Gobble Gobble

Every Thanksgiving the Detroit Lions and the Dallas Cowboys each play a game, but not each other. A couple of years ago, the NFL started playing an additional night game on Thanksgiving.

The Lions have been awful for a few years now, so it begs the question: do you take their Thanksgiving game away from them?

I say absolutely not.

Thanksgiving is a busy day. Family members are running around, things need to be cooked, people talk, so chances are you're going to miss a good portion of the game. Why put a good game on TV if you're going to miss a bunch of it?

Detroit fans are used to losing. Losing isn't fun for them, but they know how to handle it. It won't ruin their Thanksgiving. If you're a Dolphins fan and you watch them lose to the Jets, it's probably going to make your Thanksgiving that much less enjoyable. Why spoil such a great holiday for a lot of fans? Also, if your team happens to be playing the Lions, then you're going to have one of the best Thanksgivings ever. Blowout games are still fun for the fans of the team that wins.

Plus, you never know when the Lions are going to be competitive again. When they do come back, it will be that much more satisfying that they can actually put on a good show.

Normally I'm highly opposed to Thursday football, but for Thanksgiving I don't mind because it's a holiday. Especially because they take the 3 games away from the 10am Sunday slot, not the 1pm, Sunday Night or Monday Night slots. There are too many 10am games on Sunday anyway.

The last thing I will say is this: There are very few pure fans of football anymore. By pure football fans I mean a fan who will watch any game just because they love watching football. Fantasy football has done a lot for the sport, and I contest that it is one of the biggest reasons the NFL is so profitable, but it has also created a primary culture of football fandom where you either root for your favorite team or your fantasy players. Because of this new attitude it honestly doesn't matter if the games are good on Thanksgiving because people will watch it for their fantasy players.

There are many meaningless traditions in sport, but not the Lions and Cowboys on Thanksgiving.

Doesn't fall far from the tree

Bill Belichick is considered one of the best minds in football, and he has a large coaching tree. However, how much success do each of the branches of his tree enjoy? Recently, Romeo Crennel and Eric Mangini haven't lived up to expectations and Chuck Weis is on the brink of getting fired. That got me wondering how the rest have done.

I would be remiss in talking about the Bill Belichick tree without mentioning that the entire Bill Belichick tree is actually part of what is now the Bill Parcells coaching forest.

Belichick Assistants Who Became Head Coaches:
Romeo Crennel: Cleveland Browns (24-40)
Eric Mangini: NY Jets, Cleveland Browns (24-33)
Josh McDaniels: Denver Broncos (6-3)
Jim Schwartz: Detroit Lions (1-8)

Al Groh: NY Jets (9-7), Virginia (59-51)
Nick Saban: Mich St, LSU, Alabama (111-48-1), Miami Dolphins (15-17)

Kirk Ferentz: Iowa (79-53)
Pat Hill: Fresno St. (92-61)
Charlie Weis: Notre Dame (35-25)

I don't know about you, but I'm not impressed by the NFL records of any of the coaches. In fact, they're all bad. College records on the other hand are good for most, exceptional for one.

I guess this begs the question: How much can a coach influence his assistants? Can you judge the teacher by the success or failure of his student?

I don't think you can, but it does tell you one thing: Bill Belichick's success in New England is most definitely NOT a product of having good assistants.

-----------

I've read a couple of articles that use statistics to defend the 4th down and 2 decision.

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/zeus-computer-program-supports-belichicks-fourth-down-bid/

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/belichicks-4th-down-decision-vs-colts.html

The articles are short and really interesting. There are actually more and more statistically based arguments for coaches to ignore "conventional wisdom" and go for it on 4th down much more often. Often, the field position gained by punting is not worth being able to get one more shot at a first down.

I wish one day there would be a coach who was bold enough to not punt unless it was absolutely necessary so we can see if it really results in more wins.

