Monday, April 18, 2011
The simple question that never gets asked.
Monday, December 6, 2010
The Empire Strikes Back?
Sure it wasn't the Masters, but the discussion of whether or not Tiger Woods would eventually break Jack Nicklaus' record of 18 major championships--well that's been on hold for a long time now. Now golf fans were just wondering whether or not he'd win another tournament, let alone a major. And that's why this Sunday, during the final round of the otherwise non-descript Chevron World Challenge, the last tournament of this PGA season, the gaze of the sports world breifly shifted back towards Tiger. But this time the story wasn't whether or not a golfer chasing Tiger would be able to do what was previously unthinkable and overtake his 3-shot lead coming into the final round. The story was not about the steady and opportunistic play of this year's U.S. Open Champion Graeme McDowell who buried two long birdie putts down the stretch. No, the story was the fitting end to a trying year for golf's former No. 1 player.
For the first time in his career, he lost a 3-shot lead after 54 holes, and finished the year without winning a tournament. Winner Graeme McDowell's comments after the final round echoed what many of us could see for ourselves as he out-dueled Tiger on the 18th and again in the sudden death playoff, "He used to appear invincible," McDowell said, "Of course, he's made himself appear more human in the last 12 months." How many times have we seen great players shrink under the pressure of Tiger Woods' shadow as they line up a critical putt? It used to be his presence alone was enough to ensure that when he needed a putt to break left, it would, and when his opponent needed the same, it wouldn't. But tied for the lead on Sunday, Graeme McDowell watched Tiger land closer to the pin on 18, only to drain his long birdie putt as Tiger looked on. Then on the playoff hole Tiger stuck another great approach, leaving what looked to be a much more manageable putt that McDowell's. But again McDowell, unshaken by Tiger's stare, drained his birdie, placing all of the pressure back on Tiger. And we all know it wasn't just the pressure of the Chevron World Challenge. It was the pressure of a winless year, a drop from the No. 1 ranking, a fall from grace.
It's hard to believe that all of these things weren't running through his mind as he got ready for what would be the final putt of his worst year as a pro. But what was running through the mind of the fans? The real golf fans? From what I gathered, and I have a feeling that most golf fans share this sentiment to at least some degree, everyone watching that putt was disappointed as it slid past the hole. Not because Tiger didn't win the Chevron World Challenge, but because of what it means for golf. Tiger Woods is more than the greatest golfer who ever lived, even if he's not the greatest golfer who ever lived. Tiger Woods was the embodiment of excellence in his craft, and he built an empire around that excellence. He owned Nike. He owned Gatorade. He owned the PGA. He owned golf. He didn't leverage his personality or publicity stunts to gain notoriety. He just won.

No one had ever been so dominant as Tiger Woods in any sport, and to do it in a sport like golf, where mental focus can outweigh physical ability on any given stroke, was what made it all the more impressive. That's why it's been no surprise to golf fans that Tiger, as a player, has become a shell of his former self. There is no other professional sport in which the personal turmoil that Tiger has endured would have a more significant impact on performance. But here he was, on the last day of the last tournament of 2010, in position to win. To some, he didn't deserve to. To some, he's just another flawed athlete to root against. But to the fans who appreciated the way he built an empire through winning alone, we couldn't help but pull for him in this moment. We love winners; we love comebacks, and Tiger Woods has a chance to write one of the best comeback stories of our generation. But it didn't start Sunday.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
What's in a name? You'll have to roll the dice to find out
For teams in the middle of the pack, trying to find a way to improve and make a playoff run, it’s time to make a gamble and trade a big name for a big producer. Every year there are players who have preformed so well and so consistently in the past, that many fantasy owners don’t notice their numbers tapering off during a mediocre year. Chances are, if you’ve found yourself struggling to stay in the playoff hunt, you probably have at least one of these guys on your roster. Now is the time to trade that player for a lesser name that is poised to produce for you down the stretch. The goal here is to rid yourself of an underachieving star and pluck an blossoming stud from an unsuspecting victim looking for help at a certain position. To give you an idea of some of the possibilities, let’s take a look at which players aren’t living up to the names on the back of their jerseys.



Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Pack it in?
But almost as suddenly as Crosby's kick dove to the left and smacked against the left goal post, the Packers had gone from fine to something else entirely. And who's to blame? Mason Crosby, who missed two second half field goals? Aaron Rodgers, who failed to lead a scoring drive in the second half, and threw the decisive interception in overtime? The injury fairy? All of these things played their part, but the underlying reason that Green Bay lost this game, and maybe its quarterback, was head coach Mike McCarthy's blatant refusal to do one thing that I heard cheeseheads clamoring for him to do the entire second half; RUN THE #$%*?^@ BALL!

Mike McCarthy's second half play-calling left Packer fans scratching their heads
During the fourth quarter and overtime Green bay ran 20 offensive plays; 17 were passes, 3 were rushes. And remember, they were playing with the lead for almost the entire game. There was a stretch in the fourth quarter spanning two drives during which the Packers called eight pass plays in a row. Essentially, everyone in the building knew that every play was going to be a pass. And unfortunately for the Packers, that included the Redskins defense, which was allowed to tee off against Aaron Rodgers with every snap of the ball. It's no surprise he seemed to struggle down the stretch.
