Response: NFL Tanking

On January 26th, I wrote an article examining the question of why NFL teams don't intentionally lose games (i.e. tank) in order to improve their draft position. One of my readers, Hunter, put together a very long, thought-out response to this post so I've decided so take another look at the topic by revisiting Hunter's comment.

First, a quick refresher on my 7.5 reasons why NFL teams don't tank:

1. Financial Cost of 1st Round Picks
2. Potential Failure of Drafted Players
3. Lower Value of Individual Players to Teams
4. Coaches Protecting Their Job
5. Players Seeking to Remain in the League
6. Pride/Rivalries
7. Competitive Balance

Now, Hunter's comment (my responses are in bold):

I think the entry does a good job of catching all the reasons why NFL teams generally do not tank. I believe the main reasons why NFL teams don't tank are #4 and #5, while #6 and #7 are still true, just to a lesser extent. (But?...)

I think the entry also lists things that actually AREN'T reasons why NFL teams choose not to tank, namely #s 1 and 2. #3 I have mixed feelings about. (The hell you say! Let's see if this pans out...)

Way-too-in-depth analysis follows! :) (This is true. So far so good.)

#4 (Coaches protecting their job) - Definitely keeps teams from tanking. The coach can choose to have the team tank, to help it build for the future. But he would probably only be willing to do this if the ownership guaranteed him job security first. You don't want to tank, let everyone see that the team "quit on you" and then get fired. That'll make it tough to find a new coaching gig. Since tanking is "taboo" the franchise/front office can't just come right out and tell the fans "we're tanking for draft position." So the coach has to believe that the ownership will keep him on-board despite any pressure from fans who are calling for his head. But since the coaches have salaries that are so large they demand results (as mentioned in an earlier blog post) that pressure may be pretty intense. The fans are used to throwing the coach under the bus whenever the team doesn't win.
(The only reason that tanking is "taboo" is because it actually can have a great impact on the competitive balance of the league. This is what the league's front office is concerned with, and this is the reason that teams are not "allowed" to tank. As you mentioned, coaches would be killed by the fan base if they tanked without coming out and saying it, and they would be killed by the league if they did acknowledge tanking. The other important consideration here, especially with the NFL, is the gambling ramifications of a tanking team. How can oddsmakers ever properly handicap a game in which one team is outright trying to lose? What if both teams are tanking? What about your fantasy implications?!? The horror!)

#5 (Players protecting their place in the league) - Also definitely keeps teams from tanking. If the player helps his team tank to build for the future, he too needs a guarantee that he'll still be around to reap the rewards. If the tanking team lets him go, and he has not been showcasing his talent because he was helping the team lose, it's going to be bad for his career. But as the owner or general manager, you can't possibly guarantee all your players that they will be back. After all, if all your players were the right guys to have on the team, you probably wouldn't need to tank and build for the future, right? So you can't promise them all a job, and anyone you don't promise a job to is going to be playing their heart out no matter what the coach says, so they can find a spot with another team next year. That's bound to mess up the tanking.
(While I agree this is important (I included it, so it must be!), I don't think this is as important as Hunter thinks. The fact is, a team can outwardly tank even if it's players all play hard, as long as those players are bad. Thus, the team can play backups/young players instead of their "stars", and they could even assure those stars that they will be back the next year (if they want to be after being benched...). So yes the players will play hard, but the team can easily still lose. It's simply up to the coach and front office to convince the better players that they will be rewarded in the future for their patience. Plus, those star players that the team ensures will return then could play intentionally poorly if they knew their jobs were safe. They can all just follow Braylon Edwards's example.)

