The Future of the NFL Will Be Built On The Backs of Strawmen

With all the bullshit the NFL owners are spewing about a multi-billion dollar business being an unsustainable economic model, it was nice of the players to give them a break by latching on to a poorly chosen word by Adrian Peterson as if that were his actual argument. Here's the reaction of a couple of "noble" players speaking out against Peterson's word choice.

In case you're not familiar, Adrian Peterson was speaking out about how the NFL owners are soaking the players for as much profit as possible in a league that routinely underpays its players, doesn't pay them for time spent injured, and basically doesn't give a shit about them post-career (unlike the much less successful but much more player-friendly MLB and NBA...hockey too I'm sure but who the hell knows about hockey, Jarrett?)...in complaining about this situation, Peterson made the regrettable mistake of comparing the situation of NFL players to "Modern Day Slavery."

Total hyperbole. I agree. But this is in the midst of an interview, and last I checked, despite his aborted degree from top 200 Research University of Oklahoma, Adrian Peterson is not expected to be an exceptional wordsmith. Look at the responses from the link above:

Ryan Grant: "Durrrr...slavery actually exists some places so Peterson is wrong."


Yes, Peterson is wrong about how NFL players being actual slaves. I don't think he'd disagree with you on that Ryan.

Heath Evans: "Durrrr...I'm so lucky to be able to play in da National Football League

Yes, you're lucky to have the chance to play professional football, Heath. I don't think Adrian's going to disagree with that either.

Anyone actually want to address ADP's actual points? No? I didn't think so.

Fucking NFL Players. I had their back until I thought about it for a minute and realized they're all a bunch of fucking idiot meatheads who brought this on themselves for trying to strike in the 80's without realizing that they have no bargaining power. These players are just as fucking stupid.

Fuck them all. Fuck this fucking league.

EDIT: Loyal reader IVN posted the following interesting point which made me want to clarify my statements in this post, not because I'm wrong or IVN's wrong, but because I think I need to clarify my general annoyance at the two above meatheads:

IVN Wrote:

why are they comparing this shit to slavery? wouldn't it make more sense to compare it to the steel/coal/oil industries from the turn of the 20th century? bazillion dollar industries run owned by comically greedy men who treat labor as interchangeable cogs in their machine...hell, you could argue some of the locations of NFL stadiums (Foxborough and Arlington come to mind) are de facto "company towns" the way places like Homestead were. maybe I'm overthinking this

My response, which I suppose you could see in the comments if you want to, but here it is here too:

Well you're not overthinking it, and you make a very good point--that is a great comparison to the modern day NFL (though, to be fair, NFL players are a lot more handsomely rewarded, both relatively speaking and pct of gross-wise than coal/oil/steel-workers). But on the other hand, Peterson's arguments are a lot more substantial than "NFL PLAYERS ARE SLAVES" and so...it's kind of missing the point. Your response is a billion times more intelligent than the two quoted above because you're actually addressing the actual substance of ADP's quote--i.e. the NFL is exploiting its players vis-a-vis their argument that they can't afford to keep paying them THE SAME AMOUNT that they paid them in a year they made billions and billions of dollars and paid their players less than the players in any of the other major sports (less successful sports too, I might add).

But my major beef is these players latching on to this fucking use of "slavery" as if that negates Peterson's whole argument. That's all that's going to be talked about because of these dipshit players--both of whom ARE "lucky" to be in the NFL and would be well-advised to keep their mouths shut since their earnings, while they might make them independently wealthy, won't keep them from being immune to being broke at some point in the future--which is what players like Brees, Manning, and Peterson--players who NEVER have to worry about going broke--are fighting against.

Let me make this perfectly clear: HEATH EVANS AND RYAN GRANT: Adrian Peterson is campaigning FOR YOU, you dumb shitheads. ADP doesn't care about the fucking new agreement. ADP will never want for money in his life. He is arguing for YOU and all YOU FUCKING IDIOTS can do is nitpick a poor choice of words on his part.

Fucking mongos.

Irony alert

We have a new definition for irony- "unfortunate, but moderately anticipated." Take it away, Jon Paul Morosi (MORE LIKE MORONSI) and sound byte artist Ryan Howard:

The Philadelphia Phillies are supposed to win the World Series. They have the Roys. They have Cliff. They have Cole. They just have to stay healthy.

Well here we are, still a week shy of St. Patrick’s Day, talking about how the Phillies can’t seem to stay healthy.

Ironic, don’t you think?

“I would guess so,” slugger Ryan Howard said with a rueful smile.

I would guess not. Both of you: get fucked.

