The Playoffs: When is enough enough?

As I type this, the Cleveland Cavaliers are mercifully taking the Detroit Pistons out behind the barn to put them out of their misery. It's about as merciful as a 20 point blowout can be.

It's the kind of game that makes me wonder if there's any hope that the NBA will take the playoffs back to a five-game series in the first round, because there's no need to even play this game. In fact, the only reason why I'm still watching it is because my remote is too far away from my computer.

Really, from Game 1, the Pistons have played like they didn't even want to be here. I understand that Tayshaun Prince and Rasheed Wallace are hurt, but they haven't even really tried to win this series. The only reason to keep it going is because there's always the chance that LeBron is going to give the NBA some more highlights to play in slow motion, but when a lower-seeded team is down 0-3 in the first round, they should be given the option to save face and forfeit instead of suffering another blowout. After all, they're not coming back, because if ESPN has taught us nothing, it's that 85% of teams down 0-3 lose the series.

I think, when it comes to the first round, seven games is just too much. In most cases, by the time Game 4 rolls around, the point was made at least a game and a half ago. Making the Pistons and Cavs play Game 4 is just overkill, unless the point is to demoralize the Pistons. As I type this, there are more Cavs fans in the building than Pistons fans, and they're chanting "MVP" for LeBron.

To put it in perspective, the fourth, fifth, and sixth rounds of the NFL Draft contain more suspense than some of these games.

For instance, The Lakers have beaten the Jazz. That series is over. The Mavericks have beaten the Spurs. San Antonio is just too banged up. If Orlando loses again to Philadelphia (and I'm sure they will), they should call that series. Orlando just doesn't have the guard-play to control a series against a team with great guards. The only series' still in doubt are Denver/New Orleans, Portland/Houston, and Boston/Chicago. Even all of those should end in five games, because what's going to happen in Games 6 and 7 that's more important than what will happen in Game 5? Whoever wins Game 5 in all of those series is going to win it. Get it over with, so we can get to the real playoffs.

But we can't, because the NBA needs that ad revenue. The spirit of competition didn't make them add those two games to the first round. Or if you're a conspiracy theorist, it was so the fifth-seeded Lakers would have a better chance of getting out of the first round against the fourth-seeded Timberwolves back in 2003, which assured higher ratings and comes back to money.

Not only that, they spaced out all of the games so much that a playoff round that used to take a week and a half at most lasts way longer than it needs to. It's almost like the NBA thinks that having a marathon regular season isn't enough.

Welcome to the dog days of the NBA Playoffs. There is such a thing as "too much," when it comes to basketball.

Tree-Related Players. Seriously.

Because ESPN's "Who's Now" competition just didn't scrape the bottom of the barrel enough.

On the 6PM edition of SportsCenter, they usually have a list of something related to a prior story. It's never anything hard-hitting, but it'll usually be a fun fact of some sort. "Sports franchises that should just give it up," or "Most yards against the Lions." Something like that. "Every fight that ever broke out in the NBA Playoffs."

But sometimes, they come out with a list that just screams, "An intern we're not retaining put this list together," or "You should have seen the lists that chose not to run." Wednesday's list was one of those.

Players with tree-related names. With a list that bad, you'd think they were going out of business soon. But here's the list:

Reggie Bush.

Tiger Woods.

Charles Oakley.

Michael Crabtree.

Ryan Leaf.

I don't know if it's worse that they made the list or that I remembered it, but I'm sharing it with all of you, in case you missed it. I can't believe they forgot Tree Rollins. The title is right there in his name. Next list: "Unfortunately named players," starring Dick Butkus, God Shammgod, and a Black girl named Ivory Latta.

Surprise: Limbless Man Loses Fight

Look, I'm all for the rights of the handicapable to live out their dreams. I firmly believe that they can do whatever they set their minds to. And like most people who haven't replaced their hearts with a cast iron furnace, I'm a sucker for a feel-good story about a guy with no legs who ran a marathon or a kid with no hands winning a Madden tournament or something like that.

But sometimes, the effort to be inspiring goes a bit too far.

Kyle Maynard is an aspiring MMA fighter who has no arms or legs past his joints. The word is, he was a pretty good wrestler in high school, but since there's no real money in professional amateur wrestling (mostly because there is no such thing), Maynard decided to do like all amateur wrestlers are doing these days: Become a shootfighter.

Since the state of Georgia wouldn't issue him a license (state regulators were quoted as saying, "Be serious,"), that only left fighting in a state that singlehandedly makes the case for federally mandated education standards: Alabama. They don't regulate MMA there, because it takes time away from NASCAR.

Basically, to make a long story short, Maynard lost his fight to Bryan Fry, a guy who, while most likely won't ever make the big time, was at least smart enough not to get down on all fours and wrestle Maynard. And to drive home the complete professionalism in this fight, the cage was set up in an open field, with people just standing around and watching.

I'm not going to make fun of the guy, because if I had acheived all of my dreams in life, I would be writing this from my platinum toilet on a NASA computer that I had installed in my bathroom. No one should be allowed to take away your dreams. It's just that someone needs to be there to let the dreamer know that his dream is insane. A limbless cagefighter is about as realistic as expecting radiation to give you superpowers. You can give it a shot, but the humiliating results are only going to relegate you to "YouTube Superstar" status, at best.

I'm pretty sure that Kyle Maynard isn't the only disabled person who wants to be involved in MMA, just like I'm pretty sure that none of them stand a chance against a real MMA fighter. And that has nothing to do with their skills, heart, or anything like that. I say that because the other guy has both hands and feet. That's going to give him an awfully distinct advantage.

So instead of trying to break some sort of imagined barrier for the handicapable, why not just fight against other people who don't have hands? It least then, it can be legitimized and you run less of a risk of getting exploited by greedy fight promoters, like I'm sure you did here.

Screw the win; The Celtics are in trouble

The series is 1-1, but the Boston Celtics couldn't be in more trouble.

I know, I know; The Celtics did something like this last year, and that was with a healthy Kevin Garnett. They went to seven games with the Atlanta Hawks. The Hawks, of all teams, right? Why, they might as well have played the Washington Generals. And they still came out of it with a championship.

Thing is, that Hawks team last year is better than this year's Bulls team. I would like to say that it's hard to say that, being a Bulls fan, but the truth is, this is a Bulls team with a rookie point guard, an undersized shooting guard, and no post scoring. These Chicago Bulls should not be in this position. Garnett or no Garnett (Gar-nott? *rimshot*), the Celtics are still the World Champions.

