It was a big deal the moment James Brown interrupted the Jets/Fins game to tell us that Tom Brady had been hurt.
But non-stop coverage? Funeral like tone on the ESPN set? Majority of the time spent on Brady's injury which no one knew anything about?
When did Tom Brady become bigger than Brett Favre or T.O. over at ESPN? Hell, how many people actually care about Tom Brady? He's Tom Brady, that's it. I never knew he was so loved outside of New England that we had to pretty much stop broadcasting anything that had to do with baseball and cut all NFL coverage to 3% of what it normally is.
I like Tom Brady. I hope he gets better. But he's sort of bland... have you ever seen the guy interviewed? Not the most interesting of interviews. He doesn't even smile half the time. He was always just a guy who was pretty good and happened to win three Super Bowls. He was never a five star, stop the presses sort of athlete.
But ESPN is treating it as if he is Favre or T.O. I'm confused, that's all... because Brady was never a media whore like those other two. And therefore, I assume, most people's opinion of Brady was one of somewhat indifference (unless of course you are/were jealous of him).
I guess what I'm saying is that, I never thought of Tom Brady if he wasn't on the football field. And while the injury should be the #1 story... we've already reached Brady-overload. And at 1pm central we never in the world thought we'd feel that this story would be over-reported 24 hours later.
See, ESPN is tricky like that sometimes.
As for the Pats future for the rest of the year... check this out.
Showing posts with label NFL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NFL. Show all posts
3.9.08
Your 2008 AFC!
We had so much fun spitting out our NFC predictions yesterday, we figured we do it again. But before we get to the AFC, can we just say one thing that's really annoying us? SportMediaHeads football predictions. Not the writers... but the Heads on TV. Is it against the law to pick New England, Indy, or even San Diego? What's up with this crazy picks? Mike and Mike choose two teams—Jacksonville and Pittsburgh, and then Mr. Hodge agreed with the Jax pick—that it was sort of like watching John McCain pick his vice president. In other words, it was obviously unobvious. You're trying to throw us off, but really you're only doing it to throw us off. Or something like that. It's just stupid. Anyway, our horrible picks:
East - The division is better than people think. Miami won't be good, but the Bills and Jets won't be bad.
1) Patriots - Too easy.
2) Bills - If Edwards improves this team could go 10-6 with their schedule.
3) Jets - Favre has had one good season in the last five years. He's old. And his greatest talent in the last ten years has to been to throw horrible interceptions (unless he's playing the Bears or Vikings).
4) Dolphins - Fish. Outta. Water.
North -
1) Steelers - Like a hard SAT question, process of elimination.
2) Browns - What if I were to tell you that Derek Anderson and Kurt Warrner were from the same planet. You'd believe me wouldn't you? But if I were to tell you that Scott Mitchell and Derek Anderson were from the same planet you'd believe me also? Well we're gonna find out which one Mr. Anderson is from this year!
3) Bengals - Has a team ever gone 4-12 and finished in 3rd?
4) Ravens - Rookie QB to start! Rookie QB to start! Offensive line not as good! Tough schedule! Run away!
South - Best division in the NFL and not as college footbally as the NFC South!
1) Colts - Sometimes I think Peyton Manning is still young. Sometimes I think he's been around my entire life. And sometimes I enjoy his commercials. Life is just like that... sometimes.
2) Jaguars - We're sort of rooting for them... personal reasons.
3) Titans - This is the year that Vince Young is asked by friends if he'd like to train and fight pitbulls. Mr. Young's decision will have more impact on the NFL than the collective bargaining agreement coming to an end.
4) Texans - Go away. No one likes you. Your name sucks. Your uniforms suck. Your city sucks. Just leave us alone. Move to L.A. Just go. Can you imagine a team ever calling themselves something like the New York New Yorkers? Or the Chicago Illinoise? The Texans make me want to throw up.
West - Was this division cooler in the 1960s, 1970s, or the 1980s?
1) Chargers - When are they going to go to the baby blues?
2) Raiders - Why not? When was the last time we had an NFL team with more "fuck it" potential? Sure the SexCannon Era was great because the "fuck it" potential was always there. But this team has a QB that can throw the ball a million yards, a rookie running back who is a Bo Jackson SI article waiting to happen, and a few wide outs that can run a bit. I'm excited. Plus the D is pretty good.
3) Broncos - Really? Do we have to keep pretending that they're good? Why can't we just admit that the Broncos haven't been good for a while now (save that lucky playoff game against the Patriots three years ago).
4) Chiefs - The favorites for the #1 pick in April. No QB. No O-line. No secondary. No wins.
Wild Card: Jaguars, Bills
First Round: Colts over Bills, Steelers over Jaguars
Round Two: Patriots over Steelers, Colts over Chargers
AFC Champions: Colts over Patriots
SUPER BOWL:
Colts over Seahawks
Don't ask me how that happened, but it just did. Wow.
East - The division is better than people think. Miami won't be good, but the Bills and Jets won't be bad.
1) Patriots - Too easy.
2) Bills - If Edwards improves this team could go 10-6 with their schedule.
3) Jets - Favre has had one good season in the last five years. He's old. And his greatest talent in the last ten years has to been to throw horrible interceptions (unless he's playing the Bears or Vikings).
4) Dolphins - Fish. Outta. Water.
North -
1) Steelers - Like a hard SAT question, process of elimination.
2) Browns - What if I were to tell you that Derek Anderson and Kurt Warrner were from the same planet. You'd believe me wouldn't you? But if I were to tell you that Scott Mitchell and Derek Anderson were from the same planet you'd believe me also? Well we're gonna find out which one Mr. Anderson is from this year!
3) Bengals - Has a team ever gone 4-12 and finished in 3rd?
4) Ravens - Rookie QB to start! Rookie QB to start! Offensive line not as good! Tough schedule! Run away!
South - Best division in the NFL and not as college footbally as the NFC South!
1) Colts - Sometimes I think Peyton Manning is still young. Sometimes I think he's been around my entire life. And sometimes I enjoy his commercials. Life is just like that... sometimes.
2) Jaguars - We're sort of rooting for them... personal reasons.
3) Titans - This is the year that Vince Young is asked by friends if he'd like to train and fight pitbulls. Mr. Young's decision will have more impact on the NFL than the collective bargaining agreement coming to an end.
4) Texans - Go away. No one likes you. Your name sucks. Your uniforms suck. Your city sucks. Just leave us alone. Move to L.A. Just go. Can you imagine a team ever calling themselves something like the New York New Yorkers? Or the Chicago Illinoise? The Texans make me want to throw up.
West - Was this division cooler in the 1960s, 1970s, or the 1980s?
1) Chargers - When are they going to go to the baby blues?
2) Raiders - Why not? When was the last time we had an NFL team with more "fuck it" potential? Sure the SexCannon Era was great because the "fuck it" potential was always there. But this team has a QB that can throw the ball a million yards, a rookie running back who is a Bo Jackson SI article waiting to happen, and a few wide outs that can run a bit. I'm excited. Plus the D is pretty good.
3) Broncos - Really? Do we have to keep pretending that they're good? Why can't we just admit that the Broncos haven't been good for a while now (save that lucky playoff game against the Patriots three years ago).
4) Chiefs - The favorites for the #1 pick in April. No QB. No O-line. No secondary. No wins.
Wild Card: Jaguars, Bills
First Round: Colts over Bills, Steelers over Jaguars
Round Two: Patriots over Steelers, Colts over Chargers
AFC Champions: Colts over Patriots
SUPER BOWL:
Colts over Seahawks
Don't ask me how that happened, but it just did. Wow.
2.9.08
NFC Picks
Ugh, another NFL season is upon us. We couldn't be more unexcited. Our boredom with the NFL was well documented... not sure where they are, but they're there somewhere. Therefore, let's make this clean and quick.
