Is everyone ready for Media Day? I think I am. I think I actually need to look at some of these Packers players in order to see how ready they are. There isn't a lot of Super Bowl experience on this team or this coaching staff, so I want to see how they will react to the scope of the event. I think that was one of the things that really affected the Steelers in Super Bowl XXX. They were talented, they were ready, they were excited, but the Cowboys were experienced and knew what to expect and knew what to do.
I saw an interview with Aaron Rodgers last week and his eyes were bugged out. He usually has that bugged out look when he's on the field, but at that point he's full of adrenaline and it's expected. When you're doing an interview with Fox, you need to tone it down a notch. If he's this fired up a week before the event, he'll either wear himself out or be too hyped up. I need to look at him tomorrow and look at his team mates and go from there. I'm still undecided on this game.
Looking ahead, I think there are some interesting things in store for the future.
I think Jeremy Kampinos is going to be the punter next season, provided there is a next season. I love Danny Vulva and I think he's great. I think Kampinos is about as good and he doesn't have two dodgy knees. It's nothing personal against Vulva. I love me some Vulva. But, I think his time has passed and I think that he suffers from being an injury-prone player at a position where there is a long line of acceptable substitutes.
Dick LeBeau's contract expires after this season. This season is ending very, very soon. I don't think that the Steelers are in danger of losing him to another team, but I think it's very possible that he retires after this season, especially if the Steelers win. He's been a head coach and he's been a defensive coordinator on other teams, so I don't think he's going to jump ship to coach for another team. He seems to have a real connection with his players and the Steeler organization. I don't think that he leaves for a different and/or better opportunity. He has championship rings and he's in the Hall of Fame. He's accomplished everything that he can accomplish in the league. The only question is whether or not he still feels he has more to do; whether or not he wants to keep going. He's kind of like Dick Hoak in that regard. The Steelers will keep renewing his contract and keep paying him as long as he wants to stay. And that's fine with me.
Maurkice Pouncey's brother Mike is in this year's draft class. He's projected as a first round pick, but he plays guard, which is not a position that many teams invest a first round pick in. He skipped out on the Senior Bowl for reasons that are not entirely clear, which could work against him come draft day. That means he just might be available when the Steelers pick at 31st or 32nd overall. How cool would that be? Two Pounceys -- twins, no less -- on the same team. I like this plan. I'm excited to be a part of it. Maurkice has already established himself on the team and he was voted to the Pro Bowl. Having two twin brothers on the same team -- nonetheless the same offensive line, playing right next to each other -- could be a recipe for disaster. But, it could also be a recipe for awesome. I'm going with the latter, because they've played alongside each other their entire lives and they've been successful.
If the Steelers win, I think Hines Ward and Aaron Smith retire at the least. Possibly also LeBeau. Possibly James Harrison, depending on how the refs call the game.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Super Bowl Thoughts
I don't have a prediction yet. I am still thinking about it. There is still a lot to consider and it's not until next Sunday, so I've got time. You wouldn't know it by how wrong most of them are, but I put a lot of thought into the previews and predictions, so I guess we'll just have to wait.
In the meantime, here are some thoughts...
In the meantime, here are some thoughts...
- The more I think about it, the more upset I am that the Steelers didn't put Aaron Smith on injured reserve when he got hurt. Most of the time, that's a season-ending injury. He tore a muscle last season, too, so more football action and rushing him back certainly couldn't help the situation. I keep thinking that, even if they thought he was going to be available for the first playoff game and could reach the playoffs without him, having him partly healthy for the first playoff game and then completely healthy -- with a risk of him getting hurt again -- for the rest of the playoffs isn't worth that roster spot. If they had put Smith on IR and used that roster spot to sign a special teams guy, the coverage units would have been better this season. That would've helped the team win more games. That would make them a better team, with a more experienced special teams player, heading into the Super Bowl. Now that it looks like he might not play in the Super Bowl and will only be in for 10-15 plays even if he does see action, it's an even bigger waste. I know that no one knew how long this was going to take to heal when he got hurt, but shouldn't the fact that an optimistic timetable for recovery was "January some time" been enough for the Steelers to reserve him and free up that roster spot? I like Smith and I think he is a great player, but I don't think 10-15 plays in a Super Bowl is worth the several games of contribution from a player they could have signed after they reserved him.
- I think one of the biggest edges the Steelers have in this game is coaching. I know that I have a huge man-crush on Tomlin and I tend to over value him, but he's also won three division titles in four years and is coaching in his second Super Bowl in that time, so maybe he's pretty good. I don't think Mike McCarthy is a bad coach. I think he's a very good coach as a matter of fact. He pulled the Packers through an up-and-down season with a ton of injuries and a bunch of tough losses and has them in the Super Bowl. He's an exceptional play caller. But, I just get the sense that he's more of a play caller and a cheerleader and Tomlin is an actual leader. I think he has a cooler head, a plan in mind, and the complete trust of his players. I think he will make the right decisions with the game on the line. I can't say all those things about McCarthy. Given that these are two very similar teams and the talent on both sides is awfully close, an edge like this becomes bigger when the game starts.
- The line hasn't moved. It's still Packers by 2.5. Maybe everyone was holding their money until they got more information. Maybe they were waiting to see what would happen with Pouncey -- now that his ankle is broken, not strained, I'm going to go out on a limb and say he's not playing. Maybe it will move next week. But, if it hasn't moved yet, it's not going to move enough to be a push by the time kickoff happens. It may get down to one point, but I kind of doubt that, too. The more I think about it, the more I think it will move to three or four points by the time the game starts. I think that no one's sure about the Steelers, but they seem confident in the Packers and the fact that they've actually been more consistent this season. They have six losses, but none of them were by more than four points. A break here or a break there and they could've won more games. If Aaron Rodgers doesn't get hurt against Detroit, maybe they win that game and even beat New England the following week.
- That having been said, all of the Steeler fans I've talked to are confident and only moderately worried. I haven't gotten a prediction yet that has the Packers winning. I haven't even heard, "I think it's going to be an ugly game, but I think we find a way to win." Everyone sees a close game, with the Steelers winning by a touchdown or less, but everyone also sees the Steelers winning. Now, obviously I haven't asked any Packers fans for their thoughts because I don't know any Packers fans. They would most likely have different answers and compelling arguments for why their team is going to win. That's one of the reasons that I haven't wrapped my brain around this game just yet. There are too many solid arguments on both sides for either team to win or lose.
- The one thing that I keep thinking about is this: It's entirely possible that Aaron Rodgers could get knocked out of this game. He's had two concussions this season and he's not going to be able to "walk it off" if he gets another one in this game. I'm not saying that anyone on the Steelers should try to hurt him, but I think it's possible that he gets hurt. If that happens, then the Steelers definitely win. I do not fear Matt Flynn (that's Rodgers' back-up in case you didn't know... the only reason I knew is because I had Rodgers on two of my Fantasy teams this season).
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Steelers-Jets Review: Take II
NPR lied to me.
The wife listens to NPR while we're getting ready for work. The morning after the game, the newscaster on NPR was recapping sports action and said, "Big Ben played a great game last night, as the Steelers won the AFC Championship game 24-19 over the New York Jets." Ben Roethlisberger did not have a great game. Rashard Mendenhall had a great game. The defense played exceptionally well in the first half. The offensive line, for the most part, played a great game. Roethlisberger played a crappy game.
Sure, statistics don't tell the whole story and his 33.5 passer rating certainly doesn't, but he played a crappy game. He made plays when he needed to -- most notably the 12.1 yard scramble on third and 12, the rushing touchdown, and the completion to Antonio Brown to seal the game -- but I think he left a lot of plays on the field. He threw two interceptions on 19 attempts. Given the fact that the first interception came on fourth down and didn't really affect field position, that probably can't be pinned on him. I can't say that the Steelers won in spite of him, since he did contribute. But, they certainly did not win because of him and he most definitely did not have a great game.
The Packers scare me and Roethlisberger cannot have a game like this in the Super Bowl if they are going to win.
If the Steelers can play like they did in the second half of the game against the hated Ravens and like they did in the first half of the game against the Jets, then they'll be in good shape against Green Bay. The trouble is, with this team coming out flat (and/or stupid) against the hated Ravens and taking their foot off the gas in the second half against New York, I'm not sure that there's a 60 minute effort in this team.
Well, the real problem is that I still don't know what to make of the 2010 Steelers. As recently as June of last year, I thought they were going to finish 6-10. As training camp and the preseason heated up, I thought they could finish 9-7 or 10-6. After they opened up 3-1, I thought 12-4 was reasonable. But, even when the playoffs started, I feared the Patriots.
This Super Bowl run surprised me. I think that the Steelers are a very good team, most of the time they're a great team, and they have the potential to be dominant. Do I think they're a championship team? I'm really not sure. Monday and Tuesday at work were muted, because I was still coming to terms with the fact that this team is seeking its third title in six years. I spent such a large portion of my youth hoping that the Steelers would even make the Super Bowl, nonetheless win it, that this seems surreal.
It seems really strange to say, but I think I need to process this. I'm happy about the fact that the Steelers are going to their eighth Super Bowl, with a shot to win their seventh, but I think I need to take Media Week to think about what it all means.
Early Super Bowl Thoughts:
The Packers are 2.5 point favorites at the moment and I think they deserve that. The Steelers were favored in Super Bowl XL even though they were the sixth seed in their conference. I think Vegas wants to follow the money and see what happens. This could move to a one point line or a push, with a lot of action on the Steelers. I think that would be interesting.
But, there's a distinct possibility that the crazed Packer fans push the line the other way. These are two huge, passionate fan bases that travel well. The last three Super Bowls -- including Super Bowl XXX, where Steeler fans outnumbered Cowboy fans -- the Steelers essentially had home field advantage. This was particularly true in Super Bowl XL in Detroit, where it looked like there was a 90/10 mix in the crowd. Without a "home field" advantage, the Steelers might not rebound as well if things don't go their way.
My brother texted me to ask if the Steelers should be worried about James Starks, the rookie running back for Green Bay. The Steelers should be worried about Aaron Rodgers and the Packer defense. If LaDanian Tomlinson, Ray Rice, and Shonn Greene didn't get anything going against the Steelers, I would not worry about a rookie undrafted free agent from Buffalo.
Maurkice Pouncey has a high ankle sprain. He seems confident that he will play. This type of injury usually takes 4-6 weeks to heal. As you may recall, Kendrell Bell had a high ankle sprain in 2002 and missed most of the season because he rushed back and re-injured it. He has a twin brother, Mike Pouncey, that was mysteriously missing from the Senior Bowl in Mobile, Alabama earlier this week. I have this weird feeling that Pouncey will miraculously recover and we will later discover that a "Parent Trap" situation unfolded in the Super Bowl, with brother Mike snapping the ball to Roethlisberger.
Well, we have two weeks. Let's brace for all the dynasty talk. Let's think about the fact that Mike McCarthy is from Pittsburgh. Let's consider the fact that Rodgers can make the leap to super stardom with a victory. Let's ponder the history of these two franchises. Let's just think about all that and how Roethlisberger might redeem himself in the eyes of fans with a victory.
Let's get through all that, then think about the game itself. Right now, I'm still processing.
The wife listens to NPR while we're getting ready for work. The morning after the game, the newscaster on NPR was recapping sports action and said, "Big Ben played a great game last night, as the Steelers won the AFC Championship game 24-19 over the New York Jets." Ben Roethlisberger did not have a great game. Rashard Mendenhall had a great game. The defense played exceptionally well in the first half. The offensive line, for the most part, played a great game. Roethlisberger played a crappy game.
Sure, statistics don't tell the whole story and his 33.5 passer rating certainly doesn't, but he played a crappy game. He made plays when he needed to -- most notably the 12.1 yard scramble on third and 12, the rushing touchdown, and the completion to Antonio Brown to seal the game -- but I think he left a lot of plays on the field. He threw two interceptions on 19 attempts. Given the fact that the first interception came on fourth down and didn't really affect field position, that probably can't be pinned on him. I can't say that the Steelers won in spite of him, since he did contribute. But, they certainly did not win because of him and he most definitely did not have a great game.
The Packers scare me and Roethlisberger cannot have a game like this in the Super Bowl if they are going to win.
If the Steelers can play like they did in the second half of the game against the hated Ravens and like they did in the first half of the game against the Jets, then they'll be in good shape against Green Bay. The trouble is, with this team coming out flat (and/or stupid) against the hated Ravens and taking their foot off the gas in the second half against New York, I'm not sure that there's a 60 minute effort in this team.
Well, the real problem is that I still don't know what to make of the 2010 Steelers. As recently as June of last year, I thought they were going to finish 6-10. As training camp and the preseason heated up, I thought they could finish 9-7 or 10-6. After they opened up 3-1, I thought 12-4 was reasonable. But, even when the playoffs started, I feared the Patriots.
This Super Bowl run surprised me. I think that the Steelers are a very good team, most of the time they're a great team, and they have the potential to be dominant. Do I think they're a championship team? I'm really not sure. Monday and Tuesday at work were muted, because I was still coming to terms with the fact that this team is seeking its third title in six years. I spent such a large portion of my youth hoping that the Steelers would even make the Super Bowl, nonetheless win it, that this seems surreal.
It seems really strange to say, but I think I need to process this. I'm happy about the fact that the Steelers are going to their eighth Super Bowl, with a shot to win their seventh, but I think I need to take Media Week to think about what it all means.
Early Super Bowl Thoughts:
The Packers are 2.5 point favorites at the moment and I think they deserve that. The Steelers were favored in Super Bowl XL even though they were the sixth seed in their conference. I think Vegas wants to follow the money and see what happens. This could move to a one point line or a push, with a lot of action on the Steelers. I think that would be interesting.
But, there's a distinct possibility that the crazed Packer fans push the line the other way. These are two huge, passionate fan bases that travel well. The last three Super Bowls -- including Super Bowl XXX, where Steeler fans outnumbered Cowboy fans -- the Steelers essentially had home field advantage. This was particularly true in Super Bowl XL in Detroit, where it looked like there was a 90/10 mix in the crowd. Without a "home field" advantage, the Steelers might not rebound as well if things don't go their way.
My brother texted me to ask if the Steelers should be worried about James Starks, the rookie running back for Green Bay. The Steelers should be worried about Aaron Rodgers and the Packer defense. If LaDanian Tomlinson, Ray Rice, and Shonn Greene didn't get anything going against the Steelers, I would not worry about a rookie undrafted free agent from Buffalo.
Maurkice Pouncey has a high ankle sprain. He seems confident that he will play. This type of injury usually takes 4-6 weeks to heal. As you may recall, Kendrell Bell had a high ankle sprain in 2002 and missed most of the season because he rushed back and re-injured it. He has a twin brother, Mike Pouncey, that was mysteriously missing from the Senior Bowl in Mobile, Alabama earlier this week. I have this weird feeling that Pouncey will miraculously recover and we will later discover that a "Parent Trap" situation unfolded in the Super Bowl, with brother Mike snapping the ball to Roethlisberger.
Well, we have two weeks. Let's brace for all the dynasty talk. Let's think about the fact that Mike McCarthy is from Pittsburgh. Let's consider the fact that Rodgers can make the leap to super stardom with a victory. Let's ponder the history of these two franchises. Let's just think about all that and how Roethlisberger might redeem himself in the eyes of fans with a victory.
Let's get through all that, then think about the game itself. Right now, I'm still processing.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
NFC Championship Game Preview
Let me get this out in the open right off the bat: I hate Jay Cutler's face. He looks like the bastard love child of Billy Zabka and William Atherton. Every time I see him, I want to punch him in the face. Usually, Ray Lewis or Tom Brady need to do something to make me want to punch them in the face. Not Jay Cutler. He just needs to have a face.
I desperately do not want to see his face for the next two weeks, but I still think the Bears are going to win Sunday's NFC Championship game.
