Sorry. This isn't really about the game at all.

I was just thinking: I really want Tony Dungy's job. Unless I'm completely missing something. I wonder how many hours the guy puts in a week. Dungy is one of the Football Night in America crew members. Every week, the show goes on the air at 5 pm (Mountain Time) and Dungy, along with Dan Patrick, and Rodney Harrison (with a little Peter King, Mike Florio, and Bob Costas thrown in) briefly break down the week's games. The show is largely highlights from all the games throughout the day, with Dungy and Harrison making a comment or two for each game, and then they take 2 or 3 games and break them down in a little more detail, describing some of the key plays.

Then at 6:20 Cris Colinsworth and Al Michaels take over for the Sunday Night game. Dungy's back at halftime for a brief opinion on how the game's going, then he shows up again after the game for a couple of comments about it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Tony Dungy. He's way smarter about football than I am, but I could make at least as many intelligent comments as him in 1.5 hours of work.

So from my vantage point, it looks like all he really has to do is make sure and scan the football headlines every day so he knows if a huge trade went down or if a key player is injured. Then, he just shows up at 30 Rockefeller Center in NYC on Sunday and watches every game (or even just the RedZone channel) with a few other football experts, then makes some on-air comments, then watches the Sunday Night game to make a few more on-air comments. It really doesn't seem like outside of Sunday he needs to work more than about an hour a week!

Am I taking too much away from Dungy? Do you think he scours film for 15 hours a day during the season? I dunno. I just think it'd be a dream job. Spend the week with family, volunteering, doing ministry and mentoring (or what have you), and then Sunday is GAME DAY and you just have to watch games and talk about them. And get paid handsomely. Nice.

'Boys over Colts?

Five of ESPN's eight NFL "experts" who pick the winners for every game each week have picked the Cowboys to defeat the Colts in Indianapolis tomorrow afternoon. Are they smokin' some kind of weird drug, or do the 'Boys really have a shot? Your thoughts?

My thoughts - sure, they have a shot, but wouldn't pick them if I worked for ESPN. Manning and the Colts are desperate. They NEED a win. I think they'll get it. Dallas might keep it close, though.

The Playoff Machine

Check THIS out. ESPN has come up with an NFL "Playoff Machine." You start by choosing a criteria (home team, away team, power rankings, win %, offensive rank, or defensive rank). The "machine" then automatically determines the outcomes of every NFL game for the rest of the season based on what you selected, and shows you a complete playoff picture based on what those results would produce. Of course, none of those criteria would be completely accurate, so you can view all the games week-by-week and change any individual game you think would turn out differently than the criteria you chose... and the playoff picture updates automatically! It's SUPER cool. Maybe the niftiest thing I've ever seen on the web relating to sports.

Playoffs and Seeds

This post has pretty much nothing to do with the Cowboys in particular. It's about the NFL playoffs as a whole.

Right now the co-leaders of the NFC West (Seattle and St. Louis) are 5-6. The two teams playing right now (in the century's WORST EVER prime-time NFL game), San Francisco and Arizona, are both 3-7, and as ESPN's website puts it, the winner of this game is "very much alive" in the division's race. It's entirely conceivable that the winner of the NFC West could end the regular season with losing record (7-9), or (at best?) .500 (8-8).

If you didn't know, the NFL takes 6 playoff teams from each conference: The winner of each of the four divisions, plus two wildcards. That means that if St. Louis wins the West with a 7-9 record, they would make the playoffs -- possibly over a 10- or even 11-win team.

Furthermore, the NFL's seeding rules automatically make the four division winners the top four seeds (regardless of record). Division winners, therefore, automatically get at least their first playoff game at home.

Every couple of years an 8-8 team will make the playoffs and people start to wonder whether the NFL's playoff rules make the most sense. Some say that the top 6 teams in a conference should make the playoffs, even if that means not every division is represented. I don't think I would have a problem with such a rule, because I hate to see 11-5 teams miss the playoffs. Perhaps before this measure is taken, however, the NFL should just try to alter how they set playoff seeds. I see no reason why a division winner should automatically get to host a playoff game. Let's say the Saints win out (not an unbelievable notion), and the Falcons lose only to the Saints in Week 16. Both those teams finish 13-3. One wins the division (based on tiebreakers) and the NFC's #1 seed (which means a playoff bye, and home field throughout). The other 13-3 team has to play AT St. Louis, who is 5 or 6 games WORSE! Does that at all seem right?

In other words, you could be the fourth-worst team in the league and still get to host a playoff game. You could also be the second-best team in the league and still have to play a road playoff game as a wildcard. I guess in my opinion, if you want the regular season to really mean something, you should be rewarding teams who perform better during the regular season. It also seems like this would all but ensure that the best teams remain in the playoffs longer, which should be the goal of any sport's post-season (it's why the #1 seed plays the #16 seed in round 1 of March Madness).

Anybody object? Or have a better solution? Do you favor the "change the seeding" idea, or would you go for the "top 6 teams regardless of division" idea instead?

a few tidbits

I watched the second half of the Cowboys' 33-20 win over the Giants today, so maybe now I can offer some thoughts.

First of all, I'll say that Dallas looked like a completely different team today than they did for their first 8 games. There was an energy and emotion that we haven't seen since their playoff win over the Eagles last year. I don't know if Jason Garrett was THE reason for this, but was certainly one of them. I can't help but wonder if Jerry Jones is kicking himself for not making a change a few weeks earlier -- when the team still had an outside playoff chance. I kind of got a kick out of the fact that Garrett didn't seem to be able to wipe a small grin off his face during the last few minutes of the game or any of his post-game interviews.

If the ONLY thing that changes with the Jason Garrett era is that the Cowboys' huge plays stand instead of being called back for stupid penalties, that should be enough to make Dallas a competitor. That happened today. I saw big play after big play, and almost felt shocked that after each one there weren't yellow flags flying. In fact, in a couple of the cases I can think of where flags did fly, they were penalties against the Giants!

Prior to today's game, every analyst I heard said that the only bright spot for the 'Boys this season was the play of rookie Dez Bryant. Well, that bright spot just got brighter tonight. Bryant had some big plays. Also, Miles Austin had a big touchdown, Felix Jones had a 71-yard touchdown on a perfectly executed screen pass, and Roy Williams caught at least one BIG pass to convert a 3rd and long in the 3rd quarter. Rather than just laying down when the Giants started to look like they were going to make a comeback in the 3rd, the team kept playing hard, and Alan Ball got a huge interception late in the game to make it more difficult for the G-men to try and put together a win.

In all of those big pass plays I mentioned in the above paragraph, we should also mention that Jon Kitna was the one making those throws. He had well over 300 yards in today's game and didn't get sacked once (unless I completely missed something). Against the "feared" pass-rush of the Giants, the fact that the Cowboys O-line was able to protect the largely immobile Kitna for a whole game is pretty impressive.

