It's become abundantly clear that Roger Goddell is a big fan of London. There's been a game there ever year since 2007, two this season, and three next year. Goddell loves the enthusiasm of the London fans and the fact that the games, no matter how crappy the teams sent over are, are always sold out. He even said during his media session in the lead up to last week's 49ers-Jaguars game that he can see a Super Bowl played in London, and would even consider putting a franchise there. Neither idea is a good one.
The first thing that needs to be considered when debating the merits of a London franchise is the travel logistics. London is an ocean away from the East Coast. I don't even want to know how long the flight would be from San Francisco. It wouldn't be fair to ask teams to repeatedly make that trip. Even worse, if a franchise were based in London, they'd have to play eight road games. That's eight trips back-and-forth across the Atlantic. I'm sure they'd schedule the road games in blocks so that they wouldn't have to cross the ocean as often, but that doesn't make it much better. And again, you've got the potential London-to-West Coast travel to think about. The West Coast teams always struggle in 1:00 road games. Imagine how much worse it would be when the flight's that much longer and the time difference is that much greater.
Another thing about the schedule that needs to be taken into account is the return trip. Ever since the NFL started going to London, the two teams playing in the game would have their bye the following week. The reason for this is, obviously, to give their bodies time to get back to normal. If there was a franchise London, they wouldn't have the luxury of scheduling the games directly before the bye. Imagine playing in London Week 16, then flying home for your final game with a playoff berth potentially on the line. Even worse, how about playing Week 17 in London, then turning around and playing a playoff game somewhere in the United States the following week. Not only does that not make any sense, it would be totally unfair to do to teams.
Then there's the time difference. As we learned during the 2012 Olympics, when people got all over NBC for their tape-delayed prime time coverage, London isn't exactly in a U.S. TV-friendly time zone. The games that are played in London have to be early games on Sunday because of the time difference. 1:00 in the afternoon on the East Coast is 7:00 in London. They could theoretically start a 4:30 game at 10:30 in London, but Sunday, Monday and Thursday night games are out. Unless the NFL wants the teams playing in the middle of the night London time!
That's why a London Super Bowl would never work, either. Kickoff of the Super Bowl is at 6:30 p.m. Once again, with the six-hour time difference during the fall/winter, that's 12:30 in the morning in London! Could you do it? Sure. Would it make sense or be fair to the players playing in the game or the fans attending the game (which would then be on a Monday morning)? Absolutely not!
Keep in mind, major events from Europe that are televised live in the U.S. are shown in the middle of the afternoon. Do you really think the NFL and whatever network was covering the game would actually move the Super Bowl to an earlier time? The likelihood of that seems about as likely as my playing in the Super Bowl. These are the same people who added MORE night games to the schedule. They're not going to make the biggest game of the year, the one that's an event across America, any earlier. So, the only option would be to make it in the middle of the night in London. And that's not exactly the best solution.
As for the logistics of operating a league with franchises on two different continents, I don't even want to begin to imagine how the NFL thinks that might work. The short answer: it wouldn't.
During his press conference, Goddell said that he doesn't have a preference between London and LA. This is flawed thinking. Goddell is more concerned with expanding the game internationally than he is about putting a team back in the second-largest media market in this country. The one where the league is based and the sport is king (the other football will always be No. 1 in England). Sure, the NFL hasn't had an LA team in nearly 20 years. That's all the more reason to want to go back. Not to mention all the logistical advantages of LA over London. To me, the choice is a no-brainer.
I'm not saying the NFL needs to abandon the London experiment entirely. Just the opposite. I think the annual London game has been an outstanding showcase for the league. But that doesn't mean they should expand the London series any more than they already have or even consider placing a franchise there permanently. The novelty would wear off. That's one of the reasons why NFL Europe ultimately failed.
London is one of the world's great cities. I have nothing against London. But does it deserve an NFL franchise? Absolutely not! It simply wouldn't work. Hopefully the NFL is smart enough to realize that.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Week 8 NFL Picks
That was one of the craziest endings of any baseball game, World Series or not, that I've ever seen in my life. But with that, Saturday turns to Sunday and we turn our attention to the NFL and FOX's favorite day of the year. NFL doubleheader followed by Game 4 of the World Series.
This week is fairly light, though. There are six byes this week, which means there are only 13 games to be played, including the three night games (four if you include London, which kicks off at 7:00 local time). That means we're left with just 10 games on Sunday afternoon, only six of which are early games. And of those 10, we've got some real duds. Bills-Saints, anyone? Didn't think so.
Cowboys (4-3) at Lions (4-3): Dallas-This is actually one of the better games of the week. The Cowboys are the only NFC East team that's over .500, and the Lions are just a half-game behind the Packers in the NFC North. I'm going to make a bold prediction and say the team that wears silver helmets with a blue logo is going to win. As for which one it is, I have a feeling that'll be Dallas.
Browns (3-4) at Chiefs (7-0): Kansas City-Who had Kansas City as the last undefeated team? With the Browns and Bills as their next two opponents, I see that continuing until the Chiefs' bye week. That defense is ridiculous.
Dolphins (3-3) at Patriots (5-2): New England-Rex Ryan's still on Cloud 9 after "beating" the Patriots on that ridiculous penalty the refs wouldn't have even called if he hadn't told them about it last week. All that loss means is New England will finish 11-5 instead of 12-4. The Patriots are still the class of the AFC East, and it's not even really close. They hadn't lost back-to-back games for like five years until they did last season. Losing back-to-back division games? Even longer. Expect that streak to continue.
Bills (3-4) at Saints (5-1): New Orleans-As we in New York remember the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Sandy, it reminds me of the last time the Bills visited the Saints. It was 2005, and it was the first New Orleans "home" game in San Antonio after Katrina. They finally play the Bills in the Superdome again, and they'll keep on rolling. The New Orleans-Seattle NFC home field battle is going to last all season.
Giants (1-6) at Eagles (3-4): Philadelphia-These two played just three weeks ago, when the Eagles posted a 36-21 victory at the Meadowlands to make this Giants season descend further into embarrassment. The Giants are at least no longer winless after beating the even-worse Vikings on Monday night. I thought Philly-Dallas would be a game, but the Eagles got crushed and only scored three points. With the Giants on a short week and the game in Philadelphia, I'm going to say the Eagles rebound and finish off the season sweep.
49ers (5-2) vs. Jaguars (0-7): San Francisco-The NFL really needs to reconsider the teams it sends to London. Jacksonville is the designated "home" team for the next couple years? Not exactly the highest-quality football for our friends across the pond. Of course, I think the 49ers are going to win this game. More on Roger Goddell's ridiculous London obsession in our next installment.
Jets (4-3) at Bengals (5-2): Cincinnati-Rex is still on such a high after the Patriots game that he probably completely forgot the Jets were even playing this week. In Cincinnati. Against a very good Bengals team that actually BEAT New England. The Bengals have won three in a row since losing to Cleveland and have a two-game lead in the AFC North. I really don't see them slipping up against the Jets.
