Jeff Garcia should always be remembered in Philadelphia as the quarterback who stepped in for an injured Donovan McNabb and led the 2006 Eagles on a surprise run to the divisional round of the NFC Playoffs. I have two enduring memories of that postseason near-upset of the New Orleans Saints: Sheldon Brown morphing into a heat-seeking missile and blowing up Reggie Bush in the flat, and Jeff Garcia throwing a bomb to Donté Stallworth to give the Eagles an early 7-6 lead.

Since his playing career ended more than a decade ago, Garcia faded into obscurity a bit. I’m sure there are Crossing Broad readers of a certain age who don’t even know who he is. This week, however, Garcia temporarily reclaimed his place in the public consciousness when a deleted Instagram post he wrote attacking ESPN NFL analyst Mina Kimes found its way onto Twitter:

Garcia was responding to Kimes’ critical assessment of 49ers quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo’s play during San Francisco’s surprise win over the heavily-favored Green Bay Packers. Kimes, appearing on the rhetorical hothouse known as First Take, described Garoppolo as “the definition of being part of the group project that gets an A while doing none of the work,” while asserting that the 49ers were “winning with him, not because of him.” –

 

Kimes supported her argument with statistics and observation: namely, that Garoppolo’s quarterback rating in the game was the second-lowest in 15 years; that his 2-touchdown-to-5-interception ratio in his playoff career with the 49ers was less than impressive; and that the 49ers won the game because of their exceptional play on defense and special teams. In essence, Garoppolo is not an effective quarterback, even in a limited role as a game manager. It’s not an outlandish take by any stretch of the imagination, but one we don’t always hear on mainstream sports outlets.

The typical trend is to praise athletes and teams when they win and revert to criticism when they lose. Garcia was apparently not happy that Kimes dared to sing a different tune. Instead of attacking her judgment, however, Garcia questioned why she was even afforded a platform to discuss Garoppolo in the first place. She’s never thrown a pass, after all, and thus could never “truly understand the ability, the mindset, the physical and mental toughness, that it takes to play the QB position or any position in the NFL,” according to Garcia.

Some defenders of Kimes immediately framed Garcia’s rant as a sexist attack, which seems a bit presumptive. Garcia never specifically attacked Kimes for being a woman talking about sports, and it is entirely possible he didn’t think through the full implications of his statement — if the only people who are eligible to discuss quarterback play are NFL quarterbacks or former players, then the pool would exclude women entirely.

The question that emerges from the Kimes/Garcia dustup is more universal and much more interesting than the details of the minor internet controversy itself:

Who is allowed to talk about sports?

In a sense, anyone can talk about sports. It’s a free country, after all. Maybe the better question is this: who has the authority — the credibility — to talk about sports? Should all of the pregame and postgame shows be dominated by former players and coaches? How about sports talk radio stations? Should we get rid of Joe DeCamara, who threw as many touchdown passes at St. Joseph’s Prep as I did, on the WIP midday show and replace him with Bubby Brister or Bobby Hoying? Would that make the show better? How about Angelo Cataldi and Joe Giglio? Should they be sent packing? Should Mike Missanelli be restricted to talking about baseball, or should he be barred entirely from speaking because he never played professionally?

Should we start screening the callers? Should Butch from Manayunk have to declare his high school sack totals before he’s allowed on air? I could foresee the entire sports talk radio industry tanking under these circumstances.

One of the blessings and the curses of the digital era is the way it has democratized the conversation. Anyone can stand on a virtual soapbox and share his or her opinions with the world. If you have talent, your voice just might pierce through the cacophony of the internet. Maybe your podcast will attract an audience, or perhaps your blog will generate decent site traffic.

Kimes certainly took a circuitous professional route to her current position. She was a distinguished investigative reporter in business media before a Tumblr post she wrote caught the eye of ESPN executives. The post details Kimes’ evolution into a diehard Seattle Seahawks fan, but at its core it describes the way the team bonded a father and daughter:

There are things I can never tell him. I know there are things he has never told me. But sometimes, just having a thing to talk about–a meaningless, brutish, occasionally wonderful thing–is enough. Actually, it’s more than enough. It makes me unspeakably happy.

The truth is, I wish the season would never end.

Kimes started her ESPN career in 2014, and she wasn’t just handed the title of analyst and a seat on the set of NFL Live. She first worked as a writer — her 2017 feature on Aaron Rodgers for ESPN the Magazine was particularly good and foreshadowed a lot of the melodrama to come — before branching out into podcasts and television appearances. The strength of her analysis is rooted in a facility with advanced metrics and an ability to offer a compelling sound bite and a stats-infused take that a fan not versed in viewing the game this way could nevertheless understand. This talent distinguished Kimes from other personalities at ESPN and explains why she’s on television today.

A guest Kimes recently hosted on her podcast had a similar professional arc that circumvented the NFL gridiron. Ben Solak, a staff writer for The Ringer, is one of the better NFL analysts in the game. Before The Ringer, Solak had a stint at Bleeding Green Nation. I got to know Ben even before, when the two of us were contributors for Section 215, one of those Fansided sites. It was a place to go if you were interested in writing about sports but not in a position to demand any money. No one wanted to hear from you. No one heard of you. Nonetheless, you could hone your craft on the content farm, get some clips, and earn a little experience to help you along the way to the next opportunity.

Solak was still in college, but he was grinding away and creating content for multiple websites. He worked hard and refined his writing style. I don’t know where he learned to break down film, but he was good at it. Even better, he could communicate to a layman what he was observing and why a specific player might fit the Eagles scheme. Solak’s draft analyses weren’t limited to the elite prospects projected to go in the first round. No, this was someone who could describe in detail who the Eagles took in the second day of the draft and who they should target on Day 3.

Solak, like Kimes, found a niche, an audience that was interested in going down the prospect rabbit hole with him, and his skills did the rest.

In the end, all that matters is you — the reader, the viewer, the internet surfer and television pioneer. Are you willing to stop and listen? Are you captivated? Are you entertained?

Football is a complicated game, but the average fan’s interaction with it is actually quite simple. Just think about the way a typical WIP show or the Fox/CBS/ESPN pregame shows are formatted. Are there intricate X-and-O breakdowns, extended film studies with Coach Rex Ryan or Jimmy Johnson? No! Blocks of time are instead devoted to discussions about the personalities dominating the games. What’s the matter with Antonio Bryant? What is the next move for Sean Payton? Which of the remaining quarterbacks in the postseason gives his team the best chance to win?

The most-watched shows are geared toward the largest common denominator and conversations that the casual fan can follow. Just like in football, the ratings races are not won by X’s and O’s but by Tommy’s and Joe’s. That said, there are plenty of people within that large circle who want more detailed information, which is all just a click away, As these audiences grow, their representation on primetime programming grows, too.

Talent finds a way to rise, as has been the case for Kimes and Solak. And as it was for Garcia, too. He went from an unheralded prospect at San Jose State to a backup quarterback in the Canadian Football League to an NFL Pro Bowler in less than a decade. Given his experience in the league and his knowledge of quarterback play, Garcia would definitely have an interesting perspective about Garoppolo. And he definitely has the right to condemn Kimes criticism of Jimmy G and point out its factual inaccuracies. Instead, he resorted to attacking the qualifications of the messenger and not the substance of the message. Make of that what you will.