Also notable: the first part of his Kansas City Theory is off to as good of start as you could hope for:
Sure they're not printing playoff tickets just yet, but it's worth keeping an eye on. If the Sprint Center gets a basketball team, watch out.- - -
When it comes to free agent acquisitions, it seems the Lions are linked more to the Chiefs than any other team. That's not a good thing.
- - -
So here's my take on the Manny suspension. First, his excuse was that his doctor prescribed it for him and it accidentally contained something on the banned list. Now since then it's been reported that it's a woman's fertility drug/steroid. So his excuse is already baloney. But if I was really innocent and had been prescribed something, wouldn't there be records of that or remaining samples at the doctor's labs. I mean, if I was trying to save my name in the court of public opinion then I would be tracking down samples for testing and proving that I didn't know what I was taking.
But that would be smart. And purposefully taking banned substances in 2009 when they have testing is dumb.
So we can agree that he purposefully took a banned substance in 2009 because he tested positive. So why does that mean that we are casting doubt on his 2004 season as Simmons and Bob Ryan have? Why does that mean his numbers from 2008 and before get an asterisk?
Am I missing something? From my perspective, they've had drug testing for years and he's passed 15 tests. So it would seem that I wouldn't have any reason to cast suspicion on anything that happened before 2009.
By doing so, Simmons and Ryan and everyone else are saying that the testing that was in place wasn't good enough to catch what he was doing, and that's why he thought he could take this in 2009, because he's been taking PED's for so long and gotten away with it, and it's the testing that finally caught up to him. If that's the assumption that we have to make than it makes the whole sport look worse.
So which is it? Did Manny start in 2009? Or has he been doing it for along time and he finally got caught?
- - -
So one of the inherent disadvantages of soccer and hockey is that you can only score one at a time. Which means that on the last play of the game, you cannot go from losing to winning.
Think about the excitement in baseball down three with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth. Or down 6 in football late in the 4th. Or down 1 in basketball. You take the shot and you either win or lose.
In hockey or soccer, down 1 in the final minute, the best you can hope for is to tie the game, and then try and win in overtime.
Or so I thought.
Chelsea and Barcelona were playing the 2nd leg of the Champions League Semifinal: winner gets to go on to play Man U in a single match for the trophy.
The first leg was at Barcelona and was a 0-0 tie.
Chelsea scored in the first half at home and was winning 1-0 entering injury time.
You might think that if Barcelona scored that it would be a 1-1 draw, and a 1-1 draw on aggregate since there were no goals scored previously. But the tiebreaker in the UCL is "away goals."
Since Chelsea scored 0 away goals in the first leg in Spain, all Barca needed was 1 away goal to advance to the Final.
So there you have it: just minutes left to play and if Chelsea could hold on to a 1-0 lead they would win. If not, Barcelona would advance.
Here's what happenned:
- - -
And then we get to Brett Favre. Who had a meeting with the Vikings to say I'm staying retired. Then WHY THE FUCK DID YOU HAVE A MEETING? It makes no goddamn sense.
It absolutely infuriates me that my Mike & Mike in the Morning and my Fanhouse and my ESPN.com gets taken over by this bullshit. Don't cover his bullshit! I don't care if he discovers a cure for Swine Flu: I don't want to hear his name, unless it's Week 1 and he's actually playing.
Someone on M&M joked that the reason Favre told the Vikings "no" was because he knew he would be sharing the news cycle with Manny and he wanted to wait until he would be the only story.
And seriously, the Vikings are better off without him. Every team in the NFL is. All of the experts who think the Vikings would win the Super Bowl with Favre are living in the 1990's.
Last year he led the league in interceptions. (8th in pass attempts)
He was 21st in passer rating. (Behind such luminaries as Seneca Wallace, Shaun Hill, and Trent Edwards). Aaron Rodgers was 6th in passer rating.
And when the season was on the line and they needed to win a game to make the playoffs:
18/31 for 187, 0 td, 2 int in a 3-13 loss vs Seattle
20/40 for 233, 1 td, 3 int in a 17-24 loss vs Miami
Last year the Jets took Favre, they didn't make the playoffs, and now they're starting over with a questionable rookie QB.
The Packers let Favre go, didn't make the playoffs, but got 16 games of experience for Aaron Rodgers who finished with 28 td and 13 int, instead of the 22-22 that Favre put up.
No one will win a Super Bowl with Favre. It will only delay the development of an actual quarterback of the future.
And this is a must read for a Vikings fan perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment