Today Pat Reusse writes a column on a subject he's addressed before: without Bud Grant's 26-6-1 record against the Lions, Grant might not be a revered Hall of Fame football coach. Says Reusse:
"That's why the list of speakers for Grant's dinner on Tuesday should have Bill Ford as a late addition. He's been the owner of the Lions since 1964, and thus was very important in getting our guy Bud a plaque in Canton."
Reusse seems intent on demythologizing Grant, suggesting the lousy Lions helped make Grant a great coach (and this is not the first column in which he's suggested this theory).
Here's the problem with this logic. There's a reason why Grant dominated the Lions. Grant built and coached a superior football team, and the Lions were an inferior football team. That's why Grant's Vikings dominated the Lions. And that's why the Vikings won 11 division titles under Grant.
I suspect every Hall of Fame coach has one or two teams that his team dominated. That's reasonable: coaches become Hall of Famers for coaching superior teams, and superior teams are going to beat inferior teams much of the time. So it's not that the awful Lions pushed Bud Grant into the Hall of Fame: it's that Bud Grant was a great coach that built a very good team capable of dominating inferior opponents.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Vikings-Lions
Last night I dreamed the Vikings beat the Lions and we were all reveling in 2-0. Last night I also dreamed that the Vikings lost to the Lions and we were all miserable.
My unconscious is hedging its bets.
My unconscious is hedging its bets.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Belichick, PFT, and "Mistakes"
So regular readers of this blog probably realize that PFT (profootballtalk.com) tends to get on my nerves, yet I cannot stop checking the site. They do a great job of commenting on daily news in the world of the NFL, but along with these comments comes a smugness that they know how everything really is. Pacifist Viking has talked about their discussion of Tiki Barber, etc. But one thing that really annoyed me today was their discussion of Bill Belichick and his public statement that can be found here.
Specifically they get into the semantics of the word "mistake." They make a contention that a "mistake" implies that an action was not consistent with an individual's character. Now I believe I understand where they are coming from. A person could not claim that something like a "bookkeeping error" was a mistake if the person's character shows that they consistently were "fudging" the books in order to make the numbers look better, etc. In other words the creative accountants surrounding the Enron scandal were guilty under the law because it was not a "mistake" but rather it was a reflection of their lack of character in bookkepping. Under this understanding of "mistake" PFT is probably correct to be upset by Belichick's use of the word mistake. In their minds this action is consistent with his lack of character (moral uprightness) when it comes to coaching and competitiveness within the NFL. They are correct in these terms and Belichick could not escape punishment for his actions. But guess what neither him nor Michael Vick (who they also criticize for using the term mistake in his apology) were claiming the word "mistake" in terms of not being culpable for their actions. Neither Vick nor Belichick said "I made a mistake, I shouldn't have to be punished because it was a mistake."
Rather, both Belichick and Vick were admitting a "mistake" in different semantical terms. For them the use of "mistake" referred to "an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc." They were correct to use the term "mistake" in this way. Both of them made an error in action which was caused by poor reasoning or carelessness.
The problem with PFT is that their criticism is based upon a rigid understanding of the term mistake as only having one meaning in all situations. Both Vick and Belichick were not claiming that "mistake" meant they were not guilty because the action was out of character, rather they were both admitting that their reasoning or judgement in performing the action was faulty and that the action was wrong. It was a mistake.
I could go on to deconstruct their statement, "Folks, it wasn't a "mistake." A "mistake" is forgetting to ask the waitress to hold the mayo." Because really in terms of what they later say, that a mistake is an action out of character, they would have to first prove that the person forgetting to ask the waitress to hold the mayo was someone whose character included the quality of never forgetting something. But isn't it true that they are using "mistake" here in a different sense. I think so, but hey maybe I am wrong. Either way I was annoyed by the commentary of PFT.
Underlying all of this commentary by PFT is a position that they hold. They essentially claim that a person cannot be contrite or apologize if the action taken was within their character. Essentially they are claiming that character is a static thing and that outside influences or opinions cannot cause an individual to understand that they were wrong and their actions within their character were wrong. That seems plain absurd to me because I have seen plenty of people change over time and become "better" people after realizing their actions or thoughts were wrong.
Specifically they get into the semantics of the word "mistake." They make a contention that a "mistake" implies that an action was not consistent with an individual's character. Now I believe I understand where they are coming from. A person could not claim that something like a "bookkeeping error" was a mistake if the person's character shows that they consistently were "fudging" the books in order to make the numbers look better, etc. In other words the creative accountants surrounding the Enron scandal were guilty under the law because it was not a "mistake" but rather it was a reflection of their lack of character in bookkepping. Under this understanding of "mistake" PFT is probably correct to be upset by Belichick's use of the word mistake. In their minds this action is consistent with his lack of character (moral uprightness) when it comes to coaching and competitiveness within the NFL. They are correct in these terms and Belichick could not escape punishment for his actions. But guess what neither him nor Michael Vick (who they also criticize for using the term mistake in his apology) were claiming the word "mistake" in terms of not being culpable for their actions. Neither Vick nor Belichick said "I made a mistake, I shouldn't have to be punished because it was a mistake."
Rather, both Belichick and Vick were admitting a "mistake" in different semantical terms. For them the use of "mistake" referred to "an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc." They were correct to use the term "mistake" in this way. Both of them made an error in action which was caused by poor reasoning or carelessness.
The problem with PFT is that their criticism is based upon a rigid understanding of the term mistake as only having one meaning in all situations. Both Vick and Belichick were not claiming that "mistake" meant they were not guilty because the action was out of character, rather they were both admitting that their reasoning or judgement in performing the action was faulty and that the action was wrong. It was a mistake.
I could go on to deconstruct their statement, "Folks, it wasn't a "mistake." A "mistake" is forgetting to ask the waitress to hold the mayo." Because really in terms of what they later say, that a mistake is an action out of character, they would have to first prove that the person forgetting to ask the waitress to hold the mayo was someone whose character included the quality of never forgetting something. But isn't it true that they are using "mistake" here in a different sense. I think so, but hey maybe I am wrong. Either way I was annoyed by the commentary of PFT.
Underlying all of this commentary by PFT is a position that they hold. They essentially claim that a person cannot be contrite or apologize if the action taken was within their character. Essentially they are claiming that character is a static thing and that outside influences or opinions cannot cause an individual to understand that they were wrong and their actions within their character were wrong. That seems plain absurd to me because I have seen plenty of people change over time and become "better" people after realizing their actions or thoughts were wrong.
National Friday League, week two
Vikings v. Lions
I'm a bit afraid of this Lions team. I can see them throwing the ball 50 times and Calvin Johnson and Roy Williams each having 10 catches as the Vikes' young CBs Cedric Griffin and Marcus McCauley chase them all over Ford Field.
But then I look back to Jon Kitna's performances last season. In the two games versus the Vikings, Kitna threw 42 and 41 passes; in each game, he threw one TD and three INTs. It's Jon Kitna. The Vikings can pressure him, and if they do he'll make wacky turnovers happen.
Tarvaris Jackson on the road is slightly scary, but Adrian Peterson should be able to run all over this team. I really can't believe that the Vikings can lose to the Lions until I see it happen again (which it will someday, right? The Vikes can't beat this team every single time they play for the rest of my life, can they?).
Both teams must be approaching this as a winnable game. But one of these teams always beats the other one of these teams, and a lot of those games have been winnable for either team. I'm nervous because I have to be nervous for every Viking game, and this Lion team could have 400 yards passing. But if the Lions are throwing all the time, they're going to have turnovers, and if they try to run, they'll probably fail. I'm looking for the Vikings to run a lot and well against the Lions, for Tarvaris Jackson to get a chance to make plays, for the Viking defense to give up some yards passing, but to ultimately get sacks, force turnovers, and stop the Lions in the red zone.
Other Matchups
Colts-Titans
I don't care if the Titans win every game this season 3-0: I will give credit to demi-god Vince Young. Amazingly, I've never seen Young play in the NFL, and this only enhances his mythic status, as I can only imagine him running all over the field like some sort of pinball, bouncing off everything and chucking the ball around. Does he play defense and special teams, too? He might, I don't know. And now he takes his team (which has a for real running game and defense) against the Tecmo Colts. If I weren't watching the Vikings at noon, I'd want to watch this game. (correction: the Vikes play at 3:00, so I will be watching this game).
Chargers-Patriots
It's always fun when the Sunday night game is a massive fantasy interest game. Sure starts in this game include Brady, Moss, Maroney, Tomlinson, Gates. Probably starters include Rivers, both teams' kickers, and both teams' defenses. Everything should count.
Frank Gore
Frank Gore's mother has died (USA Today). Very sad. It sounds like his mother was a great person who raised a great person. Our condolences, Mr. Gore.
Weekend
Enjoy the weekend everybody. Except Lions, Packers, and Bears fans.
I'm a bit afraid of this Lions team. I can see them throwing the ball 50 times and Calvin Johnson and Roy Williams each having 10 catches as the Vikes' young CBs Cedric Griffin and Marcus McCauley chase them all over Ford Field.
But then I look back to Jon Kitna's performances last season. In the two games versus the Vikings, Kitna threw 42 and 41 passes; in each game, he threw one TD and three INTs. It's Jon Kitna. The Vikings can pressure him, and if they do he'll make wacky turnovers happen.
Tarvaris Jackson on the road is slightly scary, but Adrian Peterson should be able to run all over this team. I really can't believe that the Vikings can lose to the Lions until I see it happen again (which it will someday, right? The Vikes can't beat this team every single time they play for the rest of my life, can they?).
Both teams must be approaching this as a winnable game. But one of these teams always beats the other one of these teams, and a lot of those games have been winnable for either team. I'm nervous because I have to be nervous for every Viking game, and this Lion team could have 400 yards passing. But if the Lions are throwing all the time, they're going to have turnovers, and if they try to run, they'll probably fail. I'm looking for the Vikings to run a lot and well against the Lions, for Tarvaris Jackson to get a chance to make plays, for the Viking defense to give up some yards passing, but to ultimately get sacks, force turnovers, and stop the Lions in the red zone.
Other Matchups
Colts-Titans
I don't care if the Titans win every game this season 3-0: I will give credit to demi-god Vince Young. Amazingly, I've never seen Young play in the NFL, and this only enhances his mythic status, as I can only imagine him running all over the field like some sort of pinball, bouncing off everything and chucking the ball around. Does he play defense and special teams, too? He might, I don't know. And now he takes his team (which has a for real running game and defense) against the Tecmo Colts. If I weren't watching the Vikings at noon, I'd want to watch this game. (correction: the Vikes play at 3:00, so I will be watching this game).
