Tortorella is a charter member of my "is welcome to take a long walk off a short pier" club, but Ovechkin takes the cake in this instance.

First is that maddening thing that seems to plague Russian players, of being all-world when they're up and invisible when they're disinterested (see: Malkin, Evgeni). But then to make excuses on top of it?

Oh wait, the latest is that poor Ovi was playing on a broken foot; gee, guess we have to cut him some slack then, huh? Because he was totally tearing up the scoresheet before suffering it in the first period of Game 6. And it really affected his ability to hit everything wearing a Rangers sweater in Game 7. And it totally prevented him from playing for Russia in the Worlds. Amirite?

Meanwhile - love him or hate him - Crosby's out there skating on a body that's being held together with pierogi and Gatorade and is still outskating healthy players. At some point in time, wouldn't you think that Ovechkin's pride would start stinging him just a *little* bit?

+1

Just as a final thought....maybe Tebow isn't cut out for the pro-game. But consider this:

In 23 games for the Broncos - basically a rookie-season plus - he accounted for 17 passing touchdowns, plus 12 rushing touchdowns, for 29 touchdowns vs. 9 INT + 6 FUM lost, and that doesn't even count the two-point conversion he converted in 2011. And usually looked horrible while doing it, which is what rookies are supposed to look like.

29 TDs vs. 15 TOs in 23 games.

By comparison, Michael Vick put up 19 vs 12 in his first 23 games for the Falcons, and was subsequently anointed "The Michael Vick Experience."

And for this, Tebow doesn't deserve to be signed anywhere?

The whole idea of taking a QB and judging him by what he does in his rookie season is mindboggling. (ie. Tebow totally sucked in his rookie season = dude can't play professional ball) Someone cited what Steve Young did in his rookie season (and the next year two). Peyton through 28 interceptions his rookie year; clearly the guy's not cut out for the game.

Much as I don't like Madden, he did say one thing about QBs I take as gospel: when you take a QB in the draft, plan to let him ride the pine for 1-3 years before you plan on using him, because that's how long it takes the avg QB to transition to the pro game. Aaron Rodgers for 3 years behind Favre; Favre 2 years behind Miller and Majikowski; Brady 1 year behind Bledsoe. Conversely, how many highly touted QBs were thrown into the fire on crappy teams as rookies and flamed out? Tebow had a portion of his rookie season to stink, and still managed to win some games.

As for him being "radioactive", let me get this straight: teams will sign a Randy Moss or a Terrell Owens, knowing what kind of locker room cancer they are, but Tebow is too "toxic" to sign, despite quietly putting up with all this BS and being a good teammate? **** this world...

Not seeing it. The Steelers like Sanders, but getting an extra 3rd in a what is projected to be an exceptional value round, plus erasing Sanders' current ~$1.5 hit on the books, is pure "Steelers math." That's why they gave him the low tender; if he absolutely fit in their plans, they would've tendered him higher.

He's "sighting" family reasons? And did he do that with a formal sightation?

Other than the bad call against Hasselbeck, every other call was reviewed after the game and upheld to be correct. That is...

...there was a push-off in the end zone.
...there wasn't indisputable evidence that the ball didn't cross the goal line so the field call stood.
...Harrison was being absolutely *mugged* on the touchdown throw.

Further, people also seem to conveniently forget all the questionable calls that went against the Steelers, such as the non-fumble, and that Seahawks receivers dropped seven catchable balls that day.

So. You want to blame the refs, that's your prerogative. But any team that puts the game in the hands of the refs gets what they get and doesn't deserve to cry about it.

Oh, and the Steelers were damn hot coming into the Super Bowl; your boys did a good job shutting us down, except for two big plays. Man up and get over it.

I think if you asked any Ravens fan, that had less to do with Flacco and more to do with Rice. Ray Rice carried the team offensively for most of those years, not Flacco.

I seem to remember you saying you're a Giants fan? That's good, because I place Flacco in the same company as Eli Manning. So maybe you'll understand it when I say that there are games where Flacco (like Manning) plays good...and there are games where Flacco (like Manning) plays horribly. Not just a bad game, but *horribly*. As in, can't hit his receivers worth a damn. Yet Flacco (like Manning) has a ring and an SB MVP to boot (Manning has two of each, even).

