…and this is a 
An Open Letter to New Orleans Quarter Back, Drew Brees.
Category: Neurobiology
Posted on: September 26, 2007 2:29 AM, by Katie Glasrud
Dear Drew Brees,
As your fantasy football owner and a concerned fan, I respectfully request that you stop sucking. Your very manhood may depend on it. According to evolutionary psychologist David M, Buss, it is a well-documented phenomenon that testosterone levels in males fluctuate with the outcome of sporting events. Winners experience a boost of testosterone and mood while losers of athletic competition experience a decrease of testosterone. No wonder you feel like this:
So you're now 0-3, you threw about four too many interceptions Monday night, and let's be honest. That fumble in the fourth quarter? You just dropped it didn't you. It looks like you've had a lot of testosterone-dropping moments this season, and I have to warn you: If you continue on this painful trajectory, you could wake up one morning to find you've developed female secondary characteristics. You'll never be able to enter a locker room again! Ok... I'm kidding about the breasts, but if you won't step it up for you, do it for your fans. Studies show that male sports fans experience similar drops in testosterone after their team suffers a loss. Hasn't New Orleans suffered enough loss in Hurricane Katrina? It's time to play some really football.
Sincerely,
A Friend.
Comments
I don't think it'll be a problem. Aren't all american athletes juiced up on 'roids? (ducks and hides for impending diatribes).
Posted by: Brian English | September 26, 2007 4:00 AM
I find it hard to believe that people who can read give a damn about a bunch of guys in tights running around with a big bauble. I guess this is a slow day in neurobiology class...?
Posted by: AlanWCan | September 26, 2007 4:46 AM
That was the best written student entry on neurobiology! Good work!
Posted by: Natasha | September 26, 2007 4:48 AM
Funnily enough Alan, it is possible to have both a healthy interest in science and sport. And if you don't have an interest in both, it is also possible to refrain from prejudiced comments against people who do. Although is American football really a sport? Anything where you have to wear so much padding can't count surely - play something proper, like rugby!
Also, does this mean if I become a very fickle supporter and always swap support to whichever team is winning, I'll turn into a macho manly man?
Posted by: Ben D | September 26, 2007 4:53 AM
Don't see the appeal of American Football. It's just rugby neutered by health and safety. With all the players just drones that don't need to think about what they are doing and merely need to be able to follow the orders of the coach who gets to brief them every couple of minutes on what they should do next.
(Clambers into flame proof suit)
Posted by: Martin | September 26, 2007 5:30 AM
I'm with Ben D: in a true gentlemens' sport, one must be prepared to lose a few teeth and break a few bones every once in a while. The Yankee girlies probably even use ball bunkers. :-)
Martin
Posted by: Martin Christensen | September 26, 2007 5:33 AM
I too have unfortunately had to bann Drew Brees from my fantasy starting lineup. I know just how the writer feels. How unusual, though, to see the news of his dramatic fall from grace make it as far as the pages of Pharyngula!
I would definitely like to see more about how the psychological effects of victory can have physical effects on the body. I believe male orangutans undergo quite spectacular physical changes upon achieving alpha status. Is this tendency present in other primate species? If so to what degree?
I seem to remember all the members of the high school rugby team shaving and exhibiting other testosterone induced traits before me. Is there something to that or is it just that stronger kids are more compelled to play rugby and have an advantage in making the team?
Posted by: Wiggy | September 26, 2007 5:35 AM
Perhaps a more appropriate NFL-related topic for neurobiology class would be the spinal cord injury sustained by Bills' tight end Kevin Everett, while playing that neutered rugby unsport. One straightforward question for neuroanatomical discussion might be why Everett, after injury at the C3/C4 level, was initially paralyzed from the neck down, yet retained touch sensation over much of his body.
Posted by: Barn Owl | September 26, 2007 5:51 AM
Per the rugby comments above. Rugby players are on the field for eighty minutes, playing both offense and defense, unless substituted for. Let's see an American football player do that. Being pumped up on steroids is not something is going to help in this case.
http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/
For more information and explanation of rugby "Why, oui je parle rugby(yes I speak rugby).