East - Hands down the most overrated division in the NFL. None of these teams are bad. But they're all flawed. All four teams will finish between 10-6 and 6-10... I could even see the winner being 9-7 and the 4th place team being 7-9.
1) Redskins - Who knows. Why not?
2) Cowboys - If they don't self-destruct I'll be shocked. Still too good not to be a playoff team.
3) Eagles - Pretty much I like the Redskins more than them. That's the only difference.
4) Giants - Too many injuries. Too many teams looking to take aim at them.
North - The worst division in football.
1) Bears - Again, why not? The schedule isn't killer. Toughest road game is the opener in Indy. After that they could beat anyone they play on the road.
2) Vikings - Schedule is pretty tough. And they're one injury from being not so good.
3) Packers - I like Aaron Rodgers the first time when he was in Detroit and we called him Joey Harrington.
4) Lions - They're horrible. As always. What's amazing is that they're not even close to being the worst NFL franchise of all time.
South - The division that no one cares about because college football is bigger there!
1) Saints (LSU) - Easy schedule! Great offense!
2) Buccaneers (Florida/Florida State) - Really? Can't we do better?
3) Panthers (Clemson/South Carolina/even UNC!) - A disappointing season waiting to happen for the fourth year in a row!
4) Falcons (Georgia) - Ha.
West - What's the difference between the NFC West and the AL West? Somewhat non-descriptive, yet intriguing.
1) Seahawks - It's getting to the point where it's death, taxes, USC winning the Pac-10, and the Seahawks winning the West. Remember when they were in the AFC?
2) Rams - They can't be worse.
3) 49ers - I love the "Wanna grab a burger at J.R. O'Sullivan's" joke.
4) Cardinals - The worst franchise in the NFL! I would love it if Brady was traded to the Cardinals and then all of a sudden started throwing picks like Favre.
Wild Card Teams: Cowboys, Buccaneers
First Round: Cowboys over Bears, Redskins over Buccaneers
Second Round: Seahawks over Redskins, Saints over Cowboys
NFC Champs: Seattle Seahawks
We have 1% confidence in these picks. The NFC is a friggin' mess. It's like the NBA East only worse. Amazing.
East - Hands down the most overrated division in the NFL. None of these teams are bad. But they're all flawed. All four teams will finish between 10-6 and 6-10... I could even see the winner being 9-7 and the 4th place team being 7-9.
1) Redskins - Who knows. Why not?
2) Cowboys - If they don't self-destruct I'll be shocked. Still too good not to be a playoff team.
3) Eagles - Pretty much I like the Redskins more than them. That's the only difference.
4) Giants - Too many injuries. Too many teams looking to take aim at them.
North - The worst division in football.
1) Bears - Again, why not? The schedule isn't killer. Toughest road game is the opener in Indy. After that they could beat anyone they play on the road.
2) Vikings - Schedule is pretty tough. And they're one injury from being not so good.
3) Packers - I like Aaron Rodgers the first time when he was in Detroit and we called him Joey Harrington.
4) Lions - They're horrible. As always. What's amazing is that they're not even close to being the worst NFL franchise of all time.
South - The division that no one cares about because college football is bigger there!
1) Saints (LSU) - Easy schedule! Great offense!
2) Buccaneers (Florida/Florida State) - Really? Can't we do better?
3) Panthers (Clemson/South Carolina/even UNC!) - A disappointing season waiting to happen for the fourth year in a row!
4) Falcons (Georgia) - Ha.
West - What's the difference between the NFC West and the AL West? Somewhat non-descriptive, yet intriguing.
1) Seahawks - It's getting to the point where it's death, taxes, USC winning the Pac-10, and the Seahawks winning the West. Remember when they were in the AFC?
2) Rams - They can't be worse.
3) 49ers - I love the "Wanna grab a burger at J.R. O'Sullivan's" joke.
4) Cardinals - The worst franchise in the NFL! I would love it if Brady was traded to the Cardinals and then all of a sudden started throwing picks like Favre.
Wild Card Teams: Cowboys, Buccaneers
First Round: Cowboys over Bears, Redskins over Buccaneers
Second Round: Seahawks over Redskins, Saints over Cowboys
NFC Champs: Seattle Seahawks
We have 1% confidence in these picks. The NFC is a friggin' mess. It's like the NBA East only worse. Amazing.
13.12.07
The NFL Mitchell Report
With Major League Baseball just minutes away from being dealt the blow that will be the Mitchell Report, where players both good and bad are about to be called out for their 'enjoyment' of steroids, I thought today would be a good day to bust out the 'what would the NFL Mitchell Report' look like.
Here's a list of guys who have some sort of connection to steroids in the NFL since 2000 or so:
Bill Romanowski*
Barret Robbins*
Dana Stubblefield*
Chris Cooper*
Jeff Mitchell
Todd Sauerbrun
Todd Steussie
John Milem
Henry Taylor
Dave Fiore
Wesley Walls
Kevin Donnalley
Ray Edwards*
Obafemi Ayanbadejo*
Shawne Merriman*
Rodney Harrison
Ryan Tucker*
David Boston*
Marcus Stroud *
*Tested positive for steroids or THG; here's a list of banned substances by the NFL.
But here's the thing with NFL suspensions - they don't always say if a player was suspended for steroid use. For example, Shaun Rogers was suspended last year, but we don't know for what. Travis Henry is another guy who may have violated the NFL's policy for something other than pot.
Anyway, getting back to what would the NFL Mitchell Report look like, let me make this quick - if there actually was a NFL Mitchell Report, we wouldn't be talking who was on the list, we'd be talking who WAS NOT on the list. See, as bad as baseball's steroid problem is (or was) the NFL's problem is much, much worse.
The problem in baseball is an obvious issue. But in the NFL, a game that we as a viewing public watch differently than baseball, may even be bigger. I don't know about anyone else, but if steroids are so useful in baseball, a game where strength and speed isn't as necessary as
in football, then wouldn't it make more sense for NFL players to be doing the juice? In a game where being bigger and stronger than the other guy is much more beneficial then well... I'll let you connect the dots. But I believe that most players in the NFL are probably using steroids, after all I don't know any 6'1", 250 pound men who can run 40 meters in less than 6 seconds let along 5 seconds.
I will say, that we follow and watch the NFL much differently than baseball. Baseball is the romantic, artful, intellectual American game. While we watch football in a much different manner - we gamble on football, it's a violent game, the players strap on armor to go into 'battle' to 'fight' the other team. It's a tactical game, where strategic takes place to prepare the team for the single battle once a week. Football is a battle, it's a war. And we watch it that way, so if the other players are willing to destroy their bodies, then that's okay by us - hypocritically of course.
George Carlin puts it best:
Here's a list of guys who have some sort of connection to steroids in the NFL since 2000 or so:
Bill Romanowski*
Barret Robbins*
Dana Stubblefield*
Chris Cooper*
Jeff Mitchell
Todd Sauerbrun
Todd Steussie
John Milem
Henry Taylor
Dave Fiore
Wesley Walls
Kevin Donnalley
Ray Edwards*
Obafemi Ayanbadejo*
Shawne Merriman*
Rodney Harrison
Ryan Tucker*
David Boston*
Marcus Stroud *
*Tested positive for steroids or THG; here's a list of banned substances by the NFL.
But here's the thing with NFL suspensions - they don't always say if a player was suspended for steroid use. For example, Shaun Rogers was suspended last year, but we don't know for what. Travis Henry is another guy who may have violated the NFL's policy for something other than pot.
Anyway, getting back to what would the NFL Mitchell Report look like, let me make this quick - if there actually was a NFL Mitchell Report, we wouldn't be talking who was on the list, we'd be talking who WAS NOT on the list. See, as bad as baseball's steroid problem is (or was) the NFL's problem is much, much worse.
