Once again, the Patriots don't quite come through in a big game. Still, it's hard to really bash the Patriots for their lack of post season success when they made the AFC Championship for the second straight year and actually had a decent chance to make their second straight Super Bowl. The expectations are high for New England, a precedent set by three Super Bowl victories in the span of four years. They're clearly the dynasty of the decade and they have potential to keep their presence felt for a few more years. Still, it also might be time to start lowering expectations.
No team wins as consistently as the Patriots. Yes, the Ravens have been in the playoffs for the past five years. Sure, the Peyton Manning led Colts were a staple of the post season. And yeah, it feels a little funny when the Steelers aren't there. The New England Patriots have almost always been a given for that division. In the twelve years since Tom Brady took over for Drew Bledsoe, they have won nine AFC East titles, gone to the divisional round eight times, been to AFC Championship seven times, and been to five Super Bowls. It's especially awesome to think about how they were really only a few plays away from that Super Bowl in 2006, when they gave up a big lead to a destined Manning led Colts. Also consider how they were only a few plays away from winning both of those Super Bowls that they lost (in particular, the 2007 game where barring a miraculous David Tyree grab and a critical Asante Samuel dropped interception, they could have won despite their offensive line being batted around all day).
There's no question the Patriots are one of the greatest teams of all time at this point. Still, two things have started to happen in the past few years that no one seems to be taking into consideration lately. The first is that the Patriots have completed shifted their identity, and as a result, gotten worse. This will likely be viewed as controversial, but since their last Super Bowl victory in 2004, they have fundamentally shifted from a defensive driven team to an offensive driven team. In effect, they have shifted from a team like the 2000 Baltimore Ravens (albeit with a substantially better quarterback) to a team like the Peyton Manning Indianapolis Colts. Their defense has greatly dropped in quality and their offense is now the bread winner. Even more, they still like to throw the ball a lot more despite having an excellent running game. The reason this shift should be viewed as a downgrade is simple: how often do offensive based teams win championships? The Indianapolis Colts did make it to two Super Bowls and won one. The 2009 New Orleans Saints worked this way too, with an amazing offense and a defense that had a "bend, don't break" mentality and was comprised of ball hawks. Overall though, teams with weak defenses but incredible offenses don't win too many championships.
The second - more obvious - thing is that the rest of the NFL has caught up with New England. We seem spoiled by their success. When they don't win playoff games, we are quick to question what happened. They are always viewed as favorites (often ridiculously so - seriously, how were they eight point favorites over the Baltimore Ravens who were playing lights out football, just beat the Denver Broncos who everyone thought was Super Bowl bound, and had previously beaten New England in the regular season? That doesn't happen unless you have established expectations.)
Winning in the NFL isn't easy. Winning this consistently is even more so. To say New England has fallen from grace because they lost the AFC Championship is absurd. It's statistics - you literally can't win them all. Everyone points out how Joe Montana never lost a Super Bowl. This is true, but the 49ers did lose playoff games too. Tom Brady has led the Patriots to more Super Bowl appearances in a ten year span. The odds of him losing more are greater since he's playing more (consider that Brady has played 24 post season games in 11 years going 17-7 while Montana played in 23 post season games in 15 years going 16-7). This isn't to say the Patriots are greater than the 49ers of the '80s - especially given that the post season has expanded to include an additional round thus more games are played. But it is something to factor in when comparing the two.
Since their shift to a more Colts like identity, they have become like the Colts in another predictable way: they are great in the regular season, but struggle in the post season. This is the reason I think we need to lower our expectations of New England. We can predict they won't see a ton of post season success because we've seen teams like the Colts and the Saints. Yes, they can win a few post season games, maybe sneak in a Super Bowl win when they all come together. But it's unlikely. Green Bay is currently dealing with this problem too. It doesn't matter how prolific a passer you have at the helm - if you don't have a good defense, you're not likely to see much post season success.
But the most startling thing about the Patriots though is not that they lose a lot lately - it's how they lose in the post season. Why can't they be as consistent in the post season as they are in the regular season?
Take Tom Brady. I know it's blasphemous to think of Brady as anything other than the greatest quarterback of all time (for the record, I would in fact rank him number one), but it's hard to deny that in the second half of his career, he's struggled in the post season. Since his last Super Bowl victory, he's been something of an enigma in the post season, greatly struggling with consistency. Consider:
2005:
The Patriots finish 10-6 and win the AFC East. Here are Brady's regular season averages to post season performances:
Regular Season: 63% passes complete, 256.8 yards per game, 1.6 touchdowns per game, .8 interceptions per game, rating of 92.3.
Post Season: 55.6% passes complete, 271 yards per game, 2 touchdowns per game, 1 interception per game, rating of 95.2.
Jaguars - 55.6% passes complete, 201 yards, 3 touchdowns, 0 interceptions, rating of 116.4. (A Good Game.)
Broncos - 55.6% passes complete, 341 yards, 1 touchdown, 2 interceptions, rating of 74.0. (A lot of yardage, but a Bad Game.)
Not a bad post season overall, but a tale of two Toms. He logs a Good Game and a Bad Game (which marks the beginning of a trend for Brady.)
2006:
The Patriots finish 12-4 and win the division again. Here are Brady's numbers:
Regular Season: 61.8% passes complete, 224.5 yards per game, 1.5 TDs per game, .7 INTs per game, a rating of 87.9.