#6 (Pride/rivalries) - Yep. Inevitably there will be a few guys who simply cannot lose on purpose because it is against their nature. 6a definitely contributes because again, tanking is "taboo" so you can't just tell the fans that's what you're doing and expect them to understand. Some fans WILL think that beating your rivals will salvage an otherwise disappointing season, but every game you win against a hated rival is still hurting your tanking strategy.
(My point exactly. The fan base expects the players to play all-out, and players that have pride in their play, or those seeking records, Pro Bowls, etc., will all try hard if they're put on the field. Plus, fans hate losing to rivals, and I think many fans would even irrationally be upset by losing to a rival, even if losing meant getting a great draft pick. Fan is short for fanatic, they say.)

#7 (Competitive balance) - This one is still true, but a bit more abstract. The coaches and players won't necessarily feel a strong obligation to "competitive balance." They might not care too much about whether the "right teams" were in the playoffs, if it helps THEIR team improve. So the pressure to maintain the "competitive balance" has to come from the owners and (most of all) the league itself. And it does. The owners and the league office have a large hand in making sure that tanking continues to be "taboo." If the fans know their team is tanking, they may think it's a bad thing (against the competitive spirit of the game) or they may think it's a GREAT thing (gives my team its best chance of having success later) but either way, they aren't going to want to SHOW UP to the games WHILE the team is intentionally tanking. That hits the owners in the pocketbook, and worse yet, looks very bad for the league. So the pressure stays on: This is still a business, and we've still got to sell tickets, so make sure you give your fans a reason to keep thinking the team might give them something to cheer about if they come to a game.
(I think I'm flattered that he called my writing "abstract." That seems like a compliment. Maybe. Anyways, this is what I mentioned above. The concept of competitive balance is meaningless to the individual teams if they know that losing is their best course of action. But for the owners, it's even worse that Hunter made it sound. Not only does poor attendance hurt them because of lower ticket revenue, but if they fail to sell out, their home games will be blacked out in the local market, and as we all should know by now, NFL teams make more money off of television revenue than anything else. Additionally, a team tanking this season tells the fan base that they are capable of tanking any time, and this could severely deter fans from purchasing season tickets if they know their team may give up halfway through the season. And finally, as he said and I mentioned above, the league front office has many reasons why it wants tanking to be taboo. From television revenue lost (networks won't pay as much for t.v. rights if they think some late-season games will be thrown, in essence) to gambling concerns (why do you think the NFL is #1 in the U.S. right now, really?) to fantasy football concerns (a vast industry that is growing rapidly), the NFL simply can't afford to let people think certain games aren't being played to win (cue the Herm Edwards quote).)

#3 (Lower value of individual players) - Okay, the value of each player to the team is less in the NFL, compared to the NHL, the NBA, or in MLB. But that's not because of some mystical quality that makes football "the Ultimate Team Sport." It's just because football requires more people in order to play. That's it. But while having the best player in the league on your squad doesn't mean *as* much in the NFL as in the other major sports, it still clearly beats not having the best player in the league. Sure, maybe one rookie isn't going to turn a loser into a contender. But if you want to turn a loser into a contender, you have to start somewhere, and there's no better way to start than having the opportunity to draft the college player who will best fill your team needs. Bringing in one free agent might not turn a loser into a contender. Getting a better Offensive Coordinator may not turn a loser into a contender. But every bit helps, each of those things can be a step in the direction you need to go. If you know you need an impact HB, why get yourself the 2nd best one in the draft when you could have the best one in the draft? Yes, an NFL team has many components. But every time you settle for a sub-optimal component, you lessen the chances of having the desired finished product.
(I completely agree with what Hunter is saying here. First, however, TMQ is not implying that football is "the Ultimate Team Sport" because of said mystical quality, but because of the exact reason Hunter gave: many more players are involved. In baseball, basketball and hockey, most players are involved in the game at all times (baseball is a bit different because of pitchers, but we all can agree that a great pitcher cannot alone make his team great). In football, especially at the professional level, players are only involved in the game roughly half of the time, and their are 10 other guys on the field with them, more than any other sport, making an individual that much less important. Plus, we all know that the NFL draft is a very inexact science, and that no matter how much scouting teams do and how many background checks they run or high school coaches they talk to, it seems to be little better than a 50/50 proposition whether an NFL player ever lives up to his draft position. Maybe it's better to have the #1 HB instead of #2, and maybe it's not. Plenty of teams have gotten the player they wanted much later than they expected him to be available, and others have taken the player they desperately desired and been completely unsatisfied. And still, teams that have missed on high draft picks have gone on to become successful despite those failures. So why intentionally throw away a season, even a non-playoff season, when you can build for the future?)

