Leftover thoughts from the conference championship games:
The key to the AFC game was giving up that second TD right before halftime. Okay, the real key was the unstoppable Ben Roethlisberger, but in terms of momentum, that was what the Phantom calls the point of no return. The game got off to a tough start for Denver, but a 17-3 or 20-3 halftime lead is far from insurmountable-and had the Broncos capitalized on any of their opportunities, we could be talking about their awesome comeback right now.
Broncos history. The Broncos went into the game with six wins all-time in seven AFC Championship appearances (and the one loss came when Gary Kubiak replaced Elway because of injury-or, in other words, you can blame that AFC title game loss on Kubiak, too!). While that’s a nice stat, there’s no reason to think it would have anything to do with our chances yesterday.
What is indisputable, of course, is the curse of the 13-3 record, which has never been good for the Broncos. Most famously, the ’96 Broncos lost to Jacksonville after a thirteen-win regular season that clinched home-field advantage. Less recalled is the 13-3 team in 1984, which lost its first playoff game at home to the Pittsburgh Steelers.
As for recent Broncos squads and their performances in big games-which looks like the fluke now, the win over New England, or the loss to Pittsburgh in which we were as flat as the last two playoff losses to Indianapolis?
On another note, did yesterday’s game remind anyone else of the 1999 AFC Championship? In Elway’s last season, we hosted the New York Jets on a very windy day. Vinny Testaverde started out 13 for 13 while seemingly all of Elway’s passes were tipped or off-target. But thanks largely to the weather, New York had only a 3-0 halftime lead that swelled to 10-0 early in the second half. Behind Elway and an awesome defensive effort, the Broncos bounced back for a 23-10 win. (Jason Elam memorably remarked after the game that he was aiming his second-half field goals outside of the uprights.) All right, so the second half didn’t remind anyone of our last conference championship game, but you see what I’m getting at, right?
Gary Kubiak is going to Texas. It was no surprise when Kubiak immediately took over as head coach of the Houston Texans after the game. Normally, I’d be upset, but after the 4th-and-goal fade to Ashley Lelie against the Patriots and the two passes to Mike Anderson in our own end zone yesterday, I’m okay if some of our offensive braintrust skips town. (And we do still have Shanahan, who come to think of it was probably calling the plays yesterday.)
Seriously, though, I think it’s jacked that Kubiak could be interviewed during the playoffs, even if the interviews had to take place in Denver. A lot of things baffle me here, actually. I know the NFL is pretty much a year-round league, but the Texans seriously can’t wait a couple of weeks to conduct their interviews? And why do NFL teams even conduct interviews? OK, obviously you want to get to know the guy a little, but teams already know if a guy’s a good coach or not, don’t they?
It seemed like Kubiak was waiting so long to become a head coach so he’d get a great opportunity, but I don’t think he has that with Houston. Either they don’t take Vince Young, and the fans turn against the team from day one, or they do, and pressure and expectations soon become unrealistic. Can’t you see Kubes getting fired in the next three years? I wish the guy well, but the Texans suck.
Ben Roethlisberger. I have such mixed feelings now. I’ve been a big Roethlisberger fan since his senior year, when it was his strong and accurate arm made him, in my mind, the clear No. 1 pick. (Eli Manning? Please. I’d take Ben over Peyton at this point.) I told that to anyone who would listen, which was mostly just John, who seconded me and pointed out Roethlisberger’s impressive mobility.
I didn’t think he’d be quite this good this quickly, though it probably helped that he fell to a pretty good team. In any event, the best comparison I can think of is that he’s becoming the John Elway to Tom Brady’s Joe Montana. I hope the Patriots bounce back and these two face off in the playoffs time and time again.
Having said all that, he got on my nerves a little bit the last few weeks with his constant carping about being disrespected. I get it, Ben, you want more props. Then he really went over the edge and beat the Broncos. While I sort of felt a Super Bowl run for Denver had come out of nowhere and that I would be happy with whatever we did, I changed my mind pretty quickly once we fell apart yesterday. As much as I like him and want Jerome Bettis’ career to end on a high note, there is no way I’m rooting for Pittsburgh in two weeks.
Steve Smith. I felt like Sean Salisbury said it best on one of those shows on ESPN where they sit at a desk and talk about games (in other words, I’m not exactly sure what show I was watching, but it’s whatever’s on ESPN 24-7 anyway). He said Smith “doesn’t walk on water.” All the pregame talk that Smith was absolutely unstoppable was, of course, ridiculous. Smith’s an incredible player, but Seattle was able to slow him down. Not that they’ve found some solution and Smith will never have a good game or anything, but none of the rest of the Panthers were able to make Seattle pay.
Seattle’s defense. I said the key to Sunday’s game was whether Seattle could run on Carolina, and Shaun Alexander had 132 yards in Seattle’s 34-14 win. But his running was gravy-it was really Seattle’s defensive effort that won the game. Lofa Tatupu has been amazing in the playoffs, rookie or not. (That calls to mind the problem of calling a college team as a dynasty, when key players leave constantly. Don’t you think the Trojans could have used him against Vince Young?)
My prediction “skills”. I’m now 7-3 in the playoffs after a 1-1 weekend, but it could have been worse, because I talked myself into a Carolina win over the weekend. Of course, it could have been a lot better, too-one of my early drafts last week talked about what trouble Carolina would be in if Nick Goings went down, though I apparently edited that out.
Anyway, I am leaning towards Seattle in the Super Bowl right now. (There will be a complete breakdown later.)
Paul Allen’s teeth. Anyone see the Seahawks get the NFC championship trophy? (I’m sorry, the George S. Halas Memorial Trophy?) I have never seen such evenly distributed tooth discoloration or plaque (not sure which) on a billionaire. Nasty. (I’m not going to say anymore, though since I've badmouthed a Microsoft founder, I totally expect my computer to lock up the way it did when I read this.)
They were so bad, they almost made me forget Terry Bradshaw making a complete fool of himself during the trophy presentation...almost.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Sunday, January 22, 2006
The Aftermath
Denver's defense has come up with all kinds of firsts the last few years.
They were the force behind Tom Brady's first playoff defeat as a pro (I guess that's redundant-he couldn't exactly have lost a playoff game in college, eh?). Just as surely, they were the biggest reason we became the first team to let Peyton Manning win a playoff game.
And today, they refused to stand between Ben Roethlisberger and his first Super Bowl.
Take away the uniforms and you would have thought Denver was the team playing its first game at altitude this year, not Pittsburgh. (Take away the uniforms and I never watch football again, but that's a different story.)
Instead, in the franchise's first AFC Championship appearance since John Elway retired, the defense let the Steelers control the tempo and enforce their will on the game.
In the first quarter, the Broncos let the Steelers on the board first with a field goal. That wasn't crippling, but when the Steelers added a touchdown, Denver was already in trouble. The problem with building your team around defense is that when you fall behind, your offense doesn't have enough experience making big plays. So, in other words, you can't fall behind.
Easier said than done, of course, but the last several Super Bowl champions were able to accomplish it. Think about it: if Champ Bailey hadn't dropped his potential touchdown pick on Pittsburgh's first offensive possession, the Broncos could be getting ready to join that list.
Instead, before the first half was over, the Broncos got their first points on a field goal-but gave up two more touchdowns, and were essentially finished.
What should the Broncos do this off-season?
Any loss, especially a playoff loss, shows many areas for improvement. I think the question for the Broncos is whether they stick with their current style or try to rebuild. For now, I say they have to stay the course.
I said throughout the regular season that the Broncos seemed a little lucky to be in the position they were. (Then I picked them to win the Super Bowl...yikes.) Things really lined up favorably for the Broncos this year-and rebuilding or not, it could easily be another seven years before we play for the conference championship again.
Every team has weaknesses, and it's tempting to say Denver's biggest need right now is a clutch quarterback. Get in line-the same can be said for probably 25 other teams, and I doubt the Broncos can seriously improve the position this offseason. (Though I have never been more confused by our offensive play-calling than I was the last two weeks.)
What we really need-and what we've needed for years-is a pass rush. Yes, we got pressure on Tom Brady, but it came when we gambled with heavy blitzes and besides, New England was still able to move the ball on us in huge chunks. (As an aside, I hope me referring to the Broncos as "we" doesn't bother anybody.)
Thus, and considering our run defense's knack for failing at just the wrong time, means the Broncos need defensive line help above all. Can you even name Denver's starting defensive tackles? For all the hype I've heard lately that the ex-Browns were surprisingly good additions, I certainly never saw any of them make plays.
It's a domino effect. We're loaded with speed and skill and the linebacker position, so the acquisiton of a single all-out pass rusher who will draw serious blocking attention frees up Al Wilson, Ian Gold, and D.J. Williams to make more plays on the blitz or while dropping back into coverage, where they can provide a tough but thin secondary with valuable assistance.
(Of course, improvement in the secondary's not a bad way to go, either.)
How would the Broncos have done if they had a pass rusher like Jacksonville's Reggie Hayward?
Hayward had 8.5 sacks in his first year with the Jaguars (since leaving the Broncos, as fans already know). That doesn't sound like much for the money he's making. But it's more than any two Broncos had-combined.
Let's hope Denver's next big first is finding some defensive line help.
They were the force behind Tom Brady's first playoff defeat as a pro (I guess that's redundant-he couldn't exactly have lost a playoff game in college, eh?). Just as surely, they were the biggest reason we became the first team to let Peyton Manning win a playoff game.
And today, they refused to stand between Ben Roethlisberger and his first Super Bowl.
Take away the uniforms and you would have thought Denver was the team playing its first game at altitude this year, not Pittsburgh. (Take away the uniforms and I never watch football again, but that's a different story.)
Instead, in the franchise's first AFC Championship appearance since John Elway retired, the defense let the Steelers control the tempo and enforce their will on the game.
In the first quarter, the Broncos let the Steelers on the board first with a field goal. That wasn't crippling, but when the Steelers added a touchdown, Denver was already in trouble. The problem with building your team around defense is that when you fall behind, your offense doesn't have enough experience making big plays. So, in other words, you can't fall behind.
Easier said than done, of course, but the last several Super Bowl champions were able to accomplish it. Think about it: if Champ Bailey hadn't dropped his potential touchdown pick on Pittsburgh's first offensive possession, the Broncos could be getting ready to join that list.
Instead, before the first half was over, the Broncos got their first points on a field goal-but gave up two more touchdowns, and were essentially finished.
What should the Broncos do this off-season?
Any loss, especially a playoff loss, shows many areas for improvement. I think the question for the Broncos is whether they stick with their current style or try to rebuild. For now, I say they have to stay the course.
I said throughout the regular season that the Broncos seemed a little lucky to be in the position they were. (Then I picked them to win the Super Bowl...yikes.) Things really lined up favorably for the Broncos this year-and rebuilding or not, it could easily be another seven years before we play for the conference championship again.
Every team has weaknesses, and it's tempting to say Denver's biggest need right now is a clutch quarterback. Get in line-the same can be said for probably 25 other teams, and I doubt the Broncos can seriously improve the position this offseason. (Though I have never been more confused by our offensive play-calling than I was the last two weeks.)
