On 49ers-Ravens and Suh's stomp


On 49ers-Ravens and Suh's stomp

For those of you not in the mood for some high-fallutin philosophical buzzwording this early in the day, Occams Razor is just a shorter way of saying, You dont need to add a bunch of extra assumptions to explain something, or shorter still, the simplest and most obvious explanation is often the truest.Thus, we bring you the 49ers loss in Baltimore, and Ndamukong Suhs version of Stomp The Yard.The 49ers lost in Baltimore Thursday because the Ravens are very good, played at home, on short rest, and are used to beating the hell out of people. And Suh stomped Green Bays Evan Dietrich-Smith because he is a dirty player who wants everyone to know it.
But lets take them in order, shall we?Sure, you could try to dissect the 49ers because thats what you like to do, but this was simple. Horizontal quarterback-plus-no-running-game-means-no-touchdowns. If theres anything else you saw, youre just repeating a version of that simple rule.Lots of teams have trouble blocking the Ravens; in fact, most teams do, and the Ravens lose when they do not because they cant terrorize offenses but because their own offense terrorizes them right back. So Anthony Davis and Chilo Rachal and Mike Iupati and Jonathan Goodwin and Joe Staley and the tight ends and running backs couldnt block the Ravens at all, and Alex Smith took a right beating.If you want to blame an individual here and there, or go into a long soliloquy about how Smith and Braylon Edwards still havent figured each other out after all this time, youre missing the picture for the signature in the corner. The 49ers are a among group of good but second-tier teams that have to punch above their collective weight to beat other good defensive teams who dont make mistakes, and thats neither an insult or a condemnation. If you take it as such, eat some turkey and enjoy your tryptophan coma. Youve lost perspective and your friends are becoming frightened for you.And Suh? He is clearly channeling his inner Young Ray Lewis, or for you wrestling fans, The Undertaker. He has the image of a dirty player for past misdemeanors, he actually likes it, and he cemented it Thursday morning with the whole nation watching. His explanation that the man upstairs knows what I did, is a silly defense, unless he meant to finish the sentence with and hed suspend my ass too.If Suh didnt want to be thought of as he is, he wouldnt have gone all Riverdance on Dietrich-Smith. Hes too smart a player and an individual not to be able to parse that out.And if he is just a guy with massive impulse control problems, his career will be short, caricatured and spent with a lot of bad teams a sort of Albert Haynesworth for the post-Haynesworth era.Haynesworth isnt an exact parallel, of course, but Suh has reached the point where he is going to be targeted routinely by officials who have been given instructions to pay him extra heed. Thats what happens with players in all sports who cant figure out the difference between mere homicidal on-field behavior and arm-stomping.Its not more complicated than that. Suh does stupid and harmful things for effect. He has opportunities to change his behavior, and chooses not to. He is not a stupid man by any means. Thus, he must want the image he has cultivated, from players, game officials and the public, or has decided it doesnt matter.Only thats a hard way to live, especially in football, where even Darwin winces at the frontier justice that is routinely metered out from player to player.But the point remains the same. Sometimes looking for the arcane explanation is just a pointless mental exercise. Sometimes you just get beat by a better team with all the advantages. And sometimes youre a dirty player. And most of the time, its as simple as that.

Frank Deford's longform storytelling made him worthy of our attention


Frank Deford's longform storytelling made him worthy of our attention

Frank Deford’s death over the weekend did not mark the end of longform sportswriting as we knew it; he had long ago become part of the electronic commentariat that has reduced longform’s place in the public’s attention span.

But there is still longform writing and storytelling to be found in many places, and it is still worthwhile. It has more production value, as the TV folks like to blather, and the words have to fight for their place between the cracks left by the pictures and the mutated graphics, but longform lives, and it should, lest we all agree as one people to further desiccate that attention span like a grapefruit left in the sun.

Deford’s death, though, reminds of when longform was the zenith of the storytelling art. It could, and still can, give you access and depth and breadth that a TV crew simply could not, and cannot. Even extended TV features are by their very nature so contrived by all the equipment that nothing is natural, nothing is a surprise, and the act of writing is almost an afterthought.

Deford knew this. He more than merely dabbled in TV himself, playing the wizened old raconteur who was as much character in his pieces as storyteller. He was also a star and a starmaker with The National, a daily sports network in newspaper form that was long on talent and ideas but short on delivery and distribution. It lasted 17 months, until mid-1991, but it led to grander attempts decades later, and could if you squint your eyes hard enough be the natural parent of Grantland and The Ringer and Vice and SB Nation and dozens of others – all bigger ideas, positioned in the post-typing world. Some lasted, more didn’t, but capitalism is like that – making fuel to keep the fires burning and the engines churning.

