Skip Bayless loves to make things about himself. He's written a column about Russell Westbrook and Kevin Durant where he (surprise) makes their dynamic about himself and things he has said in the past about Westbrook and Durant. Skip is just a disaster as a writer, but he sure does love bringing any topic back around to himself. He seems to believe athletes pay attention and give a shit about what he says on television. It's all about attention to Skip and he's getting good at getting attention. Everything else related to sports, he's not so good at. Let's see how Skip Bayless thinks he is part of the Kevin Durant-Russell Westbrook dynamic.
Some nights I'm convinced Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook will win their first NBA championship this June. Other nights, I'm Thunderstruck by their bizarre limitations.
Sometimes Skip runs, sometimes he hides, sometimes he's so scared he won't be relevant.
Durant and Westbrook are the strangest duo this side of Jekyll and Hyde.
If only Dr. Jekyll could explain what keeps going on with Westbrook's
knee. And only Dr. Freud might clarify the Nice/Not Nice conflict within
Durant.
Skip has this fascination with a player being nice or not being nice and that affects how he plays the game of basketball. I don't know. Magic Johnson was nice when he was on the court, Shaquille O'Neal always had fun on the court, while Isiah Thomas and Michael Jordan would rather rip your head off than lose. Different players are different when it comes to competitive nature on the court. Just because LeBron is "playing angry" doesn't necessarily mean he is playing better.
On second thought, maybe Freud could better explain the team's
mysterious decision to possibly rest Westbrook, age 25, for one game
each of the Thunder's six remaining back-to-backs, starting last Sunday
night. He watched as Durant & Co. were blown out at home by Dallas.
Dr. Freud wasn't a doctor that dealt with physical ailments. Freud may be able to say that Westbrook's knee kept acting up as a response to some mental or emotional ailment he was dealing with, but I'm pretty sure explaining the Thunder's strategy to sit Westbrook wasn't down Freud's alley. Skip has abused this "Dr." analogy too much and it's probably time to move on.
Yes, he keeps saying the knee is fine and keeps playing with his usual
100 mph rage to win -- and without a hint of a limp. Yet he's being
rested as if he were 37-year-old Tim Duncan?
That's a good point. Maybe Skip and Stephen A. Smith should have a debate on "First Take" about what mysterious ailment has befallen Russell Westbrook. Is it West Nile Virus, HIV, or has he been suspended for every 6th game by the Thunder for some unknown violation of team rules? Skip and Stephen will debate it and come to a completely speculative conclusion on "First Take" sure to test the limits of the viewer's patience and logic.
Don't ask Thunder coaches or management, who are CIA secretive and lead
the league in media stonewalling. This naturally makes you wonder what
they're hiding.
I wasn't kidding when I said Skip will speculate why the Thunder are resting Westbrook one game of the remaining back-to-backs.
Could Durant win a title without Westbrook? I used to believe so.
I raved on "First Take" about the most freakish scoring talent I'd ever
seen -- 6 feet, 9 inches tall with arms stretching from Austin to
Oklahoma City and the lightning release and long-distance touch of a Ray Allen.
For years, I railed about how ego-crazed Westbrook,
Not that this article is about Skip talking about himself and his own opinions or anything like that of course.
Last season, Westbrook took the NBA's second-most shots behind Kobe Bryant
-- 102 more than Kevin Durant! As much as Durant liked (even loved) his
little buddy Westbrook, the two had occasionally clashed over No. 0's
shot selection.
"Would LeBron James and Russell Westbrook clash as much as Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook do? Find out at 9am when Skip and Stephen A. Smith discuss this, plus whether Tim Tebow could get Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal to reconcile."
Durant/Westbrook still seems an uneasy alliance, a Thunderstorm on the horizon.
Get it? It's a Thunderstorm because Durant/Westbrook both play for the Thunder? See the word "Thunder" is in "Thunderstorm," which underlines just how fucking creative Skip Bayless can be with his writing. Step back, this is real sportswriting happening.
But on Wednesday night, April 24, 2013, life changed for the Thunder.
(Cue dramatic music)
Game 2 of the Houston-OKC first-round playoff matchup, in OKC, was
Patrick Beverley's first NBA start. Westbrook hadn't missed a game in
two college and five NBA seasons. Beverley, battling to prove he
wouldn't back down, went for the ball as Westbrook attempted to call
timeout. The problem wasn't so much that Beverley violated an unwritten
rule -- let the opposing point guard tuck the ball under his arm and
make the "T" signal. Beverley knifed too low and made contact with
Westbrook's planted knee.
"Would LeBron James' knee have buckled if Patrick Beverley dove at it in this same situation? Find out at 9am when Skip and Stephen A. Smith debate whether LeBron's knee would have buckled in this same situation, as well as find out whether LeBron's knee would give out because he chokes in big situations or because he doesn't play angry enough."
Westbrook was gone for the rest of the playoffs. Without him, the
Thunder survived the Rockets in six games and beat Memphis in Game 1.
Then, it happened.
(Cue more dramatic music)
In four straight narrow losses to Memphis -- soon to be swept by San
Antonio -- Durant turned into Du-can't. Not without Westbrook.
Get it? His name is "Durant" and Skip changed it to "Du-can't." The creativity of this is blowing my mind.
This is the part where Skip ignores the Durant helped lead the Thunder to a playoff series victory over the Rockets as pretty much the only scoring option and then focuses entirely on when the Thunder played the Grizzlies to say that Durant came up small. In fact, Skip doesn't even focus on the entire series because that would involve mentioning Durant averaged 28.8 points, 10.4 rebounds, 1.2 steals and 6.6 assists during the Memphis series. He led the team in all these categories by the way. But let's get to the part where Skip cherry-picks information.
In "clutch time" of those four losses -- the last five minutes and the
game within six points -- Durant shot a combined 3-17, 0-3 from 3 and
2-5 on free throws, with one assist. Lord have mercy.
The next two leading scorers in that series were Kevin Martin and Reggie Jackson. Think part of the reason Durant came up small is that everyone knew he would get the ball? I'm sure Skip would argue Michael Jordan would have come up big in these moments. Because he always did, right?
This prompted "told you so" correspondence from a highly trusted,
longtime NBA source of mine who had tried to warn me my view of Durant
vs. Westbrook was upside down.
And of course it took this series for Skip to actually believe this highly trusted source of his. This source was so highly trusted that Skip didn't believe this person and would not change his view of Durant v. Westbrook based on this person's "trusted" advice, but now all of a sudden this anonymous person's advice should be taken by all of Skip's readers, despite the fact Skip wouldn't take this person's advice himself. Got it. Don't do as Skip does, do as he says, after he has spent several years ignoring the advice he now wants his readers to believe as he says they should believe.
My source is plugged in to several superstars.
And of course don't forget that no matter how plugged in this source was, Skip blatantly ignored what the source was saying. But now, Skip totally thinks we should pay attention even though Skip didn't think enough of how "plugged in" this person was to listen to what he/she had to say in the past.
My source had told me Westbrook actually was Batman to Durant's Robin --
that the point guard built like (and who often played like) a strong
safety was the one with the killer instinct, the assassin's clutch guts.
Westbrook, my source had insisted, was mentally tougher than Durant and
more feared by opponents late in games.
I still love how Skip is totally buying what the source is saying despite the fact he didn't believe this person previously. But those five games where Durant was the Thunder's only scoring option totally convinced Skip that Durant isn't the one with a killer instinct, it was Westbrook who was mentally tough. I wonder if the situations were reversed and Westbrook had to play against the Grizzlies without Durant how that would have gone?
Still, on air I hung in with a Durant I often had called my favorite NBA player.
Look at how the king of making declarative statements with much gusto is wavering on whether he thought Durant had the killer instinct or not. On air, Durant was still Skip's favorite player, but in that hollow crevice where most humans have a heart the black seeds of discontent with Durant's killer instinct was growing. So Skip wasn't wrong, he just wasn't ready to tell everyone how right his NBA source truly was. I like how Skip essentially admits here to peddling bullshit on the air.
Westbrook showed up for training camp but -- what? -- immediately needed
a second surgical procedure. He returned ahead of schedule for the
season's third game, but, after recording a triple-double and finishing
the game against the Knicks on Christmas Day, he needed a -- seriously?
-- third procedure and missed the next 27 games.
I know, Gregg Doyel is totally like "Why all this surgery and why is this surgery necessary when I thought the last one was successful?"
And "my man" KD hit bottom at home on New Year's Eve, scoring a grand
total of one point in the fourth quarter as Portland outscored the
Thunder 27-16 and won by four. Two nights later, again at home, the
Thunder allowed a late 14-0 run by 10-21 Brooklyn and lost by two.
Durant: four in the fourth.
Of course Skip can't simply analyze the situation of Durant playing without Westbrook, he has to tie Durant's performance in with his own personal feelings about Durant, thereby making himself become a part of the story. I'm guessing Skip doesn't teach Sunday School at his church, because otherwise he would probably have himself on the ark with Noah or insert himself as one of the servers at the Last Supper.
Skip chooses to cherry-pick his data here. Russell Westbrook was out from December 27 to February 13. During the month of January, an entire month in which Westbrook was out, Durant had his highest scoring month and best shooting month of the entire season. Skip can have his two cherry-picked games to draw an idiotic conclusion that gets him attention, but I'll take the entire month of January to show that Durant stepped up when Westbrook got injured. The Thunder's record without Russell Westbrook during this time? They were 21-7 without Westbrook during this time, but Skip still tries to sell us on Durant stepping back and "hitting bottom." What a joke.
The thing is, I believe Skip Bayless knows Kevin Durant stepped up without Westbrook and he is only saying the opposite to garner attention and be a troll. There is a difference in being a contrarian and simply saying something contrary to gain attention.
That's when -- on air -- I gave up
Here goes Skip making Durant's performance without Westbrook about himself again.
and said, OK, Durant is no longer The Man in OKC. Westbrook is. The
Thunder, I said, would ultimately go as far as Westbrook carries them
when he returns.
And of course in typical non-sensical Skip Bayless fashion he says this after Durant has his best scoring and shooting month of the season, as well during a time period when the Thunder went 21-7 without Westbrook.
I have no idea whether Durant was watching.
He probably wasn't Skip, but I still appreciate your diligent efforts to push yourself into the storyline and make it seem like athletes respond to your criticism by doing what you request they do. It's very egotistical of you.
I know he has twice taken public issue with me, for criticizing Westbrook and for criticizing him for getting too close to LeBron James in offseason workouts.
I'm sure Skip got a massive erection out of an athlete responding to him publicly with something he has said. Attention is all Skip requires. Take away the attention and he becomes a sad, 60-year old man screaming into a void. Unfortunately, Skip is so good at garnering attention and ESPN is so shameless in giving him a forum to gain attention, Skip is able to get under the skin of athletes and keep attention for himself. It's amazing the huge ego that Skip Bayless has. He isn't able to write a column or make a statement without drawing himself in as part of the story.
But Durant soon went on an MVP tear. The Thunder won 15 of 17 --
including one at Miami -- before Westbrook returned for the home rematch
with the Heat.
AND I'M SURE SKIP BAYLESS WAS ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE FOR KEVIN DURANT GOING ON THIS TEAR!
It's ridiculous how Skip seems to believe he has an impact on how professional athletes perform. It just goes to show how massive his ego is and how desperate he is for attention that he would believe his comments could have an impact on a professional athlete. I wouldn't expect anything more from Skip though. He's a Grade-A troll.
What sometimes detonated Durant was getting a technical foul. Again
down to Portland at home, this time by three with 3:45 left, Durant blew
up after two straight questionable calls and got a tech. Then he blew
up on the Blazers with 10 more points as OKC won by eight.
Were we seeing some new fire in Durant's belly?
I love the narrative that is driving Skip's analysis of how he (Skip) is affecting Durant's game while also driving the narrative that an angry NBA player is a better NBA player. What this all amounts to in my mind is that sometimes an NBA player comes through in the fourth quarter to lead his team to victory and other times that player doesn't come through and lead his team to victory. Of course, for the sake of a narrative Durant's performance was entirely dependent on the criticism he received from Skip Bayless regarding how he performs while Russell Westbrook is injured.
Last season, Nike promoted Durant's signature shoe with a "KD is not
nice" campaign. This suggested Durant had developed a complex after
losing in the Finals to LeBron and being viewed as too buddy-buddy with
his good buddy. "Not Nice" KD drew 12 techs last season, equaling his
total for his first five seasons. He always seemed to be mad at
somebody.
This season, Durant already has 13 techs. Yet he recently announced a new "Strong and Kind" Movement. Huh?
I think Skip gets confused sometimes. This isn't Kevin Durant getting together with Nike and telling them how they are going to market him and his shoe. Nike had a campaign idea and most likely ran it by Durant who liked the idea and the commercials that would follow. Durant's "Strong and Kind" movement isn't affiliated with Nike and isn't a part of Nike's promotions for his signature shoe. So "huh" is explained by knowing that one is a movement Durant is starting and the other is a campaign to sell shoes. I hate to break it to Skip, but Larry Bird doesn't eat McDonald's while he's shooting basketball at the gym either and Michael Jordan doesn't play basketball with Bugs Bunny. I know, it's shocking to hear.
Durant told ESPN's Chris Broussard: "If you see me play, I'm barking at
guys, I'm talking trash, I'm being physical. But at the same time, if
you fall on the ground, I'll help you up, and after the game we'll talk
as friends. So it's not a weakness to be a kind person. Everybody always
says nice guys finish last, but I'm trying to change that."
Nice ... or Not Nice?
Why doesn't Skip tell Durant which one he should be, you know, since athletes like Durant listen to Skip and adjust their behavior to reflect what Skip Bayless thinks these athletes should do.
Durant often unsuccessfully fights the natural nice in him. He sometimes
comes off as a surly jerk in on-court postgame TV interviews because
he's trying to seem dead-seriously angry about winning a championship.
Or this could be a reflection of what Durant said above, which is that when he's playing on the court he's barking at guys and talking trash. But I guess that's too obvious of an answer and Skip wants to take this into a more non-sensical direction.
Translation: He's trying to come off more like Westbrook naturally does.
Well, of course. It's incredibly obvious that Durant wants to be like Westbrook so he acts surly because Westbrook comes off as surly. What Skip should do is publicly tell Durant to not try to be more like Westbrook and that will fix the whole situation. Because, you know, Skip Bayless believes himself to have an effect on the behavior of athletes and probably also believes he controls the weather.
Durant still appears to wrestle with exactly why God blessed him with
such rare talent. Westbrook doesn't seem to think about much but using
his freakish speed, strength and spring to play basketball as hard as he
can. Westbrook often seems happier than Durant.
This reads like the writing of a seven year old writing a book report.
"Russell doesn't think about how to play basketball. He just knows how. Russell plays as hard as he can all the time. Kevin doesn't always try hard. Russell looks happy. Kevin is not as happy as Russell. They both have dogs. Kevin loves dogs. Russell has a dog but doesn't like his dog. Skip is up his own ass."
Now, Durant's first championship hinges on Westbrook's not-nice knee. Once so durable, now so defective?
I bet Westbrook's knee gave out from trying to play basketball as hard as he can.
But guess what happens now. I hope you are sitting down, because Skip Bayless makes Durant's knee injury about Skip Bayless. I know, it's shocking to hear that Skip would do this.
Three times I've had medial meniscus tears scoped and bounced back quickly. These aren't big deals.
But you don't play professional sports. You sit in a chair and put words on a computer screen when you aren't busy arguing with another troll in the ESPN studios. But yeah, playing in the NBA and sitting in a chair are very close to being the same thing.
No, I don't play NBA basketball.
"I pulled a muscle in my back running last week, but I only took a few days off. So why is it Joel Embiid is out for the entire season with a back injury? Sure, I don't play college basketball and I'm not seven-feet-tall, but I bounced back quickly. Why didn't Embiid?"
But last July, I had what my surgeon called a "significant tear" on a
knee whose cushioning cartilage had been clipped once. Three weeks
later, I had built back up to running eight miles.
Well Skip, that's just because you are a lot tougher than Russell Westbrook is. You ran eight miles after three weeks and that's the same thing as pivoting and playing on a knee while playing basketball against world-class athletes. There is no difference. Now if I tell you how special and tough you are will you stop waving your dick around...or at least stop making everything about you? Thanks, that would be great.
I still play a lot of basketball without issue.
Do you play a lot of basketball against NBA players? Do you play basketball everyday against NBA players? If not, shut the fuck up. It's not the same thing.
Something went very wrong with Westbrook's knee. He's obviously sucking it up and rampaging through pain game after game. By resting him for the second game of these five back-to-backs, the team obviously is trying to save him for a deep playoff run.
I guess Dr. Freud isn't needed to figure out why Westbrook was sitting out one game of the Thunder's remaining back-to-backs because Dr. Bayless is on the case.
Late in playoff games, "Kind" Kevin has no chance without him.
It's not that "Kind" Kevin has no chance without Russell Westbrook due to some deficiency on Durant's part, but it's that the Thunder have very few scorers they can count on from night-to-night that could help replace Westbrook's scoring average per game. I'm sure that's entirely Durant's fault. I wonder how Westbrook would perform without Kevin Durant around? It's hard to say considering Durant hasn't ever missed an extended portion of any NBA season.
One thing is for sure, Skip Bayless sees Durant's performance late in games as directly dependent on what kind of criticism or praise Skip directs towards Durant. Obviously, all athletes listen to the criticism that Skip Bayless has for them and respond to it on the court or field. Skip always find a way to drag himself into the story. What a lonely, sad man.
Showing posts with label random song lyrics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label random song lyrics. Show all posts
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Saturday, March 8, 2014
3 comments Phil Mushnick and Mitch Albom Want You Off Their Lawn With That Loud Modern Music
Mitch Albom and Phil Mushnick crave the old days in music. Phil craves the times when marching bands play at halftime and Mitch misses the Beatles, though they have been gone for over 40 years and 50% of the members are dead. Either way, music today just doesn't measure up to music from the good old days. This is something every adult has said for the last 100 years so it's obviously true. I will start off first with Phil Mushnick missing a marching band performance at the Super Bowl halftime. I personally hate marching bands because they are part of a parade and I hate parades. Parades seem very useless to me. It's just a group of people walking down a street slowly and I'm not sure why this should interest me, but I recognize it interests other people.
