Last week Gregg Easterbrook informed us his Authentic Games metric indeed works because after multiple guesses it got the Super Bowl matchup correct. It's a very impressive metric that could change every week and eventually get the correct Super Bowl matchup. As long as the metric isn't supposed to actually predict anything when only being used one time it works well. Gregg also marveled that high-scoring teams score below their season average in games they lose and gave us another example of his "had" something happened then the outcome "might" have been different statement, which is a pretty useless statement to make. This week Gregg allows his readers to vote for the longest award in sports and revives the "Crabtree Curse" despite his previous insistence this curse only impacted the 49ers when Mike Singletary was the head coach. As always, Gregg can't seem to keep his own rules straight nor is he capable of even remembering the bullshit explanation he used previously to justify why one of his half-assed theories didn't turn out to be true. The "Crabtree Curse" was supposed to have only affected the 49ers when Mike Singletary was the head coach (as was explained by Gregg once it was clear the curse was bullshit and proven to be so by the fact the 49ers were winning games with Crabtree as their best receiver), well at least until the 49ers lose an important game (and the NFC Championship game on the road nonetheless), and then the curse magically makes a comeback.
Since the NFL MVP always goes to a quarterback or running back, for a
decade TMQ has conferred a Non-QB Non-RB MVP, the coveted "longest award
in sports." This year for the first time, readers choose the winner!
Readers don't get to choose the nominees, so the excitement over readers being able to choose the award is muted a bit. We are beholden to Gregg's choice of four nominees.
The Non-QB Non-RB MVP must be a player from one of the Super Bowl
entrants, my reasoning being that he who would wear the mantle of "most
valuable" had better have created some value.
Sorry Adrian Peterson, Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers, you didn't create value this year. Better luck next time. Obviously any moron can understand the simple fact a player didn't appear in the Super Bowl doesn't mean that player didn't create value. Notice I wrote "...any moron can understand..." so you can see how Gregg doesn't grasp this concept. An individual award should be given solely on the basis of a team's achievement apparently.
This year's finalists in alpha order are Doug Baldwin of Seattle,
Richard Sherman of Seattle, Danny Trevathan of Denver and Louis Vasquez
of Denver.
What a shock that Gregg favors undrafted players over highly drafted players. I guess Demaryius Thomas, Bobby Wagner, Max Unger, Terrance Knighton, and Brandon Mebane weren't worthy of being named the Non-QB Non-RB MVP due to being players who were drafted in the 3rd round or higher. Funny how that works.
Beware that you may confer upon your choice the Non-QB Non-RB MVP Curse.
The 2012 winner, David Diehl of the Giants, just retired; the 2013
winner, NaVorro Bowman of the 49ers, was injured last week, reportedly
tearing his ACL and MCL.
Yes, Bowman was cursed in that he had an absolutely terrific season, is one of the top linebackers in the NFL, and his team appeared in the NFC Championship game for the third straight season. Outside of his torn ACL and MCL, what a tough life for him. Also, I'm not sure Diehl retiring can be considered a curse. I wish I was cursed and could retire before I'm 35 years old. What a curse.
TMQ wants to shine a light on reform ideas for the game.
I can think of no less qualified candidates who could do this.
The level of play has never been higher. But it's a sport with
deep-seated problems that, if not addressed, could lead to long-term
decline.
If the NFL doesn't fix these deep-seated problems then there might be long-term decline. Or there might not be a long-term decline. Later in this column Gregg will criticize those who make predictions so far in the future that the prediction won't be remembered. He should be criticizing himself possibly.
Right now might be the peak moment of the football bubble, and not just because big-college attendance is mildly off and Super Bowl ticket prices are falling. The whole football bubble could burst if high schools begin to drop the sport owing to liability exposure.
And if the entire planet is destroyed by an asteroid, then no one high schools will have to worry about liability exposure. If dinosaurs still existed, we would all be eaten/stepped on. Oh, and the Super Bowl ticket prices are falling most likely due to the cold weather and the fact fans don't necessarily want to sit outside in the cold to watch the game. I don't know if the popularity of the NFL is taking a hit more than the consumer's need to sit outside in New York during February has taken a hit.
For the NFL:
Require disclosure of painkiller use club by club -- as anonymous data,
with names removed. Painkiller abuse may be football's next scandal.
Good luck getting the player's union to agree to disclosure of painkiller use by club. Even if this happened then I wouldn't doubt what happened in MLB would end up happening in the NFL where this "anonymous" list all of a sudden gets released and the public finds out the names of the players who have used painkillers.
Change law so images of football games played in publicly funded stadia
cannot be copyrighted. The effect would be that the NFL would
immediately repay all stadium construction subsidies, and never seek a
subsidy again. Altering national copyright law seems more promising than
trying to ban pro football stadium subsidies state by state, since the
handouts originate with a broad mix of state, county and city agencies.
Good luck with that too. Most of Gregg's suggestions seem like pipe dreams to me. What Gregg doesn't understand is Congress and the American people probably don't want to declare war on the NFL right now and there are better things to worry about.
For the NCAA:
For FBS players, the year-to-year scholarship -- which pressures them to
favor football over the library, to ensure the scholarship is renewed
-- should be replaced with a six-year scholarship. That way once a
player's athletic eligibility has expired, typically after 4.5 years,
and once the NFL does not call -- 97 percent of FBS players never take
an NFL snap -- there will be paid-up semesters remaining for him to be a
full-time student, repair credits and earn that diploma. Not all will
need the extra semesters.
This is a great example of how out of touch Gregg Easterbrook is. Trust me on this, in my experience if you give an athlete a six-year scholarship then that athlete is going to take more than four years to graduate. Why graduate earlier if school is paid for over six years instead of just four years? This gives the athlete two years of a scholarship where he doesn't have to study and can just jerk around and do nothing, then focus for four years after that. If Gregg wants fewer athletes to graduate then schools should start handing out six year scholarships and give the athletes incentive to graduate in less than four years. But again, it doesn't pop into Gregg's mind that an athlete might intentionally take six years to graduate if he knows his education is paid for over six years because in Gregg's white, upper middle-class experience ALL student-athletes want to graduate as early as possible. Giving an athlete four extra semester gives that athlete less incentive to graduate on-time. This would undoubtedly result in fewer athletes graduating in four years. Brilliant idea, Gregg.
But six-year full scholarships would change big-college football from a
cynical exercise in using up impressionable young men and throwing them
away, into a fair deal: The university gets great football, the players
get educations.
Or the players could be compensated or allowed the opportunity to pursue compensation for the value they provide to the university. This is as opposed to giving them permission to graduate two years after they are supposed to.
For football at all levels:
Ban the three-point and four-point stance. Because of these stances,
most football plays begin with linemen's heads colliding. No reform
reduces helmet-to-helmet contact faster than requiring all players to
begin downs with hands off the ground and heads up. Will this make
football a sissified sport? That's what was said of the forward pass.
I don't know about this. I get that the purpose is to reduce concussions, but I think Gregg's next suggestion (to require only 4 or 5 star helmets) could reduce the impact of concussions without eliminating the three-point and four-point stance. Of course that's an expensive solution.
Only four- or five-star rated helmets
should be permitted. Some of the safest helmets are prohibitively
expensive for public high school districts, but the four-star, $149
Rawlings Impulse is not.
Again, this is another situation where Gregg shows he lives in a white, upper-middle class neighborhood and lives that lifestyle. I think spending $9,000 (Just guessing $149 for 60 players) on helmets could feel somewhat prohibitive for some school districts where teachers are having to purchase their own supplies and schools are struggling for funds. But again, Gregg seems to be going off his experience in upper-middle class Maryland as proof public high school districts can afford $9,000 per school on helmets. I don't believe this is true for all public high school districts.
Want to impress your friends while watching the game? If either the
Broncos or Seahawks score on a pick-six, immediately announce they will
win.
Your friends will be so impressed you are a presumptive moron, they will immediately offer you the chance to shut the hell up and just watch the damn game.
Teams returning an interception for a touchdown are 11-0 in the Super Bowl.
I hope that changes this year so Gregg can look stupid, except he won't ever mention he was wrong that the team who intercepted a pass for a touchdown will win the Super Bowl.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback Non-QB Non-RB MVP: Previous winners:
Alan Faneca, Steelers, 2001; Lincoln Kennedy, Raiders, 2002; Damien
Woody, Patriots, 2003; Troy Brown, Patriots, 2004; Walter Jones,
Seahawks, 2005; Jeff Saturday, Colts, 2006; Matt Light, Patriots, 2007;
James Harrison, Steelers, 2008; Dallas Clark, Colts, 2009; Dan Koppen,
Patriots, 2010; David Diehl, Giants, 2012; NaVorro Bowman, 49ers, 2013.
And also notice how many first round draft picks are on this list. By my count there are six first round draft choices. These are highly drafted glory boys that Gregg thinks make too much money and have too much ego to succeed in the NFL.
This year's candidates:
Doug Baldwin, Seattle:
As the second best receiver on the Seahawks team Baldwin should definitely be the Non-QB Non-RB MVP (I'm not going to write the whole thing). Mostly, Gregg prefers Baldwin over Golden Tate because Tate was a second round draft pick.
Bonus factor: Baldwin was undrafted out of Stanford, and TMQ loves undrafted players.
Yep, so that's why he favors Baldwin over Tate.
Richard Sherman, Seattle:
Danny Trevathan, Denver: Manning and his offensive line are the
core of the Broncos, but Denver posted a reasonable defensive season
despite the no-huddle offense often scoring quickly then sending the
defense back out. Trevathan led Denver with 87 unassisted tackles -- the
closest teammate compiled 58 -- and his 10 passes defensed is a high
number for a linebacker.
Nothing against Trevathan, but perhaps he had 10 passes defensed because the Broncos' opponent was throwing the ball alot due to their no-huddle high scoring offense? It doesn't make it any less impressive, but Gregg acknowledges the Broncos' offense was scoring a lot of points, yet he doesn't attribute Trevathan's passes defensed partially to the Broncos' opponents throwing the ball a lot to catch up.
Louis Vasquez, Denver: Denver allowed a league-low 20 sacks in
the regular season; Manning has yet to be pulled down in the playoffs.
Manning has been hit once every 14 dropbacks; the typical NFL
quarterback is hit once every seven dropbacks.
Peyton Manning is a veteran quarterback and he is good at ensuring his offensive linemen have the correct protections lined up. Plus, it's a team effort on the offensive line to make sure Manning doesn't get sacked. Manning is very good at being sacked. This takes nothing away from Louis Vasquez, but Manning is good at avoiding being sacked and protecting Manning is a team effort.
Quick release is one reason it's so hard to reach Manning. Superior blocking is the main reason.
I would actually say it is 50/50 as to why reaching Manning is so hard to sack. A quarterback helps his offensive linemen by getting rid of the ball quickly, so while the Broncos have really good blocking, they are helped by Manning's quick release and pocket awareness.
As recently as December, your columnist thought Zane Beadles was having
the Broncos' best year at OL. Vasquez has been spectacular in the
playoffs, near perfect pass blocking and run blocking without help
(Beadles has been double-teaming with the center).
Gregg also realized that Vasquez was a 3rd round pick and had made the Pro Bowl, while Beadles is a 2nd round pick and did not make the Pro Bowl. So Gregg decided he would follow what others did and say Vasquez is the better offensive linemen, plus it was a bonus that Vasquez was drafted lower than Beadles was. Also, Beadles doesn't double-team with the center on every play and for Gregg to indicate Beadles has been double-teaming with the center on nearly every play is ridiculous. If that was really true then opposing teams would adjust quickly and start to take advantage of this. Gregg's analysis consistently sucks.
