In news that would have shocked everyone three weeks ago and shocked no one today Peyton Manning signed with the Denver Broncos.
This was essentially the catalyst to the off-season, the flicked finger that struck the first domino in the elaborate matrix, and now all the rest are allowed to fall.
From a personal standpoint this was the third worst alternative in my little world. The worst alternative would have been Manning signing with the Dolphins thereby requiring me to watch the Patriots deal with him twice every year. The second worst would have been him ending up in San Francisco thereby forcing me to loathe the team supported by my future in-laws and the lady who's relationship with me designates them as such. Living in Colorado, although temporarily, makes this eventuality number three on my "Don't Want" list.
It's more a, "...damn it," than a, "...nooooooooooo," situation but still not my preference by any means. (Come on Manning Arizona is lovely this time of year.)
However a silver lining, nay a irrepressible positive that will come from this will be the exposure of Broncos fans as the complete and utter frauds that we all suspected them to be starting last November. Sure some Bible-thumping idiots who think football is morality contest are genuinely unhappy that Tebow just got his ticket out of Denver stamped with Manning's unmistakable pouting grimace. But for the most part there was only joy here today. And that sends a clear message: THEY KNEW TEBOW SUCKED ALL ALONG.
If they Bronco fans really thought J-Tebow was a franchise-making football player then the staff meeting I was sitting in when the news broke would not have devolved into a scene from the parking lot of Sports Authority Field in 2.5 seconds, but it did. Some were so bold as to call Denver the favorite in the AFC next year. (...You do know he had four neck surgeries and you have no wide-receivers right?)
If you're a Denver fan and you applauded this move you have to burn your Tebow jersey today. Not when he gets traded, today. Why? Because you've been completely full of shit for six months. You lied (TT hates lying btw) to the world by insisting that you actually think Timmy Christ is legit, but now that another option has come along you drop him like third period french.
Not only did you try to argue that he was serviceable (good? great?) you became insufferable, single minded, republican-esque zealots. Anyone that cheered against Tebow was a heathen who hated him because he was religious. Point out his 46% completion percentage? Straight to hell you anti-Christian fool. Note the ridiculous sequence of circumstances and luck that allowed Denver to win eight games in a row including several 60+ yard field goals? Shut up hater, if he was anyone else you wouldn't be saying he sucks.
Well now you're lauding the acquisition of a guy who missed an entire season with multiple neck surgeries. A guy who has always been surrounded by great receivers (you don't have any). A guy who has always played indoors (you play outside in Colorado). A guy who may never be a legitimate starter again, over your messiah. With Tebow you knew what you were going to get and pretended that you loved it, now you have no idea what you're going to get from Manning and you're elated. This confirms for every logical football observer that you all knew from the beginning that Tebow was a scrub. And still you forced him down our throats like broccoli to a seven-year old. Still you defended him against all legitimate criticism by holding his religiosity up as a shield. Still you demanded that his quality as a person count as credit against his deficiencies as a player. Now you turn it off like a light switch and say goodbye.
I was going to hate the Broncos from now on anyway. (I was never much of a lover to begin with.) As a Patriots fan I will never have the slightest positive feeling for a team that employs a Manning. But after this display today? You're approaching Texas Rangers fan pathetic levels. Enjoy your new toy, try to find a second to wave goodbye as they send your old favorite, your '11-'12 savior, your pillar of all things right, your messiah packing to Jacksonville or Miami.
I only have two words for your future: Manning Face.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Monday, March 05, 2012
Put Down the Pitchforks
There are two things that we "know" about the Saints' and Greg Williams' pay-for-injury scandal.
1. It happened, both in New Orleans and in Washington.
2. Roger Goodell is going to come down like a ton of bricks on both the team and the coach.
But is it just me (unpopular opinion alert) or is this whole thing more stupid and poorly thought out than patently offensive?
My first problem with this idea of incentivized injuries is that it rewards a player for an outcome that might have nothing to do with an intentional action, which is totally counter-intuitive. The reality is a defender could do everything WRONG on a play and end up hurting the opponent by accident. Reinforcing that behavior with cash is just stupid. What happens on the next play if he goes out and makes the same mistake but gets burned for a touchdown instead of causing injury? Does he get a cookie?
Now don't get me wrong, in this era of the NFL you simply cannot be seen to be encouraging your players to be intentionally injurious. At the same time, I think the preachy nature of the response to this scandal has been over the top. In my opinion it represents bad coaching rather than repugnant violence and headhunting.
Consider the consequence of many injury-causing plays in today's NFL. I don't have any stats to back this up (nor am I going to look any up, this isn't a newspaper) but I'd be willing to bet there were more 15 yard penalties called in 2011-12 than any other season in history. Is this really the time to be paying your players to perpetrate dirty and illegal hits?
Of course not, but that's the problem with the way this issue is being viewed. Nobody has said that Greg Williams paid his players to commit illegal hits. There wasn't a helmet-to-helmet slush fund, a defenseless receiver payout, or a face mask twisting performance bonus. When pundits and columnists hear, "...pay for injury," they think dirty and illegal hits. Sure dirty and illegal hits can cause injury but so can clean legal hits.
Which only furthers my point that this is dumb and overblown. If the idea was to encourage players to illegally target opponents don't you think the payouts would have been far greater than $1,000 or $1,500? James Harrison has been fined well over $100,000 in the past few years for obviously dirty hits. Has he knocked over 100 players out of games so that if he played in such a system he would be able to make his money back? No chance. And again, it incentivizes something that makes no sense.
Go out and make a hit that costs you $50,000 and I'll give you $1,000... What?
Go out and make a bad decision or an incorrect play where someone gets hurt and I'll give you $1,000... What?
I'm sure it sounds like I'm defending the system but I assure you that I'm not. I just think it's sillier and more idiotic than it is evil and worthy of our unequivocal condemnation.
And it proves one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt. Greg Williams is a moron.
But it may also prove that the world of football is more reactionary and less logical than ever.
1. It happened, both in New Orleans and in Washington.
2. Roger Goodell is going to come down like a ton of bricks on both the team and the coach.
But is it just me (unpopular opinion alert) or is this whole thing more stupid and poorly thought out than patently offensive?
My first problem with this idea of incentivized injuries is that it rewards a player for an outcome that might have nothing to do with an intentional action, which is totally counter-intuitive. The reality is a defender could do everything WRONG on a play and end up hurting the opponent by accident. Reinforcing that behavior with cash is just stupid. What happens on the next play if he goes out and makes the same mistake but gets burned for a touchdown instead of causing injury? Does he get a cookie?
Now don't get me wrong, in this era of the NFL you simply cannot be seen to be encouraging your players to be intentionally injurious. At the same time, I think the preachy nature of the response to this scandal has been over the top. In my opinion it represents bad coaching rather than repugnant violence and headhunting.
Consider the consequence of many injury-causing plays in today's NFL. I don't have any stats to back this up (nor am I going to look any up, this isn't a newspaper) but I'd be willing to bet there were more 15 yard penalties called in 2011-12 than any other season in history. Is this really the time to be paying your players to perpetrate dirty and illegal hits?
Of course not, but that's the problem with the way this issue is being viewed. Nobody has said that Greg Williams paid his players to commit illegal hits. There wasn't a helmet-to-helmet slush fund, a defenseless receiver payout, or a face mask twisting performance bonus. When pundits and columnists hear, "...pay for injury," they think dirty and illegal hits. Sure dirty and illegal hits can cause injury but so can clean legal hits.
Which only furthers my point that this is dumb and overblown. If the idea was to encourage players to illegally target opponents don't you think the payouts would have been far greater than $1,000 or $1,500? James Harrison has been fined well over $100,000 in the past few years for obviously dirty hits. Has he knocked over 100 players out of games so that if he played in such a system he would be able to make his money back? No chance. And again, it incentivizes something that makes no sense.
Go out and make a hit that costs you $50,000 and I'll give you $1,000... What?
Go out and make a bad decision or an incorrect play where someone gets hurt and I'll give you $1,000... What?
I'm sure it sounds like I'm defending the system but I assure you that I'm not. I just think it's sillier and more idiotic than it is evil and worthy of our unequivocal condemnation.
And it proves one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt. Greg Williams is a moron.
But it may also prove that the world of football is more reactionary and less logical than ever.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Doom and Gloom Alert!
First, I'd like to thank the New York professional football franchise who shall not be named for rendering me mute for the last 35 days or so... I've had nothing (nice or otherwise) to say so I've said nothing at all...
It's now March 3rd and I'm still astonished that it played out that way... Again...
Which brings me to the following (doom and gloom alert repeated)...
