Sports. Honestly. Since 2011

Inside the NFL – Day Two

Yesterday we spent some time reviewing the Patriots and Vikings.  Today let’s take a closer look at Atlanta and Tampa Bay. 

Atlanta – Much was made about Atlanta’s poor start early on, but after week seven Atlanta sits with a 4-3 record coming off back to back victories. I am not a huge Atlanta supporter, but they were probably never as bad as was perceived. Atlanta is a team that has a style they have to play to be successful. They aren’t devoid of talent but they aren’t over-flowing with it either. They play a steady game avoiding turnovers and penalties and it usually works out for them. Let’s start with last season; Atlanta went 13-3 but they were never that good. They were a 10-6 type team that squeezed out one or two more victories than they should have in close games and also got to play the NFC West (4-0). So coming into this season the perception should have been one of them being an average, to above average team, not a world-beater like I think most thought.

Let’s look at their style. Atlanta likes to run the ball. This helps them because they are one of the few teams that like to pound the rock so they can be tough to prepare for. They also like to throw over the middle to the TE short, or outside-the-numbers short routes – often coming back to the QB – to the Wide Receivers. And Matt Ryan is under center a lot. Their lack of spread formations limits their big play ability and their ability to put up huge points. I don’t think it is a coincidence that Atlanta has pulled out two wins in the two games Julio Jones has missed. I think Jones can be a terrific player, but he was brought to Atlanta because of their perceived lack of explosiveness. He was then forced into the lineup and Atlanta began running plays that featured Julio Jones, instead of plays that fit their offense. While Jones’ numbers looked fine Atlanta overall was not clicking. With Jones out Atlanta gave up their forced attempts to be explosive and got back to running their offense.

Jones is a terrific athlete but I am not sure he is a very polished receiver. His route running and ability to catch the ball in-stride coming out of breaks does not appear to be at a top-notch NFL level. Even though he was not quite as fantastic I am not sure the discarded Michael Jenkins was not a better fit for this offense.

Regardless of his abilities Atlanta’s offense works best in tight games or games where they have the lead. Then they can dictate the pace of the game and call all the plays they are most comfortable with.

Their defense is an average unit. There may be time for them to improve as the season goes along but I do not see them as dominant. The one player who appears like he can take over games is DT Jonathan Babineaux. He suffered a knee injury early in the season and has not been a force on the line since. They are best when playing in their base defense and have not generated enough pressure this season to perform well when they are spread out.

How does this help us analyze Atlanta? We can see that the Chicago game was one that got away from them. They fell behind early and got out of their offensive rhythm which led to turnovers. They also lost to Green Bay – a team that was able to spread them out and attack their depth in the secondary. Look for Atlanta to be in every game for the rest of the season. And don’t be shocked if their season doesn’t end on January 1st.

Tampa Bay – There are two stories to tell about Tampa Bay; First, is of their offense and their forced attempt to utilize one of their key members, just like Atlanta, and the other is a match-up issue. First things first:

Tampa is better without Lagarette Blount. His downhill running style could be an asset to their offense but the way they use him hurts the team. When he is available they act like they are a run first, grind-it-out team. In reality they are Josh Freeman’s team. When they win or lose it is because of him and the ball should be in his hands. Give Josh the ball and spread it out. Put Lagarette into the fold and feel free to use him late in the game when you have a lead. He is a complementary player, not a feature player.

The other issue I recognized while watching them play division games. Clearly the coaching staff is very familiar with their own division and is able to game-plan very well to stop the tough offenses they have to face. They were able to play two very close games against Atlanta and New Orleans while they haven’t really been close in any of their non-division games against decent competition (Detroit – San Fran – Chicago).

Remember this when considering Tampa and their defense, but this also applies for the rest of the league’s defences. Part of the reason scoring has been so high is that defenses need to scheme and execute almost perfectly to stop NFL offenses. This was made more difficult given the shortened off-season. But with division opponents, where few changes have been made, the scouting has already been done. Consequently, the scores are lower and the results are tighter. You could say this is the same as every year, but I think it will be more pronounced this year. Especially early on.

Check back tomorrow for “Inside the NFL – Day Three”.

And that is the last word…

College Football Picks, Week 9

#11 Michigan State @ #14 Nebraska: I’m really torn on this. Is Michigan State going to experience an emotional letdown after last week’s thrilling last-second victory over Wisconsin, or will they have gained confidence from it and come out firing, feeling like they can beat anyone? I’m gonna go with their defense over Nebraska’s somewhat struggling offense. (Oh, and a side note- the Spartan’s mascot, with that ginormous head, is creepy).

Missouri @ #16 Texas A&M: I’m in the same quandry predicting how the Aggies will react to last week’s upset of then-#3 Oklahoma. Missouri, however, is far less dangerous than Nebraska. I won’t be shocked if it’s close, I also wouldn’t be shocked by a blowout, but A&M will win.

Purdue @ #18 Michigan: I’m not sure how Purdue pulled off the Illinois upset last week; I’ve been less-than-impressed with the Boilermakers this season. Michiganshould get back on track Saturday after their Week 7 loss to Sparty followed by their off week.

