With the NFL season winding to a close, most teams have their eyes ahead to this April's draft. Many NFL scouts are busy visiting college all-star games that act as pre-draft workouts for top prospects. The Combine will be upon us next month and then the speculation and debate will heat up as to whom each team will draft. In recent years, the value of the draft has increased as the price of quality free agents has continued to grow, so it becomes more and more important that teams make the right pick in the draft, and the higher picks gain greater value. Knowing this, the question becomes: why don't NFL teams that are out of postseason contention lose intentionally to improve their draft position?
At first glance, it would seem that this is an obvious choice; the higher you pick, the better chance you have of getting an impact player in the draft that will make your team significantly better the next season. Not only that, but the worse your record, the higher you pick in each of the seven rounds of the draft, not just the first round, so the incentive is even greater to tank. So why don't teams do it? I believe there are seven reasons for this:
1. Financial Cost of First Round Picks - Since the most recent collective bargaining agreement was reached in 2006, the NFL's salary cap has been increasing at an ever greater rate; the salary floor (or minimum amount each team must commit to players) also increases yearly. With this increase in cap room comes the demand by players (and their agents) for more money each year and up front in the form of signing bonuses. This demand has translated to rookies as these players, knowing that the average lifespan of an NFL career is less than three years, try to grab as much money at the start of their careers as possible. And each year players expect to get paid more than the player taken in the same slot the previous year, making the money given high draft picks grow at an increasing rate. This makes high draft picks so expensive they almost become a detriment to the team. It also leads to the next reason...
2. Potential Failure of Drafted Players - With the growing amount of money being given to rookies, it has become more costly to teams if their drafted players fail to deliver. A miss can hurt more than a great hit can help, and the higher that player is drafted, the more costly the mistake. Not only does a failed high pick cost the team money and cap room, but that player also costs the team on the field as highly drafted players usually get playing time regardless of their play. Teams feel obligated (as they should) to put these highly paid players on the field and give them a chance to prove themselves, and if the player fails, especially at certain positions (quarterback, middle linebacker, safety and even some line positions), it can seriously hurt the team. On top of all that, because of said highly paid prospect, the team may be forced to release a veteran or multiple veterans that would have turned out more useful to them.
3. Lower Value of Individual Players to Teams - ESPN.com's "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" by Gregg Easterbrook constantly asserts the idea that football is the "ultimate team sport." In other words, no individual (with the possible exception of a great quarterback) has the ability to completely change a game. This is because 22 players (at least) must all perform their duties for a team to succeed. Even great QBs can't ensure that their passes are caught, or that they don't get sacked constantly because of poor pass protection, or that their defense doesn't allow 50 points per game, etc. So if one player (particularly a rookie) isn't likely (read: possibly) going to change the team from a loser to a winner, an also-ran to a contender, then what value is there in tanking? All you are likely to do is drive up the financial cost of your draft pick. Not only that, but because of the number of players needed for a competitive NFL team, the "best player" in college football is often fluid from week-to-week and even from team-to-team. There is almost never a consensus number one (there are no LeBron James's in football) and even those thought to be (Reggie Bush, anyone?) often don't turn out that way.
4. Coaches Seeking to Keep Their Job - Of all the reasons, this one may be the most accurate and yet the most ridiculous. First, all coaches' primary motivation is to keep their job, especially if they know the team isn't very good. Usually coaches and people around an organization know pretty early on whether or not their team has the talent to compete for a playoff berth; most teams do not (20 teams miss the playoffs every year). So presumably once a team discovers that it is not a playoff-caliber squad (which can be as late as week 11, 12, maybe even 13, or as early as the preseason), it stands to reason that they should stop trying to win in order to improve their draft position and presumably be better the next year. The problem is that the worst mark a coach can receive is the belief that his team "quit on him." If the players are just terrible and the team loses but at least plays hard, then the coach can be saved, and may even be praised as a great motivator. But if it looks like the team gave up on the season, that is the ultimate sign of coaching failure and the coach will likely be fired. Thus, coaches don't tank because tanking is seen as giving up, even if it means making the team better in the future.
