I just watched this piece on Tom Cable and domestic violence on Outside The Lines. Wow. I don't see this dude being in the NFL next season. That probably doesn't have much to do with domestic violence.
Anyway, let's go folks.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The real story on domestic violence and the NFL in the bay area concerns Dana Stubblefield (also one of the few football playeres that was entangled in the Balco brouhaha) and his ongoing harassment of a former lover, which surfaced once more last night on a local news channel. All those years people were putting it to TO, it always struck me that Stubblefield, who had a generally positive relationship with the press out here, barely hit the radar.
Is anyone surprised by that? Football players have to be violent and a little crazy to do their job. I suspect most of them have a hard time turning that part of their personality off during their time away from their jobs. About TO, he's very immature and somewhat of a malcontent from time to time but never a criminal or a danger to anyone. The press loves him because it is easy to point to him and say, "Hey, he shouldn't be acting like that. This is a team game." Very lazy and easy, which is the cornerstone of commentary on the NFL for the most part.
Right, and the flipside of that is Marvin Harrison, who we all saw as a self-effacing guy and a good dude, just because he wasn't a showboat. And it turns he out he probably tried to kill someone.
People make moral judgments about showboats, and confuse things in their mind. One can be a low-key criminal. One can be a showboat on the field--and even off the field--and be a decent public citizen.
"People make moral judgments about showboats, and confuse things in their mind. One can be a low-key criminal. One can be a showboat on the field--and even off the field--and be a decent public citizen."
No doubt about that. I wonder how much of that confusion is something in our national DNA, because you see elements of that feeling in every sport (don't stare at the long ball for too long before you start your trot, not too much chestpumping and no throat-slashing in hoops). On the other hand, you see soccer stars around the globe celebrating with dance moves that put Ochocinco to shame, but no one confuses that with a character flaw. Or maybe too many of the nation's sports reporters are squares who take themselves way too seriously. (Lupica, Im talking to you!)
At the risk of pushing a stick into the hornet's nest, I have to ask:
Is it coincidence that pretty much all of the guys most criticized for showboating (and not just in football, either) have dark skin? And the criticism comes from white writers, broadcasters and fans?
It is entirely possible that my 64-year-old memory is faulty, but the last white NFL player I remember being strongly criticized for showboating was the hideous and hideously overrated Mark Gastineau in the 80's.
BTW so its clear that I'm not grinding axes: I'm a white guy. And old enough to have seen the great Colts/Giants game (on black and white TV) in 1958 and to remember the George Preston Marshall Redskins and the Tom Yawkey pre-1962 Red Sox.
I don't know. Jeremy Shockey caught his share.
That's kind of the point, though, TNC.
One guy. In 20-ish years.
Oops. Just as I typed this, there's Jared Allen showboating like a complete idiot after sacking Aaron Rodgers.
But I still think my overall point is valid.
I agree with efgoldman, I think it's pretty obvious that there is a racial element to the "showboating" complaints.
I'm thinking there probably is as well. Yet I'm having a difficult time thinking of white players known for showboating and aren't criticized for it. I'm sure there are a number of examples. But let's be honest, the majority of showboaters play WR, or at least the ones who are criticized for it do. The vast majority of WR's in the league are black. Again, though, Shockey was the only person I could think of as well.
To be clear, I absolutely think this country has a problem with young, rich black men. Especially the ones who come off as arrogant. I think the way that a lot of people view the NBA is probably a better example, though.
Part of the issue here is that for the most part white players don't score touchdowns, which is the main time players "showboat". The only counterexamples I can think of among top tier players are Shockey, maybe Witten, if he counts anymore.
White players who get sacks are every bit as likely to be dorks about it (witness Jared Allen). The success of african amrican players in the NFL is what drives the perception of certain of those players as "showboats".
Also, american football is strange in that it so strongly discourages celebration by players on the field. No one fined Frank Viola for yelling that he was going to Disneyland. I think Chad Johnson and Steve Smith, in particular, have been very successful and appropriate in their celebrations. Steve Smith's football-as-a-baby is possibly my favorite all-time.
The problem is not fan perception, but league rules.
I don't know. It might be true that football players are more likely to be abusers, but I'd want to see some numbers--compared with a relevant control group--that really backed that up. I'm not calling bullshit. But I don't take it as a given.
I'm also not sure about this. By this logic, wouldn't defensive players be especially prone to domestic violence? I'm not saying there *isn't* some correlation between ultra-physical sports and domestic violence, but like TNC, I want to see some hard statistics (because the oft-quoted 'fact' that domestic violence spiked during the SuperBowl is an urban myth). Is it just football? Why not MMA? (And frankly, I'm not convinced it's the physicality/violence of the sport rather the general macho-sexist culture of all-male sports, plus the large dose blame-displacement that goes along with it.)
Well said Maya. I understand where Plainview is coming from, as football is a sport predicated not just on being a contact sport, but primarily on collisions between professional athletes. It is definitely something that can be viewed as crazy from the outside. I guess you could say that footbal is such a tenuous profession, it is easy to see how the cycle of domestic violence would happen within the culture of football. I would definitely want to see more evidence.
