I don't expect science fiction to be "realistic." I wouldn't watch a "realistic" science fiction movie. The spaceships couldn't launch in bad weather, or could be destroyed in orbit by a loose ball bearing. It'd take a thousand years to get from one star to the next, even with sequels. But I do expect a science fiction movie to be internally consistent. Set the ground rules however you want -- go ahead and give Jedis telekinesis, or put a spaceship at Area 51 -- but for pete's sake. the characters have to live by them.
I just saw The Chronicles of Riddick on the HBO. At one point, mercenaries take the fugitive Riddick to a prison on the planet Crematoria. We're told that on this planet, it's 700 degrees on the day side and "300 below" on the night side. The only time it's safe to be outside is just before dawn. When the sun rises, the ground cooks and the air catches fire (more or less). When the sun sets, everything freezes solid. Those are the ground rules.
If I demanded realism, I'd wonder how in hell Crematoria has a breathable atmosphere. I'd also ask how anyone managed to build anything on the planet, even an underground prison. But under the ground rules, Crematoria does have breathable air and an underground prison. So I won't quiblble.
The problem comes after Riddick and the other convicts break out of the prison. They light out across the scorched earth (or, the scorched crematoria, I suppose), headed for the hangar where the mercs have parked their ship. The sun rises. The air begins to explode. One of the convicts is vaporized. It's 700 degrees now. Riddick and his surviving compatriots, as well as the fleeing prison guards and the newly arrived Necromongers, survive by staying in the shade.
Now, when it's hot out, it's hot whether you're standing in the sun or not. When it's 700 degrees and the air itself is bursting into flame, standing in the shade is not going to help you. Even if you wear shorts.
Further, in order to rescue a friend who has gotten trapped in the sun, Riddick pours water over his head, which makes him immune to the heat. We've just seen a man have the flesh vaporized off his body, and Riddick fends off 700 degree worth of solar oomph with a bottle of water. Must have been Propel.
By the by, I couldn't help but notice how similar the Necromongers were to the invading aliens(?) of Dean Koontz's The Taking. But to point that out would make me a total science fiction geek, and we can't have that.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Friday, April 29, 2005
Yo, Alex!
I've been watching The Apprentice for three seasons, and last night's show was the first time anyone made reference to the New Jersey Generals. In the "Boardroom" segment (that's when Trump hollers insults at the contestants and eventually throws one over the side), it appeared Trump was about to fire Tana the Iowa Mary Kay Woman. But Tana came on strong in defending her business skills. Trump then turned to Alex the Hopelessly Contrived Attorney and berated him for losing, like, five shows in a row. Alex, who never before showed interest in sports, let alone defunct rebel leagues, busted out with a case study of Trump's experience as owner of the Generals of the United States Football League. ("When you bought the team, it had 4 wins and 14 losses, but you recognized that Herschel Walker could be an MVP blah blah blah ... ")
It was tough to watch, because while Alex was trying to polish the apple, you could tell he wasn't sure just what the hell the New Jersey Generals were. Trump wasn't impressed. For one thing, Alex had it wrong: The Generals didn't go 4-14 the year before Trump bought them; they went 6-12. For another, Trump probably doesn't even want to be reminded: The year after Trump bought the Generals and paid a fortune for the likes of Brian Sipe, Gary Barbaro and Walt Michaels, they team went 14-4 but got stomped, as usual, by the Philadelphia Stars in the playoffs.
If there was a precursor to Daniel Snyder and the recent Redskins, it may well have been Trump and the Generals of the mid-'80s. Oh man. The USFL played its last game 20 years ago this summer. Gotta write about that.
It was tough to watch, because while Alex was trying to polish the apple, you could tell he wasn't sure just what the hell the New Jersey Generals were. Trump wasn't impressed. For one thing, Alex had it wrong: The Generals didn't go 4-14 the year before Trump bought them; they went 6-12. For another, Trump probably doesn't even want to be reminded: The year after Trump bought the Generals and paid a fortune for the likes of Brian Sipe, Gary Barbaro and Walt Michaels, they team went 14-4 but got stomped, as usual, by the Philadelphia Stars in the playoffs.
If there was a precursor to Daniel Snyder and the recent Redskins, it may well have been Trump and the Generals of the mid-'80s. Oh man. The USFL played its last game 20 years ago this summer. Gotta write about that.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
You never can tell
The year grinds closer to draft weekend, the only meager oasis to be found between the Super Bowl and the Hall of Fame Game. For those of us who actually watched combine coverage on the NFL Network (or tried to) and have endured another round of Jaguars Summer (and loved it!), the idea of having honest-to-God football-related material to think about makes us positively giddy. All the chat boards are alive with draft talk, the mock drafts are being drawn up, the post-draft report cards are ready to be filled in.
To say that at this point the only thing certain about the draft is that nothing is certain is, well, obvious. No one can say which players will be superstars and which will be busts. Hell, no one even knows whom the 49ers are going to pick with the first selection, and that's the one thing that's usually nail-down-able by this time. (I don't think the 49ers are faking when they say they have no idea either.) The point is: The mock drafts and report cards? Harmless hokum.
There's a game football fans play regularly in which we look at players who have turned out to be stars, then point to the guys at their position who were drafted ahead of them, and then we cluck our tongues. It's fun, but to an extent, it's unfair, because you can time these guys in the 40, watch 'em bench press hunnerts o pounds and Wonderlic 'em from one end of Indianapolis to the other, and still some of them are going to disappoint to the tune of $45 million over seven years. Others will come out of college with no numbers of note, get taken in a round that doesn't even exist anymore and end up with a league-approved block of ice on their trigger finger. Just ain't no guarantees, mon.
Take our buddy Brad Johnson, for example. BraJo(!) will not be going to the Hall of Fame. This year he won't even be starting, if all goes as planned. But in his career, he's led three teams to the playoffs (including the only postseason appearance by the Snyder-era Skins), played in Honolulu twice, won the Super Bowl and been benched because of an inexplicable management obsession with Jeff George. (Being replaced by George is a reliable but hidden indicator of quarterback excellence, right up with being the guy who replaces Tony Banks.) Johnson, in short, is what you should want out of a quarterback.
Johnson was taken by Minnesota in the ninth round of the 1992 NFL Draft. This is a round, mind you, that doesn't exist anymore. These are the quarterbacks selected ahead of him: David Klingler, Tommy Maddox, Matt Blundin, Tony Sacca, Craig Erickson, Casey Weldon, Will Furrer, Chris Hakel, Jeff Blake, Kent Graham, Bucky Richardson, Mike Pawlawski. Take out Blake -- a guy whose career numbers are better than you may expect -- and the other 11 guys combined threw for just 6,000 more yards than Johnson has in his career. They're also all out of football (sorry, Tommy!) by now. So, was it a mistake to pick them ahead of Johnson? I don't think you can say so. Klingler and Erickson were Heisman contenders. Weldon had played ahead of Johnson at Florida State. Richardson was named Bucky, and that counts for something. In retrospect, sure, Johnson was better than all of them, but no one could have known that at the time. He was a steal in the ninth round, but the Vikings didn't know they were stealing him. (Johnson, however, was picked ahead of Ty Detmer, who had actually won the Heisman, which means he was a disaster waiting to happen.)
Tom Brady, on the other hand ...
In his senior season at Michigan, Brady went 9-2 in the regular season with an NCAA passer rating of 138. He ended his college career at the Orange Bowl. His line: 34 of 46, 349 yards, 4 touchdowns, no interceptions.
Brady wasn't taken till the sixth round. Now, the top quarterback picked in 2000 was Chad Pennington. Reasonable people can argue about whether Pennington was right for the Jets, but this was not a stupid pick. No, the stupid picks came later. I'm not talking about Pittsburgh's selection of Tee Martin in the fifth. Hell, Martin won the national championship at Tennessee that Peyton Manning couldn't. Though how he was going to help a team spinning its wheels between Kordell Stewart and Mike Tomczak is beyond me. I'll also refrain from saying something mean about Marc Bulger, who went before Brady in the sixth and has turned out all right -- though not for the team that drafted him, the Saints.
The real fun in looking at the 2000 draft comes in the third round, when the 49ers picked the first QB since Pennington. They chose, I shit you not, Giovanni Carmazzi. A thumbnail comparison:
This year the 49ers are once again trying to find the QB of the future. The Patriots are trying to find a trophy case with enough shelves. Other QBs taken ahead of Brady in 2000: Chris Redman (eh). Spergon Wynn (haw!).
Some other notable QBs taken while future Super Bowl starters were still on the shelf. I've left off guys like Heath Shuler ('94) and Jim Druckenmiller ('97), who were busts but nevertheless came out highly rated:
1997 (Jake Delhomme undrafted): Danny Wuerffel, Ronnie McAda, Wally Richardson
1994 (Kurt Warner undrafted): Doug Nussmeier, Perry Klein Jay Walker, Glenn Foley
1991 (Brett Favre, second round): Dan McGwire, Todd Marinovich
1983 (Dan Marino goes No. 27): Todd Blackledge, Tony Eason, Ken O'Brien
1979 (Joe Montana, third round): Steve Fuller
Honorable mention and cheap shot: 1967 (Bob Griese goes No. 4): Steve Spurrier
Somebody damn well take a chance on Timmy Chang.
To say that at this point the only thing certain about the draft is that nothing is certain is, well, obvious. No one can say which players will be superstars and which will be busts. Hell, no one even knows whom the 49ers are going to pick with the first selection, and that's the one thing that's usually nail-down-able by this time. (I don't think the 49ers are faking when they say they have no idea either.) The point is: The mock drafts and report cards? Harmless hokum.
There's a game football fans play regularly in which we look at players who have turned out to be stars, then point to the guys at their position who were drafted ahead of them, and then we cluck our tongues. It's fun, but to an extent, it's unfair, because you can time these guys in the 40, watch 'em bench press hunnerts o pounds and Wonderlic 'em from one end of Indianapolis to the other, and still some of them are going to disappoint to the tune of $45 million over seven years. Others will come out of college with no numbers of note, get taken in a round that doesn't even exist anymore and end up with a league-approved block of ice on their trigger finger. Just ain't no guarantees, mon.