What we really need-and what we've needed for years-is a pass rush. Yes, we got pressure on Tom Brady, but it came when we gambled with heavy blitzes and besides, New England was still able to move the ball on us in huge chunks. (As an aside, I hope me referring to the Broncos as "we" doesn't bother anybody.)
Thus, and considering our run defense's knack for failing at just the wrong time, means the Broncos need defensive line help above all. Can you even name Denver's starting defensive tackles? For all the hype I've heard lately that the ex-Browns were surprisingly good additions, I certainly never saw any of them make plays.
It's a domino effect. We're loaded with speed and skill and the linebacker position, so the acquisiton of a single all-out pass rusher who will draw serious blocking attention frees up Al Wilson, Ian Gold, and D.J. Williams to make more plays on the blitz or while dropping back into coverage, where they can provide a tough but thin secondary with valuable assistance.
(Of course, improvement in the secondary's not a bad way to go, either.)
How would the Broncos have done if they had a pass rusher like Jacksonville's Reggie Hayward?
Hayward had 8.5 sacks in his first year with the Jaguars (since leaving the Broncos, as fans already know). That doesn't sound like much for the money he's making. But it's more than any two Broncos had-combined.
Let's hope Denver's next big first is finding some defensive line help.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
AFC Championship: Pittsburgh at Denver
Sunday’s AFC Championship Game (1 p.m. Mountain, CBS) between the Pittsburgh Steelers and Denver Broncos could, at first glance, hardly feature more similar squads.
And painted with broad strokes (both focus on running and defense) or small (both have offensive stars who weren’t drafted), the teams have a lot in common. And it’s not just styles, it’s statistics. Denver scored 24.7 points per game this year to Pittsburgh’s 24.3, and both allowed 16.1 points per contest.
Yet the game favors Denver. Why?
1. Offensive styles and matchups. You’re forgiven for thinking both teams run, run, and then run again. The Steelers surely run, but the runs are far more frequent and effective in the second half of games. It’s their passing game that helps build early leads.
Fortunately for the Broncos, their defensive strength is against the pass, despite deceiving defensive rankings.
The Broncos’ reputation as a run-focused squad is well-earned and accurate. While Pittsburgh’s defense is effective against any kind of play, they’ve jumped out to early leads in the first two playoff games and forced opponents to abandon the run. They won’t be able to do that in Denver, thanks to a more sizeable…
2. Home-field advantage. Like I’ve said before, home-field is more important to some teams than others, and Denver’s advantage is greater than most, thanks to the mile-high altitude. It allows the Broncos to control the tempo while opposing players are distracted by constant consultations with an oxygen mask. Meanwhile, the altitude helps enhance the sheer physicality of Denver’s rushing attack and gives the Broncos a chance at wearing down the Pittsburgh defenders.
To be fair, home field means less against Pittsburgh than it does against other teams. The Steelers are 8-2 on the road (including the postseason). But after last week’s dethroning of New England, Denver stands at a perfect 9-0 at Invesco Field.
3. Demeanor. Both teams faced tough opponents last week (it is the playoffs), but Pittsburgh’s victory was far tighter and more emotional. That could be good or bad, because while close games can warn of cracks in a team’s armor (think USC-Notre Dame), they can also give a team confidence to overcome future obstacles (think Patriots after the Tuck Rule game).
But Joey Porter’s whining following an enormously impressive victory-while completely understandable-suggests this Steelers team just might let their emotions run wild at crucial points in the contest. Meanwhile, the Broncos are a fearless bunch, highlighted by linebacker Ian Gold telling reporters Saturday night that he would really like to face the Colts, the team which had knocked out Denver two years in a row.
4. Coaching. Bill Cowher, meet Mike Shanahan. In other words, case closed.
Pittsburgh is a fast and physical team that can beat just about anyone. But not Denver Sunday. Broncos 30, Steelers 21.
And painted with broad strokes (both focus on running and defense) or small (both have offensive stars who weren’t drafted), the teams have a lot in common. And it’s not just styles, it’s statistics. Denver scored 24.7 points per game this year to Pittsburgh’s 24.3, and both allowed 16.1 points per contest.
Yet the game favors Denver. Why?
1. Offensive styles and matchups. You’re forgiven for thinking both teams run, run, and then run again. The Steelers surely run, but the runs are far more frequent and effective in the second half of games. It’s their passing game that helps build early leads.
Fortunately for the Broncos, their defensive strength is against the pass, despite deceiving defensive rankings.
The Broncos’ reputation as a run-focused squad is well-earned and accurate. While Pittsburgh’s defense is effective against any kind of play, they’ve jumped out to early leads in the first two playoff games and forced opponents to abandon the run. They won’t be able to do that in Denver, thanks to a more sizeable…
2. Home-field advantage. Like I’ve said before, home-field is more important to some teams than others, and Denver’s advantage is greater than most, thanks to the mile-high altitude. It allows the Broncos to control the tempo while opposing players are distracted by constant consultations with an oxygen mask. Meanwhile, the altitude helps enhance the sheer physicality of Denver’s rushing attack and gives the Broncos a chance at wearing down the Pittsburgh defenders.
To be fair, home field means less against Pittsburgh than it does against other teams. The Steelers are 8-2 on the road (including the postseason). But after last week’s dethroning of New England, Denver stands at a perfect 9-0 at Invesco Field.
3. Demeanor. Both teams faced tough opponents last week (it is the playoffs), but Pittsburgh’s victory was far tighter and more emotional. That could be good or bad, because while close games can warn of cracks in a team’s armor (think USC-Notre Dame), they can also give a team confidence to overcome future obstacles (think Patriots after the Tuck Rule game).
But Joey Porter’s whining following an enormously impressive victory-while completely understandable-suggests this Steelers team just might let their emotions run wild at crucial points in the contest. Meanwhile, the Broncos are a fearless bunch, highlighted by linebacker Ian Gold telling reporters Saturday night that he would really like to face the Colts, the team which had knocked out Denver two years in a row.
4. Coaching. Bill Cowher, meet Mike Shanahan. In other words, case closed.
Pittsburgh is a fast and physical team that can beat just about anyone. But not Denver Sunday. Broncos 30, Steelers 21.
NFC Championship: Carolina at Seattle
Fabulous. Most years at least one conference championship winner is blatantly obvious, but as soon as I start trying to predict winners with the whole world as my witness, I honestly think that both games could go either way.
I feel that way especially about Sunday’s NFC Championship game, featuring the Carolina Panthers at the Seattle Seahawks (4:30 Mountain, FOX). Depending on how you look at it, both teams look better than their opponents.
You think momentum is critical? The Panthers won by a smaller margin last week than Seattle, yet were more in control of their game against a better team and on the road. Despite surrendering 21 points to Chicago's pathetic offense, Carolina basically kept the Bears at arm’s length and made mincemeat of the NFL’s No. 1 scoring defense. The Seahawks, meanwhile, took a while to get going in eking out a win over the Redskins.
Health? Star Seattle running back Shaun Alexander is returning from a concussion, and who knows how he’ll fare? But then again, the Panthers’ top two backs won’t be playing at all.
Do you consider regular season results a better indicator of a team’s true quality? Not only did Seattle post a better record (13-3 against Carolina’s 11-5), the Seahawks were better statistically and won their division-while Carolina did not.
Oh, you think the quarterbacks will make the difference. Matt Hasselbeck of Seattle has the clearly superior passing skills and carried Seattle’s offense himself Saturday. But Jake Delhomme has been the only passer ever to face Tom Brady in the playoffs and match him throw-for-throw in the only playoff game Delhomme has ever lost.
To me, the most important matchup of the game will be Seattle’s rushing offense against Carolina’s stout defense. With Delhomme’s experience advantage, Hasselbeck will be the quarterback in greater need of solid run support.
In the regular season, Seattle had the league’s third-ranked rushing offense (153.6 yards per game) and its highest single rusher in Alexander (1,880 yards). Likewise, Carolina’s run defense was fourth in the league in total rushing yards allowed (91.6) and yards per carry allowed (3.6).
Something must give, and the momentum favors Carolina, which has already shut down New York’s and Chicago’s running in the playoffs. And Seattle ran the ball poorly last week against Washington.
But I have two reasons to expect Seattle to bounce back from last week’s game. First is the success they had running the ball at home throughout the regular season. Alexander cracked 100 yards in seven of their eight home games.
The second is that the Seahawks were out-of-sync last week not because they faced an unblockable defense, but because it was their first meaningful action since Christmas Eve. While timing and rhythm are talked about more in the passing game, they’re at least as critical to effective running. Seattle’s run blocking seemed to get better as the game went on, and there’s no doubt the coaching staff has made improvement a top priority this week in practice.
Because of home field, their great regular season, and the injury to Panthers back DeShaun Foster, I’m going with the Seahawks. I know I'll never call a final score correctly, but: Seattle 24, Carolina 20.
I feel that way especially about Sunday’s NFC Championship game, featuring the Carolina Panthers at the Seattle Seahawks (4:30 Mountain, FOX). Depending on how you look at it, both teams look better than their opponents.
You think momentum is critical? The Panthers won by a smaller margin last week than Seattle, yet were more in control of their game against a better team and on the road. Despite surrendering 21 points to Chicago's pathetic offense, Carolina basically kept the Bears at arm’s length and made mincemeat of the NFL’s No. 1 scoring defense. The Seahawks, meanwhile, took a while to get going in eking out a win over the Redskins.
Health? Star Seattle running back Shaun Alexander is returning from a concussion, and who knows how he’ll fare? But then again, the Panthers’ top two backs won’t be playing at all.
Do you consider regular season results a better indicator of a team’s true quality? Not only did Seattle post a better record (13-3 against Carolina’s 11-5), the Seahawks were better statistically and won their division-while Carolina did not.
Oh, you think the quarterbacks will make the difference. Matt Hasselbeck of Seattle has the clearly superior passing skills and carried Seattle’s offense himself Saturday. But Jake Delhomme has been the only passer ever to face Tom Brady in the playoffs and match him throw-for-throw in the only playoff game Delhomme has ever lost.
To me, the most important matchup of the game will be Seattle’s rushing offense against Carolina’s stout defense. With Delhomme’s experience advantage, Hasselbeck will be the quarterback in greater need of solid run support.
In the regular season, Seattle had the league’s third-ranked rushing offense (153.6 yards per game) and its highest single rusher in Alexander (1,880 yards). Likewise, Carolina’s run defense was fourth in the league in total rushing yards allowed (91.6) and yards per carry allowed (3.6).
Something must give, and the momentum favors Carolina, which has already shut down New York’s and Chicago’s running in the playoffs. And Seattle ran the ball poorly last week against Washington.
But I have two reasons to expect Seattle to bounce back from last week’s game. First is the success they had running the ball at home throughout the regular season. Alexander cracked 100 yards in seven of their eight home games.
The second is that the Seahawks were out-of-sync last week not because they faced an unblockable defense, but because it was their first meaningful action since Christmas Eve. While timing and rhythm are talked about more in the passing game, they’re at least as critical to effective running. Seattle’s run blocking seemed to get better as the game went on, and there’s no doubt the coaching staff has made improvement a top priority this week in practice.
Because of home field, their great regular season, and the injury to Panthers back DeShaun Foster, I’m going with the Seahawks. I know I'll never call a final score correctly, but: Seattle 24, Carolina 20.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Regular season numbers, postseason success
In preparation for my upcoming breakdowns of Sunday’s conference championship games, I’ve been looking at a bunch of statistics and studying each teams. I thought it might be interesting to talk about what these teams have in common. (And what the losing teams don’t.) While some of these statistics could be coincidences or one-year flukes, it might help you understand what’s important for winning teams to focus on.
1. They run. Three of the four remaining playoff teams (Seattle, Denver and Pittsburgh) rank in the top five among the league’s rushing offenses. That’s not too shocking, since those rankings are based on total yardage and good teams tend to run the ball a lot to kill the clock at the end of victories (with the obvious exception of the Colts).
But those teams don’t just run a lot, they run well-Seattle and Denver’s per-carry averages both round to 4.7, and Pittsburgh picks up 4.0 per rush. Carolina actually ranked 19th in rushing and 29th in average (3.4) in the regular season, but still had a commitment to the running game, ranking 10th in the league in attempts despite such a poor success rate.
Watching from the couch: New England. I think everyone realizes by now how much I respect Tom Brady’s abilities, but even he needs a little help. The Patriots were 24th in rushing and gained just 3.4 per run. Against Denver, they picked up only 79 yards on the ground.
2. They stop the run. Instead of getting into why this is important, let’s just list the top five defenses this year against the run:
1. San Diego
2. Denver
3. Pittsburgh
4. Carolina
5. Seattle
Sure, these are yardage-based and, like the above, would favor teams with winning records. But in yards per carry, you’ve got Pittsburgh leading the league in giving up just 3.4 per rush, followed by Carolina in 4th (3.6) and Seattle in 5th (3.6). Denver ranks 15th, by far the worst, giving up 4.0.
Watching from the couch: Indianapolis. The Colts still have no run defense, though Pittsburgh was pretty unsuccessful against them Sunday. Yet the Steelers ran up almost a ten-minute advantage in time of possession, thanks largely to 42 rushing attempts.
3. They understand that pass efficiency is more important than huge passing totals. Jake Plummer, Jake Delhomme, Matt Hasselbeck and Ben Roethlisberger will never be confused with Peyton Manning, a fact all probably take great pride in at this moment. And Champ Bailey might be the only big-name pass defender left in the postseason.
But each of the teams pass well when they have to and shut down the opposition when need be, even though passing is not the focus of any remaining team’s offense. (In total yardage, they rank from Seattle at 13th to Pittsburgh at 24th.)
But in terms of yards-per-attempt, all four teams rank in the top ten both in yards gained and fewest yards allowed, except Seattle, which ranks a decent 17th in the league in giving up 6.76 yards per attempt. Of course, with Seattle’s eleven-game winning streak, the Seahawks probably gave up a bunch of huge gains in garbage time.
Watching from the couch: Tampa Bay. Chris Simms threw for a solid 198 yards against Washington...but it took him 38 throws to rack up that total, for an average of just 5.2 per.
4. Each team has a coach with extensive and successful playoff experience. In fact, each head man has led a team in the Super Bowl, and only Mike Holmgren of Seattle hasn’t done it with his current franchise. My personal power rankings of the remaining coaches looks like:
1. Mike Shanahan, Denver
2. John Fox, Carolina
3. Mike Holmgren, Seattle
4. Bill Cowher, Pittsburgh
And while I’d be the first to mock Cowher if Pittsburgh was in one of its 5-11 down years instead of its AFC title game highs, he has been very successful overall in his career. I’m the first to rip Shanahan’s personnel decisions (and he’s obviously going to get more rips and praise here since this is primarily a Denver sports blog), he remains one of the only coaches in history to win multiple Super Bowls.
This is would be a shaky indicator to use as a predictor of future success, if only because each of these guys had to make it to a Super Bowl for a first time at some point. In fact, the last six Super Bowls have featured at least one coach who was making his first appearance in the championship as a head man.
But in a year with no clearly dominant favorite, I think it makes sense that head-coaching experience could be a bigger factor than usual.
Watching from the couch: Chicago. While the Bears put up a surprising three touchdowns, the Panthers made quick work of their vaunted defense. Perhaps by next year, Coach of the Year Lovie Smith will a) have heard of Steve Smith and b) realize that Rex Grossman can’t throw (27 runs against 41 passes?).
1. They run. Three of the four remaining playoff teams (Seattle, Denver and Pittsburgh) rank in the top five among the league’s rushing offenses. That’s not too shocking, since those rankings are based on total yardage and good teams tend to run the ball a lot to kill the clock at the end of victories (with the obvious exception of the Colts).
But those teams don’t just run a lot, they run well-Seattle and Denver’s per-carry averages both round to 4.7, and Pittsburgh picks up 4.0 per rush. Carolina actually ranked 19th in rushing and 29th in average (3.4) in the regular season, but still had a commitment to the running game, ranking 10th in the league in attempts despite such a poor success rate.
Watching from the couch: New England. I think everyone realizes by now how much I respect Tom Brady’s abilities, but even he needs a little help. The Patriots were 24th in rushing and gained just 3.4 per run. Against Denver, they picked up only 79 yards on the ground.
2. They stop the run. Instead of getting into why this is important, let’s just list the top five defenses this year against the run:
1. San Diego
2. Denver
3. Pittsburgh
4. Carolina
5. Seattle
Sure, these are yardage-based and, like the above, would favor teams with winning records. But in yards per carry, you’ve got Pittsburgh leading the league in giving up just 3.4 per rush, followed by Carolina in 4th (3.6) and Seattle in 5th (3.6). Denver ranks 15th, by far the worst, giving up 4.0.
Watching from the couch: Indianapolis. The Colts still have no run defense, though Pittsburgh was pretty unsuccessful against them Sunday. Yet the Steelers ran up almost a ten-minute advantage in time of possession, thanks largely to 42 rushing attempts.
3. They understand that pass efficiency is more important than huge passing totals. Jake Plummer, Jake Delhomme, Matt Hasselbeck and Ben Roethlisberger will never be confused with Peyton Manning, a fact all probably take great pride in at this moment. And Champ Bailey might be the only big-name pass defender left in the postseason.
But each of the teams pass well when they have to and shut down the opposition when need be, even though passing is not the focus of any remaining team’s offense. (In total yardage, they rank from Seattle at 13th to Pittsburgh at 24th.)
But in terms of yards-per-attempt, all four teams rank in the top ten both in yards gained and fewest yards allowed, except Seattle, which ranks a decent 17th in the league in giving up 6.76 yards per attempt. Of course, with Seattle’s eleven-game winning streak, the Seahawks probably gave up a bunch of huge gains in garbage time.
Watching from the couch: Tampa Bay. Chris Simms threw for a solid 198 yards against Washington...but it took him 38 throws to rack up that total, for an average of just 5.2 per.
4. Each team has a coach with extensive and successful playoff experience. In fact, each head man has led a team in the Super Bowl, and only Mike Holmgren of Seattle hasn’t done it with his current franchise. My personal power rankings of the remaining coaches looks like:
1. Mike Shanahan, Denver
2. John Fox, Carolina
3. Mike Holmgren, Seattle
4. Bill Cowher, Pittsburgh
And while I’d be the first to mock Cowher if Pittsburgh was in one of its 5-11 down years instead of its AFC title game highs, he has been very successful overall in his career. I’m the first to rip Shanahan’s personnel decisions (and he’s obviously going to get more rips and praise here since this is primarily a Denver sports blog), he remains one of the only coaches in history to win multiple Super Bowls.
This is would be a shaky indicator to use as a predictor of future success, if only because each of these guys had to make it to a Super Bowl for a first time at some point. In fact, the last six Super Bowls have featured at least one coach who was making his first appearance in the championship as a head man.
But in a year with no clearly dominant favorite, I think it makes sense that head-coaching experience could be a bigger factor than usual.
Watching from the couch: Chicago. While the Bears put up a surprising three touchdowns, the Panthers made quick work of their vaunted defense. Perhaps by next year, Coach of the Year Lovie Smith will a) have heard of Steve Smith and b) realize that Rex Grossman can’t throw (27 runs against 41 passes?).
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Weekend in review
Washington at Seattle: The player who impressed me the most in Saturday’s game was Seattle quarterback Matt Hasselbeck. He helped the ’Hawks overcome the loss of Shaun Alexander, who’d gotten off to a pretty bad start anyway (six carries for nine yards). I have to agree with those who've said the quarterback is Seattle’s real MVP.
I’d be hearing whispers about Hasselbeck’s greatness for years, then watched him fall flat in the biggest games. But Saturday, when his team needed him the most, he threw with impressive touch and accuracy all over the field, and halfback back-up Maurice Morris gave Seattle the absolute bare minimum they needed.
As for the Redskins, they could be solid next year if they find a real quarterback, which is a pretty big piece of the puzzle to be missing. Brunell had solid numbers, but against a defense keyed on the run, he couldn’t make any big plays. It really seems like he’s hanging on by a thread at this point, at least against the tougher defenses (he was terrible against Tampa Bay, too).
New England at Denver: Here’s a prediction: Champ Bailey never slows down near the end zone again.
I think the reason I’ve felt the Broncos were a bit lucky all year is because they win in ways in which Broncos teams never win. Past Shanahan-coached squads have won because of offenses that could put up thirty points in any game. This year, we’re thriving with defense and timely turnovers-and this is a team that has never been able to come up with big turnovers, at least not since back-to-back Super Bowl victories.
The Broncos are also carrying themselves with a confidence unlike they’ve had for a while-again, a confidence that calls to mind the Super Bowl champions of ages past. They’ve been cocky in recent years, but that’s not the same thing.
Case in point: John Lynch celebrating in New England’s backfield at the start of the game, after which Tom Brady followed Lynch, pumping his fist. I could not have been more worried for my prediction than I was at that point. But Lynch backed it up with as good a game as he’s had since coming to Denver before last season (and without any illegal hits), and while Brady and the Pats racked up huge yardage, it never seemed to come at crucial points in the contest.
The biggest reason the Broncos have for concern is that the running game never really got going against New England, though the Broncos were unstoppable when they ran near the goal line (the offense was much easier to contain when the team opted for fade routes). Pittsburgh might be even better against the run.
Indianapolis at Pittsburgh: Who would have guessed I’d call only one game wrong this weekend because I had faith in the Colts in the postseason? That’s just delicious.
I love the fact that the game came down to a quarterback making an athletic play-Roethlisberger’s shoestring open-field tackle on the late fumble recovery, which turned a sure touchdown into an opportunity for Mike Vanderjagt to threaten all previously-held notions of the limits of the phrase “wide right”. Do you think Peyton Manning could have made that tackle?
The officiating was abysmal, especially late in the game. Afterwards, Joey Porter accused the league of wanting Manning and the Colts in the Super Bowl. There were unfathomable calls, especially when Steelers safety Troy Polamalu’s interception was overturned, but I have to ask: why would the league do that? It’s not like Indianapolis is a major media market (or that the Super Bowl needs that boost anyway).
