I made predictions for the NFL season last year that, predictably, didn't turn out as well as I would have liked. That's usually the only prediction I get absolutely correct, that I won't get too many predictions correct. I figured I would go ahead and embarrass myself and try to make predictions again.
AFC East
New England Patriots (12-4): It's fun to be creative and come up with some shocking prediction that will get me 10 pageviews instead of 5 pageviews, but I prefer to be right. I picked the Patriots to be 13-3 last year and I will pick them to win the AFC East until they prove they can not win the AFC East. When that time will be, I'm not sure, but I am sure that having Tom Brady for four more games (you may have heard something about this) really benefits their chances of having homefield advantage in the playoffs. I'm not as worried about their secondary as I probably should be, while I'm more worried about their running game than I should be.
Buffalo Bills (10-6): I wanted to be in on the Bills last year, but just couldn't do it. This year, I'm buying the t-shirt, the program, and probably going to get a hat as well. I'm in. I like their offensive line, I like Tyrod Taylor getting a chance to be a starter, I don't love Rex Ryan for my team but love him for someone else's team, and they have a great defensive line. This is the Jets team with Rex Ryan, with a really good defense instead of an outstanding defense, but an actual competent quarterback. I'm in. I want to make them go 12-4 or maybe just have them go undefeated. Ride or die...but I will temper myself.
Miami Dolphins (7-9): For the 5th straight year, I WANT to like the Dolphins. I do. Ryan Tannehill is pretty good, he has fantastic weapons in the passing game now, and I think Suh is shockingly overpaid but he will do nothing but help the defense. I think they will be decent, but are going to be hurt by a stretch of the season where they have to play New England, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Dallas, Baltimore, San Diego, Indianapolis, and New England over a 10 week span. I probably used this same reasoning last year, but I don't think the Dolphins have improved enough to merit a prediction that they can win more 10 games.
New York Jets (3-13): I missed hard on the Jets last year, so of course I'll double down and see if I can miss on them even more this year. They are only as good as their quarterbacks can be and I'm not a huge fan of Ryan Fitzpatrick. He's a serviceable backup quarterback, but does he even have something to work with? Brandon Marshall had a down year last year and Eric Decker probably isn't more than a #2 receiver. I think the offensive line is declining and they seem to have cornered the market on plodding running backs with Zac Stacy and Christopher Ivory. It's hard not to love the defensive line and the defense will keep them in games. The problem is I think the offense is going to take them out of more games.
AFC North
Baltimore Ravens (12-4): Was Justin Forsett just a one year wonder or is
he going to be able to carry the load for another year? Considering how
much the Ravens got out of Ray Rice and they are the Ravens I find it
hard to bet against him. I loved Maxx Williams coming out of the draft
and this is Steve Smith's last year, so he will be collecting all debts
and playing with an even bigger chip on his shoulder. I'm concerned
about another receiver stepping up across from Smith, but I think this
is a weaker division this year since I'm not high on the Steelers, so I
don't think it will stop the Ravens from winning the division. I think
the pass rush will be improved this year and the Ravens won't suffer
so many terrible injuries to members of their secondary. The defense was
8th in the NFL in yards allowed last year and I look for them to get
into the Top 5 this year.
Cincinnati Bengals (9-7): It's shocking to me how many first round picks the Bengals have spent on cornerbacks since 2006. From the 2006 NFL Draft on, the Bengals have spent four first round picks on cornerbacks. Maybe it's not, but that seems like a lot of first round picks on corners. Regardless, is this the year that Andy Dalton loses it and isn't able to lead the Bengals to the playoffs? I felt this way last year and was very wrong, but doesn't it feel like Dalton is trending downwards and any day now he will implode and turn into a younger Matt Schaub? This team seems so obviously a playoff team on paper that I find it hard to predict what kind of season they will have. The defense will be good, especially with Michael Johnson back from being on loan to the Buccaneers, and I think this will be Jeremy Hill's breakout season.
Pittsburgh Steelers (7-9): A couple of things bother me about this prediction. First, Ben Roethlisberger is awesome and has great weapons around him. By putting the Steelers at 7-9, I'm essentially saying Roethlisberger can't win 7 games with Wheaton, Brown, Bryant and Coates as his receivers and a Top-5 running back in the backfield. That sounds crazy. Second, it's the Steelers. The last time they had a losing record was 2003. Before that it was 1999. Predicting the Steelers to go 8-8 or better is the way to be right. My issue lies a lot with the Steelers defense. I try not to take preseason into account, but the Steelers are adjusting to a new defensive coordinator and they are getting shredded in the preseason. Plus, they play nine games against teams from the playoffs and four of the last six games are on the road. I think the Steelers are going to struggle on defense and even Roethlisberger won't be able to pull them to .500. Book your Super Bowl tickets now, Steelers fans!
Cleveland Browns (5-11): I was high on the Browns last year. I've learned my lesson. Even if I felt good about Josh McCown, which I don't, I would be worried about his receivers. For example, he doesn't have good receivers to throw to. In fact, that's the only example I want to use. I like the offensive line, but I don't like any of the running backs who can run behind the line. The Browns have two of the most popular "Holy shit, that guy is athletic, watch for him to breakout this year" tight ends in the NFL in Gary Barnidge (breaking out since 2008) and Rob Housler (breaking out since 2013). The Browns should absolutely start Johnny Manziel. It's not even a question for me. I still like their defense pretty well and with Danny Shelton in the middle they won't be run on like they were last year. Still, this offense is terrifyingly bad. Start Manziel. He probably isn't going to be "the answer" but at least he can do things that will keep the defense on their toes.
AFC South
Indianapolis Colts (13-3): This is the year that Andrew Luck is the MVP. It's going to happen. I'm not going to lie that I generally hate how the Colts have been put together. There's no need to be as deep at wide receiver as they are when Luck needs more protection and a defense that was middle-of-the-pack last year (12th against the pass, 18th against the run, 11th overall) could use some improvement. They are building the team like it was built around Peyton Manning. Obviously, that worked to an extent. Still, is it necessary to spend a first round pick on Phillip Dorsett when there can be more marginal improvement elsewhere on the roster? The Colts were 10th in the NFL in takeaways, but it was helped by 14 fumbles they recovered. I'm nitpicking, but what is going to win Andrew Luck the MVP is also going to make me wonder if the Colts can win the Super Bowl when Ryan Grigson continues to give Luck weapons on offense rather than not be satisfied with just an average to above average defense.
Tennessee Titans (9-7): I know, I shouldn't like the Titans as much as I do. Let me share with you the two reasons I like the Titans. First, I like the choice of Marcus Mariota with the group of receivers the Titans have around him. Second, Tampa Bay, Cleveland, Jacksonville (twice), Carolina, Oakland, and the Jets. Those are the teams they play this year. The Titans defense was awful last year, but I think they will be improved this year with the addition of Orakpo as a pass rusher and Zach Brown healthy all year. Mariota isn't going to be great this year, but he's smart with the football and he has players around him at skill positions with talent and a decent offensive line (minus the position Byron Bell ends up playing). The Titans will improve on defense and have improved at the quarterback position, so I think they could very well make the playoffs.
Houston Texans (8-8): J.J. Watt. That's the only player I should talk
about here since he doesn't like the spotlight, but hold on let him
appear in a few commercials and take a few selfies while criticizing
others for doing the same. He's a fantastic player and a front seven
with Watt, Clowney (healthy), Wilfork, and Benardick McKinney is a
really good front seven. So how far can the offense take them? That's
the question for me. According to the depth chart on ESPN.com, Ben Jones
will be playing center and left guard, so that should be interesting to
watch. Can Alfred Blue live up to be the starting running back until
Arian Foster comes back? We'll see, but DeAndre Hopkins is going to have
to continue his improvement to make up for the fact Cecil Shorts III is
probably best fit as a third receiver. Brian Hoyer has to show marked
improvement under Bill O'Brien or it's going to be a long year.
Jacksonville Jaguars (5-11): Stupidly and stubbornly, I don't believe in
Blake Bortles (now he will light up the Panthers in the first game of
the season). Credit to the Jags to put weapons around him to give him a
chance to succeed, but I wasn't a huge fan of his coming out of college
and I'm not buying the positive reviews coming out of the Jags training
camp. I could be wrong, quite easily in fact. It doesn't help him that
Julius Thomas is out for a month, but I like a lot of the offensive
skill players the Jaguars have. I just don't like Bortles that much.
Defensively, it would be nice if a defensive-minded coach like Gus
Bradley didn't have the 26th ranked defense in the NFL after his second
season as a head coach. I don't see the improvement on the defensive
side of the ball that will catapult the Jaguars into a playoff spot.
AFC West
San Diego Chargers (11-5): The Chargers are another team who I think will end up with a Top 5 defense this year. They were 9th in the NFL last year and have Melvin Ingram and the addition of Denzel Perryman will help them as well. Plus, Eric Weddle isn't going to be back next year and he's playing for a new contract. On offense, even getting Danny Woodhead back from injury is going to help the running game. They drafted Melvin Gordon and though I'm not entirely sure he's not a product of that Wisconsin running game, he at least is a warm body that can fall forward better than the guys the Chargers had last year. I think the Chargers are going to win the AFC West as long as Philip Rivers stays healthy. Plus, they have to prove Los Angeles that they are worthy of their affection, which is something I'm sure the Chargers players really care about.
Denver Broncos (10-6): I'm betting against Ben Roethlisberger AND Peyton Manning. Clearly, I'm the dumbest person on Earth. I laugh at the idea Peyton was dehydrated and that's why he didn't play up to his standards later in the season and in the playoffs. That's ridiculous. The Broncos have had some offensive line injuries and Peyton Manning isn't the most mobile quarterback on the planet. He has great awareness and I could be underestimating C.J. Anderson, but I'm afraid the offensive line will be an issue for Manning this year, plus he's dealing with a head coach in Gary Kubiak that has his own kind of offense he wants to run and it has to mesh with what Manning wants to do. Defensively, I think the Broncos are still going to be strong, but early suspensions in games against Kansas City, Baltimore and Detroit (two of those games on the road) could cause some gnashing of teeth early in the season. The Broncos are still a good team, but I'm not as convinced the line play on both sides of the ball is going to help them win more than 10 games.
Kansas City Chiefs (8-8): This could be new news to you, but the Chiefs have Jeremy Maclin now. Everything is saved. Now Alex Smith will throw at least 3 touchdown passes to a wide receiver this season. I'm still very concerned that Alex Smith is throwing the football to receivers who probably shouldn't be starting or are one injury away from starting in the NFL. Maclin helps, but there's not much behind him. Travis Kelce will have to step up big. For those keeping track, Jamaal Charles is 28 years old and had his total yardage fall from the 2013 season. It's a matter of time before he runs off the cliff of production. I don't mean to put the Chiefs defense on the backburner, but they will have a great pass rush again, but color me skeptical that Ron Parker magically figured out how to be an NFL starting safety at the age of 27. The Chiefs have a good defense that will be held back by an offense that is going to need to be creative in passing the football.
Oakland Raiders (5-11): Derek Carr (I still type "David Carr" instead) and Amari Cooper are the next great QB-WR combination of the future. I can perhaps buy that. My two biggest issues with the Raiders are their running game and their defense. The Raiders were 21st in yards allowed per game, 16th in passing yards allowed, 22nd in rushing yards allowed, but 32nd in points allowed. Maybe they are just unlucky. But hey, they drafted a defensive end from Florida State, so that should work out, right? I believe with all of the strengths this defense has (Mack, Woodson being an encyclopedia of knowledge, and the somewhat underrated Dan Williams), they aren't good enough in some spots and too old in others. The Raiders couldn't run the ball last year, so they didn't do much besides sign Roy Helu Jr. to improve on this. Granted, I like Helu and think he is going to have a good season, but I don't think he can carry the load the way the Raiders need him to if it turns out 82 carries for his career means Latavius Murray isn't a feature back.
AFC Wild Card: Baltimore Ravens over Denver Broncos, San Diego Chargers over Buffalo Bills
AFC Divisional Round: San Diego Chargers over New England Patriots, Indianapolis Colts over Baltimore Ravens
AFC Championship Game: San Diego Chargers over Indianapolis Colts
NFC East
Philadelphia Eagles (12-4): It's really not hard to get excited about the Eagles. As long as Sam Bradford doesn't get injured (repeat that 10 times and it may happen, but probably not), they have such great running back depth and talent at skill positions. For a racist, Chip Kelly has put together a pretty good team. The questions begin with the defense, which will be a knee-jerk reaction based on the fact there is less perceived talent there and the pace at which the Eagles play on offense will be blamed for defensive shortcomings. The secondary can't be much worse than it was last year, even if I'm not in love with Byron Maxwell when he's not on the Seahawks team. Assuming improvement on defense and better quarterback play, this is the team to beat in the NFC East. Of course, if Bradford gets injured and the defense doesn't improve, then I will be totally wrong.
Dallas Cowboys (10-6): Given all the injuries they suffered last year, I have no idea how the Cowboys were as good as they were. It still confuses me. They probably have the best offensive line in football and they will get Sean Lee back from injury. While I don't think they are a bad team, a lot of the success the Cowboys had last year was predicated on running the ball so well. I think they take a step back because McFadden will get injured, Christine Michael has been inconsistent in his career so far and Joseph Randle has tempted fate with his comments about how DeMarco Murray left some yards on the field. Take away the run game and Tony Romo (or any other quarterback usually) becomes less effective. Plus, in a division with the Eagles and the Giants wide receivers, the Cowboys secondary is bordering on a disaster. Of course, a great pass rush makes the secondary look good and the Cowboys have Randy Gregory and Greg Hardy, both of whom I can see getting 10 sacks on the season.
New York Giants (5-11): I think I said last year that it felt like Tom Coughlin's last season in New York. Maybe I will be wrong again, or just a year early. Eli Manning is playing for a new contract, while two of his best receivers (Randle and Cruz) are nicked up. It was smart for the Giants to draft an offensive lineman to protect Manning, but the real question I have is whether drafting to protect Manning will result in great 2014 Manning or 2013 Manning? Either way, the Giants are dying to try to find a quality safety somewhere, anywhere and they suffered some injuries at the linebacker spot. Give Jon Beason a new contract, watch him get injured. That's how it goes. My bottom line is the Giants have too many holes on defense for me to believe they will have a season where they make the playoffs.
Washington Redskins (2-14): I will be shocked if this isn't a disastrous season in Washington. It feels like things have started going downhill before the season even started. The head coach is over his head, the front office is the typical Redskins front office, they are starting the wrong quarterback, and have I mentioned the head coach is over his head? I can't see this team going anywhere with Kirk Cousins as the quarterback, even if I think the defensive front seven is probably going to be good enough to keep them in games. I can't measure intangibles (obviously), but this Redskins team has negative momentum and seemingly no intangibles. I can't see the season getting better with a head coach who doesn't seem a right fit for a meddling front office with a quarterback who is a turnover machine.
NFC North
Minnesota Vikings (11-5): My love for Teddy Bridgewater colors all that I do and see. At least I'm upfront about it unlike others. I think he was the best QB in last year's class and is going to absolutely thrive with Adrian Peterson in the backfield with him. I'm not in love with the Vikings offensive line, but the Vikings have a deep threat in Mike Wallace and Charles Johnson was really good when he got more targets later in the 2014 season. Cordarrelle Patterson may never be a great receiver, but can set the offense up with good field position on kickoffs. The thing I like most about the Vikings is the young guys on defense. Floyd, Barr, Kendricks, Griffen, Smith, and Rhodes. I almost put them in the Super Bowl, but held back on the giddiness just a little bit. The Vikings will have a good pass rush and the offense is going to do more than their part. They are the team to beat in the NFC North.
Green Bay Packers (10-6): Picking the Vikings means my long time favorite Aaron Rodgers pays for my supporting Bridgewater. These things happen. It's all guessing anyway, but I don't think the Packers are going to be better on defense than they were last year. They led the NFL in turnover differential. Losing Jordy Nelson on offense is a huge blow and not being as strong at linebacker I think means the defense takes a step back. I still have the Packers in the playoffs, but I think they will take a two game step back in the win column.
Detroit Lions (7-9): It's well-known that I'm not a huge Jim Caldwell fan. The Lions were good last year though and I could be wrong about him if the Lions are good again this year. They are certainly investing in Stafford by giving him Ameer Abdullah (who I think could be the Rookie of the Year) and Laken Tomlinson, which is always good news. But...they lost a lot of what made the team strong up front to free agency and that can't be good for a team that was 19th in the NFL in yards allowed per game. A lot of that came from the Lions being so good at the run. A great pass rush can make a team's secondary look better than it is, while an average pass rush can make a team's secondary look worse than it is. I think it will be the second option for the Lions this year. Offensively they will score points, but teams will also score against them.
Chicago Bears (6-10): Betting against John Fox is a bad idea in general. He's a pretty good coach. Betting against Jay Cutler is a not-so bad idea in general. His teams haven't tended to be successful. Fox is great at adapting to his personnel and then squeezing any originality and risk-taking out of that team's offense. Wait, that is the bitter me (and Broncos fans?) talking. It makes me feel good that Fox has a good staff around him, because he's going to have to turn Cutler into a more conservative quarterback in order to have success this year. Cut the turnovers and hope the defense can do their part. It's hard to bet against John Fox, but with the injuries to Cutler's receivers and the fact I think the NFC North will be improved, it's hard for me to be too optimistic about the Bears.
NFC South
Atlanta Falcons (9-7): Someone has to win this division, right? I look for the NFC South to reignite the "Should division winners get a home playoff game if they have a shitty record?" discussion again. Atlanta was horrible on defense last year, so they brought in a defense-minded coach. I'm not sure Dan Quinn can singlehandedly make the Falcons better on defense, but drafting Vic Beasley Jr. and signing Brooks Reed could help. The Falcons are going to be better on offense as long as Matt Ryan is given time to throw and Tevin Coleman is given a running lane to go through (neither of which are a given). Regardless, Matt Ryan is smart with the football and probably knows how to adapt to the pressure at this point. The Falcons should do better on defense and that's enough to win this shitty division.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (6-10): Jameis Winston has come into a great situation. He has Mike Evans and Vincent Jackson to throw the football to. It's hard for a rookie to come into a better situation, especially if Doug Martin rebounds from a tough season last year. Winston seemingly has the tools to succeed and now he just needs more experience. The defense is...going to be okay I guess running Lovie Smith's preferred style. I do wonder where the pass rush is coming from and I'm not finding a ton of answers right now. The safeties make shrug and the corners should be better than they look on paper. If Jameis Winston gets used to the NFL faster than expected and Lovie Smith makes progress on defense, then I can see the Buccaneers being this year's "worst to first" team. I won't predict it though.
Carolina Panthers (6-10): I like this year's Panthers team more than I have liked the past two teams. I don't think the talent is there to win the division, even a crappy division. I don't trust Michael Oher at left tackle and the fact Cam's best receivers are a tight end (albeit a good tight end), a rookie who isn't close to being as good as Kelvin Benjamin, a guy who can't catch the ball apparently, and Jerricho Cotchery does not bode well. Jonathan Stewart will get injured and the secondary is shaky until the team invests in the position, plus there's no telling if the team will find a second pass-rusher or not. Cam is talented, but he isn't great at making his receivers better (so he's not Peyton Manning, which we all knew anyway). As a fan, I like the direction of the team, but I'm not sure this is the year the direction leads to Ron Rivera's second winning season as a coach.
