GM,
Let's focus on the losers today. Let's talk about the disappointment that we have and that four other fan bases should be feeling. Let's ignore the fact that each of us went 1-3 in our predictions.
How bad has kicking been in the NFL this year?! The league percentage, 81.7, isn't much lower than the usual of 83 percent, but clutch kicking has been nearly non-existent. If kicking really is almost entirely mental, then Nate Kaeding's performance yesterday reminded me of Paula Abdul's clapping. I've already heard the "Jets win it or Chargers lose it?" nonsense on ESPN three times today, and it's not even close. The Chargers, specifically Kaeding, lost that game. He was one of the most reliable kickers in the league all season, connecting on 91.4 percent of his attempts. He was at home. The weather was fine. Still, he missed all three of his tries against the Jets, setting up what will surely be a forgettable AFC Championship Game. Thanks, Nate. Take some Valium and hit the beach.
Kurt Warner looked as old as he's ever looked. I think he intentionally grew that gray goatee just so our last thought of him would be, "Yes, despite his strong numbers, he's definitely ready to retire." NOTE: Neil Rackers missed his only field goal attempt.
More kicking woes in Minnesota, not that it mattered this time. Shaun Suisham was 1-for-3, including a 48-yarder on 4th-and-2 that Wade Phillips shouldn't have let him try. More important, though, was that Tony Romo couldn't hold on to the football. Two of his three fumbles were lost, and Dallas never had a chance. For some reason, people like to blame QB fumbles on bad protection and, in this case, Flozell Adams's injury. But the great quarterbacks, much like Favre taking his first sack in that game, know how to hit the deck quickly and maintain possession.
Baltimore's offense just didn't show up, and the Colts' touchdown in the final seconds of the first half was completely deflating. When there are 7 seconds left on 3rd-and-goal and the other team has no timeouts (thus has to throw quickly), how do you not jam Reggie Wayne at the line?! That was the game.
-JW
JW,
Forget kicking! The Cowboys are retaining Wade Phillips, and Chan Gailey is the front-runner for the Bills job. I don't know what's worse--the Bills settling for a guy who couldn't keep his coordinator job through Kansas City's entire preseason or the Cowboys sticking with a coach whose central accomplishment, according to Tony Romo, was "keeping together" a team that badly needs to be blown up. Either way, the only coaching-related move that would shock me more than these two did would be the Chargers allowing Norv Turner to stick around for another wasted season. He's more likely to be the president of the United States next year than to work in San Diego.
As for the games themselves, they left the prognosticator in me confused and unsatisfied. Arizona managed to lose without giving us a bit of insight into how good the Saints really are (do they hang forty-five on anybody with that effort, or just the Cardinals?), and Baltimore failed to capitalize on a first-half Colts team that was every bit as baffled and uninspiring as I anticipated--you know, since they had to interrupt their vacations for that game and all. Dallas forgot to show up for what should have been the best matchup of the playoffs, and the contest that should have sucked--Jets/Chargers--turned out to be the only one worth watching to its conclusion.
This would be a good time, then, to make a promise or two about not underestimating the Jets going forward--about acknowledging that the pass in all its glamour still can't compete with a solid defense, a solid run. Screw that. The Jets will lose by fifty this Sunday, and I'll laugh all the way to the bank. I hear Nate Kaeding's a teller.
-GM
Monday, January 18, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Four Games, Two Disagreements
JW,
After a wild-card round about as exciting as an afternoon with C-SPAN, I'd like to tell you that this weekend is going to be playoff gold. Sadly, the AFC doesn't look like it's going to oblige. Over the course of the past week, we've heard lots of "experts" claim that the Jets and Ravens have a chance to make things interesting, but it just isn't so. People, it seems, will say anything to get on TV.
With that in mind, let's take a Smarter look at a divisional round that promises to be a study in contrasts. We'll start with the good stuff.
Arizona at New Orleans
I'll be damned if the Cardinals didn't steal my bitching-about-the-overtime-rules thunder last weekend by making their one defensive play of the game when it counted most. Watching that play unfold, I found myself wondering if Aaron Rodgers had suddenly lost his peripheral vision. Michael Adams was maneuvering about as quickly as a Wal-Mart greeter, and he still got there with time to spare. Is it possible that Rodgers' small-town values had him rooting for one more week of Kurt Warner?
Pagan New Orleans, it's safe to say, will have no such qualms about ending the Holy One's career, at least until his August comeback. Like the Green Bay game, however, this one simply can't be called. Both teams score big; both trot out defenses that couldn't stop a Big-10 quarterback; both depend on timing, momentum, and finesse. The game will come down to one or two huge stops or giveaways, and we'll all go home convinced that running the football couldn't be less important. I give Arizona the slight edge, but only because I know their offense is clicking. I'm not positive about the Saints'.
Dallas at Minnesota
Dallas could go one of two ways now that their playoff curse has been lifted. In scenario one, they fall to a Vikings team that, unlike them, isn't just happy to be here. In scenario two, they destroy everyone and win the Super Bowl without much of an effort. I like scenario two.
Minnesota, after all, has proven time and again that Brett Favre alone is going to win or lose big games, and I love him to lose this one. Adrian Peterson--24th in the league in yards per carry and entering famous-for-being-famous territory--lacks the will and charisma to demand the ball, and Dallas has slammed the door shut on runners all season. Look for Favre to panic and overreact to an early deficit. I say his interception total beats Peterson's number of goal-line carries.
