Recently I noted that Tomlinson's TD record may not be quite so impressive, since he's breaking a record that was set in 2000, then 2003, then 2005. It's a breakable record. I seem to recall somebody at Football Outsiders suggested the repeated breaking of this record suggests an era of the workhorse running back.
In a related anecdote, at the end of an NFL season I like to take a look at the updates to the big records. Different things stand out. For example, did you know that this season Steven Jackson came within 100 yards of Marshall Faulk's yards from scrimmage record? Jackson had 2,334, Faulk had 2429 in 1999. But look closer at pro-football-reference.com's leaderboard. All 6 of the top yards from scrimmage seasons since 1960 happened since 1997. The second highest total was in 2005 (Tiki Barber), and 2006 featured the 5th and 6th highest totals (Steven Jackson's 2,334 and Tomlinson's 2,323). 9 of the top 11 yards from scrimmage seasons have occurred since 1999. Two other RBs in 2006 made the list (Larry Johnson's 2,199 and Tiki Barber's 2,127--there's a reason I suggested that if Barber makes the HOF he'll have Tom Coughlin to thank). Evidence seems to suggest that we're in an era where primary running backs are getting a lot of work.
Moving along, here are a few links you might find interesting. Michael David Smith of the Football Outsiders has a column at FOX Sports arguing for Peyton Manning for MVP, and it includes another link to a Michael David Smith column about why quarterbacks shouldn't be judged by Super Bowl rings. Give it some thought.
And finally, assuming no technical issues, a third contributor, Blue Viking Devil, will be added to Pacifist Viking. He can cover a lot more basketball than I can, and he has more internet access than What was that bang? or I do, so we welcome his contributions.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
PV Playoff Preview
I absolutely love the NFL playoffs. I love that playoff games suck up my entire weekend. I love that they come when I'm on break from teaching. I love that every game is televised. I love that no games are played at the same time. I love that every game matters. I love that I only feel slightly guilty for pissing some good days away on my couch imbibing caffeine. I love watching impact defensive players that I don't get to watch much during the regular season. It's a wonderful time of year, so we'll do something we don't usually do at PV: a preview with predictions.
But before we get to the previews, I need to address something for which there is much internal wrangling: Brett Favre crying on national television. Do I hate Favre enough to call him some sort of misogynistic name and lambast him for tearing up? Or do I admire him for expressing his pure honest emotions, and talk about how it's OK for men to cry? I don't know. I'm disappointed that was one of my last images of 2006; let's hope 2007 can be Favre-free for me. Favre is, after all, 6 TD passes short of Marino's record. I'm ecstatic that he didn't break it this year. He's also 4 INTs short of Blanda's record, but I can live with him at #2 for that one if he's #2 for Marino's record. Anyway, I won't make fun of him for crying.
A Bit More Humid chimed in that Favre was crying because his teeth hurt. Congratulations, you just made the blog, I responded. Another person deserving of mention in the blog is Possible Flurries, who last week coined the phrase, "squirt it and desert it."
On to the preview for Wild Card Weekend.
Chiefs at Colts
First, before thinking of taking Larry Johnson in your 2007 fantasy draft, read up Football Outsiders commentary on RBs with 370 carries. Then you have to ask yourself, does Vegan Viking really believe this, or is he trying to fake out his competitors to get Johnson cheaper? Yes, it begins. But yes, I actually believe this, too. The evidence is there.
We can guess, going into this game against Peyton Manning and the Colts, that Herm Edwards will continue to destroy Larry Johnson's legs in an attempt to control the time of possession and keep the ball away from Manning. Teams have been doing it all year. And after all, the Colts have a legendarily bad run defense. It just might work. The Colts also struggle against special teams returns, so Dante Hall could go bananas too.
But I don't think it will. Don't expect a blowout here--the Chiefs can keep it close. But nobody on the Chief's defense scares me. Manning should be able to make good use of every single possession. An upset shouldn't be shocking, but I think the Colts will win by something like 27-24.
Cowboys at Seahawks
A complete tossup. In the regular season, both teams showed the ability to beat good teams and lose to lousy teams. Neither team has looked terribly impressive in the last few weeks. Both coaches have a lot of playoff experience and success. Both teams have impact defensive players capable of forcing turnovers. Both teams have playmaking RBs and WRs that can make big plays at any moment.
So, at the risk of being a simplistic boob, let's try it this way: Tony Romo on the road vs. Matt Hasselbeck at home. How about Seattle 26, Dallas 17.
Jets at Patriots
The best playoff games are on Saturday; Sunday features division rivals who split the regular season matchup. Not terribly exciting stuff. In this game, I'll pick the Patriots 30-13. The Jets marched into the playoffs by beating the 6-10 Vikes, 6-10 Dolphins, and 2-14 Raiders. I think they're set up to get butchered by the Patsies.
Giants at Eagles
I haven't picked a road team yet; here, I'll take the Giants, 27-17. I remember the 2004 playoffs (played during 2005) when the 8-8 Vikes went into Lambeau and pelted the Packers (in my top-5 football fan games) and the 8-8 Rams went and beat the Seahawks in Seattle. Divisional rematches are unpredictable--I don't think regular season records matter, and I don't think location matters. I think the Giants rely on Tiki Barber primarily, and the Jeff Garcia love train ends this weekend. Coming soon, the Vikings sign Jeff Garcia and I give up gin, for which I've built up a strong tolerance, and begin imbibing rum.
But before we get to the previews, I need to address something for which there is much internal wrangling: Brett Favre crying on national television. Do I hate Favre enough to call him some sort of misogynistic name and lambast him for tearing up? Or do I admire him for expressing his pure honest emotions, and talk about how it's OK for men to cry? I don't know. I'm disappointed that was one of my last images of 2006; let's hope 2007 can be Favre-free for me. Favre is, after all, 6 TD passes short of Marino's record. I'm ecstatic that he didn't break it this year. He's also 4 INTs short of Blanda's record, but I can live with him at #2 for that one if he's #2 for Marino's record. Anyway, I won't make fun of him for crying.
A Bit More Humid chimed in that Favre was crying because his teeth hurt. Congratulations, you just made the blog, I responded. Another person deserving of mention in the blog is Possible Flurries, who last week coined the phrase, "squirt it and desert it."
On to the preview for Wild Card Weekend.
Chiefs at Colts
First, before thinking of taking Larry Johnson in your 2007 fantasy draft, read up Football Outsiders commentary on RBs with 370 carries. Then you have to ask yourself, does Vegan Viking really believe this, or is he trying to fake out his competitors to get Johnson cheaper? Yes, it begins. But yes, I actually believe this, too. The evidence is there.
We can guess, going into this game against Peyton Manning and the Colts, that Herm Edwards will continue to destroy Larry Johnson's legs in an attempt to control the time of possession and keep the ball away from Manning. Teams have been doing it all year. And after all, the Colts have a legendarily bad run defense. It just might work. The Colts also struggle against special teams returns, so Dante Hall could go bananas too.
But I don't think it will. Don't expect a blowout here--the Chiefs can keep it close. But nobody on the Chief's defense scares me. Manning should be able to make good use of every single possession. An upset shouldn't be shocking, but I think the Colts will win by something like 27-24.
Cowboys at Seahawks
A complete tossup. In the regular season, both teams showed the ability to beat good teams and lose to lousy teams. Neither team has looked terribly impressive in the last few weeks. Both coaches have a lot of playoff experience and success. Both teams have impact defensive players capable of forcing turnovers. Both teams have playmaking RBs and WRs that can make big plays at any moment.
So, at the risk of being a simplistic boob, let's try it this way: Tony Romo on the road vs. Matt Hasselbeck at home. How about Seattle 26, Dallas 17.
Jets at Patriots
The best playoff games are on Saturday; Sunday features division rivals who split the regular season matchup. Not terribly exciting stuff. In this game, I'll pick the Patriots 30-13. The Jets marched into the playoffs by beating the 6-10 Vikes, 6-10 Dolphins, and 2-14 Raiders. I think they're set up to get butchered by the Patsies.
Giants at Eagles
I haven't picked a road team yet; here, I'll take the Giants, 27-17. I remember the 2004 playoffs (played during 2005) when the 8-8 Vikes went into Lambeau and pelted the Packers (in my top-5 football fan games) and the 8-8 Rams went and beat the Seahawks in Seattle. Divisional rematches are unpredictable--I don't think regular season records matter, and I don't think location matters. I think the Giants rely on Tiki Barber primarily, and the Jeff Garcia love train ends this weekend. Coming soon, the Vikings sign Jeff Garcia and I give up gin, for which I've built up a strong tolerance, and begin imbibing rum.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
What was that bang? checks in on Brad Childress
Listen, folks, I haven't been happy with the 2006 Viking season at all either, but let's give Mr. Childress a break. He's a first-time, first-year head coach. And while we should have high expectations for him, the real serious ripping of such a coach shouldn't begin until year 2. I know, he took over a 9-7 team and made them worse. But if they wanted to make a 9-7 team remain a 9-7 team, they could have hired an experienced coach to maintain everything. They hired a new guy to put in a new system. That usually comes with some suckitude in year one. Not always--Saints fans that are actually back living in their homes should be pretty happy (though that's certainly got as much to do with Drew Brees, Deuce McAllister, Reggie Bush, and Marques Colston, four very good offensive players who combined for 4 games in 2005, and the fact that the Saints were vagabonds last year, as it does with their coach. Sean Payton has done a good job, but his work shouldn't be measured by the improvement of the 2006 Saints over the 2005 Saints--it's practically a different team and in a very different situation). But there's going to be a growing period.
It was great reading newspapers to see fans write in that Childress should have been fired midseason. Yep, he's a bum, let's fire him after week 9 and promote Mike Tomlin, who clearly knows what he's doing. Forget the fact that Childress hired Tomlin to put in the defense he wanted. Forget the fact that this is the NFL, and you don't run a team successfully by giving up on the coach halfway through a season.
Maybe Childress is a bum that deserves to be run out of town, maybe Childress is the coach to lead the Vikes back to the Super Bowl (and win the sucker this time). I don't know, and you know what? You don't either. Your high expectations for 2006 were not met. Fine. Go into 2007 with some skepticism and concern--it's probably a better approach. And if the same problems of 2006 continue into 2007, I'll start posting daily about Brad Childress's suckitude. But I'll wait until sometime in 2007.
All, and I mean all, we can hope for in week 17 is for Tarvaris Jackson to be productive. Nothing else matters.
It was great reading newspapers to see fans write in that Childress should have been fired midseason. Yep, he's a bum, let's fire him after week 9 and promote Mike Tomlin, who clearly knows what he's doing. Forget the fact that Childress hired Tomlin to put in the defense he wanted. Forget the fact that this is the NFL, and you don't run a team successfully by giving up on the coach halfway through a season.