#1 (Financial cost of high picks) - I don't really believe that high draft picks are "so expensive they almost become a detriment to the team." If they were, we wouldn't be having a discussion about why teams don't tank for draft position, because high draft position wouldn't be desirable to begin with! But we know that it is, because high draft picks command more trade value than lower ones, and teams do make sacrifices to trade up in draft position. I don't really think it is THAT hard to stay under the salary cap. The cap isn't really that restrictive. Each year, there are very few guys in the free agent market that are simply "too good" to be free agents. The guys who are supposed to be retained, the teams find the money to retain them. Exceptions are almost ALWAYS due to conflict between the player and the team, or earlier mismanagement of resources by the team. If a team finds itself in truly dire cap trouble, it's probably their own fault, and not the cap's fault.
(Agreed, but the financial cost I speak of here doesn't actually have much to do with the salary cap. This is more to the idea of possibly missing on a super-high draft pick and being saddled with a huge paycheck for a player that doesn't perform. The higher the draft pick is, the more money the team must commit to an unproven player, potentially costing them the money needed to keep key veterans or add important free agents. This also goes back to the owners' perspectives, as they would surely rather pay a #5 overall pick instead of a #1 overall pick, even if it meant getting a slightly worse player, because both have about the same chance of succeeding in the league. Higher picks not only demand higher salaries, but also demand far more guaranteed money, which is money owners can never get back if the player fails.)

#2 (Potential failure of drafted players) - There is always the potential for a drafted player to fail. This is not less true for later picks than for early picks. In fact, it is MORE true for later picks than early picks, for reasons that should be obvious. The team cannot be afraid to trust its decision about which players are better than which other players. You did all that scouting for a reason. Take the guy you think is the best for your team. Don't trade down and take someone YOU believe is less talented just because it will be a lesser blow if he turns out to be a bust. Man up and take your shot. If you don't want the best high-priced rookies on your team, because you're afraid they might turn out to be a bust, then you shouldn't want the best high-priced veterans on your team either, because you should be afraid they might get hurt. Just use low-priced mediocre talent across the board and see where that takes you. No? Okay, then quit worrying and take the best player. The only reason a miss can hurt more than a hit can help, is because if you hit, the player may hold-out for a restructured contract with mo' $$$, but if you miss, it is very difficult to restructure the contract to less $$$. I think hold-outs are incredibly lame, but that's a whole other rant. :)
(Very fair point, and certainly the lower the pick, the more likely the player is to be a bust (I'm not so sure it's as great a difference as you think, though, especially since all the players we're talking about here are in the top 20 overall picks). However, as you said, there is no way to recoup money from a player that underperforms. Also, if you truly trust your scouting department, then you should either be able to find a player that fits your team no matter where you pick, or else you should know exactly who you need so you can trade, be that up or down, to get him where you get the best value.)

In summary:
I do think #s 4-7 explain why NFL teams don't tank, and I don't expect that to change. They will continue to not tank, even when it is in the best interests of the franchise to do so. It also occurred to me that when someone is controlling a team in Madden, #s 4 and 5 (which I pegged as the biggest reasons why teams don't tank) do not really apply, because you know exactly who you intend to keep, and the coaches and players are largely unaffected by things like pride, or uncertainty about the future of their career (coaches are ENTIRELY unaffected by these things.) Since our first-hand experience with owning and running a team comes from Madden, in which the two largest reasons not to tank are non-factors, it makes sense that the decision to tank should look so "obvious" to us on the surface. Considering these other factors, which Madden players don't have to deal with, was a fun and interesting exercise for me, and put me "in the shoes" of a real-life NFL owner/GM more than I had been when thinking about this topic previously. So thanks for writing the post that was the catalyst for that exercise! :)
(No, thank you for reading.)