Baltimore at Indianapolis
I hate the Colts very much, but even I have to admit that this is a great team. Yeah, they stubbornly lose their rhythm and momentum every December to protect their starters, but it takes a better team than the overachieving Ravens to exploit that fact. I'm predicting an early Ravens lead followed by thirty-five unanswered points by Manning and his joyles, workaday Colts. The Ravens beat a New England team that verifiably stinks. No one cares.
New York at San Diego
If New York seriously challenges in this game, I will s--t myself.
-GM
GM,
Allow me to respond.
Cards at Saints
The Saints are strangers to me, while the Cardinals remind me of a girl I once dated. Entirely unpredictable. Hot one minute; cold the next. Unbearable when at their worst; a thing of beauty when at their best. The problem with this type of girl (errr, team) is she absolutely cannot be counted on when the stakes are high. Are these stakes high enough? Probably, but...
New Orleans has managed to turn everyone into doubters based on its performance in December and beyond. Since a November 30 thrashing of New England, which the Saints would like to be the season's defining moment, they've sneaked by Washington in OT, held on to a three-point victory over a beat-up Atlanta team, allowed a soul-searching Dallas to revive itself while ending their perfect season, lost to three-win Tampa Bay, and failed to try against Carolina. What the Saints may still have is an ability to strike quickly, especially in the fourth quarter, but Arizona can respond. The over-under for this game is 57.5! I know that defenses tend to rise to the occasion when people predict shootouts, but it just seems impossible to me that the winner of this doesn't score 45 by itself! I can't believe I'm saying this, especially since I didn't think Arizona could beat Green Bay, but the Cardinals are pulling this upset even without Boldin.
Cowboys and Vikings
Vike me. (ESPN may have sold out to affirmative action and "jockocracy"--Howard Cosell's version, not what Urban Dictionary has--but it still makes great SportsCenter commercials.) GM, Favre's twilight years, depending on when you assume they began, have consisted of his throwing single, crucial late-game picks rather than littering the field with floaters into triple coverage. But he's not ready for that, anyway. The Vikings are the only team in the league with more momentum right now than Dallas, and it's all because of Week 17. After losing a heart-breaker in Chicago in which Favre and Childress again butted heads and Minnesota looked like it had lost its first-round bye, they were completely in the dumps. But in the season's final week, Philly gift-wrapped the bye in purple and gold and mailed it first-class to Minneapolis. That team is rejuvenated like no other. Of all the key playoff figures who needed a week of rest, Brett Favre was at the top of the list. They're still the most balanced team in football, and if Brad Childress simply overcomes his stubbornness and uses Adrian Peterson more like a 2002 Charlie Garner and less like a 2007 Larry Johnson, Minnesota wins. Oh, and I'm not making this up: I dreamed last night that Flozell Adams false started.
Ravens at Colts
I'll never forgive this Colts team for forfeiting the perfect season. In 2007, Bill Belichick wanted to piss off division rival Miami by going undefeated, and he wanted to piss off Peyton Manning by having Tom Brady take his touchdown record. I hate the Hoody with a passion, but if I could put that hatred aside, I'd want him coaching my team in a heartbeat. Jim Caldwell had the chance to have a season in which he made history by going 19-0 (as a first-year head coach!), to solidify the Colts' reputation as the most clutch franchise in the league, and to make Belichick look stupid for that fourth-down decision. And if he really believes that a Super Bowl victory is the only relevant part of that equation, he doesn't understand greatness. Who will people remember more, the 2007 Patriots or the 2008 Steelers? It's obvious, isn't it? Just as obvious is that this year's Colts team won't be remembered at all. After all, they're following their proven formula to lose a playoff game at home.
Jets at Chargers
I love Rex Ryan. There, I said it. I also think Norv Turner is a waste of space. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe the Jets will win today. None. Convincing someone otherwise would be a more daunting task than convincing him to switch to AT&T using Luke Wilson commercials.
-JW
After a wild-card round about as exciting as an afternoon with C-SPAN, I'd like to tell you that this weekend is going to be playoff gold. Sadly, the AFC doesn't look like it's going to oblige. Over the course of the past week, we've heard lots of "experts" claim that the Jets and Ravens have a chance to make things interesting, but it just isn't so. People, it seems, will say anything to get on TV.
With that in mind, let's take a Smarter look at a divisional round that promises to be a study in contrasts. We'll start with the good stuff.
Arizona at New Orleans
I'll be damned if the Cardinals didn't steal my bitching-about-the-overtime-rules thunder last weekend by making their one defensive play of the game when it counted most. Watching that play unfold, I found myself wondering if Aaron Rodgers had suddenly lost his peripheral vision. Michael Adams was maneuvering about as quickly as a Wal-Mart greeter, and he still got there with time to spare. Is it possible that Rodgers' small-town values had him rooting for one more week of Kurt Warner?
Pagan New Orleans, it's safe to say, will have no such qualms about ending the Holy One's career, at least until his August comeback. Like the Green Bay game, however, this one simply can't be called. Both teams score big; both trot out defenses that couldn't stop a Big-10 quarterback; both depend on timing, momentum, and finesse. The game will come down to one or two huge stops or giveaways, and we'll all go home convinced that running the football couldn't be less important. I give Arizona the slight edge, but only because I know their offense is clicking. I'm not positive about the Saints'.
Dallas at Minnesota
Dallas could go one of two ways now that their playoff curse has been lifted. In scenario one, they fall to a Vikings team that, unlike them, isn't just happy to be here. In scenario two, they destroy everyone and win the Super Bowl without much of an effort. I like scenario two.
