Showing posts with label Mark Bradley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Bradley. Show all posts

Saturday, August 28, 2010

9 comments Some Favre Hate, Orton's New Contract, and a Peter King Mailbag

This is the daily reminder I have set up a College Football Pick 'Em League for Yahoo. I have set it up against the spread and the games we will be choosing are Top 25 games and games the Yahoo editors choose as "worthy" of being chosen. The ID is 1704 and the password is "asu." Feel free to join and it doesn't take long each week to pick the games.

Also, don't forget the BotB Fantasy Baseball draft is tomorrow. Those who want to attend feel free to. I probably do better when I am not drafting the players and just get the players the computer gives me.

I didn't have one article I wanted to cover today so I thought I would go ahead and cover three articles. Besides, it is Saturday and the few people who read what I write probably don't read on the weekend anyway, so I could pretty much write anything I want. I am covering the Peter King mailbag from this past week today, and I don't plan on doing this every week, but I thought it was relevant this week.

1. I am going to start off with Mark Bradley who continues to please me with his unabashed Favre hatred. He is one of the many who recognize the Favre-drama has a partner in ESPN, yet this is something ESPN doesn't seem to really care about. I think they just want Favre to work for them as an NFL analyst once he decides to retire.

Because I was feeling guilty over my sudden dislike for LeBron James, who up until “The Decision” had done nothing to make me think he was a bad guy, and now my default dislike position has been reset.

LeBron James has been dropped to second on the list. Brett Favre is again the athlete against whom I root the hardest.

This is a consensus among NFL fans. Favre has gotten to the point where I actively root against him and many others do too. The difference is that six years from now everyone else will remember Favre for being a great player and not recall the soap operas he dragged the public through for three summers. I will still think of him as a selfish asshole because really that's what he seems to be. He and ESPN can't seem to recognize this.

Brett Favre is a handy combination of everything I value least in sports. He’s not as good as advertised,

I disagree with this statement as it pertains to last year. Last year, Favre was as good as advertised, but the few years before that he wasn't that great. So I can believe he wasn't as good as advertised a few years over the past five years, but not last year. I think Favre is going to go back to the "not great" level this upcoming year. That's my personal opinion, even if that also happens to be my wish as well.

and yet he’s one of the handful of neo-athletes — LeBron, Tiger, T.O. and A-Rod would make up the remainder of the top five — around whom the Worldwide Leader has decided the world indeed revolves.

It is annoying, but I can't completely blame ESPN. They get ratings with these players because those who love them and those who hate them feel strongly, so they tune in. ESPN follows the money and the advertising dollars, so from a business standpoint I can't really criticize them for that.

The problem is that ESPN is a sports network, even though they do have the word "entertainment" in the title, they are mostly a sports network...or they should be. The network is built around "SportsCenter" which is a sports show, but over the years they have seemed to care less and less about sports and more about creating corporate synergy with ABC and focusing on certain stories the rest of the world is tired of. They really have no interest anymore in leading off "SportsCenter" with the most popular or most exciting sports event of the day if there is a soap opera they can follow instead.

It is a sports network, but when it comes to Favre-Watch or "The Decision" journalistic integrity and the sports aspect takes a back seat to following a soap opera and getting in bed with the most popular basketball player in the NBA. They not only report on the stories, but now they are giving the athletes a forum to create the story. So ESPN is the reporter of the story and the facilitator of the story. They gave LeBron James and Brett Favre a forum to create news and essentially have tied ESPN's reputation (in the case of James) to how well "The Decision" was handled by those people who run LeBron James' life.

There are times when I think that if Favre didn’t exist, ESPN would have just invented him. Then I correct myself: ESPN did invent him, like Dr. Frankenstein and his henchman Igor conjured up their monster.

Don't get me wrong, other news outlets reported on the Favre story, but no other outlets reported with the fervor and saturated the airwaves with coverage of the Favre story. The story became overblown because ESPN and Brett Favre let the story become overblown. It got to the point, ESPN was running AS NEWS on their "bottom line" that Favre had not made up his mind. In other words, they reported there was nothing to report.

Favre is to blame for his selfish, drama-queen tendencies, but it doesn't become a story if he doesn't have a microphone to talk into. If Favre talks and no one is there to listen, the outcome of the story doesn't change, just the maze of shit the public has to go through to get to the outcome changes.

2. Here is another story I have talked about a lot on this blog and that is the Broncos quarterback situation. Much to the chagrin of Woody Paige, Kyle Orton has signed a contract extension worth $9 million next year. It is only for one year and $5 million of it is guaranteed. It is not a long term commitment, but I wonder if this tells us Tebow isn't progressing as fast as the Broncos had hoped?

This surprised me and told me a little bit about the rose-colored glasses Woody Paige and other Tebow-devotees are looking through. Orton was a free agent after this year. There will most likely be some labor strife in the NFL. As has been described many times, Orton is not a franchise quarterback, so I imagine if there was no labor stoppage the Broncos could have re-signed Orton after this year. I have talked at length about how certain journalists can't be impartial when it comes to Tim Tebow because they tend to get personally involved with his place as the future starting quarterback for the Broncos.

Woody Paige thinks Tim Tebow should start now. If Tebow is ready to start NFL games now, why would the Broncos sign Kyle Orton to a $9 million extension for next season before even knowing if there will be a next season? This deal didn't need to get done immediately, they could have waited another month or two and gotten the deal done. It tells me that those who looked impartially at Tim Tebow saw that he was a project quarterback who would need some work before he is ready to start in the NFL. He may be a great NFL quarterback, but it doesn't look like he will be great this year.

If Tebow was on the cusp of starting for the Broncos, why sign Orton and make him one of the most expensive backups in the NFL? I am not knocking Tim Tebow, just again focusing on the way the media has portrayed him as the franchise savior for the Broncos when that doesn't seem to be the case right now. From seeing Orton signed for next year at such a high price ($5 million of it is guaranteed), it tells me the Broncos aren't sure Tebow is ready to start right now and somehow I think that puts them in the minority. This deal didn't need to be done right now, yet it got done right now. A good backup is important, but I am not sure it is this important, especially for a head coach who prides himself on grooming quarterbacks.

Here is what a Tebow-devotee (Woody Paige) has to say about Kyle Orton:

Last year, his numbers were impressive — 3,802 yards passing, 21 touchdowns, 12 interceptions, a 62.1 percent completion average and a QB rating of 86.8.

But the only number that really mattered was the same as jersey No. 8.

When Orton played in 2009, the Broncos won eight games.

Orton is not a star quarterback and isn't the only player who played for the Broncos on offense last year, so naturally we should blame him for the Broncos going 8-8.

Yet, with all those accomplishments, Orton has appeared in this number of postseason games: zero.

This is what Orton has to deal with in Denver. Bears fans will remember Orton would have appeared in a postseason game against the Panthers in 2006 if the Bears hadn't given the job to Rex Grossman prior to the game, despite the fact Orton had started for most of the season. So as bad as Orton was that year, he led the Bears to a postseason game even if he didn't get to appear in the game.

Tebow is a winner and Kyle Orton isn't. That seems to be the argument to start Tebow this year.

3. Now on to Peter's mailbag for this week.

No Sidney Rice after hip surgery, maybe for half the season. Maybe no Percy Harvin in any particular week because of his migraines.

The fairy tale season from last year doesn't seem to be happening for the Vikings this year. The Vikings had some good luck last year in the injury department and counting on Bernard Berrian and Greg Camarillo isn't something they will want to do all year.

You're Brad Childress game-planning for the season, knowing Brett Favre's two favorite targets are major health questions. You're Favre, knowing the same thing. And you're nervous.

How much do we want to bet that Favre will unretire this year or that ankle injury will start acting up on him? I know Favre is already going through a mental list of reasons why he didn't have a good year.

Now, Favre and Rice bonded in a short period last fall as well and as quickly as I've seen a quarterback and receiver bond. I'll never forget their 45-second embrace in the locker room after the loss to New Orleans in the NFC title game.

I can see Peter hiding behind a column in the locker room, peeking around the corner of the column and spying on Favre and Rice watching them embrace. I have $100 that says Peter teared up at some point.

It was clear how close they had gotten in just five months, and there's no doubt in my mind that losing Rice will have a major impact on Favre's season, and the Vikings' ability to do multiple things in the passing game.

We all know if Rice misses the first half of this season it will be the first time in the history of the NFL a team has had to play ANY part of the season without their best receiver. I can't believe the Vikings were the first team to lose their best receiver during Brett Favre's (possibly) last year as a professional player. They are cursed! Call Bill Simmons so he can create a fake corollary that pertains to this!

