Ok, so I've chilled out a little and let the NFL Networks shitty draft coverage get out of my system. Starting tomorrow I'm going back to the drawing board for the 2012 draft, which means focusing much of my efforts on the top guys at each position. It's not ideal, but it's just the way it has to be this year I think.
I'll start with the O-linemen.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Update; 02/26/12
I'm in something of a quandry. Today the combine kicked off. As expected I buckled and did indeed begin to watch the live coverage of the on field drills. I stopped again after about 4 minutes, as they missed the entire middle section of the very first drill in order to show a video package of Matt Kalil. Classic NFL Network, favouring video packages of the top guys over the actual action taking place on the field.
Well screw it. I gave up straight away and that's me done with the NFL Networks combine coverage for good. It's not even "coverage" by the proper definition. It's more like a side show until the more famous players can run their 40-yard dashes etc. I was prepared to give the NFLN the chance, to see if they'd learnt but no, no they haven't.
I just...... I'm sitting here now and my f**king blood is boiling just thinking about it. The astounding arrogance of that network to think that all people care about is the top guys and to somehow believe that it is acceptable to miss half the damn drills in favour of all their crappy packages, presenters, and all that other pointless bulls**t that they put on.
I can't watch it. I'd go insane. I'd end up smashing my computer to pieces in a fit of rage at how laughably poor the production and direction is. I've honestly never known a company with so much money to take a subject that could be so interesting, and then to piss it away so badly. I cannot stand that god forsaken network and their pathetic attempts to put on a program. Clueless arseholes, the whole bunch of them.
So instead I reverted back to my original plan which was to just watch game footage of the players, but as I've found out, this year that's proving a whole lot harder than it was last year.
Honestly I'm so demoralised by the whole situation right now that I don't know if I can even bothered anymore.
Well screw it. I gave up straight away and that's me done with the NFL Networks combine coverage for good. It's not even "coverage" by the proper definition. It's more like a side show until the more famous players can run their 40-yard dashes etc. I was prepared to give the NFLN the chance, to see if they'd learnt but no, no they haven't.
I just...... I'm sitting here now and my f**king blood is boiling just thinking about it. The astounding arrogance of that network to think that all people care about is the top guys and to somehow believe that it is acceptable to miss half the damn drills in favour of all their crappy packages, presenters, and all that other pointless bulls**t that they put on.
I can't watch it. I'd go insane. I'd end up smashing my computer to pieces in a fit of rage at how laughably poor the production and direction is. I've honestly never known a company with so much money to take a subject that could be so interesting, and then to piss it away so badly. I cannot stand that god forsaken network and their pathetic attempts to put on a program. Clueless arseholes, the whole bunch of them.
So instead I reverted back to my original plan which was to just watch game footage of the players, but as I've found out, this year that's proving a whole lot harder than it was last year.
Honestly I'm so demoralised by the whole situation right now that I don't know if I can even bothered anymore.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
2012 NFL Scouting Combine.
So I got an e-mail today (keepingthechainsmoving@live.co.uk) asking me if I was going to watch the NFL scouting combine live (which starts tomorrow) and report back as I have done the last couple of years. The answer to that is; no, f**k no, and "are you f**king insane?".
Anyone that thinks I'm going to subject myself to that horsesh*t again is betting on a guaranteed loss. The NFL Networks coverage of the combine is brutally frustrating. If you've never tried it then I highly recommend it, if only because it will convince you that the idea of the NFL Network ever being allowed to cover all the leagues games in future is an absolute disaster waiting to happen.
The coverage looks like its being directed by a five year old. They continually cut away from the field drills, which are kind of the most important part of any scouting trip, in order to show us two idiots sitting at a table on commentary somewhere, just because some other idiot who has been repeatedly fired from various GM jobs due to sh*t drafting has now joined them.
Then we have the joy that is the interrupting of the field drill coverage to show a graphic of some question asked by Billy McDouchebag on twitter or some sh*t, usually the kind of question that most normal people could figure out for themselves. Quite why the NFLN feels the need to linger on this graphic or even show it all instead of just having one of the commentary team read it out is beyond me.
Then comes the unadulterated joy of a player who you are very much interested in getting stuck behind one of the big names on the order for running the drills. What follows is that Mr.Big Shot will run the drill, and then you miss the next player on the list because the NFLN is busy showing replays of the big shot which could have been saved till later, for example during the break in between drills.
Of course any sane individual would see the opportunity to run commercials and show replays in such breaks of the on field action, as that is when the staff are setting up the next drill and the lead coach is explaining the drill to the players. That of course would require a modicum of common sense, something that the NFLN team lacks completely.
Finally we get to the ever hilarious moments when the director doesn't know which camera angle to use to best catch the action, instead flicking between them in a semi-random order until the final two or three players are up, by which point he finally has the sequence figured out. Any normal production crew would naturally have thought about this before hand and planned out where they needed to place all the cameras and done a few practice runs so they could figure out when and where to switch cameras to get the best shots, but the NFLN don't let silly things like standard TV production protocols get in the way.
All in all it's a TV experience akin to stabbing yourself in the hand repeatedly with a pen in order to induce the maximum possible distraction at the most important moments.
So it is that this year I plan to spend the day studying the college players in their more natural surroundings, that is watching their college games. I'm going to steal the list of players off the NFL.com site for each day and then spend it pouring through the video of football players actually playing football.
Perhaps if more pro scouts and top draft pundits had done this last year then people wouldn't have whiffed so badly on their assessments of Blaine Gabbert, who spent most of his college career quite visibly shying away from three man rushes and throwing nothing complete past 10 yards.
I'll report back my initial findings each day, though I concede it's only going to be a sort of "first impressions" look.
Anyone that thinks I'm going to subject myself to that horsesh*t again is betting on a guaranteed loss. The NFL Networks coverage of the combine is brutally frustrating. If you've never tried it then I highly recommend it, if only because it will convince you that the idea of the NFL Network ever being allowed to cover all the leagues games in future is an absolute disaster waiting to happen.
The coverage looks like its being directed by a five year old. They continually cut away from the field drills, which are kind of the most important part of any scouting trip, in order to show us two idiots sitting at a table on commentary somewhere, just because some other idiot who has been repeatedly fired from various GM jobs due to sh*t drafting has now joined them.
Then we have the joy that is the interrupting of the field drill coverage to show a graphic of some question asked by Billy McDouchebag on twitter or some sh*t, usually the kind of question that most normal people could figure out for themselves. Quite why the NFLN feels the need to linger on this graphic or even show it all instead of just having one of the commentary team read it out is beyond me.
Then comes the unadulterated joy of a player who you are very much interested in getting stuck behind one of the big names on the order for running the drills. What follows is that Mr.Big Shot will run the drill, and then you miss the next player on the list because the NFLN is busy showing replays of the big shot which could have been saved till later, for example during the break in between drills.
Of course any sane individual would see the opportunity to run commercials and show replays in such breaks of the on field action, as that is when the staff are setting up the next drill and the lead coach is explaining the drill to the players. That of course would require a modicum of common sense, something that the NFLN team lacks completely.
Finally we get to the ever hilarious moments when the director doesn't know which camera angle to use to best catch the action, instead flicking between them in a semi-random order until the final two or three players are up, by which point he finally has the sequence figured out. Any normal production crew would naturally have thought about this before hand and planned out where they needed to place all the cameras and done a few practice runs so they could figure out when and where to switch cameras to get the best shots, but the NFLN don't let silly things like standard TV production protocols get in the way.
All in all it's a TV experience akin to stabbing yourself in the hand repeatedly with a pen in order to induce the maximum possible distraction at the most important moments.
So it is that this year I plan to spend the day studying the college players in their more natural surroundings, that is watching their college games. I'm going to steal the list of players off the NFL.com site for each day and then spend it pouring through the video of football players actually playing football.
Perhaps if more pro scouts and top draft pundits had done this last year then people wouldn't have whiffed so badly on their assessments of Blaine Gabbert, who spent most of his college career quite visibly shying away from three man rushes and throwing nothing complete past 10 yards.
I'll report back my initial findings each day, though I concede it's only going to be a sort of "first impressions" look.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
2012 NFL Free Agents; Quarterbacks
So yay me for finally finding the time to sit down and complete this.
