Yeah, that's right. We watched the Grammy's. In our defense, it was (mostly) The Mrs.' idea and (mostly) via the DVR and (mostly) just to see the performances. (Is that lie the exact opposite of saying you only read nudie magazines for the articles?)
On the off-chance that you had something better to do on Sunday or Monday night and missed the excitement, just look at some of the cultural touchstone moments you missed:
1. Christina Aguilera continuing her "Denial" tour.
2. Lady GaGa's remake of Madonna's "Express Yourself." Plus, her tay-ta's, of course.
3. The return of Dr. Dre. Apparently the Rap Game hasn't implemented a performance enhancing drug program quite yet.
4. Way too much Rihanna.
5. A chance to finally figure out exactly what a "Bruno Mars" is. Judging by the look and the name, we've concluded he's a real-life cartoon character.
6. Babs Streisand looking confused (we ffwd through the actual performance).
7. Mick Jagger looking like anything but the elderly man he is. Though, his ever expanding head is threatening to get him into the next round of NBA commercials (we see him dunking on then taunting Ringo).
8. Nicole Kidman repeatedly getting down to everything, including singing along to "Teenage Dream", noticing the camera and immediately stopping. As bad as singing along to Katy Perry is, we'd respect her much more had she just owned up to her love of terrible, terrible music that sounds like it's written by a barely literate 12-year old. It's not like anyone is making the decision to stay away from her movies because of her musical tastes. They stay away because the movies suck. Sing it Nicole!!
9. The aforementioned Katy Perry's wedding video. Nobody even likes their own wedding videos and your doesn't even involve a drunk uncle dancing.
10. Diddy's wearing either braces or a new device that replicates what he'd sound like without a tongue.
10. Us having a seizure during The Arcade Fire's first song.
12. The most depressing "People Who Died" montage ever. Not because it was sad but because nobody good died this year. What a huge letdown.
13. And, of course, John Mayer dressed like Johnny Depp from "The Tourist." We're eagerly anticipating the "People" cover with rumors of Mayer's hook-up with Keith Urban after they're sultry performance of Dolly Parton's "Jolene".
What you didn't miss were the weird duets that had become Grammy's wheelhouse. We go nothing on the buzz-level of the Eminem/Elton John "Stan" performance or even on the weirdness-scale of Linkin Park, Jay-Z & Paul McCartney (we kinda wish it has been Diddy instead of Jay-Z just so we could have had Sir Paul singing yesterday with "Bad Boy", "Can't Stop" and other Diddyisms whispered underneath). No, instead of some memorably good duet - we got this:
Why? Seriously, why did they do that? The degree of difficulty in ruining a performance of maybe the most clever and original song of the year, done by a someone who really can sing (as opposed to the eminently hateable Katy Perry) with the added spectacle of Cee Lo's take on Elton John's "Crocodile Rock" performance on the "Muppet Show." So, how do you do it?
(Besides, of course, using "forget" or calling it "The song otherwise known as 'Forget You'" instead of bleeping out the curse or using F*CK. Particulalrly when, by our count, 17 combined bitches/asses and at least one N-bomb slid through during Dre and Eminem's performance.)
Surprisingly, all you need to do to pull off such a feat is have Gweneth Paltrow sing 3/4 of the song. Again, why exactly would they do that? Because they did a cute SNL sketch together? Or maybe because she was on "Glee" (can we please all stop with that crap already)? Or is it because she's in an abominable movie called "Country Strong" (previewed during "True Grit" - way to know your audience.) where she plays, as you might have guessed, a country singer who needs to be and subsequently becomes "strong." Clearly Apple's mom fancies herself a bit of a singer and in the world of mere mortals she's not bad but on what planet does stunt casting trump true artistic performance during a show that supposedly celebrates music?
So, thanks for ruining it for us Grammy's. Fuck you.
Are we totally off on this one? Did the rest of the civilized world love this thing?
FYR - Here's the Elton John video:
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Real Football - Which Team Has the Worst Quarterbacks Ever?
There is nothing on the damn radio. Ever. Sure we've got the new Ipod which is incredibly cool but you have to pace yourself with a thing like that since you can only hear even your most favoritists of songs so many times. So, due to the whole radio sucking thing, we're pretty much forced to listen to ESPN radio and their flagship morning show - Mike and Mike.
The more we listen, the more we HATE Mike and Mike or as it's more commonly known "4 Hours of Overproduced, Uncreative Drivel." They rarely make a point beyond the most obvious of things and the "He's a slobby football player" - "He's a metrosexual" (we all know what that's code for) shtick is so goddamn old at this point. Maybe someday we'll draft up a 5,000 screed on their uselessness, but for now, we digress.
Much to our suprise, when cringing through another segment on Monday, we actually heard a conversation that sparked our imagination. In the wake of Aaron Rodgers ascension, the Mikes were discussing which franchises in the modern era (after 1960) could boast the best 3 quarterbacks. The consensus they reached was that the competition came down to the Packers (Bart Starr, The Dongslinger and Rodgers), the 49ers (Joe Montana, Steve Young and Y.A. Tittle - though they could have gone with Jeff Garcia, who was better then ol' Y.A. during his San Fran career) and the Colts (Johnny Unitas, Peyton Manning and Bert Jones). We don't recall them coming to a definitive conclusion but we'd probably lean towards the Colts since they have 2 of the Top 5ish QBs of All-Time plus Jones, a little known guy to our generation who won an MVP in 1976. That's tough to beat.
But what actually intrigued us more was the throw-away suggestion that if you wanted to me "mean" they could come up with the list of the teams with the worst quarterbacks of all-time. Well, that sounds like a job for the Project. We just hope we don't hurt Vinny Testaverde's feelings.
So, who has the Worst Best 3? We came up with 3 contenders - 2 are the usual suspects and 1 was a big big surprise. We tried to stick with the most important guys from each team, generally from their top 5 all-time passers. We also looked for guys who started 45 or more games (or about 3 seasons) because if you entrust your team to a guy for that many games, you deserve what you get.
The Usual Suspects
Tampa Bay Bucaneers
Vinny Testaverde (87-92) - Franchise All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 24-48 - 52% completion - TD/INT: 77/122 - QB Rate: 64.4. Notable Accomplishments (or unaccomlisments as the case may be): 35 INTs in 1988 (lead league 2x) - Top 10 in times sacked every year in Tampa Bay - Never more TDs than INTs - Better after Tampa.
Trent Dilfer (94-99) - Franchise 2nd All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 38-38 - 54% completion - TD/INT: 70/80 - QB Rate: 69.4. Notable Accomplishments (or unaccomlisments as the case may be): 1 Pro-Bowl - .500+ QB Record (2x) - 21 TDs (2x) - Super Bowl winner with Ravens.
Brad Johnson (87-92) - Franchise 4th All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 26-23 - 61% completion - TD/INT: 64/41 - QB Rate: 83.2 (highest eligible for team). Notable Accomplishments (or unsaccomlisments as the case may be): 1 Pro Bowl (22 TDs/6 INTs) - Super Bowl Winner.
Honorable Mention: Doug Williams (78-82) - 3rd All-Time Passing Leader - 33-33 - 47% - 73-73 - 66.2 - 9-7 season - more TDs than INTs (2x) - Super Bowl MVP with Redskins.
Detroit Lions
Scott Mitchell (94-98) - Franchise 2nd All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 27-30 - 56.7% completion - TD/INT: 79/57 - QB Rate: 79.2. Notable Accomplishments (or unaccomlisments as the case may be): Playoffs (2x) - 1995: 10-6, 32 TDs, 12 INTs, QB Rate: 92.3 - Top 10 TDs (3x), Top 10 QB Rate (2x).
Greg Landry (68-78) - Franchise 3rd All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 40-41 - 54.8% completion - TD/INT: 80/81 - QB Rate: 73.4. Notable Accomplishments (or unaccomlisments as the case may be): 1 Pro Bowl - Comeback Player of the Year - Top 10 Passing Yards/TDs (3x) - .500+ QB Record (2x).
Gary Danielson (77-84) - Franchise 4th All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 23-28 - 56.5% completion - TD/INT: 69/71 - QB Rate: 74.4. Notable Accomplishments (or unaccomlisments as the case may be): Top 10 TDs (1x) - Top 10 QB Rating (3x) - .500+ QB Record (2x) - More TDs than INTs (3x).
Omits Bobby Layne (played entire career before 1960 - All-Time Leading Passer - HOF - 1st Team All-Pro (2x) - Pro Bowl (6x).)
The Surprise
Chicago Bears
Jim Harbaugh (87-93) - Franchise 2nd All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 35-30 - 58.2% completion - TD/INT: 50/56 - QB Rate: 74.2. Notable Accomplishments (or unaccomlisments as the case may be): 10 wins (2x) - 35 INTs in 1988 (lead league 2x) - Top 10 Passing Yards/TDs/Rating (1x).