The problem in baseball is an obvious issue. But in the NFL, a game that we as a viewing public watch differently than baseball, may even be bigger. I don't know about anyone else, but if steroids are so useful in baseball, a game where strength and speed isn't as necessary as
in football, then wouldn't it make more sense for NFL players to be doing the juice? In a game where being bigger and stronger than the other guy is much more beneficial then well... I'll let you connect the dots. But I believe that most players in the NFL are probably using steroids, after all I don't know any 6'1", 250 pound men who can run 40 meters in less than 6 seconds let along 5 seconds.
I will say, that we follow and watch the NFL much differently than baseball. Baseball is the romantic, artful, intellectual American game. While we watch football in a much different manner - we gamble on football, it's a violent game, the players strap on armor to go into 'battle' to 'fight' the other team. It's a tactical game, where strategic takes place to prepare the team for the single battle once a week. Football is a battle, it's a war. And we watch it that way, so if the other players are willing to destroy their bodies, then that's okay by us - hypocritically of course.
George Carlin puts it best:
2.11.07
Niner Pickers
Picks… because we’re bored.
BILLS (+1) over Bengals
If the Bills were in the NFC the good people of Buffalo could be buying playoff tickets.
Broncos (+3) over LIONS
Ugh… I the Broncos are just good enough to lose. Meanwhile the Lions are a pretty pitiful team. In fact, they might be the poster child of the quality of the 2007 season. They’re 5-2 and maybe looked impressive in one of those wins.
TITANS (-4) over Panthers
Then again, the Titans seem like they’ll be the team that goes 10-6 but 4-12 against the spread.
CHIEFS (-2) over Packers
KC at home… KC at home… How many bad interceptions does Favre throw this game? Three? Four?
Chargers (-7) over VIKINGS
It’s going to be hard for the Chargers to get a bye at this point, but they are setting themselves up to peak at just the right time. The week before they play the Pats or Colts.
Niners (+3.5) over FALCONS
Hey look, it’s the third game, already!, on the schedule that you won’t catch me watching!
SAINTS (-3) over Jags
In this crazy NFC world that we live in, the Saints are suddenly not only back in a divisional race, but who’s to say they couldn’t go to the Super Bowl? Other than some talking heads, who’s to say they can’t? Who? Who? Who? Oh, and since it was the NFL, yet another positive ‘roid test this week. This time it was Marcus Stroud on the Jags. Yet that barely made ESPN’s front page. Meanwhile, Mike Cameroon apparently hangs out with Mike Vick.
Redskins (-3.5) over JETS
The Jets suck.
Cardinals (+3.5) over BUCS
The forth game that we won’t be watching.
BROWNS (-1) over Seahawks
Seriously, the crisis in the NFC is nearing White House action. It wouldn’t shock me if the winners of the NFC West and South had 8-8 records.
COLTS (+5.5) over Patriots
In the grand scheme of things, this really isn’t that big of a game. But it’s nice to know that they’re playing it in Indy for the first time in like six years. Since this is the only game that really matters this week, a few more thoughts:
- We’re thoroughly enjoying the Patriots running up the score.
- The Pats D hasn't played all that great this year. Just a thought.
- What has gotten into Tom Brady? Does he want to go down as the greatest Quarterback of all time or something? We admitted before the season started that Peyton was the greatest of all time. Peyton had won the Super Bowl. And sure, while his playoff record and stats are nothing to write home about; the way Manning dominates a game, from his vision to his pre-snap bullshit, no one we’ve seen is like him. (fyi: Manning has the lowest QB rating for a Super Bowl winner or maybe it was for a QB Super Bowl MVP… no matter it’s like 65). But no Tom Brady seems set on throwing as many touchdowns as Barry Bonds had taters in a season.
- Why don’t the Colts get more love? Because they only win by 20? Weird. And if they win, everyone and their mother will crown them the greatest team of all time.
- One of these two teams will not make it back to the AFC Championship game. So enjoy this one.
Texans (+3) over RAIDERS
Five games no one wants to see.
Cowboys (-3) over EAGLES
If you’re Andy Reid are you relieved that your kids are going to jail? Is there a reason Andy Reid didn’t resign as coach a year ago? Two years ago? Did he not know about his kids being junkies? Did he put football in front of family? I mean there are like a million questions to this entire situation aren’t there? And while we’re asking questions, after last weekend I think McNabb is right about those black QB stuff. If Donny was the one getting lap dances from Britney, would there be any doubt that he’d be getting killed by ever single media member in the world?
Ravens (+9) over STEELERS
The over/under is 36… so apparently the Steelers are suppose to win 24-10 or 24-13. I’ll take the points.
Season:
61-55
BILLS (+1) over Bengals
If the Bills were in the NFC the good people of Buffalo could be buying playoff tickets.
Broncos (+3) over LIONS
Ugh… I the Broncos are just good enough to lose. Meanwhile the Lions are a pretty pitiful team. In fact, they might be the poster child of the quality of the 2007 season. They’re 5-2 and maybe looked impressive in one of those wins.
TITANS (-4) over Panthers
Then again, the Titans seem like they’ll be the team that goes 10-6 but 4-12 against the spread.
CHIEFS (-2) over Packers
KC at home… KC at home… How many bad interceptions does Favre throw this game? Three? Four?
Chargers (-7) over VIKINGS
It’s going to be hard for the Chargers to get a bye at this point, but they are setting themselves up to peak at just the right time. The week before they play the Pats or Colts.
Niners (+3.5) over FALCONS
Hey look, it’s the third game, already!, on the schedule that you won’t catch me watching!
SAINTS (-3) over Jags
In this crazy NFC world that we live in, the Saints are suddenly not only back in a divisional race, but who’s to say they couldn’t go to the Super Bowl? Other than some talking heads, who’s to say they can’t? Who? Who? Who? Oh, and since it was the NFL, yet another positive ‘roid test this week. This time it was Marcus Stroud on the Jags. Yet that barely made ESPN’s front page. Meanwhile, Mike Cameroon apparently hangs out with Mike Vick.
Redskins (-3.5) over JETS
The Jets suck.
Cardinals (+3.5) over BUCS
The forth game that we won’t be watching.
BROWNS (-1) over Seahawks
Seriously, the crisis in the NFC is nearing White House action. It wouldn’t shock me if the winners of the NFC West and South had 8-8 records.
COLTS (+5.5) over Patriots
In the grand scheme of things, this really isn’t that big of a game. But it’s nice to know that they’re playing it in Indy for the first time in like six years. Since this is the only game that really matters this week, a few more thoughts:
- We’re thoroughly enjoying the Patriots running up the score.
- The Pats D hasn't played all that great this year. Just a thought.
- What has gotten into Tom Brady? Does he want to go down as the greatest Quarterback of all time or something? We admitted before the season started that Peyton was the greatest of all time. Peyton had won the Super Bowl. And sure, while his playoff record and stats are nothing to write home about; the way Manning dominates a game, from his vision to his pre-snap bullshit, no one we’ve seen is like him. (fyi: Manning has the lowest QB rating for a Super Bowl winner or maybe it was for a QB Super Bowl MVP… no matter it’s like 65). But no Tom Brady seems set on throwing as many touchdowns as Barry Bonds had taters in a season.
- Why don’t the Colts get more love? Because they only win by 20? Weird. And if they win, everyone and their mother will crown them the greatest team of all time.
- One of these two teams will not make it back to the AFC Championship game. So enjoy this one.
Texans (+3) over RAIDERS
Five games no one wants to see.
Cowboys (-3) over EAGLES
If you’re Andy Reid are you relieved that your kids are going to jail? Is there a reason Andy Reid didn’t resign as coach a year ago? Two years ago? Did he not know about his kids being junkies? Did he put football in front of family? I mean there are like a million questions to this entire situation aren’t there? And while we’re asking questions, after last weekend I think McNabb is right about those black QB stuff. If Donny was the one getting lap dances from Britney, would there be any doubt that he’d be getting killed by ever single media member in the world?
Ravens (+9) over STEELERS
The over/under is 36… so apparently the Steelers are suppose to win 24-10 or 24-13. I’ll take the points.
