Ian, Don't Back Down. You Said Nothing Wrong

Ian Poulter is brash enough to wear dick-in-the-ass pink pants, but didn't have the balls to stick to his original statement after the Tiger Gestapo took hold of the story and turned their claws on him.
You may remember a couple years ago when a Danish newspaper (not a newspaper made of dough and delicious filling but instead a newspaper published in Denmark) ran into a ton of shit when it posted a couple of cartoons that simply depicted the Prophet Muhammad. This depiction was considered blasphemous by many in the Muslim community (without getting into too much detail and because I don't really understand the entire story, apparently Muslims ain't cool with someone publishing their interpretation of what Muhammad looked like because it's disrespectful to Islam) and caused quite a stir amongst non-muslims who couldn't fathom getting upset about something so seemingly innocuous. The controversy led to death threats, worldwide protests and about 100 people being killed in the resulting chaos. Not that sweet. And all because people are offended that someone sketched a picture of an historical figure. It seems like a significant overreaction if you ask me, just don't tell anyone in Iran I said that. Anyhoo, after this week's "Poultergate" (trademark pending), I'm wondering if Tiger Woods has attained similar status with the American media in that if you say anything about him that even sniffs of a slight, you will be drawn and quartered and your family will have to enter witness protection.

This week England's Ian Poulter, a golfer much more well known for his fashion sense than his putting touch, touched off a frickin firestorm of media outrage after he did an interview with Golf World Magazin and said this:

"Don't get me wrong, I really respect every professional golfer, but I know I haven't played to my full potential and when that happens, it will be just me and Tiger."

"The trouble is I don't rate anyone else," the 32-year-old Briton was quoted as saying in the March issue of the United Kingdom version of Golf World magazine.

"Don't get me wrong, I really respect every professional golfer, but I know I haven't played to my full potential and when that happens, it will be just me and Tiger."

What exactly did he say here? To me, it seems he said that when he's on he can take on Tiger. And he hasn't been really "on" so far. I don't think that's completely unreasonable considering he's finished in the top 25 six times in the last 4 years and top 13 four times in the last 3 years. Hell, he even beat Tiger in the '06 US Open when Tiger missed the cut. He's presently the 22nd ranked player in the world. So it's not as though Poulter is some scrub. But from this seemingly benign statement, people who don't know shit about shit (see Stephen A. Smith and Tony Kornheiser) ripped the guy; all because he said he has a shot at winning a tournament and because he says at his best he is second best.

So then today, Poulter had to backtrack from all of his statements claiming he was "misquoted" and taken out of context. The only thing wrong with Poulter's statements is that the media interpreted them to mean he was ripping Tiger (or the rest of the Tour). But in reality he didn't say a damn thing. If he's guilty of anything it's being a pussy and backtracking. But the bigger story is that this was any story at all.

For some reason whenever you talk about Tiger you have to qualify every statement by citing his immortality and that no one will ever have a chance against him. Only after paying these respects may we opine on the magnificence that is Tiger. Don't get me wrong here, Tiger is perhaps the most dominant athlete in the history of sports. He's also one of the most likable athletes in sports today. I understand why people feel inclined to protect him and defend his honor in the face of anything that resembles disrespect, but he's not above criticism and he's not beyond competition. He can be beat despite his greatness and it's fucking disgusting how indignant the media gets every time some golfer claims he's got a shot. The funniest part about all of this is that the same guys who kill the guys who say they have a shot at Woods are the one ripping Woods competition on the tour. According to these hacks, you can't rip Woods because he's so great but Woods is only great because his competition sucks. It's a bit of a pickle. And nothing is added to the conversation by those fucktards who won't let someone suggest want to step up and give it a go.

I guess I don't understand what's so fucking wrong about thinking you can win? Since when is it bad to be confident in your ability? Did you enjoy watching the final round of the Bob Hope? Shouldn't we want a foil for Tiger? Or are we just so enthralled with the awe that Tiger inspires that we can't handle the idea of someone believing they can take him down? I'm ready for someone who thinks they can.

Apologies For My Recent Posting (Or Lack Thereof)

Apologies for my erratic posting recently. I haven't settled into a routine quite yet and between not having access to my the site at work (fucking feds) and my school schedule driving me insane, I just haven't really figured out a consistent posting schedule. I'm working on it though. Hopefully I'll have a more consistent system up shortly.

