Cam Newton's Post-Superbowl Press Conference

You're going to hate this post.

I don't even know who's going to read this post, but I'm positive that 99.9% of people who read it will feel differently from me, and that's okay. I just figured I'd give you a heads up before we really dive into it.

The Super Bowl was last night, with the Denver Broncos beating the Carolina Panthers by a score of 24-10. There are plenty of stories coming out of the game, from Peyton Manning's legacy to his specific mention of Budweiser in his postgame interview, as well as the obvious debriefing of the actual plays in the game. But one story that people seem to have latched onto as much as any is the tone of the postgame comments from Panthers quarterback Cam Newton.

The first I had heard of it (I didn't stay glued to the television for postgame garbage) was on Twitter, where I saw a 30-second clip of just the very end of Newton's discussion with the media. So, my initial exposure was that he answered one question with "No," then walked out.

The actual full discussion is here (NFL.com won't let me embed the video, apologies):

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/cam-newton-goes-from-superman-to-incredible-sulk-in-poor-postgame-showing-070021525.html

So, it's not quite as much of a blow-off as it had first seemed to me. He answers six or seven questions, though he's curt, and he mostly doesn't volunteer more than the most basic response to each question. He's obviously crushed, and he doesn't hide the fact that he's upset.

This isn't really new for Newton. All season he's been someone who wears his emotions on his sleeve. It just so happens that when you go 17-1, most of your emotions are positive, confident, and celebratory. After coming up short in the Super Bowl, it's understandable that he'd be crestfallen.

I don't think anyone is upset that he was upset. The sense I get is that people believe that Cam Newton should've...said more? Or had better posture? I mean, what exactly were people hoping for out of that interview? I've seen Twitter links to other quarterbacks who "do it right," and it's basically that they give longer answers that still don't really mean anything.

Let's look at one example.

Reporter (paraphrased): I know you've studied Denver, was there anything they did today that was different from what you saw coming in?

Newton (quote): "Nothing different."

So, what would the Twitter-verse have expected from a "correct" quarterback in this circumstance (using the same negative response)? A nice Robot QB would say something like, "I do not think they had a gameplan that surprised us. They just did a great job of executing it, and we could not counter it."

(If I learned anything from Star Trek: The Next Generation, it's that robots can't use contractions.)

Okay, sure, that's a little more pleasing to the ear. But does it matter? Unless you're a reporter hoping for quotable material from these postgame interviews to pad your word count, who gives a damn between the two answers? You feel better about the second one because someone's unhappiness isn't being shoved in your face. In Newton's actual response, his disappointment is palpable. He's devastated. He knows he has an obligation (whether official or moral) to meet with the media after the game, apparently in the same room as someone from the Broncos who's jubilantly getting interviewed nearby. So Newton shows up and answers a few questions when you know he probably just wants to go ten rounds with a punching bag, or spend an hour in the batting cages.

He's upset. That's okay.

Every year I watch the Capitals lose in the playoffs (except for year 2 with Oates, which mercifully ended early). Every year they interview the players afterward, and their responses fall somewhere in between Cam Newton's and Robot QB. They're disappointed, they don't offer long responses, and as a fan, I appreciate that they're sad and pissed off and emotional. So am I, dammit.

I don't need to hear my team's players offer platitudes about effort or luck or next year. I don't want to hear that. What we all want out of being sports fans is to have a connection, to our city, to our fellow fans, and to the players. When Alex Ovechkin sits in stunned, motionless silence after the Caps lose a series, it's like looking in a mirror (except Ovie has less fat and fewer teeth). When I hurt, it's some small comfort to know that they hurt too. That this connection I seek isn't totally in my head. That we're sort of, barely, a little bit in the same boat.

The only things that really matter are the actions people take. If Cam Newton became an actual villain and stopped giving his time and money to those less fortunate, then sure, get mad. But my guess is that Newton will be the same generous man he's been all along.

My favorite Capitals story ever is from 2010, after maybe the worst series in Capitals' history. They were the number one overall seed, and had gone up three games to one against the Montreal Canadiens in the first round. If you've followed the Caps at all, you know where this story goes next. The Caps lost three straight games, being eliminated in the first round during a year with incredible hope.

Among the players on that team (and still on the team today) was Brooks Laich. Laich was an assistant captain, but he declined to speak with reporters after the game. You can decide for yourself if you would prefer Newton's style of press conference or no press conference at all.

That evening, a woman and her daughter got a flat tire driving home from the game. They were waiting for AAA when an SUV pulled over and the driver got out to help them put the spare tire on. That driver was Brooks Laich. Worst loss of his career, a defeat rough enough that he didn't want to talk to reporters, but when someone needed a hand, Laich was there. Actions are what matter.

Words are wind. It doesn't bother me that Cam decided to spare us some hot air.

What do you do with Robert Griffin III?

So we're finally at a point where we don't know if Robert Griffin will take the field again as a Redskin. Lots of people will try to tell you they "knew" that Griffin was done before the season started, or at the end of last year, but they're filthy, filthy liars. Anyone who's watched how this team has treated Griffin from the day he was acquired knows that he was always going to be given one more chance to try to recapture some of the magic of his rookie season, when he led Washington to double-digit wins and a playoff berth. This ownership group (aka Daniel Snyder) is reluctant to admit that giving up so much to trade up in order to draft Griffin may have been a mistake.

And it might not have been a mistake. Does anybody actually believe that the Redskins would be championship contenders if they'd kept their draft picks instead of trading them? We might be looking at a couple more 7-9 or 8-8 seasons that would've been just good enough to allow Snyder to persist in the delusion that he didn't need help from football people to run the organization. If you're of the opinion that the addition of Scot McLoughan was a positive one (which I believe I am), then we likely had to endure the heartache of Robert Griffin to get here.

But the more pressing concern is that Robert Griffin III is still on the roster. He may be recovering from a concussion, but at some point, he'll be healthy enough to play. What do you do then? It's a difficult question, made more difficult if Kirk Cousins isn't setting the world on fire (and let's be honest, there's very little chance he does that). Do you run Griffin back out there? Do you slide him in as a backup and let him jump in if things get out of control in a game? Do you trade him as soon as he's cleared to play? Do you cut him?

No, no, no, and no.

You can't go back to Griffin as your quarterback at this point unless it's because you have no other healthy options. He can't be the quarterback in Washington ever again under any but the most dire circumstances. The situation in DC has gotten to the point that Griffin's mere presence on the field is toxic. I don't agree with this sentiment necessarily, but it doesn't matter. The fan opinion of Griffin has shifted to probably 80% negative, and that's untenable. So, he can't be the guy.

He also can't be the guy behind the guy. Remember that 80% I mentioned? Well, they're vocal and angry. And anytime you find a big group of people being vocal and angry in their attacks on someone, you'll find that people with the opposing view become just as vocal and angry. So if Cousins throws a few interceptions (which isn't, you know, wildly out of the realm of possibility), that vocal minority will be shouting from the rooftops IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME to put Griffin in at QB. No, backup won't work either.

And to all of the people saying that we should've traded Griffin over the offseason, or last year, or should trade him as soon as he's healthy, what exactly are you hoping to get out of that trade? Because if it's anything other than "7th round pick" or "backup long-snapper," you're fooling yourself. So really, you're only doing the trade if you believe that removing Griffin from the team is an opportunity for "addition by subtraction." You wouldn't be the only one to think that, of course. But I think barring someone losing their mind and trading legitimate value for him, it's foolish to dump him like that. And the Raiders seem to like their guy, so a crazy offer likely isn't available.

And if I don't want to dump him for something small, obviously I don't want to dump him for nothing.

If I know how your mind works, I can guess what you're thinking. "You don't want to play him, you don't want to trade him, and you don't want to cut him. You want him to ride the pine all season? That doesn't do anyone any good!"

I agree, that wouldn't do anyone any good, but that's not what I said. Here's my recommendation:

Don't bench him, and don't play him at quarterback.

Look, from the first day the Redskins acquired Robert Griffin III, I thought they would be best served by acquiring other "quarterbacks" with varied skillsets. My dream team was to partner Griffin with Michael Vick and Tim Tebow, and throw an offense at the opposition that was impossible to gameplan against. You'd have two "quarterbacks" on the field at any given time, and the offense could go in a number of directions. Maybe that kind of "gimmick" doesn't get you a Super Bowl championship, but neither has trying to shoehorn Griffin into being a pocket passer. At least my idea could result in some insane plays, and had the upside potential of being an indefensible offense.

So what do you do now? Well, Kirk Cousins isn't exactly Michael Vick, but he's young enough that he should be able to execute rollouts and trick plays. So you work with Griffin to get him onto the field, but in a receiver/H-back capacity. His speed should play anywhere, and it's worth at least finding out if he's got the hands to execute this kind of playbook.

Griffin won't be back after this season, that much is certain. And because of that fact, there's no reason to run him out there as a quarterback; you invest snaps in guys who might be around long-term. But that's no reason to give up on trying to get something out of him. Would I expect it to yield great results? No, I would not. But with most fans already giving up on this season, it would at least add a little excitement to what looks like a lost year.

PS for Mike: hockey Magic hockey Magic

Sigh...the Washington Redskins

Note: This post has nothing to do with the Redskins' team nickname, other than its use of the nickname in discussion.

So the Redskins are pretty bad. I mean, they've been competitive in some games this year, and they've even won a couple, but overall, they're just not very good. Historically, I'd have a standard response to this issue, but the more I think about it, the more I believe that my old solutions are symptomatic of the overall problem with the Skins (and to a lesser extent, the Capitals).

A change in personnel will not improve this team.

