On a Boring NFL Offseason

" To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven," says Ecclesiastes.

"To every thing there is an off-season, and a time to be bored with no purpose under heaven," NFL fans say.

NFL fans suffer through the longest offseason of any major sport. But since the NFL season is an all-consuming Leviathan, sucking up all of our Sundays, most of our Mondays, and occasional Saturdays and Thursdays, it's refreshing to have the offseason. The NFL season leaves us with little leftover energy for life--life becomes what we do between games, waiting for our next chance at football. Now we have life, which is good, but we also have a long, long wait.

Sure, we distract ourselves with football. We plan a fantasy draft, we glob onto any NFL news we find (half the "stories" that we talk about now wouldn't even merit notice in October--everything seems to change during that first Sunday of football), we talk and argue and dream. But this offseason has been particularly brutal. What's really happened? Early in the offseason there were some surprising coaching changes, but coaching changes don't get me through the night. Looking back, the only big-time current star to switch teams has been Willis McGahee (though there are other interesting moves, like Dre Bly and Travis Henry to Denver). The draft is shaping up to be boring--I'm just not seeing any major excitement in the buildup.

Perhaps the offseason has seemed like vanity and striving for the wind because I root for the Vikings. The Vikes have better potential for 2007 than people are giving them credit for--they defense is good and they lost a lot of close games in 2006. But the offense is so tremendously dull and feckless, particularly the passing game. It's fun to watch a good passing game, and the Vikings are far from competence in this area, and in the offseason have thus far done nothing to move toward competence in this area. We're told that Tarvaris Jackson and Brooks Bollinger will compete for the starting quarterback job (they of the 9 combined career TD passes). The only WR added so far is Bobby Wade, and so Troy Williamson (he of the complete inability to adjust to a ball, or seemingly to catch it) is our best WR. Our new TE is a blocker. The #7 pick in this year's draft doesn't seem to be a place for the Vikings to take major strides improving the passing game. I'm not pessimistic about the Vikes in '07--I do believe the Vikings have a shot at a division title. But I'm not excited.

But if the offseason has been dull so far, it can only get worse. After the draft, all real potential or interest in football goes on hold until August. Sure, there are mini-camps, which reveal next to nothing. And August isn't that fun either--I've watching dozens of Kansas City Chiefs' practices, but preseason games are mighty dull, too. During May, June, and July, you can either hope to like baseball or basketball, or you take the time to fulfill your other hobbies in life (for me, this is a time for my most intense and fevered reading).

And so, we blog. Isn't that part of it all? We blog about our favorite football teams during the season, and we have tons to say about that all. But the NFL-focused football blogs that I still read every day seem an exercise in distraction, a forceful attempt to make football matter at this time. Blogging gives us a chance to think about and talk about our teams, even as when there is nothing going on with our teams worth thinking or talking about.

Who else is feeling it? Does this offseason seem more boring than recent offseasons past? Do you feel like there's less real football content out there for us to think about and talk about?

The Blizzard: caffeine free

Sportish Links
Michael Silver of SI seems to think nobody has every played Madden. Hmm, what WOULD happen if every player in the league was available in a draft? None of us have ever tried THAT scenario. If I had to guess, I would say that some 33 year old defensive tackle will inexplicably be drafted in the top 5.

At the NY Times, Harvey Fierstein gives a gay man's perspective on the Imus fiasco in "Our Prejudices, Ourselves."

Also at the NY Times, an op-ed making fun of George Steinbrenner. I'm always surprised to discover Steinbrenner's voice isn't Larry David's voice.

And further at the NY Times, an article on the origins of the upcoming tribute to Jackie Robinson.

Non-sports
The NY Times reports on new evidence further linking dinosaurs and modern birds.

Inside Higher Ed looks at an attempt to change college writing courses.

3quarksdaily has a lot of links to commentary on Kurt Vonnegut. And so another American literary icon bites the dust.

"Collective Opinion" and Imus

CBS has fired Don Imus; thank God racism has now been eliminated in our country. Right? Right?

Of course not, but it will take the next celebrity saying something stupid to put an examination of race back in the mainstream American discourse. We are in an exhausting stretch of celebrities saying something offensive followed by legitimate righteous outrage. Mel Gibson, Tim Hardaway, Michael Richards, Michael Ray Richardson, even Michael Irvin, I guess (back in November, I wrote no less than 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 posts defending Irvin and criticizing some of the reactions to his joke), that guy from Grey's Anatomy, Billy Packer...am I forgetting anybody? I just wish there was a more positive, progressive way to talk about eliminating racism, homophobia, and sexism in our country; the main thing we seem to do is react on the defensive when somebody says something offensive. As Jweiler points out at The Starting Five, people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are on the offensive in attempting to eliminate poverty and racism in this country, but they usually only get the media attention when they react to somebody else's racism.

John Stuart Mill says that "There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism." Perhaps in our time and place, we've found that limit. Combining racism and misogyny, and directing it at a specific, innocent party, and doing so in a public platform, goes beyond that limit; the "collective opinion" has decided that this sort of expression is unacceptable. And perhaps that is fair. I still maintain that we need to keep the limits to free speech as narrow and rare as possible for the good of society as a whole, but if this is the limit, so be it. If somebody with a national, commercial platform says what Imus did, he goes too far and does not deserve that platform anymore. I'm still concerned about a society so willing to demand termination for words, but it is quite clear that the "collective opinion" believes Imus went beyond the acceptable limit.

