Let's be honest. You only care about the draft because the sports media tells you to.
For owners, GMs, and coaches, the draft is a HUGE deal that takes an insane amount of preparation, meetings, holding workouts, watching film, and much much more. It's extremely important that scouts and big-wigs for every team are being tremendously diligent in draft preparation.
But for fans? I can't figure out why we have any reason to care as much as we apparently do. I'm supposed to get all hyped-up about who the Cowboys are going to take with their #27 pick. Yes, it matters, but no one will have any idea how good of a pick it was for at least 2-3 years. Maybe longer.
Will Tebow go in the first round? It matters to him, because it will affect the amount of money he gets paid. It matters to me if the Cowboys pick him (they won't), because then he's on my team and I'll be cheering for him for at least the next few years. What round he's taken in makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to me.
Whether or not the Redskins draft a tackle or a quarterback makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to me at this point.
I haven't looked up stats on this, but there's gotta be something close to a 50% bust rate for 1st-rounders. Top-picked quarterbacks are awful or at least non-factors as often as not. Same with receivers and running backs. Maybe offensive tackles have a higher success rate, and that's definitely one of the most important positions on the field, do you really get amped up about which tackle your team might take? One of the best quarterbacks in the history of the game (Tom Brady) was chosen 199th, and wasn't listed on anyone's "mock" drafts.
I dunno. These are merely annoyed ramblings with (obviously) no real cohesive rhetorical strategy. And I'll probably watch at least a few minutes of the draft tonight and tomorrow. But I'm not going to jump up and down no matter who takes whom or when. I remember watching Cardinals fans at Radio City Music Hall going hogwild when Matt Leinart was chosen a few years ago. And what's he accomplished on the field so far? Very little. In fact, it was a guy nobody was too excited about (Kurt Warner) who led that team to a Super Bowl while Leinart sat on the bench. Eh.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
New overtime format
I've been commissioned to write a post about my thoughts on the new overtime rules, even though I don't really have that many thoughts on the new overtime rules.
Last I'd heard the new rules have been accepted only for the postseason for this year (though I've also heard that it's not out of the question for them to be implemented for the regular season too).
The new format makes it more likely that both teams will touch the ball. If the first team to get the ball does NOT score a touchdown, the other team gets a possession. I don't know how better to explain further than to give examples of how the rule might work:
If Team 1 scores a touchdown, game over.
If Team 1 kicks a field goal, Team 2 gets a possession. If Team 2 scores a touchdown, they win, game over. If Team 2 ties it with a field goal, Team 1 gets the ball back and it's sudden death.
If Team 1 does not score, as soon as Team 2 takes a snap, it's sudden death.
If at any time Team 1 turns the ball over, it's also sudden death (so, if Team 2 returns an interception for a touchdown, Team 2 wins).
I like the shift. I don't know if it's the best "final solution" there could possibly be, but I definitely haven't heard of anything better. The new rules will require some more strategy than the old ones did. It used to be that as soon as a team got to about the opposing 30-yard line, they'd run the ball up the middle three times trying to down it in the center of the field to give their kicker the best look, and in order to minimize turnover possibilities. Now, teams will have to decide whether to play for the field goal (with the possibility that their defense gives up a touchdown and they lose), or try to score a touchdown to end it (with the possibility of coming up short, and making it so the other team only has to kick a field goal). You might see more coaches defer if they win the toss in overtime, believing that their defense can keep the other team out of the endzone, and then knowing whether they need a touchdown or a field goal of their own once they get the ball back.
The only objection I've really heard to the new rules is that apparently an NFL coach or two has complained because, essentially, "we've got enough to worry about without having to make these life or death decisions at the end." To which I of course say, "Wow. You've got it real rough, pulling down $4 million a year, and now on top of everything else you have to COACH your team in the final few minutes? Woe is you, woe is you."
So yeah. I definitely think it's a good start. I'll look forward to seeing how it all plays out.
Comments? Questions? Complaints? Joel, you're the one who wanted to read about this. Do you object to the new rules?
Last I'd heard the new rules have been accepted only for the postseason for this year (though I've also heard that it's not out of the question for them to be implemented for the regular season too).
