Supporter Contribution - Anyone Calling Richard Sherman A Thug Should Just Stop

For those of you who need a recap, the Seattle Seahawks beat the San Francisco 49ers Sunday night in the NFC Championship game. It came down to the final possession, which was probably what most people expected. The 49ers trailed 17-23 with under a minute to play and were driving down the field with ease. They were in Seahawk territory and certainly looked poised to score a go-ahead touchdown that would have most likely won them the game. Then, Richard Sherman happened.

Everyone knows Richard Sherman by now. He’s the loud-mouthed cornerback who once told Skip Bayless that he was "better than him at life.” He’s also the cornerback who happened to make the biggest play of the game, arguably the biggest play of year. He deflected a pass intended for Michael Crabtree in the end zone, which was then intercepted by Seahawk teammate Malcolm Smith. The 49ers only had two timeouts left so it sealed the game for Seattle, sending them to the Super Bowl to face the Denver Broncos. The aftermath of the game is when things got interesting.

Immediately after the game, Fox’s Erin Andrews caught up with Richard Sherman in what was personally one of my favorite post-game interviews of all time. These interviews are typically boring where the player thanks God and his teammates and talks about how blessed he is and how it was a total team effort; but not this time.



Like I said, Richard Sherman is a loud mouth, we all know that.  That’s probably an understatement. I liked this interview because it was pure, raw emotion. I get it, he didn’t answer the question and came off as loud and belligerent. In his defense (no pun intended), he had just made the play of the game and really, the play of the year. It was the difference between the Seahawks going home or going to the Super Bowl. The latter happened because of Richard Sherman. Excuse him for being excited and expressing how he felt. Clearly, Michael Crabtree had said something either before the game or after the game that ticked him off and he just wanted to make it known.

Sure, Richard Sherman is not the classiest or the most humble athlete in the world, but the guy can flat out play football. There’s no denying his talent. I don’t know if he’s the best cornerback in the league, but based solely on his stats the past two years, it’d be hard to argue against his claim. I’d say it’s between him, Patrick Peterson, Joe Haden, and a healthy Darrelle Revis, but that’s an argument for another day. Hate Sherman all you want, but he talks the talk and walks the walk. DO NOT, however, even think for a second about calling him a thug.

I’ve seen countless posts on Twitter and other forms of social media where people are calling Richard Sherman a thug. People are saying they hate the Seahawks because of him and that he represents all the “thug Seahawks;” that he embodies everything that is wrong with the NFL. Seriously? A guy who graduated second in his class in high school and also graduated with a degree in Communications from STANFORD UNIVERSITY is a thug?  Maybe you’ve heard of Stanford? It’s a little learning institution in the Bay Area. Sure, he got there on a football scholarship but he still graduated. I believe he even enrolled after he was drafted by the Seahawks to get his Masters, so people need to stop labeling him a thug. You have to be pretty smart to graduate from Stanford.

Is Richard Sherman out in the streets dealing drugs? No, last time I checked he was playing football for the best secondary in the league. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not Seahawks fan but I respect what they do on the field. A thug deals drugs and engages in other illegal, “thug-related” activities. Richard Sherman is locking down opposing receivers on the gridiron every Sunday. He’s a punk for sure but I respect his game. I don’t know if people were referring to the interview after the game or him as a person in their accusations of him being a thug, but neither hold true.

Sure, he trash talks all day, every day, but that’s who he is. It helps his game. He needs it to fuel himself and without it, he doesn’t play well. I’m serious. I read that in high school, he trash talked so much that his coach made him stop for a game and the first half of that game was by far the worst he’s ever played. At halftime, his coach decided that was stupid and just let him get back to being himself. Pete Carroll probably feels the same way.

Have you ever played in a pick-up basketball game where someone on the opposing team is running their mouth the entire game? I’m sure you have because we all have. It pisses you the off. It pisses me off even more so when that person is playing well or just better than me as a basketball player. It’s a mental thing and it can really get to your head. It messes with my game sometimes and I honestly don’t play as well. Well that person is Richard Sherman. He’s extremely talented and lets opposing teams know it. The guy knows what he’s doing. He’s been doing it his whole life. He’s way smarter than people realize, yet because you see glimpses of him being a cocky asshole (which is actually all the time), people assume he’s a thug. It’s just not true.

Call me crazy, but I really think it has to do with a small bit of racism. Because he’s cocky and black, he automatically gets labeled a thug for acting out. People never call white players thugs. Tom Brady would never get labeled a thug but I see him out there talking shit all the time and he looks pretty cocky doing it. He’s always fired up and although he’s not labeling himself the best in postgame interviews, he’s probably thinking it. The comparison is not as far-fetched as you might think.

