Ed. Note: We have a reader named Mark Wald who literally writes every day, sometimes several times a day, to criticize everything we write. Quite frankly, he's an annoying douche. In fact, he's so obsessed with the Cold, Hard Football Facts that he created his very own "CHFF playbook" (which you can see here) which attempts to categorize everything we publish.
But every once in a while, he comes up with something pretty insightful, like the data about the QBs who can "carry a team" that we published last week. That was pretty good. And, well, at least he cares enough to tell us we suck ... unlike our moms, who simply duck our calls. So we thought we'd give this guy an opportunity this year as our in-house critic, the Ombudsdouche. If we f'ed up ... or if he simply doesn't like it, you'll hear about it here first.
By Mark Wald
CHFF readers, welcome back from the Offseason Snoozefest, also known as the Bore Starr Interview
. We weren't looking for muckraking. Hell, we weren't even looking for challenging questions. But we were looking for at least one original
question, not Distant Replay Redux
. It's amazing CHFF's hero worship
of The Turtle Wax Icon didn't produce at least one question to Starr that hasn't been already asked and answered a million times.
I couldn't help notice the Chief Troll's Q factor has ramped up considerably over the spring and summer. He's hobnobbing with more media and NFL muckety-mucks lately than Joe Chardonnay
. CHFF's nifty little relationship with Peter King helped him land a gig covering the NFL draft for SI.com
this spring. And we all know about the recent visit to NFL Films
. Now, I love NFL Films, but you may have heard about some of their recent troubles. Can't help but wonder if their sudden interest in CHFF is a desperate attempt to remain relevant. I have a hunch that the CHFF articles supposedly taped to the walls of NFL Films that greeted the Chief Troll (we'll take his word for it) are now lining Sabol's silverware drawers.
(CHFF responds: Did he just say NFL Films is using CHFF to remain relevant? We'll take it.)
(CHFF responds: six and 60, asshole. Give the fat man a little credit, will ya?)
Speaking of which ... can we respectfully recommend that CHFF's story headlines be jazzed up a little? A bit more accuracy wouldn't hurt, either. For example, the CHFF article Interview with CHFF's nattily attired Chief Troll
could be more accurately titled as Fat know-it-all in a bar drones on and on like, well...fat know-it-all in a bar
. Adds a little pizzazz, don't you think? I'm here to help.
There are rare sights in life some people are fortunate enough to witness. Like a Bald Eagle in the wild or a Yeti in the Tibetan highlands. Readers of the recent CHFF groundbreaking masterwork The Mad Bombers
witnessed something just as rare: the mention of Daryl Lamonica in a CHFF article.
The Mad Bomber was curiously absent from CHFF's not one
, not two
, but three
articles this summer about the alleged AFL Myth. You just know
CHFF tried to debunk the myth of the Mad Bomber. No mention of him, through. Could it have something to do with Lamonica's extraordinary career statistics undermining CHFF's AFL myth-debunking agenda? Pretty weeny.
You can't write about the Rolling Stones and pretend Keith Richards doesn't exist. Note to CHFF: You'd have appeared more credible had you acknowledged Lamonica, demonstrated how his stats were not typical of the AFL overall, and moved on with the rest of the piece. We're big boys, we can handle it.
(CHFF responds: Lamonica obviously earned the "Mad Bomber" nickname. But his "extraordinary" career statistics include 14 TDs per year over a 12-year-career, a career 72.9 passer rating, and a career 49.5% completion rate ... actually, that is quite good by the lowly standards of the AFL.)
Has CHFF been on the "AFL Myth" for a couple years now, or does it just seem that way? This is Subterfuge right out of the CHFF Playbook
. CHFF would have us believe their textbook definition of passing efficiency somehow qualifies as "excitement." Put it this way: would a typical guy in a bar describe the AFL or describe excitement as "...wide open, a more prolific passing game with a higher rate of completions, more yards per attempt, more TDs per attempt, fewer interceptions and much higher passing ratings...and passing productivity like we have in modern football?" Doubtful.
One more AFL Myth observation (but probably not the last): In part 3
, CHFF asserted the NFL's 0.04 additional yards per play vs. the AFL was evidence of superiority, but the AFL's additional 1.1 point per game is not large enough to matter. Please. We expect more out of CHFF than high school debate team tactics.
(CHFF responds: the data was provided to show that there was no obvious offensive dominance from the AFL. The theme was that the two leagues practiced a substantially similar style of football ... and that the AFL offenses did not execute this style particularly well.)
(CHFF responds: on the contrary, classless jokes are a CHFF specialty. But rumors are not.)
We spotted—and snuffed out!—a "REVERSE" from the CHFF Playbook
. In the article "Defenders who Belong
" CHFF made a compelling case for Steve Atwater for Hall of Fame. They said, "...and the Broncos rarely had a top-flight defense during his career." Yet, in the article "This one's for John's teammates
" CHFF wrote, "Elway...had the fortune of playing with consistently strong defenses..." Since Atwater and Elway won two Super Bowls together, we're just wondering how "rarely top-flight" and "consistently strong" can co-exist. Sorry CHFF, that's a two yard loss.
Real football is only a few weeks away. That's good for NFL fans and even better news for CHFF readers because the slow news days of summer produced the gem of a masterpiece "New coach, new QB, same old Lions
," sometimes known by the alternate title What Matt Stafford said his defensive coordinator said.
CHFF used a supposed quote by Titans defensive coordinator Jim Schwartz as a launching pad to espouse their tired old "the running game doesn't matter" agenda. However, we don't even know if Schwartz said what he said or the context in which he may have said it. Or if he simply gave a deliberate non-quote to some annoying press person. This nonsense was better suited for Fox's NFL Rumors page. If everyone was judged by what they say instead of what they do, the Chief Troll would still be trying to live down the "we can be just as forceful as some loud-mouthed radio host" comment. Nothing like setting your goals high.
CHFF has the reputation as Peyton Manning bashers. So I was initially surprised SI.com's recent ranking of Manning as the second best NFL player under pressure (over Tom Brady!) didn't produce the point by point, fact after bludgeoning fact reaction from CHFF. But when you're in bed with SI, you can't really roast them over the coals, can you? Consider:
"A lot of traditional sports columnists, meanwhile, are just some asshole telling you what he thinks, regardless of the actual facts of the situation, but buoyed by the arrogance of an institution that's been around for 100 years." - Chief Troll, 9/2/2008
Peter King is senior writer for Sports Illustrated (owned by media conglomerate Time Warner. It has over 3 million subscribers and is read by million adults each week, including over 18 million men, 19% of the adult males in the United States). A large portion of his weekly column is dedicated to a segment he entitles "Ten Things I Think", where he proceeds to pontificate on anywhere from 10 to 30 things he thinks through the clever use of subcategorization. Among the profound and authoritative insights King provides are his weekly opinions about coffee quality.
"(Peter) King is a friend of the Cold, Hard Football Facts. He's been very good to us and has contacted us over the years about various stories, and we know that support from writers at SI.com is the reason why we have our nifty little relationship with them today." - Chief Troll, 2/11/2009
CHFF's reaction to readers' awareness of this oh-so-obvious development is to call us donkeys.
Are we donkeys for noticing it or for saying it? Yeee-aaww.