Take our buddy Brad Johnson, for example. BraJo(!) will not be going to the Hall of Fame. This year he won't even be starting, if all goes as planned. But in his career, he's led three teams to the playoffs (including the only postseason appearance by the Snyder-era Skins), played in Honolulu twice, won the Super Bowl and been benched because of an inexplicable management obsession with Jeff George. (Being replaced by George is a reliable but hidden indicator of quarterback excellence, right up with being the guy who replaces Tony Banks.) Johnson, in short, is what you should want out of a quarterback.
Johnson was taken by Minnesota in the ninth round of the 1992 NFL Draft. This is a round, mind you, that doesn't exist anymore. These are the quarterbacks selected ahead of him: David Klingler, Tommy Maddox, Matt Blundin, Tony Sacca, Craig Erickson, Casey Weldon, Will Furrer, Chris Hakel, Jeff Blake, Kent Graham, Bucky Richardson, Mike Pawlawski. Take out Blake -- a guy whose career numbers are better than you may expect -- and the other 11 guys combined threw for just 6,000 more yards than Johnson has in his career. They're also all out of football (sorry, Tommy!) by now. So, was it a mistake to pick them ahead of Johnson? I don't think you can say so. Klingler and Erickson were Heisman contenders. Weldon had played ahead of Johnson at Florida State. Richardson was named Bucky, and that counts for something. In retrospect, sure, Johnson was better than all of them, but no one could have known that at the time. He was a steal in the ninth round, but the Vikings didn't know they were stealing him. (Johnson, however, was picked ahead of Ty Detmer, who had actually won the Heisman, which means he was a disaster waiting to happen.)
Tom Brady, on the other hand ...
In his senior season at Michigan, Brady went 9-2 in the regular season with an NCAA passer rating of 138. He ended his college career at the Orange Bowl. His line: 34 of 46, 349 yards, 4 touchdowns, no interceptions.
Brady wasn't taken till the sixth round. Now, the top quarterback picked in 2000 was Chad Pennington. Reasonable people can argue about whether Pennington was right for the Jets, but this was not a stupid pick. No, the stupid picks came later. I'm not talking about Pittsburgh's selection of Tee Martin in the fifth. Hell, Martin won the national championship at Tennessee that Peyton Manning couldn't. Though how he was going to help a team spinning its wheels between Kordell Stewart and Mike Tomczak is beyond me. I'll also refrain from saying something mean about Marc Bulger, who went before Brady in the sixth and has turned out all right -- though not for the team that drafted him, the Saints.
The real fun in looking at the 2000 draft comes in the third round, when the 49ers picked the first QB since Pennington. They chose, I shit you not, Giovanni Carmazzi. A thumbnail comparison:
| PLAYER | GAMES | PASS YDS | TDs | PLAYOFF REC. | S.B. RINGS |
| Brady | 64 | 13,925 | 97 | 9-0 | 3 |
| Carmazzi | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | 0 |
This year the 49ers are once again trying to find the QB of the future. The Patriots are trying to find a trophy case with enough shelves. Other QBs taken ahead of Brady in 2000: Chris Redman (eh). Spergon Wynn (haw!).
Some other notable QBs taken while future Super Bowl starters were still on the shelf. I've left off guys like Heath Shuler ('94) and Jim Druckenmiller ('97), who were busts but nevertheless came out highly rated:
1997 (Jake Delhomme undrafted): Danny Wuerffel, Ronnie McAda, Wally Richardson
1994 (Kurt Warner undrafted): Doug Nussmeier, Perry Klein Jay Walker, Glenn Foley
1991 (Brett Favre, second round): Dan McGwire, Todd Marinovich
1983 (Dan Marino goes No. 27): Todd Blackledge, Tony Eason, Ken O'Brien
1979 (Joe Montana, third round): Steve Fuller
Honorable mention and cheap shot: 1967 (Bob Griese goes No. 4): Steve Spurrier
Somebody damn well take a chance on Timmy Chang.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Triple overpass
A recent thread at Football Outsiders discussed players with the greatest potential for a breakout year in 2005. My pick would be Carson Palmer, and I wanted to do a little research about Cincinnati's quarterback carousel in the 12 seasons since Boomer Esiason split as a free agent. That research led me to look at every team's quarterback carousel since the '93 season. Which is all a roundabout way of introducing today's topic: The Three-Headed Monster.
Start with the 2002 Eagles. Donovan McNabb breaks his leg in Week 10. Koy Detmer dislocates his elbow before Week 11 is out. Third-stringer A.J. Feeley goes 4-1 in five starts, and Philly's season is saved. Who's the hero? The numbers don't lie: Koy Detmer. It breaks down like this: McNabb finished the regular season with 361 pass attempts. Feeley had 154 attempts. Detmer, by virtue of getting hurt after just three quarters, threw the ball just 28 times. Thus the Eagles avoided having three passers with more than 100 attempts each. That's the Three-Headed Monster, a leading indicator of a lost season.
Technically, Chicago did not actually field a Monster last season. But the poor bastards it threw out there after Rex Grossman went down -- Chad Hutchinson (161 attempts), Craig Krenzel (127) and Jonathan Quinn (98) -- were close enough to merit special consideration. Because all three were backups, it really wouldn't be fair to declare the 2004 Chicago QB corps as the absolute worst of the past 12 years. I'd drop that honor on the 1998 New Orleans Saints: Billy Joe Tolliver (199), the not-yet-cleaned-up Kerry Collins (191) and Danny Wuerffel (119). The '98 Saints Monster gets an honorary fourth head in Billy Joe Hobert (28 completions). Actually, make it five: Despite this collection of numb arms, Mike Ditka decided that the best thing to do with all his 1999 draft picks is use them on one running back. And the Saints went from 6-10 to 3-13. Two guys named Billy Joe!
The Three-Headed Monster can be born in several ways. A team could just not have an NFL-caliber starting quarterback ('98 Saints, '94 Redskins). Or it could have a decent or even great QB, but he gets hurt and the team can't replace him ('04 Bears, '03 Falcons). Or maybe the team just rips itself apart midseason ('93 Browns). A subjective look at the Three-Headed Monsters of the past dozen years (in descending order, with the most gruesome creatures listed first):
1998 Saints: Billy Joe Tolliver (199),Kerry Collins (191), Danny Wuerffel (119)
1994 Oilers: Billy Joe Tolliver (240), Bucky Richardson (181), Cody Carlson (132)
1996 Jets: Frank Reich (331), Neil O'Donnell (188), Glenn Foley (110)
1994 Redskins: Heath Shuler (265), John Friesz (180), Gus Frerotte (100)
2001 Lions: Charlie Batch (341), Ty Detmer (151), Mike McMahon (115)
1999 Bears: Shane Matthews (275), Cade McNown (235), Jim Miller (174)
1997 Eagles: Ty Detmer (244), Bobby Hoying (225), Rodney Peete (118)
2003 Falcons: Michael Vick (100), Kurt Kittner (114), Doug Johnson (243)
1993 Eagles: Bubby Brister (309), Ken O'Brien (137), Randall Cunningham (110)
1993 Browns: Vinny Testaverde (230), Bernie Kosar (138), Todd Philcox (108)
2002 Rams: Kurt Warner (220), Marc Bulger (214), Jamie Martin (195)
1993 Dolphins: Dan Marino (150), Steve Deberg (188), Scott Mitchell (233)
Some answers: 1) Yes, there are some fine quarterbacks on this list. 2) No, it's not a coincidence that Tolliver and Ty Detmer are on there twice. 3) Yes, the '96 Jets had a much worse record than the '98 Saints. That's not the point.
Start with the 2002 Eagles. Donovan McNabb breaks his leg in Week 10. Koy Detmer dislocates his elbow before Week 11 is out. Third-stringer A.J. Feeley goes 4-1 in five starts, and Philly's season is saved. Who's the hero? The numbers don't lie: Koy Detmer. It breaks down like this: McNabb finished the regular season with 361 pass attempts. Feeley had 154 attempts. Detmer, by virtue of getting hurt after just three quarters, threw the ball just 28 times. Thus the Eagles avoided having three passers with more than 100 attempts each. That's the Three-Headed Monster, a leading indicator of a lost season.
Technically, Chicago did not actually field a Monster last season. But the poor bastards it threw out there after Rex Grossman went down -- Chad Hutchinson (161 attempts), Craig Krenzel (127) and Jonathan Quinn (98) -- were close enough to merit special consideration. Because all three were backups, it really wouldn't be fair to declare the 2004 Chicago QB corps as the absolute worst of the past 12 years. I'd drop that honor on the 1998 New Orleans Saints: Billy Joe Tolliver (199), the not-yet-cleaned-up Kerry Collins (191) and Danny Wuerffel (119). The '98 Saints Monster gets an honorary fourth head in Billy Joe Hobert (28 completions). Actually, make it five: Despite this collection of numb arms, Mike Ditka decided that the best thing to do with all his 1999 draft picks is use them on one running back. And the Saints went from 6-10 to 3-13. Two guys named Billy Joe!
The Three-Headed Monster can be born in several ways. A team could just not have an NFL-caliber starting quarterback ('98 Saints, '94 Redskins). Or it could have a decent or even great QB, but he gets hurt and the team can't replace him ('04 Bears, '03 Falcons). Or maybe the team just rips itself apart midseason ('93 Browns). A subjective look at the Three-Headed Monsters of the past dozen years (in descending order, with the most gruesome creatures listed first):
1998 Saints: Billy Joe Tolliver (199),Kerry Collins (191), Danny Wuerffel (119)
1994 Oilers: Billy Joe Tolliver (240), Bucky Richardson (181), Cody Carlson (132)
1996 Jets: Frank Reich (331), Neil O'Donnell (188), Glenn Foley (110)
1994 Redskins: Heath Shuler (265), John Friesz (180), Gus Frerotte (100)
2001 Lions: Charlie Batch (341), Ty Detmer (151), Mike McMahon (115)
1999 Bears: Shane Matthews (275), Cade McNown (235), Jim Miller (174)
1997 Eagles: Ty Detmer (244), Bobby Hoying (225), Rodney Peete (118)
2003 Falcons: Michael Vick (100), Kurt Kittner (114), Doug Johnson (243)
1993 Eagles: Bubby Brister (309), Ken O'Brien (137), Randall Cunningham (110)
1993 Browns: Vinny Testaverde (230), Bernie Kosar (138), Todd Philcox (108)
2002 Rams: Kurt Warner (220), Marc Bulger (214), Jamie Martin (195)
1993 Dolphins: Dan Marino (150), Steve Deberg (188), Scott Mitchell (233)
Some answers: 1) Yes, there are some fine quarterbacks on this list. 2) No, it's not a coincidence that Tolliver and Ty Detmer are on there twice. 3) Yes, the '96 Jets had a much worse record than the '98 Saints. That's not the point.
