This post isn't about football. It's more about high profile sports writers fighting with one another and calling each other names. So please, humor me. I live for this kind of stuff!

There's been a lot of chatter around here about how we at Stampede Blue attack journalists who, in essence, piss on the long-established ethics of their profession in favor of cheap gags or shock value. Truth is, other people in the profession are just as upset as we are. The difference is they aren't as vocal about it. 

This is, until Yahoo! Sports' Charles Robinson saw ESPN's Rick Reilly's running of the bulls piece as part of Reilly's "Riled Up" video commentary for the World Wide Leader.

I personally have never cared much for Reilly. For my taste, his columns for Sports Illustrated were often sloppy and full of nothing but vapid prose. When he ditched SI in favor of more money at ESPN, I thought it a perfect fit. Both are cartoons for what they really should be. I can think of a myriad of insults to describe Reilly, and many would agree that the insults paint a pretty accurate portrait of the man. But, I'll leave the Riley bashing to Charles Robinson. Quite frankly, he's more entertaining doing it than I am.

Recently, Riley's "Riled Up" video featured him equipped with a video camera strapped to his head as he ran through the streets of Pamplona, Spain for the annual running of the bulls. It wasn't so much the stupidity of a "sports journalist" like Riley running through Pamplona in order to experience the event, but the method in which he did it that really, really, REALLY pissed off Robinson. I mean, we're talking me after reading a Jason Cole article level of pissed.

After the jump, read Robinson's Tweets on Reilly. And no, I did not hack Charles Robinson's Twitter account, though I admit his tone and choice of insulting language reads very much like my own.

Continue reading this post »

Look, it's no secret that Scout Inc.'s Jeremy Green is a schmuck. He's especially schmucky when he writes dumb stuff like this for ESPN's AFC South "blog" while Paul Kuharsky is on vacation:

The Colts pride themselves on having a defensive front that comes off the ball quickly. They have a philosophy of playing the pass first and then worrying about the run. Even though Johnson and Muir possess very good initial quickness off the ball, you just don’t see either player making plays on the other side of the line of scrimmage against the run or the pass. Muir and Johnson would be decent backups on most teams, but they are forced to start in Indianapolis.

Look, I don't know what film Jeremy Green is watching, but the play of the defensive tackles last season was outstanding. I mean, seriously, did he even watch the playoffs?

Against the Baltimore Ravens, who had the #5 rushing offense in football in 2009, the Colts and their defensive tackles held them to 19 carries for only 87 yards with 0 touchdowns. Just the week prior, against the supposedly vaunted New England Patriots defense, the Ravens ran for 234 yards and 4 TDS!

Facing the New york Jets, who had the NFL's #1 rushing offense, Daniel Muir and company held them to 29 carries for 86 yards with 0 TDs. Again, that's the #1 ranked rushing offense stuffed for 3.3 a carry. 

Finally, in Super Bowl 44, the Saints made a strong attempt early to run the ball right at the Colts with their #6 league ranked rushing offense. It failed, utterly. The Saints muttered only 51 yards on 18 carries for the entire game. The one rushing TD they scored was the only one the Colts allowed in the playoffs. Correction, Pierre Thomas' touchdown in the Super bowl was on a screen pass, not a run. Therefore, the Colts allowed zero rushing touchdowns in the playoffs, making Jeremy Green look even more inept as a football analyst.

Seriously, ESPN paid Jeremy Green to write that nonsense? With numbers like these staring him in the face, he actually thought it was intelligent to write that Daniel Muir and Antonio Johnson were the weak links on this defense? The Colts stuff the #5, the #1, and the #6 ranked rushing attacks all in a row, in the playoffs, and Green seems to think the Colts need an upgrade at defensive tackle going into 2010.

Unbelievable.

Teams will use an offensive tackle and tight end to double one side and an offensive tackle and guard to double on the other. That leaves the defensive tackle duo to win battles against the center and other guard, and the Colts’ defensive tackles are not winning that battle on a consistent basis.

Yes Jeremy. If you completely ignore the 2009 playoffs, I guess your theory holds up.

Paul Kuharsky really needs to get back from vacation, like, NOW!

