NFL 2009

[D'kian]

What are you referring to, D'kian?

Well, let's see: they are named after a bland color, their helmets aren't even of that color, and there's nothing in the helmet at all. So in what parallel universe does nothing constitute a good design?

I mean, the erstwhile Browns had to change towns, names and forsake their history in order to win a Superbowl. Now the ersatz Browns took over the history, and traditions, and keep true to them: they can't win.

They are called the "Patriots", so they are kind of stuck with it.

The old Pats logo showed a Minuteman in a line stance. That was appropriate and illustrated a regional tradition (they haven't been the Boston Patriots for decades). Adding the notion of the flag to a streamlined Minuteman isn't bad. Adding more of the flag removes them from their region. the flag represents the whole country, not just the Atlantic Northeast.

I'm probably biased, but I think the St. Louis Blues have the best uniform and name in pro-sports. Notes floating across the ice.

I thought we'd agreed hockey is a fictional sport

[Jake_Ellison]

I happen to think the Patriots redesign is kick ass. Bold and proud!

I agree that the current one could use some more red (and some God Damn ability to remember defensive assignments, inside the helmet), but I don't think switching from your own logo to the American flag would be particularly inspired.

[Thales]

I agree that the current one could use some more red (and some God Damn ability to remember defensive assignments, inside the helmet), but I don't think switching from your own logo to the American flag would be particularly inspired.

It's probably too presumptuous for a team in a particular region, so I think you're probably right. Maybe for an Olympics team it makes more sense.

Well, let's see: they are named after a bland color, their helmets aren't even of that color, and there's nothing in the helmet at all. So in what parallel universe does nothing constitute a good design?

I mean, the erstwhile Browns had to change towns, names and forsake their history in order to win a Superbowl. Now the ersatz Browns took over the history, and traditions, and keep true to them: they can't win.

Teams used to have simple names like that. The Black Sox, White Sox, Red Sox. etc.

The old Pats logo showed a Minuteman in a line stance. That was appropriate and illustrated a regional tradition (they haven't been the Boston Patriots for decades). Adding the notion of the flag to a streamlined Minuteman isn't bad. Adding more of the flag removes them from their region. the flag represents the whole country, not just the Atlantic Northeast.

Yeah, the old logo was great. I think they could update that one and use it in place of the poor excuse for a logo they have now.

I thought we'd agreed hockey is a fictional sport

I just don't want any of those fictional pucks in the face!

Edited December 2, 2009 by Thales

[D'kian]

Teams used to have simple names like that. The Black Sox, White Sox, Red Sox. etc.

Which just goes to show baseball teams' names are as boring as their pseudo-sport.

BTW the Black Sox was the name of the White Sox after they became involved in some corrupt scheme or another.

I just don't want any of those fictional pucks in the face!

I'm still awaiting evidence of the existence of the mythical puck as used in actual games.

Anyway, the only helmet worse than the Browns' was the old Cincinnati helmet. Til 1980 or so they had a darker orange helmet, tending to red, with the word BENGALS in black on both sides. That's really lame.

[D'kian]

There is an exceedingly small chance this year's superbowl could be played between undefeated teams. I wouldn't bet a nickel on it.

I should qualify that: I wouldn't seriously bet a nickel on it.

The odds ought to be light-years long, of course, but a small bet would pay a small fortune. say the ods are 15,000 to one. A bookie would take the edge off and offer to pay, say, 10,000 to one. He'd colelct a bunch of sucker bets, because lots of suckers would bet $10 or $20 on such odds (for a $100,000 to $200,000 payoff) The problme is there isn't an offsetting bet: no one will bet the big game will be played by teams with at least one loss (a bet that would have negative odds; example a $10 bet would pay $1 plus the original bet). So no one should offer such a sucker bet because there's always the remote chance it could pay.

But if someone did offer it, I'd bet $5 on a lark.

[D'kian]

Stick a fork in the Steelers: they're done.

