Thursday, January 23, 2014

{NFL} Was Sherman's Rant Personal or Just Football?

It has been almost a week since I was subjected to Richard Sherman's grade school pissing-contest rant after the NFC Championship game. And grade school is exactly what it was. Everyone keeps reporting that Sherman was just fired up. Sherman is an intelligent and educated man. Sherman backed up what he was saying. But, what many don't realize is that Sherman wasn't referring to everyone or even that game. He was referring to his on-going personal feud with Michael Crabtree. 

So, yes, Sherman is an intelligent man. He knew what he was doing at the time. He was letting Michael Crabtree know that at that moment he was the better man in their grade school pissing contest. 

What is this feud, you ask? Well, no one really knows the particulars, but two different people have collaborated the background. Sherman's brother being one. In an article in the Seattle Times, Sherman's brother told of the feud beginning in the off-season at a charity event. According to his account, Sherman went to shake Crabtree's hand, was rebuffed, and then Crabtree allegedly tried to fight Sherman. Another attendee of the event, who says there is no familial or professional connection to either man, said in another interview that the handshake and rebuff were accurate. However, said that it was Sherman who tried to instigate a fight with Crabtree. The exact story that is true is unknown. But, the fact remains that there is bad blood between the two. 

But, here is my number one problem. I don't watch football to see grown ass men carry on with their personal pissing contest. I know there is shit-talking across the line on almost every play. Whatever. That is between Player A and Player B who are usually shown after the game shaking hands and laughing. The shit between Sherman and Crabtree is real. Real, as in WWE feuding without it being scripted. Real, as in they wanted to beat the crap out of each other at some point.

Would I ever believe anything ESPN or NFL would say to downplay this rant? Nope. NFL made it very clear a couple months ago that Seattle was their Golden Child this season. They are completely biased. 

I don't care that Sherman is an athlete. At the end of the day he is a human being too. So, I don't feel that he needs to bring his personal problems to work. I sure wouldn't be able to. And neither would any of you.  He stood in that interview and whooped and hollered about him, him, him. How about some props to the person who really saved that play? All he did was bat it away from Crabtree. It would've been 4th and 7 had his TEAMMATE not been there to intercept it. But, no. It was all about how Richard Sherman was the best. And Michael Crabtree was a "sorry receiver". Yet, you feel the need to brag that you shutdown a "mediocre" receiver? No. That's gloating. And the gloating was personal. 

In the same Seattle Times interview mentioned above, it was stated that Sherman did basically the same play a month before against the Giants. Did he whoop and holler about that receiver being "sorry" and "mediocre"? Nope. Which just reiterates the fact that his rant was personal. 

Yes, I agree that Sherman owes Erin Andrews an apology. She asked a customary question. He also owes everyone sitting at home that had to listen to it an apology. Bring your football game to the stadium and check your personal problems at the door. That's what *I* would be expected to do.

I only hope that Sherman learned something from this. And that is to keep your drama filled, grade school problems out of a football game.

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Is Ndamukong Suh the "chosen one" for controversy?

Ever since he came into the league, I have felt that Suh was probably one of the most dirtiest players in the NFL. He doesn't do very much on field to try to prove otherwise either. So, last year he causes controversy over a very deliberate stomp to a Green Bay Packers player.


He received a 2 game suspension for the incident. In its ruling, the NFL had cited that this was the 5th time Suh had been disciplined for on field conduct since being drafted in 2010.

Apparently, Suh is determined to make controversy a tradition on Thanksgiving. This year, Houston Texans quarterback received a kick to the groin courtesy of Suh.


When the NFL reviewed this play, they ruled that they could not for certain say the kick was intentional. Many say it's obvious that it was. Suh received a $30K fine for the incident. Now, I would have been majorly upset if Brodrick Bunkley had gotten suspended and Suh didn't. However, neither got a suspension. With Suh's history to date, is a $30K fine appropriate? And did he intentionally kick Schaub?

Imagine my surprise when I went to browse the website's articles the other day and found this one: Ndamukong Suh: 'I'm the chosen one' for controversy. My first thought? No, dumba$$! You choose to put yourself in that situation. There would be no controversy if he didn't continuously put himself in the positions he does! The NFL didn't choose him for controversy, he chose to put himself there!

The 49ers Quarterback Controversy

Photo from the web

Look! Here's proof that I don't care only about the Saints! But, honestly, I don't care about the 49ers much anyway. But, this story has been bothered me for awhile now.

First, Colin Kaepernick is a good quaterback. I'll give him that. But, seriously? After all the commotion in the off season concerning Alex Smith, we are subjected to this? Hopefully Smith knew deep down when the 49ers "went to watch Peyton Manning work out but weren't really serious about it" that he wasn't as valuable to the 49ers as he thought. That was proof that they were looking for someone better than he was all along. Ironically, they had what they seem to believe is the better quaterback all along. He was just hiding in the shadows behind Smith.