I’m about to waste your time and mine by making a Super Bowl suggestion so sensible that it’s completely out of the question, even laughable:
Bruno Mars' halftime show got higher ratings than the Super Bowl itself. So this sensible suggestion of Phil's isn't sensible and only laughable in that the current halftime format (which I admittedly rarely watch) seems to work well for the majority of people. Just because I don't watch it doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Instead of sustaining this protracted course in which Super Bowl halftimes have become pop-culture musical variety shows for tapered target audiences and with performances often infused with dubious value, why not restore and reward a great tradition of football by allowing marching bands to perform?
Because it's not 1967 and viewers won't watch to watch a marching band perform. It's bad enough the Super Bowl tends to get older, safer acts to the point I would fully expect a hologram of Frank Sinatra to perform at next year's Super Bowl, but few things are going to turn an audience off faster than watching a marching band. Sorry, I think it's true. The Super Bowl wants to keep their audience, not lose it to alternative programming.
Not just any marching bands, but to borrow from an old song, the best bands in the land!
Not to dump on marching bands, but I'm guessing the typical Super Bowl viewer cares as much about seeing the best marching bands in the world perform as they would care to see the two best chess masters squaring off at midfield during halftime.
And rather than risk being dismissed as an old-timer who doesn’t regard, say, twerking, as appropriate for a national audience tuned in to watch a ballgame, I first wrote this Super Bowl marching band suggestion years ago.
Nobody twerked during the Super Bowl, buddy. Bruno Mars put on a pretty good show and the Red Hot Chili Peppers showed up long enough to remind the viewers why they weren't the main halftime show. It's Anthony Keidis' mustache. No one wants to see that for 15 minutes during halftime.
In, for example, the marching bands of Ohio State University and Southern University (the “Human Jukebox”) marching band, we’re blessed with two of the most entertaining and spellbinding acts ever to respond to a whistle.
I appreciate marching bands that are good at their job, but the NFL has tried marching bands at halftime only to lose viewers to alternative programming. So from a programming perspective it doesn't make sense to have marching bands at halftime. That's what the halftime show is all about, keeping viewers from turning the channel.
OSU’s is a massive, high-tech operation that blows minds with its fantastic full-field reenactments of such things as a Mickey Mouse — scores of marching musicians form Mickey and take him for a walk — to an end zone-to-end zone Pac Man game. One watches in awe, applauds in awe.
I fell asleep just hearing about this. It's nothing against the technical aspect of marching bands that's the problem, it's that viewers aren't going to tune into watch a marching band and will go to alternative programming. If Phil Mushnick doesn't understand this then he shouldn't be writing about sports entertainment for a living.
I have never seen a fan at a football game walk out on or cease watching a good marching band — even if it means saving the bathroom for the start of the third quarter.
Then Mushnick must have not attended a football game in the last 20 years. I'm leaving at halftime to take a piss if I have to go to the bathroom. Also, it's not the fans at the game who would turn off the marching band. They have paid for a ticket and are sort of stuck as a result. It's the viewers on television who just have to use this modern technology called "the remote control" to go to another channel for 20 minutes.
And I have seen fans double-back — abandon their trip to the food and drink stands — after catching a glimpse of a good marching band.
(Deep sigh) Again, if Phil doesn't get that the halftime show isn't about those fans attending the game and that it is about the viewers at home then he is terribly incompetent at his job and perhaps should be fired. Maybe he could travel all around the country and watch the marching bands he enjoys watching so much. It's about viewers at home, not the fans at the game.
The likelihood of a marching band halftime performer intentionally grabbing at his crotch — as did Michael Jackson in 1993 — or the staging of a female breast jailbreak — Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, 2004 — is small.
There are ways to have a "family" Super Bowl halftime show without losing 50% of the viewers.
As family entertainment goes, the above marching bands are successfully designed to thoroughly entertain your families, as opposed to the Manson Family.
I think the best sign that Phil Mushnick isn't dealing with reality and is living in a non-existent past is that he just dropped a "Manson Family" reference. It's not the family that needs to be entertained halftime, it's the guy at home with the remote control.
But again, no shot. That’s not how America rolls these days. We roll downhill, faster and faster and faster.
Yes, the prevalence of halftime shows with such current troublemakers like Paul McCartney, the Rolling Stones, and Bruce Springsteen is a sure sign America is going downhill faster and faster. What would Ed Sullivan say if he saw these rowdy hooligans performing at the biggest football event of the season?
I hope the NFL does get a marching band next year. I hope that marching band is from Ohio State and I hope that marching band does a formation that ends up forming a penis and a breast with the marching band dotting the nipple of the breast. What would Phil say then?
Then Mitch Albom tells us why the Beatles are still the best. When Mitch isn't too busy attacking the service industry or giving a lecture on caring, Mitch is jamming to "She Loves You." Maybe if a few members of the service industry would sing a few bars of "When I'm Sixty-Four" then Mitch would not treat them like shit.
This past week marked the 50th anniversary of the Beatles’ first appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show.” There were TV specials and nostalgic articles. And if I were in my teens today, I might ask, “What’s the big deal?”
Actually my response is that the Beatles were a great band, but a band that is remembered mostly through nostalgia to where the band serves more as a cultural milestone rather than a band who made great music. Yes, they made great music and some crappy music, but nostalgia!
So let me explain why the Beatles actually are worth commemorating. Let’s start with this: Fifty years later, their music is still better than today’s.
This is an opinion, not a fact. Let's start with that.
Yep. I said it. I won’t take it back. If Katy Perry wants to argue, bring it on. If Lady Gaga takes exception, I’ll raise it. If Justin Bieber wants to …
Forget it. That’s not even fair.
I'm not sure anyone who isn't a teeny-bopper would argue that any of these artists are better than the Beatles. Also, I doubt any of these artists know who Mitch Albom is so they would not argue.
The Beatles were better. Their song construction, their melody lines, their harmonies, their lyrics, their inventiveness,
You mean they were inventive in the way they stole a whole bunch of shit from blues artists before them (as did many other bands) and invented the era of boy bands?
their breakthrough use of symphonic instruments — all done at a time when if you got it wrong, you had to record the whole thing again, you couldn’t just fix it with a computer key — combine to make the seven years the Beatles recorded together the richest production of pop music ever created by a group.
Ever.
They were great for a short period of time. I prefer my bands to be together a little bit longer, as well as put out music for longer than a four year period that I wouldn't classify as "boy band" music. And yes, I think the Beatles were a boy band at first, but did they later branch out.
And, let’s admit it, there has been hysteria since then. Heck, the Monkees had it at their concerts. So did the Osmonds, Jackson 5, David Cassidy, Menudo, Hanson, Boyz II Men and Bieber.
None of their music resonates the same way.
Partially because there aren't middle-aged white men sportswriters writing about going to see the Jackson 5, David Cassidy, or Hanson in concert. The Beatles had fans in men and women and many Baby Boomers are still writing and keeping the nostalgia for the Beatles alive. There's nothing wrong with this, it's just the music resonates now because it resonated then with people who are in a position to write to a large audience.
Also, it makes sense that Mitch Albom, who is in his mid-50's doesn't think Hanson's music resonates like the Beatles music does. This isn't really telling me anything.
You see, young person, what the Beatles did was take their influences — Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters, Elvis — and morph them all into their own early sound. Songs like “From Me to You” and “Can’t Buy Me Love” were bright, tight and catchy rock ’n’ roll, but they were wholly different from other songs coming out.
The fact the Beatles were different when they came out doesn't mean no other band has made music wholly different from other songs that have come out since then.
When mimic bands began popping up, the Beatles quickly moved into more significant and signature work, songs you really couldn’t imagine anyone else doing. “Here, There and Everywhere.” “Norwegian Wood.” “Drive My Car.”
What other band can Mitch imagine singing "Mmmmbop," "Motown Philly" or "End of the Road"? I'm just asking for the sake of argument. I can't imagine another bad singing those songs.
Three years after the suits, ties and mop-top haircuts of the Sullivan show, they were exploring corners of pop music no one had ever tried, creating thematic albums like “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” and “Magical Mystery Tour” that featured French horns and trumpets and timpani drums. Later, they would bring in sitar music. Cellos. Violas. Listen to “Eleanor Rigby” — released in 1966! — and tell me, what other artist of their time could have done that?
I don't think anyone would argue the Beatles didn't create a lot of interesting and good music, but the fact they created good music 40+ years ago doesn't mean there has been no music in the interim that was just as inventive nor does it mean their music is better than any other band who has ever put out music.
yet it is catchy and memorable and people around the world still sing the line, “Ahhh, look at all the lonely people,” which is probably more poetic than anything Kanye West ever has written.
Though Mitch Albom doesn't know because he's not familiar with Kanye West's music. He just knows the Beatles music is better because that's his position and doesn't care to question whether it's true or not. It's his reality, so it must be true.
yet they never stopped creating rock ’n’ roll (“Back in the USSR”) or folk song satire (“Piggies”) or cabaret-like melodies (“When I’m Sixty-Four,” “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer”) or achingly beautiful ballads like “Blackbird” or “Something” or “Let It Be.”
Honestly, if a band just recorded those last three songs, couldn’t it retire?
If a band just recorded those last three songs they would be a band that only got played on easy listening stations. Those are all non-rocking songs. So if the Beatles only recorded those three songs they would be better known as a band called Bread and played only alongside Dan Fogelberg.
And while they never played as a foursome after 1970, people know their songs 44 years later, they can sing along with dozens — not one — and they are remade as often as someone gets up the courage.
Apparently someone gets up the courage every other day, because the Beatles have been covered a lot.
I can tell you as a former musician who played in countless cover bands, you always shied away from doing Beatles tunes, because their sound was so unique, the audience inevitably found fault with your version.
Mitch, it could just be that your countless cover bands sucked. And what would the common denominator in these bands be? You.
But the fact that so many big artists have recorded “Yesterday,” “Michelle” or “And I Love Her” — to name a few — shows the timelessness of John Lennon’s and Paul McCartney’s songwriting.
How many other artists will record a Lady Gaga, Kanye West or Katy Perry hit? They won’t, because those are often great records, not great songs.
Yeah, no one covers Lady Gaga.
No one at all.
While I respect the Beatles, the fact their songs get covered repeatedly is the result of their cultural impact and doesn't necessarily mean their music is better than music that has been made since they broke up.
Play the single notes of “Yesterday” on a piano or a guitar, it’s still beautiful. Play the single notes from “Lose Yourself” by Eminem, it sounds like torture.
Again, this is an opinion. To a generation who grew up on Eminem's music, the single notes from "Lose Yourself" are recognizable and beautiful in it's own way.
So we’re not crazy, young person, not foolishly nostalgic, nor lost in the past.
And yet, this column is based entirely on nostalgia for a time that Mitch believes to be better than present time, which again, is something nostalgic adults have probably been doing for 100 years now. Fans of Bob Wills thought Chuck Berry's music was not very good, fans of Elvis didn't think the drug-fueled music from the 60's was very good, fans of 70's music didn't think the synthesized music of Depeche Mode and the arena rock of Def Leppard was real rock and roll, fans of Bon Jovi and the Eagles didn't understand the draw of grunge, and fans of Dave Matthews Band don't think Katy Perry is real music either. It's how it goes.
We were just blessed to have a truly great musical band to soundtrack our younger years, one that is not embarrassing to listen to today.
It is embarrassing to dismiss all good music since that time and say simply because the Beatles have been covered frequently this means their music is better than any other band's music since then. The only thing that should be embarrassing is to write a column where you lie, but Mitch Albom would never do that.
Is that worth a small fuss 50 years later? As the Beatles might answer, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Just because it's worth remembering them 50 years later doesn't mean the music back then is better than music that has been made since then.
I’m about to waste your time and mine by making a Super Bowl suggestion so sensible that it’s completely out of the question, even laughable:
Bruno Mars' halftime show got higher ratings than the Super Bowl itself. So this sensible suggestion of Phil's isn't sensible and only laughable in that the current halftime format (which I admittedly rarely watch) seems to work well for the majority of people. Just because I don't watch it doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Instead of sustaining this protracted course in which Super Bowl halftimes have become pop-culture musical variety shows for tapered target audiences and with performances often infused with dubious value, why not restore and reward a great tradition of football by allowing marching bands to perform?
Because it's not 1967 and viewers won't watch to watch a marching band perform. It's bad enough the Super Bowl tends to get older, safer acts to the point I would fully expect a hologram of Frank Sinatra to perform at next year's Super Bowl, but few things are going to turn an audience off faster than watching a marching band. Sorry, I think it's true. The Super Bowl wants to keep their audience, not lose it to alternative programming.
Not just any marching bands, but to borrow from an old song, the best bands in the land!
Not to dump on marching bands, but I'm guessing the typical Super Bowl viewer cares as much about seeing the best marching bands in the world perform as they would care to see the two best chess masters squaring off at midfield during halftime.
And rather than risk being dismissed as an old-timer who doesn’t regard, say, twerking, as appropriate for a national audience tuned in to watch a ballgame, I first wrote this Super Bowl marching band suggestion years ago.
Nobody twerked during the Super Bowl, buddy. Bruno Mars put on a pretty good show and the Red Hot Chili Peppers showed up long enough to remind the viewers why they weren't the main halftime show. It's Anthony Keidis' mustache. No one wants to see that for 15 minutes during halftime.
In, for example, the marching bands of Ohio State University and Southern University (the “Human Jukebox”) marching band, we’re blessed with two of the most entertaining and spellbinding acts ever to respond to a whistle.
I appreciate marching bands that are good at their job, but the NFL has tried marching bands at halftime only to lose viewers to alternative programming. So from a programming perspective it doesn't make sense to have marching bands at halftime. That's what the halftime show is all about, keeping viewers from turning the channel.
OSU’s is a massive, high-tech operation that blows minds with its fantastic full-field reenactments of such things as a Mickey Mouse — scores of marching musicians form Mickey and take him for a walk — to an end zone-to-end zone Pac Man game. One watches in awe, applauds in awe.
I fell asleep just hearing about this. It's nothing against the technical aspect of marching bands that's the problem, it's that viewers aren't going to tune into watch a marching band and will go to alternative programming. If Phil Mushnick doesn't understand this then he shouldn't be writing about sports entertainment for a living.
I have never seen a fan at a football game walk out on or cease watching a good marching band — even if it means saving the bathroom for the start of the third quarter.
Then Mushnick must have not attended a football game in the last 20 years. I'm leaving at halftime to take a piss if I have to go to the bathroom. Also, it's not the fans at the game who would turn off the marching band. They have paid for a ticket and are sort of stuck as a result. It's the viewers on television who just have to use this modern technology called "the remote control" to go to another channel for 20 minutes.
And I have seen fans double-back — abandon their trip to the food and drink stands — after catching a glimpse of a good marching band.
(Deep sigh) Again, if Phil doesn't get that the halftime show isn't about those fans attending the game and that it is about the viewers at home then he is terribly incompetent at his job and perhaps should be fired. Maybe he could travel all around the country and watch the marching bands he enjoys watching so much. It's about viewers at home, not the fans at the game.
The likelihood of a marching band halftime performer intentionally grabbing at his crotch — as did Michael Jackson in 1993 — or the staging of a female breast jailbreak — Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, 2004 — is small.
There are ways to have a "family" Super Bowl halftime show without losing 50% of the viewers.
As family entertainment goes, the above marching bands are successfully designed to thoroughly entertain your families, as opposed to the Manson Family.
I think the best sign that Phil Mushnick isn't dealing with reality and is living in a non-existent past is that he just dropped a "Manson Family" reference. It's not the family that needs to be entertained halftime, it's the guy at home with the remote control.
But again, no shot. That’s not how America rolls these days. We roll downhill, faster and faster and faster.
Yes, the prevalence of halftime shows with such current troublemakers like Paul McCartney, the Rolling Stones, and Bruce Springsteen is a sure sign America is going downhill faster and faster. What would Ed Sullivan say if he saw these rowdy hooligans performing at the biggest football event of the season?
I hope the NFL does get a marching band next year. I hope that marching band is from Ohio State and I hope that marching band does a formation that ends up forming a penis and a breast with the marching band dotting the nipple of the breast. What would Phil say then?
Then Mitch Albom tells us why the Beatles are still the best. When Mitch isn't too busy attacking the service industry or giving a lecture on caring, Mitch is jamming to "She Loves You." Maybe if a few members of the service industry would sing a few bars of "When I'm Sixty-Four" then Mitch would not treat them like shit.
This past week marked the 50th anniversary of the Beatles’ first appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show.” There were TV specials and nostalgic articles. And if I were in my teens today, I might ask, “What’s the big deal?”
Actually my response is that the Beatles were a great band, but a band that is remembered mostly through nostalgia to where the band serves more as a cultural milestone rather than a band who made great music. Yes, they made great music and some crappy music, but nostalgia!
So let me explain why the Beatles actually are worth commemorating. Let’s start with this: Fifty years later, their music is still better than today’s.
This is an opinion, not a fact. Let's start with that.
Yep. I said it. I won’t take it back. If Katy Perry wants to argue, bring it on. If Lady Gaga takes exception, I’ll raise it. If Justin Bieber wants to …
Forget it. That’s not even fair.
I'm not sure anyone who isn't a teeny-bopper would argue that any of these artists are better than the Beatles. Also, I doubt any of these artists know who Mitch Albom is so they would not argue.
The Beatles were better. Their song construction, their melody lines, their harmonies, their lyrics, their inventiveness,
You mean they were inventive in the way they stole a whole bunch of shit from blues artists before them (as did many other bands) and invented the era of boy bands?
their breakthrough use of symphonic instruments — all done at a time when if you got it wrong, you had to record the whole thing again, you couldn’t just fix it with a computer key — combine to make the seven years the Beatles recorded together the richest production of pop music ever created by a group.
Ever.
They were great for a short period of time. I prefer my bands to be together a little bit longer, as well as put out music for longer than a four year period that I wouldn't classify as "boy band" music. And yes, I think the Beatles were a boy band at first, but did they later branch out.
And, let’s admit it, there has been hysteria since then. Heck, the Monkees had it at their concerts. So did the Osmonds, Jackson 5, David Cassidy, Menudo, Hanson, Boyz II Men and Bieber.
None of their music resonates the same way.
Partially because there aren't middle-aged white men sportswriters writing about going to see the Jackson 5, David Cassidy, or Hanson in concert. The Beatles had fans in men and women and many Baby Boomers are still writing and keeping the nostalgia for the Beatles alive. There's nothing wrong with this, it's just the music resonates now because it resonated then with people who are in a position to write to a large audience.
