Skip to main content

Kudos to ESPN's Ian O'Connor

I was going to write about this earlier, but having read ESPN senior writer Ian O'Connor's recent article, it appears as if he took the words out of my mouth with regard to the Odell Beckham Jr. situation and I thought I'd share that.

Having watched a good chunk of the Carolina Panthers/New York Giants game on Sunday, I was both befuddled and slightly irritated to hear so many sports analysts and columnists place the full blame on 2nd year Giants wide receiver Odell Beckham Jr. for the, at times, ugly skirmishes during the Panthers' 38-35 victory. Granted, it appeared as if Beckham definitely lost his cool for a while, he was rightly flagged on three separate occasions, and deserved both a fine and a one-game suspension for his unruly and potentially dangerous behavior. Having said all that, though, let's not pretend Carolina Panthers' defensive backs Josh Norman and Cortland Finnegan were completely innocent here. Before the game even started, Norman allegedly pointed a baseball bat in Beckham's direction. While this appears to be a tradition for the Carolina Panthers, to symbolize home run plays and laying the lumber/wood, it's quite possible the 23-year-old 2nd-year receiver was unaware of this, which resulted in an atypical mindset and escalated tension going into the contest. As soon as the game started, Norman and Beckham were going at it. On one play, Norman body-slammed Beckham to the ground after the whistle, yet no flag was thrown. In other words, while Beckham shouldn't have behaved as he did and was rightly fined and suspended for his behavior, the Carolina defensive backs were at fault too, as were the refs and coaches. Panthers' players also allegedly used anti-gay slurs directed toward Beckham, and by the time the officials finally started throwing flags for the extracurricular activity between Beckham and the Carolina DBs, they had already lost control of the game. So there's plenty of blame to go around. The officials lost control of the game early on, the coaches lost control of their players, and Beckham and Carolina's DBs lost control of themselves. If I were the NFL, in conjunction with Beckham's 1-game suspension, I'd fine Norman, and suspend the officials for a game as well (or perhaps make them ineligible to officiate the coming Super Bowl).

In addition to that, it also bothered me to hear so many in the media vilify the young New York Giants receiver. If his behavior on Sunday was part of a trend or becomes part of a trend, then it'd be completely understandable for the media to portray Beckham in such a manner. However, to this point anyway, that's not the case, and one game shouldn't make or break Odell Beckham Jr.'s image/brand. He's young and obviously has a lot to learn and improve upon, but the man didn't beat up his girlfriend/wife, didn't kill or rape anybody, wasn't found guilty of abusing a pet or child. He simply lost his cool in an intense and violent sport, and shouldn't be fully judged based on this one game.

Having said all that, here's Ian O'Connor's piece, entitled, "Odell Beckham Jr. deserves punishment but shouldn't be demonized," which can also be read here - http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14417429/why-odell-beckham-jr-new-york-giants-demonized-nfl :

"Odell Beckham Jr. earned his suspension, of this there is little doubt. He melted down against the Carolina Panthers, and his helmet-first launch into Josh Norman's head carried the required penalty across the divide separating a fine from a seat in his living room for the New York Giants' game at Minnesota.

As quickly as Beckham ascended to the heights of NFL celebrity last year with his three-fingered catch against Dallas, someone who knows him said his plunge from grace was just as dramatic. Beckham went from passionate megastar to occupational hazard just like that, and it's going to be a long time before people let him forget how ugly he looked in defacing his own beautiful football skills.

But as much as Beckham deserves to be punished, he doesn't deserve to be demonized. One Giants source said the receiver was unnerved by the fact that one Panther carried a baseball bat onto the field during warm-ups, a bat that found its way into cornerback Josh Norman's hands. The source also said Giants players heard Carolina players direct at least two anti-gay slurs at Beckham, setting the confrontational tone.

This is context, not a cop-out, to help explain why an otherwise rational human being might act as irrationally as Beckham did in a 38-35 loss to an unbeaten team. Beckham is 23 years old, and he spent three hours showcasing his youth and immaturity before millions of witnesses.