Steelers (2-4) at Raiders (2-4): Oakland-Pittsburgh seems to have at least started righting the ship. Back-to-back wins, including an impressive one last week against rival Baltimore, have the Steelers at 2-4 and thinking they might be able to save their season yet. But their 2012 campaign was derailed by an inexplicable loss in Oakland. For some reason, I think it's going to happen again.
Redskins (2-4) at Broncos (6-1): Denver-There were two things I forgot to take into account regarding last week's Broncos-Colts game: Indianapolis knows Peyton better than anybody, and Robert Mathis wasn't allowed to hit him during all those years they were teammates. Anyway, the crazy thing to think about is that 6-1 Denver, which still might be the best team in football, is in SECOND place in the AFC West. The Broncos haven't played the Chiefs yet, so that'll change. Against the Redskins at home, they put last week behind them and move to 7-1.
Falcons (2-4) at Cardinals (3-4): Atlanta-I think I can now officially that my NFC Super Bowl pick of the Falcons is going to be wrong. They're not the same team without BOTH Julio Jones and Roddy White. Regardless, they finally got out of the AFC East last week and got a win over the lowly Bucs. That was probably a confidence boost, though. And Atlanta's still got enough healthy talent to handle Arizona.
Packers (4-2) at Vikings (1-5): Green Bay-This game was much more appealing before the season started than it is now, which is how it ended up on Sunday night. Minnesota's not a good team. That Monday night game against the Giants was an embarrassing display of football. Josh Freeman shouldn't be their starting quarterback yet, either. Ever since their bye, the Packers have been the Packers again. That's bad new for the not-ready-for-primetime Vikings.
Seahawks (6-1) at Rams (3-4): Seattle-It's been a really long time since Seattle played. They get that same ridiculous Thursday-Monday schedule the Giants had last week. We're talking about one of the best teams in the NFL here. After all that rest, they might be a little rusty at the start, but by the end, the real Seahawks will have shown up. Seattle goes to 7-1 with its second straight division road win.
BYES: Baltimore, Chicago, Houston, Indianapolis, San Diego, Tennessee
Last Week: 8-7
This Week: 1-0
Season: 67-41
This week is fairly light, though. There are six byes this week, which means there are only 13 games to be played, including the three night games (four if you include London, which kicks off at 7:00 local time). That means we're left with just 10 games on Sunday afternoon, only six of which are early games. And of those 10, we've got some real duds. Bills-Saints, anyone? Didn't think so.
Cowboys (4-3) at Lions (4-3): Dallas-This is actually one of the better games of the week. The Cowboys are the only NFC East team that's over .500, and the Lions are just a half-game behind the Packers in the NFC North. I'm going to make a bold prediction and say the team that wears silver helmets with a blue logo is going to win. As for which one it is, I have a feeling that'll be Dallas.
Browns (3-4) at Chiefs (7-0): Kansas City-Who had Kansas City as the last undefeated team? With the Browns and Bills as their next two opponents, I see that continuing until the Chiefs' bye week. That defense is ridiculous.
Dolphins (3-3) at Patriots (5-2): New England-Rex Ryan's still on Cloud 9 after "beating" the Patriots on that ridiculous penalty the refs wouldn't have even called if he hadn't told them about it last week. All that loss means is New England will finish 11-5 instead of 12-4. The Patriots are still the class of the AFC East, and it's not even really close. They hadn't lost back-to-back games for like five years until they did last season. Losing back-to-back division games? Even longer. Expect that streak to continue.
Bills (3-4) at Saints (5-1): New Orleans-As we in New York remember the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Sandy, it reminds me of the last time the Bills visited the Saints. It was 2005, and it was the first New Orleans "home" game in San Antonio after Katrina. They finally play the Bills in the Superdome again, and they'll keep on rolling. The New Orleans-Seattle NFC home field battle is going to last all season.
Giants (1-6) at Eagles (3-4): Philadelphia-These two played just three weeks ago, when the Eagles posted a 36-21 victory at the Meadowlands to make this Giants season descend further into embarrassment. The Giants are at least no longer winless after beating the even-worse Vikings on Monday night. I thought Philly-Dallas would be a game, but the Eagles got crushed and only scored three points. With the Giants on a short week and the game in Philadelphia, I'm going to say the Eagles rebound and finish off the season sweep.
49ers (5-2) vs. Jaguars (0-7): San Francisco-The NFL really needs to reconsider the teams it sends to London. Jacksonville is the designated "home" team for the next couple years? Not exactly the highest-quality football for our friends across the pond. Of course, I think the 49ers are going to win this game. More on Roger Goddell's ridiculous London obsession in our next installment.
Jets (4-3) at Bengals (5-2): Cincinnati-Rex is still on such a high after the Patriots game that he probably completely forgot the Jets were even playing this week. In Cincinnati. Against a very good Bengals team that actually BEAT New England. The Bengals have won three in a row since losing to Cleveland and have a two-game lead in the AFC North. I really don't see them slipping up against the Jets.
Steelers (2-4) at Raiders (2-4): Oakland-Pittsburgh seems to have at least started righting the ship. Back-to-back wins, including an impressive one last week against rival Baltimore, have the Steelers at 2-4 and thinking they might be able to save their season yet. But their 2012 campaign was derailed by an inexplicable loss in Oakland. For some reason, I think it's going to happen again.
Redskins (2-4) at Broncos (6-1): Denver-There were two things I forgot to take into account regarding last week's Broncos-Colts game: Indianapolis knows Peyton better than anybody, and Robert Mathis wasn't allowed to hit him during all those years they were teammates. Anyway, the crazy thing to think about is that 6-1 Denver, which still might be the best team in football, is in SECOND place in the AFC West. The Broncos haven't played the Chiefs yet, so that'll change. Against the Redskins at home, they put last week behind them and move to 7-1.
Falcons (2-4) at Cardinals (3-4): Atlanta-I think I can now officially that my NFC Super Bowl pick of the Falcons is going to be wrong. They're not the same team without BOTH Julio Jones and Roddy White. Regardless, they finally got out of the AFC East last week and got a win over the lowly Bucs. That was probably a confidence boost, though. And Atlanta's still got enough healthy talent to handle Arizona.
Packers (4-2) at Vikings (1-5): Green Bay-This game was much more appealing before the season started than it is now, which is how it ended up on Sunday night. Minnesota's not a good team. That Monday night game against the Giants was an embarrassing display of football. Josh Freeman shouldn't be their starting quarterback yet, either. Ever since their bye, the Packers have been the Packers again. That's bad new for the not-ready-for-primetime Vikings.
Seahawks (6-1) at Rams (3-4): Seattle-It's been a really long time since Seattle played. They get that same ridiculous Thursday-Monday schedule the Giants had last week. We're talking about one of the best teams in the NFL here. After all that rest, they might be a little rusty at the start, but by the end, the real Seahawks will have shown up. Seattle goes to 7-1 with its second straight division road win.