Also, it makes sense that Mitch Albom, who is in his mid-50's doesn't think Hanson's music resonates like the Beatles music does. This isn't really telling me anything.
You see, young person, what the Beatles did was take their influences — Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters, Elvis — and morph them all into their own early sound. Songs like “From Me to You” and “Can’t Buy Me Love” were bright, tight and catchy rock ’n’ roll, but they were wholly different from other songs coming out.
The fact the Beatles were different when they came out doesn't mean no other band has made music wholly different from other songs that have come out since then.
When mimic bands began popping up, the Beatles quickly moved into more significant and signature work, songs you really couldn’t imagine anyone else doing. “Here, There and Everywhere.” “Norwegian Wood.” “Drive My Car.”
What other band can Mitch imagine singing "Mmmmbop," "Motown Philly" or "End of the Road"? I'm just asking for the sake of argument. I can't imagine another bad singing those songs.
Three years after the suits, ties and mop-top haircuts of the Sullivan show, they were exploring corners of pop music no one had ever tried, creating thematic albums like “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” and “Magical Mystery Tour” that featured French horns and trumpets and timpani drums. Later, they would bring in sitar music. Cellos. Violas. Listen to “Eleanor Rigby” — released in 1966! — and tell me, what other artist of their time could have done that?
I don't think anyone would argue the Beatles didn't create a lot of interesting and good music, but the fact they created good music 40+ years ago doesn't mean there has been no music in the interim that was just as inventive nor does it mean their music is better than any other band who has ever put out music.
yet it is catchy and memorable and people around the world still sing the line, “Ahhh, look at all the lonely people,” which is probably more poetic than anything Kanye West ever has written.
Though Mitch Albom doesn't know because he's not familiar with Kanye West's music. He just knows the Beatles music is better because that's his position and doesn't care to question whether it's true or not. It's his reality, so it must be true.
yet they never stopped creating rock ’n’ roll (“Back in the USSR”) or folk song satire (“Piggies”) or cabaret-like melodies (“When I’m Sixty-Four,” “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer”) or achingly beautiful ballads like “Blackbird” or “Something” or “Let It Be.”
Honestly, if a band just recorded those last three songs, couldn’t it retire?
If a band just recorded those last three songs they would be a band that only got played on easy listening stations. Those are all non-rocking songs. So if the Beatles only recorded those three songs they would be better known as a band called Bread and played only alongside Dan Fogelberg.
And while they never played as a foursome after 1970, people know their songs 44 years later, they can sing along with dozens — not one — and they are remade as often as someone gets up the courage.
Apparently someone gets up the courage every other day, because the Beatles have been covered a lot.
I can tell you as a former musician who played in countless cover bands, you always shied away from doing Beatles tunes, because their sound was so unique, the audience inevitably found fault with your version.
Mitch, it could just be that your countless cover bands sucked. And what would the common denominator in these bands be? You.
But the fact that so many big artists have recorded “Yesterday,” “Michelle” or “And I Love Her” — to name a few — shows the timelessness of John Lennon’s and Paul McCartney’s songwriting.
How many other artists will record a Lady Gaga, Kanye West or Katy Perry hit? They won’t, because those are often great records, not great songs.
Yeah, no one covers Lady Gaga.
No one at all.
While I respect the Beatles, the fact their songs get covered repeatedly is the result of their cultural impact and doesn't necessarily mean their music is better than music that has been made since they broke up.
Play the single notes of “Yesterday” on a piano or a guitar, it’s still beautiful. Play the single notes from “Lose Yourself” by Eminem, it sounds like torture.
Again, this is an opinion. To a generation who grew up on Eminem's music, the single notes from "Lose Yourself" are recognizable and beautiful in it's own way.
So we’re not crazy, young person, not foolishly nostalgic, nor lost in the past.
And yet, this column is based entirely on nostalgia for a time that Mitch believes to be better than present time, which again, is something nostalgic adults have probably been doing for 100 years now. Fans of Bob Wills thought Chuck Berry's music was not very good, fans of Elvis didn't think the drug-fueled music from the 60's was very good, fans of 70's music didn't think the synthesized music of Depeche Mode and the arena rock of Def Leppard was real rock and roll, fans of Bon Jovi and the Eagles didn't understand the draw of grunge, and fans of Dave Matthews Band don't think Katy Perry is real music either. It's how it goes.
We were just blessed to have a truly great musical band to soundtrack our younger years, one that is not embarrassing to listen to today.
It is embarrassing to dismiss all good music since that time and say simply because the Beatles have been covered frequently this means their music is better than any other band's music since then. The only thing that should be embarrassing is to write a column where you lie, but Mitch Albom would never do that.
Is that worth a small fuss 50 years later? As the Beatles might answer, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Just because it's worth remembering them 50 years later doesn't mean the music back then is better than music that has been made since then.
Monday, April 15, 2013
6 comments Dan Shaughnessy Beats the Negativity Drum a Little Bit More Since It's All He Knows
Dan Shaughnessy thinks team chemistry is overrated. I'm not inclined to believe he is wrong necessarily, but it all depends on how a person rates team chemistry. There are those who believe ubuntu is the key to winning (ahem, Bill Simmons), while there are those who don't believe team chemistry means much at all (apparently Dan Shaughnessy). One thing I do believe is a team has to enjoy playing with each other and there has to be at least a common thread of trust and business-like respect among teammates. Everyone doesn't have to like everyone else, but there has to be more like than dislike. Either way, Dan has nothing obviously negative to write about so he just uses the idea team chemistry is overrated to bash the Red Sox for not spending enough money and signing the right kind of players. Sure, Dan bashes the Red Sox when they do spend money and sign the "right" players and it fails. He's like many sportswriters who are just incredibly outcome driven. Dan never writes in April that the Red Sox will fail and why, but he is one of many sportswriters who are glad to write in October that the Red Sox were doomed for failure and why. It's amazing how that works, isn't it? Writing a column based on upon information gained from hindsight is so much fun.
The Red Sox are selling character this spring. They have cleaned up their toxic clubhouse.
I know this accomplishment is unimpressive to Dan because the Red Sox aren't winning games and nothing impresses Dan except for success. Yet, I would think a guy who wrote an entire book with Terry Francona about the Red Sox and how a poison atmosphere in the clubhouse and in management helped submarine the success of the Red Sox over the last couple of years would at least acknowledge cleaning up a toxic clubhouse is a good first step to putting a winning team together.
No more Josh Beckett snarling and looking for snitches.
The snitches were part of the way Dan Shaughnessy gathered his information for the Terry Francona book and any columns he wrote about the Red Sox poisoned clubhouse. Maybe Dan is just mad the Red Sox have tried to clear the clubhouse of as much drama as possible. It makes it so hard to do his job when there isn't misery around the Red Sox.
No more Carl Crawford complaining about how mean everybody is in Boston. No more aloof Adrian Gonzalez, arms folded, looking down on those who would question his commitment.
Dan is making a list of the Red Sox players who had issues over the last couple of years, but he also wants you to know that team chemistry is overrated and whether these ex-Red Sox players were on the team or not does not affect the team as a whole. So the attitude of these players had nothing to do with the Red Sox struggles over the last couple of years nor did it negatively affect the clubhouse Dan's opinion. It's just that Gonzalez was aloof, which Dan finds worthy enough to mention constantly, but not worthy of any consideration on how this attitude may have affected his teammates.
Kevin Youkilis isn’t here to gossip or complain. Goofy Bobby Valentine is gone and so are the coaches who wouldn’t talk to the manager.
And really, how could a player who gossips and complains or coaches who won't talk to the manager negatively affect the Red Sox team in any fashion? It's not like coaches need to communicate in order to have a functioning, winning team.
It’s all Hakuna Matata in Camp Farrell.
And of course Dan can't stand all of this happiness and immediately has to interject some misery and drama into the mix. Dan is a miserable person and he doesn't believe other people can naturally be happy, so he has to get to the bottom of all this happiness and create suspicion the Red Sox clubhouse is actually miserable. It's all a facade!
Character guys have been brought into the fold. Shane Victorinio is the Flyin’ Hawaiian, the man who lit the room with his smile when the Phillies won the World Series in 2008. Jonny Gomes is quick with a joke or to light up your smoke.
Billy Joel song quotes are always cool to use in a column...as long as it is 1977. Quick digression/psychoanalysis about this specific song quote that is probably way off the mark:
Dan Shaughnessy quotes "Piano Man" by Billy Joel. This is a song about a piano player who goes about his business of playing the piano and making tips in a bar while ruminating on the regulars (who all appear to be miserable) that come in and out of the bar. The narrator (the piano man) helps them forget about their troubles for a while, but in return these mostly miserable patrons give the piano man tips and shower with him with compliments about how he could do so much better than he is doing by playing piano in this specific bar.
So that's the background of the song and I can't help but wonder if Dan sees himself as the humble piano man who sees all of these miserable Red Sox fans and Red Sox players around him and he believes he cheers them up by writing about the issues the team has. Dan probably sees himself as being able to do better than he is doing in his professional career, but he chooses to cover the Red Sox and make Red Sox fans feel better about their team. People come and go, while Dan is still here commenting on what he sees. What Dan probably fails to realize in this scenario I have cooked up is that HE is the source of the Red Sox fan's misery. He isn't making them feel better about the team, but he is wallowing in the misery of the team. Dan isn't the piano man who makes everyone feel better, Dan is a patron of the bar who only comes off to his readers as being completely miserable and enjoying the misery he wallows in. He's the asshole who wistfully wants the Red Sox team to be what they were in the past when they shared his misery through the Curse of the Bambino.
Ryan Dempster is rumored to be a successor to Alex Trebek. Stephen Drew is as polite as his brother,
Plus, Stephen Drew is an unemotional asshole just like his brother. I don't understand the Alex Trebek reference for Dempster, possibly because I am not close enough to the Red Sox team to get it. I'll just call this reference stupid because I feel like it is a safe assumption this reference is stupid.
John Lackey is auditioning for Comeback Player of the Year and Mr. Congeniality.
We all know if John Lackey came back to the Red Sox camp after missing a year due to Tommy John surgery and acted like an asshole, then Dan would be sure to write about what an underachieving, overpaid douchebag Lackey is. Damn Lackey for daring to have a good attitude and not be as cranky as he used to be.
It’s all just swell. These Red Sox are contending for a playoff spot and the Lady Byng Trophy.
How dare the Red Sox try to find players who won't act like conceited assholes and seem to have a positive attitude about them! I have said this before, but the reason Dan is mocking the good attitude and personality of the Red Sox players is because it makes him unhappy to see them happy. If there isn't drama and the team isn't losing he has nothing to write about. He can't write columns saying what a bunch of assholes the Red Sox team has if they are nice guys and he can't write columns saying how terrible the Red Sox team are if they aren't struggling. It's the worst of all worlds for him. So Dan resorts to mocking the Red Sox players for being congenial in an effort to stir up trouble.
Or . . . Sox fans may wake up in the middle of the summer with the horrible realization famously expressed by the townie character (played by Rob Schneider) in “The Waterboy” when he learns that the football team will be without its best player:
“Oh no! We suck again!’’
That’s when it’ll be time to issue the Edvard Munch “Scream” masks on Yawkey Way.
I think reasonable Red Sox fans know the team isn't going to be very good. Also, Dan stated Picasso painted "The Scream" when he originally wrote this column. In his defense, facts aren't as important as important to him as his ability to troll his audience.
I hate to break it to everybody, but chemistry in a baseball clubhouse is way overrated. Winning requires talent, pitching, and three-run homers.
Thanks for the update on what baseball requires, Earl Weaver. So clubhouse chemistry may be overrated, but this doesn't mean issues in the clubhouse can't also affect a team on the field. It's entirely possible a player's attitude or struggles can affect the clubhouse as a whole. I'll remember this statement by Dan that clubhouse chemistry is overrated the next time he compliments (I know, he won't ever compliment anyone, but I'll be on the lookout regardless) a player for working hard and this hard work rubbing off on his teammates.
More than the other team sport, baseball is built on individual skill sets. A batter gets no help from his teammates. It’s the same for the pitcher.
I think Dan should interview some starting pitchers to see if they don't get help from their catcher while on the mound. I have a feeling the answer Dan gets will contradict the idea a pitcher gets no help from his teammates.
That’s that’s why you can have winning teams when you have a clubhouse full of guys who hate each other.
That's why you can have winning teams when you have a clubhouse full of guys who like each other a lot. It can go both ways.
The 1986 Sox won the American League pennant and came within a strike of winning the World Series in six games against the Mets. That team had miserable John McNamara as manager, lazy Calvin Schiraldi at closer, entitled Roger Clemens as MVP, and an angry Jim Rice who told Sport Magazine that “my teammates aren’t friends, they’re associates.’’
Calling his teammates "associates" instead of friends doesn't mean Jim Rice didn't get along with his teammates. It simply means they weren't good friends. Teams who don't have great chemistry can win, there's no doubt about that, but just because the 2013 Red Sox appear to like each other doesn't mean the team is on the wrong long-term path. It's not like Ben Cherington has made a decision to only sign and draft players who are really nice guys. He's obviously looking for talented players, but a clubhouse that gets along is one less thing for the Red Sox to have to worry about during the season. It's not like the Red Sox are only choosing to sign players who are nice.
McNamara hated all young players and believed reliever Sammy Stewart was one of the worst human beings who ever lived.
Coming from Dan Shaughnessy that is saying something. Dan has something negative to say about everyone and everything.
Oh, and the 2004 team — the iconic team that threw off the Curse of the Bambino? Let’s not forget all the personal stuff they had to overcome. Pedro Martinez was wildly jealous of Curt Schilling. Manny refused to speak to his manager at times and insisted on taking an off day when the Sox were strapped for outfielders.
It got so bad that the fellows decided to pour a little Jack Daniel’s into cups before Game 4.
Through a 162 game season it is going to be very rare for 25 baseball players to get along all of the time. Things will happen and angry words will be said that don't affect the long-term team chemistry. Players won't all get along all of the time. That's very important to know and chalking up a few personality conflicts or arguments as "bad team chemistry" may be overstating the case a bit.
Also, the 2004 Red Sox drank alcohol in the locker room? Haven't we learned from the beer and fried chicken stories from 2011 that drinking alcohol is how a team starts to lose games and lose focus? How can the overblown nature of the fried chicken and beer story being attributed to the Red Sox collapse square with the Red Sox drinking alcohol before a playoff game in 2004? Shouldn't the Red Sox have lost this series with the Yankees because they weren't focused enough on the game at hand?
Think of all the bad stories we’d have read about the 2004 Red Sox if Dave Roberts got thrown out stealing and they lost Game 4.
You know which idiot would have been writing these stories? Dan Shaughnessy.
Jack Daniel’s before the games? What a bunch of losers. If the Sox had lost four straight to the Yankees, news of the Jack would have made “Chicken and Beer” sound like “Remember the Titans.’’
Except the Red Sox didn't lose so no one cared about the Jack Daniel's before games. This is just like if the Red Sox didn't collapse down the stretch of the 2011 season no one would have cared about the fried chicken and beer. What this tells me is that the amount of alcohol or fried chicken a team consumes doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether a team wins games or not. It's obvious Dan understands this as well, but he passes up writing real columns for the sake of having a cheap lede where he can bash the Red Sox at any possible opportunity.
But those 2004 Sox were not losers. They won.
It’s all about winning. The winners gets straight A’s in chemistry. The losers are chemistry’s F Troop.
They were also a team who appeared to be (at least from an outsider's perspective) a fairly close-knit team that enjoyed playing with each other. I'm sure there were a few disagreements during the season, but the Red Sox were a loveable team and they won the World Series. World Series can be won with good team chemistry.
Which is why chemistry is overrated.
Some talent would be good.
Chemistry isn't overrated. The Red Sox are trying to get some talent on the team, but they are trying to rebuild their team right now. Dan criticizes the Red Sox when they make stupid free agent signings, yet it seems he wants the Red Sox to keep playing the lottery that is trying to lure in big name free agents who want big money. Dan will complain about the Red Sox no matter what they do. They have held back on spending as much money and traded away their "mistake" players and he talks about how the team has no talent. This is why sportswriters don't and should not have any pull with teams. They tend to be impatient idiots at times, just like the fans are.
Nice guys finish last.
But they don't finish last because they are nice guys. So while team chemistry may be overrated, being nice and having good team chemistry isn't the reason the Red Sox may finish in last place. I realize Dan has no patience with anyone who tries to be positive, but if John Lackey was being a moody asshole then you and I both know Dan Shaughnessy would criticize him for this. That's the good part about being a sportswriter who has no true beliefs other than a commitment to negativity. The Red Sox spend money and Dan criticizes these big free agent signings for not smiling and playing pretty with the media, while if the Red Sox don't spend money, then Dan criticizes the Red Sox for signing guys without talent and says team chemistry doesn't mean anything. Just remember the next time Dan accuses a Red Sox player of being moody that he thinks team chemistry and being a nice guy is overrated.
Further evidence of Dan's trolling ability can be seen in his MLB predictions for the 2013 season.
Dan picks the Blue Jays to win the AL East and states the Yankees are going to win the first Wild Card spot. He's just trolling Red Sox fans by predicting the Yankees will still manage to win the Wild Card. Then Dan has the Los Angeles Dodgers, the same Los Angeles Dodgers team the Red Sox traded those bums Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Beckett, and Carl Crawford to, winning the World Series. This is significant for two reasons:
1. The Dodgers greatly increased their payroll this offseason, so Dan is saying in a way that he thinks the Dodgers will win the World Series because they spent a lot of money to acquire talent. This is, of course, something he wishes the Red Sox would do simply because they didn't do this. Go buy some players guys! If the Red Sox signed expensive free agents Dan would write a column about how these guys better perform and these are the same old free spending Red Sox with expensive, underachieving players.
2. The choice of the Dodgers to win the World Series is also significant because Dan is saying the same assholes who didn't play well in Boston are going to lead the Dodgers to the World Series. Quite a few articles were written by Dan on how Crawford/Gonzalez/Beckett weren't worth the money they were paid, but now he is essentially saying they are worth that money once they have left Boston because they will lead the Dodgers to the World Series.
