Two weeks ago I laid out the formula I thought the Kansas City Chiefs could use to beat the Denver Broncos on the road. The Chiefs didn't exactly follow my plan.
I called for the Chiefs to score touchdowns in the Redzone and go for it on 4th-and-short. Andy Reid elected to kick a field goal on 4th down from the 2-yard line and elected to punt in enemy territory down by 17 early in the 4th quarter.
I figured they would have to punish Denver's every mistake. After a Derrick Johnson fumble recovery, FB Anthony Sherman gave the ball right back on the next play (while in the Redzone too, which violated the first rule as well).
I thought the Chiefs would have to win the special teams battle. I'll call that matchup a push.
The only thing the Chiefs did right, according to my own plan anyway, was throw the ball deep downfield and get Dwayne Bowe more involved in the offense.
But lastly, I thought they should remain aggressive on defense. I may be crazy, but I think injured outside pass rushers Tamba Hali and Justin Houston could be the least important players to the Chiefs' defense this Sunday at Arrowhead Stadium. I couldn't have imagined saying that two weeks ago, but I watched that Week 11 game, and Houston and Hali were non-factors.
Browns QB Jason Campbell wrote the book on how to beat the Chiefs' defensive scheme, and Peyton Manning perfected the formula. Both players threw the ball less than three seconds after getting it in their hands, and Hali and Houston had no chance to make an impact. Kansas City has two sacks in the last four weeks, and none of them were registered by the elite pass rush duo.
Your move, Bob Sutton.
Call me crazy, but I hope the Chiefs simplify things just a little. There is no need to conjure up some complex blitz package in some futile attempt to confuse Peyton Manning. It just isn't going to happen. And even if such a plan were made, it wouldn't work. Manning knows he's a statue in the pocket, and he still has the quick release to get rid of the ball before any Chiefs pass rusher can count "three one-thousand." Maybe the trick is to rush three guys, drop eight into coverage, and force a couple coverage sacks. Maybe your nose tackle or linebackers tip a few balls at the line-of-scrimmage, or Manning airmails several balls due to double coverage.
The Chiefs won't sack Manning with Hali and Houston, and they won't sack him without those guys either. They won't sack Manning whether they blitz six guys, or send only three. Why force something that isn't there? Not only that, but CBs Marcus Cooper and Sean Smith have had a rocky past few weeks and it's highly likely the Chiefs need to help them out in coverage anyway.
It's rarely a good idea to rush three guys for an entire game, that's why I think when Sutton does choose to dial up the blitz he sends the double A-gap pressure that we didn't see vs Denver in Week 11. No matter how fast your speed rushers are, they can't get to Manning coming from the outside. But brute strength combined with a little speed coming up the middle might do it.
So, how would I go about beating the Broncos? 1) Score touchdowns in the Redzone 2) Win the special teams battle 3) Capitalize on every Denver miscue 4) Convert 4th downs and 5) Rush three and drop eight
Follow me on Twitter: @JimScheffres
Monday, November 25, 2013
Why I Dislike Other Chiefs Fans
It seems I don't relate well with my fellow Chiefs fans.
Living in Northern Illinois I don't have much interaction with them, but beginning in approximately 2005 I began diligently posting in sports forums on Yahoo and other sports message boards. Since then, I started a blog (first hosted on Foxsports.com) and have written extensively in the past about my assessments of the team, reading and responding to comments left for me by fellow Chiefs fans. Since 2011, I've also joined Twitter and downloaded apps that allow me to listen to hosts and callers discuss Chiefs news on AM sports talk radio out of Kansas City.
I don't get along with other Chiefs fans. They remind me of Cubs fans from the 1990's--they almost seem proud to be Lovable Losers. I hear them talk about how nice it would be to earn the respect of the national media (Ahem, Pete Prisco) for their 9-2 start, but in the very next breath they'll say "Who cares if the Chiefs lost at home to the Chargers? They were only 2-14 last year, I'm just happy to make the playoffs this year!" I'm sorry, but I have no respect for somebody who thinks that way. It's a loser's mentality.
Maybe this train of thought originates from my upbringing in a big city. Chicagoans do not accept division titles as a successful season--even modern day Cubs fans; it's just not like the way it was in the 90's. The Bears fired their coach after a 10-6 season. I remember asking, after the Chiefs traded away Jared Allen in 2008, "what is the direction of this franchise?" Chiefs fans commented on my Foxsports.com blog post and said they expected "to compete in the AFC West by 2010." What!? A three year plan just to 'compete' in the division? That's a horrendous plan.
One fan told me he didn't care what they did in the playoffs as long as they beat the Denver Broncos at home in Week 13. There are no words to describe the anger and frustration that kind of thought process gives me.
A few weeks ago while listening to 610 Sports AM in Kansas City, the show's morning host, Bob Fescoe, compared the 2013 Chiefs to the 2011 49ers. He posed the question "If you could either play out the string, or settle on losing the AFC Championship, which would you take?" The question is so preposterous I assumed it was rhetorical. Why would anybody, ESPECIALLY a team sitting at 8-0, voluntarily give up a chance to win the Super Bowl, to settle on losing the AFC title game? But Fescoe, his co-host Josh Klinger, and the show's producer all said they'd choose to lose the AFC title game. Three weeks later, I'm still bewildered by this.
The Chiefs haven't won a playoff game since 1993, and apparently, busting that streak is so important to some Chiefs fans they'd forgo any chance of winning a Lombardi Trophy just to watch that playoff win drought come to an end (and presumably lose the next week). But the Chiefs haven't won a Superbowl since 1969, and that is by far the more embarrassing drought.
I fail to comprehend how 1 playoff win in the last 20 years is any less embarrassing than 0.
Fescoe said this morning on the radio that the most frustrating part of losing to the Chargers is the loss of respect nationally. No, the most frustrating part about losing to the Chargers is that the odds of attaining home field advantage in the AFC playoffs have now significantly decreased. Why are Chiefs fans so obsessed with trivial details instead of the big picture?
Who cares what the national media thinks about the Chiefs? Who cares if they beat the Broncos? Who cares about winning the division or one measly playoff game?
This is not your 2-14 Chiefs from 2012. These Chiefs are 9-2. In the NFL, there are no moral victories for teams that start 9-2 and don't win the Superbowl. Chiefs fans, you want respect from the national media? Then settle for nothing less than a Superbowl Championship. Act like nothing else matters and that anything short of a shiny, diamond ring on Andy Reid's finger is a failure. Why do I ask this of you? Because it's true.
Follow me on Twitter: @JimScheffres
Living in Northern Illinois I don't have much interaction with them, but beginning in approximately 2005 I began diligently posting in sports forums on Yahoo and other sports message boards. Since then, I started a blog (first hosted on Foxsports.com) and have written extensively in the past about my assessments of the team, reading and responding to comments left for me by fellow Chiefs fans. Since 2011, I've also joined Twitter and downloaded apps that allow me to listen to hosts and callers discuss Chiefs news on AM sports talk radio out of Kansas City.
I don't get along with other Chiefs fans. They remind me of Cubs fans from the 1990's--they almost seem proud to be Lovable Losers. I hear them talk about how nice it would be to earn the respect of the national media (Ahem, Pete Prisco) for their 9-2 start, but in the very next breath they'll say "Who cares if the Chiefs lost at home to the Chargers? They were only 2-14 last year, I'm just happy to make the playoffs this year!" I'm sorry, but I have no respect for somebody who thinks that way. It's a loser's mentality.
Maybe this train of thought originates from my upbringing in a big city. Chicagoans do not accept division titles as a successful season--even modern day Cubs fans; it's just not like the way it was in the 90's. The Bears fired their coach after a 10-6 season. I remember asking, after the Chiefs traded away Jared Allen in 2008, "what is the direction of this franchise?" Chiefs fans commented on my Foxsports.com blog post and said they expected "to compete in the AFC West by 2010." What!? A three year plan just to 'compete' in the division? That's a horrendous plan.
One fan told me he didn't care what they did in the playoffs as long as they beat the Denver Broncos at home in Week 13. There are no words to describe the anger and frustration that kind of thought process gives me.
A few weeks ago while listening to 610 Sports AM in Kansas City, the show's morning host, Bob Fescoe, compared the 2013 Chiefs to the 2011 49ers. He posed the question "If you could either play out the string, or settle on losing the AFC Championship, which would you take?" The question is so preposterous I assumed it was rhetorical. Why would anybody, ESPECIALLY a team sitting at 8-0, voluntarily give up a chance to win the Super Bowl, to settle on losing the AFC title game? But Fescoe, his co-host Josh Klinger, and the show's producer all said they'd choose to lose the AFC title game. Three weeks later, I'm still bewildered by this.
The Chiefs haven't won a playoff game since 1993, and apparently, busting that streak is so important to some Chiefs fans they'd forgo any chance of winning a Lombardi Trophy just to watch that playoff win drought come to an end (and presumably lose the next week). But the Chiefs haven't won a Superbowl since 1969, and that is by far the more embarrassing drought.
I fail to comprehend how 1 playoff win in the last 20 years is any less embarrassing than 0.
Fescoe said this morning on the radio that the most frustrating part of losing to the Chargers is the loss of respect nationally. No, the most frustrating part about losing to the Chargers is that the odds of attaining home field advantage in the AFC playoffs have now significantly decreased. Why are Chiefs fans so obsessed with trivial details instead of the big picture?
