A Mere Five Things That I Think

[OldEnglandPatriot]

I enjoyed the Peter-King-style thread yesterday, so I'm shamelessly jumping on the bandwagon:

1. Media experts, including - perhaps especially - former players and coaches, make terrible handicappers. The evidence is everywhere in print and on TV, and it's hardly a new observation. Still, I was particularly struck by Fox's studio experts picking the Lions-Eagles game this past Sunday. All four chose Detroit like it was the most obvious pick imagineable; a lock. Result, Philadelphia win by five touchdowns.

I'm not saying you couldn't make a case for the Lions in that game, but if I were a betting man (which I am) I would have considered it a fairly tough game to pick and a classic no-play. All four experts going for a Lions team that cannot run the ball at all, has red zone problems, a so-so defense, and had merely scraped past Oakland and Minnesota - well, it beggars belief.

2. This new penalty for spiking the ball on achieving a first down is dumb, irritating and pointless. The 'No Fun League' gag is old, but the league keeps on seeking out ways to prove it is valid. On Sunday, Clinton Portis broke a 16-yard run for a first down and in his excitement spiked the ball. Amost immediately he realised he was about to get penalised and put his head in his hands. It was deeply sad, like watching an excited puppy get slapped for wagging it's tail.

Frankly, even if you are of the stiff, uptight 'they're-men-they-shouldn't-show-any-emotion' school of thought, I'm sure you'd agree there are more worthy rules changes upon which the NFL could have expended time and effort.

3. You may 'play to win the game' - but what if you don't gameplan to win the game? Apparently, Herm Edwards and his Chiefs' ingenious gameplan when they hosted Minnesota on Sunday was to 'run the ball down their throats'. Good work picking out just about the only thing Minnesota does well - defending the run - Herm and Co. That Kansas did win was down to finally realising in the second half that their knuckle-headed strategy wasn't going to work.

4. Besides being rubbish at picking games, journalists also say the stupidest things. Devin Clancy in USA Today Sports Weekly suggests in passing that 'talk about the Patriots' videotaping scandal probably won't die down until ... they lose a few games'.

Hmm, that seems to make absolutely no sense at all. Actually, the Pats losing a few games would have everyone yelling 'See! Now they don't have videotapes they are no good!'. What will cause the cameragate talk to die down - and it seems to have already begun to work somewhat - is the Patriots crushing opponent after opponent en route to a fourth Superbowl crown. I can't wait!

5. Discussions of AFC dominance always seem to 'beg the question'. For instance, when the crew on HBO's excellent 'Inside the NFL' get asked - about once a season - why the AFC is so dominant over the NFC, they answer with comments like 'the AFC has better quarterbacks', or 'the AFC have better defenses'. But that isn't answering the question at all - we all know that better teams have better quarterbacks, players, coaches; the question is WHY should it have come to pass that these better things are concentrated in the AFC?

Is it a cyclical reaction to the previous years of NFC dominance, in some way? I have no idea, but I wish the guys who know more than me would come up with something or else just admit they don't know either.

 

[NYPatsFan]

It was deeply sad, like watching an excited puppy get slapped for wagging it's tail.

Great stuff! I really enjoyed that line.

 

[Krugman]

Nice post ,OEP,agree on all points.Thats two posters here who have improved on PK's "10 things" column.Both were ,IMO,very well written.In regard to the AFC dominance,could it just be coincidental ,with more good coaches and players landing in that division over the last few years?(Manning,Brady,LT,Bellichick,Cower,Shanahan..)Maybe oversimplifying this,but sort of like "Chaos Theory"??

 

[captain stone]

2) I completely disagree. Spiking the ball, esp. when the clock is still running, is most definitely Delay of Game, and should be penalized as such.

3) Consider who was planning the plan: Spermie himself, the worst strategist amoung HCs in the NFL.

5) Remember, until the donkeys cheated their way to the 1997 & '98 SBs, the NFC had not lost a SB since the Raiders defeated the Redskins for the 1983 Championship. What goes around, comes around, eventually.

 

[Metaphors]

2) I completely disagree. Spiking the ball, esp. when the clock is still running, is most definitely Delay of Game, and should be penalized as such.

I think you are right on. It is just enforcing an existing rule. Spiking/throwing/rolling/tossing the ball isn't illegal in and of itself. If the official is standing with his foot on a spot, waiting for the ball, and you cause the ball to be unnecessarily delayed in getting to that official...you get a flag.

If you spike/throw/roll/toss that ball and the official is not waiting on it (incomplete pass, penalty, new ball thrown in from the sidelines, etc.) you probably won't get flagged. This isn't inconsistent, just trying to prevent the "delay"...not the "fun".

 

[slam]

I don't understand.