Season:
61-55
21.10.07
For Shits, and Giggles!
Since everyone else does an NFL picks post and we’ve done it in the past… why figured, why not do a NFL picks post? And here we are. Sorry if you’re yawning already.
Vikings (+9.5) over COWBOYS
Adrian Peterson, aka the 2nd pick of next years fantasy drafts, may have had the best game I’ve ever seen an NFL running back have. My Lord this kid is good. I saw a highlight of him two weeks ago and was impressed, but after watching him for 60 minutes, I’m in love. The kid is going places.
On that note, are the Cowboys really the best team in the NFC? And why isn’t anyone else talking about the Vikings? They can run the ball and stop the ball. Yes, I know their QB is Tavaris Jackson, or at least I think it is, but they can control the line which is like 70% of an NFL game.
BILLS (+3) over Ravens
I don’t think the Bills are that good, but the Ravens can’t score points. I’ll take the three.
LIONS (-2) over Bucs
The Lions are the closest thing we have to a college team in the NFL right now. They sort of play defense, they can throw the ball, they won’t win on the road but they’ll play you tough, and they’re going to win most games at home. As for the Bucs… I have nothing good or bad to say about them.
DOLPHINS (+16.5) over Patriots
I know the Patriots are beating everyone by 20 points. But I’m going to take the Fins for one reason: they’re at home playing a divisional opponent. Even after the Pats win by 21 points, I’m not going to feel bad about picking this game.
Falcons (+9) over SAINTS
Wait the Saints win one game in Seattle and all of a sudden they’re giving 9 points? Too many points… yuck. Bad game. Don’t bet this game unless you know something I don’t.
GIANTS (-9) over Niners
Personally, I think the Giants stink. But apparently, the 49ers stink more. But seriously, how are the Giants this good?
REDSKINS (-9) over Cardinals
Redskins at home and the Cardinals are without a QB.
TEXANS (+1) over Titans
I’m assuming Vince Young isn’t playing. Note: The Texans aren’t that good, yet some how they’re going to be in this playoff race. The 2007 NFL Season! Where Bad means Good!
BENGALS (-6) over Jets
The Jets stink. The Bengals aren’t very good. I could see this being a big fantasy day for a few guys on the Bengals… if only because I can’t see the Jets scoring 20 points, so I’ll go with the Bengals.
Chiefs (+3) over RAIDERS
You’re guess is as good as mine… but the Chiefs are in first place in the AFC West! The Chiefs!
SEAHAWKS (-8) over Rams
The last few minutes against the Saints last week, the Seahawks ran the worst late game drill ever. Hasselbeck was throwing the ball up for grabs. They weren’t rushing to the line, using time outs, calling weird plays. It was easily the most bizarre thing I’ve ever seen in my life, which was topped off by them going for it on 4th down losing by 10 points instead of kicking the field goal. Yet, a week later I’m taking them against the Rams. My Lord the NFL stinks.
Bears (+5) over EAGLES
The Eagles almost lost to the Jets. Andy Reid will throw the ball. Meanwhile, the Bears don’t have anyone who can play safety. So you know what… this game could go either way. Maybe I still think the 2006 Bears will sort of show up one of these weeks, you know the team which was good for a bomb, a return by Hester, and the D making five or six plays. Right now, they’ve got the bombs, they’ve got the returns from Hester, but the D has done shit. I’d love to see Andy Reid tell McNabb to put the ball up in the air 45 or 50 times.
Steelers (-3.5) over BRONCOS
This is more a “what happened to the Broncos” pick than a “wow, the Steelers look great” pick.
Indians over RED SOX
The Baseball Gods hate TV ratings. I know Paul Byrd just got busted for HGH, but you know what, the Red Sox break hearts. This is what they do best. 2004 was the exception to the rule. And now, as a country is forced to suffer though millions and millions of white people wearing faux worn Boston hats, to go along the green and pink hats, every white male who has strong allegiances to a baseball team and every minority is rooting for the Indians today. Sure it’s only 40% of America, but we’re vocals.
JAGUARS (+3) over Colts
I’ll take the home dog in divisional games almost every time. And this is another one of those times. And can we just make it official: Peyton Manning is the best QB in NFL history.
SEASON: 45 - 44
This is using ESPN's pick 'em game, which is totally flawed. But it's all we've got right now (and by the way, that puts us in the 83 percentile).
Vikings (+9.5) over COWBOYS
Adrian Peterson, aka the 2nd pick of next years fantasy drafts, may have had the best game I’ve ever seen an NFL running back have. My Lord this kid is good. I saw a highlight of him two weeks ago and was impressed, but after watching him for 60 minutes, I’m in love. The kid is going places.
On that note, are the Cowboys really the best team in the NFC? And why isn’t anyone else talking about the Vikings? They can run the ball and stop the ball. Yes, I know their QB is Tavaris Jackson, or at least I think it is, but they can control the line which is like 70% of an NFL game.
BILLS (+3) over Ravens
I don’t think the Bills are that good, but the Ravens can’t score points. I’ll take the three.
LIONS (-2) over Bucs
The Lions are the closest thing we have to a college team in the NFL right now. They sort of play defense, they can throw the ball, they won’t win on the road but they’ll play you tough, and they’re going to win most games at home. As for the Bucs… I have nothing good or bad to say about them.
DOLPHINS (+16.5) over Patriots
I know the Patriots are beating everyone by 20 points. But I’m going to take the Fins for one reason: they’re at home playing a divisional opponent. Even after the Pats win by 21 points, I’m not going to feel bad about picking this game.
Falcons (+9) over SAINTS
Wait the Saints win one game in Seattle and all of a sudden they’re giving 9 points? Too many points… yuck. Bad game. Don’t bet this game unless you know something I don’t.
GIANTS (-9) over Niners
Personally, I think the Giants stink. But apparently, the 49ers stink more. But seriously, how are the Giants this good?
REDSKINS (-9) over Cardinals
Redskins at home and the Cardinals are without a QB.
TEXANS (+1) over Titans
I’m assuming Vince Young isn’t playing. Note: The Texans aren’t that good, yet some how they’re going to be in this playoff race. The 2007 NFL Season! Where Bad means Good!
BENGALS (-6) over Jets
The Jets stink. The Bengals aren’t very good. I could see this being a big fantasy day for a few guys on the Bengals… if only because I can’t see the Jets scoring 20 points, so I’ll go with the Bengals.
Chiefs (+3) over RAIDERS
You’re guess is as good as mine… but the Chiefs are in first place in the AFC West! The Chiefs!
SEAHAWKS (-8) over Rams
The last few minutes against the Saints last week, the Seahawks ran the worst late game drill ever. Hasselbeck was throwing the ball up for grabs. They weren’t rushing to the line, using time outs, calling weird plays. It was easily the most bizarre thing I’ve ever seen in my life, which was topped off by them going for it on 4th down losing by 10 points instead of kicking the field goal. Yet, a week later I’m taking them against the Rams. My Lord the NFL stinks.
Bears (+5) over EAGLES
The Eagles almost lost to the Jets. Andy Reid will throw the ball. Meanwhile, the Bears don’t have anyone who can play safety. So you know what… this game could go either way. Maybe I still think the 2006 Bears will sort of show up one of these weeks, you know the team which was good for a bomb, a return by Hester, and the D making five or six plays. Right now, they’ve got the bombs, they’ve got the returns from Hester, but the D has done shit. I’d love to see Andy Reid tell McNabb to put the ball up in the air 45 or 50 times.
Steelers (-3.5) over BRONCOS
This is more a “what happened to the Broncos” pick than a “wow, the Steelers look great” pick.
Indians over RED SOX
The Baseball Gods hate TV ratings. I know Paul Byrd just got busted for HGH, but you know what, the Red Sox break hearts. This is what they do best. 2004 was the exception to the rule. And now, as a country is forced to suffer though millions and millions of white people wearing faux worn Boston hats, to go along the green and pink hats, every white male who has strong allegiances to a baseball team and every minority is rooting for the Indians today. Sure it’s only 40% of America, but we’re vocals.
