The 2005-2006 NFL playoffs were plagued by questionable (and sometimes downright confusing) officiating and further obscuring of the issue of possession. Here is a summary of our contributions.
The Playoffs are Broken laments the Chris Simms to Edell Shepherd touchdown pass in the first round game between the Washington Redskins and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers that was ruled incomplete without adequate explanation from head referee Mike Carey. This play largely inspired both this blog and its title.
Winning Ways explores Joe Gibbs' playoff coaching record.
Pass Interference? Yes is one instance of congratulating the officiating. We give two pass interference calls in the second week of the playoffs our approval.
Replay considerations proposes computer modeling for instant replay in the context of the Champ Bailey interception return in the Denver Broncos win over the New England Patriots. Ben Watson pushed Bailey out of bounds and Bill Belichick challenged the spot of the ball thinking it may have gone out of bounds through the end zone, which would have resulted in a safety.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T questions the Steelers' complaints after the AFC Championship Game that no one gave them any respect. As the #6 seed in the AFC, they got what they deserved. Certainly they played well in their run to Super Bowl champions, but they also benefitted from some good luck. Carson Palmer went down on the second play from scrimmage in their first round win over the Cincinnati Bengals, then officiating handed them their Super Bowl victory.
More Pittsburgh good luck is the subject of What if? Specifically, it discusses a few plays that could have changed the AFC Championship Game in favor of the Broncos.
On Officiating argues for better officiating in general throughout sports, but has its roots in comments players made about officiating in the NFL playoffs.
Halftime thought experiment asks why replay should only be allowed to overturn the call on the field if the evidence is incontrovertible. The basis for the question is a play where the official, because he must make a call, has to guess. This seemed to happen on a Ben Roethlisberger "touchdown" run during the first half of the Super Bowl.
Asinine intervention enumerates the egregious officiating mishaps that marred the Super Bowl and stole from the Seattle Seahawks a chance at the franchise's first championship. There were only ten penalties called in the game, and at least three of them were totally unnecessary. Two of them were false starts during Pittsburgh's first possession. That means the entire officiating crew was employed for three hours of football for the purpose of five flags (those false starts required only a single line judge). And they messed it up and threw three extra ones. Not a very good performance.
Skating Through recounts the same officiating blunders from a slightly different perspective. The title is a reference to our signature article, What are we raving about? After these playoffs, football looked a lot more like figure skating.
No, I think it's a zebra refers to the beer commercial with horses playing football. It enumerates even more officiating mistakes and reacts to NFL spokesman Greg Aiello's Monday morning comments. He claimed the game was properly officiated, which everyone outside of Western Pennsylvania knows is tantamount to saying that professional wrestling isn't scripted.
Instant replay for the crowds is merely a link to an article about the SkyBox, a device that would give fans in the stadium better information than the referees have. As if the jumbotron wasn't enough.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
UConn = U-Con
I'm all for second chances, but what is University of Connecticut PG Marcus Williams doing on a basketball court? Oh, shame on me, of course he's playing ... the Huskies don't have anyone else to run the point.
Marcus WIlliams stole laptop computers from fellow students at UConn and sold them. Some of the victims were fellow athletes even. You'd think Williams would have a little sympathy for his fellow athletes. Williams should have been expelled from the school. But, apparently the lack of a replacement has saved him.
Then, this weekend, Hilton Armstrong gave the finger to the crowd at a road game against West Virginia. Sure, the crowd wasn't exactly being nice to the UConn big man. However, there are things you just shouldn't do as a player. I think giving the finger to the crowd is one of them. I've never seen J.J. Redick give the crowd the finger and I'm pretty sure he's heard worse things than "Go back to Africa." Perhaps, it strikes a! nerve, but it's ridiculous, especially for someone (Armstrong) who was born in NY. Juan Dixon heard a lot of hateful taunts, I never saw him respond. Why? It's unacceptable.
So is the treatment of the situation by UConn officials. UConn should have suspended Armstrong immediately. Not forever, but at least for the next game or two. But, he played last night against Notre Dame. Good thing, they might not have squeaked out the OT win, at home, without him.
Would it be easier for Calhoun to discipline his players if he had a deep team? Sure. But, that's not a good excuse for doing the right thing, and everyone in Storrs knows it.
Marcus WIlliams stole laptop computers from fellow students at UConn and sold them. Some of the victims were fellow athletes even. You'd think Williams would have a little sympathy for his fellow athletes. Williams should have been expelled from the school. But, apparently the lack of a replacement has saved him.
Then, this weekend, Hilton Armstrong gave the finger to the crowd at a road game against West Virginia. Sure, the crowd wasn't exactly being nice to the UConn big man. However, there are things you just shouldn't do as a player. I think giving the finger to the crowd is one of them. I've never seen J.J. Redick give the crowd the finger and I'm pretty sure he's heard worse things than "Go back to Africa." Perhaps, it strikes a! nerve, but it's ridiculous, especially for someone (Armstrong) who was born in NY. Juan Dixon heard a lot of hateful taunts, I never saw him respond. Why? It's unacceptable.
So is the treatment of the situation by UConn officials. UConn should have suspended Armstrong immediately. Not forever, but at least for the next game or two. But, he played last night against Notre Dame. Good thing, they might not have squeaked out the OT win, at home, without him.
Would it be easier for Calhoun to discipline his players if he had a deep team? Sure. But, that's not a good excuse for doing the right thing, and everyone in Storrs knows it.
Four games, 10 points, Hot Commodity
Does any one else find it odd that, as the NBA trade deadline approaches, Anfernee "Penny" Hardaway is a desirable asset? Hardaway hasn't averaged 20 ppg, while playing a full season, since the '95-96 season. Hardaway was a fantastic player early in his career, but he hasn't been more than a role player for a decade. Injuries happen, even to All-Stars. It just strikes me as being a little peculiar, that someone who has played in 4 games, and scored a total of 10 points, this season - and won't be back any time soon, in all likelihood - is a candidate to be traded for.
The only reason anyone wants Hardaway is because he has an expiring contract. If they pay him to rehab the rest of this season, they can off-load one of their bad contracts to Hardaway's current team, the New York Knicks - the dumping ground of bad NBA contracts these days, although they hurt themselves with moves like signing Jerome James.
Trading for their own problems for expir! ing salaries shouldn't be the only recourse for teams who are stuck with bad contracts. But, it does go both ways. Owners shouldn't throw money at every free agent who has a "high-ceiling". Nothing against Steve Francis, Kenyon Martin, and Quentin Richardson, but are they cornerstone of a championship contender? I don't think so. Players should be rewarded for playing well, and playing. Grant Hill was a pretty good player. Problem is, he can't stay on the court.
The NBA needs to fix the way business is done, either via the collective bargaining agreement or by owners refusing to cave into outrageous demands by players and their agents. Sometimes, nothing is better than something ... ask the Nuggets if they'd make the same deal for Kenyon Martin that they did a couple summer ago. Owners in baseball are starting to figure it out. Football teams have an unfair advantage over players. The NBA needs to figure it out before the league goes to shit ... maybe ! it's already too late.
The only reason anyone wants Hardaway is because he has an expiring contract. If they pay him to rehab the rest of this season, they can off-load one of their bad contracts to Hardaway's current team, the New York Knicks - the dumping ground of bad NBA contracts these days, although they hurt themselves with moves like signing Jerome James.
Trading for their own problems for expir! ing salaries shouldn't be the only recourse for teams who are stuck with bad contracts. But, it does go both ways. Owners shouldn't throw money at every free agent who has a "high-ceiling". Nothing against Steve Francis, Kenyon Martin, and Quentin Richardson, but are they cornerstone of a championship contender? I don't think so. Players should be rewarded for playing well, and playing. Grant Hill was a pretty good player. Problem is, he can't stay on the court.
The NBA needs to fix the way business is done, either via the collective bargaining agreement or by owners refusing to cave into outrageous demands by players and their agents. Sometimes, nothing is better than something ... ask the Nuggets if they'd make the same deal for Kenyon Martin that they did a couple summer ago. Owners in baseball are starting to figure it out. Football teams have an unfair advantage over players. The NBA needs to figure it out before the league goes to shit ... maybe ! it's already too late.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Keep on raking
Barry Bonds is not a good fit for the San Francisco Giants. Bonds is too big a portion of their payroll, especially if he isn't playing 140 games. Bonds, the player, misses the protection of Jeff Kent and can no longer patrol left field at Gold Glove level.
