More Super Bowl talk

I don't think anyone would disagree that this was at least a somewhat "down" year in the NFL. There were no dominant teams like, oh, say last year's Patriots. I'm impressed with Pittsburgh's ability to come out of games with wins, but they haven't shown anything terribly impressive all year (with the individual exception, perhaps, of defensive maniac Troy Polamalu). The Cardinals have been less impressive, with an unexpected playoff burst necessary to put them in their current position. Not that I'm trying to take anything away from these two teams. I'm happy for both of them. They've both accomplished what's necessary to make it to the biggest game of the year. Therefore, they deserve it.

I plan to make a Super Bowl prediction, complete with scores and everything. I won't do that tonight, but I will tip my hand a little. If you read below that I'll be cheering for the Cardinals, and if you've come to realize how terribly optimistic I tend to be, it should come as no shock at all that I'm going to predict Arizona over Pittsburgh. I guess it just comes down to the fact that I believe Arizona's defense is good enough to stop the not-so-fantastic-on-the-offensive-side-of-the-ball Steelers (though the Pitt O has looked much better throughout the playoffs, and is perfectly capable of big numbers), and I also believe that Arizona's offense is good enough to score 24+ points against the Steelers defense. I know that Pittsburgh's defense is the most hyped-up unit in this game, but Edgerrin James can play well enough to make the Steelers keep Polamalu in the box more than they want to. Also, Kurt Warner is mentally tough and more of a Super Bowl veteran than most people at his position. He doesn't make enough mistakes for the usually suffocating defense of the black & gold to make the difference they usually do.

If you've got preliminary thoughts, I'd love to hear them. You might help keep me from making a fool of myself with my prediction.

Jones and Super Bowl week

Jerry Jones, as we all know, likes the spotlight. He has a history of making big announcements during Super Bowl week, so that he can put himself at the top of the headlines. I'm only pointing this out so that you're ready in case we hear about Wade Philips being fired or T.O. being let go at some point in the coming days.

Countdown: 13 days

In 43 Super Bowls, this will be Pittsburgh's 7th appearance. That's almost one appearance every six years since the Super Bowl began.

In 43 Super Bowls, this will be Arizona's 1st appearance. That's about one appearance every 43 years since the Super Bowl began.

I like the Steelers. I really do. I think that they have an incredible organization that continues to compete every year. I like many of their players. Both Big Ben and Troy Polamalu come to mind. I like that their team is made up of good players who together form a great team. On ESPN radio this morning Colin Cowherd called them the "anti-Cowboys," because their owner is invisible, and they're built around guards and tackles outward, whereas the owner of the Cowboys is extremely visible, and the team is built around egos and individuals rather than a team mentality.

Still, when I don't really care in games like this, I almost always go for the underdog. That's why I'll be cheering for the Arizona Cardinals in a couple of weeks. I like Kurt Warner. I think he's not just a great football player, but a great human being. Also, after watching the Arizona-Philadelphia game on Sunday, I have become convinced that Larry Fitzgerald might be the league's greatest wide receiver. The guy's fantastic. He can catch anything.

Also, no offense to Eagles fans, but I love that Philadelphia lost. I've been listening on the radio and reading on the internet and hearing Eagles fans all over the place talking about why they wanted Baltimore to beat Pittsburgh because they thought that'd be an easier Super Bowl matchup. Now I just have to say, "HA!" Your team's not going to the Super Bowl. Something about counting chickens before they hatch comes to mind...

First drive

I'll say this about the magical Jim Johnson defense of the Eagles: It didn't show up one bit for that first Cardinals drive. 80 yards on 9 plays. Edgerrin James couldn't be stopped, and Larry Fitzgerald looked good.

Hmmmm.....

Picks

If I were betting on today's games, I'd take the Eagles and Steelers.

The teams that I hope win are the Cardinals and Ravens.