Who cares what the national media thinks about the Chiefs? Who cares if they beat the Broncos? Who cares about winning the division or one measly playoff game?
This is not your 2-14 Chiefs from 2012. These Chiefs are 9-2. In the NFL, there are no moral victories for teams that start 9-2 and don't win the Superbowl. Chiefs fans, you want respect from the national media? Then settle for nothing less than a Superbowl Championship. Act like nothing else matters and that anything short of a shiny, diamond ring on Andy Reid's finger is a failure. Why do I ask this of you? Because it's true.
Follow me on Twitter: @JimScheffres
Monday, November 11, 2013
How the Chiefs Could Beat the Broncos
The Kansas City Chiefs will play the most important regular season game in franchise history at Sports Authority Field on Sunday Night Football. With the news that Peyton Manning will play this week, the 9-0 Chiefs with two weeks to prepare will be an 8-point underdog to the 8-1 Broncos. Though few in the world of NFL prognosticators predict Kansas City to defeat Denver, here are a few things I would do to prepare the Chiefs for Sunday's game.
Score touchdowns in the Red Zone
The Chiefs rank 26th in the NFL in TD% in the Red Zone, converting just 48.3% of Red Zone trips to 7 points. The Kansas City Chiefs must improve that statistic in the second half of the season, as the schedule gets tougher and six out of the remaining seven games come against good QBs who will score (Manning (twice), Phillip Rivers (twice), Andrew Luck, and Robert Griffin III). I would like to see the Chiefs consider any field position inside, say, the 25-yard line as 4-down territory. 4th-and-3 from the 15, or 4th-and-2 from the 10? Go for it. Even fake the FG once. The Chiefs cannot settle for three points vs one of the best offenses in NFL history. Meanwhile, Kansas City's defense is not prone to giving up long scoring drives, so even if the 4th down play fails, they'll pin the Broncos deep, giving the defense a chance to get a turnover or 3-and-out to flip the field position again.
Stay aggressive on defense
I'm not necessarily talking about blitzing all game, even though I think that should and will be a part of defensive coordinator Bob Sutton's game plan. The Chiefs have played tight man-to-man press coverage all season and that cannot change. Denver is more of a quick strike passing game; relying on slants, screens, and drags to beat the coverage underneath. The Chiefs have got to take that way. CB Brandon Flowers, who figures to draw the assignment of covering Wes Welker in the slot, has got to disrupt Welker's patterns. In the middle of the field KC has got to hit TE Julius Thomas at the line and then let the athletic Eric Berry break up the pass at the second level. Marcus Cooper has been very good covering the deep routes, which bodes well since he will likely be assigned coverage to Denver's best deep threat, Eric Decker. Most importantly, the Chiefs, who have remarkably decreased the missed tackles since last season, have got to wrap up and tackle the receivers when they do make the catch. Don't let Manning turn those 3-yard patterns into 15-yard gains.
Find a second option on offense
It's taken nine games and yet the Chiefs still don't have a consistent offensive weapon other than Jamaal Charles. As they make their push into the playoffs, another option has to emerge. To me, it doesn't matter if it's a RB, TE, or WR, as long as it happens sooner than later, and Week 11 vs Denver would be a great time. My pick is Dwayne Bowe. Bowe got the big contract this past offseason and is on pace to set career lows in catches, yards, and touchdowns. It's certainly not a problem with effort, as Bowe has been phenomenal all season long in downfield blocking, and we all know that egotistical, effort-lacking WRs don't block. Bowe doesn't have the speed to get open deep, but he has the size and strength to fight for position and catch passes in tight coverage. He also has some of the best sideline awareness of any WR I've personally watched play; he's marvelous at keeping his toes in bounds and making the acrobatic plays on the outside. Kansas City has got to get him the ball more often, even if it means forcing into coverage once in a while.
Capitalize on every Denver mistake
The Broncos didn't get to be 8-1 by screwing up, and they won't make many mistakes on Sunday Night. So when they do, it's imperative the Chiefs make them pay. They've got to score off of every turnover; recover every loose ball; capitalize on every penalty; hit Manning every time he hesitates or a play breaks down; and seize momentum when the opportunity presents. The Chiefs aren't good enough let opportunities escape, so they have to pounce on the Broncos by punishing their every false move.
Win the battle of special teams
If we grant that both team's strength (Denver's offense and Kansas City's defense) neutralize the other team's strength, and that neither Denver's defense nor Kansas City's offense is anything about which to write home, the game could well be decided on special teams. The Chiefs must contain Trindon Holliday, as the Broncos figure to score enough points without any big plays from the return game. Meanwhile, if Dexter McCluster or Quinton Demps can break a few big returns it would be monumental to give QB Alex Smith a short field. K Ryan Succop, if called upon to kick, cannot miss any FG attempts and P Dustin Colquitt cannot shank any punts--he and the kick coverage unit have to to pin Manning and the Broncos deep a couple of times. In 2003, the Chiefs started 9-0 and got multiple big plays from Dante Hall in the return game in beating the Broncos that season. Dave Toub, KC's special teams coach, has got to find a way to make two big plays on special teams--block a kick, convert a fake kick to a first down, score a touchdown, punt the ball inside the 5-yard line multiple times.
Follow me on Twitter: @JimScheffres
Score touchdowns in the Red Zone
The Chiefs rank 26th in the NFL in TD% in the Red Zone, converting just 48.3% of Red Zone trips to 7 points. The Kansas City Chiefs must improve that statistic in the second half of the season, as the schedule gets tougher and six out of the remaining seven games come against good QBs who will score (Manning (twice), Phillip Rivers (twice), Andrew Luck, and Robert Griffin III). I would like to see the Chiefs consider any field position inside, say, the 25-yard line as 4-down territory. 4th-and-3 from the 15, or 4th-and-2 from the 10? Go for it. Even fake the FG once. The Chiefs cannot settle for three points vs one of the best offenses in NFL history. Meanwhile, Kansas City's defense is not prone to giving up long scoring drives, so even if the 4th down play fails, they'll pin the Broncos deep, giving the defense a chance to get a turnover or 3-and-out to flip the field position again.
Stay aggressive on defense
I'm not necessarily talking about blitzing all game, even though I think that should and will be a part of defensive coordinator Bob Sutton's game plan. The Chiefs have played tight man-to-man press coverage all season and that cannot change. Denver is more of a quick strike passing game; relying on slants, screens, and drags to beat the coverage underneath. The Chiefs have got to take that way. CB Brandon Flowers, who figures to draw the assignment of covering Wes Welker in the slot, has got to disrupt Welker's patterns. In the middle of the field KC has got to hit TE Julius Thomas at the line and then let the athletic Eric Berry break up the pass at the second level. Marcus Cooper has been very good covering the deep routes, which bodes well since he will likely be assigned coverage to Denver's best deep threat, Eric Decker. Most importantly, the Chiefs, who have remarkably decreased the missed tackles since last season, have got to wrap up and tackle the receivers when they do make the catch. Don't let Manning turn those 3-yard patterns into 15-yard gains.
Find a second option on offense
It's taken nine games and yet the Chiefs still don't have a consistent offensive weapon other than Jamaal Charles. As they make their push into the playoffs, another option has to emerge. To me, it doesn't matter if it's a RB, TE, or WR, as long as it happens sooner than later, and Week 11 vs Denver would be a great time. My pick is Dwayne Bowe. Bowe got the big contract this past offseason and is on pace to set career lows in catches, yards, and touchdowns. It's certainly not a problem with effort, as Bowe has been phenomenal all season long in downfield blocking, and we all know that egotistical, effort-lacking WRs don't block. Bowe doesn't have the speed to get open deep, but he has the size and strength to fight for position and catch passes in tight coverage. He also has some of the best sideline awareness of any WR I've personally watched play; he's marvelous at keeping his toes in bounds and making the acrobatic plays on the outside. Kansas City has got to get him the ball more often, even if it means forcing into coverage once in a while.
Capitalize on every Denver mistake
The Broncos didn't get to be 8-1 by screwing up, and they won't make many mistakes on Sunday Night. So when they do, it's imperative the Chiefs make them pay. They've got to score off of every turnover; recover every loose ball; capitalize on every penalty; hit Manning every time he hesitates or a play breaks down; and seize momentum when the opportunity presents. The Chiefs aren't good enough let opportunities escape, so they have to pounce on the Broncos by punishing their every false move.
Win the battle of special teams
If we grant that both team's strength (Denver's offense and Kansas City's defense) neutralize the other team's strength, and that neither Denver's defense nor Kansas City's offense is anything about which to write home, the game could well be decided on special teams. The Chiefs must contain Trindon Holliday, as the Broncos figure to score enough points without any big plays from the return game. Meanwhile, if Dexter McCluster or Quinton Demps can break a few big returns it would be monumental to give QB Alex Smith a short field. K Ryan Succop, if called upon to kick, cannot miss any FG attempts and P Dustin Colquitt cannot shank any punts--he and the kick coverage unit have to to pin Manning and the Broncos deep a couple of times. In 2003, the Chiefs started 9-0 and got multiple big plays from Dante Hall in the return game in beating the Broncos that season. Dave Toub, KC's special teams coach, has got to find a way to make two big plays on special teams--block a kick, convert a fake kick to a first down, score a touchdown, punt the ball inside the 5-yard line multiple times.
