The Camp Guy's Blog

The Camp Guy's blog is where you can find worthwhile opinions on the world of sports. I may take the side of the idealists, but hey, that's who I am, an idealist and a purist. You can learn a lot about our society by observing the things we celebrate the most... and what do we celebrate more than our athletes? I do weekly NFL picks, articles on the NBA, commentary on the lives of the Pros, and more. Check in with me each week as I update you on the world of sports as you know it...

Friday, December 30, 2005

Week 17, NFL Picks... and, other stuff...

Chargers over Broncos - The Chargers might be the best non-playoff team in my lifetime.

Giants over Raiders - The Raiders are bad, bad, bad.

Steelers over Lions - I love Hines Ward. What a stud. Is there a more easy to like player in the entire NFL? This guy plays harder than anyone, and he SMILES the whole time!

Cardinals over Colts - Weird.

Panthers over Falcons - Michael Vick is SO over-rated. I'd love to hear from anyone who disagrees.

Buccaneers over Saints - I feel like the Bucs have fooled people into thinking they are a decent team, but they're not. It's just that the Saints are worse.

Ravens over Browns - I'm starting Jamal Lewis on my fantasy team this week. His history against the Browns is top shelf material.

Seahawks over Packers - Here's hoping that the Texans win, the Saints lose, the Packers lose and as a result, the Saints have the first pick, take Leinart, and then the Pack get pick #2, and get Bush. I'd love to see Bush doing the Lambeau leap. Probably not gonna happen....

Bills over Jets - When Kelly Holcomb is CLEARLY your best QB, you have problems.

Patriots over Dolphins - Nick Saban should be in the discussion for coach of the year. I know Lovie Smith, Marvin Lewis and Tony Dungy are getting a lot of attention, but Saban is really doing good things with this team.

Chiefs over Bengals - I'm assuming the Bengals don't play their starters for too long.

Jags over Titans - Is Garrard better than Leftwich? At this point, I might just keep him in there if I'm Jack Del Rio....

Vikings over Bears - A great defense is really just fun to watch. I know it can seem boring to some, but if you really love pure football, watching a ferocious, swarming defense is pure entertainment.

Skins over Eagles - 6-10 means a better draft pick than 7-9. Go Skins! At some point, you have to think like GM and not like a fan.

Cowboys over Rams - Parcells might retire. I'd retire, too if I had to coach Keyshawn Johnson.

and in the Reggie Bush Bowl (drumroll please)

49ers over the Texans - Let's be honest, the Texans aren't gonna let this one slip away. They don't want to win. They want the pick of the litter. They want Reggie Bush! Also, the 49ers WANT to win. Badly. They can't afford to pay for another super high draft pick. Besides, the Niners are a better team...


Leave me a comment if you want...

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Fighting in Sports

Did you see the fight on Monday Night Football between Patriot's RB Corey Dillon and Jets LB Jonathan Vilma? It was incredible. First of all, they both unleashed multiple punches, grappling for nearly a minute, just wailing on eachother. Then, suddently, Vilma ripped off Corey Dillon's helmet and started beating him over the head with it like big, silver club. What was really amazing was that the fight wasn't broken up, the refs sort of just let it happen and the teammates of both players just stood by and watched, apparently amused by the whole scenario. The crowd cheered loudly and eventually, the fight ended. Vilma was ejected from the game, and Dillon was held out of play for a few minutes. Then, today, the NFL laid down a measly $2,500 fine on Vilma for his brutal attack. The whole thing just blows my mind! If you missed it then...



you're just like the rest of us. This fight never happened. The NFL would never let something like that happen.


But an identical situation DID occur in the NHL on Monday night, and you know what? I'm sick of it. Toronto's Darcy Tucker and New Jersey's Cam Janssen decided they needed to shed eachother's blood, so they went at it for a while. Tucker then ripped off Jannsen's helmet and bashed him on the head with it. Only one of the players (Tucker) was ejected, the NHL isn't taking major action and SportsCenter glorified these thugs for all to see. Are you KIDDING me?!?! This is backwards, rotten and hurtful to the word 'Sport'.

