Reconsidering Zach Thomas

The cutting of Zach Thomas took the Dolphins' long-overdue rebuilding effort to a new level. Much of the national and South Florida media has been heaping praise on the 12-year veteran; espn.com's article began by noting that Thomas has more tackles than any linebacker in the Pro Football Hall of Fame"; Miami Herald columnist Greg Cote titled his blog entry "Farewell to a Dolphins Great"; Dave George of the Palm Beach Post called him "A Texas tornado from the day he arrived in training camp."



Am I the only one who thinks the undersized linebacker is a little overrated? Thomas was very productive in his Miami career and certainly meant a lot to the franchise, but, unlike the current and future Hall of Famers he's often compared to, he's not somebody who was capable of taking over a game. Consider, for example, his teammate Jason Taylor. Among his many achievements, he single-handedly decimated the Bears in a 2006 game; Thomas never played at that level. Zach Thomas might have been a great player for his size, but last I checked there was no rule that each team had to have one undersized guy on the field at all times. Zach was not big enough to fight off blocks himself and, while he could be very effective if a big D-line (guys like Daryl Gardner and Tim Bowens in the 1990s) could free him up, he could be also neutralized by a strong O-lineman, as Kevin Mawae of the Jets did to him in a crucial 1998 contest. In other words, he was a very effective "system linebacker," but (unlike Taylor) he was not a force of nature on the field.



Thomas was a very good player for a long time, and his career - from undersized fifth-round pick to seven-time Pro Bowler - is a great story. But it's possible to be a great story and merely a very good player.

Around the Media

What the Twins got for Santana.

Inside the Giants' defensive game-planning.

The economics of publicly financed stadiums.

Shaq-Marion trade

Everyone has already been all over this, and specifically the Suns angle. So I'll keep it short and about the Heat.

The general consensus is that it's a dumb risk for Phoenix and Miami was pleasantly surprised to have the deal fall into their laps, with the few dissenters suggesting mutual benefit and pointing to a 38 year old Kareem still "running" with the showtime Lakers. Either way, everyone is on board that that it worked out great for the Heat.

Marion will have the option to opt out of his contract at the end of this year. As good a player as Marion is, even if he does opt out, the trade will still be worth the salary dump for Miami. They have J Will, Ricky Davis, and Zo coming off the books at the end of the year. Next year's payroll with Marion will be $53 million and a mere $36 million without him.

No matter how much Marion improves the team this year, they're a lock for the lottery. It's unreasonable to think they can make up 10.5 games on seven teams in less than half the season, and somehow compete for a playoff spot.

What the Heat ultimately get out of this is flexibility. Their only priority now will be to build for the the 09/10 season, the last year of Wade's contract. They have two years to put together a team that's a contender, one that's good enough to ensure that Wade isn't tempted by greener pastures, and is happy to re-sign and stay in Miami. Saddled with Shaq's contract and his inefficacy the Heat were on a path in the complete opposite direction. Now with or without Marion, because of the financial flexibility, they have the opportunity to rebuild now, and compete again soon. (Before the trade was even official, Dan LeBatard* was already thinking about Elton Brand.)

The Heat should play out the rest of the season as if they just got their September call-ups. Give the minutes to the youngsters and see if Marcus Banks can at least be an upgrade from Chris Quinn and if Dorell Wright will continue to get better or if he's plateaued. The natural complement to this route is sitting the, if not gimpy, then certainly less explosive Wade. Sure, give him 15-20 games to play with Marion, to be able to assess their chemistry, but after that, considering he'll be playing on the Olympic team all through the summer, give him a rest.

Then they can go into the off-season with a healthy Wade, a lottery pick, a better sense of their youth and of Marion, and sufficient cap space to pursue free agents.



*LeBatard's upcoming article on the trade is due Sunday and is rumored to reveal that neither Riley nor Kerr initiated the talks.

Inside the NFL: 1977-2008

HBO put a damper on the post-Super Bowl euphoria by canceling Inside the NFL, ending arguably the best sports show on television, not to mention a mid-week ritual for many fans.

HBO didn't give an explanation as to why they pulled the plug, but my guess is that the NFL cut off HBO from making the show so they could re-create it on the NFL Network and therefore create more demand for its channel. Inside the NFL depended on NFL Films for its distinctive highlight segments. NFL Films is owned by the NFL. We all know that the NFL has been pushing hard the past few years to promote its NFL Network. To get critical mass, fans have to feel they need the Network - that it's doing more than showing documentaries on the 1979 Rams. Moving actual games to the Network has perhaps been too aggressive, as this year's Pats-Giants season finale controversy showed. But moving an established highlights show to the Network might be the perfect move: it gives NFL Network a show that has a loyal viewership, made entirely of people who are used to paying for premium channels anyway, while not angering the general fan base the way moving a large number of actual games would.