The place for Barry Bonds is Anaheim as the Angels' DH. The Angels missed out, just barely, on Paul Konerko returning to California and didn't make a big splash in the off-season. They might have to wait a year, but save a spot in the line-up right in front of Vlad Guerrero. Guerrero is his own protection. He'll swing at anything and he'll hit it hard. He'll also protect Bonds. Are you going to pitch around Bonds with Guerrero on-deck. Not nearly as often as you will with Moises Alou due up.
The end of last season showed that Bonds is still a great hitter. Given two years (after this one), hitting in front of Vlad, Bonds might be able to shoot for 850 HR's. Bonds is the greatest player! of my lifetime. He was great defensively, on the basepaths, and, definitely, at the plate. His 2002 playoff run was absolutely amazing. Sure, he can be surly with the media and his teammates. And, I guess it's possible that he's knowingly used steroids. But, we'll miss him when he's gone, even if it's just because we love to hate him.
The place for Barry Bonds is Anaheim as the Angels' DH. The Angels missed out, just barely, on Paul Konerko returning to California and didn't make a big splash in the off-season. They might have to wait a year, but save a spot in the line-up right in front of Vlad Guerrero. Guerrero is his own protection. He'll swing at anything and he'll hit it hard. He'll also protect Bonds. Are you going to pitch around Bonds with Guerrero on-deck. Not nearly as often as you will with Moises Alou due up.
The end of last season showed that Bonds is still a great hitter. Given two years (after this one), hitting in front of Vlad, Bonds might be able to shoot for 850 HR's. Bonds is the greatest player! of my lifetime. He was great defensively, on the basepaths, and, definitely, at the plate. His 2002 playoff run was absolutely amazing. Sure, he can be surly with the media and his teammates. And, I guess it's possible that he's knowingly used steroids. But, we'll miss him when he's gone, even if it's just because we love to hate him.
All-Star MVP
Skip Bayless believes there is a Nike conspiracy that caused LeBron James to win the All-Star game MVP. Bayless, a member of the ESPN Cold Pizza crew, thinks the MVP should have been Dwayne Wade. Perhaps, Wade should have been the MVP. However, LeBron outscored Wade (29-20) and that is usually the determining factor in awarding the MVP. If the West had won, Tracy McGrady would have gone home with the hardware. He had 36, 21 more than the West's 2nd leading scorer, Tim Duncan. Plus, McGrady was playing in his "home town" of Houston, as he is now a member of the Rockets. Leading scorer in your town gives you a lock, if your team wins. Bayless' conspiracy theory might hold water if any logical thought was given to the award. Unfortunately, it's all about superficial stats. Thinking people were conspiring gives them way too much credit. That is what the judges did in the Rising Stars Slam Dunk Contest to squawk Andre Iguodala.
Back of the Pack
Tony Stewart ran Matt Kenseth off the road, causing Kenseth to spin out and crash in the biggest race of the year (the Daytona 500). Kenseth had a car capable of winning the race, at least before Stewart wrecked him. It would have been one thing if it had been an accident. Obviously, it wasn't. Stewart has admitted to running Kenseth into the grass.
Can you prevent Tony Stewart (or any other driver) from doing similarly idiotic things in the future? No. You can't prevent college basketball coaches from driving drunk or average Joe's from speeding or changing lanes without signaling. However, you can minimize such actions by applying harsh penalties for reckless driving. Unfortunately, sending Stewart (or any other driver) to the back of the pack for wrecking another car is not a stiff enough penalty. Stewart was sent to the back of the line twice, yet managed to come back and finish 5th. At Daytona, you can make up a lot of ground. Where you start is ! rarely where you finish. NASCAR knows that and they should have taken a stronger stance, removing Stewart from the race and suspending him for the next race. Then, perhaps, Stewart will think before he runs the next guy off the road.
Alternate Solution: Allow the drivers to continue without penalty, but reward the wronged driver with the points earned by the idiot. Thus, in the points race, Kenseth would receive the points Stewart earned by finishing 5th, and Stewart would be considerably farther back because he only gets the points Kenseth can scrape up at the back of the pack with a damaged car.
Can you prevent Tony Stewart (or any other driver) from doing similarly idiotic things in the future? No. You can't prevent college basketball coaches from driving drunk or average Joe's from speeding or changing lanes without signaling. However, you can minimize such actions by applying harsh penalties for reckless driving. Unfortunately, sending Stewart (or any other driver) to the back of the pack for wrecking another car is not a stiff enough penalty. Stewart was sent to the back of the line twice, yet managed to come back and finish 5th. At Daytona, you can make up a lot of ground. Where you start is ! rarely where you finish. NASCAR knows that and they should have taken a stronger stance, removing Stewart from the race and suspending him for the next race. Then, perhaps, Stewart will think before he runs the next guy off the road.
Alternate Solution: Allow the drivers to continue without penalty, but reward the wronged driver with the points earned by the idiot. Thus, in the points race, Kenseth would receive the points Stewart earned by finishing 5th, and Stewart would be considerably farther back because he only gets the points Kenseth can scrape up at the back of the pack with a damaged car.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Slam Dunk Conspiracy
Andre Iguodala was squawked! Nate Robinson is a terrific athlete and his dunk using Spud Webb as a prop was impressive. Unfortunately, he had a couple dunks that were Chris Andersen-esk. His last dunk received a 47/50 on his 14th attempt. The throw was the most difficult portion of the dunk. It's the Rising Stars Slam Dunk Contest. If it were the Little Guys Alley-Oop Throwing Contest, I'd have Steve Nash as the favorite.
Nate Robinson performed very well. But, Josh Smith took off from the free throw line (maybe a couple inches closer than Brent Barry did en route to victory a decade ago) and dunked with two hands, easily. He got a 41! I've never seen anyone take off from that far and dunk with two hands.
Nate Robinson grew up in Seattle and attended the University of Washington, in Seattle. Perhaps, the judges were scoring with a "West Coast bias" to lift the WA native over the Philadelphia, PA (Pittsburgh just happens to be in the same state as Philly) contestant. We are just a couple weeks removed from the Super Bowl officiating fiasco.
Andre Iguodala should have been given the benefit of the doubt based on his 2nd round dunk with an assist from the original AI. He took off from behind the baseline, caught the pass bounced off the back of the backboard, ducked his head so he didn't cream himself on the backboard, and dunked the ball. Ridiculous! Then, he pulled out two more great dunks, the behind the back transfer off the bounce and the between the legs from right to left jumping off his left foot. Those are dunks I've never seen.
Don't penalize a great dunker who combines tremendous athleticism and ingenuity because a 5'9" guy is in the competition and finally got a few nice dunks down. It's just not right. The dunk contest should be here to stay, but it needs a little revision, specifically more dunks and competent judges (the judges were looking at each other's scores to help decide what they should put up). AI got squawked.
Nate Robinson performed very well. But, Josh Smith took off from the free throw line (maybe a couple inches closer than Brent Barry did en route to victory a decade ago) and dunked with two hands, easily. He got a 41! I've never seen anyone take off from that far and dunk with two hands.
Nate Robinson grew up in Seattle and attended the University of Washington, in Seattle. Perhaps, the judges were scoring with a "West Coast bias" to lift the WA native over the Philadelphia, PA (Pittsburgh just happens to be in the same state as Philly) contestant. We are just a couple weeks removed from the Super Bowl officiating fiasco.
Andre Iguodala should have been given the benefit of the doubt based on his 2nd round dunk with an assist from the original AI. He took off from behind the baseline, caught the pass bounced off the back of the backboard, ducked his head so he didn't cream himself on the backboard, and dunked the ball. Ridiculous! Then, he pulled out two more great dunks, the behind the back transfer off the bounce and the between the legs from right to left jumping off his left foot. Those are dunks I've never seen.
