JW,
If the sip of water you needed to stay alive would guarantee the extinction of, say, polar bears, would you take it? For the neo-pagan Left, the answer is no. For everyone else, it's yes. The instinct for self-preservation overrides the political symbolism.
As it happens, that very question was asked in Switzerland over the weekend, though in different terms. Presented with a referendum to outlaw the construction of minarets (the onion-shaped spires that dominate Muslim architecture and look vaguely like tits), 57% of voters agreed to do so. Muslims, the thinking seems to have gone, tend to avoid assimilation, preach our destruction on the street corner, and blow us up with bombs. Something should probably be done about them.
The problem, of course, is that taking away a mere architectural flourish is the equivalent not of drinking that water but of using it to wash your hands. The bear dies all the same--in this case, the Arab still rises against you--but you did nothing about your thirst. What the authors of the referendum (the nationalist Swiss People's Party) seem not to have understood is that the law's offending element is not the ban on spires but the assertion of non-Muslim will--the expression of a desire not to be converted. As every thinking person in the world now knows, the Swiss have brought jihad upon themselves. What they haven't done is halt in any meaningful way the spread of Islam by the sword.
Yet outrage--predictable, liberal, and disturbingly white--has followed the vote all the same. The referendum "ensured international embarrassment for Switzerland" according to the Times of London, as well as "a backlash in the Muslim world." The move "is a blow to freedom of religion" according to the Vatican (!), and it increases "the problems of cohabitation between religions and cultures." Even apologists for the ban, such as Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, admit that it is "not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies." She's right, of course. How could it be?
Ironically, the fact that Muslim policy toward America seems to be unapologetic jihad may work in our favor, at least during my lifetime and yours. In Europe, the course has been set differently, and the spectre of Islamic government and Sharia law creeps ever forward. We already know that childless Europe will have to import their next generation. It seems that they've chosen poorly.
-GM
GM,
Speaking of Europeans, bad behavior, and decisions that make no sense, FIFA (translated to mean "International Soccer Association") is considering what punishment to give Thierry Henry, the French striker who committed an uncalled handball against Ireland. Soccer, if any part of you still wants to win Americans over, your effort is either pathetic or halfhearted.
GM, you recently impressed me when you said you've managed to avoid even seeing a replay of the obvious infraction. I, however, haven't been so lucky and am all too familiar with the history. It goes like this.
1. Player commits infraction; infraction not called; other team gets screwed.
2. Player admits to committing infraction but adds: "I'm not the ref. I played it; the refs allowed it. That's a question you should ask them."
3. Embarrassed by his team's unfair victory, player agrees with sore losers about how to resolve the miscarriage of justice.
4. Governing body discusses how to punish player.
How does that sit with you? Soccer fans, go back and read items 1-4 and apply it to Michael Jordan's push-off on Bryon Russell, or Reggie Bush's pushing Matt Leinart into the end zone against Notre Dame, or this strike call. In your world, the refs miss a call, and the player who benefited is to blame?! What was Henry supposed to do? Pick the ball up and hand it to the official?! Soccer fans act like he cheated in the same way that Sammy Sosa corked his bat! And if the act had been premeditated, isn't that an indictment of how bad the sport's officials must be? He actually took time to think that he could get away with blatantly touching the ball!
If the riots, oddball fans, and inescapable boringness of soccer hadn't already lost me, this horrible gesture would. Who's left to punish FIFA?
-JW
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Turkey Day: Rehashing Mistakes and Memories
GM has taken the week off, and I came close. That's what I'm thankful for.
My Thanksgiving visit to my parents has left me with no quick Internet access, so don’t expect any links. The same visit, however (picture George Costanza hanging out with parents Frank and Estelle), has brought some holiday memories back into focus, and I’ll get to those later.