I'm aware of the fact that the Packers are favored by 3.5 points to win this game. If you get three points for playing at home, that means Green Bay would be 6.5 point favorites at a neutral site. I have difficulty believing that the Packers are a touchdown better than the Bears and I'm sure they do, too.
On Wednesday, I was convinced that the Bears were going to win this game. Then I started reading a bunch of stuff online about how the Packers were going to win. I started to re-think things. Then I realized that I truly believed Chicago was going to win.
I think that everyone is a little too high on the Packers after they beat a banged up, undercoached Philly team, then trounced an overrated Falcons team. I think they beat two consecutive opponents that were as unbalanced as they were. Those teams just weren't able to strike at the weaknesses of this Green Bay team. The Bears will be able to do that.
I think everyone believes that Aaron Rodgers is far more invincible than he is. He's not going to come close to the 31-for-36 performance that he put up in the Divisional round because the Chicago defense will not let him.
I think that the Packers won't be able to run the ball against a Bears defense that finished second in the league.
I think that Aaron Rodgers will have a tough time against an underrated Chicago pass defense. The Bears basically held Rodgers in check this season and they won't let him take over this game.
I think the Chicago front four is going to take over this game. The Bears run a Cover 2 defense. When the Cover 2 defense is working, the front four either sacks the quarterback or forces him to check down. Rodgers does not want to check down. In the game against Atlanta, he wanted to score on every drive. That kind of drive helps you when you're up 35-14, but it hurts you when you're trying to slowly pick apart a defense that's hitting you on every dropback. Rodgers will want to throw a 105 yard touchdown pass on every play, but the Bears defense will pressure him and take away the big play. In order to beat this defense, he is going to need to slowly, methodically pick them apart like Peyton Manning did in Super Bowl XLI. I don't think he has that patience. He's going to flinch before this defense does and that is going to work in Chicago's favor.
On the offensive side for the Bears, the Packers have a great defense. I think the Bears can wear them down in the running game and that Jay Cutler will not make the critical mistake. I think that Mike Martz is finally on the same page with Cutler and has managed to eliminate his weaknesses (bad decisions, poor throws) and maximize his strengths (great arm, good vision). Martz will set Cutler up to succeed and do his best to insure that Cutler will not fail.
Chicago won the last meeting between these teams at Soldier Field and they hung in there when they had nothing to play for -- Lovie Smith kept his starters in -- and Green Bay barely won 10-3 when they had everything to play for.
Basically, this game is a wash. It should come down to coaching, luck, and special teams.
In terms of coaching, the odds are even. Mike McCarthy is hardly a master, but neither is Smith.
When it comes to luck, the Bears should have lost their Week 1 game against Detroit, which would have changed their whole season. They should have had to play the Eagles or the Saints in the Divisional round, which would have changed things, but they played the Seahawks. They haven't had a lot of injuries, which have plagued the Packers.
They have a HUGE edge in special teams, having won the first game in this series on a return touchdown.
Offense and defense are a wash, but they hold a two to one edge in intangibles. Add in that this game will be played in Chicago, the fans will be fired up, and the players will know the playing surface (which should be slick) and it makes sense that the Bears should win.
Prediction:
Bears 23, Packers 20
I desperately do not want to see his face for the next two weeks, but I still think the Bears are going to win Sunday's NFC Championship game.
I'm aware of the fact that the Packers are favored by 3.5 points to win this game. If you get three points for playing at home, that means Green Bay would be 6.5 point favorites at a neutral site. I have difficulty believing that the Packers are a touchdown better than the Bears and I'm sure they do, too.
On Wednesday, I was convinced that the Bears were going to win this game. Then I started reading a bunch of stuff online about how the Packers were going to win. I started to re-think things. Then I realized that I truly believed Chicago was going to win.
I think that everyone is a little too high on the Packers after they beat a banged up, undercoached Philly team, then trounced an overrated Falcons team. I think they beat two consecutive opponents that were as unbalanced as they were. Those teams just weren't able to strike at the weaknesses of this Green Bay team. The Bears will be able to do that.
I think everyone believes that Aaron Rodgers is far more invincible than he is. He's not going to come close to the 31-for-36 performance that he put up in the Divisional round because the Chicago defense will not let him.
I think that the Packers won't be able to run the ball against a Bears defense that finished second in the league.
I think that Aaron Rodgers will have a tough time against an underrated Chicago pass defense. The Bears basically held Rodgers in check this season and they won't let him take over this game.
I think the Chicago front four is going to take over this game. The Bears run a Cover 2 defense. When the Cover 2 defense is working, the front four either sacks the quarterback or forces him to check down. Rodgers does not want to check down. In the game against Atlanta, he wanted to score on every drive. That kind of drive helps you when you're up 35-14, but it hurts you when you're trying to slowly pick apart a defense that's hitting you on every dropback. Rodgers will want to throw a 105 yard touchdown pass on every play, but the Bears defense will pressure him and take away the big play. In order to beat this defense, he is going to need to slowly, methodically pick them apart like Peyton Manning did in Super Bowl XLI. I don't think he has that patience. He's going to flinch before this defense does and that is going to work in Chicago's favor.
On the offensive side for the Bears, the Packers have a great defense. I think the Bears can wear them down in the running game and that Jay Cutler will not make the critical mistake. I think that Mike Martz is finally on the same page with Cutler and has managed to eliminate his weaknesses (bad decisions, poor throws) and maximize his strengths (great arm, good vision). Martz will set Cutler up to succeed and do his best to insure that Cutler will not fail.
Chicago won the last meeting between these teams at Soldier Field and they hung in there when they had nothing to play for -- Lovie Smith kept his starters in -- and Green Bay barely won 10-3 when they had everything to play for.
Basically, this game is a wash. It should come down to coaching, luck, and special teams.
In terms of coaching, the odds are even. Mike McCarthy is hardly a master, but neither is Smith.
When it comes to luck, the Bears should have lost their Week 1 game against Detroit, which would have changed their whole season. They should have had to play the Eagles or the Saints in the Divisional round, which would have changed things, but they played the Seahawks. They haven't had a lot of injuries, which have plagued the Packers.
They have a HUGE edge in special teams, having won the first game in this series on a return touchdown.
Offense and defense are a wash, but they hold a two to one edge in intangibles. Add in that this game will be played in Chicago, the fans will be fired up, and the players will know the playing surface (which should be slick) and it makes sense that the Bears should win.
Prediction:
Bears 23, Packers 20
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Steelers-Jets Preview: Take II
This may seem at first like it's a reboot of the Steelers-Hated Ravens preview from last week, but bear with me.
I am aware of the fact that the Jets are a great team and they have a number of talented players. They have a savvy, confident coaching staff and they beat two of the best quarterbacks in the league -- if not the best quarterbacks in the league -- in back-to-back weeks in Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. They're productive on offense and stingy on defense.
They also beat the Steelers in Week 15.
I am aware of all of these things, but I still feel as though the Steelers will win on Sunday and advance to Super Bowl XLV. I am confident of this, but I am not as confident of this as I was that the Steelers were going to beat the hated Ravens in the Divisional Round. The weird thing is that I'm less confident in the outcome, but I have more reasons why the Steelers will win this time around.
It's complicated, so allow me to explain...
It's All About Match-ups:
The Jets matched up well against the Patriots and Colts because they have such great quarterbacks. In the case of both teams, the offense was better than the defense. In the case of both teams, the success (or failure) of the offense was intrinsically linked to the success (or failure) of those two quarterbacks. Kill the head and the body will die.
Manning and Brady are so good that they make the players around them better. If the Patriots had beat the Jets -- and I'm glad they didn't -- then one of the main points I was going to make was that the sum of the parts for the Patriots is greater than the whole. They work well together as an offense, especially in the passing game, even though they don't have a great deal of talent at the individual level. If the Steelers were able to isolate on individuals and win those match-ups while simultaneously getting to Brady and making him worse, they could shut down the New England offense. That's what the Jets did in the Divisional Round.
I don't think they can do that to the Steelers on Sunday because the Steelers have too many talented players in the passing game. If the Jets use their talent to win individual match-ups and take away Mike Wallace and Hines Ward, there's still Heath Miller. Miller missed the last game with a concussion -- which I think was a bigger deal than the Polamalu injury in that game -- and the Jets were allowed to focus on shutting down Wallace, Ward, and Emmanuel Sanders, forcing Matt Spaeth to try and beat them. Matt Spaeth sucks something awful, so he was not able to accomplish this.
Take away Ward, Wallace, and Miller and Sanders and possibly Antonio Brown can still beat you. They can still beat the Jets. Even if New York wins a high percentage of the individual match-ups in coverage -- which they're used to doing with great players like Revis and Cromartie at cornerback -- the Steelers passing game can still be successful. That was not the case in the Colts game, the Patriots game, or the first game between these two teams.
We Already Took Their Best Shot:
As some highly-intelligent, very pedantic blogger already pointed out, the Jets pulled out all the stops in the Week 15 meeting, while the Steelers showcased a very vanilla game plan.
As much as most football players would have you believe that they don't care what's said in the media and what people outside the locker room think, I think the Jets really care. The psychology of the team is based in part around head coach Rex Ryan. Ryan grew up as the son of Buddy Ryan, a notoriously meticulous and critical coach, so one would have to assume he brought a little of that home. That means that young Rex spent his formative years seeking approval and admiration and that has carried over into who he is today. That has influenced how his player approach games and situations.
The Jets came into Heinz Field in Week 15 having just been blown out by the Patriots and losing at home to the 7-9 Dolphins. People were starting to doubt that they were a good team. The best way for them to prove that they were a good team was to go on the road and beat a good team, which is exactly what they did. They reached deep into their bag of tricks and I don't know how many more they have left.
In addition, the Jets scored nine points on a safety and a kickoff return for a touchdown. I'm not discounting those points. The Jets scored them fair and square. I'm just saying that I don't see them getting a safety and a special teams touchdown on Sunday. They pulled out all the stops, Troy and Heath were injured, and they still needed a safety and a special teams touchdown to win the last game.
After all the crazy stuff that happened against the hated Ravens, anything is possible. I just don't think it's likely.
Psychology of a Quarterback:
New York was able to break Manning and Brady down by hitting them, sacking them, and pressuring them. Ben Roethlisberger doesn't seem to wear down or get rattled by contact. He had a great game against the hated Ravens despite being sacked six times. Now, he could always do something stupid, but the timing and consequences of those dumb decisions cannot be predicted.
Mark Sanchez is a great, young quarterback, but he's still a young quarterback. He will get better and he will have more shots at the postseason, but I don't think he's ready yet. Sanchez made it to the AFC Championship game last year, but his experience tells him that all he knows how to do is lose the AFC Championship game. Roethlisberger knows what's at stake and he knows what he needs to do to win this game. This isn't to say that trends can't shift or change, but I don't think they shift or change on Sunday.
But, There's Always Santonio:
Santonio Holmes seems to do his best work in the playoffs. He has an ax to grind with the Steelers because they randomly traded him in the offseason. He's one game away from the Super Bowl. Ike Taylor said that he wanted to knock Holmes out of the game.
Santonio has plenty of motivation, so here's hoping that he doesn't fully channel that and end up taking over the game instead of getting knocked out of it.
Overall, I think this game is going to be a higher scoring affair than most are predicting. I think the defenses will set the offenses up with field position and turnovers. I don't think it will be quite the scoring fest that Steelers-Hated Ravens was last week, but I think it will be comparable.
I also think the Steelers win by a touchdown, but it will be a close, hard-fought game throughout.
In other words, take the Steelers and the Over (38.5).
Prediction:
Steelers 27, Jets 20
I am aware of the fact that the Jets are a great team and they have a number of talented players. They have a savvy, confident coaching staff and they beat two of the best quarterbacks in the league -- if not the best quarterbacks in the league -- in back-to-back weeks in Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. They're productive on offense and stingy on defense.
They also beat the Steelers in Week 15.
I am aware of all of these things, but I still feel as though the Steelers will win on Sunday and advance to Super Bowl XLV. I am confident of this, but I am not as confident of this as I was that the Steelers were going to beat the hated Ravens in the Divisional Round. The weird thing is that I'm less confident in the outcome, but I have more reasons why the Steelers will win this time around.
It's complicated, so allow me to explain...
It's All About Match-ups:
The Jets matched up well against the Patriots and Colts because they have such great quarterbacks. In the case of both teams, the offense was better than the defense. In the case of both teams, the success (or failure) of the offense was intrinsically linked to the success (or failure) of those two quarterbacks. Kill the head and the body will die.
Manning and Brady are so good that they make the players around them better. If the Patriots had beat the Jets -- and I'm glad they didn't -- then one of the main points I was going to make was that the sum of the parts for the Patriots is greater than the whole. They work well together as an offense, especially in the passing game, even though they don't have a great deal of talent at the individual level. If the Steelers were able to isolate on individuals and win those match-ups while simultaneously getting to Brady and making him worse, they could shut down the New England offense. That's what the Jets did in the Divisional Round.
I don't think they can do that to the Steelers on Sunday because the Steelers have too many talented players in the passing game. If the Jets use their talent to win individual match-ups and take away Mike Wallace and Hines Ward, there's still Heath Miller. Miller missed the last game with a concussion -- which I think was a bigger deal than the Polamalu injury in that game -- and the Jets were allowed to focus on shutting down Wallace, Ward, and Emmanuel Sanders, forcing Matt Spaeth to try and beat them. Matt Spaeth sucks something awful, so he was not able to accomplish this.
Take away Ward, Wallace, and Miller and Sanders and possibly Antonio Brown can still beat you. They can still beat the Jets. Even if New York wins a high percentage of the individual match-ups in coverage -- which they're used to doing with great players like Revis and Cromartie at cornerback -- the Steelers passing game can still be successful. That was not the case in the Colts game, the Patriots game, or the first game between these two teams.
We Already Took Their Best Shot:
As some highly-intelligent, very pedantic blogger already pointed out, the Jets pulled out all the stops in the Week 15 meeting, while the Steelers showcased a very vanilla game plan.
As much as most football players would have you believe that they don't care what's said in the media and what people outside the locker room think, I think the Jets really care. The psychology of the team is based in part around head coach Rex Ryan. Ryan grew up as the son of Buddy Ryan, a notoriously meticulous and critical coach, so one would have to assume he brought a little of that home. That means that young Rex spent his formative years seeking approval and admiration and that has carried over into who he is today. That has influenced how his player approach games and situations.
The Jets came into Heinz Field in Week 15 having just been blown out by the Patriots and losing at home to the 7-9 Dolphins. People were starting to doubt that they were a good team. The best way for them to prove that they were a good team was to go on the road and beat a good team, which is exactly what they did. They reached deep into their bag of tricks and I don't know how many more they have left.
In addition, the Jets scored nine points on a safety and a kickoff return for a touchdown. I'm not discounting those points. The Jets scored them fair and square. I'm just saying that I don't see them getting a safety and a special teams touchdown on Sunday. They pulled out all the stops, Troy and Heath were injured, and they still needed a safety and a special teams touchdown to win the last game.
After all the crazy stuff that happened against the hated Ravens, anything is possible. I just don't think it's likely.
Psychology of a Quarterback:
New York was able to break Manning and Brady down by hitting them, sacking them, and pressuring them. Ben Roethlisberger doesn't seem to wear down or get rattled by contact. He had a great game against the hated Ravens despite being sacked six times. Now, he could always do something stupid, but the timing and consequences of those dumb decisions cannot be predicted.
Mark Sanchez is a great, young quarterback, but he's still a young quarterback. He will get better and he will have more shots at the postseason, but I don't think he's ready yet. Sanchez made it to the AFC Championship game last year, but his experience tells him that all he knows how to do is lose the AFC Championship game. Roethlisberger knows what's at stake and he knows what he needs to do to win this game. This isn't to say that trends can't shift or change, but I don't think they shift or change on Sunday.
