Week 17 has concluded and the NFL playoff picture is set! It was another quasi-exciting end of a season. If I do not seem as excited about that ending as everyone else, it's only because the things still up for grabs (and there were a number of them!), it was ultimately just a race to mediocrity. The NFC North, NFC East, and the last AFC Wildcard spots were all up for grabs, with the first two featuring "winner takes division" games. In the NFC North, we had the Green Bay Packers and Chicago Bears play in a game that decided who wins the division. The same thing happened in the NFC East between the Philadelphia Eagles and Dallas Cowboys. And yet, of those teams, only Philadelphia has arguably looked good this season. (To be fair to Green Bay, the best quarterback in the league did miss a good chunk of time.)
Still, had the Bears won, it would have been a 9-7 team winning the NFC North instead of the 8-7-1 Packers. And in the NFC East, the Cowboys could have won it with a 9-7 record as well, instead of the now 10-6 Eagles. In the AFC, we had a fearsome foursome of 8-7 teams looking to grab that last remaining wildcard spot. In a race to mediocrity, the 8-8 Pittsburgh Steelers very, very, very nearly made it in as a wildcard team. Fortunately, we instead got the ever-so-barely 9-7 San Diego Chargers.
This season, fortunately, does not feature any .500 or below teams. This is obviously good. Only the best teams should make it to the post season. Still, this steadfast support for breaking things down by conference certainly opens the doors to mediocrity in the post season. Consider 2004 where the NFC saw two 8-8 teams get in on the NFC wild cards. Meanwhile, the AFC had three above .500 teams that missed out.
Sure, it doesn't happen often, but it does happen a fair amount where mediocre teams (or slightly above mediocre teams) get a playoff spot, while legitimately good teams in a much tougher division or conference miss out. Everyone seems to downplay these instances by saying, "Well if the 10-6 Cardinals beat the Saints earlier this year, they would have been in the playoffs! They've no one to blame but themselves." But even then, you'd still have a good 10-6 Saints team missing the playoffs while a mediocre 9-7 Chargers (or potentially 8-8 Steelers - or even an 8-8 Dolphins for that matter as they could have won the spot if all four teams lost) made it on wild cards.
The problem lies in an antiquated conference system. Maybe it was cool in the 1960s and '70s to see NFL teams square off against formerly AFL teams in the championship games, but who cares about that in today's NFL? It's all the NFL! The post season should always be reserved for the best. Look at the NBA's playoff system. Granted, they need to scale theirs down, but imagine if the NBA went to a "top 16 teams" instead of a "top 8 in each conference." This year, we're going to see a bunch of crappy Eastern Conference teams duke it out (but also, not really because it's going to be Miami or Indiana), while some goo Western Conference teams miss out. The fact that the NBA always has sub .500 teams in the playoffs (always in the Eastern Conference) makes it a bit of a joke.
Sports fans are oddly traditional and almost instantly reject new or different things, so I know most people will disagree with me here. That's fine. I know the NFL won't change it (even if it seems like maybe they could given they've already made the Pro Bowl non-conference based - not that anyone cares about the Pro Bowl). What they should do is quite simple and would promote only the best teams in the league.
12 Playoff spots.
8 Divisional Winners get in.
4 Best teams outside divisional winners get the wild cards.
Seed each team 1 through 12.
Top 4 seeds get first round Bye Weeks.
Top 2 seeds get homefield advantage.
Then just break it down into a normal bracket! It's not that difficult. The playoffs would play the exact same way. Four "wild card" games the first weekend (5 seed vs. 12 seed, 6 seed vs. 11 seed, 7 seed vs. 10 seed, 8 seed vs. 9 seed). Then four games in the "divisional round" weekend (1 seed vs. lowest remaining seed, 2 seed vs. second lowest remaining seed, 3 seed vs. third lowest remaining, 4 seed vs. fourth lowest remaining). And then you get two games during "Championship Weekend," (highest seed remaining vs. lowest seed remaining, second highest seed remaining vs. second lowest remaining). Then the Super Bowl is just whoever has made it that far! It'd play exactly the same. The only difference is that you won't get "Conference Champions," because there are no conferences anymore.
People will hate that, even though everyone readily admits that winning the conference championship doesn't mean anything. All that matters is winning the Super Bowl. It is this guy's opinion that we should feature only the best teams in the pursuit of a Super Bowl champion.
Get rid of conferences. They don't mean anything and they open the doors to mediocre teams getting into the playoffs.
Monday, December 30, 2013
Friday, November 8, 2013
Sports Culture: Thoughts on the Jonathan Martin situation.
All right. Since everyone else is taking sides (and largely, Richie Incognito's), it might be time to throw my weight around on the issue at hand. The thing is though, no matter how you slice it, Jonathan Martin's NFL career is over. The fans hate him. NFL players won't trust him. General Managers have even come out in criticism of the kid. While I understand he was a struggling young lineman, it's unfortunate that football still seems to operate in this sort of weird subculture that makes no real sense.
Incognito was allegedly the ring leader for a constant barrage of hazing toward Martin in an attempt to either toughen him up or get him out of his shell - depends on who you ask. Ultimately, it doesn't matter which it was. You listen to that voice mail, you hear about how Martin was the primary target on countless pranks, you see the texts, it's easy to see that those tactics were not working. How is it that Incognito - nor anyone on the coaching staff or in that locker room - noticed that those sort of uninspiring tactics were not working to toughen him up? Why did he and others keep at it? At some point, you have to switch it up. If saying, "I want to shit in your fucking mouth" isn't inspiring better play from the kid, as a leader, you've got to try something different. They stuck with it because - like most football players - they are stuck in some ancient code of conduct that, turns out, isn't especially effective. Even worse is the possibility that all of this was not only sanctioned by coach Joe Philbin; he also initiated it, allegedly telling Incognito to do this.
Of course, we can't just keep things nice and clean (although to be fair, this story has a lot of parts to it). People have argued that Martin essentially did this to himself, that he asked for this treatment by being "shy and standoffish," that he was more often trying to avoid going out with teammates instead of diving head first into being the best of off the field friends. These people contend that these hazing tactics essentially amount to the other linemen trying to get Martin out of his shell. I hope I don't have to go into how stupid this is, but I will. First off, if you're trying to get someone out of his shell, I'm not really sure how leaving messages that say, "I'm going to kill you" are going to do that. If you're constantly pulling pranks on a specific person, why would that person want to go out with you guys? Further complicating the issue is that we know Martin was dealing with some personal issues somewhat unrelated. People - especially football players - can never seem to understand why someone might not want to be a part of something they are. "Why wouldn't he just come out with us? What's wrong with the guy?" people ask, as if that is somehow justification to keep going at this guy.
Seriously, has no one ever heard of depression?
I happen to work at a place where everyone is friends. Everyone hangs out with each other outside of work. It's great. As for me? I'm pretty inconsistent about it. I go through periods where I'm feeling social and want to hang out with everyone. I also go through periods where I don't want to see anyone. I have moments where I feel like I fit in with my co-workers; I also have moments where I feel like I'm a total outsider. None of it makes any sense. That's just how my brain works. And this is with co-workers who don't constantly prank me or threaten me or say mean spirited shit to me. I think back to my days on the high school football team and recall that there were maybe four or five people total that I would want to hang out with - the rest were jerks.
Point being, it's a little unfair to say that Martin asked for it because he was a bit of an outsider. Especially at this point where - and I know that everyone likes to build sports to be more important than they are - it's ultimately just a job (and a game!). Martin is there to work. He doesn't have to get along with everyone, so long as he contributes. This story would be fundamentally different if it were a case of the Dolphins organization thinking he wasn't playing well and decided to cut him. Instead, this is players making that decision and chasing him out of the league. And now they're speaking up to essentially ensure this guy can't work here again. I get that everyone now behaves like the 2012 Red Sox, but those decisions are not up to them. Everyone wants to talk about how Martin needs to "man up," but these players are acting like children themselves. Could you imagine their attitudes if one of their teams signed Martin?
Speaking of "manning up," maybe it's just me, but I'd like it a little bit more of we used "man up" to apply to the other football players speaking out against Martin. How come "man up" doesn't mean "behave in a reasonable, ethical, and professional manner"? I keep hearing fans and players saying things like, "I'm a grown ass man. I'll handle that in the locker room!" Uh huh...sure. The sign of being a "grown ass man" certainly does mean throwing fists at the first sign of a problem. (Seriously, why does my gender have to be the one equated with stupid immaturity?) How about instead of saying dumb shit like that, we say, "I'm a grown ass man. I'm not going to haze my co-workers and conduct myself in a classy, professional manner."
Everyone likes to talk about how football is a gladiator sport. They're warriors. They need that warrior culture. See, I can understand this kind of culture existing within the Marines or Army or whatever. These are actual, literal warriors. It literally is life or death for them. (Although to be fair, the military on an official level doesn't deal with hazing. They monitor that situation pretty closely.) Football players though? They're not warriors. They're just physically fit gamers. It's a game! You're not going to war. Stop acting like this is this super difficult thing that merits its own messed up culture.
It's the culture that chased me out of football - not the sport itself. I love football. It's a really fun sport to play that incorporates physicality with a sort of chess-like intelligence. But I could never get behind the rampant sexism, racism, and homophobia that exists within that locker room. It's one thing to occasionally pull pranks on people; it's another to straight up haze. That was never productive, in my mind. It wasn't that I couldn't handle it. It was that I didn't want to have to deal with it. There's a huge difference. (My job is in customer service. I've worked seven years in a job where basically, I'm paid to sit their and take verbal abuse. I think I can handle it. The difference here though is that I don't deal with customer abuse only to turn around and deal with my co-workers constantly at my throat too.)
The more I read online - whether it's comments from players or fans - the more I am starting to find the culture is beginning to chase me out of even basic fandom. I'm not so sure I want to be supporting a system where the professional part of professional athlete just means that they make a ton of money, and not that they conduct themselves in a professional manner. At the end of the day, football is just a game and a job. It's not the end of the world if your team loses. It's not even that big of a deal when your team wins. Yes, it's not a great feeling when they lose and it feels pretty cool when they win, but it's just a game. And for these players, it's also a job. Part of me can't stand how football players (and to be fair, most athletes really) build sports up to be this super important thing. It's the reason they exist. They wind up creating this self-appointed cycle of significance. Winning or losing doesn't ultimately matter, but apparently, they can't do a job if they don't think it means everything. On the one hand, you have to admire that work ethic. On the other hand, it's pretty fucking dumb.
It has nothing to do about one's "softness." Everyone has a line. (Also, it's just a game. It really doesn't require that much more mental toughness than any other job, really.) This Miami Dolphins situation isn't so much about bullying (I don't actually think this was a case of bullying). It's more about failed leadership and this idea that somehow, if you play a sport that most of us play for simple pleasure, you are no longer human. You're not allowed to be different. It's about a culture that persists for no real reason. It's about these stupid athletes trying to take control of a gender - my gender - and tell everyone that real men act like teenagers. That if they're pushing you too far, it's because you're "soft." It's about ignorance to all of the things that go with mental issues (in a league that has its fair share of mental issues!). The more NFL players speak, the more I start to hate the NFL.
It's true. We don't really want to see how the sausage is made. Maybe I'm alone here, but maybe it's time we do start caring about these things.
Incognito was allegedly the ring leader for a constant barrage of hazing toward Martin in an attempt to either toughen him up or get him out of his shell - depends on who you ask. Ultimately, it doesn't matter which it was. You listen to that voice mail, you hear about how Martin was the primary target on countless pranks, you see the texts, it's easy to see that those tactics were not working. How is it that Incognito - nor anyone on the coaching staff or in that locker room - noticed that those sort of uninspiring tactics were not working to toughen him up? Why did he and others keep at it? At some point, you have to switch it up. If saying, "I want to shit in your fucking mouth" isn't inspiring better play from the kid, as a leader, you've got to try something different. They stuck with it because - like most football players - they are stuck in some ancient code of conduct that, turns out, isn't especially effective. Even worse is the possibility that all of this was not only sanctioned by coach Joe Philbin; he also initiated it, allegedly telling Incognito to do this.
Of course, we can't just keep things nice and clean (although to be fair, this story has a lot of parts to it). People have argued that Martin essentially did this to himself, that he asked for this treatment by being "shy and standoffish," that he was more often trying to avoid going out with teammates instead of diving head first into being the best of off the field friends. These people contend that these hazing tactics essentially amount to the other linemen trying to get Martin out of his shell. I hope I don't have to go into how stupid this is, but I will. First off, if you're trying to get someone out of his shell, I'm not really sure how leaving messages that say, "I'm going to kill you" are going to do that. If you're constantly pulling pranks on a specific person, why would that person want to go out with you guys? Further complicating the issue is that we know Martin was dealing with some personal issues somewhat unrelated. People - especially football players - can never seem to understand why someone might not want to be a part of something they are. "Why wouldn't he just come out with us? What's wrong with the guy?" people ask, as if that is somehow justification to keep going at this guy.
Seriously, has no one ever heard of depression?
I happen to work at a place where everyone is friends. Everyone hangs out with each other outside of work. It's great. As for me? I'm pretty inconsistent about it. I go through periods where I'm feeling social and want to hang out with everyone. I also go through periods where I don't want to see anyone. I have moments where I feel like I fit in with my co-workers; I also have moments where I feel like I'm a total outsider. None of it makes any sense. That's just how my brain works. And this is with co-workers who don't constantly prank me or threaten me or say mean spirited shit to me. I think back to my days on the high school football team and recall that there were maybe four or five people total that I would want to hang out with - the rest were jerks.
Point being, it's a little unfair to say that Martin asked for it because he was a bit of an outsider. Especially at this point where - and I know that everyone likes to build sports to be more important than they are - it's ultimately just a job (and a game!). Martin is there to work. He doesn't have to get along with everyone, so long as he contributes. This story would be fundamentally different if it were a case of the Dolphins organization thinking he wasn't playing well and decided to cut him. Instead, this is players making that decision and chasing him out of the league. And now they're speaking up to essentially ensure this guy can't work here again. I get that everyone now behaves like the 2012 Red Sox, but those decisions are not up to them. Everyone wants to talk about how Martin needs to "man up," but these players are acting like children themselves. Could you imagine their attitudes if one of their teams signed Martin?
Speaking of "manning up," maybe it's just me, but I'd like it a little bit more of we used "man up" to apply to the other football players speaking out against Martin. How come "man up" doesn't mean "behave in a reasonable, ethical, and professional manner"? I keep hearing fans and players saying things like, "I'm a grown ass man. I'll handle that in the locker room!" Uh huh...sure. The sign of being a "grown ass man" certainly does mean throwing fists at the first sign of a problem. (Seriously, why does my gender have to be the one equated with stupid immaturity?) How about instead of saying dumb shit like that, we say, "I'm a grown ass man. I'm not going to haze my co-workers and conduct myself in a classy, professional manner."
Everyone likes to talk about how football is a gladiator sport. They're warriors. They need that warrior culture. See, I can understand this kind of culture existing within the Marines or Army or whatever. These are actual, literal warriors. It literally is life or death for them. (Although to be fair, the military on an official level doesn't deal with hazing. They monitor that situation pretty closely.) Football players though? They're not warriors. They're just physically fit gamers. It's a game! You're not going to war. Stop acting like this is this super difficult thing that merits its own messed up culture.
It's the culture that chased me out of football - not the sport itself. I love football. It's a really fun sport to play that incorporates physicality with a sort of chess-like intelligence. But I could never get behind the rampant sexism, racism, and homophobia that exists within that locker room. It's one thing to occasionally pull pranks on people; it's another to straight up haze. That was never productive, in my mind. It wasn't that I couldn't handle it. It was that I didn't want to have to deal with it. There's a huge difference. (My job is in customer service. I've worked seven years in a job where basically, I'm paid to sit their and take verbal abuse. I think I can handle it. The difference here though is that I don't deal with customer abuse only to turn around and deal with my co-workers constantly at my throat too.)
The more I read online - whether it's comments from players or fans - the more I am starting to find the culture is beginning to chase me out of even basic fandom. I'm not so sure I want to be supporting a system where the professional part of professional athlete just means that they make a ton of money, and not that they conduct themselves in a professional manner. At the end of the day, football is just a game and a job. It's not the end of the world if your team loses. It's not even that big of a deal when your team wins. Yes, it's not a great feeling when they lose and it feels pretty cool when they win, but it's just a game. And for these players, it's also a job. Part of me can't stand how football players (and to be fair, most athletes really) build sports up to be this super important thing. It's the reason they exist. They wind up creating this self-appointed cycle of significance. Winning or losing doesn't ultimately matter, but apparently, they can't do a job if they don't think it means everything. On the one hand, you have to admire that work ethic. On the other hand, it's pretty fucking dumb.
It has nothing to do about one's "softness." Everyone has a line. (Also, it's just a game. It really doesn't require that much more mental toughness than any other job, really.) This Miami Dolphins situation isn't so much about bullying (I don't actually think this was a case of bullying). It's more about failed leadership and this idea that somehow, if you play a sport that most of us play for simple pleasure, you are no longer human. You're not allowed to be different. It's about a culture that persists for no real reason. It's about these stupid athletes trying to take control of a gender - my gender - and tell everyone that real men act like teenagers. That if they're pushing you too far, it's because you're "soft." It's about ignorance to all of the things that go with mental issues (in a league that has its fair share of mental issues!). The more NFL players speak, the more I start to hate the NFL.
It's true. We don't really want to see how the sausage is made. Maybe I'm alone here, but maybe it's time we do start caring about these things.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Next Year, Bet on the More Expensive Teams.
I already posted a bit about the salary cap (again) and how this season
really is the perfect example of what my argument actually is.
Still, now that the Red Sox have won their third World Series in the past nine years (new evil empire?), it's worth mentioning that in the seven playoff series this fall, six of them had the team with the highest payroll advance (the Cardinals beating the Dodgers was the only case of a team with a lower payroll winning.)
It's still mind boggling to me that people still act is if the money doesn't matter...
Still, now that the Red Sox have won their third World Series in the past nine years (new evil empire?), it's worth mentioning that in the seven playoff series this fall, six of them had the team with the highest payroll advance (the Cardinals beating the Dodgers was the only case of a team with a lower payroll winning.)
It's still mind boggling to me that people still act is if the money doesn't matter...
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Thoughts on a Super Bowl in Cold Weather.
Perhaps it's that I've been born and raised in New England and have stayed here all of my life, but I'm officially annoyed by the number of people whining about this year's Super Bowl in New Jersey - a cold weather environment. I'm sick of people talking about how it should be in a dome or moved to Miami or how it's going to snow and screw up the Super Bowl. It's two parts annoyance though. It isn't just that I'm from New England and get tired of hearing people complain about the cold; it's that I'm also a fan of football and get tired of everyone complaining about having to play in "the elements."
What? Do you mean to tell me that professional football players can't play in the snow?
Part of the reason football is such an intriguing sport is that it's - mostly - an outdoor game during some of the roughest months. It's a game where you aren't just making adjustments based on your opponent; you're making adjustments to the environment as well. Consider the classic (even if more controversial) Snow Bowl between the Oakland Raiders and New England Patriots. Perhaps the biggest travesty is that we only remember this game for the one controversial call, and not for just how brutal this game was. Even Raiders fans should probably be able to admit that it was a great game - a true classic (even if they won't get over the tuck rule).