Look for far more reliance on Visanthe Shiancoe --and the hope that a miracle drug can be found for migraines. Because Minnesota needs Harvin to have a clear head for at least the first half of the season.

One other thing: Check out the Vikings' schedule for the first two months of the season: at New Orleans, Miami, Detroit, bye, at the Jets, Dallas, at Green Bay, at New England. You tell me how big a loss Sidney Rice is, staring down the gun at the toughest first two months of any team in football.

This is why it is so hard for NFL teams to do well from year to year. The best teams get the hardest schedules the next year and have to hope they don't have injuries that can affect the talent level and depth of the team. The Vikings almost made the Super Bowl last year, naturally they will get a more difficult schedule.

There have been plenty of other teams that are dealing with injury issues on their team, so it is not like the Vikings are the only team that have to use their backups. At least they have a Hall of Fame quarterback who can make the other receivers better, right?

I know Kurt Warner has said he's retired, and he's never given one iota of a hint that he'd reconsider. But if I'm Arizona coach Ken Whisenhunt, and I've just watched the horror show at quarterback that I watched last night, I've got to at least call Warner today and ask if there's any way he'd reconsider his decision.

(Now I will somewhat defend Matt Leinart and as I wrote this, I saw this had happened. I remain firmly unconvinced the Cardinals will start Derek Anderson over Matt Leinart in the first game of the season. I'm not saying Leinart may not get released or traded, but I don't believe Anderson will start over Leinart. As bad Leinart has looked in the preseason, from what I have seen Anderson has looked worse.)

I have to agree the Cardinals offense looked terrible, but it is the preseason. I don't know what the fine line between getting into a panic and realizing it is preseason so not worrying too much. There have been many quarterbacks who look bad in the preseason, but few teams are game-planning and the games don't count. I realize Peter probably secretly wants Kurt Warner to come back so his good buddy Brett Favre isn't the only quarterback who waffles about retirement, but would Warner even be in playing shape?

A better idea would be to give the Vikings compensation for Tarvaris Jackson (as noted by Dylan in the podcast) or even Sage Rosenfels. Either of these players could compete for the starting quarterback job in Arizona if given a few weeks in the system. They wouldn't be ready to play immediately, but it is an idea. I think this is a better idea than hoping Warner comes out of retirement. That's if the Cardinals are really worried, which I am not sure they should be at this point.

Leinart looked uneasy against Tennessee in his three series with the first unit; he showed little confidence.

I watched the 2005 National Championship game and saw Leinart throwing bullets all over the field to his receivers. He didn't make just the easy throws either and he even made some good reads. So I am saying I still sort of believe in him a bit. I know I may be the last person to believe in Matt Leinart, but I don't know if his performance in the preseason means he will be terrible in the regular season. It may, I guess we will find out.

Warner twice last night tried to throw cold water via Twitter on any chance he'd play again. "OK, y'all... I am watching game... I am not coming back... and I would still appreciate your help! LOL, sorry guys, u know def of 'retire'?'' Meaning, "Do you guys know the definition of 'retire?' '' I'd still make the call if I were Whisenhunt.

At this point, could Warner even come back and play at the level he played at before? Why would he come back? He has a history of concussions and in his last game as a pro he was popped very hard by a Saints player and laid on the ground for a while. I think Warner is done.

It's nearly too late in the season now to trade for a quarterback, though if I were the Cardinals I would dig around, but if Warner isn't coming back, then the Cardinals are stuck with Leinart and Anderson. I don't know how much the preseason really means when it comes to judging these quarterbacks.

Ross Tucker and I had former Redskins Executive VP Vinny Cerrato, who signed Albert Haynesworth, on Sirius NFL Radio this morning. I asked him if he still thought the Haynesworth signing was a good idea, with all the hubbub between the unhappy defensive tackle and coach Mike Shanahan now. "At the time, we did it, yes,'' said Cerrato, who was dismissed by Dan Snyder last December and replaced by Bruce Allen. "We had been struggling on defense, and getting the most dominant player [in free-agency] at the time to upgrade the defense, yes, it was a wise move.''

This is one of the reasons Vinny Cerrato wasn't a great Executive VP for the Redskins. Haynesworth was the most dominant player in free agency, but you can't make decisions like this in a vacuum. The fact Haynesworth had caused the Titans problems in the past, his stepping on the head of Andre Gurode, and the fact he seemed to only play hard in contract years are all reasons why the Haynesworth signing wasn't a no-brainer. These are the type of things that should be weighed before the Redskins decided to sign Haynesworth. It's fine if they decided Haynesworth was worth the risk, but Cerrato can't act like there were never warning signs around Haynesworth before they gave him a huge contract.

But now? Would Cerrato do it again? "Would I do it again, with all this stuff? That's a different story. That's Monday morning quarterbacking.''

No, it is not Monday morning quarterbacking. It is expecting you to do your job as the Executive VP of the Redskins and do all your homework on a player before you sign him to a huge contract. It is not like there were never signs Haynesworth was a malcontent, so there isn't any Monday morning quarterbacking in this situation. The signs were there, the Redskins ignored the signs and decided to give Haynesworth a big contract. The criticism would be unfair if Haynesworth was a perfect citizen with the Titans, but that's not the case. I am not saying anyone could have foreseen this exact scenario but Haynesworth had questions surrounding him when he was a free agent, so any criticism of his signing is just criticism.

It is, but it's still interesting that the Redskins paid an unreliable guy $35 million in the first 17 months of his contract, and he's been, well, unreliable.

Exactly. Vinny Cerrato can't get from under this decision simply because he was blinded by Haynesworth's talent. Problems from Haynesworth wasn't a certainty, but anyone who took a look at his career stats (which the Redskins may not have done) can see he is unreliable.

It irritates me when executives sign a unreliable or previously crappy player who doesn't work out with the team and then acts like it was a shock the player didn't perform well.

"Your discussion of the short shelf life of RBs brought to mind a question I meant to ask Dr. Z: Do you think a one-year sabbatical would help extend the career of a running back? Say after a player's first contract is up, the RB takes a year off to heal. I know it may seem impractical, but would one year off add two or three more productive years on the back end?''

--Bill, South Windsor, Conn.


The problem with this idea is the player has taken a year off from playing in the NFL and one year of recovering may not equal two or three more productive years. It is not like running backs who carry the ball a lot, eventually get 100% healed. Also, why would a player take a year off after his first contract is up, essentially ruining his contract leverage and not maximizing his value by signing a second contract AFTER he has taken a year off?

PK: I think it would obviously help the back heal, but it would also present a difficult problem for planning your roster. Let's say you're a GM, and you draft a back with the plan to have him play every other year, and sit out/train/rehab in the alternate years. First, it's going to create a problem in the locker room, because players at other physically punishing positions will ask: "Hey, what about me? Why's the running back position such a prima donna position?''

I would think some NFL players would understand given the shelf life of a running back, but many of the other players would not understand. More importantly, I don't get why a running back would retire for a year when he is playing for a new contract.

Even more importantly, I don't think Peter understood the question. This guy was asking about a running back taking a one year sabbatical, not only playing every other year like Peter suggested.

And the other problem, I would think, would be if a back came out of his rookie season with just a bump or bruise, and by March 1 is healthy as a horse. Why keep him out of the lineup?

We are talking about a one year sabbatical, not a running back only playing every other year. Obviously if a running back isn't hurt at all then he could play in the upcoming year.

"Do you think the actions by Brett Favre over the last two years (holding out of training camp, on purpose) will result in any new rules set forth by the owners that a player under contract must attend all organized team activities or be fined accordingly? It just seems that Favre is setting a precedent, where other players will follow, that will anger management and the fans alike by putting themselves above the team."

--Paul Haering, Woodbury, Minn.


PK: You raise a great point. And in the future, I think the Vikings might pay for putting one player so far above the team.

Thanks for not answering the question Joe Morgan. Peter didn't answer the question at all.

Players do hold out of training camp and they get fined for it. So there are players who hold out of training camp on purpose, but they get fined. I don't think there should be a rule set forth by the owners or anything like that, but teams should probably know when a player is holding out intentionally and decide if they will let a player get away with it or not. The Vikings decided they would let Favre get away with it and this was a team decision.

Enjoy the weekend (or what's left of it) everyone.

Sunday, May 30, 2010

0 comments It Feels Like Mark Bradley Is Baiting Me Here

I wanted to start off the post reminding everyone if you wanted to help Respect Jeters Gangster give donations to the Childrens Health Fund, then just follow the link and donate. You will be entered into a raffle for tickets to an August 7th game between the Red Sox and Yankees by making a donation. Just make sure you let it be known that you were directed to the website by RJG. That way you are entered in the raffle. It's a good cause, so give if you can.

