In his Rapid Reaction article for ESPN.com's NFC East blog, Calvin Watkins starts by saying that the Cowboys-Eagles game this afternoon "didn't mean much" because the Giants defeated the Jets in an earlier game. Watkins ends his article by pointing out that there are scenarios in which Dallas could clinch a playoff berth.
I've never been a huge fan of Watkins, but these two statements are putting me over the edge enough to directly address him.
First of all, there are NOT any possible scenarios in which Dallas can make the playoffs as a wild card. If the Cowboys win next week, they win the division, regardless of what else happens. If they lose OR tie next week, the Giants win the division, regardless of what else happens. Other non-division winners in the NFC have more wins than Dallas, so the Cowboys cannot catch them without winning (which would give them the division title). Watkins has apparently gone to the zoo.
Secondly, the Cowboys-Eagles game did mean something for the 'Boys, as Dan Graziano points out. If Dallas had won, they would still have had a shot at a wild card berth, with some help, in case they don't defeat the Giants next Sunday night. The team that was completely eliminated and had nothing to play for was the Eagles, yet Dallas couldn't even come close to competing against Philly for the second time this season.
Frankly, I was embarrassed by the fact that the Cowboys' coaching staff seemed not to care at all about today's game. The Cowboys' players didn't seem to care at all either. I would have thought that they would have some kind of chip on their shoulders after getting trounced a few weeks ago by these Eagles. Instead they got trounced again (it was uglier than the 20-7 score indicates). Although I am, by nature, an eternal optimist, I have no evidence to give you that I should feel good about the Cowboys' chances against the Giants in the win-or-go-home matchup in prime time next Sunday. I see no evidence that Dallas can pull of something impressive in the postseason even if they make it there. What a disappointment.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Playoff scenarios
This week's NFL games have helped the Cowboys. If you're curious how things shape up for their playoff chances, here are the basics:
The Cowboys' win last night in Tampa, coupled with the Giants getting smoked by the Redskins today in New Jersey puts the 'Boys in the best scenario they could've hoped for following last week's loss to the G-Men. The worst that can happen for Dallas now is for them to playing a win-and-you're-in game against the Giants in Week 17 (no matter what happens next week). The much more fun scenario, though, is if Dallas defeats Philadelphia next week while the Giants LOSE to the Jets. In that case, Dallas will have wrapped up the division even before the Week 17 rematch with the Giants.
So, whether the Giants win AND/OR the Cowboys lose next week, the Week 17 re-match will determine the NFC East champs. If the Cowboys win AND the Giants lose, the Cowboys win the East regardless of Week 17's outcome.
* There are scenarios in which the Eagles could still win the East, but they would have to win their last three games (including the one they're playing as I type against the Jets), and hope Dallas doesn't win Week 17.
** There are also scenarios in which the Cowboys could lose the division BUT still make the playoffs as a wild card, but those scenarios are fairly few, and Dallas would be on the outside looking in if they don't win the division.
The Cowboys' win last night in Tampa, coupled with the Giants getting smoked by the Redskins today in New Jersey puts the 'Boys in the best scenario they could've hoped for following last week's loss to the G-Men. The worst that can happen for Dallas now is for them to playing a win-and-you're-in game against the Giants in Week 17 (no matter what happens next week). The much more fun scenario, though, is if Dallas defeats Philadelphia next week while the Giants LOSE to the Jets. In that case, Dallas will have wrapped up the division even before the Week 17 rematch with the Giants.
So, whether the Giants win AND/OR the Cowboys lose next week, the Week 17 re-match will determine the NFC East champs. If the Cowboys win AND the Giants lose, the Cowboys win the East regardless of Week 17's outcome.
* There are scenarios in which the Eagles could still win the East, but they would have to win their last three games (including the one they're playing as I type against the Jets), and hope Dallas doesn't win Week 17.
** There are also scenarios in which the Cowboys could lose the division BUT still make the playoffs as a wild card, but those scenarios are fairly few, and Dallas would be on the outside looking in if they don't win the division.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
On James Harrison
Steelers linebacker James Harrison has been suspended for one game for a helmet-to-helmet hit he put on Browns QB Colt McCoy, which resulted in McCoy's concussion. If you've watched the NFL for more than 10 minutes, you know that Harrison has established this sort of reputation for himself, and this is not the first hit of this kind he's gotten in trouble for. In the past, though, he's just been fined. Now he's being suspended.
I've listened to Mike & Mike talk about this issue for a while this morning. They're pointing out how hard this situation must be for Harrison, who has basically admitted to trying and failing to "change the way he plays."
I just don't understand any sympathy for Harrison. For the record, I'm often upset at the way the league has started protecting quarterbacks. It seems that anything other than a gentle bear-hug tackle that slowly lowers the QB to the ground gets flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct, which is ridiculous. But I think we can all agree that helmet-to-helmet hits are extremely dangerous (many of them result in concussions). Harrison and his supporters like to paint him as an intense hard-hitting guy who shouldn't be expected to change what he's been doing since he was a little kid. I can only say this: Other players don't seem to have such a hard time. Harrison is not the only intense hard-hitting defender in the league. He just seems to be the only one incapable of adapting. Ray Lewis is every bit as feared by offenses. He doesn't have the same problems.
Sometimes when people say, "Well that's just who I am, I can't change," I think about what a friend of mine said a few years ago: "Yeah, I used to pick my nose too. I grew up." People do have inherent traits that they can't change (introverts are introverts, and that's that), but when everyone else seems to be able to grow and adapt, and one guy says he can't, he's not to be told, "ok, well in your case we'll let you continue to hurt people." If he truly can't play the right way, maybe it's time for James Harrison to retire.
I've listened to Mike & Mike talk about this issue for a while this morning. They're pointing out how hard this situation must be for Harrison, who has basically admitted to trying and failing to "change the way he plays."
I just don't understand any sympathy for Harrison. For the record, I'm often upset at the way the league has started protecting quarterbacks. It seems that anything other than a gentle bear-hug tackle that slowly lowers the QB to the ground gets flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct, which is ridiculous. But I think we can all agree that helmet-to-helmet hits are extremely dangerous (many of them result in concussions). Harrison and his supporters like to paint him as an intense hard-hitting guy who shouldn't be expected to change what he's been doing since he was a little kid. I can only say this: Other players don't seem to have such a hard time. Harrison is not the only intense hard-hitting defender in the league. He just seems to be the only one incapable of adapting. Ray Lewis is every bit as feared by offenses. He doesn't have the same problems.
Sometimes when people say, "Well that's just who I am, I can't change," I think about what a friend of mine said a few years ago: "Yeah, I used to pick my nose too. I grew up." People do have inherent traits that they can't change (introverts are introverts, and that's that), but when everyone else seems to be able to grow and adapt, and one guy says he can't, he's not to be told, "ok, well in your case we'll let you continue to hurt people." If he truly can't play the right way, maybe it's time for James Harrison to retire.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
A college football rant
The BCS National Championship game on January 9, 2012, will be between LSU and Alabama. Many fans are upset and believe that instead of Alabama, Oklahoma State should be LSU's opponent. The arguments basically go like this:
LSU is the country's best team, and everyone believes they belong in this game. They are undefeated, and have soundly whooped just about everyone they've played, except for when they played...
Alabama. That's right, LSU and Alabama have already played each other once this season. It was then that Alabama suffered its only loss of the year - a 9-6 overtime decision. Other than that one tough game, Alabama has pretty much smoked everyone they've played as well.
Oklahoma State is also a 1-loss team, killing most every opponent, but instead of losing to the best team in the country, their loss came against Iowa State.
I don't watch a lot of college football, and I don't really have a dog in this fight. Many believe that Alabama is somewhat clearly the #2 team, and so it makes sense for them to be playing for the BCS title. Others think Oklahoma State is that team that should face LSU in the championship. I understand the arguments for both sides. So why am I blogging about this?
Because yesterday (the day after the championship match-up was announced) I heard no less than SIX otherwise intelligent sports people make the one argument I simply will not listen to. Specifically, these people believe that the reason (in a few cases, the only reason) Oklahoma State should be in the championship instead of Alabama is because the BCS championship shouldn't be a re-match. That's it. That's the silver bullet to their argument. They say, "But what if Alabama wins? Then do they have to play again [because each team would have won a game against the other this season]? And if you believe that argument to be valid, please go back to 2nd grade and begin following sports again. In twenty years you may come back and apologize to me for being so stupid.
If you find the above argument compelling, then you must think that the 2007 Giants and the 2007 Patriots should have played one more game after the Super Bowl to see who the real champ is. And that situation happens fairly regularly. In the NFL, two divisional teams will often face each other in the postseason. What if the Giants beat the Cowboys twice this season, but Dallas makes it in as a wildcard and the two teams play each other in the first round of the playoffs. By your logic, they shouldn't play. No matter who wins, the Giants have won two games, so they should get an automatic bye past the 'Boys. You've got even more problems when it comes to baseball. Divisional teams in baseball square off some 18 times during the regular season! If the Brewers & Cardinals end up in the NLCS, does the winner of the regular season series automatically advance to the World Series? Or should they play it out?
I'll tip my hand. As far as I'm concerned, an OT loss to the undisputed #1 team is more impressive than a close loss to Iowa State (no offense meant, Jase. I like the 'Clones!). Even so, I'll listen to rational arguments about Oklahoma State (how they played a tougher schedule and had more impressive wins, etc.). I just won't listen to the re-match argument.
Sports isn't always about winning the most games (just ask the 18-1 2007 Patriots). It's usually about winning the right games.
LSU is the country's best team, and everyone believes they belong in this game. They are undefeated, and have soundly whooped just about everyone they've played, except for when they played...
Alabama. That's right, LSU and Alabama have already played each other once this season. It was then that Alabama suffered its only loss of the year - a 9-6 overtime decision. Other than that one tough game, Alabama has pretty much smoked everyone they've played as well.
Oklahoma State is also a 1-loss team, killing most every opponent, but instead of losing to the best team in the country, their loss came against Iowa State.
I don't watch a lot of college football, and I don't really have a dog in this fight. Many believe that Alabama is somewhat clearly the #2 team, and so it makes sense for them to be playing for the BCS title. Others think Oklahoma State is that team that should face LSU in the championship. I understand the arguments for both sides. So why am I blogging about this?
Because yesterday (the day after the championship match-up was announced) I heard no less than SIX otherwise intelligent sports people make the one argument I simply will not listen to. Specifically, these people believe that the reason (in a few cases, the only reason) Oklahoma State should be in the championship instead of Alabama is because the BCS championship shouldn't be a re-match. That's it. That's the silver bullet to their argument. They say, "But what if Alabama wins? Then do they have to play again [because each team would have won a game against the other this season]? And if you believe that argument to be valid, please go back to 2nd grade and begin following sports again. In twenty years you may come back and apologize to me for being so stupid.
If you find the above argument compelling, then you must think that the 2007 Giants and the 2007 Patriots should have played one more game after the Super Bowl to see who the real champ is. And that situation happens fairly regularly. In the NFL, two divisional teams will often face each other in the postseason. What if the Giants beat the Cowboys twice this season, but Dallas makes it in as a wildcard and the two teams play each other in the first round of the playoffs. By your logic, they shouldn't play. No matter who wins, the Giants have won two games, so they should get an automatic bye past the 'Boys. You've got even more problems when it comes to baseball. Divisional teams in baseball square off some 18 times during the regular season! If the Brewers & Cardinals end up in the NLCS, does the winner of the regular season series automatically advance to the World Series? Or should they play it out?
I'll tip my hand. As far as I'm concerned, an OT loss to the undisputed #1 team is more impressive than a close loss to Iowa State (no offense meant, Jase. I like the 'Clones!). Even so, I'll listen to rational arguments about Oklahoma State (how they played a tougher schedule and had more impressive wins, etc.). I just won't listen to the re-match argument.