New Orleans Saints (5-11): I picked the Saints to win the division last year, but I'm not making that mistake again. Now watch them win the division this year. It feels to me like this is a team that has talent, but is running on fumes at a few spots on the roster. C.J. Spiller is going to fit in well, especially when he's on the field the same time as Brandin Cooks. New Orleans had the best offense in the NFL last year, so they can score gain yardage, but they were 9th in the NFL in points scored. I don't know how improved the defense is going to be this year, and while I know Sean Payton is a good offensive coordinator, it will be interesting to see how the offense functions without Jimmy Graham. They were 21st in sacks last year, and while sacks aren't the end-all to determine how a team disrupts the opposing quarterback, releasing Junior Galette with no obvious replacement ready isn't going to help that number increase. I don't see Saints doing better than 8 wins this year.
NFC West
Seattle Seahawks (11-5): Bet against Russell Wilson at your own peril. He has God AND Recovery Water on his side. Seattle is the beneficiary of the Saints having salary cap problems and trading Jimmy Graham as a result. Tyler Lockett and Graham give Wilson two great options in the passing game he did not have last year. I still wonder what happens if Marshawn Lynch suddenly gets old, as running backs tend to do. Maybe Fred Jackson can step in and provide production, but he's not exactly young. So much of what the Seahawks do depends on Lynch's running ability. The defense is still deep along the front seven and talented. The only thing that can stop the Seahawks from being one of the best defensive teams in the NFL is things like players holding out and not playing regular season games. I feel the Seahawks will barely beat out the Cardinals to win the division again and I'm not betting against God's favored vessel.
Arizona Cardinals (11-5): If Carson Palmer is healthy, the Cardinals are going to be in the playoffs. I say this despite the fact I have no idea what kind of running game they will get from Andre Ellington, David Johnson, Chris Johnson or any of the other guys on the roster. If the Cardinals get a running game, then watch out. They have improved their offensive line with Jonathan Cooper getting another year under his belt and the signing of Mike Iupati. Defensively, there will be a drop-off from losing Todd Bowles, but I think it will be manageable given the continued development of Tyrann Mathieu and Deone Buccanon at the safety spots. Sean Witherspoon could have an excellent year if he can adjust to the 3-4 defense and stay healthy. Bruce Arians has done a great job and I think the Cardinals make back-to-back playoff appearances.
Los Angeles Rams (7-9): I should have put them at 8-8 in honor of Jeff "8-8" Fisher, but decided against it. Credit where it's deserved, the team got rid of Sam Bradford and will no longer rely on him to be healthy. Now to take credit away, they are relying on Nick Foles to be the 2013 version of himself and not the 2014 version. The Rams have a defense full of high draft picks and talented players. It's a defense that can win games, but despite choosing the guy who is easily the best running back in the 2015 draft (Todd Gurley), I don't believe they can make the playoffs. As well as they have drafted on defense, they have drafted that poorly on offense. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Rams have a great year in St. Louis before scampering off to Los Angeles while wondering why St. Louis fans didn't love them enough this year.
San Francisco 49ers (4-12): I don't see how the 49ers can lose Jim Harbaugh, most of their linebackers, their right tackle and the various other players they lost this year and still compete. If the 49ers make the playoffs then Trent Baalke should be Executive of the Year. The left to middle side of the offensive line is still quality, but Vernon Davis and Colin Kaepernick have to bounce back from relatively sub-par years for them. Carlos Hyde and Reggie Bush make for a good combination on paper, but my worries begin and end with the defense. It's a very unproven group and a lot of the talent (Justin Smith, Aldon Smith, Patrick Willis, Chris Borland) is no longer around and that has to take a toll on them. NaVorro Bowman will do his best to provide leadership, but on a team where the struggled scoring points and passing the ball last year, I'm afraid the defense will have to do more than it is capable at this moment. I don't even have time to comment on Jim Tomsula, the guy who has replaced Jim Harbaugh, which is an impossible job in the first place.
NFC Wild Card: Seattle Seahawks over Atlanta Falcons, Arizona Cardinals over Green Bay Packers
NFC Divisional Round: Philadelphia Eagles over Arizona Cardinals, Minnesota Vikings over Seattle Seahawks
NFC Championship Game: Philadelphia Eagles over Minnesota Vikings
Super Bowl: Philadelphia Eagles over San Diego Chargers
I'm not sure I'm happy with that result...
Showing posts with label NFC Preview. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NFC Preview. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Thursday, September 4, 2014
4 comments 2014 NFL Season Predictions
If I remember correctly, I have buried my NFL season predictions in a TMQ over the past couple of years. I think it's time for my stupidity to come to the forefront and so I am doing this by putting my 2014 NFL season predictions out for everyone to see/ignore. The NFL is a funny league to try and predict, because in August it doesn't make sense how a team could make the playoffs and sometimes the best teams the year before aren't good at all the following season. So here's my best shot:
AFC East
New England Patriots (13-3): It's pretty much sacrilegious to not put the Patriots as the winner of the AFC East. Though I still don't love their receivers (Brady makes them 25% better so it's probably silly to care), the defense looks much improved to me. Revis and Browner on separate sides with Jerod Mayo healthy equals another AFC East title. This is an easy pick because the AFC East that strong and the Patriots are still a strong team.
New York Jets (9-7): I desperately want to like another team in the AFC East. So I have chosen the Jets as the team I like, because even though they have major cornerback issues, they have a really good front seven. I haven't given up on Geno Smith, but at some point I can see Mike Vick getting a shot. There still aren't great offensive weapons, but out of Chris Johnson, Chris Ivory, and Bilal Powell they can run the ball enough to win some games. Right?
Miami Dolphins (5-11): I should be liking this team more. But the brutal middle-to-end of their schedule with Green Bay, Chicago, Denver, San Diego, Baltimore, and New England is talking me out of it. I never liked Tannehill, but I have to admit he has held up well with the pressure he's faced. I'm convinced the Dolphins have upgraded their offensive line and this is a very, very important year for Joe Philbin. Unlike Jeff Fisher, he doesn't have stability after this season. I see five sure losses in the middle of the schedule and it's not hard to find at least four more losses in there as well. Maybe I shouldn't base it on their schedule, but I don't see where more than 7-8 wins are coming from.
Buffalo Bills (4-12): The Bills' schedule doesn't seem so bad to me. Still, there are so many red flags that I can't ignore. A lot of how I feel about a team is based on that team's quarterback and Doug Marrone is publicly talking about what E.J. Manuel has to fix and is accusing him of trying to throw the ball to a point. Marrone is also arguing with a defensive player and that defensive player isn't backing down, and though I'm really liking the receivers they have given Manuel, I don't trust him at this point. If I didn't see such bad omens I think they would have a chance. I simply don't believe.
AFC North
Pittsburgh Steelers (11-5): This is a hard division to predict, but I have the Steelers winning the division because I think their defensive is going to improve from being middle-of-the-pack last year. The Steelers are semi-famous for having great linebackers and I think they have four really good ones this year. With an offensive line that seems somewhat improved as long as there aren't injuries on the line and Le'Veon Bell (boy, I was wrong about him it seems) carrying the football and Markus Wheaton improving, I think the Steelers make it back to the playoffs.
Baltimore Ravens (10-6): It's probably boring to rank the teams like this with it being Steelers and then Ravens, but I think the Steelers passing will improve with Steve Smith and Owen Daniels complementing Dennis Pitta. I liked the addition of C.J. Mosley and hopefully the offensive line will protect Joe Flacco. The Ravens have done a really good job of rebuilding the safety position and I think Ray Rice will have a bounceback season.
Cleveland Browns (6-10): Call me crazy, but I really like their defense. I believe in Justin Gilbert and Joe Haden as being a great corner combination. Gilbert will have chances to make plays as teams throw away from Haden. Offense is obviously the issue since the Browns have very few quality receivers, but I'm buying a Miles Austin comeback season and think the offensive line will be good enough to protect Hoyer/Manziel. It's a team on the rise (JUST LIKE THE RAMS!), but not this year.
Cincinnati Bengals (6-10): I don't believe the pass rush will be as strong this year and if the new defensive coordinator is planning on attacking a little more I think it's going to put more pressure on what I view as just a couple of decent guys at safety. While acknowledging I have the WR-empty Browns as 6-10 (and the Bengals do have better receivers than the Browns), I think teams are going to find more success this year blanketing A.J. Green and forcing Andy Dalton to find other receivers. It's an improved division and the Bengals are nearly the worst team in it.
AFC South
Indianapolis Colts (10-6): I struggled hard with this pick. I can't find a team in the AFC South that will challenge the Colts though. The Texans have no QB, the Jaguars have Chad Henne, and the Titans have Jake Locker who can't stay healthy. The Colts win by default. Andrew Luck has some nice weapons to work with at wide receiver, but it would be nice if the Colts gave him a running back. One concern is the defense. It gave up the 9th fewest points last year while giving up the 20th most yards. If those yards turn into points this year then 10 wins may be out of the question. Still, the Colts are the best team in the division.
Jacksonville Jaguars (8-8): I believe for some reason. I don't think Chad Henne is great and I haven't ever liked Blake Bortles, but the Jaguars are improved on offense and Gus Bradley knows how to build a defense. We'll see, but a lot of what I read prior to writing these sentences marvel at how Bradley is dedicated to turning this team into a winner. It's an easy division too. I think they get to 8 wins.
Houston Texans (6-10): The reality of this situation is the Texans don't need a great quarterback. They have Arian Foster, DeAndre Hopkins, and Andre Johnson, as well as a really stout defense. Giving this defense Jadeveon Clowney is almost unfair. Still, they need a competent quarterback to win games and I don't see one on the roster. And yes, I just had a Chad Henne-led team go 8-8. If they had a good quarterback I could see this team win the division. As it stands, I can't get behind Ryan Fitzpatrick. Unfortunately, I think Andre Johnson feels the same way.
Tennessee Titans (6-10): I like the offensive line and I like the top-3 receivers. Assuming Jake Locker stays healthy and improves his accuracy, the Titans could slip into the Wild Card conversation. Neither of those things I am willing to count on though. The front seven on defense has to get pressure on the quarterback because the secondary is a question mark in my mind. I'm interested to see how Ken Whisenhunt does with this team. The talent is there, but with questions at quarterback and a defense I don't completely believe in, I can't put them in the playoffs.
AFC West
Denver Broncos (14-2): The Broncos will lose to the Seahawks in Seattle and to San Diego once. Other than that, they are as good as they were on offense last year and the defense on paper looks to have improved. Of course Manning has to stay healthy for 14 wins to happen, which means his offensive line will have to protect him and he will have to know when to get rid of the football. I have no doubt the second part will happen. I think they are as good, if not better, than they were last year. Now if someone could just educate Wes Welker about what a "Molly" is then the Broncos would be a talented and slightly more informed team.
San Diego Chargers (11-5): This is another team I have read great things about regarding their defensive ability. Philip Rivers had a rejuvenating year because he actually had receivers to throw to and I think Ladarius Green starts to become a lesser version of Antonio Gates. They are going to score points and it's just a matter of the defense playing well. They are similar to the Colts in that they gave up the 11th fewest points last year and were 23rd in yards allowed. The difference is I think the Chargers have improved in the secondary, where they have added Jason Verrett and Brandon Flowers.
Kansas City Chiefs (6-10): Yeah, I'm probably a hater. I don't think the combination of Alex Smith with poor receivers is going to lead to success. The Chiefs defense is good, but they gave up a lot of yards last year and I don't see where they have improved. They'll still rush the passer well, but Alex Smith has an offensive line that hasn't improved, few receivers, and an offense that will revolve around Jamaal Charles. I can't see how Smith being a "winner" gets the Chiefs back to the playoffs.
Oakland Raiders (2-14): I don't necessarily dislike the Raiders idea of taking players who are older on shorter contracts, but I also don't think it's made the team better. This is another case of me hating the quarterback they have. I think even if the Raiders start Derek Carr he doesn't have enough to work with at the receiving position to warrant more than four wins. He beat out Schaub, who really does have Jake Delhomme disease. When is Peter King going to start ragging on Schaub for wasting $8 million of the Raiders money? The Raiders are going to lean on the running game to help their QB out, but Maurice Jones-Drew was the offense in Jacksonville for a few years as well and that didn't work out entirely. I don't hate the defensive built with a veteran front seven, but winning enough games to get to .500 relying on those guys? Good luck with that.
AFC Playoffs
Bye: Denver, New England
Wild Card: Pittsburgh over Baltimore, San Diego over Indianapolis
Divisional: Denver over San Diego, Pittsburgh over New England
Championship: Denver over Pittsburgh
NFC East
Philadelphia Eagles (12-4): Yes, I know. Very uninspired. They have improved in the offseason on offense, like they needed to do that, and I think they will be a step up from where they were defensively last year. I don't buy Chip Kelly as the coach full of wisdom like Peter King does, but he does know how to score points. Like usual, I'm a little nervous the Eagles ability to score quick will tire out the Eagles defense, but I'm not sure that's realistic. Also, Nick Foles can't have the same year this upcoming year he had in 2013 can he?
New York Giants (9-7): I'm not buying the panic in New York about the Giants. I'm concerned, like most people, about Eli Manning's interceptions last year and the lack of protection he received from his offensive line, but he should have healthier receivers this year and I'm not really as concerned about the tight end position. The pass rush should be improved, but I'm still not certain they can win double digit games with games against Arizona, Philadelphia (twice), Atlanta, Indianapolis, Seattle, and San Francisco on their schedule.
Dallas Cowboys (6-10): I just have no idea who the Cowboys will be able to stop on defense. The front seven is pretty uninspiring due to injuries and if the onus is on Tony Romo to outscore other teams than he will be in the situation where he has to score 30 points just to keep the Cowboys in games. I may have said this last year, but this feels like the last year of the Jason Garrett era. The offensive line looks improved, but man, I don't believe this defense can help them get to .500.
Washington Redskins (5-11): Maybe Jay Gruden can trade for A.J. Green? I don't put much stock in preseason results, but the Redskins are a completely different team when Robert Griffin has to stand in the pocket and throw rather than play off his running ability. Griffin is healthy now, which is good, but he still has something to prove to me in terms of actually getting on the field and showing he's healthy. The defense isn't bad and I still can't figure out if DeAngelo Hall is a good corner or overrated. I think it will be a tough year in Washington and any type of quarterback controversy won't help.
NFC North
Green Bay Packers (10-6): This is another team whose success this season depends a lot on their defense. Aaron Rodgers will score points for the Packers, but will the defense improve to where they aren't a huge liability? Dom Capers is probably coaching for his job, so maybe that will inspire him and the defense. I remember even when the Packers won the Super Bowl, it was because the defense finally stepped up and started playing well. I don't know if the Packers defense will do that this year or not, but I think they are the best team in the NFC North.
Chicago Bears (8-8): It's weird for me to have questions about the Bears on defense, but I think that's where my big issue lies. They have improved the offensive line from two years so Jay Cutler still won't be on the run constantly. I worry about the Bears improving against the run from last season and Jared Allen is going to need to put up 11.5 sacks again if the Bears improve on my predicted record for them. They can score points, but in a division where it seems few teams have a good defense the first team to improve on that side of the ball wins. I don't think that team is Chicago this year.
Minnesota Vikings (6-10): I think they should be starting Teddy Bridgewater. I'm still convinced he is going to be the best QB in the 2014 draft. So, if he's not ready then I guess Matt Cassel has the job for a while. Putting Cassel in as the starter puts a cap on what I think the Vikings can achieve this year. We know what he is. I like Norv Turner as an offensive coordinator and this record more reflects what I perceive as a lack of ability at the quarterback position and depth at wide receiver than anything else. As a person who has seen Captain Munnerlyn play over the last five years, I'm very concerned about his ability to be a starter. He's a playmaker, but better used in a "joker" type of role. I'm interested to see how they utilize Anthony Barr too.
Detroit Lions (5-11): It's fairly well-known here that I am not a huge Jim Caldwell fan. In fact, I think as a head coach he is a failure and has a proven track record in college and the NFL that if he doesn't have Peyton Manning as his QB, then he doesn't have a good team. The Lions are the perfect team for Caldwell, because his teams can always score and the Lions will score. On paper, the Lions should have a great defensive line that takes pressure off their mediocre secondary, but it didn't work quite that way last year. Detroit was sixth in run defense, so they can stop the run, but it's the pass I'm worried about. This will be a Jim Caldwell team and I feel like I know what that means.
NFC South
New Orleans Saints (11-5): It's hard to pick against the Saints. It's not "hard" because I really don't like them, but it's hard because they look like a really good team on paper. We all know Brees is fantastic, but he's like every other NFL QB. Get pressure in his face and it bothers him. I see two questions on the Saints offensive line in Armstead and Lelito. I'm not yet convinced on them. They definitely have two great safeties, but the corners in Rob Ryan's blitz-heavy defense need to hold up. I question if they can in Year 2 of Ryan's defensive regime. Still, the Saints win the South because their schedule isn't hard (Cleveland, Minnesota, Dallas, Carolina twice, Detroit and Cincinnati) and they are a talented team.
Atlanta Falcons (10-6): I like the Falcons to bounce back this season. They have already lost their starting left tackle for the season, but Jake Matthews will get a chance to play over there. He played the spot in college, so it's just a matter of adjusting to the competition level of the NFL...that should be easy, right? I think the defense is where the Falcons will improve the most. Young guys like Worrilow, Alford, and Trufant will benefit from the playing time they received last year and I think what the Falcons may lose on the offensive line they will gain in their defense's improvement.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (8-8): I'm glad Lovie Smith has gotten another chance in the NFL. He deserved it. Tell me if this is familiar. He has a team with a semi-question at quarterback, a good running back, great linebackers, potentially shaky offensive line play and a secondary who are going to try and be opportunistic in creating turnovers. This record may be low for them, but I do like the Falcons better. The Buccaneers are going to be very hard to stop in the red zone with Jackson, Evans, Doug Martin, and Seferian-Jenkins. I don't trust the pass rush to be strong enough and I don't know if I feel good about the offensive line to put them in the playoffs.
Carolina Panthers (5-11): They are shaping up to be a disaster. I feel like Riverboat Ron will go back to being conservative once he isn't coaching for his job and the offensive line is a disaster. The good lineman can't stay healthy or are rookies. Cam Newton is already injured before the season begins, when I thought he was going to get injured anyway playing behind a shaky offensive line. So while the receivers aren't much worse than last year, Newton's protection will be and he already has a rib injury. I like the direction they are headed, but unless the defense can win games for them, I don't see how they make the playoffs. I think this is a step back year before another step forward is taken.
NFC West
Seattle Seahawks (12-4): I think the Seahawks are going to win the NFC West again. They return the core of their team and I think they are even slightly better at the wide receiver and offensive line than they were last year. I still don't know exactly what I think about Russell Wilson, but he makes the right decisions and runs the Seahawks offense very effectively and efficiently. It's very important that Marshawn Lynch stay healthy, because Michael and Turbin are fairly unproven behind him. Still, they are the best team in the NFC until they prove to me otherwise.
Arizona Cardinals (10-6): The best thing the Cardinals can do this year is get Andre Ellington more carries. I think the Cardinals are going to make the playoffs this season with a very good defense (1st against the rush, 14th against the pass last year) and Carson Palmer having some really good receivers to work with in Arians' offensive system. My standard, "How is the offensive line doing" question remains, but it's an improved line now that Jonathan Cooper is back (assuming his hurt toe doesn't hold him back and he isn't as disappointing as Arians finds him to be) and they still have one of the best cornerbacks in the game.