Anyway, my point is, people need to stop labeling Richard Sherman a thug. He’s far from that. He’s smarter than we know and his cockiness is what helps him be so great. His Twitter profile says something about “earning the respect you’re given.” He’s earned my respect and other people should respect him too. Plus, he’s about to be a Super Bowl champion so he has the right to say whatever the hell he wants.

--Eddie Thy

Supporter Submission - First Pitch Woes

There is a long history of  intersport crossovers with quarterbacks playing baseball. Many people know that Tom Brady was actually drafted by the Montreal Expos in 1995 but turned it down to play football at Michigan. Dante Culpepper was drafted by the New York Yankees before deciding to air it out to Randy Moss and Cris Carter. Even John Elway actually played for the minor league affiliates of both the Yankees and the Kansas City Royals. The list goes on and on.
  
It makes sense that quarterbacks would thrive in baseball, throwing mechanics in both sports are fairly similar and, while some may argue otherwise, the pace of the games is actually fairly similar with frequent stoppages defining both. It's not surprising then that those individuals who excel in one of these sports, excel in the other.

So when you consider all of that, recent Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Manziel should have had no problem tossing out the first pitch at the Texas Rangers game this past Sunday in Arlington, right? Aside from throwing up the Longhorns sign during his spring break in Cabo San Lucas -- and in the process alienating just about every Texas A&M fan in the country -- Manziel is arguably the most beloved man in Texas besides Ross Perot. 

During his freshman year Manziel threw for over 3,000 yards and rushed for another 1,000 breaking an SEC record and taking A&M to their best season in years. Unfortunately, it seems as though his nickname “Johnny Football” is short for “Johnny Football.... only, and exclusively football.” 

After watching the video above, the only thing that can come to mind is the call of famed (fictitious) Indians broadcaster Harry Doyle, “Juuuuuuuust a bit outside.”



Fortunately Johnny need not worry. In a bizarre one-up attempt, former Michigan quarterback Denard Robinson channeled his inner Mariah Carey at Wednesday's game between the Detroit Tigers and Toronto Blue Jays.

Supporter Submission -- Jordan Found a Weird Video

I came across this gem earlier while, fittingly enough, reading environmental history (yes, I do realize how depressing that sounds) and have since watched it at least five times. 

I don't think that this character and I would see eye to eye on a lot of things but you need to admit that the man has style and little to no sanity. Anyways I have no idea what to make of this but I'm fairly confident of two things. 

1.     The guy is definitely from Maine.  To those of you who, like myself, come from the 207, I know it's hard to swallow but face it. In no other state do you have the time or resources to record yourself tackling rotting trees in the forest. Nor would you have the desire to edit said footage into a four minute video complete with a megadeath soundtrack. Do this in California you're crazy. Do this in Maine, and you may be my cousin, brother, uncle or more likely all three.

 

2.     Someone in his family was killed by a falling tree. I don't think an explanation is required here. All I'm saying is that he may be the Bruce Wayne of New England Forests. It's not who he is underneath, but what he does that defines him.

Sadly, despite my best efforts I was unable to find more about this arboreal vigilante. Suffice to say that he's out there. Waiting. So next time you're walking through the forest and trees begin to collapse around you don't be afraid it's just “Kill the Tree Man”... Yeah, maybe be a little afraid.

-Jordan

Supporter Submission - Welkergate

Like most New England fans, I was devastated to learn that as of Wednesday, receiver Wes Welker was no longer a Patriot.

In short, the Denver Broncos offered the five-time Pro Bowler an offer he couldn't refuse (proving that Don Vito Corleone would be an ideal GM), and in the process Peyton Manning became one step closer to another Super Bowl. Yes, it's sad to see Welker go, but the acquisition of Danny Amendola adds another weapon to a potent offense that already has the likes of Rob Gronkowski, Aaron Hernandez, Brandon Lloyd and Stevan Ridley with Tom Brady running the whole show. Now cap that off with Josh McDaniels as the offensive coordinator and I'm cautiously optimistic about the Pats offense this coming season. 

The responses from the Patriots faithful range all over the board for what I'm going to dub “Welkergate.” From unrealistic optimism -- It's okay because the Patriots are going to have a reincarnated Walter Payton at running back next year! -- to morbid pessimism -- I heard that the franchise is going to move to Chechnya because Welker left... -- supporters have wasted no time sharing their thoughts on the matter.