Stats to Ponder No. 5: If the Broncos prevail, they will be the
second team to lead the NFL in passing yards and also win that season's
Super Bowl. So far only the 1999 Rams finished first in passing and also
won the Super Bowl.
If the Broncos win the Super Bowl will Gregg admit that throughout this year when he has stated that pass-wacky teams have a hard time winning the Super Bowl that this isn't universally true and despite what he says about the Patriots and other teams a record-setting offensive team can win the Super Bowl? Probably not.
Stats to Ponder No. 6: The Broncos are the NFL's highest-scoring
team ever. Of the previous 10 highest-scoring teams, only the 1999 Rams
won the Super Bowl that season.
Yep, it's that stat which Gregg loves to cite.
Stats to Ponder No. 8: The Jersey/A Giants and Jersey/B Jets,
host teams for the Super Bowl, this season combined to commit 73
turnovers. Denver and Seattle combined to commit 27.
This is interesting only to show how bad the Jets and Giants were this season, but the fact both teams are hosting the Super Bowl doesn't in any way mean they were awarded the Super Bowl because they were supposed to have really good seasons.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback contends the outdoor cold-weather Super Bowl will be either a rousing success or total fiasco.
Of course it will. It's not possible for there to be any inbetween.
Craig Cognetti of Scranton, Pa., wrote, "Several states, cities and
areas in the U.S. start with New; New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, New England, New Orleans, New Haven and so on. New Jersey is
the only 'New' that has so differentiated itself that people routinely
drop the first part; Jersey Shore, Jersey Boys, Jersey tomatoes etc. No
one roots for the York Yankees or goes out for Haven-style pizza. Only
New Jersey is so distinctive it doesn't need the New."
While I get what this reader is saying, it's clear he is a loyal reader of Gregg's because he overlooks an important fact. If the "New" is dropped from some of these cities, states and areas then a person could be confused as to what exact state, city, area or country is being referenced. For example, Hampshire and England are two places in Europe, York and Haven could reference several places in the United States, while Mexico is a country close to New Mexico so the "New" is crucial to pinpoint the exact location being referenced. There is a Jersey off the coast of France (and that's the only "Jersey" I found on a quick Google search), but it is only 46 square miles, so "Jersey" generally references New Jersey. It's not that New Jersey is so distinctive necessarily, but the "New" is required to differentiate some of these other places from larger cities and countries. So while New Jersey is distinctive, the "New" isn't always required to tell a person the exact location being referenced.
The cult-status "Sopranos" episode "Pine Barrens" -- in which Chris and
Paulie Walnuts wander incompetently through New Jersey's famed pine barrens searching for an equally incompetent Russian mobster they are supposed to whack -- was not filmed in the pine barrens.
Actually, the entire point of that episode was that the Russian mobster turned out to be the very opposite of incompetent. He was a well-decorated soldier who killed 16 Czechs in one fight by himself. Not that I would expect Gregg to actually be accurate or make an attempt to not mislead his readers. If he's going to make a reference to something and try to act like he knows what he's talking about, it always helps if he actually knows what he's talking about. The entire point of the episode is Paulie and Christopher underestimated the Russian mobster.
The episode was filmed in New York's Harriman State Park,
whose tree species differ significantly from those of the pine barrens.
Thus in the NFL, New York is located in New Jersey; on the "Sopranos,"
New Jersey was located in New York.
Gregg is so insufferable.
Crabtree Curse Revived: Early in Michael Crabtree's career, TMQ tracked the Crabtree Curse
-- the 49ers were more likely to win when Crabtree was hurt than when
he was in the lineup. Many readers, including Herman Hou of London, note
the Crabtree Curse lives. Not only was the final throw of the NFC title
game, intercepted by Seattle, targeted at Crabtree: all three of San
Francisco's final throws of the 2013 Super Bowl, all incompletions, were
targeted at Crabtree. Bad enough that the 49ers let Crabtree onto the
field; when they try to throw him the ball, a Curse awaits.
As usual, in his attempts to be a cutesy little dipshit there are important factors that Gregg Easterbrook neglects to mention. One factor is the 49ers were in the NFC Championship Game when this pass was targeted towards Crabtree and the 49ers were in the Super Bowl when the three other passes were targeted to him. If making two NFC Championship games and a Super Bowl over the last three seasons is a curse caused by Michael Crabtree then every other NFC team probably would want a curse like Michael Crabtree on their team. Another factor is that Gregg ignores the 49ers offense played better when Crabtree was on the field this season as opposed to when he was injured. But again, why wouldn't Gregg try to lie to his readers in order to be a cutesy dipshit?
From my 2009 column on cheerleader low pay: "Cheer-babes dancing in
short skirts, or posing for swimsuit calendars, is not exploitation.
After all, you're supposed to look at the cheerleaders! Professional
athletics is foremost a form of entertainment, and the scantily-clad
dancing girl has a long history as integral to entertainment in
theatrical arts as well as sport. It is, however, objectionable if
everyone involved in an NFL contest is making buckets of money, except
for the cheerleaders."
The NFL's attitude seems to be that cheerleaders are just frilly
little things flouncing around, let their boyfriends look after them.
This from a guy who used to run a "Cheerleader of the Week" feature where he pretended to give a shit about the cheerleader's interest outside of football, but was really an excuse to run a picture of a cheerleader in TMQ. Also, Gregg calls them "cheer-babes" which I'm sure isn't making them sound like frilly little things flouncing around at all.
No Super Bowl pairing has ever generated such a waterfall of interesting stats.
This is the first Super Bowl in history with so many interesting statistics! Never before has a Super Bowl had so many interesting statistics and this doesn't sound made up at all.
It may be that Denver's offensive numbers and Seattle's defensive stats
both were amplified by schedules. The Super Bowl will be the first time
this season Denver has faced a team that finished in the top six for defense, in contrast to 12 outings by the Broncos against teams that finished in the bottom third.
The Broncos did play the 7th, 8th, and 12th ranked defenses with two of those games being on the road. I get what Gregg is saying of course, but still...
Over on the green side of the ball, the Seahawks compiled their great
defensive numbers against a schedule rich in underperforming offenses.
Seattle faced New Orleans twice, both times at home; the Saints were the
sole top-rated offense Seattle had to contain.
But Seattle did keep the Saints to record-low yardage and point totals the first time they played them and effectively shut the Saints down the second time they played as well. So that has to count for something.
The Seahawks simply have not seen an elite offense on the road, and the Super Bowl is a road game.
It's actually a neutral-site game.
TMQ's keys to the game:
Read these intently, because if Gregg is wrong about any of these then he won't mention them again.
1. The Broncos must throw deep, even if that means Peyton Manning
holding the ball for more than 2.36748790345 seconds or whatever his
average is supposed to be. The drip-drip-drip short passing Denver has
lived on this season will be difficult against Seattle's in-your-face
press coverage.
Of course if it is cold out or somewhat windy then it may be hard for Manning to throw deep, plus the Seahawks corners are tall and by playing press coverage they make it difficult for receivers to get a clean release which would make the Broncos successful deep passing game difficult to achieve.
2. Seattle must take the electronic governor off Russell Wilson, who
does not need to outperform Manning, but can't just hand off either. The
Seahawks' best game this season was a 34-7 defeat of New Orleans in
which Wilson aired the ball out, 30 throws for 310 yards.
Yet the Seahawks have an advantage in that they have a really good running game which helps lead to opportunities for deep throws in the passing game. I'm not sure going completely away from the team's strength is a good way to win the Super Bowl, plus the Seahawks probably want to wear the Broncos defense down and keep Manning off the field. So while Gregg has a point that the Seahawks have to trust Russell Wilson, handing the ball off and chewing up clock is crucial to beating the Broncos.
Seattle's game plan needs to be aggressive, in case the Jersey Bowl becomes a touchdown festival.
Unfortunately, going uber-aggressive against the Broncos also plays into their hands and ensures the Seahawks may not have the advantage in time of possession, which again, is important to keep Manning off the field. Sure, the Seahawks need to be aggressive, but they shouldn't play to the Broncos strengths just in case their defense can't stop Peyton Manning.
3. The Broncos will be without Ryan Clady, Chris Harris and Von Miller,
three of the team's best players. The Seahawks will be missing only
Sidney Rice, who is not integral to what they do,
Yeah, he only had 50 receptions 748 yards and 7 touchdowns last year for the Seahawks. How important could he be?
My pick? I journeyed alone to a distant mountaintop -- OK, a distant
parking lot -- and the football gods revealed unto me: low-scoring game,
Seattle by a field goal.
Let me get this straight...Gregg is advocating the Seahawks be aggressive, advocating the Broncos should pass the ball deep, yet he thinks it will be a low scoring game. If the Seahawks succeed in being aggressive then it probably won't be a low-scoring game and if the Seahawks fail in being aggressive then I think they are looking at quite a few three-and-outs or stalled drives, which means Peyton Manning will be on the field longer. I'm not sure either scenario Gregg advocates leads to a low-scoring game. But hey, it's entirely possible Gregg will be wrong in the advice he gives each team and it will be a low-scoring game. Rest assured, if Gregg is right that it is a low-scoring game then he will forget his advice and tips for each team were shit. If the game is high-scoring he will point out he said each team should pursue aggressive strategies. In a shocking turn of events, Gregg has created a scenario where he can claim to be right almost regardless of what happens in the Super Bowl.
Bad Predictions on Fast-Forward: TMQ's all-bad-predictions column has been retired, but a few howlers are always welcome.
"I am behind Lane Kiffin 100 percent." USC athletic director Pat
Haden, three weeks before firing him. Perhaps Haden meant he was
standing behind Kiffin and planned to push him down the stairs.
"Leslie Frazier is not going anywhere. I am telling you we are
very committed to Leslie Frazier." Vikings general manager Rick
Spielman, one month before firing him.
I realize Gregg hates hyper-specificity, but these are statements, not predictions. Gregg has no concerns for details like this though.
New York University economist Nouriel Roubini became a media darling,
and a player on the big-bucks lecture circuit after his 2006 prediction
that a housing bubble would cause recession proved correct. Does that
make him a seer? Roubini had predicted national economic misfortune many
times before and been wrong -- and he has continued to predict it
since, again being wrong. If you endlessly predict the clock will strike
midnight, you will be right once a day.
Perhaps Gregg should remember this the next time he writes that a team needs to "do a little dance" to convert a first down, talks about how whichever team's cheerleaders/head coach wears the least amount of clothing will win the game, and discusses how a cornerback or safety made the high school error of looking in the quarterback's eyes instead of guarding his man (because this is basketball and not football being discussed of course).
This is because I'll be sitting outside. After a few trial runs, your
columnist eschews the press box -- it's the worst possible place to
watch a football game. In most NFL press boxes, there are TV monitors,
desks or counters to set up a laptop, free sandwiches, assistants who
hand out stat sheets, and of course protection from the elements.
It sounds like an absolute nightmare. I still stick to my speculation that Gregg doesn't watch a football game in the press box because the other sportswriters can't stand to be around him. I can't blame them. I would kick Gregg out of the press box too, especially after he tells a beat writer for the Seahawks he should include in his column the Seahawks didn't convert a fourth-and-1 due to the offense not "doing a little dance" or has a five minute conversation about how "The Blacklist" isn't a realistic television show.
Observing a few press boxes, I came to the conclusion that so many
sportswriters and sportscasters focus on stars' personalities or
coaches' postgame comments, but rarely discuss in-game tactics, because
they weren't paying much attention.
Yes, too many sportswriters are too focused on writing their postgame column which would include quotes about what happened during the game. You know, they are too focused on doing their job. Also, I'm not sure how many sportscasters are working from a press box, but clearly Gregg has much more experience in a press box than I do, so I imagine there are sportscasters working there completely ignoring the game they are supposed to be watching and commenting on.
