playoff performance against a quality team in years. (No, you can't count the Denver Tebows last January.)
And why doesn't this game count? It was a dominant playoff performance. I am guessing it doesn't count because Bill doesn't want it to count, which is pretty much bullshit. He can't say "this game doesn't count" simply because if the game counted it would ruin the point he wants to prove.
"Keep this in mind: Peyton Manning has never won a Super Bowl. (No, you can't count the Super Bowl against Rex Grossman and the Bears)."
It's been 11 years since that first Super Bowl victory in New Orleans, back when Bledsoe and Ty and Willie were still around, when the Patriots franchise was still something of a joke, when the Boston sports scene was stuck in a rut, when it seemed absolutely inconceivable that the New England Patriots would ever win anything other than a booby prize. They ended up winning three Bowls. With a couple of breaks, they could have won three more.
And with a couple of breaks not going their way, they could have won one Super Bowl (Bill continues to consistently try to make people hate New England sports fans, doesn't he?). Keep that in mind as well. The breaks in Super Bowls didn't just go against the Patriots, though I know Bill can't fathom the idea one of his favorite teams may have gotten a break or two. In Bill's mind, his teams are always so tortured that the breaks always go against his favorite teams. So it is unfathomable to Bill that the Patriots benefited from a break or two along the way. Bill is enamored with "what if?" scenarios because it allows him to control sports history in the way that he sees fit.
But the mission will remain the same. And it starts this weekend.
Bill was right, the Patriots won. I don't know who I want to win the Super Bowl, but I always lean towards anti-Patriots just so I don't have to hear Bill Simmons gloat and make up drama-filled narratives about how resilient and outstanding the current Patriots team was as compared to every other team in NFL history. I already have to deal with that bullshit when he discusses the Celtics (which now that they are winning games, he should be discussing the Celtics more often very soon).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)