Jim McMahon (82-88) - Franchise 3rd All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 46-15 - 57.8% completion - TD/INT: 67/56 - QB Rate: 80.4. Notable Accomplishments (or unaccomlisments as the case may be): 1 Pro Bowl - Super Bowl - Started 10+ games only 2x - .500+ QB Record (6x) - Top 10 Raring (2x).
Billy Wade (61-66) - Franchise 5th All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 27-20 - 54% completion - TD/INT: 68/60 - QB Rate: 73.6. Notable Accomplishments (or unaccomlisments as the case may be): 1 Pro Bowl - .500+ QB record (3x) - Top 10 Passing Yards (3x), TDs/Rating (4x) - Lead League in Passer Rating (1x).
Omits Sid Luckman (Played from 39-50 - Franchise All-Time Passing Leader - HOF - 1st Team All-Pro (5x) - Pro Bowl (3x)
Who's Worst?
It's a tight race but we give the edge to the Lions in the awful derby.
The Bears QBs numbers are uninspiring but for the most the guys won a lot of games. Sure, they had excellent defenses carrying them but QB is the most important position on the field so winning has to count for something. It just amazed us that a team with as much history and mystique as Chicago could have such consistently mediocre to bad quarterback play. Good thing their current guy makes Chuck Norris look like a puss.
Tampa's quarterbacks, particularly Testaverde, actually might have worst numbers of the 3 teams, but we gave them credit for having success away from Tampa. Vinny was much more productive with both Baltimore and the Jets and Dilfer won a Super Bowl. Have to chalk some of their struggles up to the Tampa Bay stink. Add in Johnson winning a Super Bowl and they slide by.
Detroit's history, on the other hand, is just littered with unaccomlishment. If Scott Mitchell is the best QB in your modern era - your team really really sucks. It's also worth noting some of the other terrible guys who they trotted out under center who didn't make the cut - Joey Harrington, Andre Ware, Rodney Peete, Jon Kitna, Charlie Batch and on and on. The Lions are the '27 Yankees of bad QBing.
So congratulations, Detroit. You suck worst of all.
What do you guys think? Agree or Disagree? Want to throw a franchise under the bus? Let us know.
The more we listen, the more we HATE Mike and Mike or as it's more commonly known "4 Hours of Overproduced, Uncreative Drivel." They rarely make a point beyond the most obvious of things and the "He's a slobby football player" - "He's a metrosexual" (we all know what that's code for) shtick is so goddamn old at this point. Maybe someday we'll draft up a 5,000 screed on their uselessness, but for now, we digress.
Much to our suprise, when cringing through another segment on Monday, we actually heard a conversation that sparked our imagination. In the wake of Aaron Rodgers ascension, the Mikes were discussing which franchises in the modern era (after 1960) could boast the best 3 quarterbacks. The consensus they reached was that the competition came down to the Packers (Bart Starr, The Dongslinger and Rodgers), the 49ers (Joe Montana, Steve Young and Y.A. Tittle - though they could have gone with Jeff Garcia, who was better then ol' Y.A. during his San Fran career) and the Colts (Johnny Unitas, Peyton Manning and Bert Jones). We don't recall them coming to a definitive conclusion but we'd probably lean towards the Colts since they have 2 of the Top 5ish QBs of All-Time plus Jones, a little known guy to our generation who won an MVP in 1976. That's tough to beat.
But what actually intrigued us more was the throw-away suggestion that if you wanted to me "mean" they could come up with the list of the teams with the worst quarterbacks of all-time. Well, that sounds like a job for the Project. We just hope we don't hurt Vinny Testaverde's feelings.
So, who has the Worst Best 3? We came up with 3 contenders - 2 are the usual suspects and 1 was a big big surprise. We tried to stick with the most important guys from each team, generally from their top 5 all-time passers. We also looked for guys who started 45 or more games (or about 3 seasons) because if you entrust your team to a guy for that many games, you deserve what you get.
The Usual Suspects
Tampa Bay Bucaneers
Vinny Testaverde (87-92) - Franchise All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 24-48 - 52% completion - TD/INT: 77/122 - QB Rate: 64.4. Notable Accomplishments (or unaccomlisments as the case may be): 35 INTs in 1988 (lead league 2x) - Top 10 in times sacked every year in Tampa Bay - Never more TDs than INTs - Better after Tampa.
Trent Dilfer (94-99) - Franchise 2nd All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 38-38 - 54% completion - TD/INT: 70/80 - QB Rate: 69.4. Notable Accomplishments (or unaccomlisments as the case may be): 1 Pro-Bowl - .500+ QB Record (2x) - 21 TDs (2x) - Super Bowl winner with Ravens.
Brad Johnson (87-92) - Franchise 4th All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 26-23 - 61% completion - TD/INT: 64/41 - QB Rate: 83.2 (highest eligible for team). Notable Accomplishments (or unsaccomlisments as the case may be): 1 Pro Bowl (22 TDs/6 INTs) - Super Bowl Winner.
Honorable Mention: Doug Williams (78-82) - 3rd All-Time Passing Leader - 33-33 - 47% - 73-73 - 66.2 - 9-7 season - more TDs than INTs (2x) - Super Bowl MVP with Redskins.
Detroit Lions
Scott Mitchell (94-98) - Franchise 2nd All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 27-30 - 56.7% completion - TD/INT: 79/57 - QB Rate: 79.2. Notable Accomplishments (or unaccomlisments as the case may be): Playoffs (2x) - 1995: 10-6, 32 TDs, 12 INTs, QB Rate: 92.3 - Top 10 TDs (3x), Top 10 QB Rate (2x).
Greg Landry (68-78) - Franchise 3rd All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 40-41 - 54.8% completion - TD/INT: 80/81 - QB Rate: 73.4. Notable Accomplishments (or unaccomlisments as the case may be): 1 Pro Bowl - Comeback Player of the Year - Top 10 Passing Yards/TDs (3x) - .500+ QB Record (2x).
Gary Danielson (77-84) - Franchise 4th All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 23-28 - 56.5% completion - TD/INT: 69/71 - QB Rate: 74.4. Notable Accomplishments (or unaccomlisments as the case may be): Top 10 TDs (1x) - Top 10 QB Rating (3x) - .500+ QB Record (2x) - More TDs than INTs (3x).
Omits Bobby Layne (played entire career before 1960 - All-Time Leading Passer - HOF - 1st Team All-Pro (2x) - Pro Bowl (6x).)
The Surprise
Chicago Bears
Jim Harbaugh (87-93) - Franchise 2nd All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 35-30 - 58.2% completion - TD/INT: 50/56 - QB Rate: 74.2. Notable Accomplishments (or unaccomlisments as the case may be): 10 wins (2x) - 35 INTs in 1988 (lead league 2x) - Top 10 Passing Yards/TDs/Rating (1x).
Jim McMahon (82-88) - Franchise 3rd All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 46-15 - 57.8% completion - TD/INT: 67/56 - QB Rate: 80.4. Notable Accomplishments (or unaccomlisments as the case may be): 1 Pro Bowl - Super Bowl - Started 10+ games only 2x - .500+ QB Record (6x) - Top 10 Raring (2x).
Billy Wade (61-66) - Franchise 5th All-Time Passing Leader - Record: 27-20 - 54% completion - TD/INT: 68/60 - QB Rate: 73.6. Notable Accomplishments (or unaccomlisments as the case may be): 1 Pro Bowl - .500+ QB record (3x) - Top 10 Passing Yards (3x), TDs/Rating (4x) - Lead League in Passer Rating (1x).
Omits Sid Luckman (Played from 39-50 - Franchise All-Time Passing Leader - HOF - 1st Team All-Pro (5x) - Pro Bowl (3x)
Who's Worst?
It's a tight race but we give the edge to the Lions in the awful derby.
The Bears QBs numbers are uninspiring but for the most the guys won a lot of games. Sure, they had excellent defenses carrying them but QB is the most important position on the field so winning has to count for something. It just amazed us that a team with as much history and mystique as Chicago could have such consistently mediocre to bad quarterback play. Good thing their current guy makes Chuck Norris look like a puss.
Tampa's quarterbacks, particularly Testaverde, actually might have worst numbers of the 3 teams, but we gave them credit for having success away from Tampa. Vinny was much more productive with both Baltimore and the Jets and Dilfer won a Super Bowl. Have to chalk some of their struggles up to the Tampa Bay stink. Add in Johnson winning a Super Bowl and they slide by.
Detroit's history, on the other hand, is just littered with unaccomlishment. If Scott Mitchell is the best QB in your modern era - your team really really sucks. It's also worth noting some of the other terrible guys who they trotted out under center who didn't make the cut - Joey Harrington, Andre Ware, Rodney Peete, Jon Kitna, Charlie Batch and on and on. The Lions are the '27 Yankees of bad QBing.
So congratulations, Detroit. You suck worst of all.
