You have a right not to read this post

Let me go ahead and slap two theses up on the church door (I never claimed to be Martin Luther, and evidently I'm 93 theses short of Martin Luther).

1. When media members complain about media saturation of Favre coverage, they are contributing to and adding to media saturation of Favre coverage.

2. In the age of the internet, and of numerous television, radio, and print sources devoted to sports coverage, it is a bit silly to complain about sports media overcoverage or undercoverage of anything.*

I present these theses because Doug Farrar (who frequently tweets complaints about media saturation of Favre coverage) includes in a Yahoo! Shutdown Corner post these silly sentences:

"The Vikings have a right to know what their quarterback is going to do, whether they think so or not. And we have a right to hear and read about things that have nothing to do with Brett Favre."

The first sentence is obviously flawed: it's nice of Farrar to defend the Vikings' "rights" that they evidently don't care about, but obviously if they wanted to assert this right, they could (the fact that they don't suggests either they know Favre is coming back, or they know he's important to their plans and giving him freedom and little pressure is how to get him to come back). But it's the second sentence there that is absurdly silly (perhaps intentionally so, though the sentiment seems sincere).

Of course "we have a right to hear and read about things that have nothing to do with Brett Favre." All you have to do to assert this right is hear and read about them! Nobody has ever required me to read an article about Brett Favre. Nobody has denied me the right to read or hear about pretty much whatever sports story I want to read or hear about. The internet helps a lot: there are so many people writing about so many things that it is not terribly difficult to find some coverage of whatever it is you're interested in. This is especially the case with a popular sports league like the NFL: search for news or commentary on what you're interested in, and there's a good chance you'll find at least one article. As a fantasy football enthusiast, I've been noting how seemingly every day I come across another article focusing on Steven Jackson, to the point that every day my fantasy opinion of him changes (between July 9th and 20th, there's this, this, this, this, and this). Not only do you have a right to read NFL stories not about Favre, it's extraordinarily easy to do so.

And what if somebody doesn't want to hear about Favre? For that matter, what if I found Steven Jackson dull? Do what Lisa Simpson advises in The Simpsons Halloween episode when the advertising mascots come to life to terrorize the town: just don't look. I regularly check every one of those sites above featuring Steven Jackson articles, but if I wasn't interested in Steven Jackson (am I even interested in Steven Jackson?), all I have to do is not click on those links. If I'm watching a sports television network covering something I'm not interested in, I can switch to another sports television network that might be covering something I'm interested in, or if I insist on learning about sports during this moment I could even lower my eyes from the television to a sports magazine or a newspaper sports page. I have zero interest in learning details about rookie contract negotiations: in early and mid July it doesn't matter, and even once training camps begin the headline pretty much tells me what I want or need to know. Rather than complaining about media coverage of something I'm not interested in, I take the drastic step of not paying attention to media coverage of something I'm not interested in.

Hey, I've got a tag devoted to bad sportswriting: I'm not saying critique of sports media coverage is invalid. And there is sometimes call to complain about overcoverage or undercoverage of a particular story. But this brings us back to the first of my incredible two theses. When media members complain about Favre, complain about his indecision, complain about media overcoverage of Favre, criticize the attention given to Favre or the attention Favre evidently craves, they are talking about Favre. They are contributing to the media attention given to Favre. For the rest of us consumers of media, these complaints about the media's Favre coverage only contribute to the saturation.

So my advice to people like Farrar who are sick of Favre: just don't look. Don't worry about the Vikings' rights: they can probably assert their own. Don't worry about your right to read and hear about other NFL stories: nobody is taking that right away from you. Just don't look.

*specifying "sports media" is important: there are hard news stories for which the type or amount of coverage by mainstream media sources can have real consequences in policy, politics, public behavior, etc. But sports coverage is a bit more like entertainment coverage in its significance.

Addendum

I think I should emphasize thesis one a bit more. One reason I feel that Favre saturates the media is the backlash itself: I regularly come across media commentary criticizing Favre and/or the media's coverage of Favre (recently, here and here*). On the whole, these articles actually add to the saturation of Favre for consumers of media; in effect, media members whose complaint is too much coverage of Favre add to the saturation of Favre coverage simply by complaining at all. Some days it seems I come across more criticism/complain about media coverage of Favre than I come across Favre stories themselves.

I think there is too much media coverage of Favre, but the backlash has contributed to there being even more media coverage of Favre. As I've written before,

"several years ago, a backlash really started to develop (prominently on the internet) against the media's treatment of Favre, to the point that complaints about the media coverage of Favre have become the cliche. Furthermore, Favre's behavior in recent years has led to a lot of criticism from mainstream media sources."

That's what I'm saying: the complaining about media coverage of Favre is often the conventional, uninsightful, predictable cliche commentary itself. Many people are exhausted with the media giving too much attention to Favre; I'm actually exhausted with people complaining about the media giving too much attention to Favre!

*By the way, Adam Schein: when you take your time to make a "Go Away" video to complain about Favre, during which you say "I've been done with Favre for years," well, evidently you weren't.

At least in my sleep

Once again, I dreamed the Vikings won the Super Bowl. I didn't watch the game; it was the next day and I was (literally) running around with my index fingers waving in air. A Packer fan gave me the middle finger. I was (again literally) running to stores looking for Super Bowl Champion clothes to wear.

Not quite as tormenting as the time I dreamed I traveled back in time to before the NFC Championship game, bumped into the Vikings' skill position players, warned them not to fumble, and proceeded to watch (in specific detail) the Vikings crush the Saints. But haunting and disappointing nonetheless.

Viking Secondary Problems

Doug Farrar looks at Vikings' secondary problems, and offers a look at how linebacker positioning can help the coverage (Yahoo!).

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.

Resolving the great culture war of our time

Edward is extraordinarily dull; he may as well be part of the scenery for as little as he brings to the screen. Jacob has some screen presence, some charisma, some vigor, some verve. When he's in a scene, you know he's in a scene.

Still, if choosing Edward means becoming a vampire and living longer (maybe not forever, but until somebody tears you to shreds and burns the pieces), then that means getting more chances to see the Vikings just maybe win the Super Bowl. Probably, it will take becoming a vampire and living a few more centuries to see that happen.

Mad Lib

noun, anybody associated with or rooting for the Minnesota Vikings: _________

First sentence of Vic Carucci's NFL.com article on the Vikings:

"_________ was lamenting about how close the Minnesota Vikings were to achieving their ultimate goal, how it should have been them and not the New Orleans Saints hoisting the Vince Lombardi Trophy last February."

Blizzard

In some parallel universe, Sage Rosenfels throws for 24 TDs and 3,700 yards leading the Vikings to a 10-6 record. Obviously not this one (Kevin Seifert, Viking Update).

Tarvaris Jackson (Star Tribune)

Percy Harvin (Pioneer Press)

Antoine Winfield (Pioneer Press)

Sidney Rice and Percy Harvin (Star Tribune): Harvin's arms look monsterous.

Percy Harvin (Star Tribune)

Minicamp pictures (vikings.com)

Ray Edwards (Star Tribune)

Toby Gerhart (Daily Norseman). I still think it will be a combo of Gerhart and Percy Harvin that will do the things Chester Taylor used to do.

Adrian Peterson (ESPN NFC North Blog).

Nnamdi Asomugha, entertaining fellow (Sports Illustrated).

Drops (Football Outsiders).

NFL.com has a nice fantasy football preview page. A lot of interesting and useful things there.