Pardon the interruption
I realize that it's been more than a month since anything new was added to Down and Distance. My wife and I have had a family emergency. Posting will resume shortly. In the meantime, if anyone's planning to be in northern Delaware the weekend of April 16-17 -- and why wouldn't you be? -- go ahead and stop by the Doubletree Hotel Wilmington for the Wilmington Writers' Workshop. I'm going to be presenting a session on "Precision Editing" the morning of the 17th. The workshop is sponsored by the Wilmington News Journal and the Poynter Institute.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Pros, not poetry
I didn't actually watch the Pro Bowl. I had it on as background music while hanging shelves in the basement. And it wasn't actually this year's Pro Bowl. It was still afternoon, and NFL Network was rerunning last year's game. But really, is there even a difference? The uniforms look like something you'd see in a crummy movie where football is being played in the future. The teams put up 80, 90 points. The players just try not to get hurt. The players don't take the Pro Bowl seriously. No one does.
If anyone were to need evidence, they'd only have to check the play by play of last year's game. The following things happened:
Any of these occurrences would make a game memorable. They'd even make a preseason game memorable. Yet, here this game was playing on my TV, and I only faintly recalled any of it ever happening. That's because the Pro Bowl is the worst game of all. It's worse than a preseason game. At least in the preseason, guys are playing for jobs. And the games, such as they are, are a harbinger of an autumn's worth of bliss. All the Pro Bowl signals is six dark, empty months without football.
As I listened to a game a year past its freshness date, I laughed a little harder each time the ESPN crew -- calling the game as if it meant something, which was cute -- hollered that Green had fumbled. All I could think about was Atlee Hammaker. In 1983, Hammaker was a 25-year-old left-handed pitcher for the San Francisco Giants. At the All-Star break, he led the NL in ERA. He was on top of the world. Then, he was sent in to pitch the third inning of the All-Star Game. Six hits and seven runs later, he stumbled off the field. He was never the same pitcher again.
In the 2004 Pro Bowl, meanwhile, Trent Green fumbled four times in 10 minutes. Vanderjagt shanked two field goals. The AFC lost a four-touchdown lead. And by Tuesday, everyone had forgotten.
Ha!
If anyone were to need evidence, they'd only have to check the play by play of last year's game. The following things happened:
- The NFC was behind 38-13 four minuntes into the third quarter, then rallied to win 55-52. At the time, it was only the third NFL game of any kind to see more than 100 points scored.
- Trent Green started the second half for the AFC and fumbled four times in about a quarter's worth of work. Yes, the center-QB exchange is tricky in an all-star game, but the other five quarterbacks had one fumble combined.
- Mike Vanderjagt didn't miss a kick all year, yet honked field goals at the end of both halves, including the potential tying kick as time ran out.
Any of these occurrences would make a game memorable. They'd even make a preseason game memorable. Yet, here this game was playing on my TV, and I only faintly recalled any of it ever happening. That's because the Pro Bowl is the worst game of all. It's worse than a preseason game. At least in the preseason, guys are playing for jobs. And the games, such as they are, are a harbinger of an autumn's worth of bliss. All the Pro Bowl signals is six dark, empty months without football.
As I listened to a game a year past its freshness date, I laughed a little harder each time the ESPN crew -- calling the game as if it meant something, which was cute -- hollered that Green had fumbled. All I could think about was Atlee Hammaker. In 1983, Hammaker was a 25-year-old left-handed pitcher for the San Francisco Giants. At the All-Star break, he led the NL in ERA. He was on top of the world. Then, he was sent in to pitch the third inning of the All-Star Game. Six hits and seven runs later, he stumbled off the field. He was never the same pitcher again.
In the 2004 Pro Bowl, meanwhile, Trent Green fumbled four times in 10 minutes. Vanderjagt shanked two field goals. The AFC lost a four-touchdown lead. And by Tuesday, everyone had forgotten.
Ha!
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Salisbury mistake
When the call goes out for all Michael Irvin fans to raise their hands, mine does not go up. His act on Sunday NFL Countdown -- by turns preening, shouting and giggling -- is a little hard to take, especially considering he's sitting in the chair once occupied by Sterling Sharpe, who was simultaneously erudite and a badass. Even so, Irvin's ramblings and mumblings reveal the odd insight, and when he turns out to be wrong, he can admit it. And on top of it all, the man wears three rings. I mean, those are credentials.
So where the hell does Sean Salisbury get off? The day after the Super Bowl, I'm watching a wrapup on ESPN, and Salisbury is explaining why the Patriots are a dynasty -- maybe the best ever. Hey, I'm wide open to that argument. But Salisbury, as usual, makes his case less with reason than with "attitude." He gets in Irvin's face and says the 21st-century Pats are better than Irvin's 1990s Cowboys because the 'Boys merely blew out their Super Bowl opponents, while the Patriots have "proven they can win close games."
What? I repeat: WHAT?
You can give dozens of good reasons why New England's three-of-four is more remarkable than Dallas'. Hell, Troy Aikman (three rings) has been doing that for a while now. But to say that the Patriots are better because they haven't blown out their opponents is a breed of idiocy so rare they should put it in a zoo.
Irvin then said he now agrees that the Pats are a dynasty. Salisbury reopens his blowhole and says, "That's not what you said last year!" As if Irvin is the fool here for waiting until New England established a dynasty before declaring them one. The, um, Playmaker had every right to withhold judgment until he was satisfied. That's the prerogative you earn when you have jewel-encrusted fingers.
Down and Distance isn't about trashing people. But it appears Salisbury is. Look at all the jocks-turned-talking heads on Fox, CBS, ESPN and the NFL Network. Aikman, Steve Young, Terry Bradshaw, Dan Marino, Phil Simms, Ron Jaworski, Howie Long, both Sharpes, Terrell Davis, Daryl Johnston, even Boomer Esiason. Pro Bowlers. Super Bowl players. Super Bowl winners. Hall of Famers. None of them -- none -- trashes people the way Salisbury does. Maybe they don't have to. Maybe when you throw six TDs in one Super Bowl, you just don't have to puff yourself up the way a person with a career 22.4 playoff passer rating does. Maybe if you have nearly 3,849 passing yards just in playoff games, you aren't as insecure as a guy with 3,824 in the regular season for his entire career.
I'll even throw in Solomon Wilcots.
You don't need to have been a great player to be a fine commentator. Hell, you needn't have even been a player to be a fine commentator. But arrogance -- especially Salisburian arrogance -- doesn't mask the fact that you stunk between the lines. It magnifies it.
So where the hell does Sean Salisbury get off? The day after the Super Bowl, I'm watching a wrapup on ESPN, and Salisbury is explaining why the Patriots are a dynasty -- maybe the best ever. Hey, I'm wide open to that argument. But Salisbury, as usual, makes his case less with reason than with "attitude." He gets in Irvin's face and says the 21st-century Pats are better than Irvin's 1990s Cowboys because the 'Boys merely blew out their Super Bowl opponents, while the Patriots have "proven they can win close games."
What? I repeat: WHAT?
You can give dozens of good reasons why New England's three-of-four is more remarkable than Dallas'. Hell, Troy Aikman (three rings) has been doing that for a while now. But to say that the Patriots are better because they haven't blown out their opponents is a breed of idiocy so rare they should put it in a zoo.
Irvin then said he now agrees that the Pats are a dynasty. Salisbury reopens his blowhole and says, "That's not what you said last year!" As if Irvin is the fool here for waiting until New England established a dynasty before declaring them one. The, um, Playmaker had every right to withhold judgment until he was satisfied. That's the prerogative you earn when you have jewel-encrusted fingers.
Down and Distance isn't about trashing people. But it appears Salisbury is. Look at all the jocks-turned-talking heads on Fox, CBS, ESPN and the NFL Network. Aikman, Steve Young, Terry Bradshaw, Dan Marino, Phil Simms, Ron Jaworski, Howie Long, both Sharpes, Terrell Davis, Daryl Johnston, even Boomer Esiason. Pro Bowlers. Super Bowl players. Super Bowl winners. Hall of Famers. None of them -- none -- trashes people the way Salisbury does. Maybe they don't have to. Maybe when you throw six TDs in one Super Bowl, you just don't have to puff yourself up the way a person with a career 22.4 playoff passer rating does. Maybe if you have nearly 3,849 passing yards just in playoff games, you aren't as insecure as a guy with 3,824 in the regular season for his entire career.
I'll even throw in Solomon Wilcots.
You don't need to have been a great player to be a fine commentator. Hell, you needn't have even been a player to be a fine commentator. But arrogance -- especially Salisburian arrogance -- doesn't mask the fact that you stunk between the lines. It magnifies it.
The Championship Championships
After the Eagles lost Super Bowl XXXIX, we all read that Philadelphia holds the longest title drought among markets that have franchises in "all four major team sports." I guess hockey is still considered a major team sport. ("Better pull them pants up, Chief.") If it were up to me, I'd replace it with Arena football. At least you can count on those guys to play. Anyway, here are the title drought standings:
*D.C., of course, has all four sports as of April 2005. Also, one could argue for including the Bay Area here, as it has the 49ers, Raiders, Giants, A's, Warriors and Sharks. If you insist on including it, I won't stop you. Last championship: 49ers, 1994.
As a native Minnesotan, I guess I'm rooting for the Eagles to keep losing, then.
Compiling that list got me wondering which city is the overall sports champion: all leagues, all years. So I put together a database of all title winners in the big four pro leagues going back to the beginning of the Super Bowl era. Here are your standings (see end of post for the specific championship years):
*NFL denotes Super Bowl champion, including the '68 Jets and '69 Chiefs of the AFL
(If a city had a franchise during the covered period but it won no titles, it gets a "0" for the sport. If the city had no franchise, the sport is marked with "--")
Obviously New York is always going to come out ahead, no matter how you count and how far back you go. The city has two football teams and two baseball teams, and all have won championships. Boston has had a hell of a run lately (Pats, Sox) and in the past (Celtics). L.A. has the Lakers. But ... Montreal? Sure, the Canadiens have historically been a dominant hockey team, but they haven't won the Cup since 1993. And now that Les Nationales are gone, the Habs are it for Montreal. I can't in good conscience equate an NHL title with a Super Bowl victory. So I tweaked these standings again.
