Two amazing stats from the Giants-Panthers game.
1. After his last touchdown run, according to NBC, DeAngelo Williams had the second most 30+ yard rushing TDs in one season with 6. Jim Brown had a season with 6 and another with 7. Usually I don't dig stats that require four qualifiers, but every once in a while one of them will appear significant, or at the very least cool. I wish they showed an expanded list so we could see if Barry Sanders was lurking nearby, though I imagine, they probably limited it to the top three because writing "17 players tied with 5" would have devalued it a bit.
2. The holy crap stat of the year: Ken Lucas' 4th quarter end zone pass interference was the first pass interference call on the Panthers all year. I'm sure this includes called PIs that were declined, but that's remarkable nonetheless. I hope someone (Football Outsiders just wrote about PI or Charlotter Observer columnists?) goes deeper on this and can mine the significance.
Three moments from the fourth quarter of the Cowboys-Ravens game that show just how poorly coached the Cowboys are.
1. Why was Dallas still driving for a touchdown from the 21 yard line, with less than two minutes to go and down by two scores? That they scored a touchdown was a happy accident, but someone should explain to Wade that you can try a hail mary from midfiled, but not a field goal. On top of that, he's got Romo back there, the gunslinger junior, who'd already taken a sack just a few plays earlier that had chewed up precious clock and briefly knocked the Cowboys out of FG range.
2. On McClain's nail-in-the-coffin TD run (3:29 mark), here's how the Cowboys tried to bring him down: Anthony Spencer went for the ball strip instead of trying to wrap-up and then Ken Hamlin tried an arm tackle, aka the coward's tackle, and was rightfully emasculated with a stiff arm. It's poor fundamentals that most often betray poor coaching.
3. On the last Cowboy drive - once again down two scores - Patrick Crayton caught a pass on the sideline and after making one guy miss, dove inside instead of stepping out to preserve the clock. I emphasize dove because his move to the inside barely got him an extra yard. If he had an opportunity to juke and possibly make a first down, that'd be one thing, but his dive is indefensible.
Here's Don Banks' November article suggesting the negative effects a "coach in waiting" like Jason Garrett has on a team.
Also, I love the shot of Phillips at the 3:11 mark in the above highlight.
-Agent Easy
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
Texas Whiners
The Texas whining has become unbearable. Bob Ryan and Dan Patrick put it over the top.
Here’s how Patrick started his interview with Mack Brown in last week’s SI:
No problem; he'll easily hide behind the cloud of misinformation created by the constant whining that has emanated from Austin. Ryan got caught up in the smoke last week:
A step up from Patrick, Ryan at least knows the tiebreaker rules, but is quick to toss them aside.
Where did this attitude come from? Unsurprisingly, partly from Mack Brown. He’s been too happy to revel in this disinformation campaign.
Here’s how he answered Patrick’s question
What Brown is referencing is the tiebreaker that other conferences use in such cases, where, instead eliminating the two lowest ranked BCS teams, they make an exception if the two top ranked teams are within 5 spots of each other, and that way, eliminate the third team, and then revert to the primary tiebreaker for a two team tie, head to head.
Don’t mistake Brown's motives (remember, he has a history of this). He’s only happy to feed the beast. From his official statement:
Later he adds,
Notice Ryan's language here:
His Texas predisposition aside, at least this portion of Ryan’s argument - the merits of the Big 12's chosen tiebreaker - is sensible.
But what Ryan fails to acknowledge (though he eventually simply makes the case for a playoff) is that imperfection is inherent to any tiebreaker. The important thing is to have a predetermined and agreeable one.
Bob Stoops' conclusion is the only rational one:
[Mack Brown's 2004 complaining history via BCS Guru]
-Agent Easy
Here’s how Patrick started his interview with Mack Brown in last week’s SI:
The 11--1 Longhorns lost out on a spot in the Big 12 conference title game, despite having beaten Oklahoma this year, because of a tiebreaker system that relied on BCS standings.That reads as if Patrick has not even a cursory knowledge of the facts and did his interview prep by reading Longhorn message boards.
Dan Patrick: Why isn't head-to-head the first tiebreaker?
