And of course my favorite...
Friday, November 11, 2005
STAT BOY!!!
At this time every year, once the teams in the teams have played enough games to have a meaningful sample size (or at least meaningful in the statistical anomaly that is college football,) I like to take a gander through the SEC's stats to see what jumps out at me. So come along on my magic carpet ride...
1. I proclaimed Tennessee overrated before the season (along with Iowa, Ohio State, Georgia Tech [just wait three weeks,] and Florida State, thank you very much) because the Vols' pass defense was dreadful last year and they would have to progress a helluva long way to be national title caliber. Well, lost in the hubbub of the DroppedPassapalooza that has been the '05 Tennessee season, lo and behold, they're 8th in yards per attempt allowed and pass efficiency defense. So, as a further rejoinder to Stewart Mandel, Notre Dame being able to move the ball on the Vols isn't a commentary on the defenses of LSU, Georgia, Alabama, or Auburn because all of those defenses are better against the pass than Tennessee. The Vols have also intercepted a meager six passes. Only Vandy, Kentucky, and Ole Miss are worse in that category.
2. A pessimistic note on Alabama: if they're going to survive with a great defense and a pedestrian offense (and the O is going to have to get better this weekend to reach the lofty heights of pedestrian; right now, they're more roadkill,) they need to win the field position battle like the '02 Ohio State team did so adeptly. Unfortunately, the Tide are next to last in the SEC in net punting, with their beloved orange friends from Knoxville keeping them out of the basement. Something to chew on today as Skyler Green's plane lands in Alabama. LSU averages almost ten yards per punt return more than Alabama does; what does that portend if the game turns into an exchange of punts?
3. I said before the year that I expected that Blake Barnes would be starting by the end of the season for Georgia. Whoopsie. Blake isn't even the team's back-up, while D.J. Shockley has done so well that the Dawgs' passing offense ranks first in the conference in yards per attempt. (That stat is colored a little by the fact that Georgia doesn't play Ole Miss, Alabama, or LSU and they have yet to play Auburn.) My mental image of Shockley is always of him galloping away from the line of scrimmage, but he's quietly done a great job throwing the ball this year.
3a. What odds would I have gotten in the off-season that as of November 11, Ole Miss would have .3 yards per attempt more than Tennessee? 25 to 1? 100 to 1? My chances of seeing a Carolina Panther cheerleaders in the women's room show to 1?
4. For all the complaining that LSU fans have done about their defense, this weekend's game in Tuscaloosa matches the top two defenses in the conference in terms of yards per attempt allowed. LSU has also allowed the lowest completion percentage and intercepts a greater percentage of opposing passes than any other team in the SEC.
5. Pat Dye: "You have to run the ball to be able to win in this conference."
Arkansas (2-6 despite leading the league in yards per carry and rushing yards per game) and South Carolina (6-3 despite being last in the league in both categories): "Really?"
And South Carolina is even next-to-last in rushing yards allowed per game.
6. A study in contrasts: the LSU-Alabama game matches the two teams in the conference that allow the fewest yards per play, while the Auburn-Georgia game matches the two offenses that gain the most yards per play. More weirdness: LSU and Alabama are 3rd and 4th in yards gained per play, while Georgia and Auburn and 3rd and 4th in yards allowed per play. This is a long way of saying that the four best teams in the conference are playing this weekend. Sorry, Orson and Stranko. Wait a second, I just scrolled down to turnovers and noticed that Florida is +17, leading the league both in turnovers forced and fewest turnovers conceded. Maybe the Gators do belong in the discussion after all.
1. I proclaimed Tennessee overrated before the season (along with Iowa, Ohio State, Georgia Tech [just wait three weeks,] and Florida State, thank you very much) because the Vols' pass defense was dreadful last year and they would have to progress a helluva long way to be national title caliber. Well, lost in the hubbub of the DroppedPassapalooza that has been the '05 Tennessee season, lo and behold, they're 8th in yards per attempt allowed and pass efficiency defense. So, as a further rejoinder to Stewart Mandel, Notre Dame being able to move the ball on the Vols isn't a commentary on the defenses of LSU, Georgia, Alabama, or Auburn because all of those defenses are better against the pass than Tennessee. The Vols have also intercepted a meager six passes. Only Vandy, Kentucky, and Ole Miss are worse in that category.
2. A pessimistic note on Alabama: if they're going to survive with a great defense and a pedestrian offense (and the O is going to have to get better this weekend to reach the lofty heights of pedestrian; right now, they're more roadkill,) they need to win the field position battle like the '02 Ohio State team did so adeptly. Unfortunately, the Tide are next to last in the SEC in net punting, with their beloved orange friends from Knoxville keeping them out of the basement. Something to chew on today as Skyler Green's plane lands in Alabama. LSU averages almost ten yards per punt return more than Alabama does; what does that portend if the game turns into an exchange of punts?
3. I said before the year that I expected that Blake Barnes would be starting by the end of the season for Georgia. Whoopsie. Blake isn't even the team's back-up, while D.J. Shockley has done so well that the Dawgs' passing offense ranks first in the conference in yards per attempt. (That stat is colored a little by the fact that Georgia doesn't play Ole Miss, Alabama, or LSU and they have yet to play Auburn.) My mental image of Shockley is always of him galloping away from the line of scrimmage, but he's quietly done a great job throwing the ball this year.
3a. What odds would I have gotten in the off-season that as of November 11, Ole Miss would have .3 yards per attempt more than Tennessee? 25 to 1? 100 to 1? My chances of seeing a Carolina Panther cheerleaders in the women's room show to 1?
4. For all the complaining that LSU fans have done about their defense, this weekend's game in Tuscaloosa matches the top two defenses in the conference in terms of yards per attempt allowed. LSU has also allowed the lowest completion percentage and intercepts a greater percentage of opposing passes than any other team in the SEC.
5. Pat Dye: "You have to run the ball to be able to win in this conference."
Arkansas (2-6 despite leading the league in yards per carry and rushing yards per game) and South Carolina (6-3 despite being last in the league in both categories): "Really?"
And South Carolina is even next-to-last in rushing yards allowed per game.
6. A study in contrasts: the LSU-Alabama game matches the two teams in the conference that allow the fewest yards per play, while the Auburn-Georgia game matches the two offenses that gain the most yards per play. More weirdness: LSU and Alabama are 3rd and 4th in yards gained per play, while Georgia and Auburn and 3rd and 4th in yards allowed per play. This is a long way of saying that the four best teams in the conference are playing this weekend. Sorry, Orson and Stranko. Wait a second, I just scrolled down to turnovers and noticed that Florida is +17, leading the league both in turnovers forced and fewest turnovers conceded. Maybe the Gators do belong in the discussion after all.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
I Could Write 1,000 Words To Explain Why College Football Is Better Than The NFL...
but this picture does my work for me.
Smushed
I went to the Hawks game last night and have mostly the same observations that John Hollinger has about the team. Hollinger was very critical of the Joe Johnson signing, but noticed last night that when Johnson plays the two, he's a very effective scorer and gives the Hawks their best perimeter threat in years. The fact that he was able to score with Kobe defending him was even more impressive. His distribution of the ball was fairly good, but he does much better passing the rock when he's functioning as a two and beating opponents off the dribble in an effort to score, as opposed to initiating the offense. Johnson had four assists and would have had more had his teammates finished some looks that he created for them. On the other hand, he also had five turnovers, so let's not anoint him king of the world just yet.
As with last year, the Hawks' primary problem is their complete inability to defend and that starts at the point guard spot, which is still a major issue. Tyronne Lue is a fairly good offensive player, but he cannot keep an opposing point guard in front of him, nor can he defend a screen and roll (although the Lakers didn't exploit this deficiency.) I would hazard a guess that Smush Parker is not in the upper echelon of point guards in the NBA, so allowing him to score 21 points on nine (NINE?!?) shots is a sign that you have major problems defending the one. Kobe scored 37 and looked great doing it. The Hawks made him take tough shots and he just kept burying them. (Would things have been different if Daniel and I would have started the "No Means No" chant in Section 317, thus starting a riot with the assembled teenage girls who think that Kobe is sweet? We'll never know.) The difference in the game was not Kobe getting his 37, but his backcourt mate getting 21, especially on a night where the Lakers' entire frontline looked like garbage. (If last night is any indication, the Kwame Brown experiment is going to be a massive failure. He just looked lost.) I can see why Woodson played Royal Ivey last year, despite his lack of any offensive skill; he needed to remember that it is possible for a point guard to play defense. If Denver gives up on Earl Watson, could the Hawks get him cheaply? He'd be a pretty good fit on this roster.