Basically I'm just going to skim over the list of the free agent quarterbacks in 2012 and pick out the ones of interest to me, so by no means should you consider this an exhaustive list. I'm also just about as clueless as everyone else as to where these gentlemen will eventually end up, so it's more a case of looking at their value and what they can bring to the table.
Before we begin I'm going to exclude two people right off the bat and that's Drew Brees and Alex Smith. I just cant see their respective teams letting them walk off into the land of contract milk and honey, even if it means slapping on the franchise tag to make it happen.
It's for that same reason that I'm going to can Peyton Manning as well. The Colts can lock him up even if he doesn't like it and frankly, even if he does make it to the open market, what is there that I could say about Peyton Manning that you don't already know?
Moving on then and for some reason Matt Flynn is the talk of the town in the NFL right now. Every pundit, expert, blogger and TV/radio host has Flynn down as being the number one quarterback acquisition to make, if Peyton isn't available of course.
But personally I don't get it. Flynn is good, that much is true. However his story is very similar to Kevin Kolb when he was with the Eagles, in that he's played a few games and put up some tremendous numbers. That however does not make Flynn - as it didn't make Kolb - a guaranteed starting caliber quarterback. Kolb had spent years in the Eagles system and had toys like DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin to play with. When he went to Arizona the story was very different.
Granted the Cardinals had Larry Fitzgerald, but that's one guy, not the deep receiving roster that the Eagles had. Kolb didn't know the playbook and he had to develop a relationship and a sense of timing with his new receivers. The comparison to what Flynn will go through is scarily identical.
Flynn will be leaving a team that he's played with for several years now, and he leaves behind an excellent and very deep receiving corps. To go to what? The Redskins? The Browns? Anyone that thinks Flynn can make the same magic work with Josh Cribbs, Mohammed Massaquoi and Greg Little that he did with Greg Jennings, Donald Driver and Jordy Nelson has a seriously painful wake up call coming.
This is not to say that Flynn is a talentless hack who can't throw a spiral, just that he's not the super saviour that everyone thinks he will be. I can see Flynn doing well in time and in the right situation, but any team thinking that Flynn will carry them to the big dance overnight is kidding themselves. About the best shot he might have of being a first season wonder might be in Oakland, but I'm not sure if they're in the market after the Carson Palmer debacle that they managed to get tied up in.
A much more solid name that stands out is Kyle Orton.
Much maligned after his spell in Denver, Orton is actually a pretty good quarterback on his day. Yes he's had some bum luck recently but notice that his performance in Denver took a sharp decline when Brandon Marshall exited and he lost key receivers to injury.
Orton still has the potential to put together a very good season somewhere. If you give Kyle Orton the receivers, offensive line and running back combination that the Ravens have given to Joe Flacco and I think you'd see a great offensive year out of Orton. I certainly would prefer someone with experience like Orton over Flynn.
Jason Campbell is another name that is out there in the mix, but really I think people would be silly to take the chance on him again. Washington didn't exactly bend over backwards to bring in top quality receivers for him during his time there, but they at least had some good guys for him to work with. In Oakland he had some real speed available from his guys, but never found a way to exploit it. I just can't see Campbell really cutting it anymore, though I suspect someone will go out of their way to throw money at him again, for whatever reasons they have. I think that would be a big mistake.
Next on the lost I have is Chris Redman of the Atlanta Falcons. This is kind of an odd one but I just thought I'd bring it up because Redman has actually been a fairly serviceable backup for the Falcons and has played solidly in the appearances that he's made over the years. He averages just a bit under a 60% completion percentage with 21 career touchdowns to 14 interceptions and personally I think he has his uses, for example sitting behind Alex Smith on the 49ers roster... then usurping his spot mid-season.
Derek Anderson is on the list. I hope someone signs him, just so I can laugh. And no San Francisco, don't let it be you. Caleb Hanie of Chicago looks set to hit the open market and might get a few sniffs. He's young and has flashed ability at times, but has also made a lot mistakes. He's one of those kids where if someone feels they can make chicken salad out of chicken shit, then they might bite. Like Andy Reid, who will then end up flogging him off for a couple of second round picks two years later.
Shaun Hill looks like he's going to be available. By now he's getting a little long in the tooth but he still has some talent left in him. Not a huge amount, but someone looking for a backup could do a lot worse. Fellow Lion Drew Stanton is much the same bag. Christ, Brady Quinn is on this list? I think people would have to be a little detached from reality to pay for Quinn. He's done nothing to show he can be of any real use to anybody.
Ahhh, now we're talking. David Garrard. I've been quite harsh on Garrard in the past, but in all fairness he's hardly been surrounded by talent when he was in Jacksonville. Given the crappy state of both his receivers and his offensive line, Garrard actually did pretty well. In general, when I look at this years free agent class I have to think to myself that if I was in the market for a free agent quarterback, Garrard would probably be near the top of my list, depending on the kind of money he was after. Personally I think he has to take a step down the financial ladder in order to get the chance to prove himself once again.
Dan Orlovsky is technically a free agent from what I can tell, though I suspect that Indy will want him back, regardless of what they do with Peyton Manning (it's either that or Curtis Painter). I think Orlovsky still has some value as a back up. He's been around, seen a lot, and is a surprisingly stable if unspectacular back up.
Luke McCown is free this year from Jacksonville and I think he still has potential left in him. Dude is 30 now and has suffered in Tampa and Jacksonville, but with a decent set of receivers I think he could be an upgrade over some of the crap floating about in the NFL right now. Like Chad Henne from Miami? Harsh I think. Henne actually started to find something of a groove before going down to injury and he has more left in the tank to prove. Chances are that Miami will bring him back, but if he makes the open market he might get a few sniffs.
The rest of the list is made up of a bunch of old and dubiously talented individuals. The only remotely youthful name left is Josh Johnson of the Buccaneers. Now Johnson is an interesting package. He's not the greatest quarterback to take the field and even with a bit of work he's unlikely to really reach the highest levels of passing greatness, but what Johnson does have is a handy set of wheels under him that on occasion have bailed him out of some tough spots.
With the performances of Cam Newton, Mike Vick and Tim Tebow still fresh in peoples minds, running quarterbacks are likely to take on a certain attraction this year. The inclusion of Robert Griffin III in the draft will no doubt ram that point home, so don't be surprised if someone looks at Johnson as a slightly cheaper and slightly more experienced version of RG3, taking a modestly priced punt on him in 2012.
Basically I'm just going to skim over the list of the free agent quarterbacks in 2012 and pick out the ones of interest to me, so by no means should you consider this an exhaustive list. I'm also just about as clueless as everyone else as to where these gentlemen will eventually end up, so it's more a case of looking at their value and what they can bring to the table.
Before we begin I'm going to exclude two people right off the bat and that's Drew Brees and Alex Smith. I just cant see their respective teams letting them walk off into the land of contract milk and honey, even if it means slapping on the franchise tag to make it happen.
It's for that same reason that I'm going to can Peyton Manning as well. The Colts can lock him up even if he doesn't like it and frankly, even if he does make it to the open market, what is there that I could say about Peyton Manning that you don't already know?
Moving on then and for some reason Matt Flynn is the talk of the town in the NFL right now. Every pundit, expert, blogger and TV/radio host has Flynn down as being the number one quarterback acquisition to make, if Peyton isn't available of course.
But personally I don't get it. Flynn is good, that much is true. However his story is very similar to Kevin Kolb when he was with the Eagles, in that he's played a few games and put up some tremendous numbers. That however does not make Flynn - as it didn't make Kolb - a guaranteed starting caliber quarterback. Kolb had spent years in the Eagles system and had toys like DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin to play with. When he went to Arizona the story was very different.
Granted the Cardinals had Larry Fitzgerald, but that's one guy, not the deep receiving roster that the Eagles had. Kolb didn't know the playbook and he had to develop a relationship and a sense of timing with his new receivers. The comparison to what Flynn will go through is scarily identical.