But, There's Always Santonio:
Santonio Holmes seems to do his best work in the playoffs. He has an ax to grind with the Steelers because they randomly traded him in the offseason. He's one game away from the Super Bowl. Ike Taylor said that he wanted to knock Holmes out of the game.
Santonio has plenty of motivation, so here's hoping that he doesn't fully channel that and end up taking over the game instead of getting knocked out of it.
Overall, I think this game is going to be a higher scoring affair than most are predicting. I think the defenses will set the offenses up with field position and turnovers. I don't think it will be quite the scoring fest that Steelers-Hated Ravens was last week, but I think it will be comparable.
I also think the Steelers win by a touchdown, but it will be a close, hard-fought game throughout.
In other words, take the Steelers and the Over (38.5).
Prediction:
Steelers 27, Jets 20
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Steelers-Hated Ravens Review Take III
That was a tremendous game. The first half sucked something awful, then the second half was full of win. The Steelers won and advance, the hated Ravens lost and don't advance.
I know that I mentioned I wasn't nervous about this game, but that ended up being untrue. I didn't lie, mind you, I just said something that ended up being untrue. I was fine up until kickoff. Then I started getting nervous. The big kickoff return to open up the game -- even if it got called slightly back -- didn't help.
It was a roller coaster ride from there. When you add in the fact that I had a show that night that started at eight, well that didn't help. The show was scheduled to start at eight and I got there for call right about when Ray Rice fumbled and the game started to turn around. The game didn't end until 7:58 p.m., but luckily there were televisions in the lobby that had the game on. No one moved from the lobby to go take their seats and all the actors (and the director) were hanging out there and cheering until TJ Houshmanzedah dropped the fourth down pass to end it. At 7:58, we all got up and headed into the theater. It was a really cool experience, but I hope to God I never have another show on a night when the Steelers play.
It was a great game and was very enjoyable to watch, but... I don't think we learned anything.
We learned:
We also learned a thing or two about Antonio Brown and Emmanuel Sanders. I have been a big advocate of those guys all season -- more Sanders than Brown, especially because Brown has made some questionable decisions on kick returns -- and I think they're going to play a big role against New York.
After the game, Weidman e-mailed me and said: "Are we supposed to be happy that the team that beat the team we couldn't beat won? Because that scares me." A home game is better than a road game and our record in the AFC Championship game is pretty good the last decade when we haven't had to play the Patriots. I think the Jets are a fantastic team, but it's always better to play at home. Especially since Cowher is no longer coach.
I know that I mentioned I wasn't nervous about this game, but that ended up being untrue. I didn't lie, mind you, I just said something that ended up being untrue. I was fine up until kickoff. Then I started getting nervous. The big kickoff return to open up the game -- even if it got called slightly back -- didn't help.
It was a roller coaster ride from there. When you add in the fact that I had a show that night that started at eight, well that didn't help. The show was scheduled to start at eight and I got there for call right about when Ray Rice fumbled and the game started to turn around. The game didn't end until 7:58 p.m., but luckily there were televisions in the lobby that had the game on. No one moved from the lobby to go take their seats and all the actors (and the director) were hanging out there and cheering until TJ Houshmanzedah dropped the fourth down pass to end it. At 7:58, we all got up and headed into the theater. It was a really cool experience, but I hope to God I never have another show on a night when the Steelers play.
It was a great game and was very enjoyable to watch, but... I don't think we learned anything.
We learned:
- PLAY TO THE WHISTLE. But, we knew that. That will be fixed this week.
- Committing turnovers is bad. Knew that, too.
- Forcing turnovers is good! Knew that.
- The Steelers can come back from being down two touchdowns to a great defense if they get enough breaks. Well, after watching Baltimore honk away leads to the Steelers, Patriots, Falcons, Saints, and Texans this season, we all should have known, especially the hated Ravens.
We also learned a thing or two about Antonio Brown and Emmanuel Sanders. I have been a big advocate of those guys all season -- more Sanders than Brown, especially because Brown has made some questionable decisions on kick returns -- and I think they're going to play a big role against New York.
After the game, Weidman e-mailed me and said: "Are we supposed to be happy that the team that beat the team we couldn't beat won? Because that scares me." A home game is better than a road game and our record in the AFC Championship game is pretty good the last decade when we haven't had to play the Patriots. I think the Jets are a fantastic team, but it's always better to play at home. Especially since Cowher is no longer coach.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Steelers Hate Reaction
This week, I read this post on Kissing Suzy Kolber. At first, I read it out of context, since I didn't know the point of the article. KSK runs this feature every year. Anyone associated with the site that supports a team that is out of the playoff hunt gets a chance to hate on a team that's still in it.
At first, I read it and was very angry. Once I realized the point of the post -- it's for entertainment purposes and KSK should never be confused with a reputable news source that is running editorial commentary -- I was mostly not angry.
The trouble is that, both before I had a context for the post and after, I thought the poster actually had some good points.
Steeler fans are pretty insufferable. They're everywhere, they're arrogant, and they link entirely too much of their self-worth to the success of their team. I'm not trying to distance myself from this. I'm just as guilty as anyone. I wore my Roethlisberger jersey to Seattle a month after Super Bowl XL -- which the Steelers won, by the way -- and that was a douchey thing to do. I also mention the Super Bowls that the Steelers won every time I mention the game itself. It's now kind of a running joke, but it really did start out as an arrogant, "hey, look what my team did!" thing.
The problem with Steeler fans is that it's very difficult to determine whether or not they're fair weather fans. The team has been very successful for the better part of the last four decades and doesn't seem to be slowing down for the 2010s. And, ultimately, I'm not sure that being a fair weather fan is that bad of a thing.
I'm not sure that it's some kind of unforgivable sin to follow your team and cheer them on, taking pride in their accomplishments when they're doing well, but mostly leaving them alone, possibly being dismissive towards them, when they're doing poorly. Players on a sports team are part of a disembodied franchise that sees you, the fan, as an entity that buys tickets and merchandise and converts beer into urine. Players may thank the fans for their support, but that's similar to James Cameron thanking all the fans for seeing Titanic. The revenue they generated by going to his movie validated his project and made future projects possible, but he's not happy for the fans that he won an Oscar. He's happy for himself. He's not proud of the fans for seeing the movie, he's proud of himself for making it and winning awards.
That's where the dynamic becomes a little weird and one-sided. Fans are expected to support their teams and feel pride in the accomplishments of those teams, but they're fair weather fans if they don't turn out to see a bad product. Nic Cage won an Oscar, too, but I'm ashamed that I paid money to see Bangkok Dangerous. As a consumer, I have a right to decide where I spend my money. If I choose to not see another Nic Cage movie -- as many have done -- then I'm simply exercising my right as a consumer to not be subjected to another terrible movie where Cage has unfortunate hair. I'm not being a "fair weather" Nic Cage fan, I'm making a choice as a consumer.
As a Pirates fan, I continue to watch games and go to games because I love the game of baseball. I can't give it up. My brother made a choice to start rooting for the Phillies when he moved to Philadelphia and I can't fault him for that. The Pirates organization has been at least as toxic over the past 18 years as Cage's recent choices in scripts. I accept, going into the season, that the Pirates are not going to be good and that I will witness mostly losses when I go to PNC Park to watch a game. At this point, that is the contract that I have entered into with the sports team that I root for.
So, all of this brings me to one of the things that upset me about the article: The idea -- not the fact that it was brought up in an article meant mostly for entertainment -- but the concept that the infectious nature of Steeler fandom is some kind of virus that has ravaged most of the sovereign 50 states of the American union. The notion that the steel industry collapsed and spread Steeler fans across the country in search of gainful employment led directly to the establishment of the plague known as "Steeler Nation" is absurd.
I lived in Northern California from when I was nine to when I was 16. If there was a time for me to pick a side, this was it. I was from Pittsburgh and had family in Pittsburgh, but my parents never forced me to be a Steeler fan (or Penguins fan or Pirates fan), that was a choice that I made on my own. During that period -- 1989 through 1994 -- the 49ers won two Super Bowls (they won another following the 1994 season), the A's won a World Series and appeared in three straight, the Giants were competitive and signed former Pirate Barry Bonds, and the Raiders were at least respectable. If any of those teams had a fan base -- remember this was a local fan base, as I was 3,000 miles from Pittsburgh -- that was as passionate and dedicated as the Pittsburgh teams I was rooting for, I would have switched so that I could fit in and enjoy the excitement.
I didn't. This isn't meant to damn the fan base of any of those teams. I know a number of fans of all of those teams and they are loyal, passionate fans. I just have not experienced anything that equals the level of passion and intensity that I see in Steeler fans.
To extend the Pittsburgh example, the Pirates won two World Series in the 70s, but there isn't a "Pirates Nation". The Penguins won back-to-back Stanley Cups in the 90s and experienced continued success in the Lemieux Era, resurrecting themselves after the lockout to win another Stanley Cup in 2009, but there is no "Penguins Nation".
I have converted at least two casual fans -- or fans with no alliance -- into diehard Steeler fans because of my enthusiasm and love for the team. In order to understand the draw of Steeler Nation, you need to experience it, which this poster obviously hasn't. And neither has any other "hater" that sees the spread of Steeler support as a plague or virus.
The fact that there's at least one Steeler bar in most major cities is not a vast conspiracy or case of mass lunacy. I would have to assume that the people that own those bars are local entrepreneurs that saw an opportunity. Buy Sunday Ticket, advertise that you have the Steeler game on, and make lots of money from drunken yinzers rooting on their team.
I've gotten a lot more pragmatic and distant as a fan through the past three or four years, but Steeler Nation still strikes me as something magical and unexplainable. As a plug, Pittsburgh writer Jim Wexell attempts to explain the phenomenon in his book Steeler Nation. He does a great job and tells some vivid stories, but it's something that's hard to capture or quantify.
The other thing that upset me about the post -- I honestly thought this was going to be a quick blog to throw out, but the post really got me thinking -- was the portrayal of Pittsburgh as a gray, dark, bankrupt city.
I'll readily admit that the weather in Pittsburgh sucks. It is gray and dark for most of the winter and it's generally too hot and definitely too humid in the summer. Most of the non-muggy sunny days we get throughout the course of the year -- about 15 of them -- are in the spring and fall, where the weather truly is... well, at least good and sometimes amazing. It's usually in the 70s or 80s with low humidity and the evenings are generally cool, but not cold.
But, I also don't want the weather in California, where there are no seasons and it gets too cold at night. I don't want the weather in the Southwest, where it's too damn hot and there are flash floods. I don't want the weather in the Southeast, where it's too hot, too muggy, and you have to worry about hurricanes. I will say, though, that the weather in Hawaii seems about perfect. I also have never seen bad weather in San Diego.
As a city, Pittsburgh has recovered quite nicely from the steel crash of the 70s -- though most of the damage was done in the 80s and was not as a result of cheap, foreign steel, but again we'll let the poster slide because it's not like it was posted on CNN.com -- and now has a thriving economy. It really can't be called a "blue collar" town at this point, since most of its jobs are in technology, health care, and education.
In 2010, Pittsburgh was listed among the most livable cities, the best cities to live in during the recession, and the best housing markets after the crash. The unemployment rate is better than the national average and, compared to other major cities, Pittsburgh is not too much in debt.
Anyone that sees Pittsburgh as a gray, old, blue collar town has not been there in the last 20 years. The city has revitalized itself, which is one of the reasons that it hosted the G20 Summit in 2009.
And... uh.... one other item:
they complain about Seahawks fans complaining about Super Bowl XL (more than Seahawks fans actually complain about Super Bowl XL)
This person has obviously never worn a Steeler hat in the Seattle Metropolitan area.
I have to agree, though, that Steeler fans are numerous, mostly arrogant, and mostly douchey.
I have posted -- at length -- about the skeletons in the Rooneys' closet. I am really not sure why Steelers ownership is still held in such high regard following the exposure of most, if not all, of those skeletons.
I also agree that Bill Cowher, Terry Bradshaw, and Jerome Bettis are all mostly terrible, mostly annoying announcers/analysts. But, I'd like to point out that those are the three guys that are currently on TV from nearly five decades of consistently successful football, including six championships and numerous conference championship appearances.
To appeal to a broad audience, you need recognizable talent. That talent usually comes from popular teams or at least teams that have won a lot of games/championships. In an attempt to appeal to that broad audience, the three Super Bowl championships the Cowboys won in the 90s have wrought Jimmy Johnson, Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin, and Moose Johnston. We have also been exposed to: Tiki Barber and Michael Strahan (one ring combined) and Brian Billick/Tony Siragusa (one championship), as well as Steve Tasker (no rings, special teams player).
In order to stop this, we need to keep any player from winning any championship ever. I have a feeling that isn't going to happen.
Also, I would like to apologize to Kordell Stewart on behalf of all Steeler fans. We treated you badly and threw beer at you and made you cry. We also made jokes about you performing sexual favors for Bill Cowher in Schenley Park. That was wrong. We are sorry. You weren't a great quarterback, but that's no excuse.
At first, I read it and was very angry. Once I realized the point of the post -- it's for entertainment purposes and KSK should never be confused with a reputable news source that is running editorial commentary -- I was mostly not angry.
The trouble is that, both before I had a context for the post and after, I thought the poster actually had some good points.
Steeler fans are pretty insufferable. They're everywhere, they're arrogant, and they link entirely too much of their self-worth to the success of their team. I'm not trying to distance myself from this. I'm just as guilty as anyone. I wore my Roethlisberger jersey to Seattle a month after Super Bowl XL -- which the Steelers won, by the way -- and that was a douchey thing to do. I also mention the Super Bowls that the Steelers won every time I mention the game itself. It's now kind of a running joke, but it really did start out as an arrogant, "hey, look what my team did!" thing.
The problem with Steeler fans is that it's very difficult to determine whether or not they're fair weather fans. The team has been very successful for the better part of the last four decades and doesn't seem to be slowing down for the 2010s. And, ultimately, I'm not sure that being a fair weather fan is that bad of a thing.
I'm not sure that it's some kind of unforgivable sin to follow your team and cheer them on, taking pride in their accomplishments when they're doing well, but mostly leaving them alone, possibly being dismissive towards them, when they're doing poorly. Players on a sports team are part of a disembodied franchise that sees you, the fan, as an entity that buys tickets and merchandise and converts beer into urine. Players may thank the fans for their support, but that's similar to James Cameron thanking all the fans for seeing Titanic. The revenue they generated by going to his movie validated his project and made future projects possible, but he's not happy for the fans that he won an Oscar. He's happy for himself. He's not proud of the fans for seeing the movie, he's proud of himself for making it and winning awards.
That's where the dynamic becomes a little weird and one-sided. Fans are expected to support their teams and feel pride in the accomplishments of those teams, but they're fair weather fans if they don't turn out to see a bad product. Nic Cage won an Oscar, too, but I'm ashamed that I paid money to see Bangkok Dangerous. As a consumer, I have a right to decide where I spend my money. If I choose to not see another Nic Cage movie -- as many have done -- then I'm simply exercising my right as a consumer to not be subjected to another terrible movie where Cage has unfortunate hair. I'm not being a "fair weather" Nic Cage fan, I'm making a choice as a consumer.
As a Pirates fan, I continue to watch games and go to games because I love the game of baseball. I can't give it up. My brother made a choice to start rooting for the Phillies when he moved to Philadelphia and I can't fault him for that. The Pirates organization has been at least as toxic over the past 18 years as Cage's recent choices in scripts. I accept, going into the season, that the Pirates are not going to be good and that I will witness mostly losses when I go to PNC Park to watch a game. At this point, that is the contract that I have entered into with the sports team that I root for.