I think one of the hardest problems that performers of any type have is coming down from the adrenaline rush of performing. Whether it be an Opera at the Met, a speech in front of thousands to millions, a football game at the Meadowlands, or game four of the world series.
The media would stop reporting on TO once people stop caring about it. It makes them money, so they'll continue to do so. He has always struck me as someone who had depression.
Wide Receivers in general have been treated like Gods since they started playing football. They're usually the fastest players on the team, and if you are a defensive back who can makes plays on the ball, you will most likely end up seeing time on the offensive side of the ball to make a bigger contribution. Look at Denver: Josh McDaniels came in and tried to be the tough cop, and from the reaction to him it make you scratch your head wondering just how much Shanahan let Brandon Marshall get away with. Wide Receivers can change the complexion of a game within a split-second. You definitely need a healthy ego if you are going to assume that responsibility at the highest level. How many track stars are humble?
The Cable piece was revealing, but I was a little annoyed to see it. I don't know - it's not breaking news when it was easy to discover months ago. I think it's a bit disingenuous of ESPN to put it out at this moment, as if it's a discovery. Plus, it seems like this information is more to hit him upside the head because the courts didn't. I'm unsettled by his history of violence - but more so by the way it's being put out there to say "aha, he is evil." (I don't think Cable got to speak, or maybe he chose not to, but you do not hear his side of this story on the show (at least not the part that I watched))
All of the research they do on players, bringing up the time they got high, or did whatever during the draft process, you'd think the same thing would happen for coaches - and if they really want to hire someone who has a history of domestic violence (which alone shouldn't bar you from employment) they should require the guy to get counseling and make serious public displays of his intention not to embarrass the NFL and whatever team he's signing with by breaking an assistant's nose.
I agree Dwayne, it is a bit disingenuous of ESPN to put this out there now. I wish I had more to add, but you really summed up how I felt when I saw it.
All of the research they do on players, bringing up the time they got high, or did whatever during the draft process...
Except, of course whether they can actually play!
JaMarcus Russell, anyone? Joey Harrington? Further back: Ken Sims? Tony Mandarich?
And so many, many more...
Sad all around. When the establishment (ESPN) hits Tom Cable like this for generally unsubstantiated charges (he said/she said, private disputes that never went to trial), I take away two things: (i) ESPN kicks people when they're down; and (ii) Tom Cable is not politically enmeshed enough in the NFL to protect his flank.
Winning coaches with long, tangled relationships in the NFL are usually able to keep the ESPNs and others who benefit from covering the league at bay. If ESPN covered the NFL the way MSNBC covered Bush and FoxNews covers Obama, there would have been a Nightline-like program to cover the tawdry and all-too-human details of Bill Belichick's affairs/divorce and drug-troubled child, and similar coverage of Andy Reid's struggle with his children's drug addiction. Invading the privacy of losing coaches of a dreadful franchise is more acceptable I guess.
Having said that, I feel for those women who Tom Cable assaulted. They should have pressed charges at the time.
I think there's a big difference between having troubled children and having a record of assaulting women.
Amen. While I don't want to stick up for Tom Cable in any way, I found the ESPN piece distasteful-- I'd call it random, if it weren't such a transparent attempt to mitigate the wave of sexual harassment lawsuits the network is likely to see after last week's Deadspin fiasco.
What is happening in the Giants/Eagles game??
the Eagles are spanking the Giants.
These last three weeks have been an extended Halloween for New York Football Giants Fans.
It just keeps getting worse & worse... Thank God I didn't start Eli today, but I still have the Giants defense...
And all this without Westbrook. That secondary is tissue paper. Glad I bet on the Giants.
"All of the research they do on players, bringing up the time they got high, or did whatever during the draft process, you'd think the same thing would happen for coaches"
Well, this is the Raiders, Al is not firing on all cylinders any more and he was never one to let off-field problems stand in the way of personnel decisions.
And it is a bit of myth that teams really do their due diligence on players. Maybe more PR spin than a myth, like a Tom Clancy novel where the good and bad guys are alway very good at their jobs and the tech always works. Most of the press is captured, they are there because their employers have paid mucho bucks to broadcast the games. Not going to push too hard or say too many things the NFL does not like. I have had just enough contact inside to know that the press may know what is happening but it never knows why.
As far as I know, Ricky Williams never beat up his girl or one of his coaches, and still got suspended. Just sayin'. (And blah blah, against the rules and everything, I know, but Favre was never suspended when he was out getting wasted every weekend before he went into treatment). Double standards and all.
And this Bears-Browns game is U-G-L-Y.
Ricky quite on his team. Not much love for that among players or coaches.
The talent distribution in the NFL is more like a power law than a bell curve. By that I mean that you double the talent and the number of people who are that good get reduced by a factor of 10 or so, halve the talent and there are 10 times as many players at that level. In a bell curve there would be as many bad players as great players. In the NFL, there are very few truly excellent talents, lots of good players, more average players than there are roster positions. Average is the bottom. Average is replacement level.