And yet, here we are with a series at 1-1, that could have easily been 2-0, going back to Chicago on Thursday. The Chicago Bulls are playing the Celtics in Boston better than anyone in last year's playoffs did.

Yeah, the Celtics are in trouble.

Even though the Bulls lost tonight, they know they were still capable of winning. And it didn't matter that Ray Allen caught fire or that Bulls couldn't get a rebound if they were practicing their layup drills. Derrick Rose might as well have stayed home tonight. Brad Miller was wasting space. John Salmons still hasn't played a good game. The only people wearing red who were effective after halftime were Ben Gordon and the people working in valet parking.

And yet, the Bulls almost managed to pull it out.

Now, if the Bulls were this much trouble in Boston (the Bulls were 13-28 on the road), how much trouble do you think they'll be in Chicago (28-13 in the United Center)? This is not another Hawks situation, because that Hawks team was terrible on the road and Boston was almost unstoppable at home. No matter how much a lot of us wanted it, Boston was never in serious danger, because the Hawks forgot all about dribbling and offensive execution once they crossed the Georgia state line. They were 13-28 outside of Atlanta last year. That's just as bad as this year's Bulls were supposed to be.

When you're the champs, you're supposed to have two advantages. One: Homecourt advantage in the first round (except the '95 Rockets), and the art of intimidation. The Bulls took homecourt away and I don't think they're intimidated anymore. In fact, the Celtics have way more pressure on them than Chicago does. Chicago was supposed to get swept. Instead, they're going back to Chicago after giving Boston all they could handle at home. And keep in mind, Rondo tweaked his ankle. Even though he finished the game, let's wait and see if it tightens up on him after he gets his sneakers off.

By the way, the one game Boston played in Chicago this season....Chicago won it, 127-121.

Of course, there's the chance that I'm getting ahead of myself. This close call could refocus the Celtics and they could blow out the Bulls in both games in Chicago. After all, they are more balanced, defensively better, and have two big-time closers in Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. They took it to the Lakers last year on the biggest stage in the NBA. They should be able to handle a midget and an emotionless rookie.

Then again, that's what was supposed to happen tonight. They were supposed to crush the insolent upstarts; you know, respond like champions.

I'm not saying Chicago's gonna win the series, but if Boston doesn't start playing like Boston, the stars are certainly lining up for an upset. I'm not saying it will happen, but don't say that it can't happen. After all, it wasn't too long ago that a couple of guys from this team (Gordon, Kirk Hinrich) helped sweep the defending champion Miami Heat.

That's all I'm saying.

Hulk Hogan Channels His Inner OJ

So Hulk Hogan has told the world that he understands OJ. I don't understand what the newsworthy part is supposed to be.

Aside from the fact that OJ did not kill his wife (hewasacquittedthereforeinnocentintheeyesofthelaw), Hulk Hogan relating to OJ isn't exactly a surprise. He said it himself: Hulk Hogan owns a 20,000 square foot home that he can't live in and some punk kid is driving around an Escalade that he paid for. There isn't a man alive who can't understand what he and OJ felt. You don't have to be rich to get it.

So this is not controversial at all to me. He's basically a real life version of that Chris Rock joke: "Now, I ain't saying he shoulda killed her...but I understand."

Yeah, it's probably funny to women that Linda Hogan gets to have her way and Hulk Hogan has to foot the bill. He shouldn't have done whatever it was he did to make her divorce him, right? It's always that same bullshit.

It's shit like this that makes me say that rich people should never get married. My mom thinks I'm crazy for saying it, but if I ever came into some money, I'd stay single forever. I don't even have to get rich; I could just start earning and six-figure salary and marriage is gonna stop being an option. Get married for what? It's cool right now, when the only thing I own is a computer and a car that's older than a good portion of the women I know. I can get married because if it doesn't work out, I don't have anything to lose.

But if I had money, I can't ever have an off day, because the second my wife decides she wants out, she can leave...and half of money goes with her. Next thing you know, my wife and some other dude are getting buckin' naked in my bed with the 700-thread count sheets and I'm renting an apartment across town. The judge says I gotta make sure she's living comfortably, but I'm not even living comfortably, because I can't afford to.

There's only two ways I'd get married if I was rich. One: Pre-nup. Two: She's gotta have more money than me. If I'm rich and you don't wanna sign the pre-nup, I hope your W-2s match up to mine, because I ain't helping no one change tax brackets. There's nothing in it for rich men, ever. No benefit at all.

"What about love or a family," you might ask. He could have that regardless of how much he makes. Lots of men have a family just because the condom broke, and love isn't a requirement for a successful marriage. His money didn't get him a family and if it did, the woman should be out on the streets, anyway. They call women like that "hookers."

Not only that, marriage is something that women are really after. Generally speaking, men can take it or leave it. Eventually, we come around, but that's not a natural way of thinking for us. Why do you think we sleep around so much?

But if the family breaks up, you don't ever hear of the man getting over at the woman's expense. The only example anyone ever has is Kevin Federline and even though Britney Spears was coked out, shaving hair off, and not wearing draws, Federline still only got a million. If the roles were reversed, Britney would be kicking off a world tour to coincide with her hastily completed album called, "These Alimony Payments Are Kicking My Ass."

So get off of Hulk Hogan's back, especially if you're a man. Even though Hulk Hogan is 55 years old, he's gotta keep working just so Linda can have a place to live and thousands of dollars of food. Even though he's got a bad hip, two bad knees, and just had back surgery, I'll bet you he's gonna have to wrestle again. All because she feels like she has to bleed him dry and instead of trying to show some independence, she'd rather just whine to the judge about being "accustomed to" the lifestyle.

If I was Hulk Hogan, I would have said it, too.

Don't Worry: Isiah Can't Overpay College Players

You'd think people would have learned their lesson about putting Isiah Thomas in charge of things. His Indiana Pacers teams underachieved, he burned down the Continental Basketball Association, and, well, we all saw what he did to the Knicks. The mentality that it takes to give Jerome James $29 million or trade three draft pick and three players for "Sixth Helping" Eddy Curry, deserves to be questioned at every turn.

But that won't be a problem at Florida International University, where he's already pledged to give his entire first-year salary to the athletic department. It's almost as if he's trying to prove that he can do more for a basketball team than waste its money.

As we all know, college players don't get paid (publicly speaking), so joining the college game makes sense for a guy like Isiah. Legally, all he can offer is a scholarship and maybe a few other small perks. There's no hope of him outbidding Carolina for their third point guard and committing FIU to paying him $8 million dollars for the next four seasons. No, this job frees his mind from having to make decisions like that and allows him to do what he does best: Scout talent.