To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.

A Few MLB, NBA Observations

Here are a few thoughts on some of the top sports stories right now.

Obviously number 1 has to be the A-Rod steroid story. As a sports fan and a baseball fan, I think this was finally the last straw in the steroid era for me. I'll admit, I had cheered for A-Rod because of the belief that he was going to do clean what Bonds had done tainted. Unfortunately, we now know for sure that A-Rod cheated (he admitted as much) while Bonds continues to deny any wrongdoing (not that anyone believes him). My feeling now is that the entire Steroid Era in baseball should be separated from the rest of baseball history. Jim Rome made an interesting point on his radio show yesterday: with all of the conflicting stories on steroids, the public has only two options: assume no one used, or assume everyone used. Looks like assuming everyone used is a pretty safe bet these days.

So here's what baseball should do (are you listening, Bud Selig?): anyone that played from 1985 on will be considered to have used some form of performance enhancing drug, and it's okay. They were not illegal in the sport at the time. However, all such players will be held to a separate standard when considered for entry into the Hall of Fame, and statistics compiled during this period will be kept as if unrelated to historical baseball numbers. Barry Bonds will be the Steroid Era Home Run King, while Hank Aaron will retain his title as all-time HR King. Bonds will also keep his SE single-season HR record, but so will Roger Maris keep his single-season mark. The baseball Hall of Fame is in a precarious position, and they have shown a propensity to hold suspected steroid use against players (see Mark McGuire). To remedy this, just create a separate wing in the Hall for those that played in the Steroid Era. Maybe a few bad apples will be tarnishing the accomplishments of many great, clean players, but the evidence seems to indicate the contrary.

###

Now that football season is officially over, it's time to start shifting gears to basketball. The NBA All-Star break is coming up this weekend, which means the trading deadline is right around the corner as well. Many experts and NBA executives seem to think that this could be one of the most active trade deadlines we've seen in years, although it may not involve many star players. The reason for this is, of course, the economy. Teams that are losing this year and not getting good attendance will be looking to unload expensive players that they literally cannot afford to keep. Meanwhile, other teams will be looking to position themselves for the Summer of 2010 free agent class (remember, includes LeBron, D-Wade, Chris Bosh, Steve Nash, among others). This means trades will be made with teams eying their salary cap a year and a half from now.

The biggest rumor currently swirling around is that the Phoenix Suns are looking to move Amar'e Stoudamire. This seems like a clear case of cutting off the nose to spite your face. The Suns have been a disappointment this year, and the reason is that their players do not match the playing style wanted by their head coach, Terry Porter. Again, these are the same players that led the Suns to the Western Conference Finals two years ago and consistently put up 50-win seasons under Mike D'antoni. But the Suns management decided to go another direction, bringing in a slow-it-down, defensive-minded coach in to replace Mike D and trying to make the players play the coaches style. This has not worked at all, and the players appear to be turning on the coach. So what is GM Steve Kerr going to do? Not get rid of the coach, but instead blow up the nucleus that's had so much success over the years.

Stoudamire, just 26 years old, is among those that will be in the famed Summer of 2010 class, and thus is going to require a big payday. He will be a coveted prize and thus can fetch a very nice package now because: 1) he's an All-Star caliber player at his best, and 2) he has an expiring contract in 2010, which means he'll create cap room that summer. Is Kerr making the right move shopping him? Well, for one thing, he'd better trade him now, because knowing the guy has been criticized for his work ethic before all this, you can just imagine how hard he'll try playing for a team that openly discussed moving him. I think the Suns would be better off trying to move Shaq, but almost no one would even consider taking on his huge contract for another year after this one, even if it does mean cap relief in 2010. But if the Suns do trade Amar'e, then they'd better be prepared to let Nash go in 2010 as well and be ready to start from scratch.

