Ray Lewis, of the Baltimore Ravens, recently stated this will be his last year. There is little doubt he will be enshrined in the NFL Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio in a few years -- assuming he doesn't pull a Brett Favre.
Lewis' list of football accomplishments is long. Over the course of a 17 year career, all with the Baltimore Ravens, he was selected to 13 Pro Bowls, twice named defensive player of the year, went to and won a Super Bowl, and was even the MVP of that game. Very impressive stuff.
However, once upon a time, Lewis was oh so close to most of that never happening. Way back on Jan. 31, 2000, following a Super Bowl party in Atlanta, Lewis and a couple of his companions, along with others, got involved in a fight which left two people stabbed to death. Within days, Lewis and his companions, Reginald Oakley and Joseph Sweeting, were charged with murder and aggravated assault. Through his attorneys, Lewis quickly reached a plea agreement with the prosecutor, whereby he'd testify against his buddies in exchange for having the murder and assault charges against him dropped. And so it came to be. Even though Lewis admitted he had lied to the cops when they originally questioned him, he was eventually only held accountable for a minor obstruction of justice charge and given a year's probation. Despite the two fatal stabbings and all the blood likely involved -- the white suit Lewis was wearing at the time mysteriously disappeared and was never found. The prosecutor surmised, but couldn't prove anything. Even with Lewis' testimony, Oakley and Sweeting were eventually acquitted about 6 months later. Though two people were stabbed to death, and no other suspects were apparently ever considered -- unlike the OJ scenario, it quickly faded from the news. But let's not forget, Lewis seemed to have no problem with ratting out his "teammates" back then to save his own skin. And now he's considered a career leader. Draw your own conclusions.
At that, as usually happens amongst the breathless (and sometimes clueless) anointing their hero of the day, some are now saying Ray Lewis was the greatest linebacker of all time. Yes, he was very good, but the best of all time? That takes in a whole lot of ground.
There's a few other linebackers already in the Hall of Fame, and some who aren't, that Lewis wouldn't have displaced. Comparing different players over different eras is certainly an inexact science, but here's a few already enshrined for your consideration....
Ted Hendrix. At 6'7" and a mere 220 pounds, "The Stork" was a very fitting nickname, but oh my, how he could disrupt offensive plays.
As different eras go, there were a few guys like Nick Buoniconti, Ray Nitschke, Derrick Thomas, and Willie Lanier. All were dominant players in their times.
Back in the Pittsburgh "Steel Curtain" days, Lewis might, repeat MIGHT have even been a starter on that team. Does anyone think he would have displaced the likes of Jack Lambert and Jack Ham?
How about Lawrence Taylor? Did anybody ever wreak more havoc than LT?
Maybe. There was a guy named Dick Butkus. A QB, running back, tight end, or wide receiver on any team that didn't account for where #51 was on the field did so at their own peril, and might wake up in the locker room wondering what happened. He was a wrecking machine, and in the opinion of yours truly, indeed the best linebacker of all time.
But here's giving credit to Ray Lewis for his long distinguished career on the football field. He could be intimidating to others. Unless it was HIS butt on the line, when he might tap out, say "no mas", and sing like a canary -- but I've already discussed that.
One more thing jumps out at me about Lewis. Just before the games, he usually went into a frenzy attempting to pump up his teammates. Lewis would scream, dance, and wildly gyrate. The Ravens' fans ate it up. So did a lot of his younger teammates. They'd get right on the Lewis train jumping up and down and doing everything short of break dancing in a pre-game ritual.
The ironic thing was to look at the veterans standing in the background while all the boo-ga-loo was going on. It looked like they were either mildly amused or stifling a yawn. After having seen the same schtick every week for years wiser heads knew better than to get caught up in it. Especially the linemen. They understood they were going to be in a war for the next 3 hours that would sap every bit of energy they had, so why waste it on this sort of childish nonsense?
Nevertheless, now that the playoffs are about to start, every game could be his last.
Though unlikely, it's not inconceivable that the Ravens could go on and win the Super Bowl. Nothing like going out on top.
But anything short of that and yours truly still suspects he'll pull a Favre.
We'll see.....
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
NFL head coaches do--exactly what?
NFL head coaches make millions. They're usually given at least a 3 or 4 year contract when a team hires them. If that team is successful under their leadership, the coach will bask in the glory. If they crash and burn, sometimes, not always, they'll take the blame. Anymore, it's a rarity for a coach to last more than 6 or 7 seasons before getting fired. Teams go up, and the coach gets an extension. Teams go down, and that same coach will get booted out the door, oftentimes with the team still owing him millions on that very contract extension they gave him a couple years back. With few exceptions, such is the way of parity in the NFL.
But here's a question. Just what is it, exactly, that NFL head coaches do these days?
In most cases, on the offensive side of the ball they have an offensive coordinator that designs the Xs and Os, and calls those plays during the game. The same holds true for the defensive coordinator aligning his troops in various formations and coverages. They both talk on their headsets to the players equipped with speakers in their helmets on the field. The head coach has a headset too, but rarely will they be seen actually talking into it. Perhaps they're listening to Bieber tunes on their earphone and can't be bothered. Hey, that wire coming down from the headset connects to a mysterious black box clipped on their belt, right? So who knows?
Let's not forget the rest of his crew. There's an offensive line coach, a tight end coach, a running back coach, a quarterback coach, and a wide receiver coach when their team has the ball.
When they're on defense, enter a defensive line coach, a linebacker coach, and a secondary coach for the cornerbacks and safeties.
Every team has a "special teams" coach, though I'm not exactly sure what they do. Tell the punter to kick it high and long? The placekicker to boot it between the uprights? The guys covering kicks to run down field kamikaze style and hit somebody hard?
You name the position, and they have a coach for it these days. Quick -- name a "position" coach from a team other than your own. You can't. Nobody knows who these guys are, but they're routinely hired and fired under the radar all the time -- by the head coach.
And oh, BTW, the head coach is typically paid more than all the above coaches -- combined. So indeed, just what is it they do to justify all that money?