It's possible (likely?) that we have turned a bad corner here in Boston professional sports and that the greatest period of sustained success in my lifetime as well as the lifetime of the previous generation may have ended with a thud and whimper. And though it may seem as though that end came five weeks ago in Indianapolis I believe that it started much earlier and our inability to see the forest from the trees prevented it from becoming obvious until now.
Our crest was clearly (to me) June of 2008 when the Celtics won their 17th championship over the hated Lakers. Do I care that we bought and paid for that title like the Yankees of the mid '90's? Not one bit. This is Boston we're talking about, a relevant NBA free agent has NEVER signed here, and if the Celtics had gotten the number one pick in 2007 they would have taken Greg Oden (shudder...). Given the way the ping-pong balls bounced in the lottery and the fact that Boston had neither a warm climate or is located in a tax-free state the only way to assemble a competitive team was via trade or sign and trade. Credit to Danny Ainge and ownership for realizing what most of us did not, that it wasn't going to happen any other way.
Meanwhile the Patriots were coming off of an undefeated regular season. The Red Sox were defending World Series champs and had a roster that was poised to contend again...
Fast forward to July 31st when Red Sox management massively overreacted to typical Manny Ramirez bravado and stupidity and traded him for the king of both the meaningless solo home run and the worthless second half (Jason Bay) AND picked up $11 million of the tab to send him to the Dodgers. Find me one Red Sox fan that likes that deal in hindsight. Go ahead I'll wait...
Fast forward now from July to September. The Patriots were coming off of the greatest regular season in history. (In my extremely biased opinion that 18-0 '07 team is still the best team of all time.) Not a whole lot had changed on the roster and even though we (the fans) were still battered and bruised from the Super Bowl nightmare the Celtic's run had reinvigorated us and there was more than a little reason for optimism...
Seven minutes later Brady's ACL was in two pieces and despite a shockingly proficient season from Matt Cassell the Patriots managed to miss the playoffs at 11-5. That statistical improbability alone should have shown us the tide had turned...
Surprising exactly nobody the Red Sox failed to repeat their magic from 2007 without their best player and ended up watching the 2008 World Series from the couch. Thanks for that one hit in the post-season Jason, you were totally worth it.
Speeding up the fast forward button a bit...
In May of 2009 the Celtics, worn out from a tough series against the Bulls, collapsed against a soft Magic team and allowed Hedu Turkoglu (the guy who would become one of the faces of the NBA's bad-contract-itis) to demolish them over seven games. Turkoglu, who had 523 points (all figures approximated) in the decisive blowout in game seven in Boston, would go on to average -323 point (all figures approximated) per game for Toronto while being paid 7 billion dollars (all figures approximated) per season before being run back to Orlando.
In October of 2009 Papelbon gives up 100 runs (all figures approximated) with two outs in the ninth to blow game five of the ALDS to the Angels at Fenway.
In January of 2010 the Patriots allow Ray Rice to run for 2,000 yards (all figures approximated) in a playoff game AT HOME and lose by 400 points (all figures approximated).
But wait! Hope springs eternal (back in November...bear with me, this is hard to do in a linear way) with the Celtics who start the season by winning their first 200 games (all figures approximated) in a row and carry it through to another Finals match-up with the Lakers where, improbably, they have a double digit lead in the fourth quarter of game seven on the road! All is well right? ... Wrong! Ron Artest makes his first jump shot (all figures approximated) of the season and Kobe takes more free-throws than the Lakers had possessions (all figures approximated) in the last eight minutes and voila! It's over.
But all was not lost! Fast forward to football season. The Patriots had regained their pre-2008 form and were clearly the best team in football heading into the post-season after compiling a 14-2 record earning home-field advantage throughout. All they needed to do was beat a massively overrated Jets team with a lousy quarterback and a defense that was more bluster than substance for a shot at the AFC championship game... 64 touchdowns for Sanchez and 1,200 sacks (all figures approximated) of Brady later another season was finished in gut-wrenching fashion.
Good thing the 2011 Red Sox came along to save us! What an off-season the best GM the Red Sox have ever employed pulled off, signing two of the biggest available names in Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford and one of the highest regarded pitchers in John Lackey. (I don't need to reiterate my feelings on those last two...) Every single media outlet had the Sox picked to at least win the division and make a deep playoff run... Then the games started... And they only won two of the first ten... But wait! It's alright, they figured it out and were the best team in baseball from May through August. Sure, they didn't quite catch the Yankees for the division crown but they had the Wild Card in the bag, holding a 5,000 game (all figures approximated) lead with only 27 games to play in September. A collapse like that would be unprecedented...
And it was. But collapse or no collapse all that was needed was a victory over the lowly Orioles on the last day of the season to ensure a playoff berth. No problem. At least it certainly didn't look like a problem as the Sox took a 700 run (all figures approximated) lead into the bottom of the ninth and still held that lead with two outs, Papelbon on the mound, and two strikes on the batter... Ten minutes later Pap had blown the save, the Rays had erased a 400 run (all figures approximated) ninth inning deficit against the Yankees (shenanigans?) and stolen the Wild Card right out from under us...
But there was still reason for hope. At least the franchise didn't insanely overreact to one bad month and run one of the most respected managers in the game and the man who led our first World Series winning teams since the early 1900's out of town of town on a rail while slandering him in the media... Oh wait. They did exactly that. Then they threw the team's three best starters under the bus for beating underage midget prostitutes and doing heroin (all offenses approximated) in the locker room. In so doing they created such a toxic environment that the previously mentioned best GM in franchise history left for a team that hasn't won a championship since Napoleon was a teenager (all championship drought lengths approximated).
But at least they didn't completely run off the tracks by hiring an anti-Francona who hasn't been relevant in baseball since the '90's and who manages in a way that simply will not work in today's professional sports environment... Okay fine they did that. But at least their poorly chosen manager hasn't been trying to get the Yankees v. Red Sox rivalry reheated in the media for no reason other than to make himself the focal point of a few ESPN articles... Oh he's done that too? ... Well at least he didn't decide to be a juvenile jackass and try to tell grown men that they can't drink beer in the clubhouse after games because of some overplayed nonsense from six months ago before he had even interviewed for the job... Fucking-hell he did that too? This has a 100% of totally working out well (all percentages are false).
Also, the Celtics are old and no longer a threat to win the East.
Oh, and the Patriots lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl... Again.
Yup, Boston, our run just might be over.
Unless of course you're a Bruins fan...
It's now March 3rd and I'm still astonished that it played out that way... Again...
Which brings me to the following (doom and gloom alert repeated)...
It's possible (likely?) that we have turned a bad corner here in Boston professional sports and that the greatest period of sustained success in my lifetime as well as the lifetime of the previous generation may have ended with a thud and whimper. And though it may seem as though that end came five weeks ago in Indianapolis I believe that it started much earlier and our inability to see the forest from the trees prevented it from becoming obvious until now.
Our crest was clearly (to me) June of 2008 when the Celtics won their 17th championship over the hated Lakers. Do I care that we bought and paid for that title like the Yankees of the mid '90's? Not one bit. This is Boston we're talking about, a relevant NBA free agent has NEVER signed here, and if the Celtics had gotten the number one pick in 2007 they would have taken Greg Oden (shudder...). Given the way the ping-pong balls bounced in the lottery and the fact that Boston had neither a warm climate or is located in a tax-free state the only way to assemble a competitive team was via trade or sign and trade. Credit to Danny Ainge and ownership for realizing what most of us did not, that it wasn't going to happen any other way.
Meanwhile the Patriots were coming off of an undefeated regular season. The Red Sox were defending World Series champs and had a roster that was poised to contend again...
Fast forward to July 31st when Red Sox management massively overreacted to typical Manny Ramirez bravado and stupidity and traded him for the king of both the meaningless solo home run and the worthless second half (Jason Bay) AND picked up $11 million of the tab to send him to the Dodgers. Find me one Red Sox fan that likes that deal in hindsight. Go ahead I'll wait...
Fast forward now from July to September. The Patriots were coming off of the greatest regular season in history. (In my extremely biased opinion that 18-0 '07 team is still the best team of all time.) Not a whole lot had changed on the roster and even though we (the fans) were still battered and bruised from the Super Bowl nightmare the Celtic's run had reinvigorated us and there was more than a little reason for optimism...
Seven minutes later Brady's ACL was in two pieces and despite a shockingly proficient season from Matt Cassell the Patriots managed to miss the playoffs at 11-5. That statistical improbability alone should have shown us the tide had turned...
