Category Archives: Books

Sunday books: Alan Ameche: The Story of ‘The Horse’; Author Q/A on interviewing great Colts from 50s

Posted on by

The play is among the most famous in sports and has been shown millions of times: Alan Ameche plunging in for the winning touchdown in the 1958 NFL Championship Game, a.k.a, “The Greatest Game Ever Played.”

However, there was much more to Ameche’s story. A Heisman Trophy winner, he always will be an icon in Wisconsin. In the pros, he played with the storied Baltimore Colts and likely would have joined him many teammates in the Hall of Fame if not for injuries.

And he had one of the greatest nicknames of all time: “The Horse.”

Long-time Wisconsin writer Dan Manoyan details his achievement in a new book, Alan Ameche: The Story of “The Horse.” It is a must-read if you’re a Wisconsin Badgers fan, and the passages about the Colts and the NFL in the 50s provide an interesting historical perspective.

Here’s my Q/A with Dan:

How did you get the idea for this project?

I give full credit to the Big Ten Network. I had met Ameche back in the 70’s when I was a cub reporter at the Kenosha News, but honestly hadn’t thought of him in years. One night I’m watching the Big Ten’s series on icons and Otto Graham from Waukegan is showing. My first thought was to wonder when the Ameche showing would be. It turns out he didn’t make the cut for the top 20, which was a little surprising to me.

It made me curious if anyone had ever written a book about Ameche. When he left Wisconsin, he had won every award known to man, including the Heisman and owned every NCAA rushing record. He went to the Colts and won the 1955 Rookie of the Year award and led the NFL in rushing his rookie season. I tracked down his widow, Yvonne Ameche-Davis and she was receptive to the idea. There were a few bumps in the road, but we crossed every bridge and got it done.

What did/does Ameche mean in Wisconsin?

Well certainly at the time he was playing, Ameche was THE man in Wisconsin. He turned around moribund programs in high school (Kenosha Bradford) and at Wisconsin and was a huge part of the Colts championship reign of the 50s. His 1950 high school team is still considered by many to be the greatest Wisconsin team of all time. He took Wisconsin to its first ever Rose Bowl in 1953, a month after he was married to his junior high sweetheart. He was one of the first building blocks for the Colts’ dynasty and Johnny Unitas’ appearance put Baltimore over the top.

Talking to old timers in Kenosha, especially a lot of the Italian-Americans, many were Colts fans in the 1950s because of Ameche. Also, that was before Vince Lombardi transformed the Packers into a power. Ameche wanted to return to Wisconsin after his playing days were over, but his business ventures were so successful, that wasn’t possible. Even though his philanthrophy extended to Kenosha and the University of Wisconsin, I think the fact that he didn’t return to Wisconsin hurt his legacy. In my mind, and I say this in the book, of the homegrown talent produced in this state, he was the greatest athlete ever.

What was it like to track down and talk to some of the old Colts?

What a thrill! Unfortunately, the seance with Johnny Unitas fell through, but I still talked with four Hall of Famers, Art Donovan, Gino Marchetti, Lenny Moore and Raymond Berry. Donovan’s reputation for spinning a yarn is legendary. Marchetti was Ameche’s best friend (and business partner) on the Colts, so he shared some great insight. Raymond Berry had the best quote…he said Ameche was “the first Italian I ever met.” Berry also told me the Colts would have won a couple more championships if Weeb Ewbank hadn’t been so stubborn and encouraged Ameche to return to the team in 1961.

But perhaps the best interview involved Moore, who was also the hardest guy to pin down. I literally called Lenny 10 times and each time he said the same thing…”Man, I’ll do it, but I just ain’t feeling it today.” So on the 10th call I just started shooting questions at him. It was one of the best interviews I’ve ever had. Lenny bared his soul about everything from Big Daddy Lipscomb to what it was like to be a black man playing in the NFL in the 1950s. I can honestly say, Lenny didn’t hold back. He loved his teammates, especially Ameche, Unitas and Berry, but he deeply regretted that the social climate of the time prevented them from getting to know each other better. I felt his interview was so powerful that I decided to make it a separate chapter.