A low seat allows one to hear what is being said on the field and get a
clear view of line play. It's better than being in the press box. Though
at the 2007 Super Bowl in Miami, when there was steady rain, being
outside made it hard to take notes. Shivering may do the same this year.
Gregg must have absolutely superior hearing if he can consistently hear what's being said on the field by any player other than the quarterback. Also, a low seat seems to me to be the worst possible way to see what's happening on the field, especially considering a low seat doesn't allow the viewer to necessarily see the entire field of play possibly.
Absurd Precision Watch: Kevin Clark in the Wall Street Journal:
"According to Pro Football Focus, Peyton Manning takes a league-shortest
2.36 seconds to throw. Russell Wilson takes a league-longest 3.18
seconds." Even assuming the hundredths of seconds claimed are accurate,
that's a fourth-fifths of a second difference between the fastest and
the slowest.
Yes, that's very nearly an entire second difference at which each quarterback releases the football. That's easily the difference in whether a quarterback gets sacked/gets the ball tipped or completes a pass instead. In the NFL, that's a pretty big deal.
Such a difference would determine the winner at a track or swim meet,
but it's hard to believe can determine the victor in a football game.
Perhaps Gregg needs to sit in the press box or pay better attention to what's going on while he's sitting in the lower levels of the stands during a football game. That's if Gregg finds it hard to believe a difference of 0.8 seconds can't make a difference in a football game. Sure, on one play a quarterback holding the ball 0.8 seconds longer may not determine the victor in a football game, but how long a quarterback holds the football can easily make a difference in whether one team wins or not. Gregg consistently underestimates the speed of the NFL game.
Next Week: That Super Bowl thing you might have heard about.
I'm sure Gregg's analysis of what happened and why it happened will probably still be super terrible.
Showing posts with label michael crabtree. Show all posts
Showing posts with label michael crabtree. Show all posts
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Monday, January 27, 2014
3 comments Richard Sherman Is Just Really, Really Dangerous
I'm sure most people saw Richard Sherman's post-NFC Championship game interview with Erin Andrews. If you didn't, Sherman freaked out and talked junk about Michael Crabtree after the game and said Crabtree was a sorry receiver. I'm surprised Gregg Easterbrook doesn't agree since Crabtree is the cause of the 49ers struggles under Mike Singletary due to the "Crabtree Curse." Either way, this interview gave sportswriters a chance to hop up on their pulpit and state that Sherman is a bad sport and probably the worst person in the world. I have two such columns today, one from "Slate" and one from the incomparable Jay Mariotti.
First, "Slate" asks why "everyone" is celebrating Sherman's behavior. Of course one look at social media and the various columns written about Sherman's outburst tells me that not "everyone" was celebrating Sherman's behavior, but I guess it's easier to spit a column out when based on a somewhat false premise like this one.
In the waning moments of the NFC title game, Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman made a heady play to send his team to the Super Bowl, tipping a pass into the air so his teammate could intercept it. A few seconds later, Sherman pantomimed a “choke” sign in the direction of 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick. He then razzed San Francisco receiver Michael Crabtree, patting his butt and offering a mocking handshake. (Crabtree responded with a frustrated shove to Sherman’s helmet.) Once the game was over, Sherman proclaimed to Fox sideline reporter Erin Andrews, “Well, I’m the best corner in the game! When you try me with a sorry receiver like Crabtree, that’s the result you’re gonna get! Don’t you ever talk about me!”
I thought it was funny because it was a football player unfiltered. Also, it taught a very valuable lesson about talking crap about Richard Sherman. Don't do it.
It took only a few seconds for Twitter to begin yelling back at Sherman. ESPN’s Mike Greenberg joined a slew of others who called the Seattle corner “classless.”
But remember, the premise of this column is that "everyone" is celebrating Sherman's behavior. It turns out that's not true and the author admits that in his column. (deep sigh)
Soon, a second wave of punditry emerged to right these initial wrongs. Forbes noted that Sherman had graduated second in his high school class and gone to Stanford, “So not only is he not a fool, odds are he’s smarter than you and me.”
Ah yes, a summary of the events seems to be taking up the first part of this column while I patiently wait for how "everyone" celebrated Sherman's behavior and why this was so wrong. Just killing time...
A YouTube video circulated in my Twitter feed like a piece of pro-Sherman agitprop, demonstrating Sherman’s intellectual approach to the game and the value he places on hard work and preparation.
Whether Sherman takes an intellectual approach to a football game and how hard he works is sort of irrelevant in terms of whether his outburst was appropriate or not. It seems like a way to simply defeat the "Richard Sherman is an idiot thug" comments that were going around immediately after the interview. Taking that one event and deciding Sherman is a thug, while using his film viewing and game preparation as an example to frame the incident in one definitive manner or another seems irrelevant to me. A so-called thug can still prepare really well for a football game, while a studious person who takes an intellectual approach to the game can still say something publicly he regrets. Ask Peyton Manning about his "idiot kicker" comment a few years ago for proof of this.
Others focused on the racial dynamics. In a piece titled “Richard Sherman and the Plight of the Conquering Negro,” Deadspin’s Greg Howard argued that Sherman had become “a proxy for the black male id” and that condemnations of him were “based on the common, very American belief that black males must know their place.” The Nation’s Dave Zirin alluded to “stomach-churning racial coding” and described Sherman as “an archetype that has been branded a threat as long as African-Americans have played sports.”
Boy, it's taking a minute to get to the point isn't it?
I will gladly allow that the sight of middle-aged, white sportswriters evincing disgust at the brash behavior of a young, black athlete is depressingly familiar. I also shudder to align myself with the smarmy snobs who use a loaded term like “classless” in talking about a guy who grew up the son of a garbage man in Compton, Calif.
The second someone writes disgust at potentially aligning himself with another group of people, there's always a good chance that person is about to align himself with this group of people.
But can I draw a line here?
I’d like to request that we stipulate a few basic notions.
What follows are nine basic notions, so the author actually wants to draw nine lines here and not just one.
The first six points are basically that Sherman was being dick no matter where he went to school or how well-read he was. I agree. He was being a dick. I don't know if it was being a bad sport though and I'm not sure "everyone" is celebrating his behavior.
7. It turns out that Sherman and Crabtree have history—Sherman’s brother alleges that Crabtree tried to fight the Seahawks player at a charity event. Most of Sherman’s defenders haven’t bothered to mention the existing personal feud. But to be clear: While the prior beef adds some context, those two wrongs don’t make what Sherman did right—or, more precisely, not dickish.
No, but it does point out the background on why Sherman seemed so angry at Crabtree and felt the need to rub it in when he made the biggest play of his NFL career on a pass intended for Crabtree. I think the line I would like to draw is if two players have a previous feud then there's a good chance the bad blood will spill over to the field and also spill over into an interview done two minutes after the bad blood on the field has ended. Emotions were still running high at that point.
8. Talking smack in the lead-up to a contest, or in the middle of it, is permissible. It falls into the hallowed tradition of gamesmanship. Dancing on graves after the battle has been won is dickish.
How the hell does this make sense? So Richard Sherman could have called Michael Crabtree a mediocre receiver and a sorry receiver PRIOR to the game in an interview, but once he's backed up his words after the game has concluded he can't point out how correct he was? How is dancing on graves after the game dickish if it simply backs up the smack that was talked prior to the start of the game? I can't figure out how gamesmanship prior to the game in an interview is fine, but gamesmanship after the game isn't fine...especially since Sherman seemingly backed up his feelings about Crabtree.
9. And this is the most delicate of these notions but needs to be addressed: Whatever archetypes may be conjured by the specter of white people tsk-tsking a black man who loudly brags alongside a blond woman, those uncomfortable overtones don’t change the fact that, in this case, in that moment, the man was being a dick.
No, but why is it okay for Sherman to be a dick before the game has started?
I also recognize that the despicable, racist language being lobbed at Sherman needs to be shouted down, aggressively. But that doesn’t mean that Sherman was acting in a commendable manner when he wrapped his hands around his neck to signal that Colin Kaepernick choked. Or when he needlessly taunted Michael Crabtree
Actually, this "needless taunting" took place during the game so it's perfectly fine according to notion #8. Right, talking smack in the middle of the game is permissible. That's what Sherman did by pointing out Kaepernick choked and by taunting Crabtree. Try your best to stick to the rules (sorry, "notions") you have made up.
Why can’t we say that Sherman is probably a great guy who did not act like one in the moments after the NFC championship game?
Despite the author's attempts to push reactions towards "He's a thug!" or "He's a great guy!" I think most people do think Sherman is a great guy who didn't act like a nice guy after the game. That being said, it was still funny to see a professional athlete call out an opponent immediately after the game like that.
So let’s glorify Sherman for what deserves glory: his amazing performance on the field, and his accomplishments off it. He doesn’t deserve to be virulently attacked for his actions at the tail end of the NFC title game, but please let’s not celebrate them
I'm not sure his actions are being celebrated, but Sherman's adrenaline was still pumping after the game and he said what he thought when he was immediately interviewed upon the game ending. This is why the media waits to speak to athletes in the locker room after games, so the athlete can shower and prepare responses to questions asked.
As Sherman wrote: “[I]t was in the moment, and it was just a small part of the person I am.” Yes—a small, dickish part of who he is.
I'm still confused how it's okay to show gamesmanship during a football game according to notion #8, but Sherman was out of line for taunting Kaepernick and talking junk to Crabtree immediately after the great play by Sherman was over. Isn't that supposed to be permissible? I guess gamesmanship is fine unless the gamesmanship isn't fine.
Now Jay Mariotti urgently tells us about the dangers of Richard Sherman, and in such a caring fashion, he gives Pete Carroll unsolicited advice. The title of this column is "Carroll Must Realize Dangers of Sherman Tank." This is a reference to Sherman's March through the South after the Civil War I would presume, except Jay must have failed history because tanks were invented until the 20th century. But hey, it's a catchy title for a column isn't it? Actually, it really isn't catchy either.
Without intervention, the screaming loon who assaulted America’s senses with a post-game slam rant would have been devoured by the media throngs awaiting him in New York. Sherman was ready to attempt a Super Bowl takeover next week, but his coach, understanding how such a daily farce could distract the Seahawks and leave his player vulnerable to untold viral controversies, moved quickly to corral the Sherman Tank.
Simply because Richard Sherman made one comment after the game about Michael Crabtree doesn't mean he was looking to take over the Super Bowl. The media has the ability to control the viral controversies that they attempt to start, but I know that would take self-control and the need to not chase controversies which result in easy stories to write, so that's not an option.
Nothing can destroy a team in its proudest moment, Carroll knows, quite like a media maniac obsessed with himself.
Jay Mariotti understands this because he looks in the mirror everyday at someone who fits this description perfectly.
If Sherman proceeds with more stunts like his already-infamous Fox interview with Erin Andrews — and we can’t assume he won’t until next week is over — he may have been recalled as the idiot who buried his team with his mouth in the world’s media capital.
I think Jay is taking this a little far. Sherman simply called out Crabtree in an interview. He hasn't done anything like this in his previous two seasons in the NFL, so I don't think this one interview is a preview of an entire Super Bowl week of Sherman running his mouth and telling the entire world which receivers are mediocre and which are not. Let's not run too far with this story and make it more than it is.
“We try to stick to Rule No. 1, which is always protect the team. It’s the rule we live by. You always represent us. In a time like that one, it was a little bit representing yourself. How we handle it is we try to grow and learn and work our way through who we are and figure out who we want to be. This was an extraordinary learning opportunity. You’ll see some benefit from it.”