I understand that Smith got a concussion and had to sit out a week. So, you put in your back up and he does good against a team that wasn't playing up to par that week. Lucky? Perhaps. Is he better than Smith? Not enough evidence to conclude. At least not in my opinion. Then Smith is cleared to play. But, Coach decides that Kaepernick is his man. So, he starts against the Saints. Where 2 of your touchdowns were by the defense and the Saints have the 32nd ranked defense in the league. You win by 10. Enough evidence yet to conclude that Kaepernick should be the starter? No. Then we had to wait 3 days to see who would start this week. Came out it is Kaepernick. What a surprise, right?

Alex Smith has done nothing to warrant being benched. He got a concussion. He sat out until he was cleared. He hasn't even been given the chance to deserve being demoted. I compare this to the Green Bay Packers from last year. They sat Aaron Rodgers the last game of the season. They let the back up play who went on to set franchise records. But, did they say "Wow! Flynn did fantastic this week! Let's try him again next game and see if he's still as good." No! He sat behind Aaron Rodgers through the playoffs and then became a free agent. Green Bay knows who their franchise quaterback is and they stand behind him until he proves he needs to be sat. Too bad Alex Smith doesn't have that same loyalty. 

Friday, November 30, 2012

Bounty This, Bounty That...

Bounty has become a bad word to me. I absolutely hate it. Why? Because it is all I have heard since March. I haven't seen any proof of a bounty system. Nothing more than the affidavits of a) a bitter ex-employee of the Saints and b) a man who has to follow Goodell's every command in hopes of coaching again. Every other piece of "evidence" Goodell has he kept under lock and key; not even allowing the accused to see it.

So, taking away the signed affidavits, and going solely on the type of play on the field I walk away with only one impression. The Saints defense was playing good football. How do I come to this conclusion? Easy. Look how other teams play. For example: the San Francisco 49ers. They are hard hitting and no nonsense when it comes to defense. But, it's okay for them to play like that. It's just good football. We touch another player in the same manner, it's automatically "Bounty!" No, we just want a fair chance to play defense like every other team.

So, that's my serious question here. Why is it okay for a guy like Aldon Smith be tough and aggressive? But, if someone on the Saints, any player on the team in fact, does the same thing it is wrong?

Now, in the San Francisco @ New Orleans game (11/25/12), there was an incident in the last two minutes that was not a good thing for the Saints.

If that doesn't work well for you, click HERE to see it on

Here are my thoughts on Bunkley's actions. San Francisco player A. Boone is laying on the ground. He is holding the ankle of Saints #91, W. Smith. B. Bunkley, #77 reaches down and tried to get Boone to release Smith's ankle. Boone then swings at Bunkley which provoked the kick in the back of the helmet. Was the kick wrong? Absolutely. No matter what, Bunkley should not have kicked Boone. Did Bunkley deserve a punishment? Yes. And I was honestly surprised he was not given a 1 game suspension. This behavior is out of character for Bunkley and he hasn't been in trouble since signing with us. That may have helped him in avoiding a suspension. But, I wouldn't have had hurt feelings if he had been. That type of action is not acceptable for our team. And shouldn't be acceptable for any team.

I am so tired of whenever our boys try and play football they get accused of having a bounty program. Yet, another team can come in and hit as hard as they want and it's all good. It should be fairness across the board. If hard hitting for us is considered a bounty, then it should be considered a bounty for every team. The truth about bounty-gate will be coming out soon. Hopefully, the four accused will have their chance to tell their side since they all so vehemently swear that no such program took place.

**EDIT: Bunkley received a $20K fine for the kick.**

An Open Letter to Arthur Blank

Mr. Blank,

    I am writing this to discuss a minor problem. You see, this problem's name would be Roddy White. I cannot for the life of me understand why you let this man verbally represent your "company" (aka team). Personally, if this man worked in any way, shape or form for me, he'd be under a personal gag order.

A) He has no class. At all. This is a man who said last year, on his Twitter account, that he wished another Katrina would come wipe out the city of New Orleans. Seriously? This is how much respect for human life this man has? He wishes for death and destruction on a city of people? This is probably the most heartless and cruel and hateful man I have ever had the misfortune of having to read comments from. Even more sad? You let him represent you and your team.

B) He makes himself sound illiterate and even diminishes the integrity of higher education. He doesn't know basic grammar or basic spelling. I seriously have to wonder about the state of the college education system of this country. I have to wonder if the team, as a whole, enjoys that their spokesperson portrays himself as illiterate.

  • Exhibit B1
Last I checked, it's spelled CHAMPAGNE, not champaign. My auto correct wants me to fix that typo, so yes, I know his version is spelled wrong. And I HATE seeing that squiggly red line under words!