All these lists end after the number of items that's in the title. Where's the 1a. and 1b. and 1c.?

And where are the items about Starbucks and airline travel? It feels incomplete. It's just an intelligent post about football. :bricks:

 

[patsox23]

I enjoyed the Peter-King-style thread yesterday, so I'm shamelessly jumping on the bandwagon:

1. Media experts, including - perhaps especially - former players and coaches, make terrible handicappers. The evidence is everywhere in print and on TV, and it's hardly a new observation. Still, I was particularly struck by Fox's studio experts picking the Lions-Eagles game this past Sunday. All four chose Detroit like it was the most obvious pick imagineable; a lock. Result, Philadelphia win by five touchdowns.

I'm not saying you couldn't make a case for the Lions in that game, but if I were a betting man (which I am) I would have considered it a fairly tough game to pick and a classic no-play. All four experts going for a Lions team that cannot run the ball at all, has red zone problems, a so-so defense, and had merely scraped past Oakland and Minnesota - well, it beggars belief.

2. This new penalty for spiking the ball on achieving a first down is dumb, irritating and pointless. The 'No Fun League' gag is old, but the league keeps on seeking out ways to prove it is valid. On Sunday, Clinton Portis broke a 16-yard run for a first down and in his excitement spiked the ball. Amost immediately he realised he was about to get penalised and put his head in his hands. It was deeply sad, like watching an excited puppy get slapped for wagging it's tail.

Frankly, even if you are of the stiff, uptight 'they're-men-they-shouldn't-show-any-emotion' school of thought, I'm sure you'd agree there are more worthy rules changes upon which the NFL could have expended time and effort.

3. You may 'play to win the game' - but what if you don't gameplan to win the game? Apparently, Herm Edwards and his Chiefs' ingenious gameplan when they hosted Minnesota on Sunday was to 'run the ball down their throats'. Good work picking out just about the only thing Minnesota does well - defending the run - Herm and Co. That Kansas did win was down to finally realising in the second half that their knuckle-headed strategy wasn't going to work.

4. Besides being rubbish at picking games, journalists also say the stupidest things. Devin Clancy in USA Today Sports Weekly suggests in passing that 'talk about the Patriots' videotaping scandal probably won't die down until ... they lose a few games'.

Hmm, that seems to make absolutely no sense at all. Actually, the Pats losing a few games would have everyone yelling 'See! Now they don't have videotapes they are no good!'. What will cause the cameragate talk to die down - and it seems to have already begun to work somewhat - is the Patriots crushing opponent after opponent en route to a fourth Superbowl crown. I can't wait!

5. Discussions of AFC dominance always seem to 'beg the question'. For instance, when the crew on HBO's excellent 'Inside the NFL' get asked - about once a season - why the AFC is so dominant over the NFC, they answer with comments like 'the AFC has better quarterbacks', or 'the AFC have better defenses'. But that isn't answering the question at all - we all know that better teams have better quarterbacks, players, coaches; the question is WHY should it have come to pass that these better things are concentrated in the AFC?

Is it a cyclical reaction to the previous years of NFC dominance, in some way? I have no idea, but I wish the guys who know more than me would come up with something or else just admit they don't know either.

Sheer brilliance. Please post this at least once-a-week. Awesome points, well made. Newbie of the Year.

 

[patsox23]

Why do you refuse to discuss coffee and/or your daughter's softball team?

 

[patchick]

Why do you refuse to discuss coffee and/or your daughter's softball team?

Not to mention the ever-popular adventures of the lower intestine.

 

[patchick]

Great job, OEP. Mind if I try to channel King myself for a couple of extra Patriots-things-I-think?


1. Bill Belichick is spitting mad, and you see the results on the field. No, I'm not talking about cameras and fines. I'm talking about a two-year championship drought, which is an eternity in the heart of a man who lives to win football games. Belichick spent the offseason fuming after missing a Superbowl chance thanks to a defense that couldn't stop tight ends across the middle, and an all-world quarterback having to throw to an all-JAG receiving corps. Adalius Thomas, Randy Moss, Wes Welker and Donte Stallworth are the results of that January anger, which is the one that matters.

2. Maybe the laundry does make the man. Remember all that pre-season talk about how the Patriots had sold their souls to win, stocking up on criminals and malcontents in a "desperate" bid at another title? Three weeks into the season we have Gary Horton on ESPN saying "This is the smartest team in the NFL and loaded with veteran players of high character." Funny what a strong locker room, respected coaching staff and--most of all-- a winning record can do.

 

[QuiGon]

2. This new penalty for spiking the ball on achieving a first down is dumb, irritating and pointless.

My biggest problem with this rule thus far is it seems to be very inconsistently enforced. FWIW, I have the same problem with the fairly-new "horsecollar" rule.