Don't penalize a great dunker who combines tremendous athleticism and ingenuity because a 5'9" guy is in the competition and finally got a few nice dunks down. It's just not right. The dunk contest should be here to stay, but it needs a little revision, specifically more dunks and competent judges (the judges were looking at each other's scores to help decide what they should put up). AI got squawked.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Say it ain't so ... sa
It's been four full seasons since Slammin' Sammy Sosa last chalked up 60+ home runs in a season, which he did 3 out of 4 years from 1998-2001. I, for one, am disappointed that Sosa is, reportedly, hanging up his spikes. No, I don't really want to see Sosa get to 600 HRs. Nor do I want to watch him sprint out to right field or blow kisses to the heavens. What I wanted to see was how much further his ability had diminished from last year to this one.
Since '01, when Sosa hit a career-high .328 and ripped 64 HRs, his average has plummeted: .328, .288, .279, .253, .221. Well, that's ok, but his power numbers haven't declined similarly, or have they: 64, 49, 40, 35, 14. Granted, his games played has decreased each year, but I wouldn't play an outfielder who is a defensive liability and is hitting .221 with 14 HRs either, especially not one who does not do anything else to help your team win. I wanted to see Sosa suit up for the Nationals and try to stay above the Mendoza line while hitting 12 HRs. I don't think it would happen.
I think the Nationals are crazy offering even $500K to Sosa. Perhaps, he'd create a little media buzz for the team as he made a run at 600. Or, maybe he'd create a media buzz by corking his bat or leaving the park early. Anything to get the Nats on SportsCenter, right? Sammy Sosa's projected stats, especially playing home games at RFK, would be pitiful. I don't think the Nationals' offer was a slap in the face. It seems like a charitable offer and a chance for Sosa to revive his career. There wasn't interest in Sosa because his play didn't warrant much. Unfortunately, Sosa didn't cash in and get a lengthy enough extension to cover his decline, he earned $17 million last year as an Oriole. His skills and cash flow dried up pretty much simultaneously. Oh, to be a Kevin Brown (or in the NBA).
Since '01, when Sosa hit a career-high .328 and ripped 64 HRs, his average has plummeted: .328, .288, .279, .253, .221. Well, that's ok, but his power numbers haven't declined similarly, or have they: 64, 49, 40, 35, 14. Granted, his games played has decreased each year, but I wouldn't play an outfielder who is a defensive liability and is hitting .221 with 14 HRs either, especially not one who does not do anything else to help your team win. I wanted to see Sosa suit up for the Nationals and try to stay above the Mendoza line while hitting 12 HRs. I don't think it would happen.
I think the Nationals are crazy offering even $500K to Sosa. Perhaps, he'd create a little media buzz for the team as he made a run at 600. Or, maybe he'd create a media buzz by corking his bat or leaving the park early. Anything to get the Nats on SportsCenter, right? Sammy Sosa's projected stats, especially playing home games at RFK, would be pitiful. I don't think the Nationals' offer was a slap in the face. It seems like a charitable offer and a chance for Sosa to revive his career. There wasn't interest in Sosa because his play didn't warrant much. Unfortunately, Sosa didn't cash in and get a lengthy enough extension to cover his decline, he earned $17 million last year as an Oriole. His skills and cash flow dried up pretty much simultaneously. Oh, to be a Kevin Brown (or in the NBA).
Friday, February 10, 2006
Instant replay for the crowds
This is great news! Soon, the spectators at the game will know more than the officials, just like the people at home.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
No, I think it's a zebra
Remember the Super Bowl beer commercial when the cowboys watching the horses playing football become perturbed with the referee, and one says "What an ass," only to be corrected by his friend, "No, I believe it's a zebra"? Well, I can't help but think the two terms are synonymous, especially now.
The actions of the referees in the Super Bowl were bad enough. Now, NFL spokesman Greg "Only one i in" Aiello is saying "The game was properly officiated, including, as in most NFL games, some tight plays that produced disagreement about the calls made by the officials." That's even more erroneous than the penalty called on Matt Hasselbeck.
I hope, for Aiello's sake, that he doesn't believe the officiating in the game was good. If so, he probably enjoys "Survivor Family Moments", ESPN "Pride of the Program" features, and late night infomercials. If, by "properly officiated" he means that the official! s were in the right spot to make the calls and the replays were made as they should have been, I guess he has a point. But, if he means the officials did a good job of officiating the game overall, he's horribly mistaken and should be let go immediately. Obviously, if that is the case, he is not fit for any job, including washing my car.
I won't go into detail about all the calls that were missed, but I would like to point out a couple issues that have been overlooked. Even if Darrell Jackson committed offensive pass interference, the DB committed holding before Jackson made contact (contact that didn't merit pass interference in almost everyone's opinion, except for maybe Steelers fans). Each player did some hand fighting, which is usually allowed, and Jackson made a better break for the ball. He made the play. He made a big play—at least I'd classify catching a Super Bowl TD to go up 7-0 a big play. Unfortunately, the official missed the bulk of th! e play. That's the only logical explanation I can have for flagging J ackson, without turning into Joey Porter and claiming it was a league conspiracy, although I'll provide more on this later. It would be similar to a ref seeing the second guy throwing a punch and only penalizing the player retaliating. Sure, the 2nd guy shouldn't retaliate, but there isn't retaliation without the initial act, so the initial act should get flagged as well. Ignorance isn't a good excuse for not making the right call. Making the right call is the official's job. This isn't pro wrestling, after all.
The other main point is that Clark Haggans was consistently in the neutral zone, including on the play that Locklear was whistled for holding. Not only did Locklear not hold (he did hold earlier in the game), but he was flagged and Haggans wasn't. The Seahawks should have had a free play. Unfortunately, the ass, I mean zebra, made the wrong call. It should have been offsides, which would have been declined, instead of holding.
Not to ge! t carried away, but I don't understand why people bring up the delay of game not being called at the end of Chicago's loss to Carolina (when Grossman threw the pick) and they don't mention the play with 4:45 left in the Super Bowl when they threw the flag, then picked it up and awarded Pittsburgh with a timeout. That may have prevented the Seahawks last chance at coming back, and it was bad clock management by the Steelers. They dropped the ball. Fortunately for them, the referees caught it and handed it back.
Sure, the Steelers made three big plays. However, they also had two turnovers. The Seahawks wouldn't have had any if the Locklear holding call hadn't been made. Ben Roethlisberger was 9-21, 123 yards, 0 TDs, 2 INTs. That's a bad line. Willie Parker had 10 carries for 93 yards. But, if you remove the 75 yarder (one of the big plays), he had 9 carries for 18 yards, a 2 ypc average. Jerome Bettis averaged 3.1 ypc (14 for 43 yards). The Steelers, ove! rall, weren't effective with either the passing game or the running ga me.
If the Jackson pass interference and Locklear holding hadn't been made, Hasselbeck's line would read something like 27-48, 300 yards, 2 TD's, 0 INT's. Compare that to Roethlisberger. Alexander has a solid day on the ground, running for 95 yards on 20 carries. And, I'm pretty sure he would have added a TD on the series when they would have had 1st and goal at the 1 (Locklear holding series). The Seahawks were hurt by inopportune penalties/mistakes, but they played pretty well. They spread the ball around to Engram, Jurevicius, and Jackson. Alexander and Hasselbeck ran well. The D was solid when they weren't giving up the big plays.
If you really look at the game critically, the big plays the Steelers made helped make up for the Seahawks generally out-playing the Steelers. If the officiating was good, the game would have been down to the wire, possibly going to overtime, rather than having the Steelers salt away the last half of the 4th quar! ter. The Steelers won the game, but only because they were put in a position to do so by the calls the referees made earlier in the game. Otherwise, those big plays may have just tied up the game.
One of the worst things the officials did was ruin the win for many people. Personally, I'll never think the Steelers were the best team in the NFL this year. I don't think they proved it in the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl was inconclusive. If the officiating had been good, or fair, I would not feel that way. The Steelers beat the Colts and Broncos. They got a lot of help with the Seahawks. They got too much help.
So! meone (I think Sean Salisbury) said on ESPN that they didn't think it was a conspiracy because the league wouldn't want to risk tarnishing it's marquee event. If the NFL is found to be tampering with any game, it will ruin the credibility of the league. But, if they are going to risk everything, they might as well do it with the most important game of the season, right? And, if everyone believes "the NFL won't risk it," as Salisbury does, doesn't that give them a free pass to do just about anything they want.
