I'm absolutely not an expert (it takes no qualifications at all to set up a blog and write about a team or a sport). Nevertheless, I have a few initial impressions about the upcoming NFL season. Since I'm terrified about looking bad and being wrong, I'm going to play my cards close to my chest for now. I won't make a lot of predictions, but I will say this:
The three best teams in the NFC this season will be the Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings, and Dallas Cowboys (in no particular order).
Part of me thinks it won't even be close.
Maybe you'll get some more out of me over the next couple of weeks, prior to the beginning of the regular season.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Favre Fever!
Can we just be clear about one thing? Bret Favre did not retire and then un-retire this offseason, so to everyone who writes for sports magazines, tv shows, and websites, please STOP with the "...again" talk when we're discussing this issue. It's not retirement when someone sends a text message to friends. In fact, the only reports I ever heard about these mysterious text messages was that it said, "This is it." That's not retirement. Retirement is what Favre did before last season, and the one before where he scheduled a press conference and clearly told the world he was done.
Anyway, that's my rant. It's ridiculous.
I feel like I'm the only one left on the planet (who's not a die-hard through and through Vikings fan) who really likes Bret Favre. Everyone else thinks he's only in it for the money (a complete joke), he's a prima donna (but they can't quite define that), and he's ruining his legacy (I still can't stop laughing about that one).
To everyone spouting this nonsense I just have to ask, Have you ever watched this guy play football in your life? Have you ever heard him give an interview to the press? Do you honestly think he's been insincere in his two retirements? You really think he was holding out this season for more money? And his legacy? I'm willing to bet that Favre couldn't give a rodent's posterior about his so-called legacy. He plays because he loves football. He plays the game with more passion and heart than anyone I've ever seen. He's 40 years old and he plays like a 6-year old who's just learning how much fun the sport is.
Regarding the legacy talk, look at his numbers. Favre is easily one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game. That's not going to change because someone says, "Yeah, but he was kind of a jerk to the Packers that one time." C'mon. Drop it already.
I grew up watching Favre and his Packers give my Cowboys all they could handle. I was never a fan of his team, but I find it impossible not to enjoy watching the man play. I'm glad he's coming back because he's fantastic to watch. I'd love it if he played until he was 80, because I'm not sure there will be another player in my lifetime who plays with his intensity and passion.
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)