A few things. Depending on the score of the game and field position at the time, they might decide whether to "go for it" on 4th down instead of punting. I think they decide whether to kick a regular extra point after a touchdown or "go for 2", also depending on the score of the game. Certainly, they get to throw the red challenge flag on a call they disagree with -- and some of them actually even know when it's appropriate. Plus they get to give press conferences. Funny thing about that..... The questions the reporters ask them after a win always seem to be pertinent, and the coach is more than happy to accommodate them, even elaborate. Yet, after a loss, those very same reporters somehow turn into idiots pestering him with foolish nonsense the coach has little patience for, and can't wait to brush them off. You've seen it. Other than that, they don't seem to do much at all.
Bottom line? Head coaches will gladly suck up all the praise when their team is doing well. When that same team is falling apart at the seams, they'll fire an assistant they themselves hired here or there, hoping to shift the blame elsewhere, else they, heaven forbid, be held accountable.
Near as I can tell, head coaches in the NFL are like the Queen of England. Figureheads. Everybody else is doing all the work while they rake in millions and prance around for photo-ops.
The only difference?
Queens can't be fired.
But here's a question. Just what is it, exactly, that NFL head coaches do these days?
In most cases, on the offensive side of the ball they have an offensive coordinator that designs the Xs and Os, and calls those plays during the game. The same holds true for the defensive coordinator aligning his troops in various formations and coverages. They both talk on their headsets to the players equipped with speakers in their helmets on the field. The head coach has a headset too, but rarely will they be seen actually talking into it. Perhaps they're listening to Bieber tunes on their earphone and can't be bothered. Hey, that wire coming down from the headset connects to a mysterious black box clipped on their belt, right? So who knows?
Let's not forget the rest of his crew. There's an offensive line coach, a tight end coach, a running back coach, a quarterback coach, and a wide receiver coach when their team has the ball.
When they're on defense, enter a defensive line coach, a linebacker coach, and a secondary coach for the cornerbacks and safeties.
Every team has a "special teams" coach, though I'm not exactly sure what they do. Tell the punter to kick it high and long? The placekicker to boot it between the uprights? The guys covering kicks to run down field kamikaze style and hit somebody hard?
You name the position, and they have a coach for it these days. Quick -- name a "position" coach from a team other than your own. You can't. Nobody knows who these guys are, but they're routinely hired and fired under the radar all the time -- by the head coach.
And oh, BTW, the head coach is typically paid more than all the above coaches -- combined. So indeed, just what is it they do to justify all that money?
A few things. Depending on the score of the game and field position at the time, they might decide whether to "go for it" on 4th down instead of punting. I think they decide whether to kick a regular extra point after a touchdown or "go for 2", also depending on the score of the game. Certainly, they get to throw the red challenge flag on a call they disagree with -- and some of them actually even know when it's appropriate. Plus they get to give press conferences. Funny thing about that..... The questions the reporters ask them after a win always seem to be pertinent, and the coach is more than happy to accommodate them, even elaborate. Yet, after a loss, those very same reporters somehow turn into idiots pestering him with foolish nonsense the coach has little patience for, and can't wait to brush them off. You've seen it. Other than that, they don't seem to do much at all.
Bottom line? Head coaches will gladly suck up all the praise when their team is doing well. When that same team is falling apart at the seams, they'll fire an assistant they themselves hired here or there, hoping to shift the blame elsewhere, else they, heaven forbid, be held accountable.
Near as I can tell, head coaches in the NFL are like the Queen of England. Figureheads. Everybody else is doing all the work while they rake in millions and prance around for photo-ops.
The only difference?
Queens can't be fired.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
The NFL bloodbath
Black Monday indeed. One day after the conclusion of the 2012 NFL regular season, heads were rolling from the east coast to the west, from NY (well, technically NJ) to San Diego. The pink slips were flying everywhere. It's probably a good thing there's no NFL teams in Hawaii or Alaska, or somebody might have got axed there too. Such was the atmosphere.
Those fired, so far, include head coaches Andy Reid in Philly, Ken Whisenhunt of the Arizona Cardinals, Pat Shurmur in Cleveland, and Chan Gailey in Buffalo. Also, Norv Turner in San Diego, Romeo Crennel in KC, and Lovie Smith of Da Bears.
With the possible exception of Smith in Chicago, all those guys pretty much had it coming for the way their teams performed this year. This is the third time Norv Turner has been fired by a team. Shouldn't he now be deemed an habitual offender? Shurmur of the Browns? Hey, what did he expect? It's Cleveland. Those guys haven't been any good since Jim Brown was running amok. Even though Andy Reid had been with the Eagles for 14 years, his team started mailing it in this year a couple months ago. Time to go. Never fear, Andy's the leading candidate to go to the Arizona Cardinals to replace Whisenhunt. Gailey made a few million, but Buffalo? Please. Like Cleveland, they've been lousy since a guy named Jim Kelly was their QB. Look for some of these losers to land head coaching jobs elsewhere, and the good ole boy NFL coaches' merry-go-round lives on. Yee-hah!
Wherefore art thou Romeo after KC fed him the poison pill? Beats me, but they stunk it up BAD this year. And what the hell kind of name is Romeo for an NFL head coach anyway?
What's even worse was Smith of ChiTown. It's the Bears, with no "teddy" in front of it, and they don't play at Pajama Party Stadium. They play at Soldier Field dammit, and they're known for guys like Ditka, Singletary, Urlacher, Butkus, Dent, and even a Refrigerator. Even their names sound tough.
Smith might well have been a fine head coach, but with all due respect to him, a guy named Lovie running THAT team was just WRONG. Idle thought -- could Smith be the same Lovie that was on Gilligan's Island? I hope not, because -- if you think Chaz Bono had an extreme makeover, get a load of THIS dude. Talk about some serious work. WOW.
A few general managers bit the dust too. Gene Smith of the Jax Jaguars, Rod Graves of Whisenhunt's same Arizona Cardinals, Tom Heckert of Shurmurs same Cleveland Browns, and A.J. Smith of Turners same San Diego Chargers.
Plus the GM of the NY Jets -- Mike Tannenbaum. How in the hell the Jets fired their GM but keep head coach Rex Ryan on board is beyond comprehension, but they did. Maybe it had something to do with that Tebow experiment not exactly working out, but Ryan was the guy running the clown act on the field.
All the other teams listed above didn't live up to expectations this year and heads rolled. Let's not forget, when a head coach gets fired, the coordinators and all the other position coaches normally get broomed as well. That's half a bus load right there. Also, when a GM gets fired, the next guy will probably want to hire a new head coach, so guys like Ryan, and his staff, are far from safe just yet.
There may be more firings to come as other owners deliberate their teams' futures. Probably not in Detroit, though. Owner William Clay Ford has been known to, ahem, "deliberate" for years, and STILL make the wrong decision.
And which team was the biggest under-achiever of them all this year? That would be the Detroit Edsels, excuse, Lions, of course. After going 10-6 last year, many predicted even better things in 2012. There were the delusional ones that dared even mention the words "Super Bowl". We don't hear much from them about that anymore. Gee, I wonder why?
But you know what? In Detroit, it doesn't even matter. Even though all 4 tires once again shredded on their vehicle a couple months ago, they didn't notice, and remain blissfully happy in their ignorance to keep driving down the road on the rims. It's just a minor vibration and it will fix itself by next year, they say. And hey, they only lost a bunch of games by a meager few points. We were THAT close. We'll gear up for the next draft, bring in a couple big time free agents, and we'll be contenders, they'll always add. And geez, Schwartz just caught a few bad breaks this year, but he's a really good coach. Maybe the Lions should give him another 5 or 10 year extension on his contract. If memory serves me correctly (certainly no given), then I believe a guy named Mr. T once summed it up quite well. Something about, "I pity the fools.....".
Yet for those very same reasons, Jim Schwartz, he of the worst record in the entire league during his tenure, will probably escape the axe that would certainly have fallen on him in any other NFL city at the end of this season. Only in Detroit, and only with William Clay at the helm of the ever recurring Titanic, would this happen.
But right now, with the waters still swirling around the league, a good thing has emerged.
Both Harbaughs are in the playoffs, and both Ryans are not. That includes Rob Ryan, the defensive coordinator for the Dallas Cowboys. Judging by the TV air time he receives on the sidelines, many might think he's the head coach down in Big D, but he's not. That would be Jason Garrett. And it's likely both are hanging on by a thread as the ever-lovable Jerry Jones, owner, president, GM, and head bottle washer of the Cowboys all rolled into one gigantic ego, is doing a little deliberating of his own.
Maybe there's a little justice that will become of this whole mess after all.
Those fired, so far, include head coaches Andy Reid in Philly, Ken Whisenhunt of the Arizona Cardinals, Pat Shurmur in Cleveland, and Chan Gailey in Buffalo. Also, Norv Turner in San Diego, Romeo Crennel in KC, and Lovie Smith of Da Bears.
With the possible exception of Smith in Chicago, all those guys pretty much had it coming for the way their teams performed this year. This is the third time Norv Turner has been fired by a team. Shouldn't he now be deemed an habitual offender? Shurmur of the Browns? Hey, what did he expect? It's Cleveland. Those guys haven't been any good since Jim Brown was running amok. Even though Andy Reid had been with the Eagles for 14 years, his team started mailing it in this year a couple months ago. Time to go. Never fear, Andy's the leading candidate to go to the Arizona Cardinals to replace Whisenhunt. Gailey made a few million, but Buffalo? Please. Like Cleveland, they've been lousy since a guy named Jim Kelly was their QB. Look for some of these losers to land head coaching jobs elsewhere, and the good ole boy NFL coaches' merry-go-round lives on. Yee-hah!
Wherefore art thou Romeo after KC fed him the poison pill? Beats me, but they stunk it up BAD this year. And what the hell kind of name is Romeo for an NFL head coach anyway?
What's even worse was Smith of ChiTown. It's the Bears, with no "teddy" in front of it, and they don't play at Pajama Party Stadium. They play at Soldier Field dammit, and they're known for guys like Ditka, Singletary, Urlacher, Butkus, Dent, and even a Refrigerator. Even their names sound tough.
Smith might well have been a fine head coach, but with all due respect to him, a guy named Lovie running THAT team was just WRONG. Idle thought -- could Smith be the same Lovie that was on Gilligan's Island? I hope not, because -- if you think Chaz Bono had an extreme makeover, get a load of THIS dude. Talk about some serious work. WOW.
A few general managers bit the dust too. Gene Smith of the Jax Jaguars, Rod Graves of Whisenhunt's same Arizona Cardinals, Tom Heckert of Shurmurs same Cleveland Browns, and A.J. Smith of Turners same San Diego Chargers.
Plus the GM of the NY Jets -- Mike Tannenbaum. How in the hell the Jets fired their GM but keep head coach Rex Ryan on board is beyond comprehension, but they did. Maybe it had something to do with that Tebow experiment not exactly working out, but Ryan was the guy running the clown act on the field.
All the other teams listed above didn't live up to expectations this year and heads rolled. Let's not forget, when a head coach gets fired, the coordinators and all the other position coaches normally get broomed as well. That's half a bus load right there. Also, when a GM gets fired, the next guy will probably want to hire a new head coach, so guys like Ryan, and his staff, are far from safe just yet.
There may be more firings to come as other owners deliberate their teams' futures. Probably not in Detroit, though. Owner William Clay Ford has been known to, ahem, "deliberate" for years, and STILL make the wrong decision.
And which team was the biggest under-achiever of them all this year? That would be the Detroit Edsels, excuse, Lions, of course. After going 10-6 last year, many predicted even better things in 2012. There were the delusional ones that dared even mention the words "Super Bowl". We don't hear much from them about that anymore. Gee, I wonder why?
But you know what? In Detroit, it doesn't even matter. Even though all 4 tires once again shredded on their vehicle a couple months ago, they didn't notice, and remain blissfully happy in their ignorance to keep driving down the road on the rims. It's just a minor vibration and it will fix itself by next year, they say. And hey, they only lost a bunch of games by a meager few points. We were THAT close. We'll gear up for the next draft, bring in a couple big time free agents, and we'll be contenders, they'll always add. And geez, Schwartz just caught a few bad breaks this year, but he's a really good coach. Maybe the Lions should give him another 5 or 10 year extension on his contract. If memory serves me correctly (certainly no given), then I believe a guy named Mr. T once summed it up quite well. Something about, "I pity the fools.....".