But Beckham didn't do what Ray Rice was suspended for, or what Adrian Peterson was suspended for, or what Greg Hardy was suspended for, and he shouldn't be treated as if he belongs in the same ballpark. He committed his offense in uniform, between the lines. His crime was being too violent and reckless in a violent and reckless sport.

Beckham was caught up in a week's worth of attention hyping his matchup with Norma, magnified by what he perceived to be a hostile pregame environment, and he came charging out of his corner foaming at the mouthpiece, hunting a first-round knockout. Norman had fought his own quarterback, Cam Newton, in training camp, and he was a willing participant in this prizefight too. If Norman was an innocent bystander here, one league official said, he'd go down as 'the least innocent innocent bystander of all time.'

In a piece Friday tracing the roots of Beckham's drive, I wrote that nobody should be surprised if the receiver responded to successful Norman coverage by slamming his own helmet into the ground like he did at the end of last year's loss to San Francisco. I also wrote that his inner rage isn't fueled by selfish goals, but by the desire to be great in a team-first way recognized by his bosses, Tom Coughlin and Jerry Reese.

Though I was stunned Sunday by the extreme manifestation of that rage, nothing Beckham did changed my opinion about what inspires him. Beckham correctly believes that he's playing for a sub-mediocre football team, and that its only change of beating the Panthers and making the playoffs rested on his ability to physically dominate Norman.

He just took it too far. Way, way too far. And Beckham will pay an appropriate price for his mistakes in the form of the one-game suspension, pending an appeal he doesn't deserve to win.

But he's not a monster, or a criminal, or even a bad teammate. His high school coach and quarterback at Isidore Newman in New Orleans told me last week that he was as selfless and committed an athlete as they'd ever come across. Basically, they said some of the same things Coughlin and Eli Manning said on their Monday conference calls with reporters.

Manning ripped Norman for ripping Beckham's behavior, and correctly suggested the officiating crew should've done a much better job controlling the early altercations. Those who know the stoic, controversy-averse quarterback understand he wouldn't step into the middle of a media inferno for just any Giant.

Coughlin? He's 69 years old and has been coaching forever, and he said Beckham brings qualities to the team 'the likes of which I've never seen.' Coughlin spoke of the receiver's nonstop energy and hustle.

'I will not defend his actions yesterday,' the coach said, 'because they were wrong and this particular franchise and organization does not tolerate that, so I would not do that. But I will defend the young man and the quality of the person. I will defend him as long as I'm able.'

Coughlin delivered these very words to his team, with one source saying Beckham listened intently and nodded in agreement. No, that isn't the end of the story. Though the Giants said Beckham was a largely composed presence on the sideline in between possessions, Coughlin still has to answer for why he didn't bench the receiver for at least one series, and for why he didn't know Beckham was responsible for three personal fouls.

Coughlin needed to be better than the woefully overmatched refs on Sunday, and he needed to be better than the response he gave Monday about keeping Beckham on the field. 'If we were to have a chance to win the game,' Coughlin said, 'I wanted him to be out there. I'll be honest with you.'

If Beckham is honest with himself he'll admit he might've cost Coughlin his job, and might've cost Coughlin's team its last true shot at winning the NFC East. He screwed up at the worst possible time, and now must confront the mother of all teaching moments. He became the first Giant ever suspended for on-field conduct, making the wrong kind of history after all that coverage of the historic 25-game start to his career.

'At numerous times during yesterday's game against the Carolina Panthers,' read the league's letter to Beckham, 'your actions placed a fellow player at unnecessary risk, reflected poorly on both yourself and the National Football League, and clearly did not represent the high standards of sportsmanship expected of an NFL player.'

All true. But by all accounts Beckham has been consistently coachable and respectful inside the Giants' facilities, which is why his bosses and quarterback swear by him. He's still a good long-term gamble. He's still a guy you'd much rather have on your team than not. He merely got swept away by the kind of vulgar, trash-talking battle that unfortunately remains common in the NFL, and took it to a dangerous place that caused every Giant (most notably himself) great embarrassment.

Odell Beckham Jr. needed to be suspended for that. Demonized? Not even close."

Agreed! Kudos to Ian O'Connor for placing things into their proper perspective! Hopefully Beckham learns from this experience and doesn't ever repeat his unruly actions.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"