Chargers-Patriots
It's always fun when the Sunday night game is a massive fantasy interest game. Sure starts in this game include Brady, Moss, Maroney, Tomlinson, Gates. Probably starters include Rivers, both teams' kickers, and both teams' defenses. Everything should count.
Frank Gore
Frank Gore's mother has died (USA Today). Very sad. It sounds like his mother was a great person who raised a great person. Our condolences, Mr. Gore.
Weekend
Enjoy the weekend everybody. Except Lions, Packers, and Bears fans.
Bill Belichick, Shakespearean Villain
Corruption of power is the most Shakespearean of themes. When we see corrupt leaders, we must again turn to Shakespeare, for he understood them better than anyone else (as he understood just about everything about humanity better than anyone else).
The Bard foresaw Bill Belichick, and named him Claudius.
Let us turn to Hamlet, that great masterwork of the English language, to get beneath all that Bill Belichick's fall from grace is. Belichick is a corrupt, paronoid, powerful man, like the villain of Hamlet, Claudius.
At the beginning of Hamlet, after his father's funeral Hamlet wishes to return to Wittenberg to study. Claudius doesn't let him:
For your intent
In going back to school in Wittenberg,
It is most retrograde to our desire,
And we beseech you bend you to remain
Here in the cheer and comfort of our eye,
Our chiefest courtier, cousin, and our son (I. ii. 112-117)
Think upon Belichick's treatment of Eric Mangini when the assistant coach wished to leave Belichick to become head coach of the Jets. It seems Mangini's move was "retrograde to [Belichick's] desire," and Belichick treated Mangini poorly for his decision. Like Claudius for Hamlet, Belichick doesn't entirely trust Mangini. Hamlet is clever and could bring down Claudius from the throne--he thus must be kept near so Claudius can monitor him. Belichick knew that Mangini could take him down from his throne, King of the AFC East. He didn't want to let him get away from his own watch.
Claudius is also madly paranoid. He sends Rosencratz and Guildenstern, those hapless victims of fate, to spy on Hamlet. He sends Ophelia to spy on Hamlet, perhaps dooming her. He sends Hamlet away to England to be executed. And in the final scene, Claudius wants to be so sure that Hamlet dies, he makes sure that not only are the swords used in the duel poisoned, but the wine that Hamlet might drink from is poisoned too (and while the Hamlet is killed, so are Laertes and Gertrude, ultimately leading to Claudius's own demise).
Consider Belichick's paranoia. His team was massively better than the Jets. the Patriots could easily have stomped all over the Jets. The Patriots will still be massively superior to the Jets the next time the two teams meet. There's no reason to cheat: he should have them beat anyway. Videotaping the Jets' coaching signals is akin to saying "The swords aren't enough: let's poison the wine, too." So paranoid in his attempts to destroy opposition is Belichick that he overdoes it, ultimately bringing himself down.
Claudius feels guilty for murdering Hamlet's father. He cannot, however, sincerely repent, for he knows he is still enjoying the spoils of his crime:
"Forgive me my foul murther?"
That cannot be, since I am still possess'd
Of those effects for which I did the murther:
My crown, mine own ambition, my queen. (III. iii. 52-55)
And now Belichick apologizes for cheating. But can he really repent when he still posesses the effects of his cheating: wins, prestige, success, power, money? Let Shakespeare judge.
And so Shakespeare gave us Belichick before Belichick: a leader paranoid of all who could undo him, a leader poisonously deceptive in achieving his own ends, a leader whose repentence cannot be sincere as he enjoys the spoils of his crime.
(Quotes are taken from The Riverside Anthology of Literature, ed. Douglas Hunt, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1988. See this post for the inspiration here).
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Fortifying the barricades
Signal to Noise implores sportswriters not to lazily apply "-gate" to the Belichick spying scandal.
Aaron Gleeman gives a hearty ripping to Jim Souhan for the poor quality of his columns (via Ballhype).
Thursday Blizzard
Bad Sportswriting
Lately I've felt like a pretentious, picky snob when I focus on analyzing sportswriting. So let me refresh and clarify the purpose of such analysis.
Sports reporters and columnists are paid, literally, to write. However, I find that very few seem to have much interest in the actual craft of writing. Furthermore, while there are a lot of places to read critiques of TV commentators and announcers, I haven't seen a lot of serious coverage of sportswriting. I'm not just talking about content--there are a lot of bloggers that will argue with specific ideas of writers. I'm talking about the craft of writing, about the ideas and arguments, yes, but also about support, development, syntax, and word choice. The real guts of writing, down to the details. And since I teach college composition, this is an area that I hope I can provide some insight. There are sports sites that know the law. There are sports sites that know numbers. I know writing.
But bloggers write for fun. Most bloggers aren't paid. That doesn't mean bloggers can't have standards for quality writing, but to me it means you can set your own standards. So when I read your blogs, I'm not looking for cliches, I'm not trying to critique your writing, and I'm not judging your grammar. If I want to argue with the content of blog posts, I do it (and if it's relevant to the argument, I might comment on sentence structure or word choice, but only to clarify or make an argument on the content). Paid sportswriters are different. They have jobs writing. I'm not even sure many of them think of themselves as writers, but if they don't they should, and if they do many of them are lousy at it. That's not true of all sportswriters, of course (whatever you wish to say about Bill Simmons, he cares about the quality of writing). But I hope it is still worth the analysis. So I apply knowledge of composition and literary theory to sportswriting. Sometimes people think my analysis doesn't work (I always wanted an anonymous commenter to call my work "oversensitive, extremist PC garbage"); sometimes, hopefully, it is illuminating.
Vikings v. Lions
Pat Williams on the Viking-Lion game: "We don't worry about the Lions [...] Basically, they have to worry about us. We're not going to change our game plan for what kind of scheme they got. They have to worry about our game plan" (Mark Craig, Star Tribune). Hell yes, Pat.
Viking Update on the rivalry: "The Vikes have won the last 10 meetings between the teams – the longest current winning streak of one team over another. But it gets worse for Lions fans. The Vikings have won 14 of the last 15 and 16 of the last 18 meetings dating back to 1998."
Other Links
Leave the Man Alone compares Chad Johnson and Terrell Owens.
Fanball's Jonathan Lupoch tells fantasy owners not to despair over Donovan McNabb's slow week one.
Cold, Hard Football Facts talks about the importance of big plays in football, and introduces the Big Play Index. Really good stuff.
Milk Was a Bad Choice looks ahead to our matchup in The Ghosts of Wayne Fontes' blogger fantasy league. Peyton Manning, Plaxico Burress, and the Viking Defense led my team to the league's high score for week one. Throw in a 7-1 start in the Hazelweird League (with only the Viking Defense as a common starter), and I had a happy fantasy week one. How about you?
Lately I've felt like a pretentious, picky snob when I focus on analyzing sportswriting. So let me refresh and clarify the purpose of such analysis.
Sports reporters and columnists are paid, literally, to write. However, I find that very few seem to have much interest in the actual craft of writing. Furthermore, while there are a lot of places to read critiques of TV commentators and announcers, I haven't seen a lot of serious coverage of sportswriting. I'm not just talking about content--there are a lot of bloggers that will argue with specific ideas of writers. I'm talking about the craft of writing, about the ideas and arguments, yes, but also about support, development, syntax, and word choice. The real guts of writing, down to the details. And since I teach college composition, this is an area that I hope I can provide some insight. There are sports sites that know the law. There are sports sites that know numbers. I know writing.
But bloggers write for fun. Most bloggers aren't paid. That doesn't mean bloggers can't have standards for quality writing, but to me it means you can set your own standards. So when I read your blogs, I'm not looking for cliches, I'm not trying to critique your writing, and I'm not judging your grammar. If I want to argue with the content of blog posts, I do it (and if it's relevant to the argument, I might comment on sentence structure or word choice, but only to clarify or make an argument on the content). Paid sportswriters are different. They have jobs writing. I'm not even sure many of them think of themselves as writers, but if they don't they should, and if they do many of them are lousy at it. That's not true of all sportswriters, of course (whatever you wish to say about Bill Simmons, he cares about the quality of writing). But I hope it is still worth the analysis. So I apply knowledge of composition and literary theory to sportswriting. Sometimes people think my analysis doesn't work (I always wanted an anonymous commenter to call my work "oversensitive, extremist PC garbage"); sometimes, hopefully, it is illuminating.
Vikings v. Lions
Pat Williams on the Viking-Lion game: "We don't worry about the Lions [...] Basically, they have to worry about us. We're not going to change our game plan for what kind of scheme they got. They have to worry about our game plan" (Mark Craig, Star Tribune). Hell yes, Pat.
Viking Update on the rivalry: "The Vikes have won the last 10 meetings between the teams – the longest current winning streak of one team over another. But it gets worse for Lions fans. The Vikings have won 14 of the last 15 and 16 of the last 18 meetings dating back to 1998."
Other Links
Leave the Man Alone compares Chad Johnson and Terrell Owens.
Fanball's Jonathan Lupoch tells fantasy owners not to despair over Donovan McNabb's slow week one.
Cold, Hard Football Facts talks about the importance of big plays in football, and introduces the Big Play Index. Really good stuff.
Milk Was a Bad Choice looks ahead to our matchup in The Ghosts of Wayne Fontes' blogger fantasy league. Peyton Manning, Plaxico Burress, and the Viking Defense led my team to the league's high score for week one. Throw in a 7-1 start in the Hazelweird League (with only the Viking Defense as a common starter), and I had a happy fantasy week one. How about you?
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Wednesday Blizzard
Week Two Sportswriting Prediction
Our week one pick was relatively successful; let's go on to week two.
I predict that at least one sportswriter will use the expression "at the end of the day" to refer to the record of either a 2-0 team or an 0-2 team.
Very likely, this figure of speech will be used to refer to an expected good team that has lost its first two games, or an expected bad team that won its first two games. An article about an 0-2 team will likely feature quotes about the losses, the struggles, the strength of the opponent, etc., but then the writer will say something to the effect of "But at the end of the day, team A is 0-2." On the reverse side, if, say, the Vikings beat the Lions, there might be a comment about how the Vikings have only managed to beat the Falcons and the Lions, but that "at the end of the day, the team is still 2-0."