  • Exhibit B2
This is one of my biggest pet peeves. This is elementary school grammar. You have their, there and they're. It's important to understand which one goes in a written sentence. I'm not sure why he used the plural when he was explaining where someone was from. Its should be THERE, not their.

  • Exhibit B3
Again, possessive and plurals are elementary grammar. FAMILIES, not family's. However, perhaps I should give him some credit. He did use to and your correctly.

I really try to refrain from being the grammar police. However, in this instance something should be said. Children in this country look up to superstars. Incorrect grammar and spelling just shows them that college and education isn't all that important. How about hire him a tutor to help him out. Surely he KNOWS the basics and just doesn't employ them. If not, then University of Alabama - Birmingham is not ever on my list of acceptable colleges.

It is he alone that makes me realize why Atlanta fans are the way they are. Of course they are going to resort to such a childish prank as egging a bus of the opposing team or wishing a hurricane would kill New Orleans' fans. They have a childish leader in Roddy White. As the owner of the Falcons it is your job to ensure that the general manager is doing his job: Making sure the people that represent you are doing it with intelligence and class.

Although, I must say I agree with Roddy White on one thing. New Orleans does have some good food. The city of Atlanta has never had much to offer in my opinion.

Stay classy, Atlanta. Oh, look, I made a joke. Between Roddy's mouth and the egg throwing fans, Atlanta has lost any class it ever had.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

How the BCS should be determined....


This blog post will probably make me a hated person in the NCAA Football world, but hey, it's just my opinion. I don't like the current BCS championship method. I also don't like the future playoff method either. So, how do I feel the BCS championship game teams should be determined? Simple. A variation of the current one.

In the current system, teams are ranked by a computer system and by human polls (see here for an explanation of the system). In my simple mind, BCS ranking should be decided strictly by a computer statistical method. Your ranking should be based on who you played and how you played not the popularity contest it is today. Some say I am wrong but to me it seems fair. I mean in these human polls, are they not voting highly for the schools they want to see at the top and less for the schools they don't want to see? Even though statistically another school was better just not as popular. Here's an example from the 2011 season when it was announced that University of Alabama was #2 over Oklahoma State:

"Alabama (11-1) finished second in both the Harris and coaches' polls by a wide margin to make up for the fact that Oklahoma State was ahead in the computer ratings." (Source)

Keep in mind that Oklahoma State was also 11-1 and their conference champions. Alabama had lost to LSU which was undefeated and ranked #1. LSU was also the conference champions in the same conference Alabama was in. 

Now, yes I am an LSU fan. They did lose to Alabama in the BCS championship last year. But, statistically should Alabama even had been in it? It was admitted that Oklahoma State lead Alabama in the computer rankings. But, were the human polls fair? Was Alabama voted in at 2nd because of popularity of the SEC? I guess no one will really know. 

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Playing in the NFL Twilight Zone


When the replacement refs were officiating in the pre-season, I realized the 2012 NFL season was doomed if they continued into the regular season. Jokingly, I commented "Great, get ready for a Vikings/Cincy Super Bowl". I seriously did not mean it.


I have seen almost every game have completely wrong calls. And several games were won/lost because  of calls. When it was announced that retired officials would be monitoring the games to try and reduce wrong and missed calls, I was only half relieved. Apparently, this idea still did not work.

The Saints have lost two games due to the calls of the refs. Putting that aside to prove that actually this isn't a "The NFL is against the Saints" post, I saw 3 games this week alone that were called wrong. The Detroit/Tennessee game on Sunday for instance. A penalty was called on Lions linebacker, Tulloch, and the refs re-set the ball from the wrong 44 yard line! This error resulted in Tennessee kicking the winning field goal because they were moved closer than they were supposed to be. The New England/Baltimore game on Sunday Night Football is questionable. Depending on the angle of the camera, the field goal may/may not have been good. The ultimate screw up was in the Monday Night Football game between Green Bay and Seattle. Nevermind the fact that Tate pushed off of a Green Bay defender that should have been called offensive pass interference and ended the game, it was obvious that the ball was intercepted in the end zone. In any case, no way should Seattle have won this game. This is just a few of the messed up calls that refs allowed to happen this week.

This is all in addition to the messed up flags/calls I saw in the previous weeks. I mean extra time outs, 5th downs, and more. When will this madness end?

I kind of feel bad for the replacement refs. They were thrown into a situation totally unprepared. They had no idea how to officiate in the NFL. But Goodell and the owners were all about saving that dollar. They were also intimidated and taken advantage of by players and coaches. There were several times I saw a player do something that they know is wrong, its just they wanted to see if they could get away with it. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't.

Personally, I don't think any team should settle for their current record. I think the league should wipe everyone down to 0-0 and start over having only 13 games this season. If they won or lost based on their playing performance alone, then yes they should've had that win/loss. However, if officiating changed the game, why should teams be punished for Goodell's screw up?


Replacement officials' errors spark controversy in Week 3