What do you guys think? Agree or Disagree? Want to throw a franchise under the bus? Let us know.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Three Days Late Blogging the Super Bowl Halftime Show - 1200 words on 12 minutes
Laziness is a bitch. From the day the NFL announced that The Black Eyed Peas would invade the stage at The Jones Mahal (the eternal symbol of excessive wealth), we knew it would be something special. And given the extreme physical and mental discomfort we experience at the mere mention of the Peas, we knew it would be something we'd want to ridicule. Unfortunately thanks to the aforementioned laziness (the computer was all the way on the other side of the room) we missed the boat.
HOWEVAH (trademark - Stephen A. Smith), thanks to miracles of modern technology like America's time machine, YouTube, we can go back in time ....
(plays stock fantastical music that indicates a trip back in time)
Super Bowl Sunday - Halftime.
(Editor's note: In addition to your usual write, today's Persnickety Plural is brought to you by The Mrs., our buddy Burd and his Mrs so if you find anything funny, it was probably one of them. All comments are reproduced without the express written consent.)
We're still recovering from Christina Aguilera's butchering of the National Anthem. We were so distracted by her apparent love of comfort foods in the wake of her big divorce that e never noticed she screwed up the lyrics. (Sample line from her new album: "You are beautiful, no matter how much you weigh." It's the REMIX!!)
Anyway, after that debacle, we're ready for some more music to cleanse our pallet. Unfortunately, we get the Black Eyed Peas (as we were reminded roughly 800 times during the game by FOX). Before the show starts we're discussing what songs they might play. Our best bet on what they definitively will not play is anything that makes sense." (We really do hesitate to call what they create "songs." They always seem much more like the ramblings of a homeless man set to music.) On the bright side, there's a 30% chance we'll get the will.i.am hologram instead of the real thing.
And here we go ...
0:00 - "I've Got a Feeling" ... that tonight's gonna to be a train wreck. And that's confirmed with one look at the outfits. Fergie's rockin a Halloween classic, The Slutty Linebacker. will.i.am the black leather Gumby, of course. (credit to Larry Legend for that one) The Ninja is ninja-y. The other two guy - uh, who cares. Are we sure he's even in the group?
0:37 - In a completely unsurprising development, Fergie actually sounds better with her mic off.
0:54 - MAZEL TOV!! That line makes us want to chuck a mazel-tov cocktail on stage.
1:19 - "Boom, Boom, Pow" Oh good, it's a medley. Why play one shitty song all the way through when you can torture us with 6 of them?
1:34: Does this count as rap or would rap get offended and threaten to fight you if you used it's name in association with whatever is happening on stage right now? We're gonna go with the latter in that wholly unbiased scenario we just made up.
1:40: Wow, the studio effects are really important, aren't they? Sorry Billy, you can't just try to do funny robot voices to make up for it.
1:57 - "I'm so 2008, you're so 2000 and late." How does she manage to say that with a straight face? That line makes us uncomfortable to be alive. Full body douche chills. It might be the worst line ever recorded in modern music. We almost feel the need to light ourselves on fire to protest the injustice.
2:18 - Holy crap!! The Ninja actually talks? We had always assumed the Black Eyed Peas were some sort of Special Olympics band and he was the mute.
2:34 - Maybe he's just better off not talking.
3:05 - "Sweet Child of Mine." Oh good, now they're going to ruin other people's songs as well.
3:15 - Why wouldn't Slash be there? Is there any crappy cameo appearance he'd pass up? Apparently his musical integrity went the way of something that is long gone but vaguely related to Slash and/or Guns 'N Roses that we can't think of. At least he's wearing a bedazzled hat.
3:33 - Ok, it must be said - Fergie cannot friggin sing. She is terrible. We always kind of assumed that to be a famous musician to either had to be a good singer or good looking. She's neither. We just don't get Fergie. Can someone explain this? (And she is not hot. She has all the trappings of a hot person - blond hair, half-naked style of dressing, etc. - so you're fooled into thinking she's hot. But it's all just to distract from the fact that when you really look at her, she looks like a recovering meth addict. This is not up for debate.)
3:40 - Is that supposed to be Axel Rose's snakey-dance thing? She looks like the dancing hamsters we gave our grandma once that sang "I'm Too Sexy."
4:00 - On second thought, maybe that medley thing isn't such a bad idea. If we had to listen to all of "Sweet Child O' Mine" we'd probably break down and cry-eye.
4:40: "Noises and Yelling." That's what this one is called right?
5:25: Hand Gestures!!
6:00: "Let's Get Mentally Challenged" For 44 seconds at least. If ever there was a case for lipsynching through your performance this is it. They sound like 4 friends drunkenly shouting out the words at a bar. It would have been significantly less embarrassing if they got "Ashely-Simpsoned." At least in that scenario they'd have an excuse.
6:55: Oh my god, that's Usher's music!!!!! Come to think of it, why didn't Usher just do the halftime show. Oh that's right. It's because Usher's too busy dancing to sing.
8:20 - Aaand the Packers trainers have just announced that Usher has suffered what they are calling a massively torn groin. His return, much like his choice to attempt that move, is questionable.
8:48: "Where is the Love." This one is soo deep. Never thought we'd be hoping Justin Timberlake would show up to make things better. Guess the whole nipple thing hasn't quite blown over yet.
9:28 - If we were one of the people with the glowing Christmas light suits on, we'd probably just walk the hell off. But on the way out we'd strategically remove one light bulb from every one's costumes. And on some we'd replace it with the special blinking bulb.
9:45: Why is she yelling!!
10:23 - What ... the ... "The Dirty Dancing Song"? Someone suggested that Jennifer Grey should come dancing out on stage. We think she should come dancing out on stage in the arms of Patrick Swayze's corpse.
11:00 - Seems like there's something wrong with their tape deck. Any why exactly are there people dancing on stage with boxes on their heads?
11: 15 - "I've Got A Feeling" THE REPRISE!! If you're the Black Eyed Peas, are you back stage after the performance all excited and delusional about how you killed it? Or do you just click on the Bank of America app on your phone, check the balance and laugh?
12:06 - And thank gosh it's finally over. Ohhh hoooo!!!
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Real Hoops - Potential Ron Artest Trades
There's drama in L.A. What else is new?
First, Jerry West criticized the Lakers defensive prowess, suggesting they're just too old. (Like he's one to talk. What is he like 80? We'd like to see him get out there and guard Monte Ellis. Grumpy old bastard. What has he ever done for the Lakers or even the game of basketball. Nobody criticizes Kobe.) Then, Ron Artest wants to be traded. Next, Ron Artest doesn't want to be traded. (It's quite possible Ron Artest wants both). Now Mitch Kupchak says a trade may be in order. All the while, Kobe's is definitely not a dick and never did anything wrong in a hotel room in Colorado.
Anyway, talk of trades always gets us excited at the chance to break out the ESPN Trade Machine and screw around. (If Bill Simmons is the self-professed Picasso of the Trade Machine, we're the insane guy that throws his own feces at the wall and calls it modern art. Your dumb if you don't get it.)
If the Lakers do truly want to make a trade they face one rather large problem - they almost completely lack assets. Their best players (Kobe, Gasol and Odom) are to varying degrees untouchable and a large chunk of the rest of the roster is either unwantable (Barnes, Ratliff, Smith) or untradable (Blake - bad contract any non-contending team) or both (Walton). That leaves them with 2 guys that are worth much more to them then anyone else (Derek Fisher and Shannon Brown), one guy they'd rather not trade (Bynum) and one guy they'd love to get rid of (Artest.) Add in any likely late, late 1st round pick they could offer and the assets don't exactly bowl you over.
Is Artest tradeable?
The simple answer is yes - anyone can be traded. The real issue is more complicated. Because the Lakers are the two-time defending champs with a coach on his last year and an aging star player, any trade they make has to find a team that is willing to: (1) take on the $6m per for three years left on the deal of a player who is putting up career low numbers across the board; and (2) give us a player of value to the Lakers that, at the very least, doesn't make them worse, i.e. it can't just be a salary dump.
That makes the parameters of any potential trade pretty straightforward: Find a team with an equally bad (likely longer) contract for another under performing player, sell them that a rejuvenated Artest - who scored 18 ppg and had a PER of 15.64 only two years ago (and was even better the year before that) could spur them to the playoffs with his toughness and defense, and hope they take a shot. As you can imagine, with the 31 year-old Ron Ron playing at an all-time low level (8 ppg, 3 rpg, 2 asp, PER 11.16) and still carrying a well-deserved reputation as a bit of a nut job, it's a struggle to come up with teams that fit that criteria.
One other thing to note is that two struggling teams (Indiana and Detroit) who could have potentially been enticed with a first round pick or through the Lakers assumption of a bad contract are automatically off the list due to that whole "Going in the stands and beating up fans" thing that was so overblown a few years ago.
Where Could Artest Go?
Ron Artest, Derrick Caracter and part of a trade exception to Atlanta for Marvin Williams and Zaza Pachulia.
Who says no? Probably Atlanta.