This prediction is only correct if the expression "at the end of the day" is in reference to a team's 2-0 or 0-2 record; I am almost certain somebody will use "at the end of the day for something, and I'm just guessing what it will be. I also won't take credit for a figure of speech meaning the same thing, such as "the bottom line."
If the Patriots cheated
You can read about this anywhere: how about I link to MJD's DeBriefing.
From the moment the NFL installed microphones in the QB's helmets, I've watched NFL coaches cover their mouths with their play sheets when sending in the play call. They do this, I've been told, out of paranoia that they could reveal something, that it could show up on camera, that an opponent (of this game or a future game) might be able to read lips and discern something out of the team's play calls (according to Hashmarks, paranoia among NFL coaches has a long tradition).
So the idea of "stealing signals" is out there. The idea that coaches would do anything to gain a competitive advantage is out there, and the idea that coaches are paranoid and secretive lest an opposing coach gain a competitive advantage is out there. What's different here?
Of course at some level, stealing plays can become cheating (some Viking fans still believe the Giants were able to intercept the Viking play calls in that 41-0 debacle). And apparently, using technology to try steal signals is against the rules (though like Sports Law Blog says, it's difficult to access the official NFL rules; if you ever get ahold of a rule book, hang on to it). So while NFL teams are resourceful in attempting to gain any advantage possible, there still are clear limits to how far they are allowed to go. My feeling is that the punishment needs to match the extent of the espionage. If it was extensive (however the league might define that), then the punishment likely would be severe; if it was a somewhat superfluous addition to the gamesmanship that most certainly already goes on, then the punishment should not be so severe.
Vikings
Kevin Seifert writes about the composure of our hero, Tarvaris Jackson.
Sean Jensen writes about E.J. Henderson playing middle linebacker, lining up behind Kevin Williams and Pat Williams.
The Vikes play the Lions this week, and let me ask you this; at what stage of your life were you at the last time the Lions beat the Vikings? That was in 2001: the Vikes swept the Lions in '02, '03, '04, '05, and '06 (or, precisely for the entire Matt Millen era). Now, I'm concerned this week. The game is in Detroit. It would appear a 10 game winning streak among opponents is already statistically unlikely; pushing it to 11 may be a challenge. A lot of the games played during this 10 game winning streak were actually close games, some featuring fluky shenanigans (like a 2004 game, when a botched extra point after Detroit's seeming "tying" drive gave the Vikings a one-point win). And this Detroit team seems suited to play this Viking team (they're willing to throw the ball 40 times, spreading it out to talented WRs like Roy Williams and Calvin Johnson). I think the Vikings will be able to move the ball on the Lion defense, both on the ground and in the air. I also think the Viking defense will smother Detroit's running game, and force Jon Kitna into silly sacks and turnovers. Well, let's stop here: more on this game later in the week.
Other Links
Very good news for Kevin Everett: he can voluntarily move his limbs, which his doctor says means he'll likely walk again (AP article in SI).
Football Outsiders has a couple of interesting bits: Aaron Schatz shows scoring trends at different parts of the season, and Michael David Smith examines every play to evaluate Colts' rookie left tackle Tony Ugoh's performance.
The Serious Tip explains why Randy Moss really isn't controversial (via Moderately Cerebral Bias). I'm a long-time Randy Moss fan and apologist, but I really don't want to root for him catching passes from Tom Brady. As I wrote earlier, "Think about how you feel whenever you see a news story about oil companies making record profits: that's how I feel seeing Randy Moss boost Tom Brady's stat line." Certainly the former is more significant, but they both fit into a general worldview: a few parties get everything, and the rest of us are screwed. By the way, would it even shock you if some sportswriter or commentator tried to blame Randy Moss in some way for the Patriots' video tape scandal? You know there are people covering the sport that are just looking and waiting for a chance to rip Moss; I wouldn't be shocked if any of them use this story to rip Moss. They might not blame Moss, but they might try to connect Moss with it. I could see the story going something like this: "The Patriots have a reputation for winning the right way; however, all the Patriots really care about is winning in any way. When they signed Randy Moss, they showed to the world they don't care about character or respect for the game: they showed they just want to win. Taping the Jets' to steal their defensive signals is a lot like signing Randy Moss: it shows a cold-hearted, amoral desire to win at any cost. Even at the cost of their own character and dignity." Hey, if you see that story out there in the next few days, just think of me.
ADDENDUM: The NY Post's Steve Derby has already connected the two, suggesting that the signing of Moss and the espionage tactics point to Belichick's desperation to win another championship.
ADDENDUM 2: The Providence Journal's Jim Donaldson writes about the Patriots going "deeper into wayward path," their "squeaky-clean image" being "tarnished," how they "veered off the high road, on to the low." He gives examples. The first two involve the love lives of Belichick and Brady. the last two involve Rodney Harrison's HGH use and the current spying scandal. The middle example: "the acquisition of talented but troublesome wide receiver Randy Moss." So according to Donaldson, the Patriots have been tainted by what he sees as questionable romantic endeavors, by two incidents of cheating, and the mere presence of Randy Moss.
ADDENDUM 3: Check out this paragraph from The Boston Globe's John Vennochi:
"The Patriots still run out on the field as a team. But they are now like other franchises that pin their Super Bowl hopes on stars like Randy Moss. Winning is everything, and the team will pay any price to do so. They will also videotape another team's signals, to gain an edge in a football game."
Gosh, I didn't realize it would be this predictable.
Our week one pick was relatively successful; let's go on to week two.
I predict that at least one sportswriter will use the expression "at the end of the day" to refer to the record of either a 2-0 team or an 0-2 team.
Very likely, this figure of speech will be used to refer to an expected good team that has lost its first two games, or an expected bad team that won its first two games. An article about an 0-2 team will likely feature quotes about the losses, the struggles, the strength of the opponent, etc., but then the writer will say something to the effect of "But at the end of the day, team A is 0-2." On the reverse side, if, say, the Vikings beat the Lions, there might be a comment about how the Vikings have only managed to beat the Falcons and the Lions, but that "at the end of the day, the team is still 2-0."
This prediction is only correct if the expression "at the end of the day" is in reference to a team's 2-0 or 0-2 record; I am almost certain somebody will use "at the end of the day for something, and I'm just guessing what it will be. I also won't take credit for a figure of speech meaning the same thing, such as "the bottom line."
If the Patriots cheated
You can read about this anywhere: how about I link to MJD's DeBriefing.
From the moment the NFL installed microphones in the QB's helmets, I've watched NFL coaches cover their mouths with their play sheets when sending in the play call. They do this, I've been told, out of paranoia that they could reveal something, that it could show up on camera, that an opponent (of this game or a future game) might be able to read lips and discern something out of the team's play calls (according to Hashmarks, paranoia among NFL coaches has a long tradition).
So the idea of "stealing signals" is out there. The idea that coaches would do anything to gain a competitive advantage is out there, and the idea that coaches are paranoid and secretive lest an opposing coach gain a competitive advantage is out there. What's different here?
Of course at some level, stealing plays can become cheating (some Viking fans still believe the Giants were able to intercept the Viking play calls in that 41-0 debacle). And apparently, using technology to try steal signals is against the rules (though like Sports Law Blog says, it's difficult to access the official NFL rules; if you ever get ahold of a rule book, hang on to it). So while NFL teams are resourceful in attempting to gain any advantage possible, there still are clear limits to how far they are allowed to go. My feeling is that the punishment needs to match the extent of the espionage. If it was extensive (however the league might define that), then the punishment likely would be severe; if it was a somewhat superfluous addition to the gamesmanship that most certainly already goes on, then the punishment should not be so severe.
Vikings
Kevin Seifert writes about the composure of our hero, Tarvaris Jackson.
Sean Jensen writes about E.J. Henderson playing middle linebacker, lining up behind Kevin Williams and Pat Williams.
The Vikes play the Lions this week, and let me ask you this; at what stage of your life were you at the last time the Lions beat the Vikings? That was in 2001: the Vikes swept the Lions in '02, '03, '04, '05, and '06 (or, precisely for the entire Matt Millen era). Now, I'm concerned this week. The game is in Detroit. It would appear a 10 game winning streak among opponents is already statistically unlikely; pushing it to 11 may be a challenge. A lot of the games played during this 10 game winning streak were actually close games, some featuring fluky shenanigans (like a 2004 game, when a botched extra point after Detroit's seeming "tying" drive gave the Vikings a one-point win). And this Detroit team seems suited to play this Viking team (they're willing to throw the ball 40 times, spreading it out to talented WRs like Roy Williams and Calvin Johnson). I think the Vikings will be able to move the ball on the Lion defense, both on the ground and in the air. I also think the Viking defense will smother Detroit's running game, and force Jon Kitna into silly sacks and turnovers. Well, let's stop here: more on this game later in the week.
Other Links
Very good news for Kevin Everett: he can voluntarily move his limbs, which his doctor says means he'll likely walk again (AP article in SI).
Football Outsiders has a couple of interesting bits: Aaron Schatz shows scoring trends at different parts of the season, and Michael David Smith examines every play to evaluate Colts' rookie left tackle Tony Ugoh's performance.
The Serious Tip explains why Randy Moss really isn't controversial (via Moderately Cerebral Bias). I'm a long-time Randy Moss fan and apologist, but I really don't want to root for him catching passes from Tom Brady. As I wrote earlier, "Think about how you feel whenever you see a news story about oil companies making record profits: that's how I feel seeing Randy Moss boost Tom Brady's stat line." Certainly the former is more significant, but they both fit into a general worldview: a few parties get everything, and the rest of us are screwed. By the way, would it even shock you if some sportswriter or commentator tried to blame Randy Moss in some way for the Patriots' video tape scandal? You know there are people covering the sport that are just looking and waiting for a chance to rip Moss; I wouldn't be shocked if any of them use this story to rip Moss. They might not blame Moss, but they might try to connect Moss with it. I could see the story going something like this: "The Patriots have a reputation for winning the right way; however, all the Patriots really care about is winning in any way. When they signed Randy Moss, they showed to the world they don't care about character or respect for the game: they showed they just want to win. Taping the Jets' to steal their defensive signals is a lot like signing Randy Moss: it shows a cold-hearted, amoral desire to win at any cost. Even at the cost of their own character and dignity." Hey, if you see that story out there in the next few days, just think of me.
ADDENDUM: The NY Post's Steve Derby has already connected the two, suggesting that the signing of Moss and the espionage tactics point to Belichick's desperation to win another championship.