Sports isn't always about winning the most games (just ask the 18-1 2007 Patriots). It's usually about winning the right games.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Tebow-mania
Listening to NFL analysts try to explain what's going on in Denver this season just makes me smile.
Conventional wisdom in the NFL says that the Tebow-style football that has taken root in the mile high city is unsustainable. On Mike & Mike this morning, both Mike Golic and guest Mark Schlereth said that Tim Tebow will NOT be a starting quarterback for any team in the league next season. In reference to that, Mike Greenberg said he finds that hard to believe. So Greeny asked Golic who the best QB is in the AFC this year. Tom Brady, obviously. Big Ben was next. After that, Golic started to have a hard time. He said that Matt Schaub in Houston would obviously be in that discussion, except he's now injured for the rest of the season. When he remembered that Andy Dalton is in the AFC, he listed him next. But after that, who else could you really put up there? Tebow has to be among the next names you consider. Fourth in the AFC? That's ridiculous.
But as Greeny pointed out, when it comes to Tebow, the entire evaluation process has to be reconsidered. After all, his Total QBR this season is 16th in the AFC (there are only 16 teams in the AFC). I don't know where he ranks in passer rating, but it's got to be awful. He completes just 45% of his passes. If you evaluate Tebow the way you evaluate other NFL QBs, he'd rank darn near last. But he's 5-1 (that's more wins this season than Philip Rivers, who's started 5 more games), with the same team that his predecessor played with when starting the season 1-4.
Here's how it seems to work: The Denver defense is playing spectacularly. Tebow's best moments come in the 4th quarter & overtime. When a defense keeps teams from scoring, you're always in the game, which means you're in position to pull out a win late -- when your limited QB shines brightest. Also, the Denver offensive line and running game are both playing incredibly well. Willis McGahee is running all over defenses, and for a quarterback, Tebow is too. When he does drop back to pass, Tebow has time (one of the most important ingredients needed for a young inexperienced quarterback to succeed). But, he doesn't drop back very often, which keeps good pass rush defenses from being disruptive. Also, Tebow doesn't turn the ball over. He's thrown 1 interception and had 0 fumbles in his 6 games. As one analyst put it, every Bronco drive ends in a kick. Either a punt, a field goal, or an extra point.
SO, the Broncos completely control the clock with their successful run game. They're perfectly content to run a draw play on 3rd & 11, gain 5 or 6 yards, and punt. The defense, which is almost always very well-rested because their offense can hold the ball for such large chunks of time, comes out and shuts down the opponent. The offense gets at it again. Eventually, the offense moves the chains enough times to get them into field goal range, and occasionally score a touchdown. Then, when we get to the 4th quarter, the game is close, and everyone on the team has confidence in the abilities of everyone else on the team. Tebow has some weird power when there's less than 8 minutes left, and he somehow manages to put together a scoring drive. Broncos win.
So is it all Tebow? Of course not. He'd never compete in a shootout -- a lesson Denver learned the hard way against Detroit in Tebow's second start (a 45-10 Lions blowout). Is it all defense? It's a big part defense, but a big part of the defense's success is because of Tebow's rare abilities on offense. Is it the offensive line and the run game? They're a huge part. And it's also Britton Colquitt (punter) and Matt Prater (kicker) who have performed their respective duties beautifully.
The real genius in all of this seems to be coach John Fox, who has completely altered the game plan of an NFL team on the fly in October and November. That is an unbelievably tough task.
Tebow does seem to get a little bit better in the passing game each week. Last Sunday he completed 50% of his passes for the first time. If he's hitting his ceiling as a passer, though, then he might be in for a rough career. The game plan of the Broncos this season is confounding everyone who's ever followed the sport. Maybe it will continue to work this season. Maybe the Broncos make the playoffs. Maybe they even win a playoff game. But in the future, it seems that if teams MUST follow the Bronco formula in order to win with Tebow, I just don't know if there will be many teams willing to revamp themselves like that for him. I hope the guy wins the Super Bowl, and everyone is forced to give him another chance next year to see what will become of all this. Just because no one's ever done it before doesn't make it impossible.
Conventional wisdom in the NFL says that the Tebow-style football that has taken root in the mile high city is unsustainable. On Mike & Mike this morning, both Mike Golic and guest Mark Schlereth said that Tim Tebow will NOT be a starting quarterback for any team in the league next season. In reference to that, Mike Greenberg said he finds that hard to believe. So Greeny asked Golic who the best QB is in the AFC this year. Tom Brady, obviously. Big Ben was next. After that, Golic started to have a hard time. He said that Matt Schaub in Houston would obviously be in that discussion, except he's now injured for the rest of the season. When he remembered that Andy Dalton is in the AFC, he listed him next. But after that, who else could you really put up there? Tebow has to be among the next names you consider. Fourth in the AFC? That's ridiculous.
But as Greeny pointed out, when it comes to Tebow, the entire evaluation process has to be reconsidered. After all, his Total QBR this season is 16th in the AFC (there are only 16 teams in the AFC). I don't know where he ranks in passer rating, but it's got to be awful. He completes just 45% of his passes. If you evaluate Tebow the way you evaluate other NFL QBs, he'd rank darn near last. But he's 5-1 (that's more wins this season than Philip Rivers, who's started 5 more games), with the same team that his predecessor played with when starting the season 1-4.
Here's how it seems to work: The Denver defense is playing spectacularly. Tebow's best moments come in the 4th quarter & overtime. When a defense keeps teams from scoring, you're always in the game, which means you're in position to pull out a win late -- when your limited QB shines brightest. Also, the Denver offensive line and running game are both playing incredibly well. Willis McGahee is running all over defenses, and for a quarterback, Tebow is too. When he does drop back to pass, Tebow has time (one of the most important ingredients needed for a young inexperienced quarterback to succeed). But, he doesn't drop back very often, which keeps good pass rush defenses from being disruptive. Also, Tebow doesn't turn the ball over. He's thrown 1 interception and had 0 fumbles in his 6 games. As one analyst put it, every Bronco drive ends in a kick. Either a punt, a field goal, or an extra point.
SO, the Broncos completely control the clock with their successful run game. They're perfectly content to run a draw play on 3rd & 11, gain 5 or 6 yards, and punt. The defense, which is almost always very well-rested because their offense can hold the ball for such large chunks of time, comes out and shuts down the opponent. The offense gets at it again. Eventually, the offense moves the chains enough times to get them into field goal range, and occasionally score a touchdown. Then, when we get to the 4th quarter, the game is close, and everyone on the team has confidence in the abilities of everyone else on the team. Tebow has some weird power when there's less than 8 minutes left, and he somehow manages to put together a scoring drive. Broncos win.
So is it all Tebow? Of course not. He'd never compete in a shootout -- a lesson Denver learned the hard way against Detroit in Tebow's second start (a 45-10 Lions blowout). Is it all defense? It's a big part defense, but a big part of the defense's success is because of Tebow's rare abilities on offense. Is it the offensive line and the run game? They're a huge part. And it's also Britton Colquitt (punter) and Matt Prater (kicker) who have performed their respective duties beautifully.
The real genius in all of this seems to be coach John Fox, who has completely altered the game plan of an NFL team on the fly in October and November. That is an unbelievably tough task.
Tebow does seem to get a little bit better in the passing game each week. Last Sunday he completed 50% of his passes for the first time. If he's hitting his ceiling as a passer, though, then he might be in for a rough career. The game plan of the Broncos this season is confounding everyone who's ever followed the sport. Maybe it will continue to work this season. Maybe the Broncos make the playoffs. Maybe they even win a playoff game. But in the future, it seems that if teams MUST follow the Bronco formula in order to win with Tebow, I just don't know if there will be many teams willing to revamp themselves like that for him. I hope the guy wins the Super Bowl, and everyone is forced to give him another chance next year to see what will become of all this. Just because no one's ever done it before doesn't make it impossible.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Cowboys could clinch the division as early as Dec. 11.
In case you're wondering, the Cowboys could actually clinch the NFC East in less than two weeks when they play the Giants. How? Well, if the Cowboys beat Arizona this week (as they should), and the Giants lose to the undefeated Packers this week (as they should), then Dallas would simply have to defeat the Giants on December 11. You can read a more detailed breakdown of how this would work HERE.
(Technically, if the Eagles win each of their next two games, the Cowboys won't have clinched the division on the 11th, but I don't see Philadelphia winning out, which is what they would have to do.)
(Technically, if the Eagles win each of their next two games, the Cowboys won't have clinched the division on the 11th, but I don't see Philadelphia winning out, which is what they would have to do.)
Monday, November 28, 2011
Jake's Take: Who I Cheer For
Maybe it goes without saying, but I thought I'd spell out for you how I decide which team I'm rooting for in any given NFL game:
1. Are the Cowboys one of the two teams involved in the game? Cheer for the Cowboys. Easy enough, right? If I could have ONE guaranteed win per week, it'd be Dallas every time.
2. Is there an NFC East team involved in the game? Cheer against the Eagles, Giants & Redskins. Every loss they suffer helps the 'Boys.
3. Are there TWO NFC East teams involved in the game? Cheer against whichever one is ahead in the standings. Again, the idea is to help the Cowboys' position in the division.
4. Are there any wild card contenders in the game? Cheer against them. If Dallas isn't going to win the East, we at least want them to get a wild card playoff spot, so it helps them if other contenders lose.
5. Is it an NFC matchup that includes NO NFC East teams, and NO wild card contenders? Root against the 49ers. Root for the Vikings. If neither the '9ers nor the Vikings are playing, I generally cheer for underdogs. But I should be clear that I also don't care very much about these games. I'll watch them if they're on, because I love football, but I really don't care who wins the Carolina-Seattle game.
6. Is it an AFC matchup? Substitute the above criteria with the Broncos as the team you wish to ultimately succeed. (That is, root against AFC West teams and other AFC wild card contenders.) After that, root against the Patriots & Steelers.
EXCEPTIONS: Let's say the New York Giants are 11-0, and basically have the NFC #1 seed locked up. The Cowboys are 7-4, with virtually no chance to win the division. The Eagles are 6-5 or 7-4. I'd be rooting for the Giants in a Giants-Eagles game, because an Eagles loss helps Dallas much more than a Giants loss does. This is in violation of #3, but I'm sure you can see why.
Cheering against the 49ers in #5 is a timeless, universal truth. I will never cheer for the '9ers, unless a San Francisco win will directly help the Cowboys' season. But, in #6 where I say to root against the Patriots & Steelers, that's mostly based on the recent successes of those teams. If, in 15 years, New England is at the bottom of the NFL food chain, I'll root for them as an underdog. I just tend to root against teams who have won a lot lately (which is why I also haven't liked New Orleans for a few years).
Lastly, sometimes I don't know who to cheer for early in the season, because everyone is still a contender in Week 4. At that point, I typically root FOR the following teams:
Cowboys, Broncos, (I've always liked these two, plus I live in Denver)
Vikings, Packers, (people close to me like these teams, so I've always had positive feelings toward them)
Falcons, Texans (no real reason, except that the Texans are perennial underdogs, and I like many of the Falcon players and their coach - these two are NOT timeless).
I typically root AGAINST the following teams:
Eagles, Giants, (because they're division rivals)
Redskins, 49ers (because they're hated rivals)
Saints, Patriots, Steelers, Colts, Chargers (because of relative success over the last decade)
Bears, (they just rub me the wrong way)
Raiders (their fans make me irate sometimes - they're just jerks)
Lions (at least this season - I'm not crazy about Jim Schwartz, and I never thought they were as good as everyone else did when they started 5-0).
