Scoop Jackson might be retarded

After the Ravens destruction of the of the Pats in Foxboro, most pundits generally agreed that it was stupid for Belichick to punt the ball from his own 42 on 4th & 2, when earlier in the season, he went for it in a similar situation against the Colts. Scoop Jackson decided to weigh in with an entirely different theory:

In New England's AFC Wild-Card game against Baltimore, Patriots coach Bill Belichick made a decision to begin the game that proved to be the difference. The question is: Why did he make that decision?

Broken down, we can understand that Belichick's decision after winning the coin toss to open the game to kick the ball to the Ravens can be directly linked to the the infamous fourth-and-2 call he made against the Indianapolis Colts.

I smell a gigantic leap in logic coming.

The breakdown:

• In that game against the Colts, the one thing that came from that call was the belief that Belichick didn't believe in his defense. He claimed that wasn't the case. But that perception still existed.

• For almost two months the Patriots have had to deal with that possible truth hanging over their team. There's been nothing Belichick could do leading up to the playoffs to counter the rumors. He was just waiting for the opportunity.

• Playoffs begin. Wild-Card game. An opportunity for Belichick to finally get this off his back.

On the 4th & 2 at the end of the first half, right?

• In a game at home against a team that is not known for being an offensive treat, Belichick figured it was safe. What better time to instill confidence in his defense and squash the lack of confidence rumors than to let his defense open up the game against the Ravens.

• Coin flip: Pats win. One play later: Pats lose.

Wow, you are (when it comes to writing about football) fucking retarded.

1. As a Ravens fan, I can tell you that they rarely score touchdowns on their first possessions.

2. They've never hit an 80+ yard touchdown on their first play from scrimmage.

3. Do you think that the Pats gave up that touchdown run because they got over-confident they got from Belichick electing to differ (something a lot of team do against the Ravens)? If so, you're stupid.

4. You do realize that Ravens were going to get the ball at some point in the game, right?

5. The game was far from over after Rice's touchdown, and you're really dumb.

• For the second time this season, Belichick made the wrong decision. This one cost him more than just a game.

Not really. Yes, his team was eliminated from the playoffs, but they certainly weren't going to get past San Diego, and now they're in a better position in the likely uncapped off-season than if they'd been 1 of the final 8 teams. So really, they didn't lose a whole lot, and you're just a terrible sports writer.

So you see how this all came about: How one decision eight weeks ago affected one that decided the Pats' season.

No one sees that because it's a completely idiotic line of reasoning.

Most people won't see it like that, but if you watch enough CSI, it'll make sense.

Detective Frank Tripp: Sir, this sports writer is just terrible. This whole article is a giant piece of shit.

Lieutenant Horatio Caine: (puts on sunglasses) Now there's a Scoop.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH

Someone Please Enlist Scoop Jackson In a Deep Space Exploration Program

[Sometimes, I try to tackle an article but it's just so infuriating and ridiculous that I can't bring myself to do a good job. I'm just too frustrated, have nothing to work with because the article is just an abyss of stupidity, or both. This is one of those times. I'm admitting it up front- this post is going to suck. I'm not proud of it at all. Read if you want, but if you want to spend your four minutes doing something more productive, I'll briefly summarize it for you right now: Scoop Jackson is a fucking dolt.]

The US Mens Basketball team just won the gold medal they were (sort of) favored to win. It's a pretty good story. So if you're Scoop, how do you ruin it? QUICK! Take a fucking preposterously contrarian stance! I'm not even exaggerating- this might be the most outrageous article I've ever seen in that department.

Did the Redeem Team Really Come Through?

Yes. They went undefeated and won the gold medal.

Now what?

Quit your job immediately. Donate all your money and worldly possessions to charity, move to the mountains, and stop bothering people.

Now that the best $40 billion in sports has been spent. Now that IOC president Jacques Rogge can say "I told you so" about why the committee chose China. Now that Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt have ascended to the Tigersphere, while Liu Xiang and Matthew Emmons have descended into an Olympic sorrow that always outweighs the joy most athletes leave with.

Completely irrelevant. This is like starting an English paper about Dante's Inferno with a series of random facts about Italy.

Now what?

Now that the United States has supposedly redeemed itself in the basketball world, now what?

Yes, you read that right, "supposedly."

How deep. You're really making me question everything I once thought I knew. Now that Michael Phelps SUPPOSEDLY just turned in the greatest individual performance in Olympic history... GASP. What if he didn't? WHAT IF, PEOPLE, WHAT IF?

The reason caution needs to be thrown in the post-Olympic detox is because it seems like, as a nation, we are getting a little caught up. Caught up in the belief that USA's gold medal in men's basketball brought back everything the country lost in the game during the past 16 years.

Sweet mother of fuck. Are you kidding me? What, exactly, did we lose in the last 16 years? One Olympic gold and a couple of World Championships?

