- 01:35 AM
- 03/22/10
Anyone remember John Rocker's racist comments and the associated media response? They had protests at the game, the talking heads at the news agencies were discussing it...heck, Twisted Sister asked him to stop using their song :-) I don't sense the same outrage as I remember back then.
posted by bdaddy
Here's what Rocker actually said:
I'd retire first. It's the most hectic, nerve-racking city. Imagine having to take the 7 Train to the ballpark looking like you're riding through Beirut next to some kid with purple hair, next to some queer with AIDS, right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time, right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It's depressing... The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get in this country?
Rasist, sexist, homophobic comments.
Hunter's comments were shortsighted and clueless. He should get shit over them, and has. But he was also discussing a problem thats been a topic for a while now.
Maybe you've forgotten what Rocker actually said, but Hunter's comments aren't in the same league, and comparing them to somehow show that a white guy would get more grief than a black guy is absurd.
posted by justgary at 12:40 AM on March 13
It would be all over every news outlet and he would be getting a ration of shit.
Philadelphia Inquirer, Los Angeles Times, Boston Herald, USA Today, FOXNews, Huffington Post, msnbc.com, MLB.com, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Yahoo! Sports, Toronto Star, OCRegister, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, Deadspin...
Safe to say it's being covered on EVERY news outlet.
posted by justgary at 05:35 PM on March 11
Your chances of winning are still 1-in-9 (same as they should be for every independent attempt).
First day of statistics class the prof used a coin flip to show this same concept. Same chance every flip. Last statistics class I ever took.
posted by justgary at 05:26 PM on March 11
Torii Hunter has always had the rep of being a great guy, and maybe he is, but he also has an edge to him. Maybe its his great personality, but people have ignored that part of his makeup. So this doesn't surprise me.
There will never be a White Entertainment Awards show, or a NAAWP, or a United White College Fund etc.
I know, right? Were you at the Oscars picketing all the white directors that had been overlooked?
I remember that line of argument in a freshman debate class. It didn't go well. It's so full of holes, so embarrassing lacking in any common sense, I can't believe you're not stating it ironically.
posted by justgary at 03:53 PM on March 11
Love it
Thought I was the only one :)
posted by justgary at 05:37 PM on March 05
Fielder might not be so quick to forget. He said he didn't expect to be hit, but was irritated by what occurred.
posted by justgary at 03:38 PM on March 05
but waiting 6 months might be a bit much.
They had no choice. This was the first they faced him since. Again people, for good or bad, love it or hate it, baseball players don't forget.
posted by justgary at 03:36 PM on March 05
Perhaps he really was just miffed, rather than perturbed, annoyed or displeased.
Maybe so. But in the audio it also says that Fielder seemed 'emotional' about it. Strange. This is one instance where I'd rather hear is words than read them.
As far as Zito being the one to hit him, I don't think it mattered. They're not going to hurt him; that's not the intent. They're sending a message. Hitting him in his first at bat of the season, on the first pitch leaves no doubt that it was a purpose pitch. Zito just happened to be the guy on the hill.
I think he handled it well. I believe him when he says it was worth it, and I'm curious if he'll do it again. I'm guessing only if the team is out of the race.
posted by justgary at 10:42 AM on March 05
The Giants' Barry Zito responded today to Prince Fielder's home run bomb dance last September.
Probably safe to put away the baseball players forget anything myth.
In the article it said he was 'miffed' about being hit. Either he's lying or completely clueless.
posted by justgary at 02:48 AM on March 05
Some of the yanks on Twitter... Dear god are they sore losers.
What bugged me was the look on the Team USA faces
Seeing America just made me annoyed.
I'll give you this. You're consistent.
posted by justgary at 01:12 AM on March 01
It's no more erotic than the floor routine or figure skating. Both of which I find... Erotic.