Hollinger is absolutely right about the Hawks' young players - Josh Smith, Josh Childress, and Marvin Williams - looking completely lost on the court. Woodson is clearly not happy with Smith, as evidenced by his demotion to the bench, and Smith showed why last night with lazy passes. Childress still doesn't have much of an offensive game. (I like Andre Iguodala more and more every time I see Childress play, although I was saying the same things about Luol Deng last year and Childress came on in the second half.) Williams looked good for the first quarter and then was completely anonymous for the remaining three. Daniel remarked that the key to the season will be finding a good third offensive option to go with Johnson and Harrington and Williams seems to be the most likely candidate, although that assumes that he learns rapidly.
As for the game experience, other than the facts that (1) my aisle seats turned out to be smack dab in the middle of a section and (2) the Hawks have gone the route of the Braves and got rid of the $7 24-ounce beer, replacing it with the $6.25 16-ounce beer (do the math,) the game was great fun. There was a guy kissing two girls on KissCam, a contestant on "For Love Or Electronics" saying that she was better than the other two candidate because "I have a job and I'm legal," and the surreal experience of Ryan Cameron playing the role of verbal shot clock. And these tickets are cheaper than movie tickets. I feel like I'm stealing from the Hawks, and then I remember what their record is.
As with last year, the Hawks' primary problem is their complete inability to defend and that starts at the point guard spot, which is still a major issue. Tyronne Lue is a fairly good offensive player, but he cannot keep an opposing point guard in front of him, nor can he defend a screen and roll (although the Lakers didn't exploit this deficiency.) I would hazard a guess that Smush Parker is not in the upper echelon of point guards in the NBA, so allowing him to score 21 points on nine (NINE?!?) shots is a sign that you have major problems defending the one. Kobe scored 37 and looked great doing it. The Hawks made him take tough shots and he just kept burying them. (Would things have been different if Daniel and I would have started the "No Means No" chant in Section 317, thus starting a riot with the assembled teenage girls who think that Kobe is sweet? We'll never know.) The difference in the game was not Kobe getting his 37, but his backcourt mate getting 21, especially on a night where the Lakers' entire frontline looked like garbage. (If last night is any indication, the Kwame Brown experiment is going to be a massive failure. He just looked lost.) I can see why Woodson played Royal Ivey last year, despite his lack of any offensive skill; he needed to remember that it is possible for a point guard to play defense. If Denver gives up on Earl Watson, could the Hawks get him cheaply? He'd be a pretty good fit on this roster.
Hollinger is absolutely right about the Hawks' young players - Josh Smith, Josh Childress, and Marvin Williams - looking completely lost on the court. Woodson is clearly not happy with Smith, as evidenced by his demotion to the bench, and Smith showed why last night with lazy passes. Childress still doesn't have much of an offensive game. (I like Andre Iguodala more and more every time I see Childress play, although I was saying the same things about Luol Deng last year and Childress came on in the second half.) Williams looked good for the first quarter and then was completely anonymous for the remaining three. Daniel remarked that the key to the season will be finding a good third offensive option to go with Johnson and Harrington and Williams seems to be the most likely candidate, although that assumes that he learns rapidly.
As for the game experience, other than the facts that (1) my aisle seats turned out to be smack dab in the middle of a section and (2) the Hawks have gone the route of the Braves and got rid of the $7 24-ounce beer, replacing it with the $6.25 16-ounce beer (do the math,) the game was great fun. There was a guy kissing two girls on KissCam, a contestant on "For Love Or Electronics" saying that she was better than the other two candidate because "I have a job and I'm legal," and the surreal experience of Ryan Cameron playing the role of verbal shot clock. And these tickets are cheaper than movie tickets. I feel like I'm stealing from the Hawks, and then I remember what their record is.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
My Top 25 and Belated Coaching Drinking Buddies
1. Texas
2. Southern Cal
3. Alabama
4. Miami (Florida)
5. Penn State
6. Oregon
7. Virginia Tech
8. Louisiana State
9. Georgia
10. Ohio State
11. Notre Dame
12. Florida
13. Colorado
14. UCLA
15. Wisconsin
16. West Virginia
17. Texas Tech
18. Michigan
19. TCU
20. Florida State
21. Fresno State
22. Georgia Tech
23. Auburn
24. Northwestern
25. Minnesota
I have Texas #1 because they have both an offense and a defense, unlike their esteemed rivals in South Central, who have one, but not the other (although the Wazzu game was a step in the right direction for the SC D.) This is not to say that I would take Texas on a neutral field, especially if Pete Carroll has a month to prepare for Texas' spread option. Alabama is an unenthusiastic #3, mainly because I'm still annoyed that Auburn and LSU were ignored by pollsters for the past two seasons. Either Bama will prove that they belong in the next two weeks by showing an offense that can cross the goal line or they won't, in which case the Miami/Penn State/Oregon/Virginia Tech/LSU/Georgia debate begins.
And speaking of the Ducks, they might actually be persuasive evidence of an East Coast Bias. (Cue angry music from the Yale Whiffenpoofs.) The Ducks have one loss to #1 USC in a game that was at least close for a half. They've beaten everyone else on their schedule, including handing Fresno their only loss. They're two very winnable games from 10-1. Why are they not in the discussion with the other one-loss teams?
I have Florida State and Auburn lower than the human polls do. (By implication, does that last sentence mean that I'm not human?) I defy anyone who has watched Florida State over the past few weeks to tell me that they're a good team. That win over Miami looks more and more like a fluke as time goes on. Of course, it also looked like a fluke at the time, so what have we learned? As for Auburn, is it impolite for me to ask that the beat a decent team? (And no, South Carolina minus their quarterback doesn't count.) I'm sure there are Auburn fans cackling and saying "Just wait until this weekend." We'll see.
I have Colorado a lot higher than the human polls do, mainly because their two losses were both on the road to top five teams and the Big XII, as bereft of top teams other than Texas as it is, doesn't have any bad teams and Colorado has beaten all comers, most in decisive fashion. I get the sense that no one likes Gary Barnett anymore because he (or someone under him) had the outlandish idea of using sex to sell his program, but the guy is a good coach.
And I can't believe I didn't respond to last week's blogpolll on the coaches I would most like to knock back a few with, but here's my belated response:
1. Ron Zook - Just because I would like to buy him about seven Red Bull & vodkas to see what would happen. I'm imagining the night ending with Zook being riddled with bullets while shouting "I'M RON ZOOK!!! WHEN YOU'RE F***ING WITH ME, YOU'RE F***ING WIDDA BEST!!!"
2. Houston Nutt - During the 1/1/99 Citrus Bowl, my friend Bob and I dubbed Nutt a "snakecharmer." He just seemed like the kind of guy who would be preaching about damnation from fluoridation in a tent in Macon's Central City Park. Consequently, he would probably have access to some sort of vile grain alcohol that could make me exhale purple fumes, fart lightning, and make out with a dart board. Just call this a hunch.
3. Tommy Bowden - I put the over/under on reducing Bowden to a blubbery, "Daddy's so good! Daddy's so smart! Why can't Tommy be like Daddy? WELL NO ONE EVER ASKED TOMMY HOW THAT MAKES HIM FEEL!!!" mess at five beers. And then he'll pull a Commodus, suffocate his father, and order 100 days of South Carolina fans being slaughtered by like Tigers on the banks of Lake Hartwell.
(3a. would be Glen Mason for the same reason as Bowden, along with The Ohio State University standing in for Papa Bowden.)
And the three I would not like to blow suds with:
1. Bill Snyder - Makes William F. Buckley seem like Will Ferrell in comparison.
2. Barry Alvarez - There are few things I hate more in life than the guy who eats the pretzels so fast that I don't get my fair share.
3. George O'Leary - Something about those ruddy cheeks implies to me that he would put me to shame.
2. Southern Cal
3. Alabama
4. Miami (Florida)
5. Penn State
6. Oregon
7. Virginia Tech
8. Louisiana State
9. Georgia
10. Ohio State
11. Notre Dame
12. Florida
13. Colorado
14. UCLA
15. Wisconsin
16. West Virginia
17. Texas Tech
18. Michigan
19. TCU
20. Florida State
21. Fresno State
22. Georgia Tech
23. Auburn
24. Northwestern
25. Minnesota
I have Texas #1 because they have both an offense and a defense, unlike their esteemed rivals in South Central, who have one, but not the other (although the Wazzu game was a step in the right direction for the SC D.) This is not to say that I would take Texas on a neutral field, especially if Pete Carroll has a month to prepare for Texas' spread option. Alabama is an unenthusiastic #3, mainly because I'm still annoyed that Auburn and LSU were ignored by pollsters for the past two seasons. Either Bama will prove that they belong in the next two weeks by showing an offense that can cross the goal line or they won't, in which case the Miami/Penn State/Oregon/Virginia Tech/LSU/Georgia debate begins.