Remember, this is the same guy who drafted David Lee, Wilson Chandler, Nate Robinson, Trevor Ariza, and Renaldo Balkman. He clearly has an eye for talent. Just not assigning dollar amounts to it.

So despite his reputation of not knowing what the hell he's doing, Isiah Thomas should be able to attract some talent to this small school in Miami. After all, he's still Isiah Thomas, the ball player, and as much I've talked about his executive history, the promise of learning from one of the NBA's greatest champions will be too much for a lot of kids to pass up.

But when they get down there, how will they feel about his coaching? After all, that's the real question mark for this entire situation.

He's never been a great coach, and I'm not even talking about his time coaching the Knicks, because better coaches tried and failed. No one was getting that team to the playoffs, even if his name was Jesus A. Phil Jackson Riley-Krzyzewski, so I don't hold that against Isiah. But I do remember those Pacers teams of his.

After the 1999-2000 season, Larry Bird stepped down after three seasons as Pacers coach. They were fresh off of a Central Division title and their first trip to the NBA Finals, where they lost in six games to Shaq and Kobe. In Bird's three seasons, they set franchise record for wins and did no less than reaching the Eastern Conference Finals each season. Even though they were a veteran team and there was a lot of change made to the roster, they were still hopeful for the future. All they needed was the right coach to keep this thing rolling. Larry Bird suggested his assistant, Rick Carlisle, but Isiah Thomas ultimately got the job, probably because Donnie Walsh was distracted by Isiah's dimples.

They went 41-41 the next season, 42-40 in 2001-02, exploded to 48-34 in 2002-03. Each season, they lost in the first round of the playoffs. When Larry Bird became team president in 2003, he showed Isiah the door and gave Rick Carlisle the coaching job he should have had all along.

The Pacers finished the 2003-04 season at 61-21 and went back to the Eastern Conference Finals.

How will this translate to the college game? It remains to be seen. After all, coaches who completely bombed in the pros have been successful in college and I'm not even talking about actual good coaches like Rick Pitino or John Calipari. I'm talking about guys like Tim Floyd at USC or Leonard Hamilton's run at Florida State. Almost any half-wit coach can win in college if he's got good players. And FIU doesn't need to win the National Championship; they'll be happy with being over .500.

If nothing else, it should be entertaining, because there are way too many fine women in Miami for this not to be. But I think he will do well. Or at least, well enough to cause a controversy when he bolts to a bigger school.

Just a quick thought on people in the grocery store

I try not to be a judgmental person, because I know that I have done some things in my life that God isn't exactly thrilled about. However, if you're one of those people who are trifling enough to walk around the store drinking a beer that you have no intention of paying for, then I'm just gonna assume that it's okay for me to draw the Judgment Line somewhere in that area. If you really had a drinking problem that out of control, you'd be imagining all of this from the inside of the DeKalb County jail after getting beat up at the club again.

I'm just not understanding what the situation could be that would drive a person to walk around store, eating the food that's in their cart. Are you that hard-up for a bite to eat that you can't wait until you get outside? Usually, when I see someone doing that, they're morbidly obese as it is, and from time to time, they're not even going to pay for it. I wasn't aware that being fat also made you stupid, because if there's anyone that security is going to watch in a store full of food, it's someone who can't wear regular sized clothes. They're already assuming that you don't have any self control; don't go proving them right.

I think it's okay for me to judge these people, because even though I'm broke, I've still got pride enough to where I'm not stealing food that I can pay for. "But, you can't judge them, you don't know their situation!" Yes I can, because in addition to the cart full of food, they've got two or three kids, one of which is in the cart, being fed, so they stay quiet. Way to set an example for the next generation. Chances are, that lady's on food stamps, so it's not like she can't pay for the food. And that right there isn't judging, but instead making an assumption. I like my odds on being right.

So yeah, I'm judging you. You could say I'm wrong, but no one's ever seen me throwing back sodas while I wander around the electronics department. Probably because I can go 30 minutes without jamming more food in my mouth. I'm just overweight, not an example of what's wrong with America.

I Can't Believe I Read It: Twilight

"The plate was placed in front of me and instantly, I was swept away by the intoxicating scent. It was a glorious thing; the kind of smell that no reasonable man could be expected to resist. Instantly, I was ravenous, overtaken with my hunger. And yet, I couldn't take a bite. As I looked upon my plate of hot dogs, my thoughts constantly flipped back and forth between sating my hunger and the love I was feeling. The love I had for these, my hot dogs. I pushed the plate aside, knowing that my heart would never allow my physical urges to have control, the control required to eat my dinner. Sadly, I was in love with it."

If you're one of those kind of people that like rising action, falling action, or conflict in your books, then you might as well go read something else, because this book only has overwrought teenage melodrama in it. It's WB-level stuff, so I probably shouldn't have read it, not being a part of the target demographic. Lesson learned. The fact that author Stephenie Meyer was an English literature major at Brigham Young and still managed to write a book like this is a terrible indictment on the state of the American educational system.

"Twilight" is the heartwarming emo tale of a man who's in love with food. It's pretty much like if I tongue-kissed my steak, then expected my family to act like that was some normal. The fact that Edward Cullen's family accepted his insanity shows how progressive vampires have become.

But they still follow all of the traditional vampire conventions, like how all vampires are modelesque things of beauty, never sleep, and that the sun makes them sparkle like diamonds. Yeah, they're the real deal. Vampires are God's physically perfect killing machines. Killing machines that are still abominations before him.

But the story isn't so much about vampires as it is about the love that Edward shares with his plate of hors d'oveures. The story is told from the perspective of Isabella Swan, who prefers to be called "Bella." We know this because it's drilled into our head every time she meets someone, without fail, and with all the annoyance of a person who's being gangraped.

She's the main character, but you won't like her because she's about the most miserable main character I've ever read. Most main characters have some sort of quality that the reader might like, but not this one. She's so humorless and so emotional; the kind of girl that all of your good sarcasm is wasted on. Astrologically speaking, I'd guess she was a Cancer, based on the way she takes everything so personally. If I had known any girls like that when I was in high school, I would have gone gay years ago.

And perhaps I should have gone gay, because maybe then, it wouldn't have bothered me when Bella points out how attractive she finds Edward to be. She doesn't do it just once or twice; she does it every single time she lays eyes on him. If you don't know anything else by the end of this book, it's that Edward is the most beautiful man Bella's ever seen. And that's probably cool the first few times you're checking out a guy, but at some point, that has to wear off. For the average person, that moment would probably be when he tells you that he'd really like to eat you.

