First, he claimed that the lack of a reasonable rookie wage scale led to the departures of popular Colts veterans (patently ridiculous and not even a little true).
Then, he claimed the resigning of Ed Johnson marked a sea change in the Colts, saying that Dungy would never have taken a guy like Johnson back. Of course, Dungy is advocating Mike Vick's return to the NFL, so Kravitz's position made little sense.
Today, he again comes out with another piece that couldn't be more off the mark. Today, he writes:
Moore and Mudd have made their decision and now it's time for the Colts to make their decision and conclude, once and for all, that they're moving on without the pair.
On the issue of Moore and Mudd as consultants, Manning was on the mark.
ANDOn other issues, he was strangely out of line, taking not-so-veiled shots at team president Bill Polian and the new assistant coaches/interns. (As a disclaimer, I should mention that I wasn't there for Manning's comments, but it's hard to miss his point after just a cursory reading.)
My question is, what purpose was served by Manning publicly unloading in this manner? This is a team that is undergoing its first round of seismic changes in nearly a decade, and it needs its franchise quarterback to remain calm and self-assured, not sound alarm bells and raise red flags...
Things are changing over at West 56th Street. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. New blood, new voices, new ideas.
No. 18 doesn't just need to get with the new program, he needs to sell it.
To begin with, there is only one issue. Manning can't be right about the issue of consultants and simultaneously be wrong about his 'shots' at Polian and the assistants. All the quotes revolve around one issue: Are Mudd and Moore coming back, and if they are, what will they be doing? Maybe he should have given Manning's comments more than just a 'cursory reading' before writing a column in the Star about them. It may just be lazy work, but I think Bob actually has a motive for splitting them into two separate issues.
Let's be clear. Kravitz blames Moore for the Colts' postseason losses, and advocated firing him just a few short months ago. I would link to the original pieces, but Bob's bosses won't make them available for review for free on line. They apparently like to protect his record by not making him accountable for the things he writes (Edit: Yes, I know they charge for all archived stories...I was just making an ironic joke about who really is and isn't accountable on line. Sorry for the confusion). Back in January, he claimed the Colts would be better off without Tom Moore as the OC.
Now, public opinion is against that idea. The people want the coaches back. Bob, instead of owning up and saying Moore should be gone because of his work as a coach, makes a subtle back door play claiming they should stay retired because of the 'counterproductive' nature of continuing to work out the situation. He builds his argument like this:
1. He claims Manning is right and that it is a bad move to let the two venerable coaches come back as 'consultants'.
2. He claims the Colts should move on from Moore and Mudd because it's a more orderly, less confusing way to handle the transfer.
3. He claims Manning should get on the board with the "new program", and "sell it".
Whoooooooa, there Bob. The 'new program' you say Manning should endorse is YOUR NEW PROGRAM, not the new program of the Indianapolis Colts. The Colts don't want a new program. If Moore and Mudd are coming back, and it seems likely they are, then why should Manning say he's happy if they don't come back?
If Bob had any guts, he would reprint his call for Moore's dismissal based on his record. Instead, he subtly says it's for the best if he doesn't come back, and then right after calling Manning's criticisms of the team valid, chastises Manning for not supporting HIS position (which no one else on 56th Street seems to hold).
As we saw yesterday, the Star truncated Manning's comments dramatically. In full context, as was provided on Indyfootballreport.com, Manning and Polian seemed to be on the same page. Bob, admittedly wasn't present for the comments, so in this case, his opinion is based on no more access than we have. The difference is that we read Manning's full quote in which he explained that the issue was still unclear about what consultants do. Bob quoted this in his piece but separated it from the other quotes in order to validate his 'two issue' argument. Apparently, Bob just scanned the interview and threw up a column loaded with twisted and self-contradictory logic because he didn't bother to be present when Manning spoke.
This brings us full circle. Part of our job here at 18to88 it to expose laziness in the media. We have access to media members and their work. We have every right to crush Kravitz when he what he says in nonsense.
Via SB, one method of looking at great coaches. Dungy does well on a per-season basis.
Judge calls Caldwell a difference maker
The Czar says Polian likes Caldwell. Tip to Kuharsky
Messi is the best active player. End of story.
Maybe they should just break down and rename the site Cold Hard Making Crap Up
Scouts Inc hates on Addai. That's great news for the Master.
MJax is back at practice!!! This is extremely good news.