So how sloppy of a game was it? The Patriots fumbled the ball three times losing none of them (think about that some time, Raiders fans). The Raiders? They didn't turn the ball over once. Rich Gannon completed 54.8% of his passes for just 159 yards, but threw one touchdown. Not a great performance from a guy who completed 65.8% of his passes during the regular season. Ok, so it's easy to blame the weather. It is legitimately difficult to throw and catch in those conditions. Obviously, the snow impacted Rich Gannon - an MVP candidate having a phenomenal year. Surely, the new-to-the-scene, playing-in-a-game-too-big-for-him, not-asked-to-do-much Tom Brady would have fared equally poorly, right? And yet, Tom Brady completed 61.5% of his passes for 312 yards. Not bad for a guy who completed 63.9% of his passes in the regular season and was ALSO dealing with the SAME conditions. Similarly, two of the greatest receivers in NFL history - Jerry Rice and Tim Brown - had a combined 9 catches for 90 yards. Conversely, the top receivers for New England - David Patten and Jermaine Wiggins - combined for twice as many catches (18 - 10 for Wiggens, 8 for Patten) and almost twice as many yards (175).
Point being, the Patriots played pretty efficiently in some pretty brutal snow. The Raiders did not. However, BOTH teams had to account for it. The Patriots made better adjustments than the Raiders.
[EDIT: So, apparently I was misremembering this game. I've just found it online and rewatched it. These numbers are a bit deceptive because both quarterbacks actually looked pretty solid despite the snow. There were a few drops, but not a ton. In the end, the Raiders offense actually looked pretty good. The Patriots secondary had more to do with with the offensive issues than the snow. Brady, meanwhile, actually looked pretty pedestrian for a while. Most of his missed passes were just on bad overthrows which looked more the sign of a second year quarterback with limited experience than an issue with the snow. But if you are able to go back and watch that game, you might notice that while the weather does impact the game, it actually doesn't impact it as greatly as you might think. The biggest play that really stood out was on a Raiders punt when a rookie on coverage lost track of where the endzone was, kept backing up, then waited to touch it when it was past the goal line despite have a huge opportunity to down it within New England's 2 yard line. Hard to blame him, even though he was a rookie, given how confusing the field looked with all the snow.]
Or what about that crazy game between the Green Bay Packers and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 1985 in which 4-5 inches of snow fell and the Packers still gained 512 yards of total offense with quarterback Lynn Dickey throwing for almost 300 yards? Tampa didn't do so well, of course. They were shut out 21-0 and gained a mere 65 yards of total offense.
Again, BOTH teams had to account for it. The Packers did.
The difference is, of course, that the Packers/Bucs was a regular season game where even though it was sold out, only about a third of the ticket buyers attended. The Patriots/Raiders game is more meaningful though as it was a playoff game. And it was sold out - and everyone attended. This, of course, would be the primary concern for the NFL. If you were to schedule the Super Bowl in a cold weather environment and it snowed, would people still show up? It seems pretty obvious that the answer is unequivocally yes! It's the flipping Super Bowl!
To my mind, football is all about adjustments. It's not just adjusting to what your opponent puts in front of you; it's also adjusting to circumstances, to environments, to crowds, et cetera. These are all important factors in which the best team must overcome these. If a team like the Denver Broncos or the New Orleans Saints (teams we currently think of as "warm weather teams") NEED to play indoors or in 60-70 degree temperature, then they are not the best teams now, are they? This has always been an annoying argument to me - the idea that a cold weather Super Bowl would somehow be unfair toward teams that are built for warm weather. Frankly, the gradual removal of "the elements" from football has been one of the worst changes in the sport. Wouldn't putting all these Super Bowls in warm weather conditions ALL the time put teams from the north at a disadvantage since they tend to be built a little more for cold weather?
I didn't play collegiate football, but I did play in high school. Granted, we never played past November, but I'll tell you, it gets cold in November here in Massachusetts! I've played in a few snow games. It's tough and challenging. It's what football is all about. We like to complain about "player safety" rules as though they are watering down the toughness of the sport, but what about trying to keep this nice and easy conditions? Isn't that doing the same thing?
So the Super Bowl will be played in New Jersey. New York City might look like this in February:
While reporters and analysts (and I'm sure some overly privileged modern NFL players) are complaining about it, I say, "Good!" Football is a tough sport. It's supposed to be. It's not just tough because of the physicality. It's tough because of the crowds and the intelligence of coaches and - most importantly - the environment. Maybe I'm in a minority, but weather should be a factor! Consider how classic these games were or just how awesome these photos are:
Don't you just look at those and go, "YEAH! FOOTBALL!"
All this talk of how great it is to play the toughest sport in the country in these nice and pristine and - in some cases - artificial conditions for "ideal football" (which really just means "easy, passing-friendly football")? It just makes me think that the NFL is really this:
I mean, c'mon. If the US Men's Soccer Team can play and win in these conditions, any football team should be able to.
(P.S. That's not meant as a knock on soccer. Just saying that in a sport where ground conditions greatly impact the game, they can play on the snow while in the NFL, we're complaining that they might have to play in snow.)
It's football. What happened to it?
What? Do you mean to tell me that professional football players can't play in the snow?
Part of the reason football is such an intriguing sport is that it's - mostly - an outdoor game during some of the roughest months. It's a game where you aren't just making adjustments based on your opponent; you're making adjustments to the environment as well. Consider the classic (even if more controversial) Snow Bowl between the Oakland Raiders and New England Patriots. Perhaps the biggest travesty is that we only remember this game for the one controversial call, and not for just how brutal this game was. Even Raiders fans should probably be able to admit that it was a great game - a true classic (even if they won't get over the tuck rule).
So how sloppy of a game was it? The Patriots fumbled the ball three times losing none of them (think about that some time, Raiders fans). The Raiders? They didn't turn the ball over once. Rich Gannon completed 54.8% of his passes for just 159 yards, but threw one touchdown. Not a great performance from a guy who completed 65.8% of his passes during the regular season. Ok, so it's easy to blame the weather. It is legitimately difficult to throw and catch in those conditions. Obviously, the snow impacted Rich Gannon - an MVP candidate having a phenomenal year. Surely, the new-to-the-scene, playing-in-a-game-too-big-for-him, not-asked-to-do-much Tom Brady would have fared equally poorly, right? And yet, Tom Brady completed 61.5% of his passes for 312 yards. Not bad for a guy who completed 63.9% of his passes in the regular season and was ALSO dealing with the SAME conditions. Similarly, two of the greatest receivers in NFL history - Jerry Rice and Tim Brown - had a combined 9 catches for 90 yards. Conversely, the top receivers for New England - David Patten and Jermaine Wiggins - combined for twice as many catches (18 - 10 for Wiggens, 8 for Patten) and almost twice as many yards (175).
Point being, the Patriots played pretty efficiently in some pretty brutal snow. The Raiders did not. However, BOTH teams had to account for it. The Patriots made better adjustments than the Raiders.
[EDIT: So, apparently I was misremembering this game. I've just found it online and rewatched it. These numbers are a bit deceptive because both quarterbacks actually looked pretty solid despite the snow. There were a few drops, but not a ton. In the end, the Raiders offense actually looked pretty good. The Patriots secondary had more to do with with the offensive issues than the snow. Brady, meanwhile, actually looked pretty pedestrian for a while. Most of his missed passes were just on bad overthrows which looked more the sign of a second year quarterback with limited experience than an issue with the snow. But if you are able to go back and watch that game, you might notice that while the weather does impact the game, it actually doesn't impact it as greatly as you might think. The biggest play that really stood out was on a Raiders punt when a rookie on coverage lost track of where the endzone was, kept backing up, then waited to touch it when it was past the goal line despite have a huge opportunity to down it within New England's 2 yard line. Hard to blame him, even though he was a rookie, given how confusing the field looked with all the snow.]
Or what about that crazy game between the Green Bay Packers and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 1985 in which 4-5 inches of snow fell and the Packers still gained 512 yards of total offense with quarterback Lynn Dickey throwing for almost 300 yards? Tampa didn't do so well, of course. They were shut out 21-0 and gained a mere 65 yards of total offense.
Again, BOTH teams had to account for it. The Packers did.
The difference is, of course, that the Packers/Bucs was a regular season game where even though it was sold out, only about a third of the ticket buyers attended. The Patriots/Raiders game is more meaningful though as it was a playoff game. And it was sold out - and everyone attended. This, of course, would be the primary concern for the NFL. If you were to schedule the Super Bowl in a cold weather environment and it snowed, would people still show up? It seems pretty obvious that the answer is unequivocally yes! It's the flipping Super Bowl!
To my mind, football is all about adjustments. It's not just adjusting to what your opponent puts in front of you; it's also adjusting to circumstances, to environments, to crowds, et cetera. These are all important factors in which the best team must overcome these. If a team like the Denver Broncos or the New Orleans Saints (teams we currently think of as "warm weather teams") NEED to play indoors or in 60-70 degree temperature, then they are not the best teams now, are they? This has always been an annoying argument to me - the idea that a cold weather Super Bowl would somehow be unfair toward teams that are built for warm weather. Frankly, the gradual removal of "the elements" from football has been one of the worst changes in the sport. Wouldn't putting all these Super Bowls in warm weather conditions ALL the time put teams from the north at a disadvantage since they tend to be built a little more for cold weather?
I didn't play collegiate football, but I did play in high school. Granted, we never played past November, but I'll tell you, it gets cold in November here in Massachusetts! I've played in a few snow games. It's tough and challenging. It's what football is all about. We like to complain about "player safety" rules as though they are watering down the toughness of the sport, but what about trying to keep this nice and easy conditions? Isn't that doing the same thing?
So the Super Bowl will be played in New Jersey. New York City might look like this in February:
While reporters and analysts (and I'm sure some overly privileged modern NFL players) are complaining about it, I say, "Good!" Football is a tough sport. It's supposed to be. It's not just tough because of the physicality. It's tough because of the crowds and the intelligence of coaches and - most importantly - the environment. Maybe I'm in a minority, but weather should be a factor! Consider how classic these games were or just how awesome these photos are:
Don't you just look at those and go, "YEAH! FOOTBALL!"
All this talk of how great it is to play the toughest sport in the country in these nice and pristine and - in some cases - artificial conditions for "ideal football" (which really just means "easy, passing-friendly football")? It just makes me think that the NFL is really this:
I mean, c'mon. If the US Men's Soccer Team can play and win in these conditions, any football team should be able to.
(P.S. That's not meant as a knock on soccer. Just saying that in a sport where ground conditions greatly impact the game, they can play on the snow while in the NFL, we're complaining that they might have to play in snow.)
It's football. What happened to it?
Friday, October 25, 2013
A Down Year in the NFL.
We're almost half way through the 2013 NFL season, and we've already heard a lot of grumbling about the quality of football. We already hear analysts and fans alike talking about how there aren't really many "good" teams this year. We've heard a lot about injuries, and we've heard a lot of blame being passed onto rules regarding limited practices - as if tackling in practice and two-a-days for six full months is somehow better for your body. We've already heard people write of the Patriots for being perhaps the best worst team in maybe NFL history.
So basically, it's just like any other year in the NFL.
Everyone wants to anoint teams with the "best" moniker so quickly. We always hear these arguments. It's as sure as the league passing overly convoluted rules in the name of "player safety." At this point in the season, there rarely are a good chunk of legitimately great looking teams. Everyone struggles early. Let's take a look at some numbers from this year and compare them to each of the previous five.
Through seven games in 2013, we have the following:
14 teams above .500
2 teams at .500
16 teams at .500
For those who slightly prefer percentages, that means that through the first seven games of the season, 43% of the teams have a winning record, while 50% have a losing record. What's more though is that we have 4 teams with one or fewer wins with 3 teams that have six or more. Ok, so we have half the league with losing records and we have four teams whose combined record would give us a total of just two wins. How does this stack up to years past?
Through seven games in 2012:
13 teams above .500
5 teams at .500
14 teams below .500
Ok. Maybe we have fewer teams with winning records, but we also have fewer teams with losing records. We have more teams looking just average. We also have the same number of teams with one or fewer wins (4), but in 2012, we only had two teams with six or more wins at this point.
Through seven games in 2011:
17 teams above .500
3 teams at .500
12 teams below .500
This year was a bit deceptive. After all, 53% of the league had a winning record at this point in 2011. However, although there were fewer teams with losing records, the losing teams were really bad. There were more teams with one or fewer wins (5), while there were the same number of teams that had six or more ones (2).
Through seven games in 2010:
17 teams above .500
2 teams at .500
13 teams below .500
I love talking about 2010 in this conversation. I love it because it shows just how difficult it is to truly quantify "good" and "bad" years in the NFL. At face value, you might look at those numbers and say, "Well, ok, there was one more bad team in 2010 than in 2011, but you still had 53% of the league with winning records! It was a good year!" However, although those numbers might be skewed to favor the "good year" argument, if you break it down by the "really good" teams versus the "really bad" teams, it is heavily leaning toward the really bad. In 2010, you see the biggest gap between number of teams with one or fewer wins (6 ) and number of teams with six or more wins (1). In 2010, despite more teams with winning records, you had more teams ultimately looking average.
Through seven games in 2009:
14 teams above .500
6 teams at .500
12 teams below .500
This is also a complicated year. It was almost one of perfect mediocrity. Not only do you see the most teams at .500 exactly than any other year since 2008, you also see a difference of only two teams between winning and losing teams. Additionally, the gap between the obviously good and obviously bad is almost balanced as well, with 6 teams that had one or fewer wins while there were 4 teams with six or more wins. However, it is worth noting that in 2009, you also had the most winless teams at this point in the season (Tampa Bay, St. Louis, and Tennessee were a combined 0-20 at this point in 2009).
Through seven games in 2008.
15 teams above .500
5 teams at .500
12 teams below .500
Additionally, there were 3 teams with one or fewer wins with only 1 team with six or more wins at this point in 2008. To my mind, 2008 was a year of perfect mediocrity. Over half the teams above .500 had just 4 wins, so you didn't see anyone stand out particularly early (to put in perspective, the Tennessee Titans were 6-0 at this point in '08). It was pretty much an average year in the NFL.
You can also look at these years another way: playoffs.
In the past five years, three of them featured teams that were .500 or below. In 2011, we had the 8-8 Denver Broncos. In 2010, we had the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks. In 2008, we had the 8-8 San Diego Chargers. Pretty bad sign of the times, to be honest.
Ok, ok. Sure, that's a little misleading. After all, the 2008 San Diego Chargers made the playoffs because they won their bad division while an 11-5 New England Patriots missed out thanks to divisional and wild card tie breakers. So the 8-8 Chargers making the playoffs don't necessarily mean it was a down year.
But where will we draw the line? In 2004, we had one of the biggest "down years" in a long time. There were two 8-8 teams in the playoffs (Vikings and Rams), and yet, neither one of them won their divisions. That means that there were literally only four teams in the NFC with winning records! It's pretty safe to call that a down year, regardless of how many total winning teams there were. There is something to be said about having the only .500 or below teams make the playoffs in the past five years be winners of terrible divisions rather than having 8-8 teams squeak in on wild cards.
But after two months of football, we must ask ourselves if we expect that to happen this year. If we were to start the playoffs this week, the AFC would have all six teams above .500 (Patriots, Chiefs, Bengals, Colts) and both wild card teams would be above .500 (Broncos - weird to think that they're just a wild card right now - and Jets or Chargers, not sure who has the tiebreaker though I believe it's the Jets). And in the NFC? Well, it's a little less pretty, but it's the same deal. All division leaders right now are above .500 (Cowboys, Packers, Saints, Seahawks). I'm not entirely sure who would have the wild cards if it were right now, but there are four additional teams in the NFC that are above .500.
This trend typically tends to persist throughout the year. Though it doesn't seem unreasonable to imagine an 8-8 team winning the NFC East (or frankly, the AFC North though they should have a 10-6 winner - it's just that it could take just an 8 win record to win it), it's hard to imagine that a .500 team would get in on a wild card this year.
When you compare the numbers of winning teams versus losing teams, plus the really good teams versus the really bad teams, plus the playoff pictures, it's hard to really suggest that this year is - really - any different than years past. Certainly, it's no 2004. But given the state of the league with its focus on parity and creating an environment where - in theory - no one should be really bad for really long (makes you wonder what's going on in Jacksonville, Buffalo, and Oakland, huh?), this is pretty much exactly what the league is and has been for a while.
And if you're looking for teams that pass the "eyeball" test, how many do you need? What is the minimum before you call it a "down year"? Right now, I'd say you've got Indianapolis, Seattle, Denver, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Green Bay playing pretty well right now with a few teams that are playing surprisingly well like San Diego or Carolina. Plus you've got the Patriots who somehow know how to win despite losing so many key offensive and defensive players while also just straight up not playing well (does anyone think New England will be this bad at the end of the season? They almost always start 4-3 or 5-2, and almost every year, everyone talks about how not great they looked in the first half. I'm not saying New England is going to really turn it around - I'd honestly be surprised if they really make much of a splash in the post season - but they'll be better than they are now). That right there is enough for me to say this is a normal year in the NFL.
I'm always surprised at how quickly everyone wants to jump on the "this year sucks" bandwagon when it comes to the NFL, but in reality, it's not that different. No, it's not a down year in the NFL. This is just what the NFL is.
So basically, it's just like any other year in the NFL.
Everyone wants to anoint teams with the "best" moniker so quickly. We always hear these arguments. It's as sure as the league passing overly convoluted rules in the name of "player safety." At this point in the season, there rarely are a good chunk of legitimately great looking teams. Everyone struggles early. Let's take a look at some numbers from this year and compare them to each of the previous five.
Through seven games in 2013, we have the following:
14 teams above .500
2 teams at .500
16 teams at .500
For those who slightly prefer percentages, that means that through the first seven games of the season, 43% of the teams have a winning record, while 50% have a losing record. What's more though is that we have 4 teams with one or fewer wins with 3 teams that have six or more. Ok, so we have half the league with losing records and we have four teams whose combined record would give us a total of just two wins. How does this stack up to years past?
Through seven games in 2012:
13 teams above .500
5 teams at .500
14 teams below .500
Ok. Maybe we have fewer teams with winning records, but we also have fewer teams with losing records. We have more teams looking just average. We also have the same number of teams with one or fewer wins (4), but in 2012, we only had two teams with six or more wins at this point.
Through seven games in 2011:
17 teams above .500
3 teams at .500
12 teams below .500
This year was a bit deceptive. After all, 53% of the league had a winning record at this point in 2011. However, although there were fewer teams with losing records, the losing teams were really bad. There were more teams with one or fewer wins (5), while there were the same number of teams that had six or more ones (2).
