To the "experts:" Suck it up & admit you were wrong

I enjoy listening to sports radio. I often have Mike & Mike on the TV in the morning while I'm getting myself ready for the day. If it's later in the morning, I watch or listen to Colin Cowherd. In the car throughout the day I often listen to bits of Dan Patrick, Scott Van Pelt, and Doug Gottlieb.

I used to listen to this stuff and pretty much take it all in, and often agree with most of what I heard. Radio guys have a way of expressing their opinions well, and they can be quite persuasive. Over time, however, I've become much more critical, as I constantly hear inconsistencies and illogical conclusions.

For the last week, the biggest story line in most of these shows has been one apparently indisputable fact: The Steelers would absolutely smoke the Broncos. They're bigger, they're more physical, they have a defense that will shut Tebow down. They have Big Ben as their quarterback, and they will definitely win by three touchdowns.

I just didn't see it. It would seem that not one of these experts had watched Pittsburgh play for the last month. Big Ben has a terrible injury to his ankle that most players wouldn't go onto the field with. He's literally hobbling around like an 80 year old with a broken hip. The Steeler offense scored 9 points last week against Cleveland. Cleveland! I understood the Steelers being favored, but by multiple touchdowns? Didn't make sense to me.

Well, in case you live under a rock, the Broncos beat the Steelers yesterday, and they did it by scoring 29 points. They did it by passing the ball (which Tebow can't do, especially against one of the better pass defenses in the league).

And what am I hearing today? "Yeah, but the Steelers are a shell of themselves. They're banged up. Roethlisberger can't move like he normally can... yada yada yada." None of those things were surprises (Ben's been injured for weeks), but they didn't stop you from talking ad nauseum about how far superior the Steelers were to the Broncos.

I'm not saying the Broncos are a Super Bowl contender, I'm just trying to point out that I also didn't see Pittsburgh as "the team to beat" in the AFC, though it seems like everyone else thought they were. And "experts" should be more honest.

This was a much worse season than you think

The Cowboys finished the season third in their division, with their only division wins coming against the fairly awful Redskins (in one of those games, the 'Boys did not score a touchdown, and the other required overtime). The Cowboys gave away big late-game leads to the Jets, Lions and Giants. They lost games they should have won to the Patriots and the Cardinals.

For years the Cowboys have been listed among the league's most talented. For decades they've been the most-watched team in football. Of the seven highest-rated Sunday Night Football games (in the 6-year history of NBC's broadcast), the Cowboys have played in six, including the three highest. It's clear that Dallas does not have to succeed to remain popular. And unfortunately, the culture of Jerry Jones's squad reflects that sentiment perfectly.

Good teams take the talent they have and win games. The Cowboys, for 15 years in a row now, take the talent they have and sell tickets.

I'm not sure I have a silver bullet for fixing the problem, because it's system-wide. It starts with Jerry, and it infects everything below him. His jewel-encrusted stadium, his front-office staff, his coaches, and his players.

I don't think a season and a half is enough to provide a fair assessment of Jason Garrett. Even if it is, I wouldn't think he should be fired for his performance. But I wonder if the organization needs to clean house and start over.

The defense isn't entirely (or even primarily) Rob Ryan's fault. The defense showed flashes of brilliance. And I don't know if there's anything Ryan can do about a professional football player, Abram Elam, wrapping up Ahmad Bradshaw in the backfield for a certain loss, but instead somehow letting him go and run for a touchdown instead. I don't hold Ryan responsible for a 9-year veteran, Terence Newman, being neutralized once runners discovered they simply have to jump in the air to avoid him. I'm not convinced his game plans were always successful (see Eagles 34, Cowboys 7), but when they were, his personnel simply couldn't execute.

This season was worse than you think because even a little bit of mental toughness would have led to 12 or 13 wins, and instead we saw only 8. Tony Romo had a pre-season attitude that made it clear he was ready to take the next step in his career. He was more focused, more mature, and more ready than he's ever been for a season. He had a great year, but he almost single-handedly gave away two games (Jets, Lions)*. Demarcus Ware was in the hunt for most of the year not only to lead the league in sacks, but to break Michael Strahan's single-season sack record, but he mostly disappeared late in the season.