Thanks for Playing

The time has come for me to step back from guest commentating on Pacifist Viking's blog. I am thankful to him for the opportunity while he had limited access to the internet, but now that he does have easy access I have decided to move back to my own personal blog.

Pacifist Viking blog is the hard work of said Pacifist Viking and now that he has time to post more I feel that it would be best in the interests of his readers if i move on to another arena. So from now on if you want to read about fantasy sports (baseball, football, basketball), fandom (Vikings, Blue Devils, Twins, T-Wolves), or fun (normal posts on sports issues of the day, etc) feel free to wander over to my blog and read also. (www.bluevikingdevil.blogspot.com)

Once again thanks to PV for the opportunity.

The Blizzard: Drew Bledsoe, Kurt Vonnegut, and the Vikings' Schedule

Sports Links
Drew Bledsoe has retired: join the discussion at Football Outsiders, and see what CHFF has to say about Bledsoe's career. It's worth noting that whatever you've thought of Bledsoe in recent years, he was a very good NFL quarterback: 4 Pro Bowls, 7 20+ TD seasons, 3 4,000 yard seasons, a Super Bowl appearance as a starter, and (don't forget) helping the Patriots to the Super Bowl they'd eventually win by relieving an injured Brady in the 2001 AFC Championship game. He threw 251 TD passes in his career; considering what we've seen from other early-drafted QBs in the 90s and 00s, it's hard to consider Bledsoe's career a disappointment. And Viking fans, of course, should remember the autumn afternoon when Bledsoe completed 45-70 passes to bring the Patriots back from a 20-0 deficit to beat the Vikes in overtime, 26-20.

Skol Vikes and the Daily Norseman look at the Vikings' 2007 schedule. When I look at this schedule, I think it's perfectly conceivable that the Vikings could go 16-0. But seriously, folks, there's potential for another good start (like the Vikes had in '03...and '04...and '06, without amounting to a single division title or 10 win season). In the opener at the Metrodome against the Falcons, you could argue that the Vikings will be favored. The Vikings better start strong, because according to the Star Tribune (via Kansas Viking), a poor start could mean TV blackouts.

Leave the Man Alone does her fashion roundup for the Rutgers women's basketball team.

At Ballers, Gamers, and Scoundrels, Roy S. Johnson has written quite a bit on Imus. He says, "Right now, it’s about how we got here and where we go now to ensure - as much as humanly possible - that we never go here again." This strikes me as a bit hyperbolic--it's the sort of "Never again" language we use (rightly) for genocide. I'm not entirely sure, in the big picture, Imus's words actually hurt anybody--if anything, the whole story shows just how strongly our society will no longer tolerate blatant racism and sexism. Far from inciting others to racism or sexism, Imus has incited the masses (rightly) to respond with anger at such words and attitudes. Look, I understand the power of words--that's why I believe so strongly in the power of words to fight words. In this case, Imus and those who share his attitudes aren't winning--those of us that believe in equality and progress are.

If you're interested in my take on the free speech issue and the Imus story, read "Speech We Hate" below.

Moderately Cerebral Bias looks at the Imus story from a Christian perspective. My own take is that from a Christian perspective, Imus's apology must be accepted; a central Christian value is (supposed to be) forgiveness, even if that means forgiving an individual seven time seventy times.

Non-sports
Via Signal to Noise, Kurt Vonnegut has died, another one of the good ones lost.

The Ghosts of Wayne Fontes look at Google and Politics.

Speech We Hate

Full disclosure: I was a research assistant for the New Edition of the Encyclopedia of Censorship and for the Revised Edition of Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Political Grounds. My commitment to free expression and open discourse is strong and overrides almost every other social or political view I have.

When MSNBC made the decision to cancel Don Imus's show, Imus's Constitutional right to free expression was not violated. The Constitution prevents Congress from restricting free expression (through prior censorship or punishment after the fact); it does not prevent consequences for that expression, and employers may restrict expression. Legally, there is nothing out of order.

Still, I'm disturbed how quickly and passionately people called for Imus to be fired over his words. They are, after all, words--hateful words that rightly disgust us, but words nonetheless. Should we respond by demanding Imus lose his job or his forum? Perhaps...but the consequences go deeper than you think.

In the 70s and 80s, Donald Wildmon found a lot on TV that offended him, and he actively campaigned against those shows. According to the Encyclopedia of Censorship, he was involved in a successful censorship campaign against the National Endowment for the Arts (13). For a fairly good summary of Wildmon's crusades against art and entertainment that offends his sensibilities, see Finan and Castro's "The Rev. Donald E. Wildmon’s Crusade for Censorship, 1977-1992." According to Finan and Castro, Wildmon tried to suppress "Television shows like Donahue, Wonder Years, Seinfeld, Major Dad, Roseanne, Murphy Brown, L.A. Law, Northern Exposure, and Quantum Leap" and "Movies like The Last Temptation of Christ and Ghost."

Wildmon was not successful in most of these attempts because he was in the minority; the majority of the country wasn't concerned with Wildmon's sensibilities, and if they didn't want to watch these shows and movies, at least didn't care if other people did.