And speaking of the Ducks, they might actually be persuasive evidence of an East Coast Bias. (Cue angry music from the Yale Whiffenpoofs.) The Ducks have one loss to #1 USC in a game that was at least close for a half. They've beaten everyone else on their schedule, including handing Fresno their only loss. They're two very winnable games from 10-1. Why are they not in the discussion with the other one-loss teams?
I have Florida State and Auburn lower than the human polls do. (By implication, does that last sentence mean that I'm not human?) I defy anyone who has watched Florida State over the past few weeks to tell me that they're a good team. That win over Miami looks more and more like a fluke as time goes on. Of course, it also looked like a fluke at the time, so what have we learned? As for Auburn, is it impolite for me to ask that the beat a decent team? (And no, South Carolina minus their quarterback doesn't count.) I'm sure there are Auburn fans cackling and saying "Just wait until this weekend." We'll see.
I have Colorado a lot higher than the human polls do, mainly because their two losses were both on the road to top five teams and the Big XII, as bereft of top teams other than Texas as it is, doesn't have any bad teams and Colorado has beaten all comers, most in decisive fashion. I get the sense that no one likes Gary Barnett anymore because he (or someone under him) had the outlandish idea of using sex to sell his program, but the guy is a good coach.
And I can't believe I didn't respond to last week's blogpolll on the coaches I would most like to knock back a few with, but here's my belated response:
1. Ron Zook - Just because I would like to buy him about seven Red Bull & vodkas to see what would happen. I'm imagining the night ending with Zook being riddled with bullets while shouting "I'M RON ZOOK!!! WHEN YOU'RE F***ING WITH ME, YOU'RE F***ING WIDDA BEST!!!"
2. Houston Nutt - During the 1/1/99 Citrus Bowl, my friend Bob and I dubbed Nutt a "snakecharmer." He just seemed like the kind of guy who would be preaching about damnation from fluoridation in a tent in Macon's Central City Park. Consequently, he would probably have access to some sort of vile grain alcohol that could make me exhale purple fumes, fart lightning, and make out with a dart board. Just call this a hunch.
3. Tommy Bowden - I put the over/under on reducing Bowden to a blubbery, "Daddy's so good! Daddy's so smart! Why can't Tommy be like Daddy? WELL NO ONE EVER ASKED TOMMY HOW THAT MAKES HIM FEEL!!!" mess at five beers. And then he'll pull a Commodus, suffocate his father, and order 100 days of South Carolina fans being slaughtered by like Tigers on the banks of Lake Hartwell.
(3a. would be Glen Mason for the same reason as Bowden, along with The Ohio State University standing in for Papa Bowden.)
And the three I would not like to blow suds with:
1. Bill Snyder - Makes William F. Buckley seem like Will Ferrell in comparison.
2. Barry Alvarez - There are few things I hate more in life than the guy who eats the pretzels so fast that I don't get my fair share.
3. George O'Leary - Something about those ruddy cheeks implies to me that he would put me to shame.
Monday, November 07, 2005
I Thought That Southerners Were The Provincial Ones?
Prove me wrong, Peter King:
"I think the one thing you can't understand unless you live somewhere on the Eastern Seaboard between Washington and Boston -- or unless you once lived there -- is the intensity of a big sports event. One of the reasons players love playing here, and one of the reasons guys like Joe Gibbs get drawn back into the game magnetically, is because the games are so electric and they feel so important. I felt it Sunday night at Eagles-Redskins and I'll feel it in front of the TV tonight for Pats-Colts. So much fun. Such a gas."
These people wouldn't know anything about a big sports event. They only had to suspend their rivalry for decades because it was getting too intense.
Or these people. Spanish Civil War? What's that? That can't compare to the Acela rivalry between the Redskins and Eagles, can it?
Or these guys. When have religious differences ever produced a good rivalry, I ask.
"I think the one thing you can't understand unless you live somewhere on the Eastern Seaboard between Washington and Boston -- or unless you once lived there -- is the intensity of a big sports event. One of the reasons players love playing here, and one of the reasons guys like Joe Gibbs get drawn back into the game magnetically, is because the games are so electric and they feel so important. I felt it Sunday night at Eagles-Redskins and I'll feel it in front of the TV tonight for Pats-Colts. So much fun. Such a gas."
These people wouldn't know anything about a big sports event. They only had to suspend their rivalry for decades because it was getting too intense.
Or these people. Spanish Civil War? What's that? That can't compare to the Acela rivalry between the Redskins and Eagles, can it?
Or these guys. When have religious differences ever produced a good rivalry, I ask.
At Least One Team In The South Has An Offense
I didn't think I'd be saying this on the morning following the Falcons' trip to Miami, but that was a fine offensive performance yesterday. If Mike Vick threw the ball like that on a consistent basis (22/31, 221 yards, one touchdown, no picks,) then he wouldn't be forced to defend his skills as a pocket passer and he wouldn't have to make defensive tirades about how no one should question his skills in that department ever again. Specifically, his throw to Alge Crumpler to set up the Falcons' first touchdown was a thing of beauty, inch-perfect to a well-covered receiver while rolling left with a man in his face. And speaking of rolling left, the Dolphins showed their lack of experience at defending Vick because they consistently let him roll left in the early going. There was also at least one instance of a defensive end running right at him, which Vick bounced outside just like he did for years before teams figured out that their defensive ends can't barrel straight at him.
The fact that the game was not a runaway was a testament to the importance of turnovers. A Justin Griffith fumble deprived the Falcons of a chance to take an early 14-0 lead (and thereby put the game in the hands of Gus Frerotte) and an Allen Rossum muff allowed the Dolphins to close to 14-10 at the half, despite being totally outplayed. Honestly, I feel a lot better after a win like this than I did after the Jets game because the Jets (read: Vinny Testaverde) just handed the game over to the Falcons, whereas yesterday's game was a blowout that was only kept close by easily correctable mistakes.
And regarding the Miami offense, their passing game is completely mismatched with their running game. With their running backs, Miami should be running the ball on just about every play, but when they aren't running, why aren't they trying to stretch the field in the passing game? How does the dink-and-dunk passing attack make life easier for Ronnie Brown and Ricky Williams? I guess that Frerotte just doesn't have the arm to wing the ball down the field, which means that Miami, for about the eighth straight year, is a better quarterback away from being a good team.
I don't want to get carried away, but with 1-7 Green Bay at home, a collapsing Tampa team that desperately misses Brian Griese, and wretched Detroit on the docket for the next three games, it's quite possible that the Falcons will take a six-game winning streak and a 9-2 record to Carolina for the first of two huge games with the Panthers.
The fact that the game was not a runaway was a testament to the importance of turnovers. A Justin Griffith fumble deprived the Falcons of a chance to take an early 14-0 lead (and thereby put the game in the hands of Gus Frerotte) and an Allen Rossum muff allowed the Dolphins to close to 14-10 at the half, despite being totally outplayed. Honestly, I feel a lot better after a win like this than I did after the Jets game because the Jets (read: Vinny Testaverde) just handed the game over to the Falcons, whereas yesterday's game was a blowout that was only kept close by easily correctable mistakes.
And regarding the Miami offense, their passing game is completely mismatched with their running game. With their running backs, Miami should be running the ball on just about every play, but when they aren't running, why aren't they trying to stretch the field in the passing game? How does the dink-and-dunk passing attack make life easier for Ronnie Brown and Ricky Williams? I guess that Frerotte just doesn't have the arm to wing the ball down the field, which means that Miami, for about the eighth straight year, is a better quarterback away from being a good team.
I don't want to get carried away, but with 1-7 Green Bay at home, a collapsing Tampa team that desperately misses Brian Griese, and wretched Detroit on the docket for the next three games, it's quite possible that the Falcons will take a six-game winning streak and a 9-2 record to Carolina for the first of two huge games with the Panthers.
Stewart Mandel, Read A Friggin' Box Score For Once
Here is Mandel's wrap-up column from the weekend and here's his self-pat on the back regarding Tennessee's performance bursting a myth about SEC defenses:
"That SEC scores were so low because of the league's dominant defenses. Hmm. Notre Dame didn't seem to have quite the same problem moving the ball against Tennessee's defense (QB Brady Quinn went 20-of-33 for 295 yards and three touchdowns) as undefeated conference leader Alabama did in its infamous 6-3 victory over the Vols. Furthermore, the Crimson Tide couldn't even score an offensive touchdown against 2-7 Mississippi State. And these guys are winning the conference right now. What does that say about everybody else?"
Yes, Quinn passed for 295 yards. Notre Dame also managed 343 yards of total offense, which was their second lowest total of the year. Georgia gained 405 yards in Knoxville. South Carolina gained 307. What did Notre Dame do that SEC teams have not? They scored more points, but could that have something to do with two returns for touchdowns, along with scoring drives of 27, 17, and ten yards? Gee, you think that Tennessee's disastrous special teams and offense had something to do with Notre Dame scoring 41 points? After Notre Dame scored a touchdown on one of their two good drives of the game to take a 28-21 lead, the mighty Vol offense gave the Irish the ball on the UT 34 and 20 to start their next two drives and the UT defense held Notre Dame to field goals both times.