Mark Bradley is one of my favorite sportswriters. He is a writer for the AJC and writes about sports (obviously) for the paper. I happened to notice he had something not-nice to say about my favorite NFL team that I disagreed with and it can be tied into Peter King's MMQB for last week when Peter ranked all of the NFL teams. I will also cover Peter's mailbag for this week, but first I will let Mark Bradley have his say about the Falcons spot in Peter's arbitrary rankings.

Mark Bradley is one of the few writers I follow in Twitter and has been seen on this blog a couple of times, but usually in a positive manner than usually seen for a sportswriter. He is also (full disclosure) the only major sportswriter to have linked this blog on his blog at the AJC, which I am eternally grateful to him for doing. It may sound hypocritical for a blogger who criticizes the sportswriting media to be happy he got linked on a sportswriter's site, but it is a sportswriter I enjoy reading so it was exciting to see he had this blog linked. Obviously this doesn't mean he is excluded from having his work seen here, but the fact he doesn't like Brett Favre too much doesn't hurt him in my eyes.

Anyway, time to disagree with him a bit (and also turn into a homer) and then on to Peter King's Tuesday mailbag briefly.

In his newest power rankings, Mr. King ranks the Falcons 16th in a 32-team league, which would be the utter definition of mediocrity. He also sees the Falcons as the third-best team in the four-team NFC South, behind both New Orleans (No. 5) and Carolina (No. 8).

(Loses all ability to be humble) Since I did predict the entire finishing order of the NFC South correctly last year, I feel like I can do so this year as well...just not right now. I am not a crazy person like Peter King and think I can do a power poll almost 4 months in advance. I see Atlanta and Carolina pretty closely matched and I see New Orleans taking a bit of a dive this year.

That’s correct. He has the Panthers, who historically are the NFL most’s overrated bunch, eight spots ahead of the Falcons.

There is the comment. I think he is referring to the Panthers being predicted by Sports Illustrated to make or win the Super Bowl twice in the 2000's when this did not occur. This makes them overrated I guess. I disagree, I think the Panthers have been properly rated. Other than the two instances in Sports Illustrated I can't think of too many times when great things were predicted for the Panthers. They haven't even been in existence as a franchise long enough to be overrated.

Mr. King believes dumping Jake Delhomme and will propel Carolina onward and upward, which it might. But still: A team with an unproven quarterback (Matt Moore)

Moore has a career record of 6-2 as a starter. The Panthers were 4-7 under Jake Delhomme and 4-1 under Matt Moore last year. Moore also played during a period when both starting offensive tackles were on IR. He had less to work with by the end of the year then Delhomme did at the beginning of the year. Last year, and most likely this year, they would be a better team with Moore over Jake Delhomme. Hell, they'd be a better team with anyone over Delhomme, but Moore was the guy who got the job and did the job fairly well.

and a potential lame duck of a head coach (John Fox) is going to jump above the Falcons, who with all their injuries still finished a game ahead of the Panthers in 2009?

I am not going to defend Peter King's rankings or say the Panthers are going to be better than the Falcons this year, but the Panthers had their share of injuries as well. They had both offensive tackles miss a good portion of the year, they lost their second-best linebacker for the year (Thomas Davis), lost their fullback (which is important for a team that runs the ball a lot) for a few games, and had nearly every single defensive tackle on the roster at beginning of the year (and a few they signed to replace those guys) end up on IR as well. So they had their share of injuries. As bad as the Falcons had injuries on defense? Definitely not, but it isn't as far off as one would think.

(Oh, yes. One thing more. Julius Peppers no longer plays for Carolina.)

Which means there will be two defensive ends on the team who play the ENTIRE 16 game schedule this year. Not one DE who plays 8-10 games while the other DE plays all 16 games.

The point here isn’t to argue with the esteemed PK but to note his reasons for not loving the Falcons. Quoth Mr. King:

The Falcons are healthier, and better. I just think there are two teams in the division better right now — unless Matt Ryan has a Drew Brees-type year. I don’t think he has one of those in him … yet. Not many quarterbacks do.

Peter's reasoning probably sucks, but I still don't see how this definitively says the Falcons are going to be 1st/2nd in the division even if Peter is wrong.

And I can’t understand how Carolina minus Peppers is a more enticing team than the Falcons plus Robinson.

Really, the argument Mark Bradley has should be with the Saints ranking, not with where the Panthers are in Peter's rankings. The Saints are due for a fall this year in my mind and I think they are overranked. I know they won the Super Bowl, but I still have questions about how they will fare this upcoming year. The defense still doesn't impress me...of course they did seem to do fine last year.

Though don't know for absolute sure how Carolina is more enticing to Peter King than the Falcons either, I don't think it has to do with Julius Peppers' absence. The Panthers actually weren't a terrible team last year (outside of the quarterback position), so I think they could be better than the Falcons this year. Of course, the Panthers cut or traded nearly every veteran on the team this offseason. They cut Nai'l Diggs, Damione Lewis, Chris Harris, Maake Kemoeatu, and Brad Hoover. If you were over 28 years old (and weren't Steve Smith or John Kasay), they cut you. The absence of Peppers isn't the Panther's problem, it is the youth of the team. Except on the offensive line, they are a fairly young team. That's somewhat of a drawback to choosing them as the NFC South winner.

Still, I think a case could be made the Panthers underachieved last year and could be the best team in the NFC South with a good quarterback.

But reasonable folks can, I submit, disagree reasonably. And I guess that’s what I’m doing here. Because I think the 2010 Falcons will be really, really good. Division-winning good.

Maybe they can be division-winning good, but I don't see them as a surer shot than the Panthers at this point simply because the Panthers don't have Julius Peppers and start a quarterback (whoever it is) that isn't Jake Delhomme.

Also, John Fox is coaching for a contract. He is a Top 10 coach anyway, so he will try to do a great job with the Carolina team this year. I don't think Atlanta is clearly that much better than Carolina at this point.

On to some of the choice parts of Peter's mailbag for this week.

There's not a lot of clarity in the wake of the American Needle decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.

It's good to see the Supreme Court came to the rational decision that the NFL is 32 independent teams and not one business. Each team in the NFL isn't a division of the NFL, but a separate entity that is independently held and independently run and operated. I don't know how any court could see this isn't true.

Except for one thing: I don't see it pushing the two sides to the bargaining table to quicken the process toward a labor deal when the current one runs out following the 2011 NFL Draft.

Of course not. Why start to work towards a labor deal now and spare the public 10 more months of posturing by either side until they eventually come to the same deal they would have struck in July 2010, but didn't want to be seen as "giving in" at that point in time?

I have always been fascinated by how each side in a lockout seems to think the longer they hold out, the more it looks like they are driving a harder bargain rather than just being stubborn. A deal is going to get done, but if either side helps to get it done too quickly it will look like they gave in too quickly as well. This happens a lot in Congress as well, which is why there is so much gridlock there.

Though the 9-0 decision could pave the way for the players to eventually decertify and attack the bargaining process in a different way (such a decertification would mean the players could claim not to be a union,

On this issue, I can understand the reasoning of both sides of the argument. I could see how the players could claim to not be a union. General Motors (or what is left of it) doesn't form a union with Toyota just because they both sell cars, so each team in the NFL could claim to be their own business and say they can't unionize together. In essence the Supreme Court said each team is their own business playing under the heading of the NFL though, so I could also see how each team in the NFL could unionize since they are playing under the heading of the NFL. I see it both ways.

Regardless, not shockingly this won't do anything positive for the lockout that will happen next year.

and that has tended to force both sides to the bargaining table in the past) there's little evidence the league will move aggressively to make concessions to try to forge any real progress in the stalled talks.

Can talks be stalled if there haven't been very serious talks in the first place?

I've said this for the past year, and I'm sure I'll say it for the next nine months: These labor deals always come together (or not) at the 11th hour, and I don't expect real progress 'til next spring at the earliest.

Because what's the fun in agreeing with each other and passing up the chance to not enjoy the 2010 season since there is a looming lockout that puts the 2011 season in jeopardy? It's more fun for the Player's union and the NFL to cause the fans of the NFL to believe the league will shut down for 2011. Watching fans of the NFL get depressed over the potential of not having a 2011 season seems to be something the union and NFL get off on...or more likely don't care about.

Onto Peter's email...

From Eric Moore of Anchorage: "Follow me for a sec:

This is good, I promise, let's follow Eric on this.

Roger Clemens: Sure-fire Hall of Famer, kept retiring, waffling and coming back late at the end of his career. Surprisingly productive seasons after he seemingly had lost a step. Turned out, at least to my way of thinking, he was avoiding the MLB drug testing program by being retired in the offseason.

