Watch some writers employed by Forbes bumblefuck their way through an article about baseball

I mean, this should be pretty obvious, but don't expect great baseball analysis from a publication that's not at all in the business of analyzing baseball. In fact in the case of Forbes you can probably expect some pretty shitty baseball analysis. Blogger Monte Burke has two moron co-workers. Apparently they like to discuss Hall of Fame credentials with one another. Cue up Yakety Sax and listen as you read their thoughts.

Here’s one of my favorite games to play: take all the current players in Major League Baseball and pretend that their careers ended today. Which players do you think would be locks for the Hall of Fame?

One of your favorite? That sounds a little hyperbolic. The "who's a HOFer" game can't even really be played more than once a year. It's not even a game. It's just an exercise in random bullshitting. You can't just start your column with that kind of statement and expect to get away with it. Not on my watch. Writing blog posts about bad HOF articles is one of my favorite non-games.

I’m not talking about which players project to be Hall of Famers someday. Their careers end now. Who’s in?

Keep that qualification in mind.

I have my list. I bugged two of my sports-obsessed colleagues here at Forbes to produce their own lists. Kurt Badenhausen and Tom Van Riper

are both about as informed about baseball as the average ESPN commenter

were gracious enough to spend their lunch breaks pouring over

sic

MLB rosters and producing their own lists.

I’ve listed first the players who we all agree are in, with short comments from all of us. Then I’ve listed the players that only appeared on one or two “ballots,” with comments from only their nominators. For the record, I think there are 8 HOF locks. Kurt thinks there are 9. Tom is the most liberal of the group when it comes to the HOF (the first time he’s ever been called a liberal, mind you). He sees 13 locks.

Right, so keep in mind that we're talking about "locks" here. Guys who are locks based solely on what they've done up until right now.

Part of the fun of this game is the barstool arguments it inevitably creates.

I'm pretty sure that's the entire essence of the game, actually. Without it the game does not exist. Just trying to separate the concepts of "make a list of players you think are HOF locks" and "don't be afraid to disagree with the choices other people make" is blowing my mind right now.

Agree with the choices? Disagree? Don’t be shy.

OK!

Here are the players we all agree are in the HOF:

Derek Jeter

“Rarely, if ever, the game’s top shortstop in any given year.

Totally relevant that he happened to be a close second behind Garciapara and then A-Rod during the prime of his career. Very relevant.

But his sustained excellence at the position (.313 average; 2,975 hits) since 1996 makes him an obvious choice.” –Tom

“Would Jeter be a HOFer if he had spent 16 years in a weak-hitting Pittsburgh Pirates line-up?” –Kurt

I'm going to go with "yes." I'm pretty sure getting 3,000 hits as a shortstop while mixing in some power and speed gets you into the hall. Even if you're not MISTER NOVEMBER, CLUTCHEST CLUTCHER TO EVER CLUTCH (Jeter alltime during the regular season: .313/.383/.450, Jeter alltime during the postseason: .309/.377/.472)

“Long, very solid, championship-filled career.” –Monte

Someone tell Paul O'Neill to start working on his induction speech!

Alex Rodriguez

“Over 600 homers while hitting .303 lifetime. Probably a top five all-time player.” –Tom

He might be one of the top 30 batters in history- probably. Which would maybe put him among the top 50 players. There's a chance he's one of the 5 best currently active batters... and he was definitely a top 5 player during the 2000s. I dunno, how far do we want to stretch our criteria to make Tom's comment less ridiculous? Top 5 player? All time? Get the fuck out of here.

Mariano Rivera

“Undeserving in my opinion—the Hall of Fame is no place for relief specialists who see such limited action. But the press already has him in.” –Tom

Being an insanely dominant closer for 15 years is super easy. Just ask all the other guys who have done it. I mean, hell, anyone can close. Just ask any of the countless relievers who have significantly better career numbers in non-save situations than in save situations.

Albert Pujols

Nothing too outrageous here.

Chipper Jones

“Jones will get in, but I’m not sure he is the first ballot lock some people think. He led the league once in a major statistical category (batting average in 2008) and had zero Gold Gloves at 3^rd base.” –Kurt

If "number of times leading the league in a major statistical category" is one of the first twenty things you look at when determining someone's worthiness for the HOF, you are a card-carrying zilcheroo.

