NFL FanHouse http://nfl.fanhouse.com NFL FanHouse http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/media/feedlogo.gif NFL FanHouse http://nfl.fanhouse.com en-us Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/Jason Garrett on T.O.: 'I Certainly Have Lot of Respect for Him as a Player' http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/20/jason-garrett-on-to-i-certainly-have-lot-of-respect-for-him-as/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/20/jason-garrett-on-to-i-certainly-have-lot-of-respect-for-him-as/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/20/jason-garrett-on-to-i-certainly-have-lot-of-respect-for-him-as/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

There are plenty of reasons to expect the gossip to flow from the many players in the soap opera that is the Dallas Cowboys this offseason. The fact that they may or may not be considering the release Terrell Owens being the primary reason.

And Jason Garrett, hanging out at the Senior Bowl to watch prospective draft picks, only added more fuel to the fire when asked by reporters yesterday what he thought of the polarizing wide receiver.

"I certainly have a lot of respect for him as a player," Garrett said. "And we'll just leave it at that."

Garrett politely ended the interview at this point, leaving a ton of room to read between the lines.
Well, that's pleasantly awkward, if not that unsurprising. Obviously, Garrett's play-calling has come under fire since the Cowboys choked away their season in the final two weeks, and it seems pretty obvious -- to me, anyway -- that Garrett probably isn't all that fond of TO.

On the other hand, maybe he just feels particularly strong about Owens' on-field performance and doesn't want to let anything personal cloud that opinion. Although at this point, that seems pretty doubtful.

Jason Garrett on T.O.: 'I Certainly Have Lot of Respect for Him as a Player' originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:15:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>jason garrettJasonGarrettterrell owensTerrellOwensWill BrinsonTue, 20 Jan 2009 02:15:00 EST The 2010 Bill Cowher Rumor Train (to the Chiefs, Natch) Begins Earlyhttp://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/19/the-2010-bill-cowher-rumor-train-to-the-chiefs-natch-begins-e/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/19/the-2010-bill-cowher-rumor-train-to-the-chiefs-natch-begins-e/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/19/the-2010-bill-cowher-rumor-train-to-the-chiefs-natch-begins-e/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

Rumors abounded quite frequently near the end of the 2008 NFL season as to where Bill Cowher might or might not coach next year. It turned out, he was just fine and dandy hanging out in the CBS booth, kicking it with Boomer Esiason and Dan Marino, even with the wonderful opportunity to coach Brett Favre dangling out there.

That's not entirely surprising though. What is surprising is that rumors about Cowher's potential employement for 2010 have already gotten a kickstart. From Adam Schefter, it appears that his buddy Boomer is already discussing on his WFAN radio show the possibility of Cowher as a replacement for Herm Edwards in Kansas City following 2009.
CBS analyst Boomer Esiason said on his WFAN-NY radio show this week that he wouldn't be surprised if Chiefs general manager Scott Pioli hired Bill Cowher to coach the team in 2010.

This is intriguing on any number of levels.
Indeed it is, indeed it is. That's because, primarily, Pioli has continued to dismiss the media's notion that Edwards is out the door, which is likely a function of the fact that no one really wants to coach Kansas City next year.

Either that or Pioli hasn't found a suitable candidate for the job (although Schefter points out that Josh McDaniels and Kirk Ferentz are both interesting candidates to the former Patriots' front office guy; too bad they're probably not available.)

By letting the situation in KC play out with Herm, Pioli can simply not re-sign Edwards and allow Cowher -- presuming he's still interested next year -- to slide in as head coach.

Boomer notes that the two men are apparently "close friends" as well, so there should continue to be mutual interest. The only potential hurdle for such a hook-up is Herm winning the AFC West, but, hey, that's why we play the game. Added bonus: 315 days of rumors!

The 2010 Bill Cowher Rumor Train (to the Chiefs, Natch) Begins Early originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:50:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Adam SchefterAdamSchefterBill CowherBillCowherBoomer EsiasonBoomerEsiasonbrett favreBrettFavredan marinoDanMarinoHerm EdwardsHermEdwardsJosh McDanielsJoshMcdanielsKirk FerentzKirkFerentzScott PioliScottPioliWill BrinsonMon, 19 Jan 2009 16:50:00 EST Heinz Field Sound Operator Displays Bad Taste During Injury Timeouthttp://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/19/steelers-sound-operator-dropped-the-ball-last-night-with-injury/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/19/steelers-sound-operator-dropped-the-ball-last-night-with-injury/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/19/steelers-sound-operator-dropped-the-ball-last-night-with-injury/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,


Willis McGahee and Ryan Clark were both injured last night; obviously McGahee's injury was worse, as he spent significantly more time on the carpet than Clark and subsequently had to leave on a stretcher. Because he was on the ground so long, the sound operators at Heinz Field chose to fill time with some music, including, oddly, "Down on the Corner" by Creedence Clearwater Revival and "Smooth" by Santana and Rob Thomas. And, according to a "league source" that emailed PFT last night, people aren't too thrilled about it.
"There is a player on the field who may have suffered a life changing injury and the Steelers are playing party music. There are about five teams in the league that would engage in such horrific behavior. All others would cease all entertainment.

"'Down on the corner' . . . uh, there's a man down on the field. About twenty-five to twenty-seven teams would cease all entertainment. Oh, now it's a Santana song. This is beyond offensive. . . . Most teams would fire them on the spot. It's disgusting."
Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Really, the only way that the music could have been more offensive (in message; you can't possibly get more offensive in sound than Rob Thomas) would have been blaring LL Cool J's "Mama Said Knock You Out" as McGahee was strapped onto a stretcher and carted off the field.

Look, it's a tough situation to be in for whoever is running the tunes -- you don't want to let the crowd become completely passive and ruin the celebration of the home team headed to Super Bowl, but at the same time, there's a guy lying on the field and no one's sure if he can even talk or move his fingers. So, for future reference music guys: just do the Paul Simon thing and let silence be the sound.

Heinz Field Sound Operator Displays Bad Taste During Injury Timeout originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:10:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Creedence Clearwater RevivalCreedenceClearwaterRevivalLL Cool JLlCoolJpaul simonPaulSimonRob ThomasRobThomasryan clarkRyanClarkSantanawillis mcgaheeWillisMcgaheeWill BrinsonMon, 19 Jan 2009 14:10:00 EST We Are All Underrating Cardinals' Defensehttp://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/18/its-entirely-possible-that-we-are-all-still-underrating-the-car/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/18/its-entirely-possible-that-we-are-all-still-underrating-the-car/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/18/its-entirely-possible-that-we-are-all-still-underrating-the-car/#commentsFiled under: , , , , ,

The Arizona Cardinals are famous in 2008 because Kurt Warner, Larry Fitzgerald (currently an unstoppable force), and Anquan Boldin comprise a ridiculous aerial attack. But the truth is that the Cardinal defense deserves a lot more credit than they're getting.