Post Season: 59.7% passes complete, 244.3 yards per game, 1.6 TDs per game, 1 INT per game, a rating of 79.4.
Jets - 65.7% passes complete, 212 yards, 2 TDs, 0 INTs, a rating of 101.6. (A Good Game.)
Chargers - 52.9% passes complete, 280 yards, 2 TDs, 3 INTs, a rating of 57.6 (A Bad Game)
Colts - 61.7% passes complete, 241 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, a rating of 79.1 (An Average Game.)
It's not a great post season for Brady overall, but it's not a bad post season by any stretch either. He continues the pattern of following a Good Game with a Bad Game, only now adds an Average Game at the end of it all.
The count now is 2 Good Games, 2 Bad Games, 1 Average Game.
2007:
The Patriots do the unthinkable and go 16-0. Brady has an MVP season with record breaking numbers.
Regular Season: 68.9% passes complete, 300.3 yards per game, 3.1 TDs per game, .5 INTs per game, rating of 117.2.
Post Season: 73.3% passes complete, 244.6 yards per game, 2 TDs per game, 1 INT per game, rating of 96.7.
Jaguars - 92.8% passes complete, 262 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INTs, rating of 141.4. (Definitely a Good Game.)
Chargers - 66.7% passes complete, 209 yards, 2 TDs, 3 INTs, rating of 66.4. (A Bad Game - Patriots defense is the key to this win, which was successful in spite of Brady.)
Giants - 60.4% passes complete, 266 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT, rating of 82.5. (The very definition of Average Game.)
For the third straight year, we see Brady explode out of the gate with a Good Game only to follow it up with a Bad Game. For the second straight year, we see him follow up the bad game with a very Average Game.
The count: 3 Good Games, 3 Bad Games, 2 Average Games.
2009:
The Patriots struggle a bit to get their groove with Brady returning from his catastrophic knee injury. They still finish 10-6 to win the division. Brady has a good season, though at times it didn't necessarily feel like it was.
Regular Season: 65.7% passes complete, 274.8 ypg, 1.7 TDs per game, .8 INTs per game, rating of 96.2.
Post Season: one and done. They get slaughtered in their first home playoff loss of the Belichick/Brady era.
Ravens - 54.7% passes complete, 154 yards, 2 TDs, 3 INTs, and a rating of 49.1. (I'd chalk this one up as a Bad Game, yeah?)
The count: 3 Good Games, 4 Bad Games, 2 Average Games.
2010:
The Patriots finished 14-2 and won the AFC East again. Here are the numbers for Brady:
Regular Season: 65.9% passes completed, 243.7 ypg, 2.3 TDs per game, .3 INTs per game, a rating of 111.0.
Post Season: for the second straight year, one and done. Brady's numbers are inflated from junk time play, when the game was well in hand for the Jets.
Jets - 64% passes complete, 299 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT, a rating of 89. (I'm calling this one "Bad Game." Statistically, it looks Average at best, but one touchdown and a good chunk of yards and completions came late in the game and were just for show.)
Count: 3 Good Games, 5 Bad Games, 2 Average Games.
2011.
The Patriots finish 13-3 and take the AFC East yet again. Here are Brady's numbers:
Regular Season: 65.5% passes complete, 327.1 ypg, 2.4 TDs per game, .7 INTs per game, a rating of 105.6.
Post Season: 67.7% passes complete, 292.6 ypg, 2.6 TDs per game, 1 INT per game, rating of 95.4.
Broncos - 76.4% passes complete, 363 yards, 6 TDs, 1 INT, a rating of 137.6. (I'd call that a Good Game, wouldn't you?)
Ravens - 61.1% passes complete, 239 yards, 0 TDs, 2 INTs, a rating of 57.5. (Definitely falls in the Bad category - they eek out the win mostly by luck really.)
Giants - 65.8% passes complete, 276 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT, a rating of 91.1. (I'm going to stick this in the Average column. I suppose you could argue it was a good game, but I watched it. It wasn't anything more than Average. Not a bad game at all, but certainly not a good game - very reminiscent of Peyton Manning's Super Bowl performance, only Manning won.)
So in this post season, we break up the monotony of one and done to revert back to the pattern of Good, Bad, Average. Overall, the post season averages are greatly inflated by the Denver Broncos game, which accounted for 75% of his touchdowns and 41% of his yards. Not to mention it brings up his completion percentage substantially, as well as his passer rating.
The count now: 4 Good Games, 6 Bad Games, 3 Average Games.
2012.
The Patriots finish 12-4 and win their fourth straight AFC East title. Brady has an MVP caliber season again with these numbers.
Regular Season: 63% passes complete, 301.7 ypg, 2.1 TDs per game, .5 INTs per game, rating of 98.7.
Post Season: 58.1% passes complete, 332 ypg, 2 TDs per game, 1 INT per game, a rating of 88.6.
Texans - 62.5% passes complete, 344 yards, 3 TDs, 0 picks, rating of 115.0. (Falls squarely in the Good column.)
Ravens - 53.7% passes complete, 320 yard, 1 TD, 2 INTs, rating of 62.3. (The case can be made that it was an Average game - that one pick came off a tipped pass and another came late when the game was over anyway - but I put it in the Bad. He completed Mark Sanchez percentages and his inability to convert in the red zone, plus clock mismanagement is what makes me put it in the Bad.)