Some are even going so far as to say this team could compete with, and on occasion beat, the original Dream Team. Again, too caught up.

Maybe. But who cares? Who is judging this team with that criterion? Can't we just be happy with what we've got?

Yes, the Redeem Team did what it was supposed to do.

Great. Here's a great opportunity to end the article, no hard feelings.

But now that we "re-hold the gold," is everything really back to the way it used to be? Back to the way it should be?

WHO CARES, WE FUCKING WON. 1992 isn't coming back anytime soon. We'll never be that far ahead of the rest of the world again.

It all depends on your definition of "redeem."

Semantics. Riveting journalism.

After it was over, Carlmelo Anthony said, "I think we did a hell of a job of putting America back where it's supposed to be, which is at the top of the world." LeBron James said, "If it wasn't for the determination and willpower we had, we wouldn't be back on top of the world, which is where we are."

The question is, back on top of the world or back as rulers of the world?

More semantics. Thank God this guy gets his writing published on the front page of the world's #1 sports website.

Ask yourselves: Was America's mission just to recapture the gold in Beijing, or to re-establish itself as the premier basketball superpower in the world?

Call me nuts, but I'm pretty sure the second goal is included in the first.

Ever since the Dream Team left Barcelona in August 1992, there has been a sweeping rush by the rest of the world to get its hands on what the U.S. used to hold sacred and hold down. And it did.

Right. Because the rest of the world used to suck at basketball, relative to the skill level of NBA players. Once they started learning the game, they were able to raise that skill level and combine it with some crafty teamwork to the point that the NBA players don't have a gargantuan advantage anymore. And they never will again, either. They'll have to settle for "just" winning gold medals while exerting a pretty reasonable amount of effort.

Now, with the U.S. finally getting the gold medal back, it seems that the proper global basketball pecking order is back in effect.

But what happens after this?

NOTHING, WE ALREADY FUCKING WON

What happens in the 2010 FIBA World Championship? What happens in 2012, when it comes time to defend?

WE TRY TO WIN AGAIN

What happens when Kobe Bryant isn't around to make a four-point play with 3:10 left in a gold-medal game to save the team's asses?

THAT WON'T BE THE CASE FOR TWO OR THREE OLYMPICS, AND BY THEN HE'LL BE REPLACED BY SOMEONE WHO'S JUST AS GOOD

The bottom line is it's not always about the win. Sometimes it's not that simple. In the case of Colangelo & Co., there will be doubts -- even as well as they performed -- and questions regarding whether or not they did enough to reposition the U.S. as not only the team that won, but a nation the rest of the world does not want to face on a 94-by-50-foot battlefield.

Here's an idea. Conduct a poll of all the coaches and players on all the international basketball squads that qualified for any of the last two Olympics or World Championships. Tell them that they have to play one team, in one game, with their lives on the line. If they don't win this game, they will be shot on the court once the final buzzer sounds. And ask them: which team in the world they would least like to play in this morbid situation. If any of them don't say the good ol' US of A, they are lying.

Sure, the U.S. beat Spain by 11 to win the gold. But the bigger picture is it beat a team by 26 points fewer than it did only a week before, in a game that should have meant much more to the Americans than the Spanish -- and in a game in which Spain's starting point guard sat out and a 17-year-old ran the show.

It's time to face facts, people: we can't beat the second best team in the world by 37 every time we play them.

Sure, the Americans beat the defending Olympic champion, Argentina, by 20 in the semis. But the bigger picture is they did so with Argentina playing without its star (Manu Ginobili) for most of the game due to an injury, and its second-best player (Andres Nocioni) virtually playing on one leg.

Uh …

Yeah, "uh..." Go ahead. Finish your thought.

Where's the dominance in that?

Neither of those games were realistically in question after halftime.

For the next four years, the rest of the global basketball community will basically think, quietly yet collectively, "The Americans got the gold, but … " In other words, because of the way it won, the U.S. left open the conversation for any and everyone to finish that above sentence with, " … if Ginobili hadn't gotten hurt, or if Calderon had played, Argentina or Spain probably would have beat them."

BUT THEY DIDN'T

Yes, you read that right, "beat them."

I know I read it right. I'm fluent in English. Thanks for being so dramatic.

As in beat the USA, the Re-Dream Team. Even with the gold in its hands, the one thing that can be taken away from this Olympics is that the U.S. is back to being great, but not much greater than everyone else.

Yes, because everyone else doesn't suck as badly anymore.

Teams like Argentina might go so far as to place an asterisk next to this victory. Because, in their minds, they know.

Those are the most ridiculous two sentences in the history of sports journalism.

And, to be honest, that's not what we as a nation needed. The U.S. team needed to redeem itself -- not just to be the best, but to be the best by a wide margin.

1992 isn't happening again, Scoop. It's not. Deal with it.

