Posted on: November 19, 2010 1:24 pm

Eisenberg Week 10 Start/Sit Picks

Week 10 Start/Sit Accountability



QB – over 15 = good Start pick/bad Sit pick; under 15 = bad Start pick/good Sit pick

RB – over 12 = good Start pick/bad Sit pick; under 12 = bad Start pick/good Sit pick

WR – over 10 = good Start pick/bad Sit pick; under 10 = bad Start pick/good Sit pick

TE – over 8 = good Start pick/bad Sit pick; under 8 = bad Start pick/good Sit pick

K – over 9 = good Start pick/bad Sit pick; under 9 = bad Start pick/good Sit pick

DEF – over 10 = good Start pick/bad Sit pick; under 10 = bad Start pick/good Sit pick


Start of the Week – Josh FreemanGood (20 pts - 241 PaYd, 2 TD; 19 RuYd)


Analysis: Good pick for a starting QB.  Not the best, though, so arguably not a good Start of the Week.  Obviously, Michael Vick would have been a good choice for that.  But a ton of QBs scored more than Freeman last Sunday, such as Vick, Matt Schaub, Ben Roethlisberger, Kyle Orton, Matt Cassel, Eli Manning, David Garrard, etc., etc., etc.




Roethlisburger – Good (29 pts – 387 PaYd, 3 TD, 1 INT; 12 RuYd)

Orton – Good (31 pts – 296 PaYd, 4 TD)

Joe FlaccoGood (22 pts – 215 PaYd, 3 TD, 1 INT; 13 RuYd)

David Garrard – Good (26 pts – 342 PaYd, 2 TD; 35 RuYd)

Shaun Hill (sleeper) – Good (16 pts – 323, TD, INT)


Avg.: 24.8 points




Carson PalmerBad (15 pts – 292 PaYd, 2 TD, 3 INT)

Brett FavreGood (3 pts – 170 PaYd, TD, 3 INT, fum lost)

Cassel – Bad (36 pts – 469 PaYd, 4 TD, fum lost)

Jay CutlerBad (22 pts – 237 PaYd, 3 TD, 2 INT; 24 RuYd)

Donovan McNabbBad (15 pts – 295 PaYd, 2 TD, 3 INT)

Tom Brady (bust) – Bad (35 pts – 350 PaYd, 3 TD; rush TD)


Avg.: 21 points


Eisenberg Success Rate: 54.55% (6/11)


Analysis: For the first time since I started over-scrutinizing his picks, Eisenberg really nailed the Starts.  Unfortunately, he blew the Sits to an almost-equal extent.  Favre was a good pick, obviously, as he ALWAYS is (i.e. no real good advice there).  Same with Big Ben – I don’t care if he has two off games in a row, he’s still a must-start next time out.  And when does Orton become a must-start?  He’s put up 295 yards or more in 7 of 9 games and at least 2 TDs in 5 of 9.  And his team has virtually no ability to run the ball.  And it doesn’t help when 2 of your 6 Sit choices put up 35 points each.




LeGarrette BlountGood (15 pts – 91 RuYd, TD)

Brandon JacobsBad (2 pts – 17 RuYd; 11 ReYd)

Jahvid BestBad (3 pts – 35 RuYd; 4 ReYd)

Thomas JonesBad (1 pt – 3 RuYd; 19 ReYd)

Tim HightowerBad (11 pts – 39 RuYd, TD; 23 ReYd)

Mike Goodson (sleeper) – Neutral (9 pts – 100 RuYd; 13 ReYd)


Avg: 6.83 points




BenJarvus Green-EllisGood (9 pts – 67 RuYd; 37 ReYd)

Felix JonesBad (19 points – 51 RuYd; 85 ReYd, TD)

Rick Williams – Good (6 pts – 64 RuYd; 6 ReYd)

Shonn GreeneGood (9 pts – 62 RuYd; 22 ReYd)

Willis McGaheeGood (0 pts – 8 RuYd; -4 ReYd)

Matt Forte (bust) – Good (6 pts – 69 RuYd; 9 ReYd)


Avg.: 8.17 points


Eisenberg Success Rate: 54.55% (6/11)


