Joe Posnanski: Lord of Lists

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I'm so glad people know what a great biography on Joe Paterno would look like. It seems as you could just write it without doing actual research. I think that you are right JMOH that a book about Joe Paterno would need to relay the truth, but it seems from some of your comments that you have a certain vision of what the truth is already beyond that Joe Paterno is involved in the Sandusky scandal in a way that compromises his moral position. Assertions about the level of control and knowledge that Joe Paterno had and has had are unsubstantiated on basically every level. What seems to be over a lot of people's heads is that one can prevent their own firing without being in control of everything else that happens.

Alternate, you're right, I do have an idea of what I think would be a good Paterno book and I'm only speculating (which I thought was understood by all) as to what his book is going to be. I do this all the time with all sorts of media (books, TV shows, films) and many times I'm wrong and the work is much better than I anticipated. Like I've said a bunch of times, there is no sportswriter that I enjoy more than Joe Posnanski, but I think that he's a better short piece writer than a book writer. I think that the best sports book author is Leigh Montville, that guy is so nuanced and can really write--I love reading his stuff.

I enjoyed "The Soul of Baseball" mostly because I like Buck O'Neil. I wasn't sure if I was going to like it because I envisioned this to be a "Tuesdays With Morrie" type of thing except with a former Negro Leaguer and I'm just not into that type of writing. But I saw it for short dough at a discount bookstore and picked up. I was glad that I did because Joe did a great job. I was eagerly looking forward to his second book, "The Machine" and even broke one of my rules of buying hardcover books (usually I don't because I'm a cheap bastard) and I was really underwhelmed by it.

Pete Rose to me is not some sort of railroaded hero, he's a prick who tried to beat the game. I don't care how many times he ran to first base or dove head first into third, he's still a degenerate gambler attention whore who only admitted the truth when people stopped giving a shit about him and he needed a book to sell. It's obvious to me that Posnanski is one of Pete Rose's biggest fans and as such he colored "The Machine" with a lot of Pete Rose crayons. He really made Rose the misunderstood hero in this passion play and that didn't sit right with me.

Using that "evidence" I have a feeling that Posnanski is going to do the same thing with Paterno and again, that doesn't sit well with me. I know that I am judging a book by it's incomplete cover, but that's my opinion at this very second. Could it be different? Of course it could. Could Posnanski take a hard look at the Paterno legacy and conclude that while the guy won hundreds of football games a lot of the moral building blocks were hollow? Again, yes, he could do that. Do I think that he'll do that? Probably not. And again, that is a problem ... at least it is for me. But I look at these things from a perspective of, in 20-30 if someone is reading this biography and all of the Sandusky stuff has been buried will the reader get a true idea of what the person was about.

I think that if that person picked up Montville's "Ted Williams", then yes, they will get a very detailed character study on a very flawed human being. A human being that could hit a baseball better than just about any person who ever lived, but a person who was, quite frankly, a real dick--someone who wasn't around for his child's birth because he was out fishing. And here's the thing, I think that those warts are what makes Ted Williams so beloved. No one is perfect, there are times when all human beings reach their potential and there are times when we reach our nadir, that's why we can relate to other people no matter how "great" they are.

Posnanski has the privilege of being with Paterno when the shit started gumming up the fan that is Penn State and Posnanski is a terrific writer and reporter. If Posnanski doesn't take advantage of his spot in history, than that will be really disappointing.

If Pos writes that Joe Paterno did in fact have less control as he aged and backs that up, would that be hard hitting truth for readers or would they know that was a bunch of people protecting Joe Pa and Posnanski was just repeating it because he admired the man? If he writes that Joe Paterno, while not a senile old fucker, became less sharp about things and became a valuable figurehead to the University, would that be satisfactory?

Like I said, Posnanski isn't an idiot and he's not some rookie on his first beat. From reading his stuff, it seems to me that whenever his heroes aren't involved, he has a pretty good bullshit detector. I hope that he uses it with Paterno. Using Montville as an example again, I think that he said he spent five years researching and writing about Ted Williams. It's been about a year since Posnanski said that he's starting this project. Obviously, he could have begun researching before hand, but Joe Paterno is a pretty complicated man, I don't think that you could understand him in 12 calendar months. That's something else that concerns me.