Through seven games in 2010:
17 teams above .500
2 teams at .500
13 teams below .500
I love talking about 2010 in this conversation. I love it because it shows just how difficult it is to truly quantify "good" and "bad" years in the NFL. At face value, you might look at those numbers and say, "Well, ok, there was one more bad team in 2010 than in 2011, but you still had 53% of the league with winning records! It was a good year!" However, although those numbers might be skewed to favor the "good year" argument, if you break it down by the "really good" teams versus the "really bad" teams, it is heavily leaning toward the really bad. In 2010, you see the biggest gap between number of teams with one or fewer wins (6 ) and number of teams with six or more wins (1). In 2010, despite more teams with winning records, you had more teams ultimately looking average.
Through seven games in 2009:
14 teams above .500
6 teams at .500
12 teams below .500
This is also a complicated year. It was almost one of perfect mediocrity. Not only do you see the most teams at .500 exactly than any other year since 2008, you also see a difference of only two teams between winning and losing teams. Additionally, the gap between the obviously good and obviously bad is almost balanced as well, with 6 teams that had one or fewer wins while there were 4 teams with six or more wins. However, it is worth noting that in 2009, you also had the most winless teams at this point in the season (Tampa Bay, St. Louis, and Tennessee were a combined 0-20 at this point in 2009).
Through seven games in 2008.
15 teams above .500
5 teams at .500
12 teams below .500
Additionally, there were 3 teams with one or fewer wins with only 1 team with six or more wins at this point in 2008. To my mind, 2008 was a year of perfect mediocrity. Over half the teams above .500 had just 4 wins, so you didn't see anyone stand out particularly early (to put in perspective, the Tennessee Titans were 6-0 at this point in '08). It was pretty much an average year in the NFL.
You can also look at these years another way: playoffs.
In the past five years, three of them featured teams that were .500 or below. In 2011, we had the 8-8 Denver Broncos. In 2010, we had the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks. In 2008, we had the 8-8 San Diego Chargers. Pretty bad sign of the times, to be honest.
Ok, ok. Sure, that's a little misleading. After all, the 2008 San Diego Chargers made the playoffs because they won their bad division while an 11-5 New England Patriots missed out thanks to divisional and wild card tie breakers. So the 8-8 Chargers making the playoffs don't necessarily mean it was a down year.
But where will we draw the line? In 2004, we had one of the biggest "down years" in a long time. There were two 8-8 teams in the playoffs (Vikings and Rams), and yet, neither one of them won their divisions. That means that there were literally only four teams in the NFC with winning records! It's pretty safe to call that a down year, regardless of how many total winning teams there were. There is something to be said about having the only .500 or below teams make the playoffs in the past five years be winners of terrible divisions rather than having 8-8 teams squeak in on wild cards.
But after two months of football, we must ask ourselves if we expect that to happen this year. If we were to start the playoffs this week, the AFC would have all six teams above .500 (Patriots, Chiefs, Bengals, Colts) and both wild card teams would be above .500 (Broncos - weird to think that they're just a wild card right now - and Jets or Chargers, not sure who has the tiebreaker though I believe it's the Jets). And in the NFC? Well, it's a little less pretty, but it's the same deal. All division leaders right now are above .500 (Cowboys, Packers, Saints, Seahawks). I'm not entirely sure who would have the wild cards if it were right now, but there are four additional teams in the NFC that are above .500.
This trend typically tends to persist throughout the year. Though it doesn't seem unreasonable to imagine an 8-8 team winning the NFC East (or frankly, the AFC North though they should have a 10-6 winner - it's just that it could take just an 8 win record to win it), it's hard to imagine that a .500 team would get in on a wild card this year.
When you compare the numbers of winning teams versus losing teams, plus the really good teams versus the really bad teams, plus the playoff pictures, it's hard to really suggest that this year is - really - any different than years past. Certainly, it's no 2004. But given the state of the league with its focus on parity and creating an environment where - in theory - no one should be really bad for really long (makes you wonder what's going on in Jacksonville, Buffalo, and Oakland, huh?), this is pretty much exactly what the league is and has been for a while.
And if you're looking for teams that pass the "eyeball" test, how many do you need? What is the minimum before you call it a "down year"? Right now, I'd say you've got Indianapolis, Seattle, Denver, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Green Bay playing pretty well right now with a few teams that are playing surprisingly well like San Diego or Carolina. Plus you've got the Patriots who somehow know how to win despite losing so many key offensive and defensive players while also just straight up not playing well (does anyone think New England will be this bad at the end of the season? They almost always start 4-3 or 5-2, and almost every year, everyone talks about how not great they looked in the first half. I'm not saying New England is going to really turn it around - I'd honestly be surprised if they really make much of a splash in the post season - but they'll be better than they are now). That right there is enough for me to say this is a normal year in the NFL.
I'm always surprised at how quickly everyone wants to jump on the "this year sucks" bandwagon when it comes to the NFL, but in reality, it's not that different. No, it's not a down year in the NFL. This is just what the NFL is.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Baseball's Lack of a Salary Cap - Part 2.
I talked about this last year during the MLB playoffs, discussing how the lack of salary cap is kind of a buzzkill for me - that I find the lack of a salary cap to be too much of an unfair advantage for the big market teams.
Since I often have this conversation with big baseball fans (in particular, Red Sox fans), I keep hearing about how this isn't a problem. The argument, it goes, is that money doesn't guarantee anything. That you can look and see the Tampa Bay Rays in the post season this year or the Houston Astros last. That you can look at the Yankees and Phillies this year (or the Red Sox last year). And you can say, "Money doesn't guarantee anything."
Let me be clear about what my argument is: I am NOT arguing that you can just buy championships and wins. I am NOT arguing that having no money means you are destined to just be terrible year in and year out. Obviously, high payroll teams miss the playoffs. And obviously, low payroll teams make the playoffs. But you can't look at the statistics and tell me that money doesn't matter. My entire argument is that having $120 million payrolls gives you an unfair advantage over smaller market teams that have $40-50 million payrolls. The more money you have, the deeper the team you can buy. The higher the payroll, the deeper your bullpen. This in turn increases your odds of winning in general, but especially in the post season.
This year was kind of the perfect example of what my argument actually is. This year was really refreshing. Of the 8 teams to make playoff series, 3 were in the 5 highest payrolls (Dodgers, Red Sox, Tigers) while 3 were in the 5 lowest payrolls (Rays, A's, Pirates). Then you had the Braves (a middle of the pack payroll) and the Cardinals (the 11th highest payroll, barely missing the top 10 by a mere $1 million - which sounds like a lot but is only 1% of their payroll).
So obviously, you can win in the regular season with a low payroll, but when you get to the playoffs, the lack of depth really becomes noticeable when they play top payroll teams. So this year, you've got 3 teams of the top 5 and 3 teams of the bottom 5. And ya know what happened? Can ya guess who won and advanced? The Red Sox, Tigers, and Dodgers. Go figure. The four teams with the lowest payrolls all got eliminated. And honestly? It wasn't even that close. So now we're left with 3 teams in the top 5 highest payrolls, and 1 team that is just outside the top 10.
Of course Red Sox fans don't have a problem with the lack of a salary cap. They've largely benefited from being in the top 5 highest payrolls! It's why they are able to so quickly go from a joke of a year to a World Series favorites! But teams like the Astros or Pirates don't have that luxury. They see limited success from great management specifically. (Great management is always important, of course. It's just a lot easier to win when you've got good management and $120 million.)
How can you say that it doesn't matter though? Here are the last 21 World Series winners and their ranking in terms of highest payrolls:
2012 - San Francisco Giants: $138 million (6th)
2011 - St. Louis Cardinals: $105 million (11th)
2010 - San Francisco Giants: $97 million (10th)
2009 - New York Yankees: $201 million (1st)
2008 - Philadelphia Phillies: $98 million (13th)
2007 - Boston Red Sox: $143 million (2nd)
2006 - St. Louis Cardinals: $88 million (11th)
2005 - Chicago White Sox: $73 million (13th)
2004 - Boston Red Sox: $125 million (2nd)
2003 - Florida Marlins: $63 million (20th)
2002 - Anaheim Angels: $61 million (15th)
2001 - Arizona Diamondbacks: $81 million (8th)
2000 - New York Yankees: $92 million (1st)
1999 - New York Yankees: $89 million (1st)
1998 - New York Yankees: $64 million (2nd)
1997 - Florida Marlins: $48 million (7th)
1996 - New York Yankees: $53 million (1st)
1995 - Atlanta Braves: $46 million (3rd)
1993 - Toronto Blue Jays: $43 million (1st)
1992 - Toronto Blue Jays: $44 million (1st)
1991 - Minnesota Twins: $23 million (13th)
(Interesting to see the explosion of money spent on talent though. The Yankees went from spending the most in 1999 at $89 million to spending the most just ten years later in 2009 at $201 million!)
In the last 21 years, only one team has won a World Series in the bottom half of payrolls. Another way to break it down though? Teams in the top 10 highest payrolls account for 67% of World Series pennants. Teams in the middle 10 payrolls account for 33% of World Series wins. Teams in the bottom 10 payrolls? ZERO! And when you have only one team in that time frame in the bottom half (which means that 20 of 21 were in the top 15 highest payrolls), how can you sit there and say that it doesn't matter? No, I'm not saying you win based on your payroll, but I am saying that payroll does clearly matter.
To me, it's a lot like asking a kid in a wealthy suburb to take a standardized test, then asking a kid the same age in inner city Baltimore to take the same test. Who do you think is going to do better? Having more money is always going to create an advantage, whether or not that directly leads to specific success. Consider the Yankees, Phillies, Dodgers, and Red Sox the wealthy suburban sports teams while the Rays, Astros, and Marlins to be the inner city teams.
My argument is just that the lack of a salary cap does not put teams on even footing and as such gives certain high spending teams (or teams capable of spending a lot) a much more favorable chance at winning - not just in the regular season, but also in the post season. You can buy more depth because you can afford more depth. And that depth is what wins championships.
I just don't see how you can look at those numbers, see that no team in the bottom third has won in the past 22 years, that 14 of 21 winners (and in all honesty, likely 15 of 22 by the time this year is finished) were in the top 10, and then tell me that "it doesn't matter." Again, I'm not saying it means everything, but it obviously means something.
Since I often have this conversation with big baseball fans (in particular, Red Sox fans), I keep hearing about how this isn't a problem. The argument, it goes, is that money doesn't guarantee anything. That you can look and see the Tampa Bay Rays in the post season this year or the Houston Astros last. That you can look at the Yankees and Phillies this year (or the Red Sox last year). And you can say, "Money doesn't guarantee anything."
Let me be clear about what my argument is: I am NOT arguing that you can just buy championships and wins. I am NOT arguing that having no money means you are destined to just be terrible year in and year out. Obviously, high payroll teams miss the playoffs. And obviously, low payroll teams make the playoffs. But you can't look at the statistics and tell me that money doesn't matter. My entire argument is that having $120 million payrolls gives you an unfair advantage over smaller market teams that have $40-50 million payrolls. The more money you have, the deeper the team you can buy. The higher the payroll, the deeper your bullpen. This in turn increases your odds of winning in general, but especially in the post season.
This year was kind of the perfect example of what my argument actually is. This year was really refreshing. Of the 8 teams to make playoff series, 3 were in the 5 highest payrolls (Dodgers, Red Sox, Tigers) while 3 were in the 5 lowest payrolls (Rays, A's, Pirates). Then you had the Braves (a middle of the pack payroll) and the Cardinals (the 11th highest payroll, barely missing the top 10 by a mere $1 million - which sounds like a lot but is only 1% of their payroll).
So obviously, you can win in the regular season with a low payroll, but when you get to the playoffs, the lack of depth really becomes noticeable when they play top payroll teams. So this year, you've got 3 teams of the top 5 and 3 teams of the bottom 5. And ya know what happened? Can ya guess who won and advanced? The Red Sox, Tigers, and Dodgers. Go figure. The four teams with the lowest payrolls all got eliminated. And honestly? It wasn't even that close. So now we're left with 3 teams in the top 5 highest payrolls, and 1 team that is just outside the top 10.
Of course Red Sox fans don't have a problem with the lack of a salary cap. They've largely benefited from being in the top 5 highest payrolls! It's why they are able to so quickly go from a joke of a year to a World Series favorites! But teams like the Astros or Pirates don't have that luxury. They see limited success from great management specifically. (Great management is always important, of course. It's just a lot easier to win when you've got good management and $120 million.)
How can you say that it doesn't matter though? Here are the last 21 World Series winners and their ranking in terms of highest payrolls:
2012 - San Francisco Giants: $138 million (6th)
2011 - St. Louis Cardinals: $105 million (11th)
2010 - San Francisco Giants: $97 million (10th)
2009 - New York Yankees: $201 million (1st)
2008 - Philadelphia Phillies: $98 million (13th)
2007 - Boston Red Sox: $143 million (2nd)
2006 - St. Louis Cardinals: $88 million (11th)
2005 - Chicago White Sox: $73 million (13th)
2004 - Boston Red Sox: $125 million (2nd)
2003 - Florida Marlins: $63 million (20th)
2002 - Anaheim Angels: $61 million (15th)
2001 - Arizona Diamondbacks: $81 million (8th)
2000 - New York Yankees: $92 million (1st)
1999 - New York Yankees: $89 million (1st)
1998 - New York Yankees: $64 million (2nd)
1997 - Florida Marlins: $48 million (7th)
1996 - New York Yankees: $53 million (1st)
1995 - Atlanta Braves: $46 million (3rd)
1993 - Toronto Blue Jays: $43 million (1st)
1992 - Toronto Blue Jays: $44 million (1st)
1991 - Minnesota Twins: $23 million (13th)
(Interesting to see the explosion of money spent on talent though. The Yankees went from spending the most in 1999 at $89 million to spending the most just ten years later in 2009 at $201 million!)
In the last 21 years, only one team has won a World Series in the bottom half of payrolls. Another way to break it down though? Teams in the top 10 highest payrolls account for 67% of World Series pennants. Teams in the middle 10 payrolls account for 33% of World Series wins. Teams in the bottom 10 payrolls? ZERO! And when you have only one team in that time frame in the bottom half (which means that 20 of 21 were in the top 15 highest payrolls), how can you sit there and say that it doesn't matter? No, I'm not saying you win based on your payroll, but I am saying that payroll does clearly matter.
To me, it's a lot like asking a kid in a wealthy suburb to take a standardized test, then asking a kid the same age in inner city Baltimore to take the same test. Who do you think is going to do better? Having more money is always going to create an advantage, whether or not that directly leads to specific success. Consider the Yankees, Phillies, Dodgers, and Red Sox the wealthy suburban sports teams while the Rays, Astros, and Marlins to be the inner city teams.
My argument is just that the lack of a salary cap does not put teams on even footing and as such gives certain high spending teams (or teams capable of spending a lot) a much more favorable chance at winning - not just in the regular season, but also in the post season. You can buy more depth because you can afford more depth. And that depth is what wins championships.
I just don't see how you can look at those numbers, see that no team in the bottom third has won in the past 22 years, that 14 of 21 winners (and in all honesty, likely 15 of 22 by the time this year is finished) were in the top 10, and then tell me that "it doesn't matter." Again, I'm not saying it means everything, but it obviously means something.
Friday, October 4, 2013
NFL First Quarter Rankings.
Coaches like to break down seasons into quarters. So how are the teams doing so far? Here is yet another completely subjective and totally arbitrary ranking post!
1. Denver Broncos
Who else can it be? Denver isn't just beating teams; they're crushing them. Peyton Manning has thrown 16 TDs to no interceptions! They're stacked on both sides of the ball, and have a few key players set to return soon. It's scary. Who can stop this team right now? The weird thing though is that Denver doesn't beat you right away. They take an early lead but let you hang around. Then in the second half, they just destroy you. Each game was a close one...until the second half. Through the first four games, Denver has outscored teams in the second half by a combined score of 117-45. What's even more odd? The only team to hold Denver to fewer than 30 points in the second half? The Oakland Raiders, who held them to a mere 10 points.
2. New Orleans Saints
It's pretty much between the Saints and that other trendy NFC team, but I put the Saints here because so far, they just look like a more complete team. Defensively, they're doing just enough, not giving up more than 17 points in any game. Offensively, they are really clicking right now, outscoring the Cardinals and Dolphins 69-24. Those teams are defensively underrated and better than that score indicates. The only question really is how will this team hold up on the road? So far, they've played three home games, so it's tough to gauge since New Orleans is a notoriously difficult place to play on the road. Honestly? The NFC is probably going to come down to who has home field advantage.
3. Seattle Seahawks
The Seahawks have a big game coming up against an AFC contender in the Indianapolis Colts. This is a statement game for both teams. Seattle has looked dominant on defense, but has been inconsistent on offense. (Is anyone counting the Jags game? That's probably not a fair assessment of their offensive capabilities.) They looked incredible against another NFC favorite - the 49ers. The thing Seattle needs to prove is that they can play consistently well on the road. At home, they have outscored opponents 74-20. On the road, they've outscored opponents 35-27, winning both of those games late. If Seattle wants to be considered the dominant team in the NFC, they need to be beating the offensively challenged Panthers by more than 5 points. And they shouldn't be beating the headless Texans by 3 points. Looks like the "Seattle can't play well on the road" persona is back. But there's plenty of time to fix it, plus they have a pretty soft schedule. The biggest test looks to be that showdown with New Orleans IN New Orleans.
4. Kansas City Chiefs
In his first season with the Chiefs, Andy Reid has already gone 3-0 against the NFC East. Kansas City is playing good, solid football right now on both sides of the ball. Save that last game against the Giants, Alex Smith is becoming the definition of consistent. There's still a lot of work to do, but they have a solid foundation. They'll be in the playoffs with their soft schedule, but thanks to the Denver Bronco's video game offense, it'll be as a wildcard. Shame too since in most other divisions, KC would be a contender to win the division. They need the rush defense to play a little better, but otherwise they have the solid combination of good defense, decent offense. Will they be able to keep up with an offensively explosive team though?
5. New England Patriots
Putting the Patriots anywhere near the top five really seems to piss a lot of fans off since they've looked pretty bad in most of the games, but you can't argue with results. They're 4-0. Yes, you can't help but notice their soft early schedule, but there is something to be said about a team that knows how to win. There's something more to be said about a team that knows how to win while they're playing pretty bad football. They've slowly gotten better each game too. Dobson continues to avoid catching the ball cleanly and Thompson still struggles with field awareness, but they're starting to get on the same page as Tom Brady. And let's not forget that they're still missing the one of the greatest tight ends in the NFL in Gronkowski as well as a solid receiver in Amendola. Ultimately, here's the thing: the Patriots went into Atlanta - a team that's better than their record indicates - and won. They played solid football on both sides of the ball, save those last seven minutes. They bent at the end defensively, but they held. On the road. They've lost Vince Wilfork, but somehow you just know they'll be ok. After all, they're 4-0 without three of their best offensive weapons (including Shane Vereen). The game to look forward too though: the matchup with Miami.
6. Detroit Lions
The Lions seem to struggle with consistency and that loss to Arizona hurts. But it's early and so far they're 2-0 in the division. Those wins against Minnesota and Chicago weren't really as close as the final scoreline indicates. Their defense can be ferocious, but they can't be giving up 25 points a game. Fortunately, their offense is explosive, averaging 30 points and 404 yards a game. Matthew Stafford is playing at a high level, and Reggie Bush looks as dynamic as ever. If he can stay healthy, they can compete with most teams.