Analysis: Sits easily outpace Starts.  For starters, I give the Goodson pick a “neutral” because for a sleeper pick, 9 points isn’t too bad.  Also, Hightower is indeed on the borderline, but I gotta stick to my standards.  This is the opposite of the QB picks – great Sits, horrible Starts.  I mean, after what Best had done recently?  I don’t care what defense he’s playing, he shouldn’t start in FFB right now (and maybe for the rest of the season).  Same with T. Jones – Haley has finally come to his senses and given Charles a sizeable majority of reps.  We saw that in Week 9, so I don’t get the Jones pick in Week 10.  With regard to Sits, Felix should have been a safe pick – that’s just the luck of FFB playing out.  Williams and McGahee are guys that, like T. Jones, should not start at all right now because they unevenly split reps as #2 backs, and their coaches have proven they won’t commit to running.  So I give those two a big “DUH.”  Lastly, though it was technically a “good” pick, I vehemently dispute the logistics of Matt Forte as a bust.  Before Week 10, the guy had 2 good fantasy starts out of 9 possible.  A player has to be good for a bad game to constitute a “bust.”  Bad games have been the norm for Forte.




Dez BryantGood (16 pts – 104 ReYd, TD)

Randy MossBad (2 pts – 26 ReYd)

Mike Sims-WalkerBad (2 pts – 26 ReYd)

Santonio HolmesGood (13 pts – 76 ReYd, TD)

Pierre GarconBad (3 pts – 37 ReYd)

Steve Breaston (sleeper) – Neutral (9 pts – 98 ReYd)


Avg.: 7.5 points




Chad OchocincoBad (14 pts – 86 ReYd, TD)

Santana MossGood (2 pts – 28 ReYd)

Steve Smith (CAR) – Good (4 pts – 47 ReYd)

Wes WelkerGood (8 pts – 89 ReYd)

Dwayne BoweBad (30 pts – 186 ReYd, 2 TD)

Brandon Marshall (bust) – Good (3 pts – 37 ReYd)


Avg.: 10.17 points


Eisenberg Success Rate: 54.55% (6/11) (this is starting to get redundant)


Analysis: Sits DRAMATICALLY outperform the starts.  Again, all it takes is one really bad sit.  I don’t see how you sit Bowe right now, regardless of the matchup.  Even prior to last Sunday, he had about 300 yards and 6 TDs in his previous 4 games.  You can’t sit production like that, regardless of the Champ Bailey matchup.  Welker would have been a pretty decent start in PPR leagues.  Marshall is just a loser right now.  And Steve Smith is another one of those guys who should NEVER be started at this point, earning Eisenberg another big, fat “DUH.”  The guy hasn’t topped 8 points since Week 2, and he has 1 game of more than 50 yards since that time.  He’s a clear non-factor until he proves otherwise.  Lastly, Santonio Holmes has like 100 yards and 0 TDs in regulation the last two weeks.  Last week, he had about 30 yards in regulation, and he was a terrible Start pick – that is, until he caught like a 45-yard TD pass in overtime.  I still don’t trust this guy in regulation, and have no reason to.




Brandon PettigrewBad (5 pts – 50 ReYd)

Marcedes LewisBad (5 pts – 53 ReYd)

Chris CooleyBad (2 pts – 23 ReYd)

Joel Dreessen (sleeper) – Bad (0 pts – 24 ReYd, fum lost)


Avg.: 3 points




Benjamin WatsonGood (7 pts – 74 ReYd)

Brent CelekGood* (0 pts – 8 ReYd)

Todd HeapBad (11 pts – 57 ReYd, TD)

Greg Olsen (bust) – Bad (9 pts – 31 ReYd, TD)


Avg.: 7.25 points


Eisenberg Success Rate: 25% (2/8)


Analysis: This is pretty awful.  There is an asterisk by Celek because he has never – NOT ONCE – been a startable option when Vick has started and finished.  In those games, Celek has yardage total of 27, 42, and 0, not counting last week’s 8.  He has 0 TDs in those games.  The two games he has scored TDs, they were thrown to him by Kevin Kolb.  Even taking those games into account, Celek is barely even mentionable as a #2 TE – he has 3 games (out of 9) with more than 40 yards, and ZERO with more than 47.  That’s because he is the fifth receiving option on his own team.  Otherwise, Heap and Olsen turned out to be two of the top-7 TE options last weekend, and Watson was #12.  Eisenberg’s Start picks were #s 19, 16, 28 and 47, respectively (in a decimals league).