The new format makes it more likely that both teams will touch the ball. If the first team to get the ball does NOT score a touchdown, the other team gets a possession. I don't know how better to explain further than to give examples of how the rule might work:
If Team 1 scores a touchdown, game over.
If Team 1 kicks a field goal, Team 2 gets a possession. If Team 2 scores a touchdown, they win, game over. If Team 2 ties it with a field goal, Team 1 gets the ball back and it's sudden death.
If Team 1 does not score, as soon as Team 2 takes a snap, it's sudden death.
If at any time Team 1 turns the ball over, it's also sudden death (so, if Team 2 returns an interception for a touchdown, Team 2 wins).
I like the shift. I don't know if it's the best "final solution" there could possibly be, but I definitely haven't heard of anything better. The new rules will require some more strategy than the old ones did. It used to be that as soon as a team got to about the opposing 30-yard line, they'd run the ball up the middle three times trying to down it in the center of the field to give their kicker the best look, and in order to minimize turnover possibilities. Now, teams will have to decide whether to play for the field goal (with the possibility that their defense gives up a touchdown and they lose), or try to score a touchdown to end it (with the possibility of coming up short, and making it so the other team only has to kick a field goal). You might see more coaches defer if they win the toss in overtime, believing that their defense can keep the other team out of the endzone, and then knowing whether they need a touchdown or a field goal of their own once they get the ball back.
The only objection I've really heard to the new rules is that apparently an NFL coach or two has complained because, essentially, "we've got enough to worry about without having to make these life or death decisions at the end." To which I of course say, "Wow. You've got it real rough, pulling down $4 million a year, and now on top of everything else you have to COACH your team in the final few minutes? Woe is you, woe is you."
So yeah. I definitely think it's a good start. I'll look forward to seeing how it all plays out.
Comments? Questions? Complaints? Joel, you're the one who wanted to read about this. Do you object to the new rules?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
More Overtime and a Cold Weather Super Bowl
It's been awhile since I've written anything here. In fact, the last time I wrote there were 4 teams in the Super Bowl hunt. Now there's just one champion.
Today I want to address two main items: overtime, and the possibility of a Super Bowl being held in New York (technically New Jersey, I think, because the location in question would be Giants Stadium).
We'll do the New York [area] Super Bowl first, because I think it'll be shorter. I haven't really read much or followed a whole lot about this topic, other than to scan a headline here and there about New York wanting to host a Super Bowl, and many people being opposed to this idea. In case you hibernate each January/February you know that the Super Bowl is always played in either a domed stadium, or a warm-weather city. It's obvious that those locations are the only ones considered because the league apparently doesn't want weather to be a major factor in "The Big Game." If that's a deal-breaker for you, then New York would NOT be a good choice for the Super Bowl (it doesn't tend to be real balmy in the Meadowlands in early February).
For me, however, it's not a deal-breaker. I see absolutely nothing wrong with playing the Super Bowl in an outdoor cold-weather stadium. Weather's part of the game. Conference Championship games are routinely played in cold-weather cities (Foxboro, Philadelphia, New York, to name just a few of the possibilities) and those games are just two weeks before the Super Bowl (I doubt the average temperature and precipitation is dramatically different in those cities between mid- to late-January and early February). Also, we all remember how fabulous a game the Ice Bowl was when played in Green Bay with the temperature in the -100s (or something like that... I don't actually remember the game itself because I wouldn't be born for some 20 years afterwards). Good games can be played in bad weather. More importantly, good TEAMS can play well in bad weather. It seems to me that playing football in New York in early February is roughly equivalent to playing baseball in New York in early November, which just happened during the most recent World Series (baseball being a warm-weather game, football being a not-necessarily-warm-weather game).
I'd LOVE to hear YOUR thoughts on this matter. Maybe I'm missing some important information that would change my mind.
Next comes overtime. I'm pretty sure I've written on this before, and I don't mean to bore you. I just mainly feel the need to share some pet-peeves of mine when it comes to this discussion.