Now, I'm sure that for a hockey player, a Stanley Cup championship is just as good as a Super Bowl victory. But I'm not a hockey player. I'm a sports fan, sitting on the couch. I decided to weight these titles according to their impact on the general sports population (meaning me, but I'm sure we can all agree on the principle). So let's weight them like this:
Super Bowl title = 3
World Series title = 3
NBA championship = 2
Stanley Cup title = 1
That seems about right to me. I'm not happy about equating baseball and football -- this is Down and Distance, after all, not Foul Line and Rosin Bag -- but I'm also a realist. OK, weighting the titles gives us this:
Oh man, we're getting warm. But there's one other factor to consider. Look at Anaheim and Arizona. The Angels are just two years removed from winning the World Series, the Diamondbacks just three years. Yet both trail Long Island, which is still coasting on decades-old Stanley Cup titles. That ain't right. Similarly, look at Atlanta. Yes, the city's lone World Series title was 10 years ago, but how can it be only one point behind Milwaukee, winner of the 1970 NBA title and nothing else? Obviously, we can't just weight for sport. We have to add in a time element.
I developed a formula that assigns points based on a) the sport in which each title was won, and b) the year in which it was won. The most recent title in each sport has a value 39 times that of the oldest title (there have been 39 years in the Super Bowl era). By sport, titles are valued in the same proportion as above: NFL 3, MLB 3, NBA 2, NHL 1.
The Patriots' 2004 NFL title, for example, is worth about twice as much as the Bears' title from 1985. That Bears title, meanwhile, is worth about the same as the Houston Rockets' NBA 1995 title and is worth more than any Stanley Cup. (The most recent Cup equates to the 1978 World Series and Super Bowl.)
So, finally, we have our standings:
THE DOWN AND DISTANCE CHAMPIONSHIP CHAMPIONSHIPS
Based on the weighting of the sports (3+3+2+1), there were 9 total points awarded. The fractions above don't add up to 9, however, because the .112 points reserved for the 1994 World Series winner are unclaimed.
Now, chew that over.
Each city's championship teams and years are as follows:
New York (Giants 90,86; Jets 68; Yankees 00,99,98,96,78,77; Mets 86,69; Knicks 73,70; Rangers 94)
Boston (Patriots 04,03,01; Red Sox 04; Celtics 86,84,81,76,74,69,68; Bruins 72,70)
Los Angeles (Raiders 84; Dodgers 88,81; Lakers 02,01,00,88,87,85,82,80,72)
Montreal (Canadiens 93,86,79,78,77,76,73,71,69,68)
Detroit (Tigers 84,68; Pistons 04,90,89; Red Wings 02,98,97)
Pittsburgh (Steelers 79,78,75,74; Pirates 79,71; Penguins 92,91)
Chicago (Bears 85; Bulls 98,97,96,93,92,91)
Oakland (Raiders 80,76; A's 89,74,73,72; Warriors 75)
Dallas (Cowboys 95,93,92,77,71; Stars 99)
Baltimore (Ravens 00; Colts 70; Orioles 83,70,66)
San Francisco (49ers 94,89,88,84,81)
Philadelphia (Phillies 80; 76ers 83,67; Flyers 75,74)
Edmonton (Oilers 90,88,87,85,84)
Miami (Dolphins 72,73; Marlins 03,97)
Denver (Broncos 98,97; Avalanche 01,96)
Washington (Redskins 91,87,82; Bullets 78)
Long Island (Islanders 83,82,81,80)
New Jersey (Devils 03,00,95)
St. Louis (Rams 99; Cardinals 82,67)
Green Bay (Packers 96,67,66)
Toronto (Blue Jays 93,92; Maple Leafs 67)
Cincinnati (Reds 90,76,75)
Tampa (Buccaneers 02; Lightning 04)
San Antonio (Spurs 03,99 )
Houston (Rockets 94,95 )
Minnesota (Twins 91,87)
Kansas City (Chiefs 69; Royals 85)
Anaheim (Angels 02)
Arizona (Diamondbacks 01)
Atlanta (Braves 95)
Calgary (Flames 89)
Seattle (SuperSonics 79)
Portland (Trail Blazers 77)
Milwaukee (Bucks 71)
| CITY/MARKET | LAST TITLE | CHAMP |
| Boston | 2004 | Red Sox, Patriots |
| Detroit | 2004 | Pistons |
| Miami | 2003 | Marlins |
| Arizona | 2001 | Diamondbacks |
| Denver | 2001 | Avalanche |
| New York | 2000 | Yankees |
| Dallas | 1999 | Stars |
| Chicago | 1998 | Bulls |
| Atlanta | 1995 | Braves |
| Washington* | 1991 | Redskins |
| Minnesota | 1991 | Twins |
| Philadelphia | 1983 | 76ers |
As a native Minnesotan, I guess I'm rooting for the Eagles to keep losing, then.
Compiling that list got me wondering which city is the overall sports champion: all leagues, all years. So I put together a database of all title winners in the big four pro leagues going back to the beginning of the Super Bowl era. Here are your standings (see end of post for the specific championship years):
| NO. | CITY/MARKET | NFL* | MLB | NBA | NHL |
| 14 | New York | 3 | 8 | 2 | 1 |
| 13 | Boston | 3 | 1 | 7 | 2 |
| 12 | Los Angeles | 1 | 2 | 9 | 0 |
| 10 | Montreal | -- | 0 | -- | 10 |
| 8 | Detroit | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| 8 | Pittsburgh | 4 | 2 | -- | 2 |
| 7 | Chicago | 1 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
| 7 | Oakland | 2 | 4 | 1 | -- |
| 6 | Dallas | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 5 | Baltimore | 2 | 3 | -- | -- |
| 5 | San Francisco | 5 | 0 | -- | -- |
| 5 | Philadelphia | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 5 | Edmonton | -- | -- | -- | 5 |
| 4 | Miami | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | Denver | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 4 | Washington | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 4 | Long Island | -- | -- | -- | 4 |
| 3 | New Jersey | -- | -- | 0 | 3 |
| 3 | St. Louis | 1 | 2 | -- | 0 |
| 3 | Green Bay | 3 | -- | -- | -- |
| 3 | Toronto | -- | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| 3 | Cincinnati | 0 | 3 | -- | -- |
| 2 | Tampa | 1 | 0 | -- | 1 |
| 2 | San Antonio | -- | -- | 2 | -- |
| 2 | Houston | 0 | 0 | 2 | -- |
| 2 | Minnesota | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | Kansas City | 1 | 1 | 0 | -- |
| 1 | Anaheim | -- | 1 | -- | 0 |
| 1 | Arizona | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | Atlanta | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | Calgary | -- | -- | -- | 1 |
| 1 | Seattle | 0 | 0 | 1 | -- |
| 1 | Portland | -- | -- | 1 | -- |
| 1 | Milwaukee | -- | 0 | 1 | -- |
*NFL denotes Super Bowl champion, including the '68 Jets and '69 Chiefs of the AFL
(If a city had a franchise during the covered period but it won no titles, it gets a "0" for the sport. If the city had no franchise, the sport is marked with "--")
Obviously New York is always going to come out ahead, no matter how you count and how far back you go. The city has two football teams and two baseball teams, and all have won championships. Boston has had a hell of a run lately (Pats, Sox) and in the past (Celtics). L.A. has the Lakers. But ... Montreal? Sure, the Canadiens have historically been a dominant hockey team, but they haven't won the Cup since 1993. And now that Les Nationales are gone, the Habs are it for Montreal. I can't in good conscience equate an NHL title with a Super Bowl victory. So I tweaked these standings again.
Now, I'm sure that for a hockey player, a Stanley Cup championship is just as good as a Super Bowl victory. But I'm not a hockey player. I'm a sports fan, sitting on the couch. I decided to weight these titles according to their impact on the general sports population (meaning me, but I'm sure we can all agree on the principle). So let's weight them like this:
Super Bowl title = 3
World Series title = 3
NBA championship = 2
Stanley Cup title = 1
That seems about right to me. I'm not happy about equating baseball and football -- this is Down and Distance, after all, not Foul Line and Rosin Bag -- but I'm also a realist. OK, weighting the titles gives us this:
| 38 New York | 10 Montreal | 4 San Antonio | |
| 28 Boston | 9 Philadelphia | 4 Houston | |
| 27 Los Angeles | 9 St. Louis | 3 New Jersey | |
| 20 Pittsburgh | 9 Green Bay | 3 Anaheim | |
| 19 Oakland | 9 Cincinnati | 3 Arizona | |
| 16 Dallas | 8 Denver | 3 Atlanta | |
| 15 San Francisco | 7 Toronto | 2 Seattle | |
| 15 Detroit | 6 Minnesota | 2 Portland | |
| 15 Chicago | 6 Kansas City | 2 Milwaukee | |
| 12 Miami | 4 Edmonton | 1 Calgary | |
| 12 Baltimore | 4 Long Island | ||
| 10 Washington | 4 Tampa |
Oh man, we're getting warm. But there's one other factor to consider. Look at Anaheim and Arizona. The Angels are just two years removed from winning the World Series, the Diamondbacks just three years. Yet both trail Long Island, which is still coasting on decades-old Stanley Cup titles. That ain't right. Similarly, look at Atlanta. Yes, the city's lone World Series title was 10 years ago, but how can it be only one point behind Milwaukee, winner of the 1970 NBA title and nothing else? Obviously, we can't just weight for sport. We have to add in a time element.
I developed a formula that assigns points based on a) the sport in which each title was won, and b) the year in which it was won. The most recent title in each sport has a value 39 times that of the oldest title (there have been 39 years in the Super Bowl era). By sport, titles are valued in the same proportion as above: NFL 3, MLB 3, NBA 2, NHL 1.
The Patriots' 2004 NFL title, for example, is worth about twice as much as the Bears' title from 1985. That Bears title, meanwhile, is worth about the same as the Houston Rockets' NBA 1995 title and is worth more than any Stanley Cup. (The most recent Cup equates to the 1978 World Series and Super Bowl.)
