NFL 2008

[D'kian]

I missed makign a few observations about the last week and the playoffs:

1) Coach Tomlin's being criticized for allowing most starters to play against cleveland, because Big Ben got a concussion out of it. True, it was a game that dind't matter, and that the backups would have won anyway. But Pittsburgh has a bye week, therefore not playing in the last game means some players don't play at all for three weeks (from the end of week 16 to the divisional playoffs. That can make the players rusty and no one wants that. Besides football is a violent sport. Any player can be badly injured in any play, and it doesn't make any difference whether or not the game matters at all.

2) The bad teams showed how bad they were. Detroit, well, there's nothign more to say besides that 0-16 record. But the Browns, who came into the season with high jopes, managed not to score an offensive TD in four games and be shut out twice in a row for the first time in their long history.

3) This year many divisions were awfully weak. Notably the NFC North and West and the AFC West (the AFC North was rather weak, too). Meaning many division champs are worse teams than the wildcards they'll face. I'm witholding judgement on Miami, but the Colts look much stronger than the Chargers, the Eagles than Minnesota and Atlanta than Arizona (but then almost every team does). Also New England was shut out of the playoffs with an 11-5 record.

Now, I understand how divisional play works. In the main it's a good system, but now and then there are situations like this years'. So I proppose a modest reform: for the wild card game, the game whousl be held at the home of the team with the superior record regardless of seeding position. In other words, this weekend's games would be played at Indianapolis, Atlanta, Baltimore, and Minnesota, rather than at San Diego, Miami, Arizona and Minnesota.

4) The NFL announced that in 2010 the Pro Bowl (remember it?) will be held in Miami one week before the Superbowl. There is one word for this kind of idea: "Dumb." For one thing Superbowl contenders tend to have several players in the Pro Bowl (naturally). I don't see any coach who'd want to risk an injury to his best players on an exhibition game right before the championship.

It would drive up ratings for that abysmal game, sure. Most fans miss football that dreadful week before the Big Game. We'll watch because it's the only thing on, certainly. But the game quality may be even worse than usual because many of the top players will be even more cautious than normal for the reasons outlined above.

The NFL has justified holding its all-star game after the season because football is a dangerous sport with high risk for injuries. Therefore to reduce the risk of star players being hurt when it matters, the game is played after nothing remains at stake. That's sound reasoning, even if it makes the Pro Bowl a low-rated game. Other sports play their all-stars at mid-season, but there the injury risk is much smaller.

If the League will require that the conference champs risk their best players on a no-account game one week before the Superbowl, I'm sure those teams will protest. It might be best to do as other sports do, and have the all-star game mid-season (but then....) Or to scrap the game altogether.

Or to change it. Suppose instead of the best in each conference against each other, there were an all-League team playing the Superbowl champion. So who's better, the NY Giants or the rest of the league? Sounds good, doesn't it? Well, who knows. Soccer tried something like this in the 70s. A really good national team, like Brazil or Germany, would play an exhibition against the "Rest of The World" team, composed of the best players from various countries.

This is one idea that sounds good but isn't, and the same goes for all knids of all-star games. Maybe a dream team would be made of Peyton Manning, Clinton Portis, Terrel Owens, etc etc. But give them only a week or two to train together, coming as they all do from diferent playing systems, and the results are mediocre at best. This holds true for all sports. In basketball the US was able to field an unbeatable Olympics team because they had more than a week or two to integrate it.

So the only way to amke the Pro Bowl intersting is to play it in March, giving the coaches and their staffs a fair shot at putting together all-star teams that will play as if the players were really the best in both conferences. Anything else is an exhibition game where fans can savor their favorite players being chosen, and fantasize about how a great team they'd make if they could really integrate a real team.

[D'kian]

The season is over, finally the playoff picture is settled (Denver is still playing San Diego as I write, but, really, they're fighting for the privilege of loosing against Indianapolis next week).

The problem with next week is that it eventually morphs into this week and then events actually take place (imagine that).