5. Players Seeking to Remain in the League - Even if coaches encouraged their players to tank, most players wouldn't do it because they, too, are playing for their jobs. If a player is labeled a quitter, he better be an All-Pro type athlete or else no team will want any part of him. Even if it is clear that the players on a bad team are a bad fit and will be gone after the season, they still must play hard because they are then auditioning for a position on the other 31 teams in the league. This leads to another topic (one I'll address in a later column): teams must be wary of the guys that put up huge stats on a bad team. There are many examples of this that I'll get into another time.
6. Pride? - One would hope that this would be an issue for both professional athletes and their coaches. If these people actually care about the game they are playing and the fans that shell out huge amounts of money to watch them do it, then they absolutely should be trying their hardest in every game. Football is not a sport that lends itself to half-hearted play (which is why the Pro Bowl has never gained the notoriety of the other major all-star games) and players that don't go all-out are believed to be more susceptible to injury. Players, then, are motivated to play their hardest because of their competitive nature and, frankly, desire for self-preservation. Pride is less of a factor for coaches (although they certainly must have that same competitive fire to have devoted their lives to a sport) because the game is looked at from a much more business-like perspective. If the coaches know the team is very bad, they can inadvertently tank by playing backups and younger players under the guise of "evaluating the talent."
6a. Rivalries - A sub-point of the Pride reason is that teams that lose intentionally would likely be losing games to division rivals (as most teams play each of their divisional foes once late in the year). This would be absolutely unacceptable to fans and thus would be a major concern for coaches and owners. As poorly as a team may be playing, they are always expected to "get up" for games against division rivals, and a tanking team would be required to instead "lay down" in such a game. This is definitely something coaches and owners would want to avoid, because for many teams, fans will consider a season a success if their team simply defeats its rivals, especially if it hurts those rivals' playoff chances.
7. Competitive Balance - Clearly tanking is bad for the sport. If teams intentionally try not to win, this means that their opponents are given free victories which clearly upset the competitive balance of the league. For example, if two teams are locked in a tight playoff race and one team has a tanker on its schedule while its competitor does not (say they played the tanker early in the year before tanking became the best option), the team with the tanker has a huge advantage. This goes back to the previous point (6a) in that a division could be decided simply by the timing of certain games on the schedule. And there's also the disaster that would happen if two tanking teams were to meet in a pivotal late-season game. (This has actually happened before, in the 2005 season, although neither team involved was truly tanking (or so they claim) at the time. The game pitted the Houston Texans and the San Francisco 49ers, the two worst records in football, with the loser presumably winning the right to draft USC running back Reggie Bush. The Texans lost the game 20-17 and went on to finish 2-14, only to stun the world by drafting defensive end Mario Williams with the top pick instead of Bush, who fell to New Orleans at #3.)
These are the most reasonable explanations for why NFL teams don't (seem to) tank. Do I think NFL teams should tank? Given these different factors, I'd say no. For now. But rumors are that the owners (who opted out of the current collective bargaining agreement effective after next season) will be seeking a stricter rookie salary cap (one already exists but is easily circumvented through bonuses) or even a rookie salary scale like the one used by the NBA. If this happens, then you can toss reasons 1 and 2 out the window and it opens the door for tanking in a big way because many of the financial concerns are allayed.
So what do you think? Are there any reasons I've missed, or do you think there are teams that actually do tank? Please comment below.
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.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Say It Ain't So!
This may be the worst possible news that a Denver Broncos fan could hear this offseason: ESPN is reporting that the Kansas City Chiefs have fired Herm Edwards (disappointing in it's own right because Herm wasn't doing so hot in KC) and is close to hiring... Mike Shanahan! Nooooooooo!
While I've said before in previous posts that Broncos fans are largely happy that Shanahan is gone because of his failings in player management in Denver, no one really argued that Shanahan wasn't an excellent coach on the field. He especially was a great offensive mind that knew how to get the most out of his players on that side of the ball and create mismatches. If Shanahan does in fact join the Chiefs, a team that already has a run-first mentality and one of the leagues better runners (Larry Johnson, although there's no guarantee he'll be around next year), Kansas City could become very dangerous. Of course the quarterback question remains as Tyler Thigpen looked very good at times last year but still doesn't necessarily look like he's the answer at the position.
