1) Must-read of the day is Simmons letting his wife take over the column for the Friday NFL picks, in honor of the fact that, entering week 17, she can go 0-16 to his 16-0 and still beat him for the season. Money quote:
I also don't get how I'm doing so well at picking these games. For the first two months of the season, I was pregnant and angry and feeling like one of those bouncy castles they have at kids' birthday parties. Then I passed a 9-pound human being out of my body. Then I didn't sleep for the next seven weeks and had to feed that same baby for 24 hours a day except for the 13.2 minutes per day he doesn't eat. I have probably seen a total of six minutes of football and never turn on ESPN because I'm always afraid two sportswriters yelling at each other are going to make one of my kids cry.2) The Broncos have officially crossed the line from 'depressingly bad' to 'hilariously bad' this week, as they released punter Todd Sauerbrun last week, bring back Paul Ernster. Only, Ernster's first punt of the game went a whopping 17 yards, and he was poor all night. He was then released the next morning. The Broncos are interviewing several punters to try and find one for their final game of the season, which makes me wonder - what does a punter interview look like?
I mean, you only need to know how he punts the ball, right? So is 'interview' just code for 'sticking him on the field with half a dozen balls and telling him to kick them a long way?' Or do they actually want to know more about his philosophy of punting, is he a team player, etc.?
3) I take back anything good I said about the Nuggets this year. They're depressingly inconsistent, the telltale sign of a badly coached or mentally weak team.
4) I don't understand many things I've heard said about this weekend's Patriots/Giants game.
- Firstly, let me give kudos to the NFL, something I failed to do before, for being man enough to admit that they were wrong to try to use this game as leverage over their fans. I mean, really, with the Democrats in charge of the Senate, everyone knows that they would never actually punish the NFL for anything, because that would require, you know, doing stuff. I'm sure Bush would veto it anyway, out of reflex. But still, the NFL was smart enough to use it as cover to do the right thing and make sure football fans can see the game.
- On Today this morning, Matt Lauer said the game is the most anticipated matchup in many years. Really, Matt? Because I always think of an 'anticipated matchup' as a game between two high quality franchises, with some history or bad blood between them, with high stakes. Say, a week 9 game between the 8-0 Patriots and the 7-0 Colts, a rematch of last season's hotly contested AFC Championship game, with likely home field advantage in this year's AFC Championship game at stake. Even, for that matter, the week 11 matchup of the 9-1 Packers vs. the 9-1 Cowboys. Not a week 17 game between a team on the greatest regular season win streak of all time vs. a decidedly inconsistent, mediocre team led by the worst quarterback for a playoff team this year, unless the Vikes eke their way in.
- Lots of discussion about whether or not the Pats or Giants should be playing to win this game, or worrying about the possibility of injuries and prepping for the playoffs.
The common refrain is something like what I heard John Kincaid say on Cowherd's show on ESPN Radio this week. To paraphrase: "You don't play for regular season records. You play for championships. You want to get a perfect season? Really? Did they start handing out rings for that now?"
This is patently ridiculous. The only reason championships are worth more than regular season records is because the public affords you more prestige for winning them. A great player who never wins a title, like Marino or Barkley, has their public reputation degraded. That's the only reason it matters.
But what gets you more prestige? An 18-1 championship season or a 19-0 championship season? I say the second, and not by a little. By a lot. If the Patriots go 18-1 and win the championship, they cement their status as a dynasty. 4 titles in 7 years. One of the greatest runs of all time by a pro football team. If they go 19-0, they are the greatest football team in the history of the NFL. Ever. No doubt. No argument. 4 titles in 7 years, capped off by the best season in NFL History. You know you are the best. Isn't that why you play?
What are the odds of a major injury if they play normally against the Giants? 5% Maybe 10%? They've had 15 games already this year and not suffered any such injuries on the offensive side of the ball. Compare that with the fact that the amount of prestige they get if they win this game, and the next three, goes up exponentially.
If you're looking for prestige and recognition, then by playing the numbers, the only reasonable thing to do is to go for it.
On the other side, the Giants just aren't very good. In fact, they're just on this side of 'bad', mostly because they can run the ball, and also because their coach makes them show up to meetings five minutes early, otherwise they are considered 'late' and fined for it. That's just funny.
I would put their chances of running the table, winning 3 playoff games on the road then defeating whoever emerges from the burning crucible of the AFC this year at about 2 or 3%. Whereas, if they go out and play their damndest, they might have as much as a 15 or even 20% chance of beating the Patriots, assuming that the Pats are playing to win as well.
And, just like with the Pats above, the Giants get major props if they are the team to derail a perfect season. Yes, you'd rather win a championship, but frankly that just isn't going to happen. On any given Sunday, yes, any NFL team can beat any other. So the Giants can win. But on 4 straight any given Sundays, the Giants will not beat those particular NFL teams.
So, in short, as far as I am concerned, both of these teams ought to be playing to win. For the Giants, its their Super Bowl. For the Pats, it's their shot at History.
No comments:
Post a Comment