The NFL, at its heart, is a business. So when they take advantage of the Super Bowl for financial gain, I cannot feign surprise. But some traditions, while highly profitable, need to go.
1. Super Bowl Location
I have long been a proponent of home-field advantage at every stage of the playoffs. In the MLB, NBA and NHL, one team has that advantage. While the methods may be flawed (I'm looking at you, baseball), one of the essential factors in sports plays a role. Why should Green Bay, a #6 seed, be rewarded once they reach the Super Bowl with a neutral location? The goal of the NFL season is to win the Super Bowl, not just grace its money-hoarding field. Green Bay may have played well over the last 5 weeks, but so has Pittsburgh. Something should separate them. Something should indicate that one team has an earned an advantage over the other. Once the Super Bowl comes around, regular season success is ignored faster than player safety (If I'm in the CBA bargaining room fighting on behalf of the Union, I would love to hear the owners attempt to reconcile the 18-game schedule with player safety. Almost as much as I'd love to have sat in on a Pacman Jones/Goodell meeting.) Home-field should be that dividing line, the better team the same advantage they have had throughout the playoffs.
The rules for home-field, however, should not be based on seed. Although the current system exemplifies the best, yet flawed solution, the Super Bowl allows for a chance for it to be corrected. Instead of having the higher seeded team host the game, give it to the team with the better record, the closest indicator we have of a team's ability. If that can't settle the issue, here are the other tie-breakers.
1. Record
2. Record against common opponents
3. Seed
2. The Halftime Show
Not because it was atrocious (I choked/laughed/fell out of my chair when Bleacher Report called it the best Halftime show ever). Not because it probably costs the NFL money they do not want to spend. Simply because of its length. Although it made no difference this year, any ounce of momentum gained at the end of the 1st half cannot carry over when halftime takes an hour. In 2008, James Harrison had his 100 yard INT return to end the half. But instead of Pittsburgh coming out and dominating the second half and putting the game away (as that huge swing would have suggested), they fell flat. In fact, until the final drive, Arizona owned the 2nd half. This year the Black Eyed Peas continued their massacre for so long that Aaron Rodgers took all his pads off and joked with teammates while the festivities went on. I'm not saying Rodgers should not relax, but you don't get up from dinner midway through to watch TV. Sure, you may stop eating for a moment to catch your breath and digest a little, but ultimately dinner is relatively uninterrupted. And since football and food are clearly analgous, this halftime atrocity cannot continue.
3. The Post-Game Confetti
I, like everyone else, love confetti. While it may be annoying when it hits your face, its symbolic gesture far outweighs any negativity. I merely ask that they delay the confetti drop for at least 5 minutes after the game. Give the players a chance to find their families (random note of the day: best post-game hug combo in the Super Bowl ever? Eli Manning, scrambling to find someone, bear-hugging Jeff Feagles because no one else wanted to celebrate with the winning QB). Give the players a chance to put on the Super Bowl gear so they don't have to pick confetti out of their hair, pants, and wherever else when they get in the shower. And most importantly, give the losers a chance to get off the field. When you defeat an opponent in pickup basketball, you don't kick 'em while he's down. The shame of defeat is good enough. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for embarrassment and verbal abuse. But the confetti is not merely the winning team proclaiming its win, but the entire NFL essentially saying "enjoy the taste of defeat, assholes."
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
11 comments Even When NFL Players Use Safer Helmets, Gregg Easterbrook Still Finds Something To Complain About
My ears are still hurting from the halftime show last night. I have always hated the Black Eyed Peas, mostly because I prefer to listen to music from groups with a shred of talent outside of writing a catchy hook, but I didn't realize how terrible they would be live. I know it is "cool" to hate on the halftime show, but I am not hating just to hate. It sounded bad. I was very much in favor of the NFL getting away from the old geezers doing the halftime show, but if this is their way of convincing the world that was better based on the lack of screaming and auto-tuned vocals then mission accomplished. If the NFL is going to go with a "hip" act, go with a group that has talent.
Gregg Easterbrook has been on a noble crusade all year. He wants the NFL players to start using safer helmets to prevent concussions. I agree, NFL players should probably do this. Of course even when players do this, Gregg isn't happy. Now Aaron Rodgers is using a safer helmet and even credits it (but he isn't a doctor, so this should be taken with a grain of salt) with preventing another concussion in the NFC Championship game and this isn't enough for Gregg. He wants Rodgers to say which helmet he is using, in an attempt to make sure all of the high school football players that aren't playing football right now (as pointed out in the comments by Martin F. last week) know which helmet to choose this winter when they aren't playing football.
There is time to reveal this information before high school football starts is my basic point. Oh, and Gregg Easterbrook still annoys me is my other basic point.
All across the United States, football players and their parents -- there are 500 high school football players for each NFL player -- are worried about concussions, which a report released last week shows are rising in incidence.
Let me point out, for the third time, high school football is not currently being played. So parents are worried about concussions, but there is time to ease this worry. This isn't an incredibly time sensitive issue. If Aaron Rodgers doesn't reveal the helmet he is using, several hundred high school football athletes won't get a concussion by the end of this week.
Rodgers says the helmet prevented a concussion when he took a brutal blow to the head from Julius Peppers of the Chicago Bears in the NFC Championship Game.
So a Super Bowl quarterback has found a helmet that might reduce the concussion plague, protecting huge numbers of football players at the college, high school and youth levels. Good news?
Yes, it is the news Gregg has been whining about pretty much all year. A high-profile NFL player is using a safer helmet.
(cue "Hallelujah" chorus)
Here's my big question: Concussions are slippery things. Doctors aren't even exactly sure what causes a concussion or how a concussion exactly affects the human brain. So how does Aaron Rodgers know this helmet prevented him from sustaining another concussion and why does Gregg take this at face value and not second-guess Rodgers believe since he isn't a doctor. The obvious answer is Rodgers statement reflects something Gregg wants to believe, so he doesn't question the statement of a football player about a medical issue.
Here's the catch -- Rodgers won't tell you what kind of helmet he switched to. Neither will the Green Bay Packers.
Here's the catch on why they can't/won't tell people--there is this thing called a "contract" and the NFL has signed this "contract" with helmet maker Riddell to be the official helmet of the NFL. So either Rodgers or the Packers would be fined by the NFL for publicly revealing the exact brand of helmet Rodgers has been using. This is very unfortunate, but also not hugely surprising if you aren't a knee-jerk type person...which Gregg is.
Here's another reason he won't reveal the type of helmet. Neither the Packers or Aaron Rodgers know for sure the helmet prevented another concussion.
A Super Bowl quarterback and his team have information that might increase neurological safety -- and won't share it.
This may be the most dramatic way to arrange this sentence for maximum effect. Well, I can do one better...
"Aaron Rodgers has information that could save the life of thousands of adolescents, but won't reveal it. The Packers are his accomplice on this and don't seem to care about high school players safety because they won't announce how to save these thousands of adolescents' lives. Meanwhile, thousands have a higher risk of concussion due to Rodgers and the Packers actions."
I have a solution. Here's how you get the fucking information Gregg so desperately wants shared. Concerned parents can do this at home! Here's how:
-Open up your Internet browser
-Choose your favorite Internet search provider. I would suggest Google.
-Type in "safest anti-concussion helmet."
-Go to the very first link. You will see an article about DeSean Jackson's helmet.
-Use your eyes to read the column that Jackson wears a "Schutt" helmet.
-Use your brain to deduce "Schutt" may possibly make an anti-concussion helmet.
-Choose your favorite Internet search provider again.
-Type in "Schutt anti-concussion helmet."
-Choose the first link to see this helmet.
-Decide if you want to purchase this helmet.
There are other anti-concussion helmets out there. It isn't like Aaron Rodgers knows the location of a dead body and won't tell anyone. Any parent concerned enough about their child's brain will be concerned enough to take 10 minutes to examine the best helmets available. It's all public knowledge, yet Gregg acts as if it isn't.
When he returned to the field late in the year, Rodgers said he had switched to a helmet that reduces concussion risk. But he wouldn't be specific, leaving college and high school coaches and players in the dark.
College and high school coaches are in the dark? Are these by chance only the high school and college coaches that don't have hands, therefore aren't able to do an Internet search, or dial a phone to contact helmet manufacturers? If not, there is no excuse to be in the dark. There is plenty of information available on anti-concussion helmets out there. A person simply has to make an effort to find it.
Rodgers told Peter King of NBC he thought his new helmet prevented the vicious hit by Peppers -- whom the league fined $10,000 for unnecessary roughness -- from causing another concussion. "As much as the new helmet feels uncomfortable and I'm still getting used to it, I'm really happy I was wearing it on that hit,'' Rodgers said to King. But King's report did not include the critical item of information that all other football players, and the parents of young players, need -- namely, what kind of helmet.
We can guess it is not a Riddell helmet, because if it were, then Rodgers might be more forthcoming with the helmet type. Yeah, possibly Rodgers should reveal the type of helmet, but since Rodgers isn't a doctor he doesn't know for sure if the helmet actually did prevent the concussion. Again, with the advent of the Interwebs this information, a parent doesn't have to rely on Rodgers' endorsement and can do their own research.
There is another theory. Maybe Rodgers did have a concussion and doesn't want to reveal he did because of a fear he would be held out of the Super Bowl or should have been pulled off the field against the Bears. So Rodgers doesn't want to endorse a helmet that he know doesn't work, so he says the helmet did work to cover up for the fact he got hit hard and the hit could have easily concussed him and he would have had to be removed from game.
$100 says Gregg didn't think about this angle when he is criticizing the Packers and Rodgers because it didn't fit the point he was trying to prove.
So I asked the Packers again. Jeff Blumb, the team's director of public relations, told me, "I did check again on your behalf, and that's still not information we're comfortable sharing outside of our building."
Sort of stupid, yes, but the Packers may not want to reveal Rodgers isn't wearing a Riddell helmet for whatever reasons I have already discussed.
Each year 1.1 million boys, and a few girls, play middle school and high school football.
For the fourth time, there is no middle or high school football going on right now. Simmer down.
But the main reason large numbers of high school players wear obsolescent helmets is that below the level of the pros and big colleges, coaches, parents and athletic directors have no idea which helmets are best. They look to the top of the sport, the NFL, for guidance -- and receive none.
This is not the fault of college football, the NFL, the Packers or Aaron Rodgers. If high schools are too lazy to do their own research in an effort to get their football players better helmets, that's on them. The information is out there. There's no reason a school can't do its own research on this issue and should rely on the NFL or the NCAA to tell them what to do.
Like any athletic enterprise, the Packers have reason to keep game plans, training techniques and other such specifics private. But safety information should never be proprietary. Any information that improves sports safety should be declared openly, to all.
I don't know the NFL's policy on notifying the public their players aren't using a Riddell helmet, but I will guess the NFL would frown on the Packers publicly stating which helmet Rodgers is using. In an environment where concussions have become a major issue with the NFL, if the Packers announced the anti-concussion helmet their star quarterback endorses is not a Riddell then I would imagine the NFL wouldn't look kindly on that. It's a stupid reason possibly, but it has less to do with the Packers need to not get fined then it deals with them not looking out for high school kids.
Another reason the Packers haven't announced the type of helmet is...............the Packers aren't holding back information about safety from the public. The information is out there for anyone to find and Aaron Rodgers' statement he didn't sustain a concussion because of the helmet isn't exactly a fool-proof endorsement. Rodgers' statement isn't based on scientific data, but merely reflects his opinion.
NFL teams may be squeamish about revealing which helmets players wear because they think such an action makes them liable for any harm someone might sustain after donning a helmet of that type. As TMQ detailed here in November, this view is likely to be incorrect, in legal terms.
I love how Gregg just throws this in there. NFL teams may be concerned they could be sued for millions of dollars if they could potentially be found liable for any harm a person sustained while wearing said helmet. He throws this in like it is just a minor point and not really worthy of more discussion.
Then as the cherry on top, instead of saying how ridiculous this is, Gregg says this view is "likely" to be incorrect. So basically NFL teams may have a viable legal reason to not announce which helmet a player is using, but that's not good enough for Gregg because it is "likely" an incorrect reason. I am sure Gregg would be willing to take responsibility for paying any lawsuits that may arise from the Packers announcing which helmet Aaron Rodgers using (assuming a person gets hurt and sues), since he is adamant the Packers announce that type of helmet. It's not his money to lose, so he feels free to be as critical of the Packers as possible.
But if Green Bay is being held back by a mistaken belief about liability, the NFL needs to step in, and say, clearly, what helmet type and model is worn by Rodgers.
Riddell would love this. I am sure there is some language in the contract that would prohibit the NFL from doing this.
Safety information must never be withheld from the public. Withholding safety information is irresponsible. If a Super Bowl quarterback has found a helmet type that he believes reduces concussion risk, the team and the league have an ethical obligation to share the details.
Let's all remember Gregg is basing his entire criticism on the evaluations of Aaron Rodgers on how the helmet helped him not have a concussion. It is not like a doctor is reporting his findings, a football player is saying the helmet helped him not sustain a concussion. This may be completely false by the way. Aaron Rodgers is a lot of things, but he sure as hell isn't a doctor, so even advocating the use of the helmet to prevent concussions would be irresponsible of him and the Packers.
But just knowing a helmet brand isn't enough -- the model must be known, too. Riddell and Schutt, the leading manufacturers of football helmets, sell helmets engineered to reduce concussion risk and helmets that lack such engineering. The public needs to know both the brand and the model of whatever is on the head of Aaron Rodgers.
The public can do an Internet search and find it out with a good degree of certainty.
Riddell's advanced Revo Speed model (which my older son wore when playing college football) and the Schutt DNA (which I bought my young son when he played JV) are designed to reduce concussion risk, and data show this works. Is Rodgers wearing a Riddell Revo Speed or a Schutt DNA?
The odds are good if it were a Riddell helmet then Aaron Rodgers would say so. Logic dictates between the two choices given, that Aaron Rodgers is using a Schutt DNA. Go purchase accordingly. Problem solved.
The Schutt Ion helmet also has advanced engineering -- is Rodgers wearing an Ion? Is he wearing a Xenith X1, a new helmet brand designed around concussion prevention? Is he wearing the new Rawlings Quantum, which goes on the market soon, and was designed to reduce concussion risks? The public needs to know.
WHY? It isn't scientifically proven it prevented Rodgers from having a concussion. That's just his opinion. His opinion doesn't make it fact. Doctors have a fuzzy idea of what hits cause a concussion and which do not. Even a small hit could cause a concussion while sometimes a very hard hit doesn't do anything. Rodgers giving the type of helmet he uses would be in essence endorsing that helmet as effective, when he doesn't know if that helmet really benefited him from sustaining a concussion or not. Can't Gregg see this?
Regardless, a starting quarterback in Sunday's Super Bowl has found a helmet brand and model that he believes offers superior protection against concussions. Yet he won't say what the helmet is,
Rodgers is not a doctor. What he believe isn't medical truth or proof of anything. That's part of the core reason that Rodgers isn't announcing what type of helmet he has. What he believes is irrelevant in terms of whether it prevented him from having a concussion or not. I really wish Gregg could see this. He is getting his panties in a wad over what an NFL quarterback thinks prevented him from sustaining a concussion, which isn't based on scientific facts of any type.
Rodgers and the Packers should be widely criticized for this. Why won't they tell the country's million high school football players, and the players' parents, what the NFL knows about safety?
Because he doesn't know. He's guessing. If Aaron Rodgers said eating dog turds gave him better vision, does that mean kids all over America should start following their dogs around to collect poop so they can see as well as Rodgers does?
Two years ago in the Pittsburgh-Arizona Super Bowl, the Steelers contained Kurt Warner 'til the fourth quarter, when he threw for 247 yards, the rate of a 1,000-yard passing game.
Last week Gregg said the following about what the Steelers defense did to Warner:
In 2009, the Steelers won the Super Bowl by controlling Kurt Warner and the high-scoring Arizona offense.
This week, he doesn't believe the Steelers controlled Warner. What Gregg says or believes changes on a weekly basis, as determined by whatever point he is trying to prove.