No problem; he'll easily hide behind the cloud of misinformation created by the constant whining that has emanated from Austin. Ryan got caught up in the smoke last week:
Oklahoma got to play Missouri in the Big 12 championship game as the beneficiary of a fifth tiebreaker used to settle a three-way tie, that criterion being which team was ranked higher in the current BCS standings. But had it been only a two-way tie between Texas and Oklahoma, Texas would have gone by virtue of having the very first tiebreaker, which is, of course, a victory in head-to-head competition.Is it fair or sensible to arbitrarily leave out one of three teams in a tiebreaker? Is it fair or sensible for a nationally recognized columnist to base his argument on a non sequitur?
Is this either fair or sensible?
A step up from Patrick, Ryan at least knows the tiebreaker rules, but is quick to toss them aside.
Where did this attitude come from? Unsurprisingly, partly from Mack Brown. He’s been too happy to revel in this disinformation campaign.
Here’s how he answered Patrick’s question
Dan Patrick: Why isn't head-to-head the first tiebreaker?
Mack Brown: It just isn't, but I've already asked the Big 12 to look at changing it. It probably wouldn't be admitted right now, but probably they wish head-to-head would have been in there. Hopefully they'll revisit that this spring.
A strange answer, no? Brown is coy and evasive, unconcerned with clarifying Patrick’s dubiously phrased question.
What Brown is referencing is the tiebreaker that other conferences use in such cases, where, instead eliminating the two lowest ranked BCS teams, they make an exception if the two top ranked teams are within 5 spots of each other, and that way, eliminate the third team, and then revert to the primary tiebreaker for a two team tie, head to head.
Don’t mistake Brown's motives (remember, he has a history of this). He’s only happy to feed the beast. From his official statement:
I’m really disappointed for our kids that two teams we beat this season will be playing for the Big 12 championship. I’ll try to explain it to them, but most importantly, my message will be that you’ve done enough to put yourself in position to play for the conference championship…
Actually, no Mack, in fact, they did not do enough. If they hadn’t lost to Tech, if your DBs wrapped up, then yes, you might be able to say they did enough, but this statement is either disingenuous or delusional.
Later he adds,
I do appreciate all of the respect many of the poll voters and fans gave to our season and the importance they placed on the head-to-head matchup in the end, but, unfortunately, it was not enough.He is purposely glib. I'm sure he's similarly appreciative of the lack of importance the voters placed on the other head-to-head matchup. Tech's ranking in the coaches' poll is acceptable, but because they aren't a perennial power like OU and UT, and because they lose style points for producing system quarterbacks, they are thoughtlessly and unfairly disregarded in the tiebreaker conversation.
Notice Ryan's language here:
But the trump card for jilted Texas remains that 45-35 victory over Oklahoma.Tech's win is "fluky and cheesy." Texas and OU are “great." Texas is "jilted," but Tech is not.
There was nothing fluky or cheesy about it. Back on Oct. 11, these two great teams lined up in the Cotton Bowl - a true neutral field since there are always as many Oklahoma fans as Texas supporters - and produced a collegiate football gem. Oklahoma was good, but Texas was better...
Texas stood taller in the fourth quarter. It could not have been simpler...
Oh, but Texas would later lose to Texas Tech, a team the Sooners would throttle by 44. Of course, that game was in Norman while the Texas-Texas Tech game was in Lubbock. And the Red Raiders won that game on a touchdown with one second left. Which loss is more forgivable?
His Texas predisposition aside, at least this portion of Ryan’s argument - the merits of the Big 12's chosen tiebreaker - is sensible.
But what Ryan fails to acknowledge (though he eventually simply makes the case for a playoff) is that imperfection is inherent to any tiebreaker. The important thing is to have a predetermined and agreeable one.
Bob Stoops' conclusion is the only rational one:
[The league] went to a [tiebreaker] system we all agreed upon before the season. If someone didn't like the system, whether it be the media or some other team, hey, just change it before the season and I'll play by whatever rules they want to play by. Just let me know before the season starts.As for the intention and effectiveness of the current tiebreaker the Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe covers that here:
Any tiebreaker system is difficult and will leave teams disappointed. When the tiebreaker was written, I was not in the league, but they wanted to put in the team that had the best chance to play in the national championship game.He addresses Brown's concern directly,
Let's say that the eighth-ranked team in the BCS is in the same division as the third-ranked. If the eighth-ranked team beat the third-ranked team on a last-second play at home, sending the eighth-ranked team, that would defeat the purpose of trying to send the team with the best chance of winning a national championship.For good measure:
[Mack Brown's 2004 complaining history via BCS Guru]
-Agent Easy
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Plaxico
Impact
For all the talk last week about how the Giants would get on just fine without Plaxico - their team focus is unshakable, they've already won three games without Plax, etc. - the Eagles game showed that that might not be the case.