Maybe Childress is a bum that deserves to be run out of town, maybe Childress is the coach to lead the Vikes back to the Super Bowl (and win the sucker this time). I don't know, and you know what? You don't either. Your high expectations for 2006 were not met. Fine. Go into 2007 with some skepticism and concern--it's probably a better approach. And if the same problems of 2006 continue into 2007, I'll start posting daily about Brad Childress's suckitude. But I'll wait until sometime in 2007.
All, and I mean all, we can hope for in week 17 is for Tarvaris Jackson to be productive. Nothing else matters.
Friday, December 29, 2006
The State of the Blog
(This is a rambling and narcissistic examination of what PV is and what it will be--feel free to ignore this post entirely if you're looking for specific sports takes, but feel free to read if you're interesting in blogging and where this blog is going in particular. The football season is winding down, the Vikings are already eliminated, and the new year is coming--it's a good time to take stock and make any desired changes).
The internet is an existentialist and postmodernist dream. Not only can you create and define a new identity, but you can create multiple identities. And then at any point, you can change everything. You can eliminate anything, transform anything, evolve into anything.
I started this blog not so much out of a great desire to write about sports, but out of a desire to write. I like to share ideas, formulate arguments, examine language, and engage in dialogue. Sports, professional coverage of sports, and the sports blogosphere provides a great opportunity to engage in these activities. There are a lot of people out there similarly interested in expressing ideas about sports. It's also a lot of fun.
So here's the question for now: Where do we go from here?
This blog has always been and will always be titled "Pacifist Viking." That title is important. For ten months I've been writing here under this nom de plume, though "What was that bang?" was added as a contributor (he suggested that the tone of PV was too mellow and anxious, and that it lacked energy and emotion. While this accusation might surprise anybody who has watched a Viking game with me--lots of yelling, seething, and jumping around--I re-read some posts and I could see his point. So I invited him on board to share some of his positivity about the Purple). But though I'm still a pacifist and still a viking (and will still probably use that name elsewhere), I'm evolving and transforming into a new identity, "Vegan Viking." I'll still focus this blog on the NFL and the Minnesota Vikings in particular, but I'm going to try and expand into broader sports discussion and analysis (of course, since I have neither internet nor ESPN in my home, spectating the broader sports world is itself a bit of a challenge--we'll see how this evolution goes). I'll try to give unique and eccentric takes on whatever I can in the sports world, because that's why blogs exist. If you want pseudo-objective takes from non-fans, you don't need to read blogs. And as I play around and experiment with different styles and angles (though with many of the same old angles--even though one commenter said I have "given up my licence" (CLICHE! CLICHE!) to criticize the overuse of cliched metaphors by Peter King and other lousy sportswriters, we'll assume that I still do have my license, or at any rate will criticize without licence and see if I get pulled over), I'll still try to focus on the Vikes and football and what I've done in the past. But I don't want to get stagnant, so I'm going to try and push the writing in new directions (I feel a little like Barney of the Be Sharps in that statement).
We'll see if there's a change at all. Sometimes intended transformations lead to more of the same--Vegan Viking may become Vegetarian Viking or may revert back to Pacifist Viking. Regardless of how the new angles go, What was that bang? has expressed a desire and intention to write more often here about the Vikings in particular. So whatever I write about, we'll still have his overly optimistic yet angry takes on what our beloved Purple is up to.
The internet is an existentialist and postmodernist dream. Not only can you create and define a new identity, but you can create multiple identities. And then at any point, you can change everything. You can eliminate anything, transform anything, evolve into anything.
I started this blog not so much out of a great desire to write about sports, but out of a desire to write. I like to share ideas, formulate arguments, examine language, and engage in dialogue. Sports, professional coverage of sports, and the sports blogosphere provides a great opportunity to engage in these activities. There are a lot of people out there similarly interested in expressing ideas about sports. It's also a lot of fun.
So here's the question for now: Where do we go from here?
This blog has always been and will always be titled "Pacifist Viking." That title is important. For ten months I've been writing here under this nom de plume, though "What was that bang?" was added as a contributor (he suggested that the tone of PV was too mellow and anxious, and that it lacked energy and emotion. While this accusation might surprise anybody who has watched a Viking game with me--lots of yelling, seething, and jumping around--I re-read some posts and I could see his point. So I invited him on board to share some of his positivity about the Purple). But though I'm still a pacifist and still a viking (and will still probably use that name elsewhere), I'm evolving and transforming into a new identity, "Vegan Viking." I'll still focus this blog on the NFL and the Minnesota Vikings in particular, but I'm going to try and expand into broader sports discussion and analysis (of course, since I have neither internet nor ESPN in my home, spectating the broader sports world is itself a bit of a challenge--we'll see how this evolution goes). I'll try to give unique and eccentric takes on whatever I can in the sports world, because that's why blogs exist. If you want pseudo-objective takes from non-fans, you don't need to read blogs. And as I play around and experiment with different styles and angles (though with many of the same old angles--even though one commenter said I have "given up my licence" (CLICHE! CLICHE!) to criticize the overuse of cliched metaphors by Peter King and other lousy sportswriters, we'll assume that I still do have my license, or at any rate will criticize without licence and see if I get pulled over), I'll still try to focus on the Vikes and football and what I've done in the past. But I don't want to get stagnant, so I'm going to try and push the writing in new directions (I feel a little like Barney of the Be Sharps in that statement).
We'll see if there's a change at all. Sometimes intended transformations lead to more of the same--Vegan Viking may become Vegetarian Viking or may revert back to Pacifist Viking. Regardless of how the new angles go, What was that bang? has expressed a desire and intention to write more often here about the Vikings in particular. So whatever I write about, we'll still have his overly optimistic yet angry takes on what our beloved Purple is up to.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Be a pretentious football fan: read statistical websites
I know that title sounds sarcastic, but it's not. You will be smarter if you read websites like Football Outsiders and Cold, Hard Football Facts.
Cold, Hard Football Facts has an article about the Viking run D you should read. Here's a key passage:
With just one game left in the 2006 season, the Vikings have held their 15 opponents to a mere 817 yards on 312 attempts. That's an average of 2.62 yards per carry. You have to go all the way back to the 1951 Giants, who surrendered 2.3 yards per rush attempt, to find a defense that was tougher against the run.
Here's how the Vikings now stack up against the greatest run defenses of the Super Bowl Era. As we discussed last week, one thing will jump out: Most of these teams were not very good. Note the 2000 Chargers. Only four defenses in the Super Bowl Era were tougher to run against. The 2000 Chargers went 1-15.
Kinda punctures a big hole in the whole "you must stop the run to win" theory. The truth is that you must do a lot of things well to win. No matter how well you do one thing, like stop the run, it won't help you if you suck in several other areas.
Cold, Hard Football Facts has an article about the Viking run D you should read. Here's a key passage:
With just one game left in the 2006 season, the Vikings have held their 15 opponents to a mere 817 yards on 312 attempts. That's an average of 2.62 yards per carry. You have to go all the way back to the 1951 Giants, who surrendered 2.3 yards per rush attempt, to find a defense that was tougher against the run.
Here's how the Vikings now stack up against the greatest run defenses of the Super Bowl Era. As we discussed last week, one thing will jump out: Most of these teams were not very good. Note the 2000 Chargers. Only four defenses in the Super Bowl Era were tougher to run against. The 2000 Chargers went 1-15.
Kinda punctures a big hole in the whole "you must stop the run to win" theory. The truth is that you must do a lot of things well to win. No matter how well you do one thing, like stop the run, it won't help you if you suck in several other areas.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Fantasy Football Rule #1: Don't out-think yourself
A variation of Ockham's Razor should be applied to all fantasy football decisions: the simplest, easiest choice is also the best. Don't out-think yourself; do what is logical and obvious rather than trying to be clever or smart.
I could have drafted Ladanian Tomlinson with the #2 pick before this season. That was a smart, safe pick. But I was all hyped up on Clinton Portis: he's consistently good, he'd have Al Saunders' system, and I wanted to be the one smart enough to get him. So I traded down to gain an earlier 3rd round pick and took Clinton Portis at #4. This trade helped my brother to what looks like an easy championship, and it clearly cost me.
Don't try to be clever at draft time. If you have to make the obvious choice, just do it. You'll look smarter when you actually win.
The same rule applies to starting lineups. Don't overthink matchups. This week, I thought Shaun Alexander, who had been struggling, would lay a total dud against the good Charger defense. Meanwhile, Travis Henry was going against Buffalo, a team that had some weaknesses against the run. Well, Henry did have 135 yards. But Alexander had 140 yards and 2 TDs. Don't ever talk yourself out of an obvious stud.
This is the #1 rule of Fantasy Football. Other rules will follow.
I could have drafted Ladanian Tomlinson with the #2 pick before this season. That was a smart, safe pick. But I was all hyped up on Clinton Portis: he's consistently good, he'd have Al Saunders' system, and I wanted to be the one smart enough to get him. So I traded down to gain an earlier 3rd round pick and took Clinton Portis at #4. This trade helped my brother to what looks like an easy championship, and it clearly cost me.
Don't try to be clever at draft time. If you have to make the obvious choice, just do it. You'll look smarter when you actually win.
The same rule applies to starting lineups. Don't overthink matchups. This week, I thought Shaun Alexander, who had been struggling, would lay a total dud against the good Charger defense. Meanwhile, Travis Henry was going against Buffalo, a team that had some weaknesses against the run. Well, Henry did have 135 yards. But Alexander had 140 yards and 2 TDs. Don't ever talk yourself out of an obvious stud.
This is the #1 rule of Fantasy Football. Other rules will follow.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
What now?
The Vikings are out of playoff contention; for all intents and purposes, week 17 doesn't matter for them. It's a detestable situation: a Viking game that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if they win or lose; 6-10 or 7-9 isn't going to change a damn thing about the respectability of the season. Losing to get a better draft pick doesn't really pay off; the Vikes will pick somewhere between #7 and #13 and it truly doesn't matter where. Troy Williamson was the #7 pick, so what does it matter if the Vikes pick a few picks later or earlier? It doesn't. Well, it does, but there is no way I, you, or any of the Viking brass really know how it will. So there's no reason to root for a Viking loss.
When the Vikings are playing, it's better if they win than if they lose. That's all we can say. But nobody should really care. And that's what sucks. It feels like life to be watching the Vikings and Packers play and to feel the tension, anxiety, and hatred over the outcome. It feels like death to watch the Vikings when you don't actually care who wins.
When the Vikings are playing, it's better if they win than if they lose. That's all we can say. But nobody should really care. And that's what sucks. It feels like life to be watching the Vikings and Packers play and to feel the tension, anxiety, and hatred over the outcome. It feels like death to watch the Vikings when you don't actually care who wins.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Doom
In the past, the Vikings have had drama, and even an aura of tragicomedy. Think of the personalities, for better or worse, that have been with the Vikes in the past 15 years: Dennis Green, Cris Carter, Red McCombs, Robert Smith, Randy Moss, Mike Tice, John Randle. There was always a story, a narrative, a grand drama being played out. Now the Vikings are just a deeply flawed team. I want to say "bad team," but that doesn't quite suit it. This is a flawed team, and all it's flaws can easily be identified on the field; problems covering the pass (especially from the slot and middle of the field in general), no pass rush, penalties, conservative play-calling, no playmakers on offense. All very tangible problems. Fixable problems, even. None of the sense of grand tragedy that accompanied Gary Anderson's missed kick, Nate Poole's catch, 41-0, or a bawdy boat scandal. Just a flawed team. That's what we have now, for better or worse.