7. Indianapolis Colts
After an exciting and unexpectedly good rookie season from Andrew Luck, the Colts have changed offensive directions this year. They are asking less of Luck and more from their running game. With Ahmad Bradshaw and the newly acquired Trent Richardson, they rank 4th in rushing yards and 24th in passing yards. They didn't look great in the first two weeks - struggling against Oakland and losing to Miami - but they looked dominant (especially defensively - which has been quietly one of the top defenses in the league) against the 49ers. If they beat the Seahawks, they will have beaten two of the best NFC teams and suddenly become a favorite in the AFC (after Denver). And if they continue to run the ball as they do, this team has somehow quietly put together a team that looks awfully much like a post season team.
8. Chicago Bears
It might be blasphemous to say, but this Bears defense leaves a bit to be desired. They lead the league in turnovers with 14 total, but are 23rd in pass defense and 15th in rush defense. That mixed with the takeaways wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that they're also giving up 28.5 points per game. Interestingly, it's a similar story on offense. 20th in pass yards, 16th in rush yards, but 3rd in points, averaging 31.8 points per game. The biggest improvement is the o-line which has kept Jay Cutler relatively clean and given him time. Even more is that Cutler has been getting rid of the ball quickly. So when he doesn't have a game like he did against Detroit - throwing three picks - Chicago can duel with any team. The problem is, they struggle to stop other teams from getting into duels with them in the first place.
9. Miami Dolphins
Yes, the Miami Dolphins beat the Indianapolis Colts. Yes they have the same record as the Colts. Ultimately, Indianapolis has looked better. No one can fault Miami for losing to the Saints in New Orleans. But the Saints made them look bad. Statistically, Miami is a pedestrian offense (17th in points, 25th in yards, 19th in pass yards, 24th in rush yards). They're also a pedestrian pass defense. The strength of the defense though is that they don't allow too many points and they have a strong rush defense. Miami is playing well though. This upcoming quarter will tells us more though. They play Baltimore, Buffalo, and then travel to the Razor to face the Patriots.
10. Tennessee Titans
Wow. Just when this underrated team is really getting it going despite no one paying them any mind, they suffer a big loss with the Jake Locker injury. Fortunately, he didn't sustain a major injury and should be back in a few weeks. They've very quietly been putting together a solid team. Locker looks the same as always on the stat sheet, but he looks better on the field. The strength of this team is the defense. They're a top 10 defense when it comes to total yards, passing yards, and points allowed. And they're not too far off that with rush yards allowed either (ranked 12th.) The run game has looked solid too. Unfortunately for the Titans, they have a tough stretch ahead of them, playing the Chiefs, Seahawks, and 49ers.
11. San Francisco 49ers
I'm not sure I've ever seen people jump off a bandwagon as quickly as people have ditched the 49ers. After Colin Kaepernick exposed the Green Bay Packers defense again in the opening week, they looked like clear favorites to win the NFC. Since then, the Niners have been outscored 77-45. Ok, so one of those games was on the road in Seattle. No one plays well there. But one of those games was at home hosting the Indianapolis Colts - a playoff team from a year ago who the 49ers should have beaten. Not only did they lose, they got embarrassed. Their supposedly high powered offense got crushed by the Colts defense, and the Niners defense couldn't do much either. They've got some issues, but they appeared to get back on track against the Rams. They have an uphill battle to take the NFC West, but they can get in on a wildcard, no question. They're still a top tier defense, and they have the talent offensively to compete. Then again, how will this team look if they have to play a postseason game on the road in Seattle?
12. San Diego Chargers
Listen, I hate Philip Rivers as much as the next guy, but if Peyton Manning weren't a thing right now, Rivers would be a candidate for MVP of the league so far. The dude has played really well despite having less talent on the team than earlier years. He has them 7th in points, 8th in total yards, and 6th in passing yards. The run game is mediocre, but definitely good enough. The downside to San Diego is their defense, which is at the bottom of the pack. 30th in total yards allowed, 29th in passing yards allowed, and 21st in points allowed is not going to close out games. And it hasn't. They're sitting at 2-2 in a division that everyone knows belongs to Denver. The Chargers might be able to nab that second wildcard spot, but they need to get the defense in order first. On the plus side, San Diego has a pretty soft schedule.
13. Buffalo Bills
Well, if you're looking for a team that doesn't make things easy, this is your team. In an alternative universe, this team is either 3-1 or 4-0 right now. They lost on a last second field goal to the Patriots. They won on a last second TD pass against the Panthers. They lost late after pulling within reach against the Jets. And they won on a last second takeaway against the Ravens. This team is literally a couple of plays away from being 4-0. Then again, they're also a couple of plays away from being 0-4. EJ Manuel has played well, but he's obviously a rookie. They're not scoring a lot of points. They had 5 takeaways against the Ravens and nearly lost the game. They have the talent, and they seem like the kind of team that will just hang around. The defense needs to get better though. They've been hurting with some key injuries in the secondary, but allowing nearly 400 yards of total offense isn't going to help them close out games. They're 0-2 in their division though. Not quite a playoff team yet, but they can get there. Probably not this year though given their schedule.
14. Cincinnati Bengals
It's been a weird year. The Giants turn the ball over 6 times against Dallas, but only lost by 5 points. The Ravens turn the ball over 5 times against Buffalo, but only lost by 3 points. The Bengals turned it over on four consecutive possessions...and WON! There used to be a time when turning the ball over more than twice was a death sentence for teams. These days, it doesn't seem to matter much. Cincinnati has a solid defense with an mediocre offense slathered with potential. AJ Green is one of the best young receivers in the game today. Mohamed Sanu has emerged as a great complementary weapon opposite green. Jermaine Gresham is a very good tight end. The running game could use work. BenJarvis Green-Ellis is a solid back, and Giovani Bernard appears to have a good explosiveness, but currently, they rank 22nd in rushing yards. Andy Dalton hasn't been playing consistently. He hasn't been "bad," but he's turned the ball over more than he's scored with 4 INTs and 3 lost fumbles to 5 TD passes. He's completing 63% of his passes, but he needs to cut down on mistakes. The defense is a top 15 defense in every category, and the AFC North is a weak division, so they should still be considered the favorites from that division, but so far they are just 1-1 there. New England will be a good test for them.
15. Green Bay Packers
Well, it looks like Green Bay came into the 2013 season with the same problems as last year: the defense can't stop anybody. Their offense is every bit the powerhouse statistically that you'd expect. They're 2nd in points, 3rd in total yards, 3rd in passing yards, and 9th in rushing yards (which is a big improvement). But defensively, they can't stop anyone. They're giving up nearly 30 points a game and just over 400 total yards. It'd be one thing if they had a bend-don't-break style of defense (it worked for the Saints in '08 and almost worked for the Pats in '11). But they aren't getting takeaways either. They are minus 2 in turnover differential. Aaron Rodgers is playing very well again, but they don't seem to be totally in rhythm. There's something wrong when you get 4 takeaways in a row and put up only a couple of field goals. It almost seems as though Rodgers might be more aware than ever that he pretty much is the Green Bay Packers right now.
16. Houston Texans
Houston is a better team than their 2-2 record indicates. They should never have gotten manhandled like that against Baltimore, and they played very well against Seattle on the most part. The problem right now is mostly Matt Schaub who has already thrown 6 INTs. What's worse is when he's throwing those interceptions. They just come at bad times. Houston is -4 in turnover differential. It's hard for the defense to constantly be making up for offensive mistakes. The defense is a tale of two parts though. They're a tough d to pass on, but they're not that tough a defense to run on right now. They're giving up over 100 yards per game on the ground. Arian Foster seems to have gotten into the swing of things after a slow start. This team has the talent to compete, but right now, it's mostly their quarterback play holding them back. They'll still be competitive for the AFC South with Indy, but if Indy beats Seattle, then Houston shouldn't be considered favorites by any means.
17. Baltimore Ravens
Things could be going a lot better for the defending Super Bowl champions. But they can turn it around. They've got an elite quarter....ok, sorry, I couldn't even finish that sentence. Joe Flacco has thrown just 5 TDs to 7 INTs (with an additional two lost fumbles in there). Granted, five of those interceptions came against Buffalo (a game they still could have won despite Flacco's bad play). Flacco is not the main problem in Baltimore, but it's obvious at this point the guy is not actually an elite quarterback. (Not all Super Bowl winning QBs are "elite.") He has only one game so far in which he accounted for more TDs than turnovers, and that was just a 1 TD game. The other game with no interceptions? He threw for 0 TDs and lost a fumble. Defensively, it isn't much different in terms of overall talent than last year, but they are statistically middle of the pack (almost exactly - they're ranked 12th through 17th in the major categories). Part of the problem though has been the coaching. How they run just nine times on a Buffalo defense that is giving up 122 rushing yards a game is beyond me. That, and the lack of discipline showed late in that game by veteran conspiracy theorist dumbass Terrell Suggs is hurting this team. (I get that Manuel was killing clock and Suggs is entitled to lay a lick on him if he delays taking a knee, but Manuel gave himself up just before the hit. The hit itself is fine, by you can't then roll over and toss the quarterback. You gotta know they're gonna call that!) Since Suggs seems to have someone else to play for his poor second half performance in the Super Bowl, I wonder who he'll blame for the Ravens poor performance in the first quarter of the season? Probably Tom Brady, actually. Good news for Baltimore though is they're in an inconsistent division. They're 2-2 with only one divisional game out of the way. They can still win this division.
18. Dallas Cowboys
It feels like we're never going to stop hating Tony Romo, but he's not the problem in Dallas right now. In fact, he's up there with Philip Rivers for the MVPNNPM of the first quarter (that's Most Valuable Player Not Named Peyton Manning). 8 TDs to 1 INT. Only 1 lost fumble. He's completing about 70% of his passes! Honestly? I never really now what the deal is with Dallas. Every year, they show they've got the talent to be a good team. Every year, they find a way to be inconsistent. And every year, they find a way to blow it and underachieve. The defense can't stop the pass, but they're not giving up a lot of points and are playing very well against the run. They're also running over 100 yards a game, which isn't bad. Jason Garrett has been and continues to be a problem for this franchise. His coaching leaves a lot to be desired. Bad news for Dallas, they have a fairly difficult schedule. Good news for Dallas, they're in the NFC East. They should still be considered favorites for that division, but 8-8 would probably be enough to win it.
19. Atlanta Falcons
The Falcons are a much better team than their 1-3 record indicates, and they have one of the better offenses in the league. But you won't win many games if you can't score touchdowns in the red zone. Matt Ryan has this offense as one of the most efficient offenses in the league, driving them into the red zone more than any other team - 18 times. So far, they've converted touchdowns on just seven occasions with seven field goals (for a team to produce more red zone trips, yet to be the 28th most efficient red zone team is problematic). An additional source of concern is the defense, which hasn't been particularly efficient either. They have yet to hold a team to under 23 points, a problem made worse by the fact they can't score touchdowns themselves. Some of these problems are due to injuries, but others are just sloppy play. Atlanta is still a playoff contender, but with New Orleans playing the way it does - and if Carolina somehow manages to sustain this jolt of energy - the NFC South might be a pipe dream for the birds. They should still be in the wild card picture though.
20. Cleveland Browns
Talk about a situation! First, they trade who many considered their best offensive weapon in a deal that many interpreted as Cleveland waving the white flag and trying to tank in order to "earn" a top quarterback in the draft. Next, they're playing Brian Hoyer and suddenly, they don't look that bad! Of course, this Browns defense is pretty underrated. In fact, they're top 10 in every statistical category - points allowed (8th), total yards allowed (3rd), passing yards allowed (9th), rushing yards allowed (4th). They're doing well on the takeaway front too. The problem is - as it usually is - the offense. Brandon Weeden has not looked good. Brian Hoyer though? Yes, he threw three interceptions in his first game, but he at least offset that by throwing three touchdowns. And in his second start, he looked extremely efficient throwing for 2 TDs to 0 INTs. He's completely almost 60% of his passes (compared to Weeden's 54%). They're still struggling to score points, but you don't need a prolific offense if you have a great defense. They are not a team to sleep on. Even more, they actually have a pretty favorable schedule. If Hoyer continues to play, and play in this manner, this very much could be a playoff team given the nature of the AFC North right now.
21. Philadelphia Eagles
The Philadelphia Eagles are revolutionizing the NFL right now. I'm not sure how, exactly. They're 1-3. Haven't scored more than 20 points in two straight weeks. Have one of the league's worst defense. Are minus 2 in turnover differential. And they are running just a few players more than the league average (between 65-70). But, I'm assured they are revolutionizing the NFL. To be fair, they have put together one of the most efficient offenses behind Michael Vick who seems to have a handle on...well..the football. That's refreshing after last year's fiasco. Fortunately for the Eagles, they play in arguably the worst division in football.
22. Carolina Panthers
I want so badly to believe that Ron Rivera has finally figured out that coaching not to lose is more likely to mean you are not going to win. His overly conservative play calling cost this team in the first two weeks - in particular against Buffalo. This is another team that is two plays away from being 3-0, but instead are 1-2 - in large part from coaching. Rivera seemed to get a grasp on it in Week 3, with his bold decision to go for it on 4th and goal, culminating in a touchdown. Carolina's offense still lacks any noticeable flow or rhythm, and their lack of receiving talent is definitely hurting Cam Newton - who in the first quarter appears to be much more grown up than last year. They are running the ball well, however, and they've very quietly put together an excellent defense. A lot has been said of their pass defense, which is the weakness, but all things considered, they've given up the 12th fewest yards in the air and are allowing only 12 points per game. (I know the Giants are god awful right now, but to shut out even the Eli Manning to Victor Cruz connection for an entire game is still impressive.) This team can be competitive this year, but it ultimately depends on Rivera. If he continues to coach not to lose, he will succeed in losing his job along with most games.
23. Arizona Cardinals
So much was made of the acquisition of Carson Palmer for Oakland. Palmer, to be sure, is an upgrade from their previous quarterbacks, but he's 1) not really the answer and 2) not really a long term solution. It's nice to have someone who can actually get the ball to Larry Fitzgerald, but Palmer is too inconsistent. Completing 57% of your passes and throwing 6 INTs to 4 TDs isn't going to cut it. Palmer isn't the only problem offensively. They have no ground game. With a bad running game and a mediocre passing game that can't score points, it's a lot to put onto that defense. And it is a solid defense, but they're not good enough to mask the offensive woes.
24. Washington Racists
Washington has not looked particularly good in games, but they've had flashes offensively. Robert Griffin III is obviously not comfortable, no matter what he says in the press conferences. He's starting games slowly and when you watch him run, you can just see the indecision and lack of confidence. What's hopeful so far though is that he's been pretty good in the second halves of games. And now that they're running the ball better, it could open things up. The injury to Alfred Morris could be big though if that winds up affecting his season. For all the attention RGIII gets for this season's shortcomings, it's the defense that really more a source of concern right now. Keeping in this year's NFC East theme, it's one of the worst in the league. They have the second worst rush defense, have allowed the second most total yards, and are allowing nearly 30 points a game. I'm not sure they would have won that game in Oakland if Matt Flynn realize that being quarterback means you're allowed to throw the football though. Then again, they play in the NFC East, so they have a shot to win the division even after starting 1-3.
25. New York Jets
What tends to get lost in all the hubbub surrounding the circus that is the New York Jets is that they still very much have a top tier defense. They've allowed an average of just 79 rushing yards and just over 200 passing yards per game. To be fair, for all the crap the Patriots take for playing inferior opposition, the Jets are in the same boat. Both teams played the Buccaneers and Bills. Both teams won those games. Running back Bilal Powell's stock is on the rise and they do run the ball pretty well. Offensively, rookie quarterback Geno Smith provides many of the same problems as Mark Sanchez did last year: bad decisions and dumb turnovers. Still, their offense is strangely middle of the pack in terms of statistics. They're putting up decent numbers. Except when it comes to two key categories: points and turnover differential. Through the first four weeks, they are averaging just 17 points a game (4th worst in the league) and have a minus 10 turnover differential (only the Steelers have a worse differential, while only the Giants have more giveaways). It's really tough for a defense to make up for all that. If the receivers could get open more consistently and catch the ball more often, this Jets team could be a playoff team. Unfortunately, they're a few years (and a coach) away from that. Smith is still a big question mark, but it is important to remember that he's just a rookie on a bad team that has no real offensive weapons. (Not suggesting he's anywhere near Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin, or Russell Wilson, but those guys all had at least one offensive playmaker.) Too early to call on Geno Smith.
26. Minnesota Vikings
If you want to beat the Vikings, you gotta focus on the passing. And by that I mean, you gotta throw on them, and you gotta let them try to throw on you. They have a bad pass defense, and their passing game under Christian Ponder has looked horribly inconsistent. Adrian Peterson is obviously the key to their offense, and they do have some great talent at the receiver position. I happen to be a believer in Matt Cassel - in the right system. A smart coach with a good system can win with Cassel. They had an excellent game plan and Cassel played very efficiently, though it did take most of the first half to brush the rust off. He has a better deep ball than Ponder, completed nearly 65% of his passes, and most importantly, threw 2 TDs to 0 turnovers. Ponder isn't playing very efficiently. Completing 59% of his passes for 2 TDs to 5 INTs with 1 fumble lost. A 1:3 score to turnover ratio is not what this Vikings team needs. Word is, Ponder will start if he's healthy off the bye. I'd say that when you have one of the league's worst defenses, you don't really want a guy who will turn it over. Ponder had 100 attempts through three games and you can't help but wonder why he's throwing it more than 30 times a game when Peterson is your bread winner? Cassel attempted 25, and that's about right for a Minnesota quarterback.
27. Oakland Raiders
This Raiders team is better than people think it is. They've got a solid defense and a solid running game. When Terrelle Pryor is in, they at least look like they can score points (even though they struggle on that front). Though he has as many INTs as TDs (only 2 each), he is also very quietly completing 65% of his passes, plus he's rushed for almost 100 yards so far. Matt Flynn started strong in his turn to start, but the second half was a different story. He looked slow and indecisive, as if he couldn't remember whether or not he was allowed to throw the ball. For a team that's 1-3 and treated like a joke, they have been the only team to really give the Broncos a challenge. (Pryor's quarterback rating that game, by the way, was 112.) I think this Raiders team can surprise some teams, but it seems like Darren McFadden is just never going to be healthy. Going into his sixth year, McFadden has never started more than 13 games in a season. The dude is dynamic when he's on the field. It's being on the field that's problematic.
28. St. Louis Rams
Few teams came in with higher expectations than the Rams. After finishing 4-1-1 in their division last year, people expected them to possibly contend for the division. The loss of Stephen Jackson hurts. A lot. Not only are they dead last in rushing yards, the average yards per game is pathetic. It's not even 50 a game. People have been down on Sam Bradford, but he hasn't really been the problem. The San Fran game an exception, he's been playing pretty well - completing almost 60% of his passes for 7 TDs to 3 INTs. Not only can they not run the football; they can't stop the run either. They're giving up just over 130 yards on the ground a game. This team is missing parts in big ways. It seems people thought they'd be fine without Jackson, but it clearly has.