Brad Childress and Double-Standards

At Shutdown Corner, Doug Farrar questions Brad Childress's credibility: if he's going to let Brett Favre skip whatever he wants, how can he take a hard line on Adrian Peterson missing OTAs?

I only partially agree. At the professional level, I don't really have a problem when coaches have different standards for different players. It's the coach's job to make the team as good as possible, and he should be able to make judgment calls about discipline, discerning whether allowing superstars leeway is better for the team, or whether doing so causes team problems which affect performance. Where I agree is that if Childress is going to have double-standards for superstars, he should probably consider Adrian Peterson a superstar worthy of the double-standard. Of course, the Vikings have so many legitimate studs, the concern about a slippery slope may be valid.

It's a dangerous game a coach plays, balancing the egos to give the team optimum performance. If Childress took a hard line on Favre's absence, and that somehow contributed to Favre deciding not to come back in 2010, the team would not be better off. But if Childress says, "Ah, hell, I'm letting Favre do whatever he wants, so I should probably go ahead and let all the other players get away with skipping OTAs too, because I have to be consistent," then the team would not be better off either. Certainly things can go wrong when the coach makes these judgment calls, and he can be wrong. Maybe he has a feel for his team and understands how players feel and respond to Favre's absence, and maybe he doesn't.

But here's the thing about the slippery slope: it's a logical fallacy. "If I make an exception for you, I have to make an exception for everybody" is a fallacy. You certainly can make an exception for one person: that's the nature of an exception.

Childress's double-standard for Favre may become a divisive locker room issue. If it was a problem last season, however, the problem did not show up in on-the-field performance. The team was very good throughout the season (I'm assuming that all those NFC championship game turnovers and the 12 men in the huddle had nothing to do with players in the locker room resenting either Childress or Favre). We'll see if it becomes an issue in 2010, but I really doubt it.

Blizzard: I love magazines.

I purchased ESPN Fantasy Football 2010 and Pro Football Weekly and Yahoo! Sports Preview 2010. Each has the statistical detail I crave in a preview magazine, and each has several great features that make it useful. I find myself wondering why I bought two $7.99 football magazines, but I am trying to be a well-informed amateur football blogger coming back from my sports nervous breakdown. And its only June, so summer is still filled a lot of activities when pulling out a magazine for a few minutes at a time is good: sitting on a lawn chair watching kids play, standing in line, going to the bathroom, waiting for parades to start, yada yada yada.

You'll notice I've been linking to a lot of articles not related to the Vikings. I'm finishing up some professional obligations, and as that's winding down, I'm actually feeling more like it's summer, and which is known in some circles as FANTASY FOOTBALL PREPARATION PERIOD, so my football reading is expanding. I link to what might be interesting, and I'll probably also be adding more websites to the links on the side. As I'm finishing up my work, I'm also going to make time to write the Official Hazelweird Fantasy Football Rulebook, since our league has operated on unwritten traditions and customs that have been voted on but never written down, which causes some problems (sometimes a league veteran will do something based on an obscure custom that hasn't been used in years, causing a newer league member to ask what the hell just happened, leading the long-time keepers of the league to explain, "It's all good: while what he did certainly appears illegal and shenanigoaty, he just exercised a rule we've always agreed on for obscure situation A, but the rule hasn't been used in years so you didn't know about it. Now go back about your business," which is usually, um, not loved).

Enjoy the weekend, suckers.

Linky

Viking minicamp questions (Viking Update).

The Kansas City Chiefs weirdly intrigue me (USA Today).

Matt Leinart weirdly intrigues me (Fox Sports Arizona).

Peter Schrager on wide receivers and the Hall of Fame (Fox Sports).

Isaac Bruce: I always liked that guy (New York Times).

Kevin Kolb (ESPN).

Fantasy Heavy

Michael Fabiano talks up Aaron Rodgers (NFL.com)

I have no intention of drafting one Michael Turner, ever. He is an interesting fantasy prospect, though (Fox Sports South).

Jamaal Charles (Sports Illustrated).

Blizzard

Should Percy Harvin be considered something like the Vikings' 3rd down running back in 2010? I say yes. The versatility of sending him into the huddle, where he could run, catch from the backfield, or motion into the slot, is pretty enticing.

Linky

George Packer's post in The New Yorker about the Lakers resonates with me as a Viking fan:

"That was what West and the Lakers meant to me: the inevitability, the unfairness, the almost sweet pain of loss."

Viking cornerbacks (Star Tribune)

E.J. Henderson (Star Tribune)

Adrian Peterson (Star Tribune)

Warren Moon (vikings.com)

Target Field is vegetarian friendly (MinnPost)

Toby Gerhart (vikings.com).

Fantasy Heavy

Open for debate: #1 fantasy pick Adrian Peterson or Chris Johnson (Yahoo!)?

Another debate: Larry Fitzgerald or Sidney Rice (Yahoo!)

Matthew Berry's top 150 (ESPN)

Good Fantasy Clicks by Jay Clemons (Sports Illustrated), but I do have a few questions:

1. Is this really a "mock" draft, or are you going to go ahead and have a league with the teams you've drafted? And if you're not going to, why not?

2. When you refer to your group as "long and distinguished," are you intentionally referencing Top Gun? Because it made me want to say "So's my johnson."

Bounceback players (Rotoworld)

Precedent suggests Mike Martz means the Bears will put up big passing numbers (Rotoworld)

WR rankings (Yahoo!)

"Live" Blogging: Vikings-Bears 1994, Second Quarter

See First Quarter here.

Warren Moon with a short pass on a short cross to Cris Carter (one of my favorite video game plays: reliable).

Carter gets a short pass on third down, shakes a tackler and runs up, diving for the sticks. First down, suckers.

Dave Wannstedt's mustache is something to admire. Start typing his name into Google, and "Dave Wannsteadt mustache" is pretty high up on the list of search choices, so evidently a lot of people admire it.

Qadry Ismail with a nice catch and run--the sort of play that made his potential seem so big.

Scottie Graham picking up good yardage. At what point do people choose between, say, Scott and Scottie? I can't imagine a Scott Pippen capturing my imagination.

There's Sean Salisbury on the sidelines. Was he ever not a tool?

Classic Brian Billick fun: all sorts of short underneath passes on 3rd and long.

Punting is the right move there: the Bears' offense isn't going 90 yards in Thunderdome.

Ed McDaniel storms through the line of scrimmage for a tackle for loss. No blocker at all.

3rd and 11 for the Steve Walsh Bears is like 3rd and 1,100.

Vikes get the ball at midfield, and I'm mildly excited.

And Moon just got drilled. Excitement depleting. I'm now fully prepared for a couple five yard outs then a punt.

Oof! Great pass out to Jake Reed, 23 yard gain on 3rd and 19.

Look at Scottie Graham go.

Remember football before that glowing yellow line? It was fine.

Denny Green was always a fan of the two-TE set.

Moon threw it into the chest of a Bear LB, but the ball bounces to the ground. And there's a guy behind Dave Wannstedt wearing Zubas, reminding me we're watching a game from 1994.

Fuad. If only he had still be around in '98, maybe things would have been different.

And now Walsh throws a pass to a defender's chest. Is that fun or something? I see why I might have gone outside to play basketball.

Jack Del Rio crushes the screen play, and John Randle gets called for roughing the passer. I can see why they made that call. Joe Theismann is incensed about it.

Vikes recover a fumble.