The quick game notes:
--Coverage of the game went about like this: Brett Favre Brett Favre Brett Favre Brett Favre.
--Troy Williamson consistently makes me scream.
--Jim Marshall played in 282 consecutive games. Don't forget this.
--Donald Driver is the only Packer that you MUST consistently cover. And somehow, against the Vikings, he finds himself covered by linebackers.
--Much like Fox Mulder, "I want to believe." In this case, I want to believe Brad Childress is the coach that can get the Vikings back to the Super Bowl. But 3 first downs! Three first downs!
--With 0 TDs and 2 INTs, Brett Favre remains 7 TDs away from Marino's record and 5 INTs away from George Blanda's record.
--I want Favre to retire in part to preserve Marino's record, and in part so I can learn to stop hating. The hatred and frustration is turning my sportsfan soul cold and black.
--The Vikings have ZERO pass rush. ZERO.
--No, the Viking run defense isn't great just because teams throw on them more than run on them. Look at the yards per attempt, people! It's not that hard.
--Aaron Kampman destroyed the Viking offensive line.
--I was glad to see Collinsworth slurping up Antoine Winfield. Winfield does get beat in coverage more than you'd like a CB to get beat, but he is the best tackling DB in the league. Maybe the best open field tackler in the league, period. He did all he could to win that game. So did Pat Williams and Kevin Williams. BUT THREE FIRST DOWNS!?!?
"Loveliest of Trees, the Cherry Now" by A.E. Housman
Loveliest of trees, the cherry now
Is hung with bloom along the bough,
And stands about the woodland ride
Wearing white for Eastertide.
Now, of my threescore years and ten,
Twenty will not come again,
And take from seventy springs a score,
It only leaves me fifty more.
And since to look at things in bloom
Fifty springs are little room,
About the woodlands I will go
To see the cherry hung with snow.
Of my threescore years and ten, forty-four will not come again. And so I'm left with forty-four chances to see the Vikings win a Super Bowl. If I'm lucky.
The quick game notes:
--Coverage of the game went about like this: Brett Favre Brett Favre Brett Favre Brett Favre.
--Troy Williamson consistently makes me scream.
--Jim Marshall played in 282 consecutive games. Don't forget this.
--Donald Driver is the only Packer that you MUST consistently cover. And somehow, against the Vikings, he finds himself covered by linebackers.
--Much like Fox Mulder, "I want to believe." In this case, I want to believe Brad Childress is the coach that can get the Vikings back to the Super Bowl. But 3 first downs! Three first downs!
--With 0 TDs and 2 INTs, Brett Favre remains 7 TDs away from Marino's record and 5 INTs away from George Blanda's record.
--I want Favre to retire in part to preserve Marino's record, and in part so I can learn to stop hating. The hatred and frustration is turning my sportsfan soul cold and black.
--The Vikings have ZERO pass rush. ZERO.
--No, the Viking run defense isn't great just because teams throw on them more than run on them. Look at the yards per attempt, people! It's not that hard.
--Aaron Kampman destroyed the Viking offensive line.
--I was glad to see Collinsworth slurping up Antoine Winfield. Winfield does get beat in coverage more than you'd like a CB to get beat, but he is the best tackling DB in the league. Maybe the best open field tackler in the league, period. He did all he could to win that game. So did Pat Williams and Kevin Williams. BUT THREE FIRST DOWNS!?!?
"Loveliest of Trees, the Cherry Now" by A.E. Housman
Loveliest of trees, the cherry now
Is hung with bloom along the bough,
And stands about the woodland ride
Wearing white for Eastertide.
Now, of my threescore years and ten,
Twenty will not come again,
And take from seventy springs a score,
It only leaves me fifty more.
And since to look at things in bloom
Fifty springs are little room,
About the woodlands I will go
To see the cherry hung with snow.
Of my threescore years and ten, forty-four will not come again. And so I'm left with forty-four chances to see the Vikings win a Super Bowl. If I'm lucky.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Thursday Night Madness
Locally, it looks like the Viking-Packer game will be broadcast on the ABC affiliate, KSTP.
Is this cold rain going to make its way to Green Bay tonight? Tarvaris could have a wet and wild debut start. A rainy dirty game should be fun to watch; Chester Taylor can run bonkers.
What is Jackson's nickname to be? We've flirted with Tito and the Dart. Starvaris really sounds more like "starve" than "star." Well, Tarvaris Jackson is probably fine.
I don't even get ESPN and this week I've had limited internet access, and I'm already sick of hearing about how this may be Brett Favre's last game at Lambeau. I think I was sick of it last season when I watched what may have been Favre's last game at Lambeau. Actually, I was sort of sick of it the year before when I watched what might have been Favre's last game at Lambeau. And something tells me next year I'll be sick of it again when I watch what may be Favre's last game at Lambeau.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Unpleasantness in Minnesota
Don't worry, Californians and North Carolinians coming to visit; it's like a sauna up here. But apart from the (much too late) news that Tarvaris Jackson is starting Thursday, Minnesota is not pleasant right now.
Allen Iverson was traded to the Nuggets for a decent player, an average player, and two first round draft picks. The T-Wolves didn't have the draft picks to make it worth the Sixers while. Why? Because essentially, Kevin McHale traded Sam Cassell, Wally Szerbiak, and two first round picks for Marko Jaric, Ricky Davis, and Mark Blount. I say McHale is a worse GM than Isaiah Thomas, and he's near Matt Millen territory (only KG has propped the franchise up and prevented total disaster). I'm pretty sure Iverson is better than Jaric, Davis, and Blount. That could have been us had McHale not pissed away the draft picks. McHale is personally sucking the life out of interest in basketball in this state.
And once again Pat Williams was not voted to the Pro Bowl. Last year he was noticeably dominant; he surprisingly became one of my favorite Vikings, and Dr. Z said he'd never seen such a dominant season from a nose tackle. This year Pat Williams (not Kevin Williams, who did make the Pro Bowl) was the anchor of a run defense that is historically good. This is the best interior defensive lineman I've ever seen. I wish the rest of the NFL could appreciate him like Minnesotans have been able to.
Allen Iverson was traded to the Nuggets for a decent player, an average player, and two first round draft picks. The T-Wolves didn't have the draft picks to make it worth the Sixers while. Why? Because essentially, Kevin McHale traded Sam Cassell, Wally Szerbiak, and two first round picks for Marko Jaric, Ricky Davis, and Mark Blount. I say McHale is a worse GM than Isaiah Thomas, and he's near Matt Millen territory (only KG has propped the franchise up and prevented total disaster). I'm pretty sure Iverson is better than Jaric, Davis, and Blount. That could have been us had McHale not pissed away the draft picks. McHale is personally sucking the life out of interest in basketball in this state.
And once again Pat Williams was not voted to the Pro Bowl. Last year he was noticeably dominant; he surprisingly became one of my favorite Vikings, and Dr. Z said he'd never seen such a dominant season from a nose tackle. This year Pat Williams (not Kevin Williams, who did make the Pro Bowl) was the anchor of a run defense that is historically good. This is the best interior defensive lineman I've ever seen. I wish the rest of the NFL could appreciate him like Minnesotans have been able to.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Lambeau and December means hearing about bratwurst, cold, and Favre
A Bit More Humid tells me he's seen commercials on My29 for this game. I'll assume he was watching "The Simpsons" and not "Wicked Wicked Games" or "Watch Over Me" when he saw this commercial.
So it looks like the game will be on the PV household TV. This means we get to listen to the NFL Network announcers yuk it up about how cold it is. I've written before about this inevitability; when broadcasters come to cold-weather locations, they can't stop talking about the cold. You'd think they've come to cover the weather and not a football game.
As somebody who has spent every day of every winter of his life in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, South Dakota, or North Dakota, as somebody who brought the recycling out to the curb today with sandals and no socks, and as somebody who was just standing in front of the library in fingerless gloves doing the NY Times Crossword, let me fill our warm-weather friends in on dealing with the cold.
If you're engaged in athletic activity, the cold really has less effect on you than one might think. The broadcasters are just standing around, and that's going to get a person feeling pretty cold. The players who are running around are probably MUCH less affected than the announcers or the fans. Move around in the cold, and you might actually feel good; stand around in the cold, and eventually you're going to feel pretty lousy.
Admittedly, I've never played football in the very cold; I bet it hurts. But I've played a ton of basketball outside. If it's over 20 degrees, it takes about 5-10 minutes of moving around to get the fingers warmed up; after that, weather is not a factor. If it gets down into single digits, it's incredibly difficult to get the fingers loosened up. The key, then, is the fingers; players either need to protect them with gloves, keep them moving, or for QBs and WRs, keep them covered up between plays.
While the announcers cannot stop thinking about the cold, the players are professionals and will likely not be affected by it once the game starts. Bud Grant knew that thinking about the cold itself can be a distraction; that's why he banned heaters from the Viking sidelines when they played in the Met. It's a factor, but it really shouldn't be as big a deal as the announcers make it.
Take it from me, resident cold weather snob. When Blue Viking Devil comes up to visit from North Carolina this week, I'll probably wear shorts and a t-shirt just to mock him.
So it looks like the game will be on the PV household TV. This means we get to listen to the NFL Network announcers yuk it up about how cold it is. I've written before about this inevitability; when broadcasters come to cold-weather locations, they can't stop talking about the cold. You'd think they've come to cover the weather and not a football game.
As somebody who has spent every day of every winter of his life in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, South Dakota, or North Dakota, as somebody who brought the recycling out to the curb today with sandals and no socks, and as somebody who was just standing in front of the library in fingerless gloves doing the NY Times Crossword, let me fill our warm-weather friends in on dealing with the cold.
If you're engaged in athletic activity, the cold really has less effect on you than one might think. The broadcasters are just standing around, and that's going to get a person feeling pretty cold. The players who are running around are probably MUCH less affected than the announcers or the fans. Move around in the cold, and you might actually feel good; stand around in the cold, and eventually you're going to feel pretty lousy.
Admittedly, I've never played football in the very cold; I bet it hurts. But I've played a ton of basketball outside. If it's over 20 degrees, it takes about 5-10 minutes of moving around to get the fingers warmed up; after that, weather is not a factor. If it gets down into single digits, it's incredibly difficult to get the fingers loosened up. The key, then, is the fingers; players either need to protect them with gloves, keep them moving, or for QBs and WRs, keep them covered up between plays.
