latest joke of a column by william c.

this is his take on ex-saints/raiders qb aaron brooks no longer being in the nfl. bill blames it on stuff brooks said during the saints' post-katrina ordeal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/sports/football/27rhoden.html?ref=sports

of course, bill quickly dismisses how awful brooks was with the raiders last season, blaming it on oakland's horrendous o-line. but does anyone else actually believe brooks is being blackballed for stuff he said in 2005, as opposed to being blackballed for crappy play? ??? ??? ???

discuss.

 

I thought that Brooks wasn't in the league because of his career 56.5% completion percentage. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/BrooAa00.htm

 

That's nice of shockey to give Boom the night off.

 

And sticky it!

 

i'm here to help! ;D 8) :

 

Although Brooks isn't good, I suppose one could question whether he's worse than some of the scrubs who will start games this weekend. The rest of it, though? (Infinity - 1) verse, same as the first...

 

I had to do a doubletake too

 

Maybe it was because in his eagerness to make big plays, he was extraordinarily careless with the football.

Just sayin'.

 

Rhoden is one of three columnists, I refuse to read.

1. Shelly Anderson - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist writes about women and Title IX.
2. William C Rhoden - if a white man wrote the opposite opinions, he would be called a racist.
3. Mitch Albom - do I need to explain why he has no credibility

 

Not familiar with Ms. Anderson. Christine Brennan retired the Title IX trophy a long time ago.

 

What exactly are the "opposite opinions" of Mr. Rhoden?

 

Individuals should be held accountable and responsible for their own conduct and actions.