"O Hamlet, Thou hast cleft my heart in twain."

If, as Pro Football Talk is suggesting, Randy Moss ends up on the Green Bay Packers, there will be unprecedented sorrow expressed at PV. That is more than we could take.

Imagine d'Artagnan joining the Cardinal's guards. Unfathomable.

Real tears could flow.

Just so you know.

Day Job: "They" is not singular, and a link on film narrative

We're doing a little experiment here at PV. This is primarily a sports blog, but I'm thinking of incorporating a bit of non-sports chatter into the routine. If I write a non-sports post, I'll always include "Day Job" in the title (so that if you are here to read only about sports, you know what to gloss over). They won't be all this boring, I hope.

Despite the insistence of stubborn English teachers, the plural pronoun is becoming a singular genderless pronoun. This is used not just in everyday English speech, but by the mainstream media. More and more often I hear somebody on TV use "they," "their," or "them" as a pronoun to refer to a singular subject. You know: "A person shouldn't take their work home with them." Something like that, where the plural pronouns "their" and "them" are used to refer back to the singular noun "person." It's easy to fix this agreement problem: either make the noun and pronouns all singular, or make the noun and pronouns all plural. But to many people it doesn't sound wrong, so nobody seems to be fixing it. And I'm not just talking about live broadcasts--I'm talking about narration in which there should have been time to proofread and revise.

Every time I hear it, I grit my teeth and squint as if somebody has just poured hot wax over my head. I just can't stand it.

I see it less often in professional writing, as there's a higher standard of grammar in writing (though I rarely read a freshman paper without the same error).

Help me, people. On issues of grammar, English teachers are among the most conservative people on earth. Language always evolves: what is grammatically correct today may not have been grammatically correct a century ago, and may not be grammatically correct a century from now. But help me prevent "they" from becoming the genderless singular pronoun.

Thanks for your time. I'd also like to provide an interesting link for you to check out:

"The New Disorder: Adventures in Film Narrative" by David Denby (The New Yorker)

Denby explores why films seem to be playing around with chronology so much. My theory: film is just slower than literature, and mainstream film is now doing with novelists and poets have been doing a long, long time. If you want fragmented narrative, just try T. S. Eliot's "The Wasteland" or William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury." Film just takes a little time to catch up to what is going on in fiction (this is also my theory for the rise in meta-fictional film. If you'd like to read perhaps the best model of metafiction, try John Fowles' The French Lieutenant's Woman). But Denby gives the recent film trend of fragmentation and re-ordering some insightful treatment.

In praise of Drew Bennett

There is a veteran that should be the Vikings' top free agency priority. The Vikings should--nay, MUST acquire this man.

This man is Drew Bennett.

Drew Bennett is a 6'5" athlete. He's fast. I know a white WR is either supposed to be a possession receiver or "deceptively fast," but Bennett is just fast. He can go deep and make plays.

Drew Bennett has the size, speed, athleticism, and shiftiness to transform the Vikings' offense. Indeed, give Brad Childress a singular talent like Bennett, and Brad Childress might just transform football offense as we know it. Drew Bennett is the playmaker the Vikings need to get to the Super Bowl and win the damn thing.

You may look at Drew Bennett and see an average NFL wide receiver. You, however, are an idiot. In the right system, Drew Bennett can be an elite WR. His size allows him to make plays short; his speed allows him to make plays long. There's really nothing Drew Bennett can't do on the football field. He would instantly be the best WR on the Vikings' roster. Hell, if the Vikings talked Anthony Carter out of retirement, HE would instantly be the best WR on the Vikings' roster, we know that. But Drew Bennett is a special, special football player. We should march on Winter Park until the Vikings recognize this and run--RUN--to sign him.

And besides, according to his wikipedia page, he has memorized the movie Ghost (let me tell you how suprised I'll be if this is just a wiki prank that will be removed momentarily: not at all).

This colossal wreck

One year ago today, I looked about the internet and thought perhaps I had something original to contribute to the sports blog community, and so this humble blog was born. One year...perhaps on the way home, I'll pick up a vegan cake. Um...perhaps not.