First of all, let me say that I've softened a bit on the matter. At the beginning of last season I probably would have told you that the NFL overtime rule doesn't need a single tweak. I'm pretty sure that my reasoning for thinking that way was a preemptive defensiveness to the possibility that a team would use the overtime rules as an excuse for why they lost a game, and I didn't like the thought of that happening. What would best articulate my thoughts would be this: You have to play within the current rule, and not use it as an excuse, so understand that the best quarterback in the world might not get a chance to play in OT if your team loses the coin flip and the defense can't get it done. That being said, if you rid your mind of the current model and were asked to come up with an overtime model, the current one is NOT what you'd come up with.
Much of what's swayed me about this stuff is the fact that special teams have changed a LOT since 36 years ago when the current model was implemented. Kickoffs have been moved back, so more kickoffs are being returned (rather than having touchbacks) and field goal kickers are more accurate. Rather than a team in overtime having to go 50-60 yards to get into field goal range, they now often have to go just 30-40. I don't know the perfect solution to this plan, but the change that the NFL Competition Committee is apparently going to look at this offseason would make it (instead of sudden death) the first team to 7 points that wins, which would encourage teams to go for a touchdown on their first possession rather than just playing for the field goal. That might be a decent start.
I promised that I'd share some pet-peeves about the debate about this topic, and I'm a man of my word, so here we go: Peter King is the reporter who I read most regularly when it comes to the NFL, and he writes more about overtime (he's adamantly opposed to the current system) than just about anyone else too. Therefore, he is the one that my two pet peeves are really directed toward.
First, Peter loves to ask his opponents (those who think the current system is fine), "If the coin flip isn't that important, why has almost every OT coin flip winner in history chosen to receive?" Honestly, Peter, as much as I respect your work and love your weekly NFL column, that's a ridiculously stupid question. The answer is, "Because it's more likely that your team will score on offense than it is that they'll score on defense." It's like asking, "Why do NBA teams try so hard to win the jump ball at the beginning of the game?" In football you don't have to have the ball to score, but even the best defenses in the history of football score less often than the worst offenses in the history of football. You choose to receive because that's how you get points. Duh.
Second, Peter likes to cite the statistic that almost 60% of overtime games since 1994 have been won by the coin flip winner. What's important, however, is how many coin flip winners have won on their first possession in overtime. The reason that's important is because Peter's ideal solution would be to change overtime so that each team gets one possession. At the start of the second team's possession, the game becomes sudden-death. Since coin flip winners win on their first possession somewhere around 34% of the time, that leaves about 26% of coin flip winners who win in overtime on their second possession or later -- exactly what Peter would like to see happen. If that doesn't make sense or you can't quite track what I'm saying because I'm unclear, let me put it this way and just ask for your trust a little bit (or you can ask me for clarification): Peter's real stat is 34%, but he cites 60% because it makes him sound overwhelmingly right. The stats aren't wrong, but he uses them misleadingly.
Still, as I mentioned above, I would be in support of a change to the overtime format, but I don't know what the best change might be. Please, feel free to offer your opinions, or to argue with me in the comments. Thanks for sticking with me through this long post.
Today I want to address two main items: overtime, and the possibility of a Super Bowl being held in New York (technically New Jersey, I think, because the location in question would be Giants Stadium).
We'll do the New York [area] Super Bowl first, because I think it'll be shorter. I haven't really read much or followed a whole lot about this topic, other than to scan a headline here and there about New York wanting to host a Super Bowl, and many people being opposed to this idea. In case you hibernate each January/February you know that the Super Bowl is always played in either a domed stadium, or a warm-weather city. It's obvious that those locations are the only ones considered because the league apparently doesn't want weather to be a major factor in "The Big Game." If that's a deal-breaker for you, then New York would NOT be a good choice for the Super Bowl (it doesn't tend to be real balmy in the Meadowlands in early February).
