I play fantasy sports and enjoy them a whole lot. I am a little scared though by people like Bill Simmons who pay more attention to fantasy sports than the real sports. I really enjoy fantasy sports but they are just a sidetrack to the real thing for me and I don't get into them to write a 10,000 word essay on them. Bill Simmons does.
Simmons' fantasy dream game!
I get told constantly that I pay more attention to my favorite teams than normal fans do, and that is true, I try to know everything about the sports I am watching. I don't get overly wrapped up in fantasy sports and I worry about those that do. I worry about Bill Simmons.
Monday's Eagles-Cowboys game was the highest-rated telecast in cable history.
Both have large fan bases and have moderately successful teams that play in the same division, it is a bit of a shock to me as well, but that is how it turned out.
I went to sleep that night believing "Dallas 41, Philly 37" was the most influential fantasy game ever played.
Seriously, get a fucking life. Rather than going to bed thinking what a great game, Dallas does have a great team, or Philly almost pulled one out, Bill Simmons thought about fantasy sports.
This is my great worry with where fantasy sports are going, where they are going to become bigger than the sport itself. This column causes me to worry even more. I take fantasy sports seriously on a scale of 1-10 at a 7, it is the 10s the really cause me to worry.
When Westbrook (irony alert!) scored right after Jackson's boner, that two-play sequence ended up swinging two of the five matchups in my West Coast league.
Ironic because he knelt down last year...I guess. I had no problem with Westbrook falling down on the one yard line last year because he wanted to make sure his team won a REAL football game and that is how it should be, in my opinion.
It startles me that he knows when one play, even as widely discussed as that one, affects several football teams. I pay attention to my team and what happens to it, I ignore everyone else. Maybe I am alone on this.
You know what has swung my matchups the past couple weeks in my leagues? Carson Palmer, Larry Johnson, and T.J. Housemedhahahzhahahah putting up 4 points a week combined. Me starting Greg Olson because the Panthers can't cover a tight end, except at a strip club, and then watching him get negative fantasy points. That is what really swung my matchup.
When the play happened, I started an e-mail chain with my friends at 9:53 p.m. ET:
SUBJECT HEADING: If I lose by 3 because of DeSean Jackson …
BODY: Would that be the worst loss in the history of our league?
I bet his friends hate him. Everything always has to be the greatest ever, the worst loss ever, the biggest blowout ever. He is not satisfied with sitting down and drinking a fruity little drink, you know he likes them, and enjoying some football.
Everyone disagreed, pointing out that my season was already cooked. After all, I lost my first-round pick, Tom Brady, in eight minutes, thanks to Sammy Morris going low on a 224-pound defensive back.
This was the real response.
"What the fuck are you talking about Bill? It is one game, if you did not draft Patriots every single year, then maybe you would not have this problem. Please stop emailing me late at night like that, it makes my Blackberry go off at 12:30am. I know your wife does not care but my wife and I have to be up in the morning to go to work and make sure the kids eat before they go to school. You email me, the Blackberry goes off, the wife wakes up, the baby hears the wife, and the next thing you know I am walking around the house shushing a child because you had to make a mountain out of a simple football game. Your team sucks anyway, so I am sure this one game did not ruin your year."
Again, it was an extraordinary game.
Two popular teams, Terrell Owens has that feud with Donovan McNabb, and it could help decide the division. Pretty important early season game.
But it wasn't more dramatic or memorable than Baltimore blowing its chance to end New England's undefeated season on a Monday night last December, right?
Absolutely Bill. Nothing in the world was more important than that game. Here is the thing. It was not more dramatic or memorable than that game, but there were more people watching regardless. Unlike you, mortal humans can not tell the future beforehand, so everyone can not know this game is going to be dramatic and memorable before the game is actually played. See? So there is no way more people watched because, as learned afterwards, it was dramatic, it was because more people wanted to watch this game than wanted to watch the Ravens-Patriots game. Do you get it?
The more I thought about it, I decided the fantasy subplots propelled the Philly-Dallas game to its record numbers. That had to be it.
I have a couple Philly defensive players, and two offensive players from both teams, and played a team called "Cowboys" in one of my fantasy leagues this week, which consisted of pretty much the entire Dallas Cowboy roster. I did not watch the game. I doubt the fantasy subplots had anything to do with it.
Maybe you are right though...not really.
My first team was called the Banana Hammocks -- named for me by our commissioner, Camp, who couldn't get over the fact that I refused to wear boxer shorts in college.
If I were Jim, from the tv show "The Office," I would be giving Bill the "Jim is shocked by what was just said and shows you he is by a slight head tilt."
So Bill Simmons is a tighty whitey man? Or does he like banana hammocks? Or man thong underwear? I am afraid he has overshared with the world at this point. I have no personal problem with any of these underwear types, but I have to say this definitely makes Bill beyond uncool that he is admitting this.
(Note: I had reasons. Let's just say I never wanted to be the Levi Johnston of my school.)
You wanted to have a low sperm count? If that is your reason, that is the single worst reason I have ever heard in my life for wearing tighty whiteys. I like how Bill is inferring in this passage he was getting a lot of action in college, so he did not want to get a girl pregnant. Saying this was probably even dumber than admitting his first fantasy team was called the Banana Hammocks. Not by a whole lot though.
For some reason, we totally trusted Camp's scoring, even though he was probably doing it after 12 beers and eight Marlboro Lights.
Last time I checked, which was three years ago last June, Marlboro Lights do not affect one's judgment. 12 beers do though.
When I worked for the Boston Herald in 1995, I pitched a weekly fantasy column to my editors that August; I might as well have been pitching a column about drinking and driving or trying to sleep with underaged girls.
Simmonsologists know that Bill has thought of everything first. We can now add a weekly fantasy column to this list. I don't think the Boston Herald was stupid for not liking the idea of a weekly fantasy column in the paper, fantasy was too underground at that point to generate any readers on the idea and the Internet had not advanced enough to where keeping score was easy.
At least Banana Hammock Simmons knows if he had pitched a column about drinking and driving and sleeping with underage girls, he would not have gotten any of them pregnant due to his underwear selection.
Bill just goes on and on about the impact fantasy football has made on the world in the past five years, which I can't argue with. I can argue with the premise that the Eagles-Cowboys game got such high ratings because of fantasy football. I don't think there is a correlation between two popular teams playing a nationally televised game and people watching with concern over the fantasy stats.
Couple more tidbits in this inoffensive but still very incorrect Bill Simmons column:
Although part of me wonders whether Cassel is the Johnny Doe to Brady's Dirk Diggler -- yeah, we can film a decent porn movie with him, but every game ends with Ricky J impassively looking at the tapes and telling Jack Horner, "It is what it is."
That reference to Boogie Nights is here to remind you the movie is now almost 10 years old. Bill has a good 15-20 years of use in quoting it though.
Courtney Taylor, Logan Payne and Jordan Kent sound more like the gang of bitchy girls on the new "90210" than Hasselbeck's new targets." In a related story, they're 0-2 and look worse than Shannen Doherty in HD.
Ba...da...dum. Please remember you can read this type stuff all week in his columns.
If you made an All-Star team for "Athletes with Latino Names Who Look Like Their Name Should Actually Be Something Like Jimmy Scott or Rick Stevens," would you call it the Jeff Garcia All-Stars or the Anthony Gonzalez All-Stars?
He is making up more team names for his incredibly loyal fans to discuss among themselves and then send to him in an email so they can be just like him.
In a related story, Bill Simmons just made my All Star team for "Columnists Who Try So Hard To Be Hip and Cool but Come Off Like They Are That Creepy Dad Who Wants To Go To The Shins Concert With You Because He Likes The Music But You Have a Feeling He Is Checking Out The Girls."
Gregg Doyel welcomes you Bill.
I'm fascinated by this Phelps-as-a-celebrity thing because he doesn't follow the Ali-Jordan-Mantle-Tiger model even remotely. I mean, would any of those guys have been caught drinking Corona out of a can on live television? What about his awkward SNL appearance? Or all the pictures of him and Hollywood babes, in which he always looks like the little brother of a college sophomore who showed up for a weekend and ended up puking outside the football stadium all night?
This is actually true and funny. I think Michael Phelps looks like a douchebag. Great swimmer, seems like he would be a douche.
I decided San Diego's last two losses had to be the toughest back-to-back defeats in football history.
Well, he did experience it firsthand, so it has to be up there. Well all know if Bill Simmons experiences something firsthand, it automatically makes it an important event.
Hey, here's my theory on Favre's comeback that I've been waiting to spring for two months: I think the retirement was legitimate. He wanted to quit. Then, he was probably running errands for his wife, stopped to buy some groceries, then got chewed out at home because he forgot to buy half and half. And as his wife was yelling at him, he thought to himself, "Wait a second, what did I just do? I could keep playing!"
Those crazy women! I bet that is exactly what happened! Bill should write a sitcom about how men and women don't get along. It would do great!
That's all I can handle for the time being.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
4 comments Tim Keown Informs Us Quarterback Success Has Nothing To Do With Talent But Lack of Quarterback Need For That Team
If you like poor reasoning, then you are going to love Tim Keown. This short little article is like the cliffsnotes version on how to reason through a problem inaccurately. This is "How to Take One Variable to Explain A Situation and Ignore the Other Variables That Affect the Situation For Dummies."
Enjoy!
Keown's basic point is that possibly quarterbacks should sit and learn the offense for a while before being asked to start. A premise I completely agree with in fact. I think that is the best way to ensure a quarterback will be able to succeed in the NFL.
On the yellow brick road to this conclusion Keown takes several detours and refuses to become distracted by the fact there are other variables for success that affect how a young quarterback succeeds in the NFL.
Among the factors we will ignore are:
1. Talent level of the rest of the team around the QB
2. Whether the system is the right system for the QB's talents
3. If the young QB was lucky enough to stay in the same system under the same set of coaches during his "apprenticeship."
But mostly:
4. A quarterback's level of success has absolutely nothing to do with whether the team that drafted him had a need for a quarterback when the player was drafted. In essence it makes sense for a team that has every other position filled to use a draft pick on a young QB, but this essence runs head on into Tim Keown and nothing survives.
There are many lessons to be learned from the dual sagas of Aaron Rodgers and Alex Smith, not the least of which is this: The best time to draft a quarterback is when you don't need one.
I like how he approaches this article, he goes ahead and gets his incredibly wrong conclusion out of the way early. Doesn't hesitate, just throws it out there. Rather than couch it in terms that may better explain what he is saying beforehand that could reasonably explain why this conclusion has been reached, he just jots it down and looks at it proudly. Well done Tim!
I would argue this lesson actually is the least of the lessons that could be learned. Among the better lessons are:
1. Alex Smith may not have as much talent as Aaron Rodgers
2. Aaron Rodgers studied under Brett Favre for three years, this had to help him 1%, at a minimum.
3. It is helpful to a quarterback to be in the same system with the same head coach, offensive coordinator and receivers for a few years.
4. Teams can not throw a QB on the field and expect success. The team actually has to assist the quarterback in becoming a great player.
Easier said than done, of course, since there are times when you don't think you need one until suddenly you discover you do.
What? This is Yoga Berra-esque.
In pro football it is really, really easy to see if you need another quarterback.
One way you can find out if you need a quarterback is to go through your "roster" and look under the heading "quarterbacks." Then you will want to see who your "starting quarterback" currently is, use a "pen" to scratch his name off, then look at who would be the "starting quarterback" if your original starter did not exist as a human being on this planet. If that name scares you, then you know you may need another quarterback.
It's pretty much unquestioned that quarterback is the most important position in any team sport.
I am not going to argue this point, though I really, really want to. I am just going to say you can not win the World Series with 5 average pitchers but you can win a Super Bowl with an average QB. That is all I am going to say.
Nothing else really compares -- not a big-time starting pitcher (significant only every fifth day)
You would have to compare all of the starting pitchers on a roster for a baseball team, you can't take just one...because all 5 pitchers make up that one position in different games.
Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson from 2001 and Josh Beckett from 2003 would like to even argue this point about one big time starting pitcher, but they will not. I do realize Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling are two people but I am converting them into one mullet sporting, John McCain loving, bloody sock wearing, camera man abusing unstoppable pitcher for the present time.
or even a LeBron James-type basketball player (though that one comes closest).
I think this IS the exact same situation as a big time QB. Our reader(s), if anyone can name one time in pro football when a shitty team won the Super Bowl because of one good player, being the QB, please tell me and I will send you a box of Hot and Spicy Cheez-Its. Just like a pro basketball player can't do it alone, a pro football quarterback can't do it alone.
And if NFL offenses seem at times to be overly complicated -- maybe even artificially complicated -- well, you're not alone in that line of thinking.
If Tim Keown ran an offense in the NFL, it would be incredibly basic and easy offense for a quarterback to run. There would be 8 plays in the playbook, including a flea flicker he ran 4 times a game. His audibles would consist of the quarterback shouting out the play and the direction of the play at the line of scrimmage and the offensive coordinator would hand the play to the quarterback after each play in crayon on a neon index card with each person's assignment for the play. His offense would rarely score and he would be fired from the position very quickly. At his farewell press conference he would bemoan the quantity of plays he is expected to formulate and give to the QB to run.
After the press conference the Kansas City Chiefs would hire him as their head coach so he can tutor Brodie Croyle. Croyle would still not understand how to run the offense.
Aren't all offenses "artificially complicated?" There are no offenses that exist naturally in the world, they are all man made, so they can not be complicated by their nature. I guess he is saying things are made harder than they should have to be, but I think that also prevents defenses from finding out what play is being run...unless they are playing the Patriots in which case all of the opposing team's offensive plays are on video tape because they cheat.
It is a good thing that the playbook and plays are so complicated, it prevents the defense from knowing exactly what the offense is doing. So yes, Tim Keown is alone in this thinking.
For three years he played behind Brett Favre, and it was the rare instance in football where nobody clamored for the backup.
Even when Favre's TD:INT ratio was 18:18 and 20:29 two of those years? I am sure someone clamored for Aaron Rodgers at some point...very quietly, but clamored nonetheless. Brett Favre is a god though, so no one would ever do this right?
I would call Brett Favre God Himself on Earth, but that would be insulting to Brett Favre, because he can do so many things that God on Earth can not.
How good do they look now? They drafted him in 2005 knowing he wouldn't play right away,
False. They drafted him because they needed a QB, other than Craig Nall, that could run the football team because Brett Favre had threatened to retire every single year since 1998. How quickly we all forget what a liar and overall flip flopper the ex-Packer QB is. We also forget the 2005 Packers had much larger holes they should have filled that fateful year, but chose to take Rodgers because they never knew when Favre might pack it up and go to Mississippi to retire, then call them a month later to un-retire, then retire again, then un-retire and demand a trade.
The theory on Rodgers is this: It wouldn't have happened if he started as a rookie. In fact, if he had started as a rookie, it might not have happened at all.
Good analysis but what other factors would play into this?
Yes, Aaron Rodgers would not be as good as he is now, if he had started his first year in the league. The Packer's talent level was not as high on the rest of the roster as it is today and Rodgers would have struggled learning the offense because it was his first year in the offense. Keown is correct but he forgets these other major points.
He is also correct it would not have happened at all because 95% of the Cheeseheads would have hung him in effigy because he was not Brett Favre and never have let him forget a single mistake that he made in a game. This is another reason why it would not have been beneficial for Aaron Rodgers to start his first year.
I truly believe QB's should be given time to mature into the position, rather than thrown out there immediately. There are exceptions to this rule but I think it is a good general rule.
Which brings us back to Alex Smith. Taken by a quarterback-starved 49ers team with the first pick of the same draft, Smith was tossed into the grinder far too soon. He played poorly, got hurt and wandered through three different offensive coordinators in his first three years.
Keown just named two major factors that impeded Alex Smith's development as a quarterback. He was throwing to Brandon Lloyd and an ex-QB (Arne(a)z Battle) for his WR's, so it is not like he had Donald Driver and Greg Jennings out there, like Aaron Rodgers has currently. Of course, according to Keown, Alex Smith would have been successful if he was drafted when the 49ers already had a good QB. They were quarterback starved, so he really had no chance. The fact he was throwing to 98 year Isaac Bruce and had three offensive coordinators in his three years had nothing to do with it.
Make sense to you? Not to me either.
Remember, Tim Keown is wondering if teams who currently do not need a QB should draft a QB as a high pick in the NFL draft even though they already have a QB. There is a difference in drafting a QB when you do not need one though, and drafting a QB when you current QB is still performing at a high level. If you have Jon Kitna, this theory works well and you will be able to groom a QB, but if you have Brett Favre, Donovan McNabb or Drew Brees, this theory does not always work to the advantage of the team. In the case of Favre, if he had not retired, Rodgers would probably have sat the bench again this year and then left in free agency, and then where does that leave the team when Favre does retire? Kevin Kolb is probably going to end up leaving in free agency and Drew Brees did go to New Orleans.
If your team has other holes that could have been fixed in the draft, it does not make sense to draft a QB. I would never argue a QB should be thrown into the fire quickly, but what is more important is having one offensive scheme for the QB to learn, good players around that player, and the QB has had plenty of time to learn the system. I think this is what dictates the quarterback's success, rather than when he is put on the field. If Aaron Rodgers had no one to throw to and was learning a new system this year, of course he would not have been successful no matter how many years he sat on the bench.