It’s a shame when college and NFL coaches make decisions so irrational that we’re forced to post about them, but if our irritation powers this blog (and it does), then we have to take our fuel where we can get it. Saturday afternoon, I watched my virtual wallet shrink (LSU got 4 ½ points at Ole Miss!) as Les Miles deprived his team of a chance to win outright—the outcome I depended upon. Sure, the fact that he tried to spike the ball in less than one second of clock time on the road was ludicrous, but others have already made that point. Also, there’s the obvious curiosity one would have about why he waited so long to call timeout before the 4th-and-forever conversion. There are a few more complaints on this stakeholder’s end, though:
1. You don’t try an onside kick with 6 minutes left in the first half after you just went up 8 thanks to a stadium-deflating 50-yard field goal. Really! When Ole Miss got the ball with incredible field position, the card-carrying Klan members at Vaught-Hemingway were somewhere between confused and uninterested. It wasn’t until the Rebels scored the ensuing touchdown that anyone cheered! Now that’s a deflated crowd.
2. You don’t give your sack-loving, slowest-fit-black-man-alive, ankle-hampered quarterback a chance to take a sack on second down when you’re already in field-goal range. I’m not saying don’t pass, but don’t let him drop back.
3. You don’t follow up the sack with a slow-developing play in the flat.
4. You don’t call the fade when going for two to tie it. I hate the fade when you’re inside the 10! Hate it. And thanks to a penalty the first time, he tried it twice.
5. Finally, I’ve watched an embarrassing amount of football at levels below NCAA Division I. Those teams are completely capable of switching out the offense for the field-goal unit in the time LSU was given. So… you don’t tell the CBS sideline reporter that you didn’t think you had time to do it. Some of us know better.
How’s this for a pro-style blunder? Down by 2 with more than 2 minutes remaining against the best team in the conference, Ravens coach John Harbaugh called a timeout so he could consider whether or not he wanted to challenge what was clearly and absolutely a correct first-down spot for the Colts. He then challenged and, of course, lost a second timeout—his last. When Baltimore got the ball back, Ed Reed turned it over on the punt return, but better clock management (or understanding of the rules) would have given them close to 2 minutes! You don’t call a timeout and then challenge—ever! Have I mentioned that it bothers me that guys who get paid heftily to make intelligent decisions can’t do so late in games?
Now for some Thanksgiving memories. This won’t take long because it was the same every year. My parents, brother, sister, and I would drive down to Ripley, Mississippi (population: our maternal extended family). If we were lucky, we wouldn’t beat the Lions’ kickoff there. We’d see Aunt Sarah (pronounced SAY-ruh ‘round those parts), the lady of the house, in the kitchen preparing the driest turkey you’ve ever had in your life. Then we’d pass a couple dozen people who looked familiar but whose names we couldn’t come up with even if everyone promised to quit walking in front of the TV. My brother and I could typically find ways to identify people. There were the blonde-haired brothers with mullets, the woman with Victorian-style/1970s glasses, the diabetic guy who clucks, the woman who wore the same pair of white Keds and a tacky Christmas sweater every year, the guy with the beard who didn’t like football, the chain-smoking couple with massive noses, the resentful teenage girl, the fat conspiracy theorist, and the guy who was obsessed with the newest television/speaker technology. We were related to every last one of these people, but if they came to my brother’s wedding, he sure didn’t know how they got there. After a remarkably cold potluck meal in which everything had the texture of Jell-O, we would avoid the crowd by making our way upstairs and inevitably digging into the 1974 edition of the Guinness Book of World Records.
“Can you believe this? A guy walked 27 miles while balancing a full milk bottle on his nose!”
“Cluck,” remarked the gentleman to my right.
-JW
My Thanksgiving visit to my parents has left me with no quick Internet access, so don’t expect any links. The same visit, however (picture George Costanza hanging out with parents Frank and Estelle), has brought some holiday memories back into focus, and I’ll get to those later.
