Tom Brady has publicly announced that he plans to leave the New England Patriots via free agency, though he has yet to announce where he is going. Not surprisingly, Brady's statement has unleashed a wave of commentary about his legacy, and Bill Belichick's legacy, as well as a reexamination of previous all-time greats who could have played their entire careers for one team but elected to see if the grass was greener elsewhere--with Joe Montana, Michael Jordan, and Peyton Manning being perhaps the three most prominent examples.
Both Belichick and Brady have more than secured their individual legacies. Belichick was a key contributor to two Super Bowl champions as an assistant coach before winning six Super Bowls as New England's head coach. Any short list of the greatest football coaches of all-time must include
his name, and nothing that happens in the rest of his career will
change or diminish that. Belichick is the second oldest head coach in the NFL now, and he is tied with several others as the eighth oldest head coach in NFL history. A career is judged by the overall body of work, with an emphasis on what happened in the prime years; Belichick's career is not going to be defined by what happens in his final seasons. Of course, if he wins Super Bowls as an elder statesman coach that could potentially add to his already established legacy, but no sensible person is going to hold it against Belichick if he does not win another Super Bowl. Don Shula, Chuck Noll, and Tom Landry are three of the greatest coaches of all-time, and their careers ended long after their final Super Bowl victory with no damage done to their legacies.
Brady is a six-time Super Bowl champion quarterback who is nearing the end of his career. If he wins another Super Bowl, he can add to his legacy, but few quarterbacks have even played as long as Brady, let alone won championships at his age; if Brady does not win another Super Bowl, it does not hurt his legacy any more than Joe Montana's time as a Kansas City Chief did.
Speaking of which, without looking it up do you even remember how long Montana played in Kansas City, what statistics he posted, and how the team performed? Unless you are an NFL addict with a great memory or you are lying, the honest answer is "No."
Before revisiting the end of Montana's career, it is worth briefly mentioning Joe Namath, whose name is sometimes brought up in this context. While it may have been painful at the time for NFL fans to watch him finish his career as an L.A. Ram, Namath secured his legacy by leading the New York Jets to victory in Super Bowl III. Nothing that happened after that caused long-term damage to Namath's legacy. He will always be remembered as a triumphant Jet, and no one spends much time thinking about his brief time as a stumbling Ram.
Back to Montana, who spent two years as a Chief, making the Pro Bowl in 1993 (his first season with the team) and compiling a 17-8 regular season record (he missed seven games due to injury) in 1993-94. Montana led the Chiefs to the 1993 AFC Championship Game, but the Chiefs lost 30-13, and Montana was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the third quarter. Montana quarterbacked the Chiefs to a 9-7 record and a loss in the Wild Card round in 1994 before he retired at 38. Those two seasons are a solid postscript to a Hall of Fame career, but they had no impact on the legacy that Montana had already forged by winning four Super Bowls as a San Francisco 49er.
Consider an example from a different sport. Michael Jordan had already retired and come back once as a Chicago Bull before he came out of retirement in 2001 to play for the Washington Wizards. Jordan never averaged less than 28 ppg in a full season with the Bulls, and he never averaged more than 23 ppg in his two seasons with the Wizards. Jordan led the Bulls to six titles in six NBA Finals appearances, and he was not able to take the Wizards to the playoffs even once. No, Jordan the Wizard did not accomplish as much as Jordan the Bull, but Jordan the Wizard added some clips to his career highlight reel, and did not harm Jordan's legacy at all.
Brady and Manning spent much of their careers battling for individual honors and Super Bowl titles. Manning won one Super Bowl in 13 seasons as a Colt before finishing his career as a Denver Bronco. Manning earned three Pro Bowl selections as a Bronco while also making the All-Pro First Team twice, and winning another Super Bowl title. Interestingly, his two playoff runs that ended in Super Bowl wins are two of his four worst postseasons statistically (based on the NFL's passer rating system). Winning a second Super Bowl--albeit while no longer a star player (he had nine passing touchdowns and 17 interceptions in his final regular season before the Broncos won the Super Bowl)--perhaps added a bit to Manning's legacy, but certainly no one dwells on how limited a player Manning was by that time, nor would any rational commentator have held it against Manning if his Bronco years had not been capped off with a championship.
Supposedly, next season is going to represent some kind of referendum in a made up Belichick versus Brady competition: Can Brady win without Belichick? Can Belichick win without Brady? Will neither one win?
This is nonsense. If there were to be a genuine, meaningful Belichick versus Brady competition then we would need to pit them against each other when both were in their primes, and we would need to supply them with comparable supporting casts. Give prime Brady a different coach and a solid supporting cast, and how much would he win? How much Brady wins as a past his prime quarterback can only tell us so much.
The other side of the question is how much would prime Belichick win with a different quarterback and a solid supporting cast?
Actually, we did get a glimpse of that during the 2008 season that Brady missed with an ACL injury, and we saw the Patriots go 11-5 with Matt Cassel as the starting quarterback. Cassel left the Patriots after that season, and went 26-40 as a starter during the rest of his career. During his first head coaching job, Belichick inherited a 3-13 Cleveland team and in four years he turned them into an 11-5 squad that won a playoff game (which is the last playoff game that the Browns have won). So, we do have some evidence about what Belichick can do as a coach without Brady.
All that we know for sure is that the Belichick-Brady tandem is the greatest coach-quarterback duo in NFL history (throw in the AAFC years, and you could make an argument for Paul Brown-Otto Graham, who won seven championships and made 10 championship game appearances in 10 seasons together). Whether or not either of them win any more Super Bowls in the final years of their respective careers does not change the significance of what they accomplished together, nor "prove" that one was more integral to their shared success than the other.
Showing posts with label Denver Broncos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Denver Broncos. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 18, 2020
Monday, February 3, 2014
If Peyton Manning is Football's Roger Federer, Then the Postseason is Manning's Rafael Nadal
Roger Federer is often praised as the greatest tennis player of all-time; his game is aesthetically pleasing and technically precise and he has claimed a large portion of the sport's all-time record book--but Rafael Nadal, whose record-setting career is even more impressive than Federer's was at the same stage, has defeated Federer 23-10 in their head to head meetings. When Federer faces Nadal he does not look like the greatest player of his own era, much less the greatest player of all-time.
Peyton Manning is often praised as the greatest quarterback of all-time; his game is aesthetically pleasing and technically precise and he has claimed a large portion of the sport's all-time record book--but Manning has just an 11-12 record in playoff games, including 1-2 in Super Bowls after his Denver Broncos lost 43-8 to the Seattle Seahawks in Super Bowl XLVIII.
A tennis player battles one on one against his opponent in singles matches, while a quarterback is just one of 11 offensive players--but quarterback is the most important position in football, if not all of team sports, and a great quarterback can have a disproportionate impact on the outcome of a game. Manning has no problem making his presence felt during regular season play but his playoff record does not measure up to the postseason success enjoyed by Otto Graham (10 championship game appearances and seven championships in a 10 season career), Johnny Unitas (2-1 in NFL championship games, 1-1 in Super Bowls, 6-3 overall playoff record), Joe Montana (four Super Bowl wins in four appearances, 16-7 overall playoff record) and Tom Brady (three Super Bowl wins in five appearances, 18-8 overall playoff record). Terry Bradshaw was not as efficient statistically as Manning--though Bradshaw played in an era during which the rules heavily favored the defense, while the opposite is the case now--but Bradshaw went 4-0 in the Super Bowl and posted a 14-5 overall playoff record. Steve Young began his career in the USFL, played two seasons for a terrible Tampa Bay team and then spent several of his prime years backing up Montana in San Francisco but Young still assembled a 12-8 overall playoff record, including 1-0 in the Super Bowl. Kurt Warner has the same 1-2 Super Bowl record as Manning but Warner went 9-4 overall in the playoffs and he performed better in his three Super Bowls than Manning has.
