I went back and looked at some of my posts from a month ago, and some of it is interesting.
"Or maybe it is, since the '98 Vikings went 15-1, but this is the best Vikings team I've ever seen. I feel confident in saying that after today."
I said that after the Vikings destroyed the Bears at home. I had to open my big fucking mouth. Needless to say, I no longer feel this way.
"After watching the Texans blow a 17-0 and then 20-7 halftime lead, I thought, "I would hate to be a fan of the Texans." "
And you know what? Yesterday the Texans almost blew a 27-0 lead, and ended up winning 27-20. They still have trouble closing out games, even with seemingly insurmountable leads.
"Before the season started, I thought Denver was in a for a terrible 6-10 type season, and I was off. And maybe this is purely selfish on my part, but I don't care. This is not a playoff team, and it feels good to have that feeling justified during the season. I felt stupid when they started 6-0, but now that they're 6-4 I feel better."
As things have turned out, I'm probably not going to be that far off in my 6-10 prediction for Denver, as they seem headed for 8-8 (with a fluky win over Cincinatti, let's not forget). I still can't believe they ever started 6-0, but as the season has progressed they've shown who they really are.
"Russell has done nothing to actually earn the starting job, so I don't feel bad for him, and it may be in the Raiders' best interest to cut him in the offseason and move on. If they had a better replacement than Gradkowski, I'd be all for it. But I can't imagine him putting up much better numbers than Russell was."
Actually, both Gradkowski and Frye have been quite a bit better than Russell. I was wrong in saying they shouldn't make a change; in actuality, they should have made a change sooner. Gradkowski actually gave them some life on offense.
"There's a lot that could be said about the Bears. In the past couple of weeks, they've been absolutely destroyed by the Bengals and Cardinals. Of their remaining schedule, only the Rams and Lions look like wins."
Again, I had to open my big fucking mouth.
"They do have Aaron Rodgers, and if he ever learns how to handle a pass rush, he'll be really good. He already is, really. His QB rating entering today was 110, and when he's in rhythm, few QBs throw as accurate a ball. Get this man a RT, add a pass rusher on defense and this team can be in business."
This was maybe the most prescient thing I've said all season, or it was so obvious that even an idiot could point it out. But ever since losing to Tampa Bay, Green Bay has fixed their RT situation by signing Mark Tauscher and sending Allen Barbre to the bench, and have added a pass rusher by inserting Clay Matthews into the starting lineup. Aaron Kampman getting injured was the best thing to happen to Green Bay; he was subpar in their 3-4, but Matthews has flourished. Ever since then, the Packers have lost one game, are indeed "in business."
I also did a race for LVP back at the miway point of the season, giving it to Derek Anderson over JaMarcus Russell. As the season comes to a close, Russell is the runaway winner of LVP for this NFL season. Brady Quinn came back in for Cleveland and did not play any better than Anderson, while Bruce Gradkowski came in for Russell and, as I said earlier, gave Oakland some life on offense. Charlie Frye has also played better than Russell. What this means is that Oakland actually did improve by benching Russell, meaning his awful play is mostly on him, while the Cleveland QBs were equally hampered by awful receivers. Factor in the big contract and high draft choice that Oakland used on Russell, and he is unquestionably the LVP.
Monday, December 28, 2009
The Vikings have serious issues
In a month, the Vikings have gone from looking like a Super Bowl contender to a team that looks like a one-and-done candidate in the playoffs. What the hell has happened?
Jared Allen has fallen off the face of the Earth
The next play this guy makes will be his first in about 3 weeks. He has had a terrible two-game stretch where his presence was minimally felt. He hasn't sacked the QB in a long time, and he isn't generating pressure either. A big reason Chicago was able to build a 16-0 lead was because they were giving Cutler a lot of time in the pocket, and that's on Allen. He's the money pass rusher, and he was invisible tonight. He was also invisible last week, and this needs to change immediately. Without Allen generating pressure, the secondary becomes exposed. This secondary can hold up with a steady pass rush, but if the QB has time, they can be picked apart.
Antoine Winfield has been terrible as well
Winfield was beaten a few times tonight for big plays, and he was beaten pretty solidly by Steve Smith last week. I don't know if he's 100% or not, and if he's not then the Vikings shouldn't be playing him. A corner who can't run at 100% is useless; all things being equal, Benny Sapp is not as good as Winfield, but if he can run and Winfield can't, he's the better option.
Kevin Williams...basically the same thing
Do you notice a pattern here? The Vikings' A players are not playing at an A level right now; you'd probably be generous in saying they're playing at a C level right now. Kevin Williams hasn't been as bad as Allen and Winfield, but he hasn't been his penetrating self either.
The offensive line has fallen off
Anthony Herrera had a miserable night trying to block Tommie Harris. Bryant McKinnie and Phil Loadholt were better than they were a week ago (couldn't get much worse), but they still are not playing up to par right now. The Vikings have a little too much trouble on short yardage runs, and Favre faces just a little too much pressure. I don't expect perfection, but these guys were playing better earlier in the year, and their dropoff has definitely hampered the offense.
Here's the deal; when a player like Jasper Brinkley gets exposed in coverage (as he was tonight), or Anthony Herrera has trouble blocking Tommie Harris (as he did tonight)...hey, that happens. These are not the Vikings' top players, and it's to be expected that they'll be exposed a few times in a given game. But Jared Allen, Antoine Winfield, Kevin Williams, Bryant McKinnie...these are the guys that need to show up and play well for Minnesota to win. 3 of the past 4 games (excluding Winfield, who missed the Arizona game), these guys have not played well at all, and as a result the Vikings were blown out twice and lost in OT to a bad Chicago team.
Football outsiders rates the Vikings' defense as a below average unit, and right now I'd have to agree. It pains me to say that, because we've been really good on defense for 3-4 years now. But there has been a noticeable decline, and allowing 37 points to the Bears is the straw that breaks the camel's back. I really believe that if they could just rush the passer again, everything else would fall in line. The secondary would look better, offenses would be faced with more long-yardage situations, there would probably be more turnovers forced...it really does start with the defensive line. If they starting playing well again, everything else should fall into place. But if in a playoff game, Aaron Rodgers or Tony Romo or Kurt Warner were to be given ample time to throw the ball, the Vikings would probably be a quick out. They aren't good enough in the secondary to hold up forever against good QBs.
The bright side is this is correctable. The talent is already in place on the roster, and it just needs to start playing up to its capability again. Jared Allen needs to start rushing from the outside again, and Kevin Williams needs to start rushing from the inside again. Do that, and everything else should fall into place. This team still has the talent and capability of making the Super Bowl, they just need to start playing like it again. Hopefully they bottomed out at halftime (keep in mind they outscored Chicago 30-14 in the 2nd half, which should always lead to victory) tonight, and the 2nd half will be what carries over.
Jared Allen has fallen off the face of the Earth
The next play this guy makes will be his first in about 3 weeks. He has had a terrible two-game stretch where his presence was minimally felt. He hasn't sacked the QB in a long time, and he isn't generating pressure either. A big reason Chicago was able to build a 16-0 lead was because they were giving Cutler a lot of time in the pocket, and that's on Allen. He's the money pass rusher, and he was invisible tonight. He was also invisible last week, and this needs to change immediately. Without Allen generating pressure, the secondary becomes exposed. This secondary can hold up with a steady pass rush, but if the QB has time, they can be picked apart.
Antoine Winfield has been terrible as well
Winfield was beaten a few times tonight for big plays, and he was beaten pretty solidly by Steve Smith last week. I don't know if he's 100% or not, and if he's not then the Vikings shouldn't be playing him. A corner who can't run at 100% is useless; all things being equal, Benny Sapp is not as good as Winfield, but if he can run and Winfield can't, he's the better option.
Kevin Williams...basically the same thing
Do you notice a pattern here? The Vikings' A players are not playing at an A level right now; you'd probably be generous in saying they're playing at a C level right now. Kevin Williams hasn't been as bad as Allen and Winfield, but he hasn't been his penetrating self either.
The offensive line has fallen off
Anthony Herrera had a miserable night trying to block Tommie Harris. Bryant McKinnie and Phil Loadholt were better than they were a week ago (couldn't get much worse), but they still are not playing up to par right now. The Vikings have a little too much trouble on short yardage runs, and Favre faces just a little too much pressure. I don't expect perfection, but these guys were playing better earlier in the year, and their dropoff has definitely hampered the offense.
Here's the deal; when a player like Jasper Brinkley gets exposed in coverage (as he was tonight), or Anthony Herrera has trouble blocking Tommie Harris (as he did tonight)...hey, that happens. These are not the Vikings' top players, and it's to be expected that they'll be exposed a few times in a given game. But Jared Allen, Antoine Winfield, Kevin Williams, Bryant McKinnie...these are the guys that need to show up and play well for Minnesota to win. 3 of the past 4 games (excluding Winfield, who missed the Arizona game), these guys have not played well at all, and as a result the Vikings were blown out twice and lost in OT to a bad Chicago team.
Football outsiders rates the Vikings' defense as a below average unit, and right now I'd have to agree. It pains me to say that, because we've been really good on defense for 3-4 years now. But there has been a noticeable decline, and allowing 37 points to the Bears is the straw that breaks the camel's back. I really believe that if they could just rush the passer again, everything else would fall in line. The secondary would look better, offenses would be faced with more long-yardage situations, there would probably be more turnovers forced...it really does start with the defensive line. If they starting playing well again, everything else should fall into place. But if in a playoff game, Aaron Rodgers or Tony Romo or Kurt Warner were to be given ample time to throw the ball, the Vikings would probably be a quick out. They aren't good enough in the secondary to hold up forever against good QBs.
The bright side is this is correctable. The talent is already in place on the roster, and it just needs to start playing up to its capability again. Jared Allen needs to start rushing from the outside again, and Kevin Williams needs to start rushing from the inside again. Do that, and everything else should fall into place. This team still has the talent and capability of making the Super Bowl, they just need to start playing like it again. Hopefully they bottomed out at halftime (keep in mind they outscored Chicago 30-14 in the 2nd half, which should always lead to victory) tonight, and the 2nd half will be what carries over.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
And the pendulum swings again
Back in 2006, the AFC was undoubtedly the superior conference. The Colts ended up winning the Super Bowl, but the Patriots and Ravens were also good enough to do that, but they each lost to the Colts. The NFC winner that season was the Bears, who endured a mostly horrible Rex Grossman season and still earned home field advantage. Who can forget some of the horrible Rex outings that the Bears still ended up winning (I don't know which was my favorite, his 6 turnover game against Arizona, or his 0 QB rating against Minnesota). The Saints finished 10-6 and got a first round bye that season. The AFC was by far the superior conference.
That is no longer the case. As always happens in sports (AL to NL, East to West), the balance of power has shifted to the NFC. All 6 teams in the NFC playoffs will have at least 10 wins (remember how the '06 Saints had 10 wins and a first round bye?), and I believe any of the 6 teams could make the Super Bowl. Over in the AFC, two wild card spots are still open, and it's possible an 8-8 team could make the playoffs in the AFC. The Bengals have won the AFC North, but have been mostly unimpressive for the past month or so. The Patriots have been uninspiring this season, yet they'll roll in with 11 wins most likely. Just a couple of weeks ago, teams like the Jets and Texans seemed dead; now they are very much in it. And while I believe all 6 NFC teams are also Super Bowl contenders, I would be shocked if anyone other than Indianapolis or San Diego makes the Super Bowl out of the AFC. New England only seems to play really well in spurts, the Bengals don't have nearly a good enough passing game, and who knows who the wild card teams will be.
It's just interesting to me to watch this transformation happen. I can remember when the NFC was basically a joke, and the AFC had all of the strong teams. Lovie Smith can thank his long coaching tenure in Chicago to the NFC's weakness in 2006; the Bears haven't made the playoffs since, and he'd be long out of a job if not for that Super Bowl run. Back then, the Giants made the playoffs at 8-8 and the Eagles made it the 2nd round with Jeff Garcia at QB. Those days are long gone, and the AFC now has some of these issues. The middle of the AFC is extremely mushy, and the power resides all at the top with the Colts and Chargers. It should make for a very fun playoff in the NFC, and a very boring opening round for the AFC. How does Bengals-Jets sound to you? Or Patriots-Texans?
BY THE WAY...
I just want to point out that in the preseason, I pegged the Bengals as the most likely bad team from a year ago to make the playoffs this year but I didn't trust their defense. Whoops, that's actually the strength of the team. It's their passing game you can't trust; Palmer threw for 90 yards against Minnesota and 130 today against Kansas City. They have no deep threat in the passing game, so every possession is a struggle down the field. As morbid as it may be to say this, they really miss Chris Henry and his ability to stretch the field. Chad Johnson, Laveraneus Coles and Andre Caldwell are all possession receivers at this point.
I'm just glad that the day has finially come when the Bengals and Cardinals are both playoff teams. These were the two biggest laughingstocks during my childhood and into my adult life. A Bengals-Cardinals Super Bowl was unfathomable as recently as 2004, but it's now a possibility. I enjoy seeing new teams in the playoffs, so it's nice to see these teams doing well finally. Maybe by 2019 we can call a Lions-Browns Super Bowl a possibility.
That is no longer the case. As always happens in sports (AL to NL, East to West), the balance of power has shifted to the NFC. All 6 teams in the NFC playoffs will have at least 10 wins (remember how the '06 Saints had 10 wins and a first round bye?), and I believe any of the 6 teams could make the Super Bowl. Over in the AFC, two wild card spots are still open, and it's possible an 8-8 team could make the playoffs in the AFC. The Bengals have won the AFC North, but have been mostly unimpressive for the past month or so. The Patriots have been uninspiring this season, yet they'll roll in with 11 wins most likely. Just a couple of weeks ago, teams like the Jets and Texans seemed dead; now they are very much in it. And while I believe all 6 NFC teams are also Super Bowl contenders, I would be shocked if anyone other than Indianapolis or San Diego makes the Super Bowl out of the AFC. New England only seems to play really well in spurts, the Bengals don't have nearly a good enough passing game, and who knows who the wild card teams will be.
It's just interesting to me to watch this transformation happen. I can remember when the NFC was basically a joke, and the AFC had all of the strong teams. Lovie Smith can thank his long coaching tenure in Chicago to the NFC's weakness in 2006; the Bears haven't made the playoffs since, and he'd be long out of a job if not for that Super Bowl run. Back then, the Giants made the playoffs at 8-8 and the Eagles made it the 2nd round with Jeff Garcia at QB. Those days are long gone, and the AFC now has some of these issues. The middle of the AFC is extremely mushy, and the power resides all at the top with the Colts and Chargers. It should make for a very fun playoff in the NFC, and a very boring opening round for the AFC. How does Bengals-Jets sound to you? Or Patriots-Texans?
BY THE WAY...
I just want to point out that in the preseason, I pegged the Bengals as the most likely bad team from a year ago to make the playoffs this year but I didn't trust their defense. Whoops, that's actually the strength of the team. It's their passing game you can't trust; Palmer threw for 90 yards against Minnesota and 130 today against Kansas City. They have no deep threat in the passing game, so every possession is a struggle down the field. As morbid as it may be to say this, they really miss Chris Henry and his ability to stretch the field. Chad Johnson, Laveraneus Coles and Andre Caldwell are all possession receivers at this point.
I'm just glad that the day has finially come when the Bengals and Cardinals are both playoff teams. These were the two biggest laughingstocks during my childhood and into my adult life. A Bengals-Cardinals Super Bowl was unfathomable as recently as 2004, but it's now a possibility. I enjoy seeing new teams in the playoffs, so it's nice to see these teams doing well finally. Maybe by 2019 we can call a Lions-Browns Super Bowl a possibility.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Adventures in game management: "playing it safe"
The Titans on Sunday had the Dolphins pinned at their own 2 yard line with 56 seconds left in regulation. They possessed all three timeouts, yet elected to allow Miami to run out the clock and go to overtime. Why not take your timeouts, try and force Miami to punt deep in their own end, and try to win the game in regulation? I have no idea, but Fisher decided he was okay with overtime. Was he really worried that the Dolphins would drive from their own 2 into field goal range in 56 seconds? I guess that's what he's afraid of, but chances are the Dolphins are just going to run the ball, meaning the likelihood of a big play is minimal. It's doubtful they'd have Chad Henne drop back in his own end zone with the game on the line, although you never know.
What really bothers me, though, is the idea that playing for overtime, as Fisher did, is "playing it safe." What in the hell is so safe about overtime? I personally hate overtime, and would avoid it at all costs. You aren't guaranteed a possession in overtime, and a freaking coin toss actually plays a role in deciding how the game is ended. A coin toss! And yet there are people who defend this insanity, including the NFL, which has done nothing to end the outrageousness of a coin toss deciding anything. So with that said, what is so safe about overtime? Nothing; you aren't guaranteed a damn thing in overtime. So coaches should do everything in their power to avoid it.
I firmly believe that if you score a TD with under a minute to go in regulation, and a 2 point conversion wins the game, that you should go for that 2 point conversion. I would much rather put the ball in my offense's hands and let them win the game, even if it is only a one-shot opportunity, and 2 point conversions are, at best, a 50/50 proposition. I don't care; at least with a 2 point conversion my offense has the ball. In overtime, the other team can win the toss, drive the ball a measly 30-40 yards and win the game on a field goal. I'll pass, thank you. Just give me the damn ball and one opportunity to win it. Not to mention that even if you miss the 2 point conversion, you always have a chance at recovering the onside kick. This actually happened in a college game this season; Michigan St. lost to Central Michigan (I believe) after Central Michigan missed the 2 point conversion to tie the game, but recovered the onside kick and drove into field goal range.
I have to believe that if you favor playing for overtime, that you do so only because that's the way it's always been done. Bronko Nagurski didn't go for no 2 point conversion, and neither will you. That kind of thinking drives me insane, and I really see no benefit to playing for overtime. Obviously if you end up in overtime, then you have to just try and win it there. But coaches should do everything in their power to avoid it. Call timeouts, try and get in field goal range, go for 2 and the win, whatever it takes. There is nothing "safe" about overtime.
What really bothers me, though, is the idea that playing for overtime, as Fisher did, is "playing it safe." What in the hell is so safe about overtime? I personally hate overtime, and would avoid it at all costs. You aren't guaranteed a possession in overtime, and a freaking coin toss actually plays a role in deciding how the game is ended. A coin toss! And yet there are people who defend this insanity, including the NFL, which has done nothing to end the outrageousness of a coin toss deciding anything. So with that said, what is so safe about overtime? Nothing; you aren't guaranteed a damn thing in overtime. So coaches should do everything in their power to avoid it.
I firmly believe that if you score a TD with under a minute to go in regulation, and a 2 point conversion wins the game, that you should go for that 2 point conversion. I would much rather put the ball in my offense's hands and let them win the game, even if it is only a one-shot opportunity, and 2 point conversions are, at best, a 50/50 proposition. I don't care; at least with a 2 point conversion my offense has the ball. In overtime, the other team can win the toss, drive the ball a measly 30-40 yards and win the game on a field goal. I'll pass, thank you. Just give me the damn ball and one opportunity to win it. Not to mention that even if you miss the 2 point conversion, you always have a chance at recovering the onside kick. This actually happened in a college game this season; Michigan St. lost to Central Michigan (I believe) after Central Michigan missed the 2 point conversion to tie the game, but recovered the onside kick and drove into field goal range.