It’s a shame when college and NFL coaches make decisions so irrational that we’re forced to post about them, but if our irritation powers this blog (and it does), then we have to take our fuel where we can get it. Saturday afternoon, I watched my virtual wallet shrink (LSU got 4 ½ points at Ole Miss!) as Les Miles deprived his team of a chance to win outright—the outcome I depended upon. Sure, the fact that he tried to spike the ball in less than one second of clock time on the road was ludicrous, but others have already made that point. Also, there’s the obvious curiosity one would have about why he waited so long to call timeout before the 4th-and-forever conversion. There are a few more complaints on this stakeholder’s end, though:
1. You don’t try an onside kick with 6 minutes left in the first half after you just went up 8 thanks to a stadium-deflating 50-yard field goal. Really! When Ole Miss got the ball with incredible field position, the card-carrying Klan members at Vaught-Hemingway were somewhere between confused and uninterested. It wasn’t until the Rebels scored the ensuing touchdown that anyone cheered! Now that’s a deflated crowd.
2. You don’t give your sack-loving, slowest-fit-black-man-alive, ankle-hampered quarterback a chance to take a sack on second down when you’re already in field-goal range. I’m not saying don’t pass, but don’t let him drop back.
3. You don’t follow up the sack with a slow-developing play in the flat.
4. You don’t call the fade when going for two to tie it. I hate the fade when you’re inside the 10! Hate it. And thanks to a penalty the first time, he tried it twice.
5. Finally, I’ve watched an embarrassing amount of football at levels below NCAA Division I. Those teams are completely capable of switching out the offense for the field-goal unit in the time LSU was given. So… you don’t tell the CBS sideline reporter that you didn’t think you had time to do it. Some of us know better.
How’s this for a pro-style blunder? Down by 2 with more than 2 minutes remaining against the best team in the conference, Ravens coach John Harbaugh called a timeout so he could consider whether or not he wanted to challenge what was clearly and absolutely a correct first-down spot for the Colts. He then challenged and, of course, lost a second timeout—his last. When Baltimore got the ball back, Ed Reed turned it over on the punt return, but better clock management (or understanding of the rules) would have given them close to 2 minutes! You don’t call a timeout and then challenge—ever! Have I mentioned that it bothers me that guys who get paid heftily to make intelligent decisions can’t do so late in games?
Now for some Thanksgiving memories. This won’t take long because it was the same every year. My parents, brother, sister, and I would drive down to Ripley, Mississippi (population: our maternal extended family). If we were lucky, we wouldn’t beat the Lions’ kickoff there. We’d see Aunt Sarah (pronounced SAY-ruh ‘round those parts), the lady of the house, in the kitchen preparing the driest turkey you’ve ever had in your life. Then we’d pass a couple dozen people who looked familiar but whose names we couldn’t come up with even if everyone promised to quit walking in front of the TV. My brother and I could typically find ways to identify people. There were the blonde-haired brothers with mullets, the woman with Victorian-style/1970s glasses, the diabetic guy who clucks, the woman who wore the same pair of white Keds and a tacky Christmas sweater every year, the guy with the beard who didn’t like football, the chain-smoking couple with massive noses, the resentful teenage girl, the fat conspiracy theorist, and the guy who was obsessed with the newest television/speaker technology. We were related to every last one of these people, but if they came to my brother’s wedding, he sure didn’t know how they got there. After a remarkably cold potluck meal in which everything had the texture of Jell-O, we would avoid the crowd by making our way upstairs and inevitably digging into the 1974 edition of the Guinness Book of World Records.
“Can you believe this? A guy walked 27 miles while balancing a full milk bottle on his nose!”
“Cluck,” remarked the gentleman to my right.
-JW
Friday, November 20, 2009
Allen Iverson: He Wasn't Quite Good Enough, He's Not Quite Gone
JW,
Now that Allen Iverson has retired (note: signing with the Knicks doesn't count as a comeback), let's take a moment and put his career and inglorious exit in context. I'll start by saying that when future historians tell his story (and I know they will), I hope they include last Saturday's article in The Onion:
Memphis Grizzlies Continue To Insist They Have 5 Players Better Than Allen Iverson.
Has any story, satirical or not, ever captured a situation so perfectly? Take a look at some of its excerpts:
"We're really confident about the decision to put Mike Conley, Zach Randolph, Rudy Gay, O.J. Mayo, and Marc Gasol on the floor instead of Iverson," general manager Chris Wallace said of his starters, who combined have appeared in 10 fewer NBA All-Star games than the former No. 1 draft pick.