Minnesota, after all, has proven time and again that Brett Favre alone is going to win or lose big games, and I love him to lose this one. Adrian Peterson--24th in the league in yards per carry and entering famous-for-being-famous territory--lacks the will and charisma to demand the ball, and Dallas has slammed the door shut on runners all season. Look for Favre to panic and overreact to an early deficit. I say his interception total beats Peterson's number of goal-line carries.
Baltimore at Indianapolis
I hate the Colts very much, but even I have to admit that this is a great team. Yeah, they stubbornly lose their rhythm and momentum every December to protect their starters, but it takes a better team than the overachieving Ravens to exploit that fact. I'm predicting an early Ravens lead followed by thirty-five unanswered points by Manning and his joyles, workaday Colts. The Ravens beat a New England team that verifiably stinks. No one cares.
New York at San Diego
If New York seriously challenges in this game, I will s--t myself.
-GM
GM,
Allow me to respond.
Cards at Saints
The Saints are strangers to me, while the Cardinals remind me of a girl I once dated. Entirely unpredictable. Hot one minute; cold the next. Unbearable when at their worst; a thing of beauty when at their best. The problem with this type of girl (errr, team) is she absolutely cannot be counted on when the stakes are high. Are these stakes high enough? Probably, but...
New Orleans has managed to turn everyone into doubters based on its performance in December and beyond. Since a November 30 thrashing of New England, which the Saints would like to be the season's defining moment, they've sneaked by Washington in OT, held on to a three-point victory over a beat-up Atlanta team, allowed a soul-searching Dallas to revive itself while ending their perfect season, lost to three-win Tampa Bay, and failed to try against Carolina. What the Saints may still have is an ability to strike quickly, especially in the fourth quarter, but Arizona can respond. The over-under for this game is 57.5! I know that defenses tend to rise to the occasion when people predict shootouts, but it just seems impossible to me that the winner of this doesn't score 45 by itself! I can't believe I'm saying this, especially since I didn't think Arizona could beat Green Bay, but the Cardinals are pulling this upset even without Boldin.
Cowboys and Vikings
Vike me. (ESPN may have sold out to affirmative action and "jockocracy"--Howard Cosell's version, not what Urban Dictionary has--but it still makes great SportsCenter commercials.) GM, Favre's twilight years, depending on when you assume they began, have consisted of his throwing single, crucial late-game picks rather than littering the field with floaters into triple coverage. But he's not ready for that, anyway. The Vikings are the only team in the league with more momentum right now than Dallas, and it's all because of Week 17. After losing a heart-breaker in Chicago in which Favre and Childress again butted heads and Minnesota looked like it had lost its first-round bye, they were completely in the dumps. But in the season's final week, Philly gift-wrapped the bye in purple and gold and mailed it first-class to Minneapolis. That team is rejuvenated like no other. Of all the key playoff figures who needed a week of rest, Brett Favre was at the top of the list. They're still the most balanced team in football, and if Brad Childress simply overcomes his stubbornness and uses Adrian Peterson more like a 2002 Charlie Garner and less like a 2007 Larry Johnson, Minnesota wins. Oh, and I'm not making this up: I dreamed last night that Flozell Adams false started.
Ravens at Colts
I'll never forgive this Colts team for forfeiting the perfect season. In 2007, Bill Belichick wanted to piss off division rival Miami by going undefeated, and he wanted to piss off Peyton Manning by having Tom Brady take his touchdown record. I hate the Hoody with a passion, but if I could put that hatred aside, I'd want him coaching my team in a heartbeat. Jim Caldwell had the chance to have a season in which he made history by going 19-0 (as a first-year head coach!), to solidify the Colts' reputation as the most clutch franchise in the league, and to make Belichick look stupid for that fourth-down decision. And if he really believes that a Super Bowl victory is the only relevant part of that equation, he doesn't understand greatness. Who will people remember more, the 2007 Patriots or the 2008 Steelers? It's obvious, isn't it? Just as obvious is that this year's Colts team won't be remembered at all. After all, they're following their proven formula to lose a playoff game at home.
Jets at Chargers
I love Rex Ryan. There, I said it. I also think Norv Turner is a waste of space. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe the Jets will win today. None. Convincing someone otherwise would be a more daunting task than convincing him to switch to AT&T using Luke Wilson commercials.
-JW
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Swing and Remiss: Big Mac's Whopper
GM,
Mark McGwire put on his ninth-best suit, looked Bob Costas straight in the eye, and called on his shrunken sack to muster the strength to say the following, paraphrased:
"Sure, I could have hit all those home runs without steroids. God gave me the ability to hit homers. You should see some of the balls I hit in little league! No pill or injection will improve your hand-eye coordination or swing mechanics, and mine started getting really good in the mid-90s because I started studying pitchers. I just used steroids to stay healthy, but I still could have hit nearly 600 bombs without them. As it turns out, Jose Canseco was telling the truth about the mere fact that I used steroids, but everything else he says is a lie. Obviously he can't be trusted; he had a book to sell. Oh, and I really wish I had never touched the stuff."
The fact that he actually said all this poses two questions:
1. How stupid is Mark McGwire?
2.How stupid does Mark McGwire think we are?
Big Mac has admitted to doing a four-week cycle after the 1998 All-Star break. He played in 155 games that year and set the single-season home-run record with 70. I, along with millions of others, watched many more regular-season baseball games than I would have otherwise watched that year. I really don't care that McGwire and many others tricked me into being interested, but having my intelligence insulted more than a decade later is difficult to ignore.