This is great advice from Pete Carroll that Richard Sherman didn't heed. It's unfortunate, but his comments to Erin Andrews after the NFC Championship game wasn't a prelude to more hi-jinx during Super Bowl week. Of course Jay Mariotti has to make it seem like Richard Sherman is a loose cannon who is liable to say anything at any point, even though this hasn't been proven to be true. Jay tries to be as extreme as possible, it's part of what makes his writing style so wonderful that no major mainstream news outlet cares to employ him.
“I apologize for attacking an individual and taking the attention away from the fantastic game by my teammates … That was not my intent,” Sherman said in a text message to ESPN.
Earlier, Sherman said, “Obviously I could have worded things better and could obviously have had a better reaction and done things differently. But it is what it is now, and people’s reactions are what they are.”
“But people find it easy to take shots on Twitter, and to use racial slurs and bullying language far worse than what you’ll see from me. It’s sad and somewhat unbelievable to me that the world is still this way, but it is.”
As a Stanford guy, Sherman knows the meaning of hypocrisy.
And he is a flaming hypocrite.
Says the sportswriter who trashes mainstream and large organizations like ESPN and FoxSports after desperately trying to get them to hire him prior to taking this job writing for Sports Talk Florida that probably gets 500 hits a day judging by the complete lack of comments on Mariotti's columns. But here is how Sherman is a hypocrite. Be prepared.
He’s complaining about “bullying” language? Just what would he call his rant on Crabtree, a lullaby?
I'm guessing Jay didn't do well in school as it pertained to "Reading Comprehension." Sherman isn't saying his rant wasn't a form of bullying, he was saying the slurs and language aimed at him is FAR WORSE than what you'll see from him. He's saying what he said after the game may have been wrong at the time, but those who took offense to his statement about Crabtree are using stronger and much more hurtful language that he classifies as bullying.
Of course, what mean things Sherman said to Crabtree wasn't known until a few days after the NFC Championship ended. I'm not sure this counts as "bullying." Listen to Sherman "bullying" Crabtree after the game.
The Super Bowl media game is old hat to him, as it is with Broncos coach John Fox and executive John Elway, and their overall equilibrium could be a major deciding factor as we see how Sherman and other flamboyant Seattle players handle the attention siege.
Somehow Jay Mariotti has managed to take these comments by Richard Sherman and turn them into the entire Seahawks team calling out their opponents and making statements they will regret all through Super Bowl week. Walter Thurmond has stated Welker's hit on Talib was uncalled for, but only the most desperate sportswriter (and ESPN did this) could say he "blasted" Welker.
What else did Carroll tell him? “There’s some stuff in there I think you should think about and did you really want it to come out the way it did and talk our way through that,” he said. “And he didn’t. He didn’t feel right about that. There were a lot of great things that happened (Sunday) night and we’re talking about some other stuff.”
Officially now, the Seahawks are hateable.
I actually like them better because of this. I appreciate an NFL player willing to tell his true opinion on an opponent every once in a while. At a certain point, constant comments about Crabtree would be overboard and get boring, but a quick peek behind the curtain of trash talk was a little refreshing to me.
They’re as loud and boisterous as their decibel-busting, mini-quake-shaking fans. Their architect, Carroll, escaped USC as the building was burning down and the NCAA was swooping in, and he also has this annoying way of saying “cool” a whole lot when he’s 62 years old.
It seems Jay Mariotti is desperately clinging to the "good versus evil" narrative for the Super Bowl. The Broncos are of course "good" and the Seahawks are "evil."
Then there’s Sherman, the most vocal member of Seattle’s Legion of Boom, who may not be able to himself in making enemies and spewing noise.
I guess Sports Talk Radio can't afford an editor for Jay. Read that sentence again. It makes not of sense.
As you will discover these next two weeks, he is the face of this upstart franchise, full of dread,
I don't understand how the Seahawks are full of dread. They don't seem to be full of dread at all. They seem eager to play Peyton Manning and the Broncos in the Super Bowl.
adorned with dreads and armed with a big head.
Oh, so that's why. Jay wants accuracy and the ability of his readers to comprehend what he is writing to fall by the wayside in favor of rhyming and cutesy writing tricks. I'm guessing he learned this from Rick Reilly during his time at ESPN.
We all remember Sherman, of course, for approaching Tom Brady after a victory and asking him, “You mad, bro?” Then he tweeted of Brady, referring to secondary mate Earl Thonas,
Quick! I need an editor now!
I'm not sure who Earl Thonas is, but I do know Earl Thomas plays safety for the Seahawks.
“He told me and earl to see him after the game when they win … I found him after ….” What Sherman does is turn in-game verbal jousting into warfare.
Actually, it seems like Sherman takes trash talk prior to the game and reminds the person talking the trash after the game is over that he backed up his bravado. I'm not saying I enjoy it all the time, but it's fun once and a while.
And that leads us to ask: Is he possibly going to be dumb enough to say something that will tick off Manning, who has more than enough motivation as it is to win this Super Bowl for his personal legacy?
The sports media can only hope that Sherman says something about Manning and they will certainly be baiting Sherman all week to say something negative about Manning so it can be blown up into a huge story.
Not only are the allegiance roles drawn definitively — Manning as the sentimental favorite, the Seahawks as the loudmouths in his way —
Idiot writers just prefer putting narratives into a box where everything makes sense and there is zero nuance involved with these storylines.
Said Crabtree of Sherman: “He’s a TV guy, I’m not a TV guy,” Crabtree said. “He didn’t make any other plays in the game … But he made a good play there. He can keep talking. You make one play and you talk? Good play.”
Later, a Crabtree tweet was more biting: “`Film don’t lie… @nflnetwork @espn pull up the tape of that game and show me where this guy is the best? #fake #fake #fake.”
And of course if Michael Crabtree had said this in front of an open microphone then I'm sure everyone would be up in arms at how rude, unprofessional and dangerous these comments are, right? He's turning in-game verbal jousting into warfare!
Richard? “He wouldn’t make the top 20 of NFL receivers,” Sherman said. “If any team had a chance to pick Crabtree, they wouldn’t draft him.”
The slap on the butt? “I was making sure everyone knew Crabtree was a mediocre receiver,” Sherman said. “And when you try the best corner in the game with a mediocre receiver, that’s what happens. I appreciate that he knows that now. There has been a lot of talk from him running his mouth about me.”
What's interesting to me about this feud and Jay Mariotti writing about this feud is that Jay had his very own feud when he worked in Chicago with Ozzie Guillen. If any writers knows what it is like to exchange words with someone who doesn't like you then it is probably Jay. Of course, when Guillen fired back at Jay he chose to cower in his office and shoot his mouth off in print rather than say anything without the protection of not being in the same room as Guillen.
I wouldn’t have minded Harbaugh in New York.
It's good to know the San Francisco 49ers would have had Jay Mariotti's permission to play in the Super Bowl.
The 12th Man will be represented in New York by Richard Sherman. He can make more noise than 68,454 people combined.
"He's such an entertaining loud-mouthed black man! Dance for us all! Put on a show so I can judge you for it!"
Will he listen to his coach?
Doubtful. You know how headstrong these educated, loud-mouthed minorities can be. Always flaunting their intelligence by talking loudly and never following the directions given to them.
Carroll said. “At times they are going to make mistakes and break your heart, but if you love them, you stay with them. You give [them] the best chance to be all they can be.
“Richard is a wonderful spirit. He’s got an amazing heart, and he has great sensitivity. He goes all the way to the end of the spectrum when it comes to expressing himself.”
Which is exactly what should concern the Seahawks as Manning quietly licks his chops, ready to exploit a raging distraction.
Clearly, Jay Mariotti wants to embrace this distraction while also criticizing Richard Sherman for being dangerous. Jay thinks Richard Sherman is a jerk and hateable, but he sure likes that Sherman has given him something interesting to write about.
First, "Slate" asks why "everyone" is celebrating Sherman's behavior. Of course one look at social media and the various columns written about Sherman's outburst tells me that not "everyone" was celebrating Sherman's behavior, but I guess it's easier to spit a column out when based on a somewhat false premise like this one.
In the waning moments of the NFC title game, Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman made a heady play to send his team to the Super Bowl, tipping a pass into the air so his teammate could intercept it. A few seconds later, Sherman pantomimed a “choke” sign in the direction of 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick. He then razzed San Francisco receiver Michael Crabtree, patting his butt and offering a mocking handshake. (Crabtree responded with a frustrated shove to Sherman’s helmet.) Once the game was over, Sherman proclaimed to Fox sideline reporter Erin Andrews, “Well, I’m the best corner in the game! When you try me with a sorry receiver like Crabtree, that’s the result you’re gonna get! Don’t you ever talk about me!”
I thought it was funny because it was a football player unfiltered. Also, it taught a very valuable lesson about talking crap about Richard Sherman. Don't do it.
It took only a few seconds for Twitter to begin yelling back at Sherman. ESPN’s Mike Greenberg joined a slew of others who called the Seattle corner “classless.”
But remember, the premise of this column is that "everyone" is celebrating Sherman's behavior. It turns out that's not true and the author admits that in his column. (deep sigh)
Soon, a second wave of punditry emerged to right these initial wrongs. Forbes noted that Sherman had graduated second in his high school class and gone to Stanford, “So not only is he not a fool, odds are he’s smarter than you and me.”
Ah yes, a summary of the events seems to be taking up the first part of this column while I patiently wait for how "everyone" celebrated Sherman's behavior and why this was so wrong. Just killing time...
A YouTube video circulated in my Twitter feed like a piece of pro-Sherman agitprop, demonstrating Sherman’s intellectual approach to the game and the value he places on hard work and preparation.
Whether Sherman takes an intellectual approach to a football game and how hard he works is sort of irrelevant in terms of whether his outburst was appropriate or not. It seems like a way to simply defeat the "Richard Sherman is an idiot thug" comments that were going around immediately after the interview. Taking that one event and deciding Sherman is a thug, while using his film viewing and game preparation as an example to frame the incident in one definitive manner or another seems irrelevant to me. A so-called thug can still prepare really well for a football game, while a studious person who takes an intellectual approach to the game can still say something publicly he regrets. Ask Peyton Manning about his "idiot kicker" comment a few years ago for proof of this.
Others focused on the racial dynamics. In a piece titled “Richard Sherman and the Plight of the Conquering Negro,” Deadspin’s Greg Howard argued that Sherman had become “a proxy for the black male id” and that condemnations of him were “based on the common, very American belief that black males must know their place.” The Nation’s Dave Zirin alluded to “stomach-churning racial coding” and described Sherman as “an archetype that has been branded a threat as long as African-Americans have played sports.”
Boy, it's taking a minute to get to the point isn't it?
I will gladly allow that the sight of middle-aged, white sportswriters evincing disgust at the brash behavior of a young, black athlete is depressingly familiar. I also shudder to align myself with the smarmy snobs who use a loaded term like “classless” in talking about a guy who grew up the son of a garbage man in Compton, Calif.
The second someone writes disgust at potentially aligning himself with another group of people, there's always a good chance that person is about to align himself with this group of people.
But can I draw a line here?
I’d like to request that we stipulate a few basic notions.
What follows are nine basic notions, so the author actually wants to draw nine lines here and not just one.
The first six points are basically that Sherman was being dick no matter where he went to school or how well-read he was. I agree. He was being a dick. I don't know if it was being a bad sport though and I'm not sure "everyone" is celebrating his behavior.