And Smith, out for the year with another shoulder injury and ostensibly through as a 49er, is being discussed as the worst pick in the history of the NFL draft.
And right now, it would be hard to craft a compelling argument against that statement.
Right now, my argument is not compelling but is correct. Akili Smith is the worst ever, or David Carr. They were god awful without being injured, as Alex Smith seems to be. Also, 49er fans might remember Jim Druckenmiller. He was horrible as well.
Akili Smith at least had Peter Warrick and Corey Dillon, while David Carr had Andre Johnson. I think everyone is being a little hard on Alex Smith. Would you want to QB the 49ers?
So what's a team to do? If you have the luxury, pick a quarterback high in the draft and wait it out.
Guess what another factor in this decision should be? The salary cap. How many teams can afford to tie up two expensive QB's on the roster? Not many. How many teams can afford to spend a high draft pick on a position of non need? Not many. It seems like a real luxury to do this that many teams can not afford.
Another problem with this theory you are inviting a quarterback controversy. Remember Drew Brees/Phillip Rivers, Kevin Kolb/Donovan McNabb, and Derek Anderson/Brady Quinn? Granted those three situations got worked out but you can't tell me the Eagles don't wish they had drafted another receiver or a pass rusher instead of Kolb or the Browns wish they had drafted a cornerback instead of Brady Quinn right now.
As a real-life example, think about how many years Peyton Manning has left at his current level. Four, maybe five?
I know where is going with this and rookie contracts are generally 4-6 years long. So the rookie QB would at best scenario in this example have one year to prove he is the starter whereupon he can be let go, without another QB to replace him possibly, or he will be a free agent. Neither of these seem like ideal situations. Carry on though.........
Look for a quarterback, now, with the idea of getting one of the top two in next year's draft.
It's that easy! One of the top 2 quarterbacks to back up Peyton Manning for the next four years at a minimum! If Peyton gets hurt, no biggie, there is your good, young backup. If Peyton does not get hurt, no biggie either, a 22 year old high draft pick does not mind sitting the bench for four years. Right? I know Mark Sanchez is at USC right now with a Peyton Manning poster on his wall dreaming of backing him up for the next four years, until he gets his chance to start in 2013 at the earliest.
Even if a team has no other needs, it still does not necessarily make salary cap sense to do this. Great idea in theory, but at that point the Colts are paying approximately 15-18 million dollars for two quarterbacks on the roster.
Would the Colts also have to trade up to get this QB? Usually the top 2 QBs are no longer available when the Colts would be able to pick. Assuming they don't have to trade up to get this QB, this still seems impractical to pay two QBs a lot of money. If Peyton Manning gets injured, assuming the backup is worth a crap, this looks like a genius move but when the defense can not stop the run or the Colts offensive line is leaking like a sieve, it does not seem that smart.
Pick your linebackers and wide receivers after the first round, and concentrate on the most important position first.
Let's look at the top 10 leaders in tackles last year in the NFL and see what round they were drafted in so we can find out when the impact linebackers were taken:
Patrick Willis- 1st round
D.J. Williams - 1st round
Jon Beason- 1st round
Ernie Sims- 1st round
Nick Barnett- 1st round
London Fletcher- undrafted
DeMeco Ryans- 2nd round
David Harris- 2nd round
Angelo Crowell- 3rd round
Brian Urlacher- 1st round
Let's look at the top 10 receivers in yards from last year to see where they were taken as well:
Reggie Wayne- 1st round
Randy Moss- 1st round
Chad Johnson- 2nd round
Larry Fitzgerald- 1st round
Terrell Owens- 3rd round
Brandon Marshall- 4th round
Braylon Edwards- 1st round
Roddy White- 1st round
Marques Colston- 7th round
Torry Holt- 1st round
So of the top 10 leaders in tackles and reception yards last year, 6 players in each of the categories were drafted in the first round. If you want an impact player in the draft and you are already set at quarterback, then it may not make sense to wait until later in the draft to get an impact receiver or linebacker.
I am all for having a quarterback wait a few years to take the starting spot, but you don't necessarily have to do it in the first couple rounds, especially if you are set at the position and have more pressing needs on the roster, as most teams currently do. You can develop a late round QB just as well as a early round QB. Other factors we have to remember is that you want to make sure any young QB has a good nucleus to build around him and will be using the same offense and coordinator for a few years.
So Keown is right in how to develop QB's but most QB's do not wait for 2-3 years on the same team, like Aaron Rodgers, for the opportunity to start.
Sign Alex Smith. Give him the apprentice years he wasn't afforded in San Francisco. That way, we'd all get to see whether environment is the main factor in the development of a quarterback.
If he were successful, then using the one factor of development time, we would be able to diagnose why he was not successful. Ignore the fact he could be more successful in his new environment because he has two Pro Bowl receivers a good running back and a great offensive line. Pay no attention to whether he had time to learn the system, or the type of offense he was expected to run matches up well with his skill set. Those don't matter, he will be successful because he was picked up by a team that did not need a quarterback and was given time to develop. Alex Smith, go ahead and sign with either the St. Louis Rams or the Pittsburgh Steelers. There is no difference in the teams now or in the future so it doesn't matter which one you choose, just sit the bench for a few years, and you will be a great QB no matter where you choose to go because both teams don't need quarterbacks right now. Perfect fit.
Enjoy!
Keown's basic point is that possibly quarterbacks should sit and learn the offense for a while before being asked to start. A premise I completely agree with in fact. I think that is the best way to ensure a quarterback will be able to succeed in the NFL.
On the yellow brick road to this conclusion Keown takes several detours and refuses to become distracted by the fact there are other variables for success that affect how a young quarterback succeeds in the NFL.
Among the factors we will ignore are:
1. Talent level of the rest of the team around the QB
2. Whether the system is the right system for the QB's talents
3. If the young QB was lucky enough to stay in the same system under the same set of coaches during his "apprenticeship."
But mostly:
4. A quarterback's level of success has absolutely nothing to do with whether the team that drafted him had a need for a quarterback when the player was drafted. In essence it makes sense for a team that has every other position filled to use a draft pick on a young QB, but this essence runs head on into Tim Keown and nothing survives.
There are many lessons to be learned from the dual sagas of Aaron Rodgers and Alex Smith, not the least of which is this: The best time to draft a quarterback is when you don't need one.
I like how he approaches this article, he goes ahead and gets his incredibly wrong conclusion out of the way early. Doesn't hesitate, just throws it out there. Rather than couch it in terms that may better explain what he is saying beforehand that could reasonably explain why this conclusion has been reached, he just jots it down and looks at it proudly. Well done Tim!
I would argue this lesson actually is the least of the lessons that could be learned. Among the better lessons are:
1. Alex Smith may not have as much talent as Aaron Rodgers
2. Aaron Rodgers studied under Brett Favre for three years, this had to help him 1%, at a minimum.
3. It is helpful to a quarterback to be in the same system with the same head coach, offensive coordinator and receivers for a few years.
4. Teams can not throw a QB on the field and expect success. The team actually has to assist the quarterback in becoming a great player.
Easier said than done, of course, since there are times when you don't think you need one until suddenly you discover you do.
What? This is Yoga Berra-esque.
In pro football it is really, really easy to see if you need another quarterback.
One way you can find out if you need a quarterback is to go through your "roster" and look under the heading "quarterbacks." Then you will want to see who your "starting quarterback" currently is, use a "pen" to scratch his name off, then look at who would be the "starting quarterback" if your original starter did not exist as a human being on this planet. If that name scares you, then you know you may need another quarterback.
It's pretty much unquestioned that quarterback is the most important position in any team sport.
I am not going to argue this point, though I really, really want to. I am just going to say you can not win the World Series with 5 average pitchers but you can win a Super Bowl with an average QB. That is all I am going to say.
Nothing else really compares -- not a big-time starting pitcher (significant only every fifth day)
You would have to compare all of the starting pitchers on a roster for a baseball team, you can't take just one...because all 5 pitchers make up that one position in different games.
Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson from 2001 and Josh Beckett from 2003 would like to even argue this point about one big time starting pitcher, but they will not. I do realize Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling are two people but I am converting them into one mullet sporting, John McCain loving, bloody sock wearing, camera man abusing unstoppable pitcher for the present time.
or even a LeBron James-type basketball player (though that one comes closest).
I think this IS the exact same situation as a big time QB. Our reader(s), if anyone can name one time in pro football when a shitty team won the Super Bowl because of one good player, being the QB, please tell me and I will send you a box of Hot and Spicy Cheez-Its. Just like a pro basketball player can't do it alone, a pro football quarterback can't do it alone.
And if NFL offenses seem at times to be overly complicated -- maybe even artificially complicated -- well, you're not alone in that line of thinking.
If Tim Keown ran an offense in the NFL, it would be incredibly basic and easy offense for a quarterback to run. There would be 8 plays in the playbook, including a flea flicker he ran 4 times a game. His audibles would consist of the quarterback shouting out the play and the direction of the play at the line of scrimmage and the offensive coordinator would hand the play to the quarterback after each play in crayon on a neon index card with each person's assignment for the play. His offense would rarely score and he would be fired from the position very quickly. At his farewell press conference he would bemoan the quantity of plays he is expected to formulate and give to the QB to run.
After the press conference the Kansas City Chiefs would hire him as their head coach so he can tutor Brodie Croyle. Croyle would still not understand how to run the offense.
Aren't all offenses "artificially complicated?" There are no offenses that exist naturally in the world, they are all man made, so they can not be complicated by their nature. I guess he is saying things are made harder than they should have to be, but I think that also prevents defenses from finding out what play is being run...unless they are playing the Patriots in which case all of the opposing team's offensive plays are on video tape because they cheat.
It is a good thing that the playbook and plays are so complicated, it prevents the defense from knowing exactly what the offense is doing. So yes, Tim Keown is alone in this thinking.
For three years he played behind Brett Favre, and it was the rare instance in football where nobody clamored for the backup.
Even when Favre's TD:INT ratio was 18:18 and 20:29 two of those years? I am sure someone clamored for Aaron Rodgers at some point...very quietly, but clamored nonetheless. Brett Favre is a god though, so no one would ever do this right?
I would call Brett Favre God Himself on Earth, but that would be insulting to Brett Favre, because he can do so many things that God on Earth can not.
How good do they look now? They drafted him in 2005 knowing he wouldn't play right away,
False. They drafted him because they needed a QB, other than Craig Nall, that could run the football team because Brett Favre had threatened to retire every single year since 1998. How quickly we all forget what a liar and overall flip flopper the ex-Packer QB is. We also forget the 2005 Packers had much larger holes they should have filled that fateful year, but chose to take Rodgers because they never knew when Favre might pack it up and go to Mississippi to retire, then call them a month later to un-retire, then retire again, then un-retire and demand a trade.
The theory on Rodgers is this: It wouldn't have happened if he started as a rookie. In fact, if he had started as a rookie, it might not have happened at all.
Good analysis but what other factors would play into this?
Yes, Aaron Rodgers would not be as good as he is now, if he had started his first year in the league. The Packer's talent level was not as high on the rest of the roster as it is today and Rodgers would have struggled learning the offense because it was his first year in the offense. Keown is correct but he forgets these other major points.
He is also correct it would not have happened at all because 95% of the Cheeseheads would have hung him in effigy because he was not Brett Favre and never have let him forget a single mistake that he made in a game. This is another reason why it would not have been beneficial for Aaron Rodgers to start his first year.
I truly believe QB's should be given time to mature into the position, rather than thrown out there immediately. There are exceptions to this rule but I think it is a good general rule.
Which brings us back to Alex Smith. Taken by a quarterback-starved 49ers team with the first pick of the same draft, Smith was tossed into the grinder far too soon. He played poorly, got hurt and wandered through three different offensive coordinators in his first three years.
Keown just named two major factors that impeded Alex Smith's development as a quarterback. He was throwing to Brandon Lloyd and an ex-QB (Arne(a)z Battle) for his WR's, so it is not like he had Donald Driver and Greg Jennings out there, like Aaron Rodgers has currently. Of course, according to Keown, Alex Smith would have been successful if he was drafted when the 49ers already had a good QB. They were quarterback starved, so he really had no chance. The fact he was throwing to 98 year Isaac Bruce and had three offensive coordinators in his three years had nothing to do with it.
Make sense to you? Not to me either.
Remember, Tim Keown is wondering if teams who currently do not need a QB should draft a QB as a high pick in the NFL draft even though they already have a QB. There is a difference in drafting a QB when you do not need one though, and drafting a QB when you current QB is still performing at a high level. If you have Jon Kitna, this theory works well and you will be able to groom a QB, but if you have Brett Favre, Donovan McNabb or Drew Brees, this theory does not always work to the advantage of the team. In the case of Favre, if he had not retired, Rodgers would probably have sat the bench again this year and then left in free agency, and then where does that leave the team when Favre does retire? Kevin Kolb is probably going to end up leaving in free agency and Drew Brees did go to New Orleans.
If your team has other holes that could have been fixed in the draft, it does not make sense to draft a QB. I would never argue a QB should be thrown into the fire quickly, but what is more important is having one offensive scheme for the QB to learn, good players around that player, and the QB has had plenty of time to learn the system. I think this is what dictates the quarterback's success, rather than when he is put on the field. If Aaron Rodgers had no one to throw to and was learning a new system this year, of course he would not have been successful no matter how many years he sat on the bench.
And Smith, out for the year with another shoulder injury and ostensibly through as a 49er, is being discussed as the worst pick in the history of the NFL draft.
And right now, it would be hard to craft a compelling argument against that statement.
Right now, my argument is not compelling but is correct. Akili Smith is the worst ever, or David Carr. They were god awful without being injured, as Alex Smith seems to be. Also, 49er fans might remember Jim Druckenmiller. He was horrible as well.
Akili Smith at least had Peter Warrick and Corey Dillon, while David Carr had Andre Johnson. I think everyone is being a little hard on Alex Smith. Would you want to QB the 49ers?
So what's a team to do? If you have the luxury, pick a quarterback high in the draft and wait it out.
Guess what another factor in this decision should be? The salary cap. How many teams can afford to tie up two expensive QB's on the roster? Not many. How many teams can afford to spend a high draft pick on a position of non need? Not many. It seems like a real luxury to do this that many teams can not afford.
Another problem with this theory you are inviting a quarterback controversy. Remember Drew Brees/Phillip Rivers, Kevin Kolb/Donovan McNabb, and Derek Anderson/Brady Quinn? Granted those three situations got worked out but you can't tell me the Eagles don't wish they had drafted another receiver or a pass rusher instead of Kolb or the Browns wish they had drafted a cornerback instead of Brady Quinn right now.
As a real-life example, think about how many years Peyton Manning has left at his current level. Four, maybe five?
I know where is going with this and rookie contracts are generally 4-6 years long. So the rookie QB would at best scenario in this example have one year to prove he is the starter whereupon he can be let go, without another QB to replace him possibly, or he will be a free agent. Neither of these seem like ideal situations. Carry on though.........
Look for a quarterback, now, with the idea of getting one of the top two in next year's draft.
It's that easy! One of the top 2 quarterbacks to back up Peyton Manning for the next four years at a minimum! If Peyton gets hurt, no biggie, there is your good, young backup. If Peyton does not get hurt, no biggie either, a 22 year old high draft pick does not mind sitting the bench for four years. Right? I know Mark Sanchez is at USC right now with a Peyton Manning poster on his wall dreaming of backing him up for the next four years, until he gets his chance to start in 2013 at the earliest.
Even if a team has no other needs, it still does not necessarily make salary cap sense to do this. Great idea in theory, but at that point the Colts are paying approximately 15-18 million dollars for two quarterbacks on the roster.
Would the Colts also have to trade up to get this QB? Usually the top 2 QBs are no longer available when the Colts would be able to pick. Assuming they don't have to trade up to get this QB, this still seems impractical to pay two QBs a lot of money. If Peyton Manning gets injured, assuming the backup is worth a crap, this looks like a genius move but when the defense can not stop the run or the Colts offensive line is leaking like a sieve, it does not seem that smart.
Pick your linebackers and wide receivers after the first round, and concentrate on the most important position first.
Let's look at the top 10 leaders in tackles last year in the NFL and see what round they were drafted in so we can find out when the impact linebackers were taken:
Patrick Willis- 1st round
D.J. Williams - 1st round
Jon Beason- 1st round
Ernie Sims- 1st round
Nick Barnett- 1st round
London Fletcher- undrafted
DeMeco Ryans- 2nd round
David Harris- 2nd round
Angelo Crowell- 3rd round
Brian Urlacher- 1st round
Let's look at the top 10 receivers in yards from last year to see where they were taken as well:
Reggie Wayne- 1st round
Randy Moss- 1st round
Chad Johnson- 2nd round
Larry Fitzgerald- 1st round
Terrell Owens- 3rd round
Brandon Marshall- 4th round
Braylon Edwards- 1st round
Roddy White- 1st round
Marques Colston- 7th round
Torry Holt- 1st round
So of the top 10 leaders in tackles and reception yards last year, 6 players in each of the categories were drafted in the first round. If you want an impact player in the draft and you are already set at quarterback, then it may not make sense to wait until later in the draft to get an impact receiver or linebacker.
