Random thoughts about everything sports. : CBSSports.com Blogs

Quarterback carousel

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:38:18 EDT

I just finished reading "Faceoff" on the CBS Sports homepage. And one part stood out to me today. The comments made by Pete Prisco about coaches and their "knee-jerk reactions" to changing quarterbacks. He is questioning the Eagles (Andy Reid) decision to go with Michael Vick the rest of the season. Now I admit I didn't watch either of the Eagles' first two games in their entirety, but from what I did see, Vick is playing some good football. And Vick playing good football can be pretty amazing. I know Kevin Kolb didn't have much time to make his mark this season, but he didn't look that impressive when he was playing. And this brings me to my point. Why not switch quarterbacks? I know the Eagles have alot of time and money committed to Kolb already but how long should you stick with a guy before you make the switch? 4 games? 6 games? Wait till your season is pretty much in jeopardy? I hear the argument, "Well no one is running away from the division so you have time to get going." What a load of BS. So just because there is nobody else making a run with the division, does that mean that you shouldn't do your best to be the one team that does? A coach has an obligation to his city, his owner, and his players to field the best possible players to give your team a shot to win. In a season where one game can make the difference between playing in the post season and going home after 16, you need to win every game you possibly can. Perhaps sometimes that means admitting that you made a mistake in your original quarterback decision.

Shanahan Vs. Haynesworth

Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:11:53 EDT

Shanahan Vs. Haynesworth So whose side do you take? The new coach who is a proven winner, been around for decades, establishing his mark and showing the troops who is boss? Or the multi-million dollar athlete who claims that the situation is not what he was promised and that knowing then what he knows now, would never have signed in the first place?

Well I have my opinion and I'm about to share it with you. While far from an elite athlete, I have played my fair share of organized sports. From hockey to baseball, from football to rugby. And each and every team that I played on, there was no mistaking who was the boss. It was the guy patrolling the sidelines or bench or whatever. If coach said jump, you asked "how high?".

Could someone explain the Baseball H.O.F. voting?

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:53:55 EDT

First off let me say that this is in no way a slam on the voting in of Andre Dawson. I think he deserves it. He belongs. My question is, "Why does it take the Hall of Fame voters 9 tries to vote a player in?"

I just don't get it. What has changed since the first 8 times he was eligible? He hasn't added to any of his career totals. Hasn't hit another homer, stole another base, robbed someone of a home run. So why are his numbers worthy this year when they weren't the first 8 times?

I understand with not voting someone in on their first year of eligibility. A first ballot Hall of Famer should be an honour reserved for the elite of the elite. But if they aren't worthy after that second year, then why would they be worthy later? They are either Hall worthy or they aren't.