Look at the score, folks: it's 24-6. That's not just because the Cards offense is good and the Eagles are struggling. Troy Aikman keeps mentioning "missed opportunities" for the Eagles offense (right before Adrian Wilson comes tearing off the corner to smother McNabb), and I distinctly remember everyone (guilty as charged) blaming the totality of the Panthers' loss on Jake Delhomme and not the Cardinals defense.

There was enough chatter -- pre- and postgame -- that it incited Darnell Dockett to run his mouth about the defense's "inability" to stop anyone (he postulated, instead, that the Panthers' offensive players couldn't find the right holes or open receivers).

And the reality is that if this game continues on the same course it's on now, you'll hear some greater mention of the Cardinals' defense, but mostly you'll hear about how Donovan McNabb is a choker. But the reality is that Arizona sports a defense that, while it got absolutely torched at times, was fourth in the NFL in takeaways (30) and second in the NFC behind the Bears.

They won't be mentioned in any Super Bowl talk; it'll be all "____ tough AFC defense against crazy Arizona offense" talk, providing they make it of course, which will only give more accurate fuel to Dockett's theory that they get no respect.


We Are All Underrating Cardinals' Defense originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:10:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>adrian wilsonAdrianWilsonanquan boldinAnquanBoldindarnell dockettDarnellDockettdonovan mcnabbDonovanMcnabbjake delhommeJakeDelhommekurt warnerKurtWarnerlarry fitzgeraldLarryFitzgeraldWill BrinsonSun, 18 Jan 2009 17:10:00 EST Rosenhaus Says Cowboys Won't Release T.O., Calls Pacman 'Not That Good'http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/16/rosenhaus-says-cowboys-wont-release-to-calls-pacman-not-that/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/16/rosenhaus-says-cowboys-wont-release-to-calls-pacman-not-that/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/16/rosenhaus-says-cowboys-wont-release-to-calls-pacman-not-that/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

Drew Rosenhaus is known for making outrageous claims. It's partly why he's got such an extensive client list, and it stems from his pre-draft talk re: Willis McGahee. His McGahee chatter ended up being correct, of course, but that doesn't mean he's right every time.

Rosenhaus has come forward to refute the rumor that the Dallas Cowboys are going to release Terrell Owens. Oh, and he doesn't think Adam Jones can still play cornerback at a decent level.
He completely dismissed the possibility that T.O. has cashed his final check from Jerry Jones.

"It's not going to happen," Rosenhaus said on WQAM Radio in Miami. "The reason why they got rid of Pacman is because Pacman has terrible off-the-field problems, and the guy just simply can't play anymore. He's just not that good.

"Terrell's never had off-the-field problems, and he's been one of the greatest players ever. And they just gave him a monster contract. I mean, they just gave him a huge extension before the season. He's not going anywhere."
And there's a pretty good chance, in both these cases, that Rosenhaus is spot on. Yes, the Cowboys are attempting a house cleaning, but if they were really intent on a total culture change, Wade Phillips wouldn't still be coaching them up.

Add in the contract they threw to Owens and, yeah, it's tough to believe they'll just outright release him. As for Pacman, he might not be totally washed up at this stage of the game, but he's still dealing with too much off-the-field stuff to really be considered a "good" football player ... since someone has to take a chance on paying and playing him first.

Rosenhaus Says Cowboys Won't Release T.O., Calls Pacman 'Not That Good' originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>adam jonesAdamJonesdrew rosenhausDrewRosenhausjerry jonesJerryJonespacman jonesPacmanJonesterrell owensTerrellOwenswade phillipsWadePhillipswillis mcgaheeWillisMcgaheeWill BrinsonFri, 16 Jan 2009 02:00:00 EST LaDainian Tomlinson Revises Stance on Trade Talks, Calls Them 'Ridiculous'http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/14/ladainian-tomlinson-revises-stance-on-trade-talks-calls-them-r/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/14/ladainian-tomlinson-revises-stance-on-trade-talks-calls-them-r/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/14/ladainian-tomlinson-revises-stance-on-trade-talks-calls-them-r/#commentsFiled under: , , , , ,

The LaDainian Tomlinson saga in San Diego is quickly becoming one of the more prevelant themes of an NFL offseason ... that hasn't even begun yet.

But we are talking about LdT, and when someone of his stature is suddenly rumored to be on the trade block, only to ignore said trade rumors -- which comes just before the team and the San Diego media further the notion that he might have played his last game with the Chargers, well, it becomes kind of a big deal.



Tomlinson has, since the latest reports that Ryan mentioned Wednesday, changed his stance too. He's no longer pretending to not hear people talking; now he's calling the rumors "ridiculous."
"I think it's ridiculous to be talking about trade and me not being here, that's just my personal opinion. I know every team has a right to make trades and all this stuff, but I just think it's ridiculous to be talking about this, to have this stuff in the media when this could be handled behind closed doors and in a professional way. Now I have people calling me, talking about this all the time; this has become a big story and I don't want this."
That seems like a pretty valid approach for a lock-job Hall of Famer, no? But A.J. Smith also has a pretty solid point as well: this is football, and talking about trading a player is never ridiculous.

"[Discussing Tomlinson's future] may be stunning to people, but as the GM here -- where I told you I would pass his name a few years ago -- it will be discussed heavily. I think it's valid; I don't think it's ridiculous. I think it's important at this point in time, as unreasonable as that may sound to many people or to you, I think it's a sound football decision."

Smith has to say that. Coming out and telling anyone/everyone that Tomlinson "won't be traded" is silly, irrational and patently false. Everyone is available for trade if the price is right. For his part, LdT also told SI that Norv Turner confirmed the silliness of the rumors and that owner Dean Spanos made it appear as if his return was certain.

And maybe it is -- the Chargers aren't going to get the type of draft pick in return that would land them a future stud and Darren Sproles, in both the opinion of Smith and me, is not an every down type of back. But that doesn't mean they can't at least talk to people about what they could get for Tomlinson.