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france_159/events_5487/rugby-world-cup-in-france-september-7-october-20-2007_5488/oui-je-parle-rugby_5683/why-oui-je-parle-rugby-yes-i-speak-rugby_9366.html
Long link, so if it doesn't work, just do a quick search.
Posted by: bernarda | September 26, 2007 5:57 AM
American football and Rugby??!! You guys call that sport?
The only *TRUE* sport is Soccer. Try head balling a soccer ball into the net, sans helmet, you wusses.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | September 26, 2007 6:33 AM
Not prejudiced Ben D, just that my eyes glaze over after about 5 min watching a bunch of monkeys with a ball. Sorry. I'm with Barn Owl though - that injury and ongoing recovery are interesting. The power of prednisolone administered quickly, hypothermia, and rapid surgical intervention. Christopher Reave would have approved.
Posted by: AlanWCan | September 26, 2007 6:36 AM
A quick explanation for British people who don't get American football. Being British myself, I've only been following it since they started televising it in about 1990 or so. We got the New Orleans game, though, and Katie is quite right about Brees sucking.
When the offence is on top, you get to watch ordinarily large men running round incredibly large men, jumping and catching and generally being gymnastic.
When the defence is on top, you get to watch incredibly large men charging into ordinarily large men at an implausible speed for their size, and crushing them into the ground.
The whole thing lasting for longer than most operas. What's not to like?
Posted by: Jon Eccles | September 26, 2007 7:14 AM
Hmm, this has brought the Brits out in force hasn't it?
Personally, as a Brit and a rugby fan, I think American football is the better sport. Immensely physical but also FAR more tactical (dare I say cerebral) than any other team game I know.
Take the time to learn a bit about it before you dismiss it as a neutered form of rugby played by drones. That would be like saying rugby is a game for dull-witted toffs, traipsing around after a ball being kicked pointlessly backwards and forwards. Oh.
Posted by: Stephen | September 26, 2007 7:16 AM
Katie, excellent little post on testosterone. We need more scientists who can write and make things interesting.
"Studies show that male sports fans experience similar drops in testosterone after their team suffers a loss."
Now what happens to female fans?
Posted by: sailor | September 26, 2007 7:20 AM
It's probably because he doesn't point up into the sky enough like all the great players do.
Posted by: Randy | September 26, 2007 7:24 AM
In the spirit of research, I've been looking into some stats, and I can authoritatively state that rugby union, with a concussion incidence of 50% per season, is a better sport than American football, with a concussion incidence of 42% a season. Because we all know that head injuries are the true judge of a sport's worth. Right?
Posted by: Ben D | September 26, 2007 7:25 AM
The only TRUE sport is spearing chipmunks in a barrel. Oh sure, it's as violent and pointless as other sports, but on the up-side, it has yet to be corrupted by the needs of big media. Also, everyone can be a winner!
Well, except the chipmunk, natch...
Posted by: DaveX | September 26, 2007 7:33 AM
"If you continue on this painful trajectory, you could wake up one morning to find you've developed female secondary characteristics. You'll never be able to enter a locker room again!"
It's always sad when boys taunt other boys (who lack physical prowess or some other popular, but actually unimportant, characteristic) with the "you throw like a girl" or "you're a sissy" third-grade-level insults, but it's incredibly sad when adults do it, especially women. Veiling it with terminology from biology class doesn't make the "poor male athlete = girl" taunt any less pathetic.
Posted by: lori | September 26, 2007 7:35 AM
Don't take this the wrong way, but these student entries are seriously messing with my head. For a minute there, I thought PZ's into fantasy football now?
Don't worry, Katie. This is a great snip of writing, and the thought of Drew Brees running around with floppy man-boobs cracked me up.
Posted by: Dan | September 26, 2007 7:35 AM
This is why you should have chosen Tom Brady.
Never go against the golden boy!
Posted by: Morse | September 26, 2007 7:35 AM
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 26, 2007 7:37 AM
Um Screwed that blockquote closing tag. My comments begin at
Um....
