Week Seven Morning Aftermath: Steelers 27, Vikings 17
Posted by Mike Florio on October 26, 2009 8:01 AM ET
For reasons neither known nor apparent, the NFL smoothed out what typically is a Sunday afternoon schedule with too many early games and two few late ones.The problem, of course, is that the six games that started at 1:00 p.m. ET (with the other five beginning at at 4:05 p.m. or 4:15 p.m. ET) featured four snoozers, one blowout that became a close game, and one compelling, playoff-atmosphere, Heinz Field-record crowd, perfect October football afternoon battle between the defending NFL champs and a team that has loaded the cannon (but for Darren Sharper) in the hopes of finally getting back to the Super Bowl for the first time in 33 years -- and winning it for the first time in 44.
The 10-point victory margin matched the same difference from the day these two franchises met nearly 35 years ago in New Orleans. And while the Vikings' offense was a lot more effective on Sunday than it was when the team's only points came from a blocked punt and a failed conversion, there was a similar sense of inevitability throughout most of the afternoon.
No matter what the Vikings did, they wouldn't win the game.
But they sure as hell tried.
The game started sluggishly, with two strong defenses forcing an exchange of punts in a field-position battle that the Vikings eventually lost, thanks to a couple of shanks from Chris Kluwe. Still, the damage wasn't serious, with the Steelers leading 3-0 after the first quarter.
And then the Vikings' offense woke up, putting together a methodical 13-play drive that gave Minnesota what would be its only lead, 7-3.
After trading punts again, the Steelers got the ball on their own nine, with 1:39 to play in the half. And the Minnesota defense played like it was the fourth quarter, allowing the Steelers to move down the field and score a touchdown that game them a 10-7 lead at the half.
Pittsburgh seemed to be poised to put the thing out of reach on the first drive after intermission, with a couple of personal fouls from the purple people putting the Steelers inside the 10 in little over three minutes.
Somewhat amazingly, the Vikings' defense stiffened, holding the Steelers to three points and keeping the score to a manageable margin, 13-7.
Minnesota responded, with a gutsy call on fourth and one from the Pittsburgh 35 turning into a 34-yard catch-and-run to Brett Favre's new favorite target, Sidney Rice, giving the Vikings first and goal at the one. But after one run and two failed pass attempts, the coach known as "Chilly" got cold feet, opting for a field goal instead of going for the lead. 13-10.
After two more punts, the Steelers cobbled together another good drive, one that seemed to be destined to finally extend the margin to the final outcome of Super Bowl IX. But Rashard Mendenhall fumbled inside the five, on the second play of the fourth quarter.
After the game, coach Mike Tomlin said that Mendenhall got "a little careless," but Tomlin added that Mendenhall's spot as the starter isn't in jeopardy -- even though at one point late in the game Mewelde Moore was getting the reps.
After the fumble, the Vikings embarked on an epic 18-play drive, fueled by a remarkable toe-tapping sideline catch from Rice on third down and nearly 20. The official looking right at the play called it incomplete, and he was overturned via replay.
Then, the Vikings seemed to take the lead on a 10-yard pass from Favre to, fittingly, Rice. But a phantom tripping call on tight end Jeff Dugan wiped the score off the board.
And it was a horrible call, the kind of call that reinforces the suspicions of those who think that the league wants to see the Steelers win.
"I didn't like it because Jeff Dugan is sitting there with a knot on his thigh on a tripping penalty," coach Brad Childress said, explaining that Dugan (as the video clearly indicated) was merely executing a cut block.
Two plays later, defensive end Brett Keisel applied a cut block to Favre's arm while he was setting up to throw, and linebacker LaMarr Woodley turned in a slow-motion version of James Harrison's touchdown run from Super Bowl XLIII.
The 10-point lead finally had been achieved. And with less than seven minutes to play, this one was over.
Enter Percy Harvin.