This. I'm not ashamed to say I find this erotic, but no more than other sports. Put on 'hot for teacher' instead of whatever it is she's poling too and I don't think it looks much like a competition any longer.
posted by justgary at 04:16 PM on February 26
African American in the white house, white sorority wins stepping competition. The Times They Are A-Changin'.
posted by justgary at 04:12 PM on February 26
Would today's golf writers have reported on Tiger Woods' mistresses if they knew about them before the rest of the media? The PGA would've cut off their access forever.
But again, times have changed in other ways. Celebrities are covered much more today than before, and athletes are celebrities. I have no idea how Tiger hid this for so long, but if Palmer was popular today and openly being seen with other women, we would have found out. He lived in a different time and didn't need to worry about it.
I agree with the article in general. I just don't think it's as simple as he's implying. There's a lot that's changed since the era he so loved, and I think his anger has kind of blinded him to, or allowed him to ignore the big picture.
posted by justgary at 06:32 PM on February 23
Jenkins isn't bitter at Tiger
Sure he is. I get that he's bitter at the sport, at the present day pro golfer in general, but Tiger is the epitome of what he hates, and I don't think he's trying to hide that fact at all.
What's ironic is that his whole 'get off my lawn' rant about how times have changed goes both ways.
Arnold Palmer is, perhaps, the most beloved golfer of the last 50 years. Arnold Palmer also had a well-known reputation as a ladies man in his day. Reporters, yes, reporters from the Golf Writers Association of America, often ran into Palmer with a woman on his arm, a woman who was not his wife, Winnie. They never reported it, and more they never even THOUGHT about reporting it "It was none of our business," one of those writers told Ian O'Connor for his seminal golf book "Arnie and Jack." Now, the golf writers insist that it is not enough for a few of them to hear Tiger Woods apologize about his business, no, they insist that they must have more participation in the process and they insist he must answer questions or they won't even listen. Yes, the rules have changed.
Ah, the good ol' days.
posted by justgary at 06:06 PM on February 23
"She's what I would call a Holden Caulfield Tony Kornheiser fantasy at this point"
Fixed.
No doubt. I mean, come on, taste aside, he seems to be projecting. Boots like that are worn by every age, every where. I guess red is taboo? And the skirt, other than being plaid, is just a basic skirt. It's almost down to her knees. If the skirt and boots were black I'm guessing he'd approve.
There's a double standard in play. Kornheiser's career is probably safe no matter how wrinkled and bald he gets. I doubt Hannah Storm has, nor feels that luxury.
As a side note, I graduated from high school in the late 80s, and what a movie character would have worn to play the role of a hooker then is basic mall wear today. Not that there's anything wrong with that, just saying.
posted by justgary at 05:19 PM on February 23
Well, that came off a little bitter.
posted by justgary at 05:09 PM on February 23
Plus, you seem to have left Godfather II off your refuse to acknowledge list
Because God Father 2 was awesome. The kid that makes you proud. Godfather 3 was the disappointing child you want to forget.
The Godfather III is just misunderstood.
It's just a little L O N G. Is it over yet?
posted by justgary at 01:11 AM on February 23
Damon loves NY and the attention. I'm sure in the back of his head he's thinking when the tigers fall out of contention and the Yankees are ready to pull away in the division and throw the budget out the window he'll be a late season acquisition.
posted by justgary at 06:38 PM on February 21
I guess I'm looking at it as "trailer trash"="trash that happens to live in a trailer," rather than "they live in a trailer, so they are trash."
To me, it says trash is what happens, and lives, in a trailer park. That's the part I don't get, and why I said trash is trash. If trailer trash simply means 'trash that lives in a trailer park', how does the phrase make any sense when discussing Tiger Woods? Maybe it's not saying that everyone that lives in a trailer is trash, but it's saying that this behavior belongs in a trailer park, and that's where it normally happens.
Anyway, I probably shouldn't have used the word bigotry, which is loaded. So I apologize for using the word dviking.
I should have said that I simply find the constant use of that phrase troubling and tiring and angry, it doesn't make sense to me, and I think it makes sportsfilter look bad. Just my opinion.
posted by justgary at 04:37 PM on February 21
Well, I ask because that phrase is a fairly well-embedded part of the American lexicon.