There is one thing Dan does know how to do and that is troll Red Sox fans. He says Crawford/Beckett/Gonzalez suck and are overpaid when they play for the Red Sox, and then once they are traded, he predicts them to be a part of the team that wins the World Series the next season. I feel bad for Dan. His need for attention is so great. It must be lonely and sad to be a miserable, negative person who craves any type of attention even if it is negative attention.
The Red Sox are selling character this spring. They have cleaned up their toxic clubhouse.
I know this accomplishment is unimpressive to Dan because the Red Sox aren't winning games and nothing impresses Dan except for success. Yet, I would think a guy who wrote an entire book with Terry Francona about the Red Sox and how a poison atmosphere in the clubhouse and in management helped submarine the success of the Red Sox over the last couple of years would at least acknowledge cleaning up a toxic clubhouse is a good first step to putting a winning team together.
No more Josh Beckett snarling and looking for snitches.
The snitches were part of the way Dan Shaughnessy gathered his information for the Terry Francona book and any columns he wrote about the Red Sox poisoned clubhouse. Maybe Dan is just mad the Red Sox have tried to clear the clubhouse of as much drama as possible. It makes it so hard to do his job when there isn't misery around the Red Sox.
No more Carl Crawford complaining about how mean everybody is in Boston. No more aloof Adrian Gonzalez, arms folded, looking down on those who would question his commitment.
Dan is making a list of the Red Sox players who had issues over the last couple of years, but he also wants you to know that team chemistry is overrated and whether these ex-Red Sox players were on the team or not does not affect the team as a whole. So the attitude of these players had nothing to do with the Red Sox struggles over the last couple of years nor did it negatively affect the clubhouse Dan's opinion. It's just that Gonzalez was aloof, which Dan finds worthy enough to mention constantly, but not worthy of any consideration on how this attitude may have affected his teammates.
Kevin Youkilis isn’t here to gossip or complain. Goofy Bobby Valentine is gone and so are the coaches who wouldn’t talk to the manager.
And really, how could a player who gossips and complains or coaches who won't talk to the manager negatively affect the Red Sox team in any fashion? It's not like coaches need to communicate in order to have a functioning, winning team.
It’s all Hakuna Matata in Camp Farrell.
And of course Dan can't stand all of this happiness and immediately has to interject some misery and drama into the mix. Dan is a miserable person and he doesn't believe other people can naturally be happy, so he has to get to the bottom of all this happiness and create suspicion the Red Sox clubhouse is actually miserable. It's all a facade!
Character guys have been brought into the fold. Shane Victorinio is the Flyin’ Hawaiian, the man who lit the room with his smile when the Phillies won the World Series in 2008. Jonny Gomes is quick with a joke or to light up your smoke.
Billy Joel song quotes are always cool to use in a column...as long as it is 1977. Quick digression/psychoanalysis about this specific song quote that is probably way off the mark:
Dan Shaughnessy quotes "Piano Man" by Billy Joel. This is a song about a piano player who goes about his business of playing the piano and making tips in a bar while ruminating on the regulars (who all appear to be miserable) that come in and out of the bar. The narrator (the piano man) helps them forget about their troubles for a while, but in return these mostly miserable patrons give the piano man tips and shower with him with compliments about how he could do so much better than he is doing by playing piano in this specific bar.
So that's the background of the song and I can't help but wonder if Dan sees himself as the humble piano man who sees all of these miserable Red Sox fans and Red Sox players around him and he believes he cheers them up by writing about the issues the team has. Dan probably sees himself as being able to do better than he is doing in his professional career, but he chooses to cover the Red Sox and make Red Sox fans feel better about their team. People come and go, while Dan is still here commenting on what he sees. What Dan probably fails to realize in this scenario I have cooked up is that HE is the source of the Red Sox fan's misery. He isn't making them feel better about the team, but he is wallowing in the misery of the team. Dan isn't the piano man who makes everyone feel better, Dan is a patron of the bar who only comes off to his readers as being completely miserable and enjoying the misery he wallows in. He's the asshole who wistfully wants the Red Sox team to be what they were in the past when they shared his misery through the Curse of the Bambino.
Ryan Dempster is rumored to be a successor to Alex Trebek. Stephen Drew is as polite as his brother,
Plus, Stephen Drew is an unemotional asshole just like his brother. I don't understand the Alex Trebek reference for Dempster, possibly because I am not close enough to the Red Sox team to get it. I'll just call this reference stupid because I feel like it is a safe assumption this reference is stupid.
John Lackey is auditioning for Comeback Player of the Year and Mr. Congeniality.
We all know if John Lackey came back to the Red Sox camp after missing a year due to Tommy John surgery and acted like an asshole, then Dan would be sure to write about what an underachieving, overpaid douchebag Lackey is. Damn Lackey for daring to have a good attitude and not be as cranky as he used to be.
It’s all just swell. These Red Sox are contending for a playoff spot and the Lady Byng Trophy.
How dare the Red Sox try to find players who won't act like conceited assholes and seem to have a positive attitude about them! I have said this before, but the reason Dan is mocking the good attitude and personality of the Red Sox players is because it makes him unhappy to see them happy. If there isn't drama and the team isn't losing he has nothing to write about. He can't write columns saying what a bunch of assholes the Red Sox team has if they are nice guys and he can't write columns saying how terrible the Red Sox team are if they aren't struggling. It's the worst of all worlds for him. So Dan resorts to mocking the Red Sox players for being congenial in an effort to stir up trouble.
Or . . . Sox fans may wake up in the middle of the summer with the horrible realization famously expressed by the townie character (played by Rob Schneider) in “The Waterboy” when he learns that the football team will be without its best player:
“Oh no! We suck again!’’
That’s when it’ll be time to issue the Edvard Munch “Scream” masks on Yawkey Way.
I think reasonable Red Sox fans know the team isn't going to be very good. Also, Dan stated Picasso painted "The Scream" when he originally wrote this column. In his defense, facts aren't as important as important to him as his ability to troll his audience.
I hate to break it to everybody, but chemistry in a baseball clubhouse is way overrated. Winning requires talent, pitching, and three-run homers.
Thanks for the update on what baseball requires, Earl Weaver. So clubhouse chemistry may be overrated, but this doesn't mean issues in the clubhouse can't also affect a team on the field. It's entirely possible a player's attitude or struggles can affect the clubhouse as a whole. I'll remember this statement by Dan that clubhouse chemistry is overrated the next time he compliments (I know, he won't ever compliment anyone, but I'll be on the lookout regardless) a player for working hard and this hard work rubbing off on his teammates.
More than the other team sport, baseball is built on individual skill sets. A batter gets no help from his teammates. It’s the same for the pitcher.
I think Dan should interview some starting pitchers to see if they don't get help from their catcher while on the mound. I have a feeling the answer Dan gets will contradict the idea a pitcher gets no help from his teammates.
That’s that’s why you can have winning teams when you have a clubhouse full of guys who hate each other.
That's why you can have winning teams when you have a clubhouse full of guys who like each other a lot. It can go both ways.
The 1986 Sox won the American League pennant and came within a strike of winning the World Series in six games against the Mets. That team had miserable John McNamara as manager, lazy Calvin Schiraldi at closer, entitled Roger Clemens as MVP, and an angry Jim Rice who told Sport Magazine that “my teammates aren’t friends, they’re associates.’’
Calling his teammates "associates" instead of friends doesn't mean Jim Rice didn't get along with his teammates. It simply means they weren't good friends. Teams who don't have great chemistry can win, there's no doubt about that, but just because the 2013 Red Sox appear to like each other doesn't mean the team is on the wrong long-term path. It's not like Ben Cherington has made a decision to only sign and draft players who are really nice guys. He's obviously looking for talented players, but a clubhouse that gets along is one less thing for the Red Sox to have to worry about during the season. It's not like the Red Sox are only choosing to sign players who are nice.
McNamara hated all young players and believed reliever Sammy Stewart was one of the worst human beings who ever lived.
Coming from Dan Shaughnessy that is saying something. Dan has something negative to say about everyone and everything.
Oh, and the 2004 team — the iconic team that threw off the Curse of the Bambino? Let’s not forget all the personal stuff they had to overcome. Pedro Martinez was wildly jealous of Curt Schilling. Manny refused to speak to his manager at times and insisted on taking an off day when the Sox were strapped for outfielders.
It got so bad that the fellows decided to pour a little Jack Daniel’s into cups before Game 4.
Through a 162 game season it is going to be very rare for 25 baseball players to get along all of the time. Things will happen and angry words will be said that don't affect the long-term team chemistry. Players won't all get along all of the time. That's very important to know and chalking up a few personality conflicts or arguments as "bad team chemistry" may be overstating the case a bit.
Also, the 2004 Red Sox drank alcohol in the locker room? Haven't we learned from the beer and fried chicken stories from 2011 that drinking alcohol is how a team starts to lose games and lose focus? How can the overblown nature of the fried chicken and beer story being attributed to the Red Sox collapse square with the Red Sox drinking alcohol before a playoff game in 2004? Shouldn't the Red Sox have lost this series with the Yankees because they weren't focused enough on the game at hand?
Think of all the bad stories we’d have read about the 2004 Red Sox if Dave Roberts got thrown out stealing and they lost Game 4.
You know which idiot would have been writing these stories? Dan Shaughnessy.
Jack Daniel’s before the games? What a bunch of losers. If the Sox had lost four straight to the Yankees, news of the Jack would have made “Chicken and Beer” sound like “Remember the Titans.’’
Except the Red Sox didn't lose so no one cared about the Jack Daniel's before games. This is just like if the Red Sox didn't collapse down the stretch of the 2011 season no one would have cared about the fried chicken and beer. What this tells me is that the amount of alcohol or fried chicken a team consumes doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether a team wins games or not. It's obvious Dan understands this as well, but he passes up writing real columns for the sake of having a cheap lede where he can bash the Red Sox at any possible opportunity.
But those 2004 Sox were not losers. They won.
It’s all about winning. The winners gets straight A’s in chemistry. The losers are chemistry’s F Troop.
They were also a team who appeared to be (at least from an outsider's perspective) a fairly close-knit team that enjoyed playing with each other. I'm sure there were a few disagreements during the season, but the Red Sox were a loveable team and they won the World Series. World Series can be won with good team chemistry.
Which is why chemistry is overrated.
Some talent would be good.
Chemistry isn't overrated. The Red Sox are trying to get some talent on the team, but they are trying to rebuild their team right now. Dan criticizes the Red Sox when they make stupid free agent signings, yet it seems he wants the Red Sox to keep playing the lottery that is trying to lure in big name free agents who want big money. Dan will complain about the Red Sox no matter what they do. They have held back on spending as much money and traded away their "mistake" players and he talks about how the team has no talent. This is why sportswriters don't and should not have any pull with teams. They tend to be impatient idiots at times, just like the fans are.
Nice guys finish last.
But they don't finish last because they are nice guys. So while team chemistry may be overrated, being nice and having good team chemistry isn't the reason the Red Sox may finish in last place. I realize Dan has no patience with anyone who tries to be positive, but if John Lackey was being a moody asshole then you and I both know Dan Shaughnessy would criticize him for this. That's the good part about being a sportswriter who has no true beliefs other than a commitment to negativity. The Red Sox spend money and Dan criticizes these big free agent signings for not smiling and playing pretty with the media, while if the Red Sox don't spend money, then Dan criticizes the Red Sox for signing guys without talent and says team chemistry doesn't mean anything. Just remember the next time Dan accuses a Red Sox player of being moody that he thinks team chemistry and being a nice guy is overrated.
Further evidence of Dan's trolling ability can be seen in his MLB predictions for the 2013 season.
Dan picks the Blue Jays to win the AL East and states the Yankees are going to win the first Wild Card spot. He's just trolling Red Sox fans by predicting the Yankees will still manage to win the Wild Card. Then Dan has the Los Angeles Dodgers, the same Los Angeles Dodgers team the Red Sox traded those bums Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Beckett, and Carl Crawford to, winning the World Series. This is significant for two reasons:
1. The Dodgers greatly increased their payroll this offseason, so Dan is saying in a way that he thinks the Dodgers will win the World Series because they spent a lot of money to acquire talent. This is, of course, something he wishes the Red Sox would do simply because they didn't do this. Go buy some players guys! If the Red Sox signed expensive free agents Dan would write a column about how these guys better perform and these are the same old free spending Red Sox with expensive, underachieving players.
2. The choice of the Dodgers to win the World Series is also significant because Dan is saying the same assholes who didn't play well in Boston are going to lead the Dodgers to the World Series. Quite a few articles were written by Dan on how Crawford/Gonzalez/Beckett weren't worth the money they were paid, but now he is essentially saying they are worth that money once they have left Boston because they will lead the Dodgers to the World Series.
There is one thing Dan does know how to do and that is troll Red Sox fans. He says Crawford/Beckett/Gonzalez suck and are overpaid when they play for the Red Sox, and then once they are traded, he predicts them to be a part of the team that wins the World Series the next season. I feel bad for Dan. His need for attention is so great. It must be lonely and sad to be a miserable, negative person who craves any type of attention even if it is negative attention.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
9 comments MMQB Review: Ray Rice Alerts Peter King to the Obvious Edition
Last week Peter reviewed the precociousness of every NFL player, got angry he Tweeted out his phone number and some of his followers actually called the phone number (though he isn't angry when his followers read his stories), and did not agree with Bill Belichick keeping Rob Gronkowski in the game to get injured on a PAT. This week Peter forgoes all of the NFL drama for NFL suspense and compares Von Miller to J.J. Watt to see which defender is a better player. I fully expect Peter to write a weekly MMQB spin-off very soon called "Keeping up with J.J. Watt." Maybe Peter will stop writing his Tuesday mailbag so he can write "Keeping up with J.J. Watt" on a weekly basis.
Prelude to a diss: In the last 52 weeks, the Packers have met the Giants three times. Green Bay has allowed 35, 37 and 38 points, and an average of 419 yards a game, and nine Eli Manning touchdown passes. Time for defensive coordinator Dom Capers to figure out a way to cover the Giants deep. Time for Charles Woodson and Clay Matthews to heal. Time for a shaky line to protect Aaron Rodgers. Time for GM Ted Thompson to find reinforcements for the line.
Is this a reference to "Prelude to a Kiss," which depending on your age, is a Duke Ellington song or a bad romantic comedy with a pre-plastic surgery Meg Ryan and a pre-I-marry-women-half-my-age-and-just-give-off-a-creepy-vibe-in-my-personal-life Alec Baldwin? If this is a reference to that, then I say "Where the hell is Ted Thompson supposed to find reinforcements for his offensive line now that the trade deadline is passed and it is Week 12? Are there magical offensive line reinforcements available to the Packers that no other NFL teams know about?"
Now we enter the cruel month of December
It's going to be a long December. Maybe this year will be better than the last. Probably not.
(And if Green Bay doesn't wake up after that five-alarm fire of a loss Sunday night to the Giants, the Packers might give away the five seed.)
The Packers lost a game! Quick everyone panic and write the Packers off and then eventually write a column in mid-January about how "everyone" wrote the Packers off! Do it, now!
In the AFC, we're going to sleep through the playoff race, because it looks like it'll be 7-4 Indianapolis, 6-5 Pittsburgh and 6-5 Cincinnati fighting for two spots, and the way things look now, none is a threat to the AFC elite.
The only threat to the elite can come from the people. Never forget this. The people must rise up, park in front of stop signs and then hope the police officer lets you off the hook because he recognizes you.
But there is an interesting subplot in the AFC, which Ray Rice raised to me last night, before getting on a giddy Ravens charter to return home from the impossible 16-13 overtime win at San Diego.
"I don't know what kind of medicine the Steelers will put Ben Roethlisberger on this week,'' Rice said, "but they're going to give him something."
Really? Peter needed Ray Rice to bring this point up to him? He wasn't aware of this sub-plot before Ray Rice raised this issue? So Peter didn't at all think the Steelers need to get Ben Roethlisberger back healthy so they can make the playoffs? Ray Rice brought this up and Peter was like, "Oh, that's right. The Steelers probably should work on making sure their starting quarterback is healthy so they don't have to play a 38 year old third string quarterback!" I wouldn't say this is a sub-plot in the AFC, but a very major plot. The Steelers are contenders for the Super Bowl with Roethlisberger and contenders to go 7-9 without Roethlisberger.
Pittsburgh-Baltimore, the rematch, Sunday at The Big Crabcake. (I think that's Chris Berman's invention, so I'll give him naming rights.)
Please don't give Chris Berman any kind of validation.
And does anyone think the Steelers stand a chance of winning in Baltimore without Roethlisberger, who missed his second game with a dislocated first rib (last week's column explains how dangerous that injury can be, and typically the injury would take more than a month to heal) Sunday?
I'm just glad Ray Rice brought this little subplot up though or else I wouldn't have thought about Roethlisberger's importance to the Steelers without Rice's help. Help me Ray Rice, do the Packers Super Bowl hopes lie in whether the offensive line can protect Aaron Rodgers or not?
Now for the NFC. It's bizarro world. Here's how I handicap the six-team race:
1. Washington (5-6). The 'Skins and Bucs are playing the best among the contenders, and if Washington can win one of the next two (Giants Monday, Ravens to follow), the last three weeks (at Cleveland, at Philly, Dallas) are manageable. How great would it be to see Robert Griffin III in a Wild Card game at Soldier Field, getting chased through the snow by Urlacher and Briggs?
It would be great only if they were chasing each other with snowballs after having just gotten finished building a snowman. How precocious!
2. Tampa Bay (6-5). Watching the Bucs the last month, I keep thinking no one wants to play them.
This is ignoring the fact the Bucs barely beat a 2-win team two weeks ago and lost to the Falcons on Sunday. But yes, no one wants to play them. They are unbeatable right now...even though they lost this weekend and came really close to losing the weekend before that.
5. Minnesota (6-5). Can Adrian Peterson play quarterback?
With Peterson, all things are possible.
So here's how I see the Wild Card round on the first weekend of January:
NFC (Byes: Atlanta and San Francisco): Green Bay at the Giants (Saturday night, NBC), Washington at Chicago (early Sunday, FOX).
AFC (Byes: Houston and New England): Cincinnati at Baltimore (Saturday afternoon, NBC), Indianapolis at Denver (late Sunday, CBS).
I repeat: Andrew Luck at Peyton Manning.
"Here are my purely speculative guesses at what the playoffs are going to end up looking like. Now let's spend time discussing the narratives I have just so conveniently placed before us to discuss."