Let's go over some facts:
One, steroids do improve bat speed. Greater bat speed doesn't just increase the force exerted on a baseball; it gives the batter extra time to see a pitch before committing to a swing. Steroid use will increase bat speed, thus essentially giving the hitter a better eye. This means that steroids can help a batter get more home runs, triples, doubles, singles, and even walks.
Two, mass alone is also a factor in the force exerted in a swing--not just the mass of the bat either. Because a player is gripping the bat throughout the swing, his grip and weight are actually factored in. As we all know, steroids increase muscle mass. If Prince Fielder and David Eckstein swing a bat at the same speed, Fielder's ball will go farther.
Three, steroids are designed to expedite the body's natural recovery time. Muscles are not built through lifting weights; they are built through recovery in-between workouts. The faster an athlete recovers, the more he can work out beneficially. So McGwire's "work ethic" should not be commended by Tony LaRussa or anyone else.
Four, even if steroids did nothing but keep McGwire on the field, then we know they allowed him to hit more home runs. That's the most obvious part of all of this. More games = more at-bats = Big Mac is a fraud. To insist that his individual swings were unaffected, while wrong, is one thing. To insist his overall numbers would have been the same is pure madness.
So there it is. Mark McGwire took steroids to be a better hitter, they worked, and he cashed in. If he really regrets it, he should also regret the money and the public love affair. But he doesn't, so he doesn't. The man did steroids. His life was better for it, and it is better for it. Sorry, kids... no moral here. Cheaters can win.
The only believable thing Mac said was that Monday was the hardest day of his life. Baseball players have cushy lives in general. This guy had his ego stroked at all levels for 38 years and retired with tens of millions in the bank. Those tears were real.
Of all the major players in the steroid era, Jose Canseco is the only one who hasn't been proven a liar. And of all the lame excuses that follow apologies, the hand-eye coordination shtick is the lamest.
-JW
JW,
You know you've made something of your life when your apologies require a script. Mark McGwire followed his on Monday and is free as a result to move on to his new role as the St. Louis Cardinals' hitting coach and team pharmacist. As you might expect, I've got some questions. You hit the moral and technical points; I'll tackle the practical and philosophical ones:
1) Why, oh why, would the MLB and the Cardinals allow Mark McGwire anywhere near star slugger and baseball-savior-in-waiting Albert Pujols? Furthermore, if you're Pujols, are you moving to the other side of the clubhouse whenever you see this guy? Are you having somebody test your food? To the extent that Baseball needs to cleanse itself of McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds, they really, really need a squeaky-clean, beyond-reproach A-Poo. In that respect, this is a terrible hire.
2) What are the Cardinals doing making a celebrity hire, anyway? After all, their 2009 total attendance was more than 750,000 above the NL average, according to Baseball Almanac. They've got the best player in baseball and won last year's NL Central by 7.5 games. What's Mark McGwire bringing to the table that they don't already have?
3) Why did McGwire's "new" career require a fresh slate? The thinking, it seems, is that the public wouldn't have accepted an obviously-lying hitting coach, but who cares about hitting coaches? I'm a slightly-more-than-casual fan of Major League Baseball, and I couldn't name a single hitting coach in the history of the sport. Should I care that McGwire admitted what I already knew?
4) Finally, what's Sosa going to do now that McGwire's come clean? Last I heard, Sosa's admitted nothing. If Baseball's hosting a coming out party for former cheaters, let's brace ourselves for the greatest piece of mumbling and nonsense we've ever heard!
-GM
Mark McGwire put on his ninth-best suit, looked Bob Costas straight in the eye, and called on his shrunken sack to muster the strength to say the following, paraphrased:
"Sure, I could have hit all those home runs without steroids. God gave me the ability to hit homers. You should see some of the balls I hit in little league! No pill or injection will improve your hand-eye coordination or swing mechanics, and mine started getting really good in the mid-90s because I started studying pitchers. I just used steroids to stay healthy, but I still could have hit nearly 600 bombs without them. As it turns out, Jose Canseco was telling the truth about the mere fact that I used steroids, but everything else he says is a lie. Obviously he can't be trusted; he had a book to sell. Oh, and I really wish I had never touched the stuff."
The fact that he actually said all this poses two questions:
1. How stupid is Mark McGwire?
2.How stupid does Mark McGwire think we are?
Big Mac has admitted to doing a four-week cycle after the 1998 All-Star break. He played in 155 games that year and set the single-season home-run record with 70. I, along with millions of others, watched many more regular-season baseball games than I would have otherwise watched that year. I really don't care that McGwire and many others tricked me into being interested, but having my intelligence insulted more than a decade later is difficult to ignore.
Let's go over some facts:
One, steroids do improve bat speed. Greater bat speed doesn't just increase the force exerted on a baseball; it gives the batter extra time to see a pitch before committing to a swing. Steroid use will increase bat speed, thus essentially giving the hitter a better eye. This means that steroids can help a batter get more home runs, triples, doubles, singles, and even walks.
Two, mass alone is also a factor in the force exerted in a swing--not just the mass of the bat either. Because a player is gripping the bat throughout the swing, his grip and weight are actually factored in. As we all know, steroids increase muscle mass. If Prince Fielder and David Eckstein swing a bat at the same speed, Fielder's ball will go farther.
Three, steroids are designed to expedite the body's natural recovery time. Muscles are not built through lifting weights; they are built through recovery in-between workouts. The faster an athlete recovers, the more he can work out beneficially. So McGwire's "work ethic" should not be commended by Tony LaRussa or anyone else.