I am all for having a quarterback wait a few years to take the starting spot, but you don't necessarily have to do it in the first couple rounds, especially if you are set at the position and have more pressing needs on the roster, as most teams currently do. You can develop a late round QB just as well as a early round QB. Other factors we have to remember is that you want to make sure any young QB has a good nucleus to build around him and will be using the same offense and coordinator for a few years.
So Keown is right in how to develop QB's but most QB's do not wait for 2-3 years on the same team, like Aaron Rodgers, for the opportunity to start.
Sign Alex Smith. Give him the apprentice years he wasn't afforded in San Francisco. That way, we'd all get to see whether environment is the main factor in the development of a quarterback.
If he were successful, then using the one factor of development time, we would be able to diagnose why he was not successful. Ignore the fact he could be more successful in his new environment because he has two Pro Bowl receivers a good running back and a great offensive line. Pay no attention to whether he had time to learn the system, or the type of offense he was expected to run matches up well with his skill set. Those don't matter, he will be successful because he was picked up by a team that did not need a quarterback and was given time to develop. Alex Smith, go ahead and sign with either the St. Louis Rams or the Pittsburgh Steelers. There is no difference in the teams now or in the future so it doesn't matter which one you choose, just sit the bench for a few years, and you will be a great QB no matter where you choose to go because both teams don't need quarterbacks right now. Perfect fit.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
0 comments The Eagles Win Despite Losing
Run. Run as fast as your can. Grab your family and go, and don't you dare look back. To those that cannot run, grab essential supplies like food, water and batteries. Stephen A. Smith not only continues to roam out there, unchecked, but he is growing. His tentacles have now hitched on to the NFL and he shows no signs of letting go. It's time to turn back kids, Stephen A. Smith is firmly in control now.
Despite loss, Eagles show they are a force in the NFC East
IRVING, Texas -- America's Team showed up for once last Monday night game at Texas Stadium.
for once. 15-4 in their last nineteen games, #1 seed in NFC last year, but this, finally, week two of 2008, they showed up. It's about time, the lazy good for nothings. Not like those plucky 9-9 Eagles huh?
Also, last Monday night game? Last Monday night game...really Stephen? Lock it in? Okey dokey.
And when the Dallas Cowboys were finished, surviving in thrilling fashion for a 41-37 victory over the Philadelphia Eagles, they proved to be everything everyone thought they were.
I get it. Denny Green was mad. It's been two years now. 'Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land - enough! '
They were sensational, courtesy of Terrell Owens. They were explosive, courtesy of an offense that proved it could score in bunches, against anyone, at any given moment. They also were erratic (i.e., Tony Romo), inconsistent (i.e., Tony Romo), prone to implosion (i.e., Tony Romo)
cool your jets hotshot. Romo was 21 of 30 for 312 yards. Yes, he threw an interception and had a critical fumble but he also found receivers for three touchdowns. His QB rating was 123.2, he was generally awesome, and it's ridiculous for you to imply he was "hot and cold" or anything of the sort. He's currently third in passing yards, has yet to be sacked, is equal third in passing TD's and second in YPA. He's pretty fucking good, no matter what you claim, and it wasn't just TO = good, Romo = "inconsistant" (and we know you're implying bad).
flat-out defenseless (no explanation needed). So much so that Monday night's performance should give pause to all those folks who plan on riding their big blue stars to Tampa in February.
sure, this you can have. They were poor defensively, though they did register four sacks, recovered a fumble and 337 total yards, while not good, isn't quite "flat-out defenseless". It's a little over the top. But "a little over the top" would be a remarkable accomplishment for SAS, and would make Mr and Mrs SAS beam with pride I'm sure.
Especially with the Eagles nipping at the Cowboys' heels in the same division.
1.0 games. As opposed to the 2.0 maximum possible lead. The Eagles still trail the Giants, mind you, and are tied with the Redskins. WOW, who thought it would be so close in the NFC East after a marathon of two games? It's a wild division clearly.
At the moment, you can write in stone that Owens is the best receiver in football
stone? Stone? I like TO, have defended him on this blog before, he's good; sometimes I forget how good he is because he's so strong, you don't quite expect the same "spectacularness" you might of a Fitzgerald or Edwards or Smith. But in stone? My God man! Owens is tied with Hines Ward, Anquain Boldin and Chris Chambers for receiving TD's, with three, I guess that's what the case hinges on. Here are players that have more receiving yards this year, and I'm using this year, because Smith deliberately says "at the moment".
You know who isn't on this list either and tops them all? Of course you do, because you follow football. Would you like a new piece of stone Stephen?
"This was 'Monday Night Football,' baby," Owens said, walking through the tunnel after the game. "The bright lights were on. I told y'all to get your popcorn ready. You should've listened."
You can't help but listen to Owens, because his game speaks loud and clear.
fun bullshit quotables are still bullshit quotables.
He's always in phenomenal shape. At 34, he's still faster than most in the game. But you still have to wonder whether he'll be enough once things get really thick and difficult come postseason time, particularly if these Eagles are still around.
he's the best receiver in the fucking game apparently! Why would I have reason to doubt him! We wrote it in stone Stephen! We even wrote it on the other stone! We're all out of stones! Don't turn back now!
How about McNabb, who was 25-of-37 for 281 yards (one TD) and clearly was the more poised quarterback on the field -- despite what Romo's 312 passing yards might have indicated.
based on what exactly? He was sacked twice on the final, decisive drive of the game, once when he had an age to pass to his, admittedly incompetant receiving corps, and simply danced around for like, 8 seconds until DeMarcus Ware finally caught him for a sack near the sideline. He was a critical part of the fumble to Westbrook. McNabb has been very impressive (as he invariably is when he actually plays), but I personally disagree with your "clear", "written in stone" impression of the game.
Or an Eagles defense that held Owens to two catches for 17 yards after the game's opening drive, yet still appeared so disgusted that the players could barely disguise their snarls with every word they uttered after the game.
probably to do with the 41 points they surrendered. Or the 380 total yards. Or that they let the Cowboys convert 6-10 on third down. To put it simply, no matter what they held Owens to after a 72 yard reception, they were pretty awful last night. Worse than Dallas if you ask me (though admittedly that is a close call).
"Let me tell you this," Eagles safety Brian Dawkins said after the game. "We made too many early mistakes -- it's that simple. The bomb to T.O. The kickoff return for a TD (by Felix Jones) right after that. Those are mistakes we don't usually make, and it cost us. It's why we lost this game, and that's why we're disgusted. We know we gave it away."
"That fact that we let T.O. get off isn't something I pay attention to, because whenever he scores against us, I just don't look. I don't see the dances, the flapping of the arms or anything anyone tries to tell me he does. I'm not interested in seeing that at all. But I'll tell you we're pretty ticked off with ourselves because we know we're better than what we showed tonight defensively. We know what kind of team we have, especially if our offense continues to perform the way they did tonight."
may I kindly suggest, Mr Dawkins, that you do pay more attention to Terrell Owens, he's the guy getting eight yards open downfield to catch a bomb for a touchdown, one of two on the night - that dude is pretty good, keep an eye on him.
Listen to the man.
listen to TO's game, listen to Brian Dawkins, I only have two ears Stephen!
The Eagles, renowned for their blitz packages and the suffocating pressure they put on opposing quarterbacks, did not record a sack Monday. Instead, they allowed Romo (who, of course, threw one interception and gave the Eagles a touchdown with a fumble in the end zone) to complete 21 of 30 passes for 312 yards, to sit back in the pocket and take a few pictures from time to time, and to connect with Jason Witten (seven receptions for 110 yards) once they figured out what to do with Owens.
they "let him". Let's put this in the same bag as Kari's "once you stop Peterson" line. Romo's good, this is a fatal flaw in your argument, not understanding that Romo is good and makes adjustments very well. His success in this league is not predicated on everyone he plays against playing poorly.
No offense, but it's predictable Owens would feel that way. He had two touchdowns in the first 17 minutes of the game. The Cowboys ended the evening with 41 points, causing owner Jerry Jones to blush -- thinking about the final outcome in Week 2 instead of the residual effects bound to show up later on down the road.
while the defense wasn't good, this was a great game for Dallas with many, many good points. Not least of which is scoring a win against a fierce division rival. It is by far the biggest impact of the game, not the "residual effects" that may or may not "show up later". Why can't it just be a sloppy (though not irredeemable) defensive game? Why does it have to be some telltale sign of a major design flaw. Last week they went, on the road mind you, against Cleveland and held them to 10 points. The same Cleveland (in fact, better, at least on paper, with Donte Stallworth) that was 8th in total offense and scoring offense per game last year.
If the Eagles were able to put up so many points short-handed, what will the Packers and the Giants do against Dallas later?
I dunno, it's too early to tell. I certainly wouldn't let one messy game, which I won, put too much panic into me.
"We know our team, our defense," an annoyed-looking Eagles tight end L.J. Smith said after the game. "We know what happened tonight won't happen very often. We'll see if (Dallas) can say the same things once all is said and done."
Four sacks of McNabb and two key stops to end the game might have provided the Cowboys with an early season victory, but that doesn't make Smith's last comment any less legitimate.
what makes his comment less legitimate is, how can I put this delicately...his possible lack of impartiality on judging the Dallas Cowboys performance. I'll also add that not only did Dallas get all the key plays in this game, they also got them from their defensive unit, doomed to failure according to Stephen A. Smith.
Write it in stone.
Despite loss, Eagles show they are a force in the NFC East
IRVING, Texas -- America's Team showed up for once last Monday night game at Texas Stadium.
for once. 15-4 in their last nineteen games, #1 seed in NFC last year, but this, finally, week two of 2008, they showed up. It's about time, the lazy good for nothings. Not like those plucky 9-9 Eagles huh?
Also, last Monday night game? Last Monday night game...really Stephen? Lock it in? Okey dokey.
And when the Dallas Cowboys were finished, surviving in thrilling fashion for a 41-37 victory over the Philadelphia Eagles, they proved to be everything everyone thought they were.
I get it. Denny Green was mad. It's been two years now. 'Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land - enough! '
They were sensational, courtesy of Terrell Owens. They were explosive, courtesy of an offense that proved it could score in bunches, against anyone, at any given moment. They also were erratic (i.e., Tony Romo), inconsistent (i.e., Tony Romo), prone to implosion (i.e., Tony Romo)
cool your jets hotshot. Romo was 21 of 30 for 312 yards. Yes, he threw an interception and had a critical fumble but he also found receivers for three touchdowns. His QB rating was 123.2, he was generally awesome, and it's ridiculous for you to imply he was "hot and cold" or anything of the sort. He's currently third in passing yards, has yet to be sacked, is equal third in passing TD's and second in YPA. He's pretty fucking good, no matter what you claim, and it wasn't just TO = good, Romo = "inconsistant" (and we know you're implying bad).
flat-out defenseless (no explanation needed). So much so that Monday night's performance should give pause to all those folks who plan on riding their big blue stars to Tampa in February.
sure, this you can have. They were poor defensively, though they did register four sacks, recovered a fumble and 337 total yards, while not good, isn't quite "flat-out defenseless". It's a little over the top. But "a little over the top" would be a remarkable accomplishment for SAS, and would make Mr and Mrs SAS beam with pride I'm sure.
Especially with the Eagles nipping at the Cowboys' heels in the same division.
1.0 games. As opposed to the 2.0 maximum possible lead. The Eagles still trail the Giants, mind you, and are tied with the Redskins. WOW, who thought it would be so close in the NFC East after a marathon of two games? It's a wild division clearly.
At the moment, you can write in stone that Owens is the best receiver in football
stone? Stone? I like TO, have defended him on this blog before, he's good; sometimes I forget how good he is because he's so strong, you don't quite expect the same "spectacularness" you might of a Fitzgerald or Edwards or Smith. But in stone? My God man! Owens is tied with Hines Ward, Anquain Boldin and Chris Chambers for receiving TD's, with three, I guess that's what the case hinges on. Here are players that have more receiving yards this year, and I'm using this year, because Smith deliberately says "at the moment".
- Greg Jennings
- Calvin Johnson (btw, if you watch the games, and there's a stat for "holy fucking shitness", Johnson would be destroying fools right now, he's AMAZING to watch)
- Anquain Boldin
- DeSean Jackson (ok, not gonna last, happy to scratch his name off)
- Plaxico Burress (maybe be my choice for best receiver over the last year and a half...just for sheer guts and importance to his team...maybe)
- Jason Witten (MORE YARDS AND HE'S ON HIS TEAM!!!)
- Santana Moss (strike this name too as a flukey game last week)
- Anthony Gonzalez (ditto)
- Larry Fitzgerald (as athletic as any player in the game)
- Eddie Royal (nuff said)
- Lee Evans
- Reggie Wayne
You know who isn't on this list either and tops them all? Of course you do, because you follow football. Would you like a new piece of stone Stephen?
"This was 'Monday Night Football,' baby," Owens said, walking through the tunnel after the game. "The bright lights were on. I told y'all to get your popcorn ready. You should've listened."
You can't help but listen to Owens, because his game speaks loud and clear.
fun bullshit quotables are still bullshit quotables.
He's always in phenomenal shape. At 34, he's still faster than most in the game. But you still have to wonder whether he'll be enough once things get really thick and difficult come postseason time, particularly if these Eagles are still around.
How about McNabb, who was 25-of-37 for 281 yards (one TD) and clearly was the more poised quarterback on the field -- despite what Romo's 312 passing yards might have indicated.
based on what exactly? He was sacked twice on the final, decisive drive of the game, once when he had an age to pass to his, admittedly incompetant receiving corps, and simply danced around for like, 8 seconds until DeMarcus Ware finally caught him for a sack near the sideline. He was a critical part of the fumble to Westbrook. McNabb has been very impressive (as he invariably is when he actually plays), but I personally disagree with your "clear", "written in stone" impression of the game.
Or an Eagles defense that held Owens to two catches for 17 yards after the game's opening drive, yet still appeared so disgusted that the players could barely disguise their snarls with every word they uttered after the game.
probably to do with the 41 points they surrendered. Or the 380 total yards. Or that they let the Cowboys convert 6-10 on third down. To put it simply, no matter what they held Owens to after a 72 yard reception, they were pretty awful last night. Worse than Dallas if you ask me (though admittedly that is a close call).
"Let me tell you this," Eagles safety Brian Dawkins said after the game. "We made too many early mistakes -- it's that simple. The bomb to T.O. The kickoff return for a TD (by Felix Jones) right after that. Those are mistakes we don't usually make, and it cost us. It's why we lost this game, and that's why we're disgusted. We know we gave it away."
"That fact that we let T.O. get off isn't something I pay attention to, because whenever he scores against us, I just don't look. I don't see the dances, the flapping of the arms or anything anyone tries to tell me he does. I'm not interested in seeing that at all. But I'll tell you we're pretty ticked off with ourselves because we know we're better than what we showed tonight defensively. We know what kind of team we have, especially if our offense continues to perform the way they did tonight."
may I kindly suggest, Mr Dawkins, that you do pay more attention to Terrell Owens, he's the guy getting eight yards open downfield to catch a bomb for a touchdown, one of two on the night - that dude is pretty good, keep an eye on him.
Listen to the man.
listen to TO's game, listen to Brian Dawkins, I only have two ears Stephen!
The Eagles, renowned for their blitz packages and the suffocating pressure they put on opposing quarterbacks, did not record a sack Monday. Instead, they allowed Romo (who, of course, threw one interception and gave the Eagles a touchdown with a fumble in the end zone) to complete 21 of 30 passes for 312 yards, to sit back in the pocket and take a few pictures from time to time, and to connect with Jason Witten (seven receptions for 110 yards) once they figured out what to do with Owens.
they "let him". Let's put this in the same bag as Kari's "once you stop Peterson" line. Romo's good, this is a fatal flaw in your argument, not understanding that Romo is good and makes adjustments very well. His success in this league is not predicated on everyone he plays against playing poorly.
No offense, but it's predictable Owens would feel that way. He had two touchdowns in the first 17 minutes of the game. The Cowboys ended the evening with 41 points, causing owner Jerry Jones to blush -- thinking about the final outcome in Week 2 instead of the residual effects bound to show up later on down the road.
while the defense wasn't good, this was a great game for Dallas with many, many good points. Not least of which is scoring a win against a fierce division rival. It is by far the biggest impact of the game, not the "residual effects" that may or may not "show up later". Why can't it just be a sloppy (though not irredeemable) defensive game? Why does it have to be some telltale sign of a major design flaw. Last week they went, on the road mind you, against Cleveland and held them to 10 points. The same Cleveland (in fact, better, at least on paper, with Donte Stallworth) that was 8th in total offense and scoring offense per game last year.
If the Eagles were able to put up so many points short-handed, what will the Packers and the Giants do against Dallas later?
I dunno, it's too early to tell. I certainly wouldn't let one messy game, which I won, put too much panic into me.
"We know our team, our defense," an annoyed-looking Eagles tight end L.J. Smith said after the game. "We know what happened tonight won't happen very often. We'll see if (Dallas) can say the same things once all is said and done."