29. Pittsburgh Steelers
This is a little bit like the Chicago case where the reputation of the team affects how we view the reality. Pittsburgh defense is not as good as it used to be. They struggle to keep teams from scoring and they can't stop the run. Additionally, they can't run. This is a Steelers team averaging under 60 yards on the ground. Ben Roethlisberger has struggled, but in large part due to his bad offensive line. He's thrown 5 INTs and been sacked an astonishing 15 times in four games. Otherwise, he actually is throwing the ball well. If they can run and protect Roethlisberger, they would be ok. Unfortunately, they can't right now. At this point though, it seems unlikely they can make a run for the division, especially given how competitive the AFC North seems to be.
30. Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Greg Schiano seems to be channeling his inner Rex Ryan - somehow turning a Tampa Bay team that shouldn't really be noticeable in either way into something of a circus. So much of the circus revolved around former starting quarterback Josh Freeman. First it was his demotion. Then it was his benching. Now it's the leak about his ADHD/Ritalin issue. Tampa has seemingly transformed into the Jets of the NFC. The other way that they are like the Jets is that if they just had a decent, consistent quarterback, they'd probably be fine. The defense is actually pretty good. They have the 15th best pass defense and the 9th best rush defense, and they have also allowed the 9th fewest points in the league. Offensively though, they can't throw the ball and they can't score points. They're averaging just 11 points a game. Safe to say, that won't cut it. Now there are stories indicating that Schiano is on the verge of losing that locker room. Tampa isn't going anywhere this year, but it seems pretty clear that Schiano is.
31. New York Giants
God. What is there to say about the New York Football Giants? They can't run (and also Tom Coughlin is committed to hurting the run game just to teach a lesson to David Wilson). They can't stop the run. They can't stop opposing teams from scoring. As unbelievable as it is, the Giants have allowed more points than any other team - including Jacksonville! How does that happen when you have Eli Manning, Hakeem Nicks, and Victor Cruz? Well, it starts up front. The offensive line couldn't block a bill in Congress. Manning has been sacked 14 times! Granted, half of those were in the first half of the Panthers game, but that's still absurd. Even worse is Manning's tendency to only look for the long ball, which contributes to both the sack problem and the turnover problem. Eli's thrown nine interceptions so far. And though people like to throw Wilson under the bus for the fumble problem, he hasn't actually fumbled the ball since the opening week against Dallas. Here's the thing: they can't protect the quarterback and they aren't committed to the run game. So why is Eli still looking for the deep ball? I know it's traditionally worked for him in the past, but it's not working now. They really need to consider giving more work to Wilson, or preaching to Eli to just get rid of it quickly. Run more slants and five yard outs. Dink and dunk can counter the lack of protection. This is a bad team. And they're only a couple years removed from winning the Super Bowl. But this is what the Giants do under Tom Coughlin. They either stink and don't make the playoffs, or they go all the way to win the Super Bowl. If you keep Coughlin, you just accept having a bunch of terrible seasons in between random Championship runs. But this is really starting to get embarrassing. They don't have the worst turnover differential (that's Pittsburgh), but they do have the most turnovers. And to be honest, though this is the worst Eli has ever looked, I'm not so sure this isn't a more natural version than we've seen. If everyone is honest, Eli hasn't been a particularly great quarterback. He's had one elite caliber year. This looks like pre-2011 Super Bowl Eli. And that's bad when you don't have a defensive line. It doesn't help that they have a tough schedule.
32. Jacksonville Jaguars
There was an article on USA Today's site asking whether Alabama University could beat the Jacksonville Jaguars. Let's not beat around the bush here: the Jaguars are bad. Like, embarrassingly so (at least their mascot is sharing in it). But the worst NFL team will beat the best college team. It'd barely be a contest. The NFL players are just bigger and stronger and faster. It's funny to posit the match up as a means to discuss just how awful the Jaguars are, but the Jags are still an NFL team. Yes, they're averaging barely 7 points a game. Yes, they are last in the league in total yards. Yes, they are second to last in rushing yards. Yes, they are third to last in passing yards (wait...really? Who is worse? Oh yeah, Carolina and Tampa Bay.) Yes, they've been outscored 139-31. Yes, they have the worst rush defense in the league. Yes, they are minus 4 in turnover differential and only have a total of four takeaways. Yes, they have a quarterback duel between Chad Henne and Blaine Gabbert who have thrown for a combined 7 INTs to a total of 1 TD (that was Henne's). This team is awful. It's almost like new owner Shahid Khan is intentionally trying to sabotage the Jags in order to kill local interest so he can move the team to LA (or worse...London.) The commitment to Gabbert should not have extended beyond the second year, but to be fair to both he and Henne, there's very little about this team around them that is good. Khan apparently isn't planning to move the team as evidence by his commitment to build new scoreboards. Seems like his focus isn't right. Why build a scoreboard that will only ever read "Jags - 3"? But hey. Those new unis look good, at least.
1. Denver Broncos
Who else can it be? Denver isn't just beating teams; they're crushing them. Peyton Manning has thrown 16 TDs to no interceptions! They're stacked on both sides of the ball, and have a few key players set to return soon. It's scary. Who can stop this team right now? The weird thing though is that Denver doesn't beat you right away. They take an early lead but let you hang around. Then in the second half, they just destroy you. Each game was a close one...until the second half. Through the first four games, Denver has outscored teams in the second half by a combined score of 117-45. What's even more odd? The only team to hold Denver to fewer than 30 points in the second half? The Oakland Raiders, who held them to a mere 10 points.
2. New Orleans Saints
It's pretty much between the Saints and that other trendy NFC team, but I put the Saints here because so far, they just look like a more complete team. Defensively, they're doing just enough, not giving up more than 17 points in any game. Offensively, they are really clicking right now, outscoring the Cardinals and Dolphins 69-24. Those teams are defensively underrated and better than that score indicates. The only question really is how will this team hold up on the road? So far, they've played three home games, so it's tough to gauge since New Orleans is a notoriously difficult place to play on the road. Honestly? The NFC is probably going to come down to who has home field advantage.
3. Seattle Seahawks
The Seahawks have a big game coming up against an AFC contender in the Indianapolis Colts. This is a statement game for both teams. Seattle has looked dominant on defense, but has been inconsistent on offense. (Is anyone counting the Jags game? That's probably not a fair assessment of their offensive capabilities.) They looked incredible against another NFC favorite - the 49ers. The thing Seattle needs to prove is that they can play consistently well on the road. At home, they have outscored opponents 74-20. On the road, they've outscored opponents 35-27, winning both of those games late. If Seattle wants to be considered the dominant team in the NFC, they need to be beating the offensively challenged Panthers by more than 5 points. And they shouldn't be beating the headless Texans by 3 points. Looks like the "Seattle can't play well on the road" persona is back. But there's plenty of time to fix it, plus they have a pretty soft schedule. The biggest test looks to be that showdown with New Orleans IN New Orleans.
4. Kansas City Chiefs
In his first season with the Chiefs, Andy Reid has already gone 3-0 against the NFC East. Kansas City is playing good, solid football right now on both sides of the ball. Save that last game against the Giants, Alex Smith is becoming the definition of consistent. There's still a lot of work to do, but they have a solid foundation. They'll be in the playoffs with their soft schedule, but thanks to the Denver Bronco's video game offense, it'll be as a wildcard. Shame too since in most other divisions, KC would be a contender to win the division. They need the rush defense to play a little better, but otherwise they have the solid combination of good defense, decent offense. Will they be able to keep up with an offensively explosive team though?
5. New England Patriots
Putting the Patriots anywhere near the top five really seems to piss a lot of fans off since they've looked pretty bad in most of the games, but you can't argue with results. They're 4-0. Yes, you can't help but notice their soft early schedule, but there is something to be said about a team that knows how to win. There's something more to be said about a team that knows how to win while they're playing pretty bad football. They've slowly gotten better each game too. Dobson continues to avoid catching the ball cleanly and Thompson still struggles with field awareness, but they're starting to get on the same page as Tom Brady. And let's not forget that they're still missing the one of the greatest tight ends in the NFL in Gronkowski as well as a solid receiver in Amendola. Ultimately, here's the thing: the Patriots went into Atlanta - a team that's better than their record indicates - and won. They played solid football on both sides of the ball, save those last seven minutes. They bent at the end defensively, but they held. On the road. They've lost Vince Wilfork, but somehow you just know they'll be ok. After all, they're 4-0 without three of their best offensive weapons (including Shane Vereen). The game to look forward too though: the matchup with Miami.
6. Detroit Lions
The Lions seem to struggle with consistency and that loss to Arizona hurts. But it's early and so far they're 2-0 in the division. Those wins against Minnesota and Chicago weren't really as close as the final scoreline indicates. Their defense can be ferocious, but they can't be giving up 25 points a game. Fortunately, their offense is explosive, averaging 30 points and 404 yards a game. Matthew Stafford is playing at a high level, and Reggie Bush looks as dynamic as ever. If he can stay healthy, they can compete with most teams.
7. Indianapolis Colts
After an exciting and unexpectedly good rookie season from Andrew Luck, the Colts have changed offensive directions this year. They are asking less of Luck and more from their running game. With Ahmad Bradshaw and the newly acquired Trent Richardson, they rank 4th in rushing yards and 24th in passing yards. They didn't look great in the first two weeks - struggling against Oakland and losing to Miami - but they looked dominant (especially defensively - which has been quietly one of the top defenses in the league) against the 49ers. If they beat the Seahawks, they will have beaten two of the best NFC teams and suddenly become a favorite in the AFC (after Denver). And if they continue to run the ball as they do, this team has somehow quietly put together a team that looks awfully much like a post season team.
8. Chicago Bears
It might be blasphemous to say, but this Bears defense leaves a bit to be desired. They lead the league in turnovers with 14 total, but are 23rd in pass defense and 15th in rush defense. That mixed with the takeaways wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that they're also giving up 28.5 points per game. Interestingly, it's a similar story on offense. 20th in pass yards, 16th in rush yards, but 3rd in points, averaging 31.8 points per game. The biggest improvement is the o-line which has kept Jay Cutler relatively clean and given him time. Even more is that Cutler has been getting rid of the ball quickly. So when he doesn't have a game like he did against Detroit - throwing three picks - Chicago can duel with any team. The problem is, they struggle to stop other teams from getting into duels with them in the first place.
9. Miami Dolphins
Yes, the Miami Dolphins beat the Indianapolis Colts. Yes they have the same record as the Colts. Ultimately, Indianapolis has looked better. No one can fault Miami for losing to the Saints in New Orleans. But the Saints made them look bad. Statistically, Miami is a pedestrian offense (17th in points, 25th in yards, 19th in pass yards, 24th in rush yards). They're also a pedestrian pass defense. The strength of the defense though is that they don't allow too many points and they have a strong rush defense. Miami is playing well though. This upcoming quarter will tells us more though. They play Baltimore, Buffalo, and then travel to the Razor to face the Patriots.
10. Tennessee Titans
Wow. Just when this underrated team is really getting it going despite no one paying them any mind, they suffer a big loss with the Jake Locker injury. Fortunately, he didn't sustain a major injury and should be back in a few weeks. They've very quietly been putting together a solid team. Locker looks the same as always on the stat sheet, but he looks better on the field. The strength of this team is the defense. They're a top 10 defense when it comes to total yards, passing yards, and points allowed. And they're not too far off that with rush yards allowed either (ranked 12th.) The run game has looked solid too. Unfortunately for the Titans, they have a tough stretch ahead of them, playing the Chiefs, Seahawks, and 49ers.
11. San Francisco 49ers
I'm not sure I've ever seen people jump off a bandwagon as quickly as people have ditched the 49ers. After Colin Kaepernick exposed the Green Bay Packers defense again in the opening week, they looked like clear favorites to win the NFC. Since then, the Niners have been outscored 77-45. Ok, so one of those games was on the road in Seattle. No one plays well there. But one of those games was at home hosting the Indianapolis Colts - a playoff team from a year ago who the 49ers should have beaten. Not only did they lose, they got embarrassed. Their supposedly high powered offense got crushed by the Colts defense, and the Niners defense couldn't do much either. They've got some issues, but they appeared to get back on track against the Rams. They have an uphill battle to take the NFC West, but they can get in on a wildcard, no question. They're still a top tier defense, and they have the talent offensively to compete. Then again, how will this team look if they have to play a postseason game on the road in Seattle?
12. San Diego Chargers
Listen, I hate Philip Rivers as much as the next guy, but if Peyton Manning weren't a thing right now, Rivers would be a candidate for MVP of the league so far. The dude has played really well despite having less talent on the team than earlier years. He has them 7th in points, 8th in total yards, and 6th in passing yards. The run game is mediocre, but definitely good enough. The downside to San Diego is their defense, which is at the bottom of the pack. 30th in total yards allowed, 29th in passing yards allowed, and 21st in points allowed is not going to close out games. And it hasn't. They're sitting at 2-2 in a division that everyone knows belongs to Denver. The Chargers might be able to nab that second wildcard spot, but they need to get the defense in order first. On the plus side, San Diego has a pretty soft schedule.
13. Buffalo Bills
Well, if you're looking for a team that doesn't make things easy, this is your team. In an alternative universe, this team is either 3-1 or 4-0 right now. They lost on a last second field goal to the Patriots. They won on a last second TD pass against the Panthers. They lost late after pulling within reach against the Jets. And they won on a last second takeaway against the Ravens. This team is literally a couple of plays away from being 4-0. Then again, they're also a couple of plays away from being 0-4. EJ Manuel has played well, but he's obviously a rookie. They're not scoring a lot of points. They had 5 takeaways against the Ravens and nearly lost the game. They have the talent, and they seem like the kind of team that will just hang around. The defense needs to get better though. They've been hurting with some key injuries in the secondary, but allowing nearly 400 yards of total offense isn't going to help them close out games. They're 0-2 in their division though. Not quite a playoff team yet, but they can get there. Probably not this year though given their schedule.
14. Cincinnati Bengals
It's been a weird year. The Giants turn the ball over 6 times against Dallas, but only lost by 5 points. The Ravens turn the ball over 5 times against Buffalo, but only lost by 3 points. The Bengals turned it over on four consecutive possessions...and WON! There used to be a time when turning the ball over more than twice was a death sentence for teams. These days, it doesn't seem to matter much. Cincinnati has a solid defense with an mediocre offense slathered with potential. AJ Green is one of the best young receivers in the game today. Mohamed Sanu has emerged as a great complementary weapon opposite green. Jermaine Gresham is a very good tight end. The running game could use work. BenJarvis Green-Ellis is a solid back, and Giovani Bernard appears to have a good explosiveness, but currently, they rank 22nd in rushing yards. Andy Dalton hasn't been playing consistently. He hasn't been "bad," but he's turned the ball over more than he's scored with 4 INTs and 3 lost fumbles to 5 TD passes. He's completing 63% of his passes, but he needs to cut down on mistakes. The defense is a top 15 defense in every category, and the AFC North is a weak division, so they should still be considered the favorites from that division, but so far they are just 1-1 there. New England will be a good test for them.
15. Green Bay Packers
Well, it looks like Green Bay came into the 2013 season with the same problems as last year: the defense can't stop anybody. Their offense is every bit the powerhouse statistically that you'd expect. They're 2nd in points, 3rd in total yards, 3rd in passing yards, and 9th in rushing yards (which is a big improvement). But defensively, they can't stop anyone. They're giving up nearly 30 points a game and just over 400 total yards. It'd be one thing if they had a bend-don't-break style of defense (it worked for the Saints in '08 and almost worked for the Pats in '11). But they aren't getting takeaways either. They are minus 2 in turnover differential. Aaron Rodgers is playing very well again, but they don't seem to be totally in rhythm. There's something wrong when you get 4 takeaways in a row and put up only a couple of field goals. It almost seems as though Rodgers might be more aware than ever that he pretty much is the Green Bay Packers right now.
16. Houston Texans
Houston is a better team than their 2-2 record indicates. They should never have gotten manhandled like that against Baltimore, and they played very well against Seattle on the most part. The problem right now is mostly Matt Schaub who has already thrown 6 INTs. What's worse is when he's throwing those interceptions. They just come at bad times. Houston is -4 in turnover differential. It's hard for the defense to constantly be making up for offensive mistakes. The defense is a tale of two parts though. They're a tough d to pass on, but they're not that tough a defense to run on right now. They're giving up over 100 yards per game on the ground. Arian Foster seems to have gotten into the swing of things after a slow start. This team has the talent to compete, but right now, it's mostly their quarterback play holding them back. They'll still be competitive for the AFC South with Indy, but if Indy beats Seattle, then Houston shouldn't be considered favorites by any means.
17. Baltimore Ravens
Things could be going a lot better for the defending Super Bowl champions. But they can turn it around. They've got an elite quarter....ok, sorry, I couldn't even finish that sentence. Joe Flacco has thrown just 5 TDs to 7 INTs (with an additional two lost fumbles in there). Granted, five of those interceptions came against Buffalo (a game they still could have won despite Flacco's bad play). Flacco is not the main problem in Baltimore, but it's obvious at this point the guy is not actually an elite quarterback. (Not all Super Bowl winning QBs are "elite.") He has only one game so far in which he accounted for more TDs than turnovers, and that was just a 1 TD game. The other game with no interceptions? He threw for 0 TDs and lost a fumble. Defensively, it isn't much different in terms of overall talent than last year, but they are statistically middle of the pack (almost exactly - they're ranked 12th through 17th in the major categories). Part of the problem though has been the coaching. How they run just nine times on a Buffalo defense that is giving up 122 rushing yards a game is beyond me. That, and the lack of discipline showed late in that game by veteran conspiracy theorist dumbass Terrell Suggs is hurting this team. (I get that Manuel was killing clock and Suggs is entitled to lay a lick on him if he delays taking a knee, but Manuel gave himself up just before the hit. The hit itself is fine, by you can't then roll over and toss the quarterback. You gotta know they're gonna call that!) Since Suggs seems to have someone else to play for his poor second half performance in the Super Bowl, I wonder who he'll blame for the Ravens poor performance in the first quarter of the season? Probably Tom Brady, actually. Good news for Baltimore though is they're in an inconsistent division. They're 2-2 with only one divisional game out of the way. They can still win this division.
18. Dallas Cowboys
It feels like we're never going to stop hating Tony Romo, but he's not the problem in Dallas right now. In fact, he's up there with Philip Rivers for the MVPNNPM of the first quarter (that's Most Valuable Player Not Named Peyton Manning). 8 TDs to 1 INT. Only 1 lost fumble. He's completing about 70% of his passes! Honestly? I never really now what the deal is with Dallas. Every year, they show they've got the talent to be a good team. Every year, they find a way to be inconsistent. And every year, they find a way to blow it and underachieve. The defense can't stop the pass, but they're not giving up a lot of points and are playing very well against the run. They're also running over 100 yards a game, which isn't bad. Jason Garrett has been and continues to be a problem for this franchise. His coaching leaves a lot to be desired. Bad news for Dallas, they have a fairly difficult schedule. Good news for Dallas, they're in the NFC East. They should still be considered favorites for that division, but 8-8 would probably be enough to win it.