Follow me on Twitter: @JimScheffres
Monday, October 28, 2013
Expectations Now Vastly Different for 8-0 Chiefs
8-0 changes everything.
Before the season began, expectations for the 2-14 Kansas
City Chiefs varied greatly amongst the organizations’ fan base. But nobody thought the team would be 8-0 or
in first place in the AFC West headed into Week 9. Expectations are different now.
2-14 is a distant memory when you’re 8-0. But 8-0 is a distant memory after a playoff
loss. 8-0 is gone and forgotten. Nobody cares.
That is why, for the 2013 Chiefs, it is now Super Bowl or
bust. Nothing less than a Lombardi
trophy makes this season memorable or celebration-worthy. 8-0 changed things that dramatically.
Sure, before the season started, Chiefs fans would have
looked at an 8-8 finish with a hint of optimism. Even if they had finished 9-7 and lost in the
Wild Card playoffs, fans could head into the offseason content to see the new
regime had had a noticeable impact. They
could be somewhat happy to finish above .500.
After all, what more could you possibly expect from a team who won only
two games the previous season and finished with the worst record in the NFL? Chiefs fans wanted to see any amount of
improvement and “baby steps” (losing in the first round of the playoffs) would
have been welcomed with open arms (by some, but not all).
It’s different now.
The Chiefs are undefeated and in first place. Losing in the playoffs would sting in a way
that, unfortunately, too many Chiefs fans are all too familiar. According to Sam Farmer of the LA Times, only
20 teams in NFL history have started 8-0.
12 of them made it to the Super Bowl and 8 of them won it. 40% of all 8-0 teams won the Super Bowl, and
100% of them expected to win it. Why should things be any different for the
2013 Chiefs? They are 8-0 now; they are
not the same 2-14 team from last year who would be happy to squeak into the
playoffs at 9-7 and go into the offseason with a moral victory. There are no moral victories for 8-0
teams. Win the Super Bowl, or this 2013
season is a failure.
My Twitter mentions (@JimScheffres) seem to suggest that so
many Chiefs fans are just content with a quick turnaround and are too busy
celebrating 8-0 to even think about the playoffs. This mindset baffles me and to a certain
extent, even angers me. It’s a loser’s
mentality to take moral victories. There
are no banners or parades for being the last undefeated NFL team. There are no rings or trophies for winning
the AFC West. These are things that do not
interest me as a fan. I will not buy a
“2013 AFC West Champions” T-shirt, nor would I even buy a “2013 AFC Champions”
T-shirt.
Every Chiefs player and coach expects to win the Super Bowl
this year. Perhaps they didn’t have that
expectation prior to Week 1, but they do now.
If any player or coach doesn’t expect to win the Super Bowl I’d like it
to be known right now, because I’d like to encourage General Manager John
Dorsey to terminate that player or coach’s employment. There’s no room for a person who is satisfied
with second best.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not predicting the Chiefs will win
the Super Bowl. I’m merely stating that
they must win it. I’m not telling Chiefs fans they shouldn’t be
happy with the 8-game winning streak to start the season. I’m merely asking them to look at the big
picture. We, as Chiefs fans, should be
excited for this team and we should be glad to finally see progress after years
of frustration. But a Chiefs’ loss in
the postseason only adds to the
frustration, and 8-0 does positively nothing
to mitigate it.
Ask the Patriots how prideful they are of their 16-0 record
in 2007. I would bet a month’s salary
Tom Brady does not look back at that season with happy memories. I don’t know who coined the phrase “It don’t
mean a thing without the ring,” but the first time I heard it was during the
1996 Chicago Bulls’ 72-10 regular season record. Although nobody
would have stated this a mere two months ago, if the Kansas City Chiefs do not
win the Super Bowl after starting 8-0, the 2013 season will be an embarrassing
and miserable memory.
Chiefs fans, you can't have it both ways. You can't demand respect for your Chiefs "because they aren't the same team who won two games last year," and at the same time brace for what you probably see as the inevitable playoff loss by saying you're "happy to just be relevant again."
Expectations have indeed changed.
Follow me on Twitter @JimScheffres
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
2013 NFL Predictions
AFC North
Bengals 10-6
Ravens 9-7
Steelers 8-8
Browns 3-13
AFC East
Patriots 10-6
Dolphins 9-7
Bills 7-9
Jets 4-12
AFC South
Texans 11-5
Colts 10-6
Titans 6-10
Jaguars 2-14
AFC West
Broncos 13-3
Chiefs 8-8
Chargers 7-9
Raiders 5-11
NFC North
Packers 13-3
Bears 10-6
Vikings 7-9
Lions 7-9
NFC East
Redskins 9-7
Cowboys 9-7
Giants 8-8
Eagles 6-10
NFC South
Saints 12-4
Falcons 11-5
Bucs 8-8
Panthers 8-8
NFC West
49ers 13-3
Seahawks 10-6
Rams 8-8
Cardinals 3-13
Playoffs
Patriots over Ravens
Bengals over Colts
Bears over Saints
Falcons over Redskins
Broncos over Bengals
Patriots over Ravens
Falcons over Packers
49ers over Bears
Broncos over Patriots
Falcons over 49ers
Broncos over Falcons
AFC Offensive MVP: Tom Brady
AFC Defensive MVP: Elvis Dumerville
NFC Offensive MVP: Drew Brees
NFC Defensive MVP: Aldon Smith
Follow me on Twitter: @JimScheffres
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Tidbit Topics: Blackhawks
Sometimes when I have a few short, unrelated topics I put them together in a post called "Tidbit Topics." Today's Tidbit Topics are all related to the Chicago Blackhawks' 2013 Stanley Cup Championship.
An Ending for the Ages
Just trying to put it all together today and letting the outcome sink in, it dawned on me how awesome the ending of Game 6 was. Within a span of 17 seconds (about 3-5 minutes of real time), my thoughts went from "Oh doesn't this suck, we're going to Game 7," to "Hey ok, let's see what happens in OT," to "HOLY SHIT WE JUST WON THE STANLEY CUP!!!" The heroics in the waning minutes of Game 6 somewhat equivocate to Reggie Miller's 8 points in 9 seconds, but even though the Pacers won that game, they didn't clinch the Title. I picture the outcome of this game being similar to a team overcoming a 4-run deficit in the top of the 9th inning, then retire the heart of opponent's order in the bottom of the inning to win the World Series. After scoring the go-ahead goal, the Blackhawks still had to defend a Bruins 6-vs-5 rush with 58 seconds remaining. Chicago pulled its goalie and scored the tying goal roughly 16 seconds later. They took the lead 17 seconds after that, then had to play its best defense while the shocked Bruins played the desperate empty net strategy.
Redeemed for 2010
I don't know if this had the negative impact on others that it had on me, but the anti-climatic ending of Game 6 in 2010 has been driving me crazy for three years. After scoring in overtime, Patrick Kane and a small minority of other Blackhawks players began celebrating while most of the team starred at the game officials wondering if the goal indeed counted. "Where is the puck? What just happened!!?" Those were the questions I remember asking my television. While the replay official reviewed the goal, I didn't know how to react, because I honestly didn't believe it was a goal myself. By the time the official declared the game over, my emotions were chaotic. It was kind of like watching the game on DVR when you already know the outcome--at least that is the best comparison I can come up with because the ending was so unique. I remember watching the final 1:30 of Game 4 of the Eastern Finals. Boston held off a furious Pittsburgh rush; I was on the edge of my seat and I had no rooting interest. I've yearned for 2010's Stanley Cup finish to feel like that for three years. I got my wish. If you don't remember Kaner's goal, here it is:
Blackhawks' Fans Guard the Bandwagon
Hawks fans, more than any other team I've ever witnessed and certainly more than any fandom in Chicago, guard their bandwagon. Some fans seem to make it "uncool" to be on the bandwagon, or try to convince any newer or unknowledgable fan that they don't deserve to enjoy the same happiness the "lifers" enjoy. This has always bothered me. First of all, how do you define a "bandwagon fan" and who cares who is on the bandwagon and who isn't? And at what point does a bandwagon fan become a diehard? In 1993 I jumped on the Kansas City Chiefs bandwagon and 20 years later I've probably missed fewer than 20 games despite living out of state and spending half that time working on Sundays. What I hate the most is the moment some Blackhawks fans detect any hint of ignorance about hockey, they start attacking the credibility of others. They question others' loyalty with pointless questions--How long have you been watching games, where were you in the 2002-2006 era? Blackhawks' fans for some reason feel the need to brag about having been to so many games or having been watching the Hawks so long. You know what? I don't give a flying frog's ass, and neither should anybody else. I say, no matter how many Blackhawks fans there are, there's infinite more room on the bandwagon for more.
An Ending for the Ages
Just trying to put it all together today and letting the outcome sink in, it dawned on me how awesome the ending of Game 6 was. Within a span of 17 seconds (about 3-5 minutes of real time), my thoughts went from "Oh doesn't this suck, we're going to Game 7," to "Hey ok, let's see what happens in OT," to "HOLY SHIT WE JUST WON THE STANLEY CUP!!!" The heroics in the waning minutes of Game 6 somewhat equivocate to Reggie Miller's 8 points in 9 seconds, but even though the Pacers won that game, they didn't clinch the Title. I picture the outcome of this game being similar to a team overcoming a 4-run deficit in the top of the 9th inning, then retire the heart of opponent's order in the bottom of the inning to win the World Series. After scoring the go-ahead goal, the Blackhawks still had to defend a Bruins 6-vs-5 rush with 58 seconds remaining. Chicago pulled its goalie and scored the tying goal roughly 16 seconds later. They took the lead 17 seconds after that, then had to play its best defense while the shocked Bruins played the desperate empty net strategy.
