Hard Candy Christmas

The holidays always result in travel, which leaves me less time to fully form my thoughts on any given week, but here are a couple of embryonic ideas that are nagging at me.





- Peel back the layers of weirdness that surround ANY fetish (no matter how seemingly tame) and the total lack of judgment involved in posting a private, personal video on a public website while working in the public eye, and isn’t the LOCKER ROOM SHATTERING SCANDAL taking place behind the scenes for the Jets kind of...sweet? Certainly, I’m not shy about looking for reasons to root for my team, but I don’t think I need to reach all that far here. We’re talking about a man who didn’t do something illegal, immoral (at least by any conventional standards), or even all that dishonest (anybody who wants to argue that a corporation has the right to know what you do in the bedroom should probably apply for a job in the 1950’s). The man is really, really into his wife, and he likes feet. As to the former point: We should all be so lucky. As to the latter point: Ken Tremendous (formerly of Fire Joe Morgan) said it best with, “Hey, you know who’s into weird stuff that would really surprise people? Literally everyone on earth.” I’m not trying to take this into the realm of absurd anti-populism and declaring “today, we are all foot fetishists,” but certainly we’re not the society of uptight prudes that the media coverage on this is making us all out to be.


- Because let’s just pick a fight with EVERYBODY today: I like Tim Tebow. I like him as a person, but I also dig him as a football player. Certainly, the showing against the Raiders didn’t cement him as an all time great, but to hear the naysayers, you’d think he pissed himself on the field and threw the ball backwards. Tebow made some nice throws (don’t buy the hype: the TD pass was a REALLY well placed ball, not luck), and the TD run showed some of the unique physicality that he’s capable of bringing to the position. Of course, as with any QB that doesn’t immediately conform to the way the game has always been played, we’re seeing people turn on Tebow, and this is only made worse by the fact that he seems to be an authentic individual, which, as readers of this blog (both of them) should know, is the greatest sin an NFL player can commit. Again, I’m not trying to say that Tebow is going to be a great NFL quarterback, but why should the fact that he’s different both on and off the field serve as any sort of evidence that he can or can’t play in the NFL before he really gets a chance to prove that point on the field? Instead of patience and common sense (to say nothing of actually rooting for good things to happen for a good person), we’re seeing the majority of Tebow detractors attack him either for being an unconventional football player, which makes traditional coaches uncomfortable by questioning their perspective on the game, or being an unconventional human being, which makes everybody uncomfortable by questioning their perspective on themselves.


- Finally, Mike McCarthy earned a pass on the team underachieving last season after the near win he put together in New England, a game in which he rolled backup QB Matt Flynn out as his starter. If you think “almost” doesn’t count, you’re in the wrong place, and I’d even go so far as to say you missed what was essentially a blueprint for how the rest of the league needs to deal with the Pats; you need to match a pummeling defense with an offensive mindset that is trying to squeeze as many points as possible out of every possession, as opposed to playing field position football and praying for survival. If Aaron Rodgers starts that game, the Packers win, and maybe even win in dominant fashion (side note: Matt Flynn could actually continue a trend of backup Packers QBs who go on to be successful starters elsewhere, something Favre’s tenure was marked by thanks to Hasselbeck and Warner). Yes, I understand that the Packers are in danger of underachieving and missing the playoffs again, but they’re in control of their own destiny (they get their one-on-one matchup with the Giants this week), but there has to be some merit found in a coach whose team was decimated by some serious injuries on offense putting together a plan that showed he thought he could beat a more talented opponent in statement-making fashion, as opposed to just hanging around and hoping for a faith healer style miracle at the end (cough...JETS...cough).

Alright, happy holidays to everybody!

Why Do They Have To Be Snakes?

It has been a week of reconsidering old grudges for me, at least with regard to the NFL. For years, now, I’ve held Del Rio up as an example of what ugly, stubborn, bully coaches can do to a potentially dangerous franchise. I stand by much of my criticism with regard to his refusal to help develop an athletic receiving corps that showed flashes of brilliance into anything other than a novelty. Matt Jones and Reggie Williams are out of the league (despite each having shown the ability to succeed at the NFL level), and even Marcedes Lewis, a physical freak of nature, had to wait for five years and everyone else to leave before Del Rio would consider utilizing him as a centerpiece of his aerial attack. Nevertheless, if I rake Neanderthal Jack over the coals for clinging to his own personal perspective on the game rather than adapting to the talents he has under his command, I need to give him credit for his dogged loyalty to David Garrard, who has proven both this season and in 2007 that he can carry the Jaguars to legitimacy when he’s working efficiently. Certainly, this is more of Del Rio clinging to his vision of a world in which the pass is only utilized as a counterpunch or trick rather than a integral tool, but kudos to him for having the conviction of his beliefs in the face of so much adversity.