So, the Chargers played well, but Indianapolis tried very hard to defeat itself and it succeeded. 1) the Colts failed to take advantage of two crucial Chargers turnovers at the Indy end zone.Twice. Stopping the other team is all well and good, but you have to score if you want to win. 2) Indianapolis committed too many penalties. In particular I mean the overtime Chargers' offensive, where the Colts granted them three, that's three, first downs by penalties. Most egregious was a face-mask penalty committed on a stopped running back.

Overall I see two big surprises: Miami and Arizona. The former ended last season 1-15, the latter are the Arizona Cardinals.

I should say the win over Atlanta, a very convincing win, surprised me even more. I tend to dismiss the home-field advantage. I still don't think it's of crucial importance, but some teams may benefit more from it than others. The Cardinals apparently do.

The Bottom Line™ is I expected the Colts to win, but it may be the Chargers will be a better rival for the Steelers (ie the Steelers can beat the Chargers), should it get that far. I don't think it will. I expect the Dolphins to win, thereby consigning San Diego to a clash versus the Titans next week.

Of course, you can see what my predictions are worth.

[Thales]

Cardinals all the way, baby!

I never hear that.

[D'kian]

Somewhere along the thread I must ahve said I expected the Dolphins to beat the Ravens. Well, I dind't count on them to commit 5 turnovers, seeing as they had tied the record of fewest turnovers in a season. Pennington alone was intercepted half as many times as he was in the last 16 games. Still the Solphins did very well this year, and now the pressure is back on them for next year.

The Eagles, well, I sort of expected them to win. I dind't expect the Vikings offense to completely collapse in the second half.

But let's turn to other matters. We won't ahve brothers fighting for the NFL title (the Maning brothers), but we can still have a virgin bowl. That's what I call a Superbowl between teams that have never won a Superbowl before. in the NFC there are three teams that ahve never won one, Phily, Carolina and Arizona, and one that has, NY. In the AFC two ahve won, Pittsburgh and Baltimore, and two ahve not, San Diego and Tennessee. SO the ods are decent.

Of course what I want is for the Steelers to win the divisional playoff, the AFC championship and the Superbowl. I hope they will. But, really, with the joke of an offensive line they have, and a defense that must be tired and overplayed already, I don't expect them to.

Therefore absent the Steelers, the Superbowl I'd like to see is Carolina vs Tennessee. Failing that, San Diego vs Philadelphia. But the one I think most likely is NY vs Tennessee. We'll see.

[D'kian]

Cardinals all the way, baby!

I never hear that.

Well, it may have something to do that they've played their first playoff game at home since the invention of the wheel (ok, since they played in Chicago, I think).

But there are two reasons why the Cardinals were not named worst team of the XX Century: Atlanta and New Orleans.

Seriously, for a long, long time the Cardinals were a mediocre team in one of the toughest divisions in the NFC (East), regularly facing the Giants, the Eagles and the Cowboys. This year they are a slightly better team, with a great QB, playing in the loosest (or loosingest) division in the NFC (West). If they beat the Panthers this weekend, I'll be happy to admit they're good.

[Thales]

Well, it may have something to do that they've played their first playoff game at home since the invention of the wheel (ok, since they played in Chicago, I think).

But there are two reasons why the Cardinals were not named worst team of the XX Century: Atlanta and New Orleans.

Seriously, for a long, long time the Cardinals were a mediocre team in one of the toughest divisions in the NFC (East), regularly facing the Giants, the Eagles and the Cowboys. This year they are a slightly better team, with a great QB, playing in the loosest (or loosingest) division in the NFC (West). If they beat the Panthers this weekend, I'll be happy to admit they're good.

How 'bout dem Cardinals!!!

[KurtColville]

How 'bout dem Cardinals!!!

Very, very impressive. And to do that without Boldin, wow -- and man, the secondary came to play.

[D'kian]

How 'bout dem Cardinals!!!

They did beat Carolina, so I'll admit they're good.

BTW should the Cardinals win the Superbowl (and that would be impossible if they play Pittsburgh), would it be the first time a QB wins a Superbowl for two different teams?