And that means what exactly? There are plenty of phrases that were well-embedded in the american lexicon that aren't used today. That people use to say/do X seems like a bizarre way to support anything. I'll spare you the examples.
It really seems that to call someone a bigot for using it is an aggressive position to take, especially when that person is a member of the community who contributes in a positive way on a regular basis and has never before shown signs of bigotry.
Please read more carefully before accusing me of calling someone a bigot. The remark, in my opinion smacks of bigotry. The remark is what I'm commenting on. I don't know the person that said it.
Then to escalate the position to the point where you speculate about the possibility of the phrase "ghetto trash" being used just seems a little bit teensy-weensy like inflammatory rhetoric designed to get a reaction.
Feel free to believe what you want. There's no difference between calling someone 'ghetto trash' and 'trailer trash'. Interesting that you accuse my comparison to 'inflammatory rhetoric' but have no problem with calling someone trailer trash. There's your 'inflammatory rhetoric'.
I'm not trying to clean up the internet. When the black hand used the phrase, I didn't bat an eye. I wouldn't use it, but that's just me. But to then respond with calling the phrase 'fitting' seems over the top. It's the opposite of fitting.
obviously not to generalize about those of lesser economic standing.
Excuse me? That's exactly what it's doing.
People live in trailers and ghettos for the most part because of economics. I have no problem accepting that no harm was intended. but to take a privileged, super rich athlete and condemn his actions by comparing him to trailer trash sucks for many people, and sucks in general. I have no interest in a shouting match, but I also have no problem with saying so.
BTW, if you want to know when this site used ghetto references, here's a good start
Yep, sucks, huh?
posted by justgary at 03:20 PM on February 21
Trailer trash is trailer trash, anyway you slice it.
No, trash is trash. What the hell does where you live have to do with it? When did sportsfilter become bigotfilter? What's next, ghetto trash? Disappointing.
posted by justgary at 05:01 PM on February 20
No doubt boxing is dirty, but no way was this fight thrown. Tyson was headed down hill before the fight, we just didn't know it. And it continued AFTER this fight.
As unstable as Tyson has been in the past decade if he had been ordered to throw the fight we would know by now. But hey, those tin foil hats are kinda attractive in a weird sorta way.
posted by justgary at 05:51 PM on February 12
Wow. That is awful.
posted by justgary at 03:59 PM on February 12
Colts' conservative approach made no sense
Tracy Porter's Interception In Super Bowl 44...According to Tecmo Super Bowl
posted by justgary at 05:07 PM on February 11
New Orleans Saints Super Bowl parade crowd was largest in memory, organizer says
---
Fans are grateful for more than just the team's on-field performance. Many members of "who dat" nation credit the team with uniting a city that has struggled with racial divisions and labored to rebuild in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which left about 85 percent of the city underwater in August 2005.
"After the hurricane, people were more willing to come back when they realized the Saints were coming back," said Scott Catalanotto, 35, whose 7-year-old son sat on a ladder and yelled for beads.
---
---
Drew Brees on Letterman in case anyone is interested and missed it.
posted by justgary at 05:00 PM on February 10
It's a football city, I think we agree on that.
Of course. New Orleans, like much of the south, is a football town.
It is also a pro football town. The colleges you've mentioned have small, enthusiastic fan bases. The saints have a huge fan base made up of most of the city; that was my original point. LSU has a huge following, yes. But they're not thought of as New Orleans' own.
Yerfatma's right, this is getting a little silly. Yesterday during the parade an announcer said that 'rooting for the saints wasn't much different than rooting for the city'. That puts it perfectly for me. New Orleans is a Saints town, period. Surely we can agree on that.
If the Saints had left it would have been devastating to the city; the same could not be said of any other sports team in new orleans.
posted by justgary at 04:44 PM on February 10
it is probably the one team in all the major cities in which I have lived in or around (Boston, Chicago and London being the others) that really has a high level of support across all races and all socioeconomic classes and for which the games are heavily attended by people from all those walks of life. So there is a unifying element of the Saints for the people of New Orleans that is truly unique.