It's a hard thing to admit. Oh, well. Can't win them all, I suppose.

Anyway, that leaves me rooting for the Arizona Cardinals. Sure, I could pick Indy or the Ain'ts, or even the Vikings, or some other sure shot, but what's the fun in that? besides, there are two reasons for picking the Cards: Ken Wisenhunt and Kurt Warner.

Besides they are doing well. they completely demolished the Vikings last night, much to NO's relief (now they can lose one game and still get home field playoffs).

Oh, Indy and the Ain'ts both managed to remain undefeated, and something else may have happened outside Pittsburgh and Glendale. Truth is I lost interest in the week when the Steelers let a second-rate team beat them.

[D'kian]

This is interesting. I missed last Thursday's game because I had to work late, but I found some satisfaction in having called the Steelers' season over.

Of course, had I watched the game and suffered through it, I might feel differently.

Anwyay, a local pundit said during last week's disappointment vs the Raiders that the Ronneys were probably regretful about not having picked with Ken Wisenhunt as head coach. I confess during a bad loss I somewties think Wisenhunt woulnd't let the team lose, but that's just sour grapes. Tomlin took a well-honed team after a pretty bad season and made the playoffs. Next year he won the freaking Superbowl! What more does a head coach need to do?

I'm thinking perhaps Dick Lebeau is past his prime (sacrilege!) I mean, despite any failings on the offense, the defense has come apart. But maybe he's just ahving an off year. The man is not just good, he's brilliant and an innovator. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for one more season. What Tomlin and Ronney are willing to do is another matter, and of course counts a great deal more.

The offense has had very mixed results this year, and struggled last year. I think Bruce Arians has to go. He's wasting two good running backs, and his troops often can't rally when it matters most. besides, I'm convinced the best offensive coordinators are those who can innovate their way out of trouble. Wisenhunt did that in Pittsburgh and has kept his O coordinator doing it in Arizona.

Go Cards!

[Jake_Ellison]

Anwyay, a local pundit said during last week's disappointment vs the Raiders that the Ronneys were probably regretful about not having picked with Ken Wisenhunt as head coach.

Yeah, that shows how some people have no ability at all to consider more than one fact at a time. Next someone will ask for Brees to be benched after that pick last week.

[D'kian]

Oh, such a plethora of headlines for the week!

I was going to go with "Romo Wins in Effing DECEMBER!!" But that's not really ground-shaking.

Next it would be "With a Little Help From The Saints!" But, while the pundits will analyze how NO lost the entire week, it wasn't that important given the next headline:

"Minnesota Meltdown!" Nice alliteration. But, again, not good enough. Last year Favre faltered near the end of the season, too; he was overdue.

So I'm going with: "The Freaking CARDINALS Win Division For the Second Time in a ROW!

Yup. That's it. That's completely unprecedented, unexpected, unbelievable!

Oh, the Steelers won. Big whoop.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

WTF? I mean, What The F***ing F***!?!! Denver managed to lose to the R**d*rs!

[RussK]

Oh, such a plethora of headlines for the week!

I was going to go with "Romo Wins in Effing DECEMBER!!" But that's not really ground-shaking.

Next it would be "With a Little Help From The Saints!" But, while the pundits will analyze how NO lost the entire week, it wasn't that important given the next headline:

"Minnesota Meltdown!" Nice alliteration. But, again, not good enough. Last year Favre faltered near the end of the season, too; he was overdue.

So I'm going with: "The Freaking CARDINALS Win Division For the Second Time in a ROW!

Yup. That's it. That's completely unprecedented, unexpected, unbelievable!

Oh, the Steelers won. Big whoop.

Supposedly coach Childress cannot control Bret Favre. Who could have thought? Childress wanted to take Favre out of the game in the third quarter, but Favre refused to leave the game. Not only was Childress probably worried about Favre taking a continued pounding from Julius Peppers, but he also probably wanted to get a quarterback in there who would try and move around or out of the pocket. Favre was definitely wrong in his decision not to obey the authority of his head coach. Moreover, Minnesota has to be questioning Childress's contract extension with this apparent lack of control.