But the majority doesn't usually need it's expression defended; the minority does. We want the minority to be free to express itself. That means the First Amendment protects all sorts of speech we hate, from denials of the Holocaust to white supremacy. We as a society respond to such despicable speech by either ignoring it or speaking against it, not suppressing it (there are hate speech laws against incitement to violence, however--a pretty reasonable caveat). This hateful speech is the side effect of an open society, but the benefits of an open society far outweigh the negatives (I still maintain that John Stuart Mill's On Liberty is the greatest argument for free speech ever written). Why do we protect speech we hate? IN ORDER TO PROTECT OUR OWN SPEECH. IN ORDER TO PROTECT SPEECH WE LOVE. IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE SPEECH OF THE MINORITY. You see, free expression should be the MEANS by which oppressed, disenfranchised groups can advance the cause of equality and tolerance. For the MANY benefits of free speech, we tolerate the fringe racists their speech.

Aside from the legality of the First Amendment (as I said, MSNBC doesn't violate the Constitution in firing Imus), we want an open society in which the minority can express itself, too. If you don't like said speech, don't attempt to suppress it: either speak against it, or ignore it. You're well within your rights to lambast Imus in any way possible. And yes, you're well within your rights to request Imus be fired.

But should you? What will you do if an artist or an entertainer you like crosses somebody else's line? What will you do if somebody calls for that artist or entertainer to be fired? Because you are accepting the premise that people can be punished or suppressed for their words--not by the government, but by the opinion of the majority.

When people call for somebody else's speech to be limited, they don't usually think about their own speech being limited. In his essay "Unnatural Killers," John Grisham calls for lawsuits against the makers of violent movies if the movies "cause" somebody to commit a crime; what he doesn't address is that as a novelist himself, his own expressions might be challenged in the law. If you are so quick to call for somebody to be fired for offending you, just consider that somebody else might be quick to call for you to be fired for offending him or her.

If you read the archives of this blog, I think you'll find I've been pretty consistent in my condemnation of racism and misogyny; I don't take Imus's hateful insult lightly. I'm not a reactionary believing that this white male is being victimized by the media.

But I also don't take free speech lightly, and as I dislike Imus's words, I can do two things. I can write about why I dislike Imus's words and convince others to dislike those words too, and/or I can ignore Imus in the future. THAT is how an open society works.

We're big enough to be hijacked.

When I typed in the the URL for this blog when commenting at this article at Inside Higher Ed, I mistyped the "s" and the "p" so instead of "blogspot" it read "blogpsot."

Well, go see the results at http://pacifistviking.blogpsot.com.

I don't even know what to say.

BlueVikingDevil's Early 2007 Prediction for the Vikings

Well the schedule has been announced for next year and so here I go predicting without knowing what the Vikings will continue to do to improve their team via the draft or other late FA pick ups with another round of cuts possible. Here we go

Week 1 ATLANTA---Win (Good run D vs. Crappy Passing O)
Week 2 @Detroit---Win (Its the Lions)
Week 3 @KC------Loss (I'm up in the air on this one, but I will go with the Chiefs)
Week 4 GREEN BAY--Loss (Favre pulls off another close victory)
Week 5 BYE
Week 6 @Chicago---Win (Yep, coming off the bye I think the Vikes will win)
Week 7 @Dallas-----Loss (This all depends on if TO has blown up by yet or not, if he has maybe the Vikes Win)
Week 8 Philly-------Loss (Defensive battle, give the upper-hand to the slightly better offense of Philly)
Week 9 SAN Diego-----Loss (Fans start demanding Childress be fired on the spot)
Week 10 @Green Bay----Loss (I hate when Green Bay sweeps)
Week 11 OAKLAND-----WIN (the four game losing streak is snapped)
Week 12 @Giants-----WIN (we seems to always lose to the Giants, but sans Tiki a win comes to us)
Week 13 DETROIT-----WIN (See Week 2 Above)
Week 14 @S.F--------WIN (I see this being a FG battle)
Week 15 CHICAGO-----Loss (The Bears get their revenge)
Week 16 WASHINGTON--Loss (Remember last year when Portis played hurt, this year he is healthy and we are in trouble)
Week 17 @Denver------Win (Already clinched their spot and seed in the Playoffs, Broncos play scrubs)

Final Record 8-8

Oh and I suck at predicting games, so if this somehow miraculously was correct I will always refer to this as the "greatest moment in my sports history" but it wont.

The Blizzard: Don Imus, Josh McCown and Wacky Literature

With greater internet access, I'm able to do more short comments and find more links. I'll call this feature "The Blizzard" because if every other blog has a pseudo-witty title for its links posts, I should too. But it will be more thank just links, as you can see.

Why outrage against Don Imus may be misplaced
Clearly, Imus used derogatory racist and sexist terms to insult a completely innocent party, and he should be rightly taken to task for it. Some people think a two-week suspension is not enough punishment. Perhaps not, but a two-week suspension is not all Imus is getting. The majority of the country now seems to despise him. All major mainstream news sources are devoting time to criticizing, analyzing, and lambasting Imus. Advertisers are abandoning his show, and Imus has to go around apologizing and acting contrite. Putting aside the fact that these were words (hateful, offensive words, but words) and not a crime, I’d say that’s a pretty severe punishment.