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 26, 2007 7:38 AM
Oh, quit your bitching. At least you don't have to deal with Rex Grossman on your actual team.
Posted by: Ben | September 26, 2007 8:00 AM
Lack of male hormones alone doesn't produce female secondary characteristics. For that you need estrogen and whatnot.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 26, 2007 8:11 AM
It is therefore curious to note that I once allowed myself to be dragged into an intramural soccer game while in college and found it somewhat enjoyable -- except for that "heading" thing. I refuse to use my head as a blunt instrument. No more soccer either.
Posted by: Zeno | September 26, 2007 8:27 AM
Way to frame science! ;) Seriously, this is an excellent way to bring scientific information to the uninformed public in a simultaneously humorous and interesting way. Now all that remains is getting it published somewhere where the uninformed public actually sees it...
Re #19, I agree. I think it'd be nice if student posts had a small graphic or something signifying that it's not PZ writing.
Posted by: Felicia Gilljam | September 26, 2007 8:28 AM
Dear Drew - I don't think you suck at all.
Posted by: Rex Grossman | September 26, 2007 8:32 AM
Katie,
Great post. I feel your pain.*
I suggest you pick up another QB or two, because I don't think Brees is going to stop sucking anytime soon (to think I wasted a decent draft pick on him).
No One
* and I thought for a second PZ was doing fantasy football too.
Posted by: No One of Consequence | September 26, 2007 8:36 AM
For all Americans that do not understand the vital difference between Rugby and Football, please read the short article:
English Rugby Match Momentarily Stopped For Dead Player
http://groups.northwestern.edu/womensrugby/links_thebrushback.htm
Posted by: J-Dog | September 26, 2007 8:42 AM
Rugby certainly does have a greater appeal to me than football, but NOTHING is as absorbing as cricket. Not that 20 or 50 overs version : the test variety. Strategy, flashes of athleticism (Jonty Rhodes anyone?), oh and few advertising breaks.
But yeah, Brees just plain sucks.
Posted by: ElJay | September 26, 2007 8:56 AM
I think discussion of the biology of sports performance issues and sports injuries can be used to encourage young pre-med types to pursue specialities such as neurosurgery, orthopedics, and physical medicine/rehabilitation. In the first place, we'll need them to take care of us when we're old and crunchy, and in the second place (and more importantly), there will be all of those traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, and limb amputation patients returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
If I were into fantasy football, I'd put together a team of Michael Vick's pit bulls. :-(
Posted by: Barn Owl | September 26, 2007 8:56 AM
Katie, I think your post was brilliant. Not only did it address neurobiology, but it had some snarkish humor in there with Bree's progressing to a feminine-state if he keeps sucking.
Posted by: Moses | September 26, 2007 8:56 AM
Someone here needs to stand up for Brees. I graduated with him from Purdue University in 2001, the season prior he took us to the Rose Bowl where we were thoroughly routed by the Huskies. The Lily-White Fathers of West Lafayette even had a street renamed after him. Plus, he's from Texass, where football rivals Jesus.
Posted by: caynazzo | September 26, 2007 8:58 AM
I have to question your choice of fantasy QB ;-)
But still, a very good and informative post.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | September 26, 2007 8:59 AM
I am in the Biology Department at the University of Pittsburgh and I can assure you that football fanaticism can be a deeply ingrained part of science culture. Our most recent social hour was football themed. Perhaps this is true here because the Steelers have been doing so well and we crave the testosterone boost at this point like lab mice crave cocaine.
I should start testing testosterone levels because there is a fraction of the department that still believes the Brown's are going to come back on top. Wa ha ha.
Posted by: Heather | September 26, 2007 9:00 AM
Dear Drew,
I don't think you suck either.
Matt
Posted by: Matt Leinart | September 26, 2007 9:03 AM
Poor.
Didn't really capture the Phayngula demographic. No squids in football.
Didn't cite studies in which football supporters turn into girly men whenever their team loses. If you can't find the references, then at least use more lurid examples with made-up error bars and sample sizes.