In the past, I've constantly come up with trade ideas or exciting potential free agent acquisitions, always thinking of ways to "win the offseason" in order to become a better team. This very rarely works. Teams that are good tend to have gotten good over the course of time. The Seahawks didn't show up out of nowhere; they'd been building up for years.

Now, with the impending change from Robert Griffin III to Colt McCoy, there's a lot of frustration in the air, and with good reason. Some people think Griffin deserves to finish out the season on merit. Others believe McCoy doesn't have a future as a starting QB, so any game he starts is a waste of an opportunity to learn about other QBs like Griffin or Kirk Cousins. And a lot of people are just pissed off that we're in this situation less than two years after the Griffin-led Redskins beat the Cowboys in week 17 to get into the playoffs. They're all valid gripes, and par for the course in Washington...which is exactly the problem.

I didn't agree with signing Ryan Clark in the offseason. He's past his prime, and I never thought he was a great player to begin with; he benefited from one of the most consistently strong defenses in the league in Pittsburgh. But he did have a history of playing on good teams, and I think that's what this Redskins team lacks the most. So many of the Skins' players are longtime Redskins, which means they're longtime losers. The culture of failure and disappointment is I think what's most problematic in Washington. That doesn't get solved overnight, and it doesn't get solved by addressing a skill concern.

The way I would approach trying to fix the Redskins is a "five-point plan" overhaul (I'm still feeling political; Election Day wasn't that long ago):

1. Refuse to accept losing. After a near lifetime of disappointment, we in Washington expect to fail. So, why not "fail big" in order to improve draft status? I would cite the 76ers, the Raiders, and the Jaguars. The players you acquire have to hate losing. Fighting tooth and nail for every win is a direct way to improving the team's culture. And that means giving Colt McCoy a chance.
2. Stick with the same coach. Some people don't like Jay Gruden, but I think his tell-it-like-it-is nature is refreshing. And by the way, other than Marty Schottenheimer, the Redskins' fan base was on board with every coaching change the Redskins have made in recent years. Steve Spurrier was panned, Jim Zorn was despised, and Mike Shanahan was soured upon. Don't get pissed at Dan Snyder for changing coaches when you call for exactly the same moves.
3. Draft people, not skillsets. The players who pay off the most are players who are driven to perform from within. JaMarcus Russell was an impressive physical specimen with great arm strength and size, but he seemed to coast along, expecting those skills to carry him. You want guys who have fight in their hearts, who strive to improve every day. Football is such an intense sport that guys who take plays off are going to cost you, on the field and in the locker room.
4. Stop signing bad players to bad contracts. Albert Haynesworth was one of the worst signings in NFL history, but he's far from the only mistake Washington's made in recent years. Signing guys off their best seasons, signing accomplished veterans for starter money when they aren't worthy of starting any more, signing guys because of their names and not because of their skills. All bad. I don't know if it's a scouting issue, or an "owner-involvement" issue, but the Skins have had trouble using their funds appropriately of late. So, in the same vein...
5. Sign the "right" guys. There are thousands of guys trying to play professional football, and hundreds more come in from college every year. But there are a few key components the Skins have been missing. This past offseason was the first time they'd spent any legitimate money on a punt/kickoff return guy, even though it's been a weakness for a decade. They still lack a LOT in the leadership department; when DeAngelo Hall went down, could anybody name a leader on this defense? Plenty of good players, but no leaders. If I could draw a blueprint for the perfect guy for the Skins to sign, he'd be a productive middle linebacker with pedigree, leadership skills, a clean bill of health, and experience winning in the playoffs. I know that's a narrow definition, but I'm not saying it's got to be Brian Urlacher or Ray Lewis. Just someone who can play.

Look, I'm no GM. I'm no head coach. I'm no scout. I never played organized football, and I'm not particularly good at disorganized football. But I see how other teams perform, and I compare their actions to the actions of my favorite team, and I find differences. I want my team to be a team that wins regularly, that always feels like they're a couple good bounces away from a division title.

I'm just trying to get there.

Top 5 "Sports-Watching Beers"

We're well into autumn now, and that means a few things:

1. the holidays are coming up;
2. it's time to put away the shorts for a little while; and
3. football and hockey are in full swing.

While the holidays are important, and I know you'll all miss my exposed sexy legs, the third item on the list is what I want to talk about. There's something purely human about watching sports and drinking a beer. Men and women, young and old, rich and poor, everyone can get on board with cracking open a cold one while reclining and watching a sporting event.

Not every beer is built for this sort of event. There are a lot of brews out there that are built on pretentiousness and expectation and basically anything hipsters think is so rad. But there are a lot of beers that encourage you to relax and just enjoy the damn game. My favorites are below.

5. Bud Light - Does Bud Light make my socks roll up and down? No, it does not. But I like it well enough, I can drink pretty much as many as I want, and it's fairly cheap. Sometimes when you're watching sports (at a bar, for example), you just want a beer you can forget about. For me, Bud Light is that beer.

4. Molson Canadian - The best thing about Canadian beers is that, almost without fail, they're all twist-offs. Who wants to waste valuable drinking time looking for a bottle opener? Also, Molson tastes good.

3. Honey Brown - There are a lot of "sweet" beers out there. Leinenkugel makes a few that are good, and plenty of companies make ones that aren't so good. Honey Brown sounds like it would be a sweet beer, and it's got a hint of sweetness, but really it's more hearty than sweet. It's a great chilly outdoor beer; if you're tailgating or at one of the NHL's outdoor games, Honey Brown is a good fit.

2. Killian's Irish Red - I didn't know this for a while, but apparently Killian's is a "value" beer. A year or two ago, I was in a county liquor store and was browsing their beer selection, and I noticed that Killian's was a sight cheaper than most of the other selections. As it was already one of my favorite choices, the price is a constant tipping point when I'm planning ahead and have time to chill the brews (liquor stores here don't sell cold beer).

1. Blue Moon - At first, I didn't think of Blue Moon as a winter beer; the crispness and freshness of it would make you think it's a summer brew. But for my money, Blue Moon is a beer for all seasons. The Blue Moon beer stand is also right at the concourse entrance where my family's Caps tickets are located, so it's even convenient. Win-win.

Honorable mention: Busch Light. In the words of Dave Chappelle, it'll get you drunk.

2014 NFL Predictions - Midway Madness

After a few posts on Magic, I figured I'd better post about sports again so you guys don't think (/realize) I'm a total nerd. Football!

Every team has now played at least eight games, and the standings are looking very interesting. Coming into the season, I'd have never expected to see the Arizona Cardinals at the top of the NFC West. There's still plenty of football to be played, but the season is starting to take shape. So, given the information we've got to this point, here's where I think things will end up after week 17.

AFC


East: New England Patriots - It's hard to pick against Tom Brady and Bill Belichick, much as I might dislike them. Spoiler: it's a lot.
North: Pittsburgh Steelers - Don't look now, but the Steelers just scored 94 points against two teams above .500 over the past two weeks (Colts & Ravens). They're never down for long.

South: Indianapolis Colts - I don't think Andrew Luck is ready for the big time like everybody else does, but in the AFC's weakest division, he's far and away the best QB.
West: Denver Broncos - I'll be a Philip Rivers fan until the day I die, but there's no denying Peyton Manning's regular season domination. He's a force.

Wild Cards: Miami Dolphins and Kansas City Chiefs - Both defenses look legit, and I'm becoming a believer in Ryan Tannehill. Andy Reid can't help but put his teams in the playoffs.

NFC

East: Philadelphia Eagles - I don't think Dallas's perceived problems on defense were false; as the season goes on, I expect them to look worse, not better.
North: Green Bay Packers - The Lions have been good, but in today's NFL, I don't believe you can average fewer than 21 points a game and win long-term.
South: Carolina Panthers - Ron Rivera coached the cats out of a funk last year, I'm betting he can do it again. The Saints' run appears to be over.
West: Seattle Seahawks - I just can't bring myself to believe the Cardinals will finish as strong as they started. The defending champs will get back into form.

Wild Cards: Arizona Cardinals and San Francisco 49ers - Maybe I'm wrong about Detroit, but I just can't see things ending well in Motor City. And I expect the Cowboys to fall back to earth...and then some.

Super Bowl Prediction: Green Bay Packers over Pittsburgh Steelers - Because nothing new and fun ever happens.

I wanted to get this down on paper so you can hold me accountable for it down the road. So when the Super Bowl matches the Lions against the Dolphins, feel free to throw angry comments at me.

Rooting

I'm mostly a Washington sports fan. I root my ass off for the Capitals, I'm lamentably a Redskins fan, and the first sports ticket I ever bought was to a Bullets game. We didn't have a baseball team in the DC area when I was younger, so I took on the Baltimore Orioles, and I was totally stoked for this postseason.

That said, being a fan of my teams has been trying over the years. I became an official baseball fan in 1988, the year the Orioles set the all-time AL record for losing streaks when they opened the season 0-21. The game I went to, they actually won, which I didn't realize was a rarity that season. After the Jeffrey Maier bullcrap in 1997, my O's suffered 14 straight losing seasons. This season has already been a success, but things aren't looking great for a title run.

When the Redskins won the Super Bowl after the 1991 season, I was too young to realize it wasn't the kind of thing that happens all the time. And I don't remember watching any football games in between that Super Bowl and the previous Super Bowl, so obviously I wasn't much into sports. I think I was all about Nintendo at that point in my life (and 90% of all moments in my life since then). Since then, and particularly since Daniel Snyder purchased the team, Washington has been a black hole for football.