Manning receives a lot of credit for "making his teammates better"--an ambiguous phrase at best in terms of defining an athlete's greatness--but even if we accept the very debatable premise that Manning has elevated mediocre teammates and/or teams to greatness during the regular season and thus deserves praise for doing so then don't we also have to assign some of the blame to Manning if those same teammates are nervous and/or tentative at the biggest moments? More to the point, Manning himself seemed nervous and tentative during Super Bowl XLVIII; although Manning set the Super Bowl single game record for completions (34) and threw for 280 yards, Troy Aikman commented during the telecast that it was difficult to remember when Manning accumulated all of those completions and all of that yardage: Manning's performance did not pass the eye test and anyone who watched the game analytically could see that Manning did not play at a high level, regardless of how one spins the numbers.
Furthermore, the idea that Manning has thrived despite being surrounded by lesser talent does not withstand close scrutiny. Manning's teams do not generally sneak into the playoffs only to lose to clearly superior squads; his teams race to tremendous regular season records only to stumble against lesser teams: Manning has lost his first playoff game (either in the Wild Card round or after enjoying a bye week) a record eight times. Just as it would be wrong to deny that Manning's gaudy regular season numbers have earned him a prominent place in the all-time quarterback pantheon, it would be wrong to deny that Manning's relative lack of postseason success (compared to several other members of that pantheon) strongly argues against placing Manning at the very top of the all-time quarterback list.
The title "greatest of all-time" may be largely mythical, something that is impossible to determine by purely objective means--but it is difficult to believe that someone with a glaring hole in his resume should be ranked ahead of great players who do not have a similarly glaring hole in their resumes. Is Federer one of the greatest tennis players of all-time? Of course. Is Manning one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time? Of course. Federer never mastered his main rival Nadal--or even figured out how to play against him on close to even terms--so it makes no sense to label Federer as the greatest of all-time; Manning never dominated NFL postseason play--or even came close to matching the championship success of quarterbacks like Graham, Unitas, Montana and Brady--so it makes no sense to label Manning as the greatest of all-time. Super Bowl XLVIII did not hurt Manning's legacy, because objective observers already understood where Manning should be placed in the quarterback pantheon--but Manning's mediocre performance during Denver's loss represented a missed opportunity for Manning to add to his legacy. If Manning had been sharp while leading Denver to victory then he would have written another chapter in his story, much like Federer could have done if he had ever figured out how to deal with Nadal's relentless groundstrokes.
Peyton Manning is often praised as the greatest quarterback of all-time; his game is aesthetically pleasing and technically precise and he has claimed a large portion of the sport's all-time record book--but Manning has just an 11-12 record in playoff games, including 1-2 in Super Bowls after his Denver Broncos lost 43-8 to the Seattle Seahawks in Super Bowl XLVIII.
A tennis player battles one on one against his opponent in singles matches, while a quarterback is just one of 11 offensive players--but quarterback is the most important position in football, if not all of team sports, and a great quarterback can have a disproportionate impact on the outcome of a game. Manning has no problem making his presence felt during regular season play but his playoff record does not measure up to the postseason success enjoyed by Otto Graham (10 championship game appearances and seven championships in a 10 season career), Johnny Unitas (2-1 in NFL championship games, 1-1 in Super Bowls, 6-3 overall playoff record), Joe Montana (four Super Bowl wins in four appearances, 16-7 overall playoff record) and Tom Brady (three Super Bowl wins in five appearances, 18-8 overall playoff record). Terry Bradshaw was not as efficient statistically as Manning--though Bradshaw played in an era during which the rules heavily favored the defense, while the opposite is the case now--but Bradshaw went 4-0 in the Super Bowl and posted a 14-5 overall playoff record. Steve Young began his career in the USFL, played two seasons for a terrible Tampa Bay team and then spent several of his prime years backing up Montana in San Francisco but Young still assembled a 12-8 overall playoff record, including 1-0 in the Super Bowl. Kurt Warner has the same 1-2 Super Bowl record as Manning but Warner went 9-4 overall in the playoffs and he performed better in his three Super Bowls than Manning has.
Manning receives a lot of credit for "making his teammates better"--an ambiguous phrase at best in terms of defining an athlete's greatness--but even if we accept the very debatable premise that Manning has elevated mediocre teammates and/or teams to greatness during the regular season and thus deserves praise for doing so then don't we also have to assign some of the blame to Manning if those same teammates are nervous and/or tentative at the biggest moments? More to the point, Manning himself seemed nervous and tentative during Super Bowl XLVIII; although Manning set the Super Bowl single game record for completions (34) and threw for 280 yards, Troy Aikman commented during the telecast that it was difficult to remember when Manning accumulated all of those completions and all of that yardage: Manning's performance did not pass the eye test and anyone who watched the game analytically could see that Manning did not play at a high level, regardless of how one spins the numbers.
Furthermore, the idea that Manning has thrived despite being surrounded by lesser talent does not withstand close scrutiny. Manning's teams do not generally sneak into the playoffs only to lose to clearly superior squads; his teams race to tremendous regular season records only to stumble against lesser teams: Manning has lost his first playoff game (either in the Wild Card round or after enjoying a bye week) a record eight times. Just as it would be wrong to deny that Manning's gaudy regular season numbers have earned him a prominent place in the all-time quarterback pantheon, it would be wrong to deny that Manning's relative lack of postseason success (compared to several other members of that pantheon) strongly argues against placing Manning at the very top of the all-time quarterback list.
The title "greatest of all-time" may be largely mythical, something that is impossible to determine by purely objective means--but it is difficult to believe that someone with a glaring hole in his resume should be ranked ahead of great players who do not have a similarly glaring hole in their resumes. Is Federer one of the greatest tennis players of all-time? Of course. Is Manning one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time? Of course. Federer never mastered his main rival Nadal--or even figured out how to play against him on close to even terms--so it makes no sense to label Federer as the greatest of all-time; Manning never dominated NFL postseason play--or even came close to matching the championship success of quarterbacks like Graham, Unitas, Montana and Brady--so it makes no sense to label Manning as the greatest of all-time. Super Bowl XLVIII did not hurt Manning's legacy, because objective observers already understood where Manning should be placed in the quarterback pantheon--but Manning's mediocre performance during Denver's loss represented a missed opportunity for Manning to add to his legacy. If Manning had been sharp while leading Denver to victory then he would have written another chapter in his story, much like Federer could have done if he had ever figured out how to deal with Nadal's relentless groundstrokes.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
The Best Thing About Sports: The Ever Changing, Unpredictable Narratives
We thought that we knew the story. Mike Tyson was an unstoppable force, a knockout machine so fearsome that he seemed to win many of his fights before they even began as his terrified opponents stared at him through saucer-sized, fearful eyes. Then Buster Douglas came along and Tyson looked less like an all-time great and more like the neighborhood bully who finally met someone who was not afraid of him.
We thought that we knew the story. John Elway and the Denver Broncos could never win the big one. Elway had a rocket arm and nimble feet but he was destined to come up short in the Super Bowl. Then Terrell Davis arrived, Coach Mike Shanahan tinkered with the offense and Elway won back to back Super Bowls as a stirring coda to a Hall of Fame career.
We thought that we knew the story. The 2007 New England Patriots seemed to be the ultimate team of destiny, a squad that had recently won three Super Bowls in four years, had just completed the first 16-0 regular season in NFL history and was now poised to finish 19-0 by winning a fourth Super Bowl. Then Eli Manning and the New York Giants pulled off perhaps the biggest upset in Super Bowl history.
We thought that we knew the story. Tiger Woods was destined to shatter Jack Nicklaus' record for major championships, while Phil Mickelson was a talented but flawed player whose reckless approach would inevitably lead to thrilling moments followed by baffling choke jobs. The same thing was true of Woods that used to be said of Nicklaus: He knew that he was the best, his opponents knew that he was the best and he knew that his opponents knew. Woods never came from behind to win a major championship but he never needed to come from behind because he usually had lapped the field by Sunday. Chess Grandmasters once spoke of "Fischer Fear," referring to the way that Bobby Fischer intimidated other great players to such an extent that those players performed far below their normal standard against him; for many years it seemed like golf's best players suffered from "Woods Fear," collapsing down the stretch of tournaments at the mere sight of Woods prowling the back nine. Then Woods' personal life crashed--literally and figuratively--and he struggled to regain his former dominance; Woods may still believe that he is the best (or he may doubt that at some level, which could be part of his problem) but it is clear that his competitors no longer suffer from "Woods Fear."