"[Marcus Williams has] been coming off the bench and putting up 4.4 points a game. He wowed us when he scored seven the other night."
Funny stuff, right? And yet the fictionalized (sort of) version of Chris Wallace has inadvertently hit upon a key truth. You really are better off playing crappy rookies and young guys, seeing what you've got, and getting a lottery pick than you are winning 41 meaningless games with A.I. and sneaking into the playoffs. Yeah, it's an NBA problem, but it's an Iverson problem, too. He's a ball hog. He's moody and ridiculous. He absolutely could never have won a championship without more help than Kobe had last year. Throw in the fact that his vaguely funny "practice" bit has become one of the all time most annoying pieces of self-referential fluff that ESPN anchors have ever filled air time with and you've got a career that, on balance, has got to be considered a waste.
But that's just me. Where do you rank the guy?
-GM
GM,
While you were writing, ESPN reported that the Knicks have decided not to offer Iverson a contract. GM Donnie Walsh said the decision "has nothing to do with Iverson." I don't see how a decision not to sign a player could have nothing to do with the player. I mean, certainly a 2-9 team would be willing to sign somebody if he were the right fit. The problem is that Allen Iverson isn't the right fit for anyone--not for anyone trying to win a championship, not for anyone trying to build its team into a contender. Not just now, but for his career, he's a remarkably talented athlete whose buckets are more entertaining than just about anyone's. His career field goal percentage of 41 percent is well below league average, as is his listed 6-foot height, which requires that a team's other guard be 6-foot-5 or better. What part of that sounds like a guy who really helps a team?
"He'll never win a championship," I said in 2001 after he won the MVP and took a completely mediocre team to the NBA Finals out of a historically weak Eastern Conference. "Neither will Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, or Stephon Marbury as long as they're the offensive focal points of their teams." It's just impossible to build teams around these guys. The 2004 Olympics showed us that you can't even win a gold medal with Iverson as your offensive leader.
My team committed two of the three worst trades I've seen in my lifetime--trades that smart fans knew were idiotic the moment they happened. In chronological order, they go:
1. Jason Kidd (to Nets) for Stephon Marbury (to Suns)
2. Shawn Marion (to Heat) for Shaq (to Suns)
3. Chauncey Billups (to Nuggets) for Allen Iverson (to Pistons)
Sure, Iverson could probably beat Billups in a one-on-one game, but everyone knew that Billups was one of the best team players in the game while Iverson destroyed team chemistry. The results were even more lopsided than I expected. Billups actually received some MVP talk while making the Nuggets one of the four best teams in the NBA. Iverson ended up on the bench--complaining--for a team that had been a dynasty and all of a sudden became a lame-duck eighth seed. He winds up in Memphis because no one else was dumb enough to sign him, and he starts complaining again. If the Grizzlies can realize it, maybe the whole league can. It's doubtful that he'll never play again, but it's certain he'll never see significant time in another playoff game. Teams finally know better.
-JW
Now that Allen Iverson has retired (note: signing with the Knicks doesn't count as a comeback), let's take a moment and put his career and inglorious exit in context. I'll start by saying that when future historians tell his story (and I know they will), I hope they include last Saturday's article in The Onion:
Memphis Grizzlies Continue To Insist They Have 5 Players Better Than Allen Iverson.
Has any story, satirical or not, ever captured a situation so perfectly? Take a look at some of its excerpts:
"We're really confident about the decision to put Mike Conley, Zach Randolph, Rudy Gay, O.J. Mayo, and Marc Gasol on the floor instead of Iverson," general manager Chris Wallace said of his starters, who combined have appeared in 10 fewer NBA All-Star games than the former No. 1 draft pick.
"[Marcus Williams has] been coming off the bench and putting up 4.4 points a game. He wowed us when he scored seven the other night."