Redeemed for 2010
I don't know if this had the negative impact on others that it had on me, but the anti-climatic ending of Game 6 in 2010 has been driving me crazy for three years. After scoring in overtime, Patrick Kane and a small minority of other Blackhawks players began celebrating while most of the team starred at the game officials wondering if the goal indeed counted. "Where is the puck? What just happened!!?" Those were the questions I remember asking my television. While the replay official reviewed the goal, I didn't know how to react, because I honestly didn't believe it was a goal myself. By the time the official declared the game over, my emotions were chaotic. It was kind of like watching the game on DVR when you already know the outcome--at least that is the best comparison I can come up with because the ending was so unique. I remember watching the final 1:30 of Game 4 of the Eastern Finals. Boston held off a furious Pittsburgh rush; I was on the edge of my seat and I had no rooting interest. I've yearned for 2010's Stanley Cup finish to feel like that for three years. I got my wish. If you don't remember Kaner's goal, here it is:
Blackhawks' Fans Guard the Bandwagon
Hawks fans, more than any other team I've ever witnessed and certainly more than any fandom in Chicago, guard their bandwagon. Some fans seem to make it "uncool" to be on the bandwagon, or try to convince any newer or unknowledgable fan that they don't deserve to enjoy the same happiness the "lifers" enjoy. This has always bothered me. First of all, how do you define a "bandwagon fan" and who cares who is on the bandwagon and who isn't? And at what point does a bandwagon fan become a diehard? In 1993 I jumped on the Kansas City Chiefs bandwagon and 20 years later I've probably missed fewer than 20 games despite living out of state and spending half that time working on Sundays. What I hate the most is the moment some Blackhawks fans detect any hint of ignorance about hockey, they start attacking the credibility of others. They question others' loyalty with pointless questions--How long have you been watching games, where were you in the 2002-2006 era? Blackhawks' fans for some reason feel the need to brag about having been to so many games or having been watching the Hawks so long. You know what? I don't give a flying frog's ass, and neither should anybody else. I say, no matter how many Blackhawks fans there are, there's infinite more room on the bandwagon for more.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
White Sox Rebuild is Six Years Overdue
Current White Sox GM Rick Hahn publicly admits that the team has fielded calls from other GMs inquiring about the availability of veteran players. Though Hahn states that the Sox aren't ready to concede this season (he points to the 18 remaining games vs the first place Tigers), it seems the general consensus is that the team's play leaves Hahn with no choice but to take the path less traveled by his predecessor and current boss, Kenny Williams. Hahn knows the rebuild is coming. He just won't admit to it--yet.
Williams' tenure as GM is known for bravado and risk-taking. It's known for pulling off some savvy trades (Freddy Garcia), turning other team's trash into White Sox stars (Matt Thornton, Bobby Jenks), and making bargain free agent signings into key pieces of a World Series championship (AJ Pierzynski, Jermaine Dye, Tadahito Iguchi). It's also known for (at times foolishly) trading key prospects for veteran players who never pushed the Sox over the hump. For the most part, I like Kenny Williams but he left Hahn high and dry. The White Sox' farm system is bankrupt.
The White Sox have postponed the inevitable rebuilding for too long. My theory on why that is goes like this: Upper management knows the Sox have trouble drawing fans. They fear that multiple losing seasons would lead to low turnstile throughput, making it nearly impossible to turn decent profits. From that perspective, they are probably right. But they are wrong to mortgage the future year after year for little promise of achieving greatness. They choose to remain mediocre rather than allow themselves to be bad for a few seasons even though it would significantly raise the likelihood they are greatly improved a few years from now.
And worse, it is not Williams' nor Hanh's job to worry about profits or attendance. Their job is to construct a baseball team. Let the marketing and public relations departments worry about drawing fans to the park. The GM and President of Baseball Operations have to make baseball decisions--not business ones.
2007 would have been a really good time to rebuild. At that time, they had a host of veteran players with peak value. Players like Paul Konerko, Jim Thome, Mark Buehrle, Javier Vazquez, along with Dye, Pierzynski, Jenks, and Thornton, could have brought in a plethora of talented youngers. Instead of trading Jon Garland for 32-year-old Orlando Cabrera, they might have been able to acquire a 22-year-old version of him.
A 2007 rebuild means that in 2008 they wouldn't have traded Gio Gonzalez and Ryan Sweeney for Nick Swisher (the worst trade of the Williams era). It means that in 2009 they wouldn't have traded Clayton Richard for Jake Peavy. It means that in 2010 they wouldn't have traded Daniel Hudson for Edwin Jackson. It means that they never would have wasted well over $100 million signing Adam Dunn and claiming Alex Rios off waivers--and since signing Dunn, a Type A free agent, cost the Sox their first round pick in 2011, they'd have an extra high draft pick in their system right now too.
Rebuilding in 2007 means that Mark Teahen, Mark Kotsay, Juan Pierre, Andruw Jones, Will Ohman, Fransisco Liriano, Kosuke Fukudome, and God Forbid Jeff Keppinger never don the White Sox pinstripes.
Good riddance.
Yes, it also means they wouldn't have surprisingly won the American League Central Division in 2008. Big deal. They lost to Tampa 3-1 in the first round. Keeping status quo means they won exactly one additional playoff game over the past six years.
Had the Sox launched Buehrle, Dye, Konerko et al in 2007, they would have enough young prospects in 2013 that they'd actually be a pretty decent young team right now. Imagine a starting staff of Chris Sale, John Danks, Hudson, Richard, and Gonzalez. Not that that is a studly rotation bound to bring home another World Series, but those pitchers are 24, 29, 26, 28, and 27, and it doesn't even take into account what they might have gotten in return for those veteran players who carried the White Sox to a 72-90 record in 2007.
I firmly believe that had the White Sox bit the bullet and jettisoned the 2007 roster for the best available prospects, they'd be in the playoff hunt right now, in 2013. Instead, Sox fans might have to wait another six years for this upcoming rebuild to take shape. Ask any Pirates or Royals fan, it might take longer.
Follow me on Twitter: @JimScheffres
Williams' tenure as GM is known for bravado and risk-taking. It's known for pulling off some savvy trades (Freddy Garcia), turning other team's trash into White Sox stars (Matt Thornton, Bobby Jenks), and making bargain free agent signings into key pieces of a World Series championship (AJ Pierzynski, Jermaine Dye, Tadahito Iguchi). It's also known for (at times foolishly) trading key prospects for veteran players who never pushed the Sox over the hump. For the most part, I like Kenny Williams but he left Hahn high and dry. The White Sox' farm system is bankrupt.
The White Sox have postponed the inevitable rebuilding for too long. My theory on why that is goes like this: Upper management knows the Sox have trouble drawing fans. They fear that multiple losing seasons would lead to low turnstile throughput, making it nearly impossible to turn decent profits. From that perspective, they are probably right. But they are wrong to mortgage the future year after year for little promise of achieving greatness. They choose to remain mediocre rather than allow themselves to be bad for a few seasons even though it would significantly raise the likelihood they are greatly improved a few years from now.
And worse, it is not Williams' nor Hanh's job to worry about profits or attendance. Their job is to construct a baseball team. Let the marketing and public relations departments worry about drawing fans to the park. The GM and President of Baseball Operations have to make baseball decisions--not business ones.
2007 would have been a really good time to rebuild. At that time, they had a host of veteran players with peak value. Players like Paul Konerko, Jim Thome, Mark Buehrle, Javier Vazquez, along with Dye, Pierzynski, Jenks, and Thornton, could have brought in a plethora of talented youngers. Instead of trading Jon Garland for 32-year-old Orlando Cabrera, they might have been able to acquire a 22-year-old version of him.
A 2007 rebuild means that in 2008 they wouldn't have traded Gio Gonzalez and Ryan Sweeney for Nick Swisher (the worst trade of the Williams era). It means that in 2009 they wouldn't have traded Clayton Richard for Jake Peavy. It means that in 2010 they wouldn't have traded Daniel Hudson for Edwin Jackson. It means that they never would have wasted well over $100 million signing Adam Dunn and claiming Alex Rios off waivers--and since signing Dunn, a Type A free agent, cost the Sox their first round pick in 2011, they'd have an extra high draft pick in their system right now too.
Rebuilding in 2007 means that Mark Teahen, Mark Kotsay, Juan Pierre, Andruw Jones, Will Ohman, Fransisco Liriano, Kosuke Fukudome, and God Forbid Jeff Keppinger never don the White Sox pinstripes.
Good riddance.
Yes, it also means they wouldn't have surprisingly won the American League Central Division in 2008. Big deal. They lost to Tampa 3-1 in the first round. Keeping status quo means they won exactly one additional playoff game over the past six years.
