Qualifying offer deadline passes; no deal between Cavs and Tristan Thompson
October 2, 2015Twitter’s character limit and what’s next: While We’re Waiting…
October 2, 2015Well, that didnât take long. Three games into the 2015 schedule and the Browns season is swirling in controversy. And to absolutely no oneâs surprise, the biggest controversy seems focused on the quarterback position. Check that: ⊠seems focused on the quarterback personalities. I make that distinction because there is precious little real football talk on the subject.
I have to laugh. The business of controversy — and it is a business — has overtaken the news business. No one is content to report the objective facts about anything, especially about a game of football, because apparently there are no objective facts. As is said of beauty, even the so-called facts are in the eye of the beholder. And if there are no facts, arenât we all free to opine, in an unfettered arena of public argument?
Controversies are a kind of prolonged public debate. Theyâre often divisive and heated and can lead to tension and ill will. Of course, there are controversial subjects that carry enough moral weight to warrant a prolonged public discussion. Probably the most significant controversy in our history (and, as it turned out, the most self-destructive) was over whether our nation should allow human slavery. However, the tension, ill will, and divisiveness over who should quarterback the local football team does not measure up and, personally, I choose not to take sides in the debate because I think it is, start to finish, a manufactured and manipulated subject.
Hereâs how I see it:
A)Â First, there is the matter of our own lack of qualifications. While I think I know quite a lot about the sport, about the position and about what goes into the decision-making process, compared to those who have worked at this for a living at the highest levels, I cannot bring myself to believe I know anywhere near enough to hold more than a superficial, uneducated opinion.
For spectators, even the serious ones, there is a limit to what we have access to. If we were to watch a game at the stadium — even from the best seats on the 50-yard line — we cannot absorb it all in one viewing. And even if we watch a replay of the game, even to invest the time studying certain plays repeatedly at different speeds, it seems clear that weâre not interpreting the outward evidence in the same way. In fact, that seems to be the case even with the so-called experts.
Case in point: I watched the Browns-Raiders game through the time machine of the digital video recorder. I already knew how it ended because, driving home from a trip to Canada this past weekend, I listened to most of the Browns live radio broadcast. Interesting thing, however, about that radio broadcast. The two guys calling the game, Jim Donovan and Doug Dieken, while obviously watching the same game, did not seem in total agreement as to what was happening on the field. Dieken, in several of his comments, felt compelled to clarify, or correct, what Donovan was saying. Now, Jim Donovan, it must be said, is in the camp of wanting to see Johnny Manziel take over for Josh McCown after that one win over the Tennessee Titans. Doug Dieken is more circumspect and several times after Donovan called an incomplete pass in, shall we say, a somewhat critical tone of voice, Dieken clarified the call with something like, âWell, he was hit as he was throwing âŠâ
Donovanâs lack of neutrality on the subject and his brand of play-by-play announcing is unlike earlier times when announcers kept their biases under wraps. An earlier Browns announcer, Gib Shanley, actually made news with a snarky comment in the 1960s, long before snarky was a word. As the Browns crossed the field on the way to the locker room at halftime, Shanley said, âAnd thatâs the first time the Browns have crossed midfield this afternoon.â Paul Brown later made sure that indiscretion was not repeated.
Donovan, however, seems to revel in some of his calls being used as promotional snippets in the cause of controversy because his play-by-play editorializing has been on the increase for years. âHoyer, back to throw ⊠he fires ⊠I donât know who that was to ⊠it was way over everyone âŠâ But such a style causes the actual performance of play-by-play announcing to suffer, i.e., the dispensation of facts. With Donovan, far too often he simply fails to paint a timely word picture. Please, Jim, take the advice of Herb Score. First and foremost, give us the obvious facts, timely and in the correct sequence. Save the opinions for later.