Funny stuff, right? And yet the fictionalized (sort of) version of Chris Wallace has inadvertently hit upon a key truth. You really are better off playing crappy rookies and young guys, seeing what you've got, and getting a lottery pick than you are winning 41 meaningless games with A.I. and sneaking into the playoffs. Yeah, it's an NBA problem, but it's an Iverson problem, too. He's a ball hog. He's moody and ridiculous. He absolutely could never have won a championship without more help than Kobe had last year. Throw in the fact that his vaguely funny "practice" bit has become one of the all time most annoying pieces of self-referential fluff that ESPN anchors have ever filled air time with and you've got a career that, on balance, has got to be considered a waste.
But that's just me. Where do you rank the guy?
-GM
GM,
While you were writing, ESPN reported that the Knicks have decided not to offer Iverson a contract. GM Donnie Walsh said the decision "has nothing to do with Iverson." I don't see how a decision not to sign a player could have nothing to do with the player. I mean, certainly a 2-9 team would be willing to sign somebody if he were the right fit. The problem is that Allen Iverson isn't the right fit for anyone--not for anyone trying to win a championship, not for anyone trying to build its team into a contender. Not just now, but for his career, he's a remarkably talented athlete whose buckets are more entertaining than just about anyone's. His career field goal percentage of 41 percent is well below league average, as is his listed 6-foot height, which requires that a team's other guard be 6-foot-5 or better. What part of that sounds like a guy who really helps a team?
"He'll never win a championship," I said in 2001 after he won the MVP and took a completely mediocre team to the NBA Finals out of a historically weak Eastern Conference. "Neither will Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, or Stephon Marbury as long as they're the offensive focal points of their teams." It's just impossible to build teams around these guys. The 2004 Olympics showed us that you can't even win a gold medal with Iverson as your offensive leader.
My team committed two of the three worst trades I've seen in my lifetime--trades that smart fans knew were idiotic the moment they happened. In chronological order, they go:
1. Jason Kidd (to Nets) for Stephon Marbury (to Suns)
2. Shawn Marion (to Heat) for Shaq (to Suns)
3. Chauncey Billups (to Nuggets) for Allen Iverson (to Pistons)
Sure, Iverson could probably beat Billups in a one-on-one game, but everyone knew that Billups was one of the best team players in the game while Iverson destroyed team chemistry. The results were even more lopsided than I expected. Billups actually received some MVP talk while making the Nuggets one of the four best teams in the NBA. Iverson ended up on the bench--complaining--for a team that had been a dynasty and all of a sudden became a lame-duck eighth seed. He winds up in Memphis because no one else was dumb enough to sign him, and he starts complaining again. If the Grizzlies can realize it, maybe the whole league can. It's doubtful that he'll never play again, but it's certain he'll never see significant time in another playoff game. Teams finally know better.
-JW
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Homelessness: A Smarter Look at the Last Social Cohort We Haven't Yet Insulted
GM,
Walking through the downtown streets yesterday evening, I was approached by two homeless gentlemen, the first of which--an unkempt white man--successfully drained me of my change. This was an unlucky break for the second guy, although I must say he seemed to be in better shape. It was sprinkling, and he had a windbreaker and an umbrella, plus his attitude was about as dynamic as a sorority girl's the night of a themed social. I truthfully told him I was out of cash, to which he replied, "I know how it is, brother." Then his cell phone rang.
I'm no authority on personal finances, but do homeless people really need cell phones. You're a homeowner, GM, and you don't even have a cell phone! And if homeless people are to buy cell phones, shouldn't they turn them on silent while begging? A guy from New York once told me that many of the beggars there aren't even homeless--that they wake up in their downtown lofts, walk to a busy spot, and make $200-300 tax-free dollars a day before returning home. If that's true, perhaps panhandling should be more highly prioritized when making career choices.
I have mixed views on the homeless. There are stories of triumph, stories of gloom, and stories that flat-out prove the theory that it's mostly the result of laziness. I think the proper outlook is this: There will be losers in any capitalist society, but to be a complete loser in this capitalist society, you have to be pretty damn lazy.