ADDENDUM 2: The Providence Journal's Jim Donaldson writes about the Patriots going "deeper into wayward path," their "squeaky-clean image" being "tarnished," how they "veered off the high road, on to the low." He gives examples. The first two involve the love lives of Belichick and Brady. the last two involve Rodney Harrison's HGH use and the current spying scandal. The middle example: "the acquisition of talented but troublesome wide receiver Randy Moss." So according to Donaldson, the Patriots have been tainted by what he sees as questionable romantic endeavors, by two incidents of cheating, and the mere presence of Randy Moss.
ADDENDUM 3: Check out this paragraph from The Boston Globe's John Vennochi:
"The Patriots still run out on the field as a team. But they are now like other franchises that pin their Super Bowl hopes on stars like Randy Moss. Winning is everything, and the team will pay any price to do so. They will also videotape another team's signals, to gain an edge in a football game."
Gosh, I didn't realize it would be this predictable.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
"What a difference a year makes": the results
Last week I predicted that at least three sportswriters would use the expression "what a difference a year makes" to describe the first week of NFL action. Here are the results.
I only found one writer that used the exact phrase "what a difference a year makes." The Boston Herald's Tom Massarotti wrote "What a difference a year makes" in comparing Tom Brady's 2007 week one performance to his 2006 week one performance.
But don't go calling my prediction wrong yet.
The Boston Globe's Mike Reiss, writing about the same game as Massarotti, wrote "But what a difference a year - and a player such as Randy Moss - makes."
Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Clare Farnsworth wrote that Nate Burleson "will get his opportunity to show what a difference a year can make."
The Sports Network's Shawn Clark wrote of Jacksonville's defense, "but what a difference a few months off make."
I hope you'll give me credit for the variations.
Let me offer you one further variation: Fanhouse's Ryan Wilson wrote of the Steelers' improved special teams, "What a difference an off-season of tedious, over-the-top special-teams drills can make." This is a variation of the same figure of speech, but used effectively: Wilson makes a statement about the efforts the team made to improve, suggesting that it is not merely the passage of time that changes things, but what you do with the time. It's not a dead phrase, but a pointed one.
I only found one writer that used the exact phrase "what a difference a year makes." The Boston Herald's Tom Massarotti wrote "What a difference a year makes" in comparing Tom Brady's 2007 week one performance to his 2006 week one performance.
But don't go calling my prediction wrong yet.
The Boston Globe's Mike Reiss, writing about the same game as Massarotti, wrote "But what a difference a year - and a player such as Randy Moss - makes."
Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Clare Farnsworth wrote that Nate Burleson "will get his opportunity to show what a difference a year can make."
The Sports Network's Shawn Clark wrote of Jacksonville's defense, "but what a difference a few months off make."
I hope you'll give me credit for the variations.
Let me offer you one further variation: Fanhouse's Ryan Wilson wrote of the Steelers' improved special teams, "What a difference an off-season of tedious, over-the-top special-teams drills can make." This is a variation of the same figure of speech, but used effectively: Wilson makes a statement about the efforts the team made to improve, suggesting that it is not merely the passage of time that changes things, but what you do with the time. It's not a dead phrase, but a pointed one.
Vikings are a Top Four Team (enjoy it now).
Football Outsiders has posted the Week One VOA rankings. In a few weeks it will be DVOA rankings, meaning that the numbers are adjusted for the strength of the opponent. That's important to keep in mind.
Still, the Vikings currently rank 4th in total team VOA, helped by a -41.2% defensive VOA (on defense, a negative number is good). Interestingly enough, though the offense scored just 10 points and failed to reach the red zone, the offensive performance was above average (10.9% above average). Football Outsiders measures a team's productivity for each play, so the ability to move the ball effectively according to down and distance means more than points or total yards.
Again, these numbers haven't been adjusted for the strength of the opponent. But it's still an encouraging sign that both the offense and defense make the team look good here.
Still, the Vikings currently rank 4th in total team VOA, helped by a -41.2% defensive VOA (on defense, a negative number is good). Interestingly enough, though the offense scored just 10 points and failed to reach the red zone, the offensive performance was above average (10.9% above average). Football Outsiders measures a team's productivity for each play, so the ability to move the ball effectively according to down and distance means more than points or total yards.
Again, these numbers haven't been adjusted for the strength of the opponent. But it's still an encouraging sign that both the offense and defense make the team look good here.
Monday, September 10, 2007
"We're not men. We're children."
In the SNL sketch featuring Tracy Morgan as Fat Albert in the real life documentary, after Fat Albert talks about one of his heart attacks, he says, "This is my life? This is my life?"
In Seinfeld, when George is talking about feeling like he had a haircut when he didn't, shouting "I'm all itchy back here!," Jerry groans and explodes into the "What is this? What are we doing? What in God's name are we doing? Our lives! What are we doing with our lives!" tirade that gets George engaged.
And now I'm sitting here following a football game on NFL.com's Game Center, rooting for people not to score to help my fantasy team.
I'm having my "What is this? What am I doing? This is my life? This is my life?" moment. There's got to be something more than this. Watching these scores feels like playing some virtual reality role playing game where everything sucks.
On a slightly related note, while following this game I'm trying to clean up the completely out of control links section of this site. I've got a new policy: if a site doesn't update in a month, it gets removed from the links (unless there's some specified reason for the hiatus, like taking summer off). Sorry, everybody--I'm just trying to put it into some order that I can make sense of. I'll keep these hiatus sites in my bookmarks, and if I see they've started updating again, I'll add them back in (and I would like that very much). I'm always adding new sites, so I need to keep some sense of order, and maintain only active sites in the links. The links section is always in flux, usually for no reason, so I thought I'd at least give some reason here.
In Seinfeld, when George is talking about feeling like he had a haircut when he didn't, shouting "I'm all itchy back here!," Jerry groans and explodes into the "What is this? What are we doing? What in God's name are we doing? Our lives! What are we doing with our lives!" tirade that gets George engaged.
And now I'm sitting here following a football game on NFL.com's Game Center, rooting for people not to score to help my fantasy team.
I'm having my "What is this? What am I doing? This is my life? This is my life?" moment. There's got to be something more than this. Watching these scores feels like playing some virtual reality role playing game where everything sucks.
On a slightly related note, while following this game I'm trying to clean up the completely out of control links section of this site. I've got a new policy: if a site doesn't update in a month, it gets removed from the links (unless there's some specified reason for the hiatus, like taking summer off). Sorry, everybody--I'm just trying to put it into some order that I can make sense of. I'll keep these hiatus sites in my bookmarks, and if I see they've started updating again, I'll add them back in (and I would like that very much). I'm always adding new sites, so I need to keep some sense of order, and maintain only active sites in the links. The links section is always in flux, usually for no reason, so I thought I'd at least give some reason here.
Sampling the Viking Reviews: win over Atlanta
Here's another Sunday night/Monday morning feature we'll try to do throughout the season. I post my thoughts on the Viking game (here), my thoughts on the day of football in general (here), and now I provide some links to various commentary on the Vikings available at the time of posting. I'll also use this chance to add in some additional comments of my own on the Vikes.
Productivity from 10 recent draft picks, big impacts from 7
It's amazing how much 2006 and 2007 Viking draft picks contributed to the victory. The first five draft picks of both the 2006 and 2007 drafts played in this game, several of them starting and making major impacts. These players are Chad Greenway, Cedric Griffin, Ryan Cook, Tarvaris Jackson, and Ray Edwards from 2006, and Adrian Peterson, Sidney Rice, Marcus McCauley, Brian Robison, and Aundrae Allison in 2007. Greenway, Griffin, Cook, Jackson, and Edwards started; Peterson, McCauley, and Robison played a lot and added critical contributions. It's really encouraging to see the Viking draft picks so productive so soon--it seems to me the team is building in the right direction.
Reviews
The Vikings won, so Vikes Geek uses the opportunity to criticize Brad Childress, featuring a questionable inference (the assumption that Childress was “whining” and "bitched," when really he gave a mild answer in his typical even-keel monotone) and specious speculation (VG makes silly and highly unlikely guesses as to Childress's thoughts, criticizing him less for what he says and does, and more for how VG imagines him to be).
It's hard for Patrick Reusse to write about the Vikes without sounding vaguely insulting of "Purple zealots."
Sid Hartman talks to various people about Adrian Peterson.
Kevin Seifert has a good article about the game.
Sean Jensen writes about Adrian Peterson's dad watching the game.
Don Seeholzer writes about the call on the Adrian Peterson 60 yard catch and run.
Here's the Vikings.com feature article on the game.
Don Banks says "If we're not looking at the 2007 Offensive rookie of the year in Peterson, I'm going to be stunned."
Finally, you can read detailed reactions to the game at several blogs, including The Ragnarok, Vikings War Cry, Grant's Tomb, Vikings Countdown, The Viking Age, and Fanhouse.
Productivity from 10 recent draft picks, big impacts from 7
It's amazing how much 2006 and 2007 Viking draft picks contributed to the victory. The first five draft picks of both the 2006 and 2007 drafts played in this game, several of them starting and making major impacts. These players are Chad Greenway, Cedric Griffin, Ryan Cook, Tarvaris Jackson, and Ray Edwards from 2006, and Adrian Peterson, Sidney Rice, Marcus McCauley, Brian Robison, and Aundrae Allison in 2007. Greenway, Griffin, Cook, Jackson, and Edwards started; Peterson, McCauley, and Robison played a lot and added critical contributions. It's really encouraging to see the Viking draft picks so productive so soon--it seems to me the team is building in the right direction.
Reviews
The Vikings won, so Vikes Geek uses the opportunity to criticize Brad Childress, featuring a questionable inference (the assumption that Childress was “whining” and "bitched," when really he gave a mild answer in his typical even-keel monotone) and specious speculation (VG makes silly and highly unlikely guesses as to Childress's thoughts, criticizing him less for what he says and does, and more for how VG imagines him to be).
It's hard for Patrick Reusse to write about the Vikes without sounding vaguely insulting of "Purple zealots."
Sid Hartman talks to various people about Adrian Peterson.
Kevin Seifert has a good article about the game.
Sean Jensen writes about Adrian Peterson's dad watching the game.
Don Seeholzer writes about the call on the Adrian Peterson 60 yard catch and run.
Here's the Vikings.com feature article on the game.
Don Banks says "If we're not looking at the 2007 Offensive rookie of the year in Peterson, I'm going to be stunned."