The problem here isn't Tucker, or Janssen, or any player (like Tie Domi, for instance) that fights often. They are simply a product of a larger problem. NHL hockey, itself. Now, don't get me wrong, there's a lot to love about hockey. I lived in Canada for 3 years and I learned a lot about the sport, its culture and its people. Lot's a of good there, but the NHL and the leagues that feed the NHL have OK'ed this senseless, shameless brutality, and that's not right.

My basic problem with the league-sponsored fistfights is that many people will now try to tell you it's part of the sport. What? How is that part of the sport? What is sporting about this crap? Generally, the guys who start fights are expendable. They are fighting because they're some sort of of goon/intimidator who goes around punching people in the temple for the soul purpose of getting other, more valuable players booted from the game. Sure that can be considered "strategy" in some warped way, but the only reason anyone considers it strategy is because the league condones it. To any rational person, it's just dirty, cheap and underhanded.

The NHL is the problem. Since the actual sport of hockey can't seem to compete with the other major leagues in terms of popular interest, they have resorted to turning their league (and subsequently their sport) into a sideshow. The NHL should be more responsible than that. They should realize that they basically have a monopoly in North America (and much of the world) on what kids recognize as good hockey and should develop their sport around how it SHOULD be played, what makes for better hockey/better hockey players... not around how the average drunken man in Detroit or Montreal reacts when a player gets popped in the nose.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for tough guys. I love a good hit and I think hockey has plenty of room for TONS of hits, checks, elbows, blood, guts, etc... However, there is a difference between toughness within the bounds of what is good for the sport, and "toughness" that is simply on display for no good reason other than the almighty dollar.

I'm sure the NBA could make fistfights legal, and players like Ben Wallace could donkey punch Kobe Bryant every so often until he fought back, and sure some drunken bozo in the stands would love every second of it, but would it be good for the sport? No. It would deteriorate further, a sport that has already strayed from its purpose (see Magic, Larry, MJ and Isaiah for the definition of real basketball).

The fighting in the NHL must be outlawed. If players fight, it should be broken up immediately by the refs and both players should be ejected, fined extensively and possibly suspended for a game. What's more, repeat offenders should have increasingly harsher penalties so that teams can ill afford to sign on goons. The brand of hockey that can and will result from a fight-free league would be a higher caliber than the slop we see today. I promise.


That's what I think, take it or leave it...

Thursday, December 22, 2005

OVER-RATED/UNDER-RATED...

Over-rated/Under-rated is one of the all-time best games. You can do it with pretty much anything, food, movies, music, politicians, athletes, coaches... anything. Basically, you just make a list of things you think are over-rated (or under-rated) and then your friends/family/teammates can argue with you. It's a hoot.

The biggest misconception in this game is that people will often mistake an 'over-rated' rating for a 'bad' rating. For instance, I think the Beatles are a great band. Maybe the best ever. And yet, I would say they are over-rated, simply because of the unimaginable amount of credit they get, as compared to other bands. Same with Michael Jordan. I certainly think he's the best basketball player of all time, and yet, I think he's over-rated. Essentially, people end up thinking that you think the Beatles and MJ are not that good, when you're really saying that they are AWESOME, just a little bit less great than they are given credit for being. Avoid this mistake and the game is tons of fun. This game is based on the premise that NOTHING is perfectly rated. It's either under-rated or over-rated.

For example, I think orange juice is over-rated. I think Barry Sanders is under-rated. I think the '91 Eagles defense is under-rated, I think Dan Marino is over-rated, I think Karl Malone is over-rated, I think Emmitt Smith is over-rated, I think Dominique Wilkins was over-rated and I think Michael Vick is over-rated. See? You're getting all worked up, aren't you?

I think from now on, Thursdays will be "Over-rated/Under-rated" day. Today's topic, Tom Brady. Is he over-rated or under-rated?

My buddy and I have been talking about this all day. On the one hand, you could argue that Tom Brady receives too much credit and is considered better than he actually is solely because he happened to win 3 Super Bowls, got lucky on the 'Tuck Rule' play and was surrounded by talent.

