I'm not sure I've ever seen a team play so badly against a good opponent and still win a game. The Bruins didn't score a field goal until nearly 9 minutes into the game, they were down by 17 at halftime, and every time they made a run, Gonzaga would hit a shot or two to keep the Bruins down by double-digits.
Then, out of nowhere, UCLA scored the last 11 points of the game to win by 2.
Farmar's steal is memorable. Game winning shots are exciting...but they've also been done. A lot. You don't get a lot of "down by 1, steal the ball, pass for an easy layup" game winners." Usually this is the point where you start fouling then get the ball back to set up for a game winning shot. The Bruins didn't foul--they did what they always do. They D'd up, baby! Gonzaga had numerous opportunities in the last three minutes to make one shot, a single shot, and basically bury UCLA. They didn't do it. Maybe they couldn't do it. Because these Bruins know how to play some defense.
Stealing to win is so unexpected. When waiting for a game winning shot, you know what you're about to see--either you're going to make it and win or miss it or lose. To steal the ball to score and win is unexpected, and when it happens, it lingers in memory (think Bird to DJ).
By the way, I hate CBS's coverage of the NCAA tourney. When I watch a basketball game, I don't want to watch parts--I want to watch from beginning to end to get a sense for the game. CBS takes you away from games you're watching when they think another game is more interesting. It sucks. Of course, I was hating watching the game, and the four minutes or so I missed accounted for almost no change in the game.
Next up: Memphis. An excellent game of contrasts.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Thursday, March 23, 2006
The Vikes now have a safety named "Tank"
Gotta be an OK thing, right?
Alright, well, Tank Williams has had a more successful career than I ever knew, and he's only 25.
DeQuincy Scott...well, depth at defensive line is a good thing.
I'm amazed at the sheer number of free agents the Vikings have signed so far. I suppose this is what happens when a new coach needs to institute his system, and he actually has an owner willing to support this building project financially. Red McCombs sucked.
Alright, well, Tank Williams has had a more successful career than I ever knew, and he's only 25.
DeQuincy Scott...well, depth at defensive line is a good thing.
I'm amazed at the sheer number of free agents the Vikings have signed so far. I suppose this is what happens when a new coach needs to institute his system, and he actually has an owner willing to support this building project financially. Red McCombs sucked.
Who do you love?
Do we root for the players...or is our loyalty strictly to the teams?
For years, I loved Randy Moss the football player. He was traded off the Vikings...and while I still root for him, my passion doesn't rise over his exploits. My real emotion stayed with the Vikings. I root for these players...but I really only root for them because they are Vikings. I'm loyal to a franchise, a logo, a color, more than a man.
Chester Taylor meant virtually nothing to me a few weeks ago. As a football fan, I knew who he was and what he could do, but if the Ravens were on and they called a play to Taylor, I couldn't care less. And now, when he takes a handoff in 2006, my heart will be in my stomach and I'll be hollering and screaming.
As fans, most of us don't really love the player as much as the color of jersey the player wears. If the player has some great performances wearing that color jersey, he begins to mean something more to us. If he doesn't...or he leaves early to go have exploits wearing another color...we'll either feel indiffernce or animosity.
This is complicated further by the fact that the particular franchise means more to a fan than to a player on the team. As fans, we grow up in a region, follow a team for years, and hear stories about the franchise's history. Players, however, don't have that lengthy connection. They usually grow up somewhere else and end up playing for a particular franchise without any will on their part (through the draft or trade). They have a home somewhere else, and no real connection or loyalty to a particular franchise. They're not here by choice. Certainly, I would hope, every member of the Vikings wants to win a Super Bowl in 2006 more than I want the Vikings to win a Super Bowl. But how many of them actually care about winning it while playing for the Vikings? Most of them didn't grow up rooting for the Purple and probably don't care a hell of a lot about which franchise pays their bills.
I'm a rube rooting for a freakin' color, and I'll root for anybody who wears that color. I might like other players in the league, but their success means half as much to me as the Vikings do.
For years, I loved Randy Moss the football player. He was traded off the Vikings...and while I still root for him, my passion doesn't rise over his exploits. My real emotion stayed with the Vikings. I root for these players...but I really only root for them because they are Vikings. I'm loyal to a franchise, a logo, a color, more than a man.
Chester Taylor meant virtually nothing to me a few weeks ago. As a football fan, I knew who he was and what he could do, but if the Ravens were on and they called a play to Taylor, I couldn't care less. And now, when he takes a handoff in 2006, my heart will be in my stomach and I'll be hollering and screaming.
As fans, most of us don't really love the player as much as the color of jersey the player wears. If the player has some great performances wearing that color jersey, he begins to mean something more to us. If he doesn't...or he leaves early to go have exploits wearing another color...we'll either feel indiffernce or animosity.
This is complicated further by the fact that the particular franchise means more to a fan than to a player on the team. As fans, we grow up in a region, follow a team for years, and hear stories about the franchise's history. Players, however, don't have that lengthy connection. They usually grow up somewhere else and end up playing for a particular franchise without any will on their part (through the draft or trade). They have a home somewhere else, and no real connection or loyalty to a particular franchise. They're not here by choice. Certainly, I would hope, every member of the Vikings wants to win a Super Bowl in 2006 more than I want the Vikings to win a Super Bowl. But how many of them actually care about winning it while playing for the Vikings? Most of them didn't grow up rooting for the Purple and probably don't care a hell of a lot about which franchise pays their bills.
I'm a rube rooting for a freakin' color, and I'll root for anybody who wears that color. I might like other players in the league, but their success means half as much to me as the Vikings do.
Mike McMahon sucks
When, at whatever point it happens, he steps under center for the Purple, I'm going to hope for running plays and defensive turnovers. Also during this time I will be cutting my gin with rum.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Fullback? We don't need no stinking fullback!
This, at least, was the attitude of the Vikings for the last 14 seasons. Denny Green usually used two TEs or three WRs instead of a FB, and Mike Tice's offense was pretty much the same. I always thought this hurt the Viking HBs. But you're not running the West Coast Offense without a FB, and now the Vikings won't be running their 2006 offense without former Pro Bowl FB Tony Richardson, who spent the last few years blocking for the likes of Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson. He's 34; he's no long-term answer at this "new" position. But in 2006, Chester Taylor could be following Tony Richardson through a hole plowed out by Matt Birk and Steve Hutchinson. That's more encouraging than anything that was happening in the running game in 2005.
Monday, March 20, 2006
I may be a rube, but I have to ask:
When talking about your favorite sports team, is it acceptable or proper to say "we"?
Well, I won't.
Steve Hutchinson is now a Viking. Interior blocking was the Vikings' biggest weakness last season--it had a big part in Culpepper's struggles, and even BJ was running around much of the time because of it. Now, the Vikings have a Pro Bowl guard. That's a big step toward fixing a huge hole. Last week the Vikes also signed former Giant guard Jason Whittle. I have no idea what that means, other than that it is a different player than was on the team last season.
I hope the Vikes let Nate Burleson go. He's a fine player, but WR is the team's deepest position. If Burleson joins the Seahawks, the Vikes will have two 2nd rounders and two 3rd rounders in the draft. That's got to be pretty appealing to a first year coach trying to bring in players who can play the style of football he wants to play.
The draft becomes very intriguing right now.
Well, I won't.
Steve Hutchinson is now a Viking. Interior blocking was the Vikings' biggest weakness last season--it had a big part in Culpepper's struggles, and even BJ was running around much of the time because of it. Now, the Vikings have a Pro Bowl guard. That's a big step toward fixing a huge hole. Last week the Vikes also signed former Giant guard Jason Whittle. I have no idea what that means, other than that it is a different player than was on the team last season.
I hope the Vikes let Nate Burleson go. He's a fine player, but WR is the team's deepest position. If Burleson joins the Seahawks, the Vikes will have two 2nd rounders and two 3rd rounders in the draft. That's got to be pretty appealing to a first year coach trying to bring in players who can play the style of football he wants to play.