Flynn will be leaving a team that he's played with for several years now, and he leaves behind an excellent and very deep receiving corps. To go to what? The Redskins? The Browns? Anyone that thinks Flynn can make the same magic work with Josh Cribbs, Mohammed Massaquoi and Greg Little that he did with Greg Jennings, Donald Driver and Jordy Nelson has a seriously painful wake up call coming.
This is not to say that Flynn is a talentless hack who can't throw a spiral, just that he's not the super saviour that everyone thinks he will be. I can see Flynn doing well in time and in the right situation, but any team thinking that Flynn will carry them to the big dance overnight is kidding themselves. About the best shot he might have of being a first season wonder might be in Oakland, but I'm not sure if they're in the market after the Carson Palmer debacle that they managed to get tied up in.
A much more solid name that stands out is Kyle Orton.
Much maligned after his spell in Denver, Orton is actually a pretty good quarterback on his day. Yes he's had some bum luck recently but notice that his performance in Denver took a sharp decline when Brandon Marshall exited and he lost key receivers to injury.
Orton still has the potential to put together a very good season somewhere. If you give Kyle Orton the receivers, offensive line and running back combination that the Ravens have given to Joe Flacco and I think you'd see a great offensive year out of Orton. I certainly would prefer someone with experience like Orton over Flynn.
Jason Campbell is another name that is out there in the mix, but really I think people would be silly to take the chance on him again. Washington didn't exactly bend over backwards to bring in top quality receivers for him during his time there, but they at least had some good guys for him to work with. In Oakland he had some real speed available from his guys, but never found a way to exploit it. I just can't see Campbell really cutting it anymore, though I suspect someone will go out of their way to throw money at him again, for whatever reasons they have. I think that would be a big mistake.
Next on the lost I have is Chris Redman of the Atlanta Falcons. This is kind of an odd one but I just thought I'd bring it up because Redman has actually been a fairly serviceable backup for the Falcons and has played solidly in the appearances that he's made over the years. He averages just a bit under a 60% completion percentage with 21 career touchdowns to 14 interceptions and personally I think he has his uses, for example sitting behind Alex Smith on the 49ers roster... then usurping his spot mid-season.
Derek Anderson is on the list. I hope someone signs him, just so I can laugh. And no San Francisco, don't let it be you. Caleb Hanie of Chicago looks set to hit the open market and might get a few sniffs. He's young and has flashed ability at times, but has also made a lot mistakes. He's one of those kids where if someone feels they can make chicken salad out of chicken shit, then they might bite. Like Andy Reid, who will then end up flogging him off for a couple of second round picks two years later.
Shaun Hill looks like he's going to be available. By now he's getting a little long in the tooth but he still has some talent left in him. Not a huge amount, but someone looking for a backup could do a lot worse. Fellow Lion Drew Stanton is much the same bag. Christ, Brady Quinn is on this list? I think people would have to be a little detached from reality to pay for Quinn. He's done nothing to show he can be of any real use to anybody.
Ahhh, now we're talking. David Garrard. I've been quite harsh on Garrard in the past, but in all fairness he's hardly been surrounded by talent when he was in Jacksonville. Given the crappy state of both his receivers and his offensive line, Garrard actually did pretty well. In general, when I look at this years free agent class I have to think to myself that if I was in the market for a free agent quarterback, Garrard would probably be near the top of my list, depending on the kind of money he was after. Personally I think he has to take a step down the financial ladder in order to get the chance to prove himself once again.
Dan Orlovsky is technically a free agent from what I can tell, though I suspect that Indy will want him back, regardless of what they do with Peyton Manning (it's either that or Curtis Painter). I think Orlovsky still has some value as a back up. He's been around, seen a lot, and is a surprisingly stable if unspectacular back up.
Luke McCown is free this year from Jacksonville and I think he still has potential left in him. Dude is 30 now and has suffered in Tampa and Jacksonville, but with a decent set of receivers I think he could be an upgrade over some of the crap floating about in the NFL right now. Like Chad Henne from Miami? Harsh I think. Henne actually started to find something of a groove before going down to injury and he has more left in the tank to prove. Chances are that Miami will bring him back, but if he makes the open market he might get a few sniffs.
The rest of the list is made up of a bunch of old and dubiously talented individuals. The only remotely youthful name left is Josh Johnson of the Buccaneers. Now Johnson is an interesting package. He's not the greatest quarterback to take the field and even with a bit of work he's unlikely to really reach the highest levels of passing greatness, but what Johnson does have is a handy set of wheels under him that on occasion have bailed him out of some tough spots.
With the performances of Cam Newton, Mike Vick and Tim Tebow still fresh in peoples minds, running quarterbacks are likely to take on a certain attraction this year. The inclusion of Robert Griffin III in the draft will no doubt ram that point home, so don't be surprised if someone looks at Johnson as a slightly cheaper and slightly more experienced version of RG3, taking a modestly priced punt on him in 2012.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Empty Seats and empty wallets
In a development that wont come as a surprise to anyone who has followed this blog for a while now, I got distracted away from my original article by interesting topic, namely this article from ProFootballTalk that reports that the NFL are looking at new ways to entice fans off their couches and into the stadium.
Proposed plans include increasing the amount of fantasy data that is available to fans at games, being displayed via the large screens. Other plans are to put entertaining and exciting things on the screens to fill the gaps inbetween plays and during TV timeouts. And then there are plans to increase wireless and mobile connectivity in order to allow fans to do more with things like Facebook and Twitter while at the stadium.
Which brings me back to a thought that I've had for a long time; the NFL is like the WWE or Hollywood, they'll continue to make money in spite of themselves.
Or in other words, what kind of idiot actually believes that fans at live games really give a crap about facebook or twitter? How much of a brainless moron do you have to be to think that the missing ingredient to the game day experience is more social networking? On what planet does an executive really believe that if fans were able to spend more time of their cell phones then they would abandon the allure of their warm couches in favour of a plastic seat in a bitterly cold stadium?
There are predominantly two things that drive fans away from live games; crappy play and the cost.
Note that the Green Bay Packers, Pittsburgh Steelers, New England Patriots, Indianapolis Colts and New Orleans Saints have had little trouble lately selling out there stadiums. In some cases they have waiting lists for tickets that are almost as long as the local electoral rolls.
The simple fact is that good teams attract fans and bad teams don't. Why are Jacksonville and Tampa always up there among the teams that struggle the most to sell tickets? Because their teams suck, that's why.
The second factor is cost.
And this is what I love most about the NFL, because like most big businesses they have a laundry list of things which they believe are responsible for the decline in revenues (at least at stadiums), except for the notion that maybe, just maybe, people aren't willing to pay the price they're charging for the product.
I can understand why to some degree. Psychologically what you're saying to a businessman is that "hey, your product isn't as good as you think it is". When he looks at his balance sheet and sees his TV revenue soaring, this also flies in the face of what he can see on paper.
But the simple fact is that going to a football game live is too expensive. Just looking at some of the data from people like Ticketmaster, and having listened to fans moan about this in the past, it's painfully obvious that the cost of going to a live game is excessive for most people. A family of four, with tickets, parking and consumables (food and drink) included could potentially run up a bill of between $400-500 for one game.
That's simply ridiculous. How in the name of God can you expect a somewhat hard up family in Jacksonville or Tampa to justify spending that kind of money, especially in this economic climate? $400-500 for what, 3 hours of entertainment? And given the TV breaks, possession changes and the end changes etc it just makes no sense at all. You're paying all that money for perhaps 30 minutes of actual football, if that.
Compare that to the price of watching the NFL on TV. Even with all the various cable packages etc, plus consumables during all the games, you're probably not going to spend $400 in a single season, for all the games. There is no comparison.
Twitter, Facebook, cheerleaders, etc. All of this stuff is nothing but a sideshow. Personally when I'm watching football the last thing I want to do is look at Facebook or check out the other games. I'm watching that game for a reason, because it's the most interesting to me. Sure, finding out scores from other games is fine and interesting and all that, but it's probably the least important thing during a game.
If the NFL wants to attract fans back to San Diego, Jacksonville or Tampa, then it needs to lower the ticket prices, parking fees and consumable fees in those markets. It's just a simple fact of life that those markets are not as valuable from a live event perspective as places like Chicago, New York, Pittsburgh and Green Bay.