As I said, I liked the Bullets a lot when I was younger. I went to a few games, and was stoked when they acquired Chris Webber. I figured the combination of he and Juwan Howard was so successful in college, how could it not bring them deep into the NBA playoffs? Of course, I was wrong, but I've kept tuned in, and I'm hoping to reap the benefits of some solid seasons with John Wall, Bradley Beal, and the lot. I watch almost every NBA draft, even though I don't really know anything about college basketball anymore, just because it's a tightly packed blast of offseason roster updates.

The Capitals were a regular participant in the wide-open NHL playoffs by the time I started paying attention to hockey at all. I remember my friends Mike and Sergio assigning me teams every few days, usually in the form of, "Joe Joe Joe, what happened to your Nordiques last night?" It was enough to encourage me to catch a few games here and there. I watched each game of the Stanley Cup in 1998, which is to say I watched the Caps get pummeled by a team that was insanely, insanely better than them.

I've enjoyed their recent moments of marginal success, but the Caps' limited success seems to have brought every Penguins fan out of the woodwork. I can't wear a Caps shirt or watch a Caps game without some jag off Pens fan making some sideways (or sometimes straight-up-and-down) comment about how the Penguins are so much better. Like I'm unaware of how these teams have performed recently.

Which brings us to the meat of what I actually wanted to talk about in this post. People are fans of teams for a million different reasons. The majority of people just pick their home teams, presumably due to some combination of convenience and inborn patriotism, that desire to be proud of where you're from, and to share that feeling with friends and family. Others choose their favorite teams because of that team's success in their childhood, or a favorite player, or something as simple as an attractive uniform.

Are any of these "wrong" reasons to root for a team? Nope. Are any of these "more right" than others?

Yes.

It is more right to root for your hometown team than another team. Not insofar as you live a better life or you deserve praise, but because you're not abandoning a problem. Enduring the hardships together as a fan base gives you something to talk about with other people from your home town, and a sense of community is a good thing, even if you're a community with an experience mostly riddled with failure.

In my sports-watching adult life, I've endured as much disappointment as a fan of any city's teams, save perhaps Cleveland. While Cleveland has only three professional teams, they manage to pack a lot of despair into those three teams. And if you happen to like the Ohio hockey team (the Columbus Blue Jackets), you're not making up any ground.

Cleveland has sported a poorly run and poorly performing football team in the Browns, and since the mid-90s, the Cleveland Indians have wallowed in and around mediocrity. The Cavaliers have been to the NBA Finals, but The Decision, the departure, and the Heat winning a pair of titles have made that Finals trip ancient history. Cleveland is also noteworthy as the sporting home of "other Joe," my former partner in crime in the radio world. He's a guy who's known my pain for years and years, and while LeBron James' return means he's likely closer to ending his drought, we're mostly in the same boat.

Between Cleveland and Washington, we've got disappointment covered.

So why endure it? Obviously it's easier to pick individual teams with amazing players like the Pittsburgh Penguins or the Green Bay Packers, or a city with gobs of money and history like Boston or Chicago. You've got a better shot at a title, which means you won't have to deal with the shit that everyone else seems to enjoy throwing at people who choose to remain hometown fans. As a Capitals fan, I've not met a single Penguin fan in the DMV who resists the urge to twist the knife. And good luck finding a Cowboys fan in Maryland who doesn't exude glee whenever the Redskins falter.

Which brings us back to the question: why endure such pain? Wouldn't it be easier to just switch over to a better team, or a better city? Wouldn't you feel less disappointment?

Maybe.

But the whole idea of sticking with your team is that one day, it'll be worth it. I've ridden the Bullets/Wizards since I was a little kid. If they're ever able to win the NBA title, I'll celebrate my butt off. If the Caps are ever able to overcome history and raise the Stanley Cup, I can't even begin to imagine the relief and joy I'll feel. We stick with our teams because we have faith and hope that one day, they'll win. And we want to be around for it.

We see all these cities hosting parades and we think, "God, that would be amazing." We watch other teams raise banners and we think, "Someday that'll be us." We see guys like Trent Dilfer and Ben Roethlisberger and Tom Brady talk about their trips to Disney World, and we think, "There's no reason Robert Griffin or Kirk Cousins couldn't take that trip, right?" Some of it is delusion (the 'Skins may never win another game). Some of it is playing the odds (hockey has a great deal of parity in its playoffs; almost any team has a shot). And some of it is wishful thinking (Kevin Durant hasn't said he wouldn't come to the Wiz). And part of it is simple stubbornness. But at this point, no way am I changing sides.

The O's are still just four wins from the World Series!

Sigh...Ray Rice

I hate football.

Let me be clear, I don't actually hate football. Like, you don't hate the customer who always has a bunch of questions and needs help with everything and makes you run all over the place. You just hate how they take over your day whenever they show up. Well, that's what I hate about football. Whenever a notable football story pops up, it's all you hear or read about for a day and a half. That's the price of doing business if you're a sports fan in the United States, but it's still frustrating and I hate it.

I had kind of hoped that I'd get through the Ray Rice situation without feeling compelled to write a blog about it. And now I'm writing about it for a second time. Screw you, football.

My first post (which I'm sure seems totally misogynistic and narrow-minded now) talked about how we didn't have enough information to really make a thunderous decision against Ray Rice. There was a good deal of outcry insisting that the two-game suspension fell short of an appropriate punishment, and obviously at this point, that seems to be correct. Having finally seen footage of the moment in question, Rice clearly assaults his then-fiancee (now wife), and while it may not have been his swing that knocked her out, it was his swing that caused her head to slam against the railing, which almost certainly did knock her out. So in this circumstance, I will admit that I took a position that was incorrect, and was based on limited information.

My bad.

It saddens me that all of this happened, though. It's just...I don't know, it's just sad. There's clearly some larger issue going on with Ray and Janay Rice, and I feel like the fact that the national media is trying to pierce this story is only further complicating and exacerbating the situation. Maybe they need counseling, maybe they need to split up, maybe they're fine and they're comfortable with their relationship. But I don't hear anybody trying to find out if Janay Rice is okay, or trying to pivot this incident into positive movements towards a safer world for all victims of abuse. And I don't see how the NFL and the Ravens turning their backs on Ray Rice helps anybody.

I'm disappointed with the Ravens in particular. The NFL has always been a PR machine, and the public demanded that Ray Rice suffer massive consequences for the video that depicted his chilling attack. So be it, suspend him indefinitely. But clearly Ray Rice isn't right. A guy who's got it all together doesn't hit people, whether his girlfriend or a waiter or a stranger. Hell, even most people who don't have it all together don't hit people. Rice is in a position of need here, and the Ravens had the opportunity to say, "We hate what Ray Rice has done, and we fully support the NFL's decision to suspend him indefinitely. But we acknowledge that Ray is a human being, and he's a part of our community, and this is a time for us to help Ray to not be the person in that video ever again."

Where's the football camaraderie that I hear so much about? What happened to sticking by your teammates through thick and thin? The NFL's PR problem goes away with Rice's termination and suspension, but Rice's problems get even bigger. He's lost his livelihood (understandably), but nobody's life is made better by everyone casting him out.

My last point here is kind of hard to articulate, but I'm going to give it a shot. The involvement of so many "regular people" in this story feels icky. Not like they're named in the story, I mean that the "public" has spidered into celebrities' lives through web forums, chat rooms, Reddit, comments sections, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and a hundred other forms of social media and digital interactions. It's got the same kind of vibe as the whole nude photo hacking from a week or two ago. We (the internet public at large) are sticking our noses way deeper than they belong, and we're acting entitled about it. I can't tell you how many people I read/heard say, "Well, I mean, Kate Upton shouldn't have taken those pictures on her phone," or "Jennifer Lawrence has to know that once an image is on the cloud, a hacker can get at it." Similarly, there are countless comments on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram of people saying they can't understand why Janay Rice would stay with Ray, or demanding a first-hand account of the evening, or any of a thousand other presumptive statements.

We've got to stop.

We've got to stop assuming that because we know someone's name and what they do for a living, we're entitled to make judgments on them, or demand transparency from them. Professional athletes, actresses, singers, they do all have something in common with the rest of us: they're human. They have emotions, and they make decisions not solely based on the possibility of them getting caught, but because they feel things and think things and want things. Jennifer Lawrence is far from the first or last girl to take a sensual picture of herself. She'll be a target of hackers and jealous investigators for a long time, and that comes with the territory. But she shouldn't be chastised for having had her private information stolen. Janay Rice shouldn't be interrogated by fifty thousand strangers via Twitter. Victims of crimes are victims of crimes, and while we may be interested in the sordid details, we are by no means entitled to them.

Let's do our best to respect the humanity of those who are hurt, even if they were in The Hunger Games.

Top 5 Wide Receivers

Wide receivers are "enigmatic." But then, not really. There's obviously a lot of variety in WR abilities, but it feels like a lot of their ability level derives from their physical attributes. Randy Moss was incredible because he was faster and more athletic than anyone else on the field. But then, you do have guys like Jerry Rice who are perfectly formidable physically, but not exceptional. And then they are the best receiver ever.

I'm in my pre-writing phase as I write this, but I'm anticipating most of my picks are going to rely heavily on size, strength, and athleticism. Let's find out.

5. DeSean Jackson, Washington Redskins
This selection is a little shaky, but I decided to give my homer-ism a little voice here. While Jackson isn't tall by any stretch (he's the only guy on my list under 6'2"), he absolutely has physical skills. His open-field evasion is tremendous, and he's got great speed. He can stretch a defense as well as anybody, plus he can be a dominant force in the return game. He's comparable to Julio Jones, but like I said, I'll give Jackson a hometown bump.