Jim Thome

“There’s just no avoiding a guy with 593 career homers.” –Tom

“We need one untainted slugger from the steroid era in the Hall.” –Kurt

“Numbers game: 593 home runs.” –Monte

Not that I think Thome doesn't belong, but so far voters are doing an outstanding job of avoiding McGwire and his 583 home runs.

Ichiro Suzuki

“Overrated in my opinion—doesn’t walk or hit for power. But the press loves Ichiro, and his 2,301 hits and a .330 lifetime average over 10-plus seasons will get him there.” –Tom

Tom.... I have no words for you.

That’s seven guys that we all agree are locks today. Here’s where we start to disagree:

And here's where it starts getting good.

Ivan Rodriguez

“Best catcher of his generation and has close to 3,000 hits.” –Kurt

“.297 batting average and 311 home runs. Johnny Bench-like numbers.” –Monte

So Tom apparently doesn't think I-Rod gets in. If you ignore the potential steroid hurdle (first of all Rodriguez has never been formally linked to them, and second of all Tom apparently is because his blurb on A-Rod doesn't mention them) that's patently insane- he's one of the top 2 or 3 catchers of all time. If Carlton Fisk is in, you'd better believe Pudge is making it unless steroids become an issue.

Roy Halladay

“Prediction: by the time the voters consider Halladay, advanced metrics will have overtaken traditional stats like career wins. So forget his ‘mere’ 175 victories

That's actually a pretty low number by HOF standards. Just saying.

and concentrate on his .663 winning percentage. He’s also led his league in complete games six times.” –Tom

You know those voters are suckers for complete games. That's how Cy Young snuck in there.

“175 wins feel light, but 2 Cy Youngs push him over; only Tim Wakefield has more wins among current pitchers.” –Kurt

Probably the least relevant or compelling statistic you could have used. "Hey this 34 year old has more victories than almost any active pitcher! I mean, TIM WAKEFIELD has more, but you know, that's Tim Wakefield for you." Also, Halladay's stats up until now are very comparable with Ron Guidry's career stats. And Guidry never made it despite being a Yankee with two rings and a Cy. I bet Halladay gets there, but it's going to take several dozen more wins and a few hundred more strikeouts.

***

And here’s where Tom takes over:

And here's where it gets really, really, really good.

Vladimir Guerrero

“A premier offensive player of his era (.942 OPS; .319 batting average). Also a fine outfielder with a strong arm in his younger years.” –Tom

Certainly a defensible pick, although it's not like a .942 OPS or .319 BA are mind blowing considering the era in which he played.

Bobby Abreu

“Six .300 seasons and eight 100 RBI seasons. Quietly amassed a Cooperstown career alongside his rookie class of 1996 brethren Jeter and Guerrero.” –Tom

Ah, so corner OFs with 2300 hits and a little under 300 HRs are locks now? Wow, the Hall is going to get crowded pretty quickly. Garrett Anderson, O'Neill, and Ellis Burks: you're in! And Brian Giles, don't give up hope. You're a little light in the hits department but you might sneak in. I mean Abreu's a really good player but no. No no no.

Chase Utley

“The premier second baseman in MLB over the past nine years with a .893 OPS.” –Tom

He's injury prone (has only cleared 120 games or 600 PAs five times) and as a result he has a mere 1100 hits and 178 HRs. He's very good but no, not even close this time. The batters most similar to him who are retired (via baseballreference) are John Valentin, Al Rosen, and Mike Stanley. Yyyyyyyyyyup.

Miguel Tejada

“The steroid taint could hurt him, but this is a top offensive player at a central position (shortstop) from 2000 to 2007. Tejada was AL MVP in 2002 and drove in 150 runs in 2004.” –Tom

Less ridiculous than Utley but not by much. Other than a nice stretch from 2000 to 2005 he's been somewhere between bad and above average. More than half his career has been spent as a "oh yeah... he's decent" player. Not gonna cut it. Plus the roids.

Todd Helton

“Compiled some of his big numbers at pre-humidor Coors Field, but a guy who has hit .324 lifetime with a .977 OPS won’t be left out.” –Tom

I'm a Rockies fan so I suppose I'm obligated to say OF COURSE TODD IS GETTING IN WOOOOOO THE GUY DOES IT ALL HE'S MR. ROCKIE AND HE'S BEEN THE HEART AND SOUL OF THAT TEAM FOR MORE THAN A DECADE. But yeah realistically he's probably 50/50 at this point. And the only reason the odds are that good is because he's a guy who sportswriters love.