So, all of this brings me to one of the things that upset me about the article: The idea -- not the fact that it was brought up in an article meant mostly for entertainment -- but the concept that the infectious nature of Steeler fandom is some kind of virus that has ravaged most of the sovereign 50 states of the American union. The notion that the steel industry collapsed and spread Steeler fans across the country in search of gainful employment led directly to the establishment of the plague known as "Steeler Nation" is absurd.
I lived in Northern California from when I was nine to when I was 16. If there was a time for me to pick a side, this was it. I was from Pittsburgh and had family in Pittsburgh, but my parents never forced me to be a Steeler fan (or Penguins fan or Pirates fan), that was a choice that I made on my own. During that period -- 1989 through 1994 -- the 49ers won two Super Bowls (they won another following the 1994 season), the A's won a World Series and appeared in three straight, the Giants were competitive and signed former Pirate Barry Bonds, and the Raiders were at least respectable. If any of those teams had a fan base -- remember this was a local fan base, as I was 3,000 miles from Pittsburgh -- that was as passionate and dedicated as the Pittsburgh teams I was rooting for, I would have switched so that I could fit in and enjoy the excitement.
I didn't. This isn't meant to damn the fan base of any of those teams. I know a number of fans of all of those teams and they are loyal, passionate fans. I just have not experienced anything that equals the level of passion and intensity that I see in Steeler fans.
To extend the Pittsburgh example, the Pirates won two World Series in the 70s, but there isn't a "Pirates Nation". The Penguins won back-to-back Stanley Cups in the 90s and experienced continued success in the Lemieux Era, resurrecting themselves after the lockout to win another Stanley Cup in 2009, but there is no "Penguins Nation".
I have converted at least two casual fans -- or fans with no alliance -- into diehard Steeler fans because of my enthusiasm and love for the team. In order to understand the draw of Steeler Nation, you need to experience it, which this poster obviously hasn't. And neither has any other "hater" that sees the spread of Steeler support as a plague or virus.
The fact that there's at least one Steeler bar in most major cities is not a vast conspiracy or case of mass lunacy. I would have to assume that the people that own those bars are local entrepreneurs that saw an opportunity. Buy Sunday Ticket, advertise that you have the Steeler game on, and make lots of money from drunken yinzers rooting on their team.
I've gotten a lot more pragmatic and distant as a fan through the past three or four years, but Steeler Nation still strikes me as something magical and unexplainable. As a plug, Pittsburgh writer Jim Wexell attempts to explain the phenomenon in his book Steeler Nation. He does a great job and tells some vivid stories, but it's something that's hard to capture or quantify.
The other thing that upset me about the post -- I honestly thought this was going to be a quick blog to throw out, but the post really got me thinking -- was the portrayal of Pittsburgh as a gray, dark, bankrupt city.
I'll readily admit that the weather in Pittsburgh sucks. It is gray and dark for most of the winter and it's generally too hot and definitely too humid in the summer. Most of the non-muggy sunny days we get throughout the course of the year -- about 15 of them -- are in the spring and fall, where the weather truly is... well, at least good and sometimes amazing. It's usually in the 70s or 80s with low humidity and the evenings are generally cool, but not cold.
But, I also don't want the weather in California, where there are no seasons and it gets too cold at night. I don't want the weather in the Southwest, where it's too damn hot and there are flash floods. I don't want the weather in the Southeast, where it's too hot, too muggy, and you have to worry about hurricanes. I will say, though, that the weather in Hawaii seems about perfect. I also have never seen bad weather in San Diego.
As a city, Pittsburgh has recovered quite nicely from the steel crash of the 70s -- though most of the damage was done in the 80s and was not as a result of cheap, foreign steel, but again we'll let the poster slide because it's not like it was posted on CNN.com -- and now has a thriving economy. It really can't be called a "blue collar" town at this point, since most of its jobs are in technology, health care, and education.
In 2010, Pittsburgh was listed among the most livable cities, the best cities to live in during the recession, and the best housing markets after the crash. The unemployment rate is better than the national average and, compared to other major cities, Pittsburgh is not too much in debt.
Anyone that sees Pittsburgh as a gray, old, blue collar town has not been there in the last 20 years. The city has revitalized itself, which is one of the reasons that it hosted the G20 Summit in 2009.
And... uh.... one other item:
they complain about Seahawks fans complaining about Super Bowl XL (more than Seahawks fans actually complain about Super Bowl XL)
This person has obviously never worn a Steeler hat in the Seattle Metropolitan area.
I have to agree, though, that Steeler fans are numerous, mostly arrogant, and mostly douchey.
I have posted -- at length -- about the skeletons in the Rooneys' closet. I am really not sure why Steelers ownership is still held in such high regard following the exposure of most, if not all, of those skeletons.
I also agree that Bill Cowher, Terry Bradshaw, and Jerome Bettis are all mostly terrible, mostly annoying announcers/analysts. But, I'd like to point out that those are the three guys that are currently on TV from nearly five decades of consistently successful football, including six championships and numerous conference championship appearances.
To appeal to a broad audience, you need recognizable talent. That talent usually comes from popular teams or at least teams that have won a lot of games/championships. In an attempt to appeal to that broad audience, the three Super Bowl championships the Cowboys won in the 90s have wrought Jimmy Johnson, Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin, and Moose Johnston. We have also been exposed to: Tiki Barber and Michael Strahan (one ring combined) and Brian Billick/Tony Siragusa (one championship), as well as Steve Tasker (no rings, special teams player).
In order to stop this, we need to keep any player from winning any championship ever. I have a feeling that isn't going to happen.
Also, I would like to apologize to Kordell Stewart on behalf of all Steeler fans. We treated you badly and threw beer at you and made you cry. We also made jokes about you performing sexual favors for Bill Cowher in Schenley Park. That was wrong. We are sorry. You weren't a great quarterback, but that's no excuse.
Steelers-Hated Ravens Preview Take III
The only thing that makes me nervous about this game is that I'm not nervous about this game.
It's not that I think the hated Ravens are a bad team. I think they are a very good team that has the potential to be great, or even dominant.
It's not that I think the Steelers are supremely awesome and will easily handle any team that is simply only very good. I think the Steelers are a very good team that has the potential to be great, or even dominant.
The hated Ravens finished 12-4 on the regular season, but they really didn't beat anyone. They beat the Jets, but that was Week 1. They beat the Saints, which counts as a quality win. They beat the Steelers, but they also lost to the Steelers.
The Steelers finished 12-4 on the regular season, but they really didn't beat anyone. They beat the Falcons, but that was Week 1. They beat the hated Ravens, but they also lost to the hated Ravens.
The hated Ravens key off their stifling defense, which includes many explosive playmakers that can change the game with one play. They seek to dominate the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball, stop the run, and wear the other team down with their running game, though they haven't run the ball especially well this season. They have a top-flight quarterback -- even if he has a tragic unibrow -- and several talented, accomplished receivers. When they're forcing turnovers on defense and in a rhythm on offense, they're pretty much unstoppable.
The Steelers key off their stifling defense, which includes many explosive playmakers that can change the game with one play. They seek to dominate the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball, stop the run, and wear the other team down with their running game, though they haven't run the ball especially well this season. They have a top-flight quarterback... wait. Didn't I just say that?
I spent most of the season privately dismissing the hated Ravens, but knowing they were a very good team and would win a lot of games, which would result in a playoff berth. I spent all season -- and all week -- thinking that the hated Ravens could not beat the Steelers because the Steelers were the better team. I ultimately realized that the hated Ravens are the Steelers. These two teams are basically a wash.
They split during the regular season, with each team winning on the road. They played two games and ended up at a 27-27 tie. This is the tiebreaker.
The popular thinking is to "throw the records out" when two rivals like this play, but why would you want to throw this season's records out? They were both 12-4.
The Steelers have homefield advantage, but they lost to the hated Ravens at Heinz Field earlier this season and are only 5-3 at home. The only advantage for the Steelers in this game is that they had an extra week to rest up and get healthy. The hated Ravens don't have an injuries of note, though, so they might actually have the advantage in that they're not rusty. I'm not a big believer in rust -- if you're an accountant and you go on vacation for a week, you don't forget what debits and credits are and you may actually be more productive after having spent a relaxing week getting away from it all while the other accountants were busy being stressed out and crunching numbers -- but if it is a factor, the hated Ravens hold the advantage.
If these teams are so even, why am I not worried?
Because I think this game comes down to Ben Roethlisberger and Joe Flacco, which is a situation where you don't throw the records out the window. The Steelers defense has owned Flacco and he has a career 78 quarterback rating against them. He's 2-5 lifetime against the Steelers (including playoffs) and those two wins came against Dennis Dixon in 2009 and Charlie Batch earlier this season.
Roethlisberger is 8-3 against the hated Ravens (including playoffs) for his career and this time he doesn't have a broken nose and a broken foot. I think that it will be a close game, but I don't think that the hated Ravens will win it. Either Flacco will commit a fatal mistake or Roethlisberger will make a game changing play or both. It's usually the first one, then the second, but I'm flexible.
I'm still excited for the game. I still can't wait for it to start. I kinda can't wait for it to be over. But I'm not nervous.
And that worries me.
Prediction:
Steelers 20, Hated Ravens 13
It's not that I think the hated Ravens are a bad team. I think they are a very good team that has the potential to be great, or even dominant.
It's not that I think the Steelers are supremely awesome and will easily handle any team that is simply only very good. I think the Steelers are a very good team that has the potential to be great, or even dominant.
The hated Ravens finished 12-4 on the regular season, but they really didn't beat anyone. They beat the Jets, but that was Week 1. They beat the Saints, which counts as a quality win. They beat the Steelers, but they also lost to the Steelers.
The Steelers finished 12-4 on the regular season, but they really didn't beat anyone. They beat the Falcons, but that was Week 1. They beat the hated Ravens, but they also lost to the hated Ravens.
The hated Ravens key off their stifling defense, which includes many explosive playmakers that can change the game with one play. They seek to dominate the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball, stop the run, and wear the other team down with their running game, though they haven't run the ball especially well this season. They have a top-flight quarterback -- even if he has a tragic unibrow -- and several talented, accomplished receivers. When they're forcing turnovers on defense and in a rhythm on offense, they're pretty much unstoppable.
The Steelers key off their stifling defense, which includes many explosive playmakers that can change the game with one play. They seek to dominate the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball, stop the run, and wear the other team down with their running game, though they haven't run the ball especially well this season. They have a top-flight quarterback... wait. Didn't I just say that?
I spent most of the season privately dismissing the hated Ravens, but knowing they were a very good team and would win a lot of games, which would result in a playoff berth. I spent all season -- and all week -- thinking that the hated Ravens could not beat the Steelers because the Steelers were the better team. I ultimately realized that the hated Ravens are the Steelers. These two teams are basically a wash.
They split during the regular season, with each team winning on the road. They played two games and ended up at a 27-27 tie. This is the tiebreaker.
The popular thinking is to "throw the records out" when two rivals like this play, but why would you want to throw this season's records out? They were both 12-4.
The Steelers have homefield advantage, but they lost to the hated Ravens at Heinz Field earlier this season and are only 5-3 at home. The only advantage for the Steelers in this game is that they had an extra week to rest up and get healthy. The hated Ravens don't have an injuries of note, though, so they might actually have the advantage in that they're not rusty. I'm not a big believer in rust -- if you're an accountant and you go on vacation for a week, you don't forget what debits and credits are and you may actually be more productive after having spent a relaxing week getting away from it all while the other accountants were busy being stressed out and crunching numbers -- but if it is a factor, the hated Ravens hold the advantage.
If these teams are so even, why am I not worried?
Because I think this game comes down to Ben Roethlisberger and Joe Flacco, which is a situation where you don't throw the records out the window. The Steelers defense has owned Flacco and he has a career 78 quarterback rating against them. He's 2-5 lifetime against the Steelers (including playoffs) and those two wins came against Dennis Dixon in 2009 and Charlie Batch earlier this season.
Roethlisberger is 8-3 against the hated Ravens (including playoffs) for his career and this time he doesn't have a broken nose and a broken foot. I think that it will be a close game, but I don't think that the hated Ravens will win it. Either Flacco will commit a fatal mistake or Roethlisberger will make a game changing play or both. It's usually the first one, then the second, but I'm flexible.
I'm still excited for the game. I still can't wait for it to start. I kinda can't wait for it to be over. But I'm not nervous.
And that worries me.
Prediction:
Steelers 20, Hated Ravens 13
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Why There Will Be an NFL Lockout in 2011
This is something that I've been thinking about for a long time; basically since the owners opted out of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement following the 2008 season and kinda since the last CBA was signed, because I could see it becoming a real issue.
It's important to keep in mind that a lockout does not necessarily mean that the entire 2011 NFL season will be canceled. The more I think about it, the less I think things will ever get that bad, but it's definitely possible.
The current deadline for creating a new CBA is March 3, 2011. If a new CBA is not negotiated by then, then the owners dissolve the union and lock the players out, because that's the only real weapon in their arsenal.
Here's why I think that happens...
Too Big to Fail:
This point and sub-points came from an e-mail thread that I was in with Weidman. His original point was this (how I got the name for this section):
"I keep hearing that argument (that the NFL is too big, too important, and too lucrative for the owners and players to be stubborn enough to kill it)...which is the sporting equivalent of the banking world's "Too big to fail." Yeah, well, that never meant that they were so big it was impossible - it meant that it was too big to allow to happen. This lead to the public bailout, which we all know and love.
With the NFL...that's not an option. Without a safety net, I refuse to buy into the "too strong to fail" argument. Do I think it's going to happen? I'd probably put money on it - and you know how I am with gambling. Do I think it's possible to avert? Yes I do...It would just take near a miracle."
(Editor's Note: Weidman would also like to remind everyone that tickets for the Pittsburgh Power are still available and their inaugural Arena Football League season kicks off on March 11th, eight days after the lockout.)
Continuing with the "too strong" line of thinking, I feel that's part of what could come back to bite the NFL. Players, owners and networks all make so much money off of it, and they all think that they are the reason the money is rolling in. They also think that the other two camps know this, and will realize that they're boned without them. Because of this, they all have this rolling inertia that could keep their heads in the sand until it's too late."
The NFL is the most popular sport in the US and the most profitable and many feel that the league is making too much money and is too strong and too popular to fail. Well, there's no rule that says that the NFL has to be the most popular and profitable sport in America, it just happens to hold that position right now.
Basketball was once more popular than football, but now they have a fraction of the popularity they once enjoyed. At one point, they were the major sport that was deemed "too big to fail" and then they had their own lockout. The game is recovering -- as is hockey and as did baseball after the strike in 1994 -- but it's not as strong as it once was and may never be again.
A side argument there is that the NFL is so popular and has so many diehard fans that everyone will come back after a lockout as though nothing had ever happened and the money train will keep rolling. That may happen, but I think the NFL will discover that they have a lot more casual fans than they thought if all or part of the 2011 season is locked out.
You would think that the owners and players are savvy enough to realize this. But, the longer things drag out, the more I think that they are too full of hubris to believe it.
Too Much Money on the Line:
A sub-argument in the "too big to fail" argument is that everyone -- the players, the owners, the networks -- is making a ton of money on NFL football and they'd be crazy to give all that up over a couple of lousy percentage points. Maybe one side will make slightly less and the other side will make slightly more, but everyone will still be making huge sums of money, so they should all be able to share.
The problem there is that was the basic thinking behind signing of the last CBA. The owners were in a horrible negotiating position and, in their own way, they all understood that the players were underpaid and needed a bigger piece of the TV revenue pie. Again, they looked at the situation and asked, "What's a couple of percentage points here or there when we're all making so much money?" They soon got their answer. A couple of percentage points here or there is a lot of money when you're talking about $4 billion in TV revenue each year.
Now that they know how important every last bit of every last percentage point is, they won't give up anything easily.