Meanwhile, Mickelson--whose personal life seems to be the steady and grounded opposite of his free-swinging playing style--has figured out how to seize the big moments on Sunday at major championships as opposed to shrinking from those moments. Mickelson has won more majors since 2004 (five) than any golfer except for Woods (six) and he seems to be getting better with age, while Woods' game does not seem to be aging well; Woods used to be the ultimate finisher but in his past several majors he has started strongly only to falter down the stretch and it is unclear if the problem is physical, mental or some combination of both factors. It is a tribute to Woods' former greatness that despite his recent drought he still has won more majors in the past nine years than anyone else (and more than Mickelson has won in his entire career) but unless Woods undergoes some kind of revival the narrative of his career--and of his rivalry with Mickelson--will be much different than anyone could have imagined as recently as that fateful Thanksgiving weekend in 2009 when Woods' private life became a source of public mockery and derision.
The great thing about sports is that competition is the ultimate unscripted drama. We may think that we know the characters and we may think that we know the stories but people can change their lives and write new, previously unimaginable tales.
We thought that we knew the story. John Elway and the Denver Broncos could never win the big one. Elway had a rocket arm and nimble feet but he was destined to come up short in the Super Bowl. Then Terrell Davis arrived, Coach Mike Shanahan tinkered with the offense and Elway won back to back Super Bowls as a stirring coda to a Hall of Fame career.
We thought that we knew the story. The 2007 New England Patriots seemed to be the ultimate team of destiny, a squad that had recently won three Super Bowls in four years, had just completed the first 16-0 regular season in NFL history and was now poised to finish 19-0 by winning a fourth Super Bowl. Then Eli Manning and the New York Giants pulled off perhaps the biggest upset in Super Bowl history.
We thought that we knew the story. Tiger Woods was destined to shatter Jack Nicklaus' record for major championships, while Phil Mickelson was a talented but flawed player whose reckless approach would inevitably lead to thrilling moments followed by baffling choke jobs. The same thing was true of Woods that used to be said of Nicklaus: He knew that he was the best, his opponents knew that he was the best and he knew that his opponents knew. Woods never came from behind to win a major championship but he never needed to come from behind because he usually had lapped the field by Sunday. Chess Grandmasters once spoke of "Fischer Fear," referring to the way that Bobby Fischer intimidated other great players to such an extent that those players performed far below their normal standard against him; for many years it seemed like golf's best players suffered from "Woods Fear," collapsing down the stretch of tournaments at the mere sight of Woods prowling the back nine. Then Woods' personal life crashed--literally and figuratively--and he struggled to regain his former dominance; Woods may still believe that he is the best (or he may doubt that at some level, which could be part of his problem) but it is clear that his competitors no longer suffer from "Woods Fear."
Meanwhile, Mickelson--whose personal life seems to be the steady and grounded opposite of his free-swinging playing style--has figured out how to seize the big moments on Sunday at major championships as opposed to shrinking from those moments. Mickelson has won more majors since 2004 (five) than any golfer except for Woods (six) and he seems to be getting better with age, while Woods' game does not seem to be aging well; Woods used to be the ultimate finisher but in his past several majors he has started strongly only to falter down the stretch and it is unclear if the problem is physical, mental or some combination of both factors. It is a tribute to Woods' former greatness that despite his recent drought he still has won more majors in the past nine years than anyone else (and more than Mickelson has won in his entire career) but unless Woods undergoes some kind of revival the narrative of his career--and of his rivalry with Mickelson--will be much different than anyone could have imagined as recently as that fateful Thanksgiving weekend in 2009 when Woods' private life became a source of public mockery and derision.
The great thing about sports is that competition is the ultimate unscripted drama. We may think that we know the characters and we may think that we know the stories but people can change their lives and write new, previously unimaginable tales.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Can Tim Tebow's Denver Broncos Outduel Bill Belichick's New England Patriots?
Tim Tebow has had a magical 2011 season, posting a 7-1 record as a starter and leading the Denver Broncos to several seemingly miraculous come from behind wins, but New England Coach Bill Belichick has specialized in devising defensive schemes to torture and confuse young, inexperienced quarterbacks. New England officially ranks last in total defense, yielding 416 yards per game, but that statistic is very misleading: the Patriots opportunistically force turnovers and thus rank a respectable 14th in points allowed (21.0 per game). The Patriots score 30.5 points per game so, much like Green Bay and New Orleans, in a very real sense their offense is their defense; it is unlikely that the Broncos can beat the Patriots by laying low for 50-55 minutes and then putting up a couple late scores to win a 13-10 nailbiter.
In terms of NFL betting, TopBet Sportsbook likes the Patriots by nearly a touchdown but Fox Sports' Peter Schrager thinks that the Broncos will win outright. The fascinating thing about Tebow, as ESPN's Tom Jackson has mentioned, is that Tebow's critics focus relentlessly on what they think Tebow cannot do but are seemingly unwilling to acknowledge the significant role he has played in Denver's victories; Jackson noted that the critics first said that Tebow could not win a game, then they said that he could not win consistently, then they said that he could not win a shootout and now they are saying that he cannot win a playoff game. Jackson half jokingly noted that if Tebow leads the Broncos to a Super Bowl victory then Tebow's critics will have to resort to saying that Tebow surely cannot lead a team to back to back championships.
Yes, Denver's defense has played well, the offensive line has blocked well for a flourishing running game and kicker Matt Prater has come through in the clutch but the Broncos were not expected to be very good this year (USA TODAY ranked Denver last in the AFC West, as did Sports Illustrated's Peter King) and the Broncos were just 1-4 before Tebow took over for Kyle Orton. Tebow has had a direct impact on the running game and the ability to control the clock has surely helped out Denver's defense as well--but in addition to those obvious tangibles it is foolish to discount the equally obvious but harder to measure intangible ways that Tebow's leadership, demeanor and poise have inspired his teammates: Tebow has a fierce will to win but he is quick to diminish the importance his own efforts in order to praise his teammates and that also surely has affected how the Broncos play on both sides of the ball. Contrast a Tim Tebow soundbite after a Denver win with one of LeBron James' infamous soundbites from last season (including such gems as "taking my talents to South Beach," boasting that he would win "not one, not two, not three" championships and dismissing critics because they would have to return to their dreary lives while James would still get to live his glorious life) and you can vividly see and hear the difference between being a real leader as opposed to simply puffing out your chest before your team has accomplished anything significant.
I expect that the Patriots will "sell out" at the line of scrimmage to force Tebow to pass the ball quickly and that the Patriots will stick to this defensive game plan for all 60 minutes, not just 50 or 55 minutes; Tebow will probably hit one or two long passes against New England's suspect secondary but if the Patriots shut down the run completely and force a couple timely turnovers then they will ultimately put up too many points for the Broncos to match.
In terms of NFL betting, TopBet Sportsbook likes the Patriots by nearly a touchdown but Fox Sports' Peter Schrager thinks that the Broncos will win outright. The fascinating thing about Tebow, as ESPN's Tom Jackson has mentioned, is that Tebow's critics focus relentlessly on what they think Tebow cannot do but are seemingly unwilling to acknowledge the significant role he has played in Denver's victories; Jackson noted that the critics first said that Tebow could not win a game, then they said that he could not win consistently, then they said that he could not win a shootout and now they are saying that he cannot win a playoff game. Jackson half jokingly noted that if Tebow leads the Broncos to a Super Bowl victory then Tebow's critics will have to resort to saying that Tebow surely cannot lead a team to back to back championships.