Four, even if steroids did nothing but keep McGwire on the field, then we know they allowed him to hit more home runs. That's the most obvious part of all of this. More games = more at-bats = Big Mac is a fraud. To insist that his individual swings were unaffected, while wrong, is one thing. To insist his overall numbers would have been the same is pure madness.
So there it is. Mark McGwire took steroids to be a better hitter, they worked, and he cashed in. If he really regrets it, he should also regret the money and the public love affair. But he doesn't, so he doesn't. The man did steroids. His life was better for it, and it is better for it. Sorry, kids... no moral here. Cheaters can win.
The only believable thing Mac said was that Monday was the hardest day of his life. Baseball players have cushy lives in general. This guy had his ego stroked at all levels for 38 years and retired with tens of millions in the bank. Those tears were real.
Of all the major players in the steroid era, Jose Canseco is the only one who hasn't been proven a liar. And of all the lame excuses that follow apologies, the hand-eye coordination shtick is the lamest.
-JW
JW,
You know you've made something of your life when your apologies require a script. Mark McGwire followed his on Monday and is free as a result to move on to his new role as the St. Louis Cardinals' hitting coach and team pharmacist. As you might expect, I've got some questions. You hit the moral and technical points; I'll tackle the practical and philosophical ones:
1) Why, oh why, would the MLB and the Cardinals allow Mark McGwire anywhere near star slugger and baseball-savior-in-waiting Albert Pujols? Furthermore, if you're Pujols, are you moving to the other side of the clubhouse whenever you see this guy? Are you having somebody test your food? To the extent that Baseball needs to cleanse itself of McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds, they really, really need a squeaky-clean, beyond-reproach A-Poo. In that respect, this is a terrible hire.
2) What are the Cardinals doing making a celebrity hire, anyway? After all, their 2009 total attendance was more than 750,000 above the NL average, according to Baseball Almanac. They've got the best player in baseball and won last year's NL Central by 7.5 games. What's Mark McGwire bringing to the table that they don't already have?
3) Why did McGwire's "new" career require a fresh slate? The thinking, it seems, is that the public wouldn't have accepted an obviously-lying hitting coach, but who cares about hitting coaches? I'm a slightly-more-than-casual fan of Major League Baseball, and I couldn't name a single hitting coach in the history of the sport. Should I care that McGwire admitted what I already knew?
4) Finally, what's Sosa going to do now that McGwire's come clean? Last I heard, Sosa's admitted nothing. If Baseball's hosting a coming out party for former cheaters, let's brace ourselves for the greatest piece of mumbling and nonsense we've ever heard!
-GM
Monday, January 11, 2010
Harry Reid, "Racist"
JW,
I love talking (anonymously) about race, particularly when it's a Democrat who's put the issue back on the front page. This time the culprit is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who, according to a just-released account of the 2008 election, predicted early in Barack Obama's candidacy that Obama could win because he is "light-skinned," has "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," and "isn't afraid of dogs and swimming pools." Okay, I made that last one up, but the rest is real. Reid, already the target of a serious re-election challenge, now finds himself in that most precarious of political positions: convincing Americans that he didn't mean the truth he uttered.
Happily, Reid faces a cooperative press and a "Negro" political establishment that can't wait to let bygones be bygones. Leading the charge, as always, is Al Sharpton, who told the New York Times on Saturday that "while Mr. Reid 'did not select the best word choice in this instance,' the comments should not distract Congress or the White House." Also forgiving is Obama himself, who "accepted Harry’s apology without question because I’ve known him for years. I’ve seen the passionate leadership he’s shown on issues of social justice, and I know what’s in his heart." Because Reid is a Democrat, Sharpton and Obama tell us, he literally cannot commit a racist act or think a racist thought--his liberalism has rendered it an impossibility. Conversely, Republicans cannot help but be racist--George Allen, remember, was forced out of politics because he might have meant "macaca" as a racial slur.
What makes Sharpton's and Obama's comments so odious is their underlining of the absolute fact that race and its accompanying hysteria are weapons used by Democrats against Republicans. Period. While the black man or woman on the street may experience racism as a scourge, elite Democrats of color see only an opportunity--for their own advancement as well as that of their party. Similarly ridiculous has been the Times' focus-shifting, a masterpiece of partisanship that spent the weekend transforming the story from Reid's gaffe to GOP Chairman Michael Steele's insistence that he resign. (What's next? "Michael Steele: Another Black Guy Who Can't Take a Joke"?) As the story develops, look for Sharpton, Obama, and other black "leaders" to stick by Reid. . . as long as doing so doesn't jeopardize the health care bill. The minute it does, they'll denounce him from the very rooftops of Washington.
The only question is whether or not they'll have their Negro dialects in the "on" position.
-GM
GM,
How many racially inspired posts does this make for us? Four? Five?
My biggest curiosity is whether or not Reid would have been under any fire if he hadn't used the word "Negro." I suspect so. I assume there still would have been outrage if he had said, "Obama can win because his skin is light for a black man and because he doesn't speak like some uneducated black people tend to speak." Other than his use of the diet N-word, there is practically no difference between that comment and the one he actually made. And that comment is unadulterated truth. In most elections--2000 and 2004 excluded--we like our presidential candidates to sound like they went to college. Yet it's hard to imagine that, in a society where being "progressive" means accepting racial differences without daring to acknowledge them, such a remark would go over well...