Stat of the Week No. 7 Pittsburgh has the league's best defense against points, and Green Bay has the second-best defense against points.
"Defense against points?" I am not sure I have ever heard the amount of points per game a defense gives up phrased this way.
Cheerleader of the Week Erica of the Denver Broncos, who according to her team bio hosts a TV show on a Denver local-access channel and has been reading "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan, which contends that people should eat the foods -- mostly plants -- that our distant ancestors ate. The book's position is similar to advocacy of the Paleolithic diet.
Much like Rodgers' helmet issue, this belief should be taken as fact of course, and kids in school across America should eat a lunch based on the Paleolithic diet. Just like Aaron Rodgers is a doctor, Erica the Broncos cheer leader is a nutrition specialist.
That's the way winning pro football teams are built. Of course -- you have to be able to draft well, which eludes many highly paid NFL general managers.
Would it make it more acceptable to draft poorly if the general manager was poorly paid?
This weekend, the Hall of Fame selectors will choose the next class to wear the garish yellow jacket at Canton. As with past years, only the on-field performance of players, not their off-field failings (or accomplishments), will be weighed, while no one who's already been admitted will be expelled.
Consider: O.J. Simpson, a criminal, is in the Hall of Fame. Simpson currently is serving a 33-year sentence for armed robbery.
Lawrence Taylor is in the Hall of Fame, though in his own 2003 book, "LT: Over the Edge," Taylor said he spent up to "thousands of dollars a day" on cocaine when playing in the NFL, and often broke narcotics laws.
Jack Kemp -- who was the AFL's all-time leading passer, then went on to a life of highly distinguished public service, including being the Republican Party candidate for vice president in 1996 -- is not. What's the distinction?
The distinction, in case Gregg is too ignorant to read what he just wrote is the Hall of Fame weights on-field performance and not off-field performance. Or as Gregg just put it:
As with past years, only the on-field performance of players, not their off-field failings (or accomplishments), will be weighed, while no one who's already been admitted will be expelled.
So he gave us the answer to the question before he asked the question. The reason off-the-field failings aren't included is because off-the-field failings aren't included in the Football Hall of Fame voting process. The Baseball Hall of Fame tends to count character into their inductions in the Hall of Fame and that has turned into a clusterfuck, so maybe the NFL knows why they are doing by not counting off-field character.
When Hall of Fame selectors and Hall of Fame management maintain they should consider only performance on the field, this conveniently excuses them from dealing with personal integrity. Disregarding integrity sets a terrible example. Hall of Fame officials and selectors who have children: Do you tell your children that character does not matter? Of course not. So why do you tell this to other people's children?
It's always about the kids to Gregg, isn't it? I never recall as a child knowing Ty Cobb was a dick and a racist and believing he didn't belong in the Hall of Fame. My feeble child mind knew that simply because he was a jerk off the field doesn't mean he shouldn't be recognized for his accomplishments on the field. Or maybe my feeble child mind didn't care. That's most likely it.
It is the Hall of Fame. That is the place where the best players to ever play in the NFL are honored. If a parent is taking a child to the Hall of Fame, it will not say on the plaque, "this person did a shitload of drugs and tried to have sex with underage women." It will show that person's football exploits. A child who wants to go to the football Hall of Fame won't be going there to see the nicest people who also happened to play football well, that child will be going to see the greatest players, on the field, honored with a shrine.
This is especially disturbing because the Hall of Fame is a tax-exempt 501c3 nonprofit organization -- officially, an "educational museum." Tax exemptions subsidize the Hall of Fame, which most emphatically does not behave in an "educational" manner.
How about the Washington Monument. George Washington had slaves. Should we tear this down? So did Thomas Jefferson? What about the Jefferson Memorial? Is it time for a wrecking ball to take it down?
Tomlin, as defense-minded as they come, was playing the percentages: Had the onside succeeded, and surprise onsides usually do,
Yep, surprise onsides usually succeed. Gregg would show some data to support this statement, but he's pretty much just hoping this statement is true.
Then Gregg goes into some strategy that I should really only call "vague strategy." It was more of him just making black and white statements about "if Team X does this, then Team Y will always do this."
Rohit Venkatasubban of Los Angeles reports, "While driving near LAX last week, I noticed a billboard advertising NFL Kickoff Weekend 2011. The Super Bowl hasn't even been played yet, and the start of the next season is already being advertised! Is our football addiction that bad?"
Yes, it is.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio filed a lawsuit last week against the operator of a House of Representatives cafeteria, claiming he is owed $150,000 because a sandwich he bought contained "dangerous substances" -- namely, an olive pit.
Plus it's absurd that media outlets emphasized the $150,000 number in Kucinich's absurd court filing. Damage awards are determined by the evidence and law, not the plaintiff's request. A plaintiff can ask for any number he pleases -- Kucinich could have asked for $150 billion. What the plaintiff asks for in cases of this nature usually means nothing. Reporters should know that, and ignore the headline-grabbing aspect of Rep. Kucinich's nonsense.
The media is simply reporting how much Kucinich asked for. That is news. They are reporting the news. What are media outlets supposed to do when reporting the story say, "Kucinich is suing for an amount of money we find absurd so we won't report it." Media outlets aren't saying Kucinich will get that much money, that's just how much he is suing for, which happens to be a fact.
But there's a larger problem at work -- too many standing ovations at theatrical shows, awards ceremonies, all kinds of public events.
Obviously. This is something that keeps me up at night. All those standing ovations...why??????
And though it's fun, as a high school kid, to see your parents standing to clap, realistically, rare is the high school musical or play that merits an ovation.
It is also rare that a TMQ deserves anything more than to be printed on toilet paper, yet ESPN continues to give them front page treatment.
Why has the standing ovation proliferated? Your columnist thinks it's a form of self-flattery for the audience, a way of saying, "I picked a great show." If you pay $250 for a Broadway ticket for a musical version of "Hedda Gabler," and the show is wretched, you leave feeling like a fool. If you leap to your feet in a standing ovation, as if you've just attended a work of art, you don't feel so bad about that $250.
I think this is perhaps the worst guess there could ever be. Most likely, one person stands up for an ovation and the rest of the people follow...much like cattle. I don't ever believe the audience members are applauding their choice of a show nor deluding themselves into believing they saw a good show. A group of people stand, then everyone stands so they aren't the asshole who is sitting.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback Challenge:
I will go ahead and give you a spoiler on what Gregg will write. That thing that caused the Packers to win the Super Bowl, well the Steelers should have not done what they did in that situation to let the Packers do that. The Steelers should have blitzed, unless that is what they did, in which case they should have not blitzed, unless that's what they did, in which case they should have blitzed.
Gregg Easterbrook has been on a noble crusade all year. He wants the NFL players to start using safer helmets to prevent concussions. I agree, NFL players should probably do this. Of course even when players do this, Gregg isn't happy. Now Aaron Rodgers is using a safer helmet and even credits it (but he isn't a doctor, so this should be taken with a grain of salt) with preventing another concussion in the NFC Championship game and this isn't enough for Gregg. He wants Rodgers to say which helmet he is using, in an attempt to make sure all of the high school football players that aren't playing football right now (as pointed out in the comments by Martin F. last week) know which helmet to choose this winter when they aren't playing football.
There is time to reveal this information before high school football starts is my basic point. Oh, and Gregg Easterbrook still annoys me is my other basic point.
All across the United States, football players and their parents -- there are 500 high school football players for each NFL player -- are worried about concussions, which a report released last week shows are rising in incidence.
Let me point out, for the third time, high school football is not currently being played. So parents are worried about concussions, but there is time to ease this worry. This isn't an incredibly time sensitive issue. If Aaron Rodgers doesn't reveal the helmet he is using, several hundred high school football athletes won't get a concussion by the end of this week.
Rodgers says the helmet prevented a concussion when he took a brutal blow to the head from Julius Peppers of the Chicago Bears in the NFC Championship Game.
So a Super Bowl quarterback has found a helmet that might reduce the concussion plague, protecting huge numbers of football players at the college, high school and youth levels. Good news?
Yes, it is the news Gregg has been whining about pretty much all year. A high-profile NFL player is using a safer helmet.
(cue "Hallelujah" chorus)
Here's my big question: Concussions are slippery things. Doctors aren't even exactly sure what causes a concussion or how a concussion exactly affects the human brain. So how does Aaron Rodgers know this helmet prevented him from sustaining another concussion and why does Gregg take this at face value and not second-guess Rodgers believe since he isn't a doctor. The obvious answer is Rodgers statement reflects something Gregg wants to believe, so he doesn't question the statement of a football player about a medical issue.
Here's the catch -- Rodgers won't tell you what kind of helmet he switched to. Neither will the Green Bay Packers.
Here's the catch on why they can't/won't tell people--there is this thing called a "contract" and the NFL has signed this "contract" with helmet maker Riddell to be the official helmet of the NFL. So either Rodgers or the Packers would be fined by the NFL for publicly revealing the exact brand of helmet Rodgers has been using. This is very unfortunate, but also not hugely surprising if you aren't a knee-jerk type person...which Gregg is.
Here's another reason he won't reveal the type of helmet. Neither the Packers or Aaron Rodgers know for sure the helmet prevented another concussion.
A Super Bowl quarterback and his team have information that might increase neurological safety -- and won't share it.
This may be the most dramatic way to arrange this sentence for maximum effect. Well, I can do one better...
"Aaron Rodgers has information that could save the life of thousands of adolescents, but won't reveal it. The Packers are his accomplice on this and don't seem to care about high school players safety because they won't announce how to save these thousands of adolescents' lives. Meanwhile, thousands have a higher risk of concussion due to Rodgers and the Packers actions."
I have a solution. Here's how you get the fucking information Gregg so desperately wants shared. Concerned parents can do this at home! Here's how:
-Open up your Internet browser
-Choose your favorite Internet search provider. I would suggest Google.
-Type in "safest anti-concussion helmet."
-Go to the very first link. You will see an article about DeSean Jackson's helmet.
-Use your eyes to read the column that Jackson wears a "Schutt" helmet.
-Use your brain to deduce "Schutt" may possibly make an anti-concussion helmet.
-Choose your favorite Internet search provider again.
-Type in "Schutt anti-concussion helmet."
-Choose the first link to see this helmet.
-Decide if you want to purchase this helmet.
There are other anti-concussion helmets out there. It isn't like Aaron Rodgers knows the location of a dead body and won't tell anyone. Any parent concerned enough about their child's brain will be concerned enough to take 10 minutes to examine the best helmets available. It's all public knowledge, yet Gregg acts as if it isn't.
When he returned to the field late in the year, Rodgers said he had switched to a helmet that reduces concussion risk. But he wouldn't be specific, leaving college and high school coaches and players in the dark.
College and high school coaches are in the dark? Are these by chance only the high school and college coaches that don't have hands, therefore aren't able to do an Internet search, or dial a phone to contact helmet manufacturers? If not, there is no excuse to be in the dark. There is plenty of information available on anti-concussion helmets out there. A person simply has to make an effort to find it.
Rodgers told Peter King of NBC he thought his new helmet prevented the vicious hit by Peppers -- whom the league fined $10,000 for unnecessary roughness -- from causing another concussion. "As much as the new helmet feels uncomfortable and I'm still getting used to it, I'm really happy I was wearing it on that hit,'' Rodgers said to King. But King's report did not include the critical item of information that all other football players, and the parents of young players, need -- namely, what kind of helmet.
We can guess it is not a Riddell helmet, because if it were, then Rodgers might be more forthcoming with the helmet type. Yeah, possibly Rodgers should reveal the type of helmet, but since Rodgers isn't a doctor he doesn't know for sure if the helmet actually did prevent the concussion. Again, with the advent of the Interwebs this information, a parent doesn't have to rely on Rodgers' endorsement and can do their own research.
There is another theory. Maybe Rodgers did have a concussion and doesn't want to reveal he did because of a fear he would be held out of the Super Bowl or should have been pulled off the field against the Bears. So Rodgers doesn't want to endorse a helmet that he know doesn't work, so he says the helmet did work to cover up for the fact he got hit hard and the hit could have easily concussed him and he would have had to be removed from game.
$100 says Gregg didn't think about this angle when he is criticizing the Packers and Rodgers because it didn't fit the point he was trying to prove.
So I asked the Packers again. Jeff Blumb, the team's director of public relations, told me, "I did check again on your behalf, and that's still not information we're comfortable sharing outside of our building."
Sort of stupid, yes, but the Packers may not want to reveal Rodgers isn't wearing a Riddell helmet for whatever reasons I have already discussed.
Each year 1.1 million boys, and a few girls, play middle school and high school football.
Each year 1.1 million boys, and a few girls, play middle school and high school football .
It looks like ESPN.com needs a better editor for Gregg's columns. This was printed twice in a row, once with the link, and once without the link.For the fourth time, there is no middle or high school football going on right now. Simmer down.
But the main reason large numbers of high school players wear obsolescent helmets is that below the level of the pros and big colleges, coaches, parents and athletic directors have no idea which helmets are best. They look to the top of the sport, the NFL, for guidance -- and receive none.
This is not the fault of college football, the NFL, the Packers or Aaron Rodgers. If high schools are too lazy to do their own research in an effort to get their football players better helmets, that's on them. The information is out there. There's no reason a school can't do its own research on this issue and should rely on the NFL or the NCAA to tell them what to do.
Like any athletic enterprise, the Packers have reason to keep game plans, training techniques and other such specifics private. But safety information should never be proprietary. Any information that improves sports safety should be declared openly, to all.
I don't know the NFL's policy on notifying the public their players aren't using a Riddell helmet, but I will guess the NFL would frown on the Packers publicly stating which helmet Rodgers is using. In an environment where concussions have become a major issue with the NFL, if the Packers announced the anti-concussion helmet their star quarterback endorses is not a Riddell then I would imagine the NFL wouldn't look kindly on that. It's a stupid reason possibly, but it has less to do with the Packers need to not get fined then it deals with them not looking out for high school kids.
Another reason the Packers haven't announced the type of helmet is...............the Packers aren't holding back information about safety from the public. The information is out there for anyone to find and Aaron Rodgers' statement he didn't sustain a concussion because of the helmet isn't exactly a fool-proof endorsement. Rodgers' statement isn't based on scientific data, but merely reflects his opinion.
NFL teams may be squeamish about revealing which helmets players wear because they think such an action makes them liable for any harm someone might sustain after donning a helmet of that type. As TMQ detailed here in November, this view is likely to be incorrect, in legal terms.
I love how Gregg just throws this in there. NFL teams may be concerned they could be sued for millions of dollars if they could potentially be found liable for any harm a person sustained while wearing said helmet. He throws this in like it is just a minor point and not really worthy of more discussion.
Then as the cherry on top, instead of saying how ridiculous this is, Gregg says this view is "likely" to be incorrect. So basically NFL teams may have a viable legal reason to not announce which helmet a player is using, but that's not good enough for Gregg because it is "likely" an incorrect reason. I am sure Gregg would be willing to take responsibility for paying any lawsuits that may arise from the Packers announcing which helmet Aaron Rodgers using (assuming a person gets hurt and sues), since he is adamant the Packers announce that type of helmet. It's not his money to lose, so he feels free to be as critical of the Packers as possible.
But if Green Bay is being held back by a mistaken belief about liability, the NFL needs to step in, and say, clearly, what helmet type and model is worn by Rodgers.
Riddell would love this. I am sure there is some language in the contract that would prohibit the NFL from doing this.
Safety information must never be withheld from the public. Withholding safety information is irresponsible. If a Super Bowl quarterback has found a helmet type that he believes reduces concussion risk, the team and the league have an ethical obligation to share the details.
Let's all remember Gregg is basing his entire criticism on the evaluations of Aaron Rodgers on how the helmet helped him not have a concussion. It is not like a doctor is reporting his findings, a football player is saying the helmet helped him not sustain a concussion. This may be completely false by the way. Aaron Rodgers is a lot of things, but he sure as hell isn't a doctor, so even advocating the use of the helmet to prevent concussions would be irresponsible of him and the Packers.