Also fuck the Phillies and their fffffans in the fffffffface. What? Having a team where nearly every single major contributor (C, 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, LF, CF, SP, SP, SP, CL) is over 30 (really the only exception is Cole Hamels) ISN'T always such a great idea? Color me shocked! Of course, it's worth noting that Jimmy Rollins, Ryan Howard, and Brad Lidge don't suck because they're over 30. They suck because they fucking suck and were terribly overrated to begin with.

Enjoy your 84 win season, Philadelphia.

Even when Bill Simmons knows something about a sport, he still knows absolutely nothing about that sport

Bill knows more about pro basketball than he knows about any other sport. Unfortunately, he still knows a hell of a lot more about anecdotal bullshit, embarrassing self-promotion, irrelevant stories about his kids, dumb unsupported theories that change depending on which way the wind is blowing, being angry at teams for not making dumb trades just for the sake of making trades, etc. And so it is that we happen upon his yearly trade deadline column.

In 2007, Kim Kardashian was leaking a sex tape, Charlie Sheen was still married, Barack Obama was thinking about running for president, Nicole Kidman's face could still move,

He knows about pop culture! I should read everything this guy writes, I bet he references movies and shows and stuff that I know about!

people other than porn stars were using MySpace, and I was calling the NBA "The No Balls Association."

Burnsauce, NBA GMs. Burnsauce.

Nobody wanted to trade. General managers would rather stand pat than make a move and get raked over the coals. Self-preservation trumped everything else.

In other words, making good decisions with regards to which players you have on your team trumped everything else. As things have been during every trade deadline ever. And during all twelve months of the year during every year of the NBA's existence.

Looking back, it was a transition year between the good old days (in which a slew of teams were run by people who made you wonder, "Wait, are they drunk?") and today's era of suffocating 24/7 coverage (in which every move is endlessly dissected by fans, bloggers and media members).

Things that were around to enable suffocating 24/7 coverage of every single thing that happens in the world of sports during 2004-2006: TV, mainstream internet sites, blogs, radio. Things that have been around to enable suffocating 24/7 coverage of every single thing that happens in the world of sports since 2008: TV, mainstream internet sites, blogs, radio, and Twitter.

The National Basketball Association

THOSE BASKETBALL PLAYERS MAKE GREAT BASKETBALL PLAYS ON THE BASKETBALL COURT FOR THEIR BASKETBALL TEAMS IN THE NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION

has changed in a variety of ways this century, but none more than this: February's trade deadline, June's draft and July's free agency frenzy are consumed as voraciously as the playoffs and the Finals.

Brilliant, hard-hitting analysis. People really like sports and pay very close attention to them.

You can't just slip a stupid basketball trade by an entire country anymore. You will be mocked on Twitter, on blogs, on sports radio, on message boards, in columns and articles ... if there was a theme song for this era, it would be Queen's "We Will Rock You," with one letter adjusted.

We will ... we will ... MOCK YOU!
We will ... we will ... MOCK YOU!

Jesus Chirst, is Reilly ghost writing for Simmons now? Who edited that? That's fucking terrible. Thanks Bill, you really brought your point home. Other lines to be used in a Simmons column in the near future:

"Thanks to the towering presence of Carlos Boozer and Joakim Noah, the Bulls have great interior defense... if there was a theme song for those guys, it would be Queen's "We Will Rock You," with one letter adjusted. We will... we will... BLOCK YOU!"

"The owners and players haven't been able to reach a labor agreement... if there was a theme song for this situation, it would be Queen's "We Will Rock You," with one letter adjusted. We will... we will... LOCK YOU (out)!"

Fucking A, man. That's horrific.

So it took a few years to adjust, but now we're here. With a crippling lockout looming, half the league felt obligated to do ... something. You could split the motivations of the 30 franchises into eight groups.

(stupid explanations of these eight groups omitted)

Classic, useless/nonsensical Simmons analysis. "Let me break this down for you by making it more complex than it needs to be so you can tell how much I know about the National Basketball Association. See, there are subtle differences between the ways the Nets and Blazers acted at the deadline.... [something something something Jersey Shore AL-only keeper league email from my dad my kids like to wake up early in the morning and no other kids have ever done this in the history of forever]

I was stunned that my Knicks fan buddies were split over the Carmelo trade. Some loved it, some thought they gave up too much. The dissenters made the same point: "Why give up that much when we could just sign him this summer?"