Colts weakness: Defensive tackles

Wrap your minds around this gem:

The NCAA investigation that's been going on since 2006 is supposedly close to an end. Pete Carroll fled to the NFL where he'll be free from sanctions. So will USC lose its National Championship? Will Reggie Bush lose his Heisman? Does it matter? These things happened. Writers need to stop acting like anyone besides writers care. Brian Cushing, Reggie Bush, what's the difference?

Dear The Big Lead,

Lots of people outside of the writers at the Atlanta Journal Constitution, which is who TBL is referring to when they say "writers," care as to whether or not USC is sanctioned for cheating. These people are called "fans." Some of these fans are people who root for USC. Others are people who root against them. If you ever attend a USC v. Notre Dame, you'd know that's a sizable number of people.

If USC is found guilty of violations, that's a pretty significant black mark on Pete Carroll's career there. Sure, he might have avoided "official" punishment by bolting USC for the NFL, but if guilty the cheating taints everything he accomplished there; his legacy, if you will. If they cheated, and that cheating directly, or even in some cases indirectly, resulted in them winning National Championships, then the titles should be taken away from them.

I think we all realize that the event that was the National Championship Game happened. Two of those events resulted in USC winning titles. However, the people who watched those games, and, more importantly, spent hard-earned money to attend the game, went into them thinking the playing field was reasonably level. It wasn't crooked recruiting or under-the-table payments that gave USC the 2003 and 2004 BCS Championships. It was that USC was simply the better team. They had done a better job playing, coaching, and recruiting than the other team within the rules.

Those last few italicized words are important.

Now, if USC violated those rules, then the championships they won are no longer legit. It means they voided the competitive "spirit of the game," and thus their right to be referred to as National Champions. Therefore, those rights (and the shiny trophies that go with them) should go to the team that followed the rules.

The same goes with individual awards. Contrary to your thinking there at TBL, fans want to see cheaters stripped of awards. They want to see the homerun record returned to Roger Maris. If Reggie Bush cheated, they'd want to see his Heisman Award taken from him and given to someone like Vince Young, who (likely) did not violate NCAA rules by taking money or gifts to play in NCAA games. They want to see Brian Cushing's rookie of the year award given to someone who doesn't have illegal muscle drugs pumping through his veins. Why else has there been backlash against the AP voters who re-voted to give Cushing his award even though they knew he cheated? Fans want to see the cheaters busted and kicked out of the sport while the people who, in general, followed the rules get rewarded.

If they don't get that, then fans have a tendency to stop watching the f*cking sport. See NBA and MLB for references.

So, no offense TBL, but you have a habit of viewing things only through the binoculars of an annoying New York sports fan, especially one inclined to root for the Jets (which makes you both annoying and lacking in basic hygiene).

In the area west of the Hudson River, which pretentious New Yorkers, like yourselves, often refer to as "wasteland," we kind of care about this cheating stuff. Why else do you think people STILL want to see the New England Patriots stripped of their three rings because of Spygate? That crap happened three years ago and people continue to talk about it! If we Colts fans found out tomorrow that Peyton Manning has been juicing since his rookie year, I tell you that just about every Indy fan from Seymour to South Bend would line-up to throw stones and gasoline cocktails at Peyton's house. They'd drag him out in his bath robe, stick his head under a guillotine, and chant "Cut that meat!"

Fans. Don't. Like. Cheating.

They want to see cheaters punished. A good way to punish cheaters is to strip them of awards and titles. It sends a strong message by tarnishing the legacy of the person or institution that enabled or participated in the cheating. And what is sports but a long, prolonged, detailed narrative of a person or organization's legacy? And if a governing body such as the NCAA or the NFL refuses to punish the cheaters, then what happens is the infectious disease known as "apathy" will set it, and fans will stop viewing sports as spirited competition and more as mindless entertainment on par with reality shows.

What about this don't you guys understand? Is sports nothing but a money machine to you? If that's all it is, you guys are f*cking sad.

Sincerely,

-Sanctimonious Colts Fan (aka BBS)

For those that think I am confusing things, the General Manager of the Colts is indeed Chris Polian. He is pretty obviously related to the President of Indianapolis Colts. That guy's name is Bill Polian. Perhaps you've heard of him. Recently, Chris Polian was on 1070 The Fan's Dan Dakich Show, talking about the Colts draft, the rookie mini-camp, and the negative perception Chris' father, Bill, has with the media.