Oh btw, The Smittblog's going to the Super Bowl. So that should provide some blog fodder....

Greggggg Easterbrook Needs To Be Put In A Padded Room

We heard you the first time, Greggggggg.
Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If that is the standard, then Greggg Easterbrook is the posterboy for insanity.

A lot of things have transpired since the middle of September. (I’m not going to link to all of these stories because I’m lazy) The Mets blew an insurmountable NL East lead, the Sox won the World Series, A-Rod left and came back for the most money ever and then had the worst sports interview in television history on 60 Minutes, the Mitchell Report came out and made some news, the college football season got a little nutty and every favorite lost right when they could’ve won, Marion Jones had some trouble with lying, Mike Vick was sentenced, the Heisman sucked and went to the wrong guy, Brett Favre came back from the dead, Shaun Alexander killed my fantasy team and Tom Brady & Randy Moss had the greatest seasons at their respective positions ever. There are a ton of stories that I can’t even remember that have at one point or another grabbed the spotlight and made us forget about stories past. Hell, you probably completely forgot that Mike Vick was in prison presently until I reminded you and that was the biggest deal ever at the time. Well, there is one guy who has not let the hundreds of important sports stories between mid-September and today distract him from the story of utmost importance: that man is Greggggg Easterbrook; and his story is STILL THE FUCKING PATRIOTS AND VIDEOTAPING FIASCO!. Yes, for the 100th consecutive week, Gregggggg Easterbrook is ripping the Pats for videotaping the Jets and is still banging the drum of "asterisks" and taint and God knows what else. And yes, it's still falling on deaf ears.

When I first read this week's TMQ , I couldn’t believe it. I honestly thought I had clicked on a post from September or from when they played the Colts. But nope, it was written today and his arguments haven't changed one bit. The guy is certifiably obsessed with the Pats and this stupid story. I am in no way suggesting that this wasn’t a HUGE story when it came out. It dominated the sports landscape for about a full month. But what relevance does it have today? According Gregggggggg, all the relevance in the world:

No matter how well New England plays Sunday, every victory the team earned this season -- and perhaps victories in previous seasons, too -- is tainted until such time when we learn what was in the material the league destroyed. New England is aware that its season is an asterisk season; owner Robert Kraft has complained the Patriots are now viewed as "tainted," his word. For all we know, the Belichick Files vindicate the Patriots. But until such time when we learn what was in those files, even at 19-0, the New England Patriots should not be considered a great team because we cannot be sure whether these wins were earned or stolen. Nor can we be sure whether New England's three Super Bowl rings were earned or stolen.

......... I.... I.... I am honestly stunned. We don’t know if the Pats’ victories were stolen THIS YEAR? Why? Because they attempted to tape the first half of the first game of the season? After that incident it is likely that they were the most scrutinized team in the history of the sport. There were articles and Outside The Lines stories SOLELY on what the Pats were doing on the sidelines from that point forward. And the NFL hasn't suggested they did anything else wrong. If we worry that the Pats have "stolen" games this year even though nothing was reported after the Jets' games, why aren't we concerned about every other team. It's not as though this is the first time this has happened or the first time that a team was charged with doing something nefarious. His argument here just lacks a foundation of rational thought. It's pure lunacy and it distracts from his other statements, which are also founded in Gregggggg's f'd up homespun wisdom:

Most of the sports media have rolled over and played dead on the New England destroyed-tapes story; The NFL promised to get to the bottom of the Patriots' cheating and reveal the truth to the public; instead, the NFL destroyed the New England documents and refuses to say what they contained. If the documents vindicated New England or the NFL, it would have been strongly in the league's interest to say so. Instead, the NFL has stonewalled us, so what does that make you think? Until we know what was on the videotapes and in the documents the NFL destroyed, there will always be a cloud of suspicion over the Patriots. How much of an advantage did they gain by cheating? Did they really hand over everything to the league? Are they still cheating now? Most important by far, have they cheated in the Super Bowl?