On the other hand, you could argue that he was the very reason the Pats made a run in the first place and he was personally responsible for winning all three of those games, when it mattered, in the clutch, with his arm, and deserves even MORE credit than he has gotten thanks to the fame of Charlie Weis, Romeo Crennel, Belichick, the Pats Defense, etc., etc.

It's a vicious cycle. We've been arguing about it all day long, and quite frankly, the innocent bystanders in our heated debate are getting pretty tired of it. But it's still fun. What do you think? Over-rated or Under-rated?

I think Brady is slightly under-rated. I think most people aren't quite ready to put him ahead of Staubach, Favre, Aikman, Bradshaw and Young. I disagree with these folks. I think Brady is a top 5 all-time QB. I haven't always thought this, but he has convinced me. It used to really bother me when people compared Brady to Montana, but it doesn't bother me as much anymore. I still think Montana was the best of all time, but I think Brady is closer than people give him credit for. I'd still put Montana, Elway, Unitas and MAYBE Marino ahead of him, but that's it.

Tell me what you think. Brady, is he over-rated or under-rated?

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Brett Favre

Many people have declared that the Brett Favre Era is over. They are probably right. Last night, in Baltimore, he and the Packers lost 48-3 against one of the worst teams in the league. It was hard to watch, and quite frankly, I think Brett has been in over his head all season.

You see, I think the Brett Favre era ended when Green Bay let two of their best O-linemen and their best DB go in free agency. It ended further when Javon Walker blew out his knee. It ended even more when Ahman Green's season ended early and it is very much over today. In fact, the Brett Favre era has been over for a while. Brett can make a good team better, and on some nights, he can put a bad team on his shoulders and gunsling his way to a win (or at least a close loss like the MNF game this year against Carolina). The fact is, the Packers are HORRIBLE. Their O-line is bad. Their best RB was a 3rd string I-AA player. Their defense gave up 48 against KYLE BOLLER!! They stink.

Joe Montana couldn't win with these suckers. Neither could Elway or Marino or Unitas. They suck, and that's that. The difference is, Montana and Unitas might lose a bit less dramatically. They'd probably lead one or two TD drives a game that made them look respectable. They'd never force a pass, never take big chances, etc. They'd still lose, but they'd lose in a way that would convince people that they were not the problem.

Brett Favre has no interest in being conservative. He KNOWS that the only way the Pack can win a game, even against the lowly Ravens, is to go for broke. So he does it. Sure he could have managed some games better this year, including last night, but he still would have lost all of them. The Packers are NO GOOD. That's why they lose. It's not because of Brett Favre's 2 interceptions a game.

Now, having said that, I think Brett's gunslinging was A-ok when his arm was top-shelf, when his O-line could block, when he was surrounded by above average talent and when he was at the peak of his athletic ability. But as he has aged, his arm has weakened, his feet have slowed and his the level of talent around him (particularly in front of him) has gotten steadily worse. This is a bad combo.

It used to be that he could throw off his back foot and still leave bruises on his receivers hands. Now the ball hangs a bit longer, waiting to be picked off. It used to be that he could outrun linebackers when he was in trouble. Now he gets run down by 260 pound young men, hungry for a roster spot. He's old. His arm is old. And more importantly, his style of play is old. The gunslinger is dead. The methodical, cold blooded QB who is more scientist than gambler (Brady, Manning, Palmer, Brees, McNabb) is absolutely necessary in today's NFL. The all important turnover ratio has no time for Favre, and because he has refused to change, he has been exposed.

I would still take Favre over Vick, Collins, Brooks, Carr, Brunell, Grossman, Garcia, Warner, Smith, Boller, Losman and others, but he is no longer one of the premier QBs in the league. He had his time, and he was fun to watch for a string of seasons that I will not soon forget. But his time has passed. What's sad is, usually I don't care at all about aging players continuing to play past their prime and into insignificance, in fact, I encourage it. With Favre, it's different. It's not just his physical tools that are waning. I think his ability to win the game with his HEAD has been diminished, and that is much sadder to watch.

