Congratulations, Carol Slezak: With Mariotti Gone, You Are Officially the Dumbest Sun-Times Columnist.

Here's an article by Carol Slezak about how the Bears should go after Michael Vick.

Never mind the questions behind Mike Vick as an actual football player--a guy who still hadn't figured it out when he went away from football for two years. Never mind the fact that Chicago is probably not a good place for a QB who relies on a scrambling style of QB play. Never mind any of those things. I'm just interested in this:

CAROL SLEZAK HATED THE BEARS'S ACQUISITION (drafting) OF GREG OLSEN

About 2 years ago, Slezak had a snit-fit because the Bears drafted hip-hop hero G-Reg Olsen. Olsen is currently one of the few plus-players on the Bears, but as many of you know, he recorded a dope ass jam back in his days at The U as a member of the rap music outfit "The Seventh Floor Crew."

Carol was livid. How dare a team acquire a player who, as a twenty-year old, had written some risque, misogynistic rap lyrics? Never mind that Olsen had never been accused of breaking the law. Never mind that he apologized, right? I mean, if you do something truly horrible (like "get head" or "show her the third leg") how can you possibly hope to be forgiven for it?

Oh wait:


When considering Vick's future, let's not pretend the NFL is filled with perfect citizens. For every all-around good guy like Mike Brown, there's another Plaxico Burress or Pacman Jones or Tank Johnson waiting to be found out. Vick deserves a chance to resume his career. There will be strings attached, of course. Morals clauses and counseling sessions and whatever else the league or a team might ask for to cover its risk. But in all likelihood, Vick will get another chance somewhere. Why not here?

Let's not forget that he already has paid a huge price for his crimes. In addition to his loss of freedom, he has lost all his money. He was once the most popular athlete in Atlanta, but the Falcons have made it clear they want nothing to do with him. He was the kind of guy kids emulated. No longer. He has a lot of work ahead of him to rebuild his reputation in the community. But when it comes to the league, all that matters is whether he still can play. He deserves a chance to put his mistakes behind him.

What a fucking idiot this woman is.

Mariotti Is Back, and He's Taking Shots at Blogs Like Ours Already

I don't have time to cover the whole column he shat out this morning as part of his new gig with AOL Fanhouse. Here are some highlights, though. (And as usual, we will not be linking to him. Find it on your own and read it if you are into hurting your brain.)

I should add I'm doubly thrilled to flee the darker corners of the newspaper business, which was reminding me of Marley the dog in his final days.

Hey-ohhhhhhhhhhhhh! Pop culture reference! The newspaper business probably also reminds him of Rod Blagojevich's political career!

The large paper in Chicago, the Tribune, started a digital transition years ago and gave itself a chance. The Sun-Times? The owners became jailbirds, preferring to siphon profits rather than invest in the future.

Whether or not this is true, all I can say is: you stay classy, Jay.

I resigned after the Games with a calm, professional letter,

If the rumors that all he said was "I quit." are true, then no. That is not professional. At all.

They (the Sun-Times) accused me of using Beijing as vacation time ("Hey, kids, let's ditch Hawaii and hang out in a Communist country.").

Awwwwwww. You poor thing. They forced you to go to the Olympics? How did you manage? God, that is so unfair. I'm sure glad my employer didn't make me go to the Olympics. What a shitty time that would have been.

They let a few staff writers, who should focus on doing better work, react with rage reminiscent of Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction."

Extremely dated pop culture reference! Suh-weet. Is there room for "Rain Man" anywhere else in here?

I am here to bring you fiercely independent views

By which he means using his column as a forum to level personal attacks at people he has a grudge against.

Expect me to zealously comment on national issues while spanning the country and world to cover events.

Expect him to also compare struggling teams to Britney Spears, and successful teams to Miley Cyrus.

I've never bought into this "mainstream media vs. bloggers" blood war because, in my mind, we're all writers. The best young writers provide compelling takes on sports. The losers wake up each day and attack (choose your ESPN target),

He's talking about us!

an approach that can't attract much audience beyond a few neurotic souls in sports media.