Why did Weeb Ewbank not like him? Would his career have been different with another coach?

That is the question. To do this day, nobody has the answer to that unfortunately. Donovan said Ewbank resented Ameche because he was smarter than he was. It could be Ameche signed for the princely sum of $15,000 a year, which was a ton of money for 1955 and probably a lot more than Ewbank was making. Raymond Berry told me the Colts could have won two more titles if they had had Ameche running the ball, but the Colts offense became lopsided passing the ball because of Unitas’ greatness and the lack of an effective power runner in Ameche’s absence.

Ameche had a great rookie season, winning the NFL rushing title (including a 79-yard touchdown run against the Bears the first time he touched the ball as a pro). But things changed when Unitas arrived the following season and Ewbank built the Colts offense around him.

Ameche was vocal about his bitterness in his last few years with the Colts. I do think Ameche’s career would have played out differently if he had played for a different coach. In later years he made no secret of the fact that he wished that he played for Don Shula, who replaced Ewbank with the Colts. Ameche loved the way Shula used his fullbacks like Norm Bulaich with the Colts and Larry Csonka, later with the Dolphins. Not surprisingly, the college coach Ameche most admired was Woody Hayes.

What is his place/legacy in sports history? Has his career been overlooked?

Unfortunately, Ameche will never get the credit he deserves. There is one reason for that, the brevity of his professional career. It’s telling that one of the most frequently asked questions about Ameche is “Why is he not in the NFL Hall of Fame?” Quite simply, he only played six years. He played in the Pro Bowl 5 of those 6 years, played on two championship teams, led the league in rushing as a rookie and scored the winning touchdown in the “Greatest Game Ever Played.”

If it wasn’t for his dysfunctional relationship with Ewbank and the fact that his business was taking off, I’m sure he could have come back from his Achilles’ Heel injury in 1960 and played 10 years in the league.

As for his legacy in Wisconsin, consider this: Ron Dayne’s number was hung in Camp Randall’s Ring of Honor before Ameche’s. Considering Ameche won the Heisman 45 years before Dayne, that’s pretty much unforgivable. Also, Ameche never turned down Wisconsin for anything. He donated the money for a new weight room at one point and even gave his Heisman Trophy to Wisconsin. There are two statues outside of Camp Randall: Barry Alvarez and Pat Richter. I’m not saying both men aren’t deserving, but what about the school’s first Heisman winner???

Even in Kenosha he doesn’t get the respect I think he deserves and that’s probably because he chose to live in Philadelphia after his playing career. But Ameche donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Kenosha charities, including a gymnasium for a boys club and money to keep the city’s Catholic High School’s athletic programs afloat.

Again, I think he was the greatest home-grown athlete Wisconsin has ever produced. Will he ever be recognized as such? I doubt it.

Sunday books: War By The Shore tells tale of 1991 Ryder Cup

Posted on by

It’s a big week for us in Chicago. The Ryder Cup begins Friday at Medinah Country Club.

To put you in the mood, noted golf author Curt Sampson has written a new book, The War By The Shore. It tells the tale of the 1991 Ryder Cup, the first real Cup that grabbed our attention. It all came down to one final 5-foot putt for Bernhard Langer.

Here’s a trailer for the book:

 

Sunday books: The incredible story of Chester Marcol; survived despite years of drug, alcohol abuse

Posted on by

I recently ran into an old friend, Gary D’Amato of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. In catching up, he told me about a book he did last fall with Chester Marcol.

Marcol was a former Green Bay Packers kicker. He was excellent in his prime, but his career ended abruptly at the age of 31. Turns out there was a reason: Marcol abused drugs and alcohol.

In fact, reading Alive and Kicking: My Journey through Football, Addiction and Life, you wonder how Marcol managed to survive to help write the book. It truly is a harrowing tale about his struggle to overcome his addiction.

Powerful stuff.

Here’s a link that features an interview with Marcol.

 

Paterno book No. 1 on New York Times bestseller list; upcoming appearance for Posnanski at Penn State

Posted on by

Despite all the harsh reviews and anger directed at the tarnished coach, people still want to read Joe Posnanski’s Paterno.