Surprising exactly nobody the Red Sox failed to repeat their magic from 2007 without their best player and ended up watching the 2008 World Series from the couch. Thanks for that one hit in the post-season Jason, you were totally worth it.
Speeding up the fast forward button a bit...
In May of 2009 the Celtics, worn out from a tough series against the Bulls, collapsed against a soft Magic team and allowed Hedu Turkoglu (the guy who would become one of the faces of the NBA's bad-contract-itis) to demolish them over seven games. Turkoglu, who had 523 points (all figures approximated) in the decisive blowout in game seven in Boston, would go on to average -323 point (all figures approximated) per game for Toronto while being paid 7 billion dollars (all figures approximated) per season before being run back to Orlando.
In October of 2009 Papelbon gives up 100 runs (all figures approximated) with two outs in the ninth to blow game five of the ALDS to the Angels at Fenway.
In January of 2010 the Patriots allow Ray Rice to run for 2,000 yards (all figures approximated) in a playoff game AT HOME and lose by 400 points (all figures approximated).
But wait! Hope springs eternal (back in November...bear with me, this is hard to do in a linear way) with the Celtics who start the season by winning their first 200 games (all figures approximated) in a row and carry it through to another Finals match-up with the Lakers where, improbably, they have a double digit lead in the fourth quarter of game seven on the road! All is well right? ... Wrong! Ron Artest makes his first jump shot (all figures approximated) of the season and Kobe takes more free-throws than the Lakers had possessions (all figures approximated) in the last eight minutes and voila! It's over.
But all was not lost! Fast forward to football season. The Patriots had regained their pre-2008 form and were clearly the best team in football heading into the post-season after compiling a 14-2 record earning home-field advantage throughout. All they needed to do was beat a massively overrated Jets team with a lousy quarterback and a defense that was more bluster than substance for a shot at the AFC championship game... 64 touchdowns for Sanchez and 1,200 sacks (all figures approximated) of Brady later another season was finished in gut-wrenching fashion.
Good thing the 2011 Red Sox came along to save us! What an off-season the best GM the Red Sox have ever employed pulled off, signing two of the biggest available names in Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford and one of the highest regarded pitchers in John Lackey. (I don't need to reiterate my feelings on those last two...) Every single media outlet had the Sox picked to at least win the division and make a deep playoff run... Then the games started... And they only won two of the first ten... But wait! It's alright, they figured it out and were the best team in baseball from May through August. Sure, they didn't quite catch the Yankees for the division crown but they had the Wild Card in the bag, holding a 5,000 game (all figures approximated) lead with only 27 games to play in September. A collapse like that would be unprecedented...
And it was. But collapse or no collapse all that was needed was a victory over the lowly Orioles on the last day of the season to ensure a playoff berth. No problem. At least it certainly didn't look like a problem as the Sox took a 700 run (all figures approximated) lead into the bottom of the ninth and still held that lead with two outs, Papelbon on the mound, and two strikes on the batter... Ten minutes later Pap had blown the save, the Rays had erased a 400 run (all figures approximated) ninth inning deficit against the Yankees (shenanigans?) and stolen the Wild Card right out from under us...
But there was still reason for hope. At least the franchise didn't insanely overreact to one bad month and run one of the most respected managers in the game and the man who led our first World Series winning teams since the early 1900's out of town of town on a rail while slandering him in the media... Oh wait. They did exactly that. Then they threw the team's three best starters under the bus for beating underage midget prostitutes and doing heroin (all offenses approximated) in the locker room. In so doing they created such a toxic environment that the previously mentioned best GM in franchise history left for a team that hasn't won a championship since Napoleon was a teenager (all championship drought lengths approximated).
But at least they didn't completely run off the tracks by hiring an anti-Francona who hasn't been relevant in baseball since the '90's and who manages in a way that simply will not work in today's professional sports environment... Okay fine they did that. But at least their poorly chosen manager hasn't been trying to get the Yankees v. Red Sox rivalry reheated in the media for no reason other than to make himself the focal point of a few ESPN articles... Oh he's done that too? ... Well at least he didn't decide to be a juvenile jackass and try to tell grown men that they can't drink beer in the clubhouse after games because of some overplayed nonsense from six months ago before he had even interviewed for the job... Fucking-hell he did that too? This has a 100% of totally working out well (all percentages are false).
Also, the Celtics are old and no longer a threat to win the East.
Oh, and the Patriots lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl... Again.
Yup, Boston, our run just might be over.
Unless of course you're a Bruins fan...
Monday, January 30, 2012
What's the biggest piece of advice you can offer the two Superbowl teams before they head to Indy?
I would give each team advice on the same subject but completely inverted.
To the Giants I would say, "Ignore everything, everyone, every TV, every episode of SportsCenter, anything that's going to tell you anything about the Super Bowl."
To the Patriots I would say the opposite, "Listen to everything, every pundit who says you suck, every talking head who's firmly affixed to the back of the Giants' bandwagon, every obnoxious person who wants to talk about 2007."
The reasoning for this advice doesn't take much explanation. In literal (Vegas) terms the Patriots are favored. In the court of public opinion they already got blown out and are on the plane back to Boston. This is the exact opposite of what happened in 2007 and that's a good thing for New England. Anything that can reverse that mess is inherently positive. They need to listen and absorb all of it for two reasons. First, the Giants are really good and over-preparing won't hurt. Second, a little extra motivation for two of the best prepared people in football (Bellichick and Brady) ought to make this week's practices downright apocalyptic, and I fear it might take something to that degree to beat this team as hot as they are right now.
Amazingly, and I keep unintentionally coming back to this, the 13-3 team can play the underdog card while the 9-7 team has to avoid buying into their own hype. It's a bizarre turn of events that really validates the idea (it's probably more of a fact at this point) that it's more important to be playing well at the right time rather than being the team that wins the most games from September to December.
With that in mind, an increasingly possible (if they listen to their own hype) scenario is one where the Giants, defense especially, come into the game expecting to steam roll the Pats offensive line and win the battle up front easily only to be baffled as the Patriots use quick passes and the change-of-pace deep shot down field to beat them. They're a veteran team with a good coach so it's probably less likely than I would hope, but the '07 Pats were a veteran team with a good coach too and there's no doubt that their expectation of victory in the Super Bowl hurt them.
So the advice is listen...and don't listen. Like when your mom would say, "Do as I say not as I do!"
...And just to be safe....
I would also advise the Giants that the game is on Monday and starts at midnight. Also that their defensive linemen are aware that, due to a last minute scheduling glitch, it's being played in Tokyo.
To the Giants I would say, "Ignore everything, everyone, every TV, every episode of SportsCenter, anything that's going to tell you anything about the Super Bowl."
To the Patriots I would say the opposite, "Listen to everything, every pundit who says you suck, every talking head who's firmly affixed to the back of the Giants' bandwagon, every obnoxious person who wants to talk about 2007."
The reasoning for this advice doesn't take much explanation. In literal (Vegas) terms the Patriots are favored. In the court of public opinion they already got blown out and are on the plane back to Boston. This is the exact opposite of what happened in 2007 and that's a good thing for New England. Anything that can reverse that mess is inherently positive. They need to listen and absorb all of it for two reasons. First, the Giants are really good and over-preparing won't hurt. Second, a little extra motivation for two of the best prepared people in football (Bellichick and Brady) ought to make this week's practices downright apocalyptic, and I fear it might take something to that degree to beat this team as hot as they are right now.
Amazingly, and I keep unintentionally coming back to this, the 13-3 team can play the underdog card while the 9-7 team has to avoid buying into their own hype. It's a bizarre turn of events that really validates the idea (it's probably more of a fact at this point) that it's more important to be playing well at the right time rather than being the team that wins the most games from September to December.
With that in mind, an increasingly possible (if they listen to their own hype) scenario is one where the Giants, defense especially, come into the game expecting to steam roll the Pats offensive line and win the battle up front easily only to be baffled as the Patriots use quick passes and the change-of-pace deep shot down field to beat them. They're a veteran team with a good coach so it's probably less likely than I would hope, but the '07 Pats were a veteran team with a good coach too and there's no doubt that their expectation of victory in the Super Bowl hurt them.
So the advice is listen...and don't listen. Like when your mom would say, "Do as I say not as I do!"
...And just to be safe....
I would also advise the Giants that the game is on Monday and starts at midnight. Also that their defensive linemen are aware that, due to a last minute scheduling glitch, it's being played in Tokyo.
A Super Bowl Week Rant
Sorry, I know you have questions outstanding but this will be quick...