For me, however, it's not a deal-breaker. I see absolutely nothing wrong with playing the Super Bowl in an outdoor cold-weather stadium. Weather's part of the game. Conference Championship games are routinely played in cold-weather cities (Foxboro, Philadelphia, New York, to name just a few of the possibilities) and those games are just two weeks before the Super Bowl (I doubt the average temperature and precipitation is dramatically different in those cities between mid- to late-January and early February). Also, we all remember how fabulous a game the Ice Bowl was when played in Green Bay with the temperature in the -100s (or something like that... I don't actually remember the game itself because I wouldn't be born for some 20 years afterwards). Good games can be played in bad weather. More importantly, good TEAMS can play well in bad weather. It seems to me that playing football in New York in early February is roughly equivalent to playing baseball in New York in early November, which just happened during the most recent World Series (baseball being a warm-weather game, football being a not-necessarily-warm-weather game).
I'd LOVE to hear YOUR thoughts on this matter. Maybe I'm missing some important information that would change my mind.
Next comes overtime. I'm pretty sure I've written on this before, and I don't mean to bore you. I just mainly feel the need to share some pet-peeves of mine when it comes to this discussion.
First of all, let me say that I've softened a bit on the matter. At the beginning of last season I probably would have told you that the NFL overtime rule doesn't need a single tweak. I'm pretty sure that my reasoning for thinking that way was a preemptive defensiveness to the possibility that a team would use the overtime rules as an excuse for why they lost a game, and I didn't like the thought of that happening. What would best articulate my thoughts would be this: You have to play within the current rule, and not use it as an excuse, so understand that the best quarterback in the world might not get a chance to play in OT if your team loses the coin flip and the defense can't get it done. That being said, if you rid your mind of the current model and were asked to come up with an overtime model, the current one is NOT what you'd come up with.
Much of what's swayed me about this stuff is the fact that special teams have changed a LOT since 36 years ago when the current model was implemented. Kickoffs have been moved back, so more kickoffs are being returned (rather than having touchbacks) and field goal kickers are more accurate. Rather than a team in overtime having to go 50-60 yards to get into field goal range, they now often have to go just 30-40. I don't know the perfect solution to this plan, but the change that the NFL Competition Committee is apparently going to look at this offseason would make it (instead of sudden death) the first team to 7 points that wins, which would encourage teams to go for a touchdown on their first possession rather than just playing for the field goal. That might be a decent start.
I promised that I'd share some pet-peeves about the debate about this topic, and I'm a man of my word, so here we go: Peter King is the reporter who I read most regularly when it comes to the NFL, and he writes more about overtime (he's adamantly opposed to the current system) than just about anyone else too. Therefore, he is the one that my two pet peeves are really directed toward.
First, Peter loves to ask his opponents (those who think the current system is fine), "If the coin flip isn't that important, why has almost every OT coin flip winner in history chosen to receive?" Honestly, Peter, as much as I respect your work and love your weekly NFL column, that's a ridiculously stupid question. The answer is, "Because it's more likely that your team will score on offense than it is that they'll score on defense." It's like asking, "Why do NBA teams try so hard to win the jump ball at the beginning of the game?" In football you don't have to have the ball to score, but even the best defenses in the history of football score less often than the worst offenses in the history of football. You choose to receive because that's how you get points. Duh.
Second, Peter likes to cite the statistic that almost 60% of overtime games since 1994 have been won by the coin flip winner. What's important, however, is how many coin flip winners have won on their first possession in overtime. The reason that's important is because Peter's ideal solution would be to change overtime so that each team gets one possession. At the start of the second team's possession, the game becomes sudden-death. Since coin flip winners win on their first possession somewhere around 34% of the time, that leaves about 26% of coin flip winners who win in overtime on their second possession or later -- exactly what Peter would like to see happen. If that doesn't make sense or you can't quite track what I'm saying because I'm unclear, let me put it this way and just ask for your trust a little bit (or you can ask me for clarification): Peter's real stat is 34%, but he cites 60% because it makes him sound overwhelmingly right. The stats aren't wrong, but he uses them misleadingly.