Got any stories for me?
-JW
JW,
I keep waiting for the Obama administration to make a policy announcement that goes something like this: "We need to encourage home sales, we don't like homelessness, and we're totally comfortable printing money that's backed up by nothing. From now on, every homeless person in America gets a free house."
But seriously, I love the homeless! From whom else can you hear stories like "My wife was kidnapped and I'm two bucks short of the ransom" (actually heard), "Today's National Homeless Day and the city is matching all contributions" (actually heard), and "I know I look twenty years older than you, but I'm actually your illegitimate child" (okay, I made that one up)? Without homelessness, my already low self-esteem would be totally shot to hell. After all, I often go days at a time without eating garbage, groveling, or being outside. Why shouldn't my obvious superiority make me feel great?
I wonder, by the way, if that wasn't the mindset of the guy featured in your last link--the guy who started out with $25 and the clothes on his back and worked his way toward an apartment and some modest savings. Sure, he had some philosophical questions about the feasability of the American Dream, but he also wanted the ego boost (not to mention the royalties from his inevitable New York Times bestseller). Yeah, he was interested in an adventure, but the real truth is that feigning homelessness was the best-paying job his bachelors-degreed ass could find.
The deeper truth, of course, is that nothing anyone says or does will ever put an end to homelessness, poverty, racism, income inequality, or the tendency of Americans to make meaningless, guilt-induced gestures. As long as that's the case, I don't mind that your cell-phone carrying buddy is making a profit.
Walking through the downtown streets yesterday evening, I was approached by two homeless gentlemen, the first of which--an unkempt white man--successfully drained me of my change. This was an unlucky break for the second guy, although I must say he seemed to be in better shape. It was sprinkling, and he had a windbreaker and an umbrella, plus his attitude was about as dynamic as a sorority girl's the night of a themed social. I truthfully told him I was out of cash, to which he replied, "I know how it is, brother." Then his cell phone rang.
I'm no authority on personal finances, but do homeless people really need cell phones. You're a homeowner, GM, and you don't even have a cell phone! And if homeless people are to buy cell phones, shouldn't they turn them on silent while begging? A guy from New York once told me that many of the beggars there aren't even homeless--that they wake up in their downtown lofts, walk to a busy spot, and make $200-300 tax-free dollars a day before returning home. If that's true, perhaps panhandling should be more highly prioritized when making career choices.
I have mixed views on the homeless. There are stories of triumph, stories of gloom, and stories that flat-out prove the theory that it's mostly the result of laziness. I think the proper outlook is this: There will be losers in any capitalist society, but to be a complete loser in this capitalist society, you have to be pretty damn lazy.
Got any stories for me?
-JW
JW,
I keep waiting for the Obama administration to make a policy announcement that goes something like this: "We need to encourage home sales, we don't like homelessness, and we're totally comfortable printing money that's backed up by nothing. From now on, every homeless person in America gets a free house."
But seriously, I love the homeless! From whom else can you hear stories like "My wife was kidnapped and I'm two bucks short of the ransom" (actually heard), "Today's National Homeless Day and the city is matching all contributions" (actually heard), and "I know I look twenty years older than you, but I'm actually your illegitimate child" (okay, I made that one up)? Without homelessness, my already low self-esteem would be totally shot to hell. After all, I often go days at a time without eating garbage, groveling, or being outside. Why shouldn't my obvious superiority make me feel great?
I wonder, by the way, if that wasn't the mindset of the guy featured in your last link--the guy who started out with $25 and the clothes on his back and worked his way toward an apartment and some modest savings. Sure, he had some philosophical questions about the feasability of the American Dream, but he also wanted the ego boost (not to mention the royalties from his inevitable New York Times bestseller). Yeah, he was interested in an adventure, but the real truth is that feigning homelessness was the best-paying job his bachelors-degreed ass could find.
The deeper truth, of course, is that nothing anyone says or does will ever put an end to homelessness, poverty, racism, income inequality, or the tendency of Americans to make meaningless, guilt-induced gestures. As long as that's the case, I don't mind that your cell-phone carrying buddy is making a profit.