I have to believe that if you favor playing for overtime, that you do so only because that's the way it's always been done. Bronko Nagurski didn't go for no 2 point conversion, and neither will you. That kind of thinking drives me insane, and I really see no benefit to playing for overtime. Obviously if you end up in overtime, then you have to just try and win it there. But coaches should do everything in their power to avoid it. Call timeouts, try and get in field goal range, go for 2 and the win, whatever it takes. There is nothing "safe" about overtime.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
The Heist-man Trophy
Yes, that's my clever name for Mark Ingram stealing the Heisman tonight. Feel free to use that one.
I yearn for the day when we all stop taking the Heisman seriously. Once again, it has gone to a QB or RB on the best team. The last time it didn't go to a player fitting that description was Ron Dayne, who's Wisconsin team won the Big Ten (but wasn't part of the national title hunt), and who set the collegiate record for rushing yards in a career. The Heisman is fraught with so many biases that it's a joke to even consider it a serious award.
This isn't to say that Mark Ingram is a bad player, and actually this doesn't rate among the worst Heisman votes (Gino Toretta will forever hold that distinction). But there's no way an objective observer would say Ingram was THE best player in college football. 5 years from now, we might not even say he was the best RB on Alabama's roster (that may be Trent Richardson). If you had to pick a RB to win this award, it was Toby Gerhart. But if you truly wanted to pick the best player in college football, it was Ndamukong Suh, and frankly it wasn't close. Suh is the best collegiate defender I've seen since probably Terrell Suggs at Arizona State, when he racked up 20 sacks in one season. The fact that Suh finished behind Colt McCoy is a disagrace. Didn't we all just a week ago see Suh kick the ever-living shit out of Colt McCoy? Seriously, I want the names of the people who watched that game and still felt that McCoy was a better football player than Suh.
Speaking of names that I want, I want to know the 43 people who gave first-place votes to Tim Tebow. Tebow has had a great college career, and I don't question the Heisman that he did win. But there's just no way Tebow was the best college football player this season. This is not a career achievement award, this is the best player of this season. Tebow was not that guy. Anyone who voted for him was handing out a career achievement, and those people should be barred from voting. I am not even close to kidding about that; we need to weed the idiots who decide Suh can't win the Heisman because he plays DT, or who think Tebow should win it because of his career achievements.
I do feel like we're making progress with the Heisman. Sophomores have now won it 3 years in a row, which is saying something since no underclassman had ever won it before this run. Gerhart finishing 2nd on an 8-4 Stanford team is progress. Suh even being invited is progress. However, you still see the stupid biases pop out with Colt McCoy and Tim Tebow being invited. The three best college QBs this season, in my opinion, were Case Keenum, Jimmy Clausen and Kellen Moore at Boise St. McCoy struggled badly against the best defenses he faced this season (Oklahoma and Nebraska, and hey guess what, Alabama can play little D as well). Tebow had what was basically a good but not great season. But because of their name value, and their team's high rankings they were invited to New York and received numerous first place votes.
You really have to wonder what it will take for a defensive player to ever win it again. I know Charles Woodson won the Heisman, but that is such an extreme anomaly that it shouldn't even be considered. It's like judging Tony Delk's NBA career based on his 50 point game; it's so out of line that's it ridiculous to even consider it. Suh had a lot of things going in his favor. It was a weak Heisman field with no real standouts, and he had just dominated on national TV a week before the vote. If a defensive player can't win it with his production, and such a dominant performance still fresh in people's minds, then you really have to wonder what it will take for a defensive player to ever win it again. Terrell Suggs and his 20+ sacks in one season didn't even get him a sniff of Heisman acclaim. What really saddens me is that Suh's dominant performance came against Texas and Colt McCoy, and yet the majority of voters STILL felt that McCoy was more deserving of the Heisman. Who in the hell are these people?
Ndamukong Suh was the best player in college football this season. The fact that he didn't win the Heisman shows what a disgrace that award is. What's funny, at least to me, is that most of the Heisman voters would probably tell you that you shouldn't vote for a president based on superficial things like race, religion, or sexual orientation. But they'll turn right around and vote on the Heisman based on superificial things like the player's team's won-loss record, his position and his career achievements. I really hate these people. And I still want to know the 43 people who voted Tim Tebow first on their Heisman ballot.
I yearn for the day when we all stop taking the Heisman seriously. Once again, it has gone to a QB or RB on the best team. The last time it didn't go to a player fitting that description was Ron Dayne, who's Wisconsin team won the Big Ten (but wasn't part of the national title hunt), and who set the collegiate record for rushing yards in a career. The Heisman is fraught with so many biases that it's a joke to even consider it a serious award.
This isn't to say that Mark Ingram is a bad player, and actually this doesn't rate among the worst Heisman votes (Gino Toretta will forever hold that distinction). But there's no way an objective observer would say Ingram was THE best player in college football. 5 years from now, we might not even say he was the best RB on Alabama's roster (that may be Trent Richardson). If you had to pick a RB to win this award, it was Toby Gerhart. But if you truly wanted to pick the best player in college football, it was Ndamukong Suh, and frankly it wasn't close. Suh is the best collegiate defender I've seen since probably Terrell Suggs at Arizona State, when he racked up 20 sacks in one season. The fact that Suh finished behind Colt McCoy is a disagrace. Didn't we all just a week ago see Suh kick the ever-living shit out of Colt McCoy? Seriously, I want the names of the people who watched that game and still felt that McCoy was a better football player than Suh.
Speaking of names that I want, I want to know the 43 people who gave first-place votes to Tim Tebow. Tebow has had a great college career, and I don't question the Heisman that he did win. But there's just no way Tebow was the best college football player this season. This is not a career achievement award, this is the best player of this season. Tebow was not that guy. Anyone who voted for him was handing out a career achievement, and those people should be barred from voting. I am not even close to kidding about that; we need to weed the idiots who decide Suh can't win the Heisman because he plays DT, or who think Tebow should win it because of his career achievements.
I do feel like we're making progress with the Heisman. Sophomores have now won it 3 years in a row, which is saying something since no underclassman had ever won it before this run. Gerhart finishing 2nd on an 8-4 Stanford team is progress. Suh even being invited is progress. However, you still see the stupid biases pop out with Colt McCoy and Tim Tebow being invited. The three best college QBs this season, in my opinion, were Case Keenum, Jimmy Clausen and Kellen Moore at Boise St. McCoy struggled badly against the best defenses he faced this season (Oklahoma and Nebraska, and hey guess what, Alabama can play little D as well). Tebow had what was basically a good but not great season. But because of their name value, and their team's high rankings they were invited to New York and received numerous first place votes.
You really have to wonder what it will take for a defensive player to ever win it again. I know Charles Woodson won the Heisman, but that is such an extreme anomaly that it shouldn't even be considered. It's like judging Tony Delk's NBA career based on his 50 point game; it's so out of line that's it ridiculous to even consider it. Suh had a lot of things going in his favor. It was a weak Heisman field with no real standouts, and he had just dominated on national TV a week before the vote. If a defensive player can't win it with his production, and such a dominant performance still fresh in people's minds, then you really have to wonder what it will take for a defensive player to ever win it again. Terrell Suggs and his 20+ sacks in one season didn't even get him a sniff of Heisman acclaim. What really saddens me is that Suh's dominant performance came against Texas and Colt McCoy, and yet the majority of voters STILL felt that McCoy was more deserving of the Heisman. Who in the hell are these people?
Ndamukong Suh was the best player in college football this season. The fact that he didn't win the Heisman shows what a disgrace that award is. What's funny, at least to me, is that most of the Heisman voters would probably tell you that you shouldn't vote for a president based on superficial things like race, religion, or sexual orientation. But they'll turn right around and vote on the Heisman based on superificial things like the player's team's won-loss record, his position and his career achievements. I really hate these people. And I still want to know the 43 people who voted Tim Tebow first on their Heisman ballot.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Brian Kelly to coach Notre Dame
So Notre Dame hired Brian Kelly today, and it's as good of a hire as they could have made. Bob Stoops and Urban Meyer never were attainable, so Kelly is the best coach available. This is a guy who has been successful everywhere he's gone, and has been ridiculously successful at Cincinnati. That's a basketball school that is now going to its second consecutive BCS bowl game. The circumstances at Notre Dame are different than anywhere he's been, but I think he'll be good for this team. Time will tell, though. Both Willingham and Weis got off to rousing starts, and they lasted 3 and 5 years, respectively. You just never know with these things.
Apparently there are a lot of people in Cincinnati upset about how this went down. I guess they don't feel Kelly was "forthright" about what was going on. Can I just say something about this? Give me a FUCKING break people. Receiver Mardy Gilyard said something to the effect of, he took the money. Well yeah, no shit. And when you go to the NFL, it'll be about the money as well. But the fact of the matter is, Notre Dame offers more than Cincinnati can. Look at what the Bearcats have done this season. Undefeated season in a BCS conference. Are they playing for a national title? They are not, and that's because nobody respects Cincinnati. If he goes undefeated at Notre Dame, I guarantee he'll be playing for a national title. I'm sorry that they're losing their coach before a big BCS game against Florida, but this is an opprotunity Kelly can't pass up. It may not be ideal how coaches can come and go so easily in college football, but this is the world we live in. It happens all the time, and anyone shocked by this has been living under a rock.
By the way, the Steelers lost to the Browns tonight and have now lost to the Chiefs, Raiders and Browns. I don't know if I've ever seen such a good team lose to such bad teams. What the hell is going on there? This team won the Super Bowl a year ago. I know Polomalu has been out, but he's not THAT damn valuable. I think if the Lions played the Chiefs, Raiders and Browns in a 4 week span, they might win one of them. And the Steelers lost all three. Mike Tomlin is still a good coach, right? Ben Roethlisberger is still a good QB, right? This is unbelievable. The Bengals have all but clinched the AFC North at this point. Pittsburgh cannot win the division, and Baltimore has to win out with Cincinnati losing out. Who had the Bengals clinching the division by week 15? Who even had the Bengals above .500?
Apparently there are a lot of people in Cincinnati upset about how this went down. I guess they don't feel Kelly was "forthright" about what was going on. Can I just say something about this? Give me a FUCKING break people. Receiver Mardy Gilyard said something to the effect of, he took the money. Well yeah, no shit. And when you go to the NFL, it'll be about the money as well. But the fact of the matter is, Notre Dame offers more than Cincinnati can. Look at what the Bearcats have done this season. Undefeated season in a BCS conference. Are they playing for a national title? They are not, and that's because nobody respects Cincinnati. If he goes undefeated at Notre Dame, I guarantee he'll be playing for a national title. I'm sorry that they're losing their coach before a big BCS game against Florida, but this is an opprotunity Kelly can't pass up. It may not be ideal how coaches can come and go so easily in college football, but this is the world we live in. It happens all the time, and anyone shocked by this has been living under a rock.
By the way, the Steelers lost to the Browns tonight and have now lost to the Chiefs, Raiders and Browns. I don't know if I've ever seen such a good team lose to such bad teams. What the hell is going on there? This team won the Super Bowl a year ago. I know Polomalu has been out, but he's not THAT damn valuable. I think if the Lions played the Chiefs, Raiders and Browns in a 4 week span, they might win one of them. And the Steelers lost all three. Mike Tomlin is still a good coach, right? Ben Roethlisberger is still a good QB, right? This is unbelievable. The Bengals have all but clinched the AFC North at this point. Pittsburgh cannot win the division, and Baltimore has to win out with Cincinnati losing out. Who had the Bengals clinching the division by week 15? Who even had the Bengals above .500?
Monday, December 7, 2009
Thoughts on the NFL
- The Vikings played a terrible game last night, and Arizona showed that they are a contender in the NFC. For some reason, Arizona doesn't always play up to their potential every week, but when they do they can take down the Vikings or Saints. That is a team I don't want to see again in the postseason. Give me the Cowboys, Eagles, Packers or Giants every day over facing the Cardinals again. I hope they get the 3 seed in the NFC, and face the Saints if they win in the first round. That offense is frightening, and defensively they've improved from a year ago.
- I feel depressed that the Jaguars are the 6 seed in the AFC right now. This is a team that hasn't sold out a single home game this season, and right now they're headed to the postseason. Can nobody in the AFC knock them out? The Texans are a better team, but laid an egg yesterday. Seriously, the Jaguars lost to the Seahawks and 49ers this season; this is not a playoff-caliber team. And yet, here they are at 7-5. They play the Dolphins this week, and already own tiebreaker over the Jets by beating them earlier this year. What does this team do well? If they were to play San Diego in the first round, I feel like they'd lose 42-10.
- The Patriots have the most underrated bad secondary in the NFL right now, and Tom Brady is playing at a B level when they need him at an A. Those interceptions he threw yesterday were horrific, and the one in the end zone probably cost the Patriots the game. All of a sudden the AFC East is wide open, with the Jets and Dolphins only a game out. Remember in week 1 when the Patriots had to come back in the 4th quarter to beat the freaking Bills? That's the only thing keeping them above .500 at the moment.
- The Steelers should hang their heads in shame this season. An Oakland passing game that hasn't shown life in, oh, 7 years or so puts together 21 points and 3 TD passes to beat the Steelers in Pittsburgh. Absolutely shameful on the part of the Steelers. They kept re-taking the lead in the 4th quarter, but their defense kept giving it right back. When Bruce Gradkowski throws for over 300 yards, and Louis Murphy has over 100 yards receiving against you, you know you have problems. Kudos to the Raiders, though, for actually showing up and competing. It would have been very easy to step off the bus in frosty Pittsburgh and mentally pack it in until they got back to California, but they were in that game the whole time. Gradkowski is certainly not great, and I don't think he's a longterm answer, but he at least gives the Raiders a fighting chance. No way do the Raiders win yesterday with Russell playing.
Oh, and did I mention the Steelers also lost to the Chiefs a couple weeks ago? They're going to miss the playoffs because they lost to Oakland and Kansas City, which is pretty unbelievable.
- Speaking of the Chiefs, that is one horribly constructed roster. They have two top-10 picks on the defensive line who do nothing. They traded a 2nd round pick for Matt Cassel, and then gave him a big contract extension, and he's not any better than the backup they had all along, Brodie Croyle. The only nice thing I can say about the Chiefs right now is that their rookie kicker Ryan Succop looks like a keeper. Otherwise, what a mess. Cassel put together a few nice games against weak competition last year (remember, the Patriots played the AFC and NFC West last season), and all of a sudden he's worth a $60M extension. They'll probably bypass a QB in the draft because of his presence, which will set the franchise back even further.
- I am so sick and tired of officials abusing the replay system that I'm about ready to turn on it altogether and wish we would go back to the way it was. Sure, the way it was wasn't always correct, but at least then the officials had an excuse for making bad calls. Now they go under the curtain and still screw it up. Yesterday, the Saints won in OT largely because of a replay reversal in which Mike Sellers was maybe down/maybe not. The fact that it's inconclusive should of course leave the call on the field, but nooooo this official took the game into his own hands and overturned it. I have seen so many calls this season that were inconclusive get overturned, that I have about had it with replay. Indiana got screwed twice against Iowa, Notre Dame got screwed against Pittsburgh, Washington got screwed yesterday against the Saints, and I know there are other examples that I can't think of right off the top of my head. The bottom line is, this sucks. Officials need to realize that they need INDISPUTABLE VISUAL EVIDENCE to overturn a call. You would have had to have been a Saints fan, or betting on the Saints to say Mike Sellers was indisputably not down and the ball was coming out. The ball may have been coming out, but it also may not have; that's what makes it disputable. I felt dirty having a game decided on a call like that; it made me feel the NBA where referees sometimes make such egregious calls that you think they have to be betting on the games (example; Miami vs. Dallas, 2006 Finals).
- And finally, the award for dumbest motherfucker on the planet goes to Vikings' coach Brad Childress, who kept his starters in the entire 4th quarter of a 27-10, then 30-10 ballgame. Because of this, his team lost E.J. Henderson, although having the defensive starters on the field then was understandable. What was not understandable, and what gives Childress this award, was having his offense on the field when the game was 30-10 with about 4 minutes to go. Really Brad, you're overcoming that deficit? More likely is Favre getting hurt, or Sidney Rice getting hurt, or Peterson getting hurt, or a lineman getting hurt. I honestly could have punched that son of a bitch when I saw the starting offense coming on the field. Just put in Jackson and a couple backup receivers, let them get some work and call it day. The game was over, and yet Childress still had his offense out there, and he even called a timeout like the game was still in doubt. Had a key starter gotten hurt, he'd have hell to pay. He should anyways for even risking it. Dumbest motherfucker on the planet.
- I feel depressed that the Jaguars are the 6 seed in the AFC right now. This is a team that hasn't sold out a single home game this season, and right now they're headed to the postseason. Can nobody in the AFC knock them out? The Texans are a better team, but laid an egg yesterday. Seriously, the Jaguars lost to the Seahawks and 49ers this season; this is not a playoff-caliber team. And yet, here they are at 7-5. They play the Dolphins this week, and already own tiebreaker over the Jets by beating them earlier this year. What does this team do well? If they were to play San Diego in the first round, I feel like they'd lose 42-10.
- The Patriots have the most underrated bad secondary in the NFL right now, and Tom Brady is playing at a B level when they need him at an A. Those interceptions he threw yesterday were horrific, and the one in the end zone probably cost the Patriots the game. All of a sudden the AFC East is wide open, with the Jets and Dolphins only a game out. Remember in week 1 when the Patriots had to come back in the 4th quarter to beat the freaking Bills? That's the only thing keeping them above .500 at the moment.
- The Steelers should hang their heads in shame this season. An Oakland passing game that hasn't shown life in, oh, 7 years or so puts together 21 points and 3 TD passes to beat the Steelers in Pittsburgh. Absolutely shameful on the part of the Steelers. They kept re-taking the lead in the 4th quarter, but their defense kept giving it right back. When Bruce Gradkowski throws for over 300 yards, and Louis Murphy has over 100 yards receiving against you, you know you have problems. Kudos to the Raiders, though, for actually showing up and competing. It would have been very easy to step off the bus in frosty Pittsburgh and mentally pack it in until they got back to California, but they were in that game the whole time. Gradkowski is certainly not great, and I don't think he's a longterm answer, but he at least gives the Raiders a fighting chance. No way do the Raiders win yesterday with Russell playing.
Oh, and did I mention the Steelers also lost to the Chiefs a couple weeks ago? They're going to miss the playoffs because they lost to Oakland and Kansas City, which is pretty unbelievable.
- Speaking of the Chiefs, that is one horribly constructed roster. They have two top-10 picks on the defensive line who do nothing. They traded a 2nd round pick for Matt Cassel, and then gave him a big contract extension, and he's not any better than the backup they had all along, Brodie Croyle. The only nice thing I can say about the Chiefs right now is that their rookie kicker Ryan Succop looks like a keeper. Otherwise, what a mess. Cassel put together a few nice games against weak competition last year (remember, the Patriots played the AFC and NFC West last season), and all of a sudden he's worth a $60M extension. They'll probably bypass a QB in the draft because of his presence, which will set the franchise back even further.