Finally, you can read detailed reactions to the game at several blogs, including The Ragnarok, Vikings War Cry, Grant's Tomb, Vikings Countdown, The Viking Age, and Fanhouse.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
On the Couch, week one
My thoughts on the Viking game are below at "Trailing Clouds of Heaven: Vikings 24, Falcons 3." "On the Couch" features various thoughts on all the other Sunday games.
Week One NFL Scores (at NFL.com)
Kevin Everett
Obviously this is the most important story of the day is Kevin Everett. We hope and pray that his is alright.
Deep Passes
I started forming my ideas about football while playing Tecmo Super Bowl in junior high; during these games, I fell in love with the deep bomb, and I always wanted my WRs to average 50 yards per catch. Ever since, I love watching the long bomb more than anything else.
And Sunday gave us some beauties. Jake Delhomme to Steve Smith and Eli Manning to Plaxico Burress were particularly fun. And then there was Tom Brady to Randy Moss...
Randy!
This off-season, I was just too relieved that Randy Moss wasn't joining the Packers to care where he did go. But now I see the problem. I'm happy that Moss appears to be re-establishing his greatness; I'm unhappy that he's helping this decade's dynasty in the process. Now I'm just sad. Boston fans have already had too much this decade: three Super Bowl wins, a World Series Win, now they're getting Kevin Garnett from us, AND they get to experience Randy Moss?
Watching one fanbase get this much pleasure in such a short timespan just depresses me. There's a reason that while I abhor violence, I still smile when I think of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette getting their royal heads cut off. We're used to seeing the rich getting richer, the strong and powerful staying strong and powerful, the rulers staying as rulers. Think about how you feel whenever you see a news story about oil companies making record profits: that's how I feel seeing Randy Moss boost Tom Brady's stat line. Fans in Boston pretty much get Christmas, New Year's Eve, and the Fourth of July all wrapped into one every day, while fans in places like Minnesota, Buffalo, and Cleveland live out our squalid lives. That's why I like reading about royal beheadings: we get to see the powerful win all the time, and I like to be reminded that sometimes, something else happens. Perhaps someday the metaphorical guillotine can fall, and someplace like Minnesota can start a reign of sports terror. So nuts to you, Boston sports fans. Nuts to you.
(Oh, there's also a reason I hated that atrocious movie. Several, actually).
Romo-erotic is Real
Dallas sure can pour on the points, and they certainly needed to tonight--when you give up 35 points, the 45 points you score certainly isn't running it up. And Tony Romo really looks like a great NFL quarterback (and he has a ton of talent around him to work with). I keep thinking I'm looking at Troy Aikman; Romo is more mobile, but he has a similar build, release, and uniform number, so that my sub-conscious keeps telling me I'm seeing Aikman.
The Packers beat the Eagles
I'm never as happy as I could be when the Packers win. When Brett Favre retires, or when the Vikings win a Super Bowl (whichever comes first, and honestly, it could be either), perhaps I'll be able to set aside that hatred and just be.
It seems like a bit of a fluky victory, as two muffed punts led to 10 Packer points. But it's still an impressive win, featuring good defense and the capitalization of opponent's errors. I'm still calling Philadelphia the best team in the NFC.
The Titans beat the Jaguars
Tennessee had an impressive road victory against a team that went into the season featuring a dominating defense and a dominating running game. The Titans outrushed the Jaguars 282 yards to 72 yards.
Enjoy Monday, everybody.
Week One NFL Scores (at NFL.com)
Kevin Everett
Obviously this is the most important story of the day is Kevin Everett. We hope and pray that his is alright.
Deep Passes
I started forming my ideas about football while playing Tecmo Super Bowl in junior high; during these games, I fell in love with the deep bomb, and I always wanted my WRs to average 50 yards per catch. Ever since, I love watching the long bomb more than anything else.
And Sunday gave us some beauties. Jake Delhomme to Steve Smith and Eli Manning to Plaxico Burress were particularly fun. And then there was Tom Brady to Randy Moss...
Randy!
This off-season, I was just too relieved that Randy Moss wasn't joining the Packers to care where he did go. But now I see the problem. I'm happy that Moss appears to be re-establishing his greatness; I'm unhappy that he's helping this decade's dynasty in the process. Now I'm just sad. Boston fans have already had too much this decade: three Super Bowl wins, a World Series Win, now they're getting Kevin Garnett from us, AND they get to experience Randy Moss?
Watching one fanbase get this much pleasure in such a short timespan just depresses me. There's a reason that while I abhor violence, I still smile when I think of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette getting their royal heads cut off. We're used to seeing the rich getting richer, the strong and powerful staying strong and powerful, the rulers staying as rulers. Think about how you feel whenever you see a news story about oil companies making record profits: that's how I feel seeing Randy Moss boost Tom Brady's stat line. Fans in Boston pretty much get Christmas, New Year's Eve, and the Fourth of July all wrapped into one every day, while fans in places like Minnesota, Buffalo, and Cleveland live out our squalid lives. That's why I like reading about royal beheadings: we get to see the powerful win all the time, and I like to be reminded that sometimes, something else happens. Perhaps someday the metaphorical guillotine can fall, and someplace like Minnesota can start a reign of sports terror. So nuts to you, Boston sports fans. Nuts to you.
(Oh, there's also a reason I hated that atrocious movie. Several, actually).
Romo-erotic is Real
Dallas sure can pour on the points, and they certainly needed to tonight--when you give up 35 points, the 45 points you score certainly isn't running it up. And Tony Romo really looks like a great NFL quarterback (and he has a ton of talent around him to work with). I keep thinking I'm looking at Troy Aikman; Romo is more mobile, but he has a similar build, release, and uniform number, so that my sub-conscious keeps telling me I'm seeing Aikman.
The Packers beat the Eagles
I'm never as happy as I could be when the Packers win. When Brett Favre retires, or when the Vikings win a Super Bowl (whichever comes first, and honestly, it could be either), perhaps I'll be able to set aside that hatred and just be.
It seems like a bit of a fluky victory, as two muffed punts led to 10 Packer points. But it's still an impressive win, featuring good defense and the capitalization of opponent's errors. I'm still calling Philadelphia the best team in the NFC.
The Titans beat the Jaguars
Tennessee had an impressive road victory against a team that went into the season featuring a dominating defense and a dominating running game. The Titans outrushed the Jaguars 282 yards to 72 yards.
Enjoy Monday, everybody.
Trailing Clouds of Heaven: Vikings 24, Falcons 3
Vikings-Falcons Box Score (NFL.com)
Adrian Peterson: most explosive Viking since Randy Moss
Nearly every time Peterson touched the ball, you could see the incredible talent. He was tough running through the middle, hitting defenders and getting 4-5 yard gains. He showed speed and moves on the edges. He had good blocking today, but on many of his runs you could see that the first few yards were set up with great blocking, and the next few yards were the result of Peterson's strength and quickness. His 60 yard TD reception showed the big-play ability he has; on an offense that still appears lacking in consistent playmakers, Peterson is the man that can scare defenses. I feel a bit like I felt after Randy Moss's first game: we have somebody special here.
The 60 yard TD reception
It's 3rd and 5 in the fourth quarter, and the Vikes are hanging on to a 10-3 lead. They call a pass and there's a quick pass rush. Jackson makes the quick throw to Peterson in the flat. I see the ball bounce around; it looks like it's dropped. But Peterson gets ahold of the ball and keeps running. There are blockers and space; it looks like he can get the first down. He runs, and avoids a Falcon, and gets a very good block. And suddenly, his speed shifts, and he's running right toward the endzone. And there are no Falcons there following him, only Vikings. The stadium is roaring and he hits the endzone. The game is essentially clinched, and Peterson has revealed himself to Viking fans. And we all cheer, knowing we have a star on offense again.
Defense!
Defensive battles can be very fun to watch, particularly when it's your favorite team dominating defensively. Last season a pass rush was the biggest defensive weakness; today the Vikings sacked Joey Harrington six times (6! And Brian Robison looked really impressive, getting two of them). E. J. Henderson played phenomenally at middle linebacker. Kevin Williams showed his remarkable athleticism: he's a big defensive tackle that can intercept a pass and run it back for a 54 yard TD. The Viking run defense showed some weaknesses on the edges, but for the most part stuffed the Atlanta rushing attack. They gave up more 3rd down pass completions than I like to see, but overall were very effective stopping the passing game. They gave up just 3 points. We know the Falcon offense was not a strong opponent; still, this was an overall superb defensive effort.
Our hero, Tarvaris Jackson
First, the bad: he made one bad decision (his interception was thrown behind a receiver, in the middle of the field, with a lot of defenders around him), and he was inaccurate on a few deeper passes (mostly overthrows). But he also made some good decisions. He seemed comfortable handling a pass rush, getting rid of the ball quickly. There were times you could see his head moving, scanning his progressions. He showed patience on his 28 yard completion to Wade (Williamson went deep taking coverage with him, and Jackson waited for Wade to get to the now open space). He was mobile, allowing the team to call some rollouts, which generally led to easy completion opportunities. Frankly, I'm in a bit of a blind panic every time the Vikes call a pass play; I'm just not comfortable with Jackson yet. He's still inexperienced. But he showed signs of knowing what was going on out there, which is of course encouraging, and he showed ability. An O.K. first outing--he'll be expected to make more plays, and he'll need to make more accurate throws, if the Vikings are going to win games this year. I'm slightly encouraged.
Playcalling
The Vikings showed some versatility in the offensive game plan. They moved Jackson out of the pocket a lot. They took a just few shots downfield. They ran at all areas: left, right, middle, some nifty outside running plays. They even ran a slightly maddening reverse that worked out alright. There was variety in the pass and run plays. The playcalling was relatively basic, but it also wasn't remotely predicable. I also found this encouraging.
Overall
The day belonged to the Minnesota defense, and to Adrian Peterson. A home win is a good start, but of course the Vikes will be facing tougher opponents this season. But now we can enjoy the week. Smile, Viking fans: you need it.
Adrian Peterson: most explosive Viking since Randy Moss
Nearly every time Peterson touched the ball, you could see the incredible talent. He was tough running through the middle, hitting defenders and getting 4-5 yard gains. He showed speed and moves on the edges. He had good blocking today, but on many of his runs you could see that the first few yards were set up with great blocking, and the next few yards were the result of Peterson's strength and quickness. His 60 yard TD reception showed the big-play ability he has; on an offense that still appears lacking in consistent playmakers, Peterson is the man that can scare defenses. I feel a bit like I felt after Randy Moss's first game: we have somebody special here.