This year might mark the biggest gap between his regular season averages and his post season averages. He threw more yards and about the same touchdowns, but threw twice the average interceptions while completing a smaller percentage of passes and dropping his rating a full 10 points.
And again, he starts strong out of the gate with a Good Game and he then follows it with a Bad.
Here's the final game count in the post Super Bowl years: 5 Good Games, 7 Bad Games, 3 Average Games. Brady is good for a Bad Game 46.7% of the time. Yes, the post season is difficult. He's not playing the Ryan Fitzpatricks of the league in the post season. Still, his quality is all over the place.
In 2005, he went Good - Bad.
In 2006, he went Good - Bad - Average.
In 2007, he went Good - Bad - Average.
In 2009, he went Bad.
In 2010, he went Bad.
In 2011, he went Good - Bad - Average.
And in 2012, he went Good - Bad.
Am I missing something here, or is there a pretty obvious pattern at this point?
Overall in the post season after his last Super Bowl win, he's averaging a 63.2% completion percentage with an average of 273 yards per game, 2 touchdowns per game, and 1.3 interceptions per game. His average passer rating? 88.0.
Sorry, but it's hard to look at Brady in the post season in the past 7 years and say he's been great. He's 8-7 with four of those losses coming at home where they were once perceived as invincible (two of the three losses away from home were Super Bowls.)
In each of those years, Brady had an outstanding regular season only to follow it up with a disappointing or inconsistent post season. In each season he played multiple playoff games, he started with a good game and followed it up with a bad. In the two seasons he lost in the first game, he played poorly.
Those are all the non Super Bowl years though. Let's examine those earlier, more glory filled years.
2001.
The Patriots shock the league, finishing 11-5 and winning the AFC East. It's the beginning of Tom Brady's rise to fame and he isn't asked to do a whole lot for the team. As such, his numbers are very average, but he's exactly what the team needs.
Regular Season: 63.9% passes complete, 189.5 ypg, 1.2 TDs per game, .8 INTs per game, with a rating of 86.5.
Post Season: 62.4% passes complete, 190.6 ypg, .3 TDs per game, .3 INTs per game, with a rating of 80.3.
Raiders - 61.5% passes complete, 312 yards, 0 TDs, 1 INT, rating of 70.4. (Calling it Average given his situational play.)
Steelers - 66.7% passes complete, 115 yards, 0 TDs, 0 INTs, rating of 84.3. (Calling this one Average as well given he was knocked out of the game in the first half. He was solid, but average in that time too.)
Rams - 59.2% passes complete, 145 yards, 1 TD, 0 INTs, rating of 86.2. (This is practically the definition of Average.)
So far, the count is a solid 0 Good Games, 0 Bad Games, and 3 Average games. Not bad at all given his role on the team. They used him in the post season as they did in the regular season. He had a consistent, average regular season and a consistent, average post season. It culminated in a Super Bowl win.
2003.
The Patriots finish 14-2, returning to win the AFC East. Brady logs in a very solid season, but still nothing incredible.
Regular Season: 60.2% passes complete, 226.3 ypg, 1.9 TDs per game, .8 INTs per game, with a rating of 85.9. Again, a very solid job, but he's not playing Peyton Manning style football yet.
Post Season: 59.1% passes complete, 264 ypg, 1.6 TDs per game, .7 INTs per game, with a rating of 83.3.
Titans - 51.2% passes complete, 201 yards, 1 TD, 0 INTs, with a rating of 73.3. (Seems pretty Average, yeah?)
Colts - 59.4% passes complete, 237 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, with a rating of 76.1. (Again, he's practically the definition of Average.)
Panthers - 66.7% passes complete, 354 yards, 3 TDs, 1 INT, with a rating of 100.5 (Arguably his best Super Bowl performance as he not only plays incredibly well; he also conducts another game winning drive at the end - even if he has John Kasay to thank for that.)
For the second playoff appearance, Brady is exactly what you wanted him to be throughout. He's nothing special, but he's solid. He plays consistently. He can conduct game winning drives if you need him too, but otherwise, he's not who you put all your chips on.
So, here's the count: 1 Good Game, 0 Bad Games, 5 Average Games
2004.
Patriots go 14-2 and win the AFC East. Brady's numbers aren't incredible, but they're good.
Regular Season: 60.8% passes complete, 230.8 ypg, 1.8 TDs per game, .9 INTs per game, with a rating of 92.6,
Post Season: 67.7% passes complete, 195.7 ypg, 1.7 TDs per game, 0 INTs per game, with a rating of 110.9.
Colts - 66.7% passes complete, 144 yards, 1 TD, 0 INTs, with a rating of 92.2 (We'll put that in the Average category.)
Steelers - 66.7% passes complete, 207 yards, 2 TDs, 0 INTs with a rating of 130.5. (I'd say that fits the "Good" category, no sweat.)
Eagles - 69.7% passes complete, 236 yards, 2 TDs, 0 INTs, with a rating of 110.2. (Another for the Good column.)
So here's the Super Bowl era count: 3 Good Games, 0 Bad Games, 6 Average Game.