The AP article mentioned that NFL Films would be "looking to continue the show in conjunction with another network in the fall," but it's hard to imagine this being anyone other than the NFL Network. First, because the NFL owns NFL Network; second, because the show's extended discussion format is built around a no-advertisement setup, which wouldn't be possible on any of the major networks or cable channels.

If this is what's going on, then it's a victory for League avarice and a loss for football fans. As for me, I'll consider getting the NFL Network - if they can throw in The Sopranos and Rome as well.

What no one has mentioned about the Super Bowl: 4 things

1. Plaxico's Touchdown

How is it that the Pats' Defensive Coordinator Dan Pees, or better yet, defensive genius Bill Belichick has escaped blame? Anyone who's watched the Giants play this year (ahem, presumably the NE coaching staff) should've known that they love to throw the jump ball to Plax in the corner. How could Pees and Belichick have called a red zone defense that left Hobbs (5'9") matched up against Plax (6'5") with no help over the top? Take a look at the replay. With its all-out blitz and throw from off the back foot it closely resembles this game-winner from last year.*

There's the oft-uttered line about how a coach is limited in that they don't step on the field and thus the best they can do is put their player in a position to win. Well, this one's on the coaches, the genius Belichick included.

*The audio might be NSFW


2. Where was the Patriots' running game?

Sure, maybe no one is talking about it because they think that since the Pats didn't run much all season, it's no surprise. Yet Belichick's reputation has been based on his ability to game plan for anything and everything. Maroney had his 2nd and 3rd highest carry totals and yardage totals in the Pats two playoff games, so them being one-dimensional isn't a valid explanation. So then, where WAS the running game?

Ten of the Pats sixteen carries came in the 1st half and four of them came on their twelve-play opening drive (which, by the way, produced a TD). In the second half they carried only six times. Maroney ran those six carries for 24 yards, a solid average, so it wasn't that the running game was ineffective. Clearly, it wasn't just a matter of game planning not to run, but rather a deliberate choice to abandon the run.

OK, despite what the numbers suggest, let's assume they're misleading, give the Pats the benefit of the doubt, and presume that they indeed had never intended to run the ball. Perhaps they decided that because when they played the Giants in week 17 their running game was shut down so effectively (26 carries for 44 yards), that it wasnt worth pursuing this time around. But we all know that the passing game is about quality and the running game is about quantity. Even if they wouldn't pick up significant yardage, wouldn't a bigger running game at least keep the defense honest? Wouldn't it have been a little easier on Brady to hit his targets if he wasn't on his back all day?

It's as if they didn't consider any solutions to fixing they're sieve of a line other than some WR screens. Sure, yes, those worked well, but why didn't they run more draws for example? According to Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders,* the Pats ran more draws than any team in the league, and the Giants had been abysmal at stopping the draw all year (fitting for a pass-rush team, Schatz points out). Yet in the SB the Pats only ran one draw! (It went for 15 yards, but the net gain was only three because of a hold).

And finally, they only called only one run on their final scoring drive. It's tough to argue with play-calling that resulted in a go-ahead 4th quarter TD, but maybe a run play or two on that last drive would've ticked off those precious seconds that were still left for Eli. Or better yet, if they hadn't abondoned the run to begin with, maybe they wouldn't have needed that drive to pull ahead. Maybe they could've been killing the clock, lead in hand.

*Schatz doesn't say so on the website, but rather during Bill Simmons' 1/31 podcast, around the 16 minute mark.


3. The Fumble

Does anyone remember the Eli Manning fumble? I remember it as the Ahmad Brashaw fumble, but the official box score says otherwise, so we'll go with the former. The reason you may not remember it is because it hasn't been shown among any of the highlights. (I can't speak for regional Boston coverage, but here's the NFL network for example).

Let me refresh your memory: middle of the second quarter, Manning and Bradshaw botch the handoff exchange at the NYG 32 yard line, New England player falls on it, Bradshaw jumps on top and wrestles the ball away, Giants retain possession. The interesting thing about the recovery is that it wasn't your standard pile-on where who knows what kind of tickling and pinching happens, and the ball exchanges hands an unknowable amount of times. No, in this case Bradshaw pounced on the defender and snatched the ball away from him while on top and in plain view. It was so blatant that I was surprised by the call, and even more surprised that Buck and Aikman didn't debate whether or not Belichick would challenge. (It's more understandable why Belichick in fact didn't challenge, as it's very possible that the evidence wouldn't have been indisputable. Again, I say "possible" because I haven't seen the play since).