[Thales]

Oh, such a plethora of headlines for the week!

I was going to go with "Romo Wins in Effing DECEMBER!!" But that's not really ground-shaking.

Next it would be "With a Little Help From The Saints!" But, while the pundits will analyze how NO lost the entire week, it wasn't that important given the next headline:

"Minnesota Meltdown!" Nice alliteration. But, again, not good enough. Last year Favre faltered near the end of the season, too; he was overdue.

So I'm going with: "The Freaking CARDINALS Win Division For the Second Time in a ROW!

Yup. That's it. That's completely unprecedented, unexpected, unbelievable!

You could root for the Cowboys.

[D'kian]

Supposedly coach Childress cannot control Bret Favre. Who could have thought?

Favre is a special case. His numbers and wins aside, he's Iron Man Favre who holds the record for most consecutive starts. He's played with a broken thumb in his throwing hand. He played last year with a shoulder injury. He can't simply be removed from a game, and I don't think he'd quit a game voluntarily unless he's bleeding or crippled.

With a QB, especially one with a long and proven trajectory, the coach has some limits. He own't pull him out, but instead suggest he should leave the game. The coach has to be persuasive enough, or present his request as an order and suggest the QB had better followit. But pulling the QB out over his objections would be too humiliating for the player. You do not humiliate, especially not publicly, your star QB.

Favre was definitely wrong in his decision not to obey the authority of his head coach.

I agree. Especially since the Vikes are going to the playoffs and that's what really counts.

Moreover, Minnesota has to be questioning Childress's contract extension with this apparent lack of control.

You also don't fiddle with the coach, or even jog his elbos, this alte in the season. If he reaches the Superbowl or even the NFC championship, he should keep his job unmolested.

[D'kian]

You could root for the Cowboys.

You're funny.

The Cards are the logical choice. I like and admire Kurt Warner and Ken Wisenhunt. Besides the Cards are a Steeler-influenced team. If I can't have the real thing I'll settle for the substitute.

The Steelers ought to rethink Mike Tomlin. I'm not saying he's a bad coach or that hiring was a mistake. But last year he had a mediocre offense and this year, against all odds, he's running a mediocre defense. The problem isn't that the offense passes more and runs less, but that the defense allows too many points on the abord, especially late in the game. In all seven lost games the Steelers held the lead, sometimes a really big lead. Ok, the offense may also be ahving trouble mannaging the clock.

BTW There's been a lot of criticism of Roethlisberger concerning his ability as a passer. A lot of people will tell you his numbers in his first season, when he lost only one game (the AFC Championship) as a starter, were quite pedestrian or mediocre. Well. this year he has posted huge numbers, including a 505 yard game vs Green Bay last week. Of course, this year he's 7-7 while in his first season he wound up with a 16-2 team.

Except in cases where the team is terrible and/or totally alcking in defense, the QB should be judged more by the won and loss record than by stats.

[RussK]

Favre is a special case. His numbers and wins aside, he's Iron Man Favre who holds the record for most consecutive starts. He's played with a broken thumb in his throwing hand. He played last year with a shoulder injury. He can't simply be removed from a game, and I don't think he'd quit a game voluntarily unless he's bleeding or crippled.

Yeah, he's obviously a special case; if not, he would have been reprimanded in some way. It probably would be humiliating for Favre to have left the game, but he needs to get it into his head that he's an investment and the QB's behind him have more mobility. I think in hindsight he probably recognizes his error; I hope. The whole debacle just stirred up a bunch of unnecessary things for the team, from the coaches authority to Favre's limiting Adrian Peterson. They are not on the right track for the post season, but maybe they will fix it.

Edited December 25, 2009 by RussK

[D'kian]

Yeah, he's obviously a special case; if not, he would have been reprimanded in some way.