Like I said about "The Soul of Baseball", I hope that Pos isn't writing "Tuesdays with JoeyPa".

 

[LoweTek]

Excellent post JMOH and good points about Montville's Williams work. It was the first one I read which in any way accurately reflected what I had always heard of his flaws, many of them first hand accounts. Montville appeared to do no sugarcoating, which I greatly appreciated. In the very last pages of the book, after painting this well researched portrait of an exceedingly angry and flawed man, he admits nothing short of, "I love Ted Williams." It made his work even more effective, more powerful.

It's a good comp for this discussion. I hope JoePos can produce similar work. With or without Sandusky, JoePa is likely no less flawed than any other "hero" in a position such as his. I still believe JoePos deserves the benefit of the doubt but you make several excellent points. I remain hopeful he does it right.

 

[weeba]

Pos writes about his daughter's newest love .... NASCAR

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2012/05/my-daughter-favorite-sport.html

 

[Bergs]

Pos writes about his daughter's newest love .... NASCAR

http://joeposnanski....rite-sport.html

I had never read the Larry Phillips piece he links to in that article. Jesus, when Pos is on, he is some kind of phenomenal.

http://archive.apspo...ures.first.html

 

[Average Reds]

I don't check Joe's blog that often these days, but I did this morning and found a Memorial Day posting of a reprinted story from November, 2001. Resonated with me for more than a few reasons, and (as always) extremely well written:

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2012/05/chuck.html#more

 

[weeba]

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2012/06/lebron-talk.html

But, you know what? I like rooting against LeBron. It’s not a noble endeavor, I realize, but we all need our hobbies.

 

[Toe Nash]

The LeBron column was weak IMO. He uses the same "HE JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE DESIRE!" that everyone else uses even though he's consistently the best player on the court. But at least Pos admits that he's lost the ability to be objective on LeBron, unlike most writers.

You could write nearly the same article and replace LeBron with Rondo. Only difference is that the narrative says Rondo steps it up in big games while LeBron shrinks (except for all those big games that he played great in). But I guess he "looked" different in game 4 against Indy even though he's nearly duplicated that performance other times.

 

[Seabass]

I didn't love the piece, but I rooted along with him, so I'm not objective either. That being said, one moment I remember was with about three minutes left, the ball rotated around to Lebron for an open three. He could've driven or taken the shot. Instead, he passed to Cole or Chalmers, who was about six feet to his right behind the arc. Lebron needs to be the Guy there, and I think that is what Pos is getting at.

He is indubidably the best player on the planet. He's a monster, and he's is tremendous. But I still think he could be better, because he doesn't always take the game over, when he almost always can.

 

[Super Nomario]

The LeBron column was weak IMO. He uses the same "HE JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE DESIRE!" that everyone else uses even though he's consistently the best player on the court. But at least Pos admits that he's lost the ability to be objective on LeBron, unlike most writers.

You could write nearly the same article and replace LeBron with Rondo. Only difference is that the narrative says Rondo steps it up in big games while LeBron shrinks (except for all those big games that he played great in). But I guess he "looked" different in game 4 against Indy even though he's nearly duplicated that performance other times.

Yeah, I love 99% of what Posnanski writes but he falls into cliched media hackery when he writes about LeBron. To his credit, he recognizes this. Not to his credit, he fails to take the next logical step and just stop writing about LeBron.

 

[johnmd20]

Yeah, I love 99% of what Posnanski writes but he falls into cliched media hackery when he writes about LeBron. To his credit, he recognizes this. Not to his credit, he fails to take the next logical step and just stop writing about LeBron.

As a Lebron hater like Pos, I can tell you that I would prefer he didn't take your next logical step.

 

[Super Nomario]

As a Lebron hater like Pos, I can tell you that I would prefer he didn't take your next logical step.