- I am so sick and tired of officials abusing the replay system that I'm about ready to turn on it altogether and wish we would go back to the way it was. Sure, the way it was wasn't always correct, but at least then the officials had an excuse for making bad calls. Now they go under the curtain and still screw it up. Yesterday, the Saints won in OT largely because of a replay reversal in which Mike Sellers was maybe down/maybe not. The fact that it's inconclusive should of course leave the call on the field, but nooooo this official took the game into his own hands and overturned it. I have seen so many calls this season that were inconclusive get overturned, that I have about had it with replay. Indiana got screwed twice against Iowa, Notre Dame got screwed against Pittsburgh, Washington got screwed yesterday against the Saints, and I know there are other examples that I can't think of right off the top of my head. The bottom line is, this sucks. Officials need to realize that they need INDISPUTABLE VISUAL EVIDENCE to overturn a call. You would have had to have been a Saints fan, or betting on the Saints to say Mike Sellers was indisputably not down and the ball was coming out. The ball may have been coming out, but it also may not have; that's what makes it disputable. I felt dirty having a game decided on a call like that; it made me feel the NBA where referees sometimes make such egregious calls that you think they have to be betting on the games (example; Miami vs. Dallas, 2006 Finals).
- And finally, the award for dumbest motherfucker on the planet goes to Vikings' coach Brad Childress, who kept his starters in the entire 4th quarter of a 27-10, then 30-10 ballgame. Because of this, his team lost E.J. Henderson, although having the defensive starters on the field then was understandable. What was not understandable, and what gives Childress this award, was having his offense on the field when the game was 30-10 with about 4 minutes to go. Really Brad, you're overcoming that deficit? More likely is Favre getting hurt, or Sidney Rice getting hurt, or Peterson getting hurt, or a lineman getting hurt. I honestly could have punched that son of a bitch when I saw the starting offense coming on the field. Just put in Jackson and a couple backup receivers, let them get some work and call it day. The game was over, and yet Childress still had his offense out there, and he even called a timeout like the game was still in doubt. Had a key starter gotten hurt, he'd have hell to pay. He should anyways for even risking it. Dumbest motherfucker on the planet.
Big day in Notre Dame news
Jimmy Clausen and Golden Tate announced today that they're entering the NFL Draft. It's a good decision by both of them; there's no reason to risk your professional future. When you have a chance to go make NFL millions, you do it. You don't want to be like Sam Bradford and Jermaine Gresham, two Oklahoma stars who could have potentially been first round picks a year ago but came back for another year. Both suffered through injuries, and now both come with serious question marks to NFL teams. You've got to strike while the iron is hot.
I think Clausen is a first round pick, and personally I like him better than any other QB who could be in this draft. I think he does everything Sam Bradford does, except better. And he's a better, more polished passer than Jake Locker. Maybe Locker can throw a football further (although Clausen has plenty of arm strength), and Locker is definitely a better athlete, but Locker isn't nearly as accurate as Clausen. My only criticism of Clausen is his lack of mobility, but I don't think it's a huge problem. Otherwise he's a great passer, and I would love to have him at the pro level.
I'm not sure what to make of Tate. He was obviously a great college player, and his run-after-catch ability reminds me of Greg Jennings. I don't think his straight-line speed is tremendous, and he's not very tall at 5'11", but he's got strong hands and he runs with the physicality of a RB in the open field. I think he's probably a 2nd or 3rd round pick, and we'll see how he runs at the Combine and his pro day.
In coaching news, the names now are Cincinnati's Brian Kelly and Stanford's Jim Harbaugh. Between those two, I would definitely choose Kelly. What he's done at Cincinnati is remarkable (seriously, an undefeated season at Cincy?), and he's been a success everywhere he's gone. My only concern is his Cincy teams aren't that good defensively, and I was hoping Notre Dame would go with a defensive coach. But with TCU's Gary Patterson now off the table, the best available coach probably is Kelly, and I could not argue with that hire at all. Harbaugh's done a pretty good job at Stanford as well, but his personality is abrasive and I wonder how he would fit in with the Notre Dame culture. I know he's made comments critical of Michigan before, and he ran up the score against USC a couple weeks ago. I feel like his personality is not a good fit for this school. Kelly is an Irish-Catholic, which makes him a natural fit.
I think Clausen is a first round pick, and personally I like him better than any other QB who could be in this draft. I think he does everything Sam Bradford does, except better. And he's a better, more polished passer than Jake Locker. Maybe Locker can throw a football further (although Clausen has plenty of arm strength), and Locker is definitely a better athlete, but Locker isn't nearly as accurate as Clausen. My only criticism of Clausen is his lack of mobility, but I don't think it's a huge problem. Otherwise he's a great passer, and I would love to have him at the pro level.
I'm not sure what to make of Tate. He was obviously a great college player, and his run-after-catch ability reminds me of Greg Jennings. I don't think his straight-line speed is tremendous, and he's not very tall at 5'11", but he's got strong hands and he runs with the physicality of a RB in the open field. I think he's probably a 2nd or 3rd round pick, and we'll see how he runs at the Combine and his pro day.
In coaching news, the names now are Cincinnati's Brian Kelly and Stanford's Jim Harbaugh. Between those two, I would definitely choose Kelly. What he's done at Cincinnati is remarkable (seriously, an undefeated season at Cincy?), and he's been a success everywhere he's gone. My only concern is his Cincy teams aren't that good defensively, and I was hoping Notre Dame would go with a defensive coach. But with TCU's Gary Patterson now off the table, the best available coach probably is Kelly, and I could not argue with that hire at all. Harbaugh's done a pretty good job at Stanford as well, but his personality is abrasive and I wonder how he would fit in with the Notre Dame culture. I know he's made comments critical of Michigan before, and he ran up the score against USC a couple weeks ago. I feel like his personality is not a good fit for this school. Kelly is an Irish-Catholic, which makes him a natural fit.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Other thoughts
* I've been one of Vince Young's biggest critics, and rightfully so; he threw 9 TDs and 17 INTs a couple years ago. But he looks greatly improved this season, and a 99 yard drive to win the game is unbelievable. You know what the real story in Tennessee is, though? The turnaround on defense. That teams was horrid on defense earlier this year. Tom Brady threw 5 TDs in the 2nd quarter against them, and teams were getting big plays against them every week. Now they're playing much better and keeping teams to around 20 points, which gives their offense a chance to win. It's hard to believe a team can change so much in a span of 5 games, but Tennessee has done a complete 180. Vince Young has given them a spark on offense, Chris Johnson is the best back in football, and their defense is playing much better. I still have a hard time believing they'll make the playoffs (going from 0-6 to 10-6 would be unprecedented), but they've at least made it interesting. Hard to believe after they lost to New England 59-0.
* After watching the Texans blow a 17-0 and then 20-7 halftime lead, I thought, "I would hate to be a fan of the Texans." Then I remembered that I root for the Texans of college football, Notre Dame. The Texans just keep finding ways to lose. Kris Brown misses field goals that can send consecutive games to overtime, then they dominate the Colts for a half and blow it in the 2nd half. They just cannot get over the hump, and just like Notre Dame I don't think their coach is going to survive this. This is the second straight year that Houston has been so close and yet so far away. Since Kubiak can't get them over the hump, I expect them to find a new coach who will.
* A week after thinking that maybe Jay Cutler really does suck, I went back to feeling bad for him today. That offensive line is horrid. Yes, that deserves italics. Orlando Pace is an absolute stiff; Jared Allen doesn't often use a bull rush, but today he was consistently pushing Pace into Cutler's lap. They open no holes in the run game for Matt Forte. And Jerry Angelo has given him a bunch of catch-and-run receivers who have no capability of going up and getting a football. Those guys will not a catch pass downfield unless Cutler drops it right in there. I like their rookie Johnny Knox, but the rest of those receivers are replaceable. Get Cutler a Brandon Marshall-type, please; or for Minnesota's sake, don't. They can just keep tackling those underneath routes.
* I have fun watching players, and then wondering why teams passed them up in the draft, or took other players ahead of them from the same position. For example, I saw Sidney Rice make more big plays today for Minnesota, and I was reminded that the Dolphins drafted Ted Ginn Jr. 9th overall that year. In retrospect, that is absolutely insane. Look at Darrius Heyward-Bey and tell me he's better than fellow rookies Michael Crabtree, Jeremy Maclin, Percy Harvin, Kenny Britt, Hakeem Nicks, Mike Wallace or Johnny Knox. You would have to be extremely biased to think he's even close to any of them. Or how about Cincinnati improving greatly while getting absolutely nothing out of their first round pick, Andre Smith? Sometimes I wonder why we care so much about the draft when it's so obviously a crapshoot. Oh yeah, I do know; because it's fun.
* Speaking of Cincinatti, they must have the best run-blocking offensive line in the league. First Cedric Benson resurrects his carrer there, now Larry Johnson rushes for 100 yards, and an unknown rookie named Bernard Scott has ran well the past couple of weeks. It just doesn't matter who they put at RB, that team can run the football. It's quite amazing really, since most people probably couldn't name one of their lineman, and frankly I hardly can. This is like the Chiefs a few years ago, when they went from Priest Holmes to Larry Johnson to Derrick Blaylock and hardly skipped a beat.
* I don't want to pick on Raheem Morris too much, since it's not his fault that Tampa Bay promoted him too quickly to head coach. But Tampa Bay is tied with Cleveland and St. Louis for worst record in the league, and there is no way that talent-wise Tampa Bay should be down with those teams. I feel pretty confident in saying that if Jon Gruden were still coach they would not be 1-10 right now. They have more talent than the Browns and Rams, as well as the Lions and probably the Chiefs. And if you're ever wondering what signals there are for a coach who's in over his head, it's when he fires both of his coordinators in a season as Morris has this season.
* After watching the Texans blow a 17-0 and then 20-7 halftime lead, I thought, "I would hate to be a fan of the Texans." Then I remembered that I root for the Texans of college football, Notre Dame. The Texans just keep finding ways to lose. Kris Brown misses field goals that can send consecutive games to overtime, then they dominate the Colts for a half and blow it in the 2nd half. They just cannot get over the hump, and just like Notre Dame I don't think their coach is going to survive this. This is the second straight year that Houston has been so close and yet so far away. Since Kubiak can't get them over the hump, I expect them to find a new coach who will.
* A week after thinking that maybe Jay Cutler really does suck, I went back to feeling bad for him today. That offensive line is horrid. Yes, that deserves italics. Orlando Pace is an absolute stiff; Jared Allen doesn't often use a bull rush, but today he was consistently pushing Pace into Cutler's lap. They open no holes in the run game for Matt Forte. And Jerry Angelo has given him a bunch of catch-and-run receivers who have no capability of going up and getting a football. Those guys will not a catch pass downfield unless Cutler drops it right in there. I like their rookie Johnny Knox, but the rest of those receivers are replaceable. Get Cutler a Brandon Marshall-type, please; or for Minnesota's sake, don't. They can just keep tackling those underneath routes.
* I have fun watching players, and then wondering why teams passed them up in the draft, or took other players ahead of them from the same position. For example, I saw Sidney Rice make more big plays today for Minnesota, and I was reminded that the Dolphins drafted Ted Ginn Jr. 9th overall that year. In retrospect, that is absolutely insane. Look at Darrius Heyward-Bey and tell me he's better than fellow rookies Michael Crabtree, Jeremy Maclin, Percy Harvin, Kenny Britt, Hakeem Nicks, Mike Wallace or Johnny Knox. You would have to be extremely biased to think he's even close to any of them. Or how about Cincinnati improving greatly while getting absolutely nothing out of their first round pick, Andre Smith? Sometimes I wonder why we care so much about the draft when it's so obviously a crapshoot. Oh yeah, I do know; because it's fun.
* Speaking of Cincinatti, they must have the best run-blocking offensive line in the league. First Cedric Benson resurrects his carrer there, now Larry Johnson rushes for 100 yards, and an unknown rookie named Bernard Scott has ran well the past couple of weeks. It just doesn't matter who they put at RB, that team can run the football. It's quite amazing really, since most people probably couldn't name one of their lineman, and frankly I hardly can. This is like the Chiefs a few years ago, when they went from Priest Holmes to Larry Johnson to Derrick Blaylock and hardly skipped a beat.
* I don't want to pick on Raheem Morris too much, since it's not his fault that Tampa Bay promoted him too quickly to head coach. But Tampa Bay is tied with Cleveland and St. Louis for worst record in the league, and there is no way that talent-wise Tampa Bay should be down with those teams. I feel pretty confident in saying that if Jon Gruden were still coach they would not be 1-10 right now. They have more talent than the Browns and Rams, as well as the Lions and probably the Chiefs. And if you're ever wondering what signals there are for a coach who's in over his head, it's when he fires both of his coordinators in a season as Morris has this season.
This may not be a bold statement
Or maybe it is, since the '98 Vikings went 15-1, but this is the best Vikings team I've ever seen. I feel confident in saying that after today. That '98 team had one of the best, most dynamic offenses in NFL history, but it also had a fatal flaw; it wasn't very good on defense. That team's defense took advantage of the opponent getting behind early, which allowed Jimmy Hitchcock to intercept 7 passes. But when push came to shove, they couldn't stop Atlanta. Chris Chandler led an 80 yard drive to tie the NFC Championship Game, and then took Atlanta down the field to win the game in OT.
This team's defense, in an understatement, is better. This defense can win a Super Bowl; they rush the passer, stop the run and are even getting good secondary play without Antoine Winfield. There hasn't been a team yet to really take advantage of this, besides Baltimore (the first game that Winfield got injured). You need a good defense to win a Super Bowl, and this team has it.
What really separates this team, though, is that it also has a good offense. And good offense might also be an understatement; it might be great. Have I ever been more wrong about a player than I was about Favre? Probably not; he's been about 100X better than I thought he'd be. Peterson is actually not having that great of a season, but he's always dangerous. But then there's the developments in the receiving corps. Sidney Rice has zoomed right past becoming a good receiver and is a great receiver. Percy Harvin is impressive as well (another player I was wrong about). And Berrian was already a good receiver, and still is. Shiancoe became a good TE last season and has continued that. Chester Taylor is one of the league's better backup RBs. Understatement; this team has a lot of weapons.
So what is this team missing? The special teams are greatly improved. Ryan Longwell is a good, dependable kicker. Offense, defense, special teams? Check, check, check. The only weakness on this team is Childress' game management skills (he learned at the feet of Andy Reid, and it shows), but hopefully Favre's command of this offense will overwhelm that. I'm telling you, that '98 team was fantastic but the elephant in the room was always what would happen when the defense had to make a play. I no longer worry about that. Now my biggest worry is the head coach will challenge stupid plays, or punt on 4th and inches from the opponent's 40. It's a significant step forward. I think an NFC Championship Game between the Vikings and Saints would be a great game.
This team's defense, in an understatement, is better. This defense can win a Super Bowl; they rush the passer, stop the run and are even getting good secondary play without Antoine Winfield. There hasn't been a team yet to really take advantage of this, besides Baltimore (the first game that Winfield got injured). You need a good defense to win a Super Bowl, and this team has it.
What really separates this team, though, is that it also has a good offense. And good offense might also be an understatement; it might be great. Have I ever been more wrong about a player than I was about Favre? Probably not; he's been about 100X better than I thought he'd be. Peterson is actually not having that great of a season, but he's always dangerous. But then there's the developments in the receiving corps. Sidney Rice has zoomed right past becoming a good receiver and is a great receiver. Percy Harvin is impressive as well (another player I was wrong about). And Berrian was already a good receiver, and still is. Shiancoe became a good TE last season and has continued that. Chester Taylor is one of the league's better backup RBs. Understatement; this team has a lot of weapons.
So what is this team missing? The special teams are greatly improved. Ryan Longwell is a good, dependable kicker. Offense, defense, special teams? Check, check, check. The only weakness on this team is Childress' game management skills (he learned at the feet of Andy Reid, and it shows), but hopefully Favre's command of this offense will overwhelm that. I'm telling you, that '98 team was fantastic but the elephant in the room was always what would happen when the defense had to make a play. I no longer worry about that. Now my biggest worry is the head coach will challenge stupid plays, or punt on 4th and inches from the opponent's 40. It's a significant step forward. I think an NFC Championship Game between the Vikings and Saints would be a great game.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Les is mor...onic? Yeah, we'll go with that
Everyone is apalled with LSU's clock management at the end of their loss Saturday to Ole Miss. But you know what? We've been here before. I'll cut and paste:
LSU had 3:13 left, and they put themselves in good position to kick a game winning field goal on Auburn's 22 yard line. However, with a chance to make the kick and a timeout, LSU coach Les Miles chose to gamble (as he has so often during the year) and go for a touchdown. It turned out as he planned however, as LSU won on Matt Flinn's 22 yard pass to Demetrius Byrd. Miles later said he thought he had plenty of time, and reviews of the play verified that the pass was caught with 4 seconds remaining but the clock ran until the referee signaled TD with 1 second remaining.
Mike Holmgren is still upset that the Seahawks lost Steve Hutchinson back in 2006, and I can't blame the guy. Reading his account of what happened, Seattle GM Tim Ruskell comes off as a bumbling idiot (and judging by Seattle's results the past few years, that seems fair) and there was no reason for the Seahawks to lose Hutchinson. Holmgren thought they were going to franchise him, but instead they placed the transition tag on him, which gives them right of first refusal but no compensation. Does Minnesota sign Hutchinson if they have to surrender a first round pick or two? Probably not. But since there was no compensation involved, they signed Hutchinson to a poison pill contract that Seattle couldn't match. Holmgren says that he thought they were going to franchise Hutchinson, and there's no reason they shouldn't have. They wanted to re-sign the guy, and probably would have matched Minnesota's offer if not for it's poison pill. Seattle blew this big time, and somehow Ruskell still has a job. And don't even mention the Deion Branch trade...
LSU had 3:13 left, and they put themselves in good position to kick a game winning field goal on Auburn's 22 yard line. However, with a chance to make the kick and a timeout, LSU coach Les Miles chose to gamble (as he has so often during the year) and go for a touchdown. It turned out as he planned however, as LSU won on Matt Flinn's 22 yard pass to Demetrius Byrd. Miles later said he thought he had plenty of time, and reviews of the play verified that the pass was caught with 4 seconds remaining but the clock ran until the referee signaled TD with 1 second remaining.
This was back in 2007 during LSU's championship season. He risked a game-winning 40 yard field attempt to try a pass into the end zone. Had the clock run out, or something disastrous happened, Miles would have been murdered back then. But since it worked out, it was simply referred to as "controversial." Any LSU fans who were surprised by what happened on Saturday should have been reminded of what happened back in 2007; I know I remembered.