Despite numerous valid responses to Welker's departure, some fans seem determined to take it personally. As I went on Facebook immediately following the deal (my fault for expecting an intelligent opinion on Facebook), I saw countless examples of one simple fact: Boston fans are some of the most disloyal, two-faced and downright cruel supporters of any city in the nation and have the attention span of a ten cent goldfish.

Now I don't think this applies to the majority of Boston fans, but I was amazed the number of people saying things like, “Why don't you go lose the Broncos a Super Bowl!” or “We're better off without him he never did anything for the franchise!” The list goes on and on with most comments containing the vulgar elegance that only a fan wearing a sideways hat with the wrong team colors on it could articulate.

While it's justifiable to be mad about such a high profile player leaving the team, these fans constantly display their lack of knowledge about sports, or in general, by overlooking the substantial contributions that players like Welker or others have made to the franchise. Yes, Welker may have dropped one pass in the Super Bowl but that pass would not have mattered had the defense not allowed Eli Manning to lead an 88-yard drive with less than four minutes remaining. If that argument doesn't do it for you then maybe this one will: the Patriots would not have had the success they had in 2011-12 or over the past  six seasons (76-20 record) without Welker's 672 receptions (a franchise record) 7,459 receiving yards (second in Franchise history) or five 100+ reception seasons (the only player in NFL history to do so). 

The fact that supposed fans can overlook such an unrivaled level of performance is both aggravating and disappointing, but sadly is true in just about every Boston-area sports team. 

These are the same fans who called for the release of David Ortiz during the 2011 season despite the fact that he holds the Red Sox single-season record for home runs, carried the Sox to the 2004 World Series and has done more for that team and the city of Boston than most people will ever dream of. These are the same fans who boo Ray Allen every time he sets foot in the TD Garden despite the fact that he was a crucial part of their 2008 NBA Championship. These are the same fans who boo Phil Kessel despite the fact that he was crucial to the Bruins rebuilding period prior to their 2011 Stanley Cup Championship (his trade gave the B's the picks to draft Tyler Seguin and Dougie Hamilton).

The list goes on and on: John Beckett (2007 ALCS MVP), Kevin Youkilis (2008 Hank Aaron Award), Joe Thornton (five seasons as team captain) and Julio Lugo... Well, okay, I'll give you that one, but you get the idea.

The point is that while we may not be happy when players leave or do not perform to our expectations, it's classless and unfair to ignore the accomplishments these players have made for a franchise. While it was definitely time to let Beckett go last year, I have nothing but respect for him and what he did for the Sox, particularly during the '07 World Series. Sometimes fans need a reminder that their franchise would not be where they are without the contributions of these players.

While again, this doesn't apply to the majority of Boston fans, there are enough people spouting nonsense out there for it to be said. It's perfectly justifiable to be upset to see Welker go. Heck, you can even be mad at Welker himself, but don't ridicule his contributions to the franchise, because the fact of the matter is, he was an essential part of the New England Patriots for the past six years and nothing can negate that.

-Jordan

WHO THE F*** IS BILL FALLON?

Someone once said, "no man is an island."

When it comes to the blogosphere, no one man can be an entire blog.  Author of multiple "Supporter Submissions" including his latest on sequestration, Bill Fallon is an amateur blogger who has bulked up Three if by Strike with material from Boston sports fandom to health and fitness to our country's financial concerns.

For nine years, Bill has been my confidant, and as a student/accountant/fitness guru/culinary wizard, his skills are unparalleled in each of those fields.  He has recently launched his own blog, "Bill's Journey into Health, Fitness and General Nutrition," and amidst all of these things, has lost a remarkable 54 pounds in six months.  Through various workouts -- most recently including the November Project (post soon to come with all the info if you're interested) -- Bill has transformed himself into an athletic superpower.

In his spare time, Bill is the trumpet player/guitarist/percussionist in a band titled after him: "The Bill Fallon Effect."  He is also a coach for the Emmanuel College Baseball team.  How does it do it all?  Well, you'll have to ask him yourself.

To date, Bill has submitted just a handful of pieces, and every now and again will pop into the blog to say hello, so keep your eye out.

Supporter Submission -- Sequestration: What That Means For Us

As we push into the third month of 2013, concerns about the national budget still loom over our heads, and the dreaded fiscal cliff has not been taken care of.  As of March 1, the government automatically entered into sequestration of funding because a balanced budget failed to be reached.  On the outside, many people see this as a positive because of the enormous debt that has mounted over the years, but I want to talk about what and, more importantly, whom this term of sequestration really affects.