The players have seen their salaries skyrocket the past decade -- especially since the owners gave up those couple of percentage points -- but they still feel as though they're underpaid. What the players don't seem to realize is that the market has proven that they're wrong.
Before the current CBA was signed, the salary cap acted as a price ceiling, artificially lowering the price of labor, which resulted in the players being underpaid.
When the current CBA went into effect, it created a price floor, artificially raising the price of labor, which resulted in players -- especially marginal players -- being overpaid. What a lot of people don't realize about the salary cap is that it sets a salary minimum in addition to setting a salary maximum. So, teams were required to spend more than they needed to to field a team in order to get to the minimum. The Bucs and Chiefs paid out future roster and workout bonuses -- bonuses that were guaranteed, but hadn't come due yet -- just to get to the minimum. This also meant that teams were outbidding each other and overpaying for players that filled a role on their team, but not a critical one, just because they needed to spend the money.
When the uncapped year happened in 2010, teams didn't have a maximum that they could spend, but they also didn't have a minimum. When the free market determined prices, players were signed more cheaply than before, but to better contracts than they signed when the price ceiling was in effect. Superstars like Julius Peppers will always get paid, but teams were handing out $15 million contracts to back-ups because they needed to meet the minimum. When they were no longer required to do that, owners tightened their purse strings to the point where the Players Association is putting together a collusion lawsuit saying that the owners got together and decided that no one was going to sign restricted free agents in the offseason.
Getting an uncapped year was supposed to be the "Holy Grail" for the players -- and it would have been if the current CBA was never put in place to inflate wages -- but it ended up showing the owners that they could make more money in a free market system. The other important thing to remember is that the revenue sharing checks from the league didn't stop coming in just because there wasn't a salary cap. The owners still got paid and doled out what they thought appropriate to the players. More on this later.
This situation reminds me a lot of the writer's strike in 2007-2008. Most of the TV-watching public couldn't understand why the two sides couldn't come to terms when there was so much money to be made and so much money was being lost as a result of the strike.
The issue there was the same as the issue here. Both sides understand how much money is at stake and neither side wants to give up even a fraction of a percentage point at the negotiating table because they know how much money it represents. Rich people don't get rich by being careless with their money. When you have a bunch of them on opposite sides of a whole lot of money, neither side is going to throw in the towel without a fight.
Too Many Issues:
These are issues above and beyond the fact that you've got a ton of proud, stubborn people on both sides of the table and that they're running out of time. The deadline is March 3rd, which is close enough. Add in the fact that there are still playoff games to be played, a Pro Bowl, and a Super Bowl, and you're realistically talking about a one month window to negotiate a multi-billion dollar agreement. That's a huge issue in and of itself and almost seemed too obvious to state. But, I stated it, so...
The 18 Game Schedule:
Kaiser Goodell and the owners basically railroaded this one through despite the fact that the players and not on board with it at all. That's one part of the issue.
The other part is how the players will be compensated for more games. They're almost all currently under contract and those contracts are for 16 game seasons. Do they get two more game checks -- players get a check each week for each game, not a lump sum at the beginning or end of the season, which will be important to know later -- for the same amount as though they played two more games than in a 16 game season? Or will their weekly game check be based on their 16 game base salary, just divided by 18 instead of 16? You're talking about huge dollar amounts, so the answers to those questions are of considerable importance.
The one thing that hasn't been discussed as much as the other two points -- and may be more important overall -- is that two more games means 140-160 more collisions for players whose bodies already take a lot of abuse. Just like the uncapped year, this doesn't affect the stars much, since they're all elite players and take care of themselves and will have long, storied careers. But, stars are about five percent of the league, so this is an issue that has serious ramifications for 95 percent of the players in the NFL.
We watch football week in and week out and watch highlights of big plays and bigger hits, but I don't think that we really understand what a violent game NFL football is. For example, I recently talked to a guy that played as a wide receiver for Pitt for four years, then as an undrafted free agent for a Falcons for four games. He also played in the AFL and the afl2 as a receiver.
He showed me his mangled left hand. He dislocated the pinky finger on his left hand six times and the ring finger on that hand four times. He's had two surgeries.
He saw his fair share of action in college and professional football, no doubt, but he was not a guy that played in the NFL 16 (or 18) games a season for ten years. Wide receiver is also a position that is more protected and sees less contact than on the offensive line, defensive line, or running back.
Adding two games adds more collisions and more chances for guys to get seriously hurt, which in turn lowers the playing career of the average NFL player in terms of total seasons. When a former player tries to collect his pension or tries to get medical coverage, the first thing they look at his is NFL tenure.
As another example, I was watching the Colts-Jaguars game in Week 15 with my grandparents. On one play, Austin Collie got sandwiched between two defenders and was concussed. This was his second concussion in as many months and the game against Jacksonville was his first time back in action after his last concussion. As he lay motionless on the ground, my grandfather impassively muttered, "Brutal game," as though he heard some commentator say it at some point and felt as though he should say something. When they showed several concerned fans in the stands -- more than one female fan appeared to be crying -- my grandmother said that they must be members of his family. But, they started showing different sections with different groups of concerned, crying fans, and I felt the need to point out that this was his second concussion in the past two months and that he could be in a coma, paralyzed, or worse.
The point of that story is not to say that my grandparents are uncaring jerks, they're not. The point is that, as a fan base, we're desensitized to the violence of the NFL game. We don't understand what the players go through every game -- and after every game -- but the players definitely do. They most certainly understand what another two games a year means for their bodies and their future.
Kaiser Goodell:
The players don't like him. I don't like him, either. The problem is that the owners love him and they have several good reasons.
The fact that the players don't like Goodell isn't much of a news flash. He's handed out arbitrary, inconsistent punishments and fines for different infractions, on the field or off. He pushed the 18 game schedule through without much of a passing thought as to what the players might think. This season, he suddenly decided to start strictly enforcing the helmet-to-helmet rules in mid season.
Now, there's nothing wrong with the helmet-to-helmet rules. There's nothing wrong with strictly enforcing them. The problem is that he dropped this bomb on the players in mid season. Usually, if someone thinks that a rule needs to be changed or emphasized, they do it in the offseason and they let the players know, in specific detail, how it is going to be changed or emphasized. The league did this after the 2003 season when the Colts complained about a lack of enforcement of defensive holding. Everyone adjusted and it was (mostly) fine. To pull something like that during the course of a season -- and without warning -- alters the way the players play the game and therefore the competitive balance, as James Harrison will gladly tell you.
All this would be less of a problem if the owners didn't have a man crush on Goodell and he wasn't -- in their eyes -- doing such a good job.
Goodell has kept the players in line and let them know that they will be punished to the full extent of the law, whatever the law happens to be that day. He has made broad, sweeping decisions on the present and future of the league and has acted decisively, which the owners can't do for themselves, especially when broad, sweeping decisions work out to their best benefit.
Most importantly, he's done what Paul Tagliabue couldn't: He's created a wealth of new revenue streams on television, multimedia, marketing, and the Internet.
The owners are very interested in squeezing every last dollar out of the NFL product outside of game day, since the season lasts only five months. Goodell has grown a number of those revenue streams and even created a few new ones and the owners are very much in favor of that.
When Goodell took over, NFL.com was a static site with a weak community, little or no video and interactive content, and a poor fantasy football presence. The site is now dynamic, interactive, has a strong community, tons of fantasy football content and league tools, and has forced other sites that carry NFL content to step up their technology efforts. When he took over, the NFL Network was struggling to get its sea legs and looked like it might fold. It's not a juggernaut like ESPN, but it has shown vast improvement and is more viewed and well-received than other league-centric channels such as MLB TV or NHL TV.
As with most things, it's doubtful that either side will budge.
The Rookie Salary Pool:
I mention this because it's a big item with owners and veteran players and it introduces one other party with something at stake: The agents. Agents don't have the kind of power in the NFL that they have in other professional sports -- they have basically no power at all and Drew Rosenhaus even seems to have been disappeared by the league -- but they do talk to the players and they do have a good deal of influence over them.
The owners and players mostly agree with regard to a rookie salary pool/cap where each team is allotted a certain amount for rookie salaries and players are slotted and paid according to their draft position. But, my guess is that the players -- especially the veterans -- want stricter controls and limits on rookie salaries than they owners do.
Veteran players hate the idea of guys in their early 20s coming into the league making several times what they do, never having played a down of NFL football in their lives. Tommy Maddox protested in 2004 that he was the starter, but the lowest paid quarterback on the roster by a wide margin, when the Steelers drafted Ben Roethlisberger. There are numerous other examples.
Owners need to have an eye towards the future and realize that, if the restrictions are too severe, they'll lose out on juniors that declare early for the draft. Juniors declaring early are usually taken in the first two rounds. If they don't see a huge upside in coming to the NFL a year early, many will stay in school and play there, which sets the cycle of incoming talent back a year. Players most likely realize this as well, so they have even more incentive to make the rookie salary cap as unattractive as possible. The less young talent coming in, the better the chance that they'll keep their jobs.
The agents don't have great relationships with the owners, but they have a vested interest in making sure that the hundreds of new clients they sign every year get the best deal. They will work on the veterans, but this is definitely an issue that will require serious discussion and compromise to resolve.
Too Many Rich Owners, Too Many "Poor" Players:
The players, for the most part, are rich. The owners, for the most part, are super-rich and that's a very important difference.
The owner's landscape has changed over the past few years, with most of the "old school" families giving way to wealthy businessmen that made their money -- and plenty of it -- in trades other than football.
Also, the last expansion team to enter the league was the Houston Texans in 2002 and, before that, the Jaguars and Panthers in 1995. The most recent addition to the owner's circle was Zygi Wilf, who bought the Vikings in 2005. I had to Google that. I really thought he bought them in, like, 2007 or 2008. The point is that Wayne Weaver (Jaguars), Jerry Richardson (Panthers), Bob McNair (Texans), and Zygi Wilf (Vikings) were all too new to the ownership game when the current CBA was negotiated in 2006. McNair was still knee-deep in debt from paying off his team, Wilf didn't have a name tag yet, and Richardson and Weaver were trying to figure out how to make more money.
Well, five years later, it's a different story. The owners are more organized now, more resolute, and they know what happens when you give up a couple of percentage points here or there. They also no longer believe that the terms they negotiated previously are sustainable and certainly not able to be increased. Richardson held a news conference in which he stated that some NFL teams are currently cash flow negative. Now, I've already hit you with some economics, so I won't bore you with accounting, but here's the short version: Cash flow negative is not as bad as negative income (teams are losing money), but it's a bad leading indicator, especially in a mature business such as an NFL team.
Even though that's the case, the owners opted out in 2008, which means that most of them -- all good businessmen -- should have known that this eventuality was possible. That means that they probably started a "rainy day" account then. Even if they didn't, when the salary cap went away for the 2010 season and owners didn't need to spend a certain amount, the "rainy day" account got opened and started getting big time weekly deposits in anticipation of a lockout.
If a team spent, say, $60 million on payroll this season but still got $127 million in checks from the league office, then they were able to pocket that extra $67 million. That's a serious rainy day account.
"Hold on a second, Keller," you're probably saying to yourself. "Wouldn't the players -- who are rich themselves -- not start the same kind of 'rainy day' account in anticipation of a lockout?" Well, not necessarily.
I saw a recent article where DeMaurice Smith, president of the NFL Players Association, sent out a memo to players saying that the owners appeared to be girding themselves for a lockout and that players should save their last three game checks of the season in case they needed the money. (See? Game checks was important, so I made sure to mention that.) The fact that he needed to send out that reminder makes me think that money management is not at the top of the average NFL player's mind.
Michael Vick signed a contract with $37 million signing bonus in 2005, but needed to declare bankruptcy in order to pay the Falcons back $7 million of that money about 2 1/2 years later. I understand that he needed to run a dogfighting ring and pay for houses and such, but blowing over $30 million in less than three years sounds a little excessive. There aren't many NFL players that can pull a Barry Sanders, retire, then pay back their signing bonus in cash.
This is not to single out NFL players, who are mostly young, black men. This is more a symptom of an environment. Football players -- especially good ones -- are led to believe that they are invincible, will play forever, and are awesome in every way by their coaches, probably their family, and by the media. The football mentality is to compartmentalize everything and think of it one game at a time, one week at a time. Are these guys thinking about life after football? Is anyone talking to them about it? If someone did talk to them about it, would they listen?
I contribute to a 401k at work and Social Security taxes are taken out of my paycheck, but every time I see a commercial on TV about retirement I change the channel. I'm not thinking about that. I'm thinking about what I have to do tomorrow, if there's soap in the sink at work, and whether or not the issue that my one customer is having has been resolved. Retirement is at least 30 years away and doesn't consume much of my thoughts.
Thinking about NFL players in that light, the average NFL player makes about a million dollars a year. Taking the stars and superstars out of the picture -- only about five percent of the league -- you have a bunch of guys that are rich, but that are probably living paycheck to paycheck.
How many Americans -- football players or not -- that make a million dollars a year are in a similar situation? How many of them would have to seriously adjust their lifestyle if the paychecks stopped? How many of them would have a severely bad reaction to that lifestyle change? Add to that the fact that most Americans making a million dollars a year are allowed to live in relative obscurity. If some twenty-something bond trader makes a killing one month, maybe their spouse and immediate family know about it. If Joe Football Hero gets drafted in the sixth round by the Steelers, it's all over the Internet. How does Joe Football Hero respond when he suddenly has dozens of girls wanting to be with him, scores of unknown relatives and "friends" that have an investment idea or just need a little help to get by?
When the paychecks are rolling in, this is easier to manage. What happens when they stop rolling in? I'm not trying to play a morality card here, I'm just trying to talk about the realities of an NFL player's life and finances. The league has actually done a very good job of creating symposiums and programs to talk to players about these issues when they enter the league. But, given the fact that the players are human and human nature tells them to change the channel, how many of them are listening?
To go back to the "too big to fail" example, a number of firms were still buying up consolidated mortgage securities even after it looked like it was a virtual certainty that the bottom would fall out of the market. Maybe individual players think that the NFL money train is too big to fail. If I have thought about it, you can be sure that the owners have thought about it. That gives them another advantage and another reason to lock out.
Too Many Revenue Streams:
I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but the NFL faces the same issues regarding Internet and multimedia revenue streams that Hollywood producers and writers faced in 2007 and 2008. The owners, like Hollywood producers, would like nothing more than to make as much money as possible without having to pay the players/actors. It's cheaper now to CGI something than to actually pay someone to do it. The NFL -- through the NFL Network and online content -- are able to re-purpose content that they've already paid players for to make more money.
Would you pay for an online archive of every Steelers game from the past 50 years? Would you watch NFL Network if they were running a marathon of "Top 10 Steelers Playoff Games"? The NFL owns NFL Films and the owners, essentially, own the NFL. How much could they make off of that if there was a lockout and there was no live option? They have extensive archives and unlimited possibilities. They may have to pay the players something, but it would be a small portion of what they make overall.
The NFL Network already runs 24/7/365 coverage of a sport that only plays two days out of the week five months a year. How difficult would it be for them to run content throughout the year without that 48 hours a week for five months a year to talk about? What if they were able to pay players that are struggling to make ends meet to make appearances? Some individual teams may suffer, but the collective would prosper and the players -- the most important part of this equation -- would continue to suffer.
Would you pay ten bucks to go to Heinz Field and watch a highlight reel of previous great Steeler seasons? I wouldn't in May, because I'd be too busy. But September? October? November? When I've got a serious NFL jones on? I would pay my ten dollars and happily drink beer with other Steeler fans and think about how things used to be before the lockout.
How many players would cross the picket lines to sign autographs and shake hands with fans in exchange for a nice paycheck at an event sponsored by Budweiser?
In addition, the NFL Network has signed deals with the AFL and CFL to broadcast those games to their audience. That will give football fans a way to watch live football action, even if it isn't NFL action.