I love Brett Favre. I'll always be a fan for what he brought to the NFL, for his energy and boyish love for the game. He was a refreshing player in a world of money hungry prima-donnas. If he comes back to play next year, I'll cheer for him as loud as I always do. I just hope he doesn't...

Sunday, December 18, 2005

The Thing About Backups

Sometimes in the NFL, a starter will get benched, or hurt or whatever, and the backup, who you are SURE isn't that good, comes in and plays pretty well, sometimes shows some flashes of real ability, and confuses you into thinking he could actually be a very good QB in the NFL. Everyone hopes he'll be a diamond in the rough, and then within the next few weeks, he falls apart and shows his true 'backup' colors. (Koy Detmer has done it before, Bobby Hoying did it, Rex Grossman did it tonight, Sage Rosenfels has done it, Ryan Fitzpatrick did it this season and Brooks Bollinger even looked decent at one point this year).

Now, of course a backup QB is a backup for a reason, maybe a couple of reasons. All these reasons are valid and sometimes backup QBs are just downright BAD. And, on the flip side, some backups have been unjustly riding the pine. But I've noticed that often some pretty average QBs make a flash in the pan performance, and I had often speculated that there was a pattern, a good reason.

What I think it comes down to, is that the NFL is so specific, and each defense is so finely trained to react to the starting QB as part of their game plan, they don't quite know what to do when a backup comes in. They don't have their timing right, their pass rush is affected by the depth of the backup's drop, the DBs and LBs are thrown off by QBs tendencies to look off receivers, arm strength, timing on routes and running ability, and the coaches who meticulously put together these gameplans are at a loss, because they haven't had weeks of film to study on this guy. I know this sounds elementary, but keep your eyes open for this phenomenon. It's worth observing.

A week later, after the NFL has a week to study you, they make you look like the imposter you really are (most of the time). The NFL is so scientific, so meticulous, so precise with their planning, so perfect with their film study, that you'll only fool a decent team once. Fool 'em twice, and you might just be a decent QB (Steve Young, Brad Johnson, Tom Brady, etc.)!

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

J. Whyatt Mondesire is a Moron!

In what I can only describe as an idiotic and pointless display of his inability to understand the NFL, history, football in general and race as it pertains to the sports world, J. Whyatt Mondesire (President of the Philadelphia chapter of the NAACP) wrote a scathing editorial about Donovan McNabb yesterday. Among other things, he accused McNabb of selling out his race (because he doesn't run the ball enough), blamed him for the Owens turmoil (because he didn't donate his salary to the biggest cancer in the NFL) and essentially brushed aside the fact that his performance this year has been GREATLY influenced by the multiple injuries he has suffered.

Let me speak to this last point, first. Donovan McNabb has a HERNIA. A tear in the muscles lining your abdomen, and a big one. If you've never had one, you can't understand how much it hurts. It's unbearable. For this injury (let alone the bruised sternum and severe groin pull) to be shrugged off by the pundits is a mistake. Throwing a football or running at all SHOULD be impossible, but McNabb sucked it up, made no excuses and tried his best to play through it. Mondesire's inability to understand how much this injury affected McNabb's play is a testament to his lack of experience with pro sports, injuries and physical pain in general.

Next, let's address the claim that McNabb is selling out, because he is a black quarterback and isn't running the ball enough. Now, don't get me wrong, regardless of the injury, I wish McNabb would run the ball more. I do. I think there have been multiple times this year where I have thought that teams realized that he simply wasn't going to run, and therefore, have neglected to "spy" him (a term I'm sure Mondesire wouldn't understand. "Spying" is where you dedicate a linebacker or strong safety to the complete, isolated defense of the QB scramble/run on a given play). If McNabb ran the ball a few more time (again, assuming good health) I think it would do the Birds some good.

