How speculation becomes a report, and rumor becomes story

In an NFL.com article, Michael Lombardi includes under the heading "Things I hear..." this nugget:

"The next player to complain about his contract will be Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson, who missed the mandatory minicamp due to a scheduling conflict."

What is Lombardi's source for this information? Did he hear this from somebody close to Adrian Peterson? An official with the Vikings? Is this gossip among NFL team executives? Is this what Lombardi's friends in the media are talking about? Do deer come into Lombardi's backyard at twilight and whisper NFL secrets to him?

Well, who the hell knows? But unless Lombardi makes a reference to somebody saying this, it is hardly a report. My guess is that this is some speculation and gossip Lombardi has been hearing, probably from a number of directions. My guess is that's why Lombardi put it under the "Things I hear..." category: it's a part of the buzz, a rumor, things NFL people talk about. And it's not exactly out-there speculation: Peterson is an elite player still getting paid under his rookie contract. I would guess that Lombardi is right: at some point Peterson is probably going to want a new, bigger contract, feeling he's outperformed his rookie contract. Speculation in that direction is fairly reasonable.

And I want to make one thing clear: there is nothing wrong with that. Lombardi is trying to write an entertaining July NFL column, and he includes some of the things he hears people talk about to amuse and inform us. That's absolutely fine, as long as we take it for what it is. Unless Lombardi refers to a specific source (even an anonymous source), this is gossip. I can't see anybody reasonably calling this a "report."

Of course things change when you get to Pro Football Talk. Under the headline "Report: Contract confrontation coming for Peterson, Vikings," Michael David Smith refers to Lombardi's mention and writes:

"Michael Lombardi of NFL.com reports that Peterson will be the next NFL player to complain about his contract."

Lombardi "reports"? Under what standard of journalism does it count as a "reporting" that a writer just writes something he hears with no suggestion whatsoever who he's heard it from? Again, nothing wrong with Lombardi's note here: it's the "Things he hears..." bit, and after all, this is one of the things I hear too (from Lombardi!). But there was nothing "reported" by Lombardi (at least not journalistically: I suppose technically Lombardi is reporting things he's heard to us). There's no "story" being reported.

By the end of Smith's post, he's taken for granted that this unsourced mention in Lombardi's "Things I hear..." portion of a column is truth:

"So it's no surprise that Peterson isn't satisfied with his contract. And it shouldn't be a surprise if he soon takes his dissatisfaction public."

Look, like I said, I think Lombardi and Smith are probably right; I agree with Smith when he says "Players who produce at that level just aren't content to play out their rookie contracts and wait to become free agents." But to call what Lombardi wrote a "report," to refer to his mention as reporting, and by the end to just accept this as a true statement, well, that's how speculation becomes a report and a rumor becomes a story.

(For a good blog post about Lombardi's mention, see Judd Zulgad in Access Vikings. Not only does Zulgad treat Lombardi's nugget for what it is, but he informatively adds detail about Peterson's contract to not only pass on--and further--speculation, but contribute something concrete and meaningful to it).

In this spirit, I am going to start my own feature here, called "Things I discern from the ether..." Feel free to take this as a report: after all, I am discerning it from the ether and reporting it to you.

Things I discern from the ether...

The Mayans stopped their calendar at 2012 because that is either when the Vikings will win the Super Bowl or when they will move out of Minnesota. The Mayans knew there is no reason to keep track of history after that point.

The Spirit Of Fantasy Football no longer resides in the Shadow Of The End Zone; it has moved into Chris Johnson's socks.

The Green Bay Packers are wieners.

Addendum

Lombardi's wording itself suggests this is not a report, but a prediction. If Lombardi had said something like "Adrian Peterson will soon be complaining about his contract," that could be taken as a report (without a source referenced, I'd still think it a prediction rather than a report, but for now, whatever). But how can Lombardi know Adrian Peterson will be "the next player to complain about his contract" unless Lombardi knows Peterson will complain about it immediately after Lombardi publishes his column? That's a prediction, not a report. What if all of a sudden Joe Flacco starts complaining about his contract today? Then Lombardi's "report" is wrong. And when Lombardi writes Peterson will be "the next player to complain," that suggests he hasn't already started to complain (privately or publicly), which further suggests there isn't a concrete story being reported here.

It's clear this is speculation and prediction; why is Michael David Smith calling this a "report"?

Addendum 2

Here's a parallel:

Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty is probably going to run for president: there are several pieces of evidence pointing in that direction, so it is not surprising that a lot of political observers talk about it. If Political Pundit X wrote in a column, "I hear Tim Pawlenty is going to run for president," nobody would reasonably claim that Political Pundit X is "reporting" that Pawlenty will run for president, right? I suppose it's possible that Political Rumormonger Y might post something like "Political Pundit X reports that Tim Pawlenty will run for president," but few reasonable thinkers would follow a link to Political Pundit X's column and think that's a concrete story being reported, right? Some might even call it irresponsible for Political Rumormonger Y to take a casual, unsourced sentence and call it a "report," right? That's why we'd know that Rumormonger Y is a rumormonger, right?

Granted, Pawlenty running for president seems a lot more obvious than Adrian Peterson complaining about his contract. But either way, a rumormonger claiming a pundit's casual unsourced claim is a reported story would definitely secure the rumormonger's reputation for (uncredible?) rumormongering.

Addendum 3

So much for reports.

Sage Rosenfels

Addendum:

Houston Chronicle columnist Richard Justice was just on KFAN raving to Dan Barreiro about Sage Rosenfels.  See Justice's column on Rosenfels here.

Rosenfels is officially a Viking (Access Vikings).  He is happy (also Access Vikings).

It's not exactly saying much, but Sage Rosenfels will likely be the best Viking quarterback of the Childress era.  He should be able to make sharp throws, hit some deep throws, and complete a high percentage of his passes.  He also has a pretty solid sack rate the past couple of years (I continue to consider avoiding sacks a critical skill for a quarterback).  But will he be able to avoid turnovers?

A quarterback named "Sage" will please local headline writers.  I will attempt to make puns on "Rosenfels."

Rosenfels is giving me Rosy-feelings!

Sage Rosenfels

several updates and links below

Via Kiah, via PFT, The Houston Chronicle says the Texans are ready to trade Sage Rosenfels to the Vikings for a fourth-round draft pick.

I don't know what the difference is between Sage Rosenfels and Matt Cassel--I suspect it might not be much. But the difference between a 31 year old QB for a fourth-rounder and a short-term small contract, and a 27 year old QB for multiple draft picks (including a first-rounder) and a long-term massive contract? There's a difference.

You may recall Rosenfels from the Vikings' 28-21 victory over the Texans in the Metrodome in 2008, when the Texans completed approximately eight hundred passes to TEs and RBs.

Sage Rosenfels would be an upgrade over the current Viking QBs. One can be hopeful he would be a significant, game-changing upgrade, but an upgrade at any rate. But it certainly says something about the degraded state of the Viking QB position under Brad Childress that I find myself excited about Sage Rosenfels.

Thoughts?

And more

More at Access Vikings

Thoughts at Grant's Tomb

Reason for encouragement: Rosenfels' completion percentage the last two seasons (65.2%)

Reason for discouragement: Rosenfels' interception percentage the last two seasons (5.3%)

Thoughts at Defensive Indifference

More at NFL Fanhouse (from Texan fan Stephanie Stradley)

More at Access Vikings

Kevin Seifert at ESPN sees Rosenfels and Jackson competing for the starting job in training camp, with the edge toward Jackson. My buzz is officially over.

