Can we just be clear about one thing? Bret Favre did not retire and then un-retire this offseason, so to everyone who writes for sports magazines, tv shows, and websites, please STOP with the "...again" talk when we're discussing this issue. It's not retirement when someone sends a text message to friends. In fact, the only reports I ever heard about these mysterious text messages was that it said, "This is it." That's not retirement. Retirement is what Favre did before last season, and the one before where he scheduled a press conference and clearly told the world he was done.
Anyway, that's my rant. It's ridiculous.
I feel like I'm the only one left on the planet (who's not a die-hard through and through Vikings fan) who really likes Bret Favre. Everyone else thinks he's only in it for the money (a complete joke), he's a prima donna (but they can't quite define that), and he's ruining his legacy (I still can't stop laughing about that one).
To everyone spouting this nonsense I just have to ask, Have you ever watched this guy play football in your life? Have you ever heard him give an interview to the press? Do you honestly think he's been insincere in his two retirements? You really think he was holding out this season for more money? And his legacy? I'm willing to bet that Favre couldn't give a rodent's posterior about his so-called legacy. He plays because he loves football. He plays the game with more passion and heart than anyone I've ever seen. He's 40 years old and he plays like a 6-year old who's just learning how much fun the sport is.
Regarding the legacy talk, look at his numbers. Favre is easily one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game. That's not going to change because someone says, "Yeah, but he was kind of a jerk to the Packers that one time." C'mon. Drop it already.
I grew up watching Favre and his Packers give my Cowboys all they could handle. I was never a fan of his team, but I find it impossible not to enjoy watching the man play. I'm glad he's coming back because he's fantastic to watch. I'd love it if he played until he was 80, because I'm not sure there will be another player in my lifetime who plays with his intensity and passion.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
The Favre Saga
It's being reported that Brett Favre has decided to retire... again.
We obviously have reason to be skeptical about this, but I just want to say one thing at this point: If it's true and Favre really does retire for good, everyone who was optimistic about the Vikings this year will be disappointed. There is no way that Minnesota can match last year's NFC title game appearance with Tarvaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels at the helm. My prediction would be that they won't even make the playoffs (they certainly won't beat Green Bay for the division championship without Favre, so they'd have to be a wildcard, and that would be quite difficult).
I like the Vikings, but I don't see them having a very successful year without Favre. He was too good, and the so-called backups that Brad Childress laughingly has in place are too bad.
Your thoughts? Am I wrong about Jackson and/or Rosenfels?
We obviously have reason to be skeptical about this, but I just want to say one thing at this point: If it's true and Favre really does retire for good, everyone who was optimistic about the Vikings this year will be disappointed. There is no way that Minnesota can match last year's NFC title game appearance with Tarvaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels at the helm. My prediction would be that they won't even make the playoffs (they certainly won't beat Green Bay for the division championship without Favre, so they'd have to be a wildcard, and that would be quite difficult).
I like the Vikings, but I don't see them having a very successful year without Favre. He was too good, and the so-called backups that Brad Childress laughingly has in place are too bad.
Your thoughts? Am I wrong about Jackson and/or Rosenfels?
Friday, July 23, 2010
Dez Bryant
It's been awhile. Sorry about that.
It's common for first-round picks who are expected to be superstars to "hold out" when training camps start as they try to work out the most lucrative deals they possibly can before finally signing with the team who drafted them. I always have a bitter taste in my mouth toward players like that.
The Cowboys drafted wide receiver Dez Bryant in the first round, and he's been fairly hyped-up. But instead of holding out, he's signing a contract this afternoon prior to the start of training camp tomorrow.
According to Jean-Jacques Taylor Bryant said, "This was my call. I told [agent] Eugene that I wanted to be in camp on time. I just want to play football. I told him to make it happen. I wasn't even all caught up with the money because this is just my first contract."
When asked about whether he was going to be a starter he said, "Don't get me wrong, I would love to start, but I don't care about it. I just want to earn my playing time and do whatever it takes to help this team."
Those are all the right answers from a first-round pick. Just thought I'd share.
It's common for first-round picks who are expected to be superstars to "hold out" when training camps start as they try to work out the most lucrative deals they possibly can before finally signing with the team who drafted them. I always have a bitter taste in my mouth toward players like that.
The Cowboys drafted wide receiver Dez Bryant in the first round, and he's been fairly hyped-up. But instead of holding out, he's signing a contract this afternoon prior to the start of training camp tomorrow.
According to Jean-Jacques Taylor Bryant said, "This was my call. I told [agent] Eugene that I wanted to be in camp on time. I just want to play football. I told him to make it happen. I wasn't even all caught up with the money because this is just my first contract."
When asked about whether he was going to be a starter he said, "Don't get me wrong, I would love to start, but I don't care about it. I just want to earn my playing time and do whatever it takes to help this team."
Those are all the right answers from a first-round pick. Just thought I'd share.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
not too early?
Todd McShay has already put together a mock draft for 2011. Further evidence that people are FAR too mock-crazy when it comes to the draft.
When I saw that story I threw up a little in my mouth.
When I saw that story I threw up a little in my mouth.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
The Draft
Let's be honest. You only care about the draft because the sports media tells you to.
For owners, GMs, and coaches, the draft is a HUGE deal that takes an insane amount of preparation, meetings, holding workouts, watching film, and much much more. It's extremely important that scouts and big-wigs for every team are being tremendously diligent in draft preparation.
But for fans? I can't figure out why we have any reason to care as much as we apparently do. I'm supposed to get all hyped-up about who the Cowboys are going to take with their #27 pick. Yes, it matters, but no one will have any idea how good of a pick it was for at least 2-3 years. Maybe longer.
Will Tebow go in the first round? It matters to him, because it will affect the amount of money he gets paid. It matters to me if the Cowboys pick him (they won't), because then he's on my team and I'll be cheering for him for at least the next few years. What round he's taken in makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to me.
Whether or not the Redskins draft a tackle or a quarterback makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to me at this point.
I haven't looked up stats on this, but there's gotta be something close to a 50% bust rate for 1st-rounders. Top-picked quarterbacks are awful or at least non-factors as often as not. Same with receivers and running backs. Maybe offensive tackles have a higher success rate, and that's definitely one of the most important positions on the field, do you really get amped up about which tackle your team might take? One of the best quarterbacks in the history of the game (Tom Brady) was chosen 199th, and wasn't listed on anyone's "mock" drafts.
I dunno. These are merely annoyed ramblings with (obviously) no real cohesive rhetorical strategy. And I'll probably watch at least a few minutes of the draft tonight and tomorrow. But I'm not going to jump up and down no matter who takes whom or when. I remember watching Cardinals fans at Radio City Music Hall going hogwild when Matt Leinart was chosen a few years ago. And what's he accomplished on the field so far? Very little. In fact, it was a guy nobody was too excited about (Kurt Warner) who led that team to a Super Bowl while Leinart sat on the bench. Eh.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)