The book hit No. 1 on the New York Times’ bestseller list this week for hardcover non-fiction.

Obviously, the book has generated plenty of buzz, always an essential element in sales. Posnanski also made high-profile appearances on the Today Show and Costas Tonight.

Does the ranking provide Posnanski with an element of vindication? Perhaps.

Still, the legacy of the book will loom larger than sales. Ultimately, that is what means the most to Posnanski and any other author.

All in all, it has to be very bittersweet for Posnanski.

*******

Given the uproar over the book, Posnanski is making limited appearances. However, he will be returning to Penn State on Sept. 14.

From the Penn State Center for Sports Journalism:

The John Curley Center for Sports Journalism presents a free public session with sports writer Joe Posnanski, author of the recently released “Paterno.”

Malcolm Moran, the Knight Chair in Sports Journalism and society and director of the Curley Center will moderate the session, which will include time for questions from the audience.

The discussion is Posnanski’s only scheduled appearance in the State College area. A book signing will follow the hour-long session.

 

 

 

Sunday books: New biography on Gil Hodges; lobbies for Dodger great to be in Hall

Posted on by

Gil Hodges was one of the unsung heroes of those great Brooklyn Dodgers teams in the 1950s. And he was the manager of baseball’s biggest surprise team, the 1969 Miracle Mets.

Authors Tom Clavin and Danny Peary are out with a new book: Gil Hodges: The Brooklyn Bums, the Miracle Mets, and the Extraordinary Life of a Baseball Legend.

Tom Hoffarth of the Los Angeles Daily News writes about the authors lobbying for Hodges to be in the Hall of Fame:

It’s a question Dodgers Hall of Fame broadcast Vin Scully brings up every time the vote comes around — Doesn’t Hodges deserve a plaque along with Dodgers of his era like Jackie Robinson, Duke Snider, Pee Wee Reese and Roy Campanella?

Hodges as so far been by passed by the regular Hall voters from 1969 to ’83, then by the Veterans Committee ever since, starting in 1984.

Hodges’ latest miss on getting voted in came last December, when it was announced that the 16 member committee voting on 10 finalists who played in “The Golden Era” of 1947-’72, got Hodges into the final group, but only the Chicago Cubs’ Ron Santo gained induction this past July.

The next time Hodges could come up for re-election is in 2014.

That gives Clavin and Peary more time to lobby, and Chapter 29 of their book is devoted almost solely to making the argument on Hodges’ behalf. It even cites a time in 1959 when Hodges, four years shy of retiring, competed against Willie Mays in the campy “Home Run Derby” TV show filmed at L.A.’s Wrigley Field, just more than a year after the Dodgers moved here from Brooklyn. They note that at the time, host Mark Scott (referred to in the book as “Mark Frost”) said to Mays at one point: “Baseball’s Hall of Fame has got a spot reserved for both you and Gil.”

Why not? From 1949 to ’59, Hodges averaged 30 homers and 101 RBIs, tying an NL record with 11 straight 20 homer seasons, to go with three Gold Gloves and helping the Dodgers win seven NL pennants and two World Series.

Here’s a preview of the book from Amazon:

Due to his achievements as a player and manager, as well as his sterling character, Gil Hodges deserves to be in the Hall of Fame more than any other player. A towering figure during the Golden Era of the 1950s, Hodges was the Brooklyn Dodgers’ powerful first baseman who, alongside Jackie Robinson, helped drive his team to six pennants and a thrilling World Series victory in 1955. Fans never booed the beloved home run hitter from Indiana who married a Brooklyn girl and settled in their borough, and they famously prayed for him when he slumped.

Dutifully following the Dodgers to Los Angeles in 1958, Hodges longed to return to New York City. He joined the original Mets team in 1962, and he finished his playing career with them. In 1968, he took over the manager’s spot on their bench. Under his steady hand, the Mets went from a joke to World Champions in 1969—the Miracle Mets.