-GM
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Call: An Apology
GM,
I emotionally hedged the Patriots/Colts game last night, and the payout was huge. Huge! After watching my Dolphins try their best to give away a game against the Buccaneers but pull it out in the end, I decided I was willing to pay for a New England loss. I took the Pats +2.5, which is very similar to what I did in the 2007 (2006 season) AFC championship game. And while that historic playoff collapse was perhaps my favorite of all time, it cost me money. Last night's result, a one-point win for Indianapolis, helped my wallet, helped the Dolphins' playoff chances, and gave the media a full week to criticize Bill Belichick's coaching decision. What's funny, though, is that I almost always agree with the evil emperor's 4th-down/clock management; I even agreed with that call--the one to go for it on 4th-and-2 from his own 30 with two minutes left and a six-point lead. I'll admit, though, that his burning of two timeouts prior to that was unjustifiable.
Before we get into that, let's rewind a few hours to the end of the Jets/Jaguars affair. Down a point with just under two minutes to go, Maurice Jones-Drew downed himself at the Jets' 1-yard line when he easily could have scored. First of all, why was it so easy? It was easy because Rex Ryan, who also seems to have a more functional brain than most head coaches, instructed his defense to let the Jags score as quickly as possible. Jones-Drew took the knee (on the advice of RB coach Kennedy Polu if you believe this nonsensical tweet from ESPN's Chris Mortensen) so that his team could kneel the ball three times, exhaust clock and the Jets' timeouts, and kick a game-winning field goal with no time left. It worked perfectly.
ESPN's Tom Jackson was infuriated--with both teams. I'm paraphrasing, but the complaint went something like this: "I wouldn't trust my kicking unit in that situation. When you can score, you score. The Jaguars were behind in the game, and when you're behind, you shouldn't get all cute with your strategy. I'm even more irritated with the Jets for trying to let them score a touchdown. Anything can happen if you play defense."
Well, Tom, welcome to 2009. In fact, welcome to math. Which is more likely: a 20-yard field goal going wrong or a two-minute drill resulting in a touchdown? Both coaches knew that it was the latter, so both coaches played accordingly. In late-game situations, you should never do what your opponents' smart fans want you to do. And of course, if I were a Jets fan, I would have been screaming, "Score now!" at the television.
If I were a Colts fan, I would have been thinking: "Perfect. Punt it to us with two minutes left. We'll start from our own 25, and Peyton will march down the field and score with no time left for Brady." Belichick didn't trust his defense--and with good reason. I still love the fact that all the analysts will kill Belichick for this. Sure, he's the only current NFL coach with three rings and endless job security, and he's the only one who would have made that decision. But if you think Tom Jackson was mad before...
-JW
JW,
You stole my thunder. Yes, Belichick made the right call, and yes, he'll be killed for it. As I've argued before, giving Peyton Manning more than fifteen seconds to gyrate, squeal, and rinky-dink his way down the field is a recipe for disaster, be it eighty yards or eighteen. The fact of the matter is that the Pats weren't winning that game unless they converted the fourth down, and their inability to challenge the play was just bad luck.
What I fail to understand is why New England didn't employ the aforementioned New York Jets strategy after turning the ball over on downs. Look at the play-by-play again. From 1st and 10 at their own 14, the Pats allowed Joseph Addai to run all the way to the one yard line before inexplicably tackling him. On 1st and Goal from the 1, they tackled him again. Let him score on either of those and you've got a chance. Stop him and you've got none. I'm so impressed by Manning at this point (damn him), I can't help wondering if that run from the 1 was mere strategy. It was Joseph Addai, after all, and now that Larry Johnson has retired, no back in the league gives you a better chance at no gain. Short yardage to Wayne is pretty much automatic, so why not intentionally waste a down?
Looking back, I think I'll remember my certainty more than anything. Down two touchdowns with four minutes to play, I knew for a fact that Indianapolis was winning that game. The last time I felt that way about them was during the 2006 season. We should probably be expecting the same result.