The Minnesota Vikings may never win a Super Bowl in my lifetime, and this depresses me in unimaginable ways. I sometimes wonder if my entire philosophical worldview would be different had the Vikings won the Super Bowl in 1998. Perhaps existential ideas like futility, absurdity, and hazard would make less sense to me. As it is, my outlook is dour. How we follow sports can tell us something about how we live our lives, or at least I like to think so. So I hope that this blogging matters. It's mostly been good fun expressing ideas between classes. But thanks to those who take the time to read this blog, and thanks to those bloggers out there who give us something to read and think about. Blogs have made following sports much more fun. If I'm going to trudge through this weary existence without seeing the Vikings win the Super Bowl, at least I'll have this.

Bleh.

To celebrate this anniversary, let's let Percy Shelley remind us of the significance of all our earthly endeavors.

"Ozymandias" by Percy Shelley

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said--Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

The Next Ten: Dirk Nowitzki

For the 96-97 season, the NBA named its list of the 50 Greatest Basketball Players. For 06-07, we at Pacifist Viking will be adding 10 players to the list. We are not the first to re-examine the list of the greatest players. But you know what? We're the best.

Dirk Nowitzki is a rare talent, and he's only recently come into his own. In 2006 he averaged 26.6 ppg and 9.0 rpg and led the Mavericks to the NBA Finals ('06 playoffs: 27.0 ppg and 11.7 rpg). Playing the league's most talent-rich position, he's been All-NBA 6 times, including All-NBA first-team the last two seasons (this season he will undoubtably be All-NBA first-team again).

This season he's averaging 25.5 ppg and 9.5 rpg with some AMAZING shooting numbers (50.4% FG, 42.7% 3pt., 90.6% FT) in leading the Mavericks to the best record in the league. He'll turn 29 this summer. No doubt he's going to go down as one of the most versatile basketball players of all-time. He will also go down as one of the greatest.

Dirk Nowitzki is akin to Goethe, because I am lazy.

Previous Players: Bob McAdoo, Dennis Rodman, Tim Duncan, Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Reggie Miller, Allen Iverson, and Jason Kidd.

Bloggers: your reputation is in your own hands

It's become a commonplace story for bloggers to express moral outrage. A blogger comes up with some bit or some scoop; somebody from the "mainstream media" uses said bit or said scoop without crediting the blogger; bloggers express outrage. Recently, The Big Lead suspects a scoop of its own was used without credit by PTI. A few months ago, YAY Sports was upset with Scoop Jackson for stealing a bit. Last year Colin Cowherd used some material from the M Zone. And people were (rightly) angry about these things.

That's fair. Anytime you are borrowing somebody else's ideas, you should identify the source of those ideas. I teach English; I emphasize again and again that you must cite any borrowed material. Bloggers have the right to moral outrage when their material is used without credit, or even when their comrades in blogging have their material used without credit.

But, Mr. High Horse Blogger, you probably have your own issues to worry about.

You're probably flouting copyright law every time you blog.

Because photos are copyrighted material. Just because it is easy to copy and paste pictures with a computer doesn't make it legal. Just because everybody else is doing it does not make it right.

If you are going to use a photo that you lifted from somewhere around the web, at the very least you need to credit the source of the photo. But I'm not even sure that's legal. Probably, you need to get permission to use the photo. There are a few exceptions. "Fair use" generally means you can copy borrowed material "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" without infringing on copyright, according to Title 17 of the U.S. Code. But I doubt using a recent photograph to supplement your blog entry, without comment on said picture, fulfills the standards of Fair Use.

There are also a lot of images out there that are now in "public domain." These images could be in the public domain for any number of reasons (usually they're just old), but once they're in the public domain, they're yours to use.

But I'm no copyright lawyer (maybe someday). There are other sources you can use to learn more:

The University of Maryland University College provides data on fair use and copyright.

Here's information from the U.S. Copyright Office (probably a reliable source on copyright) on Fair Use.

The U.S. Copyright Office also gives you the actual legislation.

Bitlaw deals directly with using images online.

So I join you in your moral outrage; members of the mainstream media should not use material from blogs without identifying their sources (though it's legitimate to ask at what point a story is just "out there" as "common knowledge" and no longer requires citation). But when you decide to get morally outraged, make sure you're not participating in a similar transgression.

We know who Peter King DIDN'T like

Peter King is the sort of douchebag who likes players at the combine if they call him "sir" or "Mr. King." And if you read today's MMQB after the combine, it's not hard to pick out a player King evidently doesn't like. Not because King explicitly points out anything the player said or didn't say to him, but because it's a guy he's chosen to make fun of more than once in his column.