This is probably the worst case scenario for Broncos fans. If Mike had run off to Dallas, that would have been fine; they're in different conferences and would only meet once every four years except in the Super Bowl. Even if Shanahan had gone to the Jets or one of the other open AFC positions, it would have been more palatable than running to a division rival that has given the Broncos fits for years. Now the Broncos will (possibly) have to face Mike Shanahan twice a year, every year, and unless Josh McDaniels is a miracle worker with the Broncos horrible defense, this does not sound very appealing.
Had Shanahan gone to an NFC team, I could see myself rooting for him to do well. But with him not only in the AFC but in the AFC West, I can't see myself not hating him and rooting against him each week. I think this is a rule of being a fan: you're not allowed to cheer for a division rival, no matter who is on that team, unless your team is already eliminated from contention. And the Broncos had better not be eliminated from contention before the Chiefs any time soon. I wish Shanahan well off the field, but I hope the Chiefs go 2-14 for years to come.
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.
While I've said before in previous posts that Broncos fans are largely happy that Shanahan is gone because of his failings in player management in Denver, no one really argued that Shanahan wasn't an excellent coach on the field. He especially was a great offensive mind that knew how to get the most out of his players on that side of the ball and create mismatches. If Shanahan does in fact join the Chiefs, a team that already has a run-first mentality and one of the leagues better runners (Larry Johnson, although there's no guarantee he'll be around next year), Kansas City could become very dangerous. Of course the quarterback question remains as Tyler Thigpen looked very good at times last year but still doesn't necessarily look like he's the answer at the position.
This is probably the worst case scenario for Broncos fans. If Mike had run off to Dallas, that would have been fine; they're in different conferences and would only meet once every four years except in the Super Bowl. Even if Shanahan had gone to the Jets or one of the other open AFC positions, it would have been more palatable than running to a division rival that has given the Broncos fits for years. Now the Broncos will (possibly) have to face Mike Shanahan twice a year, every year, and unless Josh McDaniels is a miracle worker with the Broncos horrible defense, this does not sound very appealing.
Had Shanahan gone to an NFC team, I could see myself rooting for him to do well. But with him not only in the AFC but in the AFC West, I can't see myself not hating him and rooting against him each week. I think this is a rule of being a fan: you're not allowed to cheer for a division rival, no matter who is on that team, unless your team is already eliminated from contention. And the Broncos had better not be eliminated from contention before the Chiefs any time soon. I wish Shanahan well off the field, but I hope the Chiefs go 2-14 for years to come.
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.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Is anyone else tired of the Cowboys?
It seems like every day since the end of the regular season ESPN has had some story about the Dallas Cowboys to run and talk about. Not only that, but these ridiculous stories are often listed as "The Lead" on their bottom line. Am I the only one that is getting sick of this? This is like the Brett Favre saga all over again. Who really cares that Jerry Jones thinks the Cowboys were tardy too often last year? Why is it a leading story that the Cowboys are going to "consider cutting Terrell Owens"? Is this really surprising or newsworthy? Wake me when they actually do it! Free agency doesn't even start until the end of February, and no one starts resigning or cutting players until AT LEAST after the Pro Bowl!
This is becoming a growing trend not only in the sports media but in the news media at large. The primary drawback of the 24 hour cable news world is that some of the most insignificant minutia becomes top story-worthy simply because the networks have way more air time to fill than they have stories of interest to cover. I could make a comment here about ESPN's love for the Cowboys and the NFC East in general, but you could argue that we got the same over-coverage of the Broncos' firing of Shanahan, Brett Favre's retirement saga last year, and any number of other stories that have gotten way more coverage than they deserve. Would any sports fans have really been that upset about steroids if ESPN and the other networks didn't sensationalize it?
I think the average sports fan has pretty basic needs when it comes to sports coverage:
1. Tell us the score - Obviously this is point number one. We can't all see all of the games, and most of us wouldn't want to if we could. There are going to be games in all sports (except football) where you simply don't care to watch your team play because either a) they're much better than their opponent and should win easily, so you do something else; or b) they're much worse than their opponent and you'd rather not watch your favorite team get demolished. Not to mention those times when you actually have a life outside of sports! Anyway, these are the scores we need to know. That and the scores of your other, lesser-favored teams and your teams' rivals.