Just deal with it. Stop making excuses. Stop wasting time on things that make very little difference. Stop trying to convince yourselves that it's anything other than the crappy product that those teams produce combined with excessive costs for going to watch them.
And stop blacking out games.
Proposed plans include increasing the amount of fantasy data that is available to fans at games, being displayed via the large screens. Other plans are to put entertaining and exciting things on the screens to fill the gaps inbetween plays and during TV timeouts. And then there are plans to increase wireless and mobile connectivity in order to allow fans to do more with things like Facebook and Twitter while at the stadium.
Which brings me back to a thought that I've had for a long time; the NFL is like the WWE or Hollywood, they'll continue to make money in spite of themselves.
Or in other words, what kind of idiot actually believes that fans at live games really give a crap about facebook or twitter? How much of a brainless moron do you have to be to think that the missing ingredient to the game day experience is more social networking? On what planet does an executive really believe that if fans were able to spend more time of their cell phones then they would abandon the allure of their warm couches in favour of a plastic seat in a bitterly cold stadium?
There are predominantly two things that drive fans away from live games; crappy play and the cost.
Note that the Green Bay Packers, Pittsburgh Steelers, New England Patriots, Indianapolis Colts and New Orleans Saints have had little trouble lately selling out there stadiums. In some cases they have waiting lists for tickets that are almost as long as the local electoral rolls.
The simple fact is that good teams attract fans and bad teams don't. Why are Jacksonville and Tampa always up there among the teams that struggle the most to sell tickets? Because their teams suck, that's why.
The second factor is cost.
And this is what I love most about the NFL, because like most big businesses they have a laundry list of things which they believe are responsible for the decline in revenues (at least at stadiums), except for the notion that maybe, just maybe, people aren't willing to pay the price they're charging for the product.
I can understand why to some degree. Psychologically what you're saying to a businessman is that "hey, your product isn't as good as you think it is". When he looks at his balance sheet and sees his TV revenue soaring, this also flies in the face of what he can see on paper.
But the simple fact is that going to a football game live is too expensive. Just looking at some of the data from people like Ticketmaster, and having listened to fans moan about this in the past, it's painfully obvious that the cost of going to a live game is excessive for most people. A family of four, with tickets, parking and consumables (food and drink) included could potentially run up a bill of between $400-500 for one game.
That's simply ridiculous. How in the name of God can you expect a somewhat hard up family in Jacksonville or Tampa to justify spending that kind of money, especially in this economic climate? $400-500 for what, 3 hours of entertainment? And given the TV breaks, possession changes and the end changes etc it just makes no sense at all. You're paying all that money for perhaps 30 minutes of actual football, if that.
Compare that to the price of watching the NFL on TV. Even with all the various cable packages etc, plus consumables during all the games, you're probably not going to spend $400 in a single season, for all the games. There is no comparison.
Twitter, Facebook, cheerleaders, etc. All of this stuff is nothing but a sideshow. Personally when I'm watching football the last thing I want to do is look at Facebook or check out the other games. I'm watching that game for a reason, because it's the most interesting to me. Sure, finding out scores from other games is fine and interesting and all that, but it's probably the least important thing during a game.
If the NFL wants to attract fans back to San Diego, Jacksonville or Tampa, then it needs to lower the ticket prices, parking fees and consumable fees in those markets. It's just a simple fact of life that those markets are not as valuable from a live event perspective as places like Chicago, New York, Pittsburgh and Green Bay.
Just deal with it. Stop making excuses. Stop wasting time on things that make very little difference. Stop trying to convince yourselves that it's anything other than the crappy product that those teams produce combined with excessive costs for going to watch them.
And stop blacking out games.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Update; 02/13/12
Just working my way through the free agent lists, trying to find the most reliable and comprehensive list. Expect a post on free agent Quarterbacks in the next 24-48 hours.
And thanks for stopping by. I've had a lot of fun this season and I think 2012 could be even better.
And thanks for stopping by. I've had a lot of fun this season and I think 2012 could be even better.
Monday, February 06, 2012
Super Bowl thoughts
So that's the NFL done for another season.
The Super Bowl itself was an interesting clash, largely due to a lot of the mistakes. You'll have to bare with me on this as I try to recollect all the things that caught my attention, which also points to the fact that I may indeed forget certain key things that I wanted to mention.
One thing I wont forget was the general display of poor technique that was shown by numerous players. I believe it was Brandon Spikes who had a shot at picking off the Giants first touchdown in the endzone, but like far too many defenders lately (across the whole NFL) he failed to get his head around and find the football.
I have no idea why so many players do this. It kind of goes without saying that unless you can actually see the football then you have no chance of picking it off. The coverage he was playing was purposely designed for him to undercut any quick pass such as the slant that came, but for that to be of any use then you have to get your head around and actually find the ball.
In that situation the plan is that you'll pick off the pass and not only save the touchdown, but have a great chance to run the ball back way down the field to set up the offense. But with your eyes transfixed on the receiver what hope do you have, as Spikes found out, of breaking up anything. If you cant see the ball then you cant stop the pass.
Now I'm not normally one inclined to give too much credit to Deion Sanders, but I will say this about him; he was superb at getting his head around to find the football and then make a play on it. He understood that unless you find the ball with your eyes then all you're doing is just following the receiver to the point where he makes a catch so that you can tackle him.
To have any chance of making an impact on the play and the game in general then you must get your head around and find the football. Spikes could have changed the whole complexion of the game if he had got his around and made that stop. Even just getting his hands on it and disrupting the pass would have been enough.
This was - however - just one of a veritable catalogue of errors. In a way I'm thankful. Error prone games tend to be more tightly fought, nail biting type contests as indeed was this one. It's why games between two crappy teams in the NFL tend to be exciting contests that end with ridiculous last minute comebacks etc, because the two teams are so error prone that neither of them can seal the deal properly.
The tackling in particular was poor at times. Hernandez might have got in for his touchdown anyway even if a more form like tackle been made on him, but one things that is for certain is that he was never going to be taken down by a simple hit, a point eloquently made when he bounced off and waltzed into the end zone.
Then there were the Giants fumbles. Three in all, two recovered by their own team, one ruled out by a penalty. It just stuns me that after all this time and what, ten seasons worth of heavy fumbles, the Giants still haven't fixed this. It's like the itch that they just cant (or wont) scratch. Given Tom Coughlin's reputation as a fearsome task master, and given the look on his face everytime he sees his team fumble the ball, I'm frankly amazed that this continues to be an issue.
Luckily the Giants got away with it this time. But it wasn't half a close run thing.
In particular I was disappointed with some of the Giants coverage. Given that the Patriots are not a team well known for their deep passing game this year I was surprised to see the Giants playing as much deep zone coverage as they did. That wasn't even the most odd/annoying thing though.
All season long the Giants have prided themselves on the quality of their pass rush, and rightly so. Mostly they've been able to get it done with their front four, but they've still made plenty of use of their linebackers in the pass rush, especially rushing Kiwanuka off the same side as Jason Pierre-Paul in order to guarantee that Pierre-Paul gets one on one matchups with no running back chip.
Yet they seemed incredibly reluctant to do this against the Patriots. Worse, they often found themselves on obvious passing downs (where the end rushers really make their money) but decided that instead of having their ends rush they would drop them off into coverage.
Now I could live with that if the ends were dropping off in the curl/flat zones to the sides but instead these ends often found themselves dropping back into the middle of the field where they were totally exposed, as happened to Pierre-Paul on the Patriots first touchdown.
I harped on this theme in a recent post about playing to your strengths and I'm going to harp on it again; why - on a critical passing down - is the best pass rusher on your team dropping back into coverage? I get that sometimes coaches like to pull little tricks to confuse quarterbacks but a) this is Tom Brady we're talking about, not some rookie and b) you can get too cute for your own good sometimes.
In this case I think the Giants were falling for B, getting far too cute with their coverage when they should have just unleashed Pierre-Paul at the quarterback. I noticed the Patriots also ran a pick play to get this touchdown, but expecting the Patriots (or indeed anyone in the NFL) to get called for offensive pass interference is like trying to get blood out of a stone.