Here's King's "Quote of the Week III" (remember what I said--roman numerals are for philistines):

"Just look at my body of work at USC. I won a national championship as a freshman. I've been all-American two times, broke every record at USC, fourth in NCAA history in scoring touchdowns. I had 41. So look at the film.''

--Trojans wide receiver Dwayne Jarrett, sounding a tad bitter at the prospect of dropping in the draft. He's projected to be a late first- or second-round pick, dropping in some scouts' eyes because of average quickness and a perceived difficulty in getting away from quick corners in bump coverage.

OK. Nothing much to that--though King did choose this quote. Remember, sometimes the reporter doesn't have to inject bias, but shows bias in what he chooses to report about. Showing Jarrett sounding "a tad bitter" then talking about his flaws, is a deliberate choice.

Then look at "Quote of the Week IV":

"I respect him, he respects me, and that's how we pretty much differ.''

--Dwayne Jarrett, on his relationship with former USC wideout Mike Williams.

Was that English he was speaking?

Do you think that Peter King is going to use a player's quote, then say "Was that English he was speaking?" for a player he likes? I don't think so. If King likes a guy, he's not going to go out of his way to insult his use of the English language; he'll save that for guys he didn't like.

Besides that, I'd like to see this quote in context. What is the question he was answering? Was it just, "How do you and Mike Williams differ?" If so, the answer actually makes sense. Mike Williams sucks in the NFL. Jarrett, another USC WR that might be slow, doesn't want to be compared to Mike Williams because that would be bad. However, he is a USC alum with Williams (did they play together, too?) so he doesn't want to insult him by pointing out the ways that Williams sucks and the ways that he, Jarrett, is good. So he avoids the question by saying they respect each other. Fine.

But King isn't done making fun of Jarrett:

a. Dwayne Jarrett said Saturday that Pete Carroll's coaching staff at USC "is the best coaching staff I've ever been around.'' What a tribute! Did you know the USC coaching staff is better than New Brunswick (N.J.) High's? Amazing.

OK. Jarrett said something cliched and meaningless--just like EVERY athlete and EVERY coach says MANY things that are cliched and meaningless. But as a columnist, King gets to pick and choose which lame and meaningless quotes he's going to make fun of. Do you think Tiki Barber ever says anything cliched and meaningless? Brett Favre? Do you think King will make fun of them?

Jarrett must have annoyed King in some way at the combine. Didn't call him "sir." Didn't recognize him. Didn't give him time to answer questions. Who knows? But King has made the effort in his column to make fun of Jarrett, so I have little doubt Jarrett did something that, to King, signified a lack of respect. Because King thinks he's earned the respect of a person he's never met or helped or done anything to or for in his life.

King said other dumb things. Calling Troy Smith "a little Napoleonic, "BUT" a "natural leader." His moralizing over the gore in The Departed. The same brain-dead moralizing schlock he comes with every week.

But as time goes on, if you find that Jarrett becomes one of King's weekly whipping boys, don't be surprised--you can see it beginning here.

Darrell Jackson, anyone?

According to the News Tribune (found via PFT), the Seattle Seahawks (infamous whiners) may try to trade Darrell Jackson. I don't know what the Vikes would have to give up to get him, but whatever flaws Jackson has as a player, on the Vikings he would instantly be 10 times better than any other WR on the roster.

We're in the pure fantasy and speculation phase of the football year, folks. Let me fantasize about David Carr throwing zingers out to Darrell Jackson.

Chuck Klosterman on Viking fans

You can read Michael Rand's interview with Klosterman at Randball.

Here's a selection:

"unlike football fans in other cities - Viking fans actually enjoy the experience of losing important games; it somehow validates the futility of their existence. There is some abstract, undefinable quality that makes anyone associated with the Viking organization a failure....If Minnesota ever won a Super Bowl, it would be like Sisyphus losing his rock. As such, Viking fans are not tortured at all. They are simply embracing their self-reflexive doom to the highest possible degree. It’s actually somewhat noble."

Um...I guess. But I already understand the futility of my existence; I would sort of like a championship to give me a few smiles on my journey into the abyss.