4. Demaryius Thomas, Denver Broncos
It's always going to be tough to judge wide receivers independent of their quarterbacks, and vice versa. Was Daunte Culpepper really that good, or was he just the beneficiary of an insane receiving duo in Minnesota? Thomas started looking good while Tim Tebow was still his quarterback though, so I think we can be comfortable saying he's got the goods.

3. Dez Bryant, Dallas Cowboys
I was actually pretty surprised when I looked up Bryant's information and saw he was only 6'2". Not that 6'2" isn't still pretty big, he just seems to play so much bigger than anybody else. His ability to get up-field and leap to make catches is hard to match. It's amazing how strong the Cowboys' offense could be, and equally amazing how bad their defense could be.


2. A.J. Green, Cincinnati Bengals
Sometimes early wide receiver picks are utter busts (Troy Williamson, Darrius Heyward-Bey). But recently, it seems like top 5 WRs have been seriously, seriously good. I was sure Green was going to fall off, but he's been elite since the moment he stepped on the field. He's fast, strong, and agile, and his hands are phenomenal. I mean, he makes Andy freaking Dalton look good.

1. Calvin Johnson, Detroit Lions
Nobody else is close. There are some lovely receivers up there on this list, but the reality is that Calvin Johnson is on another planet. I could spend this space listing his absurd statistics and describing his athleticism, but that'd be a waste. You know all this. So instead, I'll name the wide receivers who were better than Calvin Johnson ever:

• Jerry Rice
• Randy Moss

As my favorite local sports journalist likes to say, that's it. That's the list. The next closest guy to me is Terrell Owens, but I have Calvin Johnson just a hair ahead of him.

So as I wrap up this "miniseries" of Top 5s, I have a couple observations.

• Quarterbacks were way more fun. Running backs was basically a list of the top 5 running backs by last year's performance. I wanted to include DeMarco Murray, but just the thought of having a Cowboy in each list was too much to bear. And really, pushing out Matt Forte or Jamaal Charles for him would've felt wrong. Wide receivers are a little more subjective, but still, I didn't go off the reservation really. I think quarterbacks are better because there's so much besides their physical abilities that comes into play. Mindset, pocket presence, decision-making, ability to improvise. I'm glad I finished the trio, but I should've ended with QBs, to build to the better stuff.
• Top 5s are fun. They're a neat way to organize thoughts, and to keep me from going too crazy with content.
• Linking all those player profiles is a chore. No explanation, it's just a chore.

Top 5 Running Backs

I wish I could be as edgy with running back as I was with quarterbacks, but the reality is that running backs are so often products of their systems that the guys you know are, in general, the best guys. That doesn't mean the list isn't as correct; it's absolutely 100% correct. It's just more predictable.

5. Jamaal Charles, Kansas City Chiefs
Charles is a fantastic fantasy running back, but I'm not 100% on him as a premier "winning" running back. He's a slasher with breakaway speed and good hands out of the backfield, but when you must have four yards up the gut, can he deliver? He's the only guy in my five who's listed at under 200 pounds, and that gives me pause enough to push him to #5. Still a really, really good option, just not the best.

4. Matt Forte, Chicago Bears
I owned Forte in my big time keeper fantasy football league from his first day until the league folded two years ago. I'm completely familiar with how prolific he is as a pass-catching running back. What's impressed me the most about him is the fact that he's responded positively to varying workloads. After exceeding 300 carries his rookie season, his carries declined for three consecutive seasons. Then last year, he posted the highest total carries + targets of his career, and he remained productive in both aspects. That speaks to his innate football skill, as well as his ability to adjust to whatever circumstances present themselves.

3. Marshawn Lynch, Seattle Seahawks
I honestly though that Lynch was on his way out of the league when he got traded from Buffalo to Seattle in 2010. But it turns out, that was just the change of scenery he needed. In a result that's typical of Buffalo sports, Lynch discovered himself after leaving, and he's been an absolute monster for the past two seasons. He's a marginal receiver out of the backfield, but he's the kind of guy you can count on for three hard yards any time you need them. That's pretty important in the playoffs, when sometimes you absolutely must have those three yards.

2. Adrian Peterson, Minnesota Vikings
Peterson is probably past his prime, but there's no denying that he's still everything in Minnesota, and he's the only reason they win any games at all. Christian Ponder isn't an NFL quarterback, Matt Cassel is an excellent backup, and Teddy Bridgewater isn't ready. The Vikings will probably win 5 games this year, and in all 5 I would expect that Peterson will account for 200+ total yards. The fact that I'm expecting 1,000 yards in just five games of Peterson should tell you all you need to know about what I think he can do.

1. LeSean McCoy, Philadelphia Eagles
Remember when I said I wished I could be more edgy? Well, yeah. McCoy is the consensus best running back in football (with apologies to Jamaal Charles), and deservedly so. He offers a great balance between running threat and receiving option that makes him hard to game plan for. The running backs who seem to do best in the playoffs are the guys who can factor into every play, like Marshall Faulk or Edgerrin James or other former Indianapolis Colts. Warrick Dunn if you like. McCoy is as talented as any of those guys. He can bring it home (though, please, dear god, don't let the Eagles win the Super Bowl).

Receivers is coming next, and I honestly don't know what to expect out of it. Except Calvin Johnson at #1, obviously.

Top 5 Quarterbacks

This isn't a fantasy football article, nor is it an article about which five quarterbacks have had the best careers to date. This article is solely about, if I had one shot, one season, this year, to try to win the Super Bowl, who would I pick? I'll do the same for running backs and wide receivers in the next week or so.

5. Tom Brady, New England PatriotsI'm sure many people will disagree with Brady being this low on the list, but at this point in his career, Brady is just a very good quarterback. He's no longer the guy who hits everyone in stride, who makes Deion Branch look like Jerry Rice, or who gets the full potential out of a guy like Randy Moss. I'll admit, Brady has been way better than I thought he would be early in his career, but it's twilight time.

4. Tony Romo, Dallas Cowboys
For all the guff that Romo gets for "not being clutch" or "making mistakes at the worst times," he's been a very, very good quarterback on a team that's not very good. Jerry Jones used to do an okay job putting together a roster, but when the Cowboys have had success recently, it's been in spite of the "GM." I think on a reasonably constructed team with balanced skill levels across the board, Romo wouldn't feel so compelled to make poor decisions, and his talent would bear out.

3. Peyton Manning, Denver Broncos
I still found myself starting to type Indianapolis Colts when I wrote Manning's name just now. Anyways, Manning has obviously shown himself to be an amazing talent at quarterback, even at his advanced age. He's still one of the best at reading defenses and adjusting to coverages. But, honestly, his Super Bowl performances have me worried. He's been to three Super Bowls, but hasn't thrown more than one touchdown in any of them. For teams that clearly rely on his ability to push the offense, that's a concern. Still, 90% of winning the Super Bowl is getting there.

2. Drew Brees, New Orleans Saints


Brees is a guy who I found intriguing coming out of college. I remember when the Chargers missed out on Michael Vick but snagged LaDainian Tomlinson #5 overall, and were able to swipe Brees in the second round, I thought they had maybe the best draft ever. Turns out, 20-year-old me knew a thing or two. Brees is a guy who can just pass the hell out of the ball. He takes new receivers every year and makes them fantasy relevant (anybody remember Devery Henderson?). And when everything's on his shoulders, he doesn't back down. It was super close for me between Brees and my top guy.


So, all that's left is my number one. Who could it be? Aaron Rodgers? No, he's always good, but doesn't have the overt competitive fire I'm looking for. Crazy homer pick with Robert Griffin or Joe Flacco? Nope. Griffin has shown me nothing, and I think Flacco stinks. Two-time champion Eli Manning? You mean the guy who's led the NFL in interceptions three different times? Probably not. Everybody's sexy fantasy pick this year, Matthew Stafford? Get serious, a Lion? Colin Kaepernick? Cam Newton? No?

So who is it then?

Wait for it.

Wait...
 
1. Philip Rivers, San Diego Chargers
Surprised? If you know me, you probably shouldn't be. Rivers has been one of my favorite quarterbacks for a long time, even when he had a couple of down-ish years. He's been amazingly prolific despite a lack of a single top-end wide receiver for years now, ever since Vincent Jackson left town. He's had his ups and downs in the playoffs, but he's always up to the challenge. He's physical and intense, kind of reminds me of Brett Favre. The statistics will tell you that Rivers isn't deserving of this spot, but it's my list. He's the guy I'd want to start.

You disagree? Make your own goddamn list then.

Seriously, below in the comments. Make your list.

Is Kurt Warner a Hall of Famer?

I've had this conversation a few times with a few different people, and it's always been a tough nut to crack. Kurt Warner's career has had so many ebbs and flows that it's hard to think of it as one single entity. There's his time in St. Louis, when he won a Super Bowl with The Greatest Show On Turf. Then his forgettable stint with the New York Giants. Then his revitalization in Arizona.

But rather than try to pull the answer out of thin air, I'm going to try to pull it all together, compare the career in its entirety to other HOFers and non-HOFers, and see what comes out. My previous instincts have always been that he isn't a Hall of Famer, but I'll try to approach this with an open mind and come to a founded conclusion.

The Argument Against

I think a good starting point for the conversation is to look at how Warner's career stats stack up against other players. So here goes.