And remember, this was Green Bay's plan of attack while playing with the lead. This was Green Bay's plan of attack while their injury-laden defense continued to stop Washington and preserve the 10-point lead. But instead of salting away the game, Mike McCarthy did all he could to make sure his defense would keep getting tested until finally they gave up a big play. Even if the running game had proven to be ineffective, which it hadn't, Mike McCarthy's execution and play selection in this type of game was absolutely indefensible, and ultimately it cost his team more than just a game.
Rodgers was leveled in overtime, long after the game should have been put away
Aaron Rodgers did make some mistakes, and certainly his interception in overtime could have been avoided. (And also could have been nullified by a roughing the passer penalty). It's not fair to pin this loss on him though, and it's also misguided to assume he's not a clutch performer. Remember what he showed us late in the season last year against the Steelers. Remember how literally unstoppable he was as he guided the Packers to a 21-point comeback in the playoffs by tossing five touchdowns on the road. There's no question he has it in him; the question marks belong to the head coach. Mike McCarthy has an impressive resume, but has been shaky at best and awful at worst in 2010. I'm sure he's praying for Aaron Rodgers' speedy return, but in the meantime, he might try running the ball.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
What's your 2010 NFL playoff wish?





Thursday, December 3, 2009
Usual Suspect: Manning's case for MVP is too compelling
Drew Brees' Saints may be the best team in the NFL in 2009
Drew Brees is having an enormous statistical season, and while his leadership has been extremely impressive, it has been his ability to consistently make every throw on the field that has vaulted him to the level of Brady and Manning. Meanwhile, the guy who was on his own level before Brady, Manning or Brees were even getting paid to play, Brett Favre has decided to put together the best statistical year of his career, at the age of 40. He's making it look almost too easy in Minnesota, and if his arm holds up in December he will likely post career bests for TD-INT ratio and passer rating. And just to remind you, that's a career in which Favre has already won three MVP awards.
So while Brees and Favre certainly bring a lot to the discussion and would be fun picks for the award, it's Peyton Manning, the only other three-time MVP, who deserves to win. Football isn't a highly statistical sport, but some key numbers should be taken into consideration when looking at these three explosive candidates. All are putting up huge passing stats, and even though Manning's are on the surface the least impressive of the three, if you look closer, you may have to consider them the most impressive.
None of Favre's three MVP seasons looked quite this good statistically
Manning has 24 touchdowns, 11 interceptions and a 102.5 passer rating through 11 games. Brees has 27 touchdowns, 9 interceptions and a league-best 112.6 rating. Favre has 24 touchdowns, 3 interceptions and a 112.1 rating. These are comparable numbers for all three, but look what Manning has done in his last three games. In easily the worst stretch of the year for Manning, he has managed to beat the New England Patriots after trailing by 17, win at Baltimore after trailing in the fourth quarter and win at Houston after trailing again by 17. Yes, he threw a total of six picks in those three games, but he still managed to post a passer rating in the mid-90s and, more importantly, win all three games with fourth quarter comebacks, something that Brees and Favre, through no fault of their own, have not had to do often.
But we can put aside Manning's late winning drives and the ability to keep his team focused when trailing by double digits; we've seen Brees and Favre come from behind and win close games with exciting second half performances. There is still a lot of statistical evidence to indicate that Manning is clearly more valuable to his team than anyone in the league. We'll start with his league-best 310.5 passing yards a game. This is a staggering number that Favre and Brees aren't close to. This, coupled with the fact that the three quarterbacks have similar touchdown numbers, means its only Manning's uncharacteristically high interception total that is keeping him from having significantly better overall numbers than Brees or Favre. Nonetheless, he leads the league in passing yards, and the Colts lead the league in passing offense. This is of even higher importance when you realize the Colts rank second to last in rushing yards per game, which emphasizes just how much Manning means to this offense.
The airshows that the Vikings and Saints have put on have hidden the fact that they both rank in the top ten in rushing yards per game, the Saints at 5th and the Vikings at 9th. These two offenses are extremely balanced, making defenses unable to key on stopping the pass all game, like they can against the Colts. Yet somehow Manning still posts a better completion percentage than Brees or Favre, who have weapons like Adrian Peterson, Chester Taylor, Pierre Thomas and Reggie Bush to keep defenses guessing. There is no doubt that quarterbacks thrive when great running attacks keep pressure off of them. Favre and Brees have enjoyed that luxury, while Manning has had to carry the Colts on every key drive. Can you remember any team with such a one-sided attack being able to start a season 11-0? It can't happen without Manning.