Yet for those very same reasons, Jim Schwartz, he of the worst record in the entire league during his tenure, will probably escape the axe that would certainly have fallen on him in any other NFL city at the end of this season. Only in Detroit, and only with William Clay at the helm of the ever recurring Titanic, would this happen.
But right now, with the waters still swirling around the league, a good thing has emerged.
Both Harbaughs are in the playoffs, and both Ryans are not. That includes Rob Ryan, the defensive coordinator for the Dallas Cowboys. Judging by the TV air time he receives on the sidelines, many might think he's the head coach down in Big D, but he's not. That would be Jason Garrett. And it's likely both are hanging on by a thread as the ever-lovable Jerry Jones, owner, president, GM, and head bottle washer of the Cowboys all rolled into one gigantic ego, is doing a little deliberating of his own.
Maybe there's a little justice that will become of this whole mess after all.
Monday, December 31, 2012
South Carolina will wear you out
Anyone that watched the Chick Fil-A Bowl pitting a very good LSU team against the Clemson Tigers couldn't help but notice what was happening towards the end. It seemed like on every play, another LSU player was down on the field, gasping or grimacing. That's because the Clemson Tigers flat wore their butts OUT. Though Clemson only won that game on a last second field goal, the score shouldn't have been anywhere near that close. Clemson dominated throughout in just about every statistical category, including time of possession, sacks, first downs, and passing and rushing yardage. It finally caught up to LSU in the fourth quarter, with their players going down like the Rockettes during the Little Drummer Boy routine.
On New Year's day, the Michigan Wolverines will square off against another team from the Palmetto state that is even better in the Outback Bowl. The South Carolina Gamecocks. Yours truly suspects the same scenario might very well repeat itself. Those dudes from South Carolina will get after you for the WHOLE game, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the Wolverines gasping and grimacing in the fourth quarter as well.
The Gamecocks are vastly superior to the Wolverines in a couple quality/quantities that can't be taught. Overall team speed. Speed kills, and the Gamecocks are not only fast, but extremely athletic on both sides of the ball. Plus they play hard from start to finish.
On a related note, I find it comical there are those that suggest Michigan is carrying some sort of torch into this game for the Big 10, or 12, or 14, or whatever they are these days. Oh really? Last time I looked Wisconsin was the Big 10 champion and will be playing in the Rose Bowl against Stanford. Further, Ohio State went undefeated this year and, if they weren't banned from post-season play due to infractions committed by others before them, would quite likely be playing in the national championship game against Notre Dame. How could the pollsters keep an undefeated Ohio State team out of such a game in favor of Alabama, which got knocked off -- at home -- by Texas A&M?
I don't want to hear about how close the scores of some of their games were. They won -- all of them. At the end of the regular season, the Buckeyes and Fighting Irish were the only two major college football powers to be undefeated. What else matters?
To boot, Ohio State now has Urban Meyer as their head coach. His track record speaks for itself. Michigan has Brady Hoke, who seems to come across more like a high school gym coach, but quickly got into the typically arrogant Maize and Blue mode, even as a rookie. Which would you rather have recruiting for and coaching up YOUR team in the foreseeable future?
At best, right now Michigan is the 3rd best team in the Big 10, playing in a second tier bowl game. Hardly what an objective fan would consider flag bearers for the conference.
And yours truly suspects the Gamecocks will wear THEIR butts out too by the 4th quarter.
We'll see.
No matter what ----
HAPPY NEW YEAR
On New Year's day, the Michigan Wolverines will square off against another team from the Palmetto state that is even better in the Outback Bowl. The South Carolina Gamecocks. Yours truly suspects the same scenario might very well repeat itself. Those dudes from South Carolina will get after you for the WHOLE game, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the Wolverines gasping and grimacing in the fourth quarter as well.
The Gamecocks are vastly superior to the Wolverines in a couple quality/quantities that can't be taught. Overall team speed. Speed kills, and the Gamecocks are not only fast, but extremely athletic on both sides of the ball. Plus they play hard from start to finish.
On a related note, I find it comical there are those that suggest Michigan is carrying some sort of torch into this game for the Big 10, or 12, or 14, or whatever they are these days. Oh really? Last time I looked Wisconsin was the Big 10 champion and will be playing in the Rose Bowl against Stanford. Further, Ohio State went undefeated this year and, if they weren't banned from post-season play due to infractions committed by others before them, would quite likely be playing in the national championship game against Notre Dame. How could the pollsters keep an undefeated Ohio State team out of such a game in favor of Alabama, which got knocked off -- at home -- by Texas A&M?
I don't want to hear about how close the scores of some of their games were. They won -- all of them. At the end of the regular season, the Buckeyes and Fighting Irish were the only two major college football powers to be undefeated. What else matters?
To boot, Ohio State now has Urban Meyer as their head coach. His track record speaks for itself. Michigan has Brady Hoke, who seems to come across more like a high school gym coach, but quickly got into the typically arrogant Maize and Blue mode, even as a rookie. Which would you rather have recruiting for and coaching up YOUR team in the foreseeable future?
At best, right now Michigan is the 3rd best team in the Big 10, playing in a second tier bowl game. Hardly what an objective fan would consider flag bearers for the conference.
And yours truly suspects the Gamecocks will wear THEIR butts out too by the 4th quarter.
We'll see.
No matter what ----
HAPPY NEW YEAR
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Why the Detroit Lions are losing
Basically it's because the whole organization, from top to bottom, consists of individuals that wouldn't be tolerated in any other NFL city. Consider ----
Owner William Clay Ford. A half century of the Lions' folly under his ownership speaks volumes and nothing more need be said.