In the Super Bowl runs, Tom Brady was practically the definition of consistent. He was a known. You always knew Brady would turn in a decent performance. He didn't always turn in an amazing game - in fact, he rarely did - but he was always solid. There was never any drop in his play.
So it looks like this:
2001 - Average, Average, Average.
2003 - Average, Average, Good
2004 - Average, Good, Good.
He actually seemed to improve as the post season went on - something that is completely different in the years following.
Overall, his numbers haven't seen a big drop. Here's the break down from the averages from his post season play from 2001 to 2004, and then his playoff averages from 2005 to today:
63% of his passes completed for 216 yards per game, 1.2 touchdowns per game, .3 interceptions per game, with an average passer rating of 91.5. (2001-2004)
63.2% of his passes completed for 273 yards per game, 2 touchdowns per game, 1.3 interceptions per game, with an average passer rating of 88.0. (2005-2012)
The thing that strikes me the most is how consistent he was in the Super Bowl years. You knew what you could expect from Brady. He even improved a little bit at a time. Today, he's almost a wild card. You never really know if you're going to get 3 touchdown Brady or 3 interception Brady. For me, the lack of consistency is the biggest thing.
Super Bowl Years - 3 Good Games, 0 Bad Games, 6 Average Games
Post Bowl Years - 5 Good Games, 7 Bad Games, 3 Average Games.
Of course, it's not just Brady. You look back at those Super Bowl teams and the biggest thing about them was how well rounded they were. They had a solid offense and a great defense. They had the most clutch kicker of all time with a young quarterback making a case for most clutch QB. Over the years, the Patriots have lost their key defensive players - the Tedy Bruschis and Mike Vrabels and Rodney Harrisons. They replaced them with offensive talent - the Randy Mosses, Wes Welkers, Brandon Lloyds.
Brady isn't the reason the Patriots have become perennial post season losers, but it seems pretty evident that the more they've relied on Brady, the more they've tried to showcase Brady as a Peyton Manning style quarterback, the harder they make it on themselves to win another ring.
Peyton Manning was always seen as a Dan Marino type guy - someone who was amazing in the regular season, but could never step it up. The Colts built the team completely around that. They made the offense nearly unstoppable, but the defense suffered and the one dimensional Colts were easy for other playoff teams to game plan for. Even though Manning has gotten substantially better in the post season, he still gets flak for that.
Fair is fair. At some point, Tom Brady's early career can't maintain the reputation. No one thinks of Brady as clutch anymore. No one thinks of the Patriots as a hard hitting football team. No one is afraid of the Patriots in the post season. The mystique of the Razor is long gone (thoroughly slaughtered pretty much single handedly by the Ravens). And at some point, people need to accept that Tom Brady is just not that great of a post season quarterback.
It's not entirely his fault. He doesn't have a great defense. It seems pretty clear that Brady knows this team is on his shoulders. I almost wonder if he feels that pressure in the post season. He must know that if he makes a big mistake, the defense won't bail him out.
You look at all of the teams who build this way - the Peyton Manning Colts, the Drew Brees Saints, the Kurt Warner Cardinals, the Dan Marino Dolphins. You can have success with an offensively driven squad that has a Hall of Fame, elite quarterback. It just makes it more difficult, and it's inconsistent.
Look at Tom Brady's post season career. Look at it honestly. This is not to say he's not one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time (as I said, I'd rank him number one). This is not to question whether he even has the ability to win in the post season. We know he does. Still, Brady's career has undergone a huge transformation. All I'm saying is that if you look at his overall body of work, he appears to be more like Peyton Manning than ever before. Great in the regular season, unpredictable in the playoffs.
Of course, this might also vindicate Peyton Manning's career more. The Patriots are kind of a shining example of just how difficult it is to win in the post season. They're always there, they're always a contender, and they are frequently coming up short. I'm sure Manning can relate.
Further, I'm sick and tired of people saying they aren't winning because they can't cheat anymore. No one understands what exactly Spygate was. They received no in-game benefits from what they recorded (something almost every team records - the Patriots just put the cameras in illegal spots). It also doesn't make any sense. If the Patriots were winning - or got such a huge advantage - because of it, why did each of their Super Bowls come down to the wire? Why did they miss the post season entirely in '02? How come they lost in ugly fashion in 2006 after having a three possession lead at the half? And how come as Brady gets better and better as a quarterback, the team is less successful in the post season? To think they only won because they "cheated" is ridiculous. To think they are losing in the post season because they can't video tape signals anymore is ridiculous (they can still see opponents' signals, just like every team can see their opponents' signals). Haters gonna hate, I know.
The reason - the only reason - the Patriots won those championships and lost those playoff games is their team build up. They've gotten far away from the simple but efficient offense and a hard hitting, intimidating defense. They're trying to get the defense back, but it's molding together very slowly. In the mean time, they're over compensating with the offense. And it's not working.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
The Bigg Issue: Lance Armstrong and the Need to Get an Edge
Lance Armstrong's legacy has been thoroughly destroyed. He's been stripped of his titles, banned from cycling, turned from admirable cancer-survivor showing what you can do if you put your mind to it into a thuggish dope ring-leader. He's a cheater, and he allegedly carried himself as a mob boss to defend that secret.