San Francisco 49ers (7-9): I'm pretty sure I had the 49ers third in the NFC West last year too and was wrong about it. I promise I'm not going to put them there until I'm right. On paper, this team looks really good and they have proven me wrong before. It's a team built around running the football and playing good defense. Neither unit has looked great in the preseason (I know, I know...don't put much stock in the preseason) and at some point Frank Gore is going to run down, right? The schedule is difficult with them playing at the Giants, Denver, New Orleans, and Seattle. That doesn't include games against Seattle at home, as well as games against Chicago, Philadelphia and San Diego. That's tough. I think it results in a step-back season.
St. Louis Rams (5-11): I hear Sam Bradford got injured...that true? I almost put the Rams at 8-8 just for fun, but I get the feeling they won't get there. It's frustrating for me and I this is a team with a lot of talent (A TEAM ON THE RISE!), but I'm not ready to bet on Shaun Hill getting them to the playoffs. The defensive talent in the front seven is frightening and my excitement for the defense is somewhat tempered by the secondary. Of course with a great pass rush, the secondary looks better. Lack of stability at quarterback, a tough division and games against Philadelphia, Denver, and San Diego don't make this a winning season.
NFC Playoffs
Bye: Seattle, Philadelphia
Wild Card: New Orleans over Arizona, Atlanta over Green Bay
Divisional: Seattle over Atlanta, New Orleans over Philadelphia
Championship: New Orleans over Seattle
Super Bowl: Denver over New Orleans
AFC East
New England Patriots (13-3): It's pretty much sacrilegious to not put the Patriots as the winner of the AFC East. Though I still don't love their receivers (Brady makes them 25% better so it's probably silly to care), the defense looks much improved to me. Revis and Browner on separate sides with Jerod Mayo healthy equals another AFC East title. This is an easy pick because the AFC East that strong and the Patriots are still a strong team.
New York Jets (9-7): I desperately want to like another team in the AFC East. So I have chosen the Jets as the team I like, because even though they have major cornerback issues, they have a really good front seven. I haven't given up on Geno Smith, but at some point I can see Mike Vick getting a shot. There still aren't great offensive weapons, but out of Chris Johnson, Chris Ivory, and Bilal Powell they can run the ball enough to win some games. Right?
Miami Dolphins (5-11): I should be liking this team more. But the brutal middle-to-end of their schedule with Green Bay, Chicago, Denver, San Diego, Baltimore, and New England is talking me out of it. I never liked Tannehill, but I have to admit he has held up well with the pressure he's faced. I'm convinced the Dolphins have upgraded their offensive line and this is a very, very important year for Joe Philbin. Unlike Jeff Fisher, he doesn't have stability after this season. I see five sure losses in the middle of the schedule and it's not hard to find at least four more losses in there as well. Maybe I shouldn't base it on their schedule, but I don't see where more than 7-8 wins are coming from.
Buffalo Bills (4-12): The Bills' schedule doesn't seem so bad to me. Still, there are so many red flags that I can't ignore. A lot of how I feel about a team is based on that team's quarterback and Doug Marrone is publicly talking about what E.J. Manuel has to fix and is accusing him of trying to throw the ball to a point. Marrone is also arguing with a defensive player and that defensive player isn't backing down, and though I'm really liking the receivers they have given Manuel, I don't trust him at this point. If I didn't see such bad omens I think they would have a chance. I simply don't believe.
AFC North
Pittsburgh Steelers (11-5): This is a hard division to predict, but I have the Steelers winning the division because I think their defensive is going to improve from being middle-of-the-pack last year. The Steelers are semi-famous for having great linebackers and I think they have four really good ones this year. With an offensive line that seems somewhat improved as long as there aren't injuries on the line and Le'Veon Bell (boy, I was wrong about him it seems) carrying the football and Markus Wheaton improving, I think the Steelers make it back to the playoffs.
Baltimore Ravens (10-6): It's probably boring to rank the teams like this with it being Steelers and then Ravens, but I think the Steelers passing will improve with Steve Smith and Owen Daniels complementing Dennis Pitta. I liked the addition of C.J. Mosley and hopefully the offensive line will protect Joe Flacco. The Ravens have done a really good job of rebuilding the safety position and I think Ray Rice will have a bounceback season.
Cleveland Browns (6-10): Call me crazy, but I really like their defense. I believe in Justin Gilbert and Joe Haden as being a great corner combination. Gilbert will have chances to make plays as teams throw away from Haden. Offense is obviously the issue since the Browns have very few quality receivers, but I'm buying a Miles Austin comeback season and think the offensive line will be good enough to protect Hoyer/Manziel. It's a team on the rise (JUST LIKE THE RAMS!), but not this year.
Cincinnati Bengals (6-10): I don't believe the pass rush will be as strong this year and if the new defensive coordinator is planning on attacking a little more I think it's going to put more pressure on what I view as just a couple of decent guys at safety. While acknowledging I have the WR-empty Browns as 6-10 (and the Bengals do have better receivers than the Browns), I think teams are going to find more success this year blanketing A.J. Green and forcing Andy Dalton to find other receivers. It's an improved division and the Bengals are nearly the worst team in it.
AFC South
Indianapolis Colts (10-6): I struggled hard with this pick. I can't find a team in the AFC South that will challenge the Colts though. The Texans have no QB, the Jaguars have Chad Henne, and the Titans have Jake Locker who can't stay healthy. The Colts win by default. Andrew Luck has some nice weapons to work with at wide receiver, but it would be nice if the Colts gave him a running back. One concern is the defense. It gave up the 9th fewest points last year while giving up the 20th most yards. If those yards turn into points this year then 10 wins may be out of the question. Still, the Colts are the best team in the division.
Jacksonville Jaguars (8-8): I believe for some reason. I don't think Chad Henne is great and I haven't ever liked Blake Bortles, but the Jaguars are improved on offense and Gus Bradley knows how to build a defense. We'll see, but a lot of what I read prior to writing these sentences marvel at how Bradley is dedicated to turning this team into a winner. It's an easy division too. I think they get to 8 wins.
Houston Texans (6-10): The reality of this situation is the Texans don't need a great quarterback. They have Arian Foster, DeAndre Hopkins, and Andre Johnson, as well as a really stout defense. Giving this defense Jadeveon Clowney is almost unfair. Still, they need a competent quarterback to win games and I don't see one on the roster. And yes, I just had a Chad Henne-led team go 8-8. If they had a good quarterback I could see this team win the division. As it stands, I can't get behind Ryan Fitzpatrick. Unfortunately, I think Andre Johnson feels the same way.
Tennessee Titans (6-10): I like the offensive line and I like the top-3 receivers. Assuming Jake Locker stays healthy and improves his accuracy, the Titans could slip into the Wild Card conversation. Neither of those things I am willing to count on though. The front seven on defense has to get pressure on the quarterback because the secondary is a question mark in my mind. I'm interested to see how Ken Whisenhunt does with this team. The talent is there, but with questions at quarterback and a defense I don't completely believe in, I can't put them in the playoffs.
AFC West
Denver Broncos (14-2): The Broncos will lose to the Seahawks in Seattle and to San Diego once. Other than that, they are as good as they were on offense last year and the defense on paper looks to have improved. Of course Manning has to stay healthy for 14 wins to happen, which means his offensive line will have to protect him and he will have to know when to get rid of the football. I have no doubt the second part will happen. I think they are as good, if not better, than they were last year. Now if someone could just educate Wes Welker about what a "Molly" is then the Broncos would be a talented and slightly more informed team.
San Diego Chargers (11-5): This is another team I have read great things about regarding their defensive ability. Philip Rivers had a rejuvenating year because he actually had receivers to throw to and I think Ladarius Green starts to become a lesser version of Antonio Gates. They are going to score points and it's just a matter of the defense playing well. They are similar to the Colts in that they gave up the 11th fewest points last year and were 23rd in yards allowed. The difference is I think the Chargers have improved in the secondary, where they have added Jason Verrett and Brandon Flowers.
Kansas City Chiefs (6-10): Yeah, I'm probably a hater. I don't think the combination of Alex Smith with poor receivers is going to lead to success. The Chiefs defense is good, but they gave up a lot of yards last year and I don't see where they have improved. They'll still rush the passer well, but Alex Smith has an offensive line that hasn't improved, few receivers, and an offense that will revolve around Jamaal Charles. I can't see how Smith being a "winner" gets the Chiefs back to the playoffs.
Oakland Raiders (2-14): I don't necessarily dislike the Raiders idea of taking players who are older on shorter contracts, but I also don't think it's made the team better. This is another case of me hating the quarterback they have. I think even if the Raiders start Derek Carr he doesn't have enough to work with at the receiving position to warrant more than four wins. He beat out Schaub, who really does have Jake Delhomme disease. When is Peter King going to start ragging on Schaub for wasting $8 million of the Raiders money? The Raiders are going to lean on the running game to help their QB out, but Maurice Jones-Drew was the offense in Jacksonville for a few years as well and that didn't work out entirely. I don't hate the defensive built with a veteran front seven, but winning enough games to get to .500 relying on those guys? Good luck with that.
AFC Playoffs
Bye: Denver, New England
Wild Card: Pittsburgh over Baltimore, San Diego over Indianapolis
Divisional: Denver over San Diego, Pittsburgh over New England
Championship: Denver over Pittsburgh
NFC East
Philadelphia Eagles (12-4): Yes, I know. Very uninspired. They have improved in the offseason on offense, like they needed to do that, and I think they will be a step up from where they were defensively last year. I don't buy Chip Kelly as the coach full of wisdom like Peter King does, but he does know how to score points. Like usual, I'm a little nervous the Eagles ability to score quick will tire out the Eagles defense, but I'm not sure that's realistic. Also, Nick Foles can't have the same year this upcoming year he had in 2013 can he?
New York Giants (9-7): I'm not buying the panic in New York about the Giants. I'm concerned, like most people, about Eli Manning's interceptions last year and the lack of protection he received from his offensive line, but he should have healthier receivers this year and I'm not really as concerned about the tight end position. The pass rush should be improved, but I'm still not certain they can win double digit games with games against Arizona, Philadelphia (twice), Atlanta, Indianapolis, Seattle, and San Francisco on their schedule.
Dallas Cowboys (6-10): I just have no idea who the Cowboys will be able to stop on defense. The front seven is pretty uninspiring due to injuries and if the onus is on Tony Romo to outscore other teams than he will be in the situation where he has to score 30 points just to keep the Cowboys in games. I may have said this last year, but this feels like the last year of the Jason Garrett era. The offensive line looks improved, but man, I don't believe this defense can help them get to .500.
Washington Redskins (5-11): Maybe Jay Gruden can trade for A.J. Green? I don't put much stock in preseason results, but the Redskins are a completely different team when Robert Griffin has to stand in the pocket and throw rather than play off his running ability. Griffin is healthy now, which is good, but he still has something to prove to me in terms of actually getting on the field and showing he's healthy. The defense isn't bad and I still can't figure out if DeAngelo Hall is a good corner or overrated. I think it will be a tough year in Washington and any type of quarterback controversy won't help.
NFC North
Green Bay Packers (10-6): This is another team whose success this season depends a lot on their defense. Aaron Rodgers will score points for the Packers, but will the defense improve to where they aren't a huge liability? Dom Capers is probably coaching for his job, so maybe that will inspire him and the defense. I remember even when the Packers won the Super Bowl, it was because the defense finally stepped up and started playing well. I don't know if the Packers defense will do that this year or not, but I think they are the best team in the NFC North.
Chicago Bears (8-8): It's weird for me to have questions about the Bears on defense, but I think that's where my big issue lies. They have improved the offensive line from two years so Jay Cutler still won't be on the run constantly. I worry about the Bears improving against the run from last season and Jared Allen is going to need to put up 11.5 sacks again if the Bears improve on my predicted record for them. They can score points, but in a division where it seems few teams have a good defense the first team to improve on that side of the ball wins. I don't think that team is Chicago this year.
Minnesota Vikings (6-10): I think they should be starting Teddy Bridgewater. I'm still convinced he is going to be the best QB in the 2014 draft. So, if he's not ready then I guess Matt Cassel has the job for a while. Putting Cassel in as the starter puts a cap on what I think the Vikings can achieve this year. We know what he is. I like Norv Turner as an offensive coordinator and this record more reflects what I perceive as a lack of ability at the quarterback position and depth at wide receiver than anything else. As a person who has seen Captain Munnerlyn play over the last five years, I'm very concerned about his ability to be a starter. He's a playmaker, but better used in a "joker" type of role. I'm interested to see how they utilize Anthony Barr too.
Detroit Lions (5-11): It's fairly well-known here that I am not a huge Jim Caldwell fan. In fact, I think as a head coach he is a failure and has a proven track record in college and the NFL that if he doesn't have Peyton Manning as his QB, then he doesn't have a good team. The Lions are the perfect team for Caldwell, because his teams can always score and the Lions will score. On paper, the Lions should have a great defensive line that takes pressure off their mediocre secondary, but it didn't work quite that way last year. Detroit was sixth in run defense, so they can stop the run, but it's the pass I'm worried about. This will be a Jim Caldwell team and I feel like I know what that means.
NFC South
New Orleans Saints (11-5): It's hard to pick against the Saints. It's not "hard" because I really don't like them, but it's hard because they look like a really good team on paper. We all know Brees is fantastic, but he's like every other NFL QB. Get pressure in his face and it bothers him. I see two questions on the Saints offensive line in Armstead and Lelito. I'm not yet convinced on them. They definitely have two great safeties, but the corners in Rob Ryan's blitz-heavy defense need to hold up. I question if they can in Year 2 of Ryan's defensive regime. Still, the Saints win the South because their schedule isn't hard (Cleveland, Minnesota, Dallas, Carolina twice, Detroit and Cincinnati) and they are a talented team.
Atlanta Falcons (10-6): I like the Falcons to bounce back this season. They have already lost their starting left tackle for the season, but Jake Matthews will get a chance to play over there. He played the spot in college, so it's just a matter of adjusting to the competition level of the NFL...that should be easy, right? I think the defense is where the Falcons will improve the most. Young guys like Worrilow, Alford, and Trufant will benefit from the playing time they received last year and I think what the Falcons may lose on the offensive line they will gain in their defense's improvement.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (8-8): I'm glad Lovie Smith has gotten another chance in the NFL. He deserved it. Tell me if this is familiar. He has a team with a semi-question at quarterback, a good running back, great linebackers, potentially shaky offensive line play and a secondary who are going to try and be opportunistic in creating turnovers. This record may be low for them, but I do like the Falcons better. The Buccaneers are going to be very hard to stop in the red zone with Jackson, Evans, Doug Martin, and Seferian-Jenkins. I don't trust the pass rush to be strong enough and I don't know if I feel good about the offensive line to put them in the playoffs.
Carolina Panthers (5-11): They are shaping up to be a disaster. I feel like Riverboat Ron will go back to being conservative once he isn't coaching for his job and the offensive line is a disaster. The good lineman can't stay healthy or are rookies. Cam Newton is already injured before the season begins, when I thought he was going to get injured anyway playing behind a shaky offensive line. So while the receivers aren't much worse than last year, Newton's protection will be and he already has a rib injury. I like the direction they are headed, but unless the defense can win games for them, I don't see how they make the playoffs. I think this is a step back year before another step forward is taken.
NFC West
Seattle Seahawks (12-4): I think the Seahawks are going to win the NFC West again. They return the core of their team and I think they are even slightly better at the wide receiver and offensive line than they were last year. I still don't know exactly what I think about Russell Wilson, but he makes the right decisions and runs the Seahawks offense very effectively and efficiently. It's very important that Marshawn Lynch stay healthy, because Michael and Turbin are fairly unproven behind him. Still, they are the best team in the NFC until they prove to me otherwise.
Arizona Cardinals (10-6): The best thing the Cardinals can do this year is get Andre Ellington more carries. I think the Cardinals are going to make the playoffs this season with a very good defense (1st against the rush, 14th against the pass last year) and Carson Palmer having some really good receivers to work with in Arians' offensive system. My standard, "How is the offensive line doing" question remains, but it's an improved line now that Jonathan Cooper is back (assuming his hurt toe doesn't hold him back and he isn't as disappointing as Arians finds him to be) and they still have one of the best cornerbacks in the game.
San Francisco 49ers (7-9): I'm pretty sure I had the 49ers third in the NFC West last year too and was wrong about it. I promise I'm not going to put them there until I'm right. On paper, this team looks really good and they have proven me wrong before. It's a team built around running the football and playing good defense. Neither unit has looked great in the preseason (I know, I know...don't put much stock in the preseason) and at some point Frank Gore is going to run down, right? The schedule is difficult with them playing at the Giants, Denver, New Orleans, and Seattle. That doesn't include games against Seattle at home, as well as games against Chicago, Philadelphia and San Diego. That's tough. I think it results in a step-back season.
St. Louis Rams (5-11): I hear Sam Bradford got injured...that true? I almost put the Rams at 8-8 just for fun, but I get the feeling they won't get there. It's frustrating for me and I this is a team with a lot of talent (A TEAM ON THE RISE!), but I'm not ready to bet on Shaun Hill getting them to the playoffs. The defensive talent in the front seven is frightening and my excitement for the defense is somewhat tempered by the secondary. Of course with a great pass rush, the secondary looks better. Lack of stability at quarterback, a tough division and games against Philadelphia, Denver, and San Diego don't make this a winning season.
NFC Playoffs
Bye: Seattle, Philadelphia
Wild Card: New Orleans over Arizona, Atlanta over Green Bay
Divisional: Seattle over Atlanta, New Orleans over Philadelphia
Championship: New Orleans over Seattle
Super Bowl: Denver over New Orleans
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
5 comments Bill Simmons Does an NFC Power Poll
Bill Simmons has followed up his AFC power poll with an NFC power poll. I briefly discussed the issue with doing the NFC and AFC power polls separately and the issue is that teams won't be ranked in chronological order of their strength, but Bill has tried to remedy this by providing the AFC team names in the respective numerical spot he ranked them in the AFC power poll. It seems kind of silly to me and it just would have been easier to do an NFL power poll with 16 teams on Thursday and 16 teams on Friday, but who I am to question the all-knowing Bill Simmons? I'm nobody and Bill is a somebody. Just ask him. I'm sure Bill would state he is somebody and then use his own opinion of how great he is as proof this is true. So without more rambling, here is Bill's NFC power poll.
If you missed Grantland's 2013 NFL preview coverage — including my three-part NFL over/under podcast from Vegas with Cousin Sal,
I didn't read or pay attention to any of this stuff, but I wouldn't say I missed it.
If you missed my AFC Power Poll heading into the 2013 season, which went up Thursday afternoon on Grantland, click here. That column included my Baltimore-Denver pick — after I ranked the Ravens ahead of the Broncos and grabbed the +7.5 points, they lost in Denver by 25.
It's almost like there is no science or rules behind gambling and in the end it is all guesswork. This couldn't be true though, right?
Today, we're cranking out an NFC Power Poll. For no extra charge, I included yesterday's AFC rankings within today's column so you could see every team on one list.
BUT WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST PUT THEM ALL IN ONE LIST ORIGINALLY? THIS ISN'T FAIR TO PEOPLE WITH OCD, LIKE MYSELF!
25. Tampa Bay Buccaneers
I juggled six possibilities for "NFC's worst team," which is a fancy way of saying, "they're better than anyone in the AFC's bottom seven, only they have the misfortune of playing in a stacked conference."
I'm not sure you can count any conference that has Ron Rivera as the head coach for one of the teams in that conference as "stacked."
Then you have second-year coach Greg Schiano, voted the winner of last November's Sporting News poll for "The Coach You'd Least Want to Play For."
Who else was on this list?
