Don't allow Week 1 to set the pace for who you think will be the top dogs within the NFL.  Week 1 essentially means nothing.  For example, the Eagles have gone 0-2 twice within the last four years, and ended up making it to the NFC title game.  The Pats went 0-2 a few years ago....and won the Super Bowl.  Thus, this won't mean a thing.

Week 2 will get us some more clarification, but once again, take it for a grain a salt.  Enjoy the games today for what they are:  good football games.  Maybe we'll get a shocker or two, but I doubt it.

Last week I went.....11-5.  Not bad, but a few I got wrong (Atl/Philly, Carolina/N.O., Jets/K.C.) were crucial ones.

Let's see if I can do better.  My picks:

Wow.  Football season is here.

Sorry I don't have time to give a little preview, which is all well and good considering that the first week of the regular season is always up in the air.  Anyway, here's my picks:

Chicago over Washington

Miami over Denver

My Panthers over the homeless Saints

Yeah; I heard about the little Kanye West stunt that was done during the Red Cross celebrity fundraiser on NBC.  And I definitely thought it was not only inappropriate given the fact that the Red Cross is not a political organization and was trying to do all they could to help, but West was terribly misinformed about what was truly going on there, especially with the internet consipiracy theory that the media simply depicts white people as finding and black people as looting.

But today Michelle Malkin reminded me on her blog that West is supposed to be a part of the opening night festivities for the NFL's regular season.  This will be broadcast on ABC in front of a national audience.  That's why the NFL would be well advised to boot West off the show.

This isn't a punishment for what he did on NBC.  ABC and the NFL would be well within their rights to tell Kanye he is no longer needed for the show, and I don't think I'm overreacting by saying they're obligated to do so.  The NFL should not give West a platform in which to turn a performance during an NFL event into a virtual political soapbox.  West has shown several times - the Red Cross, LiveAid, a recent meltdown at a Toronto radio station (Quicktime video here), the American Music Awards speech, and several others - that he will turn his appearance into what HE wants it to be rather than what the original objective was.

The NFL was burned two years ago when Janet decided to flash millions of people watching the Super Bowl.  Tagliabue needs to wake up before another non-football spectacle gives them negative press again, and on the heels of last weekend's fundraiser, he can't say he hasn't been warned about West's grandstanding.

Football fans deserve to keep the focus on football, not on some self-righteous, spotlight grabbing celebrity.  If West wants to do political rants, tell him to do it on his own time, and at his own concerts.  It shouldn't be done when people are trying to ring in the new football season.  Hence, get rid of him.

Ladies and Gentlemen, for your reading pleasure, I'm about to try to break the world record for the most times I can say "stupid" in one post (I don't know what's the record, but hell....I'll give it a shot anyway.)

---

(kinda rhymes, doesn't it?)

Unless you've been in a cave somewhere, I'm sure you've heard about a French newspaper claiming Lance Armstrong tested positive for EPO, a performance-enhancing drug, in urine samples from 1999,  the first time he won the Tour de France.

Here's how it goes; in 1999, EPO was a banned drug for the Tour, but there wasn't a test back then to trace it in urine.  For some odd reason, Tour officials decided to keep the urine samples by freezing them, and now with new scientific breakthroughs are able to test for EPO.  They supposedly pulled them out of the freezer, and SURPRISE!  Lance was positive.

There's a lot of reasons to question this sudden "proof" that Lance is guilty.  First off, why would the labs keep Armstrong's sample for over six years?  If that's the case, then have they tested other riders from 1999, and have any of them come up positive?  Also, these were supposedly the backup ("B") samples.  Without the actual samples that were tested in 1999 ("A"), there's really nothing that Armstrong can do to challenge the validity of the samples.

Of course, the firestorm is about Lance because he's the most recognizable name in the Tour de France.  But it's a little too ironic how they kept Lance's samples, which are supposed to be anomyous.  I'm sure a simple DNA check could be done to see whether it's his urine, correct?  I'm not sure.

Besides, the jealousy of Armstrong's success by the French is well known.  Simply put, they don't like him.  He's an American and he's stomping them in their own sport.  Period.  And despite the fact that Armstrong is one of the most drug tested athletes in the world, the French media have been busy spreading rumors that Armstrong has doped before.  L'Equipe, the newspaper that "busted" him, is linked to the Tour and has led the way in criticism of Armstrong in the past. 

According to Armstrong, this wouldn't be the first time that the Tour has engaged in a witchhunt after him:

Armstrong told King that he was tested dozens of times during all his Tours, and was under exceptional scrutiny -- including right before his final race in June.

``Just a day before the start we had a knock on the door, and the minister of sport had sent a crew down there to collect two samples of urine and two samples of blood,'' Armstrong said. ``And we checked around and found out that nobody else in the peloton was tested that day. So I can't say 'witch hunt' loud enough.''

I don't blame him.  They have tested him throughout the Tours in his other victories, hence I don't see them being able to make a case of Armstrong being a doper.  Until they show without a doubt that he is one, I'm siding with Armstrong.