Indeed, perhaps this is why Del Rio was so eager to displace former QB Byron Leftwich with Garrard a few years ago; Leftwich represented the allure of dominance from the position, and was exactly the kind of quarterback who could win a game with his arm that fans were clamoring for as recently as earlier this year. Garrard, by contrast, plays toward an effective management of resources and situations. It is, however, a total management of the game as opposed to merely the passing offense, and the result plays out in the Jaguars record: When Garrard is efficient, the Jaguars win, and when he is asked to do more than he can handle, they lose. But for the Cleveland game (the one true test of Garrard as a focal point of the offense, and one which he passed), the Jaguars have yet to win a game in which he throws more interceptions than touchdowns. This explains why the apparent strategy has been to keep Garrard from overextending himself (he has attempted just 291 passes on the year), and yet Garrard has responded in just the opposite way we have come to expect from the stereotypical “leader” under center, becoming a top 10 quarterback with a QB rating over 90 despite having no receivers in the top 30 in receiving yards (Mike Thomas comes in at #37).

This fascinates me as someone who enjoys seeing personalities of coaches and players stamped on the on-field product we see each week. As much as Del Rio can be faulted for not allowing his receivers to do embrace their identities on the field, it’s almost endearing the way he clings to Garrard as a brother in arms, allowing Garrard to fully embrace his own role as a tactician and manager in the most positive senses of both of those terms. MJD has seen increased success as the year has progressed precisely because Garrard has not been forced to create his own openings for punishing defenses that ignore him, but rather has waited in the reeds, compiling enough surprising death blows (go back and look at those wins over Indy, Houston, and Oakland) in a limited sample size to give the appearance of being far deadlier than he may actually be (although I would remind everyone that in 2007, Garrard was a damn Cobra with the way he punished teams caught ignoring him as a threat). If this isn’t the sort of imposition of will that I look for from players and schemes, it is at least the imposition of illusion resulting from the freedom to explore exactly what works best for Del Rio and Garrard as a necessarily bound duo.

We're All So Damn Afraid

I mean, I may not want to write about it, but there's really only one thing that's happening in the league right now, or at least one thing with regard to victory in the present (watch those Bills and Browns, though). We all need to be watching and appreciating what Belichick, Brady, and the Patriots are doing to the league right now. In two consecutive weeks, they've played teams that have the offensive talent to overpower their young, often shaky defense and the defensive talent to harass Brady, and the results have been season altering embarrassments for both teams. And while I stand by what I've said earlier about my disdain for certain aspects of "The Patriot Way" and the fake indignation that has become synonymous with it, it's hard not to respect the results of that indignation on the field. Because while the composition of the team may scream "THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO LIVE", the execution on the field is almost delightfully "F*** YOUR COUCH."

I, for one, am grateful. Yes, watching my team of choice get their doors blown out was painful, but at least it happened in a way that should have taught them a lesson: Hanging around until the end is not a game plan worth respecting (the fact that they didn't learn this the next week is on the Jets, not on the Patriots). The same thing held true for the Bears, who decided they were going to use the weather and home turf to hold the Patriots within shooting distance, only to have the Pats come out burning the boats of "keep it close", and breaking their spirit at the end of the first half (seriously, how is it that only the coach I hate understands that not always trying to score with over a minute left in the half is shameful?). The B&B connection has embraced the reality that their surrounding talent does not stack up conventionally against other teams, and as a result have executed a game plan built to shock teams into submission. It's the "FIGHT" in "fight or flight" as played out by a team that is too dedicated to winning to ever consider playing anything other than a fearless game plan.

That none of their opponents have dared to take the fight to them is shameful, particularly when you consider that neither the Bears nor the Jets have any real "dignity" to which they should be clinging. Does nobody else think that Braylon, Santonio, and Keller should KILL this Patriots secondary, or that Jay Cutler has the arm to punish them down the field and a sold out pass rush from Peppers could shake Brady to the core, or that either team's "creative" offensive guru couldn't construct a rush game built to confuse an inexperienced linebacker corps? Instead, both challengers brought chess sets to gunfights. Am I the only one who has watched enough horror movies to understand that you don't get to walk away alive unless you KILL the monster?

All of this makes me reconsider where my head has been at on New England this year. I still think they did Moss wrong (whatever the mainstream says, this should have been his championship team), and I can't stand the "nobody believes in us" lie that was shed a decade ago, but I'll be damned if I haven't found myself in awe of the killer instinct that both of these things have created in this team. At least, I'm as much in awe of them as I am disappointed that none of their opponents, many of whom built talented rosters specifically to seize their thrown (LOOKING AT YOU JETS), feel the sense of urgency that must necessarily accompany power being seized. Instead, they carry themselves with what they mistake for dignity, but is the game planning equivalent of the emperor's new clothes.