But who is Imus? He’s a talker. He goes onto radio and television and talks. If he is not a racist, he at least has a history of saying racist things. Words have power, and so it is important to criticize him—but where is there more power?

Trent Lott once said the country would have been better off if a segregationist had been elected president. He’s now the minority whip in the Senate. Robert Byrd is a former Klansman that once filibustered Civil Rights legislation. He’s currently a U.S. Senator. These are men with REAL power, the power to make laws, the power to dictate policy. And so I believe we should devote about 100 times more attention to these people in power who have racist pasts—they can have a much stronger effect on the country than Imus. Institutional racism is everywhere, and we need to confront it with more energy than we devote to outing racists, not less.

Josh McCown
According to the Detroit News (via PFT), Josh McCown wants out of Detroit. I don’t blame him. I’m not in the habit of showing sympathy for millionaires (after all, the Lions paid him $4 million last year), but as a football player, he got hosed by the Lions last year. The team was 3-13 last year. At one point they were 0-5, and by week 12 they were 2-9 and safely out of playoff contention. And yet the Lions stuck with Jon Kitna rather than seeing what McCown could do in game action. Are you telling me the Lions might have won LESS than 3 games if McCown was given a shot? Or that if they would have won less games, that would matter?

The Detroit News article notes that McCown's record as a starter in Arizona was 10-12: impressive, when you consider that during his four years in Arizona they were 10-32 in games he didn't start. I still think he could be a good quarterback.

Sports Links
Signal to Noise looks at "The Duke Lacrosse Case as Rorschach Test."

Cold, Hard Football Facts looks at legendary RBs taken in the top-5 of the NFL draft.

Alessandra Stanley has an article in the NY Times examining how despite a "suspension," Imus is still everywhere talking.

Inside Higher Ed looks at the issue of college coaches leaving their programs (and players) for other jobs.

Non-sports Links
Inside Higher Ed's Scott McLemee looks at Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, calling it "Shakespeare's batshit crazy play." He's right--it's wild--and if you don't want to read the play, I think the Anthony Hopkins film version is spectacular.

Via Arts & Letters Daily, this essay by Germaine Greer in The Guardian has a title that speaks for itself: "Yes, Frankenstein really was written by Mary Shelley. It's obvious--because the book is so bad"

The Viking pass defense: not as bad as all that

According to Don Banks in his latest Mock Draft, "The Vikings pass defense was abysmal last year."

Is this true? The 2006 Viking pass defense did rank 31st in passing yards allowed and 32nd in completions allowed. However, they also ranked 32nd in competion attempts allowed; it makes sense that a team giving up the most pass attempts is going to give up a lot of completions and yards. Teams threw the ball a lot because they couldn't run the ball; the Vikings ranked 1st in rush attempts allowed, 1st in rush yards allowed, and most importantly, 1st in rush yards per attempt allowed. You could look at the yardage total and say the Viking pass defense was abysmal; or, you could be a real analyst and see that the Viking defense ranked a more respectable 12th in pass yards per attempt.

Furthermore, the Viking defense actually ranked 4th in TD passes allowed and 5th in interceptions. Is that abysmal? Only three teams in the NFL allowed fewer passing touchdowns, EVEN THOUGH NOBODY FACED MORE PASS ATTEMPTS THAN THE VIKINGS. I would say the pass defense handled itself pretty well under the circumstances. Despite being repeatedly passed on, the Viking defense gave up very few TD passes.

Cold, Hard Fooball Facts suggests the Viking pass defense was better than advertised, too. As CHFF has consistently stated (and as I've consistently linked to), total pass yards allowed are not a good way to judge a pass defense. Defensive pass rating is a better number to assess a pass defense, and the Vikings ranked 5th in the league.

If the pass defense was so abysmal, the defense must have given up a lot of points, right? But the Vikings had 9 games in 2006 in which they gave up 1 or 0 offensive TDs. In 9 of 16 games, the Viking defense gave up either ONE or ZERO offensive touchdowns. Do you grasp that? The defense was dominating all around (incredibly, the Vikings record in those games was 3-6 because of defensive and special teams touchdowns and inept offense).

If you don't look closely, you might believe the Viking pass defense was abysmal in 2006. But it wasn't. And I expect Don Banks, a paid sportswriter for Sports Illustrated, to be able to look closer.

(Note: you could argue that the Viking pass rush was abysmal in 2006; they did rank 25rd in the league with 30 sacks. But since Banks is justifying his mock pick of a safety for the Vikings, that doesn't really matter).

On Don Imus

Here are some scattered ideas on the Don Imus story (the comments and the reaction) that have been percolating for a while. I try not to merely re-hash outrage; I'll try here to raise questions I think are worth consideration. As expected, Leave the Man Alone has a unique, insightful take on the situation--do yourself a favor and go read what The HCIC has to say about it.

1. Where did Imus cross the line: with "hoes" or with "nappy-headed hoes"? I tend to think the misogyny of "hoes" would be expected from a guy like Imus in an entertainment radio setting; a few people would have been bothered, but there'd be no major uproar. But with the "nappy-headed hoes" and following conversation, Imus went racist, which is more likely to get a reaction. In this case, I think the misogyny fueled the racism and the racism fueled the misogyny, but the misogyny would have likely been ignored.