I'm not being silly, either. He really says that shit. And she still doesn't freak out when he openly stalks her or sneaks into her room while she's sleeping. A smart woman would have had a problem with this, but it just made Bella moist for Edward.

I actually had someone tell me that men could learn a thing or two from Edward. I wondered if she meant how he stalks her because if that's the stuff that women want their men to do, they should inform the police, since they're the ones preventing us from doing it. I didn't know that violating personal space was considered romantic. Call me old-fashioned.

Oh yeah, there is one instance of conflict in the book, but I won't spoil it because it's the only glimmer of light too look forward to in this book, aside from the last page. Better yet, just go see the movie. I cried when I reached the end of the book, and that's because when I turned the last page, I saw more words after it.

I'm going to go assume that if you have too much testosterone in your system, you're not going to like this book. It's just not going to make too much sense to you when people go through bi-polar mood swings two or three times in the course of an average conversation, for 500 pages. But I guess teenage girls are into this kind of thing, so I'll just reiterate that I'm not the target audience. That's the only way that I can explain this book being a New York Times best seller and getting made into a movie. At least it gets people reading. But if you don't like your vampires written with the emotional sensibilities of a teenage girl, then try Garth Ennis and Steve Dillon's "Preacher" instead.

Texas: Electing Retards Since 1845

It's not that Texas is great; it's that it's okay to be stupid there. It's a state that doesn't let a little thing like intelligence keep you from governing over others. Look at the retards you guys keep putting in office.

There's George W. Bush, whose clear and unfettered stupidity had me wondering exactly how much money George 41 paid for his son's "C" average at Yale. There's Sheila Jackson-Lee, the US Representative who's only claim to fame is suggesting that the US Weather Service start using stereotypical "Black" names for hurricanes, so as not to appear racist. The Texas Board of Education voted to ban schools there from teaching the theoretical age of the universe just two weeks ago. Chairman of the Board Don McElroy says that "someone has got to stand up to experts," with all their knowing stuff and reading. He then accused all experts of being "witches."

Now, we can add Texas State Rep. Betty Brown to the list for the statement she recently made. She told Chinese-American lawyer Ramey Ko that Asian-Americans having trouble with voter registration should choose new names, "easier for Americans to deal with."

Because it's just too much to ask for Americans to learn to pronounce something that's not in English. Only in America would someone say something this stupid. Really, the only question is, "Who's dumber: Brown or Jackson-Lee?"

She had to have been doing this on purpose, because outdoing Sheila Jackson-Lee's battle against hurricane bigotry took some work. She had to dig deep in the bag to get on that level, because what Mrs. Jackson-Lee said was so stupid that it offended the Earth. That's why Hurricane Katrina came in and wrecked shit like it did.

But I think Brown might have a leg-up in this "Battle of the Stupids." Her comment was not only stupid, but racist, too. On and unrelated note, she's also a Republican, the same party that supports a woman who's so dumb, she can't even tell you what she reads (Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin), a man who wouldn't accept extra unemployment funds and suggested his constituents use prayer to keep from becoming homeless (Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina), a woman who's always in the news for saying something insane (Google 'Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann') and another guy who apparently agrees with selling out his heritage, because he changed his name from "Piyush" to "Bobby (Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal)."

Just because it worked for one of your party members who was looking for some mass appeal doesn't mean that everyone's okay with that idea. Who would I be to suggest to another human being that they should change their name just because I'm not smart enough to say or spell it? It's not the same thing as changing your shirt or pulling your pants up. This is their family name, which means way more to Asians than it does to us. It's a link to their parents, their grandparents, their ancestors who shared that same name through the centuries. But, no, Betty Brown thinks that they should change it just because she can't get her ass off the short bus.

Really, going by her rationale, I should have changed my name, too, because it's been a bitch going through life named "Thaddeus." People can't be expected to say all of those syllables all in the proper order and stuff. There's like, eight letters in my name.

So what I did was, I went to the Betty Brown Name Generator and got a new name. I will now be known, henceforth, as Billy-Ray "Wal-Mart" Brown. But only in Texas, where I know the residents have trouble with multiple syllables, subject-verb agreements and are not allowed to know that the universe is roughly 14 billion years old.

Now that's change you can believe in.

Terrell Owens does not think he's Jerry Rice

Back in 2006, Terrell Owens set the sports world on fire by daring to compare himself to a few sports legends with the following quote:

"I'm not Superman. I'm human. Michael Jordan doesn't make every shot. Jerry [Rice] hasn't caught every pass. Tiger [Woods] doesn't make every putt. I understand the expectations of me. People want me to catch every ball. The likelihood of that happening is not going to be great. I understand that."

Now, because America's sportswriters are always looking to find fault with Terrell Owens, they were up in arms about that statement. "How dare he compare himself to Jerry Rice, Tiger Woods, and Michael Jordan! He can't even put himself in the same sentence as those guys!"

Fast forward to April 9, 2009, when Terrell Owens said the following quote:

"Other than that, I’m fine. I’ve been called selfish pretty much throughout my career. I think I’m in good company, Jerry Rice has been called selfish before, as well as a number of other guys."

I wrote about this in 2006 and I'm going to write about it again, mostly because I hate sportswriters. I'm not going to pretend that Terrell Owens is an angel or a model teammate, but once again, they're really reaching with this. You'll see that what I said in 2006 is pretty much going to be identical to what I say today:

"But for those of us who don’t think with our anuses, he didn’t compare himself to them at all. For those of us, who aren’t constantly trying to find fault with a guy who can buy and sell, say…sportswriters with the change in his ashtray, he merely said that those guys, who are great, didn’t come through every time and he isn’t going to, either. It’s just not realistic to expect him to. I think that sounds pretty humble, and the sportswriters would think so too if they weren’t busy being all-around assholes."

Actually, I don't think I need to add to that at all.

Whether or not Jerry Rice was actually called "selfish" is beside the point. Nowhere in either of those quotes is T.O. saying that he's comparable to Jerry Rice. It's like when people say "People talked bad about Jesus, too." Unless they can also walk on water, they're not comparing themselves to Jesus. But when you make it your life's mission to hate a guy, then you'll find the negatives wherever you want to. In fact, the article where I got that quote was titled, "Terrell Owens: Criticism of him has been unfair."