Yet behind his stoic demeanor lay a man prone to anxiety and worry. Hodges was scarred by combat on Tinian and Okinawa during World War II, and his inner turmoil was exacerbated by tight pennant races and excruciating defeats. His sudden death in 1972 shocked his friends and family, and left a void in the hearts of baseball fans everywhere.

Acclaimed authors Tom Clavin and Danny Peary delve into one of baseball’s most overlooked stars, shedding light on a fascinating life and career that even his most ardent fans never knew. An exciting biography that paints a portrait of an amazing era of baseball as much as it does an admirable player, Gil Hodges is sure to please fans of America’s pastime.

Costas interview with Posnanski: Author believes Freeh report flawed; wasn’t going to write a takedown book

Posted on by

Perhaps this is why Joe Posnanski is not doing a big media tour to promote his book Paterno. It would take too much out of him to repeatedly defend a coach nobody wants to hear being defended.

Posnanski appears Wednesday on Costas Tonight (NBC Sports Network, 9 p.m. ET). The 90-Minute Show Includes Costas’ full November 2011 interview with Jerry Sandusky from Rock Center with Brian Williams with never-before-seen footage.

Posnanski has done limited interviews since release of the book last week. You can see why from the Costas interview. There are tough questions to be answered.

Here are some of the more interesting segments.

On the Freeh Report being flawed:

Costas: “Without getting bogged down in the particulars, this is the essence of Louis Freeh, former FBI director‘s report. The conclusion: In order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, Paterno, among others, but again Paterno is the figure that the public gravitates toward here, repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from authorities, the university’s trustees, the Penn State community and the public. If that is true, as Freeh concluded, it is indefensible.”

Posnanski: “Absolutely”

Costas: “You don’t believe that though.”

Posnanski: “I don’t believe that, no. I honestly don’t. I honestly believe that what Louis Freeh did, and I have no qualms with the Louis Freeh report, he had his goals and his role in this thing.”

Costas: “Well if you don’t think that’s true, you must have qualms with his report.”

Posnanski: “He didn’t talk to Tim Curley; he didn’t talk to Gary Schultz; he didn’t talk to Joe Paterno; he didn’t talk to Jerry Sandusky; he didn’t talk to Tom Harmon; he didn’t talk to Mike McQueary. He didn’t talk to any of the major players in this and I think, I understand why he went to those conclusions, and he did, but I believe the report is very incomplete and I do believe that as things come out, it’s going to emerge that some of the people who wrote some of the emails and so on are going to say that everything has been misspoken.”

“My feeling again is, and I’m really not looking to dodge because there are so many things that we don’t understand and hard to know, but I have many of the same facts that I reported on my own that are in the Freeh report – he jumped to conclusions that I cannot jump to. I mean, I jump to definitely there was a sense that Joe Paterno knew more than he suggested; there’s definitely a sense that Joe Paterno should have done more. But the cover up, the idea that he was actively following it, these sorts of things, I think they’re still, to me, they’re still up in the air.”

On the tough reviews for the book:

Costas: “Obviously there has been mixed reaction to the book. Among the reviews we’ve seen so far, this is the most extreme, Paul Campos at salon.com, ‘Paterno is a disgraceful book and a minor literary crime. To say Posnanski botches his journalistic and literary opportunity is akin to saying that the Titanic’s maiden voyage might have gone more smoothly.’ Let’s concede that that’s at one end, what criticism somewhere towards the middle of that, do you concede correct or fair?”

Posnanski: “I kind of felt like those guys in Spinal Tap there when you were reading that review. I think this is a book that as people get away from this, and are less emotional about it; they’ll see what I was trying to do in this book. I think that some people see it now, fortunately. But I think as time goes on and as people get less emotional about it, a lot of people who have written reviews, frankly, came in with the same opinion that they went out with. I’ve been, as you know, taking a lot of hits long before the book came out.”

On his feelings about Paterno:

Costas: “(According to public opinion) the only acceptable take is that Paterno was fully culpable in the most extreme interpretation, and that he was, prior to that, a fraud and a hypocrite and this doesn’t just invalidate the good he may have done, it exposes that good as a fraud.”