Before I post articles about the substance of that conversation, I'd like to take the time here to trash Dan Dakich a bit. 

For the sake of politeness, I'll take a quick second to talk up Dakich's strengths prior to me trashing him for the media hack he presented himself as in his interview with Chris Polian. Dakich seems like a good guy. He's got a nice voice for radio. He's engaging. He's funny. Back when he coached basketball, he did a good job in an impossible situation at IU, taking over (on an interim basis) for the corrupt Kelvin Sampson after Sampson was fired.

That said, Dakich really needs to understand that he is in the media now, and the slurp job he did with Chris Polian yesterday is better suited for male porn than sports journalism.

One of Dan's early questions to Chris Polian was such a set-up, softball, bullsh*t-style question that it nearly induced vomiting.

Dakich: Does it amuse you when you see your father kind of portrayed as a guy that isn't media friendly? Because, I've been saying on this show that no one is more friendly to the media, comes on our show, comes on Eddie, does his own show; does that amuse you a little bit, the mis-perception of your father?

Chris: I don't don't know if it amuses me or, as you know, we're not terribly hung up on perception. I think you certainly worked in a program, and headed your own program, where you focus much more on what you feel is reality than perception.

Dakich: Well, I get a kick out of things. When I'm doing this job, I kind of study the media a little bit. And I'm sitting here thinking, Man, your dad is, like, the best guy ever! In terms of, "Hey Bill, can you come on?" "Sure." You know, it just strikes me as pretty funny

Just as you guys have seen me, in the past, rip people like Peter King and Mike Florio, I'm about ready to tear Dan Dakich a new one. It's slurp jobs like this that made me start blogging in the first place.

Continue reading this post »

Leading up to the draft ESPN has been running a series looking at the best players at each position to come from each round of the draft. Today it culminated with the all-1st round pick team. That 18to88 ran the link as "ESPN goes insane" should let you know where this is going. Their choice for the best QB to ever be taken in the 1st round was fairly called

Awful. Unconscionable.  Indefensible.

by the Zombie Bros as 18to88. The pick?

Continue reading this post »

Honestly, even Jets fans find this article dumb:

Before you send that email calling me crazy or mocking me only days after I wrote that Manning is the fourth-best quarterback of all time, let’s put this in perspective. It is impossible to truly measure Roethlisberger against Manning or Tom Brady(notes) just yet.

But, I, Jason Cole, am going to do it anyway because I've got a deadline and I have no interesting or thought-provoking ideas at at present. Instead, I'll just write an article stating Ben Roethisberger is better than Peyton Manning without any facts or numbers to back up the claim. Oh, did I mention I got paid to write this?

The bottom line is this: Roethlisberger is currently 8-2 in the playoffs, has two Super Bowl rings – including his great final drive against Arizona – and a quarterback rating of 87.2 in the playoffs. That includes his bad performance in the Super Bowl win against Seattle, a bad first half in a playoff loss to Jacksonville and a typically bad playoff game against New England in the 2004 playoffs when he was a rookie.

For Manning, he is now 9-9 in the playoffs over his 12-year career, has one Super Bowl win, is coming off a bad finish against New Orleans and has a quarterback rating of 95.5 in the playoffs. If you break down the stats further, you’ll note that the Colts have asked Manning to do a lot more (38.4 attempts per game) than the Steelers have of Roethlisberger (28.8 attempts).

But the bottom line is that Roethlisberger has succeeded (he was great in the 2008 playoffs and also in the 2005 playoffs before the Super Bowl against Seattle) and Manning has struggled.

Hmm, yes. Peyton Manning's QB rating in the playoffs is 95.5. Meanwhile, Ben's is 87.2. And even though Peyton has a better rating and performs better than Ben Roethlisberger in the playoffs despite being asked to do more, Jason somehow feels Ben has "succeeded" whereas Peyton has "struggled."

I guess we'll also just, you know, forget about that Super Bowl against the Seahawks which saw Roethlisberger light up the stats with a QB rating of 22. I could go out on a football field on gameday, fart on the ball, and get a better rating than that. But, such numbers and statistics have no place in Jason Cole's theorem. Ben is a "winner" because his team "wins" even if he stinks up the joint. Meanwhile, Peyton Manning tosses a 95.5 QB rating in playoff games, which is better than both Ben Roethlisberger and Tom Brady, but he is "struggling."