...which leads us to your complaint. Reid somehow managed to escape most of the wrath that would have been coming to him if he hadn't been a Democrat. Secretly, though, the Donkeys must be fuming! "Look, Harry, we can't claim the social moral high ground if you don't abide by our ever-evolving rules of racism. Thank God we have the media!"
Of course you're right that the race card is a political weapon, and Republicans have no answer for it so far. This is why I fear for the future of the GOP. While immigration continues to bring us closer to the point that whites are just another minority, the Left has redefined racism to include any political disagreement with a non-white. And considering that most non-whites in America vote Democrat, we'll either continue to see a shift in what constitutes conservatism, or we won't see a Republican in the White House for a while. We may have an occasional laugh at Mormons and Catholics for having so many children, but they're certainly doing their part to keep the red states red.
-JW
I love talking (anonymously) about race, particularly when it's a Democrat who's put the issue back on the front page. This time the culprit is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who, according to a just-released account of the 2008 election, predicted early in Barack Obama's candidacy that Obama could win because he is "light-skinned," has "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," and "isn't afraid of dogs and swimming pools." Okay, I made that last one up, but the rest is real. Reid, already the target of a serious re-election challenge, now finds himself in that most precarious of political positions: convincing Americans that he didn't mean the truth he uttered.
Happily, Reid faces a cooperative press and a "Negro" political establishment that can't wait to let bygones be bygones. Leading the charge, as always, is Al Sharpton, who told the New York Times on Saturday that "while Mr. Reid 'did not select the best word choice in this instance,' the comments should not distract Congress or the White House." Also forgiving is Obama himself, who "accepted Harry’s apology without question because I’ve known him for years. I’ve seen the passionate leadership he’s shown on issues of social justice, and I know what’s in his heart." Because Reid is a Democrat, Sharpton and Obama tell us, he literally cannot commit a racist act or think a racist thought--his liberalism has rendered it an impossibility. Conversely, Republicans cannot help but be racist--George Allen, remember, was forced out of politics because he might have meant "macaca" as a racial slur.
What makes Sharpton's and Obama's comments so odious is their underlining of the absolute fact that race and its accompanying hysteria are weapons used by Democrats against Republicans. Period. While the black man or woman on the street may experience racism as a scourge, elite Democrats of color see only an opportunity--for their own advancement as well as that of their party. Similarly ridiculous has been the Times' focus-shifting, a masterpiece of partisanship that spent the weekend transforming the story from Reid's gaffe to GOP Chairman Michael Steele's insistence that he resign. (What's next? "Michael Steele: Another Black Guy Who Can't Take a Joke"?) As the story develops, look for Sharpton, Obama, and other black "leaders" to stick by Reid. . . as long as doing so doesn't jeopardize the health care bill. The minute it does, they'll denounce him from the very rooftops of Washington.
The only question is whether or not they'll have their Negro dialects in the "on" position.
-GM
GM,
How many racially inspired posts does this make for us? Four? Five?
My biggest curiosity is whether or not Reid would have been under any fire if he hadn't used the word "Negro." I suspect so. I assume there still would have been outrage if he had said, "Obama can win because his skin is light for a black man and because he doesn't speak like some uneducated black people tend to speak." Other than his use of the diet N-word, there is practically no difference between that comment and the one he actually made. And that comment is unadulterated truth. In most elections--2000 and 2004 excluded--we like our presidential candidates to sound like they went to college. Yet it's hard to imagine that, in a society where being "progressive" means accepting racial differences without daring to acknowledge them, such a remark would go over well...
...which leads us to your complaint. Reid somehow managed to escape most of the wrath that would have been coming to him if he hadn't been a Democrat. Secretly, though, the Donkeys must be fuming! "Look, Harry, we can't claim the social moral high ground if you don't abide by our ever-evolving rules of racism. Thank God we have the media!"
Of course you're right that the race card is a political weapon, and Republicans have no answer for it so far. This is why I fear for the future of the GOP. While immigration continues to bring us closer to the point that whites are just another minority, the Left has redefined racism to include any political disagreement with a non-white. And considering that most non-whites in America vote Democrat, we'll either continue to see a shift in what constitutes conservatism, or we won't see a Republican in the White House for a while. We may have an occasional laugh at Mormons and Catholics for having so many children, but they're certainly doing their part to keep the red states red.
-JW
Friday, January 8, 2010
Beating the Clock to a Playoff Countdown
Editor's Note: This piece went up at 7:55 ET. If you're reading it after the games inevitably went against us, try to understand . . . and be generous.
JW,
Perhaps anticipating a playoff weekend composed largely of Week 17 rematches, I stayed away from the NFL last Sunday. (Yeah, I watched Chris Johnson's run at 2,000 yards, but is it really the NFL if neither team cares about the final score?) As a result, I'm fresh as a daisy--completely ignorant of how things went down and unaffected by Week 17's weirdness. Is Dallas twenty-four points better than Philadelphia? Is Green Bay twenty-six points better than Arizona? Is New York thirty-seven points better than Cincinnati? I have no f-----g idea!
In that spirit, how about a playoff preview based entirely on happenstance and gossip? It's not a better look at this weekend's action, but it's certainly a Smarter one.