7. It turns out that Sherman and Crabtree have history—Sherman’s brother alleges that Crabtree tried to fight the Seahawks player at a charity event. Most of Sherman’s defenders haven’t bothered to mention the existing personal feud. But to be clear: While the prior beef adds some context, those two wrongs don’t make what Sherman did right—or, more precisely, not dickish.
No, but it does point out the background on why Sherman seemed so angry at Crabtree and felt the need to rub it in when he made the biggest play of his NFL career on a pass intended for Crabtree. I think the line I would like to draw is if two players have a previous feud then there's a good chance the bad blood will spill over to the field and also spill over into an interview done two minutes after the bad blood on the field has ended. Emotions were still running high at that point.
8. Talking smack in the lead-up to a contest, or in the middle of it, is permissible. It falls into the hallowed tradition of gamesmanship. Dancing on graves after the battle has been won is dickish.
How the hell does this make sense? So Richard Sherman could have called Michael Crabtree a mediocre receiver and a sorry receiver PRIOR to the game in an interview, but once he's backed up his words after the game has concluded he can't point out how correct he was? How is dancing on graves after the game dickish if it simply backs up the smack that was talked prior to the start of the game? I can't figure out how gamesmanship prior to the game in an interview is fine, but gamesmanship after the game isn't fine...especially since Sherman seemingly backed up his feelings about Crabtree.
9. And this is the most delicate of these notions but needs to be addressed: Whatever archetypes may be conjured by the specter of white people tsk-tsking a black man who loudly brags alongside a blond woman, those uncomfortable overtones don’t change the fact that, in this case, in that moment, the man was being a dick.
No, but why is it okay for Sherman to be a dick before the game has started?
I also recognize that the despicable, racist language being lobbed at Sherman needs to be shouted down, aggressively. But that doesn’t mean that Sherman was acting in a commendable manner when he wrapped his hands around his neck to signal that Colin Kaepernick choked. Or when he needlessly taunted Michael Crabtree
Actually, this "needless taunting" took place during the game so it's perfectly fine according to notion #8. Right, talking smack in the middle of the game is permissible. That's what Sherman did by pointing out Kaepernick choked and by taunting Crabtree. Try your best to stick to the rules (sorry, "notions") you have made up.
Why can’t we say that Sherman is probably a great guy who did not act like one in the moments after the NFC championship game?
Despite the author's attempts to push reactions towards "He's a thug!" or "He's a great guy!" I think most people do think Sherman is a great guy who didn't act like a nice guy after the game. That being said, it was still funny to see a professional athlete call out an opponent immediately after the game like that.
So let’s glorify Sherman for what deserves glory: his amazing performance on the field, and his accomplishments off it. He doesn’t deserve to be virulently attacked for his actions at the tail end of the NFC title game, but please let’s not celebrate them
I'm not sure his actions are being celebrated, but Sherman's adrenaline was still pumping after the game and he said what he thought when he was immediately interviewed upon the game ending. This is why the media waits to speak to athletes in the locker room after games, so the athlete can shower and prepare responses to questions asked.
As Sherman wrote: “[I]t was in the moment, and it was just a small part of the person I am.” Yes—a small, dickish part of who he is.
I'm still confused how it's okay to show gamesmanship during a football game according to notion #8, but Sherman was out of line for taunting Kaepernick and talking junk to Crabtree immediately after the great play by Sherman was over. Isn't that supposed to be permissible? I guess gamesmanship is fine unless the gamesmanship isn't fine.
Now Jay Mariotti urgently tells us about the dangers of Richard Sherman, and in such a caring fashion, he gives Pete Carroll unsolicited advice. The title of this column is "Carroll Must Realize Dangers of Sherman Tank." This is a reference to Sherman's March through the South after the Civil War I would presume, except Jay must have failed history because tanks were invented until the 20th century. But hey, it's a catchy title for a column isn't it? Actually, it really isn't catchy either.
Without intervention, the screaming loon who assaulted America’s senses with a post-game slam rant would have been devoured by the media throngs awaiting him in New York. Sherman was ready to attempt a Super Bowl takeover next week, but his coach, understanding how such a daily farce could distract the Seahawks and leave his player vulnerable to untold viral controversies, moved quickly to corral the Sherman Tank.
Simply because Richard Sherman made one comment after the game about Michael Crabtree doesn't mean he was looking to take over the Super Bowl. The media has the ability to control the viral controversies that they attempt to start, but I know that would take self-control and the need to not chase controversies which result in easy stories to write, so that's not an option.
Nothing can destroy a team in its proudest moment, Carroll knows, quite like a media maniac obsessed with himself.
Jay Mariotti understands this because he looks in the mirror everyday at someone who fits this description perfectly.
If Sherman proceeds with more stunts like his already-infamous Fox interview with Erin Andrews — and we can’t assume he won’t until next week is over — he may have been recalled as the idiot who buried his team with his mouth in the world’s media capital.
I think Jay is taking this a little far. Sherman simply called out Crabtree in an interview. He hasn't done anything like this in his previous two seasons in the NFL, so I don't think this one interview is a preview of an entire Super Bowl week of Sherman running his mouth and telling the entire world which receivers are mediocre and which are not. Let's not run too far with this story and make it more than it is.
“We try to stick to Rule No. 1, which is always protect the team. It’s the rule we live by. You always represent us. In a time like that one, it was a little bit representing yourself. How we handle it is we try to grow and learn and work our way through who we are and figure out who we want to be. This was an extraordinary learning opportunity. You’ll see some benefit from it.”
This is great advice from Pete Carroll that Richard Sherman didn't heed. It's unfortunate, but his comments to Erin Andrews after the NFC Championship game wasn't a prelude to more hi-jinx during Super Bowl week. Of course Jay Mariotti has to make it seem like Richard Sherman is a loose cannon who is liable to say anything at any point, even though this hasn't been proven to be true. Jay tries to be as extreme as possible, it's part of what makes his writing style so wonderful that no major mainstream news outlet cares to employ him.
“I apologize for attacking an individual and taking the attention away from the fantastic game by my teammates … That was not my intent,” Sherman said in a text message to ESPN.
Earlier, Sherman said, “Obviously I could have worded things better and could obviously have had a better reaction and done things differently. But it is what it is now, and people’s reactions are what they are.”
“But people find it easy to take shots on Twitter, and to use racial slurs and bullying language far worse than what you’ll see from me. It’s sad and somewhat unbelievable to me that the world is still this way, but it is.”
As a Stanford guy, Sherman knows the meaning of hypocrisy.
And he is a flaming hypocrite.
Says the sportswriter who trashes mainstream and large organizations like ESPN and FoxSports after desperately trying to get them to hire him prior to taking this job writing for Sports Talk Florida that probably gets 500 hits a day judging by the complete lack of comments on Mariotti's columns. But here is how Sherman is a hypocrite. Be prepared.
He’s complaining about “bullying” language? Just what would he call his rant on Crabtree, a lullaby?
I'm guessing Jay didn't do well in school as it pertained to "Reading Comprehension." Sherman isn't saying his rant wasn't a form of bullying, he was saying the slurs and language aimed at him is FAR WORSE than what you'll see from him. He's saying what he said after the game may have been wrong at the time, but those who took offense to his statement about Crabtree are using stronger and much more hurtful language that he classifies as bullying.
Of course, what mean things Sherman said to Crabtree wasn't known until a few days after the NFC Championship ended. I'm not sure this counts as "bullying." Listen to Sherman "bullying" Crabtree after the game.
The Super Bowl media game is old hat to him, as it is with Broncos coach John Fox and executive John Elway, and their overall equilibrium could be a major deciding factor as we see how Sherman and other flamboyant Seattle players handle the attention siege.
Somehow Jay Mariotti has managed to take these comments by Richard Sherman and turn them into the entire Seahawks team calling out their opponents and making statements they will regret all through Super Bowl week. Walter Thurmond has stated Welker's hit on Talib was uncalled for, but only the most desperate sportswriter (and ESPN did this) could say he "blasted" Welker.
What else did Carroll tell him? “There’s some stuff in there I think you should think about and did you really want it to come out the way it did and talk our way through that,” he said. “And he didn’t. He didn’t feel right about that. There were a lot of great things that happened (Sunday) night and we’re talking about some other stuff.”
Officially now, the Seahawks are hateable.
I actually like them better because of this. I appreciate an NFL player willing to tell his true opinion on an opponent every once in a while. At a certain point, constant comments about Crabtree would be overboard and get boring, but a quick peek behind the curtain of trash talk was a little refreshing to me.
They’re as loud and boisterous as their decibel-busting, mini-quake-shaking fans. Their architect, Carroll, escaped USC as the building was burning down and the NCAA was swooping in, and he also has this annoying way of saying “cool” a whole lot when he’s 62 years old.
It seems Jay Mariotti is desperately clinging to the "good versus evil" narrative for the Super Bowl. The Broncos are of course "good" and the Seahawks are "evil."
Then there’s Sherman, the most vocal member of Seattle’s Legion of Boom, who may not be able to himself in making enemies and spewing noise.
I guess Sports Talk Radio can't afford an editor for Jay. Read that sentence again. It makes not of sense.
As you will discover these next two weeks, he is the face of this upstart franchise, full of dread,
I don't understand how the Seahawks are full of dread. They don't seem to be full of dread at all. They seem eager to play Peyton Manning and the Broncos in the Super Bowl.
adorned with dreads and armed with a big head.
Oh, so that's why. Jay wants accuracy and the ability of his readers to comprehend what he is writing to fall by the wayside in favor of rhyming and cutesy writing tricks. I'm guessing he learned this from Rick Reilly during his time at ESPN.
We all remember Sherman, of course, for approaching Tom Brady after a victory and asking him, “You mad, bro?” Then he tweeted of Brady, referring to secondary mate Earl Thonas,
Quick! I need an editor now!
I'm not sure who Earl Thonas is, but I do know Earl Thomas plays safety for the Seahawks.
“He told me and earl to see him after the game when they win … I found him after ….” What Sherman does is turn in-game verbal jousting into warfare.
Actually, it seems like Sherman takes trash talk prior to the game and reminds the person talking the trash after the game is over that he backed up his bravado. I'm not saying I enjoy it all the time, but it's fun once and a while.
And that leads us to ask: Is he possibly going to be dumb enough to say something that will tick off Manning, who has more than enough motivation as it is to win this Super Bowl for his personal legacy?
The sports media can only hope that Sherman says something about Manning and they will certainly be baiting Sherman all week to say something negative about Manning so it can be blown up into a huge story.
Not only are the allegiance roles drawn definitively — Manning as the sentimental favorite, the Seahawks as the loudmouths in his way —
Idiot writers just prefer putting narratives into a box where everything makes sense and there is zero nuance involved with these storylines.
Said Crabtree of Sherman: “He’s a TV guy, I’m not a TV guy,” Crabtree said. “He didn’t make any other plays in the game … But he made a good play there. He can keep talking. You make one play and you talk? Good play.”
Later, a Crabtree tweet was more biting: “`Film don’t lie… @nflnetwork @espn pull up the tape of that game and show me where this guy is the best? #fake #fake #fake.”
And of course if Michael Crabtree had said this in front of an open microphone then I'm sure everyone would be up in arms at how rude, unprofessional and dangerous these comments are, right? He's turning in-game verbal jousting into warfare!
Richard? “He wouldn’t make the top 20 of NFL receivers,” Sherman said. “If any team had a chance to pick Crabtree, they wouldn’t draft him.”
The slap on the butt? “I was making sure everyone knew Crabtree was a mediocre receiver,” Sherman said. “And when you try the best corner in the game with a mediocre receiver, that’s what happens. I appreciate that he knows that now. There has been a lot of talk from him running his mouth about me.”