So, finally, we have our standings:
THE DOWN AND DISTANCE CHAMPIONSHIP CHAMPIONSHIPS
| .963 New York | .246 Baltimore | .133 Philadelphia | |
| .813 Boston | .214 Toronto | .132 New Jersey | |
| .763 Los Angeles | .204 St. Louis | .131 Green Bay | |
| .531 Chicago | .192 Tampa | .115 Atlanta | |
| .441 Detroit | .185 Minnesota | .092 Kansas City | |
| .440 Dallas | .185 San Antonio | .085 Long Island | |
| .427 San Francisco | .177 Cincinnati | .036 Seattle | |
| .336 Denver | .154 Montreal | .031 Portland | |
| .327 Miami | .151 Houston | .031 Calgary | |
| .322 Pittsburgh | .142 Anaheim | .015 Milwaukee | |
| .310 Oakland | .140 Edmonton | ||
| .283 Washington | .138 Arizona |
Based on the weighting of the sports (3+3+2+1), there were 9 total points awarded. The fractions above don't add up to 9, however, because the .112 points reserved for the 1994 World Series winner are unclaimed.
Now, chew that over.
Each city's championship teams and years are as follows:
New York (Giants 90,86; Jets 68; Yankees 00,99,98,96,78,77; Mets 86,69; Knicks 73,70; Rangers 94)
Boston (Patriots 04,03,01; Red Sox 04; Celtics 86,84,81,76,74,69,68; Bruins 72,70)
Los Angeles (Raiders 84; Dodgers 88,81; Lakers 02,01,00,88,87,85,82,80,72)
Montreal (Canadiens 93,86,79,78,77,76,73,71,69,68)
Detroit (Tigers 84,68; Pistons 04,90,89; Red Wings 02,98,97)
Pittsburgh (Steelers 79,78,75,74; Pirates 79,71; Penguins 92,91)
Chicago (Bears 85; Bulls 98,97,96,93,92,91)
Oakland (Raiders 80,76; A's 89,74,73,72; Warriors 75)
Dallas (Cowboys 95,93,92,77,71; Stars 99)
Baltimore (Ravens 00; Colts 70; Orioles 83,70,66)
San Francisco (49ers 94,89,88,84,81)
Philadelphia (Phillies 80; 76ers 83,67; Flyers 75,74)
Edmonton (Oilers 90,88,87,85,84)
Miami (Dolphins 72,73; Marlins 03,97)
Denver (Broncos 98,97; Avalanche 01,96)
Washington (Redskins 91,87,82; Bullets 78)
Long Island (Islanders 83,82,81,80)
New Jersey (Devils 03,00,95)
St. Louis (Rams 99; Cardinals 82,67)
Green Bay (Packers 96,67,66)
Toronto (Blue Jays 93,92; Maple Leafs 67)
Cincinnati (Reds 90,76,75)
Tampa (Buccaneers 02; Lightning 04)
San Antonio (Spurs 03,99 )
Houston (Rockets 94,95 )
Minnesota (Twins 91,87)
Kansas City (Chiefs 69; Royals 85)
Anaheim (Angels 02)
Arizona (Diamondbacks 01)
Atlanta (Braves 95)
Calgary (Flames 89)
Seattle (SuperSonics 79)
Portland (Trail Blazers 77)
Milwaukee (Bucks 71)
Monday, February 07, 2005
When things can't get worse ...
Here are the raw numbers for the post of Feb. 5, "$100 on the over, and Charge it." These are the teams that have gone 4-12 or worse since 1992, with their records for the following year, and the victory differential from the first year to the next. Obviously, as this is not the NBA, none of these teams qualified for the postseason in the first year. Those that made the playoffs in the second season are indicated by (P).
Update 2/10/05: And just for hoots, here are the teams that have finished 12-4 or better since 1992. All made the playoffs in the first year. "P?" indicates whether the team made the playoffs in the second year. As you would expect, when a team wins three-quarters of its games, it's awfully hard to improve. Of the 46 teams here, only 3 improved; 35 got worse; and 8 had no change. On average, teams had 3.2 fewer victories the next year. The median result was 2.75 fewer victories. The most common result was no change at all.
Interestingly, all of 2003's top teams had over/unders of 11.5 or lower for 2004. Apparently, the oddsmakers were flat-out positive that the Chargers weren't going to improve, yet they hedged on the good teams.
YEAR | TEAM | W-L | NEXT SEASON | CHANGE |
| 1992 | Patriots | 2-14 | 5-11 | +3 |
| Seahawks | 2-14 | 6-10 | +4 | |
| Cardinals | 4-12 | 7-9 | +5 | |
| 1993 | Bengals | 3-13 | 3-13 | -- |
| Colts | 4-12 | 8-8 | +4 | |
| Redskins | 4-12 | 3-13 | -1 | |
| 1994 | Oilers | 2-14 | 7-9 | +5 |
| Bengals | 3-13 | 7-9 | +4 | |
| Redskins | 4-12 | 6-10 | +2 | |
| Rams | 4-12 | 7-9 | +5 | |
| 1995 | Jets | 3-13 | 1-15 | -2 |
| Jaguars | 4-12 | 9-7 (P) | +5 | |
| Cardinals | 4-12 | 7-9 | +3 | |
| 1996 | Jets | 1-15 | 9-7 | +8 |
| Saints | 3-13 | 6-10 | +3 | |
| Falcons | 3-13 | 7-9 | +4 | |
| Ravens | 4-12 | 6-9-1 | +2.5 | |
| 1997 | Colts | 3-13 | 3-13 | -- |
| Chargers | 4-12 | 5-11 | +1 | |
| Cardinals | 4-12 | 9-7 (P) | +5 | |
| Raiders | 4-12 | 8-8 | +4 | |
| Bears | 4-12 | 4-12 | -- | |
| 1998 | Eagles | 3-13 | 5-11 | +2 |
| Bengals | 3-13 | 4-12 | +1 | |
| Colts | 3-13 | 13-3 (P) | +10 | |
| Bears | 4-12 | 6-10 | +2 | |
| Rams | 4-12 | 13-3 (P) | +9 | |
| Panthers | 4-12 | 8-8 | +4 | |
| 1999 | Browns | 2-14 | 3-13 | +1 |
| Saints | 3-13 | 10-6 (P) | +7 | |
| 49ers | 4-12 | 6-10 | +2 | |
| Bengals | 4-12 | 4-12 | -- | |
| 2000 | Chargers | 1-15 | 5-11 | +4 |
| Cardinals | 3-13 | 7-9 | +4 | |
| Browns | 3-13 | 7-9 | +4 | |
| Bengals | 4-12 | 6-10 | +2 | |
| Falcons | 4-12 | 7-9 | +3 | |
| 2001 | Panthers | 1-15 | 7-9 | +6 |
| Lions | 2-14 | 3-13 | +1 | |
| Bills | 3-13 | 8-8 | +5 | |
| 2002 | Bengals | 2-14 | 8-8 | +6 |
| Lions | 3-13 | 5-11 | +2 | |
| Texans | 4-12 | 5-11 | +1 | |
| Bears | 4-12 | 7-9 | +3 | |
| 2003 | Chargers | 4-12 | 12-4 (P) | +8 |
| Raiders | 4-12 | 5-11 | +1 | |
| Cardinals | 4-12 | 6-10 | +2 | |
| Giants | 4-12 | 6-10 | +2 | |
| 2004 | 49ers | 2-14 | ?? | ?? |
| Dolphins | 4-12 | ?? | ?? | |
| Browns | 4-12 | ?? | ?? |
Update 2/10/05: And just for hoots, here are the teams that have finished 12-4 or better since 1992. All made the playoffs in the first year. "P?" indicates whether the team made the playoffs in the second year. As you would expect, when a team wins three-quarters of its games, it's awfully hard to improve. Of the 46 teams here, only 3 improved; 35 got worse; and 8 had no change. On average, teams had 3.2 fewer victories the next year. The median result was 2.75 fewer victories. The most common result was no change at all.
Interestingly, all of 2003's top teams had over/unders of 11.5 or lower for 2004. Apparently, the oddsmakers were flat-out positive that the Chargers weren't going to improve, yet they hedged on the good teams.