LaDainian Tomlinson Revises Stance on Trade Talks, Calls Them 'Ridiculous' originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:53:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>a.j. smithA.j.Smithaj smithAjSmithdean spanosDeanSpanosladainian tomlinsonLadainianTomlinsonnorv turnerNorvTurnerWill BrinsonWed, 14 Jan 2009 23:53:00 EST Tony Dungy, Despite What You May Be Told, Is Not Perfecthttp://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/12/tony-dungy-despite-what-you-may-be-told-is-not-perfect/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/12/tony-dungy-despite-what-you-may-be-told-is-not-perfect/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/01/12/tony-dungy-despite-what-you-may-be-told-is-not-perfect/#commentsFiled under: , , ,


Tony Dungy, by all accounts, is a good guy. People who've met or know him constantly stress his character, his amicable personality, his overall likability. In the cutthroat NFL coaching world, where reputations are there to be broken down by those looking to climb the ladder, nobody has a bad thing to say about him. Also, he's a great football coach.

But while you're being inundated with retrospectives, glowing portrayals, and an avalanche of goodwill now that Dungy has retired from coaching; while it's easy to let the media make you believe that Dungy is, just like deity he worships, infallible; it's important to remember that he is in fact a human, and humans are flawed. Dungy is no exception.

Let's go back to Dungy's 2007 appearance on Costas Now.

"I'm sure I would talk to him about my views on it, what the Bible says about it," he said at the time regarding the possibility of having a gay player on the Colts.

We all know how Dungy feels about his faith. And we all, obviously, know how Dungy feels about homosexuality; if the above quote weren't enough, he's also publically supported the Indiana Family Institute, which has sought to make gay marriage illegal in Indiana.

And that's just the problem: we shouldn't know these things.

Having faith, no matter what that faith is in, is an asset in my opinion. But it's rude to impress your faith on others unsolicited, and it's downright unprofessional and borderline disgusting when it's in the context of "saving" an employee because you disagree with a lifestyle that has absolutely nothing to do with said employee's ability to do his job. This isn't a matter of whether I agree with Dungy's definition of morality -- though I vehemently disagree with it. It's a matter of professional ethics. It's not Dungy's place to impose his values on an employee. Nor is it wise to publicly condemn a demographic of the business which has made Dungy millions.

It's beyond me why Dungy has largely gotten a pass on this matter, especially as the country keeps trending towards embracing diversity, despite the amount of good vibrations he's been able to foster with the media. If Terrell Owens or, worse, Al Davis were to publicly take Dungy's stance on homosexuality, the vilification wagon wouldn't be able to arrive quickly enough.

Being a role model is obviously important to Dungy, and I respect that. But there's a vast difference between being a role model and being a missionary. Being a role model is about inspiring young people to do great things with their lives. Being a missionary is about spreading the "good" word and converting the masses to your way of thinking. While Dungy may be a great guy, it's obvious which one of the two he leans closer towards. The problem? Maybe the "blasphemous" don't want to hear it.

Tony Dungy, Despite What You May Be Told, Is Not Perfect originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:57:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>tonydungyTom MantzouranisMon, 12 Jan 2009 18:57:00 EST The Lions Have Bottomed Out, Now an Intervention Is in Orderhttp://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/29/the-lions-have-bottomed-out-now-an-intervention-is-in-order/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/29/the-lions-have-bottomed-out-now-an-intervention-is-in-order/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/29/the-lions-have-bottomed-out-now-an-intervention-is-in-order/#commentsFiled under: , , ,


The 0-16 Lions have officially done it. This is 0for08, FanHouse's eye on the Detroit Lions and their quest for a winless season.

It had to end this way.

That is, to say, if this is actually the end.

The Lions are addicted to bad football. I've tried coming up with a justification for so many years of substandard play as well as faulty personnel moves on and off the field, and I've come to the conclusion that they're simply addicts. It doesn't make them bad people, it simply means that they've embraced what we deem destructive as suitable to their way of life. They are a gigantic failure of an organization comprised of hundreds of individual enablers.

This isn't to trivialize or poke fun at addictions of a much more serious nature -- addictions come in all shapes and sizes, from manageable to fatal, from heroin to Starbucks. This is a unique variety, and the Lions are deep in it. Those close to the team, as is always the case with addiction, have suffered the most, and they've tried all they could -- walkouts, websites, effigies -- to pull the Lions out of their hole. But the thing about addicts is that they have to recognize their problem, and that only usually comes when they've bottomed out, when they've fallen so far that they have to choose to embrace recovery.

As the first team to finish a season 0-16, it seems obvious that this Lions era has officially bottomed out. But do they think so?


The fact that owner William Clay Ford intends to keep interim general manager Martin Mayhew and COO Tom Lewand, Matt Millen's old right-hand men and the "braintrust" of the organization since Millen's firing, at the top of the hierarchy seems to indicate that the answer is "no." While Rod Marinelli has been fired, he is just a personification of the problem. The only way to fix this organization is to tear it down, and that starts (and almost ends) with the team's decision-makers at the top.

That this isn't apparently an option is the sign of continued denial, not newfound acceptance.

And so the Lions will continue to toil away. They'll continue to promise that they've changed (firing Marinelli, drafting a shiny new toy with their first-overall pick), before stealing your television and pawning it off on the boardwalk for some quick cash. There will be a holding pattern of false hope and disillusionment.

There's another drastic move made by those who love an addict when it becomes obvious that they refuse to help themselves -- an intervention. At this point, it seems the only way the Lions will approach genuine change in William Clay Ford's lifetime. While Ford may sadly not be long for this world, and his son appears to have at least some semblance of common sense about the state of the franchise, the long-suffering beloveds of this franchise shouldn't have to suffer another day pining for a brighter tomorrow.

Roger Goodell has already set a precedent for getting involved in the otherwise in-house matters of another team when he interjected himself into the Jets-Favre-Packers triangle last summer. He did that because he saw a situation that was threatening the integrity of both franchises, one of its most famous players, and the league itself. This situation also threatens the integrity of a franchise (one with a valuable commodity the league has an interest in protecting, in Detroit's annual Thanksgiving game) and the league. The Lions have transcended sports and become a pop culture punchline at large, and it's not good for anyone for the league to have, ostensibly, 31 franchises.


Goodell can't force anything on the Lions, but he can add his weighty opinion and strongarm the team into doing the right thing for the fanbase which has resisted an atrophied economy to continuously (until very recently, that is) show up to support a team that constantly disappoints it. But there's not much give left. If something isn't done soon to remedy the Lions, the addiction will count the Lions, a piece of the league, and the city of Detroit as its ultimate victims.

The Lions Have Bottomed Out, Now an Intervention Is in Order originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>0for08martinmayhewmattmillenrodmarinellirogergoodelltomlewandwilliamclayfordTom MantzouranisMon, 29 Dec 2008 09:00:00 EST Chris Johnson and the Curious Incident of the Towel Celebration That Didn't Get Finedhttp://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/26/chris-johnson-and-the-curious-incident-of-the-towel-celebration/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/26/chris-johnson-and-the-curious-incident-of-the-towel-celebration/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/26/chris-johnson-and-the-curious-incident-of-the-towel-celebration/#commentsFiled under: , , , , ,

Chris Johnson (and his wallet) have already met the wrath of Roger Goodell this year -- Johnson celebrated an early season touchdown by wailing on some bongos and got fined. It followed then, that he would get slapped with a similar monetary amount after pulling out a flag attached to his waist and waving it around during a touchdown celebration.