Had the Sox launched Buehrle, Dye, Konerko et al in 2007, they would have enough young prospects in 2013 that they'd actually be a pretty decent young team right now. Imagine a starting staff of Chris Sale, John Danks, Hudson, Richard, and Gonzalez. Not that that is a studly rotation bound to bring home another World Series, but those pitchers are 24, 29, 26, 28, and 27, and it doesn't even take into account what they might have gotten in return for those veteran players who carried the White Sox to a 72-90 record in 2007.
I firmly believe that had the White Sox bit the bullet and jettisoned the 2007 roster for the best available prospects, they'd be in the playoff hunt right now, in 2013. Instead, Sox fans might have to wait another six years for this upcoming rebuild to take shape. Ask any Pirates or Royals fan, it might take longer.
Follow me on Twitter: @JimScheffres
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
City of Chicago, Cubs Make Mistakes by Renovating Wrigley Field
From a city standpoint, from an owner standpoint, and from a fan standpoint, I am not able to understand why putting any money into Wrigley Field is a good idea.
I get that it's an icon of the city, a landmark, and home of the beloved Chicago Cubs. But the building is too outdated--not even $600 million can fix the kind of bad that Wrigley Field is--and better opportunities were elsewhere.
Had I been able to advise Cubs' owner Tom Ricketts, I would have told him to jump at any opportunity to move the team to Rosemont, Schaumburg, or any other suburb willing to spend gobs of money to let the Cubs call it their home.
From a city standpoint, how could mayor Rahm Emanuel donate $300 million of taxpayer dollars to the Cubs? A Google search for CPS (Chicago Public Schools) teacher layoffs turns up articles from 2004 (2,180 teacher layoffs), 2010 (2,700 teacher layoffs), 2011 (1,000 teacher layoffs), and 2012 (where 9 out of 10 teachers approved a strike). The city is broke! And yet they put $300 million into a baseball stadium they don't even own in the wake of thousands of teachers losing their jobs because of budget cuts. For the life of me, I can't believe this isn't a bigger story. Chicago residents, and in particular parents, ought to be outraged.
From the Cubs perspective, there is no excuse--NONE--to not take the team to the suburbs, where they undoubtedly would have gotten the deal of their dreams in addition to limitless income potential in the future.
Think about it. Brand new stadium with upwards of 50,000 seat capacity. Sky boxes. Huge scoreboard. Parking lots. Hotels, restaurants, and shopping inside the ballpark. Luxurious employee offices and player's clubhouse. Large and plentiful bathrooms. The Cubs could have had all that and had almost all of it paid for by city/county taxes and a real corporate sponsor (Wrigley Gum has never paid a nickel to have the current stadium named after them).
And the reason, most likely, that Cubs fans aren't getting this is because Ricketts is attached emotionally to Wrigley. The ivy, the Harry Carey statue, the neighborhood, the north side. You can keep all that stuff.
The common argument goes that if the Yankees can tear down Yankee Stadium (which they did in 2009), the Cubs can tear down (or at least vacate) Wrigley Field. Of what are the Cubs reminiscent about Wrigley? It certainly isn't their vast collection of World Series banners from the past 100+ years.
I remember in 1992 when Chicago Stadium was demolished to make room for a parking lot across from the United Center. My dad (and many thousands of other fans I presume) was sad. He thought it was a mistake to leave Chicago Stadium, the original Madhouse on Madison. He had memories of going there as a kid, and thoughts of the building's history gives my dad goose bumps. But the United Center remains home to one of the best game-day experiences in all of sports, and both the Blackhawks and Bulls sell out every single home game.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a new version of a Cubs stadium located in suburban Rosemont would sell out every game for decades and bring dozens of new revenue streams to the team.
To hell with the Cubs' lousy history in Wrigley Field. These days its all about money and Tom Ricketts passed the opportunity of a lifetime.
I get that it's an icon of the city, a landmark, and home of the beloved Chicago Cubs. But the building is too outdated--not even $600 million can fix the kind of bad that Wrigley Field is--and better opportunities were elsewhere.
Had I been able to advise Cubs' owner Tom Ricketts, I would have told him to jump at any opportunity to move the team to Rosemont, Schaumburg, or any other suburb willing to spend gobs of money to let the Cubs call it their home.
From a city standpoint, how could mayor Rahm Emanuel donate $300 million of taxpayer dollars to the Cubs? A Google search for CPS (Chicago Public Schools) teacher layoffs turns up articles from 2004 (2,180 teacher layoffs), 2010 (2,700 teacher layoffs), 2011 (1,000 teacher layoffs), and 2012 (where 9 out of 10 teachers approved a strike). The city is broke! And yet they put $300 million into a baseball stadium they don't even own in the wake of thousands of teachers losing their jobs because of budget cuts. For the life of me, I can't believe this isn't a bigger story. Chicago residents, and in particular parents, ought to be outraged.
From the Cubs perspective, there is no excuse--NONE--to not take the team to the suburbs, where they undoubtedly would have gotten the deal of their dreams in addition to limitless income potential in the future.
Think about it. Brand new stadium with upwards of 50,000 seat capacity. Sky boxes. Huge scoreboard. Parking lots. Hotels, restaurants, and shopping inside the ballpark. Luxurious employee offices and player's clubhouse. Large and plentiful bathrooms. The Cubs could have had all that and had almost all of it paid for by city/county taxes and a real corporate sponsor (Wrigley Gum has never paid a nickel to have the current stadium named after them).
And the reason, most likely, that Cubs fans aren't getting this is because Ricketts is attached emotionally to Wrigley. The ivy, the Harry Carey statue, the neighborhood, the north side. You can keep all that stuff.
The common argument goes that if the Yankees can tear down Yankee Stadium (which they did in 2009), the Cubs can tear down (or at least vacate) Wrigley Field. Of what are the Cubs reminiscent about Wrigley? It certainly isn't their vast collection of World Series banners from the past 100+ years.
I remember in 1992 when Chicago Stadium was demolished to make room for a parking lot across from the United Center. My dad (and many thousands of other fans I presume) was sad. He thought it was a mistake to leave Chicago Stadium, the original Madhouse on Madison. He had memories of going there as a kid, and thoughts of the building's history gives my dad goose bumps. But the United Center remains home to one of the best game-day experiences in all of sports, and both the Blackhawks and Bulls sell out every single home game.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a new version of a Cubs stadium located in suburban Rosemont would sell out every game for decades and bring dozens of new revenue streams to the team.
To hell with the Cubs' lousy history in Wrigley Field. These days its all about money and Tom Ricketts passed the opportunity of a lifetime.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Wisest Move the Ravens Could Make: Trade Flacco
After completing a Super Bowl winning season that saw Joe Flacco, Baltimore's self pro-claimed best quarterback in the NFL, throw for 11 TDs and no interceptions en route to MVP honors, the Ravens are faced with a daunting decision: Offer Flacco a $100+ million long-term contract, or give him the franchise tag--pay him upwards of $20 million for one season and re-negotiate the long-term deal after the 2013-14 season.
If I were in GM Ozzie Newsome's shoes, the decision to me would be quite simple. None of the above.
Flacco's "value" is as high as it will ever be, and there are teams desperate for a quarterback. But Joe Flacco is fool's gold. He isn't anywhere near as good as he thinks he is, nor is his level of play in the postseason sustainable over the course of the next several seasons.
If I were Ozzie Newsome, I'm on the phone TODAY with 20 other NFL GMs advertising that Joe Flacco is available for trade to the highest bidder.
Watch video where Merril Hoge states Flacco is "without question" the best QB in the NFL
The attention given to mediocre QBs who happen to play on winning teams is nauseating. Mainstream media, and especially former players, appear clueless using wins, a bona fide team earned statistic, to measure an individual player. Merril Hoge stated that Flacco is the best QB in the NFL on ESPN (By the way, Merril, where are Drew Brees and Peyton Manning on that list?). Bob Fescoe, a sports radio personality out of Kansas City, indicated that Flacco is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning because Manning threw the ugly interception in overtime of the playoff game and Flacco's Ravens beat Manning in Denver. A myriad of various football numbskulls will tell me Flacco deserves the money because he beat Manning, as well as Tom Brady, in the playoffs.
Look, Flacco is a nice player, and he seems like a great guy. But he's not even one of the five best players on his own team, let alone one of the five best quarterbacks in the NFL. Flacco's legendary playoff luck is a small sample size in relevance to the vast majority of his mediocre career. Great quarterbacks, great offenses, great defenses, nor great coaches reach or win Super Bowls. It's typically the most balanced team that wins, or at least that plays the most balance in the playoffs.
The Ravens got some great QB play this post-season, no doubt about it, and in my opinion, Flacco deserved the Super Bowl MVP. Baltimore also forced at least 2 turnovers in every playoff game. They scored multiple touchdowns on special teams and defense. Their field goal kicker did not miss a field goal. And they were lucky (all teams that win a championship in any sport are lucky, so I'm not going to hold it against the Ravens).
Baltimore would not have even made the playoffs if Ray Rice didn't miraculously convert a 4th-and-29 in the regular season. And if a the Denver secondary doesn't brain fart to allow the 70-yard Jacoby Jones game-tying touchdown with 14 seconds left, then it's another Manning-Brady showdown in the AFC playoffs.
There are a plenty of ways to evaluate quarterbacks. Winning percentage, fourth-quarter comebacks, and Super Bowl rings should never be one of them. Those are all reliant on the 52 other players and dozen or more coaches. I'm a big numbers guy, and looking over Flacco's numbers tells me all I need to know.