Future student posters should look on this as an opportunity to publicly humiliate their professor with stories of his most embarrassing quirks. I want to know- does P.Z. pick his nose when he thinks no-one is looking? Does he name his Zebra fish after pop starlets? etc. etc.
Again- when in doubt- make it up. We're here to be entertained.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | September 26, 2007 9:09 AM
Wooo! A Natalie Angier in the making!
Could you also write a letter to the Pope explaining how god intoxication stupidifies?
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 26, 2007 9:13 AM
When I was in High School, many many moons ago, a History professor of mine handed out extra credit to any athletes in the room (for homecoming or something). We all raised our hand and went around the room telling him what team we were on. After the Baseball players and Football players, I spoke up and said I was on the Soccer team. I did not receive extra credit that day. He had the audacity to say "Soccer isn't a sport, it's a game." Something about the average Baseball player running maybe 2 miles a game, and a Soccer player running 10-14 miles a game, makes me want to say Baseball is the "GAME". Also: hate American Football. They need to remove the huddle, lower the game clock to 12 seconds, and leave the clock running on incomplete and out of bounds etc and then I might watch it.
Posted by: zer0 | September 26, 2007 9:16 AM
Great post!!
(And don't worry about Lori, she's auditioning for the PC-thought police)
Posted by: wildlifer | September 26, 2007 9:25 AM
Baseball: 30 minutes of action packed into 3 hours.
I have to side with those sports where the players are not taking breaks, i.e. defense & offense teams, more time in break than in play (football). But I want to nominate footie as the more intense sport.
OT: EU Council to vote opposing creationism:
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL2576540220070925
"An Assembly committee took up the issue because a shadowy Turkish Muslim publishing group has been sending an Islamic creationist book to schools in several countries."
Sounds familiar.
Posted by: True Bob | September 26, 2007 9:27 AM
BOOOOOOOOOORING. Not even a "D" for effort.
Besides, not only do I have to constantly read about the Saints in the local N.O. rag (headline: "dat hurts") now I can't even escape it on pharyngula ???? Yes, DAT HURTS.
But since we're already on the topic, here's my question. How can Americans, who are well known for being afflicted with a miniscule attention span, watch a game that drags on forever but seems to consist of about 10% actual playing time and 90% standing around doing nada.
Oh, and what does this piece have to do with neurobiology anyway ?
Posted by: Umilik | September 26, 2007 9:28 AM
BOOOOOOOOOORING. Not even a "D" for effort.
Besides, not only do I have to constantly read about the Saints in the local N.O. rag (headline: "dat hurts") now I can't even escape it on pharyngula ???? Yes, DAT HURTS.
But since we're already on the topic, here's my question. How can Americans, who are well known for being afflicted with a miniscule attention span, watch a game that drags on forever but seems to consist of about 10% actual playing time and 90% standing around doing nada.
Oh, and what does this piece have to do with neurobiology anyway ?
Posted by: Umilik | September 26, 2007 9:28 AM
Hey, how 'bout those Mets?!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 26, 2007 9:28 AM
Dear Drew,
I think you're doing just fine.
Posted by: Trent Dilfer | September 26, 2007 9:29 AM
Time for Kenny Stabler.
Posted by: John Danley | September 26, 2007 9:33 AM
My bad. The council is not part of the EU. Here's how they relate:
http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/coe/index.htm
Posted by: True Bob | September 26, 2007 9:33 AM
Maybe this testosterone study could be expanded to guys who play video shoot-em-up games. Why stop at the games, you could also study a great sportsman like Dick Cheney and his exciting hunting exploits. Did he get more of a rush shooting a guy in the face or downing 70 tame pheasants?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3675813/
"The increasingly low-profile V.P. was taken to Pittsburgh by Air Force Two earlier this week where his "security detail loaded him and his favorite shotgun into a Humvee," and went to Rolling Rock Club in Ligonier Township, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. There, he and nine other hunting buddies shot at 500 ringneck pheasants, killing 417 of them. The V.P. was credited with offing 70 of the birds, as well as an unknown number of mallard ducks."