Excellent point. Even knowing that, walking around the quarter after the game I was struck by the variety of fans celebrating the victory, and celebrating together. The same was true of the parade tonight.
The saints along the gulf coast cross all races, rich and poor, male and female, educated and not, white collar and blue collar, young and old. It's truly impressive.
just not sure what the basketball or volleyball attendence numbers have to do with this discussion.
You disagreed when I said colleges in New Orleans did not have the huge following or impact the Saints had on the city. That's where the discussion came from.
20,000 fans for a division 1 football team is not impressive. In fact, it ranks near the bottom. I have no idea how you find division 1 mens basketball comparable to Women's Volleyball, but drawing crowds less than 2000 is also not impressive.
Tulane is important to New Orleans, and they have a small, enthusiastic fan base. But the school doesn't have anything close to the impact or following the saints have in the city (I don't know anyone that would claim so), and all the numbers just point to that fact.
posted by justgary at 08:49 PM on February 09
New Orleans Saints have a special bond with their fans What has happened in New Orleans since 2005 -- but especially this year -- is the very best that professional team sports can be. It's not the NFL championship. It's the potential of a franchise to help an entire city experience the values that are so special to teams -- the sense of belonging, of family, of commitment, of sharing joy -- as well as sorrow.
Parade's gonna be televised on the NFL network if anyone is interested.
posted by justgary at 01:40 PM on February 09
I don't know New Orleans, but I would think that LSU is huge there because Baton Rouge is so close. They're an SEC powerhouse in national championship contention most years.
LSU is the only college that can even remotely be brought into the discussion (tulane draws an average of 1,500 fans at basketball games, the local minor league baseball team draws more). But their influence pales in comparison to the saints.
New Orleans is, for the most part, a poor city, many never leave the city (which is why it was so difficult to return when they were forced to leave by katrina). They're not identifying with a college an hour and a half away that they've never seen. The LSU fan base is certainly well represented, not denying that. It also is nothing compared to the Saints fan base; it doesn't rule the city like the saints do, and no one in New Orleans would claim so.
LSU winning the title would be welcomed, of course. But the feeling in new orleans wouldn't be 'our LSU' as it it is with 'our saints'. LSU has a lot of fans in New Orleans. New Orleans considers the Saints their team. There's a difference.
posted by justgary at 01:00 PM on February 09
The wealthy are sex addicts, the poor just like to screw around.
But hey, he knew he had a problem and was looking into therapy before being caught even. I believe that, no problem.
posted by justgary at 10:09 AM on February 09
BTW, your comment about N.O. not having a college following makes me wonder if you've spent much time there. Tulane, Loyola, & U. of N.O. all have their fan bases, and while LSU is a bit up the road, it gets big time play there.
I didn't say those schools didn't have a following. I said they didn't have a huge following. And they don't. LSU, yes. But it's not a New Orleans team. College sports does not unify New Orleans as the saints do. Not even in the same ballpark.
The euphoria of a Super Bowl win doesn't pay bills, nor clean up parks, nor stop crime, or rebuild homes...the things that city needs.
Did anyone say that? Did I say that? Is anyone dumb enough to believe winning the super bowl will stop crime? Who are you having this discussion with? It's like you're creating opinions out of thin air just so you can argue with them.
The people I know on a professional basis are in the service industries (hotel/restaurants/suppliers) and they're already past Mardi Gras in their planning.
I have no idea what this means or proves. I would have asked the cooks, and waiters, and hotel clerks myself last night but they were too busy dancing on tables.
reality will have a way of creeping back into play.
What reality? That they're are still problems? They know that. They never thought otherwise. That's what you don't understand. The victory is more important because of the problems.
I'll check back with them in a couple of months and see if anything they say changes my mind. I'm there again in March, so I'll check it out.