Further Thoughts
I don't know that Rosenfels is enough to make the Vikings stop thinking about the position. If I were running the team (and I am aware I am not), I would still try to sign Jeff Garcia, cut Gus Frerotte, and have Tarvaris Jackson and John David Booty compete for third-string (expecting Jackson to win). If Garcia doesn't want to bother, I'd still try sign some other lackluster free agent QB (Byron Leftwich? Chris Simms?) that could at least compete. Just keep trying things.

Some fantasized about Kurt Warner, but that was a double-fantasy. First that he'd ever leave the Cards (doubtful), and second that if he did he would have success with the Vikings (Warner thrives with a spread-out offense and a lot of athletic receivers making plays downfield--not something he'd find in Minnesota).

I don't usually make promises and often fail to keep them, but I'll try to keep this one: I will never write a bad pun using the word "sage." Nor will I try to write good puns with the word "sage." No puns on "sage" at all. I promise. Any such punning will be strictly accidental.

Language on Stadium Continues to Irk Me

From The Star Tribune:

"After a Vikings official publicly criticized Gov. Tim Pawlenty for not showing enough leadership on a new stadium, Pawlenty met with owner Zygi Wilf late last week and a team official said the Vikings were 'pleased' with the outcome."

Please tell me why it is Minnesota's elected governor's job to show "leadership" on getting a new stadium built for Mr. Wilf's privately owned business. Vikings--show your own damn leadership. You can build a stadium--who is stopping you?

The Vikings may as well criticize me for not showing leadership on NASA's latest space mission. Or I could criticize my new dog for failing to show leadership on getting the laundry done.

But the article ends with some sanity:

"Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung said the governor told Wilf that the team is 'an important part of the fabric of Minnesota, but that the focus at the Capitol is on dealing with the state budget deficit and the difficult economic situation.'"

In my mind, I keep paralleling a new Viking stadium with the Mall of America. The Mall of America has received public funding, at the very least for "public infrastructure" (though this money may be paid back, if I'm reading it correctly). But it's hard to doubt that a building which is open daily and year round and which exists almost exclusively for spending money, has brought in a consistent stream of tourists to the region, and has created a lot of jobs (in fact, the MOA claims it contributes $1.8 billion annually to the state's economy, and also claims that it annually "generates approximately $55 million in state and local taxes, and has generated more than $800 million in total taxes since opening 15 years ago"). In this case, any public financing appears justifiable.

I'm not opposed to occasional public financing for private industry, if the benefit to the public can be concretely expressed (or sometimes not even concretely--I don't oppose public financing of arts because of the cultural and educational benefit). Can the Vikings claim that public financing of a stadium would bring such a return to the public?

National February League

I took notes during the game.  When I saw something that struck me, I wrote it down.  The letters "S. Holmes" appear in a circle six times.  He's an extremely good player, and perhaps his best catch got negated by the holding call in the end zone.  I'm also happy he won Super Bowl MVP, because I have a football card of every Super Bowl MVP, and alas, I don't have a James Harrison card.

Kurt Warner has three playoff losses.  In each of them, he led a team to a pretty impressive late comeback, but the team still failed to win.  And I suppose that's the problem about crediting these comebacks and team wins to quarterbacks.  In the 2000 playoffs, the Rams were down 31-7 to the Saints, got back within three, but then the Ram punt returner fumbled away a last chance.  In the 2001 Super Bowl, the Rams were down 17-3, tied the game with under two minutes left, but then the Pats ignored John Madden's advice (who is gutless on coaching decisions--of course he fully supported Mike Tomlin's bad decision to kick a field goal on 4th and goal at the one on the opening drive) and drove for a win.  And tonight, the Cardinals were down 20-7, and Warner/Fitzgerald led a comeback, before Roethlisberger/Holmes came back.

John Madden certainly fetishized Larry Fitzgerald's big, strong hands.  How many times did he refer to Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin as big and strong, and their hands specifically?  I mean, actually with the words "big" and "strong" and "hands"?  Really, "fetishized" isn't too strong a word, is it?

Pittsburgh's victory also gives further challenge to CHFF's suggestion that realignment has caused a mess of the playoff, leading to historically anomalous champions.  If we look at the last four Super Bowl winners, we see a team in the midst of making the playoffs in six of eight years and winning two Super Bowls, a team in the midst of winning 12+ games in six consecutive seasons, a team in the midst of making the playoffs four consecutive years, and a team in the midst of making the playoffs in six of eight years and winning two Super Bowls.  The Super Bowls this decade have been won by perpetual contenders.

In Don DeLillo's White Noise, there is a barn that is the most photographed barn in America.  This reputation leads more and more people to go take photographs of the barn, creating a self-perpetuating institution.  Ladies and gentleman, Super Bowl commercials.

Larry Fitzgerald's playoff run: 6-101-1, 8-166-1, 9-152-3,  7-127-2.  When he was running for that last blazing touchdown, I thought I was seeing Jerry Rice.

An extremely high percentage of Super Bowl commercials featured animals of some sort.  I have theories on the appeal of seeing happy, funny animals in the context of consumerism and consumption.  Mostly I think they provide comfort: by seeing animals as either happy and contented creatures, or as comical and silly figures, people can feel mildly comforted about consuming them.  My wife suggests perhaps training the animals is timely and expensive, and that Super Bowl ads have bigger budgets that can afford to make the splash.  But a lot of animals were CGI, and animals appear in a lot of commercial contexts away from the Super Bowl, too.  Suicide Food examines advertising featuring animals that want to be eaten, or that are eating their own food product, and suggests there is thematic comfort in such images.  I think perhaps the animals don't need to be suicidal to provide that comfort--happy animals mean we don't have to feel bad for exploiting them (they're happy, after all), and funny animals suggest they're hardly worth any dignity anyway (they're just ridiculous and silly, after all).

Are we all recovered from Bruce Springsteen's crotch hitting us in the face?

Earlier I suggested the rest of the season is more fun than Super Bowl Sunday.  But there is something intensely dramatic about the final minutes of a close Super Bowl game.  We often see plays in the final minutes determining the outcome of a game.  But in this case, we're seeing the plays in the final minutes determining the world champion.  Historical legacies are being formed directly in front of us.  It's thrilling.

Here are the future Hall of Famers I think we saw playing in the Super Bowl: Larry Fitzgerald (early, but he's a stud and his playoff dominance enhances his reputation), Ben Roethlisberger (a QB with two championships, he can basically be solid for the rest of his career to build a HOF resume, and he plays on a great defensive team that is regularly contending), Troy Polamalu (a superb player anyway, but being a great player for two championship teams helps his case), and Kurt Warner (I'm sold).  Other possibilities are Anquan Boldin (he's got historical great receptions per game), Edgerrin James (outside shot, I don't think he'll make it), James Harrison or James Farrior (very good linebackers), or a very young player like Santonio Holmes.  I would also guess we haven't seen the last of Mike Tomlin, who joins Tony Dungy and Brian Billick as former Viking coordinators that won championships as head coaches of other franchises in the 00s.