Having said that, I see no reason why McNabb is "selling out" because he has dedicated himself to the West Coast offense and to becoming a good pocket passer. McNabb isn't selling anyone out. He's doing his job. He'd be selling out his teammates if he ran simply because Mondesire told him it was the 'black' thing to do. In the offense he plays in, he must allow passing situations to develop. If he doesn't, and gets happy feet, and runs often, like Mondesire suggests, he will kill the West Coast offense that Reid has implemented. Don't forget that Mr. Happy Feet, Michael Vick, lost to McNabb in the NFC championship last year and the winner of the Super Bowl has been a pocket passer for a decade. Don't forget that McNabb had the best TD/INT ratio in the league (and for years) last year with 30 TDs and only 8 ints. He also ran for 220 yards and 3 touchdowns. He threw three bad passes in the Super Bowl (which led to a close loss) and no one recognizes that fact as much as I do. But his performance in the Super Bowl is unrelated to his recent lack of running ability.

Again, it's mostly to do with injury, offense, coaching, talent of his WRs and strategy. Donovan ran when he was younger because he struggled with reading defenses (as many young QBs do) and he had terrible receivers that couldn't get open (anyone remember Na Brown?). Last year, he had a good receiving corps, and therefore, needed to run less. He ran Reid's offense to perfection. It's a tough offense, and it requires precision. Last year they had that precision. They had all the necessary parts. This year he hasn't been healthy, he hasn't had TO, he hasn't had some of his O-line, he hasn't had Pinkston and as a result, he has struggled with the passing. If McNabb was having the same season he had last year, would his lack of running be an issue? NO! It's unfortunate that Mondesire is taking this cheap shot at a player who has already suffered enough and, in my mind, has done ONLY good things for the NFL, his teammates, his city and for the perception of professional athletes in general (of ANY race!). McNabb has been classy under fire, even when caught in the middle of some terrible media scrutiny. He has dealt with his own imperfections well and he will continue to improve. He has not lashed out, reacted with harsh words or been overtly negative to even his worst critics. McNabb is a class act, and young athletes of any race, in any sport, should take a page out of his book of decorum. (I'd simply advise them to avoid throwing the ball to Tedy Bruschi...)

Finally, Mondesire calls McNabb out for not donating his money to The Mouth (or, T.O. to the lay person). Are you kidding me? Somehow, it's McNabb's fault for being paid richly after becoming the most important Philly athlete since Dr. J? Gimme a break. T.O. signed a friggen' contract!! It paid him millions of dollars a year! It was a LONG TERM contract, worth about 8 million a year! And somehow, Mondesire is blaming McNabb for not shelling out more for a guy who has now proven, over and over, that all he cares about is himself? Good grief! Mondesire spins it as if it's McNabb's fault that TO held out and created a media circus... as if McNabb somehow opressed TO and forced him to act like a brat. This is too much. Listen, lots of guys get paid well. That has no bearing on whether their teammates should throw hissy fits. McNabb is completely free of responsibility, and for the amount of crap he's had to deal with, I'd say McNabb has earned every penny of his lifetime contract. It's not as if he put the Eagles in a position where they had no cap room... they have more cap room that 95% of the league!! McNabb is free of blame, in this regard. That issue is between the Eagles and T.O..

Mondesire may be right that McNabb is no Tom Brady (arguably the best pure winner in the NFL's recent history), and he hasn't won a Super Bowl like Doug Williams. But that is not really the issue, right? Is that your complaint, Mondesire? I hope not, because that would be pathetic.

Regardless, it's important to note that McNabb is far better than 'mediocre', as Mondesire describes him. Mark Brunell is mediocre. Kerry Collins is mediocre. Aaron Brooks is mediocre. McNabb is very, very good. One of the best. And when his team has recovered from this terrible turn of events/string of bad luck, he will be back. Throwing, winning, and when necessary, running. I promise.

It's easy to pick on a guy when his team is losing, when he's just been under the knife and when his teammates are injured or suspended. I look forward to Mondesire's thoughts when the Eagles are winning again.

Until then, this is what I think, take it or leave it.


