Sorry for the layoff but family first as they say. Anyway, on to this weeks rant....
One of my favorite comedies is an under-rated Bill Murray film called "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou", mostly because it is based around some of the most absurd humor ever put on camera. This past week I've gotten to see another kind of comedy played out in Washington D.C. that makes the scripted oddities of that Wes Anderson film look like the tired pop culture jokes from the "Epic Movie/Meet the Spartans" crew. I'm of course referring to the Roger Clemens Congressional hearing and Arlen Specter's talks with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. The former came about as the result of one mans ego and the second because of, well, one mans ego. Both were allegedly done to clean things up in the two respective sports, but in the end it was all just a three ring circus with no ringmaster, elephants or trapeze artists, just a bunch of poorly trained clowns cavorting around and getting laughs for all the wrong reasons.
Let's start with the big headline grabber of the month, Roger Clemens going before Congress. First and foremost, that wasn't even supposed to happen. Henry Waxman even came out and said as much, stating that the person who pushed for the hearing was Roger Clemens. It was Clemens who held the big press conference where he played a secretly recorded phone conversation with his former trainer Brian McNamee. It was Clemens who forced the issue and grabbed as much spotlight time as possible. On the other side of the coin it was Congress who started having these kangaroo court hearings in the first place and Congress who split almost universally down party lines during Clemens' questioning last week.
I have to admit I was laughing nearly the whole time during Clemens' testimony. It was such a joke to watch. Prior to the televised questioning Clemens had talked to the members privately and obviously(along with his lawyers) thought he was going to get treated with kid gloves, and why not? The same members who were going to question him publicly were posing for pictures, getting autographs, glad-handing and generally mugging for the camera with their new best friend Roger Clemens. So when the Rocket had to sit down and answer some actual questions regarding the facts in the investigation he looked like the proverbial deer in the headlights, constantly looking to his lawyer for advice on how to answer.
Bu Congress wasn't done there. In order to get even more belly laughs out of the viewers at home they obviously decided going into the hearing that there would be a strict adherence to party lines, meaning the Democrats would ask the hard questions while most of the Republicans tossed Roger some nice juicy softballs or just forgo questioning at all and just kiss his (allegedly) abscessed ass. Hell, for the most part even the questions the Democrats threw weren't even close to a strike. It wasn't until the hearing was almost over that Elijah Cummings finally brought the heat and flat out asked Clemens, why would McNemee tell the truth about Pettitte and Knoblauch but lie about Clemens? If Pettitte is an honest man who openly admitted to using HGH, does that not mean that McNemee is telling the truth about Roger? The Rocket struck out looking.
To add to the already outrageous levels of humor, we also got to see folks like republican Chris Shays practically shouting at McNemee, saying "You deal drugs!" as if that somehow means he's lying under oath. I wonder if Shays has ever worked a narcotics case before. Somehow I doubt it. Shays was backed nicely by Virginia Foxx who brought props to the set in the form of posters from various times in Rogers career as being definitive proof that Clemens could not have been on performance enhancing drugs(and proof she has no freaking clue what the hell she's talking about). Someone just give these guys an Emmy already, they made Frasier look like Joey.
But we're forgetting, this was a double feature. Yes we also got to see Arlen Specter do his best song and dance for the camera about whether or not the New England Patriots secretly filmed the St. Louis Rams final walkthrough before SuperBowl 36. OK, just so we're clear here, the US Army is getting ready to shoot down a Russian satellite, the economy is tanking faster then the Kansas City Royals and the Canadian dollar is getting ready to start looking down on the greenback on a long term basis but what America needs right now is an investigation as to whether or not the Patriots cheated in a game 6 years ago?
But Specter will not be swayed. He met with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and has made it clear he's going to see this through. What he means to accomplish I don't honestly know. For starters there is no proof the Patriots did in fact tape anything, and as Kurt Warner pointed out earlier this week the only plays that the team went through that day were red zone plays and the Rams scored both times they got within the twenty yard line during the game. Dick Vermeil even came out and said he didn't think taping a walkthrough gave you any edge because it's not even a practice, just a quick refresher on a few plays. That the accusation of the alleged cheating came out the week of the Superbowl this year alone should have cast doubt on the validity of it.