The only possible explanation is that Peyton Manning, with his off-field endorsements, is the closest thing the NFL could have to the huge superstars in other sports...if he starts winning titles. Of course, the league already has Tom Brady, who, while well-known, doesn’t seem to have the major crossover appeal outside of football that puts him in the fame stratosphere with someone like Shaq or even Allen Iverson. I don’t think Manning does, either, but maybe the league feels differently. Even that’s pretty weak, though, as far as explanations go.
Of course, I look at the league and say it’s good enough. The league is constantly looking for ways to make even more money-else why look for a team for Los Angeles? So maybe the Peyton thing makes sense. Your thoughts?
My brother John and I were discussing during the game why Indianapolis, which has so many good players and wins so many regular season games, has such trouble in the postseason. I speculated that perhaps Peyton’s teammates resented the does-no-wrong Golden Boy and that team chemistry is more of a problem than anyone has been led to believe. Then Peyton stabbed his offensive linemen in the back after the game and if chemistry wasn’t a problem before, it sure is now. (And what kind of quarterback calls out his O-line? They’re probably some of the toughest guys on the team, don’t get paid much (compared to other NFL players), and fight through myriad injuries to keep Manning standing against blitzes he apparently can’t handle. Does he think they’re going to block harder for him now?) Despite whatever public proclamations we hear before next year, wounds like that never seem to heal fully-or have we all forgotten McNabb and T.O. already?
Anyway, Pittsburgh came up with the upset, and is one game away from riding the No. 6 seed all the way to the Super Bowl.
Carolina at Chicago: The Bears’ offense was better than I thought, which is like saying Kobe and Phil Jackson are getting along better now than they ever have before. Both defenses gave up more yards than I would have thought, though Carolina’s is more of a playoff defense, if that makes any sense at all. I think it will be more effective against Seattle’s attack than Chicago’s defense would have been.
Here’s the thing: how can Chicago be considered a good defense, and how can Lovie Smith be considered a good coach, if they can’t slow down Carolina’s only real receiver? Steve Smith didn’t just break free for his usual game-his numbers say he had a game for the ages (though it seems tempered a bit by Chicago’s total ineptitude).
Jake Delhomme continued to put his finishing touches on the phrase “ugly, but effective”, but can the Panthers survive the loss of DeShaun Foster (a sickening broken ankle) next week?
I’d be hearing whispers about Hasselbeck’s greatness for years, then watched him fall flat in the biggest games. But Saturday, when his team needed him the most, he threw with impressive touch and accuracy all over the field, and halfback back-up Maurice Morris gave Seattle the absolute bare minimum they needed.
As for the Redskins, they could be solid next year if they find a real quarterback, which is a pretty big piece of the puzzle to be missing. Brunell had solid numbers, but against a defense keyed on the run, he couldn’t make any big plays. It really seems like he’s hanging on by a thread at this point, at least against the tougher defenses (he was terrible against Tampa Bay, too).
New England at Denver: Here’s a prediction: Champ Bailey never slows down near the end zone again.
I think the reason I’ve felt the Broncos were a bit lucky all year is because they win in ways in which Broncos teams never win. Past Shanahan-coached squads have won because of offenses that could put up thirty points in any game. This year, we’re thriving with defense and timely turnovers-and this is a team that has never been able to come up with big turnovers, at least not since back-to-back Super Bowl victories.
The Broncos are also carrying themselves with a confidence unlike they’ve had for a while-again, a confidence that calls to mind the Super Bowl champions of ages past. They’ve been cocky in recent years, but that’s not the same thing.
Case in point: John Lynch celebrating in New England’s backfield at the start of the game, after which Tom Brady followed Lynch, pumping his fist. I could not have been more worried for my prediction than I was at that point. But Lynch backed it up with as good a game as he’s had since coming to Denver before last season (and without any illegal hits), and while Brady and the Pats racked up huge yardage, it never seemed to come at crucial points in the contest.
The biggest reason the Broncos have for concern is that the running game never really got going against New England, though the Broncos were unstoppable when they ran near the goal line (the offense was much easier to contain when the team opted for fade routes). Pittsburgh might be even better against the run.
Indianapolis at Pittsburgh: Who would have guessed I’d call only one game wrong this weekend because I had faith in the Colts in the postseason? That’s just delicious.
I love the fact that the game came down to a quarterback making an athletic play-Roethlisberger’s shoestring open-field tackle on the late fumble recovery, which turned a sure touchdown into an opportunity for Mike Vanderjagt to threaten all previously-held notions of the limits of the phrase “wide right”. Do you think Peyton Manning could have made that tackle?
The officiating was abysmal, especially late in the game. Afterwards, Joey Porter accused the league of wanting Manning and the Colts in the Super Bowl. There were unfathomable calls, especially when Steelers safety Troy Polamalu’s interception was overturned, but I have to ask: why would the league do that? It’s not like Indianapolis is a major media market (or that the Super Bowl needs that boost anyway).
The only possible explanation is that Peyton Manning, with his off-field endorsements, is the closest thing the NFL could have to the huge superstars in other sports...if he starts winning titles. Of course, the league already has Tom Brady, who, while well-known, doesn’t seem to have the major crossover appeal outside of football that puts him in the fame stratosphere with someone like Shaq or even Allen Iverson. I don’t think Manning does, either, but maybe the league feels differently. Even that’s pretty weak, though, as far as explanations go.
Of course, I look at the league and say it’s good enough. The league is constantly looking for ways to make even more money-else why look for a team for Los Angeles? So maybe the Peyton thing makes sense. Your thoughts?
My brother John and I were discussing during the game why Indianapolis, which has so many good players and wins so many regular season games, has such trouble in the postseason. I speculated that perhaps Peyton’s teammates resented the does-no-wrong Golden Boy and that team chemistry is more of a problem than anyone has been led to believe. Then Peyton stabbed his offensive linemen in the back after the game and if chemistry wasn’t a problem before, it sure is now. (And what kind of quarterback calls out his O-line? They’re probably some of the toughest guys on the team, don’t get paid much (compared to other NFL players), and fight through myriad injuries to keep Manning standing against blitzes he apparently can’t handle. Does he think they’re going to block harder for him now?) Despite whatever public proclamations we hear before next year, wounds like that never seem to heal fully-or have we all forgotten McNabb and T.O. already?
Anyway, Pittsburgh came up with the upset, and is one game away from riding the No. 6 seed all the way to the Super Bowl.
Carolina at Chicago: The Bears’ offense was better than I thought, which is like saying Kobe and Phil Jackson are getting along better now than they ever have before. Both defenses gave up more yards than I would have thought, though Carolina’s is more of a playoff defense, if that makes any sense at all. I think it will be more effective against Seattle’s attack than Chicago’s defense would have been.
Here’s the thing: how can Chicago be considered a good defense, and how can Lovie Smith be considered a good coach, if they can’t slow down Carolina’s only real receiver? Steve Smith didn’t just break free for his usual game-his numbers say he had a game for the ages (though it seems tempered a bit by Chicago’s total ineptitude).
Jake Delhomme continued to put his finishing touches on the phrase “ugly, but effective”, but can the Panthers survive the loss of DeShaun Foster (a sickening broken ankle) next week?
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Pittsburgh at Indianapolis
For this weekend’s NFL playoff games, I have noticed that I’ve only picked teams that I actually plan on rooting for.
As every Hole Punch Sports reader surely knows, I have no intention of ever supporting Peyton Manning. Yet the Colts were nearly unstoppable this season, and I also love being right.
Nevertheless, the early game Sunday between the 11-5 Pittsburgh Steelers and 14-2 Indianapolis Colts (11 a.m. Mountain, CBS) features two teams that are more similar than you think.
Let us begin with the coaches. Colts coach Tony Dungy and Steelers coach Bill Cowher are both defensive-minded leaders considered among the league’s best. And both are still considered a step below the real elite who have won Super Bowls. Each has won his share of playoff contests, though neither has pulled off any memorable upsets or moments.
Next, the starting quarterbacks. Unlike Colts record-setting thrower Peyton Manning, Roethlisberger’s 40-yard dash is not best measured with a calendar. But both are big passers, capable from the pocket, and willing to go downfield. (Surprisingly, both season and career numbers say Roethlisberger is even better throwing the ball deep than Manning-his 14.2 yards per completion is almost two yards better than Manning’s mark this season.) And both started careers with doubts surrounding their postseason performances.
Both teams feature fantastic running backs. The Colts have Edgerrin James, who went over the 1,500-yard mark for the fourth time this year. The Steelers have undrafted up-and-comer Willie Parker, who gashes defenses with quick bursts all over the field that result in 4.7 yards per carry. (And let’s not forget short-yardage connoisseur Jerome Bettis.)
Each team has one of the league’s best receivers over the last few years, both of whom could rightly call themselves “underrated” when their press clippings are compared to the ink Randy Moss and T.O. get. The Colts’ Marvin Harrison may have dropped off a tiny amount from his prime, but still leads a formidable receiving corps. The toughness and versatility of Steelers wideout Hines Ward is known throughout the league even if his creativity in touchdown celebrations is not.
Each defense is led by a speedy pass rusher: Indianapolis’ Dwight Freeney (11 sacks, six forced fumbles) and Pittsburgh’s Joey Porter (10.5 sacks, four forced fumbles) have a knack for big plays and can bring down opposing quarterbacks at any time.
But Pittsburgh and Indianapolis assembled their corresponding puzzle pieces in what appear to be vastly different ways. Under Cowher, Pittsburgh has always been a conservative, defensive-minded squad whose offense will run on any down and at any distance. Indianapolis, on the other hand, is built entirely around offensive fireworks.
Pittsburgh dominates the run on offense and defense. Indianapolis has a passing attack almost without peer.
Yet the results look a lot alike. Despite missing Roethlisberger for four games, Pittsburgh was ninth in the league in scoring with 24.3 per game, while Indianapolis was second with 27.4. Pittsburgh tied for third in points allowed with 16.1-right behind the Colts, who gave up 15.4.
With teams this disparate yet evenly-matched, what can be the difference? Coaching, home-field, and special teams can. I don’t think either coach can be favored with great confidence. Indianapolis does have the home-field, which is important with their speed on the turf-or so everyone says, except that Pittsburgh will, coincidentally, also be playing on turf this weekend. In any event, the home crowd can only help. On special teams, neither team has been gangbusters this year, though Steelers swingman Antwaan Randle-El has the only return touchdowns for either team (two, coming on punts).
Other questions arise. Indianapolis hasn’t played a meaningful game in a while. Will they have any rhythm? If the Colts jump out to an early lead, can the Steelers stay balanced enough on offense to be effective? Will the game be a shootout, or are both defenses really this good? Is it possible for both Dungy and Cowher to find a way to lose?
This one is almost too close to call. But while my heart is with the Steelers, Indy was just a little better this season. Indianapolis 27, Pittsburgh 23.
As every Hole Punch Sports reader surely knows, I have no intention of ever supporting Peyton Manning. Yet the Colts were nearly unstoppable this season, and I also love being right.