Look dviking. As someone that's lived on the gulf coast my entire life, went to school right outside of new orleans, and got married in new orleans, I know the win was huge. I know most of the residents of New Orleans and the gulf coast believe that also. Does it solve everything? No, of course not, and no one is claiming so. But it's a huge morale boost for a city that has had very little good news for a very long time. A city that very well could have lost their football team after katrina. A city that was almost wiped off the map, now has a super bowl winner, and that's incredible and inspiring.
I'm not saying sports aren't important elsewhere. But to using championships in other cities as a comparison without acknowledging that what New Orleans has been through makes their situation unique seems shockingly shortsighted.
I don't believe you have a clue about the city of new orleans, and the idea that you're going to use sporadic business trips to see if it 'changes your opinion', that because you take trips to the area you know better than those that live there, have lived there, that are everywhere giving their thoughts on what the victory means to the city, the entire gulf coast, is insulting. So I'm done with this. I'm too happy to argue with you, and I'd rather celebrate.
Laissez les bon temps roulez.
posted by justgary at 03:35 AM on February 09
or that the Vikings should have been there and would have been victorious instead is to give the Saints short shrift on a season in which they really dominated
Agreed. And I've read two sports writers tonight throwing around the idea that the colts gave the game away. Amazing.
"That was the difference in the game,'' Polian said. "The onside kick was the turning point, and along with that, not being able to get a yard on third-and-one is what really cost us. Those were two plays in our control, and we didn't make them. Today, they were the better team. They deserved to win.'' Just as the Colts deserved to lose.
Polian could have added the interception as another turning point. That makes 3 game differences that I could easily point to as colt mistakes (bad coaching, bad 3rd down call, but throw), and yet he also says the Saints deserved to win. And they did.
As bad as the Saints played against the Vikings they only turned the ball over once to the vikings 5 times. The takeaway differential is always huge. If you give the ball away 5 times, YOU deserve to lose.
posted by justgary at 02:25 AM on February 09
My business dealings have taken me there for several weeks at a stretch multiple times, and I visit the city numerous times each year, so don't be condensending you may not know of what you speak.
Okay, stated plainly, I don't think you could be more wrong.
New Orleans is a small city, with no baseball team, only recently a basketball team, no huge college following, that has always been Saints obsessed. All year long, even when they sucked. This is ignoring what happened after the hurricane, which if you want to believe doesn't affect any of this, so be it.
I don't believe comparing New Orleans to other cities means anything. Do you think baseball has a bigger hold on boston or tampa?
Indy had 11 people greet the team at the airport. The saints already had a parade planned win or lose. If you believe new orleans will simply move on, I disagree so vehemently, to put it lightly, that I'm just going to bow out of that discussion.
posted by justgary at 12:34 AM on February 09
If you want to say that the winner of a game always deserves the result, fine.
Deserves it more than the loser, yep. I don't see how anything else is even possible (ignoring official decisions).
If the NFC Championship was replayed a week later, would you have bet on the Saints?
That's a difficult question that I can't answer. I think the Saints played a terrible game. I think their offense wasn't clicking. And I don't think it was all because of the Vikings defense.
You can point to the Vikings mistakes because they were glaring. They played well except for a number of plays. The saints were overall awful. So it seems, as you said, convenient to point to the Vikings mistakes, but ignore that the Saints overall played awful or at the very least give the credit to the Vikings.
If the Vikings and Saints played 10 times I don't know who would win the most times, but I think the saints are a much better team than they showed in that one game.
You seem to suggest that 'deserving team' equals 'winning team' and I'm not sure I agree with that either.
I don't know if always. But it seems we're using stats as a scoreboard. The vikings had better stats, so they should win. In this game, at critical times, the vikings also made critical mistakes, forced or not. The saints made enough plays to win. I think they deserved it more than a team that constantly made mistakes, even if it was an ugly, luck involved win.
posted by justgary at 12:22 AM on February 09
It seemed to me that the Saints needed some unforced errors to win the game and the Vikings had plenty of reasons to feel like they gave one away.