Are you not finding enough articles on the Internet psycho-analyzing LeBron for each facial expression and fourth-quarter pass every time the Heat lose?

 

[JimD]

I didn't love the piece, but I rooted along with him, so I'm not objective either. That being said, one moment I remember was with about three minutes left, the ball rotated around to Lebron for an open three. He could've driven or taken the shot. Instead, he passed to Cole or Chalmers, who was about six feet to his right behind the arc. Lebron needs to be the Guy there, and I think that is what Pos is getting at.

He is indubidably the best player on the planet. He's a monster, and he's is tremendous. But I still think he could be better, because he doesn't always take the game over, when he almost always can.

I agree, and that is what I also got from Pos's column. Unlike Joe, though, I do think that LeBron will learn to harness that killer instinct and singular intensity (hopefully not starting tonight, though!).

 

[Spud]

Let's set aside for a moment the issue of whether Joe has lost his objectivity when it comes to LeBron. I found the underlying premise of the post to be pretty interesting. Are there athletes who can, essentially, leave humanity behind in their quest to win games that we tell our children should be fun to play? If there is such a place, does it help explain why Clemens throws the bat at Piazza or why Pete Rose takes out Ray Fosse at home plate during a friggin All Star game? From what I have read over the years, Michael Jordan may be the best example of what Joe is trying to get at in this post. By most accounts, Jordan was a horrible human being if you happened to be anywhere between him and a victory, regardless of the game. This appeared to apply to friends, foes, teammates and opponents alike. I think Joe may be on to something here, his point being that no matter how great a player LeBron may be, there is a fundamental difference between LeBron and someone who is able and willing to go to that dark place where winning is all that matters.

 

[Toe Nash]

And that discounts the incredible amount of practice and training that athletes put in from an early age and how "on" they have to be in EVERY game, not just the biggest ones.

It's just a lazy argument to say that when LeBron has a poor game (by his standards) he wasn't mentally in it. There's a million other possible reasons, the most obvious of which is that games like last night are the exception and not the norm. If all it took for him to drop 45+ was going to a "dark place" why wouldn't he go there?

 

[Average Reds]

And that discounts the incredible amount of practice and training that athletes put in from an early age and how "on" they have to be in EVERY game, not just the biggest ones.

It's just a lazy argument to say that when LeBron has a poor game (by his standards) he wasn't mentally in it. There's a million other possible reasons, the most obvious of which is that games like last night are the exception and not the norm. If all it took for him to drop 45+ was going to a "dark place" why wouldn't he go there?

I think your point about the "dark place" is correct - it's a silly, Simmons-esque argument that attempts to explain why some of the great players seem to always rise to the occasion while others seem to fall short. The more logical explanation is sheer random chance coupled with our need to see "patterns" because we're human and always look for some sort of meaningful explanation even when none is there.

At the same time, it's equally lazy to insist that it's all a figment of our imagination. LeBron has had the tendency to disappear during big games, and at times has even looked like he was quitting. And this is different from the superstars who insist on going down with guns blazing rather than going gently into that good night.

I'm not prepared to buy into the pop psychology explanations for any of this, and there's clearly time for it to change, because LeBron has more talent than just about anyone in the game. But the fact is that because of the moronic way he handled his move to Miami, he's got a lot of pressure on him, and until he delivers a title, nothing else matters in terms of how people perceive him.

 

[Spud]

Nice tribute to Youk and not making outs: http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2012/06/youk.html#more

 

[shlincoln]

So Posnanski's new gig is MLB's spin on Grantland? Sports on Earth

Super brief description I found on MLB.com

Sports on Earth, LLC (SOE), a subsidiary of MLB Advanced Media (MLBAM), operates Internet and multimedia ventures for a wide variety of sports and non-sports properties not directly tied to MLB.com or the official baseball club websites.

