Five of ESPN's eight NFL "experts" who pick the winners for every game each week have picked the Cowboys to defeat the Colts in Indianapolis tomorrow afternoon. Are they smokin' some kind of weird drug, or do the 'Boys really have a shot? Your thoughts?
My thoughts - sure, they have a shot, but wouldn't pick them if I worked for ESPN. Manning and the Colts are desperate. They NEED a win. I think they'll get it. Dallas might keep it close, though.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The Playoff Machine
Check THIS out. ESPN has come up with an NFL "Playoff Machine." You start by choosing a criteria (home team, away team, power rankings, win %, offensive rank, or defensive rank). The "machine" then automatically determines the outcomes of every NFL game for the rest of the season based on what you selected, and shows you a complete playoff picture based on what those results would produce. Of course, none of those criteria would be completely accurate, so you can view all the games week-by-week and change any individual game you think would turn out differently than the criteria you chose... and the playoff picture updates automatically! It's SUPER cool. Maybe the niftiest thing I've ever seen on the web relating to sports.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Playoffs and Seeds
This post has pretty much nothing to do with the Cowboys in particular. It's about the NFL playoffs as a whole.
Right now the co-leaders of the NFC West (Seattle and St. Louis) are 5-6. The two teams playing right now (in the century's WORST EVER prime-time NFL game), San Francisco and Arizona, are both 3-7, and as ESPN's website puts it, the winner of this game is "very much alive" in the division's race. It's entirely conceivable that the winner of the NFC West could end the regular season with losing record (7-9), or (at best?) .500 (8-8).
If you didn't know, the NFL takes 6 playoff teams from each conference: The winner of each of the four divisions, plus two wildcards. That means that if St. Louis wins the West with a 7-9 record, they would make the playoffs -- possibly over a 10- or even 11-win team.
Furthermore, the NFL's seeding rules automatically make the four division winners the top four seeds (regardless of record). Division winners, therefore, automatically get at least their first playoff game at home.
Every couple of years an 8-8 team will make the playoffs and people start to wonder whether the NFL's playoff rules make the most sense. Some say that the top 6 teams in a conference should make the playoffs, even if that means not every division is represented. I don't think I would have a problem with such a rule, because I hate to see 11-5 teams miss the playoffs. Perhaps before this measure is taken, however, the NFL should just try to alter how they set playoff seeds. I see no reason why a division winner should automatically get to host a playoff game. Let's say the Saints win out (not an unbelievable notion), and the Falcons lose only to the Saints in Week 16. Both those teams finish 13-3. One wins the division (based on tiebreakers) and the NFC's #1 seed (which means a playoff bye, and home field throughout). The other 13-3 team has to play AT St. Louis, who is 5 or 6 games WORSE! Does that at all seem right?
In other words, you could be the fourth-worst team in the league and still get to host a playoff game. You could also be the second-best team in the league and still have to play a road playoff game as a wildcard. I guess in my opinion, if you want the regular season to really mean something, you should be rewarding teams who perform better during the regular season. It also seems like this would all but ensure that the best teams remain in the playoffs longer, which should be the goal of any sport's post-season (it's why the #1 seed plays the #16 seed in round 1 of March Madness).
Anybody object? Or have a better solution? Do you favor the "change the seeding" idea, or would you go for the "top 6 teams regardless of division" idea instead?
Right now the co-leaders of the NFC West (Seattle and St. Louis) are 5-6. The two teams playing right now (in the century's WORST EVER prime-time NFL game), San Francisco and Arizona, are both 3-7, and as ESPN's website puts it, the winner of this game is "very much alive" in the division's race. It's entirely conceivable that the winner of the NFC West could end the regular season with losing record (7-9), or (at best?) .500 (8-8).
If you didn't know, the NFL takes 6 playoff teams from each conference: The winner of each of the four divisions, plus two wildcards. That means that if St. Louis wins the West with a 7-9 record, they would make the playoffs -- possibly over a 10- or even 11-win team.
Furthermore, the NFL's seeding rules automatically make the four division winners the top four seeds (regardless of record). Division winners, therefore, automatically get at least their first playoff game at home.
Every couple of years an 8-8 team will make the playoffs and people start to wonder whether the NFL's playoff rules make the most sense. Some say that the top 6 teams in a conference should make the playoffs, even if that means not every division is represented. I don't think I would have a problem with such a rule, because I hate to see 11-5 teams miss the playoffs. Perhaps before this measure is taken, however, the NFL should just try to alter how they set playoff seeds. I see no reason why a division winner should automatically get to host a playoff game. Let's say the Saints win out (not an unbelievable notion), and the Falcons lose only to the Saints in Week 16. Both those teams finish 13-3. One wins the division (based on tiebreakers) and the NFC's #1 seed (which means a playoff bye, and home field throughout). The other 13-3 team has to play AT St. Louis, who is 5 or 6 games WORSE! Does that at all seem right?