2. I'm always disturbed when people call for somebody to be fired for words. I'm not saying it's the wrong reaction, but it disturbs me. I've explained my basic worldview just last week: if you don't like what somebody says, the solution is to talk against it, not to attempt to suppress it.

Still, Imus's suspension is not a violation of his First Amendment right to free expression. There was no prior censorship of Imus's words, and there was no attempt by the government to inflict punitive damages on Imus after his words. His free speech rights remained intact--but the First Amendment does not guarantee a forum or audience. Imus's employers are well within their rights to suspend Imus if they feel his words are offensive or reflect poorly on their reputations. The First Amendment does not require any radio station to allow Imus onto its airwaves; during his suspension, Imus is free to express whatever he wants in all sorts of other forums. And furthermore, you and everybody else has every right to respond angrily to Imus's words, even requesting that he be fired ("demanding" seems like the wrong word here--how are you going to "demand" it? How are you going to follow through on your demand if it is not met?). If you think Imus should be fired, you should say so--I'm just rarely likely to wish for a person to be fired over words, however offensive I find them.

3. Is the reaction to Imus's words bringing too much attention to the words, doing more harm than good? I understand the reaction--if somebody is racist, he/she should be called on it. However, sometimes the reaction brings more attention to the issue, and that's not always a good thing.

For example, I believe Holocaust Denial is the most intellectually dishonest, hateful, reprehensible concept out there, and I react with revulsion to the deniers themselves. However, for practical reasons, I do not believe it should be surpressed by the government: suppression merely calls attention to the false and hateful claims while allowing the deniers to play the martyr and claim the moral high ground (as Deborah Lipstadt, who has far more eloquent things to say about the issue than I do, says, "I am uncomfortable with imprisoning people for speech. Let him go and let him fade from everyone's radar screens"). I'm also not entirely sure it should be addressed or debated by reasonable people: debate can confuse people into thinking there is legitimacy to Holocaust Denial, or at least can make people believe there are "two sides" (still, I recognize that sometimes it simply must be addressed). I think the best way to deal with Holocaust Denial is simply to ignore it (to a point, of course--in certain cases it must be directly dealt with).

How many people would have never heard Imus's comments if it were not for the reaction? I would not have. Would you have? Does the reaction just give more publicity to the misogynistic racist words? Would we as a society be better served ignoring insults like this? But at the same time, is it a bad thing that reaction is bringing attention to the insults? Perhaps it is necessary to constantly call out racism in all its form and make people aware of its presence, especially when the speaker has such a public forum to disseminate racism.

These are just some thoughts, some questions, some conversation points.

BlueVikingDevil's Draft Preview (A Case Against Brady Quinn)

I always enjoy the insights of this Blog's creator and main contributor. In fact for the past three years I have relied very heavily on his take of the Vikings via his own viewing of the games since I have been out in North Carolina and steeped in Panther viewing territory. Finally this fall I will have the opportunity to return to Viking land and so this draft is extremely intersting for me since it will be the first time in 4 years I will be watching a draft and know that I will be able to watch the player we draft play on a week-to-week basis.

I agree with Pacifist Viking's analysis of needs of WR help for the team and I agree with him that at #7 there more than likely will not be a WR that is worth that pick available and so I expect and hope the Vikings address WR needs in the 2nd and/or 3rd Rounds. But now let us look at the teams picking before the Vikings so we can gain perspective on who might be available to the Vikings at #7 and then I will put forth an argument for who I think the Vikings should take.

#1 Oakland-Their pick boils down to 3 players (Russell, Quinn, or C.Johnson), but something tells me that Russell will be the pick. Maybe it is the fact that they didn't pursue David Carr and haven't been in discussion with KC about the availabilty of Trent Green, had they agreed to terms with Garcia (i.e. told them they wouldnt draft a QB) then this pick would have been Calvin Johnson but it has to be between Quinn and Russell and I think the Raiders are more smitten with the missle launching arm of Russell

#2 Detroit-I think Detroit is one of the wild cards come draft day. Outside of WR I could see them taking any of the top prospects. Barry Sanders chimed in with his thoughts of drafting Thomas. The other serious consideration I think is Brady Quinn, however given the experience of Joey Ha-Ha I expect them to take Thomas.

#3 Cleveland- Another wild card. I think this pick comes down to Quinn or Peterson. Everybody says they need a RB which is probably true, but the possibility of getting your franchise QB I think is too enticing for the Browns. I say they take Quinn.

#4 Tampa Bay- Everyone says that Calvin Johnson won't make it past Tampa at the 4 spot, but I am not sure. Remember when Simeon Rice and his pass rushing prowess helped the Tampa D in its dominance. I think Gruden and the brass do also and I like them taking Gaines Adams.

#5 Arizona- They wan't Thomas so a trade with Detroit isn't out of the realm of possibility, but going on the scenerio set forth so far Thomas is off the board. Where does Arizona go from here? Big DT Alan Branch is where I see them going.

#6 Washington- Could Calvin Johnson slip this far down the board? I highly doubt it, but if things work out like I have them then Washington is looking at Calvin Johnson and might really like him, but I feel they really would rather have Anderson from Arkansas. What do they do? They talk trades with anyone willing to talk. Remember the Chicago Bears and that Lance Briggs trade rumor with Washington where Washington offered them switched picks in the first round? I do and guess what I don't think Chicago ever thought that CJ would make it this far down the board and so I think they call up Washington and say DEAL and then take Calvin Johnson causing Viking fans all over to numb their pain with cans and cans of Miller High Life.