The rookie with a bad shoulder that probably got a little worse worse thanks to a jarring hit earlier in the game from safety Ryan Clark, which prompted Brett Favre to run down the field like the mom that jumped into the pool during the volleyball game in Meet The Parents, went 88 yards for a touchdown. The play featured a lame tackle attempt from Jeff "Beer Muscles" Reed and Jeff Dugan's revenge. (As we observed at the time, Twitter style, it probably does make sense when playing the Steelers to block the officials, too.)
Then the Vikings defense played like it wasn't the fourth quarter and the Vikings got the ball back and embarked on another memorable drive that ultimately would be remembered for a very different reason.
A play that seemed to turn the sense of inevitability toward the Vikings came from Minnesota's 45, with a short pass from Favre to Adrian Peterson and a crushing blow delivered by Peterson against cornerback William Gay en route to a 26-yard gain that put the Vikings in position to at least force a tie -- and possibly to win in regulation.
A play later, the Vikings were inside the Steelers' 20, thanks to a seven-yard gain from Chester Taylor on a short pass.
But on the next play, with 1:15 on a rolling clock, Taylor let a short screen pass slip through his hands. Linebacker Keyaron Fox caught the ball, and embarked on another slo-mo saunter all the way to the end zone.
Finally, it was over. Pittsburgh 27, Minnesota 17.
So in a game where a suddenly shaky Vikings defense held up their end of the bargain (except in the last 99 seconds of the first half), it was the offense that moved the ball but, ultimately, handed 14 points to the Steelers in the fourth quarter.
For the Vikings, the 6-1 record is still impressive, especially with the Giants and Falcons losing on Sunday. But with a trip to Lambeau for a game against the two-loss Packers on the horizon, the hammerlock that the Minnesotans previously had on the NFC North suddenly is in jeopardy.
The Steelers have a full 15 days until their next game, a Monday nighter at Mile High. And it's followed by a visit from the surprisingly 5-2 Bengals. So while the defending champs should be happy with their move to 5-2 (especially after starting out 1-2), there's still a lot of work to be done in order to get back to the top of the conference -- and they can't rely every week on two 75-plus-yard defensive touchdowns in the last half of the fourth quarter.
Kiwanuka says he wouldn't play for Limbaugh-owned team
Posted by Mike Florio on October 9, 2009 1:30 PM ET
The opinions continue to roll in regarding the possibility that radio host Rush Limbaugh will soon own the St. Louis Rams.Giants defensive end Mathias Kiwanuka says that he'd never play for a Limbaugh-owned team.
"All I know is from the last comment I heard, he said in [President] Obama's America, white kids are getting beat up on the bus while black kids are chanting 'right on,'" Kiwanuka said, per the New York Daily News. "I mean, I don't want anything to do with a team that he has any part of. He can do whatever he wants, it is a free country. But if it goes through, I can tell you where I am not going to play.
"I am not going to draw a conclusion from a person off of one comment, but when it is time after time after time and there's a consistent pattern of disrespect and just a complete misunderstanding of an entire culture that I am a part of, I can't respect him as a man," Kiwanuka added.
Earlier this week, Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb -- the player at the center of the controversy that ended Limbaugh's on-air role at ESPN after roughly a month -- made his own views known.
"If he's rewarded to buy them, congratulations to him," McNabb said, per the Daily News. "But I won't be in St. Louis anytime soon."
Jets linebacker Bart Scott echoed the sentiment. "I know I wouldn't want to play for him. He's a jerk. . . . What he said [about McNabb] was inappropriate and insensitive, totally off-base. He could offer me whatever he wanted, I wouldn't play for him. . . . I wouldn't play for Rush Limbaugh. My principles are greater and I can't be bought."
In our view, Limbaugh is smart enough to know that his interest in buying the Rams would create this kind of reaction. The only remaining questions, in our view, are whether he'll paint himself as a victim of bias and intolerance if his bid is withdrawn or rejected -- and whether he'll become a modern-day version of George Preston Marshall in reverse if Limbaugh lands the team.