Posnanski: “Exactly, and I think that’s what certain people wanted. That’s not the story, that’s not the book. I wasn’t going to write THAT book. Somebody else can if they want. I wrote the honest book, the book that I believe is true. I believe that I had better access than I’ll ever get again for a book and I believe that I used it as well as I could.”

Costas: “What did you come away thinking? What is your bottom line on Joe Paterno?”

Posnanski: “I think really what I come away with is what a complicated life it was and what a big life it was.”

Costas: “Do you view him as a good man who made a tragic mistake, be it of omission or commission? Or is he less of a good man because of that mistake?”

Posnanski: “It’s somewhere in the middle. That’s a tough one. I don’t want to dodge it. I think he did a lot of good in his life and I think he did make a tragic mistake.”

Costas: “At his best, was he a good man?”

Posnanski: “Definitely. At his best, I think it’s too long and too distinguished and too many achievements to think that it was worth nothing.”

Bad blood: Whitlock rips former teammate Posnanski, Paterno book; questions ‘authenticity’

Posted on by

Let’s just say Jason Whitlock isn’t a member of the Joe Posnanski fan club.

There have been plenty of harsh reviews about Posnanski’s book, Paterno. But few were more vicious than the one written by  Whitlock.

Writing on Foxsports.com, Whitlock writes:

Posnanski’s fluffy, 400-plus-page opus provides sparse guidance. What it inadvertently does, for the highly careful reader, is expose how a coach and a writer can sacrifice their integrity over time, one compromised decision at a time.

It’s difficult to discern what is most shallow in Posnanski’s book — the reporting, the access or the insight.

Later, he says:

Seriously, most puddles are deeper than “Paterno.”

It’s the antithesis of John Feinstein’s “A Season on the Brink” and Buzz Bissinger’s “Friday Night Lights.”

“Paterno” is “A Tuesday with JoePa (and Guido).”

Yet this review goes deeper than the book. Whitlock and Posnanski were long-time columnists at the same time for the Kansas City Star. An impressive 1-2 punch, to say the least.

Apparently, Whitlock has some bad blood towards his former teammate. Here is a highly personal shot in the review:

Posnanski, the storyteller without ego according to his passionate band of sycophants, is center stage throughout “Paterno,” most often without good reason.

Wow, guess that makes me a sycophant. I am a fan of Posnanski’s work, even though I had problems with the book.

Whitlock doesn’t acknowledge his relationship with Posnanski in the review. However, in a tweet, he mentioned his Real Talk podcast in which he discusses “history w/ Posnanski.”

Much of the podcast is an interview with Stefan Fatsis, who also wrote a scathing review of Paterno for Slate.com. Finally, at the 42-minute mark, he addresses the Posnanski relationship.

He begins:

I hope people hear me in context and don’t think there is something horribly negative driving me in this opinion.

No, just negative. He continues:

I don’t dislike Joe Posnanski…I recommended that he get hired in Kansas City. Once I got an up-close and personal view of what Posnanski did in Kansas City, I had some doubts about the authenticity (of his work).

Whitlock then launches into a long story about a Kansas City boxer who died in the ring. He felt Posnanski and the Star sports editor undercut him about a sensitive issue with the boxer.

Whitlock then accuses Posnanski being a mouthpiece for Chiefs running back Priest Holmes during a contract dispute.

Whitlock then delivers his biggest punch at the end:

If you read Posnanski’s work close up–if you’re not some contest judge who only reads the work once a year–(he) reads differently….I see (the book) as loyalty to a paycheck. I see it as par for the course. Standard operating procedure. The promise of information, insight, access that just isn’t there under closer examination.

Whitlock, though, says he isn’t “bitter” about Posnanski. Just listen to the 15-minute diatribe and tell me if you agree.

Sure sounded like some nasty feelings to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paterno reviews aren’t kind: Time says ‘Bad timing’; Atlantic cites ‘failed defense’

Posted on by

I’m not the only one. The reviews have been tough on Joe Posnanski’s new book Paterno.