19. Atlanta Falcons
The Falcons are a much better team than their 1-3 record indicates, and they have one of the better offenses in the league. But you won't win many games if you can't score touchdowns in the red zone. Matt Ryan has this offense as one of the most efficient offenses in the league, driving them into the red zone more than any other team - 18 times. So far, they've converted touchdowns on just seven occasions with seven field goals (for a team to produce more red zone trips, yet to be the 28th most efficient red zone team is problematic). An additional source of concern is the defense, which hasn't been particularly efficient either. They have yet to hold a team to under 23 points, a problem made worse by the fact they can't score touchdowns themselves. Some of these problems are due to injuries, but others are just sloppy play. Atlanta is still a playoff contender, but with New Orleans playing the way it does - and if Carolina somehow manages to sustain this jolt of energy - the NFC South might be a pipe dream for the birds. They should still be in the wild card picture though.
20. Cleveland Browns
Talk about a situation! First, they trade who many considered their best offensive weapon in a deal that many interpreted as Cleveland waving the white flag and trying to tank in order to "earn" a top quarterback in the draft. Next, they're playing Brian Hoyer and suddenly, they don't look that bad! Of course, this Browns defense is pretty underrated. In fact, they're top 10 in every statistical category - points allowed (8th), total yards allowed (3rd), passing yards allowed (9th), rushing yards allowed (4th). They're doing well on the takeaway front too. The problem is - as it usually is - the offense. Brandon Weeden has not looked good. Brian Hoyer though? Yes, he threw three interceptions in his first game, but he at least offset that by throwing three touchdowns. And in his second start, he looked extremely efficient throwing for 2 TDs to 0 INTs. He's completely almost 60% of his passes (compared to Weeden's 54%). They're still struggling to score points, but you don't need a prolific offense if you have a great defense. They are not a team to sleep on. Even more, they actually have a pretty favorable schedule. If Hoyer continues to play, and play in this manner, this very much could be a playoff team given the nature of the AFC North right now.
21. Philadelphia Eagles
The Philadelphia Eagles are revolutionizing the NFL right now. I'm not sure how, exactly. They're 1-3. Haven't scored more than 20 points in two straight weeks. Have one of the league's worst defense. Are minus 2 in turnover differential. And they are running just a few players more than the league average (between 65-70). But, I'm assured they are revolutionizing the NFL. To be fair, they have put together one of the most efficient offenses behind Michael Vick who seems to have a handle on...well..the football. That's refreshing after last year's fiasco. Fortunately for the Eagles, they play in arguably the worst division in football.
22. Carolina Panthers
I want so badly to believe that Ron Rivera has finally figured out that coaching not to lose is more likely to mean you are not going to win. His overly conservative play calling cost this team in the first two weeks - in particular against Buffalo. This is another team that is two plays away from being 3-0, but instead are 1-2 - in large part from coaching. Rivera seemed to get a grasp on it in Week 3, with his bold decision to go for it on 4th and goal, culminating in a touchdown. Carolina's offense still lacks any noticeable flow or rhythm, and their lack of receiving talent is definitely hurting Cam Newton - who in the first quarter appears to be much more grown up than last year. They are running the ball well, however, and they've very quietly put together an excellent defense. A lot has been said of their pass defense, which is the weakness, but all things considered, they've given up the 12th fewest yards in the air and are allowing only 12 points per game. (I know the Giants are god awful right now, but to shut out even the Eli Manning to Victor Cruz connection for an entire game is still impressive.) This team can be competitive this year, but it ultimately depends on Rivera. If he continues to coach not to lose, he will succeed in losing his job along with most games.
23. Arizona Cardinals
So much was made of the acquisition of Carson Palmer for Oakland. Palmer, to be sure, is an upgrade from their previous quarterbacks, but he's 1) not really the answer and 2) not really a long term solution. It's nice to have someone who can actually get the ball to Larry Fitzgerald, but Palmer is too inconsistent. Completing 57% of your passes and throwing 6 INTs to 4 TDs isn't going to cut it. Palmer isn't the only problem offensively. They have no ground game. With a bad running game and a mediocre passing game that can't score points, it's a lot to put onto that defense. And it is a solid defense, but they're not good enough to mask the offensive woes.
24. Washington Racists
Washington has not looked particularly good in games, but they've had flashes offensively. Robert Griffin III is obviously not comfortable, no matter what he says in the press conferences. He's starting games slowly and when you watch him run, you can just see the indecision and lack of confidence. What's hopeful so far though is that he's been pretty good in the second halves of games. And now that they're running the ball better, it could open things up. The injury to Alfred Morris could be big though if that winds up affecting his season. For all the attention RGIII gets for this season's shortcomings, it's the defense that really more a source of concern right now. Keeping in this year's NFC East theme, it's one of the worst in the league. They have the second worst rush defense, have allowed the second most total yards, and are allowing nearly 30 points a game. I'm not sure they would have won that game in Oakland if Matt Flynn realize that being quarterback means you're allowed to throw the football though. Then again, they play in the NFC East, so they have a shot to win the division even after starting 1-3.
25. New York Jets
What tends to get lost in all the hubbub surrounding the circus that is the New York Jets is that they still very much have a top tier defense. They've allowed an average of just 79 rushing yards and just over 200 passing yards per game. To be fair, for all the crap the Patriots take for playing inferior opposition, the Jets are in the same boat. Both teams played the Buccaneers and Bills. Both teams won those games. Running back Bilal Powell's stock is on the rise and they do run the ball pretty well. Offensively, rookie quarterback Geno Smith provides many of the same problems as Mark Sanchez did last year: bad decisions and dumb turnovers. Still, their offense is strangely middle of the pack in terms of statistics. They're putting up decent numbers. Except when it comes to two key categories: points and turnover differential. Through the first four weeks, they are averaging just 17 points a game (4th worst in the league) and have a minus 10 turnover differential (only the Steelers have a worse differential, while only the Giants have more giveaways). It's really tough for a defense to make up for all that. If the receivers could get open more consistently and catch the ball more often, this Jets team could be a playoff team. Unfortunately, they're a few years (and a coach) away from that. Smith is still a big question mark, but it is important to remember that he's just a rookie on a bad team that has no real offensive weapons. (Not suggesting he's anywhere near Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin, or Russell Wilson, but those guys all had at least one offensive playmaker.) Too early to call on Geno Smith.
26. Minnesota Vikings
If you want to beat the Vikings, you gotta focus on the passing. And by that I mean, you gotta throw on them, and you gotta let them try to throw on you. They have a bad pass defense, and their passing game under Christian Ponder has looked horribly inconsistent. Adrian Peterson is obviously the key to their offense, and they do have some great talent at the receiver position. I happen to be a believer in Matt Cassel - in the right system. A smart coach with a good system can win with Cassel. They had an excellent game plan and Cassel played very efficiently, though it did take most of the first half to brush the rust off. He has a better deep ball than Ponder, completed nearly 65% of his passes, and most importantly, threw 2 TDs to 0 turnovers. Ponder isn't playing very efficiently. Completing 59% of his passes for 2 TDs to 5 INTs with 1 fumble lost. A 1:3 score to turnover ratio is not what this Vikings team needs. Word is, Ponder will start if he's healthy off the bye. I'd say that when you have one of the league's worst defenses, you don't really want a guy who will turn it over. Ponder had 100 attempts through three games and you can't help but wonder why he's throwing it more than 30 times a game when Peterson is your bread winner? Cassel attempted 25, and that's about right for a Minnesota quarterback.
27. Oakland Raiders
This Raiders team is better than people think it is. They've got a solid defense and a solid running game. When Terrelle Pryor is in, they at least look like they can score points (even though they struggle on that front). Though he has as many INTs as TDs (only 2 each), he is also very quietly completing 65% of his passes, plus he's rushed for almost 100 yards so far. Matt Flynn started strong in his turn to start, but the second half was a different story. He looked slow and indecisive, as if he couldn't remember whether or not he was allowed to throw the ball. For a team that's 1-3 and treated like a joke, they have been the only team to really give the Broncos a challenge. (Pryor's quarterback rating that game, by the way, was 112.) I think this Raiders team can surprise some teams, but it seems like Darren McFadden is just never going to be healthy. Going into his sixth year, McFadden has never started more than 13 games in a season. The dude is dynamic when he's on the field. It's being on the field that's problematic.
28. St. Louis Rams
Few teams came in with higher expectations than the Rams. After finishing 4-1-1 in their division last year, people expected them to possibly contend for the division. The loss of Stephen Jackson hurts. A lot. Not only are they dead last in rushing yards, the average yards per game is pathetic. It's not even 50 a game. People have been down on Sam Bradford, but he hasn't really been the problem. The San Fran game an exception, he's been playing pretty well - completing almost 60% of his passes for 7 TDs to 3 INTs. Not only can they not run the football; they can't stop the run either. They're giving up just over 130 yards on the ground a game. This team is missing parts in big ways. It seems people thought they'd be fine without Jackson, but it clearly has.
29. Pittsburgh Steelers
This is a little bit like the Chicago case where the reputation of the team affects how we view the reality. Pittsburgh defense is not as good as it used to be. They struggle to keep teams from scoring and they can't stop the run. Additionally, they can't run. This is a Steelers team averaging under 60 yards on the ground. Ben Roethlisberger has struggled, but in large part due to his bad offensive line. He's thrown 5 INTs and been sacked an astonishing 15 times in four games. Otherwise, he actually is throwing the ball well. If they can run and protect Roethlisberger, they would be ok. Unfortunately, they can't right now. At this point though, it seems unlikely they can make a run for the division, especially given how competitive the AFC North seems to be.
30. Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Greg Schiano seems to be channeling his inner Rex Ryan - somehow turning a Tampa Bay team that shouldn't really be noticeable in either way into something of a circus. So much of the circus revolved around former starting quarterback Josh Freeman. First it was his demotion. Then it was his benching. Now it's the leak about his ADHD/Ritalin issue. Tampa has seemingly transformed into the Jets of the NFC. The other way that they are like the Jets is that if they just had a decent, consistent quarterback, they'd probably be fine. The defense is actually pretty good. They have the 15th best pass defense and the 9th best rush defense, and they have also allowed the 9th fewest points in the league. Offensively though, they can't throw the ball and they can't score points. They're averaging just 11 points a game. Safe to say, that won't cut it. Now there are stories indicating that Schiano is on the verge of losing that locker room. Tampa isn't going anywhere this year, but it seems pretty clear that Schiano is.
31. New York Giants
God. What is there to say about the New York Football Giants? They can't run (and also Tom Coughlin is committed to hurting the run game just to teach a lesson to David Wilson). They can't stop the run. They can't stop opposing teams from scoring. As unbelievable as it is, the Giants have allowed more points than any other team - including Jacksonville! How does that happen when you have Eli Manning, Hakeem Nicks, and Victor Cruz? Well, it starts up front. The offensive line couldn't block a bill in Congress. Manning has been sacked 14 times! Granted, half of those were in the first half of the Panthers game, but that's still absurd. Even worse is Manning's tendency to only look for the long ball, which contributes to both the sack problem and the turnover problem. Eli's thrown nine interceptions so far. And though people like to throw Wilson under the bus for the fumble problem, he hasn't actually fumbled the ball since the opening week against Dallas. Here's the thing: they can't protect the quarterback and they aren't committed to the run game. So why is Eli still looking for the deep ball? I know it's traditionally worked for him in the past, but it's not working now. They really need to consider giving more work to Wilson, or preaching to Eli to just get rid of it quickly. Run more slants and five yard outs. Dink and dunk can counter the lack of protection. This is a bad team. And they're only a couple years removed from winning the Super Bowl. But this is what the Giants do under Tom Coughlin. They either stink and don't make the playoffs, or they go all the way to win the Super Bowl. If you keep Coughlin, you just accept having a bunch of terrible seasons in between random Championship runs. But this is really starting to get embarrassing. They don't have the worst turnover differential (that's Pittsburgh), but they do have the most turnovers. And to be honest, though this is the worst Eli has ever looked, I'm not so sure this isn't a more natural version than we've seen. If everyone is honest, Eli hasn't been a particularly great quarterback. He's had one elite caliber year. This looks like pre-2011 Super Bowl Eli. And that's bad when you don't have a defensive line. It doesn't help that they have a tough schedule.
32. Jacksonville Jaguars
There was an article on USA Today's site asking whether Alabama University could beat the Jacksonville Jaguars. Let's not beat around the bush here: the Jaguars are bad. Like, embarrassingly so (at least their mascot is sharing in it). But the worst NFL team will beat the best college team. It'd barely be a contest. The NFL players are just bigger and stronger and faster. It's funny to posit the match up as a means to discuss just how awful the Jaguars are, but the Jags are still an NFL team. Yes, they're averaging barely 7 points a game. Yes, they are last in the league in total yards. Yes, they are second to last in rushing yards. Yes, they are third to last in passing yards (wait...really? Who is worse? Oh yeah, Carolina and Tampa Bay.) Yes, they've been outscored 139-31. Yes, they have the worst rush defense in the league. Yes, they are minus 4 in turnover differential and only have a total of four takeaways. Yes, they have a quarterback duel between Chad Henne and Blaine Gabbert who have thrown for a combined 7 INTs to a total of 1 TD (that was Henne's). This team is awful. It's almost like new owner Shahid Khan is intentionally trying to sabotage the Jags in order to kill local interest so he can move the team to LA (or worse...London.) The commitment to Gabbert should not have extended beyond the second year, but to be fair to both he and Henne, there's very little about this team around them that is good. Khan apparently isn't planning to move the team as evidence by his commitment to build new scoreboards. Seems like his focus isn't right. Why build a scoreboard that will only ever read "Jags - 3"? But hey. Those new unis look good, at least.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Enough about Stevan Ridley's "Fumbling Problem."
Being in New England and watching every Patriots game, there's been one topic that has been simultaneously blown way out of proportion and also beaten to death: Stevan Ridley's supposed fumbling problem.
To a certain extent, I understand why people jumped to that conclusion. Ridley had a big fumble in the AFC Championship game against Baltimore, and then he fumbled again eight months later in the next meaningful game - a road opener against the Buffalo Bills. After his Week One fumble, Ridley rode the bench for the rest of the game (partly because of the fumble, but also in part because Shane Vereen was having a huge day). Since then, announcers, sports radio hosts, and fans have all been talking incessantly about Ridley's fumbling problem.
There are two things that should probably be considered though. The first thing is when these two memorable fumbles occurred. In the very last game against the Ravens last season, Ridley fumbled on a play in which he was pretty much knocked out. Frankly, though critical during the game, it's kind of hard to fault him for fumbling while temporarily unconscious. The fumble against the Bills was legitimately and entirely on Ridley's shoulders. He straight up just dropped it. It was a bad fumble, but it's also the first meaningful game of the season. If we're going to cut Tom Brady and his Island of Misfit Receivers slack for "being young" and "sorting it out early in the season," we should extend that to Ridley.
The second thing we should look at is the statistics. When I look at the numbers, I cannot for the life of me see where this "fumbling problem" is. Here are the top 15 running backs by yardage in 2012 (I've also included LeSean McCoy - who wasn't top 15 in yards, but is a pretty well-admired player - and Shane Vereen who replaced Ridley in the aftermath of that Week One fumble). Actually, for the hell of it, I'm going to include everyone's favorite player on an embarrassingly bad team, Maurice Jones-Drew. MJD didn't play more than six games in 2012 due to injuries, but let's put what he did in those games.
So, from most yards down with their number of fumbles in 2012:
1. Adrian Peterson - 4 fumbles
2. Alfred Morris - 4 fumbles
3. Marshawn Lynch - 5 fumbles
4. Jamaal Charles - 5 fumbles
5. Doug Martin - 1 fumble
6. Arian Foster - 3 fumbles
7. Stevan Ridley - 4 fumbles
8. CJ Spiller - 3 fumbles
9. Chris Johnson - 5 fumbles
10. Frank Gore - 3 fumbles
11. Ray Rice - 1 fumble
12. BenJarvis Green-Ellis - 3 fumbles
13. Matt Forte - 2 fumbles
14. Shonn Greene - 4 fumbles
15. Steven Jackson - 0 fumbles
19. LeSean McCoy - 4 fumbles
43. Maurice Jones-Drew - 2 fumbles (in six games - in 2011, he had 6 fumbles - just something to think about)
73. Shane Vereen - 1 fumble
Ok. Look at those numbers. Are you seriously going to suggest that Stevan Ridley has a fumbling problem? With the exception of Tampa's Doug Martin, everyone who has more yardage than Ridley has a very similar number of fumbles. Yet no one views Marshawn Lynch as a fumbler. No one questioned Alfred Morris's ability to hold onto the ball. Jamaal Charles is rarely accused of having a fumbling problem. It's true that once upon a time, fumbling was considered a problem for Adrian Peterson, but it's been at least five years since anyone's considered him a fumbler.
So how is it that on this list, Ridley and only Ridley gets the reputation of a fumbler?
I know, I know. You can't just look at the total number of fumbles though. There are other factors at play. Let's compare the number of fumbles of these 18 players to the number of carries they had. With the exception of McCoy, Jones-Drew, and Vereen (an underutilized back, an injured player, and a secondary back respectively), everyone is pretty much in the same ball park in terms of total number of carries.
Here it is by the number of carries:
1. Arian Foster - 351
2. Adrian Peterson - 348
3. Alfred Morris - 335
4. Doug Martin - 319
5. Marshawn Lynch - 315
6. Stevan Ridley - 290
7. Jamaal Charles - 285
8. BenJarvis Green-Ellis - 278
T10. Shonne Greene - 276
T10. Chris Johnson - 276
11. Frank Gore - 257
T13. Ray Rice - 257
T13. Steven Jackson - 257
14. Matt Forte - 248
15. CJ Spiller - 207
LeSean McCoy - 200
Maurice Jones-Drew - 86
Shane Vereen - 62
Let's look at that same list in a slightly different manner. Let's break it down to percentage of carries that result in fumbles from looking at the number of carries with the number of fumbles. Just for the hell of it, let's also list how many touchdowns they had. Here it is:
1. Steven Jackson - 0% - 4 TDs
2. Doug Martin - 0.3% - 11 TDs
3. Ray Rice - 0.4% - 9 TDs
4. Matt Forte - 0.8% - 5 TDs
5. Arian Foster - 0.9% - 15 TDs
6. Adrian Peterson - 1.1% - 12 TDs
7. BenJarvis Green-Ellis - 1.1% - 6 TDs
8. Alfred Morris - 1.2% - 13 TDs
9. Frank Gore - 1.2% - 8 TDs
10. Stevan Ridley - 1.4% - 12 TDs
11. Shonn Greene - 1.4% - 8 TDs
12. CJ Spiller - 1.4% - 6 TDs
13. Marshawn Lynch - 1.6% - 11 TDs
14. Shane Vereen - 1.6% - 3 TDs
15. Chris Johnson - 1.8% - 6 TDs
16. Jamaal Charles - 1.8% - 5 TDs
17. LeSean McCoy - 2% - 2 TDs
18. Maurice Jones-Drew - 2.3% - 1 TD (through 6 games - it was 1.7% with 8 TDs in 2011 off of 6 fumbles on 343 carries - still a higher percentage of fumbles than Ridley with fewer TDs and more fumbles)
In what world do these statistics tell us that Stevan Ridley has a fumbling problem? Yes, he had fewer carries and fewer yards than Marshawn Lynch - who was in the MVP race for a while - but he fumbled it less often and had an additional touchdown. And yet, Lynch is considered a top tier back while Ridley is considered a potentially great back who has a fumbling problem.