Nice catch by Cris Carter. That guy was good, wasn't he?

Lousy clock management by the Vikings. Nostalgia. Sure.

THROW IT DOWNFIELD! Just chuck it. You've got Jake Reed. All these dink and dunk plays. They're not even sending Cris Carter out on patterns.

Nice throw to Jake Reed.

Got into field goal position, but they really could have managed that clock better and tried for a TD. And they could have let Cris Carter go out on a pass pattern.

13-7 Viking lead at halftime. After a pretty putrid offensive performance most of the half, a six point lead feels pretty good. I mean, must have felt good to fans at the time. I couldn't possibly have warm feelings about a 13-7 halftime score of a game played 16 years ago. I'm not that deranged a fan. Right? Right?

Dang, 16 years ago. A whole driver ago, this game happened. I'm getting old. Last night my son was staring at the top of my head grinning for some reason. "Why are you looking at my head?" I asked him. "Daddy, you have a hole on your head. There's no hair right there." So there's that. I didn't have the heart to say "Guess what, kid: this is your DNA too. Bwha ha ha ha!"

Anyway, check back again sometime for the third quarter.

"Live" Blogging: Vikings-Bears 1994, First Quarter

The Bears are 8-4, the Vikings 7-5, going for the season sweep. And, good God, that's Joe Theismann.

I really will always remember the Steve Walsh era fondly.

Fuad! Fuad!

I miss that Vikings script in the end zone.

Ed McDaniel with a tackle.

Marv Cook. Marv Cook! I thought flipping through the boxes and boxes of sports cards I've taken from my parents' storage room was allowing me to relive my childhood....but this! This!

DeWayne Washington with a pick-six. I don't know if we were calling them pick-sixes in 1994.

Great downfield blocking.

Fuad! Fuad!

Unfortunately, the nostalgia train ends at commercial breaks. How about some old commercials, NFL Network? Got any rights to those?

If I remember correctly, this was a cold Thursday night in December, and I took breaks during the game to go outside and play basketball. It's really, really weird if I'm remembering that correctly.

Thunderdome was always Thunderdome.

John Randle and Henry Thomas, a different version of Kevin Williams and Pat Williams.

I just paused the game because my dog was mulling around the door. You know what we didn't have in 1994? DVR. If 2010 PV could go back in time and tell 1994 PV, "Someday, you'll rewatch this game, and you'll be able to save it and pause it with just that little remote," what would 1994 PV say?

Jack Del Rio!

'94 Vikes were leading the league in run defense, among the greatest of all-time. But they were pretty lousy in pass defense. Nostalgia. Sure.

Vencie Glenn! Yes, I'll continue to be gleeful just hearing the names.

Nice pass breakup from Ed McDaniel.

Great penetration and tackle by John Randle.

And there's Tony Dungy in the box as defensive coordinator.

There was some lousy tackling. On 3rd and 10, Steve Walsh dumps it to Robert Green, who avoids a bunch of lousy tackle attempts and runs for a touchdown. Theismann says it was a great job by Walsh taking what the defense gave him. I suppose, at taking what the defense was giving, it was a great job.

Kevin Butler!

Warren Moon takes the snap: I always liked that guy. Throws a really pretty ball.

Qadry Ismail: not so great.

Brett Favre looks better in the Vikings' #4 jersey than does punter Mike Saxon.

1994 Steve Walsh = Kyle Orton. I'm 100% serious. No arm strength, but plays smart, avoids many errors, gets credit for "winning" a lot of games because of the defense.

Jake Reed really was a hell of a player. Really liked him. I say this as Moon overthrows him.

TV praise for John Randle/Henry Thomas. I do think Kevin Williams/Pat Williams > John Randle/Henry Thomas.

Vikings can't get a running game going.

Moon gets sacked. I constantly hate the Packers; I forget that I hate the Bears when I'm not actually watching them. Watching this now, I hate the Bears.

Think about it: nine years after this game, Jack Del Rio was an NFL head coach.

Joe Theismann has always been Joe Theismann.

Scottie Graham: Dennis Green sure brought in some interesting guys.

End of the first quarter: 7-7. Check back for Second Quarter.

Blizzard

Tyrell Johnson (vikings.com)

Cedric Griffin and E.J. Henderson (Star Tribune)

Cedric Griffin (Star Tribune)

Adrian Peterson's fumbling--and a comparison to Walter Payton's fumble rate (ESPN NFC North Blog)

Four Downs on the NFC North (Football Outsiders)

Doug Farrar looks at Mike Martz and the Bears' tight ends (Yahoo!)

Vikings' ambiguity going away, and for the better (Pioneer Press)

"Is this now a Twins town?" (Star Tribune)

Michael Turner (NFL Fanhouse)

Kevin Kolb (NFL.com)

Matt Schaub (Yahoo!)

Jason Cole's team RB rankings: Vikes #1 (Yahoo!)

Randy f-in' Moss (ProFootballTalk)

Fantasy Tight Ends (Pancake Blocks)

So you're picking out a fantasy magazine

We all have different wants and needs from a fantasy football magazine. Since the mags should be on the rack soon, here are some of the features I'm looking for in a fantasy football magazine.

Stats for the past three seasons

How the player performed the season before is the most important information, but it's not the only relevant information. I want to see what players have done over the previous three seasons, since the most recent season might have been fluky (either good or bad), and I want to see how the player has performed on a more long-term basis (I'm looking for consistency and reliability).

Game log stats for previous season

There's a lot you can learn from looking at stats for each individual game as opposed to total stats. You learn what players are consistent and inconsistent, what players boosted their numbers with a couple big games, what players started strong but faded, what players came on strong at the end with more playing time, what players had good streaks and bad streaks, and more.

Targets for WRs and TEs

I want to know how often a player was thrown to, not just how often he caught it.

Team Info pages

You need to know team context, and a fantasy magazine should provide pages with team info. The specific knowledge I'm looking for includes:

--Rush/Pass Ratio

--League ranking in rushing and passing

--Schedule

--Projected Strength of Schedule

--Coaching changes (specifically head coach and offensive coordinator), and analysis of the impact

--Roster changes, and analysis of the impact

Rookie Introductions

I need information on skill position rookies, their teams, their skills, and their potential playing time. I can learn about NFL players and their stats pretty easily: I do, however, need information, analysis, and commentary about potential impact rookies. The only rookie position I'm interested in drafting is RB, but I'm still interested in QBs, WRs, and TEs for how they might impact teammates.

League Schedule

Preferably, a fantasy mag will have a week by week NFL schedule on a single page.

Simple Accessibility

Preferably, I'd like to see a player's total numbers for the past three seasons and his game logs for the previous season on the same page. That, however, appears difficult to do. It's obviously an assumed expectation that the stats are arranged in neat tables. It's nice if the positional rankings are easy to locate, though I'll probably bookmark that anyway. Having the simplified rankings (cheat sheets) is nice to look at during the the draft.

I'll be making my own documents to use for prep and draft time anyway (probably), but I want a magazine that makes prep and draft time easy without such documents.

Others?

What are some key features you are looking for in a fantasy football magazine?

And perhaps just as importantly: what are some common features of fantasy magazines that really annoy you?

Fantasy: Should you load up players from one great offensive team?

For years I've tried to write about fantasy football on this blog without actually revealing what I think to my fellow competitors who read this blog. I've finally found the way around this conundrum: an Argument/ Counterargument gimmick, where I write both arguments. I'll do my best with both arguments, and you probably won't know which argument I actually favor. Since I'm writing both arguments, I'll go ahead and ask the question myself.