While the announcers cannot stop thinking about the cold, the players are professionals and will likely not be affected by it once the game starts. Bud Grant knew that thinking about the cold itself can be a distraction; that's why he banned heaters from the Viking sidelines when they played in the Met. It's a factor, but it really shouldn't be as big a deal as the announcers make it.
Take it from me, resident cold weather snob. When Blue Viking Devil comes up to visit from North Carolina this week, I'll probably wear shorts and a t-shirt just to mock him.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Vikings-Packers: anecdote of a rivalry
Fan rivalry between Minnesota and Wisconsin is interesting. For one thing, the Twin Cities is right near the WI border (several WI communities are considered part of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area), while the big Wisconsin teams are over on the east side of WI, away from Minnesota. The near proximity of Wisconsin fans, combined with the fact that a good number of Wisconsinites move to the Twin Cities (for various reasons) means there are more WI sports fans near the heavy MN fanbase than there are MN fans near the heavy WI fanbase. I've had the particular joy of attending and working at UW-River Falls, where roughly half the students are from MN and half are from WI, so the Packer-Viking rivalry has a particular bite to it.
Anyway, here's the anecdote as we get ready for a seemingly meaningless Thursday game that is actually full of meaning for fans.
A few years ago I was at a Timberwolves game, and one of the inane activities they during a break time (probably halftime) was to pull random fans out and have them do some silly contest. The PA announcer gave the random individuals' names and hometowns to the Target Center crowd. One woman was from Hudson, WI (a WI town right across the river). At the mention of "Wisconsin," she was roundly, loudly booed. If I remember correctly, this booing was sustained during her participation in said inane contest. Now, the booing was, I think, light-hearted--the woman was laughing and it's not like people started throwing whiskey bottles at her or anything. But it was there.
What I'm saying is, as fans this game means something. A whole lot, actually. The proximity of the fanbases for the teams means that for fans, the winner of a Thursday night game between pointless 6-8 teams means way too much to our happiness.
Anyway, here's the anecdote as we get ready for a seemingly meaningless Thursday game that is actually full of meaning for fans.
A few years ago I was at a Timberwolves game, and one of the inane activities they during a break time (probably halftime) was to pull random fans out and have them do some silly contest. The PA announcer gave the random individuals' names and hometowns to the Target Center crowd. One woman was from Hudson, WI (a WI town right across the river). At the mention of "Wisconsin," she was roundly, loudly booed. If I remember correctly, this booing was sustained during her participation in said inane contest. Now, the booing was, I think, light-hearted--the woman was laughing and it's not like people started throwing whiskey bottles at her or anything. But it was there.
What I'm saying is, as fans this game means something. A whole lot, actually. The proximity of the fanbases for the teams means that for fans, the winner of a Thursday night game between pointless 6-8 teams means way too much to our happiness.
In place of actually writing details about the Viking game
Out of the comfort zone
After watching the previous 13 Viking games this season in my living room, I watched most of Sunday's loss to the Jet's at my wife's grandmother's house. This made the watching experience very different. The day featured some things I don't usually associate with football Sundays (the sentence "If you enjoy Bible word searches, you'll love 101 Bible Word Searches, Volume 2" usually doesn't come up in my life in any way, shape, or form), some creepiness (the reindeer decorations in the yard looked like the horse costumes in "Equus") and people unfamiliar with my ways (when my father-in-law grabbed my pen without asking, I stared in disbelief for a few seconds before shouting "What are you doing!?!" My wife thinks I would have sounded less crazy if I would have said, "Excuse me, but I have obsessive compulsive disorder and I'm rather finicky about people touching my pens. Could I please have my pen back?"). All in all, it was a day.
A.E. Housman and the annual melancholic ode to mortality and the Vikings
Well, the Vikes aren't quite eliminated from playoff contention. Perhaps Tarvaris Jackson will take over, everything will roll the Vikings way, they'll get into the playoffs, and Tarvaris Jackson will surprise everybody and lead the Vikings to a Super Bowl championship this year. Maybe. And maybe I can go and catch a falling star, and get with child a mandrake root. But regardless of the improbabilities, the A.E. Housman ode to the Vikings gets pushed back at least a week.
Short Packer Week
Brett Favre broke Dan Marino's record for career completions. He also threw 0 TD passes to remain 7 away from Marino's career TD record mark, and threw 3 INTs to move into second place all-time and come within 7 of George Blanda's career mark.
And now the Vikes and Packers, both 6-8 and relatively pointless, get ready to play on a short week in a game that may or may not be on broadcast TV in the Twin Cities.
MVP
Ladanian Tomlinson made further claim to the award with another spectacular game. He's the best player on the best team, he's just broken the long-standing (and overrated) single season points record, he's played spectacular consistently, and he may even break Marshall Faulk's yards from scrimmage record. I've written that simply breaking the single season TD record isn't as great an accomplishment as you might think--however, obliterating it the way he is doing is quite fantastic. He'll have to do next to nothing for the last two weeks to lose this trophy.
Drew Brees didn't do much toward achieving the "if" qualifications I attached to his MVP candidacy. I wrote that if he breaks Dan Marino's single season yardage record (5,084) and the Saints go at least 11-5, he'd deserve MVP. The Saints will now have to win their last two games to go 11-5 (still very possible), but it appears Brees will join Warren Moon, Rich Gannon, and Daunte Culpepper as QBs who looked capable of breaking the 5,000 mark but ultimately came up short.
That record, by the way, is incredibly unlikely to fall. To break it, a healthy QB needs to be spectacular, play with spectacular offensive teammates in a pass-first offense, but still be behind in enough games to be required to throw a lot. I don't know when that combination will happen again. Occasionally a QB will come along with a great season and look like he could achieve it, but he ultimately comes up short.
MVPs seal their candidacy in the last few weeks of a season. Even if the Colts win out, Peyton Manning won't be MVP this season--he just had another typical Manning season. Brees will likely come short of Marino's record, so his statistical prowess won't be great enough to command the record. But Tomlinson has already achieved enough at this point to deserve the MVP award. 2,000 yards from scrimmage and 31 TDs on a 12 win team is now enough to convince me--and he's got two more games to make that look even more impressive.
The most absurd thing I heard on TV Sunday (and keep in mind, it was usually too noisy for me to hear Dan Dierdorf)
On the commercial for 60 Minutes, it was said of Larry the Cable Guy that "everybody calls him funny" and that he's "America's hottest comic." I thought my brain was just going to fall right out of its skull, but somehow it remained where it is.
And just a note, this week begins a month of inconsistent blogging. I should be able to blog a couple times a week over the next month. Just so you know.
After watching the previous 13 Viking games this season in my living room, I watched most of Sunday's loss to the Jet's at my wife's grandmother's house. This made the watching experience very different. The day featured some things I don't usually associate with football Sundays (the sentence "If you enjoy Bible word searches, you'll love 101 Bible Word Searches, Volume 2" usually doesn't come up in my life in any way, shape, or form), some creepiness (the reindeer decorations in the yard looked like the horse costumes in "Equus") and people unfamiliar with my ways (when my father-in-law grabbed my pen without asking, I stared in disbelief for a few seconds before shouting "What are you doing!?!" My wife thinks I would have sounded less crazy if I would have said, "Excuse me, but I have obsessive compulsive disorder and I'm rather finicky about people touching my pens. Could I please have my pen back?"). All in all, it was a day.
A.E. Housman and the annual melancholic ode to mortality and the Vikings
Well, the Vikes aren't quite eliminated from playoff contention. Perhaps Tarvaris Jackson will take over, everything will roll the Vikings way, they'll get into the playoffs, and Tarvaris Jackson will surprise everybody and lead the Vikings to a Super Bowl championship this year. Maybe. And maybe I can go and catch a falling star, and get with child a mandrake root. But regardless of the improbabilities, the A.E. Housman ode to the Vikings gets pushed back at least a week.
Short Packer Week
Brett Favre broke Dan Marino's record for career completions. He also threw 0 TD passes to remain 7 away from Marino's career TD record mark, and threw 3 INTs to move into second place all-time and come within 7 of George Blanda's career mark.
And now the Vikes and Packers, both 6-8 and relatively pointless, get ready to play on a short week in a game that may or may not be on broadcast TV in the Twin Cities.
MVP
Ladanian Tomlinson made further claim to the award with another spectacular game. He's the best player on the best team, he's just broken the long-standing (and overrated) single season points record, he's played spectacular consistently, and he may even break Marshall Faulk's yards from scrimmage record. I've written that simply breaking the single season TD record isn't as great an accomplishment as you might think--however, obliterating it the way he is doing is quite fantastic. He'll have to do next to nothing for the last two weeks to lose this trophy.
Drew Brees didn't do much toward achieving the "if" qualifications I attached to his MVP candidacy. I wrote that if he breaks Dan Marino's single season yardage record (5,084) and the Saints go at least 11-5, he'd deserve MVP. The Saints will now have to win their last two games to go 11-5 (still very possible), but it appears Brees will join Warren Moon, Rich Gannon, and Daunte Culpepper as QBs who looked capable of breaking the 5,000 mark but ultimately came up short.
That record, by the way, is incredibly unlikely to fall. To break it, a healthy QB needs to be spectacular, play with spectacular offensive teammates in a pass-first offense, but still be behind in enough games to be required to throw a lot. I don't know when that combination will happen again. Occasionally a QB will come along with a great season and look like he could achieve it, but he ultimately comes up short.
MVPs seal their candidacy in the last few weeks of a season. Even if the Colts win out, Peyton Manning won't be MVP this season--he just had another typical Manning season. Brees will likely come short of Marino's record, so his statistical prowess won't be great enough to command the record. But Tomlinson has already achieved enough at this point to deserve the MVP award. 2,000 yards from scrimmage and 31 TDs on a 12 win team is now enough to convince me--and he's got two more games to make that look even more impressive.
The most absurd thing I heard on TV Sunday (and keep in mind, it was usually too noisy for me to hear Dan Dierdorf)
On the commercial for 60 Minutes, it was said of Larry the Cable Guy that "everybody calls him funny" and that he's "America's hottest comic." I thought my brain was just going to fall right out of its skull, but somehow it remained where it is.
And just a note, this week begins a month of inconsistent blogging. I should be able to blog a couple times a week over the next month. Just so you know.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Saturday night NFL notes
Vikings resign E.J. Henderson
Via PFT's link to the Strib, E.J. Henderson has signed a 5 year extention with the Vikes.
This is SPECTACULAR news. Henderson's improved play in 2006 has been a major factor in the Vikings' dominant run defense. He's really come into his own as a player, and ensuring that he's sticking with the Purple (and will not reach unrestricted FA this off-season) is a great move.
Let's put Ladanian Tomlinson's TD record in perpective
Yes, he's got three more games to add to the record of 29 TDs. But is it that great a record? It has been repeatedly broken in recent years, suggesting it is not a terribly difficult record to break (relatively speaking). After Emmitt Smith broke the record in 1995 with 25 TDs, the record was broken again in 2000 by Marshall Faulk (26), in 2003 by Priest Holmes (27), and Shaun Alexander in 2005 (28) before Tomlinson broke the record again in 2006.