Throw in the randomizing nature of injuries. Great talents can be laid low at any time. They have a name in the NFL for a great talent that never gets injured. Hall of Famer. And so yeah, with so few healthy great talents, they get every break in the book. Short of murder, and maybe even then (cough, Ray Lewis, cough), you are going to stay in the league.
That's sort of my point lighthouse. When I said players, I should have said first round draft picks, especially those early picks. Teams seem to do that due diligence with those folks, and I'd assume that the choice of a coach would be on par with the selection of a first round draft pick. Again though, with Cable, we're talking about the Raiders. I think the reason we don't hear about coaches doing similar things is that most of them don't. When you get down the talent curve of the NFL, I think that's where you'll find the most problems - because they wouldn't be weeded out in the same way. So, yeah, Ray Lewis and the top top talents might catch breaks, but only certain kinds of breaks. And only after they have proven themselves. Can anyone name a Ray Lewis type break given to a player before they've played a down?
Ugh I leave town for 2 weeks and my Giants fall to pieces. WTF!
I am right there with you Sade.
WTF, indeed. This is killing me!
First half at Indy, the Niner D has played very well. Manning just a bit out of rhythm as well--missed 4 deep passes as a result. Vernon Davis is a monster.
Stacy, I have one big, meaningful confidence point on the Rams; they better damn well win this week.
You've always believed in the Rams. Your unwavering confidence has finally paid dividends.
Steven Jackson looked like a warrior, bro.
For real. I feel bad for him. I hope he still gets a shot at the Pro Bowl, despite the fact that he won't end up with a lot of TD's.
Ah well, takes me back to the days of Norm Van Brocklin, Jon Arnett, and Crazy Legs Hirsch. Did I say anything about Tank Younger? Many a Sunday afternoon with my dad and uncle in the Coliseum. Has it really been that long since they won a game? I should have put 12 confidence points on them (had Houston on 13).
Looking like the Broncos aren't quite as good as advertised. I had them picked as losing this week--it was about time, but I thought they'd keep it closer than they have.
And the Ravens are playing the way they should be. I forget who was in one of these threads a few weeks back talking about how the Ravens just aren't any good... obviously what few problems they were having were fixable (read: NOT personnel issues).
Domination. Fantastic way to come off a bye-week.
Ravens looked impressive, but the Broncos are also a great match-up for them, especially for their D. The Ravens D is very good in the front 7--the weakness is the cornerbacks, especially on deep routes. But the Broncos never throw the ball deep--they try to dink and dunk and get yards after the catch, and score just enough to win. And that is very tough to do against the Ravens--they are generally very good tacklers and have an excellent LB corps (plus both safeties are excellent at run support and tackling), so you're not going to break many 5 yard passes into 18 yard gains. Note the one time the Broncos threw it deep the receiver had position for the catch and drew the flag for a 25 yard gain.
The one new positive things the Ravens did was to get pressure on the QB, even when only rushing 4. Their lack of pressure the first 6 weeks has made their sub-par corners that much more vulnerable to long passes.
The Gladwell piece moved me too, but when I saw Ed Reed drop Knowshon Moreno like a bad habit I was still all, "DAMN! Welcome to the NFL, rookie!" lol
Sad I know...
Just saw Favre come into Lambeau. Was greeted with a chorus of boos. Heh. They weren't saying "Boo," they were saying "Fooavre!"
49er D exposed Manning as about much as he can be exposed; the guy just is too damn good. Still, the game probably gave AFC teams some hope. 9ers are a year away, but they do play with heart.
Green Bay fans booing Favre. How bush. How cheesy. I love Aaron Rodgers being an old Cal bear, but those fans will get what they deserve if Favre plays well. When Montana came to SF, no one would have thought about booing him.
Oh and by the way on the Indy 9er broadcast they showed the top 4 qb winning percentages--Montana, Bradshaw, Manning, and Unitas.
TN--see the Cowboys are in the driver's seat, and I don't even think they've gotten their running game going yet.
Somebody in my group had 12 confidence points on St. L.!
CitizenE,
I just want to admit that it was me who gave St. L the 12 confidence points. The Eagles killed me though, one week they can't get two hundred in the air against the Skins, and the next they put up 40. I was at that game too, with decent tickets and you wouldn't believe how slow Vick looks when he's in there for twenty-eight seconds to run, when the entire stadium knows he's running.
As an aside, GB in trouble.
Had Montana signed with the Bears, I think there would have been some definite booing.
Ummmm, Montana was traded. He didn't do anything like what Favre did in GB. He was classy all the way. Anywhere he went he would've been fine. I just wish he had gone to a team with receivers, which the KC Chiefs were not. And he was still amazing out there. AFC Championship game? Remember the crazy game against Denver in 94 in which they had a comeback duel in the fourth quarter? Amazing. And then beating the 49ers 24-17 in week 2.
Damn I loved that guy.
This is for all those below. Montana forced a trade when he knew the team was going with Young. He wasn't all that gracious about losing his starter status, and really was not very generous with Young ever. But there's something about being a fan of football. Joe Montana gave San Fran fans years of enjoyment; he was the darling of the bay area, and we would not have booed him whomever he played with.