I won't sit here and defend the doping. I'm not defending Armstrong's behavior as he tried to cover it all up. However, if I might ask an honest question: has anyone done more for the sport of cycling? Stay with me here because I understand this sounds crazy. Let me just ask, how many of us can name any other cyclist in the world? How many of us ever had any interested whatsoever in the Tour de France before Armstrong came on the scene? How many of us did he inspire to take up cycling or even just take anything up because hey, if this guy can survive cancer and even just complete a Tour de France, I can surely run that half marathon I've been thinking about?
Again, this is not a defense of Armstrong's cheating nor his behavior. I'm just suggesting that while we've been busy tearing the guy down (and based on his alleged behavior, rightfully so), let's try to remember at least some of the good. It's always interesting to me how we sports fans love to build up heroes, but we love to tear them down just as much (if not more.)
In 2002, participation in competitive cycling grew to a greater number than the year before. At that point, Armstrong had clearly asserted himself as the most famous cyclist perhaps of all time after winning his third straight Tour de France and bringing the Tour to a major television network. This trend of competitive cycling growth continued in the years to follow. From 2002 to 2008, the sport saw increased participation by 48%. The number of events rose by a full 50%. Cycling clubs had seen membership increase by 30% in that time frame. The largest jump in participation? You guessed it - it occurred within the seven year reign of Lance Armstrong. (The sport continued to grow after his "retirement," but the rate of growth decreased.)
So as we're tearing down Armstrong (and again, rightfully so), let's at least take a moment that for all the bad he's done, he has had some major positive effects. The sport of competitive cycling exploded in the United States almost solely because of Lance Armstrong. In the years to follow, other cyclists would step up and become known, but nowhere near the scale of Armstrong's status. Viewership of the Tour grew (especially in the US). Even the Olympic teams got more coverage than they ever would have had it not been for Armstrong. And because of his efforts in the Tour de France, his Livestrong campaign had raised millions of dollars. And again, in a country where we only really care about football, baseball, and basketball, how many professional cyclists can anyone today name? Never mind anyone in 2003. How many of you know who Scott Jurek is? He's perhaps the greatest endurance athlete of all time, but unless you're in the distance running club, you've probably never heard of him. These incredible athletic endeavors (be it riding the Tour de France or be it running 100 miles in the desert) are rarely focused on here. Armstrong transcended that.
Again, I'm just saying... Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Cycling fans should feel betrayed and incredibly disappointed that the greatest cyclist they have ever known turned out to be a cheating hack.
Here's where I start to run away from statistics and run more towards the realm of "feelings." When it comes to athletes cheating by doping or other steroids, do any of us really not understand why they do it? We cry foul so loudly when they are caught, yet we never seem willing to acknowledge that to dope actually makes a lot of sense. It's not right, I don't condone it, but I completely understand it.
See, here's my critique of sports culture: we constantly demand to BE the best. We need to win in order to validate our worth as athletes. We MUST win, otherwise we are losers. Professional athletes have to do this more than anyone given that if they don't win, their careers are cut short. They will literally lose their livelihood if they aren't actually THE best.
We sports fans? We're applying a ridiculous amount of pressure. It's often brought up how we seem to value a guy who can throw a ball in a basket more than we value doctors or teachers. Financially, that seems pretty true. We value entertainment perhaps a little more than we should (this, of course, not meant to undermine the value of entertainment).
There was a really interesting article in the Miami Herald the other day about all of the crazy things Jason Taylor had done to stay on the field despite some fairly major injuries for the Miami Dolphins and Washington Redskins. He injured his foot, so they gave him a shot to numb the pain so he could go back in and play. Then, because he couldn't feel the pain, he wound up doing MORE damage to his foot! When he hurt his back, he went to the locker room, took a painful shot in the back, then went back out there. He ultimately wound up missing over a month of football because he wound up having a herniated disk. He even had an issue with his calf that if he had not listened to the famed sports doctor James Andrews (of recent RGIII fame) to have a particular operation, he literally would have had that leg amputated! Yet Taylor was extremely reluctant to be operated on given that would mean he would have to sit out for a few weeks. In one story he told, the only comfortable way for him to fall asleep was standing up leaning against a wall.
And he wasn't complaining at all. To him, it was completely worth it to play in the National Football League. This guy has completely destroyed his body. He's taken more drugs than a race horse in order to play through injuries. As a result, he's wound up hurting himself more. But to him and to almost every single professional athlete - it's completely worth it for the privilege of playing sports professionally.
The draw to being a professional athlete is great. The fame and fortune that comes with it is extremely enticing. But it's also an extremely limited window. The average NFL career is 3.5 years, for example. Even when you factor in the misrepresentations of this number (it includes players who did not make opening day rosters), the average NFL career is six years. This is actually pretty similar to the average NBA career which is just about six years. This is also pretty similar to the average MLB career, which is 5.6 years.
If you're dedicated, you can become a professional athlete, but to stay a professional athlete is a completely different thing. Sure, maybe you win all sorts of lotteries and become the next Brett Favre or Kobe Bryant or Cal Ripken Jr. The odds are not very high though. So, if you're lucky enough to become a professional athlete, you're probably waking up every day feeling a little bit insecure about your job.
Think about that for a second: the average career of the three major sports in this country is about six years. Most of these players are coming fresh out of college. They're between ages 18 and 22. If you enter the NFL or Major Leagues at age 22, you're likely done with your career by age 28. Maybe you can squeeze out an extra two years.