START – Tampa Bay – Bad (5 pts – 16 PA, 2 sacks, 1 fum rec)

SIT – New England – Bad (13 pts – 26 PA, 5 sacks, INT, TD)




START – Lawrence TynesGood (9 pts – 2 FG, 3 PAT)

SIT – Ryan LongwellGood (7 pts – 2 FG, 1 miss, 1 PAT)


Analysis: Terrible DST picks.  It is becoming more and more apparent that you cannot pick DSTs based solely on matchup – in nose case was that more clear than with TB last week.  TB is not a good defense, so it probably shouldn’t start no matter the matchup.  (I am leaving toward feeling the same way about Arizona in Week 15, when it takes on the same pathetic Carolina team.)  The DST with the good matchup is really only a lock (a loose one, at that) to have a relatively low PA figure.  Takeaways and defensive TDs are another story.


And the K figures show just how arbitrary my “standards” are – a good Sit has 2 fewer points than a good Start.  Ah well, gotta draw a line somewhere.  (Also, in two of my leagues, misses are penalized to the tune of Longwell only having 5 points…)


EISENBERG’S OVERALL SUCCESS RATE: 50% (23/46).  This includes the Start of the Week and a heap of “good” assessments for players that are no-brainer Starts/Sits.


Draw your own conclusions.

Category: NFL
Posted on: November 5, 2010 10:25 am

Eisenberg Week 8 Start/Sit Results

Start of the Week (Beanie Wells) – 12 (50 rush, 14 rec, 1 TD)


Analysis: Outscored by 14 RBs, including non-automatic starts such as BGE, Blount, Charles, Marcel Reece, Michael Bush, Tolbert and Sproles (in addition to automatic-starts like CJ, Gore, AD, MJD, etc.).  In leagues awarding points for return yards, he was likely even outscored by his lesser teammate, LaRod Stephens-Howling (41 yards, TD, 143 return yards).  Not a good Start of the Week.




Matt Cassel – 12 (152/1/0, 13 rush)

Carson Palmer – 14 (156/2/1, 13 rush)

Kyle Orton – 18 (369/1/1, 18 rush)

Ryan Fitzpatrick – 15 (223/1/1, 43 rush)

Chad Henne – 6 (217/0/1, -7 rush)

Jon Kitna (sleeper) – 13 (379/1/4, 12 rush)


Avg.: 13 points




Donovan McNabb – 15 (210/1/1, 45 rush)

Brett Favre – 6 (259/0/1)

Matt Hasselbeck – 4 (220/0/1, fumble lost)

Sam Bradford – 17 (191/2/0, 2 rush)

Vince Young – 20 (253/2/0, 3 rush)

Matt Sanchez (bust) – 6 (256/0/2, 22 rush)


Avg.: 11.33 points


Analysis: Not too good.  When you take into consideration that no one in his right mind would have started Hasselbeck or Favre this week (unless he had absolutely no choice, in which case why read this article), the sits averaged 14.5, which Sanchez being the only good call.  (If someone (Jamie?) disagrees with me about Hasselbeck and Favre, please make an argument that doesn’t make me vomit laughter.)  Also, isn't Orton a must-start these days?  And Fitzpatrick is on the precipice.  Even with Farve and Hasselbeck in the mix, the three highest-scoring sits (20, 17, 15) outscored the analog starts (18, 15, 14).  Good sleeper/bust picks; marginal-to-crappy everything else.




Marshawn Lynch – 0 (7 rush, 0 TD)

Felix Jones – 3 (22 rush, 14 rec, 0 TD)

Fred Jackson – 7 (64 rush, 11 rec, 0 TD)

Thomas Jones – 7 (77 rush, 3 rec, 0 TD)*

LeGarette Blount – 22 (120 rush, 9 rec, 2 TDs, fum lost)

Mike Hart – 9 (84 rush, 19 rec, 0 TD)


Avg.: 8 points.