Off the bat, it is pretty clear Eric is just shooting in the dark here because I am pretty sure Clemens never filed retirement papers, which makes him subject to MLB drug tests. I don't think he could have avoided them, but someone correct me if I am wrong. Still, we all know Clemens used PEDs in some form, even though he denies it.

Brett Favre:

Yes...yes...keep going Eric.

Sure-fire Hall of Famer, kept retiring, waffling and coming back late at the end of his career. Surprisingly productive seasons after he seemingly had lost a step. ...

If there is one way to get on Peter's bad side, it is to talk negatively about Brett Favre. If there is a way to get on Peter's bad side and get a public scolding, it is to accuse Favre in any way of cheating. Sure, his great season last year really doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense considering how old he is, especially considering I am not sure how much "working out" he was doing in Mississippi over the summer. Does throwing a football to high school kids count as "working out?"

I don't believe Favre would use PEDs. We can all justify Favre's year by saying he just keeps himself in really good physical shape just like those older baseball players who hit the ball well later in their career like Barry Bonds...wait, nevermind. It is not like Favre has a history of using drugs either. Wait, ignore that...um, let's allow Eric to dig himself a bigger hole with Peter.

I know you can't just throw out accusations against players with no evidence, but I just think a lot of fans are frustrated and fed up with the total shock displayed by talking heads when news comes out about an athlete's positive test or association with a tainted doctor. We've already been talking amongst ourselves about this stuff, so it just gets so tiresome when professionals act like they can't believe it.

Peter is shocked that Eric is angry that Peter gets shocked when an athlete tests positive for a PED. He is shocked and angered. He doesn't know these athletes like Peter does and if he did then he would know how shocking these revelations can be.

Maybe we turned a corner with the Brian Cushing thing, or maybe he was just a rookie and easy to shove under a bus.''

He was a rookie and easy to shove under the bus. There is no way the writers would take an MVP award away from a quarterback like Tom Brady, Drew Brees, or Peyton Manning if it was found out their entire receiving corp used PEDs and I don't believe the AP would take away an MVP from certain other players in the league. Brian Cushing was a rookie and he hasn't done enough interviews and kissed enough ass to be beloved quite yet.

Let's just say Eric is going to get publicly scolded by Peter now.

PK: You're talking about two different subjects here, I think. Yes, I think it's naive to be shocked every time a guilty PED guy surfaces, and now I'm surprised at nothing.

Bullshit. Peter is trying to tell us he wouldn't be shocked to find out Peyton Manning used a PED in some form to recover quicker from his injury two years ago? The entire Colts season was riding on whether he could recover in time. That's his motive for doing whatever he could to get on the field. If it was found out Manning used something to get back on the field quicker, there is no way Peter wouldn't act surprised. He would be absolutely shocked, so I don't believe him when he says he isn't surprised anymore at PED revelations.

Do I think Brett Favre used PEDs during his career? No, I don't. I am naive to think that I am wrong? No, I am not. Favre had a pretty good last year and I believe he is egotistical enough to believe that using any type of PED was for the purpose of helping him and helping his team and this is how he would justify it. Honestly, after the Steroid Era of baseball we pretty much have to suspect any older player that puts up incredible numbers in every sport of possibly using some sort of PED. It just has to happen that way since the public has been burned a few times in regards to MLB players using PEDs to extend their career.

But Favre? If you're suspicious about him trying to avoid drug-testing, the fact is until a player files retirement papers, he is subject to all the testing rules of football.

This is very true. He can get drug-tested at any point, so that is Favre's defense for any accusations.

If he is in the NFL's drug-testing programs and is called to give a sample in the offseason, he has to comply. (I doubt he's in the program, by the way, but any player who is in the program is subject to being tested year-round.)

This part about "I doubt he's in the program, by the way..." goes back to Eric's point that sportswriters, and specifically Peter King, would still be surprised if something about Brett Favre came out. Peter says he isn't shocked by any NFL player revealed to have used PEDs, but if he wouldn't be shocked Favre was in the NFL's drug program, but it doesn't seem that way. Peter is fibbing a bit when he says he is no longer surprised about anything.

Modern athletes are unfortunately suspected if they perform well at an older age, because there has been reason to suspect these athletes in the past based on baseball's Steroid Era.
It's a stigma Olympians face and nearly every athlete that excels at his sport has to face, except in the NFL for some reason. It may due to the public just assuming NFL players throw all sorts of crap in their body in order to play well.

I am sure Peter did three Hail Marys after even discussing Brett Favre in relation to PEDs.

From Rob Martin of Houston: "Regarding Marc Bulger, if not the Cardinals, then where do you think he would best fit?''

The CFL. That's an easy question to answer.

From Brad Bourbina of Pittsburg, Kan.: "What are the players' thoughts on the Super Bowl being played in New Jersey? I've heard a lot of opinions from analysts, radio talkers and former players, but what do the Mannings and Favres (ok, maybe not him) think? I always got the impression the players and coaches saw Super Bowl week as something of a "reward" for getting this far and treated it like a vacation (preparation for the biggest game of the year aside).''

PK: I don't think players will be pleased. I haven't spoken to any of them about it, but usually players want to do things in warm climes -- golf, the beach -- in their free time. Now, some of them will be excited, I'm sure, to go clubbing in Manhattan on Monday night and Tuesday night,

My favorite part about having the Super Bowl in New York (actually New Jersey) for 2014, which I actually don't mind, is that now every major city in the North is going to want the Super Bowl. Dan Snyder already thinks Washington deserves one and I am sure cities in states like Pennsylvania and Massachusetts aren't far behind. The NFL may have opened a can of worms here they will end up regretting at some point. Every major city that doesn't traditionally get the Super Bowl is going to want one, from California to Washington D.C. Why shouldn't Washington get the Super Bowl if there are no problems with playing the game outdoors in New York?

Saturday, January 30, 2010

11 comments Mark Bradley Feels Vindicated, Shouldn't Expect Christmas Card From the Favres and Bill Plaschke Still Writes One Sentence Paragraphs

Mark Bradley feels vindicated about his opinion of Brett Favre last year. He wrote an article last year calling Brett Favre "the most overrated athlete of our time." It was classic and now Mr. Bradley feels good about his statement. I know I keep piling on Favre, but I can't help but do it since I have had to deal with hearing him get praised for the entire NFL season.

I'll get to what Mark Bradley wrote in a minute, but first we all have to pay attention to Bill Plaschke and his opinion on overtime in the NFL. His opinion is important after all, because he appears on ESPN and yells into a camera with said opinion using a slight lisp. The rule as always on ESPN is, "thou who yells the loudest shall be heard the most and get more air time," hence guys like Bill Plaschke get to appear on "Around the Horn" as much as they want. Who really cares if Plaschke mostly writes puff pieces about elderly baseball scouts and rarely has an opinion that is interesting? He is on ESPN, so that means we should pay attention to what he thinks about overtime in the NFL.

The title of this wonderful piece of literature? "It's hard to make heads or tails of NFL's overtime rule."

Get it? The NFL's overtime starts with a coin flip to determine possession of the football. A coin has a "heads" side and a "tails" side, so the title is a play on words! Who said creative journalism is dead? I don't necessarily disagree overtime needs a few changes, but I don't like Plaschke's reasoning for it.

I know many times columnist don't write their own headlines, but I am not sure I could have my picture below a title that is a play on words like this one. At some point, there has to be self respect present. Of course Plaschke also has his picture in black and white on the LA Times site so you can't notice his white facial hair. At first glance if you haven't seen him on television you would think he has a growth on his face near the bottom, but at a closer glance it's just his facial hair.

On to the "column..."

The truth was hard to hear amid a Superdome din, difficult to see through French Quarter tears, impossible to reckon immediately after what felt like one of the most deserved victories in NFL history.

This was one paragraph. Bill Plaschke writes sports columns like they are written in the form of children's books.

(Page 1) "The Superdome was very loud."

(Page 2) "The Vikings were sad because they lost."

(Page 3) "The Vikings felt the rules weren't fair and told the Saints this."

(Page 4) "The Saints did not care because they had won the game."

(Page 5) "This made the Vikings sad."

(Page 6) "Brett Favre threatened to retire."

Two days later, though, it's still there, pounding like a hangover, reeking like a Bourbon Street back alley.

The imagery. I feel like I am reading Michael Connelly's latest best seller right now. The imagery is vivid.

Two days later, the truth is staring in the face of a league too shrouded in 36 years of silly tradition to see it.

So far there have been three sentences and three paragraphs. This is just what you expect when you read a Bill Plaschke column.

That great victory by the New Orleans Saints against the Minnesota Vikings in the NFC championship game Sunday night?