Again, and maybe I drank too much, but I'll try once again:
It's not believing you gave the game away that I'm talking about; I think most teams that go into a game favored and lose believe they gave the game away. It's the constant harping on giving the game away without giving any credit. Someone knocked favre on his ass constantly, and someone kicked a high pressure field goal that won the game. The saints deserved to win the game at the very least because the vikings played so badly. If the saints didn't deserve it, well, the vikings deserved it less.
(this is ignoring the whole overtime coin toss, which I agree is BS, but has nothing to do with the saints.)
posted by justgary at 11:52 PM on February 08
what statements made by the Vikings are you alluding to?
Almost every comment I heard by the Vikings was a riff on 'we gave the game away' with no credit to the saints. Which is fine. I prefer the Colts style.
I suggest you let that loss to the Vikings go...I think the Cowboys have.
I didn't bring up the vikings loss. Someone else did.
With the Olympics starting, the sports page will move on, and with Mardi Gras the city will move on.
I take it you haven't spent much time in new orleans.
posted by justgary at 11:45 PM on February 08
More on manning skipping the handshake.
posted by justgary at 10:50 PM on February 08
I don't think it's sour grapes to acknowledge that the Vikings gave that game away. I was rooting for the Saints in that game and I think the Vikings were probably the better team. It could have been phrased better I guess but I understand the sentiment.
I think we've (meaning sportsfilter) had this discussion before, so I'll just write this and then we'll agree to disagree.
I believe claiming a team doesn't deserve a victory because of poor play on another teams part is the very definition of sour grapes. Winning is equally about not making mistakes as it is about making plays. The Vikings have themselves to blame for their own bad play.
If you play that poorly, it's fine to believe you gave the game away. It's claiming the other team doesn't deserve it that is sour grapes. Sure, that's a fine line, but I believe in that line.
And it has nothing to do with who the best team is. Honestly, I believe the colts were the better team. I'm sure the Colts believe that also. If Manning doesn't make a mistake maybe the Colts win. But mistakes are part of the game.
but if the Vikings win the OT coin toss are they back to being the better team again despite the gaffs?
1. Of course not, unless they score. Are you assuming they score? Because you can't possibly know that.
2. You seem stuck on who the better team is/was. The better team often doesn't win. That the better team loses because of mistakes doesn't mean the other team doesn't deserve the victory. If the better team makes so many mistakes they lose, it's THAT team that doesn't deserve to win.
I was impressed by the Colts answers after the game. I'm sure they believe they're the better team, but they were gracious in defeat. I respect that, much more than whining. That's just how I roll.
posted by justgary at 10:20 PM on February 08
11 fans greet returning Colts.
Wow.
posted by justgary at 09:26 PM on February 08
I really think the Saints were a little tight to begin with, lacking the Colts experience. At 10-0 the game was on the brink. The saints withstood the early rally, relaxed, and it wasn't close after that: 31-7.
As a Vikings fan I well never feel that the Saints deserved to be there...
posted by kirkaracha
Who deserved to be there more? The Saints that played poorly in the championship game? Or the Vikings that played worse? I understand lamenting the fact that your team sucked in the biggest game of the year; I've been there many times. But claiming 'the saints don't deserve to be there' is just sour grapes and nothing more.
I really had no opinion on the Colts coming into the game, but I was impressed by their comments after the game. While the Vikings, from what I saw, gave NO credit to the Saints, despite Favre looking like he was 90 by the end of the game, the Colts seemed to go out of their way to credit the Saints. The Colts made mistakes, and I'm sure Manning thinks he gifted that interception, but he did nothing but give credit to Porter.
They lost with class, which is a lot more than i can say for the Vikings (and many of their fans). The Saints beat 3 (possible) hall of fame quarterbacks. The deserve everything they've won.