I was also a little surprised by the Giants choice of coverage against guys like Wes Welker. Many times Welker found himself being covered by a linebacker, with the linebackers often sitting inside of him and giving him complete free reign to pivot or break to the outside. He - like most of the Patriots receivers - was also given a free release for most of the game.
This surprises me because if there is one thing we know about the Patriots offense, it's that they love to throw the ball short on quick routes and then let the receivers make the play with the ball in their hands. Given Brady's propensity to stare down receivers from the snap the tactic of jamming the Patriots receivers off of the line has proven very successful everytime that it has been used to date.
You simply can't allow guys like Wes Welker, Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez to come off the line cleanly and attack your defense. You have to get your hands on them and disrupt the timing, making Brady hold the ball for an extended period of time. The result of not doing this was aptly demonstrated at the end of the first quarter as Brady marched down the field playing short passes all over the shop. The Hernandez touchdown was also a great example of this principle in action.
In general I felt the Patriots did a slightly better job on defense for most of the game. They brought good pressure from their front, did a great job of taking Victor Cruz out of the game for large chunks of it, and were relatively stout against the run.
However they slipped up a few times and that cost them. Part of that was down to the Giants just having such a diverse array of deep threat targets, and partly it was because their secondary has been something of a bodged together unit this year.
Safety seemed to be a key area of weakness for them, as too many passes were hit deep along the sidelines or right in the middle in front of the safeties very eyes. The Patriots tackling was pretty good and they played the classic "bend but don't break" defense very well. In the end they essentially allowed Bradshaw to walk in for the Giants second touchdown out of the necessity of the time situation.
Really it was mistakes on offense though that killed them, something which is surprising given who we're talking about here.
Brady's intentional grounding penalty at the start was just inexplicable. He could have done many thing with the ball other than throw it to such a completely open spot. It really did make little sense, even watching it from the Sky Cam in real time. I'm sure that's one of the few throws he's made in his career that he'd like to have back.
Certainly some of his receivers would like to have some of those play back, especially on the final drive. Just when Brady needed the experienced hands of a guy like Hernandez he really let him down. It's difficult to say really whether the Patriots would have been able to march the field and set themselves up in a decent situation which wouldn't have required a hail mary shot, but they could at least have got much closer.
Overall then, in a mistake filled game that was a lot of fun to watch, the Giants made the least critical errors and did so further from the end game. That had a huge impact on the result I feel. It was still entertaining as hell and personally I thank both teams for the show they put on for our enjoyment.
Looking forward then, we have Free Agency just around the corner and that will be followed by the NFL draft. I've promised myself, for the sake of my blood pressure, that this year I absolutely will refuse to watch the combine or take any real notice of it. I plan to stick to that promise.
Sometime this week I'll start delving into the free agency pool and we'll have a look at some of the interesting names that come up. Till then, I'm off to enjoy the remains of the snow.
The Super Bowl itself was an interesting clash, largely due to a lot of the mistakes. You'll have to bare with me on this as I try to recollect all the things that caught my attention, which also points to the fact that I may indeed forget certain key things that I wanted to mention.
One thing I wont forget was the general display of poor technique that was shown by numerous players. I believe it was Brandon Spikes who had a shot at picking off the Giants first touchdown in the endzone, but like far too many defenders lately (across the whole NFL) he failed to get his head around and find the football.
I have no idea why so many players do this. It kind of goes without saying that unless you can actually see the football then you have no chance of picking it off. The coverage he was playing was purposely designed for him to undercut any quick pass such as the slant that came, but for that to be of any use then you have to get your head around and actually find the ball.
In that situation the plan is that you'll pick off the pass and not only save the touchdown, but have a great chance to run the ball back way down the field to set up the offense. But with your eyes transfixed on the receiver what hope do you have, as Spikes found out, of breaking up anything. If you cant see the ball then you cant stop the pass.
Now I'm not normally one inclined to give too much credit to Deion Sanders, but I will say this about him; he was superb at getting his head around to find the football and then make a play on it. He understood that unless you find the ball with your eyes then all you're doing is just following the receiver to the point where he makes a catch so that you can tackle him.
To have any chance of making an impact on the play and the game in general then you must get your head around and find the football. Spikes could have changed the whole complexion of the game if he had got his around and made that stop. Even just getting his hands on it and disrupting the pass would have been enough.
This was - however - just one of a veritable catalogue of errors. In a way I'm thankful. Error prone games tend to be more tightly fought, nail biting type contests as indeed was this one. It's why games between two crappy teams in the NFL tend to be exciting contests that end with ridiculous last minute comebacks etc, because the two teams are so error prone that neither of them can seal the deal properly.
The tackling in particular was poor at times. Hernandez might have got in for his touchdown anyway even if a more form like tackle been made on him, but one things that is for certain is that he was never going to be taken down by a simple hit, a point eloquently made when he bounced off and waltzed into the end zone.
Then there were the Giants fumbles. Three in all, two recovered by their own team, one ruled out by a penalty. It just stuns me that after all this time and what, ten seasons worth of heavy fumbles, the Giants still haven't fixed this. It's like the itch that they just cant (or wont) scratch. Given Tom Coughlin's reputation as a fearsome task master, and given the look on his face everytime he sees his team fumble the ball, I'm frankly amazed that this continues to be an issue.
Luckily the Giants got away with it this time. But it wasn't half a close run thing.
In particular I was disappointed with some of the Giants coverage. Given that the Patriots are not a team well known for their deep passing game this year I was surprised to see the Giants playing as much deep zone coverage as they did. That wasn't even the most odd/annoying thing though.
All season long the Giants have prided themselves on the quality of their pass rush, and rightly so. Mostly they've been able to get it done with their front four, but they've still made plenty of use of their linebackers in the pass rush, especially rushing Kiwanuka off the same side as Jason Pierre-Paul in order to guarantee that Pierre-Paul gets one on one matchups with no running back chip.
Yet they seemed incredibly reluctant to do this against the Patriots. Worse, they often found themselves on obvious passing downs (where the end rushers really make their money) but decided that instead of having their ends rush they would drop them off into coverage.
Now I could live with that if the ends were dropping off in the curl/flat zones to the sides but instead these ends often found themselves dropping back into the middle of the field where they were totally exposed, as happened to Pierre-Paul on the Patriots first touchdown.
I harped on this theme in a recent post about playing to your strengths and I'm going to harp on it again; why - on a critical passing down - is the best pass rusher on your team dropping back into coverage? I get that sometimes coaches like to pull little tricks to confuse quarterbacks but a) this is Tom Brady we're talking about, not some rookie and b) you can get too cute for your own good sometimes.
In this case I think the Giants were falling for B, getting far too cute with their coverage when they should have just unleashed Pierre-Paul at the quarterback. I noticed the Patriots also ran a pick play to get this touchdown, but expecting the Patriots (or indeed anyone in the NFL) to get called for offensive pass interference is like trying to get blood out of a stone.
I was also a little surprised by the Giants choice of coverage against guys like Wes Welker. Many times Welker found himself being covered by a linebacker, with the linebackers often sitting inside of him and giving him complete free reign to pivot or break to the outside. He - like most of the Patriots receivers - was also given a free release for most of the game.
This surprises me because if there is one thing we know about the Patriots offense, it's that they love to throw the ball short on quick routes and then let the receivers make the play with the ball in their hands. Given Brady's propensity to stare down receivers from the snap the tactic of jamming the Patriots receivers off of the line has proven very successful everytime that it has been used to date.
You simply can't allow guys like Wes Welker, Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez to come off the line cleanly and attack your defense. You have to get your hands on them and disrupt the timing, making Brady hold the ball for an extended period of time. The result of not doing this was aptly demonstrated at the end of the first quarter as Brady marched down the field playing short passes all over the shop. The Hernandez touchdown was also a great example of this principle in action.
In general I felt the Patriots did a slightly better job on defense for most of the game. They brought good pressure from their front, did a great job of taking Victor Cruz out of the game for large chunks of it, and were relatively stout against the run.
However they slipped up a few times and that cost them. Part of that was down to the Giants just having such a diverse array of deep threat targets, and partly it was because their secondary has been something of a bodged together unit this year.