I don't know for sure, but I think he was reprimanded either by the coach or someone higher up behind closed doors. He must have been.

It probably would be humiliating for Favre to have left the game, but he needs to get it into his head that he's an investment and the QB's behind him have more mobility.

It is humiliating for any player to be pulled out, except in cases of injury, but more so for the QB. The quarterback is more than a player: he's the leader of the offense, the on-site CO as it were. Therefore removing the QB affects the entire team, especially if the team likes him.

In other news, the Titans are toast. What's newsworthy is that they should ahve been toast even before mid-season. Instead they held on til the next to last week. And that's probably the best season by a team with an 0-6 starting record.

I won't go into the playoff picture, as it is always too complicated and inclussive of unlikely scenarios. I'll just mention the Steelers still have a "mathematical" chance (technical term for don't bet on it). They need for a bunch of teams to lose one or two games, and they need to win their two remaining games. The up side is they face two of the teams which need to lose one game in order to make room for Pittsburgh: the Ravens and the Dolphins. I don't think the Steelers will make the postseason.

[D'kian]

The big news for this week, of course, is the Tampa Bay win over New Orleans in overtime. Tampa! Imagine that. Are the Saints winding down already, or merely reverting to type?

Oh, Indy lost, too, meaning there won't be any undefeated teams in the playoffs this year, but that was expected. What's surprising is they were only 5 point over the Jets when they pulled Manning and the others out.

The AFC playoff picture is still blurred, but I'd put money on Denver and either the Jets or the Ravens (meaning I'm probably wrong; but I then I rarely bet on football.)

[D'kian]

The Indianapolis Conspiracy Theory.

A lot of people, Colts fans and others, are very upset that Indy threw the game against the Jets. I'm upset, too. I'd ahve liked to see an undefeated Indy going to the playoffs. But I don't think there was more to the decision to rest the starters other than resting the starters. Sure, that has not worked for Indy in the past, but that only means management will fiddle with thir rest, not that they'll set them playing to the bitter end.

My disagreement with the removal of Manning and the rest from the game, was that they were up by just 5 points. They could ahve tried a couple more series withe the full team, to increase the lead if possible, before sending in the second-stringers.

Anwyay, the Conspiracy states Indy deliberately threw the game to favor the Jets' chances for making the plyoffs. How so? By making it more difficult for teams like Houston and Pittsburgh to qualify for post season play. A local pundit calls it a shame and a disgrace, and an insult to the game, because, he claims, no team ever deliberately lost before.

Now, that's not so. In one of Chuck Knoll's last season he was so disgusted by the offense he decreed three knees to the ground rather than a last frantic attempt to tie. When Vinny Testaverde was up for the draft, Indy and, I think, Tampa, were at the bottom of the League. They dind't quite play their last games to lose, but they dind't play to win either.

In any case I don't think the Colts wanted to give the W to the Jets. They just wanted to rest their starters.

[D'kian]

I'll do just one playoff scenario, the Steelers'.

They need Houston and either Baltimore or the Jets to lose; or the Jets, Baltimore and Denver to lose.

That's the bad part, that they need someone to lose. Had they won one of the three throw-away games against Cleveland, KC or Oakland, they'd only need to win this week. Had they won two of those games, they'dhave clinched a wild card spot by now, and would be fighting Cincinnatti for the division.

And that's why the Steelers don't deserve a playoff spot this year.

Of course if they get one I'll hope they do well and even win the Superbowl. I also hope I'll win the lotto when I play, but I don't expect to.

[Jake_Ellison]

A local pundit calls it a shame and a disgrace, and an insult to the game, because, he claims, no team ever deliberately lost before.

I'm really starting to hate local pundits. Where are these people "punditing" anyway, that they can just spew diarheea at the audience?

[D'kian]

I'm really starting to hate local pundits. Where are these people "punditing" anyway, that they can just spew diarheea at the audience?