And now he's talking about friend of FireJay Jeff Pearlman. Jeff, idea for your next book: an expose on the 2005 White Sox, featuring every single horrible thing Ozzie Guillen ever said about Mariotti behind closed doors.

Now hear this: I'm a bit too busy to hate bloggers or, really, anyone but terrorists and certain Illinois politicians.

There's your Blagojevich.

I just think they should be writing about Steve Smith, not Stephen A. Smith.

No, we will write about you. Because you are much, much, much worse than Stephen A. Smith. I don't even think Smith has a writing gig anymore.

I'm not going to lie, I kind of missed him. Life just got a little bit more exciting around these parts.

Wow, This Is Incredibly Poorly Written

What is? This is. Gene Wojciechowski likes Brett Favre, you see. He likes Favre at lot. And you can have his admission that Favre was not as good as Aaron Rodgers last season as soon as you pry it from his cold, dead, idiotic hands.

The e-mails began arriving shortly after the New York Jets' season ended.

"Get ready to print your retraction," read one.

To be fair, this guy could have been talking about almost anything Gene has written in the last couple of years.

"I'll bet you don't remember me," began another. "I'm the guy who said, 'I think you're wrong about Brett Favre. I think he's washed up."'

And "[Aaron] Rodgers is, right now, much, much better than Favre -- not a little, a whole lot better."

That might be a slight exaggeration, but the guy is right. And, poorly conceptualized/contradictory response from Gene.... GO!

Turns out some Green Bay Packers fans have long memories, except when it comes to the Packers' 6-10 record this season.

The argument at hand is whether Rodgers is better than Favre. Nice point.

They also have blind spots; we all do. I have one for Favre and will never apologize for it. I also have one for the Packers. It's my favorite pro team, favorite stadium, favorite helmet logo, favorite game-day experience. I grew up on that franchise.

Making you especially suceptible to offering completely unobjective opinions about them and Favre. But please, go on.

But sorry, there won't be any retractions. Just because Rodgers had a better statistical season doesn't mean the Packers were a better team without Favre.

"You have facts which can be used to lead to logical conclusions. But I have ultra-subjective opinions, which by definition cannot be proven wrong. Therefore I win. QED."

First of all, the numbers don't always make the man.

Just look at David Eckstein, for Christ's sakes.

If they did, then six of the top 10 quarterbacks by passing yards and six of the top 10 by touchdowns wouldn't be done with their seasons. But they are, including Rodgers and Favre.

Because we all know that there is a direct correlation between how good a QB is and whether or not the other 52 guys on his team help him get to the playoffs. You know why Drew Brees is staying home this January? Because he sucks, that's why.

I wrote before the season's start that Packers management botched the entire Favre situation. I stand by that.

I feel like there might be two sides to that story.

Favre changed his mind about retirement,

Thanks, let me expand on that. FAVRE WAS THE WHINEST, LAMEST, MOST ATROCIOUSLY PATHETIC ASSHOLE HE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN ABOUT THE SITUATION. Anyone objective with a basic level of knowledge about the situation should acknowledge this. Regardless of anything the Packers did or didn't do, Favre was inexcusably wishy-washy. What sadsack fuckstick. I'm literally embarrassed for him, with his tear-filled press conferences and straight-faced lies. Fucking gag me. Worst story in pro sports in the past five years. Bar none.

but the Packers just as clumsily changed their minds about Favre.

Favre made his own bed. He can lie in it until he dies for all I care. Trying to act like the Packers are more than 5% at fault for his departure would be dumb.

I wrote that Favre was the best QB on the roster: "Again, nothing against Rodgers, who finds himself between a rock and a legacy, but if the goal is to win as many games as possible, then [general manager Ted] Thompson has to embrace Favre's possible return." I stand by that, too.

More "my ultra-subjective opinions are wrong" stuff. You can't disprove this, can you?

Rodgers played well this season. He played hurt. He played in the blinding light of the post-Favre era and did so with poise and heart. If he stays healthy (he played much of the season with a shoulder injury), the Packers have themselves a quarterback.

Such a graceful concession.