But just knowing a helmet brand isn't enough -- the model must be known, too. Riddell and Schutt, the leading manufacturers of football helmets, sell helmets engineered to reduce concussion risk and helmets that lack such engineering. The public needs to know both the brand and the model of whatever is on the head of Aaron Rodgers.
The public can do an Internet search and find it out with a good degree of certainty.
Riddell's advanced Revo Speed model (which my older son wore when playing college football) and the Schutt DNA (which I bought my young son when he played JV) are designed to reduce concussion risk, and data show this works. Is Rodgers wearing a Riddell Revo Speed or a Schutt DNA?
The odds are good if it were a Riddell helmet then Aaron Rodgers would say so. Logic dictates between the two choices given, that Aaron Rodgers is using a Schutt DNA. Go purchase accordingly. Problem solved.
The Schutt Ion helmet also has advanced engineering -- is Rodgers wearing an Ion? Is he wearing a Xenith X1, a new helmet brand designed around concussion prevention? Is he wearing the new Rawlings Quantum, which goes on the market soon, and was designed to reduce concussion risks? The public needs to know.
WHY? It isn't scientifically proven it prevented Rodgers from having a concussion. That's just his opinion. His opinion doesn't make it fact. Doctors have a fuzzy idea of what hits cause a concussion and which do not. Even a small hit could cause a concussion while sometimes a very hard hit doesn't do anything. Rodgers giving the type of helmet he uses would be in essence endorsing that helmet as effective, when he doesn't know if that helmet really benefited him from sustaining a concussion or not. Can't Gregg see this?
Regardless, a starting quarterback in Sunday's Super Bowl has found a helmet brand and model that he believes offers superior protection against concussions. Yet he won't say what the helmet is,
Rodgers is not a doctor. What he believe isn't medical truth or proof of anything. That's part of the core reason that Rodgers isn't announcing what type of helmet he has. What he believes is irrelevant in terms of whether it prevented him from having a concussion or not. I really wish Gregg could see this. He is getting his panties in a wad over what an NFL quarterback thinks prevented him from sustaining a concussion, which isn't based on scientific facts of any type.
Rodgers and the Packers should be widely criticized for this. Why won't they tell the country's million high school football players, and the players' parents, what the NFL knows about safety?
Because he doesn't know. He's guessing. If Aaron Rodgers said eating dog turds gave him better vision, does that mean kids all over America should start following their dogs around to collect poop so they can see as well as Rodgers does?
Two years ago in the Pittsburgh-Arizona Super Bowl, the Steelers contained Kurt Warner 'til the fourth quarter, when he threw for 247 yards, the rate of a 1,000-yard passing game.
Last week Gregg said the following about what the Steelers defense did to Warner:
In 2009, the Steelers won the Super Bowl by controlling Kurt Warner and the high-scoring Arizona offense.
This week, he doesn't believe the Steelers controlled Warner. What Gregg says or believes changes on a weekly basis, as determined by whatever point he is trying to prove.
Stat of the Week No. 7 Pittsburgh has the league's best defense against points, and Green Bay has the second-best defense against points.
"Defense against points?" I am not sure I have ever heard the amount of points per game a defense gives up phrased this way.
Cheerleader of the Week Erica of the Denver Broncos, who according to her team bio hosts a TV show on a Denver local-access channel and has been reading "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan, which contends that people should eat the foods -- mostly plants -- that our distant ancestors ate. The book's position is similar to advocacy of the Paleolithic diet.
Much like Rodgers' helmet issue, this belief should be taken as fact of course, and kids in school across America should eat a lunch based on the Paleolithic diet. Just like Aaron Rodgers is a doctor, Erica the Broncos cheer leader is a nutrition specialist.
That's the way winning pro football teams are built. Of course -- you have to be able to draft well, which eludes many highly paid NFL general managers.
Would it make it more acceptable to draft poorly if the general manager was poorly paid?
This weekend, the Hall of Fame selectors will choose the next class to wear the garish yellow jacket at Canton. As with past years, only the on-field performance of players, not their off-field failings (or accomplishments), will be weighed, while no one who's already been admitted will be expelled.
Consider: O.J. Simpson, a criminal, is in the Hall of Fame. Simpson currently is serving a 33-year sentence for armed robbery.
Lawrence Taylor is in the Hall of Fame, though in his own 2003 book, "LT: Over the Edge," Taylor said he spent up to "thousands of dollars a day" on cocaine when playing in the NFL, and often broke narcotics laws.
Jack Kemp -- who was the AFL's all-time leading passer, then went on to a life of highly distinguished public service, including being the Republican Party candidate for vice president in 1996 -- is not. What's the distinction?
The distinction, in case Gregg is too ignorant to read what he just wrote is the Hall of Fame weights on-field performance and not off-field performance. Or as Gregg just put it:
As with past years, only the on-field performance of players, not their off-field failings (or accomplishments), will be weighed, while no one who's already been admitted will be expelled.
So he gave us the answer to the question before he asked the question. The reason off-the-field failings aren't included is because off-the-field failings aren't included in the Football Hall of Fame voting process. The Baseball Hall of Fame tends to count character into their inductions in the Hall of Fame and that has turned into a clusterfuck, so maybe the NFL knows why they are doing by not counting off-field character.
When Hall of Fame selectors and Hall of Fame management maintain they should consider only performance on the field, this conveniently excuses them from dealing with personal integrity. Disregarding integrity sets a terrible example. Hall of Fame officials and selectors who have children: Do you tell your children that character does not matter? Of course not. So why do you tell this to other people's children?
It's always about the kids to Gregg, isn't it? I never recall as a child knowing Ty Cobb was a dick and a racist and believing he didn't belong in the Hall of Fame. My feeble child mind knew that simply because he was a jerk off the field doesn't mean he shouldn't be recognized for his accomplishments on the field. Or maybe my feeble child mind didn't care. That's most likely it.
It is the Hall of Fame. That is the place where the best players to ever play in the NFL are honored. If a parent is taking a child to the Hall of Fame, it will not say on the plaque, "this person did a shitload of drugs and tried to have sex with underage women." It will show that person's football exploits. A child who wants to go to the football Hall of Fame won't be going there to see the nicest people who also happened to play football well, that child will be going to see the greatest players, on the field, honored with a shrine.
This is especially disturbing because the Hall of Fame is a tax-exempt 501c3 nonprofit organization -- officially, an "educational museum." Tax exemptions subsidize the Hall of Fame, which most emphatically does not behave in an "educational" manner.
How about the Washington Monument. George Washington had slaves. Should we tear this down? So did Thomas Jefferson? What about the Jefferson Memorial? Is it time for a wrecking ball to take it down?
Tomlin, as defense-minded as they come, was playing the percentages: Had the onside succeeded, and surprise onsides usually do,
Yep, surprise onsides usually succeed. Gregg would show some data to support this statement, but he's pretty much just hoping this statement is true.
Then Gregg goes into some strategy that I should really only call "vague strategy." It was more of him just making black and white statements about "if Team X does this, then Team Y will always do this."
Rohit Venkatasubban of Los Angeles reports, "While driving near LAX last week, I noticed a billboard advertising NFL Kickoff Weekend 2011. The Super Bowl hasn't even been played yet, and the start of the next season is already being advertised! Is our football addiction that bad?"
Yes, it is.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio filed a lawsuit last week against the operator of a House of Representatives cafeteria, claiming he is owed $150,000 because a sandwich he bought contained "dangerous substances" -- namely, an olive pit.
Plus it's absurd that media outlets emphasized the $150,000 number in Kucinich's absurd court filing. Damage awards are determined by the evidence and law, not the plaintiff's request. A plaintiff can ask for any number he pleases -- Kucinich could have asked for $150 billion. What the plaintiff asks for in cases of this nature usually means nothing. Reporters should know that, and ignore the headline-grabbing aspect of Rep. Kucinich's nonsense.
The media is simply reporting how much Kucinich asked for. That is news. They are reporting the news. What are media outlets supposed to do when reporting the story say, "Kucinich is suing for an amount of money we find absurd so we won't report it." Media outlets aren't saying Kucinich will get that much money, that's just how much he is suing for, which happens to be a fact.
But there's a larger problem at work -- too many standing ovations at theatrical shows, awards ceremonies, all kinds of public events.
Obviously. This is something that keeps me up at night. All those standing ovations...why??????
And though it's fun, as a high school kid, to see your parents standing to clap, realistically, rare is the high school musical or play that merits an ovation.
It is also rare that a TMQ deserves anything more than to be printed on toilet paper, yet ESPN continues to give them front page treatment.
Why has the standing ovation proliferated? Your columnist thinks it's a form of self-flattery for the audience, a way of saying, "I picked a great show." If you pay $250 for a Broadway ticket for a musical version of "Hedda Gabler," and the show is wretched, you leave feeling like a fool. If you leap to your feet in a standing ovation, as if you've just attended a work of art, you don't feel so bad about that $250.
I think this is perhaps the worst guess there could ever be. Most likely, one person stands up for an ovation and the rest of the people follow...much like cattle. I don't ever believe the audience members are applauding their choice of a show nor deluding themselves into believing they saw a good show. A group of people stand, then everyone stands so they aren't the asshole who is sitting.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback Challenge:
The challenge is to compose a Black Eyed Peas song (one stanza and refrain, plus the title) using only the words and phrases below, plus common articles and conjunctions. Words you can use:
Body; boom; boom-boom; dance; dancing; dress; drink; drank; feeling; get; Goose; gotta; grab; here we come; here we go; high; hot; ladies; legs; money; melon ball; naked; night; now; off; party; pow; shake it; smoke; strip; toke; wanna; want; zoom.
I participated last year. This year, not so much. This is a pretty dumb idea. Of course, given how shitty the Black Eyed Peas are, they could very well steal the winner's idea, turn it into a song (or perhaps an entire album of the shit-music they make) and the moronic public will buy their music regardless. The Black Eyed Peas: Where a lack of talent and the public's lack of ability to decipher talent intersects.
Next Week: That Super Bowl thing you might have heard about.I will go ahead and give you a spoiler on what Gregg will write. That thing that caused the Packers to win the Super Bowl, well the Steelers should have not done what they did in that situation to let the Packers do that. The Steelers should have blitzed, unless that is what they did, in which case they should have not blitzed, unless that's what they did, in which case they should have blitzed.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
3 comments Bold Super Bowl Predictions
We posted our Super Bowl picks on Thursday, so feel free to look back from what we wrote on Thursday about the game to see what each of us said about the big game. I don't read what my fellow bloggers write until it is posted so I don't get influenced by what they write or accidentally put a similar point in theirs. I am weird like that. I probably should, but I don't. My point is that when I read Dylan's preview of the game he almost made me wish I had changed my pick to Green Bay...almost. It was more of a "heart over mind" issue with me though. As my wife said, she is surprised I didn't pick "my boyfriend" to win the game. I didn't do it though because I really believe the Steelers will win the game.
Having not done enough Super Bowl-oriented material, I thought we would do 10 more specific predictions to the game, as if we haven't made enough asses out of ourselves already with our analysis. Here are my 10 specific predictions for the Super Bowl. Some of them are hyper-specific.
1. Pittsburgh will use a trick play during the game. I will go further. They will use the trick play on the Packers 45 yard line and it won't involve Antwaan Randle-El at all. That's too obvious and the Packers will expect it.
2. Rashard Mendenhall will run for over 100 yards. Brandon Jackson will be the leading rusher for the Packers.
3. Ben Roethlisberger. Most likely the winning quarterback. Roethlisberger has been passed over twice for the award (rightly once) and will win it this year.
4. Mike Wallace will catch two passes over 30 yards long. One of these passes will caught due to him beating Sam Shields with a double move. Wallace will be the leading receiver in the game.
5. The quarterbacks will combine to be sacked 6 times in the game. Each quarterback will have one turnover. Roethlisberger will fumble the ball once and Rodgers will throw an interception.
6. James Harrison will get a penalty for leading with his head while making a tackle.
7. The Packers are going to open up the game throwing the ball a lot...and the Steelers are going to open up the game with not blitzing as much as they usually do in an effort to close off the passing lanes for Rodgers and make the Packers one dimensional.
8. Contrary to the last Super Bowl game the Steelers played in, we are going to have the feeling after this one is over that the Packers probably should have won. They may not have deserved to win, but they probably should have. Basically I am saying I think Green Bay will let the game slip away somehow.
9. The Steelers are going to frustrate Rodgers a bit early and not allow his receivers to gain extra yardage after the catch like they were able to do in the playoffs so far. Rodgers' yards per attempt will be under 6.0 in the first half.
10. The Packers will noticeably miss Jermichael Finley in this game. They will wish he were there to open up the field and put pressure on the Steelers linebackers.
Here are five other random predictions:
1. Roger Goodell will grimace when he hands Ben Roethlisberger the MVP trophy. Ben Roethlisberger will pat Goodell on the ass and then pretend to dry hump him. In his brief acceptance speech, Roethlisberger will dedicate his Super Bowl performance "to the ladies."
2. There will be at least one fight between a Packers and Steelers fan that gets some publicity. Most likely it will be over who is the true owner of some nachos found under the seat. It will later turn tragic when they both are eaten after the game by B.J. Raji who will say he mistook them for "rather Siamese twins dressed as large clowns." It won't make sense to the police either.
3. The name "Ben" will be spoken 67 times by Joe Buck. I know "Roethlisberger" is hard to say, but quit using his first name like he is your good buddy.
4. Aaron Rodgers will wear a throwback "Favre" jersey for the first half and throw two first quarter interceptions while constantly being praised for taking calculated risks by a confused Troy Aikman.
5. A drunken Bill Cowher will find his way on the field and challenge Mike Tomlin to a fight. Brett Favre will immediately see his opportunity to gain some relevance, break up the fight, and then begin plowing the field so the game can't be played. After the game is over, he will show the media pictures of his foot and describe how he was able to plow the field despite having a really, really sore foot. This will impress Peter King.
Dylan:
Since we're talking about hypothetical predictions that can be backed based on very little factual or logical evidence, it would seem that this is the perfect place for me to step in with 10 more predictions.
1. There will be a wardrobe malfunction during the halftime show.
2. B.J. Raji, when celebrating a sack, will surprise us with the best celebration of any kind during the 2010-11 season.
3. Aaron Rodgers will face off in a "our facemasks are touching in a semi-way-too-close way but there's no other way to trash talk intensely in the NFL" battle with a Steelers' linebacker.
4. The first special teams play of the game (tackle or good kickoff return) will be celebrated in an absurdly excessive manner.
5. Neither Mike McCarthy nor Mike Tomlin will crack a smile the entire game.
6. Ben Roethlisberger will have at least one "my uncommon methods are just as good as anything Brady or Manning can do" moment.
7. Joe Buck and Troy Aikman will attribute the first penalty of the game to nerves.
8. Jerry Jones will accept the Lombardi Trophy on behalf of the winning team.
9. At least 10 NFL players (not participating in the Super Bowl) will attempt to draw attention away from the game and to themselves through an unnecessary tweet.
10. The best Super Bowl commercial will be completely unrelated to alcohol.
Having not done enough Super Bowl-oriented material, I thought we would do 10 more specific predictions to the game, as if we haven't made enough asses out of ourselves already with our analysis. Here are my 10 specific predictions for the Super Bowl. Some of them are hyper-specific.
1. Pittsburgh will use a trick play during the game. I will go further. They will use the trick play on the Packers 45 yard line and it won't involve Antwaan Randle-El at all. That's too obvious and the Packers will expect it.
2. Rashard Mendenhall will run for over 100 yards. Brandon Jackson will be the leading rusher for the Packers.
3. Ben Roethlisberger. Most likely the winning quarterback. Roethlisberger has been passed over twice for the award (rightly once) and will win it this year.
4. Mike Wallace will catch two passes over 30 yards long. One of these passes will caught due to him beating Sam Shields with a double move. Wallace will be the leading receiver in the game.
5. The quarterbacks will combine to be sacked 6 times in the game. Each quarterback will have one turnover. Roethlisberger will fumble the ball once and Rodgers will throw an interception.