I guess the central point here is that the owners have more options than the players at this point. The players have one option: Pay for play. The stars and superstars will still have sponsorships to fall back on, but that's less than five percent of the league.
Too Much Bad Blood:
To hit you up with some more economics, I took an Economics Analysis class last summer, where we covered a bunch of stuff -- including price ceilings and price floors -- and we also covered Negotiations.
The Cliff notes version of the Negotiations section is this: When two parties enter into negotiations, each party will choose the option that minimizes their losses and maximizes their gains provided they are thinking logically. The only thing that will not make them think logically is the existence of bad blood; history between the two parties that makes one want to hurt the other.
To clarify: Locking the players out makes less economic sense than coming to an agreement with the players. The best economic situation -- both for the players and the owners -- would be to come to an agreement and continue to play football. But, there's too much bad blood.
I mentioned Goodell. I mentioned the collusion lawsuit. Those are big items. I mentioned the 18 game schedule issue. I mentioned that the owners passed the current CBA, but I didn't mention that it passed 30-2, with the two "no" votes being cast by Mike Brown of the Bengals and Ralph Wilson of the Bills because they didn't know what they were signing.
Brown and Wilson are two old, crazy, cheap NFL owners, but they were onto something when they voted against the current CBA. They knew that it was a bad deal for the owners, but they were out-voted. Now, they may be viewed as sage old school guys that are interested in showing the players their place in the world. Fellow crazy old man Al Davis probably joins the dissenting ranks at this point.
So, the owners are now listening to the crazy, old triumvirate and they're still stinging from the bad blood of the current CBA. They have a pending collusion lawsuit from the players and they can't understand why the players can't be happy with what they've been handed. The players think that the owners are greedy, old, colluding men. Both sides want more money. Both sides think they have an unfairly small portion of the money that is currently available. Both sides think that they have been screwed -- one way or another -- for the past five years.
I would say that qualifies as bad blood.
Too Many Fallen Leaders:
When Gene Upshaw passed in August of 2008, I thought that the chance to renegotiate the CBA died with him. Upshaw was an outstanding president of the NFLPA, always had the players' best interest in mind, and had an excellent relationship with both owners and the commissioner (even Goodell).
If this were a presidential or congressional election, Upshaw would be applauded for his ability to "reach across the aisle" to find the best deal for everyone. This is not to discredit DeMaurice Smith, but Gene Upshaw was a unique individual. He will be missed in general, but he will be particularly missed in these negotiations.
In addition, former Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt and former Giants owner Wellington Mara were also lost. Hunt and Mara were instrumental in getting the original AFL-NFL merger pushed through in 1970 and were voices of reason throughout the rest of the history of the league. They helped resolve the strike/lockout issues of 1981 and 1987, they helped the salary cap pass in 1993, and they secured votes in favor of the last CBA.
Dan Rooney was also very involved in all of those events and is still alive. That's a feather in the cap against the lockout, but he's only one man and doesn't hold the same position of authority in his organization that he once held. He's majority owner, but he's no longer the president of the Steelers. People will still listen to him, people will still respect him, but he no longer has the position of authority that he once had and he no longer has the backing of Hunt and Mara.
Mara, Hunt, Upshaw, and Rooney were the "voice of reason" in previous negotiations when the NFL was facing a critical decision point. This is a critical decision point. With the old leaders gone, hopefully new ones will emerge.
What This All Means:
It means that the NFL is headed for a lockout. How long that lockout lasts is up to the parties involved and the issues I addressed (lots of money involved, 18 game schedule, Roger Goodell and so forth).
My guess is that the lockout doesn't last long into the season. I think the players will run out of money and the owners will win. But, bad blood cannot be predicted. This could linger on. I doubt that it will linger too long, thus canceling the 2011 season, but I really don't know. There are a lot of issues and a lot of bad blood and I'm not sure that throwing a whole lot of money at all of that will fix anything.
I really don't know. I know that the owners and players will not reach an agreement by March 3. I don't know what will happen after that. One would hope that saner heads would prevail and some type of agreement could be met. But, it will probably drag on until enough players that are losing enough money decide to sign whatever's in front of them.
I know that Casey Hampton will check in at about 400 pounds in August unless he decides to retire. I know James Harrison won't want any part of the NFL if Goodell is still in charge. James Farrior could retire if it looks like 2011 is locked out for sure. The same with Aaron Smith, Flozell Adams, maybe Brett Keisel, Hines Ward, Larry Foote, and Ryan Clark. I think a number of fringe players with a number of years of service will retire, provided their benefits are covered.
I hope that this season ends well. It could be our last until 2012.
It's important to keep in mind that a lockout does not necessarily mean that the entire 2011 NFL season will be canceled. The more I think about it, the less I think things will ever get that bad, but it's definitely possible.
The current deadline for creating a new CBA is March 3, 2011. If a new CBA is not negotiated by then, then the owners dissolve the union and lock the players out, because that's the only real weapon in their arsenal.
Here's why I think that happens...
Too Big to Fail:
This point and sub-points came from an e-mail thread that I was in with Weidman. His original point was this (how I got the name for this section):
"I keep hearing that argument (that the NFL is too big, too important, and too lucrative for the owners and players to be stubborn enough to kill it)...which is the sporting equivalent of the banking world's "Too big to fail." Yeah, well, that never meant that they were so big it was impossible - it meant that it was too big to allow to happen. This lead to the public bailout, which we all know and love.
With the NFL...that's not an option. Without a safety net, I refuse to buy into the "too strong to fail" argument. Do I think it's going to happen? I'd probably put money on it - and you know how I am with gambling. Do I think it's possible to avert? Yes I do...It would just take near a miracle."
(Editor's Note: Weidman would also like to remind everyone that tickets for the Pittsburgh Power are still available and their inaugural Arena Football League season kicks off on March 11th, eight days after the lockout.)
Continuing with the "too strong" line of thinking, I feel that's part of what could come back to bite the NFL. Players, owners and networks all make so much money off of it, and they all think that they are the reason the money is rolling in. They also think that the other two camps know this, and will realize that they're boned without them. Because of this, they all have this rolling inertia that could keep their heads in the sand until it's too late."
The NFL is the most popular sport in the US and the most profitable and many feel that the league is making too much money and is too strong and too popular to fail. Well, there's no rule that says that the NFL has to be the most popular and profitable sport in America, it just happens to hold that position right now.
Basketball was once more popular than football, but now they have a fraction of the popularity they once enjoyed. At one point, they were the major sport that was deemed "too big to fail" and then they had their own lockout. The game is recovering -- as is hockey and as did baseball after the strike in 1994 -- but it's not as strong as it once was and may never be again.
A side argument there is that the NFL is so popular and has so many diehard fans that everyone will come back after a lockout as though nothing had ever happened and the money train will keep rolling. That may happen, but I think the NFL will discover that they have a lot more casual fans than they thought if all or part of the 2011 season is locked out.
You would think that the owners and players are savvy enough to realize this. But, the longer things drag out, the more I think that they are too full of hubris to believe it.
Too Much Money on the Line:
A sub-argument in the "too big to fail" argument is that everyone -- the players, the owners, the networks -- is making a ton of money on NFL football and they'd be crazy to give all that up over a couple of lousy percentage points. Maybe one side will make slightly less and the other side will make slightly more, but everyone will still be making huge sums of money, so they should all be able to share.
The problem there is that was the basic thinking behind signing of the last CBA. The owners were in a horrible negotiating position and, in their own way, they all understood that the players were underpaid and needed a bigger piece of the TV revenue pie. Again, they looked at the situation and asked, "What's a couple of percentage points here or there when we're all making so much money?" They soon got their answer. A couple of percentage points here or there is a lot of money when you're talking about $4 billion in TV revenue each year.
Now that they know how important every last bit of every last percentage point is, they won't give up anything easily.
The players have seen their salaries skyrocket the past decade -- especially since the owners gave up those couple of percentage points -- but they still feel as though they're underpaid. What the players don't seem to realize is that the market has proven that they're wrong.
Before the current CBA was signed, the salary cap acted as a price ceiling, artificially lowering the price of labor, which resulted in the players being underpaid.
When the current CBA went into effect, it created a price floor, artificially raising the price of labor, which resulted in players -- especially marginal players -- being overpaid. What a lot of people don't realize about the salary cap is that it sets a salary minimum in addition to setting a salary maximum. So, teams were required to spend more than they needed to to field a team in order to get to the minimum. The Bucs and Chiefs paid out future roster and workout bonuses -- bonuses that were guaranteed, but hadn't come due yet -- just to get to the minimum. This also meant that teams were outbidding each other and overpaying for players that filled a role on their team, but not a critical one, just because they needed to spend the money.
When the uncapped year happened in 2010, teams didn't have a maximum that they could spend, but they also didn't have a minimum. When the free market determined prices, players were signed more cheaply than before, but to better contracts than they signed when the price ceiling was in effect. Superstars like Julius Peppers will always get paid, but teams were handing out $15 million contracts to back-ups because they needed to meet the minimum. When they were no longer required to do that, owners tightened their purse strings to the point where the Players Association is putting together a collusion lawsuit saying that the owners got together and decided that no one was going to sign restricted free agents in the offseason.
Getting an uncapped year was supposed to be the "Holy Grail" for the players -- and it would have been if the current CBA was never put in place to inflate wages -- but it ended up showing the owners that they could make more money in a free market system. The other important thing to remember is that the revenue sharing checks from the league didn't stop coming in just because there wasn't a salary cap. The owners still got paid and doled out what they thought appropriate to the players. More on this later.
This situation reminds me a lot of the writer's strike in 2007-2008. Most of the TV-watching public couldn't understand why the two sides couldn't come to terms when there was so much money to be made and so much money was being lost as a result of the strike.
The issue there was the same as the issue here. Both sides understand how much money is at stake and neither side wants to give up even a fraction of a percentage point at the negotiating table because they know how much money it represents. Rich people don't get rich by being careless with their money. When you have a bunch of them on opposite sides of a whole lot of money, neither side is going to throw in the towel without a fight.
Too Many Issues:
These are issues above and beyond the fact that you've got a ton of proud, stubborn people on both sides of the table and that they're running out of time. The deadline is March 3rd, which is close enough. Add in the fact that there are still playoff games to be played, a Pro Bowl, and a Super Bowl, and you're realistically talking about a one month window to negotiate a multi-billion dollar agreement. That's a huge issue in and of itself and almost seemed too obvious to state. But, I stated it, so...
The 18 Game Schedule:
Kaiser Goodell and the owners basically railroaded this one through despite the fact that the players and not on board with it at all. That's one part of the issue.
The other part is how the players will be compensated for more games. They're almost all currently under contract and those contracts are for 16 game seasons. Do they get two more game checks -- players get a check each week for each game, not a lump sum at the beginning or end of the season, which will be important to know later -- for the same amount as though they played two more games than in a 16 game season? Or will their weekly game check be based on their 16 game base salary, just divided by 18 instead of 16? You're talking about huge dollar amounts, so the answers to those questions are of considerable importance.
The one thing that hasn't been discussed as much as the other two points -- and may be more important overall -- is that two more games means 140-160 more collisions for players whose bodies already take a lot of abuse. Just like the uncapped year, this doesn't affect the stars much, since they're all elite players and take care of themselves and will have long, storied careers. But, stars are about five percent of the league, so this is an issue that has serious ramifications for 95 percent of the players in the NFL.
We watch football week in and week out and watch highlights of big plays and bigger hits, but I don't think that we really understand what a violent game NFL football is. For example, I recently talked to a guy that played as a wide receiver for Pitt for four years, then as an undrafted free agent for a Falcons for four games. He also played in the AFL and the afl2 as a receiver.
He showed me his mangled left hand. He dislocated the pinky finger on his left hand six times and the ring finger on that hand four times. He's had two surgeries.
He saw his fair share of action in college and professional football, no doubt, but he was not a guy that played in the NFL 16 (or 18) games a season for ten years. Wide receiver is also a position that is more protected and sees less contact than on the offensive line, defensive line, or running back.
Adding two games adds more collisions and more chances for guys to get seriously hurt, which in turn lowers the playing career of the average NFL player in terms of total seasons. When a former player tries to collect his pension or tries to get medical coverage, the first thing they look at his is NFL tenure.
As another example, I was watching the Colts-Jaguars game in Week 15 with my grandparents. On one play, Austin Collie got sandwiched between two defenders and was concussed. This was his second concussion in as many months and the game against Jacksonville was his first time back in action after his last concussion. As he lay motionless on the ground, my grandfather impassively muttered, "Brutal game," as though he heard some commentator say it at some point and felt as though he should say something. When they showed several concerned fans in the stands -- more than one female fan appeared to be crying -- my grandmother said that they must be members of his family. But, they started showing different sections with different groups of concerned, crying fans, and I felt the need to point out that this was his second concussion in the past two months and that he could be in a coma, paralyzed, or worse.
The point of that story is not to say that my grandparents are uncaring jerks, they're not. The point is that, as a fan base, we're desensitized to the violence of the NFL game. We don't understand what the players go through every game -- and after every game -- but the players definitely do. They most certainly understand what another two games a year means for their bodies and their future.
Kaiser Goodell:
The players don't like him. I don't like him, either. The problem is that the owners love him and they have several good reasons.
The fact that the players don't like Goodell isn't much of a news flash. He's handed out arbitrary, inconsistent punishments and fines for different infractions, on the field or off. He pushed the 18 game schedule through without much of a passing thought as to what the players might think. This season, he suddenly decided to start strictly enforcing the helmet-to-helmet rules in mid season.
Now, there's nothing wrong with the helmet-to-helmet rules. There's nothing wrong with strictly enforcing them. The problem is that he dropped this bomb on the players in mid season. Usually, if someone thinks that a rule needs to be changed or emphasized, they do it in the offseason and they let the players know, in specific detail, how it is going to be changed or emphasized. The league did this after the 2003 season when the Colts complained about a lack of enforcement of defensive holding. Everyone adjusted and it was (mostly) fine. To pull something like that during the course of a season -- and without warning -- alters the way the players play the game and therefore the competitive balance, as James Harrison will gladly tell you.
All this would be less of a problem if the owners didn't have a man crush on Goodell and he wasn't -- in their eyes -- doing such a good job.
Goodell has kept the players in line and let them know that they will be punished to the full extent of the law, whatever the law happens to be that day. He has made broad, sweeping decisions on the present and future of the league and has acted decisively, which the owners can't do for themselves, especially when broad, sweeping decisions work out to their best benefit.
Most importantly, he's done what Paul Tagliabue couldn't: He's created a wealth of new revenue streams on television, multimedia, marketing, and the Internet.
The owners are very interested in squeezing every last dollar out of the NFL product outside of game day, since the season lasts only five months. Goodell has grown a number of those revenue streams and even created a few new ones and the owners are very much in favor of that.
When Goodell took over, NFL.com was a static site with a weak community, little or no video and interactive content, and a poor fantasy football presence. The site is now dynamic, interactive, has a strong community, tons of fantasy football content and league tools, and has forced other sites that carry NFL content to step up their technology efforts. When he took over, the NFL Network was struggling to get its sea legs and looked like it might fold. It's not a juggernaut like ESPN, but it has shown vast improvement and is more viewed and well-received than other league-centric channels such as MLB TV or NHL TV.
As with most things, it's doubtful that either side will budge.
The Rookie Salary Pool:
I mention this because it's a big item with owners and veteran players and it introduces one other party with something at stake: The agents. Agents don't have the kind of power in the NFL that they have in other professional sports -- they have basically no power at all and Drew Rosenhaus even seems to have been disappeared by the league -- but they do talk to the players and they do have a good deal of influence over them.