What's interesting to me about this feud and Jay Mariotti writing about this feud is that Jay had his very own feud when he worked in Chicago with Ozzie Guillen. If any writers knows what it is like to exchange words with someone who doesn't like you then it is probably Jay. Of course, when Guillen fired back at Jay he chose to cower in his office and shoot his mouth off in print rather than say anything without the protection of not being in the same room as Guillen.
I wouldn’t have minded Harbaugh in New York.
It's good to know the San Francisco 49ers would have had Jay Mariotti's permission to play in the Super Bowl.
The 12th Man will be represented in New York by Richard Sherman. He can make more noise than 68,454 people combined.
"He's such an entertaining loud-mouthed black man! Dance for us all! Put on a show so I can judge you for it!"
Will he listen to his coach?
Doubtful. You know how headstrong these educated, loud-mouthed minorities can be. Always flaunting their intelligence by talking loudly and never following the directions given to them.
Carroll said. “At times they are going to make mistakes and break your heart, but if you love them, you stay with them. You give [them] the best chance to be all they can be.
“Richard is a wonderful spirit. He’s got an amazing heart, and he has great sensitivity. He goes all the way to the end of the spectrum when it comes to expressing himself.”
Which is exactly what should concern the Seahawks as Manning quietly licks his chops, ready to exploit a raging distraction.
Clearly, Jay Mariotti wants to embrace this distraction while also criticizing Richard Sherman for being dangerous. Jay thinks Richard Sherman is a jerk and hateable, but he sure likes that Sherman has given him something interesting to write about.
Without
intervention, the screaming loon who assaulted America’s senses with a
post-game slam rant would have been devoured by the media throngs
awaiting him in New York. Sherman was ready to attempt a Super Bowl
takeover next week, but his coach, understanding how such a daily farce
could distract the Seahawks and leave his player vulnerable to untold
viral controversies, moved quickly to corral the Sherman Tank.
Read more at http://www.sportstalkflorida.com/carroll-must-realize-dangers-of-sherman-tank/#8XJQWmSkcdcB2pHW.99
Read more at http://www.sportstalkflorida.com/carroll-must-realize-dangers-of-sherman-tank/#8XJQWmSkcdcB2pHW.99
Friday, August 7, 2009
12 comments Prediction Friday
I like to make predictions, and fortunately so do many sportswriters, which gives me an opportunity to not only mock them but give my opinion and solicit other opinions at the same time. Sportswriters like John Lopez also like to make predictions based on what people think are the "trendy" picks in the NFL.
Though I would argue with some of these picks being "trendy" because generally the sportswriters tend to cover the teams extensively and then because they as sportswriters think the teams will be good, just go ahead and label that team "trendy" even if it is one person's opinion and not an actual trend. I will try to ignore this and carry on.
This is my first chance before this upcoming season to do a little NFL discussing. Let's see what John Lopez thinks is "trendy."
The trendy pick: A Cowboys Super Bowl run?
I think predicting the Cowboys to make the Super Bowl is pushing it just a little bit. I think the Cowboys could win a playoff game this year, which for them would be an accomplishment since it hasn't happened since 1996 (yes, I keep bringing this up because my area is full of the annoying kind of Cowboys fans).
I do believe in addition by subtraction and I think many of the distractions being gone and the fact the Cowboys still have a talented and fairly deep team could land them second place in the NFC East. Super Bowl run? I don't believe that is happening. Of course I am the same person who called the Pittsburgh offense "boring and predictable," or something to that effect but meant it in a good way in my AFC preview, so believe me if you dare.
So will it happen?
Not likely. The Cowboys should be better and have first-rate talent, but even if everything goes swimmingly, it would be hard to pass the Giants and Eagles.
I am not as on the Eagles bandwagon as everyone else (Peter King) seems to be. I like LeSean McCoy and thought he should have gone higher in the draft over guys like Donald Brown and Beanie Wells, but they are relying on some really young receivers to carry the load in a tough division. I am not even counting the impact of the loss of Jim Johnson, Brian Dawkins, and Stewart Bradley on defense. Throw in the fact Donovan McNabb has an injury history and with him missing a couple games I can see the Cowboys sliding into the #2 spot in the competitive NFC East.
The trendy pick: The Chargers (for the 9,786th time), could win it all.
Not to go Bill Simmons on everyone, but this is not happening while Norv Turner is the head coach. He is a great offensive coordinator but he is not a great head coach. I think the Chargers have enough firepower and play in a crappy enough division to where they could get a bye week for the playoffs but I don't enough faith they could go much further than that. I want to like the combination of mighty mite Darren Sproles and Tomlinson but I don't believe Sproles can handle carrying the ball 15 times a game and I am not sure how much Tomlinson has left in him. I see the running game as a bit of a mystery this year (Of course since it is another contract year for Sproles he will prove me wrong by gaining 3,000 total yards).
So, will it happen?
Yes. This time, yes. The Chargers could finally get over the hump. Ultimately, players make the biggest difference, and while the Steelers, Patriots and Colts are deservedly favored, San Diego's talent takes a backseat to no one.
Players do make the biggest difference as seen last year when the Steelers and Cardinals clearly had the most talented teams in the NFL (Waiting for everyone to get my sarcasm). San Diego's talent may not take a backseat to anyone and Chris Chambers may rebound from a subpar year last year but I just don't see the Chargers getting over the hump. They seem like a team that will just never be able to put it all together in one season and win a Super Bowl. They have the talent but lack the coaching and some weird intangible I can't put my finger on.
The trendy pick: The 49ers will make a glorious return under Mike Singletary
Return to what? That would be my question. Respectability? Not if they are planning on starting Alex Smith at the QB position. Everyone loves Patrick Willis and I think Shaun Hill can get the job done at QB if given the chance, unfortunately in the NFL having strength at the offensive and defensive lines is especially important and the 49ers have neither. The offensive line is mediocre and they really don't have any one who can rush the passer. Throw in the fact Michael Crabtree is threatening to not sign a contract and enter the 2010 draft and it doesn't seem like their year to make a "glorious return" to anything.
So, will it happen?
No way. Singletary deserved this chance he's gotten, but too many things are stacked against him. He'll get this club playing good football and toughen it up, but by midseason, expect a big crash.
The fact he is inheriting a bad team that has wasted high draft picks on average players like Manny Lawson, Alex Smith, Vernon Davis, Kentwan Balmer, and Rashaun Woods hasn't helped the team at all. I can see the 49ers being better than last year but I don't know if 2nd/3rd place in the NFC West qualifies as a glorious return.
The trendy pick: The Texans are headed to the playoffs
I do see this happening this year actually. Just for right now, and this could change due to injuries or some other unforseen circumstance, I see the playoffs as the Texans, Colts, Steelers, Patriots, San Diego, and Bills. My biggest question about the Texans is their ability to run the ball but I think Steve Slaton is going to have a good year and the Texan defense is bound to be pretty good with some of the good young players they have, even if they weren't very good last year.
So, will it happen?
Yes, print those playoff tickets, Texans fans. Matt Schaub is due a full, healthy season. And when he's on the field, nobody stops this offense.
I don't know if a quarterback is actually ever "due" a healthy season but Schaub is bound to stay healthier this year than last year, though if he does get hurt, I am calling all bets off. We all know from Peter's King brilliant analysis that Dan Orlovsky won't be able to handle the load. The defense needs to step up a little more to get this done, which I believe will happen. Every year someone says the Texans will make it to the playoffs and this year it just happens to be true.
The trendy pick: The Chiefs are on their way back.
Again, this is sort of a vague statement. The Chiefs will be back at some point and as bad as they were last year, they can't go anywhere else but up at this point. Plus they have Matty Icccccccce 1 (or 2, I can't remember which one Matt Ryan is). Everyone knows that good teams give quarterbacks who have had one good year in the NFL, with a team that has successfully plugged players in the system and then watched them leave and do nothing, huge new contracts. That's what good teams do right? They commit themselves long term to guys who have had one good year and no prior track record other than that.
Throw in the fact Todd Haley has a history of getting into sideline arguments with his players and it took him three quarters to open up the offense in the Super Bowl and I even have major questions about the coaching staff.
Of course the Chiefs are on their way back, they can't get much lower, but I don't think it is going to be this year or next year and I don't even know if Matt Cassel is the guy to do it.
So, will it happen?
Nope. It's just asking too much. The Chiefs have cleared some cap space, but they are at least four or five years away.
That's just an ignorant statement. If Todd Haley and Scott Pioli are the guys to turn this around they will have it turned around in less time than that. If they are not the guys to do it, then it may take longer, but there is no way these guys stick around if it takes 4 years to turn the team around and make them respectable again. They will be fired before that point. The Dolphins turned their team around in one year last year and the Panthers went from 1-15 to the Super Bowl in two years. Four or five years is an incredible amount of time in the NFL and this regime won't get that long to turn it around.
The trendy pick: The Bears are going to shock the NFL world.
And have a receiver that catches more than 40 passes or one that exceeds 600 yards receiving? All kidding aside, the Jay Cutler trade has really given Bears fans hope. I am here to knock some of that hope down. The offensive line is just a huge question mark, the defense has gotten old over the past two seasons, and I just don't know who is supposed to catch the ball for them.
I think the defense can turn it around and will do so, the offensive line helped Forte last year have a great rookie season, but I still don't know how this is going to work with the complete lack of receivers for Cutler. Cutler is a great QB but he also has had some good receivers to throw the ball to and an absolutely great offensive line in Denver. Orlando Pace doesn't have too much left in him and I wonder how Cutler will play without great time to throw the ball and great receivers to throw the ball to.
So, will it happen?
Yup. Fear the Bears in 2009. I'm not saying Super Bowl, but if Cutler has any receiver step up, good things will happen.
I did like Earl Bennett coming out of Vanderbilt but the fact he couldn't find the field last year for the Bears make me nervous for his prospects this year. I don't know if the Bears are good enough to win the division and I don't think one of the Wild Cards is coming from this division either. The Bears can win the division and they will as long as a receiver other than Hester steps up, the defense doesn't keep going backwards and the offensive line gives Cutler the time he is used to in throwing. That seems like a lot to have happen but the division is for the taking.
The Vikings flirted with Brett Favre for a reason. And the Packers playing footsy with Michael Vick? Not exactly a confidence-booster.
I don't think the off season moves by the other teams in the division mean necessarily these teams fear the Bears. I know John Lopez is not saying they will make the Super Bowl but the Bears couldn't make the playoffs last year when the Packers stunk and the Lions did not win a game. I know the addition of Cutler is supposed to be the thing that gets the Bears over the hump, but I can't ignore the defense's slow decline and the fact the O-line is a bit of a mystery for them.
-Back to Michael Crabtree. I am going to try and be as impolite as possible about this. What the hell is he thinking?
Per a league source, agent Eugene Parker is telling the 49ers that Crabtree will sit out the season and re-enter the draft in 2010, unless the team gives Crabtree what he wants.
Michael Crabtree is a damn idiot. This is the NFL, not high school or college where there are only a couple guys who know exactly what the hell they are doing. Not to mention he is a rookie receiver, which is a position that has seemed to have quite a learning curve in the past. He needs to get his ass on the field and start to play football. He's an idiot. He can be replaced in a heartbeat...even on a team that is not great like the 49ers.
I defended Crabtree when he came out of the draft because I thought he was the best receiver available and didn't get it when people talked about character issues he has. Now I get it. The worst part is that his agents haven't even made a fucking offer to the 49ers yet! I can't use exclamation points enough for this. Rookies need to sign and get on the field to play with their team.