6. James Harrison will get a penalty for leading with his head while making a tackle.
7. The Packers are going to open up the game throwing the ball a lot...and the Steelers are going to open up the game with not blitzing as much as they usually do in an effort to close off the passing lanes for Rodgers and make the Packers one dimensional.
8. Contrary to the last Super Bowl game the Steelers played in, we are going to have the feeling after this one is over that the Packers probably should have won. They may not have deserved to win, but they probably should have. Basically I am saying I think Green Bay will let the game slip away somehow.
9. The Steelers are going to frustrate Rodgers a bit early and not allow his receivers to gain extra yardage after the catch like they were able to do in the playoffs so far. Rodgers' yards per attempt will be under 6.0 in the first half.
10. The Packers will noticeably miss Jermichael Finley in this game. They will wish he were there to open up the field and put pressure on the Steelers linebackers.
Here are five other random predictions:
1. Roger Goodell will grimace when he hands Ben Roethlisberger the MVP trophy. Ben Roethlisberger will pat Goodell on the ass and then pretend to dry hump him. In his brief acceptance speech, Roethlisberger will dedicate his Super Bowl performance "to the ladies."
2. There will be at least one fight between a Packers and Steelers fan that gets some publicity. Most likely it will be over who is the true owner of some nachos found under the seat. It will later turn tragic when they both are eaten after the game by B.J. Raji who will say he mistook them for "rather Siamese twins dressed as large clowns." It won't make sense to the police either.
3. The name "Ben" will be spoken 67 times by Joe Buck. I know "Roethlisberger" is hard to say, but quit using his first name like he is your good buddy.
4. Aaron Rodgers will wear a throwback "Favre" jersey for the first half and throw two first quarter interceptions while constantly being praised for taking calculated risks by a confused Troy Aikman.
5. A drunken Bill Cowher will find his way on the field and challenge Mike Tomlin to a fight. Brett Favre will immediately see his opportunity to gain some relevance, break up the fight, and then begin plowing the field so the game can't be played. After the game is over, he will show the media pictures of his foot and describe how he was able to plow the field despite having a really, really sore foot. This will impress Peter King.
Dylan:
Since we're talking about hypothetical predictions that can be backed based on very little factual or logical evidence, it would seem that this is the perfect place for me to step in with 10 more predictions.
1. There will be a wardrobe malfunction during the halftime show.
2. B.J. Raji, when celebrating a sack, will surprise us with the best celebration of any kind during the 2010-11 season.
3. Aaron Rodgers will face off in a "our facemasks are touching in a semi-way-too-close way but there's no other way to trash talk intensely in the NFL" battle with a Steelers' linebacker.
4. The first special teams play of the game (tackle or good kickoff return) will be celebrated in an absurdly excessive manner.
5. Neither Mike McCarthy nor Mike Tomlin will crack a smile the entire game.
6. Ben Roethlisberger will have at least one "my uncommon methods are just as good as anything Brady or Manning can do" moment.
7. Joe Buck and Troy Aikman will attribute the first penalty of the game to nerves.
8. Jerry Jones will accept the Lombardi Trophy on behalf of the winning team.
9. At least 10 NFL players (not participating in the Super Bowl) will attempt to draw attention away from the game and to themselves through an unnecessary tweet.
10. The best Super Bowl commercial will be completely unrelated to alcohol.
Friday, February 4, 2011
0 comments BotB Podcast #6
In this week's edition, BGF and I discuss quite a few topics, most of which were unplanned. College basketball and football recruiting, twitter, some more Melo and a host of other random gems that I cannot remember make their way into our weekly ramblings.Thursday, February 3, 2011
2 comments Super Bowl Picks
The Super Bowl is finally here. After months of guesses and hype about the Super Bowl, we can finally see who the best team in the NFL for 2010 really is. I am very much ready for the Super Bowl. I don't like the week that comes between the championship games and the Super Bowl. Of course there isn't much I can do about that because I think the NFL enjoys having that week between games. I just hope the Super Bowl is close and is fun to watch.
Green Bay Packers (-2.5) over Pittsburgh Steelers, 23-20.
J.S.
I hate the bye week before the Super Bowl. The Pro Bowl is barely football; all these ridiculous rules to avoid injury, no reason whatsoever to watch it. Everyone basically has to sort of pretend football doesn't exist for a week in order not to burn out on over analysis. Only around now can we really think about the game itself. The pinnacle of the season, and we have to awkwardly avoid the topic like it was a deformed child. It seems entirely plausible to me that one day we're gonna forget to talk about the Super Bowl entirely because we don't want to start talking about it too early. "Is now ok?...Or like now?" How is this a good thing for the NFL?
Anyway...
SUPER BOWL XLV
GREEN BAY V PITTSBURGH @ DALLAS
Line: Green Bay -2.5
Pick: Pittsburgh 27-20
The line is wrong
Did I miss something? Is Ben Roethlisberger dead or something? It's actually very close to -3 here, which would be generous to the Packers even if they were playing in Lambeau. The Steelers won more games, play in the better conference, play in a better division, have won two Super Bowls in the last 5 years, are 11-2 in their last 13 playoff games, have the better running game, have the better defense, have the better special teams, have the better coach and are healthier. Pittsburgh were 7-1 away from Heinz this year, Green Bay, including the playoffs, are 6-5 out of Wisconsin. What the hell is going on here? I grant you, if the Jets had made it this would have been a no brainer to pick the Jets. Rodgers only has four guys to throw to and must throw to Jennings (can't afford to one yard Reggie Wayne it) and Revis is just better. No way the Pack could have moved the ball there. Pittsburgh is a better matchup for them, but still, this pick is the easiest I have made in these playoffs (even easier than Ravens@Chiefs). Could the Packers win this game? Absolutely, of course. Should they be favoured? Obviously not.
The Steelers defense is better
Much like Jules Winfield in quoting bible verses, Pittsburgh has been doing this shit for years. Green Bay have been a good defense for quite a while but Pittsburgh quite simply is the defensive gold standard in the NFL (in three of the last four years they have been first or second in both yardage and points conceded). And it's not just a matter of looking to the past, Green Bay cannot stop the run (4.7 ypc against this year). If Indianapolis had numbers like that people woud never shut up about it, Green Bay has them and they are put up as a potentially league leading defense. Again, am I missing something? Tier 1 defenses are the Steelers and Jets in my mind, then Baltimore a little behind, then a messy Tier 3 with Chicago, Green Bay and maybe San Diego, Miami and the Giants hovering around. Good defense? Yes. Pittsburgh level good? No.
Speaking of the rushing game
What happens if Green Bay can't run. Like at all. Sure, we know if they get 50 odd yards, fine, just enough to set up the play action you may say. But at what point does the lack of a ground game just take Green Bay completely out of this game? 25 yards? 15 yards? What about single figures? I remember Detroit a few years back rushed for negative 18 yards. At that point, I don't know if Green Bay even can win. Pittsburgh held ball carriers this year to 3.0 ypc. The next closest was San Diego with 3.5. Unbelievably good run defense. During the season, they faced Michael Turner (42 yards on 19 carries), Chris Johnson (34 on 16), Ray Rice (20 on 8, 32 on 9 and 32 on 12), Darren McFadden (14 on 10) and Shonn Greene (39 on 12 and a good game last week to be fair with 52 on 9). Now they face...James Starks (Green Bay was 25th in the league in yards per rush with 3.8ypc). Who has averaged 2.97 ypc over the last two weeks, but to be fair, he has had Joe Buck riding his nuts the whole time so it can't be easy.
Green Bay's offense
Been the story of the playoffs right? Call it what you want; explosive, scintillating, big play, fine. I tell you one word you can't use to describe it.
Unpredictable
This is an incredibly predictable offense. The amount of times it was just Rodgers to Jennings for 21, 22, 20, 22, 23 yards last week was ridiculous. Especially on first down - 4 of the five 20+ Jennings catches were on first down and he was targeted deep another time on first down. You know exactly what they'll do, and it's not even just "pass" but the kinds of passes they throw and the players they throw it too. When Jennings wasn't going deep (generally across the middle) for 20 yard catches, he was running a quick slant inside. Backs and tight ends had 35 yards receiving against the Falcons, but were even worse last week, with just 28 yards. Pittsburgh eats predictable offenses for breakfast.
The NFC sucks
The first round of picks I made I noted "I said earlier I think the NFC is shit, and I do. Chicago is a middling team, Atlanta is neat and organised but far from exciting. New Orleans seem clearly exhausted in getting here, Seattle are Seattle." I stand by that comment (admittedly it was made in the midst of a firey tirade picking Philly to beat Green Bay). The NFC was shit this year. Any conference that delivers you Chicago and Atlanta as top seeds is having a rough year. Sure, Green Bay finished behind Chicago largely due to injuries, but those players are still out. Green Bay's victories over Philly, Atlanta and Chicago don't rate nearly as highly in my opinion as wins over the Ravens and Jets. This is a sixth seed in a conference I don't rate, against a second seed in a conference full of teams I love (and where Miami and San Diego - who had the #1 offense and defense this year remember- couldn't make it). Green Bay did play a better schedule than most NFC teams (NFC and AFC East and also drew the Falcons) but even so, to be consistant I basically have to pick Pittsburgh.
Bengoodfella
Green Bay Packers v. Pittsburgh Steelers
1. I think the dumbest thing I have read this week concerns the Packers running game and whether they should even try to run the ball against the Steelers. Sure, there may be some data that supports throwing the ball a lot against the Steelers may be beneficial, but any game plan that pretty much cuts out the passing game is a flawed game plan in my mind. Why make your team one-dimensional before the game even begins? Green Bay is 5th in the NFL against the pass and I doubt the Steelers are going to try and give up on the passing game. The Steelers are 1st in the NFL in rush defense, but the Jets ran for 70 yards against the Steelers and they were pretty much playing catch up in the second half. Like every team, the Steelers can be run against with the right play calling. If the Packers defense is on top of its game and doesn't spot the Steelers a lead, then absolutely the Packers should try and run the ball. Granted, Green Bay's offensive game plan is focused on trying to throw the ball well, but there is nothing wrong with running the ball some. The Steelers are great against the run, but the Packers passing game should make the running game successful...or at least give it a chance at success.
2. On defense, the Steelers are going to try to need to focus on the Packers receivers and make sure they don't leave the middle of the field open like the Falcons and Bears seemed to do. The Packers love running quick slants when Rodgers sees a blitz coming, so disguising their blitzes will help the Steelers tremendously when it comes confusing Aaron Rodgers. That's really what it is all about too...confusing Aaron Rodgers. If he is comfortable in the pocket then he is going to be able to have his way passing the ball, which will lead to a Packers victory. Having said the Packers still have to run the ball, but it wouldn't shock me to see them take a play out of the Cardinals playbook from the 2009 Super Bowl and try to sling the ball around early. The Cardinals didn't as much success in that game when they tried to run the ball and gave the Steelers a chance to blitz at will. Once Warner was able to drop back sling the ball around and get Larry Fitzgerald into the game, the Steelers had trouble stopping the Cardinals. The absolute strength of the Steelers are in the linebackers. When the Steelers blitz there could be open passing lanes if the blitz is picked up. The Steelers linebackers make the secondary's job much easier by getting pressure on the quarterback. There is no blueprint to solve the Steelers zone blitz scheme, except identifying where the pressure is coming from and blocking the blitzers. When the Packers are on offense the game is going to revolve around the chess game of Rodgers identifying blitzers, the offensive line blocking these blitzers and then the Steelers either correctly disguising the blitz or the Packers picking up the blitz. If Aaron Rodgers is comfortable the Packers can win, if he is feeling pressured and rushed in the pocket then the Steelers linebackers are going to have sacks and put the Packers in tough third down situations...which is really when the blitzes can be dialed up.
3. I see the Packers using a sort of inverted offense. Rodgers will try to get rid of the ball quickly to avoid the blitz and use the short passing game as the running game. I think the Packers will use the actual running game as a way of keeping the linebackers honest and now allowing them to drift back into passing lanes. I think the Steelers defense can get to Aaron Rodgers. The Packers offensive line hasn't faced a defense like the blitz-heavy Steelers but once this year, which was against the Jets, and they only scored 9 points in that game. I expect Dick LeBeau to show Rodgers a few blitzes he hasn't seen quite yet this year on tape. As good as the Packers offensive line has played, the Steelers defense has the ability to control the first 7-8 yards off the line of scrimmage no matter how good the opposing offensive line is. Knowing this, the Packers should not abandon the running game, but the Steelers also need to be aware that the Jets had success throwing the ball in the second half against their defense, so the Packers very well may come out trying to sling the ball around the field in the hopes of slowing down the Steelers blitz and scoring some early points. As a result of this, I wouldn't doubt the Steelers could come out and possibly not blitz as much as they usually do believing the Packers will come out throwing...or they may do the opposite. Either way, at some point the Packers offensive line is going to get hit with well-disguised blitzes.
4. Defensively, the Packers are no pushover. They have done well in the playoffs beating a scrambling quarterback, a typical pocket quarterback and a gunslinger-type quarterback (though you may have heard something about Cutler being injured early in this game). The Packers defense is on a roll, while the same can be said for the Steelers running game. They gashed the Jets in the first half with Rashard Mendenhall. While the Jets were 3rd in the NFL against the run, the Packers are only 18th against the run. So the Steelers on offense may end up going old-school and trying to run the ball on the Packers. The Packers got out to early leads in all three games they have played so far, so I can't help but wonder if teams can run the ball on them in a close game. It is incredibly obvious, but the Packers have to get to Ben Roethlisberger. He is like a magician in the pocket, how he seems to get out of being sacked when it seems he is in the defender's grasp. The Packers probably like the matchups they have in the passing game, even when the Steelers put Mike Wallace in the slot against Sam Shields. Shields can keep up with Wallace, but I still think if those two are matched up it favors Wallace due to Shield's relative inexperience. The Packers seem to have a secondary that on paper could match up with the Steelers passing game, but if Roethlisberger can buy time in the pocket and run around the field at will then the Packers aren't going to be able to cover the Steelers receivers that entire time.
5. This seems like a fairly even matchup between two quality teams. Regardless of whether Maurkice Pouncey plays or not, the Steelers offensive line always looks much better because Roethlisberger can evade the rush so well. I look for Dom Capers to dial up some creative blitzes this week and try to get at Roethlisberger, while containing him in the pocket. The Steelers offensive line isn't a sieve, but it also isn't solid. The key is pressure up the middle with pressure up the side as well. This keeps Roethlisberger from having a lot of places to run. The Packers are going to want to treat him the way they did Mike Vick and close him in. I think the biggest player on the Steelers offense may end up being Heath Miller. The Packers have done a good job on tight ends in the playoffs and if Miller is able to rule the middle of the field then it will force the Packers to dedicate a safety or cornerback on Miller, which will open up other matchups across the field for them. I believe the Packers are going to be able to get at Roethlisberger, and if they do, they have to bring him down. This is much easier said than done.
I don't know if it is a secret who I am cheering for. I want Aaron Rodgers to get a ring and make the people of Green Bay to forget about Lord Favre. I have nothing against Steelers fans, but since North Carolina feels like Pittsburgh-South it wouldn't hurt my feelings to have the local terrible towel twirlers to be denied Super Bowl ring number seven. In the end, it doesn't matter what I want because Pittsburgh is going to run the ball well and Dick LeBeau will find ways to get at Aaron Rodgers. The Packers are a good team, but the Steelers have a good enough offense to hold the Packers in check and are smart enough offensively to take advantage of the Packers aggressive defense.
Pittsburgh Steelers (+2.5) over Green Bay Packers 28-24.
Dylan
I'll go ahead and say it right off the bat: I don't think Super Bowl experience matters. The amount of turnover among NFL rosters destroys any idea of past team success. Santonio Holmes, the Super Bowl MVP, is gone. Willie Parker is no longer a featured back. The offensive line has 4 new guys. The defense, on the other hand, is relatively the same. Yet the last time they played, Kurt Warner had his way, passing for 377 yards. So what did they take out of that game? Don't play that badly. Luckily for Green Bay, they'll probably have that mentality anyway.