I'm not saying it should have been Patriots ball, it might have been the right call. I'm just pointing out that the absence of the play from the highlight reel (every highlight reel!) is just as conspicuous as Bradshaw's grab. It's seems a curious production decision, as if every producer was concerned about possibly stirring up controversy, as if they didn't want to taint the Giants' day. Not surprisingly, I can't find the clip anywhere on youtube and the only thing a google search turned up is a mention by a fan on a giants message board, "we got extremely lucky."


4. Plax's Heart

Maybe the biggest story that no one is talking about is Plax's effort, not necessarily just in the Super Bowl, but throughout the year.

Plax has played the entire season with a dislocated ankle. He's played large parts of the season with a hurt back and more recently a sprained MCL. He would heal during the week, sitting out practice, and then play on Sunday. After the loss to Minnesota, Sean Salsbury called for the Giants to sit him because he was hurting the offesnive chemistry. And at the time, this was a reasonable argument, as Salsbury made the case that it usually took Eli and Plax the first half of a game to get in sync, and by then it was sometimes too late.

Of course the Giants didn't sit him, and while he practiced but twice since week two, Plax played in every single game this year. His statline: 70 receptions for 1,025 and 12 TDs.

So why doesn't he get any love? Is it because he's considered flashy? Nah, not flashy; no one would put Plax in the same boat as Chad Johnson and TO, but the image of him coming off the field and instantly making sure that his visor is cocked to the side does stir doubts about focus. Irreverent maybe? There's the history of an ostensible lack of effort. Maybe it's a little of all of the above. After all, Pittsburgh's Post-Gazette felt the need to put a positive spin on his tenure with the Steelers after he left.

Whatever it is exactly, the media hasn't deemed him deserving of the kind of praise they love to heap on the likes of Zach Thomas, Wes Welker, or his former teammate Hines Ward. Rarely do we hear about Plax' toughness or heart, or how he's a "complete football player."

But Plax does deserves that kind of adulation. Not only did he ignore the pain and show up on game day as his stats testify, but he did so as the focus of the Giants offense. He was their number one option, not just statistically, but more importantly, psychologically. He's the one the defenses keyed on. He embraced that responsibility, and we never heard him complain.

The first time he said anything about his injuries was after the Super Bowl when he was asked about his game-winning touchdown. "I gave him a slant fake, he bit it, Eli put it up there and I came down with it. I just told myself, 'God, if you could just get me out here tonight, based on what I've been through all year with the knee and the ankle and the back and everything.' I'm just so grateful for the opportunity and I just told myself I can come out here tonight and compete I would give God all the glory."

Two Fourth Down Calls

In retrospect, everything Belichick did will be seen as a mistake, and everything Coughlin did will be seen as part of the master plan. But Belichick's going for it on 4th-and-13 might not have been such a bad move, and Coughlin's decision to punt on 4th-and-1 in the 4th quarter may nearly have cost New York the game.

Belichick's Call

Up 7-3 with just under 7 minutes left in the 3rd quarter, the Patriots found themselves facing a 4th-and-13 situation on the Giants 31 yard line. In vintage Pats fashion, Belichick elected to go for it, but the pass fell incomplete and New York got the ball on downs. In the wake of the stinging upset, Belichick has taken some serious flak for this decision, including Gene Wojciechowski's musing that there was no "logical reason" for this call.

Let's look at this more closely. The field goal would have been about a 49-yarder and for Stephen Gotskowski - like pretty much any kicker - that is hardly an automatic 3. The Pats kicker is 6-for-10 lifetime from over 40 yards with a season-long of 45, and has misses of 32, 41, and 48 this season. Even indoors in Arizona, those aren't great odds.

Meanwhile, as anyone who's watched the Pats offense this year knows, a pass of 13 yards is not beyond New England's capability. The team was 15 for 21 on 4th down this year and, while 13 yards is of course longer than usual, it's not hard to picture them converting it.

Basically, a field goal attempt would give them maybe a 50/50 chance of scoring 3 and giving the ball back to New York immediately. A pass attempt would give them a somewhat lesser chance of setting themselves up for a touchdown or a much easier field goal, and taking more time off the clock with at least a 7-point lead. Not a slam-dunk either way, but it's hard to fault Belichick too much for taking the more aggressive option - after all, that's the kind of play-calling that helped get them to 18-0 in the first place. If anything, given the Patriot's tendencies, it's surprising they didn't make more calls like this.

