Around the NFL - 2009

[Seabiscuit36]

inside job..book it

[Sgt PSN]

of course it was an inside job.  you don't think he left his jewelry in the front yard, do you?

[Diomedes]

anyone dumb enough to buy 400k of jewelry might be dumb enough not to lock it up

[PhillyPhreak54]

Nick Barnett quits Twitter
Posted by Mike Florio on September 21, 2009 10:53 AM ET
When Bengals receiver Chad Ochocinco did it before the start of the regular season, we knew it wouldn't last.

Now that Packers linebacker Nick Barnett is bailing on Twitter until the 2010 offseason, we have a feeling it will stick.

In announcing to his 17,000-plus followers that he's signing off for now, Barnett acknowledges that:  (1) he's emotional; and (2) he often forgets that "everything is public" on Twitter.

The move comes a day after he very publicly invited all who booed him for celebrating a tackle during Sunday's 31-24 loss to the Bengals to "KISS MY ASS."

Barnett also says that he made the decision without talking to anyone from the Packers.

We have a feeling he won't be the last one to pull the plug on his Twitter page, during the season if not permanently.

This guy is a clown. He pulled that "celebrate a simple tackle" shtein during the beat down at the Linc in 2004 and got booed there too.

[Don Ho]

This Colts game is amazing!  Holy shtein.  The Colts can score faster than the Saints.

[PhillyPhreak54]

Rey Maualuga = bad ass

He'd be awesome in an Eagles uniform.

Bradley - Maualuga - Jordan/Gaither

I'm shocked Andy didn't pick him simply because he looks like Reno Mahe

[ice grillin you]

how farging great is this....


Lewis, the greatest defensive player of his generation, knew exactly what had to be done

"I'm thinking, 'Snap the ball. Snap the ball,' " the future Hall of Famer said. "There's a backside A-gap, and I promise I'm gonna shoot it. He was sitting out there, and I'm like, I'm gonna kill this dude."

[Sgt PSN]

is that quote from after the chargers game this weekend or when he was in atlanta for the super bowl? 

[Diomedes]

c.) both

[MDS]

Was that just Dios first funny?

[Diomedes]

of the day, yeah

pay attention, you'll catch on eventually

[PhillyPhreak54]

I'd say that is a major problem. Why would ESPN even open itself up to something like that?

ESPN, Patriots create an obvious conflict of interest
Posted by Mike Florio on September 24, 2009 9:52 AM ET
Maybe ESPN wants to be criticized.

That's the only explanation we can identify in the wake of the bizarre news from SportsBusiness Daily that ESPN has hired Kraft Sports Group to sell local advertising for the fledgling ESPNBoston.com.

That's Kraft Sports Group.  As in Robert Kraft.  As in the owner of the New England Patriots.

Even more amazing is that the SBD report from John Ourand and Daniel Kaplan doesn't even bat an eye at one of the most blatant and obvious conflicts of interest we ever have seen.

This is well beyond, in our view, the placement of a CBS-themed restaurant at Patriot Place, which has raised some talk of a conflict of interest between the Pats and the network that televises the Sunday afternoon AFC package of games.

This is a sports news outlet entering into a significant business partnership with one of the handful of teams that will be covered by the ESPNBoston.com site.

It's surreal, frankly.

That said, the new civil suit against Tom Brady, which gives new meaning to the term "shotgun wedding," has been addressed at ESPNBoston.com.  But there's not a single mention of the serious claims made against one of the top quarterbacks in the league on the mother ship's mother site -- not even on the supposedly ESPN.com AFC East blog.

It's almost as if a conscious decision has been made to slip the thing onto the Boston-focused arm of ESPN.com, without exposing the broader audience to the news.

Regardless of whether ESPN.com huddled with one or more members of the Kraft group to craft a strategy for mentioning the Brady lawsuit on a scaled-down basis to avoid the kind of criticism that ESPN experienced for keeping its head buried in casino chips as to the civil lawsuit against Ben Roethlisberger, the business relationship between ESPN and the group that owns an NFL team invites such scrutiny.

So, from this point forward, every thing said or written by ESPN about the Patriots needs to be considered in light of this relationship.

Meanwhile, we'll wait to see what Don Ohlmeyer has to say about this one in the monthly ombudsman column that still ends up buried at the bottom of the alphabet junkyard.

[ice grillin you]

Why would ESPN even open itself up to something like that?

lol...this is rhetorical right?

espn does what the farg it wants when the farg it wants and couldnt give a rats ass what it makes them look like as long as they are caking off

espn is more powerful than even banners swirly lolipop

[PhillyPhreak54]

I get that. They are the pimps of the media world.

But what happens to journalistic integrity? That pretty much jumped the shark up there awhile ago as far as analysts are concerned, but when it comes to this I think it's a big no-no.

Between this and not covering the Roethlisberger civil suit stuff for about two weeks, they are looking bad.

[PhillyPhreak54]

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/09/23/skeletons-depicting-steve-mcnair-sahel-kazemi-featured-in-king/