But he won't, and PFT found out why, after emailing NFL spokesman Greg Aiello:
"It was a towel that is legally part of his uniform," Aiello said. "There is not a violation of rules."

"Due to past inappropriate acts while on the ground," Aiello wrote, "the player demonstration guidelines were modified two years ago to prohibit celebratory actions while on the ground. So it's a blanket rule (not a snow-angel rule). You can't go the ground to celebrate a play."
Of course, this also explains why Wes Welker got stuck with a $10K fine for being creative. But more than that, it points out what a rigid, Spanish Inquisition style of discipline Goodell is taking with the NFL. The logical thing to do with touchdown celebrations is review them case by case -- although admittedly that leaves a lot more room to wiggle on the appeal process -- and just say "at your own risk of being fined."

Then, when something funny humorous, quick and original -- like bongo playing or snow angel making -- happens, it becomes a "no harm - no foul, let's move on" scenario. And when someone behaves stupidly, they get slapped with a fine. Hard to see how too many people would be upset by that.

Chris Johnson and the Curious Incident of the Towel Celebration That Didn't Get Fined originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:30:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>chris johnsonChrisJohnsonroger goodellRogerGoodellwes welkerWesWelkerWill BrinsonFri, 26 Dec 2008 16:30:00 EST Matt Lepsis Used Drugs on the Field and Then Retired (Because He Got High) to Preachhttp://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/26/matt-lepsis-used-drugs-on-the-field-and-then-retired-because-he/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/26/matt-lepsis-used-drugs-on-the-field-and-then-retired-because-he/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/26/matt-lepsis-used-drugs-on-the-field-and-then-retired-because-he/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

Matt Lepsis is a fairly forgettable football name. He suited up as a Denver Bronco for 10 years before retiring last season. And his biggest claim to fame was probably winning a Super Bowl ring. At least until recently, when he told the Colorado Springs Gazette that he did a bunch of drugs while he was playing football, only to leave the sport and follow a higher calling.
"For the first six games of the year, I was high," Lepsis said of the 2007 season.

[...] "The first thing I did when I woke up in the morning was get high, and I would try to stay that way all day long," said Lepsis, who won't say what drugs he used.

"I look back on it, and it was really foolish of me," Lepsis said. "There were definitely times when I wasn't even really there. I was physically there, but I was in another place mentally."
The scary part is that the NFL's drug testing didn't uncover Lepsis' problems with illegal substances. Oddly enough, he doesn't discuss exactly what drugs he was doing -- presumably the notion of being "high" would indicate marijuana but, according to what science says pot does to your body and brain, repetitively getting groped, grabbed, knocked around and pushed on the ground sounds pretty miserable.

The story in the Gazette immediately smells like a memoir of some sort, which has already been done by Jason Peters, but the good news is that he is in seminary, seeking to become a preacher. That, hopefully, should keep his message from being any sort of awkward public relations-filled fiasco. But that doesn't mean the media won't be all over this. And Roger Goodell's testing policies.

Via PFT

Matt Lepsis Used Drugs on the Field and Then Retired (Because He Got High) to Preach originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:30:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>jason petersJasonPetersmatt lepsisMattLepsisroger goodellRogerGoodellWill BrinsonFri, 26 Dec 2008 15:30:00 EST Wes Welker Gets Awesome Christmas Present: $10K Fine for Snow Angel Celebrationhttp://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/26/wes-welker-gets-awesome-christmas-present-10k-fine-for-snow-an/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/26/wes-welker-gets-awesome-christmas-present-10k-fine-for-snow-an/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/26/wes-welker-gets-awesome-christmas-present-10k-fine-for-snow-an/#commentsFiled under: , ,

So you know, the National Football League doesn't care what time of year it is. Okay? Got that? You do snow angels -- in the snow and on a football field of all places -- after a touchdown and you're going to get fined. Doesn't matter if Roger's supposed to be jolly for the season. And such is the case with Wes Welker, who just had to open up his purse for the NFL.
Welker said he wasn't sure if he would appeal, but he acknowledged his snow-angel-making days are over.

"It was a spur of the moment deal, and you can be sure that it won't happen again," Welker told Gasper.

Per NFL rules, players are not allowed to go to the ground for a touchdown celebration (unless it is a prayer). The official reason Welker was fined, the NFL confirmed today, was for "unsportsmanlike conduct for participation in an illegal demonstration by going to the ground."
Sadly, Welker's not insane "colorful" enough to do something stupid like change (or just create) to a religion that worships the Abominable Snowman and then try to appeal the suspension -- you best believe that Chad Javon would be all over that.

Of course, just because Welker complies wholeheartedly, well, that doesn't make the NFL fining people for doing snow angels or other colorful-yet-classy touchdown celebrations any less stupid.

Wes Welker Gets Awesome Christmas Present: $10K Fine for Snow Angel Celebration originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Fri, 26 Dec 2008 10:15:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>chad johnsonChadJohnsonroger goodellRogerGoodellwes welkerWesWelkerWill BrinsonFri, 26 Dec 2008 10:15:00 EST Tom Coughlin Might Be Reversing His Stance on Playing Time During Week 17http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/24/tom-coughlin-might-be-reversing-his-stringent-stance-on-playing/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/24/tom-coughlin-might-be-reversing-his-stringent-stance-on-playing/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/24/tom-coughlin-might-be-reversing-his-stringent-stance-on-playing/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , ,

It's entirely arguable that the way the New York Giants played in Week 17 against the Patriots, despite losing, propelled them into the postseason and eventually to a Super Bowl win.

Of course, you could also argue that such a discussion is pointless. Whatever. My main point is that Tom Coughlin typically -- as he wrote in a book -- does not believe in resting players in the final week of the season if there's nothing at stake.
"It is a difficult decision," Coughlin wrote after noting that many NFL coaches bench their stars in similar situations. "It becomes clear that the media and fans care more about a playoff game and therefore don't want our first-teamers to play. But I feel differently."
Naturally, then, you would expect to see every single Giant -- including Justin Tuck and Brandon Jacobs, both recently banged up -- playing full games against the Vikings this Sunday. Or perhaps not; it appears, judging by the somewhat hemming nature of a recent statement to the media, that Coughlin might have changed his tune.
"My answer to all of your questions will be that in conjunction with the medical people and with the idea of improving our game, having individuals perform at a higher level than we did in the last game, which is always our theme, we will do the best thing for our football team," Coughlin said.
"What's best for the Giants" and "Play every game like it's win or go home" are two entirely different statements. And while Coughlin isn't the type of guy to go back on his word, I don't think, he would be doing exactly that if the Giants don't pull out all the stops to beat the Vikings on Sunday.