JAGUARS (+3) over Colts
I’ll take the home dog in divisional games almost every time. And this is another one of those times. And can we just make it official: Peyton Manning is the best QB in NFL history.
SEASON: 45 - 44
This is using ESPN's pick 'em game, which is totally flawed. But it's all we've got right now (and by the way, that puts us in the 83 percentile).
12.10.07
Why the NFL Stinks Right Now
We were speaking with D the other day when he asked about the demise of VFLOAB. I told him that we hadn’t had much free time (true, neglecting to tell him that writing in 90 degree weather has never been our cup of tea). But I casually mentioned that a post ripping the NFL was due up sooner rather than later. D responded “What?!?! This year has been great!” and for a few hours I thought maybe I was missing something. Even my defense and reasoning as to why the NFL sucked was half assed and half hearted.
But in reading Simmons’ picks today, I was reminded why the NFL sucks this year – EVERYONE IN THE NFL STINKS! Okay, the New England Patriots look really, really good. And the Colts have Peyton Manning… but after that? Bueller?… Bueller?… Bueller?…
Looking at Simmons’ power poll he has Tennessee and Jacksonville ranked fifth and sixth respectively and you know what… I didn’t jump out of my chair thinking that Bill had lost it. In fact, I shrugged and said to myself, “He’s probably right.” And that’s it.
I mean seriously, as Bill would go on to point out:
“(Intriguing subplot for this game: If the Bengals lose, I'm moving them into the Bruce Coslet Division of next week's Power Poll, only I'm keeping the Chiefs in there no matter what happens because they stink. If Cleveland loses at home to Miami and the Jets lose at home to Philly, unless Atlanta can somehow win on Monday night, that means an astonishing 11 teams will appear in the Coslet Division for Week 7. In other words, more than one-third of the league would fall into the "completely sucks" category. Amazing. But please, let's expand and add a 33rd team. That's a great idea.)”
That’s right 11 teams (according to Simmons) in the NFL out right stink. In baseball I count 8 or 9 teams that flat out stink (depending on where you stand with Houston (and the entire National League)). In the NFL? You have St. Louis, Miami, New Orleans, Kansas City, San Francisco, Minnesota, Atlanta, Buffalo, New York Jets – 9 right there; and I’ll add Cleveland, Houston, Oakland, and Carolina to that list. Now we’re up to 13… and Simmons has Denver in the stink area and Cincinnati not far behind and I’ll be honest with you, Philly and Detroit (a healthy Bears D destroys that Lions team two weeks ago) aren’t far off either. All told, we may have 17 teams that aren’t good! Seventeen teams! That’s over half the league! And let’s not forget Arizona and the New York Giants who might not be that good… it’s just that they’re not that bad.
It’s sad to say, but the NFL today isn’t about being good, it’s about not being as bad. This is why no one should have been surprised when the Packers started 4-0 or the Redskins suddenly are 3-1… or that Tennessee with no wide receivers and average running backs are arguably the 5th best team in the NFL!
(In fact, look at the number of teams who have a good shot at the playoffs and shit receivers: Tennessee, Jacksonville, San Diego, Seattle, and the Chicago Bears. Amazing).
As I have pointed out in passing, the way the NFL does it’s scheduling, where all the 4th place teams play all the other 4th place teams, suddenly getting ‘good’ in the NFL isn’t all that difficult. If you’re slightly better than those other 4th place teams, suddenly you’ve got 4 wins. If you can find five more wins in your remaining 12 games (not that difficult considering divisional games and home field advantage)… you are a playoff team. Look at the Jets last year. They played the 4th place schedule, made the playoffs, and now, suck with a 2nd place schedule, they’re staring a 6-10 season in the face. Meanwhile, the Redskins, Houston, Oakland, Tampa Bay, and Arizona, all facing 4th place schedules, suddenly look like playoff teams.
It’s complete and utter bullshit. And a really lame way for the NFL to create competition. Just imagine if next year the Red Sox, Indians, Yankees, and Angels faced each other 50 times, while the White Sox got to beat up on the Royals, Rangers, and Devil Rays (this assumes of course the White Sox make a few moves to not suck as much in 2008)? Wouldn’t the 2008 playoffs look something like the White Sox, Red Sox, Angels, and some one else (say the Blue Jays)?
In effect this is what the NFL has done with their schedule. They’ve rigged it so that bad teams face each other – thus a bad team that is slightly better will win those games. Meanwhile the good teams face each other – and the good teams that are slightly worse suddenly lose a few more games than normal. All of a sudden we have pretenders in the playoffs and fake competition and ‘races’.
At least the cream is able and usually does rise to the top (I’m looking at you 2001 Patriots and 2005 Steelers).
But in reading Simmons’ picks today, I was reminded why the NFL sucks this year – EVERYONE IN THE NFL STINKS! Okay, the New England Patriots look really, really good. And the Colts have Peyton Manning… but after that? Bueller?… Bueller?… Bueller?…
Looking at Simmons’ power poll he has Tennessee and Jacksonville ranked fifth and sixth respectively and you know what… I didn’t jump out of my chair thinking that Bill had lost it. In fact, I shrugged and said to myself, “He’s probably right.” And that’s it.
I mean seriously, as Bill would go on to point out:
“(Intriguing subplot for this game: If the Bengals lose, I'm moving them into the Bruce Coslet Division of next week's Power Poll, only I'm keeping the Chiefs in there no matter what happens because they stink. If Cleveland loses at home to Miami and the Jets lose at home to Philly, unless Atlanta can somehow win on Monday night, that means an astonishing 11 teams will appear in the Coslet Division for Week 7. In other words, more than one-third of the league would fall into the "completely sucks" category. Amazing. But please, let's expand and add a 33rd team. That's a great idea.)”
That’s right 11 teams (according to Simmons) in the NFL out right stink. In baseball I count 8 or 9 teams that flat out stink (depending on where you stand with Houston (and the entire National League)). In the NFL? You have St. Louis, Miami, New Orleans, Kansas City, San Francisco, Minnesota, Atlanta, Buffalo, New York Jets – 9 right there; and I’ll add Cleveland, Houston, Oakland, and Carolina to that list. Now we’re up to 13… and Simmons has Denver in the stink area and Cincinnati not far behind and I’ll be honest with you, Philly and Detroit (a healthy Bears D destroys that Lions team two weeks ago) aren’t far off either. All told, we may have 17 teams that aren’t good! Seventeen teams! That’s over half the league! And let’s not forget Arizona and the New York Giants who might not be that good… it’s just that they’re not that bad.
It’s sad to say, but the NFL today isn’t about being good, it’s about not being as bad. This is why no one should have been surprised when the Packers started 4-0 or the Redskins suddenly are 3-1… or that Tennessee with no wide receivers and average running backs are arguably the 5th best team in the NFL!
(In fact, look at the number of teams who have a good shot at the playoffs and shit receivers: Tennessee, Jacksonville, San Diego, Seattle, and the Chicago Bears. Amazing).
As I have pointed out in passing, the way the NFL does it’s scheduling, where all the 4th place teams play all the other 4th place teams, suddenly getting ‘good’ in the NFL isn’t all that difficult. If you’re slightly better than those other 4th place teams, suddenly you’ve got 4 wins. If you can find five more wins in your remaining 12 games (not that difficult considering divisional games and home field advantage)… you are a playoff team. Look at the Jets last year. They played the 4th place schedule, made the playoffs, and now, suck with a 2nd place schedule, they’re staring a 6-10 season in the face. Meanwhile, the Redskins, Houston, Oakland, Tampa Bay, and Arizona, all facing 4th place schedules, suddenly look like playoff teams.