They cite many of the same themes I had in my review.

The Atlantic’s Allen Barra writes:

It’s not enough to say that Posnanski does not do well relating the facts of the Sandusky case and Paterno’s role in it. The truth is that he doesn’t really try. “Joe Paterno was fired,” he tells us at the end, “why and how the board [Penn State trustees] made its decision is not my story to tell.” If not Paterno’s biographer’s, one wonders, then whose story is it? And what is so complicated about that story?

Time and again, Posnanski writes as if it was his intention to make clear issues cloudy.

Like me, Sean Gregory of Time wasn’t all that interested in details of Paterno’s life prior to the scandal hitting last November:

As for the rest of the bio, the material not related to the Sandusky scandal and its fallout, covering the first 84 years, not the final couple of months, of Paterno’s life: I can’t speak to that part, because I haven’t read it yet. And I’m not sure I will any time soon.

That’s nothing against Posnanski, one of the best sportswriters in the country. It’s simply a timing issue. Posnanski started this project well before the scandal broke, and he in large part stuck to his original plans. “What follows is the story of Joe Paterno’s life,” he writes at the beginning of the book. But on the heels of the Freeh Report, which contained evidence that Paterno did know about the initial, 1998 allegation of Sandusky’s inappropriate behavior – he previously denied being aware of it – and that Paterno had more influence on Penn State’s handling of the allegations that he had previously let on, Paterno’s life story, familiar to most sports fans to begin with, doesn’t seem very germane.

Guy Cipriano of the Centre Daily Times writes that Posnanski failed to take full advantage of the access Paterno gave him:

The legal drama of the past nine months altered Posnanski’s project, which he reportedly received a $750,000 advance to pursue. But Posnanski, it should be noted, received access to Paterno that no other journalist had in the later stages of the longtime coach’s life. Paterno died of lung cancer on Jan. 22.

He did little with the access beyond rehashing Paterno’s on-field results and offering anecdotes from former players. The “Joe did this for me” stories add no additional layers to the book.  Besides timing, nothing separates “Paterno” from other biographies about the coach. The final stages of Paterno’s life are among his most fascinating yet the book offers few visuals of last season other than scenes outside his house after his firing.

Anybody who covered Penn State football in the past 15 years wanted nothing more than 15 exclusive minutes with Paterno. Many beat writers loathed the access Posnanski was granted. Few will envy what the access produced.

Dwight Garner of the New York Times:

“Paterno” doesn’t shy away from whatever truth is behind any of this stuff. But the author talks to many, many former players who felt lucky to know this man, who say he taught them about decency and hard work and changed their lives forever.

Was Paterno a phony? Someone once suggested something similar about the longtime Florida State football coach Bobby Bowden. Mr. Posnanski reprints a sportswriter’s response to that insinuation here: “Well, to do it that long, it’s one hell of an act.”

Chris Nashawaty of Entertainment Weekly:

Despite all of the man-hours Posnanski poured into his book and his unbelievable access to Paterno — the long heart-to-hearts with the ailing coach over his beloved handmade kitchen table — Posnanski doesn’t really unveil anything about the case that hasn’t been reported elsewhere. There are no scoops here. No “A-ha” moments. No dramatic, teary Barbara Walters-style confessions.

Today Show interview: Posnanski says Paterno story, ‘very, very complicated’

Posted on by

After much anticipation, Joe Posnanski’s biography, Paterno, hits the bookstores today. I received my copy yesterday. There’s a lot of stuff to digest, and I’ll post a review tomorrow.

After being silent for so long, Posnanski is making the rounds. This morning Matt Lauer interviewed him on the Today Show.

From the interview, Posnanski said:

On how the book changed in mid-course: “The mission statement from the start was to write the most honest book I could about Joe Paterno. Obviously, the story changed dramatically at the end.”

On being inside Paterno’s home when the scandal hit: “It was such an odd place to be. I wanted to put the reader there.”