Nevertheless, the early game Sunday between the 11-5 Pittsburgh Steelers and 14-2 Indianapolis Colts (11 a.m. Mountain, CBS) features two teams that are more similar than you think.
Let us begin with the coaches. Colts coach Tony Dungy and Steelers coach Bill Cowher are both defensive-minded leaders considered among the league’s best. And both are still considered a step below the real elite who have won Super Bowls. Each has won his share of playoff contests, though neither has pulled off any memorable upsets or moments.
Next, the starting quarterbacks. Unlike Colts record-setting thrower Peyton Manning, Roethlisberger’s 40-yard dash is not best measured with a calendar. But both are big passers, capable from the pocket, and willing to go downfield. (Surprisingly, both season and career numbers say Roethlisberger is even better throwing the ball deep than Manning-his 14.2 yards per completion is almost two yards better than Manning’s mark this season.) And both started careers with doubts surrounding their postseason performances.
Both teams feature fantastic running backs. The Colts have Edgerrin James, who went over the 1,500-yard mark for the fourth time this year. The Steelers have undrafted up-and-comer Willie Parker, who gashes defenses with quick bursts all over the field that result in 4.7 yards per carry. (And let’s not forget short-yardage connoisseur Jerome Bettis.)
Each team has one of the league’s best receivers over the last few years, both of whom could rightly call themselves “underrated” when their press clippings are compared to the ink Randy Moss and T.O. get. The Colts’ Marvin Harrison may have dropped off a tiny amount from his prime, but still leads a formidable receiving corps. The toughness and versatility of Steelers wideout Hines Ward is known throughout the league even if his creativity in touchdown celebrations is not.
Each defense is led by a speedy pass rusher: Indianapolis’ Dwight Freeney (11 sacks, six forced fumbles) and Pittsburgh’s Joey Porter (10.5 sacks, four forced fumbles) have a knack for big plays and can bring down opposing quarterbacks at any time.
But Pittsburgh and Indianapolis assembled their corresponding puzzle pieces in what appear to be vastly different ways. Under Cowher, Pittsburgh has always been a conservative, defensive-minded squad whose offense will run on any down and at any distance. Indianapolis, on the other hand, is built entirely around offensive fireworks.
Pittsburgh dominates the run on offense and defense. Indianapolis has a passing attack almost without peer.
Yet the results look a lot alike. Despite missing Roethlisberger for four games, Pittsburgh was ninth in the league in scoring with 24.3 per game, while Indianapolis was second with 27.4. Pittsburgh tied for third in points allowed with 16.1-right behind the Colts, who gave up 15.4.
With teams this disparate yet evenly-matched, what can be the difference? Coaching, home-field, and special teams can. I don’t think either coach can be favored with great confidence. Indianapolis does have the home-field, which is important with their speed on the turf-or so everyone says, except that Pittsburgh will, coincidentally, also be playing on turf this weekend. In any event, the home crowd can only help. On special teams, neither team has been gangbusters this year, though Steelers swingman Antwaan Randle-El has the only return touchdowns for either team (two, coming on punts).
Other questions arise. Indianapolis hasn’t played a meaningful game in a while. Will they have any rhythm? If the Colts jump out to an early lead, can the Steelers stay balanced enough on offense to be effective? Will the game be a shootout, or are both defenses really this good? Is it possible for both Dungy and Cowher to find a way to lose?
This one is almost too close to call. But while my heart is with the Steelers, Indy was just a little better this season. Indianapolis 27, Pittsburgh 23.
New England at Denver
I can’t believe what I write sometimes.
Recently on Hole Punch Sports, I said that, “the playoff road looks very favorable for the Broncos.” However, my AFC predictions of Pittsburgh and New England victories last weekend were spot-on. So things went exactly like I said they would, but Denver is facing its toughest possible opponent for this playoff round…which isn’t “very favorable”.
Even though the Broncos stand as three-point favorites, a victory for them would feel like an upset. Why? I’m not really sure, but I think I’d call it “the Patriots won the last two Super Bowls.” As is well-documented, quarterback Tom Brady and head coach Bill Belichick have never lost a playoff game together. Another well-known fact is that this year’s 10-6 mark was dragged down by numerous injuries all over the field. The Patriots are in much better shape heading into Saturday’s game (6 p.m. Mountain, CBS).
Why can the Broncos hope to win?
1. Home-field advantage. Broncos coach Mike Shanahan has not won a playoff game since Jan. 31, 1999-coincidentally, right before Hall of Fame quarterback John Elway retired. But it’s no coincidence that each of the Broncos’ playoff losses since that day have come on the road.
Home-field is big for any franchise, but some teams have an even greater advantage. The weather in Green Bay. The fans in Kansas City. And the altitude in Denver. The Broncos know how to wear teams out in thin air, and proved it this season, winning all eight games at home.
2. Jake Plummer. Plummer certainly doesn’t give the Broncos nearly as much as Brady gives the Patriots. The Broncos’ passing offense is just middle-of-the-pack statistically, whereas Brady has almost single-handedly carried New England’s offense.
But Plummer gets something Brady doesn’t-a crack at the Patriots’ 31st-ranked pass defense. Belichick’s defenses always outperform their regular season numbers in the playoffs, but Plummer ripped the Patriots for huge gains in their regular season meeting (which the Broncos won 28-20).
Plummer’s known best now for his facial hair and newfound caution, but earned a reputation in Arizona for clutch play. He’s nowhere near Brady, of course, but doesn’t have to be, because…
3. The Broncos can run on anybody. Denver ran for more yards this year than any team except the Atlanta Falcons. Both Mike Anderson (1,014 yards) and Tatum Bell (921) ran for more yards than New England’s leading rusher, Corey Dillon. Anderson’s power wears down any defense-especially at altitude-and Bell’s breakaway speed forces opposing DBs to pay more attention to the run.
Meanwhile, New England has no such balance on offense. The Patriots’ run defense does rank eighth in the league, but their undersized defenders will wear down under the relentless onslaught.
4. Mike Shanahan. Or, in other words, New England’s customarily enormous head coaching edge is much smaller than it is over other teams.
In fact, you could argue that New England might not have an edge at all. While Shanahan has fallen somewhat out of favor in recent years, his and Belichick’s career paths are very similar. Both started as head coaches in terrible situations (Shanahan in Oakland, Belichick in Cleveland.) Both rebounded as coordinators for teams that went to the Super Bowl (Shanahan in San Fran., and Belichick in New England). And both won multiple Super Bowls behind quarterbacks who were the best in the game.
Just think about it: if Belichick runs off a few 10-6s and 9-7s in the next few years-certainly possible on a team with some aging defensive playmakers and the built-in disadvantage of always drafting low-will Patriots fans talk about him the same way Broncos fans talk of Shanahan now?
The real coaching question is whether Gary Kubiak’s interviews will distract him from game-planning for the Patriots. Two reasons that won’t happen: first, Kubiak’s not the kind of coaching climber who would jeopardize his current team’s chances; and second, if Shanahan thinks there’s any evidence of a drop-off, he can take over the offense himself. Shanahan knows this is his chance to shut up critics-for now-and the fiery coach won’t let anything stand in his way.
5. Defense. For the last two years, the Broncos had an impressive regular-season defense that completely fell apart against Indianapolis. That won’t happen again (at least until next week).
For starters, the Broncos finally seem to have solved their pass defense woes. And second, they match up very well with the Patriots. The Broncos are slightly vulnerable against the run, but New England can’t and won’t run enough to keep the defense honest. Meanwhile, New England’s offensive gameplan-which will almost certainly be to put the ball in Tom Brady’s hands-plays to Denver’s strength.
Tom Brady can’t really be stopped, but the Broncos can make the Patriots one-dimensional, which is almost always instant death in the playoffs.
The list of reasons for picking New England is much shorter:
1. The history of Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. Yes, the Patriots decided a few years ago to stop losing, and it’s paid off. Brady and Belichick have reached historic greatness in the last few years, and both have already punched their tickets to the Hall of Fame.
But eventually the pair will lose. And while I’m not sure the Patriots’ dynastic run is finished, I do think the next Super Bowl win is on hold for at least another year. Broncos 23, Patriots 21.
Recently on Hole Punch Sports, I said that, “the playoff road looks very favorable for the Broncos.” However, my AFC predictions of Pittsburgh and New England victories last weekend were spot-on. So things went exactly like I said they would, but Denver is facing its toughest possible opponent for this playoff round…which isn’t “very favorable”.
Even though the Broncos stand as three-point favorites, a victory for them would feel like an upset. Why? I’m not really sure, but I think I’d call it “the Patriots won the last two Super Bowls.” As is well-documented, quarterback Tom Brady and head coach Bill Belichick have never lost a playoff game together. Another well-known fact is that this year’s 10-6 mark was dragged down by numerous injuries all over the field. The Patriots are in much better shape heading into Saturday’s game (6 p.m. Mountain, CBS).
Why can the Broncos hope to win?
1. Home-field advantage. Broncos coach Mike Shanahan has not won a playoff game since Jan. 31, 1999-coincidentally, right before Hall of Fame quarterback John Elway retired. But it’s no coincidence that each of the Broncos’ playoff losses since that day have come on the road.
Home-field is big for any franchise, but some teams have an even greater advantage. The weather in Green Bay. The fans in Kansas City. And the altitude in Denver. The Broncos know how to wear teams out in thin air, and proved it this season, winning all eight games at home.
2. Jake Plummer. Plummer certainly doesn’t give the Broncos nearly as much as Brady gives the Patriots. The Broncos’ passing offense is just middle-of-the-pack statistically, whereas Brady has almost single-handedly carried New England’s offense.
But Plummer gets something Brady doesn’t-a crack at the Patriots’ 31st-ranked pass defense. Belichick’s defenses always outperform their regular season numbers in the playoffs, but Plummer ripped the Patriots for huge gains in their regular season meeting (which the Broncos won 28-20).
Plummer’s known best now for his facial hair and newfound caution, but earned a reputation in Arizona for clutch play. He’s nowhere near Brady, of course, but doesn’t have to be, because…
3. The Broncos can run on anybody. Denver ran for more yards this year than any team except the Atlanta Falcons. Both Mike Anderson (1,014 yards) and Tatum Bell (921) ran for more yards than New England’s leading rusher, Corey Dillon. Anderson’s power wears down any defense-especially at altitude-and Bell’s breakaway speed forces opposing DBs to pay more attention to the run.
Meanwhile, New England has no such balance on offense. The Patriots’ run defense does rank eighth in the league, but their undersized defenders will wear down under the relentless onslaught.
4. Mike Shanahan. Or, in other words, New England’s customarily enormous head coaching edge is much smaller than it is over other teams.
In fact, you could argue that New England might not have an edge at all. While Shanahan has fallen somewhat out of favor in recent years, his and Belichick’s career paths are very similar. Both started as head coaches in terrible situations (Shanahan in Oakland, Belichick in Cleveland.) Both rebounded as coordinators for teams that went to the Super Bowl (Shanahan in San Fran., and Belichick in New England). And both won multiple Super Bowls behind quarterbacks who were the best in the game.