But Favre played well, too -- not as often as Rodgers did,

Thesis of this article: the Packers were not better with Rodgers than they could have been with Favre. And that's how good Favre is. Gene will admit that he didn't play well as often as Rodgers did, but he still would have been better for the Packers.

but well enough that the Jets were 8-3 after beating the then-undefeated Tennessee Titans on the road. You remember: That was the same week the Packers got beat 51-29 by New Orleans to drop to 5-6 and start a five-game losing streak. Weird. I don't remember getting any "Favre's washed up" e-mails then.

You know who gave up those 51 points to the Saints? Rodgers. He was the only person playing defense for the Packers that night. It's all his fault. Meanwhile, as the Jets beat the Titans 34-13, it was Favre who single-handedly held the Titans to 45 yards rushing and 281 total yards. Yay Brett! Go #4! He's just having fun out there! Doesn't even know what the score is! Brett being Brett!

Turns out Favre played hurt, too. No surprise there. But a now-diagnosed torn biceps tendon affected his arm strength down the stretch.

Operative word here: "too." As in, every player in the league, including Rodgers (as Gene already admitted), played hurt too.

His critics say he looked old. Duh -- he's 39. But isn't there the possibility that he simply looked injured? Big difference.

This has nothing to do with anything, least of all your terrible argument. Irrelevant difference.

The mistake people make is trying to compare Rodgers' season with Favre's.

What Gene is trying to say is that the mistake people make is trying to think about this situation logically, rather than simply assuming Brett is the best QB ever who can do no wrong and could never possibly be worse than the pathetic likes of Aaron Rodgers.

Rodgers had more passing yards, more touchdowns, fewer interceptions, more rushing yards and a higher passer rating -- so he's clearly the better quarterback.

How dare people try to think like that. What is that called, brain using? Idea having? Maybe not "clearly," but I will say he's probably the better QB based on all that. Especially when the difference in rating is substantial- 93.8 to 81.0.

But do wins count for anything? Favre's Jets had nine compared to the Packers' six. They beat three playoff-bound teams; the Packers defeated one. Favre's Jets gagged away their division lead in the last month, but they still had a chance at the playoffs. The Packers were officially eliminated with two weeks remaining in the season.

All this is somewhat relevant, but not nearly as relevant as personal statistics when you're debating which QB would be better for a given team. Because, you know, the fact that the Jets had a better defense and (much) better running game than the Packers might have something to do with the teams' records.

Do divisions count for anything?

Sure. Again, not as much as defenses or running games. But something.

Favre's Jets played in an AFC East in which two teams finished with 11 wins and the worst team finished with seven. Compare that to the mediocre NFC North, home of only one double-digit-win team (the Minnesota Vikings) and the 0-16 Detroit Lions. One-third of the Packers' victories came against the losingest team in the history of the NFL.

And again, you can't disprove Gene's implication that Rodgers would have folded like a cheap tent in the AFC East. Can't. So there.

Do circumstances count for anything?

Nope, not when they're of the person in question's own making! You're about to make a bunch of apologies for Favre based on his not having a full training camp with the Jets, aren't you? Guess whose fault that is? Hint: he spent last fall just having fun playing QB for the Jets.

Favre didn't have the benefit of a full training camp or a full playbook. Everything was a work in progress with the Jets -- and stayed that way.

Because Favre is a crybaby fence-sitting dickhead.

(And yes, I know Chad Pennington made a similar transition from the Jets to the Miami Dolphins and thrived. It was a remarkable season for him. Pennington deserves much of the credit, but it helped that he was in Jets/Dolphins camp for the entire time. And it's clear now that Tony Sparano and his Miami staff were more nimble and better prepared for the transition than the Jets' Eric Mangini and his staff.)

So what you're saying is your argument has an immediate and devastating counterargument. Thanks for providing it.

Rodgers had the pressure of replacing Favre,

I'm sure he barely noticed.

but he also had an entire offseason and training camp to prepare for it.

Here comes the dumbest sentence in the whole article- are you ready?

And there can't be any debate that the Packers' skill players, especially at wide receiver, were better than the Jets'.