The late Redskins owner had no black players because he resisted employing them; Limbaugh would potentially have no black players because they would refuse to work for him.
Checketts confirms that Limbaugh dropped from ownership bid
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on October 14, 2009 6:31 PM ET
It didn't take long for the ownership group hoping to buy the Rams to confirm a report that Rush Limbaugh is no longer part of their team.In a statement released Wednesday evening to the Associated Press, the group's leader, St. Louis Blues chairman Dave Checketts, said that Limbaugh's participation had become a complication in the group's efforts and the bid will move forward without him.
Limbaugh was to be a limited partner and it's unclear how significant his financial stake in the group was going to be.
What was clear was the NFL's stance on the issue, as enumerated by Commissioner Roger Goodell.
And it didn't take long for Checketts to hear that message and decisively act.
As we hear from players all the time right around when free agency approaches: It's a business.
Limbaugh blames Dave Checketts, De Smith
Posted by Mike Florio on October 15, 2009 1:07 PM ET
Radio host Rush Limbaugh addressed on Thursday the conclusion of his involvement in the effort to purchase the St. Louis Rams.And he placed much of the blame on Dave Checketts, owner of the NHL's St. Louis Blues.
Limbaugh said that, after Checketts approached him earlier this year to join the group, Limbaugh warned Checketts about the inevitable media reaction. Checketts, per Limbaugh, said that Limbaugh's involvement had been cleared with "people at the highest levels of the National Football League."
Limbaugh also suggested that he was led to believe he'd have a role in the operation of the team, but he did not contradict Checketts' recent representation that Limbaugh was only going to be a minority owner.
Limbaugh then argued that his exclusion from the process originiated with NFLPA Executive Director De Smith, and then Limbaugh argued that Smith is essentially an operative for the Obama administration, and that Smith essentially scared NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell (whose last name Limbaugh inexplicably misprounounced) into not doing business with Limbaugh.
Specifically, Limbaugh claims that the move was part of the union's leverage against the NFL as part of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.
But the NFL and the union currently are at odds on multiple topics. The notion that the NFL would cave to Smith given his ties to Obama on this one issue -- and not on any of the other far more important points of contention between the two sides -- suggests a superificial understanding of the business of the NFL at best, and a conscious manipulation of reality at worst.
So Rush believes he was dumped because the union wants to "intimidate and frighten" the owners, who by the way currently are doing their best to intimidate and frighten the union by sending up continuous smoke signals of a looming lockout. And it's all part of a broader effort by the President to put pro football under his thumb. Despite the fact that the owners are currently doing their best to intimidate and frighten the union into thinking that a lockout is coming.
Republican or Democrat, red state or blue state, conservative or liberal, the notion that Limbaugh was railroaded by the White House as part of a broader effort by the White House to impose its agenda on pro football makes no sense.
In a later segment, a caller suggested that Limbaugh was blackballed because he's a conservative. And Limbaugh seemed to agree with that. Apparently, the many other conservatives who currently own NFL teams can now expect to have their teams taken from them, Marge Schott style.
Here's the bottom line. Limbaugh is a controversial, polarizing, and divisive figure. (The comments to these articles prove that reality.) He revels in his role, and he profits from it handsomely. And regardless of whether things he said about slavery and James Earl Ray were fabricated, he has said more than enough to cement that reputation, and thus to make it impossible for the NFL to do business with him.
Indeed, Limbaugh was once under consideration for the Monday Night Football booth. And his candidacy was shouted down as swiftly as his recent bid to join in the purchase of the Rams, based on racially divisive and inflammatory quotes that we don't recall Limbaugh or anyone else claiming were fabricated at the time. Though he eventually got into the football business three years later, his brief stay at ESPN entailed another, and much larger, controversy.
So while he can now externalize blame (like a liberal might do) for the failure of his effort to own part of the Rams, he should blame himself for not realizing that he was walking once again down a path that he had already twice trod.