Warner rates 33rd in all-time passing yards with 32,344 (HOFers with asterisks, active players bolded):

30. Troy Aikman**
31. Ken Anderson
32. Philip Rivers
33. Kurt Warner
34. Sonny Jurgensen**
35. Mark Brunell

Obviously Rivers is still active, but the rest are an interesting bunch. Aikman is one of the winningest quarterbacks in NFL history, while Jurgensen had exactly one postseason game in his career. Sonny and Ken Anderson, however, were prolific in a different era. Mark Brunell was a fine quarterback with a couple of exceptional seasons, but had a mostly forgettable career, and obviously isn't a Hall of Famer.

Statistically, the player whose career is most similar to Warner's from this group is Brunell, simply because of its inconsistency. Brunell led the NFL in passing in 1999 (the year Warner exploded onto the scene with St. Louis), and had a couple of high-win seasons. But Brunell's offenses (outside of his record-breaking season) were mostly driven by a strong running game, featuring mostly Fred Taylor as well as a few other flashes. Warner was almost always the focal point of his teams' offensive strategies. So Warner was able to post his stats in 35 fewer starts. Warner also recorded more passing touchdowns than Brunell.

Dancing around the list a little bit, we find some other, more appropriate comparisons. Drew Bledsoe ranks tenth all-time in passing yards, with a similar level of fluctuation from year to year. He was a bit more healthy and entrenched as a starter than Warner, but they shared the same proclivity for interceptions. Rich Gannon is down at 46th, but had a similar career arc to Warner's. He was a solid starter for Minnesota, wallowed in Kansas City for a few years, then exploded in Oakland towards the end of his career. But he never won a Super Bowl, which Warner did, in addition to losing two others. Bledsoe and Gannon are not in the Hall of Fame.

One of the best comparisons I've found is Phil Simms. Simms rates 27th all time in passing yards, and won the Super Bowl in 1987 (he might've won another in 1991 if he hadn't gotten hurt; nobody can convince me that Jeff Hostetler did things Simms couldn't have). Simms never had the performance peaks that Warner did, but as far as overall stats and success in the postseason, they're similar.

Phil Simms isn't in the Hall of Fame. Now, that's not saying Simms will never be in the Hall of Fame. He's got enough of a name and presence, and the NFL process is enough of a mystery that you can never be sure. But he didn't get in before John Elway or Troy Aikman or Steve Young or Warren Moon, guys who played well after Simms hung up his spikes.

The Argument For

So does that mean that Warner, with similar general statistics, won't get in either? Well, no player can be summed up in just a few statistics or generalizations. But if you wanted to sum up Warner in a few statistics that made him seem like a likely Hall of Famer, you could probably do it. Let's try.

Warner is second all-time in total passing yards in the Super Bowl. He's ahead of Aikman and Peyton Manning who also played in three Super Bowls (so far), Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, and Jim Kelly, who each played in 4 Super Bowls, and ahead of Elway who played in five. He was clearly not phased by the bright lights of the big stage. Additionally, his lowest yardage total for a Super Bowl is the third-highest total of all time. For those of you who have trouble doing math, that means that his Super Bowl performances rank first, second, and third in terms of passing yardage. Not bad.

He also had higher "highs" than most of the non-HOF players I mentioned above. Three times he eclipsed 4,300 passing yards, and twice led the NFL in touchdown passes. He also led the NFL in completion percentage each of his first three years as a full-time starter, with the aforementioned "Greatest Show On Turf." He brought two fairly disappointing franchises out of the doldrums and into the Super Bowl, and that makes him noteworthy.

The Journeyman Aspect, and Injuries Abound

Towards the end of his time in St. Louis, Warner suffered a few injuries, and Marc Bulger took over the offense. And he was...pretty good. He threw a lot of picks, but he stacked yardage on top of yardage, and Warner became expendable. So he went to the Giants.

Warner's year in the Big Apple was a disaster. Every memory I have of him that year is of getting sacked, losing a fumble, or his eventual departure due to concussion (and the team's obvious intention to force Eli Manning down our throats).

He then left for the Arizona Cardinals, and it all just felt like him hanging on to a career that was as good as over. He couldn't stay in the lineup, whether because of injury, or because the team wanted to get a look at Josh McCown/Matt Leinart/anybody else but Kurt Warner. So when Warner entered 2008 as the starter, nobody expected it to stay that way. But you know the rest; they won a feeble NFC West, and clawed their way to the Super Bowl, where they were edged by the goddamn Steelers (sorry, momentary lapse of journalistic integrity).

Warner obviously earned another year, and went 10-5 as a starter in 2009 (Leinart earned a loss to the Titans in week 11 when Warner couldn't go). After one of the most excitingly terrible playoff games I've ever seen in which the Cards edged the Packers in overtime by scoring one million points, Warner called it a career.

In the end, he averaged just ten games a season, sometimes due to ineffectiveness, but most often due to injury. In his best six seasons (three each with the Rams and Cardinals), he totaled 24,365 yards, 181 passing TDs, and 98 interceptions, averaging out to 4,060/30/16. If, theoretically, he'd been able to stay healthy and put up a pace of at least 90% of that (which would even be low theoretically, since injuries took most of his age 31-35 seasons), he'd have unquestionable Hall of Fame credentials. Do we penalize him for injuries taking away some of the best years of his career?

The answer is, yes, we do.

Terrell Davis is the best running back I've ever seen. Better than Emmitt Smith, better than Barry Sanders, better than Adrian Peterson. But after a gruesome injury in 1999 ended his season, he was never the same. He was done as a full-time running back, and pretty much done altogether, never recapturing that magic from his early career. He was a Hall of Fame semifinalist a number of times, including this past season, but he remains a ways off from getting in. He likely never will.

I'm sure there are a dozen similar stories about great players whose careers were marred or ended by injuries. Warner's story has to remain with them, in my opinion. He had a few fantastic seasons, and a few magical playoff runs. He might've been an all-time great at quarterback if he'd been able to stay healthy. But as is, he remains just another very good player. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. Boomer Esiason was a very good player. So was Ahman Green. They just don't belong in Canton.

Verdict: Not a Hall of Famer

PS: By the way, there's one thing I didn't mention: Warner's best years coincided with the years when he had the most prolific offensive weapons around him. Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, Anquan Boldin, and Larry Fitzgerald were all fantastic when Warner played with them. The reason I didn't include them is that the skill level of your teammates doesn't seem to matter for the NFL Hall of Fame. Great players who played with other great players, if anything, are more likely to make the Hall, because they're more likely to have been on championship teams. So the caliber of Warner's teammates isn't really relevant to the discussion.

Washington's Chances at the Hall

Note: I'd like to preface this article by saying if you read this on BleacherReport or one of those other sites, it'd be spread out onto at least 5 different pages. I won't ever make you click for no good goddamn reason.

No, this isn't an investigation into the Hall of Fame chances of Leon Washington (zero) or Ron Washington (non-zero, but still really low). With the summer abuzz with Hall of Fame inductions, it got me thinking; what's it like to have someone you rooted for extensively go into the Hall of Fame?

The only Hall of Famer from one of my favorite teams that I could say that I watched a good deal was Cal Ripken Jr. But even that, I was mostly a kid when I watched Cal play. I didn't have the sports-watching history and dare I say expertise that I have now. And, for those who are more deeply entrenched in Washington sports (over Baltimore sports), Ripken doesn't really apply.

So, if you're a Washington sports fan, the most recent your HOF rewards get are Russ Grimm, Art Monk, and Darrell Green, three players whose heydays were in the 1980s. Adam Oates was elected in 2012, but his best years were in St. Louis and Boston. There's also Deion Sanders and Bruce Smith, but I don't think we can fairly define them as Washington Hall of Famers. Washington sports has been pretty lightweight of late.

So for kicks, I decided to do a little research and come up with some players from each of the four major sports franchises in Washington who would be most likely to be elected to their respective Halls of Fame. I judged the players based on their performance already, a reasonable projection of future performance, and the various criteria that go into each sport's review process. I did not include players who played mostly in the 1980s and who have already been eligible for the Hall for several years. Joe Jacoby is a player who fits this mold; he's been a semifinalist on HOF votes, so he's got a real shot at getting elected, but he's not a recent Washington player.

For this process, I took the following headline and asked myself if it would make sense: "Former Washington Great ________ Elected to Hall of Fame". If the team doesn't make sense, then no go. Then, I gave each of the top few possibilities a percentage chance of making the Hall. Anyone I put at over 50% I expect to make the Hall of Fame; anyone below 50%, I do not expect to be elected.

Without further delay, here's a team-by-team analysis of potential HOFers:

WASHINGTON REDSKINS
Franchise total championships: 5
Last championship: 1991

London Fletcher, LB, 1998-2013
Anticipated year of eligiblity: 2019
HOF chances: 40%
Fletcher is probably the best shot that the Skins have at getting someone into the Hall of Fame anytime soon, and even him I wouldn't bet on. He was a productive linebacker for a long time, but with only three career touchdowns and topping out at 5.5 sacks and 5 INTs in any given season, his impact on a game was more subtle. That can sometimes work, but more often than not, those guys are left wanting when it comes to the Hall.

DeAngelo Hall, CB, 2004-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2023
HOF chances: 32%
Hall is perhaps the polar opposite of Fletcher. Hall's production has been up and down, down enough in Oakland to get cut altogether. But since joining the Skins, he's been their unquestioned #1 cornerback. Furthermore, he's got those highlight reel plays, the return touchdowns and leaping pass deflections. I still think Fletcher's got a better shot, but Hall, with a few more years of high-level production, can get pretty close.