Pretty much. This one also made the Wisenhunt comment about Pittsburgh. There's another who's not so bad, but when he narrates a game he tends to call a play while the ball is in the air. After hearing "Complete! No! Intercepted! No! He dropped it!" three times in a row I hit the mute button.

Anyway, the season is half over now. The playoffs being the other half, not in duration but in intensity, plus all the games are televised.

The Steelers are out, as expected. Not so expected, the Broncos are also out, giving them possibly the worst performance ever by a 6-0 team.

The last playoff berth won't be decided until later tonight when the Bengals vs Jets game is over. The small consolation is that since the Ravens won, I don't have to root for Cincinnati.

[Thales]

[D'kian]

There are some interesting oddities in this post season:

1) Three of the week 17 games will be repeated in the wild card weekend: Bengals vs Jets, Cards vs Packers and Eagles vs Cowboys. I don't recall something like that happening before. Two of the games will be in different stadiums, though. the Packers will go to Arizona and the Jets to Cincinnati.

Aside from Dallas and Philly, all other games were meaningless for at least one team. The Bengals had nothing to play for, neither did the Packers and the Cards.

2) A wild card team qualified by playing its last two games, which it needed to win, against teams which dind't play for anything. The Jets played first the Colts, who'd already clinched first seed, and then the Bengals, who'd already clinched third seed.

3) The top seed in the NFC lost the last three regular season games.

Not an oddity, but a change in League rules has the Pro Bowl played the week before the Super Bowl. Naturally those players whose teams reach the Super Bowl won't be in the Pro Bowl. They'll be busy practicing for the big game.

In related news, the NFL Commisioner has propposed offering incentives to highly placed teams to play their starters in the last few weeks of the season. This in order to avoid another mass fan disappointment like that perpetrated by Indy this year. I foresee failure. there's no incentive bigger than winning the Super Bowl. So long as coaches believe they're more likely to succeed in the post season by resting some players in the last weeks of the season, they'll keep doing that. But I give Mr. Goodellpoints for trying.

As a brief requiem for the Steelers 09 season, I'll say I'm relieved, not glad, they didn't qualify for the playoffs. Not only did they fail to win three of the easiest games of the season, in the last game they played against an offense led by the thrid-string QB for almost half the game and still barely mannaged to win by three points. Had they reached the playoffs, they'd ahve been sumamrily beaten by the Bengals.

Coming soon: which head coaches will be looking a for a job next year.

[FeatherFall]

The Packers will go to Arizona and the Jets to Cincinnati.

The Packers played the last game in AZ, too.

It was interesting to see the two coaching philosophies. Arizona went into the game with the idea that it's best to rest their starters and show as little of their playbook as possible, while Green Bay decided to stay hot (they didn't seem to blitz as much as usual, but in general they did what they've been doing all year). The result was a 33-0 lead by the time Rodgers stepped out of the offense in the third quarter. Being a Packer fan, I'm interested to see which approach will be more successful. Will the trouncing demoralize the Cards? Will the added film give them what they need to turn the tables? In either case, I expect the game to be MUCH closer.

[Thales]

The Packers played the last game in AZ, too.

It was interesting to see the two coaching philosophies. Arizona went into the game with the idea that it's best to rest their starters and show as little of their playbook as possible, while Green Bay decided to stay hot (they didn't seem to blitz as much as usual, but in general they did what they've been doing all year). The result was a 33-0 lead by the time Rodgers stepped out of the offense in the third quarter. Being a Packer fan, I'm interested to see which approach will be more successful. Will the trouncing demoralize the Cards? Will the added film give them what they need to turn the tables? In either case, I expect the game to be MUCH closer.

From my observations over the years, it's better to keep your starters in the groove. It doesn't take long for rust to develop and and timing to be off. It can make a real difference unless your team is far more talented than the opposition.

Although, there is the added dimension that these two teams are playing each other.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Thales