He did it because he knew damn well what he was getting into, and he voluntarily went along for the ride because he knew it would bring him plenty of publicity -- and because it ultimately could be shoehorned into his broader message.
I don't care whether his broader message is right or whether it is wrong. The goal here is to set aside politics and get to the truth of what happened, and why.
This was, in our view, a P.R. ploy. And it worked.
Bravo, Rush. Bravo.
Harbaugh: "Cowboys are everything that's wrong with the NFL"
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on November 6, 2009 12:59 PM ET
Ravens coach John Harbaugh experienced the Eagles-Cowboys rivalry for nine years as a member of the Eagles staff. And he came up with some strong opinions on the differences between the Andy Reid era Eagles and the Jerry Jones-led Cowboys.ESPN's Matt Mosley points out a timely excerpt from a new book on the Eagles by Reuben Frank and Mark Eckel. Harbaugh was asked why the Eagles have had so much more success than the Cowboys over the last decade.
"Why is that? Because what Andy Reid and his program stand for the opposite of what the Cowboys stand for. The Cowboys are a star system. It's all about building around individuals first and collecting talent, collecting great players," Harbaugh said.
"Andy has always been about building a team. And over the long haul, it's a team sport, and one of the greatest examples of that is what's happened with the Eagles and the Cowboys over the last 10 years. The Cowboys stand for everything that's wrong with the NFL."
Ouch.
The quote might be bulletin board material even though Harbaugh has moved on to the Ravens -- where he delivered a devastating loss to Dallas in the final game at Texas Stadium.
Baltimore doesn't face Dallas again this year, so Harbaugh's words probably won't have staying power. Still, it's safe to say he won't be interviewing with Jerry Jones if he's ever looking for a job again.
Goodell on Rush: "Divisive comments are not what NFL's about"
Posted by Tom Curran on October 13, 2009 2:20 PM ET
This afternoon in Boston, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell chipped in with a "fat friggin' chance" (our words, not Goodell's) when asked about Rush Limbaugh's prospects of being part of an ownership group trying to purchase the St. Louis Rams.
Speaking in a press conference in a South Boston hotel, Goodell first referred to the purchase process saying it was still in the preliminary stages.
"At this point in time we'll continue our process which is to allow the Rams to decide if they're going to sell and who they'll sell to," Goodell said. "And then at some point, the NFL will be engaged and we'll [examine] whatever ownership group is put forth through our process [of vetting the group]."
Asked if he had any response to the surge in player opposition to Limbaugh's potentially becoming an owner, Goodell said, "The comments that Rush made about Donovan [McNabb] I disagree with very strongly. [They were] polarizing comments that we don't think reflect accurately on the NFL or our players and I obviously do not believe that those comments are positive and are divisive. I disagree with those comments very strongly and I've told the players that."
Goodell was asked what his reaction would be if a present owner aired commentary like Limbaugh's. Would he then have an issue?
"We're all held to a high standard here and divisive comments are not what the NFL's all about," said Goodell. "I would not want to see those kind of comments from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL, no. Absolutely not."
We'll update shortly with the commissioner's comments on Deion and "Hurricane" Tommy Cable.
Limbaugh addresses critics of his plan to buy the Rams
Posted by Mike Florio on October 12, 2009 7:02 PM ET
[Editor's note: On October 17, 2009, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch retracted the quote appearing below regarding slavery, explaining that the quote cannot be verified.]Amid a growing chorus of opposition to his interest in buying the St. Louis Rams along with Dave Checketts, the owner of the NHL's St. Louis Blues, radio host Rush Limbaugh addressed the situation during his weekday radio show.
By way of brief (and probably needless) background, Limbaugh is a polarizing figure. Those who love him adore him. Those who hate him do so with all the intensity of the surface of the sun.
From a business standpoint, he's a genius. He knows how to get under the epidermis of his detractors while at the same time pressing the buttons of his proponents. All the while, his ratings -- and thus his wallet -- grow.