You see, here I can kind of pick up what Gregggggg's puttin down. Now, I COULDN'T disagree more, but I think his skepticism as to the NFL's true motive in putting quickly to bed the Pats video story isn't completely unfounded. But where he loses me is when he starts asking about the advantage the Pats got or whether they are still cheating. If they are still cheating, it is very likely we would know about it. Mere rumor of impropriety would be front page news, so unless I'm missing something very striking here or no one has picked up on it, the Pats haven't done shit since the Jets game other than win every game. But in terms of the advantage to be gained from cheating, you could figure that out even without knowing exactly how they used the information they gathered. It's not that difficult. Use your imagination. But Easterbrook's final shot at the Pats was his finest and most indignant:

And all you sportscasters and sportswriters who will spend this week gushing over the Super Bowl, it would be nice if a few of you mentioned that, a mere four months ago, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell found the Patriots guilty of "a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition." Two billion people will watch the Super Bowl; almost all of America's children and teens will watch the Super Bowl. If the bottom line of the event is "It's fine to cheat, you'll get away with it," what message does that send?

Yup Gregggg, the message from the Pats' season is cheaters always win. And the message from Greggggg Easterbrook's coverage of the Pats is that even an old crazy coot who can't let anything go can still make an honest wage in this country through public catharsis.

Hey Giants Fans, You Think That Line On the Super Bowl Is Good? Vegas Has A Bridge They'd Like To Sell You

With all of your winnings from betting the Giants in the Super Bowl, you should easily be able to afford this nice, shiny new bridge!
I’m well aware that by heaping praise on Colin Cowherd I’m essentially committing blog suicide (if you weren’t aware, Cowherd has not exactly endeared himself to the blogosphere: see here, here and here), but via a conversation with the Las Vegas Consultants, Cowherd came up with a few VERY good reasons why the groundswell of betting support in favor of the Giants (3 to 1 that the Giants cover the spread) is so off-base and why the folks in Vegas are licking their collective chops.

The first thing he mentioned is that one of the easiest sucker bets is taking advantage of a bettor’s short-term memory (I’m paraphrasing a bit here). People are so swept up in the emotion of the Giants’ victories over Dallas and Green Bay as well as the “moral victory” over the Pats in Week 17 that they value those wins over the stuff they would normally use to evaluate a matchup. As Cowherd mentioned several times, the line on paper in Vegas for this game should be a COMFORTABLE 15 points. Today I’m seeing spreads as low as 11. People are putting too much emphasis on “momentum” and not enough evidence on raw fact. Yes the Giants are probably better than they were when they dropped their first 2 games of the season or when they played horrendously against the dregs of the NFC Central, but they aren’t as good as their two upsets either and certainly aren't as good as the one game they put it all together against the Pats (in the same way the Pats aren't as good as their 40+ win over the Skins). The objective evidence in favor of the Pats is overwhelming according to the Vegas folks. And if they were more wrong then right, you’d be building Casinos in deserts.

The second factor that came up is weather. The Pats are a fast track team. In games played in temperature above 50 degrees, the Pats average margin of victory is 847 million. When the Giants play in controlled climates, they are decidedly more average. But it’s not so much that the Giants are good “mudders” and a bad “good climate” team (they did beat the Cowboys in Big D in the playoffs) as much as it is that in good weather the Patriots did things to teams that have never been done before. Because the Pats haven’t blown a team out since Bills game (they did handle the Dolphins but that game was close for awhile, as was the Steelers first half), people think they are vulnerable. It’s only because they set the bar so high that an undefeated team that spent the last month of the season beating the NFC champs, the “team that no one wanted to play in the playoffs” (the Jags) and the undermanned Chargers could be considered vulnerable. The Patriots’ body of work speaks for itself and when you compare it to the Giants, it’s miles ahead (the Giants scraped past the Lions and then got KILLED by an Adrian Peterson-less Vikings team in back-to-back weeks).