Similarly, people can talk about this, that, and the other, but the Pack had to go with Aaron Rodgers or lose him. Talented young qbs in the league are rare, and few teams have good ones (the jury is out on Rodgers, but he certainly has the potential to be great) back to back. Favre, like Montana, still had the chops to be a starter, but GB could not afford to keep him on as one. It's as simple as that. The Jets were not a starter for him, no matter what, and does anyone doubt that Mangini is not a coach to play qb for; whereas Minnesota makes absolute sense; it's a perfect fit. GB fans who booed him in my opinion don't really appreciate what they have had. This isn't on Favre or the GB organization; it's the way of the business of football.
Montana didn't sign with the 49ers biggest rival. Had Farve come back with the Jets, I guarantee he wouldn't have been booed. You can't sign with your teams' biggest rival, then expect to be greeted with love.
Montana could have come back with the Cowboys and he would not have been booed in SF.
Montana would have never signed with the Cowboys. ;-)
Nice to see that the Empire is not in a death spiral...as some have said for the first few weeks of the year. This weeks extremely needed, easy drubbing of the Seahawks sets up next week in Philly rather nicely.
I also can't say enough, at this point, how wrong I was about Roy Williams. He is a very frustrating player, yet at the same time I really don't care. I will go to my grave thinking that at the time the trade was the right thing to do, and if Roy continues to bust I don't see much harm being done. Thanks to Miles, Sam, Patrick, and more importantly the best running attack in the NFL. Much like Vince Young, I just don't understand why these guys can't figure it out.
Yeah they're doing well and are more talented then I thought--particularly Sensabaugh and Mike Jenkins.
Re Roy: A bust is never the right thing to do--especially given that a lot of folks thought it was a bad idea at the time. Moreover throwing a draft picks is always costly. It simply can't be credibly argued that you "lost nothing" by giving up a first and a third rounder.
Alright, I will bite...
A bust is not a bust until the bust becomes a bust. Heh. I know some people were saying they saw nothing special in the guy, but some people said he has number 1 talent and a change in scenery with a good qb is what he needed to reach his potential, or at least duplicate his 82 catch, 1310 yd and 7 td season he had in Detroit. The reason I consider him a bust is because he is not producing. I never doubted his god given talent. But, much like Vince, he just either doesn't get it, or doesn't care to find out how to get it. So bust he is.
As for the draft picks. The NFL draft is the biggest crap shoot in professional sports. Yes, not having a 1,3, and a 6 theoretically diminishes your chances of picking up talent. But lets be real, no one ever knows what these picks will turn out to be. So simply having a volume of draft picks is more important then when you draft. There was no reciever, as talented as Roy Williams available at the 20th pick, so I was ok with losing the 1st rd pick. The 3rd they lost they ended up getting it back and still drafted 12 players this past year, 5 players in the 3rd and 4th rd. They made the decision, that the talent and needs of their team didn't differ much with players that could be found in 2nd rd as opposed to the 3rd and 4th + rds. So they traded their second, and stocked up on 3rd's and second day picks. A day(and rd-3rd) that in the past has produced players like Jason Whitten, Jay Ratcliff, Sam Hurd, Tashard Choice, Bradie James, Marion Barber, Patrick Crayton, and undrafted players like Miles Austin, Sam Hurd, and..oh yeah Tony Romo. So yes, the next Demarcus Ware, Felix Jones, or Mike Jenkins could have been their at the 20th pick. Anthony Spencer, Demarcus Spears, Bobby Carpenter (or Roy Williams) could have been sitting there also...all i'm sayin
And if I could quickly expand on my "non-credible" argument. The stock piling of second day picks, namely 5th rd, a rd that they had 3 picks in allowed them to draft a place kicker, David Buehler. A guy responsible for the most improved aspect of this team, kick-offs and special teams play. Last year Dallas had 0 touchbacks, this year the guy leads the league. Field postion has been a complete turn around, this is something Parcell used to call "hidden" yardage. Directly as a result to his ability to kick the ball deep(and high), and their undrafted punter(one of the best in the NFL) ability to pin the opponent in their own territory.
My argument is really simple. Roy Williams wasn't worth what the Cowboys paid, hence it can't really be said that they "lost nothing." We would say this in any other situation.
It's generally acknowledged that if you spend a first round draft pick on a guy, and he does not live up to expectation, you can't really say you "lost nothing." If that were the case teams wouldn't place any value on their draft picks--because it's a crap shoot, as you say, and picks are worth "nothing."
You say above that you were wrong, but in the next breath say you don't care. No offense, but I don't think that's true. Surely had you been right, you would have been pleased. And now being wrong, at the very least, you're not pleased. If you are, in fact, unpleased, I'd have to ask why? The draft picks weren't worth anything, anyway...
Ok, if I could conjure up my best TNC impression here: TNC, please show me where I said they "lost nothing". Not to over parse here, "...if Roy continues to bust I don't see much harm being done"-- is not near the "lost nothing" tag you say I said. As you said, my argument is simple as well. Yes, I was wrong in that I thought Roy would be a much better player for them. But I don't think that trade was as big a risk, or too much to give up for a guy with #1 reciever talent and who has proved he could produce in the NFL, to the point that he made a pro bowl. It was a calculated risk(as opposed to a completely blind one had they drafted a reciever with that pick), and given the fact that the offense has not sputtered, or the future of the Cowboys is not in jeopardy as a result is why I don't much sweat the trade. I feel I can say I don't care because this trade has not hamstrung the Cowboys, and is no where near the debacle that the Joey Galloway trade was. A trade that not only hurt the Cowboys at the time, but killed them in future drafts in a way that the Roy Williams trade never will.