A Good Link I Found
http://sportsradiointerviews.com/2009/11/23/mike-homgren-is-still-not-pleased-about-seattle-losing-steve-hutchinson/Mike Holmgren is still upset that the Seahawks lost Steve Hutchinson back in 2006, and I can't blame the guy. Reading his account of what happened, Seattle GM Tim Ruskell comes off as a bumbling idiot (and judging by Seattle's results the past few years, that seems fair) and there was no reason for the Seahawks to lose Hutchinson. Holmgren thought they were going to franchise him, but instead they placed the transition tag on him, which gives them right of first refusal but no compensation. Does Minnesota sign Hutchinson if they have to surrender a first round pick or two? Probably not. But since there was no compensation involved, they signed Hutchinson to a poison pill contract that Seattle couldn't match. Holmgren says that he thought they were going to franchise Hutchinson, and there's no reason they shouldn't have. They wanted to re-sign the guy, and probably would have matched Minnesota's offer if not for it's poison pill. Seattle blew this big time, and somehow Ruskell still has a job. And don't even mention the Deion Branch trade...
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Is it wrong to revel in a team's slump?
Because I am enjoying Denver's current 4-game losing streak. I sensed all along that this team wasn't actually any good (remember that fluky win over Cincinnati? That's the only thing currently keeping them over .500), and they have really looked bad recently. San Diego just outclassed them today; it didn't feel like San Diego beat the shit out of them, as much as they were just simply better and over the course of the game showed them.
Even though I didn't mention it at the time, I knew subconsciously that McDaniels' celebration of that win over New England was a bad sign. As a coach, you cannot treat a win during the regular season as more than it is, and he celebrated like they had won the Super Bowl. I knew that was a bad sign, and now looks extremely foolish. I also knew their defense wasn't as good as it was playing, and they've come back to Earth. The fact is, this team never was a 6-0 caliber team, and now San Diego has officially passed them for the division lead.
Before the season started, I thought Denver was in a for a terrible 6-10 type season, and I was off. And maybe this is purely selfish on my part, but I don't care. This is not a playoff team, and it feels good to have that feeling justified during the season. I felt stupid when they started 6-0, but now that they're 6-4 I feel better.
One last thought; for as long as I live, I'll never understand why Kyle Orton was healthy enough to come in in the 2nd quarter, but not healthy enough to start. Huh? Is Josh McDaniels so arrogant that he thinks he can voluntarily play his backup QB and still beat San Diego? If you have a player healthy enough to play, then play him. That decision screams of unbridled arrogance, and I don't care what McDaniels has for an explanation, I will never accept it. Either you're starting QB can start, or he can't play.
Even though I didn't mention it at the time, I knew subconsciously that McDaniels' celebration of that win over New England was a bad sign. As a coach, you cannot treat a win during the regular season as more than it is, and he celebrated like they had won the Super Bowl. I knew that was a bad sign, and now looks extremely foolish. I also knew their defense wasn't as good as it was playing, and they've come back to Earth. The fact is, this team never was a 6-0 caliber team, and now San Diego has officially passed them for the division lead.
Before the season started, I thought Denver was in a for a terrible 6-10 type season, and I was off. And maybe this is purely selfish on my part, but I don't care. This is not a playoff team, and it feels good to have that feeling justified during the season. I felt stupid when they started 6-0, but now that they're 6-4 I feel better.
One last thought; for as long as I live, I'll never understand why Kyle Orton was healthy enough to come in in the 2nd quarter, but not healthy enough to start. Huh? Is Josh McDaniels so arrogant that he thinks he can voluntarily play his backup QB and still beat San Diego? If you have a player healthy enough to play, then play him. That decision screams of unbridled arrogance, and I don't care what McDaniels has for an explanation, I will never accept it. Either you're starting QB can start, or he can't play.
I just noticed...
That I use the phrase "but you know what?" a lot. It probably comes across as annoying, and I didn't notice it until just now. But you know what? I enjoy asking myself questions, and then answering them as if it's Barbara Walters asking me.
By the way, Chicago has now taken a 12-10 lead over the Eagles, and I really can't overstate how amazing this is, considering I haven't seen Chicago hardly do anything on offense. It feels like they're down about 17-3, and instead they're winning. Cutler could play an awful game and still win, which would be a nice turn after all the criticism he takes for losing. I always enjoy when these "to the victor go the spoils" type people then have to defend an awful performance from a QB who wins. Go ahead and tell me that winning from a QB is all that matters, after Rex Grossman turns the ball over 6 times in a win over Arizona.
Cutler has had a lot of strong performances in his career that came in losing efforts, so it would be nice to see his critics then praise him for a "hard fought"victory, or some such, over Philadelphia when he's obviously been terrible tonight.
By the way, Chicago has now taken a 12-10 lead over the Eagles, and I really can't overstate how amazing this is, considering I haven't seen Chicago hardly do anything on offense. It feels like they're down about 17-3, and instead they're winning. Cutler could play an awful game and still win, which would be a nice turn after all the criticism he takes for losing. I always enjoy when these "to the victor go the spoils" type people then have to defend an awful performance from a QB who wins. Go ahead and tell me that winning from a QB is all that matters, after Rex Grossman turns the ball over 6 times in a win over Arizona.
Cutler has had a lot of strong performances in his career that came in losing efforts, so it would be nice to see his critics then praise him for a "hard fought"victory, or some such, over Philadelphia when he's obviously been terrible tonight.
Have I overrated Jay Cutler?
So I'm watching the Eagles-Bears on Sunday night, and Jay Cutler just looks terrible. His passes are sailing all over, and he missed Greg Olsen and Devin Hester on back-to-back plays that would have been TDs. Cutler's struggles this season are well-documented, with 17 INTs already. Normally I ignore knee jerk reaction-type criticism (Peyton Manning used to get criticized, and by the time he retires he may be the best QB who ever played), but Cutler is becoming difficult to defend. Have I overrated Cutler in the past?
There's no doubt Cutler has always thrown a few too many INTs, and that's just how it's going to be with this guy. Maybe when he's 40 he'll have a Favre-like awakening and all of a sudden become a caretaker (seriously, I keep waiting for Favre to start throwing it to the other team and it just hasn't happened) but right now you just have to deal with a few INTs. 17 in 9 games, of course, is more than a few. But you know what? I'm willing to overlook the INTs, and say that maybe a few of them were flukes, and hey shit happens. But his inaccuracy tonight is startling, and it looks like he's afraid to just throw the ball. This is not the same QB who played so well for Denver last year, and looked like a future great player.
It really has me wondering what's going on. I've stated before that I don't like Chicago's talent, and that hasn't changed. That offensive line sucks, and those receivers are subpar. But you know what? Tom Brady posted an 87 rating in 2006 with his leading receivers being Reche Caldwell and Troy Brown. Whatever the circumstances, you suck it up and play. Excuses are of no use in the NFL.
So is Cutler just simply slumping, or is he just not as good as I thought? I've never thought that Cutler was a great player, as much as I thought he would be. But he has not progressed, and rather has regressed. Like I said, I can forgive the INTs if he's firing strikes otherwise, but he's not. He doesn't look the same at all, and if I didn't know who he was I'd probably be saying that this guy sucks. I haven't seen a guy regress this badly in awhile.
There's no doubt Cutler has always thrown a few too many INTs, and that's just how it's going to be with this guy. Maybe when he's 40 he'll have a Favre-like awakening and all of a sudden become a caretaker (seriously, I keep waiting for Favre to start throwing it to the other team and it just hasn't happened) but right now you just have to deal with a few INTs. 17 in 9 games, of course, is more than a few. But you know what? I'm willing to overlook the INTs, and say that maybe a few of them were flukes, and hey shit happens. But his inaccuracy tonight is startling, and it looks like he's afraid to just throw the ball. This is not the same QB who played so well for Denver last year, and looked like a future great player.
It really has me wondering what's going on. I've stated before that I don't like Chicago's talent, and that hasn't changed. That offensive line sucks, and those receivers are subpar. But you know what? Tom Brady posted an 87 rating in 2006 with his leading receivers being Reche Caldwell and Troy Brown. Whatever the circumstances, you suck it up and play. Excuses are of no use in the NFL.
So is Cutler just simply slumping, or is he just not as good as I thought? I've never thought that Cutler was a great player, as much as I thought he would be. But he has not progressed, and rather has regressed. Like I said, I can forgive the INTs if he's firing strikes otherwise, but he's not. He doesn't look the same at all, and if I didn't know who he was I'd probably be saying that this guy sucks. I haven't seen a guy regress this badly in awhile.
Charlie Weis: A Reflection
Weis' tenure at Notre Dame is about to come to an end, and there's no arguing otherwise. 6-5 (6-6 with a loss at Stanford this week) is a disappointing season for a team with a favorable schedule, a great QB and playmakers on offense. I thought I'd do a reflection his 5 years at Notre Dame before it comes to an end.
The High Point
You could argue the high point of the Weis era was his first game, a blowout victory at Pittsburgh. The following week was a good win at Michigan as well. However, I think the high point was the final game of that season, a 7 point victory at Stanford that clinched a berth in a BCS bowl. Notre Dame went 9-2 that season and played a great USC team down to the wire. I never would have believed at that time that 4 years later we'd be looking at a 6 win season and Weis' removal. I really thought he'd be here a long time.
The Low Point
Again, you could argue for a couple different games here. Certainly losing to Navy for the first time in over 40 years sucked, but in all honesty that was a better Navy team that year. Losses to Navy and Connecticut this year were bad, but I'm going to go with the loss to Syracuse last season. Syracuse was an awful 8 loss team that had fired their coach (Greg Robinson) that week. The fact that they came into Notre Dame Stadium and won is the most embarrassing defeat I've ever been a part of.
Best Positions of Development
There's no question that this all resides on offense. Weis has coached one first round QB (Quinn), and perhaps a second (Clausen). Samardzija, Stovall and McKnight all became much better receivers under Weis than they were under Willingham, and Tate and Floyd have followed in their footsteps. Notre Dame also has a good run of TEs going, from Fasano to Carlson to Rudolph.
Worst Positions of Development
Notre Dame has never had a good group of linebackers as long as Weis has been here. The defensive line and secondary have been a mixed bag. Abiamiri, Laws, Landri, Zbikowski and Ndukwe all play in the NFL, but there have been quite a few players who haven't developed defensively. And much to Weis' chagrin as an offensive coach, the offensive line has ranged from pretty good his first two years, to dreadful the next two seasons, to maybe above-average now.
Biggest Surprise
When Weis was hired, there was a belief that Notre Dame couldn't recruit top-notch athletes. I would say the recruitment of Clausen, Tate and Floyd have proven that wrong. It was also hard to believe that the 2005 offense could be good, after seeing those very same players play so inconsistently for Willingham. I can remember Notre Dame beating Purdue badly in Weis' first year with a near-flawless offensive performance, and most of these players had played the year before and lost badly to Purdue.
Biggest Disappointment
When Weis was hired, there wasn't a lot of speed on defense, and he knew that to compete with the USC's of the world that had to change. I don't know that it has, although sometimes it's tough to tell if these defensive players have the talent but just don't show it, or if they really are as bad as they sometimes look. The close losses have also become a huge thorn in the side for this team. Last season Notre Dame lost a bunch of close games, and this game they haven't lost a game by more than 7 points. It's easy to say "if only this had changed, we'd be 9-2" but of course after awhile something stops being fluky and starts becoming a personality trait. This team can't close games, plain and simple.
Final Analysis
There's no question that the program is in better shape now than when Weis was hired. Willingham had two consecutive subpar recruiting seasons that set up the 3-9 2007 season. Weis has recruited much better, and whoever takes over is not taking over an empty cupboard. Even if Clausen and Tate leave for the NFL, former 5-star recruit Dayne Crist will take over at QB, Michael Floyd will become the top receiver and the talent is still there to score points. What this team really needs is a strong defensive coach to develop the players that are here (they may not be great, but it shouldn't be as bad as it is), and a coach that will instill a killer instinct. Blowing a bunch of late leads is the only thing holding this team back from 9 and 10 wins the past two seasons.
So while Weis has done some good things in improving the overall talent base on the roster, ultimately you're judged by wins and losses and that has been subpar. I'm willing to forgive the 3-9 2007 seasons, which was a perfect storm of a bad season, but the past two seasons should have been better. Willingham's tenure is long gone, and you can no longer kick that dog around. This team is all on Weis, and ultimately he's failed. There's no doubt the man is a strong offensive coach, and some NFL team will be getting a good offensive coordinator. But Notre Dame stretched to hire Weis in the first place after all of their top choices (Urban Meyer, specifically), and at the end of the day, it showed.
Weis got off 19-6 start, and it's hard to believe this is where we're at.
The High Point
You could argue the high point of the Weis era was his first game, a blowout victory at Pittsburgh. The following week was a good win at Michigan as well. However, I think the high point was the final game of that season, a 7 point victory at Stanford that clinched a berth in a BCS bowl. Notre Dame went 9-2 that season and played a great USC team down to the wire. I never would have believed at that time that 4 years later we'd be looking at a 6 win season and Weis' removal. I really thought he'd be here a long time.
The Low Point
Again, you could argue for a couple different games here. Certainly losing to Navy for the first time in over 40 years sucked, but in all honesty that was a better Navy team that year. Losses to Navy and Connecticut this year were bad, but I'm going to go with the loss to Syracuse last season. Syracuse was an awful 8 loss team that had fired their coach (Greg Robinson) that week. The fact that they came into Notre Dame Stadium and won is the most embarrassing defeat I've ever been a part of.
Best Positions of Development
There's no question that this all resides on offense. Weis has coached one first round QB (Quinn), and perhaps a second (Clausen). Samardzija, Stovall and McKnight all became much better receivers under Weis than they were under Willingham, and Tate and Floyd have followed in their footsteps. Notre Dame also has a good run of TEs going, from Fasano to Carlson to Rudolph.
Worst Positions of Development
Notre Dame has never had a good group of linebackers as long as Weis has been here. The defensive line and secondary have been a mixed bag. Abiamiri, Laws, Landri, Zbikowski and Ndukwe all play in the NFL, but there have been quite a few players who haven't developed defensively. And much to Weis' chagrin as an offensive coach, the offensive line has ranged from pretty good his first two years, to dreadful the next two seasons, to maybe above-average now.
Biggest Surprise
When Weis was hired, there was a belief that Notre Dame couldn't recruit top-notch athletes. I would say the recruitment of Clausen, Tate and Floyd have proven that wrong. It was also hard to believe that the 2005 offense could be good, after seeing those very same players play so inconsistently for Willingham. I can remember Notre Dame beating Purdue badly in Weis' first year with a near-flawless offensive performance, and most of these players had played the year before and lost badly to Purdue.
Biggest Disappointment
When Weis was hired, there wasn't a lot of speed on defense, and he knew that to compete with the USC's of the world that had to change. I don't know that it has, although sometimes it's tough to tell if these defensive players have the talent but just don't show it, or if they really are as bad as they sometimes look. The close losses have also become a huge thorn in the side for this team. Last season Notre Dame lost a bunch of close games, and this game they haven't lost a game by more than 7 points. It's easy to say "if only this had changed, we'd be 9-2" but of course after awhile something stops being fluky and starts becoming a personality trait. This team can't close games, plain and simple.
Final Analysis
There's no question that the program is in better shape now than when Weis was hired. Willingham had two consecutive subpar recruiting seasons that set up the 3-9 2007 season. Weis has recruited much better, and whoever takes over is not taking over an empty cupboard. Even if Clausen and Tate leave for the NFL, former 5-star recruit Dayne Crist will take over at QB, Michael Floyd will become the top receiver and the talent is still there to score points. What this team really needs is a strong defensive coach to develop the players that are here (they may not be great, but it shouldn't be as bad as it is), and a coach that will instill a killer instinct. Blowing a bunch of late leads is the only thing holding this team back from 9 and 10 wins the past two seasons.
So while Weis has done some good things in improving the overall talent base on the roster, ultimately you're judged by wins and losses and that has been subpar. I'm willing to forgive the 3-9 2007 seasons, which was a perfect storm of a bad season, but the past two seasons should have been better. Willingham's tenure is long gone, and you can no longer kick that dog around. This team is all on Weis, and ultimately he's failed. There's no doubt the man is a strong offensive coach, and some NFL team will be getting a good offensive coordinator. But Notre Dame stretched to hire Weis in the first place after all of their top choices (Urban Meyer, specifically), and at the end of the day, it showed.
Weis got off 19-6 start, and it's hard to believe this is where we're at.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Gimme Fewell, gimme fire gimme...Ryan Fitzpatrick?
I used to think that Joey Harrington was the worst QB who somehow kept falling into starting jobs. First he was with Detroit, then Miami, then Atlanta, and he started for all of them at various times. He has now passed that torch to Ryan Fitzpatrick, who new Bills coach Perry Fewell has named his starting QB. This is, of course, insanity. Trent Edwards is no great shakes, but not even in an alternate universe is Fitzpatrick a better QB than Edwards. Fitzpatrick has started for the Rams back in 2005, the Bengals last year, and a couple games earlier this year for the Bills. I don't know how he does it, but he keeps falling into starting jobs.
And on the subject of completely worthless QBs now getting a chance to start...Bruce Gradkowski! I understand that JaMarcus Russell has been nothing short of awful this season, but let's be honest; does Gradkowski have any sort of future? I've posted before his stat line a year ago against Pittsburgh, and while it's fair to say he was playing for a horrible Browns team against the eventual Super Bowl champions, it's also fair to say that his stat line went beyond just your average everyday mediocrity. Russell has done nothing to actually earn the starting job, so I don't feel bad for him, and it may be in the Raiders' best interest to cut him in the offseason and move on. If they had a better replacement than Gradkowski, I'd be all for it. But I can't imagine him putting up much better numbers than Russell was.
Not to rub salt in this wound, but after the Raiders drafted Russell, Calvin Johnson came off the board, then Joe Thomas, then four picks later Adrian Peterson. Not to play the whole "Team X should have drafted this player" which everyone does in hindsight, but it's not like expecting good careers out of Johnson, Thomas and Peterson was out of line. That was actually a really strong draft featuring those players, plus Patrick Willis, Darrelle Revis and Jon Beason later on in the first round.
Okay, I have another Russell anecdote; at the press conference last season where Al Davis announced the firing of Lane Kiffin, I remember him saying something like, "You didn't wanna draft JaMarcus Russell. He's a great quarterback." I'm paraphrasing, but Davis was bashing Kiffin for allegedly not wanting Russell. If that's true...I mean, how prescient does Kiffin look?
And one more; in Bill Simmons' "The Book of Basketball," he relates a story in which then-Magic GM Pat Williams raved about Penny Hardaway's great workout before the draft, that prompted them to trade Chris Webber for him. Simmons laughs this off, saying that Penny would have to be doing some crazy shit to justify passing on Webber (in hindsight; how do you pass on a possible frontcourt of Shaq and Webber? Who passes up a big man for a guard, all things being equal? Well the Magic did). This reminds me of the pre-draft bullshit before Russell was drafted, in which he also allegedly had a great workout. Remember Yi Jianlian posting up chairs? Or Kyle Boller throwing the ball through goalposts from his knees from about 40 yards out? It's a damn shame this game is actually played on a field, and not like a game of H-O-R-S-E.