 

[TheYellowDart5]

As someone who used to work for SOE before they apparently decided to expand the brand, "operates Internet and multimedia ventures ... not directly tied to MLB.com" simply means that they're running sites that MLB AM owns. For example: YESNetwork.com, SNY.tv, the MLB HOF website, the MLB Players Association website, TigerWoods.com, and a whole bunch of player sites (including Alex Rodriguez's and Derek Jeter's). They used to help run the MLS and MiLB sites, too, but those split off into their own separate divisions.

 

[JimD]

Joe's tweet regarding the latest allegations indicating that Paterno had a bigger role in the coverup that previously thought:

"Will not comment re: Paterno because I don't think it's my place now. But I will say that all of this and more is in the book."

(sorry - I couldn't get the Twitter link to work properly)

 

[Leather]

Well, if Posnanski really devoted some ink to it in more than a "Joe Paterno gets angry when it's mentioned...Joe says...Joe's friends who know him best say Joe wouldn't do that..." fashion, then I'll be really happy. I'm not expecting him to allege that Paterno was as big an asshole as I think he was, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt so long as he at least questions, in good faith, Paterno's role in the whole mess.

 

[nattysez]

Given the Freeh report's findings, it would not shock me if the publisher spiked Joe's book.

 

[TheYaz67]

Given the Freeh report's findings, it would not shock me if the publisher spiked Joe's book.

Yeah, very good chance that it will at least need a major re-write at this point (whether Pos wants to or not), and some time and space from recent events.....

 

[HomeBrew1901]

I think Posnanski got lucky. If his Paterno hero worship book came out last summer or fall just before this scandal broke wide open and Pos had no idea it would make him look really really bad and may have ruined his career.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

The JoePa book is supposed to come out in August, right? Could a publisher spike a book this late in the process?

This is why I've been saying for months that Posnanski couldn't rush this book.

Edit: I just went to Amazon and this book is going to be released in about five weeks (August 21, 2012). Holy shit is this going to be bad. Very, very, very bad for Posnanski.

 

[nattysez]

The JoePa book is supposed to come out in August, right? Could a publisher spike a book this late in the process?

This is why I've been saying for months that Posnanski couldn't rush this book.

Edit: I just went to Amazon and this book is going to be released in about five weeks (August 21, 2012). Holy shit is this going to be bad. Very, very, very bad for Posnanski.

The promo video on that page is horrific. If that's the book Joe wrote -- people are talking about what he did or didn't do, but they should balance that against his lifetime accomplishments -- things could get really ugly. I have this sneaking suspicion that Pos is too emotionally attached to the Paternos and the book to kill it, so unless the publisher does so, it's coming out.

 

[JBill]

This is why I've been saying for months that Posnanski couldn't rush this book.

Yeah I don't know how he's going to work around the new info we have now about what Paterno knew in 1998 and that he lied under oath. Is it possible Pos had this info already somehow and it's in there, and that's what he meant with his tweet ("all this and more is in the book."). I think that's implausible, when even the family probably didn't know.

Edit: The quote nattsez is referring to from Pos in the Amazon video: "I think the questions people have about Joe Paterno and what he did and didn't do...I think you weigh that against the impact that he made, and hopefully people read the book and have a real view of that life." I think this is going to be extremely difficult to pull off, and might work better five years from now, not five weeks from now.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

You're right JBill, because if Posnanski thinks that a story about Joe Paterno getting some dip shit through College Algebra 101 is going to balance the scales of knowing what Sandusky did, he's dillusional.

 

[JayMags71]

Its been said before, but prior to this scandal breaking, I was one those who was disappointed that he had chosen to write about Paterno at all. Now that it appears that it's shaping up to be of the variety that contains content like "Should one bad act erase all of a man's good deeds blahblahblah," I'm feeling genuine dismay.

 

[nattysez]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JPosnanski/status/223559051773091840

This won't end well.

 

[Foulkey Reese]

Edit: Natty beat me to it.

 

[HomeBrew1901]

Edit: Natty beat me to it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Title_BU/status/223562524828774402

Fucking awesome

 

[RingoOSU]

Which is why he made sure it went to the editor before the Freeh report came out and he'd have to change his mind.

