Re: Excessive zeal?
- From: EricJapan <erictucson@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:48:52 -0800 (PST)
Did they send you the contact information about the right's holder's
representative that you can contact about the alleged infringement?
That is required under VeRO.
--
Joanne
stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth.milky-way.comhttp://members.tripod.com/~bernardschopen/
Cool! I found u again....
From CNNSI's Peter King:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/02/12/mmqb.tuesday/index.html
The Miami Dolphins are very quietly setting themselves up to be an
offseason power in the NFL. The waiving of quarterback Trent Green,
wide receiver Marty Booker and offensive tackle L.J. Shelton this week
added $9.9 million in savings to the 2008 salary-cap total, and helped
boost the Dolphins' cap number from $29 million to $40 million.
The Dolphins are now positioned to make a run at one of a number of in-
their-prime free agents -- linebacker Lance Briggs (27 next opening
day), cornerback Asante Samuel (27) or safety Gibril Wilson (26) -- as
well as having plenty of room to be mobile on draft day. The Dolphins
can sit with the No. 1 pick and take a quarterback of the future, such
as Boston College's Matt Ryan, or a defensive cornerstone, such as
lineman Chris Long of Virginia, or they can trade down for multiple
picks.
The money for Samuel and Briggs is going to be ridiculous. Samuel, who
put on a poor performance in the Super Bowl, is still likely to
command $11 million a year at a need position with so few good corners
slated to be unrestricted. Briggs will likely be at least an $8-
million-a-year catch. The trade-down prospect might be the toughest
part of this scenario, obviously. No one's clamoring to move up to No.
1, not with the prospect of paying the top pick a guaranteed $30
million.
Look for the Dolphins, with Bill Parcells running the show, to play
this thing close to the vest. You might hear some rumors out there
about what they're interested in doing, but the only one I place any
stock in right now is the one that NFL Network's Adam Schefter
reported on Sunday, something which I know to be about as true as any
draft-related rumor can be right now -- Miami is leaning toward making
Long the first pick if they don't deal it.
But with 74 days 'til the draft, that decision could shift four or
five ways by the time it really has to be made. I've said this before
-- the second season in the NFL is draft season, and fans in a lot of
markets like it more than they do the regular season. Never quite
figured that one out, but it's a fact.
Before I get to your e-mail, a cute story from last Thursday. Eli
Manning, still basking in the post-Super Bowl glow, was eating dinner
with fiancee Abby McGrew and center Shaun O'Hara at the famous Rao's
Restaurant in Harlem. Manning saw Yogi Berra there and went to his
table to say hello. He told Berra his dad was a huge fan, and he asked
how many championships Berra had won with the Yankees.
"Ten,'' Yogi said.
"Wow,'' Manning said. "I only have nine to go to catch you.''
Everyone in the tiny place joined Dee Dee Bridgewater (Glinda in The
Wiz) singing New York, New York. As Cindy Adams would say, only in New
York, kids, only in New York.
Email time:
WE'RE HAPPY WITH ZORN. From Dan Brown, of Evanston, Ill.: "Here's the
reason this 'Skins fan did not want to have Jim Fassel as a coach. At
his last job, he was fired by good friend Brian Billick, halfway
through the season, and if I remember correctly, it's because his
heart clearly wasn't in the job. The Ravens went on a great streak
afterwards and finished ahead of the Pats and the Colts in the
standings, thanks largely to an offensive resurgence -- Fassel's side
of the ball. I think an important measure of a coach is how the team
does after his departure. I'm no Norv Turner enthusiast, but since you
brought him up, both the Redskins and the Raiders were just as bad
without him as with him. [Tom] Coughlin's Giants have been to the
playoffs as many times in four years as Fassel's Giants did in seven,
and won a Super Bowl. Having seen the Redskins play Fassel's team
twice for seven years, I know what we'd be getting in Fassel, and I'd
rather roll the dice with Zorn.''
Fair enough. Dan, your sentiment is echoed throughout Redskin
territory, and I do not take it lightly. Three points I'd make. One,
the strength of the Fassel-Zorn marriage was going to be that Zorn
would have been able to mold and shape Jason Campbell with hours of
one-on-one work daily, something that a head coach really can't spent
that much time doing. Dan Snyder bought a great quarterback teacher,
and now he's asking the quarterback teacher to do another job. As I
wrote yesterday, I like Zorn a lot, but I'm not sure Zorn and TBA is a
better combo for the Washington offense than Fassel and Zorn.