This sums it up:

"Armstrong always told me that he never used doping products," five-time winner Eddy Merckx told Le Monde newspaper. "Choosing between a journalist and Lance's word, I trust Armstrong."

Ditto.  Then again, I'm liable to go against the journalist every time, especially if he's French.

and I'll be done with this topic.

Instead of being the founder of the Christian Coalition, let's say Pat Robertson was a cleric at an Islamic mosque in London.  Would his statements have garnered as much press?

The answer is no.  Why?

1.  Robertson wouldn't be considered a Republican supporter, which is what this is really all about.

2.  This wouldn't be news.  Islamic clerics and terrorists issue fatwas as if they are going out of style.

Now was Robertson wrong for making those statements?  Yes.  But it isn't like he is the first religious figure to ever call for the death of someone.  Anyone remember Salman Rushdie?

Yes, the right has it's nuts as well as the left.  The difference is, we don't make ours the RNC Chairman.

There must have been a lot of behind-the-scenes action over the past couple of days, because Antonio Gates extended that paltry one-year contract to six.

Now the way the Chargers organization and Gates agent tells it, and the way the AP reported it, it was Gates that blinked:

Agent Andre Colona said he thought Gates' market value ``obviously was being one of the top two paid tight ends in the league. But like I said, obviously that was the number I was reaching for. It was going to take a certain resolve to get to that point, and he said, 'You know what, 'Dre, don't worry about that, let's just get what we can get now because I want to be a Charger and end all this stuff.''

Colona refused to say where Gates' deal puts him in the hierarchy of tight ends.

``I will say that he was comfortable with where we were. He didn't want to, I guess, go the road to go where we were really trying to go,'' Colona said.

On Sunday, Chargers general manager A.J. Smith said negotiations, which began 10 months ago, were ``dead in the water.''

On Tuesday, Smith said: ``All of a sudden we got a call and the contract was done. Sometimes deals are struck in a couple of hours, sometimes they take 10 months. I wish it were a lot quicker. It wasn't.''

That sounds about right, correct?

Well here's a little twist, as the guys on OkayPlayers' Sports Board tipped me to KFFL's Sports Wire, with this:

Chargers | Gates Contract Details
Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:19:47 -0700

Updating earlier stories, ESPNews reports San Diego Chargers TE Antonio Gates received a six-year contract that will pay him approximately $4 million per season with an additional $9.2 million possible through incentives.

I really do hope this is correct, because Gates did deserve to get paid this season; definitely more than the bare 3-year minimum provided by that one-year contract.

Since I did give the Chargers a wee bit of criticism for getting into this mess, I suppose a congratulations on doing the right thing is appropriate at this time as well.

Since this is a topic that's been buzzing in the last week or so, and we have a Chargers fan that is a regular reader to this blog *points to tagboard*  I thought I'd discuss the Antonio Gates/Chargers dispute.

According to the AP, Gates signed a one-year contract worth $380,000.  Considering the guy led the Chargers' receiving corps with 81 catches for 964 years and catching a league-record 13 touchdowns - mindboggling stats for a tight end - he'll make little more than some kickers this season.

Yes, this is the topic I've been trying to avoid for a minute.

It's not because I was wrong about T.O. being able to coexist with the Eagles.  Quite the contrary; I knew he would become a cancer that would ultimately hurt the Eagles franchise.  Looking back at his antics over his NFL career, it's not surprising to see this come about.

Nah; I'm just tired of saying "I told you so."  It's like that girlfriend who sticks around and continues to be abused by her lowlife boyfriend because she thinks she can change his ways.  The Eagles thought they could have a tremendously talented wideout with an ego that is as big as his abilities without that huge baggage that comes with him.  They thought they could control him.  Now, it's more like he controls them.

But let's set T.O.'s antics aside for a minute.  After all; it was a given that this would happen.  The Eagles are as much as fault with this as Owens is. 

After the most productive season by a wide receiver in the franchise's history, the Eagles flat out refused to even talk to Owens and his agent, Drew Rosenhaus, about restructuring the contract.  And while Owens's contract does reach $49 million, that contract was backloaded, where Owens's productivity would go down in his later years and give the Eagles a reason to trade or outright cut him.  Considering the man risked injury again by playing in the Super Bowl for the Eagles, at the very least Jeffrey Lurie could have done was talked to them.

Instead, Lurie flat out refused to talk, and thus you had a player that was thoroughly ticked off.  He knew that he needed a ride-or-die agent to have his back, and that's where Rosenhaus comes into the picture.  Now, you don't see T.O. without seeing Rosenhaus right by his side.  Now the two of them have conspired to create a media firestorm, with the rest of the NFL season being overshadowed by the Eagles drama.

The "my way or the highway" attitude displayed by the Eagles front office has placed them in trouble with two other key pieces to last year's Super Bowl team:  Brian Westbrook and Corey Simon. 

Simon is still holding out, and it looks like the Eagles will have to trade him.  Nobody's even paying attention to him, as the news is all about T.O.  He plans to sign the one-year franchise contract, but only after training camp is over. 