It wasn't fair.

That was two separate paragraphs. I would also like to add that life is not fair and the Vikings are big boys and will get over it. If you turn the ball over 7 times you can't expect to win a football game. Especially an NFC Championship Game. I think it says something about this in the Bible somewhere.

The Saints won during an overtime period in which the Vikings never touched the ball.

The Vikings never touched the ball because the Vikings defense couldn't prevent the Saints from scoring. Offense isn't the only part of a football game, there is also defense and special teams. Just ask the Cardinals, they lost the coin flip in the playoffs and still won the game. There offense didn't touch the ball either, so it's possible to win a game and not get the ball first.

That being said, I am not a huge fan of the current overtime system.

Only in the NFL can a game be decided by an extension of play in which both teams might not have an equal chance to score.

Actually, there is sudden death overtime in soccer and hockey as well. I realize the possessions are different in these sports, but in hockey if a player is in the penalty box at the end of regulation he is still in the box during overtime, so the game will be decided when both teams don't have an equal chance to score.

Only in the NFL can a game be contested for three hours by two full teams, then be decided in 10 minutes by only half of each team.

Really in the NFL aren't there a bunch of games that are decided by only half of each team? If a team has a terrible defense or offense, while the other team doesn't, the game will most likely be decided by only that half of the team. This is the reason a General Manager and head coach tries to build the best rounded team possible, so if the defense has to stop the opposing team's offense they can. Or if the special teams needs to give the opposing team bad field position they can. Heck, a lot of teams make the playoffs based on some good luck or a favorable schedule they had during that year. Everything in the NFL is not controllable.

My argument would be that both teams have had 60 minutes to score as many points as they could, what good is giving each side one possession guaranteed going to do? A defense should be able to stop an offense just as easily as an offense should be able to score on a defense. I would bet more often a defense stops an offense from scoring than an offense scores on a defense. I doubt an offense scores a field goal or a touchdown on more than 50% of their possessions.

The NFL calls it sudden death, but that's true only for the loser of the coin toss. For the winner of that toss, it's instant life.

I won't argue the winner of the coin toss has an advantage, these statistics from 2004 show over the period of 1974-2003 that the winner of the coin toss won the game 52% of the time. This article says that 30% of the time a team lost the coin toss and then ended up never touching the ball. I am not going to say those numbers aren't statistically significant, but it's not quite the overwhelming evidence that Plaschke tries to play it off as to where ANY TIME a team loses the coin toss they lose the game. The team who is on defense does have a shot at stopping the other team's offense.

Not to dull the justified buzz of the Saints' 31-28 victory, but, well, you saw it.

Yes, I did see the Saints turn the ball over 7 times including having the ball intercepted at the end of regulation when they could have advanced the ball a few yards and attempted a game winning kick. I saw this game.

The Vikings, you'll recall, lost the overtime coin toss, kicked to the Saints, absorbed a 40-yard kickoff return by Pierre Thomas, then watched the Saints drive all of 39 yards before Garrett Hartley won it with a 40-yard field goal.

Whose fault was the 40-yard kickoff return? The NFL's fault. Or maybe the coin flip's fault. If not the NFL or the coin flip's fault, it certainly wasn't the Vikings special teams fault, that's for sure.

I am not a fan of the current overtime system and I think it could use some tweaks (yes, I would be pissed if my favorite team lost a game where they didn't touch the ball in overtime), but the Vikings did more to hurt their chances to win the game than the NFL's policy of having a coin flip ever did. If the Vikings special teams had played better, perhaps Pierre Thomas would not have gotten such a long return. Special teams are a part of the game as well.

In a game of offense and defense, why does the overtime period not involve both teams' offense and defense?

Actually football is a game of offense, defense and special teams. All the facets of a football game made an appearance in the overtime except for the Vikings offense and Saints defense. So 66% of the facets of each team made an appearance in the overtime. If the Vikings offense and special teams had played well, the Vikings offense could have gotten the ball back. It sucks for the Vikings and I do feel bad for their fans. There is no doubt the NFL's overtime needs a little tweaking.

Certainly, while watching the Saints drive toward victory, it was easy to say, "Well, Favre ended the game by throwing the interception, he deserves to watch."

I am not saying the Saints should have been punished for having turnovers, but they did blow a ton of opportunities to win the game. Most likely, if the Vikings have half the turnovers they had they would be in the Super Bowl right now.

But he was watching only because his team called "heads" and the coin showed "tails." He was never given a final chance to win this dramatic, drawn-out game of skill because his team lost a five-second game of chance.

Favre was not watching ONLY because of the coin flip. He was a part of the road that led the Vikings to not winning the game in regulation. Really, Favre didn't need a final chance because the Vikings offense had been given multiple chances. Yes, the NFL should change the overtime rule, but I think the Vikings-Saints game is a bad game to look at and determine the coin flip is what screwed the loser out of winning the game.

"I actually think you should give the other team a possession," Dan Marino, Hall of Fame quarterback, said Tuesday on a CBS conference call. "Especially [with] Brett Favre.

If it were Kyle Orton or Chad Henne he wouldn't deserve a possession in overtime, but since it is Brett Favre he is special enough to where he especially deserves a chance to redeem himself.

Sharpe took the popular view that if an NFL defense can't stop its opponent on the first overtime possession, then that team doesn't deserve to win.

"Fairness doesn't happen in professional sports . . . These are grown men. . . . I need [Vikings end] Jared Allen, the third-highest-paid defensive player in the league, to step up for me and make a play," Sharpe said.

Like most things in this world, the harder we all try to make something more fair, the less fair it will end up being. Also, Shannon Sharpe has a point. Defensive players get paid a lot of money for a reason, to play defense well, and defense is a part of the game like offense. So I can see how those in favor of the current overtime system may have a point, though the coin flip issue still bothers me. If the NFL doesn't want to overhaul the entire overtime, the coin flip should be done at the beginning of the game so the teams can game plan accordingly.

It's one thing to have respected former NFL stars and commentators arguing about player performance or coaching decisions. But here, two weeks before the Super Bowl, and they're arguing about a rule?

It's a dead week for the NFL. There is very little else to talk about since coaches are not getting fired and there is really nothing else exciting happening.

It is often difficult to get 24 of 32 owners to agree on anything, but shouldn't changing this rule be the easiest decision since allowing shoulder pads?

Bill Plaschke is such an idiot sometimes. This is from earlier in this column:

I asked the question on the Super Bowl preview conference call, and immediately the network's three pregame experts began debating it. Marino wants the rule changed. Shannon Sharpe does not. Boomer Esiason seemed uncertain.

So Plaschke asked three football experts what they thought and none of them could agree on the solution, but he seems to think 75% of the current NFL owners could agree on a proposal to fix overtime? Obviously, just from Plaschke's own small sample size it is shows that figuring out how to do overtime isn't an easy decision to agree upon.

According to the Elias Sports Bureau, since the rule's inception in 1974, the winner of the coin toss has won 239 times in 445 games, a 54% rate.

However, around 70% of those victories came by field goals, which means not only can overtime be played without one team's offense, but it can be played with only a fraction of the other team's offense.

What? How the hell did overtime get played with only a fraction of the other team's offense? Is Plaschke trying to tell me 70% of 239 games ended with a kickoff and then a made field goal without the winning team's offense running a play? Because that's exactly what he is saying by stating the game was won with a fraction of the other team's offense. Simply because a game ended with a field goal doesn't mean the entire offense of the team that won didn't play in overtime. At some point the offense got the field goal kicker in position to kick the game-winning field goal, so I don't see what Plaschke is saying here.

If a team that wins the coin toss scores, then that team kicks off to the other team for its one shot. If the team that wins the toss is stopped, the other team simply takes over and they play until someone scores.

This is Plaschke's idea to fix overtime. Again, what happens if both teams score? Is there another round where each team gets a shot or does it go to sudden death at this point? If it goes to sudden death, we all know my feelings on this, and if each team gets another shot, then Plascke is pretty much suggesting the college system of overtime.

Think the Saints would have played for only a field goal if they knew Favre would get the ball back? Think Drew Brees would have been the winning quarterback by throwing for just 21 yards on the final drive?

How many yards Drew Brees threw for in overtime has nothing to do with whether the current overtime system works or not. Throwing the football is not the measure of whether a team deserves to win a game or not.

"They're not going to change the rules until it happens in the Super Bowl," said Marino.

He's right. Only when the worst rule in American sports is exposed on American sports' biggest stage will it finally die. Can you imagine?

Saints: "We really want this Super Bowl championship."

Colts: "Fine, we'll flip you for it."