I must've just read a Rick Reilly column, because I am laughing insincerely. What are you, Gene, fucking retarded? Thomas Jones, Leon Washington, Dustin Keller, Jericho Cotchery, and Laveranues Coles are clearly worse than Ryan Grant, Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, and Donald Driver? I appreciate the effort, but you are wrong. Simplifying things, Cotchery/Coles are certainly in the neighborhood of Jennings/Driver. Saying there "can't be any debate" about this is moronic.

Anyway, the move from the Packers to Jets doesn't absolve Favre from throwing a league-leading 22 interceptions. Some of those INTs were killers.

Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyup.

But the same goes for Rodgers, whose late-game interceptions in Week 14 against Houston and Week 15 against Jacksonville ended comeback attempts.

Therefore, Favre would have been better for the Packers. You can't disprove it!

In fact, Rodgers was 0-8 in comeback situations this season.

All 8 of those losses, such as Week 16 against Chicago when Mason Crosby's game winning 35 yard field goal attempt (that Rodgers basically set up singlehandedly) was blocked, were entirely Rodgers' fault.

The simple truth is we'll never know if the Packers would have been better or worse with Favre this season.

Remember when you wrote this?

I wrote that Favre was the best QB on the roster: "Again, nothing against Rodgers, who finds himself between a rock and a legacy, but if the goal is to win as many games as possible, then [general manager Ted] Thompson has to embrace Favre's possible return." I stand by that, too.

Way to stand by it.

That's because it was never an option.

It was an option, technically. The reason it didn't happen, as I said earlier, is probably about 97% Favre's fault and 3% Green Bay's fault. Hey Gene: it's not a team's duty to bend to the whims of and endlessly put up with the bullshit of washed up old players like Favre. He could have stayed if he wanted to. Instead, he decided to put on a media circus and re-change his mind at the last second. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, fucko.

All we know for sure is that the inconsistent and underachieving Packers moved on.

As did the inconsistent and underachieving (actually, probably not underachieving, he's just not that good anymore) Favre.

Did they move forward? I don't know -- is 6-10 moving forward after playing in an NFC Championship Game with Favre a season earlier?

And clearly Favre's presence would have changed things. Are you ready? Say it with me: YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT! Also, next year when Rodgers is no longer a first year starter and Brett is off hunting possums, feel free to the foward movingness of Green Bay's move.

I'm not blaming Rodgers for the mess. He wasn't perfect, but he also wasn't the problem -- just like Favre wasn't the main problem with the Jets. I see why Thompson was willing to make a leap of faith with Rodgers, but Favre's departure could have -- and should have -- been handled better by Packers management.

Thank you for admitting the real reason you hold your stance. Poor Brett! He got a raw deal! Boo-motherfucking-hoo.

What I don't see is why it had to end this way, with some Packers fans reveling in the Jets' failures and Favre's injury and struggles. It's as if they can live with a 6-win season as long as Favre and the Jets suffer, too. Dumb.

Just like it's dumb that you seem to be (in a way) reveling in the Packers' struggles this year.

So no retractions. Favre did what he could. So did Rodgers. As it turns out, neither was enough.

That's nothing like your point at the beginning of this article. Nothing at all. You have completely abandoned everything you were originally saying. You know, I'm completely sure that John Kerry would have been a better president than George W. Bush for the past four years. 100% positive. No doubt in my mind.

Well, I mean, there's no way we can tell.

And neither were/would have been very good.

But I'm sticking to my guns! Sort of!

Gene Wojciechowski is a tiny brained dipshit.

Well That Little Break Was Good While It Lasted

It's back on, kids. It's back on.

Jon Heyman Is Now Writing Things Just to Get Attention.

Anyone want a good laugh?

Jon Heyman ranked his top 20 Free Agents. Here's the list!

1) Bobby Abreu
2) Milton Bradley
3) Pat Burrell
4) Orlando Cabrera
5) Joe Crede
6) Adam Dunn
7) Jon Garland
8) Jason Giambi
9) Orlando Hudson
10) Derek Lowe
11) Oliver Perez
12) Andy Pettitte
13) Manny Ramirez
14) Ben Sheets
15) Jason Varitek
16) Randy Wolf
17) Garret Anderson
18) Freddy Garcia
19) Cliff Floyd
20) Tim Redding

Oh. I just thought you should all know that Joe Crede is a lot better than Manny Ramirez.