The draft becomes very intriguing right now.
Identity and the Fan (Giving up Free Will)
Follow the stream of consciousness here--it might actually get somewhere
Sometimes the way we choose to entertain ourselves is nothing but a way to entertain ourselves. But sometimes, not only the way we entertain ourselves but what we entertain ourselves with, becomes intimately tied to identity. I love the comedy of Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld, and throughout my life, a fair amount of my identity has been tied to being a fan of Seinfeld. I also like The Simpsons, and Aqua-Teen Hunger Force, and several other comedies. But those other comedies don't reveal anything about who I am (or, if you prefer, who I see myself as and present myself as). Seinfeld does. And even though I've started watching and enjoying Six Feet Under, it will never be a show that I tie to my identity like Nip/Tuck, simply because I have friends who have been watching Six Feet Under long before me.
So too can the individual define himself as a "football fan" or a "pro football fan" or a "Viking fan." I'm not talking here about "identification"--most fans "identify" with a team, i.e., they feel good when the team does well and bad when the team does poorly. I'm talking about when ones identity becomes tied to a particular team.
When I examine the ways in which I've mythologized the Minnesota Vikings, I find striking parallels to the personal spiritual struggles I find myself in (or, if you prefer, I mythologize about myself). I see the Vikings as a team with a glorious but flawed past. I see the Vikings' quest to win the Super Bowl as a chance to redeem that flawed past with a moment of supreme greatness, to give its existence the full meaning it does not currently have, to give the franchise and state a mark on history. It is practically a religious quest--for the Vikings to make sense in existence and fulfill their place in the relative eternity that is sports, they need to win the championship. I also see the Vikings as the perpetual losers, but those who always have high expectations and possibilities but that always disappoint in the end. And couldn't I just change a few words to explain how I view myself? (don't worry, I'm humble enough that "glorious" would be taken out of a description of my past).
I don't mean to be all narcissistic in this blog. I'm not a confessional poet trying to bear my sould via cyberspace. But I raise my example to ask philosophical questions about an individual's relationship with a team. Does an individual project his/her own feelings onto a team's identity? Does an individual alter his/her self-image to fit the indentity of the team? Or is the individual just a fan, with no further connection to the team whatsoever?
Certain fanbases develop national personas--fans of the Packers, the Red Sox, Duke basketball--that the national sports media loves to perpetuate and celebrate. But every team has some history, some identity, some persona. And every fan may or may not tie his/her identity to that particular team's identity.
And at the very least our moods get altered by the outcomes of games, and these moods tend to affect behavior--and isn't what we "do" an important part of who we "are"? In all honesty, if I were not a Viking fan, my life would have turned out differently. Is this a matter of choice, a matter of will?
But that's just the thing about being a sports fan. I believe in free will. I believe in choice. But I have absolutely no control over the success of the Vikings. And yet, I've tied my personal happiness to this entity over which I exert no control whatsoever! I am essentially a victim of fate or predestination or determinism as relates to the Vikings--they will do what they do regardless of my actions, and yet my happiness will be affected by what they do. In order to be a Viking fan, I have had to willingly give up my freedom over my own self--I have chosen to tie my happiness in life to the "fate" of the Minnesota Vikings.
I am an existentialist who believes in choice and hazard. And yet, I've chosen to connect myself to an entity in a way that denies my choice. Is there any wonder there I make a religious connection to fandom?
Sartre tells us the only limit to our freedom is that we are not free to choose not to be free. On this point, I respectfully disagree. I watched Gary Anderson miss that kick. I watched that 41-0 game (at least, admittedly, partway through the 3rd quarter). I watched a Cardinal quarterback that I hadn't heard of throw a TD to a Cardinal WR I hadn't heard of. Those are just the tragic moments--I've also bounded about in pure ecstatic joy. And all for something that I have no free will over whatsoever.
Sometimes the way we choose to entertain ourselves is nothing but a way to entertain ourselves. But sometimes, not only the way we entertain ourselves but what we entertain ourselves with, becomes intimately tied to identity. I love the comedy of Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld, and throughout my life, a fair amount of my identity has been tied to being a fan of Seinfeld. I also like The Simpsons, and Aqua-Teen Hunger Force, and several other comedies. But those other comedies don't reveal anything about who I am (or, if you prefer, who I see myself as and present myself as). Seinfeld does. And even though I've started watching and enjoying Six Feet Under, it will never be a show that I tie to my identity like Nip/Tuck, simply because I have friends who have been watching Six Feet Under long before me.
So too can the individual define himself as a "football fan" or a "pro football fan" or a "Viking fan." I'm not talking here about "identification"--most fans "identify" with a team, i.e., they feel good when the team does well and bad when the team does poorly. I'm talking about when ones identity becomes tied to a particular team.
When I examine the ways in which I've mythologized the Minnesota Vikings, I find striking parallels to the personal spiritual struggles I find myself in (or, if you prefer, I mythologize about myself). I see the Vikings as a team with a glorious but flawed past. I see the Vikings' quest to win the Super Bowl as a chance to redeem that flawed past with a moment of supreme greatness, to give its existence the full meaning it does not currently have, to give the franchise and state a mark on history. It is practically a religious quest--for the Vikings to make sense in existence and fulfill their place in the relative eternity that is sports, they need to win the championship. I also see the Vikings as the perpetual losers, but those who always have high expectations and possibilities but that always disappoint in the end. And couldn't I just change a few words to explain how I view myself? (don't worry, I'm humble enough that "glorious" would be taken out of a description of my past).
I don't mean to be all narcissistic in this blog. I'm not a confessional poet trying to bear my sould via cyberspace. But I raise my example to ask philosophical questions about an individual's relationship with a team. Does an individual project his/her own feelings onto a team's identity? Does an individual alter his/her self-image to fit the indentity of the team? Or is the individual just a fan, with no further connection to the team whatsoever?
Certain fanbases develop national personas--fans of the Packers, the Red Sox, Duke basketball--that the national sports media loves to perpetuate and celebrate. But every team has some history, some identity, some persona. And every fan may or may not tie his/her identity to that particular team's identity.
And at the very least our moods get altered by the outcomes of games, and these moods tend to affect behavior--and isn't what we "do" an important part of who we "are"? In all honesty, if I were not a Viking fan, my life would have turned out differently. Is this a matter of choice, a matter of will?
But that's just the thing about being a sports fan. I believe in free will. I believe in choice. But I have absolutely no control over the success of the Vikings. And yet, I've tied my personal happiness to this entity over which I exert no control whatsoever! I am essentially a victim of fate or predestination or determinism as relates to the Vikings--they will do what they do regardless of my actions, and yet my happiness will be affected by what they do. In order to be a Viking fan, I have had to willingly give up my freedom over my own self--I have chosen to tie my happiness in life to the "fate" of the Minnesota Vikings.
I am an existentialist who believes in choice and hazard. And yet, I've chosen to connect myself to an entity in a way that denies my choice. Is there any wonder there I make a religious connection to fandom?
Sartre tells us the only limit to our freedom is that we are not free to choose not to be free. On this point, I respectfully disagree. I watched Gary Anderson miss that kick. I watched that 41-0 game (at least, admittedly, partway through the 3rd quarter). I watched a Cardinal quarterback that I hadn't heard of throw a TD to a Cardinal WR I hadn't heard of. Those are just the tragic moments--I've also bounded about in pure ecstatic joy. And all for something that I have no free will over whatsoever.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
The Existential Experiment: one year later
My loyalties to my favorite professional basketball and football teams are strong and based entirely on location. I love the Timberwolves, and the meaning of the Minnesota Vikings in my life probably exceeds the mere word "obsession." However, I've no strong loyalty to any college. I attended the University of Wisconsin-River Falls and the University of St. Thomas--Division III schools with fairly non-descript athletic programs.