I just don't want to hear any more talk about how this somehow solves all of New Orleans (the city)'s problems.
posted by fabulon7
The overall context makes for a nice story, but nothing beyond that.
posted by NerfballPro
Assuming that someone, somewhere is saying the victory solves all New Orleans' problems (I was there for two days for the super bowl and never heard this once; it would be great if you could point to where someone actually said this), they're obviously mistaken. But make no mistake, the victory is a huge morale boost. The people that are rebuilding the city, the people that work their every day, are going to be building and working with a little hop in their step into the near future.
It's going to take money, energy, and action to help rebuild the city, but to say that it's 'nothing beyond' a nice story, is complete nonsense. You could not be more wrong.
He had one less completion than Brees, but way more yards.
posted by grum@work
And to be fair, it took 6 more attempts.
posted by justgary at 09:22 PM on February 08
On Bourbon street. If I don't make it out alive, what a game. So happy for the
city of New Orleans.
posted by justgary at 10:40 PM on February 07
Wow. Driesell was credited with saving the lives of at least 10 children from burning buildings and won the NCAA award of Valor? I had no idea they had such an award.
The only thing I remember about Gary Williams is that he jerked around South Alabama before taking the Maryland job. Not that I blame him.
I had never heard of Bud Millikan. The wikipedia article on him is painfully short.
posted by justgary at 11:52 PM on January 29
He really is an amazing story. That said, I won't miss his thanking jesus for winning football games. I thought he put too much pressure on the guy.
/cranky
posted by justgary at 11:46 PM on January 29
The saints did a great job of punishing Favre, and that was their game plan. He was dancing in the locker room after the cowboys game. He looked like a dead man walking after the saints game.
posted by justgary at 11:12 AM on January 26
I think any talk of the last Favre interception is really not relevant.
Of course it's relevant. Running, throwing the ball away, completing a pass, anything was better than an interception. What would they have done on 4th down in saints territory? We'll never know.
He did try to force something but without about 10 more yards the field goal was out of range.
Wasn't it a 53 yard attempt before the penalty? Which was easily in the kickers range? The penalty was 5 yards. So he didn't need 10.
Running the ball was a better choice than throwing over the middle. Maybe he doesn't get much, but I don't think it's possible to look at that replay and conclude that with much certainty.
posted by justgary at 06:37 PM on January 25
What makes Brett Favre NOT run?
posted by justgary at 04:51 PM on January 25
I should add that a key to the game was the saints defensive stand when Favre had them within field goal range. The vikings ran 2 straight running plays. It would have been easy for the saints to have a let down at that point, but they didn't. Both runs netted zero yards.
And it fell apart from there. If those two runs gain a measly 3 yards a piece I don't think it does.
posted by justgary at 04:10 PM on January 25
They are going to have more aggressive against the Colts.
Agreed.
For what it's worth, I agree with a lot of what you said. It's easy to forget that at the beginning of the game the saints consistently shot themselves in the foot with penalties. And the saints defense has hidden their weaknesses by creating turnovers the entire year, so it's not shocking to see a few.
I just think the vikings were sufficiently dominant that simply erasing a mistake or two gives them a victory. I hope the saints don't depend on those types of mistakes against the colts. In other words, I think they must play better to have a chance.
posted by justgary at 04:02 PM on January 25
As Olympics near, people in Vancouver are dreading Games
I spoke to Charles, a bus driver, whose good cheer diminished when I asked him about the games. "I just can't believe I wanted this a year ago," he said. "I voted for it in the plebiscite. But now, yes. I'm disillusioned." This disillusion is developing as the financial burden of the Games becomes public. The original cost estimate was $660 million in public money. It's now at an admitted $6 billion and steadily climbing. An early economic impact statement was that the games could bring in $10 billion. Price Waterhouse Coopers just released their own study showing that the total economic impact will be more like $1 billion. In addition, the Olympic Village came in $100 million over budget and had to be bailed out by the city.
Just a feel good story all they way around.
posted by justgary at 03:53 PM on January 25
I didn't see any domination. I thought the game went back and forth the whole way.