 

[Average Reds]

The JoePa book is supposed to come out in August, right? Could a publisher spike a book this late in the process?

This is why I've been saying for months that Posnanski couldn't rush this book.

Edit: I just went to Amazon and this book is going to be released in about five weeks (August 21, 2012). Holy shit is this going to be bad. Very, very, very bad for Posnanski.

It is extremely unusual, but books get spiked much closer to publication than this. (IIRC, "If I did it" by OJ was spiked days before it was set to be released.)

The only decision the publisher needs to consider is whether the cost to them (in bad publicity) outweighs the profits they are likely to reap from releasing the book. In this case, I'm guessing that the Freeh report will only increase sales of the book, so the publisher is going to be reluctant to step in.

The wild card - and obviously, only a few people know this right now - is how much does the content of the book diverge from the Freeh report? Because the prospect of a significant backlash could cause the publisher to have a change of heart. Of course, a cancellation would also crush Posnanski professionally, because his publisher would be branding him as a dupe on the wrong side of history.

I think that the book gets published, but I would not be surprised if the publisher demands revisions and pushes back the release date.

 

[TheGazelle]

It is extremely unusual, but books get spiked much closer to publication than this. (IIRC, "If I did it" by OJ was spiked days before it was set to be released.)

The only decision the publisher needs to consider is whether the cost to them (in bad publicity) outweighs the profits they are likely to reap from releasing the book. In this case, I'm guessing that the Freeh report will only increase sales of the book, so the publisher is going to be reluctant to step in.

The wild card - and obviously, only a few people know this right now - is how much does the content of the book diverge from the Freeh report? Because the prospect of a significant backlash could cause the publisher to have a change of heart. Of course, a cancellation would also crush Posnanski professionally, because his publisher would be branding him as a dupe on the wrong side of history.

I think that the book gets published, but I would not be surprised if the publisher demands revisions and pushes back the release date.

Unless he has all of the information in the Freeh report (I guess theoretically possible, given that he lived there), I think he has to push it back and add the material. You can't publish a book about Paterno six weeks after the Freeh report that doesn't include the stuff in that report.

 

[Average Reds]

Unless he has all of the information in the Freeh report (I guess theoretically possible, given that he lived there), I think he has to push it back and add the material. You can't publish a book about Paterno six weeks after the Freeh report that doesn't include the stuff in that report.

You are assuming that it doesn't include the information in the Freeh report.

Now, I think this is probably a good assumption. However, my guess would be that the most damming difference between the Freeh report and what Posnanski has in his book is the conclusion drawn by Freeh that the culture surrounding the football program at Penn State was such that Paterno, Spanier, Curly, Schultz and many others placed the positive perception of the program ahead of the welfare of children. This willful blindness allowed a monster to operate within the program and the university, and it has destroyed everything that Joe Paterno built over 61 years.

All the evidence that we've seen to this point tells us that this is a conclusion that Posnanski has not even considered as an article of faith, and I doubt that the Freeh report will cause him to change his view. Which is why I tend to agree with those who simply say that this will not end well.

 

[mauf]

The Freeh Report is the story of the Sandusky scandal. Posnanski's book is about Joe Paterno. Obviously, no discussion of Paterno's life would be complete without discussing his role in the Sandusky scandal, but I think folks here are overestimating the level of factual detail Pos needs to include.

A lot of the new facts in the Freeh Report relate to people other than Paterno. The big new revelation about Paterno is that it's now undeniable that Paterno knew about the 1998 investigation of Sandusky when McQueary came to him in 2001. It's not hard for me to imagine that Pos knew that (or assumed it would eventually be proven) when he was finishing his manuscript.

Obviously, knowing that Paterno knew about 1998 casts everything he did after that in a different light -- including, among other things, his handling of McQueary's report in 2001, his toleration of Sandusky's continued presence around the program, and his testimony to the grand jury. Weaving this narrative together with an account of the so-called "Grand Experiment" could result in a brilliant book. Unfortunately, the stuff Pos wrote and said back in November when this story broke, and in January when Paterno died, do not inspire confidence that he will write such a book.