#7 Vikings- Okay according to my scenerio it looks like their are four players that should be looked at hard by the Vikings. Anderson from Arkansas, Adrian Peterson, LeRoy Landry, or Leon Hall from Michigan. I take Landry off the board because of the Doss signing. I also don't think Anderson is the best pick although we do need DE help. That means I put the choice down to Adrian Peterson and Leon Hall. I personally dont think the Vikings could go wrong with either pick, but I want to make a case for Peterson. First, Chester Taylor to me is a good RB not a franchise RB. Not very often does a team get the opportunity to draft a franchise RB and that is what I think Peterson is. The NFL year past showed the success of the RB by committee approach and I think Peterson paired with Taylor would keep the RB position fresh for the Vikes and would help open up the passing game a bit more.


Alright so that is my prediction (#1-Russell, #2-Thomas, #3-Quinn, #4-Adams, #5-Branch, #6-Johnson, #7-Peterson), but being totally realistic I can easily see the Vikings choice coming down to Quinn, Adams, Landry, Hall, or Andersen and if that is the case I would argue that the Vikings should either trade down or take Adams. I do not want the Vikings to take Quinn at all. Quinn scares me. Too many questions in my mind and I say the Vikes should just committ to Tarvaris. But I am a Tarvaris fan so I might be a little biased here.

The Viking Quarterback Situation and the Draft

The Vikings currently have three QBs on the roster with a combined 10 career TD passes between them: Tarvaris Jackson with 2, Brooks Bollinger with 7, and Drew Henson with 1. As it happens, that's almost as many TD passes as the Vikings had as a team in 2006 (13, including TD tosses from RB Mewelde Moore and K Ryan Longwell).

If you're rebuilding, that's fine. But the Vikings shouldn't be rebuilding with the dominant defense they have: they ranked first in rushing yards allowed and yards per attempt allowed, 8th in total defense, and 5th in defensive passer rating. With a defense like that, this team should be building to win now.

If you have solid offensive talent around the QB, that's fine. You can plug an inexperienced QB into an offense and make it functional if you've got good WRs for him to throw to. But the Vikings don't have good WRs to throw to: Billy McMullen, Bobby Wade, Troy Williamson, and a few guys that spent most of '06 on the practice squad aren't going to help an inexperienced QB to reach maximum potential quickly.

Knowing that the Vikings have no proven commodities at QB, and given that they have one of the worst WR corps in the league, how do the Vikings approach the draft?

Drafting a QB could give you a potential superstar, but it obviously goes nowhere toward solving the problem of a lack of proven commodities. I would like the Vikings to draft Brady Quinn--he's got spectacular college numbers and the tutelage of Charlie Weiss. But if they draft Quinn, we would be looking at '07 or '08 for dividends to be paid (forgive all this marketplace imagery, but even the Bard occasionally used the language of capitalism to make a point). IF Brady Quinn is going to be a superstar QB, struggles in '06 would be well worth it. If you have a chance to have a stud at the QB position, you have to take it for the long-term good of your franchise (I don't think Colts fans are too upset about the 1998 season).

The other possibility would be to improve the WR corp. If the Vikings do not draft a WR in the entire 2007 draft, I will consider shutting this blog down. They absolutely need to draft a WR somewhere, and I believe they absolutely will. Where will they do it, though? I'm not sure pick #7 is the place to select a WR in this year's draft. Early in round 2 (pick #41) would be a good spot, even though you're getting the WRs who had too many questions to go even late in round one (second-round WRs that made an IMMEDIATE impact are rare, but it would still be a good pick). Or you can hope for good scouting and good luck and take some WR(s) in round 3-7. Either way, drafting WRs should help Bollinger or Jackson perform better.

The Vikings are good in several areas. They've got a good run defense, better-than-it-looks pass defense, a potentially strong offensive line, and a good running game. While they lacked a consistent pass rush in '06 and must address that, the Vikes are absolutely horrid in the passing game. They MUST work to improve that. So if the Vikings don't draft either a QB or a WR (or two) on the first day of the draft, I fear '07 will be a lot like '06: a great defensive performance wasted by the team's complete inability to move the ball through the air.

If possible, the Vikings should draft Brady Quinn in round 1, and then spend the rest of the draft only taking WRs, DEs, and CBs. Get the franchise QB in round one, and hope you can get talented WRs in later rounds.

Or they could try trade for Daunte back, I don't give a shit.

Pacifist Viking's 2007 Smock Draft

You can see NFL mock drafts anywhere; you don't need another mock draft from us. But here at PV, we believe we are presenting you with the first ever "Smock Draft." In our Smock Draft, we will be selecting 32 favorite expressions that either are or should be on the front of aprons. OK, so a smock is not necessarily an apron, but it's close enough to suit the purposes of our Smock Draft. So here we go with our 32 selections of phrases to appear on aprons (with commentary).