[D'kian]

Yesterday's agmes were a bit surprising. I say a bit because a Baltimore victory shouldn't come as a surprise, since the Ravens had only one obstacle in winning their division: the Pittsburgh Steelers. The Cardinals, on the other hand, not only won, they blew the Panthers off. One can say Carolian lost due to the many interceptions suffered by Jake Delhomme, and they'd be right; but that many interceptions are a sign of a superior defense and not of a bad QB.

So, the Cards advance, for the very first time, to an NFC championship game. There they will either meet the Giants, or host the Eagles. I lay no bets there.

In the AFC things proceed well for the Steelers. They've beaten San Diego (badly, but with fewere penalties they ought to do better) and they've beaten the Ravens twice already (once in Baltimore). SO for once I'm optimistic about the Steelers chances to win the Superbowl this year, especially if they go against the Cardinals.

You see, the Cardinals can't win the Super Bowl. Never in all the NFL's history has a quarterback won the Big One for two different teams. Since Kurt Warner ahs already won playing for the Rams, he can't possibly win again with Phoenix. Of course that's just a matter of statistics and common sense: winning QBs are not traded to other teams. Warner may be the expection.

BTW only four coaches by my count have reached the Superbowl coaching for two different teams: Don Shula (Baltimore and Miami), Dick Vermeil (Phily and St. Louis Rams), Bill Parcells (NY Giants and New England) and Dan Reeves (Denver and Atlanata). But none have won it for two teams, and Reeves dind't win with either team.

[Thales]

Well, D'kian, regarding the QB statistic, correlation isn't causation.

I don't really expect them to win the Superbowl, but I am surprised they've done as well as they have. Props to them!

[D'kian]

Well, D'kian, regarding the QB statistic, correlation isn't causation.

That's why i said it was a matter of statistics and common sense. 1) Winning QBs don't get traded away. 2) Winning the Superbowl is so hard, that it's unlikely any QB or head coach will do it twice for different teams. I expect eventually some QB or head coach will manage such a feat.

Now on to other things. Pittsburgh played much better than I expected. Maybe a bye week does help. or maybe San Diego suffered mroe from the cold. Anyway, this time the Steelers' offense did not leave the game to the defense to win. In the third quarter San Diego had all of 17 seconds time of possesion. Partly that was accidental, as when they lost the ball on a punt that hit a blocker in the helmet (you can't plan such immacualte plays), partly it was due to an interception during San Diego's only play in the quarter; but also partly because the offense undertook a long, time consuming drive at the opening of the second half. That's the kind of thing Pittsburgh doesn't do easily or often. Even so, they only scored 7 points. But shutting the CHargers out of the quarter prevented them from scoring, too. So that probably won the game.

Tomlin is now 1-1 in playoff games, which isn't so bad for a young coach. But I still can't figure out his strategy of going for it on 4th and short. Yes, a TD if better than a field goal, but also 3 points are better than none. Maybe he hates Jeff Reed. It's not like the Steelers' offense habitually manages to convert on such occasions. On the contrary, they own the bottom spot in 4th down conversions in the entire League.

Now the Steelers go against the Ravens. This is not an unusual situation for them. Back in the 1970s Chuck Noll dynasty the Steelers twice faced a divisional rival in the AFC Championship, the Houston Oilers, and twice they won. Well, the Oilers now call themselves the Titans and play in another division. But the principle is the same, down to the hard, physical game the teams are expected to play (in the 70s a Mexican analyst called the Oliers-Steelers games 'The Band-Aid Bowl' due to the many hard hits that ensued). I fully expect Pittsburgh to win.

As to the Eagles vs Arizona, the smart money is with Phily. They have a better overall track record than Arizona (but then again, who doesn't outside the NFC West and Detroit?). Only this year they went wild card, not division champions, and slumped hard during mid-season. besides, Phily has another tradition: loosing the big games. They've lost two Superbowls and several NFC championships. And they're playing well outside their time zone, too, which can be damaging.

I won't hazzard a prediction, but will say that I won't be surprised if the Cards win. Then the Cardinals can join Seattle, the LA Rams (now St. Louis Rams) and Minnesota as teams that can't beat the Steelers in the Superbowl.

[Sir Andrew]

I predict the Cardinals will continue their win to the Super Bowl, but will be stopped by the unstoppable Pittsburgh Steelers.