I'm a pretty intense Nuggets fan. I guarantee you I know more about the Melo trade situation and Melo's game than Simmons does. (Which is kind of like saying I know more about how the world works than a goldfish does, but anyways)

Here's the problem: the Nuggets knew that (A) Carmelo was never signing an extension in New Jersey,

Probably true. He was undoubtedly only interested in going to the Knicks. Which is what makes him in some ways even more obnoxious than LeBron- while LeBron forced teams to audition for him, held the worst-planned TV special of all time, and (probably) quit on his old employer in the middle of his last playoff series there, at least he was open to playing in more than one place when he reached free agency.

and (B) Carmelo wanted a $65 million extension as much as he wanted to play for the Knicks.

Doubtful. Given the way he acted throughout the whole sequence of events, it's very likely he would have taken less money to play for the Knicks. He made it pretty clear that doing so was "a dream come true," a homecoming, the only place he wanted to be, etc.

Their savviest play was to keep him past the deadline and play the odds: something like a 90 percent chance that Carmelo would have grabbed the $65 million and a 10 percent chance that he would have been stupidly stubborn enough to say, "I'm out of here, I don't care if it costs me $20 million, I'm gone."

Hilarious. I really love Bill's handicapping skills. The guy who correctly picks NFL games against the spread about 40% of the time knows that there was a 90% chance that Melo wouldn't bail out on a team he didn't want to play for anymore to go to one that wanted him as much as he wanted it. As if they wouldn't have been able to find a way (endorsements, short term FA deal leading to a bigger extension a year later) to make the money work. How does it feel, T-Wolves fans? How does it feel that Bill isn't your GM yet? Or was it the Bucks? Either way, count your blessings.

Few NBA players would ever do that, and no self-respecting agent would ever allow that. It just wouldn't happen. Their move would be to sign the extension, play hard for the rest of the season, then push for a trade that summer. At that point, Denver could have had 29 teams bidding for him instead of one. Everyone wins.

Well at least he's consistent. But he's still wrong. Melo had no interest in playing for 29 of the 30 teams in the league. He only wanted to play for one. It's located in the city (and borough) where his boy Amare plays, and where his boy CP3 might play soon, and where his bitch of an F-list celebrity wife wants to live. That was his #1 concern all along. Obviously there was a chance that he'd sign an extension with the Nuggets before the end of the season rather than risk losing money if he wanted to go to the Knicks in the offseason as a UFA. To say it was 90% likely is insanity given how Melo acted towards NY before and since being traded as well. I'd say the percentage of likelihood was a lot closer to 10 than 90. In any case, sure, if the Nuggets were able to ink him to an extension, they probably could have gotten more than the Knicks gave. But not substantially more. And in the meantime, they'd continue to be a 45 win team at its absolute ceiling, employing a bona fide sulkosaurus, heading for a first round playoff exit. Now they're a 45 win team with a much brighter future, much happier players, and much more potential to do damage in the playoffs since they're deeper and have more frontcourt size.

That's what terrified the Knicks: Seven months of foreplay going up in smoke because Denver played those 90 percent odds

No.

and said, "Screw it, let's keep him." So why didn't the Nuggets do that? Because they're being run by a rookie general manager (Masai Ujiri) and a rookie figurehead (Josh Kroenke, the 30-year-old son of owner Stan Kroenke), neither of whom wanted to kick off their Nuggets reign by becoming the two bumbling idiots who rolled the dice on a Carmelo extension, then watched him skip off to New York for nothing.

And watched him quasi-ruin the entire 2010-2011 season instead of just half of it.

Denver needed to save face with a decent deal, which it did: Danilo Gallinari, a future No. 1 pick, a year and a half of Wilson Chandler, a giant trade exception and a severe payroll slash.

Pretty incredible, really. Knowing that Melo would only go to one team, they still got a B/B+ of a deal from that team. Thank you Mikhail Prokhorov.

/homerism

One of the strangest subplots this week: Everyone rushing to pick Carmelo's game apart, especially people who rely on advanced metrics and ended up getting caught up in small-picture stuff.

Also known as people who like to use more information rather than less when evaluating something.

Carmelo has one elite skill (he rebounds extremely well for a small forward)

BWAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. OH GOD GIVE ME A MINUTE TO CATCH MY BREATH. *pause* BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. Oh man, you're killing me, Billy. If Carmelo has "elite" rebounding skills for a SF (which he really isn't, he's more of a combo 3/4), I'd hate to see what a guy with "average" rebounding skills plays like. Take it from any Nuggets fan- Melo's rebounding skills are somewhere between "above average" and "pretty good." It's not that he's a bad rebounder, but in Simmons' attempt to compliment Melo he's tossed out some lofty hyperbole. That's good stuff. I have no idea what the advanced metrics have to say about it but I'd be surprised if they didn't back me up.

and one transcendent skill (he's as good as anyone in the league at scoring and/or getting to the line, especially in crunch time).