So the appeal to be a professional athlete is already great because of the fame and the money. Then you add in the already great deal of pressure given just how competitive that job market is? How does it not make sense for athletes to start trying to get an edge using steroids? And how many "falls from grace" do we need before we understand this?
Take Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Or take Lance Armstrong even. You've already got all of the pressure in the world to keep your status on the team. But these guys are built up as heroes. People looked up to Clemens and Armstrong. You've also got Armstrong trying to build up the Livestrong Foundation more and more, it only makes sense that he would fight to protect that. (Again, not defending his behavior, I'm just saying it makes all the sense in the world that he'd so vehemently fight back even to defend a lie.) It's hard to imagine that Clemens, accused of taking steroids when he got to the Yankees, wasn't thinking of protecting his career. He had been in the league for 15 years at that point (more than twice the league average). He was still performing at a high level, but the thing about sports is age is a detriment. As you get older, the game gets more difficult. It becomes more physically challenging. It's just biology. I obviously can't speak on behalf of Clemens, but I can't imagine that the need to stay relevant wasn't a driving factor.
And that's just it - the "need to stay relevant." So much of their identities are intrinsically tied into being an athlete and being THE best. So as they get older and as younger guys start to replace them, it must send many of them into a weird tailspin. They are losing a critical part of their own personal identity. Never mind the fame and fortune, never mind the competitiveness of the job market. It's built into their bones. They are athletes. If they can't perform, or if they aren't the best, they have no value.
It's a shame. I think it is a detriment to sports. And I think it's on all of us. We put so much focus and value onto sports, but why do we like them? Are we really only playing sports to win? Are we really only racing because we want to beat everybody in the world? Don't mistake me here, I like competitiveness. I am competitive too. In the end though, I am an "athlete" because I want to push myself. I don't want to be THE best. I want to be MY best. I didn't used to feel this way. I wanted to win. When my buddy beat me in the last Warrior Dash we did, I was annoyingly bummed out. When I run charity races with friends and I get beat by ten minutes, I got angry with myself. It took me a long time to realize that I'm not running because I want to beat everyone. Winning is great, but it isn't everything. In sports, there are literally just as many losers as winners. So why do we make it solely about winning?
I have to wonder our role in the usage of steroids in sports. I mean, think about this for a second. Before Armstrong started doping, he was riding the Tour de France. He was still winning a few stages here and there. Then he starts doping and he starts winning. Then, we put him on a pedestal and made him the most famous endurance athlete of all time. The responsibility is on Armstrong, of course. He shouldn't have taken to doping in the first place. Still, once he got there and saw the pot of gold on the other side of the rainbow that we so nicely placed there for him, one can only imagine the incentive to keep on doping.
Interestingly, we care more about Armstrong doping than we do about the sport of cycling itself. When track and field stars are caught doping, it's huge news and we tear them down as athletes. Then again, we don't actually care about their sport in general. What gives? We love them when they're great. We hate them when they're not. But there's nothing in between. As a football fan, I've always been struck by the difference in PED use given the sport. Armstrong is caught doping (like pretty much everyone in those Tours), we make a huge deal about it (and rightfully so). Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds use steroids, everyone hates them now. Meanwhile, Texans linebacker Brian Cushing is caught using steroids? Four game suspension and no one has jack to say about him. Richard Sherman is caught violating PED policy? Gets off on a technicality, people still praising his play. Shoot, Shawn Merriman was caught using steroids. Not only did he get just a four game suspension, but he finished third on the list for Defensive Player of the Year - the very same year! He cheated, and he was still praised! Armstrong cheats, Bonds cheats, Clemens cheats? Their achievements are completely torn down and disregarded.
So I understand that most people will completely disagree with my notion that we as sports fans are a little bit complicit in this problem. We glorify the professional athlete more than anything in the world. They are not just rich, they are our role models. They are the people we wish we could be. And we are so willing to pay whatever fee we must to watch them play. We can't possibly take a back seat to some responsibility in this mess. We are one of the driving factors. We are laying down a good amount of the pressure.
Can anyone blame Clemens or Bonds or Armstrong for cheating to get an edge? Can anyone blame Armstrong for turning into a thug and threatening people to defend his status? This is not saying that they're right to do so. This is simply saying - it makes sense. And perhaps it's time that in the midst of tearing down our heroes, maybe we start to examine WHY so many athletes are so willing to cheat.
Oh, one final note about Armstrong though. I actually don't care so much about the doping as much as I care about the threatening people and the brutish attitude he took to cover it all up. There are few sports that are dirtier than cycling. Maybe somebody knows the answer, but how far down the list of competitors do you have to go to find who really won those seven Tour de Frances? In '99, Alex Zulle finished second. Zulle has admitted to doping. From 2000 to 2006, he beat the "big names" of Jan Ullrich and Marco Pantani - both of whom have been involved in doping controversies. In 2002, while Ullrich was suspended, Joseba Beloki finished second - he was also implicated in a doping scandal.
So yes, Armstrong cheated to win the Tour de France, but he beat other cheaters. I'm curious how far down the line you have to go to find the first finisher of those Tours who has not been involved in doping.