I can't help but wonder if we'll ever actually see the Vikings win this game--given that I've never even seen the Vikings in this game, I'm reaching deeper and deeper into the despair.  I wonder what it would be like to have been born around Pittsburgh, where I'd just be used to cheering for an historically great franchise with Super Bowl wins.  My wife notes that Minneapolis-St. Paul is a cultured metropolis, renowned for its theater space and high readership.  But it's ass-freezing cold three months a year and our sports teams never win championships (just the Twins, the only two titles since the Lakers moved--none of our pro teams have even reached the championship round since '91).  Minnesotans, just think how much geography determines your entire outlook on sports.  We long for that elusive dream of a Viking championship; some people are born in places where they get to root for teams that regularly win championships.  And that's all luck, random hazard.

What's stopping Zygi Wilf from building a new stadium?

I do not entirely oppose public funding for private stadiums (though I believe states and cities should demand something substantive in return for the public money).  But I am fed up with the language used by owners and commissioners who want the new stadiums.

In the Star Tribune, Roger Goodell talks about the importance of getting a new Viking stadium in Minnesota.    And perhaps it is important.  But if it is so important, then Zygi Wilf can go ahead and build a new Viking stadium.  I don't know that anybody is actively trying to prevent him from doing so.  It is not as if the state of Minnesota is putting up roadblocks to stop a private businessman from building a profit-making building with his own money.  What Goodell really wants, of course, is for the state to give Wilf public money to build the stadium.  You know, money that could otherwise be used for matters such as transportation, education, health care, and other necessary programs that benefit a wide variety of Minnesotans.

For example, Goodell says:

"I think we have to continue to work with the governor and the leadership in that community to understand those priorities and figure out how we get a new stadium built. That is necessary for the Vikings. We all want the Vikings to be there in the long term, successfully. They need a new stadium, that's clear. I think it's recognized by all parties and we need to get down to the difficult business of figuring out how to do it."

Is it hard to figure out how to get the new stadium?  I'll make a proposal: Viking ownership invests money into its business to build a profit-making building for that private business.  The real challenge on how to do it will actually be up to the architects, engineers, construction crews, etc., that Zygi Wilf hires to build his profit-making building.  

Goodell uses euphemism to distort what he really wants.  When he says "we have to continue to work with the governor and the leadership in that community," he makes it seem as if they must work hard together in a spirit of cooperation to get things done.  But we can easily define what he's doing differently: he's lobbying for taxpayer money to be used to build a very expensive building for a private business that makes a lot of money in profits.

I think we can use different--but still accurate--terminology when talking about building a new stadium in Minnesota.  If we do that, the perspective changes drastically.  Instead of "stadium," would say "profit-making building for a private business."  Instead of "work with the governor and legislators," I'd say "find a way to get politicians to approve of giving away taxpayer money."  And when Goodell talks about "priorities of the community," we could say "a stadium versus better funding for public schools, improved roads and mass transit, and other necessities and benefits that help millions of Minnesotans."

I don't oppose building a new Viking stadium, and I do recognize the benefits to the community that may justify using public financing for the stadium.  But I'm tired of the euphemism.  Nobody is stopping Zygi Wilf from building a stadium.  Don't pretend that you need support to build the stadium, when what you really want is support to take our money to help build the stadium for you.

I must object

(Viking fans, feel free to carry on to my Vikings-Eagles preview--which should have been the top post here for Friday before I felt compelled to post this one--or check out the Blizzard of Links relevant to the game).

ESPN's Jeff Pearlman makes the claim that offensive lineman Larry Allen was the Dallas Cowboys' best player in the 1990s.

First, I want to quibble with some deceptive language Pearlman uses. He asks

"But of the three-time Super Bowl champion Dallas Cowboys of the 1990s, who was the best player?"

To this question, Pearlman reaches the answer of Larry Allen. But let us note that Allen joined the Cowboys in 1994, and was thus only on one of the Cowboys' championship teams. While technically not an incorrect answer (he was on the "Dallas Cowboys of the 1990s" who were "the three-time Super Bowl champion Dallas Cowboys of the 1990s"), the syntax of the question suggests it is asking about the three championship teams, and the answer further suggests that Allen was a member of the three Super Bowl champion teams. But he wasn't.

Second, I would quibble with the content of the argument. Allen was, indeed, a great player. But Allen was such a great offensive lineman that...running back Emmitt Smith won rushing titles in the three consecutive seasons before Allen joined the team, and the Dallas Cowboys won Super Bowls in the two consecutive seasons before Allen joined the team. Emmitt Smith was dominant before he ever ran behind a Larry Allen block, and the '90s Cowboys managed to win two Super Bowls without Allen's greatness. I'd say it's dubious at best to suggest Allen was the best player on the 1990s Cowboys.

National Friday League, week 16 (2)

National Fun League, week 16 (1)

Tarvaris Jackson and the Playoffs
Tarvaris Jackson starts this Sunday (Star Tribune).

If the Vikings are going to win the Super Bowl this season, there will be three primary reasons:

1. The defense will dominate.
2. Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor will stay hot.
3. The team will get some lucky breaks.

And I'm starting to think that to contribute to those three causes, Tarvaris Jackson will be a better quarterback for the Vikings at this point than Gus Frerotte.

For one thing, Frerotte throws a lot of interceptions: even if the defense dominates, Frerotte often gave opponents direct points or a short field. Frerotte is also immobile: Jackson forces defenses to account for another element to the offense, and he can make positive plays in other ways. But Frerotte has also peaked. Tarvaris Jackson might just add a fourth reason the Vikings could win the Super Bowl: a young quarterback gets surprisingly hot. That alone wouldn't do it, but a productive Tarvaris Jackson, supporting a dominant defense, dominant running backs, and getting some lucky breaks, could push the Vikings far.

Yes, I'm probably delusional anyway, but what of it? Just maybe Tarvaris Jackson has improved, that Tavaris Jackson right now is much better than Tarvaris Jackson of weeks 1 and 2, and of 2007. And what else do I have but my hope? I'm walking around having unsought fantasies about a major Viking playoff push. My imagination is conjuring a Super Bowl, so I may as well try rationalize my imaginative wanderings somehow.

Brad Childress
Is it just that the Vikings have been winning that the railing against Childress has tempered down? Yes, probably. But let's posit another thought: just as players can improve, coaches can improve.

Brad Childress today should be a better coach than Brad Childress in 2006 or 2007 or even early 2008. I think we have a tendency to view coaches as static, but in any field, experience usually brings improvement. Coaches too can change and improve.

Peyton Manning
One thing that makes Manning so spectacular is his downfield accuracy; he often hits receivers in precise spots 20 or 30 yards downfield. Last night he had some passes that he drilled right into gaps, right to the receiver's hands. I like watching him because he does take those mid-range shots regularly, and hits them consistently. Last night he had completions nine completions of 15+ yards: 41, 29, 23, 21, 33, 15, 18, 15, 21. That makes football fun to watch.

Word Choice in Headlines
USA Today has a blog post titled "Gus angry about Vikes' move to Tarvaris." And maybe Frerotte really is angry, and reporters could perceive that anger in their reporting. But in the quote provided, Frerotte says ""Obviously, I'm not happy about it." To me, being angry about something, and not being happy about something, are not the same thing.

