Giant goose-egg

SRAM readers probably think that this entry is going to be a big gloat over Eli's abysmal day yesterday, coming as it did on the heels of our dismantling of the Eli Myth that emerged about halfway through the regular season. But this blog is not about gloating. Nor is it about retribution. We take the high road. While the rest of the world is saying "Me, me me," SRAM says, "Us, us, us". We're all in this together.

So it turns out that Eli stinks. Are we surprised? Do we feel the need to dwell on this? Recount his 4 turnovers yesterday? Remind our readers of the last time a home team got shut out in the playoffs? Not at all.

On the contrary, today I'm (okay, back to "I") here to defend Mr. Eli. The pundits spent the day patting themselves on the back for their magnanimity and big-picture-seeing for not pinning the blame on Eli for the loss. Way to go, guys. But to a man they all missed the real reason for the Giants' goose-egg: the Giants defense.

In my opinion the most underrated statistic in football is number of plays, and that's the stat that tells the story of the Carolina-NYG game. Carolina had more rushing attempts yesterday than the Giants had total offensive plays by a count of 45-31. Throw in passing plays and the final tally stands at a staggering (staggering in the sense that it's unbalanced; you know how you're off balance when you stagger? That's what I'm getting at here) 71-35. And time of possession is even worse: 42:45 - 17:15.

So how is a team supposed to score when they only get 35 plays? How is Tiki Barber supposed to have his normal game when he only gets 13 carries? Sure, the 3 interceptions were killer, but Eli was still 10-18 for 132 yards on the game. A pretty "healthy" yards per attempt, no?

Now, of course it's a two-way street. The Giants had few plays because they couldn't sustain a drive. But offenses will struggle, and when they do, the defense needs to get the ball back to them for another chance, multiple times, so that the offense can get untracked.

Knicks in the playoffs?

Wilbon blew Kornheiser's socks off this afternoon on PTI with his bold prediction that the Knicks would make the playoffs. But a look at the standings reveals that the 10-21 Knicks are a mere 3 games out of the playoffs right now. Not that bold!

What Wilbon omitted to mention was that it's the Eastern Conference's continued pathetic-ness that allowed him to go out on such a supposed limb, as evidenced by the Baby Bulls' 14-19 "playoff-worthy" record. Not that the omission is terribly surprising, of course; after all, Wilbon spent the first week of the NBA season proclaiming the resurgence of the Eastern Conference and the supposed weakness of the West. That's right: the first week of the season. Yes, it's never too early to make sweeping generalizations.

Paterno

Just a word on the idiotic NOW-Paterno story: since when does anybody in the sports world care about what NOW says? But the sports pundits love to comment on it because it makes them feel like real reporters tackling real-life issues.

A little perspective, please

Last night's national championship game between USC and Texas was, indeed, quite possibly the greatest college football game of all time. After all, it featured:

• The undisputed #1 and #2 teams in the country
• An exciting game with lots of offense, a key 4th-down defensive stop, and a touchdown in the last 20 seconds
• Three of the most exciting college players of the decade, each of whom would be the #1 NFL draft pick if they came out in separate years, delivering memorable performances
• Keith Jackson in the broadcast booth

That's right, you take away that last one, and it's just another game.

Anyhoo, you might expect that such an atmosphere would be exceptionally conducive to sportscasters saying stupid things, and naturally you would be right. Here are 3 examples:

#1 - Kirk Herbstreit found himself simply overwhelmed in trying to come up with enough superlatives to describe Vince Young's performance. Here's a rough transcript: "I think Vince Young's performance was the best...anything...done by anybody...on any level...in any sport...in any universe...at any period of time in history...since the Big Bang..."

Look, I'm not trying to be the spoiler here. There's always a competition to be the first to release the backlash. I already said it was a great, great game. But I mean come on, guys; a little perspective here, please. There have been some pretty darned good players and games over the years. You could lend a little more credibility to the statement by prefacing your comments with some historical awareness like, "With all due respect to Red Grange's game against Michigan..."