Every game leading up to the Super Bowl has the same thing on the line. While the prize of the Super Bowl is clearly greater, the nerves are only greater at the beginning. For anyone who has played in any game of consequence, nerves dissipate after only a few minutes. Players are used to playing on an NFL stage, where millions are watching anyway. The added pressure, in my opinion, will not make the difference.
Although I have already defended Big Ben once, but I've recently noticed something to poke a hole in his shining post-season armor. In every Super Bowl season, the path has been handed to him on a silver platter. Ignore your opinion on Big Ben's success as a result of the team or the individual. Regardless of who deserves the credit, opponents must be taken into consideration. In 2006, Pittsburgh took out then Pro Bowl Carson Palmer by tearing his ACL. Pittsburgh only scraped by Indianapolis in the next round due to a Big Ben arm tackle and the most accurate kicker in NFL history's inability to nail a game tying field goal. In the AFC Championship game, they faced a weak Denver team, lead by the immortal Jake the snake. And then in the Super Bowl, they faced quite possibly the weakest #1 seed of all time, the Seattle Seahawks. In 2008, they squeaked out a divisional round victory despite Phillip Rivers tearing apart their defense for over 300 yards passing. In the AFC Championship game, they lucked out again, facing a rookie Joe Flacco. And in the Super Bowl, they took on the defensively and runningly challenged Arizona Cardinals. This season, while impressively defeating the Baltimore Ravens, they managed to avoid the Pats and Colts, instead getting the ideal home matchup against the Jets.
I do not mean to take away credit from the Steelers accomplishments. A win in the post-season is a win in the post-season, no matter whom you play. But it's unfair to heap praise on a team that has, for the most part, escaped the Indianapolis' and New England's during their Super Bowl runs.
Anyway, back to the game at hand. In my mind, momentum plays a greater role than any other tangible factor. As Bengoodfella's final score demonstrates, this is a close game on paper. No matter how you grade each player or each set of positions, neither team's victory will send shock waves throughout the NFL. This is no Giants/Pats, Saints/Colts matchup. This is clearly a matchup of two of the best teams in the NFL. And in a matchup of great players, it comes down to the Quarterbacks. Big Ben clearly has the ability to win a big game, consistently making plays when it counts. But just because Aaron Rodgers has not made those plays does not mean he cannot. When we discuss the best QBs in the NFL, ultimately they are the same ones who are the most clutch. The question is, therefore, which way the correlation runs. To me, it's that greatness leads to ability in the clutch.
Big Ben has never faced a QB and a team of this caliber before in the Super Bowl. Even though 2008 saw him faceoff against HoF caliber Kurt Warner, the defense could not match his offensive prowess. The Green Bay defense, however, is every bit as good as the Packers' offense. Whereas Big Ben could rely on the rest of the team to pick up the slack, don't expect that this time around. In terms of pure Quarterbacking ability, I'll take Aaron Rodgers. As clutch as Big Ben may be, we'll be crowning a new elite and clutch NFL QB by the time this one is over.
J.S.
Anyway...
SUPER BOWL XLV
GREEN BAY V PITTSBURGH @ DALLAS
Line: Green Bay -2.5
Pick: Pittsburgh 27-20
The line is wrong
Did I miss something? Is Ben Roethlisberger dead or something? It's actually very close to -3 here, which would be generous to the Packers even if they were playing in Lambeau. The Steelers won more games, play in the better conference, play in a better division, have won two Super Bowls in the last 5 years, are 11-2 in their last 13 playoff games, have the better running game, have the better defense, have the better special teams, have the better coach and are healthier. Pittsburgh were 7-1 away from Heinz this year, Green Bay, including the playoffs, are 6-5 out of Wisconsin. What the hell is going on here? I grant you, if the Jets had made it this would have been a no brainer to pick the Jets. Rodgers only has four guys to throw to and must throw to Jennings (can't afford to one yard Reggie Wayne it) and Revis is just better. No way the Pack could have moved the ball there. Pittsburgh is a better matchup for them, but still, this pick is the easiest I have made in these playoffs (even easier than Ravens@Chiefs). Could the Packers win this game? Absolutely, of course. Should they be favoured? Obviously not.
The Steelers defense is better
Much like Jules Winfield in quoting bible verses, Pittsburgh has been doing this shit for years. Green Bay have been a good defense for quite a while but Pittsburgh quite simply is the defensive gold standard in the NFL (in three of the last four years they have been first or second in both yardage and points conceded). And it's not just a matter of looking to the past, Green Bay cannot stop the run (4.7 ypc against this year). If Indianapolis had numbers like that people woud never shut up about it, Green Bay has them and they are put up as a potentially league leading defense. Again, am I missing something? Tier 1 defenses are the Steelers and Jets in my mind, then Baltimore a little behind, then a messy Tier 3 with Chicago, Green Bay and maybe San Diego, Miami and the Giants hovering around. Good defense? Yes. Pittsburgh level good? No.
Speaking of the rushing game
What happens if Green Bay can't run. Like at all. Sure, we know if they get 50 odd yards, fine, just enough to set up the play action you may say. But at what point does the lack of a ground game just take Green Bay completely out of this game? 25 yards? 15 yards? What about single figures? I remember Detroit a few years back rushed for negative 18 yards. At that point, I don't know if Green Bay even can win. Pittsburgh held ball carriers this year to 3.0 ypc. The next closest was San Diego with 3.5. Unbelievably good run defense. During the season, they faced Michael Turner (42 yards on 19 carries), Chris Johnson (34 on 16), Ray Rice (20 on 8, 32 on 9 and 32 on 12), Darren McFadden (14 on 10) and Shonn Greene (39 on 12 and a good game last week to be fair with 52 on 9). Now they face...James Starks (Green Bay was 25th in the league in yards per rush with 3.8ypc). Who has averaged 2.97 ypc over the last two weeks, but to be fair, he has had Joe Buck riding his nuts the whole time so it can't be easy.
Green Bay's offense
Been the story of the playoffs right? Call it what you want; explosive, scintillating, big play, fine. I tell you one word you can't use to describe it.
Unpredictable
This is an incredibly predictable offense. The amount of times it was just Rodgers to Jennings for 21, 22, 20, 22, 23 yards last week was ridiculous. Especially on first down - 4 of the five 20+ Jennings catches were on first down and he was targeted deep another time on first down. You know exactly what they'll do, and it's not even just "pass" but the kinds of passes they throw and the players they throw it too. When Jennings wasn't going deep (generally across the middle) for 20 yard catches, he was running a quick slant inside. Backs and tight ends had 35 yards receiving against the Falcons, but were even worse last week, with just 28 yards. Pittsburgh eats predictable offenses for breakfast.
The NFC sucks
The first round of picks I made I noted "I said earlier I think the NFC is shit, and I do. Chicago is a middling team, Atlanta is neat and organised but far from exciting. New Orleans seem clearly exhausted in getting here, Seattle are Seattle." I stand by that comment (admittedly it was made in the midst of a firey tirade picking Philly to beat Green Bay). The NFC was shit this year. Any conference that delivers you Chicago and Atlanta as top seeds is having a rough year. Sure, Green Bay finished behind Chicago largely due to injuries, but those players are still out. Green Bay's victories over Philly, Atlanta and Chicago don't rate nearly as highly in my opinion as wins over the Ravens and Jets. This is a sixth seed in a conference I don't rate, against a second seed in a conference full of teams I love (and where Miami and San Diego - who had the #1 offense and defense this year remember- couldn't make it). Green Bay did play a better schedule than most NFC teams (NFC and AFC East and also drew the Falcons) but even so, to be consistant I basically have to pick Pittsburgh.
Bengoodfella
Green Bay Packers v. Pittsburgh Steelers
1. I think the dumbest thing I have read this week concerns the Packers running game and whether they should even try to run the ball against the Steelers. Sure, there may be some data that supports throwing the ball a lot against the Steelers may be beneficial, but any game plan that pretty much cuts out the passing game is a flawed game plan in my mind. Why make your team one-dimensional before the game even begins? Green Bay is 5th in the NFL against the pass and I doubt the Steelers are going to try and give up on the passing game. The Steelers are 1st in the NFL in rush defense, but the Jets ran for 70 yards against the Steelers and they were pretty much playing catch up in the second half. Like every team, the Steelers can be run against with the right play calling. If the Packers defense is on top of its game and doesn't spot the Steelers a lead, then absolutely the Packers should try and run the ball. Granted, Green Bay's offensive game plan is focused on trying to throw the ball well, but there is nothing wrong with running the ball some. The Steelers are great against the run, but the Packers passing game should make the running game successful...or at least give it a chance at success.
2. On defense, the Steelers are going to try to need to focus on the Packers receivers and make sure they don't leave the middle of the field open like the Falcons and Bears seemed to do. The Packers love running quick slants when Rodgers sees a blitz coming, so disguising their blitzes will help the Steelers tremendously when it comes confusing Aaron Rodgers. That's really what it is all about too...confusing Aaron Rodgers. If he is comfortable in the pocket then he is going to be able to have his way passing the ball, which will lead to a Packers victory. Having said the Packers still have to run the ball, but it wouldn't shock me to see them take a play out of the Cardinals playbook from the 2009 Super Bowl and try to sling the ball around early. The Cardinals didn't as much success in that game when they tried to run the ball and gave the Steelers a chance to blitz at will. Once Warner was able to drop back sling the ball around and get Larry Fitzgerald into the game, the Steelers had trouble stopping the Cardinals. The absolute strength of the Steelers are in the linebackers. When the Steelers blitz there could be open passing lanes if the blitz is picked up. The Steelers linebackers make the secondary's job much easier by getting pressure on the quarterback. There is no blueprint to solve the Steelers zone blitz scheme, except identifying where the pressure is coming from and blocking the blitzers. When the Packers are on offense the game is going to revolve around the chess game of Rodgers identifying blitzers, the offensive line blocking these blitzers and then the Steelers either correctly disguising the blitz or the Packers picking up the blitz. If Aaron Rodgers is comfortable the Packers can win, if he is feeling pressured and rushed in the pocket then the Steelers linebackers are going to have sacks and put the Packers in tough third down situations...which is really when the blitzes can be dialed up.
3. I see the Packers using a sort of inverted offense. Rodgers will try to get rid of the ball quickly to avoid the blitz and use the short passing game as the running game. I think the Packers will use the actual running game as a way of keeping the linebackers honest and now allowing them to drift back into passing lanes. I think the Steelers defense can get to Aaron Rodgers. The Packers offensive line hasn't faced a defense like the blitz-heavy Steelers but once this year, which was against the Jets, and they only scored 9 points in that game. I expect Dick LeBeau to show Rodgers a few blitzes he hasn't seen quite yet this year on tape. As good as the Packers offensive line has played, the Steelers defense has the ability to control the first 7-8 yards off the line of scrimmage no matter how good the opposing offensive line is. Knowing this, the Packers should not abandon the running game, but the Steelers also need to be aware that the Jets had success throwing the ball in the second half against their defense, so the Packers very well may come out trying to sling the ball around the field in the hopes of slowing down the Steelers blitz and scoring some early points. As a result of this, I wouldn't doubt the Steelers could come out and possibly not blitz as much as they usually do believing the Packers will come out throwing...or they may do the opposite. Either way, at some point the Packers offensive line is going to get hit with well-disguised blitzes.
4. Defensively, the Packers are no pushover. They have done well in the playoffs beating a scrambling quarterback, a typical pocket quarterback and a gunslinger-type quarterback (though you may have heard something about Cutler being injured early in this game). The Packers defense is on a roll, while the same can be said for the Steelers running game. They gashed the Jets in the first half with Rashard Mendenhall. While the Jets were 3rd in the NFL against the run, the Packers are only 18th against the run. So the Steelers on offense may end up going old-school and trying to run the ball on the Packers. The Packers got out to early leads in all three games they have played so far, so I can't help but wonder if teams can run the ball on them in a close game. It is incredibly obvious, but the Packers have to get to Ben Roethlisberger. He is like a magician in the pocket, how he seems to get out of being sacked when it seems he is in the defender's grasp. The Packers probably like the matchups they have in the passing game, even when the Steelers put Mike Wallace in the slot against Sam Shields. Shields can keep up with Wallace, but I still think if those two are matched up it favors Wallace due to Shield's relative inexperience. The Packers seem to have a secondary that on paper could match up with the Steelers passing game, but if Roethlisberger can buy time in the pocket and run around the field at will then the Packers aren't going to be able to cover the Steelers receivers that entire time.
5. This seems like a fairly even matchup between two quality teams. Regardless of whether Maurkice Pouncey plays or not, the Steelers offensive line always looks much better because Roethlisberger can evade the rush so well. I look for Dom Capers to dial up some creative blitzes this week and try to get at Roethlisberger, while containing him in the pocket. The Steelers offensive line isn't a sieve, but it also isn't solid. The key is pressure up the middle with pressure up the side as well. This keeps Roethlisberger from having a lot of places to run. The Packers are going to want to treat him the way they did Mike Vick and close him in. I think the biggest player on the Steelers offense may end up being Heath Miller. The Packers have done a good job on tight ends in the playoffs and if Miller is able to rule the middle of the field then it will force the Packers to dedicate a safety or cornerback on Miller, which will open up other matchups across the field for them. I believe the Packers are going to be able to get at Roethlisberger, and if they do, they have to bring him down. This is much easier said than done.
I don't know if it is a secret who I am cheering for. I want Aaron Rodgers to get a ring and make the people of Green Bay to forget about Lord Favre. I have nothing against Steelers fans, but since North Carolina feels like Pittsburgh-South it wouldn't hurt my feelings to have the local terrible towel twirlers to be denied Super Bowl ring number seven. In the end, it doesn't matter what I want because Pittsburgh is going to run the ball well and Dick LeBeau will find ways to get at Aaron Rodgers. The Packers are a good team, but the Steelers have a good enough offense to hold the Packers in check and are smart enough offensively to take advantage of the Packers aggressive defense.
Pittsburgh Steelers (+2.5) over Green Bay Packers 28-24.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
2 comments MMQB Review: Screw the Super Bowl, Let's Talk About the Lockout Edition
It's Super Bowl week. It's all hype and no football. Everyone pretend you are excited. The week between the AFC and NFC Championship Games and the Super Bowl is an interminable period of time. Of course it is better than the month and a half wait for the National Championship in college football so I shouldn't complain. Peter isn't interested in talking about the Super Bowl this week in MMQB, he wants to talk about the lockout and he wants us all to know Roger Goodell, the same guy who earns around $11 million last time I heard, works really hard. In fact, he works so especially, really hard there are people worried about him. He has a work ethic while earning his $11 million paycheck you wouldn't understand.
When the Packers and Steelers practice Wednesday through Friday -- Green Bay at the Cowboys' complex in Irving, Pittsburgh at the Texas Christian University facility in Fort Worth, 38 miles west of here -- the daily high temps will be 27, 36 and 38, respectively. Oh, and with snow showers and wintry mix off and on. Gotta love these temperate Super Bowl sites.
I think there should be a rule. If the NFL refuses to rotate the Super Bowl sites among warm weather cities, then the NFL writers should stop bitching about how cold it is at the site of the Super Bowl. Having the Super Bowl in New Jersey isn't the greatest idea ever, I will admit that. Use your journalistic persuasive techniques to get the NFL to start rotating the Super Bowl among sure-fire warm cities or shut up. You are at the Super Bowl and getting paid to be there. Feel lucky.
Just for fun, let's look at the high for those three days in East Rutherford, where the Super Bowl, ridiculously, is scheduled to be played in 2014. The highs: 40, 22 and 31. So, the average high in and around Arlington, where the Super Bowl will be played Sunday, 34 for the three practice days. In New Jersey: 31.
We'll start off with a tease for a project of mine. I've spent some time this season following Commissioner Roger Goodell around
Peter hasn't been paid, mind you, for following Roger Goodell around. He's just been doing it on his own free will. He has some free time since Brett Favre had gotten injured at the end of last season and figured he would test the quality of the security system cameras at the Goodell Estate. Peter has learned if you hop the bushes in the back and try to enter the house through the patio, the cameras won't catch your presence at all.