So you have to ask yourself: is Flacco (or Manning) truly "elite" when you have NO IDEA whether, on any given Sunday, they're going to throw 3 TDS or whether they're going to complete less than 50% of their throws? Are you going to see "Good Eli" or "Bad Eli" next Sunday? You cannot be a Giants fan and tell me that this thought does not cross your mind. Well, the exact same thought goes through the heads of Ravens fans, even the homers.

Celebrate Flacco all you want; the guy played one of the best four game stretches ever seen by a QB. But this is also the guy who got outplayed just a couple months ago by 40 year-old Charlie Batch IN HIS OWN STADIUM. So...pay the guy? Sure, the Ravens have no choice. But has he "turned the corner?" No one really knows.

TLDR: Whether Flacco is "elite" or not, he's about to be paid as such, so the debate is pointless.

As a Steelers fan living & working in Ravens country, I can tell you that - before now - the only thing Joe Flacco was consistently known for was hitting his check-down receiver and overthrowing guys deep. I have had *hundreds* of conversations with Ravens fans over the years regarding, "What's up with Joe?" Oh sure, the Ravens made the playoffs each year, but that was because of their play as a team, not because of Joe. Hell, it was usually *in spite* of Joe.

So in no particular order, here's what Ravens fans have had to say:

"Joe's got no one to throw to." - Okay. So each year it seems like the Ravens kept churning their receiver corps, trying to find someone who didn't line up at TE or RB, that Joe could hit. And they finally got a couple speedsters that Joe can't outthrow (Jones, Smith) and a guy athletic enough to make incredible, acrobatic catches as the ball's whizzing by him (Boldin).

"They need to block for Joe." - Okay. So the Ravens kept revamping their line until they finally could give Joe the time to throw.

"The playcalling stinks! Cameron goes too conservative in the 2nd half!" - Okay. He's out and replaced with Caldwell.

And now Joe's elite! Yay! Except....if you are honestly saying that you need to rework your receivers, your line, and your playcalling in order for your "elite" QB to finally turn the corner (assuming he has, and that this isn't another "Good Joe vs. Bad Joe" trend)....can you really say that your guy is "elite?"

I mean, I don't think anyone can really say what "elite" means, but I think a big component of it is making something out of nothing. Manning and his subpar receivers. Roethlisberger and his subpar line and lack of running game. That's making something out of nothing. Flacco got his situation customized to his needs. Good for him and good for the Ravens, but does that make him an "elite" QB?

Doesn't matter...the guy's going to be paid like one. And as a Steelers fan....I couldn't be happier. :)

Hmmmm. Flacco has been largely unhappy in Baltimore, both for having to play under Cameron for years and for taking crap from both his teammates and a sizable chunk of the fans for "wasting" the best performing years of the Ravens' D. Now the front office plans to franchise him to keep him from free agency.

...

Oh yeah...this will end well.

I was answering the comment that said "seems like the Pirates fans aren't going to games". Yet, as you can see, they are.

The problem is, as you have touched on, is that there is no competitive balance in any sport where you can spend as much as you want, because then cities with large population bases (and the associated higher television revenues) can dramatically outspend the smaller market teams.

So, you have to decide which is more important to you: the integrity of the sport, or allowing teams to do whatever's in their power to do. The NFL leans towards integrity; MLB leans towards letting teams do whatever they want.

And that's why the Pirates will be a mediocre team for the rest of my natural life.

Quite the opposite, actually.

According to the 2011 census, Pittsburgh is the 61st largest city in the United States, with a population of a little over 300K. Last year, the Pirates drew a little over 2M fans. By comparison, Philadelphia, who was at the top of the MLB attendance last year with 3.5M fans, has a 2011 population of 1.5M (5th in the nation). Or to put it more succinctly:

Philadelphia (#1): 3.5M tickets / 1.5M base = 2.333 tickets sold per person
Pittsburgh (#22): 2.0M tickets / 0.3M base = 6.667 tickets sold per person

So in other words, a typical person in Pittsburgh bought roughly 3 times as many tickets to see the Pirates field their record-breaking 20th straight losing team than a Phillies fan did to see a contender who had a down year.

Raw numbers don't always tell the whole story.