Yes, Denver's defense has played well, the offensive line has blocked well for a flourishing running game and kicker Matt Prater has come through in the clutch but the Broncos were not expected to be very good this year (USA TODAY ranked Denver last in the AFC West, as did Sports Illustrated's Peter King) and the Broncos were just 1-4 before Tebow took over for Kyle Orton. Tebow has had a direct impact on the running game and the ability to control the clock has surely helped out Denver's defense as well--but in addition to those obvious tangibles it is foolish to discount the equally obvious but harder to measure intangible ways that Tebow's leadership, demeanor and poise have inspired his teammates: Tebow has a fierce will to win but he is quick to diminish the importance his own efforts in order to praise his teammates and that also surely has affected how the Broncos play on both sides of the ball. Contrast a Tim Tebow soundbite after a Denver win with one of LeBron James' infamous soundbites from last season (including such gems as "taking my talents to South Beach," boasting that he would win "not one, not two, not three" championships and dismissing critics because they would have to return to their dreary lives while James would still get to live his glorious life) and you can vividly see and hear the difference between being a real leader as opposed to simply puffing out your chest before your team has accomplished anything significant.
I expect that the Patriots will "sell out" at the line of scrimmage to force Tebow to pass the ball quickly and that the Patriots will stick to this defensive game plan for all 60 minutes, not just 50 or 55 minutes; Tebow will probably hit one or two long passes against New England's suspect secondary but if the Patriots shut down the run completely and force a couple timely turnovers then they will ultimately put up too many points for the Broncos to match.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Monday Night Football Quick Hits: Patriots Not Dead Yet Edition
Everyone who is gleefully hoping to shovel dirt on the figurative graves of Bill Belichick and the New England Patriots will have to wait at least one more week. The Patriots bounced back from last Sunday's 30-10 loss in San Diego to rout the Denver Broncos 41-7. After the game it is easy to note all of the Broncos' flaws to try to diminish the significance of this win but Denver was--and still is--in first place in the AFC West while many people were questioning whether the Patriots will even make the playoffs this year in the wake of Tom Brady's season-ending knee injury. Matt Cassel had his most efficient performance of the season, completing 18 of 24 passes for 185 yards, three touchdowns, no interceptions and a gaudy 136.3 passer rating. The Patriots totally gashed Denver on the ground, chewing up 257 yards on 38 attempts for a 6.8 yards per carry average. Sammy Morris had a career-high 138 yards rushing--and he only played in the first half! Randy Moss caught five passes for 69 yards and a season-high two touchdowns, adding to his impressive Monday Night Football resume and moving into a tie for second place on the NFL career-list for multiple touchdown games by a wide receiver (30; Jerry Rice holds the record with 44). The Broncos committed eight penalties and turned the ball over five times as they looked sloppy in all phases of the game (in addition to their offensive and defensive woes, their special teams gave up a 44 yard punt return that set up a New England touchdown).
Everyone--including Matt Cassel--understands that Cassel is not Tom Brady but it is important to remember that at a similar stage of his career Tom Brady was not "Tom Brady"--NFL MVP and multiple Super Bowl champion--either. If Brady could be called a Jedi Master at quickly reading defenses and then delivering the ball to the right place on time and on target, then Cassel is merely a Padawan learner right now. As Ron Jaworski astutely and repeatedly noted during the MNF telecast, Cassel holds on to the ball too long and yet despite taking that extra time he still misses open receivers. If reading coverages is like mastering a foreign language, Brady is a speed reader while Cassel is sounding out each word syllable by syllable--but Cassel has a good arm, is accurate (.663 completion percentage) and he avoids the big mistake (four interceptions in six games, solid 86.8 passer rating). He has obviously been well coached and he is just as obviously a good student, so it is reasonable to expect that by the end of the season he will be better at reading coverages; the game "slows down" as a player gains experience, particularly if that player is hard working and intelligent.
Tony Kornheiser noted that many people--and he candidly included himself--wrongly thought that Belichick should have signed a veteran quarterback instead of turning the team over to Cassel, who Cris Carter is fond of calling a "high school quarterback" (I don't understand why Carter keeps taking shots at Cassel but if Carter really thinks that there are any high school quarterbacks who could run a pro team the way that Cassel is leading the Patriots right now then maybe Carter is having a relapse of his drug problems). Jaworski explained to Kornheiser that Belichick understood that bringing in a journeyman veteran who does not know New England's offense would have been a setback for the team, so Belichick wisely chose to install Cassel as the starter, stand firmly behind him and not cut back the playbook at all. While the "experts" deride New England's prospects, Belichick is preparing his team for another long playoff run. Obviously, the Patriots will not be as dominant as they were last season, nor will they be prohibitive favorites when the postseason begins--but they will be a very tough out for someone.
While the Patriots' quarterback situation is OK right now, injuries are piling up at other positions; prior to the Denver game, New England placed running back Laurence Maroney on injured reserve and near the end of the game safety Rodney Harrison was carted off the field after sustaining a knee injury. Harrison is not quite the player that he was a few years ago but if he is out for an extended period--which certainly seems likely--the Patriots will miss his toughness, intelligence and leadership.
Here are some notes/comments about Sunday's action:
*I just don't understand what the deal is with Derek Anderson. He is not a stiff; stiffs don't lead teams to a 10-5 record and make the Pro Bowl while tossing 29 TD passes, as Anderson did last year after becoming the starter in the second week of the season. Anderson has a very strong arm, he can make tough throws into small windows and he has the toughness to stand in the pocket and take a hit in order to deliver the deep ball--but sometimes his accuracy and touch completely desert him and he overthrows a receiver by 10 yards or fires the ball into the ground instead of between the receiver's numbers. During Cleveland's 14-11 loss to Washington, Anderson looked terrible for most of the game before coming alive in the fourth quarter and almost leading the Browns to an improbable come from behind win.
Granted, Anderson has not been helped by Cleveland's shaky offensive line play or by the numerous catchable passes his receivers have dropped this season but that does not explain the wide fluctuation in his performance level. He is almost like a streak shooter in basketball, a guy who could light someone up for 40 points on one night and then go 0-10 from the field the next night. The problem is that in basketball such a player usually comes off of the bench and when he is not shooting well the coach can put him back on the bench in favor of someone else who may not be a shooter but who can contribute in other ways. Anderson is the starting quarterback and it would not work to platoon him with Brady Quinn; that would just result in having two QBs who are out of sync. Nor does it make sense to simply cast aside a Pro Bowl player in favor of an untested second year pro. This is where coaching comes into play; someone on the Browns' coaching staff has to sit down with Anderson and go over film from when Anderson played well and find a way to get him to use the fundamental techniques (footwork, reads, throwing motion, etc.) that he employed on those occasions on a more consistent basis. The talent is there and the Browns are right to not give up on him too quickly but not giving up is not enough; they also have to provide Anderson with the proper coaching and instruction.
*Before the season began, all the "experts" kept telling us how Brett Favre was going to singlehandedly turn the Jets around while Aaron Rodgers would falter under high expectations in Green Bay and ex-Jet Chad Pennington would prove incapable of throwing the deep ball in Miami. The NFL season is nearly 40% over, so let's take a "midterm" look at how those three players have performed so far:
Rodgers currently is tied for fourth in the league in passer rating (98.8); his rating is not only better than Favre's rating from last year (95.7) but it is better than the ratings Favre posted in every season of his career except 1995. Rodgers may not maintain that level for the whole year but it is fair to say that he has hardly crumbled under the weight of high expectations.
Pennington ranks eighth in passer rating (97.4). The deep ball will never be Pennington's strong suit but he has 17 completions of 20+ yards this season, two more than Favre does. The Dolphins, 1-15 doormats last season, are a very competitive 2-4; they have scored 120 points while giving up 130, defeating both teams that played in last year's AFC Championship Game, New England and San Diego.
Favre ranks 13th in passer rating (92.3). Favre electrified Jets' fans by tossing a career-high six touchdowns against Arizona but in the two games since then--a 26-14 victory against winless Cincinnati and Sunday's overtime loss to Oakland--he has one touchdown and four interceptions. He threw for fewer than 200 yards in each of those games, compiling a 73.9 passer rating versus Cincinnati and a 47.8 passer rating against Oakland. In addition to the two interceptions Favre had on Sunday he easily could have had another one in overtime when he wildly put the ball up for grabs.