Plax' absences could be seen on the Giants first drive. Instead of trying a long filed goal in poor conditions, they went for it on 4th and 4. The Eagles brought the house and Manning's pass to Hixon was broken up. Without Plaxico Eli doesn't have a safety blanket. The Eagles knew they could bring pressure and not worry about getting burned because Hixon (or any other Gaints WR for that matter) doesn't have Plax's size or skill. On that 4th and 4, the Eagles' corner didn't have to play Hixon with a cushion, and was able to be on him when the ball arrived. Furthermore, once he got there, Hixon wasn't big or physical enough to shield him.
They'll really feel it in the red zone too, where they'll no longer be able to run their favorite play.
Judgement
It's surprising the Plaxico reaction has been so one-sided, a mix of indignation and condemnation. In fact, the conversation is much more complex than the media has permitted it to be. Let us offer two critical pieces of context
1. Sports Illustrated's comprehensive year-old story about the Vick saga. While its focus is on Vick, its more general thrust is the dilemma so many athletes face in reconciling their upbringing (poor, ghetto, etc) with their sudden success, celebrity, and riches.
2. An ESPN mag article that coincidentally came out just a few days pre-Plax. I'm surprised it didn't get more attention, nor seem to inform ESPN's tv coverage. Within it players discuss the security risks that come with their status. Their anxiety is sobering.
For those still hazy on the details of how it all went down, the AP's most recent story should answer any questions. Also, the Wall Street Journal makes the case that NY gun laws may be unconstitutional.
[Hat tip to TBL on these last two.]
-Agent Easy
For all the talk last week about how the Giants would get on just fine without Plaxico - their team focus is unshakable, they've already won three games without Plax, etc. - the Eagles game showed that that might not be the case.
Plax' absences could be seen on the Giants first drive. Instead of trying a long filed goal in poor conditions, they went for it on 4th and 4. The Eagles brought the house and Manning's pass to Hixon was broken up. Without Plaxico Eli doesn't have a safety blanket. The Eagles knew they could bring pressure and not worry about getting burned because Hixon (or any other Gaints WR for that matter) doesn't have Plax's size or skill. On that 4th and 4, the Eagles' corner didn't have to play Hixon with a cushion, and was able to be on him when the ball arrived. Furthermore, once he got there, Hixon wasn't big or physical enough to shield him.
They'll really feel it in the red zone too, where they'll no longer be able to run their favorite play.
Judgement
It's surprising the Plaxico reaction has been so one-sided, a mix of indignation and condemnation. In fact, the conversation is much more complex than the media has permitted it to be. Let us offer two critical pieces of context
1. Sports Illustrated's comprehensive year-old story about the Vick saga. While its focus is on Vick, its more general thrust is the dilemma so many athletes face in reconciling their upbringing (poor, ghetto, etc) with their sudden success, celebrity, and riches.
2. An ESPN mag article that coincidentally came out just a few days pre-Plax. I'm surprised it didn't get more attention, nor seem to inform ESPN's tv coverage. Within it players discuss the security risks that come with their status. Their anxiety is sobering.
For those still hazy on the details of how it all went down, the AP's most recent story should answer any questions. Also, the Wall Street Journal makes the case that NY gun laws may be unconstitutional.
[Hat tip to TBL on these last two.]
-Agent Easy
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Book Review: Michael Lewis' The Blind Side
You know Lewis as the author of Moneyball. “The Blind Side” is ostensibly the story of Michael Oher – currently a senior left tackle at Ole Miss, then a senior left tackle in HS – but it’s really a sociological examination of both football and American society. That’s not surprising; Moneyball was social science (economics) at its core,* and Blind Side seems like it could have started out with a similar economic take. In fact, the scope of Blind Side is so broad it’s impossible to know where this story came from.
Oher was a poor black kid, adopted by rich white parents. He played football for the first time in his junior year of high school, and by the following summer he was one of the most sought after recruits in the country. A year later, as a true freshman, he was a starting left tackle in the SEC. His story is about race relations, the education system, economic disparity, and the plight of the poor.