As for Alabama not being able to score an offensive touchdown on Mississippi State, Mandel does have a point there. You would think that Tyrone Prothro is the second coming of Don Hutson, given how the Tide offense has completely ground to a halt in the past two weeks. In their defense, Bama has a long tradition of sitting on leads and once they scored on defense and special teams to take a 17-0 lead, they pretty much shut up shop. Still, that doesn't justify three offensive points against a bad team. Personally, I think that Bama's green offensive line, which was a major question mark coming into the season, is being exposed.
"That SEC scores were so low because of the league's dominant defenses. Hmm. Notre Dame didn't seem to have quite the same problem moving the ball against Tennessee's defense (QB Brady Quinn went 20-of-33 for 295 yards and three touchdowns) as undefeated conference leader Alabama did in its infamous 6-3 victory over the Vols. Furthermore, the Crimson Tide couldn't even score an offensive touchdown against 2-7 Mississippi State. And these guys are winning the conference right now. What does that say about everybody else?"
Yes, Quinn passed for 295 yards. Notre Dame also managed 343 yards of total offense, which was their second lowest total of the year. Georgia gained 405 yards in Knoxville. South Carolina gained 307. What did Notre Dame do that SEC teams have not? They scored more points, but could that have something to do with two returns for touchdowns, along with scoring drives of 27, 17, and ten yards? Gee, you think that Tennessee's disastrous special teams and offense had something to do with Notre Dame scoring 41 points? After Notre Dame scored a touchdown on one of their two good drives of the game to take a 28-21 lead, the mighty Vol offense gave the Irish the ball on the UT 34 and 20 to start their next two drives and the UT defense held Notre Dame to field goals both times.
As for Alabama not being able to score an offensive touchdown on Mississippi State, Mandel does have a point there. You would think that Tyrone Prothro is the second coming of Don Hutson, given how the Tide offense has completely ground to a halt in the past two weeks. In their defense, Bama has a long tradition of sitting on leads and once they scored on defense and special teams to take a 17-0 lead, they pretty much shut up shop. Still, that doesn't justify three offensive points against a bad team. Personally, I think that Bama's green offensive line, which was a major question mark coming into the season, is being exposed.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Ron Mexico Needs To Go Deep More Often
And with that rancid headline out of the way, Matt Winklejohn has an incisive piece in this morning's AJC on Mike Vick's struggles in the passing game. The article is noteworthy for a couple reasons:
1. While Vick has become an overhyped media monster in the past couple years, it's good to be reminded that during the 2002 season, he was a statistically proficient passer. The Football Prospectus noted this year that his 2002 season was, by their statistical measure, better than any of Tom Brady or Donovan McNabb's seasons prior to 2004, when both had career years statistically. Dan Reeves, who knows a thing or two about football and is as honest as the day is long, notes that Vick was very confortable throwing mid-range and deeper passes in his offense and was not comfortable with the types of passes that he's forced to throw now. We might have a classic case of coaches trying to fit their talent to a system, rather than the other way around. We also might have a classic case of coaches thinking that their winning results justify sub-optimal offensive strategies. (Paging Phil Fulmer!)
2. Joe Theismann makes some very intelligent points! Maybe he's better in print when he's not shouting for airtime with Patrick and Maguire or preening for the cameras with that blow-dried 'do that screams "Cheesy Notre Dame Guy!" Anyway, I've always thought that the West Coast Offense is a bad fit for Vick because it de-emphasizes one of his best traits: his insanely strong arm. The WCO (and when I use that term, I mean the Bill Walsh version that emphasizes short, accurate passes to backs, receivers, and tight ends) aids quarterbacks like Jake Plummer or Jeff Garcia who don't have strong arms, but are accurate enough to hit receivers in stride on shorter routes. Does that sound like Vick? It also puts a premium on good route-running. Does that sound like the Falcons' crop of receivers? Anyway, Theismann makes (or implies) the point that Vick's height is also a problem in the WCO because it involves a lot of low-trajectory throws through narrow lanes over the middle.
Jim Mora has obviously done a good job with the Falcons, as evidenced by the fact that only a second half collapse will prevent him from becoming the first coach in franchise history to lead the team to consecutive winning seasons. However, he's very defensive about the offensive scheme, which could mean either that he's mistakenly believing that the scheme for the passing game is fine and that the team isn't winning in spite of it, or that he recognizes that fact, but does not want to say so publicly.
1. While Vick has become an overhyped media monster in the past couple years, it's good to be reminded that during the 2002 season, he was a statistically proficient passer. The Football Prospectus noted this year that his 2002 season was, by their statistical measure, better than any of Tom Brady or Donovan McNabb's seasons prior to 2004, when both had career years statistically. Dan Reeves, who knows a thing or two about football and is as honest as the day is long, notes that Vick was very confortable throwing mid-range and deeper passes in his offense and was not comfortable with the types of passes that he's forced to throw now. We might have a classic case of coaches trying to fit their talent to a system, rather than the other way around. We also might have a classic case of coaches thinking that their winning results justify sub-optimal offensive strategies. (Paging Phil Fulmer!)
2. Joe Theismann makes some very intelligent points! Maybe he's better in print when he's not shouting for airtime with Patrick and Maguire or preening for the cameras with that blow-dried 'do that screams "Cheesy Notre Dame Guy!" Anyway, I've always thought that the West Coast Offense is a bad fit for Vick because it de-emphasizes one of his best traits: his insanely strong arm. The WCO (and when I use that term, I mean the Bill Walsh version that emphasizes short, accurate passes to backs, receivers, and tight ends) aids quarterbacks like Jake Plummer or Jeff Garcia who don't have strong arms, but are accurate enough to hit receivers in stride on shorter routes. Does that sound like Vick? It also puts a premium on good route-running. Does that sound like the Falcons' crop of receivers? Anyway, Theismann makes (or implies) the point that Vick's height is also a problem in the WCO because it involves a lot of low-trajectory throws through narrow lanes over the middle.
Jim Mora has obviously done a good job with the Falcons, as evidenced by the fact that only a second half collapse will prevent him from becoming the first coach in franchise history to lead the team to consecutive winning seasons. However, he's very defensive about the offensive scheme, which could mean either that he's mistakenly believing that the scheme for the passing game is fine and that the team isn't winning in spite of it, or that he recognizes that fact, but does not want to say so publicly.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
More Kicking of Jason Whitlock
Having just finished watching Boogie Nights last night, I can best compare this post to the scene towards the end when Jack Horner beats the crap out of a college student for telling him that his films now suck and then, as the poor kid is lying on the ground bloody and semi-conscious, Rollergirl skates over and kicks him in the head with her skate. In this instance, Jack Horner is played by MGoBlog, the hapless college student is played by Jason Whitlock's knee-jerk column about Charlie Weis getting a massive extension from Notre Dame, and I get to be Rollergirl (minus the perfect chest and desire to be mothered by a coked-out porn star.) Anyway, here's what I have to add to Brian's fine takeout of Whitlock's argument:As an initial matter, it needs to be said that major college football programs put themselves at risk for arguments like this because of their lousy collective history in hiring African-Americans. That history creates the context for reactionary writers looking for the next emotional hot button issue to ride to Stephen A. Smith-dom to view any story in college football with a hint of race as a big deal. That's why Fisher DeBerry's comments were such a big deal (aided by the fact that he's a older man who has previously voiced socially conservative views, both of which add to the impression that he could be prejudiced) and that's why the Weis extension is news. The irony is that Notre Dame is one of the few college football programs that has hired an African-American coach, so they shouldn't be punished for the context in which they find themselves. Brian makes a great point when he states that other programs will look at the heat that Notre Dame has taken and will be less likely to hire the next Tyrone Willingham, although he probably overstates the importance of the Jason Whitlocks of the world.
What Whitlock completely misses in his piece is the way that Notre Dame has gotten to 5-2, as opposed to the way that Notre Dame got to 8-0 under Willingham. Notre Dame has looked very good in every game they've played this year. They've blown out every bad team they've played, they won a reasonably close game against a good Michigan team on the road, they suffered an upset to Michigan State, an entirely reasonable result given State's history of playing up to the name opponents on its schedule, and they came within an eyelash of beating a team that hasn't lost in two years. In other words, they've looked like a very good team. (Incidentally, when Whitlock pillories the Notre Dame schedule, he glosses over who's coaching one-win Washington.) I'm by no means a Notre Dame fan and I have no problem saying that they look like a good bet to win a national title in the next five years. I NEVER got that sense about Willingham's first team at ND, a team that was one of the weakest 8-0 teams in recent memory and a team whose subsequent collapse over the next 2 and 1/3rd seasons was entirely predictable.