Four sacks of McNabb and two key stops to end the game might have provided the Cowboys with an early season victory, but that doesn't make Smith's last comment any less legitimate.
what makes his comment less legitimate is, how can I put this delicately...his possible lack of impartiality on judging the Dallas Cowboys performance. I'll also add that not only did Dallas get all the key plays in this game, they also got them from their defensive unit, doomed to failure according to Stephen A. Smith.
Write it in stone.
Monday, September 15, 2008
1 comments 9=8x3=27!
Let's wind up the baseball season. Come on now, let's put some real thought into it. We're professional journalists, with a world of baseball resources at our fingertips, we can get some really unheralded story out there that offers a unique perspective. I mean, day after day we hear the same old stories, and that's fine, but this once, with the entirity of the baseball season now in the rear view mirror, let's dig deeper and find something really profound, original. Just this once, let's not take the easy way out and beat something even further into the ground than the mineshaft that it has become.
Sigh.
In a season of feel-good stories, no team shined brighter than the Rays
...alternatively.
NEW YORK - The baseball Story of the Year? The worst-to-first Rays, of course.
you were a fool to even ask, morons.
The team that never before exceeded 70 victories still leads the Red Sox, already has buried the Yankees and is basically guaranteed a playoff spot thanks to its young roster, an almost-as-young baseball front office and a can-do attitude that began in spring training and has carried throughout the long season.
not mentioned; 3.65ERA, tops in the AL, quite literally worst to first, a drop of 1.88.
not mentioned; .715OPSA, third in the AL, a drop this time of one hundred and eleven points. To put it another way, last year, every hitter facing Tampa was Derek Lee, this year, Mark Teahen.
not mentioned; 1.28WHIP, lowest in the AL, again, worst to first, a drop of three baserunners per game, which is quite amazing when you think about it.
not mentioned; 80 errors, third in the AL behind New York and Boston (didn't expect to see the Yankees there huh!), down by 37 from the previous year
and probably like a billion more advanced metrics that I don't quite understand or know where to find. In fact, not a single number, even runs scored or allowed appears in this paragraph. Wake up sleepyhead! The Rays have always had a young team, Joe Maddon and his "can-do attitude" (215-256 record with this team, an average record of 74-88, but don't let that stand in your way Jon) have been there for the last three years. Basically, Heyman is suggesting that the Rays just fucking decided to win this year and so they have. Ugh.
"It's crazy,'' Rays owner Stu Sternberg, a New York investment banker, agreed on Sunday at Yankee Stadium, where a sellout crowd came to say good-bye to a storied place and team, both on the way out, and generally ignored the story of the year.
and we come to the third point of this holy trinity of, apparently, inexplicable winning, the "almost-as-young" front office. Which is fucking stunned at the success. Never planned on it, shocked as anyone. Basically throwing it's hands up and going "fuck me...never thought we would actually win games!" Maybe Stu is like a male, less hot Rachel Phelps and assumed he could get some kind of buy-out or something. Yes, the Rays fans were wise to hitch their wagon to his star.
Rays players quietly went about their business so as not to anger or disturb their rich fourth-place sad-sack hosts while Rays' team hierarchy beamed in the hot rays.
I've discovered the secret behind journalism - use as many emotive adverbs/adjectives as humanly possible, forget about anything approaching analysis. Here is the same sentence with the emotive bullshit highlighted.
Rays players quietly went about their business so as not to anger or disturb their rich fourth-place sad-sack hosts while Rays' team hierarchy beamed in the hot rays.
Also, Jon, that "hot Rays" thing. Genius dude.
Sternberg, a native of Canarsie in Brooklyn, who grew up a fan of the Amazin' Mets and is old enough (barely, he's 49) to recall the Impossible Dream Red Sox of 1967, was looking for the one descriptive word to characterize his Rays. "If you can think of an adjective, let me know,'' he said.
finally, a job Jon Heyman is eminantly qualified for - finding adjectives, no issue with that at all.
Sternberg suggested the Improbable Rays. But that doesn't quite do it, not for me anyway. They are at least as impossible as the '67 Red Sox,no?
anyone else think people are going a bit overboard with the whole "no one saw the Rays coming!" angle?
In 2006, ESPN ranked them 22nd in the Majors despite coming into the season with the second worst record in baseball.
Yahoo Answers has a post from seven months ago asking who would be the surprise team in 2008, the answer was Tampa Bay.
The time? 2/4/2008. The place? The official website of Major League Baseball.
"Time to settle some scores? The rest of the AL East is concerned. In fact, Toronto general manager J.P. Ricciardi has frankly branded the Rays a team "no one will want to face."
...it could be graduation time for the guys who've endured growing pains together for years -- Carl Crawford, B.J. Upton, Jonny Gomes and, health willing, Rocco Baldelli. Ricciardi hits the nail. No team will eagerly enter a Tampa Bay series, knowing it is certain of seeing at least part of the top of the Rays' rotation, Scott Kazmir, James Shields or Matt Garza.
To tie it all together, Tampa Bay has brought in its own bullpen therapist (see: 2007 Reds). While trailing the Majors with 28 saves last season, the Rays lost 42 games in which they held a lead -- not too firmly, evidently. Enter Troy Percival, of whose 324 career saves 316 came in the presence of manager Joe Maddon, while he was an Angels coach."
Look, I know that the Rays were a surprise, but it simply isn't true that people weren't picking them this year, in fact, people had picked them as a sleeper for several years, eventually they had to deliver.
Manager Joe Maddon on Sunday agreed at least that the emergence was "a little bit of a surprise.'' But Maddon is the one who instilled a feeling of belief in the spring when he told the team "9 equals 8,'' a motto that became the clubhouse catchphrase. The saying suggests not only nine players working together for nine innings but also a team aiming for nine more wins via each of three categories: pitching, defense and hitting. For those scoring at home, that's 27 more wins, which is thought in most parts to be an impossibility.
wow, that's so retarded not even I know where to start.
The players seemed to catch on a few months into the season. Clubhouse leader Cliff Floyd said they "got that swagger'' in June and are now happily taking an "arrogant'' or even "cocky'' attitude into games for the first time in their mostly sorry history.
they actually started "pitching" better which "led" to them "winning" more "games".
Floyd said, "Everbody's stoked that 'postseason' is in our vocabulary".
hard on for quotation marks.
2. Cubs. The rise of the star-crossed franchise in the 100th anniversary of their last title will add intrigue to the postseason. Perhaps Carlos Zambrano's no-hitter was a sign of the magic to come. Rays-Cubs World Series, anyone.
yeah that's it. The no-hitter. What about the eighty-seven other wins Jon?
3. Cliff Lee, Indians pitcher. He's 22-2 for a losing team, not all that far off the unbelievable achievement of Steve Carlton, who won 27 games for the 59-win 1972 Phillies, as Mike Lupica pointed out in Sunday's New York Daily News. With the Giants' Tim Lincecum, we should probably have two Cy Young winners on losing teams. (Even if Brandon Webb should win in the NL, well, the Diamondbacks may have a losing record, too).
say what you will about wins in pitching, and I get it, really, but if you didn't go "holy shit Cliff Lee is 22-2" right there, I dunno what to tell you, this is pretty fucking amazing IMO.
5. Josh Hamilton, Rangers slugger. Recovering drug addict finally showed the world his talent, including on the big stage of the All-Star Game at Yankee Stadium, where he put on the greatest Home Run Derby display ever.
look, I mean this in the very best possible taste, but Josh Hamilton is to baseball what Ellen is to comedy. If he wasn't a recovering drug addict and she wasn't a lesbian, no one would give a shit. I'm not comparing the two on their own merits, I'm just saying that both careers are pretty "gimmicky". I'm impressed with Hamilton's season too, but I wanna see if this is a season and a half fluke or what. Juan Gonzalez etc.
6. K-Rod, Angels closer. Broke Bobby Thigpen's save record en route to free-agent riches.
quite literally a record that would not exist if his offense was better.
8. Dustin Pedroia, little Red Sox hitter. White Sox motormouth manager Ozzie Guillen called him a jockey, but as former White Sox minor leaguer Michael Jordan can tell you, height does not a hitter make.
I know readers, we've danced this dance before but still, fucking ridiculous, all of this, vomit inducingly bad.
14. Jamie Moyer, Phillies starter. He turned in a stellar season at age 45 (14-7, 3.68 ERA) and gave hope to all us older guys.
look, I don't wanna hang a guy with literally zero evidence, but we are generally aware now that steroids help more in recouperation than actual strength when it comes to baseball. And thus are generally more of a benifit to pitchers, who do far more damage in far more intense a way, to their bodies, than hitters. I'm saying someone like Moyer, with his stuff, posting an era a full run below that of his last sixty-six starts (hell, .41 below his career average)...let's just see how that plays out before worshipping it as a great "feel-good" story.
There's more, there's always more. We keep shovelling it away, they keep bringing it back in.
Sigh.
In a season of feel-good stories, no team shined brighter than the Rays
...alternatively.
NEW YORK - The baseball Story of the Year? The worst-to-first Rays, of course.
you were a fool to even ask, morons.
The team that never before exceeded 70 victories still leads the Red Sox, already has buried the Yankees and is basically guaranteed a playoff spot thanks to its young roster, an almost-as-young baseball front office and a can-do attitude that began in spring training and has carried throughout the long season.
not mentioned; 3.65ERA, tops in the AL, quite literally worst to first, a drop of 1.88.
not mentioned; .715OPSA, third in the AL, a drop this time of one hundred and eleven points. To put it another way, last year, every hitter facing Tampa was Derek Lee, this year, Mark Teahen.
not mentioned; 1.28WHIP, lowest in the AL, again, worst to first, a drop of three baserunners per game, which is quite amazing when you think about it.
not mentioned; 80 errors, third in the AL behind New York and Boston (didn't expect to see the Yankees there huh!), down by 37 from the previous year
and probably like a billion more advanced metrics that I don't quite understand or know where to find. In fact, not a single number, even runs scored or allowed appears in this paragraph. Wake up sleepyhead! The Rays have always had a young team, Joe Maddon and his "can-do attitude" (215-256 record with this team, an average record of 74-88, but don't let that stand in your way Jon) have been there for the last three years. Basically, Heyman is suggesting that the Rays just fucking decided to win this year and so they have. Ugh.
"It's crazy,'' Rays owner Stu Sternberg, a New York investment banker, agreed on Sunday at Yankee Stadium, where a sellout crowd came to say good-bye to a storied place and team, both on the way out, and generally ignored the story of the year.
and we come to the third point of this holy trinity of, apparently, inexplicable winning, the "almost-as-young" front office. Which is fucking stunned at the success. Never planned on it, shocked as anyone. Basically throwing it's hands up and going "fuck me...never thought we would actually win games!" Maybe Stu is like a male, less hot Rachel Phelps and assumed he could get some kind of buy-out or something. Yes, the Rays fans were wise to hitch their wagon to his star.
Rays players quietly went about their business so as not to anger or disturb their rich fourth-place sad-sack hosts while Rays' team hierarchy beamed in the hot rays.
I've discovered the secret behind journalism - use as many emotive adverbs/adjectives as humanly possible, forget about anything approaching analysis. Here is the same sentence with the emotive bullshit highlighted.
Rays players quietly went about their business so as not to anger or disturb their rich fourth-place sad-sack hosts while Rays' team hierarchy beamed in the hot rays.
Also, Jon, that "hot Rays" thing. Genius dude.
Sternberg, a native of Canarsie in Brooklyn, who grew up a fan of the Amazin' Mets and is old enough (barely, he's 49) to recall the Impossible Dream Red Sox of 1967, was looking for the one descriptive word to characterize his Rays. "If you can think of an adjective, let me know,'' he said.
finally, a job Jon Heyman is eminantly qualified for - finding adjectives, no issue with that at all.
Sternberg suggested the Improbable Rays. But that doesn't quite do it, not for me anyway. They are at least as impossible as the '67 Red Sox,no?
anyone else think people are going a bit overboard with the whole "no one saw the Rays coming!" angle?
In 2006, ESPN ranked them 22nd in the Majors despite coming into the season with the second worst record in baseball.
Yahoo Answers has a post from seven months ago asking who would be the surprise team in 2008, the answer was Tampa Bay.
The time? 2/4/2008. The place? The official website of Major League Baseball.
"Time to settle some scores? The rest of the AL East is concerned. In fact, Toronto general manager J.P. Ricciardi has frankly branded the Rays a team "no one will want to face."
...it could be graduation time for the guys who've endured growing pains together for years -- Carl Crawford, B.J. Upton, Jonny Gomes and, health willing, Rocco Baldelli. Ricciardi hits the nail. No team will eagerly enter a Tampa Bay series, knowing it is certain of seeing at least part of the top of the Rays' rotation, Scott Kazmir, James Shields or Matt Garza.
To tie it all together, Tampa Bay has brought in its own bullpen therapist (see: 2007 Reds). While trailing the Majors with 28 saves last season, the Rays lost 42 games in which they held a lead -- not too firmly, evidently. Enter Troy Percival, of whose 324 career saves 316 came in the presence of manager Joe Maddon, while he was an Angels coach."
Look, I know that the Rays were a surprise, but it simply isn't true that people weren't picking them this year, in fact, people had picked them as a sleeper for several years, eventually they had to deliver.
Manager Joe Maddon on Sunday agreed at least that the emergence was "a little bit of a surprise.'' But Maddon is the one who instilled a feeling of belief in the spring when he told the team "9 equals 8,'' a motto that became the clubhouse catchphrase. The saying suggests not only nine players working together for nine innings but also a team aiming for nine more wins via each of three categories: pitching, defense and hitting. For those scoring at home, that's 27 more wins, which is thought in most parts to be an impossibility.
wow, that's so retarded not even I know where to start.
The players seemed to catch on a few months into the season. Clubhouse leader Cliff Floyd said they "got that swagger'' in June and are now happily taking an "arrogant'' or even "cocky'' attitude into games for the first time in their mostly sorry history.
they actually started "pitching" better which "led" to them "winning" more "games".
Floyd said, "Everbody's stoked that 'postseason' is in our vocabulary".
hard on for quotation marks.
2. Cubs. The rise of the star-crossed franchise in the 100th anniversary of their last title will add intrigue to the postseason. Perhaps Carlos Zambrano's no-hitter was a sign of the magic to come. Rays-Cubs World Series, anyone.
yeah that's it. The no-hitter. What about the eighty-seven other wins Jon?
3. Cliff Lee, Indians pitcher. He's 22-2 for a losing team, not all that far off the unbelievable achievement of Steve Carlton, who won 27 games for the 59-win 1972 Phillies, as Mike Lupica pointed out in Sunday's New York Daily News. With the Giants' Tim Lincecum, we should probably have two Cy Young winners on losing teams. (Even if Brandon Webb should win in the NL, well, the Diamondbacks may have a losing record, too).
say what you will about wins in pitching, and I get it, really, but if you didn't go "holy shit Cliff Lee is 22-2" right there, I dunno what to tell you, this is pretty fucking amazing IMO.
5. Josh Hamilton, Rangers slugger. Recovering drug addict finally showed the world his talent, including on the big stage of the All-Star Game at Yankee Stadium, where he put on the greatest Home Run Derby display ever.
look, I mean this in the very best possible taste, but Josh Hamilton is to baseball what Ellen is to comedy. If he wasn't a recovering drug addict and she wasn't a lesbian, no one would give a shit. I'm not comparing the two on their own merits, I'm just saying that both careers are pretty "gimmicky". I'm impressed with Hamilton's season too, but I wanna see if this is a season and a half fluke or what. Juan Gonzalez etc.
6. K-Rod, Angels closer. Broke Bobby Thigpen's save record en route to free-agent riches.
quite literally a record that would not exist if his offense was better.
8. Dustin Pedroia, little Red Sox hitter. White Sox motormouth manager Ozzie Guillen called him a jockey, but as former White Sox minor leaguer Michael Jordan can tell you, height does not a hitter make.
I know readers, we've danced this dance before but still, fucking ridiculous, all of this, vomit inducingly bad.
14. Jamie Moyer, Phillies starter. He turned in a stellar season at age 45 (14-7, 3.68 ERA) and gave hope to all us older guys.
look, I don't wanna hang a guy with literally zero evidence, but we are generally aware now that steroids help more in recouperation than actual strength when it comes to baseball. And thus are generally more of a benifit to pitchers, who do far more damage in far more intense a way, to their bodies, than hitters. I'm saying someone like Moyer, with his stuff, posting an era a full run below that of his last sixty-six starts (hell, .41 below his career average)...let's just see how that plays out before worshipping it as a great "feel-good" story.
There's more, there's always more. We keep shovelling it away, they keep bringing it back in.
2 comments MMQB Review: Craziest Football Day Ever (Until Next Week) Edition
Our traffic goes down like 75% when I talk about Peter King and his Monday Morning Quarterback, but there is just so much to savor in each column, with his Boston area sports infatuation he tries to hide so much and his Brett Favre ass kissing, I enjoy them too much to not mention them. Will the Brett Favre ass kissing end today though? You will have to wait and see.
MMQB
This had to be one of the most dramatic Sundays in the 24 years I've covered the league.
The first week after Tom Brady got injured, we have what King Peter King calls the most dramatic Sunday he has ever covered. Coincidence? I think not, Tom Brady should be phased out of pro football forever.