I will not try to get political, and I do not identify myself with a political party.  I would rather form my thoughts independently through research and an understanding of predominately economic issues.

One major recipient group of government funds that will be adversely affected by radical spending cuts are University Research Departments.  Many research programs in the private and public university sectors are funded through government grants and awards -- a form of government spending.  These grants and awards help fund researchers and their staff, including many undergraduate and graduate students alike, working for financial aid money as well as full or part time work to pay living expenses.

Without the funding for important health and technological research, we risk falling behind the rest of the world in areas such as HIV, Alzheimer's, obesity and cancer research.  We will also lose our spot towards the front of the line in terms of the plethora of new technology poised to boost any given economy.  Most innovation that hits the market and eventually becomes a source of private spending in the economy is, at one point, government funded university research that evolved into a marketable product used to generate millions and millions of dollars.

Let's look at MIT for a second.  For over 100 years, innovation at this university, fueled by government funding, has generated billions of dollars in national and personal defense, computer software engineering, architecture and hard technology fields.  Another group of largely government funded fields of study that will suffer is green, or environmentally-friendly, initiatives that, as is a theme, have the potential to generate huge amounts of money as well as a have a positive environmental impact as we transcend an age of waste and focus on corporate responsibility to build new socially responsible standards.

Finally, urban and mental health research, a hotbed of national controversy right now is largely funded through National Institution of Health grants.  Instead of addressing mental health and its causes, effects and treatments in lieu of tragedies of 2012, what we will be doing is detracting funds away from the people doing all of the crucial work in these areas.

Without the grants to support researchers and their work, we once again find ourselves in danger of having these sectors disappear altogether, and the problems that we have experienced as a nation will grow worse with no plan for the future and hope of help for those that truly need it.

What I am trying to say is that no matter what your political affiliation and views are on governmental spending and where money should or shouldn't be allocated, know that until a budget has been balanced and approved automatic spending cuts will be affecting everyone.  Contact your senators and representatives and let them know how important it is for this to get done because we as a country are suffering exponentially every day as result.

-Bill

Supporter Submission - Coda on Columbus, South End

Last night, my uncles treated my sister, cousin and me to a wonderful holiday meal, because he will not be able to share Christmas with us this year. We went to Coda on Columbus Ave in the South End Neighborhood of Boston. The meal that we collectively devoured was one of the best I have experienced in a long while. From the appetizers to the main course to the after dinner spirits, everyone was glowing with satisfaction.

We arrived at this cozy little restaurant in the South End and were seated in a corner booth by the window that was intimate but still allowed us to be a part of the greater restaurant environment and feel the overlying energy (important because we are social diners). The menu was overwhelming at first because there were so many delicious choices available. 

We ordered the sweet and spicy citrus calamari and the charcuterie with pickled veggies for our appetizers. The calamari was perfectly cooked (not rubbery and tough) and wasn't greasy or heavily fried. I felt it was closer to a nice sauté. It was served in a sweet and spicy citrus sauce with a citrus aioli, but I don't even think it needed the aioli. It was a very creative take on traditional calamari. The charcuterie contained and assortment of cured meats (prosciutto, a ghost chili infused cured pork, and rendered duck fat spread) with spicy mustard, pickles, pickled carrots and onions, and some crostinis. The charcuterie was divine.

I had an extremely difficult time choosing my entree as there were many amazing sounding choices including: herb-crusted haddock with Quinoa and kale and a squash puree, a fisherman's stew and a chickpea stew with fried eggs. I ended up deciding on the braised lamb shank with mashed sweet potatoes and Brussels sprouts. 

Let me just say that my knife was unnecessary...

The perfectly cooked and seasoned lamb fell off the bone and melted in my mouth with every bite, and the sweet potatoes and sprouts provided a perfect contrast in flavor and texture. It was a meal that I wished would never end. The portion size was perfect. There were a lot of sweet potatoes and sprouts to supplement about 4-5 oz. of meat (not including the large bone). It was not overly-filling and settled nicely. With dinner we enjoyed a beautiful Qupe Syrah that paired perfectly with the lamb. My uncle and cousin ordered the smoked pork chop served with pork belly, creamy grits, and spaghetti squash. I tried a bite and it tasted out of this world, the fat perfectly blending with the pork, cooked "pre-war" style as my uncle pointed out.

Finally, we finished off with a couple of 12-year scotches, Glenlivet for my uncle and Glenfiddich for me, Prosecco for my sister, and genuine good conversation. The experience was everything I could have asked for, and I will definitely be back. I would recommend Coda to any foodie or civilian alike.

