5 questions for Week 9

OK, Doc, here are the questions. What do ya’ got for us this week?

1) Holy cow, are there some messed-up relationships in the NFL, or what? This excellent article by Jason Whitlock (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Donovan-McNabb-Mike-Shanahan-benching-Washington-Redskins-110210) sums up how Mike Shanahan’s ridiculous benching of McNabb was all about a busted relationship and nepotism. The crazy dropping of Moss in Minnesota may have resulted from a locker-room tirade about a buffet spread. With NFL players getting so much money guaranteed, many feel as if they don’t have to listen to coaches, and have the financial power to act on their feelings. With many coaches (and front offices) looking for the quick fix and running their teams without any consistency, it’s hard for players to trust them or buy into the system they’re selling (as we discussed in this week’s analysis). Is there a simple solution to these problems at a league level? Or are these the factors that separate the good and bad teams, and we want them to stay that way?

The Juice referenced another great article to read. Just unbelievably funny. I can’t believe he would hire his 30 year old kid to run the offense. Seriously, he is 6 years younger than me. I can’t possibly imagine running the offense of a storied franchise in a media savvy area like Washington DC now, little lone six years ago. Shanahan is really doing a disservice to his kid, because even if he is the next coming of Bill Walsh, no one will give him any credit. It would be better to make it on his own steam somewhere else. Just for comedy sake, I hope the Shanahan’s team up with Rex Grossman and Jamarcus Russel and send McNabb packing.

But on to your question. I will reference the psychoanalytic theory of transference to answer your question. The coach-player relationship is a lot like being 15 again and living with your parents. You have some knowledge and ability and a little bit of freedom, but you still don’t call the shots. The theory of transference basically says that when you get put back into a situation that reminds you of living with your parents, you will treat the new parent (i.e. your coach) like you treated your original parents. If you had loving supportive parents who basically wanted you to do well and helped you succeed, then you will get along with coach, take his advice, and not question his motives (unless its clear he is an idiot). If your parents were distant, overly cruel, or unsupportive, then you will probably assume everyone (including your coach) is the same way and treat them like shit whenever they do something you don’t like.

This theory plays out surprisingly well with modern coaches. In football, the best coaches in recent years are probably Tony Dungy, Bill Belichek, and Jeff Fischer. Historically you could add Bill Parcels and Bill Walsh (I can’t go any further back than that). They were all very different, but the one thing they have in common (except for maybe Parcells) is that they all appear to be stern but fair. You could say the same thing in the NBA where Phil Jackson and Greg Popovich are probably the best two coaches. Managing relationships with players is probably the most important function of the modern coach and you have to balance discipline with support. If you are too tough you risk losing a team, if you are too lax you risk the team walking all over you (See Grandpa Wade Phillips).

As a corollary to this theory, all great coaches feel they can take on one talented knuckle-head. Belichek and Fischer are doing it with Moss, Phil Jackson did it with Dennis Rodman and Ron Artest.

2) According to the ESPN Power Rankings (http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings), the NFC South has three of the top six teams in the conference. I’m sold on the Bucs as a decent team with a bright future, and the Saints and Falcons are right where they should be. Is this the best division in the NFC? If all three teams finish with better records than the NFC West winner (unlikely, but still possible – they’re all ahead of the Seahawks right now!), do you think this argues against automatic playoff bids for division winners? I’ve heard your plans for the NBA playoffs: how, if at all, would you change the (very successful) NFL playoffs?

I think top-6 for the Bucs is stretch right now. Their wins are Cleveland, Carolina, Cincy (barely), St. Louis (barely), and Arizona. Their two losses were blow-outs to New Orleans and Pitt. Still they are young and they are winning close games, so I’ll agree that the future is looking bright. How would I change the play-offs. Surprisingly, I wouldn’t do much. The NFL is built around great intra-division rivalries that start with 4 teams playing each other home and away for a play-off spot. If you lose that, then you have a shot at a wild-card. Its pretty fair and adds extra meaning to intra-division games. I would make two small changes. 1. I wouldn’t be too upset with a rule that you can’t make the play-offs with a losing season. If you can’t get to 8-8, then you have no legitimate claims to the post-season. 2. I would give home field based upon record. Right now Division winners host wild-cards. Its not fair that a great team like Pitt, Baltimore, NY Jets, or NE will have to go play at Kansas City.