General manager Martin Mayhew. He was front and center when the Lions showed a tad of false promise last year, and has since gone into hiding again, as well he should. This is the guy that used a 1st round draft pick to select an offensive tackle -- one Riley Reiff -- that can't even start. On any other NFL team, 1st round picks are supposed to immediately step in and be difference makers. In years past, it was standard procedure to spend a 1st round pick on a QB, while he sat back and learned for a couple years under the current starter. Not any more. Look at Andrew Luck in Indianpolis and Robert Griffin III in DC. They not only started immediately, but led their teams into the playoffs. Mayhew picked an offensive tackle to ride the pine. Only the Lions.
President Tom Lewand. The bean counter. It doesn't take a CPA to figure out Lewand's put his team in a financial bind. Even though they're coming off yet another woeful season (4-12), he had 7 players that ate up a full 58% of the salary cap. Calvin Johnson made $20 million. Matthew Stafford 12. Ndamukong Suh another 12. Aging defensive lineman Kyle Vanden Bosch 6. Mediocre at best linebacker Stephen Tulloch 5. Ever-yappy center Dominic Raiola another 5. For reasons that perhaps only the Lions' "brain trust" can comprehend, they saw fit to throw another $10 million at defensive tackle Cliff Avril for a year. Add it all up and it comes to about $70 million. The NFL salary cap in roughly $120 million. Bottom line? The Lions were left with 42% of the salary cap to pay the other 85% (46 players) on their team. It's not that the Lions wouldn't like to procure more talent -- they don't have the cap room to pay for it. Lewand's mysteriously disappeared too. Imagine that.
Head coach Jim Schwartz. What can one say? He's a loser. After 4 seasons as the Lions' coach, Schwartz is a whopping 20 games under .500. That's a bunch when the seasons are only 16 games long. Put another way, if the Lions were to go a perfect 16-0 next season, after 5 years Schwartz would STILL be a career loser. The chances of that happening? Well, here's a promise. If the Lions go 16-0 next season, yours truly will stand bare-ass naked on the sidewalk outside the Oakland Press building handing out Honolulu blue kool-aid until the authorities drag me off somewhere -- or the boss just shoots me. Actually, the latter might be preferable, but I'm fairly confident it won't come to that.
The coordinators. Defensive coordinator Gunther Cunningham has been around the NFL for a very long time. He put in many years with the KC Chiefs, the LA Raiders, and San Diego Chargers before being dragged along by Jim Schwartz. He's mostly been associated with losing teams too.
Offensive coordinator Scott Linehan was recently praised by Jim Schwartz as having done a great job. Well, what else would Schwartz say? I hired him and he has the creativity of a potted plant? It's not too hard to imagine how Linehan goes about calling plays. Put yourself in his spot. "Let's see. I've got a below average offensive line, a sorry-ass corps of running backs, tight ends that can't catch, and a few receivers that weren't good enough to stick with any other team. Eureka!! I have it. Hey Matthew, throw it in the general direction of Calvin and maybe he can catch it." After all, that's pretty much what the Lions' offensive strategy has been -- and look where it's got them. Calvin has a record, but the team loses and loses, and loses some more.
The players. Look at the Lions' roster. As a receiver, Calvin Johnson would start on any NFL team. But when other bean counters take a look at the massive salary cap hit that CJ brings along with him, many might not be so interested.
Mattthew Stafford could start for a few teams, but the majority of them already have QBs in place that they wouldn't trade even up for him. Stafford passes for a lot of yards only because Calvin Johnson is on his team. Put him somewhere else, and I suspect he'd be about average.
Placekicker Jason Hanson remains one of the most reliable in the league at his position, but I'm not at all sure how many teams would be interested in a 42 year old kicker.
Beyond that, who else do the Lions have on their entire roster that would be a sure-fire starter on another team? They've got a few guys with some talent, but those same guys either can't stay healthy, or have "issues". Either way, they're damaged goods in the eyes of general managers elsewhere.
So there you have it. The entire Lions' culture is STILL infested with people that wouldn't be good enough to participate in the league anywhere else. Certainly not by any city or franchise with an iota of pride, not to mention self-respect.
As I've stated on many occasions for umpteen years -- including 2011 when the Lions' faithful thought their team was finally going to be a contender -- what happened to the Lions this year was not only predictable, but highly probable.
Given their current sorry state of affairs, they're not going anywhere in the next few years either.
In my opinion, the only way the Lions can finally become competitive is to blow up the whole team. Get rid of the front office personnel, all the coaches and, yes, even the players. Start with a clean slate. The Fords could afford to eat all those contracts. Then they need to find one no-nonsense guy with a brilliant football mind to start building it from scratch, and put him in charge of the whole operation. The name Jon Gruden comes to mind. Gruden would laugh at coming to Detroit you say? Maybe, but if he was offered $10 million a year for 5 years and given the authority to hire his own coaches and have final say on draft picks and/or free agent signings, and further charged with the challenge of building a contender starting off with nothing -- he just might listen. Sure, they'd probably go 0-16 the first year, just like they did in 2008. Jim Schwartz came in and got the Lions to 2 wins, then 6, and then 10 last year. But that's where Schwartz maxed out. This year the Lions are once again heading back to the bottom of the barrel. The stupefying 3 year contract extension that Schwartz received aside -- he's pretty well outlived his usefulness. Anyone that thinks the Lions will become perennial contenders in the foreseeable future with what they have in place now is only fooling themselves. They have WAY too much downside; it was exposed once again this year, and it's not going away any time soon.
Blow it up and start over. After all, what do they have to lose? They've quickly become a laughingstock again. And give Gruden a call. If he's busy, check out a guy named Bill Cowher.
Owner William Clay Ford. A half century of the Lions' folly under his ownership speaks volumes and nothing more need be said.
General manager Martin Mayhew. He was front and center when the Lions showed a tad of false promise last year, and has since gone into hiding again, as well he should. This is the guy that used a 1st round draft pick to select an offensive tackle -- one Riley Reiff -- that can't even start. On any other NFL team, 1st round picks are supposed to immediately step in and be difference makers. In years past, it was standard procedure to spend a 1st round pick on a QB, while he sat back and learned for a couple years under the current starter. Not any more. Look at Andrew Luck in Indianpolis and Robert Griffin III in DC. They not only started immediately, but led their teams into the playoffs. Mayhew picked an offensive tackle to ride the pine. Only the Lions.