And that should be all I have to say about Russell. He'll probably get cut in the off-season, some team will pick him up, then he'll eventually wash out. As much fun as it is to make fun of him, it really is a damn shame how bad his career has turned out. I can remember seeing him playing as a freshman in college (he played the 4th quarter against Iowa in that bowl game, and led LSU back to take a late lead that they eventually blew), and you could tell he had talent then. And he does have talent; I just don't think he cares. I've always thought he looked overweight, and his inability to complete a damn pass is embarrassing. You really have to not be trying to complete only 9-24 against the freaking Kansas City Chiefs. This doesn't happen a lot in the NFL, but Russell's career is just like an NBA player getting paid, and then coasting forever (think Tim Thomas). NFL contracts aren't guaranteed, which perenially motivates players, but Russell got such a big payday right away that he's set for life regardless of what happens. He really does have similar physical abilities to John Elway, but he's not motivated at all to reach that potential. All I really need to know about Russell is his hair, which was in a mohawk earlier this year and I assume still is. That tells me right there this is player that's not taking the job seriously. I never want my starting QB to have hair like that; get serious and act like a professional. You're not a corner or a receiver, you're the leader of the team. When they write the obituary on his career (as of now, he goes down with Ryan Leaf as one of the worst picks ever, no exaggeration), I hope they mention he got benched for Bruce Gradkowski. There is nothing more embarrassing than that.
And on the subject of completely worthless QBs now getting a chance to start...Bruce Gradkowski! I understand that JaMarcus Russell has been nothing short of awful this season, but let's be honest; does Gradkowski have any sort of future? I've posted before his stat line a year ago against Pittsburgh, and while it's fair to say he was playing for a horrible Browns team against the eventual Super Bowl champions, it's also fair to say that his stat line went beyond just your average everyday mediocrity. Russell has done nothing to actually earn the starting job, so I don't feel bad for him, and it may be in the Raiders' best interest to cut him in the offseason and move on. If they had a better replacement than Gradkowski, I'd be all for it. But I can't imagine him putting up much better numbers than Russell was.
Not to rub salt in this wound, but after the Raiders drafted Russell, Calvin Johnson came off the board, then Joe Thomas, then four picks later Adrian Peterson. Not to play the whole "Team X should have drafted this player" which everyone does in hindsight, but it's not like expecting good careers out of Johnson, Thomas and Peterson was out of line. That was actually a really strong draft featuring those players, plus Patrick Willis, Darrelle Revis and Jon Beason later on in the first round.
Okay, I have another Russell anecdote; at the press conference last season where Al Davis announced the firing of Lane Kiffin, I remember him saying something like, "You didn't wanna draft JaMarcus Russell. He's a great quarterback." I'm paraphrasing, but Davis was bashing Kiffin for allegedly not wanting Russell. If that's true...I mean, how prescient does Kiffin look?
And one more; in Bill Simmons' "The Book of Basketball," he relates a story in which then-Magic GM Pat Williams raved about Penny Hardaway's great workout before the draft, that prompted them to trade Chris Webber for him. Simmons laughs this off, saying that Penny would have to be doing some crazy shit to justify passing on Webber (in hindsight; how do you pass on a possible frontcourt of Shaq and Webber? Who passes up a big man for a guard, all things being equal? Well the Magic did). This reminds me of the pre-draft bullshit before Russell was drafted, in which he also allegedly had a great workout. Remember Yi Jianlian posting up chairs? Or Kyle Boller throwing the ball through goalposts from his knees from about 40 yards out? It's a damn shame this game is actually played on a field, and not like a game of H-O-R-S-E.
And that should be all I have to say about Russell. He'll probably get cut in the off-season, some team will pick him up, then he'll eventually wash out. As much fun as it is to make fun of him, it really is a damn shame how bad his career has turned out. I can remember seeing him playing as a freshman in college (he played the 4th quarter against Iowa in that bowl game, and led LSU back to take a late lead that they eventually blew), and you could tell he had talent then. And he does have talent; I just don't think he cares. I've always thought he looked overweight, and his inability to complete a damn pass is embarrassing. You really have to not be trying to complete only 9-24 against the freaking Kansas City Chiefs. This doesn't happen a lot in the NFL, but Russell's career is just like an NBA player getting paid, and then coasting forever (think Tim Thomas). NFL contracts aren't guaranteed, which perenially motivates players, but Russell got such a big payday right away that he's set for life regardless of what happens. He really does have similar physical abilities to John Elway, but he's not motivated at all to reach that potential. All I really need to know about Russell is his hair, which was in a mohawk earlier this year and I assume still is. That tells me right there this is player that's not taking the job seriously. I never want my starting QB to have hair like that; get serious and act like a professional. You're not a corner or a receiver, you're the leader of the team. When they write the obituary on his career (as of now, he goes down with Ryan Leaf as one of the worst picks ever, no exaggeration), I hope they mention he got benched for Bruce Gradkowski. There is nothing more embarrassing than that.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
And Lovie Smith still has a job because...?
There's a lot that could be said about the Bears. In the past couple of weeks, they've been absolutely destroyed by the Bengals and Cardinals. Of their remaining schedule, only the Rams and Lions look like wins.
But the only thing I'm going to say is, this is a team that clearly overrated its talent coming into the season. This is a roster that needs to be blown up. On defense, it's a lot of the same players who were on the Super Bowl team of 2006 that are sucking it up today. Namely, Alex Brown, Adewale Ogunleye, Tommie Harris, Mark Anderson, Charles Tillman, and Nathan Vasher. I know Urlacher is out, but there's no excuses in this league. This defense is terrible nowadays, and it needs to be blown up. The pass rushers don't rush the passer anymore. Tommie Harris is invisible. Nathan Vasher doesn't seem to play anymore, and Tillman can't play anymore. Only Lance Briggs is a good player anymore. They're getting old, and it needs to be blown up.
The reason I say they've overrated their own talent, though, is because of the trade for Jay Cutler. I don't think they make that trade unless they think they're a QB away from the Super Bowl, and nowadays that's a laughable assertion. I don't blame them for trading for Cutler; after all, QBs like that just don't come available often. But if they had assessed their roster properly, they'd know it's the defense that needs help the most. I also think Matt Forte and Devin Hester are inferior playmakers, but that's not the big problem with this team.
But the only thing I'm going to say is, this is a team that clearly overrated its talent coming into the season. This is a roster that needs to be blown up. On defense, it's a lot of the same players who were on the Super Bowl team of 2006 that are sucking it up today. Namely, Alex Brown, Adewale Ogunleye, Tommie Harris, Mark Anderson, Charles Tillman, and Nathan Vasher. I know Urlacher is out, but there's no excuses in this league. This defense is terrible nowadays, and it needs to be blown up. The pass rushers don't rush the passer anymore. Tommie Harris is invisible. Nathan Vasher doesn't seem to play anymore, and Tillman can't play anymore. Only Lance Briggs is a good player anymore. They're getting old, and it needs to be blown up.
The reason I say they've overrated their own talent, though, is because of the trade for Jay Cutler. I don't think they make that trade unless they think they're a QB away from the Super Bowl, and nowadays that's a laughable assertion. I don't blame them for trading for Cutler; after all, QBs like that just don't come available often. But if they had assessed their roster properly, they'd know it's the defense that needs help the most. I also think Matt Forte and Devin Hester are inferior playmakers, but that's not the big problem with this team.
What's wrong with the Packers?
The Packers lost at Tampa Bay today to fall to 4-4. They are essentially out of the NFC North race, having been swept by Minnesota. This is team that everyone seems to think has a bunch of talent; they at least shouldn't be losing to the Tampa Bays of the world. So what's the problem?
Where's the pass rush? In the off-season, the Packers hired Dom Capers to be their defensive coordinator and switched to a 3-4. They then moved Aaron Kampman to OLB to fit the 3-4. As a result, Kampman has become a thoroughly worthless player. He has 2.5 sacks this season, after getting 15.5, 12 and 9.5 over the past three seasons. Essentially, by hiring Capers they've made their pass rush worse, the exact opposite effect of what was supposed to happen. Defensive linemen like Cullen Jenkins, Ryan Pickett and Johnny Jolly are good players but they aren't pass rushers. Outside of Kampman, nobody on this roster can rush the passer and Kampman has been ruined in the 3-4.
Where's the protection? Aaron Rodgers was sacked 6 times today by a Tampa Bay defense that had recorded 11 sacks all season. Right tackle Allen Barbre gets my vote for worst offensive lineman of the season; they re-signed Mark Tauscher and started him today but he got hurt. Chad Clifton has been hurt, and they don't have a viable replacement behind him. As I read at football outsiders, if Jared Allen played against Green Bay every week he'd be in the Hall of Fame by December. Rodgers has now been sacked 37 times, and some of that certainly goes on him. He shows a terrible pocket presence at times, and holds the ball too long. But this team screwed up when the drafted B.J. Raji in the first round instead of Michael Oher. Oher could have stepped in immediately and played RT, with the ability to play LT as well. Instead they drafted a backup nose tackle.
Is this team really that talented? Big-play teams like the Packers tend to get overrated, because people see the big plays to Greg Jennings and Donald Driver, but miss all the sacks Rodgers takes and the lack of pressure they generate on opposing QBs. And who are the teams the Packers have beaten this year, you might ask? The even-bigger-mess Bears, the Lions, Browns and Rams. They've lost to the Vikings twice, the Bengals and now the freaking Buccaneers. This team hasn't proven to be any better the worst teams in the league, and until they do it's time to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. This team has some nice pieces (passing game, secondary, defensive tackles galore) but struggles with too many important aspects of the game (pass protection, pass rush). Until that gets fixed, they'll continue to beat the dregs of the league (except Tampa Bay) and nothing more.
Luckily for them...They do have Aaron Rodgers, and if he ever learns how to handle a pass rush, he'll be really good. He already is, really. His QB rating entering today was 110, and when he's in rhythm, few QBs throw as accurate a ball. Get this man a RT, add a pass rusher on defense and this team can be in business. Or move back to a 4-3 and move Kampman back to his comfort zone; they do, after all, already have a dominant pass rusher on the roster if they'd use him properly.
Where's the pass rush? In the off-season, the Packers hired Dom Capers to be their defensive coordinator and switched to a 3-4. They then moved Aaron Kampman to OLB to fit the 3-4. As a result, Kampman has become a thoroughly worthless player. He has 2.5 sacks this season, after getting 15.5, 12 and 9.5 over the past three seasons. Essentially, by hiring Capers they've made their pass rush worse, the exact opposite effect of what was supposed to happen. Defensive linemen like Cullen Jenkins, Ryan Pickett and Johnny Jolly are good players but they aren't pass rushers. Outside of Kampman, nobody on this roster can rush the passer and Kampman has been ruined in the 3-4.
Where's the protection? Aaron Rodgers was sacked 6 times today by a Tampa Bay defense that had recorded 11 sacks all season. Right tackle Allen Barbre gets my vote for worst offensive lineman of the season; they re-signed Mark Tauscher and started him today but he got hurt. Chad Clifton has been hurt, and they don't have a viable replacement behind him. As I read at football outsiders, if Jared Allen played against Green Bay every week he'd be in the Hall of Fame by December. Rodgers has now been sacked 37 times, and some of that certainly goes on him. He shows a terrible pocket presence at times, and holds the ball too long. But this team screwed up when the drafted B.J. Raji in the first round instead of Michael Oher. Oher could have stepped in immediately and played RT, with the ability to play LT as well. Instead they drafted a backup nose tackle.
Is this team really that talented? Big-play teams like the Packers tend to get overrated, because people see the big plays to Greg Jennings and Donald Driver, but miss all the sacks Rodgers takes and the lack of pressure they generate on opposing QBs. And who are the teams the Packers have beaten this year, you might ask? The even-bigger-mess Bears, the Lions, Browns and Rams. They've lost to the Vikings twice, the Bengals and now the freaking Buccaneers. This team hasn't proven to be any better the worst teams in the league, and until they do it's time to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. This team has some nice pieces (passing game, secondary, defensive tackles galore) but struggles with too many important aspects of the game (pass protection, pass rush). Until that gets fixed, they'll continue to beat the dregs of the league (except Tampa Bay) and nothing more.
Luckily for them...They do have Aaron Rodgers, and if he ever learns how to handle a pass rush, he'll be really good. He already is, really. His QB rating entering today was 110, and when he's in rhythm, few QBs throw as accurate a ball. Get this man a RT, add a pass rusher on defense and this team can be in business. Or move back to a 4-3 and move Kampman back to his comfort zone; they do, after all, already have a dominant pass rusher on the roster if they'd use him properly.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
"Clutch"
I would just like the record to show that, in my lifetime, the following athletes have all been labeled "unclutch" at one point or another.
*Peyton Manning
*Kevin Garnett
*Alex Rodriguez
What do they all have in common? They all now have been a part of championship teams. Geez, it's like they were really good players all along who didn't have anything "wrong with their mental makeup" or whatever psychobabble sports journalists like to throw out there. In other words, go to hell Skip Bayless.
*Peyton Manning
*Kevin Garnett
*Alex Rodriguez
What do they all have in common? They all now have been a part of championship teams. Geez, it's like they were really good players all along who didn't have anything "wrong with their mental makeup" or whatever psychobabble sports journalists like to throw out there. In other words, go to hell Skip Bayless.
The race for LVP
Some people like to follow the race for MVP. Is it Peyton Manning or Drew Brees? Maybe Favre should be thrown in the mix.
I, on the other hand, am fascinated by the race for LVP. As far as I can tell, it's down to Derek Anderson and JaMarcus Russell. Maybe this happens every year, but I don't recall two QBs in the same season having such awful years. Sure, there are some other bad players in the league. Allen Barbre is an awful RT for the Packers. C.C. Brown is a disaster at safety for the Giants. I'm not even convinced Orlando Pace can walk anymore, let alone play LT for the Bears.
But we all know these awards go to QBs. Hey, if they're the most valuable they should also be the least valuable. Let's size up the contenders.
Derek Anderson: 43% completion percentage, 2 TDs, 9 INTs, 4.4 yards per attempt, 36.2 rating
Comments: Now that's pretty damn awful. The fact that the Browns keep trotting this guy out each week seems laughable. I understand they don't want to pay Quinn his playing time incentives, but how about the 3rd stringer Brett Ratliff? I have a hard time believing he could do worse than this. I have a hard time believing an NFL QB could do this. That rating is worse than if he threw nothing but incompletions.
JaMarcus Russell: 48% completion percentage, 2 TDs, 9 INTs, 5.5 yards per attempt, 48.3 rating
Comments: I gotta say, at the beginning of the year I thought Russell was going to run away with this award. I still think by the end of the year he's going to have a historically bad season considering the attempts he'll get, and frankly I'm rooting for it. But by some miracle, he has been better than Anderson this year. If the Browns had stayed with Quinn and accepted his 62 rating, Russell would have this award locked up. But it's like the Browns saw the Raiders beating them in some act of futility, and just couldn't allow that to happen. Kinda like how on draft day the Raiders wasted a top-10 pick on Heyward-Bey, but the Browns somehow outdid them by trading down a couple times and drafting a center.
In these guy's defense, I will say their receivers are awful. The Browns traded away their top two receivers and replaced them with basically nothing. The Raiders have surrounded Russell with two rookie receivers who on one play Sunday tripped over each other. But with that said, these are some awful seasons. And as bad as Russell's been, he's actually picked up his play just a tad the past couple of weeks, while Anderson has dropped his level of play considerably since his first start against Cincinnati. In an upset, Derek Anderson truly is the league's LVP.
I, on the other hand, am fascinated by the race for LVP. As far as I can tell, it's down to Derek Anderson and JaMarcus Russell. Maybe this happens every year, but I don't recall two QBs in the same season having such awful years. Sure, there are some other bad players in the league. Allen Barbre is an awful RT for the Packers. C.C. Brown is a disaster at safety for the Giants. I'm not even convinced Orlando Pace can walk anymore, let alone play LT for the Bears.
But we all know these awards go to QBs. Hey, if they're the most valuable they should also be the least valuable. Let's size up the contenders.
Derek Anderson: 43% completion percentage, 2 TDs, 9 INTs, 4.4 yards per attempt, 36.2 rating
Comments: Now that's pretty damn awful. The fact that the Browns keep trotting this guy out each week seems laughable. I understand they don't want to pay Quinn his playing time incentives, but how about the 3rd stringer Brett Ratliff? I have a hard time believing he could do worse than this. I have a hard time believing an NFL QB could do this. That rating is worse than if he threw nothing but incompletions.
JaMarcus Russell: 48% completion percentage, 2 TDs, 9 INTs, 5.5 yards per attempt, 48.3 rating
Comments: I gotta say, at the beginning of the year I thought Russell was going to run away with this award. I still think by the end of the year he's going to have a historically bad season considering the attempts he'll get, and frankly I'm rooting for it. But by some miracle, he has been better than Anderson this year. If the Browns had stayed with Quinn and accepted his 62 rating, Russell would have this award locked up. But it's like the Browns saw the Raiders beating them in some act of futility, and just couldn't allow that to happen. Kinda like how on draft day the Raiders wasted a top-10 pick on Heyward-Bey, but the Browns somehow outdid them by trading down a couple times and drafting a center.
In these guy's defense, I will say their receivers are awful. The Browns traded away their top two receivers and replaced them with basically nothing. The Raiders have surrounded Russell with two rookie receivers who on one play Sunday tripped over each other. But with that said, these are some awful seasons. And as bad as Russell's been, he's actually picked up his play just a tad the past couple of weeks, while Anderson has dropped his level of play considerably since his first start against Cincinnati. In an upset, Derek Anderson truly is the league's LVP.
This is too good
Over at espn.com they have an article about Roy Williams being unhappy with the passes being thrown his way.
"He gets the ball thrown correctly his way," Williams said of Austin. "I'm stretching and falling and doing everything. Everybody [else] who's been here's balls are there. Our footballs [from Romo to Williams] are everywhere right now."
You see, it's not Roy Williams' fault that Roy Williams sucks. It's Tony Romo's fault. Sure, he throws accurate passes to Miles Austin, Jason Witten and Patrick Crayton, but not to Williams. How can I put this gently...you don't get accurate passes thrown your way because your worthless ass doesn't get open. I love how Roy can see everyone but him getting good passes thrown their way, and he comes to the conclusion that it's Romo's fault. Maybe there's somethign wrong with you. Check that... there is something with you; you're worthless, go away.
This quote is the icing on the cake, though.
"I'm the No. 1 receiver. But things are just going No. 2's way."
Hmm. Nope I'm pretty sure you're not. Miles Austin is wiping the floor with your worthless ass right now. Do I even need to mention that Miles Austin does this with about half of the natural talent that Roy Williams has?
Checking the Cowboy's stats on the season, Austin, Witten and Crayton all have more receptions than Williams this year. Tashard Choice, the 3rd string RB, has one less reception than Williams. But this is all Romo's fault. Roy is a #1 receiver who just doesn't get good passes thrown his way. What a flipping joke.
Again, I don't know how to put this gently...Roy Williams is an awful receiver who needs to be released. His presence screws everything else up for Dallas. The amount of money and draft picks they put into him force them to play him every week and every down, even though he has nowhere near earned that playing time. Jerry Jones needs to realize what an awful trade that was and release this guy immediately. It's obvious he's never going to get better, because in his mind he's already a superstar. He's a sunk cost that needs to be released. He just gets in the way of productive players seeing the field and getting balls thrown their way. Dallas' best offense is with Austin and Crayton on the outside, and utilizing their TEs (Witten and Bennett) and RBs (Barber, Jones, Choice). Those guys make plays; Williams doesn't.