In those cases when a pass is incomplete or intercepted, even announcers donât necessarily know exactly what went wrong with the play. Did the receiver run the route incorrectly or was it just a bad throw? What we do know is that the coaches are not about to make their video analysis a public event. Theyâre not going to criticize their players for specific mistakes. And thatâs as it should be.
B)Â Another red flag about this topic concerns something called Benfordâs law of controversy, which states that âPassion is inversely proportional to the amount of real (true) information available.â In other words, with this particular issue, the less there is of factual information about the criteria for deciding who should play quarterback, the more passionate are the disputants.
The scary part of such ‘passion’ is the absolute assuredness some critics have as to what would result if player X were to be replaced by player Y … as if it is a self-evident fact. Hasn’t it been less than a year since we went through this during last year’s quarterback controversy when player Y was, well, something of a disappointment? And yet here you are, one brief human gestation period later, pregnant with cocksureness about what would happen this time around?
In fact, who, besides the coaches, has witnessed the full range of the playersâ activities (in the classroom, in the locker room, on the practice field and during live games) that would qualify one to offer an actual educated opinion on the subject?
Passion, however, is a polite way of describing the many over-the-top, unreasonable opinions being offered in support of each position. In such cases it is the âpassionateâ discourse which seems the most suspicious and the most difficult to take seriously. An example: One strongly held opinion that has resurfaced from last year is that the Browns should play Manziel this year so the team knows what it has for the future. Really? Says who? This idea glaringly fails to acknowledge the primary responsibilities of the general manager and coaches ⊠to acquire and play the best team possible. Isnât that what scouting, training camps, classroom work and practices are for? Or is there a subtler suggestion at work here ⊠that fans should have the opportunity to see what they donât otherwise have access to … that fans should be the judges?
Another oft-heard complaint is far from subtle and takes the form of a threat. That âthere are thousands of fans wanting Manziel to play and if the Browns donât watch themselves theyâll have a riot on their hands.â Yes, that was said on the public airwaves recently. In the world of geopolitics, words like that would be seen as extremism. In the far too compartmentalized world of sports, however, we are loathe to confront the barracuda in the room.
Then thereâs another kind of threat, less violent but more humorous: âI havenât missed a game in 25 years, but, you know what? I donât care anymore. I just donât care. Iâm not gonna let this team ruin my weekends anymore âŠâ Of course, this is an embarrassing admission, dear neighbor, that not only have you been allowing a football team to ruin your weekends for many years, but youâre calling sports talk radio to announce it. Methinks thou dost protest too much ⊠and too publicly.
C)Â During the infamous Watergate scandal that ultimately led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon, an inside source nicknamed Deep Throat whispered to reporter, Bob Woodward, âFollow the money.â There are a multitude of mysteries that can be unraveled by following this advice. Legal authorities and news organizations know that following the money is an almost sure-fire method of getting to the bottom of a crime, a story, or a controversy. But when the media itself is motivated more by their own potential financial gains than by the desire to get the story right, more is demanded of our personal responsibility.
Getting to the bottom of a controversial story about an NFL team is a case in point. The NFL owns a gargantuan slice of the entertainment business. Stadium sellouts, through-the-roof TV ratings, and side deals that reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars are standard occurrences. In fact, the NFL is so successful that even terrible teams continue to make huge profits, so in a way the usual rules of success and failure in business donât apply to the NFL.
Suffice it to say, the NFL is the most lucrative sports league in the world, which draws a large contingent of individuals who are engaged in a continual all-out blitz to take financial advantage of the seemingly insatiable appetite for the game. Sometimes the reporting on the game is entertaining and elucidating, but often not. Sometimes it aims to lift the level of conversation, but too often it aims at the lowest common denominator, attempting to inflame the passions with non-story stories.
Itâs entirely possible, of course, that the heated debates and ill will are viewed as âall in good funâ and a welcome part of the entertainment complex that is the world of professional sports. Try as I might, I just donât see it that way.