###

One last NBA note. The Houston Rockets are self-destructing right before our eyes. This team, one that many think has the talent to be among the 5-6 championship contenders this year, has been in a tailspin the last month or so. They have not yet been the unit that was expected when Ron Artest was acquired in the offseason, and this is largely because their stars (Artest, Yao Ming and Tracy McGrady) have not been healthy at the same time all year. Now, they claim, they are healthy and ready to make a strong stretch run. So how do they start it? By getting blown out by a terrible Milwaukee team last night that was missing three of its top players. The Rockets already have 6 losses this season to last place teams, and while their 31-21 record is not bad at all, it may be time to wonder just how far this team can go if they keep playing this poorly. They're not that far removed from the #9 spot in the West, meaning they'll probably need to be better than .500 over their last 30 games to make the playoffs.

What troubles me most is that it sounds like the locker room is beginning to splinter. After the Rockets loss a few days ago, Artest evidently called out T-Mac for not playing hard on defense. McGrady then went to the media and said that the team "talks too much." If this isn't the start of a meltdown, I don't know what is. On top of that, the fact is, McGrady (whether he's truly hurt or that's just an excuse) is a shell of his former self. He's only 30, but he's been in the league since he was a teenager and he plays like he's closer to 40. He's got no lift on his jumper (which was never great to begin with, and is now downright bad) and he can't get to the rim like he used to. He's a mediocre (at best) player right now. I suspect the Rockets would actually consider trading him if it weren't for the fact that he is due $20+ million next year, making him unpalatable for any team that might think he still has something in the tank. Looks like the Rockets are stuck with him for the rest of this year, and they have to hope that things get better before the playoffs. Either way, McGrady might be moved next offseason the way the Nuggets rid themselves of Allen Iverson, to a team looking for an expiring contract.

To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.

Pro Bowl Blog!

It's that time again! Time for the best exhibition game the NFL has to offer! That's right, it's the Pro Bowl! I will be writing this blog post as I watch the game live, just as I did last year with the MLB All-Star Game. Basically this is my chance to throw out some thoughts on the NFL, the Pro Bowl, and sports in general. Let's dive right in.

- We've got about a half hour until the game gets under way, so this seems like a perfect time to discuss the future of the Pro Bowl. This will be the final year the game will be held in Hawaii, as starting next year it will be moved to the weekend before the Super Bowl and will be held in the city that the Super Bowl is being played in. I can't say that I'm a fan of this decision. First of all, one of the biggest complaints with the game is the number of star players that sit out of the game with "injuries," so to put the game the week before the Super Bowl ensures that there will be no players from the two Super Bowl contestants in the game. Second, the game being a week after the Super Bowl allowed it to be a nice wind-down ending to the season, a game that fans can watch (or not watch, since everyone seems to claim that they don't watch) without the pressure of rooting for a team and potentially being disappointed at the end of the year. It's simply a chance to root for players, even those on rival teams, and see guys play together that never would normally. I understand the complaints that the game isn't played like a normal game (no blitzing is allowed, for example, and teams aren't allowed to line up with four wide receivers, etc.), but that adds to the sense that there's no reason to live or die by the result. Just let it give you a chance to savor one last game before the long offseason.

Third, I have a problem with the game no longer being in Hawaii. Let's face it, the NFL doesn't get most of its revenue from ticket sales. Most of the money comes from merchandise and especially television contracts. So who cares if they can only fill half the stadium in Honolulu. Are they really going to sell out the 2011 Pro Bowl if it's in Indianapolis? (Then again, since they force season-ticket holders to buy preseason tickets at full price, maybe they'll just force Super Bowl ticket holders to buy Pro Bowl tickets are full price. Crap, I think I just gave Goddell an idea.) The idea is to have the game in a destination city, somewhere the players can go and feel like they're being rewarded, and where fans that can't afford a trip to the Super Bowl could still have a family vacation to see a football game.