Two, Fassel did not got whacked "because his heart clearly wasn't in
the job.'' He got whacked because the Ravens were underachieving on
offense by every measure. He was working with a quarterback, Steve
McNair, who wasn't experienced in the offense, having gotten to the
team in June, not February. The Ravens were 4-2 when he got fired and
went 9-1 down the stretch. Clearly the move did not hurt the team. But
it had nothing to do with Fassel going soft or lazy.
There's no question that was a black mark on him, and an obvious
question about his ability as a coach. But the Ravens never once in
nine years under Billick had a top-10 passing offense, so I don't
think you can pin the 2006 failure totally on Fassel. I'm not
absolving him of blame here at all. I just think there are reasons the
thing didn't work there, and they weren't all the fault of Fassel.
Three, the man coached seven years in what many people call the
toughest division in football, and he exited with a winning record
against the other three teams in the division. He's got to have some
ability as a coach and motivator that no one is giving his credit for.
It's a strange phenomenon, how Jim Fassel can't get a second chance.
ANOTHER COUNTRY HEARD FROM. From Jeffrey Law, of Millburn, N.J.:
"While I agree with you about Jim Fassel deserving another chance and
Jim Zorn making a better coordinator and mentor for Jason Campbell
than head coach, the Redskins' fans sentiment was due to Gregg
Williams being denied an opportunity. I don't think you lose anything
with Zorn as offensive coordinator and Gregg Williams as head coach.
While Williams did not take the Bills to the Super Bowl, its hard to
argue that Fassel had more success than Gregg Williams recently. He
made this a top 10 defense in three of the last four years It is not
going to be fun this season when the 90,000 at FedEx Field are
screaming "We want Gregg" and "Fire Vinny [Cerrato]" all season
long.''
RAY GUY'S CASE GETS SOME FEEDBACK. From Will Willis, of Lewisville,
Texas: "You write, 'I can't figure out why Guy keeps getting so much
pro-Hall sentiment.' It's actually pretty easy really, it's a
difference in philosophy. I'm one that thinks Canton holds the 'Hall
of Fame' rather than the 'Hall of Statistics Compilers' that many
voters apparently think it is. That's my view toward the baseball Hall
of Fame as well. That's not to say that statistics aren't useful in
the process, but they aren't everything.
"I'm 36, and I'm willing to bet that if you did a survey asking
football fans between the ages of 35-55, 'Who is the greatest punter
in NFL history?' you'll get 90 percent-plus answering Ray Guy. Maybe
'by the numbers' that is more perception than reality, but the fact is
you can't deny that perception. I'm also not saying that the Hall of
Fame should be a popularity vote, but at the same time the fame in the
name has to be about more than just stats. Ray Guy is synonymous with
punting, just like Bruce Sutter and Goose Gossage were synonymous with
being closers -- even if they weren't the stat compilers that the Lee
Smiths and Jeff Reardons of the world were.''
Will, our job isn't to poll fans and ask them who they think should be
in the Hall of Fame. Our job is to take a studious look at the
candidates and judge for ourselves. And by any measure other than the
height of his punts, my opinion is that a punter with the 62nd-best
average in history, and a punter who won fewer punting titles than
Jerrel Wilson, and a punter who averaged 44 yards a boot once in a 14-
year career does not measure up. Now, I'm one of 44 electors. It's
easy to override my opinion -- find 35 of the remaining 43 voters who
feel he is a Hall of Famer. This is the thing that I've told people
over the years who have decried my stand on several players -- like
Art Monk -- for several years. You think I'm the only one in the room
who isn't voting for Guy? There's obviously some significant
opposition to Guy or he'd be in by now.
GIVE ME PROOF, PLEASE. From Donnie Graves, of Richmond, Va.: "Once
again, Mr. King, you prove to your readers why writers shouldn't be
the sole voice heard when it comes to HOF voting. Ray Guy's 'numbers'
may seem normal, but take a look at the game tapes. He allowed the
Raiders to punt from the 40 and pin their opponents at the five
because of his hang time. Thirty-five net yards go down in books but
those of us who actually WATCHED these plays understand the impact Ray
Guy had on the game.''