He's also very adroit when it comes to using the English language, and when dancing around delicate subjects.
Limbaugh focused his Monday remarks on the media, claiming that he's not surprised by the reaction of some journalists and broadcasters. And without specifically mentioning the quote in question, Limbaugh generally denied that he uttered one of the passages that is cited often by those who believe Limbaugh is a racist.
Here's the quote, which can be found at multiple web site via a simple Google search, and which Bryan Burwell of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch used in a recent column: "I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: Slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back. I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."
During his Monday show, Limbaugh broadly claimed that 15 hours per week of radio programming covering 21 years had been reviewed. (It's a job that would take more than 16,000 hours, so he apparently has a bunch of employees.) Said Limbaugh, "There is not even an inkling that any words in this quote are accurate."
But here's the key -- he never directly denied saying the precise words that Burwell assigned to him. Sure, Limbaugh made vague claims of libel and slander, but there should be no ambiguity here. If Burwell attributed a concocted, made up quote to Limbaugh, Limbaugh's lawyers should be demanding a retraction and a large bag of cash.
Though I've got no idea whether Limbaugh said it, Burwell says that Limbaugh said it. And if Limbaugh didn't say it, he's got an open-and-shut defamation claim against Burwell, the Post-Dispatch, and anyone else who has attributed that quote to Limbaugh.
Indeed, Limbaugh should own the keys to newsone.com, which cites Limbaugh as the source of the "slavery . . . had its merits" quote and other racially inflammatory remarks, such as "Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."
But instead of Limbaugh directly challenging those whom he believes are deliberately misrepresenting his words, conservative web sites are implying that Limbaugh never said that which declined on Monday to expressly deny saying. At NewsBusters.org, for example, Scott Whitlock calls out MSNBC for relying on Steelers linebacker James Farrior as the source for the quote. In so doing, Whitlock calls the "slavery had its merits" quote "dubious" and describes it as something Limbaugh "supposedly" said.
Look, either he said it or he didn't. And in referring to an item from the Post-Dispatch that troubled him because it suggested that he supports slavery, all Limbaugh had to do was read the quote that Bryan Burwell attributed to Limbaugh and say, "Folks, here are the words they say that I said. And I swear to you that I never uttered these words."
The fact that Limbaugh didn't do that makes us think that maybe he said it. And we'll continue to think that maybe Limbaugh said it until Limbaugh either specifically and categorically denies making the remark or successfully sues Burwell and the Post-Dispatch for falsely claiming that Limbaugh made a statement that any fair-minded person would regard as incredibly and patently racist.
We previously said that we've got no problem with Limbaugh owning an NFL team, if he can keep his political views separate from his sports interests. But in light of the quote that Limbaugh for whatever reason wouldn't directly and unequivocally say he didn't say, we're not so sure that he should be permitted to buy the team based simply on his ability to write the check.
If, after all, playing in the NFL is a privilege, isn't owning one of the franchises a privilege, too?
Moreover, if the "slavery . . . had its merits" statement isn't enough to disqualify Limbaugh from owning an NFL team (if he said it), then why in the hell did the folks who run Major League Baseball essentially ban former Reds owner Marge Schott from her own building for saying that Hitler had his merits?
Maybe we're simply missing something. If we are, please use the comments section to enlighten us.
Raiders stun Eagles in Black Hole
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on October 18, 2009 7:42 PM ET
A lot of folks criticized Philadelphia's 3-1 record before Sunday, saying that the wins didn't fully count because they came against Carolina, Tampa Bay, and Kansas City.Well, Sunday's game in Oakland counts. As a loss.
The Raiders defeated Philadelphia 13-9 because of an inspired defensive performance by Oakland and some shoddy tackling by Philadelphia.
Asante Samuel was one of many Eagles to whiff on a tackle during a 86-yard touchdown catch by Raiders tight end Zach Miller, who is one of the few pass-catchers in Raiders history that was drafted despite his forty time.