It’s complete and utter bullshit. And a really lame way for the NFL to create competition. Just imagine if next year the Red Sox, Indians, Yankees, and Angels faced each other 50 times, while the White Sox got to beat up on the Royals, Rangers, and Devil Rays (this assumes of course the White Sox make a few moves to not suck as much in 2008)? Wouldn’t the 2008 playoffs look something like the White Sox, Red Sox, Angels, and some one else (say the Blue Jays)?
In effect this is what the NFL has done with their schedule. They’ve rigged it so that bad teams face each other – thus a bad team that is slightly better will win those games. Meanwhile the good teams face each other – and the good teams that are slightly worse suddenly lose a few more games than normal. All of a sudden we have pretenders in the playoffs and fake competition and ‘races’.
At least the cream is able and usually does rise to the top (I’m looking at you 2001 Patriots and 2005 Steelers).
27.7.07
Vick:Dogs::Favre:Deer
Dear Blogs,Excuse me while I dig up some information about Brett Favre, everyone’s favorite quarterback, hunting deer. Maybe I can find a picture. Here are a few quotes. How nice. Brett Favre is a big fan of killing deer:
PK: What are you hunting?
Favre: Deer.
Meanwhile, Mike Vick is getting raked over the coals for training dogs how to fight and killing dogs.
Killing dogs isn’t cool, don’t get us wrong. But killing deer doesn’t seem very cool either. Anyone honestly believe that Favre brings the deer back and use all of the deer for daily household needs?
We also fully understand that killing dogs is against the law. And for that Vick should be prosecuted. No argument there.
But how about you bloggers get off your ‘holier than-thou’ horse and think long and hard about those hunting laws. Think about how minks are raised in small, cages for the single purpose of making fur coats. Think about that hamburger, hot dog, steak, chicken, or ham sandwich next time it enters your mouth. Think about that veal that you had (or have always wanted to have) and how that’s raised.
We’re no PETA members. We enjoy our hamburgers and hot dogs. And we understand the difference between a deer and a dog (a domesticated animal). But we also realize that reason why bloggers are going off on Vick is because like many people, they are probably dog owners. And they love their dogs. And to see someone treat dogs that way is a cold, harsh reflection on something happening to their dog. How could someone treat dogs as if they were ants or spider?
Meanwhile, Mike Vick is getting raked over the coals for training dogs how to fight and killing dogs.
Killing dogs isn’t cool, don’t get us wrong. But killing deer doesn’t seem very cool either. Anyone honestly believe that Favre brings the deer back and use all of the deer for daily household needs?
We also fully understand that killing dogs is against the law. And for that Vick should be prosecuted. No argument there.
But how about you bloggers get off your ‘holier than-thou’ horse and think long and hard about those hunting laws. Think about how minks are raised in small, cages for the single purpose of making fur coats. Think about that hamburger, hot dog, steak, chicken, or ham sandwich next time it enters your mouth. Think about that veal that you had (or have always wanted to have) and how that’s raised.
We’re no PETA members. We enjoy our hamburgers and hot dogs. And we understand the difference between a deer and a dog (a domesticated animal). But we also realize that reason why bloggers are going off on Vick is because like many people, they are probably dog owners. And they love their dogs. And to see someone treat dogs that way is a cold, harsh reflection on something happening to their dog. How could someone treat dogs as if they were ants or spider?
Mike Vick may have killed dogs. That’s not cool. But athletes who harm other humans? We detest them much more than Michael Vick.
But where were you when Brett Meyers beat his wife last year? And have you blogged against Leonard Little, let alone cheer for him, after he killed someone because he was driving drunk? If anyone should be kicked out of the NFL, it's Little. And least us forget Pacman Jones, who appears to have a connection to a shooting which left a man paralyzed. Yet the blogging world treats Pacman as as if he's the punchline.
All these crimes, in our eyes, are much more damning and actually deserve our detest. No hurting dogs isn't cool. But harming, or killing, humans is much, much worse.
If Vick had been involved in cockfights, would anyone care? I mean, that's illegal too.
If Vick had been involved in cockfights, would anyone care? I mean, that's illegal too.
As for Favre, he's just an example. And he didn't break the law, which Vick may have done. No, we don't think less of Favre because he likes to shoot deer. We don't think it's cool, but let's all realize that if we're going to go all nuts about athletes killing animals, where is the Favre outrage?
18.7.07
Random Thoughts
So let me get this right. It's okay for NFL players to shoot deer. But it's not okay for NFL players to fight dogs. Okay, I understand, training dogs to fight isn't cool. But shooting deer isn't cool either. I guess my problem is that this all seems a little ridiculous. It's dog fighting. Yes it's not a good thing, but a slap on the wrist would have been more than enough in our fair opinion. If Vick had shoot the dog with a gun, he wouldn't be in trouble right now correct?
But I think what's even more hypocritical of this entire Vick mess is that Vick didn't harm any human beings. While we don't want to get in a pissing contest of what is worse, we think it is important to point out that Vick didn't harm any humans by training dogs to fight. In our eyes, athletes who drive drunk, are charged with domestic abuse, any sort of sexual abuse, or physical abuse are the bigger 'villains'. These athletes put other human beings in harms way - directly or indirectly - and that's a much greater threat to society. Yes, we can all agree, training dogs to fight isn't cool. But driving while drunk, for example, can lead to much graver and tragic consequences.
Speaking of guns, a fantastic idea from Jason Roeder over at McSweeney's: Iraqi Free Gun.
"I suppose some of the weapons we provide could be used against us. But we all know that guns don't kill people, people kill people. All a semiautomatic does is discharge 75 poor choices per minute. Remember that so-called assault-weapons ban we had? What happened there? Thugs merely adapted and replaced drive-by shootings with drive-by pillow smotherings, and no one was any safer."
The fact that we can name 10 NASCAR drivers makes us want to puke all over those big dishes at ESPN.
Don't look now, but Goldman Sachs is saying that oil could hit $95 a barrel this year. That's like $4 or more at the pump. This would be very bad for many reasons; pretty much no matter what, commodity prices will rise, which means you'll be spending more at the pump and the grocery store (and the inefficient but politically popular corn ethanol becomes even more popular; raising prices even further). Maybe most important is the impacts to inflation - which is probably higher than anyone at the Fed would like and probably will go higher if oil prices continue to rise. As inflation rises, the Fed may have to hike up interest rates, if they do so, the economy, which is already some what delicate and iffy, will slow down. The other shitty thing about inflation is that with real wages stuck in neutral, most Americans will feel it in their pocket books. Seeing that spending by your every day American has kept the economy moving during the last five years, consumer spending really can't decrease.
And for those who say the economy is doing well... look a little deeper. Yes, unemployment is low. But interest rates could go up. Inflation looks like it will continue to be a bit of a worry. Real wages are stuck in neutral. The sub-prime mortgage crisis is hurting a lot of Americans. And we have a negative savings rate two years running. The negative savings rate is really scary because long term, this will be a problem. As people spend more than they earn, it is giving the economy a false 'perception'. At some point people are going to have to stop spending so much. The US economy isn't as 'hot' as some like to point out. No, this isn't Japan and there is no need to panic. Yet, let's not all start patting each other on the back and saying everything alright. Changes are needed in various areas. (And we freely admit that there have been very few times in history when one hasn't needed to worry somewhat about the economy. But this isn't the late 1990s. Corporations are getting richer while most people are left behind. In the 90s, both corporations and your average Joe was doing better).
Let me make sure I've got this right too: Part of the reason we invaded Iraq was to fight the terrorists there instead of here. But now the National Intelligence Agency is telling me that there's a good chance the terrorists will strike the USA. So it appears to us here at VFLOAB that fighting the terrorists on their turf has back fired. And if that's gone wrong too, has ANYTHING gone right in Iraq? As the NIA reports concludes that al-Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" by creating a safe-haven in Pakistan. So while we toil in Iraq with over 120,000 troops; under 20,000 troops are in Afghanistan and near the Pakistan border fighting al-Qaeda. The very same al-Qaeda who were the enemy all along. Great job, George and Dick! (It being Wednesday, the sarcasm is free).