New York at Cincinnati
As I mentioned on Tuesday, I learned nothing about the New York Jets this season. Nevertheless, they led the league with 2,756 rushing yards in my absence, carrying the ball more than six hundred times (compared to fewer than four hundred passes--the fewest in the league) and relying heavily on the ageless (but AARP-eligible) Thomas Jones. On the other side of the ball, the Jets gave up fewer than one hundred yards per game on the ground (8th place league-wide) and almost five hundred fewer yards through the air than second-best Buffalo. If this game were being played in 1970, when running the ball and stopping the run actually did win championships, the Jets would absolutely demolish the Bengals. As it stands, I like them winning closely when Cincinnati's two-minute drill fails. And forget the curse of the rookie quarterback on the road. Everything about the Jets' play this season suggests that they will not allow Mark Sanchez to lose this game for them.
Eagles at Cowboys
Both of these teams want badly to choke--Dallas for historical reasons and Philadelphia to satisfy Donovan McNabb's yearnings to leave behind the least satisfied fan base in the history of Hall of Fame careers. Can this game end with both quarterbacks and coaches being burned in effigy? Does the NFL postseason have ties? If not, look for Dallas to win the battle of the trenches and upset Andy Reid's perfect record (!) in the first round of the playoffs. I like the fact that Philadelphia scores on big plays. I dislike the fact that they can only score on big plays. Dallas, your choke will probably have to wait until round two.
Baltimore at New England
After last year's travesty of a win in Tennessee, Baltimore deserves to be screwed out of this win. Who better to take it from them than a coach who cheats! New England has had one of the strangest season's in recent NFL history--absolutely destroying Atlanta, Tennessee, and Jacksonville, but losing to Denver, Miami, and Houston in games where a little more heart would have gotten it done. I have no idea what to make of this Patriots team. Why couldn't they get hot and win the Super Bowl? Why couldn't they lose this game by thirty? The only thing I know for sure is that if Julian Edelman fills Welker's shoes without missing a beat, the Pats' locker room needs to be examined for witchcraft. Will no injury derail this franchise? Is their system really that perfect? I say no. In fact, I'm picking the upset. Baltimore blitzes its way to a win, followed by Roger Goodell and Tom Brady filing civil suit and winning rights to Ray Lewis' dance. It was only a matter of time.
Green Bay at Arizona
The ultimate finesse game is also the hardest game to call. Every sign points to a big Green Bay win, but Arizona's level of play can absolutely not be predicted. My feeling is that the Cardinals' best game beats the Packers' best, but who knows whether or not they'll bring it. What I am sure of is that running backs and punters need not suit up for this one. Sounds like a can't-miss to me.
-GM
GM,
Since I can't argue with or add to anything you're saying, I'll just spout out some thoughts that come to my mind in order of their arrival. Then I'll direct my attention to last night's national title game, which you, perhaps rightfully if we're just speaking of the game itself, failed to mention.
- As you alluded to, Andy Reid is 7-0 in opening playoff games! Quite an amazing stat, but he's also 1-4 in conference championship games. Then again, so was Bill Cowher before winning it all. This proves that owners should tolerate coaches who consistently win, even if they don't win the big one.
- Not being reported at all is that Bill Belichick is 6-0 in playoff openers.
- The Jets/Bengals game may be the hardest to predict, but the winner will definitely lose to the Colts or Chargers in the second round--magnificently.
- Tony Romo has never won a playoff game. Wade Phillips has never won a playoff game. Today is the 10th anniversary of the Music City Miracle. The Bills' coach: Wade himself.
- The Packers aren't 26 points better than the Cardinals, but they are better. I disagree with your assumption that Arizona at its best beats Green Bay at its, mainly because a completely-clicking Packers team looks better to me than every team but a completely-clicking New Orleans, which, by the way, is long dead.
- ESPN's Chris Mortensen just said he expects Pete Carroll to be the Seahawks' coach by early next week! Whoah.
College football managed to deny us its only totally meaningful game of the year last night. We all assumed Alabama was better than Texas, so the game was billed as Colt McCoy vs. Alabama. Could the face of the Longhorns since Vince Young's departure manage to pull an upset over the team that clearly had the best season up to that point? Thanks to a fluky, seemingly mild injury, we didn't get to see it. And it's not fair to anyone. Not to Alabama, which, despite probably being the better team anyway, will now have a huge shadow cast over its 13th national championship. Not to Texas, which was denied a fair shake. Not to the fans, who had to make themselves believe that it was fair--or at least most fair--that Texas played in the game over Cincinnati, TCU, or Boise State.
Most of all, it wasn't fair to Nick Saban. He didn't deserve that kind of cushy treatment. The same joyless bastard who screwed my Dolphins managed to have the worst coaching performance in big-game history and still win. He tried a shamefully bad fake punt that his defense bailed him out of, and he turned around and asked the same defense to protect an 18-point halftime lead while shutting down the offense. Then, despite enjoying better weather than 98 percent of the country, he acted like his Gatorade bath would kill him right there on the sideline. The post-game press conference reeked of more austerity, as we watched Saban impersonate his mentor, Bill Belichick, as if acting like an ass at season's end would still provide some sort of psychological advantage. His straw hat is Belichick's scissored hoody. "You think this looks stupid? F--k you, world. I'm a champion."
-JW
JW,
Perhaps anticipating a playoff weekend composed largely of Week 17 rematches, I stayed away from the NFL last Sunday. (Yeah, I watched Chris Johnson's run at 2,000 yards, but is it really the NFL if neither team cares about the final score?) As a result, I'm fresh as a daisy--completely ignorant of how things went down and unaffected by Week 17's weirdness. Is Dallas twenty-four points better than Philadelphia? Is Green Bay twenty-six points better than Arizona? Is New York thirty-seven points better than Cincinnati? I have no f-----g idea!