The third factor is that these games are rarely close and the favorite usually wins. Only 11 times in history has the score in the Super Bowl been decided by 7 points or less. The favorites in the Super Bowl are 28-13. Favorites have covered the spread 24 of the 41 games. Favorites of 10 or more points are 9-4 overall and 7-5-1 against the spread. It’s not to say that it’s a foregone conclusion because the stats lean in the Pats favor (if anything, the statistics make clear that there have been several major upsets), but it is to say that in betting on the Giants +11 or whatever you are getting, history says your odds ain’t that sweet (please spare me the many statistical arguments otherwise including small sample size and whatever bullshit you want to throw at me). And I'm not even going to mention the oldest Vegas axiom of them all that "when everyone's betting one way, bet the other way" (not that that idea has any foundation in fact necessarily).

So essentially, these guys and Cowherd came to the conclusion that while the world and Giants fans (two separate entities) are throwing money at the Giants and the points, they’d be wise to take a step back and look at the facts without the glare of their 6 inch platinum Giants neck pendant obscuring their view. Because when you actually break it down (something I hope to do in the next day or two), you’ll see that betting the Giants in this game is a suckers bet, and come Sunday night Vegas is going to be rolling in the dough of some well-heeled suckers.

Hank Just Can't Help Himself

I'm beginning to take a bit of a shine to the Yanks' new egomaniacal media whore owner.
Bluster, bombast, bravado and bullshit have been a core tenet of the Yanks' ownership ever since George took over the team in 1973 (you could also probably throw in the word "winning," to that list but it doesn't start with a "b" so it just wouldn't work). And given what we've learned about "young" Hank Stein over the last couple of months, the transition from George to Hank is going to be a smooth one.

Aside from displaying a taste for nefarity (sic - nefariousness is proper but nefarity is such a better word...) very similar to that of his father's with his now weekly tiptoe across the tampering line (for a great recap of the dozens of statements from Hank that cross the tampering barrier, read these posts), Hank has developed a love for media attention that almost trumps his father's yet claims he's not fond of the attention :

"I don't particularly necessarily enjoy it. It was kind of thrust upon me. At some point, if you're going to be a leader, you've got to step up and you can't hide in the office," he said...

Yeah, if you're gonna be a leader, you've got to get your name in the paper and make sure the never quiet pot remains stirred. And while you're at it, no reason not to hang your GM out to dry:

"But as far as missing the playoffs - if we miss the playoffs by the end of this year, I don't know how patient I'll be. But it won't be against the players. It won't be a matter of that. It will be a matter of maybe certain people in the organization could have done something else."

That's gotta make Cashman feel good. In no uncertain terms: No playoffs, see you later. Not bad for a guy who had to be convinced not to give up the kitchen sink to pay Johan Santana $25 million / year after giving up the entire farm system. I think I'm gonna like the Hank Steinbrenner era.

Brett Favre Boogie > Super Bowl Shuffle

Eddy J. Lemberger is absolutely insane. And if this isn't crazy enough, below is Eddy J's step-by-step run-through of the boogie. The scariest thing about this is this guy is dead f'n serious:



(even more insanity found here and here)

Eli Manning Is: Unstoppable

To Catch A Roid Rager: Chris Hansen Interviews Roger Clemens

George Mitchell can't get much on Roger and Brian McNamee seems like a bit of a fuck up, so we need someone with a little better track record. Chris Hansen has answered the bell.
After weeks of preparation and a couple of close calls, Hansen finally gained Clemens' trust and by pretending to be Andy Pettitte was able to convince Roger to come over to a "gym" to work out over an IM conversation. The following is a transcript of what transpired.

[Enter Clemens] Roger: Hello...? Andy? Where you at, bud?

[Voice of 25 year-old woman pretending to be a 15 year-old boy coming from another room] "Boy": Uh, come on in. My parents aren't here... I just want to put something more comfortable on...

Roger: What? Who the hell...? Andy! What's going on?

[Enter Chris Hansen]

Roger: What the.... Holy fuuuck... This isn't what it looks like. I'm not here for no teenage sex or nothin like that.

Hansen: I know. That's not what we're here for. Why don't you...

Roger (agitated): Then what the hell was the point of the kid being here? What did he have to do with anything?

Hansen: Why don't you sit down.

Roger: I'm not doing anything until someone tells me what's going on.

Hansen: Have a seat.

Roger: I'm outta here. This is... this is not right. Andy? Andy this better be some kinda joke!

Hansen: Andy's not here. It's just us. Why don't you sit down.

Roger: No... I'm...