But I am an existentialist: I believe as an individual I can define myself and create my own identity; I create meaning for the world, and decide what things in the world matter to me.
Now, I really didn't choose to be a fan of the Vikings and Timberwolves (though I do choose how much they mean to me, and how closely my identity can be tied to them). But regarding college sports, could I choose a favorite school? At age 24, could I decide that I would start rooting for a particular college of my choice? So about a year ago, I chose a school: the UCLA Bruins.
And a year later, I have an answer to my question. Yes, I am able to choose and create loyalty out of nothing.
Living in Minnesota, I don't get to watch a lot of Pac-10 basketball or football. But I've followed the teams, watching them when I can. I've bought a hat and a sweatshirt (and considering I am a firm subscriber to the George Costanza school of cheapness, these purchases mean something). I immersed myself in the history of the basketball program. I now consider Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Walton, Jamaal Wilkes, and Marques Johnson among my favorite all-time basketball players. I take a strange pride in knowing that the Bruins have 11 championships. The baby blue and gold makes me happy. I feel good when UCLA wins games. I'm disappointed when they lose. I even developed a slight distaste for Matt Leinart (and he's a left-handed QB!).
I feel a connection to this team, a connection that I created as a mere matter of will. The experiment has been an enjoyable success. I have essential made myself a Bruins fan.
This worked in part because I had no previous loyalty to any college athletics. I couldn't right now arbitrarily decide that I was going to start rooting for the Green Bay Packers (indeed, the mere thought makes me want to vomit into the bathtub and then get in the shower with it). But from nothing, I created a connection.
Go Jean-Paul!
But I am an existentialist: I believe as an individual I can define myself and create my own identity; I create meaning for the world, and decide what things in the world matter to me.
Now, I really didn't choose to be a fan of the Vikings and Timberwolves (though I do choose how much they mean to me, and how closely my identity can be tied to them). But regarding college sports, could I choose a favorite school? At age 24, could I decide that I would start rooting for a particular college of my choice? So about a year ago, I chose a school: the UCLA Bruins.
And a year later, I have an answer to my question. Yes, I am able to choose and create loyalty out of nothing.
Living in Minnesota, I don't get to watch a lot of Pac-10 basketball or football. But I've followed the teams, watching them when I can. I've bought a hat and a sweatshirt (and considering I am a firm subscriber to the George Costanza school of cheapness, these purchases mean something). I immersed myself in the history of the basketball program. I now consider Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Walton, Jamaal Wilkes, and Marques Johnson among my favorite all-time basketball players. I take a strange pride in knowing that the Bruins have 11 championships. The baby blue and gold makes me happy. I feel good when UCLA wins games. I'm disappointed when they lose. I even developed a slight distaste for Matt Leinart (and he's a left-handed QB!).
I feel a connection to this team, a connection that I created as a mere matter of will. The experiment has been an enjoyable success. I have essential made myself a Bruins fan.
This worked in part because I had no previous loyalty to any college athletics. I couldn't right now arbitrarily decide that I was going to start rooting for the Green Bay Packers (indeed, the mere thought makes me want to vomit into the bathtub and then get in the shower with it). But from nothing, I created a connection.
Go Jean-Paul!
Friday, March 17, 2006
Caffeine Musings
http://www.startribune.com/507/story/312796.html
Sid Hartman talks with Brad Childress about Daunte Culpepper, and it reveals exactly what appeared to be the case all along.
The Star Tribune has a pretty solid balance among sports columnists: Hartman's homerism is a good contrast to Reusse, who's goal it seems is to openly antagonize Viking fans. And then you've got Souhan, making stupid jokes and vapid points, but who seems to have a childish rationality that Hartman and Reusse lack.
UCLA, as expected, dominated their opening game of the NCAA tournament. They have, after all, been to 40 tourneys, and Belmont was in their first. Throughout the season I've got the impression that this is the sort of team that can make a good run in the tourney. Their strength is in the backcourt of Afflalo and Farmar, and they're capable of playing some absolutely dominating defense. Man, I wish they were in the Minneapolis Region! I'd have my tickets already. Alas, the teams in the Minneapolis Region don't interest me terribly. Next up for the Bruins: Alabama. I think UCLA is the superior team.
Rooting for UCLA basketball is a pleasant contrast to rooting for the Vikings. When the Vikes lose, I've got nothing but emptiness. When the Bruins lose, there are still 11 banners to consider.
Sid Hartman talks with Brad Childress about Daunte Culpepper, and it reveals exactly what appeared to be the case all along.
The Star Tribune has a pretty solid balance among sports columnists: Hartman's homerism is a good contrast to Reusse, who's goal it seems is to openly antagonize Viking fans. And then you've got Souhan, making stupid jokes and vapid points, but who seems to have a childish rationality that Hartman and Reusse lack.
UCLA, as expected, dominated their opening game of the NCAA tournament. They have, after all, been to 40 tourneys, and Belmont was in their first. Throughout the season I've got the impression that this is the sort of team that can make a good run in the tourney. Their strength is in the backcourt of Afflalo and Farmar, and they're capable of playing some absolutely dominating defense. Man, I wish they were in the Minneapolis Region! I'd have my tickets already. Alas, the teams in the Minneapolis Region don't interest me terribly. Next up for the Bruins: Alabama. I think UCLA is the superior team.
Rooting for UCLA basketball is a pleasant contrast to rooting for the Vikings. When the Vikes lose, I've got nothing but emptiness. When the Bruins lose, there are still 11 banners to consider.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
The Destruction of an Offensive Juggernaut
There's a fair amount of criticism, national and local, against the Vikings for trading Daunte Culpepper. Let me take some time to defend the Vikings' move with a few different arguments.
1. Culpepper wanted out.
Daunte now says that the reason he requested a trade or release is because the Vikes never gave him clarity regarding his position with the team. But I think the Vikings' lack of clarity regarding Culpepper was only fair, given Culpepper's lack of clarity regarding the Vikings. After suffering his knee injury, Culpepper basically disappeared. When the Vikings hired a new coach, Culpepper came up to Minnesota but failed to meet with Brad Childress. And even though Culpepper needed to learn an new offense, he refused to come to Minnesota to rehab his injury. Daunte gave the Vikings every reason to believe that he no was no longer committed to the team.
Now, for many players, I would say, "So, you don't want to play for us? Well, tough shit. You're under contract, you're going to stay on our roster, and so if you want to make any money in the future, you might as well do your best to help us win games." But at quarterback? Do you really want a QB who isn't fully committed to your franchise? Who doesn't want to be there? No, QB is a unique position; you need a QB to be a leader for your franchise, and a QB who doesn't even want to play for your franchise can't be that leader.
2. Culpepper doesn't fit the new system.
"Daunte Culpepper" and "West Coast Offense" aren't phrases that really belong together, unless words like "not," "shouldn't," or "isn't" are involved. Culpepper isn't the type of QB who will have success with the new offense.
Now, you might say, "Who the hell is Brad Childress? What's he ever done to demand that the franchise be committed to his way of doing things? Wouldn't it be better off to build the team and the system around Daunte's skills, not trade Daunte because he doesn't fit a new system?" And I would say, "What has Daunte done to demand having the franchise, from 2006 onward, built around him?" He's 29 and he's won 2 playoff games. He shredded his knee in 2005 and may not be able to play until sometime during the middle of 2006. Do you really build the entire franchise around a guy who has shredded his knee, will be 30 before he's really recovered, and hasn't proven he can win much anyway?
And let's not forget that going into 2005, the entire team was built around Daunte. He became the leader; he became the man. That worked out to the tune of 2-5, with 12 INTs the first 5 games. Given the evidence of 2005 (and I recognize there was a lot else going on to contribute to Daunte's struggles), Culpepper is not a QB that you build a team around. He can be a successful QB with the right coaching and the right talent around him, but you don't cater your franchise to a 29 year old QB with a shredded knee and 2 playoff wins to his name.
