* 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.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
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?
Thursday, October 1, 2009
By the way...
Did you notice that Eric Mangini took no time to name Derek Anderson as his starting QB this week? In week 1 he waited until about 90 minutes before kickoff to officially name Quinn his starter. It was stupid at the time, and it looks like really stupid in retrospect, seeing how badly the Browns have struggled offensively.
I would love to know what Mangini accomplished to garner a 2nd head coaching gig in such a short time. He made the playoffs once out of three years (and that one playoff appearance was a quick exit), and the Jets completely collapsed last season. Yet the Browns couldn't hire him fast enough. Now they can't fire him fast enough; he's my choice for worst coach in the NFL. Watch the Browns sometime and you'll understand. I'm pretty sure I could coach the Browns and they wouldn't be a whole lot worse than they already are. Hyperbole maybe, but what's the worst that would happen with me coaching, they lose 50-0? They're already getting their asses kicked, and have scored one (meaningless) offensive TD all season. They do nothing, and I mean nothing well.
I probably write about the Browns too much, but their incompetence just amazes me. This is a team that came back into the NFL in 1999, and they aren't any further ahead now than they were as an expansion team. They had an entire offseason to:
a) find a QB (you see Eric, if you don't like the ones on your roster, you find one you do like) and
b) add some receiving options and pass rushers, areas where they were deficient last season
They did none of that. They fired Romeo Crennel, a disaster as a head coach, and somehow didn't get better. Their passing game sucked a year ago, and somehow they got worse (actually not somehow; they traded Kellen Winslow and replaced him with roughly no one). This stuff fascinates me. This is a billion dollar franchise being run worse than a local drive-in.
I would love to know what Mangini accomplished to garner a 2nd head coaching gig in such a short time. He made the playoffs once out of three years (and that one playoff appearance was a quick exit), and the Jets completely collapsed last season. Yet the Browns couldn't hire him fast enough. Now they can't fire him fast enough; he's my choice for worst coach in the NFL. Watch the Browns sometime and you'll understand. I'm pretty sure I could coach the Browns and they wouldn't be a whole lot worse than they already are. Hyperbole maybe, but what's the worst that would happen with me coaching, they lose 50-0? They're already getting their asses kicked, and have scored one (meaningless) offensive TD all season. They do nothing, and I mean nothing well.
I probably write about the Browns too much, but their incompetence just amazes me. This is a team that came back into the NFL in 1999, and they aren't any further ahead now than they were as an expansion team. They had an entire offseason to:
a) find a QB (you see Eric, if you don't like the ones on your roster, you find one you do like) and
b) add some receiving options and pass rushers, areas where they were deficient last season
They did none of that. They fired Romeo Crennel, a disaster as a head coach, and somehow didn't get better. Their passing game sucked a year ago, and somehow they got worse (actually not somehow; they traded Kellen Winslow and replaced him with roughly no one). This stuff fascinates me. This is a billion dollar franchise being run worse than a local drive-in.
MLB playoffs
The MLB playoffs start next week, and I really enjoy the baseball playoffs. Here's what it boils down to; you spend six months working your way into the playoffs, and you can be out in four days.
Last season the Cubs were the best team in baseball. They had a lineup where everyone contributed (Derrek Lee to Ryan Theriot), and starting pitching that went 4 deep (Zambrano, Dempster, Harden, Lilly). So what happened? They went cold over a 4 day stretch and were swept by the Dodgers. For 6 months the Cubs were miles better than the Dodgers, but because of a cold 4 day stretch (the Nationals could beat the Yankees in a best-of-5) they were out and the Dodgers went on to the NLCS. It's ridiculous but it's exciting. All you have to do is make the playoffs; the wild card has won many times. And pray to God you don't get a bad start out of your ace.
Last season the Cubs were the best team in baseball. They had a lineup where everyone contributed (Derrek Lee to Ryan Theriot), and starting pitching that went 4 deep (Zambrano, Dempster, Harden, Lilly). So what happened? They went cold over a 4 day stretch and were swept by the Dodgers. For 6 months the Cubs were miles better than the Dodgers, but because of a cold 4 day stretch (the Nationals could beat the Yankees in a best-of-5) they were out and the Dodgers went on to the NLCS. It's ridiculous but it's exciting. All you have to do is make the playoffs; the wild card has won many times. And pray to God you don't get a bad start out of your ace.
Vikings-Packers this Monday night
Brett Favre has completely sapped my energy for the Vikings this year. Normally I would have been pretty excited with the way the Vikings won on Sunday; instead I felt nothing. Actually I don't know how excited I would have been anyways, since I'm the type of person who watches that and says "geez it tooks us a miracle TD to beat the 49ers at home." But still, I felt nothing. Maybe it's because the praise immediately went to Favre, and the story immediately became how Favre won the game, not how the Vikings won the game. I don't know, I'm not a doctor.
But I do know that Monday night's game is going to be insufferable. Insufferable might not be a strong enough term. I fail to come up with superlatives to explain how sportscasters feel for Favre. It's beyond orgasmic. You'd think they were in the presence of Christ the way they talk about him. I can't handle it anymore.
So I won't be watching this Monday night's game. Jaworski is insufferable around Favre. Gruden is a friend of Favre's, for gods sake (talk about an "objective" reporter, he coached Favre in Green Bay once upon a time). I don't think I'm going to miss it. I used to love the Vikings; as long as that man is QBing this team, I don't. I was honestly more excited on Sunday to see the Bengals beat the Steelers (talk about miraculous) than I was with the Vikings' finish. I'm putting all of my energy into Notre Dame football.
But I do know that Monday night's game is going to be insufferable. Insufferable might not be a strong enough term. I fail to come up with superlatives to explain how sportscasters feel for Favre. It's beyond orgasmic. You'd think they were in the presence of Christ the way they talk about him. I can't handle it anymore.
So I won't be watching this Monday night's game. Jaworski is insufferable around Favre. Gruden is a friend of Favre's, for gods sake (talk about an "objective" reporter, he coached Favre in Green Bay once upon a time). I don't think I'm going to miss it. I used to love the Vikings; as long as that man is QBing this team, I don't. I was honestly more excited on Sunday to see the Bengals beat the Steelers (talk about miraculous) than I was with the Vikings' finish. I'm putting all of my energy into Notre Dame football.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)