Chris Ivory – 0 (7 rush, 0 TD)

Ryan Matthews – 11 (43 rush, 11 rec, TD)

Danny Woodhead – 11 (13 rush, 45 rec, TD)

Brandon Jackson – 6 (55 rush, 17 rec, 0 TD)

Michael Bush – 16 (51 rush, 55 rec, TD)

DeAngelo Williams – N/A


Avg.: 8.8 points


Analysis: Even worse.  The sits as a group averaged more points than the starts.  (DeAngelo did not play, rendering him irrelevant – obviously, you’re not going to start him.  I will note that these guys seemed pretty high on J. Stewart leading up to game time, when it became clear DeAngelo was out.  Stewart had 30 yards – another fail.)  Ivory, Blount and B. Jackson are arguably the only good picks here.  Blount was a breakout beast, Ivory didn’t score a single point, and Jackson was slightly better than the failure everyone expected against the Jets run defense.  But Matthews, Woodhead, Bush, Lynch, Fred Jackson and the two Joneses did the opposite of Eisenberg’s contentions.  Mike Hart is a toss-up – you could argue that he looked great and scored decently (Eisenberg would likely say 103 total yards with no TDs is “solid” production, as he contended as much re: Fred Jackson with worse stats.)  I would counter that for an advised RB starter – even a “sleeper” – single-digit output is not a success. 

*In the interest of full disclosure, he suggested that J. Charles start in addition to T. Jones.  But, as is the case every week, Charles was the afterthought, with Jones getting the bold inclusion in the Starts section.  Unfortunately, as was not the case before, Charles outscored Jones by 16.




Dez Bryant – 8 (84 rec)

Pierre Garcon – 7 (78 rec)

Mike Williams TB – 16 (105 rec, TD)

Steve Smith CAR – 8 (85 rec)

Patrick Crayton – 4 (46 rec)

Davone Bess (sleeper) – 3 (53 rec, fum lost)


Avg.: 7.75 points




Donald Driver* – 0

Robert Meachem – 7 (76 rec)

Michael Crabtree – 11 (53 rec, TD)

Mike Sims-Walker – 21 (153 rec, TD)

Danny Amendola – 8 (28 rec, TD)

Mike Williams SEA (bust) – 2 (27 rec)


Avg.: 8.13 points.


Analysis: Again, opposite of good.  The average for the Sits takes Driver into account, and it shouldn’t, seeing as he barely played.  He had not been viable since his injury, and no one should have been starting him regardless of this column – like the above circumstance, I call this the DUH! Factor.  Still, the Sits again average more than the Starts.  Garcon seemed like a slam dunk as the primary receiver against the NFL’s worst pass defense, but lo and behold, the Texans decided to shut him off somewhat, forcing the Colts to go elsewhere (slightly predictable).  TB’s Williams and SEA’s Williams – both obviously good picks.  Otherwise, nothing good.  Sims-Walker had a disgustingly good game, and Crabtree, Amendola and Meachem all had 7+.  Again, the top three Sits (21, 11, 8) beat or tied the top three Starts (16, 8, 8).




Kellen Winslow – 0 (5 rec)

Tony Moeaki – 4 (45 rec)

Bo Scaife – 0 (0 rec)

Jacob Tamme (sleeper) – 12 (64 rec, TD)


Avg.: 4 points




Marcedes Lewis – 17 (51 rec, 2 TDs)

Jeremy Shockey – 3 (30 rec)

Owen Daniels – 0 (8 rec)

Jermaine Gresham – 1 (17 rec)


Avg.: 5.25 points


Analysis: This is starting to get redundant.  Again, the Sits outperform the Starts.  Aside from the brilliant sleeper pick (I don’t know why everyone, including Richard, wasn’t ready to trust a new Manning TE this week – Peyton obviously loves TE), Eisenberg failed miserably with his Start picks.  Moeaki is done, Winslow has been done for weeks, and Scaife was never not done, unless you’re in a 16-team league starting two TEs.  Marcedes went off as he is capable of doing any week with Garrard as his QB (i.e. Lewis should never be on a Sit list).  Otherwise, Daniels was a good pick, because a lot of people (me included) thought he’d keep becoming his old self against Indy.  But he failed, regardless.  Shockey is never viable these days, with David Thomas around, and Gresham is a bust overall so far.