A minor quibble, but attention to word choice is important--the English language has a big vocabulary, and a lot of words that seem similar but have nuanced differences.

Links
Sammy Baugh (fuh- baw, Cold, Hard Football Facts, I Dislike Your Favorite Team).

Adrian Peterson and MVP (Star Tribune, Pioneer Press).

The Falcons rank #24 in CHFF's Hog Index (the Vikes rank #4).

Manning and MVP (Jason Cole, Mark Craig).

Adrian Peterson #1 on MVP ranks (Bucky Brooks).

Philip Rivers should have been a Pro Bowler (MJD).

Grant's Tomb on the Viking-Falcon game, Pat Williams, and Brad Childress.

National Friday League, Week 11

Vikings-Buccaneers

Random Facts

The Vikings are 5-12 playing outdoors in the Childress era.

The Vikings are 2-0 against the NFC South this season.

The Vikings and Buccaneers are the two teams that beat 7-2 Carolina. The Vikes beat the Panthers 20-10, and the Bucs beat the Panthers 27-3.

The 2008 Bucs are 4-0 at home; the 2008 Vikes are 1-3 on the road.

The Buccaneers have given up one rushing touchdown in nine 2008 games.

I can't remember the last time the Vikings won at Tampa Bay (this is a fact: I really can't remember. It's a stupid fact because your normally research-enthusiastic blogger can't think of a simple way to find out when the Vikes last won at Tampa. I remember several losses at Tampa Bay specifically, but I can't actually remember ever seeing the Vikings win there. Have I ever seen the Vikings win there? Maybe I've never actually seen such a game. I don't know, that's possible. I mean, evidently the Vikes are 31-19 all-time against our one-time NFC Central rival. But is it possible I've never watched a single road win against Tampa?)

The game

I don't like this game.  I think Frerotte will throw at least two interceptions.  The Vikes have a chance, though, because the defense has been so smothering.  They stifle the run (blogging about the Vikings' defense, I'm always trying to find synonyms like "smother," "stifle," and "stymie"), and this year the fierce pass rush is always disrupting the opponent's passing game.  They also have a chance because Adrian Peterson dons the purple, so they always have a chance against anybody.

Week 11 Games

Bears at Packers. The Bears are designed to beat the Packers. Last year two of the Packers' three regular season losses were to the Bears. These teams are similar in quality: the Bears have outscored their opponents 237-194, the Packers 237-206.

Ravens at Giants. Now this is a fun matchup. Well, fun if you like crushing defenses. Two teams combined 13-4, ranking 5th and 6th in points allowed, ranking 2nd and 3rd in yards allowed.

Chargers at Steelers If the Chargers win 10 games this season, I predict Philip Rivers will be league MVP. Playoff QBs always have an edge in the MVP race, and Rivers currently ranks #1 in TD passes, #1 in yards per attempt, #1 in yards per completion, #2 in passer rating, and #5 in passing yards. If the Chargers do make the playoffs, Rivers and Kurt Warner will likely be the playoff QBs with the best statistics.  I don't know if the Chargers will make the playoffs: they're still probably the best team in their division, but their schedule isn't cheesecake. They have a tendency to lose close games (losses this season by 2, 1, 7, and 5).

The Bears play the Packers: whom should Viking fans root against in this game?

The Vikings, Bears, and Packers are in a tight race for the NFC North, and really there's no way at this point to know which of these teams is the Vikings' strongest competition. You could argue we should root more strongly against the Bears in this game--thus if the Vikes beat the Bucs they're in first place alone, and if they lose to the Bucs there's a three-way tie for first. But I can't ever bring myself to root for the Packers, so my heart will be rooting for the Bears. No, that can't be right--I'm rooting against the Packers, not for the Bears. Frankly I'd prefer a 0-0 tie.

MVP Watch

It's late enough to pay attention.  I don't bother trying to assess who deserves MVP through week X; I try to assess who has the best chance to be MVP at the end of the season (this requires assessing how the player has done so far, and guessing how he'll do going forward).  

There's one absurd name being bandied about for MVP consideration: Kerry Collins.  Bucky Brooks currently ranks Collins #4.  Collins has thrown five touchdown passes.  Five.  In formal writing, you're supposed to spell out single digit numbers, and use numerals for double digit numbers.  I have a rule: if a QB has started eight games and you're still spelling out that QB's touchdown pass total, he's not a serious MVP candidate.  Collins just had his first 200 yard game of the year.  After eight starts, a QB has five touchdown passes and one 200 yard game, but we should consider him an MVP candidate because he plays for an undefeated team?  Even if that team is winning primarily for its dominant defense (#1 in scoring and #5 in yards) and effective running game (#6 in rushing yards)?  That's crazy talk.  If Kerry Collins is an MVP, they should just change the name of the award to "QB On The Team With The Best Record."  He's been a solid player for the best team in the league, but he hasn't done anything individually to merit MVP consideration.  He's not a top-50 MVP candidate.

Quarterbacks and Sacks

Ben Roethlisberger always takes sacks.

This year Ben Roethlisberger's getting sacked on 10.4% of his attempts--the same percentage he was sacked last season when he threw 32 touchdown passes. His career sack rate is 9.2%. Roethlisberger holds onto the ball a long time: sometimes he holds the ball and is able to make plays downfield helping his team, and sometimes he gets tackled for losses and hurts his team.

Pinning sacks on QBs.

Last season Tom Brady was sacked just 21 times, a rate of 3.5%. Through nine games of 2008, Matt Cassel has been sacked 29 times, a rate of 9.8% (in Thursday's game, he was sacked three times on around 60 dropbacks). It is the same team: it would seem that Brady's low sack rate is due to his own ability to quickly read defenses. But then in Brady's first year as starter, he had a 9.0% sack rate; he's obviously improved a great deal in all facets of the game.

Just another reason Peyton Manning is the best.

In his 10+ seasons, Peyton Manning has a 3.4% sack rate. That's 169 games of football, and Manning is getting sacked just 3 or 4 times for every 100 times he tries to throw the ball. And that I credit largely to him: he's very quick at reading the defense and throwing the ball quickly if forced to.

Links
Cold Hard Football Facts predicts week 11.

Benny Sapp (Pioneer Press).

Mike Tanier says some things about Favre (Football Outsiders).

Your devoted Viking blogger's other love: musical theater

On Wednesday night, I saw Wicked at the Orpheum.  This was rather close to a religious experience for me.  The Vikings beat the Packers for the first time since 2005, and that wasn't even the highlight of my week.

Weekend

Enjoy your weekend, suckers.

Blizzard: Around the League

Dictator Goodell
Roger Goodell has suspended Adam Jones (ESPN). I'm a little bothered by Goodell's use of the first-person:

"In his letter to Jones informing the player of his latest suspension, Goodell said Jones' 'disturbing pattern of behavior was clearly inconsistent with the conditions I set for your continued participation in the NFL.'"

When Goodell uses the "I," doesn't he come off as some sort of angry parent? He's setting the parameters for his child-players to participate in his league. "I said you had to behave yourself! Me! And you didn't listen to me! Now I'm going to punish you!"

I miss Paul Tagliabue.

Oh, the Giants are only 4-1. How do we make sense of this world?
The Giants lost on the road to the Browns last night, and somehow this is supposed to shatter our ideas about the Giants being a great team.