The 60 yard TD reception
It's 3rd and 5 in the fourth quarter, and the Vikes are hanging on to a 10-3 lead. They call a pass and there's a quick pass rush. Jackson makes the quick throw to Peterson in the flat. I see the ball bounce around; it looks like it's dropped. But Peterson gets ahold of the ball and keeps running. There are blockers and space; it looks like he can get the first down. He runs, and avoids a Falcon, and gets a very good block. And suddenly, his speed shifts, and he's running right toward the endzone. And there are no Falcons there following him, only Vikings. The stadium is roaring and he hits the endzone. The game is essentially clinched, and Peterson has revealed himself to Viking fans. And we all cheer, knowing we have a star on offense again.
Defense!
Defensive battles can be very fun to watch, particularly when it's your favorite team dominating defensively. Last season a pass rush was the biggest defensive weakness; today the Vikings sacked Joey Harrington six times (6! And Brian Robison looked really impressive, getting two of them). E. J. Henderson played phenomenally at middle linebacker. Kevin Williams showed his remarkable athleticism: he's a big defensive tackle that can intercept a pass and run it back for a 54 yard TD. The Viking run defense showed some weaknesses on the edges, but for the most part stuffed the Atlanta rushing attack. They gave up more 3rd down pass completions than I like to see, but overall were very effective stopping the passing game. They gave up just 3 points. We know the Falcon offense was not a strong opponent; still, this was an overall superb defensive effort.
Our hero, Tarvaris Jackson
First, the bad: he made one bad decision (his interception was thrown behind a receiver, in the middle of the field, with a lot of defenders around him), and he was inaccurate on a few deeper passes (mostly overthrows). But he also made some good decisions. He seemed comfortable handling a pass rush, getting rid of the ball quickly. There were times you could see his head moving, scanning his progressions. He showed patience on his 28 yard completion to Wade (Williamson went deep taking coverage with him, and Jackson waited for Wade to get to the now open space). He was mobile, allowing the team to call some rollouts, which generally led to easy completion opportunities. Frankly, I'm in a bit of a blind panic every time the Vikes call a pass play; I'm just not comfortable with Jackson yet. He's still inexperienced. But he showed signs of knowing what was going on out there, which is of course encouraging, and he showed ability. An O.K. first outing--he'll be expected to make more plays, and he'll need to make more accurate throws, if the Vikings are going to win games this year. I'm slightly encouraged.
Playcalling
The Vikings showed some versatility in the offensive game plan. They moved Jackson out of the pocket a lot. They took a just few shots downfield. They ran at all areas: left, right, middle, some nifty outside running plays. They even ran a slightly maddening reverse that worked out alright. There was variety in the pass and run plays. The playcalling was relatively basic, but it also wasn't remotely predicable. I also found this encouraging.
Overall
The day belonged to the Minnesota defense, and to Adrian Peterson. A home win is a good start, but of course the Vikes will be facing tougher opponents this season. But now we can enjoy the week. Smile, Viking fans: you need it.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
The Purple Wallpaper
We dig you, Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Our wallpaper is purple. It sticks to our clothes, clings to our fingers. It's very purpleness seeps about us like a fog. It too has its own smell, the smell of purple. We stare at this purple wallpaper, trying to figure out the mysterious pattern, trying to free the championshipless prisoner trapped behind it. We sometimes find ourselves creeping about it, rubbing our shoulders against it, lost to obsession and insanity and partly knowing it.
Your wallpaper story is better than ours. Your story has got those feminist themes (the controlled wife, the suppression of the female creative impulse) and the exploration of the inability of the society and doctors of your time to grasp the meaning of depression. Heavy stuff. You're story is also a haunted and terrifying story. And that's where you might like our story. Our purple wallpaper story is also haunted. Terrifying, sometimes.
Now we go into the room with the purple wallpaper. We'll try to come out in a few months (but of course the smell of purple has gotten into our clothes, the stain of the wallpaper is in our skin--even when we leave the room it will follow us). But now is the time to fixate our gazes on that purple wallpaper. We're locked in. The windows are barred and we've thrown the key out into the garden. You best not bust the door down; you might not like what you see.
Go Vikings!
Your wallpaper story is better than ours. Your story has got those feminist themes (the controlled wife, the suppression of the female creative impulse) and the exploration of the inability of the society and doctors of your time to grasp the meaning of depression. Heavy stuff. You're story is also a haunted and terrifying story. And that's where you might like our story. Our purple wallpaper story is also haunted. Terrifying, sometimes.
Now we go into the room with the purple wallpaper. We'll try to come out in a few months (but of course the smell of purple has gotten into our clothes, the stain of the wallpaper is in our skin--even when we leave the room it will follow us). But now is the time to fixate our gazes on that purple wallpaper. We're locked in. The windows are barred and we've thrown the key out into the garden. You best not bust the door down; you might not like what you see.
Go Vikings!
Friday, September 07, 2007
Sportswriting Bits
Why are we watching?
Don Banks suggests that we don't pay terribly much attention when Brett Favre pursues Dan Marino's all-time touchdown record:
"I'm only going to make this point once and then I'll move on: Starting with the Packers home game against Philadelphia on Sunday, can we please not treat Brett Favre's pursuit of Dan Marino's career record for touchdown passes this season like it's some magical milestone that deserves our rapt attention? Most NFL fans don't even know the number of TD passes that Marino threw (420), or can recall whose record Marino broke (I must admit, I'd have to Google it to find out).
"It's an accomplishment of distinction to be sure. But we tend to over-do everything that involves Favre and have for many years now."
Banks is trying to argue that the media overhypes Favre, but to do so he makes a specious argument. He claims that we shouldn't treat this all-time NFL record "like it's some magical milestone that deserves our rapt attention." I don't quite understand it. I watch football to see great individual accomplishments. Favre would be breaking an all-time record: if he passes Marino, he'll have thrown more TD passes than anybody in the history of the NFL. That's deserving of our attention. Banks says that since "most NFL fans" don't know much about the record, we shouldn't pay attention; I suppose you could argue that "most NFL fans" don't know the names of a lot of offensive linemen, but that doesn't make them insignificant to the game. To the extent that football is worth watching, it's worthing paying attention to, and praising, major accomplishments like an all-time record.
It's not as if the media would be hyping the record just because it is Favre: when Dan Marino was breaking all the career marks in 1995, it was a very big news story that got a lot of coverage. And that's as it should be (I'm surprised that Banks, paid to cover the NFL, doesn't know that it was Fran Tarkenton's record of 346 TDs that Marino broke then, or that Tarkenton passed Johnny Unitas' record of 290. That's from the top of my head. Let's check. Whoops, 342 for Tarkenton). We paid attention when Marino broke Tarkenton's records, just as we paid attention when Emmitt Smith broke Walter Payton's numbers. Just because the number itself doesn't have the significance that a baseball record has doesn't mean that we shouldn't give it attention. I'm actually surprised at how little I've read about Favre's pursuit of Marino's record, considering how much I heard about Marino's pursuit in 1995.
We watch the sport: to the extent that a game is worth our "rapt attention" at all, a player achieving a career accomplishment that nobody else has ever done certainly deserves our attention.
Perhaps we need more
The Straw Man is a logical fallacy: a person using this fallacy doesn't argue against an actual opponent, but distorts an opponent's argument, or even makes up a different argument, and argues against that.
Patrick Reusse appears guilty of a similar tactic. He says that last season
"The Internet responders and callers to talk shows were nearly unanimous in the belief that the 2006 Vikings would top the 9-7 of the previous season."
And that this season,
"You can read and hear predictions of four and five victories from the same Internet and talk-show crowds that foresaw the Vikings sliding past the Chicago Bears in the NFC North a year ago."
That's all fine, but Reusse isn't actually identifying anybody. Were "Internet responders" "unanimous" last season? Are people with pessimistic predictions this season "the same Internet and talk-show crowds"? You'll find a plethora of viewpoints on the internet; I'm not sure there's unanimity, last season or this season, about how the Vikings will do.
I'd like it a lot better if Reusse actually identified who he was arguing against; it's much easier to argue against a viewpoint that you made up for the sake of arguing against, than it is to actually address specific claims made by an opponent (I've criticized Reusse before for making up Viking fan quotes and criticizing Viking fans for them). Reusse is probably addressing a consensus, but he's framing that consensus as he wants to in order to disagree with it as he wants to.
Perhaps there's a place for that: several times I've commented on this site about how many people are predicting the Vikings for a fourth place finish in the NFC North. I could easily provide a bunch of links to prove this, but I haven't deemed it necessary. Though if I'm going to argue against somebody's reasons for thinking the Vikings will suck this year, I won't make up those reasons to argue against (a "straw man")--I'll argue against what that person is actually saying.
Politics and Sports
Mike Florio at Pro Football Talk comments on Matt Hasselbeck alienating some fans by revealing his political views. He concludes that "Football, politics don't mix," and argues that
"The fact is that any effort to blend politics with sports is a mistake. People look to sports as a diversion, and they don't want to hear the political views of folks who have a platform merely because they can run fast and/or throw a ball far -- especially when those political views conflict with their own.
"There's no way for any NFL figure to be openly political without polarizing the paying customers. Thus, we think all players and coaches and league officials and journalists would be wise to keep their politics to themselves while occupying the public spotlight that is available to them only because of sports. "
I both disagree and agree. I tend to agree with Dave Zirin that politics is always in the subtext of sports (it reminds me of graduate school discussions on politics in literature and literary studies--eventually you have to reach the conclusion that literature and the study of literature is, at some level, political). We need not see sports as a "diversion"--we can address the social and political reality of sports. Furthermore, athletes have a First Amendment right to express their political beliefs, and they may feel a moral obligation to use "the public spotlight that is available to them" in order to advocate.
However, I agree with Florio's second paragraph here. Athletes have a First Amendment right to express their views, but they also must be prepared to face the consequences for expressing these views. By expressing a political view, Hasselbeck risks alienating some fans. If he's willing to risk that to express his political views, then he can go for it. He might be better off going milquetoast and not "polarizing the paying customer," but that's still his choice. Personally, I find it difficult to root for an athlete quite so much when I find out he or she has divergent political leanings from my own. I'm a fan of players (that's why I collect football cards), and it always disappoints me when a player is tainted for me because of a political leaning. I'm not saying I'm right to think less of athletes that don't share my politics, but it happens whether I like it or not (if I had total control over my thoughts, my life would be very different than it is).