3. Offensive Juggernauts brought us how many Super Bowls again?
It was fun with Daunte and Randy. Every year we went into the season with Super Bowl expectations. Every year we got to see some incredible offensive production.
And every year brought us brutal disappointment.
Had the Vikings kept Culpepper and Moss, it would have been the same story every year. High expectations. Incredible talent. Incredible offense. And no hardware to show for it.
The team needs to go in a different direction. Year after year, offensive superpowers like the Colts, the Chiefs, and the Vikings get a lot of regular season press, and every year, teams that play good defense and special teams with offense that are good but not great win the Super Bowl. It's been proven over and over and over again: DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS.
The Vikings were never going to win a Super Bowl with an All-Star Offense. Every offseason, the question would be, "Is the defense good enough?" The idea would be that with this incredible offense, all that was needed was a mediocre defense to get to a championship.
But this was never going to happen. You simply don't win a Super Bowl with a mediocre defense. Only 3 teams have won a Super Bowl without a top-8 scoring defense (oddly enough, these teams were the '76, '80, and '83 Raiders). Every other Super Bowl winner has had a top-8 scoring defense. Most also had a top-8 scoring offense too. I don't deny that you need to score points to win games. But you aren't going to win with mediocre defense. Defense is particularly necessary in bad weather, in the playoffs, and on the road. Which leads to...
4. Daunte couldn't win games on the road.
Look at the Vikings' road record under Culpepper. It's absolutely atrocious. It's on the road when your offense is likely to struggle. It's outdoors in December and January, in Chicago and Philadelphia and Green Bay and New York, that your defense needs to step up and win you games.
It's also on the road, against a good defense, in bad weather conditions, when a championship-caliber QB needs to step up and make plays. And in these situations, when going was difficult and the team needed him to make plays, Daunte consistently failed. He's a great QB in good conditions with offensive talent around him against a mediocre defense. But he never demonstrated the ability to rise to the occasion in difficult circumstances. As a fan, I never had confidence that Culpepper could bring the team from behind, could go for a game-winning drive, could play well outdoors (anywhere other than Green Bay--which was nice, of course), could consistently make good plays and avoid mistakes against a good defense.
5. Just because the trade will help Culpepper, and help the Dolphins, doesn't mean it wasn't the right move for the Vikings.
Hey, if the Vikings can get to their first Super Bowl since before I was born, and they happen to face the Dolphins there...well, I'll cross that bridge when I get there. But until then, it doesn't matter how much this trade helps the Dolphins. It doesn't matter if Culpepper flourishes and performs brilliantly in Miami. What matters for the Vikings is not Culpepper, and not the Dolphins; what matters to the Vikings is the Vikings.
It wasn't going to work for Minnesota and Culpepper. Regardless of how good Culpepper can be with Miami, he probably wasn't going to be good for Minnesota again. So the Vikings had to do what was best for the Vikings.
Let's say Man X is dating Woman Y. And Man X realized he's never going to be happy with Woman Y. He can't keep dating Woman Y out of fear that if he dumps her, Woman Y will meet a new man, and make him very happy, and be very happy herself. He needs to break it off with Woman Y and wish her the best; if she is happy with another man, and she's able to make another man very happy, well, that's nothing to Man X. Man X needs to go about the business of finding a different woman who does make him happy.
I hope Daunte and the Dolphins are very happy together. But from this day forward, that has nothing to do with the Vikings.
_________
I don't know what the future holds for the Vikings. When you root for a team that hasn't won a title in its 45 year history (but has been oh so close), you can become one of two types of fan.
1. The bitter, cynical, twisted, morose fan, always suspecting eventual failure and disappointment.
2. The desperately optimistic fan, with nothing to cling to in the past so all the fan can do is hope beyond reason for the future.
I'm the latter.
1. Culpepper wanted out.
Daunte now says that the reason he requested a trade or release is because the Vikes never gave him clarity regarding his position with the team. But I think the Vikings' lack of clarity regarding Culpepper was only fair, given Culpepper's lack of clarity regarding the Vikings. After suffering his knee injury, Culpepper basically disappeared. When the Vikings hired a new coach, Culpepper came up to Minnesota but failed to meet with Brad Childress. And even though Culpepper needed to learn an new offense, he refused to come to Minnesota to rehab his injury. Daunte gave the Vikings every reason to believe that he no was no longer committed to the team.
Now, for many players, I would say, "So, you don't want to play for us? Well, tough shit. You're under contract, you're going to stay on our roster, and so if you want to make any money in the future, you might as well do your best to help us win games." But at quarterback? Do you really want a QB who isn't fully committed to your franchise? Who doesn't want to be there? No, QB is a unique position; you need a QB to be a leader for your franchise, and a QB who doesn't even want to play for your franchise can't be that leader.
2. Culpepper doesn't fit the new system.
"Daunte Culpepper" and "West Coast Offense" aren't phrases that really belong together, unless words like "not," "shouldn't," or "isn't" are involved. Culpepper isn't the type of QB who will have success with the new offense.
Now, you might say, "Who the hell is Brad Childress? What's he ever done to demand that the franchise be committed to his way of doing things? Wouldn't it be better off to build the team and the system around Daunte's skills, not trade Daunte because he doesn't fit a new system?" And I would say, "What has Daunte done to demand having the franchise, from 2006 onward, built around him?" He's 29 and he's won 2 playoff games. He shredded his knee in 2005 and may not be able to play until sometime during the middle of 2006. Do you really build the entire franchise around a guy who has shredded his knee, will be 30 before he's really recovered, and hasn't proven he can win much anyway?
And let's not forget that going into 2005, the entire team was built around Daunte. He became the leader; he became the man. That worked out to the tune of 2-5, with 12 INTs the first 5 games. Given the evidence of 2005 (and I recognize there was a lot else going on to contribute to Daunte's struggles), Culpepper is not a QB that you build a team around. He can be a successful QB with the right coaching and the right talent around him, but you don't cater your franchise to a 29 year old QB with a shredded knee and 2 playoff wins to his name.
3. Offensive Juggernauts brought us how many Super Bowls again?
It was fun with Daunte and Randy. Every year we went into the season with Super Bowl expectations. Every year we got to see some incredible offensive production.
And every year brought us brutal disappointment.
Had the Vikings kept Culpepper and Moss, it would have been the same story every year. High expectations. Incredible talent. Incredible offense. And no hardware to show for it.
The team needs to go in a different direction. Year after year, offensive superpowers like the Colts, the Chiefs, and the Vikings get a lot of regular season press, and every year, teams that play good defense and special teams with offense that are good but not great win the Super Bowl. It's been proven over and over and over again: DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS.
The Vikings were never going to win a Super Bowl with an All-Star Offense. Every offseason, the question would be, "Is the defense good enough?" The idea would be that with this incredible offense, all that was needed was a mediocre defense to get to a championship.
But this was never going to happen. You simply don't win a Super Bowl with a mediocre defense. Only 3 teams have won a Super Bowl without a top-8 scoring defense (oddly enough, these teams were the '76, '80, and '83 Raiders). Every other Super Bowl winner has had a top-8 scoring defense. Most also had a top-8 scoring offense too. I don't deny that you need to score points to win games. But you aren't going to win with mediocre defense. Defense is particularly necessary in bad weather, in the playoffs, and on the road. Which leads to...
4. Daunte couldn't win games on the road.
Look at the Vikings' road record under Culpepper. It's absolutely atrocious. It's on the road when your offense is likely to struggle. It's outdoors in December and January, in Chicago and Philadelphia and Green Bay and New York, that your defense needs to step up and win you games.
It's also on the road, against a good defense, in bad weather conditions, when a championship-caliber QB needs to step up and make plays. And in these situations, when going was difficult and the team needed him to make plays, Daunte consistently failed. He's a great QB in good conditions with offensive talent around him against a mediocre defense. But he never demonstrated the ability to rise to the occasion in difficult circumstances. As a fan, I never had confidence that Culpepper could bring the team from behind, could go for a game-winning drive, could play well outdoors (anywhere other than Green Bay--which was nice, of course), could consistently make good plays and avoid mistakes against a good defense.