In that spirit, how about a playoff preview based entirely on happenstance and gossip? It's not a better look at this weekend's action, but it's certainly a Smarter one.
New York at Cincinnati
As I mentioned on Tuesday, I learned nothing about the New York Jets this season. Nevertheless, they led the league with 2,756 rushing yards in my absence, carrying the ball more than six hundred times (compared to fewer than four hundred passes--the fewest in the league) and relying heavily on the ageless (but AARP-eligible) Thomas Jones. On the other side of the ball, the Jets gave up fewer than one hundred yards per game on the ground (8th place league-wide) and almost five hundred fewer yards through the air than second-best Buffalo. If this game were being played in 1970, when running the ball and stopping the run actually did win championships, the Jets would absolutely demolish the Bengals. As it stands, I like them winning closely when Cincinnati's two-minute drill fails. And forget the curse of the rookie quarterback on the road. Everything about the Jets' play this season suggests that they will not allow Mark Sanchez to lose this game for them.
Eagles at Cowboys
Both of these teams want badly to choke--Dallas for historical reasons and Philadelphia to satisfy Donovan McNabb's yearnings to leave behind the least satisfied fan base in the history of Hall of Fame careers. Can this game end with both quarterbacks and coaches being burned in effigy? Does the NFL postseason have ties? If not, look for Dallas to win the battle of the trenches and upset Andy Reid's perfect record (!) in the first round of the playoffs. I like the fact that Philadelphia scores on big plays. I dislike the fact that they can only score on big plays. Dallas, your choke will probably have to wait until round two.
Baltimore at New England
After last year's travesty of a win in Tennessee, Baltimore deserves to be screwed out of this win. Who better to take it from them than a coach who cheats! New England has had one of the strangest season's in recent NFL history--absolutely destroying Atlanta, Tennessee, and Jacksonville, but losing to Denver, Miami, and Houston in games where a little more heart would have gotten it done. I have no idea what to make of this Patriots team. Why couldn't they get hot and win the Super Bowl? Why couldn't they lose this game by thirty? The only thing I know for sure is that if Julian Edelman fills Welker's shoes without missing a beat, the Pats' locker room needs to be examined for witchcraft. Will no injury derail this franchise? Is their system really that perfect? I say no. In fact, I'm picking the upset. Baltimore blitzes its way to a win, followed by Roger Goodell and Tom Brady filing civil suit and winning rights to Ray Lewis' dance. It was only a matter of time.
Green Bay at Arizona
The ultimate finesse game is also the hardest game to call. Every sign points to a big Green Bay win, but Arizona's level of play can absolutely not be predicted. My feeling is that the Cardinals' best game beats the Packers' best, but who knows whether or not they'll bring it. What I am sure of is that running backs and punters need not suit up for this one. Sounds like a can't-miss to me.
-GM
GM,
Since I can't argue with or add to anything you're saying, I'll just spout out some thoughts that come to my mind in order of their arrival. Then I'll direct my attention to last night's national title game, which you, perhaps rightfully if we're just speaking of the game itself, failed to mention.
- As you alluded to, Andy Reid is 7-0 in opening playoff games! Quite an amazing stat, but he's also 1-4 in conference championship games. Then again, so was Bill Cowher before winning it all. This proves that owners should tolerate coaches who consistently win, even if they don't win the big one.
- Not being reported at all is that Bill Belichick is 6-0 in playoff openers.
- The Jets/Bengals game may be the hardest to predict, but the winner will definitely lose to the Colts or Chargers in the second round--magnificently.
- Tony Romo has never won a playoff game. Wade Phillips has never won a playoff game. Today is the 10th anniversary of the Music City Miracle. The Bills' coach: Wade himself.
- The Packers aren't 26 points better than the Cardinals, but they are better. I disagree with your assumption that Arizona at its best beats Green Bay at its, mainly because a completely-clicking Packers team looks better to me than every team but a completely-clicking New Orleans, which, by the way, is long dead.
- ESPN's Chris Mortensen just said he expects Pete Carroll to be the Seahawks' coach by early next week! Whoah.
College football managed to deny us its only totally meaningful game of the year last night. We all assumed Alabama was better than Texas, so the game was billed as Colt McCoy vs. Alabama. Could the face of the Longhorns since Vince Young's departure manage to pull an upset over the team that clearly had the best season up to that point? Thanks to a fluky, seemingly mild injury, we didn't get to see it. And it's not fair to anyone. Not to Alabama, which, despite probably being the better team anyway, will now have a huge shadow cast over its 13th national championship. Not to Texas, which was denied a fair shake. Not to the fans, who had to make themselves believe that it was fair--or at least most fair--that Texas played in the game over Cincinnati, TCU, or Boise State.
Most of all, it wasn't fair to Nick Saban. He didn't deserve that kind of cushy treatment. The same joyless bastard who screwed my Dolphins managed to have the worst coaching performance in big-game history and still win. He tried a shamefully bad fake punt that his defense bailed him out of, and he turned around and asked the same defense to protect an 18-point halftime lead while shutting down the offense. Then, despite enjoying better weather than 98 percent of the country, he acted like his Gatorade bath would kill him right there on the sideline. The post-game press conference reeked of more austerity, as we watched Saban impersonate his mentor, Bill Belichick, as if acting like an ass at season's end would still provide some sort of psychological advantage. His straw hat is Belichick's scissored hoody. "You think this looks stupid? F--k you, world. I'm a champion."
-JW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