On how Paterno should be remembered: “I wrote 125,000 words on how he should be remembered. It is very, very complicated. If you read the book, you see how many people’s lives were changed by him. You can’t ignore those people. At the same time, you can’t ignore the evil of Jerry Sandusky. Joe Paterno, among others, was in position to stop him and didn’t. You can’t ignore any of that. To me, the book is the book, and the life is the life.”

Paterno book: Early reviews mixed; Full excerpt on GQ show coach being out of touch

Posted on by

The Paterno book hits the bookstores tomorrow. But thanks to an excerpt on GQ and some early reviews, feedback is starting to come in on Joe Posnanski’s effort.

Rich Hoffman of the Philadelphia Daily News wrote a column after reading the book. The headline for the piece reads: “Paterno bio is insightful and incomplete.”

He writes:

The book – I bought “Paterno” in a bookstore on Saturday, ahead of its  Tuesday publication date – is not a prosecutor’s brief against Paterno, and no  one should have expected one. Neither, though, is it a full-throated defense.  Given extraordinary access to the man, literally until his dying days, Posnanski  does what Posnanski always has done best as a writer: context and texture. As  everything around Paterno shook and then fell, you see a man and his family and  his confidants at the epicenter.

Whether you like the portrait or not, and whether you can even definite it  concisely – the best word here might be complicated – is beside the  point. The truth is that it is a portrait very much in three dimensions. In that  sense, Posnanski succeeds.

However, Hoffman believes Posnanski came up short in describing how Paterno handled the Mike McQuery situation and whether he knew about Jerry Sandusky’s crimes in 1998.

Hoffman writes:

To me, the key is 1998. If Paterno did know about those allegations, as the  Curley emails suggest, and he still did not act to alert authorities in 2001 (or  even recommended against contacting authorities), it changes everything – and  everybody knows it.

Posnanski makes a couple of passing references along the way but essentially  deals with those 1998 emails in one paragraph in the middle of the book. It does not seem enough.

Deadspin’s Dom Cosentino writes about the final chapter.

The book’s final chapter is a collection of unrelated anecdotes about Paterno as told by his children and several of his former players. Much of the chapter is light.

Cosentino then writes that during a session at Paterno’s house, the coach asks Posnanski his view on what he should have done.

From the book:

I had not intended to include this in the book. It was a personal moment between writer and subject. But as the story has played out, I decided it was important. I told him that I thought he should have done more when he was told Jerry Sandusky was showering with a boy. I had heard what he had said about not understanding the severity, not knowing much about child molestation, not having Sandusky as an employee. But, I said, “You are Joe Paterno. Right or wrong, people expect more from you.”

He nodded. He did not try to defend or deflect. He said simply, “I wish I had done more,” again, and then descended into another coughing fit.

Curiously, that passage wasn’t in the GQ excerpts. If you recall, Sports Illustrated passed on running the excerpts. The magazine felt the material in the book didn’t measure up.

I disagree with SI’s decision, because the excerpts have been quoted everywhere. However, the GQ excerpts don’t foreshadow that there will be any new startling revelations in the book. If anything, they portray the coach as a rather out-of-touch old man who stayed around way too long.

When his son Scott first confronted his father about the charges against Sandusky on that November Saturday, Paterno’s reply was to say, “I’ve got Nebraska (the next game) to worry about. I can’t worry about this.”

There was this telling passage in which Paterno had to be persuaded to read the presentment.

On Monday, the family tried to persuade Paterno to read the presentment. He objected that he already knew what was in there, but they told him there was no room left for illusion. D’Elia would remember telling him, “You realize that the people out there think you knew about this? They think you had to know because you know about everything.”

“That’s their opinion!” Paterno shouted. “I’m not omniscient!”

“They think you are!” D’Elia roared back.

Later, D’Elia described watching Paterno read the presentment: “What did he know about perverted things like that? When he asked Scott, ‘What is sodomy, anyway?’ I thought my heart was going to break.”

I love access and I believe the best and most relevant part of the book will be about the access Posnanski had to Paterno and his family during those final days.

However, the book is about Paterno’s entire life and career. The brutal end is just a part of it. It will be interesting to see how people view all the “positives” that took place during his long tenure.

Much more to come on this story.