Of course the most intriguing aspect of that game is that the Bears need a Giants win in order to have a shot at the playoffs ... and considering the broad effect that this game will have on the NFC playoffs as a whole, it'll be interesting to see what Coughlin ultimately decideds to do.

It's also interesting to remember that playing his full team against the Pats last year gave them valuable experience in Phoenix; it would be incredibly ironic if the Giants sat players against the Vikings and then later got booted from the playoffs by Minnesota.

Tom Coughlin Might Be Reversing His Stance on Playing Time During Week 17 originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 24 Dec 2008 02:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>brandon jacobsBrandonJacobsjustin tuckJustinTucktom coughlinTomCoughlinWill BrinsonWed, 24 Dec 2008 02:00:00 EST Refs in the Hood: An NFL FanHouse Roundtable on Instant Replay Officiatinghttp://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/16/refs-in-the-hood-an-nfl-fanhouse-roundtable-on-instant-replay-o/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/16/refs-in-the-hood-an-nfl-fanhouse-roundtable-on-instant-replay-o/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/16/refs-in-the-hood-an-nfl-fanhouse-roundtable-on-instant-replay-o/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , ,


As I mentioned in the Zebra Report, the controversial ending to the Steelers/Ravens game from this past weekend has caused NFL officiating and their use of replay to come under fire, not to mention the overall knowledge of NFL referees and if they should be asking for help on rules interpretation when under the replay hood. We NFL 'Housers figured we'd have a little discussion on the matter.

Bruce Ciskie: ProFootballTalk speculates that Walt Coleman didn't understand the rule on the Holmes "touchdown" in Baltimore on Sunday.

Mike Florio also cites the Steelers-Chargers finish and the "intentional grounding" on Aaron Rodgers against the Vikings as other examples of officials possibly not understanding rules. Obviously, the Rodgers play wasn't reviewable, but the other two were. When a referee goes under the hood, can he ask the booth what a specific rule is? I mean, I've seen the rulebook and I know it's insane. I've taken the NCAA officiating exam and done horribly at it, so it's hard for me to expect a human being to know every rule at all times.

Snyder: I have no idea, but I would assume they can ask about rules. Why wouldn't they be able to? You'd hope the experienced official up above would have a rulebook handy and they'd get it right. They aren't the ones on the field with their heads spinning on every play.

Tom Mantzouranis: But the rules about a reception in the end zone should be known by every NFL referee, player, and coach. I always thought the same rules applied as a carry -- no matter where the player's body is, it's where the ball is that matters.

Ciskie: Oh, I don't dispute that, Tom.

But I also don't dispute that there are human beings involved.

I think the big problem here is that the standard of "indisputable visual evidence" has been destroyed. There was an inexplicably bad replay decision in the Division II game Saturday where a call was overturned based on what was obviously a hunch and not the evidence available from the camera angles.

This isn't always the case, but it seems to be happening more often than in the past.

Snyder: Let's focus our discussion on the level of scrutiny, which is currently referred to as "indisputable visual evidence." Is that too much? Shouldn't an official be able to simply judge what call is correct without having to deal with the word "indisputable?" After all, a common fan's dispute of a call doesn't really mean that much when compared to an official with tons of NFL experience. It's like a member of a jury questioning the judgment of an expert witness' testimony. So maybe they should change the terminology?

Basically, is the current system working as it should, does it need to be tweaked, or should replay be outlawed altogether?

Ciskie: What bugs me is when a reasonable standard like "indisputable visual evidence" becomes a whole lot less than that. There's no way Walt Coleman saw indisputable visual evidence that the football was across the plane of the goal line, because that evidence doesn't exist.

I'm not as against replay as I once was, but the system they use in the NFL is just stupid. I understand why you let the referee make the final call, but I don't think it is effective anymore. The NHL system is much better, not because it sometimes takes a phone call to Toronto to decide a crucial call, but because people with full access to all angles of a play on huge TVs -- along with a rulebook available to check any necessary interpretations -- are making the decision.

I have Center Ice, meaning I watch a TON of games, and I can't remember the last time a ruling came down on a reviewed play that was anywhere near this controversial.

Either Coleman didn't understand the rule, or he majorly effed up. In either instance, that's more evidence that someone else should be conducting the reviews and making the final determination. As proven in the college game I referenced above, that doesn't solve all your problems, but maybe it would get us back to where the term "indisputable visual evidence" actually means something.

Ryan Wilson: I'm quite certain no one will believe me [Editor's note: He's a Steelers fan], but that's no different than any other day. So here goes: when I saw the play live I thought it was a touchdown because Santonio Holmes was standing in the end zone. Usually when guys are standing in the end zone, I just figured they've scored. Of course, Holmes was falling back towards the field and the officials ruled he was down at the two-inch line, so that sorta muddied things.

I was screaming for the mysterious "guys in the booth" to buzz down for a replay, and after seeing the down-the-line angle, I was pretty sure Holmes had scored. The aerial view offered more proof, but it's important to remember that that angle wasn't directly over the goal line (it appeared to be coming from the playing field, which would make it seem like Holmes was clearly in the end zone when he actually may not have been). That said, the first angle was enough for me, although I admit to being shocked that Coleman overruled the call on the field.

More stuff nobody will believe: if the Ravens had scored on a such a play I would've been fine with the officials giving them six points. Plus, as Ray Lewis pointed out, Baltimore didn't win or lose the game on that play. For health reasons, I agree.

Oh, and to answer Snyder's original question: I tend to agree with Mike Pereira, who says it's more important to get the call right, than to adhere to the "indisputable evidence" meme.

Snyder: I'll add that "just get it right," no matter how, is pretty much the officiating mantra from pee wee leagues all the way through the NFL. I always firmly believe the end result of getting the call right is the most important thing. In this situation, I happen to believe that for one about one nanosecond, Holmes had possession of the ball while breaking the plane.

Again, maybe they simply need to revisit the terminology being passed along to the public in regards to the semantics of "indisputable visual evidence."

Adam Gretz: It seems there's still quite a bit of confusion as to what the rule is. This is what I can find on the internets as to what the rule is in that situation: "Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player." [Editor's note: That's definitely not the rule. I guess we actually can't believe everything we read on the internet after all!]