Yet Lewis never trivializes Oher at the expense of these perhaps more intriguing topics. He always keeps Oher front and center – he is very sensitive to the fact that Oher is only a kid – and the societal considerations on the periphery. He realizes they are evocative in and of themselves. Because of this, the story never loses a sense of authenticity and it’s what makes the book so compelling.
Lewis is able to extract the most interesting details from each area without descending into clinical discussions of the potentially dry topics. He relies heavily on anecdotes (no wonder he has a Gladwell endorsement on the back) and is a talented storyteller. He isn’t preachy. He maintains an even tone and thus seamlessly weaves between the more weighty topics and football history, football strategy, the business of college recruiting, and the awkward role of the NCAA.
When deeper into pure football talk Lewis takes what could be esoteric trivia and presents it as relevant and engrossing and thus is able to engage both the layman and the avid fan.
He jumps between contextual information and Michael’s story. He crafts the setting as if everything that had happened up until now – Bill Walsh, Lawrence Taylor, free agency, the financial and cultural growth of football, in a phrase, “the evolution of the game,”* as well as “a series of social accidents” – happened so that Michael Oher, a poor, uneducated kid from the ghetto with a bleak future, could succeed.
Ultimately this is the most salient point in the book. Oher went from “one of the least valued 15 year olds on the planet to among the most highly prized 18 year olds.” Lewis references a study of Memphis inner city athletes: 5 of 6 public school kids who could play sports at the college level fail to qualify academically. At one point Oher blithely declares that “if all the guys who could play got a chance to play, there would have to be two NFLs because one wouldn’t be enough.” Within his afterword, Lewis writes, “Micahel Oher might have been born to play left tackle in the NFL, but if he had remained in the environment into which he was born no one would have ever known about his talent. I find this remarkable.”
Here it is on Amazon.
*While many think of Moneyball as a Billy Beane bio or simply an endorsement of sabermetrics, its clearly stated premise was to investigate the abilities of a small market team to compete in baseballs non-revenue sharing landscape. FJM covers this nicely in their glossary.
*This was the subtitle of the book when it was first published as a hardcover. Unsurprisingly it wasn’t retained for the paperback.
Two other tangential thoughts:
1. The business of college recruiting: 21 DI schools each spent more than $1-million on their recruiting budgets last year.
2. This book reminded me a lot of “The Wire,” my favorite TV show, the way it laid bare much of the dysfunction of US society, without lapsing into the conventional indignation, all the while maintaining a captivating narrative that reinforced the authenticity.
-Agent Easy
Oher was a poor black kid, adopted by rich white parents. He played football for the first time in his junior year of high school, and by the following summer he was one of the most sought after recruits in the country. A year later, as a true freshman, he was a starting left tackle in the SEC. His story is about race relations, the education system, economic disparity, and the plight of the poor.
Yet Lewis never trivializes Oher at the expense of these perhaps more intriguing topics. He always keeps Oher front and center – he is very sensitive to the fact that Oher is only a kid – and the societal considerations on the periphery. He realizes they are evocative in and of themselves. Because of this, the story never loses a sense of authenticity and it’s what makes the book so compelling.
Lewis is able to extract the most interesting details from each area without descending into clinical discussions of the potentially dry topics. He relies heavily on anecdotes (no wonder he has a Gladwell endorsement on the back) and is a talented storyteller. He isn’t preachy. He maintains an even tone and thus seamlessly weaves between the more weighty topics and football history, football strategy, the business of college recruiting, and the awkward role of the NCAA.
When deeper into pure football talk Lewis takes what could be esoteric trivia and presents it as relevant and engrossing and thus is able to engage both the layman and the avid fan.
He jumps between contextual information and Michael’s story. He crafts the setting as if everything that had happened up until now – Bill Walsh, Lawrence Taylor, free agency, the financial and cultural growth of football, in a phrase, “the evolution of the game,”* as well as “a series of social accidents” – happened so that Michael Oher, a poor, uneducated kid from the ghetto with a bleak future, could succeed.
Ultimately this is the most salient point in the book. Oher went from “one of the least valued 15 year olds on the planet to among the most highly prized 18 year olds.” Lewis references a study of Memphis inner city athletes: 5 of 6 public school kids who could play sports at the college level fail to qualify academically. At one point Oher blithely declares that “if all the guys who could play got a chance to play, there would have to be two NFLs because one wouldn’t be enough.” Within his afterword, Lewis writes, “Micahel Oher might have been born to play left tackle in the NFL, but if he had remained in the environment into which he was born no one would have ever known about his talent. I find this remarkable.”