This book can be a long way from hagiography and still not end well for Pos.

 

[Average Reds]

The only way this ends well for Joe Pos is if he's smart enough to re-brand Penn State Football as "The Failed Experiment" (which is not new, but it hasn't been claimed yet that I know of) and use that as his platform.

That would be a good platform for him to reclaim his reputation and talk about Paterno and PSU in terms that can embrace both the noble aspirations that drove Paterno at the outset of his tenure and the corrupting influence of power (and the fear of losing that power) that rotted the program over the years from the inside.

I have no expectation that we'll see this from him, but I see the pathway if he wants to take it.

 

[valentinscycle]

The only way this ends well for Joe Pos is if he's smart enough to re-brand Penn State Football as "The Failed Experiment" (which is not new, but it hasn't been claimed yet that I know of) and use that as his platform.

'Failed Experiment' was prominently used yesterday by Michael Weinreb on Grantland.
It's all just guesses, of course, but I would think that for Poz to recast the book in that light would be a major overhaul of the MS as it stands. Poz's recent tweet suggests his approach will something like a balance-- he did bad, he did a lot of good, let's look at the whole life, etc-- and not the rather Shakespearean tragedy of personal and institutional hubris, leading to disastrous moral blindness on Paterno's part among others, that I think most people now see this as. It's not just the new facts, like the confirmation that he knew about the '98 investigation, but a whole new narrative to explain the facts that would be needed.

Weinreb: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8160271/joe-paterno-legacy-penn-state-aftermath-freeh-report

 

[Average Reds]

That's pretty funny.

I had heard it before, which is why I didn't think it was original, but had no idea that a writer used it as recently as yesterday.

It does fit though...

 

[Reverend]

Given Pos's reflective nature, I think an fascinating approach might be to leave tr book as it was, but add an appendix addressing where, depending what the main book says, he had even mistaken or deceived or misled and how that could have happened to him, how e coul have been so suckered or whatever he feels happened and how.

Such a reflector engagement of being duped like so much of the rest of the country by a thoughtful guy like Pos, especially if it addresses the issue of relationships and journalism, could be epic--and make the book into something legitimately important.

Pos's own story IS a story, and a potentially compelling and important one as reflective of certain contemporary currents in our culture.

 

[Corsi]

Given Pos's reflective nature, I think an fascinating approach might be to leave tr book as it was, but add an appendix addressing where, depending what the main book says, he had even mistaken or deceived or misled and how that could have happened to him, how e coul have been so suckered or whatever he feels happened and how.

Such a reflector engagement of being duped like so much of the rest of the country by a thoughtful guy like Pos, especially if it addresses the issue of relationships and journalism, could be epic--and make the book into something legitimately important.

Pos's own story IS a story, and a potentially compelling and important one as reflective of certain contemporary currents in our culture.

I came here to post just this. Posnanski has the opportunity to write THE story of Joe Paterno. If he releases this book with nary a mention of the Freeh report, it'll be a book that no one can put any stock in. He was duped like we all were. He needs to write about the why and how. In America, how does a guy like Paterno become bigger than a university? Why aren't there checks and balances in place? How does the public image of a football program get top billing over the lives of innocent children? He needs to explore these questions in light of what happened at Penn State.

In 10-15 years, when you hear the name Joe Paterno, the first thing that's going to come to mind is this scandal and not his coaching legacy, IMO. For that not to be significantly displayed in the book would be damning.

 

[Reverend]

In 10-15 years, when you hear the name Joe Paterno, the first thing that's going to come to mind is this scandal and not his coaching legacy, IMO. For that not to be significantly displayed in the book would be damning.

Agreed, but to make a small addition, not just damning, but a terrible lost opportunity.

 

[Super Nomario]

Unless he has all of the information in the Freeh report (I guess theoretically possible, given that he lived there), I think he has to push it back and add the material. You can't publish a book about Paterno six weeks after the Freeh report that doesn't include the stuff in that report.