I am glad we settled this.
I warn you, Peter King will talk strategy with Mike Shanahan later in this column, and unfortunately at no point did Shanahan say his strategy was to ride the coat tails of one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to two Super Bowl victories and then get a lifetime contract to make poor personnel decisions. I was looking forward to this mention but it never happened.
The Chargers got robbed. Much more about that later, but suffice it to say referee Ed Hochuli's blown call of what should have been a Jay Cutler fumble with 1:17 left in the fourth quarter, and San Diego up 38-31, could be the type of millstone around the Chargers' neck from which they never recover this year.
This shows the true intestinal fortitude of a Norv Turner football team. They completely get run over one week earlier by a non playoff team from last year and they are fine, but then they lose the game on a bad call and the entire team gives up right then. Really. You thought LT sitting on the bench last year in the playoffs with his helmet on was an aberration, but if one bad call sends this team over the edge, no wonder they have not won any serious playoff games. Somewhere in North Carolina, Marty Schottenheimer is laughing as he is fishing in the sunshine on a lake, happy to get the hell out.
"I knew with four and a half minutes to go that if we scored and there wasn't much time left on the clock, I'd probably go for two,'' Shanahan said. "Just a gut feeling. I looked at my defense. They were spent. I figured I didn't want overtime to come down to a coin flip where we might not see the ball again if we lost [the coin toss.]''
Strategy time with Mike Shanahan. Listen closely, you just may not learn anything.
The defense had given up 38 points at this time during the game. The main factor in his decision should not be the team's energy level but the fact the defense is not good, as shown by giving up 38 points at home to the Chargers. Right conclusion, wrong reason.
Mike Shanahan tends to be the Mr. Bean of head coaches. He makes horrible personnel decisions and generally appears to have no idea how to construct a defense, but it works out for him.
This decision was gutsy but I tend to worry about teams that go for two at home because they don't trust their defense...and they were at home, while being at home...oh and they made this decision at home. Usually the road team takes this strategy. This does not bode well.
"You don't make that kind of call unless you've got 100 percent confidence in your quarterback, which I do,'' he said. "In a case like that, you're prepared for what comes, and I knew I'd get killed if it didn't work. It goes with the territory. I knew it was the right call.''
"You'd say that even if it failed?' I asked.
"Oh yeah,'' Shanahan said.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Mike Shanahan Era in Denver. Even though a decisions fails, he will still think it was the right call, without a doubt in his mind.
What a gutsy call. The problem is that if the play fails, it was NOT the right call. Pretty easy to say that in retrospect, but most normal people would have a shadow of a doubt it was not the right call if it failed. Not Mike Shanahan. I think that about sums up all of his personnel decisions as well, but does not explain to me why given a negative outcome this decision would still have been correct in his mind.
We'd have killed him if the play had failed. But can you argue with Shanahan's call, now that you've heard his logic, even if Cutler hadn't converted?
Yes and no. Here is the problem, my wonderful reader(s):
This was probably the correct decision in this situation, given the fact the defense had given up 38 points.
Numbers logic screams it does not matter though. There is a 50% chance the coin flip would have given the ball to the Broncos in overtime, where the vaunted offense could have scored in a number of ways. I don't think anyone would argue the Broncos would have probably scored or would have had a good chance to score if given the ball. Why would you put the entire game in the hands of one play, where a number of things can go wrong, when there is a 50% chance you will get the ball no matter what?
Well, the two point conversion has approximately a 50% chance of being converted in the NFL. So in essence, though this was a gutsy call, but the odds were about the same either way for Mike Shanahan. He just wanted to control his team's destiny. Smart move in this case.
You can argue with his logic though because there is a 50% chance the 2 point conversion won't work, they could have been better off to take the chance their offense gets the ball when they would have had more than one play to score. I also would not want one game to be decided by one play. I just don't believe this is as cut and dry as it appears.
• New England 19, New York Jets 10
Matty Ice.
If he actually ends up with this nickname.........I don't even know what I will do, let's just hope it ends right here.
I agree he played well but he did play the Jets and the Chiefs, so let's still temper expectations. Nah...fuck it let's take a 7 quarter sample size and just run with it.
· A 71 percent passer.
He will obviously do this for the rest of his career. This is a given.
· A cautious player. He'll eventually have to take some chances and be bolder. If he doesn't, New England will lose games against teams with competent defenses that have productive offensive days. But for now, cautious is better than impetuous.
He sounds like Yoda. "Impetuous you must not be, care with the ball you must take. Caution, the path is. Bold you may be in future, for now, the game you must manage."
On fourth-and-three from the New York 29 with 1:56 left, out of the shotgun, he had dumped a safe five-yarder to Wes Welker to get a new set of downs and seal the game. He didn't try to do too much, just end the game.
I love it when writers give a quarterback credit for hitting a wide open receiver for a first down. As if quarterbacks want to complete a 50 yard touchdown pass every single passing play, and will continously ignore a wide open receiver a few yards away. On fourth-and-three, there is no reason to do anything but try to complete a safe pass. This is not original or new, so no credit really needed.
If he keeps doing that, he might invite comparisons to the last unknown quarterback the Patriots thrust in the lineup after an injury to a famous quarterback. But let's not go there yet. Way, way, way too early.
I agree let's no go there yet. I mean, Drew Bledsoe was not a famous quarterback, he was just the only quarterback the Patriots had, so it is way too early to call him famous.
By King Peter stating this similarity, this automatically invites the comparison, then everyone is thinking about the merits of the comparison, then King Peter says it is too early to make the comparison he just made. This is a grand writing style.
• Carolina 20, Chicago 17
The Panthers prove a point.
That point is that they are better than the Chicago Bears at this point in the season.
2. Pittsburgh (2-0). As long as Willie Parker averages 122 rushing yards a game, the Steelers should be able to survive Ben Roethlisberger's bum shoulder.
What a bold prediction! That would amount to Willie Parker rushing for 1,952 yards this year, so I am going to go ahead and agree with King Peter here.
I want to try these type of comparisons:
As long as the Denver offense scores 38 points every game, I am going to say they will survive not having a good defense.
As long as the Green Bay Packers outscore their opponents this year, Aaron Rodgers will keep his job as the starter.
5. New England (2-0). Next to the phrase "game-manager'' in Webster's, there is a photo of Matt Cassel.
If you look up "Philly Cheesesteak" in Webster's, you see a picture of Peter King eating one.
Also, having watched the 50 Best Child Stars on the E Channel this weekend, I could not help but think maybe Webster, the precocious child star, could have had "game manager" written somewhere in that elevator he used to get from his room to the kitchen. I was wrong.
So beating the Jets and Chiefs, who won 8 games last year, gets you #5 in the "Fine Fifteen?"
14. Arizona (2-0). Nothing personal, Whisenhuntmen. But it's the 49ers and Dolphins you've beaten.
Beating the Dolphins and the 49ers, who won 6 games last year, gets you #14? I am not saying it makes sense or should not be this way, I am saying his reasoning is horrible. In completely subjective ratings of teams the least you can do is use consistent criteria.
What I Learned About Football This Week That I Didn't Know Last Week
Aaron Rodgers throws with more velocity now than Favre does.
I would certainly hope so, Brett Favre is 38 and Aaron Rodgers is 26. I have always thought the whole "Brett throws the ball so hard" was a little overrated anyway.
Not my opinion; it's the opinion of Greg Jennings, who caught balls from Favre his first two years in the league and is in his first season with Rodgers.
By including "not my opinion" King Peter obviously either disagrees with Greg Jennings or thinks this is an obvious statement. I would have to think Peter disagrees, given the fact he is madly in love with Brett Favre.
It goes against the grain of everything we've heard about Favre, who we still think of as Mr. Fastball, and the supposedly average-armed Mister Rodgers.
I have not watched Favre the past couple years and thought he was "Mr. Fastball" nor did I think Aaron Rodgers has an average arm. This brings up a good point though.
Wouldn't it be neat if we named each quarterback Mr. (fill in the blank)? I like to think these would be some of the choices we would choose:
David Carr- Mr. Mrs.
Chad Pennington- Mr. Changeup
Tom Brady- Mr. God
Vince Young- Mr. Bounce Hop
Brodie Croyle- Mr. Curveball
Aaron Rodgers- Mr. Rodgers (it just makes sense)
Jeff Garcia- Mr. If Were Not a QB, Then I Would Have a 100% Chance of Being a Pedophile
Drew Brees- Mr. If Jeff Garcia Were Not An NFL QB, I Would Be His 1st Target
Peyton Manning- Mr. Gump
Eli Manning- Mr. Little Forrest
Quote of the Week IV
"I'm sick about Tom Brady.''-- Peyton Manning.
Liar.
In the first round of the 2005 draft, the San Francisco 49ers selected their quarterback of the future, Alex Smith, with the first overall pick.
This is what the 49ers got for their four-year, $24.83-million investment in Smith:
Games: 32.
Starting record: 11-19.
Completion percentage: 54.4.
TD-Int.: 19-31.
Comeback wins from more than seven points down: 1.
Does anyone else remember how Aaron Rodgers was the presumptive first pick of that draft until the last day? I never understood why it changed.
Adrian Peterson vs. Walter Payton.
Say no more, shut up and go get a cafe grande.
Whoever voted for this section to be included in the MMQB should not be allowed to vote in any presidential election until 2028.
Offensive Player of the Week
Matt Cassel, QB, New England
Why, oh why, has Peter King made this decision?
In his first start in the NFL, and his first start at quarterback since a high school playoff game in 1999, he jogged onto Favre's new home field Sunday in New Jersey, and beat one of the top 10 quarterbacks of all time.
He actually beat the Jets defense, which is not that impressive, and the Patriots defense actually beat Brett Favre. I would not say Matt Cassel is the main reason the Patriots won that game. I also would not call Brett Favre one of the top 10 QB's of all time, so King Peter needs to lose this delusion. I know he wants to do the introduction for Favre's Hall of Fame introduction, but just ask him if you can do it and don't kiss his ass.
Darrell McClover, LB, Chicago. In the first quarter at Charlotte, McClover, the left end in the Bears' punt rush, dodged a block attempt by Panthers running back Nate Goings and deflected a Jason Baker punt into the sky. Brandon Lloyd came down with it, and the resulting touchdown should have spurred the Bears to a 2-0 start. But Delhomme had something to do with that.
First off, it is Nick Goings, not Nate. For someone who knows the last time Matt Cassel started a football game, I am surprised you missed this. I would say it was less Jake Delhomme that had something to do with the Panthers victory and more the Panthers defense giving up 24 yards on 17 plays in the fourth quarters.
I like how he chose a player for Special Teams player of the week that made a play which had no effect on the game.
d. I'm not going to give the thoroughly misguided human (if he or she is indeed human) who began selling the Bernard Pollard Fan Club T-shirts online after the Tom Brady injury any more attention than this one sentence and this one question: What would your mother think of you if she knew what you were doing?
I know, I know! His mother would cheat to win football games and then take offense when the league dares to catch you in the act? Only the Patriots would do that I guess.
Ok, his/her mother would announce the fact her daughter/son got a job with a pro football team and then three weeks later write a puff piece about that team and its head coach about how underrated they are, followed by consecutive losses by said team to "inferior competition." No, that was you.
I don't know what his/her mother would say then...
4. I think once the Raiders saw Lane Kiffin flirting with Arkansas last year, then had to swallow a 31-point opening-night loss to Mike Shanahan, it became clearly a question of when, not if, Al Davis will fire Kiffin. I don't know when it will be. But beating Kansas City is no cure-all, believe me.
And you can believe him because his favorite team beat the Chiefs last week.
Let's see how Peter King's sleeper pick of the year team is doing...and how fast he is hopping off the bandwagon.
5. I think there's enough blame to go around in Cleveland. The secondary is as bad as advertised. Derek Anderson isn't accurate enough. Braylon Edwards has five drops in two games. The pass-rush is on a poor 24-sack pace for the season.
There goes Peter King's sleeper pick. He jumped off that bandwagon two games into the year. Tuck and roll Peter, tuck and roll.
c. Tyler Thigpen cannot be playing for Kansas City right now. His decision-making is horrendous.
He is there best QB. Who else are they going to put back there? Steve Bono?
Dante Culpepper would look really good on this team in my opinion. Culpepper would be the best QB on the roster, but it is really way, way, way too early to say that.
f. Tarvaris Jackson looks awful, and I think the Minnesota play-calling is too protective of him.
(Brain is attempting to comprehend this comment. It attempts to draw parallels to better understand. It thinks: This child is incredibly reckless and his parents are too protective of him. That's not it, that makes zero sense. It thinks: This boy is failing all of his third grade tests and I think he should be promoted to fourth grade. That does not make sense either, though this is a better parallel. Brain sees something shiny and turns on a re-run of 'Wipeout'.)
a. Cliff Lee is 22-2 with three possible starts left ... for a sub-.500 team. Should there even be voting for the Cy Young in the American League?
Yes, because wins mean nothing...but Cliff Lee definitely deserves the Cy Young. Also, if the Indians win 33% of the games Lee pitches in, how does that not make him the MVP?
d. I don't care what Tim Wakefield's numbers (9-10, 3.92 ERA) say. The only more valuable Red Sox this year are Dustin Pedroia (200 hits, 13 games left), Kevin Youkilis and Jon Lester.
I do care what his numbers say, but don't care about this, and I also say...........it does not matter unless they win the wild card. Go Rays!
h. By the way, Emma Pacifico, if you think fifth grade is hard, wait till you get to sixth.
I mean seriously, what the fuck is this? He is giving shout outs to fifth graders?
"To all my homies in third period Chorus, I am holding it down for you in my MMQB!"
I googled this name, I am a loser, and it is the daughter of Ralph Pacifico, who is the coach for Montclair State.
His MMQB is becoming even weirder and weirder as the days go by. Can't he just text Emma and tell her how hard sixth grade is? He texts Trent Green and every other athlete, so why not her? Why put her in the column for no real reason? Why do I care?
MMQB
This had to be one of the most dramatic Sundays in the 24 years I've covered the league.
The first week after Tom Brady got injured, we have what King Peter King calls the most dramatic Sunday he has ever covered. Coincidence? I think not, Tom Brady should be phased out of pro football forever.
I am glad we settled this.
I warn you, Peter King will talk strategy with Mike Shanahan later in this column, and unfortunately at no point did Shanahan say his strategy was to ride the coat tails of one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to two Super Bowl victories and then get a lifetime contract to make poor personnel decisions. I was looking forward to this mention but it never happened.
The Chargers got robbed. Much more about that later, but suffice it to say referee Ed Hochuli's blown call of what should have been a Jay Cutler fumble with 1:17 left in the fourth quarter, and San Diego up 38-31, could be the type of millstone around the Chargers' neck from which they never recover this year.
This shows the true intestinal fortitude of a Norv Turner football team. They completely get run over one week earlier by a non playoff team from last year and they are fine, but then they lose the game on a bad call and the entire team gives up right then. Really. You thought LT sitting on the bench last year in the playoffs with his helmet on was an aberration, but if one bad call sends this team over the edge, no wonder they have not won any serious playoff games. Somewhere in North Carolina, Marty Schottenheimer is laughing as he is fishing in the sunshine on a lake, happy to get the hell out.
"I knew with four and a half minutes to go that if we scored and there wasn't much time left on the clock, I'd probably go for two,'' Shanahan said. "Just a gut feeling. I looked at my defense. They were spent. I figured I didn't want overtime to come down to a coin flip where we might not see the ball again if we lost [the coin toss.]''
Strategy time with Mike Shanahan. Listen closely, you just may not learn anything.
The defense had given up 38 points at this time during the game. The main factor in his decision should not be the team's energy level but the fact the defense is not good, as shown by giving up 38 points at home to the Chargers. Right conclusion, wrong reason.
Mike Shanahan tends to be the Mr. Bean of head coaches. He makes horrible personnel decisions and generally appears to have no idea how to construct a defense, but it works out for him.
This decision was gutsy but I tend to worry about teams that go for two at home because they don't trust their defense...and they were at home, while being at home...oh and they made this decision at home. Usually the road team takes this strategy. This does not bode well.
"You don't make that kind of call unless you've got 100 percent confidence in your quarterback, which I do,'' he said. "In a case like that, you're prepared for what comes, and I knew I'd get killed if it didn't work. It goes with the territory. I knew it was the right call.''
"You'd say that even if it failed?' I asked.
"Oh yeah,'' Shanahan said.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Mike Shanahan Era in Denver. Even though a decisions fails, he will still think it was the right call, without a doubt in his mind.
What a gutsy call. The problem is that if the play fails, it was NOT the right call. Pretty easy to say that in retrospect, but most normal people would have a shadow of a doubt it was not the right call if it failed. Not Mike Shanahan. I think that about sums up all of his personnel decisions as well, but does not explain to me why given a negative outcome this decision would still have been correct in his mind.
We'd have killed him if the play had failed. But can you argue with Shanahan's call, now that you've heard his logic, even if Cutler hadn't converted?
Yes and no. Here is the problem, my wonderful reader(s):
This was probably the correct decision in this situation, given the fact the defense had given up 38 points.