Question: Should you try to draft a lot of players from the same elite offense, or should you diversify your roster?

Argument: Absolutely.

Let's call it a Juggernaut strategy, and it's probably only feasible in an auction draft.

Here are the top scorers in the Hazelweird scoring (50 pass yards = 1, pass TD = 3, 20 rush/receive yards = 20, rush/receive TD = 6) at QB, RB, TE, three WRs, and K. I'm going to leave out the #2 scoring RB because of the nature of the comparison: unless your juggernaut offense has a two-back system, you're probably only going to start the feature back, and you'll be able to start a different running back in your lineup.

#1 Fantasy Lineup (1,090.21)

QB: Drew Brees (1) (189.76) (2)

RB: Chris Johnson (221.45)

WR: Randy Moss (141.2)

WR: Andre Johnson (3) (132.95)

WR: Larry Fitzgerald (4) (132.6)

TE: Vernon Davis (126.25)

K: Nate Kaeding (146)

Let's just compare this #1 Fantasy Lineup to the team nearest to our hearts, the 2009 Minnesota Vikings. The Vikes were the #2 scoring team in the league in 2009. I don't think they're actually the top choice for 2010 Juggernauts (the Colts and Packers are probably better), but the title of this blog is "Pacifist Viking."

Minnesota Vikings (859.04)

QB: Brett Favre (183.04)

RB: Adrian Peterson (198.95)

WR: Sidney Rice (113.6)

WR: Percy Harvin (82.25) (5)

WR: Bernard Berrian (54.9)

TE: Visanthe Shiancoe (94.3)

K: Ryan Longwell (132)

That's over 200 points fewer than the #1 Fantasy Lineup (at seven positions). OK, 200 points is significant, but then again, you're probably not going to compete against anybody who has the the all the top scorers at all of these positions. Still, the place you'd struggle at most is at WR; even a great team's WR2 and WR3 probably aren't going to get as many consistent points as if you picked up WRs elsewhere. Certainly you could just eliminate the WR3 and still go with a Juggernaut's WR1 and WR2, but I'd actually recommend going Juggernaut with QB, RB, WR1, TE, and K, then fill out your WR2 and WR3 with other WRs. If you do that, here's how the #1 Fantasy Lineup compares to some other Juggernaut options

#1 Fantasy Lineup (QB, RB, WR, TE, K): 824.66

2009 Vikings Lineup: (Favre, Peterson, Rice, Shiancoe, Longwell): 721.89

At the top five fantasy positions, the Minnesota Vikings' Juggernaut would be around points fewer than the optimum fantasy lineup. That's aided by having Favre (very close to #1 QB) and Peterson (#2 RB), but strip away those underproducing WR2 and WR3 positions, and you've got a pretty good lineup. It's also a much easier lineup to obtain (in an auction) than the #1 Fantasy Lineup.

Hey now: a 2009 Viking Juggernaut lineup of QB, RB, WR1, TE, and K is 102.77 points short of the highest possible 2009 score at those positions. Spread that out over 16 weeks, and you're just 6.4 points short of an optimum score. 6.4 points per week is a lot--but not when you're comparing a plausible fantasy lineup to a fantasy lineup consisting of the #1 scorer at each of these positions.

The key to making this strategy is to get a good RB2, WR2, and WR3. You're not just getting the Juggernaut's points: if you're smart and lucky, you can supplement your Juggernaut with legitimate fantasy starter production at the other positions. Considering the cost of a Juggernaut lineup, I think you could still fill these positions with quality fantasy starters. If your Juggernaut is pricey, I still wouldn't worry: there are always good fantasy producers that emerge that were cheap in the auction draft (think Ray Rice), or that you can find on the waiver wire (think NYG Steve Smith).

But why would you want to go with the Juggernaut strategy? Aside from the obvious desire to draft high-scoring players, why load up on one team?

Consistency. Sometimes a team's QB throws multiple TDs and the RB gets zero; sometimes the RB scores multiple TDs and the QB gets zero. Get a good Juggernaut, and you won't have to worry about getting skunked too often.

Hoarding. If you have, say, Philip Rivers, but your opponent has Vincent Jackson, Rivers throwing a TD to Jackson actually hurts you.

Affordability. I think you could get the QB, RB, WR1, TE, and K from a Juggernaut for cheaper than you could get the #1, QB, #1 RB, #1 WR, #1 TE, and #1 K.(6) Indeed, in most auction drafts you would be unable to get the #1 player at each position.

(1)This was remarkably close: three other QBs also scored over 180: Peyton Manning (189), Brett Favre (183.04), and Matt Schaub (182.4).

(2)For the sake of fantasy football planning, I exclude a QB's rushing stats (for a couple reasons); if I did include them, Aaron Rodgers' 316 yards, 5 touchdowns rushing would propel him to #1.

(3) With two straight 1,500 yard seasons, he's rightly regarded as the top WR in yardage-heavy leagues. But take note: his next 10 TD season will be his first.

(4) Right behind these three? Miles Austin (131.9).

(5) I excluded Harvin's return TDs, only because I excluded QB rush numbers. Normally I wouldn't: the special teams threat of Percy Harvin, or DeSean Jackson, counts for me slightly more than a QB's rushing potential.

(6) Granted, in 2009 Chris Johnson would have been affordable and Vernon Davis dirt cheap.

Counterargument: Too much goes wrong

Last season in the Hazelweird League, I had Peyton Manning, Reggie Wayne, Joseph Addai, Donald Brown, and Austin Collie. After week 15, I was 70-50 in the cross-country standings, one game out of first place, and I led the league in points scored. Then the Colts, having clinched the AFC's #1 seed, rested their starters. I went 6-10 in the last two weeks, and ended up in second place, eight games out of first place of the Hazelweird Trophy standings (I also missed out on scoring the most points in the league--AP recognition--by just three points).

After 2007, it might have looked wise to stock up on Patriots, who had just finished the highest scoring season ever. As you know, Tom Brady was injured in week one: the 2008 Patriots were still a good offense, but was any Patriot drafted that season worth the price paid? Brady got nothing, Wes Welker scored three touchdowns, Randy Moss followed up 1,493-23 with 1,008-11, and no RB had more than 727 yards rushing. If you spent the massive amount it would take to stock up on Patriots, you probably had a lousy fantasy season.

It doesn't even take an injury or an early-clinching-thus-rest situation to doom your fantasy team if it is reliant on one offense. Even elite offenses have a bad week, and one bad week can really ruin your season. In head-to-head standings (as stupid as head-to-head standings are), that one bad week could come in the playoffs. If you were loaded up on 2007 Patriots, you were probably dominating your league. And if you played with a playoff system, you probably didn't win your league: the Pats played week 15 in cold and windy conditions, and managed one offensive touchdown (from Laurence Maroney!).

Furthermore, we have the problem of prediction: the 2010 Vikings are not the 2009 Vikings. Sure, that's the nature of fantasy football: we're all guessing at who will be good in year n+1 based on year n numbers. But few drafters hit on every pick: you have some hits and misses. That's fine: if your hits are really good and you are smart in trades and free agency, you can cover your misses. But if you draft a Juggernaut team strategy, you've only got one chance for a hit: if your Juggernaut misses, you've got nothing to cover it. It's an all-or-nothing fantasy strategy.