On a purely statistical basis, Rodgers and Pennington are performing at least as well--if not better--than Favre, who has hardly turned the Jets into anything other than the mediocre team that I predicted that they would be. The Jets are not going to make the playoffs and the Favre farewell tour will end up just being a wasted year for them. Next offseason will sure be interesting for the Jets as Favre retires, unretires and retires while the front office tries to formulate a game plan for the team's future. Good luck with that, guys--I'm sure that Green Bay's management is not only happy that they got rid of that problem but also that they have found someone who can be their starter for the foreseeable future.
*Jeff Garcia completed 27 of 36 passes for 310 yards, one touchdown, no interceptions and a 109.7 passer rating in Tampa Bay's 20-10 win over Seattle. He is just so much fun to watch, in part because he does not fit the template for a prototypical NFL quarterback--Garcia is too short, too skinny and he often looks frenetic in the pocket but the bottom line is that he can play. The great Bill Walsh believed in Garcia when nobody else in the NFL did and Garcia made the Pro Bowl three straight times as Steve Young's successor in San Francisco. Last year, at 37, Garcia made the Pro Bowl again, this time as a Buccaneer. Garcia and Tampa Coach Jon Gruden got into some kind of beef in the offseason and Gruden benched Garcia but now Garcia is the starter again and it will be difficult to justify replacing him if he keeps putting up passer ratings well over 100.
*ESPN's pundits are positively salivating over Dallas' midseason swoon. Tom Jackson seems giddy that the 4-3 Cowboys have lost two straight games and are dealing with a host of problems. Naturally, he places a significant amount of blame on Terrell Owens, who he now refers to as "two," which I guess is supposed to be a cute way of saying Owens' initials--but it wasn't cute when Jim Rome did it and it is not any more cute when Jackson does it. When I look at Dallas I see a team that lost its Pro Bowl quarterback, has a defense that is leaking like a sieve and has a meddlesome owner who signed two thugs (Adam Jones, Tank Johnson) in the offseason--and non-productive thugs at that. For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone can possibly justify mentioning Owens' name in the same breath with those two individuals. What do they have in common? Whatever you may think of Owens' comments over the years, no one can deny that he works hard in practice and he plays hard in games. He keeps himself in shape, plays hurt and the only "trouble" that he has ever been in consists of media-fueled soap operas of no significance. By the way, how are the teams that got rid of him doing? Are San Francisco and Philadelphia really better off without Owens? I realize that those organizations have multiple problems, but getting rid of a Pro Bowl player sure did not help. In contrast, Tennessee has moved on very nicely without Jones, while the Bears do not seem to miss Johnson at all.
Last I checked, Owens does not play on defense, nor can he throw the ball to himself, so it makes no sense to blame him for Dallas' recent slide. How can someone like Jackson who is not in Dallas' locker room speak about who is or who is not a leader on that team? I remember a few years ago when Jackson asserted that New England players don't like Bill Belichick and were on the verge of mutiny due to Lawyer Milloy being cut. That was a bunch of misinformed crap and Jackson's "analysis" of Owens and the Cowboys is equally misinformed. The only thing that Jackson has said about the Cowboys that makes sense is that their problems start with their owner. Jerry Jones should have never signed Adam Jones or Tank Johnson and Jerry Jones should be a much less visible and much less vocal presence on the sidelines and in the locker room. That said, once Romo gets back--or even after backup Brad Johnson has one more week of practice--the Cowboys will most likely get back on track toward a double-digit win season, assuming that Coach Wade Phillips finds a way to fix some of his team's defensive problems.
Everyone--including Matt Cassel--understands that Cassel is not Tom Brady but it is important to remember that at a similar stage of his career Tom Brady was not "Tom Brady"--NFL MVP and multiple Super Bowl champion--either. If Brady could be called a Jedi Master at quickly reading defenses and then delivering the ball to the right place on time and on target, then Cassel is merely a Padawan learner right now. As Ron Jaworski astutely and repeatedly noted during the MNF telecast, Cassel holds on to the ball too long and yet despite taking that extra time he still misses open receivers. If reading coverages is like mastering a foreign language, Brady is a speed reader while Cassel is sounding out each word syllable by syllable--but Cassel has a good arm, is accurate (.663 completion percentage) and he avoids the big mistake (four interceptions in six games, solid 86.8 passer rating). He has obviously been well coached and he is just as obviously a good student, so it is reasonable to expect that by the end of the season he will be better at reading coverages; the game "slows down" as a player gains experience, particularly if that player is hard working and intelligent.
Tony Kornheiser noted that many people--and he candidly included himself--wrongly thought that Belichick should have signed a veteran quarterback instead of turning the team over to Cassel, who Cris Carter is fond of calling a "high school quarterback" (I don't understand why Carter keeps taking shots at Cassel but if Carter really thinks that there are any high school quarterbacks who could run a pro team the way that Cassel is leading the Patriots right now then maybe Carter is having a relapse of his drug problems). Jaworski explained to Kornheiser that Belichick understood that bringing in a journeyman veteran who does not know New England's offense would have been a setback for the team, so Belichick wisely chose to install Cassel as the starter, stand firmly behind him and not cut back the playbook at all. While the "experts" deride New England's prospects, Belichick is preparing his team for another long playoff run. Obviously, the Patriots will not be as dominant as they were last season, nor will they be prohibitive favorites when the postseason begins--but they will be a very tough out for someone.
While the Patriots' quarterback situation is OK right now, injuries are piling up at other positions; prior to the Denver game, New England placed running back Laurence Maroney on injured reserve and near the end of the game safety Rodney Harrison was carted off the field after sustaining a knee injury. Harrison is not quite the player that he was a few years ago but if he is out for an extended period--which certainly seems likely--the Patriots will miss his toughness, intelligence and leadership.
Here are some notes/comments about Sunday's action:
*I just don't understand what the deal is with Derek Anderson. He is not a stiff; stiffs don't lead teams to a 10-5 record and make the Pro Bowl while tossing 29 TD passes, as Anderson did last year after becoming the starter in the second week of the season. Anderson has a very strong arm, he can make tough throws into small windows and he has the toughness to stand in the pocket and take a hit in order to deliver the deep ball--but sometimes his accuracy and touch completely desert him and he overthrows a receiver by 10 yards or fires the ball into the ground instead of between the receiver's numbers. During Cleveland's 14-11 loss to Washington, Anderson looked terrible for most of the game before coming alive in the fourth quarter and almost leading the Browns to an improbable come from behind win.
Granted, Anderson has not been helped by Cleveland's shaky offensive line play or by the numerous catchable passes his receivers have dropped this season but that does not explain the wide fluctuation in his performance level. He is almost like a streak shooter in basketball, a guy who could light someone up for 40 points on one night and then go 0-10 from the field the next night. The problem is that in basketball such a player usually comes off of the bench and when he is not shooting well the coach can put him back on the bench in favor of someone else who may not be a shooter but who can contribute in other ways. Anderson is the starting quarterback and it would not work to platoon him with Brady Quinn; that would just result in having two QBs who are out of sync. Nor does it make sense to simply cast aside a Pro Bowl player in favor of an untested second year pro. This is where coaching comes into play; someone on the Browns' coaching staff has to sit down with Anderson and go over film from when Anderson played well and find a way to get him to use the fundamental techniques (footwork, reads, throwing motion, etc.) that he employed on those occasions on a more consistent basis. The talent is there and the Browns are right to not give up on him too quickly but not giving up is not enough; they also have to provide Anderson with the proper coaching and instruction.
*Before the season began, all the "experts" kept telling us how Brett Favre was going to singlehandedly turn the Jets around while Aaron Rodgers would falter under high expectations in Green Bay and ex-Jet Chad Pennington would prove incapable of throwing the deep ball in Miami. The NFL season is nearly 40% over, so let's take a "midterm" look at how those three players have performed so far:
Rodgers currently is tied for fourth in the league in passer rating (98.8); his rating is not only better than Favre's rating from last year (95.7) but it is better than the ratings Favre posted in every season of his career except 1995. Rodgers may not maintain that level for the whole year but it is fair to say that he has hardly crumbled under the weight of high expectations.