5. Just because the trade will help Culpepper, and help the Dolphins, doesn't mean it wasn't the right move for the Vikings.
Hey, if the Vikings can get to their first Super Bowl since before I was born, and they happen to face the Dolphins there...well, I'll cross that bridge when I get there. But until then, it doesn't matter how much this trade helps the Dolphins. It doesn't matter if Culpepper flourishes and performs brilliantly in Miami. What matters for the Vikings is not Culpepper, and not the Dolphins; what matters to the Vikings is the Vikings.
It wasn't going to work for Minnesota and Culpepper. Regardless of how good Culpepper can be with Miami, he probably wasn't going to be good for Minnesota again. So the Vikings had to do what was best for the Vikings.
Let's say Man X is dating Woman Y. And Man X realized he's never going to be happy with Woman Y. He can't keep dating Woman Y out of fear that if he dumps her, Woman Y will meet a new man, and make him very happy, and be very happy herself. He needs to break it off with Woman Y and wish her the best; if she is happy with another man, and she's able to make another man very happy, well, that's nothing to Man X. Man X needs to go about the business of finding a different woman who does make him happy.
I hope Daunte and the Dolphins are very happy together. But from this day forward, that has nothing to do with the Vikings.
_________
I don't know what the future holds for the Vikings. When you root for a team that hasn't won a title in its 45 year history (but has been oh so close), you can become one of two types of fan.
1. The bitter, cynical, twisted, morose fan, always suspecting eventual failure and disappointment.
2. The desperately optimistic fan, with nothing to cling to in the past so all the fan can do is hope beyond reason for the future.
I'm the latter.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Briefly, the end of any era.
For years, the Vikings have had uber-talented offensive players filling out statbooks. Randy Moss joined Cris Carter as dominating receivers, Daunte Culpepper replaced Warren Moon and Randall Cunningham as the Viking QB who throws for 30+ TDs.
That's all over now. Should we be sad? Or should we look back and see that this era brought us 5 playoff wins, no Super Bowl, and a lot of disappointment?
I say, the latter. Defense wins championships. It's been fun...but it's time to move on.
That's all over now. Should we be sad? Or should we look back and see that this era brought us 5 playoff wins, no Super Bowl, and a lot of disappointment?
I say, the latter. Defense wins championships. It's been fun...but it's time to move on.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Work, Contracts, and Ethics in sports
According to Profootballtalk.com, the Vikings and Steve Hutchinson have put provisions into their contract that will make it extremely difficult for Seattle to match the offer. Also according to Profootballtalk.com (one of my favorite sites, by the way), "the Seahawks are livid at Hutchinson and agent Tom Condon with this development. It's one thing, as they see it, for a guy to get the best offer he can on the open market. It's another thing to huddle with the new team in an effort to come up with an offer that the Seahawks can't or won't be able to match."
To which I say...WHAT?!?!?
First of all, everything that Hutchinson and the Vikings have done so far is strictly within the rules set up by the NFL system. Second of all, those rules are SO LIMITING TO THE FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL NFL PLAYERS, it is utterly ridiculous to begrudge a man for playing within the rules to exercise his own freedom.
Players have no control over who drafts them; if they want to play pro football, they have no choice over where they play (and when a player tries to exert some control over who can draft him, he is universally lambasted). Once drafted and signed, a player can be traded at any point against his will (and if the player tries to exert some will over being traded, again, he is universally lambasted). A player must play several years before becoming an unrestricted free agent, who can decide to go and play wherever he wants. However, once becoming a free agent, a team can use a Franchise or Transition tag to limit the player's ability to sign with another team.
I am fine with these restrictions. They are somewhat necessary for the competitive balance of the NFL, and therefore necessary in the long run to providing these players with more money. However, we can't deny that the NFL system provides rules that are quite restrictive to the freedom of the individual player. So why on earth would anybody be angry at a player for attempting to exert his own freedom WITHIN THE RULES OF THAT SYSTEM? If Hutchinson wants to join the Vikings, and doesn't want the Seahawks to match the offer, why on earth should we judge him for taking legal steps to assure that he can play where he wants to play?
To which I say...WHAT?!?!?
First of all, everything that Hutchinson and the Vikings have done so far is strictly within the rules set up by the NFL system. Second of all, those rules are SO LIMITING TO THE FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL NFL PLAYERS, it is utterly ridiculous to begrudge a man for playing within the rules to exercise his own freedom.
Players have no control over who drafts them; if they want to play pro football, they have no choice over where they play (and when a player tries to exert some control over who can draft him, he is universally lambasted). Once drafted and signed, a player can be traded at any point against his will (and if the player tries to exert some will over being traded, again, he is universally lambasted). A player must play several years before becoming an unrestricted free agent, who can decide to go and play wherever he wants. However, once becoming a free agent, a team can use a Franchise or Transition tag to limit the player's ability to sign with another team.
I am fine with these restrictions. They are somewhat necessary for the competitive balance of the NFL, and therefore necessary in the long run to providing these players with more money. However, we can't deny that the NFL system provides rules that are quite restrictive to the freedom of the individual player. So why on earth would anybody be angry at a player for attempting to exert his own freedom WITHIN THE RULES OF THAT SYSTEM? If Hutchinson wants to join the Vikings, and doesn't want the Seahawks to match the offer, why on earth should we judge him for taking legal steps to assure that he can play where he wants to play?
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Yes, it got bigger
Steve Hutchinson
I was surprised to learn Hutchinson is only 28--I thought he had been around longer than that. So if he signs a 7 year deal, there's a legitimate chance he'll be a productive offensive lineman for the entire term of his contract.
Interior blocking was BY FAR the biggest problem the Vikes had offensively last season. If Hutchinson joins the team, and lines up next to a healthy Matt Birk, that interior blocking gets something like a 200% upgrade.
Thank you, Zygi. There's no way Red McCombs would have allowed the Vikings to sign anybody to a contract this big. The Vikings are now fully committed to winning, from the top to the bottom of the organization.
Seattle can still match this offer--but is a team paying big money to Alexander, Jones, and Hasselbeck also going to pay a guard more money than any NFL guard has ever made? I assume Hutchinson is going to be joining the Purple.
After seeing players like LeCharles Bentley and Will Witherspoon sign elsewhere, I feared the Vikes were going to stick to players of the Ben Leber-Chester Taylor calibur. This is pretty exciting. An interior blocker doesn't really sound like a thrilling addition, but we all know how important offensive line play is.
I was surprised to learn Hutchinson is only 28--I thought he had been around longer than that. So if he signs a 7 year deal, there's a legitimate chance he'll be a productive offensive lineman for the entire term of his contract.
Interior blocking was BY FAR the biggest problem the Vikes had offensively last season. If Hutchinson joins the team, and lines up next to a healthy Matt Birk, that interior blocking gets something like a 200% upgrade.
Thank you, Zygi. There's no way Red McCombs would have allowed the Vikings to sign anybody to a contract this big. The Vikings are now fully committed to winning, from the top to the bottom of the organization.
Seattle can still match this offer--but is a team paying big money to Alexander, Jones, and Hasselbeck also going to pay a guard more money than any NFL guard has ever made? I assume Hutchinson is going to be joining the Purple.
After seeing players like LeCharles Bentley and Will Witherspoon sign elsewhere, I feared the Vikes were going to stick to players of the Ben Leber-Chester Taylor calibur. This is pretty exciting. An interior blocker doesn't really sound like a thrilling addition, but we all know how important offensive line play is.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Big day for Vikes (but it better get bigger)
Ryan Longwell
As the great David Akers says, "UGHAGHGAHGGhuyuu, you need a kicker!"