Clinton Portis, RB, 2002-2010
Year of eligibility: 2015
HOF chances: 13%
Portis qualifies as a Washington Redskin, playing seven of his nine years for the burgundy and gold. The problem is, while he had some really nice seasons, he doesn't really qualify as a "great." He was very good a few times, but never had a season like Terrell Davis' 1997 or 1998, and Davis remains outside the Hall of Fame looking in. He had more longevity than Davis, but didn't come close to Jerome Bettis or Curtis Martin, the models of "just run long enough and they'll have to let you in." Good, but not HOF good.

Santana Moss, WR, 2001-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2020
HOF chances: 4%
Moss, like Portis, is a qualified Washington sportsman, but also like Portis, falls short of "greatness." He's only had four seasons over 1,000 receiving yards, and only one season each of 90+ receptions or 10+ TDs. Fine player, probably a Ring of Honor player (or whatever the Skins' version is called), but not a HOFer.

Sean Taylor, FS, 2004-2007
Year of eligibility: 2012
HOF chances: 1%
Sean Taylor's career was far too short, and he was far too erratic in his first two seasons to make the Hall of Fame. But it's a tragedy that just as he was beginning to become one of the best safeties in the league, his life was cut short. You can't extrapolate his performance from a season and a half into a fifteen year career, so there's virtually no chance he gets in. However, he does have indisputably the best play in Pro Bowl history.

Worth Mentioning
Alfred Morris has had a strong start to his career. If he can put together ten more seasons like this, he'll be in the discussion. Robert Griffin III hasn't done anything to make me think he'll be more prolific than Michael Vick, and I doubt Michael Vick gets into the Hall. Brian Orakpo is putting up good sack numbers, but his impact on the game feels small for his numbers. If DeSean Jackson ends up with a Hall of Fame career, that would likely require him to post at least some of that production with the Skins, so he's got a shot.

WASHINGTON WIZARDS (BULLETS)
Franchise total championships: 1
Last championship: 1977-78

Antawn Jamison, F, 1998-present?
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2020
HOF chances: 38%
Word is that Jamison is still trying to play this year, and I think he'll get one more chance in the Association, despite being a non-factor last year for the Clippers. At his best, Jamison was one of the best mid-range scorers in the league and a good rebounder on both ends. He was never much of a passer, but hey, the guy's job is to score points. I think Jamison is a tough nut to crack as far as whether or not he'll be elected to the Hall, but in the end, I think his lack of a deep playoff push at any point in his career will be what keeps him out.

John Wall, PG, 2010-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2033
HOF chances: 30%
John Wall took a big step forward last year, improving on both offense and defense as the Wizards got into the playoffs for the first time since he was drafted. He also seems to be embracing his role as the face of a franchise that's headed in the right direction. If Kevin Durant were to come to town in two years and help the team to a title, that'd give Wall a big boost, but even just steady improvements on his own and regular playoff trips could be enough.

Bradley Beal, SG, 2012-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2035
HOF chances: 12%
Beal's fate is obviously tied strongly to Wall's, and their respective chances of election to the Hall will most likely rise and fall together, along with the Wizards' win total. Beal will most likely have a tougher time, since he has the ball in his hands less frequently than Wall, and Wall is the more highly touted talent. To me, Beal seems kind of like the Jeff Hornacek to Wall's John Stockton (though obviously Wall has a ways to go before becoming Stockton).

Gilbert Arenas, PG, 2001-2012
Year of eligibility: 2017
HOF chances: 9%
While Arenas will mostly be remembered for the bizarre gun-related incident in 2009, there's no denying he was a force on the basketball court. In three seasons, starting in 2004-05, he averaged 25.5, 29.3, and 28.4 points per game. But in an era of Kobe Bryant and Allen Iverson, Arenas never led the league in scoring. He was never really the same after the combination of injury and suspension limited him to just 2 games in 2008-09. The best comparison for Arenas is Penny Hardaway, and that means he's no HOFer. His high was very high, but his lows were just way too low.

Rod Strickland, PG, 1988-2005
Year of eligibility: 2010
HOF chances: 4%
Strickland won't make the Hall of Fame, and that's correct. But he was a better player than a lot of people realize. He was a potent scorer as well as posting at least 7.2 assists per game in ten consecutive seasons. Strickland's real problem was that he wasn't a winner. In a 17 year career, he started in just 35 playoff games, or roughly one series every other year. That's not going to get you into the Hall. The worst thing Strickland ever did for the Wizards, though, was to get acquired for Rasheed Wallace. The Wiz could've used a little 'Sheed.

Juwan Howard, PF, 1994-2013
Year of eligibility: 2018
HOF chances: 2%
Don't let my percentage make you think that Howard wasn't a good player. He was a skilled scorer and a solid rebounder. But he never went beyond just being a good player. Even after being paired with his college teammate Chris Webber, the Bullets/Wizards made the playoffs only once during Howard's six years with the team.

Worth Mentioning
Richard Hamilton might top this list, but he'd likely be considered more a Piston than a Bullet/Wizard. Chris Webber was also prolific while he was in town, but his career really crested in Sacramento; that's where people will remember him playing. And both probably fall more into the "really good player" category than "all-time great."

WASHINGTON NATIONALS (MONTREAL EXPOS?)
Franchise total championships: 0

I elected to ignore players who spent the majority of their time with the Expos, even though they belong to the same franchise. This article is intended to investigate the Washington players who might make the Hall of Fame. I was a big Expos fan, but I doubt many other Washington fans were. So with apologies to Moises Alou, Javier Vazquez, and Vladimir Guerrero, they'll have to find another blog post to make their case. That makes this a pretty short list.

Jordan Zimmermann, SP, 2009-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2030
HOF chances: 23%
Don't look now, but Zimmermann is the best chance at the Hall that the Nationals have right now. His ERA has been exceptional, and he seems to be able to stand a good deal of innings. His strikeout numbers haven't been outstanding, which means he's basically Roy Oswalt in the making. If he doesn't make a leap, he'll have trouble making the Hall, but there's plenty to work with so far.

Bryce Harper, OF, 2012-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2036
HOF chances: 19%
There are plenty of highly touted guys who fall well short of Hall of Fame careers. Stephen Drew, J.D. Drew...lots of Drews. Delmon Young has also been a disappointment versus expectations. So there's certainly no guarantee Harper will be a legend. But his ability to handle major league pitching at age 19 was remarkable. You hope he becomes a better hitter; his strikeout and walk rates haven't improved since his rookie season. Hopefully he can stay healthy going forward, and hopefully staying healthy will help him improve his approach. But right now, he's still far from a sure thing.

Stephen Strasburg, SP, 2010-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2031
HOF chances: 15%
I would guess that a lot of people would expect Strasburg to be higher on this list than he is, but for a lot of the same reasons as Harper, he's got a ways to go. He's still very early in his career; he's in only what would be his third full season after losing most of 2010 and 2011 to Tommy John surgery. The other potentially larger issue, though, is that he hasn't been amazing. He's had flashes of brilliance, and his strikeout rate has been excellent since day one. But in 30 starts last season, he won just eight games. His career ERA is 3.11. Strasburg's got the tools, but as with so many Nationals, he has to improve to have a chance at the Hall.

Worth Mentioning
Gio Gonzalez is still building a resume, but he's got 76 wins at age 28, and is an innings-eater. Those are the guys who rack up wins. Ryan Zimmerman has been the face of the Nationals since nearly day one in DC, but he's only been a good player, not a great one. Ian Desmond may have a shade higher chance than Zimmerman because of his speed, but unless either one improves (unlikely at their ages in this steroid-testing era), it's doubtful either puts together a Hall of Fame career.

WASHINGTON CAPITALS
Franchise total championships: 0

Alexander Ovechkin, W, 2005-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2029
HOF chances: 99%
Well, now we're in business. Ovechkin is one of the most prolific scorers in NHL history. If you check out his hockey-reference page, some of the people it lists as being similar are Mike Bossy, Teemu Selanne, and Mario Lemieux. He's that good. I left open the possibility that he does something heinous to keep himself out of the Hall, like armed robbery or something, but realistically, he's already in.

Sergei Gonchar, D, 1994-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2018
HOF chances: 70%
It's been a long time since Gonchar's been in Washington, but all along the way he's been a strong scorer and a power-play quarterback. His numbers compare reasonably well with Scott Niedermayer, who's in the Hall of Fame, and Chris Pronger and Sergei Zubov, both of whom likely will be. Gonchar finished among the top ten in Norris votes on nine different occasions. He might still be on the borderline because of his sub-optimal defensive play, but his championship with the Penguins in 2009 seals the deal in my mind.

Peter Bondra, W, 1990-2007
Year of eligibility: 2010
HOF chances: 40%
Bondra is an interesting case, because if he'd left the Caps for a different team, he'd likely have a stronger resume. Playing on a fairly weak Capitals team for most of his career, he had mostly unexceptional talent around him, and as such didn't make it far in the playoffs, save the 1998 dash to the Stanley Cup Finals. His career stats are very good, and his year-by-year stats are very good, but he was a virtual non-factor in end-of-season awards. If he'd extended his career by a couple more years, he'd be Mark Recchi, who's likely to get in at some point. But for Bondra, he may be stuck as one of the greatest players not in the Hall of Fame.

Dale Hunter, C, 1980-1999
Year of eligibility: 2002
HOF chances: 38%
Hunter is a curious case. His playing career was absolutely noteworthy; he amassed 3,000 penalty minutes and 1,000 points, the only player to do that in, ever. He was an agitator in the truest sense of the word. But he's been on the ballot for a decade and hasn't been elected. So why do I have his chances as high as they are? Well, I think NHLers still appreciate his grittiness, and like an opposing sniper, he wears you down. Additionally, he's coached successfully in the OHL, and did an admirable job filling in for the Capitals on an interim basis. I could see him getting another NHL job if he wanted, and if he does, he's continuing to build his Hall of Fame resume. He's got a shot.