I think he does have a lot of the info in the book. On 6/30, he Tweeted "Will not comment re: Paterno because I don't think it's my place now. But I will say that all of this and more is in the book." That was before the full report came out but after the emails incriminating to Paterno leaked out.

 

[Dehere]

I think he does have a lot of the info in the book. On 6/30, he Tweeted "Will not comment re: Paterno because I don't think it's my place now. But I will say that all of this and more is in the book." That was before the full report came out but after the emails incriminating to Paterno leaked out.

Nothing but gut feeling on my part but I think Joe's last couple tweets on this subject have the tone of a guy who thinks he's holding a winning hand.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Is there any possibility that Joe Pa used Pos as a means to unburden his soul of all of his guilt about the situation? Maybe the portion of the book that deals with the scandal is in fact something in the way of a confession from Paterno?

Paterno would have to know that he was going to die in order to unburden his soul. He died nine days after being admitted to the hospital. It's possible that he called Pos and gave him a memory dump, but is it probable? Would his family allow it? Was he even lucid enough at that point to do so?

 

[pedros hairstylist]

Frankly at this point, the story about a writer who catches Stockholm Syndrome while writing a biography about a famous man whose mythological rep that gets taken down during the writing process would make a great story/movie.

 

[Leather]

Paterno would have to know that he was going to die in order to unburden his soul. He died nine days after being admitted to the hospital. It's possible that he called Pos and gave him a memory dump, but is it probable? Would his family allow it? Was he even lucid enough at that point to do so?

Playing devil's advocate, this assumes that Joe Pa didn't know he had lung cancer, and/or was going to die, before being admitted to the hospital. That seems unlikely.

Frankly, Pos knowing that Joe Pa was dying before everyone else did makes the most sense, as this likely accounts for his initial defensiveness regarding Paterno.

So here's my guess: Posnanski knew, probably a few months before everyone else, that Paterno was dying. Paterno expressed regret to Pos about the scandal, but didn't want to turn on a friend in his dying days. Posnanski, respecting Paterno's condition, chose not to say anything but instead opted to support Paterno as he died.

The fact that Paterno croaked so close to the story breaking makes me think that maybe, just maybe, he opened up to Posnanski and Posnanski got an honest take.

 

[Reverend]

Playing devil's advocate, this assumes that Joe Pa didn't know he had lung cancer, and/or was going to die, before being admitted to the hospital. That seems unlikely.

Frankly, Pos knowing that Joe Pa was dying before everyone else did makes the most sense, as this likely accounts for his initial defensiveness regarding Paterno.

So here's my guess: Posnanski knew, probably a few months before everyone else, that Paterno was dying. Paterno expressed regret to Pos about the scandal, but didn't want to turn on a friend in his dying days. Posnanski, respecting Paterno's condition, chose not to say anything but instead opted to support Paterno as he died.

The fact that Paterno croaked so close to the story breaking makes me think that maybe, just maybe, he opened up to Posnanski and Posnanski got an honest take.

 

[Average Reds]

Like many here, I like Posnanski's writing very much. But some of the speculation surrounding his book sound a lot like wishcasting, considering what we already know:

• The manuscript was delivered some time ago. Unless the publisher demands changes, the Freeh report isn't going to be in it. (I hope/expect that they will.)
• Pos already wrote about his deathbed conversations with Paterno and they don't sound like a man who has a balanced perspective on Paterno's legacy or who was in possession of a cathartic deathbed confession:

I asked Paterno at one point in that last month if he hoped that people would come to see and measure his full life rather than a single, hazy event involving an alleged child molester. "It doesn't matter what people think of me," he said. "I've lived my life. I just hope the truth comes out. And I hope the victims find peace."

Just my guess, but I think that those of you hoping for some sort of redemption out of Posnanski here are going to be very disappointed.

 

[Leather]

You are probably right. I find it puzzling that he isn't writing a new afterward or something. "I've said all I'm going to say" seems like a pretty defensive stance.