Back to sports, here is a little rugby song.
http://web.mit.edu/wrugby/jesus.html
Posted by: bernarda | September 26, 2007 9:37 AM
To all the tea-swillers who think that proper football is an inferior sport:
If you actually watched it you wouldn't think that. I know that sounds like a quasi-religious cop-out, but it's true. They wear pads because it's a faster, rougher sport than rugby. I just watched a few "highlight" reels of what passes for a big hit in rugby, and it honestly looked like your average NFL tackle every time. And really, how many rugby players can run 40 yards in 4.3 seconds? Hell, the Buffalo Bills have a punter who's probably faster than your average rugby player.
And it's just plain ignorant to claim that football isn't a thinking game. Yes, the coaches do a lot of the strategizing. That doesn't stop every position on the field from having to consider about a dozen different aspects of the game at once, while having to outwit the guy on the other side of the line of scrimmage. Hell, offensive linemen have what looks like the easiest job on the field: push the fat guy in front of you. But it's so much more than that- on a run play, they have to read the alignment of the defenders and make sure gaps are open for the runner. On top of that, they have to be thinking about their center of gravity, foot position, and what the guy they're blocking is doing to get by them. Don't even make me get into pass plays!
I watched rugby a few nights on a trip to Australia once. To be honest, I have no idea which of the 10 billion rule sets I was watching. Still, it bored me to tears. That doesn't mean rugby isn't a great sport- I just don't watch it enough to like it. Let's not bash those sports that we only have an understanding of from channel surfing while drunk on a Thursday night, shall we?
Posted by: Chris | September 26, 2007 9:37 AM
I can't believe that you guys consider American Football a real sport! Also, how can you call Rugby, Cricket, Football, Soccer, Golf, etc. a sport for real men! In my native country, we play an adapted version of our national sport, which is full contact, and doesn't allow any type of pads. In fact, the players wear spikes on their clothing and try to gouge each other during the course of play. A match last 10 hours, and there are no breaks in the action, since the sport is not televised. Also, all players are covered in honey, and the match is played on a gigantic red ant hill. If the contest goes into overtime, bears are released onto the field, until one team is completely mauled and unable to continue. Afterwards, the contestants meet and celebrate their match over a pint of our country's national drink, which is a combination of whiskey, anti-freeze, and the blood of the losing team collected from the playing field.
All you (sport x) fans are a bunch of pansies!
Posted by: Shap | September 26, 2007 9:48 AM
AHHH! Fantasy Football! Kill it kill it kill it! Not only do i have to hear this garbage all over my office, now it's infiltrating every blog! Die!
Posted by: Willey | September 26, 2007 9:53 AM
"Also, all players are covered in honey, and the match is played on a gigantic red ant hill.."
Shap, honey, shmoney. Sounds like a bunch of girlymen to me. Around here we use fire ant hills for our recreational activities .....
Posted by: Umilik | September 26, 2007 9:54 AM
I'm with Lori on this one - taunting Drew Brees by essentially saying he's going to turn into a woman, is not cool. The first 3 games give you plenty of examples of how bad he's playing this year. You don't need to drop into that "just one of the boys" talk. It's incredibly mysogynistic.
Posted by: Kristin | September 26, 2007 9:55 AM
I'm shocked by these comments. Shocked, I say! Am I now to believe that Brees has ever not sucked?!?
[insert standard "go Sox, go Pats" claimer here]
Posted by: Kseniya | September 26, 2007 9:56 AM
AHHH! Fantasy Football! Kill it kill it kill it! Not only do i have to hear this garbage all over my office, now it's infiltrating every blog! Die!
Posted by: Willey | September 26, 2007 9:57 AM
When I saw the headline, I thought Drew had made some stoopid anti-science remarks. You know, flat earth nonsense, creationism/ID endorsement, or other such hooey.
And I'll second Willey #51.
Posted by: True Bob | September 26, 2007 9:58 AM
It is therefore curious to note that I once allowed myself to be dragged into an intramural soccer game while in college and found it somewhat enjoyable -
I can't stand watching basketball but it is an immensly enjoyable game to actually play. Soccer, OTOH, is enjoyable to both play and watch. And at 6' 4" my head was often a target when I played.