Joey Porter wasn't fined for his remarks after their victory over the Colts, when they were able to overcome the Polamalu-replay reversal mishap. Why? He, essentially, accused the league and officials of cheating for the Colts. Was he not fined because he was right? I hope not, but I don't see any other rationale for him not being fined, even if the officiating wasn't good. I was under the impression that criticizing officiating led to fines. Porter went WAY beyond mere criticism.
But, wasn't Joey Porter saying Stevens talking gave him motivation? Porter's line: 3 tackles. Wow. Why didn't Porter get the MVP award? Porter didn't have any interceptions or sacks. He didn't force, or recover, any fumbles. Isn't Joey Porter a Pro Bowler? You'd think if he was jacked up, he'd be able to get more than 3 tackles. Sometimes, stats don't tell the story, but I was paying attention to what Porter did during the game because I wanted to see if he'd back up his! talk. He didn't. It's a good thing the zebras had his back this tim e.
In the 4th quarter, the Steelers got the ball with 6:15 left. Two Bettis runs netted 4 yards. Then came the delay of game/timeout fiasco. The Steelers were able to convert on 3rd and 6. Two more Bettis runs netted 7 yards. Did they trust Bettis on 3rd and 3? Nope, Roethlisberger kept the ball and, just barely, made the first down. Three more Bettis runs resulted in 6 y! ards and a punt. I thought the Steelers were a power running team that was more physical than any other team in the NFL. The finesse Seahawks should have been no match for "the Bus". The reality? The Steelers weren't able to overpower Seattle, and were fortunate to make the two first downs they got.
I don't understand why Jerome Bettis receives as much praise as he does. I don't have anything against him, I just find the whole love affair to be a bit bizarre. Obviously, he can't get the job done any more, at least not like people say he does. This season, he averaged 3.3 ypc on 110 carries. He did have 9 TDs, which probably brought his average ypc down a little, but it wouldn't be significant. Maybe on non-TD runs he averaged 3.5 ypc. Emmitt Smith averaged 3.5 ypc on 267 carries for the Cardinals in 2004, and everyone was saying he was finished. I'm pretty sure the Steelers line was better this year than the Cardinals line Emmitt ran behind. It seems ! like everyone in the media would welcome Bettis back for more seasons. Why was everyone so eager to push Emmitt out the door (he gained over 900 yards his last year)?
The actions of the referees in the Super Bowl were bad enough. Now, NFL spokesman Greg "Only one i in" Aiello is saying "The game was properly officiated, including, as in most NFL games, some tight plays that produced disagreement about the calls made by the officials." That's even more erroneous than the penalty called on Matt Hasselbeck.
I hope, for Aiello's sake, that he doesn't believe the officiating in the game was good. If so, he probably enjoys "Survivor Family Moments", ESPN "Pride of the Program" features, and late night infomercials. If, by "properly officiated" he means that the official! s were in the right spot to make the calls and the replays were made as they should have been, I guess he has a point. But, if he means the officials did a good job of officiating the game overall, he's horribly mistaken and should be let go immediately. Obviously, if that is the case, he is not fit for any job, including washing my car.
I won't go into detail about all the calls that were missed, but I would like to point out a couple issues that have been overlooked. Even if Darrell Jackson committed offensive pass interference, the DB committed holding before Jackson made contact (contact that didn't merit pass interference in almost everyone's opinion, except for maybe Steelers fans). Each player did some hand fighting, which is usually allowed, and Jackson made a better break for the ball. He made the play. He made a big play—at least I'd classify catching a Super Bowl TD to go up 7-0 a big play. Unfortunately, the official missed the bulk of th! e play. That's the only logical explanation I can have for flagging J ackson, without turning into Joey Porter and claiming it was a league conspiracy, although I'll provide more on this later. It would be similar to a ref seeing the second guy throwing a punch and only penalizing the player retaliating. Sure, the 2nd guy shouldn't retaliate, but there isn't retaliation without the initial act, so the initial act should get flagged as well. Ignorance isn't a good excuse for not making the right call. Making the right call is the official's job. This isn't pro wrestling, after all.
The other main point is that Clark Haggans was consistently in the neutral zone, including on the play that Locklear was whistled for holding. Not only did Locklear not hold (he did hold earlier in the game), but he was flagged and Haggans wasn't. The Seahawks should have had a free play. Unfortunately, the ass, I mean zebra, made the wrong call. It should have been offsides, which would have been declined, instead of holding.
Not to ge! t carried away, but I don't understand why people bring up the delay of game not being called at the end of Chicago's loss to Carolina (when Grossman threw the pick) and they don't mention the play with 4:45 left in the Super Bowl when they threw the flag, then picked it up and awarded Pittsburgh with a timeout. That may have prevented the Seahawks last chance at coming back, and it was bad clock management by the Steelers. They dropped the ball. Fortunately for them, the referees caught it and handed it back.
Sure, the Steelers made three big plays. However, they also had two turnovers. The Seahawks wouldn't have had any if the Locklear holding call hadn't been made. Ben Roethlisberger was 9-21, 123 yards, 0 TDs, 2 INTs. That's a bad line. Willie Parker had 10 carries for 93 yards. But, if you remove the 75 yarder (one of the big plays), he had 9 carries for 18 yards, a 2 ypc average. Jerome Bettis averaged 3.1 ypc (14 for 43 yards). The Steelers, ove! rall, weren't effective with either the passing game or the running ga me.
If the Jackson pass interference and Locklear holding hadn't been made, Hasselbeck's line would read something like 27-48, 300 yards, 2 TD's, 0 INT's. Compare that to Roethlisberger. Alexander has a solid day on the ground, running for 95 yards on 20 carries. And, I'm pretty sure he would have added a TD on the series when they would have had 1st and goal at the 1 (Locklear holding series). The Seahawks were hurt by inopportune penalties/mistakes, but they played pretty well. They spread the ball around to Engram, Jurevicius, and Jackson. Alexander and Hasselbeck ran well. The D was solid when they weren't giving up the big plays.
If you really look at the game critically, the big plays the Steelers made helped make up for the Seahawks generally out-playing the Steelers. If the officiating was good, the game would have been down to the wire, possibly going to overtime, rather than having the Steelers salt away the last half of the 4th quar! ter. The Steelers won the game, but only because they were put in a position to do so by the calls the referees made earlier in the game. Otherwise, those big plays may have just tied up the game.
One of the worst things the officials did was ruin the win for many people. Personally, I'll never think the Steelers were the best team in the NFL this year. I don't think they proved it in the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl was inconclusive. If the officiating had been good, or fair, I would not feel that way. The Steelers beat the Colts and Broncos. They got a lot of help with the Seahawks. They got too much help.
Conspiracy?
I don't think the NFL arranged for the officials to give the Super Bowl to the Steelers. I don't think the NFL arranged for the officials to try to give the Colts a win against the Steelers earlier in the playoffs. However, I don't think it is necessary to believe that such a situation is implausible.So! meone (I think Sean Salisbury) said on ESPN that they didn't think it was a conspiracy because the league wouldn't want to risk tarnishing it's marquee event. If the NFL is found to be tampering with any game, it will ruin the credibility of the league. But, if they are going to risk everything, they might as well do it with the most important game of the season, right? And, if everyone believes "the NFL won't risk it," as Salisbury does, doesn't that give them a free pass to do just about anything they want.
Joey Porter wasn't fined for his remarks after their victory over the Colts, when they were able to overcome the Polamalu-replay reversal mishap. Why? He, essentially, accused the league and officials of cheating for the Colts. Was he not fined because he was right? I hope not, but I don't see any other rationale for him not being fined, even if the officiating wasn't good. I was under the impression that criticizing officiating led to fines. Porter went WAY beyond mere criticism.
On Joey Porter:
! A lot of attention was placed on Jerramy Stevens for dropping balls in the Super Bowl after his early week discourse with Joey Porter. The Seattle tight end had a rough game, dropping a few balls. However, he did make 3 catches for 25 yards and a TD. One drop (that was close to being a catch and fumble) was due to a great hit by a DB who put his helmet right on the ball. Stevens flat out missed a couple, and failed to haul in one, in traffic near the goal line, on Seattle's last play.But, wasn't Joey Porter saying Stevens talking gave him motivation? Porter's line: 3 tackles. Wow. Why didn't Porter get the MVP award? Porter didn't have any interceptions or sacks. He didn't force, or recover, any fumbles. Isn't Joey Porter a Pro Bowler? You'd think if he was jacked up, he'd be able to get more than 3 tackles. Sometimes, stats don't tell the story, but I was paying attention to what Porter did during the game because I wanted to see if he'd back up his! talk. He didn't. It's a good thing the zebras had his back this tim e.