Earlier this year Bill Simmons made a snide comment about King and Goodell taking this picture together (scroll down all of the way). The picture where Peter King looks like a little kid who gets to eat lunch with his hero and Goodell looks like he is passing a gallstone. At the time, I think Bill rightly criticized him, because eating lunch and being best friends with those he covers has always seemed to be a problem for Peter. So at the time, it was justified criticism.
But...
for a story due to run in Sports Illustrated this week. It's the longest piece I've done for the magazine, around 6,800 words (if the editors are kind). It's not so much about the labor deal, more about just who this guy is -- though, obviously, I try to illustrate whether he can bridge the oceanic gap in these talks between players and owners.
He was eating lunch for an article he was writing. Peter probably went into the Sports Illustrated offices in mid-December and asked to write a story about Goodell and was told "no." Then Peter most likely brought out the 18 hours of footage he had taped where he followed Goodell around everywhere he went without him knowing, including in Goodell's own house. Sports Illustrated figured they may as well go ahead with the writing project to avoid a lawsuit.
Paul Tagliabue doesn't regret his 2006 deal. You know, the one everyone blames him for pushing through and causing this current mess. "We knew it'd be terminated at the earliest possible date,'' Tagliabue told me of the March 2006 deal that had an opt-out date after just two seasons for either side. "We knew it wasn't sustainable long-term.''
Well good. I am glad you got that non-sustainable short-term deal done until you were no longer commissioner.
This is the deal that looks so bad in retrospect. It's the deal that might well be keeping Tagliabue out of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the thinking being that he shepherded the deal through ownership without being concerned about the aftermath.
I can see how someone would blame Tagliabue for pushing through a short-term deal that doesn't look out for the people he was intending to help and is only sustainable in the short-term. It sounds like a huge fail on its face. In terms of how Congress gets deals done, this is would be a huge success, but I am not sure NFL commissioners can look to the short-term results of this prevented lockout to measure success.
He seemed nonplused about it. "Would it have been better,'' he asked me, "If we'd had a lockout in '07 or '08? No. Not at all. The league has had three or four great seasons of football since then.''
Yes, but now there may be no football in the year 2011 and the two sides are nowhere near an agreement. Essentially, the problem got pushed back a few years and now both sides are more pissed off. From what I know, I am not sure how this position of Taglibue's could be defended. All the hard work that could have been done four years ago is having to take place now.
"History shows there's no real pressure to get a deal 'til you get to September,'' Tagliabue said.
If a deal gets done in September, I doubt football could start to be played the week after a deal gets done. So football will be missed, which was the "advantage" of the crappy deal in 2006. Basically, it sounds like Tagliabue just didn't want the lockout on his watch, so he set up a crap deal to appease everyone short-term knowing in the long-term bigger issues (18 game season, the Player's union not wanting a rookie cap) would rear their heads later when he was no longer commissioner. It just sounds like this is how it happened.
Goodell's friends think he's working too hard. "I'm mad at him right now,'' Jerry Richardson, a key negotiator for the owners and confidant of Goodell, told me in December. When I asked why, he wouldn't say. But Goodell said it's because Richardson believes he's working too hard.
Jerry Richardson then went out and fired every employee who works for the Carolina Panthers because they make too much money, hired replacement NFL players, and paid all of his new employees minimum wage...then raised ticket prices on the fans before he announced he did all of this.
(Yeah, I'm a bit bitter. The whole "we'll re-sign all of the important players when the lockout is over" promise isn't working for me right now)
Richardson is not the only owner who feels this way. One of Goodell's staunchest allies, New England's Robert Kraft, told me: "I am afraid he's going to burn out. He is indefatigable.''
Hey, if this sounds like pro-owner propaganda in preparation for the lockout, I want you know Peter King would never do this. Of course he would also never really question whether what he was being told seems like pro-owner propaganda due to his child-like quality of reporting exactly what people tell him. So Peter may not even be aware he seems to be spouting pro-owner propaganda.
So yes, to me this sounds like Peter is helping the owners paint Goodell as a hard-working guy who only wants to get the players back on the field as soon as possible...after he pushes through the terrible idea of an 18 game season and makes sure the owner's interests are met where they can essentially have the players help pay for the facilities they use to play games. The owners want the players to contribute more money to help pay the cost of running the owner's business. So after all of that is met, then Roger Goodell is all about some football being played.
I saw Goodell, at a Skyline Chili parlor in downtown Cincinnati, spend four or five minutes with a fan. He invited the two city cops assigned to escort him around town in for lunch with his party. The motorcycle cop said to me, "This doesn't happen in this line of work.''
I am sure DeMaurice Smith is a huge asshole who runs over motorcycle cops with his limo and murders puppies and kittens at every available opportunity just to show motorcycle cops how mean he can be.
Regarding Roethlisberger, Goodell said when he was investigating what to do with the quarterback, he talked to "I bet two dozen [Steeler] players ... Not one, not a single player, went to his defense. It wasn't personal in a sense, but all kinds of stories like, 'He won't sign my jersey.' ''
The sports media is reporting on this breathlessly as if this is new earth-shattering news. It's not. The Steelers success has really prevented this from being a bigger story (because when teams are having success inter-team conflict tends to get overlooked), but every indication has been that few Steelers players actually like Ben Roethlisberger. You don't have to like everyone you work with and this isn't the NBA where are 12 players a few coaches. The players that don't like Roethlisberger don't have to interact with him. Anyway, the signs have all been there, so I don't get the novelty of the story. That's all I was saying. The Steelers players may not like Roethlisberger, but he is a huge reason the team is successful and I am sure many of the players recognize that.
Later of course, Peter made an effort to prove that not only was he wanting to appear pro-owner during the negotiations, but he lacks journalistic credibility by falling on the sword for Goodell's out-of-line statement here. I don't doubt for a second that Goodell was talking about Steelers players and I think Peter's assumption (if it even was that) was correct, but I bet Goodell threatened Peter with some un-named punishment (cutting off access, etc) if he didn't clarify Goodell's remarks better, and like any good errand boy, Peter did clarify and fall on the sword for Goodell's mistake. At least he still has access and that's what it is all about to Peter. I don't doubt Goodell was referring to Steelers players so the parenthesis "Steelers" should have stayed in the quote.
Why would Peter King think Goodell was talking about any other NFL players and why would Goodell talk to any other NFL players outside of the Steelers organization about Roethlisberger? I believe Goodell was talking about Steelers players who made this statement and I also believe Peter King says he "got it wrong" after being strong armed by someone into saying so. Sure, it was an assumption, but I believe Peter should have stuck to his assumption.
And finally ... This is what Goodell told me about how he wanted to live his professional and personal life: "The one thing I would hope would go on my tombstone is, 'I made my parents proud.' ''
"And he got an 18 game schedule pushed through during the 2011 NFL labor negotiations."
I wrote a little Xs and Os forecast of the game in SI this week, and made the point that it's going to be vital for Green Bay to hem in Roethlisberger. When he throws on the run, or when he just plain runs, good things happen for the Steelers.
I don't blame women who won't forgive Roethlisberger for the story in Georgia last winter (including some very, very close to me), but the fact that he's been chastened and knocked down a few pegs by Goodell and others in his life has had a big impact on him this year.
We know this has had a huge impact on Roethlisberger because we are constantly told this. I have found in my limited window to the world that nearly all women, except for women who are Steelers fans, hate Ben Roethlisberger.
Saturday was the 16-year anniversary of one of the most interesting postgame experiences I've had at a Super Bowl: the aftermath of the 49ers' 49-26 rout of the Chargers in Miami. I trailed Young for the magazine, listening to him do every one of the live shots, answering the same questions over and over. Young was thirsty, and hungry, and at one point asked if I could find him some Gatorade or something to eat.
(Peter King) "Perhaps I could give you a foot massage?"
(Steve Young) "That's creepy. No thanks."
(Peter King whispers) "If not, how about I hook you up with an adult massage. I know this girl who taught me the greatest techniques. Give me five minutes and I will show you."
I went under the stands and found a food service area doing inventory, explained the situation, and finagled four bottles of red Gatorade, a couple of apples, and about eight or 10 sugar cookies. That's it.
That's it? Hell yes, that's it. This is just a snack in Peter's world.
When I accuse Peter of getting too close to the people he covers, this is what I am talking about. Can you imagine another sportswriter, covering an athlete for a major magazine, who would run and get an athlete food in this situation? I can't.
Young drank two of the Gatorades like a dying man in the Mojave, and munched down the cookies, and soon we were in his limo riding back to the Miami airport Marriott, their team hotel. Steinberg was in the car, and after a few twists and turns out of the parking lot, Young said, "I'm not feeling so ...'' RALPH! Out came what must have been 30 ounces of the Gatorade in its bright red splendor.
This story has no point, other than Peter is killing space and time by telling this story.
Even though he lay on the bed for the longest time with two needles in his arm, he wanted the night to go on forever. You could just tell. Gradually, the color, and a smile, returned to his face. The last thing I heard when I was about to leave (someone had to work that night, after all) was Young calling out to me at the door
Then Peter goes on to try and prove there is no East Coast bias in Hall of Fame voting, which I don't think there is.
Hall of Fame selections since 2000: 61.
New York players/coaches enshrined: 2 -- Harry Carson and Benny Friedman.
California players/coaches enshrined: 13 -- Howie Long, Ronnie Lott, Joe Montana, Dave Wilcox, Jack Youngblood, Jackie Slater, Dave Casper, Marcus Allen, Steve Young, John Madden, Fred Dean, Jerry Rice ... and I've given George Allen and Bob Brown a half-California apiece since, roughly, they coached and played, respectively, for half of their careers in California.
East Coast (Washington to Boston) players/coaches enshrined: 7.5 -- Andre Tippett, Art Monk, Darrell Green, Harry Carson, Benny Friedman, Russ Grimm ... and George Allen, Bob Brown and Reggie White half apiece.
I am not sure who said there was an East Coast bias in Hall of Fame voting, but clearly Peter has gotten this accusation before. The point could be made that more players from the West Coast should have been inducted into the Hall of Fame from this period. So even though the West Coast numbers are impressive, with the 49ers success through the 80's and 90's, I am sure someone has argued there aren't enough players from the West Coast in, regardless of how many players have already been voted in. Maybe they have a point since the issue could be even more qualified West Coast players should have been voted into the Hall of Fame as compared to how many are in there currently.
There is no local beat man I respect more than Bob McGinn of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. He never falls in love with the Packers when the rest of the world does, and he's always suitably skeptical about the locals. Wish I could think of a few examples, but I'm always impressed with a local beat person who can be exhaustively good and thorough -- two traits McGinn shows consistently -- while resisting the temptation, even in the best of times, to pump up the team. But when he likes something, he won't hesitate to write it. And I don't recall him ever being as high on a Packers team as he is now, and I mean high about the long-term future.
"Look at the overwhelming strengths of this team. The only thing that can stop [quarterback Aaron] Rodgers would be concussions or major injury. Jermichael Finley, 23, will be back wanting his piece of the action, and coupled with three ace wideouts in their mid-20s and perhaps venerable Donald Driver the Packers will have almost an embarrassment of receiving riches.
Donald Driver is going to be 36 next year. James Jones and Jordy Nelson haven't shown themselves to be quite "ace" wideouts yet. They are very good, but not "aces."
"Bryan Bulaga, just 21, didn't play a terrible game all season and should do nothing but get better.
Bulaga has also shown that he may not be a left tackle in the NFL, he could be best suited at right tackle, and Chad Clifton is not getting any younger. So tackle is still very much a need for the Packers.
Tramon Williams ... played at a Pro Bowl level, and Sam Shields is able to outrun many of his mistakes and improve dramatically as the nickel back. Old pro Charles Woodson will fit somewhere.
Here's another problem. Woodson may fit "somewhere" but Sam Shields isn't a starting cornerback in the NFL. His great value right now is as a nickel back. So if Woodson fitting "somewhere" doesn't involve him starting, then the Packers will have a need at cornerback in the near future.
Unless Thompson should retire prematurely, the Packers should have him finding the players, Mike McCarthy coaching them and Rodgers leading a formidable roster for years to come. Late last February, a personnel man for one of the four playoff semifinalists walked up to Thompson and told him that after careful study he had evaluated the Packers as the best team in the 2009 playoff field. Arizona and Kurt Warner extinguished the Packers' chances 12 months ago. The worthy Steelers could do the same thing next Sunday. No matter what happens, the Packers will not be going away ...
I'm not disagreeing at all, but can we let them play in the Super Bowl first? The roster seems to have great potential, but this is the NFL where teams have injuries that will have an impact on the team (the Packers were able to overcome their injuries this year) and things happen. The Packers may be on top for a while, there's no doubt it could happen, but let's calm down a bit.
No Fine Fifteen this week, due to the small, complicating matter of the lack of football games over the weekend.
Yet for some reason, Peter feels free to make a Fine Fifteen over the summer when there wasn't any games being played. Go figure.
So I've been looking for the perfect work chair at a hotel, and I believe I've found it. The Dallas Sheraton, which is housing the media at the Super Bowl, has these high-backed, red swivel chairs, with a firm back and just cushy-enough seat. For those of us who spend hours a day in them (and, unfortunately, I expect that to be the case several days this week), I applaud your decor director, Sheraton.
I am sure people who work outside in the cold weather are extremely excited to hear Peter has found the best possible chair to work in while at a hotel. It's such a huge problem to not have the best possible seat to place your ass in while you work. I know anyone works outside during the winter or summer can attest to how much of a headache that must be since they don't usually get to sit down for a good portion of the day.
I don't know if Peter ever understands how his comments and complaints come off to people.
"For those of us who spend hours a day in them..."
Because there aren't millions of other people who work all day in an office who sit in chairs too? Peter acts like he is one of the few who have to sit all day and work. It is just the issues Peter brings up in his weekly MMQB are just so trivial, like finding the right comfortable chair to write in, it makes him sound petty.
2. I think you can't win by telling the truth, as when Aaron Rodgers said Saturday the Packers had rallied around the replacements for trusted vets like Nick Barnett and Jermichael Finley. Some of the injured players, Rodgers said, "are still a part of this team, but some of them didn't choose to stick around.'' Uh-oh.
It's much smarter to go ahead and make the switch now and bring in a quality young assistant with the hunger and energy to make the most of a head-coaching chance with a good general manager in Mike Reinfeldt ... either that or hire Dom Capers the week after the Super Bowl. You can be sure Capers wants one more shot at a head job before he finishes coaching.
Well if Capers wants one more head coaching job, then I say give it to him. He does have a 48-80 career record as a head coach after all. Granted, that was with two expansion teams, but if he can't build a team the way he wants with an expansion team when can he do this? His time controlling personnel matters in Carolina was a pretty big disaster, so maybe he would be better just coaching...defenses.
5. I think, for the 73rd time, there can be no trades until the first day of the new league year, and there can be no free-agency movement for the league's 495 free-agents until then, which almost certainly means there can be no trades or free-market moves 'til there's a new CBA. That's a long way off. So could we please have a moratorium on the Carson Palmer-to-Arizona or San Francisco or anywhere rumors, and can we please stop speculating where Kevin Kolb's going to go? Come on. This stuff's months away.
Yeah everyone. Quit speculating where Kevin Kolb is going to go and trying to predict which players a team is going to keep and not keep. Peter is tired of this shit.
6. I think, not to beat a dead Eagle, that Kevin Kolb is going nowhere, unless Philadelphia gets a sick offer. Why would the Eagles trade a quarterback Andy Reid loves, for anything, when he's not sure Mike Vick can play 16 games? There may come a time, like in 2012, when the cost of keeping Kolb would be so prohibitive the Eagles would let him go.
Yeah, quit speculating where Kevin Kolb will go whoever wrote this last paragraph. Peter doesn't care that Kolb may go nowhere, because it doesn't matter at this point. Peter hates it when there is speculation about where Kolb may go.