I'm still not convinced I want Jason Garrett in the head coach's parking space when next season rolls around, but I suppose he's audition for us fans as much as he is for owner Jerry Jones. It's nice not to have to feel ashamed of the team I cheer for quite as badly this week.

Per Jase's request

I just got a text message from my little brother asking me to post a half-time update of the Cowboys' game against the Giants today. He's curious about my thoughts thus far. So here they are:

I haven't seen any of the game. I was in the car driving early in the 2nd quarter when the Cowboys were ahead 9-3. Then I heard updates every time someone scored. I got home with about a minute left in the 1st half. I found someone streaming the game on justin.tv (since it's not on TV here), and I caught the pick-6 highlight, and that is IT. So, I have no thoughts, but I wanted to appease Jase. I guess all I can say is, it seems like the defense is playing quite well ever since the defensive coordinator (/head coach) got fired. Maybe we should have thought of this a long time ago...

I don't get it

Someone needs to educate me with regard to the firing of Wade Phillips. Every talking head I've heard in the last couple of weeks (including brilliant guys I love like Al Michaels and Tony Dungy) say that even though he should be fired, Jones really can't do it for one or more of the following reasons:

1) History tells us that replacing the coach midseason doesn't do a whole lot of good.
2) There's no one on the staff ready to take his place.
3) The Collective Bargaining Agreement means that Jones can't really bring in a big gun (Cowher, Gruden) because he might end up having to pay the guy millions to sit around during a lockout next season.

I don't get it.

Both 1) and 2) above assume that the team still thinks they can somehow succeed this year, and/or that whoever replaces Phillips right now has to come back next year. I understand that that's not a recipe for success, but look at it this way: THIS SEASON IS OVER!!! It doesn't matter if the team wins 0, 1, or 5 more games this year, they're done for. Bring in Daffy Duck to coach the remainder of the season if you want. It doesn't matter. At least you'd be making some kind of a statement about not putting up with a Marshmallow Coach. You don't have to bring in Gruden now. Wait until February. Just get Wade out of there.

Of course, as I've said before, Wade's not the real problem. Jerry is. The caveat to the "making a statement" argument in the above paragraph is that it's already too late for a statement really to be made. As soon as you put up with a coach who won't expect excellence out of his players, you've made the wrong kind of statement, and it can't be undone.

I had an elementary school teacher with a poster that hung from her desk that said, "An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." Wade Phillips has been a mistake for a couple of years now.

Prime Time

Well, kickoff of the Cowboys-Packers Sunday Night Football game is about 2 minutes away, so I'll make this quick.

There is no reason for anyone to think Dallas is going to win this game. My father-in-law texted my wife earlier saying, "Go Pack, Go." I like his sense of humor (he's a Packers fan). I know he's just ribbing us, and I don't mind a bit.

Especially since beating the Cowboys at this point would kind of be like beating Yeshiva University (West WIng reference, anyone?).

That's all I wanted to say. I'll be watching tonight because the SNF broadcast is the best of the week, regardless of who's playing. I'll obviously be rooting for my 'Boys, but won't be all that emotional if (when?) they start getting killed.

Five Reasons to Feel Better About This Season

My youngest brother, whom I don't get to hang out with nearly often enough, just sent me this. I think it's brilliant. Funny thing is, all of these reasons have crossed my mind in recent weeks, but I wasn't astute enough to jot them all down for your enjoyment. He did. Thanks, Jase. Enjoy the first ever Valley Ranch guest post. Here are...


Five Reasons to Feel Better About This Season

1. No Tivo, No problem

    If the Cowboys play on Monday night, and that happens to be the night you have a bible study in your house, you can rest assured, you're not missing much.

2. At least you're not the Bills.

    Okay, so maybe it'd be better to be the Bills.  No expectations means no disappointment. They might be better off for that reason. Which brings me to my next point...

3. No more disappointment.

    Since you've probably officially lost all expectations for the Cowboys, there's no need to be disappointed when they lose. And if they actually play as well as you expected at the beginning of the season, you'll be much more excited now that you would have been had they played that way all season.

4. Happier Playoffs

    No more disappointing playoff losses, they won't be around to lose at that point.

5. You've got company with Vikings fans.

    Sure, they have one more win, but their season has been nearly as disappointing.  We're not alone out there.

Jase Rohde

weird feeling

The Cowboys have always been my favorite football team. I never really had a favorite baseball team (though I've always loved baseball) until I began dating Elizabeth, at which point I became a die-hard St. Louis Cardinals fan. I also cheer for the Broncos and the Rockies (since I live in Denver), and the Vikings and the San Francisco Giants (since other members of my family cheer for those teams).

Neither of the two primary teams I cheer for have ever been awful (since I can remember, that is), but Dallas certainly is this year. A record of 1-5 isn't a so-so season. It's not even a season on track to be 5-11 like a few of the pre-Parcells years earlier in the decade. It's looking like 3-13 might be something to aim for, and that's the kind of record usually reserved for those OTHER teams who are never very good (Detroit, Buffalo, etc.).

So, this is kind of a weird feeling.

mad? nope

It's been suggested to me a couple of times already today that I should be "mad" about last night's game, but I don't really see why. I get mad when my team SHOULD win a game, but instead they blow it (usually at the end or in overtime) because of stupid mistakes. People who think I should be "mad" somehow must have thought that the Cowboys should have won last night, and I can't for the life of me figure out why.

You have a 1-4 team who has shown more creativity in the ways they lose games than any team I've ever seen. Then you have the Giants. While not an amazing team by any means, they have consistently played better than any other NFC team over the last 3 or 4 weeks - and they were CERTAINLY the better team on the field last night. Even after handing Dallas three early turnovers, giving them drives that started deep in Giants territory, AND allowing a 93-yard punt return for a touchdown, I didn't see anything either from the Dallas offense OR defense that suggested they ever stood a chance. In essence, you have a team (the Giants) who have looked "elite" (by this year's crappy NFC standards) playing against a team who have looked, well, 1-4 (even playing in this year's crappy NFC). I know a lot of analysts picked the 'Boys to win because their backs were against a wall, and sooner or later talent has to start winning, and all that other crap, but on paper there was no reason to think Dallas stood much of a chance. Add to that the fact that their pro-bowl quarterback was knocked out of the game by a hard (clean) hit early in the 2nd quarter, and I just don't see how I can be "mad" that the inevitable happened. It'd be like if I attempted to drive my not-so-reliable has-a-lot-of-problems '96 Jetta across the country and then it broke down before I got to my destination and it had to be towed. There's no reason to believe the Jetta can make that kind of trip, so why should I be surprised when it doesn't?

I guess it all comes down to something that's long fascinated me: Dallas is supposed to win on reputation alone. If any other team went into last night's game 1-4 and had looked like the Cowboys have looked this season, no one would bet on them. But Dallas is "America's Team" and they're successful a lot of the time, so based on the events of the last 50 years, they should win. Well, folks, the fact that Tom Landry was a really good coach for a really long time a million years ago unfortunately has little to say about the 2010 season.