2. Tell us of anything crazy or historic that happened - We all want to know when a guy goes off for 6 TDs or 30 points in a quarter or throws a no-hitter or hits a buzzer-beater, etc. Again, we can't watch every game, so tell us what cool shenanigans we missed.
3. Let us know when major off-field news breaks - Trades, hirings, firings, injuries... these are important stories. NOT whether Tony Romo plays a large enough leadership role or why the team plane was an hour late!
Everything else is just fluff. Sure we like breakdowns of games that just happened or games that will happen soon, and sure we all flock to mock drafts, trade rumor boards and the like all the time because it's fun to speculate and fantasize about your team making that one big move. But none of this is truly necessary and a story about a rumor should never lead a major sports program.
Sorry about venting (and no I didn't just have a Coors Light), I just had to get that off my chest.
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.
This is becoming a growing trend not only in the sports media but in the news media at large. The primary drawback of the 24 hour cable news world is that some of the most insignificant minutia becomes top story-worthy simply because the networks have way more air time to fill than they have stories of interest to cover. I could make a comment here about ESPN's love for the Cowboys and the NFC East in general, but you could argue that we got the same over-coverage of the Broncos' firing of Shanahan, Brett Favre's retirement saga last year, and any number of other stories that have gotten way more coverage than they deserve. Would any sports fans have really been that upset about steroids if ESPN and the other networks didn't sensationalize it?
I think the average sports fan has pretty basic needs when it comes to sports coverage:
1. Tell us the score - Obviously this is point number one. We can't all see all of the games, and most of us wouldn't want to if we could. There are going to be games in all sports (except football) where you simply don't care to watch your team play because either a) they're much better than their opponent and should win easily, so you do something else; or b) they're much worse than their opponent and you'd rather not watch your favorite team get demolished. Not to mention those times when you actually have a life outside of sports! Anyway, these are the scores we need to know. That and the scores of your other, lesser-favored teams and your teams' rivals.
2. Tell us of anything crazy or historic that happened - We all want to know when a guy goes off for 6 TDs or 30 points in a quarter or throws a no-hitter or hits a buzzer-beater, etc. Again, we can't watch every game, so tell us what cool shenanigans we missed.
3. Let us know when major off-field news breaks - Trades, hirings, firings, injuries... these are important stories. NOT whether Tony Romo plays a large enough leadership role or why the team plane was an hour late!
Everything else is just fluff. Sure we like breakdowns of games that just happened or games that will happen soon, and sure we all flock to mock drafts, trade rumor boards and the like all the time because it's fun to speculate and fantasize about your team making that one big move. But none of this is truly necessary and a story about a rumor should never lead a major sports program.
Sorry about venting (and no I didn't just have a Coors Light), I just had to get that off my chest.
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.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
What if the BCS Ruled the NFL?
With the Super Bowl matchup finally decided, I got to thinking: what if the NFL used the same postseason system employed by major college football? What if the Super Bowl participants were determined by a vote with little (if any) real meaning placed on team performance? What if everyone else was vying for a "major" postseason game with a premium time slot set some time between the end of the season and the Super Bowl (assuming that they leave the Super Bowl in early February, which we know the BCS would)?
What I've compiled below is a list of the top 10 NFL teams based on a simple average of four major power polls (NBC Sports, FOX Sports, ESPN.com, and CBS Sportsline) and point differential (by rank). I would have included more polls for a better look at the poll distribution, but unfortunately many pollsters do not bother to release a poll after the season's final week. I've chosen the number 10 because that is the number of college football teams that earn bids to the BCS bowls, meaning they've qualified for the "major" bowls.
The table given here is broken down by division, starting with the AFC East, North, South and West then the NFC East, North, South and West. Here's a breakdown of the results (site is based on the team with better locale or domed stadium):
BCS Bowl #1: #10 Miami Dolphins vs. #9 Philadelphia Eagles
Site: Miami, FL
Note: Although there would be intrigue in the Dolphins rematching the Patriots (they split the season series and the Patriots come in at #8 on the list), the selection committee would likely look to avoid such a matchup.
BCS Bowl #2: #8 New England Patriots vs. #7 Atlanta Falcons
Site: Atlanta, GA
Note: Matty Ice vs. Matt Cassel!