Nicklas Backstrom, C, 2007-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2031
HOF chances: 33%
Backstrom roared out of the gates as a rookie, finishing second to Patrick Kane in the Calder voting. He's averaging a point per game throughout his career so far, and as long as he and Ovechkin stay in sync, there's no reason to expect that to drop off. But I think Backstrom would be helped tremendously by a trip to the finals at least, and a Cup would push him over the top. He's a responsible two-way center who can score and he's a good hockey citizen. All that's left is to prove that he's a winner.

Mike Green, D, 2005-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2030
HOF chances: 12%
I was surprised when I looked at Mike Green's stats and saw he's coming into his 10th season in the NHL. He's spent so much time on the shelf in recent years, you forget he's been around for a while. You also might forget how good he was when he was at his peak. He was an offensive juggernaut who was so good at creating points that he finished second in Norris Trophy voting twice, even though he's at best an average defender. There's a lot of unknown with regards to Green's future, but if somehow he's able to play 75+ games each year for the next seven or eight years, he could put up scoring numbers that would be tough to ignore.

Alexander Semin, W, 2003-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2025
HOF chances: 9%
If it were the Hall of Talent Whether Realized or Not, Semin would be a shoo-in. But that's not the Hall. As is, Semin is a highly skilled scorer who should score more than he does, defend better than he does, and pass better than he does. All the talent is there, but there's something about taking talent and converting it to performance. Jonathan Toews isn't the most talented player in the league (or on his team), but he's widely considered an unmatchable franchise player. Semin would have to spike up to Ovechkin levels to get close to the Hall, and at this point, that's unlikely.

Worth Mentioning
Jaromir Jagr played for the Caps and is a surefire Hall of Famer, but he'll go in as a Penguin. Also he was pretty much trash in Washington. I still believe in the potential of John Carlson and Karl Alzner to be great, but it's obviously early for them. According to my friend Rick, Evgeny Kuznetsov is already a lock for the Hall. Most mentally stable people think it's too early to say that, but he's definitely talented. Olaf Kolzig was a solid goalie, and actually managed a Vezina Trophy in 1999-2000, but for the most part, Olie the Goalie was just Olie a Goalie.

Wrap-Up
So, in case you haven't been paying attention, the Capitals are way better than their city-mates. I feel like the Skins could've had some better options, but they have such frequent roster turnover that it's hard to get attached to anyone. The Nationals are still a fledgling franchise, so it makes sense that they'd have a short list for now. Hopefully that grows in the near future. The Wizards have, with few exceptions, been terrible for a while, but the future looks bright.

But there's no question that, for all-time star power, Alex Ovechkin is far and away your best bet from our home teams. So the next time you go to the Verizon Center to catch a Caps game, take some time to just watch Ovie play. That way, when he gets inducted to the Hall, you can say that you remember watching him.

I'm happy to say, I definitely will.

Talking Tim Tebow - Part 2

So apparently you guys like talking about Tim Tebow. My post on Thursday had the biggest first-day traffic of any post we've ever had here on Joe and Joe Sports. So, like any good butcher, I'm here to slaughter the goose who laid the golden egg. That is, post the second and final part of this series.

My discussions with friends and colleagues regarding Tim Tebow were surprisingly similar. I expected to get a wide variety of responses, but the general sentiment of most everyone I spoke to was pretty much the same:

Tim Tebow isn't good enough at playing quarterback to be in the NFL.

Their analyses were somewhat different, though. A few people indicated that Tebow's apparent unwillingness to play another position besides quarterback is what's keeping him from being on an NFL roster, but with two different opinions on that. Some saw him as a guy who could definitely help a team at tight end or fullback, and saw Tebow's stubbornness as a result of ego.

One person who had a different insight, though, was the other Joe. He said he doesn't really fault Tebow for wanting to win or lose as a quarterback. First, the punishment you take as a tight end or H/flex back is definitely going to be more severe than that you'd take as a quarterback (even on a team with a crummy offensive line). Additionally, and this might be the most interesting part, Joe suggested that the insistence on playing quarterback might be a branding decision. Tim Tebow as a quarterback, even a failed quarterback, is likely much more interesting than Tim Tebow the tight end. And obviously, Tebow can commentate college football for ESPN and make plenty of money right now (since, you know, he's doing exactly that). So going back to the NFL to try to scrape by as a running back might not be his cup of tea.

Almost everyone I talked to had a fairly high regard for Tim Tebow the human being. He seems to be driven and moral, and we all agreed that it would take a uniquely challenging circumstance for Tebow to be a problem in the locker room; much more likely he'd be an asset to a team in that regard.

After taking all this information, and kicking around a few ideas in my head, I've come up with what I believe is the one thing keeping Tebow from being on an NFL roster: its size. Roster spaces are at a premium in the NFL. Your backup quarterback(s) have to be able to, at least theoretically, step in and run the same offense as your starting quarterback. We can all agree that Tebow's quarterbacking skills aren't going to align with just about any quarterback in the league. He hasn't got a quick release or a tight spiral, and he hasn't got much of a deep ball. So, any system you put him into, he's going to be a suboptimal option.

You could keep him on your roster listed as a TE or RB, and just run tricks and gimmicks with him, either on his own or with another quarterback on the field. The Steelers did it for years with Kordell Stewart and Neil O'Donnell, two players with vastly different skills. The problem is, Tebow isn't as good a conventional quarterback as Stewart was (and Steelers fans will appreciate how weak a quarterback that means Tebow is). So Tebow can't be your #1 backup at quarterback. But he also can't be your #2 backup, because either A) your #2 backup is a youngster you're grooming, or B) you've elected to forgo a third quarterback in order to keep another LB/OT/CB.

If NFL rosters were unlimited, or went up seven spots to 60 total players, bringing on a utility knife like Tebow would make a lot of sense. He can produce as a goal-line or 2-point conversion quarterback, and gimmick plays will always have a place in the NFL. But as a quarterback, you can't bring him in. He doesn't do quarterback well enough to warrant that spot.

In a dream world where NFL rosters were expanded, though, I maintain that Tebow would be a useful backup for my hometown phenom Robert Griffin III. While he doesn't do anything as well as Griffin, Tebow brings some of that same dynamic run/pass ability to the game. And, I think the 'Skins could use a little Jesus in that locker room.

Not saying that Tebow is Jesus. Just saying he knows the guy.

The Ray Rice Situation

There's been a lot of clamor and outrage resulting from the NFL's recent two-game suspension of Ray Rice. Initially, I felt pretty much the same as other people; two games seemed awfully lean for a guy who butchered his girlfriend in cold blood.

Of course, that's not what happened. We don't know what happened. We know what we know, which is that Rice and his fiancee (Janay Palmer) were arrested and charged with simple assault. Then, the charges against his girlfriend (now wife) were dropped, and the charge against Rice got switched to third-degree aggravated assault. Rice eventually avoided jail time by entering a program for first-time offenders, which I don't know what that means and is probably rich-person-talk for "They were rich so they didn't really have to pay for their criminal activities."

Maybe that's not fair to Rice, but since the judicial system was more than fair to him, I'm okay leaning the other way.

Back to the suspension, I think two games is about what you can do. The law basically let him off the hook, which means sportswriters are expecting the NFL to hold their players to a higher standard than a United States court of law. That might not be fair.

Another thing to consider is that Ray Rice is protected by the NFL Players Association. There's simply no way that they wouldn't get involved in this situation; this situation is precisely the reason that the NFLPA keeps lawyers on retainer. My guess is, the NFLPA met with the commissioner's office, and they found a number that the NFLPA wouldn't appeal, because the NFLPA doesn't want to deal with the PR disaster of trying to protect a "wife-beater." By the way, we have exactly one incident that we know of that involves Ray Rice getting physical with a woman. I'm not saying it's impossible that this was indicative of his overall behavior; I'm just saying we don't know.

And that's what it mostly comes down to. We only know what we know, and what we know is pretty flimsy. I wonder if there would have been similar outcry if the NFL went the other way and gave Rice a one- or two-year ban. My guess is he'd have been forgotten in a few days, except in Baltimore, where Ravens fans would decry the league for ruining their team, until some new young running back showed promise. At which point, everyone would forget about Rice, until he slinked back into the league, signing with the Cowboys for the league minimum.

We find it so gratifying to act as judge, jury, and executioner on all these high profile cases involving superstar athletes or other celebrities. We hold them to incredible standards, and when they fail those standards, we crucify them. Maybe the two-game suspension was a little light. Or maybe it was the kind of measured response that sports fans just can't stomach.

Talking Tim Tebow - Part 1

Those of you who've talked football with me probably know I'm a Tim Tebow fan. However, I'm different from a lot of Tebow fans in that I didn't like him at all coming out of college. When Denver selected him in the first round of the 2010 draft, I thought it was perhaps the most insane draft selection ever, literally ever. And in limited time in the 2010 season, Tebow showed little to suggest he'd be anything better than a gimmicky backup who could run a little and throw even less.

And the reality is, maybe that's as much as he could have ever been. But in 2011 a confluence of events (Kyle Orton's ineptitude, public pressure, and the general approach by a coach that if something isn't working, you should change it) gave Tebow a chance to start in the NFL. While posting abysmal completion percentages and unimpressive passing yardage, Tebow helped push the Broncos to 8-8, which was good enough to win a sorry ass AFC West.

We all remember the playoffs that year. The game against the Steelers, Tebow's early TD pass to Eddie Royal, his rushing touchdown a few minutes later. The 80-yard pass to Demaryius Thomas (which was really a 14-yard pass that Thomas shook into a TD). And then going into New England and getting completely and utterly dismantled. That was the last game Tim Tebow ever started at quarterback.