Analogy

I just realized something. The Dallas Cowboys are just like the Obama administration. Neither has given us any hope that they can accomplish what they've set out to accomplish!

Didn't learn anything new

Well, the truth is, we didn't really learn anything we didn't already know on Sunday. I didn't get to watch the game, so anything I say about it is based on reading re-caps and analyses from others. Here are what seem to me to be the indisputable facts about the Cowboys: They're extremely talented. They're extremely undisciplined. They have a spineless coach and a puzzling offensive coordinator. They have an owner/general manager who is the best in the world at marketing his product. They have an owner/general manager who is the worst in the world when it comes to meddling in the coaching parts of his team.

I was, frankly, surprised at the hype this game generated in the later parts of last week. Everyone was talking about it as, for all practical purposes, a "playoff game," meaning whoever lost would be effectively out of the running for this year's postseason. I understand that angle, but I, quite simply, disagree. This was a game of mediocre-to-bad football teams. Of course, now the talk is that Minnesota is a win away from being back in the thick of the NFC North hunt. I understand that angle too, since we are talking about an extremely mediocre NFC this year. Still, the only way I would have been convinced that Sunday's winner could be a real playoff contender is if the winning team absolutely dominated its opponent and made a strong statement. Instead, as far as I can tell from reading lots and lots of NFL material, Dallas played as good or better than the Vikings in almost every phase of the game, but committed some very costly mistakes that all but handed Minnesota the win (consider that the Dallas defense gave up just 14 points [the field goal that came after Romo's late INT can hardly be held against them], and made Adrian Peterson and Percy Harvin look pedestrian at best).

Basically, I don't believe either of these teams has a deep playoff run in them. Sure, the Vikings are in much better shape. They're in what appears to be a weaker division, and 2-3 is lightyears ahead of 1-4. I just don't think beating the Cowboys by a field goal at home after having the ball thrown into your linebacker's hands should be considered "dominant," or a sign that a team has turned it around and is headed for a conference championship.

I read a blog post that reprinted some of the things Jerry Jones said on his weekly radio appearance this morning about the team. He apparently believes that the team is playing pretty well, that they're better than a 1-4 team, and that, at least in part, they're a victim of bad luck. I wish I could get ahold of whatever drug he's using. He also continues to express confidence in Wade Philips, and has even started talking like him.

Both Coach and Owner love to point out how good Dallas performs. They've outgained opponents in total offense by over 100 yards in every game so far this season (except the game they won). They talk about how they held Adrian Peterson to something like 2.4 yards per carry, and every other stat they can dream up that gives the appearance of a strong team. As this blogger pointed out, though, it's easy to outgain opponents when they have 3-4 drives per game that start inside Cowboys territory! Philips spoke last week about how they did a good job of keeping Vince Young in check against the Titans. Nevermind that the Titans began one of their drives at the Dallas 8 yardline. Damn endzone keeps getting in the way of the opposition gaining yards! Seriously, Wade and Jerry, if you're interested in using your team to gain points for your fantasy teams, more power to you, but if you'd like your team to WIN (that is, be ahead of the other team when time expires), you're going to have to make some changes. "We're doing fine, we're just a victim of bad luck" isn't going to cut it anymore.

There are obviously plenty of fans who want Wade Philips fired right now. I honestly don't care if it's done now or in January, as long as it's done.

The real problem isn't Wade, though. It's Jerry. Until he fires himself, or learns to shut his trap and stay in his plush owner's suite, not much will change. Firing Wade only does some good if his replacement is a hard-nosed disciplinarian -- but that's the kind of coach Jerry never seems interested in hiring.

If you haven't been able to tell, I've essentially given up on any hopes of a successful Cowboys season this year. Oh well. I'll still watch football every week, and I'll still love the game. In fact, as I type I'm getting giddy with excitement over the Cowboys being on Monday Night Football next week (home against the Giants). I've got a potato-skins recipe I've been wanting to try...

A well-done Ed Werder article, if you're interested

THIS is a spot-on story by ESPN's Ed Werder. He says the things I've been thinking/saying, but he does it more eloquently.

The jist is that Wade Phillips sucks at his job. Here's the best line:

If the Cowboys only play with ferocity and expertise when they sense they must for survival, Wade Phillips is failing to have his team meet its weekly challenge.

Are you kidding me?

I subscribe to a few different Cowboys-related blogs in my feed-reader, but I don't usually read much of what comes through. I often scan the headlines where I learn most of the important stuff. I'll read the occasional game re-cap article, and sometimes there are some very good analyses from different sports writers, but since there are often a couple of dozen posts per day about the Cowboys, I probably read about 1% of them.

I did happen to notice THIS post today, though, and I couldn't help asking, "Is this for real?" Apparently, when Randy Moss entered the NFL draft over 12 years ago there was a chance the Cowboys could pick him. They didn't. That seems to be considered a "snub," and Moss, reportedly, still plays with a little bit of a "chip on his shoulder" against the Cowboys because of it.

I can't believe this is actually something reporters are taking the time to comment on this week.

I guess the way I see it is that any player in any draft who isn't the #1 overall pick has been "snubbed" by someone. If you're the #5 overall pick, you've been snubbed by 4 teams, right? Technically, any player chosen in the second round or later has been snubbed by every team including his own. If Dallas had selected Moss with their second-round pick (I have no idea when Moss was chosen, by the way), they still would have "snubbed" him the first time around. Would he play with a chip on his shoulder then? For his own team? This is just a ridiculous notion to me. I don't have anything against Moss, either. I've seen stories like these about numerous other players. He's the topic today because he's the one I read about today. This just seems utterly silly to me. Anyone else?

Super Bowl contenders

My brother (one of two people who read this blog) asked me last night who I would predict to be in the Super Bowl after 5 weeks in the NFL. My response: Ravens and Falcons.

Obviously, a lot can change in the next twelve weeks, but right now I believe the Ravens look like the best team in the AFC, and nobody looks all that good in the NFC. The Falcons are the best NFC team almost by default.

Do you agree? Disagree?

Note: ESPN's power rankings this week have the New Orleans Saints at number 9. Through the first 5 weeks, the Saints had held either number 1 or 2, but this week's loss to the Cardinals made them tumble seven spots. Here the thing, though: The Saints' three wins have been against teams who are 1-13 combined. I don't know how they stayed at the top this long, and I would argue that number 9 is probably too high for them.

But, I don't want to turn into one of those commenters at whom I laugh each week because of how desperately they argue for and against a team's standings in the ESPN power rankings (which, as any sane person knows, has absolute NO value in determining who will actually win anything).

Never underestimate...

...the ineptitude of the Cowboys' coaching staff.

In his pre-game matchup blog post, ESPN's NFC East blogger, Matt Moseley gives an edge to one team or the other in multiple categories (e.g., when the Titans pass, when the Titans run, when the Cowboys pass, when the Cowboys run, etc.). The last category is "intangibles." Moseley gave the Cowboys the edge because they were coming off a bye week and had two weeks to prepare for Tennessee at home.