Just think about it: if Belichick runs off a few 10-6s and 9-7s in the next few years-certainly possible on a team with some aging defensive playmakers and the built-in disadvantage of always drafting low-will Patriots fans talk about him the same way Broncos fans talk of Shanahan now?
The real coaching question is whether Gary Kubiak’s interviews will distract him from game-planning for the Patriots. Two reasons that won’t happen: first, Kubiak’s not the kind of coaching climber who would jeopardize his current team’s chances; and second, if Shanahan thinks there’s any evidence of a drop-off, he can take over the offense himself. Shanahan knows this is his chance to shut up critics-for now-and the fiery coach won’t let anything stand in his way.
5. Defense. For the last two years, the Broncos had an impressive regular-season defense that completely fell apart against Indianapolis. That won’t happen again (at least until next week).
For starters, the Broncos finally seem to have solved their pass defense woes. And second, they match up very well with the Patriots. The Broncos are slightly vulnerable against the run, but New England can’t and won’t run enough to keep the defense honest. Meanwhile, New England’s offensive gameplan-which will almost certainly be to put the ball in Tom Brady’s hands-plays to Denver’s strength.
Tom Brady can’t really be stopped, but the Broncos can make the Patriots one-dimensional, which is almost always instant death in the playoffs.
The list of reasons for picking New England is much shorter:
1. The history of Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. Yes, the Patriots decided a few years ago to stop losing, and it’s paid off. Brady and Belichick have reached historic greatness in the last few years, and both have already punched their tickets to the Hall of Fame.
But eventually the pair will lose. And while I’m not sure the Patriots’ dynastic run is finished, I do think the next Super Bowl win is on hold for at least another year. Broncos 23, Patriots 21.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Carolina at Chicago
Sunday (2:30 Mountain on FOX), the Carolina Panthers and Chicago Bears will face off for the right to lose to Seattle in the NFC Championship game. (Maybe.)
Last I checked, the Bears are three-point favorites over the Panthers. Why is that? I have no idea. Both teams sport identical 11-5 regular season records. Chicago is at home and beat the Panthers 13-3 Nov. 20. But the Panthers, in my mind, have been much better than the Bears.
I’ll take the upset here (Panthers to win) and then I’m going to tell you why…
1. Chicago has absolutely no offense. Not to get off-topic here, but the Detroit Lions were really bad this year, weren’t they? Coach got fired, GM ought to get fired…they really didn’t put it together, especially on offense, where Joey Harrington is on the verge of becoming a legendary bust.
Against the Bears’ vaunted defense, the Lions racked up nineteen points this year…that’s 19 points in two full games, plus an overtime. (And in typical Lions fashion, that overtime ended when quarterback Jeff Garcia threw a touchdown pass…to the wrong team.)
The Lions were 27th in the league in offense this year, racking up just 269.9 yards per game, or a little more than half of a Vince Young Rose Bowl. Man, they sucked. Wait a second…down there with them are the Chicago Bears, who were worse, ranking only 29th in yardage.
How about the Houston Texans, who have their prying eyes on Denver offensive coordinator Gary Kubiak for their new head coach? They could use him. Every time quarterback David Carr dropped back to pass, it was no longer a question of if he’d hit the turf, but when.
The Texans managed to put together enough offense to score a pathetic 16.3 points per game this year, ranking them 26th in the league. Maybe I should say tying them for 26th…tying them with the Chicago Bears.
2. Like in 2001, Chicago’s success is a house of mirrors. This year’s edition of the all-defense, no-offense-whatsoever Bears is eerily reminiscent of the 13-3 2001 team, right down to matching Coach of the Year awards for undeserving recipients Dick Jauron and Lovie Smith. (Or maybe they did deserve them; see below.)
That 2001 featured unheard-of luck, winning eight regular season contests by seven points or less. A lot of good it did them in the playoffs, where the Bears bowed out meekly to the physically superior Philadelphia Eagles in their first game…at home.
This year’s squad hasn’t been blessed with the same luck, but several final scores will give you pause. Chicago followed up the aforementioned 19-13 OT squeaker over Detroit with a 20-17 victory “at New Orleans” just a week later. Hmmm, maybe it was the 17-9 victory over the dominant 49ers the next week that convinced us all Chicago was for real.
Overall this season, Chicago outscored opponents by just 260-202, which, while it sure beats opponents outscoring you, is bad for an 11-5 team. The Panthers, meanwhile, had a much healthier scoreboard edge of 391-259.
Teams that play with fire in the NFL postseason usually get burned. Those that don’t get burned have Tom Brady.
3. The Panthers have a better coach. Congratulations to Lovie Smith on winning the Coach of the Year award. More accurately described as the Luckiest Coach Award, it’s an honor bestowed on whichever coach most defied expectations thanks not to superior leadership but to an easy schedule, weak division, favorable planetary alignment, or whatever.
Don’t believe me? There are three coaches left in the playoffs who have won multiple Super Bowls: Mike Shanahan, Joe Gibbs, and Bill Belichick. Together, they’ve combined for one Coach of the Year (Belichick’s in 2003). Meanwhile, San Diego coach Marty Schottenheimer, whose conservatism makes Ronald Reagan look like Karl Marx, has pocketed three of the awards.
Anyway, anyone who thinks Lovie Smith is a real threat to outcoach John Fox is completely off his rocker. Fox’s teams are always disciplined, hard-nosed, and mentally tough enough to compete at a high level in the biggest games. Smith’s teams are…well, it’s too early to say for sure.
Can Fox take a team on the road and win a pressure-packed postseason game? In 2003, his Panthers stormed into still-feared St. Louis and pulled out a victory, then followed that up with a road win over the Philadelphia Eagles for a Super Bowl berth. In other words, yes.
Last I checked, the Bears are three-point favorites over the Panthers. Why is that? I have no idea. Both teams sport identical 11-5 regular season records. Chicago is at home and beat the Panthers 13-3 Nov. 20. But the Panthers, in my mind, have been much better than the Bears.
I’ll take the upset here (Panthers to win) and then I’m going to tell you why…
1. Chicago has absolutely no offense. Not to get off-topic here, but the Detroit Lions were really bad this year, weren’t they? Coach got fired, GM ought to get fired…they really didn’t put it together, especially on offense, where Joey Harrington is on the verge of becoming a legendary bust.
Against the Bears’ vaunted defense, the Lions racked up nineteen points this year…that’s 19 points in two full games, plus an overtime. (And in typical Lions fashion, that overtime ended when quarterback Jeff Garcia threw a touchdown pass…to the wrong team.)
The Lions were 27th in the league in offense this year, racking up just 269.9 yards per game, or a little more than half of a Vince Young Rose Bowl. Man, they sucked. Wait a second…down there with them are the Chicago Bears, who were worse, ranking only 29th in yardage.
How about the Houston Texans, who have their prying eyes on Denver offensive coordinator Gary Kubiak for their new head coach? They could use him. Every time quarterback David Carr dropped back to pass, it was no longer a question of if he’d hit the turf, but when.
The Texans managed to put together enough offense to score a pathetic 16.3 points per game this year, ranking them 26th in the league. Maybe I should say tying them for 26th…tying them with the Chicago Bears.
2. Like in 2001, Chicago’s success is a house of mirrors. This year’s edition of the all-defense, no-offense-whatsoever Bears is eerily reminiscent of the 13-3 2001 team, right down to matching Coach of the Year awards for undeserving recipients Dick Jauron and Lovie Smith. (Or maybe they did deserve them; see below.)
That 2001 featured unheard-of luck, winning eight regular season contests by seven points or less. A lot of good it did them in the playoffs, where the Bears bowed out meekly to the physically superior Philadelphia Eagles in their first game…at home.
This year’s squad hasn’t been blessed with the same luck, but several final scores will give you pause. Chicago followed up the aforementioned 19-13 OT squeaker over Detroit with a 20-17 victory “at New Orleans” just a week later. Hmmm, maybe it was the 17-9 victory over the dominant 49ers the next week that convinced us all Chicago was for real.
Overall this season, Chicago outscored opponents by just 260-202, which, while it sure beats opponents outscoring you, is bad for an 11-5 team. The Panthers, meanwhile, had a much healthier scoreboard edge of 391-259.
Teams that play with fire in the NFL postseason usually get burned. Those that don’t get burned have Tom Brady.
3. The Panthers have a better coach. Congratulations to Lovie Smith on winning the Coach of the Year award. More accurately described as the Luckiest Coach Award, it’s an honor bestowed on whichever coach most defied expectations thanks not to superior leadership but to an easy schedule, weak division, favorable planetary alignment, or whatever.
Don’t believe me? There are three coaches left in the playoffs who have won multiple Super Bowls: Mike Shanahan, Joe Gibbs, and Bill Belichick. Together, they’ve combined for one Coach of the Year (Belichick’s in 2003). Meanwhile, San Diego coach Marty Schottenheimer, whose conservatism makes Ronald Reagan look like Karl Marx, has pocketed three of the awards.
Anyway, anyone who thinks Lovie Smith is a real threat to outcoach John Fox is completely off his rocker. Fox’s teams are always disciplined, hard-nosed, and mentally tough enough to compete at a high level in the biggest games. Smith’s teams are…well, it’s too early to say for sure.
Can Fox take a team on the road and win a pressure-packed postseason game? In 2003, his Panthers stormed into still-feared St. Louis and pulled out a victory, then followed that up with a road win over the Philadelphia Eagles for a Super Bowl berth. In other words, yes.
Washington at Seattle
This week's playoff previews starts with the weekend's first game, the Washington Redskins at the Seattle Seahawks (2:30 pm Mountain-not sure why I used Eastern last time, FOX).
On paper this may not look like much of a matchup. The Redskins were 10-6 and couldn't even beat out the New York Giants for the division title. The Seahwaks went 13-3, have a real quarterback, and ran away with the NFC. I tend to agree with paper on this one.
However for this preview I will employ the completely contradictory tone and tell you why each team could win Saturday:
Why Washington Will Win:
1. Better coaching. Though there are scores of coaches who can pile up regular season victories, only the elite few win consistently in the postseason. Look at the last five coaches to win Super Bowls: Bill Belichick, Jon Gruden, Brian Billick, Dick Vermeil, and Mike Shanahan. Not a weak link in the bunch.
Though Mike Holmgren and Joe Gibbs have each won a Super Bowl themselves (three, in Gibbs’ case), Gibbs clearly gives the Redskins an advantage. Holmgren has had a mostly up-and-down career, at least in terms of coaching teams up to expectations. Gibbs, meanwhile, has racked up an absurd 17-5 postseason record.
2. Defense. Linebacker LaVar Arrington had a monster game against Tampa Bay, topping off his ten tackles with a forced fumble and an interception. The scheming of defensive coordinator Gregg Williams may give them just enough of an edge to blunt the Seattle offensive.
Why Seattle Will Win:
1. Better offense. That alone says absolutely nothing about Seattle, considering Washington racked up just 120 total yards against the Buccaneers. But points-wise, Seattle outscored everyone-even the mighty Colts-this season. Oh yeah, and which team has the MVP?