I won't sit here and defend the doping. I'm not defending Armstrong's behavior as he tried to cover it all up. However, if I might ask an honest question: has anyone done more for the sport of cycling? Stay with me here because I understand this sounds crazy. Let me just ask, how many of us can name any other cyclist in the world? How many of us ever had any interested whatsoever in the Tour de France before Armstrong came on the scene? How many of us did he inspire to take up cycling or even just take anything up because hey, if this guy can survive cancer and even just complete a Tour de France, I can surely run that half marathon I've been thinking about?
Again, this is not a defense of Armstrong's cheating nor his behavior. I'm just suggesting that while we've been busy tearing the guy down (and based on his alleged behavior, rightfully so), let's try to remember at least some of the good. It's always interesting to me how we sports fans love to build up heroes, but we love to tear them down just as much (if not more.)
In 2002, participation in competitive cycling grew to a greater number than the year before. At that point, Armstrong had clearly asserted himself as the most famous cyclist perhaps of all time after winning his third straight Tour de France and bringing the Tour to a major television network. This trend of competitive cycling growth continued in the years to follow. From 2002 to 2008, the sport saw increased participation by 48%. The number of events rose by a full 50%. Cycling clubs had seen membership increase by 30% in that time frame. The largest jump in participation? You guessed it - it occurred within the seven year reign of Lance Armstrong. (The sport continued to grow after his "retirement," but the rate of growth decreased.)
So as we're tearing down Armstrong (and again, rightfully so), let's at least take a moment that for all the bad he's done, he has had some major positive effects. The sport of competitive cycling exploded in the United States almost solely because of Lance Armstrong. In the years to follow, other cyclists would step up and become known, but nowhere near the scale of Armstrong's status. Viewership of the Tour grew (especially in the US). Even the Olympic teams got more coverage than they ever would have had it not been for Armstrong. And because of his efforts in the Tour de France, his Livestrong campaign had raised millions of dollars. And again, in a country where we only really care about football, baseball, and basketball, how many professional cyclists can anyone today name? Never mind anyone in 2003. How many of you know who Scott Jurek is? He's perhaps the greatest endurance athlete of all time, but unless you're in the distance running club, you've probably never heard of him. These incredible athletic endeavors (be it riding the Tour de France or be it running 100 miles in the desert) are rarely focused on here. Armstrong transcended that.
Again, I'm just saying... Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Cycling fans should feel betrayed and incredibly disappointed that the greatest cyclist they have ever known turned out to be a cheating hack.
Here's where I start to run away from statistics and run more towards the realm of "feelings." When it comes to athletes cheating by doping or other steroids, do any of us really not understand why they do it? We cry foul so loudly when they are caught, yet we never seem willing to acknowledge that to dope actually makes a lot of sense. It's not right, I don't condone it, but I completely understand it.
See, here's my critique of sports culture: we constantly demand to BE the best. We need to win in order to validate our worth as athletes. We MUST win, otherwise we are losers. Professional athletes have to do this more than anyone given that if they don't win, their careers are cut short. They will literally lose their livelihood if they aren't actually THE best.
We sports fans? We're applying a ridiculous amount of pressure. It's often brought up how we seem to value a guy who can throw a ball in a basket more than we value doctors or teachers. Financially, that seems pretty true. We value entertainment perhaps a little more than we should (this, of course, not meant to undermine the value of entertainment).
There was a really interesting article in the Miami Herald the other day about all of the crazy things Jason Taylor had done to stay on the field despite some fairly major injuries for the Miami Dolphins and Washington Redskins. He injured his foot, so they gave him a shot to numb the pain so he could go back in and play. Then, because he couldn't feel the pain, he wound up doing MORE damage to his foot! When he hurt his back, he went to the locker room, took a painful shot in the back, then went back out there. He ultimately wound up missing over a month of football because he wound up having a herniated disk. He even had an issue with his calf that if he had not listened to the famed sports doctor James Andrews (of recent RGIII fame) to have a particular operation, he literally would have had that leg amputated! Yet Taylor was extremely reluctant to be operated on given that would mean he would have to sit out for a few weeks. In one story he told, the only comfortable way for him to fall asleep was standing up leaning against a wall.
And he wasn't complaining at all. To him, it was completely worth it to play in the National Football League. This guy has completely destroyed his body. He's taken more drugs than a race horse in order to play through injuries. As a result, he's wound up hurting himself more. But to him and to almost every single professional athlete - it's completely worth it for the privilege of playing sports professionally.
The draw to being a professional athlete is great. The fame and fortune that comes with it is extremely enticing. But it's also an extremely limited window. The average NFL career is 3.5 years, for example. Even when you factor in the misrepresentations of this number (it includes players who did not make opening day rosters), the average NFL career is six years. This is actually pretty similar to the average NBA career which is just about six years. This is also pretty similar to the average MLB career, which is 5.6 years.
If you're dedicated, you can become a professional athlete, but to stay a professional athlete is a completely different thing. Sure, maybe you win all sorts of lotteries and become the next Brett Favre or Kobe Bryant or Cal Ripken Jr. The odds are not very high though. So, if you're lucky enough to become a professional athlete, you're probably waking up every day feeling a little bit insecure about your job.