I am reminded of a quote Bill Parcells uttered every other week in the four seasons I covered the Giants for Newsday in the '80s: "Sometimes God is playing in these games."
This reminds of a quote I just made up: God doesn't give a shit about sports and you are stupid for thinking he does.
Adam Schefter broke the news last night just after the Seahawks' charter lifted off from South Florida to go home from a loss at Miami: Seattle cornerbacks Richard Sherman and Brandon Browner were handed four-game suspensions for violating the league performance-enhancing drugs policy...Seattle's December: at Chicago, Arizona, at Buffalo, San Francisco, St. Louis. Looks like 3-2 with Sherman, 2-3 without him to me.
When the Seahawks go 4-1 over this stretch we will read Peter King just absolutely flabbergasted the Seahawks were able to do this. The Seahawks exceeded his expectations...no, OUR expectations. See "everyone" had the Seahawks written off based on Peter's pure speculation of their record without Sherman and Browner.
Impressive thing No. 2: Alex Smith was an ally, not a disgruntled employee, throughout the game. "It's got to be tough,'' said Kaepernick, "but Alex is so good to me. Our relationship is still the same as it's been. Every time I came off the field, he'd say to me, 'Did you see this?' Or, 'Did you see that?' Alex is a great guy.'' Apparently.
Alex Smith is probably used to being benched, not being wanted by the 49ers and then getting prepared to jump back in the lineup when he is called. He's had to be pretty flexible in his time with the 49ers. So he's learned to be a great guy.
The hidden advantage in the choice Harbaugh made is that now he knows he can win with two quarterbacks. One more mobile with a stronger downfield arm, weapons Harbaugh had on display in the Dome; Kaepernick completed throws of 26, 40 and 45 yards. The other is as efficient and smart a player as a coach could hope for, in Smith. I mean, who has a backup quarterback leading the league in completion percentage, with a rating over 100?
Who has this? The 49ers, that's who has it. This situation will work out well as long as Smith doesn't make waves if he gets benched or if Kaepernick doesn't make waves if he gets benched. So as long as both quarterbacks are happy with the situation, this is an embarrassment of riches at the quarterback position. Now, if Kaepernick comes out next week and struggles and gets benched for Smith, who is to say what will happen after that? So for now, it is an embarrassment of riches.
If Hines Ward were still a Steeler, he'd make running backs Rashard Mendenhall, Chris Rainey, Jonathan Dwyer and Isaac Redman (six fumbles at Cleveland Sunday, four recovered by the Browns) walk around the facility lugging a football tight to their chests. An eight-TO day? Inexcusable ...
I don't care what Hines Ward thinks.
Until I saw Rice's incredible fourth-down conversion, I thought the play of the day was Stevie Johnson's strip and recovery late in the fourth quarter on Colts safety Tom Zbikowski after Zbikowski picked off Ryan Fitzpatrick. Smart play for Johnson, who had to aim for the strip and make the strip, all while being stiff-armed by an amateur boxer, which Zbikowski has been.
So this play would have been less impressive if Zbikowski had not been an amateur boxer? I'm just wondering what being an amateur boxer has to do with holding on to the football.
If the last six weeks of the 2012 season play out similarly to the first 10, the defensive story of the season could well be two sophomore defensive players: Texans defensive end J.J. Watt and Broncos linebacker Von Miller. Their play has been so outstanding that the question might not be which deserves the Defensive Player of the Year award, but are either worthy of the MVP? I asked Neil Hornsby of ProFootballFocus.com to break down their play to try to answer those questions:
MVP? I just wonder why J.J. Watt wasn't a Vice-Presidential candidate this past year!
But yes, let's compare Watt and Miller as if they play the same position on defense and have similar defensive responsibilities.
Playing Time: Watt has played 89 percent of Houston's defensive snaps and Miller 90 percent for Denver. Watt has been so dominant that teams have had to start game-planning just to stop him.
And that would be a first obviously. No other defensive player has ever been game-planned around.
I'm going to skip the rest of this because it tells us what we already know. J.J. Watt is very good at swatting down passes at the line of scrimmage and Von Miller is a fantastic pass rusher.
In Summary: Many players on defense are having great years, but no one is as far ahead of the competition as J.J. Watt and Von Miller. Just as Darrelle Revis did in the early part of 2011, they are redefining what's achievable at their positions. Who's better? Flip a coin.
Ah yes, after a statistical summary of each player it comes down to a coin flip for Peter to decide which player is better. Why wouldn't a coin flip be the best determining factor? It seems appropriate.
Fine Fifteen
3. Houston (10-1). I appreciate the fact that their defensive leaders -- Connor Barwin, to me on Thursday -- says they're ticked off about giving up 983 yards in five days. They should be. But to play 10 quarters in five days and win both games deep in overtime ... that erases any negative in my mind.
It erases any negative in Peter's mind because he dutifully ignores the fact the Texans have given up 983 yards and were taken to overtime by two teams whose combined record is 9-16. It's not like the Texans were playing playoff teams or anything. They played Jacksonville and Detroit. I think any reasonable person should be a little bit worried about the Texans defense after the last two games, even knowing Detroit has a pretty good offense.
5. Atlanta (10-1). At the risk of sounding like a broken record: Michael Turner's output Sunday in the 24-23 win at Tampa: 16 touches, 30 yards; Jacquizz Rodgers' output: 12 touches, 79 yards. I keep thinking I'm watching a different game than the Atlanta coaches.
Peter does realize Jacquizz Rodgers is the size of a hobbit, right? Maybe 12 touches in the running game is all they want to give him in order to maximize his effectiveness. Rodgers is 5'6" and 196 pounds. Maybe the Falcons are concerned about wearing him down before the playoffs.
9. Tampa Bay (6-5). The more I see the Bucs, the more I think they might do what the Giants of 2007 or 2011 did -- get hot late and get on a January run that could take them very far. Not saying I think this will happen. Just saying it wouldn't surprise me if the Bucs were the NFC's sixth seed and made some big noise.
Peter isn't saying the Buccaneers are like the 2007 or 2011 Giants. He is saying he sees how they could get the sixth seed and "make some noise," which I take to mean go on a playoff run. Of course this may not happen, but Peter sees how it could happen. He isn't predicting it of course and in his list of NFC playoff teams from this MMQB he doesn't include the Buccaneers as making the playoffs. So Peter wants this prediction of the Bucs "making noise" on the record, but he doesn't want to put his money where his mouth is and predict they will be in the playoffs. He has Tampa Bay as the 9th best team in the NFL from his power rankings and the Buccaneers remind him of the 2007 or 2011 New York Giants, but he also doesn't believe they will make the playoffs. So which is it?
14. Indianapolis (7-4). If the Colts go 2-3 in December, they're likely a playoff team.
It's the Irsay Bowl! Ladies and gentlemen, get your narratives ready.
Coaches of the Week
Jim Harbaugh, head coach, San Francisco. Harbaugh proved last week he's got some Bill Belichick in him. As a coach, you have to be able to tune out the majority of the public and the media and even some in your own organization who think you're making a mistake if you firmly believe you're doing the right thing and you trust in your players to know you're doing the right thing. Such was the case when he chose Colin Kaepernick as his starting quarterback over Alex Smith, who was playing at a Pro Bowl level.
I'm not going to argue that Colin Kaepernick hasn't played well, but he has started two games in his NFL career. It's a bit early to start with "Harbaugh made the right decision in choosing between Alex Smith and Kaepernick" talk. Using this logic, doesn't this mean Harbaugh screwed up by allowing Alex Smith to start 9 games this season over Kaepernick? If Kaepernick is the better quarterback, shouldn't he have been the starter this entire year?
Let's give it a rest with the idea Harbaugh made a great decision. It's been two games and he looks like a genius now, but a lot of decisions look smart using small sample sizes. If Harbaugh was really smart and believed he was doing the right thing then he would have started Kaepernick from the first game of this season.
Factoid of the Week That May Interest Only Me
For two men so inextricably connected in Cincinnati Bengals history, it's notable that the first time Carson Palmer and Andy Dalton met was on the field at Paul Brown Stadium Sunday.
How is it notable this is the first time these two quarterbacks have met? Andy Dalton has been in the NFL for under two years and the Bengals and Raiders play in different AFC divisions. When were they supposed to meet prior to this?
The extent of their conversation after the game went something like this, per Dalton:
Dalton: "Stay healthy."
Palmer: "You too. Good luck."
Yep, that seems like it would only interest Peter. Otherwise, it is pretty uninteresting.
1. I think this is what I liked about Week 12:
a. The Washington offensive line, which I have criticized often. Great job enabling Robert Griffin III to make his magic. What a treat a rested Griffin and his mates will be against the Giants, at home, next Monday night.
It's going to be such a treat. It's going to be like going into a Starbucks for a cafe mocha with a double shot of expresso while being double-parked and walking in the Starbucks to find there is no one in line to annoy Peter while he eavesdrops on their conversations.
h. Jay Cutler. If we define "value'' in "Most Valuable Player'' as someone whose loss would totally deflate and screw up his team, then Cutler has to be in the running for the award.
If we defined it that way then about 50 players in the NFL would be in the running for this award as well. Any decent starting quarterback would be in the running. Can you imagine the Colts without Andrew Luck? He's an MVP candidate! The Buccaneers without Josh Freeman? MVP candidate. So yes, the "valuable" in MVP does mean that player's loss would screw up his team and totally deflate them, but this goes for a lot of other players as well as Cutler. I'm not saying Cutler shouldn't get MVP consideration, but quite a few players if removed from a team would deflate and screw up that team. How would the Broncos do without Peyton Manning starting for them.
m. Chad Henne, for leading a Jags win, their first at home this year. He'd have to royally mess up to not be the Jacksonville quarterback heading into the 2013 offseason.
Wow. My opinion, as of right now, is that the Jaguars would royally have to mess up if Chad Henne is their starting quarterback heading into the 2013 season. There are still five games to be played, but at this point the Jaguars have screwed the pooch if they have Chad Henne as their starting quarterback without drafting a quarterback in the first three rounds of the upcoming 2013 NFL Draft.
2. I think this is what I didn't like about Week 12:
b. Rex Ryan's logic after the 49-19 loss to New England Thursday. He tells his coordinators he doesn't want them to play Tim Tebow, then says Tebow (two broken ribs) was "100 percent available." I'm not getting that. Wonder if Woody Johnson is.
I'm getting it. It seems Rex Ryan didn't want Tim Tebow on the Jets team and he doesn't want to get into the "Play Tebow" discussion, so he tells his coordinators he doesn't want Tebow playing while pretending to the media that Tebow could play so other teams have to game plan for him.
g. Catch the easy interception, Asante Samuel. But I can't kill Samuel too much, because he played hurt down the stretch when his Falcons desperately needed him.
Peter can't kill Samuel too much, which is why he is calling out Samuel publicly in his nationally read column...because he doesn't want to kill Samuel too much.
h. Josh Freeman's overthrow of a wide-open Mike Williams.
How dare Josh Freeman make one bad throw. This was the only bad throw by a quarterback that affected a game on Sunday, obviously.
3. I think the league overreacted, and that's putting it mildly, by censoring Rich Eisen's interview with Oscar favorite Bradley Cooper and yanking it from Eisen's Thanksgiving special on NFL Network. "The segment was pulled because the movie included content related to gambling on NFL games," the statement from NFL Network said.
Remember that Peter is the same guy who tried to sell us on the idea the NFL wouldn't intrude on Andrea Kremer's new injury research and investigation show (as featured on the NFL Network) about how concussions affect current and past players. I didn't believe at the time and I don't believe now the NFL won't censor what Kremer says on that show in any way. Peter wasn't so sure though and seemed to try to sell us on the idea the NFL would "oversee" what was said, but was giving Kremer journalistic freedom to report what she finds or to interview whoever she wants to interview. The NFL is going to be all up in that show and want to censor any material they deem to be speculation or without basis.
8. I think the Steelers, normally among the smartest two or three teams in the league in player personnel, need to answer this question: Why are you backing up a perennially beaten-up quarterback with Byron Leftwich, a very slow 32-year-old quarterback, and Charlie Batch, a soon-to-be-38-year-old quarterback?
I'm guessing this is because they were hoping Ben Roethlisberger would stay healthy and they wouldn't have to use either Batch or Leftwich. Not to mention, the Steelers were probably relying on the fact Leftwich is serviceable as a backup and had been with the Steelers for a few years already. Really good backup quarterbacks aren't exactly in long supply and the Steelers didn't use a draft pick on a backup quarterback this past year. They thought it was worth the risk to not pay for a different backup quarterback and Leftwich would succeed better than a 23 or 24 year old quarterback would. Perhaps they were wrong.
Isn't it logical to think that, among starters in the league, Ben Roethlisberger has a better-than-average chance of needing a replacement during the year?
Why would this be logical? Roethlisberger has never played less than 12 games in a season and had missed six starts over the last three years. It's not like he has missed half a season recently. Maybe it is logical to think he would need a quality backup, but that's what the Steelers thought Leftwich was.
But Steelers football czar Kevin Colbert needs to find someone so Pittsburgh won't have two old and/or slow backups.
Batch probably doesn't need to be the third quarterback on the roster, but pretty much any time an NFL team is down to their third quarterback they aren't going to have a very good chance of winning games with that quarterback. So I don't really agree with Peter regarding Batch. He is probably as good of an option as a third quarterback as most NFL teams have.
10. I think these are my non-NFL thoughts of the week:
b. Controversial: Mike Florio says he was bored by Lincoln. I have to carve out three hours, and soon, to see it.
I've heard the same thing. It is a Steven Spielberg film which means it will be long and heavy-handed, so there is a chance it isn't very good. Just read the book "Team of Rivals" and there is a chance you would be more entertained. I've been down on Spielberg since the interminable "War Horse" was released and I haven't really enjoyed one of the movies he has directed since "Minority Report."
c. Black Friday. One of the lightest traffic days of the year, because I had to drive quite a bit Friday. Can't figure that one out.
Again, this isn't incredibly hard to figure out. Most people are shopping, at work, or avoiding going out because of the long lines at stores. It tends to be a day when not a lot of people are driving along highways for these reasons.
i. Florence Norman has been born.
She was just born? I'm not sure I have heard a child under the age of 25 who isn't from Europe named "Florence." I don't hate the name, it's just an interesting name to me. At least they didn't name their daughter Pearl or Ethel.
One piece of advice, Flo: Don't listen to a word your grandfather says about rooting for the Yankees. It's the wrong thing to do.
Yeah, just go with the Flo on who to cheer for in baseball. Make your own decision.
(See what I did there?)
The Adieu Haiku
Colin Kaepernick.
Looks like I misjudged the lad.
Chiefs sound good, Alex?
Yeah, the Chiefs would try to sign Alex Smith. That's a typical Chiefs move. I'm sure the Chiefs sound good to Alex Smith, but I'm not sure Alex Smith should sound good to the Chiefs.
Prelude to a diss: In the last 52 weeks, the Packers have met the Giants three times. Green Bay has allowed 35, 37 and 38 points, and an average of 419 yards a game, and nine Eli Manning touchdown passes. Time for defensive coordinator Dom Capers to figure out a way to cover the Giants deep. Time for Charles Woodson and Clay Matthews to heal. Time for a shaky line to protect Aaron Rodgers. Time for GM Ted Thompson to find reinforcements for the line.
Is this a reference to "Prelude to a Kiss," which depending on your age, is a Duke Ellington song or a bad romantic comedy with a pre-plastic surgery Meg Ryan and a pre-I-marry-women-half-my-age-and-just-give-off-a-creepy-vibe-in-my-personal-life Alec Baldwin? If this is a reference to that, then I say "Where the hell is Ted Thompson supposed to find reinforcements for his offensive line now that the trade deadline is passed and it is Week 12? Are there magical offensive line reinforcements available to the Packers that no other NFL teams know about?"
Now we enter the cruel month of December
It's going to be a long December. Maybe this year will be better than the last. Probably not.
(And if Green Bay doesn't wake up after that five-alarm fire of a loss Sunday night to the Giants, the Packers might give away the five seed.)
The Packers lost a game! Quick everyone panic and write the Packers off and then eventually write a column in mid-January about how "everyone" wrote the Packers off! Do it, now!
In the AFC, we're going to sleep through the playoff race, because it looks like it'll be 7-4 Indianapolis, 6-5 Pittsburgh and 6-5 Cincinnati fighting for two spots, and the way things look now, none is a threat to the AFC elite.
The only threat to the elite can come from the people. Never forget this. The people must rise up, park in front of stop signs and then hope the police officer lets you off the hook because he recognizes you.
But there is an interesting subplot in the AFC, which Ray Rice raised to me last night, before getting on a giddy Ravens charter to return home from the impossible 16-13 overtime win at San Diego.
"I don't know what kind of medicine the Steelers will put Ben Roethlisberger on this week,'' Rice said, "but they're going to give him something."
Really? Peter needed Ray Rice to bring this point up to him? He wasn't aware of this sub-plot before Ray Rice raised this issue? So Peter didn't at all think the Steelers need to get Ben Roethlisberger back healthy so they can make the playoffs? Ray Rice brought this up and Peter was like, "Oh, that's right. The Steelers probably should work on making sure their starting quarterback is healthy so they don't have to play a 38 year old third string quarterback!" I wouldn't say this is a sub-plot in the AFC, but a very major plot. The Steelers are contenders for the Super Bowl with Roethlisberger and contenders to go 7-9 without Roethlisberger.
Pittsburgh-Baltimore, the rematch, Sunday at The Big Crabcake. (I think that's Chris Berman's invention, so I'll give him naming rights.)
Please don't give Chris Berman any kind of validation.
And does anyone think the Steelers stand a chance of winning in Baltimore without Roethlisberger, who missed his second game with a dislocated first rib (last week's column explains how dangerous that injury can be, and typically the injury would take more than a month to heal) Sunday?
I'm just glad Ray Rice brought this little subplot up though or else I wouldn't have thought about Roethlisberger's importance to the Steelers without Rice's help. Help me Ray Rice, do the Packers Super Bowl hopes lie in whether the offensive line can protect Aaron Rodgers or not?
Now for the NFC. It's bizarro world. Here's how I handicap the six-team race:
1. Washington (5-6). The 'Skins and Bucs are playing the best among the contenders, and if Washington can win one of the next two (Giants Monday, Ravens to follow), the last three weeks (at Cleveland, at Philly, Dallas) are manageable. How great would it be to see Robert Griffin III in a Wild Card game at Soldier Field, getting chased through the snow by Urlacher and Briggs?