Bill Belichick
Tom Coughlin
Andy Reid
Mike Shanahan
Jim Harbaugh
That's ten Super Bowl appearances and six Super Bowl victories in there. This reminds me of a quote from "The Sopranos" where Tony was trying to stop Christopher Moltisanti from being the whiny bitch he could be at times,
"You don't have to love, but you will respect me."
Exactly. You don't have to love them, but you have to respect them because they win games. I'm not a fan of Greg Schiano, but his name on this list means very little as long as he is successful.
What's more likely — the Bucs making the 2013 playoffs, or Schiano and Freeman being jettisoned out of Tampa five months from now, then Schiano landing a college job and eventually ending up in one of those Mike Rice–type scandals because he attacked some poor sophomore with a tackling dummy?
It's very much more likely the Buccaneers make the 2013 playoffs.
DEAD MEN WALKING
24. The Lions of Detroit
23. Carolina Panthers
Both teams have killer fantasy QBs (Matt Stafford and Cam Newton) and one-of-a-kind blue-chippers (Calvin Johnson and Luke Kuechly). Both teams were well-represented at your 2013 fantasy draft.
And we all know that fantasy rankings always accurately represent real-life talent.
Know this: I've seen everything I needed to see from the Jim Schwartz and Ron Rivera eras already. It's a shame about the Panthers — blessed with Newton and one of the best defensive front sevens in football — who somehow have gone 2-12 in games decided by seven points or fewer since Newton and Rivera teamed up.
2-13 now. Yippee!
Football Outsiders' excellent DVOA season prediction model likes the 2013 Panthers for that very reason: Bad luck tends to even out over time.
But stupid decision-making stands the test of time. Upon having his previous offensive coordinator inexplicably get a head coaching job with the Browns, Ron Rivera decided to save his job he would turn to Mike Shula to run the offense. That's like a television show having falling ratings and then seeing if Ted McGinley is available to give the show a shot in the arm.
THE SHORT STRAWS
22. St. Louis Rams
21. Arizona Cardinals
We think Jeff Fisher is a good coach even though he has coached 16 full seasons and finished above .500 in only six of them.
I'm completely torn between being happy that more people are noticing Jeff "8-8" Fisher's overratedness and being really sad that Bill Simmons is agreeing with me.
He hasn't won a playoff game since 2003. He's an average coach. Not great, not bad. He's somewhere in the middle.
(whispers) Exactly right.
If it's OK with you, I'm crossing off the Rams. As for the Cardinals, they were looking sleeperish until they lost no. 7 overall pick Jonathan Cooper with a broken leg. (So much for improving their offensive line.)
So Bill was high on the Cardinals until they lost a rookie offensive lineman? At that point he thought, "Well that screws up the entire season" because a rookie offensive lineman got injured? Sounds like Bill had pretty much the entire Cardinals season riding on Cooper, which is especially odd to me. Who the hell has a team's entire season riding on one offensive lineman? It sounds like Bill just wanted an excuse to count the Cardinals out and couldn't think of a different football-related reason.
That reminds me, I went against someone who started Peyton Manning, Wes Welker and Demaryius Thomas in Week 1. It's Friday and I'm down 97.9 points already. Why is fantasy football fun again?
This reminds me, no one cares about the fantasy team of someone they don't know. Who am I kidding though? The Simmonsites care about everything Bill says and does.
A (VERY) FAINT WHIFF OF FRISKINESS
20. Philadelphia Eagles
Ottawa reader Neil Varan wonders, "Who's the leading candidate for your 2013 Man-Crush?" The answer: Eagles coach Chip Kelly. I love his brain, love his system, love the rapid-fire play thing … I mean, I would have picked the Eagles as my 2013 sleeper if Michael Vick weren't so prominently involved. Last year, we decided that (a) his decision-making just wasn't good enough, (b) it was too hard for him to stay healthy,
It was hard for Vick to stay healthy because he held onto the ball too long. In the Chip Kelly offense he isn't supposed to hold the ball long, so I guess we'll see.
Now he's going to spearhead an offense that runs 85 plays a game and relies on him to make MORE decisions? If Kelly makes this one work in Year 1, he's even better than I thought. And I think he's gonna be great. Eventually.
I'm not sure there is an "eventually" about it. I think Chip Kelly will be great running his offense from his first year in the league and then make the appropriate adjustments once the NFL adjusts to him.
Then again, Indiana reader Rick Vaughn throws something he calls "The Barnwell Theory" at us, explaining, "When Bill Barnwell and the Advanced Stat Troubadours (trademark pending) win the public over and blatantly influence a line, the team in question is guaranteed to prove them wrong. This year's example: Barnwell's regression-laden fingerprints are all over the Colts over/under for season wins (8.5). Quick reminder: they play half their games against the California penal league: Jags twice, Titans twice, Oakland (home), Dolphins (home), San Diego (away), and Cardinals (away). They're 5-3 over that stretch if Gary Hogeboom is under center. I'm guessing 6-2. Yes, they play the NFC West, but let's also consider the 2nd year leap for franchise QBs like Montana, Marino, Elway, and Manning. Three years ago this over/under is 9.5.
Ah yes, it's a Bill Simmons reader who gets his email published because it plugs the column of another Grantland columnist. Not only that, but this is an email from a Simmons reader who makes up statistics as if they are facts and not just something he made up prior to writing the email. So the over/under on wins for a quarterback making the 2nd year leap three years ago was 9.5? What was the over/under five years ago? How about ten years ago? I guess you can prove yourself to be correct if you make up a statistic that helps to prove your point.
I'd say Atlanta (9.5 wins), Minnesota (7 wins) and Carolina (7.5 wins — too high in that case) would be your Barnwell Theory value candidates.
Great, Rick from Indiana you have now made this Barnwell Theory a "thing" that Bill will recite in his mailbags and columns as if it was a fact. Who knows, maybe Bill will just outright steal the theory like he did the Ewing Theory.
THE KARDASHIANS
(shakes head sadly)
14. Dallas Cowboys
Who's the best "Overrated, Underrated or Properly Rated?" argument in the entire league? Antonio Ramiro Romo, that's who. You can argue both sides until you're blue in the face.
So not only is Bill getting ready to argue on under/overratedness, which is an argument that can't be proven definitively one way or another due to it being entirely subjective, but he has just proclaimed Tony Romo as the best topic for this argument, even though Romo being the best topic for this argument can also not be proven definitively one way or another definitively. At this point, nearly everything Bill would write on this topic is purely an opinion that he would try to pass off as a fact.
I'll spare you from having to read it. The stats say that some people underrate Tony Romo while those who use anecdotal evidence say Romo is overrated because he will give the opposing team a turnover at the perfect time they need one. Nothing has been decided in regard to over/underratedness, Bill thinks Romo will be underrated this year.
THE HOVERERS
12. New York Giants
But as far as the Super Bowl goes, I thought these two lists were interesting … Over-60 coaches who won the Super Bowl: Tom Coughlin (65), '11 Giants; Dick Vermeil (63), '99 Rams; Weeb Ewbank (61), '69 Jets.
In 2007, I created the Speed Limit Theory for NFL head coaches — once they creep over 55, it starts to get a little dicey. That doesn't mean they can't succeed. Coughlin and Vermeil won Super Bowls. Marty Schottenheimer won 14 games when he was 63. Marv Levy made four straight Super Bowls in his 60s.
Bill created this theory and then of course Tom Coughlin won two Super Bowls while being over the age of 55, while Bill Belichick made it two Super Bowls while being 54 years old and 58 years old.
35-and-over QBs who won the Super Bowl: John Elway (37, 38), '97 and '98 Broncos; Jim Plunkett (36), '83 Raiders; Roger Staubach (35), '77 Cowboys.
Wow, I'm not sure how this pertains to the New York Giants since Eli Manning isn't over the age of 35---
A couple of points: First, the 2013 Patriots have a 61-year-old coach AND a 36-year-old QB. They'd be making history twice by winning the Super Bowl — it's one of many reasons why I'm picking against them winning a fourth Super Bowl.
But...but...we aren't talking about the Patriots. We are talking about the New York Giants. The Patriots have already been discussed and are in the AFC, not the NFC.
Second, only two QB-coach combos have ever had their combined ages exceed 90 and still win a Super Bowl: Coughlin and Eli Manning in 2011 (95), and Vermeil and Kurt Warner in 1999 (91).
I always love it when Bill does simple math, creates a half-assed theory and then believes it means something. Bill likes to create complicated theories that can easily be summed up in another fashion. Basically, older quarterbacks generally don't win Super Bowls very often and older head coaches don't win Super Bowls very often. So the odds of an older head coach and an older quarterback winning a Super Bowl together are not high.
By the way, John Fox and Peyton Manning's ages add up to 95. It's not often an older quarterback wins a title and it's not often he wins the title with an older coach. There doesn't need to be a made-up theory to help prove this.
Third, Coughlin is two years older than my dad (who spent three hours sitting in the sun for a Saturday Red Sox–Dodgers game last month and was basically delirious for the next 36 hours),
I'm guessing Tom Coughlin, who happens to be a football coach and is used to being in the sun, probably is in better shape than Bill's dad. It wouldn't be a Bill Simmons column if he didn't try to attribute something to his friends or family that isn't necessarily attributable to just them.
I'm not saying he can't win the Super Bowl — shit, Tom Coughlin might be superhuman for all we know.
He did win a Super Bowl two apparently very, very long years ago in 2011, a time when Bill Simmons seems to believe Tom Coughlin was a decade younger than he is now.
I'm just pointing out that we have nearly 50 years of Super Bowl data at our disposal right now — only the 1993 Bills made the Super Bowl with a coach in his late 60s (Levy, age 68) and an over-30 QB (Jim Kelly, age 33). So if the 2013 Giants win the Super Bowl, they really will be making history. If it's all right, I'm picking against it.
Typical Bill Simmons. Notice how he is picking against the Giants for completely non-football related reasons. He has no clue how to pick against them based on their roster, so he makes up some theory in order to pick against them that way. At least count them out for a reason that is football-related.
I am slowly coming to the conclusion that Bill Simmons doesn't understand sports outside of NBA basketball. He tends to shy away from actually analyzing a team's strengths and weaknesses and prefers to focus on half-assed theories that will help lead him to the conclusion he is incapable of reaching while using analysis and a sports-related line of thought. Maybe not, but it seems Bill's default mechanism is to create a theory to explain something rather than just explain it in easier terms.
11. Chicago Bears
It's time for my annual "I know I discounted you in my over/under podcast with Cousin Sal, but I thought about it some more and now I think you're gonna be good" flip-flop pick!
Much like in the AFC Preview, Bill has chosen to play both sides with certain teams. If the Bears stink then he can claim his original point of view was correct, but if they are good then he can point out he knew the Bears would be good. Bill is terrified of being seen as wrong, so playing both sides works out well for him.
I love everything I'm reading about Marc Trestman — if he gets Jay Cutler and Matt Forte going, and Cutler can shed his QBPTSD issues after three years of pummelings (this photo spread is incredible), you'd have to throw Chicago into that six-team circle of "Teams That Can Win The Super Bowl."
Bill thinks the Bears are one of the six teams that can win the Super Bowl, but ranks them 11th in his power rankings and doesn't have them winning their Wild Card round game. So I guess they "can" win the Super Bowl, but Bill doesn't seem to think they will, except he said they can so either way he gets to be right and doesn't have to worry about being wrong and that's all that matters.
Thanks to the salary cap, the scheduling, unpredictable injuries and the NFL's love for parity, it's become harder and harder for one team to just dominate for five straight months and win the Super Bowl. You just want to be one of the five or six teams with a legitimate chance in January — you want to get to the point where a couple of Jacoby Jones–Rahim Moore plays swing your way and suddenly you're holding the trophy.
Oh, so now Bill is predicting which NFL teams will have the most amount of luck this year. I'm sure there is a theory to follow.
Anyway, we've reached the point of the Power Poll in which any of these 12 teams have a chance to make that circle.
Oh, so the six-team circle is now a twelve-team circle. You know what, let's just make it a thirty-two team circle and get it over with.
I don't trust Cutler's track record enough to stick Chicago in that circle yet, but I see them sniffing around it in January.
Well I guess the Bears are out of the circle now. Let me sum up Bill's statements on the Bears:
-He doesn't think they will be very good this year.
-He has changed his mind and thinks they will be good and are the 11th best team in the NFL.
-They are one of six teams that can win the Super Bowl.
-There are actually one of twelve teams that can win the Super Bowl.
-The Bears probably aren't good enough to win the Super Bowl.
No contradictions in there, right?
(If I offered every Packers fan 10 and 6 and the no. 5 seed right now, would they take it? I bet they would.)
THEY WOULD BILL! THEY WOULD TAKE THIS! YOU ARE ALWAYS SO RIGHT BECAUSE YOU ARE BILL SIMMONS!
I think if you offered fans of 26 of 32 teams in the NFL a 10-6 season and a fifth seed they would take it. I'm not sure why Bill seems to think because the Packers have a difficult schedule he is going really far out on on a limb in saying the Packers fans would accept a 10-6 season with a No. 5 seed in the playoffs.
Second, the Saints went 7-9 last year … and the coaching upgrade from the Superdome janitor to Sean Payton has to be worth at least a plus-4 WARM.
That's not a real thing...well, it is a real thing but people who don't strive to be the most clever person in the room will simply say "Having Sean Payton back has to be worth four additional wins for the Saints."
(There's a fourth reason that I hesitate to mention: Somehow I ended up with Aaron Rodgers as my starting QB in both fantasy leagues. I've had terrible fantasy football mojo ever since the glorious 2007 season, when I rode LaDainian Tomlinson, rookie Adrian Peterson and Wes Welker to my West Coast title, nearly went undefeated — jinxing that quest by stupidly writing about it — and spent way too much time crowing about it afterward. The following year, I built my season around Tom Brady and it was gone in eight minutes. I've never been the same — it's the fantasy equivalent of the Pirates losing Bonds and going into a two-decade tailspin. I haven't come close to winning a title since. Now I have all my eggs in the Aaron Rodgers basket. If I'm a fantasy mush, this can't be good for the Packers. If you don't believe me — again, it's Friday and I'm down by 97.9 points in one of my leagues right now. Sorry, Packers fans. I'm apologizing in advance.)
Please do tell me more about your fantasy team. In fact, give us a year-by-year breakdown of your fantasy seasons including your own personal thoughts on each season while including as much whining as possible.
Also, everyone spent the offseason (a) figuring out how to stop the read-option (which caught everyone by surprise last year), and (b) blowing smoke up Colin Kaepernick's butt and treating him like a superstar even though he's started only 10 games. I kept waiting for everything to go to his head in the form of a "My Name Is Colin" music video …
Then Bill links the "My Name is Willie" video from "Any Given Sunday" because we all know movies are exactly like real life.
Think about how much Baltimore struggled last night with subpar receivers once they fell behind, think about San Francisco falling behind by 17 or more in their last two playoff games, then think about having money on San Francisco anytime they're down 10 this season. It's a little nerve-racking. Seriously, what if the league figures out that read-option?
Then it appears Colin Kaepernick will successfully sling the ball all around the field and with the help of the 49ers very good defense do his best to help the 49ers come back to win the game.
3. Atlanta Falcons
Barnwell made an impressive regression case for them on Grantland, which corresponded nicely with Vegas's surprisingly low over/under of 9½ for them. (RICK VAUGHN ALERT!) I'm going the other way: I loved the way the Falcons played in the playoffs. I liked their draft. I think Steven Jackson has 2004 Corey Dillon potential.
Naturally, there is no more apt comparison to Steven Jackson than a comparison to a New England Patriots running back. It's not like there has ever been another free agent running back who joined a new team that ended up making the Super Bowl.
More importantly: We just watched the future of pro football in last night's Broncos-Ravens game. In the third quarter, the combination of Denver's pace with the altitude and Baltimore's offense falling into a three-and-out rut was absolutely deadly. You could see Baltimore's defense fading as that quarter dragged on. They couldn't handle it.
The Falcons and the Patriots ran a hurry-up offense long before the Broncos ran one with Peyton Manning. Not to mention, Atlanta doesn't play their home games at a high altitude so I'm not sure what the Denver altitude has to do with the Falcons. The future of pro football "we" saw in the Broncos-Ravens game seems irrelevant as it pertains to the Falcons. The Falcons were already running the hurry-up offense and they play in a dome, not in a high altitude.
If you have a franchise QB and a couple big playmakers, and you can rip off plays at a breakneck pace, that's the single biggest advantage of the "Nobody's Allowed To Crush Receivers Over The Middle Anymore" era.
If a team has a franchise QB and a couple playmakers I think that's an advantage no matter what pace that teams plays at, no?
But you need the right QB, you need the home-field advantage, you need the big-play guys, and you need to be REALLY good at the no-huddle thing. Atlanta checks all four of those boxes.
And yet, this advantage didn't get them to the Super Bowl last year and this year they have a shakier offensive line and a younger, less experienced defense. Who am I to argue with Bill's ability to make a list and check off boxes though?
1. Seattle Seahawks
Year after year after year, I can see the Niners and Seahawks measuring themselves against one another, lobbing potshots at each other, making sketchy roster moves clearly intended to piss off the other team (Chris Harper, everybody!)
I'm not sure this was a sketchy roster move since the Seahawks released Harper on their own accord fully knowing a division rival could claim him.
If it gets REALLY good, once or twice, we'll see a free agent switch from one side to the other for more money, and we'll all consider him a massive traitor — like how Red Sox fans felt about Johnny Damon in 2006.
I think Bill is getting a little bit (well, a lot) ahead of himself here.
It's going to be fantastic. I can't wait. But for 2013? I think it's Seattle's year. In Russell Wilson we trust.
No, in Russell Wilson you trust. "We" aren't you and you don't speak for "we."
If you missed Grantland's 2013 NFL preview coverage — including my three-part NFL over/under podcast from Vegas with Cousin Sal,
I didn't read or pay attention to any of this stuff, but I wouldn't say I missed it.
If you missed my AFC Power Poll heading into the 2013 season, which went up Thursday afternoon on Grantland, click here. That column included my Baltimore-Denver pick — after I ranked the Ravens ahead of the Broncos and grabbed the +7.5 points, they lost in Denver by 25.
It's almost like there is no science or rules behind gambling and in the end it is all guesswork. This couldn't be true though, right?
Today, we're cranking out an NFC Power Poll. For no extra charge, I included yesterday's AFC rankings within today's column so you could see every team on one list.
BUT WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST PUT THEM ALL IN ONE LIST ORIGINALLY? THIS ISN'T FAIR TO PEOPLE WITH OCD, LIKE MYSELF!
25. Tampa Bay Buccaneers
I juggled six possibilities for "NFC's worst team," which is a fancy way of saying, "they're better than anyone in the AFC's bottom seven, only they have the misfortune of playing in a stacked conference."
I'm not sure you can count any conference that has Ron Rivera as the head coach for one of the teams in that conference as "stacked."
Then you have second-year coach Greg Schiano, voted the winner of last November's Sporting News poll for "The Coach You'd Least Want to Play For."
Who else was on this list?
Bill Belichick
Tom Coughlin
Andy Reid
Mike Shanahan
Jim Harbaugh
That's ten Super Bowl appearances and six Super Bowl victories in there. This reminds me of a quote from "The Sopranos" where Tony was trying to stop Christopher Moltisanti from being the whiny bitch he could be at times,
"You don't have to love, but you will respect me."
Exactly. You don't have to love them, but you have to respect them because they win games. I'm not a fan of Greg Schiano, but his name on this list means very little as long as he is successful.