Safety seemed to be a key area of weakness for them, as too many passes were hit deep along the sidelines or right in the middle in front of the safeties very eyes. The Patriots tackling was pretty good and they played the classic "bend but don't break" defense very well. In the end they essentially allowed Bradshaw to walk in for the Giants second touchdown out of the necessity of the time situation.
Really it was mistakes on offense though that killed them, something which is surprising given who we're talking about here.
Brady's intentional grounding penalty at the start was just inexplicable. He could have done many thing with the ball other than throw it to such a completely open spot. It really did make little sense, even watching it from the Sky Cam in real time. I'm sure that's one of the few throws he's made in his career that he'd like to have back.
Certainly some of his receivers would like to have some of those play back, especially on the final drive. Just when Brady needed the experienced hands of a guy like Hernandez he really let him down. It's difficult to say really whether the Patriots would have been able to march the field and set themselves up in a decent situation which wouldn't have required a hail mary shot, but they could at least have got much closer.
Overall then, in a mistake filled game that was a lot of fun to watch, the Giants made the least critical errors and did so further from the end game. That had a huge impact on the result I feel. It was still entertaining as hell and personally I thank both teams for the show they put on for our enjoyment.
Looking forward then, we have Free Agency just around the corner and that will be followed by the NFL draft. I've promised myself, for the sake of my blood pressure, that this year I absolutely will refuse to watch the combine or take any real notice of it. I plan to stick to that promise.
Sometime this week I'll start delving into the free agency pool and we'll have a look at some of the interesting names that come up. Till then, I'm off to enjoy the remains of the snow.
Sunday, February 05, 2012
AAAARRGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Or as it's otherwise known, the Super Bowl is tomorrow and I had a big post planned. I'd written about a third I think of what would have been the end thing, and now it has disappeared into the digital wilderness, probably hiding somewhere in the darkest recesses of my computer.
So in short, I don't have the time or the patience to do all that again.
That means I'm going to just briefly talk about the Super Bowl, starting with the fact that when I think of football, New York and New England all in one sentence, I visualise the word "snow" appearing. Which is exactly what I can see looking out of my window. 4 inches of it.
The other thing I've visualised when thinking about New York, New England and the Super Bowl is this; I don't know about you, but I really haven't been that hyped up for this one. Admittedly that's probably because I've stayed well clear of NFL.com. I just cannot stomach that website right now and as a result I've lost the usual feelings of anticipation that I normally get come Super Bowl time. Odd.
As for the game itself, I'm backing the Giants to pull off a repeat of their last Super Bowl meeting with the Patriots. I say this because the Giants - to me at least - seem like a much stronger all around team, especially when you factor in injuries to the Patriots offense.
Is Rob Gronkowski going to be fit enough to play, and indeed to play at the level required? If not then that makes life so much easier for the Giants defensive coverage. Aaron Hernandez is still a potent threat in his place, but not as much as Gronkowski. It means Welker can become the focus for the G-men defense, putting someone like Aaron Ross on him to the exclusion of all else.
Which generally I see as the Giants best bet to nail down the Patriots. Go man to man across the board, press the crap out of the New England receivers, and then do everything possible to help that pass rush find its way home. That means blitzing from the same side that Jason Pierre-Paul lines up on, to guarantee him one on one matchups on key plays.
And that really gets to the heart of why I like the Giants. Their defensive line is fantastic and as well as the Patriots have managed to protect Tom Brady, I can't see them staving off the Giants pass rush with the ease that they have against lesser teams. The Giants line is just too talented to let that happen.
Of course the monkey in the room is Eli Manning.
His propensity for making key mistakes at critical times could really bite the Giants in the butt here. That's of course before we get on to the general subject of Giants ball carriers having a propensity to fumble the football on any occasion given to them.
I definitely think that if the Giants are going to blow it then that is where it will happen, on the offensive side. They have wonderful potential in guys like Victor Cruz, Hakeem Nicks, Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs, but they are also just as prone to making big mistakes and throwing games away despite the best efforts of their defense to keep them in it.
When you factor in Bill Belichick, a coach with a talent for finding ways to game plan against specific opponents if he's given sufficient lead time (which obviously he has for this one), I worry. Belichick has a somewhat motley group of players on his defense, and generally his secondary is a patch work of awfulness, but he also has some talented players up front in the likes of Wilfork, Mayo, Guyton, Spikes and Ninkovich.
That gives Belichick exactly what he likes; options. Options of how to build his pass rush, with Wilfork as the solid anchor around which everything else is based. Expect to see a defensive front and blitzes that you haven't seen out of the Patriots all season.
Most people think the Patriots will run a 4-3 as they have done all year long, but I dunno. It just strikes me that Belichick isn't going to like the thought of just rolling up with the same D that the Giants have been watching on film, especially as the Giants themselves run a 4-3 defense. If I'm Belichick, I'm going to switch to a linebacker heavy defense and get as many of my best players (his linebackers) on the field at once as possible.
That potential for a unique looking defense could be the curve ball that ruins the game for Eli and the Giants offense as they start clutching at straws to figure out a way to adapt and survive. By the time they do, it might just be too late.
I have a certain degree of faith in the Giants D though. I think they've caught the Patriots at a perfect time and I think their front will be enough to cause some serious disruption to Brady. All things considered, I just think the Giants have that slight edge that should be enough to see them through.
And then the great debate will ensue about which quarterback is better, Eli or Peyton, Manning? Do stats matter more than Super Bowls? It'll certainly be an interesting debate.
I'll be back after the Super Bowl at some point in the week, time permitting, for a recap and to share my thoughts. Until then, enjoy the game, and enjoy your Super Bowl party!!
So in short, I don't have the time or the patience to do all that again.
That means I'm going to just briefly talk about the Super Bowl, starting with the fact that when I think of football, New York and New England all in one sentence, I visualise the word "snow" appearing. Which is exactly what I can see looking out of my window. 4 inches of it.
The other thing I've visualised when thinking about New York, New England and the Super Bowl is this; I don't know about you, but I really haven't been that hyped up for this one. Admittedly that's probably because I've stayed well clear of NFL.com. I just cannot stomach that website right now and as a result I've lost the usual feelings of anticipation that I normally get come Super Bowl time. Odd.
As for the game itself, I'm backing the Giants to pull off a repeat of their last Super Bowl meeting with the Patriots. I say this because the Giants - to me at least - seem like a much stronger all around team, especially when you factor in injuries to the Patriots offense.
Is Rob Gronkowski going to be fit enough to play, and indeed to play at the level required? If not then that makes life so much easier for the Giants defensive coverage. Aaron Hernandez is still a potent threat in his place, but not as much as Gronkowski. It means Welker can become the focus for the G-men defense, putting someone like Aaron Ross on him to the exclusion of all else.
Which generally I see as the Giants best bet to nail down the Patriots. Go man to man across the board, press the crap out of the New England receivers, and then do everything possible to help that pass rush find its way home. That means blitzing from the same side that Jason Pierre-Paul lines up on, to guarantee him one on one matchups on key plays.
And that really gets to the heart of why I like the Giants. Their defensive line is fantastic and as well as the Patriots have managed to protect Tom Brady, I can't see them staving off the Giants pass rush with the ease that they have against lesser teams. The Giants line is just too talented to let that happen.
Of course the monkey in the room is Eli Manning.
His propensity for making key mistakes at critical times could really bite the Giants in the butt here. That's of course before we get on to the general subject of Giants ball carriers having a propensity to fumble the football on any occasion given to them.
I definitely think that if the Giants are going to blow it then that is where it will happen, on the offensive side. They have wonderful potential in guys like Victor Cruz, Hakeem Nicks, Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs, but they are also just as prone to making big mistakes and throwing games away despite the best efforts of their defense to keep them in it.
When you factor in Bill Belichick, a coach with a talent for finding ways to game plan against specific opponents if he's given sufficient lead time (which obviously he has for this one), I worry. Belichick has a somewhat motley group of players on his defense, and generally his secondary is a patch work of awfulness, but he also has some talented players up front in the likes of Wilfork, Mayo, Guyton, Spikes and Ninkovich.
That gives Belichick exactly what he likes; options. Options of how to build his pass rush, with Wilfork as the solid anchor around which everything else is based. Expect to see a defensive front and blitzes that you haven't seen out of the Patriots all season.