In conclusion Forbes is a completely illegitimate publication and you shouldn't trust them to accurately analyze anything*.

* - related to baseball

You Talk, We Listen

This is going to be so meta- let's review comments from Friday's post. If you don't like how I address your concerns, feel free to kiss my pasty white ass. And what I said on Friday about this not leading to any improvements for the blog still holds true. I just wanted a chance to make some cheap jokes.

Archie says-

You know what I hate? I hate all the fucking applications. What was wrong with the site when it was a simple, user-friendly tool for social networking? Nowadays, I can't read a single post without being barraged with asinine games and personality quizzes.

Those applications are the only way we make money off this thing, which, of course, is our ultimate goal. You'd be surprised at how many people are playing the Gene Wojceichowski Zombie Hunt you reference. If you're only in it for the networking, that's fine, but you're not exactly helping us make it big.

Only semi-legit complaint I've got is that I'd love to know who "won" last week's reader participation.

Forgot to do that on Monday. I'll announce it at the end of this post, along with this week's winner. Hint: it's not you. Or is it?

Seriously, this is a great site. If you really want me to roast you guys, I guess I can do it,

Wow. Talk about picking on the low hanging fruit.

Jones points out-

Well... [guy from that other site] is Mose Schrute, and you're not.

PNoles already made a similar joke, but how do you know we're not cast members of a different TV show? What if I told you I was (deep, throaty FOX promotional guy voice) Hooouuuuuuse?

CS chimes in-

And on that note, this blog needs more professional television writers.

It would be great if we could pull off having jobs like that, but, you know... the whole parents' basement thing.

Matt has a legitimate complaint-

I hate the way your telemarketers call me at dinner time like 3x a week to try to upsell me on additional services. I'm already a satisfied customer of your blog, so: what the fuck? I signed up for that "do not call" list, but apparently there's a massive loophole where there's no limit to how much a company I already to business with is allowed to harrass the shit out of me.

Through some clever legal maneuvering, we've managed to classify ourselves as a non-profit organization which exempts us from most "do not call" rules. Deal with it. You can stop the pain anytime you want by just giving in and signing up for our premium service plan.

SLWG addresses a very important issue-

Well, this is a pretty enjoyable site and I'm not the kind of person who looks for things to criticize, so I wouldn't want to nit pick about anything, except, well, there is this one thing that, I have to admit, really can get a little annoying, in fact, it can get pretty damn annoying. I wonder why you have to keep bringing up, over and over and over, this whole thing about "scrappy, gritty little white guys". I don't see anything wrong with a little appreciation of scrappy, gritty little white guys. What's your problem with that? Huh? It just so happens that I AM a scrappy little white guy who aspires to someday also be gritty, and frankly, if your eyes weren't permanently damaged by living in a dark basement, you'd see that the world would be a LOT better off if there were more SGLWGs around. I just so happen to think that I'm ONE EFFING IMPRESSIVE HUMAN BEING, and if you and your pathetic little friends can't see that, then screw all of you! GOT IT????

Let me tell you a story. By the time I reached the 1st grade, I stood a massive (for my age) 4'7" and weighed 92 pounds. This made me the largest kid in my class and a multi-sport superstar. It didn't matter what we were playing- kickball, tee-ball, 500, wallball, capture the flag- I was unstoppable. Nothing bugged me like small, gritty, gutty white kids. Quit trying to compensate for your lack of size and athletic ability by hustling and scrapping. I'm just better than you! Then something horrible happened. I stopped growing. Today I'm still 4'7" and 92 lbs. So what I'm trying to say is that our handling of small, gritty, gutty white guys on this blog is an issue of self-loathing. I'm working on it with my online therapist.

Jeff lightens the tone-

The worst part of this blog is....well....since Larry got his "shift" key fixed, I have no complaints.

It was a major step but I'm glad I did it. Those pretentious fuckjobs over at Dodger Thoughts, who mocked me for not using it after we got linked there back in September, helped convince me that the change had to be made.

The best part of this blog is the pictures and all the residual Firejay groupies who show up at my site. Hello there.

Easy, dude. That's my sister.