BCS Bowl #3: #6 Baltimore Ravens vs. #4 Carolina Panthers
Site: Charlotte, NC
Note: Continuing the AFC vs. NFC trend, this match pits two of the top rushing attacks in football.
BCS Bowl #4: #5 Indianapolis Colts vs. #3 Pittsburgh Steelers
Site: Indianapolis, IN
Note: Rematch of the Steelers stunning AFC Championship game upset of the #1 seeded Colts in the 2006 playoffs, the year the Steelers won the Super Bowl.
BCS Super Bowl: #2 New York Giants vs. #1 Tennessee Titans
Site: Tampa, FL (site of Super Bowl XLIII)
Note: The two best teams throughout the season, both finished no worse than #3 in any poll or the point differential ranking. Most would say the BCS got it right!
Biggest Whiner(s): The Vikings finish #11 and just .4 behind the #10 Dolphins. San Diego is left out as well at #12, just 1.0 behind the Miami. The two would likely meet in San Diego for an exhibition bowl. All teams with an 8-8 record or better face off in a "postseason" game.
Best Argument for Split Title: If the Steelers defeated the Colts, and especially if the Giants defeat the Titans, Pittsburgh could make an argument. Carolina could potentially as well, but their loss to the Giants in the regular season kills their argument.
No Respect: The Arizona Cardinals (you know, the team that actually MADE THE SUPER BOWL) finished #14 in the rankings and in one poll (FOX) actually finished behind the 7-9 49ers. Only CBS had the Cardinals among the league's top 12 (good for them).
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.
What I've compiled below is a list of the top 10 NFL teams based on a simple average of four major power polls (NBC Sports, FOX Sports, ESPN.com, and CBS Sportsline) and point differential (by rank). I would have included more polls for a better look at the poll distribution, but unfortunately many pollsters do not bother to release a poll after the season's final week. I've chosen the number 10 because that is the number of college football teams that earn bids to the BCS bowls, meaning they've qualified for the "major" bowls.
| Pt. Dif. | Pts. Rank | NBC Rank | FOX Rank | ESPN Rank | CBS Rank | Rank Ave. | Rank | ||
| Miami | 28 | 16 | 9 | 11 | 8 | 8 | 10.4 | 10 | |
| New England | 101 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 12 | 8.4 | 8 | |
| NY Jets | 49 | 12 | 21 | 15 | 17 | 16 | 16.2 | ||
| Buffalo | -6 | 20 | 23 | 25 | 23 | 22 | 22.6 | ||
| Pittsburgh | 124 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4.2 | 3 | |
| Baltimore | 141 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 5.4 | 6 | |
| Cincinnati | -160 | 30 | 28 | 27 | 27 | 24 | 27.2 | ||
| Cleveland | -118 | 27 | 31 | 29 | 29 | 30 | 29.2 | ||
| Tennessee | 141 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.4 | 1 | |
| Indianapolis | 79 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4.8 | 5 | |
| Houston | -28 | 21 | 14 | 17 | 18 | 17 | 17.4 | ||
| Jacksonville | -65 | 24 | 27 | 23 | 25 | 26 | 25.0 | ||
| San Diego | 92 | 7 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 11.4 | ||
| Denver | -78 | 25 | 18 | 21 | 22 | 20 | 21.2 | ||
| Oakland | -125 | 28 | 24 | 28 | 26 | 27 | 26.6 | ||
| Kansas City | -149 | 29 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 29 | 29.6 | ||
| NY Giants | 133 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2.2 | 2 | |
| Philadelphia | 127 | 4 | 10 | 9 | 11 | 9 | 8.6 | 9 | |
| Dallas | -3 | 19 | 16 | 19 | 14 | 13 | 16.2 | ||
| Washington | -31 | 22 | 25 | 16 | 21 | 25 | 21.8 | ||
| Minnesota | 46 | 13 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10.8 | ||
| Chicago | 25 | 17 | 22 | 14 | 15 | 18 | 17.2 | ||
| Green Bay | 39 | 14 | 20 | 24 | 24 | 23 | 21.0 | ||
| Detroit | -249 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32.0 | ||
| Carolina | 85 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4.6 | 4 | |
| Atlanta | 66 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 7.6 | 7 | |
| Tampa Bay | 38 | 15 | 13 | 20 | 16 | 15 | 15.8 | ||
| New Orleans | 70 | 10 | 17 | 13 | 19 | 19 | 15.6 | ||
| Arizona | 1 | 17 | 15 | 22 | 13 | 11 | 15.6 | ||
| San Francisco | -42 | 22 | 19 | 18 | 20 | 21 | 20.0 | ||
| Seattle | -98 | 25 | 26 | 26 | 28 | 28 | 26.6 | ||
| St. Louis | -233 | 31 | 29 | 31 | 31 | 31 | 30.6 |
The table given here is broken down by division, starting with the AFC East, North, South and West then the NFC East, North, South and West. Here's a breakdown of the results (site is based on the team with better locale or domed stadium):
BCS Bowl #1: #10 Miami Dolphins vs. #9 Philadelphia Eagles
Site: Miami, FL
Note: Although there would be intrigue in the Dolphins rematching the Patriots (they split the season series and the Patriots come in at #8 on the list), the selection committee would likely look to avoid such a matchup.