1. Kiss the Cook
Phrases on aprons are best if they are commands.

2. Hail to the Chef
The first of our moderately presidential expressions, and another command.

3. Cooks do it in the kitchen
Aprons are a great medium for bawdy double entendres.

4. Don't Trust a Skinny Chef
Or do, I guess. It's another imperative sentence.

5. Cook
Maybe nobody knows why you've got the apron on. Be clear.

6. I bake for Jesus
Folksy religious expressions make people wonder if you are serious or ironic.

7. Commander in Chef
Another presidential pun.

8. Good Eats
If you've got an apron on with words on the front, you've already verged into the land of the tacky. You might as well be as folksy as possible.

9. Cook!
The explanation point makes "Cook!" distinguishable from "Cook." It's like you're yelling it.

10. Shut up and eat it.
Cooks can be bossy.

11. Stir the Pot
Metaphors that originated in kitchen language are great for aprons, because they can then be taken literally.

12. I've got Skillets
As a variation of "I've got Skills," maybe this makes more sense as "I've got Skilletz."

13. First Ladle
Another presidential pun.

14. I am not a cook.
Ideally this phrase is included with a caricature of Richard Nixon.

15. Would you like fries with that?
If you are cooking for a large family gathering, it is guaranteed that somebody will laugh at this. This is a helpful apron, then, because then you know not to get into any conversations with the ones who laughed.

16. Cut the cheese
Slightly bawdy and immature.

17. I've got your sausage right here.
Getting bawdier. This probably only works for a man.

18. Count Spatula
Ideally, this would be accompanied by a cartoon vampire cooking.

19. Now we're cookin'!
Two points: this absolutely requires the exclamation point, and it must be "cookin'," not "cooking."

20. Get ready to meet your baker.
You can see what my sense of humor is like.

21. Veal or No Veal
If Howie Mandel doesn't have this apron already, I'm sad.

22. Meat is Murder
Either you can be ultra-confrontational at meal-time, or if you're serving meat, ironical.

23. Bon Appetit, Asshole.
What cook doesn't treat his/her guests rudely?

24. Don't Judge a Cook by it's Cover.
I love rhymes, and I love puns....

25. Cooks can be Deceiving.
...perhaps a little too much.

26. Roadkill Gourmet
When you're wearing an apron, tacky is good.

27. My eyes are up here.
Here's a good apron phrase for the ladies.

28. I spit in your potatoes.
Remember, you're trying to be mean. But please don't actually spit in anybody's potatoes.

29. I climbed Mount Everest and all I got was this stupid apron.
At pick 29, we're reaching.

30. Kiss my Grits!
I'm too young to have any idea what this means.

31. Eggs are Eggs
A tribute to George Costanza.

32. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Cliches don't belong in good writing; they only belong on clothing.

So there you have it, the first ever Smock Draft, brought to you by complete schmucks at Pacifist Viking.

Links: the Ombudsman responds edition

Sports
ESPN Ombudsman Le Anne Schreiber has written about Colin Cowherd's actions. You can read commentary from the AOL Fanhouse, Signal to Noise, and Awful Announcing. One quote stands out in Schreiber's piece: Cowherd said "We apologize--but just don't screw with us." I stand by my initial reaction: Cowherd's actions were an affront to open discourse.

The Ragnarok looks at USC Wide Receiver Steve Smith as a potential second-round pick for the Vikings.

Does Peter King deserve a Chronicle of Cliche for today's MMQB?

Non-sports
Since you're reading this on a computer, you might be interested in Inside Higher Ed's article on computer privacy in dorm rooms. If you are a college student reading this on a dorm room computer, you absolutely should check it out.

Via Arts & Letters Daily, The Independent has an article on Darwin's religious beliefs and doubts.

Links: the Sunday Night Religion Edition

Sports
MNSG Vikings has an excellent post encouraging Viking fans to be patient with Brad Childress, citing several successful and respected coaches who had awful first seasons with a new team.

Jesus rises from the dead, and He spends his afternoon in Georgia? Deadspin says that Jesus won the Masters, and Roy S. Johnson likes when athletes thank Jesus for their success. On a side note, this morning I got to hear a sermon that used the Battle of Waterloo as a motif. It was a pleasant surprise to hear about Napoleon in church on Easter morning.

Non-sports
It's Easter, meaning mainstream news outlets will do features on the Pope. Russell Shorto has a very big feature in the NY Times Magazine, and Jane Kramer has an article on Pope Benedict and Islam in The New Yorker. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when Benedict gets on his hobbyhorses condemning secularism, individualism, and relativism. I've said it before: humanity's biggest problem isn't relativism; it's people who believe so strongly that they are right and that an Other is wrong that they're willing to kill over it. Relativism should be a solution to our problems, not a cause.

Two interesting articles via 3quarksdaily: a Guardian review of Terry Eagleton's The Meaning of Life, and a ScienceNow feature on the search for aliens.

And if any Minnesotans are at all interested, now that I've got internet at home, I'll try to contribute more to our little local blog.

Links: The Internet Still Exists On Weekends Edition

Here are some links, sports and not-sports, getting my attention this weekend.

Women's Hoops Blog points out just some of the misogyny in Bill Simmons' work. And the examples given are just the tip of the iceberg. What worries me is that as a widely read sportswriter, Simmons just validates and perpetuates the strong threads of misogyny already prevalent among many sports fans.

AOL Fanhouse discusses trade rumors involving Josh McCown going to the Raiders. I still don't know why Detroit signed McCown, paying him something like $4 million in '06, just to sit him behind Kitna even late in a 3-13 season.