Chris Hart has a laundry list of complaints, most of which just amount to "I'm a crybaby bitch," so let's take them one at a time-

First of all, your posts are too long. I don't have all day to sit around and read your witty jokes about Dusty Baker or Boston area sports teams. Some of us have real jobs. You know, jobs that don't involve asking if customers want paper or plastic.

What are you, fucking nuts? How many times do we have to tell you what part of our parents' houses we live in and how we feel about leaving it? And furthermore, even if we did get real jobs, we definitely wouldn't get ones that involve interacting with customers face to face. I'd rather be the mop-up man at an XXX-rated movie theater than bag groceries. Speaking of that, and your "real" job, did you get that promotion to assistant shift manager you've been talking about?

Hey, rest of the Fire Jay Mariotti crew, you guys wanna man up a little? I can only stomach so much of LarryB's shitty, bumbling prose.

Not disagreement here. Even I can only stand so much of me.

When was the last time Eriz posted?

Shortly before he bought a Wii.

Or dan-bob?

Well, last week. But the last time he posted frequently was last October, so here's hoping the return of baseball season brings him back into the fold.

And while I'm at it: pnoles- lighten up a little bit

He's actually pretty laid back in person. He just likes using capital letters when he's on teh blogopages.

chrisw - nobody cares that you're from chicago

He's from Wisconsin.

and Jarrett- hockey is dead, give up.

Be careful- as soon as you say something like that, boom- Jarrett punches you in the back of the head, knocking you to the ice unconscious and damaging your spinal column. Oh wait, that's Todd Bertuzzi. (Too soon?)

What else do I hate about this site that nobody forces me to read? Oh yeah. Tons! Stop hating on Bill Simmons because he has the job you so desperately wish you all had.

I think you know full well that's not why we hate. No, rather, we make fun of Bill specifically to antagonize you. you're a stupid emtpyheaded sheep who pretends like he enjoys whatever shitpile of an article Simmons writes and makes excuses for him like "Hey, it's a tough job, let's see you do better!" or "But you have to agree with him, the refs really were biased against the Patriots!" In short: shut up. It's idiots like you that keep Simmons's career afloat when it should have capsized two years ago.

Stop acting like you're the cats meow because you read Moneyball and can look up stats on baseball-reference.

I actually haven't read Moneyball, but I'll get around to it as soon as I'm done beating Mortal Kombat II for the fourteenth time this month. And yes, looking up stats on baseball-reference does make me feel like the cock of the walk.

I also hate your new site format. Why'd you change color schemes? Decided that Douche-Orange would fit your personality better?

I'm going to pin that one on Dan-Bob, who all but insisted I get rid of the green back in October. Since then? More readers, more links, and more endorsements. So I think it's working out alright for us. If you really hate douche-orange, head over to Two Guys Who Like, Never Agree and let them know how you feel about it. I'm sure you'll enjoy getting posterized by them just as much as you're loving this.

Also, your mascot Jeff Pearlman, is racist and hates the great state of South Carolina.

He's not a "mascot." (What does that even mean in the context of a blog?) I'd say he's more like a punching bag, or a crazy old uncle who's always saying things that are glaringly wrong.

Which means you hate it too.

Maybe. But I do like NASCAR, so that should balance things out a bit.

God damn it, I hate you guys so much.

We love you!

BenGoodFella confirms to everyone that Chris Hart is a big time jackass-

If they ever stopped mocking Simmons I would copy and paste any reaction I had to Simmons in the comments box and let everyone have to sift through it to read the other comments. I live for Simmons bashing.

Welcome to my world. And on a related note, Ben has a blog now. (As does Archie for that matter.) I'll link both of them in a later post. We're all one big happy family of basement dwelling losers.

My only complaint is that I don't like hockey, so I drudge through those posts. I stop at the curse words and chuckle though.

If Jarrett is good at one thing, it's cursing.

I am sure I talk about shit no one else cares about (see above), so it is no big deal.

Are you still typing? Who are you again?

Blanco raises an important concern-

The one thing I hate about this site is when Larry B starts a post that starts something like "It's late, I'm fucking beat" cause it means his mommy is making him go to bed or simmons wrote an article about a funeral so you can't make fun of it and instead now I gotta do some shit instead of blowing off work.