In the TV series Friday Night Lights (2006-2011), a fictional story about the culture of high school football in Texas, the promising young coach, Eric Taylor, played by Kyle Chandler, is repeatedly told (warned) that Wâs are all that matter to their town and that it will accept nothing less than a state championship as the measure of their success. âItâs all weâve got in this town.â Thatâs the crux of the problem in the fictional town of Dillon, Texas ⊠and in real towns and cities across America, the belief that thatâs all weâve got.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
There are some aspects of the Browns-Raiders game last Sunday worth mentioning again. Letâs see to what extent they approach being objective facts:
- As the game began, Josh McCown (and/or his chemistry with his receivers) looked rusty. Whether he was simply inaccurate or out of sync with his receivers, I donât know, but as the game progressed McCown seemed to work off the rust and actually made some impressive throws, some into very tight coverage.
- The Raiders put pressure on McCown on almost every passing play. The Browns, on the other hand, put almost no pressure on Derek Carr. I would have been happy had the Browns drafted Carr but itâs still difficult for me to compare QBs in a vacuum. Carr wasnât even being hurried and that, more than anything, made him successful against the Browns.
- In years past, even last year, the Browns offense, when confronted with 3rd and long seemed far too content to throw underneath. But on Sunday against the Raiders McCown converted on so many third-and-longs I was beginning to think DeFilippo was discovering something about his passing game. On a 3rd and 6, McCown hit Hartline for a 15-yard gain. On a third-and-14, he hit Barnidge for 40 yards. On a third-and-10, he hit Barnidge for 15 yards, and on a third-and-17, he hit Hartline for 41 yards. Positive signs amongst lots of negatives.
- DeFilippo may also have discovered something more about his offense last Sunday. In the second half against the Raiders, the Browns offense was looking almost unstoppable in spite of the pressure on McCown and in spite of their employing almost no running game. Almost no running game! Sure, the Browns need to be able to run the ball, but why make your running plays predictable? If your opponent wants to overload the front against the run, that should turn into their problem, not yours. It will be interesting to see how this develops in the coming weeks.
- The fumble of the fourth-quarter punt by Travis Benjamin, more than any other single play, may have decided the game. Instead of the Browns getting the ball on their own 43-yard line with over four minutes remaining, they got the ball on their own 2-yard line with 2:26 remaining. Nevertheless, the Browns drove 71 yards to the Oakland 29, then McCown was sacked with 0:43 remaining. Then the interception with Duke Johnson wide open as the outlet receiver. Maybe underneath would have been a good thing right there. Ouch and ouch once again.
As for quarterback controversies, Johnny Manziel, himself, can put this so-called dissension controversy to rest in 30 seconds. He can say, âSure, I want to contribute, but Iâm doing that in the role that is assigned to me. I support Coach Pettine and I support Josh. And by the way, I would prefer to speak for myself and Iâd prefer for teammates and fans to avoid saying anything that would create a rift or controversy. And thatâs all Iâm gonna say on the subject.â
So, where are we after a three-game (loss-win-loss) start? Three games of a 16-game season is the equivalent of 30 games of the 162-game major league baseball season, so Browns fans think they have a pretty good idea where the team is headed. But Tito Francona would never give up in early May and, naturally, Mike Pettine is not about to give up on the 2015 campaign and turn it into a rebuilding, developmental season. That was never gonna happen.
Disappointing start to the season? Sure it is, but why donât we take some advice from Mike Pettine. Why donât we just work at controlling what we can control? The Cleveland Browns have been providing its fans with regular, ongoing healthy reminders that it is risky, at best, to rely on them as the one and only source of weekend entertainment. Get a life, they seem to say each Sunday. Okay, I say, we can do that!
41 Comments
25 more days til Cavs.
I’m going to print this article and frame it.
http://media.giphy.com/media/4wycNsucv3ofC/giphy.gif
Cleveland Sports Radio: “too often it aims at the lowest common denominator, attempting to inflame the passions with non-story stories”
This article is great.
Great article but I get tired of hearing people say they wanted them to draft Carr. I wanted them to draft Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers. Move On.