Oh, and this is almost the exact opposite thing Klosterman once said in an interview with Bill Simmons:

"What I love about Red Sox fans is their sense of doomed destiny; they almost want to lose, because that failure is romantic. This is far different from, say, Minnesota Vikings fans, as they always believe -- and I mean always -- that this is the year. And it never is, and it never will be."

As Walt Whitman said, "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes."

David Carr, future Super Bowl MVP with the Minnesota Vikings

I'm going to say what needs to be said: David Carr will be the best QB in the league soon, and anybody who thinks otherwise is a philistine.

Discuss.

So, who is the 60th greatest basketball player?

At this point, I'm willing to take suggestions: what player, either current or former, should be added to the PV list of the 60 greatest players?

Here's the original NBA 50 team, and here's the players we've added so far: Bob McAdoo, Dennis Rodman, Tim Duncan, Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Reggie Miller, Allen Iverson, and Jason Kidd.

I really had no problem coming up with these nine players: the only questions I had concerned Reggie Miller, and I kept forgetting about Jason Kidd (though he clearly belongs), but I'm fairly confident in this list. I just don't know who else to add.

Hoops Hype looked at players 51-60 about a year ago, so you can look to that list for ideas.

Here are some players I'm considering:
Dominique Wilkins: the scoring averages from '85 through '93 are impressive.
Dirk Nowitzki: For six straight years he's been averaging 21+ points and around 9 rebounds per game. The last few years he's brought his game up a notch, and his best years could be in front of him.
Tracy McGrady: I'm not a fan, but he does have those two scoring titles.
Dwyane Wade: Is it too early? Players who win championships as the best players on their teams so early usually have historical status.

How about some of the ABA's MVPs? Choices not already on our list include Connie Hawkins, Mel Daniels, Spencer Haywood, and Artis Gilmore. Or should we consider two-time BAA scoring champion, Joe Fulks?

I'm open to suggestions. Let's hear your ideas.

And if you're interested in this subject, you should enjoy Elliot Kalb's book Who's Better, Who's Best? in Basketball. It's a good read and a good basketball history primer, even though his arguments are frequently fairly weak. For example, he ranks Shaquille O'Neal as the best player ever without really providing a sound argument for why he's better than Wilt or MJ. His arguments seem to be that Shaq almost won more scoring titles (so what?), that he's a great rebounder (OK...except that he NEVER led the league in rebounding. Not once), and that he's been great in the playoffs (he never really shows convincingly that his playoff performances were drastically superior to a lot of other all-time greats). Each chapter works fine as an essay on its own (except the George Gervin chapter--his analysis of how many points Gervin's poor defense cost the Spurs never really works), but his actual rankings of one player over another are unconvincing, almost like he's not bothering to try convince you of the rankings.

Media Bias in Sports: " Former Viking Robinson gets 90 days in jail"

My Packer fan friend Rob, a sometimes commenter at PV, sent me the following in an email:

how the media works: sports illustrated.com headline: former viking robinson gets 90 days jail.

not: 'packers wr robinson gets 90 days jail.' nice huh? what clearer
illustration of bias and prejudice in the media can you find?

It's true: go see for yourself. It's possible that since this is an AP story picked up in St. Peter, MN, the focus is framed around a Minnesota connection. But when using that AP story, isn't it a bit awkward for SI to use that headline on its NFL page?

The Next Ten: Jason Kidd

For the 96-97 season, the NBA named its list of the 50 Greatest Basketball Players. For 06-07, we at Pacifist Viking will be adding 10 players to the list. We are not the first to re-examine the list of the greatest players. But you know what? We're the best.

In this decade, Steve Nash is starting to overshadow Jason Kidd as the best point guard in the league. While Nash may be brilliant, this is completely unfair. In Jason Kidd's career, he has led the league in assists per game 5 times, been second in the league in assists per game 3 times, and been in the top-5 in assists per game another 3 times. Compare that to Nash, who so far has led the league twice and been in the top-5 a total of 3 times. Kidd has the numbers to claim the title of greatest passer of this era.

Jason Kidd has been All-NBA first team 5 times. He's been NBA All-Defense first or second team 8 times. And he carried a less than inspiring Nets team to the NBA Finals two years in a row. He's done so by being in the top-5 in assists per game a whopping 11 seasons. He's one of the top point guards ever to play the game, and easily one of the 60 greatest players ever.