Here it is on Amazon.
*While many think of Moneyball as a Billy Beane bio or simply an endorsement of sabermetrics, its clearly stated premise was to investigate the abilities of a small market team to compete in baseballs non-revenue sharing landscape. FJM covers this nicely in their glossary.
*This was the subtitle of the book when it was first published as a hardcover. Unsurprisingly it wasn’t retained for the paperback.
Two other tangential thoughts:
1. The business of college recruiting: 21 DI schools each spent more than $1-million on their recruiting budgets last year.
2. This book reminded me a lot of “The Wire,” my favorite TV show, the way it laid bare much of the dysfunction of US society, without lapsing into the conventional indignation, all the while maintaining a captivating narrative that reinforced the authenticity.
-Agent Easy
Friday, November 21, 2008
The Implications of Darius Miles' Contract: Why is this kind of news fringe?
Simmons referenced this in an article the other day and thankfully I found the details within Tom Ziller's Fanhouse blog (take a second and check it out).
Without exaggeration, this is the most fascinating thing I've read about the NBA this year. As trivial as it might seem within the larger scope of the entire season (stars, records, wins), it offers insight into the inner workings of the league.
The 10-day contract loophole itself is interesting enough, but the story's Machiavellian possibilities really drive it.
It's frustrating that news like this is treated as fringe material, that one has to seek it out. (Though this is coming from someone who's barely watched SportCenter in months, I imagine their online content reflects whatever they report on tv). It's aggravating that too often the focus is on the "what" rather than the "how" and "why."
This comes down to blogs vs. MSM and the reason why the former are viable in the first place. This kind of story doesn't have any national flavor in that it isn't about a large-market team or a controversial player, and it's too complex for a casual fan. Thus, ESPN wont run with it. But their is an audience for it, perhaps a large one. Notice that Ziller prefaces his thoughts by saying "as we all know by now." His wording starkly distinguish the two entities. Who knows? Not anyone that relies exclusively on ESPN and the rest.
-Agent Easy
Without exaggeration, this is the most fascinating thing I've read about the NBA this year. As trivial as it might seem within the larger scope of the entire season (stars, records, wins), it offers insight into the inner workings of the league.
The 10-day contract loophole itself is interesting enough, but the story's Machiavellian possibilities really drive it.
It's frustrating that news like this is treated as fringe material, that one has to seek it out. (Though this is coming from someone who's barely watched SportCenter in months, I imagine their online content reflects whatever they report on tv). It's aggravating that too often the focus is on the "what" rather than the "how" and "why."
This comes down to blogs vs. MSM and the reason why the former are viable in the first place. This kind of story doesn't have any national flavor in that it isn't about a large-market team or a controversial player, and it's too complex for a casual fan. Thus, ESPN wont run with it. But their is an audience for it, perhaps a large one. Notice that Ziller prefaces his thoughts by saying "as we all know by now." His wording starkly distinguish the two entities. Who knows? Not anyone that relies exclusively on ESPN and the rest.
-Agent Easy
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Titans closer to the '72 Dolphins than you think
It's obvious that the Titans' 10-0 start isn't generating the kind of fanfare that followed the Patriots' drive for an undefeated season in '07, or for that matter the Colts' undefeated start in '05. The clear reason is that Tennessee isn't winning in the dominant fashion that those two teams did, and it's nearly impossible to picture Kerry Collins succeeding where Tom Brady and Peyton Manning failed.
The irony is that the Titans are closer in style to the '72 Dolphins than either of those two teams: they're winning close games with a dominant defense, a backup quarterback, a stable of running backs, and, yes, an easy schedule. And just as the Dolphins were underdogs in the Super Bowl against Washington, it's perfectly conceivable that a 16-0 Titans team would be an underdog to, let's say, a 15-1 or 14-2 Giants team on a neutral field. And just as the '72 Dolphins are remembered more for going undefeated than for being a great team (like the Steelers teams of the '70s or 49ers of the '80s), the Titans would similarly be likely not to be remembered as fondly as a great team as would the Patriots, Colts, etc.
Given all this, it's no surprise Mercury Morris is openly supporting Tennessee (and also predicted the Giants might be favored against them in the Super Bowl).
-Hazelwood
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