YEAR | TEAM | W-L | NEXT SEASON | CHANGE | P? |
| 1992 | 49ers | 14-2 | 10-6 | -4 | Y |
| Cowboys | 13-3 | 12-4 | -1 | Y | |
| Saints | 12-4 | 8-8 | -4 | N | |
| 1993 | Cowboys | 12-4 | 12-4 | -- | Y |
| Bills | 12-4 | 7-9 | -3 | N | |
| Oilers | 12-4 | 2-14 | -10 | N | |
| 1994 | 49ers | 13-3 | 11-5 | -2 | Y |
| Cowboys | 12-4 | 12-4 | -- | Y | |
| Steelers | 12-4 | 11-5 | -1 | Y | |
| 1995 | Chiefs | 13-3 | 9-7 | -4 | N |
| Cowboys | 12-4 | 10-6 | -2 | Y | |
| 1996 | Packers | 13-3 | 13-3 | -- | Y |
| Broncos | 13-3 | 12-4 | -1 | Y | |
| Panthers | 12-4 | 7-9 | -5 | N | |
| 49ers | 12-4 | 13-3 | +1 | Y | |
| 1997 | Packers | 13-3 | 11-5 | -2 | Y |
| Chiefs | 13-3 | 7-9 | -4 | N | |
| 49ers | 13-3 | 12-4 | -1 | Y | |
| Broncos | 12-4 | 14-2 | +2 | Y | |
| 1998 | Vikings | 15-1 | 10-6 | -5 | Y |
| Broncos | 14-2 | 6-10 | -8 | N | |
| Falcons | 14-2 | 5-11 | -9 | N | |
| 49ers | 12-4 | 4-12 | -8 | N | |
| Jets | 12-4 | 8-8 | -4 | N | |
| 1999 | Jaguars | 14-2 | 7-9 | -7 | N |
| Rams | 13-3 | 10-6 | -4 | Y | |
| Titans | 13-3 | 13-3 | -- | Y | |
| Colts | 13-3 | 10-6 | -3 | Y | |
| 2000 | Titans | 13-3 | 7-9 | -6 | N |
| Ravens | 12-4 | 10-6 | -2 | Y | |
| Giants | 12-4 | 7-9 | -5 | N | |
| Raiders | 12-4 | 10-6 | -2 | Y | |
| 2001 | Rams | 14-2 | 7-9 | -7 | N |
| Steelers | 13-3 | 10-5-1 | -2.5 | Y | |
| Bears | 13-3 | 4-12 | -9 | N | |
| Packers | 12-4 | 12-4 | -- | Y | |
| 49ers | 12-4 | 10-6 | -2 | Y | |
| 2002 | Buccaneers | 12-4 | 7-9 | -5 | N |
| Eagles | 12-4 | 12-4 | -- | Y | |
| Packers | 12-4 | 10-6 | -2 | Y | |
| 2003 | Patriots | 14-2 | 14-2 | -- | Y |
| Chiefs | 13-3 | 7-9 | -6 | N | |
| Colts | 12-4 | 12-4 | -- | Y | |
| Titans | 12-4 | 5-11 | -7 | N | |
| Eagles | 12-4 | 13-3 | +1 | Y | |
| Rams | 12-4 | 8-8 | -4 | Y | |
| 2004 | Steelers | 15-1 | ?? | ?? | |
| Patriots | 14-2 | ?? | ?? | ||
| Eagles | 13-3 | ?? | ?? | ||
| Colts | 12-4 | ?? | ?? | ||
| Chargers | 12-4 | ?? | ?? |
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Headbands and bodyslams
Charles Martin, a defensive tackle who played for the Packers, Oilers and Falcons from 1984-1988 (and the USFL Stallions in '83), died recently at age 46. Martin's footnote in football history is being kicked out of a game in 1986, and suspended for two more, for pile-driving Jim McMahon. A Packer-fan friend of mine maintains that because McMahon had thrown an interception on the play, Martin was within his rights to stuff him, as the QB had become a defender. This is a good point. The fact that Martin had written down a hit list of Bears jersey numbers (including No. 9) and was literally wearing that list compromises this argument only a little bit
The news of Martin's passing got me thinking about McMahon. You say "McMahon," and the typical fan responds, "Bears." But ...
With the Bears, the guy was hated -- absolutely despised -- across the NFC Central. Yet he started for the Vikings in the '93 season. All of Green Bay cheered when Martin pasted him. Yet guess which one -- Martin or McMahon -- was a member of the world champion Packers?
McMahon was a Bears icon, but how many years of his 15-year career did he play in Chicago? Seven -- and never a full season. McMahon ... the tough guy ... the, er, punky QB. Yet, what do Vince Evans, Steve Fuller, Rusty Lisch, Greg Landry (for God's sake), Bob Avellini, Mike Tomczak, Doug Flutie and Jim Harbaugh have in common? Each spent significant time under center for the Bears because McMahon was hurt. In the end, McMahon spent as many games in Chargers, Eagles, Cardinals(!), Vikings, Browns and Packers colors as he did in Bears attire.
The persistence of memory ...
The news of Martin's passing got me thinking about McMahon. You say "McMahon," and the typical fan responds, "Bears." But ...
With the Bears, the guy was hated -- absolutely despised -- across the NFC Central. Yet he started for the Vikings in the '93 season. All of Green Bay cheered when Martin pasted him. Yet guess which one -- Martin or McMahon -- was a member of the world champion Packers?
McMahon was a Bears icon, but how many years of his 15-year career did he play in Chicago? Seven -- and never a full season. McMahon ... the tough guy ... the, er, punky QB. Yet, what do Vince Evans, Steve Fuller, Rusty Lisch, Greg Landry (for God's sake), Bob Avellini, Mike Tomczak, Doug Flutie and Jim Harbaugh have in common? Each spent significant time under center for the Bears because McMahon was hurt. In the end, McMahon spent as many games in Chargers, Eagles, Cardinals(!), Vikings, Browns and Packers colors as he did in Bears attire.
The persistence of memory ...
$100 on the over, and Charge it
While doing research for something or other, I came across this piece on About.com listing Las Vegas' supposed over/under on regular season wins for NFL teams in 2004. The predictions don't really interest me. For the most part, they appear to have been keyed to the teams' 2003 finish. Miami, for instance, was at 9.5; taking the over would have been a sucker bet even before Ricky Williams retired.
I was drawn, however, to the end of the list. The over/under on San Diego -- which finished 4-12 in 2003 -- was 4.5. If I were a betting man, I'd have taken the over on that without hesitation. Talk about easy money. And I would have said that even before the Chargers "surprised" the league by winning the AFC West. Reasons:
1. For sure, the '03 Chargers were not a good team. But they weren't what TMQ would call cover-your-eyes awful. They got blown out a couple times, lost some close ones, kicked the crap out of a near-playoff team in the Vikings. Their 4-12 record wasn't pretty, but it wasn't so ugly that you'd get the impression the 2003 season was the start of a long stretch of ineptitude.
2. That 4-12 record was the best "worst" record in the NFL since the league went to a 16-game schedule in 1978. The Chargers' .250 winning percentage was the best by the NFL's "worst" team since 1957, when the Packers and Cardinals both went 3-9. (In the AFL, the '65 Oilers and Broncos both went 4-10, or .286). Further, the Chargers were one of four teams at 4-12 in 2003 (others: Raiders, Cardinals, Giants). Six other teams finished 5-11: Browns, Jaguars, Texans, Falcons, Redskins, Lions. San Diego wound up tabbed the league's worst team (and got the No. 1 pick in the draft) by way of tiebreakers. There just wasn't much difference among the bottom 10 teams.
3. We're talking about a Marty Schottenheimer-coached team. The knock on Marty has never been that he's a bad coach. It's that his teams stink in the playoffs. That 4-12 record was, by far, the worst of a Schottenheimer-coached team. This is a coach who, in 17 full seasons before '03, had 12 winning years, two losing ones and three 8-8s (Including one that, despite closing the season 8-3, got him replaced by Steve Spurrier).
4. Most important of all, the teams at the bottom of the NFL standings one year almost always get better the next year. I looked at every two-year period since 1992-93, the beginning of free agency and thus the start of today's competitive structure. Out of 12 such periods, only once did the team with the fewest victories post a worse mark the next year: The Jets went from 3-13 in 1995 to 1-15 in 1996. In two cases, the worst team's record stayed the same: The Bengals went 3-13 in 1993, then again in 1994; and the Colts posted identical 3-13 records in 1997 and 1998. The other nine teams got better. But there's more: The '95 Jets, '93 Bengals and '97 Colts were far and away the worst in the league in those seasons. San Diego was just one of several teams huddled together in the NFL cellar in '03. So, to get a better sense of how the league's entire lower rung fares, I again went back to 1992. I looked at the performance of teams that finished 4-12 or worse. The numbers may surprise you:
(Update 02/07/05: Raw numbers posted.)
I was drawn, however, to the end of the list. The over/under on San Diego -- which finished 4-12 in 2003 -- was 4.5. If I were a betting man, I'd have taken the over on that without hesitation. Talk about easy money. And I would have said that even before the Chargers "surprised" the league by winning the AFC West. Reasons:
1. For sure, the '03 Chargers were not a good team. But they weren't what TMQ would call cover-your-eyes awful. They got blown out a couple times, lost some close ones, kicked the crap out of a near-playoff team in the Vikings. Their 4-12 record wasn't pretty, but it wasn't so ugly that you'd get the impression the 2003 season was the start of a long stretch of ineptitude.
2. That 4-12 record was the best "worst" record in the NFL since the league went to a 16-game schedule in 1978. The Chargers' .250 winning percentage was the best by the NFL's "worst" team since 1957, when the Packers and Cardinals both went 3-9. (In the AFL, the '65 Oilers and Broncos both went 4-10, or .286). Further, the Chargers were one of four teams at 4-12 in 2003 (others: Raiders, Cardinals, Giants). Six other teams finished 5-11: Browns, Jaguars, Texans, Falcons, Redskins, Lions. San Diego wound up tabbed the league's worst team (and got the No. 1 pick in the draft) by way of tiebreakers. There just wasn't much difference among the bottom 10 teams.
3. We're talking about a Marty Schottenheimer-coached team. The knock on Marty has never been that he's a bad coach. It's that his teams stink in the playoffs. That 4-12 record was, by far, the worst of a Schottenheimer-coached team. This is a coach who, in 17 full seasons before '03, had 12 winning years, two losing ones and three 8-8s (Including one that, despite closing the season 8-3, got him replaced by Steve Spurrier).
4. Most important of all, the teams at the bottom of the NFL standings one year almost always get better the next year. I looked at every two-year period since 1992-93, the beginning of free agency and thus the start of today's competitive structure. Out of 12 such periods, only once did the team with the fewest victories post a worse mark the next year: The Jets went from 3-13 in 1995 to 1-15 in 1996. In two cases, the worst team's record stayed the same: The Bengals went 3-13 in 1993, then again in 1994; and the Colts posted identical 3-13 records in 1997 and 1998. The other nine teams got better. But there's more: The '95 Jets, '93 Bengals and '97 Colts were far and away the worst in the league in those seasons. San Diego was just one of several teams huddled together in the NFL cellar in '03. So, to get a better sense of how the league's entire lower rung fares, I again went back to 1992. I looked at the performance of teams that finished 4-12 or worse. The numbers may surprise you:
- Of 48 teams finishing 4-12 or worse, 42 finished with a better record the next year, 4 showed no improvement, and just 2 got worse.
- The average change was an improvement of 3.18 games.
- The median change was an improvement of 3 games.
- The most common result was an improvement of 4 games -- nine out of the 48 teams.
(Update 02/07/05: Raw numbers posted.)
Sunday, January 30, 2005
We've seen this monkey before
If there really is a set amount of Internet space reserved for football commentary, it’d be a shame to find out that Peyton Manning and the New England Patriots left us maxed out.
Everybody repeat after me: “Manning is 0-7 at Foxboro.”
Second verse, same as the first: “Manning is 0-5 against Tom Brady.”
One, two, three, get loose now: “Manning in 2-10 lifetime against New England.
Them’s the facts. And I’m sure Manning reads them on the ceiling tiles in the dark, dark hours of the morning. And I’m sure they give Belichick, Brady and Bruschi a 10-yard head start every time the Patriots and Colts play. All true, true, true. Cut that meat!