BUT, what Moseley forgot to take into account is that Dallas has the Marshmallow Man for a head coach, and a getting-more-worthless-by-the-week assistant head coach/offensive coordinator.

Certainly the coaches don't deserve the entirety of the blame for the Cowboys' inability to win a game against a beatable team at home when you're basically desperate. Mike Jenkins, for example, was called for multiple pass interference infractions, two of which came on the Titans' opening drive (which ended in a touchdown). Jenkins also gave up a deep pass to Kenny Brit in the third quarter. He looked like he didn't have a clue half the time -- not like the pro-bowler he's supposed to be. Also, the Cowboys had more penalty yards against them as a team than they'd had in four years (and for the Cowboys, that's saying something -- they've been one of the top two penalized teams in the league over the last couple of seasons).

There were moments of brilliance. Moments when the defense looked suffocating, and moments when the offense looked like Super Bowlers (Romo threw for over 400 yards, Austin averaged about 20 yards per catch, leaving him with over 160 yards receiving, Roy Williams had a pretty big game, making a few really great catches including a 2nd touchdown grab), but it wasn't enough.

I'll go back to what I've said before: When you have the talent that this team has, and they've only shown up for one out of their four games so far this season, and they come out after a bye week and can't handle a so-so team at home, you have MAJOR coaching issues. The players deserve their share of the blame for this loss, but until Wade Philips and his sidekick Jason Garrett are history, so are the Cowboys' Super Bowl hopes.

Oddly enough

At 1-2 the Cowboys, as many analysts have pointed out this week, are "sittin' pretty." Kinda weird, right? Look at how awful this division is! Each of the other teams in the East is 2-2. Many still consider Dallas to be in the best position to win the division. That's kind of a ridiculous thought. I mean, the 'Boys have played three games. In two of them they looked absolutely pathetic. In one of them, they looked decent (not fantastic). After a decent showing in only one game through four weeks of the NFL season, the Cowboys are still a favorite to win what used to be considered the toughest division in football.

Wow.

The Herd

I love to listen to Colin Cowherd on ESPN radio. His show is televised on ESPN-U every weekday morning, and since I've started to go to work later in the morning, I often get to watch some of his show (I'd listen to it on the way to work, but my '96 Jetta has LOTS of problems, and one of them is that the radio doesn't work).

Colin, in my opinion, is extremely intelligent and usually knows what he's talking about. Today he was talking about how he's not crazy about the Bears even though they're 2-0. This was in the context of talking about which NFL head coaching jobs would look good to him if he were Jon Gruden or Bill Cowher. He was saying that the Bears job looks good but it isn't. They don't have any top receivers, their quarterback's kind of a diva with a history of interceptions and pouting, their offensive line is weak, and the city itself is a brutal media market, etc. He took a phone call from a guy who asked him why he's so hard on the Bears and Colin told him it's because he doesn't think they're very good. Then the guy on the phone, who sounded a little angry (obviously a big Bears fan) asked, "What would the Bears have to do for you to like them?"

Colin's response made me laugh really hard. With a smirk he said, "They'd have to have the Packers' players!"

That's my whole story. (If you don't listen to Colin, you should.)

The Way I See It

Here are some of the biggest problem spots for Dallas, according to Yours Truly.

Offensive line: This was a major problem in Week 1 against Washington, but with a few normal starters returning from injury in Week 2, I thought they looked fine against Chicago, and will probably be fine for the rest of the season. The black eye of the unit has GOT to be Alex Barron who, as everyone knows, was quite the goat in Week 1. I think I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't think Barron was given a hard enough time after the Redskins game. Excuses were made about how he was supposed to have blocking help against Orakpo on the final play of the game, and since he didn't have it, he was forced to hold the defender because he was outmatched. Sorry, but that's a complete load of hogwash. Maybe he was supposed to have help, but that's no excuse. Watch a replay. He didn't even make the slightest attempt at doing his job the proper way on that play. The instant the ball was snapped he was in the process of wrapping his arms around Orakpo's neck in the most pathetic display I've ever seen from a professional football player.

Special Teams: How can David Buehler still be the starting kicker for the Cowboys? My mom could match his field goal accuracy (and, no offense, but she doesn't have a whole lot of place-kicking experience). And it's not really his fault. He was signed as a kick-off specialist. Last season he put just about every kickoff he had into the end zone. The poor kid never thought he'd be kicking field goals in high-pressure situations for the most spotlighted team on the planet. I don't understand, as a coach or an owner you can really believe that this guy is the right choice for that position. Nick Folk wasn't this bad (and he was pretty darn bad). I also just read that in the portion of Cowboys practice that was open to the media today, Buehler was 1-for-5 on field goal kicks.

Defensive Line: Where are you guys? Seriously. You showed up for a couple of series in the Chicago game, but then you disappeared. I think a big piece of this was the Cowboys coaching issues (keep reading), but there is no way through two games the Dallas defensive front should look as inept as it has.

Coaching/Owning(?): This is the bottom line. The play call that gave the Redskins their only touchdown in Week 1, the lack of effectiveness of the offense, the fact that one of the best defenses (and especially defensive lines) in the league has been largely irrelevant through two games, the fact that David Buehler is still the starting kicker  -- all of these things point to two people: Jason Garrett and Wade Phillips. I realize that there aren't 32 elite head coaches in the league right now, but think about teams with talent who should win, and do win. The teams that come to my mind are New Orleans, Indianapolis, New England, and Pittsburgh. Do these teams win every week? No, but they almost never lose two games in a row. Why? Because their coaches make losing very uncomfortable, and because their coaches make sure the team is both mentally and physically prepared to take the field every week. When a team is only consistent in its inconsistency (looking like maybe the best team in the league one week, and the worst the next -- though so far this season it's only been "worst"), it's the mark of coaches that cannot adequately prepare the team week in and week out.

A couple of pre-game thoughts

The Cowboys-Bears game starts in about 45 minutes, but I wanted to say a couple of things before the game gets underway.

First of all, a couple of Dallas' regular starting offensive lineman are back from injuries this week, so the O-line shouldn't be quite as pathetic as it was last week (though, unfortunately, Alex Barron is still probably going to play on occasional snaps).

Also, I just want to say that if Jason Garrett is as awful this week as he was last week with his play-calling, I'll be calling for his firing by this afternoon. When you have three extremely dynamic running backs who all have different styles, and who, according to the numbers, haven't really ever been shut down (when used appropriately), you HAVE to let them set the tone for your offense. That's all there is to it.

Finally, as far as I'm concerned, Jason Witten and Miles Austin could be the only two players on the field who Romo ever targets, and the team would probably have more success than trying to make sure we placate Roy Williams.

Anywho... (this is me ranting before the game. We'll see what happens afterwards.)

(not-so) Rapid Reaction on 'Boys-'Skins

Can you say "pathetic?"