It would be great only if they were chasing each other with snowballs after having just gotten finished building a snowman. How precocious!
2. Tampa Bay (6-5). Watching the Bucs the last month, I keep thinking no one wants to play them.
This is ignoring the fact the Bucs barely beat a 2-win team two weeks ago and lost to the Falcons on Sunday. But yes, no one wants to play them. They are unbeatable right now...even though they lost this weekend and came really close to losing the weekend before that.
5. Minnesota (6-5). Can Adrian Peterson play quarterback?
With Peterson, all things are possible.
So here's how I see the Wild Card round on the first weekend of January:
NFC (Byes: Atlanta and San Francisco): Green Bay at the Giants (Saturday night, NBC), Washington at Chicago (early Sunday, FOX).
AFC (Byes: Houston and New England): Cincinnati at Baltimore (Saturday afternoon, NBC), Indianapolis at Denver (late Sunday, CBS).
I repeat: Andrew Luck at Peyton Manning.
"Here are my purely speculative guesses at what the playoffs are going to end up looking like. Now let's spend time discussing the narratives I have just so conveniently placed before us to discuss."
I am reminded of a quote Bill Parcells uttered every other week in the four seasons I covered the Giants for Newsday in the '80s: "Sometimes God is playing in these games."
This reminds of a quote I just made up: God doesn't give a shit about sports and you are stupid for thinking he does.
Adam Schefter broke the news last night just after the Seahawks' charter lifted off from South Florida to go home from a loss at Miami: Seattle cornerbacks Richard Sherman and Brandon Browner were handed four-game suspensions for violating the league performance-enhancing drugs policy...Seattle's December: at Chicago, Arizona, at Buffalo, San Francisco, St. Louis. Looks like 3-2 with Sherman, 2-3 without him to me.
When the Seahawks go 4-1 over this stretch we will read Peter King just absolutely flabbergasted the Seahawks were able to do this. The Seahawks exceeded his expectations...no, OUR expectations. See "everyone" had the Seahawks written off based on Peter's pure speculation of their record without Sherman and Browner.
Impressive thing No. 2: Alex Smith was an ally, not a disgruntled employee, throughout the game. "It's got to be tough,'' said Kaepernick, "but Alex is so good to me. Our relationship is still the same as it's been. Every time I came off the field, he'd say to me, 'Did you see this?' Or, 'Did you see that?' Alex is a great guy.'' Apparently.
Alex Smith is probably used to being benched, not being wanted by the 49ers and then getting prepared to jump back in the lineup when he is called. He's had to be pretty flexible in his time with the 49ers. So he's learned to be a great guy.
The hidden advantage in the choice Harbaugh made is that now he knows he can win with two quarterbacks. One more mobile with a stronger downfield arm, weapons Harbaugh had on display in the Dome; Kaepernick completed throws of 26, 40 and 45 yards. The other is as efficient and smart a player as a coach could hope for, in Smith. I mean, who has a backup quarterback leading the league in completion percentage, with a rating over 100?
Who has this? The 49ers, that's who has it. This situation will work out well as long as Smith doesn't make waves if he gets benched or if Kaepernick doesn't make waves if he gets benched. So as long as both quarterbacks are happy with the situation, this is an embarrassment of riches at the quarterback position. Now, if Kaepernick comes out next week and struggles and gets benched for Smith, who is to say what will happen after that? So for now, it is an embarrassment of riches.
If Hines Ward were still a Steeler, he'd make running backs Rashard Mendenhall, Chris Rainey, Jonathan Dwyer and Isaac Redman (six fumbles at Cleveland Sunday, four recovered by the Browns) walk around the facility lugging a football tight to their chests. An eight-TO day? Inexcusable ...
I don't care what Hines Ward thinks.
Until I saw Rice's incredible fourth-down conversion, I thought the play of the day was Stevie Johnson's strip and recovery late in the fourth quarter on Colts safety Tom Zbikowski after Zbikowski picked off Ryan Fitzpatrick. Smart play for Johnson, who had to aim for the strip and make the strip, all while being stiff-armed by an amateur boxer, which Zbikowski has been.
So this play would have been less impressive if Zbikowski had not been an amateur boxer? I'm just wondering what being an amateur boxer has to do with holding on to the football.
If the last six weeks of the 2012 season play out similarly to the first 10, the defensive story of the season could well be two sophomore defensive players: Texans defensive end J.J. Watt and Broncos linebacker Von Miller. Their play has been so outstanding that the question might not be which deserves the Defensive Player of the Year award, but are either worthy of the MVP? I asked Neil Hornsby of ProFootballFocus.com to break down their play to try to answer those questions:
MVP? I just wonder why J.J. Watt wasn't a Vice-Presidential candidate this past year!
But yes, let's compare Watt and Miller as if they play the same position on defense and have similar defensive responsibilities.
Playing Time: Watt has played 89 percent of Houston's defensive snaps and Miller 90 percent for Denver. Watt has been so dominant that teams have had to start game-planning just to stop him.
And that would be a first obviously. No other defensive player has ever been game-planned around.
I'm going to skip the rest of this because it tells us what we already know. J.J. Watt is very good at swatting down passes at the line of scrimmage and Von Miller is a fantastic pass rusher.
In Summary: Many players on defense are having great years, but no one is as far ahead of the competition as J.J. Watt and Von Miller. Just as Darrelle Revis did in the early part of 2011, they are redefining what's achievable at their positions. Who's better? Flip a coin.
Ah yes, after a statistical summary of each player it comes down to a coin flip for Peter to decide which player is better. Why wouldn't a coin flip be the best determining factor? It seems appropriate.
Fine Fifteen
3. Houston (10-1). I appreciate the fact that their defensive leaders -- Connor Barwin, to me on Thursday -- says they're ticked off about giving up 983 yards in five days. They should be. But to play 10 quarters in five days and win both games deep in overtime ... that erases any negative in my mind.
It erases any negative in Peter's mind because he dutifully ignores the fact the Texans have given up 983 yards and were taken to overtime by two teams whose combined record is 9-16. It's not like the Texans were playing playoff teams or anything. They played Jacksonville and Detroit. I think any reasonable person should be a little bit worried about the Texans defense after the last two games, even knowing Detroit has a pretty good offense.
5. Atlanta (10-1). At the risk of sounding like a broken record: Michael Turner's output Sunday in the 24-23 win at Tampa: 16 touches, 30 yards; Jacquizz Rodgers' output: 12 touches, 79 yards. I keep thinking I'm watching a different game than the Atlanta coaches.
Peter does realize Jacquizz Rodgers is the size of a hobbit, right? Maybe 12 touches in the running game is all they want to give him in order to maximize his effectiveness. Rodgers is 5'6" and 196 pounds. Maybe the Falcons are concerned about wearing him down before the playoffs.
9. Tampa Bay (6-5). The more I see the Bucs, the more I think they might do what the Giants of 2007 or 2011 did -- get hot late and get on a January run that could take them very far. Not saying I think this will happen. Just saying it wouldn't surprise me if the Bucs were the NFC's sixth seed and made some big noise.
Peter isn't saying the Buccaneers are like the 2007 or 2011 Giants. He is saying he sees how they could get the sixth seed and "make some noise," which I take to mean go on a playoff run. Of course this may not happen, but Peter sees how it could happen. He isn't predicting it of course and in his list of NFC playoff teams from this MMQB he doesn't include the Buccaneers as making the playoffs. So Peter wants this prediction of the Bucs "making noise" on the record, but he doesn't want to put his money where his mouth is and predict they will be in the playoffs. He has Tampa Bay as the 9th best team in the NFL from his power rankings and the Buccaneers remind him of the 2007 or 2011 New York Giants, but he also doesn't believe they will make the playoffs. So which is it?
14. Indianapolis (7-4). If the Colts go 2-3 in December, they're likely a playoff team.
It's the Irsay Bowl! Ladies and gentlemen, get your narratives ready.
Coaches of the Week
Jim Harbaugh, head coach, San Francisco. Harbaugh proved last week he's got some Bill Belichick in him. As a coach, you have to be able to tune out the majority of the public and the media and even some in your own organization who think you're making a mistake if you firmly believe you're doing the right thing and you trust in your players to know you're doing the right thing. Such was the case when he chose Colin Kaepernick as his starting quarterback over Alex Smith, who was playing at a Pro Bowl level.
I'm not going to argue that Colin Kaepernick hasn't played well, but he has started two games in his NFL career. It's a bit early to start with "Harbaugh made the right decision in choosing between Alex Smith and Kaepernick" talk. Using this logic, doesn't this mean Harbaugh screwed up by allowing Alex Smith to start 9 games this season over Kaepernick? If Kaepernick is the better quarterback, shouldn't he have been the starter this entire year?
Let's give it a rest with the idea Harbaugh made a great decision. It's been two games and he looks like a genius now, but a lot of decisions look smart using small sample sizes. If Harbaugh was really smart and believed he was doing the right thing then he would have started Kaepernick from the first game of this season.
Factoid of the Week That May Interest Only Me
For two men so inextricably connected in Cincinnati Bengals history, it's notable that the first time Carson Palmer and Andy Dalton met was on the field at Paul Brown Stadium Sunday.
How is it notable this is the first time these two quarterbacks have met? Andy Dalton has been in the NFL for under two years and the Bengals and Raiders play in different AFC divisions. When were they supposed to meet prior to this?
The extent of their conversation after the game went something like this, per Dalton:
Dalton: "Stay healthy."
Palmer: "You too. Good luck."
Yep, that seems like it would only interest Peter. Otherwise, it is pretty uninteresting.
1. I think this is what I liked about Week 12:
a. The Washington offensive line, which I have criticized often. Great job enabling Robert Griffin III to make his magic. What a treat a rested Griffin and his mates will be against the Giants, at home, next Monday night.
It's going to be such a treat. It's going to be like going into a Starbucks for a cafe mocha with a double shot of expresso while being double-parked and walking in the Starbucks to find there is no one in line to annoy Peter while he eavesdrops on their conversations.
h. Jay Cutler. If we define "value'' in "Most Valuable Player'' as someone whose loss would totally deflate and screw up his team, then Cutler has to be in the running for the award.
If we defined it that way then about 50 players in the NFL would be in the running for this award as well. Any decent starting quarterback would be in the running. Can you imagine the Colts without Andrew Luck? He's an MVP candidate! The Buccaneers without Josh Freeman? MVP candidate. So yes, the "valuable" in MVP does mean that player's loss would screw up his team and totally deflate them, but this goes for a lot of other players as well as Cutler. I'm not saying Cutler shouldn't get MVP consideration, but quite a few players if removed from a team would deflate and screw up that team. How would the Broncos do without Peyton Manning starting for them.
m. Chad Henne, for leading a Jags win, their first at home this year. He'd have to royally mess up to not be the Jacksonville quarterback heading into the 2013 offseason.
Wow. My opinion, as of right now, is that the Jaguars would royally have to mess up if Chad Henne is their starting quarterback heading into the 2013 season. There are still five games to be played, but at this point the Jaguars have screwed the pooch if they have Chad Henne as their starting quarterback without drafting a quarterback in the first three rounds of the upcoming 2013 NFL Draft.
2. I think this is what I didn't like about Week 12:
b. Rex Ryan's logic after the 49-19 loss to New England Thursday. He tells his coordinators he doesn't want them to play Tim Tebow, then says Tebow (two broken ribs) was "100 percent available." I'm not getting that. Wonder if Woody Johnson is.
I'm getting it. It seems Rex Ryan didn't want Tim Tebow on the Jets team and he doesn't want to get into the "Play Tebow" discussion, so he tells his coordinators he doesn't want Tebow playing while pretending to the media that Tebow could play so other teams have to game plan for him.
g. Catch the easy interception, Asante Samuel. But I can't kill Samuel too much, because he played hurt down the stretch when his Falcons desperately needed him.
Peter can't kill Samuel too much, which is why he is calling out Samuel publicly in his nationally read column...because he doesn't want to kill Samuel too much.
h. Josh Freeman's overthrow of a wide-open Mike Williams.
How dare Josh Freeman make one bad throw. This was the only bad throw by a quarterback that affected a game on Sunday, obviously.
3. I think the league overreacted, and that's putting it mildly, by censoring Rich Eisen's interview with Oscar favorite Bradley Cooper and yanking it from Eisen's Thanksgiving special on NFL Network. "The segment was pulled because the movie included content related to gambling on NFL games," the statement from NFL Network said.
Remember that Peter is the same guy who tried to sell us on the idea the NFL wouldn't intrude on Andrea Kremer's new injury research and investigation show (as featured on the NFL Network) about how concussions affect current and past players. I didn't believe at the time and I don't believe now the NFL won't censor what Kremer says on that show in any way. Peter wasn't so sure though and seemed to try to sell us on the idea the NFL would "oversee" what was said, but was giving Kremer journalistic freedom to report what she finds or to interview whoever she wants to interview. The NFL is going to be all up in that show and want to censor any material they deem to be speculation or without basis.
8. I think the Steelers, normally among the smartest two or three teams in the league in player personnel, need to answer this question: Why are you backing up a perennially beaten-up quarterback with Byron Leftwich, a very slow 32-year-old quarterback, and Charlie Batch, a soon-to-be-38-year-old quarterback?
I'm guessing this is because they were hoping Ben Roethlisberger would stay healthy and they wouldn't have to use either Batch or Leftwich. Not to mention, the Steelers were probably relying on the fact Leftwich is serviceable as a backup and had been with the Steelers for a few years already. Really good backup quarterbacks aren't exactly in long supply and the Steelers didn't use a draft pick on a backup quarterback this past year. They thought it was worth the risk to not pay for a different backup quarterback and Leftwich would succeed better than a 23 or 24 year old quarterback would. Perhaps they were wrong.
Isn't it logical to think that, among starters in the league, Ben Roethlisberger has a better-than-average chance of needing a replacement during the year?
Why would this be logical? Roethlisberger has never played less than 12 games in a season and had missed six starts over the last three years. It's not like he has missed half a season recently. Maybe it is logical to think he would need a quality backup, but that's what the Steelers thought Leftwich was.
But Steelers football czar Kevin Colbert needs to find someone so Pittsburgh won't have two old and/or slow backups.
Batch probably doesn't need to be the third quarterback on the roster, but pretty much any time an NFL team is down to their third quarterback they aren't going to have a very good chance of winning games with that quarterback. So I don't really agree with Peter regarding Batch. He is probably as good of an option as a third quarterback as most NFL teams have.
10. I think these are my non-NFL thoughts of the week:
b. Controversial: Mike Florio says he was bored by Lincoln. I have to carve out three hours, and soon, to see it.
I've heard the same thing. It is a Steven Spielberg film which means it will be long and heavy-handed, so there is a chance it isn't very good. Just read the book "Team of Rivals" and there is a chance you would be more entertained. I've been down on Spielberg since the interminable "War Horse" was released and I haven't really enjoyed one of the movies he has directed since "Minority Report."
c. Black Friday. One of the lightest traffic days of the year, because I had to drive quite a bit Friday. Can't figure that one out.
Again, this isn't incredibly hard to figure out. Most people are shopping, at work, or avoiding going out because of the long lines at stores. It tends to be a day when not a lot of people are driving along highways for these reasons.
i. Florence Norman has been born.
She was just born? I'm not sure I have heard a child under the age of 25 who isn't from Europe named "Florence." I don't hate the name, it's just an interesting name to me. At least they didn't name their daughter Pearl or Ethel.
One piece of advice, Flo: Don't listen to a word your grandfather says about rooting for the Yankees. It's the wrong thing to do.
Yeah, just go with the Flo on who to cheer for in baseball. Make your own decision.
(See what I did there?)
The Adieu Haiku
Colin Kaepernick.
Looks like I misjudged the lad.
Chiefs sound good, Alex?
Yeah, the Chiefs would try to sign Alex Smith. That's a typical Chiefs move. I'm sure the Chiefs sound good to Alex Smith, but I'm not sure Alex Smith should sound good to the Chiefs.
Monday, February 7, 2011
11 comments Even When NFL Players Use Safer Helmets, Gregg Easterbrook Still Finds Something To Complain About
My ears are still hurting from the halftime show last night. I have always hated the Black Eyed Peas, mostly because I prefer to listen to music from groups with a shred of talent outside of writing a catchy hook, but I didn't realize how terrible they would be live. I know it is "cool" to hate on the halftime show, but I am not hating just to hate. It sounded bad. I was very much in favor of the NFL getting away from the old geezers doing the halftime show, but if this is their way of convincing the world that was better based on the lack of screaming and auto-tuned vocals then mission accomplished. If the NFL is going to go with a "hip" act, go with a group that has talent.
Gregg Easterbrook has been on a noble crusade all year. He wants the NFL players to start using safer helmets to prevent concussions. I agree, NFL players should probably do this. Of course even when players do this, Gregg isn't happy. Now Aaron Rodgers is using a safer helmet and even credits it (but he isn't a doctor, so this should be taken with a grain of salt) with preventing another concussion in the NFC Championship game and this isn't enough for Gregg. He wants Rodgers to say which helmet he is using, in an attempt to make sure all of the high school football players that aren't playing football right now (as pointed out in the comments by Martin F. last week) know which helmet to choose this winter when they aren't playing football.
There is time to reveal this information before high school football starts is my basic point. Oh, and Gregg Easterbrook still annoys me is my other basic point.
All across the United States, football players and their parents -- there are 500 high school football players for each NFL player -- are worried about concussions, which a report released last week shows are rising in incidence.
Let me point out, for the third time, high school football is not currently being played. So parents are worried about concussions, but there is time to ease this worry. This isn't an incredibly time sensitive issue. If Aaron Rodgers doesn't reveal the helmet he is using, several hundred high school football athletes won't get a concussion by the end of this week.
Rodgers says the helmet prevented a concussion when he took a brutal blow to the head from Julius Peppers of the Chicago Bears in the NFC Championship Game.
So a Super Bowl quarterback has found a helmet that might reduce the concussion plague, protecting huge numbers of football players at the college, high school and youth levels. Good news?
Yes, it is the news Gregg has been whining about pretty much all year. A high-profile NFL player is using a safer helmet.