I also can't stand NFL football but I'm a rabid college football fan. Don't know why really, there's no doubt the pro ball is a much faster and harder game but I just can't get into it.
And if spectacular injuries make a sport then all you field gamers must make way for the automtive sports. From F1 cars disintegrating on impact to Indy cars flying 50 feet into the air to 20 car NASCAR pileups to rally cars flinging themselves off mountainsides or, even, Paris-Dakar racers hitting LAND MINES.... nothing beats auto racing for impressive screwups.
Posted by: Harry Tuttle | September 26, 2007 10:02 AM
"Soccer is not a sport, it's an excuse to riot." --Jim Rome
"And because we've got soccer highlights, the sheer pointlessness of a zero - zero tie." --Dan Rydell
"I know we promised you soccer highlights, so let me just tell you that Columbus beat Miami one-nothing, Dallas beat San Jose one-nothing, Chicago beat Colorado one-nothing, and New England beat Kansas City two-one in an offensive slugfest. A modest proposal: make the nets bigger." --Dan Rydell
Posted by: Traffic Demon | September 26, 2007 10:02 AM
Judging by the hairline in the photo, Mr. Brees himself probably has more than his share of testosterone!
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | September 26, 2007 10:03 AM
Actually, Drew *did* make some stupid comments about Evolution, the establishment clause, and the Olsen twins, in my Fantasy Jocks Commenting On Scienceblogs League. He is SO benched.
Posted by: Kseniya | September 26, 2007 10:05 AM
Very interesting. I have always maintained that Payton Manning is a complete boob (even though I have to grudgingly admit that he doesn't suck). The idea that a bad QB could not only BE a boob but perhaps GROW some is awesome.
Someone needs to fit Eli for a training bra then...
Posted by: Demented | September 26, 2007 10:06 AM
If you are looking for stupid religiot comments from a QB you need to look into the miraculous healing performed by God on John Kitna last week. He left the game in the first half with a concussion and came back in the 4th qtr to win the game. Later that week he said that God healed him on the sideline...
Posted by: Demented | September 26, 2007 10:09 AM
#49:
"They wear pads because it's a faster, rougher sport than rugby."
No.
They wear pads because America is the most litigious society in the world, and the money behind all this sports b.s. wants to protect itself from lawsuits.
It's kind of like how SUV drivers slow WAYYY down when going over even the smallest bumps in the road, so their pwecious wittle car might not sustain any nasty jolts. Padded and coddled to the point that nothing much will happen.
Posted by: dveej | September 26, 2007 10:16 AM
Hahaha. This is the blog post of the week.
I watched him suck it up. It was sad to watch.
Posted by: Geral | September 26, 2007 10:17 AM
I agree with Lori, too. I still enjoyed the post, but misogynistic humor wasn't necessary. It's not just about being PC, it's about not being sexist. That sort of "girls are weak and no one wants to be one" humor is just a deeply ingrained example of an inappropriate attitude toward women.
And, to be honest, that "oh, don't listen to her, she's just being an angry feminist without a sense of humor" isn't a defense; it's just a way write off women taking offense by insinuating more stereotypes, like hysteria and excessive emotion.
Posted by: Courtney | September 26, 2007 10:23 AM
I am 3-0 in my fantasy league to rub it in.
And why all the hating? Every sport is different and watchable once you get to know the intricacies.
I love watching both US Football (why call it football when so little of the sport is played with the foot) and football (what the rest of the world knows as football).
I haven't seen much Rugby because it isn't much televised where i live (Denmark).
Posted by: Bo Dixen Pedersen | September 26, 2007 10:27 AM
They wear pads because America is the most litigious society in the world, and the money behind all this sports b.s. wants to protect itself from lawsuits.
They're not protecting themselves from lawsuits. They're protecting themselves from death.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/nccsi/FootballInjuryData.htm
Posted by: Ian | September 26, 2007 10:34 AM
I find it amusing how people who have never actually played football mock it as "girly," an "unsport," etc. I've seen high school play books that would make your head spin, but people comment on the "mindlessness" of it.