3) Role Play: You’re Bill Cowher, and you want back into coaching. The following teams fire their coaches and offer you the spot:Dallas, Minnesota, Carolina, Arizona, San Fran, Buffalo, Cincy, San Diego, Denver

Assuming they all offer you the same amount of money and you don’t care where you live: What are your criteria for choosing? Which job would you choose? Which would be worst?

My criteria in order of importance would be (1) franchise QB, (2) good ownership, (3) historic franchise/good fan base.

From best to worst:
1. Dallas (good QB, he has enough clout to tell Jerry Jones to bugger off),
2. San Diego (good QB, GM is smart, but an asshole, terrible fans).
3. San Francisco (no QB, but good talent, and lots of tradition)
4. Denver (kind of a mess right now, but great ownership and tradition)
5. Minnesota (No QB, but lots of talent and an owner that wants to win)
6. Carolina (kind of the generic job, decent team, decent owner, no history)
7. Arizona (QB nightmare and ownership is still not well regarded and bad history)
8. Buff (great fans, but a completely unwinnable situation)
9. Cincy (Terrible ownership, talent is aging, history is bad)


4) Miami is 0-3 at home, 4-0 on the road. Is this a coincidence? Is it actually possible to have a home-field disadvantage?

Well the short answer is that they lost at home to the Jet, Pats, and Steelers; three of the best teams in the league. But that would be too easy, so I did some digging. The only other undefeated teams on the road are the Jets and Bucs. The Jets are pretty good and their (Miami, Buff, Denver) has not been that tough. But it is interesting that the two Florida teams do better on the road. Maybe the heat and humidity is a problem early in the season. Maybe they don’t feel the need to party on the road so they can better focus on the game. Maybe other teams take them for granted a little bit. It will be interesting to see if it holds up.

5) In scoring differential, the top 5 teams are:
Ten (5-3) +74
Ind (5-2) +51
NE (6-1) +51
NYJ (5-2) +49
Pitt (5-2) +45

Bottom 5:
Jax (4-4) -61
Car (1-6) -65
AZ (3-4) -65
Den (2-5) -69
Buf (0-7) -80

As we said in 5 Questions for Week 7, points (not yardage) are a pretty good indicator of which teams are best, and the pattern holds here, for the most part. Two semi-surprises are Jacksonville and Tennessee. Are the Jags much worse than their record indicates? Are the Titans significantly better? What will the final records of these two teams be, and will they reflect the point differential more closely?

Point differential is an interesting stat, but like you said Juice, it can be a little deceptive. I think turnover differential is the answer here. Teams react differently when they get down. Some teams will stick their game plan and hope to turn things around. Other teams will start throwing like crazy to catch up. That leads to INTs and forced fumbles (defenses can just blitz the QB). Turnovers create points either by direct run backs or by creating a short field. Some teams are good at getting a lead early and then forcing you into turnover later. Here are the turnover differentials for the top 5 teams you listed Tenn (+6), Indy (+3), New England (+7), NYJ (+7), and Pitt (+9). Conversely, the turnover differential for the bottom five is: Jax (-7), Car (-10), Arizona (-9), Den (-4), and Buff (-5). Why do some teams press their luck when they are down? It could be personality; those coaches hate to lose. It’s also possible that those coaches have poor job security and feel they have to take chances to save their jobs. This is probably the case for Jack Del Rio in Jax. I suspect as the season goes on the risk taking will catch up with him and they will come back to Earth and Tenn will pull away from them.