What your view of sports and life would be if you had too many concussions
Without a bunch of fluff, it’s time to look at some things that happened last week that you won’t see again this week. In other words, let’s not go overboard on some things:
1) The Redskins are not as good as they looked, and the Giants aren’t as bad as they looked (but not by much). It’s hard to get a good read on the true state of the Giants defense without Justin Tuck and Osi Umenyora, not to mention the rest of the injuries the G-men have suffered. However, the offensive line couldn’t stop a conga line, which means Eli Manning could end up in a body cast just like his brother. Don’t swallow the hype, Rex Grossman isn’t the second coming of John Elway, no matter how delusional Mike Shanahan is.
2) Before we anoint Cam Newton as the greatest player in the history of ever, can I at least see him look like an NFL quarterback against an NFL defense? The Cardinals don’t count. They didn’t even bother pressuring Newton until the second half, and when they did, they decided not covering Steve Smith was a good idea. Who wants to take a bet that this season Cam Newton and Steve Smith don’t come anywhere near the numbers they posted last week?
3) Tim Tebow. Bronco fans need to quit bitching; Kyle Orton is not, repeat IS NOT the reason your team sucks. Until Orton plays defense, stop busting his balls.
4) Tony Romo won’t pull another choke job. As much as Romo has a reputation for being a choker, it’s Jerry Jones who can’t get Romo’s jock out of his throat. For some reason, Jones sees Troy Aikman when he looks at Romo. But to be fair, Aikman had a far better set of playmakers around him. Romo’s had the same pressure, and a hodge-podge, B+ at best supporting cast. Don’t get me wrong, Romo is still a mediocre at-best quarterback, but there are still a lot worse options out there. What do you think the Cowboy offense might look like with Donovan “39 passing yards” McNabb at the helm?
5) The Steelers won’t commit seven turnovers again. However, their performance last week begs a question: When did the Steelers get old? According to all the NFL punditry, they weren’t old in August, but they are old now? Did they age twenty years in the last three weeks?
You also won’t see Donovan McNabb throw for 39 yards this weekend. Take it to the bank…he will throw for at least 40!
Vegas (meaning me) sets the over/under on Donovan McNabb passing yards at 175.
You will however hear Jerry Jones once again praise Romo for another stupendous performance . I don’t know about you but when your QB cowers like a priest in a jail cell as his new cellmates look at him like “fresh meat” then there’s got to be something right or wrong dependent upon your viewpoint . !
Anyone of the belief that by season’s end Sparano will be out as coach of the Dolphins ?
I think Sparano has been living on borrowed time ever since the Fish wanted to tlak to Jim Harbaugh last year.
Harbaugh knew that working with the fins’ Jeff Ireland would be like working with a Neanderthal . I know that Ireland was chosen by Parcells but you simply knew what once the former Giants’ coach left this organization was heading downhill . Chad Henne ? Please on a good day he shouldn’t be anywhere near a football. That opening day performance against the Pats was an aberration .
Rex Grossman and John Elway in the same sentence. Another sign of the end of days even in confirming they are not “related.” Yes, the Steelers got incredibly old during the lockout period. Anti-aging creams approved by the NFL or are they on the no-no list? By the way, is the over/under on Donovan’s passing yards for this week yards gained by the Vikes or yards the opposition will return his throws?
The over/under is only for the Vi-queens. You actually have to throw the ball farther down the field to risk picks…oh, wait, not if your are McNabb. Hmmm, I may have to rethink this.
Great rundown and I concur with all your points. Concerning the Steelers, I also find it amazing that “suddenly” the Steelers are old. Last year I was writing that Pittsburgh was a “good” team at best. They had an easy schedule, weren’t impressive against quality opponents, and circumstance more than anything didicated their appearance in the Super Bowl. Again the Steeler’s schedule isn’t overall challenging and I’m sure after a 5-2 start the media will over-hype them and make Pittsburgh into a great team…which they aren’t. Cheers!
Do you think the reason why this happens is because football has so much media coverage in relation to how much action there actually is?
That’s an interesting question and it could have something to do with it. But the first thing that comes to my mind is the media wants the Steelers to be good. They’re one of the NFL’s dynasty teams, have fanatical fans across the nation (an important part of this) and have been known for having one of the top defenses year in and year out. Appearing in three and winning two Super Bowls in the 2000’s also assists with the media’s blinders. There might even be the sentiment that the NFL product isn’t as good without Pittsburgh being pumped up. So basically if the Steelers have a winning record, have Big Ben, and play “tough” football the team must be great.
Similar thing happened with the media’s analysis of the Chiefs last season. But if you actually watched that team play, looked at their schedule, and Matt Cassel/the team’s record against quality opponents you knew that Kansas City was going to get killed by the Ravens in the first round of the playoffs. But people saw a 10-6 record, a division winner, a statistically good Matt Cassel, and made the Chiefs into something they weren’t.
So back to your question…perhaps you are correct. Because you have a whole week to talk about the game, perhaps the media talks its way into believing a team is something they aren’t.
You’re right about Newton. He’s already thrown for two picks, but the Panthers are still, surprisingly, hanging in there against Green Bay.
Someone needs to tell them to play four quarters, however.
Pingback: Teams That Grind My Gears: The Dallas Cowboys « Dubsism