1. Recently, we have heard that several teams are “desperate” to save their season and will be playing harder (including Dallas, Minnesota, and San Francisco). While it’s clear that in sports like Baseball and Basketball players frequently take games off, is it possible to play harder in football when you are only playing once a week? In what phases of the game does more effort provide a benefit?
It’s true that some guys act like they’re getting “psyched up” and crazy before games, and maybe it helps their performance, but I’m not sure “playing harder” during certain games can be true of most NFL players (with the exception of some receivers – I’m looking at you, Randy). They’re professionals, and one would expect a professional level of effort in all games (unless the season is a foregone conclusion; either in a good way - the Colts in Week 17- or in a bad way - the Lions in Week 1). However, practicing better, concentrating more in film study and in learning new plays during the week, playing more cohesively with teammates, and having an attitude of taking preparation seriously can make a huge difference. Also, reducing stupid confrontations with coaches and teammates, and acting like an adult off the field, can certainly improve game-day performance, and one might expect certain players to improve those areas leading up to a game that deemed “desperate.” There is a psychological aspect to football, like any sport or activity, and desperation can be a good thing (causing responses like I outlined above) or a bad thing, as when a desperate team or player chokes with bad decisions or physical gaffs like turnovers, dropped passes, missed assignments, etc. It seems to me that the team will react as a whole according to the reactions of the leadership, meaning coaches and key players. This is what differentiates guys like Tony Romo (to this point in his career) from guys like Joe Montana, who was famous for poise under pressure. An example (courtesy of the Pro Football Hall of Fame Website) from Super Bowl XXIII against the Cincinnati Bengals. Trailing 16-13 with 3:20 left in the game, the 49ers had the ball on their own eight-yard line: "Some of the guys seemed more than normally tense," Montana recalled, "especially Harris Barton, a great offensive tackle who has a tendency to get nervous." As usual, Montana was just focusing on the situation, how far they had to go and how much time was left. Just then he happened to spot the late actor John Candy in the stands. "Look" he said, 'isn't that John Candy." It was hardly what his teammates expected to hear in the huddle with the Super Bowl on the line. But it definitely broke the tension. "Everybody kind of smiled, and even Harris relaxed, and then we all concentrated on the job we had to do." When that’s your leader, a team will improve in “desperate” times. Is it playing harder? Probably not. Playing better? Certainly possible.
2. In recent years, one of the best Superbowl predictors is the last team to lose a game starting the season. Of the 3 undefeated teams, which will be the last to lose? Pitt (Balt, Bye, Cleveland), Chicago (@NY Giants, @Carolina, Seattle), Kansas City (Bye, @Indy, @Houston)?
Pitt could lose to Baltimore, but I somehow doubt it. Their defense looks fantastic, and Joe Flacco has shown signs of mental fucktardulation when pressured. Chicago is more iffy, and could have lost to the Pack in 17 different ways, and also had close scrapes against Detroit and Dallas. I don’t like the Giants, but they’re playing in New York, so it’s almost a toss-up to me. KC WILL lose to Indy in two weeks, so if the Pittsburgh and Chicago survive this week, KC is out. Then Pitt has a bye and the Bears destroy Carolina, then both teams play soft home games (Cleveland and Seattle). The Bears follow up with Washington and Seattle, and Pittsburgh with Miami and New Orleans, which obviously favors the Bears. But that’s pretty far down the road. My guess is, the Bears either lose to the Giants, or lose one of the next three, and Pittsburgh is the last team standing.
3. The following recent players rank very high in either career rushing yards (Curtis Martin #4 all time, 14,101 yards; Jerome Bettis #5 All-time, 13,662 yards; Edgerrin James #11 all time, 12,121 yards) or career receiving yards (Isaac Bruce #2 all time, 15,208 yards; Tim Brown #4 all time, 14,943 yards; Marvin Harrison #5 all time, 14,580 yards; Cris Carter #8 all time, 13,899 yards; Torry Holt #10 all time, 13382 yards). Who deserves to go to the Hall of Fame?
Edge, Carter, and Holt are iffy, but I’d vote for the rest in a heartbeat. The rankings for yardage are skewed toward modern players due to the 16-game schedule and the expanded playoffs, but any Top-Ten All-Time in yardage is pretty impressive when the league is 88 or 90 years old, depending on where you start count. All of those guys except Edge and Carter made big contributions to Superbowl teams (Don’t forget Martin’s 1996 Pats and Brown’s 2002 Raiders) and Bettis, Bruce, and Harrison have rings. If I had to rank them in order of worthiness, I’d say: Bettis, Harrison, Bruce, Martin are in, in that order, then Edge, Carter, and Holt are out, but I could be convinced to give them another look.
4. The NFL is moving toward an 18 game schedule. Do you prefer starting earlier (like Labor Day Weekend) or pushing the Superbowl back to mid-February?
Earlier, by a wide margin. I like football in the snow, but by mid-February, the NBA is heating up, and NCAA basketball is becoming meaningful. The Superbowl should be at the end of January. Let’s play some summer games and give the (outdoor) Southern teams and early advantage to make up for the huge advantage the (outdoor) Northern teams get in November and after.
5. The following NFL teams share a city with an MLB team headed to the play-offs: Giants, Bucs, Vikings, Cowboys, Eagles, Falcons, Bengals, and 49ers. Which team will benefit the most from having media attention drawn away from them?
It would be the Giants, but there’s enough media in NYC to cover both them and the Yankees at 100% capacity at all times. If anybody in Texas gave a shit about the Rangers, I’d say the Cowboys had the greatest benefit. Since they don’t, I’m going to have to go with the Vikes. There are some die-hard Twins fans up there, and that team is extremely likable, with a low-budget roster of hustle guys and old man Jim Thome still getting the job done, and a super-quotable manager in Ron Gardenhire. The Vikes are under a lot of pressure, but can still turn their season around with a little win streak and a little less luck for the Bears. Flying under the radar (or at least not right in the spotlight) for a few weeks while the Twins get some attention might help them out quite a bit.
No comments:
Post a Comment