BYES: Baltimore, Chicago, Houston, Indianapolis, San Diego, Tennessee
Last Week: 8-7
This Week: 1-0
Season: 67-41
Friday, October 25, 2013
Taking a Stand at Grambling
The Grambling football team is going to play this week. A marked difference from last week, when they refused to travel to their game at Jackson State as part of a larger stand against their school's administration. And by not playing, Grambling's football players brought light to a much larger problem that needed to be addressed.
There were a lot of reasons for the boycott. The players were upset about the availability of water and Gatorade at practices. There were also issues with mildew on the equipment and unsafe conditions in the weight room. When Head Coach Doug Williams raised money to replace the floor, the administration kept it under lock-and-key instead of installing it because Williams didn't go through the "proper channels." He was then fired and replaced with an interim coach the players didn't like. But the last straw was having to travel by bus to road games in Kansas City and Indianapolis, the latter of which was a 16-hour trip each way. Even worse, the athletic director and school president flew to the game.
Now, I'm not going to act like I understand the entire situation or know everything that's going on, but I do applaud the players for taking a stand. While I don't necessarily agree with all of their methods, they had some valid concerns. And I can see where they felt as if a boycott was their only choice. They weren't being listened to and had to do something drastic. It took a boycott to finally bring attention to the problems with Grambling football.
The problems go far beyond football. Grambling has no money. The State of Louisiana has cut back their funding to the point that they need to rely on private donations and tuition. That model doesn't work when you're awarding scholarships for Division I athletics. If you look at Grambling's programs across the board, they're all struggling. They simply don't have the money to compete at this level in their current financial situation. That's what makes some of the stuff that happened with the football program so ridiculous.
They needed new flooring in the weight room. Grambling couldn't pay for it so Head Coach Doug Williams, a Grambling legend and former Super Bowl MVP, raised the money for it himself. And they don't install it why? Why should it matter how the money was raised? The bottom line is that the badly needed new floor was paid for, delivered and ready to be installed. The fact that it wasn't, and that Williams got fired for ordering it, shows how much dysfunction there is at Grambling.
For that, I applaud the players. By bringing the problems with their program to light, they made the country aware of the much more serious financial situation Grambling is facing. That might not have been their intent, but it was a result.
The problems with Grambling football aren't going to be fixed overnight. But they were also way too big to continue being ignored. Some of the problems were smaller than others, and I guarantee some people probably view the players as spoiled, ungrateful crybabies. I'm not one of them, though. The is Grambling football. The program built by the legendary Eddie Robinson. This is supposed to be Grambling's marquee program here, and this is the way the players are being treated? I can only imagine how much worse it is for Grambling's other athletes.
I don't know what the solution at Grambling is. But it's pretty clear that there are some pretty serious problems that go beyond just football. The school can't continue to operate its athletic department this way. At least not under this current financial model. It's expensive to run a Division I football program. Especially at the I-AA level, where you're inevitably going to lose money.
Maybe Grambling can't afford to continue playing football moving forward. It's OK to admit that. But if Grambling is committed to having a football program, they need to do things the right way. Which is not the way they were doing it.
Who's to say how much conditions are going to improve at Grambling? But the players definitely made their point. And I give them credit for making everyone aware of what was going on. Sometimes the only way to impart change is to do something drastic. At least in that, the Grambling football players were successful. Hopefully there's more success to come.
There were a lot of reasons for the boycott. The players were upset about the availability of water and Gatorade at practices. There were also issues with mildew on the equipment and unsafe conditions in the weight room. When Head Coach Doug Williams raised money to replace the floor, the administration kept it under lock-and-key instead of installing it because Williams didn't go through the "proper channels." He was then fired and replaced with an interim coach the players didn't like. But the last straw was having to travel by bus to road games in Kansas City and Indianapolis, the latter of which was a 16-hour trip each way. Even worse, the athletic director and school president flew to the game.
Now, I'm not going to act like I understand the entire situation or know everything that's going on, but I do applaud the players for taking a stand. While I don't necessarily agree with all of their methods, they had some valid concerns. And I can see where they felt as if a boycott was their only choice. They weren't being listened to and had to do something drastic. It took a boycott to finally bring attention to the problems with Grambling football.
The problems go far beyond football. Grambling has no money. The State of Louisiana has cut back their funding to the point that they need to rely on private donations and tuition. That model doesn't work when you're awarding scholarships for Division I athletics. If you look at Grambling's programs across the board, they're all struggling. They simply don't have the money to compete at this level in their current financial situation. That's what makes some of the stuff that happened with the football program so ridiculous.
They needed new flooring in the weight room. Grambling couldn't pay for it so Head Coach Doug Williams, a Grambling legend and former Super Bowl MVP, raised the money for it himself. And they don't install it why? Why should it matter how the money was raised? The bottom line is that the badly needed new floor was paid for, delivered and ready to be installed. The fact that it wasn't, and that Williams got fired for ordering it, shows how much dysfunction there is at Grambling.
For that, I applaud the players. By bringing the problems with their program to light, they made the country aware of the much more serious financial situation Grambling is facing. That might not have been their intent, but it was a result.
The problems with Grambling football aren't going to be fixed overnight. But they were also way too big to continue being ignored. Some of the problems were smaller than others, and I guarantee some people probably view the players as spoiled, ungrateful crybabies. I'm not one of them, though. The is Grambling football. The program built by the legendary Eddie Robinson. This is supposed to be Grambling's marquee program here, and this is the way the players are being treated? I can only imagine how much worse it is for Grambling's other athletes.
I don't know what the solution at Grambling is. But it's pretty clear that there are some pretty serious problems that go beyond just football. The school can't continue to operate its athletic department this way. At least not under this current financial model. It's expensive to run a Division I football program. Especially at the I-AA level, where you're inevitably going to lose money.
Maybe Grambling can't afford to continue playing football moving forward. It's OK to admit that. But if Grambling is committed to having a football program, they need to do things the right way. Which is not the way they were doing it.
Who's to say how much conditions are going to improve at Grambling? But the players definitely made their point. And I give them credit for making everyone aware of what was going on. Sometimes the only way to impart change is to do something drastic. At least in that, the Grambling football players were successful. Hopefully there's more success to come.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Sawx In Siwx
Yes, that's my official World Series prediction. Before I break down exactly how I came up with that, I've got another little nugget that I didn't think of until after I'd already posted my 13 Fun Facts for the 2013 World Series. If the Cardinals win in six, the all-time records of the Red Sox and Cardinals against each other in the World Series would be even at 12-12. Anyway, on to why I think the Red Sox are going to win...
I said heading into the LCSes that whichever team won the AL pennant would be the World Series favorites. After watching those 12 games, that opinion hasn't changed. Both of these teams were very impressive with the ways they found to win, a key intangible come this time of year. And they both got contributions from everybody, another important element when it comes to postseason baseball. Throw in tremendous starting pitching and solid bullpen work, and it's easy to see why these are the last two standings.
So why the Red Sox? The answer's not an obvious one.