So lets look back at that trade. Pacman gets suspended, which meant Dallas gets Tennesee's 5th(a key reason the trade for Roy was made). They trade a 1,3, and 6 for Roy, Detroits 7th. They had two 3's, and like I said earlier they got a 5th. So in GM thinking, they trade a 1,3,6 for Roy, 5,and a 7 and still have a 3rd pick. Thats the price of doing business as far as trading in the NFL. So again I ask, who else in this draft could have been picked at 20, with top ten ability and has already proven he could play at a pro bowl caliber in the league? And is still in his prime age wise(28). Nobody. So yeah, I wish Roy could get his shit together, and the offense was scoring 50 pts a game. But for now, I'm fine with Roy sucking and the 'Boys scoring 38. With room for improvement and a bright future still in the making. At least we know somewhere in that chasm that is Roy Williams, an 80+ rec, 1300+ yd, 7td season is in there...somewhere. You can't really say that about Hakeem Nicks, Kenny Brit, or Percy Harvin. Not yet anyway. Teams miss on 1st rd picks all the time. At least the Cowboys spent theirs on a guy that showed something on an NFL field.
So yeah...I was wrong(so far), and right now I don't care all that much. 5-2, and Romo is playing like the Jedi he is and next year they will be picking right around 31 or 32 in the first round. All is well in Cowboy land.
If I could also respond to something you said, TNC. Of course there is value to draft picks. But that is not the same as saying every draft is worth the same as every other draft. People like to think of Jerry Jones as some wild ass Daddy Warbucks. But he is not a fool with his money(ala Dan Snyder). He saw what his team needed, and the value of the first two rds in this last draft where he was picking. He didn't see a number 1 receiver and saw value in the later rounds, hence all the trades on draft day where they loaded up on mid to late rd picks and didn't draft in the first 2 rds. Clearly he saw a better use for his first rd money in a guy that at least showed something, and still was relatively young. Certainly much younger than his previous #1 reciever in TO, whom he had no intentions in resigning. Plus, I think he saw the offense good enough to produce if Roy should happen to be a bust. Like it has been doing. He also saw that this team has plenty of young, and improving talent on both sides of the ball already on it where they could have a 1st rd bust or too and not kill them. Again, like thay have been. So why not take a risk and make that deal?
Fair enough. I misquoted you, and for that I apologize.
There probably isn't much more to say anyway. You claim that you were wrong, but you've basically spent the past few posts arguing that your error doesn't actually mean anything. It's an unconvincing acknowledgment of an error--a caveat-filled attempt to face facts.
I don't know. I'm wrong all the time, and that's fine. Had I been wrong about Williams--and I wish I had been--I really can't see myself arguing that it didn't help much, and that I didn't really care. Especially given how adamant I was at the time.
To be frank, reading that post again, I don't actually think you believe you were wrong at all.
Damn, TNC, I haven't posted in a while...only to come back and disappoint my idol with my latest effort at participation.
Yeah it does seem I am guilty of what you are talking about. Can we at least agree that it is not so clear cut in terms of right and wrong. I thought dude was going to show up here and light it up. He hasn't done that, and doesn't seem to be showing any signs of turning the page any time soon. I like to think I have been pretty straight up in acknowledging that fact. Given how I remember watching the kid play as a true freshman, absolutely looking like a man amongst boys, it's hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that he hasn't lived up to the hype. Am I being overly homerish in not writing the guy off as a failure, or a waste of a 1st rd pick, right now and forevermore, yes, guilty. I guess this is where I cloud the issue in my stance on the kid. You are, and were right that he is not that good right now. And all recent evidence points to, mediocre is all he will ever be. Its impossible for me to argue that he is a good player right now.
So I guess that's why I focus on the trade, and risk versus reward and all the stuff I said earlier where my argument has a little more meat to it. That aspect of the deal, the deal itself and the thinking behind it is all I have. Something about those Texas kids from the early and mid 2000's that remains an enigma. I mean we're talking about guys like Ricky Williams, Chris Benson, Sean Rodgers, Casey Hampton, Mike Williams, Leonard Davis, Chris Simms, Quentin Jammer, Mike Huff, Vince Young and of course Roy Williams. Very odd cast of characers and even more odd careers had buy these guys. And all of these guys, excepting Chris Simms and Mike Williams, have made the Pro Bowl or been named rookie of the year. Also, all of these guys have at one time or another had the not living up to potential label tagged on them.
So yeah, reflecting a little, you are right. I am disapointed that the guy sucks. But I will also admit that that disapointment is having a hard time breaking through my overall giddyness with them, right now at least. The cold winds of December have yet to blow...and if past form holds I reserve the right to have said all along that the trade was a huge pile of shit.