On a much calmer note, I agree with this assessment.

You can absolutely, positively, unquestionably win a championship if Carmelo Anthony is your creator at the end of a basketball game.

On a basketball court played by basketball players. But here's the thing: as the Nuggets learned between 2004 and 2010, you absolutely, positively, unquestionably cannot win a championship if Carmelo Anthony is your best player. Dude took them to two playoff series wins in seven playoff appearances. Am I saying Melo sucks? Of course not. Without him, the 2004-2010 Nuggets probably only make the playoffs a couple of times (if any). And it's not like they made the conference finals in 2009 in spite of him. He was the best player on that team. But that year, that run- with a bunch of complimentary pieces playing out of their minds (Billups, a healthy Kenyon Martin, Dante fucking Jones of all people, and a healthy Chris Andersen)- was as good as they could do. And that was get within six wins of a championship. So let's not trip over ourselves trying to blow Melo. He's not a guy who's going to take you to a title. Him, plus Amare, plus a healthy CP3? Sure. But that's not what Bill is trying to say. The above sentence should say something like "You can unquestionably win a championship if Melo is your late game scoring threat and you have another superstar and some awesome glue guys positioned around him."

Now throw this in: The other players know. They know who's good. They know who's worth a damn. They know who they'd go to war with. So you can't discount (A) how well Carmelo played on the 2008 Olympic team;

Right, he stepped up on that big stage. Makes you wonder why he rarely played like that in Denver. He developed a reputation for coming up big in games on national TV (wish I had the numbers, but I know almost all his averages are up in such games over the course of his career) and in big venues (especially MSG, but also in the United Center and Staples Center as well). There are two possible explanations there: the guy just happens to find a 6th gear in big games, or, the guy only plays at 95% the rest of the time. I know which one of those I think is the case.

(B) how much the other guys respected him; and (C) how the key guys on that team were Kobe, LeBron, Wade and Carmelo. It can't be forgotten. It just can't.

Although it's probably true, I'm pretty sure most fans have forgotten that.

Neither can the fact that he nearly carried a limited Nuggets team to the Finals two years ago.

In his five previous playoff appearances before 2009, the Nuggets won seven total games. Before the 2009 playoffs the Nuggets acquired Chauncey Billups. I'm just saying.

Now throw this in: If there was ever a player who could be ignited by a great basketball city and a consistently fantastic crowd, it's Carmelo Anthony.

See above. That might mean he's a good fit for the Knicks, but it also might mean he's kind of a self-absorbed asshole.

He's been stuck in a relatively icy cruise control for two solid years, playing in a city he didn't totally love, being professional about it,

Questionable.

trying hard every game

WRONG.

WRONG.

WRONG.

... and yet, there was something detached about him.

True, and that something often resulted in him not playing hard for quarters or games at a time. I'm not trying to turn this into an "I hate Melo" post. I'm not like a bitter and scorned Cavaliers fan here. I'm just saying, the guy has some pretty big shortcomings. You can't sweep them under the rug. YOU JUST CAN'T.

No longer. I hate how he weaseled his way to the Knicks and pissed on Denver fans, but that's over. Let's look at this thing objectively: He's going to kill it with the Knicks. I'd bet anything. They haven't had someone like this since Bernard King, which is funny because I always thought Melo was Bernard 2.0.

LOOK HOW RIGHT I WAS ALL THE TIME!

Playing in New York isn't for everyone, but in this case, it will be the best thing that ever happened to Carmelo Anthony.

That's probably true. I'm OK with that statement. He's still a long ways from being as perfect and angelic as you're making him out to be.

I keep hearing that you can't win a title with Melo and Amare. Agreed. But you can win the title with Carmelo, Amare and Chris Paul (or Dwight Howard, or Deron Williams). In the short term, you can make some noise, rock the building and make Knicks fans forget about the 10 excruciating years they just endured. And you can scare the living hell out of the fans from the other Eastern contenders. Believe me, as a Celtics fan, I want no part of the Knicks this spring for one reason: You never want to play a playoff series in which the other team has the best guy. There's a decent chance Carmelo could just go off 1984 Bernard-style in Round 1 or Round 2.

Yeah, after all, he did it a whole one times between 2004 and 2010! He's a volcano, just ready to erupt at a moment's notice every five years or so!

What a lazy argument.