President Tom Lewand. The bean counter. It doesn't take a CPA to figure out Lewand's put his team in a financial bind. Even though they're coming off yet another woeful season (4-12), he had 7 players that ate up a full 58% of the salary cap. Calvin Johnson made $20 million. Matthew Stafford 12. Ndamukong Suh another 12. Aging defensive lineman Kyle Vanden Bosch 6. Mediocre at best linebacker Stephen Tulloch 5. Ever-yappy center Dominic Raiola another 5. For reasons that perhaps only the Lions' "brain trust" can comprehend, they saw fit to throw another $10 million at defensive tackle Cliff Avril for a year. Add it all up and it comes to about $70 million. The NFL salary cap in roughly $120 million. Bottom line? The Lions were left with 42% of the salary cap to pay the other 85% (46 players) on their team. It's not that the Lions wouldn't like to procure more talent -- they don't have the cap room to pay for it. Lewand's mysteriously disappeared too. Imagine that.
Head coach Jim Schwartz. What can one say? He's a loser. After 4 seasons as the Lions' coach, Schwartz is a whopping 20 games under .500. That's a bunch when the seasons are only 16 games long. Put another way, if the Lions were to go a perfect 16-0 next season, after 5 years Schwartz would STILL be a career loser. The chances of that happening? Well, here's a promise. If the Lions go 16-0 next season, yours truly will stand bare-ass naked on the sidewalk outside the Oakland Press building handing out Honolulu blue kool-aid until the authorities drag me off somewhere -- or the boss just shoots me. Actually, the latter might be preferable, but I'm fairly confident it won't come to that.
The coordinators. Defensive coordinator Gunther Cunningham has been around the NFL for a very long time. He put in many years with the KC Chiefs, the LA Raiders, and San Diego Chargers before being dragged along by Jim Schwartz. He's mostly been associated with losing teams too.
Offensive coordinator Scott Linehan was recently praised by Jim Schwartz as having done a great job. Well, what else would Schwartz say? I hired him and he has the creativity of a potted plant? It's not too hard to imagine how Linehan goes about calling plays. Put yourself in his spot. "Let's see. I've got a below average offensive line, a sorry-ass corps of running backs, tight ends that can't catch, and a few receivers that weren't good enough to stick with any other team. Eureka!! I have it. Hey Matthew, throw it in the general direction of Calvin and maybe he can catch it." After all, that's pretty much what the Lions' offensive strategy has been -- and look where it's got them. Calvin has a record, but the team loses and loses, and loses some more.
The players. Look at the Lions' roster. As a receiver, Calvin Johnson would start on any NFL team. But when other bean counters take a look at the massive salary cap hit that CJ brings along with him, many might not be so interested.
Mattthew Stafford could start for a few teams, but the majority of them already have QBs in place that they wouldn't trade even up for him. Stafford passes for a lot of yards only because Calvin Johnson is on his team. Put him somewhere else, and I suspect he'd be about average.
Placekicker Jason Hanson remains one of the most reliable in the league at his position, but I'm not at all sure how many teams would be interested in a 42 year old kicker.
Beyond that, who else do the Lions have on their entire roster that would be a sure-fire starter on another team? They've got a few guys with some talent, but those same guys either can't stay healthy, or have "issues". Either way, they're damaged goods in the eyes of general managers elsewhere.
So there you have it. The entire Lions' culture is STILL infested with people that wouldn't be good enough to participate in the league anywhere else. Certainly not by any city or franchise with an iota of pride, not to mention self-respect.
As I've stated on many occasions for umpteen years -- including 2011 when the Lions' faithful thought their team was finally going to be a contender -- what happened to the Lions this year was not only predictable, but highly probable.
Given their current sorry state of affairs, they're not going anywhere in the next few years either.
In my opinion, the only way the Lions can finally become competitive is to blow up the whole team. Get rid of the front office personnel, all the coaches and, yes, even the players. Start with a clean slate. The Fords could afford to eat all those contracts. Then they need to find one no-nonsense guy with a brilliant football mind to start building it from scratch, and put him in charge of the whole operation. The name Jon Gruden comes to mind. Gruden would laugh at coming to Detroit you say? Maybe, but if he was offered $10 million a year for 5 years and given the authority to hire his own coaches and have final say on draft picks and/or free agent signings, and further charged with the challenge of building a contender starting off with nothing -- he just might listen. Sure, they'd probably go 0-16 the first year, just like they did in 2008. Jim Schwartz came in and got the Lions to 2 wins, then 6, and then 10 last year. But that's where Schwartz maxed out. This year the Lions are once again heading back to the bottom of the barrel. The stupefying 3 year contract extension that Schwartz received aside -- he's pretty well outlived his usefulness. Anyone that thinks the Lions will become perennial contenders in the foreseeable future with what they have in place now is only fooling themselves. They have WAY too much downside; it was exposed once again this year, and it's not going away any time soon.
Blow it up and start over. After all, what do they have to lose? They've quickly become a laughingstock again. And give Gruden a call. If he's busy, check out a guy named Bill Cowher.
Dumb football rules -intentional grounding
Whether it's one's home town hero, or the quarterback for the other team -- you know it when you see it -- because it's obvious. By that, I mean "intentional grounding".
When a QB drops back to pass and finds himself "under pressure", about to be sacked for a loss, perhaps even for a safety in his own end zone, at times they'll just throw the ball where nobody can possibly catch it, sometimes even into the stands. It's no big secret. We all know they do that to have the "pass" ruled incomplete, so they can trot back up to the original line of scrimmage and get on with the next play, their team having not suffered the loss of yardage that would have happened if they were sacked. It happens all the time, both in professional and college football.
And that's just wrong.
The "experts" will tell you there are a couple different reasons for QBs getting away with such shenanigans.