Hansen: Take a seat, sir.

Roger: Ok, ok, ok... turn the cameras... TURN THE DAMN CAMERAS OFF!

Hansen: We're not going to do that. What are you doing here?

Roger (visibly shaken): I'm here to work out. I just... I just wanted to lift some weights and work out with Andy...

Hansen: That's all?

Roger: Well, yeah! What'd you think I was doing?

Hansen: Ok, well what's in your bag?

Roger: It's nothing... just work out stuff. I wasn't even gonna use it... I was just takin it home with me... after... we...

Hansen: Can I see what's in your bag?

Roger: Why? It's nothing...

Hansen: Let me see it.

[Roger puts his head down and kicks the bag over to Hansen]

[Hansen pulls out and puts on the table a dozen syringes, 3 vials of unmarked liquid, a 3 pack of novelty condoms and family pak of Big League Chew.]

Hansen: What is all this for?

Roger: I... (sigh) I don't know... it's nothing...

Hansen: What are you doing here, sir? What do you do for a living?

Roger: You know damn well what I do! I'm a major league pitcher! Or at least I was a...

Hansen: Well what, may I ask, is a "major league pitcher" doing in another man's house with syringes, novelty condoms and Big League Chew?

Roger: ....

Hansen: Care to answer that?

Roger (whispering): I... gollee.... I cannot believe this is happening... I need to go home... I need to get out of here...

Hansen: Well wait a minute, I just want to hear your answer. What are you doing here? We've got the instant message conversation, we've got the bag of syringes.... care to tell us what you planned on doing here?

Roger: I just... we were just gonna... work out. It's not what... I gotta leave. I'm leaving...

[Roger stands up and looks for the door]

Hansen: Why don't you sit down? Have a seat. Sit down. Why don't you have a seat?

[Roger gets up and tries to gather his stuff as the camera crew chases towards the door.]

Roger (walking and mumbling): This is not right... you had no right... I didn't do anything wrong.

Hansen: Sir, sir, sir... just come take a seat....

Chris Hansen, America is once again in your debt, good sir.

Alice Fraasa: AKA The Snorg Tees Girl

This story appeared on Deadspin earlier so it's not exactly unique news, but I know some of the people that read this frequently will be interested in taking it all in. The Pensacola newspaper featured an article about the Snorg Tees girl and her growing popularity and since Snorg is in a way a "sponsor" of the site, I felt it my duty to give those folks some free pub. Another reason I wanted to post this article is because I think some of you reading this are mentioned (anonymously) in the article:

A few weirdos have tried to contact her, Fraasa said, but most of the experience has been good. She’s both floored and flattered by fan groups that have sprung up on the Internet.

Weirdos, eh? That sounds like an accurate description of some of my readers. You know how you are....

This Is Easy?

This has nothing to do with anything but this recipe and accompanying picture was listed under the heading "Quick & Easy Dinner Recipe." The picture looked a little complex so I wanted to check out what was so "quick and easy" about the meal only to learn that the thing requires about a dozen ingredients, ownership of a casserole dish and a level of intimacy with southwest cuisine that would make a Mexican day worker in Santa Fe blush. In truth, it's not all that hard to make, I guess. But I do think that referring to it as "quick & easy" may be a bit of a stretch. Unless one of the steps includes a microwave or selecting an item off a takeout menu, it don't qualify as easy in my book.

"The Guy Who Plays Mr. Favre Fan Club:" Starring Robert Ruprecht

There’s an old SNL skit from 1992 (might be '91) featuring a young Tom Hanks from the Turner and Hooch years, a couple of in-their-prime performances from Chris Farley and Phil Hartman and even several solid supporting efforts from Adam Sandler, Mike Meyers and Kevin Nealon. The name of the skit is "The Guy Who Plays Mr. Belvedere Fan Club" and it takes an inside look at a group of people who are a little too obsessed with Christopher Hewett (The guy who plays Mr. Belvedere). The skit is rarely replayed but is really one of the better skits of that era. And while the whole skit is funny, it really gets good near the end when the members of the group go through their "exercises" where they state out loud how to properly deal with their strong feelings about "The Guy Who Plays Mr. Belvedere" in the form of what is ok to feel and what is not ok:

Cheryl: Okay. I should want to shake hands with Mr. Belvedere, I shouldn't want to grab a lock of his hair.