In other words, you could be the fourth-worst team in the league and still get to host a playoff game. You could also be the second-best team in the league and still have to play a road playoff game as a wildcard. I guess in my opinion, if you want the regular season to really mean something, you should be rewarding teams who perform better during the regular season. It also seems like this would all but ensure that the best teams remain in the playoffs longer, which should be the goal of any sport's post-season (it's why the #1 seed plays the #16 seed in round 1 of March Madness).
Anybody object? Or have a better solution? Do you favor the "change the seeding" idea, or would you go for the "top 6 teams regardless of division" idea instead?
Sunday, November 14, 2010
a few tidbits
I watched the second half of the Cowboys' 33-20 win over the Giants today, so maybe now I can offer some thoughts.
First of all, I'll say that Dallas looked like a completely different team today than they did for their first 8 games. There was an energy and emotion that we haven't seen since their playoff win over the Eagles last year. I don't know if Jason Garrett was THE reason for this, but was certainly one of them. I can't help but wonder if Jerry Jones is kicking himself for not making a change a few weeks earlier -- when the team still had an outside playoff chance. I kind of got a kick out of the fact that Garrett didn't seem to be able to wipe a small grin off his face during the last few minutes of the game or any of his post-game interviews.
If the ONLY thing that changes with the Jason Garrett era is that the Cowboys' huge plays stand instead of being called back for stupid penalties, that should be enough to make Dallas a competitor. That happened today. I saw big play after big play, and almost felt shocked that after each one there weren't yellow flags flying. In fact, in a couple of the cases I can think of where flags did fly, they were penalties against the Giants!
Prior to today's game, every analyst I heard said that the only bright spot for the 'Boys this season was the play of rookie Dez Bryant. Well, that bright spot just got brighter tonight. Bryant had some big plays. Also, Miles Austin had a big touchdown, Felix Jones had a 71-yard touchdown on a perfectly executed screen pass, and Roy Williams caught at least one BIG pass to convert a 3rd and long in the 3rd quarter. Rather than just laying down when the Giants started to look like they were going to make a comeback in the 3rd, the team kept playing hard, and Alan Ball got a huge interception late in the game to make it more difficult for the G-men to try and put together a win.
In all of those big pass plays I mentioned in the above paragraph, we should also mention that Jon Kitna was the one making those throws. He had well over 300 yards in today's game and didn't get sacked once (unless I completely missed something). Against the "feared" pass-rush of the Giants, the fact that the Cowboys O-line was able to protect the largely immobile Kitna for a whole game is pretty impressive.
I'm still not convinced I want Jason Garrett in the head coach's parking space when next season rolls around, but I suppose he's audition for us fans as much as he is for owner Jerry Jones. It's nice not to have to feel ashamed of the team I cheer for quite as badly this week.
First of all, I'll say that Dallas looked like a completely different team today than they did for their first 8 games. There was an energy and emotion that we haven't seen since their playoff win over the Eagles last year. I don't know if Jason Garrett was THE reason for this, but was certainly one of them. I can't help but wonder if Jerry Jones is kicking himself for not making a change a few weeks earlier -- when the team still had an outside playoff chance. I kind of got a kick out of the fact that Garrett didn't seem to be able to wipe a small grin off his face during the last few minutes of the game or any of his post-game interviews.
If the ONLY thing that changes with the Jason Garrett era is that the Cowboys' huge plays stand instead of being called back for stupid penalties, that should be enough to make Dallas a competitor. That happened today. I saw big play after big play, and almost felt shocked that after each one there weren't yellow flags flying. In fact, in a couple of the cases I can think of where flags did fly, they were penalties against the Giants!
Prior to today's game, every analyst I heard said that the only bright spot for the 'Boys this season was the play of rookie Dez Bryant. Well, that bright spot just got brighter tonight. Bryant had some big plays. Also, Miles Austin had a big touchdown, Felix Jones had a 71-yard touchdown on a perfectly executed screen pass, and Roy Williams caught at least one BIG pass to convert a 3rd and long in the 3rd quarter. Rather than just laying down when the Giants started to look like they were going to make a comeback in the 3rd, the team kept playing hard, and Alan Ball got a huge interception late in the game to make it more difficult for the G-men to try and put together a win.
In all of those big pass plays I mentioned in the above paragraph, we should also mention that Jon Kitna was the one making those throws. He had well over 300 yards in today's game and didn't get sacked once (unless I completely missed something). Against the "feared" pass-rush of the Giants, the fact that the Cowboys O-line was able to protect the largely immobile Kitna for a whole game is pretty impressive.
I'm still not convinced I want Jason Garrett in the head coach's parking space when next season rolls around, but I suppose he's audition for us fans as much as he is for owner Jerry Jones. It's nice not to have to feel ashamed of the team I cheer for quite as badly this week.