Most people think the Patriots will run a 4-3 as they have done all year long, but I dunno. It just strikes me that Belichick isn't going to like the thought of just rolling up with the same D that the Giants have been watching on film, especially as the Giants themselves run a 4-3 defense. If I'm Belichick, I'm going to switch to a linebacker heavy defense and get as many of my best players (his linebackers) on the field at once as possible.
That potential for a unique looking defense could be the curve ball that ruins the game for Eli and the Giants offense as they start clutching at straws to figure out a way to adapt and survive. By the time they do, it might just be too late.
I have a certain degree of faith in the Giants D though. I think they've caught the Patriots at a perfect time and I think their front will be enough to cause some serious disruption to Brady. All things considered, I just think the Giants have that slight edge that should be enough to see them through.
And then the great debate will ensue about which quarterback is better, Eli or Peyton, Manning? Do stats matter more than Super Bowls? It'll certainly be an interesting debate.
I'll be back after the Super Bowl at some point in the week, time permitting, for a recap and to share my thoughts. Until then, enjoy the game, and enjoy your Super Bowl party!!
Friday, February 03, 2012
Update 02/03/12
Currently working on a post covering the Giants and the Patriots ahead of the Super Bowl, breaking down both teams as best I can. It will be up either later this evening or tomorrow.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Playing to your strengths
When reading today's article please keep in mind that I am in indescribable pain thanks to a lost filling in one of my teeth. If I seem like I'm aimlessly ranting at any point, it could just be pure frustration from the pain or loss of senses from the painkillers. Or it might just be me going on one of my rants. Either way, I'll be using the pain as an excuse.
Basically today I want to talk about a subject that invariably seems to bug the hell out of me every year, mostly because every season - without fail - there will be numerous examples of teams failing to adhere to what is effectively a foundational adage of football; get your best players involved in the game. Or "feed your studs". Or "let your kid make a play". Or any other version of that same theme.
Because for me the difference in the Giants/49ers NFC Championship game was, at least from an offensive perspective, the greater ability and desire of the Giants to get the ball into the hands of their best players, such as receiver Victor Cruz. The 49ers meanwhile barely tried to get the ball to Vernon Davis and Frank Gore, arguably the two most talented players on that offense.
It's an issue familiar to fans of a number of teams. Talking to Vikings fans about this subject is like preaching to the converted. They've spent the last few seasons watching in vain as Adrian Peterson either stands on the sidelines or else gets called on to pass block (probably the weakest part of his game) as the Vikings insist on trying to pass their way to victory, despite having a dynamite running back who many consider to be the best in the league.
Nor will I have to lecture Ravens fans, who got all the ammunition they needed earlier this year from Terrell Suggs, who bemoaned on TV a lack of carries for Ray Rice, who without question is their most explosive playmaker on offense. That's not to say that receivers like Anquan Boldin and Torrey Smith are bad, they absolutely are not. But the guy throwing to them can be very sketchy at times, the offensive line doesn't always hold up that well, and it still doesn't detract from the fact that Ray Rice is truly one of those "touchdown waiting to happen" type players.
Just ask the Chicago Bears. For a long time now Bears fans have been frustrated by the 'pass first' offense of Mike Martz, with the press pitching in too to apply the pressure. So it seems Martz decided to take it a little literally this year by saying - and I'm paraphrasing here - "fuck it, I'll run the ball every play for the first ten plays and I'll show them who's rig... oh shit this actually works".
Matt Forte had a fantastic season until he went down injured, showing off his skills in the open field after the Bears O-line opened up some big holes for him. Thus, in games where the Bears stuck with Forte and their running game, they actually did pretty well.
Now before we go any further, I accept that it's not feasible to just completely rely on one player for your entire offense. You can't run the ball with the same guy 60 times per game, or throw the ball to one player 40 times. You can try, but I'd hasten to suggest that in the modern era of adaptable and somewhat advanced defenses that you wont get very far.
But highlighting a certain player in your game plan (or indeed the adjunct to this; targeting a weak opposing player) should be a key feature of every coaches consideration in the run up to game day. If you have a great running back who has a knack for finding space and breaking off big runs then it makes sense for you to give him plenty of opportunities to do what it is that he does best.
If you have a great receiver who can run like the wind blows (yes, Forrest Gump is one of my favourite films, so screw you) and who has a great talent for catching jump balls then it makes sense to adjust your passing game plan to emphasis this talent and take advantage of it with plentiful opportunities for your star guy to get down field and make plays on jump balls. You can then set out much of the rest of your passing game to take advantage of a defensive over reaction to this threat.
And hell, the theory even applies to defense. If you have a great pass rushing outside linebacker then it makes little sense to have him dropping off into coverage 50% of the time. That means that on half of your defensive snaps you're not using one of your best players to his full potential. It doesn't mean you can go to the extreme and have him rush 100% of the time, not least because of the element of surprise opportunities that are present when you do ask him to drop off. However such a player probably should be spending 75% of your defensive snaps (or around that) doing the thing that he does best.
Got a safety who plays great coming down into the curl flat zone? Then for goodness sake make sure he gets plenty of chances to come down and poach in that zone. Admittedly here you have to be a little more careful about presenting the exact same coverage to the offense 75% of the time, and indeed you might even be looking at a figure under 50%, but at the very least you have to give your playmakers ample chances to play in the roles that suit them best.
It's just a real hobby horse of mine to jump on.
I just can't stand watching teams that clearly have a lot of potential squandering it through the misuse of key talent. When you see teams that have great running backs and terrible wide receiver corps trying to emulate the Colts and Patriots it kind of makes me sad, for the fans if not for the teams themselves. Or conversely when you see a team that has some great receivers on their roster, yet they're chucking the ball to the third string wide out on a screen pass or trying to throw deep bombs to the kid that's only caught two passes all season.
Compare and contrast to Tom Brady of the Patriots. Brady has some deep talent in his receiving corps, but fundamentally you know that when Brady drops back to pass he's only really interested in Rob Gronkowski or Wes Welker. Occasionally he'll distribute the ball to guys like Aaron Hernandez who is another excellent tight end, but there is a very good reason why Chad Ochocinco, Deion Branch, Tiquan Underwood and Julian Edelman haven't had their names called all that much this season. Brady knows where his money guys are and he goes looking for them early and often.
Even Aaron Rodgers (Discount Double Check!) has his favourites. Sure he distributes the love around that receiving corps a little more than some, but Jordy Nelson and Greg Jennings still lead the way, mainly because they've been hot this season. Rodgers isn't a fool. He knows which receivers he trusts and which receivers are likely to make plays in the various scenarios that come up during a game.
On defense the principle can also be seen in action. The 49ers bringing Ahmad Brooks on plentiful blitzes. The Giants using linebacker blitzes to guarantee they get one on one matchups for defensive linemen like Jason Pierre-Paul. The Ravens getting plenty of mileage out of Terrell Suggs. The Eagles using a wide nine alignment for their defensive ends to take advantage of their pass rushing attributes.
It's a basic cornerstone of most team sports, not just football. You try and emphasise your key players, putting them in such a position that they can have the most effect on the outcome of a game. That's not to say that teams can just lean on one guy or that the other team members aren't important, but most successful basketball teams are the ones that create plenty of chances for their best players. It's the same with soccer, rugby, hockey and just about any other team sport you can name.
Simple things like designing three or four plays that are specifically designed for a key playmaker, or moving that playmaker around so that the opposition finds it hard to key in on him can make a huge difference. Consider as well the effect when teams have shut down key members of the opposition. When the Cowboys and Patriots met earlier this year, Rob Ryan must have dug up his game plan from the previous year with the Browns, as he managed to press Welker and Gronkowski practically out of the game entirely, at least until that final Patriots drive.
Or the amount of times this season that teams have doubled up on Clay Matthews with their running back or tight end helping out the right tackle with a chip, not to mention the fact that because the Packers have hardly moved Matthews around this year he's practically been a sitting duck for quarterbacks to set their protection against.
It really is one of the easiest ways that a coach can have a big influence on his team or on his opponents, by emphasising his strongest players while shutting out the opponents biggest threats. It takes very little in the way of adjustments on the part of the coordinators, especially given the impact that it can have on the game.
