In talking about the league’s replacement officials, I thought NFL executive Ray Anderson took a swipe at Matt Hasselbeck.
Hasselbeck is a classy guy who I don't imagine would take offense to such a thing. But wouldn't he and his team have a legitimate beef with such a comment coming out of the league office?
I emailed league spokesman Greg Aiello this question:
Is it appropriate for a league official to be making a comment that uses a player as a reference point for, or example of, middling talent?
Responded Aiello: “Ray meant it as a compliment to a tough, competitive NFL quarterback who led his team to a Super Bowl. He believes the replacement officials will demonstrate the same resourcefulness and quality performance.”
I don’t think that came across very clearly, so I appreciate the clarification.
Like with quarterbacks, I prefer my officials to have the top qualifications rather than a resourcefulness that helps them overcome some sort of limitations.
Many would argue that Hasselbeck was the wrong choice as the comparison no matter the meaning.
Are nonpartisians expecting replacement officials to show us Hasselbeck's resourcefulness or Curtis Painter's cluelessness?