Usually when a team misses the playoffs, they look over the season and coaches determine where they need to get better, how to improve through the draft and through free agency, and how to develop the team toward a more successful next year. The Cowboys have been trying that formula for years. There are trouble spots that need to be addressed for sure, but the Cowboys trouble is not that they need to get more talented. They need to become mentally tougher. They need an intensity and a winning instinct that simply isn't there. How else can you explain completely laying down to a hated division rival like the Eagles twice in one season? How can you explain acting like a win over the Patriots is unnecessary? And how can you explain giving up 21 points in the first half in a game that, practically speaking, is a playoff game, while scoring absolutely zero?

The answer for the Dallas Cowboys cannot be to do what you're supposed to do in the offseason. There needs to be some serious soul-searching. I'm well aware of the explosive abilities and amazing talent of many players on this team, but it has become clear that there is no reason for optimism as a fan. Until the culture of the Cowboys organization takes a dramatic turn, we will not see an impressive ending to any Dallas season.

*Romo's one of the last on my personal list of who's to blame for the crappy bits of this season, so don't think I'm calling him the goat. I do think his mental mistakes in big points of certain games illustrate the cultural problems described in this post.

An ignorant reporter, and the sad tale of the 2011 Cowboys

In his Rapid Reaction article for ESPN.com's NFC East blog, Calvin Watkins starts by saying that the Cowboys-Eagles game this afternoon "didn't mean much" because the Giants defeated the Jets in an earlier game. Watkins ends his article by pointing out that there are scenarios in which Dallas could clinch a playoff berth.

I've never been a huge fan of Watkins, but these two statements are putting me over the edge enough to directly address him.

First of all, there are NOT any possible scenarios in which Dallas can make the playoffs as a wild card. If the Cowboys win next week, they win the division, regardless of what else happens. If they lose OR tie next week, the Giants win the division, regardless of what else happens. Other non-division winners in the NFC have more wins than Dallas, so the Cowboys cannot catch them without winning (which would give them the division title). Watkins has apparently gone to the zoo.

Secondly, the Cowboys-Eagles game did mean something for the 'Boys, as Dan Graziano points out. If Dallas had won, they would still have had a shot at a wild card berth, with some help, in case they don't defeat the Giants next Sunday night. The team that was completely eliminated and had nothing to play for was the Eagles, yet Dallas couldn't even come close to competing against Philly for the second time this season.

Frankly, I was embarrassed by the fact that the Cowboys' coaching staff seemed not to care at all about today's game. The Cowboys' players didn't seem to care at all either. I would have thought that they would have some kind of chip on their shoulders after getting trounced a few weeks ago by these Eagles. Instead they got trounced again (it was uglier than the 20-7 score indicates). Although I am, by nature, an eternal optimist, I have no evidence to give you that I should feel good about the Cowboys' chances against the Giants in the win-or-go-home matchup in prime time next Sunday. I see no evidence that Dallas can pull of something impressive in the postseason even if they make it there. What a disappointment.

Playoff scenarios

This week's NFL games have helped the Cowboys. If you're curious how things shape up for their playoff chances, here are the basics:

The Cowboys' win last night in Tampa, coupled with the Giants getting smoked by the Redskins today in New Jersey puts the 'Boys in the best scenario they could've hoped for following last week's loss to the G-Men. The worst that can happen for Dallas now is for them to playing a win-and-you're-in game against the Giants in Week 17 (no matter what happens next week). The much more fun scenario, though, is if Dallas defeats Philadelphia next week while the Giants LOSE to the Jets. In that case, Dallas will have wrapped up the division even before the Week 17 rematch with the Giants.

So, whether the Giants win AND/OR the Cowboys lose next week, the Week 17 re-match will determine the NFC East champs. If the Cowboys win AND the Giants lose, the Cowboys win the East regardless of Week 17's outcome.

* There are scenarios in which the Eagles could still win the East, but they would have to win their last three games (including the one they're playing as I type against the Jets), and hope Dallas doesn't win Week 17.
** There are also scenarios in which the Cowboys could lose the division BUT still make the playoffs as a wild card, but those scenarios are fairly few, and Dallas would be on the outside looking in if they don't win the division.