And why is Notre Dame only 5-2 this season, despite having an offense that ranks 9th in total offense? Gee, could it be because Willingham did a lousy job of recruiting on defense, specifically the defensive backfield? Any team with a semblance of a passing game can stay in a game with Notre Dame this year because the Irish can't stop the pass and were unable to do so for most, if not all, of Willingham's tenure. Weis has taken a team from which Willingham could coax six wins and has produced a top ten team. Is that not worth an extension? Whitlock gives Willingham credit for recruiting the offense that Weis has turned into a machine and Willingham did do a fairly good job recruiting offense skill position talent (although his offensive line recruiting was not good,) but Willingham was unable to get any production out of Quinn & co. Before the season, Quinn was viewed as a marginal NFL prospect. After a year with Weis, Whitlock now says he could go ahead of Leinart and acts as if this was fait accompli.
And what was the motivation for that extension, Jason? Could it have been the fact that the NFL is eyeing Weis like you eye all-you-can-eat riblet night at Applebee's? I don't recall NFL teams going ga-ga over Willingham in 2002 when Notre Dame was 8-0 because they played opponents who had a remarkable ability to hand the ball to Irish defenders at inopportune times. Weis, unlike Willingham, has a proven track record in the NFL. Willingham does not. The NFL is full of teams that are willing to pay $4M per season for a head coach. The NFL drives the monetary market for top-end college coaches, which is why Weis needs a raise and Willingham didn't.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
"I am not a committee!"
The BCS is college football's version of Phil and Kobe or TO and McNabb: a relentlessly overplayed story that breeds more inane commentary than any other. To with here is Gene Wojciechowski (thank G-d for cut and paste) making the same tired claim that a committee would be better than the current formula. I'd love to hear Gene address this simple question: how is a small group of humans making a decision any better than a large group? If he thinks there was a lot of criticism before of the results spit out by the BCS rankings, how does he think it's going to function when a small group of human beings, all with identifiable connections and presumed biases and agendas, are determining whose 11-0 is more impressive? The idea that Tommy Tuberville would be OK with his unbeaten team being denied a shot at the title because of a decision coming from the star chamber is insane. I'd voice surprise that ESPN would print such a dumb argument, but this is, after all, the network that decided that John Kruk needed a bigger platform to voice his sophisticated views on baseball.
Or, let's flip Wojo's counter-factual around and say that the star chamber anointed Auburn and USC as the Orange Bowl participants last year. Would Bob Stoops be OK with that decision coming from Wojo's suggested group that includes the former commissioner of the SEC, two former SEC coaches (including one who went to school at Auburn,) and Tommy Tuberville's former boss (Jimmy Johnson)?
All that needs to be said about the BCS is this: it is given the impossible task of picking two teams out of 117. It must do so despite the fact that the teams it must compare have almost never played and have few, if any, common opponents. No matter what method the BCS uses, it will come up short against the impossible task. There is really nothing else that needs to be said about it.
Or, let's flip Wojo's counter-factual around and say that the star chamber anointed Auburn and USC as the Orange Bowl participants last year. Would Bob Stoops be OK with that decision coming from Wojo's suggested group that includes the former commissioner of the SEC, two former SEC coaches (including one who went to school at Auburn,) and Tommy Tuberville's former boss (Jimmy Johnson)?
All that needs to be said about the BCS is this: it is given the impossible task of picking two teams out of 117. It must do so despite the fact that the teams it must compare have almost never played and have few, if any, common opponents. No matter what method the BCS uses, it will come up short against the impossible task. There is really nothing else that needs to be said about it.
Quintessential Met Decisionmaking
Per the link above, Rafael Furcal has offered to play second for the Mets. My initial reaction is that his agent is trying to drive up his client's price and with most of the big-money teams already set at short, this is a way to do so. That said, if the Mets took the bait and made Furcal a second baseman, that would be fitting for a franchise that spends money like a drunken sailor with little or no thought as to how they're spending it. This is the same franchise that spent millions on Carlos Beltran one winter after signing the best centerfielder on the market. Similarly, they signed Kaz Matsui to a huge deal and would now be throwing more money at their second base problem. And to top it off, they would be wasting their money on Furcal if they put him at second because much of his value is tied up in the fact that he has the best arm of any shortstop in baseball, an arm that would be rendered mostly superfluous at second. (Again, this is like paying Mike Cameron, a guy whose value is tied up in the fact that he plays very good defense in centerfield, in right.) He's a better shortstop than Reyes, but we wouldn't want to move our wonder child, would we?
The only way this works out for the Mets is if signing Furcal prompts the Mets to move Reyes and his sub-par OBP lower in the lineup, but knowing them, they'll have Furcal hitting second after Reyes because speed guys have to be at the top of the lineup.
The only way this works out for the Mets is if signing Furcal prompts the Mets to move Reyes and his sub-par OBP lower in the lineup, but knowing them, they'll have Furcal hitting second after Reyes because speed guys have to be at the top of the lineup.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
We've been here before
In all of the kvelling that will likely take place in the Dawg Nation in the next two weeks, this picture ought to say a thousand words. Florida, despite their struggles against Alabama and LSU, was and is a good football team with a major psychological advantage when they play Georgia in Jacksonville. Georgia was going into the game with its quarterback and best defensive tackle, both of whom are captains, on the shelf. In those circumstances, it isn't that surprising that the Dawgs came up short. If Shockley gets healthy and Georgia takes care of business against Auburn, then they'll head to Atlanta, probably at 10-1. Who wouldn't have taken that result at the start of the season?Now, after getting off to a positive start, it's time for the recriminations:
1. Not since watching an ESPN Classic Replay of Michigan in the 1/1/77 Rose Bowl have I seen a team trail in the final two minutes and still insist on play action on every passing down. In Michigan's case, it was because they didn't have any passing plays that were not play action. I'm pretty sure that that is not true for Mark Richt's offense, so what in the world was Georgia doing running play action in the final three minutes of the game. JTIII already had trouble reading the defense and making accurate throws; why make his life more difficult by keeping his eyes on a running back instead of the secondary for the first part of a passing play? Steve Spurrier always hated the shotgun because it takes the quarterback's eyes off the coverage when he's getting the snap. Play action is even more pronounced in this respect.
2. I thought that Georgia had a good chance to win the game primarily because their defense would take care of Florida's offense and to a certain extent, they did by holding the Gators to 14 points and 261 yards, although Florida might have been more effective on offense if they wouldn't have been playing with the lead for the entire game. (Also, Georgia was fortunate to have only allowed 14 points at halftime because of the unforced fumble by DeShawn Wynn that deprived the Gators of a chance to really salt the game away at the end of the second quarter.) My second reason was the fact that teams often rally around a back-up quarterback and play well for a game or two before reality sets in. This, however, was not the case for Georgia. From their first offensive snap of the game, which ended with Martrez Milner dropping, to their last, which ended with JTIII having to throw the ball up under pressure because his line full of juniors and seniors could not protect him, the rest of the offense didn't make up for Shockley's absence. The line and receivers needed to exceed their norms on Saturday and they failed to do so.
3. On the next-to-last drive, did anyone else get the sense that Mohammed Massaquoi came fairly close to becoming Lindsey Scott, Jr.? Absent the intervention of Jarvis Herring (I think it was Jarvis who made the tackle,) Massaquoi might have scored on that wide receiver screen. And wouldn't it have been amusing if the play that Georgia fans have grown to revile because of its overuse would have saved the team in the biggest game of the season.
4. Up until the last drive when it was obvious that Georgia would be throwing, Mark Richt called pass plays on five first and tens. JTIII's stats on those plays: 3/5 for 40 yards and one drop by Milner. On the rest of his passes, JTIII was 5/16 for 60 yards and one pick. Seems to me that the better strategy for the offense, given a shaky quarterback, would have been to have him throw in non-obvious passing downs.
5. It's interesting that Florida got their biggest win of the year when they completely abandoned the option. On the other hand, they didn't win because of their offense, so maybe we shouldn't read too much into the change in Urban Meyer's offensive strategy.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Georgia-Florida musings
This has been a weird year for me. After watching Georgia's first two games, I haven't seen them play since, save for the Tennessee game, but my recollection of that is slightly fuzzy because I was: (1) drunk; (2) bothered by the fact that Michigan had just handed the Brown Jug over to Minnesota for the first time since Lou Holtz was their coach and I dressed in bright orange Auburn sweatshirts; and (3) watching a desperate female Vol fan hitting on a table of obviously gay male Vol fans. (Not that my gaydar is anything to brag about. When I was a summer associate, I asked the partner who was my mentor at the firm when we were going to do lunch at the Cheetah. Needless to say, this did not interest this partner in any way, other than to raise legitimate "maturity concerns.") I watched Florida against Kentucky, Alabama, and LSU, so my impression of them so far is that they can only beat the worst team in the conference. Needless to say, this won't stop me from acting all prophetic.