29.6.07
NFL Europe Is Done
After 16 years, the NFL Europe is done. This should not come to much of a surprising seeing that he league was only able to even some what catch on in only one country: Germany.
No matter how the NFL wants to spin it this is a bad thing for the NFL and American football.
Sure, the NFL sold out the Giants/Dolphins game in about five seconds, but that's one game. In many ways it's just like when Manchester United, Real Madrid, and others came across the Atlantic for the first time a few years ago and sold out football stadiums here in the States. At first it was great fun... what does 'real' soccer look like? But in the four or five years since these teams first started coming over, it's lost a lot of it's luster. If the NFL is still selling out games in five seconds a five years from now, then maybe they have something. But I'm not holding my breath.
The NFL is not nearly as strong as everyone loves to claim they are. In this, for better or worse, globalizing world, of the four major sports here in the States (and that's a stretch since the NHL probably receives lower ratings than soccer at this point) the NFL is least prepared for success. 99% of the players in the league are Americans (and quick, name a non-kicker who isn't from the USA?). There is nothing even close resembling a competitive football league in the rest of the world. Meanwhile, baseball is played competitively in Japan, while Latin American countries inject new and fantastic players every year. The hockey is played at an extremely high level in Europe. And the basketball is quickly becoming in the 21st century to the world what soccer was in 20th century. If the NBA can ever get it's act together, the sky is the limit.
Assuming that globalization continues at it's rapid pace, the NBA is actually in the best shape over the next fifty years. Hopefully one of these years a competitive, international competition or tournament can be created both at the club and national level. This will require some sort of agreement on the rules of the game (mainly, they can't be playing with a bigger lane in Europe and a smaller rectangle here in the States, some sort of standard must be set).
No, the NFL won't fold or suddenly become anything other than the #1 sport in the US. It is solidly the biggest sport here in the US. But look at it this way, let's say you could invest in one of the five leagues here in the States (MLB, NFL, NBA, MLS, and NHL). Who would you invest in?
If you are risk adverse, put your money in the NFL. But future earnings appear only to be consistent sort of like bonds, consistent returns, but not a very high yield. Meanwhile both MLB and the NBA seem poised to capture more of this revenue.
Watching the NBA Draft last night, I couldn't help see the obvious difference between the NFL Draft and the NBA Draft - TV. The NFL runs their Draft like a business meeting - TV is at their mercy. If a team is ready to pick, they're not going to wait for ESPN; ESPN has to react to the NFL. The NBA Draft? The thing reeks of 'for TV' and has ESPN's fingerprints all over the place. Five minutes between picks created this near PTI Draft pick like situation. You knew David Stern was in the back room waiting for ESPN to do all the interviews and analysis between pick. It almost felt staged. Which is sort of a shame, because the five minutes between picks was actually enjoyable. I wonder if arrogant front offices would be able to exist with five minutes between first round picks. I mean, what do those teams do with all that time as it is? Shouldn't they pretty much know who their going to take? If anything, should teams have more time later in the draft when things are less predictable? None the less, just something that I noticed.
No matter how the NFL wants to spin it this is a bad thing for the NFL and American football.
Sure, the NFL sold out the Giants/Dolphins game in about five seconds, but that's one game. In many ways it's just like when Manchester United, Real Madrid, and others came across the Atlantic for the first time a few years ago and sold out football stadiums here in the States. At first it was great fun... what does 'real' soccer look like? But in the four or five years since these teams first started coming over, it's lost a lot of it's luster. If the NFL is still selling out games in five seconds a five years from now, then maybe they have something. But I'm not holding my breath.
The NFL is not nearly as strong as everyone loves to claim they are. In this, for better or worse, globalizing world, of the four major sports here in the States (and that's a stretch since the NHL probably receives lower ratings than soccer at this point) the NFL is least prepared for success. 99% of the players in the league are Americans (and quick, name a non-kicker who isn't from the USA?). There is nothing even close resembling a competitive football league in the rest of the world. Meanwhile, baseball is played competitively in Japan, while Latin American countries inject new and fantastic players every year. The hockey is played at an extremely high level in Europe. And the basketball is quickly becoming in the 21st century to the world what soccer was in 20th century. If the NBA can ever get it's act together, the sky is the limit.
Assuming that globalization continues at it's rapid pace, the NBA is actually in the best shape over the next fifty years. Hopefully one of these years a competitive, international competition or tournament can be created both at the club and national level. This will require some sort of agreement on the rules of the game (mainly, they can't be playing with a bigger lane in Europe and a smaller rectangle here in the States, some sort of standard must be set).
No, the NFL won't fold or suddenly become anything other than the #1 sport in the US. It is solidly the biggest sport here in the US. But look at it this way, let's say you could invest in one of the five leagues here in the States (MLB, NFL, NBA, MLS, and NHL). Who would you invest in?
If you are risk adverse, put your money in the NFL. But future earnings appear only to be consistent sort of like bonds, consistent returns, but not a very high yield. Meanwhile both MLB and the NBA seem poised to capture more of this revenue.
Watching the NBA Draft last night, I couldn't help see the obvious difference between the NFL Draft and the NBA Draft - TV. The NFL runs their Draft like a business meeting - TV is at their mercy. If a team is ready to pick, they're not going to wait for ESPN; ESPN has to react to the NFL. The NBA Draft? The thing reeks of 'for TV' and has ESPN's fingerprints all over the place. Five minutes between picks created this near PTI Draft pick like situation. You knew David Stern was in the back room waiting for ESPN to do all the interviews and analysis between pick. It almost felt staged. Which is sort of a shame, because the five minutes between picks was actually enjoyable. I wonder if arrogant front offices would be able to exist with five minutes between first round picks. I mean, what do those teams do with all that time as it is? Shouldn't they pretty much know who their going to take? If anything, should teams have more time later in the draft when things are less predictable? None the less, just something that I noticed.
4.2.07
Super Thoughts
A few articles and thoughts on this Super Bowl Sunday:
- Peyton Manning has a lot more pressure on him than Rex Grossman. Yet no one has said anything about this in the national media. If Manning plays poorly today, what are they going to say? What excuse are they going to make? I don't get this... why does the media play favorites so often? It's weird, the the political section of a newspaper, journalists are, for the most part, neutral. Sure the op-ed pages may rip a politician or give a politician praise, but they're also objective (news channels aside).
- I've never met a real life Colts fan. I'm not kidding. I didn't think they existed. Apparently a few of them made their way down to Miami.
- Two great articles in the Guardian. The first is about the best player in the Premiership this season - Didier Drogba. Drogba's been great for Chelsea this season netting 15 goals so far this season in the Premiership. Much has been said about the Blues being in second this year, but they're probably be sniffing around the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal if it wasn't forDrogba's play this year. As the article points out, he's lining himself up for the Player of the Year Award in England and if he keeps it up, I could see him being in contention in 2007. I know it's early, but since September he's been fantastic. A Champions League run would really help build his case. Anyway, an interesting interview if nothing less.
The second article is talks the impact of "Moneyball" and Malcolm Galdwell's work has had on coaching football in England. Even if you aren't a footie fan this is a great read (plus it stars Watford's coach, Aidy Boothroyd and his trials and tribulations this year with Watford). Great read and very interesting. [I should know that I'm reading Blink right now and like the Tipping Point, it is very good.]
