The wisdom of John Clayton weighs in on Pro-Bowl snubs. Clayton believes Tom Brady should have gotten in over Carson Palmer.
This is what confuses me. Clayton's points about Palmer over Brady are that the Patriots beat the Bengals, have a better record than the Bengals and is a three-time Super Bowl champ on the "verge of winning a division title."
But then he makes a point that Warren Sapp's STATS are better than any defensive tackle and that's why he's snubbed. Then goes on to make a case that "Palmer's stats might be better", but the Patriots are doing better than the Bengals. Sapp's Raiders? Um, awful. So what is it John, stats or performance of team?
Pete Prisco begins that we should "quit calling them the Pro Bowl teams, and instead call them what they are: The Popularity Teams." Isn't that what all-star games are typically -- fans vote for their favorites? Prisco too believes Tom Brady got snubbed. Prisco, who believes he should be in the Pro-Bowl because of his popularity, explains that Brady doesn't have LaDainian Tomlinson and Antonio Gates on his team.
The only Bengals snub written was John Clayton saying:
The most interesting part is that everyone has a list of snubs, but those snubs are rarely common among everyone. Which means they have open-minded opinions.. just like those that voted for players in the Pro-Bowl.
Sapp, Brady among Pro Bowl snubs [ESPN]
Pro Bowl voting gone wild: Brady leads top snubs [Sportsline]
Pro Bowl voting process needs changing [FoxSports]
What does Pro Bowl voting tell us? Winners, losers and more [Sportsline]
What's popular isn't always right [SI.com]