Get off "the Bus" to get in the end zone:
In Jerome Bettis' last game, in his hometown, in possibly the most important game of his career, "the Bus" had a flat. Facing 1st and goal at the Seahawks 3 late in the 2nd quarter, down 3-0, Bettis failed to get into the end zone, not once but twice. Isn't Bettis the Steelers short yardage back? Isn't he supposed to power into the end zone on two runs starting from the 3? I fully expected them to throw or use Roethlisberger on 3rd down because Bettis wasn't going to get in. I was right. Too bad the ref got the call wrong.In the 4th quarter, the Steelers got the ball with 6:15 left. Two Bettis runs netted 4 yards. Then came the delay of game/timeout fiasco. The Steelers were able to convert on 3rd and 6. Two more Bettis runs netted 7 yards. Did they trust Bettis on 3rd and 3? Nope, Roethlisberger kept the ball and, just barely, made the first down. Three more Bettis runs resulted in 6 y! ards and a punt. I thought the Steelers were a power running team that was more physical than any other team in the NFL. The finesse Seahawks should have been no match for "the Bus". The reality? The Steelers weren't able to overpower Seattle, and were fortunate to make the two first downs they got.
I don't understand why Jerome Bettis receives as much praise as he does. I don't have anything against him, I just find the whole love affair to be a bit bizarre. Obviously, he can't get the job done any more, at least not like people say he does. This season, he averaged 3.3 ypc on 110 carries. He did have 9 TDs, which probably brought his average ypc down a little, but it wouldn't be significant. Maybe on non-TD runs he averaged 3.5 ypc. Emmitt Smith averaged 3.5 ypc on 267 carries for the Cardinals in 2004, and everyone was saying he was finished. I'm pretty sure the Steelers line was better this year than the Cardinals line Emmitt ran behind. It seems ! like everyone in the media would welcome Bettis back for more seasons. Why was everyone so eager to push Emmitt out the door (he gained over 900 yards his last year)?
Monday, February 06, 2006
Skating Through
My advisor was rooting for the Pittsburgh Steelers because he went to Notre Dame for graduate school (Jerome Bettis went to ND). This morning, he accused me of being a "sore loser" when he overheard a discussion I was having. Later, I tracked him down and asked him if he thought the officiating was good. He said it was equally bad. However, when I asked if he had any calls that hurt the Steelers, he couldn't come up with anything.
One play that, possibly, hurt the Steelers was the ruling that the pass to Stevens was incomplete, and not a fumble. I thought he got both feet down with possession, then a great hit right on the ball jarred it loose. However, the Seahawks, subsequently, punted and the Steelers started at the 20 (since Rouen kept launching punts when he needed to control them). It may have cost them a few yards in starting field position, but it wasn't a major play and the announcers didn't seem to think it was a catch.
So, a short reca! p of the major missed calls:
One play that, possibly, hurt the Steelers was the ruling that the pass to Stevens was incomplete, and not a fumble. I thought he got both feet down with possession, then a great hit right on the ball jarred it loose. However, the Seahawks, subsequently, punted and the Steelers started at the 20 (since Rouen kept launching punts when he needed to control them). It may have cost them a few yards in starting field position, but it wasn't a major play and the announcers didn't seem to think it was a catch.
So, a short reca! p of the major missed calls:
- Pass Interference on Darrell Jackson: costs Seahawks 4 points and momentum
- Ruling the Roethlisberger run a TD: it was third down, may have cost the Seahawks 4 points, or 7 if they had gone for it and didn't get the TD
- Holding on Locklear: costs the Seahawks 7 points because Seattle would have had the ball at the 1 and Alexander always scores when he's down that deep.
What are we raving about?
The subtitle of this blog is "fanatic sports ravings of the easily infuriated." Obviously, this is not a blog dedicated to the War in Iraq or concerns about global warming. It's about baseball, basketball, football, hockey (possibly), etc. However, what about figure skating, "extreme sports," car racing, and gymnastics? What is a sport?
After last night's Super Bowl XL, football is looking a lot more like gymnastics and figure skating than ever before.
Dictionary.com defines "sport" as:
Wait ... what is "physical activity" or "physical exertion"? Chess requir! es you to move pieces around a board and hit the timer (physical activity), there are definitely rules, and chess is often competitive. Sport? No. High school and college cheer squads and drill teams often participate in competitions, with physical exertion and rules/customs. Sports? I wouldn't say so. The dictionary definitions are conveniently vague, and allow interpretation.
What happened to football? It was originally included, with baseball, basketball, tennis, etc. as obviously a sport. Unfortunately, the increasingly poor (and one-sided) officiating makes football a lot more like figure skating than any red-blooded American would like. Jim Rome said today that because the Seahawks made mistakes, they shouldn't complain about the officiating because the players lost the game, the refs didn't take it from them. Sure, the players (Stevens dropped a number of balls, Brown missed two FG's, Boulware took a bad angle on the Parker TD run, etc.) could have performed better. However, nothing is ever perfect. Even in really good performances, there is room for improvement. (Phil Simms threw a few incompletions against the Broncos.) The Steelers didn't play a great game. If two skaters both fall on their triple Axels and hav! e similar routines otherwise, is it fair for the judges to reward one with a much higher score? Nope, and it happens. That's why figure skating isn't a sport. The officiating, as much as the Seahawks, blew the game for Seattle, just like a corrupt judge in a figure skating competition.
After last night's Super Bowl XL, football is looking a lot more like gymnastics and figure skating than ever before.
Dictionary.com defines "sport" as:
- a. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
b. A particular form of this activity. - Any activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
Wait ... what is "physical activity" or "physical exertion"? Chess requir! es you to move pieces around a board and hit the timer (physical activity), there are definitely rules, and chess is often competitive. Sport? No. High school and college cheer squads and drill teams often participate in competitions, with physical exertion and rules/customs. Sports? I wouldn't say so. The dictionary definitions are conveniently vague, and allow interpretation.
- Baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, volleyball, tennis ... sports.
- Wrestling, while points are awarded, the referee is merely determining when points are scored, not scoring the match, so it's a sport.
- Judged competitions, which are due to subjectivity and bias (figure skating, front and center), are not sports, they are competitions. This isn't a knock, they are what they are. This includes figure skating, gymnastics, snowboard/skiing (best trick, super pipe, slopestyle), diving, skateboarding, etc.
- Golf is a sport, while bowling lacks the necessary amoun! t of physical activity. However, golfing only qualifies if you walk th e course and would be indisputable if the pros had to carry their own clubs.
- Horse racing is a sport for horses, not for the riders. Car racing probably falls short, especially drag racing.
- Boxing, kickboxing, and mixed martial arts present an interesting dilemna. When there is a knockout or tapout or referee stoppage, clearly, it's a sport. This is fine in MMA, because those fighters don't suffer the volume of punishment that boxers withstand, but not a good idea in boxing. What happens when the fights go to the scorecards? Judging enters the equation ... and often leads to the wrong person winning. I've seen numerous fights where it seemed obvious one boxer had dominated the fight, and the commentators agreed with me, but the fight went the other way.
- Poker (while prominent on ESPN) is not a sport. Neither darts nor pool are sports.