BCS Bowl #2: #8 New England Patriots vs. #7 Atlanta Falcons
Site: Atlanta, GA
Note: Matty Ice vs. Matt Cassel!
BCS Bowl #3: #6 Baltimore Ravens vs. #4 Carolina Panthers
Site: Charlotte, NC
Note: Continuing the AFC vs. NFC trend, this match pits two of the top rushing attacks in football.
BCS Bowl #4: #5 Indianapolis Colts vs. #3 Pittsburgh Steelers
Site: Indianapolis, IN
Note: Rematch of the Steelers stunning AFC Championship game upset of the #1 seeded Colts in the 2006 playoffs, the year the Steelers won the Super Bowl.
BCS Super Bowl: #2 New York Giants vs. #1 Tennessee Titans
Site: Tampa, FL (site of Super Bowl XLIII)
Note: The two best teams throughout the season, both finished no worse than #3 in any poll or the point differential ranking. Most would say the BCS got it right!
Biggest Whiner(s): The Vikings finish #11 and just .4 behind the #10 Dolphins. San Diego is left out as well at #12, just 1.0 behind the Miami. The two would likely meet in San Diego for an exhibition bowl. All teams with an 8-8 record or better face off in a "postseason" game.
Best Argument for Split Title: If the Steelers defeated the Colts, and especially if the Giants defeat the Titans, Pittsburgh could make an argument. Carolina could potentially as well, but their loss to the Giants in the regular season kills their argument.
No Respect: The Arizona Cardinals (you know, the team that actually MADE THE SUPER BOWL) finished #14 in the rankings and in one poll (FOX) actually finished behind the 7-9 49ers. Only CBS had the Cardinals among the league's top 12 (good for them).
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.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Homefield Advantage Returns... Finally
Just when we thought home-field advantage in the NFL was extinct, the Pittsburgh Steelers and Arizona Cardinals proved that there is still value in playing at home. The two teams each finished 2-0 at home in the playoffs and because of this will be meeting in Tampa in two weeks for the Super Bowl. After last week's home-field massacre, it's great to see some normalcy returning to the playoffs.
Yesterday will definitely go down as the best day of football in this postseason as both games offered equal parts drama and intrigue as the stakes were high and the play on the field was equal to the task. Let's break the games down one at a time.
NFC Championship Game
In the early game, the Cardinals raced out to yet another nice first half lead, 24-6 at the break (they led the Falcons 14-3 in the second quarter in round 1 and led the Panthers 27-7 at the half in round 2), before the Eagles defense kicked up the pressure in the second half. It seemed as though the Eagles had made the same mistake that the Panthers made the week prior, letting Larry Fitzgerald go unchecked and run either 1-on-1 or through a zone, and he responded with a three-TD first half. After the intermission, however, it looked as though Philadelphia really poured on the pressure on Kurt Warner, hitting him regularly and forcing hurried, inaccurate throws. This second half philosophy change clearly worked as the Eagles dominated time of possession in the third quarter and erased the big halftime deficit to take their first lead, 25-24, early in the fourth quarter.