Jason Kidd is akin to Christopher Marlowe. Here is Marlowe, stepping up as the great poet and playwright of his era--and then gets completely overtaken by William Shakespeare. The difference is that we are right to consider Shakespeare the master over Marlowe; I find it hard to argue that Steve Nash is better than Jason Kidd. You could even argue that Nash is Marlowe to Kidd's Shakespeare: Kidd, like Shakespeare, has the much larger and more impressive ouevre. But we'll deal in perception and call Kidd the Marlowe to Nash's Shakespeare.

Previous Players: Bob McAdoo, Dennis Rodman, Tim Duncan, Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Reggie Miller, Allen Iverson

The Next Ten: Allen Iverson

For the 96-97 season, the NBA named its list of the 50 Greatest Basketball Players. For 06-07, we at Pacifist Viking will be adding 10 players to the list. We are not the first to re-examine the list of the greatest players. But you know what? We're the best.

Allen Iverson has won an MVP and four scoring titles. He's led the league in steals per game three times. He's got a career regular season scoring average of 28 ppg (3rd all-time, behind only MJ and Wilt) and a postseason scoring average of 30.6 ppg. Without much talent around him at all, Iverson took the 76ers to the 2001 NBA Finals. He's a unique player and historically accomplished (only three other players--Jordan, Wilt, and Gervin--have four or more scoring titles). He is easily one of the 60 greatest basketball players of all-time.

Iverson is akin to Langston Hughes. Iverson is often credited with bringing the hip hop attitude to the NBA; he refused to compromise his life, attitude, or image for anyone. Hughes is credited with bringing the rhythms of black music (jazz and the blues) into poetry. Hughes also refused to compromise his artistic vision: he famously said that a black poet that wants to be known as a "poet" and not a "black poet" is trying to write like a white poet, and he expressed unconcern over whether white people liked his poetry or not.

Previous Players: Bob McAdoo, Dennis Rodman, Tim Duncan, Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Reggie Miller

(photo by Carl Van Vechten, in public domain)

1st round bust to Super Bowl champ

We're turning this blog into "We Love David Carr" for the time being. Here is a list of the quarterbacks that were first-round picks, were considered busts by the teams that drafted them, then won Super Bowls as starting quarterbacks with other teams.

Len Dawson (first-round pick of Steelers, won title with Chiefs)

Jim Plunkett (first overall pick by Patriots, won two Super Bowls with Raiders

Doug Williams (first-round pick of Buccaneers, won Super Bowl with Redskins)

Steve Young (first-round pick of Buccaneers, won Super Bowl with 49ers)

Trent Dilfer (first-round pick with Buccaneers, won Super Bowl with Ravens)

Gee, maybe the Bucs should have held onto some of their first-round QBs? In addition to these three that won Super Bowls, Vinny Testeverde went on to have a solid career playing for competent teams.

Could David Carr become one of these QB busts who rewrites his legacy with a Super Bowl win? I don't know. Certainly there are many more busts that failed and never revived their careers with championships. But here's the thing: David Carr never sucked in Houston. As the Insomniac mentioned in a previous post, we kept waiting for Carr to have a breakout season, and it never came. But he also never bottomed out: he was a mediocre QB on a bad team. We could ascribe his mediocrity to being a young, inexperience quarterback who didn't get very good coaching, who played on an expansion team, and who rarely had a chance to succeed playing behind a poor offensive line (he was sacked at an historic rate). He's never been so awful as to make me think he can't be good. With a better team, with a better offensive line, with better offensive coaching, with more experience, Carr could become a good quarterback.

And the Vikings have no better option for 2007, anyway. Tarvaris Jackson may be a superstar QB someday, but I doubt that day will come in 2007. If they're going to get a competent veteran to play for a year or two, they could do worse than Carr, who has had some success and is still young enough to be considered a potential good QB.

UCLA defeats Arizona

When I made the existential choice to root for UCLA, I might have considered location. If I had chosen a Big Ten school, I'd get to watch them play every weekend. As it is, on Saturday I got my first chance to watch the team I've been following from afar (the Bruin Basketball Report does a good job summarizing games). Here are a few observations on this team, based on what I saw against Arizona.

