Donovan McNabb finally responds

[Controlled Chaos]

i didn't mention the nfl. i'm sure they want black quarterbacks to succeed. they want everyone to succeed. it's good for business. more jersey sales, more broad-based interest etc.

 

but limbaugh didn't address the nfl, nor did i. he and i spoke to the media, and that's where we differ. of course those stories are going to be reported. they are reported because they are out-of-the-ordinary. is this representative of the media being "desirous" of black quarterbacks succeeding? not in my view.

 

Out of the ordinary is a white wide receiver. Do you see articles written about Jurevicous being a good "white" receiver?? How about Ricky Proehl? Know any good white running backs??

 

How about an article of college recruiters telling white high school kids...Don't try to make it as a wide receiver or a running back cause nobody will even look at you? How about an article like this, which I can't believe I even found. I love the Matt Jones example...

 

 

NFL Teams (And Sports Journalists) Discriminating Against White Players

By Steve Sailer

 

When I was in college in the late 1970s, I had a friend who was blind—and also a fanatic football fan. At parties, he'd challenge anyone to name any National Football League game played in the last 20 years and he'd tell them the score.

 

Once he rang my doorbell early to ask if he could borrow the sports section.

 

Intrigued by what a blind man would do with a newspaper, I followed him. I found that he owned a state of the art (for the 1970s) optical scanner that converted printed text into Braille, one letter at a time. He could then feel it with his index finger.

 

I sometimes wonder what it must be like to be a blind football fan today and have to rely on sportswriters rather than your own eyes.

 

You'd probably assume, from scanning hundreds of impassioned columns over the years, that the only racial imbalance at any position in the history of the NFL has been at quarterback, where blacks had been grievously discriminated against until very recently.

 

You would almost certainly have never read that, at the second most glamorous position, tailback (the main ball carrier), none of the 64 starters and second-teamers was white at the start of the 2004 season.

 

Similarly, you'd never hear that not one of the 64 starting cornerbacks in the NFL is white.

 

Why do sportswriters almost never mention what everybody can see with their own eyes?

 

My theory: sportswriters suffer from an inferiority complex. They worry that hard news journalists snicker at them for spending their days hanging around locker rooms, trying to extract usable quotes from men with necks thicker than their heads.

 

Hence sportswriters tend to be the most fervent exponents of the Mainstream Media's liberal party line.

 

Back in the 1970s, the Washington Post's sportswriters drove out of town George Allen, the Hall of Fame coach of the Washington Redskins (and father of Senator George Allen Jr. (R-Va), the potential 2008 Presidential candidate), because Allen reminded them of Richard Nixon. Vanquishing him made the sportswriters feel like Woodward and Bernstein.

 

Today, sportswriters fear that the patterns of profound racial inequality so visible every weekend on televised sports offend the MSM’s reigning pieties.

 

They feel they have to be the purest of the pure in what they dare to acknowledge.

 

As a realist about racial differences, I'm not surprised that there is a big disparity in racial representation at tailback and cornerback. At peak condition, young black men tend to have lower body fat percentages than young white men. And, in most sports, the muscle to fat ratio is a key measure.

 

But blacks have other, subtler traits—such as more tapered legs, with thinner calf muscles, which makes running easier because less weight needs to be moved with each stride.

 

Similarly, in the animal kingdom, creatures built for speed, such as horses and deer, have extremely tapered legs with the big muscles that move the legs kept up high in the main part of the body. In contrast, elephants have untapered legs, which is one reason they much don't like running.

 

But are the physical differences so large that they can account for all of the huge racial differences in the NFL?

 

I'm increasingly doubtful. Without coaches stereotyping players into predefined positions, tailback or cornerback might be 90 or 95 percent black. But 99+ percent seems too high.

 

It's crucial to keep in mind that traits are distributed according to bell curves. There are always overlaps between the races on any functional characteristic. Whites average about 15 points higher on IQ than blacks, but the top scoring six million African-Americans have higher IQs than the bottom scoring 100 million whites.

 

Thus, for example, the new astronaut Bobby Satcher, who was previously a surgeon at prestigious Northwestern Memorial Hospital and has both a medical degree from Harvard and a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from MIT, is a black man who no doubt has a higher IQ than all but a small number of whites.