According to Pro-football-reference.com, Flacco ranked 19th among NFL quarterbacks in completion percentage (59.7%) this past season. Among those better than him were Ryan Fitzpatrick, Nick Foles, and Christian Ponder. He threw only 22 TD passes, tied for 17th with Carson Palmer and Matt Schaubb. His 7.2 yards per passing attempt ranked 17th, notably behind Josh Freeman and Tony Romo. He was 12th in rating (87.7), and 22nd in QBR (total quarterback rating). Ahead of him in QBR were Jake Locker, Andy Dalton, Sam Bradford, Jay Cutler, Ryan Tannehill, Freeman, and Ponder.
Advanced passing statistics (such as the ones shown in the table below) are not easily calculable, but very easy to understand because they are made so that an average player will score exactly 100. Flacco's career numbers are about as close to average as any player can come.
There just isn't enough here to suggest that Joe Flacco is worth the kind of money he's asking for. Fortunately for him, the economics of the NFL are heavily in his favor, because far too many teams emphasize the QB position (I could argue that this emphasis is wrong based solely on the fact that since the Ravens won a Super Bowl with an Average Joe at QB, so can anybody else with the right mix of players around him). Fescoe, the sports talk show from Kansas City's 610 AM, stated on air that he thinks the Chiefs should offer two first round draft picks to the Ravens in exchange for Joe Flacco. If Fescoe is dumb enough to make such an asinine trade, I have to believe there are more like him out there, and a few probably occupy careers as an NFL General Manager. In fact, I would estimate a team might offer three first round picks, and maybe a couple of second and/or third round picks too.
The Ravens have serious needs, as key defensive players Ed Reed, Dannelle Ellerby, Paul Kruger, Cary Williams, and Arthur Jones are all unrestricted free agents. Ray Lewis just retired. Signing Flacco to big money could mean losing all those other players in a salary cap era. Acquiring upwards of 3-6 premium draft choices in exchange for a mediocre quarterback is like buying Google stock for $85 in 2004 and selling for $765 today. Any real estate agent would say "sell high." The price for Joe Flacco will never be higher!
I imagine this move wouldn't be popular with Ravens fans, but it would be the coup of the century. Baltimore frees up millions of valuable cap dollars, is able to retain all the defensive players it wants, and can use those draft choices to draft another younger QB for the future. They could even double down by trading all those extra picks to move up in next year's draft and pick up Aaron Murray (Georgia), Tyler Bray (Tennessee) or AJ McCarron (Alabama). Let the 12th best QB in the league and worst contract in NFL history be somebody else's problem.
I'm sure Ozzie Newsome sees Flacco as an A or B situation. But to me, he's missing out on a big opportunity to execute Plan C and make the Ravens even more dangerous for years to come.
Follow me on Twitter: @JimScheffres
If I were in GM Ozzie Newsome's shoes, the decision to me would be quite simple. None of the above.
Flacco's "value" is as high as it will ever be, and there are teams desperate for a quarterback. But Joe Flacco is fool's gold. He isn't anywhere near as good as he thinks he is, nor is his level of play in the postseason sustainable over the course of the next several seasons.
If I were Ozzie Newsome, I'm on the phone TODAY with 20 other NFL GMs advertising that Joe Flacco is available for trade to the highest bidder.
Watch video where Merril Hoge states Flacco is "without question" the best QB in the NFL
The attention given to mediocre QBs who happen to play on winning teams is nauseating. Mainstream media, and especially former players, appear clueless using wins, a bona fide team earned statistic, to measure an individual player. Merril Hoge stated that Flacco is the best QB in the NFL on ESPN (By the way, Merril, where are Drew Brees and Peyton Manning on that list?). Bob Fescoe, a sports radio personality out of Kansas City, indicated that Flacco is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning because Manning threw the ugly interception in overtime of the playoff game and Flacco's Ravens beat Manning in Denver. A myriad of various football numbskulls will tell me Flacco deserves the money because he beat Manning, as well as Tom Brady, in the playoffs.
Look, Flacco is a nice player, and he seems like a great guy. But he's not even one of the five best players on his own team, let alone one of the five best quarterbacks in the NFL. Flacco's legendary playoff luck is a small sample size in relevance to the vast majority of his mediocre career. Great quarterbacks, great offenses, great defenses, nor great coaches reach or win Super Bowls. It's typically the most balanced team that wins, or at least that plays the most balance in the playoffs.
The Ravens got some great QB play this post-season, no doubt about it, and in my opinion, Flacco deserved the Super Bowl MVP. Baltimore also forced at least 2 turnovers in every playoff game. They scored multiple touchdowns on special teams and defense. Their field goal kicker did not miss a field goal. And they were lucky (all teams that win a championship in any sport are lucky, so I'm not going to hold it against the Ravens).
Baltimore would not have even made the playoffs if Ray Rice didn't miraculously convert a 4th-and-29 in the regular season. And if a the Denver secondary doesn't brain fart to allow the 70-yard Jacoby Jones game-tying touchdown with 14 seconds left, then it's another Manning-Brady showdown in the AFC playoffs.
There are a plenty of ways to evaluate quarterbacks. Winning percentage, fourth-quarter comebacks, and Super Bowl rings should never be one of them. Those are all reliant on the 52 other players and dozen or more coaches. I'm a big numbers guy, and looking over Flacco's numbers tells me all I need to know.
According to Pro-football-reference.com, Flacco ranked 19th among NFL quarterbacks in completion percentage (59.7%) this past season. Among those better than him were Ryan Fitzpatrick, Nick Foles, and Christian Ponder. He threw only 22 TD passes, tied for 17th with Carson Palmer and Matt Schaubb. His 7.2 yards per passing attempt ranked 17th, notably behind Josh Freeman and Tony Romo. He was 12th in rating (87.7), and 22nd in QBR (total quarterback rating). Ahead of him in QBR were Jake Locker, Andy Dalton, Sam Bradford, Jay Cutler, Ryan Tannehill, Freeman, and Ponder.
Advanced passing statistics (such as the ones shown in the table below) are not easily calculable, but very easy to understand because they are made so that an average player will score exactly 100. Flacco's career numbers are about as close to average as any player can come.
The Ravens have serious needs, as key defensive players Ed Reed, Dannelle Ellerby, Paul Kruger, Cary Williams, and Arthur Jones are all unrestricted free agents. Ray Lewis just retired. Signing Flacco to big money could mean losing all those other players in a salary cap era. Acquiring upwards of 3-6 premium draft choices in exchange for a mediocre quarterback is like buying Google stock for $85 in 2004 and selling for $765 today. Any real estate agent would say "sell high." The price for Joe Flacco will never be higher!
I imagine this move wouldn't be popular with Ravens fans, but it would be the coup of the century. Baltimore frees up millions of valuable cap dollars, is able to retain all the defensive players it wants, and can use those draft choices to draft another younger QB for the future. They could even double down by trading all those extra picks to move up in next year's draft and pick up Aaron Murray (Georgia), Tyler Bray (Tennessee) or AJ McCarron (Alabama). Let the 12th best QB in the league and worst contract in NFL history be somebody else's problem.
I'm sure Ozzie Newsome sees Flacco as an A or B situation. But to me, he's missing out on a big opportunity to execute Plan C and make the Ravens even more dangerous for years to come.
Follow me on Twitter: @JimScheffres
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Super Bowl Bets
Conference Championship bets were posted on Twitter but not on the blog. So here's how I did the last two weeks....
Divisional Bets
Baltimore at Denver Over 46: +1 Unit
Green Bay +3 at San Fransisco: -5 Units
Seattle +2.5 at Atlanta: +4 Units
Houston at New England Over 47.5: +5 Units
Divisional Record: 3-1
Season to Date Record: 35-31
Divisional Winnings: +5 Units
Season to Date Winnings: -0.2 Units
1 Unit = Your minimum bet (If the lowest you'd ever consider betting is $10 and I suggest 8 Units, then I would suggest betting $80. If your minimum is $250, then I suggest betting $2,000)
Championship Bets
San Fransisco -4 vs Atlanta: Push
San Fransisco vs Atlanta Over 47.5: +3 Units
New England -7.5 vs Baltimore: -5 Units
New England vs Baltimore Over 49.5: -4 Units
Championship Record: 1-2-1
Season to Date Record: 36-33-1
Championship Winnings: -6 Units
Season to Date Winnings: -6.2 Units
Season to Date Statistics
Record ATS: 31-31
Betting Underdogs Straight Up: 8-9
Betting Favorites ATS: 12-10-1
Betting Underdogs ATS: 8-7
Betting Overs: 4-6
Betting Unders: 5-6
Here's my Super Bowl Bets....