You bait that line and I'll bite it. Haven't read that Simmons piece but I'll take a look later tonight and see if it's parseable. Ben seems to think it is. As for the part where you criticize my complaining about it being late and me being tired: being a sports blogger is tough, man. You don't understand how draining it can be. Eventually the night reaches a point where if I'm going to address an article, it's going to keep me up too late for me to be able to wake up and catch "The Price Is Right" in the morning. And if I can't watch "The Price Is Right," why even bother getting out of bed? I hope that helps you understand why I've been slacking lately.

Anonymous has a very valid point-

the worst part of this blog is how racist you all are.

HOW CAN YOU HATE JEMELE HILL AND STEVEN A. SMITH - THEY ARE SO VERY IMPORTANT. ESPECIALLY STEVEN A. HE IS IMPORTANT. EVERYTHING HE SAYS CARRIES IMMENSE WEIGHT, THOUGH IT MIGHT BE THE SHINGLES FROM ALL THE SPHINCTER-CLENCHING GOING ON OVER AT THE 4-LETTER NETWORK.

Thank you so much for that. I'm not a doctor, but I don't think shingles are caused by sphincter clenching. Were it not for that gaffe I'd be awarding you this week's Top Comment prize. Come back next week and try your luck again.

also larry b needs to stop using goddamn capital letters. giving in to peer pressure, larry? saaaaaaaad.

See? When it comes to pleasing the audience of a small, irrelevant blog, you just can't win. Some people want capital letters, some don't. Some people want more Simmons bashing, some want less. And some people think Rachel Nichols is hot, while others like to be able to see a woman's entire face without her nose blocking out the rest of the features.

Chris W responds to the title of the post-

Oh knock it off [LarryB] you're the fattest one in the car!

You don't have to tell it like it is, Chris!

Another Anonymous has a request-

You guys don't use the "doyennes of dirt" label enough.

Noted.

Ed Hardiman has a theory re: the whole "Fire ____ _____" naming scheme.

Are you sure they didn't steal the title of your blog using precognition...or maybe they used a time machine to go into the future, steal your blog title and then returned to the past, that works too...

I don't care what the critics said or what the box office numbers were. That movie was fucking awful.

Thanks again to everyone for submitting. If the comments continue at this same furious pace every time I ask for feedback about the blog, maybe we can make this kind of response piece a regular feature. Who knows. I feel bad because writing this means I have less time later to write something that's actually about bad sportswriting. But I'll get over it.

As for those winners I promised to name- for this week, even though he's a monumental dickbag, let's go ahead and acknowledge the effort Chris Hart put into his comment. Cherish it, asshole. You won't be back on top again anytime soon.

Last week... man, that was a long time ago... but fuck it, I'll just hand it to Archie for his five paragraph manifesto as to why he'd rather play sports with the natives than have a TV. Did I pick him because he agreed with my personal stance on the issue? Although he makes a compelling case, no. The real reason I picked him was for this:

(from my original post): In the meantime, let's all compete for an imaginary junk food prize and a meaningless title which is awarded completely arbitrarily after being judged by a panel of one.

Archie: Eh, still means more than the Gold Glove.

Take it to the bank. This is your moment in the sun, Archie. Feel free to leave a rambling 1500 word comment with several nearly indecipherable references.

More Bad Analysis re: The Big Aristotle

Everyone watch this. (Turn down the audio or plug in the ol' headphones if you're at work.)

OK. That should have gotten all the laughter out of your system. Now we can begin.

As if Scoop Jackson's disaster of an article (covered by PNoles, just two posts below this one) didn't adequately implicate ESPN as an employer of idiots, Bill Simmons felt the need to weigh in on the matter as well. Actually, NBA trades are the one thing not related to Boston that Simmons does a reasonable job of understanding. And this article isn't bad through and through. Still, why the fuck would he say:

If the trade doesn't work, Kerr gets canned. If it does work, he's a genius. There is no middle ground.

Oh yeah? What if Shaq performs very well in the playoffs, but the Suns still lose to the Spurs/Lakers/Mavs in seven in the conference finals? What if Shaq blows out his knee tomorrow and they still somehow win it all because the Warriors knock off two of the Spurs/Lakers/Mavs while the Pistons and Celtics beat each other to pieces in the Eastern Conference finals? What if Shaq turns into an unstoppable presence in the postseason, but Stoudemire, Diaw, and Barbosa forget to show up and Phoenix bows out in the second round? What then, Mr. Simmons? All of those outcomes, by my very subjective estimation, constitute a middle ground.