First, they might say he was outside the "tackle box", and therefore no penalty is warranted. That begs a question. Just where is this tackle box? And does anybody know exactly what the boundaries are? There certainly aren't any lines on the field to define it. Yours truly would further respond by saying, "Tackle box? The whole damn FIELD is a tackle box. HELLO? By that logic, should linebackers only be allowed to take down a running back between the hash marks? Wide receivers aren't allowed to run INSIDE the same hash marks? What's the difference? ANYBODY HOME?"
Or they might say the QB managed to throw the ball past the line of scrimmage. Near as I can tell, it's an incomplete pass if the ball sails into Row 5, as long as when it was airborne the ball went "out of bounds" a yard PAST the original line of scrimmage. But it just might be intentional grounding if the same ball went out of bounds a yard BEHIND the same line of scrimmage. How stupid is THAT?
Besides, every pro QB, and most of those in college, can flip the ball 50 yards off their back foot anytime they feel like it. Heaving it past the line of scrimmage is hardly a problem, even though there might not be a receiver nor defender within 20 yards of where the ball sailed out of bounds.
So forget the tackle box, the line of scrimmage, and all the other excuses, and just call it like it is. I know it, you know it, the players and coaches know it, and anybody else watching a game knows it. The only people that don't seem to understand it is the people making the rules in the NFL. It's not the refs' fault. Though they likely don't quite understand them either, they're bound by those very rules, but I suspect they privately look upon them with the same disdain as I do.
When a QB is under pressure and throws the ball away without the remotest chance of it ever being caught -- in my book, that's intentional grounding, and should be called as such.
When a QB drops back to pass and finds himself "under pressure", about to be sacked for a loss, perhaps even for a safety in his own end zone, at times they'll just throw the ball where nobody can possibly catch it, sometimes even into the stands. It's no big secret. We all know they do that to have the "pass" ruled incomplete, so they can trot back up to the original line of scrimmage and get on with the next play, their team having not suffered the loss of yardage that would have happened if they were sacked. It happens all the time, both in professional and college football.
And that's just wrong.
The "experts" will tell you there are a couple different reasons for QBs getting away with such shenanigans.
First, they might say he was outside the "tackle box", and therefore no penalty is warranted. That begs a question. Just where is this tackle box? And does anybody know exactly what the boundaries are? There certainly aren't any lines on the field to define it. Yours truly would further respond by saying, "Tackle box? The whole damn FIELD is a tackle box. HELLO? By that logic, should linebackers only be allowed to take down a running back between the hash marks? Wide receivers aren't allowed to run INSIDE the same hash marks? What's the difference? ANYBODY HOME?"
Or they might say the QB managed to throw the ball past the line of scrimmage. Near as I can tell, it's an incomplete pass if the ball sails into Row 5, as long as when it was airborne the ball went "out of bounds" a yard PAST the original line of scrimmage. But it just might be intentional grounding if the same ball went out of bounds a yard BEHIND the same line of scrimmage. How stupid is THAT?
Besides, every pro QB, and most of those in college, can flip the ball 50 yards off their back foot anytime they feel like it. Heaving it past the line of scrimmage is hardly a problem, even though there might not be a receiver nor defender within 20 yards of where the ball sailed out of bounds.
So forget the tackle box, the line of scrimmage, and all the other excuses, and just call it like it is. I know it, you know it, the players and coaches know it, and anybody else watching a game knows it. The only people that don't seem to understand it is the people making the rules in the NFL. It's not the refs' fault. Though they likely don't quite understand them either, they're bound by those very rules, but I suspect they privately look upon them with the same disdain as I do.
When a QB is under pressure and throws the ball away without the remotest chance of it ever being caught -- in my book, that's intentional grounding, and should be called as such.
Friday, December 28, 2012
The assault rifle debate
Normally, I wouldn't broach such a subject, because it has little if anything to do with sports. Yet an OP blogging colleague recently wrote an article which started off about hunting, then opened up into his own opinion on whether such weapons should be banned from citizen ownership -- or not. Given it appears to be "open season" on this issue, no pun intended -- if he can do it, then I might as well get my 2 cents worth in too, before I return to my usual sports nonsense.
Hunting for food, and even sport, has been around in this country since before it even WAS a country. Whether it's necessary or not these days is an entirely different issue, but do we need machine-gun type automatic weapons to riddle Bambi or Bullwinkle with a hundred bullets? Of course not. That's not hunting. That's like fishing in an aquarium. Hardly sportsmanlike.
Semi-automatic weapons (as in each pull of the trigger fires one shot -- and the one used in the latest horrific episode in Connecticut) are quite a different thing. Should law-abiding citizens be allowed to possess them?
In my opinion, yes, at least for now. Hunting for certain game aside, consider self defense. If one is at home with perhaps a spouse and/or children, and armed intruders enter one's residence intending mayhem, or worse, perhaps in the middle of the night, one has every right to defend themselves. That might entail shooting. If there are several of them, and one only has a single shot weapon, then one won't have time to reload if and when gunfire breaks out. You might get one of them, but you and your family will likely die in the next few seconds because you didn't have enough fire power at hand to stand a fighting chance.
Secondly, there's much truth in the bumper stickers you've likely seen which say... "When they take our guns away, only the criminals will have guns". Indeed, why would criminals, by their very definition, care about new gun laws? They will attempt to get them regardless.
Even given such new laws, would anyone seriously dispute that such weapons will continue to be manufactured abroad and our borders also continue to remain porous? Given Mexico, Canada, boats, airplanes, you name it, things many of us might not care for pour into this country every day. From heroin, cocaine, other drugs, pornography, and yes, weapons; if there's a market for it, which the US is, then the sellers will find a way to get it here. Every time the authorities crow about making a huge "bust" involving any of the above, all they really did was the equivalent of putting an ordinary household mosquito zapper in the middle of the Everglades. Who's kidding who?
There's still another point that has been taken for granted on the weapons debate. Most everybody says only the military and police should have them. Yours truly says -- hold on right there. Sure, the military should have them. Wars are all about killing people, and whoever runs out of ammunition or bodies first -- loses.
But the cops are a different story. Why should they be allowed to have such weapons when citizens cannot? They already have armored vehicles, helicopters, robot drones, bullet-proof vests, tasers, mace/pepper spray, tear gas, stun grenades/flash-bangs, attack dogs, night-vision goggles, snipers, and likely other things we don't even know of.