It worries me that the conventional wisdom seems to be that Georgia is going to win, despite the fact that they have a wretched history against the Gators and Florida is a five-point favorite. Everyone analyzing the game thinks that Florida is going to struggle mightily to move the ball and I can't say that I disagree. More than anything else, Florida's offense has been killed this year because their offensive line can't get Urban Meyer's zone blocking scheme. Georgia, like Tennessee, Alabama, and LSU, has the defensive line to completely disrupt Florida's offense and make Chris Leak break out the "I can't believe I'm thinking this, but I miss Ron Zook, now look into my beautiful eyes" face. It's hard to imagine Florida moving the ball in this game after their performances against Alabama and LSU, but they have had two weeks to prepare for the game and they have a funny way of playing a lot better when they see the Red and Black. Also, if they force turnovers by the bushel like they did in Baton Rouge (and that isn't inconceivable with Joe Tereshinski (hereinafter "JTIII"), then offense might not be a problem.
When Georgia has the ball, Florida is going to quickly disabuse them of the notion that they'll be able to run the ball and have JTIII do nothing more than manage the game. Moreover, the idea that Georgia's just going to run the ball and throw only when forced to is wrong. If I'm smart enough to figure out that JTIII is far more likely to be successful throwing on occasions other than third and long, then Mark Richt is smart enough to reach the same conclusion. He's not going into a Lloyd Carr death spiral, where he loses faith in his quarterback and then puts him in position to fail by allowing him to throw only on obvious passing downs. The question is simply whether JTIII will perform well enough that Florida has to back off the run a little, allowing Georgia's offense to function properly. Who the hell knows, but I will say that JTIII has been in this offense for a long time, he's very experienced, he was fairly heavily recruited in high school, and he's beaten out the highly-touted Blake Barnes to be the back-up, so he's probably not a bad option.
The more I write about this game, the more I reach two conclusions:
1. Georgia should win if both teams play to form.
2. Georgia and Florida rarely play to form when they meet in Jacksonville.
Confused yet? Me too.
It worries me that the conventional wisdom seems to be that Georgia is going to win, despite the fact that they have a wretched history against the Gators and Florida is a five-point favorite. Everyone analyzing the game thinks that Florida is going to struggle mightily to move the ball and I can't say that I disagree. More than anything else, Florida's offense has been killed this year because their offensive line can't get Urban Meyer's zone blocking scheme. Georgia, like Tennessee, Alabama, and LSU, has the defensive line to completely disrupt Florida's offense and make Chris Leak break out the "I can't believe I'm thinking this, but I miss Ron Zook, now look into my beautiful eyes" face. It's hard to imagine Florida moving the ball in this game after their performances against Alabama and LSU, but they have had two weeks to prepare for the game and they have a funny way of playing a lot better when they see the Red and Black. Also, if they force turnovers by the bushel like they did in Baton Rouge (and that isn't inconceivable with Joe Tereshinski (hereinafter "JTIII"), then offense might not be a problem.
When Georgia has the ball, Florida is going to quickly disabuse them of the notion that they'll be able to run the ball and have JTIII do nothing more than manage the game. Moreover, the idea that Georgia's just going to run the ball and throw only when forced to is wrong. If I'm smart enough to figure out that JTIII is far more likely to be successful throwing on occasions other than third and long, then Mark Richt is smart enough to reach the same conclusion. He's not going into a Lloyd Carr death spiral, where he loses faith in his quarterback and then puts him in position to fail by allowing him to throw only on obvious passing downs. The question is simply whether JTIII will perform well enough that Florida has to back off the run a little, allowing Georgia's offense to function properly. Who the hell knows, but I will say that JTIII has been in this offense for a long time, he's very experienced, he was fairly heavily recruited in high school, and he's beaten out the highly-touted Blake Barnes to be the back-up, so he's probably not a bad option.
The more I write about this game, the more I reach two conclusions:
1. Georgia should win if both teams play to form.
2. Georgia and Florida rarely play to form when they meet in Jacksonville.
Confused yet? Me too.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
And now a defense of Fisher DeBerry
For instance, take this ill-reasoned criticism of his "we need more fast players and African-Americans sure seem to be faster" remark. The author, and others (almost all middle-aged white guys doing their best to personify White Guilt) who are in a tizzy about DeBerry's comments, has to have his eyes closed to think that there aren't more African-Americans (or, more specifically, individuals of West African descent) with top-end speed. How many Caucasian cornerbacks are there in the NFL? What's that? Zero? And how about halfbacks? Is that another zero I hear? Is that a coincidence that two of the top three speed positions in the NFL are uniformly honky-free? How in the world can anyone look at that disparity and think that DeBerry is wrong? And let's not even discuss the world of Olympic sprinting. Yeah, there is one Caucasian world champion in the 200. There is also the minor fact that approximately 196 of the top 200 times ever turned in in the 100M dash were turned in by runners of West African descent. Another striking coincidence. (And this, incidentally, is where the "race" arguments should end. People of East African descent don't have the type of speed that DeBerry was describing. Instead, they dominate the long distance events. So when DeBerry spoke of "African-Americans," he wasn't really describing a race, although I doubt that he knows that. He was describing people of West African descent, not the entire race of people of African descent.)
The author also creates a straw man argument by stating that DeBerry was making a "[b]lanket statement[] meant to describe a particular race of humans." Not exactly. He was saying that there are more African-Americans with top-end speed. I doubt he was saying that African-Americans are all faster than Caucasians. DeBerry could probably outrun Star Jones and he'd be the first to say that. He was saying that there are greater numbers of African-Americans with top end speed and that's completely right.
And then finally, we get the argument that public school education sucks in this country and that African-Americans are faster because they have no other options in life. Wrong wrong wrong. Public school education also sucks for rural whites in Appalachia, for instance, but you don't see Kentucky and West Virginia playing super fast Caucasians in their backfields, do you? And it can't be an American phenomenon. Again, the 100M dash is dominated by West Africans, as well as individuals from North America and Europe who are of West African descent. Are the schools crappy in all of those places? And are the schools crappy for West Africans in London, but not East Africans? How about all those poor kids in Pakistan with no hopes in life? Why aren't there sprinters coming from Islamabad?
Bottom line: why is it so hard to believe that groups from different areas of the world might have different distributions of genetic characteristics? Are we Jews full of it when we worry that we're more likely to have offspring with Tay-Sachs? Liberals who bend over backwards to claim that there are absolutely no differences between different racial groups just make themselves look dumb because they are making a claim that anyone with two eyes can see is not true. (Some sociologists would probably dispute my use of the term "race" there and a more precise way to say it might be that groups from different areas of the world, i.e. West Africans, Caucasians, Aboriginals, etc., sometimes have different genetic distributions in their populations.)
The author also creates a straw man argument by stating that DeBerry was making a "[b]lanket statement[] meant to describe a particular race of humans." Not exactly. He was saying that there are more African-Americans with top-end speed. I doubt he was saying that African-Americans are all faster than Caucasians. DeBerry could probably outrun Star Jones and he'd be the first to say that. He was saying that there are greater numbers of African-Americans with top end speed and that's completely right.
And then finally, we get the argument that public school education sucks in this country and that African-Americans are faster because they have no other options in life. Wrong wrong wrong. Public school education also sucks for rural whites in Appalachia, for instance, but you don't see Kentucky and West Virginia playing super fast Caucasians in their backfields, do you? And it can't be an American phenomenon. Again, the 100M dash is dominated by West Africans, as well as individuals from North America and Europe who are of West African descent. Are the schools crappy in all of those places? And are the schools crappy for West Africans in London, but not East Africans? How about all those poor kids in Pakistan with no hopes in life? Why aren't there sprinters coming from Islamabad?
Bottom line: why is it so hard to believe that groups from different areas of the world might have different distributions of genetic characteristics? Are we Jews full of it when we worry that we're more likely to have offspring with Tay-Sachs? Liberals who bend over backwards to claim that there are absolutely no differences between different racial groups just make themselves look dumb because they are making a claim that anyone with two eyes can see is not true. (Some sociologists would probably dispute my use of the term "race" there and a more precise way to say it might be that groups from different areas of the world, i.e. West Africans, Caucasians, Aboriginals, etc., sometimes have different genetic distributions in their populations.)