 

But where are the white Bobby Satchers of football?

 

For years, J.D. Cash's website Caste Football has argued, perhaps excessively at times, that both the NFL and big time college football discriminate against whites, slotting them into certain positions and not giving them a chance to prove themselves in “black” positions.

 

For example, perhaps the most extraordinary athlete in college football last year was U. of Arkansas quarterback Matt Jones—an excellent running quarterback (6.6 yards per carry in his college career) and a decent passer (55 touchdowns versus 30 interceptions). At the NFL draft "combine" workout, Jones, who is 6'6" and about 230 pounds, turned in a spectacular time in the 40-yard dash of 4.37 seconds, comparable to the legendary Atlanta Falcon running quarterback Michael Vick's best-documented time of 4.36. Jones' vertical leap of 39.5 inches was also impressive. (He started on the Arkansas basketball team.)

 

In recent years, the NFL has been snapping up running quarterbacks and hoping that they eventually mature into excellent passers (such as Donovan McNabb finally has become, but Michael Vick hasn't yet). So Jones might have seemed like a natural.

 

There was a problem, though: unlike all the recent running quarterbacks, Jones is white.

 

Jones was perfectly willing to switch to wide receiver, but that raised another difficulty: that's a stereotypically black position too. So, many teams wanted Jones to beef up so he could play tight end, an unglamorous blocking position where many whites are stashed.

 

Chris Mortensen of ESPN wrote:

 

"You know, it's funny," one AFC head coach told me last week. "We asked [Jones] about putting on some weight and playing tight end, and he made it clear that he thought it was foolish. He said, 'So you want me to put on 20 pounds and be a 4.57 guy instead of a 4.37 guy?' When you put that into context, you have to admit he makes sense."

 

Anecdotal evidence like this is interesting. But of course data is better.

 

However, there are so few white players at some positions in the NFL that you can't get a statistically significant sample.

 

Still, it's possible to correlate the overall number of white players on an NFL team versus the number of games it wins during a 16 game season.

 

A professor of sociology (who wishes to remain anonymous because researching the possibility of discrimination against whites is the shortest path to career death in academia) has crunched the latest three seasons' numbers for me.

 

He found positive but low correlations. Teams with more whites did better. This suggests that all teams would do slightly better with more whites.

 

However, when we looked at the data in more detail, we saw that there isn't much correlation between winning percentage and the number of white starters—suggesting that teams aren't terribly irrationally biased about evaluating the top players.

 

But when we looked at nonstarters, a more striking pattern emerges. In 2003, the correlation between the number of whites sitting on the bench and the number of wins was a surprisingly high r = 0.38.

 

In the social sciences, the convention is that 0.2 = low correlation, 0.4 = medium, and 0.6 = high. So, 0.38 is just under "medium." A correlation of 0.38 says that 14% (0.38 squared) of the variation in winning percentage in the 2003 season was associated with the number of white reserves.

 

That's a remarkably large percentage in something as overwhelmingly complicated as winning in the NFL.

 

To put that in a perspective that coaches would immediately grasp, that means that 2.2 additional white benchwarmers were associated with one additional win per team, thus changing an average 8-8 team into a possibly playoff contending 9-7 team.

 

In 2004, the positive correlation between white benchwarmers and winning percentage was down to a less spectacular r = 0.19. But that still means that having five additional white players on the bench is associated with an additional victory.

 

In 2005, through October 9th's games, the correlation was back up to r = 0.28. At that rate, over the course of a 16 game season, 2.9 extra white nonstarters would add one win.

 

Why would having more white nonstarters help a team? Caste Football’s J.D. Cash has suggested that perhaps white utility players are more likely to master the playbooks for multiple positions (as suggested by their higher average IQ scores on the Wonderlic test mandated by the NFL).

 

Or, possibly, the reason that teams with a higher number of white reserves have been winning more games is because whites are better team players about sitting on the bench without complaining about not starting. Perhaps white back-ups are less likely than black back-ups to poison the atmosphere and ruin the team spirit.

 

After all, our society for the last 40 years has lavishly encouraged blacks to claim to be victims of injustice, so it would hardly be surprising if, among pampered egotistical athletes, whites might tend to be more likely than blacks to keep quiet for the good of the team when they feel they are being treated unfairly.