Any team not mentioned in one of the two preceding categories means I don't have any positive or negative feelings whatsoever about them, and probably couldn't care less who wins.
Questions? Comments?
1. Are the Cowboys one of the two teams involved in the game? Cheer for the Cowboys. Easy enough, right? If I could have ONE guaranteed win per week, it'd be Dallas every time.
2. Is there an NFC East team involved in the game? Cheer against the Eagles, Giants & Redskins. Every loss they suffer helps the 'Boys.
3. Are there TWO NFC East teams involved in the game? Cheer against whichever one is ahead in the standings. Again, the idea is to help the Cowboys' position in the division.
4. Are there any wild card contenders in the game? Cheer against them. If Dallas isn't going to win the East, we at least want them to get a wild card playoff spot, so it helps them if other contenders lose.
5. Is it an NFC matchup that includes NO NFC East teams, and NO wild card contenders? Root against the 49ers. Root for the Vikings. If neither the '9ers nor the Vikings are playing, I generally cheer for underdogs. But I should be clear that I also don't care very much about these games. I'll watch them if they're on, because I love football, but I really don't care who wins the Carolina-Seattle game.
6. Is it an AFC matchup? Substitute the above criteria with the Broncos as the team you wish to ultimately succeed. (That is, root against AFC West teams and other AFC wild card contenders.) After that, root against the Patriots & Steelers.
EXCEPTIONS: Let's say the New York Giants are 11-0, and basically have the NFC #1 seed locked up. The Cowboys are 7-4, with virtually no chance to win the division. The Eagles are 6-5 or 7-4. I'd be rooting for the Giants in a Giants-Eagles game, because an Eagles loss helps Dallas much more than a Giants loss does. This is in violation of #3, but I'm sure you can see why.
Cheering against the 49ers in #5 is a timeless, universal truth. I will never cheer for the '9ers, unless a San Francisco win will directly help the Cowboys' season. But, in #6 where I say to root against the Patriots & Steelers, that's mostly based on the recent successes of those teams. If, in 15 years, New England is at the bottom of the NFL food chain, I'll root for them as an underdog. I just tend to root against teams who have won a lot lately (which is why I also haven't liked New Orleans for a few years).
Lastly, sometimes I don't know who to cheer for early in the season, because everyone is still a contender in Week 4. At that point, I typically root FOR the following teams:
Cowboys, Broncos, (I've always liked these two, plus I live in Denver)
Vikings, Packers, (people close to me like these teams, so I've always had positive feelings toward them)
Falcons, Texans (no real reason, except that the Texans are perennial underdogs, and I like many of the Falcon players and their coach - these two are NOT timeless).
I typically root AGAINST the following teams:
Eagles, Giants, (because they're division rivals)
Redskins, 49ers (because they're hated rivals)
Saints, Patriots, Steelers, Colts, Chargers (because of relative success over the last decade)
Bears, (they just rub me the wrong way)
Raiders (their fans make me irate sometimes - they're just jerks)
Lions (at least this season - I'm not crazy about Jim Schwartz, and I never thought they were as good as everyone else did when they started 5-0).
Any team not mentioned in one of the two preceding categories means I don't have any positive or negative feelings whatsoever about them, and probably couldn't care less who wins.
Questions? Comments?
Friday, November 25, 2011
Just a thought on Tebow
I completely understand the football-related controversy over Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow. Every football "expert" on the planet knows that the style of play adopted by the team since Tebow took over for Kyle Orton last month is unsustainable. That is, pretty soon NFL defenses will figure out Tebow's "option" based offense, and when they force him to beat them through the passing game, numbers suggest he is unlikely to succeed. On the other hand, Tebow's fans (of which there are plenty) continue to point out that the young QB "just wins." After a 1-4 start with Orton at the helm, Denver has gone 4-1 in the Tebow era. I'm sure there's at least an element of truth to the idea that Broncos football czar (and Denver legend) John Elway is annoyed at Tebow's success. As long as Tebow wins, Elway will feel pressure to keep him and play him as the starter, even if he knows (or at least strongly believes) that soon Tebow will stop being so successful, and Elway will have lost valuable time developing a long-term franchise quarterback.
Besides all of this mayhem, however, I have found it very enjoyable that Tebow has appeared in so many interviews lately (he is far more in the national public eye now that he's the starter). Every time I see or hear him being interviewed, I'm impressed. He constantly deflects praise first of all to Jesus Christ (Tebow's outspoken Christianity has made him a target of ire by many), and then to his family and his teammates. However, he doesn't do it in a way that makes it seem like Jesus is primarily concerned with Denver's wins & losses, nor in a way that sounds like it would be all Jesus' fault if Tebow were losing rather than winning. He's simply a humble guy who works his butt off and desires to further the name and kingdom of his savior.
Earlier this week, former Broncos quarterback Jake Plummer came down on Tebow for being so talkative about his faith, and Tebow's response was, in my opinion, very good. THIS article about the back-and-forth is well worth a read.
Besides all of this mayhem, however, I have found it very enjoyable that Tebow has appeared in so many interviews lately (he is far more in the national public eye now that he's the starter). Every time I see or hear him being interviewed, I'm impressed. He constantly deflects praise first of all to Jesus Christ (Tebow's outspoken Christianity has made him a target of ire by many), and then to his family and his teammates. However, he doesn't do it in a way that makes it seem like Jesus is primarily concerned with Denver's wins & losses, nor in a way that sounds like it would be all Jesus' fault if Tebow were losing rather than winning. He's simply a humble guy who works his butt off and desires to further the name and kingdom of his savior.
Earlier this week, former Broncos quarterback Jake Plummer came down on Tebow for being so talkative about his faith, and Tebow's response was, in my opinion, very good. THIS article about the back-and-forth is well worth a read.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
some simple observations
The Cowboys have had incredible talent each of the last 5 years or so. Yet they have a tendency to falter against bad teams. Since their 13-3 regular season in 2007, I can't think of a time when they've really put together a solid streak of wins. I think when that happens to good teams, it's usually a sign of a coach who can't properly prepare his team every week.
The next three games for Dallas are against the Redskins, Dolphins and Cardinals. The 'Boys should be significant favorites in all three. These are what are often called "trap" games, because teams sometimes have a tendency to overlook weak opponents and focus on tougher games down the road. I think the next three weeks is when we'll find out what Jason Garrett is made of. If he can keep his team playing focused football (like they have the last two weeks), Dallas will be 8-4 heading into a final stretch that includes the Giants twice, Eagles and Bucs. Even of those final four, Dallas should win at least two (they're far better than both Philly & Tampa), and I think they have the ability to beat the Giants one or both times they play. Meanwhile, New York faces a terribly tough schedule that includes road games against the Saints, Cowboys and Jets, and a home game against the Packers who will have had 10 days to prepare (following Green Bay's Thanksgiving Day game in Detroit). If the Giants lose even a couple of those, the 'Boys could very well win this division (as I've believed all along).
The next three games for Dallas are against the Redskins, Dolphins and Cardinals. The 'Boys should be significant favorites in all three. These are what are often called "trap" games, because teams sometimes have a tendency to overlook weak opponents and focus on tougher games down the road. I think the next three weeks is when we'll find out what Jason Garrett is made of. If he can keep his team playing focused football (like they have the last two weeks), Dallas will be 8-4 heading into a final stretch that includes the Giants twice, Eagles and Bucs. Even of those final four, Dallas should win at least two (they're far better than both Philly & Tampa), and I think they have the ability to beat the Giants one or both times they play. Meanwhile, New York faces a terribly tough schedule that includes road games against the Saints, Cowboys and Jets, and a home game against the Packers who will have had 10 days to prepare (following Green Bay's Thanksgiving Day game in Detroit). If the Giants lose even a couple of those, the 'Boys could very well win this division (as I've believed all along).
Monday, November 14, 2011
On Romo
I don't think Tony Romo is Tom Brady, and if you read this blog you'll find that I don't brag about Romo in general. BUT, I do want to point out that in my opinion it is at least dishonest, if not hypocritical, for ESPN pundits to tout their new Total QBR statistic as the most accurate and comprehensive measure of a QB's contribution to his team's success while at the same time talking about Tony Romo as a middle-of-the-pack mistake-maker who's far worse than Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning.
The network's self-adored numbers simply say otherwise. On the season, Romo ranks 4th behind only Aaron "and you never thought anyone could be better than Favre" Rodgers, Drew "perennially great and with a Super Bowl under his belt" Brees, and Tom "never breaks a sweat even while breaking records and winning 3 Super Bowls" Brady.
Just sayin'.
The network's self-adored numbers simply say otherwise. On the season, Romo ranks 4th behind only Aaron "and you never thought anyone could be better than Favre" Rodgers, Drew "perennially great and with a Super Bowl under his belt" Brees, and Tom "never breaks a sweat even while breaking records and winning 3 Super Bowls" Brady.
Just sayin'.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
A mid-season(ish) look at the playoff picture
Here's a brief analysis of every NFL team who has a legitimate shot at making the playoffs.
NFC
New York Giants (6-2)
Remaining schedule: @49ers, Eagles, @Saints, Packers, @Cowboys, Redskins, @Jets, Cowboys.
The Giants lead the NFC East, but the schedule from here on out is absolutely brutal. If the Giants continue to play as well as they have the last few weeks, they should be fine, but it's a tough road from here on out.
Dallas Cowboys (4-4)
Remaining schedule: Bills, @Redskins, Dolphins, @Cardinals, Giants, @Bucs, Eagles, @Giants.
If 10-6 is the magic number for making the playoffs, Dallas has to go at least 6-2 the rest of the way. Certainly possible, as their schedule softens significantly in the next month. Considering the Giants' schedule, the Cowboys could still win the division, but they'll have to play well week in and week out.
Philadelphia Eagles (3-5)
Remaining schedule: Cardinals, @Giants, Patriots, @Seahawks, @Dolphins, Jets, @Cowboys, Redskins.
I hesitated listing the Eagles as a team with a legitimate shot. They'll have to go 7-1 or better for the second half of the season, and even at that, they have head-to-head losses to the Giants, Falcons, and Bears (three teams that are ahead of them in any wild card race). I probably don't have to tell you this, but I love that the Eagles are in crappy post-season shape at the midway point.
Green Bay Packers (8-0)
Remaining schedule: Vikins, Bucs, @Lions, @Giants, Raiders, @Chiefs, Bears, Lions.
Not much to say about this team. They don't look invincible, but they look very good and they have to be your pick at this point to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.
Detroit Lions (6-2)
Remaining schedule: @Bears, Panthers, Packers, @Saints, Vikings, @Raiders, Chargers, @Packers.
I've never been a huge buyer of the Lions. They've still got two games against the Packers, and tough road games in Chicago and New Orleans. With a 6-2 start, they're in pretty good shape for a wild card.
Chicago Bears (5-3)
Remaining schedule: Lions, Chargers, @Raiders, Chiefs, @Broncos, Seahawks, @Packers, @Vikings.
I get the feeling that the Bears are a really good spoiler team (they can beat anyone on any given Sunday), but I'm not convinced they're a real playoff threat (they also tend to lose games they should win).
New Orleans Saints (6-3)
Remaining schedule: @Falcons, Giants, Lions, @Titans, @Vikings, Falcons, Panthers.
This team is very up and down. With the Falcons recently playing very well, the Saints will be in a dogfight for the division. This week's road trip to Atlanta could be very important when we start looking at a playoff picture.
Atlanta Falcons (5-3)
Remaining schedule: Saints, Titans, Vikings, @Texans, @Panthers, Jags, @Saints, Bucs.
Playing well recently, and a fairly soft remaining schedule makes me think they could win the South (which means my pre-season prediction was right!).
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (4-4)
Remaining schedule: Texans, @Packers, @Titans, Panthers, @Jags, Cowboys, @Panthers, @Falcons.