Although re-reading your post(which I shouldn't have done), I don't think I am having a hard time "facing the facts". The fact is that he is not good right now. But I remember at the time, your biggest beef was and is that they gave up too much. my argument was, and is that hey have done so well in stockpilling picks that they could afford to let some go if they identified a player that fit their need, without it killing them like it has in the past, ala Joey Galloway.
I know, I know we are circling your edict of re-arguing the same point over and over again. But if you will allow a little latitude. It's clear we see the draft a little differently, I think if your a rebuilding, financially hamstrung team the drft is vital. To me, right now the Cowboys are neither of those. I don't think I spent the last few posts arguing that I didn't think the fact that Roy Williams sucking right now doesn't mean anything and although I was wrong about his impact, really, I wasn't wrong at all. I was trying to explain why I thought at the time that the price was right, and worth the shot. To me, it would be shady to say that because he sucks right now, what I believe then and now wasn't really what I believe. If he continues to suck, I would have the same feeling as I have with all their other first round busts. Yeah it sucks, and they really need to scout and make a better decision next time and its a good thing that this time didn't prevent a next time from happening, ala Joey Galloway.
But because you are who I think you are, to me anyways. I will take the night and search the soul. If I am wrong, trust that I will say so without caveat. We have to put this behind us mi hermano, they need our focus the dreaded and feared Eagles await.
Sorry dude. I went to bed :P
Seriously though, we're talking football here. Of course I think I'm right, but I'm not Len Pasquarelli. I don't have the right to be dissappointed. Your a Cowboys fan. That's good enough for me!
But yeah, the jury is still out, I guess. I actually think that Austin stepping up will help Williams. He really doesn't have to be the man. He just has to run the right routs. If he got 800 yards this season, I'd be happy.
I'll defend Vince Young here, cause I think it's way too early to label him a bust. He had a couple of promising seasons, an awful season last year in which he got the quick hook, and we haven't had a chance to see since then if he's "figured it out." Though it looks like he's about to lead the Titans to their first victory.
Yeah, especially at the QB postion, it is way too early to label and slot him. I used him as an example, personally, watching just about every snap he(and Roy) took in college I just expected both of them to be difference makers by now. I still think its too early to close the book on Roy, but the signs seem to point to bust, even to a homer like me. If he can't get open in an offense like this, that's not good. Maybe he just ain't right, broken ribs and all, but the routes just look awful.
Saw a great stat Fri morning:
BEST WIN PCT WITH TD-INT DIFF OF -10 OR WORSE
Ken Stabler - 96-49-1 194 tds 222 ints
David Woodley - 34-18-1 48 tds 63 ints
Vince Young - 18-11-0 22 tds 33 ints
I know that's some old school names but both took their teams to superbowls, just sayin'. Something to be said for playmaking, moving chains and leadership, even if the stats dont look amazing.
The Vikings D Line is crushing the Pack. Earlier today I heard one of the commentators saying that the Pack had replaced a legend because Rogers has been doing so well. Anyone remember when Bulger was one of the best quarterbacks in the league?
As a New England guy, it was just wonderful to see both the Giants and the terribly, terribly overrated Jets lose at the same time on the same day.
Rangers managed to eke out 1-0 over the Bruins, though. Can't win them all...
Finally off the Schneid. I don't care if it came against the only team worse than us the past three years.
I wish more of you guys could see how good Steven Jackson is. He's a beast, and a joy to watch. It still took him until week 8 to get his first TD, but his yards from scrimmage are off the charts.
I have no idea of the practical possibilities, but it sure would be lovely to see Jackson in the backfield next to Mr. Brady.
As a Chiefs fan, I congratulate you on the "we're not going to lose 16 games!" win. I felt the same relief after we beat the Redskins. Sadly, we don't have a real talent to watch and comfort us in the dark times. Our talents are now the DE for the Vikes and the TE for the Falcons. D*** Carl Peterson.
It's funny you mention that. Due to my time in Columbia, MO, I grew to dislike the Chiefs just because the town was pretty split. However, during these rebuilding times, I can't bring myself to root against them. I've caught myself cheering them on multiple times this year...
I'm reading here that Vince Young has completed 15/18 in the first 3 quarters.
I don't mind losing on the Giants, and I'll live with Carolina beating Arizona despite a mess of confidence I've thrown away, but dang I didn't give up on the Titans till last week.
Yeah, as a Longhorn homer, I really hope he has gotten his shit together. The guy was a very efficient PASSER in college. He throws funky, but the results were very impressive.
I wish I could have watched this Jax-Ten game. I'm looking at the box score and it looks crazy. 80 yard TD run and 79 yard TD run by Maurice Jones-Drew, 52 yard TD run and 89 yard TD run by Chris Johnson.
Okay, I just saw the highlights, and a ton of credit to David Garrad. On both of MJD's long touchdown runs, he sprinted out in front of him to block. Good for him.
Brett Favre--nothing special. Harvin and Peterson had good games. Same old GB offensive line (kinda puts that Giants playoff game a year and a half back in persopective). 4 tds, no mistakes--been there, done that. But some day he's not going to play a good game, and everyone will nod their heads and say, "see, I told ya."