Despite being stuck in the Eastern Conference's eternal 4-5 rut of mediocrity - destined to, at best, lose to Boston or Miami in the second round of the playoffs, it seems unlikely that they'd move Williams. Despite his shortcomings and lack of defined position, Williams was still a former #1 overall pick who is is still young, athletic and in possession of some upside. He's got similar numbers to Artest so to move him simply to shake things up and shed Puchilia's dumb contract (3 yrs, $4m per) is probably too risky. No to mention that teaming up the combustible Artest with Josh Smith puts them perilously close to reaching Crazy Critical Mass in the locker room.
It would be a no brainer for LA, getting a more athletic, less insane player who could replace much of what Artest brought to the table. Williams defends (though not on the same level as Artest) and shoots well enough and only costs $1m per over the next 3 years. Taking on Zaza's contract would simply be the cost of doing business. Money doesn't really matter to the Lakers, does it?
Artest to Phoenix for Josh Childress.
Who says no? The Lakers.
After spending two years in Greece, Childless hasn't gotten himself reaccustomed to NBA-play quite yet (5 ppg/3rpg and a PER of 12). The Suns might entertain the offer on the grounds that owner Robert Sarver is super cheap (Artest is signed for one year less than Childress) and (2) they might be so irrationally convinced they can contend with Steve Nash that a potentially rejuvenated Artest looks enticing.
For the Lakers, they'd rid themselves of Artest's weirdness and get a more athletic, defensively capable wing to try to replace some of his production. Childress is a decent spot-up shooter who runs the floor and hits the boards well for his size. The additional year on the contract isn't ideal but if they truly want to make a change, these are the types of moves they'd have to consider.
3. Artest (and filler) to Charlotte for Boris Diaw and Matt Carrol's Unconscionable Contract
Who says no? Charlotte.
If Larry Brown were still coaching the Bobs this trade would have happened already. Dumping a soft PF for a proven "tough" "winner" like Artest in his eternal quest to coach every single player in the league? That's right in LB's wheelhouse. With Brown gone, however, we'd guess that Charlotte - who is in contention for a playoff spot - would rather keep Diaw and his $9m expiring contract and pay Matt Carroll another two years of $4m to work on his crocheting than add Artest and his contract. From a basketball standpoint, Diaw is probably a better fit for them anyway due to his ability to play PF.
For the Lakers, shedding Artest's contract for one year of the versatile Diaw would make some sense. Diaw is a natural 4, but he can play some 3 and is both an exceptional passer (a huge asset in the triangle) and defender. He'd add even more versatility and length to an already stocked Laker front line. As for Carrol - at least his contract is shorted than Ron-Ron's.
All Those Deals Suck - Now What?
As you can see, the pickings are slim if the Lakers want to move Artest alone. Things would get slightly more interesting if they added another piece - one we said they'd rather not trade - namely, Andrew Bynum. How interesting depends strictly on how you feel about Bynum. Is the the best under 25 center in the league (Howard is 25) or is he a talented big guy who can't seem to stay healthy? We tend to lean toward the latter category, but we're quite sure some GM's out there feel differently.
Losing Bynum threatens to take away what makes the Lakers so special - their size. Without Bynum, Gasol has to play the 5 much more frequently, which has shown to wear him down. So, in any deal, they'd likely need to get back at least a serviceable big guy (and probably a capable wing player) to avoid killing their championship hopes.
Here are the potential deals:
Artest and Bynum to Atlanta for Josh Smith and Marvin Williams
Who says no? The Lakers.
The more we think about this one the more we like it for the Hawks and hate it for the Lakers. The Hawks could finally get the size in the middle they really need, move Horford to PF where he belongs and become a really stout defensive team. They'd be slightly less athletic but a line-up of Bynum, Horford, Artest, Johnson and Bibby/Crawford would give anybody trouble - particularly a smaller team like, say Miami - and allow them to match-up big-on-big with Orlando, Boston and Chicago.
For the Lakers, while adding the explosive talented Smith would be helpful, they'd face the problem we identified earlier - losing their unique size advantage. Bynum's absence would put too much pressure on Gasol to play 40 minutes at center and leave the back-up 5 minutes to some combination of Odom, Theo Ratliff and Joe Smith. Odom is great but this isn't the World Championships.
Artest and Bynum to Charlotte for Tyrus Thomas, Gerald Wallace and MCUC
Who says no? Probably Charlotte.
Again, this one comes down to how you feel about Bynum. If he's a rising center, moving Wallace (an arguably overpaid, limited star) and 4 more years of Tyrus Thomas seems about right. If not? Well, it seems like robbery. Bynum could fill the massive void in the middle for Charlotte long-term and change their identity as an undersized, athletic team with one bold move.
This would be semi-ideal for the Lakers. Both Wallace and Thomas are crazy athletic players who provide real value on the defensive end. Wallace runs the floor, finishes with authority and routinely snags double-digit boards from the wing (he averaged a double-double last season). While, he's not the on-the-ball defender Artest is but he's a more than capable fill-in ranking highly in both steals and blocks and plays with an infectious energy. Thomas generally sucks on offense but he wouldn't be called on to score in LA and could focus on doing what he does well - blocking shots and dunking.
3. Artest and Bynum to Philadelphia for Andre Iguodala, Spencer Hawes and Andres Nocioni
Who says no? Not sure.
The Sixers are challenging for a playoff spot right now, but we still think they need to move on from the Andre Iguodala era. He's a really good player but his limited offensive game makes him unsuited to be the lead man and for a team not close to contenting, his contract is onerous. It's a heavy price to pay but, if they believe in Bynum, he could be worth the price. Bynum's size and athleticism could help their other big investment, Elton Brand, become more effective with the added bonus of putting the ball in Evan Turner's hands move and giving him the opportunity he needs to shine. Nocioni's contract would be a good one to get off the books.
For the Lakers, Iggy is the obvious prize here. He'd be a perfect fit as a "Doesn't Need the Ball" wing running with Kobe and Gasol. He's an excellent defender and passer and is capable of carrying the team for short periods of time when the other guys need a break. Plus, his performance at the World Championships cemented his status as a guy willing to do the little things to win. He's an ideal #2 guy for anyone from Kobe to LeBron to Durant. As for the bit pieces, the deal could be done without Hawes but the Lakers likely want him for his size - he's a capable offensive player who can knock down open shots and get some blocks. Nocioni would be good bench insurance.
Artest and Bynum to Minnesota for Kevin Love, Martell Webster and Jonny Flynn
Who says no? Not the Lakers.
In any reality-based world, this trade never happens. Fortunately for us, T'Wolves GM David Kahn isn't bound by logic. While it's highly, highly unlikely Love would get moved in a season where he's leading the league in rebounding and put up an absurd 30/30 game, if your the Lakers you have to at least call, right? Maybe the T'Wolves jump at the chance to snag a franchise center and maybe they're not that committed to Love (remember he came off the bench to start the season)? Who knows. Never underestimate the power of KAHNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Love would be the ultimate coup for LA. He's a relentless rebounder, good passer and knocks down 3's with regularity. He'd be an excellent compliment to Gasol and Odom inside and would spreading the floor for everyone else. The Lakers would be easily the best rebounding team in the league. Flynn's been awful in his career so far (some measurements have him as the worst PG in the league) but he was a high pick (6th overall) and is strong and quick enough to potentially give the Lakers some defensive minutes in a pinch against super quick PGs. Webster is a solid shooter and an adequate defender with a contract Minny could be trying to get out from under (Corey Brewer could easily be substituted for Webster and is a better defender but worse shooter).
Bonus Carmelo Anthony Trade
Reports surfaced today that (it really was inevitable) that the Lakers made some inquiries about Carmelo.With the Nuggets are reportedly looking for a combination of young players, cap relief and picks and said to be completely uninterested in Artest, it would seem the Lakers - who can offer only Bynum - aren't a match. Still, they could sweeten the pot by agreeing to take back some of the Nuggets awful contracts in something that looks like this:
Bynum, Fisher, Barnes, some combination of 1st round picks and a trade exception to Denver for Carmelo Anthony, Chris Andersen and Al Harrington.
Again, this really doesn't offer much to Denver unless, of course, they think Bynum is big-time. They'd shed some really bad contracts in Andersen ($4.5 for 4) and Harrington ($5.7m for 5) while taking back Bynum's short-term deal and Fisher's relatively friendly deal (the Lakers would certainly prefer to include Walton instead but his 3 years at $4m are likely too much for Denver to want to swallow). Ultimately, it doesn't seem like much of a return for your franchise player.
For the Lakers, it's debatable how much better this would make them this year. They give up their unique size advantage for more scoring. (Do they really need more scoring?) They'd have to play small with Melo starting at the 4 or move Artest to the bench and start Melo and Odom. Either way, Gasol would have to play a ton of minutes at center with little help. Harrington is a power forward in name only since he doesn't rebound or defend and seems entirely content to stand around and shoot 3s and Andersen is useful only in small doses. As for the future, Melo certainly helps the eventual transition from Kobe and, for the time being, makes the Lakers are very similar team to the ones in Miami and Boston. Guess everybody wants a Big Three.