DST START – New England (1 INT, 1 sack, 18 PA)


DST SIT – New Orleans (1 INT, 1 FR, 3 sacks, 10 PA)


Analysis: No matter the scoring system, NO destroyed the Pats’ defense this week.  I mean, this is 50/50, and Eisenberg lost the coin flip.  NO allowed 8 fewer points, had 2 more sacks, and had 1 more takeaway.  And I don’t get the pick at all, given the need for NO to make a statement in this game.


K START – Nick Folk (0)


K SIT – Joe Nedney (6)


Analysis: Folk was easily the worst fantasy kicker in Week 8, with zero points (minus-2 in my league, because of the relative chip shot he missed).  So chalk up another FAIL for Eisenberg.


FINAL ANALYSIS: Eisenberg, I made a point to say last week that you and Richard don’t deserve a lot of the abuse you endure, and you both handle a lot of the ___-talking with class.  And as I stated I try to do, I’m gonna keep this rational.  You failed miserably last week.  At every position, your Sits fared as well as or better than your Starts.  Your K and DST Start picks performed unbelievably poorly compared to the Sit picks.  I can’t help you here.


This kind of makes the point that Eisenberg’s advice (and Richard’s, and that of every fantasy “expert”) and the accompanying articles should be read more as infotainment, less as Gospel.  Yes, this took me a while, and yes, I am a loser as a result (and for other reasons). 


Hopefully a little third-party accountability helps a couple folks out.


Category: NFL
Tags: No time
Posted on: May 6, 2009 3:56 pm

Student (Athlete) Drug Use in High Schools

I am just studying for finals here, and I had a thought I wanted to share with the zero people that will come upon it.

In two cases, Veronia S.D. v. Acton and Bd. of Education v. Earls, the Supreme Court has upheld random, suspicionless drug testing by schools as to athletes (Veronia) and then all extracurricular participants. 

I had a thought:  What should a parent do in the instance that his or her child is caught having used drugs?  Should the parent (a) sue the school system for finding out?  Or (b) figure out why the child is using drugs and take steps to remedy that use?

Just wondering...
Category: General
Posted on: March 26, 2009 5:18 pm

Wanna see a bona fide racist cop?

Look no further than Robert Powell of the Dallas Police force.

I can't write it better than did the Dallas Morning News, at

But here's the gist: Texans RB Ryan Moats (along with his wife and other family members) risklessly rolled through a red light en route to a hospital to catch Moats' mother-in-law before she died of breast cancer.  Robert Powell pulled Moats over outside the hospital's emergency entrance.  Here are some nice tidbits of what followed in a disgusting (and clearly racist) and unecessarily excessive excercise of wannabe police power:

-Powell kept a gun pointed at Moats after his wife ran into the hospital to see her dying mother (and after the situation had been explained to Powell);

-Powell said things like, “Understand what I can do...I can tow your truck. I can charge you with fleeing. I can make your night very difficult.”

-After hospital security came out to tell Powell Moats' mother-in-law actually was dying inside, Powell spent several minutes in his car searching for outstanding warrants on Moats and slowly writing at least one ticket.  (When another police officer, out of Plano Texas, even told Powell Moats' mother-in-law was dying right then, he replied, "I'm almost done.")

The warrant search is the kicker for me.  I hate the race card, but even I found the racism obvious in this instance.  Anyway, this guy should not be a cop.  The Asst. Police Chief said it best: “When people are in distress, we should come to the rescue...We shouldn’t further their distress.”

Oh, by the way, the mother-in-law died before Moats could get to her hospital room.

Just thought it was worth mentioning, since CBS has not covered it.

Category: NFL
Posted on: March 15, 2009 7:09 pm

Arizona AGAIN? Really?

Apparently. this has become a yearly event.

Arizona does not deserve to make the Tournament, having failed to even win 20 games, and still makes it, seemingly on name recognition alone.