 

[KoolAidDrinker]

Why do you refuse to discuss coffee and/or your daughter's softball team?

And don't you hate it when Peter King smugly says things like: "in my discussions with Tom Brady last Friday, Tom confided with me that ..." It's like he and Tom are old buddies and they had a meaningful, insightful, two hour discussion together. More likely, King was with a bunch of reporters and shouted out some inane question and Tom politely gave him a one line answer.

PatFans' posters, ironwasp and OldEnglandPatriot, are sooooo much better than PK !! Keep up the good work!

 

[Metaphors]

Three weeks into the season we have Gary Horton on ESPN saying "This is the smartest team in the NFL and loaded with veteran players of high character." Funny what a strong locker room, respected coaching staff and--most of all-- a winning record can do.

And that is saying something since Horton has a bias (not terrible, but it is there) against the Patriots.

 

[Mike the Brit]

An excellent post -- thank you. And congratulations, too, for knowing the proper use of the phrase 'beg the question'. That alone puts you in front of the vast majority of professional sports writers and pundits!

Some thoughts on the AFC/NFC question.

1. It really is puzzling; the more so because for so long the opposite was the case.

2. To say 'what goes around comes around' truly begs the question.

3. The idea that a few strong teams (Indianapolis, New England) happen to be in the AFC and that this has skewed things, to the extent that we only look at the Superbowl, is plausible (small numbers; large variations from the expected). But the AFC seems to be stronger than the NFC all the way through (I haven't got numbers for this, but Oakland, Cleveland and Houston come to mind as counter-examples).

4. If that is true and the AFC is stronger all the way down, then the only thing that remains, I think, is the effect of stronger competition. It doesn't seem likely, given that teams only play within their division for 6 out of 16 games. But the way it may work is this: teams that play weak schedules will have better results than they would if their schedule was tougher. A group of poor teams who play each other preponderantly will have better results overall than they should (when two bad teams meet someone has to win).

So poor coaching will be tolerated for longer than it would under tougher circumstances.

That's the best I can do. Thanks again for the post.

 

[OldEnglandPatriot]

Thanks for all the responses, especially the kind words of course.

To respond to a couple of the comments; with the spiking penalty, I take the point about delaying the game by slowing the spotting of the ball. I hadn't really thought about that, nor paid much attention to how this has been dealt with in previous seasons.

And Mike the (fellow) Brit: Very good point about the possibility that a conference's long-term dominance could be caused by a sort of self-perpetuating effect: the bar being raised if you want to compete in one conference, mediocrity being good enough in the other. That's the best answer I've heard to the puzzle.

 

[cstjohn17]

Good stuff, I am sure you feel better putting it on paper, kind of therapeutic.

3) The Herminator, he is the best. Didn't he use the exact same game plan against the Colts in last years' playoff? As much grief as Mangini gets on this board, the Jets fans have to be pretty 'pumped and jacked' that good old Herm is gone.

 

[Oswlek]

While I agree that most analysts do take the easy way out, I think there is some credence to the "they have the best QBs" comment.

Truly exceptional QBs are rare commodities. While you would expect to see the best 6 QBs be evenly distributed between the conferences, it will happen from time to time that they will be concentrated on one conference. When that occurs, the best teams in that conference will be likely be better than the other.

THe comment about defenses is harder to defend because there are just too many players for there to be that drastic of a talent differential. I would probably lean towards coaches before mentioning defenses.

 

[Oswlek]

Good stuff, I am sure you feel better putting it on paper, kind of therapeutic.

3) The Herminator, he is the best. Didn't he use the exact same game plan against the Colts in last years' playoff? As much grief as Mangini gets on this board, the Jets fans have to be pretty 'pumped and jacked' that good old Herm is gone.

I wouldn't want Edwards coaching my high school team. He is an idiot through and through.

 

[Mike the Brit]

And don't you hate it when Peter King smugly says things like: "in my discussions with Tom Brady last Friday, Tom confided with me that ..." It's like he and Tom are old buddies and they had a meaningful, insightful, two hour discussion together. More likely, King was with a bunch of reporters and shouted out some inane question and Tom politely gave him a one line answer.

Oh yes, indeed!

 

[mykl]

The thing that I don't understand about spiking the ball being delay of game is that it is the offensive players doing the spiking. If they want to delay the spotting of the ball, who cares? If they prevent the ball from being spotted at all, then they receive a normal delay of game penalty when the play clock winds down. If the ball is spotted, but later than it would have been otherwise, then the offense has again only hurt itself by giving itself less time at the line to read the defense.

I'm just not sure what the point is since the offense still has the play clock to contend with.