If nothing else, it'd be interesting and, as a bonus, crush Knicks fans.
First, Jerry West criticized the Lakers defensive prowess, suggesting they're just too old. (Like he's one to talk. What is he like 80? We'd like to see him get out there and guard Monte Ellis. Grumpy old bastard. What has he ever done for the Lakers or even the game of basketball. Nobody criticizes Kobe.) Then, Ron Artest wants to be traded. Next, Ron Artest doesn't want to be traded. (It's quite possible Ron Artest wants both). Now Mitch Kupchak says a trade may be in order. All the while, Kobe's is definitely not a dick and never did anything wrong in a hotel room in Colorado.
Anyway, talk of trades always gets us excited at the chance to break out the ESPN Trade Machine and screw around. (If Bill Simmons is the self-professed Picasso of the Trade Machine, we're the insane guy that throws his own feces at the wall and calls it modern art. Your dumb if you don't get it.)
If the Lakers do truly want to make a trade they face one rather large problem - they almost completely lack assets. Their best players (Kobe, Gasol and Odom) are to varying degrees untouchable and a large chunk of the rest of the roster is either unwantable (Barnes, Ratliff, Smith) or untradable (Blake - bad contract any non-contending team) or both (Walton). That leaves them with 2 guys that are worth much more to them then anyone else (Derek Fisher and Shannon Brown), one guy they'd rather not trade (Bynum) and one guy they'd love to get rid of (Artest.) Add in any likely late, late 1st round pick they could offer and the assets don't exactly bowl you over.
Is Artest tradeable?
The simple answer is yes - anyone can be traded. The real issue is more complicated. Because the Lakers are the two-time defending champs with a coach on his last year and an aging star player, any trade they make has to find a team that is willing to: (1) take on the $6m per for three years left on the deal of a player who is putting up career low numbers across the board; and (2) give us a player of value to the Lakers that, at the very least, doesn't make them worse, i.e. it can't just be a salary dump.
That makes the parameters of any potential trade pretty straightforward: Find a team with an equally bad (likely longer) contract for another under performing player, sell them that a rejuvenated Artest - who scored 18 ppg and had a PER of 15.64 only two years ago (and was even better the year before that) could spur them to the playoffs with his toughness and defense, and hope they take a shot. As you can imagine, with the 31 year-old Ron Ron playing at an all-time low level (8 ppg, 3 rpg, 2 asp, PER 11.16) and still carrying a well-deserved reputation as a bit of a nut job, it's a struggle to come up with teams that fit that criteria.
One other thing to note is that two struggling teams (Indiana and Detroit) who could have potentially been enticed with a first round pick or through the Lakers assumption of a bad contract are automatically off the list due to that whole "Going in the stands and beating up fans" thing that was so overblown a few years ago.
Where Could Artest Go?
Ron Artest, Derrick Caracter and part of a trade exception to Atlanta for Marvin Williams and Zaza Pachulia.
Who says no? Probably Atlanta.
Despite being stuck in the Eastern Conference's eternal 4-5 rut of mediocrity - destined to, at best, lose to Boston or Miami in the second round of the playoffs, it seems unlikely that they'd move Williams. Despite his shortcomings and lack of defined position, Williams was still a former #1 overall pick who is is still young, athletic and in possession of some upside. He's got similar numbers to Artest so to move him simply to shake things up and shed Puchilia's dumb contract (3 yrs, $4m per) is probably too risky. No to mention that teaming up the combustible Artest with Josh Smith puts them perilously close to reaching Crazy Critical Mass in the locker room.
It would be a no brainer for LA, getting a more athletic, less insane player who could replace much of what Artest brought to the table. Williams defends (though not on the same level as Artest) and shoots well enough and only costs $1m per over the next 3 years. Taking on Zaza's contract would simply be the cost of doing business. Money doesn't really matter to the Lakers, does it?
Artest to Phoenix for Josh Childress.
Who says no? The Lakers.
After spending two years in Greece, Childless hasn't gotten himself reaccustomed to NBA-play quite yet (5 ppg/3rpg and a PER of 12). The Suns might entertain the offer on the grounds that owner Robert Sarver is super cheap (Artest is signed for one year less than Childress) and (2) they might be so irrationally convinced they can contend with Steve Nash that a potentially rejuvenated Artest looks enticing.
For the Lakers, they'd rid themselves of Artest's weirdness and get a more athletic, defensively capable wing to try to replace some of his production. Childress is a decent spot-up shooter who runs the floor and hits the boards well for his size. The additional year on the contract isn't ideal but if they truly want to make a change, these are the types of moves they'd have to consider.
3. Artest (and filler) to Charlotte for Boris Diaw and Matt Carrol's Unconscionable Contract
Who says no? Charlotte.
If Larry Brown were still coaching the Bobs this trade would have happened already. Dumping a soft PF for a proven "tough" "winner" like Artest in his eternal quest to coach every single player in the league? That's right in LB's wheelhouse. With Brown gone, however, we'd guess that Charlotte - who is in contention for a playoff spot - would rather keep Diaw and his $9m expiring contract and pay Matt Carroll another two years of $4m to work on his crocheting than add Artest and his contract. From a basketball standpoint, Diaw is probably a better fit for them anyway due to his ability to play PF.
For the Lakers, shedding Artest's contract for one year of the versatile Diaw would make some sense. Diaw is a natural 4, but he can play some 3 and is both an exceptional passer (a huge asset in the triangle) and defender. He'd add even more versatility and length to an already stocked Laker front line. As for Carrol - at least his contract is shorted than Ron-Ron's.
All Those Deals Suck - Now What?
As you can see, the pickings are slim if the Lakers want to move Artest alone. Things would get slightly more interesting if they added another piece - one we said they'd rather not trade - namely, Andrew Bynum. How interesting depends strictly on how you feel about Bynum. Is the the best under 25 center in the league (Howard is 25) or is he a talented big guy who can't seem to stay healthy? We tend to lean toward the latter category, but we're quite sure some GM's out there feel differently.
Losing Bynum threatens to take away what makes the Lakers so special - their size. Without Bynum, Gasol has to play the 5 much more frequently, which has shown to wear him down. So, in any deal, they'd likely need to get back at least a serviceable big guy (and probably a capable wing player) to avoid killing their championship hopes.
Here are the potential deals:
Artest and Bynum to Atlanta for Josh Smith and Marvin Williams
Who says no? The Lakers.
The more we think about this one the more we like it for the Hawks and hate it for the Lakers. The Hawks could finally get the size in the middle they really need, move Horford to PF where he belongs and become a really stout defensive team. They'd be slightly less athletic but a line-up of Bynum, Horford, Artest, Johnson and Bibby/Crawford would give anybody trouble - particularly a smaller team like, say Miami - and allow them to match-up big-on-big with Orlando, Boston and Chicago.
For the Lakers, while adding the explosive talented Smith would be helpful, they'd face the problem we identified earlier - losing their unique size advantage. Bynum's absence would put too much pressure on Gasol to play 40 minutes at center and leave the back-up 5 minutes to some combination of Odom, Theo Ratliff and Joe Smith. Odom is great but this isn't the World Championships.
Artest and Bynum to Charlotte for Tyrus Thomas, Gerald Wallace and MCUC
Who says no? Probably Charlotte.
Again, this one comes down to how you feel about Bynum. If he's a rising center, moving Wallace (an arguably overpaid, limited star) and 4 more years of Tyrus Thomas seems about right. If not? Well, it seems like robbery. Bynum could fill the massive void in the middle for Charlotte long-term and change their identity as an undersized, athletic team with one bold move.
This would be semi-ideal for the Lakers. Both Wallace and Thomas are crazy athletic players who provide real value on the defensive end. Wallace runs the floor, finishes with authority and routinely snags double-digit boards from the wing (he averaged a double-double last season). While, he's not the on-the-ball defender Artest is but he's a more than capable fill-in ranking highly in both steals and blocks and plays with an infectious energy. Thomas generally sucks on offense but he wouldn't be called on to score in LA and could focus on doing what he does well - blocking shots and dunking.
3. Artest and Bynum to Philadelphia for Andre Iguodala, Spencer Hawes and Andres Nocioni
Who says no? Not sure.
The Sixers are challenging for a playoff spot right now, but we still think they need to move on from the Andre Iguodala era. He's a really good player but his limited offensive game makes him unsuited to be the lead man and for a team not close to contenting, his contract is onerous. It's a heavy price to pay but, if they believe in Bynum, he could be worth the price. Bynum's size and athleticism could help their other big investment, Elton Brand, become more effective with the added bonus of putting the ball in Evan Turner's hands move and giving him the opportunity he needs to shine. Nocioni's contract would be a good one to get off the books.
For the Lakers, Iggy is the obvious prize here. He'd be a perfect fit as a "Doesn't Need the Ball" wing running with Kobe and Gasol. He's an excellent defender and passer and is capable of carrying the team for short periods of time when the other guys need a break. Plus, his performance at the World Championships cemented his status as a guy willing to do the little things to win. He's an ideal #2 guy for anyone from Kobe to LeBron to Durant. As for the bit pieces, the deal could be done without Hawes but the Lakers likely want him for his size - he's a capable offensive player who can knock down open shots and get some blocks. Nocioni would be good bench insurance.