Ben Leber
I know little about Leber. But I know we need linebackers. If he's a linebacker with speed, who can make our new Cover-2 successful, then yippee. For a defense to be successful, you need some of these unheralded but fast players to do the job. And we need fast OLBs.
Chester Taylor
You need depth at running back (and currently, the Vikes don't have a lot of decent backs on the roster). You need running backs who can catch the ball (as the backup in a terrible offense, Taylor has 71 catches in the last two years). And a lot of teams that run the West Coast Offense have success with multiple backs with differest skills and styles. However, if they signed Taylor to be the "answer" at running back, then call me greatly disappointed. A good signing--in all likelihood, an affordable signing. But I hope the Vikes have bigger plans at RB.
A busy day, and our first indication of the direction Childress is taking the team. I'm happy with these signings--I think you have to build a team with solid players like this. But with the team going into free agency $30+ million under the cap, I would hope there are some bigger players to sign, too.
As the great David Akers says, "UGHAGHGAHGGhuyuu, you need a kicker!"
Ben Leber
I know little about Leber. But I know we need linebackers. If he's a linebacker with speed, who can make our new Cover-2 successful, then yippee. For a defense to be successful, you need some of these unheralded but fast players to do the job. And we need fast OLBs.
Chester Taylor
You need depth at running back (and currently, the Vikes don't have a lot of decent backs on the roster). You need running backs who can catch the ball (as the backup in a terrible offense, Taylor has 71 catches in the last two years). And a lot of teams that run the West Coast Offense have success with multiple backs with differest skills and styles. However, if they signed Taylor to be the "answer" at running back, then call me greatly disappointed. A good signing--in all likelihood, an affordable signing. But I hope the Vikes have bigger plans at RB.
A busy day, and our first indication of the direction Childress is taking the team. I'm happy with these signings--I think you have to build a team with solid players like this. But with the team going into free agency $30+ million under the cap, I would hope there are some bigger players to sign, too.
Koren Robinson
note: I'll provide my comments on every transaction the Vikings make during the offseason.
It never makes as big a splash when a team simply re-signs its own players, but for success in the NFL, sometimes those are the most important moves.
Signing Koren Robinson is a huge deal. He's 25. He was a Pro Bowl Kick Returner (and Returner has been one of the Viking weak spots for years). He adds talent and depth to the Wide Receiver position.
He's a playmaker. I can think of four games last season that the Vikes could have easily lost without his plays: at home v. the Packers, when his solid kick return was important in setting up the 56 yard field goal that had me running around the apartment; at the Giants, when his kick return for a TD was critically important in a game where the Vikes couldn't move the ball on offense; at Green Bay, where he caught a long pass from BJ to set up a short game-winning field goal (I was drunk at the Purple People Eatery--if somebody else caught this pass, forgive me); and at Detroit, where he had 100+ receiving yards and a TD.
You want to hang on to players as versatile as Robinson. And at 25, he seems to have wrestled himself free from some of the personal demons that held him back in the past. I'm excited to have him on the Vikings; I would have been very disappointed if he left.
The team is in the process of creating a new identity. Childress's new coaching staff is, of course, the key to that new identity. But it started being formed as soon as Daunte Culpepper went down with injury last year, and other players like Robinson, Pat Williams, and Darren Sharper were helping the Vikes win games.
So, yay for Koren Robinson.
It never makes as big a splash when a team simply re-signs its own players, but for success in the NFL, sometimes those are the most important moves.
Signing Koren Robinson is a huge deal. He's 25. He was a Pro Bowl Kick Returner (and Returner has been one of the Viking weak spots for years). He adds talent and depth to the Wide Receiver position.
He's a playmaker. I can think of four games last season that the Vikes could have easily lost without his plays: at home v. the Packers, when his solid kick return was important in setting up the 56 yard field goal that had me running around the apartment; at the Giants, when his kick return for a TD was critically important in a game where the Vikes couldn't move the ball on offense; at Green Bay, where he caught a long pass from BJ to set up a short game-winning field goal (I was drunk at the Purple People Eatery--if somebody else caught this pass, forgive me); and at Detroit, where he had 100+ receiving yards and a TD.
You want to hang on to players as versatile as Robinson. And at 25, he seems to have wrestled himself free from some of the personal demons that held him back in the past. I'm excited to have him on the Vikings; I would have been very disappointed if he left.
The team is in the process of creating a new identity. Childress's new coaching staff is, of course, the key to that new identity. But it started being formed as soon as Daunte Culpepper went down with injury last year, and other players like Robinson, Pat Williams, and Darren Sharper were helping the Vikes win games.
So, yay for Koren Robinson.
Friday, March 10, 2006
What do you say about a 29 year old QB who has won 2 playoff games?
In 2004, after watching the Vikings lose to the Packers 34-31, in what felt like the millionth 34-31ish loss I'd witnessed as a Viking fan, I wrote the following email to Viking fan friend Justin and Packer fan friend Rob:
As our beloved Vikings prepare for Free Agency and the Draft, its clear the team has needs at Running Back, Quarterback, and Offensive Line. Those are important positions and must be dealt with. But there is a HUGE need at linebacker. There's no reason Will Witherspoon shouldn't don purple next season. Keep the focus on the defense. With a secondary including Sharper and Winfield (and Smoot and Williams, I guess), and a young d-line featuring Udeze, KW, PW, James, and others, some good linebackers could really turn this defense into a contender.
It's a new era for Viking fans. I trust Childress. My wife is mildly depressed because the Vikings no longer feature Daunte and Randy. She's upset that she won't go into every year thinking we're going to win the Super Bowl. Well, we never were going to win a Super Bowl with a juggernaut offense and no defense. So if she'll just give me a chance, I'll happily convince her that the Lombardi Trophy is in our near future.
I have finally been converted--defense winsAs you can see, I was quite bitter. And almost everything I wrote there, I still believe. The Vikings traded away Randy Moss, and now Daunte Culpepper (a 29 yr. old QB with 2 playoff wins) is writing his ticket out of town. I can deal with that. Bring back the Black and Blue Division. Bring back the Purple People Eaters. Bring us some DEFENSE.
championships.
Unless the young defenders come around, the Vikings
will not win a Super Bowl for years.
With very few exceptions, teams that win the Super
Bowl are great defensive teams. Rarely does a
juggernaut offense win a Super Bowl with a mediocre
defense (Denver in '97 is probably the exception).
Rams in '99? Actually a solid D. 49ers? Great
defenses--the '94 team was the best team I ever saw
because of an unstoppable offense and a defense that
had brought every aging defensive star in the league
together for one last run. Dallas? Defense. Even
Shitdick won the Super Bowl he won when Green Bay had
the #1 defense in the league (and also had the best
special teams). Not to take anything away from
Shitdick--to win the Super Bowl, you also need clutch
offensive players who make plays when you need to.
People think Shitdick is God's gift to quarterbacking,
but he can't lead a team to a championship with an
average defense. Great offenses with mediocre
defenses just do not win the Super Bowl. Rarely do
they even get there. They might go 15-1, but they
won't stop Chris Chandler in the playoffs.
It doesn't necessarily need to be a great defense, but
it has to be the focus. An above-average offense with
clutch players can get you a championship with a great
defense. A great quarterback helps, but a great QB
won't win a title without a good/solid defense.
They talk about teams with a culture of losing, and
when a new coach takes over, the coach has to change
that. The Vikings have a culture of terrible defense,
and it won't work to keep incredible offensive stars
and spend each off-season saying "do we finally have
the pieces for a decent defense?" You need to change
the culture so it's about defense, not just improving
awfulness in order to be semi-decent so the offense
can win for you.
We have a culture of awful defense. On the radio,
Mike Morris was trying to say that the defense really
stepped up on Sunday because they made stops in the
4th quarter. Well, that was good. But when your
defense gives up 140+ rushing yards, 4 passing TDs,
and 34 points, you don't get good and excited because
they forced a 3 and out so the Vikes could get the
ball and tie it. That's nothing to write home about.
