Unholy Quotables

"With every question he asked, it became clearer that despite any declaration to the contrary, he viewed me as an adversary. Rather than seeking to elicit information, his questioning sought to elicit a conclusion that he had reached before the hearing began."

-Anita Hill (Congress's version of Matt Walsh) on Arlen Specter's questioning of her during the Clarence "is that a pubic hair in my Coke" Thomas

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Evil Patriots Week 13

Did I miss the memo where calling a player "boy" was a horrible crime for an official to do? When did "boy" become a racially-charged moniker? Weren't we all called boy at some point? And does anyone in their right mind think an emotionally charged player who thinks he's wronged at every turn, just politely tells an official that they never played the game without throwing profanities in at every other word? Come on people, I'm all for conflict in sports, but this is ridiculous.

Which brings up another point about conflict. During the Monday Night Game, the getting-more-awful-by-the-week MNF crew focused on the Gaffney TD at the end of the game like it was the Zapruder film. No one in their right mind could have looked at that and questioned it without making up their own new interpretation about what possession of the ball means. But they tried desperately to make a case for it to be a different call because that is conflict, and conflict is what entertainment is all about.

This seems to happen a lot more than it used to in football, where the booth guys try to make something, anything, out of a play that is called correctly. They immediately without thinking or seeing the reply, question whether the right call was made. When did all football analysts become Tommy Heinsohn? It's obnoxious to watch. And it goes for when the Patriots get the calls and when they don't get the calls. I'm just tired of seeing them drum up conflict in a game that is already filled with it naturally playing out.

By the way, ESPN added Marcus Wiley, former DE of several teams to its NFL Live crew starting today. I listened to him on the Mike & Mike show this morning and can tell he's going to be a massive upgrade over every former NFL player they've brought in in the last few years (Keyshawn and Emmitt being the worst). He's well-spoken, succinct and gives you good insight without sounding like he's learning to speak for the first time ever.

.....

On to the Pittsburgh Steelers. Here is my "never played the game before boy" opinion. I think Troy Brown is activated this week and the 2001 dink n' dunk game is brought out in full force, keeping the Steelers away from too many 4-man rush and exotic blitz packages. It means you'll see less Stallworth and more Watson/Kyle Brady, which should be a good thing. Hopefully the coaching staff will get back to being creative to counter this.

I don't see the Steelers offense matching the level of intensity of the Ravens offense from Monday night. I also think that Roethlisberger is great as long as he doesn't have to throw the ball more than 15-20 times, so hopefully they'll move to the 4-3 more in this game to stop the run and force the pass.

The Patriots' greatest strength in the games they've dominated have been putting up points early and forcing the opponent into catch-up mode. That will be key here as well. I think the coaching has to get better because I think they're maxing out on the physical effort from both sides of the ball.

One last key to this game: For chrissakes Patriots fans lucky enough to be at the game, make some friggin noise! You have one of the worst reputations in the league for generating a home-field advantage via crowd noise, and the excuses about how the stadium is designed just don't add up anymore. I can't recall the last time an opponent had to account for the crowd noise, but this would be a good week to start.

5 comments:

Seth Davis said...

Well said Boy!

Dave S. said...

When did "boy" become a racially-charged moniker?

I love this blog and its outlook but are you freakin' kidding me?!? "Boy" has had racial overtones in the US for decades, and not just in the South. (Ingrid Bergman uses it in Casablanca to refer to Sam.)

The twist to all of this is that IIRC the official accused of this is himself African-American, so what the intent was is less clear (probably not racially motivated IMO).

Regardless, the NFL will have some nice extra bonus money to pass out once they slap a truckload of fines on the Ravens for bad-mouthing the refs.

John Cyr said...

good comments. Honestly, I don't get the "boy" thing as racially charged but you make a good point about a swedish actress from a movie in the 40's using a racially charged word toward the piano player. If someone calls me dude going forward I'm going to flip out like a Ravens thug. Please note that I mean thug in a non-racial way which could be applied evenly to the Italians, Irish, and Russians as well...but not the French.

John Cyr said...

by the way, I appreciate all the comments and I'm glad it generates conversation. the point about it being an African-American official who actually did play football, is the reason Al Sharpton cancelled his flight to NY to protest at the NFL offices...or so I assume.

Anonymous said...

I just wanna know what was said to the official. We probably won't ever know what that was, but I suspect that if it was baseball and not football, player woulda been tossed.

I'll be surprised and disappointed if the league does anything to the official.