I am such a pragmatic fan that I rarely have a problem with people questioning or criticizing my teams. In fact I'm more likely to think my teams are much worse than they are as opposed to overstating their qualities (ex. Texas football '09)
That being said I have had enough of everyone acting like the Patriots, and to a lesser degree the Giants, backed their way into this Super Bowl and don't deserve it.
I get it, the Patriots defense is not going to remind anyone of the '86 Bears. And yes, the Giants lost to the Redskins...twice. Brady played poorly against the Ravens, I know I watched, thank you for pointing that out again...
BUT the Patriots went (bleeping!) 13-3. They had homefield throughout the playoffs and beat the last eight teams on their schedule. Is it their fault that their division stunk? I've heard the stat that they hadn't beaten a team with a winning record until the AFC championship game about a gazillion times this week. Did anyone even look at their schedule?
They won 13 games. Guess how many were against teams with LOSING records...
Six.
So, using advanced mathematical calculations, that means that the Patriots won seven games against teams there were 8-8, then beat one of those 8-8 teams (with Jesus against them no less) for a second time in the Divisional round and a 12-4 team in the AFC championship.
....THAT IS NOT A SOFT SCHEDULE!
And even if it was there's more! Given how horrendous the Patriots defense was you'd probably assume that their point differential isn't pretty right? ... Well you'd be totally wrong. They were +171 for the year, meaning they outscored their opponents by 171 over the course of the season... That would be next to impossible if your defense can't ever stop anyone, right?
But surely those awesome teams in Pittsburgh and Baltimore had better point differentials right? WRONG! Baltimore was +112 and Pittsburgh was +98... Not even close. In fact nobody in the AFC had a better differential and only New Orleans and Green Bay were better in the NFL.
So spare me this bullshit about how New England got all the breaks and are just lucky to be in the Super Bowl. They were the best team in the AFC and they still are the best team in the AFC. If Pittsburgh were healthy that might be one thing, but they're not, so shut the fuck up already. Cundiff missed a kick that helped, I won't debate that point. But are we assuming that they definitely would have lost in overtime at home? With that offense? Puhlease...
I think the Giants are getting a little bit screwed too but I'm all ranted out...
(middle finger raised)
I am such a pragmatic fan that I rarely have a problem with people questioning or criticizing my teams. In fact I'm more likely to think my teams are much worse than they are as opposed to overstating their qualities (ex. Texas football '09)
That being said I have had enough of everyone acting like the Patriots, and to a lesser degree the Giants, backed their way into this Super Bowl and don't deserve it.
I get it, the Patriots defense is not going to remind anyone of the '86 Bears. And yes, the Giants lost to the Redskins...twice. Brady played poorly against the Ravens, I know I watched, thank you for pointing that out again...
BUT the Patriots went (bleeping!) 13-3. They had homefield throughout the playoffs and beat the last eight teams on their schedule. Is it their fault that their division stunk? I've heard the stat that they hadn't beaten a team with a winning record until the AFC championship game about a gazillion times this week. Did anyone even look at their schedule?
They won 13 games. Guess how many were against teams with LOSING records...
Six.
So, using advanced mathematical calculations, that means that the Patriots won seven games against teams there were 8-8, then beat one of those 8-8 teams (with Jesus against them no less) for a second time in the Divisional round and a 12-4 team in the AFC championship.
....THAT IS NOT A SOFT SCHEDULE!
And even if it was there's more! Given how horrendous the Patriots defense was you'd probably assume that their point differential isn't pretty right? ... Well you'd be totally wrong. They were +171 for the year, meaning they outscored their opponents by 171 over the course of the season... That would be next to impossible if your defense can't ever stop anyone, right?
But surely those awesome teams in Pittsburgh and Baltimore had better point differentials right? WRONG! Baltimore was +112 and Pittsburgh was +98... Not even close. In fact nobody in the AFC had a better differential and only New Orleans and Green Bay were better in the NFL.
So spare me this bullshit about how New England got all the breaks and are just lucky to be in the Super Bowl. They were the best team in the AFC and they still are the best team in the AFC. If Pittsburgh were healthy that might be one thing, but they're not, so shut the fuck up already. Cundiff missed a kick that helped, I won't debate that point. But are we assuming that they definitely would have lost in overtime at home? With that offense? Puhlease...
I think the Giants are getting a little bit screwed too but I'm all ranted out...
(middle finger raised)
Monday, January 23, 2012
The Rematch "Everyone" Wanted
For a rematch that so many people allegedly wanted why does it seem like nobody wants it?
Externally is there a more nauseating match-up for football fans outside of the Northeast and NY-metro area? It's going to be force feeding 29 cities a non-stop two week binge fest of two perfectly loathable franchises with a pretty-boy, a silver spoon legacy with a mug only a mother can love, a coach everyone thinks is a cheater, and more historical retrospectives than you can shake a stick at. Small market fans beware.
And that's just the annoyances to outside observers...
Patriots fans were full of bravado last week, talking a lot of junk about redemption and atoning for 2007... Was it because they really thought San Francisco was going to win and it wouldn't come to this? Because that would be the real ideal scenario. We talk a lot of trash about wanting New York. They lose. Then it's their fault that we couldn't avenge our loss. "Dammit! I really wanted to beat the Giants, oh well, I guess we'll have to stop...Crabtree? Smith?" (Put it on the board... Chammmpionship!)
Let me tell you NOBODY actually wanted the Giants. It was a such a bunch of New England tough-guy bullshit. Every guy in the bar is the hardest guy south of New Hampshire if you listen to him talk but if you want to believe him to be an honest fella you better look away when trouble starts.
You want to know what Patriots fans want? We want to win the Super Bowl again. We absolutely do not care whatsoever about going through the toughest road to get there. If we're so hell-bent on redemption and atonement why didn't we want the Steelers to beat Denver? Why did we cheer when the Jets imploded and didn't even make the playoffs? It's a bunch of preparatory justifying that created an uncomfortable bed that we now have to sleep in. Maybe a few said it because they thought the Giants were going to win and it was going to come to this no matter what, maybe others are just dumb Somerville townies.
Regardless, now we have to fake it. We have to pretend like this is a real opportunity when in fact it's a nightmare.
... Or is it?
You're going to hear a lot of comparisons to 2007 this week, and in a lot of ways THESE SIMILARITIES really are interesting (start about 1/3 of the way down next to the post-season grades insert). But they are factual in their eeriness and really are less odd than they appear. Since when has statistical anomalies and scheduling actually struck a voodoo cord?
There are only three other divisions in the NFC, their opponent had to come from one of them so there was a 33% chance that it would be the South. As a wild card you're obviously going to play the first or second seed in the second round and chances are if you win that game you're going to play the other. And of course both of those games are going to be on the road. It's really not that amazing. Now winning those games is impressive of course, but it's not this stunning never-before-seen freak show that only happens when the stars align perfectly so that the Patriots can play the Giants.
Also, the similarities flip a bit when you look at yesterday's game. In 2007 Patriots Nation was hoping and praying that the Giants would win the NFC championship so we could avoid the Packers and Brett-Swan-Song-Favre. (Think these two weeks of media are going to be bad, imagine what that would have been like.) How'd that work out?
Yesterday, as much as the morons sitting at Spirit will deny it, we didn't want the Giants to pull off another road upset, we wanted to 49ers to take care of business at home because (just like we thought about the Giants in '07) we don't think they're as good as New York. It's almost a complete role reversal. The team we wanted to win lost in the same way that the team we wanted to lose lost five years ago. (Say that sentence three times fast.) No synchronicity there, it's totally upside down.
Not to mention the 4,000 pound gorilla in the room... The Patriots aren't undefeated. They don't have the pressure of trying to pull off something that's never been done before. They'll be favored in Vegas but in the court of public opinion they're the underdogs. In 2007 they were favored by double digits, this year it might be two or three by kickoff.
None of this has anything to do with the game of course, but I just can't agree with everyone that's calling this a Xerox of 2007. So the Giants won a couple of road games, the Packers did the same thing last year. So they won in Green Bay, the Packers were the one seed, only one team could have made it to the Super Bowl without winning a "road" game in Lambeau (or SF) and they have cheese on their heads.
So pick the Giants if you want. I won't blame you. They're certainly hotter and they might just be better at this moment. But don't do it because they won a game four years ago under similar circumstances, it's not that coincidental, it's not freaky, and it's not fate...
Don't tell that to Billy Cundiff though...
Externally is there a more nauseating match-up for football fans outside of the Northeast and NY-metro area? It's going to be force feeding 29 cities a non-stop two week binge fest of two perfectly loathable franchises with a pretty-boy, a silver spoon legacy with a mug only a mother can love, a coach everyone thinks is a cheater, and more historical retrospectives than you can shake a stick at. Small market fans beware.
