I finally made it out of snowbound Long Island and back to the Bronx in time to watch a little "Tuesday Night Football," which I suspect the NFL might try to make a regular thing if the ratings are high enough. It was a big day in the NFL. Not only did the Vikings and Eagles play the first Tuesday night game since 1946, the rosters for the 2011 Pro Bowl were announced.
Now, I used to be one of the 11 people who still watched the Pro Bowl, but that changed last year when Roger Goddell decided to move the game, both the date and the location. It's back where it belongs in Hawaii this season, but the date change Mr. Brilliant Commissioner enacted last year is still in effect. So, we once again have the Pro Bowl the week before the Super Bowl, meaning Super Bowl players will be replaced on the Pro Bowl rosters. Or, in other words, the all-star game won't include any players from the two best teams in the league. Want to see Tom Brady in the Pro Bowl? You can't if the Patriots are in the Super Bowl. Why would you want to see the likely MVP in the all-star game anyway? Crazy talk. The brilliance of Roger Goddell on full display once again.
The other lingering question I have about the Pro Bowl is: How come the rosters are so small? The game day rosters for a normal NFL game are 53 per team, but it's only 44 per team in the Pro Bowl. Why? Each team only has three safeties, meaning there's only one backup for the two positions. Likewise, there are only four wide receivers per side. (Each coach will add a long snapper. I'm not sure why that position isn't named when all the others are, but it's not.) I know that a lot of guys in the NFL play strictly on special teams, but having the smaller roster in the Pro Bowl means you're making the all-stars play special teams (which they don't do all year). It just doesn't make any sense. Is there any harm in having an additional five guys on each Pro Bowl roster? There's going to be at least that many players replaced due to injury, being in the Super Bowl, etc. Or is that the point? You'll run out of alternates if enough players are selected to the Pro Bowl right off the bat. After all, last year's Pro Bowl MVP was Texans quarterback Matt Schaub, the third alternate (read: sixth-best QB in the AFC).
With all that being said, I don't really have that much of an issue with the Pro Bowl rosters that were announced on Tuesday. 28 of the 32 teams had at least one player selected, even the Panthers somehow (Buffalo, Cincinnati, Seattle and Tampa Bay are the four teams that didn't have any Pro Bowlers). Everybody knew Michael Vick and Tom Brady would be named the starting quarterbacks, and the four backups are having good years as well (Rivers and Manning in the AFC, Ryan and Brees in the NFC). I think fantasy football has been a great thing in terms of Pro Bowl voting, since it makes fans much more knowledgeable about the skill-position guys. Of course us fans know very little about the fullbacks, offensive linemen and special teamers, which makes the combined fan/player/coach selection process necessary.
And I think that the selections which were announced on Tuesday do represent the best players in their respective conferences. There are a number of deserving fresh faces (Packers LB Clay Matthews, Lions DT Ndamukong Suh) to go along with Pro Bowl veterans like Brady, Manning, Troy Polamalu and Ray Lewis. There are a few too many Dallas Cowboys, but whatever. The bottom line is there is very little argument that can be made with this year's Pro Bowl rosters based on the silly roster limitations that are in place. Can you name an additional two running backs or another wide receiver in each conference that's deserving? Of course. Which is why they should increase the number of selections for the skill positions. Are plane tickets to Hawaii that expensive? Maybe they should bring it up during the CBA talks. Because the Pro Bowl could be great. They just need to make some changes (like moving it back to the week after the Super Bowl).
No comments:
Post a Comment