2. Better balance. No, the Seahawks can’t match the Redskins’ defensively-but then, they won’t have to. The numbers say Seattle’s run-stopping is even better than Washington’s, and controlling the line of scrimmage is, as Gibbs knows, crucial in postseason showdowns. Seattle has enough defense to slow Washington and more than enough offense to put points on the board.
Considering the above, and also the fact that Seattle’s team name isn’t a cruel reminder of abysmal race relations, I’m going to go with the Seahawks.
On paper this may not look like much of a matchup. The Redskins were 10-6 and couldn't even beat out the New York Giants for the division title. The Seahwaks went 13-3, have a real quarterback, and ran away with the NFC. I tend to agree with paper on this one.
However for this preview I will employ the completely contradictory tone and tell you why each team could win Saturday:
Why Washington Will Win:
1. Better coaching. Though there are scores of coaches who can pile up regular season victories, only the elite few win consistently in the postseason. Look at the last five coaches to win Super Bowls: Bill Belichick, Jon Gruden, Brian Billick, Dick Vermeil, and Mike Shanahan. Not a weak link in the bunch.
Though Mike Holmgren and Joe Gibbs have each won a Super Bowl themselves (three, in Gibbs’ case), Gibbs clearly gives the Redskins an advantage. Holmgren has had a mostly up-and-down career, at least in terms of coaching teams up to expectations. Gibbs, meanwhile, has racked up an absurd 17-5 postseason record.
2. Defense. Linebacker LaVar Arrington had a monster game against Tampa Bay, topping off his ten tackles with a forced fumble and an interception. The scheming of defensive coordinator Gregg Williams may give them just enough of an edge to blunt the Seattle offensive.
Why Seattle Will Win:
1. Better offense. That alone says absolutely nothing about Seattle, considering Washington racked up just 120 total yards against the Buccaneers. But points-wise, Seattle outscored everyone-even the mighty Colts-this season. Oh yeah, and which team has the MVP?
2. Better balance. No, the Seahawks can’t match the Redskins’ defensively-but then, they won’t have to. The numbers say Seattle’s run-stopping is even better than Washington’s, and controlling the line of scrimmage is, as Gibbs knows, crucial in postseason showdowns. Seattle has enough defense to slow Washington and more than enough offense to put points on the board.
Considering the above, and also the fact that Seattle’s team name isn’t a cruel reminder of abysmal race relations, I’m going to go with the Seahawks.
Saturday, January 7, 2006
Wild Card Weekend
It's become something of a tradition here at Hole Punch Sports to predict champions before the postseason begins. (Or, in the case of a sport like, say, college football, which apparently needs only a one-game postseason to determine its champion, right before that one game.)
Anyway, the NFL playoff games are starting in a few hours and I haven't guessed my Super Bowl winner yet. A couple reasons for this: first, I took the last two days off of work, so I didn't have as much time to write (heh heh). And second, I have no idea what's going to happen.
Last year was obvious, at least from my perspective: despite Pittsburgh's 15-1 mark, Peyton's 49 touchdown passes, and the fact that the NFC managed to field six playoff teams, it was abundantly clear that New England was going to win the Super Bowl. This year, there's no such overwhelming favorite.
Except Indy. Which I refuse to even entertain. You see, Indianapolis is the exact same team it's been the last few years. Yes, they almost went undefeated, but finished at 14-2. New England had the same record last year and Pittsburgh beat it with a 15-1 mark. In other words, if all those wins hadn't happened in a row, no one would even suggest Indy's season has been historic.
And they have the same problems they've always had-HPS has already covered Indy's abysmal run defense. (And in what seemed to me like an odd statistical fluke, despite their 14-2 record, Indy ranked just 16th in rushing yards and 12th in attempts. Does somebody still like running up the score? One thing I love about the NFL is that teams like that always, always get their comeuppance.)
We'll see. I could be letting my own overt hatred for the Colts shine through here. But I don't see them taking it. What the heck, here are the odds I give teams I think have a prayer:
Jacksonville: 1%. Better balanced than you think: 12th in scoring, 6th in points allowed. I love Byron Leftwich, though he hasn't yet been the NFL passer I thought he'd be. Too bad they won't beat the Patriots today.
Cincinnati: 1%. Carson Palmer has had an All-Pro year and man, was I wrong about him. See, I ignored his talents (big arm, accuracy) and focused on the weaknesses on his college resume (basically, that he wasn't all that great until his last six games or so). But the fact that he poured it on so late...well, that's one reason I think Vince Young can make it in the NFL (I'm sorry, but I can't stop thinking about that game!).
Carolina: 1%. One dimensional this year, but they're a team I respect in the playoffs. Yes, all of Tom Brady's Super Bowl wins were by three, but the Panthers had to be the biggest challenge.
Pittsburgh: 7%. My pick for the AFC's No. 2 seed (ahem). Pittsburgh, once again, excels in the run game (5th in O, 3rd in D) but does nothing special against or with the pass. However, they were playing with Tommy Maddox for a while. The ruthless Roethlisberger was fabulous when he was in-can he shake off last year's playoff struggles? I say yes.
Indianapolis: 15%. Okay, so I do give them a chance. I feel as bad for Tony Dungy as everyone else does right now. I feel crass evaluating the on-field ramifications, but suffice it to say I really don't think this helps the team in terms of bringing them together-I say it can only hurt. I don't really think Indy was good enough to win it all, anyway.
New England: 20%. I still believe in the defending champions, even though I probably shouldn't. Tom Brady is still the best player in football and Bill Belichick is the top coach. I am concerned with their 26th-ranked defense, but I have to rank them high on experience.
Seattle: 20%. I still don't know if they're better than everyone gives them credit for or, like Indy, just the same team they've always been. Probably the product of a weak NFC, but I figure their odds go up just because I think it's so likely they make the Super Bowl. And Matt Hasselbeck may finally be the quarterback everyone's been giving him credit for being for years. Let's not forget they have the league MVP, too. (That's a topic for another day, but let me say I'm thrilled Peyton didn't match Favre's three in a row.)
Denver: 35%. I am cautiously very optimistic. Maybe I shouldn't be this excited, but the playoff road looks very favorable for the Broncos. And Mike Shanahan's teams have faltered in recent years, but he can match wits in the postseason with anyone. (Now I don't agree with all his personnel calls, but the man can coach.)
One thing worried me about Denver's numbers. 5th in offense, 2nd in rushing, that's good. 15th in defense, 2nd in rush defense, and 29th in pass defense-that's terrifying, especially with Peyton, Brady, Palmer and Roethlisberger all waiting for their shot. But Denver's problem in that yardage-based area is not that they can't cover anyone, but that teams throw a low of passes. Denver only gives up 6.25 yards per attempt, which is extraordinary-4th in the league. And Champ Bailey's eight interceptions means we can actually force an occasional turnover for once.
So I am going with Denver, though I don't feel great about it.
Oh, and this weekend's picks:
Washington at Tampa Bay, 4:30 Eastern, ABC: Tampa Bay. I don't trust Chris Simms...but I don't like Mark Brunell, either.
Jacksonville at New England, 8 pm Eastern, ABC: New England. Jacksonville has a better record (12-4 to 10-6). In fact, their road record (6-2) is even better than New England's mark at home (5-3). Who cares, I'm taking the Pats.
Carolina at New York, 1 pm Eastern Sunday, FOX: Carolina. Why yes, I do have it out for the Manning family. Tiki Barber has been incredible, but Carolina has an enormous edge on defense.
Pittsburgh at Cincinnati, 4:30 pm Eastern, CBS: Toughest game to pick. Cincy's got a terrific offense. I really don't think you can say enough about Palmer. But I do think Cincy's 28th-ranked defense (wasn't Marvin Lewis a defensive coach?) means they're a year off. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh was 9th in scoring despite quarterback woes, and third in points allowed. Advantage, Steelers.
Anyway, the NFL playoff games are starting in a few hours and I haven't guessed my Super Bowl winner yet. A couple reasons for this: first, I took the last two days off of work, so I didn't have as much time to write (heh heh). And second, I have no idea what's going to happen.
Last year was obvious, at least from my perspective: despite Pittsburgh's 15-1 mark, Peyton's 49 touchdown passes, and the fact that the NFC managed to field six playoff teams, it was abundantly clear that New England was going to win the Super Bowl. This year, there's no such overwhelming favorite.
Except Indy. Which I refuse to even entertain. You see, Indianapolis is the exact same team it's been the last few years. Yes, they almost went undefeated, but finished at 14-2. New England had the same record last year and Pittsburgh beat it with a 15-1 mark. In other words, if all those wins hadn't happened in a row, no one would even suggest Indy's season has been historic.
And they have the same problems they've always had-HPS has already covered Indy's abysmal run defense. (And in what seemed to me like an odd statistical fluke, despite their 14-2 record, Indy ranked just 16th in rushing yards and 12th in attempts. Does somebody still like running up the score? One thing I love about the NFL is that teams like that always, always get their comeuppance.)
We'll see. I could be letting my own overt hatred for the Colts shine through here. But I don't see them taking it. What the heck, here are the odds I give teams I think have a prayer:
Jacksonville: 1%. Better balanced than you think: 12th in scoring, 6th in points allowed. I love Byron Leftwich, though he hasn't yet been the NFL passer I thought he'd be. Too bad they won't beat the Patriots today.
Cincinnati: 1%. Carson Palmer has had an All-Pro year and man, was I wrong about him. See, I ignored his talents (big arm, accuracy) and focused on the weaknesses on his college resume (basically, that he wasn't all that great until his last six games or so). But the fact that he poured it on so late...well, that's one reason I think Vince Young can make it in the NFL (I'm sorry, but I can't stop thinking about that game!).
Carolina: 1%. One dimensional this year, but they're a team I respect in the playoffs. Yes, all of Tom Brady's Super Bowl wins were by three, but the Panthers had to be the biggest challenge.
Pittsburgh: 7%. My pick for the AFC's No. 2 seed (ahem). Pittsburgh, once again, excels in the run game (5th in O, 3rd in D) but does nothing special against or with the pass. However, they were playing with Tommy Maddox for a while. The ruthless Roethlisberger was fabulous when he was in-can he shake off last year's playoff struggles? I say yes.
Indianapolis: 15%. Okay, so I do give them a chance. I feel as bad for Tony Dungy as everyone else does right now. I feel crass evaluating the on-field ramifications, but suffice it to say I really don't think this helps the team in terms of bringing them together-I say it can only hurt. I don't really think Indy was good enough to win it all, anyway.
New England: 20%. I still believe in the defending champions, even though I probably shouldn't. Tom Brady is still the best player in football and Bill Belichick is the top coach. I am concerned with their 26th-ranked defense, but I have to rank them high on experience.
Seattle: 20%. I still don't know if they're better than everyone gives them credit for or, like Indy, just the same team they've always been. Probably the product of a weak NFC, but I figure their odds go up just because I think it's so likely they make the Super Bowl. And Matt Hasselbeck may finally be the quarterback everyone's been giving him credit for being for years. Let's not forget they have the league MVP, too. (That's a topic for another day, but let me say I'm thrilled Peyton didn't match Favre's three in a row.)