And that's just the annoyances to outside observers...
Patriots fans were full of bravado last week, talking a lot of junk about redemption and atoning for 2007... Was it because they really thought San Francisco was going to win and it wouldn't come to this? Because that would be the real ideal scenario. We talk a lot of trash about wanting New York. They lose. Then it's their fault that we couldn't avenge our loss. "Dammit! I really wanted to beat the Giants, oh well, I guess we'll have to stop...Crabtree? Smith?" (Put it on the board... Chammmpionship!)
Let me tell you NOBODY actually wanted the Giants. It was a such a bunch of New England tough-guy bullshit. Every guy in the bar is the hardest guy south of New Hampshire if you listen to him talk but if you want to believe him to be an honest fella you better look away when trouble starts.
You want to know what Patriots fans want? We want to win the Super Bowl again. We absolutely do not care whatsoever about going through the toughest road to get there. If we're so hell-bent on redemption and atonement why didn't we want the Steelers to beat Denver? Why did we cheer when the Jets imploded and didn't even make the playoffs? It's a bunch of preparatory justifying that created an uncomfortable bed that we now have to sleep in. Maybe a few said it because they thought the Giants were going to win and it was going to come to this no matter what, maybe others are just dumb Somerville townies.
Regardless, now we have to fake it. We have to pretend like this is a real opportunity when in fact it's a nightmare.
... Or is it?
You're going to hear a lot of comparisons to 2007 this week, and in a lot of ways THESE SIMILARITIES really are interesting (start about 1/3 of the way down next to the post-season grades insert). But they are factual in their eeriness and really are less odd than they appear. Since when has statistical anomalies and scheduling actually struck a voodoo cord?
There are only three other divisions in the NFC, their opponent had to come from one of them so there was a 33% chance that it would be the South. As a wild card you're obviously going to play the first or second seed in the second round and chances are if you win that game you're going to play the other. And of course both of those games are going to be on the road. It's really not that amazing. Now winning those games is impressive of course, but it's not this stunning never-before-seen freak show that only happens when the stars align perfectly so that the Patriots can play the Giants.
Also, the similarities flip a bit when you look at yesterday's game. In 2007 Patriots Nation was hoping and praying that the Giants would win the NFC championship so we could avoid the Packers and Brett-Swan-Song-Favre. (Think these two weeks of media are going to be bad, imagine what that would have been like.) How'd that work out?
Yesterday, as much as the morons sitting at Spirit will deny it, we didn't want the Giants to pull off another road upset, we wanted to 49ers to take care of business at home because (just like we thought about the Giants in '07) we don't think they're as good as New York. It's almost a complete role reversal. The team we wanted to win lost in the same way that the team we wanted to lose lost five years ago. (Say that sentence three times fast.) No synchronicity there, it's totally upside down.
Not to mention the 4,000 pound gorilla in the room... The Patriots aren't undefeated. They don't have the pressure of trying to pull off something that's never been done before. They'll be favored in Vegas but in the court of public opinion they're the underdogs. In 2007 they were favored by double digits, this year it might be two or three by kickoff.
None of this has anything to do with the game of course, but I just can't agree with everyone that's calling this a Xerox of 2007. So the Giants won a couple of road games, the Packers did the same thing last year. So they won in Green Bay, the Packers were the one seed, only one team could have made it to the Super Bowl without winning a "road" game in Lambeau (or SF) and they have cheese on their heads.
So pick the Giants if you want. I won't blame you. They're certainly hotter and they might just be better at this moment. But don't do it because they won a game four years ago under similar circumstances, it's not that coincidental, it's not freaky, and it's not fate...
Don't tell that to Billy Cundiff though...
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
The Foster Question
Arian Foster's contract is coming up...do you think he will get the Chris Johnson Package? Top-5-Player money? How far will the Texans go to keep the guy who carried their offense over his back like a sack of potatoes?
Far. Really fucking far.
A few months after your first playoff appearance, first playoff win, and first legitimately successful season is the WRONG time to let your best offensive weapon walk away.
Now that being said they do have a serviceable backup and he has been hurt a little more often than an owner would like to see. He won't get Johnson money, nor do I think he'll be the insufferable diva Johnson was, but he's not going to have to worry about making his mortgage payments either.
While Foster does have almost everything going for him this is absolutely the worst time to be a free agent running back. Every executive and owner saw CJ give a 50% effort and suck out loud this year after getting paid out last off season, and nobody wants to be the one with that in their lap next year.
He should just walk into the office with a boombox playing THIS song... Then when he settles for a hundred million Houston will think they got a steal!
Far. Really fucking far.
A few months after your first playoff appearance, first playoff win, and first legitimately successful season is the WRONG time to let your best offensive weapon walk away.
Now that being said they do have a serviceable backup and he has been hurt a little more often than an owner would like to see. He won't get Johnson money, nor do I think he'll be the insufferable diva Johnson was, but he's not going to have to worry about making his mortgage payments either.
While Foster does have almost everything going for him this is absolutely the worst time to be a free agent running back. Every executive and owner saw CJ give a 50% effort and suck out loud this year after getting paid out last off season, and nobody wants to be the one with that in their lap next year.
He should just walk into the office with a boombox playing THIS song... Then when he settles for a hundred million Houston will think they got a steal!
The "Next Year" Question
Of the 28 NFL teams who are out on the golf course this week (i.e. no longer in contention for the Lombardi trophy), who do you think stands the greatest chance of making it into the championship game next year?
This is a great question, definitely one of your best.
It's also very difficult to answer.
I think you have to look at this two ways, or in the form of two questions. What teams are currently good enough but underachieved this year for whatever reason (injuries etc.)? And what teams are on the rise and weren't ready in 2011-12 but might be with a piece or two added next year?
The answer to the first I think is pretty straightforward, it has to be the Eagles. The thing with Philadelphia this year was they were plagued by a "Redskins" syndrome, meaning they were great on the edges and in the backfield but terrible up front. If anything can be taken from this Eagles' season it's that you build a football team from the ball out so to speak (i.e. linemen first, quarterback, running back, and so on).
That being said it's fixable for Philadelphia if they make a few tweaks here and there. Nobody in the NFC, with their season on the line wanted to play them down the stretch this year and they still have three of the best skill position guys in football with Vick, Asomugh, and McCoy. Additionally, they were smart enough to keep Reid, who may have deserved to get fired but who is also very difficult to replace and is unlikely to post two dog-seasons in a row.
Beyond the Eagles I think you have to look at Houston as a team that was absolutely ravaged by injuries and still nearly won two playoff games. T.J. Yates certainly won't be their starter next year and their already vicious defense will be adding their best player, Mario Williams back into the mix. Throw in a really soft division (even if Manny comes back) and they could be in line to win a lot of games next year. Pittsburgh is essentially the same way, if everyone comes back healthy they should be just as good if not better.
The other question is a little trickier. There are teams that are poised to make huge improvements next year, like Carolina with a second-year Newton, Oakland with either a healthy Jason Campbell or Carson Palmer with a year outside of Bengal-jail, or the Dolphins who were a tough out late in the season especially on defense. But will any of those teams improve enough to get all the way to a Championship game? Playoffs maybe but a conference title game seems like a stretch.
So that leaves us with the teams that are totally deficient on one side of the ball: Green Bay and New Orleans. Teams that are started strong then didn't know what to do with their success: Detroit and Buffalo. And teams that were loaded with talent but for some reason couldn't get it together: San Diego and (maybe) Arizona, and (maybe-ish) the Jets.
I think we can safely assume that New Orleans and Green Bay are going to be good again but that neither is going to undergo the defensive makeover they would need to change the look of their team substantially. Last year the Packers defense lived and died with turnovers, this year they didn't get any and that's why they'll be watching this weekend from the couch. New Orleans can score enough to cover a lot of their problems and are guaranteed nine games a year in a dome (eight at home, one at Atlanta) but they have to play 7 on the road and just can't stop anybody. Either is still a good bet to win their division but if New Orleans doesn't have home field and Green Bay doesn't get some guys who can tackle it might be one and done for them again.
Detroit and Buffalo both scream set-back year to me. Matt Stafford threw for over 5,000 yards this year. He's a good quarterback but he's not a 5,000 yard quarterback. If they don't sort out some kind of running game it could be back to the same old in Mo-Town. Buffalo paid a kid from Harvard over $60 million... I don't think I need to say more than that, and even at their best they're the third best team in their own division.