#2 - Bill Simmons, always the smartest guy in the room, naturally supplied us with the spoiler comments with a running game journal that was primarily concerned with, believe it or not, proving that Tom Brady was the MVP. Okay, maybe that's a stretch. But his insufferable journal was simply obsessed with reminding us over and over that the college game is inferior to the pro game. And why is that? Because he still hasn't forgiven Pete Carroll for his mediocre tenure as coach of the Patriots in the late 90's. And why, you ask, would he not forgive Pistol Pete (to coin a phrase) this when the Pats have won three out of the last four Super Bowls? You got me.

Nevertheless, BS allowed this obsession to completely hijack his journal, a journal which should have been a minute-by-minute account of one highlight after another in quite possibly the greatest college football game ever played but which instead read like the indictment sheet of a serial murderer who has been apprehended at last. Every mistake made by USC was somehow Pete Carroll's fault. Every great play by Texas should have been stopped by USC's defense. (Bill suggested putting a "spy" on Vince Young. Genius! Why didn't I think of that! After all, the famous "spy" defense has successfully shut down every great running quarterback from Steve Young to Michael Vick!)

Let's take the most obvious example: the decision to go for it on 4th and 2. Here's what Bill said:

Anyway, here's the setup: fourth-and-2, 2:11 remaining, USC on Texas' 45 and leading by five, with the logical move being a punt that would force Texas' offense to drive 85-90 yards in 120 seconds with a quarterback who hasn't completed a pass longer than 15 yards all game. The decision rests in the hands of Pete Carroll. For once, he does the logical thing -- goes for the game-ending first down, keeps Reggie Bush and his Heisman Trophy on the sideline, then runs a predictable dive play with LenDale White that falls short because everyone on the planet knew it was coming (including all 11 guys on the Texas defense). Wait, absolutely none of that was logical. Texas ball.

Now, I'm sure that Bill must have been watching that game, because he's got the previous journal entries to prove it. But how is it that he evidently doesn't realize that there are plenty of logical reasons to go for it there? LenDale White had been unstoppable the whole game. So had Vince Young. USC was second-to-last in the country in net punting, and Texas would have had two full minutes and two timeouts to work with had the Trojans punted. Among the post-game pundits who get paid to second-guess, they were unanimous in agreeing with the decision to go for it on fourth down there. (That actually surprised me, but there you go.)

Look, it's just one of those decisions that is defensible either way you go. Punting would have been a perfectly viable option, too. But Bill, writing after the fact, of course, acts like anybody who doesn't punt there must be a complete and total idiot. Therefore, the NFL is superior. Therefore, Tom Brady for president.

In all my years reading Bill Simmons, the guy has never once given any indication that he has the slightest inkling that second-guessing a player or coach with the benefit of hindsight is essentially a classless move. If you're going to do it, you should at least apologize for it. Occasionally. Particularly when you're criticizing a guy who has just won 1.5 national championships and 34 games in a row. But no, he went for it on 4th and 2, so the guy can't coach.

#3 - My last example comes from PTI, and fortunately is more of an example of boneheadedness, in my opinion, rather than evil intent. So we'll end on an up note, right? After all, the PTI guys are plenty entertaining. But man, they sure say some things that leave you scratching your head.

(Hang on--a little diversion, first. I can't let the PTI guys get away with this. In the week before Bush won the Heisman, these guys were saying, "Well, it looks like Bush is going to win it, he has the votes, and sure, he's had a good season, so whatever." Then Bush won the Heisman in a landslide. For the next few weeks: "Bush is awesome! The man is a freak of nature! He's the greatest player of our time! Bush for president!" (Okay, just kidding about that last one. You'll never hear the PTI guys say that.) And then after last night's game, they were all, "Vince Young is incredible! He's the best player in the country! He should have won the Heisman! What were the voters thinking?" See? Bandwagoners. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.)

So today they were talking about the game, and Tony decides to devote an entire segment (about 2 minutes) to the fact that they didn't review on replay the Longhorns' first touchdown, which, it turned out, should have been taken back because Young's knee was on the ground when he pitched it. Now it was Tony's turn to go crazy on the superlatives: "This was a huge play! It was a turning point in the game! You have to get that call right!"