Green Bay's offensive line was substantially better in 2007 than it is in 2009. And Favre is, so far, less than a touchdown per game different from Tarvaris Jackson playing behind a patchwork offensive line missing BOTH Hutch and McKinnie, so far this year.
Seriously, I don't get the man crush on this guy. He's the Pete Rose of football, not the Babe Ruth. He's a decent quarterback who was lucky enough to play for very good teams throughout most of his (very long) career. But Minnesota has the most talented football team in the NFL (it is not close). They have two offensive linemen who are in the argument for being the best at their positions, and one about whom there is no argument (Hutchison). They have the best running back in the NFL (probably the most dominant running back since Walter Payton if not Jim Brown). The third best receiver is Bernard Berrian (maybe fourth). This team released Bobby Wade in the offseason (he walked on to start in KC). And they never play from behind because until the Giants wake up they have the best defensive front in football.
I shudder to think what a Carson Palmer or Donovan McNabb would do in Minnesota.
In the words of Alan Sherman that was good advice.
Anyway. I hope everyone had an enjoyable football-day.
Yes, this is good advice. I felt down after the Jets lost but not for long. Work to curb your passions, work hard and mind your own business, in general good rules of thumb that are simple but not always easy to do.
Regardless of whether the boos were deserved (and for the record, I certainly don't think they were undeserved, or unreasonable, nor that Favre gave a crap about them), it seems like the the point everyone ignores is what it says about a team management that puts its fans in the position of having to boo, and then get beat by, their former hero. I am speaking as one of those fans.
Brett Favre-nothing special? Nothing special? He is 40 years old and just tied Marino's record , besides having 4 TDs on the day! Nothing special--did you see him thread the needle to Harvin? Unreal.
I was amazed to discover that the Packers turned Spencer Havner, who was an All American LB candidate at UCLA, into a TE. Pretty crerative--usually if a LB switches to offense in the NFL, they end up converting to FBs.
As for Cable--I don't buy it. I knew Cable when he was at UCLA, and while we never know someone behind their own closed doors, I tend to think there is more to the story...
I worked a party at John Madden's house, and there were a lot of old Raiders there, Shell, Hayes, and a bunch I didn't know. They were before my time, mainly. But I did overhear a story about how how Al really, REALLY didn't like players who were involved with domestic abuse, and was the reason for a pretty well known ostracizing with a player on his team. I am waiting to see his reaction to this information.
As for Cable's story, well, I think he is building his own problem by going so far out of his way to NOT say anything. Repeatedly. I would also urge anyone interested to do some research on the story behind Randy Hanson, going back to the Lane Kiffin era. There are some amazingly Raideresque storylines as to his purpose on the team. Like the widely held belief that he was Al's spy on the staff, and the interplay between the Kiffen lawsuit, and the way that this investigation unfolded around Hanson's change in stances regarding his willingness to cooperate with investigators after he was told he would be moved to personnel from the coaching staff. I think Tim Kawakami or Ray Ratto had some good stories a while back on this topic.
Yeah, it was a nothing special game for Brett Favre. He didn't do anything outrageous, though I agree the pass to Harvin was pretty good, like take them back and win the game in the last second, while being harassed in the backfield and on the run, with a forty + yard rocket only his receiver could have caught. He handed the ball off a lot, threw high percentage passes, looked more like one of those game manager kind of qbs than the Mississippi gun slinger. It was, by the standards he himself has set, nothing special--a game every qb in the league including Manning, Brees, Brady, and all the rest would be more than happy with. Nothing special.
You guys are haters! Favre blocked the 270-lb. Aaron Kampman so hard he fell backward. Nothing special? How many QBs run the field to see if their guy is OK? How many have broken every record in the book? How many tweak an ankle and just hop on out there? Favre has played with broken bones all over his body and if you say he is nothing special then I serriously wonder if you either played a sport or know any athletes up close? What he has accomplished is other-wordly.
I just want to add that UCLA, particularly in the post Bob Toledo era, didn't take no mess when it comes to coaches or players' behavior. Cable's behavior was exemplary, and his family was omnipresent. Coaching is an extremely tough and lonely profession where relationships are concerned. More than one wife of a coach cheated, and the unmarried ones had just as tough a time with relationships. These dudes sleep on campus, recruit 24/7 and are on the toad--they are never home except for holidays and occasional Sundays. The pressure to win and keep their jobs is immense. That is no excuse for slapping an adulterous wife, but this guy went from a college O-line coach to OC to NFL OC to Head Coach in a matter of a few years. I am sure these women were unhappy being left to raise children and run homes alone, and then if he met someone else along the way, that is a pretty lethal dose of A Woman Scorned.
Giants look like fakers now, but I'd have to put it on a few things: season-ending injuries in the secondary, and Osi not being up to game shape.
There's also the fact that they beat up on some horrible teams and barely squeaked by Dallas 33-31.
Eagles are doing the same thing they've always done. Been maddeningly inconsistent from game to game, and Andy Reid as usual with his bad timeout usage again.
It's hard to put a good read on Dallas right now...objectively I think they're a very talented team with mediocre coaching and that Wade Davis got peter principled here.