Yes, the world has gotten much better at a game we love to call ours, and there probably never will be another era when the U.S. beats teams by 30-40 points when medals are on the line.

THANK YOU

But if the U.S. team is not able to expose Pau Gasol in a gold-medal game the way the Celtics did in an NBA Finals, then it's not yet time for us to start believing our own hype.

I couldn't care less how the X's and O's break down. I care who won.

And until the rest of the world is back to feeling that the U.S. is unbeatable in basketball,

This will never happen again.

until the U.S. separates itself from the rest of the world by sending a message saying "this is about more than a gold medal, this is about true redemption,"

Is "true redemption" in any way related to the concept of "True Yankee(s)?"

then we as a nation can't feel confident that the gold medal we just won is going to be ours again four years from now.

I sure am. In four years, I can guarantee you the US will field the most talented team at the London Olympics. Does that guarantee we will win the gold? No. Does it make me confident we will win the gold? Yes. And do I alone speak for the nation as a whole? Yes. The end. Scoop Jackson: in many ways, even stupider than Jemele Hill.

Scoop Jackson gets into the Olympic spirit by writing a horrendous Olympic themed article

There's this theory I learned about in college called "The Banality of Evil," that essentially says that that most people in the world who do evil things (ethnic cleansing, drug cartels, Matthew McConaughey/Kate Hudson movies) are completely oblivious to the lack of morality in their actions.

Therefore, I present to you Scoop Jackson as proof of my thesis: "The Banality of Stupidity."

USA basketball is missing something ... or someone

They looked good, didn't they? Flashes of '92, right? Like we 'bout to get that ol' thing back.

I would never phrase it that way, but yes.

But something still doesn't feel right, right? There's still something wrong, isn't there? It's like something is missing, but you just … can't … put … your … finger on it.

Perhaps it's the fact that the '92 team had 10 of the top 50 NBA players of all time, along with the fact that basketball wasn't the international sport it is today. A wild guess; I know.

Let me help. There was a point in the third quarter of USA's final pre-Beijing tune-up against Australia (which was playing without Andrew Bogut, mind you) when Chris Bosh took over. The U.S. lead had fallen to single digits. But, off a pass from Dwyane Wade, Bosh came down the lane doing his best David Robinson impersonation and threw one down.

David Robinson: previously the only American to take a pass and dunk it in Olympic competition.

But after that, the Australians scored with ease. And often. They never flinched; they acted as if Bosh's dunk was nothing more than two points.

When in reality the dunk had been worth 7 points because Bosh had taken off from an NBA JAM Hot Spot.

Another national team, scared by us in a basketball game? Not anymore. Not even facing the best team the U.S. has been able to assemble in eight years.

Not like in '92 when it was routine for the US's opponents to sneak out of bathroom windows during halftime.

But Chris Bosh is not the issue here. He just exposed the void that might just hinder the Redeem Team's quest for gold. What's missing on this team is an intangible that, on his best day, Bosh (or Dwight Howard, or Carlos Boozer, or anyone else on the team) can't provide -- the intangible that would make this feeling that's gnawing at the bottom of our stomachs like leftover ceviche go away.

Please note that he says that the team is missing an intangible.

On the eve of the opening ceremony, it's too late to do anything about it. This team has other concerns too -- like occasional apathetic defense, intensity lapses and not having anyone besides Michael Redd to drop needles from 30 feet or anyone besides Tayshaun Prince to lock down a player like Spain's Juan Carlos Navarro if he gets warm. But what's missing is …

Amare Stoudemire.

So apparently Amare Stoudemire is now a phantasm because he can be listed as an intangible. What other wisdom can you impart upon us, oh brilliant basketball sage?

Even though Chris Anstey of Australia believes the fear factor is still there ("I think a lot of teams get intimidated by that [U.S.] team"), the truth is, if the intimidation factor was there, none of us would have that feeling in our stomach.

Even though there's evidence to prove the intimidation factor is still there, it actually isn't because I get nervous (and therefore, assume everyone else does) while watching the games.

Nothing against anyone on this squad, but Stoudemire -- who elected not to participate, concerned about the health of his surgically-repaired knees -- is the only player who was available to the United States who could have taken that feeling inside of us away. His presence, his demeanor, his anger, his power, his meanness, the messages he sends when he plays … that's what is missing.

How could he be so selfish? He led the NBA in MORP (Meaness Over Replacement Player) and Messages Sent During Games, but he didn't come to Beijing. Benedict Stoudemire if you ask me.

The U.S. team is made up of great players, but none are mean. They're all too nice. No one is going to elbow an Angolan in the chest for no reason.

Nor should they have to.