(below you can see the article written by J. Whyatt Mondesire)

Hey McNabb!
Yo--Donny! I'm calling you man.
Hey, soup guy, over here!
Donovan E. McNabb, you hear me callin' you. Will you please pay attention?For a whole lot of years now, we've heard you crying aloud about being taken seriously as a black quarterback who can camp out in the pocket and deliver rifle shots across midfield right into the fingertips of the fleetest of wideouts and tight ends. Say, like a Doug Williams, the brilliant Grambling star quarterback of a generation ago who went on to break a Super Bowl record for touchdown passes in 1988.
Well....well...I've seen you Donovan E. McNabb--in your formative years as well as your mid-career development--and one thing is certain. Donovan E. McNabb you're no Doug Williams.

(The Grambling all-star completed 18 of 29 passes for 340 yards and four touchdowns, capping it off with 35 points in the fourth quarter alone. He followed that performance with three conference championships in 2000, '01 and '02.
Your record is another matter entirely. In fact this whole dismal season so far has really been a testament of fallen dreams and lost opportunities most of which belongs at your feet (or should I say hands) and that of your coach, Andy Reid who has allowed you to perpetuate a fraud on the field while hiding behind excuses dripping in make-believe racial stereotypes.
Normally this column talks very little about sports because the games that grown men play pale in comparison to the great issues of racism, politics, social calamities, health crisis's, war and peace, etc.; which gives us plenty of fertile territory to explore and pontificate about.
However, this week I felt compelled to offer some personal thoughts about your horrific on-field performances this season because at their core, there is a lie you have tried to use to hide the fact that in reality you actually are not that good. In essence Donny, you are mediocre at best. And trying to disguise that fact behind some concocted reasoning that African American quarterbacks who can scramble and who can run the ball are somehow lesser field generals than one who can summon up dead-on passes at a whim, is more insulting off the field than on.
Your athleticism and unpredictability to sometimes run with the ball earlier in your career not only confused defenses, it also thrilled Eagles fans. At last, said many of us, now we have a multifaceted offensive threat whose talents threaten to not just dominate the NFC East Division, but maybe the whole NFL for several years. We were elated. We were in awe.
We celebrated the boss's giving you that huge lifetime salary deal which meant we'd have you around until it was time for you to join the other retired stars in television's broadcast booth.
But then you played the race card and practically all of us fell for your hustle. You scammed us man and there's no way any longer to refrain from "keepin' it real."
We could have remained silent too, if you had found another way to remain effective and a winner. But when your mediocre talent becomes so apparent it's time to call it out.
Through the first four games, you completed 110 of 174 passes (63.2 percent) for a league-leading 1,333 yards and 11 touchdowns.
However, in your last five games, you connected on just 101 of 183 passes (55.2 percent) for 1,174 yards and five touchdowns, while throwing six interceptions, two of which clearly were game losers.
The sports hernia you suffered after the team's Week 3 win over Oakland clearly is a mega factor in the latter numbers.
But who can forget your mind numbing fourth-quarter collapse in last year's Super Bowl against New England.
Andy Reid may not have seen it. Owner Jeff Lurie may have missed it on the videotaped replay. But Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder "saw" it. You choked brother.
The brash and bombastic Terrell Owens may have committed the unpardonable sin of going public with his put down, but was he fundamentally wrong? The pressure, the hype, the clock--they all just converged and your nerve collapsed under their combined weight. Mediocre isn't horrible in and of itself. Most of us don't live up to our dreams. It's when we fake it that most of the rest of us get irritated.
So, for you to continue to deny we fans (as well as yourself) one of the strongest elements of your game by claiming that "everybody expects black quarterbacks to scramble" not only amounts to a breach of faith but also belittles the real struggles of black athletes who've had to overcome real racial stereotypcasting in addition to downright segregation.
College football in the South didn't drop its White Only wall until 1966 four years after James Meredith, while trying to enroll at Ole Miss, which went 10-0 that year, even as its practice field was covered federal troops who had bivouacked there.
Earlier this month Sports Illustrated reporting pioneering black players in the vaunted SEC had to endure serious hardships, such as "Fritz Pollard, the black all-America at Brown during World War I, (who) had learned to spin on his back and thrust his cleats in the air when tackled, to protect himself from late hits; how Iowa State's Jack Trice was trampled to death during a 1923 game against Minnesota; and how in 1951, on the first play from scrimmage, an Oklahoma A&M player broke the jaw of Drake running back Johnny Bright, forcing him to abandon football and causing the school to withdraw in protest from the Missouri Valley Conference."
Hey Donny, see any difference yet in your trumped up racial views and those pioneers?
Taken together, your pretty decent arm, strong desire to win, and your instinctive ability to scramble in the backfield gave you an awesome package. Take away any one of the legs from this tripod, and whole thing falls flat as you are right now as you recuperate from the surgery that was long overdue the day you entered the hospital.
Finally, your failure as a team leader off the field to my mind did as much as anything to exacerbate the debacle that has become synonymous with T.O.'s full name.
Professional football is really more about money that sport. The fans know it. The players signs contracts for it. And, of course the owners know it, since they are first and last ones to count it when the season ends.
Just think how the whole media circus could have been avoided had you had the courage to offer only a tiny fraction of your bonus this year to Owens and running back, Brian Westbrook.The gesture alone would have prompted these guys to run through walls for you. The rest of the team would have praised you. And what the heck were Lurie and team president Joe Banner going to do publicly if they objected or thought you had reach out-of-bounds. Fire you?
Yeah right. Let's really do "keep it real."
Leaders who make sacrifices are the stuff of legends. Who remembers a hoarder except for maybe Midas?
Hey Donny...soup guy! Pull your head out of your million-dollar Campbell's soup bowl for a moment ask which current quarterback in fact made a gesture like that for members of his squad.
Does the name Tom Brady ring a bell? Isn't he the guy who took home last year's Super Bowl ring while you standing in the soup line?