Definitely on the outside looking in in a division with teams as good as Atlanta and New Orleans ahead of them. Don't rule 'em out completely, though. They're feisty.
San Francisco 49ers (7-1)
Remaining schedule: Giants, Cardinals, @Ravens, Rams, @Cardinals, Steelers, @Seahawks, @Rams.
Frank Gore's a battering ram, and this team is looking great. They look even better playing in the woeful NFC West. They could very well wrap up the division title in the next week or two. The 9ers' only loss? My Cowboys. :)
My Predicted NFC Playoff Teams:
Cowboys, Packers, Saints, 49ers, Lions, Falcons
AFC
New England Patriots (5-3)
Remaining schedule: @Jets, Chiefs, @Eagles, Colts, @Redskins, @Broncos, Dolphins, Bills.
Right now, the Patriots don't look good enough to win a tough division like the AFC East. Then again, Buffalo hasn't looked that great lately either. This week's trip to MetLife should tell us a lot!
New York Jets (5-3)
Remaining schedule: Patriots, @Broncos, Bills, @Redskins, Chiefs, @Eagles, Giants, @Dolphins.
The Jets have played the best football in this division over the last few weeks. Since they've reached the AFC Championship two years running, I have no reason to think they can't do it again. Big test at home on Sunday, though.
Buffalo Bills (5-3)
Remaining schedule: @Cowboys, @Dolphins, @Jets, Titans, @Chargers, Dolphins, Broncos, @Patriots.
Even though the Bills are tied with New York and New England atop the division (and have a head-to-head win over the Pats), I feel like they're the worst of the three. However, they also have the easiest schedule over the last 8 weeks, so we'll see.
Cincinnati Bengals (6-2)
Remaining schedule: Steelers, @Ravens, Browns, @Steelers, Texans, @Rams, Cardinals, Ravens.
Surprised that Cincy is 6-2 and tied for the division lead? You should be. Andy Dalton has surprised everyone. BUT, you should also notice that they haven't yet played a single game against the long-time rulers of this division (Baltimore & Pittsburgh). Four straight division games upcoming; three against the Ravens, Steelers, Steelers; two of those are on the road. We're about to learn a lot about the Bengals.
Baltimore Ravens (6-2)
Remaining schedule: @Seahawks, Bengals, 49ers, @Browns, Colts, @Chargers, Browns, @Bengals.
Swept the division series against their perennial rivals the Steelers. That has them in good shape down the stretch. I'm seeing four " definitely should-wins" over the last 8, so if Baltimore can just split with Cincy and beat either San Francisco or San Diego, they'll have 12 wins.
Pittsburgh Steelers (6-3)
Remaining schedule: @Bengals, @Chiefs, Bengals, Browns, @49ers, Rams, @Browns.
Wouldn't surprise me if both AFC wild cards come from the North division. Tough to imagine the Steelers not making the playoffs.
Houston Texans (6-3)
Remaining schedule: @Bucs, @Jags, Falcons, @Bengals, Panthers, @Colts, Titans.
Gotta believe Houston will win this division. They're just better than Tennessee.
Tennessee Titans (4-4)
Remaining schedule: @Panthers, @Falcons, Bucs, @Bills, Saints, @Colts, Jags, @Texans.
They're still "legitimate" because they're only a game and a half back with 8 to play, but that doesn't mean I expect them to win the division... and definitely not a wild card.
Kansas City Chiefs (4-4)
Remaining schedule: Broncos, @Patriots, Steelers, @Bears, @Jets, Packers, Raiders, @Broncos.
San Diego Chargers (4-4)
Remaining schedule: Raiders, @Bears, Broncos, @Jags, Bills, Ravens, @Lions, @Raiders.
Oakland Raiders (4-4)
Remaining schedule: @Chargers, @Vikings, Bears, @Dolphins, @Packers, Lions, @Chiefs, Chargers.
Denver Broncos? (3-5)
Remaining schedule: @Chiefs, Jets, @Chargers, @Vikings, Bears, Patriots, @Bills, Chiefs.
Thought I'd write about the whole AFC West at once. Isn't it crazy that Denver, who's fairly awful, is only ONE game back from the division lead? It seems like every one of these teams is allergic to winning a division. San Diego should be leaps and bounds ahead of all three other teams, but they're not, so it's anyone's game. Doesn't really matter, though. Definitely looks like whoever wins this division will lose on wild card weekend.
My Predicted AFC Playoff Teams:
Jets, Ravens, Texans, Chargers, Bengals, Steelers
NFC
New York Giants (6-2)
Remaining schedule: @49ers, Eagles, @Saints, Packers, @Cowboys, Redskins, @Jets, Cowboys.
The Giants lead the NFC East, but the schedule from here on out is absolutely brutal. If the Giants continue to play as well as they have the last few weeks, they should be fine, but it's a tough road from here on out.
Dallas Cowboys (4-4)
Remaining schedule: Bills, @Redskins, Dolphins, @Cardinals, Giants, @Bucs, Eagles, @Giants.
If 10-6 is the magic number for making the playoffs, Dallas has to go at least 6-2 the rest of the way. Certainly possible, as their schedule softens significantly in the next month. Considering the Giants' schedule, the Cowboys could still win the division, but they'll have to play well week in and week out.
Philadelphia Eagles (3-5)
Remaining schedule: Cardinals, @Giants, Patriots, @Seahawks, @Dolphins, Jets, @Cowboys, Redskins.
I hesitated listing the Eagles as a team with a legitimate shot. They'll have to go 7-1 or better for the second half of the season, and even at that, they have head-to-head losses to the Giants, Falcons, and Bears (three teams that are ahead of them in any wild card race). I probably don't have to tell you this, but I love that the Eagles are in crappy post-season shape at the midway point.
Green Bay Packers (8-0)
Remaining schedule: Vikins, Bucs, @Lions, @Giants, Raiders, @Chiefs, Bears, Lions.
Not much to say about this team. They don't look invincible, but they look very good and they have to be your pick at this point to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.
Detroit Lions (6-2)
Remaining schedule: @Bears, Panthers, Packers, @Saints, Vikings, @Raiders, Chargers, @Packers.
I've never been a huge buyer of the Lions. They've still got two games against the Packers, and tough road games in Chicago and New Orleans. With a 6-2 start, they're in pretty good shape for a wild card.
Chicago Bears (5-3)
Remaining schedule: Lions, Chargers, @Raiders, Chiefs, @Broncos, Seahawks, @Packers, @Vikings.
I get the feeling that the Bears are a really good spoiler team (they can beat anyone on any given Sunday), but I'm not convinced they're a real playoff threat (they also tend to lose games they should win).
New Orleans Saints (6-3)
Remaining schedule: @Falcons, Giants, Lions, @Titans, @Vikings, Falcons, Panthers.
This team is very up and down. With the Falcons recently playing very well, the Saints will be in a dogfight for the division. This week's road trip to Atlanta could be very important when we start looking at a playoff picture.
Atlanta Falcons (5-3)
Remaining schedule: Saints, Titans, Vikings, @Texans, @Panthers, Jags, @Saints, Bucs.
Playing well recently, and a fairly soft remaining schedule makes me think they could win the South (which means my pre-season prediction was right!).
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (4-4)
Remaining schedule: Texans, @Packers, @Titans, Panthers, @Jags, Cowboys, @Panthers, @Falcons.
Definitely on the outside looking in in a division with teams as good as Atlanta and New Orleans ahead of them. Don't rule 'em out completely, though. They're feisty.
San Francisco 49ers (7-1)
Remaining schedule: Giants, Cardinals, @Ravens, Rams, @Cardinals, Steelers, @Seahawks, @Rams.
Frank Gore's a battering ram, and this team is looking great. They look even better playing in the woeful NFC West. They could very well wrap up the division title in the next week or two. The 9ers' only loss? My Cowboys. :)
My Predicted NFC Playoff Teams:
Cowboys, Packers, Saints, 49ers, Lions, Falcons
AFC
New England Patriots (5-3)
Remaining schedule: @Jets, Chiefs, @Eagles, Colts, @Redskins, @Broncos, Dolphins, Bills.
Right now, the Patriots don't look good enough to win a tough division like the AFC East. Then again, Buffalo hasn't looked that great lately either. This week's trip to MetLife should tell us a lot!
New York Jets (5-3)
Remaining schedule: Patriots, @Broncos, Bills, @Redskins, Chiefs, @Eagles, Giants, @Dolphins.
The Jets have played the best football in this division over the last few weeks. Since they've reached the AFC Championship two years running, I have no reason to think they can't do it again. Big test at home on Sunday, though.
Buffalo Bills (5-3)
Remaining schedule: @Cowboys, @Dolphins, @Jets, Titans, @Chargers, Dolphins, Broncos, @Patriots.
Even though the Bills are tied with New York and New England atop the division (and have a head-to-head win over the Pats), I feel like they're the worst of the three. However, they also have the easiest schedule over the last 8 weeks, so we'll see.
Cincinnati Bengals (6-2)
Remaining schedule: Steelers, @Ravens, Browns, @Steelers, Texans, @Rams, Cardinals, Ravens.
Surprised that Cincy is 6-2 and tied for the division lead? You should be. Andy Dalton has surprised everyone. BUT, you should also notice that they haven't yet played a single game against the long-time rulers of this division (Baltimore & Pittsburgh). Four straight division games upcoming; three against the Ravens, Steelers, Steelers; two of those are on the road. We're about to learn a lot about the Bengals.
Baltimore Ravens (6-2)
Remaining schedule: @Seahawks, Bengals, 49ers, @Browns, Colts, @Chargers, Browns, @Bengals.
Swept the division series against their perennial rivals the Steelers. That has them in good shape down the stretch. I'm seeing four " definitely should-wins" over the last 8, so if Baltimore can just split with Cincy and beat either San Francisco or San Diego, they'll have 12 wins.
Pittsburgh Steelers (6-3)
Remaining schedule: @Bengals, @Chiefs, Bengals, Browns, @49ers, Rams, @Browns.
Wouldn't surprise me if both AFC wild cards come from the North division. Tough to imagine the Steelers not making the playoffs.
Houston Texans (6-3)
Remaining schedule: @Bucs, @Jags, Falcons, @Bengals, Panthers, @Colts, Titans.
Gotta believe Houston will win this division. They're just better than Tennessee.
Tennessee Titans (4-4)
Remaining schedule: @Panthers, @Falcons, Bucs, @Bills, Saints, @Colts, Jags, @Texans.
They're still "legitimate" because they're only a game and a half back with 8 to play, but that doesn't mean I expect them to win the division... and definitely not a wild card.
Kansas City Chiefs (4-4)
Remaining schedule: Broncos, @Patriots, Steelers, @Bears, @Jets, Packers, Raiders, @Broncos.
San Diego Chargers (4-4)
Remaining schedule: Raiders, @Bears, Broncos, @Jags, Bills, Ravens, @Lions, @Raiders.
Oakland Raiders (4-4)
Remaining schedule: @Chargers, @Vikings, Bears, @Dolphins, @Packers, Lions, @Chiefs, Chargers.
Denver Broncos? (3-5)
Remaining schedule: @Chiefs, Jets, @Chargers, @Vikings, Bears, Patriots, @Bills, Chiefs.
Thought I'd write about the whole AFC West at once. Isn't it crazy that Denver, who's fairly awful, is only ONE game back from the division lead? It seems like every one of these teams is allergic to winning a division. San Diego should be leaps and bounds ahead of all three other teams, but they're not, so it's anyone's game. Doesn't really matter, though. Definitely looks like whoever wins this division will lose on wild card weekend.