8. I think when Kevin Mawae said to Sirius' Chris Russo the other day that he "can't sell'' the 18-game schedule to players, I was glad to hear it ... but the real question is this: If the league raises salaries across the board 15 percent, and if the league offers 10 years of post-career health care instead of the current five, and if players get vested at, say, 1.2 years of credited service for every year of an 18-game schedule played, then I'd like to hear if Mawae can sell it.
This feels like a pro-owner MMQB. If the owners also offered the players the entire profits from the running of the team and 4 years of credited service for every 1 year of playing an 18 game schedule, the players would accept it. Mawae is saying he can't sell the 18 game schedule to the players as things stand now, I think this is understood. Obviously things could change in the future, but he is negotiating by drawing a line in the sand. Why does Peter believe anything that is said on either side at this point is anything but a negotiating tactic?
a. Saw True Grit. Other than the absolutely brilliant remake of The Longest Yard, (and I jest only massively, because I appeared in the second one), this, I believe, is the best remake of a movie I've ever seen. First: I love movies that succeed in putting you back in time, in some period you've always imagined what it would be like. And the Coen brothers, I thought, did a perfect job on what I imagine 1880 was like. The Coen brothers did a great job of fulfilling Peter's image of what he imagines the 1880's would be like. Peter should be a movie reviewer.
"Battlefield Earth did a great job of showing what I think a post-Apocalyptic world run by aliens with dreadlocks would seem like. I can't rave enough about this. If there were a world run by aliens with huge hands then I don't doubt it would be a violet-tinted science fiction world we would live in. This movie correctly matches up with my preconceived notions and that makes it a great movie."
c. I feel for Hallie Steinfeld. She's 14, and I haven't seen acting talent in such a young kid since Natalie Portman in Beautiful Girls. But already I see she's being followed to the mall and wherever else by the paparazzi. Poor kid. Normal life, gone.
Poor girl! All she wanted to do was have a feature role in an Oscar-nominated film with A-list actors like Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon. Who knew if she was handed the starring role in the remake of a great movie the paparazzi would take a liking to her? All she wanted was a normal life where she was a movie star, is that too much to ask?
I hope somehow she finds a way to live her life out of sight for the most part, the way Portman did by disappearing, relatively speaking, and being a fairly normal student at Harvard.
Hear that Hallie Steinfeld, you must go to Harvard! Be like Natalie Portman. Give off the slight aroma of fema-doucheness and you can be just like her.
(I don't hate Natalie Portman, but there is something about her that always seems fake to me. Other than the fact she gets paid to pretend to be someone else of course.)
It's just so unfair how all of these award nominations are getting in the way of Steinfeld's normal life. Can't she do a big budget remake of a movie and get nominated for an Oscar without people paying attention to her?
i. Coffeenerdness: Unhappiness is landing in Dallas after 10 Sunday night, running into a Starbucks while rushing to the hotel to write this column and still get one hour of sleep, and getting two miles away from the place when you take your first sip of the quad venti whole milk latte, and discovering it's a quad venti soy latte instead. I know whole milk. I know soy. Yo no soy. Now that puts a damper on the typing, let me tell you.
Peter King seems like such a difficult person to like. We all get annoyed by little inconveniences in life, but when it comes a time to get an opportunity to voice your annoyances to the world, many tend to think twice about how they will come off. I have a ton of complaints that sound stupid when I voice them publicly.
In this situation, many people wouldn't talk about this because they would realize it makes them sound like a pampered asshole. Not Peter. He embraces looking like an asshole and I am not sure he even realizes it.
When the Packers and Steelers practice Wednesday through Friday -- Green Bay at the Cowboys' complex in Irving, Pittsburgh at the Texas Christian University facility in Fort Worth, 38 miles west of here -- the daily high temps will be 27, 36 and 38, respectively. Oh, and with snow showers and wintry mix off and on. Gotta love these temperate Super Bowl sites.
I think there should be a rule. If the NFL refuses to rotate the Super Bowl sites among warm weather cities, then the NFL writers should stop bitching about how cold it is at the site of the Super Bowl. Having the Super Bowl in New Jersey isn't the greatest idea ever, I will admit that. Use your journalistic persuasive techniques to get the NFL to start rotating the Super Bowl among sure-fire warm cities or shut up. You are at the Super Bowl and getting paid to be there. Feel lucky.
Just for fun, let's look at the high for those three days in East Rutherford, where the Super Bowl, ridiculously, is scheduled to be played in 2014. The highs: 40, 22 and 31. So, the average high in and around Arlington, where the Super Bowl will be played Sunday, 34 for the three practice days. In New Jersey: 31.
Miami: 80. (True: Miami is predicted to have highs of 82, 79 and 79.) Hey, but who's counting?
I don't think it is a great idea for the Super Bowl to be played in cold weather, but it is one year. I think we can all bundle up and handle it. It's not like even in the coldest weather no one will attend the Super Bowl. Those who don't attend the Super Bowl will still watch and there will still be plenty of people who attend the Super Bowl.We'll start off with a tease for a project of mine. I've spent some time this season following Commissioner Roger Goodell around
Peter hasn't been paid, mind you, for following Roger Goodell around. He's just been doing it on his own free will. He has some free time since Brett Favre had gotten injured at the end of last season and figured he would test the quality of the security system cameras at the Goodell Estate. Peter has learned if you hop the bushes in the back and try to enter the house through the patio, the cameras won't catch your presence at all.
Earlier this year Bill Simmons made a snide comment about King and Goodell taking this picture together (scroll down all of the way). The picture where Peter King looks like a little kid who gets to eat lunch with his hero and Goodell looks like he is passing a gallstone. At the time, I think Bill rightly criticized him, because eating lunch and being best friends with those he covers has always seemed to be a problem for Peter. So at the time, it was justified criticism.
But...
for a story due to run in Sports Illustrated this week. It's the longest piece I've done for the magazine, around 6,800 words (if the editors are kind). It's not so much about the labor deal, more about just who this guy is -- though, obviously, I try to illustrate whether he can bridge the oceanic gap in these talks between players and owners.
He was eating lunch for an article he was writing. Peter probably went into the Sports Illustrated offices in mid-December and asked to write a story about Goodell and was told "no." Then Peter most likely brought out the 18 hours of footage he had taped where he followed Goodell around everywhere he went without him knowing, including in Goodell's own house. Sports Illustrated figured they may as well go ahead with the writing project to avoid a lawsuit.
Paul Tagliabue doesn't regret his 2006 deal. You know, the one everyone blames him for pushing through and causing this current mess. "We knew it'd be terminated at the earliest possible date,'' Tagliabue told me of the March 2006 deal that had an opt-out date after just two seasons for either side. "We knew it wasn't sustainable long-term.''
Well good. I am glad you got that non-sustainable short-term deal done until you were no longer commissioner.
This is the deal that looks so bad in retrospect. It's the deal that might well be keeping Tagliabue out of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the thinking being that he shepherded the deal through ownership without being concerned about the aftermath.
I can see how someone would blame Tagliabue for pushing through a short-term deal that doesn't look out for the people he was intending to help and is only sustainable in the short-term. It sounds like a huge fail on its face. In terms of how Congress gets deals done, this is would be a huge success, but I am not sure NFL commissioners can look to the short-term results of this prevented lockout to measure success.
He seemed nonplused about it. "Would it have been better,'' he asked me, "If we'd had a lockout in '07 or '08? No. Not at all. The league has had three or four great seasons of football since then.''
Yes, but now there may be no football in the year 2011 and the two sides are nowhere near an agreement. Essentially, the problem got pushed back a few years and now both sides are more pissed off. From what I know, I am not sure how this position of Taglibue's could be defended. All the hard work that could have been done four years ago is having to take place now.
"History shows there's no real pressure to get a deal 'til you get to September,'' Tagliabue said.
If a deal gets done in September, I doubt football could start to be played the week after a deal gets done. So football will be missed, which was the "advantage" of the crappy deal in 2006. Basically, it sounds like Tagliabue just didn't want the lockout on his watch, so he set up a crap deal to appease everyone short-term knowing in the long-term bigger issues (18 game season, the Player's union not wanting a rookie cap) would rear their heads later when he was no longer commissioner. It just sounds like this is how it happened.
Goodell's friends think he's working too hard. "I'm mad at him right now,'' Jerry Richardson, a key negotiator for the owners and confidant of Goodell, told me in December. When I asked why, he wouldn't say. But Goodell said it's because Richardson believes he's working too hard.
Jerry Richardson then went out and fired every employee who works for the Carolina Panthers because they make too much money, hired replacement NFL players, and paid all of his new employees minimum wage...then raised ticket prices on the fans before he announced he did all of this.
(Yeah, I'm a bit bitter. The whole "we'll re-sign all of the important players when the lockout is over" promise isn't working for me right now)
Richardson is not the only owner who feels this way. One of Goodell's staunchest allies, New England's Robert Kraft, told me: "I am afraid he's going to burn out. He is indefatigable.''
Hey, if this sounds like pro-owner propaganda in preparation for the lockout, I want you know Peter King would never do this. Of course he would also never really question whether what he was being told seems like pro-owner propaganda due to his child-like quality of reporting exactly what people tell him. So Peter may not even be aware he seems to be spouting pro-owner propaganda.
So yes, to me this sounds like Peter is helping the owners paint Goodell as a hard-working guy who only wants to get the players back on the field as soon as possible...after he pushes through the terrible idea of an 18 game season and makes sure the owner's interests are met where they can essentially have the players help pay for the facilities they use to play games. The owners want the players to contribute more money to help pay the cost of running the owner's business. So after all of that is met, then Roger Goodell is all about some football being played.
I saw Goodell, at a Skyline Chili parlor in downtown Cincinnati, spend four or five minutes with a fan. He invited the two city cops assigned to escort him around town in for lunch with his party. The motorcycle cop said to me, "This doesn't happen in this line of work.''
I am sure DeMaurice Smith is a huge asshole who runs over motorcycle cops with his limo and murders puppies and kittens at every available opportunity just to show motorcycle cops how mean he can be.
Regarding Roethlisberger, Goodell said when he was investigating what to do with the quarterback, he talked to "I bet two dozen [Steeler] players ... Not one, not a single player, went to his defense. It wasn't personal in a sense, but all kinds of stories like, 'He won't sign my jersey.' ''
The sports media is reporting on this breathlessly as if this is new earth-shattering news. It's not. The Steelers success has really prevented this from being a bigger story (because when teams are having success inter-team conflict tends to get overlooked), but every indication has been that few Steelers players actually like Ben Roethlisberger. You don't have to like everyone you work with and this isn't the NBA where are 12 players a few coaches. The players that don't like Roethlisberger don't have to interact with him. Anyway, the signs have all been there, so I don't get the novelty of the story. That's all I was saying. The Steelers players may not like Roethlisberger, but he is a huge reason the team is successful and I am sure many of the players recognize that.
Later of course, Peter made an effort to prove that not only was he wanting to appear pro-owner during the negotiations, but he lacks journalistic credibility by falling on the sword for Goodell's out-of-line statement here. I don't doubt for a second that Goodell was talking about Steelers players and I think Peter's assumption (if it even was that) was correct, but I bet Goodell threatened Peter with some un-named punishment (cutting off access, etc) if he didn't clarify Goodell's remarks better, and like any good errand boy, Peter did clarify and fall on the sword for Goodell's mistake. At least he still has access and that's what it is all about to Peter. I don't doubt Goodell was referring to Steelers players so the parenthesis "Steelers" should have stayed in the quote.
Why would Peter King think Goodell was talking about any other NFL players and why would Goodell talk to any other NFL players outside of the Steelers organization about Roethlisberger? I believe Goodell was talking about Steelers players who made this statement and I also believe Peter King says he "got it wrong" after being strong armed by someone into saying so. Sure, it was an assumption, but I believe Peter should have stuck to his assumption.
And finally ... This is what Goodell told me about how he wanted to live his professional and personal life: "The one thing I would hope would go on my tombstone is, 'I made my parents proud.' ''
"And he got an 18 game schedule pushed through during the 2011 NFL labor negotiations."
I wrote a little Xs and Os forecast of the game in SI this week, and made the point that it's going to be vital for Green Bay to hem in Roethlisberger. When he throws on the run, or when he just plain runs, good things happen for the Steelers.
I don't blame women who won't forgive Roethlisberger for the story in Georgia last winter (including some very, very close to me), but the fact that he's been chastened and knocked down a few pegs by Goodell and others in his life has had a big impact on him this year.
We know this has had a huge impact on Roethlisberger because we are constantly told this. I have found in my limited window to the world that nearly all women, except for women who are Steelers fans, hate Ben Roethlisberger.
Saturday was the 16-year anniversary of one of the most interesting postgame experiences I've had at a Super Bowl: the aftermath of the 49ers' 49-26 rout of the Chargers in Miami. I trailed Young for the magazine, listening to him do every one of the live shots, answering the same questions over and over. Young was thirsty, and hungry, and at one point asked if I could find him some Gatorade or something to eat.
(Peter King) "Perhaps I could give you a foot massage?"
(Steve Young) "That's creepy. No thanks."
(Peter King whispers) "If not, how about I hook you up with an adult massage. I know this girl who taught me the greatest techniques. Give me five minutes and I will show you."
I went under the stands and found a food service area doing inventory, explained the situation, and finagled four bottles of red Gatorade, a couple of apples, and about eight or 10 sugar cookies. That's it.
That's it? Hell yes, that's it. This is just a snack in Peter's world.
When I accuse Peter of getting too close to the people he covers, this is what I am talking about. Can you imagine another sportswriter, covering an athlete for a major magazine, who would run and get an athlete food in this situation? I can't.
Young drank two of the Gatorades like a dying man in the Mojave, and munched down the cookies, and soon we were in his limo riding back to the Miami airport Marriott, their team hotel. Steinberg was in the car, and after a few twists and turns out of the parking lot, Young said, "I'm not feeling so ...'' RALPH! Out came what must have been 30 ounces of the Gatorade in its bright red splendor.
This story has no point, other than Peter is killing space and time by telling this story.
Even though he lay on the bed for the longest time with two needles in his arm, he wanted the night to go on forever. You could just tell. Gradually, the color, and a smile, returned to his face. The last thing I heard when I was about to leave (someone had to work that night, after all) was Young calling out to me at the door
"Don't go," he said. "You can stay. Stay! I'm fine. Really, I'm fine."
It's a pretty good job.
So essentially Peter goes through this story, which took up probably 8-10% of his MMQB to tell us how awesome his job is. Of course, he still finds menial things to complain about, like the weather.Then Peter goes on to try and prove there is no East Coast bias in Hall of Fame voting, which I don't think there is.
Hall of Fame selections since 2000: 61.
New York players/coaches enshrined: 2 -- Harry Carson and Benny Friedman.
California players/coaches enshrined: 13 -- Howie Long, Ronnie Lott, Joe Montana, Dave Wilcox, Jack Youngblood, Jackie Slater, Dave Casper, Marcus Allen, Steve Young, John Madden, Fred Dean, Jerry Rice ... and I've given George Allen and Bob Brown a half-California apiece since, roughly, they coached and played, respectively, for half of their careers in California.
East Coast (Washington to Boston) players/coaches enshrined: 7.5 -- Andre Tippett, Art Monk, Darrell Green, Harry Carson, Benny Friedman, Russ Grimm ... and George Allen, Bob Brown and Reggie White half apiece.
I am not sure who said there was an East Coast bias in Hall of Fame voting, but clearly Peter has gotten this accusation before. The point could be made that more players from the West Coast should have been inducted into the Hall of Fame from this period. So even though the West Coast numbers are impressive, with the 49ers success through the 80's and 90's, I am sure someone has argued there aren't enough players from the West Coast in, regardless of how many players have already been voted in. Maybe they have a point since the issue could be even more qualified West Coast players should have been voted into the Hall of Fame as compared to how many are in there currently.