Especially when in the last 3 weeks your team has
given up 34, 31, and 34 (don't get too excited, GB
fans--everybody scores on the Vikings, and your
defense sucks too).
So, I've been converted. I've always loved great
offense. I've been blessed as a MN fan to watch one
of the greatest offenses ever, and to have been able
to watch the greatest WR ever to play. I love
watching that high-scoring offense. But it is
atrocious to continually watch a terrible, terrible
defense. When your defense sucks and you watch them,
you just sit in worry. You expect every pass to be
completed, every run to break outside and long. Every
time you get a 3rd down stop you want to jump with
joy. It sucks. I would more than happily give up
watching great offense to see a championship team. I
would watch an average offense that makes plays when
needed and a great defense any day. I can't stomach
watching the Vikings play defense anymore. Why are
WRs that open? Why can't the linebackers ever catch
the RBs? It is painful watching a super offense and
a terrible, terrible defense. If I were running the
team, I would sign NO extentions, NO long-term
contracts to any offensive players besides Culpepper
and Moss. Try and get the O-lineman signed up for a
while so the line is good. Then try to make due with
what you've got. Don't worry about putting all sorts
of pieces together to have a dominant, high-scoring,
unstoppable offense. Use the focus to put together a
real big league defense. Let your two playmakers play
behind a solid line and make plays. What could we
have used the Marcus Robinson money for? A linebacker
who can tackle? A safety who can catch easy
interceptions? Who cares. Put solid pieces in place
for a decent offense--it's really not that hard, esp.
when you already have Cully and Moss. Then spend the
energy, time, and money on defense. Antoine Winfield
is great. But he's one man. We need Udeze to step
up, KW to be consistent, Chavous and Russell to
actually catch the ball, Brian Williams to cover
consistently, and the linebackers to ACTUALLY TACKLE
SOMEBODY. The linebackers suck. There's no pass
rush. And the secondary is vulnerable. If there's
not big improvement soon, no Super Bowl there.
By the way, the NFL should forbid the Wisconsin band
from every coming near a stadium again. "Where You At
Moss?"???? INJURED! HE'S INJURED! DO YOU ENJOY
MOCKING INJURED PLAYERS? Where is the outrage?
I respect fans of no team that has won a Super Bowl.
None. They can't know this sort of agony. Teams that
haven't won a title since before they started playing
Super Bowls, them I'll still respect. And the teams
that have never won a Super Bowl.
I'll never feel bad at all for any fan of any team
that has ever won the Super Bowl. I will always root
for the fans of teams that have never seen their
favorite team win one. Because as long as the Vikings
are playing awful defense, somebody else's fans may as
well get the chance to experience the joy I only dream
about. Rob, I wish you could actually describe it to
me. I wish I could actually understand. But I can't
and I fear I never will.
As our beloved Vikings prepare for Free Agency and the Draft, its clear the team has needs at Running Back, Quarterback, and Offensive Line. Those are important positions and must be dealt with. But there is a HUGE need at linebacker. There's no reason Will Witherspoon shouldn't don purple next season. Keep the focus on the defense. With a secondary including Sharper and Winfield (and Smoot and Williams, I guess), and a young d-line featuring Udeze, KW, PW, James, and others, some good linebackers could really turn this defense into a contender.
It's a new era for Viking fans. I trust Childress. My wife is mildly depressed because the Vikings no longer feature Daunte and Randy. She's upset that she won't go into every year thinking we're going to win the Super Bowl. Well, we never were going to win a Super Bowl with a juggernaut offense and no defense. So if she'll just give me a chance, I'll happily convince her that the Lombardi Trophy is in our near future.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Daunte Culpepper may be completely crazy...
Then again, maybe not. Culpepper has been communicating with the media primarily through email. That's right, email. This recent trade demand email is only the latest; he's been writing emails to the Trib for a while. In these emails, in my opinion, he comes off as a slightly deranged human being who is still capable of using reason.
Then again, have you ever offended somebody over email, message board, or blog? Probably. The internet is an easy forum for saying bizarre or hurtful things. It's writing, so tone becomes difficult. But to write a letter takes time, effort, and thought. To launch out an email takes a few flicks on the keyboard and a click on "send." Emails are usually sent without a great deal of thought; our immediate reaction, our emotional response, to something we hear or read, gets sent off in seconds.
So Culpepper may not be completely crazy. He may just be appearing crazy because of the email medium. But...I think he's probably a little crazy. Dave Chappelle says calling people crazy is a way to dismiss people we don't understand, and I think he's probably right. So I shouldn't call Culpepper crazy...maybe a little crazed?
Then again, have you ever offended somebody over email, message board, or blog? Probably. The internet is an easy forum for saying bizarre or hurtful things. It's writing, so tone becomes difficult. But to write a letter takes time, effort, and thought. To launch out an email takes a few flicks on the keyboard and a click on "send." Emails are usually sent without a great deal of thought; our immediate reaction, our emotional response, to something we hear or read, gets sent off in seconds.
So Culpepper may not be completely crazy. He may just be appearing crazy because of the email medium. But...I think he's probably a little crazy. Dave Chappelle says calling people crazy is a way to dismiss people we don't understand, and I think he's probably right. So I shouldn't call Culpepper crazy...maybe a little crazed?
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
"Meet Mrs. Bundren"
Kirby Puckett’s death should make us consider the idea of identity, narrative, and reality. 99% of the stories we hear about Puckett are overwhelmingly positive. Not only was he a great baseball player, but most stories indicate that he was a great man, a great friend, a man truly concerned for others. For most of us, especially in Minnesota, that is enough. But for some, that 1% of darkness becomes the major factor in considering the meaning of Puckett. I don’t feel that 1% taints Puckett’s legacy. In fact, it can be added to his narrative; Puckett was not a saint, but a human being. He had problems, he made mistakes—and yet he was still able to inspire nearly everybody he came in contact with.
So who is Puckett? Is he the bubbly, smiling, energetic ballplayer who inspired a franchise and a state for over a decade? Or is the overweight retired player with a host of personal issues and a shadow hanging over him? The truth is, he is both. Identity is not a stable thing—we change, we behave differently in different situations, and it is our desire to create a coherent narrative that makes us attempt to create a coherent identity. But none of us have a coherent identity.
Then again, it’s easier to ignore, or explain away, or minimize, the darkness of Puckett. That’s not always the case; no matter what OJ Simpson does, he’ll be defined by the dark spots of his life.
We can expand these considerations out in two directions.
First, how do we make sense of sports? Sports contain a lot of raw “text,” but most of a sport is understood by the way we make sense of that text. And sometimes, in an effort to create a coherent narrative, we ignore Let us illustrate with an example of my least favorite athlete of all-time. There’s a clear narrative for Brett Favre, and most commentators are loathe to contradict it. It seems football writers and broadcasters have made a unanimous agreement to never place “Favre” and “Vicodin” in the same sentence. And even though Favre has been wavering on retirement for years (possibly to the detriment of his team), this cannot be used to contradict our understanding that Favre loves the game so much, he’d play it for free. Even his in-game mistakes are explained away to fit his narrative. Favre throws a team-crippling interception into double-coverage in the endzone; well, that’s because he’s a “gunslinger.” Favre throws an underhand pass well past the line of scrimmage to avoid taking a hit; well, that’s just proof how much fun Favre has playing the game. Our narrative distorts reality. A narrative is necessary to understand the world we live in; we have a desire for meaning. But should that narrative be created to the detriment of understanding truth?
Second, how do we make sense of our own lives?
Look at pictures of your grandfather from different points in his life. Is he the child, a member of a family? Is he the young man wearing a uniform? Is he the middle-aged father surrounded by his family? Is he the person doing a certain job? Is he the old man retired and resting and wrinkled? The bedridden man in the nursing home?