San Diego jumps off the page here as the obvious team to pick, especially given the way they ended the season. Lots of talent at receiver, good quarterback, two solid running backs, coolest city in the world... But that's the problem, we have this conversation about San Diego every year. They never put it all together and why should we believe that they will next year? On paper they're the easy choice but there's just something missing there.
In New York I think that the wheels have fallen a little too far off of the wagon for things to come together in one off-season. How much confidence is Sanchez going to have coming into camp next year? How much buy-in will Rex get from his players if he starts running his mouth again? Will 6 months be enough time for everyone to forget about the huge target they've put on their own backs for the last three years? Will they continue to sign every thug and idiot on the free agent market? Those questions are too daunting for me to pick them for a huge turnaround next year. Not to mention they still have the Patriots and a possibly resurgent Dolphins in their division.
So by process of elimination my flyer for next season's NFC Championship game is the Arizona Cardinals. Now there's a big IF here and that's the quarterback situation. Skelton was the NFC's Tim Tebow without the douchey beanie during press conferences and the constant Bible-thumping. But they also have Kevin Kolb who should be healthy.
(Side note, is Kolb just the unluckiest guy in the league or what? Every time he gets hurt his backup plays like an all-pro and he ends up either getting bounced or in a quarterback controversy. This will be the second team that's given him a huge contract only to end up unsure about whether he'll start his second season).
Anyway, if they get that sorted out (I vote Skelton by the way) then I think they have a chance to be really good. That division still doesn't scare me (sorry, I know the '49ers look good now but check out what happened to the '02-'03 Patriots after their first good season in a decade) and they have weapons on both sides of the ball. It's a long shot but hey, that's the point right?
In the AFC I'm actually going to go all the way back to the top and take another even longer shot. If I have to pick one of those teams I'm going with the Raiders. Now again, they have QB issues since they traded the farm for Carson Palmer in a typical "win now" hysteria. However, if they make the right choice and play Campbell they are pretty much ready to win now. Bush and McFadden are a ridiculous 1-2 punch in the backfield, their defense is solid (although they struggle against the pass) and they beat some good teams in '11-'12. Again, a long shot...
So Eagles v. Cardinals and Steelers v. Raiders this week next year? Here's hoping I'm wrong.
This is a great question, definitely one of your best.
It's also very difficult to answer.
I think you have to look at this two ways, or in the form of two questions. What teams are currently good enough but underachieved this year for whatever reason (injuries etc.)? And what teams are on the rise and weren't ready in 2011-12 but might be with a piece or two added next year?
The answer to the first I think is pretty straightforward, it has to be the Eagles. The thing with Philadelphia this year was they were plagued by a "Redskins" syndrome, meaning they were great on the edges and in the backfield but terrible up front. If anything can be taken from this Eagles' season it's that you build a football team from the ball out so to speak (i.e. linemen first, quarterback, running back, and so on).
That being said it's fixable for Philadelphia if they make a few tweaks here and there. Nobody in the NFC, with their season on the line wanted to play them down the stretch this year and they still have three of the best skill position guys in football with Vick, Asomugh, and McCoy. Additionally, they were smart enough to keep Reid, who may have deserved to get fired but who is also very difficult to replace and is unlikely to post two dog-seasons in a row.
Beyond the Eagles I think you have to look at Houston as a team that was absolutely ravaged by injuries and still nearly won two playoff games. T.J. Yates certainly won't be their starter next year and their already vicious defense will be adding their best player, Mario Williams back into the mix. Throw in a really soft division (even if Manny comes back) and they could be in line to win a lot of games next year. Pittsburgh is essentially the same way, if everyone comes back healthy they should be just as good if not better.
The other question is a little trickier. There are teams that are poised to make huge improvements next year, like Carolina with a second-year Newton, Oakland with either a healthy Jason Campbell or Carson Palmer with a year outside of Bengal-jail, or the Dolphins who were a tough out late in the season especially on defense. But will any of those teams improve enough to get all the way to a Championship game? Playoffs maybe but a conference title game seems like a stretch.
So that leaves us with the teams that are totally deficient on one side of the ball: Green Bay and New Orleans. Teams that are started strong then didn't know what to do with their success: Detroit and Buffalo. And teams that were loaded with talent but for some reason couldn't get it together: San Diego and (maybe) Arizona, and (maybe-ish) the Jets.
I think we can safely assume that New Orleans and Green Bay are going to be good again but that neither is going to undergo the defensive makeover they would need to change the look of their team substantially. Last year the Packers defense lived and died with turnovers, this year they didn't get any and that's why they'll be watching this weekend from the couch. New Orleans can score enough to cover a lot of their problems and are guaranteed nine games a year in a dome (eight at home, one at Atlanta) but they have to play 7 on the road and just can't stop anybody. Either is still a good bet to win their division but if New Orleans doesn't have home field and Green Bay doesn't get some guys who can tackle it might be one and done for them again.
Detroit and Buffalo both scream set-back year to me. Matt Stafford threw for over 5,000 yards this year. He's a good quarterback but he's not a 5,000 yard quarterback. If they don't sort out some kind of running game it could be back to the same old in Mo-Town. Buffalo paid a kid from Harvard over $60 million... I don't think I need to say more than that, and even at their best they're the third best team in their own division.
San Diego jumps off the page here as the obvious team to pick, especially given the way they ended the season. Lots of talent at receiver, good quarterback, two solid running backs, coolest city in the world... But that's the problem, we have this conversation about San Diego every year. They never put it all together and why should we believe that they will next year? On paper they're the easy choice but there's just something missing there.
In New York I think that the wheels have fallen a little too far off of the wagon for things to come together in one off-season. How much confidence is Sanchez going to have coming into camp next year? How much buy-in will Rex get from his players if he starts running his mouth again? Will 6 months be enough time for everyone to forget about the huge target they've put on their own backs for the last three years? Will they continue to sign every thug and idiot on the free agent market? Those questions are too daunting for me to pick them for a huge turnaround next year. Not to mention they still have the Patriots and a possibly resurgent Dolphins in their division.
So by process of elimination my flyer for next season's NFC Championship game is the Arizona Cardinals. Now there's a big IF here and that's the quarterback situation. Skelton was the NFC's Tim Tebow without the douchey beanie during press conferences and the constant Bible-thumping. But they also have Kevin Kolb who should be healthy.
(Side note, is Kolb just the unluckiest guy in the league or what? Every time he gets hurt his backup plays like an all-pro and he ends up either getting bounced or in a quarterback controversy. This will be the second team that's given him a huge contract only to end up unsure about whether he'll start his second season).
Anyway, if they get that sorted out (I vote Skelton by the way) then I think they have a chance to be really good. That division still doesn't scare me (sorry, I know the '49ers look good now but check out what happened to the '02-'03 Patriots after their first good season in a decade) and they have weapons on both sides of the ball. It's a long shot but hey, that's the point right?
In the AFC I'm actually going to go all the way back to the top and take another even longer shot. If I have to pick one of those teams I'm going with the Raiders. Now again, they have QB issues since they traded the farm for Carson Palmer in a typical "win now" hysteria. However, if they make the right choice and play Campbell they are pretty much ready to win now. Bush and McFadden are a ridiculous 1-2 punch in the backfield, their defense is solid (although they struggle against the pass) and they beat some good teams in '11-'12. Again, a long shot...
So Eagles v. Cardinals and Steelers v. Raiders this week next year? Here's hoping I'm wrong.
Monday, January 16, 2012
So the Pats RE-HIRED Josh McDaniels...what gives?
I think this move actually says more about Josh McDaniels than the Patriots, and probably more about his reputation than his actual ability.
The reality is actually pretty ironic. Last year when McDaniels traded roughly 100 first round picks and a bag of gold bouillon for Tebow he was crucified. They didn't play particularly well last year and he got run out of town on a wave of, "Why did we give everything away for a 6'0" left-handed QB that throws like girl," rage even though it was just as much Orton's fault.
Fast forward to right now and the entire city is screaming for the Broncos to KEEP Tebow (who completed a staggering NINE passes on Saturday by the way) and invest in him as a franchise player. It's less than two fucking years later and nobody remembers that McDaniels basically got fired for picking a player that was just voted the most popular athlete in the country last week... What!?
But for the Patriots I think the move was two-fold and totally unrelated to the Denver nonsense. First, it doesn't hurt to have someone on your staff that's familiar with the opponent's personnel, which McDaniels obviously is, even though it's a completely different system under Fox. I think the effect is minimal but you know Bellichick is always looking for any advantage he can get.