Living Long Enough Isn't a Goal

Been sick as a dog this week, so let’s cobble two lines of thought into one post...

- I've been saying this all week, but it's worth remembering: A 20-17 near miss would have counted for just as many losses as that 45-3 blowout did for the Jets. If you thought we were going all year without a total meltdown by a Jets team comprised almost entirely of combustible elements, you were crazy. That game was lost in the first quarter (really as soon as Eric Smith gave up a PI in the end zone), things got away from a team that was utterly unprepared for the tone the Pats wanted to set early in the game, and then the only way things could end was in a blowout. Again, it happens; anybody who doesn't sympathize with things spinning wildly out of control either hasn't risked anything or is in the midst of that cycle and doesn't realize it.

None of which is to say that the Jets had the right idea going into the Monday night debacle. New York showed up for their usual drawn out, meandering game in which they hang around and are healed by a miracle at the last second. New England, by contrast, was out make an example of the Jets early and march around Foxborough with their heads on pikes for three quarters. The end result was the Pats jumping out ahead (thanks, in no small part, to the genius tandem of Eric Smith and Robert Turner, who need to vanish quickly) and the Jets having nothing even resembling an aggressive mindset, let alone an aggressive response to unexpected circumstances. The whole thing was sickening to watch for anybody who believes that players or coaches value winning above putting forward a respectable face, and the Pats should be commended for killing the idea of respectably losing early in the game. It's no way to live in the NFL, and shouldn't be tolerated.

Equally intriguing is the idea that the Pats have once again become the enemies of talent rising above that we all remember from 2007. In eschewing Moss and making him look like a spare part instead of one of the most gifted receivers of his generation, and replacing him with an offense based on interchangeable pieces, we’re once again looking at a team that deliberately devalues the power of the rare individual, once brought to their full potential, to overpower any planning or manipulation from off of the field. If that seems harsh, it’s actually just an understanding that Bill Belichick is the single greatest scheme creator (or disruptor, if you prefer) ever. The shame of it is that it’s all executed with this air of entitlement and unwarranted indignation, as if we all don’t know how good this team is (a lie apparent to anybody who watches any sports media) or this team exists without any “superstars” or is better without having elite talents (a lie because TOM BRADY). I’m thrilled to have somebody to hate again. Also, New England is super racist. Look it up.

- The other big thing on my mind is the McDaniels firing, about which I alternate between being understanding and disappointed. On the one hand, McDaniels is, for lack of a better word, a jerk. He undermined Jay Cutler’s leadership on the field in his first months on the job, and he completely refused to work with the most talented offensive weapon on his team. Throw in the Peyton Hillis trade, which flew in the face of all logic even when he made it (people forget he did good work in Denver), and the hammer was primed to come down on the abrasive youngster who acted with brazen recklessness because he simply believed he was smart enough to succeed without mastering basic leadership tools and concepts. History has shown that nobody is that smart.

Except I kind of believe that McDaniels might be smart enough to get by while he doesn’t have those tools and recognize the need to develop them in the meantime, and if that’s the case, isn’t this a really, really, REALLY big mistake by the Broncos? The truth is that in two years, McDaniels has just now managed to put whatever locker room dynamic that he was hoping to create into place. He’s kept a team that is significantly less talented (at the present stage of development) than their opponents in games that they have no business keeping close, has coached Kyle Orton and Brandon Lloyd into an elite passing tandem, and is starting to see signs of life from Knowshon Moreno. Also worth noting is that he wasn’t the one who shipped Cutler out of town; Bowlen did that on his own. So if you believed in him a year ago, and were thrilled with him when he took a more talented but still clearly flawed team to greater success, has so much changed in one year that it merits this? Worse still, what happens to the young offensive talent that McDaniels has pieced together when a new regime takes over?

In the end, I get the firing, but I feel like we’ll look back on McDaniels’s two years in Denver the way we look back on Mangini’s three years in New York: Largely a failed experiment, but there were flashes of brilliance along the way hinting at future potential. The difference is that McDaniels isn’t being given the one additional year Mangini got to test whether or not his system would succeed with the roster he had crafted and established (and it's worth noting: Mangini learned how to temper his own self-destructive idiosyncrasies en route to being a great coach in Cleveland). That year could have made a huge difference, and I think it would have been a worthwhile investment in one of the most innovative offensive minds in the league (and yes, if somebody takes Schotty off of the Jets’ hands, I want the Jets to pay him whatever he wants). If we demand that coaches develop their players, it's no less important for franchises to allow young coaches to grow into the leaders they expect them to be.

Alright, back to health, and back tomorrow.