I'm glad to see that my match-ups for this weekend's Colts-Pats game got posted in time for rapid e-mailers to get a crack at them. The layout of the match-ups always poses a problem for the technicians in the office, a problem of "formatting," as they say. Actually I don't say it because I don't like to use a noun as a verb. Quite exciting actually. One of the computers blew and lots of little names were flung off the screen, onto the floor, where they were seen scurrying toward freedom. Andrew came through, though, and caught them all in his butterfly net.
So in honor of that dramatic event, I will present match-up complainers, uh, e-mailers first.
We move to the Patriots, who are becoming one of the most controversial superchamps in the modern era. Did they try to run up the score vs. Washington? Yes. Do I dislike it? Yes. How would I handle it? Don't know. Just let jayvee runners carry the ball once the score hit 38-0, I guess. My senior year at Columbia, we lost to Army, 67-12. In the last 10 minutes or so, the West Point guys were saying, "Don't give up, Columbia. We're not gonna pass any more." That made them even more hateful than usual. So I guess I'm arguing against myself at this point, right? Actually my sentiments are those of
And we move on to Boston in general and why it's called Beantown when they have a hell of a lot more beans in the Plains states. From
Eric appends this scary note: "Did you hear that scientists believe that redheads are disappearing?" Red heads, maybe, but not normal heads covered with red hair.
"When the Colts were doing the same thing in '04, not many media people wee slamming Peyton and Co. In fact they were glorifying them. What's the difference now with the Pats?" This comes from
The Colts had gone 2-2, going into that period, which brought their record to 5-3, and they had allowed 35, 27, 45 and 28 points in those last four games. So they had to be a little worried about their defense, right? They beat the Texans, 49-14, but their offense scored no fourth quarter points. Zero fourth quarter points for the offense again, in the next two blowouts, 41-10 over the Bears and 41-9 over the Lions. Their highest point total came in their next victory, 51-24 over the Titans, but Tennessee had scared them with 24 first quarter points, so they had to be a little geetchy, going into the fourth quarter. They led 41-10, and added 10 points in the period. You could say they ran it up, but you could also say that
Which leads us to the Hall, and who says we can't handle transitions?
On a much more modest scale, I mean much, much more modest,
Better O-line for the Cleveland Browns. Top flight receivers in
Here's my type of question:
And stepping forward, right arm raised in a Mussolini salute, comes our E-mailer of the Week,
"I remember the old 'stiff-arm' from years ago, but I thought that to be legal it had to be 'stiff.' Today
OK, Al, now think this through. Non-flexion of the arm would mean that a ball carrier would have to carry it alongside him, locked in a rigid position, like a club. Then, in order to execute a technically perfect stiff-arm, he would have to either raise it and swing it like a bat, or somehow draw it back and violently extend it, like a spear. Thus the analogy between football and warfare would be complete. Flexion is normal among limbed mammals. It's impossible to avoid. Yes, I think they are allowing more than they used to, in the area of the violent stiff arm. I remember seeing runners flagged for personal fouls in the old days, but not very recently. But you have to understand that these stiff arms do wonders to liven up the highlight shows and give announcers wider latitude for their brand of poetry. And after all, promotion is a big part of the picture, right?