The owners and players mostly agree with regard to a rookie salary pool/cap where each team is allotted a certain amount for rookie salaries and players are slotted and paid according to their draft position. But, my guess is that the players -- especially the veterans -- want stricter controls and limits on rookie salaries than they owners do.
Veteran players hate the idea of guys in their early 20s coming into the league making several times what they do, never having played a down of NFL football in their lives. Tommy Maddox protested in 2004 that he was the starter, but the lowest paid quarterback on the roster by a wide margin, when the Steelers drafted Ben Roethlisberger. There are numerous other examples.
Owners need to have an eye towards the future and realize that, if the restrictions are too severe, they'll lose out on juniors that declare early for the draft. Juniors declaring early are usually taken in the first two rounds. If they don't see a huge upside in coming to the NFL a year early, many will stay in school and play there, which sets the cycle of incoming talent back a year. Players most likely realize this as well, so they have even more incentive to make the rookie salary cap as unattractive as possible. The less young talent coming in, the better the chance that they'll keep their jobs.
The agents don't have great relationships with the owners, but they have a vested interest in making sure that the hundreds of new clients they sign every year get the best deal. They will work on the veterans, but this is definitely an issue that will require serious discussion and compromise to resolve.
Too Many Rich Owners, Too Many "Poor" Players:
The players, for the most part, are rich. The owners, for the most part, are super-rich and that's a very important difference.
The owner's landscape has changed over the past few years, with most of the "old school" families giving way to wealthy businessmen that made their money -- and plenty of it -- in trades other than football.
Also, the last expansion team to enter the league was the Houston Texans in 2002 and, before that, the Jaguars and Panthers in 1995. The most recent addition to the owner's circle was Zygi Wilf, who bought the Vikings in 2005. I had to Google that. I really thought he bought them in, like, 2007 or 2008. The point is that Wayne Weaver (Jaguars), Jerry Richardson (Panthers), Bob McNair (Texans), and Zygi Wilf (Vikings) were all too new to the ownership game when the current CBA was negotiated in 2006. McNair was still knee-deep in debt from paying off his team, Wilf didn't have a name tag yet, and Richardson and Weaver were trying to figure out how to make more money.
Well, five years later, it's a different story. The owners are more organized now, more resolute, and they know what happens when you give up a couple of percentage points here or there. They also no longer believe that the terms they negotiated previously are sustainable and certainly not able to be increased. Richardson held a news conference in which he stated that some NFL teams are currently cash flow negative. Now, I've already hit you with some economics, so I won't bore you with accounting, but here's the short version: Cash flow negative is not as bad as negative income (teams are losing money), but it's a bad leading indicator, especially in a mature business such as an NFL team.
Even though that's the case, the owners opted out in 2008, which means that most of them -- all good businessmen -- should have known that this eventuality was possible. That means that they probably started a "rainy day" account then. Even if they didn't, when the salary cap went away for the 2010 season and owners didn't need to spend a certain amount, the "rainy day" account got opened and started getting big time weekly deposits in anticipation of a lockout.
If a team spent, say, $60 million on payroll this season but still got $127 million in checks from the league office, then they were able to pocket that extra $67 million. That's a serious rainy day account.
"Hold on a second, Keller," you're probably saying to yourself. "Wouldn't the players -- who are rich themselves -- not start the same kind of 'rainy day' account in anticipation of a lockout?" Well, not necessarily.
I saw a recent article where DeMaurice Smith, president of the NFL Players Association, sent out a memo to players saying that the owners appeared to be girding themselves for a lockout and that players should save their last three game checks of the season in case they needed the money. (See? Game checks was important, so I made sure to mention that.) The fact that he needed to send out that reminder makes me think that money management is not at the top of the average NFL player's mind.
Michael Vick signed a contract with $37 million signing bonus in 2005, but needed to declare bankruptcy in order to pay the Falcons back $7 million of that money about 2 1/2 years later. I understand that he needed to run a dogfighting ring and pay for houses and such, but blowing over $30 million in less than three years sounds a little excessive. There aren't many NFL players that can pull a Barry Sanders, retire, then pay back their signing bonus in cash.
This is not to single out NFL players, who are mostly young, black men. This is more a symptom of an environment. Football players -- especially good ones -- are led to believe that they are invincible, will play forever, and are awesome in every way by their coaches, probably their family, and by the media. The football mentality is to compartmentalize everything and think of it one game at a time, one week at a time. Are these guys thinking about life after football? Is anyone talking to them about it? If someone did talk to them about it, would they listen?
I contribute to a 401k at work and Social Security taxes are taken out of my paycheck, but every time I see a commercial on TV about retirement I change the channel. I'm not thinking about that. I'm thinking about what I have to do tomorrow, if there's soap in the sink at work, and whether or not the issue that my one customer is having has been resolved. Retirement is at least 30 years away and doesn't consume much of my thoughts.
Thinking about NFL players in that light, the average NFL player makes about a million dollars a year. Taking the stars and superstars out of the picture -- only about five percent of the league -- you have a bunch of guys that are rich, but that are probably living paycheck to paycheck.
How many Americans -- football players or not -- that make a million dollars a year are in a similar situation? How many of them would have to seriously adjust their lifestyle if the paychecks stopped? How many of them would have a severely bad reaction to that lifestyle change? Add to that the fact that most Americans making a million dollars a year are allowed to live in relative obscurity. If some twenty-something bond trader makes a killing one month, maybe their spouse and immediate family know about it. If Joe Football Hero gets drafted in the sixth round by the Steelers, it's all over the Internet. How does Joe Football Hero respond when he suddenly has dozens of girls wanting to be with him, scores of unknown relatives and "friends" that have an investment idea or just need a little help to get by?
When the paychecks are rolling in, this is easier to manage. What happens when they stop rolling in? I'm not trying to play a morality card here, I'm just trying to talk about the realities of an NFL player's life and finances. The league has actually done a very good job of creating symposiums and programs to talk to players about these issues when they enter the league. But, given the fact that the players are human and human nature tells them to change the channel, how many of them are listening?
To go back to the "too big to fail" example, a number of firms were still buying up consolidated mortgage securities even after it looked like it was a virtual certainty that the bottom would fall out of the market. Maybe individual players think that the NFL money train is too big to fail. If I have thought about it, you can be sure that the owners have thought about it. That gives them another advantage and another reason to lock out.
Too Many Revenue Streams:
I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but the NFL faces the same issues regarding Internet and multimedia revenue streams that Hollywood producers and writers faced in 2007 and 2008. The owners, like Hollywood producers, would like nothing more than to make as much money as possible without having to pay the players/actors. It's cheaper now to CGI something than to actually pay someone to do it. The NFL -- through the NFL Network and online content -- are able to re-purpose content that they've already paid players for to make more money.
Would you pay for an online archive of every Steelers game from the past 50 years? Would you watch NFL Network if they were running a marathon of "Top 10 Steelers Playoff Games"? The NFL owns NFL Films and the owners, essentially, own the NFL. How much could they make off of that if there was a lockout and there was no live option? They have extensive archives and unlimited possibilities. They may have to pay the players something, but it would be a small portion of what they make overall.
The NFL Network already runs 24/7/365 coverage of a sport that only plays two days out of the week five months a year. How difficult would it be for them to run content throughout the year without that 48 hours a week for five months a year to talk about? What if they were able to pay players that are struggling to make ends meet to make appearances? Some individual teams may suffer, but the collective would prosper and the players -- the most important part of this equation -- would continue to suffer.
Would you pay ten bucks to go to Heinz Field and watch a highlight reel of previous great Steeler seasons? I wouldn't in May, because I'd be too busy. But September? October? November? When I've got a serious NFL jones on? I would pay my ten dollars and happily drink beer with other Steeler fans and think about how things used to be before the lockout.
How many players would cross the picket lines to sign autographs and shake hands with fans in exchange for a nice paycheck at an event sponsored by Budweiser?
In addition, the NFL Network has signed deals with the AFL and CFL to broadcast those games to their audience. That will give football fans a way to watch live football action, even if it isn't NFL action.
I guess the central point here is that the owners have more options than the players at this point. The players have one option: Pay for play. The stars and superstars will still have sponsorships to fall back on, but that's less than five percent of the league.
Too Much Bad Blood:
To hit you up with some more economics, I took an Economics Analysis class last summer, where we covered a bunch of stuff -- including price ceilings and price floors -- and we also covered Negotiations.
The Cliff notes version of the Negotiations section is this: When two parties enter into negotiations, each party will choose the option that minimizes their losses and maximizes their gains provided they are thinking logically. The only thing that will not make them think logically is the existence of bad blood; history between the two parties that makes one want to hurt the other.
To clarify: Locking the players out makes less economic sense than coming to an agreement with the players. The best economic situation -- both for the players and the owners -- would be to come to an agreement and continue to play football. But, there's too much bad blood.
I mentioned Goodell. I mentioned the collusion lawsuit. Those are big items. I mentioned the 18 game schedule issue. I mentioned that the owners passed the current CBA, but I didn't mention that it passed 30-2, with the two "no" votes being cast by Mike Brown of the Bengals and Ralph Wilson of the Bills because they didn't know what they were signing.
Brown and Wilson are two old, crazy, cheap NFL owners, but they were onto something when they voted against the current CBA. They knew that it was a bad deal for the owners, but they were out-voted. Now, they may be viewed as sage old school guys that are interested in showing the players their place in the world. Fellow crazy old man Al Davis probably joins the dissenting ranks at this point.
So, the owners are now listening to the crazy, old triumvirate and they're still stinging from the bad blood of the current CBA. They have a pending collusion lawsuit from the players and they can't understand why the players can't be happy with what they've been handed. The players think that the owners are greedy, old, colluding men. Both sides want more money. Both sides think they have an unfairly small portion of the money that is currently available. Both sides think that they have been screwed -- one way or another -- for the past five years.
I would say that qualifies as bad blood.
Too Many Fallen Leaders:
When Gene Upshaw passed in August of 2008, I thought that the chance to renegotiate the CBA died with him. Upshaw was an outstanding president of the NFLPA, always had the players' best interest in mind, and had an excellent relationship with both owners and the commissioner (even Goodell).
If this were a presidential or congressional election, Upshaw would be applauded for his ability to "reach across the aisle" to find the best deal for everyone. This is not to discredit DeMaurice Smith, but Gene Upshaw was a unique individual. He will be missed in general, but he will be particularly missed in these negotiations.
In addition, former Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt and former Giants owner Wellington Mara were also lost. Hunt and Mara were instrumental in getting the original AFL-NFL merger pushed through in 1970 and were voices of reason throughout the rest of the history of the league. They helped resolve the strike/lockout issues of 1981 and 1987, they helped the salary cap pass in 1993, and they secured votes in favor of the last CBA.
Dan Rooney was also very involved in all of those events and is still alive. That's a feather in the cap against the lockout, but he's only one man and doesn't hold the same position of authority in his organization that he once held. He's majority owner, but he's no longer the president of the Steelers. People will still listen to him, people will still respect him, but he no longer has the position of authority that he once had and he no longer has the backing of Hunt and Mara.
Mara, Hunt, Upshaw, and Rooney were the "voice of reason" in previous negotiations when the NFL was facing a critical decision point. This is a critical decision point. With the old leaders gone, hopefully new ones will emerge.
What This All Means:
It means that the NFL is headed for a lockout. How long that lockout lasts is up to the parties involved and the issues I addressed (lots of money involved, 18 game schedule, Roger Goodell and so forth).
My guess is that the lockout doesn't last long into the season. I think the players will run out of money and the owners will win. But, bad blood cannot be predicted. This could linger on. I doubt that it will linger too long, thus canceling the 2011 season, but I really don't know. There are a lot of issues and a lot of bad blood and I'm not sure that throwing a whole lot of money at all of that will fix anything.
I really don't know. I know that the owners and players will not reach an agreement by March 3. I don't know what will happen after that. One would hope that saner heads would prevail and some type of agreement could be met. But, it will probably drag on until enough players that are losing enough money decide to sign whatever's in front of them.
I know that Casey Hampton will check in at about 400 pounds in August unless he decides to retire. I know James Harrison won't want any part of the NFL if Goodell is still in charge. James Farrior could retire if it looks like 2011 is locked out for sure. The same with Aaron Smith, Flozell Adams, maybe Brett Keisel, Hines Ward, Larry Foote, and Ryan Clark. I think a number of fringe players with a number of years of service will retire, provided their benefits are covered.
I hope that this season ends well. It could be our last until 2012.
Friday, January 07, 2011
2010 Playoff Predictions
We're back for another round, with the added wrinkle that the Steelers are actually in the playoffs this year. Don't worry, I'm not going to be a total homer and pick them to go all the way.
AFC Bracket:
The Chiefs really screwed me up by losing in Week 17. I was absolutely certain that they would be able to beat the Jets and the Colts own the hated Ravens, so that would send Indianapolis to New England and the Chiefs here. Kansas City, with a shaky defense, a solid running game, and only one receiver of any consequence, would lose to the Steelers at home and the Colts might upset the Patriots, in which case the Steelers would beat Indy and go to the Super Bowl.
But, the only outcome that scared me was having to play the Jets in the Divisional Round and that was taken care of. I guess that was maybe taken care of when the hated Ravens kept winning, New York had a couple of bad games late, and the hated Ravens won the Week 1 head-to-head match-up with the Jets, but so be it.
Here's the thing: I still think the Chiefs will beat the hated Ravens, which means they'll be the highest seeded team, which means they'll be coming to Pittsburgh on January 15th. The Ravens always struggle when they're facing a hot running team and there's that one guy that they need to stop. Kansas City is decent against the run and their big weakness on defense is against the deep pass, which the hated Ravens appear to have taken out of their playbook.
Well, the Chiefs are headed to Pittsburgh because I think the Jets are going to beat the Colts. I think the world of Peyton Manning, but his offensive line is average at best, his receivers are banged up, and New York has basically been playing out the string all year to get to the playoffs where the games really matter. Either that or they're a bunch of immature drama queens who don't always play hard. The point is that they're the more talented teams and talent tends to prevail unless your quarterback is a total dud, which I don't think Mark Sanchez is.
So, Jets beat Colts, Chiefs beat hated Ravens. Jets lose to Patriots (most likely) and Steelers beat Chiefs.
That sets up an AFC Championship game that we've seen before and we've seen how the movie ends when Tom Brady is involved. If someone, somehow knocks off the Patriots, then the Steelers go to the Super Bowl. If the Steelers need to go through Foxboro to get to Dallas... well, their season ends in Foxboro.
I also think that the Steelers win in the Divisional Round no matter who they play -- Colts, hated Ravens, or Chiefs -- because they match up too well against every team that they could play. They can beat any team in this side of the bracket in the Divisional Round except the Jets and the Patriots. But, if it comes down to Jets-Steelers for the AFC title, I have a feeling that experience, talent, guile, the fact that Heath will be back for that game, and homefield advantage will take over.
Ultimately, Steelers lose to Patriots in the AFC Championship game (again) and New England goes to yet another Super Bowl. I would like to pick the Steelers to win that game. I really would. But, in the last ten years or so, it's been like the 70s. The Patriots were the Steelers, the Steelers were Oakland, and the Colts were the Team That Went to the Super Bowl if the Steelers or Raiders Weren't Involved. Hey, I would love it if I were wrong. In the 80s, the Steelers took a major nosedive and the Raiders won two Super Bowls. I would be fine with that. I'm just saying I need to see it before I believe it.
NFC Bracket:
I have zero faith in the Seahawks. They were 7-9 in the regular season, got outscored by 97 points, and somehow went 4-2 in the worst division in football. The line for the Saints-Seahawks game has the Saints favored by 11 and I took the Saints.
I think Philly has enough talent to beat Green Bay. The Packers have Aaron Rodgers and a good defense. That's it. Philly is banged up -- well, both teams are banged up -- but they also have Michael Vick, DeSean Jackson, and LeSean McCoy, three of the most dangerous players in the bracket. That's too many weapons and too much talent to ignore in a postseason where talent means everything.