But that’s as far as I’m willing to take it. In the week leading up to the AFC Divisional in Foxboro (and, my God, in the weeks after), the air was thick with the assertion that the Patriots -- Brady in particular -- are Manning’s monkey. If Manning is ever -- ever! –- to be one of the NFL’s great quarterbacks ... then that monkey, he must shake it. If Manning is to wear a ring, he must dig it out of the snows of Foxboro.
Oh, pooh.
New England is Manning’s monkey, sure, but not his white whale. There’s a hard way to slay that beast, and this is how the Colts have wound up with the harpoon in their own ass the past two seasons. But there’s also an easy way to kill the whale, shock the monkey or whatever you want to call it. Are you taking notes, Coach Dungy? Splendid. Because here’s the secret: Let someone else beat the Patriots. Hey, Bill Cowher did it it in the regular season. Jim Bates did it. (Who? Exactly.) Cripes, even Steve Spurrier did it. So it can be done. Wait around awhile, and it’ll happen: New England either loses in the playoffs before it has to face Indianapolis, or it doesn't make the playoffs at all. Then, suddenly, it's Manning's year!
But! But! What about destiny? What about Holmes vs. Moriarty? If Manning gets to the Super Bowl without facing New England, he’ll have achieved nothing. Nothing!
1995. Steve Young had finally chased off Montana’s ghost. Silent, at last, was the Greek chorus that had long intoned, “His career is naught without a Super Bowl trophy!” Young had his ring. Yes, he'd beaten it out of Stan Humphries and the Chargers, but, really, the AFC didn’t have anybody else that year. So leave him alone. Young's triumph left the NFL with two Ahabs at quarterback: John Elway, who had pretty much been given up for dead by then, and Brett Favre.
This is the part where we compare Peyton Manning to Brett Favre. So, you know, it might be a good time to lie down. Especially in Wisconsin.
Those who followed the NFL in the mid-1990s remember that of all the story lines available, none was written and rewritten as often as “Brett Favre Can’t Beat the Cowboys.”
In 1992, Favre took over for the injured Don Majkowski, who at the time was, um, saving Green Bay. The next year, the Favre-led Packers made the playoffs for the first time since 1972. (I’m not counting the 1982 NHL playoffs, and neither should you.) Titletown was atingle! We’re Super Bowl-bound, baby!
1993 season: Packers lose to the Cowboys by 10 in the Divisional round.
Wisconsin says: That’s all right! We’ll get em next year!
1994 season: Packers lose to the Cowboys by 26 in the Divisional round.
Wisconsin says: Next year for sure we get past the Divisional round!
1995 season: Packers lose to the Cowboys in the NFC Championsip game.
If only it were just in the playoffs that Favre got killed by Dallas. Favre vs. the Cowboys at the start of his career:
1993: Dallas 36, Green Bay 14 (regular season)
1993: Dallas 27, Green Bay 17 (playoffs)
1994: Dallas 42, Green Bay 31 (regular season)
1994: Dallas 35, Green Bay 9 (playoffs)
1995: Dallas 34, Green Bay 24 (regular season)
1995: Dallas 38, Green Bay 27 (playoffs)
1996: Dallas 21, Green Bay 6 (regular season)
So in 1996, as the Packers headed into the playoffs, the record on the minds of Packer fans was not their club’s NFC-best 13-3. It was their beloved QB’s performance against the boys with the stars on their hats: 0-7 against Dallas, 0-7 against Troy Aikman. If there was any consolation, it was that Favre was also 0-7 in Texas Stadium, because all the games had been played in Irving. This year, Wisconsin said, if the Cowboys were going to beat the Packers again, they'd have to come to Lambeau Field to do it.
And the rest of the story is legend: The Packers buried the 49ers in the Divisional round, 35-14; blew out the surprising Panthers, 30-14, in the NFC Championship; and walked over the Patriots, 35-21, in Super Bowl XXXI. (Hey, at least someone can beat New England in the postseason!)
Er.
And here we circle back to our lesson for the Colts. After the 1996 season, Favre and the Packers got past Dallas in the playoffs in the easiest way possible: They didn’t play Dallas in the playoffs. The Cowboys -- winners of the NFC East, defending Super Bowl champions -- lost to Carolina in the Divisional round. Green Bay went on to win the Super Bowl, Favre became a legend, and the Cowboys’ hold over Brett Favre was finally broken. Right?
In 1997, the year after their own championship season, Favre and the Packers would beat Aikman and the Cowboys. This time, Dallas had to come to Green Bay. This time, Green Bay would exact revenge, 45-17. In other news from the 1997 season, the Cowboys finished 6-10 in their last year under Barry Switzer, their first losing season since 1990.
And since then? Favre is now 2-8 lifetime against Dallas. He is now 0-8 in Texas Stadium. The curse has been lifted! He’s headed to the Hall of Fame!
Payton Manning will not stop hearing how his career is defined by his record against the New England Patriots until -– well, until that one day when suddenly it isn’t.
Everybody repeat after me: “Manning is 0-7 at Foxboro.”
Second verse, same as the first: “Manning is 0-5 against Tom Brady.”
One, two, three, get loose now: “Manning in 2-10 lifetime against New England.
Them’s the facts. And I’m sure Manning reads them on the ceiling tiles in the dark, dark hours of the morning. And I’m sure they give Belichick, Brady and Bruschi a 10-yard head start every time the Patriots and Colts play. All true, true, true. Cut that meat!
But that’s as far as I’m willing to take it. In the week leading up to the AFC Divisional in Foxboro (and, my God, in the weeks after), the air was thick with the assertion that the Patriots -- Brady in particular -- are Manning’s monkey. If Manning is ever -- ever! –- to be one of the NFL’s great quarterbacks ... then that monkey, he must shake it. If Manning is to wear a ring, he must dig it out of the snows of Foxboro.
Oh, pooh.
New England is Manning’s monkey, sure, but not his white whale. There’s a hard way to slay that beast, and this is how the Colts have wound up with the harpoon in their own ass the past two seasons. But there’s also an easy way to kill the whale, shock the monkey or whatever you want to call it. Are you taking notes, Coach Dungy? Splendid. Because here’s the secret: Let someone else beat the Patriots. Hey, Bill Cowher did it it in the regular season. Jim Bates did it. (Who? Exactly.) Cripes, even Steve Spurrier did it. So it can be done. Wait around awhile, and it’ll happen: New England either loses in the playoffs before it has to face Indianapolis, or it doesn't make the playoffs at all. Then, suddenly, it's Manning's year!
But! But! What about destiny? What about Holmes vs. Moriarty? If Manning gets to the Super Bowl without facing New England, he’ll have achieved nothing. Nothing!
1995. Steve Young had finally chased off Montana’s ghost. Silent, at last, was the Greek chorus that had long intoned, “His career is naught without a Super Bowl trophy!” Young had his ring. Yes, he'd beaten it out of Stan Humphries and the Chargers, but, really, the AFC didn’t have anybody else that year. So leave him alone. Young's triumph left the NFL with two Ahabs at quarterback: John Elway, who had pretty much been given up for dead by then, and Brett Favre.
This is the part where we compare Peyton Manning to Brett Favre. So, you know, it might be a good time to lie down. Especially in Wisconsin.
Those who followed the NFL in the mid-1990s remember that of all the story lines available, none was written and rewritten as often as “Brett Favre Can’t Beat the Cowboys.”
In 1992, Favre took over for the injured Don Majkowski, who at the time was, um, saving Green Bay. The next year, the Favre-led Packers made the playoffs for the first time since 1972. (I’m not counting the 1982 NHL playoffs, and neither should you.) Titletown was atingle! We’re Super Bowl-bound, baby!
1993 season: Packers lose to the Cowboys by 10 in the Divisional round.
Wisconsin says: That’s all right! We’ll get em next year!
1994 season: Packers lose to the Cowboys by 26 in the Divisional round.
Wisconsin says: Next year for sure we get past the Divisional round!
1995 season: Packers lose to the Cowboys in the NFC Championsip game.
If only it were just in the playoffs that Favre got killed by Dallas. Favre vs. the Cowboys at the start of his career:
1993: Dallas 36, Green Bay 14 (regular season)
1993: Dallas 27, Green Bay 17 (playoffs)
1994: Dallas 42, Green Bay 31 (regular season)
1994: Dallas 35, Green Bay 9 (playoffs)
1995: Dallas 34, Green Bay 24 (regular season)
1995: Dallas 38, Green Bay 27 (playoffs)
1996: Dallas 21, Green Bay 6 (regular season)
So in 1996, as the Packers headed into the playoffs, the record on the minds of Packer fans was not their club’s NFC-best 13-3. It was their beloved QB’s performance against the boys with the stars on their hats: 0-7 against Dallas, 0-7 against Troy Aikman. If there was any consolation, it was that Favre was also 0-7 in Texas Stadium, because all the games had been played in Irving. This year, Wisconsin said, if the Cowboys were going to beat the Packers again, they'd have to come to Lambeau Field to do it.
And the rest of the story is legend: The Packers buried the 49ers in the Divisional round, 35-14; blew out the surprising Panthers, 30-14, in the NFC Championship; and walked over the Patriots, 35-21, in Super Bowl XXXI. (Hey, at least someone can beat New England in the postseason!)
Er.
And here we circle back to our lesson for the Colts. After the 1996 season, Favre and the Packers got past Dallas in the playoffs in the easiest way possible: They didn’t play Dallas in the playoffs. The Cowboys -- winners of the NFC East, defending Super Bowl champions -- lost to Carolina in the Divisional round. Green Bay went on to win the Super Bowl, Favre became a legend, and the Cowboys’ hold over Brett Favre was finally broken. Right?
In 1997, the year after their own championship season, Favre and the Packers would beat Aikman and the Cowboys. This time, Dallas had to come to Green Bay. This time, Green Bay would exact revenge, 45-17. In other news from the 1997 season, the Cowboys finished 6-10 in their last year under Barry Switzer, their first losing season since 1990.
And since then? Favre is now 2-8 lifetime against Dallas. He is now 0-8 in Texas Stadium. The curse has been lifted! He’s headed to the Hall of Fame!
Payton Manning will not stop hearing how his career is defined by his record against the New England Patriots until -– well, until that one day when suddenly it isn’t.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Line dance
It's remarkable that with the amount of gambling going on, so many people are still confused about what a betting line is telling them.