Is this accurate? If so, the debate is over. If it's not -- and I don't know if it is -- then we're probably going to be hearing about this for quite a while.

That said, my first reaction was, "that's probably not a touchdown" and after I saw the replay I said, "There's no way they overturn that," and I was already screaming at my TV "YOU BETTER GO FOR THE WIN, TOMLIN!!!!!!" So, naturally, I was surprised to see the touchdown signal. [Editor's note: Yep, another Steelers fan]

Of course, as I said in the Torry Holt post, I'm not a fan of fans, media, teams, players -- whoever -- pointing the finger at the refs for losses. The Ravens still allowed the Steelers to drive 92 yards with the game on the line -- in Baltimore -- after failing to take advantage of the field position battle they were dominating throughout the game.

Chris Burke: There's no question in my mind that the problem is with that term: "Indisputable visual evidence."

I mean, say Coleman looks at the replay there, sees the blimp view that looks a lot like a touchdown, sees the sideline view that shows his feet down and the ball very possibly touching the plane. Hypothetically, let's just imagine at that point that Coleman is underneath the replay hood thinking "I'm 99% sure that he scored a touchdown." By the current rules, yes I suppose he got it wrong -- 99% is not indisputable visual evidence. But, as a ref, isn't he at least somewhat obligated to make the call he thinks is the correct call, regardless of the terminology?

I'm not sure what the perfect system is. I've seen the college replay system botch a lot of reviews, and I despise the NHL system where every review is conducted by someone at the league office in Toronto and the result phoned in. That said, I'd prefer the college system to the one that the NFL uses now -- I'm not even sure it's fair to put the ref in that situation when there are a few guys up in the replay booth with a bunch of TVs. All they have to do now is buzz down for a questionable call, so you may as well put them to work.

This would probably drag the review process out even further, but maybe the official that makes the call on the field should go watch the replay with the head ref. That way, they can compare what was witnessed live with the video evidence to determine if it's "indisputable."

Sportz Assassin: I like the challenge system the NFL has. I understand that we need to get the calls right, but I don't like that college football can review every play. I remember the UNC-Notre Dame game where the energy was sucked out of the building when they kept reviewing plays in the final minutes. Leaving it up to the coaches challenges, and getting the big missed calls in the final two minutes properly reversed, is fine by me.

However, I don't like the fact that the referee goes in a tent and watches a TV replay of what happened. Why can't there be a replay booth where a replay official makes the calls? I don't like the NHL or MLB deal where somebody sits in a office in Toronto/New York and makes every call in every game, either. There is no reason the NFL can't just have a replay official at each game who makes the final determination on his own. I mean, millions of people are sitting in front of huge HDTVs that are more equipped to make the proper call than a referee looking into a small hood.

Also, why is there not a camera that is always positioned on both sides of the goal line?

Josh Alper: Indisputable visual evidence always hits me the same way as reasonable doubt. I was on a jury once and there was more than a week of deliberations toward a verdict because a couple of people found that the doubts held by the other 10 weren't reasonable. I was one of the 10 who felt that it was, but certainly understand how what's reasonable for one person can be unreasonable for another.

I think the word indisputable works the same way. The word sounds quite definitive but when you're talking about one man's judgment, it isn't. The man doing the looking is a NFL referee, experienced and in charge of both a staff and a very valuable asset. If he sees something and believes something, he's not going to sit there and think about what someone else might be thinking. In short, if he believes it, it's indisputable to the only person whose opinion matters.

I've never really had an issue with the system. Calls are still wrong, no one seems to understand exactly what can and can't be reviewed and too many refs do a poor job of explaining why they make particular rulings. But I do think they get more calls right at the end of the day which should be what ultimately matters the most.

Ciskie: I don't think there's a good way to change the standard from "indisputable visual evidence." The "50 guys in a room" standard is a good one. Bottom line is that you should see something on the tape that makes it perfectly evident what really happened on the play. If you don't see that, you don't overturn the call.

As much as I'd love for "common sense" to be the ultimate standard, not enough people possess this important quality.

Snyder: I tend to agree that there isn't a great way to tweak the system. I think it does the job it's intended to do well over 90 percent of the time. If the general public doesn't think evidence is indisputable, well, who really cares? What matters are the trained and qualified eyes, and those are the people viewing the replays.

One idea I personally liked was Burke's idea of having the official(s) involved in the call going to watch the replay with the referee. I'm sure there are downfalls -- such as the old "too many cooks in the kitchen" cliche -- but I think it would be helpful for the guy who made the original call to watch along with the white hat. He could then easily say something like, "see that's what I thought I saw, but now that I see it slowed down it appears I was wrong." Or the opposite. He could watch the slow-motion replay and have it reaffirm what he saw in real speed.

Another possible downfall could be a disagreement in interpretation, but that is easily solved. The final word rests with the referee, for he is the boss. The official next to him is merely around for input. I also think this would safeguard against errors when the referee announces the verdict. When more heads are put together, the chances of errors -- like the Troy Polamalu touchdown/non-touchdown -- are drastically diminished.

So what does the public think? Is replay flawed, and if so, can it be fixed? Is the level of scrutiny properly in place, or is it unreasonable?

Refs in the Hood: An NFL FanHouse Roundtable on Instant Replay Officiating originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:30:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>mike floriomike pereiraMikeFlorioMikePereiraray lewisRayLewissantonio holmesSantonioHolmestorry holtTorryHoltwalt colemanWaltColemanzebra reportZebraReportMatt SnyderTue, 16 Dec 2008 15:30:00 EST Lions Season Summed Up in 18 Seconds With Fumble and Two Sacks to Seal Loss to Vikingshttp://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/07/lions-season-summed-up-in-18-seconds-with-fumble-and-two-sacks-t/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/07/lions-season-summed-up-in-18-seconds-with-fumble-and-two-sacks-t/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/07/lions-season-summed-up-in-18-seconds-with-fumble-and-two-sacks-t/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , ,

The 0-11 Lions have many believing that a winless season is not only possible, but probable. This is 0for08, FanHouse's eye on the Detroit Lions and their quest for a winless season.

Cheesy network slogans are always fun (like "Season on a Brink"). So are microcosmic - macrocosmic examples in life. For instance, to end the Detroit Lions' 13th loss of the season on Sunday, here's how the final two plays (following a Minnesota field goal which created a four-point lead) unfolded:

Daunte Culpepper drops back, gets ready to unleash a 60-yard hail mary, gets sacked, fumbles, Lions recover, Daunte's arm hangs by a string. Immediately after that, Drew Henson (I wish I was joking) comes in to take a hail mary snap himself with two seconds left, drops back, gets ready to unleash that cannon of an arm he has and ... summarily gets sacked to end the game.