Last year, the team was 19-14 and got a tenth seed. A lot of people, inexplicably, picked them to beat WVU in the first round. Well, they lost, and the game was not as close as the score (75-65) indicated.

This year the team, equally undeserving, actually gets a favorable matchup, and, in my opinion, will likely win the first round matchup against Utah. That team has three big wins -- LSU, Gonzaga, Utah St. -- and otherwise there is no reason to think it is a tough team.

In fact, with a ranking of about 30, it is hard to imagine how this team got a 5-seed in the first place, unless one figures the "committee" wanted a very conceivable 12-5 upset. This would kill two birds with one despicable stone -- give the committee post-hoc credibility in picking Arizona, and give the fans what they want to see, a 12-5 upset.

I am just already sick of seeing Arizona undeservedly make the tournament. It's only been two years, but in my opinion, it will keep happening until the school changes its name. And that will only happen if the state changes its name. And that will only happen if the state is overrun by outsiders, or if the US is taken over by Taliban.

I apologize if anyone is made upset by this little piece of ranting (like anyone will read it anyway). I just can't help but be incensed by the committee's failure to use logic in this one selection, for the second year in a row.

Posted on: March 12, 2009 11:01 pm

XII vs. Ten and Who Should Be In & Out

I don't know why, but it always seems like I am arguing with Big Ten fans about the March Madness viability of teams from these two conferences.  As a 7.5-year temporary resident of Columbia, Missouri, I am admittedly biased toward the Big XII.  However, my bias does not prevent me from being objective and rational in comparing these two conferences.

One Illinois fan claimed -- on the Mizzou team page, no less -- the Big Ten would get 7-8 teams in the tournament.  I threw up in my mouth a little when I read that asinine argument.  In the same metaphorical breath, this guy said the Big XII would get 4-5 teams in, max.

The latter argument is not obscene; the former is. 

Each conference has locks for the tournament: Kansas, Mizzou A&M, and OU are in from the Big XII; Illinois, MSU and Purdue are in from the Big Ten. 

Each conference as probablies (I know, it's not a word): Texas and OSU (after beating OU today) from the Big XII; Penn State, Ohio State  (20-9...RPI - 36...Big wins - Purdue, Minnesota, at ND, at Miami, at Michigan, Penn St Butler....Bad Losses - WV (by 28!), at Purdue (bby 25!)) and Minnesota from the Big Ten. (I included all the info about Ohio St. because, until 10 minutes ago, I thought they were out.  But upon further review, their resume is pretty tough...)

So, as I see it, that's 6 Big XII entries and 6 Big Ten entries. The other ones are toss-ups:

Big Ten: Michigan has lost 12 games, including against Iowa, who went 5-13 in conference; also lost to Wisconsin (not the team of years past) twice. MY PICK: OUT...Wisconsin has lost 11 games (against 19 wins); lost to Iowa and Northwestern (a team that doesn't even deserve Tournament mention); played tough non-conference schedule, but lost to 2 of 3 tough opponents. MY PICK: OUT.

Big XII: Unfortunately, no need to discuss. Kansas State was out with its loss today. Baylor was out as soon as it finished 5-13 in conference.

So both conferences likely get 6 teams in. So enough of the Big Ten faux-superiority, all right?


Now, one other pondering re: March Madness -- how the hell is Arizona still in the conversation? This team lost 13 game and didn't reach 20 wins. Its RPI is 53 (sure to go down after today's loss). I would MUCH rather Mizzou face Arizona in the tournament than, say, USC, whom I fear a little (despite Mizzou's early-season neutral-site win against them). Arizona has NO argument. OUT.


One random question: NOW is it okay to call Bristol Palin kind of a slut? I mean come on, it was clear that guy was a loser all along. People make mistakes, sure. But trying to cover a mistake with a forced marriage (i.e. another mistake) is ridiculous.


Hot rap line of the moment: 

I Brooklyn Dodger them; I Jack, I Rob, I sin.
Awww man, I'm Jackie Robinson, 'cept when I run base, I dodge the pen.

-Jay-Z, Brooklyn Go Hard (feat. Santogold)

Posted on: February 6, 2009 4:17 pm

Bad People

There are just so many of these to talk about these days. So I decided to make a little list.