Darren Collison
Collison is a much better point guard for this team than Jordan Farmar was. Farmar dribbled a lot, looking for his own shot; Collison moves the ball around, getting teammates good shots and constantly pushing the tempo of the game. Don't get me wrong, Farmar was great: it's hard to criticize his style of play on last year's team when he was the best player on a team that got to the NCAA championship game, and if he were on this year's Bruin team, he might alter his game to better suit the team's abilities. But right now, Collison is a wonderful point guard.

Against the zone
After UCLA opened up the game with domination, Arizona switched to a zone. The zone was occasionally effective (and it was much more effective than man to man was), but the Bruins still managed to break it. They broke the Arizona zone just the way you're supposed to break a zone: move the ball around quickly, hit your outside shots, run the floor, and penetrate to alter the zone. They were particularly good on Saturday at making their three pointers: there were stretches when the team was really hot, and a few players hit some DEEP threes.

Versatility
UCLA should be good in the NCAA tournament because they match up so well with anybody; they shouldn't get a bad matchup against a team with a style they can't match. They can run the floor, they can play stifling defense, they have a competent post game, they can rebound, they have outside shooters, they have versatile scoring guards and swingmen--it's a formidable team.

The Next Ten: Reggie Miller

For the 96-97 season, the NBA named its list of the 50 Greatest Basketball Players. For 06-07, we at Pacifist Viking will be adding 10 players to the list. We are not the first to re-examine the list of the greatest players. But you know what? We're the best.

Reggie Miller may be the greatest shooter in NBA history. He's the career NBA leader in three-point field goals. He led the league in three-point field goals twice, and led the league in FT% five times. And he was no mere shooter that only got open looks set up by the rest of the team: he was a killer scorer that defenses needed to account for. His career scoring average of 18.2 ppg includes six seasons with over 20 ppg. And in the playoffs, he brought his game to another level. I'll never forget the 25 points he dropped in the fourth quarter against the Knicks all while taunting Spike Lee. And that's just the most famous of many great playoff performances.

You could make the argument that Miller doesn't belong on a list of the 60 greatest players of all-time. As I said, he's arguably the greatest shooter in NBA history, but he was never recognized as a dominant performer (though capable of occasional dominant performances). But if I left Miller off the list, I'd be deliberately leaving off the most accomplished three-point shooter ever, and that doesn't seem right. Plus I'd have the Beav to deal with.

Reggie Miller is akin to George Herbert. Herbert is best known for gimmicky poems like "Easter Wings" and "The Altar," poems that are actually shaped like the thing being described. But beyond these gimmicks, Herbert is a master metaphysical poet. His entire collection The Temple contains moving, thoughtful, invigorating poetry. Still, while Herbert deserves mention as an all-time great poet, one cannot say he was the best poet of his era--there are several 17th century poets that are superior. Miller, too, is known as a somewhat gimmicky, one-dimensional player: he's one of the all-time great three-point shooters, and his clutch playoff performances are the stuff of legend. But Reggie Miller's gimmicky career added up to the sum of 25,279 points. He's an all-time great player by any standard. And like Herbert, Reggie Miller was never the best player of his era (he was never even all-NBA first OR second team), but he is memorable and great.

Previous Players: Bob McAdoo, Dennis Rodman, Tim Duncan, Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett

PV guest post at pro-football-reference.com

If you like my (ongoing) bit paralleling NBA greats with poets, you might enjoy my guest post at pro-football-reference.com today, where I give the same treatment to some current NFL players. And while you're at it, keep checking out pro-football-reference.com: it's an excellent football database (simple and easy to access), and they do some really interesting stuff with the numbers on their blog.

David Carr and Tarvaris Jackson

Aquiring David Carr does not mean abandoning Tarvaris Jackson.

If the Vikings sign somebody like Jeff Garcia, it is time and the way of all flesh which requires we would have him for 1-2 years. It will be accepted, practically required, that Jackson then will take over the reigns. Hopefully he'd be ready.

If the Vikings sign somebody like David Carr, it is the Vikings' choice to have him for 1-2 years. If he is average, then they can have him for a short time and turn it over the Tarvaris Jackson. If he is good...well, then they never have to turn it over to Jackson.