Nutting has already said that he has no wish to sell, that he wants to pass the team on to his children. They say everyone has a price, but it would have to be far in excess of what the Pirates are worth, given that Nutting is pulling a profit each year from putting a mediocre product on the field, due to the league's revenue sharing plan.

From a business perspective, it would be fiscally irresponsible to put a talented team on the field, even with a projected increase in attendance, because the television revenues for the Pittsburgh area aren't enough to justify it. In other words, Nutting has no motive whatsoever for fielding a contender. And if the fans stop coming in protest? The team gets moved to a better market.

That, my friends, is the reality of modern pro baseball. The only way the Pirates will ever win a championship again under this model is sheer, dumb luck.

As for Reid the coach, the same principle applies: ultimately he didn't get the job done. "Oh, but the injuries...losing coaches...Vomitgate...he couldn't control all that!!!" Doesn't matter. I can't control a lot of crap in my life, but I still have a job to do, bills to pay, etc. We all have to find a way to deal with it. Reid ultimately couldn't. If someone thinks he CAN with their team, he'll have another HC job. It's that simple.

To those judging Reid's actions as a father, how about taking all that energy and putting it into making your own sphere of influence a better place instead?

None of us have ANY idea what Reid may or may not have done as a family man. None. There have been great, doting parents that have raised psychopaths, and apathetic parents who've raised captains of industry. How *any* individual leads their life is a function of that individual's decisions and willingness to deal with the consequences of those decisions. A parent can try to influence their children, but ultimately cannot make their children be anything other than what their children CHOOSE to be.

By blaming Reid for his son's failures, you're absolving them of any responsibility for their own lives, which IMHO, is the #1 problem in America today, in that people invariably have to find someone or something to blame for their problems instead taking responsibility for their own lives, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, and dealing with it. "Guns are to blame." "The government is to blame." "Television is to blame." "Conservatives/liberals are to blame." "The economy is to blame." "Illegal immigrants are to blame." Bull!@#$. If your life isn't what you want it to be, then YOU are to blame.

This literally made me laugh out loud...

Well said. This is a metaphor for more than just football.

I'm still trying to make sense of this whole thing. So the owners sign marginal players for ridiculous money, then demand the players' union accept less for their contracts across the board, and have the nerve to be surprised when the union responds, "Go **** yourselves." What did the owners think was going to happen?

So many front offices trying to circumvent and invalidate their own salary cap, and this is somehow the players' fault? News flash: if you think a player is asking too much, tell him 'happy trails' and let him sign elsewhere. Problem solved. Yeah, it always sucks to lose an employee to a competitor, but you can't change the rules and then whine about it later.

Pointless. This whole bloody mess is pointless.

The owners say the players make too much money, that the model is unsustainable. Then sign marginal players to ever-increasingly insane amounts of money.

The players say that the owners are greedy and unprincipled. But then look the other way when said insane contracts are handed out, despite knowing what they will ultimately reset the compensation hierarchy league-wide, ultimately driving up the costs of tickets, and pricing more and more fans out of the game.

"Millionaires fighting with billionaires over how to divide the pie," is what I keep hearing. But what I have YET to hear is either side say something to the effect of, "You know what? We need to lower ticket prices and make the game more accessible to the average fan. We need to quit worrying about asking municipalities to build us new arenas with loads of corporate luxury suites and just be concerned with making sure we have enough cheap seats such that even a busboy can catch a game once in a while without having to worry about making his rent. We need to expand the ice so that it's fit for the men of the modern era to play on without having to resort to gimmicks to decide games because the ice is so congested. We need to think less about how to make more money, and more about how to make a better product."

NHL...NHLPA...a pox on both your Houses...

More like, "go the **** away" money. The woman in question tried to sue just about everyone even remotely related to the case who had money. Even more damning is that she kept corresponding with Ben after their encounter and talking to friends and co-workers about how she and Ben were an "item." But it's not interesting news to help a guy clear his name - that doesn't sell papers - so that tidbit was never widely published.

I do agree that Ben has been (and probably still is) a Class A sh**head and just because he did some soul-searching and got married doesn't change that. Even if the second incident was also not rape, it absolutely is an example of a guy who who was looking for some drunk, easy tail, wasn't above using star power to get it, and didn't care who he used or how bad he made himself or the team he represents look, in its pursuit.

Oh, rapture! Doan is going to sign soon! Good thing I took my give-a-damn pills this morning!