He's referring to people complaining about groups of superstars forcing their way to chosen teams, leaving the rest of the league pretty diluted. (For the record I'm not one of those people, although I kind of see where they're coming from.)

Over the past six decades, the following players pushed their way from a worse situation to a (seemingly) better one either by trade or free agency: Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Shaquille O'Neal, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Moses Malone, Rick Barry, Charles Barkley, Scottie Pippen, Bill Walton, Kevin Garnett, Allen Iverson, Gary Payton, Ray Allen, Jason Kidd, Clyde Drexler ... should I keep going? Now this "phenomenon" is endangering the game???

To a name, those guys pretty much acted on their own. The Miami "Big 3" obviously acted in concert. Amare, Melo, and Paul are in the process of doing so. There's nothing THAT wrong with it... but it's kind of a bitch move. And if the new CBA allows teams more flexibility to accomplish these kinds of moves, you'll probably see groups of 4 or 5 guys working together in the future. I think that's a little bit different than Shaq telling the Magic to trade him.

As Kenny Smith said last night, "If [a small-market team] builds the right pieces around the right guy, he will stay." Period. Duncan stayed in San Antonio because it built the right team around him.

Duncan stayed in San Antonio because he doesn't give a shit about endorsements or being a "global icon" or whateverthefuck. But most pro athletes do. And some of them, like Melo, also have shrill F-list celebrity wives who can't stomach the thought of living anywhere besides NYC or LA.

Stockton and Malone stayed in Utah because they had each other.

See: Duncan.

Durant will stay in Oklahoma City because of Westbrook and everyone else.

We'll see.

LeBron left Cleveland mainly because it made bad trades and signed the wrong guys.

Most oversimplified and stupid analysis of that situation I've ever read.

And Utah never would have thought it might lose Deron Williams if it hadn't screwed up the roster around him.

That's partially true, which still puts small market teams at a disadvantage. Hey, Knicks: go ahead and make 50 horrendously bad moves over the course of a decade. Eventually, a few superstars will still find their way to you and you'll be relevant again. Hey, Jazz: don't fuck up! Better not make any big mistakes (Kirilenko's contract and Okur's contract are the only two big ones that come to mind) or no more superstars for you! It's not exactly an ideal system.

Besides, why is it such a bad thing to have six or seven loaded teams and six or seven terrible ones? Oh crap, I hate seeing the Finals with all these elite players! Give me a break.

That's what fans want to see! Superteams! Let's contract 22 of them and just leave the Lakers, Celtics, Heat, Knicks, Bulls, Mavericks, ZOMBIE SONICS (best nickname ever; they can stay because of Durant), and Clippers (BILL IS A SEASON TICKET HOLDER DID YOU KNOW THAT?)! Fans in general don't care about parity, and the fans that live outside of NYC, Boston, LA, Dallas, and Chicago certainly don't care about teams in their market playing well!

Biggest douchewad Boston fan analysis ever. WHY WOULD ANYONE EVAH WANNA WATCH SOMETHING OTHAH THAN PATS/JETS, SAWKS/YANKS, OR CELTS/LAKAHS?

I'm not just a complainer- I'm an INTERNET-BASED complainer

Big Simmons post coming later this week, hopefully later Monday. In the meantime let's all sadly shake our heads at Doris Burke. Burke is employed by ESPN as a sideline reporter and sometimes commentator for NCAA basketball. She only works behind the mic for a handful of NBA games every year- not because (sexist joke here), but because she says ridiculous, meaningless bullshit like this.

The scene: Friday night's Nuggets/Blazers game. New Nugget Danilo Gallinari has just completed a nice sequence of offensive possessions that included a couple assists and a huge dunk. Burke's response to the dunk (not exact words, didn't DVR, but it certainly stuck in my head when I saw it live).

WOW! This is like the scene in Remember the Titans, where the quarterback gets hurt, and the new quarterback comes in and he looks timid at first, but then he makes some big plays, and the one coach says to the other, "We didn't just get a player- we got a FOOTBALL player!" Well the Nuggets should be looking at Gallinari and realizing they just got a BASKETBALL player.

Words fail me. Maybe Trent Dilfer and Mark Schlereth know what the fuck that means, but I doubt anyone else in the world does.

Haven't broken out the "something that doesn't suck" label in a while

But earlier tonight, there I was: reading a well-written and intelligent piece of sports journalism. The subject is the pending NFL lockout and Roger Goddell's warm-hearted promise that he'll take a salary of a dollar this year if the labor problem causes skipped games. Take it away, Ray Ratto:

The commissioners were, are, and will always be employees of the owners. It should be that they are paid by both the owners and players, but the owners would never share their go-fers -- not while they have so many people baffled into thinking they are running things.