I don't know the numbers, but I have to think that the number of guys who won a game in the playoffs one year and then never got another start at quarterback has to be pretty short.
 
He moved on to the Jets that offseason, after the Broncos decided to go for broke with Peyton Manning, a move that seems to have paid off for Denver. But for Tebow, the Jets were a miserable place to go. According to Football Reference he started two games, but neither one was at quarterback. Presumably he was listed as a starter at fullback for those games. But there's no denying that he was given roughly zero chance in New York to prove he was capable of being a quarterback in the NFL, starting or otherwise. He touched the ball 42 times (10 dropbacks, 32 rushing attempts).

And then what? A preseason with the Patriots in which Tom Brady said he enjoyed having Tebow around, but Bill Belichick chose to keep only 2 quarterbacks on the active roster. Then, nothing.

How? How is it possible that this player, a proven winner in college, a sporadically productive player in the NFL, and an obvious athlete, can't get a gig?

I'm going to ask around. I'm going to do some research. I'm going to get to the bottom of this. And I'll update you guys in what I'm tentatively calling "Part 2."

The Penn State Sexual Abuse Scandal

I'm probably going to piss off a lot of people with this post, and alienate other people, and maybe get through to a couple as well. But I'm too upset with what I hear from too many people to not talk about this.

By now, most people know the testimony. Former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky is accused of molesting eight different young boys over a 15-year period. Head coach Joe Paterno comes into the picture in 2002, when graduate assistant Mike McQueary observed Sandusky doing something to a young boy in a locker room shower (his grand jury testimony says sodomy, the testimony by Penn State higher-ups says McQueary reported a more vague level of fondling or other sexual contact; either way, up to no good). McQueary spoke to his father, who told him to speak to Paterno, and things went up the ladder, where a decision was made to bar Sandusky from bringing children to the campus.

How many people here are morally culpable? Probably everyone. But there's an order to things, and Paterno is not at the top of the list. How would I sort the villainy? Well, starting here:

Sandusky
Sandusky
Sandusky
Sandusky
Sandusky

Let's not lose sight of the actual situation. Jerry Sandusky is a sick and deplorable human being. He's far and away the villain here, since, you know, he was the guy who was actually raping children. Everyone else who's at fault (and there are plenty) would've never been put in a position to disappoint if Sandusky just wasn't a monster.

Mike McQueary

McQueary actually witnessed Sandusky in the act of committing one of these crimes, and what did he do? He called his dad and asked him what to do, then called Paterno the next day. McQueary was 28 at the time of the incident. He was a grown-ass man who saw another man raping a child, and did nothing. I can maybe understand being scared; it's an inconceivable thing to see, and in seeing it, you have to think that the perpetrator is capable of anything. So maybe you're too frightened to confront the guy alone. But come on. I'm sure other people were in the building; get a mob together if you're scared. And if nothing else, you call the cops.

The report said that both Sandusky and the victim made eye contact with McQueary at the time of the incident. So that kid saw an adult come across him being assaulted, and the adult walked away, and left him with his assailant. If we're making a list of things that will do severe psychological damage to a child, that's got to be on that list somewhere.

University President Graham Spanier
University Vice President Gary Schultz
Athletic Director Tim Curley

Curley was the person to whom Paterno reported what he heard from McQueary. Curley, along with Schultz, are the two people held legally responsible for their failure to report this incident to law enforcement authorities. They also both face perjury charges for what is believed to be dishonest or incomplete testimony to the grand jury.

Additionally, some combination of these three individuals came up with the response plan for Sandusky's assault, which was to take away his locker room keys and ban him from bringing children onto campus. ESPN's Jay Bilas addressed the toothlessness of this "punishment" perfectly by interpreting the message from Spanier as essentially saying, "Just don't do it here." It indicates an utter disregard for morality, and a complete focus on preserving university image. It's complicit, and disgusting.

Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar

This excerpt is from an ESPN article available here:

Victim 6 is taken into the locker rooms and showers when he is 11 years old. When Victim 6 is dropped off at home, his hair is wet from showering with Sandusky. His mother reports the incident to the university police, who investigate.

Detective Ronald Schreffler testifies that he and State College Police Department Detective Ralph Ralston, with the consent of the mother of Victim 6, eavesdrop on two conversations the mother of Victim 6 has with Sandusky. Sandusky says he has showered with other boys and Victim 6's mother tries to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy again but he will not. At the end of the second conversation, after Sandusky is told he cannot see Victim 6 anymore, Schreffler testifies Sandusky says, "I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead."

Jerry Lauro, an investigator with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, testifies he and Schreffler interviewed Sandusky, and that Sandusky admits showering naked with Victim 6, admits to hugging Victim 6 while in the shower and admits that it was wrong.

The case is closed after then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar decides there will be no criminal charge.

Nice work, counselor. Way to serve and protect.

Head Coach Joe Paterno

Paterno is the face of Penn State, and there's no denying that this happened on his watch. There's also no denying that Paterno was aware of something involving Sandusky; he has admitted as much, and said that he wishes he had done more, in hindsight.

We don't know what Paterno really knew. We know his testimony indicated that he was aware of an incident occurring between Sandusky and a child, and others' testimony corroborates that. We also know that he didn't hear about the incident from McQueary until the day after the event, and he was undoubtedly aware that McQueary apparently didn't think enough of the incident to contact the police at all. What we know now about Sandusky's continued harassment makes the choice obvious, but given the limited information regarding this one incident, and the question marks about the words McQueary actually used to describe the incident, and the fact that Paterno had known Sandusky for thirty-odd years, it's not cut and dry.

Consider your own job. Imagine a subordinate (we're talking about your job, because I have no subordinates to imagine) reported to you that another employee was engaged in a sexually inappropriate act with a child. Your main responsibility is to put that subordinate in touch with the appropriate person at your organization, or if you are the appropriate person, to get in touch with the authorities. After connecting the relevant parties, it's not your business anymore.

Paterno got Curley involved. Curley conducted his investigation (however much of a sham it might have been), came to his conclusions (however blind), and implemented his resolution (however insufficient). We don't know what Paterno was told about this process. It's not inconceivable that he was lied to by Curley and Schultz about the investigation, since those two are already suspected of lying to the grand jury.

Jemele Hill wrote a piece for ESPN (applauding Penn State for firing Paterno) that includes the following paragraph:

"For those who continue to cling to the notion that because Paterno fulfilled his legal obligation, he should be allowed to finish this season on his own terms, I pose this question: If that 10-year-old in the showers with Sandusky was your brother, cousin, nephew, friend or neighbor, would you be satisfied with how Paterno handled the situation?"

First, I think we can all agree that if it was your brother, you would want Penn State University brought to the ground. Not metaphorically; literally leveled with dynamite and wrecking balls. And you wouldn't care who was inside. You would just want someone to pay, and the more people who pay, the better. So let's try to appreciate that adding that level of emotion isn't going to result in reasoned discourse.

Second, flip the switch. What if Sandusky was your brother? Your cousin? Your friend? Wouldn't you look for ways, consciously or subconsciously, to convince yourself that the worst isn't true? Wouldn't you want to get your hands off the situation and put it in the hands of people whose responsibility it was to handle these kinds of situations?

American media, particularly sports media, tends to try to look at everything in a vacuum. One of my favorite shows, PTI, consistently asks un-nuanced all-or-nothing questions of its hosts. And maybe the best part of PTI is that Michael Wilbon and especially Tony Kornheiser offer decidedly measured and broad-scope responses to these questions. Taking the whole picture into account shouldn't be so rare.

But as I peruse through Facebook messages, and Twitter posts, and the comments attached to the various articles regarding this horrific story, I find very little in the way of thoughtful discussion. What's more troublesome is that I also haven't found much among those people who are paid to be insightful, like ESPN's Hall.

Another couple quotes from Hall's article:

"There have been 40 counts of felony sex abuse of minors levied against former Paterno assistant Jerry Sandusky, and though I am sickened by what Sandusky is accused of, our judicial system presumes his innocence until he is proved guilty.

But we're free to judge Paterno outside the constricts of the law. A lengthy indictment spells out what he did (or, more disturbing, what he failed to do) and what he knew."

"If Sandusky is proved guilty, he is obviously the worst monster in this sordid horror story. But it isn't a stretch to suggest that Paterno played the role of Dr. Frankenstein. He didn't create the monster, but if Sandusky is guilty, then Paterno is at least partially responsible for the tragedies of every one of the victims assaulted after that unidentified boy in the shower."

Throughout the article, Hall acknowledges that Sandusky's guilt is yet to be determined, and she consistently uses terms like "accused of" and "alleged." Paterno receives the benefit of no such doubt.

My last point here is in response to Hall's last point, and a point that is going to echo in the voice of every sportscaster on the planet, and I'm going to be angry about it every time. She declares that Penn State was courageous for ousting Joe Paterno. Her claim is that today's world sees football coaches as the "final authority" for high profile schools, and it's important that the Penn State board of trustees exercise their authority here.

My final response to that is my own post on a friend's comment on Facebook from last night:

"Everyone's mad. But Paterno leaving the school isn't going to make anyone less angry or hurt or disgusted or shocked. His departure is a front page story for a couple days, then PSU gets to shrink away while other tragedies (and other sports stories) overtake it, and the general public will forget and move on. But a lot of good people who rely on Penn State football for a thousand different reasons are going to suffer. What Sandusky did was damnable and shameful. What's happening to Paterno is just a damn shame."