What's more likely — the Bucs making the 2013 playoffs, or Schiano and Freeman being jettisoned out of Tampa five months from now, then Schiano landing a college job and eventually ending up in one of those Mike Rice–type scandals because he attacked some poor sophomore with a tackling dummy?
It's very much more likely the Buccaneers make the 2013 playoffs.
DEAD MEN WALKING
24. The Lions of Detroit
23. Carolina Panthers
Both teams have killer fantasy QBs (Matt Stafford and Cam Newton) and one-of-a-kind blue-chippers (Calvin Johnson and Luke Kuechly). Both teams were well-represented at your 2013 fantasy draft.
And we all know that fantasy rankings always accurately represent real-life talent.
Know this: I've seen everything I needed to see from the Jim Schwartz and Ron Rivera eras already. It's a shame about the Panthers — blessed with Newton and one of the best defensive front sevens in football — who somehow have gone 2-12 in games decided by seven points or fewer since Newton and Rivera teamed up.
2-13 now. Yippee!
Football Outsiders' excellent DVOA season prediction model likes the 2013 Panthers for that very reason: Bad luck tends to even out over time.
But stupid decision-making stands the test of time. Upon having his previous offensive coordinator inexplicably get a head coaching job with the Browns, Ron Rivera decided to save his job he would turn to Mike Shula to run the offense. That's like a television show having falling ratings and then seeing if Ted McGinley is available to give the show a shot in the arm.
THE SHORT STRAWS
22. St. Louis Rams
21. Arizona Cardinals
We think Jeff Fisher is a good coach even though he has coached 16 full seasons and finished above .500 in only six of them.
I'm completely torn between being happy that more people are noticing Jeff "8-8" Fisher's overratedness and being really sad that Bill Simmons is agreeing with me.
He hasn't won a playoff game since 2003. He's an average coach. Not great, not bad. He's somewhere in the middle.
(whispers) Exactly right.
If it's OK with you, I'm crossing off the Rams. As for the Cardinals, they were looking sleeperish until they lost no. 7 overall pick Jonathan Cooper with a broken leg. (So much for improving their offensive line.)
So Bill was high on the Cardinals until they lost a rookie offensive lineman? At that point he thought, "Well that screws up the entire season" because a rookie offensive lineman got injured? Sounds like Bill had pretty much the entire Cardinals season riding on Cooper, which is especially odd to me. Who the hell has a team's entire season riding on one offensive lineman? It sounds like Bill just wanted an excuse to count the Cardinals out and couldn't think of a different football-related reason.
That reminds me, I went against someone who started Peyton Manning, Wes Welker and Demaryius Thomas in Week 1. It's Friday and I'm down 97.9 points already. Why is fantasy football fun again?
This reminds me, no one cares about the fantasy team of someone they don't know. Who am I kidding though? The Simmonsites care about everything Bill says and does.
A (VERY) FAINT WHIFF OF FRISKINESS
20. Philadelphia Eagles
Ottawa reader Neil Varan wonders, "Who's the leading candidate for your 2013 Man-Crush?" The answer: Eagles coach Chip Kelly. I love his brain, love his system, love the rapid-fire play thing … I mean, I would have picked the Eagles as my 2013 sleeper if Michael Vick weren't so prominently involved. Last year, we decided that (a) his decision-making just wasn't good enough, (b) it was too hard for him to stay healthy,
It was hard for Vick to stay healthy because he held onto the ball too long. In the Chip Kelly offense he isn't supposed to hold the ball long, so I guess we'll see.
Now he's going to spearhead an offense that runs 85 plays a game and relies on him to make MORE decisions? If Kelly makes this one work in Year 1, he's even better than I thought. And I think he's gonna be great. Eventually.
I'm not sure there is an "eventually" about it. I think Chip Kelly will be great running his offense from his first year in the league and then make the appropriate adjustments once the NFL adjusts to him.
Then again, Indiana reader Rick Vaughn throws something he calls "The Barnwell Theory" at us, explaining, "When Bill Barnwell and the Advanced Stat Troubadours (trademark pending) win the public over and blatantly influence a line, the team in question is guaranteed to prove them wrong. This year's example: Barnwell's regression-laden fingerprints are all over the Colts over/under for season wins (8.5). Quick reminder: they play half their games against the California penal league: Jags twice, Titans twice, Oakland (home), Dolphins (home), San Diego (away), and Cardinals (away). They're 5-3 over that stretch if Gary Hogeboom is under center. I'm guessing 6-2. Yes, they play the NFC West, but let's also consider the 2nd year leap for franchise QBs like Montana, Marino, Elway, and Manning. Three years ago this over/under is 9.5.
Ah yes, it's a Bill Simmons reader who gets his email published because it plugs the column of another Grantland columnist. Not only that, but this is an email from a Simmons reader who makes up statistics as if they are facts and not just something he made up prior to writing the email. So the over/under on wins for a quarterback making the 2nd year leap three years ago was 9.5? What was the over/under five years ago? How about ten years ago? I guess you can prove yourself to be correct if you make up a statistic that helps to prove your point.
I'd say Atlanta (9.5 wins), Minnesota (7 wins) and Carolina (7.5 wins — too high in that case) would be your Barnwell Theory value candidates.
Great, Rick from Indiana you have now made this Barnwell Theory a "thing" that Bill will recite in his mailbags and columns as if it was a fact. Who knows, maybe Bill will just outright steal the theory like he did the Ewing Theory.
THE KARDASHIANS
(shakes head sadly)
14. Dallas Cowboys
Who's the best "Overrated, Underrated or Properly Rated?" argument in the entire league? Antonio Ramiro Romo, that's who. You can argue both sides until you're blue in the face.
So not only is Bill getting ready to argue on under/overratedness, which is an argument that can't be proven definitively one way or another due to it being entirely subjective, but he has just proclaimed Tony Romo as the best topic for this argument, even though Romo being the best topic for this argument can also not be proven definitively one way or another definitively. At this point, nearly everything Bill would write on this topic is purely an opinion that he would try to pass off as a fact.
I'll spare you from having to read it. The stats say that some people underrate Tony Romo while those who use anecdotal evidence say Romo is overrated because he will give the opposing team a turnover at the perfect time they need one. Nothing has been decided in regard to over/underratedness, Bill thinks Romo will be underrated this year.
THE HOVERERS
12. New York Giants
But as far as the Super Bowl goes, I thought these two lists were interesting … Over-60 coaches who won the Super Bowl: Tom Coughlin (65), '11 Giants; Dick Vermeil (63), '99 Rams; Weeb Ewbank (61), '69 Jets.
In 2007, I created the Speed Limit Theory for NFL head coaches — once they creep over 55, it starts to get a little dicey. That doesn't mean they can't succeed. Coughlin and Vermeil won Super Bowls. Marty Schottenheimer won 14 games when he was 63. Marv Levy made four straight Super Bowls in his 60s.
Bill created this theory and then of course Tom Coughlin won two Super Bowls while being over the age of 55, while Bill Belichick made it two Super Bowls while being 54 years old and 58 years old.
35-and-over QBs who won the Super Bowl: John Elway (37, 38), '97 and '98 Broncos; Jim Plunkett (36), '83 Raiders; Roger Staubach (35), '77 Cowboys.
Wow, I'm not sure how this pertains to the New York Giants since Eli Manning isn't over the age of 35---
A couple of points: First, the 2013 Patriots have a 61-year-old coach AND a 36-year-old QB. They'd be making history twice by winning the Super Bowl — it's one of many reasons why I'm picking against them winning a fourth Super Bowl.
But...but...we aren't talking about the Patriots. We are talking about the New York Giants. The Patriots have already been discussed and are in the AFC, not the NFC.
Second, only two QB-coach combos have ever had their combined ages exceed 90 and still win a Super Bowl: Coughlin and Eli Manning in 2011 (95), and Vermeil and Kurt Warner in 1999 (91).
I always love it when Bill does simple math, creates a half-assed theory and then believes it means something. Bill likes to create complicated theories that can easily be summed up in another fashion. Basically, older quarterbacks generally don't win Super Bowls very often and older head coaches don't win Super Bowls very often. So the odds of an older head coach and an older quarterback winning a Super Bowl together are not high.
By the way, John Fox and Peyton Manning's ages add up to 95. It's not often an older quarterback wins a title and it's not often he wins the title with an older coach. There doesn't need to be a made-up theory to help prove this.
Third, Coughlin is two years older than my dad (who spent three hours sitting in the sun for a Saturday Red Sox–Dodgers game last month and was basically delirious for the next 36 hours),
I'm guessing Tom Coughlin, who happens to be a football coach and is used to being in the sun, probably is in better shape than Bill's dad. It wouldn't be a Bill Simmons column if he didn't try to attribute something to his friends or family that isn't necessarily attributable to just them.
I'm not saying he can't win the Super Bowl — shit, Tom Coughlin might be superhuman for all we know.
He did win a Super Bowl two apparently very, very long years ago in 2011, a time when Bill Simmons seems to believe Tom Coughlin was a decade younger than he is now.
I'm just pointing out that we have nearly 50 years of Super Bowl data at our disposal right now — only the 1993 Bills made the Super Bowl with a coach in his late 60s (Levy, age 68) and an over-30 QB (Jim Kelly, age 33). So if the 2013 Giants win the Super Bowl, they really will be making history. If it's all right, I'm picking against it.
Typical Bill Simmons. Notice how he is picking against the Giants for completely non-football related reasons. He has no clue how to pick against them based on their roster, so he makes up some theory in order to pick against them that way. At least count them out for a reason that is football-related.
I am slowly coming to the conclusion that Bill Simmons doesn't understand sports outside of NBA basketball. He tends to shy away from actually analyzing a team's strengths and weaknesses and prefers to focus on half-assed theories that will help lead him to the conclusion he is incapable of reaching while using analysis and a sports-related line of thought. Maybe not, but it seems Bill's default mechanism is to create a theory to explain something rather than just explain it in easier terms.
11. Chicago Bears
It's time for my annual "I know I discounted you in my over/under podcast with Cousin Sal, but I thought about it some more and now I think you're gonna be good" flip-flop pick!
Much like in the AFC Preview, Bill has chosen to play both sides with certain teams. If the Bears stink then he can claim his original point of view was correct, but if they are good then he can point out he knew the Bears would be good. Bill is terrified of being seen as wrong, so playing both sides works out well for him.
I love everything I'm reading about Marc Trestman — if he gets Jay Cutler and Matt Forte going, and Cutler can shed his QBPTSD issues after three years of pummelings (this photo spread is incredible), you'd have to throw Chicago into that six-team circle of "Teams That Can Win The Super Bowl."
Bill thinks the Bears are one of the six teams that can win the Super Bowl, but ranks them 11th in his power rankings and doesn't have them winning their Wild Card round game. So I guess they "can" win the Super Bowl, but Bill doesn't seem to think they will, except he said they can so either way he gets to be right and doesn't have to worry about being wrong and that's all that matters.
Thanks to the salary cap, the scheduling, unpredictable injuries and the NFL's love for parity, it's become harder and harder for one team to just dominate for five straight months and win the Super Bowl. You just want to be one of the five or six teams with a legitimate chance in January — you want to get to the point where a couple of Jacoby Jones–Rahim Moore plays swing your way and suddenly you're holding the trophy.
Oh, so now Bill is predicting which NFL teams will have the most amount of luck this year. I'm sure there is a theory to follow.
Anyway, we've reached the point of the Power Poll in which any of these 12 teams have a chance to make that circle.
Oh, so the six-team circle is now a twelve-team circle. You know what, let's just make it a thirty-two team circle and get it over with.
I don't trust Cutler's track record enough to stick Chicago in that circle yet, but I see them sniffing around it in January.
Well I guess the Bears are out of the circle now. Let me sum up Bill's statements on the Bears:
-He doesn't think they will be very good this year.
-He has changed his mind and thinks they will be good and are the 11th best team in the NFL.
-They are one of six teams that can win the Super Bowl.
-There are actually one of twelve teams that can win the Super Bowl.
-The Bears probably aren't good enough to win the Super Bowl.
No contradictions in there, right?
(If I offered every Packers fan 10 and 6 and the no. 5 seed right now, would they take it? I bet they would.)
THEY WOULD BILL! THEY WOULD TAKE THIS! YOU ARE ALWAYS SO RIGHT BECAUSE YOU ARE BILL SIMMONS!
I think if you offered fans of 26 of 32 teams in the NFL a 10-6 season and a fifth seed they would take it. I'm not sure why Bill seems to think because the Packers have a difficult schedule he is going really far out on on a limb in saying the Packers fans would accept a 10-6 season with a No. 5 seed in the playoffs.
Second, the Saints went 7-9 last year … and the coaching upgrade from the Superdome janitor to Sean Payton has to be worth at least a plus-4 WARM.
That's not a real thing...well, it is a real thing but people who don't strive to be the most clever person in the room will simply say "Having Sean Payton back has to be worth four additional wins for the Saints."
(There's a fourth reason that I hesitate to mention: Somehow I ended up with Aaron Rodgers as my starting QB in both fantasy leagues. I've had terrible fantasy football mojo ever since the glorious 2007 season, when I rode LaDainian Tomlinson, rookie Adrian Peterson and Wes Welker to my West Coast title, nearly went undefeated — jinxing that quest by stupidly writing about it — and spent way too much time crowing about it afterward. The following year, I built my season around Tom Brady and it was gone in eight minutes. I've never been the same — it's the fantasy equivalent of the Pirates losing Bonds and going into a two-decade tailspin. I haven't come close to winning a title since. Now I have all my eggs in the Aaron Rodgers basket. If I'm a fantasy mush, this can't be good for the Packers. If you don't believe me — again, it's Friday and I'm down by 97.9 points in one of my leagues right now. Sorry, Packers fans. I'm apologizing in advance.)
Please do tell me more about your fantasy team. In fact, give us a year-by-year breakdown of your fantasy seasons including your own personal thoughts on each season while including as much whining as possible.
Also, everyone spent the offseason (a) figuring out how to stop the read-option (which caught everyone by surprise last year), and (b) blowing smoke up Colin Kaepernick's butt and treating him like a superstar even though he's started only 10 games. I kept waiting for everything to go to his head in the form of a "My Name Is Colin" music video …
Then Bill links the "My Name is Willie" video from "Any Given Sunday" because we all know movies are exactly like real life.
Think about how much Baltimore struggled last night with subpar receivers once they fell behind, think about San Francisco falling behind by 17 or more in their last two playoff games, then think about having money on San Francisco anytime they're down 10 this season. It's a little nerve-racking. Seriously, what if the league figures out that read-option?
Then it appears Colin Kaepernick will successfully sling the ball all around the field and with the help of the 49ers very good defense do his best to help the 49ers come back to win the game.
3. Atlanta Falcons
Barnwell made an impressive regression case for them on Grantland, which corresponded nicely with Vegas's surprisingly low over/under of 9½ for them. (RICK VAUGHN ALERT!) I'm going the other way: I loved the way the Falcons played in the playoffs. I liked their draft. I think Steven Jackson has 2004 Corey Dillon potential.
Naturally, there is no more apt comparison to Steven Jackson than a comparison to a New England Patriots running back. It's not like there has ever been another free agent running back who joined a new team that ended up making the Super Bowl.
More importantly: We just watched the future of pro football in last night's Broncos-Ravens game. In the third quarter, the combination of Denver's pace with the altitude and Baltimore's offense falling into a three-and-out rut was absolutely deadly. You could see Baltimore's defense fading as that quarter dragged on. They couldn't handle it.
The Falcons and the Patriots ran a hurry-up offense long before the Broncos ran one with Peyton Manning. Not to mention, Atlanta doesn't play their home games at a high altitude so I'm not sure what the Denver altitude has to do with the Falcons. The future of pro football "we" saw in the Broncos-Ravens game seems irrelevant as it pertains to the Falcons. The Falcons were already running the hurry-up offense and they play in a dome, not in a high altitude.
If you have a franchise QB and a couple big playmakers, and you can rip off plays at a breakneck pace, that's the single biggest advantage of the "Nobody's Allowed To Crush Receivers Over The Middle Anymore" era.
If a team has a franchise QB and a couple playmakers I think that's an advantage no matter what pace that teams plays at, no?
But you need the right QB, you need the home-field advantage, you need the big-play guys, and you need to be REALLY good at the no-huddle thing. Atlanta checks all four of those boxes.
And yet, this advantage didn't get them to the Super Bowl last year and this year they have a shakier offensive line and a younger, less experienced defense. Who am I to argue with Bill's ability to make a list and check off boxes though?
1. Seattle Seahawks
Year after year after year, I can see the Niners and Seahawks measuring themselves against one another, lobbing potshots at each other, making sketchy roster moves clearly intended to piss off the other team (Chris Harper, everybody!)
I'm not sure this was a sketchy roster move since the Seahawks released Harper on their own accord fully knowing a division rival could claim him.
If it gets REALLY good, once or twice, we'll see a free agent switch from one side to the other for more money, and we'll all consider him a massive traitor — like how Red Sox fans felt about Johnny Damon in 2006.
I think Bill is getting a little bit (well, a lot) ahead of himself here.
It's going to be fantastic. I can't wait. But for 2013? I think it's Seattle's year. In Russell Wilson we trust.
No, in Russell Wilson you trust. "We" aren't you and you don't speak for "we."
Thursday, August 29, 2013
12 comments Gregg Easterbrook (Not Really) Previews the NFC
Gregg Easterbrook didn't really preview the AFC last week in TMQ, as well as did his 100th column about concussions. Gregg believes that high schools and youth leagues follow the lead of the NFL, unless the NFL needs to follow the lead of high schools and youth leagues of course. It really works whichever way Gregg needs it to work at that very moment to prove a point. This week Gregg asks if the zone-read is a fad, discusses the plot issues with "Star Trek" and continues to not really each NFL conference by not really previewing the NFC.
Is the zone-read option the flavor of the month, or is it the new vanilla? The first few weeks of the NFL season might tell.
Or the first few weeks of the season might not tell. Either way, stay tuned to TMQ where Gregg will tell us the Packers lost the first game of the season because their cornerbacks got caught looking in the backfield while playing zone coverage and the receiver ran right past one of these Packer corners. This would never have happened if the Packers cornerbacks would ignore the defense called and play man coverage all the time like Gregg seems to believe an defensive player has the option to do.
Last season, the Forty Niners, Seahawks and Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons (see below)
A. Nobody cares.
B. Everyone knows you are referring to the Redskins. You aren't as clever as you think yourself to be.
There are likely to be numerous all-zone confrontations. San Francisco and Seattle play each other twice, plus each line up against Carolina. Washington faces the Eagles twice and also the Niners.
The question is whether the zone-read is a fad or a fixture...or will the zone-read be a part of some teams' playbook and they will continue to use it as long as they have a quarterback who can execute the zone-read well, but possibly not use it to the extent it is currently being used? I vote C.
Considering the zone-read was a surprise tactic last season, who will surprise with it this season?
Oh Gregg, always misunderstanding offensive and defensive strategies. The zone-read doesn't serve solely as a surprise tactic, but relies on the quarterback's ability to run with the football and make a great decision as to when to pitch the football to the running back. What makes it work isn't necessarily the surprise, but the skill at which the play is blocked and the decision-making ability of the quarterback. It's like any other running play, where it is generally successful if blocked correctly and executed well.
Green Bay didn't sign Vince Young, or the New England Patriots sign Tim Tebow, because they need someone to fill the Gatorade bucket.
No, really, the Patriots did sign Tebow because they needed someone to fill the Gatorade bucket and also for the purpose of seeing if there were ways to use Tebow successfully outside of the quarterback position. At this point, Tebow seems to be better at refilling the Gatorade bucket.