Put another way, Goodell acting like the man means Jerry Richardson doesn't have to, and with Richardson's gift for loose-cannon-hood, Goodell is already worth his weight in platinum.

Ohhhhh yeah. That's good stuff.

The NFL being first to play the lockout game this time, it gets to be the first to hear the nation say with one grating voice, "Oh, shut your stupid mouths."

If only. The NFL is so popular right now that I'm pretty sure about 90% of fans are riveted to the back-and-forth between the two sides.

Everything the league has done to make the players look like the evil ones while failing to mention that this lockout is actually a referendum on the rich-owner/richer-owner dichotomy has made a joke of the coverage.

The average fan's response is unfortunately still DUHHHHH FOOTBALL FOOTBALL FOOTBALL HEY THE DRAFT IS COMING RIGHT UP IN TWO MONTHS! Ratto is 100% right though. The coverage is a fucking travesty.

So we'll say this again. If the owners want to refuse any income, then we'll say they're serious. Anything short of that, and the argument that they take the risk and should reap the rewards will be even more idiotic than it usually is.

I know I usually say this about sportswriters, but I'm going to change it up tonight: (most) owners of "big four" sports franchises are the worst people on the planet. I hope they all die broke and lonely.

Click the link and read the whole thing. It's pret-tayyyyy, pret-tayyyyyyyy, pret-tay good.

Literally Ironic Alert

I'm going to do something more substantial tomorrow or Wednesday night, but since posting has been a little sparse around here lately

/clears throat
/glares at other FireJay writers as much as one can do so on the internet, which is not at all

I decided I should throw up a quickie tonight. First of all, while watching some of the Daytona 500 today (yeah that's right, that happened, I channel surf to NASCAR occasionally, deal with it, I just happen to find it relaxing) I learned from one of FOX's announcers that the late Dale Earnhardt was an incredibly strong guy.

He literally carried the sport on his back.

That's pretty impressive. Just remember, kids: literally is a word that adds emphasis to nonsensical figures of speech.

And for the irony portion of the post we have the thoughts of Captain Douchehole himself, William Peaboday Q. Simmons the third. This comes from his annual NBA trade value column, which is really just an excuse for him to take a few cheap shots at the Lakers, talk about how much toughah and bettah the Celtics ahh, and write a lot of bad jokes about bad movies and TV shows (so really no different than anything else he writes):

Ty Lawson: I always get the definition of "irony" wrong, like most people, which makes me think that we should just change the meaning of the word to account for all the people who misuse it. So forgive me in advance. But doesn't it seem ironic in the traditionally wrong application of the definition that Ty Lawson -- the third point guard Minnesota drafted in 2009 (and immediately traded away) -- is better than the guys the Wolves drafted No. 5 and No. 6? That's totally what I think ironic means, even though it doesn't.

Besides being unfunny, stupid, and sickeningly self-congratulatory, you're also lazy. You and Chuck Klosterman were made for each other. If I had the money to make it happen I'd pay to get you both kidnapped, tied to the side of a rocket, and launched into deep space. Later in the same article:

A good test case for one of my favorite games (inspired by Chuck Klosterman): "Overrated, underrated or properly rated?" In the Internet era, we spend so much time dissecting things that it's hard to find something that's properly rated -- we either think someone's getting a little too much credit or not quite enough.

Fuck the both of you.

The last time I bothered to read TMQ

It was mid-November. And after that I was like "fuck this." Well now I'm saying un-fuck that. Let's see what he has to say about the Super Bowl. Surprise! He's still a self-contradicting mental midget.

Safety Nick Collins cut in front of an underthrown Ben Roethlisberger pass, made the interception and weaved his way to the end zone; suddenly, the Green Bay Packers led the Super Bowl 14-0. It was the third consecutive postseason contest in which Green Bay returned an interception for a touchdown. There were three interceptions returned for touchdowns in the 2011 postseason, all by Green Bay, and the playoffs end with the Packers as champions. That is no coincidence -- because the pick-six is the most devastating play in football.

Gregg has stated dozens of times that a fumble on the kickoff is the most devastating turnover in football (which certainly precludes a pick-six from being the most devastating play). When? Well you could start by looking here, here, or here. I don't care about him contradicting himself because I'm looking to nitpick. I care because this is shitty writing. It's plenty sufficient to say "pick sixes are really really bad and teams that get them usually win." You don't have to get all hyperbolic and dramatic to make your point. Just stop being so fucking bad at writing. That's all I ask.

