Mon 6 Oct 2008
Some of the coverage of the Plax’s comments today has been pretty misleading, and, I believe, kind of misses the point.
ESPN’s article, which has occupied the site’s top spot all evening, led with: “An unapologetic Plaxico Burress rejoined the New York Giants on Monday, noting he didn’t lose any sleep after he Super Bowl champions suspended him for a game.”
The beat writers are a little more even-handed, knowing that Plax being Plax isn’t nearly as bad as Manny being Manny or T.O. being T.O.
Sure, Plax’s attitude during the interview was defiant, and he definitely said some ridiculous things. But if you read the whole transcript – you can read it in four parts here – it’s clear that although he stopped short of apologizing, he knows what he did was unacceptable.
To wit:
–“Maybe I could’ve put a call in.”
–“I definitely let them down.”
–“They made the decision for the best of the team and I have a lot of respect for that. They made the decision to suspend me for a week, which I was cool with. We all agreed to it and moved on.”
–“Will I make the same decision? Yes. Will I handle the situation a little better? Yes, I’ll put in a phone call”
So going forward, Plax gets it, or at least he gets it enough. His defiant attitude during the interview was probably the result of feeling cornered by the media. Plax is the proverbial “Proud Man,” and like many people, probably has a hard time distinguishing between an apology and a ritual of humiliation. That’s a frustrating quality, but hardly a reason to write the guy off as a bad teammate.
Now, I don’t mean to excuse Plax’s actions or comments. There was certainly a lot in that interview to make you angry.
His repeated insistence that he would do it again – or as he put it: “It’s like I told them, if I have a decision to make about my family or son and things like that, I wouldn’t change anything about it” – was pretty infuriating.
But do you think he really meant that? It doesn’t jibe with the “apologies” above. Rather, this struck me as a misguided tactic to get the media off his back by playing the family card. But the problem, obviously, wasn’t his choosing his family over football. It was that he didn’t call. He knows that, but maybe he naively believed this tactic could make him a sympathetic character. It backfired, and he wound up making himself look worse.
Also, it was weird when he said he only watched “a little bit of [the game]. I watched the first half.” If an athlete losing $100 grand and shrugging his shoulders doesn’t infuriate the average fan, this might. Didn’t watch the game? For Heaven’s sake, many of us have watched it twice already!
But here’s the deal here: We can choose to get bent out of shape about what he said, or we can accept that this situation, while imperfect, doesn’t present an imminent threat to team morale. It doesn’t even present a gathering threat.
As Ralph Vacchiano wrote in his live chat with readers last week, “I don’t think Burress and Coughlin have ever really gotten along. They’ve peacefully coexisted more than anything else.”
Or as Plax himself said today, “We hit and miss sometimes and things like that.”
It’s a manageable situation, this Plax being Plax. But you know what else was Plax being Plax? Gutting out last season on a shredded ankle, adding a separated shoulder in Green Bay and then a torn knee before the Super Bowl.
So let’s move on and start thinking about Cleveland.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:08 am
the MSM is just biased against the NYG
October 7th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Good points because I also felt that Plax was getting to much crap from the mainstream media. And as a fan I didn’t watch much of the 2nd half because it was boring so I’m not mad that he tuned out. Heck there are other games going on that Plax might want to watch to see how Corners or Dbacks might play him. It’s important to study your opponent. Which brings me to the part of your piece that I didn’t like which was your “Plax being Plax isn’t nearly as bad as Manny being Manny or T.O. being T.O.”
I’m a huge Manny fan and that boy works hard, including studying tape to see how opposing pitchers approach his at-bats. So please refrain from writing like those Boston blood-suckers meda types that take shots at Manny who won two Chips thanks to his HEALTHY bat during the postseason. And now he’s back in another Championship Series. I hope we get to see a Dodgers-Sawx matchup! The plotlines will be many!
October 7th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I just wrote a rather lengthy comment for the previous entry before it was erased because I forgot to enter my email address. So fucking frustrating. So instead of talking about the game, this comment is to defend Greg . . . .
Esto, solid points about Plax. Something tells me that if I were a professional athlete, I might not necessarily watch my own team play as maniacally as I do as a fan (especially when I’ve been benched).
Now I know this is besides the point of this blog, but let me digress to the “Manny being Manny” point. First, Greg is not a Yankees’ fan (he’s a Mets’ fanatic) so “Manny being Manny” should not be viewed so much as Manny-bashing as it should be as an objective observation. Second, Manny is a great player. I would never deny this. I am also rooting for the Dodgers this postseason, not because of Manny but because of Torre (I am a Yankees’ fan). But these truths do not take away from the reality that Manny can be poison to a team and I would never want someone with that kind of disruptive potential on a team of mine that has gelled the way the Giants have. And fortunately, I don’t think that Plax is Manny. And saying so is not necessarily to be interpreted as echoing a Boston blood-sucker media type. Because we’re talking about Plax here, not Manny. So Greg, please do not refrain from using any analogies that are to the point and make sense. And I believe that the Manny analogy was an appropriate one. You see, here in New York we use nuance in our sports’ analysis as opposed to the one-dimensional praising/bludgeoning that you might find on Boston sports’ blogs.
Keep on commenting Esto! I hope you don’t take this the wrong way.