Tony. Breathe deeply and repeat after me: It ... was ... not ... a ... huge ... play. Not that huge! If they review it, UT has the ball, first down on the 10-yard-line. They've already moved the length of the field, and subsequent possessions would reveal a pretty darned effective red-zone offense in terms of getting the 6 points. Yeah, yeah, yeah, they might not have scored a touchdown. I'm not saying it was completely insignificant. But it was not huge. You see.

It reminds me of another pet peeve of mine, which is how all turnovers are considered, well, huge. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some turnovers hurt a lot more than others. For example, a turnover on third down is likely less significant, since the team was about to give up the ball anyway. Especially if it's in "4-down" territory, i.e. between the opponents' 35- and 45-yard-line. It is even less significant if it's an interception of a long pass, and hence the proverbial "as good as a punt." On the other hand, if a turnover occurs on the opponents' 1-yard-line, when you're about to score a touchdown, that is a big turnover. Maybe. It still might not be, since the opposing offense has so little room to maneuver that they may end up punting from their own end zone, resulting in good field position and an eventual touchdown. Your TD was merely delayed. But a fumble on your own 1-yard-line, that is always simply crippling. Just like a blocked punt is always huge--and it doesn't even show up as a turnover on the stat sheet!

The review of Vince Young's knee wouldn't have even resulted in a change in possession, and UT would have had, as I said, first-and-10. Contrast that with two plays that were reviewed later in the game. Both plays had Texas players catching a pass, and then dropping it shortly thereafter. Both plays would have resulted in turnovers (one for Texas, one for USC). Both turnovers would have been large, particularly the second one. The second one would have resulted in undoubtedly a win for USC. And both plays, you could argue, the refs got wrong! I don't think they did, but it sure is debatable. PTI should have expended their breath talking about the importance of those calls, not on Vince Young's knee.

Postscript: Speaking of Vince Young's knee, I will now step out of my usual character and make, apropos of nothing, a bold prediction. First of all, let me preface my prediction with lots of disclaimers:

• Vince Young's performance last night was arguably the greatest of all time in a college football game. (Remember, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Herbstreit, just asking for a little perspective, please.)
• I like Vince Young, personally, a lot better than Matt Leinart. Young is highly likable, while Leinart seems a little full of himself, and not particularly gracious in defeat, either, as he blamed his defense for "missing tackles" and said he still thinks "we're the better team." Yeah, well, Notre Dame thinks they're better than you, too, Leinart.

Despite all that, I think that Leinart will be a better pro quarterback than Young. Leinart really played a fantastic game last night that everyone's forgetting about. Meanwhile, history is littered with examples of people who were fast in college, but not so fast in the pros. Leinart is another Carson Palmer, while Young is another Michael Vick. Who'd you rather have right now? Well, actually, lots of people could still say Vick, and in ten years lots of people might still say Young over Leinart. Much will depend on the situation they land in. But I'd take Leinart over Young.

Tom Brady: Game Manager

Sure enough, as predicted, Bill Simmons is back on his feet and in the tank for his beloved Tom Brady. This time he actually has the audacity to proclaim the man the 2005 NFL MVP:

Here's my criterion for an MVP in any sport: Remove the player in question and replace him with an above-average player. What would the team's record look like?

Under this criterion, you can rule out Shaun Alexander. Replace him with someone like Reuben Droughns and I still think Seattle goes 10-6 or 11-5 with that cream-puff schedule. Besides, if Alexander were truly the most valuable player in football, don't you think Seattle would have re-signed him by now? Do you think the Giants would be going into the offseason with Tiki Barber unsigned? What about K.C. with Larry Johnson? No and no. I can't give someone an MVP whose own team doesn't care whether he's signed. That's ridiculous.

You can rule out Peyton Manning and Edgerrin James, too. Replace them with an above-average QB (let's say Mark Brunell) or an above-average RB (Rudi Johnson) and the Colts are still 10-6 or 11-5 with their defense and all those offensive weapons. As for Barber, I might have voted for him a week ago, and only because that Giants team would have been 6-10 or 7-9 with an above-average running back in his place (let's say Domanick Davis). But after watching them get kicked around by the Skins last week, I don't think they're a championship-caliber team -- it's hard to imagine the Giants having a league MVP when they probably aren't getting out of the first round.