The Redskins were, more or less, awful last night. Their offense scored six points on two field goals. The Cowboys, though, were awfulER. I'm not sure I've ever seen such a pathetic display. If I ran the world, I'd keep Miles Austin, Jason Witten, Marion Barber, Felix Jones, DeMarcus Ware, Mike Jenkins, and probably Keith Brooking (for leadership and energy). I'd trade everyone else for some players who seem interested in playing football.


But you wanna know the FIRST thing I'd do? Fire Alex Barron. I'd have fired him before he took his pads off. In fact, if I ran the world I'd have fired him early on in the game, and then the Cowboys would have won the game. Dallas had plenty of problems in this game, but make no mistake: Alex Barron was the most disgraceful excuse for a football player I think I've ever seen in my life.


I'd also like to point out how inept Jason Garrett seems to be at his job. He had one very good season. He was awarded with the highest salary of any assistant coach in the game. And since 2007? He's been mediocre at best. Downright awful at times.


What a frustrating opener for a Cowboys fan.

The predictions you've been waiting for...

I wrote this post on Friday night, but I forgot to post it until now. I'm only telling you this so that you know I had all this done before the season started (I know, the season started on Thursday, but my picks were all made on Wednesday... anyway, you just have to trust me, I guess).

My wife and I were having a fun NFL discussion during a recent long road trip, and we decided to make some predictions for the upcoming season, and then come up with a way to determine who "wins" (the contest being to be the most accurate in your predictions), and we came up with a prize for the winner.

We each had to predict the winners of all 8 NFL divisions, all 4 wildcard playoff teams, the 2 conference champions, and the Super Bowl champion (and its MVP). Here are my picks, along with my reasoning (and let's keep in mind that I am NOT an expert, and I'll obviously have a lot more to say about some choices than others):

AFC North: Ravens
The Ravens are a heck of a football team. Joe Flacco seems to be the real deal at quarterback. I made this pick largely based on looking at the rest of the division and asking myself, "who else?" The Bengals fizzled toward the end of last season, and I don't think T.O. is going to boost them into perennial playoff-hood. The Steelers ought to be pretty good, but you can read about them below in my wildcard selection.

AFC South: Colts
This one goes pretty much without saying. It's Peyton Manning, and the other three teams are the Titans, the Jaguars, and the Texans. 'Nuff said, right?

AFC East: Patriots
The Jets are the trendy pick right now. Everyone loves Darelle Revis, Mark Sanchez, and pretty much everything Rex Ryan does. They did end up being quite the success story last season, so it makes sense. Still, my money's on Tom Brady.

AFC West: Chargers
Chargers win here by default. I actually think all of the other teams in the West have improved since last year, but they'd all have to make quite the jump, and I don't see it happening.

AFC Wildcards: Steelers & Texans
Big Ben's 4-game suspension won't be costly enough to keep the Steelers out of the playoffs. And, as for the Texans, I think they finally  make it over the .500ish hump and put themselves in the playoffs. They've got a very good quarterback, and from what I hear, this Arian Foster guy could be something special.

NFC North: Packers
On Mike & Mike this morning I heard them say that Miami is still not over losing Dan Marino. Here in Denver we're still not over losing John Elway. But in Green Bay, Brett Favre is long gone. Not because he wasn't good, but because he was replaced right away with a very good quarterback who's only getting better. This was a tough pick (over Minnesota), but I think it's the right one.

NFC South: Saints
This was another tough pick (and if I'd made these predictions after their Thursday night debut against the Vikings I probably would've gone with Atlanta here). Even though they're the reigning Super Bowl champs, something about the Saints last season seemed very fluky to me. Don't get me wrong, they have an elite quarterback and a great coach, and plenty of other weapons on both sides of the ball. I just, for some reason, think that putting it all together for another season won't quite happen. They'll obviously be contenders for their division, though.

NFC East: Cowboys
Do me a favor. Scroll up and look at the title and subtitle of this blog. That's why I picked Dallas. Well, that and because I think they're the most promising team in the East. The Giants are an enigma. Washington, even if they improve by 4 games over last season (an incredible leap), they'll be 8-8 (and I'm just not sure McNabb and Shanahan are enough to make them good overnight). And the Eagles are another question mark because we can't be sure how Kevin Kolb will perform over a whole season. I dunno, it just seems like the 'Boys have the fewest weak spots by far.

NFC West: 49ers
Though the '9ers ought to be fairly decent, they'll be division winners because of the lack of competition in the West.

NFC Wildcards: Falcons & Giants
I like Matt Ryan, and I like where the Falcons have come in the last couple of years. They could win their division, but even if they don't, I think they'll make the playoffs. May even win a postseason game or two. The Giants, while sort of mysterious as I mentioned above, should still be pretty good. Much of these picks rest on one chance I'm taking though, which I ought to discuss now.

*A word on my choice not to put Minnesota in the playoffs: The Vikings are my second-favorite team, and I'll remain a huge Brett Favre fan forever. My decision here was based on ONE concern, and if I turn out to be wrong about it, everything changes. That concern is Brett Favre's health. I think that it is likely that the wear of the season on a 41-year old will be enough to make him miss a chunk of games at some point. If I'm right about that, the Vikings just aren't quite a playoff team. If I'm wrong about that, they could certainly win their division, the NFC, and even the Super Bowl. Last year I was unsure that Favre would be able to succeed for the whole season, and I was dead wrong. This year I'm unsure enough to pick against the Vikings (even though I'll be cheering for them every step of the way). We'll see if I'm dead wrong again. After all, this guy's an absolute force of nature.

AFC Champion: Colts
Yep, I picked them to repeat as AFC champs. I just don't see another team beating them out for it.

NFC Champion: Packers
Maybe I'm an Aaron Rodgers bandwagon jumper and I need to cool it a little bit. But I like the Pack this year.

Super Bowl Champion: Packers
I think Aaron Rodgers wins Super Bowl MVP and Peyton Manning loses his second Super Bowl in as many years. Weird prediction? Perhaps.

ESPN: You can do better.

"Bill Belichick said there is no other quarterback he'd rather have than Tom Brady"

That was an ESPN headline I just read. I don't know about you, but that seems like a pretty stupid story to me coming from the self-proclaimed (and accurately so) "World-Wide Leader in Sports."

I LOVE ESPN (it looks like I was yelling that sentence, but the word "love" is the only part of it that you wouldn't ordinarily expect to be capitalized). I love almost everything they do, but c'mon. Tom Brady is one of only four quarterbacks in the history of the sport to have three Super Bowl rings. He is without a doubt one of the best QBs not just of his era but of all time. His statistics are off the charts, and today he is signing the largest per-year contract any NFL player has ever EVER had. Doesn't the above headline pretty much go without saying? To me it'd be like a headline that reads, "Rahm Emanuel said there is no other president he'd rather have than Barack Obama." What other intriguing top stories do you have, ESPN? Is Sean Payton happy with Drew Brees? PLEASE LET US KNOW!!

