The Packers have Favre to thank in part for Woodson choosing Green Bay.Um. OK. I was queasy about a seven-year deal for a cornerback who has been injury-prone and has lost some of his quicks. Now, I'm really queasy.
But it's not the only reason. According to (agent Kevin) Poston, Woodson picked the Packers because head coach Mike McCarthy agreed to let him play on offense as well as play cornerback.
Woodson is a great athlete, and maybe the chance to play on both sides of the ball will improve his focus and drive, and make him a better player as a result. But the injury risk that comes with this seven year, $53 million (!) deal really makes me nervous.
King Whizzinator...gone. Maybe Zygi Wilf was serious about turning around the Vikings' image after all. As soon as the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported that running back Onterrio Smith was not going to be reinstated by the NFL in June at the end of his one-year substance abuse suspension, the Vikings let him go. Smith played two years for the Vikings after a troubled college career, and Wilf and his mob have apparently decided that Smith isn't worth the trouble the organization has gone through in an effort to keep him around. There's still work to be done to fix the image of the Vikings organization, especially if starters Bryant McKinnie and Fred Smoot are convicted in connection with the Love Boat "scandal" when they go on trial in May.
What the hell are these things? Credit to poster "Moose97" on USCHO.com's message board, which I frequent. "Moose97" found the new uniform design of the Minnesota Vikings and posted a picture of it:
Listen. I hate the color purple. If I had my way, the color would be banned and anything purple would be burned in the world's largest bonfire.
But I liked the Vikings' old look. It may have been plainish, but it was a classy look, and there was some tradition attached to it. This appears to be a more "modern" looking uniform, and that's not a good thing.
I'm not here to mindlessly advocate that the Buccaneers, Patriots, and other teams shouldn't have changed their looks from the 1980s. But if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And the Vikings' look was not broken.
So why, again, did they fix it?
I don't want to say it. Don't make me say it. I'm serious. I have no desire to take the NBA MVP voters to task for being racist. But this doesn't look good. John Stockton owns the point guard position for the better part of a decade. No MVPs. Jason Kidd revitalizes an entire organization with his play at the point guard position. No MVPs. Steve Nash comes along, grows out his hair, takes a stand against the war, stops playing defense, and apparently is now set to win his second straight MVP award. The Suns' point guard had another solid season, and at least he was clearly the MVP of his own team (unlike last year, when one could have argued for Amare Stoudemire). But for the people who vote on this award - people who I would assume are duly qualified to cast such votes - ignored a minimum of two superior candidates, and you could argue that two other superior candidates also got ignored. LeBron James carried a team that isn't as good as the team around Nash, and unlike Nash, James isn't a natural point guard, and he is a much better defender than Nash. Kobe Bryant is the Los Angeles Lakers. And you could argue that Dirk Nowitski is more MVP-worthy than Nash, considering the season he just had in Dallas.
(Side note: Nowitski has come an amazingly long way since his meltdown last year against Phoenix, when he was too busy yelling at his teammates to actually help the Mavericks win.)
I still don't think this is about race, because Stockton would have won at least one of these things if it was. But there is something "cute" about the gangly-haired little Canadian dude. His game, so unassuming on the surface because Nash lacks the superstar "look", makes you want to vote for him.
And I don't think it matters to the voters too much that Nash is white.
It just looks like it does...and that's a bad thing.
4 comments:
I guess this means I have to kind of like the Packers. Yuck.
You're right about the MVP. I would have given it to LeBron. I wouldn't give it to Kobe because the only reason he gets numbers is because he jacks up 50 shots a game. Instead of making his teammates better, he makes them even more useless.
I'd even say Dwyane Wade deserved some serious consideration even though he'd probably never win it since he plays with Shaq. And I hate Dwyane Wade(and more specifically, his groin accessory Dan LeRetard). Whenever I see that stupid Dwyane Wade commercial where he keeps getting knocked down, I change the channel......halfway through the commercial.
I would have seriously considered either Kobe for MVP - because he found a way to make the most impossible arrangement in the history of superstar players actually work - or Phil for Coach of the Year, because he found a way to convince 11 men with egos all their own to kill themselves for a jackass like Kobe.
I feel someone needs to be recognized for what the Lakers have accomplished, which is remarkable even if they lose to Phoenix (and I don't necessarily think they will, because PHX has zero players who can even come close to defending Kobe).
Those new Vikings uniforms are horrible, makes me glad I am not a Vikings fan, great call Bruce. Also, wonderful job doing play-by-play for St. Scholastica on KDAL Friday. I just wish the Saints were able to get on the air more often, thank you for the support though.
I completely with you about Stockton. He deserved one. Problem is the NBA wanted to give King Michael his 60000th MVP award, even though he may not have been the best player one of the years.
Stockton might also have been hurt because 1) he had a quiet manner and 2) he played in Utah. Don't forget his great steal stats. Wish he could've one a trophy.
Post a Comment