Soccer players, recognize that you guys are getting a bit small to even play as a kicker/punter, which anyone who actually plays football knows, isn't a real player. Yeah, you guys jog up and down the field, try sprinting against a guy running a 4.5 while swiveling the right direction to cover him all while he (knowing where he is going) makes cuts prior to having the equivalent of a 90 mph fastball thrown to him.
To the rugby guys who talk so big, just once, go to a Div I practice. Chat it up with their linemen, don't actually try to block them, etc., just talk to them. You'll generally find guys who average out at 6'5" 300 lbs and can run a 40 yard dash in less than 5 seconds. For the NFL, these guys are a tad small and slow...
Defensive players in football have to be smart, fast, and tough. They have to know where they and their teammates are supposed to be in their given coverage. They have to be able to react to what the offense is doing (pass, run, etc.), and then they have to often break a block before tackling the ball carrier. All of this is done while being aware that the offense can call an audible, can initiate a trick play, etc.
And sadly, I have Drew Brees in fantasy football as well .
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 26, 2007 10:34 AM
Okay, ladies, seriously. Katie was making a *joke* about the man's testosterone levels dropping, not about women being bad at sports. Your point about the "play like a girl" attitude being offensive to women is spot-on, but it doesn't apply here.
Posted by: Julie | September 26, 2007 10:37 AM
I don't know anything about American football. I'm just passing by to express my agreement with ElJay about cricket. That is all.
Posted by: Cannonstick | September 26, 2007 10:37 AM
"Quarterback" is one word.
Posted by: Mickey Bitsko | September 26, 2007 10:46 AM
ya know, all would all right if you'd just accept Brett Favre as your lord and savior. Maybe one day Brees will.... nah, no he won't
Posted by: firemancarl | September 26, 2007 10:52 AM
Hey, how 'bout them Stillers*? (3-0)
*The correct pronounciation of the Pittsburgh NFL team, which plays right across the Allegheny from daantaan.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 26, 2007 10:57 AM
The lack of equipment proves that rugby players are wimps compared to NFL players. They try to hide behind the "oh, those American football players wear so much padding" line. But the truth is, it is not protective equipment, it is offensive armament. No silly little rugby player has to worry about some maniac who can crank out a 4.4 40 running full speed and spearing him in the chest with a Kevlar helmet. Sissies!
Of course the only truly manly sport is NASCAR, but that's another argument.
Posted by: heddle | September 26, 2007 11:04 AM
No, it's a way to write off those anal retentive persons who believe we can't joke about anything with tongue firmly planted in cheek, without being sexist, racist and every other "ist."
Posted by: wildlifer | September 26, 2007 11:04 AM
And to think of it that The Saints did such a great job last year! Maybe, when it comes to The Saints, those religious folk are right: "You gotta have faith".
Who dat! Who dat! Who dat say'n' we're gonna beat those Saints!
Posted by: Rienk | September 26, 2007 11:12 AM
Wow, Pharyngula finally chose a subject I won't touch with a ten foot pole.
Oh, wait...
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | September 26, 2007 11:14 AM
With all the players just drones that don't need to think about what they are doing and merely need to be able to follow the orders of the coach who gets to brief them every couple of minutes on what they should do next.
This isn't true at all. Players are making a number of quick decisions both before and after the snap. A wide receiver, for example, is expected adjust his pattern to account for blitzes, man-to-man, cover 2, etc.
Posted by: Ronnie Pudding | September 26, 2007 11:17 AM
What a surprise.
Heddle is a Nascar fan. Ooooof.
At least in F1 the actually have to turn RIGHT occassionally.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 26, 2007 11:22 AM
"I know we promised you soccer highlights, so let me just tell you that Columbus beat Miami one-nothing, Dallas beat San Jose one-nothing, Chicago beat Colorado one-nothing, and New England beat Kansas City two-one in an offensive slugfest. A modest proposal: make the nets bigger." --Dan Rydell
A modest proposal: mind your own business Dan. Americans playing by stupid nonstandard rules has hurt this nation's soccer efforts for decades.
