Two posts in one day! You're welcome.
Today is the beginning of the 2012 NFL draft. The draft seems to get bigger and more popular every year, but I grow less and less interested every year. Here are the simple reasons why: None of us will know how well our teams did for three years. What's the biggest deal this season? Andrew Luck, who's sure to be a first-year starter and a very good long-term quarterback. The next biggest deal? Robert Griffin III, who's expected to be almost as good (if not better) than Luck. But where's the drama? We already know when and by whom those two guys will be taken. So, should I really be on the edge of my seat tonight? It's almost like a presidential inauguration without the speech. The guy's already been elected, this just makes it official.
Everyone and their brother now does a mock draft every year. What's funny to me is that no one's ever completely right. Ever. Even guys like Mel Kiper and Todd McShay who make millions are basically (as I've said before) glorified weathermen. In fact, they're worse than weathermen, because whether they're right or wrong doesn't actually matter in the slightest. I remember a couple of years ago when the official draft edition of Sports Illustrated came out. Between the time their official mock draft was written and the time the magazine showed up in mailboxes, the team with the #1 pick had agreed to a deal with the guy they were going to choose... and it wasn't who SI thought they were going to choose! They got the #1 pick wrong! And once that happens, the wheels come off the wagon, because it changes absolutely everything about what teams 2-32 do with their 1st round picks.
So, I just don't get into it. I don't watch a lot of college football. I don't care who Kiper thinks the 2nd and 3rd best offensive tackles in the draft are, and whether my team goes with a lineman or a safety, I'm not going to care until they show me they can play well in the NFL. I don't have cable and will not be watching the draft. My football curiosity might cause me to look up the names of the guys taken in the first round tonight, but other than Luck & Griffin, I won't have really heard of very many of them, and I definitely won't care which team chose whom.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Scheduling. Sorta.
A couple of weeks ago, the NFL announced the full schedule for the 2012 season. I've read five or six different football fans who have posted on various social media something about their feelings toward the opponents their team will face this year. None of them said anything about when their team is playing someone, or if they have a particularly difficult stretch.
This leads me to believe that these fans I've come across think that it isn't until April that we can know who our team's opponents will be for the following season, and that's just patently false. I can tell you 14 of the Cowboys' 16 opponents for every season in the future (or at least for as long as the current scheduling format remains the same). The second that any given regular season ends, I can tell you the last 2 opponents for the following year. That means that the only new information we received a couple of weeks ago was the dates that our teams would play, and on what tv station. If you truly need that information now (i.e., if you are scheduling your November Sunday afternoons and you have to plan around your team), then you have a weird life.
So here's the basics of how you can know who your team will play in seasons to come without having to wait for the league to announce it in April:
1. Each team plays the other 3 teams in its own division twice (one home, one away each). 6 games
2. Each team plays the 4 teams in another division within its conference on a rotating basis. Last season the NFC East played the NFC West. This season they'll play the NFC South. In 2013 they'll play the NFC North. In 2014 the rotation begins again, and they'll play the NFC West. Pretty easy. Two of these games will be home, and 2 will be away (which I think is determined primarily on where they played the last time they faced these teams). 4 games
3. Each team plays the 4 teams in a division from the opposing conference on a rotating basis. Last season the NFC East played the AFC East. This season they'll play the AFC North. In 2013 they'll play the AFC West, and in 2014 they'll play the AFC South before rotating back to the AFC East in 2015. Two of these will be home, 2 will be away. 4 games.
And that's 14 games. So we know 14 of the 16 teams Dallas will face in 2013, 2014, 2015 and beyond until they change the format. But what about the last two opponents?
The final two opponents are determined by final regular season standings. Each team will play the teams from the two other divisions they do not face within their conference who finished in the same divisional spot as them the previous year. I'll simplify. Last season the Cowboys finished 3rd in the NFC East. Other 3rd place teams in the NFC were the Bears (North), Panthers (South) and Seahawks (West). Since the Cowboys play the NFC South this season, they're already playing the Panthers. The final two opponents they'll face are therefore the Bears and the Seahawks.
All this to say, if you're truly an NFL fan, there's no reason to get all excited about the release of the schedule in April, because you already know who your team's playing. The only interesting part is how the level of difficulty in schedule is impacted by when they play (when they get their bye, if they have a string of away games, or a string of especially tough games after the weather gets cold, etc.).
This leads me to believe that these fans I've come across think that it isn't until April that we can know who our team's opponents will be for the following season, and that's just patently false. I can tell you 14 of the Cowboys' 16 opponents for every season in the future (or at least for as long as the current scheduling format remains the same). The second that any given regular season ends, I can tell you the last 2 opponents for the following year. That means that the only new information we received a couple of weeks ago was the dates that our teams would play, and on what tv station. If you truly need that information now (i.e., if you are scheduling your November Sunday afternoons and you have to plan around your team), then you have a weird life.
So here's the basics of how you can know who your team will play in seasons to come without having to wait for the league to announce it in April:
1. Each team plays the other 3 teams in its own division twice (one home, one away each). 6 games
2. Each team plays the 4 teams in another division within its conference on a rotating basis. Last season the NFC East played the NFC West. This season they'll play the NFC South. In 2013 they'll play the NFC North. In 2014 the rotation begins again, and they'll play the NFC West. Pretty easy. Two of these games will be home, and 2 will be away (which I think is determined primarily on where they played the last time they faced these teams). 4 games
3. Each team plays the 4 teams in a division from the opposing conference on a rotating basis. Last season the NFC East played the AFC East. This season they'll play the AFC North. In 2013 they'll play the AFC West, and in 2014 they'll play the AFC South before rotating back to the AFC East in 2015. Two of these will be home, 2 will be away. 4 games.
And that's 14 games. So we know 14 of the 16 teams Dallas will face in 2013, 2014, 2015 and beyond until they change the format. But what about the last two opponents?
The final two opponents are determined by final regular season standings. Each team will play the teams from the two other divisions they do not face within their conference who finished in the same divisional spot as them the previous year. I'll simplify. Last season the Cowboys finished 3rd in the NFC East. Other 3rd place teams in the NFC were the Bears (North), Panthers (South) and Seahawks (West). Since the Cowboys play the NFC South this season, they're already playing the Panthers. The final two opponents they'll face are therefore the Bears and the Seahawks.
All this to say, if you're truly an NFL fan, there's no reason to get all excited about the release of the schedule in April, because you already know who your team's playing. The only interesting part is how the level of difficulty in schedule is impacted by when they play (when they get their bye, if they have a string of away games, or a string of especially tough games after the weather gets cold, etc.).
Monday, January 9, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, January 2, 2012
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.
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.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)