 

Whatever the reason for this pattern, this quick study, while not definitive, is important news—both to team officials in charge of player personnel choices and also to anyone who likes to bet on football games.

 

It would pay to extend the study over more years to see if it represents a long-term pattern, and to go into more depth to find the reasons for this apparent market failure.

 

So what are the chances that the sports media will pick up and run with this story about discrimination against whites in the NFL?

 

My estimate, based on past experience: somewhere in the range from zero to negative infinity.

 

Two years ago, I showed in my UPI article "Baseball's Hidden Ethnic Bias" that baseball teams had long been irrationally discriminating against American players, white and black, in favor of more free-swinging Latins.

 

The Caribbean players weren't actually quite as good as their gaudy batting averages suggested, because they had poorer average on-base percentages than American-born players.

 

That story was picked up by some baseball "sabermetrician" (stathead) blogs. But professional sportswriters showed no interest whatsoever in this blatant crimethink.

 

Hooray (not for the first time) for the internet!

[thedoctor]

one article that is essentially an opinion piece does not constitute proof to me. besides, i thought we were talking about the media being desirous of a black quarterback being successful. if you want to turn this into a some broad-based discussion of how the white man is kept down and discriminated against (lol), then have that discussion with someone else

 

are there a lot of stories about white receivers? no. but have white receivers historically been an oddity? no. black quarterbacks have.

[Balta1701]

Hugh Douglas ripped McNabb on the radio yesterday.

 

"The thing that Donovan needs — it's been proven, especially this year — he needs other people to lead," Douglas told WIP-AM (610). "He's not a leader. He doesn't want to lead. He is the leader on the field as a quarterback; he isn't a team leader. He needs a good supporting cast."

 

When contacted by the Philadelphia Inquirer later Tuesday, Douglas said, "In order to be a leader, you have to be in people's face; if that is what you think, he isn't that guy. Donovan will lead on the football field, and if you need him to give a Vince Lombardi speech, he won't."

[Controlled Chaos]

one article that is essentially an opinion piece does not constitute proof to me. besides, i thought we were talking about the media being desirous of a black quarterback being successful. if you want to turn this into a some broad-based discussion of how the white man is kept down and discriminated against (lol), then have that discussion with someone else

 

are there a lot of stories about white receivers? no. but have white receivers historically been an oddity? no. black quarterbacks have.

 

Here's some more for ya....and yeah they're opinions...the whole thing is an opinion. The statement I made is my opinion.

Rush Limbaugh Was Right

Rush Limbaugh is being branded as a racist because of his remarks about Donovan McNabb of the Philadelphia Eagles. Said Rush: "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well; I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

 

First I will comment on the accuracy of Rush’s remark in regards to Donovan McNabb. For any football fan that gobbles up statistics, look at Donovan McNabb’s stats and they read: he is just average. His stats are average at best, and below average at times. Except for his running game, which is always spectacular. Look at his QB Rating over the last few years; he’s not at the top of the heap.

 

However, diehard football fans know that McNabb is one of those players that are far better than his stats. Why? He has a huge presence on the field; he’s a superb athlete with great size; he's a strong, feared leader; and he doesn’t make a lot of critical mistakes. Look at his TD-to-interception ratio, and that means he's not a game-blower. He’s a steady, cool hand that can run like heck, and therefore he’s a threat every time he takes a snap. But he's not a dominating game-breaker either. McNabb is not the nucleus of the Eagles; it was not he who was instrumental in his team being one of the top teams in the NFL last year. It was the great defense. Rush was right.

 

People ask, why then, did Rush have to bring up the "black thing?" The reason Rush interjected race was that he, I believe, just hates political correctness, as many of us do. We are sick and tired of it. And racial political correctness pervades sports everywhere and everyplace. As a confessed football fanatic for many, many years, I love the game, and I am tired of affirmative action dragging its demons and Jesse Jacksonisms into this game that I love so much.