There's no one who makes other teams think twice about whether they really want to win; that player who can knock the will and ambition out of a team without throwing a punch;

Like Stoudemire did to his own team in the '07 playoffs when he got suspended for leaving the bench during a fight.

that player who can do something on offense that is so intimidating to the opposing squad, the U.S. doesn't have to play defense for two or three trips down the floor because its opponent is so shook up.

Not even Professor Xavier has that sort of mental dominance over people, so please shut the fuck up already.

Had that been Stoudemire instead of Bosh on the other end of that pass from D-Wade against Australia, flying down the lane for a flush, that game is over. Shrinkage sets in on the other side. Their shots stop falling. Confidence exits their souls as if someone yelled, "Fire!"

No one in the world believes that would've happened, and for you to insininuate that it would is both negligent and insulting.

But after watching the U.S. get past Turkey and Lithuania like they were AAU squads, and then be challenged by Russia and Australia, it is glass-cubicle clear that once the games begin in Beijing, no one is going to be afraid of the U.S. team. Or anyone on it.

Except for the guys who already said that they were intimidated.

True, LBJ can go nuts. Kobe can lose his mind offensively. And those things may reduce an opponent's chances of winning.

Sure, the Redeem Team can score all the points they like, but will that intimidate the other team into losing? No, no, no, and more no.

But they won't crush an international team's spirit the way they do in the NBA. The Wizards and Spurs may be scared, but the world ain't.

Ready yourselves for this week's "Jack's Lesson on Logical Fallacies:"

IF Kobe can intimidate the Spurs and beat them in the Western Conference Finals
AND One of the Spurs best players is on Argentina (one of the better teams in the world)
THEN Kobe's intimidation factor is useless in the Olympics

BUT

IF Amare Stoudemire is so unintimidating that his team lost to the Spurs in the playoffs 2 years in a row
AND One of the Spurs best players is on Argentina (one of the better teams in the world)
THEN The US is considerably worse off without Stoudemire's intimidation factor

QED

Stoudemire's ability to do things by sheer force -- force no other international player, or any other player in the NBA for that matter, possesses -- could have been the difference between this team simply winning the gold medal and this team winning the gold medal while never having less than a 25-point lead after halftime. The difference between destiny and dominance. Redemption and resurrection.

The difference between tomatoes and the French Revolution. Ferarris and cell phone towers.

So as you watch this team go for the gold, pay close attention to what is missing. Visualize the difference Amare Stoudemire would've made. Not that we are looking for perfection, but we are in search of something damn close. And if we're looking for this team to re-establish our true place in the game, by having other nations straight scared of us when they have to go against us, then we may have to wait until 2012 -- when Team USA might be able to convince Stoudemire just how necessary he is.

Or the US could just play defense and unselfish offense, and let Stoudemire stay at home every year.

Because in this sport we call basketball,

Atencion! Si hables espanol, El Scoopo Jackon-o dice "Baloncesto."

in which we are trying to redeem ourselves, why just go for the gold when instilling fear is a much greater reward?

Because the gold medal means we won, and we're better than every other country at basketball. Amare Stoudemire didn't come, so we have no shot at the fear award anyway.

Please clear out your desk and remove all personal effects from your office as soon as possible.

Scoop Jackson Has An Announcement: Scoop = Right, World = Wrong

If that sounds unbelievable, that's because it is. It starts out relatively inoffensive, then gets stupid.

Shaq will thrive on solar power

Incredibly, incredibly cute.

Guess what? The Suns just made a fantastic trade

Fantastic? You're going to tell me that this was "fantastic"? The best argument I've heard involves "Marion is a malcontent so the Suns did the best they could by shipping him out for Shaq." But fantastic? Read on....

The world has finally given up on Shaq.

Because his PPG and RPG have dropped rapidly over the last 3 years, perhaps? The fact that he has only played in 99 games the last two seasons and has only played in 32 during this one?

Many feel the gimmick is up, there's no room left for the games, that he's not worth his weight or contract on anyone's roster anymore. "Damaged goods," is how one man described him. "Stupid," "Dumb," "Doesn't make any sense," and "What in the #@$% were they thinking?" are some of what's being said. If you've read ESPN.com or any blogs, listened to any sports talk radio or had time to peep the sports pages, you'd know that the Suns are catching heat for bringing Shaquille O'Neal into their almost perfect basketball universe.

The same kind of heat the Lakers caught when they gave him up and gave up on him almost four years ago.

Right. Because 4 years ago, Shaq was still pretty damned good. He was a 20 points, 10 rebounds kind of guy. Very very productive. And those critics were right, he went on to win an NBA title. Got news for ya scoop, they're still right.

Shaq doesn't fit into their style of play. Even if he's in the best shape of his life, he can't get up and down the floor with the Suns. He'll be worthless on offense, and he's going to destroy their flow. He's lazy. He's not going to work hard. He's injury-prone. He's not worth the money. They still won't win a championship with him there.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Sorta wrong. Maybe. Yes. Wrong. Wrong.