What a fascinating discussion about how pointless it is for anyone to have an opinion on sports due to the graceful application of appeal to authority.
Apparently we cannot even listen to other people discuss sports because we cannot trust the others fans due to their passion, we cannot trust the announcers due to their biases, we cannot trust the media because money changes hands.
Someone tell Scott and company they need to shut this site down.
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g246/sey115/Thumbs-UP_zpsbf23635e.gif
Feels very…
http://www.awesomelyluvvie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Pot_Calling_the_Kettle_Black_T-Shirt.png
The late and great Nev Chandler would let his biases slip in to his radio commentary. I remember very distinctly how evidently disgusted he was at Todd Philcox in 1993. And you could tell it was “disgust at the fact that Kosar was cut when Todd Philcox was what we had to work with.” (Vinny being injured at the time.)
That said, never been a big fan of Donovan. Dieken can do no wrong in my book, ever, of course.
https://emilymullaswilson.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/shootfoot.gif
Also found this fascinating picture:
https://barathings.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/441568gif.jpg
So the article that says “lets be rational and understand that a lot of the noise is just that” somehow discredits a Blog. So by this logic, they should write more sensationalistic articles to support their validity?
Amen.
Well, TMZ thinks so . . .
That’s pretty amazing.
“And yet here you are, one brief human gestation period later, pregnant
with cocksureness about what would happen this time around?”
Such a great line. Loved this article. Nice work!
I think it is interesting how Donavan has been editorializing his calls of late.
First, there is the matter of our own lack of qualifications. While I think I know quite a lot about the sport, about the position and about what goes into the decision-making process, compared to those who have worked at this for a living at the highest levels, I cannot bring myself to believe I know anywhere near enough to hold more than a superficial, uneducated opinion.
^ Pretty much sums up we are too stupid to have opinions.
What kind of qualifications does it take to go 85-174?
WRITING!
https://media.giphy.com/media/BXC0ov210HbX2/giphy.gif
How did she decide this would the application of her focus and dedication?!
I love how you prove Mr. Pietro’s theory be encapsulating the argument in your response. He never said “you, them, we, us” or any other plural pronoun. “I cannot bring myself to believe I know anywhere near enough to hold more than a superficial, uneducated opinion”. While you interpret this to mean “There is only one person qualified and everyone else is stupid”, I think it’s fair to interpret this as “understand the qualification of those people posting opinions and understand your shortcomings before making emotional statements”. Your interpretation “he’s saying everyone is stupid” kinda falls on the emotional response side…
And there is serious validity to his point – there is HUGE difference between Me (I never played organized football), a high school player, a D1 College players, and maybe someone who coached a legit program for a while. Knowledge and experience of people who are NOT in the NFL varies. I could argue that even the pro scouts are not fully knowledgeable about a player just based on the results of the draft. So while we all spend hours talking about starting QBs, some of it is exactly “superficial, uneducated opinion” and some of it is not – so at the very least, we should acknowledge that.
.328 in the previous 16 seasons.
.333 thus far, this season.
STATISTICS! đ
Probably the same way that one kid discovered he could squirt milk out of his eye. A verrrrrrry weird seredipitious accident.
How did we decide being Browns fans would be the application of our focus and dedication?
Ah you “interpreted” away the very statement he made. If anyone is proving his point it is you, reading between the lines and clearly written statement to come to a very different conclusion than what is presented to you.
A portion of my attention to be sure, but hardly focus or dedication.
Yes, yes,yes…because appreciating a well crafted turn of phrase and you defending your âpassionâ are obviously related.
I’m guessing you didn’t recognize a straight cut and paste of your statement.
Although modified to fit our sports interests, I believe the grammar is correct.
Richard, I think you’re being way too hard on the fans. What’s wrong with arguing about your team? Are we not supposed to express opinions? It’s not like a coach is going to take them seriously.