Numbers logic screams it does not matter though. There is a 50% chance the coin flip would have given the ball to the Broncos in overtime, where the vaunted offense could have scored in a number of ways. I don't think anyone would argue the Broncos would have probably scored or would have had a good chance to score if given the ball. Why would you put the entire game in the hands of one play, where a number of things can go wrong, when there is a 50% chance you will get the ball no matter what?
Well, the two point conversion has approximately a 50% chance of being converted in the NFL. So in essence, though this was a gutsy call, but the odds were about the same either way for Mike Shanahan. He just wanted to control his team's destiny. Smart move in this case.
You can argue with his logic though because there is a 50% chance the 2 point conversion won't work, they could have been better off to take the chance their offense gets the ball when they would have had more than one play to score. I also would not want one game to be decided by one play. I just don't believe this is as cut and dry as it appears.
• New England 19, New York Jets 10
Matty Ice.
If he actually ends up with this nickname.........I don't even know what I will do, let's just hope it ends right here.
I agree he played well but he did play the Jets and the Chiefs, so let's still temper expectations. Nah...fuck it let's take a 7 quarter sample size and just run with it.
· A 71 percent passer.
He will obviously do this for the rest of his career. This is a given.
· A cautious player. He'll eventually have to take some chances and be bolder. If he doesn't, New England will lose games against teams with competent defenses that have productive offensive days. But for now, cautious is better than impetuous.
He sounds like Yoda. "Impetuous you must not be, care with the ball you must take. Caution, the path is. Bold you may be in future, for now, the game you must manage."
On fourth-and-three from the New York 29 with 1:56 left, out of the shotgun, he had dumped a safe five-yarder to Wes Welker to get a new set of downs and seal the game. He didn't try to do too much, just end the game.
I love it when writers give a quarterback credit for hitting a wide open receiver for a first down. As if quarterbacks want to complete a 50 yard touchdown pass every single passing play, and will continously ignore a wide open receiver a few yards away. On fourth-and-three, there is no reason to do anything but try to complete a safe pass. This is not original or new, so no credit really needed.
If he keeps doing that, he might invite comparisons to the last unknown quarterback the Patriots thrust in the lineup after an injury to a famous quarterback. But let's not go there yet. Way, way, way too early.
I agree let's no go there yet. I mean, Drew Bledsoe was not a famous quarterback, he was just the only quarterback the Patriots had, so it is way too early to call him famous.
By King Peter stating this similarity, this automatically invites the comparison, then everyone is thinking about the merits of the comparison, then King Peter says it is too early to make the comparison he just made. This is a grand writing style.
• Carolina 20, Chicago 17
The Panthers prove a point.
That point is that they are better than the Chicago Bears at this point in the season.
2. Pittsburgh (2-0). As long as Willie Parker averages 122 rushing yards a game, the Steelers should be able to survive Ben Roethlisberger's bum shoulder.
What a bold prediction! That would amount to Willie Parker rushing for 1,952 yards this year, so I am going to go ahead and agree with King Peter here.
I want to try these type of comparisons:
As long as the Denver offense scores 38 points every game, I am going to say they will survive not having a good defense.
As long as the Green Bay Packers outscore their opponents this year, Aaron Rodgers will keep his job as the starter.
5. New England (2-0). Next to the phrase "game-manager'' in Webster's, there is a photo of Matt Cassel.
If you look up "Philly Cheesesteak" in Webster's, you see a picture of Peter King eating one.
Also, having watched the 50 Best Child Stars on the E Channel this weekend, I could not help but think maybe Webster, the precocious child star, could have had "game manager" written somewhere in that elevator he used to get from his room to the kitchen. I was wrong.
So beating the Jets and Chiefs, who won 8 games last year, gets you #5 in the "Fine Fifteen?"
14. Arizona (2-0). Nothing personal, Whisenhuntmen. But it's the 49ers and Dolphins you've beaten.
Beating the Dolphins and the 49ers, who won 6 games last year, gets you #14? I am not saying it makes sense or should not be this way, I am saying his reasoning is horrible. In completely subjective ratings of teams the least you can do is use consistent criteria.
What I Learned About Football This Week That I Didn't Know Last Week
Aaron Rodgers throws with more velocity now than Favre does.
I would certainly hope so, Brett Favre is 38 and Aaron Rodgers is 26. I have always thought the whole "Brett throws the ball so hard" was a little overrated anyway.
Not my opinion; it's the opinion of Greg Jennings, who caught balls from Favre his first two years in the league and is in his first season with Rodgers.
By including "not my opinion" King Peter obviously either disagrees with Greg Jennings or thinks this is an obvious statement. I would have to think Peter disagrees, given the fact he is madly in love with Brett Favre.
It goes against the grain of everything we've heard about Favre, who we still think of as Mr. Fastball, and the supposedly average-armed Mister Rodgers.
I have not watched Favre the past couple years and thought he was "Mr. Fastball" nor did I think Aaron Rodgers has an average arm. This brings up a good point though.
Wouldn't it be neat if we named each quarterback Mr. (fill in the blank)? I like to think these would be some of the choices we would choose:
David Carr- Mr. Mrs.
Chad Pennington- Mr. Changeup
Tom Brady- Mr. God
Vince Young- Mr. Bounce Hop
Brodie Croyle- Mr. Curveball
Aaron Rodgers- Mr. Rodgers (it just makes sense)
Jeff Garcia- Mr. If Were Not a QB, Then I Would Have a 100% Chance of Being a Pedophile
Drew Brees- Mr. If Jeff Garcia Were Not An NFL QB, I Would Be His 1st Target
Peyton Manning- Mr. Gump
Eli Manning- Mr. Little Forrest
Quote of the Week IV
"I'm sick about Tom Brady.''-- Peyton Manning.
Liar.
In the first round of the 2005 draft, the San Francisco 49ers selected their quarterback of the future, Alex Smith, with the first overall pick.
This is what the 49ers got for their four-year, $24.83-million investment in Smith:
Games: 32.
Starting record: 11-19.
Completion percentage: 54.4.
TD-Int.: 19-31.
Comeback wins from more than seven points down: 1.
Does anyone else remember how Aaron Rodgers was the presumptive first pick of that draft until the last day? I never understood why it changed.
Adrian Peterson vs. Walter Payton.
Say no more, shut up and go get a cafe grande.
Whoever voted for this section to be included in the MMQB should not be allowed to vote in any presidential election until 2028.
Offensive Player of the Week
Matt Cassel, QB, New England
Why, oh why, has Peter King made this decision?
In his first start in the NFL, and his first start at quarterback since a high school playoff game in 1999, he jogged onto Favre's new home field Sunday in New Jersey, and beat one of the top 10 quarterbacks of all time.
He actually beat the Jets defense, which is not that impressive, and the Patriots defense actually beat Brett Favre. I would not say Matt Cassel is the main reason the Patriots won that game. I also would not call Brett Favre one of the top 10 QB's of all time, so King Peter needs to lose this delusion. I know he wants to do the introduction for Favre's Hall of Fame introduction, but just ask him if you can do it and don't kiss his ass.
Darrell McClover, LB, Chicago. In the first quarter at Charlotte, McClover, the left end in the Bears' punt rush, dodged a block attempt by Panthers running back Nate Goings and deflected a Jason Baker punt into the sky. Brandon Lloyd came down with it, and the resulting touchdown should have spurred the Bears to a 2-0 start. But Delhomme had something to do with that.
First off, it is Nick Goings, not Nate. For someone who knows the last time Matt Cassel started a football game, I am surprised you missed this. I would say it was less Jake Delhomme that had something to do with the Panthers victory and more the Panthers defense giving up 24 yards on 17 plays in the fourth quarters.
I like how he chose a player for Special Teams player of the week that made a play which had no effect on the game.
d. I'm not going to give the thoroughly misguided human (if he or she is indeed human) who began selling the Bernard Pollard Fan Club T-shirts online after the Tom Brady injury any more attention than this one sentence and this one question: What would your mother think of you if she knew what you were doing?
I know, I know! His mother would cheat to win football games and then take offense when the league dares to catch you in the act? Only the Patriots would do that I guess.
Ok, his/her mother would announce the fact her daughter/son got a job with a pro football team and then three weeks later write a puff piece about that team and its head coach about how underrated they are, followed by consecutive losses by said team to "inferior competition." No, that was you.
I don't know what his/her mother would say then...
4. I think once the Raiders saw Lane Kiffin flirting with Arkansas last year, then had to swallow a 31-point opening-night loss to Mike Shanahan, it became clearly a question of when, not if, Al Davis will fire Kiffin. I don't know when it will be. But beating Kansas City is no cure-all, believe me.
And you can believe him because his favorite team beat the Chiefs last week.
Let's see how Peter King's sleeper pick of the year team is doing...and how fast he is hopping off the bandwagon.
5. I think there's enough blame to go around in Cleveland. The secondary is as bad as advertised. Derek Anderson isn't accurate enough. Braylon Edwards has five drops in two games. The pass-rush is on a poor 24-sack pace for the season.
There goes Peter King's sleeper pick. He jumped off that bandwagon two games into the year. Tuck and roll Peter, tuck and roll.
c. Tyler Thigpen cannot be playing for Kansas City right now. His decision-making is horrendous.
He is there best QB. Who else are they going to put back there? Steve Bono?
Dante Culpepper would look really good on this team in my opinion. Culpepper would be the best QB on the roster, but it is really way, way, way too early to say that.
f. Tarvaris Jackson looks awful, and I think the Minnesota play-calling is too protective of him.
(Brain is attempting to comprehend this comment. It attempts to draw parallels to better understand. It thinks: This child is incredibly reckless and his parents are too protective of him. That's not it, that makes zero sense. It thinks: This boy is failing all of his third grade tests and I think he should be promoted to fourth grade. That does not make sense either, though this is a better parallel. Brain sees something shiny and turns on a re-run of 'Wipeout'.)
a. Cliff Lee is 22-2 with three possible starts left ... for a sub-.500 team. Should there even be voting for the Cy Young in the American League?
Yes, because wins mean nothing...but Cliff Lee definitely deserves the Cy Young. Also, if the Indians win 33% of the games Lee pitches in, how does that not make him the MVP?
d. I don't care what Tim Wakefield's numbers (9-10, 3.92 ERA) say. The only more valuable Red Sox this year are Dustin Pedroia (200 hits, 13 games left), Kevin Youkilis and Jon Lester.
I do care what his numbers say, but don't care about this, and I also say...........it does not matter unless they win the wild card. Go Rays!
h. By the way, Emma Pacifico, if you think fifth grade is hard, wait till you get to sixth.
I mean seriously, what the fuck is this? He is giving shout outs to fifth graders?
"To all my homies in third period Chorus, I am holding it down for you in my MMQB!"
I googled this name, I am a loser, and it is the daughter of Ralph Pacifico, who is the coach for Montclair State.
His MMQB is becoming even weirder and weirder as the days go by. Can't he just text Emma and tell her how hard sixth grade is? He texts Trent Green and every other athlete, so why not her? Why put her in the column for no real reason? Why do I care?
Sunday, September 14, 2008
1 comments Scoop Jackson's Braintrust
Do you ever wonder what brought Scoop Jackson to this point in life? Like at some point he had to have been told that he knows a lot about sports right? So like, he had to be complimented. We know he can't write so we have to assume that Scoop has had the astronomical luck of being consistantly around people who know less about sport than him (I guess he is employed by ESPN - ZING!). Well folks, I have a suprise for you. Today we get to find out what a discussion about sport with Scoop and his friends is like. I know, it's an absolute treat of unintentional comedy, coming right at you. And what brought about this alignment of the stars? A hatred of fantasy football. Oh yes, Scoop knows you probably like fantasy football and it's a major part of ESPN's patronage but you know why he can get away with that? Fuck you that's why.
My idea of real fantasy football
real fantasy. Let the Scoop Jackson writing class for people who can't put sentences together no good begin.
Fan•ta•sy [FAN-tuh-see]: imagination, esp. when extravagant and unrestrained; the forming of mental images, esp. wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing; a mental image; an imagined or conjured-up sequence fulfilling a psychological need; a supposition based on no solid foundation; a visionary idea; a caprice; a whim; an ingenious thought.
trite [trahyt]: lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition; hackneyed; stale; Scoop Jackson.
I guess this is lesson #1, always give a definition of that which you are about to lampoon. Even if the definition is generally acknowledged, entirely non controversial and essentially irrelevant to the discussion. Fundamentally, Scoop needs to fill words and is getting this to do the job for him.
Fantasy football is for suckas.
Scoop Jackson: fuck you and your life, losers. Basement, nerds, computers, zzz...
I never understood the point in fantasy football. It's not that I have a problem with the theory of "fantasy" football, I just have a problem with calling millions of people doing imitations of Charlie Casserly "fantasy."
who cares? Call it "transposed statistics in specified fan group context game" if you like, it doesn't matter Scoop, there must literally be a million things more pressing in the world of sports than what fantasy football is called. I think I mean that "literally", I'm sticking with it. No heat of the moment exaggerations from me.
Where's the "fantasy" in drafting Donovan McNabb or Tony Romo, or hoping that Adrian Peterson breaks 200 yards or Devin Hester runs one back, all while not really caring about any of the other nuances of what make the game beautiful?
Having Bill Gates money is a fantasy. Owning a condo on the top of Jumeirah in Dubai is a fantasy. Spending the opening day of the NFL season with a collection of beautiful and intelligent women who love football, buying them drinks and food at your friend's bar, talking rosters, routes and Raiders with them for hours and you are the only man around … that's a fantasy.
fine, it's not truly a fantasy. I don't care. My interest, yours, the world's, in fantasy football is not diminished by it's official fantasy or non fantasy status. Just so you know, there is a distinction between being a multi-billionaire and playing fantasy sports. Got that NERDS? You're not fooling anyone you big phonys!
So I gathered five women I've known over the years who happen to be sexy football aficionettes. They're John Claytons in Taraji Henson and Scarlett Johansson shells. None of them knew each other, but for years in many separate discussions, games, events and occasions, I've learned the level at which they love the game. But they've never been in the same room at the same time until now.
a hush comes over the crowd in anticipation for this truly historic moment. Scoop Jackson talking to women about football. This is great. Oh hey, can I cash in my one slightly sexist comment for this blog, because it pretty much files into the male code of talking about hot women, and Scoop was superficial enough to reference their appearance instantly, so I feel I can comment - don't bother trying to brag about your friends being hot if you don't have sex with them. It doesn't make you appear any cooler, if anything quite the opposite. No one is impressed you know hot women Scoop, no one.
Remember this "aficionadas" (aficionettes is not a word Scoop) tag too. I mean, there are some real hardcore female fans out there who know a helluva lot. This column is about to infuriate pretty much all of them, on behalf of Scoop, if he had any sense of what constitutes "football knowledge", I apologise in advance.
Alone with them? Me? Three hours? Talking nothing but football?
So to all you "fantasy" football fanatics, you can have your fantasy. I got mine.
for someone who just had the audacity to ridicule a large percentage of the sports following fanbase, on a sports website that promotes fantasy football, your fantasy is pretty fucking lame Scoop.
Me: First off, will the Giants repeat this year?
Lindsay Sikula (studio technician, Team Works Media): No. With them losing [Michael] Strahan and then [Osi] Umenyiora going down for the season, their defense is through. And once you get past their defense …
Veronica Clemons (vice president, Hill and Knowlton public marketing): Yeah, their defense is busted.
Lindsay: And that's what won it for them last year. It wasn't Eli -- the Giants just got hot last year at the right time.
nothing horrible, nothing worthy of being published on ESPN's site, that's for goddamned sure. Of course, there's so little visibility of hot women in the media, it's good to see Scoop reaching out.
Note: Everyone's second round of drinks arrives. For the record, none of these women are sippin' on Chardonnay. It's Effen Black Cherry vodka, 10 Cane rum, Bombay Sapphire, etc. In short glasses. Real drinks! A request is made for Patron shots at the end.
WOW! YOU GUYS ARE COOL! The insecurity from Peter King and Scoop Jackson could power a small nation. It's the great untapped resource of our time.
So who's going to win it all?
Kari Fitzgerald (restaurant manager, Park 52 -- where the fantasy took place): I don't know, there are a lot of teams this year that really could --
Kari, not just a pretty face. Lots of teams that could win the Superbowl - go to your nearest bookie and slam the cash down people.
Claudine Randolph (teacher, University of Chicago Urban School Initiative): I think it's up for grabs. I'm kinda extra excited about the football season this year. But I'm really thinking the Colts.
Veronica: Dal --
Lindsay: (loud) Minnesota's going to win it!
THIS SONG IS ABOUT MEEEEEEEE!
Lindsay: I'm just saying if you listen to like these so-called experts on the radio, that's all you hear. Look, their defense is good, but I don't think Tarvaris Jackson is good enough at QB to take them. Now Adrian Peterson can run, but if you stop the run on the Vikings, I don't think they have enough receivers --
so Minnesota isn't going to win it? It's a strange way to make your point
2007 - look, New York can rush the passer, but if you stop that
2006 - look, Peyton Manning can pass the football, but if you stop that
2005 - look, Pittsburgh can play lock down defense, but if you stop that
you get my drift. Also, no one on ESPN's panel of experts picked Minnesota to even make the Superbowl, and there was like, 16 of them. Like six picked the Chargers by the way, which I find retarded, but whatever.