My Predicted AFC Playoff Teams:
Jets, Ravens, Texans, Chargers, Bengals, Steelers
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Baggin' on Princeton once again
Unfortunately for me, no one took the bait in my last post. Someone was supposed to beg for my opinion on why Jason Garrett's coaching decisions late in the game in New England on Sunday were the biggest reasons for the Cowboys' loss. No one did.
Fortunately for me, this is my blog, and even if no one seems to care, I get to write what I want.
The situation:
There's 5:13 left to go in the game, and Dan Bailey kicks a 26-yard field goal to give the Cowboys a 16-13 lead. The 'Boys have played a very good game. Their offense probably should have more points on the board, considering how awful the Pats defense has been this season up until now. But the offense has been moving the ball pretty well, making first downs when they need to.
The bigger story, though, is how well the Dallas defense has played. The unstoppable Tom Brady and the high-flying offense of the Patriots have managed just 13 points all game. Rob Ryan did an excellent job finding ways to a) get to Brady with a pass rush, and b) keep the well-oiled Patriot machine from exploding to their normal 30+ points.
So now the Patriots trail by 3 points with the ball at their own 22 and over 5 minutes left. Brady throws a pass that goes for 9 yards on 1st down. But on 2nd down a Patriot rush gets stopped for a 3-yard loss thanks to a great play by linebacker Sean Lee. On 3rd and 4, Brady throws an incomplete pass. The Pats punt and Dallas gets the ball back, leading by 3 points, with 3:36 left.
Dallas runs the ball on 1st down. Loses two yards. They run it again. Lose 1 yard. After a false start penalty and staring at 3rd and 18, the Cowboys run one more time and pick up 8 (back to the original line of scrimmage). The Cowboys have killed a mere 0:54 of the clock, and only forced the Patriots to use 2 of their 3 timeouts. Now, Dallas has to punt, and Tom Brady (Tom Brady) will have 2:31 and a timeout, and the two-minute warning to go about 45 yards to get into field goal range.
In case you haven't turned on an NFL game in the past ten years, Tom Brady is the best quarterback in the game and one of the best ever. In end-of-the-game situations he usually only needs about 35 seconds (and no timeouts) to get his team into that position. After 4 plays (and still plenty of time on the clock), the Pats are in field goal range. But, since there's still plenty of time on the clock, Mr. Brady decides to just keep gaining yards. So he does. With 22 seconds left on the clock, he throws a touchdown pass. Forget the game-tying field goal. Forget overtime. The Patriots won because the best quarterback in the league was given 17 lifetimes to score at the end of the game.
In favor of Jason Garrett's play-calling
Many of the analysts I listened to thought Garrett was at least a little bit wrong with how he handled the Cowboys possession that began with 3:36 remaining, but at least one argued that Garrett did the right thing. This person argued that he protected his quarterback. It's no secret that Tony Romo has been off-again on-again this season. He pretty much single-handedly cost the team a win in New York against the Jets in Week 1, and then again in Week 4 at home against the Lions. Garrett is aware, first of all, that this game is not a must-win. The Cowboys schedule softens considerably over the next two months. If Garrett calls pass plays in that situation, and Romo ends up turning the ball over, Romo becomes the goat once again. He loses confidence in himself, and continues to perform poorly in upcoming games which should be wins on the board. Also, what Garrett did was very much "conventional wisdom" in the NFL. I'll never understand why, but it seems if your team ever has the ball with any sort of lead with less than about 4 minutes left in the game, you run three times and punt. The idea is that 1) you run time off the clock when you run, 2) you make the other team use its timeouts defensively so they can't rely on being able to stop the clock when they get the ball back, 3) sometimes your running back is able to get you first downs even on strictly running plays, and you get a first down or two, and you run out the rest of the clock and the other team never gets another chance.
Unfortunately, I disagree with all of these attempts to justify Garrett's play calling.
What Garrett did was all-but guarantee a loss. Yes, the Cowboys defense had been stopping Brady all game long, but you and I both know that things change in the final few minutes. Every one of the top 20 quarterbacks in the league will gain some significant yardage in this situation. Defenses go into prevent mode, and QBs can throw short underneath passes for 8-12 yards all day long. The top 12-15 quarterbacks in the league will almost always get you into field goal range in this situation. The top 5 will always at least get their team into field goal range, if not score a touchdown. And Tom Brady... TOM FREAKING BRADY will score on you in this situation. Every. Single. Time. There is only one sure-fire way to stop him: Give him the ball back with less than 30 seconds left on the clock. That's it. That's the only way.
Therefore, when you get the ball with 3:36 remaining and you have a 3-point lead, you have only one option if you hope to win: Get a first down or two. You have to get a first down or two. Felix Jones was out injured. DeMarco Murray and Tashard Choice aren't bad running backs, but when everyone in the greater Boston area knows you're about to run the ball three times, they cannot gain ten yards. You have to suck it up and throw the ball. You have to try to get a first down. And about the "protecting Romo" thing: Romo's a big boy. He's started for this team since 2/3 of the way through the 2006 season. That's almost five years. You either trust your quarterback, or you don't. That doesn't mean you don't have to suffer the consequences. A QB like Romo will make mistakes in big places, but he'll also make incredible plays in big places (as he did against the 49ers and the Redskins this season -- both of whom have far better defenses than New England's). If you let him throw it, you're 1) letting your biggest playmaker know you believe in him, and 2) actually trying to win. Running three times and punting is concession of defeat.
This would be a different story if Dallas had the ball with 1:00 left. Then, running three times will take off time, and require New England to use all of its timeouts. But the difference between Brady getting the ball with 3:00 and Brady getting the ball with 2:30 is like the difference between me having 15:00 to cross the street and me having 16:00 to cross the street -- I'm gonna make it pretty easily either way.
Fortunately for me, this is my blog, and even if no one seems to care, I get to write what I want.
The situation:
There's 5:13 left to go in the game, and Dan Bailey kicks a 26-yard field goal to give the Cowboys a 16-13 lead. The 'Boys have played a very good game. Their offense probably should have more points on the board, considering how awful the Pats defense has been this season up until now. But the offense has been moving the ball pretty well, making first downs when they need to.
The bigger story, though, is how well the Dallas defense has played. The unstoppable Tom Brady and the high-flying offense of the Patriots have managed just 13 points all game. Rob Ryan did an excellent job finding ways to a) get to Brady with a pass rush, and b) keep the well-oiled Patriot machine from exploding to their normal 30+ points.
So now the Patriots trail by 3 points with the ball at their own 22 and over 5 minutes left. Brady throws a pass that goes for 9 yards on 1st down. But on 2nd down a Patriot rush gets stopped for a 3-yard loss thanks to a great play by linebacker Sean Lee. On 3rd and 4, Brady throws an incomplete pass. The Pats punt and Dallas gets the ball back, leading by 3 points, with 3:36 left.
Dallas runs the ball on 1st down. Loses two yards. They run it again. Lose 1 yard. After a false start penalty and staring at 3rd and 18, the Cowboys run one more time and pick up 8 (back to the original line of scrimmage). The Cowboys have killed a mere 0:54 of the clock, and only forced the Patriots to use 2 of their 3 timeouts. Now, Dallas has to punt, and Tom Brady (Tom Brady) will have 2:31 and a timeout, and the two-minute warning to go about 45 yards to get into field goal range.
In case you haven't turned on an NFL game in the past ten years, Tom Brady is the best quarterback in the game and one of the best ever. In end-of-the-game situations he usually only needs about 35 seconds (and no timeouts) to get his team into that position. After 4 plays (and still plenty of time on the clock), the Pats are in field goal range. But, since there's still plenty of time on the clock, Mr. Brady decides to just keep gaining yards. So he does. With 22 seconds left on the clock, he throws a touchdown pass. Forget the game-tying field goal. Forget overtime. The Patriots won because the best quarterback in the league was given 17 lifetimes to score at the end of the game.
In favor of Jason Garrett's play-calling
Many of the analysts I listened to thought Garrett was at least a little bit wrong with how he handled the Cowboys possession that began with 3:36 remaining, but at least one argued that Garrett did the right thing. This person argued that he protected his quarterback. It's no secret that Tony Romo has been off-again on-again this season. He pretty much single-handedly cost the team a win in New York against the Jets in Week 1, and then again in Week 4 at home against the Lions. Garrett is aware, first of all, that this game is not a must-win. The Cowboys schedule softens considerably over the next two months. If Garrett calls pass plays in that situation, and Romo ends up turning the ball over, Romo becomes the goat once again. He loses confidence in himself, and continues to perform poorly in upcoming games which should be wins on the board. Also, what Garrett did was very much "conventional wisdom" in the NFL. I'll never understand why, but it seems if your team ever has the ball with any sort of lead with less than about 4 minutes left in the game, you run three times and punt. The idea is that 1) you run time off the clock when you run, 2) you make the other team use its timeouts defensively so they can't rely on being able to stop the clock when they get the ball back, 3) sometimes your running back is able to get you first downs even on strictly running plays, and you get a first down or two, and you run out the rest of the clock and the other team never gets another chance.
Unfortunately, I disagree with all of these attempts to justify Garrett's play calling.
What Garrett did was all-but guarantee a loss. Yes, the Cowboys defense had been stopping Brady all game long, but you and I both know that things change in the final few minutes. Every one of the top 20 quarterbacks in the league will gain some significant yardage in this situation. Defenses go into prevent mode, and QBs can throw short underneath passes for 8-12 yards all day long. The top 12-15 quarterbacks in the league will almost always get you into field goal range in this situation. The top 5 will always at least get their team into field goal range, if not score a touchdown. And Tom Brady... TOM FREAKING BRADY will score on you in this situation. Every. Single. Time. There is only one sure-fire way to stop him: Give him the ball back with less than 30 seconds left on the clock. That's it. That's the only way.
Therefore, when you get the ball with 3:36 remaining and you have a 3-point lead, you have only one option if you hope to win: Get a first down or two. You have to get a first down or two. Felix Jones was out injured. DeMarco Murray and Tashard Choice aren't bad running backs, but when everyone in the greater Boston area knows you're about to run the ball three times, they cannot gain ten yards. You have to suck it up and throw the ball. You have to try to get a first down. And about the "protecting Romo" thing: Romo's a big boy. He's started for this team since 2/3 of the way through the 2006 season. That's almost five years. You either trust your quarterback, or you don't. That doesn't mean you don't have to suffer the consequences. A QB like Romo will make mistakes in big places, but he'll also make incredible plays in big places (as he did against the 49ers and the Redskins this season -- both of whom have far better defenses than New England's). If you let him throw it, you're 1) letting your biggest playmaker know you believe in him, and 2) actually trying to win. Running three times and punting is concession of defeat.
This would be a different story if Dallas had the ball with 1:00 left. Then, running three times will take off time, and require New England to use all of its timeouts. But the difference between Brady getting the ball with 3:00 and Brady getting the ball with 2:30 is like the difference between me having 15:00 to cross the street and me having 16:00 to cross the street -- I'm gonna make it pretty easily either way.
Monday, October 17, 2011
C'mon, Princeton
A story about the Cowboys' three losses so far this season.
Week 1: Dallas loses to the Jets after Tony Romo makes two huge late 4th-quarter mistakes. The Jets are a good team, and they were also the home team. The Cowboys had a win in the bag and the man who's supposed to be taking the next step in maturity and leadership of this team acted like a rookie. This loss was heartbreaking.
Week 4: Dallas loses to Detroit after leading 27-3 in the 3rd quarter. Again, Romo is the goat, throwing two pick-sixes that put the Lions right back in the game. Before this game, I predicted a Cowboys loss. They had won a very physical, emotional game against Washington just 6 days before, and it felt like a slight letdown game was coming. That being said, once you're ahead 27-3 in the 3rd, there's no excuse for not putting the game away. This loss was annoying.