 

I watch, and have watched for years, all of the NFL pre-game shows on the tube, from the ESPN shows to Inside the NFL to Fox NFL Sunday. Black quarterbacks and coaches are singled out for hiring, praise, and constant attention, and if it is too un-PC for me to say that, I say tough. If it is not true, then why does the NFL have a policy stating that teams must adhere to a quota system when interviewing head coaches? If Rush was so wrong, why then did the NFL fine the Detroit Lions nearly a quarter-of-a-million dollars for hiring a white head coach (Steve Mariucci) without interviewing a single black coach? If Rush was wrong, why does the NFL require teams to interview minority coaching candidates before hiring a coach? Why does the NFL apply constant pressure to teams to hire black coaches?

 

Here’s the kicker with the Detroit Lions scam: the Lions have been set up to run a West-Coast offense, player and personnel-wise. The current management team was brought in to run a West Coast-style offense (named after the SF 49’ers offense run by Joe Montana), players were brought in that were adaptable to this offense, and when the prior coach didn’t work out, Steve Mariucci, a white guy, and the best West-Coast offense guy in the game, happened to become available. Yoo-Hoo!, said Lions fans, including me. Mariucci is a proven winner.

 

The Lions knew they had to interview some black coaches, to conform to the quota system, so they tried to accomplish that task. But guess what? None of the black coaches invited to interview with the Lions would accept the invite, because they were all damn smart enough to know that Mariucci was the best West-Coast guy in the league, the guy that could best run the Lion’s offense as it had been built, and he was available, and that meant he would be the guy to get the job. So black coaches like Dennis Green said, why should I waste my time even interviewing? These guys didn't want to fly all the way out to Detroit to fill a quota interview. They also knew the Lions' coaching decision wasn’t about black-and-white; they knew it was strategic football planning.

 

Subsequently, why are the commentators and players always talking about the fact that skin color is irrelevant, such as Donovan McNabb did this week, when in fact teams are being forced to adhere to quota systems for hiring, and being fined and condemned when they do not? McNabb said: "It's sad that you've got to go to skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal." Yes Donovan, it is sad. Sports teams are a business, and it is all about winning. But no Donovan, we are not over skin color. Look around you, at the NFL and its rules. Affirmative action and racial-political correctness both flourish.

 

The Detroit Tigers baseball club was also publicly condemned for hiring the white Phil Garner, as manager of the team a few years ago. Hiring white provokes a fight. What did the NAACP do because the Tigers interviewed no black candidates? They started a boycott, and their coercive pressure forced the offices of Major League Baseball to publicly spank the Tiger’s owner and management. I once worked in corporate treasury for an organization that owned two professional sports teams. The office went off into a drunken escapade when we won, and near-depression when we didn’t, because that meant millions lost, and it translated into disaster come raise/bonus time, and it also hurt the success of the organization overall. It was and is all about the bottom lines – winning and money.

 

In regards to football analysis itself, in terms of black quarterbacks like Aaron Brooks, Daunte Culpepper, Kordell Stewart, Quincy Carter, and Michael Vick, many are overrated or average, except Daunte Culpepper, who I think is one of the most exciting QBs in the game already, and he's still a puppy. Michael Vick can run like hell, but he's not the QB that everyone makes him out to be. He doesn't do a whole lot outside of his running game, yet commentators drool over him as if he is changing the entire nature of quarterbacking in the NFL. He is not; he likely will not. He's a blast to watch, but his style usually doesn't win championships, especially when he slows down as he gets older. Drop-back, in-the-pocket quarterbacks win championships, especially when they have a defense like the Eagles had last year to help them along. The reason McNabb has been so successful at his position is that he's smart, solid, and mistake-free for the most part. And he's a sufficient passer when he stays in the pocket. Kordell Stewart – a great athlete – bombed because they put him at a position where he couldn't utilize his best skills.

 

Like Doug Williams, Vick has a super-strong arm, but he’s tossing the ball to Alaska when his receivers are in Oregon. And Doug Williams? He was the favorite of the politically correct crowd, and an average black quarterback whose team happened to get to the Super Bowl. Again, a heck of a strong arm that could throw the play-action from Tampa Bay to Detroit, but couldn’t consistently hit his receivers ten yards up the field. So must we over-celebrate players just because they are playing in non-traditional roles? Can't we just quietly accept that the game is naturally evolving to a degree?