Rookies in the NFL aren't special anymore and there are 10 other guys who can do exactly what you can as a rookie (in most cases). There's no difference in $42 million guaranteed and $48 million guaranteed but there is a huge difference in starting the season on the second unit on the depth chart and starting the season in the starting lineup. Throw in the fact he had a major-ish surgery before the draft, which may or may not have caused his stock to drop, and it is clear to me he needs to get on the field and play football.
Let him sit out the entire year and entire the draft. It's clear he and his agent haven't thought this through. The 49ers hold his rights until Draft Day. That means he can't go to the Combine again or do anything football related with other teams. He can do it on his own and let the media attend or he can send out in a press release what happened but he can't work for other teams and if a team is going to draft him, especially after he showed what an asshole he can be and his injury this past year, they are going to want to watch him play.
Michael Crabtree could very well be a great receiver but I am a firm believer a rookie has more to lose than to gain by holding out of training camp, especially a rookie wide receiver. The NFL isn't easy and it is important to be in training camp adjusting to the speed of the game. The 49ers may be desperate and give him a chance once (or if) he signs a contract to play with the first team but he has to learn the playbook and be out there with his teammates. He has the prima donna part of being an NFL receiver down, but now he just needs to prove he can actually play. He's an idiot right now though.
-I know from previous experience here that I seem to be one of the few people who cares about NCAA college basketball but that is not going to stop me from commenting on it. Dick Vitale has his preseason Top 40. Why Top 40 instead of Top 25 or Top 50? Because it is Dick Vitale and he does things his way I guess. I have gotten to the point I can't hear him call a game anymore because he spends so much time talking about other topics not related to college basketball, it is just annoying.
I have some problems with his preseason predictions...I admittedly am a little bit of a snob about college basketball. I don't know it all, because no one does, but I feel like I have a firm enough grasp of it to make predictions and be semi-accurate. Last year I predicted UNC would win the National Championship back in July 2008 (I said no one should beat them for the upcoming year, it's really the same thing I guess) and I basically beat the drum for them all year. That's a lot of pressure for me this year to predict correctly again.
1. Kansas:
I know everyone is awaiting my choice for National Champion but it is not as clear cut for me this year. If I had to choose right now, I would say Kansas is my choice, simply because they have experience at PG, a big man to rebound and control the paint and two athletic wing players in Henry and Taylor. It's a formula for success in college basketball. A lot of people talk about depth being important, but it is not as important if you have starters you can trust to not get tired or foul out. Kansas has a couple of guys off the bench they can count on and that's all you need to win a National Championship.
2. Kentucky
Putting aside the fact I hate Kentucky and John Calipari, I will try to be neutral. They have A LOT of talent on that roster and a lot of young talent, which sometimes can be a bad thing. I think #2 is a bit high for them because on some nights they are going to be on and other nights I can see them being a mess. I just don't know how they are going to keep all those players happy and give them shots. Calipari will find a way I am sure. I think the best part of the year will be to see the mass exodus of players from Kentucky to the NBA. Just off the top of my head Cousins, Wall, Patterson, and very possibly Daniel Orton will go pro.
3. Michigan State
They are not an elite team this year. I believe they overachieved last year and I see them as being more of a #8-#15 team. Of course I also didn't see them making the National Championship game last year.
5. Duke:
Same thing for these guys. They are consistently over ranked because people look at the name. They still have no big men, don't have a tough rebounding type player on the roster and have three total guards on the roster worth even putting on the floor, and one of them is a freshman and none are point guards. I would put them in the top 5 if they either had a big man worth a crap or a point guard at all on the roster. The fact is they don't, so Dick Vitale needs to quit jumping on the bandwagon, stop over ranking Duke, and face reality.
(One reason I hate the Interwebs, I wrote this last night and today the Big Lead put this up. They are much more widely read so it looks like I am copying them by saying this. How dare two people have the same point of view. This is America dammit!)
7. Villanova:
I love this team this year and would move them up into the top 5 in the preseason rankings. This is my #3 team in the country. They kept Stokes, Fisher, and Reynolds around and have a top 5 recruiting class coming in. Size may be a bit of a problem because the little skill size they have are freshmen but I really, really like this team. If you put a gun to my head I would say I have Villanova and Kansas in the National Championship game.
8. North Carolina:
Schedule them for a National Championship in two more years. The talent is still there this year and I think this is the right spot for them, they just need more experience.
10. Illinois:
11. Michigan:
I think Michigan deserves this spot but Illinois is over ranked here. Put them at #20 at the maximum because they had a good, not great class this past year. I don't see Illinois making this much noise this year even in a fairly weak Big 10.
15. Florida State:
This team has height on the roster to spare and that height has athleticism and talent. I do question whether Leonard Hamilton is the right coach. He let his team stand around and watch Toney Douglas a little bit too much last year. I would push FSU to #18-#20 for the year. Dick Vitale always over ranks ACC teams.
17. Syracuse
18. Mississippi State
I actually don't love Syracuse as much this year for some reason. I like that they actually recruited a young guy who made Paul Harris expendable in DaShonte Riley but otherwise I am not jumping up and down at this point. I think they hover in and out of the Top 25 this year.
I do like Mississippi State though, even if they did recruit the turd in human form Renaldo Sydney. If they can keep him under control then I can see MSU in the Top 15 all year.
20. Georgia Tech
They did get Derrick Favors who is going to be a one man wrecking crew this year but there is no fucking way they are a Top 20 team in the preseason. No way. After stinking up the ACC last year they are going to be a Top 20 team after one year? I don't see it happening.
22. Florida
23. Butler
I would move both of these teams up 5 or 6 spots. Butler and Florida are going to be Top 20 teams this year.
24. Ohio State
26. Boston College
28. Notre Dame
I don't even think Notre Dame is a Top 40 team this year. Move the other two teams back two spots because I don't think either team is good enough to be in the Top 25 either.
29. Clemson
They will move up to #12 after starting 15-0 like they do every year and then end the season out of the Top 25 near this spot.
30. Oklahoma State
33. Minnesota
Both these teams are better than this. I would move Minnesota into the Top 25. Tubby Smith can recruit and this year he has a team with depth but may lack a go to guy, which could limit their chances of winning a couple games and me moving them up further. I would even move Oklahoma State into the Top 15...maybe not all year but for 50% of the year. How's that for hedging?
35. Siena
37. Tulsa
Both of these teams should be in the Top 25 at many points during this year but will not make it as much as they should because of the conferences they play in. Then in the NCAA Tournament the same "experts" who refused to vote them into the Top 25 in the AP Poll will talk about how "dangerous" they are when going against a higher seed in the second round as a #7 or #8 seed. It happens every year and never fails to annoy me.
I noticed one big omission from this list and that was UCLA. I can't help but think they should be ranked in the Top 40 of this list. I put Indiana as my other sleeper team for this year. Yes, I realize I chose two teams that are big name programs but I think both of them are going to be better than expected this year.
I haven't seen any of these teams play yet, so I am sure they will make me look stupid and not fulfill my predictions. Please forgive me if I change my opinion on some of these teams as we get closer to the season as things change for each team and injuries occur. My goal is to get one person to actually care about college basketball. I think I can do it. I am not trying to make fans, just make people not skip over the occasional college basketball stuff on this here blog.
Though I would argue with some of these picks being "trendy" because generally the sportswriters tend to cover the teams extensively and then because they as sportswriters think the teams will be good, just go ahead and label that team "trendy" even if it is one person's opinion and not an actual trend. I will try to ignore this and carry on.
This is my first chance before this upcoming season to do a little NFL discussing. Let's see what John Lopez thinks is "trendy."
The trendy pick: A Cowboys Super Bowl run?
I think predicting the Cowboys to make the Super Bowl is pushing it just a little bit. I think the Cowboys could win a playoff game this year, which for them would be an accomplishment since it hasn't happened since 1996 (yes, I keep bringing this up because my area is full of the annoying kind of Cowboys fans).
I do believe in addition by subtraction and I think many of the distractions being gone and the fact the Cowboys still have a talented and fairly deep team could land them second place in the NFC East. Super Bowl run? I don't believe that is happening. Of course I am the same person who called the Pittsburgh offense "boring and predictable," or something to that effect but meant it in a good way in my AFC preview, so believe me if you dare.
So will it happen?
Not likely. The Cowboys should be better and have first-rate talent, but even if everything goes swimmingly, it would be hard to pass the Giants and Eagles.
I am not as on the Eagles bandwagon as everyone else (Peter King) seems to be. I like LeSean McCoy and thought he should have gone higher in the draft over guys like Donald Brown and Beanie Wells, but they are relying on some really young receivers to carry the load in a tough division. I am not even counting the impact of the loss of Jim Johnson, Brian Dawkins, and Stewart Bradley on defense. Throw in the fact Donovan McNabb has an injury history and with him missing a couple games I can see the Cowboys sliding into the #2 spot in the competitive NFC East.
The trendy pick: The Chargers (for the 9,786th time), could win it all.
Not to go Bill Simmons on everyone, but this is not happening while Norv Turner is the head coach. He is a great offensive coordinator but he is not a great head coach. I think the Chargers have enough firepower and play in a crappy enough division to where they could get a bye week for the playoffs but I don't enough faith they could go much further than that. I want to like the combination of mighty mite Darren Sproles and Tomlinson but I don't believe Sproles can handle carrying the ball 15 times a game and I am not sure how much Tomlinson has left in him. I see the running game as a bit of a mystery this year (Of course since it is another contract year for Sproles he will prove me wrong by gaining 3,000 total yards).
So, will it happen?
Yes. This time, yes. The Chargers could finally get over the hump. Ultimately, players make the biggest difference, and while the Steelers, Patriots and Colts are deservedly favored, San Diego's talent takes a backseat to no one.
Players do make the biggest difference as seen last year when the Steelers and Cardinals clearly had the most talented teams in the NFL (Waiting for everyone to get my sarcasm). San Diego's talent may not take a backseat to anyone and Chris Chambers may rebound from a subpar year last year but I just don't see the Chargers getting over the hump. They seem like a team that will just never be able to put it all together in one season and win a Super Bowl. They have the talent but lack the coaching and some weird intangible I can't put my finger on.
The trendy pick: The 49ers will make a glorious return under Mike Singletary
Return to what? That would be my question. Respectability? Not if they are planning on starting Alex Smith at the QB position. Everyone loves Patrick Willis and I think Shaun Hill can get the job done at QB if given the chance, unfortunately in the NFL having strength at the offensive and defensive lines is especially important and the 49ers have neither. The offensive line is mediocre and they really don't have any one who can rush the passer. Throw in the fact Michael Crabtree is threatening to not sign a contract and enter the 2010 draft and it doesn't seem like their year to make a "glorious return" to anything.
So, will it happen?
No way. Singletary deserved this chance he's gotten, but too many things are stacked against him. He'll get this club playing good football and toughen it up, but by midseason, expect a big crash.
The fact he is inheriting a bad team that has wasted high draft picks on average players like Manny Lawson, Alex Smith, Vernon Davis, Kentwan Balmer, and Rashaun Woods hasn't helped the team at all. I can see the 49ers being better than last year but I don't know if 2nd/3rd place in the NFC West qualifies as a glorious return.
The trendy pick: The Texans are headed to the playoffs
I do see this happening this year actually. Just for right now, and this could change due to injuries or some other unforseen circumstance, I see the playoffs as the Texans, Colts, Steelers, Patriots, San Diego, and Bills. My biggest question about the Texans is their ability to run the ball but I think Steve Slaton is going to have a good year and the Texan defense is bound to be pretty good with some of the good young players they have, even if they weren't very good last year.
So, will it happen?
Yes, print those playoff tickets, Texans fans. Matt Schaub is due a full, healthy season. And when he's on the field, nobody stops this offense.