Pennington ranks eighth in passer rating (97.4). The deep ball will never be Pennington's strong suit but he has 17 completions of 20+ yards this season, two more than Favre does. The Dolphins, 1-15 doormats last season, are a very competitive 2-4; they have scored 120 points while giving up 130, defeating both teams that played in last year's AFC Championship Game, New England and San Diego.
Favre ranks 13th in passer rating (92.3). Favre electrified Jets' fans by tossing a career-high six touchdowns against Arizona but in the two games since then--a 26-14 victory against winless Cincinnati and Sunday's overtime loss to Oakland--he has one touchdown and four interceptions. He threw for fewer than 200 yards in each of those games, compiling a 73.9 passer rating versus Cincinnati and a 47.8 passer rating against Oakland. In addition to the two interceptions Favre had on Sunday he easily could have had another one in overtime when he wildly put the ball up for grabs.
On a purely statistical basis, Rodgers and Pennington are performing at least as well--if not better--than Favre, who has hardly turned the Jets into anything other than the mediocre team that I predicted that they would be. The Jets are not going to make the playoffs and the Favre farewell tour will end up just being a wasted year for them. Next offseason will sure be interesting for the Jets as Favre retires, unretires and retires while the front office tries to formulate a game plan for the team's future. Good luck with that, guys--I'm sure that Green Bay's management is not only happy that they got rid of that problem but also that they have found someone who can be their starter for the foreseeable future.
*Jeff Garcia completed 27 of 36 passes for 310 yards, one touchdown, no interceptions and a 109.7 passer rating in Tampa Bay's 20-10 win over Seattle. He is just so much fun to watch, in part because he does not fit the template for a prototypical NFL quarterback--Garcia is too short, too skinny and he often looks frenetic in the pocket but the bottom line is that he can play. The great Bill Walsh believed in Garcia when nobody else in the NFL did and Garcia made the Pro Bowl three straight times as Steve Young's successor in San Francisco. Last year, at 37, Garcia made the Pro Bowl again, this time as a Buccaneer. Garcia and Tampa Coach Jon Gruden got into some kind of beef in the offseason and Gruden benched Garcia but now Garcia is the starter again and it will be difficult to justify replacing him if he keeps putting up passer ratings well over 100.
*ESPN's pundits are positively salivating over Dallas' midseason swoon. Tom Jackson seems giddy that the 4-3 Cowboys have lost two straight games and are dealing with a host of problems. Naturally, he places a significant amount of blame on Terrell Owens, who he now refers to as "two," which I guess is supposed to be a cute way of saying Owens' initials--but it wasn't cute when Jim Rome did it and it is not any more cute when Jackson does it. When I look at Dallas I see a team that lost its Pro Bowl quarterback, has a defense that is leaking like a sieve and has a meddlesome owner who signed two thugs (Adam Jones, Tank Johnson) in the offseason--and non-productive thugs at that. For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone can possibly justify mentioning Owens' name in the same breath with those two individuals. What do they have in common? Whatever you may think of Owens' comments over the years, no one can deny that he works hard in practice and he plays hard in games. He keeps himself in shape, plays hurt and the only "trouble" that he has ever been in consists of media-fueled soap operas of no significance. By the way, how are the teams that got rid of him doing? Are San Francisco and Philadelphia really better off without Owens? I realize that those organizations have multiple problems, but getting rid of a Pro Bowl player sure did not help. In contrast, Tennessee has moved on very nicely without Jones, while the Bears do not seem to miss Johnson at all.
Last I checked, Owens does not play on defense, nor can he throw the ball to himself, so it makes no sense to blame him for Dallas' recent slide. How can someone like Jackson who is not in Dallas' locker room speak about who is or who is not a leader on that team? I remember a few years ago when Jackson asserted that New England players don't like Bill Belichick and were on the verge of mutiny due to Lawyer Milloy being cut. That was a bunch of misinformed crap and Jackson's "analysis" of Owens and the Cowboys is equally misinformed. The only thing that Jackson has said about the Cowboys that makes sense is that their problems start with their owner. Jerry Jones should have never signed Adam Jones or Tank Johnson and Jerry Jones should be a much less visible and much less vocal presence on the sidelines and in the locker room. That said, once Romo gets back--or even after backup Brad Johnson has one more week of practice--the Cowboys will most likely get back on track toward a double-digit win season, assuming that Coach Wade Phillips finds a way to fix some of his team's defensive problems.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Monday Night Football Quick Hits: Opening Week Edition
Aaron Rodgers passed his first test with flying colors, achieving a gaudy 115.5 passer rating by completing 18 of 22 passes for 178 yards, one touchdown and no interceptions as his Green Bay Packers defeated their division rival Minnesota Vikings 24-19 in the first game of Green Bay's post-Brett Favre era. Favre lovers/Green Bay haters in the media will have to look long and hard to find something to criticize about Rodgers' performance. There is obviously a long way to go this season but now the whole nation has had an opportunity to see why the Packers were ready to hand over the reins to Rodgers.
There is beating a dead horse and then there is shooting the dead horse, kicking it 50 times, pistol whipping it and whacking it with a folding chair a la a pro wrestler; the latter is a good metaphor for Tony Kornheiser's commentary during the early portion of the Green Bay-Minnesota game, when every single thing that happened precipitated an overwrought comparison of Rodgers to Favre. After a series of penalties resulted in the Packers facing a first and 33, Kornheiser went too far even for his compliant booth mates Mike Tirico and Ron Jaworski when he said that everyone will be watching this play to see if Rodgers can pull off the kind of magic that Favre does in such situations; Tirico and Jaworski calmly noted that teams do not routinely deal with that down and distance.
After Rodgers threw his first touchdown, Kornheiser suggested that the crowd was happy because Rodgers had made a Favre-like throw but Jaworski countered that the fans were merely celebrating the fact that their team scored: "You've got to let it go, Tony," he advised, before adding, "I'll go into the football. Aaron Rodgers did a great job with the play action. Korey Hall was about the fourth receiver in that progression. Great job in that regard by Rodgers." That in a nutshell is the problem with having someone like Kornheiser or Dennis Miller in the MNF booth: Jaworski virtually has to call a timeout to "go into the football"; Kornheiser and Miller are both intelligent and witty but they are not football analysts and their presence takes away air time from someone like Jaworski who can actually analyze and explain the game. I resent that ESPN thinks that it has to "add" something to the telecast in order to attract more viewers, whether that something is Kornheiser or the incessant parade of non-football related guests to the broadcast booth, a practice that mercifully is supposed to not take place as much this season. ESPN should just show the game, using their big budget to provide multiple camera angles and the best commentary from analysts who truly understand the intricacies of the sport; viewers who want to be "entertained" by something not related to sports have the option of switching to non-sports programming, while real sports fans do not appreciate such "extras."
During the Packers' next possession, Kornheiser continued to assault the dead horse mercilessly: "I've mentioned this before, the great gamble here. Not to disparage Rodgers--because he's good--but he was given a 13-3 team, and so the question becomes is this the right year to hand a 13-3 team over to somebody with inexperience, because they are knocking on the Super Bowl door. That is the great question in all of this." Does this add anything to the broadcast? Wasn't all of that pretty obvious even before Kornheiser said it in various ways 50 times? After the camera panned to Packers GM Ted Thompson, Kornheiser continued, "He's the guy who did it--he and (Coach) Mike McCarthy. They made this decision. Brett Favre said that he wanted to come back and they finally said the train has moved out of the station. I question that, because that was in July. They hadn't even loaded up the train yet. There were no passengers on it--"
Jaworski, sounding as exasperated as I felt, finally interrupted to provide some perspective: "I know, but Tony you forget that Brett Favre retired. He quit playing football. What were they supposed to do? Wait for him to come back? You've got to move on." That is good advice for both the Packers and Kornheiser.