 

What about attributes? Is it too politically incorrect to talk about the attributes of blacks as versus whites in sports? Jimmy the Greek wouldn’t want to answer that one. The current crop of black quarterbacks aren't as well-suited to the drop-back, in-the-pocket, accurate-passing quarterback position. Most black quarterbacks, current and past, have relied on running, speed, power, and moves, and that is what people expect of them. And white guys are rarely (if ever) suited to the nimble, herky-jerky, deftly-moving, ultra-quick tailback position. How many black quarterbacks play a game like Montana, Elway, Marino, etc.? There have only been a few. And name me one white running back that ran/moved like Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, or Billy Sims. White running backs – the few that there are – play fullback, and run the straight-ahead, slower, power game like Mike Alstott and Cory Schlesinger. Is it a sin to note this? How can someone like me watch, follow, and obsess on this game for so long, and not notice it?

 

The black coach and black quarterback worshipping is a product of political correctness; it exists, it is real, and it is indeed tiresome. Why does nobody question why the Dusty Baker incident went by so quietly, when he actually spoke more like a racist – as the media would term it – in terms of talking about characteristics in which blacks were superior to whites? He was talking about how whites and blacks adapt differently to the hot weather, and of course, Dusty Baker was entirely correct. He is not a racist. I thought his remarks were fascinating, and besides, can’t those remarks be substantiated by anthropology? But the media was fairly passive about that incident because Baker is black.

 

Rush Limbaugh – a neocon-Republican shill that I almost never agree with – is a heck of a football mind. He knows the game, and I'll always give him that. Dusty Baker was speaking on the basis of his years of experience with the game and the people who play it, and so was Rush.

 

Rush was sensationalizing his remarks up, as these radio talk show guys do, and that is a different matter. He was guilty of stupidly throwing out political incorrectness at a very unforgiving, PC crowd. His purpose/job was to comment on football, not politics in football. Stupid, yes. But that does not make him a racist. Should he have been fired if he didn't resign? Yes, his brand of politics did not belong on the show, and certainly not framed in that context. Rush was right, but irresponsible and stupid all the same.

 

 

 

 

Rush Limbaugh Was Right

Rush Limbaugh Was Right

Donovan McNabb isn't a great quarterback, and the media do overrate him because he is black.

By Allen Barra

Posted Thursday, Oct. 2, 2003, at 6:33 PM ET

 

Limbaugh leaves over unfair football flap

 

In his notorious ESPN comments last Sunday night, Rush Limbaugh said he never thought the Philadelphia Eagles' Donovan McNabb was "that good of a quarterback."

 

If Limbaugh were a more astute analyst, he would have been even harsher and said, "Donovan McNabb is barely a mediocre quarterback." But other than that, Limbaugh pretty much spoke the truth. Limbaugh lost his job for saying in public what many football fans and analysts have been saying privately for the past couple of seasons.

 

Let's review: McNabb, he said, is "overrated ... what we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well—black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well."

 

"There's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

 

Let's take the football stuff first. For the past four seasons, the Philadelphia Eagles have had one of the best defenses in the National Football League and have failed to make it to the Super Bowl primarily because of an ineffective offense—an offense run by Donovan McNabb. McNabb was a great college quarterback, in my estimation one of the best of the '90s while at Syracuse. (For the record, I helped persuade ESPN Magazine, then called ESPN Total Sports, to put him on the cover of the 1998 college-football preview issue.) He is one of the most talented athletes in the NFL, but that talent has not translated into greatness as a pro quarterback.

 

McNabb has started for the Eagles since the 2000 season. In that time, the Eagles offense has never ranked higher than 10th in the league in yards gained. In fact, their 10th-place rank in 2002 was easily their best; in their two previous seasons, they were 17th in a 32-team league. They rank 31st so far in 2003.

 

In contrast, the Eagles defense in those four seasons has never ranked lower than 10th in yards allowed. In 2001, they were seventh; in 2002 they were fourth; this year they're fifth. It shouldn't take a football Einstein to see that the Eagles' strength over the past few seasons has been on defense, and Limbaugh is no football Einstein, which is probably why he spotted it.

 

The news that the Eagles defense has "carried" them over this period should be neither surprising nor controversial to anyone with access to simple NFL statistics—or for that matter, with access to a television. Yet, McNabb has received an overwhelming share of media attention and thus the credit. Now why is this?