It's T.O.'s fault that Dallas didn't make the playoffs because he divided the entire locker room, because the Cowboys are not grown men or anything, who can make their own decisions. T.O. was the serpent who coerced them to play like garbage. T.O. was wrong for choosing not to attend a voluntary workout with his new team, the Buffalo Bills, because even though it's voluntary, T.O. needs to spend time with his new teammates. Mandatory workouts and training camp simply aren't enough time. You'd think sportswriters wouldn't want him there, since it's his destiny to divide the locker room. Since he changed his mind and decided to go, that's just going to give him a headstart or wrecking their season.

Yeah, I'd say the criticism has been a bit much. After all, like the man himself pointed out, "What I find so unfair is that I'm not the only guy out of 32 teams that didn't show up to voluntary and optional weight sessions." No, just the only guy that the sports media wants to bring down. Right, Skip Bayless?

After all, it's not like anything he does will ever have a humble or positive spin put on it. Maybe I should show them the way. The quote I'm going to use is the sentence directly before the quote that caused all of this controversy.

Terrell Owens Actually Does Have Humble Moments

Terrell Owens showed deference to retired Cowboys quarterback Troy Aikman when he responded to Aikman's comments about "addition by subtraction" earlier this week. Owens said, "I think he has three Super Bowl rings, so he has the authority to say that."

Man, what an jerk.

If I Did It: The Michael Vick Edition

Michael Vick is being paid $600,000 to appear in a documentary. There is also word that he wrote a book while he was in jail and he's looking for a publishing deal. There are those who will be upset that he's looking to bank on his misfortunes. Those people need to shut up, because it's not like PETA and the ASPCA didn't make a truckload of money off of him already.

Michael Vick is millions of dollars in debt, about to be released from jail, and resigned to working a $10 an hour construction job (cheap promotion for the company, because they're not putting a backhoe in his hands) because there's no guarantee that he'll be let back in the NFL. Roger Goodell said that Vick is "going to have to demonstrate to the larger community — not just to the NFL community and to me — that he has remorse for what he did and that he recognizes mistakes that he made," which is code for "I want to see this [expletive deleted] dance for the American public," because public admittance and jail time just isn't demonstration enough.

So the fact that Vick is going to do these things is fine by me. That construction gig isn't going to pay off anything, so why not do the documentary and book? If he's smart, he'll try for a reality show that shows him playing with dogs all the time. Puppies can rehab anyone's image and America's idiots still believe that reality shows are real. He's going to need something to do until the he lands that UFL contract.

Would they prefer that Vick get out there and sell drugs or steal cars, because selling his name and image and banking on the fact that controversy sells is the only way he's getting out of this. Does anyone have the number for the company that's selling the Michael Vick chew toy? Make sure you send it to him, because I'm sure he'd be willing to endorse it at this point.

I don't think anyone in America is going to pass up $600,000 for the opportunity to walk around all day and have people point cameras at them. Some people are worried about the harm this could do to Michael Vick's image, because chances are, he won't have final cut approval on the movie. He's already been to jail for killing dogs. He's inspired people to picket places where he wasn't even going to be (Falcons' training camp, the NFL offices). He's lost endorsements, houses, cars, and his job.

I really don't think that his image can take that much more of a hit. Unless the documentary exposes his reliance on the power of Satan, I don't think he'll drop down any further in the judgmental eyes of America. And really, is there anyone who's really planning to go see this? It's not like it's going to be the redemptive and heartwarming tale of a lovable loser on his way back up. If that were the storyline, I'd go buy my tickets now. Truth to tell, we could probably use a positive story like that right about now.

It's most likely going to be something that will allow PETA supporters to bask in his misery. Watching him get the run around from his parole officer or digging holes at work or stressing about his bills, because if we've learned nothing from any of this, it's that Michael Vick KILLED DOGS and we should never forget it. Grow up, people.

If I want to watch senseless negativity, I know where Fox News is on my cable rotation.

So let him do his movie and book. If rappers can build careers on pretending to be criminals, why not give an actual criminal a shot at it?

Plaxico Burress is not Michael Vick

If the "Pacman Jones Memorial Award for Moron Excellence" was a real award, then Plaxico Burress would be a lock for it in 2009. Someone needs to tell him that it isn't real, and even if it was, it's nothing that smart people want to have.

Plaxico Burress has been involved with the police at least seven times since August 2008. He's been sued at least nine times since 2000. He has gun-possession charges above his head right now. So a guy like him saying, "I know the sheriff personally," isn't exactly a good thing. All that means is, he's been involved in Plaxico's arrest enough times for them to have a deep conversation.

Yet, those are the words that he chose to throw at the Broward County Deputy Sheriff who stopped him for speeding on March 18th. I guess, in Plaxico's mind, his rapport with the sheriff is going to get that speeding ticket thrown out, because being cool with the sheriff clearly means that he can act an ass whenever he wants to. He doesn't have to obey traffic laws, which is why he's had five such violations in the past month.

You know, the Duke Boys knew Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane personally. Didn't stop him from trying to arrest them on bootlegging charges.

Kind of makes me wonder why Plaxico never got in good with the police in New York, since he was going to carry guns around in a city that has a mandatory three year sentence for carrying guns. Maybe if he had, they wouldn't have been so quick to arrest him, because everyone knows that cops that you know personally always cover for you. Even when he's living in a fantasy land, Plaxico is still really stupid.

That's what separates Plaxico Burress from Michael Vick. I've had people tell me that New York is going to make an example out of him because he's black. I've had people tell me that Plaxico is a victim. And we need to go on and kill all that noise right now.

Michael Vick committed a crime and deserved to be punished, however, the sentence he received was viewed by many (okay, by black people) to be excessive. He killed dogs, which set off a firestorm of outrage by dog lovers everywhere and unleashed that band of lunatics known as PETA upon the sane-thinking world. Meanwhile, Leonard Little killed another human being and not only was everyone okay with it, he never even missed any playing time. It was all so logical, because as we know, dogs are worth more to people than people are.

On the other hand, Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg in a nightclub with a gun that is illegal to have anywhere in the city, then tried to cover the whole thing up. Why he needed a gun in the club is irrelevant, because he was going to be in the VIP all night, anyway. So, unless he was afraid that the groupies that were joining him were actually terrorists, I think the bouncers at the door were enough security.

I believe that an example was made of Michael Vick and as a result, he lost everything. Plaxico Burress could have just hired bodyguards and none of this would have happened. He's had a long history of not being very bright, so let's not try to turn Plaxico into some kind of hero or political prisoner, when he's really just a guy who wasn't enough smart enough realize that sweatpants can't even hold up a cell phone, let alone a 10-pound gun.