Favre's Sunday debut as a New York Jet was impressive (15-22, 194 yards, two touchdowns, no interceptions, 125.9 rating) but it is worth noting that he put up those numbers in a 20-14 win over a Miami team that went 1-15 last year. It was a quintessential Favre performance in every way: he showed off his arm strength, guts and gunslinger tendencies and he also put the ball up for grabs, most notably with his miracle touchdown pass to Chansi Stuckey, a desperation heave that should have been intercepted. Let's see what Favre and the Jets do against some better teams. The most remarkable thing about Favre is his astounding consecutive games streak; his durability is a product of conditioning, toughness and a little luck but I think that Favre also helps himself with his footwork. When he delivers a ball from a crowded pocket he often seems to throw off of his back foot, instead of planting his front foot like most quarterbacks and thus exposing himself to the type of devastating knee injury that Tom Brady just suffered. Throwing off your back foot is not something that coaches teach or that most quarterbacks can do efffectively on a consistent basis but--whether by plan or instinct--Favre seems to have a knack for avoiding the kill shots that have taken out so many quarterbacks.
ESPN's Tom Jackson and Cris Carter are a little too giddy in their predictions of how well Brett Favre will do in New York and how much pressure they think Aaron Rodgers is facing. This is understandable, because Jackson and Carter are former Pro Bowlers who surely identify more with Favre and his struggle with Green Bay management than they do with an unproven, career backup like Rodgers--but just because their take is understandable does not make it objective or correct. Favre is an old quarterback who has been an erratic postseason performer for years and who has annually been speaking about retiring. This summer he actually did retire and the Packers had a succession plan in place. When Favre later said that he could understand that Green Bay had moved on you either had to admire his boldness or wonder at how disconnected he is from reality. What did he expect Green Bay to do after he retired: fold the franchise? Of course they moved on, just like every other team in sports history has done after a great player retired. Jackson and Carter's commentary on this subject seems to be inspired more by bias than by an objective evaluation of Rodgers' skill set or a realistic appraisal of Green Bay's options after Favre flip-flopped; Green Bay management was correct to finally rid itself of the annual Favre retirement drama and to put Rodgers on the field full time before they have to decide whether or not to sign him to a long term deal.
As for the second Monday Night Football game--Denver's 41-14 rout of Oakland--suffice it to say that the Raiders should be sued for deceptive advertising if they don't scrap their "Commitment to Excellence" motto.
Here are some notes/comments about Sunday's action:
1) The biggest story by far is Tom Brady's season-ending knee injury. Naturally, many people are predicting doom and gloom for the Patriots because New England will be without the services of the reigning MVP, a player who tossed an NFL record 50 touchdown passes last season. Obviously, it is not a good thing to lose the best player in the league but it is very premature to write off a team that went 16-0 last season and is currently riding an NFL record 20 game regular season winning streak. Keep in mind that when Brady became the starting quarterback for New England in 2001 he had virtually the same credentials--or lack thereof--that Matt Cassel currently has: Brady was a 24 year old, sixth round draft pick who had been as low as seventh on the depth chart in college, while Cassel is a 26 year old, seventh round draft pick who spent his college career as a backup to Heisman Trophy winners Carson Palmer and Matt Leinart. Yes, that analogy crumbles a bit considering that Brady did achieve some success as a starter in college, while Cassel has not been a starter since high school, but it would be a mistake to underestimate the importance that coaching has played in the success that Brady and the Patriots have enjoyed. Brady was well prepared to step in and play because he was well coached and Cassel certainly looked well prepared as he compiled a 116.0 passer rating while completing 13 of 18 passes for 152 yards, one touchdown and no interceptions as New England beat Kansas City 17-10, scoring all 17 points after Brady got hurt. It is important to not just look at those numbers but also consider a couple of the throws that Cassel made, in particular his 51 yard completion to Randy Moss on a 3rd and 11 play from the New England one yard line and his 10 yard touchdown pass to Moss at the conclusion of that drive. The fact that Bill Belichick and the coaching staff trusted Cassel enough to have him throw a bomb out of the end zone--instead of doing a safe running play up the middle and punting the ball on fourth down--speaks volumes and the throw itself showcased that Cassel has a strong, accurate arm. The touchdown pass was also a very well thrown ball, placed where only Moss could catch it.
The bottom line is that Cassel has a good skill set, he has talented players around him and he is being coached by one of the greatest coaches ever. The critics are always looking for reasons/excuses to doubt the Patriots but the Patriots usually come through. Remember when Belichick released Lawyer Milloy prior to the 2003 season? Buffalo beat the Patriots 31-0 in week one and Tom Jackson declared that Belichick had lost the team because the players were so upset by how Belichick had treated Milloy--and then the Patriots made Jackson look foolish by winning 14 of their next 15 regular season games en route to their second Super Bowl victory. Sometimes when people pick against the Patriots I think that they are wishing more than they are analyzing.
2) In the August 25, 2008 issue of Sports Illustrated, Jim Trotter wrote about the real Chad Johnson, the Chad Johnson that "Ocho Cinco's" media friends usually whitewash before bashing Terrell Owens:
While football fans were watching Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Chad Johnson become a caricature of himself in the off-season, popping off repeatedly with demands to be traded--or, presumably, to be given a new contract--a small group of Bengals players turned their attention to coach Marvin Lewis. Almost from the moment Lewis took the Cincinnati coaching job in 2003, he assigned Chosen One status to Johnson. The former Oregon State standout could get away with anything. Walk out of a meeting without permission? Walk off the practice field and not return because the quarterback hadn't thrown enough passes his way? Put on a sideline skit after scoring a touchdown during a game? Johnson had done them all without significant consequences.
The Bengals looked terrible in their 17-10 loss to the Baltimore Ravens, producing just 154 yards of offense. "Ocho Psycho" had one reception for 22 yards. Considering that "Ocho Psycho's" teams have no record of postseason success while Owens has been a major contributor on playoff teams for three different franchises, it would be refreshing--yet unlikely--if the media would report the truth: "Ocho Psycho" is a major problem for the Bengals and a major contributor to the unprofessional attitude that has dogged the franchise for years. Most of the NFL's talented receivers are selfishly interested in their statistics but the great ones also want to contribute to a winning effort; "Ocho Psycho" gives every indication that he is primarily interested in his own numbers and his own drama as opposed to helping to build a winning team.
3) ESPN's virtual reality football field--featured on Sunday NFL Countdown and Monday NFL Countdown--is really cool; instead of having ex-players dressed in suits walking through plays, now Tom Jackson narrates the action as three dimensional versions of NFL players move up and down the field in very life-like fashion. Considering the enormous popularity of video games and fantasy sports, how long will it be before sports leagues are replaced by "leagues" of three dimensional, virtual reality players? Maybe that sounds crazy, but virtual reality players won't get season ending injuries or hold out for bigger contracts or get in trouble at three in the morning.
There is beating a dead horse and then there is shooting the dead horse, kicking it 50 times, pistol whipping it and whacking it with a folding chair a la a pro wrestler; the latter is a good metaphor for Tony Kornheiser's commentary during the early portion of the Green Bay-Minnesota game, when every single thing that happened precipitated an overwrought comparison of Rodgers to Favre. After a series of penalties resulted in the Packers facing a first and 33, Kornheiser went too far even for his compliant booth mates Mike Tirico and Ron Jaworski when he said that everyone will be watching this play to see if Rodgers can pull off the kind of magic that Favre does in such situations; Tirico and Jaworski calmly noted that teams do not routinely deal with that down and distance.
After Rodgers threw his first touchdown, Kornheiser suggested that the crowd was happy because Rodgers had made a Favre-like throw but Jaworski countered that the fans were merely celebrating the fact that their team scored: "You've got to let it go, Tony," he advised, before adding, "I'll go into the football. Aaron Rodgers did a great job with the play action. Korey Hall was about the fourth receiver in that progression. Great job in that regard by Rodgers." That in a nutshell is the problem with having someone like Kornheiser or Dennis Miller in the MNF booth: Jaworski virtually has to call a timeout to "go into the football"; Kornheiser and Miller are both intelligent and witty but they are not football analysts and their presence takes away air time from someone like Jaworski who can actually analyze and explain the game. I resent that ESPN thinks that it has to "add" something to the telecast in order to attract more viewers, whether that something is Kornheiser or the incessant parade of non-football related guests to the broadcast booth, a practice that mercifully is supposed to not take place as much this season. ESPN should just show the game, using their big budget to provide multiple camera angles and the best commentary from analysts who truly understand the intricacies of the sport; viewers who want to be "entertained" by something not related to sports have the option of switching to non-sports programming, while real sports fans do not appreciate such "extras."