 

Let's look at a quarterback with similar numbers who also plays for a team with a great defense. I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson one of the best quarterbacks in pro football—which is how McNabb is often referred to. In fact, I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson, on the evidence of his 10-year NFL career, much more than mediocre. Yet, Johnson's NFL career passer rating, as of last Sunday, is 7.3 points higher than McNabb's (84.8 to 77.5), he has completed his passes at a higher rate (61.8 percent to 56.4 percent), and has averaged significantly more yards per pass (6.84 to 5.91). McNabb excels in just one area, running, where he has gained 2,040 yards and scored 14 touchdowns to Johnson's 467 and seven. But McNabb has also been sacked more frequently than Johnson—more than once, on average, per game, which negates much of the rushing advantage.

 

In other words, in just about every way, Brad Johnson has been a more effective quarterback than McNabb and over a longer period.

 

And even if you say the stats don't matter and that a quarterback's job is to win games, Johnson comes out ahead. Johnson has something McNabb doesn't, a Super Bowl ring, which he went on to win after his Bucs trounced McNabb's Eagles in last year's NFC championship game by a score of 27-10. The Bucs and Eagles were regarded by everyone as having the two best defenses in the NFL last year. When they played in the championship game, the difference was that the Bucs defense completely bottled up McNabb while the Eagles defense couldn't stop Johnson.

 

In terms of performance, many NFL quarterbacks should be ranked ahead of McNabb. But McNabb has represented something special to all of us since he started his first game in the NFL, and we all know what that is.

 

Limbaugh is being excoriated for making race an issue in the NFL. This is hypocrisy. I don't know of a football writer who didn't regard the dearth of black NFL quarterbacks as one of the most important issues in the late '80s and early '90s. (The topic really caught fire after 1988, when Doug Williams of the Washington Redskins became the first black quarterback to win a Super Bowl.)

 

So far, no black quarterback has been able to dominate a league in which the majority of the players are black. To pretend that many of us didn't want McNabb to be the best quarterback in the NFL because he's black is absurd. To say that we shouldn't root for a quarterback to win because he's black is every bit as nonsensical as to say that we shouldn't have rooted for Jackie Robinson to succeed because he was black. (Please, I don't need to be reminded that McNabb's situation is not so difficult or important as Robinson's—I'm talking about a principle.)

 

Consequently, it is equally absurd to say that the sports media haven't overrated Donovan McNabb because he's black. I'm sorry to have to say it; he is the quarterback for a team I root for. Instead of calling him overrated, I wish I could be admiring his Super Bowl rings. But the truth is that I and a great many other sportswriters have chosen for the past few years to see McNabb as a better player than he has been because we want him to be.

 

Rush Limbaugh didn't say Donovan McNabb was a bad quarterback because he is black. He said that the media have overrated McNabb because he is black, and Limbaugh is right. He didn't say anything that he shouldn't have said, and in fact he said things that other commentators should have been saying for some time now. I should have said them myself. I mean, if they didn't hire Rush Limbaugh to say things like this, what did they hire him for? To talk about the prevent defense?

[Balta1701]

Black quarterbacks and coaches are singled out for hiring, praise, and constant attention, and if it is too un-PC for me to say that, I say tough.

Yeah, thanks to the fact that the 3 obvious contenders for Coach of the Year in the NFL this year were all African American, there was a huge surge in African American coach hiring this year. Right?

[Kyyle23]

Im so sick of black athletes and s*** using the race card.....

Me Too! I mean, why does s*** have to use the race card anyways? Its s***! Accept it!

[greasywheels121]

Me Too!  I mean, why does s*** have to use the race card anyways?  Its s***!  Accept it!

[Controlled Chaos]

Yeah, thanks to the fact that the 3 obvious contenders for Coach of the Year in the NFL this year were all African American, there was a huge surge in African American coach hiring this year.  Right?

 

 

Yes, 3 people with a darker skin color did a good job coaching...we should hire more....THAT's a great reason.

[mr_genius]

Am I wrong to see the hilarity in that statement?

 

'Black on black crime'...

 

It's in Sprewell 'Feed my family' area.

 

no, the hilarity is there and priceless