That's the main thing I'll be watching out for next Sunday as the Giants take on the Patriots. I want to see what steps - if any - that the Giants defense takes to try and erase Welker and Gronkowski (if he plays, which it looks likely that he will) from the game, as well as what blitzes and stunts they use to try and get their playmaking pass rushers into favourable match ups.
Also I'm intrigued as to how the Patriots will use motion and formations to try and keep Welker away from the likes of Aaron Ross, while giving themselves plenty of chances to get the ball to their key receivers. On defense I'm interested to see what blitzes Bill Belichick will come up with to emphasise the talents of guys like Rob Ninkovich, and how he's going to organise a secondary that doesn't look like it matches up well with the Giants plethora of talent at the wide receiver position.
Remember; play to your strengths!
Basically today I want to talk about a subject that invariably seems to bug the hell out of me every year, mostly because every season - without fail - there will be numerous examples of teams failing to adhere to what is effectively a foundational adage of football; get your best players involved in the game. Or "feed your studs". Or "let your kid make a play". Or any other version of that same theme.
Because for me the difference in the Giants/49ers NFC Championship game was, at least from an offensive perspective, the greater ability and desire of the Giants to get the ball into the hands of their best players, such as receiver Victor Cruz. The 49ers meanwhile barely tried to get the ball to Vernon Davis and Frank Gore, arguably the two most talented players on that offense.
It's an issue familiar to fans of a number of teams. Talking to Vikings fans about this subject is like preaching to the converted. They've spent the last few seasons watching in vain as Adrian Peterson either stands on the sidelines or else gets called on to pass block (probably the weakest part of his game) as the Vikings insist on trying to pass their way to victory, despite having a dynamite running back who many consider to be the best in the league.
Nor will I have to lecture Ravens fans, who got all the ammunition they needed earlier this year from Terrell Suggs, who bemoaned on TV a lack of carries for Ray Rice, who without question is their most explosive playmaker on offense. That's not to say that receivers like Anquan Boldin and Torrey Smith are bad, they absolutely are not. But the guy throwing to them can be very sketchy at times, the offensive line doesn't always hold up that well, and it still doesn't detract from the fact that Ray Rice is truly one of those "touchdown waiting to happen" type players.
Just ask the Chicago Bears. For a long time now Bears fans have been frustrated by the 'pass first' offense of Mike Martz, with the press pitching in too to apply the pressure. So it seems Martz decided to take it a little literally this year by saying - and I'm paraphrasing here - "fuck it, I'll run the ball every play for the first ten plays and I'll show them who's rig... oh shit this actually works".
Matt Forte had a fantastic season until he went down injured, showing off his skills in the open field after the Bears O-line opened up some big holes for him. Thus, in games where the Bears stuck with Forte and their running game, they actually did pretty well.
Now before we go any further, I accept that it's not feasible to just completely rely on one player for your entire offense. You can't run the ball with the same guy 60 times per game, or throw the ball to one player 40 times. You can try, but I'd hasten to suggest that in the modern era of adaptable and somewhat advanced defenses that you wont get very far.
But highlighting a certain player in your game plan (or indeed the adjunct to this; targeting a weak opposing player) should be a key feature of every coaches consideration in the run up to game day. If you have a great running back who has a knack for finding space and breaking off big runs then it makes sense for you to give him plenty of opportunities to do what it is that he does best.
If you have a great receiver who can run like the wind blows (yes, Forrest Gump is one of my favourite films, so screw you) and who has a great talent for catching jump balls then it makes sense to adjust your passing game plan to emphasis this talent and take advantage of it with plentiful opportunities for your star guy to get down field and make plays on jump balls. You can then set out much of the rest of your passing game to take advantage of a defensive over reaction to this threat.
And hell, the theory even applies to defense. If you have a great pass rushing outside linebacker then it makes little sense to have him dropping off into coverage 50% of the time. That means that on half of your defensive snaps you're not using one of your best players to his full potential. It doesn't mean you can go to the extreme and have him rush 100% of the time, not least because of the element of surprise opportunities that are present when you do ask him to drop off. However such a player probably should be spending 75% of your defensive snaps (or around that) doing the thing that he does best.
Got a safety who plays great coming down into the curl flat zone? Then for goodness sake make sure he gets plenty of chances to come down and poach in that zone. Admittedly here you have to be a little more careful about presenting the exact same coverage to the offense 75% of the time, and indeed you might even be looking at a figure under 50%, but at the very least you have to give your playmakers ample chances to play in the roles that suit them best.
It's just a real hobby horse of mine to jump on.
I just can't stand watching teams that clearly have a lot of potential squandering it through the misuse of key talent. When you see teams that have great running backs and terrible wide receiver corps trying to emulate the Colts and Patriots it kind of makes me sad, for the fans if not for the teams themselves. Or conversely when you see a team that has some great receivers on their roster, yet they're chucking the ball to the third string wide out on a screen pass or trying to throw deep bombs to the kid that's only caught two passes all season.
Compare and contrast to Tom Brady of the Patriots. Brady has some deep talent in his receiving corps, but fundamentally you know that when Brady drops back to pass he's only really interested in Rob Gronkowski or Wes Welker. Occasionally he'll distribute the ball to guys like Aaron Hernandez who is another excellent tight end, but there is a very good reason why Chad Ochocinco, Deion Branch, Tiquan Underwood and Julian Edelman haven't had their names called all that much this season. Brady knows where his money guys are and he goes looking for them early and often.
Even Aaron Rodgers (Discount Double Check!) has his favourites. Sure he distributes the love around that receiving corps a little more than some, but Jordy Nelson and Greg Jennings still lead the way, mainly because they've been hot this season. Rodgers isn't a fool. He knows which receivers he trusts and which receivers are likely to make plays in the various scenarios that come up during a game.
On defense the principle can also be seen in action. The 49ers bringing Ahmad Brooks on plentiful blitzes. The Giants using linebacker blitzes to guarantee they get one on one matchups for defensive linemen like Jason Pierre-Paul. The Ravens getting plenty of mileage out of Terrell Suggs. The Eagles using a wide nine alignment for their defensive ends to take advantage of their pass rushing attributes.
It's a basic cornerstone of most team sports, not just football. You try and emphasise your key players, putting them in such a position that they can have the most effect on the outcome of a game. That's not to say that teams can just lean on one guy or that the other team members aren't important, but most successful basketball teams are the ones that create plenty of chances for their best players. It's the same with soccer, rugby, hockey and just about any other team sport you can name.
Simple things like designing three or four plays that are specifically designed for a key playmaker, or moving that playmaker around so that the opposition finds it hard to key in on him can make a huge difference. Consider as well the effect when teams have shut down key members of the opposition. When the Cowboys and Patriots met earlier this year, Rob Ryan must have dug up his game plan from the previous year with the Browns, as he managed to press Welker and Gronkowski practically out of the game entirely, at least until that final Patriots drive.
Or the amount of times this season that teams have doubled up on Clay Matthews with their running back or tight end helping out the right tackle with a chip, not to mention the fact that because the Packers have hardly moved Matthews around this year he's practically been a sitting duck for quarterbacks to set their protection against.
It really is one of the easiest ways that a coach can have a big influence on his team or on his opponents, by emphasising his strongest players while shutting out the opponents biggest threats. It takes very little in the way of adjustments on the part of the coordinators, especially given the impact that it can have on the game.
That's the main thing I'll be watching out for next Sunday as the Giants take on the Patriots. I want to see what steps - if any - that the Giants defense takes to try and erase Welker and Gronkowski (if he plays, which it looks likely that he will) from the game, as well as what blitzes and stunts they use to try and get their playmaking pass rushers into favourable match ups.
Also I'm intrigued as to how the Patriots will use motion and formations to try and keep Welker away from the likes of Aaron Ross, while giving themselves plenty of chances to get the ball to their key receivers. On defense I'm interested to see what blitzes Bill Belichick will come up with to emphasise the talents of guys like Rob Ninkovich, and how he's going to organise a secondary that doesn't look like it matches up well with the Giants plethora of talent at the wide receiver position.
Remember; play to your strengths!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)