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.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Sunday, December 18, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Cowboys could clinch the division as early as Dec. 11.
In case you're wondering, the Cowboys could actually clinch the NFC East in less than two weeks when they play the Giants. How? Well, if the Cowboys beat Arizona this week (as they should), and the Giants lose to the undefeated Packers this week (as they should), then Dallas would simply have to defeat the Giants on December 11. You can read a more detailed breakdown of how this would work HERE.
(Technically, if the Eagles win each of their next two games, the Cowboys won't have clinched the division on the 11th, but I don't see Philadelphia winning out, which is what they would have to do.)
(Technically, if the Eagles win each of their next two games, the Cowboys won't have clinched the division on the 11th, but I don't see Philadelphia winning out, which is what they would have to do.)
Monday, November 28, 2011
Jake's Take: Who I Cheer For
Maybe it goes without saying, but I thought I'd spell out for you how I decide which team I'm rooting for in any given NFL game:
1. Are the Cowboys one of the two teams involved in the game? Cheer for the Cowboys. Easy enough, right? If I could have ONE guaranteed win per week, it'd be Dallas every time.
2. Is there an NFC East team involved in the game? Cheer against the Eagles, Giants & Redskins. Every loss they suffer helps the 'Boys.
3. Are there TWO NFC East teams involved in the game? Cheer against whichever one is ahead in the standings. Again, the idea is to help the Cowboys' position in the division.
4. Are there any wild card contenders in the game? Cheer against them. If Dallas isn't going to win the East, we at least want them to get a wild card playoff spot, so it helps them if other contenders lose.
5. Is it an NFC matchup that includes NO NFC East teams, and NO wild card contenders? Root against the 49ers. Root for the Vikings. If neither the '9ers nor the Vikings are playing, I generally cheer for underdogs. But I should be clear that I also don't care very much about these games. I'll watch them if they're on, because I love football, but I really don't care who wins the Carolina-Seattle game.
6. Is it an AFC matchup? Substitute the above criteria with the Broncos as the team you wish to ultimately succeed. (That is, root against AFC West teams and other AFC wild card contenders.) After that, root against the Patriots & Steelers.
EXCEPTIONS: Let's say the New York Giants are 11-0, and basically have the NFC #1 seed locked up. The Cowboys are 7-4, with virtually no chance to win the division. The Eagles are 6-5 or 7-4. I'd be rooting for the Giants in a Giants-Eagles game, because an Eagles loss helps Dallas much more than a Giants loss does. This is in violation of #3, but I'm sure you can see why.
Cheering against the 49ers in #5 is a timeless, universal truth. I will never cheer for the '9ers, unless a San Francisco win will directly help the Cowboys' season. But, in #6 where I say to root against the Patriots & Steelers, that's mostly based on the recent successes of those teams. If, in 15 years, New England is at the bottom of the NFL food chain, I'll root for them as an underdog. I just tend to root against teams who have won a lot lately (which is why I also haven't liked New Orleans for a few years).
Lastly, sometimes I don't know who to cheer for early in the season, because everyone is still a contender in Week 4. At that point, I typically root FOR the following teams:
Cowboys, Broncos, (I've always liked these two, plus I live in Denver)
Vikings, Packers, (people close to me like these teams, so I've always had positive feelings toward them)
Falcons, Texans (no real reason, except that the Texans are perennial underdogs, and I like many of the Falcon players and their coach - these two are NOT timeless).
I typically root AGAINST the following teams:
Eagles, Giants, (because they're division rivals)
Redskins, 49ers (because they're hated rivals)
Saints, Patriots, Steelers, Colts, Chargers (because of relative success over the last decade)
Bears, (they just rub me the wrong way)
Raiders (their fans make me irate sometimes - they're just jerks)
Lions (at least this season - I'm not crazy about Jim Schwartz, and I never thought they were as good as everyone else did when they started 5-0).
Any team not mentioned in one of the two preceding categories means I don't have any positive or negative feelings whatsoever about them, and probably couldn't care less who wins.
Questions? Comments?
1. Are the Cowboys one of the two teams involved in the game? Cheer for the Cowboys. Easy enough, right? If I could have ONE guaranteed win per week, it'd be Dallas every time.
2. Is there an NFC East team involved in the game? Cheer against the Eagles, Giants & Redskins. Every loss they suffer helps the 'Boys.
3. Are there TWO NFC East teams involved in the game? Cheer against whichever one is ahead in the standings. Again, the idea is to help the Cowboys' position in the division.
4. Are there any wild card contenders in the game? Cheer against them. If Dallas isn't going to win the East, we at least want them to get a wild card playoff spot, so it helps them if other contenders lose.
5. Is it an NFC matchup that includes NO NFC East teams, and NO wild card contenders? Root against the 49ers. Root for the Vikings. If neither the '9ers nor the Vikings are playing, I generally cheer for underdogs. But I should be clear that I also don't care very much about these games. I'll watch them if they're on, because I love football, but I really don't care who wins the Carolina-Seattle game.
6. Is it an AFC matchup? Substitute the above criteria with the Broncos as the team you wish to ultimately succeed. (That is, root against AFC West teams and other AFC wild card contenders.) After that, root against the Patriots & Steelers.
EXCEPTIONS: Let's say the New York Giants are 11-0, and basically have the NFC #1 seed locked up. The Cowboys are 7-4, with virtually no chance to win the division. The Eagles are 6-5 or 7-4. I'd be rooting for the Giants in a Giants-Eagles game, because an Eagles loss helps Dallas much more than a Giants loss does. This is in violation of #3, but I'm sure you can see why.
Cheering against the 49ers in #5 is a timeless, universal truth. I will never cheer for the '9ers, unless a San Francisco win will directly help the Cowboys' season. But, in #6 where I say to root against the Patriots & Steelers, that's mostly based on the recent successes of those teams. If, in 15 years, New England is at the bottom of the NFL food chain, I'll root for them as an underdog. I just tend to root against teams who have won a lot lately (which is why I also haven't liked New Orleans for a few years).
Lastly, sometimes I don't know who to cheer for early in the season, because everyone is still a contender in Week 4. At that point, I typically root FOR the following teams:
Cowboys, Broncos, (I've always liked these two, plus I live in Denver)
Vikings, Packers, (people close to me like these teams, so I've always had positive feelings toward them)
Falcons, Texans (no real reason, except that the Texans are perennial underdogs, and I like many of the Falcon players and their coach - these two are NOT timeless).
I typically root AGAINST the following teams:
Eagles, Giants, (because they're division rivals)
Redskins, 49ers (because they're hated rivals)
Saints, Patriots, Steelers, Colts, Chargers (because of relative success over the last decade)
Bears, (they just rub me the wrong way)
Raiders (their fans make me irate sometimes - they're just jerks)
Lions (at least this season - I'm not crazy about Jim Schwartz, and I never thought they were as good as everyone else did when they started 5-0).
Any team not mentioned in one of the two preceding categories means I don't have any positive or negative feelings whatsoever about them, and probably couldn't care less who wins.
Questions? Comments?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)