Any type of touchdown counts for the same number of points. But the interception-return touchdown has greater psychological impact: The offense has worked, worked, for field position

The line of scrimmage for Collins's interception return was the Steelers' own 7.

and, suddenly, a defensive player is sprinting in the opposite direction to the end zone. That's like a giant foot stepping on the mindset of the team surrendering the pick-six.

That's like a giant megabucks glory boy first round draft pick foot stepping into the undrafted twice-cut small college mindset of team surrendering the pick six.

And a fumble returned for a touchdown has great impact. But football players and coaches know that fumbles occur largely by chance -- even the best players fumble -- but an interception returned for a touchdown signals a breakdown of performance and tactics.

For saying that, you are the stupidest person I know who receives a check to write about football. The stupidest. Congratulations, Don Banks! You're off the hook.

The quarterback should not put the ball where it can be intercepted.

The running back/receiver should not put the ball where it can be dropped or stripped. And yet it happens.

The coaches should not draw up plays that are vulnerable not just to interceptions but to the intercepting player having an open field.

I'd be shocked if any offensive coordinators considered that when drawing pass plays. "OK, great, so this guy coming across the middle should be open, and better yet, when Grossman throws the ball directly into the safety's chest, we'll have three guys there ready to tackle him!"

A fumble returned for a touchdown might only mean bad luck;

Usually it means bad ball protection and sometimes it means lack of awareness that the ball is loose on the part of offensive players.

an interception-return touchdown always means a serious screw-up by the offense.

Except in the event of a tipped pass, a desperation 3rd and long heave when a team is trailing, a DB making a bad play by gambling for the pick and guessing right (I'm looking at you, Asante Samuel). Holy ballsack. If you're a professional sportswriter who thinks pick sixes "always" mean a serious screw up by the offense and that fumble return TDs are just a bit of bad luck aw shucks, you should lose your football watching privileges forever.

The pick-six is the most devastating play in football. Mastery of this play -- the Packers returned five interceptions for touchdowns overall this season -- is a core reason the Lombardi trophy is on its way back to Lombardi's town.

No team has a greater mastery of interception returns than any other, I promise you. Certain players? Sure. You just can't go out there and practice putting everyone where they will be when a pass gets picked. And you don't need to encourage defensive players to go block the shit out of offensive players after a turnover happens. They're more than happy to do that at any opportunity.

And Green Bay's result raises the question of whether coaches should be less concerned with sacks on defense, more concerned with creating interception opportunities as a matter of game planning.

Those two things... are related... did you even watch the Collins play... two Packers... hitting Roethlisberger as he threw... helped cause the underthrown pass... that kind of thing happens all the time... no?

/Larry B bangs head against his coffee table until passing out

OK nevermind. Re-fuck this. I can't do any more. Time to fire up the "John Kruk is fat and stupid" article template- baseball's back!

Jeff Pearlman: As usual, what the fuck are you talking about?

See if you can follow this flawless logic without having your brain explode:

Just listened to a little bit of Aaron Rodgers’ interview with the NFL Network crew.

Not sure if y’all have heard about this,

You're from upstate New York. Please drop the fake folksyism of "y'all."

but the Packers overcame so much adversity this year.

Like injuries.

And … uh … well … yeah.

Injuries.

And … other, meh, stuff.

Seriously, of all the cliched babble out there, the we’ve-overcome-so-much-adversity line might be my all-time least favorite.

Yeah, the line gets overused. And I'm not sure if the Packers overcame any substantial adversity outside of injuries this year. But...

OK, the Packers had a lot of injuries this season.

Dear Jesus, did they ever. In addition to tons of smaller injuries, like losing Charles Woodson for the second half of the Super Bowl and losing Aaron Rodgers for two games, they ended the season with 13 guys on injured reserve. These weren't little rinky-dink third stringers, either- Ryan Grant, Nick Barnett, Mark Tauscher, and Jermichael Finley were all big time contributors in 2009 and all missed at least 15 games. The Packers got totally demolished by injuries this year. They got banged in the butt by injuries. They got annihilated by injuries. In short, they got incredibly unlucky w/r/t injuries (unless their training staff blows or something, which I doubt is the case). Then they won the Super Bowl. Those two facts are definitely worth mentioning together.

So did the Jaguars,

Missed the playoffs.

the Giants,

Missed the playoffs.

the Saints,

Made the playoffs, then lost in the first round to a 7-9 team.

the Raiders

Missed the playoffs.

and 70 percent of NFL teams.