Imagine having to prepare for the disciplined traditional passing of Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady and also for zone-read chaos when a guy who can run or throw takes a few snaps.
Or imagine having to play against Russell Wilson, Robert Griffin, or Colin Kaepernick. Not that preparing for Rodgers or Brady is easy, but the defense generally knows if either Brady or Rodgers are in the game then the Packers/Patriots aren't going run the read-option. So the real confusion comes in when a quarterback can run the read-option and also pass the football successfully. It's kind of a tip-off about the play the offense is running when Tebow is back in the shotgun, but the defense has to respect Kaepernick's legs and arm when he is back in the shotgun.
In college, the quarterback is assumed to be a rushing threat, if only because his economic value is so low: He works for free, and an injury does not cost the school anything.
Well, plus college defenses don't have the caliber of athlete that an NFL defense has, which generally makes defending the quarterback when he runs more difficult at the college level.
An NFL team might have $20-$50 million invested in its starting quarterback and thus wants to protect him from harm.
I can't make a blanket, generalized statement, but I'm guessing an NFL team would decide to use the read-option with their quarterback if they thought it could help them win games and the quarterback would be smart in trying to be smart while carrying the ball. Obviously an NFL team doesn't want their starting quarterback injured, but I don't know if a team would go away from the read-option (or zone read) if they think this could help them win games. Will teams run the read-option with Tom Brady? No, but the new type of quarterback that is athletic and can throw the football well makes the read-option a more viable strategy.
A zone-read rushing play is 11-on-11, and, as the Niners showed the Packers, you'd better be ready to account for that extra man.
Gregg specializes in summarizing information that the reader probably already knows.
TMQ noted in January that having the edge rusher force the action back inside is "the adjustment the whole league will make next season".
As usual, Gregg makes something black and white when it isn't really that simple. That's great if the whole league will have the edge rusher force the action back inside, but what will happen if the edge rusher gets blocked or the opposing team is running up the middle instead of the quarterback keeping the football and running outside? Things aren't always just as simple as Gregg wants to make them.
Adjusting for sacks and scrambles, only three NFL teams -- San Francisco, Seattle and Washington -- ran more often than they passed in 2012. All three made the playoffs; two won a playoff game, and the only reason it wasn't three was that Washington and Seattle faced each other.
What Gregg neglects to mention is that he has been telling us for the past couple of years that the NFL is a pass-wacky league and it will continue to trend that way. This is all forgotten of course when he finds data that comes close to contradicting this point of view.
In 2012, the top four rushing teams -- Washington, the Minnesota Vikings, Seattle and San Francisco -- reached the playoffs. The top three passing teams -- the New Orleans Saints, Detroit Lions and Dallas -- did not. Last season's stats show that, just like in college, a team can win by featuring the rush. For 2013 at least, expect an uptick in rushing plays.
Remember these statistics in mid-November when Gregg starts talking about pass-wacky offenses around the league and how the NFL is now a passing league where good defensive teams don't matter and the team that outscores the other team makes the playoffs. In fact, Gregg sort of talks about this very subject in this TMQ.
Now, Tuesday Morning Quarterback's NFC preview.
Again, Gregg is using the term "preview" very lightly since he only seems to talk about what happened last year as it pertains to each team.
The Oakland Raiders gave the sun, moon and stars for Carson Palmer, kept him just two seasons, then shipped him to the Arizona Cardinals for a late draft pick. Arizona gave the sun and moon, though not the stars, for Kevin Kolb, kept him just two seasons, then waived him. Now, Arizona has Palmer, while Oakland is left holding a pair of late-round draft picks. Had Arizona simply acquired Palmer two years ago for what it spent on Kolb, this would have been praised as a brilliant move.
So it would have been smart for the Cardinals to give up a 1st and 2nd round pick for Carson Palmer two years ago, but it wasn't smart for the Raiders to do the same thing? The going price for Palmer at the time was a 1st and 2nd round pick, so the Cardinals would have had to give up a 1st and 2nd round pick for Palmer and there's no guarantee that he would have been successful in Arizona. So I'm not sure I am able to see why it wasn't smart for the Raiders to trade for Palmer, but the Cardinals should have traded for Palmer. They got him for a late-round pick this past offseason. That seems like a better deal, even in retrospect, then giving up a 1st and 2nd round pick for Palmer (which would have resulted in them giving up the chance to draft Michael Floyd and Kevin Minter---or Jonathan Cooper instead of Minter if the Cardinals made the playoffs with Palmer starting for them). The Cardinals have been terrible at quarterback, but a 1st and 2nd round pick for Carson Palmer is a steep price to pay. Of course the Cardinals did give up a 2nd round pick for Kolb, plus gave him a extension. So maybe Gregg has a point, but I'm always inclined just to think he doesn't have a point.
Arizona had an above-average defense in 2012 but the league's worst offense. Considering the offense could not stay on the field, the stout performance by the defense was impressive. The Cardinals' big problem on offense was an abysmal average of 5.6 yards per pass attempt. Palmer can only improve that number.
Right, which is why it was such a good deal to get him for a late-round draft pick. I'm not sure it was worth trading for Palmer if the Cardinals had to give up a 1st and 2nd round pick. Palmer just isn't worth that to me and I'm guessing he isn't worth it to the Cardinals either if they could go back in time and make this deal.
Arizona held a 10-point lead over the Atlanta Falcons, who would go on to host the NFC title game. Whisenhunt pulled starter John Skelton and sent in the never-used Ryan Lindley, who immediately lost a fumble that was returned for a touchdown.
This is a fantastic example of how Gregg lies and misleads his readers. The Cardinals held a 10-point lead and were even in this game because the Falcons turned the ball over seven times. Ken Whisenhunt pulled John Skelton because Skelton was 2-7 for six passing yards at that point in the game. He had six passing yards, so you can see why Whisenhunt chose a different quarterback at this point in the game. Gregg of course doesn't tell us this, but just tells us that Ryan Lindley was never-used and the immediately lost a fumble that was returned for a touchdown.
Whisenhunt replaced Skelton when there was 9:39 left in the second quarter of the game. Lindley was an improvement over Skelton and he only committed one turnover, that is one turnover, during the game. The Cardinals did not lose this game because Whisenhunt pulled Skelton for Ryan Lindley. They lost the game because both quarterbacks were bad.
Arizona was not only defeated in that game but was 1-6 for the remainder of the season.
ALL BECAUSE THE CARDINALS REPLACED A SHITTY QUARTERBACK WITH ANOTHER SHITTY QUARTERBACK! IT RUINED THE CARDINALS ENTIRE SEASON!
Atlanta: The easiest thing to forget about the 2012 NFL season was that the Falcons went 14-4 and came without a couple snaps of the Super Bowl.
This is one of easiest things to forget about the 2012 NFL season? The NFC Championship Game is probably of one of the three most high-profile games of the NFL season and the Falcons blew a lead at home. This is quite easy to remember.
It was as if in last season's playoffs the Falcons suddenly forgot how to play football.
They made the NFC Championship Game. How is making it to the NFC Championship Game and coming close to making the Super Bowl "forgetting how to play football"?
The Atlanta defense finished 24th statistically, and often -- at inopportune moments -- forgot how to play football.
My God, somebody please tell Gregg that the other team practices too. It's not like the Falcons just magically forget to play football, they get beaten by a team that showed themselves to be the better team. The 49ers came close to winning the Super Bowl two weeks after beating the Falcons. In fact there's a trend here:
The season before, the Falcons went to Jersey/A in the postseason and seemed to forget how to play football, losing 24-2.
The Giants went on to win the Super Bowl.
The season before that, the Falcons had the table set, opening at home after a bye, then seemed to forget how to play football, losing 48-21 to the Packers.
Green Bay went on to win the Super Bowl.
In 2008 the Falcons lost to the Arizona Cardinals, who went on to make it to the Super Bowl. So it isn't like the Falcons are losing to shitty teams in the playoffs.
When Newton arrived in the league, defensive coordinators assumed he'd be mainly a running quarterback and kept their safeties near the line of scrimmage. Newton responded by throwing for a record-smashing average of 427 yards in his first two contests. Defensive coordinators then told their secondaries to drop into a regular shell; since then, Newton has averaged 248 yards passing per game.
Which is about average for an NFL quarterback. Newton also led the Panthers in rushing last year, which apparently Gregg doesn't count as deserving to be a part of this discussion.
Now there are 24 seconds in regulation, Buccaneers ball on the Cats' 24. Vincent Jackson, the opponent's best receiver, was able to run into the end zone covered only by a linebacker -- touchdown.
To be really fair to Ron Rivera, which I am not inclined to be, Jackson was covered by the defensive rookie of the year on this play (Luke Kuechly) and Josh Freeman made an absolutely perfect throw to get the ball into Jackson. It was a gorgeous throw and Kuechly had pretty good coverage on the play.
Otherwise, Gregg has a point when discussing Ron Rivera.
During the offseason, the Bears used first- and fifth-round draft choices on offensive linemen, then traded offensive tackle Gabe Carimi, their first-round choice just two years ago, to the Buccaneers at the fire-sale price of a sixth-round draft choice.
Gregg wants to know why the Buccaneers didn't just draft Carimi when they had the chance two years ago rather than give up a sixth round choice for him in 2013.
Why discard Carimi, a great college player and a major investment for the Bears, even if his NFL career started slowly?
Because he wasn't playing well in comparison to the salary that he was getting paid?
Front-office politics are the likely answer. New general manager Phil Emery needs to shift blame, so he gave the heave-ho to Smith, a hire of former general manager Jerry Angelo. Now he tells the world that Angelo's final first-round draft choice was a blown pick. Emery also waived Chris Williams, an offensive lineman chosen in the first round in 2008 by Angelo. This allows Emery to enter the 2013 season with excuses lined up.
It also allows the Bears to rid themselves of underachieving offensive linemen on the roster, regardless of where these offensive linemen were chosen. A General Manager's job is to make a team better and getting rid of two underachieving picks isn't front office politics, but an attempt to make the Bears better. I would think if anyone could understand getting rid of an underachieving player it would be Gregg Easterbrook. He is the one who constantly harps on first round picks being overpaid glory boys. Yet, the Bears get rid of a couple of these underachieving guys and Gregg doesn't like it.
If the Bears win, fine; if they lose, Emery can blame Angelo's bad draft picks.
Which is valid to do as it pertains to Chris Williams and Gabe Carimi. Neither player produced what was expected of them for the Bears. They weren't very good picks.
In the Dallas-San Francisco draft trade, the Boys gained only a third-round choice to allow the Niners to swap up 13 spots to the middle of the first round. In other trades involving the first round, to swap up eight spots, the St. Louis Rams gave the Bills a second-round choice. To swap up from the second round to the late first,
Perhaps Jones paid so much to Romo that he needed to move down in the first round to lower his rookie bonus costs and was so focused on moving down he allowed himself to be fleeced.
Actually if Gregg took the time to do any type of research he could see that the contract extension to Tony Romo actually opened up cap room so the Cowboys could sign free agents and their draft picks. It's irritating how Gregg makes these types of comments without doing any research. Maybe the 3rd round pick wasn't enough compensation for moving up 13 spots and maybe the Romo extension wasn't a great idea, but signing Romo to the contract extension freed up cap space rather than cost the Cowboys cap space.
In my draft column, yours truly observed that Mel Kiper and his kith get a hard time because their predictions are public, while we never know what mistakes NFL scouts make in private.
Sort of like when Gregg states he wrote "Game over" in his Selena Gomez Trapper Keeper notebook and Gregg's readers have no way of verifying whether this is true or Gregg is just stating this using hindsight to make himself look smarter? Gregg's readers also have no idea of when Gregg has written "Game over" in his notebook and this hasn't been true.
Reader John Martin in Washington, D.C., reports that because Jones allowed himself to be filmed -- looking manly, of course -- in the Boys draft room, it was possible to freeze-frame and zoom in on the Dallas board. The Boys slotted DJ Hayden, taken by Oakland with the 12th selection, as a second-round choice. The Boys' board reflects guesses about value specifically to the Cowboys, not necessarily a Kiper-style overall ranking.
Yeah Gregg, pretty much every team's NFL draft board consists of that team's guesses about a player's value. That's what a draft board is.
Ben Cohen of the Wall Street Journal calls the new palace at the University of Oregon "the physical embodiment of this gilded age of college football." In the most recent academic year, Oregon cleared a $31 million profit on football, according to Department of Education data, while graduating just 49 percent of its African-American players.
How many of these players would have gone to college, much less graduated, without having played football or received a football scholarship? Not excusing the profit Oregon cleared, but I think looking at whether these African-American players would have been able to attend college without football is important.
Exploiting young black males without conferring education ought to shame Chip Kelly, the University of Oregon alumni and trustees and the NCAA.
Again, we have to also focus on two other factors:
1. How many of the 49% who graduated would have gotten a college degree without a sports scholarship? This is a difficult question to answer for sure, but I think it is an important question.
2. It takes two to tango. Chip Kelly has a responsibility to make sure his players go to class and graduate, but you can't make a person graduate college and attend class during college if that person doesn't want to. I guess Kelly could kick players off the team who don't go to class and aren't on-track to graduate.
Assuming Knight is in the top bracket, donating $68 million to the University of Oregon football program would cost him about $43 million. Taxpayers would be hit for the other $25 million. To cover Knight's deduction, average people must be taxed more or the national debt must increase.
The theory of tax deductibility for donations to colleges and universities is sound: Higher education benefits society as a whole. But when the tax expenditures go to football programs, society does not benefit.
Tell that to the Oregon football players and boosters who can proudly show off the new facility.
And if the money given to football might have instead been donated to the university's endowment or core academic mission, society is actively harmed.
Society is harmed under the assumption that Phil Knight would have donated this money to the university's endowment or core academic mission. I'm not sure Phil Knight would have donated $68 million to the university's endowment or not, so the only way to conclude society is harmed is if assumptions are made. And we all know what happens when you assume? That's right, Gregg makes shit up in order to better prove a point he wants to make.
That athletics diverts money from college education, and does so at taxpayer expense, is a broad problem.
Again, we are working under the assumption that the money given to athletics would otherwise be given to an education fund. This isn't an assumption I am willing to make, mostly because I don't want to make an assumption to try and prove my point correct like Gregg does.
The University of Maryland just reported a $21 million athletic department deficit despite all UMD undergrads being charged $398 annually to subsidize athletics. That's about $11 million taken annually from regular students who are struggling to pay tuition and diverted to sports.
That's not what I'm seeing. I'm actually seeing $406.38 to pay for athletics. Of course students are also being charged the following fees annually as well:
Stamp Union Fee: $308.24
Recreation Building: $362
Technology Fee: $264
In fact, out of the $1,771.82 in fees charged to a full-time student during the 13/14 year, athletics is responsible for 22.9% of the cost of these fees. I'm betting in terms of students getting use out of these fees, that athletics is a much better deal than paying $362 for a recreation building. Maybe not, but in terms of the fees it costs a student to attend the University of Maryland athletic fees don't make up the majority of the cost.
Detroit: Stacked with high first-round draft picks and mega-contract players, no NFL team underperforms like the Lions. The talent-stacked defense, which allowed 49 touchdowns in 2012, has given up more total points than any other NFL team over the past four seasons.
I'm not sure you can call the Lions defense "talent-stacked" if the defense doesn't play well. Maybe the defense should have talent, but they clearly lack some sort of talent somewhere.
In a pass-wacky league, the Lions are wackiest. Adjusting for sacks and scrambles, Detroit coaches radioed in 378 more passes than rushes last season -- 24 more called passes than rushes per contest. While Seattle rushed 57 percent of the time (see below), the Lions threw just shy of twice as much as they ran. Because the NFL has become a passing league, even Bill Belichick is now pass-wacky. But Detroit takes pass-wacky too far.
It also doesn't help the Lions offensive line and running backs haven't helped the run game flourish even when a running play is called. You may ask in Gregg's opinion how we know when a team takes pass-wacky too far. That's an easy answer. A team has taken pass-wacky too far if they don't win games. If that team is pass-wacky and wins games then that is the right amount of pass-wacky. It all depends on the result, because otherwise Gregg has no suitable advice on what a team should do (or should have done) without knowing the result.
This column is a longtime fan of Vince Young. It might be chaotic when he's on the field, but at the double whistle, his team has more points than the other team. So it's nice to see Young get another chance with the Packers.
Vince Young just wins games. Lazy analysis will always survive no matter what.
Considering Green Bay's passing system relies on precise execution -- the Packers throw deep sideline routes, a favorite pattern of the Manning brothers -- it's hard to see Young running the same offense Rodgers runs.
So the Packers will just completely change their offense if Vince Young ends up having to start for the Packers. I can't see how anything could go wrong in this situation.
Mike McCarthy's charges were eaten alive by the zone-read in the playoffs and now open against the Niners. Young can impersonate Kaepernick when the Packers run the scout team. And if Young comes in a few times a game for zone-read plays, this will force Green Bay opponents to prepare on defense for two entirely different philosophies of offense.
The initial problem I see with the Packers running the read-option successfully is that at this point they don't have a running back that really scares NFL defenses. It's much different to run the read-option with Robert Griffin and Alfred Morris or Colin Kaepernick and Frank Gore than it is to run the read-option with Vince Young and (the unproven) Eddie Lacy. Before Gregg starts getting excited about the Packers running two entirely different offensive philosophies he needs to think whether the offensive line that can't block for Aaron Rodgers can block for Young when running the read-option.
Then Gregg publicizes a book he wrote about youth football that goes on sale in September. I'm not linking it right now and no one can make me.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback has long felt the Giants are a better reflection of the New York City milieu than the Jets, setting aside that both neither practice nor performs in the Empire State. The Giants bicker openly about money and ego, seem constantly on the verge of collapse, then rally and do something special. That's New York!
What? The Giants do not openly bicker about money and ego and seem on the verge of collapse. If anything, the Jets are the team that openly bicker about money and ego. Of course the Jets don't always follow it up with something special, but like always, we can't have reality infringe on Gregg's comparison. Gregg prefers to create his own reality that fits the point he wants to prove. He wants the Giants and Jets to reflect their respect states and so that's how he will frame his comparison, reality be damned.
The Jets seem constantly depressed and fouled up. That s New Jersey.
Okay...this is a really bad analogy. It seems there is more bickering about money and ego in the Jets part as compared to the Giants.
There's no sane reason to expect the Giants to be good this season -- but touts felt that way going into 2011, which ended with Eli Manning hoisting the Lombardi.
Why is there no reason to expect the Giants to be good this season? Gregg constantly makes statements like this with little to no factual backing. Why couldn't we expect the Giants to be good? They still have a really defensive line, great receivers, and Eli Manning as their quarterback with David Wilson just waiting to breakout. I hate it when Gregg makes a statement without explaining what the hell he is talking about. This is an opinion being framed as a statement of fact.
The Vikings' last season came down to this: In the playoffs, trailing Green Bay 24-3 with 11 minutes remaining, facing fourth-and-2, Leslie Frazier sent in the punting unit.
Since he did the "safe" thing and punted, he wasn't criticized. But down by three touchdowns in the fourth quarter of a playoff contest, punting on fourth-and-2 is like running up the white flag. Needless to say, the day ended with Minnesota decisively defeated.
I am willing to bet the Vikings still would have been decisively defeated even if the Vikings had converted this fourth down instead of punting the football. Gregg's point stands that the Vikings probably should have gone for it, but he is trying to tie the result of the game to this decision by Leslie Frazier when there seems to be a very tenuous connection.