Philly beats Green Bay, New Orleans beats Seattle.
That sends the Saints to Atlanta, where Matt Ryan is 20-2. Well, guess what? One of those losses was to Drew Brees and the Saints and it happened very recently. The Falcons strike me as a Cowher/Schottenheimer team that is very talented, very good at what they do, and very capable of winning a bunch of games that they should win, therefore getting seeded way too high for their talent level. They have one player -- Roddy White -- that can break a game open. They have an average-to-good defense. They have Mike Smith as their coach. From a quarterback, coach, and scheme standpoint, Atlanta-New Orleans is a match-up that highly favors the Saints. For that reason, I think the Falcons are the second least likely team to reach the Super Bowl, despite the fact that they are the number one seed in the NFC.
I actually have a lot of faith in Chicago and I think they are a good team that hasn't gotten their due.
I am going to pick Philly based on two things:
That means I think the Patriots and Saints will go to Super Bowl XLV. I was way off last year -- pretty sure I picked Chargers-Vikings -- and predictions have sucked historically, but that's what I think.
Predictions:
AFC Playoffs:
Jets over Colts
Chiefs over hated Ravens
Patriots over Jets
Steelers over Chiefs
Patriots over Steelers
NFC Playoffs:
Saints over Seahawks
Eagles over Packers
Saints over Falcons
Eagles over Bears
Saints over Eagles
Super Bowl:
Patriots over Saints
AFC Bracket:
The Chiefs really screwed me up by losing in Week 17. I was absolutely certain that they would be able to beat the Jets and the Colts own the hated Ravens, so that would send Indianapolis to New England and the Chiefs here. Kansas City, with a shaky defense, a solid running game, and only one receiver of any consequence, would lose to the Steelers at home and the Colts might upset the Patriots, in which case the Steelers would beat Indy and go to the Super Bowl.
But, the only outcome that scared me was having to play the Jets in the Divisional Round and that was taken care of. I guess that was maybe taken care of when the hated Ravens kept winning, New York had a couple of bad games late, and the hated Ravens won the Week 1 head-to-head match-up with the Jets, but so be it.
Here's the thing: I still think the Chiefs will beat the hated Ravens, which means they'll be the highest seeded team, which means they'll be coming to Pittsburgh on January 15th. The Ravens always struggle when they're facing a hot running team and there's that one guy that they need to stop. Kansas City is decent against the run and their big weakness on defense is against the deep pass, which the hated Ravens appear to have taken out of their playbook.
Well, the Chiefs are headed to Pittsburgh because I think the Jets are going to beat the Colts. I think the world of Peyton Manning, but his offensive line is average at best, his receivers are banged up, and New York has basically been playing out the string all year to get to the playoffs where the games really matter. Either that or they're a bunch of immature drama queens who don't always play hard. The point is that they're the more talented teams and talent tends to prevail unless your quarterback is a total dud, which I don't think Mark Sanchez is.
So, Jets beat Colts, Chiefs beat hated Ravens. Jets lose to Patriots (most likely) and Steelers beat Chiefs.
That sets up an AFC Championship game that we've seen before and we've seen how the movie ends when Tom Brady is involved. If someone, somehow knocks off the Patriots, then the Steelers go to the Super Bowl. If the Steelers need to go through Foxboro to get to Dallas... well, their season ends in Foxboro.
I also think that the Steelers win in the Divisional Round no matter who they play -- Colts, hated Ravens, or Chiefs -- because they match up too well against every team that they could play. They can beat any team in this side of the bracket in the Divisional Round except the Jets and the Patriots. But, if it comes down to Jets-Steelers for the AFC title, I have a feeling that experience, talent, guile, the fact that Heath will be back for that game, and homefield advantage will take over.
Ultimately, Steelers lose to Patriots in the AFC Championship game (again) and New England goes to yet another Super Bowl. I would like to pick the Steelers to win that game. I really would. But, in the last ten years or so, it's been like the 70s. The Patriots were the Steelers, the Steelers were Oakland, and the Colts were the Team That Went to the Super Bowl if the Steelers or Raiders Weren't Involved. Hey, I would love it if I were wrong. In the 80s, the Steelers took a major nosedive and the Raiders won two Super Bowls. I would be fine with that. I'm just saying I need to see it before I believe it.
NFC Bracket:
I have zero faith in the Seahawks. They were 7-9 in the regular season, got outscored by 97 points, and somehow went 4-2 in the worst division in football. The line for the Saints-Seahawks game has the Saints favored by 11 and I took the Saints.
I think Philly has enough talent to beat Green Bay. The Packers have Aaron Rodgers and a good defense. That's it. Philly is banged up -- well, both teams are banged up -- but they also have Michael Vick, DeSean Jackson, and LeSean McCoy, three of the most dangerous players in the bracket. That's too many weapons and too much talent to ignore in a postseason where talent means everything.
Philly beats Green Bay, New Orleans beats Seattle.
That sends the Saints to Atlanta, where Matt Ryan is 20-2. Well, guess what? One of those losses was to Drew Brees and the Saints and it happened very recently. The Falcons strike me as a Cowher/Schottenheimer team that is very talented, very good at what they do, and very capable of winning a bunch of games that they should win, therefore getting seeded way too high for their talent level. They have one player -- Roddy White -- that can break a game open. They have an average-to-good defense. They have Mike Smith as their coach. From a quarterback, coach, and scheme standpoint, Atlanta-New Orleans is a match-up that highly favors the Saints. For that reason, I think the Falcons are the second least likely team to reach the Super Bowl, despite the fact that they are the number one seed in the NFC.
I actually have a lot of faith in Chicago and I think they are a good team that hasn't gotten their due.
I am going to pick Philly based on two things:
- The Eagles are more talented and explosive and that's what wins playoff games.
- I hate Jay Cutler's face. Every time I see him, I want to punch him. I can't explain it. I understand that I am possibly letting my emotions get the best of me, but I hate his face. I can't pick Jay Cutler to go to the NFC Championship game.
That means I think the Patriots and Saints will go to Super Bowl XLV. I was way off last year -- pretty sure I picked Chargers-Vikings -- and predictions have sucked historically, but that's what I think.
Predictions:
AFC Playoffs:
Jets over Colts
Chiefs over hated Ravens
Patriots over Jets
Steelers over Chiefs
Patriots over Steelers
NFC Playoffs:
Saints over Seahawks
Eagles over Packers
Saints over Falcons
Eagles over Bears
Saints over Eagles
Super Bowl:
Patriots over Saints
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Steelers-Browns Review
Well, I was mostly right. I had the spread within one point and I predicted it would be a blowout. I figured that Cleveland didn't have anything left and the Steelers would show up. So, good times. Blowout win. I jetted to the casino with five minutes left in the third quarter because I knew it was over.
But... did we learn anything? I mean, about the playoffs? I was talking to my buddy Dan about this earlier today and there's no denying that the Steelers faced what was basically a soft schedule this season, despite what the strength of schedule formula says.
They beat Atlanta and the hated Ravens on the road, but those were basically their only quality wins. They lost to the Saints, Jets, and Patriots -- and also lost to the hated Ravens at home -- and lost to most of the tough opponents they played. They crushed Oakland and Tampa, but those were basically two good-bad teams that they should have beaten. The fact that they've lost once to every team in the AFC bracket that they've faced this season is not a good sign. And, if my early -- and I mean early, because I still have a lot of thinking to do before I submit my picks -- prediction is right, New Orleans will represent the NFC in the Super Bowl this year, which also doesn't bode well.
If there's anything that we learned on Sunday, it's that the Steelers will almost certainly win if Ben Roethlisberger goes 15 for 22 with 280 yards and two touchdowns, the defense records four sacks and three turnovers, and Rashard Mendenhall has a game-high 36 yards on the ground.
We don't need to run the ball for 200 yards, we don't need to win the time of possession battle (we did, but definitely not in the first half), and we don't need to squeeze the air out of the ball to win the game. This is a different team. We need to win the turnover battle -- the most important aspect of that is to force turnovers -- we need to run the ball effectively and convert in the red zone, and we need to throw the ball well without getting sacked too much.
We already knew that the Steelers can be a dominant team. The only question is whether or not they will be a dominant team in the three games they have left to (potentially) play.
They have a great deal of potential on offense and they have a very solid defense. The linebackers and the offensive line need to step up -- and the week off they have to get healthier will help -- but it's going to be a question of match-ups and timing. I just hope everything lines up, like it did in 2005 and 2008.
But... did we learn anything? I mean, about the playoffs? I was talking to my buddy Dan about this earlier today and there's no denying that the Steelers faced what was basically a soft schedule this season, despite what the strength of schedule formula says.
They beat Atlanta and the hated Ravens on the road, but those were basically their only quality wins. They lost to the Saints, Jets, and Patriots -- and also lost to the hated Ravens at home -- and lost to most of the tough opponents they played. They crushed Oakland and Tampa, but those were basically two good-bad teams that they should have beaten. The fact that they've lost once to every team in the AFC bracket that they've faced this season is not a good sign. And, if my early -- and I mean early, because I still have a lot of thinking to do before I submit my picks -- prediction is right, New Orleans will represent the NFC in the Super Bowl this year, which also doesn't bode well.
If there's anything that we learned on Sunday, it's that the Steelers will almost certainly win if Ben Roethlisberger goes 15 for 22 with 280 yards and two touchdowns, the defense records four sacks and three turnovers, and Rashard Mendenhall has a game-high 36 yards on the ground.
We don't need to run the ball for 200 yards, we don't need to win the time of possession battle (we did, but definitely not in the first half), and we don't need to squeeze the air out of the ball to win the game. This is a different team. We need to win the turnover battle -- the most important aspect of that is to force turnovers -- we need to run the ball effectively and convert in the red zone, and we need to throw the ball well without getting sacked too much.
We already knew that the Steelers can be a dominant team. The only question is whether or not they will be a dominant team in the three games they have left to (potentially) play.
They have a great deal of potential on offense and they have a very solid defense. The linebackers and the offensive line need to step up -- and the week off they have to get healthier will help -- but it's going to be a question of match-ups and timing. I just hope everything lines up, like it did in 2005 and 2008.
Saturday, January 01, 2011
Steelers-Browns Preview
First of all, Happy New Year! I think the Steelers should make a resolution to win a Super Bowl.
This game is just like the Panthers game. The Steelers must win (well, really, it would just be very nice if they won), they can win, and they should win. I think that they will win, but I'm not sure if it's going to be a tight game or a blowout.
The Browns have nothing left to play for -- maybe not even next season -- and the Steelers still have a reason to win this game. But, Cleveland hates Pittsburgh and it's a bigger rivalry for them than it is for the Steelers, so that's always dangerous. But, the Browns can't really claim that they're spoilers, because the season isn't on the line for the Steelers. As I mentioned before, this team is going to the playoffs, so it's not like they'd miss out on the playoffs if they didn't win.
I think the Steelers can score 17 points in this game even if the offense isn't working. That means that the Browns will need to score 20 points to win and I don't think they can do that. They won't be able to run the ball unless they roll out six offensive linemen -- which they could possibly do, since they've done the unbalanced line thing before -- which means that Colt McCoy is going to need to carry a big load on offense for them to score. I don't think that's something he can't do -- I really do like McCoy and I think he's going to be a good quarterback -- I just think it's something he won't do. Cleveland just doesn't have much talent on offense and they need to get the running game going to move the ball and score. Since I don't think they'll be able to get the running game going, I don't think they'll be able to score enough.
I also keep thinking back to 2005, where the Steelers destroyed the Browns 41-0 in Cleveland on their way to winning Super Bowl XL. I think that could very well happen on Sunday, especially if the Steelers get off to a fast start. If that happens, you have a situation like what happened against Carolina. The Browns players will just want to get off the field, sit on a heated bench, and think about the trips they're going to take in the offseason. In that situation, the game could get ugly, which would be awesome.
The less awesome eventuality would be a Steelers loss and a hated Ravens win. That would make Baltimore the #2 seed and push the Steelers all the way down to #5, with the possibility of them falling to #6 if the Jets also win. But, I keep thinking about something...
If the hated Ravens, Patriots, Chiefs, and Jets all win and the Steelers lose, that would make the Steelers the #6 seed. They would then have to play all their games on the road, traveling to Kansas City (a team that has been down on its luck the last few years and surprised a lot of people by winning their division and finishing 11-5), then knowing if they win that game they have to face New England on the road (a 14-2 juggernaut with a fantastic quarterback that crushed the Steelers in November). That sounds an awful lot like 2005, right? I feel the need to remind you that the Steelers faced those same long odds in 2005 and wound up winning three playoff games in a row on their way to a victory in Super Bowl XL (yes, the Steelers won that, but I may have mentioned that at some point before).
So, it's not the end of the world if the Steelers don't win on Sunday, but it would be really nice if they do. That would get them a home playoff game and a bye. The bye is the bigger thing in my mind because Roethlisberger and Troy need some rest if the Steelers are going to make a deep playoff run.
Prediction:
Steelers 34, Browns 3
This game is just like the Panthers game. The Steelers must win (well, really, it would just be very nice if they won), they can win, and they should win. I think that they will win, but I'm not sure if it's going to be a tight game or a blowout.
The Browns have nothing left to play for -- maybe not even next season -- and the Steelers still have a reason to win this game. But, Cleveland hates Pittsburgh and it's a bigger rivalry for them than it is for the Steelers, so that's always dangerous. But, the Browns can't really claim that they're spoilers, because the season isn't on the line for the Steelers. As I mentioned before, this team is going to the playoffs, so it's not like they'd miss out on the playoffs if they didn't win.
I think the Steelers can score 17 points in this game even if the offense isn't working. That means that the Browns will need to score 20 points to win and I don't think they can do that. They won't be able to run the ball unless they roll out six offensive linemen -- which they could possibly do, since they've done the unbalanced line thing before -- which means that Colt McCoy is going to need to carry a big load on offense for them to score. I don't think that's something he can't do -- I really do like McCoy and I think he's going to be a good quarterback -- I just think it's something he won't do. Cleveland just doesn't have much talent on offense and they need to get the running game going to move the ball and score. Since I don't think they'll be able to get the running game going, I don't think they'll be able to score enough.
I also keep thinking back to 2005, where the Steelers destroyed the Browns 41-0 in Cleveland on their way to winning Super Bowl XL. I think that could very well happen on Sunday, especially if the Steelers get off to a fast start. If that happens, you have a situation like what happened against Carolina. The Browns players will just want to get off the field, sit on a heated bench, and think about the trips they're going to take in the offseason. In that situation, the game could get ugly, which would be awesome.
The less awesome eventuality would be a Steelers loss and a hated Ravens win. That would make Baltimore the #2 seed and push the Steelers all the way down to #5, with the possibility of them falling to #6 if the Jets also win. But, I keep thinking about something...
If the hated Ravens, Patriots, Chiefs, and Jets all win and the Steelers lose, that would make the Steelers the #6 seed. They would then have to play all their games on the road, traveling to Kansas City (a team that has been down on its luck the last few years and surprised a lot of people by winning their division and finishing 11-5), then knowing if they win that game they have to face New England on the road (a 14-2 juggernaut with a fantastic quarterback that crushed the Steelers in November). That sounds an awful lot like 2005, right? I feel the need to remind you that the Steelers faced those same long odds in 2005 and wound up winning three playoff games in a row on their way to a victory in Super Bowl XL (yes, the Steelers won that, but I may have mentioned that at some point before).
So, it's not the end of the world if the Steelers don't win on Sunday, but it would be really nice if they do. That would get them a home playoff game and a bye. The bye is the bigger thing in my mind because Roethlisberger and Troy need some rest if the Steelers are going to make a deep playoff run.
Prediction:
Steelers 34, Browns 3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)