Westbrook has been disgruntled since after the Super Bowl, when the Eagles gave him a one-year deal on the hopes that a multi-year contract could be reached, however, one hasn't been made yet.  I've heard on OkayPlayer that WIP, the sports talk station in Philly, has been reporting an unconfirmed rumor that Westbrook has signed a multi-year deal, but I've heard nothing from ESPN.com nor Fox Sports Radio's Ben Maller, who usually has his ear to the ground on this kind of stuff.  If the Eagles don't ink a deal it only adds to their problems, as Westbrook provided stability for the offense and was a key factor throughout the playoffs while Owens was injured.  The only reason why he didn't hold out of training camp is because it would have prevented him from being an unrestricted free agent next year.

Particularly in the case of Westbrook, the Eagles have no leg to stand on (Westbrook is only being paid $1.4 million this year, a crying shame for one of the more versatile running backs in the league).  They are in danger of losing one of the anchors of their defensive line (who has never been known for run stopping to begin with), a disgruntled second option for McNabb, along with the best wide receiver they've ever had.  And add to that the Pinkston injury.

With all of these things happening, someone should ask what were the Eagles's front office doing during the offseason?  Good question, and Skip Bayless (lord help me if I ever agree with THIS guy again) tells everyone what they should have been doing:

Yet incredibly, the Eagles didn't bother protecting themselves at receiver in the draft or free agency. The Eagles had more draft picks than any other team, yet they failed to trade up in the first round to take a receiver capable of making an impact as a rookie. Reid, who isn't fond of playing rookies, sat tight and took Georgia's Reggie Brown in the second round.

Now it looks like he'll have to play Brown, because he has no receivers left.

I'll say the same thing I told others in another discussion: what if T.O. didn't raise hell, but he had gotten hurt in, say, Week 2.  The Eagles would still be in a bad predicament because the receiver corps fed off of the energy and attention Owens gave, which allowed them to get in some production time.  But a Todd Pinkston/Greg Lewis combo would have them in the same predicament as they were in during the NFC Championship two years ago:  getting jammed at the line by better cornerbacks, which would completely eliminate the passing game other than to Westbrook and TE Chad Lewis.  In other words, Donovan McNabb would be an older and slower version of Michael Vick, all because the Eagles front office didn't provide the necessary depth they need.  After all; we know Owens isn't indestructable.  He can get hurt again.

Now sure, T.O. deserves whatever criticism he gets, but that doesn't mean the Eagles are in the clear whatsoever.  This is an ugly situation, and I'm sure more went down behind the scenes than they're saying (that's why I'm not defending McNabb, as he is their franchise and does have some input with some of the things going on at HQ).  I'm sure the Giants and Cowboys are looking at this drama and are counting the days until they can possibly take advantage of it, which would help them win the NFC East.

It doesn't matter, though.  My Panthers will whup them all anyway.  Ha!

Considering political blogs have been used to make some of the most offensive and pointed remarks and insults you'd probably ever see, I would think you'd have to have a pretty thick skin in order to be one.  This hobby (or for some, business) isn't pretty.

Yet the lengths that some people will go to get back at some of their critics amazes me.  If you email comments from work, you could set yourself up to be fired due to a blogger that wants revenge.  Insult the wrong person on your blog, and your email address, your home and work phone number, and your home address could be subject to a protest campaign by a rival blogger.  One well known blogger was even threatened with legal action with a comment that was obviously taken out of context, yet it was enough to keep him from blogging for about three or four months.

I'm not one to tell a blogger how to operate his/her blog or what to write about (I'm not one who believes in an "organized" blogosphere with rules; that sort of stuff is better left to the gentry), but I would think delving into opinionated writing would take some very thick skin when the critics come around.  It's very telling that a number of the highly popular blogs - particularly on the conservative side - either don't allow comments or have very tightly controlled comment areas.  Some do it because they don't want the headache of maintaining it; others don't because, well, they love the control and would rather ignore and delete the terse remarks rather than confront them, regardless of whether there are concise arguments or just pointless rants.

As for me and this blog, look at the top right of the screen and you should see my tagboard.  If you scroll down, you can see there's a lot of comments that aren't pretty.  That's fine, though, because those types of comments serve a purpose, as they highlight the ignorant nature that some will have towards views and beliefs contrary to their own, especially from the left.  Rather than run from them, I embrace them, because every time a new one pops up (and not from the same person, as I can tell the difference) it tells me I must be doing something right.  There's no need to complain about hate rhetoric either, because it simply comes with the territory (in fact, I tend to laugh when I read other blogs that whine about it, as I've frequented a number of discussion boards and blogs and have been called everything except a child of God).

But there is a big difference between how I and a handful of other bloggers dwell in the blogosphere compared to the rest, and nowadays you'll get a reminder every couple of days.  It could be that phone number a blogger posts to have you call and "tell someone what you think",  Or that email letter writing campaign, or even that IP address that is posted on a blog.  Maybe even someone who gets fired because a rival blogger finds out where he work and decides to harrass his job.

And you think I'm about give out my real name anytime soon?  Pssh...yeah right.