I gotta say though, the WR crop this past season is special. Maclin, Harvin, Crabtree, Nicks and god knows what other rookies will pick it up.
Dallas probably wishing they had those Roy Williams picks back honestly because Dallas has actually drafted really well when they've had picks. I think Felix Jones was a bad pick that early due to other teams passing on him for known injury risk, but a very good player when healthy nonetheless.
(Washington is terrible and Dan Snyder is a horrible human being. I hope Campbell gets a shot to start on another team like Buffalo ro Cleveland. That is all.)
You say you see the NFL changing. Using the Tom Cable case, I just don't see change coming. The Napa DA didn't even press charges. Al Davis hasn't fired him. Commissioner Goodell has done nothing. An ex-wife and ex-girl friend have spoken up -- Cable hit them, abused them during their relationships with him.
Cable is a huge man -- bigger than many of his Oakland Raiders football players. But he doesn't throw punches at the big guys. He likes to hit little people -- fractured the jaw of his asst. coach Randy Hanson, small in statute and probably weighs 200 pounds less than Cable and beat on the women he used to love.
Ethic Soup blog asks a damn good question: "Where are the good guys in the NFL and why don't they speak up and say they think such violent behavior is wrong?" Surely NOT ALL pro football players are abusers off-the-field like Cable. Why do they stay silent? It suggests approval. The Ethic Soup post is at:
http://www.ethicsoup.com/2009/11/for-tom-cables-love-of-women-hitem-again-harder-harder.html
1. Domestic Violence: I'm with TNC that I haven't seen anything that tells me NFL playrs are more likely to abuse their significant others than other people from the same demographics NFL playrs are drawn from (which is to say, a decent cross section of the States, heavy on the South and heavy on african americans, not that I know if the latter is relevant). Someone with decent stats on abuse in the South or the african american community should be relevant here.
As for "speaking out", why should they? Tom Cable's personal life and violent tendencies aren't any of Peyton Manning's business, except to the extent that they get airtime. The only interest Peyton Manning (or any other nonabusive NFL player, coach, official, or owner) has in this story is hoping it goes away before it turns off any fans. "Where are the good guys in the NFL and why don't they speak up and say they think such violent behavior is wrong?" ???
You don't need to speak up and say violent behavior is wrong. It goes without saying.
2. The New York Giants. This is a team that rises and falls with the play of its offensive line. Eli Manning is like Tom Brady more than Peyton; he doesn't have an ultraquick release and he misses badly under pressure. If the O line doesn't let Jacobs get past the line of scrimmage before he's hit and doesn't give Eli time to find his (basically second rate, but talented) receivers, the Giants struggle. And the defense is dealing with some injuries.
3. The Rest of the NFC East. Dallas is a good team that is missing some players to really contend (defensive secondary). Washington is a bad team, Jason Campbell is every bit as good as Joey Harrington, and Dan Snyder has almost singlehandedly turned his team into Detroit. Philadelphia is a threat to go to the Super Bowl every season Donovan McNabb can finish. Too bad he never does.
I think you are completely off regarding Felix Jones. He was the third rb picked in the draft, the first being his mate McFadden. So exactly 1 team passed on Jones, when Carolina picked Jonathan Stewart. Felix has definately had injury issues while a pro, but there was no hint of injury problems while he was at Arkansas. In fact, he played more than McFadden. From what I've read, he was the solid workhorse who rarely(if ever) missed a game. As far as reaching with the 22nd pick, I think that is off. Felix Jones is the only rb not named Bo Jackson to have gained 400 yds in his first 50 carries. There are old timers on the radio, and in the newspapers in Dallas who feel that Felix is the most talented rb to ever play in Dallas. I happen to agree, he really is amazing to watch and his explosiveness is other worldly.
As for Roy, well, just look at some of my above posts for my thoughts on him. Not getting into that again...
This was a response to Jorah---
I am just recalling what was said when he was drafted. There were concerns he'd only end up being a 3rd down back in the NFL, and concerns about his durability at the NFL level. That being said, I do love Felix Jones' skill set, but I just always saw him as a complementary back and return man like Leon Washington. Given Dallas's other issues that year and needs in the draft, getting another running back when you have Barber already felt like a a reach. (Btw, Tashard Choice is criminally underused).
Still, it's the same draft where Chris Johnson went a couple picks later and Tennessee was criticized for reaching for him, so hindsight is a tricky thing here.
Fair enough, I remembering hoping a WR would have been drafted with that pick. Namely Desean Jackson. Talk about a guy who slid, there were 6 recievers drafted before him.
I do remember the thinking that Felix was drafted right about where he was drafted, especially with Jerry being the Razorback homer that he is. While Marion is great, he is best in a combo rb package like he was when Julius Jones was there. Felix seemed like the perfect fit, given his history of sharing the backfield with McFadden. It really hard to fault them for that pick, I really like the guy, even as good as desean Jackson has been playing(and who he plays for now).
And yes, Tashard is great, but as good as he is I think he is still the 3rd best rb on the Cowboys. Only so many carries to go around, none the less...a wonderful problem to have!!!!