Some experts say St. Louis has the edge when it comes to starting pitching, but I think that's actually a pretty even split. By not having to play a Game 7 against the Dodgers, St. Louis is able to use its ace, Adam Wainwright, in Game 1, then back him up with NLCS MVP Michael Wacha on normal rest in Game 2. They haven't announced the rest of the rotation yet, but you'd have to figure it'll be Joe Kelly in Games 3/7 and Lance Lynn in Game 4. But the Red Sox are going to counter with Jon Lester against Wainwright and, more importantly, a Cardinals lineup that struggles against left-handed pitching in Games 1 and 5. Then it's John Lackey in Game 2, which means Clay Buchholz is being held until Game 3 (and possibly Game 7).
As good as the St. Louis starting pitchers have been, I think those are very even matchups. Even if you say Wacha has the edge against Lackey (who started and won Game 7 as a rookie with the 2002 Angels), Boston has the edge with Buchholz, and, even though he got rocked in Game 4 of the ALCS, you have to think they feel comfortable with longtime Padre Jake Peavy pitching Game 4 in the NL park. For all the credit the Cardinals starters have been getting, the Red Sox starters might not be getting enough. At the very worst, you'd have to say the starting pitching is a draw.
It's the bullpen, though, where Boston has a big advantage. The Red Sox won the ALCS because the Tigers bullpen was terrible and their was virtually unhittable. So, good luck Cardinals if that's your strategy. Craig Breslow has been great. He's not just your matchup lefty. He can get anybody out. So can Junichi Tazawa. And do I even need to get into how ridiculous Koji Uehara has been since the All-Star Break? A walk-off homer to Jose Lobaton aside, guys don't even get on base against the Boston closer and ALCS MVP. All he does is throw strikes, which people still can't hit.
The St. Louis bullpen is also good, but definitely more vulnerable. Trevor Rosenthal is a terrific closer, but if I had my choice, I'm going with Uehara. I really like Edward Mujica, but I just have a feeling Mike Matheny's going to overuse him and/or he's really going to get roughed up in one game. One of the Cardinals' secret weapons during their title run two years ago was Marc Rzepczynski. Their current left-handers, Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist, have a big task ahead of them with the likes of Big Papi and Jacoby Ellsbury. It might not be a good comparison because Detroit's bullpen isn't very good, but you saw what the Red Sox lineup did to Tigers relievers. If they get into the Cardinals bullpen early, it's advantage Boston. Especially if their own bullpen continues to dominate.
When it comes to the lineups, I'd also give the slight edge to Boston, although that edge has gotten smaller with the announcement that Allen Craig is good to go to DH the games at Fenway Park. Right after they won the pennant, I assumed the Cardinals wouldn't have Craig for the World Series and, thus, have to figure out their DH situation. This would've been a major problem. Because St. Louis has one of the most National League-style lineups you'll ever see. Adding Craig, though, makes it significantly deeper. How effective will he be after being out of action for six weeks? Nobody knows. But being able to use Allen Craig instead of Daniel Descalso or Shane Robinson at DH definitely puts the Cardinals in a better position for the games at Fenway Park than they would've been otherwise.
The critics of year-round interleague play cite as one of their main reasons that you've got teams playing under different rules in the heart of the pennant race. Well, as fate would have it, the two American League teams that played interleague road series during the last week of the season were, ironically enough, the Red Sox and the Tigers. And in Boston's case, I think was a tremendous benefit. Because they're not going to suddenly be thrown into the position of David Ortiz playing first base in the World Series after not having put on a glove since a couple of games in July. It was only two games in Colorado, but the Red Sox constructed an Ortiz-at-first lineup that late in the season with the World Series in mind. Of course the question then becomes, "Where do you put Mike Napoli?" Well, remember, he used to be a catcher. Or, you've got a very dangerous bat available as a pinch hitter (same for the Cardinals with Craig).
Top-to-bottom, though, Boston's lineup is deeper, the struggles of Stephen Drew and Will Middlebrooks aside. Ellsbury and Victorino are great table-setters, and Pedroia makes that team go. And there's no describing how clutch Ortiz, Napoli and even Saltalamacchia have been. Then there's Johnny Gomes. Johnny Gomes isn't that good and he's (along with Napoli) the ringleader of that whole ridiculous beard thing. But for some reason he's a catalyst, and the Red Sox are undefeated when he starts in left field this postseason. Even though the Cardinals will be starting only right-handers, I'd expect him to start at least the first two games in Fenway.
Both teams also have that emotional factor on their side. The Cardinals have been playing all season for the great Stan Musial, who died over the winter. The Red Sox, of course, have galvanized their city after the Boston Marathon bombings. Boston Strong has been the rallying cry in much the same way the Yankees became the symbol of their city after 9/11. The 2001 Yankees came up short, but I don't think the 2013 Red Sox will.
The last thing that gives the Red Sox the edge is Fenway Park and their rabid fans. St. Louis had the home field advantage in 2011, and that's the reason why they won. If this series goes back to Boston, I think Fenway will be a deciding factor. Those fans are insane. If given a chance to get involved in the series, you know they will. Especially if it goes back to Boston 3-2 Cardinals. Either way, if this series goes beyond five games, which I think it will, St. Louis doesn't stand a chance against the Fenway Faithful.
I said heading into the LCSes that whichever team won the AL pennant would be the World Series favorites. After watching those 12 games, that opinion hasn't changed. Both of these teams were very impressive with the ways they found to win, a key intangible come this time of year. And they both got contributions from everybody, another important element when it comes to postseason baseball. Throw in tremendous starting pitching and solid bullpen work, and it's easy to see why these are the last two standings.
So why the Red Sox? The answer's not an obvious one.
Some experts say St. Louis has the edge when it comes to starting pitching, but I think that's actually a pretty even split. By not having to play a Game 7 against the Dodgers, St. Louis is able to use its ace, Adam Wainwright, in Game 1, then back him up with NLCS MVP Michael Wacha on normal rest in Game 2. They haven't announced the rest of the rotation yet, but you'd have to figure it'll be Joe Kelly in Games 3/7 and Lance Lynn in Game 4. But the Red Sox are going to counter with Jon Lester against Wainwright and, more importantly, a Cardinals lineup that struggles against left-handed pitching in Games 1 and 5. Then it's John Lackey in Game 2, which means Clay Buchholz is being held until Game 3 (and possibly Game 7).
As good as the St. Louis starting pitchers have been, I think those are very even matchups. Even if you say Wacha has the edge against Lackey (who started and won Game 7 as a rookie with the 2002 Angels), Boston has the edge with Buchholz, and, even though he got rocked in Game 4 of the ALCS, you have to think they feel comfortable with longtime Padre Jake Peavy pitching Game 4 in the NL park. For all the credit the Cardinals starters have been getting, the Red Sox starters might not be getting enough. At the very worst, you'd have to say the starting pitching is a draw.
It's the bullpen, though, where Boston has a big advantage. The Red Sox won the ALCS because the Tigers bullpen was terrible and their was virtually unhittable. So, good luck Cardinals if that's your strategy. Craig Breslow has been great. He's not just your matchup lefty. He can get anybody out. So can Junichi Tazawa. And do I even need to get into how ridiculous Koji Uehara has been since the All-Star Break? A walk-off homer to Jose Lobaton aside, guys don't even get on base against the Boston closer and ALCS MVP. All he does is throw strikes, which people still can't hit.