So 4 times in 7 years, including 3 of the last 4, the single-season TD record has been broken.
When Peyton Manning threw 49 TD passes in 2004, he was breaking Dan Marino's mark of 48 that had stood since 1984. And if Drew Brees can throw for more than 5,084 yards this season (there's an outside shot), he'll have broken Dan Marino's single-season record that has also stood since 1984 (that's one that a lot of QBs have looked capable of in different seasons, but they've always come up short).
Tomlinson has broken a a one-year old record (that had broken a two-year old record that had broken a three-year old record). That's a good thing to do, but it's not exactly other-worldly and it's not a guarantee of an MVP trophy.
There are still three games to go. If Brees breaks Marino's yardage record and the Saints win at least 2 of the next 3, I'd choose him as MVP.
For the record: I like Michael Irvin, but I don't like Terrell Owens
Michael Irvin was one of my favorite players growing up. I loved to watch him play. For the 1990s, Jerry Rice was the best WR in the league, but either Michael Irvin or Cris Carter were second, in my estimation. And Irvin was THEE dominant receiver on a team that won three Super Bowls.
You might think, based on some things I've written lately, that I support Terrell Owens. But I don't like Terrell Owens. However, it has nothing to do with his lack of effort, his selfishness, or his arrogance. I'm lazy, selfish, and arrogant.
I just think T.O. is mean. In the way he has treated Jeff Garcia, Donovan McNabb, Gregg Knapp, and Brad Childress, among others, he has been mean. A lot of athletes are arrogant jerks; however, Owens seems to be a player who has chosen particular players to show a real mean-spiritedness toward. As Dr. Z wrote in September about Owens, "he has a mean streak to go with everything else. He didn't attack Donovan McNabb or offensive coach Brad Childress until they were at their lowest ebb, at their most vulnerable. Same thing with his quarterback in San Francisco, Jeff Garcia." I tend not to like mean people.
Via PFT's link to the Strib, E.J. Henderson has signed a 5 year extention with the Vikes.
This is SPECTACULAR news. Henderson's improved play in 2006 has been a major factor in the Vikings' dominant run defense. He's really come into his own as a player, and ensuring that he's sticking with the Purple (and will not reach unrestricted FA this off-season) is a great move.
Let's put Ladanian Tomlinson's TD record in perpective
Yes, he's got three more games to add to the record of 29 TDs. But is it that great a record? It has been repeatedly broken in recent years, suggesting it is not a terribly difficult record to break (relatively speaking). After Emmitt Smith broke the record in 1995 with 25 TDs, the record was broken again in 2000 by Marshall Faulk (26), in 2003 by Priest Holmes (27), and Shaun Alexander in 2005 (28) before Tomlinson broke the record again in 2006.
So 4 times in 7 years, including 3 of the last 4, the single-season TD record has been broken.
When Peyton Manning threw 49 TD passes in 2004, he was breaking Dan Marino's mark of 48 that had stood since 1984. And if Drew Brees can throw for more than 5,084 yards this season (there's an outside shot), he'll have broken Dan Marino's single-season record that has also stood since 1984 (that's one that a lot of QBs have looked capable of in different seasons, but they've always come up short).
Tomlinson has broken a a one-year old record (that had broken a two-year old record that had broken a three-year old record). That's a good thing to do, but it's not exactly other-worldly and it's not a guarantee of an MVP trophy.
There are still three games to go. If Brees breaks Marino's yardage record and the Saints win at least 2 of the next 3, I'd choose him as MVP.
For the record: I like Michael Irvin, but I don't like Terrell Owens
Michael Irvin was one of my favorite players growing up. I loved to watch him play. For the 1990s, Jerry Rice was the best WR in the league, but either Michael Irvin or Cris Carter were second, in my estimation. And Irvin was THEE dominant receiver on a team that won three Super Bowls.
You might think, based on some things I've written lately, that I support Terrell Owens. But I don't like Terrell Owens. However, it has nothing to do with his lack of effort, his selfishness, or his arrogance. I'm lazy, selfish, and arrogant.
I just think T.O. is mean. In the way he has treated Jeff Garcia, Donovan McNabb, Gregg Knapp, and Brad Childress, among others, he has been mean. A lot of athletes are arrogant jerks; however, Owens seems to be a player who has chosen particular players to show a real mean-spiritedness toward. As Dr. Z wrote in September about Owens, "he has a mean streak to go with everything else. He didn't attack Donovan McNabb or offensive coach Brad Childress until they were at their lowest ebb, at their most vulnerable. Same thing with his quarterback in San Francisco, Jeff Garcia." I tend not to like mean people.
Friday, December 15, 2006
National Friday League, week 15
Three weeks of widespread football left. The NFL is trying to spread this out by making games occur on Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, but only one of those days will feature games televised in the Pacifist Viking household.
By the way, does anybody know if/where the Viking-Packer game next Thursday will be televised locally? I understand that the game should be on broadcast locally, but I have seen zero commercial featuring the game. It might be on some network I rarely if ever watch, of course, like ABC. What's on ABC that one can possibly watch? Actually, I caught that show "Help Me Help You" earlier this week. I was hooked when the following dialogue occurred (slightly paraphrased according to my memory:
Ted Danson: Back in college I literally had to beat women back with a stick.
Tim Meadows: Literally.
Ted Danson: You heard me.
Tim Meadows: Women were attacking you and you had to beat them back with a stick. A stick. Hitting their flesh with wood.
Yes, it is funny. It also featured a guy egging a house and saying, "I don't know if I should be doing this, I'm vegan." No, buddy, you probably shouldn't be. Speaking of being vegan, I'm thinking of braving that last frontier in 2007. And since it has come up on this blog, if you're interested (and you probably aren't) in some of my further explorations on vegetarianism, you can read some of my other writings at my other blog: "Vegetarianism," "'Nature, red in tooth and claw'," "Amateur Theologian: Did people eat meat before the Fall?," and "The Thick Skin of a Vegetarian."
This has been a rambling introduction, to be sure. Well, I've graded over 40 papers in the last week or so, and I'll be grading another 40 or so in the next week, along with 80+ exams, so forgive me for being frazzled. If I can't maintain a coherent organized line of logic, it is only because I've been reading freshman public policy arguments and I've got nothing left.
Vikings v. Jets
The Vikes have played rather poorly at home this season, notching a 3-3 record and playing their worst game against an AFC East team featuring a 3-4 defense. The Vikings have played pretty poorly in recent years against 3-4 teams. So I haven't been very confident in this game; it seems like the sort where the Viking offense will piddle around in suckitude against a defensive front they're not used to and they'll lose something like 17-9.
Then again, as the Ragnorak suggests today, there are reasons to think this matchup suits the Vikings. The Vikings can win against anybody if they force turnovers, and Chad Pennington has been turnover-prone this season. Furthermore, the Vikes can run, and the Jets have trouble stopping the run. The Vikes have a fair chance to win this game, move to 7-7, and then go play a night game in Green Bay where Brad Johnson can debilitate the Vikings' chances and end the team's playoff hopes.
What hopes can we have for the rest of the season?
I believe 9-7 will get the Vikings into the playoffs; most of the other playoff hopefuls have some tough games ahead (some against each other, which makes it even better). If the Vikings can beat the Jets (and the Jets should have ABSOLUTELY ZERO running game against the Vikes, so it's possible), then go win a game against a mediocre or worse Packer team (and Lambeau Field is one of the outdoore venues the Vikes have been consistently good at, winning 3 of their last 4 games there), and then win a home game against a St. Louis team that will be out of it and is struggling without Orlando Pace, the Vikings should be in the playoffs.
And with this run defense, what could the Vikings do in the playoffs? Who knows? The NFC is weak; there's hope. I am an eternal Viking optimist and will not be ready to wax eloquent on A.E. Housman until the Vikings are clearly out of the Super Bowl running.
(By the way, that Housman link goes to the first entry I wrote at this blog, and it's interesting to see 9 anonymous spam comments there. My favorite is "viagra viagra Its'not spam." Sure, and I'm not fat. If you bother clicking those links you are stupid in the brain).
Playoff Implication Games
Let's look at this week's important games. I'll only look at games between two playoff quality teams; of course playoff quality teams can get upset against eliminated teams, but there's no need to mention any of those games here.
San Francisco at Seattle
I predict a 24-14 49er victory.
But seriously, folks, there's now a reasonable chance that an 8-8 team will win the NFC West. Nobody wants that.
Dallas at Atlanta
I've considered benching Tony Romo on my fantasy team in favor of Eli Manning; I think DCs have seen enough of Romo. But Atlanta is HORRIBLE against #1 and #2 WRs. That means Owens and Glenn will run wild, and the Cowboys will cream the Falcos. Yes, the Falcos. I think they should change their name in honor of legendary fictional quarterback Steve Falco. And when the offseason comes, I'll find time to write about just how senseless that movie is.
Jacksonville at Tennessee
Well, Tennesee is a playoff longshot, but they're sort of in it, and this game intrigues me. Jacksonville is a scary team--by scary, I mean for gamblers. Who the hell knows what they'll do from week to week?
Jets at Vikings
Covered above
Pittsburgh at Carolina
Pittsburgh is sort of still in it too. Carolina is...but will probably be out of it by the end of Sunday. Look for Pittsburgh to beat the hell out of the Panthers and move to 7-7 and people can wonder how they would be doing if Roethlisberger hadn't had appendicitis.
Eagles at Giants
Two 7-6 teams; at the end of the day, one team will be 7-7 and the other will be 8-6. Of course you know that. But this is one of the things that helps the Vikings; it is very unlikely that two NFC Wild Card teams will go 10-6.
Kansas City at San Diego
For reasons I don't fully understand, I couldn't care less.
Cincinnati at Indianapolis
For the fourth or fifth time all year, I will regret not getting Monday Night Football. I think Cincinnati will win, continuing their playoff drive and continuing Indy's skid.
Awards
In the final three weeks, awards will be claimed by the deserving players. Ladanian Tomlinson should be the MVP, but Drew Brees or Peyton Manning might make strong arguments over the next three games. Who is the rookie of the year? Several contenders can demand the trophy. Defensive player of the year will probably go (undeserved) to Brian Urlacher. I haven't spilled as much virtual ink condemning Urlacher as I have Favre, but he is fast climbing my list of most detested NFC North rivals.
Anyway, I hope everybody enjoys the weekend. Except Packer and Bear fans.
By the way, does anybody know if/where the Viking-Packer game next Thursday will be televised locally? I understand that the game should be on broadcast locally, but I have seen zero commercial featuring the game. It might be on some network I rarely if ever watch, of course, like ABC. What's on ABC that one can possibly watch? Actually, I caught that show "Help Me Help You" earlier this week. I was hooked when the following dialogue occurred (slightly paraphrased according to my memory:
Ted Danson: Back in college I literally had to beat women back with a stick.