Second, it was to protect themselves from what happened a couple of years ago when Mangini was the offensive coordinator and took the Jets head coaching job right before the post-season started. Mangini completely checked out and the Patriots ended up losing to a lousy Denver team in the Divisional round as Mangini was trying to recruit players and staff to follow him to NY in the office during the week leading up to the game. That's not going to happen with O'Brien on his way to Penn State but Bellichick is still bitter and probably scarred by that experience, as is evidenced by THIS article that came out last week.
I think having McDaniels, who Brady and the offensive veterans are totally familiar with, around certainly can't hurt and maybe they can convince him to take the OC job next year since there's no way he's getting another head job this year. It's never going to happen again because the NFL is going to change the rules about coaching hires after this but there really wasn't any downside for the Patriots.
The reality is actually pretty ironic. Last year when McDaniels traded roughly 100 first round picks and a bag of gold bouillon for Tebow he was crucified. They didn't play particularly well last year and he got run out of town on a wave of, "Why did we give everything away for a 6'0" left-handed QB that throws like girl," rage even though it was just as much Orton's fault.
Fast forward to right now and the entire city is screaming for the Broncos to KEEP Tebow (who completed a staggering NINE passes on Saturday by the way) and invest in him as a franchise player. It's less than two fucking years later and nobody remembers that McDaniels basically got fired for picking a player that was just voted the most popular athlete in the country last week... What!?
But for the Patriots I think the move was two-fold and totally unrelated to the Denver nonsense. First, it doesn't hurt to have someone on your staff that's familiar with the opponent's personnel, which McDaniels obviously is, even though it's a completely different system under Fox. I think the effect is minimal but you know Bellichick is always looking for any advantage he can get.
Second, it was to protect themselves from what happened a couple of years ago when Mangini was the offensive coordinator and took the Jets head coaching job right before the post-season started. Mangini completely checked out and the Patriots ended up losing to a lousy Denver team in the Divisional round as Mangini was trying to recruit players and staff to follow him to NY in the office during the week leading up to the game. That's not going to happen with O'Brien on his way to Penn State but Bellichick is still bitter and probably scarred by that experience, as is evidenced by THIS article that came out last week.
I think having McDaniels, who Brady and the offensive veterans are totally familiar with, around certainly can't hurt and maybe they can convince him to take the OC job next year since there's no way he's getting another head job this year. It's never going to happen again because the NFL is going to change the rules about coaching hires after this but there really wasn't any downside for the Patriots.
Friday, January 13, 2012
I'm nervous about the 49ers having to face the Saints this weekend, what can you tell me that will reassure me?
Fear not pretty lady, it's going to be okay.
The Saints are utterly unstoppable under two circumstances...
At home.
And on turf.
Luckily for you, this game is in San Francisco and on grass. If the 49ers are smart, don't turn it over, and don't fall behind they should be able to at least keep it close and low-ish scoring.
The model to beat an offensive juggernaut has been shown (often agonizingly) time and again. As I said in the previous post, teams just need to watch the '07 Super Bowl and that's the blueprint. Another good example is what the Steelers did to the Patriots earlier this year.
Nobody talks about this but they ran down the play clock to almost zero on every offensive snap, which shortened the game enormously and kept Brady on the bench for an outrageous amount of time. Everyone looks at the time of possession and assumes that Pittsburgh dominated, but really they had two ridiculously dominating drives to start the game and then starting sitting on the ball.
If the 49ers can somehow get ahead they can do the same thing. Another positive is that the Saints defense is nothing to get excited about. They should be able to score. They can't get into a shootout with NO, but they don't need this game to be in the teens to win, 20's would be nice.
Lastly, the Niners don't turn it over anymore like they used to. Giving the Saints a short field is suicide. If they can keep hold onto the ball and keep it away from Brees they'll be in decent shape.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think there's any question that the Saints are good enough offensively to score at will if they get into a rhythm. They are. Ask Marino's record.
Which is why it's so critical that the 49ers control the clock and the ball. More important even than scoring, they have to keep Brees off the field. A 70 yard bomb does very little for San Francisco because New Orleans will probably come out and score in two plays on the next possession.
If you're looking for further assurance I think SF also has the better coach. Harbaugh will realize that they need to slow things down and play the entire game as though they have a lead and they're trying to run out the clock with two minutes left. They also have a better kicker, which will be helpful if the wind picks up.
And if all else fails you can always rely on the trusty right arm of....Alex Smith!?! (....I know....is phony major...)
The Saints are utterly unstoppable under two circumstances...
At home.
And on turf.
Luckily for you, this game is in San Francisco and on grass. If the 49ers are smart, don't turn it over, and don't fall behind they should be able to at least keep it close and low-ish scoring.
The model to beat an offensive juggernaut has been shown (often agonizingly) time and again. As I said in the previous post, teams just need to watch the '07 Super Bowl and that's the blueprint. Another good example is what the Steelers did to the Patriots earlier this year.
Nobody talks about this but they ran down the play clock to almost zero on every offensive snap, which shortened the game enormously and kept Brady on the bench for an outrageous amount of time. Everyone looks at the time of possession and assumes that Pittsburgh dominated, but really they had two ridiculously dominating drives to start the game and then starting sitting on the ball.
If the 49ers can somehow get ahead they can do the same thing. Another positive is that the Saints defense is nothing to get excited about. They should be able to score. They can't get into a shootout with NO, but they don't need this game to be in the teens to win, 20's would be nice.
Lastly, the Niners don't turn it over anymore like they used to. Giving the Saints a short field is suicide. If they can keep hold onto the ball and keep it away from Brees they'll be in decent shape.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think there's any question that the Saints are good enough offensively to score at will if they get into a rhythm. They are. Ask Marino's record.
Which is why it's so critical that the 49ers control the clock and the ball. More important even than scoring, they have to keep Brees off the field. A 70 yard bomb does very little for San Francisco because New Orleans will probably come out and score in two plays on the next possession.
If you're looking for further assurance I think SF also has the better coach. Harbaugh will realize that they need to slow things down and play the entire game as though they have a lead and they're trying to run out the clock with two minutes left. They also have a better kicker, which will be helpful if the wind picks up.
And if all else fails you can always rely on the trusty right arm of....Alex Smith!?! (....I know....is phony major...)
How do you see the playoffs shaking out? Give me your picks.
Fair warning, I've been away from consistent ESPN coverage and free time for the last week, if any of this is completely wrong I cannot be held accountable...
We'll start with the NFC...
If I'm a Packers fan this week I'm scared to death. We've seen this movie before with the Giants and it doesn't end well for the other side... Please excuse me while I go plunge my head into the toilet several times....
(Plunge!) ...GASP!....(Plunge!)
Okay, I feel better. Now I will make myself feel worse by pointing out all the similarities between this season's version of the Giants/Packers and the 2007 versions.
In 2007 everyone wanted the Packers to make it to the Super Bowl so gunslinger Brett Favre could face off against the undefeated Patriots. It was like a marketer and casual fan's wet dream. Not a single person in the entire country would have rooted for the Patriots outside of those pockets of Pat's Nation in every city. We all know how that ended in overtime for the Packers and what ultimately took place...
(PLUNGE!)
In 2011 everyone wants to see the track meet that would be the Saints and Packers facing off again. That was the best game of the season and it was played on the very first Thursday. Another popular match-up that only requires a Packer win (on their side)? Not a good sign.
In 2007 the Patriots had what most assumed would be an unstoppable offense...
(Plunge!)
In 2011 the Packers seem to have an unstoppable offense. The scary thing to Packers' fans is that the Giants seem to have a blueprint for stopping unstoppable teams. They beat the Patriots on a neutral field in perfect weather in '07 by taking the air out of the ball, getting pressure without blitzing, and pounding Brady when given the chance. There isn't any reason they can't do that to Green Bay, particularly in (probably) lousy weather. Their pass rush is coming together at the right time, the Packers don't run the ball very well, and if they don't need to blitz to get to Rodgers they can cover long enough for him to get hit.
In 2007 Eli Manning stunk out loud and had a mediocre offense at best.
In 2011 Eli Manning is clutch and has Victor Cruz (...thanks for the fantasy championship Victor!).
As you can probably guess, I'm taking the Giants. This feels like a Colts circa '06 or '07 letdown game for Green Bay. That being said I hope to high hell that I'm wrong.
In the other game I actually like San Francisco, as much as I dread the potential texting repercussions from a certain Maynard especially if the Patriots were to lose... I'll get into this one more in the post that will be specifically about this game.
In the AFC you have two games that SHOULD be one-sided. Notice I said should.
Is it me or does Baltimore get more criticism than any other 12-4 number two seed in history? If you listened for three hours straight you would never hear anything good about them aside from their defense is experienced, but even with that people are starting to call them old. Granted they have had some terrible losses and can't win on the road but this game is in Baltimore and Houston is starting T.J. Yates who looked massively inferior to Andy Dalton last week.