"He gets the ball thrown correctly his way," Williams said of Austin. "I'm stretching and falling and doing everything. Everybody [else] who's been here's balls are there. Our footballs [from Romo to Williams] are everywhere right now."
You see, it's not Roy Williams' fault that Roy Williams sucks. It's Tony Romo's fault. Sure, he throws accurate passes to Miles Austin, Jason Witten and Patrick Crayton, but not to Williams. How can I put this gently...you don't get accurate passes thrown your way because your worthless ass doesn't get open. I love how Roy can see everyone but him getting good passes thrown their way, and he comes to the conclusion that it's Romo's fault. Maybe there's somethign wrong with you. Check that... there is something with you; you're worthless, go away.
This quote is the icing on the cake, though.
"I'm the No. 1 receiver. But things are just going No. 2's way."
Hmm. Nope I'm pretty sure you're not. Miles Austin is wiping the floor with your worthless ass right now. Do I even need to mention that Miles Austin does this with about half of the natural talent that Roy Williams has?
Checking the Cowboy's stats on the season, Austin, Witten and Crayton all have more receptions than Williams this year. Tashard Choice, the 3rd string RB, has one less reception than Williams. But this is all Romo's fault. Roy is a #1 receiver who just doesn't get good passes thrown his way. What a flipping joke.
Again, I don't know how to put this gently...Roy Williams is an awful receiver who needs to be released. His presence screws everything else up for Dallas. The amount of money and draft picks they put into him force them to play him every week and every down, even though he has nowhere near earned that playing time. Jerry Jones needs to realize what an awful trade that was and release this guy immediately. It's obvious he's never going to get better, because in his mind he's already a superstar. He's a sunk cost that needs to be released. He just gets in the way of productive players seeing the field and getting balls thrown their way. Dallas' best offense is with Austin and Crayton on the outside, and utilizing their TEs (Witten and Bennett) and RBs (Barber, Jones, Choice). Those guys make plays; Williams doesn't.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Other thoughts from today
* I wish the Titans, Bucs, Chiefs, Browns and Rams would just forfeit their games. These teams are so bad they skew the results for everybody else. There will be a lot of "Tom Brady is back" stories this week, but the fact is he got to play the Titans and Bucs, and they make everyone better. The Chargers have had a down season, but not today against the Chiefs. The Browns gave the Packers an easy victory, making people think they can get back in the NFC North picture. And the Rams have lost 17 straight dating back to last season. I wish these teams would just go away. Sad thing is, I didn't even mention the Raiders, Bills, Lions, Panthers and a few other bad teams. In other words, the NFL has a great product this year.
* There's no way I can take the Bears seriously after their performance today. The Bengals scored 31 points on their first five possessions. Jay Cutler will no doubt take a lot of the blame, because people are idiots and always blame the QB. But the fact is, he's one of the few good players they have. Matt Forte is insanely overrated, those receivers are subpar and that defense has fallen off a cliff. Cutler is the anti-Kyle Orton, but not for reasons idiots on TV will tell you. Orton keeps falling into good situations in which his defense keeps the score limited, while Cutler keeps ending up on teams in which his defense sucks and forces him to score 30 every week. I would love to see "the winner" Kyle Orton win today's game against Cincinnati.
* The Raiders finally benched JaMarcus Russell, but Cable says he'll remain the starter. I'm sure Cable was scolded after the game for daring to bench Russell. In Al Davis' mind, Russell is the next John Elway. I'm happy though; bad seasons like this don't come around all that often. Usually QBs who play as badly as Russell do get benched, but Russell can have an all-time bad season when you figure how many opportunities Oakland will give him to screw up. Sure, Spergon Wynn was probably worse but nobody gave him 500 pass attempts to do it.
* Darrius Heyward-Bey caught his 4th pass of the season today, so he now officially has more catches than names this season. So the Raiders have that going for them. Crabtree caught 5 passes in one game, but whatever.
* Remember when Matt Cassel was "only" traded for a 2nd rounder? I want someone to watch his play in today's game and say with a straight face the guy is even worth an NFL contract, let alone a bunch of money and a 2nd round pick. I saw him miss WIDE OPEN receivers on back to back plays. Cassel is great at completing a bunch of passes for no yardage. Every week his completion percentage is solid, but his yardage is laughable. I don't know how to say this nicely...he can't play.
* Today's Colts-Rams game was the closest thing the NFL will have to the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals. At halftime they should have had Peyton Manning only play with his left hand and see if the Colts would still win. That would at least make this game interesting. I'm serious; I wish these teams would just forfeit. I would actually have more respect for them. Just don't play the games and work on getting better for next year. In the Rams's case, they should consider releasing about 50 players. I would rather have an expansion roster than what the Rams currently have.
* I actually feel better about the Vikings now than after any of their other games, despite them losing. The Steelers are one of the best teams in the league, and the Vikings showed they can go into Heinz Field and potentially win. A couple of fluke turnovers returned for TDs does not make me think less of this team. Sidney Rice is really coming along, and I gotta say that Favre is playing pretty well right now. The Vikings put the game on his shoulders in the 2nd half, and they really should have won. A couple fluke turnovers should not hamper people's opinion of this team. This is much more impressive than beating the Browns, Lions and Rams. This team showed they can play with the league's best.
* I may have counted Dallas out a bit too soon. That was an impressive win over Atlanta, Dallas' first over a quality opponent. It's really a shame the worthless Roy Williams gets in the way of their passing game, because Dallas has playmakes on offense between Miles Austin, Jason Witten, Martellus Bennett, Felix Jones, Marion Barber III and Tashard Choice. But since Roy Williams cost them so much, he'll no doubt continue to get undeserved playing time. He just gets in the way of true Dallas productivity.
* How's Braylon Edwards doing for the Jets? A week after Sanchez threw a bunch of INTs his way, he had 1 catch for 14 yards. The man is talented, but he's not productive and that's the bottom line (cause Stone Cold said so).
* Oakland's rush defense allowed two runners to go over 120 yards today. JaMarcus Russell takes a lot of heat, and rightfully so, but that is awful as well. Poor passing offense, poor rush defense...that's a helluva team in Oakland. At least they've got the highest paid punter in league history.
* I feel bad for having so many negative thoughts today, so here's a positive one; that AFC North race is going to be fantastic. The Bengals, Steelers and Ravens are all capable of winning it. I think the difference is going to be the Raven's pass defense (it's poor), and whether the Bengals can handle prosperity or not. No matter how well they play, and they were excellent today, you're always waiting for the other shoe to drop with the Bengals. And quite frankly, I don't trust Marvin Lewis.
* And by the same token, the NFC West race is going to be awful yet again. The Rams aren't even worth discussing, and neither is Seattle really. It's Arizona and San Francisco, and if you believe in Alex Smith you're fooling yourself. The story there isn't that Alex Smith came off the bench and played well, but that the 49ers thought they could compete for the AFC West title with Shaun Hill at QB. Sometimes teams can get too cute for their own good, and San Francisco wasn't nearly aggressive enough in upgrading their QB situation. It really is Alex Smith or bust, and that's a scary proposition.
* There's no way I can take the Bears seriously after their performance today. The Bengals scored 31 points on their first five possessions. Jay Cutler will no doubt take a lot of the blame, because people are idiots and always blame the QB. But the fact is, he's one of the few good players they have. Matt Forte is insanely overrated, those receivers are subpar and that defense has fallen off a cliff. Cutler is the anti-Kyle Orton, but not for reasons idiots on TV will tell you. Orton keeps falling into good situations in which his defense keeps the score limited, while Cutler keeps ending up on teams in which his defense sucks and forces him to score 30 every week. I would love to see "the winner" Kyle Orton win today's game against Cincinnati.
* The Raiders finally benched JaMarcus Russell, but Cable says he'll remain the starter. I'm sure Cable was scolded after the game for daring to bench Russell. In Al Davis' mind, Russell is the next John Elway. I'm happy though; bad seasons like this don't come around all that often. Usually QBs who play as badly as Russell do get benched, but Russell can have an all-time bad season when you figure how many opportunities Oakland will give him to screw up. Sure, Spergon Wynn was probably worse but nobody gave him 500 pass attempts to do it.
* Darrius Heyward-Bey caught his 4th pass of the season today, so he now officially has more catches than names this season. So the Raiders have that going for them. Crabtree caught 5 passes in one game, but whatever.
* Remember when Matt Cassel was "only" traded for a 2nd rounder? I want someone to watch his play in today's game and say with a straight face the guy is even worth an NFL contract, let alone a bunch of money and a 2nd round pick. I saw him miss WIDE OPEN receivers on back to back plays. Cassel is great at completing a bunch of passes for no yardage. Every week his completion percentage is solid, but his yardage is laughable. I don't know how to say this nicely...he can't play.
* Today's Colts-Rams game was the closest thing the NFL will have to the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals. At halftime they should have had Peyton Manning only play with his left hand and see if the Colts would still win. That would at least make this game interesting. I'm serious; I wish these teams would just forfeit. I would actually have more respect for them. Just don't play the games and work on getting better for next year. In the Rams's case, they should consider releasing about 50 players. I would rather have an expansion roster than what the Rams currently have.
* I actually feel better about the Vikings now than after any of their other games, despite them losing. The Steelers are one of the best teams in the league, and the Vikings showed they can go into Heinz Field and potentially win. A couple of fluke turnovers returned for TDs does not make me think less of this team. Sidney Rice is really coming along, and I gotta say that Favre is playing pretty well right now. The Vikings put the game on his shoulders in the 2nd half, and they really should have won. A couple fluke turnovers should not hamper people's opinion of this team. This is much more impressive than beating the Browns, Lions and Rams. This team showed they can play with the league's best.
* I may have counted Dallas out a bit too soon. That was an impressive win over Atlanta, Dallas' first over a quality opponent. It's really a shame the worthless Roy Williams gets in the way of their passing game, because Dallas has playmakes on offense between Miles Austin, Jason Witten, Martellus Bennett, Felix Jones, Marion Barber III and Tashard Choice. But since Roy Williams cost them so much, he'll no doubt continue to get undeserved playing time. He just gets in the way of true Dallas productivity.
* How's Braylon Edwards doing for the Jets? A week after Sanchez threw a bunch of INTs his way, he had 1 catch for 14 yards. The man is talented, but he's not productive and that's the bottom line (cause Stone Cold said so).
* Oakland's rush defense allowed two runners to go over 120 yards today. JaMarcus Russell takes a lot of heat, and rightfully so, but that is awful as well. Poor passing offense, poor rush defense...that's a helluva team in Oakland. At least they've got the highest paid punter in league history.
* I feel bad for having so many negative thoughts today, so here's a positive one; that AFC North race is going to be fantastic. The Bengals, Steelers and Ravens are all capable of winning it. I think the difference is going to be the Raven's pass defense (it's poor), and whether the Bengals can handle prosperity or not. No matter how well they play, and they were excellent today, you're always waiting for the other shoe to drop with the Bengals. And quite frankly, I don't trust Marvin Lewis.
* And by the same token, the NFC West race is going to be awful yet again. The Rams aren't even worth discussing, and neither is Seattle really. It's Arizona and San Francisco, and if you believe in Alex Smith you're fooling yourself. The story there isn't that Alex Smith came off the bench and played well, but that the 49ers thought they could compete for the AFC West title with Shaun Hill at QB. Sometimes teams can get too cute for their own good, and San Francisco wasn't nearly aggressive enough in upgrading their QB situation. It really is Alex Smith or bust, and that's a scary proposition.
Adventures in game management
This might become a weekly feature, because Brad Childress continues to infuriate me. Let's go over this week's oddities.
1-1-PIT 1 (5:41) 28-A.Peterson up the middle to PIT 1 for no gain (57-K.Fox, 51-J.Farrior).
2-1-PIT 1 (4:59) 4-B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to 18-S.Rice. Coverage by #57 Fox, #51 Farrior.
3-1-PIT 1 (4:52) 4-B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to 40-J.Kleinsasser [92-J.Harrison]. Coverage by #51 Farrior.
Yes that's right, the Vikings had 1st and goal from the 1 and threw the ball twice before kicking a field goal. That's why they spend a ton of money on McKinnie, Hutchinson and Peterson, so Favre can throw passes to Jim Kleinsasser, right? You've gotta figure running the ball up the middle three times will at some point result in 1 yard, and this odd play-calling cost the Vikings in a close game.
Timeout #1 by MIN at 03:45.
This was such an odd timeout I don't know what to think of it. Pittsburgh was facing a 3rd and 6 from their own 46. Most teams don't start using timeouts defensively until around the 2 minute warning. Otherwise you don't know how the game is going to go, and you might want that timeout later. It wasn't a two-possession game either, as Minnesota was down 3. Maybe not a bad call, but odd.
1-10-MIN 37 (:54) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass short left to 18-S.Rice to MIN 48 for 11 yards (24-I.Taylor).
1-10-MIN 48 (:28) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to 12-P.Harvin. Coverage by #26 Townsend, #22 Gay.
Notice how much time was wasted here? The Vikings were down 10 with under a minute left in the 4th quarter, and used approximately 20 seconds to get another play off. I don't know if they realize this, but every second is precious when you're down two possessions with under a minute left.
2-10-MIN 48 (:20) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass deep left to 18-S.Rice pushed ob at PIT 36 for 16 yards (24-I.Taylor).
Here's a question I want to ask Brad Childress; if you're down 10 with under a minute left, how exactly do you plan on making up those 10 points? The correct answer is to try to get a field goal first, then recover the onside kick and have a chance at a TD. Unless there's some breakdown on defense that allows you to get a TD first, this is your only chance at winning. The Vikings reached the Pittsburgh 36 on this play with 13 seconds left. The ONLY way the Vikings can win at this point is to kick a field goal, recover an onside kick and then throw a hail mary. Is it unlikely? You betcha, but coming back when down 10 at this point is highly unlikely. It's your only chance. Of course you know the Vikings didn't do this, as they ran a couple more pass plays.
1-10-PIT 19 (:03) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre sacked at PIT 27 for -8 yards (92-J.Harrison).
The nfl.com gamebook doesn't have this recorded for some reason, but Childress actually called a timeout before this final play. Why? I don't have any freaking idea. Do the Vikings have some magical 10 point play? Because with 3 seconds to go, that's the only thing that can tie the game. Maybe Childress wanted Favre to take one more hit, I don't know. But this was outrageous; Pittsburgh got another shot at Favre so the Vikings could...do what exactly?
I'll say this about Childress; he had a great challenge on a 3rd and 18 pass to Sidney Rice that was initally ruled incomplete. Otherwise he's an idiot with game management. He challenged a play in the first quarter that at no point looked to be reversable. Play-calling at the goalline was horrendous. His use of timeouts was odd, to say the least. And apparently he doesn't realize 10 points is two possessions, and a field goal is one of those possessions. Other than that, I think he's a helluva coach.
1-1-PIT 1 (5:41) 28-A.Peterson up the middle to PIT 1 for no gain (57-K.Fox, 51-J.Farrior).
2-1-PIT 1 (4:59) 4-B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to 18-S.Rice. Coverage by #57 Fox, #51 Farrior.
3-1-PIT 1 (4:52) 4-B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to 40-J.Kleinsasser [92-J.Harrison]. Coverage by #51 Farrior.
Yes that's right, the Vikings had 1st and goal from the 1 and threw the ball twice before kicking a field goal. That's why they spend a ton of money on McKinnie, Hutchinson and Peterson, so Favre can throw passes to Jim Kleinsasser, right? You've gotta figure running the ball up the middle three times will at some point result in 1 yard, and this odd play-calling cost the Vikings in a close game.
Timeout #1 by MIN at 03:45.
This was such an odd timeout I don't know what to think of it. Pittsburgh was facing a 3rd and 6 from their own 46. Most teams don't start using timeouts defensively until around the 2 minute warning. Otherwise you don't know how the game is going to go, and you might want that timeout later. It wasn't a two-possession game either, as Minnesota was down 3. Maybe not a bad call, but odd.
1-10-MIN 37 (:54) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass short left to 18-S.Rice to MIN 48 for 11 yards (24-I.Taylor).
1-10-MIN 48 (:28) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to 12-P.Harvin. Coverage by #26 Townsend, #22 Gay.
Notice how much time was wasted here? The Vikings were down 10 with under a minute left in the 4th quarter, and used approximately 20 seconds to get another play off. I don't know if they realize this, but every second is precious when you're down two possessions with under a minute left.
2-10-MIN 48 (:20) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass deep left to 18-S.Rice pushed ob at PIT 36 for 16 yards (24-I.Taylor).
Here's a question I want to ask Brad Childress; if you're down 10 with under a minute left, how exactly do you plan on making up those 10 points? The correct answer is to try to get a field goal first, then recover the onside kick and have a chance at a TD. Unless there's some breakdown on defense that allows you to get a TD first, this is your only chance at winning. The Vikings reached the Pittsburgh 36 on this play with 13 seconds left. The ONLY way the Vikings can win at this point is to kick a field goal, recover an onside kick and then throw a hail mary. Is it unlikely? You betcha, but coming back when down 10 at this point is highly unlikely. It's your only chance. Of course you know the Vikings didn't do this, as they ran a couple more pass plays.
1-10-PIT 19 (:03) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre sacked at PIT 27 for -8 yards (92-J.Harrison).
The nfl.com gamebook doesn't have this recorded for some reason, but Childress actually called a timeout before this final play. Why? I don't have any freaking idea. Do the Vikings have some magical 10 point play? Because with 3 seconds to go, that's the only thing that can tie the game. Maybe Childress wanted Favre to take one more hit, I don't know. But this was outrageous; Pittsburgh got another shot at Favre so the Vikings could...do what exactly?
I'll say this about Childress; he had a great challenge on a 3rd and 18 pass to Sidney Rice that was initally ruled incomplete. Otherwise he's an idiot with game management. He challenged a play in the first quarter that at no point looked to be reversable. Play-calling at the goalline was horrendous. His use of timeouts was odd, to say the least. And apparently he doesn't realize 10 points is two possessions, and a field goal is one of those possessions. Other than that, I think he's a helluva coach.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Other thoughts
* I don't normally root for the Patriots, but today I was hoping they would put 70 on the Titans. If you saw any of this game, you knew that the Titans quit the second they got off the bus. And when a team so blatantly doesn't even compete, I want that team to be completely embarrassed. Had the Titans simply forfeited, they would have left with more dignity than they did by playing.
* The bloom is officially off the Mark Sanchez-Rex Ryan rose. They've lost three in a row now, and today's loss was the worst. You cannot, absolutely cannot lose to the Bills if you want to seriously compete for the AFC East title. Mark Sanchez was terrible today, and Rex Ryan's team lost to a Bills team that went with Ryan Fitzpatrick at QB in the 2nd half due to a Trent Edwards injury. That is embarrassing. I'm starting to think the Patriots and Dolphins will be the ones competing for the AFC East, and that the Jets are pretenders. In retrospect, beating the Titans wasn't impressive at all, and the Texans are so schizophrenic that beating them isn't really impressive either. So the Jets only good win this year is against the Patriots.