And, as usual, led by Jared Allen, the Vikes did well for sacks. But the team finished just 20th overall on defense -- Allen and other Vikings defenders gambled for sacks at the expense of gap discipline.
On every play the Vikings defenders gambled for sacks at the expense of gap control. Gregg has no specific play that shows this to be true, mostly because he really, really enjoys just making shit up that he believes makes sense in his head.
In a third scene, New Improved Kirk and New Improved Scotty dangle together from a great height. New Improved Chekov comes along and hauls the pair up, using one arm to raise the weight of two men -- something not even an Olympic power lifter could accomplish. Perhaps by 2255, fitness DVDs are more effective at building muscle mass.
Or maybe, just maybe, this is a movie and the fact it involves time travel and aliens from other planets that happen to also speak English means Chekov lifting more than an Olympic power lifter could lift is not the most unrealistic part of the film. It's science-FICTION. The key word being "FICTION" which means "not real." So the movie is not intended to be realistic and I don't get why Gregg wants a science-fiction movie to be realistic.
In the flick, Starfleet is run by a neo-Nazi megalomaniac intent on galactic domination. He is able to build a secret starbase, there to manufacture the ultra-gigantic space dreadnaught, without anyone noticing. Wouldn't building a starbase in orbit around Jupiter require a fantastic investment of material and labor? Wouldn't an auditor have spotted trillions of quatloos missing from the Starfleet budget?
1. It is a movie and Gregg is stupid for asking this question. I can't comprehend why he takes movies seriously enough to ask these types of questions.
2. Gregg has described quite a few times how the United States government and other entities have lost millions of dollars they can't find. So let's pretend that happened here. Starfleet misplaced $500 million and can't find what happened to it.
said to be impossible in all previous "Trek" iterations, including the movies and TV shows set a century after 2255. Attacking a ship in a warp field was previously said impossible, even for Species 8472, the most advanced civilization the Federation has ever encountered. Suddenly, doing this is a snap.
I can't imagine how irritating it would be to watch a movie with Gregg Easterbrook. I would probably get so irritated by his comments about a movie that I would try to force feed him popcorn in the hopes he chokes to death or at least loses enough oxygen to forget what he was commenting about.
Everyone's waiting to see if Kelly implements his Blur Offense with the Eagles. Michael Vick, named the starter, would seem the perfect quarterback for the Blur; Nick Foles and Matt Barkley are pocket passers.
Never underestimate how uneducated Gregg Easterbrook can be. A pocket passer can thrive in Chip Kelly's offense as well and Nick Foles seemed to run the Eagles offense pretty well in the preseason. It's not like Kelly's offense always requires the quarterback to scramble and run option plays.
Regardless, TMQ is putting his chips on this wager -- not only will Barkley win the Eagles' starting job sooner rather than later, he will be the top quarterback of the 2013 draft class.
I am more than willing to wager on this. Also, Gregg doesn't count as being correct if Vick and Foles get injured this year because Gregg said Barkley will "win" the starting job. That's not winning the job he gets it because the other two quarterbacks were injured. Also, I don't know what the hell "sooner rather than later" really means so it's obvious TMQ is putting his chips on the wager, but not feeling confident enough to set out a timeline for when "sooner rather than later" might be.
But it's hard to see Barkley operating a zone-read action. The compromise might be Barkley running a quick-snap spread.
It's not really a compromise since elements of this are currently present in Chip Kelly's offense.
What was this year's Song of the Summer? "See You in September", by the Tempos, was the No. 1 single of Summer 1959, then the top summer hit again in 1966 when rebooted by the Happenings. Summer of 2008, Coldplay's "Viva la Vida" was pounding out of every beach boom box and the speaker towers of every lakeside watering hole.
I don't know if "Viva la Vida" is the Song of the Summer for 2008. I can't really imagine that song pounding out of a beach boom box or at a watering hole. Maybe it's just me since it is an opinion. I would say "I Kissed a Girl" by Katy Perry was the 2008 Song of the Summer. You couldn't avoid it.
Perhaps the Song of the Summer 2013 is "Get Lucky" by Daft Punk. It's nice to see an act that has been around for a long time reach No. 1 in middle age --
The two members of Daft Punk are 39 and 38 years old. They have put four albums out and the first album came out in 1997. I don't know, again, it is a matter of opinion, but I'm not sure Daft Punk is in middle age for a band. They made their first album only 16 years ago.
The 2012 Niners were both impressive statistically and fun to watch, owing to the midseason switch from conventional passing to Kaepernick. Lots of things went very well. San Francisco finished second in total defense; the offensive line was stable for the entire season; 14 players scored touchdowns (lots of guys handling the ball is usually a positive sign);
Or a really bad sign because it means the team has suffered a lot of injuries during the season. I know, I hate to ruin Gregg's assumptions like I tend to do.
A mild question is why San Francisco used its three seventh-round choices rather than banking some of them, too. Considering the Niners have the league's strongest roster, can three late picks make this team?
Well of course they can Gregg. Aren't you the one who constantly tells us how great late-round and undrafted players are? I always love to notice how Gregg backs away from his insistence that late-round and undrafted players are often better than first or second round draft picks when it fits the point he wants to prove. When an undrafted player does well in the NFL, all of a sudden Gregg is back talking about highly-paid glory boys and how these first and second round players are lazy unlike those hard-working undrafted free agents.
In this TMQ, Gregg also suggests that undrafted players should make more money in bonuses, which could have the side effect of fewer undrafted players being signed by teams in order to save money. Obviously Gregg didn't think about this when making the suggestion to up the bonus of undrafted free agents. He's hurting the players he claims to want to help.
The Bluish Men Group attempted 405 forward passes and 536 rushes, the kind of ratio that was common half a century ago. With most NFL defenses geared to stop the pass, Seattle's run-first offense seemed to baffle opponents, allowing the Seahawks to average 4.8 yards per rush and 8 yards per pass attempt, both healthy numbers.
Yes, I'm sure every NFL team that played the Seahawks last year were baffled on how to stop the run. They had completely forgotten how to stop the run. Because NFL teams are only able to stop an opposing team from passing the football or running the football and can't simply do both. It always has to be one or the other. God, I hate Gregg's type of reasoning.
Carroll's defense played a power style, holding opponents to 6.2 yards per pass and 4.5 yards per rush -- both nice margins compared to Seattle's own numbers. The Hawks defense finished fourth against yards and first against points.
This really good defense was led by Defensive Coordinator Gus Bradley, who Gregg called "a weak, insecure coach" last week in TMQ.
Since the arrival of Jeff Fisher as Rams coach, the team has been active in draft-choice trades. Notably, the Rams dealt away the chance to select RG III;
Yep. I'm not big on what-if situations, but without using a "what-if" scenario one has to wonder how choosing to keep Sam Bradford around rather than draft Robert Griffin will look for the Rams in the coming years. Was three picks and keeping Bradford worth passing up the chance to draft Griffin? As Joe Morgan says, it's too early to tell. Granted, the Rams did get some draft picks out of the deal, which is always helpful to build a good team around Bradford.
Summing Fisher's trades, St. Louis swapped Griffin and two first-round picks, plus second-, sixth- and seventh-round selections for Tavon Austin, Michael Brockers, Janoris Jenkins, Alec Ogletree, Isaiah Pead, Stedman Bailey, Rokevious Watkins, Zac Stacy and Washington's 2014 first-round pick.
I realize I harp on this, and for fear of agreeing with Gregg, but when Peter King is praising the Rams organization's genius during the 2013 draft I wonder if he imagines Tavon Austin playing with Robert Griffin instead of Sam Bradford?
First in run defense, last in pass defense -- sounds like Buccaneers coaches were not employing balanced tactics.
This could be why the Buccaneers signed Dashon Goldson, drafted Johnthan Banks, and traded for Darrelle Revis. It's hard to be a balanced defense when Eric Wright is one of your starting corners and a converted corner (Ronde Barber) is playing safety alongside a rookie (Mark Barron).
In March, the American Astronomical Society "expressed deep concern about the U.S. government's new restrictions on travel and conference attendance for federally funded scientists." Attending conferences is useful for many professions, but why should average people be taxed to fund science junkets? I write novels and benefit from attending literary conferences. If I demanded that scientists be taxed to fund my travel, scientists would be outraged.
The difference that Gregg is too blind to see is the term "federally funded scientists." Regardless of which side of this matter I agree with, these scientists are federally funded and believe their knowledge base can be improved and expanded by attending conferences which would help society as a whole. Gregg Easterbrook is not a federally funded author so an increase in his knowledge base theoretically would only help him sell books and the idea is this wouldn't help society as a whole.
TMQ banged the drum for years about eliminating the Redskins name. Then, when the world seemed to lose interest, I returned to using the name in the column. Now that interest is rising anew -- two lawsuits are in progress -- this column will go back to calling the franchise in question the Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons.
What a sellout. Always following what's popular to do.
Next Week: Still America's original all-haiku NFL season predictions!
I most likely say this every week when reading the one sentence preview of next week's TMQ, but this is my least favorite TMQ of the year.
Is the zone-read option the flavor of the month, or is it the new vanilla? The first few weeks of the NFL season might tell.
Or the first few weeks of the season might not tell. Either way, stay tuned to TMQ where Gregg will tell us the Packers lost the first game of the season because their cornerbacks got caught looking in the backfield while playing zone coverage and the receiver ran right past one of these Packer corners. This would never have happened if the Packers cornerbacks would ignore the defense called and play man coverage all the time like Gregg seems to believe an defensive player has the option to do.
Last season, the Forty Niners, Seahawks and Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons (see below)
A. Nobody cares.
B. Everyone knows you are referring to the Redskins. You aren't as clever as you think yourself to be.
There are likely to be numerous all-zone confrontations. San Francisco and Seattle play each other twice, plus each line up against Carolina. Washington faces the Eagles twice and also the Niners.
The question is whether the zone-read is a fad or a fixture...or will the zone-read be a part of some teams' playbook and they will continue to use it as long as they have a quarterback who can execute the zone-read well, but possibly not use it to the extent it is currently being used? I vote C.
Considering the zone-read was a surprise tactic last season, who will surprise with it this season?
Oh Gregg, always misunderstanding offensive and defensive strategies. The zone-read doesn't serve solely as a surprise tactic, but relies on the quarterback's ability to run with the football and make a great decision as to when to pitch the football to the running back. What makes it work isn't necessarily the surprise, but the skill at which the play is blocked and the decision-making ability of the quarterback. It's like any other running play, where it is generally successful if blocked correctly and executed well.
Green Bay didn't sign Vince Young, or the New England Patriots sign Tim Tebow, because they need someone to fill the Gatorade bucket.
No, really, the Patriots did sign Tebow because they needed someone to fill the Gatorade bucket and also for the purpose of seeing if there were ways to use Tebow successfully outside of the quarterback position. At this point, Tebow seems to be better at refilling the Gatorade bucket.
Imagine having to prepare for the disciplined traditional passing of Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady and also for zone-read chaos when a guy who can run or throw takes a few snaps.
Or imagine having to play against Russell Wilson, Robert Griffin, or Colin Kaepernick. Not that preparing for Rodgers or Brady is easy, but the defense generally knows if either Brady or Rodgers are in the game then the Packers/Patriots aren't going run the read-option. So the real confusion comes in when a quarterback can run the read-option and also pass the football successfully. It's kind of a tip-off about the play the offense is running when Tebow is back in the shotgun, but the defense has to respect Kaepernick's legs and arm when he is back in the shotgun.
In college, the quarterback is assumed to be a rushing threat, if only because his economic value is so low: He works for free, and an injury does not cost the school anything.
Well, plus college defenses don't have the caliber of athlete that an NFL defense has, which generally makes defending the quarterback when he runs more difficult at the college level.
An NFL team might have $20-$50 million invested in its starting quarterback and thus wants to protect him from harm.
I can't make a blanket, generalized statement, but I'm guessing an NFL team would decide to use the read-option with their quarterback if they thought it could help them win games and the quarterback would be smart in trying to be smart while carrying the ball. Obviously an NFL team doesn't want their starting quarterback injured, but I don't know if a team would go away from the read-option (or zone read) if they think this could help them win games. Will teams run the read-option with Tom Brady? No, but the new type of quarterback that is athletic and can throw the football well makes the read-option a more viable strategy.
A zone-read rushing play is 11-on-11, and, as the Niners showed the Packers, you'd better be ready to account for that extra man.
Gregg specializes in summarizing information that the reader probably already knows.
TMQ noted in January that having the edge rusher force the action back inside is "the adjustment the whole league will make next season".
As usual, Gregg makes something black and white when it isn't really that simple. That's great if the whole league will have the edge rusher force the action back inside, but what will happen if the edge rusher gets blocked or the opposing team is running up the middle instead of the quarterback keeping the football and running outside? Things aren't always just as simple as Gregg wants to make them.
Adjusting for sacks and scrambles, only three NFL teams -- San Francisco, Seattle and Washington -- ran more often than they passed in 2012. All three made the playoffs; two won a playoff game, and the only reason it wasn't three was that Washington and Seattle faced each other.
What Gregg neglects to mention is that he has been telling us for the past couple of years that the NFL is a pass-wacky league and it will continue to trend that way. This is all forgotten of course when he finds data that comes close to contradicting this point of view.
In 2012, the top four rushing teams -- Washington, the Minnesota Vikings, Seattle and San Francisco -- reached the playoffs. The top three passing teams -- the New Orleans Saints, Detroit Lions and Dallas -- did not. Last season's stats show that, just like in college, a team can win by featuring the rush. For 2013 at least, expect an uptick in rushing plays.
Remember these statistics in mid-November when Gregg starts talking about pass-wacky offenses around the league and how the NFL is now a passing league where good defensive teams don't matter and the team that outscores the other team makes the playoffs. In fact, Gregg sort of talks about this very subject in this TMQ.
Now, Tuesday Morning Quarterback's NFC preview.
Again, Gregg is using the term "preview" very lightly since he only seems to talk about what happened last year as it pertains to each team.
The Oakland Raiders gave the sun, moon and stars for Carson Palmer, kept him just two seasons, then shipped him to the Arizona Cardinals for a late draft pick. Arizona gave the sun and moon, though not the stars, for Kevin Kolb, kept him just two seasons, then waived him. Now, Arizona has Palmer, while Oakland is left holding a pair of late-round draft picks. Had Arizona simply acquired Palmer two years ago for what it spent on Kolb, this would have been praised as a brilliant move.
So it would have been smart for the Cardinals to give up a 1st and 2nd round pick for Carson Palmer two years ago, but it wasn't smart for the Raiders to do the same thing? The going price for Palmer at the time was a 1st and 2nd round pick, so the Cardinals would have had to give up a 1st and 2nd round pick for Palmer and there's no guarantee that he would have been successful in Arizona. So I'm not sure I am able to see why it wasn't smart for the Raiders to trade for Palmer, but the Cardinals should have traded for Palmer. They got him for a late-round pick this past offseason. That seems like a better deal, even in retrospect, then giving up a 1st and 2nd round pick for Palmer (which would have resulted in them giving up the chance to draft Michael Floyd and Kevin Minter---or Jonathan Cooper instead of Minter if the Cardinals made the playoffs with Palmer starting for them). The Cardinals have been terrible at quarterback, but a 1st and 2nd round pick for Carson Palmer is a steep price to pay. Of course the Cardinals did give up a 2nd round pick for Kolb, plus gave him a extension. So maybe Gregg has a point, but I'm always inclined just to think he doesn't have a point.
Arizona had an above-average defense in 2012 but the league's worst offense. Considering the offense could not stay on the field, the stout performance by the defense was impressive. The Cardinals' big problem on offense was an abysmal average of 5.6 yards per pass attempt. Palmer can only improve that number.
Right, which is why it was such a good deal to get him for a late-round draft pick. I'm not sure it was worth trading for Palmer if the Cardinals had to give up a 1st and 2nd round pick. Palmer just isn't worth that to me and I'm guessing he isn't worth it to the Cardinals either if they could go back in time and make this deal.
Arizona held a 10-point lead over the Atlanta Falcons, who would go on to host the NFC title game. Whisenhunt pulled starter John Skelton and sent in the never-used Ryan Lindley, who immediately lost a fumble that was returned for a touchdown.
This is a fantastic example of how Gregg lies and misleads his readers. The Cardinals held a 10-point lead and were even in this game because the Falcons turned the ball over seven times. Ken Whisenhunt pulled John Skelton because Skelton was 2-7 for six passing yards at that point in the game. He had six passing yards, so you can see why Whisenhunt chose a different quarterback at this point in the game. Gregg of course doesn't tell us this, but just tells us that Ryan Lindley was never-used and the immediately lost a fumble that was returned for a touchdown.
Whisenhunt replaced Skelton when there was 9:39 left in the second quarter of the game. Lindley was an improvement over Skelton and he only committed one turnover, that is one turnover, during the game. The Cardinals did not lose this game because Whisenhunt pulled Skelton for Ryan Lindley. They lost the game because both quarterbacks were bad.
Arizona was not only defeated in that game but was 1-6 for the remainder of the season.
ALL BECAUSE THE CARDINALS REPLACED A SHITTY QUARTERBACK WITH ANOTHER SHITTY QUARTERBACK! IT RUINED THE CARDINALS ENTIRE SEASON!
Atlanta: The easiest thing to forget about the 2012 NFL season was that the Falcons went 14-4 and came without a couple snaps of the Super Bowl.
This is one of easiest things to forget about the 2012 NFL season? The NFC Championship Game is probably of one of the three most high-profile games of the NFL season and the Falcons blew a lead at home. This is quite easy to remember.
It was as if in last season's playoffs the Falcons suddenly forgot how to play football.
They made the NFC Championship Game. How is making it to the NFC Championship Game and coming close to making the Super Bowl "forgetting how to play football"?
The Atlanta defense finished 24th statistically, and often -- at inopportune moments -- forgot how to play football.
My God, somebody please tell Gregg that the other team practices too. It's not like the Falcons just magically forget to play football, they get beaten by a team that showed themselves to be the better team. The 49ers came close to winning the Super Bowl two weeks after beating the Falcons. In fact there's a trend here:
The season before, the Falcons went to Jersey/A in the postseason and seemed to forget how to play football, losing 24-2.
The Giants went on to win the Super Bowl.
The season before that, the Falcons had the table set, opening at home after a bye, then seemed to forget how to play football, losing 48-21 to the Packers.
Green Bay went on to win the Super Bowl.
In 2008 the Falcons lost to the Arizona Cardinals, who went on to make it to the Super Bowl. So it isn't like the Falcons are losing to shitty teams in the playoffs.
When Newton arrived in the league, defensive coordinators assumed he'd be mainly a running quarterback and kept their safeties near the line of scrimmage. Newton responded by throwing for a record-smashing average of 427 yards in his first two contests. Defensive coordinators then told their secondaries to drop into a regular shell; since then, Newton has averaged 248 yards passing per game.
Which is about average for an NFL quarterback. Newton also led the Panthers in rushing last year, which apparently Gregg doesn't count as deserving to be a part of this discussion.
Now there are 24 seconds in regulation, Buccaneers ball on the Cats' 24. Vincent Jackson, the opponent's best receiver, was able to run into the end zone covered only by a linebacker -- touchdown.
To be really fair to Ron Rivera, which I am not inclined to be, Jackson was covered by the defensive rookie of the year on this play (Luke Kuechly) and Josh Freeman made an absolutely perfect throw to get the ball into Jackson. It was a gorgeous throw and Kuechly had pretty good coverage on the play.
Otherwise, Gregg has a point when discussing Ron Rivera.