Come on, I know Flacco is struggling but there is just no way that Yates can win there in the playoffs, is there? Once again I hope I'm wrong but a rookie quarterback on the road against Ray Lewis and Ed Reed. I don't care if Flacco stays in the parking lot, the Ravens are winning this game.
And now...
(Preparatory Plunge!) Gasp!
It's Tebow time....in that it's time to talk about Tebow.
Let me start by saying this, if the Patriots don't win this game it's time to blow it up. They haven't won a playoff game since the AFC championship game in 2007. Four years? Coaches get fired in the NFL for a lot less. Now, of course I'm not suggesting that you fire Bellichick...or am I?
Let's walk this through.
Since 2004 the defense has regressed markedly to the point that they are now the worst in the NFL.
Since the AFC championship game in '07 they have lost three consecutive playoff games, two at home to inferior opponents and one at a neutral site against a far inferior opponent. Note the absence of even a ROAD playoff game in the last four years! It's mind boggling, they haven't just lost, they've come unglued against inferior teams. That's just unacceptable.
Brady and Bellichick are both in the twilight of their careers. I'm not saying they're not trying as hard anymore but something has changed and it doesn't look like it's the quarterback. Brady still looks phenomenal, but there is something off about the way this team is constructed, like it's missing some key pieces and has been for a while. That falls to the guy who makes the draft picks and signings and that's BB.
Again, I'm not necessarily saying that you fire Bellichick, but it might be time to point out some lovely retirement mansions... IF they lose this game.
Back to the game itself. The Patriots should win, that's not news. They're just better. But if you're looking for things to keep yourself up at night here's one. There are three phases of a football game (offense, defense, special teams) and Denver is better in two of them. So the question is are the Patriots "better enough" on offense to compensate for being inferior on defense and special teams? The answer of course is yes, they've been doing it all year to better teams than Denver. But when you're not as good at 2/3 of the game you're very vulnerable to a bad day. So if you're looking for an anti-silver lining that's how they could lose, if the offense has a bad day.
Here's why I think it won't happen. Even if the offense has a bad day, which for them would be 24 points or so that should still be enough to win. It would have been for the Steelers if not for some flukey plays and an unbelievable TD to win the game.
Denver caught lightning in a bottle last week at home in front of a rabid crowd that hadn't seen a playoff game in almost a decade. All that atmosphere is flipping on them this week...
And lest we forget.... THEIR QUARTERBACK ISN'T ANY GOOD!
I would be more concerned about T.J. Yates, at least he can throw a spiral. Yes, Tebow looked good on Sunday, it was his best game as a pro by far. But what are the chances that a second year player, first year starter will be able to duplicate that success two weeks in a row against another good team but this time on the road? I don't see it happening.
So that leaves us Ravens at Patriots and Giants at Niners for the championship weekend when you WILL BE HERE IN COLORADO WITH ME to watch them!
I will preview those next week if they happen... Oh man I hope they happen.
We'll start with the NFC...
If I'm a Packers fan this week I'm scared to death. We've seen this movie before with the Giants and it doesn't end well for the other side... Please excuse me while I go plunge my head into the toilet several times....
(Plunge!) ...GASP!....(Plunge!)
Okay, I feel better. Now I will make myself feel worse by pointing out all the similarities between this season's version of the Giants/Packers and the 2007 versions.
In 2007 everyone wanted the Packers to make it to the Super Bowl so gunslinger Brett Favre could face off against the undefeated Patriots. It was like a marketer and casual fan's wet dream. Not a single person in the entire country would have rooted for the Patriots outside of those pockets of Pat's Nation in every city. We all know how that ended in overtime for the Packers and what ultimately took place...
(PLUNGE!)
In 2011 everyone wants to see the track meet that would be the Saints and Packers facing off again. That was the best game of the season and it was played on the very first Thursday. Another popular match-up that only requires a Packer win (on their side)? Not a good sign.
In 2007 the Patriots had what most assumed would be an unstoppable offense...
(Plunge!)
In 2011 the Packers seem to have an unstoppable offense. The scary thing to Packers' fans is that the Giants seem to have a blueprint for stopping unstoppable teams. They beat the Patriots on a neutral field in perfect weather in '07 by taking the air out of the ball, getting pressure without blitzing, and pounding Brady when given the chance. There isn't any reason they can't do that to Green Bay, particularly in (probably) lousy weather. Their pass rush is coming together at the right time, the Packers don't run the ball very well, and if they don't need to blitz to get to Rodgers they can cover long enough for him to get hit.
In 2007 Eli Manning stunk out loud and had a mediocre offense at best.
In 2011 Eli Manning is clutch and has Victor Cruz (...thanks for the fantasy championship Victor!).
As you can probably guess, I'm taking the Giants. This feels like a Colts circa '06 or '07 letdown game for Green Bay. That being said I hope to high hell that I'm wrong.
In the other game I actually like San Francisco, as much as I dread the potential texting repercussions from a certain Maynard especially if the Patriots were to lose... I'll get into this one more in the post that will be specifically about this game.
In the AFC you have two games that SHOULD be one-sided. Notice I said should.
Is it me or does Baltimore get more criticism than any other 12-4 number two seed in history? If you listened for three hours straight you would never hear anything good about them aside from their defense is experienced, but even with that people are starting to call them old. Granted they have had some terrible losses and can't win on the road but this game is in Baltimore and Houston is starting T.J. Yates who looked massively inferior to Andy Dalton last week.
Come on, I know Flacco is struggling but there is just no way that Yates can win there in the playoffs, is there? Once again I hope I'm wrong but a rookie quarterback on the road against Ray Lewis and Ed Reed. I don't care if Flacco stays in the parking lot, the Ravens are winning this game.
And now...
(Preparatory Plunge!) Gasp!
It's Tebow time....in that it's time to talk about Tebow.
Let me start by saying this, if the Patriots don't win this game it's time to blow it up. They haven't won a playoff game since the AFC championship game in 2007. Four years? Coaches get fired in the NFL for a lot less. Now, of course I'm not suggesting that you fire Bellichick...or am I?
Let's walk this through.
Since 2004 the defense has regressed markedly to the point that they are now the worst in the NFL.
Since the AFC championship game in '07 they have lost three consecutive playoff games, two at home to inferior opponents and one at a neutral site against a far inferior opponent. Note the absence of even a ROAD playoff game in the last four years! It's mind boggling, they haven't just lost, they've come unglued against inferior teams. That's just unacceptable.
Brady and Bellichick are both in the twilight of their careers. I'm not saying they're not trying as hard anymore but something has changed and it doesn't look like it's the quarterback. Brady still looks phenomenal, but there is something off about the way this team is constructed, like it's missing some key pieces and has been for a while. That falls to the guy who makes the draft picks and signings and that's BB.
Again, I'm not necessarily saying that you fire Bellichick, but it might be time to point out some lovely retirement mansions... IF they lose this game.
Back to the game itself. The Patriots should win, that's not news. They're just better. But if you're looking for things to keep yourself up at night here's one. There are three phases of a football game (offense, defense, special teams) and Denver is better in two of them. So the question is are the Patriots "better enough" on offense to compensate for being inferior on defense and special teams? The answer of course is yes, they've been doing it all year to better teams than Denver. But when you're not as good at 2/3 of the game you're very vulnerable to a bad day. So if you're looking for an anti-silver lining that's how they could lose, if the offense has a bad day.
Here's why I think it won't happen. Even if the offense has a bad day, which for them would be 24 points or so that should still be enough to win. It would have been for the Steelers if not for some flukey plays and an unbelievable TD to win the game.
Denver caught lightning in a bottle last week at home in front of a rabid crowd that hadn't seen a playoff game in almost a decade. All that atmosphere is flipping on them this week...
And lest we forget.... THEIR QUARTERBACK ISN'T ANY GOOD!
I would be more concerned about T.J. Yates, at least he can throw a spiral. Yes, Tebow looked good on Sunday, it was his best game as a pro by far. But what are the chances that a second year player, first year starter will be able to duplicate that success two weeks in a row against another good team but this time on the road? I don't see it happening.
So that leaves us Ravens at Patriots and Giants at Niners for the championship weekend when you WILL BE HERE IN COLORADO WITH ME to watch them!
I will preview those next week if they happen... Oh man I hope they happen.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Would you rather have a direct line to God, or to Bill Belichik?
That depends...
Who's wearing the better sweatshirt?
God:
Or Belichick:
Who's wearing the better sweatshirt?
God:
Or Belichick:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)