Open letter to Kerry Byrne

This is a response to Kerry Byrne's article Playoff System Ruined by 2002 Realignment. (in other words, if you haven't read it, not all of this will make sense to you)

Mr. Byrne,

My response to your article can be summed up simply: That's why they play the game.

In your entire two-page article, I deciphered only one team in the NFL's history who missed out on the playoffs despite having the best record (or being tied for the best record, I guess) in football: the 1967 Colts. I agree that the best teams don't always get to play in the postseason, but entering the last week of the regular season, those Colts knew that if they lost to the Rams, they'd be out of the playoffs. There's a solution to the problem of them not getting in: win. The NFL's current system may not be perfect, and it's true that since the realignment in 2002 there have been an unusually large number of "historic anomalies," but within the system the solution is to win.

Yes, the Eagles and Cardinals are both 9-win teams, but they're both 2-0 in the playoffs, and the teams they've beaten include the 1-seed Giants and the 2-seed Panthers. In many ways you make it sound like we should've crowned last year's Patriots after their 16-0 season. The Giants were a 6-seed! They had no business being there! But guess what. They won. When it mattered. And right now a few of the teams with the best regular-season records (Giants, Titans, Panthers) are in the same position as the 0-16 Lions: Sitting at home and watching the rest of the post-season -- only the Lions have a higher draft pick.

In short, the year's World Champions aren't necessarily the league's best team (no one would argue that last year's best team was the Patriots), but rather the team who wins when it matters. That's why I'm not bothered at all to see two 9-win teams in the NFC Championship. If the Giants have a problem with it, they should have beaten Philadelphia. And if a 9-win team wins the Super Bowl, anybody who has a problem with it should have taken their arguments to the field.

A Cardinals article that should make you smile

I read this article by Joe Posnanski a few minutes ago and it made me laugh. It also made me want to cheer for the Cardinals in their game against the Eagles this week.

My favorite part of the article (which is about the Cards being a different Cards team than we're used to) was this:

"Before this year's beautiful and stunning playoff run, the Arizona Cardinals (and St. Louis Football Cardinals, and Chicago Cardinals) had won precisely one playoff game in 60 years. How about that? For six decades, the Cardinals had more hometowns than playoff wins -- and it wasn't close."

Four things I think I think

I think I might be changing my mind a little about NFL's overtime rules. Maybe a change should be made, but I don't agree with most of the propositions out there. It seems to me that the only real fair change would be to add more time to the game. Don't switch any other rules, just add time. The problem then becomes how much time. A whole extra 15-minute quarter? I shy away from that idea because that adds at least 45 minutes to an already 3-3.5 hour game. But if you go with less time (5 or 8 minutes?) then the first team with the ball could run out most, if not all, of the clock before the other team gets the ball, and we're back to the initial problem.

I think that quarterbacks and kickers are football players too, and both rules and referees are too easy on them. When tackling a running back or receiver, the defender is allowed to tackle them as hard as they want, but for quarterbacks we have rules like "in the grasp" and "don't throw the QB down against the turf too hard or you'll get penalized." I understand that the idea is to protect quarterbacks, but like I mentioned above, quarterbacks are still football players. You should be able to treat them just like you'd treat any other offensive player holding the ball, and you should be able to tackle them just as hard, and with just the same amount of force. Quarterbacks shouldn't be able to avoid getting hit by sliding on the ground either. The same goes for punters and kickers. I see all of these 40-year old pot-belly guys with one lone bar serving as their "facemask" who can get away with being 40 and fat because they do almost nothing physical in the game. That's okay, I guess, and I don't think changing the rules a little bit would alter the fact that the oldest NFL players would still be kickers... but just because a punter falls over at any sign of a stiff breeze shouldn't mean that their team should get an automatic first down.