He couldn't put out $90 for a holster. Plaxico's not gonna do three years because he's a victim; Plaxico's gonna do three years because he's simple.

No offense, Catholics. Honest.

Why am I glad I'm not Catholic?

I could never be associated with a religion that's sensitive enough to waste time boycotting movies. I really don't think "Angels and Demons" is going to affect your bottom line. If anything, you're just giving it free promotion. I didn't even know "Dogma" was out until the Church got involved.

I'd prefer my religion to tackle issues that were of some importance, like world hunger or anything that's not boycotting movies. Plus, my personal religion doesn't look nearly as evil as Catholicism does. I'm not saying that Catholicism itself is evil (although I'm certainly capable of doing it), but any church that has demons posted up on its houses of worship or uses models of its savior dying on a cross as it's symbol of worship doesn't really say to me, "God is Love." It says something more along the lines of "You don't want none of what I'm worshipping, bitch."

Not only that, this is the same church that kicked out a girl, her mother, and a doctor for aborting the girl's pregnancy. Now, that's not news because the Catholic Church generally frowns on this. What makes this exceptional is that the girl was two things, none of which were "loose." What she was was "12" and "raped." Oh, and the rapist got to keep being Catholic, because he only violated a girl and stole her innocence. It's not like he aborted a baby or used condoms or anything like that.

It just really seems like The Vatican's decisions aren't grounded in the real world at all, and what's scarier is that people still look to them for guidance. People didn't keep looking to Bush for guidance after it became clear that he was going to drive America off a cliff. That would be stupid, because if someone keeps giving you bad advice, generally you point out their historic battles with speaking English or swallowing pretzels.

But they don't do that for the Catholic Church. They just keep right on agreeing with the Pope, never questioning him when he says, "God doesn't want you to use condoms. He wants you to trust that you just won't get AIDS."

I know, he's supposed to preach abstinence and that's good. But in 2009 (or even 1984), it's just not realistic to expect that people are going to stay abstinent just because the Pope said so. If it were that easy, then "Just Say No" and tersely worded, non-binding resolutions would work. Besides, when the Pope was a kid, he was too busy harassing Jews to worry about pre-marital sex. Yet, his wealth of experience in the world of teenage sex is the basis for his argument.

Besides, when you take a leap of faith, you usually don't do that by doing something stupid. A leap of faith is something like, trusting that your business plan is going to work, not placing your genitals into a pot of boiling water and expecting God to turn it into ice.

Now, while Catholics don't seem to have developed the part of the brain that tells the difference between what's smart and what's ridiculous, they do understand how capitalism works.

If you frequent a business that historically picks the wrong side, despite what common sense is telling them to do (like not denouncing slavery or the Holocaust, for instance), generally, you don't go to those places anymore. Back in the 90s, the state of Georgia stopped flying the rebel flag on government buildings just because the NCAA said they weren't going to bring the tournament and it's hundreds of millions of dollars in windfall while those flags were up. It's just that simple, because money trumps all sorts of personal beliefs about Black people being three-fifths of one white man.

Well, why can't Catholics do that? Why can't Catholics go, "You know, God gave us brains so we could think, but why doesn't Holy Mother Church ever use them? Why do they keep making us look stupid? And what's with this ash on my forehead?" If more Catholics actually questioned their Church or left it for one that contained less halfwits, the Catholic Church would probably make some changes.

The Vatican understands that to keep it going, they have to have people coming and donating to the building fund (or is that just Black churches?). It's a business. And they know that their customers aren't going anywhere. They've been guilting Catholics into showing up for generations and because of that, it's okay for them to say "We'd rather keep the rapist around than the abortionist." Now, if they were saying that to a room full of empty pews, it might occur to them that people want their religious leaders to understand that the year is 2009, no 1409.

God wants you to think. That's why he gave the ability to do so. If he wanted you to blindly follow, he would have made you a dog. Or an angel. And I know you've grown attached to having genitals.

Why CBS shouldn't air sports

It's bad enough that CBS has the most boring NFL pregame show anywhere. Yes, even more boring than NBC, and they've got Bob Costas and Cris Collingsworth. I can't even name a prime-time show that CBS airs now that King of Queens is off.

Just being boring isn't enough, though. Now, they've got to show us that they're inept.

I don't know who the genius was who thought that one station could juggle two separate games and make everyone happy, but at some point, the intelligence that God gave birds has to kick in, right?

North Carolina had things with Gonzaga in hand, probably three...maybe four minutes into the game. Meanwhile, Kansas and Michigan State were close throughout. It hadn't occurred to me that I might want to see anything in the Kansas/Michigan State game in the first half, because I wanted to see North Carolina. I've been a Tarheels fan for a long time.

But when the second half started running down and Kansas and Michigan State were still tied up, I expected CBS to switch back over to their game, because it was coming down to a close finish. You know, the kind of situation where legendary highlights are made. Big shots, hustle plays, important rebounds; the stuff that they'll replay 20 years from now.

CBS chose to keep showing UNC/Gonzaga. UNC spent the whole second half leading by 20. I really don't think we were going to miss anything.

The six minute mark goes by in the Kansas/Mich. St. game. Four minutes. Two minutes. We're still looking at Carolina while the score is knotted at 60 in the other game. Finally, Michigan State goes up by two in a big play that I'll have to turn to ESPN to see. My bracket is taking another hit and I can't even see why.

It's not like Gonzaga had closed to within five points or the other game was the Grizzlies and the Clippers. It was another tournament game, and it had a better finish than the one that I was stuck with.

Finally, at the 36 second mark, CBS switches back to Kansas/Mich. St. Not only that, right when they switch, a timeout is called and they start to go to commercial. Thankfully, for us, they decide to let us watch the timeout. For those who were wondering about the nailbiter we switched from, Carolina's was still up by 20.

Kansas is at the line to shoot free throws. First free throw is good. Second free throw might have been good, but we'll never know, because CBS had to hurry up and get back to that back-and-forth UNC/Gonzaga game. That's right, they switched back in the middle of the free throws at brought Kansas to within one. Because CBS didn't want us to miss UNC closing in on a 30 point lead.

It doesn't even matter what happened next, because I'm fairly certain that CBS doesn't want me to see it anyway. I can't remember if I even saw the end of the game because I blacked out after those free throws. My brain was saving me from an anger stroke. Good look, brain.

I just know that in the end, Michigan State won. It would have been nice to see it.