Politics are a part of sports: that's reality. And people oughtn't be encouraged to hide their convictions, including athletes. But politics are polarizing, and an athlete expressing political views risks polarizing fans, and polarizing them for reasons that actually have nothing to do with sports.
Don Banks suggests that we don't pay terribly much attention when Brett Favre pursues Dan Marino's all-time touchdown record:
"I'm only going to make this point once and then I'll move on: Starting with the Packers home game against Philadelphia on Sunday, can we please not treat Brett Favre's pursuit of Dan Marino's career record for touchdown passes this season like it's some magical milestone that deserves our rapt attention? Most NFL fans don't even know the number of TD passes that Marino threw (420), or can recall whose record Marino broke (I must admit, I'd have to Google it to find out).
"It's an accomplishment of distinction to be sure. But we tend to over-do everything that involves Favre and have for many years now."
Banks is trying to argue that the media overhypes Favre, but to do so he makes a specious argument. He claims that we shouldn't treat this all-time NFL record "like it's some magical milestone that deserves our rapt attention." I don't quite understand it. I watch football to see great individual accomplishments. Favre would be breaking an all-time record: if he passes Marino, he'll have thrown more TD passes than anybody in the history of the NFL. That's deserving of our attention. Banks says that since "most NFL fans" don't know much about the record, we shouldn't pay attention; I suppose you could argue that "most NFL fans" don't know the names of a lot of offensive linemen, but that doesn't make them insignificant to the game. To the extent that football is worth watching, it's worthing paying attention to, and praising, major accomplishments like an all-time record.
It's not as if the media would be hyping the record just because it is Favre: when Dan Marino was breaking all the career marks in 1995, it was a very big news story that got a lot of coverage. And that's as it should be (I'm surprised that Banks, paid to cover the NFL, doesn't know that it was Fran Tarkenton's record of 346 TDs that Marino broke then, or that Tarkenton passed Johnny Unitas' record of 290. That's from the top of my head. Let's check. Whoops, 342 for Tarkenton). We paid attention when Marino broke Tarkenton's records, just as we paid attention when Emmitt Smith broke Walter Payton's numbers. Just because the number itself doesn't have the significance that a baseball record has doesn't mean that we shouldn't give it attention. I'm actually surprised at how little I've read about Favre's pursuit of Marino's record, considering how much I heard about Marino's pursuit in 1995.
We watch the sport: to the extent that a game is worth our "rapt attention" at all, a player achieving a career accomplishment that nobody else has ever done certainly deserves our attention.
Perhaps we need more
The Straw Man is a logical fallacy: a person using this fallacy doesn't argue against an actual opponent, but distorts an opponent's argument, or even makes up a different argument, and argues against that.
Patrick Reusse appears guilty of a similar tactic. He says that last season
"The Internet responders and callers to talk shows were nearly unanimous in the belief that the 2006 Vikings would top the 9-7 of the previous season."
And that this season,
"You can read and hear predictions of four and five victories from the same Internet and talk-show crowds that foresaw the Vikings sliding past the Chicago Bears in the NFC North a year ago."
That's all fine, but Reusse isn't actually identifying anybody. Were "Internet responders" "unanimous" last season? Are people with pessimistic predictions this season "the same Internet and talk-show crowds"? You'll find a plethora of viewpoints on the internet; I'm not sure there's unanimity, last season or this season, about how the Vikings will do.
I'd like it a lot better if Reusse actually identified who he was arguing against; it's much easier to argue against a viewpoint that you made up for the sake of arguing against, than it is to actually address specific claims made by an opponent (I've criticized Reusse before for making up Viking fan quotes and criticizing Viking fans for them). Reusse is probably addressing a consensus, but he's framing that consensus as he wants to in order to disagree with it as he wants to.
Perhaps there's a place for that: several times I've commented on this site about how many people are predicting the Vikings for a fourth place finish in the NFC North. I could easily provide a bunch of links to prove this, but I haven't deemed it necessary. Though if I'm going to argue against somebody's reasons for thinking the Vikings will suck this year, I won't make up those reasons to argue against (a "straw man")--I'll argue against what that person is actually saying.
Politics and Sports
Mike Florio at Pro Football Talk comments on Matt Hasselbeck alienating some fans by revealing his political views. He concludes that "Football, politics don't mix," and argues that
"The fact is that any effort to blend politics with sports is a mistake. People look to sports as a diversion, and they don't want to hear the political views of folks who have a platform merely because they can run fast and/or throw a ball far -- especially when those political views conflict with their own.
"There's no way for any NFL figure to be openly political without polarizing the paying customers. Thus, we think all players and coaches and league officials and journalists would be wise to keep their politics to themselves while occupying the public spotlight that is available to them only because of sports. "
I both disagree and agree. I tend to agree with Dave Zirin that politics is always in the subtext of sports (it reminds me of graduate school discussions on politics in literature and literary studies--eventually you have to reach the conclusion that literature and the study of literature is, at some level, political). We need not see sports as a "diversion"--we can address the social and political reality of sports. Furthermore, athletes have a First Amendment right to express their political beliefs, and they may feel a moral obligation to use "the public spotlight that is available to them" in order to advocate.
However, I agree with Florio's second paragraph here. Athletes have a First Amendment right to express their views, but they also must be prepared to face the consequences for expressing these views. By expressing a political view, Hasselbeck risks alienating some fans. If he's willing to risk that to express his political views, then he can go for it. He might be better off going milquetoast and not "polarizing the paying customer," but that's still his choice. Personally, I find it difficult to root for an athlete quite so much when I find out he or she has divergent political leanings from my own. I'm a fan of players (that's why I collect football cards), and it always disappoints me when a player is tainted for me because of a political leaning. I'm not saying I'm right to think less of athletes that don't share my politics, but it happens whether I like it or not (if I had total control over my thoughts, my life would be very different than it is).
Politics are a part of sports: that's reality. And people oughtn't be encouraged to hide their convictions, including athletes. But politics are polarizing, and an athlete expressing political views risks polarizing fans, and polarizing them for reasons that actually have nothing to do with sports.
National Friday League, week 1
Doritos has revolutionized the chip: they've got bags with two different flavored chips in there!
With the return of the football season (and the new semester contributes, I'm sure, all bad habits return. Somehow football drives me to huge doses of caffeine, sugar, and fat. When I watch the Vikings on TV, I just need a constant influx of caffeine and sugar to mellow myself out (which makes no sense of course and I'm sure that only bugs me out more--luckily I'll be at the home games where I'm unlikely to spend money on pricey Metrodome snacks). Any healthy life choices begun in the summer are now wistfully remembered as I sit on the couch wiping my greasy fingers on the front of my shirt, muttering "This is my life?"
Here's what I like.
Of Sunday's games, here are some intriguing matchups:
Titans v. Jaguars
Vince Young is going to be running around out there throwing passes to himself, yet I believe he is some sort of mythical creature destined to carry his team to victories. We find out if year two of the Maurice Jones-Drew experience is as electrifying as year one.
Broncos v. Bills
There are a lot of young skill position players in this game (Cutler, Walker, Losman, Lynch, Evans), and Denver has lost on the road week one the past two seasons.
Panthers v. Rams
Steve Smith is going against the St. Louis defense--it should be a good show.
Eagles v. Packers
I can never relax during a football season for as long as it is possible that the Packers could do something; I would like to see Philadelphia go into Lambeau and firmly declare that they won't.
He's always right; it's everybody else who's wrong.
I'm sort of glad not to have HBO right now; the greatest comic mind in world history Larry David returns with the sixth season of Curb Your Enthusiasm this Sunday, and I don't want to be conflicted over whether to watch my hero or football. Instead I wait a year for the DVD and just enjoy football.
Thunderdome
Here's what I want to see from the Vikings on Sunday:
Multiple forced turnovers, including defensive touchdowns or setting up good field position
The beginning of the Adrian Peterson era, with long runs and touchdowns
Tarvaris Jackson making good, quick decisions in the pocket and having time to make them
Troy Williamson catching passes
The defense completely shutting down Atlanta's attempt at a running game, forcing Joey Harrington to beat them, leading to inevitable interceptions.
Football achieves self-actualization now.
Enjoy the weekend, everybody. Except Packer, Bear, and Falcon fans.
With the return of the football season (and the new semester contributes, I'm sure, all bad habits return. Somehow football drives me to huge doses of caffeine, sugar, and fat. When I watch the Vikings on TV, I just need a constant influx of caffeine and sugar to mellow myself out (which makes no sense of course and I'm sure that only bugs me out more--luckily I'll be at the home games where I'm unlikely to spend money on pricey Metrodome snacks). Any healthy life choices begun in the summer are now wistfully remembered as I sit on the couch wiping my greasy fingers on the front of my shirt, muttering "This is my life?"
Here's what I like.
Of Sunday's games, here are some intriguing matchups:
Titans v. Jaguars
Vince Young is going to be running around out there throwing passes to himself, yet I believe he is some sort of mythical creature destined to carry his team to victories. We find out if year two of the Maurice Jones-Drew experience is as electrifying as year one.
Broncos v. Bills
There are a lot of young skill position players in this game (Cutler, Walker, Losman, Lynch, Evans), and Denver has lost on the road week one the past two seasons.
Panthers v. Rams
Steve Smith is going against the St. Louis defense--it should be a good show.
Eagles v. Packers
I can never relax during a football season for as long as it is possible that the Packers could do something; I would like to see Philadelphia go into Lambeau and firmly declare that they won't.
He's always right; it's everybody else who's wrong.
I'm sort of glad not to have HBO right now; the greatest comic mind in world history Larry David returns with the sixth season of Curb Your Enthusiasm this Sunday, and I don't want to be conflicted over whether to watch my hero or football. Instead I wait a year for the DVD and just enjoy football.
Thunderdome
Here's what I want to see from the Vikings on Sunday:
Multiple forced turnovers, including defensive touchdowns or setting up good field position
The beginning of the Adrian Peterson era, with long runs and touchdowns
Tarvaris Jackson making good, quick decisions in the pocket and having time to make them
Troy Williamson catching passes
The defense completely shutting down Atlanta's attempt at a running game, forcing Joey Harrington to beat them, leading to inevitable interceptions.
Football achieves self-actualization now.
Enjoy the weekend, everybody. Except Packer, Bear, and Falcon fans.
Shaky QBs and the Vikings
Welcome to another chapter of PV's attempt to convince himself the Vikings can win nine games this season.