What happened to football? It was originally included, with baseball, basketball, tennis, etc. as obviously a sport. Unfortunately, the increasingly poor (and one-sided) officiating makes football a lot more like figure skating than any red-blooded American would like. Jim Rome said today that because the Seahawks made mistakes, they shouldn't complain about the officiating because the players lost the game, the refs didn't take it from them. Sure, the players (Stevens dropped a number of balls, Brown missed two FG's, Boulware took a bad angle on the Parker TD run, etc.) could have performed better. However, nothing is ever perfect. Even in really good performances, there is room for improvement. (Phil Simms threw a few incompletions against the Broncos.) The Steelers didn't play a great game. If two skaters both fall on their triple Axels and hav! e similar routines otherwise, is it fair for the judges to reward one with a much higher score? Nope, and it happens. That's why figure skating isn't a sport. The officiating, as much as the Seahawks, blew the game for Seattle, just like a corrupt judge in a figure skating competition.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Asinine intervention
Is it too much to ask, in the biggest game of the year, possibly in any sport—a game brought forth after two weeks of inane hype—for the officials to just stay out of the way and let come what may? I hope not. But I've been hoping for a long time. I take issue with at least these three calls in Super Bowl XL:
This kind of deplorable intervention is what makes officials more hated than cross-town rivals, as well as what makes the whole notion of fairness in sports, if not life, a farce. Couldn't we at least have sports?
- In the first quarter, Darrell Jackson caught a touchdown pass that was nullified because of a whining defensive back on the most ticky-tack "push off" I've ever seen called offensive pass interference. It really was offensive. This turned a Seattle touchdown into a field goal.
- In the fourth quarter, a Matt Hasselbeck completion to tight end Jerramy Stevens that would have given Seattle first and goal at the one was called back because of holding against Sean Locklear. The replay showed that Locklear had only one hand on the defender, and that it was between the shoulders. Even John Madden didn't see any holding, despite the fact that, as he said, you can pretty much call holding on any play. This prevented what likely would have been another Seahawks touchdown.
- Shortly thereafter, Hasselbeck threw an interception to Steelers cornerback Ike Taylor, then was called for a personal foul on a low block at the end of the play. Except it wasn't a block, it was a tackle. Hasselbeck didn't even touch the other Steeler in question, he just took out Taylor with a blow to the legs. There's no guarantee that the Steelers wouldn't have scored a touchdown on this drive anyway, but the penalty gave them a nice 15-yard boost in the right direction.
This kind of deplorable intervention is what makes officials more hated than cross-town rivals, as well as what makes the whole notion of fairness in sports, if not life, a farce. Couldn't we at least have sports?
Update, February 7:
Michael Smith at ESPN agrees with us, and has expressed it more completely and eloquently than we could. Even the Edell Shepherd call that got us started!Halftime thought experiment
Imagine, for the sake of argument, that a tackle is made at the goal line on a third-down play—say, in the Super Bowl, for example. The officials on the field have to make a call. It's either a touchdown, or fourth and goal. What if they don't know what to call? It doesn't matter, they have to pick one.
Then, they go to the replay booth and look it over for a couple minutes. Even if they're ninety percent sure—even if they're ninety-nine percent sure—that the call on the field—that arbitrary call that they had to make just to have something—is the wrong one, it can't be overruled, by rule.
That is a rule that needs to change. As Evan has said before, make the best call you can based on the video evidence. The call on the field was made in real time. The replay can be observed in slow motion. The call on the field was based on one perspective (usually), the replay can check several angles. It's time football had the best call, not either a one hundred percent call or a fifty-fifty one.
Then, they go to the replay booth and look it over for a couple minutes. Even if they're ninety percent sure—even if they're ninety-nine percent sure—that the call on the field—that arbitrary call that they had to make just to have something—is the wrong one, it can't be overruled, by rule.
That is a rule that needs to change. As Evan has said before, make the best call you can based on the video evidence. The call on the field was made in real time. The replay can be observed in slow motion. The call on the field was based on one perspective (usually), the replay can check several angles. It's time football had the best call, not either a one hundred percent call or a fifty-fifty one.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Bush? Young? Take 'em both!
The Texans were a popular choice to make a playoff run this year.
Oops. So, it's possible that they're close. However, they shouldn't
fall for the fool's gold of contending for a playoff spot, they should
position themselves for greatness down the road. Additionally, they
should capitalize on the popularity of hometown (and state) hero Vince
Young. He'll buy them the good favor with fans to endure a few more
losing seasons.
Oops. So, it's possible that they're close. However, they shouldn't
fall for the fool's gold of contending for a playoff spot, they should
position themselves for greatness down the road. Additionally, they
should capitalize on the popularity of hometown (and state) hero Vince
Young. He'll buy them the good favor with fans to endure a few more
losing seasons.
So, obviously, I'm hinting at taking Vince Young. How do you get
Reggie Bush too. Simple. Ok, maybe not so simple, but here goes:
David Carr (former #1 overall) goes to Indianapolis to replace QB
Peyton Manning. It just doesn't seem like it's working in Indy,
despite the numbers the team is putting up. David Carr for Peyton
Manning straight up. Nope, Indy also gets a sandwich pick between the
1st and 2nd rounds that the NFL rewards NO with for having to endure
the whole Hurricane Katrina fiasco. If the NFL isn't so forthcoming,
the Saints send their 2nd round selection (which is early 2nd round—a
pretty valuable pick the Colts can use to draft a RB to replace
Edgerrin James) to the Colts. They also may receive a later round
(maybe 3rd or 4th) selection from the Houston Texans.
Manning goes to New Orleans to rebuild the Saints in his hometown.
They'd have the skill players, with Joe Horn and Dante Stallworth at
WR and Deuce McAllister at RB. Manning provides a face for the
organization and can try to do what his father never could for the
team.
Aaron Brooks (who the Saints are going to can anyway) goes to Houston
with the #2 overall pick. Brooks will start for Houston next year, at
least early in the year. Vince Young will watch, ala Carson Palmer.
Reggie Bush will be selected with the #2 overall pick and can be used
as a returner, RB (splitting time with Dominick Davis), and receiver.
The Saints will also send an offensive lineman (I hear they have a
surplus) to supplement that horrible Houston line.
Terrell Owens, benign tumor
Terrell Owens is one of the best receivers in the NFL. Randy Moss, when healthy and motivated, is right up there and Steve Smith is amazing. As such, Terrell Owens should be paid like he's a top WR. That is where the Eagles' season broke down.
Just a year ago, everyone was wondering if Owens would be able to come back from a broken ankle early and play in Super Bowl XXXIX. Owens was terrific. How'd the other Eagles WR's do? Then, in the off-season, the Eagles wouldn't restructure Owens' contract. Owens was well aware that he was only making $3.25 million in 2005, far below market value. I doubt Owens would have had much problem if his 7 year, $49 million contract was guaranteed, but this is the NFL. The Eagles could use Owens for 2005, then cut him, even if he'd been on his best behavior. Owens wanted QB Donovan McNabb to lobby for him to the Eagles' Front Office people, since McNabb has clout, but apparently McNabb has his lucrative deal and place on a ! pedestal and didn't really care if Owens received a market value deal. This is where McNabb went wrong, the first time.
The Eagles are quickly becoming seen as an organization that doesn't treat players well. That is probably why there was a divide in the Eagles organization over the treatment of Terrell Owens. Other players understood his situation and didn't think it was fair, Jeremiah Trotter is one of them. This doesn't seem like the best thing to do because, given two close to equal choices, I wouldn't choose, or advise clients, to go to Philadelphia.
Owens has "acted up" twice now. However, he's hardly a cancer. Ok, he may turn out to be cancerous, but right now, it's unfair to classify him as anything worse than a benign tumor, which is slightly irritating at times, but definitely not that big a concern. The 49ers were a sinking ship when Owens left and they haven't recovered. They weren't sinking because of Owens and it's not his fault ! they aren't winning now. In Philadelphia, Owens played very well. Th e organization's unwillingness to work with Owens and agent Drew Rosenhaus was the major problem, along with Donovan McNabb, and many other players, getting hurt. The Eagles lost Super Bowl 39, they ended up 6-10 this year. The Carolina Panthers lost Super Bowl 38, they ended up 7-9 the next year. The Raiders lost Super Bowl 37, they finished 2003 at 4-12. Super Bowl 36, the Rams lost and finished 7-9 the next year. The Giants also finished 7-9 the year after losing Super Bowl XXXV. I'm starting to see a pattern, anyone else see it?
I'm not going to get into "black on black crime", but Michael Irvin was merely saying that Brett Favre wasn't done, he just didn't have any players around him and that Donovan McNabb wasn't playing quite as well as he should have been. Terrell Owens just agreed with what Michael Irvin said. I'm not sure Brett Favre was a better player this year than McNabb, but it's possible. The Eagles had chances to be 7-0, but McNabb kept t! hrowing interceptions at the ends of those games (v. Dallas, v. Washington, etc.) and they didn't pull them out. It's possible (not inevitable) that Favre would have been able to come through, given the same situations.
