The Redskins player who was returning the INT was halfway down to the ground, everyone was slowing up and there were about 4-5 Eagles between Foles and the ball carrier. It might not have sparked a riot, but those kind of bullshit hits are never cool. There have been O Linemen who have career ending injuries from "blocks" away from direct action. Legal or not, its sheisty. If he hit McCoy or Maclin in a similar spot, people would be up in arms too.
I may be late on this but Parker...er I mean Bill Simmons gets suspended from ESPN for 3 weeks for basically saying what almost everyone is thinking. What a cluster fuck, like him or not I read his stuff as it entertaining and informative but suspending him for 3 weeks for calling Roger a liar seems extreme, I'd like to see his response. At least someone affiliated with ESPN had the balls to at least say what most people think. His first rant on it "Goodell, if he didn't know what was on that tape, he's a liar," Simmons said Monday. "I'm just saying it. He is lying. I think that dude is lying. If you put him up on a lie detector test that guy would fail. For all these people to pretend they didn't know is such fucking bullshit. It really is — it's such fucking bullshit. And for him to go in that press conference and pretend otherwise, I was so insulted. I really was." His follow up "I really hope somebody calls me or emails me and says I'm in trouble for anything I say about Roger Goodell," he said. "Because if one person says that to me, I'm going public. You leave me alone. The commissioner's a liar and I get to talk about that on my podcast."
Well...maybe you shouldn't dare your boss to do something while cursing up a storm. There are very few (if any) who loathe ESPN in general as much as I do, but what did he expect? Hell, he might have even done this knowing this would happen just for the publicity/outrage porn in seems to be producing. Edit: Oh and Olbermann's been all over Goodell for the last two months at least, so it's not like Bill is the "lone man taking a stand" at ESPN despite how much he'd like to spin it that way.
Well we all know how I feel about this so I'm not going to get into it. I think Olbermann is operating under different rules given the history he has with ESPN. I'm not getting mad at ESPN about this, they have a tough line to walk. They're entertaining, but they're also journalism and dance in the middle. Simmon's said that on Monday, and the NFL simply sent ESPN a message like "Do something about Simmons. Fox Sports has been really putting together some nice packages for MNF." Boom, done. This is also in conjunction with everyone now being able to give Tom Brady shit for the first time in 12 years for on field activity, opposed to the off field cheap shots. He's been missing some throws and now its becoming a discussion topic bouncing around all the talking heads. Not a headline, but in the second block. Even Simmons is saying stuff, it's dark days ahead unless he snaps out of it. Just say "Brady on the decline?" on screen.
It's hard for me to take ESPN's journalism seriously when they're paying millions, if not billions of dollars for the right to broadcast sports that they themselves are covering. It gets even harder, especially since ESPN essentially dictates the national discussion on sports. Even when ESPN wants to flex its journalism muscle, as it did with their Ray Rice timeline, they fuck it up there too. Deadspin has been reporting that they've been quietly editing the story. tl;dr: ESPN's massive and numerous conflicts of interest gives it no ability to discipline its employees without looking like its coming from the very leagues its supposed to objectively cover.
So funny thing. At the bottom left of the ESPN home page is the Ombudsman blog. They started this like two years ago, I think. Basically they have some independent guy write a blog on their behavior and basically what Jimmy just wrote about. They switch these guys out every 18 months. Here is the latest one. http://espn.go.com/blog/ombudsman/
I almost forgot about this, but Manning is only 9 TDs off Favre's record mark. So is he the GOAT, or not simply because he doesn't have enough rings? As far as I see it that's the only possible argument against him. - Holds most major single season passing records? Check. - Either holds or will soon hold most major career passing records? Check. - Has most MVP awards? Check. - Lead his team to the playoffs with greater consistency than any QB in NFL history? Check. - Missed very few games and when he did miss time came back from an injury that would have ended most players' careers? Check. Aside from all the talk about his poor playoff performances, his numbers aren't bad at all. And say what you want about last years' super bowl, but the whole team got thrashed. It wasn't just on Manning. I get the ESPN gripes, but sports talk revolving around them or not, there's still a billion other options out there, and I see pundits on ESPN slam Goodell/the refs/the rules/player misconduct/you name it all the time. Take this however you want. Giving your boss the proverbial finger isn't the smartest career choice, and publicly insulting the integrity of your company isn't exactly the pinnacle of professionalism. Just saying. If he had said basically the same things while approaching it a little differently I really doubt he would have gotten suspended.