The only rebuttal I have is this: By going for it on 4th down, how many more points a game does that equate to? 2? How many more wins a season does that equate to? Half a win? 1? Can you blame a coach for looking out for his own job security for one more win over the course of one or two seasons?

"Conventional wisdom" is not so because it is completely logical. It is so because norms of culture have deemed it that way. Another tenet of conventional wisdom says that you don't jeopardize a high paying job you worked the better part of your life to get for what seems to be a small payoff. I agree with that.

Building from the ground up

For full disclosure, I am personally a fan of Aaron Rodgers. I loved him at Cal and I think he is doing the best job he can in Green Bay, in a situation where the probability for success was very low.

I know that everyone says the Packers have a terrible offensive line, but the effect of not having a good offensive line is absolutely debilitating, as evidenced by the Packers this year. If Aaron Rodgers and Brett Favre switched teams, the Aaron Rodgers-led team would have beaten the Brett Favre-led team. I was thinking:

If your offensive line can't block, you can't run the ball.
If you can't run the ball, you have to throw.

If your offensive line can't block, your quarterback gets sacked.

If your offensive line can't block, the defense can put more men into coverage
If the defense puts more men in coverage, your receivers can't get open.
If your receivers can't get open, your quarterback gets sacked.

In two of those three scenarios, the quarterback takes a sack.

It's always obvious to say that you need a good offensive line to have success, but I was curious to what extent this holds true.

If you look at the 3 teams that give up the most sacks per times attempting to pass for the past ten years, only 5 of them have made the playoffs. That's 5 of 30 teams. Just making the playoffs. None of them have won the Super Bowl, nor have they even made the Super Bowl.

If you look at the draft data between 02-08: (I picked 02 because that's when the NFL shifted to 32 teams, and 08 because that's the most recent data from pro-football-reference.com)

There were 1795 players drafted between 02-08.
48 were centers.
149 were tackles.
104 were guards.

That's 16.77% of all players drafted. I thought this was a lot, but then realized on any given offensive play, of the 22 players on the field, 5 are offensive linemen (22.7%), so they are being drafted at a lower rate than they are being retained.

If you look at the first round of the draft between 02-09 (because I did this manually) it's not much different:
15% of the first 10 picks were offensive linemen
14% of first round draft picks were offensive linemen

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the reason teams need multiple years to build offensive lines is because good offensive linemen don't come around too often, and when you have a good line, you need to do what you can to keep them healthy and on your team.

That's why it hurts even more if your "can't-miss" offensive lineman...misses. *cough* Robert Gallery *cough*

Wildcat Dilemma

So let's say you are like Philadelphia and Miami, with 2 traditional QBs and 1 wildcat type QB. (Philadelphia - McNabb, Kolb, Vick; Miami - Pennington, Henne, Pat White)

You have a dilemma on your hands. What order do you list the QBs on the depth chart?

1. Traditional QB
2. Traditional QB2
3. Wildcat QB

If you do this, you can't use your Wildcat QB until the 4th quarter. Why? The NFL has a rule that says if you use your #3 QB before the 4th quarter, the #1 and #2 QBs on the depth chart can't play until the 4th quarter.

1. Traditional QB
2. Wildcat QB
3. Traditional QB2

If you do this and if your #1 QB gets hurt, then you HAVE to use your Wildcat QB (who is probably not better as a QB than your second best traditional QB) for the rest of the game until the 4th quarter.

So what do you do? The answer seems so simple to me:
List your wildcat QB as a wide receiver or running back. Then they can come and go as they please.

I thought maybe a player listed in the QB depth chart has to be on the field at all times for offensive plays, but that's not the case. Miami runs packages all the time without Pennington on the field.

Easy. Right?

No Funds Left (for their fans)

I promised myself I wouldn't rant too much on my blog, but today is going to be a rare exception.

I have no problem with a business trying to protect its brand and optimizing its revenue, especially if its product is as hot as Allison Stokke.