Next season, I'm looking for TO to have a big year, as long as he finds a situation that is good for him (and possibly even if he doesn't). Too bad they don't have a "Pay for play" system that rewards on-field performance. The Eagles may rebound, but it won't be because they rid themselves of the cancer of TO. Teams often rebound two years after losing the Super Bowl, the latest example being the Carolina Panthers, who had a down year last year but made the NFC Championship game this year. It's possible the Panthers could have been back in the big dance this year if they hadn't suffered so many injuries. If the Seahawks lose Super Bowl XL, they'll pro! bably have a down year next year ... that's the current trend. Who el se is going to compete in the NFC? Sure, there are contenders (Redskins, Panthers, Falcons, Bears, Cowboys, Giants, Bucs ... ok, half the conference), but there isn't a runaway juggernaut who seems like a lock to be there at the end.
Just a year ago, everyone was wondering if Owens would be able to come back from a broken ankle early and play in Super Bowl XXXIX. Owens was terrific. How'd the other Eagles WR's do? Then, in the off-season, the Eagles wouldn't restructure Owens' contract. Owens was well aware that he was only making $3.25 million in 2005, far below market value. I doubt Owens would have had much problem if his 7 year, $49 million contract was guaranteed, but this is the NFL. The Eagles could use Owens for 2005, then cut him, even if he'd been on his best behavior. Owens wanted QB Donovan McNabb to lobby for him to the Eagles' Front Office people, since McNabb has clout, but apparently McNabb has his lucrative deal and place on a ! pedestal and didn't really care if Owens received a market value deal. This is where McNabb went wrong, the first time.
The Eagles are quickly becoming seen as an organization that doesn't treat players well. That is probably why there was a divide in the Eagles organization over the treatment of Terrell Owens. Other players understood his situation and didn't think it was fair, Jeremiah Trotter is one of them. This doesn't seem like the best thing to do because, given two close to equal choices, I wouldn't choose, or advise clients, to go to Philadelphia.
Owens has "acted up" twice now. However, he's hardly a cancer. Ok, he may turn out to be cancerous, but right now, it's unfair to classify him as anything worse than a benign tumor, which is slightly irritating at times, but definitely not that big a concern. The 49ers were a sinking ship when Owens left and they haven't recovered. They weren't sinking because of Owens and it's not his fault ! they aren't winning now. In Philadelphia, Owens played very well. Th e organization's unwillingness to work with Owens and agent Drew Rosenhaus was the major problem, along with Donovan McNabb, and many other players, getting hurt. The Eagles lost Super Bowl 39, they ended up 6-10 this year. The Carolina Panthers lost Super Bowl 38, they ended up 7-9 the next year. The Raiders lost Super Bowl 37, they finished 2003 at 4-12. Super Bowl 36, the Rams lost and finished 7-9 the next year. The Giants also finished 7-9 the year after losing Super Bowl XXXV. I'm starting to see a pattern, anyone else see it?
I'm not going to get into "black on black crime", but Michael Irvin was merely saying that Brett Favre wasn't done, he just didn't have any players around him and that Donovan McNabb wasn't playing quite as well as he should have been. Terrell Owens just agreed with what Michael Irvin said. I'm not sure Brett Favre was a better player this year than McNabb, but it's possible. The Eagles had chances to be 7-0, but McNabb kept t! hrowing interceptions at the ends of those games (v. Dallas, v. Washington, etc.) and they didn't pull them out. It's possible (not inevitable) that Favre would have been able to come through, given the same situations.
Next season, I'm looking for TO to have a big year, as long as he finds a situation that is good for him (and possibly even if he doesn't). Too bad they don't have a "Pay for play" system that rewards on-field performance. The Eagles may rebound, but it won't be because they rid themselves of the cancer of TO. Teams often rebound two years after losing the Super Bowl, the latest example being the Carolina Panthers, who had a down year last year but made the NFC Championship game this year. It's possible the Panthers could have been back in the big dance this year if they hadn't suffered so many injuries. If the Seahawks lose Super Bowl XL, they'll pro! bably have a down year next year ... that's the current trend. Who el se is going to compete in the NFC? Sure, there are contenders (Redskins, Panthers, Falcons, Bears, Cowboys, Giants, Bucs ... ok, half the conference), but there isn't a runaway juggernaut who seems like a lock to be there at the end.
Analysis on the Rebound
Rebounds are an interesting stat, especially the offensive variety. An offensive rebound means you missed a shot. While you have another opportunity to score, why not just make the first shot? Defensive rebounds terminate the other team's possession, so they're usually good for the team. However, defensive rebounds are often an oversight, and focus is applied to offensive rebounds for providing scoring opportunities. Doesn't every rebound give your team possession after a missed shot, whether it's off your miss or the other team's? On defensive rebounds, you just happen to have to run down the floor before you can shoot ... well, I guess you don't have to.
Rebounds are also analyzed poorly. Rebounds are divided into offensive, defensive, and total rebounds, with total rebounds being the sum of offensive and defensive rebounds (Roy has a degree in mathematics, and he was consulted on this). So, people often compare offensive and total rebounds for each team! in a game, and sometimes will compare defensive rebounds. This doesn't make any sense (again, I took issue with my HS coaching staff over treatment of rebound statistics). In tonight's Cavs v. Heat game, Cleveland ended up with 11 offensive rebounds, four more than Miami's seven. But, everything is relative, especially rebounds.
Cleveland had 11 offensive rebounds. Miami had 46 defensive rebounds. Thus, of the 57 rebounds off Cleveland misses, the Cavs only got 19.3% of them. Miami had 7 offensive rebounds, while Cleveland had 28 defensive rebounds. Obviously, 7 of 35 is 20%. Thus, while Cleveland was outrebounded by 14 total rebounds (53 to 39), they grabbed 19.3% of rebounds on their misses and 80% of rebounds on Heat misses. Miami, on the other hand, controlled 80.7% of Cleveland misses and 20% of their own missed shots. Thus, the rebounding was, essentially, even. A cursory look at the total rebounds wouldn't tell that story. You have to dig a li! ttle deeper. The reason for the discrepancy in rebound numbers - offe nsive, defensive, and total - was the hideous shooting by the Cavs (33.7% on FG's) and the solid shooting of the Heat (51.8%). Obviously, rebounds can also occur off of missed FT's, but not all missed FT's result in a rebound (only if the last FT of a sequence is missed) and, based on the similarity of the FT stats in the game, the FT's are negligible compared to the FG difference.
Rebounds are also analyzed poorly. Rebounds are divided into offensive, defensive, and total rebounds, with total rebounds being the sum of offensive and defensive rebounds (Roy has a degree in mathematics, and he was consulted on this). So, people often compare offensive and total rebounds for each team! in a game, and sometimes will compare defensive rebounds. This doesn't make any sense (again, I took issue with my HS coaching staff over treatment of rebound statistics). In tonight's Cavs v. Heat game, Cleveland ended up with 11 offensive rebounds, four more than Miami's seven. But, everything is relative, especially rebounds.
Cleveland had 11 offensive rebounds. Miami had 46 defensive rebounds. Thus, of the 57 rebounds off Cleveland misses, the Cavs only got 19.3% of them. Miami had 7 offensive rebounds, while Cleveland had 28 defensive rebounds. Obviously, 7 of 35 is 20%. Thus, while Cleveland was outrebounded by 14 total rebounds (53 to 39), they grabbed 19.3% of rebounds on their misses and 80% of rebounds on Heat misses. Miami, on the other hand, controlled 80.7% of Cleveland misses and 20% of their own missed shots. Thus, the rebounding was, essentially, even. A cursory look at the total rebounds wouldn't tell that story. You have to dig a li! ttle deeper. The reason for the discrepancy in rebound numbers - offe nsive, defensive, and total - was the hideous shooting by the Cavs (33.7% on FG's) and the solid shooting of the Heat (51.8%). Obviously, rebounds can also occur off of missed FT's, but not all missed FT's result in a rebound (only if the last FT of a sequence is missed) and, based on the similarity of the FT stats in the game, the FT's are negligible compared to the FG difference.