Alright, sorry for the sarcasm. I just figured I need to get back into the habit of some regular writing on this blog. The season, after all, has already begun! Expect another post from me within the next 48 hours on some of my beginning-of-the-season thoughts. Thanks for your loyalty (both of you).

A guess

I'm absolutely not an expert (it takes no qualifications at all to set up a blog and write about a team or a sport). Nevertheless, I have a few initial impressions about the upcoming NFL season. Since I'm terrified about looking bad and being wrong, I'm going to play my cards close to my chest for now. I won't make a lot of predictions, but I will say this:

The three best teams in the NFC this season will be the Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings, and Dallas Cowboys (in no particular order).

Part of me thinks it won't even be close.

Maybe you'll get some more out of me over the next couple of weeks, prior to the beginning of the regular season.

Favre Fever!

Can we just be clear about one thing? Bret Favre did not retire and then un-retire this offseason, so to everyone who writes for sports magazines, tv shows, and websites, please STOP with the "...again" talk when we're discussing this issue. It's not retirement when someone sends a text message to friends. In fact, the only reports I ever heard about these mysterious text messages was that it said, "This is it." That's not retirement. Retirement is what Favre did before last season, and the one before where he scheduled a press conference and clearly told the world he was done. 


Anyway, that's my rant. It's ridiculous.


I feel like I'm the only one left on the planet (who's not a die-hard through and through Vikings fan) who really likes Bret Favre. Everyone else thinks he's only in it for the money (a complete joke), he's a prima donna (but they can't quite define that), and he's ruining his legacy (I still can't stop laughing about that one).


To everyone spouting this nonsense I just have to ask, Have you ever watched this guy play football in your life? Have you ever heard him give an interview to the press? Do you honestly think he's been insincere in his two retirements? You really think he was holding out this season for more money? And his legacy? I'm willing to bet that Favre couldn't give a rodent's posterior about his so-called legacy. He plays because he loves football. He plays the game with more passion and heart than anyone I've ever seen. He's 40 years old and he plays like a 6-year old who's just learning how much fun the sport is.

Regarding the legacy talk, look at his numbers. Favre is easily one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game. That's not going to change because someone says, "Yeah, but he was kind of a jerk to the Packers that one time." C'mon. Drop it already.


I grew up watching Favre and his Packers give my Cowboys all they could handle. I was never a fan of his team, but I find it impossible not to enjoy watching the man play. I'm glad he's coming back because he's fantastic to watch. I'd love it if he played until he was 80, because I'm not sure there will be another player in my lifetime who plays with his intensity and passion.

The Favre Saga

It's being reported that Brett Favre has decided to retire... again.

We obviously have reason to be skeptical about this, but I just want to say one thing at this point: If it's true and Favre really does retire for good, everyone who was optimistic about the Vikings this year will be disappointed. There is no way that Minnesota can match last year's NFC title game appearance with Tarvaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels at the helm. My prediction would be that they won't even make the playoffs (they certainly won't beat Green Bay for the division championship without Favre, so they'd have to be a wildcard, and that would be quite difficult).

I like the Vikings, but I don't see them having a very successful year without Favre. He was too good, and the so-called backups that Brad Childress laughingly has in place are too bad.

Your thoughts? Am I wrong about Jackson and/or Rosenfels?

Dez Bryant

It's been awhile. Sorry about that.

It's common for first-round picks who are expected to be superstars to "hold out" when training camps start as they try to work out the most lucrative deals they possibly can before finally signing with the team who drafted them. I always have a bitter taste in my mouth toward players like that.

The Cowboys drafted wide receiver Dez Bryant in the first round, and he's been fairly hyped-up. But instead of holding out, he's signing a contract this afternoon prior to the start of training camp tomorrow.

According to Jean-Jacques Taylor Bryant said, "This was my call. I told [agent] Eugene that I wanted to be in camp on time. I just want to play football. I told him to make it happen. I wasn't even all caught up with the money because this is just my first contract."

When asked about whether he was going to be a starter he said, "Don't get me wrong, I would love to start, but I don't care about it. I just want to earn my playing time and do whatever it takes to help this team."

Those are all the right answers from a first-round pick. Just thought I'd share.

not too early?

Todd McShay has already put together a mock draft for 2011. Further evidence that people are FAR too mock-crazy when it comes to the draft.

When I saw that story I threw up a little in my mouth.

The Draft

Let's be honest. You only care about the draft because the sports media tells you to.

For owners, GMs, and coaches, the draft is a HUGE deal that takes an insane amount of preparation, meetings, holding workouts, watching film, and much much more. It's extremely important that scouts and big-wigs for every team are being tremendously diligent in draft preparation.

But for fans? I can't figure out why we have any reason to care as much as we apparently do. I'm supposed to get all hyped-up about who the Cowboys are going to take with their #27 pick. Yes, it matters, but no one will have any idea how good of a pick it was for at least 2-3 years. Maybe longer.

Will Tebow go in the first round? It matters to him, because it will affect the amount of money he gets paid. It matters to me if the Cowboys pick him (they won't), because then he's on my team and I'll be cheering for him for at least the next few years. What round he's taken in makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to me.

Whether or not the Redskins draft a tackle or a quarterback makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to me at this point.

I haven't looked up stats on this, but there's gotta be something close to a 50% bust rate for 1st-rounders. Top-picked quarterbacks are awful or at least non-factors as often as not. Same with receivers and running backs. Maybe offensive tackles have a higher success rate, and that's definitely one of the most important positions on the field, do you really get amped up about which tackle your team might take? One of the best quarterbacks in the history of the game (Tom Brady) was chosen 199th, and wasn't listed on anyone's "mock" drafts.

I dunno. These are merely annoyed ramblings with (obviously) no real cohesive rhetorical strategy. And I'll probably watch at least a few minutes of the draft tonight and tomorrow. But I'm not going to jump up and down no matter who takes whom or when. I remember watching Cardinals fans at Radio City Music Hall going hogwild when Matt Leinart was chosen a few years ago. And what's he accomplished on the field so far? Very little. In fact, it was a guy nobody was too excited about (Kurt Warner) who led that team to a Super Bowl while Leinart sat on the bench. Eh.

New overtime format

I've been commissioned to write a post about my thoughts on the new overtime rules, even though I don't really have that many thoughts on the new overtime rules.

Last I'd heard the new rules have been accepted only for the postseason for this year (though I've also heard that it's not out of the question for them to be implemented for the regular season too).

The new format makes it more likely that both teams will touch the ball. If the first team to get the ball does NOT score a touchdown, the other team gets a possession. I don't know how better to explain further than to give examples of how the rule might work:
If Team 1 scores a touchdown, game over.
If Team 1 kicks a field goal, Team 2 gets a possession. If Team 2 scores a touchdown, they win, game over. If Team 2 ties it with a field goal, Team 1 gets the ball back and it's sudden death.
If Team 1 does not score, as soon as Team 2 takes a snap, it's sudden death.
If at any time Team 1 turns the ball over, it's also sudden death (so, if Team 2 returns an interception for a touchdown, Team 2 wins).