Orlando Cabrera, your $25M/year contract awaits...

Mini WMTMQR: Didn't You Forget Something Important?

Gregg has some thoughts about the semi-popular primetime drama "Friday Night Lights":

The Panthers are back in the Texas state championship, via yet another last-second touchdown -- Dillon blocked a punt with 34 seconds remaining, scored to draw within 14-13, then went for two and won. The episode included five crying scenes and four drinking scenes: Don't they do anything in Dillon, Texas, but cry and drink? A subplot involved redistricting Dillon to build a new high school because of population growth, which was puzzling because previously we have been told Dillon is a dying town that's so small it has only two motels. There are two more episodes in the "Friday Night Lights" series. Let's see whether the finale involves a game at Reliant Stadium, site of this year's actual Texas 5A championship. Dillon's 2006 fictional championship game was played at Texas Stadium, though the actual 2006 5A title game was in the Alamodome.

That's all well and good, but Gregg has skipped over a really important issue. And that is: the producers of FNL are so worried about creating characters and a story that will actually engage viewers that they've forgotten to have Dillon High play the correct number of games to get to the championship game! Yes, I'm afraid it's true. You just can't trust a fictional TV show to accurately reflect reality in every single possible way. Dillon has won four playoff games so far, but that should only put them in the semifinals, not the finals! Here, check out the official Texas 5A championship bracket for 2008 and you'll see what I mean.

Pretty disappointing, isn't it?

Two Sides of a Stupid Story

Being Great Americans, most of us like to argue about sports with our friends. Usually, sports stories have two sides to them. Usually, they are formed something like this:

Point: Notre Dame sucks! They haven't won anything in a million years!
Counter-point: Notre Dame rules! They've got a lot of national titles they won in football games!

or

Point: Statistics are stupid; the best way to know sports is to watch the players play the sports game!
Counter-point: Statistics are really useful; they let you measure how a player performs when you can't watch all the games even with the TiVo.

Something like that. Frequently, arguments are resolved through one side's careful use of logic and sports arguments frequently end in amiable agreement about the most sensible point of view. And this blog is designed to facilitate that process.

POINT: The Yankees are ruining baseball.
[Note: this article, though written by Phil Sheridan from the Philly Inquirer, is also published on BostonHerald.com. The best part about Yankee news? Insecure Boston fans show their true bitchy natures]

The New York Yankees represent the very worst of America.

Surely, I am no Yankees fan, but I think O.J. Simpson's lawyers represent the very worst of America.

Overstatement? Consider the times. Cornerstone industries are faltering,

I blame the Yankees.

taxpayers are being asked to bail out mismanaged financial institutions and their overpaid CEOs,

I blame the Yankees.

and decent, hard-working men and women are being laid off or worrying that they could be next.

Fuck you, Yankees! Stop firing all those overpaid auto-workers whose own inflexible labor contracts have hurt them; stop firing all the excess middle management that isn't needed; stop firing all the hedge fund managers whose wealth-juggling games have finally hit the wall! Damn it, Cashman! Stop being such an asshole and actively hurting decent, hard-working men and women by trying to make your baseball team better!

Now consider the eight-year, $180 million contract the Yankees reportedly handed first baseman Mark Teixeira Tuesday. Stack it on top of the $161 million deal signed by pitcher CC Sabathia and the (relatively) modest $82.5 million promised to A.J. Burnett and you have the most egregious display of financial irresponsibility in the history of sports.

No, no, no. If you can PAY for it, and you MAKE billions of dollars, re-investing in your product is not a stupid or irresponsible at all. These decisions are much more egregious.

The Yanks’ insane overspending would be bad for baseball in the best of times. These are not the best of times.

As I've written before, the last few years have actually been some of the best times in baseball history, whether you consider attendance, profits, competitiveness for all teams not based in Pittsburgh. Mr. Sheridan, you can't just spout this with no basis and expect teh_blogorz not to call you on it!