The St. Louis bullpen is also good, but definitely more vulnerable. Trevor Rosenthal is a terrific closer, but if I had my choice, I'm going with Uehara. I really like Edward Mujica, but I just have a feeling Mike Matheny's going to overuse him and/or he's really going to get roughed up in one game. One of the Cardinals' secret weapons during their title run two years ago was Marc Rzepczynski. Their current left-handers, Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist, have a big task ahead of them with the likes of Big Papi and Jacoby Ellsbury. It might not be a good comparison because Detroit's bullpen isn't very good, but you saw what the Red Sox lineup did to Tigers relievers. If they get into the Cardinals bullpen early, it's advantage Boston. Especially if their own bullpen continues to dominate.
When it comes to the lineups, I'd also give the slight edge to Boston, although that edge has gotten smaller with the announcement that Allen Craig is good to go to DH the games at Fenway Park. Right after they won the pennant, I assumed the Cardinals wouldn't have Craig for the World Series and, thus, have to figure out their DH situation. This would've been a major problem. Because St. Louis has one of the most National League-style lineups you'll ever see. Adding Craig, though, makes it significantly deeper. How effective will he be after being out of action for six weeks? Nobody knows. But being able to use Allen Craig instead of Daniel Descalso or Shane Robinson at DH definitely puts the Cardinals in a better position for the games at Fenway Park than they would've been otherwise.
The critics of year-round interleague play cite as one of their main reasons that you've got teams playing under different rules in the heart of the pennant race. Well, as fate would have it, the two American League teams that played interleague road series during the last week of the season were, ironically enough, the Red Sox and the Tigers. And in Boston's case, I think was a tremendous benefit. Because they're not going to suddenly be thrown into the position of David Ortiz playing first base in the World Series after not having put on a glove since a couple of games in July. It was only two games in Colorado, but the Red Sox constructed an Ortiz-at-first lineup that late in the season with the World Series in mind. Of course the question then becomes, "Where do you put Mike Napoli?" Well, remember, he used to be a catcher. Or, you've got a very dangerous bat available as a pinch hitter (same for the Cardinals with Craig).
Top-to-bottom, though, Boston's lineup is deeper, the struggles of Stephen Drew and Will Middlebrooks aside. Ellsbury and Victorino are great table-setters, and Pedroia makes that team go. And there's no describing how clutch Ortiz, Napoli and even Saltalamacchia have been. Then there's Johnny Gomes. Johnny Gomes isn't that good and he's (along with Napoli) the ringleader of that whole ridiculous beard thing. But for some reason he's a catalyst, and the Red Sox are undefeated when he starts in left field this postseason. Even though the Cardinals will be starting only right-handers, I'd expect him to start at least the first two games in Fenway.
Both teams also have that emotional factor on their side. The Cardinals have been playing all season for the great Stan Musial, who died over the winter. The Red Sox, of course, have galvanized their city after the Boston Marathon bombings. Boston Strong has been the rallying cry in much the same way the Yankees became the symbol of their city after 9/11. The 2001 Yankees came up short, but I don't think the 2013 Red Sox will.
The last thing that gives the Red Sox the edge is Fenway Park and their rabid fans. St. Louis had the home field advantage in 2011, and that's the reason why they won. If this series goes back to Boston, I think Fenway will be a deciding factor. Those fans are insane. If given a chance to get involved in the series, you know they will. Especially if it goes back to Boston 3-2 Cardinals. Either way, if this series goes beyond five games, which I think it will, St. Louis doesn't stand a chance against the Fenway Faithful.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Red Sox vs. Cardinals Tidbits
Well, I'm stuck with the World Series I didn't want. The Dodgers forgot that they needed to actually score runs in the games in St. Louis, and the Tigers bullpen was just bad. As a result, we've got the Red Sox and the Cardinals for the second time in 10 years. And I'm in a situation where I don't want to see either team win, which I know is not possible. But my overarching love for the game of baseball and the World Series trumps all, so I'll suck it up and watch all four-seven games, just like I do every year.
My pick will come as the series gets closer and things like the pitching rotations are revealed. But World Series facts & figures are always fun to talk about. So, here are some nuggets to digest leading into the 109th Fall Classic...
My pick will come as the series gets closer and things like the pitching rotations are revealed. But World Series facts & figures are always fun to talk about. So, here are some nuggets to digest leading into the 109th Fall Classic...
- This is the fourth World Series matching up the Red Sox and Cardinals. The Cardinals won in seven in both 1946 and 1967, while Boston, of course, had that curse-breaking sweep in 2004. Red Sox-Cardinals is the fourth-most frequent World Series pairing, behind Yankees-Dodgers (11), Yankees-Giants (7) and Yankees-Cardinals (5). (Tigers-Cubs, Yankees-Braves and Giants-Athletics are all four-time World Series matchups, as well.)
- Looking back on that 2004 Series, there are only two players remaining, one on each team: Yadier Molina of the Cardinals and David Ortiz of the Red Sox. Molina was the Cardinals' backup catcher back then. The starter? Current St. Louis manager Mike Matheny.
- Boston's current eight-game World Series winning streak is the second-longest active streak. The Red Sox will have the longest streak if they win the first two games. Cincinnati has won nine straight World Series games (Game 7 in 1975, sweep in 1976, sweep in 1990). The all-time record is the Yankees' 14 straight from 1996-2000.
- The Red Sox and Cardinals finished tied for the best record in baseball at 97-65. That means we're guaranteed to have the team with the best record win the World Series for the first time since the 2009 Yankees. It'll be just the fourth time that has happened in the wild card era (1998 Yankees, 2007 Red Sox).
- It's also just third time ever that the two teams in the World Series finished with the same regular season record. In 1949, the Yankees and Dodgers both went 97-57, while the 1958 Yankees and Braves were both 92-62.
- This is the first time since 1999 that the top team in the American League is playing the top team in the National League in the World Series.
- If Boston wins, they'll be the first worst-to-first World Series champion since the 1991 Twins. The last team to reach the World Series the year after finishing in last place was the 2008 Rays.
- Red Sox manager John Farrell is in his first season with Boston. If the Red Sox win, he'll become the first manager to win the World Series in his first season with a team since one of his Boston predecessors--Terry Francona in 2004. The last manager to reach the World Series in his first season with a team was Jim Leyland with the 2006 Tigers.
- Farrell and Matheny are both managing in the World Series for the first time. The last time there were two first-time World Series managers, it was Charlie Manuel (Phillies) and Joe Maddon (Rays) in 2008.
- These two franchises have won a combined 18 World Series titles, the most-ever between the opponents in World Series that didn't involve the Yankees. Ditto on the 31 combined appearances. (When they met in 2004, their combined number of titles was only 14 and appearances was 26.)
- Fenway Park will be hosting its 10th World Series, the most of any current stadium and more than any stadium except for the Original Yankee Stadium, which hosted 39.