Tim Meadows: Literally.
Ted Danson: You heard me.
Tim Meadows: Women were attacking you and you had to beat them back with a stick. A stick. Hitting their flesh with wood.
Yes, it is funny. It also featured a guy egging a house and saying, "I don't know if I should be doing this, I'm vegan." No, buddy, you probably shouldn't be. Speaking of being vegan, I'm thinking of braving that last frontier in 2007. And since it has come up on this blog, if you're interested (and you probably aren't) in some of my further explorations on vegetarianism, you can read some of my other writings at my other blog: "Vegetarianism," "'Nature, red in tooth and claw'," "Amateur Theologian: Did people eat meat before the Fall?," and "The Thick Skin of a Vegetarian."
This has been a rambling introduction, to be sure. Well, I've graded over 40 papers in the last week or so, and I'll be grading another 40 or so in the next week, along with 80+ exams, so forgive me for being frazzled. If I can't maintain a coherent organized line of logic, it is only because I've been reading freshman public policy arguments and I've got nothing left.
Vikings v. Jets
The Vikes have played rather poorly at home this season, notching a 3-3 record and playing their worst game against an AFC East team featuring a 3-4 defense. The Vikings have played pretty poorly in recent years against 3-4 teams. So I haven't been very confident in this game; it seems like the sort where the Viking offense will piddle around in suckitude against a defensive front they're not used to and they'll lose something like 17-9.
Then again, as the Ragnorak suggests today, there are reasons to think this matchup suits the Vikings. The Vikings can win against anybody if they force turnovers, and Chad Pennington has been turnover-prone this season. Furthermore, the Vikes can run, and the Jets have trouble stopping the run. The Vikes have a fair chance to win this game, move to 7-7, and then go play a night game in Green Bay where Brad Johnson can debilitate the Vikings' chances and end the team's playoff hopes.
What hopes can we have for the rest of the season?
I believe 9-7 will get the Vikings into the playoffs; most of the other playoff hopefuls have some tough games ahead (some against each other, which makes it even better). If the Vikings can beat the Jets (and the Jets should have ABSOLUTELY ZERO running game against the Vikes, so it's possible), then go win a game against a mediocre or worse Packer team (and Lambeau Field is one of the outdoore venues the Vikes have been consistently good at, winning 3 of their last 4 games there), and then win a home game against a St. Louis team that will be out of it and is struggling without Orlando Pace, the Vikings should be in the playoffs.
And with this run defense, what could the Vikings do in the playoffs? Who knows? The NFC is weak; there's hope. I am an eternal Viking optimist and will not be ready to wax eloquent on A.E. Housman until the Vikings are clearly out of the Super Bowl running.
(By the way, that Housman link goes to the first entry I wrote at this blog, and it's interesting to see 9 anonymous spam comments there. My favorite is "viagra viagra Its'not spam." Sure, and I'm not fat. If you bother clicking those links you are stupid in the brain).
Playoff Implication Games
Let's look at this week's important games. I'll only look at games between two playoff quality teams; of course playoff quality teams can get upset against eliminated teams, but there's no need to mention any of those games here.
San Francisco at Seattle
I predict a 24-14 49er victory.
But seriously, folks, there's now a reasonable chance that an 8-8 team will win the NFC West. Nobody wants that.
Dallas at Atlanta
I've considered benching Tony Romo on my fantasy team in favor of Eli Manning; I think DCs have seen enough of Romo. But Atlanta is HORRIBLE against #1 and #2 WRs. That means Owens and Glenn will run wild, and the Cowboys will cream the Falcos. Yes, the Falcos. I think they should change their name in honor of legendary fictional quarterback Steve Falco. And when the offseason comes, I'll find time to write about just how senseless that movie is.
Jacksonville at Tennessee
Well, Tennesee is a playoff longshot, but they're sort of in it, and this game intrigues me. Jacksonville is a scary team--by scary, I mean for gamblers. Who the hell knows what they'll do from week to week?
Jets at Vikings
Covered above
Pittsburgh at Carolina
Pittsburgh is sort of still in it too. Carolina is...but will probably be out of it by the end of Sunday. Look for Pittsburgh to beat the hell out of the Panthers and move to 7-7 and people can wonder how they would be doing if Roethlisberger hadn't had appendicitis.
Eagles at Giants
Two 7-6 teams; at the end of the day, one team will be 7-7 and the other will be 8-6. Of course you know that. But this is one of the things that helps the Vikings; it is very unlikely that two NFC Wild Card teams will go 10-6.
Kansas City at San Diego
For reasons I don't fully understand, I couldn't care less.
Cincinnati at Indianapolis
For the fourth or fifth time all year, I will regret not getting Monday Night Football. I think Cincinnati will win, continuing their playoff drive and continuing Indy's skid.
Awards
In the final three weeks, awards will be claimed by the deserving players. Ladanian Tomlinson should be the MVP, but Drew Brees or Peyton Manning might make strong arguments over the next three games. Who is the rookie of the year? Several contenders can demand the trophy. Defensive player of the year will probably go (undeserved) to Brian Urlacher. I haven't spilled as much virtual ink condemning Urlacher as I have Favre, but he is fast climbing my list of most detested NFC North rivals.
Anyway, I hope everybody enjoys the weekend. Except Packer and Bear fans.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Patrick Reusse scoffs at our fickleness
Oh, we fickle Viking fans! First we cheer a player, then we boo a player. We just don't understand football and we're never happy! What's wrong with us?
Patrick Reusse is back to let us have it again. In his column "Being hero or goat comes with territory for Vikings' Johnson," Reusse interviews Brad Johnson about going from...well...hero to goat (passages from Reusse's column in italics and quotes):
"Obviously, there are similarities in the Vikings' Game 14 situation, including that Brad Johnson will be the home team's quarterback. What's different is that in '05, the Purple Faithful was of a mood to host a parade down Fourth Street in Brad's honor. And now, the same crowd would like to pass their horned hats to buy Brad a bus ticket back home to Black Mountain, N.C."
The "mood" of the Purple Faithful changed. Who can account for "mood"? Mood has no reason behind it. See dictionary.com's definition of mood: Mood is just sort of something one has, an irrational feeling. How could the mood of the Purple Faithful change? Could it be that leading up to week 14 in '05, Johnson had just led the Vikings to 6 straight wins? Meanwhile, in '06 with a far superior defense, Johnson has led the Vikes to 6 wins in 13 games? Do the Purple Faithful have a "mood," or are we merely responding to objective data?
"Johnson had a quarterback rating of 88.9 in his 9 ½ games as a Vikings starter last season. The populace celebrated when Childress decided to dispose of Daunte Culpepper to Miami for a second-round draftee (tackle Ryan Cook).
The trade meant the people's choice -- Steady Brad -- would be the Vikings quarterback again.
Johnson's quarterback rating after 13 games is 71.0. He had a career low of 10.3 two games back in Chicago."
Where to begin? First off, the point is that we Viking fans were wrong. "Steady Brad" was the "people's choice," but the people were foolish; we thought he'd be good but it turns out this year he stinks.
But was Johnson ever really "the people's choice"? Certainly, the crowd had soured on Culpepper, but an awful '05 combined with bizarre behavior (staying away from the team, coming to the Twin Cities just to demand more money, emailing the media to talk about it) suggest that Culpepper himself was responsible for that. Did the fan displeasure with Culpepper mean that we were in love with Johnson? Of course not; there was much speculation about which other QBs the Vikes should or could or would go after in the '06 offseason. The fact that the Vikes didn't doesn't mean that we thought Brad Johnson was a superhero.
"That Sunday in Chicago was ultra-tough for quarterbacks: cold, windy and outstanding defenses in their faces. Johnson was awful, and Grossman was awful, and then a week later -- in domes, against softer defenses -- both QBs were much more proficient.
Why wasn't a minute asterisk placed next to the Johnson/Grossman performances because of the conditions at Soldier Field?"
NOT WORTHY OF COMMENT. SEETHING.
"A year ago, the public thought it saw a 37-year-old making the rapid reads that Culpepper could not, and throwing the ball with proper pizzazz. Now, the fans think they see a 38-year-old plagued by indecision and wobbly passes."
Isn't it possible that a QB's skills could deteriorate between 37 and 38? Plenty of aging QBs have seeming success then bottom out. Are we to think that Brad Johnson at 38 is the exact same QB he was at 37?
And of course, it wasn't "pizzazz" that impressed us about Johnson last season. After all, Reusse himself referred to "Steady Brad" earlier in the column, so clearly he knows this. It was the fact that in '05, Johnson played smart and limited turnovers, giving the team a chance to win. In '06, he has committed many AWFUL turnovers, hampering his team's chances to win. Should we ignore this?
""Honestly, I think I'm playing the same," Johnson said. "I think I've always played the same. A year ago, during the winning streak, when I made a mistake, it didn't cost us. The other team didn't make the interception, and if they did, it didn't get run back for a touchdown."
Well, Mr. Johnson, you're wrong. In 2005, you threw 12 TDs and 4 INTs in 9 and a half games. In 2006, you've thrown 8 TDs and 15 INTs in 13 games.
""And here's the biggest thing: We always seemed to be playing from ahead during that streak. We haven't been playing from ahead that often in the second half this season."
"It's a whole different game -- more manageable, many more options -- when you're ahead."
This quote is from Johnson again--and to be fair, it does have some validity. I say this not randomly, but after looking at the '05 and '06 results expecting to contradict it.
"And how comfortable is he with the transformation from '05 hero to '06 albatross?
"I'm a quarterback," he said. "That's what you sign up for.""
Reusse writes as if Johnson has magically transformed from "hero" to "albatross," as if those labels are based completely on fan perception, not in reality (for more on the meaning http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifof "albatross," see Samuel Taylor Coleridge's excellent poem ).
What bothers me in this column is not any particular statement so much as the overall tone and theme. In '05, Reusse was critical of Johnson and fan appreciation of him (nevermind that Johnson was the backup with no expectations having surprising success); this column's existence seems to be a suggestion of support for Johnson. So while Johnson plays well enough then has two bad games, Reusse attacks him and the fans; when Johnson is sucking and the fans don't like him, Reusse defends johnson and attacks the fans. I think we see the trend here.
It seems like another Reusse column intended to insult Viking fans. Choosing to write this column, and choosing to write it this way, seems like an attempt to point out the irrationality, the fickleness, and the unfairness of fan reaction to Johnson. In fact, there is a major difference in performance between '05 and '06 Johnson. But the fact that this column is written at all suggests that perhaps such is not the case.
Patrick Reusse is back to let us have it again. In his column "Being hero or goat comes with territory for Vikings' Johnson," Reusse interviews Brad Johnson about going from...well...hero to goat (passages from Reusse's column in italics and quotes):
"Obviously, there are similarities in the Vikings' Game 14 situation, including that Brad Johnson will be the home team's quarterback. What's different is that in '05, the Purple Faithful was of a mood to host a parade down Fourth Street in Brad's honor. And now, the same crowd would like to pass their horned hats to buy Brad a bus ticket back home to Black Mountain, N.C."