I don't know if a quarterback is actually ever "due" a healthy season but Schaub is bound to stay healthier this year than last year, though if he does get hurt, I am calling all bets off. We all know from Peter's King brilliant analysis that Dan Orlovsky won't be able to handle the load. The defense needs to step up a little more to get this done, which I believe will happen. Every year someone says the Texans will make it to the playoffs and this year it just happens to be true.
The trendy pick: The Chiefs are on their way back.
Again, this is sort of a vague statement. The Chiefs will be back at some point and as bad as they were last year, they can't go anywhere else but up at this point. Plus they have Matty Icccccccce 1 (or 2, I can't remember which one Matt Ryan is). Everyone knows that good teams give quarterbacks who have had one good year in the NFL, with a team that has successfully plugged players in the system and then watched them leave and do nothing, huge new contracts. That's what good teams do right? They commit themselves long term to guys who have had one good year and no prior track record other than that.
Throw in the fact Todd Haley has a history of getting into sideline arguments with his players and it took him three quarters to open up the offense in the Super Bowl and I even have major questions about the coaching staff.
Of course the Chiefs are on their way back, they can't get much lower, but I don't think it is going to be this year or next year and I don't even know if Matt Cassel is the guy to do it.
So, will it happen?
Nope. It's just asking too much. The Chiefs have cleared some cap space, but they are at least four or five years away.
That's just an ignorant statement. If Todd Haley and Scott Pioli are the guys to turn this around they will have it turned around in less time than that. If they are not the guys to do it, then it may take longer, but there is no way these guys stick around if it takes 4 years to turn the team around and make them respectable again. They will be fired before that point. The Dolphins turned their team around in one year last year and the Panthers went from 1-15 to the Super Bowl in two years. Four or five years is an incredible amount of time in the NFL and this regime won't get that long to turn it around.
The trendy pick: The Bears are going to shock the NFL world.
And have a receiver that catches more than 40 passes or one that exceeds 600 yards receiving? All kidding aside, the Jay Cutler trade has really given Bears fans hope. I am here to knock some of that hope down. The offensive line is just a huge question mark, the defense has gotten old over the past two seasons, and I just don't know who is supposed to catch the ball for them.
I think the defense can turn it around and will do so, the offensive line helped Forte last year have a great rookie season, but I still don't know how this is going to work with the complete lack of receivers for Cutler. Cutler is a great QB but he also has had some good receivers to throw the ball to and an absolutely great offensive line in Denver. Orlando Pace doesn't have too much left in him and I wonder how Cutler will play without great time to throw the ball and great receivers to throw the ball to.
So, will it happen?
Yup. Fear the Bears in 2009. I'm not saying Super Bowl, but if Cutler has any receiver step up, good things will happen.
I did like Earl Bennett coming out of Vanderbilt but the fact he couldn't find the field last year for the Bears make me nervous for his prospects this year. I don't know if the Bears are good enough to win the division and I don't think one of the Wild Cards is coming from this division either. The Bears can win the division and they will as long as a receiver other than Hester steps up, the defense doesn't keep going backwards and the offensive line gives Cutler the time he is used to in throwing. That seems like a lot to have happen but the division is for the taking.
The Vikings flirted with Brett Favre for a reason. And the Packers playing footsy with Michael Vick? Not exactly a confidence-booster.
I don't think the off season moves by the other teams in the division mean necessarily these teams fear the Bears. I know John Lopez is not saying they will make the Super Bowl but the Bears couldn't make the playoffs last year when the Packers stunk and the Lions did not win a game. I know the addition of Cutler is supposed to be the thing that gets the Bears over the hump, but I can't ignore the defense's slow decline and the fact the O-line is a bit of a mystery for them.
-Back to Michael Crabtree. I am going to try and be as impolite as possible about this. What the hell is he thinking?
Per a league source, agent Eugene Parker is telling the 49ers that Crabtree will sit out the season and re-enter the draft in 2010, unless the team gives Crabtree what he wants.
Michael Crabtree is a damn idiot. This is the NFL, not high school or college where there are only a couple guys who know exactly what the hell they are doing. Not to mention he is a rookie receiver, which is a position that has seemed to have quite a learning curve in the past. He needs to get his ass on the field and start to play football. He's an idiot. He can be replaced in a heartbeat...even on a team that is not great like the 49ers.
I defended Crabtree when he came out of the draft because I thought he was the best receiver available and didn't get it when people talked about character issues he has. Now I get it. The worst part is that his agents haven't even made a fucking offer to the 49ers yet! I can't use exclamation points enough for this. Rookies need to sign and get on the field to play with their team.
Rookies in the NFL aren't special anymore and there are 10 other guys who can do exactly what you can as a rookie (in most cases). There's no difference in $42 million guaranteed and $48 million guaranteed but there is a huge difference in starting the season on the second unit on the depth chart and starting the season in the starting lineup. Throw in the fact he had a major-ish surgery before the draft, which may or may not have caused his stock to drop, and it is clear to me he needs to get on the field and play football.
Let him sit out the entire year and entire the draft. It's clear he and his agent haven't thought this through. The 49ers hold his rights until Draft Day. That means he can't go to the Combine again or do anything football related with other teams. He can do it on his own and let the media attend or he can send out in a press release what happened but he can't work for other teams and if a team is going to draft him, especially after he showed what an asshole he can be and his injury this past year, they are going to want to watch him play.
Michael Crabtree could very well be a great receiver but I am a firm believer a rookie has more to lose than to gain by holding out of training camp, especially a rookie wide receiver. The NFL isn't easy and it is important to be in training camp adjusting to the speed of the game. The 49ers may be desperate and give him a chance once (or if) he signs a contract to play with the first team but he has to learn the playbook and be out there with his teammates. He has the prima donna part of being an NFL receiver down, but now he just needs to prove he can actually play. He's an idiot right now though.
-I know from previous experience here that I seem to be one of the few people who cares about NCAA college basketball but that is not going to stop me from commenting on it. Dick Vitale has his preseason Top 40. Why Top 40 instead of Top 25 or Top 50? Because it is Dick Vitale and he does things his way I guess. I have gotten to the point I can't hear him call a game anymore because he spends so much time talking about other topics not related to college basketball, it is just annoying.
I have some problems with his preseason predictions...I admittedly am a little bit of a snob about college basketball. I don't know it all, because no one does, but I feel like I have a firm enough grasp of it to make predictions and be semi-accurate. Last year I predicted UNC would win the National Championship back in July 2008 (I said no one should beat them for the upcoming year, it's really the same thing I guess) and I basically beat the drum for them all year. That's a lot of pressure for me this year to predict correctly again.
1. Kansas:
I know everyone is awaiting my choice for National Champion but it is not as clear cut for me this year. If I had to choose right now, I would say Kansas is my choice, simply because they have experience at PG, a big man to rebound and control the paint and two athletic wing players in Henry and Taylor. It's a formula for success in college basketball. A lot of people talk about depth being important, but it is not as important if you have starters you can trust to not get tired or foul out. Kansas has a couple of guys off the bench they can count on and that's all you need to win a National Championship.
2. Kentucky
Putting aside the fact I hate Kentucky and John Calipari, I will try to be neutral. They have A LOT of talent on that roster and a lot of young talent, which sometimes can be a bad thing. I think #2 is a bit high for them because on some nights they are going to be on and other nights I can see them being a mess. I just don't know how they are going to keep all those players happy and give them shots. Calipari will find a way I am sure. I think the best part of the year will be to see the mass exodus of players from Kentucky to the NBA. Just off the top of my head Cousins, Wall, Patterson, and very possibly Daniel Orton will go pro.
3. Michigan State
They are not an elite team this year. I believe they overachieved last year and I see them as being more of a #8-#15 team. Of course I also didn't see them making the National Championship game last year.
5. Duke:
Same thing for these guys. They are consistently over ranked because people look at the name. They still have no big men, don't have a tough rebounding type player on the roster and have three total guards on the roster worth even putting on the floor, and one of them is a freshman and none are point guards. I would put them in the top 5 if they either had a big man worth a crap or a point guard at all on the roster. The fact is they don't, so Dick Vitale needs to quit jumping on the bandwagon, stop over ranking Duke, and face reality.
(One reason I hate the Interwebs, I wrote this last night and today the Big Lead put this up. They are much more widely read so it looks like I am copying them by saying this. How dare two people have the same point of view. This is America dammit!)
7. Villanova:
I love this team this year and would move them up into the top 5 in the preseason rankings. This is my #3 team in the country. They kept Stokes, Fisher, and Reynolds around and have a top 5 recruiting class coming in. Size may be a bit of a problem because the little skill size they have are freshmen but I really, really like this team. If you put a gun to my head I would say I have Villanova and Kansas in the National Championship game.
8. North Carolina:
Schedule them for a National Championship in two more years. The talent is still there this year and I think this is the right spot for them, they just need more experience.
10. Illinois:
11. Michigan:
I think Michigan deserves this spot but Illinois is over ranked here. Put them at #20 at the maximum because they had a good, not great class this past year. I don't see Illinois making this much noise this year even in a fairly weak Big 10.
15. Florida State:
This team has height on the roster to spare and that height has athleticism and talent. I do question whether Leonard Hamilton is the right coach. He let his team stand around and watch Toney Douglas a little bit too much last year. I would push FSU to #18-#20 for the year. Dick Vitale always over ranks ACC teams.
17. Syracuse
18. Mississippi State
I actually don't love Syracuse as much this year for some reason. I like that they actually recruited a young guy who made Paul Harris expendable in DaShonte Riley but otherwise I am not jumping up and down at this point. I think they hover in and out of the Top 25 this year.
I do like Mississippi State though, even if they did recruit the turd in human form Renaldo Sydney. If they can keep him under control then I can see MSU in the Top 15 all year.
20. Georgia Tech
They did get Derrick Favors who is going to be a one man wrecking crew this year but there is no fucking way they are a Top 20 team in the preseason. No way. After stinking up the ACC last year they are going to be a Top 20 team after one year? I don't see it happening.
22. Florida
23. Butler
I would move both of these teams up 5 or 6 spots. Butler and Florida are going to be Top 20 teams this year.
24. Ohio State
26. Boston College
28. Notre Dame
I don't even think Notre Dame is a Top 40 team this year. Move the other two teams back two spots because I don't think either team is good enough to be in the Top 25 either.
29. Clemson
They will move up to #12 after starting 15-0 like they do every year and then end the season out of the Top 25 near this spot.
30. Oklahoma State
33. Minnesota
Both these teams are better than this. I would move Minnesota into the Top 25. Tubby Smith can recruit and this year he has a team with depth but may lack a go to guy, which could limit their chances of winning a couple games and me moving them up further. I would even move Oklahoma State into the Top 15...maybe not all year but for 50% of the year. How's that for hedging?
35. Siena
37. Tulsa
Both of these teams should be in the Top 25 at many points during this year but will not make it as much as they should because of the conferences they play in. Then in the NCAA Tournament the same "experts" who refused to vote them into the Top 25 in the AP Poll will talk about how "dangerous" they are when going against a higher seed in the second round as a #7 or #8 seed. It happens every year and never fails to annoy me.
I noticed one big omission from this list and that was UCLA. I can't help but think they should be ranked in the Top 40 of this list. I put Indiana as my other sleeper team for this year. Yes, I realize I chose two teams that are big name programs but I think both of them are going to be better than expected this year.
I haven't seen any of these teams play yet, so I am sure they will make me look stupid and not fulfill my predictions. Please forgive me if I change my opinion on some of these teams as we get closer to the season as things change for each team and injuries occur. My goal is to get one person to actually care about college basketball. I think I can do it. I am not trying to make fans, just make people not skip over the occasional college basketball stuff on this here blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)