Consider a scenario that happens all too often: Police get a report of a shooter, or potential shooter. They will typically respond with a small army of their own, most of which will be manning assault rifles. That leads to a pertinent question -- assuming the "perpetrator" has to to "neutralized", as cop-speak goes, how many times do they need to shoot him? A few thousand? Wouldn't one think perhaps two or three would suffice?
Even if it was a well-armed group of criminals that out-gunned the cops -- that's what the National Guard exists for.
The point is, while it's seemingly flying under the radar, and taken for granted by those that aren't paying attention, there's a huge distinction to be made between the military and the police, regarding having such weapons. One needs them. The other does not. It's overkill.
Yours truly would get behind denying the citizenry access to semi-automatic weapons given a few conditions.
First, we have to know the criminals no longer possess, or will have future access to them. How that would ever be accomplished -- I have no idea.
Second, the cops, from the feds on down to small local police forces, have to agree to give them up as well. Good luck with that too.
The current politically correct rage amongst many is to deny the citizenry the right to possess such weapons. Sure, the Founding Fathers had no way of knowing how sophisticated and lethal weapons would become, but one might presume their whole intent with the Second Amendment was to ensure the citizens would never be disarmed, and thereby rendered basically defenseless. Like bringing a knife to a gunfight is mostly useless as a defense, so too is trying to ward off evil-doers when they possess far superior firepower. Would Thomas Jefferson and Co. approve of modern day citizens possessing such weapons, given everything else that's going on? We don't know, but I'm thinking that's a definite maybe.
There's another old saying that goes -- "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" -- preferably a bigger one.
Everything's ass-backwards. Law-abiding citizens should be the LAST to lay down such weapons -- not the FIRST.
That's not only Orwellian, it defies self-preservation amongst the good people that made and continue to make this country the great nation it is.
And in my opinion, something is horribly wrong with that picture.
Hunting for food, and even sport, has been around in this country since before it even WAS a country. Whether it's necessary or not these days is an entirely different issue, but do we need machine-gun type automatic weapons to riddle Bambi or Bullwinkle with a hundred bullets? Of course not. That's not hunting. That's like fishing in an aquarium. Hardly sportsmanlike.
Semi-automatic weapons (as in each pull of the trigger fires one shot -- and the one used in the latest horrific episode in Connecticut) are quite a different thing. Should law-abiding citizens be allowed to possess them?
In my opinion, yes, at least for now. Hunting for certain game aside, consider self defense. If one is at home with perhaps a spouse and/or children, and armed intruders enter one's residence intending mayhem, or worse, perhaps in the middle of the night, one has every right to defend themselves. That might entail shooting. If there are several of them, and one only has a single shot weapon, then one won't have time to reload if and when gunfire breaks out. You might get one of them, but you and your family will likely die in the next few seconds because you didn't have enough fire power at hand to stand a fighting chance.
Secondly, there's much truth in the bumper stickers you've likely seen which say... "When they take our guns away, only the criminals will have guns". Indeed, why would criminals, by their very definition, care about new gun laws? They will attempt to get them regardless.
Even given such new laws, would anyone seriously dispute that such weapons will continue to be manufactured abroad and our borders also continue to remain porous? Given Mexico, Canada, boats, airplanes, you name it, things many of us might not care for pour into this country every day. From heroin, cocaine, other drugs, pornography, and yes, weapons; if there's a market for it, which the US is, then the sellers will find a way to get it here. Every time the authorities crow about making a huge "bust" involving any of the above, all they really did was the equivalent of putting an ordinary household mosquito zapper in the middle of the Everglades. Who's kidding who?
There's still another point that has been taken for granted on the weapons debate. Most everybody says only the military and police should have them. Yours truly says -- hold on right there. Sure, the military should have them. Wars are all about killing people, and whoever runs out of ammunition or bodies first -- loses.
But the cops are a different story. Why should they be allowed to have such weapons when citizens cannot? They already have armored vehicles, helicopters, robot drones, bullet-proof vests, tasers, mace/pepper spray, tear gas, stun grenades/flash-bangs, attack dogs, night-vision goggles, snipers, and likely other things we don't even know of.
Consider a scenario that happens all too often: Police get a report of a shooter, or potential shooter. They will typically respond with a small army of their own, most of which will be manning assault rifles. That leads to a pertinent question -- assuming the "perpetrator" has to to "neutralized", as cop-speak goes, how many times do they need to shoot him? A few thousand? Wouldn't one think perhaps two or three would suffice?
Even if it was a well-armed group of criminals that out-gunned the cops -- that's what the National Guard exists for.
The point is, while it's seemingly flying under the radar, and taken for granted by those that aren't paying attention, there's a huge distinction to be made between the military and the police, regarding having such weapons. One needs them. The other does not. It's overkill.
Yours truly would get behind denying the citizenry access to semi-automatic weapons given a few conditions.
First, we have to know the criminals no longer possess, or will have future access to them. How that would ever be accomplished -- I have no idea.
Second, the cops, from the feds on down to small local police forces, have to agree to give them up as well. Good luck with that too.
The current politically correct rage amongst many is to deny the citizenry the right to possess such weapons. Sure, the Founding Fathers had no way of knowing how sophisticated and lethal weapons would become, but one might presume their whole intent with the Second Amendment was to ensure the citizens would never be disarmed, and thereby rendered basically defenseless. Like bringing a knife to a gunfight is mostly useless as a defense, so too is trying to ward off evil-doers when they possess far superior firepower. Would Thomas Jefferson and Co. approve of modern day citizens possessing such weapons, given everything else that's going on? We don't know, but I'm thinking that's a definite maybe.
There's another old saying that goes -- "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" -- preferably a bigger one.
Everything's ass-backwards. Law-abiding citizens should be the LAST to lay down such weapons -- not the FIRST.
That's not only Orwellian, it defies self-preservation amongst the good people that made and continue to make this country the great nation it is.
And in my opinion, something is horribly wrong with that picture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)