I think that it's unfair that an offense gets the ball at the 1-yard line if defensive pass interference is called in the endzone. Such a rule basically assumes a catch by the receiver, and in my opinion you're getting into some murky waters when you start assuming success. I do think the defense should be penalized, but automatically placing the ball at the 1 is a bit much. It should be 15 yards from the line of scrimmage, and maybe an automatic first down. The way rule is currently, a lousy QB could launch the ball toward a lousy receiver, and if the defense interferes (a stupid thing to do, I'll grant you), the offense gets first and goal from the 1? I just don't like it.

I think it's funny that the NFC representative in the Super Bowl will either be a 9-7 team (the Cardinals) or a 9-6-1 team (the Eagles).

Utah Utes for National Champs

As far as I can remember, this will be the first post on this blog that strays from the description above. It's not about the Cowboys, and it's not about the NFL. It is, however, about football.

I just read Rick Reilly's most recent Life of Reilly column on ESPN.com, and I completely agree with him. His argument is that Utah should be this year's college football national champions, regardless of the outcome of tonight's BCS Championship game.

Now I don't follow college football very closely, and I understand the arguments about Utah being in a "weaker conference" than the other contenders for the national championship. Still, the Mountain West this year was pretty tough. As Reilly points out, Utah defeated four ranked teams this year. They also absolutely clobbered Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. No one else. NO ONE ELSE went undefeated. I know that sometimes there are college teams that go undefeated in the regular season and people think they're worthy of a BCS title game appearance, and then they get beat in a different BCS bowl because even though they were undefeated, their competition had been so-so (I think I'm remembering a recent Hawaii team... but again, I don't really follow college football). That wasn't the case with Utah this year. And even if it was, it irritates me to think that you've got a team full of kids who didn't lose once. NOT ONCE. And still they'll end the season ranked third or fourth or fifth. What more can you ask of the kids on that team? If you win every game you play and still don't have a shot at a national title, I'm not a big fan of the system. You can argue all you want on some abstract grounds that Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, USC, and others are better football teams, and that they might beat Utah... but that argument just doesn't hold enough water with me. Why? Because all of those teams -- wait for it -- LOST. Maybe they lost to a great team. Maybe they lost a close one. Maybe they shouldn't have lost except for that one crappy play. But they lost. Utah didn't. Crown 'em.

coaching

As Peter King reported to Bob Costas, it looks like Jerry Jones really will stick with Wade Phillips for next season, and after that there will likely be some coaching giants available for Jones to consider. For the 2010 season it looks like Mike Shanahan, Mike Holmgren, and Bill Cowher will all be options, and Tony Dungy is a "maybe." Interesting note: that season's Super Bowl will be held in the Cowboys' new stadium. Could the home team be playing there?

the commenters

After reading articles on ESPN.com and SI.com, I often end up skimming a few of the comments left by readers at the bottom. I wish I didn't, but I get sucked in. I find it really quite amusing. Everyone who posts on those stories is a trash-talker. No matter what the article is about, the comments are about whose team is better. Everyone's team is "the best in football" and everyone else's is terrible and should fire everyone. It's so dramatic. It's so stupid. No one makes intelligent comments. No one knows how to spell, how to use punctuation, or how to form a simple sentence. There's a really small part of me that wants to post about how stupid everyone is for posting, and how stupid everyone is not just for posting, but for the contents of their posts... but then I realize that I'd be just like them. Just by reading the posts I'm closer than I'm comfortable with.

Shanahan?

So Jerry Jones has apparently remained steadfast in his decision not to fire Wade Phillips, but I'm hearing (technically, reading) increased chatter about the possibility of former Broncos coach Mike Shanahan finding his way to Dallas. It looks like that possibility will almost certainly have to wait until 2010, though. Shanahan has suggested that unless he gets a "perfect" opportunity somewhere, he'll sit out for a season. Wade Phillips will be in the last year of his contract this season, so maybe...