The "mood" of the Purple Faithful changed. Who can account for "mood"? Mood has no reason behind it. See dictionary.com's definition of mood: Mood is just sort of something one has, an irrational feeling. How could the mood of the Purple Faithful change? Could it be that leading up to week 14 in '05, Johnson had just led the Vikings to 6 straight wins? Meanwhile, in '06 with a far superior defense, Johnson has led the Vikes to 6 wins in 13 games? Do the Purple Faithful have a "mood," or are we merely responding to objective data?
"Johnson had a quarterback rating of 88.9 in his 9 ½ games as a Vikings starter last season. The populace celebrated when Childress decided to dispose of Daunte Culpepper to Miami for a second-round draftee (tackle Ryan Cook).
The trade meant the people's choice -- Steady Brad -- would be the Vikings quarterback again.
Johnson's quarterback rating after 13 games is 71.0. He had a career low of 10.3 two games back in Chicago."
Where to begin? First off, the point is that we Viking fans were wrong. "Steady Brad" was the "people's choice," but the people were foolish; we thought he'd be good but it turns out this year he stinks.
But was Johnson ever really "the people's choice"? Certainly, the crowd had soured on Culpepper, but an awful '05 combined with bizarre behavior (staying away from the team, coming to the Twin Cities just to demand more money, emailing the media to talk about it) suggest that Culpepper himself was responsible for that. Did the fan displeasure with Culpepper mean that we were in love with Johnson? Of course not; there was much speculation about which other QBs the Vikes should or could or would go after in the '06 offseason. The fact that the Vikes didn't doesn't mean that we thought Brad Johnson was a superhero.
"That Sunday in Chicago was ultra-tough for quarterbacks: cold, windy and outstanding defenses in their faces. Johnson was awful, and Grossman was awful, and then a week later -- in domes, against softer defenses -- both QBs were much more proficient.
Why wasn't a minute asterisk placed next to the Johnson/Grossman performances because of the conditions at Soldier Field?"
NOT WORTHY OF COMMENT. SEETHING.
"A year ago, the public thought it saw a 37-year-old making the rapid reads that Culpepper could not, and throwing the ball with proper pizzazz. Now, the fans think they see a 38-year-old plagued by indecision and wobbly passes."
Isn't it possible that a QB's skills could deteriorate between 37 and 38? Plenty of aging QBs have seeming success then bottom out. Are we to think that Brad Johnson at 38 is the exact same QB he was at 37?
And of course, it wasn't "pizzazz" that impressed us about Johnson last season. After all, Reusse himself referred to "Steady Brad" earlier in the column, so clearly he knows this. It was the fact that in '05, Johnson played smart and limited turnovers, giving the team a chance to win. In '06, he has committed many AWFUL turnovers, hampering his team's chances to win. Should we ignore this?
""Honestly, I think I'm playing the same," Johnson said. "I think I've always played the same. A year ago, during the winning streak, when I made a mistake, it didn't cost us. The other team didn't make the interception, and if they did, it didn't get run back for a touchdown."
Well, Mr. Johnson, you're wrong. In 2005, you threw 12 TDs and 4 INTs in 9 and a half games. In 2006, you've thrown 8 TDs and 15 INTs in 13 games.
""And here's the biggest thing: We always seemed to be playing from ahead during that streak. We haven't been playing from ahead that often in the second half this season."
"It's a whole different game -- more manageable, many more options -- when you're ahead."
This quote is from Johnson again--and to be fair, it does have some validity. I say this not randomly, but after looking at the '05 and '06 results expecting to contradict it.
"And how comfortable is he with the transformation from '05 hero to '06 albatross?
"I'm a quarterback," he said. "That's what you sign up for.""
Reusse writes as if Johnson has magically transformed from "hero" to "albatross," as if those labels are based completely on fan perception, not in reality (for more on the meaning http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifof "albatross," see Samuel Taylor Coleridge's excellent poem ).
What bothers me in this column is not any particular statement so much as the overall tone and theme. In '05, Reusse was critical of Johnson and fan appreciation of him (nevermind that Johnson was the backup with no expectations having surprising success); this column's existence seems to be a suggestion of support for Johnson. So while Johnson plays well enough then has two bad games, Reusse attacks him and the fans; when Johnson is sucking and the fans don't like him, Reusse defends johnson and attacks the fans. I think we see the trend here.
It seems like another Reusse column intended to insult Viking fans. Choosing to write this column, and choosing to write it this way, seems like an attempt to point out the irrationality, the fickleness, and the unfairness of fan reaction to Johnson. In fact, there is a major difference in performance between '05 and '06 Johnson. But the fact that this column is written at all suggests that perhaps such is not the case.
Stalling...
The Vikes' Just-Short History
Cold Hard Football Facts has made a list of the top 10 pro football teams to fail to win a championship. As expected, the Vikes come up twice on the list: the 1969 team ranks #4, and the 1998 team ranks #2. Interestingly enough the 1975 Vikes might have been better than either of those teams--that's the team that got Hail Maryed by Roger Staubauch, Drew Pearson, and the referees.
Do you realize Allen Iverson is one of the greatest scorers in basketball history?
There are only four basketball players in the history of the NBA to lead the league in scoring four or more times: Michael Jordan (10), Wilt Chamberlain (7), George Gervin (4), and Allen Iverson (4). It's hard to compare actual basketball numbers across eras--the game has changed a lot since the time Wilt was able to average 50.4 ppg (1962, which he followed up with 44.8 ppg in '63) and 27.2 rpg (1961). However, a scoring title proves that a particular player, in a particular season with its own rules, trends, and strategies, was the best scorer. So Iverson's four scoring titles suggest he is one of the all-time greats.
And the Timberwolves should do everything save trade KG to acquire him.
Why don't the Lions play Josh McCown?
Josh McCown showed some real promise on some pretty awful Arizona Cardinal teams. Evidently the Lions liked his promise, since they are paying him $4 million in 2006. Their 2006 season is a total loss: at 2-11 they can lose out and go 2-14 or win out and go 5-11, and it really won't prove anything or lessen the embarrassment. And can the Lions really think that Jon Kitna, the 34 year old QB presiding over this 2-11 season, is the long-term answer at quarterback? McCown is 27 and might have a future--a future the Lions will never know about if they don't give him a shot at some real game play. $4 million is a lot to pay for a backup you have no intention of ever starting at QB (though evidently they've given him a whirl at WR).
(remembering that I am a Viking fan and the Lions play in the NFC North...)
Oh wait! I am completely wrong. McCown is a bum--don't bother trying to play him. Jon Kitna is the Lord and Savior of the Gridiron--he should be the Lions' starting QB for the next decade. Give Matt Millen time--he'll turn this debacle around eventually. Lions, Millen, and Kitna forever!
Cold Hard Football Facts has made a list of the top 10 pro football teams to fail to win a championship. As expected, the Vikes come up twice on the list: the 1969 team ranks #4, and the 1998 team ranks #2. Interestingly enough the 1975 Vikes might have been better than either of those teams--that's the team that got Hail Maryed by Roger Staubauch, Drew Pearson, and the referees.
Do you realize Allen Iverson is one of the greatest scorers in basketball history?
There are only four basketball players in the history of the NBA to lead the league in scoring four or more times: Michael Jordan (10), Wilt Chamberlain (7), George Gervin (4), and Allen Iverson (4). It's hard to compare actual basketball numbers across eras--the game has changed a lot since the time Wilt was able to average 50.4 ppg (1962, which he followed up with 44.8 ppg in '63) and 27.2 rpg (1961). However, a scoring title proves that a particular player, in a particular season with its own rules, trends, and strategies, was the best scorer. So Iverson's four scoring titles suggest he is one of the all-time greats.
And the Timberwolves should do everything save trade KG to acquire him.
Why don't the Lions play Josh McCown?
Josh McCown showed some real promise on some pretty awful Arizona Cardinal teams. Evidently the Lions liked his promise, since they are paying him $4 million in 2006. Their 2006 season is a total loss: at 2-11 they can lose out and go 2-14 or win out and go 5-11, and it really won't prove anything or lessen the embarrassment. And can the Lions really think that Jon Kitna, the 34 year old QB presiding over this 2-11 season, is the long-term answer at quarterback? McCown is 27 and might have a future--a future the Lions will never know about if they don't give him a shot at some real game play. $4 million is a lot to pay for a backup you have no intention of ever starting at QB (though evidently they've given him a whirl at WR).
(remembering that I am a Viking fan and the Lions play in the NFC North...)
Oh wait! I am completely wrong. McCown is a bum--don't bother trying to play him. Jon Kitna is the Lord and Savior of the Gridiron--he should be the Lions' starting QB for the next decade. Give Matt Millen time--he'll turn this debacle around eventually. Lions, Millen, and Kitna forever!
More philosophy on effort in sports
Yesterday I used Marxism to try debunk one ethical argument about effort in sports. Today I would like to attack another common argument about the ethics of hard work in sports: the "he owes it to himself" argument.
I've heard this argument used against every "underachiever" from Ricky Williams to Darius Miles. The idea goes that a particular player is born with an immense amount of physical talent. By not putting forth his best effort, he is "wasting" that talent. The player "owes it to himself" to work hard and make the most of his talent--even if he doesn't like a particular sport that much, or even if he's happy getting paid millions and trying to enjoy his life. It is wrong (or unethical, or immoral) for such a talented player to "waste" his talent; if born with that talent, he has a responsibility to use it to the best of his ability.
This idea is a secularization of a religious concept. A Christian perspective on "talent" goes like this: everything you are, everything you are capable of, all your skills and talents, are a gift from God. You didn't do anything to earn them, they don't reflect on your own merit--they reflect on the beneficence of the Divine. Therefore, since God has given you this talent, you have a RESPONSIBILITY to use these talents for God's greater glory. You have a duty to use those talents--the effort of those talents and the fruits of those talents--for God. To waste a God-given talent is a sin.
In a secular world, we are often uncomfortable talking about what gifts come from God and what we owe God. Furthermore, we are rightly uncomfortable talking about millionaire adults playing a game with no real consequences doing their best to win to "serve God." Many of us think it is silly to talk about God in sports (If he wants you to win, does he want the other side to lose? Why does he care who wins a game--aren't there many other problems in the world to worry about?).
However, even a secularized sports world hasn't given up the ideology. Language of religion remains attached to talent: we talk about a player's "God-given abilities," we talk about a player being "blessed" with massive talent. When an announcer or commentator uses these terms, he is not usually (I assume) engaging in Christian theology or talking about the greater good of God. He is using that religious language to describe what is also often called "natural" talent.