I like how Bill Plaschke is pretending there wasn't 60 minutes of football played prior to the coin flip in overtime where each team had a chance to outscore the other team. He just conveniently ignores this little fact. I don't necessarily fully like the current overtime system, but there has never been a time when anyone can really agree on how overtime should be set up to make it more "fair." Mostly, Bill Plaschke sucks at writing.

-Now to Mark Bradley, last year I covered a blog entry he had where he bemoaned Brett Favre's retirement last summer...and not because he missed Favre, but because he wanted him to stay gone and knew he wouldn't. This was what I wrote covering his article/blog posting then. (My favorite part is when Gene Wojciechowski is defending the team around Favre, saying he didn't have weapons to work with...these are the same weapons a rookie QB took to the AFC Championship Game. I know the Jets defense was better and Sanchez played worse than Favre, but they are still the same weapons...outside of Braylon Edwards and is he really a "weapon?")

Mark Bradley is one of my favorite sports columnists. I don't always agree with him but he backs up some of his wild and crazy ideas and statements with some sort of proof, which is all I can really ask. This is Bradley feeling vindicated.

I’d been hearing it lately: “Ready to admit you were wrong about Favre?” And I admit I was almost – almost, I said — wavering. The man I’d described as the most overrated athlete of our time had had a brilliant regular season. I didn’t see that coming.

I don't think anyone saw the season Brett Favre had coming. I did not back down and say I was wrong about Favre, because I knew he would give me more ammunition at some point.

And now he stood one game from a Super Bowl, and the thought of a two-week ESPN Favre-fest was enough to turn my stomach.

Millions of American's stomachs instantly felt better when the idea of ESPN not being able to ram Favre down our throat for an entire two weeks happened.

I keep saying to myself, “He can still mess this up.” Lo and behold, he did. Which is why Brett Favre is …

The most overrated athlete of our time.

I still don't know if I can agree with this assertion, but the blog posting from February I covered of Mark Bradley's tried to make a good case for it.

Naturally, the sycophants on ESPN declared Favre a man’s man for trying to Make A Play, but the first rule of NFL quarterbacking remains: Protect the Doggone Ball. But he couldn’t do it because he’s Brett Favre, the man’s man who never saw a dare he wouldn’t take.

Mark Bradley is talking about Tom Jackson's comment that made my jaw hit the floor when I heard it:

“That’s the thing about Brett Favre; he’s not afraid to throw an interception. That’s one of the things I most admire about him.”

I have heard every excuse in the world so far this year for Jake Delhomme's performance this year, outside of this one, but leave it to an ESPN analyst to make the best excuse for an interception-throwing quarterback. This is such a fail on so many levels by Tom Jackson I shouldn't even get into it.

I will just say it's one thing for a quarterback to not be afraid to throw an interception and it is a completely different thing for a quarterback to actually throw an interception in a crucial point of a game like Favre did. A quarterback can't play afraid, but he also has to be smart. Brett Favre has treaded and crossed over that line many times in his career.

So now I can rest easy, at least until Favre retires and unretires again. He’s done for this season. His last pass was a postseason interception, same as in January 2008. Being Brett Favre, he teared up in the postgame interview because he’s a man’s man who isn’t afraid to cry. Or wear Wrangler jeans. Or throw the ball to the other side.

I hate to say always post bad things about Brett Favre, especially now that the season is over, but after having to deal with an entire season of Favre-mania I feel like I am due one week to gloat a little bit in the fact that this season ended for Favre and his team the exact way his season with the Packers in 2008. Favre has padded his personal stats and enhanced his personal legacy, but from a team perspective, he is coming off another tough playoff loss where he threw a crucial late interception. So he is basically two years older and on a different team, but still has the bitter taste of a tough playoff defeat in his mouth...just like in 2008.

The last couple sentences Mark Bradley wrote here are pretty brutal/funny. Interestingly, Mark Bradley is also in a (many years-long) feud with John Smoltz. Maybe it's something about white, elderly gentlemen with beards who keep talking about retirement that doesn't sit well with him.

Either way, I think this is the official end of my Favre-mania...until he decides to retire/unretire and I rip into him again.

Friday, February 13, 2009

2 comments Mark Bradley Hates Brett Favre and Thinks Kittens Deserve to Be Run Over If They Run Into Traffic

I saw this on the Big Lead first and of course had to check out the article. Mark Bradley is not unhappy that Brett Favre has retired. What Mark Bradley has written is the very opposite of a puff piece, but its not a vindictive Jay Mariotti type piece either. It is the anti-puff piece, written without anger, but with a sense of calm only insanity can give you...but it doesn't mean he is wrong.

When last Brett Favre retired, he wept. If he unretires again, I’ll weep. I never want to see him throw another interception. I feel like I’ve seen every one of them — all 310, if you’re counting — and yet I feel utterly alone in my opinion.

You are not alone, I feel like I have seen a lot of Brett Favre interceptions and I want him to stay retired. I don't dislike him but he has overstayed his welcome. Brett Favre has put up some great numbers as a quarterback, but he has left us all emotionally drained from his drama.

Which is this: Brett Favre is the most overrated athlete of our time.

Really? Joe Namath will arm wrestle Favre for that crown. Not only is Namath sporting a career completion percentage hardly over 50% but he also has thrown 47 more interceptions than touchdown passes and a career quarterback rating of 65.5. Oh, and he is in the Hall of Fame as one of the greatest players of all time to play football.

Look, Namath is probably lucky he got drunk one night at a Jets game and offered to kiss Suzy Kolber...twice, because he is now known as a guy who got drunk at a football game and made an ass of himself, as opposed to the most overrated quarterback of all time, which is really what he should be known as.

Favre isn’t the greatest quarterback ever. He’s not even in the top 10. He’s 20th all-time in passer rating, 17th in completion percentage.

Now he is cherry picking stats, but they are still very true. Anyone who reads this blog knows I am not the biggest Favre fan in the world and some of the numbers that Mark Bradley puts up are the reason. I don't know if I would take him out of the top 10 quarterbacks of all time. It is pretty close in my mind though.

That’s right. Kurt Warner. Who has won just as many titles as Favre, who has been to more Super Bowls, who has a better career completion percentage and a higher passer rating and a lower interception percentage but who had the misfortune of playing most of his career for the wrong Midwestern team in an unfrozen dome.

This Kurt Warner love is kind of overboard at this point. Warner has had 5 good seasons and Brett Favre has had 8 seasons that are comparable to Warner and those were all outstanding seasons. Favre has had other seasons where he put up good numbers, while Warner has been benched several times so he has seasons with bad numbers.

Warner also had the advantage of playing in warm weather or a dome for most of his career, so his numbers were never negatively affected by the weather.

I think Favre is a little overrated but he has been a better quarterback over his career than Kurt Warner.

And please oh please let him stay gone this time. The sport will somehow survive.

There were times when I wasn't reading a Peter King column that I forgot Favre was still playing, so yes, the league will survive.

Although, typically, a headline on ESPN.com Wednesday informed us “the NFL won’t be the same without him.”

That is a Gene W. column about Favre that goes overboard.

No, it won’t. There’ll be fewer interceptions and much less gushing.

Ouch. I feel very similar, just without the idea that Favre was the most overrated of all time.

Let's sample the Gene Wojciechowski column that made Mark Bradley forget to take his meds.

Maybe it was the cowardly teammate who anonymously ripped him in print. Maybe it was the absence of a game-breaking wide receiver or running back.

These excuses for Favre's performance are crappy. He had Jerricho Cotchery, Coles, Thomas Jones, and Dustin Keller. Those were some weapons.

It wasn't the way he wanted to go out -- an 8-3 Jets start, a 1-4 finish -- but his legacy survived just fine. I think he could have played another year.

Gene was clearly not paying attention to the NFL at the end of this year. If Favre's shoulder was directly affecting him, then he had other accuracy problems to deal with as well.

But to blame Favre for the Jets' collapse would be like blaming Aaron Rodgers for the Packers' collapse.

No, the Packers were not good this year around Rodgers while the Jets were good around Favre. Rodgers played well this year and Brett Favre did not. The Jets collapse was partially Favre's fault.

Five years ago he might have been able to do more, but Favre at 39 was still better than a lot of quarterbacks in this league at 28.

I don't know, check out the stats. They aren't bad, but they are not great either.

Favre threw 464 career touchdown passes to 50 different players. If those 50 guys are smart, they saved each of those footballs.

Knowing Brett Favre, he probably actually took those footballs from the receiver who caught it, then gave it back to the receiver, but later requested the player give it back.

It's a good list, but what I'll remember about Favre isn't so much the games, but the way he played the games. His beard was gray, but his attitude was high school pep rally.

No Brett Favre puff piece is complete without a sentence similar to this one.