If I controlled the universe (meaning: If I were Jerry Jones), I'd let [Cowboys' offensive coordinator] Jason Garrett take a head coaching position somewhere (ironically, Denver is talking to him regarding just that), demote Wade Phillips to defensive coordinator (where he belongs... he doesn't have the mentality of a head coach, in my  humble opinion), and hire Shanahan. Additionally, I'd BACK OFF. The reason why it's still hard for me to see Shanahan working for Jones is that Shanahan had pretty much sovereign control over his Broncos for 14 years. He ran the team. He was the GM and head coach. Jerry Jones is not the kind of owner to cede that much power to anyone. He wants his fingers in everything. He wants to be the negotiator of trades, and the final say on draft picks. I'm not sure the two would jell.

Your thoughts?

Funny story

This morning on the way to church we were listening to ESPN Radio (we're not heathens). I heard a really really funny story that I will now relate.

They played a clip from a recent Mike & Mike in the Morning radio show where Mike Greenberg told the story. He was in the bathroom with Mike Schlereth and the two were carrying on a conversation when Schlereth stepped up to the urinal to "do what you go to the urinal to do." Greeny said, "You're a tough guy, Schlereth. What's it like to be tough? How does it feel?" Schlereth proceeded to unfasten his pants, and drop his pants and his underwear down to his ankles. They were in a public restroom where anyone might just walk in. Schlereth responded, "See that? No one will say a word. That's what it's like to be tough."

I laughed really really hard.

I have read a lot over the last few days about the current NFL playoff system and it seems that many people think a change needs to be made. The controversy surrounds whether or not division winners should get automatic home playoff games. This conversation grows mostly out of the fact that the 12-4 Colts, a wildcard team, have to visit the 8-8 Chargers, the AFC West champs, for tonight's game. Similarly, the 11-5 Falcons (wildcard) have to travel to Arizona to face the 9-7 Cardinals (NFC West champs).

The headline article on sportsillustrated.com yesterday and today is by Peter King, who argues that while division winners should get automatic playoff bids, teams should be seeded by their record.

I'd love to hear more thoughts on this topic. What are your opinions? I won't leave you in the dark about mine: I like the way it is. If you want a home playoff game, win your division. Period. If you're lucky enough to be in the crappy NFC or AFC West, you just might finish the season with a so-so record and a division championship. That's life. Indianapolis won't complain. They'll just fly to San Diego (for the second time this season) and beat the Chargers (for the second time this season) because they're the better team.

Tell me what you think.

2009 opponents

Although the "whens" of next season haven't been determined yet, all of the "whos" have. In case you're unfamiliar with the scheduling rationale, here's a quick explanation. The current setup makes it so that every team plays every other team at least once every four years, and plays in every stadium at least once every eight. Each year all of the teams in a given division play all the teams in one other same-conference division, and one other different-conference division. Those eight games, plus the six games in their own division make up 14 games. The last two are played against teams in each of the two remaining same-conference divisions who finished at the same place in their division. If that's all confusing, our example of the Cowboys should help sort it out.

Next season the Cowboys will play their regular division schedule (2 each against the Eagles, Giants, and Redskins) which totals 6 games. They'll also play the NFC South (Panthers, Saints, Falcons, Buccaneers) for 4 more. They'll play the AFC West (Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs, Raiders) for 4 more, which brings us to 14. Finally, they'll play the Seahawks and the Packers (each team, like the Cowboys, finishing this season third in their respective divisions). Does that make sense?

In addition to all of this, we know where Dallas will play these games.

The Cowboys will play home (in their brand new stadium) games against the Eagles, Redskins, Giants (as usual), Falcons, Panthers, Seahawks, Raiders, and chargers. They'll play away games at Eagles, Redskins, Giants (as usual), Saints, Buccaneers, Packers, Chiefs, and Broncos.

(In case you didn't catch that last team, I'll specifically point out that Dallas will play right here in Denver next season. I plan to try very hard to get tickets to that game).

That's all I wanted to say.