So, how would I change the game to make it more appealing? On Yahoo! today, a blogger gave the option of creating a 5-on-5 flag football tournament. This seems like a very interesting idea. He suggests that each NFL team send 5 players and that a single-elimination bracket, seeded based on regular season record, would be created. His idea was that only skill-position players (quarterbacks, receivers, running backs, defensive backs, tight ends) be allowed to participate, but I think some teams would actually choose to send some other players that are better athletes (like the Panthers might send Julius Peppers). All the players in this tournament would have to play both ways, and the tournament would be held over three days, with the first three rounds Friday and Saturday and the semis and final held on national network TV on Sunday. This seems like a fascinating idea, but I doubt the NFL would ever consider this. For one thing, it wouldn't necessarily be rewarding all the best players. It would also exclude a lot of very good offensive and defensive linemen that are deserving of recognition and, as usual, would favor the "glory boys" (QBs, RBs, WRs, etc.).

If I were in charge of the Pro Bowl, I'd leave things pretty much as they are, except I would eliminate fan voting and I would absolutely make sure the players weren't officially selected to the game until the regular season is over. It's an absolute joke that players on teams that collapse at the end of the year get rewarded for two good months at the start of the season. Meanwhile, guys that carry their teams at the end of the year, or rookies/younger players that start slow but break out down the stretch are forced to stay home and watch.

Alright, it's go time...

- Pre-game, Peyton Manning gushes about being able to play in the Pro Bowl with his brother and how this is the most special Pro Bowl he's played in. That's sweet and all, but Eli may be one of the players I mentioned above that got in because of a strong start, but by the end of the year was not really deserving of a Pro Bowl slot. Good for them both making it, I just hope we don't have to hear about it all afternoon.

- Do Pro Bowl commercial slots cost even 1/10th of a Super Bowl commercial? 1/100th?

- Why oh why is Flozell Adams starting in the Pro Bowl? Again, fan votes are ridiculous.

- Props to Kris Jenkins (AFC starting DT) for stating during the starting roster introductions, "This jersey is too tight" instead of his college. Awesome.

- Ronde Barber is so screwed by the Pro Bowl rules. Not only does he have to play five yards off the receivers, but he also has to play man coverage most of the time, too. Neither of these play into his strengths in the least.

- Tony Gonzalez is still a great player. If someone can find a way to get him from the Chiefs, as has been rumored, they will be getting a difference maker on offense.

- Ronnie Brown running the Wildcat was great. Leon Washington running the wrong way? Not so much.

- Manning to Gonzo for the TD. Like I said before, Gonzo can still play.

- Peyton Manning is a fantastic interview. I have no doubt that he will have a spot on a TV pre-game show the minute he retires. Then again, who doesn't get a shot at a pre-game show these days? Regardless, Manning is very honest and well-spoken and always interesting to hear from.

- Speaking of Flozell Adams, it's a treat to watch his lazy @$$ jogging around, pretending to block guys. I'll be surprised if he doesn't get a QB killed this afternoon.

- Ta-Dah! One play after that last comment was written, Adams is beaten on fourth and four by Robert Mathis who sacks Brees and forces a fumble. Congrats on your Pro Bowl right tackle, Cowboys.

- (approx. 1:30 in 1st quarter) Someone needs to remind Peyton Manning that intentional grounding is allowed in the Pro Bowl and no one really cares if he throws a pick, so coverage sacks are pretty much inexcusable. Throw it up!

- Uh-oh, the wind's picking up. I guess Eli's not going to play (not well, at least).