Mr. Chairman (Tom Hanks): That's good, Cheryl. And, even though it would be really neat to have a lock of his hair, we know that's not right. Someone else?

Mike: Yeah. Okay. I should want to send him a fan letter telling him how good he was in the episode where he teaches everyone how to cook, but I shouldn't want to type the letter on a death certificate.

Mr. Chairman: Yes! But, then, you learned that one the hard way, huh? Okay, so let's keep going. Come on.

Adam: I should like watching "Mr. Belvedere" a lot, but I shouldn't have to masturbate at the end of every episode.

Mr. Chairman: That's right. That is right. Discipline. Next?
.....

Phil: I should want to cook him a simple meal, but I shouldn't want to cut into him, to tear the flesh, to wear the flesh, to be born unto new worlds where his flesh becomes my key.

Mr. Chairman: [ considering ] Good.

Doug (Farley): I got one. I should want to say hi to him nicely, I shouldn't want to keep him in a big jar in my basement.

Mr. Chairman: Alright, Doug, that's great, we understand that now. Go on, though. Why shouldn't you put him in a big jar in your basement?

Doug: Because.. his breath would fog up the glass, and I wouldn't be able to see him..?

It was one of those rare times in that era of SNL when completely random skit (Mr. Belvedere?) and over the top dialogue gelled into a funny scene. But the scene stealer, as usual, was Farley who portrayed a fanatical Belvedere fan about as well as you could imagine it being played. You could almost imagine the real Chris Farley feeling that way about a favorite actor of his until you step back and realize that no one other than maybe Mark David Chapman or the chick who killed Selena could be that crazy. And then I read Peter King’s MMQB and learned a little too much about a man named Robert Ruprecht. After learning his story I'm beginning to think that SNL skit may have under done the over-the-top fan:

Our little crew... encountered Ruprecht in a classic Wisconsin tavern late Friday night. "I just want to tell you one thing," Ruprecht, a 39-year-old optometrist from LaCrosse told me, his eyes crystal clear. "When Brett Favre retires, I will cry. In fact, the day he retires I will call in sick. I won't be able to work."

Ok, that’s fair. Maybe a little much but people get emotionally invested in sports and sometimes it can mess with you. So I can live with someone saying that. But Ruprecht’s story doesn’t end there. Not even close:

"You don't understand," Ruprecht said. "I have lived through Randy Wright, David Whitehurst ... people used to leave free tickets under your wiper blades with a note saying 'please take these.' This guy Favre has brought us so much joy. He is the greatest Packer ever. To us, he's Michael Jordan. I am totally serious."

Umm... ok? Michael Jordan? He of the 6 championships, 5 League MVPs and distinction as perhaps the greatest athlete in American history and most popular athlete in the history of the world? Even as hyperbole that is too far for my tastes, but what do I know? Maybe Mr. Ruprecht will finish this lovefest with some rational thoughts on the subject. Or maybe he will completely derail and find himself the subject of a restraining order (hint: it’s closer to the latter than the former):

"This is going to sound weird," he said. "I dream about this guy. I dream that I'm going shopping with him. I'm not kidding. I'm just saying, we worship Favre."

"This is going to sound weird?" Weird? "Weird" is putting mustard on spaghetti or disliking chocolate. Dreaming that you and a late 30's male are buying groceries together, that is a couple steps beyond weird into an arena sometimes referred to as insanity. I’m not sure you could admit to something much more crazy than that. And then to try and qualify that statement as an example of just where Favre sits in Wisconsin lore by stating that people "worship" Favre up there, as if that makes his feelings rational and reasonable... no F’n way. People worship Jesus and no one dreams that they are walking down the fiction section of a Barnes & Noble with JC looking for the latest Patterson novel. And even if you did dream that, the only person you’d ever admit that to is your therapist or your prison chaplain before you get the chair. You certainly wouldn’t tell some overweight coffee fiend about it at a bar on a Friday night.