I didn't get the chance to talk to Jason while at the Super Bowl, and I think that might have been a good thing. Articles like this are examples of the kind of lazy, sloppy writing I just cannot stand. I continue to maintain that Cole is stealing money from Yahoo! when he gets paid to write articles like this.

Oh, and before Steelers fans start getting all Mike Tunison on me, kindly know that I think Ben is a very good QB. However, I think I can state pretty confidently that most Steelers fans do not think Ben is better than Peyton. However, if some do, then they are are dumb as Jason Cole's article.

Pat Kirwan, the former-NFL general manager who once thought it smart to have Peter Carrol coach the Jets, thinks the Saints have created the ultimate blueprint to stopping the Colts offense:

When the New England Patriots beat the St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI, they built a defense that became the blueprint for playing "Greatest Show on Turf" in the years to come. The same thing may have happened Sunday when Williams went to a 3-3-5 defense (three defensive linemen, three linebackers and five defensive backs).

After talking with Saints linebacker Scott Fujita on Monday, I better understand the flexibility the package offers, such as good pressure calls and lots of opportunities to drop eight defenders into coverage. The Saints were fine with the Colts running the ball and bet on the idea that Indianapolis wouldn't stick with the run. With 19 rushes to 45 passes, New Orleans showed it was right.

There's just one problem with Kirwan's little theory: It's horsesh*t. And I love how he feels he gets confirmation on his theory from Saints linebacker Scott Fujita. WTF is Fujita going to say other than his defense is great and is the modern version of the "Purple People Eaters?"

If you listen to Kirwan on NFL Sirius Radio, he likes to talk a lot about how smart he is only to find out that much of what he says turns out to be wrong. He stated all week that if Dwight Freeney plays the Saints will have success running at him.

The Saints ran for 2.8 a carry in Super Bowl 44.

Also, if the Saints defense is so awesome at stopping the Colts offense, how can Kirwan explain Indy's 432 yards of offense, with nearly 100 yards on the ground at 5.1 a carry? Peyton Manning threw for 333 yards, completed 68% of his passes, and had a QB rating of over 88.

Um, this is the blueprint to stop Indy? Maybe defensive "theories" like this are why Kirwan is still not working in the NFL.

If you want a real reason why the Colts lost Super Bowl 44, ask a real GM, not Pat friggin Kirwan.

Vegas should create whole new betting categories on mock media and blogger outrage after a Colts loss. Today, we have people freaking out about Peyton Manning not shaking hands with Drew Brees after the Super Bowl loss:

When it was over and the New Orleans celebration had begun, Manning tight-roped the sideline without talking to anybody, his helmet low on his head, walking purposely toward the locker room. There was no midfield handshake with Brees or anybody.

It was a mistake.

"I'll certainly talk to Drew,'' he said. "I know how it was three years ago when we won, and there's not much consolation for the guys that didn't win. There's the stage being set up, and the celebration, and it's time for the Saints to celebrate. It's their field. They deserve the moment. But I certainly congratulate all their players and the Saints organization. I will speak to Drew, speak to Sean and they deserve all the credit.''

First off, we all know the reason Manning is "tight-roping" the sidelines without talking to anybody. It's because he HATES to lose. We know that. Drew Brees knows that. And it's why we love him. Hell, he didn't even take his helmet off. He was that pissed with himself. As a fan, how can you not love that? Give me 100 people with that kind of drive, and I'll build a elevator to them moon.

Manning is the Mayor of the NFL, and he will do what Manning does. He'll call Brees. He'll call Sean Payton. All will have tremendous personal and professional respect for one another today and loooooong after the post-mortem of Super Bowl 44 is put to bed. Not shaking hands wasn't a slight. It wasn't disrespectful. It wasn't even a "mistake." It was Peyton wrapped up in his thoughts, killing himself for not being perfect.

It's why we love him. It's why he's the best. Drew Brees and Sean Payton would agree with that.

And, predictably, media are droning about how "TERRIBLE!" it is that Manning didn't shake hands with the opponent when the cameras were on him, as if that is the only time such gestures mean anything.