So here we have the NFL. The NFL does perhaps the most things possible and goes to the greatest lengths to make people spend money. And it works.

1. DirecTV: If you want NFL Sunday Ticket, you have to get DirecTV. In 2009 they paid the NFL $4 billion to extend their contract to 2014. Who wants to get satellite TV? I don't. But I do for NFL Sunday Ticket, and I'm sure I'm not the only one out there. It sucks, but whan can you do?

2. Blackouts: If you have a local team and their game doesn't sell out, that game is blacked out on TV. So for example, let's say you like a team that sometimes doesn't sell out its games, like the Arizona Cardinals. If you live in Arizona and the Cardinals game doesn't sell out, you don't get to watch the game at home. It sucks BIG TIME. Also, if you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, one of the two bay area teams (49ers or Raiders) will probably have a home game. That means you will almost never see a doubleheader on Sundays because if a local team is playing on a channel (let's say CBS) then the other channel (let's say FOX) can't carry ANY other football game. This is precisely why, as an Eagles fan living in Los Angeles, I do NOT want an LA football team. I don't want any football to get blacked out.

3. The NFL Network: If that wasn't enough, a few years ago the NFL created its own network and started putting games on it on Thursdays. So if you don't have the NFL Network, you won't get to watch the game. To make matters worse, not all cable carriers carry the NFL Network, so you couldn't even see it if you wanted to. Of course, the NFL Network is on DirecTV.

Would it really hurt the NFL to at least get rid of the blackout rules? The NFL Network and Sunday Ticket at least make business sense. The blackout rules are just mean. I don't think there are too many people who are borderline between "should I go to the game" and "should I watch it at home". Chances are people who are going to the game aren't going because they are scared it might get blacked out. They would go regardless. You're doing such a massive disservice to so many for such a seemingly minimal gain. A gain you couldn't even quantify if you wanted to!

But alas, what can you do? The NFL has its fans firmly by the gonads and won't let go. They won't even loosen up their grip.

Playing God-ell

Roger Goodell kicks ass and takes names. He meets with players who are in trouble, thinks about it for a couple of days, and then suspends their asses without blinking an eye.

Among others:
Adam Pacman Jones - 1 season and another 4 games
Donte' Stallworth - 1 season
Michael Vick - indefinitely
Plaxico Burress - indefinitely
Chris Henry - 8 games
Tank Johnson - 10 games

This strict enforcement of the conduct policy is refreshing. Athletes get babied their whole lives, so it's nice to see a normal looking dude classily tell them they effed up, and then tell them they can't play.

And it's even crazier how scared football players are of him. Why do punished players always say, "I respect Commissioner Goodell's decision"? because if they said anything else they would get suspended for the rest of their lives Pete Rose style.

This is all good, for now. One day soon it's going to grow old and people will all wonder if Goodell should drop an 'o' from his last name...and "ell"...and drops his entire first name while he's at it.

I just hope when it gets to that point, Commissioner Goodell eases up accordingly. Nobody likes an old white man who thinks he's better than everyone else. (See: Bill Belichick)

Speaking of which I forgot how annoying Belichick's press game conference answers are. Considering he's one of the greatest football minds ever, he says nothing insightful!!!

Reporter: Coach, can you comment on the play that put the other team ahead by 10 pts? Did you feel that you lost momentum?

Belichick (in monotone): Well...they gained a lot of yards on that one play...I mean, the qb can throw the football...and the receiver can catch...so...I mean...and they both have hair...and their shoes were tied, so...it is what it is, you know?

Vick to the Eagles

Michael Vick has signed a two-year deal with the Philadelphia Eagles.

As a fan of the Eagles, I think this is a great move. A really great move.

Why?

You have NOTHING TO LOSE.

1. Money?
In the NFL no contract is guaranteed, so if Vick ends up stinking it up, the Eagles can just cut him and be done with it. Not like he's going to be overpaid anyway.