There is no local beat man I respect more than Bob McGinn of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. He never falls in love with the Packers when the rest of the world does, and he's always suitably skeptical about the locals. Wish I could think of a few examples, but I'm always impressed with a local beat person who can be exhaustively good and thorough -- two traits McGinn shows consistently -- while resisting the temptation, even in the best of times, to pump up the team. But when he likes something, he won't hesitate to write it. And I don't recall him ever being as high on a Packers team as he is now, and I mean high about the long-term future.
A few excerpts from a column he wrote for the Journal-Sentinel over the weekend:
We all know how much I like the Packers this year, and Aaron Rodgers overall, but as bright as the future seems to be, I think McGinn is getting ahead of himself a bit. Let me break down what he said and focus on the real problems with a couple of his assumptions..."Look at the overwhelming strengths of this team. The only thing that can stop [quarterback Aaron] Rodgers would be concussions or major injury. Jermichael Finley, 23, will be back wanting his piece of the action, and coupled with three ace wideouts in their mid-20s and perhaps venerable Donald Driver the Packers will have almost an embarrassment of receiving riches.
Donald Driver is going to be 36 next year. James Jones and Jordy Nelson haven't shown themselves to be quite "ace" wideouts yet. They are very good, but not "aces."
"Bryan Bulaga, just 21, didn't play a terrible game all season and should do nothing but get better.
Bulaga has also shown that he may not be a left tackle in the NFL, he could be best suited at right tackle, and Chad Clifton is not getting any younger. So tackle is still very much a need for the Packers.
Tramon Williams ... played at a Pro Bowl level, and Sam Shields is able to outrun many of his mistakes and improve dramatically as the nickel back. Old pro Charles Woodson will fit somewhere.
Here's another problem. Woodson may fit "somewhere" but Sam Shields isn't a starting cornerback in the NFL. His great value right now is as a nickel back. So if Woodson fitting "somewhere" doesn't involve him starting, then the Packers will have a need at cornerback in the near future.
Unless Thompson should retire prematurely, the Packers should have him finding the players, Mike McCarthy coaching them and Rodgers leading a formidable roster for years to come. Late last February, a personnel man for one of the four playoff semifinalists walked up to Thompson and told him that after careful study he had evaluated the Packers as the best team in the 2009 playoff field. Arizona and Kurt Warner extinguished the Packers' chances 12 months ago. The worthy Steelers could do the same thing next Sunday. No matter what happens, the Packers will not be going away ...
I'm not disagreeing at all, but can we let them play in the Super Bowl first? The roster seems to have great potential, but this is the NFL where teams have injuries that will have an impact on the team (the Packers were able to overcome their injuries this year) and things happen. The Packers may be on top for a while, there's no doubt it could happen, but let's calm down a bit.
No Fine Fifteen this week, due to the small, complicating matter of the lack of football games over the weekend.
Yet for some reason, Peter feels free to make a Fine Fifteen over the summer when there wasn't any games being played. Go figure.
So I've been looking for the perfect work chair at a hotel, and I believe I've found it. The Dallas Sheraton, which is housing the media at the Super Bowl, has these high-backed, red swivel chairs, with a firm back and just cushy-enough seat. For those of us who spend hours a day in them (and, unfortunately, I expect that to be the case several days this week), I applaud your decor director, Sheraton.
I am sure people who work outside in the cold weather are extremely excited to hear Peter has found the best possible chair to work in while at a hotel. It's such a huge problem to not have the best possible seat to place your ass in while you work. I know anyone works outside during the winter or summer can attest to how much of a headache that must be since they don't usually get to sit down for a good portion of the day.
I don't know if Peter ever understands how his comments and complaints come off to people.
"For those of us who spend hours a day in them..."
Because there aren't millions of other people who work all day in an office who sit in chairs too? Peter acts like he is one of the few who have to sit all day and work. It is just the issues Peter brings up in his weekly MMQB are just so trivial, like finding the right comfortable chair to write in, it makes him sound petty.
2. I think you can't win by telling the truth, as when Aaron Rodgers said Saturday the Packers had rallied around the replacements for trusted vets like Nick Barnett and Jermichael Finley. Some of the injured players, Rodgers said, "are still a part of this team, but some of them didn't choose to stick around.'' Uh-oh.
Barnett, for one, said he could get better individual attention elsewhere, instead of in the Packers' crowded training room. And he and Finley were fuming about Rodgers' remarks.
Brett Favre would never had something like this. Partially because Favre would have his own locker room and would stay as far away from the Packers team as possible at all times...so he would have no clue whether the guys on IR were with the team or not.It's much smarter to go ahead and make the switch now and bring in a quality young assistant with the hunger and energy to make the most of a head-coaching chance with a good general manager in Mike Reinfeldt ... either that or hire Dom Capers the week after the Super Bowl. You can be sure Capers wants one more shot at a head job before he finishes coaching.
Well if Capers wants one more head coaching job, then I say give it to him. He does have a 48-80 career record as a head coach after all. Granted, that was with two expansion teams, but if he can't build a team the way he wants with an expansion team when can he do this? His time controlling personnel matters in Carolina was a pretty big disaster, so maybe he would be better just coaching...defenses.
5. I think, for the 73rd time, there can be no trades until the first day of the new league year, and there can be no free-agency movement for the league's 495 free-agents until then, which almost certainly means there can be no trades or free-market moves 'til there's a new CBA. That's a long way off. So could we please have a moratorium on the Carson Palmer-to-Arizona or San Francisco or anywhere rumors, and can we please stop speculating where Kevin Kolb's going to go? Come on. This stuff's months away.
Yeah everyone. Quit speculating where Kevin Kolb is going to go and trying to predict which players a team is going to keep and not keep. Peter is tired of this shit.
6. I think, not to beat a dead Eagle, that Kevin Kolb is going nowhere, unless Philadelphia gets a sick offer. Why would the Eagles trade a quarterback Andy Reid loves, for anything, when he's not sure Mike Vick can play 16 games? There may come a time, like in 2012, when the cost of keeping Kolb would be so prohibitive the Eagles would let him go.
Yeah, quit speculating where Kevin Kolb will go whoever wrote this last paragraph. Peter doesn't care that Kolb may go nowhere, because it doesn't matter at this point. Peter hates it when there is speculation about where Kolb may go.
8. I think when Kevin Mawae said to Sirius' Chris Russo the other day that he "can't sell'' the 18-game schedule to players, I was glad to hear it ... but the real question is this: If the league raises salaries across the board 15 percent, and if the league offers 10 years of post-career health care instead of the current five, and if players get vested at, say, 1.2 years of credited service for every year of an 18-game schedule played, then I'd like to hear if Mawae can sell it.
This feels like a pro-owner MMQB. If the owners also offered the players the entire profits from the running of the team and 4 years of credited service for every 1 year of playing an 18 game schedule, the players would accept it. Mawae is saying he can't sell the 18 game schedule to the players as things stand now, I think this is understood. Obviously things could change in the future, but he is negotiating by drawing a line in the sand. Why does Peter believe anything that is said on either side at this point is anything but a negotiating tactic?
a. Saw True Grit. Other than the absolutely brilliant remake of The Longest Yard, (and I jest only massively, because I appeared in the second one), this, I believe, is the best remake of a movie I've ever seen. First: I love movies that succeed in putting you back in time, in some period you've always imagined what it would be like. And the Coen brothers, I thought, did a perfect job on what I imagine 1880 was like. The Coen brothers did a great job of fulfilling Peter's image of what he imagines the 1880's would be like. Peter should be a movie reviewer.
"Battlefield Earth did a great job of showing what I think a post-Apocalyptic world run by aliens with dreadlocks would seem like. I can't rave enough about this. If there were a world run by aliens with huge hands then I don't doubt it would be a violet-tinted science fiction world we would live in. This movie correctly matches up with my preconceived notions and that makes it a great movie."
c. I feel for Hallie Steinfeld. She's 14, and I haven't seen acting talent in such a young kid since Natalie Portman in Beautiful Girls. But already I see she's being followed to the mall and wherever else by the paparazzi. Poor kid. Normal life, gone.
Poor girl! All she wanted to do was have a feature role in an Oscar-nominated film with A-list actors like Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon. Who knew if she was handed the starring role in the remake of a great movie the paparazzi would take a liking to her? All she wanted was a normal life where she was a movie star, is that too much to ask?
I hope somehow she finds a way to live her life out of sight for the most part, the way Portman did by disappearing, relatively speaking, and being a fairly normal student at Harvard.
Hear that Hallie Steinfeld, you must go to Harvard! Be like Natalie Portman. Give off the slight aroma of fema-doucheness and you can be just like her.
(I don't hate Natalie Portman, but there is something about her that always seems fake to me. Other than the fact she gets paid to pretend to be someone else of course.)
It's just so unfair how all of these award nominations are getting in the way of Steinfeld's normal life. Can't she do a big budget remake of a movie and get nominated for an Oscar without people paying attention to her?
i. Coffeenerdness: Unhappiness is landing in Dallas after 10 Sunday night, running into a Starbucks while rushing to the hotel to write this column and still get one hour of sleep, and getting two miles away from the place when you take your first sip of the quad venti whole milk latte, and discovering it's a quad venti soy latte instead. I know whole milk. I know soy. Yo no soy. Now that puts a damper on the typing, let me tell you.
Peter King seems like such a difficult person to like. We all get annoyed by little inconveniences in life, but when it comes a time to get an opportunity to voice your annoyances to the world, many tend to think twice about how they will come off. I have a ton of complaints that sound stupid when I voice them publicly.
In this situation, many people wouldn't talk about this because they would realize it makes them sound like a pampered asshole. Not Peter. He embraces looking like an asshole and I am not sure he even realizes it.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
4 comments Proper Super Bowl Gambling
This NFL season has left me feeling more and more like the Houston Texans of gambling. No matter what I did, no matter how many times I went against my instincts just to break out of it, I couldn't get away from .500. Even in the playoffs, I went 4-0 in the divisional round (5-3 overall). But the football Gods were having none of it, so they slapped me back to 5-5 as a reminder of where I belong. It's not that a bet a lot of money on sports. I'm not betting online. I don't have a bookie waiting to break my legs. Just some friendly wagers with friends (anything over $10 scares me away).
But the Super Bowl is a time for new beginnings. It's a time for letting go of past grudges and enjoying the culmination of football. It's a time for drinking unhealthy amounts of beer and eating disgusting wings that you know going in will leave you some sort of stomach malady sure to end your night a bit early. To that end, I am not betting money on this year's Super Bowl game with anyone. Yes, I specified game. That's because the Super Bowl is a time for ridiculous betting. Last year, I tried my hand at 15 unusual wagers sure to make the game more interesting. Because unless your a fan of one of the participants or you have a specific gambling-related interest, you watch the Super Bowl for reasons other than supporting a specific team:
1) To watch football, because that's what normal people do on Sundays.
2) To witness an all-time great play or game.
3) To watch 80% of the good commercials for the rest of the calendar year.
4) To obnoxiously demonstrate your football knowledge to someone who will be impressed.
Hopefully everyone can experience all of the above. But as of last year, I discovered a 5th reason. To make ridiculous bets. Here are some from last year:
To that end, here are my tangentially football related Super Bowl picks (some bets are my blessed creations, but most are not).
1. How many times will Troy Polamalu's hair be mentioned during the actual game?
Over/Under: 2.5
The Pick: Under
2. How many times will Clay Matthews' hair be mentioned during the actual game?
Over/Under: 2.5
The Pick: Under
3. For how many seconds will Christina Aguilera hold the "brave" in the National Anthem?
Over/Under: 6.5
The Pick: Over
4. What will be the color of the gatorade poured on the winning head coach?
The Pick: Yellow
5. How many penalties will James Harrison commit?
Over/Under: 1.5
The Pick: Over
6. Who will win the coin toss?
The Pick: Pittsburgh Steelers
7. How many times will the camera show Jerry Jones?
Over/Under: 2.5
The Pick: Under
8. How long will Joe Buck speak for before Troy Aikman gets a word in to start the broadcast?
Over/Under: 12.5 seconds
The Pick: Over
9. How many times will Gus Johnson scream for joy, horror or some other emotion while watching the game? (It's a shame that he's not calling it. CBS needs to get the rights to the Super Bowl ASAP.)
Over/Under: 14.5
The Pick: Over
10. How long will the national anthem take?
Over/Under: 1:52
The Pick: Over
11. Will Christina Aguilera be wearing a Cowboy hat?
The Pick: No
12. Who will the Super Bowl MVP thank first?
The Pick: God
13. How many current NFL players will be arrested during Super Bowl week?
Over/Under: 0.5
The Pick: Under
14. Which head coach will be shown on television first?
The Pick: Mike Tomlin
15. Who will be the first player to do a unique celebration during the game?
The Pick: B.J. Raji
16. Will a punt hit the scoreboard?
The Pick: Yes (I really want it to happen.)
17. Which QB girlfriend will be shown first?
The Pick: Ashley Harlan (Big Ben)
18. At what time will the ball be kicked off?
The Pick: 6:04 P.M. (EST)
19. Will there be a Lambeau Leap?
The Pick: Yes
20. Which team will perform the Lambeau Leap?
The Pick: The Steelers
But the Super Bowl is a time for new beginnings. It's a time for letting go of past grudges and enjoying the culmination of football. It's a time for drinking unhealthy amounts of beer and eating disgusting wings that you know going in will leave you some sort of stomach malady sure to end your night a bit early. To that end, I am not betting money on this year's Super Bowl game with anyone. Yes, I specified game. That's because the Super Bowl is a time for ridiculous betting. Last year, I tried my hand at 15 unusual wagers sure to make the game more interesting. Because unless your a fan of one of the participants or you have a specific gambling-related interest, you watch the Super Bowl for reasons other than supporting a specific team:
1) To watch football, because that's what normal people do on Sundays.
2) To witness an all-time great play or game.
3) To watch 80% of the good commercials for the rest of the calendar year.
4) To obnoxiously demonstrate your football knowledge to someone who will be impressed.
Hopefully everyone can experience all of the above. But as of last year, I discovered a 5th reason. To make ridiculous bets. Here are some from last year:
To that end, here are my tangentially football related Super Bowl picks (some bets are my blessed creations, but most are not).
1. How many times will Troy Polamalu's hair be mentioned during the actual game?
Over/Under: 2.5
The Pick: Under
2. How many times will Clay Matthews' hair be mentioned during the actual game?
Over/Under: 2.5
The Pick: Under
3. For how many seconds will Christina Aguilera hold the "brave" in the National Anthem?
Over/Under: 6.5
The Pick: Over
4. What will be the color of the gatorade poured on the winning head coach?
The Pick: Yellow
5. How many penalties will James Harrison commit?
Over/Under: 1.5
The Pick: Over
6. Who will win the coin toss?
The Pick: Pittsburgh Steelers
7. How many times will the camera show Jerry Jones?
Over/Under: 2.5
The Pick: Under
8. How long will Joe Buck speak for before Troy Aikman gets a word in to start the broadcast?
Over/Under: 12.5 seconds
The Pick: Over
9. How many times will Gus Johnson scream for joy, horror or some other emotion while watching the game? (It's a shame that he's not calling it. CBS needs to get the rights to the Super Bowl ASAP.)
Over/Under: 14.5
The Pick: Over
10. How long will the national anthem take?
Over/Under: 1:52
The Pick: Over
11. Will Christina Aguilera be wearing a Cowboy hat?
The Pick: No
12. Who will the Super Bowl MVP thank first?
The Pick: God
13. How many current NFL players will be arrested during Super Bowl week?
Over/Under: 0.5
The Pick: Under
14. Which head coach will be shown on television first?
The Pick: Mike Tomlin
15. Who will be the first player to do a unique celebration during the game?
The Pick: B.J. Raji
16. Will a punt hit the scoreboard?
The Pick: Yes (I really want it to happen.)
17. Which QB girlfriend will be shown first?
The Pick: Ashley Harlan (Big Ben)
18. At what time will the ball be kicked off?
The Pick: 6:04 P.M. (EST)
19. Will there be a Lambeau Leap?
The Pick: Yes
20. Which team will perform the Lambeau Leap?
The Pick: The Steelers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)