San Francisco -3.5 vs Baltimore: 5 Units
SF vs Bal Under 47.5: 6 Units
I feel Baltimore getting some love and I'm a little surprised, however cautious. I definitely feel the 49ers are clearly the better team. The Ravens had moments all season long where they didn't look like a playoff team, then they got hot after Ray Lewis announces his retirement. They are a well coached team with certain Hall of Famers at multiple levels on defense and several very good offensive weapons. With an extra week off to rest his injury, I believe Aldon Smith will be back to dominating opposing offensive lines, which also bodes well for Justin Smith since neither have had a sack since Aldon's injury. But it's not like the 49ers needed them with all the points they've been scoring. San Fransisco has showed they can beat you in different ways. If you don't respect Collin Kaepernick's ability to run, he can destroy you on the ground; if you take away his ability to get outside the tackles, Frank Gore can gash you up the middle; and if you stack the box expecting the run, Vernon Davis and Michael Crabtree can beat you on the seam. This compliments one of the best defenses over the last two years. You can keep Joe Flacco, quarterback extraordinaire. He's mediocre and eventually it shows, despite his historic luck in the playoffs. For the Ravens to have a chance they are going to need a few turnovers (which they've been getting this post-season) and Ray Rice to have a marvelous game. Jim Harbaugh coached teams just don't turn the ball over, and Niner's defense is built to stop the run. Interestingly, earlier this post-season I predicted both the 49ers and Packers would eventually be done in by awful field goal kickers. The Ravens' rookie kicker has been most impressive this season, so it would be funny for my original prediction to come true now that I'm finally picking San Francisco to win. I think this game will be close and low-scoring so it should be fun to watch. I'm also betting the Under because despite all the compliments I just paid to the 'Frisco offense, you cannot underestimate what the fiery Ray Lewis is going to do in his final appearance in the NFL. Baltimore has, in my opinion, 2 of the top 5 defensive players of all time in Lewis and Ed Reed, and Reed has never won a Super Bowl. This Ravens defense is going to get after it--in fact, I'll go out on the limb and say they get a defensive score. Last week I didn't think the Ravens could play with this team, but I've changed my mind. They can keep the 49er offense is check, but they won't score enough points to win or hit the over.
San Francisco 23, Baltimore 16
Disclaimer: In real life, I would never fathom taking prop bets for many reasons, most notably because it requires little skill and is almost all luck. But historically I've always taken two props for the Super Bowl. So here it goes:
Super Bowl MVP: Michael Crabtree at +1400: 1 Unit
Total Interceptions for Ed Reed Over 0.5 at +300: 1 Unit
Follow me on Twitter: @JimScheffres
Divisional Bets
Baltimore at Denver Over 46: +1 Unit
Green Bay +3 at San Fransisco: -5 Units
Seattle +2.5 at Atlanta: +4 Units
Houston at New England Over 47.5: +5 Units
Divisional Record: 3-1
Season to Date Record: 35-31
Divisional Winnings: +5 Units
Season to Date Winnings: -0.2 Units
1 Unit = Your minimum bet (If the lowest you'd ever consider betting is $10 and I suggest 8 Units, then I would suggest betting $80. If your minimum is $250, then I suggest betting $2,000)
Championship Bets
San Fransisco -4 vs Atlanta: Push
San Fransisco vs Atlanta Over 47.5: +3 Units
New England -7.5 vs Baltimore: -5 Units
New England vs Baltimore Over 49.5: -4 Units
Championship Record: 1-2-1
Season to Date Record: 36-33-1
Championship Winnings: -6 Units
Season to Date Winnings: -6.2 Units
Season to Date Statistics
Record ATS: 31-31
Betting Underdogs Straight Up: 8-9
Betting Favorites ATS: 12-10-1
Betting Underdogs ATS: 8-7
Betting Overs: 4-6
Betting Unders: 5-6
Here's my Super Bowl Bets....
San Francisco -3.5 vs Baltimore: 5 Units
SF vs Bal Under 47.5: 6 Units
I feel Baltimore getting some love and I'm a little surprised, however cautious. I definitely feel the 49ers are clearly the better team. The Ravens had moments all season long where they didn't look like a playoff team, then they got hot after Ray Lewis announces his retirement. They are a well coached team with certain Hall of Famers at multiple levels on defense and several very good offensive weapons. With an extra week off to rest his injury, I believe Aldon Smith will be back to dominating opposing offensive lines, which also bodes well for Justin Smith since neither have had a sack since Aldon's injury. But it's not like the 49ers needed them with all the points they've been scoring. San Fransisco has showed they can beat you in different ways. If you don't respect Collin Kaepernick's ability to run, he can destroy you on the ground; if you take away his ability to get outside the tackles, Frank Gore can gash you up the middle; and if you stack the box expecting the run, Vernon Davis and Michael Crabtree can beat you on the seam. This compliments one of the best defenses over the last two years. You can keep Joe Flacco, quarterback extraordinaire. He's mediocre and eventually it shows, despite his historic luck in the playoffs. For the Ravens to have a chance they are going to need a few turnovers (which they've been getting this post-season) and Ray Rice to have a marvelous game. Jim Harbaugh coached teams just don't turn the ball over, and Niner's defense is built to stop the run. Interestingly, earlier this post-season I predicted both the 49ers and Packers would eventually be done in by awful field goal kickers. The Ravens' rookie kicker has been most impressive this season, so it would be funny for my original prediction to come true now that I'm finally picking San Francisco to win. I think this game will be close and low-scoring so it should be fun to watch. I'm also betting the Under because despite all the compliments I just paid to the 'Frisco offense, you cannot underestimate what the fiery Ray Lewis is going to do in his final appearance in the NFL. Baltimore has, in my opinion, 2 of the top 5 defensive players of all time in Lewis and Ed Reed, and Reed has never won a Super Bowl. This Ravens defense is going to get after it--in fact, I'll go out on the limb and say they get a defensive score. Last week I didn't think the Ravens could play with this team, but I've changed my mind. They can keep the 49er offense is check, but they won't score enough points to win or hit the over.
San Francisco 23, Baltimore 16
Disclaimer: In real life, I would never fathom taking prop bets for many reasons, most notably because it requires little skill and is almost all luck. But historically I've always taken two props for the Super Bowl. So here it goes:
Super Bowl MVP: Michael Crabtree at +1400: 1 Unit
Total Interceptions for Ed Reed Over 0.5 at +300: 1 Unit
Follow me on Twitter: @JimScheffres
Thursday, January 10, 2013
NFL Divisional Round Bets
Here's how I did in the Wild Card Round....
Cincinnati +4.5 at Houston: -5 Units
Minnesota +7.5 at Green Bay: -5 Units
Baltimore -7 vs Indianapolis: +1 Unit
Seattle -3 at Washington: +3 Units
Wild Card Record: 2-2
Season to Date Record: 32-30
Wild Card Winnings: -6 Units
Season to Date Winnings: -5.8 Units
1 Unit = Your minimum bet (If the lowest you would ever consider betting is $10, and I suggest betting 8 Units, then I'd suggest betting $80. If your minimum is $250, then I'm suggesting $2,000).
Season to Date Statistics
Record ATS: 27-28
Betting Underdogs Straight Up: 8-9
Betting Favorites ATS: 12-9
Betting Underdogs ATS: 7-6
Betting Overs: 1-5
Betting Unders 5-6
Here's my Division Round bets...
Baltimore at Denver Over 46: 1 Unit
I like Denver to win but I'm not sure about the 9.5 point spread. It seems like a lot to cover for a team who only had one win vs a better than .500 team in the regular season. Then again, that one win came against the Ravens. The Broncos and Ravens combined to go 18-12-2 vs the Over this season, so let's place a small wager there. It seems reasonable to me to expect both teams to score in the mid to upper 20's in the thin air in Denver and with unseasonably warm temperatures.
Green Bay +3 at San Francisco: 5 Units
It would be funny to me if this game were a closely battled matchup of whose kicker sucks the least. Mason Crosby and to a lesser extent David Akers are the two reasons I believe both these teams' postseasons will eventually end in defeats. But here, I feel that the hot offense and elite quarterback have the advantage in the playoffs, and in fact I do believe the Packers will win the game outright (and lose in the Super Bowl).
Seattle +2.5 at Atlanta: 4 Units
I might have considered raising the ante on this one or picking the Seahawks on the moneyline and it feels weird to admit the reason I won't do it is Chris Clemons' injury towards the end of the Washington game last week. Of the remaining teams, I like the Seahawks' defense the best (even better than the 49ers). Their secondary might be the only one capable of slowing down the Falcons' and Packers' passing game. But they are no slouch on offense either. Featuring Marshawn Lynch and a slew of underrated WRs, they could tear up the Falcons' 20th ranked rushing defense--a defense that also ranked 28th in sacks and now has John Abraham and Jonathan Babineaux at less than 100%.
Houston at New England Over 47.5: 5 Units
I like the Patriots to cover the 9.5 points but I like the Over even better. A lot of people are talking about the way the Patriots blew the Texans away in their regular season meeting, and I hope I'm not falling prey to past performances, but I have this gut feeling of a Tom Brady 4 TD and Patriot 40 point performance looming. I've talked about the Patriot's record at home and how they put up enormous points. And don't get me wrong, Houston has the personnel to stop Brady, but I just don't think it's going to happen this week.
Follow me on Twitter: @JimScheffres
Cincinnati +4.5 at Houston: -5 Units
Minnesota +7.5 at Green Bay: -5 Units
Baltimore -7 vs Indianapolis: +1 Unit
Seattle -3 at Washington: +3 Units
Wild Card Record: 2-2
Season to Date Record: 32-30
Wild Card Winnings: -6 Units
Season to Date Winnings: -5.8 Units
1 Unit = Your minimum bet (If the lowest you would ever consider betting is $10, and I suggest betting 8 Units, then I'd suggest betting $80. If your minimum is $250, then I'm suggesting $2,000).