- Much like when the Cardinals played the Rangers in 2011, the first games the Red Sox ever play in the current Busch Stadium will be World Series contests. The stadium opened in 2006, and Boston's last trip to St. Louis during interleague play was in 2005. (The Red Sox are scheduled to visit St. Louis next year.) In fact, the Red Sox and Cardinals haven't played at all since 2008.
- The 2006 Cardinals started this current string where five of the last seven World Series have been won by the National League team. One of the two AL teams to win was the Red Sox in 2007.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Week 7 NFL Picks
We all know what game is on Sunday night this week. I can't wait (although, I am kind of torn because in order for the Tigers to win, there has to be a Game 7, which would be at the same time). There hasn't been this much hype surrounding a regular season game since Brett Favre's first game in Lambeau as a member of the Packers. The difference this time, though, is that Colts fans still like Peyton.
There are, of course, 12 other games to be played on Sunday, as well as the Monday night game, but for most people, there's only one that matters. As for the rest of those games...
Buccaneers (0-5) at Falcons (1-4): Atlanta-Good news, Falcons. You don't have to play an AFC East team this week. And, you didn't lose last week, either. The Falcons are also fortunate that they're playing the Bucs this week. Tampa Bay's the only team in the NFC that can manage to make the Giants look good. Even without Roddy White and Julio Jones, I think Atlanta finally picks up its second W.
Bengals (4-2) at Lions (4-2): Cincinnati-Who had both of these teams at 4-2 with one in first place and the other tied for first at the time of this meeting? Anybody? I'm still slightly confused by the Bengals. They beat the Packers and held the Patriots to six points, yet lost to Cleveland and went to overtime last week in Buffalo. In a surprisingly good matchup, I'll go with the better Bengals team. I also think that the guys in Vegas should allow side bets on how much Ndamukong Suh will be fined after he tries to decapitate Andy Dalton.
Bills (2-4) at Dolphins (3-2): Miami-One of the NFL's one-time great rivalries gets renewed with Miami on its way back to relevance. The Dolphins are coming off their bye, while the Bills almost pulled the upset against Cincinnati last week. I think that's going to be the story of the Bills' season. They'll be competitive with everybody, but the little things will be the difference in the end. That's why I'm picking Miami.
Patriots (5-1) at Jets (3-3): New England-Am I the only person who doesn't let any Rex Ryan and the Jets' talking/whining about the Patriots even register? I'm not even sure what kind of point they try to make. The Patriots have owned all three of the other teams in that division for a decade! And there isn't really anything the Jets can do to change it. At least not this year. The first game was closer than it should've been mainly because it was played in a driving rain. It'll be nice at the Meadowlands tomorrow.
Cowboys (3-3) at Eagles (3-3): Philadelphia-This is a battle for first place in the NFC Least. That's right. The Cowboys, who are just as capable of hanging with Denver as they are at almost giving away a game to the Giants, are tied for first place with the Eagles, who were 1-3 two weeks ago. It's a sad state of affairs in the NFC Least. I made this pick before Michael Vick announced he wouldn't play, but I have full confidence in Nick Foles, as well as Tony Romo and his ability to lose a winnable game.
Bears (4-2) at Redskins (1-4): Chicago-The Redskins are favored. I have no idea why. They shouldn't be. Chicago's a really good team. Washington isn't. Especially with Robert Griffin III as limited as he's been for most of the season.
Rams (3-3) at Panthers (2-3): St. Louis-Ditto on this game. I can't figure out why the Panthers are favored. Unless they only gave Carolina a slight nod because the game's in Charlotte. That shouldn't matter, though. The Rams are turning into a very formidable team. Case in point, last week's demolition of the Texans in Houston. That game wasn't close. The Panthers won last week, too, but they beat the Vikings, which barely counts. St. Louis extends its winning streak to three straight.
Chargers (3-3) at Jaguars (0-6): San Diego-There's hope for Jacksonville yet. They actually looked like something that resembled a professional football team in last week's closer-than-expected loss to the Broncos. It doesn't mean the Jaguars are going to beat a Chargers team that was very impressive on Monday night and already has a 1:00 road game win this season, but it does mean Jacksonville has a chance of not getting completely blown out in every game.
49ers (4-2) at Titans (3-3): San Francisco-It appears San Francisco has righted the ship. Three straight wins after the back-to-back losses to the Seahawks and Colts. Tennessee had the unfortunate task of going to Seattle last week, and the Titans actually kept it somewhat close, only losing by seven. They're good. That two game losing streak is no reflection on them (they played Kansas City and Seattle). Sadly for the Titans, a third straight game against a good team likely results in a third straight loss before their bye.
Browns (3-3) at Packers (3-2): Green Bay-How important was Green Bay's win in Baltimore last week? It kept the Packers even in the loss column with Chicago and Detroit, who both haven't had their bye yet. Cleveland finally lost a game last week against those aforementioned Detroit Lions. The Packers aren't a good matchup for them. Especially in Lambeau.
Texans (2-4) at Chiefs (6-0): Kansas City-CBS moved this one to the late game so it could be a national broadcast. That's probably more so that people can see Kansas City than so they can see Houston. The Texans are officially a mess. Not only have they lost four straight. They got blown out at home by St. Louis last week, and things got so bad that the fans were cheering as an injured Matt Schaub was taken off the field. Visiting one of the two undefeated teams in the NFL isn't the best way to cure all that's wrong in Houston.
Ravens (3-3) at Steelers (1-4): Baltimore-Pittsburgh finally got a win last week! It came against the Jets, but still. One of the best rivalries in the NFL is renewed with both teams badly in need of a victory. If the Ravens win, Pittsburgh can kiss its playoff chances goodbye. Likewise, if the Steelers win, Baltimore's chances of winning the division become much more difficult (especially if Cincinnati wins in Detroit). So, in other words, this is a big game. I still think Baltimore's got the goods to make a run, so they pull it off here.
Broncos (6-0) at Colts (4-2): Denver-There's no need to set the stage here. Peyton Manning returns to Indianapolis. Do you really think he's going to let his team lose to the Colts? I don't.
Vikings (1-4) at Giants (0-6): Giants-That's right. I'm taking the Giants. Because as sorry as they've been this year, Monday night's game might actually be their best chance to get a win. They haven't lost since last Thursday, and this week they get an equally bad opponent. Like I said, it's actually possible the Giants don't lose this week. Otherwise, they might have to wait until their home game against the Raiders.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 10-5
Season: 59-34
There are, of course, 12 other games to be played on Sunday, as well as the Monday night game, but for most people, there's only one that matters. As for the rest of those games...
Buccaneers (0-5) at Falcons (1-4): Atlanta-Good news, Falcons. You don't have to play an AFC East team this week. And, you didn't lose last week, either. The Falcons are also fortunate that they're playing the Bucs this week. Tampa Bay's the only team in the NFC that can manage to make the Giants look good. Even without Roddy White and Julio Jones, I think Atlanta finally picks up its second W.