Week 6: Dallas loses to New England after the Princeton-graduate and former NFL QB who coaches this team pretended he was a Wartburg graduate with no football experience. I can handle games lost by the players much better than I handle games lost by the coach.* This loss was infuriating.
I'll be honest, though. I'm not too down-in-the-dumps today. I'm still convinced Dallas will win this division. For one thing, their schedule in the next couple of months includes games against Seattle, Arizona, St. Louis, Miami, and Washington (whom they've already defeated once). Not to mention Philadelphia and Buffalo, which are both winnable games. This team is not sunk by any stretch of the imagination. If Green Bay played in their division, I wouldn't like their playoff chances, but instead they have the Giants, Redskins and Eagles, and I think Dallas is sittin' pretty.
Also, the Cardinals are in the World Series after smoking the Brewers in Milwaukee last night, so I got over the Cowboys loss quite quickly.
*If you'd like my elaboration on why Jason Garrett is almost the only person to blame for yesterday's loss, I'm happy to provide it.
Week 1: Dallas loses to the Jets after Tony Romo makes two huge late 4th-quarter mistakes. The Jets are a good team, and they were also the home team. The Cowboys had a win in the bag and the man who's supposed to be taking the next step in maturity and leadership of this team acted like a rookie. This loss was heartbreaking.
Week 4: Dallas loses to Detroit after leading 27-3 in the 3rd quarter. Again, Romo is the goat, throwing two pick-sixes that put the Lions right back in the game. Before this game, I predicted a Cowboys loss. They had won a very physical, emotional game against Washington just 6 days before, and it felt like a slight letdown game was coming. That being said, once you're ahead 27-3 in the 3rd, there's no excuse for not putting the game away. This loss was annoying.
Week 6: Dallas loses to New England after the Princeton-graduate and former NFL QB who coaches this team pretended he was a Wartburg graduate with no football experience. I can handle games lost by the players much better than I handle games lost by the coach.* This loss was infuriating.
I'll be honest, though. I'm not too down-in-the-dumps today. I'm still convinced Dallas will win this division. For one thing, their schedule in the next couple of months includes games against Seattle, Arizona, St. Louis, Miami, and Washington (whom they've already defeated once). Not to mention Philadelphia and Buffalo, which are both winnable games. This team is not sunk by any stretch of the imagination. If Green Bay played in their division, I wouldn't like their playoff chances, but instead they have the Giants, Redskins and Eagles, and I think Dallas is sittin' pretty.
Also, the Cardinals are in the World Series after smoking the Brewers in Milwaukee last night, so I got over the Cowboys loss quite quickly.
*If you'd like my elaboration on why Jason Garrett is almost the only person to blame for yesterday's loss, I'm happy to provide it.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Four Can't-Miss Predictions
Two weeks before the regular season began I boldly predicted that Dallas would finish the season ahead of the over-hyped Eagles. Here are a few more thoughts you can take to the bank after 5 NFL weeks:
1. The Cowboys will win the NFC East. Does anyone still need convincing that the Eagles are a better team on paper than on the field? Right now Washington leads the division, and Dallas has already defeated them once. A team with Rex Grossman at the helm will not win this division. And did you see the Giants play last week? Eli Manning is a very good quarterback, but his team is so up and down that there's no reason to put serious stock in their postseason chances.
2. The Lions will struggle to make the playoffs. Don't get me wrong, Detroit's a good team. But you can't get behind by 20 points and then come back to win as often as they try to. Sooner or later that catches up to you. The Packers are a superior team, which means Detroit will be vying for a wild card berth, and their competition will be fairly stiff (an NFC East team, an NFC South team, and maybe the Bears). What I will say: Calvin Johnson makes plays that no human being should be able to make. To me he's the Albert Pujols of the NFL. You just watch him and think, "how does he do that?"
3. The Packers have given me no reason to believe they can't repeat. They're without a doubt the best team in football today. Now, it's very tough to repeat in the NFL, and I don't know that they will do it, but if you pretend you don't remember last season and I asked you who looks like they could win the Super Bowl this year, your first choice would be Green Bay. Hands down.
4. Dallas will beat New England this Sunday. I don't really understand why I haven't heard a single "expert" who thinks the Cowboys have a real shot in this game. The Patriots have a pathetic defense (last in the league). The Patriots have an impressive offense (first in the league). But, the Cowboys have a really really good defense, with a coordinator who has promised to "throw the kitchen sink" at New England this week. And the Dallas offense is something like 12th in the league. Against a bad defense, Dallas will put up points. And against a good defense, New England won't be able to match them. Don't forget that Dallas is coming off a bye and will be mostly healthy for the first time all season. Miles Austin and Dez Bryant will BOTH be in this game. Romo's ribs will be two weeks healthier. Felix Jones's shoulder has had some time to heal. The defensive secondary will be played with true starters for once. And Rob Ryan has had two weeks of plotting a way to get to Tom Brady. Oh, and DeMarcus Ware is still a Cowboy. Dallas ought to be favored in this game. Instead, they're seen as a longshot.
1. The Cowboys will win the NFC East. Does anyone still need convincing that the Eagles are a better team on paper than on the field? Right now Washington leads the division, and Dallas has already defeated them once. A team with Rex Grossman at the helm will not win this division. And did you see the Giants play last week? Eli Manning is a very good quarterback, but his team is so up and down that there's no reason to put serious stock in their postseason chances.
2. The Lions will struggle to make the playoffs. Don't get me wrong, Detroit's a good team. But you can't get behind by 20 points and then come back to win as often as they try to. Sooner or later that catches up to you. The Packers are a superior team, which means Detroit will be vying for a wild card berth, and their competition will be fairly stiff (an NFC East team, an NFC South team, and maybe the Bears). What I will say: Calvin Johnson makes plays that no human being should be able to make. To me he's the Albert Pujols of the NFL. You just watch him and think, "how does he do that?"
3. The Packers have given me no reason to believe they can't repeat. They're without a doubt the best team in football today. Now, it's very tough to repeat in the NFL, and I don't know that they will do it, but if you pretend you don't remember last season and I asked you who looks like they could win the Super Bowl this year, your first choice would be Green Bay. Hands down.
4. Dallas will beat New England this Sunday. I don't really understand why I haven't heard a single "expert" who thinks the Cowboys have a real shot in this game. The Patriots have a pathetic defense (last in the league). The Patriots have an impressive offense (first in the league). But, the Cowboys have a really really good defense, with a coordinator who has promised to "throw the kitchen sink" at New England this week. And the Dallas offense is something like 12th in the league. Against a bad defense, Dallas will put up points. And against a good defense, New England won't be able to match them. Don't forget that Dallas is coming off a bye and will be mostly healthy for the first time all season. Miles Austin and Dez Bryant will BOTH be in this game. Romo's ribs will be two weeks healthier. Felix Jones's shoulder has had some time to heal. The defensive secondary will be played with true starters for once. And Rob Ryan has had two weeks of plotting a way to get to Tom Brady. Oh, and DeMarcus Ware is still a Cowboy. Dallas ought to be favored in this game. Instead, they're seen as a longshot.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Testing 1... 2... 3...
I just changed my blog's address to thosecowboys.blogspot.com
I don't know if feed readers automatically detect these things or not. Are you seeing this is in your feed?
Thanks.
I don't know if feed readers automatically detect these things or not. Are you seeing this is in your feed?
Thanks.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Monday Night Weirdness
Items worth mentioning from last night's Cowboys win over the rival Redskins:
Now Dallas plays Detroit. The 'Boys are still beat-up physically, they have a short week for prep, and the Lions are very good. It's an awful matchup for Dallas, and I won't be surprised at all if Calvin Johnson scores a few touchdowns on them in a Lions win. That won't devastate the season, though, so don't worry. And, fortunately, the week after that is a bye week when they can hopefully recover physically and start the next stretch with full health.
- At some point, Dallas has to get at least somewhat healthy in order to win games. It honestly looked like the Dallas offense was the Dallas practice team offense at times. Felix Jones was more effective than he's been in a long time, but he was limited with a separated shoulder. Romo was playing with a bullet-proof vest (I thought his usual mobility seemed limited). Dez Bryant played with an injured thigh that was clearly not at 100%. Jason Witten was playing with bruised ribs. Laurent Robinson and Kevin Ogletree were the main receivers on the field, and that's not really a good thing. Miles Austin was sorely missed.
- Rob Ryan has his defense playing extremely well. Even with a secondary decimated by injuries, and Jason Hatcher leaving the game early with a strained calf, the defense bent but didn't break, and they came up with huge stops when they needed to.
- Felix Jones seems like he doesn't see the field very well sometimes. As I mentioned above, he had his best game this year, but there were still times (especially early) when it seemed like there were obvious cut-back lanes that he should have hit and could have gained big yards, but he just missed them. I usually feel like he performs best when receiving screens and other passes in the flat where he can turn and get upfield in a hurry, rather than trying to find the seem and get through it.
- Nobody seems to have told Dan Bailey that Cowboy kickers are supposed to be unreliable -- and I'm quite thankful for that. The rookie came up big, going 6 for 6 on field goal attempts, and the 'Boys won the game without scoring a single touchdown.
- Tony Romo is doing some amazing things. He didn't have huge numbers last night, but he led that team in impressive ways. He was dealing with a center who snapped the ball before he was supposed to about 15 times, receivers who didn't seem to know the playbook (and with whom he's only practiced a few times), and a running game that took a while to get going. On top of that, Washington's defensive coordinator, Jim Haslett, was sending all-out blitzes on every play because there was no fear of the young, inexperienced Dallas receivers who were playing. Romo made plays when he shouldn't have, and it looked like he was the only person on the field who had the gumption to go after the win. I'm still not sure how he was successful.
- DeMarcus Ware got hosed toward the end of the game when he was about to go sack Rex Grossman and instead got flat-out tackled by a Redskin blocker. No call. Unbelievable.
- Alan Ball got called for hitting a "defenseless receiver" on a play when Santana Moss caught a first-down reception. Perhaps it's the right call according to the rule, but I think that clearly demonstrates that the rule is absolutely flawed. To be within the rules there, Ball would have had to let Moss land and begin to run upfield before being allowed to tackle him, and there's something fundamentally wrong with a rule that requires you to let the other team gain a few yards before you can do anything about it. Ridiculous (especially since Cowboys receiver Laurent Robinson got "defenselessly" hammered earlier in the game with no flag coming whatsoever).
Now Dallas plays Detroit. The 'Boys are still beat-up physically, they have a short week for prep, and the Lions are very good. It's an awful matchup for Dallas, and I won't be surprised at all if Calvin Johnson scores a few touchdowns on them in a Lions win. That won't devastate the season, though, so don't worry. And, fortunately, the week after that is a bye week when they can hopefully recover physically and start the next stretch with full health.
Monday, September 26, 2011
A few words on rankings
Every Monday I read Peter King's column for Sports Illustrated, Monday Morning Quarterback. It's usually 6 pages long and jam-packed with just about every relevant item from Sunday's NFL goings on.
One of the regular pieces of King's column is "The Fine Fifteen." King basically ranks the top 15 teams in the NFL each week. Today he's taking flak for putting the Patriots at number 3 after they lost yesterday to the Bills, who King places at number 7. Reading these rankings made me want to say a couple of things about "power rankings" in general.
1. They don't matter. People that get bent out of shape because they feel their team is ranked too low are ridiculous. As I've pointed out before on this blog, power rankings have absolutely NO force and effect on the season. When January rolls around nobody looks at the power rankings and says, "Oh, well since the Saints are ranked higher than the Lions, we'll put them in the playoffs, even though Detroit has a better record." That doesn't happen. So don't get so worked up.