Maybe there was too great a rush to anoint them a great team in the first place (though they are defending Super Bowl champs, so they've earned the title of greatness). But losing one road game badly doesn't really do a lot to shake my ideas about the Giants. They've won 80% of their games and they're still #1 in their division. I'll give credit to Peter King, who says:

"I still have the Giants No. 1. Any quarterback can throw three picks in a game after being superb (16 touchdowns, three interceptions) for a nine-game stretch, as Eli Manning was. Any team can have a clunker against a desperate team in a deafening stadium."

See:
Steve Serby on Fox
Will Brinson on Fanhouse

2008: Isolated Parity
As Don Banks points out, the NFL is wide open this year; 2008, so far, lacks great teams (let's emphasize that "so far:" a couple days ago the NFC East was supposedly an alien division far advanced over all other earthling divisions, but it took one week of games to alter that narrative. I'm not going to be shocked if a few weeks down the line some 7-1 team is just kicking the snot out of everybody and we're anointing that team the great team of the year. Narratives change quickly).

Let's be sure not to draw any wider implications about parity from 2008 other than that there's parity in 2008. 2007 gave us a 16-0 team and three 13-3 teams.

Roy Williams to the Cowboys!
USA Today

I'm stunned the Lions are getting so many picks for Williams, including a 1st rounder. And it's a good move by the Cowboys: Tony Romo is a young QB, but Terrell Owens is not a young WR: they need a talented WR to stick around for a while.

I'm still under the impression that most local sportswriters don't like Viking fans.
Mark Craig makes a fair point: a lot of good teams got upset this weekend, and that can happen in this league: it's not a disaster for the Vikings to eke out a close win against the Lions. But being a Minnesota sportswriter, Craig probably can't help but include a phrase like "Vikings fans need to grow up" in his post.

It's rather arrogant and insulting to tell anybody to "grow up," isn't it? And isn't it even more arrogant and insulting to tell a large group of people to "grow up"?

Brad Childress
Viking fans don't like Brad Childress (Pioneer Press, Viking Update).

In many areas, the Vikings have vastly improved in the Childress era. He's never given credit for the immense defensive turnaround the Vikes have had in the past three years. I'm not sure how much credit he deserves for it, but the Vikings have transformed from an absolutely terrible defensive team to one of the best under Childress' head coaching reign.

But because he's an offensive coach, and because the offense has essentially failed during the Childress era, fans (justifiably) blame Childress for the poor offensive showing. Childress is thus viewed as a hindrance to a great defensive team, while it is unclear whom we should credit for the great defensive transformation (the players? Mike Tomlin, then Leslie Frazier? The front office for bringing in the players?).

I'd like to say Childress should be given some credit for the defense. Then again, I'm not sure Childress has ever tried to take much responsibility for the defense, either, so I'm not sure how much credit really goes to him.

Conventional Wisdom
Good websites like Football Outsiders and Cold, Hard Football Facts often challenge "conventional wisdom" about running and show that to succeed in the NFL, teams need to pass well and defend the pass well.

In a recent article, CHFF cites four games from week 6. They note each losing team's success running the ball, suggesting they did everything "conventional" pundits think a team needs to do to win. But they lost, CHFF notes, because their opponents passed the ball better.

But I'd also point out that most conventional of conventional wisdom: don't turn the ball over. You have to win the turnover battle. We hear it again and again.

In two of the games CHFF cites, the losing team had more turnovers than the winning team. The Giants had three turnovers, the Browns zero. The 49ers had three turnovers, the Eagles one. In week six, teams that "won the turnover battle" were 8-4 (though there's a question of causation-correlation--teams that are losing already likely have more turnovers than teams that are leading. It's also a small sample size). In a game featuring big plays and few scores, the turnover battle seems to be as significant as conventional pundits would have it. Passing yards per attempt tell a big part of the story, but I'd also look to the turnover numbers.

But I'm quibbling, really. CHFF is right to point out how significant passing yards per attempt is in the NFL.

Why Tony Kornheiser is a crummy football announcer
Tony Kornheiser thinks like a columnist: he's always looking for the "story." He admitted as much Monday when he talked about coming in as an announcer hoping for a game to unfold like a novel. During any game, he'll start talking "story," discussing the narrative arch of various players' careers, examining what a team's performance "means," etc.

And there's a great place for that: columns. During the game, I want real analysis. I want announcers who will show replays and explain things like how a particular play worked or didn't work, what the defensive scheme is trying to do, what player makes a mistake on a particular play, what players away from the ball make a play successful, etc. I want the technical explanations. I'd like that, but of course you know we rarely get that. And Kornheiser will never give us that. Worse, his constant search for a narrative for a game, a team, a player, gets in the way of somebody like Ron Jaworski actually giving us technical analysis.

The Commercial Life
Peeps for the Tomlinson-Polamalu commercial.

Political ads take the place of corporate ads: so how do we know what we're supposed to buy? (We Have Mixed Feelings About Sven Sundgaard).

Links and Statements
Roy S. Johnson on politics in the locker room (Ballers, Gamers, and Scoundrels).

I haven't thought much of Derek Anderson, but his receivers drop a lot of nicely thrown balls; he might be better than I think.

Brandon Marshall (NY Times).

My starting fantasy QB (Warner) is on bye, and his backup (Hasselbeck) his hurt; this horrifying turn of events has me staring into the abyss.

Has Frank Gore been the best RB in the league this season?

Blizzard

The Viking defensive line (Kevin Seifert).

The Viking defensive line (Star Tribune).

Signal to Noise makes NFC North predictions.

John Carlos and Tommie Smith (NY Times).

Marketing and "the Redeem Team" (Slate).

In praise of ESPN
ESPN.com's NFL page has really pushed a lot of focus on blogger-reporters covering each of the NFL's divisions. I like this a lot. First, it means that you can see stories on your favorite team regularly on ESPN.com, instead of waiting and hoping for an eventual feature. It also allows ESPN to really compete with local news coverage, which is generally superior when it comes to covering one team. And finally, it means when an interesting story breaks for a team you don't usually follow, there's a central place you can go to find a blogger-reporter that is really covering that beat and can provide insights and inside information.

Kurt Warner: starting fantasy quarterback
It's a risk: he could get hurt or replaced mid-game, leaving you with a poor scoring week. And I learned in 2002 (and to some extent in 2004, when Warner played well but didn't really throw TDs) that he's a quarterback that can completely undo your fantasy team. But he's an accurate quarterback that likes to throw downfield and he has Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin for targets.

Some inanity from Peter King
From King's MMQB:

"Alex Smith will make $10.3 million to back up J.T. O'Sullivan, who will make $645,000. Is there no end to the indignity of Smith's NFL career?"

Oh, the indignity! Alex Smith is going to make $10.3 million this year! Can't anybody please give him his dignity back? He's making almost 16 times more money than the player he's watching from the sidelines! Please, 49ers, let Alex Smith have his dignity!

I'm really excited about the Viking front seven.
I just get thrilled thinking about the starting defensive line: Jared Allen, Kevin Williams, Pat Williams, Ray Edwards. And then I imagine those linebackers running around hitting people and making plays: E.J. Henderson, Ben Leber, Chad Greenway. This can be a dominating unit. What are the weaknesses of the front seven? They have size and speed. They can stop the inside run, they can rush the passer, and they can cover receivers. They might be vulnerable to runs off-tackle and around the edges. Might.