Sabbatical's over...
and it took this inane gem from Stewart Mandel to rouse me from my slumber. (We Southerners can be so prickly some times!) Anyway, Mandel misses several points:
1. Southerners are a little defensive right now about our teams because the last few years have seen them screwed routinely. In 2003, LSU only got a spot in the national title game because of Oklahoma's loss. The consensus of the human polls (which are greatly affected by media coverage and emphasis on chosen story lines, as well as inertia in that their assessment of teams rarely change unless those teams lose, hence the uncritical assumption that USC and Texas are the two best teams in the land) was that LSU was not on the level of USC or Oklahoma until the Sooners were exposed. In 2004, the human polls made the same judgment about Auburn, namely that they weren't on the level with USC or Oklahoma. In both instances, Oklahoma didn't do anything in their bowl game to justify the faith that the human polls had in them. Now, it's 2005, two SEC teams are unbeaten, and naturally, they have been judged to be inferior to USC and a Big XII team, such that they'll never get a shot at the national title unless one of those two teams lose. Stewie, you'll forgive us bumpkins if we don't take your proclamations of the inferiority of SEC teams seriously in light of the way that LSU and Auburn were erroneously written off in the past two seasons.
(And speaking of which, how is it that Big XII teams win out every time there is a controversy with the BCS? Flat-state bias?)
2. The reference to "ugly" SEC football is another illustration of why Southerners are so prickly and, incidentally, it explains why I like have computers as part of the BCS formula. Human voters always overrate the importance of offense and underrate the importance of defense when evaluating teams. Why was Bama's win over Tennessee ugly, but USC's win over Notre Dame and Texas' win over Ohio State were both glorious WHEN THEY WERE ALL BY THREE POINTS? Yes, Bama's six points against Tennessee were unimpressive, but how about USC allowing 31 points to Notre Dame? That was evidence of a top team? USC's defense was a complete sieve after they scored to take the lead at 27-24. That performance, more than Bama's problems scoring against the Tennessee defense, is inconsistent with a national champion. Hell, Mandel authored a very perceptive piece as part of SI.com's 2004 college football preview about the common factor for all national champions in the past decade being a top ten defense. USC isn't close to that right now, although in their defense, they've played far better offenses than any of the other unbeaten teams. The Trojans might get by being an exception to the rule that teams without great defenses don't win national titles because the rest of their schedule is manageable and I'm not going against the Trojans when Carroll has a month to prepare for a home game for the national title. That said, they don't look like a national champion right now, but most of the media are so obsessed with offensive skill position talent that they are overlooking that team's flaws.
And how does this relate to my original point? Simply put, Mandel's criticism of the SEC based on the games being defensive is idiotic because defense is central to winning a national title, so Georgia and Alabama aren't getting their due.
3. I love this:
"As a more lucid SEC alum in my office said this week, you can sum up the conference this season with a word: 'unwatchable.'
"Now, compare that to the ACC, which not only has three teams that could play with anyone in the SEC (Virginia Tech, Florida State and Miami) but also no less than six other teams (Boston College, Clemson, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest and North Carolina) capable of beating those squads on any given week."
As an initial matter, anyone who thinks that a well-played defensive game is "unwatchable" shouldn't be writing for SI. Additionally, Mandel shifts his argument from the aesthetics of SEC games to the depth of the SEC versus the depth of other conferences, which is actually a reasonable point for him to make. (The bottom half of the SEC is not good this year and that's a legitimate criticism of Alabama and Georgia.) Sticking with aesthetics, did Stewie watch the Miami-Florida State game? Or the Clemson-Boston College game? And he's going to criticize SEC teams for playing boring, defensive games?
4. And it gets even dumber with this gem:
"Perhaps if the Tide or Bulldogs had beaten an Ohio State or Notre Dame in their non-conference slate rather than Middle Tennessee, Southern Miss, Utah State, Boise State or Louisiana-Monroe, I'd have a better measuring stick."
Refresh my recollection, Stew. Weren't you the one who proclaimed Boise State to be the best mid-major before the season, along with every other SI college football writer? Hell, Georgia can't win for losing. They clobber a top 25 team with an offense that enamors everyone and that win makes that team worthless. (Incidentally, Boise State then lost a three-point game on the road to Oregon State and has not lost since.) And by the end of the year, Georgia and Alabama will have played Tennessee, Florida, Auburn, and LSU, all of whom would probably be better than anyone else in the Big XII other than Texas. I guess those four games just don't give Stew the same ability to evaluate Georgia and Alabama in the same way that one win over Ohio State does with Texas. Ohio State must be SO good.
5. And let's not forget this last nugget:
"In the absence of that, perhaps the best point of comparison you can make is this: USC gained more yards against Arkansas in a two-minute span (261) than Georgia did against the Razorbacks over the course of an entire game (217)."
How about this: Washington scored more points against USC than they did against any other opponent this season. USC led mighty Arizona by seven points after three quarters. If we're going to judge teams based on not putting away bad opponents, how about those apples?
1. Southerners are a little defensive right now about our teams because the last few years have seen them screwed routinely. In 2003, LSU only got a spot in the national title game because of Oklahoma's loss. The consensus of the human polls (which are greatly affected by media coverage and emphasis on chosen story lines, as well as inertia in that their assessment of teams rarely change unless those teams lose, hence the uncritical assumption that USC and Texas are the two best teams in the land) was that LSU was not on the level of USC or Oklahoma until the Sooners were exposed. In 2004, the human polls made the same judgment about Auburn, namely that they weren't on the level with USC or Oklahoma. In both instances, Oklahoma didn't do anything in their bowl game to justify the faith that the human polls had in them. Now, it's 2005, two SEC teams are unbeaten, and naturally, they have been judged to be inferior to USC and a Big XII team, such that they'll never get a shot at the national title unless one of those two teams lose. Stewie, you'll forgive us bumpkins if we don't take your proclamations of the inferiority of SEC teams seriously in light of the way that LSU and Auburn were erroneously written off in the past two seasons.
(And speaking of which, how is it that Big XII teams win out every time there is a controversy with the BCS? Flat-state bias?)
2. The reference to "ugly" SEC football is another illustration of why Southerners are so prickly and, incidentally, it explains why I like have computers as part of the BCS formula. Human voters always overrate the importance of offense and underrate the importance of defense when evaluating teams. Why was Bama's win over Tennessee ugly, but USC's win over Notre Dame and Texas' win over Ohio State were both glorious WHEN THEY WERE ALL BY THREE POINTS? Yes, Bama's six points against Tennessee were unimpressive, but how about USC allowing 31 points to Notre Dame? That was evidence of a top team? USC's defense was a complete sieve after they scored to take the lead at 27-24. That performance, more than Bama's problems scoring against the Tennessee defense, is inconsistent with a national champion. Hell, Mandel authored a very perceptive piece as part of SI.com's 2004 college football preview about the common factor for all national champions in the past decade being a top ten defense. USC isn't close to that right now, although in their defense, they've played far better offenses than any of the other unbeaten teams. The Trojans might get by being an exception to the rule that teams without great defenses don't win national titles because the rest of their schedule is manageable and I'm not going against the Trojans when Carroll has a month to prepare for a home game for the national title. That said, they don't look like a national champion right now, but most of the media are so obsessed with offensive skill position talent that they are overlooking that team's flaws.
And how does this relate to my original point? Simply put, Mandel's criticism of the SEC based on the games being defensive is idiotic because defense is central to winning a national title, so Georgia and Alabama aren't getting their due.
3. I love this:
"As a more lucid SEC alum in my office said this week, you can sum up the conference this season with a word: 'unwatchable.'
"Now, compare that to the ACC, which not only has three teams that could play with anyone in the SEC (Virginia Tech, Florida State and Miami) but also no less than six other teams (Boston College, Clemson, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest and North Carolina) capable of beating those squads on any given week."
As an initial matter, anyone who thinks that a well-played defensive game is "unwatchable" shouldn't be writing for SI. Additionally, Mandel shifts his argument from the aesthetics of SEC games to the depth of the SEC versus the depth of other conferences, which is actually a reasonable point for him to make. (The bottom half of the SEC is not good this year and that's a legitimate criticism of Alabama and Georgia.) Sticking with aesthetics, did Stewie watch the Miami-Florida State game? Or the Clemson-Boston College game? And he's going to criticize SEC teams for playing boring, defensive games?
4. And it gets even dumber with this gem:
"Perhaps if the Tide or Bulldogs had beaten an Ohio State or Notre Dame in their non-conference slate rather than Middle Tennessee, Southern Miss, Utah State, Boise State or Louisiana-Monroe, I'd have a better measuring stick."
Refresh my recollection, Stew. Weren't you the one who proclaimed Boise State to be the best mid-major before the season, along with every other SI college football writer? Hell, Georgia can't win for losing. They clobber a top 25 team with an offense that enamors everyone and that win makes that team worthless. (Incidentally, Boise State then lost a three-point game on the road to Oregon State and has not lost since.) And by the end of the year, Georgia and Alabama will have played Tennessee, Florida, Auburn, and LSU, all of whom would probably be better than anyone else in the Big XII other than Texas. I guess those four games just don't give Stew the same ability to evaluate Georgia and Alabama in the same way that one win over Ohio State does with Texas. Ohio State must be SO good.