But if the secular world now doubts that a person "owes" his talents to God, but we still maintain the ideology, to whom does he really "owe" his talents? We find other sources. "To himself." "To the fans." In the bourgeoise interpretation, "to the guy signing his paycheck." "To the sport." When in fact, no matter how much talent an individual player has, in a rational sense he owes nothing to himself, to the fans, or to the sport itself. If a person is "born with" (sort of a silly term itself--babies don't seem to have a lot of talent. Ricky Bobby likes to pray to the baby Jesus, though, the eight point, six ounce Jesus, learning colors from his Baby Einstein) a bunch of talent, there is no duty, responsibility, or debt to anybody. The person PLAYS A GAME--there's not a great deal of real responsibility in that.
Now, I do believe a player may "owe" effort to somebody in an ethical sense. In some cases, it could be argued he owes his coach the effort. In most cases, it can be argued that he owes his teammates the effort. Indeed, you can say that he can/should put in effort "for himself"; if a player is truly competitive and wants to win badly, he will/should put in as much effort as possible to win. But in that case the player would WANT to put in the effort, not feel he is morally, contractually, or ethically required to put in the effort.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Bourgeoise Ideology and Sports
A distinct feature of Bourgeois ideology (or as Weber would have it, the Protestant Ethic) is that a moral value is attached to "hard work." If you work hard, you are morally good; if you do not work hard, you are morally bad. If somebody pays you for labor, you then owe that person your complete and total effort, %100, mind and body.
This leads to one of the major excesses of capitalism: the belief that to pay for labor is to purchase a man for a limited duration. By accepting a paycheck, you are no longer considered an independent person; you now owe your employer the total effort of your body and mind to the ends of the employer. You have sold your total effort for a set duration.
The excess is that you don't pay for goods and services; you pay for a man's efforts to your ends. The employee now owes his employer total effort, and if he is "morally good," he will provide that effort.
This is a dehumanizing ethic.
This ethic often gets extended into sports. This week Peter King comments on Terrell Owens saying "On the field sometimes, I'm not really into it. It's almost like I'm kind of faking it. I'm not happy, and it really was affecting my game."
King responds:
If there's anyone left on Planet Earth who supported Terrell Owens and rooted for him, I submit to you there is now officially no reason to do either for the rest of your life.
Terrell Owens got a $5 million bonus this year, and makes a salary of $5 million. He had a workout bonus of $1.1 million, which I doubt he qualified for because he had better things to do this offseason than, God forbid, actually work out regularly with his team to get ready for the season. So let's forego the workout bonus and just deal with the $10 million. If you divide $10 million by 17 (the number of weeks in the regular season that players get paid for), it comes out to $588,235.29 a week.
This is what he's saying to Jerry Jones: I am on the field for about 60 plays per week, and you pay me $588,235.29 for those 60 plays. On some of those plays, I'm not going to try very hard, because I'm just not into it.
Peter King, like many sports fans, has internalized the bourgeois ethic that places moral value on hard work, and that assumes that getting paid means you owe total effort. Thus, he tells us, regardless of whether Owens is happy, he has accepted money, and now he owes total effort. By failing to put forth total effort (by not accepting that getting paid means he has sold his mind and body for a set duration), Owens is "morally bad" and, according to King, nobody on planet earth should root for him.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Media idiots and smarties
Gregg Easterbrook: idiot
TMQ thinks that Peyton Manning does too many commercials, and this may prevent him from winning a Super Bowl. He should focus exclusively on football, TMQ says.
This is remarkably dumb. Manning works harder than perhaps any NFL player at studying film, understanding the nuances of the game, and trying to improve his own game. The suggestion that he isn't devoting enough time and attention to football is laughable. People have time for lives outside of their livelihoods. If Manning did no commercials, would he then spend that non-endorsement time studying football? Lifting weights? Perhaps he would devote the time to some non-football hobby. Devoting time to a non-football hobby (stamp collecting? water color painting? reading Neo-classical poetry? who knows) could take just as much time away from football as shilling, but of course, that would go unnoticed.
Some people complained that when Jesse Palmer did "The Bachelor" that he should have been devoting more time to football. That's silly. I assume players take off-season vacations. Many of them have families. They do all sorts of non-football activities that don't really get criticized because they don't get publicized (exceptions include trying to play another sport or riding a motorcycle, activities that potentially affect performance).
TMQ comes up with this bit of genius: "Manning films most commercials during the offseason, but even film work "in the can" generates distractions during money time. Colts' players snap on the television, they see Peyton hawking Gatorade, it's not conducive to concentration or team harmony." Do I even need to point out the idiocy of this? If a single Colt player is unable to properly work out, practice, or execute a play because Manning is shilling, that player sucks in the brain. I'm willing to guess Colt players are more likely to get distracted by all sorts of non-Manning things in their lives (like, for Nick Harper, getting stabbed).
This bit of moronical commentary earns TMQ a label as media idiot.
Dan LeBatard: Smartie
In his interview with The Big Lead, here's what Dan LeBatard said about the idea of a "double standard":
And I’m just as tired of hearing white people bitch about the double standard here as white people are of hearing cries of racism. Yes, black people can say things white people can’t. But Jimmy The Greek and Al Campanis don’t make up for slavery, OK? They don’t make up for the fact that just about every person in a position of power in sports is white and hiring other white people. They don’t make up for the fact that 6 of 1 million college-football coaches are black because all the people in power and making the decisions are white and they tend to hire other white people because if you looked around the room at their parties and galas and weddings, all you would see is white people. This isn’t racism. Its human nature. We gravitate toward those with similar interests, experiences, etc. But black people are in an unequal position because of it. So, yes, there’s a double standard. Black people can say things that white people can’t. But I’m OK with that double standard given what has to be endured to arrive at it.
Now here's what I wrote last month about a double standard:
Here's why it's silly to complain about a "double standard" that supposedly benefits black people. In America's history, there has always been a double standard, and that double standard has overwhelmingly been to the advantage of white people. If you even want to argue with this point, you have a terrible grasp of American history. What happened to the Native Americans? What was slavery? What happened after slavery was abolished? What was the experience of Asian Americans in America? How long ago was the Civil Rights movement? Who holds most of the positions of power and prestige in America? It's quite obvious that there has always been a double standard that has favored white people. And if that means that people like Charles Barkley and Michael Irvin can now say things that would get white people in trouble, so be it.
Since Dan LeBatard says something on this topic similar to what I say, he earns the label media smartie.
Patrick Reusse: idiot
I've contended, with evidence, that Patrick Reusse likes to make fun of Viking fans. Well, this weekend Reusse wrote a column titled "Viking diehards need to look in mirror." In it, he blames Viking fans for having high expectations for the team year after year, then looking for somebody to blame when those expectations are not met. Perhaps we should thank a paid newspaper columnist for telling us all to settle down. After all, Reusse is where Viking fans look for self-improvement--if we listened to Reusse, we wouldn't be "such saps." But I wonder, would it be out of line to ask a paid newspaper columnist to provide us some sort of insight into the events on the field? Is making fun of the Vikings and their fans really enough to earn a paycheck from the Strib? I've yet to see Reusse bring a real piece of football insight, but he does a wonderful job making fun of us.
So Patrick Reusse, in his continuing condescension of Viking fans, gets the label media idiot.
TMQ thinks that Peyton Manning does too many commercials, and this may prevent him from winning a Super Bowl. He should focus exclusively on football, TMQ says.
This is remarkably dumb. Manning works harder than perhaps any NFL player at studying film, understanding the nuances of the game, and trying to improve his own game. The suggestion that he isn't devoting enough time and attention to football is laughable. People have time for lives outside of their livelihoods. If Manning did no commercials, would he then spend that non-endorsement time studying football? Lifting weights? Perhaps he would devote the time to some non-football hobby. Devoting time to a non-football hobby (stamp collecting? water color painting? reading Neo-classical poetry? who knows) could take just as much time away from football as shilling, but of course, that would go unnoticed.
Some people complained that when Jesse Palmer did "The Bachelor" that he should have been devoting more time to football. That's silly. I assume players take off-season vacations. Many of them have families. They do all sorts of non-football activities that don't really get criticized because they don't get publicized (exceptions include trying to play another sport or riding a motorcycle, activities that potentially affect performance).
TMQ comes up with this bit of genius: "Manning films most commercials during the offseason, but even film work "in the can" generates distractions during money time. Colts' players snap on the television, they see Peyton hawking Gatorade, it's not conducive to concentration or team harmony." Do I even need to point out the idiocy of this? If a single Colt player is unable to properly work out, practice, or execute a play because Manning is shilling, that player sucks in the brain. I'm willing to guess Colt players are more likely to get distracted by all sorts of non-Manning things in their lives (like, for Nick Harper, getting stabbed).
This bit of moronical commentary earns TMQ a label as media idiot.
Dan LeBatard: Smartie
In his interview with The Big Lead, here's what Dan LeBatard said about the idea of a "double standard":
And I’m just as tired of hearing white people bitch about the double standard here as white people are of hearing cries of racism. Yes, black people can say things white people can’t. But Jimmy The Greek and Al Campanis don’t make up for slavery, OK? They don’t make up for the fact that just about every person in a position of power in sports is white and hiring other white people. They don’t make up for the fact that 6 of 1 million college-football coaches are black because all the people in power and making the decisions are white and they tend to hire other white people because if you looked around the room at their parties and galas and weddings, all you would see is white people. This isn’t racism. Its human nature. We gravitate toward those with similar interests, experiences, etc. But black people are in an unequal position because of it. So, yes, there’s a double standard. Black people can say things that white people can’t. But I’m OK with that double standard given what has to be endured to arrive at it.
Now here's what I wrote last month about a double standard:
Here's why it's silly to complain about a "double standard" that supposedly benefits black people. In America's history, there has always been a double standard, and that double standard has overwhelmingly been to the advantage of white people. If you even want to argue with this point, you have a terrible grasp of American history. What happened to the Native Americans? What was slavery? What happened after slavery was abolished? What was the experience of Asian Americans in America? How long ago was the Civil Rights movement? Who holds most of the positions of power and prestige in America? It's quite obvious that there has always been a double standard that has favored white people. And if that means that people like Charles Barkley and Michael Irvin can now say things that would get white people in trouble, so be it.
Since Dan LeBatard says something on this topic similar to what I say, he earns the label media smartie.
Patrick Reusse: idiot
I've contended, with evidence, that Patrick Reusse likes to make fun of Viking fans. Well, this weekend Reusse wrote a column titled "Viking diehards need to look in mirror." In it, he blames Viking fans for having high expectations for the team year after year, then looking for somebody to blame when those expectations are not met. Perhaps we should thank a paid newspaper columnist for telling us all to settle down. After all, Reusse is where Viking fans look for self-improvement--if we listened to Reusse, we wouldn't be "such saps." But I wonder, would it be out of line to ask a paid newspaper columnist to provide us some sort of insight into the events on the field? Is making fun of the Vikings and their fans really enough to earn a paycheck from the Strib? I've yet to see Reusse bring a real piece of football insight, but he does a wonderful job making fun of us.
So Patrick Reusse, in his continuing condescension of Viking fans, gets the label media idiot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)