What?
Three weeks in, the Patriots seem to finally be getting something resembling an offense. Ridley is still one of their best backs (the argument can be made that Vereen has always shown more explosiveness, but Ridley is still their best for running between the tackles). And yet, it seems like the Patriots organization has - for some reason - bought into this idea that Ridley is a weak link. They've been using him less often, buying into this mountain of a molehill that everyone else has made.
It almost seems, though, that by turning something that wasn't a problem into a problem, a real problem has the potential to come out. Ridley is having to answer more and more about this fumbling problem of his that doesn't really exist. So now he's overthinking it.
In reality, Ridley doesn't have a fumbling problem. Additionally, for all of the major issues the Patriots were having on offense, Ridley's fumbling was certainly not one of them.
Unless now we want to start talking about Brady's red zone interception problem...
To a certain extent, I understand why people jumped to that conclusion. Ridley had a big fumble in the AFC Championship game against Baltimore, and then he fumbled again eight months later in the next meaningful game - a road opener against the Buffalo Bills. After his Week One fumble, Ridley rode the bench for the rest of the game (partly because of the fumble, but also in part because Shane Vereen was having a huge day). Since then, announcers, sports radio hosts, and fans have all been talking incessantly about Ridley's fumbling problem.
There are two things that should probably be considered though. The first thing is when these two memorable fumbles occurred. In the very last game against the Ravens last season, Ridley fumbled on a play in which he was pretty much knocked out. Frankly, though critical during the game, it's kind of hard to fault him for fumbling while temporarily unconscious. The fumble against the Bills was legitimately and entirely on Ridley's shoulders. He straight up just dropped it. It was a bad fumble, but it's also the first meaningful game of the season. If we're going to cut Tom Brady and his Island of Misfit Receivers slack for "being young" and "sorting it out early in the season," we should extend that to Ridley.
The second thing we should look at is the statistics. When I look at the numbers, I cannot for the life of me see where this "fumbling problem" is. Here are the top 15 running backs by yardage in 2012 (I've also included LeSean McCoy - who wasn't top 15 in yards, but is a pretty well-admired player - and Shane Vereen who replaced Ridley in the aftermath of that Week One fumble). Actually, for the hell of it, I'm going to include everyone's favorite player on an embarrassingly bad team, Maurice Jones-Drew. MJD didn't play more than six games in 2012 due to injuries, but let's put what he did in those games.
So, from most yards down with their number of fumbles in 2012:
1. Adrian Peterson - 4 fumbles
2. Alfred Morris - 4 fumbles
3. Marshawn Lynch - 5 fumbles
4. Jamaal Charles - 5 fumbles
5. Doug Martin - 1 fumble
6. Arian Foster - 3 fumbles
7. Stevan Ridley - 4 fumbles
8. CJ Spiller - 3 fumbles
9. Chris Johnson - 5 fumbles
10. Frank Gore - 3 fumbles
11. Ray Rice - 1 fumble
12. BenJarvis Green-Ellis - 3 fumbles
13. Matt Forte - 2 fumbles
14. Shonn Greene - 4 fumbles
15. Steven Jackson - 0 fumbles
19. LeSean McCoy - 4 fumbles
43. Maurice Jones-Drew - 2 fumbles (in six games - in 2011, he had 6 fumbles - just something to think about)
73. Shane Vereen - 1 fumble
Ok. Look at those numbers. Are you seriously going to suggest that Stevan Ridley has a fumbling problem? With the exception of Tampa's Doug Martin, everyone who has more yardage than Ridley has a very similar number of fumbles. Yet no one views Marshawn Lynch as a fumbler. No one questioned Alfred Morris's ability to hold onto the ball. Jamaal Charles is rarely accused of having a fumbling problem. It's true that once upon a time, fumbling was considered a problem for Adrian Peterson, but it's been at least five years since anyone's considered him a fumbler.
So how is it that on this list, Ridley and only Ridley gets the reputation of a fumbler?
I know, I know. You can't just look at the total number of fumbles though. There are other factors at play. Let's compare the number of fumbles of these 18 players to the number of carries they had. With the exception of McCoy, Jones-Drew, and Vereen (an underutilized back, an injured player, and a secondary back respectively), everyone is pretty much in the same ball park in terms of total number of carries.
Here it is by the number of carries:
1. Arian Foster - 351
2. Adrian Peterson - 348
3. Alfred Morris - 335
4. Doug Martin - 319
5. Marshawn Lynch - 315
6. Stevan Ridley - 290
7. Jamaal Charles - 285
8. BenJarvis Green-Ellis - 278
T10. Shonne Greene - 276
T10. Chris Johnson - 276
11. Frank Gore - 257
T13. Ray Rice - 257
T13. Steven Jackson - 257
14. Matt Forte - 248
15. CJ Spiller - 207
LeSean McCoy - 200
Maurice Jones-Drew - 86
Shane Vereen - 62
Let's look at that same list in a slightly different manner. Let's break it down to percentage of carries that result in fumbles from looking at the number of carries with the number of fumbles. Just for the hell of it, let's also list how many touchdowns they had. Here it is:
1. Steven Jackson - 0% - 4 TDs
2. Doug Martin - 0.3% - 11 TDs
3. Ray Rice - 0.4% - 9 TDs
4. Matt Forte - 0.8% - 5 TDs
5. Arian Foster - 0.9% - 15 TDs
6. Adrian Peterson - 1.1% - 12 TDs
7. BenJarvis Green-Ellis - 1.1% - 6 TDs
8. Alfred Morris - 1.2% - 13 TDs
9. Frank Gore - 1.2% - 8 TDs
10. Stevan Ridley - 1.4% - 12 TDs
11. Shonn Greene - 1.4% - 8 TDs
12. CJ Spiller - 1.4% - 6 TDs
13. Marshawn Lynch - 1.6% - 11 TDs
14. Shane Vereen - 1.6% - 3 TDs
15. Chris Johnson - 1.8% - 6 TDs
16. Jamaal Charles - 1.8% - 5 TDs
17. LeSean McCoy - 2% - 2 TDs
18. Maurice Jones-Drew - 2.3% - 1 TD (through 6 games - it was 1.7% with 8 TDs in 2011 off of 6 fumbles on 343 carries - still a higher percentage of fumbles than Ridley with fewer TDs and more fumbles)
In what world do these statistics tell us that Stevan Ridley has a fumbling problem? Yes, he had fewer carries and fewer yards than Marshawn Lynch - who was in the MVP race for a while - but he fumbled it less often and had an additional touchdown. And yet, Lynch is considered a top tier back while Ridley is considered a potentially great back who has a fumbling problem.
What?
Three weeks in, the Patriots seem to finally be getting something resembling an offense. Ridley is still one of their best backs (the argument can be made that Vereen has always shown more explosiveness, but Ridley is still their best for running between the tackles). And yet, it seems like the Patriots organization has - for some reason - bought into this idea that Ridley is a weak link. They've been using him less often, buying into this mountain of a molehill that everyone else has made.
It almost seems, though, that by turning something that wasn't a problem into a problem, a real problem has the potential to come out. Ridley is having to answer more and more about this fumbling problem of his that doesn't really exist. So now he's overthinking it.
In reality, Ridley doesn't have a fumbling problem. Additionally, for all of the major issues the Patriots were having on offense, Ridley's fumbling was certainly not one of them.
Unless now we want to start talking about Brady's red zone interception problem...
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
NFL Week 2 Summaries:
Patriots beat Jets 13-10.
All the receivers were going to sue the NFL about playing in the rain, but they dropped the case.
Bills beat Panthers 24-23.
To be fair, Ron Rivera only had about a dozen opportunities to win the game.
Bears beat Vikings 31-30.
Adrian Peterson should get the MVP for not making a big stink that he plays for the Vikings.
Packers beat Redskins 38-20.
They might as well have just given them small pox blankets.
Dolphins beat Colts 24-20.
Miami is about three wins away from making you forget how dumb their new uniforms are.
Falcons beat Rams 31-24.
There's no quit with these Rams! Also, winning.
Saints beat Buccaneers 16-14.
If holding Drew Brees to under 20 points were wins, Tampa would be like, 1 and 30, or something.
Raiders beat Jaguars 19-9.
That score doesn't accurately tell how many fans watched the game.
Ravens beat Browns 14-6.
Don't worry Baltimore, at least you have an elite quarterback.
Chiefs beat Cowboys 17-16.
Good for them, finally beating the white man.
Texans beat Titans 30-24.
With 24 points scored in the 4th quarter, many are wondering if these teams realize this isn't hockey. There are four periods.
Chargers beat Eagles 33-30.
I guess Philly is revolutionizing losing too.
Cardinals beat Lions 25-21.
Arizona hasn't looked this good since the last episode of Breaking Bad! Oh, wait. That's New Mexico. Never mind.
Broncos beat Giants 41-23.
According to a graphic, Peyton is better at Golf, Baseball, and Darts. And also? Quarterbacking.
Seahawks beat 49ers 29-3.
You'd almost think that the Seahawks were cheating somehow! With like, PEDs and stuff. But they don't do that...
All the receivers were going to sue the NFL about playing in the rain, but they dropped the case.
Bills beat Panthers 24-23.
To be fair, Ron Rivera only had about a dozen opportunities to win the game.
Bears beat Vikings 31-30.
Adrian Peterson should get the MVP for not making a big stink that he plays for the Vikings.
Packers beat Redskins 38-20.
They might as well have just given them small pox blankets.
Dolphins beat Colts 24-20.
Miami is about three wins away from making you forget how dumb their new uniforms are.
Falcons beat Rams 31-24.
There's no quit with these Rams! Also, winning.
Saints beat Buccaneers 16-14.
If holding Drew Brees to under 20 points were wins, Tampa would be like, 1 and 30, or something.
Raiders beat Jaguars 19-9.
That score doesn't accurately tell how many fans watched the game.
Ravens beat Browns 14-6.
Don't worry Baltimore, at least you have an elite quarterback.
Chiefs beat Cowboys 17-16.
Good for them, finally beating the white man.
Texans beat Titans 30-24.
With 24 points scored in the 4th quarter, many are wondering if these teams realize this isn't hockey. There are four periods.
Chargers beat Eagles 33-30.
I guess Philly is revolutionizing losing too.
Cardinals beat Lions 25-21.
Arizona hasn't looked this good since the last episode of Breaking Bad! Oh, wait. That's New Mexico. Never mind.
Broncos beat Giants 41-23.
According to a graphic, Peyton is better at Golf, Baseball, and Darts. And also? Quarterbacking.
Seahawks beat 49ers 29-3.
You'd almost think that the Seahawks were cheating somehow! With like, PEDs and stuff. But they don't do that...
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
NFL Week 1 Summaries.
Broncos beat Ravens
Don't worry, Baltimore. At least you have an elite quarterback.
Patriots beat Bills
The Bills blow a lead against the Patriots for the first time since 2012.
Seahawks beat Panthers
Oh hey, defense is still a thing!
Bears beat Bengals
Chicago starts their season by outscoring the Cincinnati AJ Greens.
Dolphins beat Browns
Brandon Wheeden on pace to throw 0 INTs on opening day in 2016.
Lions beat Vikings
It's a good thing Minnesota didn't go after Alex Smith! Unless you prefer TDs to INTs.
Colts beat Raiders
Colts fans already forget how their management wanted to get rid of Reggie Wayne. Raiders fans wish they could forget their management, just in general.
Chiefs beat Jaguars
If a team gets a safety, but no one is around to watch it, does it still count for two points?
Saints beat Falcons
A game where the number of points scored is inversely proportional to the amount of offense played well.
Jets beat Buccaneers
Interesting: you CAN win games by not doing anything!
Titans beat Steelers
Oh hey, defense is still a thing! Or...is it just terrible offense? Hard to tell.
49ers beat Packers
Oh, ok! The Packers defense still sucks. Just checking. Also, you can avoid ejection if people like you enough, apparently.
Rams beat Cardinals
Fans excited their teams played well, but cry themselves to sleep remembering they're in the NFC West.
Cowboys beat Giants
People struggling to figure out how A) this game was so close, B) they scored 67 points, C) Eli is considered "elite."
Eagles beat Redskins
Vick plays well in his first of four games before succumbing to injury.
Texans beat Chargers
Don't call it a comeback! Or, wait, they were down by 21? Ok, yeah, call that a comeback. (Also, remember when Brian Cushing was suspended for using PEDs? But football fans don't give a crap about PEDs?)
Don't worry, Baltimore. At least you have an elite quarterback.
Patriots beat Bills
The Bills blow a lead against the Patriots for the first time since 2012.
Seahawks beat Panthers
Oh hey, defense is still a thing!
Bears beat Bengals
Chicago starts their season by outscoring the Cincinnati AJ Greens.
Dolphins beat Browns
Brandon Wheeden on pace to throw 0 INTs on opening day in 2016.
Lions beat Vikings
It's a good thing Minnesota didn't go after Alex Smith! Unless you prefer TDs to INTs.
Colts beat Raiders
Colts fans already forget how their management wanted to get rid of Reggie Wayne. Raiders fans wish they could forget their management, just in general.
Chiefs beat Jaguars
If a team gets a safety, but no one is around to watch it, does it still count for two points?
Saints beat Falcons
A game where the number of points scored is inversely proportional to the amount of offense played well.
Jets beat Buccaneers
Interesting: you CAN win games by not doing anything!
Titans beat Steelers
Oh hey, defense is still a thing! Or...is it just terrible offense? Hard to tell.
49ers beat Packers
Oh, ok! The Packers defense still sucks. Just checking. Also, you can avoid ejection if people like you enough, apparently.
Rams beat Cardinals
Fans excited their teams played well, but cry themselves to sleep remembering they're in the NFC West.
Cowboys beat Giants
People struggling to figure out how A) this game was so close, B) they scored 67 points, C) Eli is considered "elite."
Eagles beat Redskins
Vick plays well in his first of four games before succumbing to injury.
Texans beat Chargers
Don't call it a comeback! Or, wait, they were down by 21? Ok, yeah, call that a comeback. (Also, remember when Brian Cushing was suspended for using PEDs? But football fans don't give a crap about PEDs?)
Friday, June 21, 2013
Bigg Shock: The 2013 NBA Finals Were Not That Great.
"Epic" was how Bleacher Report described the 2013 NBA Finals in the aftermath of the Miami Heat's 95-88 victory in game seven over the San Antonio Spurs. Already there have been others ranking the series as one of the greats. This was obviously going to happen when the series went to seven. With the legendary Tim Duncan facing off against LeBron James, it was inevitable that people would view the series as a classic no matter what happened. But to me, this series was surprisingly uninteresting.
First off, going seven games doesn't mean a series is by default great. Look at each game of this series. Does a best of seven series that includes four totally one-sided affairs really merit a "great" label? Does it even truly merit being called a "good series"? After Game 1, it was a question of whether we'd even seen another decent basketball game again. We had Miami beat up the Spurs pretty good, beating them by nearly 20 points in Game 2. Then San Antonio struck back with what might have been the most therapeutic game of all time to NBA fans with their shellacking of the Heat by nearly 40 points (it stopped being a game about five minutes into the second half). Then there was Game 4 in which the Heat again manhandled the Spurs with a near 20 point win, which was then followed by the Spurs beating up the Heat again in Game 5. Sure, Game 5 was only a 10 point margin of victory, but let's be honest: that makes it look closer than it actually was.
Game 6 is being heralded as one of the greatest Finals games ever played, and I get it to an extent. Perhaps it's just that I don't really watch a lot of basketball so I don't know if this is just how the sport always goes, but Game 6 still seemed to follow the same pattern of Games 2-5 of one team being great while the other did nothing. Consider that each game was pretty close at half time, only to see one team come out in the second half to totally dominate the game. Game 6 follows those lines, but it's just a little more broken down. While the third quarter wasn't a total Spurs-fest, they clearly were the better team in that quarter. And then, as if the second half were mimicking the games overall, it was all Miami in the 4th. It was like only one team was allowed to be good at a time. (Who didn't know that when Ray Allen hit that shot to tie it that the Spurs were losing? Allen goes down in infamy for Spurs fans, just behind Derek Fisher.)
I must admit though, I did not watch Game 7. I know, I know. "You call yourself a sports fan and you didn't watch Game 7 of the NBA Finals?"
Nope. Sorry. I had a fire to sit by and some brews to kick back with some friends. And while it sounds like Game 7 was probably the best game of the entire series (and I found it totally fitting that Game 7 was sort of a flipped image of Game 1), by that point, I just thought hanging out with friends by a fire sounded more fun than watching the Spurs and Heat play another game.
The thing that makes it especially frustrating is that I had every reason to be invested in the series. Tim Duncan is my favorite player and while I'm not a native San Antonio fan, the Spurs have been one of my favorite teams in the league. Meanwhile, I actively hate the Miami Heat and what they've done to (in my opinion) ruin the NBA (seriously - 3 straight Finals appearances? Why does anyone bother to support an Eastern Conference team?) And yet despite my active like of the Spurs and hate of the Heat, I just couldn't care less about this series. Honestly? You could throw Neil Patrick Harris in there somewhere, maybe put Tom Brady on the Spurs' bench and I still wouldn't be able to care about this series. It just wasn't entertaining to watch. People will say that because it went to seven games, it was a heavy weight slug fest, but that's not what it was at all. It was back and forth slaughter.
Put the last decade of Super Bowls into your brain. We've had some amazing, absolutely memorable and classic Super Bowls. Imagine if you had 7 Super Bowls. Now imagine you start with the Patriots/Rams, and then for the next four games you get the Buccaneers/Raiders before getting a Patriots/Giants Super Bowl. Would you describe those seven Super Bowls - as a whole - as "great"? I don't think so. I'd say that the series was ok with a couple of great games, but was largely disappointing.
That's what this series felt like to me.
To be honest, even though I despise what the Heat have done to the NBA, I just don't even care that they won. And this is now a problem too because now I just don't even know if I care at all about the NBA in general. As a guy who lives on the East Coast, I just don't know what the point of following the Eastern Conference is. I don't even mean this as someone who casually follows the Celtics and is bummed to be looking at more disappointing seasons to come. I mean, if I know the Heat are just going to dominate again, why would I get invested in this league?
Of course it makes sense that Ray Allen signed with the Miami Heat. He wanted to win another ring the cheap way - like LeBron James, like Chris Bosh, like Dwayne Wade. That's why the Heat became a thing in the first place. They couldn't lead their own teams to titles, so why not - as some of the best players in the league, good enough to carry teams on their own - "join forces"? In a sport in which you only really need like, two or three amazing players to win a championship, why bother signing with anyone else if you're Ray Allen. Look, I don't dislike Ray Allen. I'm appreciative of his role in bringing a championship to Boston. He's one of the best perimeter shooters to ever play the game. But come on. Signing with the Heat? It feels just as cheap as Bosh and James signing with the Heat in the first place.
