Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Cliche to be wiped from the crust of the planet: "all eyes are on"

While skimming headlines on the sports page of the NY Times, I caught the headline, "Before the N.F.L. Draft, All Eyes Are On the Texans." My first thought was, you gotta love the Times, sticking with those periods in N.F.L. I haven't seen that anywhere else in years. My second thought was, really? All eyes are on the Texans? Hmm. I hadn't heard much about what the Texans are going to do with the 10th pick in the draft, but evidently all eyes are on them.

Then, when skimming the Star Tribune sports page, I learned that "All eyes are on Culpepper in Miami." I suppose that sentence could mean "In Miami, all eyes are on Culpepper." Otherwise, the Times and the Strib seem to be reporting contradictory stories.

To get to the bottom of this, I googled "all eyes are on." 277,000 results. OK, that's not helping. How about "all eyes on." 863,000 hits. Google News tells me that all eyes are on all sorts of things more significant than football. But I have to know: when I'm watching the draft, where should my eyes be focused?!

So I'm stuck. Should my eyes be on the Texans, or on Culpepper? Can they be on both? What about the other teams? Can I have my eyes on them? I thought at least a few people had their eyes on JaMarcus Russell and Brady Quinn. I thought the Vikings might even have eyes on Adrian Peterson. But if everybody else's eyes are on the Texans, should my eyes be there too? Should I trust the paper of record, or should I put my trust in the local scribes? Or are there even some non-football stories out there that people are casting their eyes upon? Are the newspapers lying too me? Are all eyes really not on, Culpepper?

All of my eyes are squinting in frustration.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. All "eyez" are on Tupac, PV. Everyone knows that.

  3. Anonymous8:23 AM

    "So I'm stuck. Should my eyes be on the Texans, or on Culpepper? Can they be on both?"

    If you were a cubist, this wouldn't be a problem :)


  4. I've also been picturing some sort of creature named "Culpepper" that is just covered entirely in eyeballs.

  5. And what about Stuart Scott? Do those with wandering or lazy eyes not get counted as "all"? Great little post on making fun of a phrase we take for granted.