This is the kind of dope who maintains that homeruns are the only thing enjoyable about baseball and who has contributed to that sport's decline by OKing the juicing of balls and moving walls in (and steroid abuse). No you dolts, the squeeze play is the most exciting thing in baseball: strategy, speed and skill not just power.
I grew up watching baseball at Engel Stadium with a redonkulous 471 foot shot to the center field wall which only Harmon Killebrew ever managed to clear with a homerun. Only the old Polo Grounds had a longer outfield. Homeruns were never a big part of my baseball experience.
Similarly, a well played offensive strike in soccer is a thing of beauty even if it doesn't result in a goal... hell, as a former defender I'd say especially if there is no goal scored. Nothing in the world satisfies me the way watching a wingback brutally and succesfully slide-tackle some hotshit striker into a fit of Italianesque whining and fakery does.
Posted by: Harry Tuttle | September 26, 2007 11:32 AM
I really like this post, though it would be interesting to see a link to a paper talking about changes in testosterone in fans after a win/loss...
Maybe it helps explain people acting like this?
Posted by: Matt the heathen | September 26, 2007 11:32 AM
I'm still suffering from LaDainian Tomlinson Buyer's Remorse.
Posted by: raindogzilla | September 26, 2007 11:42 AM
I'll trade you Marc Bulger for Drew.
Posted by: Dragoniv | September 26, 2007 11:42 AM
I can't believe anyone who likes this sport would think American footballers are "sissies".
(Heheh, I bet PZ never imagined this would be a comment debate on his blog)
Posted by: American Sports Fan | September 26, 2007 11:44 AM
I never could stand team sports. The rules just seemed so pointless to me: "Why do you do it this way?" "Oh, well you see [long pointless recitation of rules]"
As opposed to rock climbing: "Why do you do it this way?" "Because if you don't, you will fall to your death."
(I think there's a religion vs. science argument in there somewhere.)
Posted by: Chili Pepper | September 26, 2007 11:48 AM
Hey Steve_C, NASCAR turns right sometimes, ever heard of road courses? Watkins Glenn ring a bell?
F1?? F1?? Those girly euro-men don't drive, they "paddle shift." Heh. What kind of racing goes years (true statement) between bona fide passes for the lead on the track--I'll tell you, F1!!
Kudos to Sven for his "Go Stillers" comment. I grew up right by the stadiums on the "norf-side" of Pgh. (Well, there was actually only one stadium then, 3-rivers, which me and my fellow street urchins used to sneak into for Pirate games.)
A tip of the Uhrn-City brewski cap to you, sir.
Posted by: heddle | September 26, 2007 11:51 AM
Sorry, I just don't get it. I love American football, but this whole fantasy thing doesn't make sense to me. So if I have Favre on me fantasy team, I would be hoping he'd have a stellar day against my decades long team, the Vikings, this Sunday. Hmmmm. Ya see, I think anything that dilutes your desire to see your team win like that just can't be a good thing.
Posted by: Dahan | September 26, 2007 11:51 AM
Well said, well said. I had the misfortune of having Phil Rivers and Kevin Curtis on my bench this week - surprisingly, I won anyway, raising my record to 1-2. But, speaking of Saints, it would be nice if Reggie Bush could do something besides get tackled in the backfield (the one-yard TDs were nice, but I'd like some yardage too).
Ah well. As long as the Patriots continue to wreak unholy vengeance on the rest of the league for existing, I'm good. It's so nice to see Brady have a real receiving corps for once.
Posted by: Micah | September 26, 2007 11:54 AM
Ah, nothing says elevated intellectual discourse like the ol' soccer vs. football debate.
It's just like being at the pub on a Saturday night just before the get-the-hell-out lights come on, but with less chance of me taking home that wacky artsy chick who becomes more exotic and intriguing with each shot of Jäger. (Okay, my chances weren't much to begin with, but--hey! Don't change the subject!)
So, what tattoos are y'all going to get so we can tell which side you're on?
Posted by: Brownian | September 26, 2007 11:56 AM