Then the future Hall Of Famer stepped up (that's right, I said it). Kurt Warner (he of two NFL MVP awards and now three Super Bowl trips with two teams and at least one victory) led the Cards on a phenomenal 14-play, almost eight-minute drive to score the go-ahead touchdown and leave Donovan McNabb with just 2:53 to try to respond. Going into this game, I had said that if it came down to a final drive to win the game, I had more confidence in McNabb to accomplish the feat. Well, what I hadn't envisioned was the previously mentioned Arizona drive, which not only stopped the Eagles frantic comeback to give the home team the lead again, but also got the home crowd fired up after it had fallen into stunned silence when Philly took the lead. With the crowd roaring and the Cardinals defense fresh thanks to the long breather, McNabb (whose accuracy was off all day) struggled to get back into rhythm and the Eagles failed to move the ball with the game on the line, ending with a failed fourth down around midfield.
Am I surprised by the outcome of this one? After what I wrote last week, clearly I am not. This was certainly a plausible outcome for the game and it played out one of the best possible ways for both the viewer and the Cardinals. I have a hard time believing the Cards could have rallied from a big deficit the way the Eagles did, but it's obvious that they could survive the comeback attempt and come out victorious. It appears that the "Nobody Believes In Us!" sentiment outweighs the "Even If We Lose, We Had A Great Year" mentality, something that I wasn't quite able to account for accurately in my picks last week.
AFC Championship Game
The late game was exactly what I expected it to be. In cold, snowy weather, the defenses held a huge advantage, and when you put a veteran quarterback against a rookie quarterback in this situation, the result is the game we got. Baltimore's Joe Flacco, with the Ravens rushing attack struggling throughout, was barely, barely better than terrible yesterday, not really providing any real benefit to the Ravens offense and clearly hurting them in numerous instances, including the game-clinching TAINT in the fourth quarter. Ben Roethlisberger, however, had to deal with a very similarly poor running attack, yet provided numerous big plays with his arm and legs (his performance would have been even better if not for a couple of dropped passes and one that was questionably overturned(I'll discuss the overturned catch in a later post)) setting up the Steelers to score early and put the Ravens' backs against the wall.
Baltimore's offense never functioned well. The only reason they scored 14 points in the game was because of a long punt return by Jim Leonhard and an all-time atrocious punt by Mitch Berger, both giving the Ravens a short field. In a postseason where special teams have played such a critical role (particularly in the AFC), it's no surprise that special teams made a difference in this one. It turns out that difference was just to make the game artificially closer than it should have been. As well as the Ravens defense played, it's offense was equally poor for most of the contest.
Now to what I'm sure many of you are thinking (something I agree with, in fact): this game would have been a heck of a lot closer had the Ravens been healthy. There's no question this is true. The Ravens were beyond banged up and it showed from the start. Running back Le'Ron McClain was never able to make much of a contribution after being a big factor in the regular season. Todd Heap, Derrick Mason and Mark Clayton, all dinged up, were not themselves in the passing game and certainly added to Flacco's struggles. The Ravens secondary, particularly the corners, were a disaster; when Raiders castoff Fabian Washington is your number one corner in the AFC Championship game, you know you have issues. That's not to say the Steelers didn't have any injuries coming in, but they were definitely healthier. This will happen, though, when your team doesn't get a week off after week 2 (remember the Ravens regularly scheduled bye week was moved to week 2 when they were scheduled to play the Houston Texans but Hurricane Ike hit). Even completely healthy, though, I think the Steelers win this game.
In the end, the better team won in Pittsburgh, and the Ravens know that they will be very good for years to come if Flacco can continue to develop as a passer. Oh, and no one's saying today that he's not a rookie, are they?
I will break down the Super Bowl matchup later on this week.
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.
Yesterday will definitely go down as the best day of football in this postseason as both games offered equal parts drama and intrigue as the stakes were high and the play on the field was equal to the task. Let's break the games down one at a time.