I watched Ray Guy. He was a majestic punter. But are you sure -- I
mean, absolutely sure -- that he boxed in offenses inside the 10 more
than the other punters of his era? I'm not. These are the kinds of
things that might sound right, but I'd need proof to begin the process
of changing my mind on Guy. How do you know, for instance, that Guy
did this any more than the average punter of his day? You don't.
Paul Zimmerman, my colleague, recalls Guy as a player who boomed more
in the end zone than into the coffin corner. In the 11 years Guy
played that stats were kept on punts inside the 20, he had 210 punts
inside the 20, an average of 19 per season. In the NFL in 2007, there
were 22 punters who dropped more than 19 inside the 20.
SORRY. I WOULD RATHER WATCH THE FOOD NETWORK. From Jeremy, of Selden,
N.Y.: "Why no love for the Pro Bowl? You did not even mention the
score or anything. I for one DID watch the Pro Bowl and enjoyed it.
Even though there is no real reason for the game, it is still an NFL
football game. Everyone puts more focus on who gets voted into the
game, but then everyone complains about how bad or useless the game
is. I look forward to it every year. It's nice to watch a game that
does not have huge implications and just enjoy it. Thank you.''
You must not be alone, Jeremy, because I just saw Fox issue a release
saying more people watched the Pro Bowl than watched the NBA Finals
last year. I don't get it. I don't watch either, but to me the Pro
Bowl is a game no player really wants to play, and a competitive
venture with players trying at some level well below 100 percent has
no value to me.
HE LIKES HIS GRAPES SOUR. From Pete, of Boston: "Pats fan here. Wanted
to bring up a few points from the Super Bowl. First, the site
giantscheated.com has a photo breakdown of the David Tyree catch, and
it shows multiple holds and illegal hands to the face by the Giants O-
linemen, right in the face of officials. I know that in a game of this
magnitude, those calls often get passed over, but should something
have been called? Also ... the officials illegally stopped the clock
on the Giants' final drive, after a running play. This stoppage of the
clock gave them an extra 50 seconds, which allowed them to drive for
the winning touchdown. Your thoughts on these two issues? Was the
interpretation of the clock stoppage correct? Should the holding and
hands to the face have been called?''
Regarding the extra time, the officials have the ability on a play
that results in a close call for a first down to stop the clock and
decide whether to call for a measurement. I've heard about "the extra
50 seconds'' thing for the past few days, but it's a phony claim. Even
if the officials were not consulting on whether to call for a
measurement on the close call, the Giants, with 1:34 left in the game,
had three three timeouts remaining. Surely they would not have let the
clock run for all that time before calling a timeout ... not to
mention the fact that 50 seconds could not run off the clock because
the play clock would have superseded that and resulted in a delay-of-
game call -- a call, again, that the Giants would never have allowed
to happen.
Now for the hands-to-the-face and holding calls. I saw Shaun O'Hara
with his hand near and under the facemask of Richard Seymour on the
slow-motion video replay of the game on NFL Network the other night,
because the call had been brought to my attention. But I can't say
that I saw him jerking the facemask or shoving his hands up into
Seymour's face in a way that would have obviously meant a facemask or
hands-to-the-face call.
It does not put your fandom in the best light when you grab on to
uninformed and highly questionable appeals at the end of a game your
team did not play well enough to win.
HERE'S THE ADDRESS. From Pablo Bueno, of Houston: "Peter, is there
anything that we, as fans, can do to save Inside the NFL, or is it
already too late? I agree with Bob Costas: killing it was a bone-
headed decision.''
You can try. Write to HBO Sports, 1100 Avenue of the Americas, New
York, NY 10036. Good luck.
CLOSE, BUT NO CIGAR. From Doug MacPherson, of Toronto: "Peter, not
that we Cowboy fans (me since they signed Tony Dorsett) are sensitive,
but shouldn't the 1991-95 Cowboys at 71-20 (.788) be in the middle of
your all-time winning percentage chart? The team from this era always
seems to be overlooked. Any ideas why?''
The Cowboys from 1991-95 were 71-22, and that winning percentage (.
763) would not have beaten any of the teams I listed.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Excessive zeal?
- From: TyMeDwn1st
- Re: Excessive zeal?
- References:
- Excessive zeal?
- From: Don Lancaster
- Re: Excessive zeal?
- From: Pogonip
- Excessive zeal?
- Prev by Date: Re: Excessive zeal?
- Next by Date: Re: Excessive zeal?
- Previous by thread: Re: Excessive zeal?
- Next by thread: Re: Excessive zeal?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
