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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)