During the offseason, the Bears used first- and fifth-round draft choices on offensive linemen, then traded offensive tackle Gabe Carimi, their first-round choice just two years ago, to the Buccaneers at the fire-sale price of a sixth-round draft choice.
Gregg wants to know why the Buccaneers didn't just draft Carimi when they had the chance two years ago rather than give up a sixth round choice for him in 2013.
Why discard Carimi, a great college player and a major investment for the Bears, even if his NFL career started slowly?
Because he wasn't playing well in comparison to the salary that he was getting paid?
Front-office politics are the likely answer. New general manager Phil Emery needs to shift blame, so he gave the heave-ho to Smith, a hire of former general manager Jerry Angelo. Now he tells the world that Angelo's final first-round draft choice was a blown pick. Emery also waived Chris Williams, an offensive lineman chosen in the first round in 2008 by Angelo. This allows Emery to enter the 2013 season with excuses lined up.
It also allows the Bears to rid themselves of underachieving offensive linemen on the roster, regardless of where these offensive linemen were chosen. A General Manager's job is to make a team better and getting rid of two underachieving picks isn't front office politics, but an attempt to make the Bears better. I would think if anyone could understand getting rid of an underachieving player it would be Gregg Easterbrook. He is the one who constantly harps on first round picks being overpaid glory boys. Yet, the Bears get rid of a couple of these underachieving guys and Gregg doesn't like it.
If the Bears win, fine; if they lose, Emery can blame Angelo's bad draft picks.
Which is valid to do as it pertains to Chris Williams and Gabe Carimi. Neither player produced what was expected of them for the Bears. They weren't very good picks.
In the Dallas-San Francisco draft trade, the Boys gained only a third-round choice to allow the Niners to swap up 13 spots to the middle of the first round. In other trades involving the first round, to swap up eight spots, the St. Louis Rams gave the Bills a second-round choice. To swap up from the second round to the late first,
Perhaps Jones paid so much to Romo that he needed to move down in the first round to lower his rookie bonus costs and was so focused on moving down he allowed himself to be fleeced.
Actually if Gregg took the time to do any type of research he could see that the contract extension to Tony Romo actually opened up cap room so the Cowboys could sign free agents and their draft picks. It's irritating how Gregg makes these types of comments without doing any research. Maybe the 3rd round pick wasn't enough compensation for moving up 13 spots and maybe the Romo extension wasn't a great idea, but signing Romo to the contract extension freed up cap space rather than cost the Cowboys cap space.
In my draft column, yours truly observed that Mel Kiper and his kith get a hard time because their predictions are public, while we never know what mistakes NFL scouts make in private.
Sort of like when Gregg states he wrote "Game over" in his Selena Gomez Trapper Keeper notebook and Gregg's readers have no way of verifying whether this is true or Gregg is just stating this using hindsight to make himself look smarter? Gregg's readers also have no idea of when Gregg has written "Game over" in his notebook and this hasn't been true.
Reader John Martin in Washington, D.C., reports that because Jones allowed himself to be filmed -- looking manly, of course -- in the Boys draft room, it was possible to freeze-frame and zoom in on the Dallas board. The Boys slotted DJ Hayden, taken by Oakland with the 12th selection, as a second-round choice. The Boys' board reflects guesses about value specifically to the Cowboys, not necessarily a Kiper-style overall ranking.
Yeah Gregg, pretty much every team's NFL draft board consists of that team's guesses about a player's value. That's what a draft board is.
Ben Cohen of the Wall Street Journal calls the new palace at the University of Oregon "the physical embodiment of this gilded age of college football." In the most recent academic year, Oregon cleared a $31 million profit on football, according to Department of Education data, while graduating just 49 percent of its African-American players.
How many of these players would have gone to college, much less graduated, without having played football or received a football scholarship? Not excusing the profit Oregon cleared, but I think looking at whether these African-American players would have been able to attend college without football is important.
Exploiting young black males without conferring education ought to shame Chip Kelly, the University of Oregon alumni and trustees and the NCAA.
Again, we have to also focus on two other factors:
1. How many of the 49% who graduated would have gotten a college degree without a sports scholarship? This is a difficult question to answer for sure, but I think it is an important question.
2. It takes two to tango. Chip Kelly has a responsibility to make sure his players go to class and graduate, but you can't make a person graduate college and attend class during college if that person doesn't want to. I guess Kelly could kick players off the team who don't go to class and aren't on-track to graduate.
Assuming Knight is in the top bracket, donating $68 million to the University of Oregon football program would cost him about $43 million. Taxpayers would be hit for the other $25 million. To cover Knight's deduction, average people must be taxed more or the national debt must increase.
The theory of tax deductibility for donations to colleges and universities is sound: Higher education benefits society as a whole. But when the tax expenditures go to football programs, society does not benefit.
Tell that to the Oregon football players and boosters who can proudly show off the new facility.
And if the money given to football might have instead been donated to the university's endowment or core academic mission, society is actively harmed.
Society is harmed under the assumption that Phil Knight would have donated this money to the university's endowment or core academic mission. I'm not sure Phil Knight would have donated $68 million to the university's endowment or not, so the only way to conclude society is harmed is if assumptions are made. And we all know what happens when you assume? That's right, Gregg makes shit up in order to better prove a point he wants to make.
That athletics diverts money from college education, and does so at taxpayer expense, is a broad problem.
Again, we are working under the assumption that the money given to athletics would otherwise be given to an education fund. This isn't an assumption I am willing to make, mostly because I don't want to make an assumption to try and prove my point correct like Gregg does.
The University of Maryland just reported a $21 million athletic department deficit despite all UMD undergrads being charged $398 annually to subsidize athletics. That's about $11 million taken annually from regular students who are struggling to pay tuition and diverted to sports.
That's not what I'm seeing. I'm actually seeing $406.38 to pay for athletics. Of course students are also being charged the following fees annually as well:
Stamp Union Fee: $308.24
Recreation Building: $362
Technology Fee: $264
In fact, out of the $1,771.82 in fees charged to a full-time student during the 13/14 year, athletics is responsible for 22.9% of the cost of these fees. I'm betting in terms of students getting use out of these fees, that athletics is a much better deal than paying $362 for a recreation building. Maybe not, but in terms of the fees it costs a student to attend the University of Maryland athletic fees don't make up the majority of the cost.
Detroit: Stacked with high first-round draft picks and mega-contract players, no NFL team underperforms like the Lions. The talent-stacked defense, which allowed 49 touchdowns in 2012, has given up more total points than any other NFL team over the past four seasons.
I'm not sure you can call the Lions defense "talent-stacked" if the defense doesn't play well. Maybe the defense should have talent, but they clearly lack some sort of talent somewhere.
In a pass-wacky league, the Lions are wackiest. Adjusting for sacks and scrambles, Detroit coaches radioed in 378 more passes than rushes last season -- 24 more called passes than rushes per contest. While Seattle rushed 57 percent of the time (see below), the Lions threw just shy of twice as much as they ran. Because the NFL has become a passing league, even Bill Belichick is now pass-wacky. But Detroit takes pass-wacky too far.
It also doesn't help the Lions offensive line and running backs haven't helped the run game flourish even when a running play is called. You may ask in Gregg's opinion how we know when a team takes pass-wacky too far. That's an easy answer. A team has taken pass-wacky too far if they don't win games. If that team is pass-wacky and wins games then that is the right amount of pass-wacky. It all depends on the result, because otherwise Gregg has no suitable advice on what a team should do (or should have done) without knowing the result.
This column is a longtime fan of Vince Young. It might be chaotic when he's on the field, but at the double whistle, his team has more points than the other team. So it's nice to see Young get another chance with the Packers.
Vince Young just wins games. Lazy analysis will always survive no matter what.
Considering Green Bay's passing system relies on precise execution -- the Packers throw deep sideline routes, a favorite pattern of the Manning brothers -- it's hard to see Young running the same offense Rodgers runs.
So the Packers will just completely change their offense if Vince Young ends up having to start for the Packers. I can't see how anything could go wrong in this situation.
Mike McCarthy's charges were eaten alive by the zone-read in the playoffs and now open against the Niners. Young can impersonate Kaepernick when the Packers run the scout team. And if Young comes in a few times a game for zone-read plays, this will force Green Bay opponents to prepare on defense for two entirely different philosophies of offense.
The initial problem I see with the Packers running the read-option successfully is that at this point they don't have a running back that really scares NFL defenses. It's much different to run the read-option with Robert Griffin and Alfred Morris or Colin Kaepernick and Frank Gore than it is to run the read-option with Vince Young and (the unproven) Eddie Lacy. Before Gregg starts getting excited about the Packers running two entirely different offensive philosophies he needs to think whether the offensive line that can't block for Aaron Rodgers can block for Young when running the read-option.
Then Gregg publicizes a book he wrote about youth football that goes on sale in September. I'm not linking it right now and no one can make me.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback has long felt the Giants are a better reflection of the New York City milieu than the Jets, setting aside that both neither practice nor performs in the Empire State. The Giants bicker openly about money and ego, seem constantly on the verge of collapse, then rally and do something special. That's New York!
What? The Giants do not openly bicker about money and ego and seem on the verge of collapse. If anything, the Jets are the team that openly bicker about money and ego. Of course the Jets don't always follow it up with something special, but like always, we can't have reality infringe on Gregg's comparison. Gregg prefers to create his own reality that fits the point he wants to prove. He wants the Giants and Jets to reflect their respect states and so that's how he will frame his comparison, reality be damned.
The Jets seem constantly depressed and fouled up. That s New Jersey.
Okay...this is a really bad analogy. It seems there is more bickering about money and ego in the Jets part as compared to the Giants.
There's no sane reason to expect the Giants to be good this season -- but touts felt that way going into 2011, which ended with Eli Manning hoisting the Lombardi.
Why is there no reason to expect the Giants to be good this season? Gregg constantly makes statements like this with little to no factual backing. Why couldn't we expect the Giants to be good? They still have a really defensive line, great receivers, and Eli Manning as their quarterback with David Wilson just waiting to breakout. I hate it when Gregg makes a statement without explaining what the hell he is talking about. This is an opinion being framed as a statement of fact.
The Vikings' last season came down to this: In the playoffs, trailing Green Bay 24-3 with 11 minutes remaining, facing fourth-and-2, Leslie Frazier sent in the punting unit.
Since he did the "safe" thing and punted, he wasn't criticized. But down by three touchdowns in the fourth quarter of a playoff contest, punting on fourth-and-2 is like running up the white flag. Needless to say, the day ended with Minnesota decisively defeated.
I am willing to bet the Vikings still would have been decisively defeated even if the Vikings had converted this fourth down instead of punting the football. Gregg's point stands that the Vikings probably should have gone for it, but he is trying to tie the result of the game to this decision by Leslie Frazier when there seems to be a very tenuous connection.
And, as usual, led by Jared Allen, the Vikes did well for sacks. But the team finished just 20th overall on defense -- Allen and other Vikings defenders gambled for sacks at the expense of gap discipline.
On every play the Vikings defenders gambled for sacks at the expense of gap control. Gregg has no specific play that shows this to be true, mostly because he really, really enjoys just making shit up that he believes makes sense in his head.
In a third scene, New Improved Kirk and New Improved Scotty dangle together from a great height. New Improved Chekov comes along and hauls the pair up, using one arm to raise the weight of two men -- something not even an Olympic power lifter could accomplish. Perhaps by 2255, fitness DVDs are more effective at building muscle mass.
Or maybe, just maybe, this is a movie and the fact it involves time travel and aliens from other planets that happen to also speak English means Chekov lifting more than an Olympic power lifter could lift is not the most unrealistic part of the film. It's science-FICTION. The key word being "FICTION" which means "not real." So the movie is not intended to be realistic and I don't get why Gregg wants a science-fiction movie to be realistic.
In the flick, Starfleet is run by a neo-Nazi megalomaniac intent on galactic domination. He is able to build a secret starbase, there to manufacture the ultra-gigantic space dreadnaught, without anyone noticing. Wouldn't building a starbase in orbit around Jupiter require a fantastic investment of material and labor? Wouldn't an auditor have spotted trillions of quatloos missing from the Starfleet budget?
1. It is a movie and Gregg is stupid for asking this question. I can't comprehend why he takes movies seriously enough to ask these types of questions.
2. Gregg has described quite a few times how the United States government and other entities have lost millions of dollars they can't find. So let's pretend that happened here. Starfleet misplaced $500 million and can't find what happened to it.
said to be impossible in all previous "Trek" iterations, including the movies and TV shows set a century after 2255. Attacking a ship in a warp field was previously said impossible, even for Species 8472, the most advanced civilization the Federation has ever encountered. Suddenly, doing this is a snap.
I can't imagine how irritating it would be to watch a movie with Gregg Easterbrook. I would probably get so irritated by his comments about a movie that I would try to force feed him popcorn in the hopes he chokes to death or at least loses enough oxygen to forget what he was commenting about.
Everyone's waiting to see if Kelly implements his Blur Offense with the Eagles. Michael Vick, named the starter, would seem the perfect quarterback for the Blur; Nick Foles and Matt Barkley are pocket passers.
Never underestimate how uneducated Gregg Easterbrook can be. A pocket passer can thrive in Chip Kelly's offense as well and Nick Foles seemed to run the Eagles offense pretty well in the preseason. It's not like Kelly's offense always requires the quarterback to scramble and run option plays.
Regardless, TMQ is putting his chips on this wager -- not only will Barkley win the Eagles' starting job sooner rather than later, he will be the top quarterback of the 2013 draft class.
I am more than willing to wager on this. Also, Gregg doesn't count as being correct if Vick and Foles get injured this year because Gregg said Barkley will "win" the starting job. That's not winning the job he gets it because the other two quarterbacks were injured. Also, I don't know what the hell "sooner rather than later" really means so it's obvious TMQ is putting his chips on the wager, but not feeling confident enough to set out a timeline for when "sooner rather than later" might be.
But it's hard to see Barkley operating a zone-read action. The compromise might be Barkley running a quick-snap spread.
It's not really a compromise since elements of this are currently present in Chip Kelly's offense.
What was this year's Song of the Summer? "See You in September", by the Tempos, was the No. 1 single of Summer 1959, then the top summer hit again in 1966 when rebooted by the Happenings. Summer of 2008, Coldplay's "Viva la Vida" was pounding out of every beach boom box and the speaker towers of every lakeside watering hole.
I don't know if "Viva la Vida" is the Song of the Summer for 2008. I can't really imagine that song pounding out of a beach boom box or at a watering hole. Maybe it's just me since it is an opinion. I would say "I Kissed a Girl" by Katy Perry was the 2008 Song of the Summer. You couldn't avoid it.
Perhaps the Song of the Summer 2013 is "Get Lucky" by Daft Punk. It's nice to see an act that has been around for a long time reach No. 1 in middle age --
The two members of Daft Punk are 39 and 38 years old. They have put four albums out and the first album came out in 1997. I don't know, again, it is a matter of opinion, but I'm not sure Daft Punk is in middle age for a band. They made their first album only 16 years ago.
The 2012 Niners were both impressive statistically and fun to watch, owing to the midseason switch from conventional passing to Kaepernick. Lots of things went very well. San Francisco finished second in total defense; the offensive line was stable for the entire season; 14 players scored touchdowns (lots of guys handling the ball is usually a positive sign);
Or a really bad sign because it means the team has suffered a lot of injuries during the season. I know, I hate to ruin Gregg's assumptions like I tend to do.
A mild question is why San Francisco used its three seventh-round choices rather than banking some of them, too. Considering the Niners have the league's strongest roster, can three late picks make this team?
Well of course they can Gregg. Aren't you the one who constantly tells us how great late-round and undrafted players are? I always love to notice how Gregg backs away from his insistence that late-round and undrafted players are often better than first or second round draft picks when it fits the point he wants to prove. When an undrafted player does well in the NFL, all of a sudden Gregg is back talking about highly-paid glory boys and how these first and second round players are lazy unlike those hard-working undrafted free agents.
In this TMQ, Gregg also suggests that undrafted players should make more money in bonuses, which could have the side effect of fewer undrafted players being signed by teams in order to save money. Obviously Gregg didn't think about this when making the suggestion to up the bonus of undrafted free agents. He's hurting the players he claims to want to help.
The Bluish Men Group attempted 405 forward passes and 536 rushes, the kind of ratio that was common half a century ago. With most NFL defenses geared to stop the pass, Seattle's run-first offense seemed to baffle opponents, allowing the Seahawks to average 4.8 yards per rush and 8 yards per pass attempt, both healthy numbers.
Yes, I'm sure every NFL team that played the Seahawks last year were baffled on how to stop the run. They had completely forgotten how to stop the run. Because NFL teams are only able to stop an opposing team from passing the football or running the football and can't simply do both. It always has to be one or the other. God, I hate Gregg's type of reasoning.
Carroll's defense played a power style, holding opponents to 6.2 yards per pass and 4.5 yards per rush -- both nice margins compared to Seattle's own numbers. The Hawks defense finished fourth against yards and first against points.
This really good defense was led by Defensive Coordinator Gus Bradley, who Gregg called "a weak, insecure coach" last week in TMQ.
Since the arrival of Jeff Fisher as Rams coach, the team has been active in draft-choice trades. Notably, the Rams dealt away the chance to select RG III;
Yep. I'm not big on what-if situations, but without using a "what-if" scenario one has to wonder how choosing to keep Sam Bradford around rather than draft Robert Griffin will look for the Rams in the coming years. Was three picks and keeping Bradford worth passing up the chance to draft Griffin? As Joe Morgan says, it's too early to tell. Granted, the Rams did get some draft picks out of the deal, which is always helpful to build a good team around Bradford.
Summing Fisher's trades, St. Louis swapped Griffin and two first-round picks, plus second-, sixth- and seventh-round selections for Tavon Austin, Michael Brockers, Janoris Jenkins, Alec Ogletree, Isaiah Pead, Stedman Bailey, Rokevious Watkins, Zac Stacy and Washington's 2014 first-round pick.
I realize I harp on this, and for fear of agreeing with Gregg, but when Peter King is praising the Rams organization's genius during the 2013 draft I wonder if he imagines Tavon Austin playing with Robert Griffin instead of Sam Bradford?
First in run defense, last in pass defense -- sounds like Buccaneers coaches were not employing balanced tactics.
This could be why the Buccaneers signed Dashon Goldson, drafted Johnthan Banks, and traded for Darrelle Revis. It's hard to be a balanced defense when Eric Wright is one of your starting corners and a converted corner (Ronde Barber) is playing safety alongside a rookie (Mark Barron).
In March, the American Astronomical Society "expressed deep concern about the U.S. government's new restrictions on travel and conference attendance for federally funded scientists." Attending conferences is useful for many professions, but why should average people be taxed to fund science junkets? I write novels and benefit from attending literary conferences. If I demanded that scientists be taxed to fund my travel, scientists would be outraged.
The difference that Gregg is too blind to see is the term "federally funded scientists." Regardless of which side of this matter I agree with, these scientists are federally funded and believe their knowledge base can be improved and expanded by attending conferences which would help society as a whole. Gregg Easterbrook is not a federally funded author so an increase in his knowledge base theoretically would only help him sell books and the idea is this wouldn't help society as a whole.
TMQ banged the drum for years about eliminating the Redskins name. Then, when the world seemed to lose interest, I returned to using the name in the column. Now that interest is rising anew -- two lawsuits are in progress -- this column will go back to calling the franchise in question the Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons.
What a sellout. Always following what's popular to do.
Next Week: Still America's original all-haiku NFL season predictions!
I most likely say this every week when reading the one sentence preview of next week's TMQ, but this is my least favorite TMQ of the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)