Artest and Bynum to Minnesota for Kevin Love, Martell Webster and Jonny Flynn
Who says no? Not the Lakers.
In any reality-based world, this trade never happens. Fortunately for us, T'Wolves GM David Kahn isn't bound by logic. While it's highly, highly unlikely Love would get moved in a season where he's leading the league in rebounding and put up an absurd 30/30 game, if your the Lakers you have to at least call, right? Maybe the T'Wolves jump at the chance to snag a franchise center and maybe they're not that committed to Love (remember he came off the bench to start the season)? Who knows. Never underestimate the power of KAHNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Love would be the ultimate coup for LA. He's a relentless rebounder, good passer and knocks down 3's with regularity. He'd be an excellent compliment to Gasol and Odom inside and would spreading the floor for everyone else. The Lakers would be easily the best rebounding team in the league. Flynn's been awful in his career so far (some measurements have him as the worst PG in the league) but he was a high pick (6th overall) and is strong and quick enough to potentially give the Lakers some defensive minutes in a pinch against super quick PGs. Webster is a solid shooter and an adequate defender with a contract Minny could be trying to get out from under (Corey Brewer could easily be substituted for Webster and is a better defender but worse shooter).
Bonus Carmelo Anthony Trade
Reports surfaced today that (it really was inevitable) that the Lakers made some inquiries about Carmelo.With the Nuggets are reportedly looking for a combination of young players, cap relief and picks and said to be completely uninterested in Artest, it would seem the Lakers - who can offer only Bynum - aren't a match. Still, they could sweeten the pot by agreeing to take back some of the Nuggets awful contracts in something that looks like this:
Bynum, Fisher, Barnes, some combination of 1st round picks and a trade exception to Denver for Carmelo Anthony, Chris Andersen and Al Harrington.
Again, this really doesn't offer much to Denver unless, of course, they think Bynum is big-time. They'd shed some really bad contracts in Andersen ($4.5 for 4) and Harrington ($5.7m for 5) while taking back Bynum's short-term deal and Fisher's relatively friendly deal (the Lakers would certainly prefer to include Walton instead but his 3 years at $4m are likely too much for Denver to want to swallow). Ultimately, it doesn't seem like much of a return for your franchise player.
For the Lakers, it's debatable how much better this would make them this year. They give up their unique size advantage for more scoring. (Do they really need more scoring?) They'd have to play small with Melo starting at the 4 or move Artest to the bench and start Melo and Odom. Either way, Gasol would have to play a ton of minutes at center with little help. Harrington is a power forward in name only since he doesn't rebound or defend and seems entirely content to stand around and shoot 3s and Andersen is useful only in small doses. As for the future, Melo certainly helps the eventual transition from Kobe and, for the time being, makes the Lakers are very similar team to the ones in Miami and Boston. Guess everybody wants a Big Three.
If nothing else, it'd be interesting and, as a bonus, crush Knicks fans.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Stupid Commenter Beatdown - Nazis Invade Trenton
 |
| "I'm not just a Nazi. I also appreciate fine cinema." |
A neo-Nazi organization whose events have attracted sometimes violent counterprotests will hold a rally in front of the Statehouse on April 16, said the group’s New Jersey representative, Jason Hiecke.
Oh, boy.
Organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League describe the Detroit-based NSM as the nation’s largest neo-Nazi group and say it promotes an anti-Semitic and racist ideology through rallies, a website and other online activities.
Wonder where they would get THAT idea?
Etzion Neuer, director of the Anti-Defamation’s office in Teaneck, said the NSM group seems to be trying to raise its local profile. “The group has had a presence in New Jersey for some time,” Neuer said. “I’d be hard-pressed to find the last time we’ve seen a gathering of this sort in New Jersey. It’s been several years. And it’s disturbing.”
Possibly the most disturbing presence in New Jersey since "The Wiggles" played The Susquehanna Bank Center.
Hiecke said Brian Holland, a presidential candidate in 2008 and NSM member from Virginia, may attend the gathering in Trenton. Hiecke described the event as a political rally. He disputed the characterization of his group as racist.
Presidential candidate? They might be being a little kind on that one.
“We’re basically speaking about the corruption here in New Jersey politics, the immigration problem that faces our nation, and the revolving-door criminal system,” he said. Other issues he cited were the state’s high property taxes, child molesters who he said are allowed to go out in the public wearing ankle bracelets, an alleged “double standard” in which only crimes by whites against minorities are described as “hate crimes,” overspending on foreign aid, and the shipping of jobs overseas.
Hiecke added "Also, we hate black and Jewish people. And Latinos. And Asain people. Pretty much anyone who's not white. We don't know why people can't just get past that and focus on our policy ideas. Gosh."
“We’re all considered racists or white supremacists, but that’s not what most of our members are about,” he said.
"It's true. In fact, at least three of our members actually have Korean friends. Or are they Japanese. Maybe their Chinese. All I know is they routinely talk to them while waiting for coffee."
At the same time, he noted that the organization’s symbol is a swastika, the symbol used by Adolf Hitler and Nazis during World War II and the Holocaust.
"We just like the shape. It's a really neat!! Has nothing to do with murdering people. We promise."
While the NSM discusses issues that are part of mainstream political discourse, they clearly set themselves apart, Neuer said. “The National Socialist Movement is distinctive in that they will wear Nazi-style uniforms,” he said. “One will typically see them dressed in swastikas, even more than most white supremacists. The visual that we might see of neo-Nazis clad in uniforms on the steps of the Capitol will revolt most New Jerseyans.”
Dressed For Success!! Maybe we should add that one to The Persnickety Project's Guide to Job Searching.
“They always want to accuse us of being the violent ones, and all we are doing is exercising our freedom of speech and giving people an alternative to the Democrats and the Republicans,” Hiecke said.
That's the exact same argument that the annoying little shit down the block used to use after taunting you until you punched him in the face and then ran home to tell his mommy. All that's missing is "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you" and "It's a free country." Congrats on being the annoying kid on the block, dumb Nazis.
With a topic like this, we can only wonder what sort of enlightened points of view we'll see from the commentariat? Let's read on:
jack300
All sound like reasonable issues to assail, but ditch the uniforms; they detract from the attention these issues need.
Yeah, the UNIFORMS are the problem!! Maybe a nice pinstripe suit with a cravat and a scarf. Then they wouldn't look so darn racist.
Check out this little exchange of ideas.
pigonthewing
What happened in 1933? Do you know what happened in 2008 in the USA. These provocateurs just want to silence any criticism from honest good people who will fear being lump in with these idiots.
What happened in 2008? Lots of shit apparently. That's kind of a vague question.
Dietmar
I hope you don't expect that I take anybody serious who compares the US elections of 2008 with Hitler's coming to power in 1933.
That would be kind of ridiculous. How to you plead, Mr. onthewing?
pigonthewing
I do not care about elections, Democrats or Republicans are all puppets. I am talking about the Bailouts. If you want to know what is really going on in the world, just follow the money.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh, much less absurd to compare the rise of Hitler to the bank bailouts. Can't believe we missed such an obvious connection. All apologies, Pig. Hope you don't mind us calling you by your first name.
richardhunt
This group has some very valid points and positions, you can't deny that. Love it how the liberals and minorities smear them as racist just because they are standing up for themselves and are part of the majority. With this logic the NAACP is racist because they represent colored people and the JDL is racist because they represent jews.
Ummm, yeah, we could deny it. Seems like the points get lost in the whole "racist" cloud. Kinda like what's happening to your point - which was apparently magically transported from the 1860's - right now. Btw, tell your brother Mike we said hello.
Gravegirl
well if illegal immigrant groups can congregate waving foreign flags and strut around demanding rights that they are not entitled to... well then these white supreme hillbillies should have a right to a rally too. I think that people that do not agree should understand that the best way to show that you don't support something is to not show up and listen to it. The last thing we as americans should be doing is trying to silence one of the only things we have left which is free speech. We do still have that right?
From Wikipedia: "The White Supreme Hillbillies, or White Supremes as they were popularly known, were an American female singing group and the premier act of Dumbtown Records during the 1960's. Billed as "A Racist Alternative to Motown" the White Supremes have sold over 14 records to date and their catalog remains available at Walmart and Cracker Barrel. They are best known for their songs "(Aryan) Baby Love", "Stop! In the Name of Love (unless your not white then just get the hell out of here)."
cuba973
Of course they are racist bigots. Why else would they have "nazi" in their title? Did these isiots go to school? Do they now the nazis killed millions of innocent jews for no reason other than being jewish? Do they no how many American soldiers died in world war 2?
What is the square root of 127? Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego? Why do you park in a driveway and drive on the parkway? Do you know the way to Santa Fe? Where my dogs at? Who is your daddy and what does he do? Why do we think this is amusing? Why are you reading this? Should we move on?