In other words, it was the perfect ending for the Detroit Lions, if the purpose of said ending was to summarize their 2008 season in a span of 18 seconds or less. And that's what it did -- even though, as Sam Rosen and Tim Ryan pointed out, the Lions have legitimately looked like they care about winning recently.

Sure, they're still 0-13 now, and sure, the odds continue to look better and better that they will go completely winless this season, and sure, at this point, we're all really pulling for it, even if it means having to watch three weeks of Henson wasting precious snaps of Calvin Johnson's career, but goshdarnit, they're trying.

But that, as you know if you watched the final 18 seconds of that Minnesota debacle, is the beauty of the trainwreck that Matt Millen assembled in Detroit: no matter how hard they want to win, or hard they try to win, they can't help but fail. And that, while sad and pathetic in it's own right, is also kind of beautiful in a tragic and sickening way.

Lions Season Summed Up in 18 Seconds With Fumble and Two Sacks to Seal Loss to Vikings originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:17:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>0for08daunte culpepperDaunteCulpepperdrew hensonDrewHensonmatt millenMattMillenWill BrinsonSun, 07 Dec 2008 16:17:00 EST FanHouse's Michael David Smith Talks Bears With 670 the Score in Chicagohttp://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/05/fanhouses-michael-david-smith-talks-bears-with-670-the-score-in/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/05/fanhouses-michael-david-smith-talks-bears-with-670-the-score-in/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/05/fanhouses-michael-david-smith-talks-bears-with-670-the-score-in/#commentsFiled under: , ,

Yesterday, MDS opined on whether the Bears will need to win out to make the playoffs in the NFC North, which features a trio of mediocre teams firmly stuck to the bottom of the playoff hunt shoe.

Thursday afternoon, he called in to chat with Mike Murphy of WSCR 670 the Score in Chicago about his theory on the Bears' playoff chances, as well as other matters relating to Chicago's favorite sons and the NFL as a whole.

Let the smooth wisdom of MDS ease you into the weekend by listening to his appearance below.

MDS on WSCR

FanHouse's Michael David Smith Talks Bears With 670 the Score in Chicago originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:30:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Tom MantzouranisFri, 05 Dec 2008 20:30:00 EST Brandon Jacobs Talks About Carrying a Gun: Come in My House and 'I Am Going to Kill You'http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/03/brandon-jacobs-talks-about-carrying-a-gun-come-in-my-house-and/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/03/brandon-jacobs-talks-about-carrying-a-gun-come-in-my-house-and/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/03/brandon-jacobs-talks-about-carrying-a-gun-come-in-my-house-and/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

Anyone remotely associated with the New York Giants is, in the wake of the Plaxico Burress arrest and suspension, being questioned about their stance on guns and whether or not it's acceptable for NFL players to carry said firearms.

Brandon Jacobs is no different. However, he has a pretty spicy -- albeit fair -- response as to whether or not he should be holding onto a gun in his own home.
"All I will say is in the streets for me, there is no need for it," running back Brandon Jacobs said of carrying a gun. "But if you come in between that door frame of my home, I am going to kill you. Hands down."

When asked if he owns a gun, Jacobs added, "Listen to the words that are coming out of my mouth," Jacobs said. "If you come between the door. ... If I am out in the streets, I don't have anything to do with that. But at my house, where I have my wife and son there ..."
Look, there's nothing awesome about shooting another human being. Ever. But Jacobs has a point, constitutional interpretation be damned: he is allowed to own a gun in the privacy of his home and he has the right to use it in order to protect his family.

That doesn't make volunteering his willingness to kill an intruder any smarter ... actually, on second thought, yes it does. I don't think that Sean Taylor flexing his private muscles would have kept him any safer. I do, however, think that a potential media-driven warning probably serves to push future violators away from his private property.

Brandon Jacobs Talks About Carrying a Gun: Come in My House and 'I Am Going to Kill You' originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 03 Dec 2008 01:15:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>brandon jacobsBrandonJacobsplaxico burressPlaxicoBurresssean taylorSeanTaylorWill BrinsonWed, 03 Dec 2008 01:15:00 EST 'Harris Smith' Is Already on the List of Jerseys You Cannot Purchase From NFL.comhttp://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/02/harris-smith-is-already-on-the-list-of-jerseys-you-cannot-purc/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/02/harris-smith-is-already-on-the-list-of-jerseys-you-cannot-purc/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/02/harris-smith-is-already-on-the-list-of-jerseys-you-cannot-purc/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,


NFL.com is widely known for some pretty stringent practices regarding what customized jerseys it will allow to be made. For instance, you most certainly cannot make a "Ron Mexico" jersey. No how, no way.

The newest name on the computer's banned list? "Harris Smith," Plaxico Burress' Applebee's alias (and an early runner for "2009's Most Widely Abused Fantasy Football Team Name"). At least that's what NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told Central Main Sports in response to their "Why can we still purchase a Rae Carruth jersey?" question.
"There are a number of jerseys that fans may not order online, including the ones you cite below (Michael Vick, Harris Smith, Ron Mexico, Lawrence Phillips). Those names are blocked immediately by a computer program which (unfortunately) is not all inclusive and may miss names from time to time. So a fan could type in names on the screen which would make it appear that he/she could purchase it. However, if a fan followed through with an order and attempted to purchase the jersey of a player like you named, we would catch it manually and would not make the jersey or ship the order. The fan would receive a notice that the order would not be fulfilled. Bottom line, you would not be shipped a jersey with the names you cited (Rae Carruth, Art Schlichter, OJ Simpson)."
So, yeah, the NFL is pretty lame AND predictable. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't really matter whatsoever if you want to put a convicted criminal or a fake herpes name on the back of your jersey that costs $200 freaking dollars to order. And I'm not even the poor, real Harris Smith who just wants a No. 17 Giants jersey.

'Harris Smith' Is Already on the List of Jerseys You Cannot Purchase From NFL.com originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:45:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>art schlichterArtSchlichterharris smithHarrisSmithlawrence phillipsLawrencePhillipsmichael vickMichaelVickoj simpsonOjSimpsonplaxico burressPlaxicoBurressrae carruthRaeCarruthroger goodellRogerGoodellron mexicoRonMexicoWill BrinsonTue, 02 Dec 2008 14:45:00 EST Giants Wideout Steve Smith Was Robbed Last Week, Which May Explain Plax's Gunhttp://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/02/steve-smith-giants-wideout-was-robbed-last-week-which-may-exp/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/02/steve-smith-giants-wideout-was-robbed-last-week-which-may-exp/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/12/02/steve-smith-giants-wideout-was-robbed-last-week-which-may-exp/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

Despite Drew Rosenhaus' ridiculous comparison (Sean Taylor : Plaxico Burress) during Monday Night Football last evening, there is certainly, as has been noted numerous times this year, a significant stigma revolving around guns, violence and professional football players.