Per Jase's request
I just got a text message from my little brother asking me to post a half-time update of the Cowboys' game against the Giants today. He's curious about my thoughts thus far. So here they are:
I haven't seen any of the game. I was in the car driving early in the 2nd quarter when the Cowboys were ahead 9-3. Then I heard updates every time someone scored. I got home with about a minute left in the 1st half. I found someone streaming the game on justin.tv (since it's not on TV here), and I caught the pick-6 highlight, and that is IT. So, I have no thoughts, but I wanted to appease Jase. I guess all I can say is, it seems like the defense is playing quite well ever since the defensive coordinator (/head coach) got fired. Maybe we should have thought of this a long time ago...
I haven't seen any of the game. I was in the car driving early in the 2nd quarter when the Cowboys were ahead 9-3. Then I heard updates every time someone scored. I got home with about a minute left in the 1st half. I found someone streaming the game on justin.tv (since it's not on TV here), and I caught the pick-6 highlight, and that is IT. So, I have no thoughts, but I wanted to appease Jase. I guess all I can say is, it seems like the defense is playing quite well ever since the defensive coordinator (/head coach) got fired. Maybe we should have thought of this a long time ago...
Sunday, November 7, 2010
I don't get it
Someone needs to educate me with regard to the firing of Wade Phillips. Every talking head I've heard in the last couple of weeks (including brilliant guys I love like Al Michaels and Tony Dungy) say that even though he should be fired, Jones really can't do it for one or more of the following reasons:
1) History tells us that replacing the coach midseason doesn't do a whole lot of good.
2) There's no one on the staff ready to take his place.
3) The Collective Bargaining Agreement means that Jones can't really bring in a big gun (Cowher, Gruden) because he might end up having to pay the guy millions to sit around during a lockout next season.
I don't get it.
Both 1) and 2) above assume that the team still thinks they can somehow succeed this year, and/or that whoever replaces Phillips right now has to come back next year. I understand that that's not a recipe for success, but look at it this way: THIS SEASON IS OVER!!! It doesn't matter if the team wins 0, 1, or 5 more games this year, they're done for. Bring in Daffy Duck to coach the remainder of the season if you want. It doesn't matter. At least you'd be making some kind of a statement about not putting up with a Marshmallow Coach. You don't have to bring in Gruden now. Wait until February. Just get Wade out of there.
Of course, as I've said before, Wade's not the real problem. Jerry is. The caveat to the "making a statement" argument in the above paragraph is that it's already too late for a statement really to be made. As soon as you put up with a coach who won't expect excellence out of his players, you've made the wrong kind of statement, and it can't be undone.
I had an elementary school teacher with a poster that hung from her desk that said, "An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." Wade Phillips has been a mistake for a couple of years now.
1) History tells us that replacing the coach midseason doesn't do a whole lot of good.
2) There's no one on the staff ready to take his place.
3) The Collective Bargaining Agreement means that Jones can't really bring in a big gun (Cowher, Gruden) because he might end up having to pay the guy millions to sit around during a lockout next season.
I don't get it.
Both 1) and 2) above assume that the team still thinks they can somehow succeed this year, and/or that whoever replaces Phillips right now has to come back next year. I understand that that's not a recipe for success, but look at it this way: THIS SEASON IS OVER!!! It doesn't matter if the team wins 0, 1, or 5 more games this year, they're done for. Bring in Daffy Duck to coach the remainder of the season if you want. It doesn't matter. At least you'd be making some kind of a statement about not putting up with a Marshmallow Coach. You don't have to bring in Gruden now. Wait until February. Just get Wade out of there.
Of course, as I've said before, Wade's not the real problem. Jerry is. The caveat to the "making a statement" argument in the above paragraph is that it's already too late for a statement really to be made. As soon as you put up with a coach who won't expect excellence out of his players, you've made the wrong kind of statement, and it can't be undone.
I had an elementary school teacher with a poster that hung from her desk that said, "An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." Wade Phillips has been a mistake for a couple of years now.
Prime Time
Well, kickoff of the Cowboys-Packers Sunday Night Football game is about 2 minutes away, so I'll make this quick.
There is no reason for anyone to think Dallas is going to win this game. My father-in-law texted my wife earlier saying, "Go Pack, Go." I like his sense of humor (he's a Packers fan). I know he's just ribbing us, and I don't mind a bit.
Especially since beating the Cowboys at this point would kind of be like beating Yeshiva University (West WIng reference, anyone?).
That's all I wanted to say. I'll be watching tonight because the SNF broadcast is the best of the week, regardless of who's playing. I'll obviously be rooting for my 'Boys, but won't be all that emotional if (when?) they start getting killed.
There is no reason for anyone to think Dallas is going to win this game. My father-in-law texted my wife earlier saying, "Go Pack, Go." I like his sense of humor (he's a Packers fan). I know he's just ribbing us, and I don't mind a bit.
Especially since beating the Cowboys at this point would kind of be like beating Yeshiva University (West WIng reference, anyone?).
That's all I wanted to say. I'll be watching tonight because the SNF broadcast is the best of the week, regardless of who's playing. I'll obviously be rooting for my 'Boys, but won't be all that emotional if (when?) they start getting killed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)