Denver: 35%. I am cautiously very optimistic. Maybe I shouldn't be this excited, but the playoff road looks very favorable for the Broncos. And Mike Shanahan's teams have faltered in recent years, but he can match wits in the postseason with anyone. (Now I don't agree with all his personnel calls, but the man can coach.)
One thing worried me about Denver's numbers. 5th in offense, 2nd in rushing, that's good. 15th in defense, 2nd in rush defense, and 29th in pass defense-that's terrifying, especially with Peyton, Brady, Palmer and Roethlisberger all waiting for their shot. But Denver's problem in that yardage-based area is not that they can't cover anyone, but that teams throw a low of passes. Denver only gives up 6.25 yards per attempt, which is extraordinary-4th in the league. And Champ Bailey's eight interceptions means we can actually force an occasional turnover for once.
So I am going with Denver, though I don't feel great about it.
Oh, and this weekend's picks:
Washington at Tampa Bay, 4:30 Eastern, ABC: Tampa Bay. I don't trust Chris Simms...but I don't like Mark Brunell, either.
Jacksonville at New England, 8 pm Eastern, ABC: New England. Jacksonville has a better record (12-4 to 10-6). In fact, their road record (6-2) is even better than New England's mark at home (5-3). Who cares, I'm taking the Pats.
Carolina at New York, 1 pm Eastern Sunday, FOX: Carolina. Why yes, I do have it out for the Manning family. Tiki Barber has been incredible, but Carolina has an enormous edge on defense.
Pittsburgh at Cincinnati, 4:30 pm Eastern, CBS: Toughest game to pick. Cincy's got a terrific offense. I really don't think you can say enough about Palmer. But I do think Cincy's 28th-ranked defense (wasn't Marvin Lewis a defensive coach?) means they're a year off. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh was 9th in scoring despite quarterback woes, and third in points allowed. Advantage, Steelers.
Tuesday, January 3, 2006
The Rose Bowl
We’ve all heard the hype.
No. 1 vs. No. 2. USC-Texas. The One The BCS Finally Got Right (if you can call their luck that). Tomorrow night’s Rose Bowl (8 p.m. Eastern, ABC) promises to be a matchup for the ages.
After the graduation of ballroom-dancer Matt Leinart and the certain early departure of star running back Reggie Bush, this could be the last big win of the USC dynasty. And what a run they had. But before it’s over, USC’ll put the stamp on it all with a national championship tomorrow night.
But forget the hype. It’s not gonna happen.
Wait, back up one second. USC has the aforementioned duo on offense, each of whom has won a Heisman trophy. Bush was an easy pick this year after a 513-yard day against Fresno State Nov. 19. While Leinart’s selection was more debatable, he had to do something right to take home the hardware.
Right now the Trojans are favored by a touchdown. ESPN’s been running a feature on how USC would fare against the top collegiate teams off all-time. They’re not the best team this year; they’re one of the greatest ever assembled. (Or did you forget the championship last year, the split decision after the 2003 season, and their argument for rings following ’02?) And everyone thinks the Trojans will win tomorrow.
The Trojans are so good, their backup running back, LenDale White, is not only better than anyone in the Longhorns’ backfield; if he transferred to Texas, he’d be the best back in the entire Big 12 conference.
Last but not least, Texas’ coach is still Mack Brown.
So why do I think the Longhorns will win?
1. The Longhorns have a better defense. They say defense wins championships. I don’t believe ’em-offense is just as important in my book.
But USC’s edge offensively is much slimmer than Texas’ defensive advantage. Don’t believe me? Check the numbers. USC is first in the country in offense with 587.8 yards per game. Texas gains “just” 516.9 yards per contest, which ranks third. However, thanks to superior defense and special teams, Texas actually outscores USC by a slim margin (50.9 points per game versus 50.0).
(By the way, the most surprising stat? Despite USC’s much-ballyhooed backfield, Texas actually outgains USC on the ground by about nine yards per game.)
Meanwhile, Texas has a much better shot at shutting down USC’s attack than vice versa. The yardage figures point in Texas’ direction (6th nationally vs. USC’s ranking of 40th), but it all comes down to keeping the other team out of the end zone. Texas surrenders just 14.6 points per game against USC’s 21.3. That difference of almost a touchdown is bigger than it looks, as the Longhorns’ defense has been dominant at times.
2. College football is all about upsets. Can’t think of another team that was spoken of in such historically-heavy terms?
I can. The first two teams that spring to mind when thinking of this year’s USC teams are the 2002 Miami Hurricanes and the 2003 Oklahoma Sooners.
The ’02 Hurricanes had an awesome and undefeated regular season and, like USC, the impressive recent history, having won a title the season before. (And, in shades of USC’s flimsy argument for inclusion in the Fiesta Bowl that year, Miami had been similarly excluded from the 2000 championship game before their run began.)
Miami headed into the Fiesta Bowl with a sparkling 12-0 record to play the Ohio State Buckeyes, who were 13-0 but not given a serious chance. At least not until Ohio State played a ferociously physical game (two frightening words: Willis McGahee) and pulled off the upset.
Like USC, the ’03 Sooners got the same greatest-of-all-time hype during the season. With quarterback Jason White-an overrated, underarmed QB who won a Heisman…hmmm, sounds kind of like Matt Leinart-they were shoo-ins for the title. Then they lost in the Big 12 title game to K-State. The Sooners capped off their dream season with a loss to LSU in the BCS title game…helping lead to the first championship of USC’s current run.
3. Texas has done it all on the field. If USC hadn’t won the title last year, is there any reason to think they’d be ranked ahead of Texas this year? Put it this way: Texas has been much more dominant than USC.
Let’s look at the close calls. Some say winning the close games separates the great teams from the merely good. I say great teams are so dominant, they don’t play many close games.
Both of these teams have had close calls, yet USC’s were more telling. Texas beat Ohio State by three points Sept. 10, but completely dominated the endgame. USC, meanwhile, squeaked by Notre Dame on what was probably an illegal last-second touchdown (not that I mind the Irish getting jobbed). And lost in the storyline of Bush’s huge game against Fresno State was the fact that USC won by only eight points-in other words, a one-score game. A one-score game in which one player accounted for more than five hundred yards doesn’t bode well for the victors.
Notre Dame controlled the clock against USC, but Fresno State didn’t do anything special-in fact, the numbers say the Trojans should have won by about a million points. But they didn’t. Why not? Because USC’s not as good as everyone thinks.
Put it down: despite my earlier predictions, the Texas Longhorns will become your national champions tomorrow night.
No. 1 vs. No. 2. USC-Texas. The One The BCS Finally Got Right (if you can call their luck that). Tomorrow night’s Rose Bowl (8 p.m. Eastern, ABC) promises to be a matchup for the ages.
After the graduation of ballroom-dancer Matt Leinart and the certain early departure of star running back Reggie Bush, this could be the last big win of the USC dynasty. And what a run they had. But before it’s over, USC’ll put the stamp on it all with a national championship tomorrow night.
But forget the hype. It’s not gonna happen.
Wait, back up one second. USC has the aforementioned duo on offense, each of whom has won a Heisman trophy. Bush was an easy pick this year after a 513-yard day against Fresno State Nov. 19. While Leinart’s selection was more debatable, he had to do something right to take home the hardware.
Right now the Trojans are favored by a touchdown. ESPN’s been running a feature on how USC would fare against the top collegiate teams off all-time. They’re not the best team this year; they’re one of the greatest ever assembled. (Or did you forget the championship last year, the split decision after the 2003 season, and their argument for rings following ’02?) And everyone thinks the Trojans will win tomorrow.
The Trojans are so good, their backup running back, LenDale White, is not only better than anyone in the Longhorns’ backfield; if he transferred to Texas, he’d be the best back in the entire Big 12 conference.
Last but not least, Texas’ coach is still Mack Brown.
So why do I think the Longhorns will win?
1. The Longhorns have a better defense. They say defense wins championships. I don’t believe ’em-offense is just as important in my book.
But USC’s edge offensively is much slimmer than Texas’ defensive advantage. Don’t believe me? Check the numbers. USC is first in the country in offense with 587.8 yards per game. Texas gains “just” 516.9 yards per contest, which ranks third. However, thanks to superior defense and special teams, Texas actually outscores USC by a slim margin (50.9 points per game versus 50.0).
(By the way, the most surprising stat? Despite USC’s much-ballyhooed backfield, Texas actually outgains USC on the ground by about nine yards per game.)
Meanwhile, Texas has a much better shot at shutting down USC’s attack than vice versa. The yardage figures point in Texas’ direction (6th nationally vs. USC’s ranking of 40th), but it all comes down to keeping the other team out of the end zone. Texas surrenders just 14.6 points per game against USC’s 21.3. That difference of almost a touchdown is bigger than it looks, as the Longhorns’ defense has been dominant at times.
2. College football is all about upsets. Can’t think of another team that was spoken of in such historically-heavy terms?
I can. The first two teams that spring to mind when thinking of this year’s USC teams are the 2002 Miami Hurricanes and the 2003 Oklahoma Sooners.
The ’02 Hurricanes had an awesome and undefeated regular season and, like USC, the impressive recent history, having won a title the season before. (And, in shades of USC’s flimsy argument for inclusion in the Fiesta Bowl that year, Miami had been similarly excluded from the 2000 championship game before their run began.)
Miami headed into the Fiesta Bowl with a sparkling 12-0 record to play the Ohio State Buckeyes, who were 13-0 but not given a serious chance. At least not until Ohio State played a ferociously physical game (two frightening words: Willis McGahee) and pulled off the upset.
Like USC, the ’03 Sooners got the same greatest-of-all-time hype during the season. With quarterback Jason White-an overrated, underarmed QB who won a Heisman…hmmm, sounds kind of like Matt Leinart-they were shoo-ins for the title. Then they lost in the Big 12 title game to K-State. The Sooners capped off their dream season with a loss to LSU in the BCS title game…helping lead to the first championship of USC’s current run.
3. Texas has done it all on the field. If USC hadn’t won the title last year, is there any reason to think they’d be ranked ahead of Texas this year? Put it this way: Texas has been much more dominant than USC.
Let’s look at the close calls. Some say winning the close games separates the great teams from the merely good. I say great teams are so dominant, they don’t play many close games.
Both of these teams have had close calls, yet USC’s were more telling. Texas beat Ohio State by three points Sept. 10, but completely dominated the endgame. USC, meanwhile, squeaked by Notre Dame on what was probably an illegal last-second touchdown (not that I mind the Irish getting jobbed). And lost in the storyline of Bush’s huge game against Fresno State was the fact that USC won by only eight points-in other words, a one-score game. A one-score game in which one player accounted for more than five hundred yards doesn’t bode well for the victors.
Notre Dame controlled the clock against USC, but Fresno State didn’t do anything special-in fact, the numbers say the Trojans should have won by about a million points. But they didn’t. Why not? Because USC’s not as good as everyone thinks.
Put it down: despite my earlier predictions, the Texas Longhorns will become your national champions tomorrow night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)