As I wrote previously, ESPN page 2 writer, Paul Lukas, recently proposed a contest to design the uniforms for Oklahoma City’s yet unnamed NBA basketball franchise. I immedially whipped up a concept based on a little spoof piece I had done a few days earlier. The results were posted to ESPN.com today along with a nice mention of my entry. You can see it and the full list here in Lukas’s column:
ESPN is beating to death the idea that the Packers should bench Brett Favre and look toward the future. I’m pretty sure they just copy and paste this line into each week’s Power Rankings and Morning After columns:
Regardless of whether Brett Favre comes back next year, it’s time for Aaron Rodgers to get some playing time, sort of like what the Browns are doing with Charlie Frye, giving him a series here and there. If he’s the future, Green Bay has to start preparing for it. With a loss at Philly on Sunday, the Packers (2-9) are assured their first losing season of the Favre era.
Are you kidding me? The Packers aren’t losing this year because of Favre. They’ve been competitive in every game this year – losing all but two by less than a touchdown. Favre has been his usual self playing with a ragtag group of second-tier talent. Much respect for Donald Driver getting it done every week despite being the only legitimate threat in the passing game. And the Gado is doing well despite being the fifth starting running back this season. The talent just isn’t there to push the Pack over the top in these close games. That said, benching Favre and getting Rogers some playing time is a worthless idea. What is the point of throwing Rogers out there surrounded by talent so deficient that even one of the greatest quarterbacks in the NFL history can’t win with?
Is that really the kind of experience we want him to get? Not to mention the idea that benching Favre however inconsequential to the season’s outcome would most assuredly hasten his retirement. This is the NFL, with a little luck on the injury front and maybe a couple of fresh faces and the Packers could be right in the thick of it again.
Well another Super Bowl has come and gone. Another game has passed that didn’t live up to the massive hype. Sure, after sitting through the defensive struggle of the first half of the game it did get interesting, but I still didn’t enjoy it as much as I would have liked.
For me, I think the biggest disappointment was the CBS broadcast coverage of the event. Everything about it felt contrived and out of style. From the personalities and attire of the broadcasters (Phil Simms and Greg Gumbel) who wore khaki pants, black blazers, white shirts, and shiny Regis-style pink ties; to the cheesy on-air graphics. Every part was a shadow of the show Fox put on for last year’s event. While fox is generally guilty of over doing the techno-metal robo-graphics theme, in general, their graphics are more modern and interesting. CBS, please stop using blue gradients. Seriously. And that is to say nothing of the on-air personalities on their crew—especially on the halftime studio show.
The other thing that bothered me was the feel of the game itself. I don’t know if it was the CBS coverage, the endless periphery, or something else, but the game just didn’t feel right. I think in general the Super Bowl pales in comparison to the conference championship games in delivering that gritty intensity of a do-or-die, a must win game. I just did not get that here.
Maybe it is because the Packers weren’t there. After all, there are fans of 31 teams that aren’t particularly happy with the outcome of every Super Bowl. Sour grapes, perhaps.