Posted on: September 23, 2010 10:38 am
 

Quarterback carousel

I just finished reading "Faceoff" on the CBS Sports homepage.  And one part stood out to me today.  The comments made by Pete Prisco about coaches and their "knee-jerk reactions" to changing quarterbacks.  He is questioning the Eagles (Andy Reid) decision to go with Michael Vick the rest of the season.  Now I admit I didn't watch either of the Eagles' first two games in their entirety, but from what I did see, Vick is playing some good football.  And Vick playing good football can be pretty amazing.  I know Kevin Kolb didn't have much time to make his mark this season, but he didn't look that impressive when he was playing.  And this brings me to my point.  Why not switch quarterbacks?  I know the Eagles have alot of time and money committed to Kolb already but how long should you stick with a guy before you make the switch?  4 games? 6 games?  Wait till your season is pretty much in jeopardy?  I hear the argument, "Well no one is running away from the division so you have time to get going."  What a load of BS.  So just because there is nobody else making a run with the division, does that mean that you shouldn't do your best to be the one team that does?  A coach has an obligation to his city, his owner, and his players to field the best possible players to give your team a shot to win.  In a season where one game can make the difference between playing in the post season and going home after 16, you need to win every game you possibly can.  Perhaps sometimes that means admitting that you made a mistake in your original quarterback decision. 
Category: NFL
Posted on: August 1, 2010 10:15 pm
 

Shanahan Vs. Haynesworth

Shanahan Vs. Haynesworth

So whose side do you take? The new coach who is a proven winner, been around for decades, establishing his mark and showing the troops who is boss?  Or the multi-million dollar athlete who claims that the situation is not what he was promised and that knowing then what he knows now, would never have signed in the first place?

Well I have my opinion and I'm about to share it with you.  While far from an elite athlete, I have played my fair share of organized sports.  From hockey to baseball, from football to rugby.  And each and every team that I played on, there was no mistaking who was the boss.  It was the guy patrolling the sidelines or bench or whatever.  If coach said jump, you asked "how high?".

Now let it be known that I am not totally against Haynesworth, because I understand that perhaps he wouldn't have signed in Washington had he known that they would some day switch to a 3-4.  I wouldn't be happy either if I was promised that there would be cold beer supplied after our hockey games only to have someone come in the next year and say "sorry fellas, the team has gone dry"  I would be thinking the same thing, "This isn't what I signed up for."  However, from my understanding, he was offered the option of skipping his roster bonus and being released to go wherever he wanted.  He chose to cash the fat paycheck and by doing so was saying that I don't care what formation you play, I'll take your money.  Once he cashed that check he should have been willing to shut up and play.  What was more important to Haynesworth?  The formation or the money?  Apparently the money.

Enter Coach Shanahan.  People say he is making an example of Haynesworth.  Well of course he is.  You want to take the teams money then you better be willing to earn that contract.  The fact that it is the $100M man is just the icing on the cake.  You don't think that the rest of the team is taking notice that if they are doing this to Haynesworth, they won't be willing to do the same to me?  They have $100M invested in that guy.  You can bet they are towing the line and there is no question about who is in charge. 

And I hear the argument that they are singling out Haynesworth because of his contract squabbles and that no one else has to do the conditioning test.  Well no they don't.   Again from my understanding, the only reason it is just Haynesworth is because he is the ONLY one who skipped OTA's.  Had anyone else skipped out they would be doing it too.

And for the test itself.  300 yards.  Twice.  "Well when does a DT have to run 300 yards?".  Never.  But if you don't think it requires a fair amount of conditioning to fight in the trenches of a football game, then you need to pay closer attention.  Don't believe me?  Feel free to try this at home.  If you are lucky enough to have access to a heavy bag, try hitting it for 30 seconds as hard as you can.  30 seconds straight. Imagine you are giving head slaps, shots to the shoulders. shots to the ribs, whatever.  And do it for 30 seconds straight. Hard. Not one slap, wait 5 seconds and give another.  One after the other for 30 seconds.  Take a minutes rest and then do it again.  Repeat this for about 10 minutes and tell me how tired you are.  If you don't have a heavy bag try jumping rope, or just hitting at the air. 
Now imagine doing it with a 300lb guy hitting back.

So to wrap up this rather long winded blurb, I think Haynesworth has put himself in a position where he needs to earn that money he signed on for.  Stop crying about this and that.  You won't get any sympathy here, when you can go home and drown your sorrows in an amount of money I probably will never see in my lifetime.  You had your chance to get out of town, but you chose not to take it.  So live up to your obligations.  And for $100M I don't think having a DT who can play at an elite pace for the majority of the game and especially near the end of games, is too much to ask.
Category: NFL
Posted on: July 26, 2010 9:29 am
 

Could someone explain the Baseball H.O.F. voting?

First off let me say that this is in no way a slam on the voting in of Andre Dawson.   I think he deserves it. He belongs.  My question is, "Why does it take the Hall of Fame voters 9 tries to vote a player in?"
I just don't get it.  What has changed since the first 8 times he was eligible?  He hasn't added to any of his career totals.  Hasn't hit another homer, stole another base, robbed someone of a home run.  So why are his numbers worthy this year when they weren't the first 8 times?
I understand with not voting someone in on their first year of eligibility.  A first ballot Hall of Famer should be an honour reserved for the elite of the elite.  But if they aren't worthy after that second year, then why would they be worthy later?  They are either Hall worthy or they aren't.
Like I said off the start my purpose isn't to debate whether Dawson belongs or not, but rather why it took 9 tries to get him there.
Oh, and one last question, why can't a player choose the team that he represents in the Hall?  I read that Dawson wanted to go in as a Cub, but the Hall is making him go in as an Expo.  Why is that?

Category: MLB
 
 
 
 
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com