- Interesting to hear Kurt Warner talk about the Harrison TAINT in the Super Bowl last week. It sounds like Anquan Boldin was supposed to line up wider toward the sideline which would have made Harrison a non-factor in the middle of the field. But because Boldin lined up tight to the line, his route took him to the middle of the field, right to where Harrison had dropped. Makes you wonder how the game would have changed had Boldin lined up where he was supposed to.

- Nice effort by Marshawn Lynch on the fourth down run midway through the second quarter. Must be a little of that Bills karma rubbing off after the Bruce Smith interview. Of course it was a rather generous spot, but who's complaining?

- Manning better be careful. If he keeps throwing to Tony Gonzalez, Dallas Clark might get jealous.

- Do you think Andy Reid got a new Hawaiian shirt, or did he just bring one from one of his previous Pro Bowl coaching opportunities?

- Ugh, Brandon Marshall really should have caught that fourth and goal pass. You don't get many easier TD chances as a wide receiver.

- Julius Peppers sounds pretty clueless in his interview with Tiki. He doesn't care where he plays, he just wants to get paid.

- Yikes, poor Flozell gets beat again, but this time he's at left tackle while Jammal Brown of the Saints at right tackle gets beat as well, both by Colts. Freeney and Mathis meet at the QB, and Brees gets sacked again.

- Ha, now Albert Haynesworth is dancing around the money issue as Andrea Kremer asks where he wants to play. Sad how these guys think they're fooling anyone by not just saying: "I'll play for the team that pays me the most."

- Sweet! Houston's Owen Daniels scores a TD in his first career Pro Bowl. Good for him, and he better savor it, because he's not going to get too many Pro Bowl chances being stuck in the same conference as the likes of Tony Gonzalez, Antonio Gates and Dallas Clark. (Only two tight ends get to go.)

- Larry Fitzgerald is a freak. Granted Courtland Finnegan's coverage on that half-ending Hail Mary was nothing special (Fitzgerald had inside position the whole way down the field), but it's just incredible the way that guy catches everything thrown near him. Fitting end to a sensational postseason for the wideout.

- Halftime!

- It's amazing there aren't more kick and punt return touchdowns in the Pro Bowl, as none of the players on the field seem to have much interest in playing hard on special teams. Along with the kicker, punter, and return specialist, only two players are chosen for each squad as special teams specialists (a long-snapper and one "specialist"). Almost makes me wonder why they don't just go ahead and choose an entire special teams unit for each Pro Bowl team. Who cares if they end up with 60 players on each roster?

- As expected, Eli's numbers are really not Pro Bowl caliber. Cris Collinsworth apologizes for him because he has to play all year in the Meadowlands, but still. Should players (such as Eli and Kerry Collins) be chosen just because they were the QB for the league's best teams?

- Freeney and Mathis are having a field day with the NFC's offensive tackles. Very sad considering no blitzes are allowed, so the o-line only has to worry about four rushers.

- How good could the Vikings be if they had a real quarterback? If there's any team that ought to seriously consider either trading for Matt Cassel or even trying to pry Kurt Warner away from the Cardinals (and retirement), it would be them.

- Not sure what to think of Eli's pick in the endzone. On the one hand, Boldin never really had position on the play, so Eli probably shouldn't have made the throw. On the other hand, Boldin didn't exactly kill himself to break up the play. If I'm a GM this offseason, I don't know if I give Boldin a huge long-term deal; he's starting to seem like a bit of a prima donna.

- Speaking of Vikings, Jared Allen has been a steal for them. Then, after the fumble forced/recovered by Allen, Adrian Peterson punches it in, and my point about the Vikings absolutely stands. I don't think Matt Cassel is the second coming of Tom Brady, but with the talent already on that team, it seems like he could help them do a lot of damage. By the way, what were the Chiefs thinking trading Allen? Even if they are in the midst of a rebuilding process, the guy is 26! It's not like he was an old vet on the decline.