And even if that Juggernaut is a hit, there's still the problem of breadth: say the QB, TE, K, and WR1 produce elite numbers. A Juggernaut offense could still have a RB that scores few TDs. So you're getting elite production from some positions, but getting duds at other positions. If you had diversified your lineup, those weak positions on your roster might not be weak positions.

You want one more big problem with a Juggernaut philosophy? Bye week. Prepare to suck. If you think you can withstand that awful bye week score, go for it.

A plausible alternative is a QB-RB Juggernaut Combo--get the QB and feature RB from the same dominant offense. If the #1 plausible combo is Drew Brees/Chris Johnson (411.21)*, how about Favre/Peterson (381.99)? There's your consistency: basically, if the #2 scoring offense scores a touchdown, you're probably getting points. If you want to add Ryan Longwell, you're getting points when the Vikings score points, and they score a lot of points. While that's nice, I still wouldn't go out of my way to secure a QB-RB Juggernaut Combo: the goal is to get the most points, and it doesn't really matter what team those players are on.

Look, it's fun to get kinky and think of clever ways to draft a unique team: during summer. When draft time comes, just draft the best players you can. Don't worry about bulking up with one Juggernaut team.

*Though I wouldn't exclude a QB's rushing numbers as the Argument did: Aaron Rodgers can probably be relied upon for a couple hundred rushing yards and a few rushing TDs: why exclude that? But in the Counterargument, I'll keep the terms of the Argument.

Blizzard: Wednesday Night

Actual Dialogue

PV: I only want two things in life: for the Vikings to win the Super Bowl, and for Ted to meet their mother. Which of those things is going to happen first !?! Honest to God!

Wife of PV: I think Ted is going to meet their mother.

Some Links

Toby Gerhart (Star Tribune)

Matt Schaub (Star Tribune)

Marshawn Lynch (Yahoo!)

Bears' wide receivers (ESPN NFL North Blog)

The Titans declined in 2009 because of their pass defense (Advanced NFL Stats)

Jared Allen's mullet (Shutdown Corner). I don't care, even a little bit. Still thought it was something to link to.

Why should you care where the Super Bowl is played? (Lawyers, Guns, & Money)

Fantasy Heavy

Brandon Funston's Big Board (Yahoo!)

John Hansen looks at the top 20 fantasy rookie prospects (Yahoo!). This is exactly the sort of fantasy article I'm looking for: introduce me to the players I don't know, rather than give me opinions on the players I can already analyze myself.

My advice to the kids

If you're a teenager, you should piss away most of your money on sports cards (what else are you going to piss your money away on? Making a romantic impression on whomever you have a crush on? I've got news for you, kids: if you're reading this blog, your crush doesn't like you). Spend most of your time looking at these sports cards. It will give you hours of pleasure and more knowledge of sports than you'll ever need.

If you're lucky, you'll get to store these sports cards in shoe boxes, and you'll be able to leave them in your parents' storage room for over a decade. Then you'll pull them out and relive your childhood. Probably, your spouse will look at you disgustedly the whole time, and you'll remember that your teenage crush never liked you.

Blizzard: Sunday, May 23

The Vikings are having trouble getting public funding for their stadium because of democracy: in a recent poll, 64% of Minnesotans oppose it (MPR). That's a frustrating thing about the rising rhetoric of the Vikings: the Vikings are trying to get legislators to do something that a large majority of Minnesotans oppose, but they seem to be getting angrier and angrier about legislators' reluctance to do such a thing. It's certainly not the case that the majority of people are always right about policy issues (the majority can be in the wrong, factually, morally, or pragmatically), but it still matters that the Vikings are trying to get our money for their stadium, and most of us don't want them to. In St. Paul, schools are closing, consolidating, and restructuring due to funding issues. A serious, not rhetorical question: why should tax revenue be created to build a Viking stadium, rather than to provide better funding for Minnesota public schools? But I also know that at some point, there will need to be some public money for a Viking stadium, or the Vikings will leave Minnesota: that's the Realpolitik.

Brett Favre's surgery means Brett Favre is probably coming back (Kevin Seifert).

And Kevin Williams and Pat Williams are probably not getting suspended in 2010 (Kevin Seifert).

Roger Goodell's dad (New York Times).

Why do you care about what a writer predicts or ranks (Ta-Nehisi Coates)?

Fantasy Heavy

Fantasy relevant questions for beat writers (Rotoworld).

The Cardinals' running game (SI).

Ryan Mathews (USA Today). Because I had a sports nervous breakdown that lasted four months, I read no draft previews, and so before very recently, I had never heard of most 2010 NFL rookies. And yet players like Mathews are of legitimate fantasy concern, and I have a long history of drafting rookie RBs (and with a pretty good success rate), so I need to look for stories like this to read up on. For me the key to drafting rookies isn't the player but the situation: as Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment suggests situation and role dictates behavior more than character or personality, so too does the situation dictate the effectiveness and productivity of rookie RBs.

I'm interested in recommendations for other quality fantasy football websites: I've really streamlined my football reading, but I'm interested in adding more useful sites to my regular reading (and to Blizzard links).

Blizzard

Jason Cole ranks teams by quarterback (Yahoo!).

The Vikings' statement regarding the political lack of priority for a new stadium (Pioneer Press). If you must know, I have extremely mixed feelings about a public-funded Viking stadium, at both a rational and emotional level. I feel that every argument for either side has a quite reasonable counterargument.

Christopher Gates on how the Vikes could do starting the season without Pat and Kevin (Daily Norseman).

Really good comments from Ross Tucker on voluntary offseason workouts (SI).

Vic Carucci on David Garrard and the Jaguars (NFL.com).

Fantasy Heavy

Christopher Harris's top 200 (ESPN).

Matthew Berry's top 100 (ESPN).

Christopher Harris's mock draft (ESPN). Would you judge me harshly if I told you I've done many fantasy mock drafts in my day?

David Komer with a lot of good stuff (SI).

Jahvid Best (SI).

Adam Levitan on the Rotoworld/Beckett mock draft (Pancake Blocks). Here's what I don't get: when these magazines get a bunch of individuals together to do a "mock" draft, do they really just have a mock? Wouldn't they just go ahead and have a league, now that they've drafted teams? And if they do, then why still call it a mock?

The Steelers' fantasy prospects, from Hal Spivack (NFL Fanhouse). I would love to draft Mike Wallace, just so I can scream "Where's Wallace!?!" at the TV next fall.

Where do we go from here?

Since I had the sports fan equivalent of a nervous breakdown and basically avoided football for four months (I have a brief recollection that Ladanian Tomlinson was almost a Viking--that can't have been real, was it?), I feel a little behind. This summer, I plan on buying not only a fantasy football magazine or two (but not Fanball's mag: I'm looking for a change), but maybe one or two general NFL preview magazines. I know, the internet has mostly made such things pointless. But I remember loving such magazines as a kid, and I'll enjoy the thrill of sitting around flipping through a magazine (I freaking love magazines) more than I'll enjoy sitting with a sweaty hot laptop on my lap.

One thing I'll never again comment on here

There are some useful football column gimmicks. A mock draft isn't about being right: it's an easy, concise way to inform readers about the draft order, the top prospects, and team needs.

I might even come around to seeing that Power Rankings columns can serve a function. But there's one thing that's beyond pointless: responding to an individual football writer's Power Rankings with anger. First of all, who gives a shit? Second of all, who gives a shit? Third of all, why get worked up about what one person thinks? Fourth of all, what possible impact could one individual's power rankings have? And above all, don't actually respond to a football writer's Power Rankings: all you do is verify for him/her that he/she is important, make him/her feel edgy and controversial even when he/she is not, and you give him/her an easy next column, responding to the angry critics. Don't do it.

