NFL 2010 Season Week 9 Picks

Moss apparently is playing for the Titans now. They play @Miami this week, which will Moss's second time playing at Miami. I was hoping for a team that played the Vikings or the Patriots yet this season. Or a team that played the Jets would have been even better, because then he would have played them three times this year.

He would have played all 3 if he joined the Lions, but I wouldn't want him on the Lions.

Yeah, you wouldn't want to mess with such a good thing.

Childress' comment was just a call back, and was quite funny to those who got it.

Well, again, it wasn't "delivered poorly" it was just an inside joke, if that, since it was really just a reference to something Brett said to those same people actually in the room for that presser. Even if it was "delivered poorly" that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a slight, and any interpretation of it as a slight is simply misinformed, and the fact that it's easy to see why someone who didn't know about the earlier comment might consider it a slight, that doesn't make it any closer to one either. (Though even then people wouldn't have any idea what the hell he meant, so they're still leaping to the presupposition that is was some kind of shot.) I don't doubt Childress and Favre don't get along all that well, but you needn't even read all that far into Favre's comments. It's just as valid to look at those types of comments like "We're all professionals and who we do or don't want to go grab a burger with after wards doesn't change the fact that we all want the same thing on Sunday and everyone is working hard toward that goal"

I got it and I didn't think it was that funny. I also agree with Scott that if it was meant as a joke, then he needs to work on his delivery (especially since with his history, it's not that far out of the realm that he was actually trying to get a little dig in on Favre).

Right, except he was speaking to local writers.

"Understandable" and "has some truth to it" are two different things.

Agreeing with Matt, there was no "leaping to presupposition". There was a reaction based on very recent and very real animosity between the two.

It was a false assumption based on previous events...what part of that isn't leaping to a presupposition?

So they should just not reference each other at all then, since anything they say could be torn from its context, twisted, misreported, etc? Of course then the story would just become "Favre and Childress hate each other so much they won't even talk about one another." The fact that this "counts" either way because it's still "out there" as more bad PR, even if it's completely false, is just one more piece of evidence our society has a collective IQ of 65, and all the more reason journalists need to stop taking the lazy way out.

With a national television feed and national writers there as well. And to be fair, you have no more proof that it wasn't a slight other than his word, of which there is reason to be skeptical. Now, I think he was probably kidding, but it still seemed to be a weird thing to say (without making it known it was a joke) considering their history and all that has gone on the past few weeks.

I'm also not sure who specifically you have a problem with in the media, but most reports I've seen add that Childress clarified later (presumably from reporters doing their job) that he was kidding.

Even if it was partly the media's fault (and they're the media, so it probably was), people in the public view know what will happen when they say anything strange like that. With the hot water Childress is in, he should be more careful.

If a coach says in a press conference, "That guy is a fucking lousy ballplayer" and they have a history of butting heads, I'm not sure I'd expect the press to go back and research everything in their past to see if its a joke before writing about it in their post game stories.

And yes, I know Childress' statement wasn't that harsh.

That would be a completely different situation. There's not a lot of context there. Though you could still put a bit of effort into finding if that was a tongue-in-cheek reference. This would be closer to if a coach said of a player who just had a good game that he was, almost all rumoredly, butting heads with: "That guy needs to get his hair done more often." Yes, it's possible that was simply just a shot at the guys hair cut, but it would be odd and out of left field enough that it should make someone say, "Where'd that come from?" At which point they can reach all the way back 2 days into the archives, or just ask the local guy sitting next to them, to find out that a day before the game the player was talking about how he was trying out a new hairstyle for the game to try and change things up.

Also, since it's so totally related, I hate that it's already pitch black out.