Correct answers: Yes. Wrong. Sorta wrong. Sorta wrong. Maybe. Yes. Yes. Impossible to determine.

Since you have 1/2 credit on some of these, you get 4.5/8 right for a 56.25% score. Lets look at where you screwed up!

Shaq absolutely does not fit into their style of play. A large, old player does not fit into a run-and-gun fast-break style offense. Absolutely not. This should be obvious. He won't be completely worthless on offense, but not worth very much considering Amare is a better option almost every time, and he probably will disrupt their flow. Shaq is nowhere near the 2nd best player in the NBA, so no, he is not close to worth 2nd best player in basketball money. And you have no idea if they will win a championship with him there or not. That's bullshit.

In Miami (and in L.A. and Orlando before) Shaq was Option 1 or 2, and over the past two seasons that became a problem. In Phoenix, he'll be Option 4, maybe 5. Mike D'Antoni should have no plans to depend on Shaq for any offense -- heavy emphasis on "depend." Not in the conventional way that everyone is thinking. The pressure on him to score 20 and grab 10 is finally over.

Read what the hell you just said! You're basically arguing "Shaq will totally help propel Phoenix to a championship, my reasoning is that 1) he's not that good anymore, and 2) but that's ok, because he won't be expected to be that productive." Cleanup on aisle common sense!

Now he'll be the Big Decoy.

Which will totally work, because other teams have no sense for evaluating if he's still as good as he used to be. You know, I hear the New Orleans Hornets and San Antonio Spurs prepare for games by looking at tapes of the 1999-2000 season.

And because he won't be double-teamed (remember he's still one of the best-passing post players in the game, and the Suns are one of the best outside-shooting teams in the League, hitting 38.7 percent on 3-pointers along with four players capable of dropping 20 to 30 every night), Big stands a chance of being more valuable by doing less in Phoenix.

Big Decoy, 2007-2008 season: 1.4 APG, good for 14th in basketball among centers. He's behind Zydrunas Ilgauskas for fuck's sake. His assist to turnover ratio is .47! Not as comically bad as Eddy Curry, but still awful, even for a center.

The beauty is -- again, if the Suns play this right -- Shaq doesn't need to be a part of their transition game, he just needs to ignite it.

Get ready for this guys, it's pretty funny.

Rebound, turn, outlet! Rebound, turn, outlet! Precision. Execution. Buckets. Only six seconds off the shot clock. Back on D. Repeat. So unfair.

Sounds exactly like what Shawn Marion did for them! Only Marion grabbed rebounds more often and actually was able to run the floor to contribute anyway even if he wasn't the lucky fella to whom the rebound bounced. FANTASTIC trade! I guess if you're arguing that Shaq "wouldn't be completely dismal" to the Suns, you've done a C-minus job. But that the trade was FANTASTIC!?!?! Gimme a break.

It will be so systematic that no one will be able to stop it once it gets perfected.

For crissake all you're saying is that he can grab the farking rebound and pass it. The rebound is the hardest part, and he's not even very good at that anymore. Ben Wallace is way shorter and lighter and having a terrible season and he STILL gets more rebounds per game than Shaq, who is 40th in the NBA.

And for those who think it's predictable and defenses will be able to shut it down, here's one to grow on: Whenever teams played the 49ers, they knew where, when and how Jerry Rice was going to get the ball. Yet for years, the best defenses in the game could not do anything to stop it. Nothing. The Niners won four rings with Rice, proving that predictability when perfected, works.

Football....that doesn't happen to be a completely different sport with different dynamics than basketball....does it? Chalk another one up to the "anecdotal bullshit" category!

On defense, all Shaq needs to do is breathe, partially because Amare Stoudemire is so active. As long as Shaq doesn't move (and get in foul trouble, which my be a bigger problem on offense), no one'll get hurt. Remember Chief from "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"? That's Shaq all day on defense. Just play the paint, don't protect it.

So, what does Amare Stoudemire's man do when Amare goes to help out Shaq? Run into the stands and buy a hot dog? No, he stands right under the fucking basket for easy points if the ball can get to him. An awful defender can bite you in the ass, regardless of how good the help defenders on your team are. And I'm so gonna think of a Cuckoo's Nest-related label.

There's more grief from the world about this. Grief of how "the Suns should have kept Shawn Marion," how he was "their best defensive player and best rebounder" and how "there's no player in the league like him." All true. But Marion wanted to go. He wanted out of everyone's shadow and the organization's underappreciation of him. And before the Suns ended up like the Grizzlies after trading Pau Gasol and getting "the twin of nothing" in return for the Matrix, they decided to get someone who, if you checked his history, guarantees your team will either get to the NBA Finals or win a ring.

Orlando? Finals in three years. L.A.? Finals in four years, three rings in eight. Miami? Finals and ring in his second season.