Basketball blues

The NBA draft lottery for Timberwolves fans is like the playoffs for Viking fans: we get our hopes up every time, every time we're massively disappointed, and every time we react with the same "This always happens to us!" combination of anger, depression, and shrug-your-shoulders-and-grimace ennui.

The Minnesota Timberwolves won 15 games last season, and they weren't even that good. I can imagine some scenarios in which they aren't unwatchably awful next season (realistic scenarios, even), but those scenarios are pretty unlikely (they depend mostly on huge leaps from Jonny Flynn and Kevin Love, and the addition of a guard or small forward with legitimate scoring ability). They might be just as palpably terrible next year as they were this year.

The Timberwolves have some pieces I can talk myself into (Jonny Flynn, Kevin Love, Ricky Rubio), but they sure seem a long, long way from ever being competitive again.

Blizzard

One thing about being a Timberwolves fan outside the KG era: I really look forward to the NBA lottery. The Wolves need a guard-forward type scorer like crazy: my fantasies revolve around Evan Turner.

For some reason, the NFL Network replayed a 1994 game between the Vikings and Bears. It is sitting in my DVR, and I hope to blog the experience of watching it soon. Because why not? Why the hell not?

Viking stadium: not yet (Kevin Seifert).

On paying Adrian Peterson (Kevin Seifert). Seifert's NFC North blog at ESPN is pretty spectacular.

Lito Sheppard (Vikings.com). I'd like some info on his football role and current abilities, but whatever.

Some good things this Mark Craig post (Star Tribune).

Fantasy: Wide Receiver Numbers

For years I've tried to write about fantasy football on this blog without actually revealing what I think to my fellow competitors who read this blog. I've finally found the way around this conundrum: an Argument/ Counterargument gimmick, where I write both arguments. I'll do my best with both arguments, and you probably won't know which argument I actually favor. Since I'm writing both arguments, I'll go ahead and ask the question myself.

Question: is there a particular number that is most useful in evaluating fantasy WR prospects?

Argument: Three-year season yardage total (or average)

Elite Wide Receivers are so wonderful in fantasy football because they are so reliable. WRs are much less injury-prone than RBs, and the elite WRs are much less prone to great swings in their statistics from year to year. Look at the career numbers of players like Jerry Rice, Cris Carter, Tim Brown, Marvin Harrison, or Torry Holt, or Chad Ochocinco. Look at the career numbers of current WRs still playing at a high level, like Randy Moss, Larry Fitzgerald, or Reggie Wayne. When you look at these players, you see a whole string of seasons with high production in yardage and touchdowns.

Of course that doesn't mean those elite WRs can't be prone to a down year (especially when success at the position is dependent on so many other factors). It also doesn't mean there aren't great WRs that take big year-to-year swings. But in fantasy football, I'm looking for consistency and reliability. And that's why I'm looking for those elite WRs that do produce the high numbers year in, year out.

That's why my #1 fantasy statistic for evaluating wide receivers is their total receiving yards for the past three seasons (to translate it into familiar single-season terms, I go ahead and average it out). I think this number will reliably show me what WRs are in their statistical primes. I think it will tell me who can be counted on for quality production from year to year. Sure, it's going to eliminate some players whose productivity hasn't stretched over three seasons, but that's fine; I don't want to spend a lot on flavor-of-the-month WRs when I could be drafting predictably reliable WRs (were you happy if you drafted Calvin Johnson for 2009 based on his breakout 2008 numbers?).

Based on this statistic, here is my list of the elite fantasy WR prospects for 2010: every WR who has averaged 1,200+ yards over the past three seasons. And of course this number can also determine the next tier of productive WRs: averaging 1,100+ or 1,000+ over three seasons is a sign of a productive fantasy WR.

1. Andre Johnson: 1,332

2. Larry Fitzgerald: 1,311

3. Reggie Wayne: 1,306

4. Randy Moss: 1,255

5. Roddy White: 1,246

6. Brandon Marshall: 1,237

7. Wes Welker: 1,229

Counterargument: There ain't no Santa Claus, and there ain't no magic number, either.

Your three-year-average system excludes breakout performers of the past two seasons (Sidney Rice, Vincent Jackson, NYG Steve Smith). Wide Receiver is a very team-dependent position, and your system doesn't account team circumstances, like a new QB (Larry Fitzgerald, CAR Steve Smith) or a new team (Anquan Boldin, Brandon Marshall). It doesn't account for WRs that get a lot of yards but not a lot of TDs (Wes Welker). It doesn't account for a WR who had one year of injuries, or one down year, or a year with backup/rookie/lousy QB. It doesn't account for aging WRs on the decline. Fantasy WR is an eclectic position: there are stud #1 WRs on run-first teams, there are productive #2 WRs on pass-first teams, there are possession receivers, there are deep threat receivers, there are small guys and big guys, there are guys that run a lot after the catch, etc., etc., etc.

Furthermore, what great insight does your list provide? You've basically made a list of WRs that everybody recognizes to be elite fantasy WRs (with the exception of Welker, who doesn't get TDs). At best, your system eliminates WRs that might get a lot of hype but that you deem unworthy of an expensive pick. I would argue, however, that it eliminates a lot of quality WRs that will be producing good fantasy numbers, and whom you might get cheaper than Andre freaking Johnson.

I do think there are certain singular statistics than can help you evaluate some positions (I'm partial to yards from scrimmage per game to evaluate RBs, but only from the previous season). But attempting to evaluate WRs based on a single statistic is bound to fail.

Fantasy: High-Priced QB or High-Priced RB?

For years I've tried to write about fantasy football on this blog without actually revealing what I think to my fellow competitors who read this blog. I can't believe it's taken this long, but I've finally found the way around this conundrum: an Argument/Counterargument gimmick, where I write both arguments. I'll do my best with both arguments, and you probably won't know which argument I actually favor. And since I've eliminated a debate partner (frankly, I've always thought PV's only worthy debate opponent is PV), I'm going to go ahead with a Q & A gimmick wherein I make up the question on a topic I want to write about, then answer it (like I'm pretty sure PETA does in Animal Times, but can't be sure). But if there's an actual question you want me to tackle with the Fantasy Argument/Counterargument, go ahead and ask it in the comments: there's a very good chance I'll actually answer it.

Q: If you are deciding between drafting an expensive RB or an expensive QB, which position should you take? Of course it will come down to the specific players available, but is there a position principle?

Argument: Draft the RB, not the QB

Too many Quarterbacks put up good fantasy numbers to waste an expensive pick.

In 2010, there were ten quarterbacks that threw for both 4,000+ yards and 26 TD passes (ESPN). Think about that: there's a pretty good chance you were getting elite statistical production from your fantasy quarterback last year. Maybe you were in a league with more than ten teams. Maybe somebody in your league drafted two good quarterbacks and refused to trade one to you. But there were ten star fantasy quarterbacks in 2009, putting up the sort of numbers you can win a championship with. And most of those quarterbacks could be had pretty cheap.

Contrast that to running backs, and let's go with nice round numbers again, this time 1,500 yards from scrimmage and 10 total touchdowns. There were four 1,500/10 RBs: Chris Johnson, Adrian Peterson, Maurice Jones-Drew, and Frank Gore, all high-ranking, expensive fantasy RBs. Elite fantasy running backs are much harder to come by than elite fantasy quarterbacks.