Blizzard: do you realize how close the season is?

Links
At ESPN, James Quintong examines whether Marion Barber can handle being a feature back.

Advanced NFL Stats discusses fantasy football strategy (here and here).

Adrian Peterson (Viking Update).

Tarvaris Jackson (Viking Update).

Tarvaris Jackson's injuries (Kevin Seifert).

Doesn't this make Lion, Viking, and Packer fans smile? Kyle Orton is the Bears' starting QB (Fox). Orton means fewer turnovers, but he also means few pass plays worth any yardage.

An amusing take on the sorts of memorabilia they're putting into sports cards these days (Insomniac's Lounge). That crazy Allen & Ginter set: I had to go ahead and buy a Fyodor Dostoevsky card. Could hardly resist.

Peter King
Peter King called out Jets fans for not attending a preseason game, and Signal to Noise's reaction is pretty close to mine. I've been to two preseason games (I stayed at one from beginning to end): nobody, in any situation, needs to provide any excuse for missing a preseason game. I've watched a lot of Kansas City Chiefs' training camp practice--that's more fun than a preseason game, much less expensive, and much less hassle. And here's King's reaction to fans writing to him about this really stupid point. He uses language such as "a real Jet fan" and "Sorry, I've got a problem with that" (King has evidently appointed himself arbiter of what "real" sports fans are and what they must do. Hey, I guess it works for Bill Simmons). I think this is a sign that King is out of touch. It's not only that King has elevated Brett Favre to some sort of demi-god and is surprised that others haven't. It's that King, who is paid to cover the NFL, is lecturing people who are not paid to cover the NFL about why they should take up a summer evening to commute to a stadium to watch a football game that means absolutely nothing. It was not Brett Favre's debut with the team any more than his first practice was a debut with the team (even if ESPN et. al. tries to hype it that way). His real debut with the Jets will be week one, and his first touchdown pass with the Jets will not be the one he threw in a preseason game, but the first touchdown pass he throws in a regular season game.

This reminds me a bit of the episode of The Wire when McNulty is on a date with a political campaign adviser. When McNulty tells her he doesn't follow politics (and didn't vote in the last election), she is flabbergasted. And I recognize her reaction. She's so consumed with politics, so devoted to it, spending all of her time thinking about it, she just assumes everybody else should be too. Have you encountered such situations? Been in a conversation with somebody who doesn't even seem to realize that his/her particular interest, hobby, or career, is not something most people spend all their time thinking about? I think that's the sort of attitude that makes a person lecture fans--particularly fans devoted enough to the team to purchase season tickets--about why they should go to a game that doesn't matter. They've already devoted a large enough portion of their lives to the Jets to purchase season tickets, to make the financial commitment and the time commitment to go watch the team in person throughout the season, and King doesn't think they're good fans because they don't also want to go to a preseason game.

I suspect that because covering the NFL is Peter King's career, he's rather consumed with it, and expects others who follow the NFL to be consumed with it. Well, many of us are, but for most of us, it's not our job. There are die-hard Jets fans that have jobs, have families, have other hobbies. There are season ticket holders that are going to give up a lot of time to go to eight games throughout the fall, and they may not want to give up additional time before that for games that don't count. And there are many die-hard Jets fans that won't go to any games, that will watch all the games on TV. And in my estimation, this makes them no less die-hard. You can be a devoted fan while watching all the games on TV. You can be a devoted fan and mostly ignore the preseason. King is paid to go to the games; Jets fans, I wouldn't listen at all to Peter King's judgment of you.

Some personal whining
There is only one way that I can actually miss Viking games on TV for work: if the NFL schedules them for a Monday night game at 6:00 central. There is only one such game each year, and now the NFL has scheduled the Vikings for this game two of the last three years. I'll get home in time for halftime, and I love you, DVR. You complete me.

What do you want in a fantasy football backup quarterback?
I think there are two ways to go:

1. Steady.
Draft a QB that you know you can rely on if you're forced to start him for a stretch of games. He's probably not going to be terribly high scoring, but over the course of the season, he's not going to disappoint you. He's the sort of player that, if he were a little better, he'd be a fantasy starter. Depending on the size of your league, this type of player might be Jake Delhomme, Philip Rivers, Eli Manning, that sort of fellow. You'll expect 3,000+ yards and 20+ TDs, but not that much more than 3,000 yards and 20 TDs.

2. Go Bananas or Go Drink Garbage Water.
It's your backup quarterback, after all: you can afford to take risks. Go ahead and take the QB that could reasonably be expected to completely suck, but just might go bananas. This is the Vince Young sort of QB. If he plays like last season, you don't even want him as your backup. But...he can run...and he can throw... and you know that you just might be looking at a QB who will have 800 yards and 10 TDs rushing.

Fantasy Football Rookies
Running Backs are really the only rookies you should take in a fantasy football draft, and I almost always take one. This year I went for Matt Forte: other than Darren McFadden, Forte seems to have the least in his way to becoming his team's feature back.

Bernard Berrian
I'm really starting to feel like Bernard Berrian is going to be a central player to the Vikings' 2008 fortunes. Tarvaris Jackson has been blamed for his struggles last season, but Viking WRs and TEs had a lot to do with those struggles. Jackson often threw passes to receiver who dropped the ball, or tried to complete passes to receivers who couldn't get separation from defenders.

Whoever plays quarterback for the Vikings this season is going to need good play from the WRs. That means a lot is riding on Berrian. If he can make plays in the intermediate passing game, and occasional plays in the deep passing game, the Vikings can be special. If he is a free agent bust, the Viking passing game will likely continue to struggle.

That crazy English language
The story link to this Matt Hasselbeck story reads "Hasselbeck set to go after nursing a back injury." When I first glanced at the sentence, I thought Hasselbeck was getting ready to seek some sort of special nursing for his back injury (my mind somehow inserted "for" in between "nursing" and "a". No no, he's no ready to return after having nursed his back injury. Fun times (although maybe only for me).

Friday Blizzard

Why all the slapping of tags?
I keep reading about players getting "slapped" with the franchise tag, about teams "slapping" the franchise tag on various players, yada yada yada. But players and franchise tags are delicate things. I encourage teams thinking of just up and slapping that tag on to be a little more careful. Tenderly apply the tag, gently and with care. Don't be so callous as to just slap that tag on.

The Safety Position for the Vikes
I don't have a problem with the Vikings cutting Dwight Smith (Star Tribune, Pioneer Press). The Viking pass defense was routinely destroyed by competent quarterbacks last season: they ranked 32nd in yards allowed, 15th in touchdowns allowed, 20th in interceptions, and 17th in net yards per attempt allowed. Opponents completed 64% of their passes against the Vikings (the league completion percentage is around 61%). By even the best of assessments, the 2007 Viking pass defense could only be described as mediocre--but they're mediocre because they generally contained bad quarterbacks, and got slaughtered by good quarterbacks.

So what are the Vikings to do? Stick with the status quo in the secondary? They're probably OK at cornerback: Antoine Winfield is good, and though Cedric Griffin and Marcus McCauley often looked shaky, they were in their second and first seasons, and can improve. Should they just stick with Dwight Smith and Darren Sharper at safety again? I think they're right to try and go in a different direction at safety.