Almost immediately after the Patriots beat the Steelers in the AFC title game, bookmakers set an opening line of Patriots -7 against the Eagles. What this means: If you bet on the Patriots, then at the end of the game, their point total, minus 7 points, has to be greater than the Eagles' point total for you to win. (The Eagles, on the other hand, are +7 against the Pats. You take their final score, add 7, and compare it to the Patriots'.) That's pretty basic stuff. But soon after the line was posted, I heard someone -- a Pats fan, no less -- say, "Can you believe this? The Patriots are 7-point favorites already?" Actually, I could believe that. But that's not necessarily what the betting line is saying. This is what most people don't seem to understand: The purpose of the betting line is not to predict who will win a game. The purpose of the betting line is to make sure that equal numbers of people bet on each team.
On my way home from work tonight, the late shift at ESPN Radio was discussing a poll or survey in which 63% of respondents predicted the Patriots would win Super Bowl XXXIX, and 37% picked the Eagles. A bookmaker doesn't want 63% of his customers betting on one team, because if that team wins, he's going to take a bath. So he needs to shift 13% of the betting public from the Patriots to the Eagles. He does that by manipulating the betting line until the wagers are in balance.
New England has won two of the last three Super Bowls ... but only by a field goal. Bettors might be confident that Tom Brady will do whatever it takes to win. But can they be sure he'll win this one by more than 3 points? Bookmakers believe that enough gamblers have enough doubt about that that they'll put money on the Eagles -- either to win outright or to lose by less than 7 points. If the betting line sets the bar too high for the Patriots -- if too many bettors doubt that New England will win by more than a touchdown -- then the money will tilt toward the Eagles. In response, the bookmakers shift the line again until the bets are back in balance. By Super Sunday, the line could by Patriots -2. Or the Eagles could be -2. Did Brady suddenly get 5 points worse? Did Philly get 9 points better? No. Outside events -- say, T.O.'s busted paw -- can sway the line, but for the most part, it just moves with the market. That's what more people should understand.
Almost immediately after the Patriots beat the Steelers in the AFC title game, bookmakers set an opening line of Patriots -7 against the Eagles. What this means: If you bet on the Patriots, then at the end of the game, their point total, minus 7 points, has to be greater than the Eagles' point total for you to win. (The Eagles, on the other hand, are +7 against the Pats. You take their final score, add 7, and compare it to the Patriots'.) That's pretty basic stuff. But soon after the line was posted, I heard someone -- a Pats fan, no less -- say, "Can you believe this? The Patriots are 7-point favorites already?" Actually, I could believe that. But that's not necessarily what the betting line is saying. This is what most people don't seem to understand: The purpose of the betting line is not to predict who will win a game. The purpose of the betting line is to make sure that equal numbers of people bet on each team.
On my way home from work tonight, the late shift at ESPN Radio was discussing a poll or survey in which 63% of respondents predicted the Patriots would win Super Bowl XXXIX, and 37% picked the Eagles. A bookmaker doesn't want 63% of his customers betting on one team, because if that team wins, he's going to take a bath. So he needs to shift 13% of the betting public from the Patriots to the Eagles. He does that by manipulating the betting line until the wagers are in balance.
New England has won two of the last three Super Bowls ... but only by a field goal. Bettors might be confident that Tom Brady will do whatever it takes to win. But can they be sure he'll win this one by more than 3 points? Bookmakers believe that enough gamblers have enough doubt about that that they'll put money on the Eagles -- either to win outright or to lose by less than 7 points. If the betting line sets the bar too high for the Patriots -- if too many bettors doubt that New England will win by more than a touchdown -- then the money will tilt toward the Eagles. In response, the bookmakers shift the line again until the bets are back in balance. By Super Sunday, the line could by Patriots -2. Or the Eagles could be -2. Did Brady suddenly get 5 points worse? Did Philly get 9 points better? No. Outside events -- say, T.O.'s busted paw -- can sway the line, but for the most part, it just moves with the market. That's what more people should understand.
Standings still
They will tell you the United States has been "transitioning" to a knowledge-, information- or services-based economy. They may be right. But industry -- bloody, sooty, wondermous industry -- still dominates where it counts: in the NFL standings. You see, traditional football commentary views the league through lenses smudged by conference and division affiliation. Thus, it was declared that in 2004, the AFC soared and the NFC soured. You're free to think so, too. If you want to be ordinary. Fully aware that there's more than one way to skin a pig, Down and Distance throws out the 8-by-4 grid and breaks down the '04 season by way of the most pertinent groupings: Team nicknames.
Analysis: Regardless of what you might have read in Newsweek, the Old Economy is stronger than ever, as evidenced by the utter dominance of the industrial sector in this '04 regular season. On the other hand, the Old West has completed its long, shameful tumble from the toast of the league (11 titles 1981-95) to its laughingstock. Though only three years old, the Texans are the best of this sorry breed. Meanwhile, injuries in Carolina and erratic play in Jacksonville and Detroit hurt what had been viewed at a promising season for the Cats, as did Cincinnati's frankly unavoidable decision to put the franchise in the hands of its green franchise quarterback. Finally, the Birds might have flown away with the league this year, if not for some curious decisions in Arizona and frustrating up-and-down years from Seattle and Baltimore.
| CATEGORY | W | L | PCT |
| Old Economy (Steelers, Packers) | 25 | 7 | .781 |
| Inanimate Objects (Jets) | 10 | 6 | .625 |
| Birds (Eagles, Falcons, Seahawks, Ravens, Cardinals) | 48 | 32 | .600 |
| Historical Figures/Collective (Patriots, Vikings, Buccaneers) | 27 | 21 | .563 |
| Non-Specific Fearsome Things (Chargers, Raiders) | 17 | 15 | .531 |
| Mammals/Non-Cat (Colts, Broncos, Rams, Bears, Dolphins) | 39 | 41 | .488 |
| Cats (Jaguars, Bengals, Panthers, Lions) | 30 | 34 | .469 |
| Historical Figures/Individual (Bills, Browns) | 13 | 19 | .406 |
| Mythical/Mystical Figures (Saints, Giants, Titans) | 19 | 29 | .396 |
| Old West (Texans, Chiefs, Cowboys, Redskins, 49ers) | 28 | 52 | .350 |
Analysis: Regardless of what you might have read in Newsweek, the Old Economy is stronger than ever, as evidenced by the utter dominance of the industrial sector in this '04 regular season. On the other hand, the Old West has completed its long, shameful tumble from the toast of the league (11 titles 1981-95) to its laughingstock. Though only three years old, the Texans are the best of this sorry breed. Meanwhile, injuries in Carolina and erratic play in Jacksonville and Detroit hurt what had been viewed at a promising season for the Cats, as did Cincinnati's frankly unavoidable decision to put the franchise in the hands of its green franchise quarterback. Finally, the Birds might have flown away with the league this year, if not for some curious decisions in Arizona and frustrating up-and-down years from Seattle and Baltimore.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Manifest o' Destiny
If you had to pick one quarterback to build your franchise around, would you take Brady or Manning? Well, who would it be?
Excuse me?
Which is a bigger accomplishment: Steve Young getting to one Super Bowl and winning it ... or Jim Kelly's Bills getting to four straight, even though they lost them all? What's your take?
Take? I ... um ... I don't know?
Which was the biggest waste of a No. 1 draft pick: Carson Palmer or David Carr? Who's the bigger loser?
Waste? Loser? What the hell?
My answer to each of these questions is: I don't know, and I don't care. Am I a coach? No. A scout? No. A player? Ha! I'm a fan. A football fan. A pro football fan, mostly. So how the hell would I know?
I love the game. I love the theater of it, if not always the actors. I love the numbers, though not necessarily the stats. My opinions are just that: opinions, informed only by my personal likes, dislikes and biases. You have your opinions, too. Who's right? Who cares? There's so little of actual consequence at stake in pro football, yet commentary on the game is so shrill. There's enough of that already. I refuse to be part of the problem. I want to be part of the solution. Part? No, I want to be the solution.
So you have this site here. Down and Distance. Pro football at its best.
Manning vs. Brady? I'm more interested in Manning 2005 vs. Favre 1995. Heard all the recent this-and-that about Manning being 0 for his last 8 vs. the Patriots? Consider: Favre was 0 for 7 vs. the Cowboys. Take a wild guess what they said about him.
Young vs. Kelly? To me, the important thing is that both were superstars in the United States Football League, yet neither won a title. Meanwhile, Chuck Fusina won two of the three USFL titles -- and nearly won all three! Chuck who? Exactly.
Welcome to Down and Distance. My name is Paul. Call me Commissioner.
Or, you know, Paul.
Excuse me?
Which is a bigger accomplishment: Steve Young getting to one Super Bowl and winning it ... or Jim Kelly's Bills getting to four straight, even though they lost them all? What's your take?
Take? I ... um ... I don't know?
Which was the biggest waste of a No. 1 draft pick: Carson Palmer or David Carr? Who's the bigger loser?
Waste? Loser? What the hell?
My answer to each of these questions is: I don't know, and I don't care. Am I a coach? No. A scout? No. A player? Ha! I'm a fan. A football fan. A pro football fan, mostly. So how the hell would I know?
I love the game. I love the theater of it, if not always the actors. I love the numbers, though not necessarily the stats. My opinions are just that: opinions, informed only by my personal likes, dislikes and biases. You have your opinions, too. Who's right? Who cares? There's so little of actual consequence at stake in pro football, yet commentary on the game is so shrill. There's enough of that already. I refuse to be part of the problem. I want to be part of the solution. Part? No, I want to be the solution.
So you have this site here. Down and Distance. Pro football at its best.
Manning vs. Brady? I'm more interested in Manning 2005 vs. Favre 1995. Heard all the recent this-and-that about Manning being 0 for his last 8 vs. the Patriots? Consider: Favre was 0 for 7 vs. the Cowboys. Take a wild guess what they said about him.
Young vs. Kelly? To me, the important thing is that both were superstars in the United States Football League, yet neither won a title. Meanwhile, Chuck Fusina won two of the three USFL titles -- and nearly won all three! Chuck who? Exactly.
Welcome to Down and Distance. My name is Paul. Call me Commissioner.
Or, you know, Paul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