[FeatherFall]

I still can't figure out his strategy of going for it on 4th and short. Yes, a TD if better than a field goal, but also 3 points are better than none.

Three points was not going to be substantially better than zero in that situation. The Steelers were up by eleven, which means two scores ties or wins it for the Chargers. Three more points would put them up by fourteen, again meaning two scores ties or wins it for the chargers. A touchdown, however, effectively seals the victory. Now consider that the special teams coverage unit was not operating very well for the Steelers, where as a failed conversion means 97-99 yards for a team that hasn't been scoring much all game. Add to this the twin facts that the Charger's offense was out of rhythm for a whole quarter and the Steelers' defense was rested for a whole quarter, and you'll see why I think it was a good dicision to go for it.

[D'kian]

Three points was not going to be substantially better than zero in that situation. The Steelers were up by eleven, which means two scores ties or wins it for the Chargers.

The kinds of scores matter. Being ahead by 11, the rival can get ahead by scoring two unanswered TDs without having to go for two-point conversions. they'd get ahead by exactly three points.

Three more points would put them up by fourteen, again meaning two scores ties or wins it for the chargers.

Ah, but now they can only tie with relative ease. They can get ahead only by risking one or two two-point conversions after a TD. So they might not even tie.

A touchdown, however, effectively seals the victory.

It might. But considering Pittsburgh poor track record at converting in 4th and short, a field goal looks a lot better.

If you mean it made sense to risk not scoring, I have to agree that it did. that's considering the strenght of the Steel Curtain and San Diego's troubles moving the ball and scoring. But such decisions are riskier after the half, especially when you've only seen one play by the opposing team.

[Thales]

Cardinals are going to the Superbowl!

Hell must have frozen over.

[utabintarbo]

Cardinals are going to the Superbowl!

Hell must have frozen over.

Kinda almost gives us in Detroit some hope.

Nah, WTF am I thinking.

[Thales]

Kinda almost gives us in Detroit some hope.

Nah, WTF am I thinking.

There is hope, but I'm not sure how much. It all starts with management.

Btw …

I decided to check out some game highlights of the Cards-Eagles game, so I went to ESPN's NFL playoff page. I clicked on several of their videos and every single video was about some controversy, none showed any highlights of the game (they videos were also mislabeled). I mean, they may be there somewhere, but I couldn't find them on their NFL playoff page. So, I just gave up and via Google found a youtube video with lots of highlights. ESPN has become about everything but the game. Boring stuff.

[D'kian]

Cardinals are going to the Superbowl!

Hell must have frozen over.

No. That's scheduled for when New Orleans, Minnesota, Philadelphia or San Diego win the Superbowl. Arizona reaching the Superbowl merely caused a brief but cool breeze to blow through hell

On to more important things... The Ravens might as well move to Houston and change their name to the Oilers (sorry K-Mac). They just can't beat the Steel Curtain. They also illustrated the difference between having the best defense vs having the second-best defense.

Tomlin is now 2-1 in the playoffs, inlcuding one conference championship. If he wins the Superbowl he'll have done very well for a young coach. Even if he does hate Jeff Reed or is allergic to field goals. Now, I do understand taking the play before the fild goal right to the middle of the field, but not when you have only a few seconds remaining and no time outs at all. he should have thrown to the sidelines, or tried for a longer field goal (or taken a knee to the ground if the field goal was too long).

Other than that the whole team played well. Baltimore never got the lead, though they came a bit close once. Better luck next year (except they won't ahve better luck if they play the Steelers again).

As for the Cardinals, they did well enough, I dare say better than anyone expected. Truthfully, when the Eagles took the lead briefly it felt like waking up from a dream. I mean, the Cardinals simply are not the team one expects to see playing, much less winning, a conference championship. And that's all I will say against them, as they proved to be a good enough team to reach the Superbowl (exhibit A: they did reach the Superbowl; I rest my case).

So now we have the Steelers Bowl.

Why?

Well, because on the one hand we have the Steelers, and on the toehr we ahve the Steelers' former Offensive coordinator as head coach of Arizona.