They've clearly got deficiencies in their pass defense. The first step toward improvement is improving the pass rush. For anecdotal evidence on the need for a strong pass rush, look at the New England Patriots in the playoffs this season. The Jaguars failed to rush Tom Brady, and he calmly and easily sat in the pocket and completed 26 of 28 passes, leading the Pats to 31 points. The Giants put a consistent and fierce pass rush on Brady, and he had just 5.5 yards per attempt in getting the Patriots to just 14 points. Perhaps because of the changes in rules regarding pass coverage, the only way to stop a really good passing team is to pressure the quarterback.

But that doesn't mean the secondary shouldn't be tinkered with as the Vikes add defensive ends. If your pass defense is bad, you have to look a the secondary and find ways to improve yourself.

Links
Signal to Noise talks about Prince Fielder going vegetarian. On a related subject, I Dislike Your Favorite Team shows the indirect connection between Daniel Snyder and torture of chickens.

Access Vikings reports that Troy Williamson's agent will be meeting with the Vikings (well, not all of them, I assume). I'm just trying to picture the meeting. Can you imagine Williamson's agent making any request, or any complaint? Would the Viking officials just laugh? Stare in wonderment? Pro Football Talk says Williamson is on the trading block.

John Hollinger grades all of the wild and zany NBA trades this season. I don't remember an NBA season in which so many teams--and championship contenders--made big name trades.

Fanhouse says the Vikes might draft a DE again. Here are some of the defensive linemen the Vikes have drafted in the first round in my spectating period: Derrick Alexander, Duane Clemons, Demetrius Underwood, Chris Hovan, Erasmus James. No, I'm not terribly excited about the prospect of another defensive lineman selected in the first round (though we did get Kevin Williams, which is 1,000 levels of awesome). DE is a big need for the Vikes--but WR is bigger. Of course, unlike Madden video games, free agency comes before the draft in real life, so we don't know what the team needs might be on draft day.

Weekend
Enjoy your weekend, folks. You know how I feel about weekends: they come during a week, and they're at the end. Just as you know how Travis Cole feels about the homeless: they're human beings, and they have no homes.

Addendum
At Epic Carnival, wwtb? takes our Bad Luck Number and wonders who's the next long-suffering team to win a title.

Sports and War

The 2007-08 Upper Deck First Edition basketball set has a rookie insert set called "2007 NBA Rookie Draft Notices."

A picture of the player is on the left of the card. On the right appear the words "ORDER TO REPORT." Below that reads "To: (player's name)." In a small box labeled "SELECTIVE SERVICE INFO.," you can see the date of birth, hometown, position, and team of the player. Below is an image of a red stamped seal. The seal is a circle with an eagle in it; the circle includes the words "SERVICE REQUESTED" and a banner in the seal reads "DRAFT NOTICES."

Let's accept that the word "draft" for conscription into military service and the word "draft" for selection to a professional sports team has the same root. The Oxford English Dictionary (institution subscription required) includes the following noun and verb definitions with usage as early as the 18th century: "The drawing off, detachment, or selection of a party from a larger body for some special (spec. military) duty or purpose; spec. (esp. in U.S.), selective conscription" and "To draw off or out and remove (a party of persons, animals, or things) from a larger body for some special duty or purpose. Chiefly in Mil. use, and in Stock-farming: see quots. Also (chiefly U.S.), to conscript." The word has the meaning of selection for special service, but was usually associated with military service well before pro sports leagues held "drafts" (the OED doesn't even include reference to a sports draft), so I suspect sports leagues borrowed the term from the military usage.

Even if pro sports borrowed the word draft from the military usage, isn't it a little extreme for Upper Deck to make such a clear analogy on a card? "Draft Notices" sent by the "Selective Service" System inform men that they are being required to report for military duty, where they must sacrifice whatever plans they had for their lives, get training in how to kill people, and then possibly risk their lives in warfare. Is it responsible for Upper Deck to draw such a clear parallel between conscripts and basketball players, for whom a draft notice means playing professional basketball for millions of dollars?

wwtb? on text messaging

What was that bang? dislikes the effect of text messaging on language, and now blames Peter King for the decline of language in his recent Epic Carnival post, "Peter King quotes Text Message, Hastens Fall of Civilization."

On the Couch, week two

My thoughts on the Viking game can be found at "Coming off the Ledge: Lions 20, Vikings 17 (OT)". "On the Couch" is a chance to explore the rest of a football season Sunday.

Dear Bill Belichick
Are you telling me that with about three minutes left and a 17 point lead, after Laurence Maroney has been dominant on the game sealing drive, you can't let Maroney get the touchdown? You have to send in Sammy Morris? If Sammy Morris were white, we'd accuse you of Bud Kilmer's shenanigans with Wendell Brown. Instead, we're not morally outraged, just regular outraged. In the future, could you let Laurence Maroney finish out some of these drives?

Thanks,
Millions of Fantasy Football Participants Pulling Out Hair Over Laurence Maroney.

Dear Randy Moss
I wish I knew how to quit you.

Love,
Millions of Viking fans

Dear Bill Simmons
In your Friday football column, you asked "everyone's talking about the other teams and implying they were the victims. What about Pats fans? How did we deserve this?" I have your answer. It's the same thing you did to deserve to root for the most dominant football team of this decade. It's the same thing fans of the Bills, Browns, Bengals, Jaguars, Texans, Titans, Chargers, Eagles, Vikings, Lions, Falcons, Saints, Panthers, Cardinals, and Seahawks did to root for a team that's never won a Super Bowl. Nothing. Nothing at all. And I'd say you've had it pretty good, wouldn't you? You wrote "All week, I almost felt like I did something wrong just because I rooted for these guys." How do you think Viking fans felt in 2005 when everybody in America treated our team like reprobates for their activities on a boat, and we Viking fans were forced to choose whether to remain loyal to our team or join in the moral outrage? And I know that until 2004, you already knew what it was like to root deeply in your soul for a team with a long, long championship drought. The Vikings were founded in 1961, have a tradition, a culture, a history, a devoted fanbase--and no championships. I wouldn't whine too much just because there's a scandal that's going to be a minor footnote on the Patriots' history.

Yours,
non-Boston fans.

Dear Steve Smith, Chad Johnson, Joey Galloway, Joe Jurevicius, Andre Johnson, T.J. Houshmandzedah, Braylon Edwards, and Randy Moss
Wow, that's a lot of WRs scoring multiple TDs. Hope you had fun.

Dear Titans' secondary
It's not your fault. It's really not.

Often when you talk about a WR making a spectacular catch, you're talking about a WR adjusting to a poor throw by the quarterback. But Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, and Anthony Gonzalez were making what I'd call great catches, but they were still perfect throws from Peyton Manning. For the most part, you guys were covering those Colt WRs very well, but Manning put the ball right where it needed to be caught, and those WRs still caught the ball even with you defenders really tight on them.

Don't blame yourselves.

Cheers.

Dear Football Announcers,
When you talk about giving a particular player "a blow," or giving an entire defense "a blow," thousands of adolescent boys everywhere snicker. Just thought you ought to know.

Cheers.