During the Packers' next possession, Kornheiser continued to assault the dead horse mercilessly: "I've mentioned this before, the great gamble here. Not to disparage Rodgers--because he's good--but he was given a 13-3 team, and so the question becomes is this the right year to hand a 13-3 team over to somebody with inexperience, because they are knocking on the Super Bowl door. That is the great question in all of this." Does this add anything to the broadcast? Wasn't all of that pretty obvious even before Kornheiser said it in various ways 50 times? After the camera panned to Packers GM Ted Thompson, Kornheiser continued, "He's the guy who did it--he and (Coach) Mike McCarthy. They made this decision. Brett Favre said that he wanted to come back and they finally said the train has moved out of the station. I question that, because that was in July. They hadn't even loaded up the train yet. There were no passengers on it--"
Jaworski, sounding as exasperated as I felt, finally interrupted to provide some perspective: "I know, but Tony you forget that Brett Favre retired. He quit playing football. What were they supposed to do? Wait for him to come back? You've got to move on." That is good advice for both the Packers and Kornheiser.
Favre's Sunday debut as a New York Jet was impressive (15-22, 194 yards, two touchdowns, no interceptions, 125.9 rating) but it is worth noting that he put up those numbers in a 20-14 win over a Miami team that went 1-15 last year. It was a quintessential Favre performance in every way: he showed off his arm strength, guts and gunslinger tendencies and he also put the ball up for grabs, most notably with his miracle touchdown pass to Chansi Stuckey, a desperation heave that should have been intercepted. Let's see what Favre and the Jets do against some better teams. The most remarkable thing about Favre is his astounding consecutive games streak; his durability is a product of conditioning, toughness and a little luck but I think that Favre also helps himself with his footwork. When he delivers a ball from a crowded pocket he often seems to throw off of his back foot, instead of planting his front foot like most quarterbacks and thus exposing himself to the type of devastating knee injury that Tom Brady just suffered. Throwing off your back foot is not something that coaches teach or that most quarterbacks can do efffectively on a consistent basis but--whether by plan or instinct--Favre seems to have a knack for avoiding the kill shots that have taken out so many quarterbacks.
ESPN's Tom Jackson and Cris Carter are a little too giddy in their predictions of how well Brett Favre will do in New York and how much pressure they think Aaron Rodgers is facing. This is understandable, because Jackson and Carter are former Pro Bowlers who surely identify more with Favre and his struggle with Green Bay management than they do with an unproven, career backup like Rodgers--but just because their take is understandable does not make it objective or correct. Favre is an old quarterback who has been an erratic postseason performer for years and who has annually been speaking about retiring. This summer he actually did retire and the Packers had a succession plan in place. When Favre later said that he could understand that Green Bay had moved on you either had to admire his boldness or wonder at how disconnected he is from reality. What did he expect Green Bay to do after he retired: fold the franchise? Of course they moved on, just like every other team in sports history has done after a great player retired. Jackson and Carter's commentary on this subject seems to be inspired more by bias than by an objective evaluation of Rodgers' skill set or a realistic appraisal of Green Bay's options after Favre flip-flopped; Green Bay management was correct to finally rid itself of the annual Favre retirement drama and to put Rodgers on the field full time before they have to decide whether or not to sign him to a long term deal.
As for the second Monday Night Football game--Denver's 41-14 rout of Oakland--suffice it to say that the Raiders should be sued for deceptive advertising if they don't scrap their "Commitment to Excellence" motto.
Here are some notes/comments about Sunday's action:
1) The biggest story by far is Tom Brady's season-ending knee injury. Naturally, many people are predicting doom and gloom for the Patriots because New England will be without the services of the reigning MVP, a player who tossed an NFL record 50 touchdown passes last season. Obviously, it is not a good thing to lose the best player in the league but it is very premature to write off a team that went 16-0 last season and is currently riding an NFL record 20 game regular season winning streak. Keep in mind that when Brady became the starting quarterback for New England in 2001 he had virtually the same credentials--or lack thereof--that Matt Cassel currently has: Brady was a 24 year old, sixth round draft pick who had been as low as seventh on the depth chart in college, while Cassel is a 26 year old, seventh round draft pick who spent his college career as a backup to Heisman Trophy winners Carson Palmer and Matt Leinart. Yes, that analogy crumbles a bit considering that Brady did achieve some success as a starter in college, while Cassel has not been a starter since high school, but it would be a mistake to underestimate the importance that coaching has played in the success that Brady and the Patriots have enjoyed. Brady was well prepared to step in and play because he was well coached and Cassel certainly looked well prepared as he compiled a 116.0 passer rating while completing 13 of 18 passes for 152 yards, one touchdown and no interceptions as New England beat Kansas City 17-10, scoring all 17 points after Brady got hurt. It is important to not just look at those numbers but also consider a couple of the throws that Cassel made, in particular his 51 yard completion to Randy Moss on a 3rd and 11 play from the New England one yard line and his 10 yard touchdown pass to Moss at the conclusion of that drive. The fact that Bill Belichick and the coaching staff trusted Cassel enough to have him throw a bomb out of the end zone--instead of doing a safe running play up the middle and punting the ball on fourth down--speaks volumes and the throw itself showcased that Cassel has a strong, accurate arm. The touchdown pass was also a very well thrown ball, placed where only Moss could catch it.
The bottom line is that Cassel has a good skill set, he has talented players around him and he is being coached by one of the greatest coaches ever. The critics are always looking for reasons/excuses to doubt the Patriots but the Patriots usually come through. Remember when Belichick released Lawyer Milloy prior to the 2003 season? Buffalo beat the Patriots 31-0 in week one and Tom Jackson declared that Belichick had lost the team because the players were so upset by how Belichick had treated Milloy--and then the Patriots made Jackson look foolish by winning 14 of their next 15 regular season games en route to their second Super Bowl victory. Sometimes when people pick against the Patriots I think that they are wishing more than they are analyzing.
2) In the August 25, 2008 issue of Sports Illustrated, Jim Trotter wrote about the real Chad Johnson, the Chad Johnson that "Ocho Cinco's" media friends usually whitewash before bashing Terrell Owens:
While football fans were watching Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Chad Johnson become a caricature of himself in the off-season, popping off repeatedly with demands to be traded--or, presumably, to be given a new contract--a small group of Bengals players turned their attention to coach Marvin Lewis. Almost from the moment Lewis took the Cincinnati coaching job in 2003, he assigned Chosen One status to Johnson. The former Oregon State standout could get away with anything. Walk out of a meeting without permission? Walk off the practice field and not return because the quarterback hadn't thrown enough passes his way? Put on a sideline skit after scoring a touchdown during a game? Johnson had done them all without significant consequences.
The Bengals looked terrible in their 17-10 loss to the Baltimore Ravens, producing just 154 yards of offense. "Ocho Psycho" had one reception for 22 yards. Considering that "Ocho Psycho's" teams have no record of postseason success while Owens has been a major contributor on playoff teams for three different franchises, it would be refreshing--yet unlikely--if the media would report the truth: "Ocho Psycho" is a major problem for the Bengals and a major contributor to the unprofessional attitude that has dogged the franchise for years. Most of the NFL's talented receivers are selfishly interested in their statistics but the great ones also want to contribute to a winning effort; "Ocho Psycho" gives every indication that he is primarily interested in his own numbers and his own drama as opposed to helping to build a winning team.
3) ESPN's virtual reality football field--featured on Sunday NFL Countdown and Monday NFL Countdown--is really cool; instead of having ex-players dressed in suits walking through plays, now Tom Jackson narrates the action as three dimensional versions of NFL players move up and down the field in very life-like fashion. Considering the enormous popularity of video games and fantasy sports, how long will it be before sports leagues are replaced by "leagues" of three dimensional, virtual reality players? Maybe that sounds crazy, but virtual reality players won't get season ending injuries or hold out for bigger contracts or get in trouble at three in the morning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
