I can't do anything but pile on to the misery regarding Hallen's sudden departure. Something weird is obviously amiss, and I kind of feel bad for the guy. But still, this leaves the Browns in fairly dire straights at center.
But it's not necessarily all bad because, as opposed to Hallen being the starter on Week 1, this means the Browns must aggressively explore acquiring a replacement starting-caliber guy. They traded with NE, but I thank is the "new plan B," and trading for a preferred starter has to be at the top of Savage's agenda. If he can pull it off then I think this episode could have a much better ending.
And obviously, it sure would be nice to parlay Lee Suggs into a serviceable center. I expect to see lots of Suggs and Green in the first preseason game in an effort to showcase them for a trade.
Assuming the FO can get something patched together at center, I think the biggest concern for the OL is the health of the other guys. Hopefully Shaffer's good camp translates into a very good season. Hopefully Tucker's scope proves to keep him healthy all year. And hopefully Andruzzi and Coleman are able to start most of the games.
Offensive line and health questions on the offensive side of the ball make it unfair to judge (Frye) on the upcoming season."
Ugh. This is my biggest fear for 2006. The number one goal of the 2006 Browns is to evaluate Frye. If that's not possible, it sets the team back quite a bit. I'd rather know what we have in Frye than worry about the exact record, unless the Browns find a way into the playoff race.
Pat Kirwan ends a pretty evenhanded article by comparing the Browns to the 2004 Ravens, and Frye to Boller. C'mon man, that might not be far-fetched but it's painful to read. Any other team, please...
Chaun Thomspon is dinged up, making DQ the current starter at ILB. I'm really looking forward to watching Jackson this Thursday. But it sounds like Leon Williams may have something to add here too. It could be that he and DQ battle it out for a starting job in the middle. Wouldn't that be something. The fact that Williams has entered the discussion makes me very hopeful about the depth at LB.
If I had to bet, I think there's a very good chance Savage signs a veteran QB this Friday. I hate to root against a guy in a Browns uniform, but I think an impressive performance from Dorsey Thursday night would be a near disaster. Unless it facilitated a trade or something.
Yes, I am "rooting" for Testeverde to return to Cleveland. I think Testeverde is washed up and not play particularly well. But he'd still be better than Dorsey. Who else is available? And tell me again why we didn't sign Fiedler or a guy like Anthony Wright?
I love Savage's moves regarding defensive personnel and along the o-line. But his choices at the QB position are still very debatable.
PFT is floating the idea that HOF induction ceremonies be held someplace other than Canton on the theory that the ceremonies lack much pizazz, and that all the seats aren't always filled. And the HOF is not very impressive and a new one needs to be built, perhaps some place other than Canton, because the NFL deserves a HOF that "reflects the value of the NFL and its players."
I agree that the induction ceremony is not very exciting. In fact, I think it's quite boring and have rarely watched it myself. I also agree that the HOF itself is not very awe-inspiring. But still, I think there is great value to the NFL that the HOF remains where it is. Some reasons...
- Roots. The game of football has only recently grown into a huge media behemoth that it now is. But it came from more humble beginnings. And, in fact, almost every NFL player came from similarly humble beginnings. There is a lot of value in coming full circle in one's career and in one's life.
- Frame of Reference. Every year we see the inductees get introduced and give speeches at the HOF. Sure, it's kind of boring. But the images are iconic and are instantly recognizable as "NFL Hall of Fame." When we debate whether a player should be inducted, we automatically picture that player putting on that ugly jacket and standing on that sunny stage. Why mess with that?
- The Small Scale of the HOF. Everything about the NFL is huge now. It's big, it's loud, it's intense. And the HOF on television even sort of looks impressive. But it's not. It's next to the highway with an awkward half-football rotunda. It is small-time. But that is cool. There is nothing better than thinking some place is incredibly awesome and then you see it in person and it is instead very much human-sized.
- The NFL needs the HOF as is. Teams have moved. Stadiums come and go. Uniforms change. Corporate sponsors come and go. Hell, even the referees are wearing something different this season. The NFL HOF, despite some efforts to keep it up-to-date, is hopelessly in a time-warp. As well it should be. And the only way a player can travel back into time and enter the HOF is to batter it out on the modern gridiron. The sort-of-crappy Canton HOF imparts an authenticity that is nowhere else in the NFL. The NFL needs one thing to stay the same throughout the years, even if that one thing is not as impressive as we might like.
Politics, Etc.:
The Lamont victory in Connecticut is interesting. This is either the awakening of a new Democratic enthusiasm, or a looking disaster for the Democratic party. I really don't know which it is, but as a person who was pretty enthusiastic about the 2000 Gore/Lieberman ticket, I can say I'm bummed either way. Because it's important to have a strong Democratic party, and it's equally important that the party's vision be a serious and sensible one. Lamont seems like a good guy, but many of the people pushing him just don't have a vision that makes any sense to me.
The continuing questionable news coverage of the Israel/Hizbollah conflict is very distressing to me. I don't know what exactly is going on there, but I'm pretty sure that tv/newspapers are doing a piss-poor job of covering it. While the coverage of this conflict has often been jaw-droppingly biased against Israel and amazingly ignorant of what has been going on in Lebanon for the past decade, mostly the news has just been flat-out bad. No one seems to be seeking the larger truths, and often times a typical cable-news report will completely ignore obvious questions. Example 1: for all the reports about the deaths of Lebanese and Israeli civilians and Israeli armed forces, hardly anyone is asking about Hizbollah casualties. Why is that and what does that tell us? Example 2: The term "disproportionate force" has been used frequently, but hardly anyone is addressing the obvious question -- why should force be proportionate and who decides? I really don't know the answers to these things but I think the fact these questions seem to be avoided is just making worthless the new coverage and the debate it spawns. That's very sad.