The NFL isn't going to be the same without Favre -- and how many players can you say that about? More than each of his records, that's the Favre legacy that counts.

I agree and part of his legacy is his interceptions and the problems he caused the fans, the Jets, the Packers and the NFL his last year with his retirement/non-retirement dance.

I can see how Mark Bradley may go insane after reading too many of these type articles. I am little woozy.

Saturday, September 6, 2008

2 comments Mark Bradley Speaks Common Sense and Terence Moore Refills His Crazy Pills Prescription

I am not apologizing for the propensity of Braves related posts lately. The amount of denial on the local sportswriter's part concerning their downfall is reaching epic levels. We'll get to Terence Moore and his continual insistence on comparing really shitty Braves teams to the current shitty Braves team to prove some insane point that really only his psychologist should be privy to.

First, it is like Mark Bradley beamed my inner thoughts into a coherent column. Not always easy to do. Read and listen to me cheer with pure glee.

The era of eminence has ended. The Braves are weaker than at any time since 1990
I wish he had started with a palindrome or a paper drawing illustrating his point because it would have been less stupid than this comment. All you have to do is look at the team's record to support this ingenius statement.

and they’re apt to get worse before they get better.

It's like God is whispering sweet nothings into my ear when I hear this sentence. Everyone in Atlanta who owns a pen/paper/typewriter and is employed by the Atlanta Journal Constitution get out of denial and join me and Mark Bradley in the sandbox of truth.

Frank Wren, the general manager since October 2007, believes his team “has the resources and the foundation” to retool. “We still need pieces,” he said, “but we don’t need a major overhaul.”

Hearing, a man asked: “Pieces?”

Said Wren: “They’re not little pieces — they’re big pieces.”

Just to sum up what the man who ran the Orioles into the ground over a year and half span means:

-We need big pieces but this does not count as a major overhaul.

-The resources and foundation are there, they have both been lost apparently.

-A major overhaul to him would be described as beginning as an expansion team...except they would probably hire a competent general manager to run the team, so that is really different from this situation.

Writing for SI.com, Nate Silver of Baseball Prospectus offered a ranking of the top 50 players around which an organization could build, and only one Brave — Brian McCann, at No. 11 — made the list.

This really means nothing but it does tell me enough to know Brian McCann is the best baseball player on the team and will probably be traded very soon as part of the "big pieces rebuilding process."

As it stands, Jair Jurrjens — who’s 22 and who has won two of nine starts since the All-Star break — would be the 2009 Opening Day pitcher.

Aren't there anymore old ass Braves pitchers we can sign to prevent this from happening? If Frank Wren was running for President his campaign slogan would be "The Illusion of Hope" and his running mate would be a shady man named Trace with an oddly shaped mustache and a penchant for chewing tobacco.

Wren: “It’s too early to talk to John and Tommy [about possible new contracts] until we get into the offseason and we have more information. There’s no sense talking about it now.”

I have the most important information needed to make this decision. They are very old and very injured so they should never talk about resigning them. Good. Decision made.

I love John Smoltz and Tom Glavine but can we just go ahead and lose their phone number? The only contract we should have for them is a contract out to maim them so they can't ever enter the Turner Field facility to pitch for the Braves again. Ok, maybe Smoltz because I don't ever want him to leave and he is not a human, he is a robot, I am not going to ever be shocked if he comes back next year and throws 200 innings. Glavine can take his ball and go home for all I would care though.

The outfield is in similar shambles. Mark Kotsay is gone. Jordan Schafer, the heir apparent, was suspended 50 games for using HGH; now reinstated, he’s hitting .269 in Class AA with more strikeouts than hits. Jeff Francoeur is fighting to keep his average above .230. Matt Diaz hasn’t played since May. Gregor Blanco and Omar Infante have four homers between them.

Good point but the problem is that he is assuming these players were good in the first place. Here is how I would write this sentence. "The outfield is in shambles, Mark Kotsay, Matt Diaz, Gregor Blanco, and Omar Infante all are way below average baseball players; Jordan Schafer is no longer using illegal products to enhance his performance and Bobby Cox will not give up on Jeff Francoeur so you will be subjected to his embarrassing hitting performances for years to come."

By the way, I am drinking Drano right now.

Yes, Wren could make a trade (or two, or three) to address deepening deficiencies, but who among Braves would yield the needed return? Yunel Escobar? (And who plays shortstop if he leaves?) Casey Kotchman? (Didn’t he just get here?) Jarrod Saltalamacchia? (Whoops, already did that deal.) Question: Do you see a “foundation”?

Answer: No, I do not.

I am giddy with glee upon reading this sentence. I am not trying to be a homer or have a "pity me attitude" but the same people who put this team together and get credit for this success, are not taking the blame for it falling apart. They don't blame the players, the general manager, or the manager. It's got to be someone's fault Casey "Bereavement Leave" Kotchman is the first baseman and not someone who has displayed the core competencies of being able to hit a baseball.

Can anyone outbid the Yankees for CC Sabathia? Is Pat Burrell, who has had two 100-RBI seasons, worth $15 million per annum? Is Adam Dunn, who has had three
So even the grand plan to get the team back to second place is flawed. By the way the answer to these questions are: no one will outbid them, he is not, and I have a crush on Adam Dunn's ability so I would say yes. He would fit in perfectly because he does not give a shit about winning according to the Blue Jay's GM, and neither do the Braves!

The “great, grand organization” — John Schuerholz’s description — is just another mediocrity. Restoring its luster will take years. Not months. Years.

Thank you for not being a homer writer Mark Bradley. You will be welcome in my mom's attic at any point to discuss sports with me.

Now for a semi-alternate view of the situation. What's that in your hand Terence "One R" Moore?

Is that Bobby Cox Kool-Aid?

Kool-Aid!

It’s not Bobby Cox. “No, this isn’t his fault,” said Chuck Tanner, referring to the Braves’ free fall in the National League East standings.

You mean the manager who managed the worst teams in Atlanta Braves history does not think it is the manager's fault? In other news, most criminals claim to be innocent, cops are mostly assholes, and MTV no longer plays music but is now an off shoot of Tiger Beat.

That said, Tanner, who should know such things, suggested that this really is the reincarnation of his 1988 Braves, which isn’t good, by the way.

No one who remembers the 1988 Braves thinks this is a good thing at all. I am not sure if Terence thinks the panic button should be hit or what other options should be looked into to turn the team around. He will suggest zero of these options, he just wants back up from someone it is not Bobby Cox's fault.

Also, why would you ask someone a question who was worse at this job than the person you talking about? Do they ask Mike Shula how Herm Edwards is doing as a head coach? Compared to Mike Shula, Herm Edwards is a freaking genius. Same thing with Chuck Tanner and Bobby Cox.

(Terence) "Chuck, you were a shitty manager. Do you think the current Braves team is Bobby Cox's fault?"

(Chuck Tanner) "Terence, it is not his fault and I know this because I was much worse at my job than he was/is. My ability to manage a mediocre team pales in comparison overall to his, which means I will generally think he is doing a good job, because if he was not, then I was doing an even worse job when I managed them and they sucked."

(Terence) "Thanks, Chuck! How is senility treating you?"

The current ones are wretched, but they already have more victories than the 54 for those other Braves.

So they are NOT the reincarnation of the 1988 Braves. Most non senile journalists when they make a comparison, stick to it, and don't try to bring up points that would make them seem like they are ruining their own hypothesis. Otherwise, that journalist would be rambling.

I don't know how many ways to say this, but continously comparing the current Braves to the shittiest Braves team in history will neither prove a good point of any type nor make any Braves fan feel any better about this year. Considering the hypothesis of your column is that it is not the manager's fault, to compare the old team to the current team and interview the old manager who got fired for being a shitty manager based on that old shitty team, sort of kind of undermines the whole premise Bobby Cox is doing a good job.

As a major league scout nowadays for the Pittsburgh Pirates, he remains close to the game. That’s why he noted a similarity between his Braves of 20 years ago and the current ones imploding in their division.

So they ARE the reincarnation. This is hard to follow.

So even though they are not losing tons of games and Terence sees a comparison between the two, and the manager of the 1988 team got fired, to prove his point Bobby Cox is doing a great job, he interviews Chuck Tanner, who got fired for managing a similar team, who says he sees a comparison between the two. So in Case A, manager gets fired for having crappy team, in Case B manager will not get fired because his name is not Frank Appleton, but is Bobby Cox. At this point the criminally insane Terence Moore has two options:

1. Lie and say there is no similarity between the two teams.

2. Explain how the teams are different and it is not Bobby Cox's fault, you know since that is the title and premise of his column. What does Terence do? Let the 79 year old Chuck Tanner just ramble on...and maybe we can name whose fault this really is.