Untrue.

Hell, the Steelers lost their quarterback to a four-game suspension.

Not an injury, unless being a complete fucktard counts as an injury.

The Bengals had to overcome the death of a receiver. The death.

That happened last season. Last season. And then they lost their first playoff game without putting up much of a fight, probably in part because they were emotionally drained.

In conclusion: most teams that get killed by injuries don't make the playoffs. Those that do fold like a cheap tent when they get there. The Packers might have been the NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE team to get hit hardest by injuries this season, and they won the Super Bowl, but that's nothing to brag about because Pearlman doesn't like the "adversity" line. Nothing to brag about at all.

Jeff Pearlman eats paste.

I know what you're thinking-

The big story from the Super Bowl has to be what a dripping, pathetic snatch Charles Woodson is, right? I mean- can you fucking believe that guy? Standing there on the sidelines, totally able to walk (AND I SAW HIM CLAPPING TOO I MIGHT ADD), hanging his team out to dry. Unbelievable. How could he do that? Why wasn't he in the game? I hope Trent Dilfer and Mark Schlereth and Jason Whitlock and every other diptard journalist out there who clearly knows more about the medical condition of a hurt player than the player himself or his training staff takes Woodson to task for his pussitude. I'm sure that's what we'll be reading about this week, right?

(insert gif of Jay Cutler sitting on the Bears sideline during the NFC title game here)

A nice visit with some morons from the past

About three-ish years ago, I watched Around the Horn and PTI almost every day. It's true. I won't say what I was doing with my life at that time that enabled me to do so; it's mildly embarrassing and unimportant. I will say that after a few months of watching I got used to the buffoonery I absorbed on a daily basis. Sure, I knew I was watching a bunch of morons. But I didn't take the time to really process any of the specific instances of moron-ness I saw. It was just one big loud 60 minute shout.

That brings me to yesterday. I had a spare hour in the late afternoon/early evening and decided to take a trip down memory lane. Hoooooooooooo DOGGIE did it hurt. I didn't DVR the shows so I will relate to you only the worst bit I remember from each.

From ATH, I'll go with the panelists' responses to a (very reasonable- and I say that with no sarcasm) question: on Monday night, the Nuggets traveled to New Jersey for the first time since the Melo-to-the-Nets rumors died. Melo scored 35 but the Nets won. Who feels better about the night: Melo or Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov? Lots of interesting angles one could take here. Melo feels better because he got to stick his talent in Prokhorov's face even though it was Melo's refusal to sign an extension with the Nets that killed the deal. Or maybe Prokhorov gets to feel better because his team got to show Melo they don't give a shit about him. I dunno, be creative. Come up with something that is 1) responsive to the question and 2) not boring. Unfortunately the entire panel failed on both counts by each goin with some variation on

Well, Prokhorov has more money. So he's got to feel better about the game.

Fail.

The PTI bit I remember most vividly was much more infuriating because it was dumb analysis on a dumb topic (instead of just dumb analysis). The utterly irrelevant subject matter: Wilbon interviewed Ben Roethlisberger and asked Roethlisberger whether or not he feels like he's turned his life around. WELL BY JOVE, ROETHLISBERGER SAYS HE HAS! NOW THAT'S NEWS! A pro athlete that was skewered by the press and the public recently for being a total asshole is asked if he's still a total asshole. His shocking answer: no!

Anyways, Kornheiser of all people had to play the voice of reason once Wilbon brought this up and say that he (Kornheiser) was still pretty skeptical about Roethlisberger and that Roethlisberger still has some work to do to repair his off field image. Wilbon's indignant, snarky, wiseass response:

Well I'll tell you where he doesn't have any work to do: on the field. He's doing just fine out there.

Great. What were we talking about again? Thanks for the shiny, beautiful red herring.

Mike Wilbon in 2005: Barry Bonds tells me he's gotten past his animosity towards the general public and will no longer be an asshole to anyone, ever. I gotta say I'm buying it. He seemed sincere when he said that into my tape recorder during our interview that was scheduled well in advance and set up on friendly terms.
Me: Geez, I don't know, he's got a pretty long track record of being a complete douche. I think he's probably going to have to do more to-
Wilbon: WELL HE STILL HITS LOTS OF HOME RUNS MAYBE YOU FORGOT TO CONSIDER THAT.

Have you ever noticed how I always pick on Bonds when I do analogies like this? Wonder why that is.

In conclusion, ATH is still full of idiots (although some of them are new idiots), and more importantly Mike Wilbon is still a total piece of shit. Kornheiser gets a pass from me. This time.