I like the shift. I don't know if it's the best "final solution" there could possibly be, but I definitely haven't heard of anything better. The new rules will require some more strategy than the old ones did. It used to be that as soon as a team got to about the opposing 30-yard line, they'd run the ball up the middle three times trying to down it in the center of the field to give their kicker the best look, and in order to minimize turnover possibilities. Now, teams will have to decide whether to play for the field goal (with the possibility that their defense gives up a touchdown and they lose), or try to score a touchdown to end it (with the possibility of coming up short, and making it so the other team only has to kick a field goal). You might see more coaches defer if they win the toss in overtime, believing that their defense can keep the other team out of the endzone, and then knowing whether they need a touchdown or a field goal of their own once they get the ball back.

The only objection I've really heard to the new rules is that apparently an NFL coach or two has complained because, essentially, "we've got enough to worry about without having to make these life or death decisions at the end." To which I of course say, "Wow. You've got it real rough, pulling down $4 million a year, and now on top of everything else you have to COACH your team in the final few minutes? Woe is you, woe is you."

So yeah. I definitely think it's a good start. I'll look forward to seeing how it all plays out.

Comments? Questions? Complaints? Joel, you're the one who wanted to read about this. Do you object to the new rules?

More Overtime and a Cold Weather Super Bowl

It's been awhile since I've written anything here. In fact, the last time I wrote there were 4 teams in the Super Bowl hunt. Now there's just one champion.

Today I want to address two main items: overtime, and the possibility of a Super Bowl being held in New York (technically New Jersey, I think, because the location in question would be Giants Stadium).

We'll do the New York [area] Super Bowl first, because I think it'll be shorter. I haven't really read much or followed a whole lot about this topic, other than to scan a headline here and there about New York wanting to host a Super Bowl, and many people being opposed to this idea. In case you hibernate each January/February you know that the Super Bowl is always played in either a domed stadium, or a warm-weather city. It's obvious that those locations are the only ones considered because the league apparently doesn't want weather to be a major factor in "The Big Game." If that's a deal-breaker for you, then New York would NOT be a good choice for the Super Bowl (it doesn't tend to be real balmy in the Meadowlands in early February).

For me, however, it's not a deal-breaker. I see absolutely nothing wrong with playing the Super Bowl in an outdoor cold-weather stadium. Weather's part of the game. Conference Championship games are routinely played in cold-weather cities (Foxboro, Philadelphia, New York, to name just a few of the possibilities) and those games are just two weeks before the Super Bowl (I doubt the average temperature and precipitation is dramatically different in those cities between mid- to late-January and early February). Also, we all remember how fabulous a game the Ice Bowl was when played in Green Bay with the temperature in the -100s (or something like that... I don't actually remember the game itself because I wouldn't be born for some 20 years afterwards). Good games can be played in bad weather. More importantly, good TEAMS can play well in bad weather. It seems to me that playing football in New York in early February is roughly equivalent to playing baseball in New York in early November, which just happened during the most recent World Series (baseball being a warm-weather game, football being a not-necessarily-warm-weather game).

I'd LOVE to hear YOUR thoughts on this matter. Maybe I'm missing some important information that would change my mind.

Next comes overtime. I'm pretty sure I've written on this before, and I don't mean to bore you. I just mainly feel the need to share some pet-peeves of mine when it comes to this discussion.

First of all, let me say that I've softened a bit on the matter. At the beginning of last season I probably would have told you that the NFL overtime rule doesn't need a single tweak. I'm pretty sure that my reasoning for thinking that way was a preemptive defensiveness to the possibility that a team would use the overtime rules as an excuse for why they lost a game, and I didn't like the thought of that happening. What would best articulate my thoughts would be this: You have to play within the current rule, and not use it as an excuse, so understand that the best quarterback in the world might not get a chance to play in OT if your team loses the coin flip and the defense can't get it done. That being said, if you rid your mind of the current model and were asked to come up with an overtime model, the current one is NOT what you'd come up with.

Much of what's swayed me about this stuff is the fact that special teams have changed a LOT since 36 years ago when the current model was implemented. Kickoffs have been moved back, so more kickoffs are being returned (rather than having touchbacks) and field goal kickers are more accurate. Rather than a team in overtime having to go 50-60 yards to get into field goal range, they now often have to go just 30-40. I don't know the perfect solution to this plan, but the change that the NFL Competition Committee is apparently going to look at this offseason would make it (instead of sudden death) the first team to 7 points that wins, which would encourage teams to go for a touchdown on their first possession rather than just playing for the field goal. That might be a decent start.

I promised that I'd share some pet-peeves about the debate about this topic, and I'm a man of my word, so here we go: Peter King is the reporter who I read most regularly when it comes to the NFL, and he writes more about overtime (he's adamantly opposed to the current system) than just about anyone else too. Therefore, he is the one that my two pet peeves are really directed toward.

First, Peter loves to ask his opponents (those who think the current system is fine), "If the coin flip isn't that important, why has almost every OT coin flip winner in history chosen to receive?" Honestly, Peter, as much as I respect your work and love your weekly NFL column, that's a ridiculously stupid question. The answer is, "Because it's more likely that your team will score on offense than it is that they'll score on defense." It's like asking, "Why do NBA teams try so hard to win the jump ball at the beginning of the game?" In football you don't have to have the ball to score, but even the best defenses in the history of football score less often than the worst offenses in the history of football. You choose to receive because that's how you get points. Duh.

Second, Peter likes to cite the statistic that almost 60% of overtime games since 1994 have been won by the coin flip winner. What's important, however, is how many coin flip winners have won on their first possession in overtime. The reason that's important is because Peter's ideal solution would be to change overtime so that each team gets one possession. At the start of the second team's possession, the game becomes sudden-death. Since coin flip winners win on their first possession somewhere around 34% of the time, that leaves about 26% of coin flip winners who win in overtime on their second possession or later -- exactly what Peter would like to see happen. If that doesn't make sense or you can't quite track what I'm saying because I'm unclear, let me put it this way and just ask for your trust a little bit (or you can ask me for clarification): Peter's real stat is 34%, but he cites 60% because it makes him sound overwhelmingly right. The stats aren't wrong, but he uses them misleadingly.

Still, as I mentioned above, I would be in support of a change to the overtime format, but I don't know what the best change might be. Please, feel free to offer your opinions, or to argue with me in the comments. Thanks for sticking with me through this long post.