“Heck, there are games I see where they’re using four or five relievers, just like we did,”

I would like to kindly point out Bobby Cox is a huge fan of having RH relievers pitch to RH batters. Let's look at the two relievers the Braves have had all year and see how many appearances they have compared to how many innings they have:

Blaine Boyer: 73 games, 69 innings, 5.30 ERA

Will Ohman: 73 games, 54 innings, 3.38 ERA

So maybe the reason Chuck Tanner sees so many guys pitching is because the manager makes changes based on what side of the plate the batter bats from. RH are hitting only .255 against Ohman but as a LH, he seems to pitch mostly to lefties. Blaine Boyer has been god awful and should not be anywhere near a major league roster. Last time I checked the manager decides the pitching moves, so this problem Chuck Tanner sees is Bobby Cox's fault.

Also, the other day Bobby Cox had Mike Hampton bunt over a hitter to second with one out, so Gregor Blanco, he of the .260 average could drive him in. Mike Hampton is Mr. Glass, but I am going to go ahead and say if there is any pitcher in the major leagues who should rarely bunt, it is him.

What does this man have to do to get fired?

In three weeks, their arms are hanging, and then your bullpen’s gone.

Ohman and Boyer are at the top of the majors in appearances. Arms are a hangin' and they are shitty, useless run giving up arms as the case may be. That is Bobby Cox's fault.

It doesn’t matter that the right fielder [Jeff Francoeur] isn’t hitting, or you can look at the shortstop, the second baseman, the first baseman or the catcher.

Jeff Francouer is an organizational failure. They never corrected his swing and approach to pitching and now are paying the price. Actually the catcher is hitting and the 1B got traded for Casey "Bereavement Leave" Kotchman, who can go to back to Los Angeles and no one would notice.

We didn’t have it, and for the Braves, it’s not [manager] Bobby Cox’s fault. It’s not the pitching coach’s fault.

Chuck, I realize you work for the Pirates organization and have very little clue about team management and how to run a winning team, but how many appearances a pitcher has, who starts a game, and which reliever appears when is directly linked to the manager. If these decisions are poor, the manager is seen as poor.

They just don’t have Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and John Smoltz anymore.”

This is a common horseshit excuse that I am hearing. If this is the real reason the Braves are not good, then Bobby Cox was never a good manager, John Schuerholz was never a good General Manager, and we can leave it at that. You can't give them all credit when things are going great, but never acknowledge the superior pitching the team had, then not blame them when things go poorly and say it is a lack of good pitchers. If the pitchers are not pitching well and the hitters are not hitting well, this can be traced back to the coaches who currently coach them, and who picks the coaches? Bobby Cox.

But then we had Glavine just getting started, and that’s when I pitched him a lot, knowing he’d be good someday. He was 7-17. Rick Mahler was 9-16, and Pete Smith was 7-15. Zane Smith, 5-10. We had Bruce Sutter, but his arm was done. We were bringing Smoltzie along, but he was 2-7.

Chuck Tanner just inferred the 1988 team had better pitching prospects. This is supposed to make current Braves fans feel better and support the case Bobby Cox is doing a great job. It does not.

“We couldn’t catch the ball sometimes, but they couldn’t pitch it, either. They’d throw a fastball when it should have been a change-up or something.”

It is called "coaching." This is why you got fired, you could not control your players. This is beyond unacceptable and you are/were a horrible manager.

Sounds like the current Braves, with fielding issues everywhere and severe problems when it comes to swinging in the clutch.

So the current Braves sound like the 1988 Braves, whose manager got fired because the team displayed characteristics as described above, Terence thinks the current Braves exhibit the same characteristics, but the current manager should not take the blame because the 1988 team had better players? My head is spinning.

The manager does not choose the players, but he chooses who plays, and I am also going to assume Bobby Cox has a little say in personnel decisions. Stop comparing the two teams to show Bobby Cox is doing a good job.

“Then you bring a young guy in behind him. I know the Braves have that kid they got from the Tigers [Jair Jurrjens], and he’s a good one. But if you want a young guy like that to be your leader, well, in the long haul, it’s hard.”

If I am not wrong the Braves had a couple young kids in leadership positions in the early 90s and that seemed to work out fine. I tell what is even dumber than this comment and that is the idea the team need more old pitchers, because that is probably the worst idea ever...if that is what Chuck Tanner is getting at. I like typing "Chuck Tanner."

The same goes for the short haul.

I have no idea what this means. I just know Terence "One R" Moore and Chuck Tanner seem to think it is not Bobby Cox's fault, but have not yet told me why it is not his fault. I know managers don't do that much but Greg Norton was hitting cleanup for a while this year and so were Omar Infante. Someone has to take the fall for this. No word yet on whose fault it is but I am available if anyone would like for me to venture a guess. Ok here goes,

Frank Wren, the General Manager, and Bobby Cox.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

0 comments Random Thoughts

-Curt Schilling is a Hall of Fame pitcher? I am not sure honestly. I just think he is more borderline than most people would like to think. That being said, given the fact he is similar to John Smoltz (except Smoltz actually could close a game), I think he will be in. Does either deserve it? I am on the fence.


http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/schilcu01.shtml

-http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/bradley/entries/2008/06/19/whats_with_the_venom_against_f.html

Why can't anyone understand the idea of expectations? I like when an article answers it's own question.

Jeff Francoeur is having a rough year. His batting average is .252, which isn’t good, and his on-base percentage is .300, which is bad. He has 10 hits - against 10 strikeouts and only two walks - in his past 10 games. Since hitting a walk-off homer against Arizona on May 24, he has eight RBIs in 96 at-bats.
As tepid as those numbers are, they don’t quite explain the rancor directed Francoeur’s way.


He forgot to add 2-17 with the bases loaded. He was on the cover of SI after his first month being called "The Natural" and has absolutely made no progress as a batter in that time. It feels like every time something bad happens, he is involved. Like Thursday in the 9th inning with men on first and second and Michael Young hit a ball to right field on the ground and the camera cut to the runner coming home, then to Francoeur standing over the ball in right. What the fuck happened? No one knows but "Frenchy."I hate homer writers who make excuses for players and bow down to them at every chance they get.

Have we forgotten that, for all his notoriety, he’s only 24?

No, we have also not forgotten that he is as good now as he was when he was 21 and that he is already whining quietly about his contract.

If that’s the case, then I don’t feel sorry for Jeff Francoeur. I feel sorry for us.

I feel sorry for anyone who can not see the truth. Jeff Francoeur despite all the media fawning and rub downs is an average OF and will never be any better until he learns the strike zone. Just because he smiles pretty does not mean he is a good ball player.

-http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=sheridan_chris&page=TeamUSA-080620&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab5pos1

Reason #223 why Mike Kyrysxyswiski is not even close to being the coach, recruiter and game manager that he used to be. The USA's lack of big men is going to cause them great problems and will also cause them to not win the gold medal. Meanwhile there will be plenty of room for slashers to get to the basket and kick it out to the other 4 men standing around the 3 point line. Sound like a certain college team also on the downslide. Big mistake.

I may sound like I am overreacting but this will be the team's largest weakness in the Olympics and if they win, it will be in spite of the lack of size. Why would a coach intentionally give his team a weakness to overcome? Time to think of a successor Mike, its going away and going away faster than you think.

-What has two thumbs and could give a shit what Chad Johnson, someone who continuously plays on an average team, is going to do in training camp? This guy. (Point thumbs at self).

-http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/dr_z/06/20/vikings/index.html?eref=T1

Dr. Z picks Minnesota. He must have forgotten in his old age that Tavaris Jackson is the QB. Just because he is in a great situation does not mean he has the ability to take advantage of it. Who the hell is going to catch the non-spirals he is going to throw anyway? Minnesota is no Baltimore Ravens of the year 2000. Well, except they both have criminals that lead their defense.

Jared Allen owns a bar in Kansas City by the way. At least he used to.

-I am not going to link to a Rick Reilly column but is he really worth $5 million per year? We talk about CEO's and athletes being paid too much, but what does Reilly really write about that makes him worth that. He rides in stock cars and tells us all about it, posts "thought provoking columns," seems like a general piece of shit, and brags about writing only 800 words column.

To think the Chicago Tribune pays Jay Mariotti handsomely to take his anger at public figures out in print, ESPN pays Bill Simmons mega bucks to tell everyone how much he likes his favorite team, and I am still not 100% sure what Woody Paige does.

-I mocked Jemele Hill for the Hitler comment but I did not really think it was that big of a deal. I love overreactions. If only she were Jewish, she would have had an excuse.

-I like doing this because it makes me feel like Peter King.