Look at yourself. Are you the person you act like around your peers? Your parents? Your grandparents? Your employers? Your church members? Kids? On the internet? Your identity is not stable; you adapt your “self” to fit certain roles for certain situations.
So how does one make sense of one’s life? Freud suggests that the end is what gives meaning to the whole; it is only in death that a proper narrative can be made for a person. Perhaps this is true; it’s difficult to define the meaning of a work of literature until we know how it ends, so how do we define the meaning of a life until it is complete?
So who am I? And who are you? And does it matter?
So who is Puckett? Is he the bubbly, smiling, energetic ballplayer who inspired a franchise and a state for over a decade? Or is the overweight retired player with a host of personal issues and a shadow hanging over him? The truth is, he is both. Identity is not a stable thing—we change, we behave differently in different situations, and it is our desire to create a coherent narrative that makes us attempt to create a coherent identity. But none of us have a coherent identity.
Then again, it’s easier to ignore, or explain away, or minimize, the darkness of Puckett. That’s not always the case; no matter what OJ Simpson does, he’ll be defined by the dark spots of his life.
We can expand these considerations out in two directions.
First, how do we make sense of sports? Sports contain a lot of raw “text,” but most of a sport is understood by the way we make sense of that text. And sometimes, in an effort to create a coherent narrative, we ignore Let us illustrate with an example of my least favorite athlete of all-time. There’s a clear narrative for Brett Favre, and most commentators are loathe to contradict it. It seems football writers and broadcasters have made a unanimous agreement to never place “Favre” and “Vicodin” in the same sentence. And even though Favre has been wavering on retirement for years (possibly to the detriment of his team), this cannot be used to contradict our understanding that Favre loves the game so much, he’d play it for free. Even his in-game mistakes are explained away to fit his narrative. Favre throws a team-crippling interception into double-coverage in the endzone; well, that’s because he’s a “gunslinger.” Favre throws an underhand pass well past the line of scrimmage to avoid taking a hit; well, that’s just proof how much fun Favre has playing the game. Our narrative distorts reality. A narrative is necessary to understand the world we live in; we have a desire for meaning. But should that narrative be created to the detriment of understanding truth?
Second, how do we make sense of our own lives?
Look at pictures of your grandfather from different points in his life. Is he the child, a member of a family? Is he the young man wearing a uniform? Is he the middle-aged father surrounded by his family? Is he the person doing a certain job? Is he the old man retired and resting and wrinkled? The bedridden man in the nursing home?
Look at yourself. Are you the person you act like around your peers? Your parents? Your grandparents? Your employers? Your church members? Kids? On the internet? Your identity is not stable; you adapt your “self” to fit certain roles for certain situations.
So how does one make sense of one’s life? Freud suggests that the end is what gives meaning to the whole; it is only in death that a proper narrative can be made for a person. Perhaps this is true; it’s difficult to define the meaning of a work of literature until we know how it ends, so how do we define the meaning of a life until it is complete?
So who am I? And who are you? And does it matter?
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Every Minnesotan understands
You won't hear me comment on baseball much (and I won't say much now, either, as many more knowledgable and eloquent people are saying more than I could). But everybody who grew up in Minnesota knows what Kirby Puckett means to us. I use the present tense because he still means more to us than any athlete who has ever played here. He's the guy who helped hang the only two pro championship banners for this state in the last fifty years. But had he never done that, he'd still be the premiere Minnesota sports presence. You didn't grow up in Minnesota without loving Kirby Puckett. His game and his personality were larger than life.
We miss him already.
We miss him already.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Are the 1980s Lakers underrrated?
The NBA narrative for the 1980s is well-known: it was Magic v. Bird, Lakers v. Celtics, a golden age of basketball in which these two superstars invigorated the NBA and made basketball an aesthetic team game.
That narrative is, mostly, accurate. During the playing days of Bird and Magic, the Lakers and Celtics went to a combined 14 NBA Finals and won a combined 8 titles. However, that narrative also implies a sort of equality between the two players, and the two teams. I think it is fair to imply equality between Magic and Bird; for all sorts of reasons, I wouldn't try to edge one over the other in an argument for all-time greatness.
But equality between the teams?
The Celtics went to 5 NBA Finals and won 3 championships. That's a healthy amount of success, especially when the Celtics not only had to deal with the Lakers in the Finals, but had to pass the Sixers first and then the Pistons just to get to the Finals.
During Magic Johnson's reign, the Lakers went to 9 NBA Finals and won 5 championships. In a period of 9 years, they went to 7 NBA Finals and won those 5 titles. And in the three times the Lakers and Celtics met in the Finals in the 1980s, the Lakers won twice.
The Lakers' 80s success was almost twice as good as the Celtics' success. By any standard, the Lakers were the Dynasty of the 1980s. And yet, the narrative of Magic v. Bird for the 1980s persists. I just feel that this narrative doesn't give sufficient appreciation to the success of the Lakers.
The NFL equivalent could be the Cowboys and Steelers in the 1970s. From 70-79, the Cowboys and Steelers went to 9 Super Bowls and won 6. But the grand narrative of the 70s in the NFL is the Steel Curtain's domination. This is fair: the Steelers won twice as many championships as the Cowboys in this era (4 to 2) and twice beat the Cowboys in the Super Bowl (granted, in Super Bowl X the Steelers should have been losing to the Vikings, but Drew Pearson pushed off of Nate Wright, and alas, my beloved Purple still remain without a title).
The Lakers should be recognized as the dominant team of the 1980s; instead, we have written a narrative that gives the Celtics equality with them. Those Celtics are no slouches and deserve respect. But the Lakers won 5 titles. They had one of the greatest guard-center combos in history. They had numerous very good players who thrived together (do any of the kids even know who Jamaal Wilkes is?). The Lakers are the Dynasty of the 80s.
and I think Kareem himself is underrated historically, but that's an argument for a different post.
That narrative is, mostly, accurate. During the playing days of Bird and Magic, the Lakers and Celtics went to a combined 14 NBA Finals and won a combined 8 titles. However, that narrative also implies a sort of equality between the two players, and the two teams. I think it is fair to imply equality between Magic and Bird; for all sorts of reasons, I wouldn't try to edge one over the other in an argument for all-time greatness.
But equality between the teams?
The Celtics went to 5 NBA Finals and won 3 championships. That's a healthy amount of success, especially when the Celtics not only had to deal with the Lakers in the Finals, but had to pass the Sixers first and then the Pistons just to get to the Finals.
During Magic Johnson's reign, the Lakers went to 9 NBA Finals and won 5 championships. In a period of 9 years, they went to 7 NBA Finals and won those 5 titles. And in the three times the Lakers and Celtics met in the Finals in the 1980s, the Lakers won twice.
The Lakers' 80s success was almost twice as good as the Celtics' success. By any standard, the Lakers were the Dynasty of the 1980s. And yet, the narrative of Magic v. Bird for the 1980s persists. I just feel that this narrative doesn't give sufficient appreciation to the success of the Lakers.
The NFL equivalent could be the Cowboys and Steelers in the 1970s. From 70-79, the Cowboys and Steelers went to 9 Super Bowls and won 6. But the grand narrative of the 70s in the NFL is the Steel Curtain's domination. This is fair: the Steelers won twice as many championships as the Cowboys in this era (4 to 2) and twice beat the Cowboys in the Super Bowl (granted, in Super Bowl X the Steelers should have been losing to the Vikings, but Drew Pearson pushed off of Nate Wright, and alas, my beloved Purple still remain without a title).
The Lakers should be recognized as the dominant team of the 1980s; instead, we have written a narrative that gives the Celtics equality with them. Those Celtics are no slouches and deserve respect. But the Lakers won 5 titles. They had one of the greatest guard-center combos in history. They had numerous very good players who thrived together (do any of the kids even know who Jamaal Wilkes is?). The Lakers are the Dynasty of the 80s.
and I think Kareem himself is underrated historically, but that's an argument for a different post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)