Besides, it’s only sports. So what if most of us are ignorant bloviators? What difference does it make?
Players and coaches and owners get very rich off of the fans’ passion. They should be grateful for it. Some sports leagues would kill to have controversy. When’s the last time the fans and media ripped the Lake Erie Monsters?
I realized I’d misunderstood your post and subsequently modified mine. Apologies.
No worries. đ
To Hopwin and bossman09: First off, this from WFNY’s own site under the top header line, ‘Before You Comment’ … “We feel the fans that read and comment here are some of the most knowledgeable and articulate around the Cleveland sports scene. We appreciate the atmosphere that they have helped us create.” To that I would only add the word humorous after “knowledgeable and articulate”. (And I’m appreciative too.)
Second, does anyone recall the Marshall McLuhan scene from the Woody Allen film, Annie Hall? … https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=annie%20hall%20marshall%20mcluhan
My dear Hopwin, your statement, “Pretty much sums up we are too stupid to have opinions,” is off the mark. I didn’t say that and I didn’t mean that. I was simply saying … well, I’m afraid I have to say here that bossman09 is on target.
I will also add this about Johnny Manziel. In one of my previous columns, “Can JM return from the celebrity injured list?” I think I was very thorough as well as fair and balanced (if I may use that phrase) about his college career, about his potential and about the danger of his buying into the whole celebrity thing. In fact, I was quite complimentary about his game and I do think there is potential there for success in the NFL. And who isn’t impressed with his performance against the Titans. I was thrilled he performed as well as he did. But if you’ve read my articles about football, you must know by now I don’t think the QB is ever a silver bullet solution.
Bottom line, in my opinion, there may be a good reason why Manziel should replace McCown three games into the season, but nothing I’ve heard so far outweighs the fact that the Browns coaching staff has made it clear they feel McCown gives them the best chance to win. And arguments that resort to calling McCown (a very decent guy) a bum and a loser … or Johnny Manziel a future hall-of-famer … well, I just don’t think those are very persuasive.
Peace
Mr. C, I don’t think it’s about having or expressing opinions. Discussing our local teams can be a terrific topic for conversation, for sharing. Just look at WFNY! For me it’s about the “it’s only sports” compartmentalizing. It has to do with civility. I experienced the Browns 1964 championship. But it wasn’t until much later when I began to teach my kids about sports and sportsmanship that I guess I came to enjoy the games in a … um, healthier and happier way?
The piece by Jordan Marks on Sept 30 about his visit to see the Browns at First Energy Stadium resonated. I took my two sons (pretty young at the time) to a Browns game at the old Municipal Stadium after a 20 year absence. Drunken, disorderly and vulgar is the best way to describe most (MOST) of the fans around us. I think my sons were rather stunned. And it didn’t seem to have anything to do with a long losing tradition. it was just bad behavior that somehow became acceptable in that venue. Be careful though … if it’s acceptable there why not in school? Why not in the halls of congress?
So, what difference does it make? That behavior, to a degree, defines our culture and community and I think we can do better.
Her hands were caught under a log, a bear was coming forth towards her, but the bow & arrow was up on a branch. There was precious little time and it was either she learn the above under great duress or become the evening meal of a hungry Grizzlie. Her Yorkie sleeps on that bearskin rug every night.
Okay, I agree with the points you raise in your reply to me. But that’s not what your article is about.
Oh yeah, well now that I see it spelled out it seems obvious.
I agree with you there. It’s about controversies and whether they’re real or not and whether the tension and ill-will is something to revel in or avoid. And bloviation … it’s about that too. I love that word. And I’ll stop there before I find my name in its definition.
Oh come on, Richard, if it weren’t for bloviation and counter-bloviation, we’d all be productive little worker bees droning way at our desks and looking at the clock every two minutes instead of enjoying ourselves here at the WFNY think tank.
Bloviate away, says I.
RAmen
I’m guessing she has a background in gymnastics and this started as a druken dare at a party. Also, I love her.