* The Eagles should hang their heads in shame as well. Kudos to the Raiders for actually competing this week, but no way no how should they be able to beat the Eagles. Andy Reid should take the brunt of the blame, as he completely abandoned the run game despite the passing game not producing a whole lot. And that 86 yard TD by Zach Miller was a complete embarrassment. Miller's a good player, but he should never be able to run 86 yards.
* Remember when the NFC East was a beast? The Redskins are on a weekly mission to be the league's worst team, the Eagles lost to the Raiders and the Giants lost big to the Saints. Not a good day. Only the Cowboys on a bye week can feel good about themselves right now.
* Speaking of the Redskins, please just fire Jim Zorn and put him out of his misery. The poor guy has no support from his own team anymore, and made the move of the desperate by benching his QB. Once you bench your QB, there's only one higher head that can roll and that's your own. The Redskins are a hugely flawed roster, and the problems go all the way to the top. So let Zorn go with at least a shred of dignity left, and please bring in some proper people to run the personnel department. Going into the season with that offensive line is a disgrace, and openly trying to replace your QB didn't help either.
* It's time to stop thinking of the Ravens defense as being any good, because they're not. The Vikings had a 100 yard rusher and receiver (Sidney Rice had an amazing 176 yards), and the Ravens' secondary is rather weak. The Raven's defense is living off reputation alone right now; that is not an impressive unit at all. With that said, Joe Flacco is pretty good and Ray Rice can play as well; he has impressive balance and ability to stay on his feet. This is the team Brian Billick always wanted, only Brian Billick isn't there anymore.
* The bloom is officially off the Mark Sanchez-Rex Ryan rose. They've lost three in a row now, and today's loss was the worst. You cannot, absolutely cannot lose to the Bills if you want to seriously compete for the AFC East title. Mark Sanchez was terrible today, and Rex Ryan's team lost to a Bills team that went with Ryan Fitzpatrick at QB in the 2nd half due to a Trent Edwards injury. That is embarrassing. I'm starting to think the Patriots and Dolphins will be the ones competing for the AFC East, and that the Jets are pretenders. In retrospect, beating the Titans wasn't impressive at all, and the Texans are so schizophrenic that beating them isn't really impressive either. So the Jets only good win this year is against the Patriots.
* The Eagles should hang their heads in shame as well. Kudos to the Raiders for actually competing this week, but no way no how should they be able to beat the Eagles. Andy Reid should take the brunt of the blame, as he completely abandoned the run game despite the passing game not producing a whole lot. And that 86 yard TD by Zach Miller was a complete embarrassment. Miller's a good player, but he should never be able to run 86 yards.
* Remember when the NFC East was a beast? The Redskins are on a weekly mission to be the league's worst team, the Eagles lost to the Raiders and the Giants lost big to the Saints. Not a good day. Only the Cowboys on a bye week can feel good about themselves right now.
* Speaking of the Redskins, please just fire Jim Zorn and put him out of his misery. The poor guy has no support from his own team anymore, and made the move of the desperate by benching his QB. Once you bench your QB, there's only one higher head that can roll and that's your own. The Redskins are a hugely flawed roster, and the problems go all the way to the top. So let Zorn go with at least a shred of dignity left, and please bring in some proper people to run the personnel department. Going into the season with that offensive line is a disgrace, and openly trying to replace your QB didn't help either.
* It's time to stop thinking of the Ravens defense as being any good, because they're not. The Vikings had a 100 yard rusher and receiver (Sidney Rice had an amazing 176 yards), and the Ravens' secondary is rather weak. The Raven's defense is living off reputation alone right now; that is not an impressive unit at all. With that said, Joe Flacco is pretty good and Ray Rice can play as well; he has impressive balance and ability to stay on his feet. This is the team Brian Billick always wanted, only Brian Billick isn't there anymore.
Adventures in Game Management
There was one play in particular during today's Ravens-Vikings game that drew my ire.
3-9-BAL 17 (2:30) (Shotgun) 28-A.Peterson right guard to BLT 14 for 3 yards (52-R.Lewis).
With 2:30 remaining in the 4th quarter and facing a 3rd and 9 from the Baltimore 17, Brad Childress elected to run the ball and settle for a field goal, rather than put the ball in the air and at least try to get a first down, if not a touchdown.
In this situation, a field goal was basically in the bank for Minnesota. There was no reason to settle for it without trying for a touchdown first. The Vikings were trailing by 1 point, so a touchdown was essential here. A field goal makes it a 2 point game, forcing Baltimore to simply get in field goal range. But a TD forces Baltimore to also have to score a TD, a much tougher proposition. Most offenses can get into field goal in 2 minutes, even without possessing timeouts. But it's a lot harder to get into the end zone when that's the only thing the defense has to defend against.
I was absolutely livid that Childress elected to run 3 times and kick a field goal, rather than put the ball in the air and at least try for a TD. What good was a field goal? It got Minnesota the lead, but Baltimore simply had to get the ball to the 35 yard line to have a viable chance at kicking one themselves to win the game. A TD was essential in this situation, as that would force Baltimore to also have to score a TD. This was exactly like Mike Singletary's prevent offense from week 3 against Minnesota, when he ran 3 times and punted, rather than putting the ball in the air and trying to convert a first down to really ice the game. Each time these coaches have practiced this prevent offense, it's bit them in the ass. The Vikings beat the 49ers on a miracle pass, and the Ravens rather easily got into field goal range. A halfway decent kicker would have beaten Minnesota today.
This is not the say that a pass is a sure thing. Maybe Favre throws a pick. Maybe it falls incomplete, or maybe Favre takes a sack. But you have to trust your QB to make the play to win the game. As the announcers love to say, this is why you sign Brett Favre. What would have been GREAT for Minnesota was a first down. Baltimore used all of their timeouts, so a Minnesota first down allows them to run the clock way down before kicking the field goal. So how about some intermediate routes to Rice or Shiancoe? A run was such a give-up call.
I am just so sick and tired of coaches not trying to win games on their own. Childress allowed Baltimore to have a shot at winning the game, as did Singletary a few weeks ago and various other coaches do from time to time. You should at least try and force your opponent into its toughest situation. Baltimore was very capable of moving the ball into field goal range (which they did; easily I might add), but a TD would have been much tougher. And you know what? Maybe a pass doesn't work and Minnesota settles for a field goal anyways. So be it; at least you tried to win the game. In competition you aren't always going to succeed. Nothing is guaranteed to anybody. But I can't handle coaches not even trying. If you have Favre throw into the end zone and it falls incomplete, so be it. You tried for a TD and it didn't work. But running the ball had little chance of getting a first down or TD, and screamed give-up. And that I can't handle.
3-9-BAL 17 (2:30) (Shotgun) 28-A.Peterson right guard to BLT 14 for 3 yards (52-R.Lewis).
With 2:30 remaining in the 4th quarter and facing a 3rd and 9 from the Baltimore 17, Brad Childress elected to run the ball and settle for a field goal, rather than put the ball in the air and at least try to get a first down, if not a touchdown.
In this situation, a field goal was basically in the bank for Minnesota. There was no reason to settle for it without trying for a touchdown first. The Vikings were trailing by 1 point, so a touchdown was essential here. A field goal makes it a 2 point game, forcing Baltimore to simply get in field goal range. But a TD forces Baltimore to also have to score a TD, a much tougher proposition. Most offenses can get into field goal in 2 minutes, even without possessing timeouts. But it's a lot harder to get into the end zone when that's the only thing the defense has to defend against.
I was absolutely livid that Childress elected to run 3 times and kick a field goal, rather than put the ball in the air and at least try for a TD. What good was a field goal? It got Minnesota the lead, but Baltimore simply had to get the ball to the 35 yard line to have a viable chance at kicking one themselves to win the game. A TD was essential in this situation, as that would force Baltimore to also have to score a TD. This was exactly like Mike Singletary's prevent offense from week 3 against Minnesota, when he ran 3 times and punted, rather than putting the ball in the air and trying to convert a first down to really ice the game. Each time these coaches have practiced this prevent offense, it's bit them in the ass. The Vikings beat the 49ers on a miracle pass, and the Ravens rather easily got into field goal range. A halfway decent kicker would have beaten Minnesota today.
This is not the say that a pass is a sure thing. Maybe Favre throws a pick. Maybe it falls incomplete, or maybe Favre takes a sack. But you have to trust your QB to make the play to win the game. As the announcers love to say, this is why you sign Brett Favre. What would have been GREAT for Minnesota was a first down. Baltimore used all of their timeouts, so a Minnesota first down allows them to run the clock way down before kicking the field goal. So how about some intermediate routes to Rice or Shiancoe? A run was such a give-up call.
I am just so sick and tired of coaches not trying to win games on their own. Childress allowed Baltimore to have a shot at winning the game, as did Singletary a few weeks ago and various other coaches do from time to time. You should at least try and force your opponent into its toughest situation. Baltimore was very capable of moving the ball into field goal range (which they did; easily I might add), but a TD would have been much tougher. And you know what? Maybe a pass doesn't work and Minnesota settles for a field goal anyways. So be it; at least you tried to win the game. In competition you aren't always going to succeed. Nothing is guaranteed to anybody. But I can't handle coaches not even trying. If you have Favre throw into the end zone and it falls incomplete, so be it. You tried for a TD and it didn't work. But running the ball had little chance of getting a first down or TD, and screamed give-up. And that I can't handle.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
More ridiculousness
Here's another idea that people use that I just love; "it may not be a fair indicator of how so-and-so QB played, but they get credit for the wins and losses." You read this ALL THE TIME. This QB is a winner, this QB is not. Crediting wins and losses to the starting QB is, of course, ridiculous. This can be proven at the extremes. Derek Anderson completed 2 passes and won on Sunday. JaMarcus Russell had a terrible game against the Chiefs and won. Ben Roethlisberger won a Super Bowl in which his QB rating was lower than his age. Kyle Orton gets credit with a win in week 1 in which his underthrown ball miraculously fell into Brandon Stokely's arms. And you can go the other way, in which QBs play really well and still lose.
But my favorite part is when people will readily admit, well it's not a fair indicator of that QB. For instance, I read something today in which the writer said Jimmy Clausen's career is going to be judged on this game Saturday whether it's fair or not. Hey, that's just how it is. This is ridiculous. People act as if this stuff was passed down from Moses on Mt. Sinai. Thou shalt credit starting QBs with wins and losses. People, we are the ones with the ideas, which means we are the ones who can change those ideas. There is nothing set in stone that says whether a QB plays well or not, he is ultimately judged by wins and losses. That is an idea we as a people came up with, and is an idea that we as a people can change. Do you realize that Tom Brady gets credit for a week 1 win last season because he started against the Chiefs, even though he blew out his knee a couple minutes in and didn't play again all season? But since he started the game, he gets credit for it.
This is ridiculous. There is no reason, beyond our own idiocy, that we should be bound by such ideas. Football is team game, which anyone with two eyes can see. A QB can't play defense. He can't kick field goals, or cover a punt return. He can only do his job, and that's all he should be credited with. Giving him credit because his defense is playing at an absurd level (I'm looking at you, Kyle Orton) is, in itself, absurd.
I love Carson Palmer, but he hasn't played well this season and wouldn't have had a chance at any 4th quarter heroics if his team hadn't kept the scores close and given him that opportunity. It's a team game, and it's time we started acting like it. And don't even get me started on wins and losses for baseball pitchers...
But my favorite part is when people will readily admit, well it's not a fair indicator of that QB. For instance, I read something today in which the writer said Jimmy Clausen's career is going to be judged on this game Saturday whether it's fair or not. Hey, that's just how it is. This is ridiculous. People act as if this stuff was passed down from Moses on Mt. Sinai. Thou shalt credit starting QBs with wins and losses. People, we are the ones with the ideas, which means we are the ones who can change those ideas. There is nothing set in stone that says whether a QB plays well or not, he is ultimately judged by wins and losses. That is an idea we as a people came up with, and is an idea that we as a people can change. Do you realize that Tom Brady gets credit for a week 1 win last season because he started against the Chiefs, even though he blew out his knee a couple minutes in and didn't play again all season? But since he started the game, he gets credit for it.
This is ridiculous. There is no reason, beyond our own idiocy, that we should be bound by such ideas. Football is team game, which anyone with two eyes can see. A QB can't play defense. He can't kick field goals, or cover a punt return. He can only do his job, and that's all he should be credited with. Giving him credit because his defense is playing at an absurd level (I'm looking at you, Kyle Orton) is, in itself, absurd.
I love Carson Palmer, but he hasn't played well this season and wouldn't have had a chance at any 4th quarter heroics if his team hadn't kept the scores close and given him that opportunity. It's a team game, and it's time we started acting like it. And don't even get me started on wins and losses for baseball pitchers...
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
This is a great weekend of college football
Just look at the matchups. Iowa-Wisconsin, Texas-Oklahoma, Arkansas-Florida, Texas Tech-Nebraska, Missouri-Oklahoma St., South Carolina-Alabama. We could see some major shakeups in the top-25 depending on the outcome of these games.
And then there's the game that I care about, USC-Notre Dame. I've gone back and forth between thinking Notre Dame can win, and thinking they'll get blown out. This series has been ugly ever since 2002, with USC winning every matchup and usually in blowout fashion. But part of me thinks this year could be different. For instance, in past matchups USC had Carson Palmer, Matt Leinart, John David Booty or Mark Sanchez at QB. Every single one of them was drafted into the NFL, four of them first rounders. This year they're starting freshman Matt Barkley, who will probably someday be a first rounder but right now he's, well, a freshman. This is really the first time since this series turned ugly in 2002 that Notre Dame has a decided advantage at QB.
But then you remember this is a team game, and not just simply Jimmy Clausen vs. Matt Barkley. Despite losing a bunch of players from their front seven, USC continues to have a very good defense. This is Carrol's specialty, and the one year they fell a little bit defensively was the one year Notre Dame had a chance to win (2005). They have numerous RBs, most notably Joe McKnight. They have an experienced offensive line, good TEs and an underrated FB in Stanley Havili who is a really good receiver out of the backfield. Their receivers aren't great, but Ronald Johnson is coming back to join the dynamic Damian Williams. Basically, this is still a pretty good USC team, and there's a good chance Matt Barkley won't have to do much of anything but hand the ball off.
I would feel about 1,000 times better about this game if Notre Dame was playing better defensively, but they've had four straight subpar outings on defense. The pass rush is inconsistent and at times non-existent (despite Jon Tenuta dialing up a bunch of blitzes), and the secondary has been a disappointment. The front seven is too soft against the run, and basically even if Notre Dame strings together a few good plays on defense, they can never do it consistently and eventually give up a bunch of yardage to let the other team back in the game. If this defense were even playing average football, Notre Dame would be 5-0 and this would be a top-10 matchup. I really question whether they can slow down Joe McKnight and Damian Williams. And that's the main reason I feel like a USC blowout is probably the most likely outcome.
HOWEVER, if this game does become a battle of QBs, where it's a close game in the 4th quarter and each QB needs to make a play for his team to win, Clausen should win that battle hands down. Notre Dame's defense just needs to keep this game close, and eventually hope that Barkley will make a freshman mistake that Clausen can capitalize on. If this is a 20 point game at halftime, there's not much Clausen can do except pad his own stats.
*ON A SIDE NOTE
I see a variation on this idea quite a bit, and I'd like to comment on it. The idea is "so-and-so team has played defenses that average 70th in the country. Therefore, they haven't played anybody with a good defense." Here's what I love about this idea; the person espousing it never seems to notice that those defenses (or offenses) are ranked on average 70th in country at least in part because the team in question put up a lot of yards and points against them. We are currently 6 weeks into the college football season, so a team's offensive and defensive ranking is going to be 1/6 of each particular game. If Notre Dame (for instance) has a big game against someone, that team's defensive ranking is of course going to drop as a result of that. 1/6 of their ranking in this case is a result of what happened against Notre Dame. Why should Notre Dame (as an example) be punished for this? Would it make you feel better if they hadn't put up a lot of yards and points?
Another variation of that is the old "their opponent's combined record is 10-15" or whatever. Again, the person making this claim doesn't seem to realize that some of those losses are against that particular team. And this is what's truly hilarious; if the team in question with a supposedly soft schedule had lost those games, their opponent's combined record would go up but they would get no credit for that because they, of course, lost. In other words, the team in question can't win, because if they beat everybody then their opponent's record goes down, but if they lose their opponent's record goes up, but nobody cares because their own won-loss record went down. Basically, this argument if a freaking joke unless you subtract the team in question's victories against their opponents, which I don't see anyone ever do.
And then there's the game that I care about, USC-Notre Dame. I've gone back and forth between thinking Notre Dame can win, and thinking they'll get blown out. This series has been ugly ever since 2002, with USC winning every matchup and usually in blowout fashion. But part of me thinks this year could be different. For instance, in past matchups USC had Carson Palmer, Matt Leinart, John David Booty or Mark Sanchez at QB. Every single one of them was drafted into the NFL, four of them first rounders. This year they're starting freshman Matt Barkley, who will probably someday be a first rounder but right now he's, well, a freshman. This is really the first time since this series turned ugly in 2002 that Notre Dame has a decided advantage at QB.
But then you remember this is a team game, and not just simply Jimmy Clausen vs. Matt Barkley. Despite losing a bunch of players from their front seven, USC continues to have a very good defense. This is Carrol's specialty, and the one year they fell a little bit defensively was the one year Notre Dame had a chance to win (2005). They have numerous RBs, most notably Joe McKnight. They have an experienced offensive line, good TEs and an underrated FB in Stanley Havili who is a really good receiver out of the backfield. Their receivers aren't great, but Ronald Johnson is coming back to join the dynamic Damian Williams. Basically, this is still a pretty good USC team, and there's a good chance Matt Barkley won't have to do much of anything but hand the ball off.
I would feel about 1,000 times better about this game if Notre Dame was playing better defensively, but they've had four straight subpar outings on defense. The pass rush is inconsistent and at times non-existent (despite Jon Tenuta dialing up a bunch of blitzes), and the secondary has been a disappointment. The front seven is too soft against the run, and basically even if Notre Dame strings together a few good plays on defense, they can never do it consistently and eventually give up a bunch of yardage to let the other team back in the game. If this defense were even playing average football, Notre Dame would be 5-0 and this would be a top-10 matchup. I really question whether they can slow down Joe McKnight and Damian Williams. And that's the main reason I feel like a USC blowout is probably the most likely outcome.
HOWEVER, if this game does become a battle of QBs, where it's a close game in the 4th quarter and each QB needs to make a play for his team to win, Clausen should win that battle hands down. Notre Dame's defense just needs to keep this game close, and eventually hope that Barkley will make a freshman mistake that Clausen can capitalize on. If this is a 20 point game at halftime, there's not much Clausen can do except pad his own stats.