Well it doesn't really matter. The egos and grandstanding will not be swayed by any of us. Congress, Specter and Clemens have made it clear they are going to waste as much time and money to brag as many headlines as possible over this farce. Me, I'm grabbing my popcorn and hope I don't spit up my Pepsi because this is just too damn funny.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Pot Shots at the Colossus
If dismissal was the highest form of flattery the New England Patriots would be blushing like virgin brides on the honeymoon. Seriously, this team is on the verge of 19-0 and still I'm seeing and hearing television and radio interviews and reading articles about how this in one of, if not the greatest, team in the history of the NFL. It seems every time I turn around there is someone ready to brush them aside like they were a bunch of also-rans and not a team that is on the verge of setting one of the most incredible records in sports history.
What do they still have to prove? How many more records to they have to set before people stop trying to kick them to the curb? They already have the most touchdown passes by a Quarterback(50), most TD receptions by a player(23), most points in a season(589), finished first in passing yards and total yards per game, 4th in overall defense and have the most consecutive wins in one season(18 going for 19). What the hell else do they have to do? Nothing in my opinion, except win the Super Bowl. Of course, in the opinion of some others though, they haven't done anything. Look, I'm not going to bore you with every article on this subject, so instead I'll just focus on two recent ones from Sign On San Diego and the Indy Star.
Nick Canepa of SoSD makes the argument that the Patriots do not rank amongst the greatest teams of all times because, get this, they don't have enough Hall of Fame players on the roster. That's it? That's your reasoning? They have crushed nearly every record imaginable in just one year but because not enough players on the roster will make it to footballs shrine it doesn't count? Give me a break, some of the best teams in sports history didn't have a lot of all time greats, just as some of the all time greats never won the big game. The 1995/96 Bulls went 72-10 but nobody on that team outside of Jordan and Jackson are going to Springfield(dennis Rodman should but that is an argument for another time). The 1998 Yankees won 125 games but only Rivera, Jeter and Torre stand out as Cooperstown caliber. Dan Marino never won a Superbowl, Mats Sundin may never win a Stanley Cup and Barry Bonds has no rings.
Let's be honest, any Hall of Fame is based around personal achievements, not team results. Individually the Patriots may not be anything special, but as a team their has never been a squad as dominant. Hell, the Patriots are probably proud of that fact. Given their incredible success this decade and the low draft order as a result, the Patriots ability to consistently field a winning team is staggering. And with a salary cap, balanced schedules designed to have the best play the best and free agency this sort of thing is not supposed to be possible in todays NFL. Yet here they are, one win away from the most incredible season ever. Just because only a few of them will make it to Canton doesn't mean they aren't a great team. If anything it shows just how good they really are as a unit.
Which brings me to Bob Kravitz' brilliantly stupid piece on how Bill Belichick and the Patriots aren't good, they're just lucky. As with Canepa he trots out a ludicrous piece of evidence to try and support his theory. That of course being the Patriots franchise player Tom Brady. Kravitz insists that the Patriots were lucky to draft him in the 6th round, ignoring the simple fact that Brady had been a back-up most of his college career and was not highly regarded by many scouts. Taking a player like Brady in the 6th round isn't luck, it's damn good scouting and drafting. Next of course was the injury to Drew Bledsoe. With Bledsoe's season over early the Pats looked to Brady and he delivered. Luck? Hell no, that's called having all your bases covered by having reliable back-ups in case of injury.
What is even more insane about this type of argument is that prior to this season most reporters had dismissed Brady's success as a result of Belichicks coaching. How many times was Belichicks name the first one to come up when talking about the Patriots 3 Super Bowls in four years? For the first few years even New England fans were dismissing Brady as a product of Belichick and his system. But now that Brady finally has some receivers to throw to suddenly it's all about Tom not Bill. Get serious Kravitz. In the same article you compare Belichick to Mike Shannahan, saying how the latter couldn't win without John Elway, completely ignoring the fact that the Broncos beat the Patriots in the 2005 playoffs with Jake Plummer of all people. To quote one reader of the article, one Bangin from Bridgeton, MO, "This is BAD journalism".
Look at the Patriots over this decade. Look at the players they've won with. The players they've dumped, the ones they brought in. From disgruntled problems children like Randy Moss and Cory Dillon to old veterans dumped by other teams like Junior Seau the Patriots find talent every way they can and fit them into the group. No other team has had this kind of success with this amount of turnover. No other team replaces players with such ease and no other team has been as good on both sides of the ball since the turn of the century. Any fool can see that takes more then luck.
So save me your comparisons to the Steelers of the 1970's, the Dallas Cowboys on the 1990's or the 49ers. Different eras, different problems to overcome. The Patriots have done all this at a time when the NFL is set up to prevent dynasties from ever happening. They have re-vamped, re-organized and re-built the team constantly and yet still have an incredible winning percentage. While other teams find brief success before salaries and free agency cripple them the Patriots win and win big year in and year out. This year they go for the ultimate record in football, and if that doesn't make them one of the greatest teams ever in your book, then your book should wind up in the bargain bin.