Plax was the latest episode and one that left us wondering "Hey, man, why are you carrying a loaded gun into a nightclub?" The initial answer seemed to be "stupidity." But it turns out that maybe Burress had a legitimate reason to fear for his safety, considering that his teammate and fellow wide receiver Steve Smith was robbed at gun point recently.
Smith went out with friends on the night of Monday, Nov. 24, the day after the Giants beat the Cardinals in Arizona. He arrived home early last Tuesday morning - the Giants had the day off - and he was held up, apparently by the driver who took him to his home in a gated community in Clifton, N.J., according to a league source.

Shortly after being dropped off, Smith had a gun pointed to his head and was ordered to give up his jewelry and cash, which he did. The assailant then left the scene, and Smith called police.
Police have said that Smith doesn't own a gun ... but that doesn't mean there's not an easy, logical leap to figure out why Plaxico might be carrying one. Additionally, it's beyond terrifying to realize that his own driver was the one that robbed him.

Whether or not it was a personal hire or someone farmed out from a company is an entirely different issue, but it's still scarily similar to the whole deal in Vegas with Pacman Jones and his bodyguard in that it seems to be becoming increasingly difficult for these athletes to even know whom to trust.

Giants Wideout Steve Smith Was Robbed Last Week, Which May Explain Plax's Gun originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:49:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>adam jonesAdamJonesDrew RosenhausDrewRosenhauspacman jonesPacmanJonesPlaxico BurressPlaxicoBurressSean TaylorSeanTaylorSteve SmithSteveSmithWill BrinsonTue, 02 Dec 2008 12:49:00 EST A Year After Boom King, NFLers Say: 'We Are Targets' and They 'Don't Know What Safe Is'http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/11/20/a-year-after-boom-king-nflers-say-we-are-targets-and-they-d/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/11/20/a-year-after-boom-king-nflers-say-we-are-targets-and-they-d/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/11/20/a-year-after-boom-king-nflers-say-we-are-targets-and-they-d/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , ,

There's a well chronicled history of violence in the NFL -- it is, after all, a very dangerous sport. But there's also a heavy awareness of the even darker violent side of professional football off the field. Numerous players have been accosted, robbed, beaten and even killed in usually completely unnecessary acts of violence.

And, based on Dave Fleming's Mag article surrounding this violence, you would be amazed at how succinctly aware and terrified many players are with regards to potential intrusions on their private lives, almost a year after the Sean Taylor tragedy.
"We are targets," says Buccaneers corner Ronde Barber. "We need to be aware of that everywhere we go."

[...] "I don't think the NFL is gonna ever be the same," says [Clinton] Portis. "As a football player, Sean thrived on instilling fear in people on the field. Then you wake up in the middle of the night, and you hear something rattling around in your house, and in a split second-now the fear is in you."

[...]Fred Taylor, meanwhile, has equipped his Jacksonville home with every conceivable security apparatus. "I still don't think I have enough," he says. "Who knows what's enough? I wouldn't say I'm safe.

"I don't know what safe is."
In other words, yes, these gentlemen that are idolized for their on-field bravery and relentless drive and attack are, pardon the cheddar, shrouded in fear when roaming the outside world. But that's because Barber is absolutely spot on -- as famous celebrities with an even more insane fan base that sometimes come from questionable backgrounds, NFL players have the ideal recipe to become targets for people seeking to gain from their fame or try and rebel against it.

I say that, of course, completely lacking in any understanding why people would react in a seemingly random and violent nature towards athletes; but the fact remains that they do.

And even though Roger Goodell (as Fleming notes) mentioned that there needs to be something done to change the landscape, it's a tough road to hoe. And seeing the violence suddenly ended would be even more surprising than finding out about how much fear these stars live in.

A Year After Boom King, NFLers Say: 'We Are Targets' and They 'Don't Know What Safe Is' originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:15:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>clinton portisClintonPortisfred taylorFredTaylorroger goodellRogerGoodellronde barberRondeBarberSean TaylorSeanTaylorWill BrinsonThu, 20 Nov 2008 01:15:00 EST ESPN, Barack Obama and John McCain ... Talkin' Bout Politics in This Craa-azy Tooownhttp://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/11/03/espn-barack-obama-and-john-mccain-talkin-bout-politics-in/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/11/03/espn-barack-obama-and-john-mccain-talkin-bout-politics-in/http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/11/03/espn-barack-obama-and-john-mccain-talkin-bout-politics-in/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,


Chris Berman. Barack Obama. John McCain. Tony Kornheiser. All together on the Monday Night Football halftime show. I, for one, don't see how any of us can possibly lose.

Barack came out hot talking about humility and then was asked a "If you could change one thing about sports, what would it be?" by Berman ... and he came with "KILL THE BCS!" Actually, he said we need a playoff, but he might have just pulled by swing vote with that statement right there.

Boomer naturally asked him about the Bears ... oh no. Wait. He only asked two questions. Then he said "Go Bears!". It was, however, a nice touch for Barack to tell everyone to vote regardless of who you vote for; I don't actually believe him, but whatever.

ESPN might claim that they're not biased, but I find it very difficult to believe that they're not Pro-Bama if they're going to run a SAVED BY ZERO ad in between the candidates. But then again, when you see McCain's answers to two simple questions, you realize it might not matter.

"Significant action to spread the abuse and use of performance enhancing substances." Yes, that's right. McCain wants to meddle in the steroids talk. While that's noble, Senator, you'll never guess who else wanted to do that. And then Johnny Mac decided to roll with a "He ... could ... go ... all ... the ... way ... to the White House!" in response to Boomer asking him "What's the one thing you want voters to think about you tomorrow?"

At least it can't be said that he ... hasn't ... lost ... total ... touch ... with the youth of this country! Just kidding. Kind of -- I'm noted for favoring the right, so I shouldn't really be dogging McCain that much, but frankly, if you compare the two interviews -- and ESPN wasn't biased at all -- it's pretty obvious why most people think that Barack is going to win the election tomorrow. Some sort of microcosm thing I would reckon.

But, hey, it doesn't really matter -- if the Redskins can pull off a Dubya tonight, McCain is already guaranteed the election.

ESPN, Barack Obama and John McCain ... Talkin' Bout Politics in This Craa-azy Tooown originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Mon, 03 Nov 2008 22:30:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Barack ObamaBarackObamaChris BermanChrisBermanJohn McCainJohnMccainWill BrinsonMon, 03 Nov 2008 22:30:00 EST