(cue "Hallelujah" chorus)
Here's my big question: Concussions are slippery things. Doctors aren't even exactly sure what causes a concussion or how a concussion exactly affects the human brain. So how does Aaron Rodgers know this helmet prevented him from sustaining another concussion and why does Gregg take this at face value and not second-guess Rodgers believe since he isn't a doctor. The obvious answer is Rodgers statement reflects something Gregg wants to believe, so he doesn't question the statement of a football player about a medical issue.
Here's the catch -- Rodgers won't tell you what kind of helmet he switched to. Neither will the Green Bay Packers.
Here's the catch on why they can't/won't tell people--there is this thing called a "contract" and the NFL has signed this "contract" with helmet maker Riddell to be the official helmet of the NFL. So either Rodgers or the Packers would be fined by the NFL for publicly revealing the exact brand of helmet Rodgers has been using. This is very unfortunate, but also not hugely surprising if you aren't a knee-jerk type person...which Gregg is.
Here's another reason he won't reveal the type of helmet. Neither the Packers or Aaron Rodgers know for sure the helmet prevented another concussion.
A Super Bowl quarterback and his team have information that might increase neurological safety -- and won't share it.
This may be the most dramatic way to arrange this sentence for maximum effect. Well, I can do one better...
"Aaron Rodgers has information that could save the life of thousands of adolescents, but won't reveal it. The Packers are his accomplice on this and don't seem to care about high school players safety because they won't announce how to save these thousands of adolescents' lives. Meanwhile, thousands have a higher risk of concussion due to Rodgers and the Packers actions."
I have a solution. Here's how you get the fucking information Gregg so desperately wants shared. Concerned parents can do this at home! Here's how:
-Open up your Internet browser
-Choose your favorite Internet search provider. I would suggest Google.
-Type in "safest anti-concussion helmet."
-Go to the very first link. You will see an article about DeSean Jackson's helmet.
-Use your eyes to read the column that Jackson wears a "Schutt" helmet.
-Use your brain to deduce "Schutt" may possibly make an anti-concussion helmet.
-Choose your favorite Internet search provider again.
-Type in "Schutt anti-concussion helmet."
-Choose the first link to see this helmet.
-Decide if you want to purchase this helmet.
There are other anti-concussion helmets out there. It isn't like Aaron Rodgers knows the location of a dead body and won't tell anyone. Any parent concerned enough about their child's brain will be concerned enough to take 10 minutes to examine the best helmets available. It's all public knowledge, yet Gregg acts as if it isn't.
When he returned to the field late in the year, Rodgers said he had switched to a helmet that reduces concussion risk. But he wouldn't be specific, leaving college and high school coaches and players in the dark.
College and high school coaches are in the dark? Are these by chance only the high school and college coaches that don't have hands, therefore aren't able to do an Internet search, or dial a phone to contact helmet manufacturers? If not, there is no excuse to be in the dark. There is plenty of information available on anti-concussion helmets out there. A person simply has to make an effort to find it.
Rodgers told Peter King of NBC he thought his new helmet prevented the vicious hit by Peppers -- whom the league fined $10,000 for unnecessary roughness -- from causing another concussion. "As much as the new helmet feels uncomfortable and I'm still getting used to it, I'm really happy I was wearing it on that hit,'' Rodgers said to King. But King's report did not include the critical item of information that all other football players, and the parents of young players, need -- namely, what kind of helmet.
We can guess it is not a Riddell helmet, because if it were, then Rodgers might be more forthcoming with the helmet type. Yeah, possibly Rodgers should reveal the type of helmet, but since Rodgers isn't a doctor he doesn't know for sure if the helmet actually did prevent the concussion. Again, with the advent of the Interwebs this information, a parent doesn't have to rely on Rodgers' endorsement and can do their own research.
There is another theory. Maybe Rodgers did have a concussion and doesn't want to reveal he did because of a fear he would be held out of the Super Bowl or should have been pulled off the field against the Bears. So Rodgers doesn't want to endorse a helmet that he know doesn't work, so he says the helmet did work to cover up for the fact he got hit hard and the hit could have easily concussed him and he would have had to be removed from game.
$100 says Gregg didn't think about this angle when he is criticizing the Packers and Rodgers because it didn't fit the point he was trying to prove.
So I asked the Packers again. Jeff Blumb, the team's director of public relations, told me, "I did check again on your behalf, and that's still not information we're comfortable sharing outside of our building."
Sort of stupid, yes, but the Packers may not want to reveal Rodgers isn't wearing a Riddell helmet for whatever reasons I have already discussed.
Each year 1.1 million boys, and a few girls, play middle school and high school football.
For the fourth time, there is no middle or high school football going on right now. Simmer down.
But the main reason large numbers of high school players wear obsolescent helmets is that below the level of the pros and big colleges, coaches, parents and athletic directors have no idea which helmets are best. They look to the top of the sport, the NFL, for guidance -- and receive none.
This is not the fault of college football, the NFL, the Packers or Aaron Rodgers. If high schools are too lazy to do their own research in an effort to get their football players better helmets, that's on them. The information is out there. There's no reason a school can't do its own research on this issue and should rely on the NFL or the NCAA to tell them what to do.
Like any athletic enterprise, the Packers have reason to keep game plans, training techniques and other such specifics private. But safety information should never be proprietary. Any information that improves sports safety should be declared openly, to all.
I don't know the NFL's policy on notifying the public their players aren't using a Riddell helmet, but I will guess the NFL would frown on the Packers publicly stating which helmet Rodgers is using. In an environment where concussions have become a major issue with the NFL, if the Packers announced the anti-concussion helmet their star quarterback endorses is not a Riddell then I would imagine the NFL wouldn't look kindly on that. It's a stupid reason possibly, but it has less to do with the Packers need to not get fined then it deals with them not looking out for high school kids.
Another reason the Packers haven't announced the type of helmet is...............the Packers aren't holding back information about safety from the public. The information is out there for anyone to find and Aaron Rodgers' statement he didn't sustain a concussion because of the helmet isn't exactly a fool-proof endorsement. Rodgers' statement isn't based on scientific data, but merely reflects his opinion.
NFL teams may be squeamish about revealing which helmets players wear because they think such an action makes them liable for any harm someone might sustain after donning a helmet of that type. As TMQ detailed here in November, this view is likely to be incorrect, in legal terms.
I love how Gregg just throws this in there. NFL teams may be concerned they could be sued for millions of dollars if they could potentially be found liable for any harm a person sustained while wearing said helmet. He throws this in like it is just a minor point and not really worthy of more discussion.
Then as the cherry on top, instead of saying how ridiculous this is, Gregg says this view is "likely" to be incorrect. So basically NFL teams may have a viable legal reason to not announce which helmet a player is using, but that's not good enough for Gregg because it is "likely" an incorrect reason. I am sure Gregg would be willing to take responsibility for paying any lawsuits that may arise from the Packers announcing which helmet Aaron Rodgers using (assuming a person gets hurt and sues), since he is adamant the Packers announce that type of helmet. It's not his money to lose, so he feels free to be as critical of the Packers as possible.
But if Green Bay is being held back by a mistaken belief about liability, the NFL needs to step in, and say, clearly, what helmet type and model is worn by Rodgers.
Riddell would love this. I am sure there is some language in the contract that would prohibit the NFL from doing this.
Safety information must never be withheld from the public. Withholding safety information is irresponsible. If a Super Bowl quarterback has found a helmet type that he believes reduces concussion risk, the team and the league have an ethical obligation to share the details.
Let's all remember Gregg is basing his entire criticism on the evaluations of Aaron Rodgers on how the helmet helped him not have a concussion. It is not like a doctor is reporting his findings, a football player is saying the helmet helped him not sustain a concussion. This may be completely false by the way. Aaron Rodgers is a lot of things, but he sure as hell isn't a doctor, so even advocating the use of the helmet to prevent concussions would be irresponsible of him and the Packers.
But just knowing a helmet brand isn't enough -- the model must be known, too. Riddell and Schutt, the leading manufacturers of football helmets, sell helmets engineered to reduce concussion risk and helmets that lack such engineering. The public needs to know both the brand and the model of whatever is on the head of Aaron Rodgers.
The public can do an Internet search and find it out with a good degree of certainty.
Riddell's advanced Revo Speed model (which my older son wore when playing college football) and the Schutt DNA (which I bought my young son when he played JV) are designed to reduce concussion risk, and data show this works. Is Rodgers wearing a Riddell Revo Speed or a Schutt DNA?
The odds are good if it were a Riddell helmet then Aaron Rodgers would say so. Logic dictates between the two choices given, that Aaron Rodgers is using a Schutt DNA. Go purchase accordingly. Problem solved.
The Schutt Ion helmet also has advanced engineering -- is Rodgers wearing an Ion? Is he wearing a Xenith X1, a new helmet brand designed around concussion prevention? Is he wearing the new Rawlings Quantum, which goes on the market soon, and was designed to reduce concussion risks? The public needs to know.
WHY? It isn't scientifically proven it prevented Rodgers from having a concussion. That's just his opinion. His opinion doesn't make it fact. Doctors have a fuzzy idea of what hits cause a concussion and which do not. Even a small hit could cause a concussion while sometimes a very hard hit doesn't do anything. Rodgers giving the type of helmet he uses would be in essence endorsing that helmet as effective, when he doesn't know if that helmet really benefited him from sustaining a concussion or not. Can't Gregg see this?
Regardless, a starting quarterback in Sunday's Super Bowl has found a helmet brand and model that he believes offers superior protection against concussions. Yet he won't say what the helmet is,
Rodgers is not a doctor. What he believe isn't medical truth or proof of anything. That's part of the core reason that Rodgers isn't announcing what type of helmet he has. What he believes is irrelevant in terms of whether it prevented him from having a concussion or not. I really wish Gregg could see this. He is getting his panties in a wad over what an NFL quarterback thinks prevented him from sustaining a concussion, which isn't based on scientific facts of any type.
Rodgers and the Packers should be widely criticized for this. Why won't they tell the country's million high school football players, and the players' parents, what the NFL knows about safety?
Because he doesn't know. He's guessing. If Aaron Rodgers said eating dog turds gave him better vision, does that mean kids all over America should start following their dogs around to collect poop so they can see as well as Rodgers does?
Two years ago in the Pittsburgh-Arizona Super Bowl, the Steelers contained Kurt Warner 'til the fourth quarter, when he threw for 247 yards, the rate of a 1,000-yard passing game.
Last week Gregg said the following about what the Steelers defense did to Warner:
In 2009, the Steelers won the Super Bowl by controlling Kurt Warner and the high-scoring Arizona offense.
This week, he doesn't believe the Steelers controlled Warner. What Gregg says or believes changes on a weekly basis, as determined by whatever point he is trying to prove.
Stat of the Week No. 7 Pittsburgh has the league's best defense against points, and Green Bay has the second-best defense against points.
"Defense against points?" I am not sure I have ever heard the amount of points per game a defense gives up phrased this way.
Cheerleader of the Week Erica of the Denver Broncos, who according to her team bio hosts a TV show on a Denver local-access channel and has been reading "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan, which contends that people should eat the foods -- mostly plants -- that our distant ancestors ate. The book's position is similar to advocacy of the Paleolithic diet.
Much like Rodgers' helmet issue, this belief should be taken as fact of course, and kids in school across America should eat a lunch based on the Paleolithic diet. Just like Aaron Rodgers is a doctor, Erica the Broncos cheer leader is a nutrition specialist.
That's the way winning pro football teams are built. Of course -- you have to be able to draft well, which eludes many highly paid NFL general managers.
Would it make it more acceptable to draft poorly if the general manager was poorly paid?
This weekend, the Hall of Fame selectors will choose the next class to wear the garish yellow jacket at Canton. As with past years, only the on-field performance of players, not their off-field failings (or accomplishments), will be weighed, while no one who's already been admitted will be expelled.
Consider: O.J. Simpson, a criminal, is in the Hall of Fame. Simpson currently is serving a 33-year sentence for armed robbery.
Lawrence Taylor is in the Hall of Fame, though in his own 2003 book, "LT: Over the Edge," Taylor said he spent up to "thousands of dollars a day" on cocaine when playing in the NFL, and often broke narcotics laws.
Jack Kemp -- who was the AFL's all-time leading passer, then went on to a life of highly distinguished public service, including being the Republican Party candidate for vice president in 1996 -- is not. What's the distinction?
The distinction, in case Gregg is too ignorant to read what he just wrote is the Hall of Fame weights on-field performance and not off-field performance. Or as Gregg just put it:
As with past years, only the on-field performance of players, not their off-field failings (or accomplishments), will be weighed, while no one who's already been admitted will be expelled.
So he gave us the answer to the question before he asked the question. The reason off-the-field failings aren't included is because off-the-field failings aren't included in the Football Hall of Fame voting process. The Baseball Hall of Fame tends to count character into their inductions in the Hall of Fame and that has turned into a clusterfuck, so maybe the NFL knows why they are doing by not counting off-field character.
When Hall of Fame selectors and Hall of Fame management maintain they should consider only performance on the field, this conveniently excuses them from dealing with personal integrity. Disregarding integrity sets a terrible example. Hall of Fame officials and selectors who have children: Do you tell your children that character does not matter? Of course not. So why do you tell this to other people's children?
It's always about the kids to Gregg, isn't it? I never recall as a child knowing Ty Cobb was a dick and a racist and believing he didn't belong in the Hall of Fame. My feeble child mind knew that simply because he was a jerk off the field doesn't mean he shouldn't be recognized for his accomplishments on the field. Or maybe my feeble child mind didn't care. That's most likely it.
It is the Hall of Fame. That is the place where the best players to ever play in the NFL are honored. If a parent is taking a child to the Hall of Fame, it will not say on the plaque, "this person did a shitload of drugs and tried to have sex with underage women." It will show that person's football exploits. A child who wants to go to the football Hall of Fame won't be going there to see the nicest people who also happened to play football well, that child will be going to see the greatest players, on the field, honored with a shrine.
This is especially disturbing because the Hall of Fame is a tax-exempt 501c3 nonprofit organization -- officially, an "educational museum." Tax exemptions subsidize the Hall of Fame, which most emphatically does not behave in an "educational" manner.
How about the Washington Monument. George Washington had slaves. Should we tear this down? So did Thomas Jefferson? What about the Jefferson Memorial? Is it time for a wrecking ball to take it down?
Tomlin, as defense-minded as they come, was playing the percentages: Had the onside succeeded, and surprise onsides usually do,
Yep, surprise onsides usually succeed. Gregg would show some data to support this statement, but he's pretty much just hoping this statement is true.
Then Gregg goes into some strategy that I should really only call "vague strategy." It was more of him just making black and white statements about "if Team X does this, then Team Y will always do this."
Rohit Venkatasubban of Los Angeles reports, "While driving near LAX last week, I noticed a billboard advertising NFL Kickoff Weekend 2011. The Super Bowl hasn't even been played yet, and the start of the next season is already being advertised! Is our football addiction that bad?"
Yes, it is.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio filed a lawsuit last week against the operator of a House of Representatives cafeteria, claiming he is owed $150,000 because a sandwich he bought contained "dangerous substances" -- namely, an olive pit.
Plus it's absurd that media outlets emphasized the $150,000 number in Kucinich's absurd court filing. Damage awards are determined by the evidence and law, not the plaintiff's request. A plaintiff can ask for any number he pleases -- Kucinich could have asked for $150 billion. What the plaintiff asks for in cases of this nature usually means nothing. Reporters should know that, and ignore the headline-grabbing aspect of Rep. Kucinich's nonsense.
The media is simply reporting how much Kucinich asked for. That is news. They are reporting the news. What are media outlets supposed to do when reporting the story say, "Kucinich is suing for an amount of money we find absurd so we won't report it." Media outlets aren't saying Kucinich will get that much money, that's just how much he is suing for, which happens to be a fact.
But there's a larger problem at work -- too many standing ovations at theatrical shows, awards ceremonies, all kinds of public events.
Obviously. This is something that keeps me up at night. All those standing ovations...why??????
And though it's fun, as a high school kid, to see your parents standing to clap, realistically, rare is the high school musical or play that merits an ovation.
It is also rare that a TMQ deserves anything more than to be printed on toilet paper, yet ESPN continues to give them front page treatment.
Why has the standing ovation proliferated? Your columnist thinks it's a form of self-flattery for the audience, a way of saying, "I picked a great show." If you pay $250 for a Broadway ticket for a musical version of "Hedda Gabler," and the show is wretched, you leave feeling like a fool. If you leap to your feet in a standing ovation, as if you've just attended a work of art, you don't feel so bad about that $250.
I think this is perhaps the worst guess there could ever be. Most likely, one person stands up for an ovation and the rest of the people follow...much like cattle. I don't ever believe the audience members are applauding their choice of a show nor deluding themselves into believing they saw a good show. A group of people stand, then everyone stands so they aren't the asshole who is sitting.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback Challenge:
I will go ahead and give you a spoiler on what Gregg will write. That thing that caused the Packers to win the Super Bowl, well the Steelers should have not done what they did in that situation to let the Packers do that. The Steelers should have blitzed, unless that is what they did, in which case they should have not blitzed, unless that's what they did, in which case they should have blitzed.
Gregg Easterbrook has been on a noble crusade all year. He wants the NFL players to start using safer helmets to prevent concussions. I agree, NFL players should probably do this. Of course even when players do this, Gregg isn't happy. Now Aaron Rodgers is using a safer helmet and even credits it (but he isn't a doctor, so this should be taken with a grain of salt) with preventing another concussion in the NFC Championship game and this isn't enough for Gregg. He wants Rodgers to say which helmet he is using, in an attempt to make sure all of the high school football players that aren't playing football right now (as pointed out in the comments by Martin F. last week) know which helmet to choose this winter when they aren't playing football.
There is time to reveal this information before high school football starts is my basic point. Oh, and Gregg Easterbrook still annoys me is my other basic point.
All across the United States, football players and their parents -- there are 500 high school football players for each NFL player -- are worried about concussions, which a report released last week shows are rising in incidence.
Let me point out, for the third time, high school football is not currently being played. So parents are worried about concussions, but there is time to ease this worry. This isn't an incredibly time sensitive issue. If Aaron Rodgers doesn't reveal the helmet he is using, several hundred high school football athletes won't get a concussion by the end of this week.
Rodgers says the helmet prevented a concussion when he took a brutal blow to the head from Julius Peppers of the Chicago Bears in the NFC Championship Game.