Skovepipe
What more proof is needed that shows Governor Christi is doing an excellent job! When you see a Neo Nazi Socialist movement rallying in Trenton you know that the liberals, Socialists, and Progressives are running scared! Give them Hell Chris! We will turn New Jersey back to a Red State!
We REALLY hope that was meant in a funny, sarcastic way. If so, Skovepipe might be our next contributing writer. Christie's too fat to be a Nazi anyway.
GOINGUPINSMOKE
Hopefully, Trenton's thugs and gang members will have the courage to defend their "turf" against these hill-billies. Or perhaps the BLOODS, CRIPS and LATIN KINGS are too afraid of these morons and instead will continue doing their work for them by killing their OWN?
Always a good IDEA to call OUT notoriously murderous gang MEMBERS. Though it WOULD be kinda cool IF the gangs BATTLED it out with THE Nazis. SOUNDS like AN episode of "Deadliest Warriors": CRIPS v. Nazis.
Andrea Dealmagro
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana.
I would add: Those who never knew the past do not know what they are doing.
We might also add: Those you are idiots shouldn't attempt to add on to famous quotes.
Finally, the Santa in our parade of ignorance - "NJ needs better" - the name is quite apropos.
NJ needs better
So what is wrong with this? Defending whites rights , every other race has it
Yeah, being white in America is really rough. Where could we ever turn to protect our rights? It's not like for most of history the 95% of the government and industry was run by white people ... oh, wait, that's right, being white is super easy.
Wanting to preserve their heritage , by the way I think there is a Black History month , mmm I cant say I have heard of a white history month.
You haven't heard of January, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November or December? That's weird. We have a site you should check out.
Strengthening family values - mainly from what I can gather they are against homo sexuals on this point.
Totally agree. Much rather support white power then gays getting married. That would be icky.
Reform of immigration policies - this is a problem - depending where you get you facts from there are over 15 million un employed Americans and around 12 million illegal aliens ( fed numbers ) in the USA
According to The Project's numbers there are exactly 0 of those unemployed Americans who want to do shitty manual labor jobs for less than minimum wage like landscaping, dishwashing or just hanging outside Home Depot and hope to for a chance to ride in the back of your pickup. Can we finally put the "they're taking our jobs" argument to bed. Please.
And for every one just to lump all of their members into being racist or hillbillies is just wrong , every organization or political group has their problems. Do you not think the Dem and Rep have racist people , maybe even some criminals look at the politicians search out their records , you would be surprised to see how many have criminal records , or low values as in having prostitutes , dui's and drug use ect
Problems? Problems? Are you fucking serious? These assholes are utilizing the name and iconography of a political party that MURDERED TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE!!! THOSE ARE JUST PROBLEMS? LIKE PROSTITUTES AND DRUGS!?!?! WE ALL DESERVE BETTER THAN EVER HAVING TO LISTEN TO YOU TALK AGAIN. JACKASS.
Ohh, wow. Got a little fired up there for a second. We feel so much better now. Thanks for reading. If you're not a follower - SIGN UP!!
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Real Football - Hall of Fame - Sorting Out Faulk, Bettis and Martin
(Enjoy the gratuitous Barry Sanders highlight video. )
As far as Halls Of Fame go, its Baseball and then everybody else and most of the time anything surrounding them is super boring (unless of course, you count Emmit Smith's inexplicable to anyone who saw him on ESPN transformation for his speech) Still, every once in a while, one of the other halls rises from the mire and gives us a good story line. This year, it was the Pro Football Hall of Fame (read: NFL Hall of Fame) and its nomination of three of a generations best running backs for enshrinement (sounds almost spiritual) - Marshall Faulk, Curtis Martin and Jerome Bettis.
Check out the resumes:
Marshall Faulk, Running Back, (1994-2005)
2000 AP NFL MVP - 3-time First-Team All-Pro - Centerpiece of one of the best offenses of all-time - One of only two players with 1,000 yards rushing/receiving in single season (Roger Craig) - Arguably "Best Player In Football" from 99-01 - AP Offensive Player of the Year (3 straight times - 99-01) - Offensive Rookie of the Year - Played in 2 Super Bowls - Drafted 2nd Overall - 10th overall rushing yards - 4th overall total yards from scrimmage (TYS) - 7th All-time in Total TDs (136) - Top 10 rushing (5x) - 1,000+ yards rushing (7x) - 1,300+ yards rushing (4x) - 2,000+ TYS (4x) (Lead league 2x, 1999 had 2,429, second to Chris Johnson) - Lead league in total TDs (2x) (4th highest ever 26) - 80+ receptions (5x).
Curtis Martin, Running Back (1995-2005)
1-time First-Team All-Pro - Offensive Rookie of the Year - 4th all-time rushing yards - 8th all-time TYS - 3rd all-time carries - 12th all-time rushing TDs - 19th all-time total TDs - Lead league in rushing (1x - 1697 yards) (oldest player ever at age 31) - 300+ carries (8x) - 1,000+ yards (10x) - 1,300+ yards (5x) - Missed only 8 games in 11 season - Top 10 rushing (7x) - Top 5 rushing (4x) - Top 10 TYS (8x) - Top 5 TYS (4x) - 5 playoff appareances (over 100 yards 3x) - 1 Super Bowl
Jerome Bettis, Running Back (1994-2005)
1-time First Team All-Pro - Offensive Rookie of the Year - Comback Player of the Year - 5th all-time rushing - 10th all-time rushing TDs - 18th all-time TYS - 4th all-time carries - Top 10 rushing (5x) - Top 3 rushing (3x) - Top 5 TYS (3x) - 1,000+ yards rushing (8x) - 1,300+ rushing (4x) - Career high 1,665 yards rushing - At age 32, started only 6 games, rushed for 941 yards, 13 TDs - 6 Playoff appearances (100+ yards 3x) - 1 Super Bowl
The nomination of these three guys raises 2 big questions for us.
1. Are All Three Hall Worthy?
In a word: yes. And maybe more so then you might think.
Sure, none of them is the Top 7-type, no-brainer first ballot guy like their contemporaries Emmit Smith and Barry Sanders. Sure, combined, they only lead the league in rushing once. And sure, they played in an era that produced an extraordinary amount of rushing yards (19 of the top 30 all-time rushers played the majority of their careers after 1990) inflating their numbers slightly. And maybe they're names don't immediately come to mind when discussing the best backs ever. But in a sport like football, playing a position that essentially chews players up and spits them out after 3 years, these guys did what many of their contemporaries couldn't do - they stayed productive for the better part of a decade. That has to count for something.
Check out the NFL rushing leaders, in addition to Martin, and you'll see what we mean. Guys like Terrell Davis, Edgerrin James, Priest Holmes, Ricky Williams, Jamal Lewis, Shaun Alexander were all great, when healthy, but none could do it as long and as consistently as these three. (It's going to be interesting to see how the hall treats guys like Lewis, James, Barber, Cory Dillon and Fred Taylor who all sit in the Top 30 or so on the rushing list)
(Because we love parentheticals- How does Terrell Davis not get more support? He was the best runner in the league for 3 years, including a 2,000 yard season, as well as the best player on 2 Super Bowl champions, Super Bowl MVP. Plus, despite injuries, finished his career with more yards then HOFers Gale Sayers and Floyd Little.)
Staying healthy and productive is a skill and it allowed these guys, more so Martin and Bettis than Faulk, to climb the rushing list but you can't just discount them entirely. While nobody in their right mind is contending that these guys are on the level of some of the other Top 10 rushers like Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmit Smith, Eric Dickerson (check out his peak year numbers - 5 time, first team All-Pro, lead league in rushing 4x, averaged over 100 ypg 4x. When we wasn't holding out or injured, we was dominant.), LaDanian Tomlinson, or even O.J. Simpson (18th overall rushing - 5-time 1st Team All-Pro - 5 year peak where he averaged 1500+ yards - 2,000 yards in 14 games - Killed his wife (allegedly!!).) But, they fit right in the conversation with many of the other Hall of Famers hanging around the Top 20 on the rushing list (guys who might by popular opinion be considered better):
Tony Dorsett - 8th overall rushing - 1-time 1st team All-Pro - 1,300+ yards rushing (5x, including prorated strike season) - Never lead league in rushing or TYS.
John Riggins - 16th overall rushing - 1-time 1st Team All-Pro - 1,000+ yards rushing (6x, including prorated strike season) - Never over 1,350 yard rushing - Lead league in TDs (2x) (24 one year) - Career average YPC 3.9 - Super Bowl MVP.
Thurman Thomas - 14th overall rushing - 2-time 1st Team All-Pro - 1,000+ yards rushing (8x) - 1,400+ yard rushing (2x) - Lead league in TYS (4x) - Super Bowl Participant (4x).
Marcus Allen - 12th overall rushing - 2-time 1st Team All-Pro - 1,000+ yards rushing (4x, including prorated strike season) - 1,700+ yards rushing (1x) - Lead league in rushing (1x) - Lead league in TYS (2x), Rushing TDs (2x), Total TDs (3x) - Super Bowl MVP.