Dear Pro Football Talk
Today you again complained about Emmitt Smith and his "struggle with verb conjugations and other basic aspects of the English language." And yet you make fun of Tiki Barber's vocabulary because you say he's trying to sound smart. Do you want every TV commentator to be middle-brow, appealing to a middle-brow audience, smart enough for you but not too smart for you? If Smith went too far in trying to sound smart, wouldn't you criticize him for that? And if Barber dumbed it down too much, wouldn't you criticize him for that?

I'm not going to accuse you of injecting racial stereotypes into your assessment (I know you've criticized people like Lou Holtz for poor commentary and praised people like Tom Jackson for good commentary). However, it might be worth examining race here. Barber may deliberately choose his diction because he knows black commentators face greater scrutiny over their use of language (I think you've made this suggestion yourself). And I've heard TV commentators and announcers like Bob Costas and Al Michaels use a rich vocabulary without really getting much scrutiny or criticism for it (Michaels referred to a Pyrrhic victory tonight, though I'm pretty sure he misused it--I'm guessing if Barber used the expression, you'd point out how uppity he's trying to sound).

Hey, it's worth considering anyway.

I appreciate your work. Cheers.

Dear Steve Smith
You are a fantasy football delight.

Thanks for all the enjoyment you've given me.

Dear Journeyman
I've already talked about how excited I am for you: it looks like you could be a 2007 quality Quantum Leap. So please, please, please, don't suck. Be good. I really need this. The Vikings don't look too good right now. Give me something.

Good luck,
Sometimes Sci Fi Rube.

Dear Fyodor Dostoevsky
In Notes from the Underground, you wrote specifically about the impossibility of calculating and categorizing man's "own best interests," suggesting that the desire for free will blows the whole project up (I know you were big on free will. Me too). The further theme is that human behavior is not governed by reason alone, or even reason primarily, but that we have other irrational desires that drive us. That's all big stuff, and your explorations of the spiritual needs of humankind are definitely an inspiration. But I hope when you write something like "can man's interests be correctly calculated? Are there not some which not only have not been classified, but are incapable of classification? After all, gentlemen, as far as I know you deduce the whole range of human satisfactions as averages from statistical figures and scientifico-economic formulas," and you criticize a system in which "All human actions, of course, will then have to be worked out by those laws, mathematically, like a table of logarithms" (well, you didn't write this precisely: this is Jessie Coulson's translation), I hope you don't mind if I appropriate the idea for something less significant.

For me, as I've said many times, your work serves as a reminder for how to approach statistics in sports. Statistics illuminate truth in sports, reveal truth in sports, explain truth in sports, even help us make reasonable predictions about sports. But the statistics themselves are not the sports, and certainly not the whole truth of sports. There's something else that goes on in sports, something that gets at the psychological, irrational, or better, human, in reality. Oh, I trust statistics. I really do believe we can make better sense out of sports with good, rigid statistical analysis, and that rigid analysis is reliable in understanding what has happened and making some predictions about what will happen. But we have to remember that the numbers that show up are not truth itself: the numbers merely tell us about truth.

Anyway, Fyodor, you've had a pretty big influence on me. It makes sense the impact would extend to how I view sports. I hope I'm not cheapening your ideas too terribly.

Thanks,
PV

Some other entities wish to include some letters.

Dear Bengals and Browns
I'm tired. Just so tired. I don't want to do this anymore. Just...let me be. I'll just...tired.

Yours,
The Scoreboard

Dear Dan Marino
You're still better than Favre.

Yours,
Truth

Dear Fantasy Football Participants
Bwhooo-ha-ha-ha-ha! Bwhoooo-ha-ha-ha! OOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Yours,
The Spirit of Fantasy Football

Dear Vikings and Lions
We had fun with you this weekend. Maybe we can hang out again sometime.

Yours,
Turnovers and Penalties

Dear Viking fans
I hate you.

Yours,
The Universe.

Anti-intellectualism, PFT, and Tiki Barber

ProFootballTalk is frequently anti-athlete, and engages in mockery of just about anybody involved in football for a whole host of reasons. And I suppose there's a place for that. But one particular form of PFT's mockery stinks of anti-intellectualism. PFT makes fun of Tiki Barber for using big words; essentially, PFT makes fun of Tiki Barber for sounding smart.

Currently, when the main writer at PFT uses a word or phrase that might sound smart, he'll insert "thanks, Tiki" in parentheses directly afterward. Today "(thanks, Tiki)" appeared after the word "extemporaneously." On August 19th "(thanks, Tiki)" appeared after persona non grata.

The main writer at PFT has claimed that he makes fun of Tiki's vocabulary because Barber is a fake intellectual, using big words pretentiously (ah, thanks Tiki?) to sound smart. As I showed, I'm not so sure. After all, if he's made fun of for using big words, how exactly is Barber supposed to show that he is a legitimate intellectual?

I'm not sure what an athlete or ex-athlete would have to do to convince PFT that he/she is a legitimate intellectual; it's possible that "intellectual athlete" simply doesn't fit into PFT's schema.

I guess I'll leave it to you: do you think PFT's mockery of Tiki Barber's big words constitutes a negative attitude toward intellectualism (whatever that might mean)? Or does Tiki Barber deserve to be mocked for his supposedly pretentious vocabulary?

Anti-intellectualism is a problem in our country. Science is frequently rejected for non-scientific reasons (evolution, global warming). Political candidates seem to deliberately dumb down their diction to appeal to the masses. Too many people speak of academia and intellectual pursuits with derision. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see PFT engaging in this very problem in its mocking of Barber's diction.

ADDENDUM: One of the early words (though possibly not the first--another similar critique shows up a few hours earlier) in Barber's vocabulary that caught PFT's ire was "bloviate" in late October. Not a common word, but easily understood in context.

But here's the sure sign of an anti-intellectual bent: if a speaker uses a word you don't know, why is the speaker at fault?

If somebody uses a word that you don't know, you should not assume it is the speaker who has a flaw: you should assume it is you, for not knowing the word. To hold it against the speaker, rather than yourself, shows an animosity toward the person for being (at least in this case, for knowing a word you don't know) more intelligent than you.

Vikings.com: Screw you, Troy Williamson

Check out the Minnesota Vikings' official home page bio of Sidney Rice. Pay attention to the opening sentence:

"The Gamecocks have featured several speedy wide receivers that have gone on to professional careers in recent years, but not since Sterling Sharpe (1983-87) and Robert Brooks (1988-91) wore South Carolina uniforms, has the school been able to boast such a big play specialist like Sidney Rice."

That's interesting. You may be familiar with another WR that donned the South Carolina Gamecocks uniform, another WR that might be described as a big play specialist. Another WR that was, by the way, drafted by the Vikings and is currently on the roster.

Troy Williamson is one of those "speedy wide receivers that have gone on to professional careers in recent years," so there's explicit recognition here that he exists. And in his last year at South Carolina he did average 19.4 yards per reception; why can't the school "boast such a big play specialist" as Williamson?

The Vikings' own official webpage seems to be cocking off Troy Williamson, deliberately stating that Sidney Rice is the best WR to come from South Carolina since Sterling Sharpe and Robert Brooks.

I don't blame them for what they're trying to do: they don't want fans to make a connection between Rice and Williamson, and they want to remind fans that South Carolina has produced good NFL wide receivers in the past.

But when Troy Williamson is still on the team, it seems like a deliberate insult to pass him over in that sentence.

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.

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.