Season to Date Statistics
Record ATS: 27-28
Betting Underdogs Straight Up: 8-9
Betting Favorites ATS: 12-9
Betting Underdogs ATS: 7-6
Betting Overs: 1-5
Betting Unders 5-6
Here's my Division Round bets...
Baltimore at Denver Over 46: 1 Unit
I like Denver to win but I'm not sure about the 9.5 point spread. It seems like a lot to cover for a team who only had one win vs a better than .500 team in the regular season. Then again, that one win came against the Ravens. The Broncos and Ravens combined to go 18-12-2 vs the Over this season, so let's place a small wager there. It seems reasonable to me to expect both teams to score in the mid to upper 20's in the thin air in Denver and with unseasonably warm temperatures.
Green Bay +3 at San Francisco: 5 Units
It would be funny to me if this game were a closely battled matchup of whose kicker sucks the least. Mason Crosby and to a lesser extent David Akers are the two reasons I believe both these teams' postseasons will eventually end in defeats. But here, I feel that the hot offense and elite quarterback have the advantage in the playoffs, and in fact I do believe the Packers will win the game outright (and lose in the Super Bowl).
Seattle +2.5 at Atlanta: 4 Units
I might have considered raising the ante on this one or picking the Seahawks on the moneyline and it feels weird to admit the reason I won't do it is Chris Clemons' injury towards the end of the Washington game last week. Of the remaining teams, I like the Seahawks' defense the best (even better than the 49ers). Their secondary might be the only one capable of slowing down the Falcons' and Packers' passing game. But they are no slouch on offense either. Featuring Marshawn Lynch and a slew of underrated WRs, they could tear up the Falcons' 20th ranked rushing defense--a defense that also ranked 28th in sacks and now has John Abraham and Jonathan Babineaux at less than 100%.
Houston at New England Over 47.5: 5 Units
I like the Patriots to cover the 9.5 points but I like the Over even better. A lot of people are talking about the way the Patriots blew the Texans away in their regular season meeting, and I hope I'm not falling prey to past performances, but I have this gut feeling of a Tom Brady 4 TD and Patriot 40 point performance looming. I've talked about the Patriot's record at home and how they put up enormous points. And don't get me wrong, Houston has the personnel to stop Brady, but I just don't think it's going to happen this week.
Follow me on Twitter: @JimScheffres
Saturday, January 5, 2013
NFL Wild Card Bets
Here's how I did in Week 17....
Washington -3 vs Dallas: +6 Units
Indianapolis +7 vs Houston: +5 Units
Chicago at Detroit Under 45: -5 Units
Philadelphia +$250 at New York Giants: -1 Unit
Week 17 Record: 2-2
Season to Date Record: 30-28
Week 17 Winnings: +5 Units
Season to Date Winnings: +0.2 Units
Season to Date Statistics
Record ATS: 25-26
Betting Underdogs Straight Up: 8-9
Betting Favorites ATS: 10-9
Betting Underdogs ATS: 7-4
Betting Overs: 1-5
Betting Unders 5-6
Here are my Wild Card Round Picks...
Cincinatti +4.5 at Houston: 5 Units
The Texans have fallen apart and have played pathetic football entering the playoffs. I've been saying for 2-3 weeks now they will be a one-and-done in the postseason. Here they are at home and garnered the team many consider to be the weakest AFC playoff qualifier. But the Bengals' defense is solid and creates some matchup problems for Houston. Vontaz Burfict and Manny Lawson will clean house against the run, where Arian Foster is suddenly playing like an undrafted free agent. The Bengals racked up 51 sacks in the regular season, good enough for the third highest total in the NFL, and the Texans' offensive line (outside of Duane Brown) has been next to awful during this slump. I like the Bengals to win outright, but feel more confident taking the points.
Minnesota +7.5 at Green Bay: 5 Units
After that close game last week I feel pretty comfortable saying the Packers will win coming back home, but this line of 7.5 points surprises me. I've been riding the Vikings big time late this season and I've been hitting. We all know Adrian Peterson is averaging close to 200 yards rushing vs the Packers this season and that Green Bay is one of the worst tackling defenses in the NFL. So let's figure the Vikings aren't going to have any problem running the ball. If the game is close, I'll take Blair Walsh in a FG contest over Mason Crosby any day of the week (Crosby is the main reason I don't think I can place the Packers in the Super Bowl). Green Bay's offensive line allowed the most sacks in the NFL and they'll find Jared Allen lurking. While I like the Vikings to cover the spread, when it comes to Christian Ponder having to make a tough throw on 3rd down, I like Green Bay at home to win those situations--and the game.
Baltimore -7 vs Indianapolis: 1 Unit
I'm on the fence on this one because Indy is another team I've played and made money. However, the Colts have one of the worst rushing defenses in the NFL giving up an average of 5.1 yards per opponent attempt. I expect Ray Rice to go beast mode on the Colts' defense today. The Colts made this far mostly on the heels of excellent playcalling and coaching anyway--they are even less talented than the Bengals. While I'm not particularly high on the Ravens this year (I think they are frauds) I believe Rice is a monster.
Seattle -3 at Washington: 3 Units
I'm looking forward to this game more than most casual fans actually. The Seahawks and Pete Carroll intrigue me and I'm also a bandwagon RGIII fan. I can't deny that Carroll is a pretty solid football coach and always seems to have the Seahawks ready for battle, but they are not a good road team. They have however won their last two road games, beating the 10-6 Bears in Chicago and absolutely destroying the Bills. Some researchers say the phenomena where west coast teams always lose when traveling east doesn't apply to night games (the Seahawks will be on 12:30pm Pacific time for their bout vs Washington whereas had the game started at noon ET, it'd be only 8:00am Pacific). Like the Bal/Ind game, I also see a huge problem with Washington trying to contain Seattle's RB Marshawn Lynch, and I don't think a gimpy Robert Griffin will have much success running outside against a speedy Seahawks defense.
Follow me on Twitter: @JimScheffres
Washington -3 vs Dallas: +6 Units
Indianapolis +7 vs Houston: +5 Units
Chicago at Detroit Under 45: -5 Units
Philadelphia +$250 at New York Giants: -1 Unit
Week 17 Record: 2-2
Season to Date Record: 30-28
Week 17 Winnings: +5 Units
Season to Date Winnings: +0.2 Units
Season to Date Statistics
Record ATS: 25-26
Betting Underdogs Straight Up: 8-9
Betting Favorites ATS: 10-9
Betting Underdogs ATS: 7-4
Betting Overs: 1-5
Betting Unders 5-6
Here are my Wild Card Round Picks...
Cincinatti +4.5 at Houston: 5 Units
The Texans have fallen apart and have played pathetic football entering the playoffs. I've been saying for 2-3 weeks now they will be a one-and-done in the postseason. Here they are at home and garnered the team many consider to be the weakest AFC playoff qualifier. But the Bengals' defense is solid and creates some matchup problems for Houston. Vontaz Burfict and Manny Lawson will clean house against the run, where Arian Foster is suddenly playing like an undrafted free agent. The Bengals racked up 51 sacks in the regular season, good enough for the third highest total in the NFL, and the Texans' offensive line (outside of Duane Brown) has been next to awful during this slump. I like the Bengals to win outright, but feel more confident taking the points.
Minnesota +7.5 at Green Bay: 5 Units
After that close game last week I feel pretty comfortable saying the Packers will win coming back home, but this line of 7.5 points surprises me. I've been riding the Vikings big time late this season and I've been hitting. We all know Adrian Peterson is averaging close to 200 yards rushing vs the Packers this season and that Green Bay is one of the worst tackling defenses in the NFL. So let's figure the Vikings aren't going to have any problem running the ball. If the game is close, I'll take Blair Walsh in a FG contest over Mason Crosby any day of the week (Crosby is the main reason I don't think I can place the Packers in the Super Bowl). Green Bay's offensive line allowed the most sacks in the NFL and they'll find Jared Allen lurking. While I like the Vikings to cover the spread, when it comes to Christian Ponder having to make a tough throw on 3rd down, I like Green Bay at home to win those situations--and the game.
Baltimore -7 vs Indianapolis: 1 Unit
I'm on the fence on this one because Indy is another team I've played and made money. However, the Colts have one of the worst rushing defenses in the NFL giving up an average of 5.1 yards per opponent attempt. I expect Ray Rice to go beast mode on the Colts' defense today. The Colts made this far mostly on the heels of excellent playcalling and coaching anyway--they are even less talented than the Bengals. While I'm not particularly high on the Ravens this year (I think they are frauds) I believe Rice is a monster.
Seattle -3 at Washington: 3 Units
I'm looking forward to this game more than most casual fans actually. The Seahawks and Pete Carroll intrigue me and I'm also a bandwagon RGIII fan. I can't deny that Carroll is a pretty solid football coach and always seems to have the Seahawks ready for battle, but they are not a good road team. They have however won their last two road games, beating the 10-6 Bears in Chicago and absolutely destroying the Bills. Some researchers say the phenomena where west coast teams always lose when traveling east doesn't apply to night games (the Seahawks will be on 12:30pm Pacific time for their bout vs Washington whereas had the game started at noon ET, it'd be only 8:00am Pacific). Like the Bal/Ind game, I also see a huge problem with Washington trying to contain Seattle's RB Marshawn Lynch, and I don't think a gimpy Robert Griffin will have much success running outside against a speedy Seahawks defense.
Follow me on Twitter: @JimScheffres
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)