I hate you, CBS. Next time, just play quietly in the corner while the big boys at ESPN or Fox do show you how to broadcast sports.

The Twitter Test Run

I know two people with diamonds in their teeth and neither of them are black.

NFL's "Increase the Peace" Movement

Because quarterbacks, not children, are our most delicate resource, the NFL owners have invented the Bradymobile to keep them safe from human contact. It's just like the Popemobile, except it's also safe from missile attacks and bad breath. (Pictured: Bradymobile prototype. Not pictured: Lost sense of athletic pride.)

Their efforts are aimed at making this violent, hard-hitting game safer. They have decided that it's not the intensity and hard hits that keep fans coming back, but instead the intellectualism. It's hard to appreciate the human chess on the field when the players keep hitting each other. In a similar story, the UFC decided to outlaw punching, kicking, and wrestling so cage-fighting isn't so rough on its fighters. Inspired by the movement, the US military is considering adding pillows to the inside of their bombs to make war safer.

And why this sudden focus on safety? Because the owners want to add two games to the season, believing that no place is safer for NFL players than being in the line of fire. Commissioner Roger Goodell said, "This game is entirely too dangerous and violent, so let's make them play it more." It's like giving out bulletproof vests so people can get shot in the chest more often.

I get some of the changes that have been made in the past, banning horse-collar tackles, shots to the head, not letting people drive trucks onto the field, the logical stuff. But if they ban the "wedge" of kickoff returns they might as well ban offensive linemen and fullbacks. And to say that defensive players can't lunge at quarterbacks when they're on the ground is just plain crazy. They might as well start saying that players can't use their legs to run, because that rule change goes against the defense's basic nature.

See, there's only three things that defensive players know how to do: "get the quarterback," "dive on the ball," and "turn your hips." Basically, this rule change is taking back 33% of everything defensive players know how to do. What are they supposed to fill that brain space with, "making it rain?" You're confusing them and it's not going to make anyone happy when defensive players start standing in front of the quarterback in a daze, because they can't decide whether to hit the guy or throw money at him.

There have already been instances where sacks were missed because the defensive player wasn't sure if he'd be penalized for making the play, and that was before the rule change. After the rule change, when a defensive player is blocked to the ground within a two feet of the quarterback, instead of making a play from his knees, he might as well take a leisurely nap on the field until the whistle is blown. The quarterback's knees are protected and the defensive player is refreshed for the next play.

The way they're headed, they might as well start having quarterbacks throw from behind a concrete wall. Soon, the owners are going to outlaw tackling and blocking and instead rely on a ornate system of verbal cues to trick opposing players into falling down. Maybe hypnotizing players into handing the ball over when the safe word is uttered. It's just a matter of time before a lineman snaps and starts running in circles because he doesn't know what to do.

Yeah, it's a moneymaking venture, and I understand that they want to keep the players safe, so as to better exploit them by adding games, but they also need to remember that it's football. It's a game that's dependent on hard-hitting, intensity, and physicality. The pattern of rule changes is taking all of that away. Take tackling, shoving, pushing, and hard glares away from football and what are you left with?

Catch.

And I don't think anyone will be willing to pay $40 to watch muscled-up men peacefully throw a ball to each other.

It's supposed to be violent. It's supposed to hurt. That's why people play it. If the owners don't want their players to get hurt, then they got into the wrong business. Maybe they should put their money into that professional curling league or try to get a TV deal for badminton. It would be worth it to see if the censors would allow them to say "shuttlecock" on television.

Why Barack-etology is a good thing

I really don't think that the free world is an anymore trouble than it already is if Barack Obama takes some time out to fill out a bracket for ESPN. Really, if some real damage was going to go down, it was going to happen regardless of that missing half hour. Hell, I bet he spends more time than that in the bathroom.

Actually, I'm more impressed that this man can find the time to be this knowledgable about college basketball while rebuilding the economy, getting us out of Iraq, curing cancer, walking on water, all the stuff that he does. It's not like he's falling behind on things. If he was turning in his budgets late and missing press conferences because he was copying someone else's notes at the last minute, the complainers might be onto something. But he's getting everything done, so why are we bothering him? If anything, we should be impressed with his time-management skills.

Most of us can't even make it to work on time every day and we're worried about what he's doing.

At the very least, this helps him relate to people more, because it shows that he's just as sports-crazy as the rest of us. The only difference between me and Barack Obama right now is that he has the respect and admiration of a nation and I picked California to beat Maryland against my better judgment. Really, at the time of this writing, I'm doing better than he is.

Republicans are just jealous they didn't think of this kind of thing first, because George W. Bush or Sarah Palin would kill for this kind of publicity. Barack Obama filling out his bracket on ESPN or actually getting upset that OUR Beloved Bulls were getting beat by the Washington Wizards are the kinds of things that will endear us to him. When he leaves office, assuming his presidency isn't a complete disaster, this sort of thing will make us think about him and smile. Truly the People's President, Barack Obama.

Bush, on the other hand, we forgot about him while he was still sitting the White House. And this guy owned the Texas Rangers once upon a time. But he was so busy clearing brush off of his ranch in Crawford that he forgot to show us what a real guy he was. People always talked about what a great guy he was, but we never saw it. Maybe if he had publicly done things like this, we would have looked at him a little differently. I'm not saying we would have supported all of his policies, because I just don't think that repealing our civil liberties was a smart idea. But maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't have looked at him like he had no idea what was going on in the real world.

Bush's friends always talked about Bush being "the kind of guy you could have a beer with," but we never really saw it. In one 10-minute segment, Barack showed us that he IS that guy, because even though he's meeting with the Prime Minster of Russia while we're breaking our back for some boss that we don't like, we know that at 11 PM, when SportsCenter comes on, our President is just another sports-obsessed boob. Just like us.

I'm still not calling him "Money."

Shocking news: Floyd Mayweather, Jr. is preparing for a return to boxing.

Really?

Like we didn't know this was coming. Floyd Mayweather, who retired in June 2008, is looking to make his return July 11 on HBO, according to sources close to the pint-sized pugilist. This is a complete shocker to people who believe there's a chance that the sun might not come up the next day or look for things to fall in other directions when they drop them. These are the people who were fooled by Michael Jordan's first retirement.

I'm not an expert on acting, but I'm pretty sure that he wasn't going to make a career of anything like that. He wouldn't have been able to handle the life of a wrestler, because that requires things like humility and doing what you're told and we know he's not built for that. And my knees are bruised from my nightly prayers that he wouldn't release a rap CD. I guess he could have been an analyst for one of the networks, but as we've seen from Roy Jones, Jr. over the years, it can be hard to stop talking about yourself.