Bengals (4-2) at Lions (4-2): Cincinnati-Who had both of these teams at 4-2 with one in first place and the other tied for first at the time of this meeting? Anybody? I'm still slightly confused by the Bengals. They beat the Packers and held the Patriots to six points, yet lost to Cleveland and went to overtime last week in Buffalo. In a surprisingly good matchup, I'll go with the better Bengals team. I also think that the guys in Vegas should allow side bets on how much Ndamukong Suh will be fined after he tries to decapitate Andy Dalton.
Bills (2-4) at Dolphins (3-2): Miami-One of the NFL's one-time great rivalries gets renewed with Miami on its way back to relevance. The Dolphins are coming off their bye, while the Bills almost pulled the upset against Cincinnati last week. I think that's going to be the story of the Bills' season. They'll be competitive with everybody, but the little things will be the difference in the end. That's why I'm picking Miami.
Patriots (5-1) at Jets (3-3): New England-Am I the only person who doesn't let any Rex Ryan and the Jets' talking/whining about the Patriots even register? I'm not even sure what kind of point they try to make. The Patriots have owned all three of the other teams in that division for a decade! And there isn't really anything the Jets can do to change it. At least not this year. The first game was closer than it should've been mainly because it was played in a driving rain. It'll be nice at the Meadowlands tomorrow.
Cowboys (3-3) at Eagles (3-3): Philadelphia-This is a battle for first place in the NFC Least. That's right. The Cowboys, who are just as capable of hanging with Denver as they are at almost giving away a game to the Giants, are tied for first place with the Eagles, who were 1-3 two weeks ago. It's a sad state of affairs in the NFC Least. I made this pick before Michael Vick announced he wouldn't play, but I have full confidence in Nick Foles, as well as Tony Romo and his ability to lose a winnable game.
Bears (4-2) at Redskins (1-4): Chicago-The Redskins are favored. I have no idea why. They shouldn't be. Chicago's a really good team. Washington isn't. Especially with Robert Griffin III as limited as he's been for most of the season.
Rams (3-3) at Panthers (2-3): St. Louis-Ditto on this game. I can't figure out why the Panthers are favored. Unless they only gave Carolina a slight nod because the game's in Charlotte. That shouldn't matter, though. The Rams are turning into a very formidable team. Case in point, last week's demolition of the Texans in Houston. That game wasn't close. The Panthers won last week, too, but they beat the Vikings, which barely counts. St. Louis extends its winning streak to three straight.
Chargers (3-3) at Jaguars (0-6): San Diego-There's hope for Jacksonville yet. They actually looked like something that resembled a professional football team in last week's closer-than-expected loss to the Broncos. It doesn't mean the Jaguars are going to beat a Chargers team that was very impressive on Monday night and already has a 1:00 road game win this season, but it does mean Jacksonville has a chance of not getting completely blown out in every game.
49ers (4-2) at Titans (3-3): San Francisco-It appears San Francisco has righted the ship. Three straight wins after the back-to-back losses to the Seahawks and Colts. Tennessee had the unfortunate task of going to Seattle last week, and the Titans actually kept it somewhat close, only losing by seven. They're good. That two game losing streak is no reflection on them (they played Kansas City and Seattle). Sadly for the Titans, a third straight game against a good team likely results in a third straight loss before their bye.
Browns (3-3) at Packers (3-2): Green Bay-How important was Green Bay's win in Baltimore last week? It kept the Packers even in the loss column with Chicago and Detroit, who both haven't had their bye yet. Cleveland finally lost a game last week against those aforementioned Detroit Lions. The Packers aren't a good matchup for them. Especially in Lambeau.
Texans (2-4) at Chiefs (6-0): Kansas City-CBS moved this one to the late game so it could be a national broadcast. That's probably more so that people can see Kansas City than so they can see Houston. The Texans are officially a mess. Not only have they lost four straight. They got blown out at home by St. Louis last week, and things got so bad that the fans were cheering as an injured Matt Schaub was taken off the field. Visiting one of the two undefeated teams in the NFL isn't the best way to cure all that's wrong in Houston.
Ravens (3-3) at Steelers (1-4): Baltimore-Pittsburgh finally got a win last week! It came against the Jets, but still. One of the best rivalries in the NFL is renewed with both teams badly in need of a victory. If the Ravens win, Pittsburgh can kiss its playoff chances goodbye. Likewise, if the Steelers win, Baltimore's chances of winning the division become much more difficult (especially if Cincinnati wins in Detroit). So, in other words, this is a big game. I still think Baltimore's got the goods to make a run, so they pull it off here.
Broncos (6-0) at Colts (4-2): Denver-There's no need to set the stage here. Peyton Manning returns to Indianapolis. Do you really think he's going to let his team lose to the Colts? I don't.
Vikings (1-4) at Giants (0-6): Giants-That's right. I'm taking the Giants. Because as sorry as they've been this year, Monday night's game might actually be their best chance to get a win. They haven't lost since last Thursday, and this week they get an equally bad opponent. Like I said, it's actually possible the Giants don't lose this week. Otherwise, they might have to wait until their home game against the Raiders.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 10-5
Season: 59-34
Thursday, October 17, 2013
A Not-So-Happy Reunion
Evidently it's easy to win the Super Bowl. At least that's what Colts owner Jim Irsay thinks. Irsay decided to take the days leading up to the most highly-anticipated regular season NFL game in quite some time and stir the pot by taking an unnecessary cheap shot at his former quarterback. Irsay said how disappointed he was that the Colts "only" won the Super Bowl once during Peyton's time with the team, as if that was somehow his fault (the game-sealing pick-six against the Saints in Super Bowl XLIV notwithstanding). I guess being in the playoffs regularly and winning 12 games every year wasn't enough.
Irsay tried to backtrack after he was roundly criticized for making those comments, but that did little to help his case. He came off as petty and ungrateful with comments that weren't just unnecessary. They were wrong and, frankly, downright mean. You "only" won one Super Bowl ring? Poor baby. You know what, the Philadelphia Eagles would gladly change places with you. So would the Buffalo Bills, who haven't even made the playoffs since 1999, Peyton's second year with the Colts. By saying what he said, Irsay spoiled what otherwise would've most likely been a pretty happy reunion. Instead of lamenting what might have been, he should be thanking Peyton Manning for how much he meant to the Indianapolis Colts organization over the course of his 13 years with the team.
The Indianapolis Colts were irrelevant. That's the only reason they were able to get Peyton Manning in the first place (and to think, some people wanted them to take Ryan Leaf with the No. 1 pick in the 1998 Draft). In his second season, they went from 3-13 to a 13-3 division champion. And the winning didn't stop. They were among the NFL's dominant teams for more than a decade, and the Colts-Patriots rivalry was must-see TV. (And if they don't have the unfortunate timing of running into Brady and that Patriots dynasty, the Colts do win one or two more Super Bowls.) Who was it that turned the franchise around? Turned them from a laughingstock into a powerhouse?