Kari: But they have Bernard Berrian there --
Kari saves her credibility by quoting a semi-obscure name. But for how long?
Lindsay: Yeah, but keep going. Who else?
Sidney Rice - he was one of the best rookies in the game last year and had an excellent off/preseason.
So you stop the run and cover Berrian, then what? Tarvaris Jackson and whoever else can't do it.
yeah you idiots. Just stop Adrian Peterson. Just stop him already! GOD. If only Lindsay was a defensive co-ordinator. If women were in these roles there'd be no wars, am I right ladies? But Jamal Williams might be nagged to death! HAHAHAHAHA.
What about San Diego? I been saying for the past three years that they are going to break through.
Lindsay: I think their defense will struggle and Shawne Merriman's knee will not hold up. [Editor's note: She was right. Merriman has elected to undergo reconstructive knee surgery and is out for the season.]
WOW #2! Her soothsayer like talents truly are eerie. I mean, Merriman only had a complete tear of his PCL and LCL, I know everyone else counted on him playing over 1000 defensive snaps, but Lindsay was not fooled. She knew having a knee that was actually attached to the bone was important to play weakside linebacker.
Veronica: It's going to be interesting to see what happens with Dallas and all of the personalities they have there. I mean, Pacman Jones. I saw him over the summer and I'm like, "This is the same kid that was in trouble all of the time?" He's Adam now and he's behaving like an Adam. Tank's [Johnson] down there. Terrell [Owens] is still around. They have a lot of opportunities [to win], but a lot of [potential] distractions.
welcome to the game Veronica! Pacman Jones - behaving like an Adam, apparently this has far reaching football consequences I am not aware of. Do people with the name Adam have a disproportionate amount of success at NFL level? More than those named Pacman? Where are Football Outsiders when I need them. Tank Johnson is fucking done and not even a starter. Not one of these women would know who he was if not for the gun thing; there, I said it. Finally, in a brilliant, concise and breathtaking stroke Veronica concludes her speech by saying that they have opportunities to win, but distractions. Bravo.
They have players at every position. They are pretty complete, like the NFC version of the Chargers.
like the Chargers but with a QB (Rivers had an 82.4 rating, 15 interceptions and five of the seven top passing attempt days he had were in losses, the less involved Rivers is, the better it is for San Diego. Romo, as punchable as his face may be, had a 97.4 rating and the three Dallas losses in the regular season co-incided with three of the five days Dallas relied on the run the most. And yes, I realised that's a mangled sentence, too much Scoop is not good for the mind), actual receivers (tell me one thing of note Chris Chambers has done), a far superior O-Line and the existence of NFL quality safeties. Other than that, basically identical.
My biggest thing with the Cowboys is the consistency in their running game.
Kari: Well, now they have Marion [Barber] back there who proved himself last year --
Lindsay: But you can't run one running back all of the time --
Felix Jones...he's been written about everywhere. Particulary if you read fantasy analysis, it's a way people can learn about football as well as having fun.
True, but it all depends on how you feature that runner. If you have a strong QB and some decent receivers --
Kari: And they do have Jason Witten.
Whole table: "Oooh yeah!"
a tablewide of Scoop proclaimed football "experts" just remembered who like the third best tight end in football was. BTW, wasn't that "Oooh yeah" how you stereotypically think of beautiful dumb women collectively realising something? I'm not saying these women are dumb, they really probably aren't, I just found the imagery Scoop presented us with amusing.
Lindsay: So with all of that said, why won't they win it all?
Veronica and Kari: Past experience (laugh).
hilarious.
Veronica: They've been a play away! Twice! Two years in a row! A play away! To me, that's a choke. When you are a play away, you don't get beat, you fall [expletive] apart.
tells me that they were in a position to be a play, relying on dumb luck usually, away from success. I'd say if you were a Houston Texans fan right now you'd be pretty envious. I mean, did the David Tyree catch mean that the Pats fell apart?
Veronica: Look, I've been a Cowboys fan since I was little, since Tony Dorsett. I'll always have love for Dallas. But they be makin' me mad.
they be making me mad. Please tell me this was accompanied by a head shimmy. Apparently this is the "vice president, Hill and Knowlton public marketing".
So does everyone have a favorite team? One that you pull for year after year, week in, week out, no matter what?
Claudine: No, but I was a Patriots fan for a long time and that's because I went to school in Boston [Boston College]. But I'm a fan of where BC players go when they get to the NFL. So for a long time it was New England, but now it's the Falcons. Matt Ryan.
Lindsay: Sadly, I'm a Bears fan.
Kari: Me too. The Bears.
Lindsay: Walter Payton, [Jim] McMahon, [Mike] Singletary, that whole 1985 team … They've been horrendous many times since, but still --
Kari: Tom Thayer was a right guard for the Bears on that team when I grew up. He's a good friend of my family. So during the whole height of 1984, '85, '86, my dad was a cop, so Tom would come down to the house and sign autographs and everything for us while he'd help my Dad out with things around the house. And with my Dad being a cop, Tom would use my father as his "security" on places he'd have to go. I used to hang out with Neal Anderson, Keith Van Horne. Those guys became like brothers to me, and I don't have any brothers. So when I grew up and was able to form my own opinion … I'll just say this: It's really hard for me to pull for another team.
Terri Evans (sales associate, Tiffany's) walks in, joins in. She's introduced to everyone. A promo for next week's Jets game comes on the television. Round three of drinks is ordered.
Terri: I love watching the Chicago Bears, but that's because I'm in Chicago. But that's not my team. I don't have a team. Back in the '80s Dallas was my team.
[Veronica reaches across the table and gives Terri five.] They had the coach, they had Tony Dorsett --
Veronica: Ed "Too Tall" Jones, Randy White --
Terri: Yeah … the Cowboys.
*Jimmy begins prying eyes out with ball point pen in boredom*
Are you all tired of the whole Brett Favre thing?
Terri: Oh, yes
Lindsay: I was there for it...
she was there man, she was there. You can't just go back to playing dolls after that, *lights cigarette, shuddering*
I sat through press conferences. I was just like, "Why don't they just bring him back?" If he wants to play with them, let him play. Make him earn his spot back or tell Aaron Rodgers to take a seat until next year. But in the end, when the Packers were like, "We're going to offer you $25 million to be our marketing partner? We're going to give you hush-hush money?" Then at one point Brett was like, "I'm showing up anyway." I think the whole thing is ridiculous. I'm a Bears fan. I'm not a Packers or a Jets fan, so …
Kari: They let him get away with everything. The coaches, the team. But when you're that good -- as good as Brett Favre is -- everything is supposed to go your way. What he did, it's like he did it for attention. The crying? What was that?
Terri: There's no crying in retirement.
Whole table: (laugh)
Kari: If you are going to cry, leave. Stay gone.
if you've just walked in, Scoop Jackson is this week's guest on "The View". He is bitching out of writing his column by getting his friends drunk and documenting their responses. Remember - bloggers are ruining the quality of information available online. Scoop is a qualified professional, please do not try writing this article at home.
I should stop here, they go on, a perfectly fine conversation and I will unintentionally cross a line if I continue. The women obviously have an interest in football, and that's great, really - I'm not a sexist. They aren't stupid or anything, but you know what? They are fucking LEAGUES short of being worthwhile commentators on the sport to be published on the most popular sports website in the world, and I still don't see what the fuck this has to do with fantasy football. I guess the article was trying to like, break down stereotypes of women and sport? Maybe? I mean, none of the introductory stuff really suggests that, I'm just giving Scoop more credit than he deserves.
I'll be honest with you kids, this is nothing like me and my friends would discuss football - at all. And not suggesting that we are as cool, connected or frankly, as successful as these women, I'm just saying we know way more about football. Quite sincerely, that may make us nerds, but you know what? We're comfortable with that, I don't think Scoop Jackson is comfortable with who he is and thus has to prove to us he knows women. Because the point "listen to these women because they know football and that and that alone makes their perspective unique and worthy of inter/national attention" is absolutely rubbish. I get the distinct feeling I'm supposed to be surprised and impressed with these women. Why? That is my question, why? It's the same premise behind Ecksteinism - condescendion played as admiration. Putting people in a position where we're supposed to think they are "cute" for doing things they "shouldn't" be doing. In my opinion, the column is pretty sexist.
My idea of real fantasy football
real fantasy. Let the Scoop Jackson writing class for people who can't put sentences together no good begin.
Fan•ta•sy [FAN-tuh-see]: imagination, esp. when extravagant and unrestrained; the forming of mental images, esp. wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing; a mental image; an imagined or conjured-up sequence fulfilling a psychological need; a supposition based on no solid foundation; a visionary idea; a caprice; a whim; an ingenious thought.
trite [trahyt]: lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition; hackneyed; stale; Scoop Jackson.
I guess this is lesson #1, always give a definition of that which you are about to lampoon. Even if the definition is generally acknowledged, entirely non controversial and essentially irrelevant to the discussion. Fundamentally, Scoop needs to fill words and is getting this to do the job for him.
Fantasy football is for suckas.
Scoop Jackson: fuck you and your life, losers. Basement, nerds, computers, zzz...
I never understood the point in fantasy football. It's not that I have a problem with the theory of "fantasy" football, I just have a problem with calling millions of people doing imitations of Charlie Casserly "fantasy."
who cares? Call it "transposed statistics in specified fan group context game" if you like, it doesn't matter Scoop, there must literally be a million things more pressing in the world of sports than what fantasy football is called. I think I mean that "literally", I'm sticking with it. No heat of the moment exaggerations from me.
Where's the "fantasy" in drafting Donovan McNabb or Tony Romo, or hoping that Adrian Peterson breaks 200 yards or Devin Hester runs one back, all while not really caring about any of the other nuances of what make the game beautiful?
Having Bill Gates money is a fantasy. Owning a condo on the top of Jumeirah in Dubai is a fantasy. Spending the opening day of the NFL season with a collection of beautiful and intelligent women who love football, buying them drinks and food at your friend's bar, talking rosters, routes and Raiders with them for hours and you are the only man around … that's a fantasy.
fine, it's not truly a fantasy. I don't care. My interest, yours, the world's, in fantasy football is not diminished by it's official fantasy or non fantasy status. Just so you know, there is a distinction between being a multi-billionaire and playing fantasy sports. Got that NERDS? You're not fooling anyone you big phonys!
So I gathered five women I've known over the years who happen to be sexy football aficionettes. They're John Claytons in Taraji Henson and Scarlett Johansson shells. None of them knew each other, but for years in many separate discussions, games, events and occasions, I've learned the level at which they love the game. But they've never been in the same room at the same time until now.
a hush comes over the crowd in anticipation for this truly historic moment. Scoop Jackson talking to women about football. This is great. Oh hey, can I cash in my one slightly sexist comment for this blog, because it pretty much files into the male code of talking about hot women, and Scoop was superficial enough to reference their appearance instantly, so I feel I can comment - don't bother trying to brag about your friends being hot if you don't have sex with them. It doesn't make you appear any cooler, if anything quite the opposite. No one is impressed you know hot women Scoop, no one.
Remember this "aficionadas" (aficionettes is not a word Scoop) tag too. I mean, there are some real hardcore female fans out there who know a helluva lot. This column is about to infuriate pretty much all of them, on behalf of Scoop, if he had any sense of what constitutes "football knowledge", I apologise in advance.
Alone with them? Me? Three hours? Talking nothing but football?
So to all you "fantasy" football fanatics, you can have your fantasy. I got mine.
for someone who just had the audacity to ridicule a large percentage of the sports following fanbase, on a sports website that promotes fantasy football, your fantasy is pretty fucking lame Scoop.
Me: First off, will the Giants repeat this year?
Lindsay Sikula (studio technician, Team Works Media): No. With them losing [Michael] Strahan and then [Osi] Umenyiora going down for the season, their defense is through. And once you get past their defense …
Veronica Clemons (vice president, Hill and Knowlton public marketing): Yeah, their defense is busted.
Lindsay: And that's what won it for them last year. It wasn't Eli -- the Giants just got hot last year at the right time.
nothing horrible, nothing worthy of being published on ESPN's site, that's for goddamned sure. Of course, there's so little visibility of hot women in the media, it's good to see Scoop reaching out.
Note: Everyone's second round of drinks arrives. For the record, none of these women are sippin' on Chardonnay. It's Effen Black Cherry vodka, 10 Cane rum, Bombay Sapphire, etc. In short glasses. Real drinks! A request is made for Patron shots at the end.
WOW! YOU GUYS ARE COOL! The insecurity from Peter King and Scoop Jackson could power a small nation. It's the great untapped resource of our time.
So who's going to win it all?
Kari Fitzgerald (restaurant manager, Park 52 -- where the fantasy took place): I don't know, there are a lot of teams this year that really could --
Kari, not just a pretty face. Lots of teams that could win the Superbowl - go to your nearest bookie and slam the cash down people.
Claudine Randolph (teacher, University of Chicago Urban School Initiative): I think it's up for grabs. I'm kinda extra excited about the football season this year. But I'm really thinking the Colts.
Veronica: Dal --
Lindsay: (loud) Minnesota's going to win it!
THIS SONG IS ABOUT MEEEEEEEE!
Lindsay: I'm just saying if you listen to like these so-called experts on the radio, that's all you hear. Look, their defense is good, but I don't think Tarvaris Jackson is good enough at QB to take them. Now Adrian Peterson can run, but if you stop the run on the Vikings, I don't think they have enough receivers --
so Minnesota isn't going to win it? It's a strange way to make your point
2007 - look, New York can rush the passer, but if you stop that
2006 - look, Peyton Manning can pass the football, but if you stop that
2005 - look, Pittsburgh can play lock down defense, but if you stop that
you get my drift. Also, no one on ESPN's panel of experts picked Minnesota to even make the Superbowl, and there was like, 16 of them. Like six picked the Chargers by the way, which I find retarded, but whatever.
Kari: But they have Bernard Berrian there --
Kari saves her credibility by quoting a semi-obscure name. But for how long?
Lindsay: Yeah, but keep going. Who else?
Sidney Rice - he was one of the best rookies in the game last year and had an excellent off/preseason.
So you stop the run and cover Berrian, then what? Tarvaris Jackson and whoever else can't do it.
yeah you idiots. Just stop Adrian Peterson. Just stop him already! GOD. If only Lindsay was a defensive co-ordinator. If women were in these roles there'd be no wars, am I right ladies? But Jamal Williams might be nagged to death! HAHAHAHAHA.
What about San Diego? I been saying for the past three years that they are going to break through.
Lindsay: I think their defense will struggle and Shawne Merriman's knee will not hold up. [Editor's note: She was right. Merriman has elected to undergo reconstructive knee surgery and is out for the season.]
WOW #2! Her soothsayer like talents truly are eerie. I mean, Merriman only had a complete tear of his PCL and LCL, I know everyone else counted on him playing over 1000 defensive snaps, but Lindsay was not fooled. She knew having a knee that was actually attached to the bone was important to play weakside linebacker.
Veronica: It's going to be interesting to see what happens with Dallas and all of the personalities they have there. I mean, Pacman Jones. I saw him over the summer and I'm like, "This is the same kid that was in trouble all of the time?" He's Adam now and he's behaving like an Adam. Tank's [Johnson] down there. Terrell [Owens] is still around. They have a lot of opportunities [to win], but a lot of [potential] distractions.
welcome to the game Veronica! Pacman Jones - behaving like an Adam, apparently this has far reaching football consequences I am not aware of. Do people with the name Adam have a disproportionate amount of success at NFL level? More than those named Pacman? Where are Football Outsiders when I need them. Tank Johnson is fucking done and not even a starter. Not one of these women would know who he was if not for the gun thing; there, I said it. Finally, in a brilliant, concise and breathtaking stroke Veronica concludes her speech by saying that they have opportunities to win, but distractions. Bravo.
They have players at every position. They are pretty complete, like the NFC version of the Chargers.
like the Chargers but with a QB (Rivers had an 82.4 rating, 15 interceptions and five of the seven top passing attempt days he had were in losses, the less involved Rivers is, the better it is for San Diego. Romo, as punchable as his face may be, had a 97.4 rating and the three Dallas losses in the regular season co-incided with three of the five days Dallas relied on the run the most. And yes, I realised that's a mangled sentence, too much Scoop is not good for the mind), actual receivers (tell me one thing of note Chris Chambers has done), a far superior O-Line and the existence of NFL quality safeties. Other than that, basically identical.
My biggest thing with the Cowboys is the consistency in their running game.
Kari: Well, now they have Marion [Barber] back there who proved himself last year --
Lindsay: But you can't run one running back all of the time --
Felix Jones...he's been written about everywhere. Particulary if you read fantasy analysis, it's a way people can learn about football as well as having fun.
True, but it all depends on how you feature that runner. If you have a strong QB and some decent receivers --
Kari: And they do have Jason Witten.
Whole table: "Oooh yeah!"
a tablewide of Scoop proclaimed football "experts" just remembered who like the third best tight end in football was. BTW, wasn't that "Oooh yeah" how you stereotypically think of beautiful dumb women collectively realising something? I'm not saying these women are dumb, they really probably aren't, I just found the imagery Scoop presented us with amusing.