2. The better team does not always win. King's rankings, by his own description, are based on who he thinks would win on a neutral field. I think that's an excellent measuring stick, and I think he's right about the Patriots. I might put them a notch or two lower than three, but I would put them ahead of Buffalo. Why? Because if they played again tomorrow on a neutral field, I think New England wins the game. In fact, New England would probably win 6 or 7 out of 10 games against the Bills. But this was one of the other 3 or 4. I don't want to take anything away from the Bills. They're a good team who's playing really well right now, and I LOVE that they beat the Pats yesterday. But that doesn't make them, fundamentally, a better team.
Does anyone really think the 2007 Giants were a better team than the 2007 Patriots? I sure don't. But they had a great game plan heading into the Super Bowl. David Tyree made a (seriously) miraculous catch. The Giants won. I loved seeing New England lose that Super Bowl. It was fantastic. But I think they were the better team.
But again, this is why rankings don't matter. Because I can argue all day that the Pats were better than those Giants, but at the end of the day, the Giants won the Super Bowl, and the Patriots didn't! Winning is what matters. Not being arbitrarily "ranked" ahead of someone else.
3. It's an inexact science. If we were able to make without-a-doubt rankings of all the teams, there would be no such thing as an upset. The Packers (ranked #1 right now, according to King) would win every game, because they're ranked ahead of everyone. Baltimore (#2) would only ever lose to Green Bay. That's obviously not going to happen. Rankings are "best guesses," and they're NEVER 100% correct.
I think power rankings are fun to look at, but I'll never make a heated argument or get upset if my Cowboys are ranked lower than I think they should be. I'll let things be decided on the field.
One of the regular pieces of King's column is "The Fine Fifteen." King basically ranks the top 15 teams in the NFL each week. Today he's taking flak for putting the Patriots at number 3 after they lost yesterday to the Bills, who King places at number 7. Reading these rankings made me want to say a couple of things about "power rankings" in general.
1. They don't matter. People that get bent out of shape because they feel their team is ranked too low are ridiculous. As I've pointed out before on this blog, power rankings have absolutely NO force and effect on the season. When January rolls around nobody looks at the power rankings and says, "Oh, well since the Saints are ranked higher than the Lions, we'll put them in the playoffs, even though Detroit has a better record." That doesn't happen. So don't get so worked up.
2. The better team does not always win. King's rankings, by his own description, are based on who he thinks would win on a neutral field. I think that's an excellent measuring stick, and I think he's right about the Patriots. I might put them a notch or two lower than three, but I would put them ahead of Buffalo. Why? Because if they played again tomorrow on a neutral field, I think New England wins the game. In fact, New England would probably win 6 or 7 out of 10 games against the Bills. But this was one of the other 3 or 4. I don't want to take anything away from the Bills. They're a good team who's playing really well right now, and I LOVE that they beat the Pats yesterday. But that doesn't make them, fundamentally, a better team.
Does anyone really think the 2007 Giants were a better team than the 2007 Patriots? I sure don't. But they had a great game plan heading into the Super Bowl. David Tyree made a (seriously) miraculous catch. The Giants won. I loved seeing New England lose that Super Bowl. It was fantastic. But I think they were the better team.
But again, this is why rankings don't matter. Because I can argue all day that the Pats were better than those Giants, but at the end of the day, the Giants won the Super Bowl, and the Patriots didn't! Winning is what matters. Not being arbitrarily "ranked" ahead of someone else.
3. It's an inexact science. If we were able to make without-a-doubt rankings of all the teams, there would be no such thing as an upset. The Packers (ranked #1 right now, according to King) would win every game, because they're ranked ahead of everyone. Baltimore (#2) would only ever lose to Green Bay. That's obviously not going to happen. Rankings are "best guesses," and they're NEVER 100% correct.
I think power rankings are fun to look at, but I'll never make a heated argument or get upset if my Cowboys are ranked lower than I think they should be. I'll let things be decided on the field.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
The Predictions You've Been Waiting For
In case this doesn't show up in your feed reader right away, I'd like to clarify that this post was written Thursday morning before the NFL season began.
My division winner predictions for the 2011 season:
NFC NORTH: Green Bay Packers
I think Chicago and Detroit are both legitimate contenders in this division, but Green Bay won the Super Bowl last year with about half of their team out with injuries. The Pack is the best team in the division.
NFC SOUTH: Atlanta Falcons
There are three good teams in this division. I think Matt Ryan's the real deal, and he'll lead his team to a division championship.
NFC EAST: Dallas Cowboys
Most people will think I'm simply voting with my heart instead of my head in this case. I can't deny that there may be a little bit of that involved, but if you read my last post, I believe that it can be clearly demonstrated that the 'Boys could be a 12-win team, and they have an easier schedule than the heavily favored Eagles.
NFC WEST: St. Louis Rams
Seattle won this division last year with a losing record. The Seahawks, if anything, have taken a step back this year. The Rams will be better as Sam Bradford continues to improve. Overall, though, it doesn't matter who wins this division.
NFC WILDCARDS:
1. Philadelphia Eagles -- Just because I picked the Cowboys to win the East doesn't mean I don't think the Eagles will be very good.
2. New Orleans Saints -- I wouldn't be surprised if the Saints won the South, so I have to at least put them in the playoffs. I think Tampa Bay is going to be a good team this season, and they will certainly contend for the last playoff spot. I just couldn't put them in because they're (in my opinion) the third best team in their own division, and I don't see them beating out the Eagles/Giants/Bears/Lions for the wildcard spot.
AFC NORTH: Pittsburgh Steelers
They went to the Super Bowl last year, and they didn't get any worse.
AFC SOUTH: Houston Texans
This pick is based almost entirely on the fact that Peyton Manning will not be playing the first couple (maybe more) games for the Colts. Houston has been taking some steps forward, and I think they can come out on top here this year. I think Kerry Collins will perform well for the Colts, but he's had almost no time with the team, and he's no Manning.
AFC EAST: New England Patriots
I don't know what I have to say here. New England has been finding a way to be good for more than a decade now.
AFC WEST: San Diego Chargers
This shouldn't be surprise to anyone. This division is fairly awful. The Chiefs are the only other team that will probably have a winning record.
AFC WILDCARDS:
1. New York Jets -- They've been in the AFC Championship game twice in a row. I think they'll at least make the playoffs.
2. Baltimore Ravens -- It seems like there's a big drop-off in the AFC after the probable playoff teams. Indianapolis can compete for this spot, and maybe the Chiefs? But who else? The Browns? Titans?
NFC CHAMP: Dallas Cowboys
If I'm right about my playoff picks (Packers, Falcons, 'Boys, Rams, Eagles, Saints), then any of the teams will be viable candidates for the Super Bowl - except the Rams. But if I'm right about Dallas winning the division, it's because Jason Garrett and Rob Ryan have been able to get the team to play to its potential, and if that happens, they can beat anyone.
AFC CHAMP: San Diego Chargers
This pick is based solely on the fact that San Diego has been in the hunt until the end quite a bit recently. I did a little bit of eeny-meeny-miny-mo in the AFC, I'll admit.
SUPER BOWL CHAMP: Dallas Cowboys
C'mon, if I end up being right, and the Cowboys end up in the Super Bowl (a long shot, I'll grant you), there's no way I'm not going to be cheering for them to win. I can't put myself in a position where I have to root even a little bit for the opponent so that my predictions will be correct. Plus, I think if you just look at these two teams, the 'Boys are more talented.
SUPER BOWL MVP: DeMarcus Ware
Yes, it can be quite difficult for a defender to win the MVP of the Super Bowl, but for Dallas to be this successful in the first place, they've got to be playing great defense. If they really end up facing San Diego in the Super Bowl, Ware will need to be all over Philip Rivers for the Cowboys to win. I'll predict 4 or 5 sacks for DeMarcus in the Super Bowl. It really all just comes down to this: Ware is the best player on the Cowboys team, so it makes sense to pick him as the MVP.
Argue away!
My division winner predictions for the 2011 season:
NFC NORTH: Green Bay Packers
I think Chicago and Detroit are both legitimate contenders in this division, but Green Bay won the Super Bowl last year with about half of their team out with injuries. The Pack is the best team in the division.
NFC SOUTH: Atlanta Falcons
There are three good teams in this division. I think Matt Ryan's the real deal, and he'll lead his team to a division championship.
NFC EAST: Dallas Cowboys
Most people will think I'm simply voting with my heart instead of my head in this case. I can't deny that there may be a little bit of that involved, but if you read my last post, I believe that it can be clearly demonstrated that the 'Boys could be a 12-win team, and they have an easier schedule than the heavily favored Eagles.
NFC WEST: St. Louis Rams
Seattle won this division last year with a losing record. The Seahawks, if anything, have taken a step back this year. The Rams will be better as Sam Bradford continues to improve. Overall, though, it doesn't matter who wins this division.
NFC WILDCARDS:
1. Philadelphia Eagles -- Just because I picked the Cowboys to win the East doesn't mean I don't think the Eagles will be very good.
2. New Orleans Saints -- I wouldn't be surprised if the Saints won the South, so I have to at least put them in the playoffs. I think Tampa Bay is going to be a good team this season, and they will certainly contend for the last playoff spot. I just couldn't put them in because they're (in my opinion) the third best team in their own division, and I don't see them beating out the Eagles/Giants/Bears/Lions for the wildcard spot.
AFC NORTH: Pittsburgh Steelers
They went to the Super Bowl last year, and they didn't get any worse.
AFC SOUTH: Houston Texans
This pick is based almost entirely on the fact that Peyton Manning will not be playing the first couple (maybe more) games for the Colts. Houston has been taking some steps forward, and I think they can come out on top here this year. I think Kerry Collins will perform well for the Colts, but he's had almost no time with the team, and he's no Manning.
AFC EAST: New England Patriots
I don't know what I have to say here. New England has been finding a way to be good for more than a decade now.
AFC WEST: San Diego Chargers
This shouldn't be surprise to anyone. This division is fairly awful. The Chiefs are the only other team that will probably have a winning record.
AFC WILDCARDS:
1. New York Jets -- They've been in the AFC Championship game twice in a row. I think they'll at least make the playoffs.
2. Baltimore Ravens -- It seems like there's a big drop-off in the AFC after the probable playoff teams. Indianapolis can compete for this spot, and maybe the Chiefs? But who else? The Browns? Titans?
NFC CHAMP: Dallas Cowboys
If I'm right about my playoff picks (Packers, Falcons, 'Boys, Rams, Eagles, Saints), then any of the teams will be viable candidates for the Super Bowl - except the Rams. But if I'm right about Dallas winning the division, it's because Jason Garrett and Rob Ryan have been able to get the team to play to its potential, and if that happens, they can beat anyone.
AFC CHAMP: San Diego Chargers
This pick is based solely on the fact that San Diego has been in the hunt until the end quite a bit recently. I did a little bit of eeny-meeny-miny-mo in the AFC, I'll admit.
SUPER BOWL CHAMP: Dallas Cowboys
C'mon, if I end up being right, and the Cowboys end up in the Super Bowl (a long shot, I'll grant you), there's no way I'm not going to be cheering for them to win. I can't put myself in a position where I have to root even a little bit for the opponent so that my predictions will be correct. Plus, I think if you just look at these two teams, the 'Boys are more talented.
SUPER BOWL MVP: DeMarcus Ware
Yes, it can be quite difficult for a defender to win the MVP of the Super Bowl, but for Dallas to be this successful in the first place, they've got to be playing great defense. If they really end up facing San Diego in the Super Bowl, Ware will need to be all over Philip Rivers for the Cowboys to win. I'll predict 4 or 5 sacks for DeMarcus in the Super Bowl. It really all just comes down to this: Ware is the best player on the Cowboys team, so it makes sense to pick him as the MVP.
Argue away!