Monday, December 12, 2005

Sorry Folks!

We've had a few weeks of technical difficulties, but we're back online. I'm sure you assumed that I would pick all the NFL games right anyhow. Right? Let's recap the last 2 weeks. Reggie Bush won the Heisman... the Seahawks tripped backwards into another close win and then obliterated the soon to be 5-11 Eagles... the Miami Heat pretended that Stan Van Gundy needed to spend more time with his kids so that Pat Riley could take control of a team that is finally worth his time... Steve Spurrier ranked Notre Dame, like, 14th in the country in the coaches poll (14th!?!?!?!).... Two idiots gave Michael Robinson of Penn State their 1st place votes for the Heisman... the Duke Blue Devils maintained their #1 rank even despite a very close games against VT.... Bodhner's Dominators (my fantasy football team) moved into fifth place in the greatest fantasy football league ever.... the NHL continued its slide towards irrelevance and the Detroit Pistons continue to dominate the Eastern Conference in the NBA. It's been a good couple of weeks.

So, a couple recommendations. One, find a way to listen to Colin Cowherd on ESPN radio. He's pretty insightful, but mostly, he's just hilarious. That guy was born for sports talk radio. His show is on during my drive to work and I just can't get enough. He tells it like it is and keeps the laughs coming.

Also, if you're looking for great sports and social commentary coupled with contemporary humor, look no further than Bill Simmons or The Sports Guy at http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/simmons/index.

(send this blog to your friends by clicking the envelope below)

Monday, December 05, 2005

Great googely moogely, Reggie Bush is GOOD!!

You know what? If we took all the best Heisman candidates from the last 15 years and gave out an "Ultimate Heisman Trophy" (or something with a cooler name), Reggie Bush would win. He's not just the best college football player this year. He's the best, most exciting, most versatile player I've ever seen at the college level.

If USC is ever behind in a game, or in a tight spot, everyone knows they're calling Bush's number. And you know what? It doesn't matter. People have been trying to stop the guy all year long, with little success. He gets to, and turns the corner faster than anyone (dare I say, at ANY level). He is just as threatening as a receiver... and what's worse, he can run between the tackles with the best of them. At 6', 205 Bush is not the most bruising back, but his ability to keep defenders on their heals allows him to run them over whenever he needs to do so.