- Another sloppy play by Brandon Marshall as he fumbles the handoff on an end-around (that may have been an all-out reverse with Andre Johnson coming the other way). Marshall scares me as a Broncos fan, because he seems to have some maturity issues and being a Pro Bowler at this young age may go to his head.

- As we approach the end of the third quarter, I'm still waiting to see Jay Cutler make his Pro Bowl debut...

- As we hear from Vikings soon-to-be Hall of Famer Randall McDaniel, one thing stands out to me about all the HoF-ers they've spoken to today: they all seem very humbled by the fact that they were selected. It's great to hear from guys like that in this era of me-first, attention grabbing, self-absorbed millionaires.

- Immediately after I type that comment, the discussion about the sound bites of "let's get the 45" come on. (The players on the winning team get $45,000, while the losers get $22,500.) Of course I know that if they didn't have a financial incentive to win, these guys would never show, so I'm actually okay with it. At least they're honest.

- Anquan Boldin is really, really pissed off at the Cardinals organization. Not sure if it's completely financial (probably), but he really has a grudge against the Cards front office and I highly doubt he'll be in Arizona next year.

- Larry Fitzgerald is a great guy, not just a great player. The more I see of him and hear from him, the more impressed I become.

- Marshawn Lynch looks very good every time he touches the ball. It's sad he's stuck with one of the worst coaches in the league, because otherwise he'd probably be a top 5 fantasy player.

- Nice little fumble-rooskie play by the AFC. Not much surprise that Ravens coach John Harbaugh would call that play for Ravens FB Le'Ron McClain, but the NFC definitely was surprised.

- NFL games would be so much more entertaining to watch both on TV and in person if they just got rid of the post-kickoff commercial break.

- These defensive rules are just silly. If the defensive front can't get pressure (without blitzing, mind you) then the DBs are toast.

- Did I mention that Larry Fitzgerald is just ridiculous? Because he is completely uncoverable on fades and high throws in general. TD #2 for him here.

- By the way, I think if LeBron James actually said he wanted to play football for the Browns, they'd sign him in about 3 seconds. He would not, however, be wearing #23 (he was an All-State tight end in high school in Ohio). He'd probably be a tight end or wide receiver and would have to wear a number in the 10s or 80s. (Does this mean they've shown that Allstate insurance commercial too many times? Absolutely!)

- Roh-no! Cutler picked by Peppers. Looks like the refs are ignoring defensive offsides to even things out for the defense a little bit. Not only Demarcus Ware on that play, but the Colts ends and others have all gotten pretty suspiciously good jumps. I also don't recall a single false start, and frankly it's nice to not hear from the officials every few seconds.

- Tiki talking to Ronde is more than a little freaky. If it weren't for Ronde's goatee, Tiki could probably put on Ronde's jersey and I don't think anyone would know any different. That is, except for Al Michaels, who apparently believes Ronde looks older. Maybe if he was wearing as much makeup as Tiki, they'd look more identical... identicaler... whatever.

- Crunch time! Two-minute drill for Cutler! Go AFC! Get that 45(k)!

- AFC o-line looks overmatched on first three plays of the drive. HUGE fourth and 10 here. In-Com-Plete! Al Michaels claims the game is not "over over," but I would tend to disagree.

- Time to gush over the Mannings! That was fun and not expected at all!

- Just got a shot of Clinton Portis on the sideline. Did he actually play, or just get dressed to look good on the sideline? I can't remember a single play involving him.

- Field goal is good. Game. Over. 30-21.

- Amazing how Tony Gonzalez and Peyton Manning have gained a rapport on the field after playing together just once a year for nine years. Interesting to get Gonzo's take on the trade rumors; I think he might actually not mind staying in KC.

- Shocker of shockers, Larry Fitzgerald named MVP. Who'da thunkit?

That's all for me. Hope you enjoyed the game (if you watched) and if not, I hope you enjoyed the post anyway.

To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.