A bit lengthy: Who I like this weekend

My co-workers can't figure out why I'm pro-Vikings in this weekend's NFC Championship game. I think that there are two reasons for their befuddlement. The first, and probably most obvious, is that they absolutely ripped apart my beloved Cowboys just a few days ago. You're supposed to be upset at the team that just trounced you for at least some sort of reasonable cooling off period (during the season that can usually last about a week... until you get a win, or you shift your ire to the next team that beat's yours, but it gets tougher when it's the loss that ends your season. Apparently in that case many believe that you must hate the team that knocked you out throughout the entire offseason). That reason doesn't apply to me I guess for a few reasons. First, every football fan understands that the likelihood of their team winning the Super Bowl in any given year is actually pretty slim. With 5 Lombardis, the Cowboys have won more (or as many) Super Bowls as any other team except Pittsburgh (6). The goal this season was to win a playoff game, which happened a week and a half ago in high-flying fashion with a rout of the despised Eagles. Obviously, the way the team had played of late created quite a bit of optimism in fans like me. They certainly seemed poised to go on and beat the Vikings and then the Saints and then whomever they faced in South Florida's Super Bowl. But the playoff win will have to do. Now I have a whole offseason to be optimistic about how good they'll be next year!

The other reason I'm in the Minnesota corner is because they're one of my favorite teams too! I love the Cowboys. I like the Broncos and cheer for them whenever they're not playing the Cowboys. I like the Vikings and cheer for them whenever they're not playing the Cowboys (in the event of a Vikings-Broncos matchup, I'd probably support the Broncos outwardly to my Denver friends, classmates, and co-workers, but I'd secretly be hoping for a Vikings victory). I also like Brett Favre. I know that he's waffled his way in and out of retirement (multiple times) and many think he weasled his way out of Green Bay, and last summer into Minnesota, but none of that really bothers me. He's a good guy who LOVES to play the game. If more 25-year olds played like they were little kids in the back yard again, maybe I wouldn't have to admire Favre so much for doing it himself at 40. There are plenty of other players on the Vikes to enjoy too (Jared Allen and Sidney Rice come to mind).

Those who don't understand my purple and gold loyalty this weekend also point to the Saints as the "sentimental favorite," and say that anyone who doesn't really have a horse in the race should be cheering for Drew Brees, the Saints, and the city of New Orleans because of what a Super Bowl would mean to the hurricane-devastated city. While I understand that sentiment, I find myself asking how many years post-Katrina we're expected to hope for a Saints Super Bowl? It's been, what, 4 years? I'm not trying to minimize the suffering of the people of the city or anything. I hope we're all still doing everything we can to care for the displaced families, and to help rebuild New Orleans and everything, but if it gets to be 2015 and the Saints still haven't won a Super Bowl, are they still the "sentimental favorite?" What about 2020? 2030? I guess I just think it could be argued that Brett Favre's story can be as sentimental as the Saints'.

Anywho... just my thinking.

(And in case you're wondering, I'd LOVE to see a Manning-Favre Super Bowl, and that's what I'll be cheering for.)

Africa

There's an episode of the BBC series Planet Earth in which a pride of lions takes down and eats a young elephant. Lions don't ordinarily attack elephants, but these lions were especially hungry. You'd think that an elephant might be able to hold his own against lions, but as soon as the hunt begins every viewer knows that it's just a matter of time before the ferocity and relentlessness of the lions expose how completely outmatched the elephant is. With fighting not an option, the elephant can only hope to run away... but he stands no chance.

That's what I felt like I was watching in yesterday's Cowboys-Vikings game.

Playoff report

For the third time this season, and the second time in 7 days, the Cowboys absolutely OWNED the Philadelphia Eagles to earn the team's first playoff victory since the 1996 season.

Saturday's game made me think that Jason Garrett really does have something of a clue. His offensive game plan was basically flawless. With an offense as multi-faceted as his is, the key seems to be MIX IT UP! And that's what he did. Felix Jones got the bulk of the carries, and he finished the game with close to 150 yards (averaging somewhere around TEN yards per rush -- not normal, but quite good). Tony Romo continued to look like an unflappable veteran, avoiding pressure from the Eagles' blitzing schemes (which came quite frequently). Roy Williams was even sighted a few times.

The defense was more of the same: smothering. McNabb was pressured all night long. I don't think he took too many sacks, but he was forced out of the pocket, forced into an intentional grounding call, and pretty much just didn't look like some elite playoff veteran quarterback.

Next comes the Minnesota Vikings. I must tread lightly here, because I have readers and family members who are Vikings fans. Fortunately for the family, we're all good-natured about football, and we like it when both the Vikes AND Cowboys do well... so I really think we'll all still be speaking to one another after this week's game.

All I'm going to say about Sunday's game is... it's a better matchup for the Cowboys than for the Vikings, in my opinion. Also, Minnesota's two offensive tackles are going to have their hands full trying to protect their (admittedly fantastic) 40-year old less-mobile-than-McNabb quarterback against the likes of DeMarcus Ware and Anthony Spencer; two of the most bloodthirsty defenders in the league over the last month. Brett Favre just might wake up sorer on Monday morning than he ever has.

I'd continue (and I might over the rest of the week), but I fear my youngest brother would physically attack me if I didn't post something soon.

The weekly Jake report

I'll try my hardest not to recount all the statistics from today's SHELLACKING of the Philadelphia Eagles (oh, how sweet it is). Suffice it to say, Dallas played well in just about every aspect of the game, and took an absolute pounding to what was, before today, the hottest team in the NFC. Back-to-back shutouts from the Dallas D? Perhaps Wade Philips DOES have a clue?

It's going to be a difficult task to try and beat the Eagles for the third time this season when they square off on Saturday night at Cowboys Stadium in the wildcard round of the playoffs, but if there's been a Cowboys team in the last decade that appeared poised to do it, it's this year's team. The defense has been absolutely stellar in recent games. The offense is as good as it's been all season. Miles Austin is, in a word, amazing. Tony Romo has been on fire since Thanksgiving. He's thrown two interceptions (one in each of his last two games), and neither of them were turned into points by the other team.

[Sidenote: In the end, an interception is an interception that rightfully goes against the quarterback, even when it's not his fault. Although that's true, often the nature of the interceptions can tell you a lot about the state of your team/offense/quarterback. The two that Romo has thrown since December began were both fluky, and not really his fault. The first one bounced off the hands of receiver Roy Williams (when a quarterback hits his receiver in the hands and suffers an INT as a result, how do you fault him?). The second, in todays' game against the Eagles, came when Eagles' defensive back Asante Samuel batted a thrown ball and then came down with it. Again, these shouldn't be minimized too much. BUT, the nature of these interceptions illustrate that the poor decision-making of Romo's past is (at least temporarily) long gone. These weren't INTs of immaturity, forced throws, or bad decisions. They were flukes. K, all done with my sidenote.]

In other FUN news, the Giants looked terrible and got absolutely spanked.

So, if Dallas beats Philadelphia for the third time this season and makes it through the wildcard round, they will then head to Minnesota to take on Brett Favre and the Vikings. I hope my family still likes each other after that (potential) matchup is over (those in my family who aren't primarily Cowboys fans are primarily Vikings fans). It'd be fun.