Scott Boras: I know lawyers aren't good at math, but does this guy have any conception of the word "recession"? What about "severe recession"? Apparently not. On top of that shortcoming, he has basically threatened the Dodgers for "playing chicken" (a phrase, to describe the Manny situation, which he stole from Dodgers' management). The Dodgers' front office went as far as saying Boras is "difficult to work with" -- loosely translated, I take that to mean, "this guy is a snake." He is horrible for sports, and wonderful for greed.

Manny: I consider his situation to be only slightly his fault. One, I think he really does want more years than he is being offered. However, he could help himself by lowering his asking price for those years. Two, I think he, like most Boras clients, is essentially under the complete control of his agent.

Roid Freaks (McGwire, Clemens, Bonds): What else needs to be said about these losers? I must say, it's nice to see that two white guys were all but conclusively roid-riddled during their playing says -- it removes the whole discussion of race (or it should). Still, it doesn't help that two of these guys are complete a-holes, and the third is barely passable as a decent guy (Clemens). Seriously, though...has anyone ever seen someone not on roids throw a bat-shard at another player? And then claim he thought it was the ball? (Apparently, throwing the ball at a first-base-destined Piazza made sense to Rodge. Or not...)

Michael Phelps: Okay, I don't actually think he's a bad guy. He's just an idiot. When you win 8 golds, you're under scrutiny. You're surrounded by people with cameras and stuff to gain. Be aware, or be made a fool of.

Octuplet Lady: This involves somewhat of a presumption, so please accept my apology in the event I have presumed wrong. But how does a woman who had eight kids at once (multiplying her cost of living by about...say, eight) justify pumping her cheeks and lips full of plastic? Take away this woman's subsidies, immediately. (Anyone who saw her interview this morning knows what I'm talking about. She looked like a clown-duck.)

Ray Lewis: Last week I wrote the opposite about Terrell Suggs, who was willing to take a pay cut to keep his end of the dominating Ravens defense in Baltimore. Leave it to Ray Lewis, who has always been as nauseating (if not legitimately dangerous) off the field as he is phenomenal on it, to spit the following gem: "If you don't play less, you don't take less." Wow. Now there's a guy who gets it. Great team player. (Sense the repeated sarcasm.)

Congress: Enough grandstanding; enough pork. You have a country suffocating while miguidedly depending on you. Just figure out how to fix the economy and get it done. There are 600+ of you. Jesus.

It's not all bad, however. I wanted to pay homage to Santonio Holmes after seeing his Leno appearance last night. Yes, he got caught with pot. I hate pot, so I am not inclined to just let guys off the hook for that kind of thing. But anyone who saw him on Leno should know that he is incredibly well-meaning. He was incredibly soft-spoken, seemed gracious and humble, and even plugged an online auction (of the gloves he wore during the Super Bowl, autographed), the porceeds of which will go to Sickle Cell research. (Holmes' son has a sickle cell-related afflication.)



Posted on: February 4, 2009 11:01 am

Why Isn't More Being Made of This?

Does anyone remember the 2002 Divisional Round playoff game between the Patriots and the Raiders? Right or wrong, the call that won the Pats that game cemented the status of the "Tuck Rule" in the NFL -- if the ball is moving forward out of the QB's hands when lost, it is ruled an incomplete pass.

So why isn't more being made of the Kurt Warner "fumble" that ended the Super Bowl? The only time I have seen it really looked into has been on NFL Live, by Trey Wingo and company. And they found, however reliably, that the play should have been called an incomplete pass.

Although the Steelers defender got his hand on the ball before Warner came forward with it, Warner maintained possession until his arm came forward. And although the "pass" that resulted sure looked like a fumble, by rule, it was not -- it was an incompletion. And I thought it was pretty obvious.

Even if it wasn't obvious, it surely warranted review. Would it have changed the outcome of the game? Very, very likely not. But it's a shame what was a very entertaining Super Bowl had to be ended on a blown call/non-review. And the argument that the celebration shouldn't have been interrupted by an unnecessary review is irrelevant -- if a review needs to be undertaken, it needs to be undertaken, no matter the stage and no matter the time of the game.

Ah, refs.  

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or