I know it's more fun to sensationalize things, because heroes in action movies are always like: "This ridiculous plan could either be the stroke of genius that helps us defeat the bad guys... or it could be totally insane and lead to the end of life on Earth as we know it! What if it's BOTH?!?!?!?!" But that doesn't mean events that happen in real life can be viewed through the same lens. Some trades end up being essentially meaningless. Some players don't do a whole lot to either help or hurt their new teams. And some sportswriters should be fired from ESPN and go back to riding Adam Carolla and Jimmy Kimmel's coattails. (Or trying to, anyways.)

Five sportswriters most likely to not write some stupid shit

I like John Clayton... I'm not really sure why, but I think it has something to do with how he looks. He's like a caricature artist's rendition of Steven Hawkings come to life. Plus I just love how despite the fact that he has obviously never touched a football, or likely a woman for that matter, and was probably bullied by football players for much of his childhood and adolesence, he covers the NFL for the largest sports media company in the world.

He's always got the inside "scoop" on draft/injury/trade rumors, and it really cracks me up when they do phone interviews with him on NFL Primetime. The quality of the call is always exactly the same as a World Nightly News reporter entrenched in Fallujia; it's like he's hidden under the conference table at the Green Bay Packers' super-secret underground management facility as they discuss how much of an flip-flopping asshole Favre is being this offseason.

I can't confirm this, but I'm nearly 100 percent sure his article this week about 5 Possible Surprise NFL teams is exactly the same as the one he wrote last year. Honestly, haven't sportswriters been picking the same shitty teams every year and saying "OKAY GUYS THIS YEAR THEY'LL BE GOOD I PROMISE" ?? Like we won't notice? Assholes

Anyways, I guess the point of that little introduction is that while I like Clayton for some reason, this artice is a piece of shit

So which are the five teams to watch this year?

1. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: No one is jumping on the Bucs' bandwagon after their disappointing 4-12 season. The pressure is on Jon Gruden to win, but the schedule suggests there should be a three-game improvement.

WOW WHAT A SURPRISE! Man if the Buccaneers win 7 games this year instead of 4 like they did last season I sure will be surprised!

The Bucs played a .535 schedule with a rookie quarterback, Bruce Gradkowski, who will be forgotten as fast as Kyle Orton was after the 2005 season. They play a .473 schedule this season, based on last year's records, and Gruden didn't want to take any chances. He signed Jeff Garcia to be the quarterback.

Neat. Jeff Garcia, a career mediocre quarterback, with a still shitty offensive line and recieving corps. I smell some wins baby.

Another sign of hope for the Bucs to be a sleeper team is what Garcia should do to help the running game. He usually has worked well with balanced offenses. In Garcia's fourplus seasons as a starter in San Francisco, his lead back averaged more than 1,000 yards and 49.6 receptions. With Cadillac Williams struggling last year, the Bucs finished 28th. Coaches know the easiest way to get to eight or nine wins is to run the ball. A big jump in the running game along with strong play from Garcia could make the Bucs one of the main sleeper teams in 2007.

I figured that Clayton would at least mention one other player that would make the Buccaneers a surprise team. Instead, he's like: "Hey Cadillac Williams still sucks, but don't worry, they have Jeff 'I Don't Have sex with men. seriously, have you seen my wife?' Garcia."

In all honestly, I'm not trying to shit all over Garcia, but he cannot singlehandedly change a team. Look at his offensive stats. He was good in San Francisco, back when they had TO and a pretty decent offensive line, but then he sucked in Cleveland and Detroit, two bad teams. He did well on a good Eagles team last season. But now Clayton thinks that Garcia and no other notable additions will surprisingly improve a shitty team? Come on.

2. Arizona Cardinals: This one is pretty easy.

Yeah it's easy because you can copy-paste the exact same paragraph you've written about the Cardinals the last two seasons

Coming off a 5-11 season, the Cardinals play the league's easiest schedule at .461. Matt Leinart enters his first full season as a starting quarterback, and he gained a lot of experience as a rookie running Dennis Green's offense. Ken Whisenhunt brought in Russ Grimm to handle the Cardinals' running game. Even with the talent of Edgerrin James, the Cardinals were the third-worst running team in 2006.

I wonder when sportswriters (and shitty NFL owners for that matter) will realize that the success of a team's running game is more dependant on the O-Line and coaching than the RB himself.