Lindsay: So with all of that said, why won't they win it all?
Veronica and Kari: Past experience (laugh).
hilarious.
Veronica: They've been a play away! Twice! Two years in a row! A play away! To me, that's a choke. When you are a play away, you don't get beat, you fall [expletive] apart.
tells me that they were in a position to be a play, relying on dumb luck usually, away from success. I'd say if you were a Houston Texans fan right now you'd be pretty envious. I mean, did the David Tyree catch mean that the Pats fell apart?
Veronica: Look, I've been a Cowboys fan since I was little, since Tony Dorsett. I'll always have love for Dallas. But they be makin' me mad.
they be making me mad. Please tell me this was accompanied by a head shimmy. Apparently this is the "vice president, Hill and Knowlton public marketing".
So does everyone have a favorite team? One that you pull for year after year, week in, week out, no matter what?
Claudine: No, but I was a Patriots fan for a long time and that's because I went to school in Boston [Boston College]. But I'm a fan of where BC players go when they get to the NFL. So for a long time it was New England, but now it's the Falcons. Matt Ryan.
Lindsay: Sadly, I'm a Bears fan.
Kari: Me too. The Bears.
Lindsay: Walter Payton, [Jim] McMahon, [Mike] Singletary, that whole 1985 team … They've been horrendous many times since, but still --
Kari: Tom Thayer was a right guard for the Bears on that team when I grew up. He's a good friend of my family. So during the whole height of 1984, '85, '86, my dad was a cop, so Tom would come down to the house and sign autographs and everything for us while he'd help my Dad out with things around the house. And with my Dad being a cop, Tom would use my father as his "security" on places he'd have to go. I used to hang out with Neal Anderson, Keith Van Horne. Those guys became like brothers to me, and I don't have any brothers. So when I grew up and was able to form my own opinion … I'll just say this: It's really hard for me to pull for another team.
Terri Evans (sales associate, Tiffany's) walks in, joins in. She's introduced to everyone. A promo for next week's Jets game comes on the television. Round three of drinks is ordered.
Terri: I love watching the Chicago Bears, but that's because I'm in Chicago. But that's not my team. I don't have a team. Back in the '80s Dallas was my team.
[Veronica reaches across the table and gives Terri five.] They had the coach, they had Tony Dorsett --
Veronica: Ed "Too Tall" Jones, Randy White --
Terri: Yeah … the Cowboys.
*Jimmy begins prying eyes out with ball point pen in boredom*
Are you all tired of the whole Brett Favre thing?
Terri: Oh, yes
Lindsay: I was there for it...
she was there man, she was there. You can't just go back to playing dolls after that, *lights cigarette, shuddering*
I sat through press conferences. I was just like, "Why don't they just bring him back?" If he wants to play with them, let him play. Make him earn his spot back or tell Aaron Rodgers to take a seat until next year. But in the end, when the Packers were like, "We're going to offer you $25 million to be our marketing partner? We're going to give you hush-hush money?" Then at one point Brett was like, "I'm showing up anyway." I think the whole thing is ridiculous. I'm a Bears fan. I'm not a Packers or a Jets fan, so …
Kari: They let him get away with everything. The coaches, the team. But when you're that good -- as good as Brett Favre is -- everything is supposed to go your way. What he did, it's like he did it for attention. The crying? What was that?
Terri: There's no crying in retirement.
Whole table: (laugh)
Kari: If you are going to cry, leave. Stay gone.
if you've just walked in, Scoop Jackson is this week's guest on "The View". He is bitching out of writing his column by getting his friends drunk and documenting their responses. Remember - bloggers are ruining the quality of information available online. Scoop is a qualified professional, please do not try writing this article at home.
I should stop here, they go on, a perfectly fine conversation and I will unintentionally cross a line if I continue. The women obviously have an interest in football, and that's great, really - I'm not a sexist. They aren't stupid or anything, but you know what? They are fucking LEAGUES short of being worthwhile commentators on the sport to be published on the most popular sports website in the world, and I still don't see what the fuck this has to do with fantasy football. I guess the article was trying to like, break down stereotypes of women and sport? Maybe? I mean, none of the introductory stuff really suggests that, I'm just giving Scoop more credit than he deserves.
I'll be honest with you kids, this is nothing like me and my friends would discuss football - at all. And not suggesting that we are as cool, connected or frankly, as successful as these women, I'm just saying we know way more about football. Quite sincerely, that may make us nerds, but you know what? We're comfortable with that, I don't think Scoop Jackson is comfortable with who he is and thus has to prove to us he knows women. Because the point "listen to these women because they know football and that and that alone makes their perspective unique and worthy of inter/national attention" is absolutely rubbish. I get the distinct feeling I'm supposed to be surprised and impressed with these women. Why? That is my question, why? It's the same premise behind Ecksteinism - condescendion played as admiration. Putting people in a position where we're supposed to think they are "cute" for doing things they "shouldn't" be doing. In my opinion, the column is pretty sexist.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
2 comments Woody Paige Makes Bad Puns, Millions Lose Their Will To Live
I love puns. They are so clever and prove the point that you are a smart person, though unwilling to take the time to make a real joke. Puns are not really funny but they still tend to make us giggle like 9 year olds at a Jonas Brothers concert (I am going for the Bill Simmons/Rick Reilly intro here). The problem with puns is when they are relied on to write columns for a newspaper, they can come off as lazy and the over reliance on them to cover up a lack of quality material makes you Woody Paige.
TGIF!
ER is a big hit on TV.
14 years ago it was. Now it is a medical drama that is 14 years old and was running out of steam five years ago. In medical drama years, it is 4 major character deaths, 2 AIDS scares, 3 Bomb Crisis, and 16 Cheating On Your Spouse With a Co-Worker years old.
Eddie Royal excited the Broncos and incited the Raiders with an amazing debut Monday night.
This must be a puff piece. I can spot these pretty quickly, especially when the word "amazing" is used to describe one game that has been played.
I would also like to tell everyone the Raiders are horrible. At this point Woody would say Hagar the Horrible plays for the Raiders but I will not say that. I will say I would expect a receiver to do well against the Raiders because they are not good.
Brandon who?
Marshall. Brandon Marshall. He had 1,000 yards receiving last year and falls on McDonald's wrappers sometimes, whereupon he hurts his knee.
Bluntly, the Broncos have discovered a complement to Brandon Marshall in the royal rookie.
Royal had a great game but I would not get too excited over one game against one of the worst teams in the NFL.
Shit like "the royal rookie" is just bad writing. It reeks of a third grade writing level.
Guess who's first in the AFC West after a compelling 41-14 triumph over Oakland?
Guess how many games it has been so far in the year? One.
The Patriots, Bills, and Jets are tied for first in the AFC East at this point and I severly doubt the standings will end this year in the exact same fashion.
Woody seems to enjoy jumping to conclusions. I bet when Woody watches "Office Space" he does not get the irony/patheticism of the "Jump to Conclusions" board mat that is shown in the movie. Woody probably spends sleepless nights angry with himself at not thinking of the idea first and wondering how the hell they have the audacity to present it to the public in a movie first, rather than try to put it on the market where it can make so much more money? Then he probably goes to the refrigerator and looks for foods he can make bad puns out of in future columns, thinks about how funny the autobiography he is writing, called "Turn the Paige," is going to be, and then walks slowly back to his bedroom to weep again.
Oh, and again, they beat Oakland. I would say 9-10 teams will be able to brag about this at the end of the year.
The 5-foot-10, 182-pound Royal was considered too short to be a premier receiver in the NFL.
He was a 2nd round pick. Out of all the football players eligible to play in the NFL, he was among the top 64 players. No one was doubting him, quit puff piecing this, and stick to bad puns.
So was Rick Upchurch, 5-10 and 175 pounds. In his first professional game for the Broncos in 1975, against Kansas City, Upchurch finished with 284 all-purpose yards (three receptions for 153, one rush for 13, one punt return for 30, three kickoff returns for 88).
This was maybe the weakest attempt ever to show much knowledge one person has about football. It's like George W. Bush trying to name foreign leaders that he is friends with or knows by name. Except this is way more random, it's like if George W decided he was going to name who the Prime Minister of Latvia was in 1988 to prove he knows foreign leaders.
In the most impressive rookie wide receiver/returner/rusher performance since then, the award goes to: Eddie Royal.
This award is recognized by being named in a Woody Paige column. Such a prestigious award. Only the Dundies can compare to the prestige that this unnamed award bestows on a person.
In one case you have a fictional character, Michael Scott, who acts like a juvenile, tells bad jokes, none of his co-workers or friends respect him, and appears to be oblivious to the fact he is a loser. In the other case you have Woody Paige, whose name sounds like a fictional character's name, writes and acts like a juvenile, no one in the world respects him, tells horrible puns, and knows is oblivious to the fact he is a loser. The similarity is striking.
He's certainly more seasoned than a couple of wide receivers on the Raiders' roster. Javon Walker, dumped by the Broncos in the offseason, didn't play because of an injury, and Ashley Lelie, dumped by the Broncos after the 2005 season, had a couple of receptions and came up with a late catch in the end zone.
More seasoned than Javon Walker and Ashley Lelie after one game? He has neither been in the league longer than these two players nor has he put up any numbers yet, after one game, that would lead anyone to say this. Javon Walker has two seasons of 1,000 yards receiving and Ashley Lelie has one in their careers respectively. Granted both are horrible players right now, but comparing Eddie Royal to two horrible WR's on the worst team in the league does not prove any type of point. Then saying he is more "seasoned" makes even less sense, just simply because Eddie Royal has played one game in his NFL career.
Eddie Royal may be the next Jerry Rice or he could also be the next Michael Clayton, not the movie, the Tampa Bays WR. Don't get too excited quite yet until there have been a couple more games played...preferably against higher quality opponents.
No wide receivers were drafted in the first round this year. Ten were picked in the second round. Royal was the fifth.
Wow, what a slap in the face. You mean teams had the audacity to not think he was the 4th best WR in the entire country coming out of college, but only the 5th? He should be beyond angry. He may as well have not even gotten drafted at that point.
Many scouts in the NFL and some people in Denver questioned the Broncos for taking Royal over DeSean Jackson, who went to Philadelphia six selections later.
Many scouts may end up being correct...or wrong. It has been one game.
And scouts and skeptics were still wondering after Jackson, in his own debut Sunday, finished with eight catches for 97 yards and six returns for 106 yards.
That is 203 total yards of offense. Not bad but it was against St. Louis. Eddie Royal had 185 total yards. Not bad either, but it was against the Raiders. Under Woody Paige thinking, where one week makes up the entire year, the Broncos would have been correct in choosing Jackson over his new BFF Eddie Royal. Just wanted to point this out.
It should be fun to compare the two all season. The other eight second-rounders were of little or no help in Sunday's and Monday's games.
Most WR's in their first year are of little to no help traditionally. This does not make Eddie Royal any better or any worse.
"ER," the TV show, may own Thursday nights, but E.R., the rookie receiver, possessed Monday night. He was anything but Monday night raw.
This is horrible, horrible journalism. This is the type of conclusion a high school student in remedial classes would write and the Denver Post should be embarrassed they printed this. I am starting to think the way you are promoted within the newspaper industry is that you are the last one who did not quit your job or die of natural/non natural causes. That would explain Woody Paige's columns still being printed in a newspaper. That has to be the reason.
TGIF!
ER is a big hit on TV.
14 years ago it was. Now it is a medical drama that is 14 years old and was running out of steam five years ago. In medical drama years, it is 4 major character deaths, 2 AIDS scares, 3 Bomb Crisis, and 16 Cheating On Your Spouse With a Co-Worker years old.
Eddie Royal excited the Broncos and incited the Raiders with an amazing debut Monday night.
This must be a puff piece. I can spot these pretty quickly, especially when the word "amazing" is used to describe one game that has been played.
I would also like to tell everyone the Raiders are horrible. At this point Woody would say Hagar the Horrible plays for the Raiders but I will not say that. I will say I would expect a receiver to do well against the Raiders because they are not good.
Brandon who?
Marshall. Brandon Marshall. He had 1,000 yards receiving last year and falls on McDonald's wrappers sometimes, whereupon he hurts his knee.
Bluntly, the Broncos have discovered a complement to Brandon Marshall in the royal rookie.
Royal had a great game but I would not get too excited over one game against one of the worst teams in the NFL.
Shit like "the royal rookie" is just bad writing. It reeks of a third grade writing level.
Guess who's first in the AFC West after a compelling 41-14 triumph over Oakland?
Guess how many games it has been so far in the year? One.
The Patriots, Bills, and Jets are tied for first in the AFC East at this point and I severly doubt the standings will end this year in the exact same fashion.
Woody seems to enjoy jumping to conclusions. I bet when Woody watches "Office Space" he does not get the irony/patheticism of the "Jump to Conclusions" board mat that is shown in the movie. Woody probably spends sleepless nights angry with himself at not thinking of the idea first and wondering how the hell they have the audacity to present it to the public in a movie first, rather than try to put it on the market where it can make so much more money? Then he probably goes to the refrigerator and looks for foods he can make bad puns out of in future columns, thinks about how funny the autobiography he is writing, called "Turn the Paige," is going to be, and then walks slowly back to his bedroom to weep again.
Oh, and again, they beat Oakland. I would say 9-10 teams will be able to brag about this at the end of the year.
The 5-foot-10, 182-pound Royal was considered too short to be a premier receiver in the NFL.
He was a 2nd round pick. Out of all the football players eligible to play in the NFL, he was among the top 64 players. No one was doubting him, quit puff piecing this, and stick to bad puns.
So was Rick Upchurch, 5-10 and 175 pounds. In his first professional game for the Broncos in 1975, against Kansas City, Upchurch finished with 284 all-purpose yards (three receptions for 153, one rush for 13, one punt return for 30, three kickoff returns for 88).
This was maybe the weakest attempt ever to show much knowledge one person has about football. It's like George W. Bush trying to name foreign leaders that he is friends with or knows by name. Except this is way more random, it's like if George W decided he was going to name who the Prime Minister of Latvia was in 1988 to prove he knows foreign leaders.
In the most impressive rookie wide receiver/returner/rusher performance since then, the award goes to: Eddie Royal.
This award is recognized by being named in a Woody Paige column. Such a prestigious award. Only the Dundies can compare to the prestige that this unnamed award bestows on a person.
In one case you have a fictional character, Michael Scott, who acts like a juvenile, tells bad jokes, none of his co-workers or friends respect him, and appears to be oblivious to the fact he is a loser. In the other case you have Woody Paige, whose name sounds like a fictional character's name, writes and acts like a juvenile, no one in the world respects him, tells horrible puns, and knows is oblivious to the fact he is a loser. The similarity is striking.
He's certainly more seasoned than a couple of wide receivers on the Raiders' roster. Javon Walker, dumped by the Broncos in the offseason, didn't play because of an injury, and Ashley Lelie, dumped by the Broncos after the 2005 season, had a couple of receptions and came up with a late catch in the end zone.
More seasoned than Javon Walker and Ashley Lelie after one game? He has neither been in the league longer than these two players nor has he put up any numbers yet, after one game, that would lead anyone to say this. Javon Walker has two seasons of 1,000 yards receiving and Ashley Lelie has one in their careers respectively. Granted both are horrible players right now, but comparing Eddie Royal to two horrible WR's on the worst team in the league does not prove any type of point. Then saying he is more "seasoned" makes even less sense, just simply because Eddie Royal has played one game in his NFL career.
Eddie Royal may be the next Jerry Rice or he could also be the next Michael Clayton, not the movie, the Tampa Bays WR. Don't get too excited quite yet until there have been a couple more games played...preferably against higher quality opponents.
No wide receivers were drafted in the first round this year. Ten were picked in the second round. Royal was the fifth.
Wow, what a slap in the face. You mean teams had the audacity to not think he was the 4th best WR in the entire country coming out of college, but only the 5th? He should be beyond angry. He may as well have not even gotten drafted at that point.
Many scouts in the NFL and some people in Denver questioned the Broncos for taking Royal over DeSean Jackson, who went to Philadelphia six selections later.
Many scouts may end up being correct...or wrong. It has been one game.
And scouts and skeptics were still wondering after Jackson, in his own debut Sunday, finished with eight catches for 97 yards and six returns for 106 yards.
That is 203 total yards of offense. Not bad but it was against St. Louis. Eddie Royal had 185 total yards. Not bad either, but it was against the Raiders. Under Woody Paige thinking, where one week makes up the entire year, the Broncos would have been correct in choosing Jackson over his new BFF Eddie Royal. Just wanted to point this out.
It should be fun to compare the two all season. The other eight second-rounders were of little or no help in Sunday's and Monday's games.
Most WR's in their first year are of little to no help traditionally. This does not make Eddie Royal any better or any worse.
"ER," the TV show, may own Thursday nights, but E.R., the rookie receiver, possessed Monday night. He was anything but Monday night raw.
This is horrible, horrible journalism. This is the type of conclusion a high school student in remedial classes would write and the Denver Post should be embarrassed they printed this. I am starting to think the way you are promoted within the newspaper industry is that you are the last one who did not quit your job or die of natural/non natural causes. That would explain Woody Paige's columns still being printed in a newspaper. That has to be the reason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)