AOL Fanhouse also points out that Bill Walton is a weird S.O.B. I love eccentric athletes, and as he is a UCLA legend and a vegetarian, Walton is one of my all-time favorite athletes.

Rumors and Rants points out a weird sub-plot in the University of Illinois' decision to eliminate its Native American mascot.

Awful Announcing comments on coverage of Alex Rodriguez (I'll be surprised if I watch a single baseball game this season, but I think I sort of root for Rodriquez just to be contrarian).

The Star Tribune Notes that three Gopher football players are currently being held for suspicion of rape.

The Ghosts of Wayne Fontes notice that The Wonder Years is now in syndication on Ion (this turn of events has also been noticed in the PV household).

Jimmy Traina of SI lists his 10 most memorable moments from The Sopranos (I only experience shows from the HBOX in DVD form, so I'll be waiting awhile to see these last episodes of The Sopranos. And I always encourage people to call it "the H box" rather than "HBO" because it is so much more fun to say).

"The Outing" is my favorite episode of Seinfeld. There's a interesting note in the "Notes About Nothing" on the Seinfeld DVD: the famous "Not that there's anything wrong with that" line was added when some executive pointed out that Jerry's and George's vehemence when denying they were gay could be taken the wrong way; Jerry then thought it would then be funny to say "Not that there's anything wrong with that" as many times as possible during the episode. Anyway, what is your favorite?

Links: Good Friday Edition

Part Three of William Faulkner's masterpiece The Sound and the Fury takes place on Good Friday. If you want to experience the greatest American novel, go read it.

At least for now, it appears The Big Lead is back.

David Carr is now a Panther (via Football Outsiders). In some ways, Carr seems everything Jake Delhomme is not, and vice versa. Interesting times ahead for the Panthers.

Cold, Hard, Football Facts looks at JaMarcus Russell and Brady Quinn. As I've noted a few days ago, find a great quarterback and you're very likely to find a great quarterback coach somewhere in his history. I don't think Quinn's tutelage under Charlie Weiss should be dismissed.

The Fanhouse talks about Bill Walton talking about Greg Oden.

The Fanhouse also compares Dominique Wilkins and Tracy McGrady. I've frequently dismissed McGrady as this generation's Dominique Wilkins, but perhaps he's not even that good.

And in non-sports news (sort of), according to Edge (via 3quarksdaily), humans are less violent than ever.

Colin Cowherd and Great Bullies

Colin Cowherd now ranks with the great bullies of all-time. He plagiarizes, openly taunts those he plagiarized from, then apologizes and gives credit (when he realizes that he actually did commit plagiarism). He wants to "blow up" "young blogs" that he finds "annoying"--because he can. He's just a bully, and all of us bloggers are the school kids uniting in hatred. How does Cowherd compare to some of the great villains in television and film?

Nelson Muntz (The Simpsons)
Muntz terrorizes the kids of Springfield and laughs smugly at the suffering of others (Muntz's smug "Ha-Haa" probably matches Cowherd's personality nicely). But we all know Muntz is just lashing out because of his bad family life.

Scut Farkus (A Christmas Story)
He had yellow eyes! Nobody is afraid of Colin Cowherd, though.

Wayne Arnold (The Wonder Years)
Wayne arbitrarily insulted and attacked Kevin Arnold for years. Cowherd seems to have similar arbitrary anger.

Alan (Freaks and Geeks)
Alan went so far as to slip peanuts into Bill's sandwich, sending him into a coma. We find out, though, that Alan picks on the geeks because he wants to be one of them--but just can't bring himself to go to the Sci Fi convention. Somehow I don't think Cowherd picks on bloggers because he wants to be one of us.

Mr. Potter (It's a Wonderful Life)
I always loved the SNL sketch where we got closure and Potter got his ass kicked. What a detestable bully. Cowherd probably isn't at this Robber Baron's level.

Tony Soprano (The Sopranos)
In the words of Christopher Moltisanti, "He thinks everything is for him." He's a selfish, violent brute who frequently lashes out in jealousy. But he's got a villainous appeal, like Darth Vader; Cowherd is as appealing as a colonoscopy.

Mr. Heyman (Seinfeld)
He called George "Can't Stand Ya" and gave him a wedgy. His bullying was so disturbing because as a teacher, he was an authority figure. As a radio host for ESPN, Cowherd too abused his power when deciding to destroy young blogs just because he finds them "annoying."

Minnesota: where dreams go to die (the last David Carr post)

On a cold April night, a man looked out into the chill at a garbage can at the end of the road. A grimace on his face, unaskable questions in his head.

At this moment, the expansion of the universe, begun billions of years ago at the point called the Big Bang, reached its furthest threshold. The rocks and gasses stopped moving, froze for a moment, and then caught a glimmer of gravitational force. The matter in the universe reversed course, and began pulling in on itself, contracting, headed on an inevitable journey back to the position of the Big Bang.

And at this moment, the Cosmos called out an answer to the unasked questions. The man turned from the lonely, cold garbage can, and listened to the answer. The Cosmos was telling him, it seems, that there was no reason to hope, no reason to dream, no reason to believe.

As Ryan Kibbe of KSTP reports, Viking GM Rick Spielman has declared that the team has no interest in David Carr.