So that just left a return to boxing, because, let's face it: He's only 32. He's still got a couple of years left before the hand speed and reflexes start to leave him and his last fight was only about 15 months ago, so he's still in good enough shape to get back in the ring. It's not like he's Evander Holyfield, inviting speculation that he's actually going to die in the ring (or maybe that's just my speculation).

Apparently, he's looking to face anyone out there, except Oscar De La Hoya, which makes me wonder. Yeah, he won the fight (split decision), but he retired before they could fight again. That sounds like fear to me. And since there's no chance that he'll fight Big Show for real, we'll have to settle for the rumors that he wants Manny Pacquiao. Good luck with that.

I'd say "welcome back," Floyd Mayweather, but that would mean that I believed you were gone.

Deconstructing Limbaugh's Fairy Tale Land

Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail.

Rush Limbaugh also claims that it's okay to make insane statements like that, because all of the Bush-haters wanted Bush to fail in Iraq.

The fact that Rush wants Obama to fail means that he wants the country to become flat broke. He wants the worst for all Americans. He wants us all, all races, parties, creeds, colors, and waist sizes, to eat dirtbombs for dinner from the underside of the overpass. Because that's the only thing that can happen if this President does fail. If Obama fails, we're pretty much screwed.

Well, most of us are. The ones who aren't screwed will most likely will be screwed as soon as the ones who are screwed realize that they've still got lights and food. Then, the words "Eat the rich" will re-enter our collective mindscape.

Well, we probably won't attack (all of) the rich, but why does he want Obama to fail? What could his motivation be for wanting something like that? It's simple, really. He wants a Republican to save us. Forget everything that he has to say about his reasons. That's all it is, partisan politics. Except he's not an elected official and no one with any good sense listens to him, anyway.

But it's just sour grapes because a Democrat won the Presidency and a Black one, at that. Because what Rush is saying is not even the same thing as everyone else being against Bush. For one, Obama was democratically elected.

Stealing the election was forgotten after 9/11, though. George W. Bush had the world on his side, simply by being an inept President. His historic unwillingness to read memos allowed him to fall face first into the goodwill of the entire planet. Except for the country that we were about to attack, understandably. It would have been really stupid if Afghanistan was inviting the ass-kicking. Or incredibly perverted, but some people are into that.

But then, he pissed it all away by saying, "No, wait. Let's go to Iraq, instead. It's an open and shut case because Iraq and Afghanistan are both, well, you know...turn around again, and that's why we Iraq is the greater threat." We were so baffled by how this man hadn't drowned himself in the toilet that we forgot to stop this from going down.

The thing about Iraq was, it's not that we wanted to LOSE in Iraq, it's that we wanted to LEAVE Iraq. That might be a failure for Bush, but who cares about his ego when 40,000 of our soldiers are walking around America alive and in one piece (4,000 killed, 36,000 injured). Maybe Bush should have tried fighting the war that we were willing to fight. Sorry that all Americans weren't so easily distracted by the endless oil profits that we weren't going to get a dime of. How selfish of us for not wanting to sacrifice our limbs for Halliburton's stockholders. All we were able to see was the futility in throwing lives and dollars at an unwinnable war.

Obama's not waging an ill-advised and unpopular war; Obama's trying to fix the economy, and I'm pretty sure that at least 90% of Americans and the rest of the world want the damn thing fixed. Yeah, Rush, it's exactly the same thing...like Fox News and actual news are exactly the same thing.

If he succeeds, if everything works out like he wants, the economy has a shot at working again. People will have jobs and money; the streets will flow with milk, honey, and the tears of the Republican faithful. So by saying that you don't want that to happen, that means you, Rush Limbaugh, don't want me personally to have a job. You're not even offering alternative or viable solutions, because if tax cuts were the answer, they would have worked when Bush was still spectacularly failing at being President. You're just being a dick and not even for a good reason.

Fuck you, Rush Limbaugh. I want for your show to get cancelled and for you to get lost in Southwest Atlanta. Clearly, we all can't all get what we want in life.

But feel free to keep attacking Michael Steele and Arlen Specter.

T.O. in Buffalo? Didn't see that coming

Wow. Buffalo. And don't be fooled by that fake smile over there, because he does not look happy about it. Might as well have exiled T.O. to Siberia. Or Kansas City. On the bright side, no one's going to see him screw up anything out there. No one saw that coming, mostly because no one even remembered that Buffalo had an NFL team.

So, yeah, Terrell Owens signed a one-year, $6.5 million deal with the Bills. The deal validates the wild claims that agent Drew Rosenhaus made when he said that T.O. would have a deal within the week, although, judging from the look on T.O.'s face during his press conference, I don't think either one of them would consider this a "win." Personally, I believed that Owens would be out of work for a few more months, at which point, teams would no longer be influenced by ESPN's "T.O. Hater Brigade", and realize that at least 15 of them had nothing to lose by signing Owens.

After all, Terrell Owens, love him or hate him, is still one of the NFL's best receivers. The people who dispute that are generally haters, like Bob Ryan or Skip Bayless. In 2008, Owens was 13th in yards (1.052), tied for 28th in receptions (69, with Randy Moss), and tied for 5th in touchdowns (10, with Tony Gonzales and Lance Moore). And that's with Tony Romo-Simpson as quarterback.

Conversely, the Bills had 14 passing TDs total.

But Terrell Owens isn't considered an "elite" receiver anymore. His critics claim that he has "lost a step," but Stephen A. Smith said it best this morning when he said that Owens "has lost a step for him," but he's still as good as everyone else. I really don't see how you can afford not to look at a guy like that, especially when your team had trouble scoring points like, say...the Rams or the Bengals. Because if your team is scoring less than the Lions did (27 TDs in 2008), you can't really be that choosy about who you have on your roster. If you were that particular, you'd probably have better players.

And as far as who's going to get the ball more, Lee Evans or Terrell Owens, let me say this: That's a problem most teams wish that they had. It's not the same thing as saying, who's going to get the ball more, Lee Evans or Josh Reed? If you don't know the answer to that quesiton, you're also too slow to realize that teams now have to change the way they defend this team. Yeah, the Bills are so stupid for signing T.O.

It's nice to know that your favorite team is taking a moral stand against hated NFL players, but most of those teams will be doing it in an empty stadium. That's one thing Buffalo won't have in 2009.