So a Super Bowl quarterback has found a helmet that might reduce the concussion plague, protecting huge numbers of football players at the college, high school and youth levels. Good news?
Yes, it is the news Gregg has been whining about pretty much all year. A high-profile NFL player is using a safer helmet.
(cue "Hallelujah" chorus)
Here's my big question: Concussions are slippery things. Doctors aren't even exactly sure what causes a concussion or how a concussion exactly affects the human brain. So how does Aaron Rodgers know this helmet prevented him from sustaining another concussion and why does Gregg take this at face value and not second-guess Rodgers believe since he isn't a doctor. The obvious answer is Rodgers statement reflects something Gregg wants to believe, so he doesn't question the statement of a football player about a medical issue.
Here's the catch -- Rodgers won't tell you what kind of helmet he switched to. Neither will the Green Bay Packers.
Here's the catch on why they can't/won't tell people--there is this thing called a "contract" and the NFL has signed this "contract" with helmet maker Riddell to be the official helmet of the NFL. So either Rodgers or the Packers would be fined by the NFL for publicly revealing the exact brand of helmet Rodgers has been using. This is very unfortunate, but also not hugely surprising if you aren't a knee-jerk type person...which Gregg is.
Here's another reason he won't reveal the type of helmet. Neither the Packers or Aaron Rodgers know for sure the helmet prevented another concussion.
A Super Bowl quarterback and his team have information that might increase neurological safety -- and won't share it.
This may be the most dramatic way to arrange this sentence for maximum effect. Well, I can do one better...
"Aaron Rodgers has information that could save the life of thousands of adolescents, but won't reveal it. The Packers are his accomplice on this and don't seem to care about high school players safety because they won't announce how to save these thousands of adolescents' lives. Meanwhile, thousands have a higher risk of concussion due to Rodgers and the Packers actions."
I have a solution. Here's how you get the fucking information Gregg so desperately wants shared. Concerned parents can do this at home! Here's how:
-Open up your Internet browser
-Choose your favorite Internet search provider. I would suggest Google.
-Type in "safest anti-concussion helmet."
-Go to the very first link. You will see an article about DeSean Jackson's helmet.
-Use your eyes to read the column that Jackson wears a "Schutt" helmet.
-Use your brain to deduce "Schutt" may possibly make an anti-concussion helmet.
-Choose your favorite Internet search provider again.
-Type in "Schutt anti-concussion helmet."
-Choose the first link to see this helmet.
-Decide if you want to purchase this helmet.
There are other anti-concussion helmets out there. It isn't like Aaron Rodgers knows the location of a dead body and won't tell anyone. Any parent concerned enough about their child's brain will be concerned enough to take 10 minutes to examine the best helmets available. It's all public knowledge, yet Gregg acts as if it isn't.
When he returned to the field late in the year, Rodgers said he had switched to a helmet that reduces concussion risk. But he wouldn't be specific, leaving college and high school coaches and players in the dark.
College and high school coaches are in the dark? Are these by chance only the high school and college coaches that don't have hands, therefore aren't able to do an Internet search, or dial a phone to contact helmet manufacturers? If not, there is no excuse to be in the dark. There is plenty of information available on anti-concussion helmets out there. A person simply has to make an effort to find it.
Rodgers told Peter King of NBC he thought his new helmet prevented the vicious hit by Peppers -- whom the league fined $10,000 for unnecessary roughness -- from causing another concussion. "As much as the new helmet feels uncomfortable and I'm still getting used to it, I'm really happy I was wearing it on that hit,'' Rodgers said to King. But King's report did not include the critical item of information that all other football players, and the parents of young players, need -- namely, what kind of helmet.
We can guess it is not a Riddell helmet, because if it were, then Rodgers might be more forthcoming with the helmet type. Yeah, possibly Rodgers should reveal the type of helmet, but since Rodgers isn't a doctor he doesn't know for sure if the helmet actually did prevent the concussion. Again, with the advent of the Interwebs this information, a parent doesn't have to rely on Rodgers' endorsement and can do their own research.
There is another theory. Maybe Rodgers did have a concussion and doesn't want to reveal he did because of a fear he would be held out of the Super Bowl or should have been pulled off the field against the Bears. So Rodgers doesn't want to endorse a helmet that he know doesn't work, so he says the helmet did work to cover up for the fact he got hit hard and the hit could have easily concussed him and he would have had to be removed from game.
$100 says Gregg didn't think about this angle when he is criticizing the Packers and Rodgers because it didn't fit the point he was trying to prove.
So I asked the Packers again. Jeff Blumb, the team's director of public relations, told me, "I did check again on your behalf, and that's still not information we're comfortable sharing outside of our building."
Sort of stupid, yes, but the Packers may not want to reveal Rodgers isn't wearing a Riddell helmet for whatever reasons I have already discussed.
Each year 1.1 million boys, and a few girls, play middle school and high school football.
Each year 1.1 million boys, and a few girls, play middle school and high school football .
It looks like ESPN.com needs a better editor for Gregg's columns. This was printed twice in a row, once with the link, and once without the link.For the fourth time, there is no middle or high school football going on right now. Simmer down.
But the main reason large numbers of high school players wear obsolescent helmets is that below the level of the pros and big colleges, coaches, parents and athletic directors have no idea which helmets are best. They look to the top of the sport, the NFL, for guidance -- and receive none.
This is not the fault of college football, the NFL, the Packers or Aaron Rodgers. If high schools are too lazy to do their own research in an effort to get their football players better helmets, that's on them. The information is out there. There's no reason a school can't do its own research on this issue and should rely on the NFL or the NCAA to tell them what to do.
Like any athletic enterprise, the Packers have reason to keep game plans, training techniques and other such specifics private. But safety information should never be proprietary. Any information that improves sports safety should be declared openly, to all.
I don't know the NFL's policy on notifying the public their players aren't using a Riddell helmet, but I will guess the NFL would frown on the Packers publicly stating which helmet Rodgers is using. In an environment where concussions have become a major issue with the NFL, if the Packers announced the anti-concussion helmet their star quarterback endorses is not a Riddell then I would imagine the NFL wouldn't look kindly on that. It's a stupid reason possibly, but it has less to do with the Packers need to not get fined then it deals with them not looking out for high school kids.
Another reason the Packers haven't announced the type of helmet is...............the Packers aren't holding back information about safety from the public. The information is out there for anyone to find and Aaron Rodgers' statement he didn't sustain a concussion because of the helmet isn't exactly a fool-proof endorsement. Rodgers' statement isn't based on scientific data, but merely reflects his opinion.
NFL teams may be squeamish about revealing which helmets players wear because they think such an action makes them liable for any harm someone might sustain after donning a helmet of that type. As TMQ detailed here in November, this view is likely to be incorrect, in legal terms.
I love how Gregg just throws this in there. NFL teams may be concerned they could be sued for millions of dollars if they could potentially be found liable for any harm a person sustained while wearing said helmet. He throws this in like it is just a minor point and not really worthy of more discussion.
Then as the cherry on top, instead of saying how ridiculous this is, Gregg says this view is "likely" to be incorrect. So basically NFL teams may have a viable legal reason to not announce which helmet a player is using, but that's not good enough for Gregg because it is "likely" an incorrect reason. I am sure Gregg would be willing to take responsibility for paying any lawsuits that may arise from the Packers announcing which helmet Aaron Rodgers using (assuming a person gets hurt and sues), since he is adamant the Packers announce that type of helmet. It's not his money to lose, so he feels free to be as critical of the Packers as possible.
But if Green Bay is being held back by a mistaken belief about liability, the NFL needs to step in, and say, clearly, what helmet type and model is worn by Rodgers.
Riddell would love this. I am sure there is some language in the contract that would prohibit the NFL from doing this.
Safety information must never be withheld from the public. Withholding safety information is irresponsible. If a Super Bowl quarterback has found a helmet type that he believes reduces concussion risk, the team and the league have an ethical obligation to share the details.
Let's all remember Gregg is basing his entire criticism on the evaluations of Aaron Rodgers on how the helmet helped him not have a concussion. It is not like a doctor is reporting his findings, a football player is saying the helmet helped him not sustain a concussion. This may be completely false by the way. Aaron Rodgers is a lot of things, but he sure as hell isn't a doctor, so even advocating the use of the helmet to prevent concussions would be irresponsible of him and the Packers.
But just knowing a helmet brand isn't enough -- the model must be known, too. Riddell and Schutt, the leading manufacturers of football helmets, sell helmets engineered to reduce concussion risk and helmets that lack such engineering. The public needs to know both the brand and the model of whatever is on the head of Aaron Rodgers.
The public can do an Internet search and find it out with a good degree of certainty.
Riddell's advanced Revo Speed model (which my older son wore when playing college football) and the Schutt DNA (which I bought my young son when he played JV) are designed to reduce concussion risk, and data show this works. Is Rodgers wearing a Riddell Revo Speed or a Schutt DNA?
The odds are good if it were a Riddell helmet then Aaron Rodgers would say so. Logic dictates between the two choices given, that Aaron Rodgers is using a Schutt DNA. Go purchase accordingly. Problem solved.
The Schutt Ion helmet also has advanced engineering -- is Rodgers wearing an Ion? Is he wearing a Xenith X1, a new helmet brand designed around concussion prevention? Is he wearing the new Rawlings Quantum, which goes on the market soon, and was designed to reduce concussion risks? The public needs to know.
WHY? It isn't scientifically proven it prevented Rodgers from having a concussion. That's just his opinion. His opinion doesn't make it fact. Doctors have a fuzzy idea of what hits cause a concussion and which do not. Even a small hit could cause a concussion while sometimes a very hard hit doesn't do anything. Rodgers giving the type of helmet he uses would be in essence endorsing that helmet as effective, when he doesn't know if that helmet really benefited him from sustaining a concussion or not. Can't Gregg see this?
Regardless, a starting quarterback in Sunday's Super Bowl has found a helmet brand and model that he believes offers superior protection against concussions. Yet he won't say what the helmet is,
Rodgers is not a doctor. What he believe isn't medical truth or proof of anything. That's part of the core reason that Rodgers isn't announcing what type of helmet he has. What he believes is irrelevant in terms of whether it prevented him from having a concussion or not. I really wish Gregg could see this. He is getting his panties in a wad over what an NFL quarterback thinks prevented him from sustaining a concussion, which isn't based on scientific facts of any type.
Rodgers and the Packers should be widely criticized for this. Why won't they tell the country's million high school football players, and the players' parents, what the NFL knows about safety?
Because he doesn't know. He's guessing. If Aaron Rodgers said eating dog turds gave him better vision, does that mean kids all over America should start following their dogs around to collect poop so they can see as well as Rodgers does?
Two years ago in the Pittsburgh-Arizona Super Bowl, the Steelers contained Kurt Warner 'til the fourth quarter, when he threw for 247 yards, the rate of a 1,000-yard passing game.
Last week Gregg said the following about what the Steelers defense did to Warner:
In 2009, the Steelers won the Super Bowl by controlling Kurt Warner and the high-scoring Arizona offense.
This week, he doesn't believe the Steelers controlled Warner. What Gregg says or believes changes on a weekly basis, as determined by whatever point he is trying to prove.
Stat of the Week No. 7 Pittsburgh has the league's best defense against points, and Green Bay has the second-best defense against points.
"Defense against points?" I am not sure I have ever heard the amount of points per game a defense gives up phrased this way.
Cheerleader of the Week Erica of the Denver Broncos, who according to her team bio hosts a TV show on a Denver local-access channel and has been reading "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan, which contends that people should eat the foods -- mostly plants -- that our distant ancestors ate. The book's position is similar to advocacy of the Paleolithic diet.
Much like Rodgers' helmet issue, this belief should be taken as fact of course, and kids in school across America should eat a lunch based on the Paleolithic diet. Just like Aaron Rodgers is a doctor, Erica the Broncos cheer leader is a nutrition specialist.
That's the way winning pro football teams are built. Of course -- you have to be able to draft well, which eludes many highly paid NFL general managers.
Would it make it more acceptable to draft poorly if the general manager was poorly paid?
This weekend, the Hall of Fame selectors will choose the next class to wear the garish yellow jacket at Canton. As with past years, only the on-field performance of players, not their off-field failings (or accomplishments), will be weighed, while no one who's already been admitted will be expelled.
Consider: O.J. Simpson, a criminal, is in the Hall of Fame. Simpson currently is serving a 33-year sentence for armed robbery.
Lawrence Taylor is in the Hall of Fame, though in his own 2003 book, "LT: Over the Edge," Taylor said he spent up to "thousands of dollars a day" on cocaine when playing in the NFL, and often broke narcotics laws.
Jack Kemp -- who was the AFL's all-time leading passer, then went on to a life of highly distinguished public service, including being the Republican Party candidate for vice president in 1996 -- is not. What's the distinction?
The distinction, in case Gregg is too ignorant to read what he just wrote is the Hall of Fame weights on-field performance and not off-field performance. Or as Gregg just put it:
As with past years, only the on-field performance of players, not their off-field failings (or accomplishments), will be weighed, while no one who's already been admitted will be expelled.
So he gave us the answer to the question before he asked the question. The reason off-the-field failings aren't included is because off-the-field failings aren't included in the Football Hall of Fame voting process. The Baseball Hall of Fame tends to count character into their inductions in the Hall of Fame and that has turned into a clusterfuck, so maybe the NFL knows why they are doing by not counting off-field character.
When Hall of Fame selectors and Hall of Fame management maintain they should consider only performance on the field, this conveniently excuses them from dealing with personal integrity. Disregarding integrity sets a terrible example. Hall of Fame officials and selectors who have children: Do you tell your children that character does not matter? Of course not. So why do you tell this to other people's children?
It's always about the kids to Gregg, isn't it? I never recall as a child knowing Ty Cobb was a dick and a racist and believing he didn't belong in the Hall of Fame. My feeble child mind knew that simply because he was a jerk off the field doesn't mean he shouldn't be recognized for his accomplishments on the field. Or maybe my feeble child mind didn't care. That's most likely it.
It is the Hall of Fame. That is the place where the best players to ever play in the NFL are honored. If a parent is taking a child to the Hall of Fame, it will not say on the plaque, "this person did a shitload of drugs and tried to have sex with underage women." It will show that person's football exploits. A child who wants to go to the football Hall of Fame won't be going there to see the nicest people who also happened to play football well, that child will be going to see the greatest players, on the field, honored with a shrine.
This is especially disturbing because the Hall of Fame is a tax-exempt 501c3 nonprofit organization -- officially, an "educational museum." Tax exemptions subsidize the Hall of Fame, which most emphatically does not behave in an "educational" manner.
How about the Washington Monument. George Washington had slaves. Should we tear this down? So did Thomas Jefferson? What about the Jefferson Memorial? Is it time for a wrecking ball to take it down?
Tomlin, as defense-minded as they come, was playing the percentages: Had the onside succeeded, and surprise onsides usually do,
Yep, surprise onsides usually succeed. Gregg would show some data to support this statement, but he's pretty much just hoping this statement is true.
Then Gregg goes into some strategy that I should really only call "vague strategy." It was more of him just making black and white statements about "if Team X does this, then Team Y will always do this."
Rohit Venkatasubban of Los Angeles reports, "While driving near LAX last week, I noticed a billboard advertising NFL Kickoff Weekend 2011. The Super Bowl hasn't even been played yet, and the start of the next season is already being advertised! Is our football addiction that bad?"
Yes, it is.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio filed a lawsuit last week against the operator of a House of Representatives cafeteria, claiming he is owed $150,000 because a sandwich he bought contained "dangerous substances" -- namely, an olive pit.
Plus it's absurd that media outlets emphasized the $150,000 number in Kucinich's absurd court filing. Damage awards are determined by the evidence and law, not the plaintiff's request. A plaintiff can ask for any number he pleases -- Kucinich could have asked for $150 billion. What the plaintiff asks for in cases of this nature usually means nothing. Reporters should know that, and ignore the headline-grabbing aspect of Rep. Kucinich's nonsense.
The media is simply reporting how much Kucinich asked for. That is news. They are reporting the news. What are media outlets supposed to do when reporting the story say, "Kucinich is suing for an amount of money we find absurd so we won't report it." Media outlets aren't saying Kucinich will get that much money, that's just how much he is suing for, which happens to be a fact.
But there's a larger problem at work -- too many standing ovations at theatrical shows, awards ceremonies, all kinds of public events.
Obviously. This is something that keeps me up at night. All those standing ovations...why??????
And though it's fun, as a high school kid, to see your parents standing to clap, realistically, rare is the high school musical or play that merits an ovation.
It is also rare that a TMQ deserves anything more than to be printed on toilet paper, yet ESPN continues to give them front page treatment.
Why has the standing ovation proliferated? Your columnist thinks it's a form of self-flattery for the audience, a way of saying, "I picked a great show." If you pay $250 for a Broadway ticket for a musical version of "Hedda Gabler," and the show is wretched, you leave feeling like a fool. If you leap to your feet in a standing ovation, as if you've just attended a work of art, you don't feel so bad about that $250.
I think this is perhaps the worst guess there could ever be. Most likely, one person stands up for an ovation and the rest of the people follow...much like cattle. I don't ever believe the audience members are applauding their choice of a show nor deluding themselves into believing they saw a good show. A group of people stand, then everyone stands so they aren't the asshole who is sitting.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback Challenge:
The challenge is to compose a Black Eyed Peas song (one stanza and refrain, plus the title) using only the words and phrases below, plus common articles and conjunctions. Words you can use:
Body; boom; boom-boom; dance; dancing; dress; drink; drank; feeling; get; Goose; gotta; grab; here we come; here we go; high; hot; ladies; legs; money; melon ball; naked; night; now; off; party; pow; shake it; smoke; strip; toke; wanna; want; zoom.
I participated last year. This year, not so much. This is a pretty dumb idea. Of course, given how shitty the Black Eyed Peas are, they could very well steal the winner's idea, turn it into a song (or perhaps an entire album of the shit-music they make) and the moronic public will buy their music regardless. The Black Eyed Peas: Where a lack of talent and the public's lack of ability to decipher talent intersects.
Next Week: That Super Bowl thing you might have heard about.I will go ahead and give you a spoiler on what Gregg will write. That thing that caused the Packers to win the Super Bowl, well the Steelers should have not done what they did in that situation to let the Packers do that. The Steelers should have blitzed, unless that is what they did, in which case they should have not blitzed, unless that's what they did, in which case they should have blitzed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)