Supporter Submission: Credibility Battle Between Armstrong and USADA

I have no credential to analyze or judge how Lance Armstrong, Nike or the Livestrong organization are dealing with the fallout of this scandal or the great charity work that those three entities have been able to accomplish together, so I will mostly side step that aspect of the story. I would however, like to supply some background on professional cycling and drug doping especially in the Tour de France which is the Super Bowl of the sport, and maybe even defend Lance Armstrong a little...

The sport has been tainted by drug use from the start. Before blood doping and HGH, cycling had a long history of illegal alcohol and ether use to minimize the pain of endurance racing. 1998 was roughly the start of the sports modern attempt to fight doping. From 1998 to 2010 there has only been one winner of the Tour who has not been implicated in doping scandals (2008, Carlos Sastre). If you were to re-award the Tour titles to the second place finisher in each of the tarnished races you would only solve the problem roughly half the time because the second place finisher has also been linked to doping in six of these years.

In four of the years Lance won the Tour, the second place finisher has tested positive for doping or admitted doping. To this day no one has been able to produce a positive test for a banned substance for Armstrong, cover-ups aside.

If the Tour committee were to try and fill a podium of completely clean cyclists there would be years like 2003 when a cyclist who finished in 11th or 12th place would be promoted onto the podium. This would be similar to awarding a bronze track medal to a sprinter who was eliminated after coming in 6th in a semi-final heat.

Roughly two-thirds of the top three finishers in the Tour each year – again, from 1998 – 2010 -- have doping allegations, suspensions or positive tests in their careers. So any given year, a clean rider only needs to shoot for third in the final race standings to be awarded the victory when the two riders ahead of him are enveloped in doping scandals. (This is not the best competitive strategy, but is actually statistically valid in those years.)

USADA (U.S. Anti-Doping Agency) is the organization behind the current investigation into Lance and in my eye seems sketchy at best. These guys are not a government agency and are not internationally accepted. Do not confuse USADA with WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency), who are the top notch drug testing agency and run the drug testing for the Olympics and everything else of importance.

The US government spent two years gathering evidence against Lance and dismissed the case before even getting to trial. This is the same group of people who brought Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds to trial with what was proven to be below average evidence in each of those cases. If the government couldn't gather enough evidence against Lance to bring him to trial much less convict him I am a little worried about the quality of evidence an independent organization like USADA could have gathered.

USADA still does not have a positive test for Lance Armstrong. The best they can produce is a test of his that they claim is "consistent with blood doping." Take that for what you will, but if I had a test that scientifically proved he was cheating I would be shouting it from the tops of mountains not burying it under affidavits and using mixed language to describe it.

There are a number of affidavits from teammates and everyone else who claim they saw Lance cheat. Some of these people are more reputable then others. Floyd Landis is the least reputable of the group having written and sold a book claiming he did not dope as a professional cyclist and then admitting to it a few years later. (My father is still waiting for his refund on that book as it was not sold in the fiction section at the time.) I cannot truthfully claim that all the testimonies are of this poor quality. George Hincapie is reportedly among the group and in addition to being my all time favorite cyclist is considered by all in the sport to be a stand up guy. Similar to a Derek Jeter type, love him or hate him you have to respect him.

The most damning piece of information about USADA for me is that they have a self-imposed and self-chartered eight-year statute of limitations. Lance won his first tour in 1999. For those who are confused it is currently 2012. Under the organizations own rules they are only able to challenge the final two of Lances seven titles, but instead USADA has gone after all the titles and submitted evidence and affidavits that are 14 years old. As I said before that seems sketchy, at very best.

It is hard to say Lance is completely innocent but he and his attorney have consistently claimed that this is a witch hunt by USADA. I hope everyone draws their own conclusions about Lance and hopefully some of the information above helps you make a more informed decision. If you forced me to take a lie detector test and asked me if I thought Lance was guilty, I would tell you yes, I think he is probably guilty. But the following three points give me hope that he could be innocent:

1) The US government abandoned a court case against him for lack of evidence. A syringe and cotton swab in a beer can was previously enough for them to bring a case to court.

2) There is still not one drug test that proves Lance cheated.  Ryan Braun has a test that proves he cheated and is still considered innocent, and the 2011 MVP.

3) USADA broke its own rules to try and completely wipe Lance from the record books even though he is retired and currently only does bike races for charity.

Thanks to anyone who has read this much of my rant.

-Alex