Still, as I mentioned above, I would be in support of a change to the overtime format, but I don't know what the best change might be. Please, feel free to offer your opinions, or to argue with me in the comments. Thanks for sticking with me through this long post.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
A bit lengthy: Who I like this weekend
My co-workers can't figure out why I'm pro-Vikings in this weekend's NFC Championship game. I think that there are two reasons for their befuddlement. The first, and probably most obvious, is that they absolutely ripped apart my beloved Cowboys just a few days ago. You're supposed to be upset at the team that just trounced you for at least some sort of reasonable cooling off period (during the season that can usually last about a week... until you get a win, or you shift your ire to the next team that beat's yours, but it gets tougher when it's the loss that ends your season. Apparently in that case many believe that you must hate the team that knocked you out throughout the entire offseason). That reason doesn't apply to me I guess for a few reasons. First, every football fan understands that the likelihood of their team winning the Super Bowl in any given year is actually pretty slim. With 5 Lombardis, the Cowboys have won more (or as many) Super Bowls as any other team except Pittsburgh (6). The goal this season was to win a playoff game, which happened a week and a half ago in high-flying fashion with a rout of the despised Eagles. Obviously, the way the team had played of late created quite a bit of optimism in fans like me. They certainly seemed poised to go on and beat the Vikings and then the Saints and then whomever they faced in South Florida's Super Bowl. But the playoff win will have to do. Now I have a whole offseason to be optimistic about how good they'll be next year!
The other reason I'm in the Minnesota corner is because they're one of my favorite teams too! I love the Cowboys. I like the Broncos and cheer for them whenever they're not playing the Cowboys. I like the Vikings and cheer for them whenever they're not playing the Cowboys (in the event of a Vikings-Broncos matchup, I'd probably support the Broncos outwardly to my Denver friends, classmates, and co-workers, but I'd secretly be hoping for a Vikings victory). I also like Brett Favre. I know that he's waffled his way in and out of retirement (multiple times) and many think he weasled his way out of Green Bay, and last summer into Minnesota, but none of that really bothers me. He's a good guy who LOVES to play the game. If more 25-year olds played like they were little kids in the back yard again, maybe I wouldn't have to admire Favre so much for doing it himself at 40. There are plenty of other players on the Vikes to enjoy too (Jared Allen and Sidney Rice come to mind).
Those who don't understand my purple and gold loyalty this weekend also point to the Saints as the "sentimental favorite," and say that anyone who doesn't really have a horse in the race should be cheering for Drew Brees, the Saints, and the city of New Orleans because of what a Super Bowl would mean to the hurricane-devastated city. While I understand that sentiment, I find myself asking how many years post-Katrina we're expected to hope for a Saints Super Bowl? It's been, what, 4 years? I'm not trying to minimize the suffering of the people of the city or anything. I hope we're all still doing everything we can to care for the displaced families, and to help rebuild New Orleans and everything, but if it gets to be 2015 and the Saints still haven't won a Super Bowl, are they still the "sentimental favorite?" What about 2020? 2030? I guess I just think it could be argued that Brett Favre's story can be as sentimental as the Saints'.
Anywho... just my thinking.
(And in case you're wondering, I'd LOVE to see a Manning-Favre Super Bowl, and that's what I'll be cheering for.)
The other reason I'm in the Minnesota corner is because they're one of my favorite teams too! I love the Cowboys. I like the Broncos and cheer for them whenever they're not playing the Cowboys. I like the Vikings and cheer for them whenever they're not playing the Cowboys (in the event of a Vikings-Broncos matchup, I'd probably support the Broncos outwardly to my Denver friends, classmates, and co-workers, but I'd secretly be hoping for a Vikings victory). I also like Brett Favre. I know that he's waffled his way in and out of retirement (multiple times) and many think he weasled his way out of Green Bay, and last summer into Minnesota, but none of that really bothers me. He's a good guy who LOVES to play the game. If more 25-year olds played like they were little kids in the back yard again, maybe I wouldn't have to admire Favre so much for doing it himself at 40. There are plenty of other players on the Vikes to enjoy too (Jared Allen and Sidney Rice come to mind).