The Cardinals' 2006 schedule wasn't exactly impossible. Their opponents totaled a .500 record. The switch to a 3-4 defense should help the Cardinals' run defense. Leinart will be working with one of the league's most talented three-receiver sets. It sets up one of the most anticipated Cardinals seasons in years.

Oh you mean more anticipated than the 2006 Cardinals with the introduction of Leinart? Or more anticipated than the 2005 Cardinals when Fitzgerald came into town? Hmmm. I'm not saying the Cardinals won't surprise anybody, but these idiots have been writing the same shit about the same team year after year. I think that's just because they know that one season, they will be right, and they can say "Nahhh Nahh I told you they would be good all along."

3. San Francisco 49ers: This might have more to do with the 49ers' offseason than the schedule, but the 49ers have to be one of the sleeper teams to watch.

The 2007 San Francisco 49ers? Who are these guys? I'm not sure, but maybe I saw one or two mentions of their last season. I think they might have this guy who ran the ball for a bunch of yards, and like some young athletic guys on defense, and a young and improving quarterback. I think I may have heard of them. Yeah if they win a bunch of games in the super competitive NFC West, they'll totally be a sleeper team that surprised me.

I was gonna copy the rest of Clayton's paragraph, but decided against it. Partially because my "crtl" key broke, but mainly because the mention of the 49ers in this column is absurd. They were a bit of a surprising team last year, but this season? Give me a break. they were easily one of the most improved teams last season, and they had a great offseason. No NFL fan should be surprised if they win the NFC west.

4. Miami Dolphins

5. Detroit Lions

Fuck this. I'm done with this shit. Just because a team sucked cock last year, had an exciting win or two, and then added a wide reciever or some shit in the offseason, you don't have to pick them for most likely to improve. These 2 teams have made these fucking lists every year. i'm not sure why, as they have consistantly shown top to bottom incompetance in ownership, coaching, and management. Don't worry though because this season Calvin Johnson is going to play QB and throw passes to himself, return kickoffs, kick extra points, punt, write up a whole new playbook, and negotiate new player contracts for the Lions.

File Under: You Can't Be Serious

Andrew Perloff, whose column on how everyone who ever played for the Vikings is overrated was the topic of a previous FireJayM post, writes now on the 10 most dysfunctional offseasons. 2007 was a great offseason if you like dysfunction--lots of off-field and draft drama and lots of teams (including my beloved Bears) whose offseasons spell serious trouble for the up coming season.

Guess who's #1?

1. Chargers - San Diego fired Marty Schottenheimer because he didn't get along with general manager A.J. Smith despite last year's 14-2 mark. And coordinators Wade Phillips and Cam Cameron left for head coaching jobs.

Excuse me? Baking powder? This is an offseason that has seen the Falcons trade away their backup QB only to have their already controversial starting QB fall under suspicion of DOG FIGHTING. This is an offseason that has seen the Titans lose their Pro-Bowl CB and return man for the entire season and perhaps for the rest of his career for deciding to "make it rain" and get a bouncer paralyzed. This is an offseason that has seen numerous Bengals arrested and suspended, an offseason that has seen the Bears' Pro-Bowl linebacker threaten to hold out and one of their key defensive linemans drunk-drive his way off the team. This is an offseason that has seen teams like the Dolphins make draft debacles that threatened to shake their fan base and team morale.

All this and Perloff is getting hot and bothered by the Chargers firing their notoriously-shitty-in-the-playoffs coach after he coached shitty in the playoffs, and losing their supplemental coaches (which is something that ALMOST ALWAYS HAPPENS WHEN THE HEAD COACH LEAVES)???? You've got to be kidding me. This is #1? A FUCKING COACHING CHANGE?

And a coaching change for the team with arguably the best talent on both sides of the ball in the NFL? More than Michael Vick's traveling animal show? Pacman Jones serenading strippers to the strains of gunfire? Tank Johnson's arsenal? The Bengals trying to audition for a real life longest yard?

Unreal.

Oh and there was also this gem:

7. Packers - First, the Packers had to wait to see if Brett Favre would come back, then they didn't draft the players Favre wanted. It's not easy to see where Green Bay is going in the post-Favre era.

Well, Andy, they've spent the last two drafts, as well as their offseason free-agent acquisitions, getting top notch defensive talent. Let's try again: Where does Green Bay seem to be headed in the post-Favre era?

It's really not a brainbuster there, Clyde...