JaMarcus Russell threw for 224 yards, with one touchdown and two interceptions. But he played better than Donovan McNabb, who was inaccurate on far too many of his 46 throws.
And while the Raiders offense didn't do a lot in the second half, Justin Fargas converted a number of key first downs in the fourth quarter to help ice the game.
This is a loss that could haunt Philadelphia all season.
In the competitive NFC East, the Giants, Eagles, and Cowboys were all counting on two easy victories against the Raiders and Chiefs. The Cowboys almost blew its game in Kansas City last week, but managed to win. Philly wasn't so lucky in Oakland.
The Eagles are undeniably a talented bunch, but there isn't a team that we know less about after six weeks.
First paper to run Limbaugh "slavery" quote issues retraction
Posted by Mike Florio on October 17, 2009 9:31 AM ET
In the wake of the news that radio host Rush Limbaugh was hoping to buy a chunk of the St. Louis Rams, Bryan Burwell of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote a column containing the now-infamous quote, supposedly from Limbaugh, regarding the notion that slavery "had its merits."We first became aware of the quote not from perusing the copy of the Post-Dispatch that arrives in our mailbox every morning in West Virginia, but because Limbaugh mentioned the issue during the Monday broadcast of his radio show. (Indeed, if Limbaugh had never talked about the quotes on his radio show, we and likely many others would have never even known about the issue.)
When posting on the matter on Monday, we made it clear that Limbaugh contends he never said the words. (The next day, he supplied a more forceful denial; the practical effect was that even more people became aware of the allegedly false quotes.)
But now the toothpaste is being squeezed back into the tube by the Post-Dispatch. In an Editor's Note published today, the newspaper says that the quote in question "cannot be verified, and its use did not meet the Post-Dispatch's standards for sourcing."
The Post-Dispatch also points out that the source of the quote was Jack Huberman's 2006 book, 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America. "The book provided no details about the origin of the quote," the Editor's Note explains. "When contacted by the Post-Dispatch, Huberman said that he had a source for the quote but declined to reveal it on advice of counsel. The book's publisher, Nation Books, did not return calls to the Post-Dispatch."
(Huberman's response suggests pretty strongly to us that he never actually heard Limbaugh say the words on the air, or in any other setting.)
Others have cited the same quote from Huberman's book, and others likely will be providing similar retractions and/or clarifications. We'll be adding an Editor's Note to our original story on the matter, pointing out that the Post-Dispatch has retracted the quote.
As you know, we've never contended that Limbaugh uttered the words that have been attributed to him by Huberman. Unless and until Huberman identifies a compelling source, there is absolutely no evidence that Limbaugh uttered the words.
In our view, Huberman should not be permitted to hide behind legal advice. He needs to either identify a source or publicly admit that the quote is false. Until Huberman (or anyone else) identifies a compelling source, we will assume that the quote is false, and that Limbaugh is telling the truth.
A special birthday wish
Posted by Mike Florio on October 10, 2009 10:29 AM ET
You probably think I'm going to take this opportunity to say "Happy Birthday" to a man who apparently has found a magic helmet that instantly makes him look 15 years younger when he puts it on.But this isn't about Brett Favre's 40th birthday. Today is also the anniversary of the birth of my wife, who puts up with a hell of a lot as I continue to let this tiger whose tail landed in my grasp drag me across the floor of the jungle.
At the risk of sounding like Jon Gruden and other coaches who wear their supposedly endless work hours as a badge of honor, I really do pretty much work all the time.
And she realizes it, she accepts it, and she fully supports it. So I'm taking some time off later today as we celebrate her birthday, and as I try to find a gift that properly reflects everything she does for me and for our son.
The only problem is that there's nothing at any store that can even come remotely close.
So happy birthday, Jill. And thanks for putting up with the fact that 3 million members of PFT Planet get a lot more of my time and attention on a day-to-day basis.