Without Peyton Manning, Eli never wins a Super Bowl in his brother's stadium. Because there is no Lucas Oil Stadium. Instead, the Los Angeles Colts are playing in Farmers Field or one of those other cushy new stadiums that's been proposed. Without Peyton Manning, Indianapolis Colts jerseys don't go flying off the shelves all over the country. Without Peyton Manning, free agents don't want to play in Indianapolis. Without Peyton Manning, Indianapolis remains a basketball town. Without Peyton Manning, the Colts aren't just irrelevant. They never become relevant in the first place.
How important was Peyton Manning to that team? The 2011 season is all the evidence you need. After never missing a start over his first 13 years in the league, Peyton was forced to miss the entire season after neck surgery. And the Colts fell apart without him. Suddenly the team that was regularly winning 10-plus games a year couldn't win at all. The Colts only won two games and ended up with the No. 1 pick, which just happened to be yet another opportunity to draft a franchise quarterback.
So, if you think about it, without Peyton Manning, there's no Andrew Luck. At least not in Indianapolis. If Manning plays at all in 2011, you know the Colts manage to win a few more games, Luck gets taken No. 1 by somebody else, and Peyton gets to end his career the way he wanted to. As a Colt. But instead, Jim Irsay decided to cut the greatest player in franchise history and start over with Andrew Luck.
I get why he did what he did two summers ago. Was it disappointing to see Peyton leave Indianapolis? Yes. Was it the "right" decision? That's up for debate. From a business perspective, it made sense. Irsay didn't want to draft Luck and have him sit on the bench biding his time behind Peyton, all the while paying the future Hall of Famer a very large sum of money that could be spent filling some glaring needs. He wasn't even sure if Peyton Manning was still Peyton Manning (BTW, he is). But it was sad to see the face of the franchise discarded like yesterday's trash. Peyton Manning deserved a better ending in Indianapolis. Colts fans deserved a chance to say goodbye properly.
As it turns out, Irsay was just as right about drafting Luck as he was about drafting Manning. Long-term, it looks like everything is going to work out fine for the Colts. Just like it's worked out fine for Peyton. He's very much the Peyton Manning of old and the main reason why the Broncos are the favorites to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. Wouldn't that be a kick, Peyton getting another ring before Irsay?
This Sunday is Peyton's long-awaited reunion with the Indianapolis fans who fell in love with their football team because of him. He'll receive an outpouring of love from an appreciative stadium. It'll be quite a contrast to Brett Favre's return to Lambeau with the Vikings. Peyton Manning will get his much-deserved tribute, and some tears will probably be shed.
It all had the makings of a beautiful moment. Until Jim Irsay spoiled it. Maybe he took all of his team's success for granted. Either way, Peyton Manning deserved to be shown the same class he's displayed throughout his career. Instead Jim Irsay has decided to act as if everything he's done for the franchise meant nothing. Try to take it back all you want, Jim. You still said what you said, and it was still interpreted exactly the way you meant it. And it was completely uncalled for.
Irsay tried to backtrack after he was roundly criticized for making those comments, but that did little to help his case. He came off as petty and ungrateful with comments that weren't just unnecessary. They were wrong and, frankly, downright mean. You "only" won one Super Bowl ring? Poor baby. You know what, the Philadelphia Eagles would gladly change places with you. So would the Buffalo Bills, who haven't even made the playoffs since 1999, Peyton's second year with the Colts. By saying what he said, Irsay spoiled what otherwise would've most likely been a pretty happy reunion. Instead of lamenting what might have been, he should be thanking Peyton Manning for how much he meant to the Indianapolis Colts organization over the course of his 13 years with the team.
The Indianapolis Colts were irrelevant. That's the only reason they were able to get Peyton Manning in the first place (and to think, some people wanted them to take Ryan Leaf with the No. 1 pick in the 1998 Draft). In his second season, they went from 3-13 to a 13-3 division champion. And the winning didn't stop. They were among the NFL's dominant teams for more than a decade, and the Colts-Patriots rivalry was must-see TV. (And if they don't have the unfortunate timing of running into Brady and that Patriots dynasty, the Colts do win one or two more Super Bowls.) Who was it that turned the franchise around? Turned them from a laughingstock into a powerhouse?
Without Peyton Manning, Eli never wins a Super Bowl in his brother's stadium. Because there is no Lucas Oil Stadium. Instead, the Los Angeles Colts are playing in Farmers Field or one of those other cushy new stadiums that's been proposed. Without Peyton Manning, Indianapolis Colts jerseys don't go flying off the shelves all over the country. Without Peyton Manning, free agents don't want to play in Indianapolis. Without Peyton Manning, Indianapolis remains a basketball town. Without Peyton Manning, the Colts aren't just irrelevant. They never become relevant in the first place.
How important was Peyton Manning to that team? The 2011 season is all the evidence you need. After never missing a start over his first 13 years in the league, Peyton was forced to miss the entire season after neck surgery. And the Colts fell apart without him. Suddenly the team that was regularly winning 10-plus games a year couldn't win at all. The Colts only won two games and ended up with the No. 1 pick, which just happened to be yet another opportunity to draft a franchise quarterback.
So, if you think about it, without Peyton Manning, there's no Andrew Luck. At least not in Indianapolis. If Manning plays at all in 2011, you know the Colts manage to win a few more games, Luck gets taken No. 1 by somebody else, and Peyton gets to end his career the way he wanted to. As a Colt. But instead, Jim Irsay decided to cut the greatest player in franchise history and start over with Andrew Luck.
I get why he did what he did two summers ago. Was it disappointing to see Peyton leave Indianapolis? Yes. Was it the "right" decision? That's up for debate. From a business perspective, it made sense. Irsay didn't want to draft Luck and have him sit on the bench biding his time behind Peyton, all the while paying the future Hall of Famer a very large sum of money that could be spent filling some glaring needs. He wasn't even sure if Peyton Manning was still Peyton Manning (BTW, he is). But it was sad to see the face of the franchise discarded like yesterday's trash. Peyton Manning deserved a better ending in Indianapolis. Colts fans deserved a chance to say goodbye properly.
As it turns out, Irsay was just as right about drafting Luck as he was about drafting Manning. Long-term, it looks like everything is going to work out fine for the Colts. Just like it's worked out fine for Peyton. He's very much the Peyton Manning of old and the main reason why the Broncos are the favorites to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. Wouldn't that be a kick, Peyton getting another ring before Irsay?
This Sunday is Peyton's long-awaited reunion with the Indianapolis fans who fell in love with their football team because of him. He'll receive an outpouring of love from an appreciative stadium. It'll be quite a contrast to Brett Favre's return to Lambeau with the Vikings. Peyton Manning will get his much-deserved tribute, and some tears will probably be shed.
It all had the makings of a beautiful moment. Until Jim Irsay spoiled it. Maybe he took all of his team's success for granted. Either way, Peyton Manning deserved to be shown the same class he's displayed throughout his career. Instead Jim Irsay has decided to act as if everything he's done for the franchise meant nothing. Try to take it back all you want, Jim. You still said what you said, and it was still interpreted exactly the way you meant it. And it was completely uncalled for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)