So there's really very little argument you can make against putting the 4th (Martin), 5th (Bettis) and 10th (Faulk) all-time leading rushers in your Hall of Fame. If you've got one we'd love to hear it.
2. Will they all get in this year. If not, who gets in first?
They'll all get in, eventually. But because of the weird rules that bar any more then 7 players being elected at one time - it's highly unlikely all 3 get in this year. There's usually at least one guy from the veterans committee and Deion Sanders seems like a no-brainer to us. Cris Carter also seems to have some momentum (no doubt helped by his constant presence on the WorldWideLeader) and Sharpe has to get in. So that leaves a maximum of 3 spots these 3 plus guys like Willie Roaf, Andre Reed, Tim Brown, Charles Haley and Dermotti Dawson. So, in what order do they go in?
If you ask us, Faulk has to go in first and he should get in this year. He was a truly unique talent and one of the very best ever all-around backs, even leading his team in receptions 5 times. To that end, he holds records as the only player ever to have: (1) 12,000/6,000 yards rushing/receiving, (2) 5 games of 250+ TYS; (3) 14 games of 200+ yards TYS; (4) 70+ rushing touchdowns and 30+ receiving touchdowns; and (5) 4 consecutive 2,000+ TYS season. Plus, you can never overlook his run as the "Best Player in the League" and the real focal point of the revolutionary Rams offense (it never worked as well in any iteration not involving him). He was also a winner (the only thing the voters love more than a winner is a great player on really bad teams) playing on two Super Bowl teams, making the playoffs 7 times (with 4 10-win teams) and taking a 4-12 Colts team to 8-8 his rookie year (It still amazes us that a 25-year old back coming off a season in which he had the 16th most TYS in history ever got traded. Hard to argue with the Colts Edge-lead results, though. It was a rare win-win). Need more proof? Check out his career comps - James, Smith, Tomlinson, Thomas, Sanders, Payton, Brown, Dorsett.
Picking between Martin and Bettis is where is gets more interesting. While we think Martin was the better player, we think Bettis is more likely to get in first. The numbers are so damn close (and Bettis might actually get a small bump based on the perception that he would have put up even bigger career numbers had he not been forced to split time with the likes of Amos Zereoue, Duce Staley and Willie Parker), we think it'll come down to a popularity contest.
Sure Martin has more rushing yards, more 1,000 yard seasons, lead the league more times and was remarkably durable while playing in two major, major markets but somehow he still went largely unnoticed. That won't help his election chances.
Bettis will get the nod simply because he was the much more unique, memorable player. He was a 5'11", 250 lb halfback with quick feet and a cool nickname - The Bus. While he didn't play in NY or Boston he might have actually gotten more exposure playing for the most public or public teams - the Pittsburgh Steelers. He'll also benefit from playing on a bunch of really good Steeler teams (6 10 win teams including 1 13 win and 1 15 win). Oh yeah, he also won a Super Bowl in his home town in his final game - it we remember correctly that might have been kinda a big story.
Too bad for Martin. We think he's actually the better player and maybe the most underrated running back of all time. His numbers speak for themselves. He might not have had the huge statistical seasons of some of his peers but 10, 1,000 yard seasons in his first 10 years (a feat previously accomplished only by the great Barry Sanders) is undoubtedly impressive. He also, despite an absurd amount of carries, averaged a solid 4.0 YPC for his career (better than Bettis) and was THE workhorse on 5 playoff teams and 1 Super Bowl team. It probably won't be this year but, when he gets there eventually, it will be well deserved.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Real Football - Has Bill Belichick Lost His Fastball?
There was a time when, like death and taxes, you could count on Bill Belichick, particularly in big games. After 3 consecutive heart wrenching playoff defeats, "Genius Bill", as only we like to call him, desperately a victory in the game that fails to rouse the imaginations of fans and players alike, the Pro Bowl, to regain his status at the top of the NFL coaching food chain. Alas, it was not to be as the Belichick-helmed AFC squad suffered a humiliating 55-41 defeat at the hands of their biggest of rivals, the hated NFC. As the NFC players swarmed the field in childlike euphoria, desperate to grab a hold of the trophy, plaque, ribbon or whatever they receive as an award for such a meaningless game, we were left to wonder - Has Belichick lost his fastball?
Fans might be tempted to overlook the home playoff losses to the Ravens and Jets or even the Super Bowl upset at the hands of the New York Giants, but after leading a team that fell so flat in the most uncompetitive game of the year, it seems that, at 58, Belichick might finally be showing signs of slowing down. Prior to Sunday's debacle, New England's semi-benevolent dictator had carried an undefeated record (a pristine 2-0) in previous Pro Bowls, only to be undone by a series of questionable coaching decisions.
In the wake of a game in which he may or may not have called a unconscionable fake punt, Belichick continued to show a rare level of hubris, playing quarterback roulette with his talented signal callers, yanking Phillip Rivers in and out of the lineup, effectively benching Peyton Manning after only 5 pass attempts, including 1 interception, on 3 unfruitful possessions (begging the obvious question of whether personal feelings played a part in such a strange decision) and inexplicably playing Matt Cassel during crunch time. These odd decisions no doubt contributed to the AFC's five interceptions (DeAngelo Hall, the game's MVP, who was the recipient of one of those interceptions and recovered a fumble for a score, was rewarded for his efforts with a new Cadillac, a car sure to be ignored in favor of the much nicer automobiles he has already purchased for himself or given to a relative he doesn't really care about.). His biggest failures, however, came on defense, as the master strategist,couldn't devise a scheme to prevent NFC from racking up over the highest score in the illustrious history of the game, including a 42-0 first half deficit, despite a roster filled with Pro Bowlers.
As the final horn sounded ending the least anticipated game of the year, the remaining die hard AFC fans, clad in their traditional red, white and blue jerseys adorned ridiculously with stars, sat, their faces buried disgustedly in their hands, sobbing uncontrollably as the realization that their lifelong dreams of witnessing a Pro Bowl victory would be delayed for at least 364 days. Ken Fresno, a life-long AFC fan expressed the universal sentiment of the fans:
Perhaps Belichick, a man known for his glibness and sense of humor, summed it up his feelings in an atypically dour way stating only - "It is what it is." Yes it is Bill, it is exactly what it is.
Fans might be tempted to overlook the home playoff losses to the Ravens and Jets or even the Super Bowl upset at the hands of the New York Giants, but after leading a team that fell so flat in the most uncompetitive game of the year, it seems that, at 58, Belichick might finally be showing signs of slowing down. Prior to Sunday's debacle, New England's semi-benevolent dictator had carried an undefeated record (a pristine 2-0) in previous Pro Bowls, only to be undone by a series of questionable coaching decisions.
In the wake of a game in which he may or may not have called a unconscionable fake punt, Belichick continued to show a rare level of hubris, playing quarterback roulette with his talented signal callers, yanking Phillip Rivers in and out of the lineup, effectively benching Peyton Manning after only 5 pass attempts, including 1 interception, on 3 unfruitful possessions (begging the obvious question of whether personal feelings played a part in such a strange decision) and inexplicably playing Matt Cassel during crunch time. These odd decisions no doubt contributed to the AFC's five interceptions (DeAngelo Hall, the game's MVP, who was the recipient of one of those interceptions and recovered a fumble for a score, was rewarded for his efforts with a new Cadillac, a car sure to be ignored in favor of the much nicer automobiles he has already purchased for himself or given to a relative he doesn't really care about.). His biggest failures, however, came on defense, as the master strategist,couldn't devise a scheme to prevent NFC from racking up over the highest score in the illustrious history of the game, including a 42-0 first half deficit, despite a roster filled with Pro Bowlers.
As the final horn sounded ending the least anticipated game of the year, the remaining die hard AFC fans, clad in their traditional red, white and blue jerseys adorned ridiculously with stars, sat, their faces buried disgustedly in their hands, sobbing uncontrollably as the realization that their lifelong dreams of witnessing a Pro Bowl victory would be delayed for at least 364 days. Ken Fresno, a life-long AFC fan expressed the universal sentiment of the fans:
"You know that sign that the guy had when the Rangers won the hockey thing the, uhhh, Stangley Cup or whatever? It said like, um, "Now I Get To Die In Peace." Rememba that sign? Yeah, I had one of them all made up and everything. I think I spelled "peace" wrong but who cares, nobody would have noticed, I think. It would have been sick to hold that thing up."A similar scene could be found in the losers locker room, as the players sat silently contemplating their collective failure on such an important stage and wondering when, if ever, they'd be back. For most, if they feel like a free vacation, it will likely be next year since incumbency is the most powerful indicator of Pro Bowl. For others, they'll be left to wonder what might have been.
Perhaps Belichick, a man known for his glibness and sense of humor, summed it up his feelings in an atypically dour way stating only - "It is what it is." Yes it is Bill, it is exactly what it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)