People have compared him to Gale Sayers, Barry Sanders, Brian Westbrook, Marshall Faulk and others, but the truth is, that's just not being fair to Bush. Not that I'm saying he'll be as successful a pro as any of those guys (I mean, I think he will, but who knows, anything can happen...), but I think to say he's in someone else's mold is unfair. He's a totally new RB and I look forward to watching him win in January this year and for years to come.

If you're interested, check out this link. It's Reggie Bush's high school highlight film and it's just sick. Sick, I tell you!! (string each line together for the proper URL...)

http://video.on.nytimes.com/ifr_main.jsp?nsid=b-6e1d86b3:107de615ee0:20f&st=1133457454511&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;mp=WMP&cpf=true&fr=120105_12
1650_w6e1d86b3x107e74dbc47xw777e&rdm=566054.6788326055

Saturday, December 03, 2005

Michael Irvin, Drugs and Youth Sports...

Those of us that believe that there is a "right way" to do things in the world of sports, won a big battle two weeks ago when Terrell Owens and his agent were quieted by the Eagles & the NFL. Coaches and parents all over America are now able to point to that incident and say, "Look what happens when you are a selfish, prima donna that could care less about your teammates... you lose everything, including respect."

Well, there is a new problem. Michael Irvin. He isn't so different that T.O. Michael Irvin was a great receiver in the 90's, he played on some of the best Cowboy teams of all time. His stats speak for themselves and he will probably end up in the Hall of Fame. That's the problem. Michael Irvin wasn't just a bad guy when he was in the NFL, he was abhorrent. He and some of his teammates participated in parties that would have made the Vikings Love Boat cruise seem totally innocent. The "White House" (in Dallas) and the things that happened there are no secret among those that know anything about the NFL. You name it, it happened. Hard drugs such as crack, cocaine, heroine; prostitution, adultery and allegedly, rape. Michael Irvin was the ring leader of these parties. He was a bad guy.

Somehow, today, he is up for his 2nd chance at the Hall of Fame. Last week, he was stopped because he had an upaid parking ticket, when a crack pipe and two bags with marijuana residue on them were found. The man hasn't changed. ESPN, who employs Michael Irvin as a commentator, needs to take the necessary steps to distance themselves from the him. Never should have hired Irvin in the first place. Just like the Eagles, ESPN should have known what they were getting themselves into. It is time for ESPN to distance themselves, as an organization, from criminals like Irvin. Stick with Tom Jackson, Steve Young and Chris Berman-types.

When young Americans grow up hearing about Michael Irvin's exploits in the "White House", and then see ESPN gladly hire him for ratings, they are getting the wrong message, which is, "Do what ever you want, as long as you win and bring in a few more ratings points." In Michael Irvin's case, it doesn't even make sense. His commentary is terrible and very biased towards players he has personal relationships with, like T.O.! ESPN needs to make a decision that is good for sports, not just for themselves. What, are people REALLY gonna stop watching ESPN if Irvin is gone? NO! It's the only worthwhile pregame show out there!

The NFL, too, has a decision to make. All the reps of the NFL and media who vote on the Hall of Fame need to take a strong look at Irvin's personal life. I know it has somehow become popular to try to sweep someone's personal life under the rug, but Irvin is an extreme case. Try as they might, no one can erase his past, especially if it keeps surfacing. Irvin shouldn't have been a first ballot Hall of Famer, and I hope against hope that he doesn't make it on this second ballot, either.

For Irvin's sake, I hope he can distance himself from these habits/addictions, but I don't think it is the responsibility of ESPN (a national media source that basically dictates what EVERYONE thinks about sports) and the NFL (the strongest league in the history of the world) to be Michael Irvin apologists (to steal a Dan Patrickism). It may seem harsh, but these decisions need to be made so that the future of sports, so that we can have more Warrick Dunn types (community service guru), more Roger Staubachs (an officer and a gentleman), more Pat Tillmans (a real American hero). More good guys!

That's what I think, take it or leave it.


(send this blog to your friends by clicking the envelope below)