How important is that? Some commentators are saying Arizona has the advantage because Whisenhunt knows the Steelers. Maybe. He knew the Steelers under Cowher, but they have changed under Tomlin (they no longer do the wild cat play where the running back passes back to the QB, who then throws long). But it also works the other way around: the Steelers know him.

We'll see it bears mentioning Arizona beat Pittsburgh in 07.

Kurt warer has a chance to be the first starting QB who wins superbowls for different teams (maybe the only one who looses superbowls for different teams, too).

[Rearden_Steel]

I predict the Cardinals will continue their win to the Super Bowl, but will be stopped by the unstoppable Pittsburgh Steelers.

If a wild card Giants team could beat a undeafeated Patriots team this would be no feat at all.

[FeatherFall]

So now we have the Steelers Bowl.

Why?

Well, because on the one hand we have the Steelers, and on the toehr we ahve the Steelers' former Offensive coordinator as head coach of Arizona.

I don't think enough good can be said about the Steelers' coaching staff over the last several years. They seem to have a breeding pit for coaches that sheds successes left and right. The Packers finally finished looking for a defensive coordinator. A few of the candidates were ex-Steelers, including the guy who finally landed the job, Dom Capers.

Regardless, I'm rooting for AZ.

[Thales]

No. That's scheduled for when New Orleans, Minnesota, Philadelphia or San Diego win the Superbowl. Arizona reaching the Superbowl merely caused a brief but cool breeze to blow through hell

I checked out the Wikipedia entry for the Cardinals, they were formed in, get this, 1898. They are the oldest still running professional football franchise in America. They won two championships prior, their last one in 1947 and their first one in 1925. I had no idea the NFL was even in existence in the 1920s. Anyway, they have won two playoff games since then, up until this season. So, in 60 years they've only won two playoff games. That's Chicago Cubs like incompetence.

You really can't compare New Orleans and San Diego, because they haven't been around nearly as long as the Cardinals.

Kurt warer has a chance to be the first starting QB who wins superbowls for different teams (maybe the only one who looses superbowls for different teams, too).

I think this will be his third trip to the Superbowl and he already has a ring, an impressive record for any QB.

The Steelers, of course, are one of the most successful franchises in NFL history.

[utabintarbo]

I think this will be his third trip to the Superbowl and he already has a ring, an impressive record for any QB.

If this doesn't seal this former grocery store clerk's trip to Canton, then entry into the Hall of Fame will have become meaningless. Without Warner, neither St. Louis nor Arizona would have even had a sniff at the big game.

[D'kian]

You really can't compare New Orleans and San Diego, because they haven't been around nearly as long as the Cardinals.

San Diego has reached the Superbowl and lost, and missed getting to the Superbowl on several occasions. New Orleans took an awful long time even getting to a playoff game since entering the League.

As to Phily and Minnesota, they both ahve played Superbowls and lost them all.

I think this will be his third trip to the Superbowl and he already has a ring, an impressive record for any QB.

Right. BTW I checked, he won't be the first starting QB to play a Superbowl for two different teams, nor will he be the first to loose for two different teams if the Steelers should win. At least one other QB already did both: Craig Morton. he lost for Dallas against Baltimore in 1970, then he lost for Denver against Dallas in 1977.

The Steelers, of course, are one of the most successful franchises in NFL history.

It bears repeating

Seriously they could be the first team to win six Superbowls.

[utabintarbo]

Seriously they could be the first team to win six Superbowls.

I wonder if it will come down to a fight between the Patriots and the Steelers for "Team of the Decade". Probably too late for the Steelers.

[D'kian]

I wonder if it will come down to a fight between the Patriots and the Steelers for "Team of the Decade". Probably too late for the Steelers.

You're probably right.

But Tomlin is very young, under 40 if memory serves. Regardless of what team Cowher left him, he's done more than just coast on it. If he fixes the offensive line, keeps Lebau (or gets someone as good to replace him), and manages to keep Roethlisberger in good health, he could guide the Steelers to 4 Superbowl wins. If it is in the span of two decades rather than one, who cares?

A second Steeler dynasty sounds about right.