If Major League Baseball had a commissioner — that is, an independent and strong-willed leader unafraid to do the right thing — the Teixeira and Sabathia deals would be nullified based on the commissioner’s sweeping "best interest of the game" powers.

What an awful idea. Is Mr. Sheridan really suggesting that anytime someone gets signed to a big contract, the commissioner should step in? Is Bud Selig's job to be a one-man salary cap, based on nullifying contracts approximately whenever he feels like it?

Up in Boston, where the Red Sox made a serious run at signing Teixeira, this deal is being rationally and calmly analyzed by baseball fans as if actual, flaming chunks of blue sky were crashing through the roofs of their homes.

Ah! I thought he was being serious! This was a joke! Whew. I thought for a minute there he was going to argue that Red Sox fans calmly and rationally analyzed something.

As one commenter on boston.com reasoned, "Dear God, please kill me now . . . " Another reflected, "OMG — I want to jump off a bridge . . . ! Yankees are instantly the favorites in the AL East for 2009 . . . ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Using comments from boston.com in your article: instant comedy.

Using comments from boston.com in your article: you're a doing a shit job of being a real journalist, and your whole argument is stupid.

COUNTER-POINT: The Yankees' spending is great for baseball! [Note: it is never a good thing for your side of an argument if you take a look around and notice that Richard Justice defends your viewpoint]

The Yankees are the gift that keeps on giving. We've just been guaranteed a great season no matter how it plays out.

No, real baseball fans have been guaranteed a season full of Yankee highlights every goddamn night - and Yankee subplots and sidebars all season long. Even Yankees fans aren't "guaranteed" a great season; the only people who are truly guaranteed a great season now are lazy, shitty sportswriters who will have tons of material.

Besides, if the Yankees win, how will their fans feel?

Pretty fucking good.

Will this be the kind of championship they're proud of?

Yes.

Will it reflect the greatness of the Yankees, or the fact that the Yankees did it with a sledgehammer?

Sledgehammers are not allowed on the baseball field, Richard.

In some ways, the Yankees can't win no matter how much they win.

What?

Isn't that a beautiful thing? And if they don't win, there'll be a firestorm to end all firestorms.

I, too, look forward to that. Residents of mountainous resort communities will be happy to know that all fire-storms will be ended if this takes place.

Regarding comments by the Brewers' owner:

This guy doesn't get it. If he owns the Brewers long enough, he'll understand that when the Yankees are really good, every other team benefits.

An implausible argument to say the least. But let's see how little Richard handles it:

What have the Yankees won anyway? How good are they? Have you checked out their outfield? Want to compare rotations? Which rotation do you like most? Which group has done more in October? Have they forgotten what a choking dog Alex Rodriguez is in the playoffs?

So wait.. you're saying that baseball is better off since the Yankees have become really good... but then you argue that they're NOT really good?

Also: A-Rod sucks, but not as bad as Richard Justice.

THE SENSIBLE CONCLUSION:

Actually, all this signing crap doesn't really affect the baseball world much at all. The Yankees are going to be better this season, but competitive balance will still prove that baseball's system isn't broken and doesn't need fixing. Sensible viewpoints (like this one which correctly pinpoints small-market teams as whiny and profit-hungry) must prevail, no matter the economic climate of the country. For pete's sake, even Dayn Perry realizes that this isn't that big a deal, and that salary caps " do nothing to promote competitive balance, and all they do is guarantee owner profits".

Dear Phil Simms, You Should Probably Just Stop Talking Now

Jets/Dolphins. Mid 2nd quarter. Brett Gunslinger drops back to pass, stands in the pocket, sees no receivers open, and heaves the ball down the field to an open area at least 25 yards from the nearest player in an attempt to avoid being sacked. The refs call intentional grounding. The following takes place:

Phil: And on the field, we have intentional grounding. Now that's a tough call. You know, what are you supposed to do? The receivers are covered! (incredulously) So now you've got to throw it "close" to the receiver? (screen cuts to replay) Nobody's open... here comes the receiver across the field who he wants to throw it to... so yes, he's avoiding the sack... but... everybody's covered!