Those who don't understand my purple and gold loyalty this weekend also point to the Saints as the "sentimental favorite," and say that anyone who doesn't really have a horse in the race should be cheering for Drew Brees, the Saints, and the city of New Orleans because of what a Super Bowl would mean to the hurricane-devastated city. While I understand that sentiment, I find myself asking how many years post-Katrina we're expected to hope for a Saints Super Bowl? It's been, what, 4 years? I'm not trying to minimize the suffering of the people of the city or anything. I hope we're all still doing everything we can to care for the displaced families, and to help rebuild New Orleans and everything, but if it gets to be 2015 and the Saints still haven't won a Super Bowl, are they still the "sentimental favorite?" What about 2020? 2030? I guess I just think it could be argued that Brett Favre's story can be as sentimental as the Saints'.
Anywho... just my thinking.
(And in case you're wondering, I'd LOVE to see a Manning-Favre Super Bowl, and that's what I'll be cheering for.)
Monday, January 18, 2010
Africa
There's an episode of the BBC series Planet Earth in which a pride of lions takes down and eats a young elephant. Lions don't ordinarily attack elephants, but these lions were especially hungry. You'd think that an elephant might be able to hold his own against lions, but as soon as the hunt begins every viewer knows that it's just a matter of time before the ferocity and relentlessness of the lions expose how completely outmatched the elephant is. With fighting not an option, the elephant can only hope to run away... but he stands no chance.
That's what I felt like I was watching in yesterday's Cowboys-Vikings game.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Playoff report
For the third time this season, and the second time in 7 days, the Cowboys absolutely OWNED the Philadelphia Eagles to earn the team's first playoff victory since the 1996 season.
Saturday's game made me think that Jason Garrett really does have something of a clue. His offensive game plan was basically flawless. With an offense as multi-faceted as his is, the key seems to be MIX IT UP! And that's what he did. Felix Jones got the bulk of the carries, and he finished the game with close to 150 yards (averaging somewhere around TEN yards per rush -- not normal, but quite good). Tony Romo continued to look like an unflappable veteran, avoiding pressure from the Eagles' blitzing schemes (which came quite frequently). Roy Williams was even sighted a few times.
The defense was more of the same: smothering. McNabb was pressured all night long. I don't think he took too many sacks, but he was forced out of the pocket, forced into an intentional grounding call, and pretty much just didn't look like some elite playoff veteran quarterback.
Next comes the Minnesota Vikings. I must tread lightly here, because I have readers and family members who are Vikings fans. Fortunately for the family, we're all good-natured about football, and we like it when both the Vikes AND Cowboys do well... so I really think we'll all still be speaking to one another after this week's game.
All I'm going to say about Sunday's game is... it's a better matchup for the Cowboys than for the Vikings, in my opinion. Also, Minnesota's two offensive tackles are going to have their hands full trying to protect their (admittedly fantastic) 40-year old less-mobile-than-McNabb quarterback against the likes of DeMarcus Ware and Anthony Spencer; two of the most bloodthirsty defenders in the league over the last month. Brett Favre just might wake up sorer on Monday morning than he ever has.
I'd continue (and I might over the rest of the week), but I fear my youngest brother would physically attack me if I didn't post something soon.
Saturday's game made me think that Jason Garrett really does have something of a clue. His offensive game plan was basically flawless. With an offense as multi-faceted as his is, the key seems to be MIX IT UP! And that's what he did. Felix Jones got the bulk of the carries, and he finished the game with close to 150 yards (averaging somewhere around TEN yards per rush -- not normal, but quite good). Tony Romo continued to look like an unflappable veteran, avoiding pressure from the Eagles' blitzing schemes (which came quite frequently). Roy Williams was even sighted a few times.
The defense was more of the same: smothering. McNabb was pressured all night long. I don't think he took too many sacks, but he was forced out of the pocket, forced into an intentional grounding call, and pretty much just didn't look like some elite playoff veteran quarterback.
Next comes the Minnesota Vikings. I must tread lightly here, because I have readers and family members who are Vikings fans. Fortunately for the family, we're all good-natured about football, and we like it when both the Vikes AND Cowboys do well... so I really think we'll all still be speaking to one another after this week's game.