-GM
I emotionally hedged the Patriots/Colts game last night, and the payout was huge. Huge! After watching my Dolphins try their best to give away a game against the Buccaneers but pull it out in the end, I decided I was willing to pay for a New England loss. I took the Pats +2.5, which is very similar to what I did in the 2007 (2006 season) AFC championship game. And while that historic playoff collapse was perhaps my favorite of all time, it cost me money. Last night's result, a one-point win for Indianapolis, helped my wallet, helped the Dolphins' playoff chances, and gave the media a full week to criticize Bill Belichick's coaching decision. What's funny, though, is that I almost always agree with the evil emperor's 4th-down/clock management; I even agreed with that call--the one to go for it on 4th-and-2 from his own 30 with two minutes left and a six-point lead. I'll admit, though, that his burning of two timeouts prior to that was unjustifiable.
Before we get into that, let's rewind a few hours to the end of the Jets/Jaguars affair. Down a point with just under two minutes to go, Maurice Jones-Drew downed himself at the Jets' 1-yard line when he easily could have scored. First of all, why was it so easy? It was easy because Rex Ryan, who also seems to have a more functional brain than most head coaches, instructed his defense to let the Jags score as quickly as possible. Jones-Drew took the knee (on the advice of RB coach Kennedy Polu if you believe this nonsensical tweet from ESPN's Chris Mortensen) so that his team could kneel the ball three times, exhaust clock and the Jets' timeouts, and kick a game-winning field goal with no time left. It worked perfectly.
ESPN's Tom Jackson was infuriated--with both teams. I'm paraphrasing, but the complaint went something like this: "I wouldn't trust my kicking unit in that situation. When you can score, you score. The Jaguars were behind in the game, and when you're behind, you shouldn't get all cute with your strategy. I'm even more irritated with the Jets for trying to let them score a touchdown. Anything can happen if you play defense."
Well, Tom, welcome to 2009. In fact, welcome to math. Which is more likely: a 20-yard field goal going wrong or a two-minute drill resulting in a touchdown? Both coaches knew that it was the latter, so both coaches played accordingly. In late-game situations, you should never do what your opponents' smart fans want you to do. And of course, if I were a Jets fan, I would have been screaming, "Score now!" at the television.
If I were a Colts fan, I would have been thinking: "Perfect. Punt it to us with two minutes left. We'll start from our own 25, and Peyton will march down the field and score with no time left for Brady." Belichick didn't trust his defense--and with good reason. I still love the fact that all the analysts will kill Belichick for this. Sure, he's the only current NFL coach with three rings and endless job security, and he's the only one who would have made that decision. But if you think Tom Jackson was mad before...
-JW
JW,
You stole my thunder. Yes, Belichick made the right call, and yes, he'll be killed for it. As I've argued before, giving Peyton Manning more than fifteen seconds to gyrate, squeal, and rinky-dink his way down the field is a recipe for disaster, be it eighty yards or eighteen. The fact of the matter is that the Pats weren't winning that game unless they converted the fourth down, and their inability to challenge the play was just bad luck.
What I fail to understand is why New England didn't employ the aforementioned New York Jets strategy after turning the ball over on downs. Look at the play-by-play again. From 1st and 10 at their own 14, the Pats allowed Joseph Addai to run all the way to the one yard line before inexplicably tackling him. On 1st and Goal from the 1, they tackled him again. Let him score on either of those and you've got a chance. Stop him and you've got none. I'm so impressed by Manning at this point (damn him), I can't help wondering if that run from the 1 was mere strategy. It was Joseph Addai, after all, and now that Larry Johnson has retired, no back in the league gives you a better chance at no gain. Short yardage to Wayne is pretty much automatic, so why not intentionally waste a down?
Looking back, I think I'll remember my certainty more than anything. Down two touchdowns with four minutes to play, I knew for a fact that Indianapolis was winning that game. The last time I felt that way about them was during the 2006 season. We should probably be expecting the same result.
-GM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