Deford could have thrived in such a world, to be sure. He was not, in the hideous phrase, “a man of his time.” Indeed, he was a crossover figure years ago in ways that other longform writers attempt to resist even now. They want to be Deford at the height of his powers at a time when the instruments for their gift are either dying or veering away from anything that hits the 600-word mark.

But his passing did not kill the art of clever writing and incisive storytelling. There are far too many people who can do that still, even if the market for their gifts is neither as pronounced nor as eager for the product as it once was. It did remind us not only that he was a giant, but that there are still giants among us should we deign to take the time to seek them.

Thus, Deford’s death marked his passing but not the thing that made him worthy of our attention. Storytelling, longform and otherwise, remains the heart of why this is still worthwhile to a culture, and when the generation his work spawned starts to die off, I suspect we’ll still be saying the same thing then. Notebooks are smartphones, photographs are streams, but the human eye and ear and hand still remain pre-eminent.

That is, until the robots take over, at which point reading won’t be worth it.

Does St. Louis' suit against NFL mean hope for the City of Oakland?

Does St. Louis' suit against NFL mean hope for the City of Oakland?

You thought you were done worrying about the Raiders. You thought the votes were in, the moving vans booked for three years down the road, and all gnashing and sharpening of teeth was over. You thought you were free.

Then those buttinsky-come-latelies from St. Louis decided to rear their litigious heads, and now you find yourselves slipping back into that desperate-hope world from which no one escapes.

It seems the city and its regional sports authority has decided to sue the National Football League and its 32 semi-independent duchies over the relocation of the Rams 15 months ago because, and you’ll like this one, the league allegedly did not follow its own relocation rules when it moved the team.

As you know, there is no such thing as a rule if everyone governed by the rule decided unanimously to ignore the rule. This doctrine falls under the general heading of, “We’re billionaires, try and stop us.”

But all lawsuits have a common denominator, and that is that there is money at the end of the rainbow. St. Louis is claiming it is going to miss out on approximately $100 million in net proceeds (read: cash) and has decided that the NFL and especially their good pal Stan Kroenke is going to have to pay for permission to do what they have already done -- specifically, leave.

Because the suit was filed in St. Louis, the benefits of home field advantage apply, and the league is likely to have to reinflate their lawyers for some exciting new billable hours.

As to whether it turns into a windfall for the jilted Missourians, well, as someone who has known lawyers, I would list them as prohibitive underdogs. But there is nuisance value here, which brings us to Oakland.

The city and county, as we know, did not put its best shoe forward in trying to lure the Raiders into staying or the other 31 owners into rejecting the team’s pleas for geographical relief. By that, we mean that the city and county did not fall all over itself to meet the league’s typically extortionate demands.

But they did play angry enough to start snipping about the 2019 part of the Raiders’ 3-More-Coliseum-Years plan, and they are threatening to sue over about $80K in unpaid parking fees, so filing their own breach-of-rules lawsuit might be a possibility.

Because, hey, what’s the point of sounding like a nuisance if you can’t actually become one?

By now, it is clear that everyone in SuitWorld got what it needed out of the Raiders’ move. The city and county could concentrate on guiding the A’s into activity on their own new stadium. The team could go where Mark Davis has been agitating for it to go for at least three years – somewhere else. The state of Nevada could find a place for that $750 million that was burning a hole in its casino vault. And the league went to a market that it, at first reluctantly and then enthusiastically, decided should be its own.

The fans? Oh, please. Who cares about them? To the NFL, and to all corporations in all walks of business, folks are just walking wallets.

But for some cash? Well, climb on board, suckers. The gravy train is pulling out on Track 3.

Nobody is fool enough to think the Raiders would be forced to return. Hell, even St. Louis isn’t asking for the Rams back. They just want to get paid for the money they probably banked on in the good old days before Stan Kroenke decided to head west.

And that would doubtless be Oakland’s stance as well if. Now the circumstances are slightly different, in that St. Louis worked harder to keep the Rams than Oakland did to keep the Raiders. St. Louis scared up $350 million toward new digs for the Rams, well short of what Kroenke would have accepted, while Oakland said it could get its hands on some infrastructure money and no more.

But Mayor Libby Schaaf complained in her relocation post mortem that the league didn’t follow its own guidelines (yay correlation as causation!), maybe with an eye toward throwing a few lawyers into the fire to see how long it would burn.

There is not yet any indication that the city and county are going that route (and the silence may simply mean that they are sick of the Raiders’ saga as everyone else seems to be), but if they do, well, don’t freak out that the team might be forced to return.

Except, of course, in that place where migraines start. Dragging this back up is a bit like the phantom pain amputees feel -- but hey, people will do a lot for a bit of court-ordered cash. Anyone who has ever watched Judge Judy will understand.