Sir, a coke-addicted moron could fine serious, serious flaws in that logic. For starters, you just represented something that has historically happened 53.3% of the time as a "guarantee." Hey guys, 53.3% of the time, Shaq gets to the finals EVERY TIME. Second, you just assumed that things like the state of Shaq's career (currently the severe decline phase), Shaq's teammates (ones who play a vastly different style of basketball than he does), and the conference and division in which Shaq is competing (both pretty tough) are irrelvant.

Get ready, this is about to become dismal.

See, the Suns are outthinking all y'all.

You're a professional writer. "Y'all" should not appear in your sports column.

They know that one thing comes almost assured with this trade: They will win a title with Shaquille O'Neal in the lineup. It's just a matter of whether the one ring they get with him is worth the years they won't win while he's still there.

Could you be more completely and totally irrational? First of all, as you just discussed, Shaq didn't win a ring with Orlando. Second, you are talking like the Suns are 100% completely and totally guaranteed to win a title either this year or in the next two. If you can say this with confidence, Scoop, head to Vegas right now, bet the farm on it, and start living the good life. And third, if the Suns absoluetly will win at least one ring with him there that they wouldn't have won without him, then it's not a "matter" of whether the other two years are worth it, because the Suns are absolutely dying for a title, and it's a very difficult title to win. If this trade guarantees them ONE title (which it absolutely doesn't), then it's no fucking question that it's worth it. Period.

The Suns have never won an NBA championship -- just like Miami before Shaq arrived. And if they're smart, they can take the one they'll win and milk it for 30 years -- just like Portland. The question is if $20 million per for the next two seasons is worth getting the one year of ring service they're going to get from Shaq.

It's official, you've fallen off the proverbial cliff harder and more dramatically than the little Price is Right mountain climber guy with an idiot contestant playing. If there is a fucking team in the NBA that wouldn't pay a guy $20M for two years with the stipulation that it would guarantee them one championship in the next three (hell, it's probably true of the Knicks), that team shouldn't have a fan in the world, and the GM should probably be drowned. And you continuously hammer home the "fact" that Shaq in some sort of divine way "guarantees" a championship in Phoenix, which is a "stupid" "thing" to "say."

There are so many other variables that play to the Suns' favor in this: a front line of Stoudemire, Shaq and Boris Diaw that no squad in the West can match -- not even the Lakers, when Andrew Bynum comes back with Gasol in the slot. Amare will be able to play his natural position, power forward, which causes matchup drama for any other team.

For the 20 minutes per game you'll get out of Shaq, that's true. Stoudamire is currently running at 23.1 PPG and 9.4 RPG. We'll see if those improve. My guess: not significantly.

Steve Nash is going to get open looks because of Shaq's presence and how coaches automatically forget about other players on the court because they are still afraid of getting killed by Shaq in the playoffs.

Those teams must still have the image of Shaq dominating the Bulls last year fresh in their minds. Oh wait....

Shaq's and Grant Hill's passing ability in the half-court will be more dangerous than Nash's, which will now increase the assist-per-game ratio for the team, which is the most difficult stat in the League to alter and one that correlates most to a team's ability to win.

Are you fucking kidding me? Shaq and Grant Hill better passers than Nash? Even though Nash is overrated, he's at the very least one of the three best passers in basketball. Shaq can go ahead and add his 1.4 assists per game at the expense of Marion's 2.1. Grant Hill averages 3.3 assists. Nash averages 11.7. How many of Nash's are in the half-court, I can't say for sure, but it's still way more than Shaq or Hill get. Mark my words, Scoop, the Suns' APG will not be seeing a significant boost from this trade, and you couldn't overrate O'Neal's ability as a passer any more than you have. You know what else correlates to winning? Not turning the ball over. Shaq does that a lot.

Big might come to town rejuvenated. He probably hears everything that's being said about him, which could send him back into 2005-06 mode. Just being gone from Miami with all of the hot mess surrounding his divorce will give him a new lease on his life. Robert Horry might think twice about running a Suns player into the scorer's table next time.

So....all the Toronto media needs to do to get Frank Thomas to hit like he did for Oakland 2 years ago is start talking shit about him! Totally makes sense!

Variables that no one outside of Steve Kerr's office and Robert Sarver's bank account could possibly comprehend. The fact is, by attaining the services of Shaquille O'Neal and not expecting or needing much from a productivity standpoint in return, the Phoenix Suns may have made the most ingenious move in the NBA in the past 10 years. Only time will tell. It's just a matter of how wrong they -- and he -- really want to prove the world to be.

Most ingenious move in the NBA in the past 10 years!??!??!?!?!

::faints::

Presenting: Scoop Jackson Finishes Embarrassing Himself

Let's pick up where we left off on Wednesday. Scoop was trying to come to the right conclusion (Randy Moss won't win the NFL MVP this year) by citing all the wrong reasons (such as: Barry Bonds has shown us that jerks can't win MVPs).