Coughlin's Punt

Here's a risk not taken that could have come back to haunt the Giants if not for the offense's late heroics: up 10-7 with about 8 left in the game, New York faced a 4th-and-1 on their own 38. They punt. A safe call, but was it the right one?

It's hard to believe that the Giants thought they could beat the Patriots with 10 points on the board. Given their strong running game and the fact that they were probably only going to get one more offensive possession, was this the time to give the ball back to New England? True, if you fail to convert here, you put New England about 10 yards from field goal range and less than 40 from the end zone. But if you punt, you can see the script unfolding - the Patriots get the ball deep in their own territory, drive the length of the field for a touchdown while killing the clock, and New York gets it back with a mere minute or so on the clock, down four points. If you give the Pats a short field, of course they're more likely to score, but at least they'll be plenty of time left for an offensive possession. Even though they had been held in check all night, it's hard not to assume that the Patriots offense will score in this situation one way or another, and manage the offense and clock accordingly.

As it was, the Patriots did score a touchdown - no worse than if they had been given the ball at the NYG 38. Luckily for the Giants, their long drive only took about 5 minutes off the clock (maybe it would have been more if they had done more than one running play), leaving enough time for Eli & Co.'s late-game heroics.

Missing Out: Shockey and the Post

In week 15 against the Redskins Jeremy Shockey broke his leg. Since then the Giants have only lost once (against the Pats in week 17, a game of which Giants fans seem to speak so reverently about their team’s performance you’d think they won) and have become everyone’s favorite surprise story, winning three consecutive playoff games on the road.

All the way to the Super Bowl with the one and only Kevin Boss at starting TE. Boss has posted pedestrian numbers, during the run: 4 catches, 45 yards, and no TDs, numbers that Shockey bested in seven separate games this year. Boss’ numbers are insignificant in the light of the fact that Boss himself is insignificant, and doesn’t have the stature (or perhaps the personality) to storm into the huddle nostrils flaring, eyes wide open, curses flying, angry about not getting the ball in the right spot (or perhaps at all).

That’s one less thing the often fragile-seeming Eli has to worry about. In fact, post-Shockey he doesn’t seem so fragile or shaken at all. Now when he comes to the line and points out blitz pick-ups or call audibles he no-longer exudes anxiety, but poise. Now that the baby-faced Eli doesn’t have to second-guess himself on account of the flamboyant Shockey he can concern himself solely with executing. With Shockey out, Eli’s TD/Int rate is 8/3 and 4/0 in the playoffs. And as if to emphasize this likely explanation even further, Shockey has been conspicuously absent from the bench and cheering section during the Giants run.

Strangely, the NY press (specifically the Post) held off commenting about this, as if it was a non-story. Underdogs climb to Super Bowl without one of their best known (if actually best) players, perennially nervous QB becomes perennially composed, and it’s a non-story? For a paper that regularly lambasted Eli, Coughlin, and the rest throughout this season (as well as seasons past) they now seemed uncharacteristically coy. Finally, forced to generate fresh copy for the two weeks before the Super Bowl they got around to it.

It’s almost as if they knew they had missed out on a significant subplot: Paul Schwartz of the Post pointed out that “per team policy, players on IR do not travel with the team and thus Shockey did not go with the Giants to their playoff stops in Tampa, Dallas or Green Bay. Actually, Shockey was in no condition from a physical standpoint to travel or stand on a sideline cheering for his teammates. He needs crutches to get around, meaning it would be dangerous for him to position himself anywhere near the Giants bench during games.” Team policy is all well and good, but Schwartz’ own offering is a dubious excuse and presumes we’ve never seen players on crutches standing with their teammates on the sideline. See: Arthur Blank pushing Vick’s wheelchair, or better yet, this week’s Sports Illustrated sidebar about Greg Gadson, an army veteran and paraplegic whose been traveling with the Giants, providing inspiration, and guess what, watching from the sidelines. Schwartz comes off more as Shockey apologist than a reporter honestly seeking and explanation. Not to be outdone, Steve Serby one-ups him and attempts to talk Shockey into coming to Arizona, urging him to be this year’s Phil Simms.

The stigma that comes with being injured is well documented. No doubt it’s been painful for the “fiery” Shockey (the Post’s preferred adjective for him): the only player-specific Giants merchandise that’s still readily available in the local Scottsdale memorabilia shops is that which bears his name.

It’s also worth noting that the Post’s coverage neglected to consider the other incarnation of the injured player, that of the rallying point. As such they implicitly make both points, that Shockey’s absence has proven a boon to the NYG offense, and that the they (the NY Post) didn’t bother to address that.