It's a pass-friendly league, and you can find decent quarterbacks.

Counterargument: Draft the QB, not the RB

QBs are predictably reliable, while RBs can be busts.

Last offseason there was relative consensus on the top four fantasy running back prospects: Adrian Peterson, Michael Turner, Maurice Jones-Drew, and Matt Forte. Peterson and Jones-Drew were highly productive, Turner was solid but missed five games with injury, Forte was a massive disappointment, and it was actually Chris Johnson that dominated the league with 2,509 yards and 16 touchdowns.

Meanwhile, can you name a quarterback bust from last season? I can't: 2008's passing leaders were mostly among the 2009 passing leaders. And if you spent a lot on a quarterback last season, that quarterback is probably one of those ten 4,000/26 guys. If you draft an expensive RB, he could be a big bust. If you draft an expensive QB, he's probably going to reliably get you what you were expecting.

Furthermore, PV really set an incredibly arbitrary RB standard with 1,500 total yards and 10 total touchdowns. Lower your standard to 1,400/9, and we add Thomas Jones, Jamaal Charles, and Ryan Grant, none of them expensive draft picks. Take the standard down to 1,300/8, and we add Ricky Williams, Ray Rice, and Rashard Mendenhall, again, very affordable draft picks (or mid-season free agent pickups). Sure, you probably have to get lucky. Maybe, though, if you're paying the most attention, luck will get you. The point is, there are RBs around that produce winning fantasy numbers.

Use your resources wisely: use high picks/auction money on sure things, and go cheap on riskier positions, hoping to find a breakout producer.

Pacifist Viking: return to form

Of course I know avoidance wasn't a healthy reaction. Avoiding it means it was more important than it should be, and if it is that important, avoiding it means postponing dealing with emotions. But after putting my every last hope into the 2009 Redemption Dream, the idea of following through the offseason, offering commentary on the roster, speculating about moves, checking on the court proceedings of Kevin and Pat...I just couldn't do it. When the snow was still on the ground, the very idea of reading a mock draft made me sweat with the despair of meaninglessness. Sometimes I would flip to SI.com just to check on news, and I'd see a picture up from that NFC championship game, and my gut would go hollow.

And I must say, at least right now, I feel changed. I've spent years living with what can only be described as desperate hope for the Vikings to win a Super Bowl. But after the NFC championship game, after everything that happened in that game, I don't think I have that desperate hope (at least right now). I've turned fatalistic: I don't really believe the Vikings are ever going to win a Super Bowl. That game was so full of such ridiculousness, a game the Vikings could have and should have won but for such strange mistakes it can barely be fathomed. When transitioning from desperate hope to fatalism, how can one write intelligently about Lito Sheppard? How can one spend any time looking at draft prospects? It all felt so hollow, like roaming through Eliot's "The Wasteland" picking up fragments and pretending they matter. So I've stayed away, occasionally chiming in with a post that never really satisfied me.

But some time has passed, and more importantly, the first half of the football offseason--the roster moves and speculation period--is over. Now begins the second half--the waiting period. And now we come to PV's time to shine. A time to share the dreams and nightmares. A time to read the backs of football cards. A time to read literature that (on this blog, anyway) I reduce to a coping lesson on Viking fandom. A time for a lot of bad sportswriting to lambaste. A time for FANTASY FREAKING FOOTBALL (probably mostly a time for fantasy freaking football).

So I'm back, baby. I missed the childish glee, the escapist joy, the fun of following sports deeply. Rather than wallowing in a tragic view of the Minnesota Vikings, I'll return with the joy of loving a game. If nothing else, it's fantasy football planning season (I've got secrets, man. I've got secrets).

Optimism for 2010 Vikings

I spent most of 2009 believing it was the last chance. Brett Favre's miracle season at 40 can't be expected to be repeated at 41. Kevin Williams and Pat Williams are looking at a suspension at some point (and Pat Williams, a dominant force on the defense for five years, is closer to retirement too). The rest of the NFC North all looks to be improving around young quarterbacks. And there's the specter of relocation.

But maybe, just maybe, there are reasons for continued hope.

Young Skill Position Stars. Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin, and Adrian Peterson all look like legitimate play-makers to count on for years. Having a trio like that to get the ball to makes any offense dangerous. It floors me to think of some of the skill position players that were leading this team during Brad Childress's early years; regardless of quarterback it's doubtful we'll see offense that ineffective again for a long time.

Jared Allen. In today's NFL a dominant pass rush can disrupt an opponent and make any defense effective; the Vikes still have one of the best pass-rushing ends in the league. If Allen keeps that dominant outside rush coming for several more years (and there's no reason to think he won't), a defense with as many talented players as the Vikes have can still dominate.

There will be joy in 2010. I don't think it will be quite the joy we got 13 times in the 2009 season, but the Vikings have players to give us joyous moments.

The Twins

I won't know how to feel about the Twins until the Viking stadium situation is resolved. If the Vikings relocate, I'll hate the Twins until death or dementia, whichever comes first. If the Vikings get a new stadium to stay in Minnesota long-term, I'll probably embrace the Twins. Until then, I'd best keep a certain wary distance.

The Timberwolves

I ask this question regularly: how many players currently on the Timberwolves' roster will still be on the roster the next time the team makes the playoffs? Right now all I can answer is maybe Jonny Flynn (he's a very young point guard that was on a lousy team without any outside scoring presence: early to judge), Kevin Love (he's a great rebounder and solid in many parts of the game), and maybe Corey Brewer (not because he's good, but I think he could be a decent contributing role player on a good team, though I doubt he'll still be around by the time the Timberwolves are a good team). That's it. I don't think Al Jefferson will be there (he's been the best player on an awful team for three years, making it hard for me to ever see him as the best player on a playoff team), and the rest of the roster just sucks. Just sucks. I was there, sitting in the upper deck for a fair number of their games this year, and they were rarely ever close to being competitive.

And this is where it's worth noting that the best player in franchise history is 6-0 in playoff series since getting traded.

Technical

I updated the links on the side to make it quicker and easier to follow the NFL. I purged all the Viking sites that appeared inactive (basically, any site with no updates in 2010), and and trimmed the other links to a few fantasy sites, and a handful of very good websites devoted exclusively to the NFL. The sidebar is basically my football bookmarks list, so I wanted it clean and trim; I will, however, likely be adding some more links there.

Ill-informed Viking Draft Commentary

I don't watch a lot of college football (I would watch more, but when football takes away Sundays, Monday nights, and some Thursday nights of autumn, it's hard to give up Saturdays too), so it's a bit surprising to me that I've actually watched two of the Vikings' draft picks, Stanford RB Toby Gerhart and Minnesota linebacker Nate Triplett.

Toby Gerhart looked dominant in the games I saw, a bruiser with stamina that pushed tacklers backward and dragged them around. But I do have concern that he's a great college football player, but not even a good pro: after all, is he going to be dragging around NFL linebackers? Maybe, but I'm not sure. Furthermore, he wasn't used as much of a pass catcher: he might be a good player to spell Adrian Peterson, but he's not likely to really take Chester Taylor's place in the offense (which might be OK anyway: Adrian Peterson has developed into a better receiver, and there's that wonderful fellow named Percy Harvin, who can do a lot of things and finds himself near the sticks on a lot of third downs). I'm skeptical but hopeful: Gerhart might do some nice things with 5-10 carries a game this year.