I think Manning is safely in the discussion, but the problem is that any team with him on it is instantly lopsided. You simply can't pay him what he's worth and have enough left over for a talented defense, special teams, etc.
I love this argument, because it depends on your yardstick. If you are talking about stats, then yes, Manning is probably the greatest of all time. If your yardstick includes things other than stats? Probably not in the top 5 of all time. I know we live in a society that values performance numbers in all things over anything else, but life rarely is so defined. The argument against Manning being the GOAT is that he doesn't perform well in the playoffs. The counterargument is, and has always been, 'oh, he's not THAT bad.' Is that a statement that would be consistent with the Greatest of All Time? I don't think so. Personally, I put Brady, Montana, Elway, Young, Unitas, Staubach, Marino and Jim Kelly ahead of them. I would also point out that when most of those guys played, the game was different, and running was predominant. Also, due to rule changes, passing is easier now. It's not that Manning isn't a great QB, he undoubtedly is, but the fact that these playoff and Superbowl performances are still nagging (meaning, it's not like it just happened early in his career) probably means he isn't the greatest of all time.
In terms of raw numbers, it's basically Peyton Manning, then everybody else. The idea that we're equating playoff wins to QB is antiquated. In his 23 playoff games, there were only 3 games in which he played terribly. Oddly enough, two of them were in the year the Colts won the Super Bowl. Consider the fact that other than his rookie year and the year he was out with the neck injury, Manning has missed the playoffs ONCE. That's 14 out of 17 years of his career. The narrative that Manning isn't "clutch" doesn't hold any water to me either. Manning has 51 game winning drives. Brady is #2 with 37. Manning has 40 4th quarter comebacks. Brady is also #2 and has 31. Is that absurd to anybody else or just me? Putting playoff wins, and by extension, Super Bowl wins on one player is a disservice to not only the QB but to his teammates.
Barnwell took over Simmon's picks column. Holy shit I'm actually learning something about football and not obscure 80s movies.
I don't think the argument for Manning is purely statistical. It's about comeback wins, consistency, how he's performed with different o-lines and skills positions players. You list QBs who never won a ring as better than Manning so I don't see how playoff results factored in to what you're saying. 'Not bad' is actually an odd way to put Manning's playoffs performances because he's put up great post season numbers and had multiple phenomenal games where his team got knocked out. The idea that a QB can put the whole team on his shoulders and win super bowls regardless of how everyone else in the game performed just isn't realistic. If we're going to talk about a QB who won one ring and then floundered in the big games I think we should be talking about Favre. Montana is the only QB I can see being put ahead of Manning, but he spent his career on a much more dominant team than Manning ever had, and threw to best receiver in NFL history.
This Bears Packers game is just fucking great. The Bears Reversed Reverse Play Action End Around was golden.
Agreed... and now a fantastic turnover right when it looked like the Bears were tying it up. Almost a touchdown to a turnover.
The Bears lost and Cutler threw an INT. Can't wait to now hear how this loss is his fault for the rest of the week, despite the fact that the Bears defense didn't force a single punt.
Kind of hard to watch the third quarter, the two interceptions, and not blame Cutler a bit for the loss.
On Football Night in America the talking heads pointed to his first INT as the "turning point" in the game, even though the Bears were already behind.
The INTs Cutler threw were terrible. On the one that was intended for Marshall it looked like Cutler completely forgot what route he was running. You can't win when your defense plays like that, but he wasn't doing them any favors either. I'm still nervous about GB's defense. They looked good against the lions, but today they gave up 500 yards and got lucky on some opportune turnovers.
Bridgewater looked solid. I think I was more impressed with the throws he didn't make, too. Threw it away at the right times, ran (and slid) at the right times. Can't tell if Asiata and McKinnon are good, or if the O line was just killing it today. In any case, I'm a happy vikings fan right now.