All I'm going to say about Sunday's game is... it's a better matchup for the Cowboys than for the Vikings, in my opinion. Also, Minnesota's two offensive tackles are going to have their hands full trying to protect their (admittedly fantastic) 40-year old less-mobile-than-McNabb quarterback against the likes of DeMarcus Ware and Anthony Spencer; two of the most bloodthirsty defenders in the league over the last month. Brett Favre just might wake up sorer on Monday morning than he ever has.
I'd continue (and I might over the rest of the week), but I fear my youngest brother would physically attack me if I didn't post something soon.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
The weekly Jake report
I'll try my hardest not to recount all the statistics from today's SHELLACKING of the Philadelphia Eagles (oh, how sweet it is). Suffice it to say, Dallas played well in just about every aspect of the game, and took an absolute pounding to what was, before today, the hottest team in the NFC. Back-to-back shutouts from the Dallas D? Perhaps Wade Philips DOES have a clue?
It's going to be a difficult task to try and beat the Eagles for the third time this season when they square off on Saturday night at Cowboys Stadium in the wildcard round of the playoffs, but if there's been a Cowboys team in the last decade that appeared poised to do it, it's this year's team. The defense has been absolutely stellar in recent games. The offense is as good as it's been all season. Miles Austin is, in a word, amazing. Tony Romo has been on fire since Thanksgiving. He's thrown two interceptions (one in each of his last two games), and neither of them were turned into points by the other team.
[Sidenote: In the end, an interception is an interception that rightfully goes against the quarterback, even when it's not his fault. Although that's true, often the nature of the interceptions can tell you a lot about the state of your team/offense/quarterback. The two that Romo has thrown since December began were both fluky, and not really his fault. The first one bounced off the hands of receiver Roy Williams (when a quarterback hits his receiver in the hands and suffers an INT as a result, how do you fault him?). The second, in todays' game against the Eagles, came when Eagles' defensive back Asante Samuel batted a thrown ball and then came down with it. Again, these shouldn't be minimized too much. BUT, the nature of these interceptions illustrate that the poor decision-making of Romo's past is (at least temporarily) long gone. These weren't INTs of immaturity, forced throws, or bad decisions. They were flukes. K, all done with my sidenote.]
In other FUN news, the Giants looked terrible and got absolutely spanked.
So, if Dallas beats Philadelphia for the third time this season and makes it through the wildcard round, they will then head to Minnesota to take on Brett Favre and the Vikings. I hope my family still likes each other after that (potential) matchup is over (those in my family who aren't primarily Cowboys fans are primarily Vikings fans). It'd be fun.
It's going to be a difficult task to try and beat the Eagles for the third time this season when they square off on Saturday night at Cowboys Stadium in the wildcard round of the playoffs, but if there's been a Cowboys team in the last decade that appeared poised to do it, it's this year's team. The defense has been absolutely stellar in recent games. The offense is as good as it's been all season. Miles Austin is, in a word, amazing. Tony Romo has been on fire since Thanksgiving. He's thrown two interceptions (one in each of his last two games), and neither of them were turned into points by the other team.
[Sidenote: In the end, an interception is an interception that rightfully goes against the quarterback, even when it's not his fault. Although that's true, often the nature of the interceptions can tell you a lot about the state of your team/offense/quarterback. The two that Romo has thrown since December began were both fluky, and not really his fault. The first one bounced off the hands of receiver Roy Williams (when a quarterback hits his receiver in the hands and suffers an INT as a result, how do you fault him?). The second, in todays' game against the Eagles, came when Eagles' defensive back Asante Samuel batted a thrown ball and then came down with it. Again, these shouldn't be minimized too much. BUT, the nature of these interceptions illustrate that the poor decision-making of Romo's past is (at least temporarily) long gone. These weren't INTs of immaturity, forced throws, or bad decisions. They were flukes. K, all done with my sidenote.]
In other FUN news, the Giants looked terrible and got absolutely spanked.
So, if Dallas beats Philadelphia for the third time this season and makes it through the wildcard round, they will then head to Minnesota to take on Brett Favre and the Vikings. I hope my family still likes each other after that (potential) matchup is over (those in my family who aren't primarily Cowboys fans are primarily Vikings fans). It'd be fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)