Moss won't win the MVP award because as well as he's played -- and in some minds (including this one) he outplayed Brady this year -- MVPs are like NCAA teams trying to win the BCS: If you begin the season too far off the elite list or not ranked in the top 25, it's impossible (even if you go undefeated, like Hawaii this year or Boise State last year) to play for the national championship. In Moss' case, while there is no preseason "ranking" on this topic, he began the season too far off of everyone's list to be the MVP in the end.

Interesting. The "you can't win if no one expects anything from you when the season starts" theory. Yet earlier in this same article, Scoop wrote that:

His teammate, Tom Brady, will win that award and at least one other player, probably Brett Favre, will get more votes of recognition than Moss.

Is that the same Brett Favre who had a 1:1 TD/INT ratio in 2006? And a QB rating in the low 70s? Yeah, so given that Favre will probably get significant MVP consideration, we're going to go ahead and ditch that idea.

Moss won't win the MVP award because he's not a quarterback. Or a running back. The last non-QB/RB to win the AP MVP award was Lawrence Taylor in 1986. And no wide receiver has ever won it -- not even Jerry Rice in 1987, when he won the Pro Football Writers' award.

Remember this; it's actually the real reason why Moss won't win. Good for Scoop for stumbling into it. Bad for Scoop for failing to realizing that this is the case is because WR performance is so incredibly dependent on QB and OL performance. Was Moss ineffective in Oakland simply because he didn't care? Really? He looked pretty deflated at times, but he obviously still had his physical tools. You think he was being that lethargic, every down, every game? Or could it maybe be the case that with shitty QBs behind a shitty OL throwing to him during 2005 and 2006, he was simply unable to rack up any decent numbers? It was probably a combination of apathy and supporting cast, but the second is far more significant than the first. I'm not saying WRs are 110% dependant on their QBs/OLs, and can't do anything to affect the outcome of a game on their own. But QBs/OLs help WRs look good a whole lot more often than the other way around.

Small sample size alert, but I'm going to make my point anyways. On Moss's 60 yard-plus TD against the Giants in the 4th quarter last Saturday, he simply ran a fly route. The corner on his side of the field let him go after 10 yards, presumably expecting safety help. That help came extremely late (almost as if the coverage was blown), and Moss caught the ball ran untouched for the TD. I know he's fast, but lots of guys are fast. At least 40 or 50 other wideouts in the league could have scored that TD. The reason that play and many other Brady to Moss plays this season worked like it/they did was because Brady had his usual 15 seconds in the pocket to allow things to develop, and he throws a good deep ball. The end.

Even though breaking Rice's season record for TD catches is just as impressive and significant as Brady breaking Manning's mark for TD passes, Moss won't get the MVP because he won't get the same recognition. In any other season, what he accomplished would have been more recognized and honored, but with Brady having his best statistical season, we didn't necessarily realize Moss' domination. That's not wrong, that's just human nature.

This doesn't carry much water. And by doesn't carry much water, I mean is complete nonsense. Pundits have been tripping over themselves to ass pat both players pretty equally this year. Brady might have an edge, but if he does it's pretty slight. I don't think Moss's hype would suffer much had he only finished with 20 TDs, nor would he eclipse Brady if Brady had only thrown 45 TDs. People don't care all that much about football records. Shouldn't all time passing TDs represent the rough equivalent of baseball's all time home run record? Compare the buildup and reaction Favre and Bonds each got during the past year. It's not much of a contest. Therefore- football records aren't that big of a deal.

Moss won't win the MVP award because he's been too perfect. For most players this would be a gift not a curse, but for him it's too distant from the picture that has been painted of him since he was drafted in 1998. The sullenness, the sulking, the walking off of the field with time left on the clock, playing only on certain downs, the Raiders experience -- all of this represents how the public sees Moss, defines who he is in our minds. But this year he's almost been angelic. And instead of giving him sole credit for changing and maturing, we will say it was the Patriots organization that changed him. Even though he had more of an effect on them than they did on him.

Moss won't win the MVP award because we don't want to honor that truth. The truth that the main reason the Patriots were able to go undefeated is because of the attitude change the team inherited from him. We see Spygate as the reason for the anger or "chippiness," as Tom Jackson calls it. But it was Moss who helped the Patriots get hard.

That's a load of anecdotal bullshit so massive, I surprised my computer didn't "poop out" trying to put it on the screen! (See, I said I was going to use more bad jokes and exclamation points this year.) Seriously though, wow. Where did this come from? How can a guy who gets paid to write about his opinions gets away with something like this?

