The Truth Juggler

Response to the truth juggler
Teddy Covers is the epitome of a "truth juggler". In his article posted today (see link), he writes a rebuttal to all of the emails he received from the Raider Nation for this article.

I find it amusing and somewhat pathetic that Teddy's response is filled with half-truths, distorted logic, and more misguided statements. He also withheld key information and used some very creative, selective editing to justify his points of view.

"In that blog entry, I wrote a negative opinion about the Raiders' chances for pointspread success in the upcoming season".

If your opinion in your article was that you don't think the Raiders will be successful in terms of the pointspread, how come you didn't use the word 'pointspread' one time in it? If you were going to support your opinion, don't you think it would be reasonable for the readers to expect you to cite some statistics and/or records about the Raiders vs. the pointspread? Nowhere in your article is there any mention of this type of data.

"I am not a journalist. It is not my job to take an even-handed approach to every blog entry and every article I write. I get paid for my opinion on games, picking pointspread winners."

Yes, I agree. You definitely are not a journalist. I also realize that you are a sports handicapper/blogger. However, if I was one of your customers I would want to make an informed decision about your opinions which should be backed up by research and hard data. If I was a paying customer I wouldn't want you to get tricky about the facts.

Teddy's original statement: "Brooks wasn't a winner at Virginia"

"Yes, Aaron Brooks went 16-7 in two years as a starter at Virginia. In his first year as the starter, the Caveliers didn't make a bowl game and went 3-7 against the spread. It's surely worth noting that Virginia lost three of its four games as an underdog by double-digit margins that year"

His rebuttal acknowledges Brooks 16-7 record at Virginia but than he brings up the record of 3-7 vs. the spread. Once again, there is nothing in his original post about pointspreads, underdogs, etc. I hate to beat a dead horse BUT why is it that in your rebuttal you are now citing all of this pointspread information? Wouldn't this information have been relevant in your original post? Wouldn't this information make your opinions more worthy and understandable to the readers?

Teddy's original statement: "Just about every key player they have has some character issues."

Teddy's rebuttal: "Brooks, Warren Sapp and Randy Moss have well-documented character issues."

So instead of a large blanket tossed over the entire team you have singled out the 3 above players as having "character issues". What are these alleged character issues? If the character issues are well-documented, what are they? I have never heard of any character issues concerning Brooks. The only character issue regarding Sapp was a failed drug test over 10 years ago which certainly has no bearing on his performance in 2006. Moss has been a model citizen and team player since joining the team in 2005. He has earned the utmost respect from his peers and the entire Raider coaching staff. Do you honestly think that Head Coach Shell would designate Moss as one of the team leaders if he had "character issues"?

Quote from Shell: "When I got the job, I'd say 99 percent of the people that worked with him in Minnesota were positive about him. They said, "You're going to like working with Randy Moss. He's a great guy, a great guy in the locker room, and he wants to win." And in my time around him, it hasn't been anything but that. I feel very good about him being a leader on this football team."

"It's my opinion, the opinion of a handicapper, and not that of a journalist or a hater. I made calculated deductions about the Raiders chances this season based upon my observations of their team in comparison to the rest of the league. It's not an attack. It's my judgment, and it's how I make my living."

Your calculated deductions were made by bending the truth to fit your arguments. Calculated deductions should be made by substantiating your viewpoints with statistics, facts, and research. You conveniently justify your rebuttal by putting on your "handicapper" hat and cite pointspread records. Finally, out of curiousity, whatever happened to your line "The Raiders haven't had a winning season since Gruden left town"? Did you selectively edit that out of your original post?

That is one fine trick for a Truth Juggler.