It's easy to look at Tarvaris Jackson, Kelly Holcomb, and Brooks Bollinger and conclude that the Vikings are too questionable at quarterback to compete this season (despite defense and a running game that are each potentially dominant).
But let's look at the Vikings' 2007 schedule to see the projected QBs they'll be facing.
1. Falcons (Joey Harrington): shaky
2. Lions (Jon Kitna): shaky, turnover-prone
3. Chiefs (Damon Huard): questionable, I think; not that great, but probably not stupid, either.
4. Packers (Brett Favre): old, still capable of breaking our hearts, but also turnover-prone
5. Bears (Rex Grossman): Please don't put in Brian Griese; Grossman is the shakiest shaky QB since Shaky McShakeShake emerged from Shake State.
6. Cowboys (Tony Romo): I consider Romo, throwing to all those good players around him, dangerous, but his production declined in the latter part of 2006.
7. Eagles (Donovan McNabb): elite QB
8. Chargers (Philip Rivers): very good QB
9. Packers (Brett Favre): still dangerous, but still old and turnover-prone
10. Raiders (Josh McCown): there could easily be a QB change by this point, but it would be to Daunte Culpepper or JaMarcus Russell. I don't think they're major threats on that offense either way.
11. Giants (Eli Manning): Possibly good, but can be rattled and erratic.
12. Lions (Jon Kitna): Still turnover-prone
13. 49ers (Alex Smith): Could be good this year, but he's still relatively unproven, and his team managed to put up 9 points against the Vikes last season.
14. Bears (Rex Grossman): Please, let it still be Rex.
15. Washington (Jason Campbell): Still unproven
16. Denver (Jay Cutler); He'll probably be very good, but he's a second-year guy that you can't be sure about.
When I look at the Viking schedule, I see one elite opposing QB (McNabb) and another very good one (Rivers), though the Vikes get to face each of them at home. Everybody else is either an aging QB with questions, a QB with an erratic history, or a very young QB that could struggle against a good Viking defense. The Vikings can smother a running game, forcing the quarterback to beat them, and they also have a defense capable of forcing turnovers (36 takeaways last season). It's the kind of defense I like to see facing an inexperienced or erratic QB.
Certainly, the Vikings have serious questions in their passing game (not limited to the QBs, either). But they're not going to be facing Peyton Manning quality QBs this year; they're going to be facing a lot of shaky QBs that they are capable of exploiting.
It's easy to look at Tarvaris Jackson, Kelly Holcomb, and Brooks Bollinger and conclude that the Vikings are too questionable at quarterback to compete this season (despite defense and a running game that are each potentially dominant).
But let's look at the Vikings' 2007 schedule to see the projected QBs they'll be facing.
1. Falcons (Joey Harrington): shaky
2. Lions (Jon Kitna): shaky, turnover-prone
3. Chiefs (Damon Huard): questionable, I think; not that great, but probably not stupid, either.
4. Packers (Brett Favre): old, still capable of breaking our hearts, but also turnover-prone
5. Bears (Rex Grossman): Please don't put in Brian Griese; Grossman is the shakiest shaky QB since Shaky McShakeShake emerged from Shake State.
6. Cowboys (Tony Romo): I consider Romo, throwing to all those good players around him, dangerous, but his production declined in the latter part of 2006.
7. Eagles (Donovan McNabb): elite QB
8. Chargers (Philip Rivers): very good QB
9. Packers (Brett Favre): still dangerous, but still old and turnover-prone
10. Raiders (Josh McCown): there could easily be a QB change by this point, but it would be to Daunte Culpepper or JaMarcus Russell. I don't think they're major threats on that offense either way.
11. Giants (Eli Manning): Possibly good, but can be rattled and erratic.
12. Lions (Jon Kitna): Still turnover-prone
13. 49ers (Alex Smith): Could be good this year, but he's still relatively unproven, and his team managed to put up 9 points against the Vikes last season.
14. Bears (Rex Grossman): Please, let it still be Rex.
15. Washington (Jason Campbell): Still unproven
16. Denver (Jay Cutler); He'll probably be very good, but he's a second-year guy that you can't be sure about.
When I look at the Viking schedule, I see one elite opposing QB (McNabb) and another very good one (Rivers), though the Vikes get to face each of them at home. Everybody else is either an aging QB with questions, a QB with an erratic history, or a very young QB that could struggle against a good Viking defense. The Vikings can smother a running game, forcing the quarterback to beat them, and they also have a defense capable of forcing turnovers (36 takeaways last season). It's the kind of defense I like to see facing an inexperienced or erratic QB.
Certainly, the Vikings have serious questions in their passing game (not limited to the QBs, either). But they're not going to be facing Peyton Manning quality QBs this year; they're going to be facing a lot of shaky QBs that they are capable of exploiting.
The Wrath of Valhalla
How could this happen? How could anybody allow this to happen?
I first learned it at Viking Update, and the Star Tribune has more information (via Daily Norseman).
I'm filled with horror. Rookie WR Aundrae Allison is wearing #84.
84! The number belonging to man myth legend Randy Moss!
The current ownership and coaching staff don't have any loyalty or feeling for Moss: he was gone before they got there. But that number should eventually be retired. There is no question about that. Moss scored 100 regular and post-season touchdowns for the Vikings in his seven seasons with the team. And here's the important part:
The fans still love him.
There's no feeling of animosity toward Moss among the bulk of Viking die-hards. We loved and defended him when he was with the team, and we don't blame him in any way for his exit from the team. If he somehow came back to the Vikings there would be mass hugs among strangers at the Metrodome. He's a beloved athlete that gave us some incredible memories.
Nobody else should ever again wear #84 for the Purple (unless that person is Randy Moss himself). If you're not convinced by arguments about Moss's place in Viking history, you might be convinced by the argument that there is a lot of baggage associated with that number. Maybe this is an attempt to purge the memory, I don't know. But I don't like it. It's possible that at some point, #84 could be used again, but not by a fifth-round draft pick that hasn't done anything--that's just smearing the number. It's sacrilage. That's not meant to hate on Allison, who I hope is good and is probably a decent fellow, but he's not currently worthy of the number Randy Moss immortalized in Minnesota.
The Vikings need to stop Aundrae Allison before it is too late. If he wears #84 for even one regular season game, Valhalla will quake at such a display of disrespect.
Extra Links
Ever the contrarian, Patrick Reusse vexes over the pessimism about the Vikings, talks about why they'll be good, and predicts a 9-7 finish.
The Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press both have stories on Adrian Peterson and the Viking running game.
I first learned it at Viking Update, and the Star Tribune has more information (via Daily Norseman).
I'm filled with horror. Rookie WR Aundrae Allison is wearing #84.
84! The number belonging to man myth legend Randy Moss!
The current ownership and coaching staff don't have any loyalty or feeling for Moss: he was gone before they got there. But that number should eventually be retired. There is no question about that. Moss scored 100 regular and post-season touchdowns for the Vikings in his seven seasons with the team. And here's the important part:
The fans still love him.
There's no feeling of animosity toward Moss among the bulk of Viking die-hards. We loved and defended him when he was with the team, and we don't blame him in any way for his exit from the team. If he somehow came back to the Vikings there would be mass hugs among strangers at the Metrodome. He's a beloved athlete that gave us some incredible memories.
Nobody else should ever again wear #84 for the Purple (unless that person is Randy Moss himself). If you're not convinced by arguments about Moss's place in Viking history, you might be convinced by the argument that there is a lot of baggage associated with that number. Maybe this is an attempt to purge the memory, I don't know. But I don't like it. It's possible that at some point, #84 could be used again, but not by a fifth-round draft pick that hasn't done anything--that's just smearing the number. It's sacrilage. That's not meant to hate on Allison, who I hope is good and is probably a decent fellow, but he's not currently worthy of the number Randy Moss immortalized in Minnesota.
The Vikings need to stop Aundrae Allison before it is too late. If he wears #84 for even one regular season game, Valhalla will quake at such a display of disrespect.
Extra Links
Ever the contrarian, Patrick Reusse vexes over the pessimism about the Vikings, talks about why they'll be good, and predicts a 9-7 finish.
The Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press both have stories on Adrian Peterson and the Viking running game.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Tecmo Colts
Colts-Saints Box Score (Sports Illustrated)
The Colts are like a Tecmo Super Bowl team. Manning’s accuracy on deep passes is so incredible it seems as simple as selecting his receiver and pushing a button; his timing with Reggie Wayne and Marvin Harrison is phenomenal. Wayne and Harrison sometimes appear as open as a Tecmo receiver, a game in which defenders leave receivers literally uncovered. Joseph Addai is the Tecmo running back that gets 100 yards by default just because you’d get bored throwing the ball every play. And at least tonight, Drew Brees looked like the computer-controlled opposing QB: flustered, inaccurate, throwing into coverage, an all-around mess.
It's pretty much a requirement to have Indianapolis offensive stars on your fantasy team if you want to win your league. Peyton Manning, Joseph Addai, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, and Adam Vinatieri are all superb fantasy performers (and all were productive tonight). And the Colts are going to be on TV a lot, so you get the thrill of watching your fantasy performers thrive.
It's just a joy to watch Manning connect on those perfectly timed, perfectly accurate deep passes. And people are also going to be talking about the strong performance of the Indianapolis defense. This Indianapolis team that always wins 12 games looks strong once again.
The Colts are like a Tecmo Super Bowl team. Manning’s accuracy on deep passes is so incredible it seems as simple as selecting his receiver and pushing a button; his timing with Reggie Wayne and Marvin Harrison is phenomenal. Wayne and Harrison sometimes appear as open as a Tecmo receiver, a game in which defenders leave receivers literally uncovered. Joseph Addai is the Tecmo running back that gets 100 yards by default just because you’d get bored throwing the ball every play. And at least tonight, Drew Brees looked like the computer-controlled opposing QB: flustered, inaccurate, throwing into coverage, an all-around mess.
It's pretty much a requirement to have Indianapolis offensive stars on your fantasy team if you want to win your league. Peyton Manning, Joseph Addai, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, and Adam Vinatieri are all superb fantasy performers (and all were productive tonight). And the Colts are going to be on TV a lot, so you get the thrill of watching your fantasy performers thrive.
It's just a joy to watch Manning connect on those perfectly timed, perfectly accurate deep passes. And people are also going to be talking about the strong performance of the Indianapolis defense. This Indianapolis team that always wins 12 games looks strong once again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)