When you have a QB with "potential," you don't know whether he's actually going to be a good quarterback. At best, it's a 50-50 proposition. At best. If the Vikings get a 1-2 year solution with the intention of starting Tarvaris Jackson around 2008, what do they do if Jackson turns out to be no good? Then the Vikings get to suck.

But what if they had options? Who says you can't have 2-3 good young QBs on your roster, and find out which one can turn into a franchise QB? If the Vikes have two guys who could become the QB for the next 10 years, well, then they've got twice as good a chance at finding their franchise QB than if they have one.

I do this on Madden all the time: when I draft a QB, I don't KNOW that he's going to become a star. I hope he will, and I've invested in him, but I don't know. Then, if a QB with potential opens up cheaply or in a later round, I'll get him too. If that first option doesn't work out, there's a chance the second option will. You just never know.

The idea that you are only allowed to have one QUARTERBACK OF THE FUTURE, and that if you acquire another QB under 30 you have given up on your QUARTERBACK OF THE FUTURE is ludicrous.

Tarvaris Jackson may be the Vikings' franchise QB. He may not. But there is no reason to bank on it, to set the franchise up in such a way that requires him to be the franchise QB by 2008 or 2009. It can only help to have other options, to have somebody else who might be able to take that franchise QB label. Jackson is a second round pick--he's actually cheaper than a lot of backup QBs, so there's no reason not to keep him. Carr makes a fair amount right now, but if after one year he proves worth it, great, and if he doesn't, you can either abandon him or renegotiate his contract.

It just makes too much sense to bring in David Carr. He'll be 28 in 2007. Perhaps he went through is growing pains with another team so he doesn't have to with the Vikings (if Jackson does become the guy, expect some early struggles like in 2006). He may turn out to be the Viking QB of the future. He may not. And bringing him in to play QB for the Vikes is a long, long way from Childress and company saying "we were wrong about Jackson; he'll never be the franchise QB." Either could, and if both are good, then all the better.

"Homophobia"

Tim Hardaway's comments should not be the story that it is. Yes, it should be a news story; we should take note when a celebrity says such a thing. But radio hosts, bloggers, writers are spending WAY WAY WAY too much time on this story. Why? Tim Hardaway said some awuful things--awful things that you've probably heard said before. Hardaway ADDED NOTHING NEW TO THE DISCOURSE ON HOMOSEXUALITY IN AMERICA. We now know where he stands, but the things that he said have been out there in our society for a long time; there's no reason for this to be the catalyst to make sportswriters talk about it nonstop.

And now I'm going to use this as a catalyst to talk it.

I do not like the term "homophobia" or "homophobic." It's not that I disbelieve in the concept of homophobia, but that the word is applied too broadly. In it's broad application, we label people homophobic who should require some other word; by labeling these people homophobic, I think we distort the discourse. Here are the two groups of people that are often called homophobic but should not be.

People who are prejudiced or bigoted against gay people
We don't call a racist "blackphobic," and we don't call a misogynist "femiphobic." Bigotry does not equate to fear (perhaps bigotry stems from fear, but it does not equate to a "phobia"). A phobia implies something psychological that may be beyond a person's control that needs to be restrained. Bigotry, certainly, is a result of social conditioning, but there's still an element of conscious choice. A lot of the people who hate gay people are not homophobic, i.e., afraid of gay people. They are bigots that require a different, stronger word. heterosexist, perhaps. The term homophobic has come to be the equivalent of "racist" or "sexist," but to me that term distorts what it is. and should not be applied.

People who believe homosexuality is morally wrong
There are people who, usually for religious reasons, believe homosexuality is sinful or wrong. I disagree with these people; furthermore I think in a free society these people should not obstruct freedom and equality for gay people. However, these people have a moral stance that is an "idea." They are not afraid of gay people. Many of them do not hate gay people. They think gay people are morally wrong; they have a concious idea, not a less than concious fear. Certainly you are free to disagree with them, but unlike a bigot, you might have a chance for rational dialogue and discourse with these people (not always--a lot of the people who believe homosexuality is wrong mix in, or are hiding, the outride bigotry, hate, and prejudice of the first group). Applying "homophobia" to this group of people does not help that dialogue; it only distorts what it is. If you are arguing with somebody who believes homosexuality is wrong, and you refer to that person as "homophobic," you are not allowing a clear rational discourse, because the labels have distorted what you are arguing about.