Mannings 4th quarter heroics could give him an edge in MVP voting
These three quarterbacks have relatively similar individual statistics, all worthy of MVP consideration. But it is the statistics that put each player in the context of what he means to his team that point to Manning as the clear choice. Some of it is intangible; all you have to do is take Manning out of Indianapolis and the Colts' offense would resemble something much closer to the Cleveland Browns. That's something you probably can't say about Minnesota or New Orleans. Oh, and if you think opposing teams don't get flustered by Manning, I'll refer you to Week 10, Bill Belichik, fourth and two. He doesn't make that call if the opposing team's quarterback isn't Peyton Manning. Favre and Brees are having extraordinary years, and their teams wouldn't be what they are without them. But you can't say that either of them, or anyone else in recent history, has meant to their franchise what Peyton Manning means to the Colts right now.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Play of the Day Week 10: Belichick's Gamble Comes up Snake Eyes
It's the morning after and a lot of us are still asking ourselves; did that really happen? Well, even though the answer is yes, that did happen, the only person who's going to have to get themselves checked is the HOF-bound head coach of the New England Patriots. At least for now he's still HOF-bound, but a few more blunders of last night's magnitude might open that question back up for debate.
Alright, in all seriousness Bill Belichick's legacy probably won't be tarnished much by one call in one game, but this huge misstep has seriously altered the Patriots' season and essentially stripped them of any hope of having home field advantage throughout the AFC playoffs. The 9-0 Colts now hold a 3 game edge over New England, plus the tie-breaker. Had the Pats been able to hold on and win, not only would they hold the tie-breaker and only be 1 game behind, but they'd have ended Indianapolis' 17 game regular season winning streak and re-asserted themselves among the NFL's most elite teams. So why, which so much at stake, did Bill Belichick decide to gamble?
Sure, his offense had racked up over 450 yards in the game, it's understandable that he could expect them to pick up 2 more to seal the win. Sure, his defense had allowed back to back long scoring drives in the fourth quarter. Sure Peyton Manning looked unstoppable on those drives, while New England's young defense looked gassed. It's not hard to see that Belichick, and any New England fan for that matter, would not want to give the ball back to the Colts no matter where they were on the field. But as a head coach, you don't send that kind of message to your defense. You don't gamble that deep in your own territory.
Belichick gambled a lot more than field position on Sunday night
Imagine what you were thinking the moment the ball was actually snapped on 4th and 2; probably something like: My God, he's actually going for it, I can't believe he's risking so much field position. Now, imagine what every player on New England's defense was thinking, proabbly something like: Our coach doesn't even want to put us on the field to stop them from 75 yards away. Ouch.
Then the play unfolded. Brady made a completion near the first down marker, and it looked like maybe none of this would matter, because the Pats had gotten the first down and won the game. But as the referee spotted the ball, three crucial realities set in: 1; it was being spotted behind the first down marker, 2; Bill Belichick had already used up all of his timeouts, so he could not challenge the spot, 3; there were exactly 2 minutes left in the game, and automatic replay review only occurs with under 2 minutes to play. A surreal scenario had arrived on a play that will be remembered for the fact that it probably should have never occured, rather than for the great effort by the players on each team to make sure the football ended up on their side of the orange stick. The Colts, who trailed by 17 eariler in the quarter, were now 29 yards away from taking the lead.
Remember what the New England defense was thinking just moments before? Gee, coach really has a lot of faith in us, he won't even punt and give us a chance to stop them from 75 yards away. Well, they were now taking the field, and the task was the same, just that the field was now shortened to 29 yards. This is the critical point that makes the coaching move indefensible. By sending this message to your defense, you take away any chance that they'll come up with a stop if you do fail on 4th and 2. I was wondering why Belichick didn't just run out onto the field and concede the game right there. He didn't trust his defense, and now his defense was his only hope.
I've seen all the supposed "in depth NFL stats" that point to Belichick's call as the statistically correct one. It's hard for me to give these stats much credit when we all saw what happened. But for those of you who are on the trendy bandwagon of defending the call that all of us knew was flat out wrong as it was happening, I'll humor you. Apparently, advanced NFL stats say that 60% of the time, New England (or whatever team is in that same position) will convert on 4th and 2. If they don't, then Indianapolis will score a touchdown to win 53% of the time from that spot on the field. With those two stats combined, going for it on 4th down will result in New England winning 79% of the time. Punting to about the 20-30 yard line would give Indianapolis a 30% chance of scoring the necessary touchdown, meaning a punt would result in New England winning 70% of the time. Thus, he must have made the right call.
What these stats don't take into account though is the deflated feeling a defense has when their coach basically tells them he doesn't want to see them on the field with the game on the line. When New England failed to convert, the game was over. The Colts didn't have a 53% chance of scoring, it was much closer to 100%, and all of us watching knew that. But I'm done humoring the statisticians. Numbers can be fun, but football is our favorite sport because it's so much more than numbers. A team can be out-played and out-gained all night, and a big play, or a big mistake in this case, can change everything in one instant. Let's not take anything away from the Colts, they made the plays to win this game, and they may have still won it had Belichick decided to punt. But the fact is he didn't, and it may have cost his team the biggest game of the year. Perhaps more importantly though, by not trusting his defense, he may have lost his defense's trust in him.
-----