That leaves Tom Brady. If you replaced him with someone like Jake Delhomme or Drew Bledsoe, the Patriots would have been 1-7 after eight games. I'm telling you. He held them together when they were banged-up and ready to roll over. And in a similar situation, sure, maybe Manning would have held the Colts together … but the fact remains, only six teams have a legitimate chance to win the Super Bowl (Indy, New England, Cincy, Denver, Chicago and Seattle) and only one of those six teams is in that position because of one guy and one guy alone. Not only did Brady hold the fort when the injuries kept piling up, he raised his game to another level and pretty much carried them for two straight months. Now that's an MVP.

Now, hang on a second. This is the same Tom Brady that I saw hanging his head on the sidelines after his team was completely demolished in week 9, right? At home? And didn't the team that he lost to have a pretty good QB, too? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Okay, I will admit that Tom Brady is a good QB, and he had a good year. Probably, in fact, his best ever (more on that later on). But MVP? Of the whole league? Let's look at that.

First of all, I agree with the whole "ditch the RBs" sentiment. The Broncos and the Chiefs have already demonstrated that you can by and large plug and play with 'em without significant drop-offs. Occasionally you will see RBs that are truly extraordinary, like Barry Sanders or--dare I jump on this bandwagon?--Ladanian Tomlinson (actually, at one point I was going to write an article on how LT was overrated, too. I mean, the best RB ever and he's 6th in the league in rushing yards? Ah, well). Sean Alexander and Tiki Barber are fine backs, but replaceable.

So how about the QBs? Simmons says that the Pats are 1-7 at the midway point without Brady. With Brady, they were an impressive 4-4. But their schedule was brutal, says Simmons! Well, maybe so, but that's hardly an argument for Brady when he's just losing to those brutal teams. Let's see, how many teams did the Pats beat in the first half that finished with a winning record? One: Pittsburgh. As a matter of fact, the Pats didn't start winning consistently until their defense came around, which is the same story as the last several years.

Now on to the numbers. I know, I know, I'm not supposed to bring up Tom Brady's numbers. Such a thing is blasphemy in the Church of Tom Brady Worshippers. But the year Mr. Brady leads the league in passing efficiency (Ha!) you can be sure that his devotees will be trumpeting that fact. In the meantime...

Okay. Brady did lead the league in passing yards, while 4th in attempts. That's noteworthy, and well done to the man. He had to come out slinging the ball much of the year to make up for his shaky defense. But he only finished 6th in passing efficiency. Sure, passing efficiency is an imperfect metric, but if you're going to make that argument, then make the argument! Why is Brady more valuable than the 5 QBs ahead of him in that statistic? The 5 are these: P. Manning, C. Palmer, Large Benjamin, M. Hasselbeck, and M. Bulger. Okay, we'll throw out Bulger. The other 4 are all pretty worthy of consideration, methinks. Their teams had an average record of just over 12-4. (Let's see here, 12 is better than 10, right? Okay, just checking.)

Now, you can argue until you're blue in the face about who had better talent surrounding him, but just do this instead: throw away the individual names, and remember that Brady was surrounded by the two-time defending Super Bowl champeens. The other guys were not surrounded by the two-time defending Super Bowl champs, and yet still managed to post higher passing efficiency numbers and lead their teams to better records.

The hilarious thing about this whole bit, though, is that BS inadvertently gives up the game a little later on in the article while attempting to criticize someone else:

My favorite dumb announcing phrase of 2005: "Game manager." This started back in the early Tom Brady years (when the analogy made sense) and somehow morphed into a way of saying something nice about a crummy quarterback. As in, "maybe David Garrard can't carry an offense, but he's a game manager -- he'll manage the game for you." In other words, Garrard sucks. It's kind of like when the Indians spent four million on Jason Johnson this week and the GM explained it by saying, "He eats up innings." In other words, he sucks.

Uh-huh, I see. So when people call Tom Brady a "game manager," they're somehow describing some subtle attribute of his that makes him a great quarterback, but when they use that term on someone who is, on the other hand, NOT Tom Brady, they're just nicely saying that he sucks.

Okay, Bill. But here's the thing. The last few years before 2005, Brady has finished in the #8-10 range in QB efficiency. That's remarkably consistent, but not exactly among the elite passers in the game, is it? So what does that make him? A "game manager." Exactly.