*ON A SIDE NOTE
I see a variation on this idea quite a bit, and I'd like to comment on it. The idea is "so-and-so team has played defenses that average 70th in the country. Therefore, they haven't played anybody with a good defense." Here's what I love about this idea; the person espousing it never seems to notice that those defenses (or offenses) are ranked on average 70th in country at least in part because the team in question put up a lot of yards and points against them. We are currently 6 weeks into the college football season, so a team's offensive and defensive ranking is going to be 1/6 of each particular game. If Notre Dame (for instance) has a big game against someone, that team's defensive ranking is of course going to drop as a result of that. 1/6 of their ranking in this case is a result of what happened against Notre Dame. Why should Notre Dame (as an example) be punished for this? Would it make you feel better if they hadn't put up a lot of yards and points?
Another variation of that is the old "their opponent's combined record is 10-15" or whatever. Again, the person making this claim doesn't seem to realize that some of those losses are against that particular team. And this is what's truly hilarious; if the team in question with a supposedly soft schedule had lost those games, their opponent's combined record would go up but they would get no credit for that because they, of course, lost. In other words, the team in question can't win, because if they beat everybody then their opponent's record goes down, but if they lose their opponent's record goes up, but nobody cares because their own won-loss record went down. Basically, this argument if a freaking joke unless you subtract the team in question's victories against their opponents, which I don't see anyone ever do.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Thoughts on the NFL
* If you need further proof of how bad the NFL is this season (and if you've been watching this season, you don't), the Vikings have won 3 games on the road by double digits and I wasn't impressed in the slightest. Why? Because the teams they beat were the Browns, Lions and Rams, three of the worst teams in the league (although the Lions at least compete on a weekly basis). I still wonder how good this team truly is. They're 5-0, but 3 of those wins were handed to them.
* The Vikings secretly aren't playing that well on defense recently. The Packers moved the ball, and a dropped pass in the end zone by Donald Lee was crucial. The Rams, with Kyle Boller at QB, also moved the ball but committed 3 turnovers in the red zone. A half-decent team moving the ball like the Rams did would have given the Vikings a run for their money. Instead, the game was a blowout. But a defensive performance like that against the Ravens this week will almost certainly result in a loss.
* A lot of people are clamoring for Vince Young to start for the Titans. Has anyone considered that you have to earn your starting job? The NBC announcers said there was no momentum in the Titans' locker room for Young, and it's pretty clear that Fisher doesn't feel he deserves to start. Besides, Kerry Collins is not the problem with this team. He's doing exactly what he did last year, and always has. The problem is their secondary, which went from very good last year to dreadful this year, an epic collapse that's maybe never been seen before.
* Speaking of the Titans...is Jeff Fisher a good coach? The guy has been coaching that team since 1995, and has never won the Super Bowl. That's a long time for one guy to coach a team without winning a Super Bowl. And while I do generally think Fisher is a good coach, if his name were "Norv Turner" or "Wade Phillips" there's no way I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. The Titans have absolutely fallen off a cliff, and Fisher deserves some of the blame. They've inexplicably fallen from a Super Bowl contender to one of the worst teams in the league.
* Here's what I love about the Raiders: they lose a game 44-7 and their QB only throws 13 passes. Most teams that get behind start putting the ball in the air and the QB ends up with 50 pass attempts. Josh Johnson threw 50 passes for the Bucs. Not the Raiders; they get behind and tighten up on offense. And don't think for a second this wasn't just to finish the day with a completion percentage over 50% for JaMarcus Russell. Hell of an organization they've got over there.
* I am hoping against hope that Brady Quinn gets traded this week. I don't care where, he just needs to leave that awful organization. Derek Anderson completed 2 passes this week. This is a team that has traded its two best receivers (Kellen Winslow and Braylon Edwards) and replaced them with no one. They should trade Anderson as well, so he can salvage his career.
* I would love to criticize teams for beating only weak teams; for instace, Dallas' wins this season are against Tampa Bay, Carolina and Kansas City. But this season, it's unavoidable. About 1/3 of the league is just dreadful this season. This is a league with a hard salary cap, the worst teams get the highest draft picks, etc., and 1/3 of the league is just awful. It's usually hyperbole to say I could run an NFL team, but I could hardly do any worse than some of these teams. I couldn't coach Derek Anderson to 2 completed passes? I couldn't lead the Raiders to a 44-7 beatdown in which Eli Manning doesn't even play a full half? This NFL season isn't even fun. There are so many bad teams that winning these games doesn't even seem fair. Beating the Browns, Lions and Rams is like beating on a disabled kid.
* The Vikings secretly aren't playing that well on defense recently. The Packers moved the ball, and a dropped pass in the end zone by Donald Lee was crucial. The Rams, with Kyle Boller at QB, also moved the ball but committed 3 turnovers in the red zone. A half-decent team moving the ball like the Rams did would have given the Vikings a run for their money. Instead, the game was a blowout. But a defensive performance like that against the Ravens this week will almost certainly result in a loss.
* A lot of people are clamoring for Vince Young to start for the Titans. Has anyone considered that you have to earn your starting job? The NBC announcers said there was no momentum in the Titans' locker room for Young, and it's pretty clear that Fisher doesn't feel he deserves to start. Besides, Kerry Collins is not the problem with this team. He's doing exactly what he did last year, and always has. The problem is their secondary, which went from very good last year to dreadful this year, an epic collapse that's maybe never been seen before.
* Speaking of the Titans...is Jeff Fisher a good coach? The guy has been coaching that team since 1995, and has never won the Super Bowl. That's a long time for one guy to coach a team without winning a Super Bowl. And while I do generally think Fisher is a good coach, if his name were "Norv Turner" or "Wade Phillips" there's no way I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. The Titans have absolutely fallen off a cliff, and Fisher deserves some of the blame. They've inexplicably fallen from a Super Bowl contender to one of the worst teams in the league.
* Here's what I love about the Raiders: they lose a game 44-7 and their QB only throws 13 passes. Most teams that get behind start putting the ball in the air and the QB ends up with 50 pass attempts. Josh Johnson threw 50 passes for the Bucs. Not the Raiders; they get behind and tighten up on offense. And don't think for a second this wasn't just to finish the day with a completion percentage over 50% for JaMarcus Russell. Hell of an organization they've got over there.
* I am hoping against hope that Brady Quinn gets traded this week. I don't care where, he just needs to leave that awful organization. Derek Anderson completed 2 passes this week. This is a team that has traded its two best receivers (Kellen Winslow and Braylon Edwards) and replaced them with no one. They should trade Anderson as well, so he can salvage his career.
* I would love to criticize teams for beating only weak teams; for instace, Dallas' wins this season are against Tampa Bay, Carolina and Kansas City. But this season, it's unavoidable. About 1/3 of the league is just dreadful this season. This is a league with a hard salary cap, the worst teams get the highest draft picks, etc., and 1/3 of the league is just awful. It's usually hyperbole to say I could run an NFL team, but I could hardly do any worse than some of these teams. I couldn't coach Derek Anderson to 2 completed passes? I couldn't lead the Raiders to a 44-7 beatdown in which Eli Manning doesn't even play a full half? This NFL season isn't even fun. There are so many bad teams that winning these games doesn't even seem fair. Beating the Browns, Lions and Rams is like beating on a disabled kid.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Is Braylon Edwards actually good?
Today the Browns traded Edwards to the Jets, and it seems like a steal for the Jets at first. They needed a receiver to play opposite Jerricho Cotchery, and they got it. But here's a question; is Braylon Edwards actually good?
The popular opinion is that he is, and I tend to fall into this as well. But look at his career yardage stats per season: 512, 884, 1289, 873, 139 (in 4 games this year). Outside of one big season, what has he done? You can make excuses for him about his QBs and all that, but the bottom line in this league is production. Bernard Berrian last season had 940 receiving yards, and no one considers him a great player. Yet that total would rank 2nd in Edwards' career. Edwards' production is actually similar to another receiver who was traded at midseason, the bust that is Roy Williams of the Cowboys: 817, 687, 1310, 838, 430 (with 2 teams), 214 (in 4 games this year).
The Jets didn't give up as much as to get Edwards as the Cowboys did to get Williams, but they're both supposed to be talented, explosive players, yet the results really aren't there. You could have made excuses for Roy Williams in Detroit as well, but going to a better team has not helped him; he's been a huge bust for Dallas.
I would also be remiss if I didn't mention Edwards sometimes has a huge case of the dropsies. If he plays like he did in Cleveland, he's going to get eaten alive in New York.
The popular opinion is that he is, and I tend to fall into this as well. But look at his career yardage stats per season: 512, 884, 1289, 873, 139 (in 4 games this year). Outside of one big season, what has he done? You can make excuses for him about his QBs and all that, but the bottom line in this league is production. Bernard Berrian last season had 940 receiving yards, and no one considers him a great player. Yet that total would rank 2nd in Edwards' career. Edwards' production is actually similar to another receiver who was traded at midseason, the bust that is Roy Williams of the Cowboys: 817, 687, 1310, 838, 430 (with 2 teams), 214 (in 4 games this year).
The Jets didn't give up as much as to get Edwards as the Cowboys did to get Williams, but they're both supposed to be talented, explosive players, yet the results really aren't there. You could have made excuses for Roy Williams in Detroit as well, but going to a better team has not helped him; he's been a huge bust for Dallas.
I would also be remiss if I didn't mention Edwards sometimes has a huge case of the dropsies. If he plays like he did in Cleveland, he's going to get eaten alive in New York.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Lowest hanging fruit
Everybody and their mother seems to be criticizing JaMarcus Russell recently (his horrid season makes it pretty easy, i.e. the lowest hanging fruit). So what the hell, I thought I'd join in.
Ryan Leaf, generally considered to be the worst draft choice of all-time, in his third season in the NFL (he missed all of 1999, but Russell missed most of his rookie season so it's even):
50% completion percentage, 11 TDs, 18 INTs, 5.8 yards per attempt, 56.2 rating
JaMarcus Russell in his third season thus far:
39.8% completion percentage, 1 TD, 4 INTs, 4.7 yards per attempt, 42.4 rating
Leaf had across-the-board better numbers than Russell. What's great is that the Raiders probably won't bench Russell because of his draft status and contract (plus Gradkowski as his backup), so we may be looking at one of the least valuable seasons from a starting QB in NFL history. There may have been QBs who put up worse numbers than Russell, but if he keeps starting he's going to be doing it with a lot more attempts, making it even less valuable. Most players who produce like Russell get benched, which is what could make this a historic season.
Ryan Leaf, generally considered to be the worst draft choice of all-time, in his third season in the NFL (he missed all of 1999, but Russell missed most of his rookie season so it's even):
50% completion percentage, 11 TDs, 18 INTs, 5.8 yards per attempt, 56.2 rating
JaMarcus Russell in his third season thus far:
39.8% completion percentage, 1 TD, 4 INTs, 4.7 yards per attempt, 42.4 rating
Leaf had across-the-board better numbers than Russell. What's great is that the Raiders probably won't bench Russell because of his draft status and contract (plus Gradkowski as his backup), so we may be looking at one of the least valuable seasons from a starting QB in NFL history. There may have been QBs who put up worse numbers than Russell, but if he keeps starting he's going to be doing it with a lot more attempts, making it even less valuable. Most players who produce like Russell get benched, which is what could make this a historic season.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Glass half full/glass half empty
Glass half full:
Notre Dame's offense is really good. They can basically score at will, and the only time they're slowed down is by shooting themselves in the foot (always untimely penalties). Jimmy Clausen has been really good this season. It's pretty amazing when you're down by 5 with about 2 1/2 minutes to go, need to drive the length of the field to score a TD, and your QB leads you on a drive so good you actually score too quickly. Just kidding about that (there's no such thing as scoring too quickly), but Clausen did lead a drive so good at the end of the 4th quarter that there was enough time for Washington to go down and get a tying field goal. From here on out, Notre Dame has the edge at QB over every team it plays, and it's pretty significant. This will be the first time in awhile that Notre Dame has a significantly better QB than USC (Brady Quinn had to face Matt Leinart and John David Booty, not freshman Matt Barkley).
Glass half empty:
This defense is bad. There is no getting around it. I've been waiting all season for things to turn around, but it just isn't going to happen, and if it does I'll be pleasantly surprised. It'd be one thing if it were just one area, like run defense or pass defense. But it's everything. Run defense was superb on the goalline stands today, but was otherwise pretty giving to Washington's ground game. Jon Tenuta week in and week out sends a lot of blitzes, and very few of them get home. Coverage in the back is soft a lot of times, and too many receivers get wide open. Tackling is suspect on a lot of plays. Even today when Washington was faced with a 3rd and 19 in overtime, Locker found a wide open receiver on the sideline for a first down who let the ball go right through his hands. It's a sick feeling when no lead is ever comfortable, and any miscue on offense feels like a disaster because it means the defense has to pick up the slack. You can't tell me the talent isn't there either; this defense is littered with former 4 star recruits and a 5 star freshman LB (Manti Te'o).
Do you believe in miracles?
Jake Locker was stuffed on three QB sneaks from the 1 yard line today. I cannot believe that a big, strong QB like Jake Locker can't sneak it in from the 1, but that's what happened today. I also cannot believe that a Notre Dame defense that was porous all over the field all of a sudden stiffened up at the 1 yard line to keep the score within one possession, but that also happened.
Lou Holtz and Mark May:
I hate the schtick that Holtz and May have going on ESPN, in which Holtz is the Notre Dame homer and May is the Notre Dame hater. You know what? All I want is a fair analysis of the team. Holtz actually started a sentence today with "when you're competing for a championship..." Come on, Notre Dame is not a national champion contender at this point. And then May followed it up with "...and Notre Dame hasn't beaten a team with a winning record." Well, okay, but Michigan State would be over .500 if they had beaten Notre Dame, and so would Washington. Would May feel better about Notre Dame if they had lost those games so their opponents could have above-.500 records?
Icing the kicker:
Icing the kicker is officially the lamest strategy in sports. Charlie Weis iced the kicker at the end of regulation today, and Washington's kicker simply went over the sideline and shared a laugh with Steve Sarkisian. Yeah, he looked real psyched out. A couple weeks ago Wade Phillips iced Lawrence Tynes of the Giants, and Tynes went from sneaking in his first field goal attempt that didn't count to splitting the uprights with the one that did. I'd rather give those timeouts to charity than waste them on "icing the kicker." What a waste of everybody's time.
Celebration penalties:
A couple weeks ago I said if there's reincarnation, I want to come back with the attitude of a referee not afraid to make a BS celebration penalty in a big spot in a big game. Georgia's A.J. Green was called for this today after making a great TD catch late in the 4th quarter, and thus forced Georgia to kick off from its own 15 and gave LSU great field position to go and win the game. I think I would have more sympathy for someone who steals an old lady's purse than a referee who makes that call at that stage of the game, and it was for a celebration that was nowhere near out of the ordinary from what you see every game. I just wish I could walk through life not afraid to absolutely, as Walter Sobchak would say, feed a stoner scrambled eggs.
And how about the "roughing the snapper" penalty on Notre Dame? Another huge call in a huge spot that required another miraculous goalline stand. If you ever see another roughing the snapper penalty in your life, please call me and let me know. And yet, that wasn't even the worst call of the day with what happened to Georgia and A.J. Green. It's a good thing people pay good money to see referees in action, right?
Notre Dame's offense is really good. They can basically score at will, and the only time they're slowed down is by shooting themselves in the foot (always untimely penalties). Jimmy Clausen has been really good this season. It's pretty amazing when you're down by 5 with about 2 1/2 minutes to go, need to drive the length of the field to score a TD, and your QB leads you on a drive so good you actually score too quickly. Just kidding about that (there's no such thing as scoring too quickly), but Clausen did lead a drive so good at the end of the 4th quarter that there was enough time for Washington to go down and get a tying field goal. From here on out, Notre Dame has the edge at QB over every team it plays, and it's pretty significant. This will be the first time in awhile that Notre Dame has a significantly better QB than USC (Brady Quinn had to face Matt Leinart and John David Booty, not freshman Matt Barkley).
Glass half empty:
This defense is bad. There is no getting around it. I've been waiting all season for things to turn around, but it just isn't going to happen, and if it does I'll be pleasantly surprised. It'd be one thing if it were just one area, like run defense or pass defense. But it's everything. Run defense was superb on the goalline stands today, but was otherwise pretty giving to Washington's ground game. Jon Tenuta week in and week out sends a lot of blitzes, and very few of them get home. Coverage in the back is soft a lot of times, and too many receivers get wide open. Tackling is suspect on a lot of plays. Even today when Washington was faced with a 3rd and 19 in overtime, Locker found a wide open receiver on the sideline for a first down who let the ball go right through his hands. It's a sick feeling when no lead is ever comfortable, and any miscue on offense feels like a disaster because it means the defense has to pick up the slack. You can't tell me the talent isn't there either; this defense is littered with former 4 star recruits and a 5 star freshman LB (Manti Te'o).
Do you believe in miracles?
Jake Locker was stuffed on three QB sneaks from the 1 yard line today. I cannot believe that a big, strong QB like Jake Locker can't sneak it in from the 1, but that's what happened today. I also cannot believe that a Notre Dame defense that was porous all over the field all of a sudden stiffened up at the 1 yard line to keep the score within one possession, but that also happened.
Lou Holtz and Mark May:
I hate the schtick that Holtz and May have going on ESPN, in which Holtz is the Notre Dame homer and May is the Notre Dame hater. You know what? All I want is a fair analysis of the team. Holtz actually started a sentence today with "when you're competing for a championship..." Come on, Notre Dame is not a national champion contender at this point. And then May followed it up with "...and Notre Dame hasn't beaten a team with a winning record." Well, okay, but Michigan State would be over .500 if they had beaten Notre Dame, and so would Washington. Would May feel better about Notre Dame if they had lost those games so their opponents could have above-.500 records?
Icing the kicker:
Icing the kicker is officially the lamest strategy in sports. Charlie Weis iced the kicker at the end of regulation today, and Washington's kicker simply went over the sideline and shared a laugh with Steve Sarkisian. Yeah, he looked real psyched out. A couple weeks ago Wade Phillips iced Lawrence Tynes of the Giants, and Tynes went from sneaking in his first field goal attempt that didn't count to splitting the uprights with the one that did. I'd rather give those timeouts to charity than waste them on "icing the kicker." What a waste of everybody's time.
Celebration penalties:
A couple weeks ago I said if there's reincarnation, I want to come back with the attitude of a referee not afraid to make a BS celebration penalty in a big spot in a big game. Georgia's A.J. Green was called for this today after making a great TD catch late in the 4th quarter, and thus forced Georgia to kick off from its own 15 and gave LSU great field position to go and win the game. I think I would have more sympathy for someone who steals an old lady's purse than a referee who makes that call at that stage of the game, and it was for a celebration that was nowhere near out of the ordinary from what you see every game. I just wish I could walk through life not afraid to absolutely, as Walter Sobchak would say, feed a stoner scrambled eggs.
And how about the "roughing the snapper" penalty on Notre Dame? Another huge call in a huge spot that required another miraculous goalline stand. If you ever see another roughing the snapper penalty in your life, please call me and let me know. And yet, that wasn't even the worst call of the day with what happened to Georgia and A.J. Green. It's a good thing people pay good money to see referees in action, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)