Think about that for a second: the average career of the three major sports in this country is about six years. Most of these players are coming fresh out of college. They're between ages 18 and 22. If you enter the NFL or Major Leagues at age 22, you're likely done with your career by age 28. Maybe you can squeeze out an extra two years.
So the appeal to be a professional athlete is already great because of the fame and the money. Then you add in the already great deal of pressure given just how competitive that job market is? How does it not make sense for athletes to start trying to get an edge using steroids? And how many "falls from grace" do we need before we understand this?
Take Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Or take Lance Armstrong even. You've already got all of the pressure in the world to keep your status on the team. But these guys are built up as heroes. People looked up to Clemens and Armstrong. You've also got Armstrong trying to build up the Livestrong Foundation more and more, it only makes sense that he would fight to protect that. (Again, not defending his behavior, I'm just saying it makes all the sense in the world that he'd so vehemently fight back even to defend a lie.) It's hard to imagine that Clemens, accused of taking steroids when he got to the Yankees, wasn't thinking of protecting his career. He had been in the league for 15 years at that point (more than twice the league average). He was still performing at a high level, but the thing about sports is age is a detriment. As you get older, the game gets more difficult. It becomes more physically challenging. It's just biology. I obviously can't speak on behalf of Clemens, but I can't imagine that the need to stay relevant wasn't a driving factor.
And that's just it - the "need to stay relevant." So much of their identities are intrinsically tied into being an athlete and being THE best. So as they get older and as younger guys start to replace them, it must send many of them into a weird tailspin. They are losing a critical part of their own personal identity. Never mind the fame and fortune, never mind the competitiveness of the job market. It's built into their bones. They are athletes. If they can't perform, or if they aren't the best, they have no value.
It's a shame. I think it is a detriment to sports. And I think it's on all of us. We put so much focus and value onto sports, but why do we like them? Are we really only playing sports to win? Are we really only racing because we want to beat everybody in the world? Don't mistake me here, I like competitiveness. I am competitive too. In the end though, I am an "athlete" because I want to push myself. I don't want to be THE best. I want to be MY best. I didn't used to feel this way. I wanted to win. When my buddy beat me in the last Warrior Dash we did, I was annoyingly bummed out. When I run charity races with friends and I get beat by ten minutes, I got angry with myself. It took me a long time to realize that I'm not running because I want to beat everyone. Winning is great, but it isn't everything. In sports, there are literally just as many losers as winners. So why do we make it solely about winning?
I have to wonder our role in the usage of steroids in sports. I mean, think about this for a second. Before Armstrong started doping, he was riding the Tour de France. He was still winning a few stages here and there. Then he starts doping and he starts winning. Then, we put him on a pedestal and made him the most famous endurance athlete of all time. The responsibility is on Armstrong, of course. He shouldn't have taken to doping in the first place. Still, once he got there and saw the pot of gold on the other side of the rainbow that we so nicely placed there for him, one can only imagine the incentive to keep on doping.
Interestingly, we care more about Armstrong doping than we do about the sport of cycling itself. When track and field stars are caught doping, it's huge news and we tear them down as athletes. Then again, we don't actually care about their sport in general. What gives? We love them when they're great. We hate them when they're not. But there's nothing in between. As a football fan, I've always been struck by the difference in PED use given the sport. Armstrong is caught doping (like pretty much everyone in those Tours), we make a huge deal about it (and rightfully so). Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds use steroids, everyone hates them now. Meanwhile, Texans linebacker Brian Cushing is caught using steroids? Four game suspension and no one has jack to say about him. Richard Sherman is caught violating PED policy? Gets off on a technicality, people still praising his play. Shoot, Shawn Merriman was caught using steroids. Not only did he get just a four game suspension, but he finished third on the list for Defensive Player of the Year - the very same year! He cheated, and he was still praised! Armstrong cheats, Bonds cheats, Clemens cheats? Their achievements are completely torn down and disregarded.
So I understand that most people will completely disagree with my notion that we as sports fans are a little bit complicit in this problem. We glorify the professional athlete more than anything in the world. They are not just rich, they are our role models. They are the people we wish we could be. And we are so willing to pay whatever fee we must to watch them play. We can't possibly take a back seat to some responsibility in this mess. We are one of the driving factors. We are laying down a good amount of the pressure.
Can anyone blame Clemens or Bonds or Armstrong for cheating to get an edge? Can anyone blame Armstrong for turning into a thug and threatening people to defend his status? This is not saying that they're right to do so. This is simply saying - it makes sense. And perhaps it's time that in the midst of tearing down our heroes, maybe we start to examine WHY so many athletes are so willing to cheat.
Oh, one final note about Armstrong though. I actually don't care so much about the doping as much as I care about the threatening people and the brutish attitude he took to cover it all up. There are few sports that are dirtier than cycling. Maybe somebody knows the answer, but how far down the list of competitors do you have to go to find who really won those seven Tour de Frances? In '99, Alex Zulle finished second. Zulle has admitted to doping. From 2000 to 2006, he beat the "big names" of Jan Ullrich and Marco Pantani - both of whom have been involved in doping controversies. In 2002, while Ullrich was suspended, Joseba Beloki finished second - he was also implicated in a doping scandal.
So yes, Armstrong cheated to win the Tour de France, but he beat other cheaters. I'm curious how far down the line you have to go to find the first finisher of those Tours who has not been involved in doping.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)