What do they still have to prove? How many more records to they have to set before people stop trying to kick them to the curb? They already have the most touchdown passes by a Quarterback(50), most TD receptions by a player(23), most points in a season(589), finished first in passing yards and total yards per game, 4th in overall defense and have the most consecutive wins in one season(18 going for 19). What the hell else do they have to do? Nothing in my opinion, except win the Super Bowl. Of course, in the opinion of some others though, they haven't done anything. Look, I'm not going to bore you with every article on this subject, so instead I'll just focus on two recent ones from Sign On San Diego and the Indy Star.
Nick Canepa of SoSD makes the argument that the Patriots do not rank amongst the greatest teams of all times because, get this, they don't have enough Hall of Fame players on the roster. That's it? That's your reasoning? They have crushed nearly every record imaginable in just one year but because not enough players on the roster will make it to footballs shrine it doesn't count? Give me a break, some of the best teams in sports history didn't have a lot of all time greats, just as some of the all time greats never won the big game. The 1995/96 Bulls went 72-10 but nobody on that team outside of Jordan and Jackson are going to Springfield(dennis Rodman should but that is an argument for another time). The 1998 Yankees won 125 games but only Rivera, Jeter and Torre stand out as Cooperstown caliber. Dan Marino never won a Superbowl, Mats Sundin may never win a Stanley Cup and Barry Bonds has no rings.
Let's be honest, any Hall of Fame is based around personal achievements, not team results. Individually the Patriots may not be anything special, but as a team their has never been a squad as dominant. Hell, the Patriots are probably proud of that fact. Given their incredible success this decade and the low draft order as a result, the Patriots ability to consistently field a winning team is staggering. And with a salary cap, balanced schedules designed to have the best play the best and free agency this sort of thing is not supposed to be possible in todays NFL. Yet here they are, one win away from the most incredible season ever. Just because only a few of them will make it to Canton doesn't mean they aren't a great team. If anything it shows just how good they really are as a unit.
Which brings me to Bob Kravitz' brilliantly stupid piece on how Bill Belichick and the Patriots aren't good, they're just lucky. As with Canepa he trots out a ludicrous piece of evidence to try and support his theory. That of course being the Patriots franchise player Tom Brady. Kravitz insists that the Patriots were lucky to draft him in the 6th round, ignoring the simple fact that Brady had been a back-up most of his college career and was not highly regarded by many scouts. Taking a player like Brady in the 6th round isn't luck, it's damn good scouting and drafting. Next of course was the injury to Drew Bledsoe. With Bledsoe's season over early the Pats looked to Brady and he delivered. Luck? Hell no, that's called having all your bases covered by having reliable back-ups in case of injury.
What is even more insane about this type of argument is that prior to this season most reporters had dismissed Brady's success as a result of Belichicks coaching. How many times was Belichicks name the first one to come up when talking about the Patriots 3 Super Bowls in four years? For the first few years even New England fans were dismissing Brady as a product of Belichick and his system. But now that Brady finally has some receivers to throw to suddenly it's all about Tom not Bill. Get serious Kravitz. In the same article you compare Belichick to Mike Shannahan, saying how the latter couldn't win without John Elway, completely ignoring the fact that the Broncos beat the Patriots in the 2005 playoffs with Jake Plummer of all people. To quote one reader of the article, one Bangin from Bridgeton, MO, "This is BAD journalism".
Look at the Patriots over this decade. Look at the players they've won with. The players they've dumped, the ones they brought in. From disgruntled problems children like Randy Moss and Cory Dillon to old veterans dumped by other teams like Junior Seau the Patriots find talent every way they can and fit them into the group. No other team has had this kind of success with this amount of turnover. No other team replaces players with such ease and no other team has been as good on both sides of the ball since the turn of the century. Any fool can see that takes more then luck.
So save me your comparisons to the Steelers of the 1970's, the Dallas Cowboys on the 1990's or the 49ers. Different eras, different problems to overcome. The Patriots have done all this at a time when the NFL is set up to prevent dynasties from ever happening. They have re-vamped, re-organized and re-built the team constantly and yet still have an incredible winning percentage. While other teams find brief success before salaries and free agency cripple them the Patriots win and win big year in and year out. This year they go for the ultimate record in football, and if that doesn't make them one of the greatest teams ever in your book, then your book should wind up in the bargain bin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