Jim Nantz: Well, that's the rule about that, when you're between the tackles.

Phil: When you're between the tackles and throw the football away to avoid the sack, it is intentional grounding. I understand. But again... hey... (trails off)

Jim: Loss of down and 10 yards on top of it. Second and 20.

I know you said "I understand," Phil, but I think it's pretty obvious that you don't.

Son of a Monkey's Uncle, It Feels Good to be right

If you're a regular here, you might recall this post from about a month ago in which the douchily-named Gregg Easterbrook said this:

Sour Decision of the Week: With the score 13-13 in overtime, Philadelphia faced a fourth-and-1 on its own 22-yard line with 1:30 remaining in the fifth quarter and punted. But for the Eagles, wasn't a tie as bad as a loss? TMQ suspects that at the end of the season, that tie will effectively be a loss for the Nesharim.

And then I spent about 20 minutes explaining why this was stupid. Well well well, looky here. It's week 17, and the Eagles control their own destiny. Beating the Cowboys will give them a 9-6-1 record and a wild card berth. Just missing the playoffs would be the Cowboys and Bucaneers, both at 9-7. Now, had the Eagles gone for that 4th down in Cincinnati, missed it, and lost the game, they would be able to finish only 9-7 with a win today. And both Tampa and Dallas would still be 9-7 and both would have tiebreakers over them, meaning the Eagles would be unable to reach the playoffs. Meanwhile, had the Eagles gone for the 4th down, made it, and gone on to win the game, they would be... in exactly the same position they are now. What a sour decision!

Long story short: although things didn't work out exactly as I had predicted back then, Gregg was extremely wrong and I was mostly right. Nah nah nah nah nah. Just go back and read the middle part of that old post if you can't figure out what I'm talking about. Hot diggity damn, I am a genius.

Post-Holiday Bonus Bonanza Post

OK, I've been accumulating several things that need to get posted over the course of the past few days. Let's cut to the chase.

1. Buck Martinez, supposedly a baseball "expert" as he is employed by XM to comment on various baseball matters during its most listened-to timeslots, has this to say about the prospects of Pedro Martinez pitching anywhere this year.

Now this is a guy who I think still has a few starts under his belt.

You're right. As of the publishing of this post, he has exactly 400 of them "under his belt." And he will continue to have 400 or more of them, no matter how many years pass. If you're talking about his potential ability to pitching the majors in 2009, and referring to how many starts he has left in the tank, a figure of speech which is pretty common and should probably not be bungled by a guy employed in talk radio, that's up for debate. Please do not confuse "left in the tank" with "under his belt." It's not that hard.

2. ESPN's Doug Gottlieb, a guy who I usually like, lays a real egg in his summation of everything that's wrong with the media's interpretation of baseball in this soundbite re: Mark Teixeira (prior to his signing with the Yankees):

See, what I don't understand is why he would consider the Nationals or Orioles over the Red Sox. If you go to Baltimore, you're irrelevant. If you go to Washington, you're irrelevant.

This is, as I said above, exactly what's wrong with the media's interpretation of baseball today. According to Doug and the many writers and commentators who think exactly like him, if you don't play for the Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs/maybe the Dodgers or Mets, you might as well not be playing at all. And that's just fucking sad. What? Baltimore and DC each have millions of people, many of whom are fans of the hometown baseball team? Fuck it- if you're not playing for RED SOX NATION, you might as well be sitting at home and eating junk food.

Fucking gag me.

3. Here's a hot tip for all you announcers out there- puns are fucking lame. Don't use them. Ever. During Notre Dame's Christmas Eve win over Hawaii in the Hawaii Bowl, ESPN's play-by-play guy (who will remain unnamed due to my laziness) dropped the following two lines after commercial breaks:

It's Jimmy "Santa" Clausen and Golden "Frankinscence and Myrrh" Tate who are the story for Notre Dame today!

For the Irish, it is indeed "A Wonderful Life" here in Honolulu!

To put it simply: STOP. NO. FUCK YOU. No one worth pandering to enjoys this kind of monkey shit.