On James Harrison

Steelers linebacker James Harrison has been suspended for one game for a helmet-to-helmet hit he put on Browns QB Colt McCoy, which resulted in McCoy's concussion. If you've watched the NFL for more than 10 minutes, you know that Harrison has established this sort of reputation for himself, and this is not the first hit of this kind he's gotten in trouble for. In the past, though, he's just been fined. Now he's being suspended.

I've listened to Mike & Mike talk about this issue for a while this morning. They're pointing out how hard this situation must be for Harrison, who has basically admitted to trying and failing to "change the way he plays."

I just don't understand any sympathy for Harrison. For the record, I'm often upset at the way the league has started protecting quarterbacks. It seems that anything other than a gentle bear-hug tackle that slowly lowers the QB to the ground gets flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct, which is ridiculous. But I think we can all agree that helmet-to-helmet hits are extremely dangerous (many of them result in concussions). Harrison and his supporters like to paint him as an intense hard-hitting guy who shouldn't be expected to change what he's been doing since he was a little kid. I can only say this: Other players don't seem to have such a hard time. Harrison is not the only intense hard-hitting defender in the league. He just seems to be the only one incapable of adapting. Ray Lewis is every bit as feared by offenses. He doesn't have the same problems.

Sometimes when people say, "Well that's just who I am, I can't change," I think about what a friend of mine said a few years ago: "Yeah, I used to pick my nose too. I grew up." People do have inherent traits that they can't change (introverts are introverts, and that's that), but when everyone else seems to be able to grow and adapt, and one guy says he can't, he's not to be told, "ok, well in your case we'll let you continue to hurt people." If he truly can't play the right way, maybe it's time for James Harrison to retire.

A college football rant

The BCS National Championship game on January 9, 2012, will be between LSU and Alabama. Many fans are upset and believe that instead of Alabama, Oklahoma State should be LSU's opponent. The arguments basically go like this:
LSU is the country's best team, and everyone believes they belong in this game. They are undefeated, and have soundly whooped just about everyone they've played, except for when they played...
Alabama. That's right, LSU and Alabama have already played each other once this season. It was then that Alabama suffered its only loss of the year - a 9-6 overtime decision. Other than that one tough game, Alabama has pretty much smoked everyone they've played as well.
Oklahoma State is also a 1-loss team, killing most every opponent, but instead of losing to the best team in the country, their loss came against Iowa State.

I don't watch a lot of college football, and I don't really have a dog in this fight. Many believe that Alabama is somewhat clearly the #2 team, and so it makes sense for them to be playing for the BCS title. Others think Oklahoma State is that team that should face LSU in the championship. I understand the arguments for both sides. So why am I blogging about this?

Because yesterday (the day after the championship match-up was announced) I heard no less than SIX otherwise intelligent sports people make the one argument I simply will not listen to. Specifically, these people believe that the reason (in a few cases, the only reason) Oklahoma State should be in the championship instead of Alabama is because the BCS championship shouldn't be a re-match. That's it. That's the silver bullet to their argument. They say, "But what if Alabama wins? Then do they have to play again [because each team would have won a game against the other this season]? And if you believe that argument to be valid, please go back to 2nd grade and begin following sports again. In twenty years you may come back and apologize to me for being so stupid.

If you find the above argument compelling, then you must think that the 2007 Giants and the 2007 Patriots should have played one more game after the Super Bowl to see who the real champ is. And that situation happens fairly regularly. In the NFL, two divisional teams will often face each other in the postseason. What if the Giants beat the Cowboys twice this season, but Dallas makes it in as a wildcard and the two teams play each other in the first round of the playoffs. By your logic, they shouldn't play. No matter who wins, the Giants have won two games, so they should get an automatic bye past the 'Boys. You've got even more problems when it comes to baseball. Divisional teams in baseball square off some 18 times during the regular season! If the Brewers & Cardinals end up in the NLCS, does the winner of the regular season series automatically advance to the World Series? Or should they play it out?

I'll tip my hand. As far as I'm concerned, an OT loss to the undisputed #1 team is more impressive than a close loss to Iowa State (no offense meant, Jase. I like the 'Clones!). Even so, I'll listen to rational arguments about Oklahoma State (how they played a tougher schedule and had more impressive wins, etc.). I just won't listen to the re-match argument.