Well, we'll disagree. I wanted badly for the saints to win this game, and I think they deserve the victory. But at no time did I feel the game was in the saints hands.
Even with all the turnovers, and on the road, the vikings were set up to win. And they screwed it up.
posted by justgary at 01:17 PM on January 25
We noted Sunday evening that Minnesota outgained New Orleans 475-257 in total yardage in the NFC Championship Game. That differential is the biggest for a losing team in NFL postseason history, according to Elias Sports Bureau.
In other words, no team has outgained its opponent by more yards and still lost a playoff game. Ever. And as it turns out, not by a long shot.
posted by justgary at 11:08 AM on January 25
I don't understand this at all.
The saints had nothing to do with the 12 men on the field call. It was Favre who made a terrible decision to throw across the field.
I agree the saints did what they did all year, but they were also fortunate in this game, especially at the end. I don't think they'd disagree.
He also threw 2 picks. Now he didn't lose that game alone, but he certainly contributed.
The most impressive thing about Favre was his ability to stay in the game. When he first signed I thought he's play well but wouldn't make it through the season. I was wrong.
Nope, he didn't lose the game, but it certainly wasn't his best effort. Brees had a better game against a better defense.
posted by justgary at 11:02 AM on January 25
wouldn't it make sense that they made sure he was going to play both years before putting pen to paper?
You can't make him play. You'd have to take his word, and that aint worth a whole lot (on this subject).
posted by justgary at 02:02 AM on January 25
BTW, I was picking the big underdog to lose.....only because it was an obvious choice.
This hurts my head.
posted by justgary at 11:31 PM on January 24
In fact, I was not only NOT expecting an INT, I was fully expecting him to drive it down and score on that last drive.
Oh, same here. I thought the game was over (or at least a missed field goal being the only chance). But in the big picture, looking at his career and not limiting it to this season, it's not surprising. Thank god for the saints.
posted by justgary at 11:27 PM on January 24
Brees had a better game than Favre. The running game was nonexistent.
Are people really surprised by the interceptions from Favre? Short memories I guess.
They're on sports news right now talking about how he has "courage" in his arm strength to make that throw, etc. Imagine if McNabb made that same throw?
At least watching the media wash his balls for one night is better than 2 weeks.
posted by justgary at 11:18 PM on January 24
I just think the Vikings played better
Agreed. By all rights vikings should have won. I think that's different than deserved. Semantics I guess.
posted by justgary at 11:07 PM on January 24
As much as I was pulling for the Saints, I think the Vikings more deserved the win.
I can't think of a better reason not to deserve a win than turning the ball over.
Should have won? Maybe. Deserved? I don't get that.
The Vikings won exactly 1 more playoff game and 3 more wins total than they did last year with "Tavarius Jackson/Gus Frerotte" at QB. They were a VERY GOOD team long before Favre ever inked on. They'll be a VERY GOOD team once Favre has logged off. Favre did make them better, no doubt. But the Favre we all know and love showed up today (the one who looks stellar then makes a throw that a high-schooler knows better than to make)
Well said.
posted by justgary at 10:58 PM on January 24
Sloppy game for both teams. Viking had turnovers, saints kept hurting themselves with penalties. Several questionable calls, not just the last drive. I honestly thought the saints were poised to lose. Thank god favre remembered who he was during his last drive.
No two weeks of the favre circus, no stupid pants on the ground dance (at least he has those 4 touchdowns against dallas though!), and no city deserved it more than new orleans.
I'm going to new orleans in two weeks. Laissez les bon temps roulez :)
posted by justgary at 10:46 PM on January 24
Yup, That's Some Blackface At A Hockey Game
It was racist. Period. Does that make them racist? I don't know them, and I don't really care. I'll let the apologist deal with the 'no they're just misunderstood' angle. The act is racist, and they deserve any grief they get for doing it.
Insensitive, sure; stupid, probably; racists, well only they know what they believe.
Beyond stupid. To give them the benefit of the doubt I'd have to consider them mentally challenged.