Here's my thing though: I don't inherently have a problem with teams signing three superstar players. In fact, I think teams should do that. I just happen to think that they should also downsize the league so that the talent is spread out better. The idea of a "big three" is nothing new, but the way the Heat have done it is.
See, you don't have go back too far to see examples of "big three"mentality. You can use the Boston Celtics too. It was kind of a big deal when they signed Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett to play along side Paul Pierce. And it resulted in a championship title with another appearance. But here's the difference: Garnett and Allen were getting up there in their careers. They weren't in the prime. To be honest, you wouldn't build around any one of those "big three" at that time. They were all great then, but even Paul Pierce was 10 years into his NBA career (keep in mind that he also played three years collegiate ball, whereas LeBron James is 10 years into his NBA career with skipping college - though no one can deny that James has only gotten better as he's gotten older).
Or of course, the Spurs' "big three" of Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, and Tony Parker. Tim Duncan is the only one who was obviously a big name (no pun intended for a change). Does anyone honestly look at the Parker/Ginobili/Duncan trifecta as the same thing as the James/Wade/Bosh trio? Parker was lucky to get an invite to the Spurs camp. People barely talked about Parker when he entered the draft. And Manu Ginobili? He was a late second round pick after coming out of foreign leagues. He didn't even start in his first year.
Can anyone honestly say that they view the Duncan/Ginobili/Parker trio in a similar light as they do the James/Bosh/Wade deal? You could perhaps argue that the Garnett/Allen/Pierce trio was similar in its roots (a bunch of classically great players "joining forces," only past their primes). It's not at all the same thing. What made the Celtics trio and especially the Spurs trio so potent was their ability to work together. They were a unit. They played well together, but individually, they're not really guys that carry a team (in-his-prime Kevin Garnett sure could, but that's about it).
To analogize it as movies: the Heat trio is The Avengers while the Celtics trio was Stand Up Guys. And the Spurs trio is more like The Office: a bunch of guys you didn't really know showing up and knocking it out of the park and becoming one of your favorites.
Again, to be clear, I'm not suggesting this was a bad series. All I'm saying is that this wasn't a great series. It had maybe one "classic" moment, but was otherwise only memorable for the way it was pretty one-sided in every game. It's going to be inflated because of peoples love affair (and hate affair) with LeBron James (I still view that first championship as "cheap," but even I can't deny that he has been dominating the league since that loss to the Mavericks - he basically carried the Heat for a while there and there's no way they win without him).
The Spurs are still the better franchise. They got their big three by taking risks (on Ginobili, on Parker) and being the benefactor of some luck (do Boston fans remember how close we were to getting Tim Duncan?) The Heat? They just signed the best talent on the market (does what James, Bosh, and Wade did count as collusion?)
So Birdman gets a ring riding the coat tails of LeBron James. We had a pretty underwhelming seven-game series in the Finals. Everyone is going to try and say otherwise. And unless something changes with the Heat, I'm not really sure what the point of getting invested in the NBA really is.
Fortunately, we have an amazing Stanley Cup underway (now that's a great series!)
First off, going seven games doesn't mean a series is by default great. Look at each game of this series. Does a best of seven series that includes four totally one-sided affairs really merit a "great" label? Does it even truly merit being called a "good series"? After Game 1, it was a question of whether we'd even seen another decent basketball game again. We had Miami beat up the Spurs pretty good, beating them by nearly 20 points in Game 2. Then San Antonio struck back with what might have been the most therapeutic game of all time to NBA fans with their shellacking of the Heat by nearly 40 points (it stopped being a game about five minutes into the second half). Then there was Game 4 in which the Heat again manhandled the Spurs with a near 20 point win, which was then followed by the Spurs beating up the Heat again in Game 5. Sure, Game 5 was only a 10 point margin of victory, but let's be honest: that makes it look closer than it actually was.
Game 6 is being heralded as one of the greatest Finals games ever played, and I get it to an extent. Perhaps it's just that I don't really watch a lot of basketball so I don't know if this is just how the sport always goes, but Game 6 still seemed to follow the same pattern of Games 2-5 of one team being great while the other did nothing. Consider that each game was pretty close at half time, only to see one team come out in the second half to totally dominate the game. Game 6 follows those lines, but it's just a little more broken down. While the third quarter wasn't a total Spurs-fest, they clearly were the better team in that quarter. And then, as if the second half were mimicking the games overall, it was all Miami in the 4th. It was like only one team was allowed to be good at a time. (Who didn't know that when Ray Allen hit that shot to tie it that the Spurs were losing? Allen goes down in infamy for Spurs fans, just behind Derek Fisher.)
I must admit though, I did not watch Game 7. I know, I know. "You call yourself a sports fan and you didn't watch Game 7 of the NBA Finals?"
Nope. Sorry. I had a fire to sit by and some brews to kick back with some friends. And while it sounds like Game 7 was probably the best game of the entire series (and I found it totally fitting that Game 7 was sort of a flipped image of Game 1), by that point, I just thought hanging out with friends by a fire sounded more fun than watching the Spurs and Heat play another game.
The thing that makes it especially frustrating is that I had every reason to be invested in the series. Tim Duncan is my favorite player and while I'm not a native San Antonio fan, the Spurs have been one of my favorite teams in the league. Meanwhile, I actively hate the Miami Heat and what they've done to (in my opinion) ruin the NBA (seriously - 3 straight Finals appearances? Why does anyone bother to support an Eastern Conference team?) And yet despite my active like of the Spurs and hate of the Heat, I just couldn't care less about this series. Honestly? You could throw Neil Patrick Harris in there somewhere, maybe put Tom Brady on the Spurs' bench and I still wouldn't be able to care about this series. It just wasn't entertaining to watch. People will say that because it went to seven games, it was a heavy weight slug fest, but that's not what it was at all. It was back and forth slaughter.
Put the last decade of Super Bowls into your brain. We've had some amazing, absolutely memorable and classic Super Bowls. Imagine if you had 7 Super Bowls. Now imagine you start with the Patriots/Rams, and then for the next four games you get the Buccaneers/Raiders before getting a Patriots/Giants Super Bowl. Would you describe those seven Super Bowls - as a whole - as "great"? I don't think so. I'd say that the series was ok with a couple of great games, but was largely disappointing.
That's what this series felt like to me.
To be honest, even though I despise what the Heat have done to the NBA, I just don't even care that they won. And this is now a problem too because now I just don't even know if I care at all about the NBA in general. As a guy who lives on the East Coast, I just don't know what the point of following the Eastern Conference is. I don't even mean this as someone who casually follows the Celtics and is bummed to be looking at more disappointing seasons to come. I mean, if I know the Heat are just going to dominate again, why would I get invested in this league?
Of course it makes sense that Ray Allen signed with the Miami Heat. He wanted to win another ring the cheap way - like LeBron James, like Chris Bosh, like Dwayne Wade. That's why the Heat became a thing in the first place. They couldn't lead their own teams to titles, so why not - as some of the best players in the league, good enough to carry teams on their own - "join forces"? In a sport in which you only really need like, two or three amazing players to win a championship, why bother signing with anyone else if you're Ray Allen. Look, I don't dislike Ray Allen. I'm appreciative of his role in bringing a championship to Boston. He's one of the best perimeter shooters to ever play the game. But come on. Signing with the Heat? It feels just as cheap as Bosh and James signing with the Heat in the first place.
Here's my thing though: I don't inherently have a problem with teams signing three superstar players. In fact, I think teams should do that. I just happen to think that they should also downsize the league so that the talent is spread out better. The idea of a "big three" is nothing new, but the way the Heat have done it is.
See, you don't have go back too far to see examples of "big three"mentality. You can use the Boston Celtics too. It was kind of a big deal when they signed Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett to play along side Paul Pierce. And it resulted in a championship title with another appearance. But here's the difference: Garnett and Allen were getting up there in their careers. They weren't in the prime. To be honest, you wouldn't build around any one of those "big three" at that time. They were all great then, but even Paul Pierce was 10 years into his NBA career (keep in mind that he also played three years collegiate ball, whereas LeBron James is 10 years into his NBA career with skipping college - though no one can deny that James has only gotten better as he's gotten older).
Or of course, the Spurs' "big three" of Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, and Tony Parker. Tim Duncan is the only one who was obviously a big name (no pun intended for a change). Does anyone honestly look at the Parker/Ginobili/Duncan trifecta as the same thing as the James/Wade/Bosh trio? Parker was lucky to get an invite to the Spurs camp. People barely talked about Parker when he entered the draft. And Manu Ginobili? He was a late second round pick after coming out of foreign leagues. He didn't even start in his first year.
Can anyone honestly say that they view the Duncan/Ginobili/Parker trio in a similar light as they do the James/Bosh/Wade deal? You could perhaps argue that the Garnett/Allen/Pierce trio was similar in its roots (a bunch of classically great players "joining forces," only past their primes). It's not at all the same thing. What made the Celtics trio and especially the Spurs trio so potent was their ability to work together. They were a unit. They played well together, but individually, they're not really guys that carry a team (in-his-prime Kevin Garnett sure could, but that's about it).
To analogize it as movies: the Heat trio is The Avengers while the Celtics trio was Stand Up Guys. And the Spurs trio is more like The Office: a bunch of guys you didn't really know showing up and knocking it out of the park and becoming one of your favorites.
Again, to be clear, I'm not suggesting this was a bad series. All I'm saying is that this wasn't a great series. It had maybe one "classic" moment, but was otherwise only memorable for the way it was pretty one-sided in every game. It's going to be inflated because of peoples love affair (and hate affair) with LeBron James (I still view that first championship as "cheap," but even I can't deny that he has been dominating the league since that loss to the Mavericks - he basically carried the Heat for a while there and there's no way they win without him).
The Spurs are still the better franchise. They got their big three by taking risks (on Ginobili, on Parker) and being the benefactor of some luck (do Boston fans remember how close we were to getting Tim Duncan?) The Heat? They just signed the best talent on the market (does what James, Bosh, and Wade did count as collusion?)
So Birdman gets a ring riding the coat tails of LeBron James. We had a pretty underwhelming seven-game series in the Finals. Everyone is going to try and say otherwise. And unless something changes with the Heat, I'm not really sure what the point of getting invested in the NBA really is.
Fortunately, we have an amazing Stanley Cup underway (now that's a great series!)
Monday, April 22, 2013
Why the Heat kills my desire to watch the NBA Playoffs.
One of the great ironies of sports fandom is that while we love great teams, we hate them if they become too successful. We want to see greatness unfold on the court or field, but we don't want teams to hold something of a monopoly on sports.
Some teams are so successful, they keep the image even after becoming irrelevant or more "normalized." Just look at the Dallas Cowboys who, since their last Super Bowl win in 1995 are 2-7 in the playoffs, often missing them altogether in those 17 years. Yet they are still one of the most popular (and most hated) teams in the NFL. Or how about the New York Yankees? It's less true of the Yankees given they buy a playoff spot most years, yet since 1980, they've won just five World Series pennants. (Granted three of them came in consecutive years in what I can only imagine was a terrible time to be a baseball fan.)
I'm a New England Patriots fan. What a difference a decade of unparalleled success makes in the realm of public opinion. Back in 2001, everyone knew the Rams would win, but who wasn't cheering on the Patriots? (9/11 connotations notwithstanding.) Since that magical run, the Patriots have not had a single losing season, only missed the playoffs twice (once with an 11-5 record!), been to four additional Super Bowls going 2-2, won nine AFC East titles and appeared in seven AFC Championship games. Quite literally, when Tom Brady starts a full season, the Patriots make it to the Super Bowl 42% of the time and reach the AFC Championship 58% of the time! Once an underdog that everyone was rooting for, they have become one of the most hated teams in the league.
Think of a team like an object. Consider prolonged and sustained success as increased velocity. Well, when an object increases in speed, it will increase its mass and subsequently its gravity. So just think of mass as fan base in this analogy and gravity as hate base. As the velocity increases (more success), the mass increases (fan base) and the gravity increases proportionally as well (hate base).
To me though, there's a difference between the success of the Cowboys and Patriots and the success of teams like the Yankees or now the Miami Heat. It's how they do it. It's probably unfair to compare them given that the nature of football allows for a greater chance of an upset than sports like baseball or basketball, but with the Patriots and Cowboys, they had to work hard to get it. There's always an element of buying top tier talent, but it's harder to do when you have a salary cap and 11 moving players on the field at all times. The Yankees - and now the Heat - have subscribed to the thought of "Let's just buy top tier talent and throw them out there." It feels lazy. It feels cheap. It feels unfair. And - to me anyway - it feels unsportsmanlike.
I've heard many analysts talk about how great the Miami Heat are for the NBA - that love them or hate them, you are following them. You are watching. That is probably true for a lot of people, but it's not for me. For starters, I'm only following them because the sports media covers them like there's no tomorrow. I never actively follow them. I've never said, "I wonder what the Heat did last night" and hop on my computer to look up the score. Even when they went on that record pushing win streak, I never really cared. It means nothing if they don't win the championship (I'm a Patriots fan, remember?)
Secondly, the Miami Heat have completely killed my interest in the Eastern Conference playoffs. I just don't know what is in it for me as a fan of sports and competition. If you're a Heat fan, sure. Makes total sense to watch the continued domination. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing my Patriots run up the score on the hapless, butt-fumbling Jets, but I wouldn't want to see that every week. I'd gladly take a game we lose if that game were close and exciting.
I tried to watch the Pacers and Hawks yesterday. While I kept the game on, I couldn't help but move my attention elsewhere. To me, it was like watching a commercial - they were trying to sell me on something I knew I was never going to get. It just felt like an opening act - not particularly great, but it's also not what you're there for.
Look, here's the thing: we all know how the Eastern Conference ends, right? I know my sister will kill me for saying this, but does anyone actually believe a team other than the Miami Heat is coming out of this (pretty sad) conference? We can write that down in pen. We can sell the Miami Heat Eastern Conference Champions 2013 t-shirts right now. I bet every newspaper already has that article written and is just waiting for the semantics to end.
So why would I waste my time watching any of these games? Even if the Knicks and Celtics play one of the greatest series of all time, it's still just a dead end time waster. Neither of those teams is going anywhere and everyone knows it.
I look at that and say, "how exactly is this good for basketball?"
My attention will be where it's always been - the far more competitive Western Conference. But even on that side, there's still a sense of "Well, which of these teams could beat the Heat?"
I just don't believe that's good for any sport. Say all you want about the sort of monopoly that the Yankees or Patriots hold on their respective sports, you can't honestly say that you go into the playoffs thinking, "Who's going to beat the Yankees/Patriots?" Even if they're favorites, you know that someone has a chance.
It doesn't feel that way in the NBA. So I'm sorry. The Miami Heat have just completely killed my desire to watch the NBA playoffs.
I guess you can consider me part of the gravity.
Some teams are so successful, they keep the image even after becoming irrelevant or more "normalized." Just look at the Dallas Cowboys who, since their last Super Bowl win in 1995 are 2-7 in the playoffs, often missing them altogether in those 17 years. Yet they are still one of the most popular (and most hated) teams in the NFL. Or how about the New York Yankees? It's less true of the Yankees given they buy a playoff spot most years, yet since 1980, they've won just five World Series pennants. (Granted three of them came in consecutive years in what I can only imagine was a terrible time to be a baseball fan.)
I'm a New England Patriots fan. What a difference a decade of unparalleled success makes in the realm of public opinion. Back in 2001, everyone knew the Rams would win, but who wasn't cheering on the Patriots? (9/11 connotations notwithstanding.) Since that magical run, the Patriots have not had a single losing season, only missed the playoffs twice (once with an 11-5 record!), been to four additional Super Bowls going 2-2, won nine AFC East titles and appeared in seven AFC Championship games. Quite literally, when Tom Brady starts a full season, the Patriots make it to the Super Bowl 42% of the time and reach the AFC Championship 58% of the time! Once an underdog that everyone was rooting for, they have become one of the most hated teams in the league.
Think of a team like an object. Consider prolonged and sustained success as increased velocity. Well, when an object increases in speed, it will increase its mass and subsequently its gravity. So just think of mass as fan base in this analogy and gravity as hate base. As the velocity increases (more success), the mass increases (fan base) and the gravity increases proportionally as well (hate base).
To me though, there's a difference between the success of the Cowboys and Patriots and the success of teams like the Yankees or now the Miami Heat. It's how they do it. It's probably unfair to compare them given that the nature of football allows for a greater chance of an upset than sports like baseball or basketball, but with the Patriots and Cowboys, they had to work hard to get it. There's always an element of buying top tier talent, but it's harder to do when you have a salary cap and 11 moving players on the field at all times. The Yankees - and now the Heat - have subscribed to the thought of "Let's just buy top tier talent and throw them out there." It feels lazy. It feels cheap. It feels unfair. And - to me anyway - it feels unsportsmanlike.
I've heard many analysts talk about how great the Miami Heat are for the NBA - that love them or hate them, you are following them. You are watching. That is probably true for a lot of people, but it's not for me. For starters, I'm only following them because the sports media covers them like there's no tomorrow. I never actively follow them. I've never said, "I wonder what the Heat did last night" and hop on my computer to look up the score. Even when they went on that record pushing win streak, I never really cared. It means nothing if they don't win the championship (I'm a Patriots fan, remember?)
Secondly, the Miami Heat have completely killed my interest in the Eastern Conference playoffs. I just don't know what is in it for me as a fan of sports and competition. If you're a Heat fan, sure. Makes total sense to watch the continued domination. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing my Patriots run up the score on the hapless, butt-fumbling Jets, but I wouldn't want to see that every week. I'd gladly take a game we lose if that game were close and exciting.
I tried to watch the Pacers and Hawks yesterday. While I kept the game on, I couldn't help but move my attention elsewhere. To me, it was like watching a commercial - they were trying to sell me on something I knew I was never going to get. It just felt like an opening act - not particularly great, but it's also not what you're there for.
Look, here's the thing: we all know how the Eastern Conference ends, right? I know my sister will kill me for saying this, but does anyone actually believe a team other than the Miami Heat is coming out of this (pretty sad) conference? We can write that down in pen. We can sell the Miami Heat Eastern Conference Champions 2013 t-shirts right now. I bet every newspaper already has that article written and is just waiting for the semantics to end.
So why would I waste my time watching any of these games? Even if the Knicks and Celtics play one of the greatest series of all time, it's still just a dead end time waster. Neither of those teams is going anywhere and everyone knows it.
I look at that and say, "how exactly is this good for basketball?"
My attention will be where it's always been - the far more competitive Western Conference. But even on that side, there's still a sense of "Well, which of these teams could beat the Heat?"
I just don't believe that's good for any sport. Say all you want about the sort of monopoly that the Yankees or Patriots hold on their respective sports, you can't honestly say that you go into the playoffs thinking, "Who's going to beat the Yankees/Patriots?" Even if they're favorites, you know that someone has a chance.
It doesn't feel that way in the NBA. So I'm sorry. The Miami Heat have just completely killed my desire to watch the NBA playoffs.
I guess you can consider me part of the gravity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)