Sports isn't always about winning the most games (just ask the 18-1 2007 Patriots). It's usually about winning the right games.

Tebow-mania

Listening to NFL analysts try to explain what's going on in Denver this season just makes me smile.

Conventional wisdom in the NFL says that the Tebow-style football that has taken root in the mile high city is unsustainable. On Mike & Mike this morning, both Mike Golic and guest Mark Schlereth said that Tim Tebow will NOT be a starting quarterback for any team in the league next season. In reference to that, Mike Greenberg said he finds that hard to believe. So Greeny asked Golic who the best QB is in the AFC this year. Tom Brady, obviously. Big Ben was next. After that, Golic started to have a hard time. He said that Matt Schaub in Houston would obviously be in that discussion, except he's now injured for the rest of the season. When he remembered that Andy Dalton is in the AFC, he listed him next. But after that, who else could you really put up there? Tebow has to be among the next names you consider. Fourth in the AFC? That's ridiculous.

But as Greeny pointed out, when it comes to Tebow, the entire evaluation process has to be reconsidered. After all, his Total QBR this season is 16th in the AFC (there are only 16 teams in the AFC). I don't know where he ranks in passer rating, but it's got to be awful. He completes just 45% of his passes. If you evaluate Tebow the way you evaluate other NFL QBs, he'd rank darn near last. But he's 5-1 (that's more wins this season than Philip Rivers, who's started 5 more games), with the same team that his predecessor played with when starting the season 1-4.

Here's how it seems to work: The Denver defense is playing spectacularly. Tebow's best moments come in the 4th quarter & overtime. When a defense keeps teams from scoring, you're always in the game, which means you're in position to pull out a win late -- when your limited QB shines brightest. Also, the Denver offensive line and running game are both playing incredibly well. Willis McGahee is running all over defenses, and for a quarterback, Tebow is too. When he does drop back to pass, Tebow has time (one of the most important ingredients needed for a young inexperienced quarterback to succeed). But, he doesn't drop back very often, which keeps good pass rush defenses from being disruptive. Also, Tebow doesn't turn the ball over. He's thrown 1 interception and had 0 fumbles in his 6 games. As one analyst put it, every Bronco drive ends in a kick. Either a punt, a field goal, or an extra point.

SO, the Broncos completely control the clock with their successful run game. They're perfectly content to run a draw play on 3rd & 11, gain 5 or 6 yards, and punt. The defense, which is almost always very well-rested because their offense can hold the ball for such large chunks of time, comes out and shuts down the opponent. The offense gets at it again. Eventually, the offense moves the chains enough times to get them into field goal range, and occasionally score a touchdown. Then, when we get to the 4th quarter, the game is close, and everyone on the team has confidence in the abilities of everyone else on the team. Tebow has some weird power when there's less than 8 minutes left, and he somehow manages to put together a scoring drive. Broncos win.

So is it all Tebow? Of course not. He'd never compete in a shootout -- a lesson Denver learned the hard way against Detroit in Tebow's second start (a 45-10 Lions blowout). Is it all defense? It's a big part defense, but a big part of the defense's success is because of Tebow's rare abilities on offense. Is it the offensive line and the run game? They're a huge part. And it's also Britton Colquitt (punter) and Matt Prater (kicker) who have performed their respective duties beautifully.

The real genius in all of this seems to be coach John Fox, who has completely altered the game plan of an NFL team on the fly in October and November. That is an unbelievably tough task.

Tebow does seem to get a little bit better in the passing game each week. Last Sunday he completed 50% of his passes for the first time. If he's hitting his ceiling as a passer, though, then he might be in for a rough career. The game plan of the Broncos this season is confounding everyone who's ever followed the sport. Maybe it will continue to work this season. Maybe the Broncos make the playoffs. Maybe they even win a playoff game. But in the future, it seems that if teams MUST follow the Bronco formula in order to win with Tebow, I just don't know if there will be many teams willing to revamp themselves like that for him. I hope the guy wins the Super Bowl, and everyone is forced to give him another chance next year to see what will become of all this. Just because no one's ever done it before doesn't make it impossible.