2. Public Perception?
Eagles fans are ruthless to begin with! Dog fighting is probably not a big deal to the average Philadelphian. Eagles fans would rather win with an ex-convict than lose with a choir boy.

3. Team Chemistry?
Vick didn't get in trouble because of his character as a football player and teammate. He got in trouble because he had some off color hobbies. I guarantee you no former Atlanta Falcons teammate has anything bad to say about Vick as a football player and teammate.

4. Distractions?
This Eagles squad's middle name is distraction. In the last few years: Andy Reid's sons' legal problems, Donovan McNabb's contract, the whole T.O. thing, Shelden Brown, Lito Sheppard, Brian Westbrook contract disputes. This team finds ways to block things out and play on Sundays.

I'm looking forward to seeing Michael Vick as an Eagle. I think he can add at least an element of surprise and/or distraction to opposing defenses.

Marshall Law

It looks like the Broncos will trade top wide receiver Brandon Marshall after trading away quarterback Jay Cutler earlier in the year. There is no way the Broncos will be able to move on with a distraction like Marshall.

Here is what the Denver Broncos offense looked like at the end of last season.

Coach Shanahan
QB Cutler
RB Nobody. They all got hurt.
WR Marshall
WR Eddie Royal
WR Brandon Stokley
TE Tony Scheffler

Here is what the Broncos should look like this coming season

Coach McDaniels
QB Kyle Orton
RB Knowshon Moreno
RB Correll Buckhalter
WR Eddie Royal
WR Brandon Stokely
WR Brandon Lloyd/Jabbar Gaffney
TE Tony Scheffler

The Broncos seem to downgrade on first glance, but if they can shore up the defense, in the weak AFC West, they don't have to be crazy in order to make the playoffs. The offense gets stronger in RB, which is something the Broncos didn't have last season.

I think the Broncos should trade Marshall as soon as possible, and it will be a blessing in disguise. Crazy right?

Here are Marshall's career numbers:

Year	Games	Rec	Yards	TD	Yds/G
2006	15	20	309	2	20.6
2007	16	102	1325	7	82.8
2008	15	104	1265	6	84.3

He was a Pro-Bowler in 2008. In each of the past two years, he has ranked in the top 5 in receptions, top 7 in yards, top 7 in receiving yards per game, and top 10 in yards per touch. He is an elite reciever, and a game changing type of player.

But...

For SOME reason, guys who get in trouble, who happen to play in the NFL cannot seem to stay out of trouble. Pacman, Chris Henry, Ced Benson, Tank Johnson all come to mind. I absolutely LOVE watching Marshall play. He is a certified Grade-A Beast on the football field, but you would think that the Darrent Williams incident would have been enough for him to learn from. Apparently not. Marshall will end up getting a full season suspension from Goodell eventually.

Are there any teams that should pursue Brandon Marshall? Yes. Even though I believe he will get himself kicked out of the league one day, there are teams that should try to get him to make a push for the Super Bowl in the short term.

Baltimore Ravens - The Flac Attack needs more options on offense.
Tennessee Titans - The Titans won 13 games with Justin Gage (651 yds, 6 TDs) as their leading receiver.
Indianapolis Colts - Manning + Wayne + Marshall would be UNSTOPPABLE
Minnesota Vikings (if Favre) - Favre won't be enough to get this team to the Super Bowl. Maybe Favre and Marshall will be enough.
Chicago Bears - Cutler and Marshall will be productive right away, and could go crazy on the NFC North.
Carolina Panthers - Muhsin is solid, but is a #3 receiver at this point in his career. Steve Smith and Marshall would be an unbelievable vertical and possession receiver combo.
Atlanta Falcons - Roddy White emerged last season playing with Matty Ice, and Marshall would be a nice big target for the improving quarterback.

Whoever gets him, or if Denver keeps him: Your time is running out. This guy is a ticking time bomb. You'd better win as soon as possible.