I think Mr. Ruprecht should take it easy and do his exercises:

Ruprecht: I should want to root for Favre to lead the Pack to the Super Bowl. I shouldn't want to go shopping for women's clothes with him so that I can dress him up like Mrs. Doubtfire and ravage him while the beat Todd Rungren's "Bang My Drum" CRANKS in the background.

Exactly, Robby. Now why don't you put your helmet back on and go back in your cage.

Did You See That Underhand Flip By Favre? That Was The Most Amazing Fun Loving Play Of All-Time

Gosh, he's just having so much fun I want to take a pen AND JAM IT IN MY FUCKING RETINA!
Even a cynical Favre hater like myself enjoyed the scene at Lambeau with all the snow and shit. It was a pretty cool sight... until Brett Favre completed that 3 yard bomb that set the world on fire. I actually overheard some dudes goign bananas about it when I went to grab some breakfast this morning and wanted to jab these dudes in their tracheas. I'll give it to Favre that he was able to get away from the rush. That was pretty nice, especially for an old dude. But the fact that he threw the ball 3 FUCKING YARDS UNDERHANDED to a an uncovered receiver directly in front of him was not a feat worthy of remark. The play to gain yardage in a sack situation, that's good. The overall achievement in terms of athleticism, creativity and outstandingness, it doesn't even rate. Did anyone see David Garrard throw a touchdown pass as his face was about the meet the fucking mulch? Now THAT was amazing. But how many times was that replayed, once? And how many times did we have to watch Favre's 3 yard limp wrist, 80? Get over it already, it wasn't that sweet.

Now I don't wish the man harm, but I can't wait til this Wranglers wearing, indigestion having, pill popper rides off on the tractor he rode in on and I never have to hear another announcer verbally ejaculate every time this old fuck does something unconventional and unremarkable. Just be sure you're not on the same road as Favre on his way home. I hear the guy's got some substance dependency issues...

Was Brady Perfect? Not According To His QB Rating

This equation almost makes more sense than Tom Brady's QB rating.
There were a lot of typewritten handjobs dished out to Tom Brady after his near perfect performance on Saturday night, and deservedly so. It was arguably the best performance by a QB in a playoff game ever. And even if you aren't comfortable making that leap, it's at least safe to say that Brady had a very good game. But just how good a game did he have? Well, let's use the ol' QB rating to come up with that number. According ESPN.com, Brady finished Saturday's game with a 141.6 rating. That is Brady's fifth highest rating for a single game this year. But what may be of greater interest is one of the games it was not better than.

According to the QB rating, Brady had a better day on opening day than he did in the Jags playoff game. In the opener, Brady finished with a 146.6 rating in a win over the Jets. And what is really ridiculous is that by almost any objective standard, Brady's night against the Jags was better despite the lower rating. Here's the comparison:

Brady against the Jags - 26/28 (92.9%) 262 yards 3tds 0ints 141.4 rating

Brady against the Jets - 22/28 (78.6%) 297 yards 3tds 0ints 146.6 QB rating

So Brady had more incompletions against the Jets in the same amount of attempts, with the same amount of tds and 37 more total yards, or about 1.3 more yards per attempt. Essentially, QB rating is rewarding Brady for being less accurate and a little more risky in achieving the same exact result. It seems a little ridiculous.

I have no idea how it is possible to say that a game in which Brady had two incompletions in 28 attempts and threw 3tds is "rated" lower than a game in which he completed a lower percentage of passes for more yards and the same amount of Tds. It seems awfully arbitrary to weigh yards / completion more highly than completion percentage if the amount of Tds is the same.

Was It That Obvious That The NFL Wanted The Colts To Win? Abso-F'n-Lutely.

Tony Dungy and the Colts didn't just have God on their side, they also had the refs in their pocket.
It's rare that I find myself aware of a game being called to the advantage of a particular team when my team is not involved. Most games are called fairly and it's only those who are emotionally attached to the outcome that can find bias in a fairly called game. Since I don't give a shit about the teams, I usually lack opinion about the outcome of the 50-50 calls and unless they are blown in an absurd fashion. Today's Colts - Chargers game was different. The refs did everything in their power to keep the Colts in that game and it was only by the grace of Volek that the Chargers were able to pull it out.