I really liked Nate Triplett as a college player: I was at the Gophers' game against Air Force, and not only did he have the go-ahead fumble recover return for a touchdown, but subjectively he had about a thousand tackles, particularly in the open field against the Air Force option game. Is he athletic enough to be a productive pro? I'm not sure.

Regarding the Vikings' other picks, I like some of the position needs they went for. CB Chris Cook joins a secondary that often struggled last season: I think safety is a bigger concern than cornerback, but regularly adding DBs is practically a requirement for teams in today's NFL (cheers to the Vikes for adding Lito Sheppard earlier in the week). Offensive lineman Chris DeGeare could add depth to the offensive line, and frankly the Viking run blocking was a major disappointment in 2009.

Yeah, I need this. Like I need a tooth pulled.

There's no way this will make any of us feel good, no matter what the outcome. Please, NFL, just leave me alone.

Why old sports cards are awesome

My mom and dad are slowly making me move out my many, many shoe boxes of old sports cards currently in their storage room. As I've been flipping through them, I came across a 1992-93 Skybox card for Dallas Mavericks coach Richie Adubato. Because the spirit moved me, I flipped the card over to read this blurb on the back:

"Richie enjoys tennis, Broadway shows and shopping for ties."

These thoughts immediately came to mind.

--Surely Adubato is the inspiration for those "Most Interesting Man in the World" commercials, right? We've got no doubt about this now.

--In the past 15 years, how many times has anybody not related to Richie Adubato looked at the back of a Richi Adubato card? Once? Twice? I feel a little like I'm an archeologist that's the first living human to stumble into a long-buried tomb in centuries.

--Is this the greatest card blurb ever? Surely nothing can top this, right?

Overtime and the Saints

Some Saints, including Jonathan Vilma and Sean Payton, are complaining that the NFL changed its playoff overtime rule. Vilma in particular thinks it is a show of disrespect to the Saints.

For Minnesota Viking fans still not over the NFC Championship game (would that be all of us?), there is a lot to be annoyed with in some of those comments (especially those fans still upset by some of the officiating shenanigoats of overtime). I'd rather not do a line by line deconstruction, but I will make two points.

1. NFL overtime rules are unfair. Don Banks of Sports Illustrated notes: "59.8 percent of the games since 1994 -- when kickoffs were moved back to the 30-yard line -- were won by the team winning the overtime coin toss." Rules of a competitive game are supposed to be fair to each team. If you have a rule that gives one team a 59.8% chance of beating the other team based on a random event, that's not a fair rule in a competitive game. Within the rules of the game and the lines of the field, each team in a competition is supposed to have a fair chance at winning. A sudden death overtime with a coin toss does not do that. Is there any other such rule that fundamentally sways the competitive fairness of a game? Homefield advantage might (especially when loud fans affect playcalling), but there are rules attempting to make that advantage fair (everybody gets the same number of home and away games in the season--with rare exceptions--and teams earn homefield advantage in playoff games by achieving certain standards), and the rules of the game itself don't distinguish between home and away teams (except to determine who gets to guess at the random coin toss--in that sense it's the Vikings' fault because they guessed the random occurrence wrong). Let's be clear here: a team that loses the coin toss only wins the game 40.2% of the time. If two teams have played even for 60 minutes, does it make competitive sense that a particular rule would reduce one team's chance of winning the game down to 40.2%?

2. After the Trojan War, do you think the Greeks said things like "This is a real slap in the face. It's like people think we never would have won that war if we hadn't snuck in with that big wooden horse"? The New Orleans Saints won the Super Bowl! They vanquished everybody! Everybody is acknowledging that! Everybody is praising them for that! If they feel that they need reminding, they can go look at their Lombardi Trophy. If they feel people disrespecting them, they'll have Super Bowl rings to flash at them. Has the "Nobody believed in us" trope reached its absurd conclusion when less that two months after the Super Bowl the Super Bowl champ can make claims that they are being disrespected? They won the Super Bowl: nobody can deny that and nobody can take that away from them. Isn't winning the championship the point? Isn't that what makes you immune to those that hate, disrespect, or diminish you? When you win a championship, should you even care about those that would hate, disrespect, or diminish you? Do you really want to complain that people aren't acknowledging you as the legitimate champion enough? Isn't celebrating your victory, celebrating your championship, celebrating your defeat of everybody else, enough?

Oedipus wasn't a tragic hero; he was just screwed.

And so are we.

(By the way, I'm glad that the Vikings and Bills agree on things; I like when the 0-4 teams stick together on absurd and wrong-headed stances).

From inside this pothole I've fallen in, I can hear city officials making plans to fix potholes.

Whenever I come across a story about the NFL's proposed changes to overtime rules for playoff games, I sort of want to throw up.

Future Tense

part four in an erratic offseason of blogging

Perhaps my recent dream is pulling me back.

Today in my literature class, we continued discussion of Jhumpa Lahiri's The Namesake, a novel told (mostly) in the present tense.  I asked students to consider the effect of the present tense on the novel, and then offered my own idea.

Putting something in the past tense turns it into "history;" it crystallizes it, makes it firm.  When something is in the past, one can start to make meaning about it.  And when something is past (especially in a novel that starts in 1968 and continues to locate itself at various points until 2000), and it gets hardened into history, it can begin to feel inevitable (even if it is not).  It is similar to what John Fowles writes in The French Lieutenant's Woman:

"You do not even think of your own past as quite real; you dress it up, you gild it or blacken it, censor it, tinker with it... fictionalize it, in a word, and put it away on a shelf--your book, your romanced autobiography."

Locating a novel in a "now" has the effect pushing away immediate interpretations of meaning (for the characters, anyway, if not the readers).  It also leaves open possibility that past tense does not.  You might not think adding "ed" to your verbs could do that, but it can.

To illustrate this point, of course, I brought myself back to the NFC Championship Game.  During the game I was a mess, a nervous wreck, physically and mentally.  While the game was in a "now," the tension and possibility of the moment quite overwhelmed me.  But very shortly after it was over, and yes despair set in, but that tension was gone.  Once the game was over, it became the past, a history, another heartbreaking moment in the team's history, another gut-wrenching disappointment in a long line of them.  Then, I could start to make meaning of it.  Then it was fixed, and if not quite inevitable, it made sense (the fumbles, the 12 men in the huddle, the interception, the coin toss, the bad officiating).  It's not like those things weren't apparent as they were happening; it was that, while happening, we didn't know what they meant.  Now we do.  The book is on the shelf.

For now.  It finally needs to be said.

Maybe next year.

One dream is worse than the last

part three in an erratic offseason of blogging

Part of the schtick of this blog has always been that I care too much, but that on a rational level I know I care too much.  Well, I still care too much, and I still know it.  I continue to avoid following football news (I keep up from the periphery as not to miss anything big), but still things will come along to kick me in the ear.

And I still dream about the Vikings.

Last night I dreamed I went back in time.  While in the recent past, I bumped into the Vikings' skill position players.  I implored them: hold onto the ball tight.  In that game, fumbling could be your undoing.  Make sure to grip the ball tight and DON'T FUMBLE.

Apparently they listened: they proceeded to dominate the Saints.  In my dream.  In one vivid image, the Vikings were already leading 17-0 when they called an end-around pass, Percy Harvin hitting a leaping Sidney Rice in the back of the endzone.  In my dream.

Tell me, dear reader: if you dreamed like this, what would you do?