- I was thinking in the shower about how short the NFL season is... a scant 16 games plus a four round postseason. No team can play more than 20 games or less than 16. This is sort of amazing when you think about it... why so short? Obviously the NFL would be better served to play a few more games, gain a few more bucks from TV deals and home games. And the other thing that bugs me is that the regular season is only 16 games... this is clearly too small of a sample size to determine much of anything. The NFL sport is the only sport where the schedule has a greater impact than the team itself (every year at least three or four teams that are not that talented seem to 'come out of no where' and even make the playoffs. These teams almost always play a weak schedule which is based on the previous seasons record; so the bad teams play the bad teams, the good teams play the good teams. Obviously, since someone has to win, a bad team that's marginally better than the other bad teams is going to win those games... while the good teams beat the crap out of each other). Expanding the NFL schedule would make the NFL more money... but it also would take away the equality that the league loves to promote, that your team has a chance to win the Super Bowl (unless you root for the Cardinals, Browns, or Lions; and probably Texans too). If the NFL were to play a 20 game schedule (thus expanding the season a month) the bad teams would be more likely to play the good teams. Chances are they would lose those games. In losing those games we would see the true colors of these teams. And instead of getting crap teams like the Jets in the playoffs, we'd get to see the better teams who had to play better teams in the playoffs. This would be good for some fans, but bad for the league. What I'm trying to say is that the NFL is some what able to rig their league to help the bad teams appear to be better than they are because of the way the schedule is made. I don't have an statical information to back me up... but I'm sure it wouldn't take me too long to prove this. Something to do maybe?
- I should also say, that the way the NFL treats former players is borderline inhumane. The pensions these guys have received (especially players who played before 1977) are a disgrace and has been well reported. But they haven't been reported upon enough. For reasons I'll never understand, the NFL gets a pass from the media. There is nothing that the NFL can do wrong. Players doing 'roids? That's okay, we'll make him a star and put him in the Pro Bowl. Put our season ticket package games only on DirectTV? That's cool, it's the best for business. Of course if a baseball player juices he's the one of the worst humans alive and if MLB puts it's games only on DirectTV, it gets ripped by the media and has Congress thinking about making laws restricting it (which by the way is a farce itself, Kerry doing this makes ZERO sense on so many levels and is a complete waste of time; thousands of Americans are dying in Iraq and John Kerry thinks it's important to restrict MLBs TV deal; get real John). The double standard that the NFL has in the media and with the public continues to not only bug me, but really turn me off from the game. And finally, Greg Gumbel's comment a few months ago about Gene Upshaw is 100% correct. The man is a lap dog for the NFL. And I'm 92% sure Vegas controls the NFL as it is. That's a different day. I watched less football than I have in years... aside from Bears game, I don't think I sat though more than three or four regular season games this year (and those were because I was with a buddy most likely watching the Eagles). In other words, the continues NFL to lose me. And I don't think I'm alone. I remember saying to people a few years ago that the NFL had reached it's pinnacle. Since Americans are the only people who actually give a rats ass about football, the NFL could not get any bigger... and that's starting to happen. The Super Bowl will probably always be the biggest sporting even in the US during my life time, but ten years from now the league will not be as strong as it is today.
- Of course go Bears... I'll be watching. The Super Bowl really is a fantastic event even if about 150 million people watch it in the entire world, most of them living in the US.
- Oh, and if you have not seen this it might be the greatest thing ever on YouTube. Bubb Rubb is awesome and that 1:45 mark when he pulls away is really just amazing.
- Peyton Manning has a lot more pressure on him than Rex Grossman. Yet no one has said anything about this in the national media. If Manning plays poorly today, what are they going to say? What excuse are they going to make? I don't get this... why does the media play favorites so often? It's weird, the the political section of a newspaper, journalists are, for the most part, neutral. Sure the op-ed pages may rip a politician or give a politician praise, but they're also objective (news channels aside).
- I've never met a real life Colts fan. I'm not kidding. I didn't think they existed. Apparently a few of them made their way down to Miami.
- Two great articles in the Guardian. The first is about the best player in the Premiership this season - Didier Drogba. Drogba's been great for Chelsea this season netting 15 goals so far this season in the Premiership. Much has been said about the Blues being in second this year, but they're probably be sniffing around the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal if it wasn't forDrogba's play this year. As the article points out, he's lining himself up for the Player of the Year Award in England and if he keeps it up, I could see him being in contention in 2007. I know it's early, but since September he's been fantastic. A Champions League run would really help build his case. Anyway, an interesting interview if nothing less.
The second article is talks the impact of "Moneyball" and Malcolm Galdwell's work has had on coaching football in England. Even if you aren't a footie fan this is a great read (plus it stars Watford's coach, Aidy Boothroyd and his trials and tribulations this year with Watford). Great read and very interesting. [I should know that I'm reading Blink right now and like the Tipping Point, it is very good.]
- I was thinking in the shower about how short the NFL season is... a scant 16 games plus a four round postseason. No team can play more than 20 games or less than 16. This is sort of amazing when you think about it... why so short? Obviously the NFL would be better served to play a few more games, gain a few more bucks from TV deals and home games. And the other thing that bugs me is that the regular season is only 16 games... this is clearly too small of a sample size to determine much of anything. The NFL sport is the only sport where the schedule has a greater impact than the team itself (every year at least three or four teams that are not that talented seem to 'come out of no where' and even make the playoffs. These teams almost always play a weak schedule which is based on the previous seasons record; so the bad teams play the bad teams, the good teams play the good teams. Obviously, since someone has to win, a bad team that's marginally better than the other bad teams is going to win those games... while the good teams beat the crap out of each other). Expanding the NFL schedule would make the NFL more money... but it also would take away the equality that the league loves to promote, that your team has a chance to win the Super Bowl (unless you root for the Cardinals, Browns, or Lions; and probably Texans too). If the NFL were to play a 20 game schedule (thus expanding the season a month) the bad teams would be more likely to play the good teams. Chances are they would lose those games. In losing those games we would see the true colors of these teams. And instead of getting crap teams like the Jets in the playoffs, we'd get to see the better teams who had to play better teams in the playoffs. This would be good for some fans, but bad for the league. What I'm trying to say is that the NFL is some what able to rig their league to help the bad teams appear to be better than they are because of the way the schedule is made. I don't have an statical information to back me up... but I'm sure it wouldn't take me too long to prove this. Something to do maybe?
- I should also say, that the way the NFL treats former players is borderline inhumane. The pensions these guys have received (especially players who played before 1977) are a disgrace and has been well reported. But they haven't been reported upon enough. For reasons I'll never understand, the NFL gets a pass from the media. There is nothing that the NFL can do wrong. Players doing 'roids? That's okay, we'll make him a star and put him in the Pro Bowl. Put our season ticket package games only on DirectTV? That's cool, it's the best for business. Of course if a baseball player juices he's the one of the worst humans alive and if MLB puts it's games only on DirectTV, it gets ripped by the media and has Congress thinking about making laws restricting it (which by the way is a farce itself, Kerry doing this makes ZERO sense on so many levels and is a complete waste of time; thousands of Americans are dying in Iraq and John Kerry thinks it's important to restrict MLBs TV deal; get real John). The double standard that the NFL has in the media and with the public continues to not only bug me, but really turn me off from the game. And finally, Greg Gumbel's comment a few months ago about Gene Upshaw is 100% correct. The man is a lap dog for the NFL. And I'm 92% sure Vegas controls the NFL as it is. That's a different day. I watched less football than I have in years... aside from Bears game, I don't think I sat though more than three or four regular season games this year (and those were because I was with a buddy most likely watching the Eagles). In other words, the continues NFL to lose me. And I don't think I'm alone. I remember saying to people a few years ago that the NFL had reached it's pinnacle. Since Americans are the only people who actually give a rats ass about football, the NFL could not get any bigger... and that's starting to happen. The Super Bowl will probably always be the biggest sporting even in the US during my life time, but ten years from now the league will not be as strong as it is today.
- Of course go Bears... I'll be watching. The Super Bowl really is a fantastic event even if about 150 million people watch it in the entire world, most of them living in the US.
- Oh, and if you have not seen this it might be the greatest thing ever on YouTube. Bubb Rubb is awesome and that 1:45 mark when he pulls away is really just amazing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)