See if you can follow Scoop's logic here. Moss has been a total dick and bad teammate several times during his career. It's fair to say he has a reputation for assholism. He also put up relatively poor numbers on the field during the two years before he came to New England. Bill Belichick also has an assholish rep, but he's got three Super Bowl rings. He clearly knows how to be angry and remain effective as a coach. Moss goes to New England and stops being a dick. He also starts putting up great numbers. Belichick continues to be a dick. The team continues to enjoy success. Clearly, this is all due to... Moss? I got myself lost somewhere in there, but that's Scoop's fault. How exactly the fuck we're supposed to buy into what he just wrote is anyone's guess.

It reminds me of a half-assed English paper, the likes of which I would have written in high school. I would just state conclusions left and right without justifying them and hope the teacher didn't bother to think while reading the essay. Replace "I would" with "Scoop is", "teacher" with "reader", change the verb tenses, and that's pretty much what seems to have happened here.

Moss won't win the MVP award because of his braids,

Pretty unlikely.

because he publicly admitted that he smokes weed,

That was like four years ago. I don't think the media cares that much any more. And again, when it comes to drugged up athletes and MVPs, see Bonds comma Barry.

because he's unapologetic about his West Virginia roots and doesn't mask who he really is,

The key to Peyton Manning's MVP awards: being very apologetic about his Louisiana roots, and constantly masking who he really is. Doesn't the guy just seem like a great big fake? I'll bet he doesn't even like most of those products he endorses. Same for Brett Favre and Steve McNair with Mississippi. And Shaun Alexander with Kentucky.

and because he's never been ashamed of how the world sees him.

Lawrence Taylor was clearly very ashamed of how the world saw him. That's how he was able to drag an award home.

Moss won't win the MVP award because of that beard. (Anyone who can make Ricky Williams' old facial hair look groomed doesn't stand a chance.)

I know I'm taking this too seriously. That's what we do here at FireJay. But Kurt Warner won an MVP with a trashy-ass beard and a wife that looks like an alien.

I'm just saying is all.

Moss won't win the MVP award because all of those unbelievable catches he made this season (remember the one-handed grab against the Colts or the one-handed, double-covered, over-the-shoulder catch in the corner of the end zone against the Dolphins in Week 7?) tend to have people thinking that Brady's accuracy is what is making Moss look good, when actually Moss has made bad passes by Brady look like genius decisions.

More anecdotal bullshit. Also, for every bad Brady pass Moss has turned into a catch, there are probably like 15 good, accurate passes that were served up on a platter for Moss. When Brady has all damn day to throw in the pocket (easily the most frustrating part of watching Patriots games when you hate them), most passes are going to end up right on target. Thanks, offensive line!

Which brings us back to the beginning. The reason Randy Moss will not win the MVP award is because of this: He's Randy Moss. And a lot of people simply can't get past that.

I am past it. I was never hindered by it in the first place. I think most MVP voters can probably honestly say the same. Here's the deal: WRs just aren't that valuable in an offense relative to QBs, RBs, and OLs (not that the latter is in the voting discussion). It's not that WRs don't matter, or that they're all interchangeable with each other, but they simply don't matter to the same extent everyone else on the offense does. That's why Moss looked so bad in Oakland; he didn't have anyone helping him out, and simply couldn't amass good numbers or make a significant difference on the field all by himself. That's also the reason Brady was effective for years while throwing to unheralded WRs; a good QB can put up good numbers and make a significant difference on the field all by himself. Scoop himself touched on this earlier in the article so I give him credit for that. It's just sad he couldn't take the idea all the way to completion, and instead wrote the rest of the crap in this article.

In summary-

Actual reasons Moss will not win:
WRs almost never do, because they almost never realistically deserve to

Not actual reasons Moss will not win:
Voters don't notice players who had low expectations placed upon them coming into the season
Moss is a jerk and jerks never win MVPs
No one noticed his WR TD record because of Brady's QB TD record
Moss's attitude is totally the reason the Patriots played well this year
He has braids
He is from West Virginia
He once admitted he smokes weed
He's not ashamed of the way the world sees him
He is Randy Moss, and people just can't deal with that

Give Scoop credit for this: he didn't play the race card.

That's how far my standards have fallen for ESPN's writers. I now applaud them simply for not saying things that are horribly and flagrantly wrong.

Scoop and America's Most Racist University

ESPN's big-name black writer takes on big-name black issue: Notre Dame

Considering the failures that Notre Dame and Washington endured this year, I don't know where to start. But I thought this article was worth a link. I am a little bit annoyed by one of Scoop's admissions:

I will admit I have waited three years to write this column.

I am trying to think of the sensible approach to rationalizing this comment - there must be a large segment of the sportswriting world that is waiting for Weis to fail in the same way they accuse others of waiting for Willingham to fail.

Obviously the situation at ND is pitiful at this point - but can you start a column where you purport to go to Notre Dame to find out "the real story" and then admit you've harbored this sentiment for three years?