Interesting note:
I'm not sure what prompted me to write this post tonight. I caught a few short portions (enough to make sure the blowout was sustained throughout) of the aforementioned game, but nothing substantial. Roy is always harping on me to add stats to my posts, so I figured I'd get them in there before he could tell me to fix it. Well, the first game on the ESPN - NBA - Scoreboard was the Cleveland v. Miami game. It turned out to be a perfect example. I guess some nights you get lucky, even after you get married.Thursday, February 02, 2006
Stars Need Not Apply ... or should they?
On the ESPN ticker this afternoon, I read that the contestants for the NBA Slam Dunk contest will be Andre Iguodala (76ers), Nate Robinson (Knicks), Josh Smith (Hawks), and Hakim Warrick (Grizzlies). These guys are all fantastic athletes. Iguodala is a regular on Sportscenter top 10 reels for his dunks. Robinson is listed at 5'9" and can jump out of the gym. Warrick had the best dunk I have ever seen from someone who was guarded in the post. Smith, well, he's the defending champion. Fortunately, they don't have to keep Chris "Birdman" Andersen away, he did that himself with his drug suspension.
However, where is the match-up of stars we had in the 80s with Michael "Air" Jordan and "The Human Highlight Film" Dominique Wilkins? Why not play out the contention between Kobe Bryant and Vince Carter [1] in the dunk contest? Or, King James vs. Carmelo? The NBA is a league built on stars, so why are they trying to pr! omote young, little known (to average sports fans) players for the marquee event on Saturday at All-Star Weekend. Ken Griffey Jr., Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, Miguel Tejada, Mark McGwire, David Ortiz, Sammy Sosa. MLB gets these guys to participate in the Home Run Derby.
Some people claim that the dunk contest is a relic that hasn't been interesting since the 80s. Apparently, those people did not tune in to see Vince Carter's back-to-back wins. The 360 windmill and forearms in the hoop, hanging on the rim by the elbows, were innovative. Perhaps, that's all Vince had and he didn't want to end up losing. Or, maybe, he thought he'd established himself as a star, so he didn't need to bother any more. So, the NBA needs to make it worth the players' while.
I know, they have prize money. I also know that it isn't enough, obviously. I'd dunk for $50-100K, but I can't imagine it's all that inviting for LBJ or Kobe. Up the ante. $5 million might be enou! gh to get some stars to come out. The dunk contest may be dying, but anything will wither under neglect. Give it a little fertilizer and water and watch it blossom!
In a follow-up, King James said he doesn't want to be known as a slam dunk contestant. Is Michael Jordan rembered as a slam dunk contestant? Dominique? Is Larry Bird remembered as a 3-pt shootout contestant? Is Barry Bonds thought of as a HR derby contestant? LBJ's comment was just another lame excuse for not competing in the contest. Apparently, the skills competition has more luster than the dunk contest, or maybe the expectations for LeBron won't be as high. James has been criticized for blending in at important times (end of game situations when he passes where Michael or Kobe would put up the shot), rather than putting himself out there to excell or fail. Perhaps, the dunk contest is just another misdirection LBJ pass.
[1] Bryant and Carter got into a little fracas after Bryant fouled Carter in a g! ame earlier this season. Then, after Bryant dumped 81 on the Raptors, Carter said it might be a bad example for kids because they might not appreciate playing as a team.
However, where is the match-up of stars we had in the 80s with Michael "Air" Jordan and "The Human Highlight Film" Dominique Wilkins? Why not play out the contention between Kobe Bryant and Vince Carter [1] in the dunk contest? Or, King James vs. Carmelo? The NBA is a league built on stars, so why are they trying to pr! omote young, little known (to average sports fans) players for the marquee event on Saturday at All-Star Weekend. Ken Griffey Jr., Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, Miguel Tejada, Mark McGwire, David Ortiz, Sammy Sosa. MLB gets these guys to participate in the Home Run Derby.
Some people claim that the dunk contest is a relic that hasn't been interesting since the 80s. Apparently, those people did not tune in to see Vince Carter's back-to-back wins. The 360 windmill and forearms in the hoop, hanging on the rim by the elbows, were innovative. Perhaps, that's all Vince had and he didn't want to end up losing. Or, maybe, he thought he'd established himself as a star, so he didn't need to bother any more. So, the NBA needs to make it worth the players' while.
I know, they have prize money. I also know that it isn't enough, obviously. I'd dunk for $50-100K, but I can't imagine it's all that inviting for LBJ or Kobe. Up the ante. $5 million might be enou! gh to get some stars to come out. The dunk contest may be dying, but anything will wither under neglect. Give it a little fertilizer and water and watch it blossom!
In a follow-up, King James said he doesn't want to be known as a slam dunk contestant. Is Michael Jordan rembered as a slam dunk contestant? Dominique? Is Larry Bird remembered as a 3-pt shootout contestant? Is Barry Bonds thought of as a HR derby contestant? LBJ's comment was just another lame excuse for not competing in the contest. Apparently, the skills competition has more luster than the dunk contest, or maybe the expectations for LeBron won't be as high. James has been criticized for blending in at important times (end of game situations when he passes where Michael or Kobe would put up the shot), rather than putting himself out there to excell or fail. Perhaps, the dunk contest is just another misdirection LBJ pass.
[1] Bryant and Carter got into a little fracas after Bryant fouled Carter in a g! ame earlier this season. Then, after Bryant dumped 81 on the Raptors, Carter said it might be a bad example for kids because they might not appreciate playing as a team.
Ray Guy is a Hall of Famer
Tonight on Outside the Lines, they debated the merits of punters. A couple Vikings Hall of Famers from the 60's and 70's, Eller and Krause, argue that punters aren't that special because anyone can punt a football, albeit not nearly as well as the punters for the professional football teams. There are a number of important elements that go into punting. Not only do you have to kick the ball a substantial distance, you have to kick the ball high into the air (so the coverage people can get into position to stop the return), get the ball off fairly quickly (so it doesn't get blocked), field snaps that aren't always perfect, and control the ball to pin the other team near the end zone.
Sure, I can punt a ball. However, I can also run, catch, throw, block, tackle, and kick. Kickers and punters are known as specialists, but there is a lot of specialization in football in general. Players don't play both ways anymore (Champ Bailey and Deion Sanders running a few p! ass routes doesn't really qualify, neither does a defensive lineman playing fullback in jumbo packages). Punt and kick returners are often utilized almost exclusively for those activities (Dante Hall isn't in the NFL to play WR, Mel Gray and Desmond Howard are classic examples from my childhood). Future Hall of Famer Deion Sanders was a cover guy, but not much of a tackler. There are 3rd down backs, short yardage backs, blocking tight ends, receiving tight ends, 3rd down pass rushing DE's, etc.
Now, I don't really care if Ray Guy gets into the Hall of Fame. And, I don't really know whether he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. However, punters are football players (that's why they wear the jerseys and helmets and go in the games every once in a while). Heck, Denver punter Todd Sauerbrun caused a fumble in the Denver v. New England playoff game this year. So, if Ray Guy redefined the punting position, it seems like maybe he's deserving of busting through! the doors in Canton.
Sure, I can punt a ball. However, I can also run, catch, throw, block, tackle, and kick. Kickers and punters are known as specialists, but there is a lot of specialization in football in general. Players don't play both ways anymore (Champ Bailey and Deion Sanders running a few p! ass routes doesn't really qualify, neither does a defensive lineman playing fullback in jumbo packages). Punt and kick returners are often utilized almost exclusively for those activities (Dante Hall isn't in the NFL to play WR, Mel Gray and Desmond Howard are classic examples from my childhood). Future Hall of Famer Deion Sanders was a cover guy, but not much of a tackler. There are 3rd down backs, short yardage backs, blocking tight ends, receiving tight ends, 3rd down pass rushing DE's, etc.
Now, I don't really care if Ray Guy gets into the Hall of Fame. And, I don't really know whether he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. However, punters are football players (that's why they wear the jerseys and helmets and go in the games every once in a while). Heck, Denver punter Todd Sauerbrun caused a fumble in the Denver v. New England playoff game this year. So, if Ray Guy redefined the punting position, it seems like maybe he's deserving of busting through! the doors in Canton.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