NFC Championship Game
In the early game, the Cardinals raced out to yet another nice first half lead, 24-6 at the break (they led the Falcons 14-3 in the second quarter in round 1 and led the Panthers 27-7 at the half in round 2), before the Eagles defense kicked up the pressure in the second half. It seemed as though the Eagles had made the same mistake that the Panthers made the week prior, letting Larry Fitzgerald go unchecked and run either 1-on-1 or through a zone, and he responded with a three-TD first half. After the intermission, however, it looked as though Philadelphia really poured on the pressure on Kurt Warner, hitting him regularly and forcing hurried, inaccurate throws. This second half philosophy change clearly worked as the Eagles dominated time of possession in the third quarter and erased the big halftime deficit to take their first lead, 25-24, early in the fourth quarter.
Then the future Hall Of Famer stepped up (that's right, I said it). Kurt Warner (he of two NFL MVP awards and now three Super Bowl trips with two teams and at least one victory) led the Cards on a phenomenal 14-play, almost eight-minute drive to score the go-ahead touchdown and leave Donovan McNabb with just 2:53 to try to respond. Going into this game, I had said that if it came down to a final drive to win the game, I had more confidence in McNabb to accomplish the feat. Well, what I hadn't envisioned was the previously mentioned Arizona drive, which not only stopped the Eagles frantic comeback to give the home team the lead again, but also got the home crowd fired up after it had fallen into stunned silence when Philly took the lead. With the crowd roaring and the Cardinals defense fresh thanks to the long breather, McNabb (whose accuracy was off all day) struggled to get back into rhythm and the Eagles failed to move the ball with the game on the line, ending with a failed fourth down around midfield.
Am I surprised by the outcome of this one? After what I wrote last week, clearly I am not. This was certainly a plausible outcome for the game and it played out one of the best possible ways for both the viewer and the Cardinals. I have a hard time believing the Cards could have rallied from a big deficit the way the Eagles did, but it's obvious that they could survive the comeback attempt and come out victorious. It appears that the "Nobody Believes In Us!" sentiment outweighs the "Even If We Lose, We Had A Great Year" mentality, something that I wasn't quite able to account for accurately in my picks last week.
AFC Championship Game
The late game was exactly what I expected it to be. In cold, snowy weather, the defenses held a huge advantage, and when you put a veteran quarterback against a rookie quarterback in this situation, the result is the game we got. Baltimore's Joe Flacco, with the Ravens rushing attack struggling throughout, was barely, barely better than terrible yesterday, not really providing any real benefit to the Ravens offense and clearly hurting them in numerous instances, including the game-clinching TAINT in the fourth quarter. Ben Roethlisberger, however, had to deal with a very similarly poor running attack, yet provided numerous big plays with his arm and legs (his performance would have been even better if not for a couple of dropped passes and one that was questionably overturned(I'll discuss the overturned catch in a later post)) setting up the Steelers to score early and put the Ravens' backs against the wall.
Baltimore's offense never functioned well. The only reason they scored 14 points in the game was because of a long punt return by Jim Leonhard and an all-time atrocious punt by Mitch Berger, both giving the Ravens a short field. In a postseason where special teams have played such a critical role (particularly in the AFC), it's no surprise that special teams made a difference in this one. It turns out that difference was just to make the game artificially closer than it should have been. As well as the Ravens defense played, it's offense was equally poor for most of the contest.
Now to what I'm sure many of you are thinking (something I agree with, in fact): this game would have been a heck of a lot closer had the Ravens been healthy. There's no question this is true. The Ravens were beyond banged up and it showed from the start. Running back Le'Ron McClain was never able to make much of a contribution after being a big factor in the regular season. Todd Heap, Derrick Mason and Mark Clayton, all dinged up, were not themselves in the passing game and certainly added to Flacco's struggles. The Ravens secondary, particularly the corners, were a disaster; when Raiders castoff Fabian Washington is your number one corner in the AFC Championship game, you know you have issues. That's not to say the Steelers didn't have any injuries coming in, but they were definitely healthier. This will happen, though, when your team doesn't get a week off after week 2 (remember the Ravens regularly scheduled bye week was moved to week 2 when they were scheduled to play the Houston Texans but Hurricane Ike hit). Even completely healthy, though, I think the Steelers win this game.
In the end, the better team won in Pittsburgh, and the Ravens know that they will be very good for years to come if Flacco can continue to develop as a passer. Oh, and no one's saying today that he's not a rookie, are they?
I will break down the Super Bowl matchup later on this week.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