5. And let's not forget this last nugget:
"In the absence of that, perhaps the best point of comparison you can make is this: USC gained more yards against Arkansas in a two-minute span (261) than Georgia did against the Razorbacks over the course of an entire game (217)."
How about this: Washington scored more points against USC than they did against any other opponent this season. USC led mighty Arizona by seven points after three quarters. If we're going to judge teams based on not putting away bad opponents, how about those apples?
Friday, September 23, 2005
My picks for the weekend
Here are the lines as I try to improve from a whopping 4-3 start to the season:
Ohio State (-7) vs. Iowa - The last time I took the Buckeyes, I looked good for the first 50 minutes or so until Jim Tressel's scorching hot romance with the field goal cost his team the game. (In his defense, he probably didn't coach Ryan Hamby to drop a wide open touchdown that would have put the Horns behind the eight-ball, nor did he coach Buckeye fans to then show their class by sending Hamby hate mail. That story never gets old for me, nor does the apology issued by Ohio State's President for the way that Texas fans were treated in Columbus, but I digress.) This sounds like the Bucks' bounce-back game. Last year, Iowa came into the season highly thought of, got embarrassed in a road non-conference game, then got beaten up by the Big Ten favorite on the road. In the interests of everything remaining consistent, we'll take Ohio State to cover, although I'm already pondering the wisdom of picking the Bucks to cover a touchdown when their M.O. under Tressel has been to win every game in overtime.
Virginia Tech (-10.5) vs. Georgia Tech - I'm not a big fan of the Hokie offense, but they play like gangbusters at home and the M.O. of Georgia Tech under Gailey has been that they can't sustain solid performances. Only six teams have stayed within single digits of Virginia Tech at Lane Stadium in the past six seasons. If they get a lead on Georgia Tech and force a quarterback coming back from viral meningitis to rally, then this game will be ugly. By the way, if Marcus Vick had herpes instead of Michael, then there would be all sorts of tasteless one-liners to be had about this game...and I'm just the kind of guy to make them.
Notre Dame (-13) at Washington - Washington is probably worse than Pitt and ND covered this number in Pittsburgh, plus the Irish probably had a great week of practice after losing at home to Michigan State. The media have hyped this game up because of the coaching match-up, but if they paid attention to the two teams that will actually line up against one another (a rare occurrence in today's personality-obsessed media and this comes from the guy who got a "PLANNING TO MARRY!!!" US Weekly headline in his mailbox this week), then there wouldn't be much reason to pay attention to this one.
Michigan (-3) at Wisconsin - After picking the two arch rivals of my alma mater and the arch rival of my law school alma mater, I might as well do something for my self-esteem and take the ol' winged helmets for once. Everyone is obsessed with Michigan's terrible record in road openers this century, but the main reason for that bad record is that Michigan still takes Bo's view of non-conference games as warm ups for the real season: the eight game march in the Big Ten. How else do we explain that Lloyd Carr loses just about every non-conference game on the road, but is a perfect 10-0 in Big Ten openers? Or that Michigan is a ridiculous 35-1 in Big Ten openers since Schembechler became the coach in 1969? This Wisconsin team is overrated right now because they're 3-0 against a bunch of patsies, but they have injuries on the defensive line that will negate their ability to exploit Michigan's banged up offensive line and backfield. UM played last week without its top two right tackles, its right guard, its starting tight end, and its 1,500 yard tailback from last year. This week, it's allegedly getting its right guard and back-up right tackle back, which will mean time to Chad Henne to pick on Wisconsin's bad secondary. (Admittedly, relying on Michigan injury information is like relying on economic statistics from the Communist-era Kremlin.) If Mike Kolodziej and Matt Lentz play at anything close to 100%, then Michigan wins comfortably, i.e. by seven.
One problem with my pick: my youngest brother is currently a freshman at Michigan and, as I warned him, his freshman football season is going exactly as my 1993 freshman year went: easy non-conference win to start the year, followed by upset loss at home to Notre Dame in which the quarterback implodes, followed by easy non-conference win. 1993 was also the year that Michigan lost at Camp Randall Stadium, punctuated by a Heysel-esque riot (minus the projectiles, large death count, and five-year European ban) by always level-headed Badger students. Are we about to have a George Santayana moment?
Ohio State (-7) vs. Iowa - The last time I took the Buckeyes, I looked good for the first 50 minutes or so until Jim Tressel's scorching hot romance with the field goal cost his team the game. (In his defense, he probably didn't coach Ryan Hamby to drop a wide open touchdown that would have put the Horns behind the eight-ball, nor did he coach Buckeye fans to then show their class by sending Hamby hate mail. That story never gets old for me, nor does the apology issued by Ohio State's President for the way that Texas fans were treated in Columbus, but I digress.) This sounds like the Bucks' bounce-back game. Last year, Iowa came into the season highly thought of, got embarrassed in a road non-conference game, then got beaten up by the Big Ten favorite on the road. In the interests of everything remaining consistent, we'll take Ohio State to cover, although I'm already pondering the wisdom of picking the Bucks to cover a touchdown when their M.O. under Tressel has been to win every game in overtime.
Virginia Tech (-10.5) vs. Georgia Tech - I'm not a big fan of the Hokie offense, but they play like gangbusters at home and the M.O. of Georgia Tech under Gailey has been that they can't sustain solid performances. Only six teams have stayed within single digits of Virginia Tech at Lane Stadium in the past six seasons. If they get a lead on Georgia Tech and force a quarterback coming back from viral meningitis to rally, then this game will be ugly. By the way, if Marcus Vick had herpes instead of Michael, then there would be all sorts of tasteless one-liners to be had about this game...and I'm just the kind of guy to make them.
Notre Dame (-13) at Washington - Washington is probably worse than Pitt and ND covered this number in Pittsburgh, plus the Irish probably had a great week of practice after losing at home to Michigan State. The media have hyped this game up because of the coaching match-up, but if they paid attention to the two teams that will actually line up against one another (a rare occurrence in today's personality-obsessed media and this comes from the guy who got a "PLANNING TO MARRY!!!" US Weekly headline in his mailbox this week), then there wouldn't be much reason to pay attention to this one.
Michigan (-3) at Wisconsin - After picking the two arch rivals of my alma mater and the arch rival of my law school alma mater, I might as well do something for my self-esteem and take the ol' winged helmets for once. Everyone is obsessed with Michigan's terrible record in road openers this century, but the main reason for that bad record is that Michigan still takes Bo's view of non-conference games as warm ups for the real season: the eight game march in the Big Ten. How else do we explain that Lloyd Carr loses just about every non-conference game on the road, but is a perfect 10-0 in Big Ten openers? Or that Michigan is a ridiculous 35-1 in Big Ten openers since Schembechler became the coach in 1969? This Wisconsin team is overrated right now because they're 3-0 against a bunch of patsies, but they have injuries on the defensive line that will negate their ability to exploit Michigan's banged up offensive line and backfield. UM played last week without its top two right tackles, its right guard, its starting tight end, and its 1,500 yard tailback from last year. This week, it's allegedly getting its right guard and back-up right tackle back, which will mean time to Chad Henne to pick on Wisconsin's bad secondary. (Admittedly, relying on Michigan injury information is like relying on economic statistics from the Communist-era Kremlin.) If Mike Kolodziej and Matt Lentz play at anything close to 100%, then Michigan wins comfortably, i.e. by seven.
One problem with my pick: my youngest brother is currently a freshman at Michigan and, as I warned him, his freshman football season is going exactly as my 1993 freshman year went: easy non-conference win to start the year, followed by upset loss at home to Notre Dame in which the quarterback implodes, followed by easy non-conference win. 1993 was also the year that Michigan lost at Camp Randall Stadium, punctuated by a Heysel-esque riot (minus the projectiles, large death count, and five-year European ban) by always level-headed Badger students. Are we about to have a George Santayana moment?
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Today's game was a real playoff preview
Not because the Braves are going to play the Phillies in the playoffs, but instead because the Braves lost a game against a quality opponent because Bobby Cox left his starter in for too long and Tim Hudson, who had pitched effectively for eight innings, got torched in the ninth after he had clearly run out of gas. In this instance, though, Bobby can be blamed because he does have one obviously reliable pitcher - Kyle Farnsworth - and he was at home, meaning there was no chance for a save opportunity once the ninth inning rolled around. Bobby possibly worried about pitching Farnsworth in a third straight game, but was it better to send his game two NLDS starter's pitch count north of 110?
And let's not lose sight of the fact that the Braves were only in a predicament in the first place because they didn't score a run all game, which makes it hard to win a baseball game. The offense's downfall has been a large reason why the team has played mediocre baseball over the past 50 games.
And let's not lose sight of the fact that the Braves were only in a predicament in the first place because they didn't score a run all game, which makes it hard to win a baseball game. The offense's downfall has been a large reason why the team has played mediocre baseball over the past 50 games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)