First, I should probably note that I was pulling for the Colts, which was hard for me to do because they are one of my least favorite teams. The reasons I was pulling for them was because: A.) I wanted to see the two best teams play next weekend, and B.) I think the Chargers are the most loathsome bunch of pricks on the face of the earth (more on that later). But despite the fact that I was blatantly pulling for the Colts, it couldn't have been more clear that the refs were giving them every single call out there. The list I have is in no way exhaustive, but here's a taste from my memory of the game: the fake hold on Cromartie's interception return for a touchdown, the mythical pass interference on Hart in the 4th quarter, the several no calls on Indy pass interference or the constant holding of Merriman and Phillips. It was unreal what Indy was getting away with and almost even more amazing that the Chargers were able to pull out the victory.

Now because I don't have a complete list of incidents available (hopefully someone with a little more internet savvy and who Tivo'd the game will come up a larger list), I can't really add much more to what went on but I can say that more than a couple people were on the same page while watching that game (and I'm not just talking about Norv Turner). You gotta give the Volek and the Chargers credit for taking on the Colts, the pumped in noise and the refs all in one sitting. That win was really an amazing feat.

If Dwyane Wade Doesn't Evolve, He's Gonna Go Out Like Earl Campbell

This is a picture of Wade after a recent game against the Bucks. Note the yellowing and rotting of the skin. Not healthy.
I don't know a ton about Earl Campbell other than the little I've read and heard about him as well as what I've been able to glean through the fantastic NFL Films footage of him shoving people out of his way as he high steps through helpless defenders and mercilessly drops his shoulder on d-backs while destroying everyone in his path with his violent and reckless running style. What I have learned is that he was perhaps the single greatest running back recruit to ever come out of the Texas high school system (Barry Switzer said Campbell could have come out of high school and dominated the NFL immediately), then dominated at U of Texas (winning a Heisman Trophy) and then stormed into the NFL with the same abandon and ran away (pun) with the NFL Rookie of The Year trophy an Offensive MVP and a Pro Bowl selection in his first year, 1978. Campbell would make the Pro Bowl 4 more times over the next five years, win a couple more offensive MVPs and leave dozens of defensive players in his wake as he brutalized the league and put up huge numbers despite constant 8 and 10 man fronts game in and game out. By 1984, Campbell was severely limited due to injury and by 1985 he was out of the game. He ended up playing 5 full seasons and 3 other partial seasons. When healthy he was one of the best to ever suit up because of his reckless style and competitive drive. But because of his competitive drive and reckless style, Earl Campbell left the game at 28 years-old never to return the same. Dwyane Wade turns 26 next week and if he keeps up his current injury pace, Wade might not even make it til 28.

The reason Dwyane Wade is great is the same reason Earl Campbell was: he has no fear. He attacks the rim as if there is no one standing in his way, let alone at least two guys with 80lbs and 8 inches on him. He gets to the line 10 times a game and has consistently been in the top 5 for that category over his career. But it's this passion for getting to the rim and getting fouled that has kept him from ever playing a full 82 game season and this season will be the third in a 5 year career in which Wade won't play in 75% of his team's games. He's got a bum knee, a tweaked elbow, a bad ankle, a fucked up finger and today we learned that Wade's shoulder "was dislocated to an extreme extent, and that Wade also suffered serious nerve damage." The kid hasn't played 300 games yet and he's had multiple surgeries and is icing his back every night like Larry Bird did on his death bed final two seasons. History has shown time and again that this constant beating will catch up to him, and quickly (see Campbell).

The bottom line is that he can't continue on like this. He just won't make it. It's unsettling if not borderline tragic that one of the league's top talents is destroying himself before our very eyes and no one is teaching him how to stop or slow down. He's gotta learn to play like the old school guys who turned it on only when the national TV lights were showing or in the home stretch of the last 30 games or so. Miami is not even close to contending for the playoffs right now. He should just relax and wait for the trading deadline to see what direction the Heat are going in this year. It would be one thing to kill himself to sneak into the playoffs with the 8th seed, it would be a hole 'nother ballgame to kill himself only to see Shaq get traded, Riley to "get sick" and watch the season go down the tubes in favor of a much needed rebuilding.

We love your enthusiasm, Dwee-Ane. But we'd like to see you ambulate past 2010.