Monday, September 5, 2011
Consider this...
I've mentioned to a number of people that I believe the Cowboys will win the NFC East this year. I've been told by more than a few people that I'm off my rocker. Every analyst I've heard has predicted between 8-10 wins for the Cowboys this season, and a 2nd or 3rd-place finish in the division. The hands-down favorite to win the division is Philadelphia. But let's consider a few things:
Dallas started the 2010 season 1-7 against a total of 2 playoff teams and their opponents in that span had a .492 win percentage (so, against teams with a combined sub-.500 record, the Cowboys lost 7 of 8). Then Jason Garrett took over. In the second half of the season Dallas faced twice as many playoff teams (4), and their opponents in that span had a .531 win percentage. They went 5-3. So, against superior opponents and with a backup quarterback, the Cowboys went 5-3. It's not ludicrous to think, therefore, that over a whole season with the first-string quarterback, the Cowboys could go at least 10-6, if not 11-5 (all things being equal).
So, the way I see it, to believe that Dallas will win fewer than 10 games this season, you have to believe that 1) Dallas is worse with Tony Romo at quarterback than with John Kitna, and/or 2) Dallas will perform worse against a schedule with fewer playoff teams and a lower win percentage than last year, and/or 3) Dallas did nothing to make themselves better this year over the offseason (and players won't improve from one year to the next, etc.), and/or 4) Dallas will continue to have one of the worst defenses in the league now that Rob Ryan has taken it over. I just can't embrace any of those ideas. Therefore, I think it is completely realistic to see the 'Boys win 11 or 12 games this season.
Of course, the rational idea that Dallas could win 11 or 12 games still doesn't automatically mean they will win the division. Especially if you believe the Philadelphia hype. But I don't feel like addressing that at this time.
Dallas started the 2010 season 1-7 against a total of 2 playoff teams and their opponents in that span had a .492 win percentage (so, against teams with a combined sub-.500 record, the Cowboys lost 7 of 8). Then Jason Garrett took over. In the second half of the season Dallas faced twice as many playoff teams (4), and their opponents in that span had a .531 win percentage. They went 5-3. So, against superior opponents and with a backup quarterback, the Cowboys went 5-3. It's not ludicrous to think, therefore, that over a whole season with the first-string quarterback, the Cowboys could go at least 10-6, if not 11-5 (all things being equal).
So, the way I see it, to believe that Dallas will win fewer than 10 games this season, you have to believe that 1) Dallas is worse with Tony Romo at quarterback than with John Kitna, and/or 2) Dallas will perform worse against a schedule with fewer playoff teams and a lower win percentage than last year, and/or 3) Dallas did nothing to make themselves better this year over the offseason (and players won't improve from one year to the next, etc.), and/or 4) Dallas will continue to have one of the worst defenses in the league now that Rob Ryan has taken it over. I just can't embrace any of those ideas. Therefore, I think it is completely realistic to see the 'Boys win 11 or 12 games this season.
Of course, the rational idea that Dallas could win 11 or 12 games still doesn't automatically mean they will win the division. Especially if you believe the Philadelphia hype. But I don't feel like addressing that at this time.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Mark my words...
The Cowboys will finish ahead of the much-hyped Philadelphia Eagles this season.
Hopefully, I'll make some more predictions on this blog before the season begins.
Hopefully, I'll make some more predictions on this blog before the season begins.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Feels a little drafty in here...
A few weeks ago I tweeted that Mel Kiper (and I could just as easily have said McShay or Mayock) was just a glorified weatherman in that he makes predictions about something no one can possibly know, and his predictions matter very little in the end. I believe that's absolutely true.
I understand NFL draft hype, but I don't really get into it. I don't really care who Dallas is "expected" to pick with their #9 pick tonight, which means no matter who they chose, I probably won't be especially excited. There was a time when I was REALLY into this stuff, but then I discovered that once the draft was over, you still have no idea how your team did. You can guess, and you can listen to Kiper give your team a draft grade, but neither he nor anyone else on the planet really know how well these rookies will perform, and they don't know how soon they'll be able to contribute either. Educated guesses, perhaps. But consider this: of the hundreds of "experts" who have put together mock drafts in preparation for this weekend, not one of them is likely to be right.
That's all. Enjoy the draft (if you're watching it). I'd probably watch it, but I have life group tonight that I'm looking forward to with MUCH greater anticipation.
I understand NFL draft hype, but I don't really get into it. I don't really care who Dallas is "expected" to pick with their #9 pick tonight, which means no matter who they chose, I probably won't be especially excited. There was a time when I was REALLY into this stuff, but then I discovered that once the draft was over, you still have no idea how your team did. You can guess, and you can listen to Kiper give your team a draft grade, but neither he nor anyone else on the planet really know how well these rookies will perform, and they don't know how soon they'll be able to contribute either. Educated guesses, perhaps. But consider this: of the hundreds of "experts" who have put together mock drafts in preparation for this weekend, not one of them is likely to be right.
That's all. Enjoy the draft (if you're watching it). I'd probably watch it, but I have life group tonight that I'm looking forward to with MUCH greater anticipation.
Monday, January 31, 2011
And they wonder why they're not adored.
The Pro Bowl was yesterday. I completely forgot about it. Even if I'd remembered, I wouldn't have watched it. It might be the most meaningless, least entertaining thing in all of sports.
DeAngelo Hall was the game's MVP, and as a prize he won a new Cadillac. Here's what he had to say about it:
"I was just about to buy another SUV, so to come out here and grab one for free, I like that."
This sort of reminds me of when the NBA was in labor negotiations a million years ago and Latrell Sprewell, in an effort to defend the players' desire for more money, commented, "I've got kids I gotta feed."
I, for one, am thrilled that DeAngelo Hall won't have to go into debt to get another vehicle. It's obviously a big need for him. You've got to get around somehow, right? And even though he says he was going to get "another SUV," I'm sure he meant, "I really need a car, since I donated my last one to Goodwill. I think I'll go with something cheap and economical. Especially since I don't make that much money, and it's important to live within your means."
DeAngelo Hall was the game's MVP, and as a prize he won a new Cadillac. Here's what he had to say about it:
"I was just about to buy another SUV, so to come out here and grab one for free, I like that."
This sort of reminds me of when the NBA was in labor negotiations a million years ago and Latrell Sprewell, in an effort to defend the players' desire for more money, commented, "I've got kids I gotta feed."
I, for one, am thrilled that DeAngelo Hall won't have to go into debt to get another vehicle. It's obviously a big need for him. You've got to get around somehow, right? And even though he says he was going to get "another SUV," I'm sure he meant, "I really need a car, since I donated my last one to Goodwill. I think I'll go with something cheap and economical. Especially since I don't make that much money, and it's important to live within your means."
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Seahawks flyin' high
I just wanted to say a few things regarding today's playoff games:
First, let me point out an interesting tidbit. The Seahawks have now won a playoff game... and they still have a losing record (8-9).
Second, I'd like to say that I LOVE that the Seahawks won today. I had some friends over tonight to watch the later game (Jets-Colts) and I was rooting for the Colts to win. It wasn't a real big deal for me, I was just hoping. I explained to a couple of my friends that I think the reason was pulling for the Colts is because I don't think the Jets are a legitimate contender, and so I like it when super-hyped teams who I don't believe are that good get beaten. Of course, a friend of mine then pointed out that I had been cheering for the Seahawks too, and in that game, certainly they were the non-contenders. I laughed with my friend, accepting the irony of my position.
After my friends left, however, I was thinking about it, and I think my position was consistent. Certainly the Seahawks can't be considered an NFC powerhouse, and the Saints were in the hunt for the #1 playoff seed up until the final week of the season! Still, there's always been something about the Saints to me where I feel like they win a lot of games they really shouldn't. Even as they ended the season with an impressive streak, they've never seemed to me like a Super Bowl caliber team.
Truth be told, what I'd really like to see in the NFC is the Packers beat the Eagles tomorrow (I think the Packers are the better team all around), which would lead to a Packers-Falcons game next weekend (those are the two best teams in the NFC in my opinion), and a Seahawks-Bears game (no matter who wins, I believe they lose in the NFC Championship the next week).
That's all I really have to say right now. Thanks.
First, let me point out an interesting tidbit. The Seahawks have now won a playoff game... and they still have a losing record (8-9).
Second, I'd like to say that I LOVE that the Seahawks won today. I had some friends over tonight to watch the later game (Jets-Colts) and I was rooting for the Colts to win. It wasn't a real big deal for me, I was just hoping. I explained to a couple of my friends that I think the reason was pulling for the Colts is because I don't think the Jets are a legitimate contender, and so I like it when super-hyped teams who I don't believe are that good get beaten. Of course, a friend of mine then pointed out that I had been cheering for the Seahawks too, and in that game, certainly they were the non-contenders. I laughed with my friend, accepting the irony of my position.
After my friends left, however, I was thinking about it, and I think my position was consistent. Certainly the Seahawks can't be considered an NFC powerhouse, and the Saints were in the hunt for the #1 playoff seed up until the final week of the season! Still, there's always been something about the Saints to me where I feel like they win a lot of games they really shouldn't. Even as they ended the season with an impressive streak, they've never seemed to me like a Super Bowl caliber team.
Truth be told, what I'd really like to see in the NFC is the Packers beat the Eagles tomorrow (I think the Packers are the better team all around), which would lead to a Packers-Falcons game next weekend (those are the two best teams in the NFC in my opinion), and a Seahawks-Bears game (no matter who wins, I believe they lose in the NFC Championship the next week).
That's all I really have to say right now. Thanks.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
I'm a fan.
When the end of the NFL season rolls around, I often hear on sports radio or other sports outlets about the fact that many fans whose teams are out of the playoff hunt cheer for their team to lose in order to get a better draft pick in preparation for the next season. The question is often posed, "Would you root for your team to lose once they're mathematically eliminated from playoff contention so that they can get a better draft pick in the off-season?"
I feel like it's maybe been three or four years running that that question has come up, and before this season, it was always hypothetical for me. I'd usually think to myself, "I don't think I'd cheer for my team to lose, but I suppose it makes sense."
Well, today (really the last few weeks) that question was no longer hypothetical. Having faced the issue head-on, I can now answer unequivocally that I rooted for my team to win every game they played. I still understand the logic of rooting for a loss, I've just discovered that that's not the kind of fan I am. Being a fan, to me, means hoping your team wins. Always. No matter the circumstance. Period. It's okay if you disagree.
I guess this is how I see it: I get 16 games per year to cheer on my team. If they make the playoffs (which I, of course, hope for... and usually expect) I get bonus games. Nothing should be able to lower the number of games I get excited about, though. Now, if the 'Boys are completely out of the hunt, I will go to far less trouble to make sure I watch the game, but nothing will make me give up two or three (or more) games from the season and start rooting against them.
That's all I had to say tonight!
I feel like it's maybe been three or four years running that that question has come up, and before this season, it was always hypothetical for me. I'd usually think to myself, "I don't think I'd cheer for my team to lose, but I suppose it makes sense."
Well, today (really the last few weeks) that question was no longer hypothetical. Having faced the issue head-on, I can now answer unequivocally that I rooted for my team to win every game they played. I still understand the logic of rooting for a loss, I've just discovered that that's not the kind of fan I am. Being a fan, to me, means hoping your team wins. Always. No matter the circumstance. Period. It's okay if you disagree.
I guess this is how I see it: I get 16 games per year to cheer on my team. If they make the playoffs (which I, of course, hope for... and usually expect) I get bonus games. Nothing should be able to lower the number of games I get excited about, though. Now, if the 'Boys are completely out of the hunt, I will go to far less trouble to make sure I watch the game, but nothing will make me give up two or three (or more) games from the season and start rooting against them.
That's all I had to say tonight!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)