#10 Arkansas @ Vanderbilt: Arkansas by at least two TDs.

#12 Virginia Tech @ Duke: VT by at least two TDs.

Washington State @ #7 Oregon: Oregon by at least two TDs.

Baylor @ #3 Oklahoma State: I’m going to go out on a limb and pick this as my upset of the week. Baylor.

#9 Oklahoma @ #8 Kansas State: K-State has a good football team, but I can’t see Oklahoma losing two in a row. I’m taking the Sooners.

Illinois @ #19 Penn State: Interesting game. Illinois was ranked until losing to Purdue last week; Penn State has a good record but hasn’t played anybody all that impressive aside from Alabama, a game they lost. I’m taking Penn State at home in a close one.

#22 Georgia @ Florida: Ah, the game formerly known as The World’s Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party. Another tough one to pick. Georgia has been unimpressive to me, although admittedly I haven’t seen an entire Georgia game in a few weeks now. Florida has lost three in a row, but two of those losses were to #1 LSU and #2 Alabama. If Florida has QB John Brantley healthy for the game, they should be able to get themselves back on track. If they have to play one of their true freshman backups again, the Dawgs can take it.

#25 West Virginia @ Rutgers: A conference game soon to be a non-conference game – maybe. My pick is WV.

Colorado @ #21 Arizona State: ASU by at least 14.

Iowa State @ #20 Texas Tech: TT flies under the radar a bit, probably because it’s one of several ranked teams in the Big 12. They should beat the Cyclones handily.

Ole Miss @ #23 Auburn: Auburn’s ranking goes to show you just how dominant LSU is. Auburn lost to them 45-10 last week, and they’re still ranked.  I expect the Tigers to rebound this week against a weak Ole Miss team.

#13 South Carolina @ Tennessee: The Gamecocks suffered a major blow last weekend when RB Marcus Lattimore’s season ended due to a knee injury. They shouldn’t miss him all that much against a mediocre Tennessee team.

#5 Clemson at Georgia Tech: Clemson has tough opponents in three of their next four games (Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, and South Carolina).  A lot of teams have had trouble stopping the Yellow Jackets’ triple-option, but I think Clemson’s defense is up to the task. Not one of my more confident picks, but I’m taking Clemson.

#6 Stanford @ USC: USC looked very good beating Notre Dame last week, but Stanford is on another level altogether (apologies to B.Kerr). I can’t see them beating Stanford.

#15 Wisconsin @ Ohio State: I expect the Badgers to be angry and ornery after last week’s loss to Michigan State, and I don’t think the Buckeyes have the skill to handle it.

 

Leave My Game Alone!

Well it looks like the critics have put fighting on the back burner and taken up a new crusade – mandatory visors. They want to make visors mandatory for every player entering the NHL. Visors are currently optional, and some players do wear them, but they are planning to “grandfather” them in, like they did hockey helmet. So if you are in the NHL and not wearing one, you never have to, but every new player joining the league, must. So basically every player will be wearing a visor in ten years time, depending on how stubborn the next Craig MacTavish is (last guy to play without a bucket).

I am, surprise, surprise, completely against it. Just like my stance on taking fighting out of hockey. Stop childproofing the game I love! I understand there is an issue of player safety, and I’m all for it. I don’t want to see things like blind-side headshots, nor do I want to see players swing their sticks like baseball bats. But come on, lets be reasonable; hockey is a fast-paced, physical sport, and there are risks to it. But that’s why I play and love it. I love the risk/reward that the game of hockey offers. If I wanted to cry every time somebody touched me I’d play basketball or soccer.

Look, all I’m saying is that if you don’t like it, don’t play it, there’s always ringette. Leave my game alone! The funny thing is, the large majority of writers, analysts, and advocates that are on the side of light contact, visors, and no fighting, don’t play hockey. I used to have a friend that would say, “If you don’t play hockey, I don’t want to hear your opinion”. I used to think that was a rude, closed-minded point of view, but now I’ve come to think, to a certain degree, he has a point. Sometimes you just can’t fully understand something until you’ve done it. And this leads me to the visor debate.

Safety is the main argument for those in favour of visors. I concede that it would prevent some eye and face-related injuries. It’s not that much of a stretch considering it’s mandatory to wear cages and visors from minor hockey all the way to pro. In minor hockey a player must wear a cage, or a cage and visor combination. In junior hockey a player can opt for just a visor, removing the full or bottom cage. And obviously in professional leagues (or any men’s or adult leagues) a player can wear any of the above, or nothing at all.

What’s wrong with the system we already have in place? The current system assures kids are fully protected, allows teenagers a little more freedom regarding their safety, and allows adults to make their own decision. What’s wrong with allowing adults to make their own decision, you ask? Well nothing, except for the fact that most of them chose not to wear the visor. The reason is that it impedes your vision. The technology these days is good, but it’s not good enough. You might retort, “Well if you play your whole life with a visor, it shouldn’t impede your vision because you would be used to it”. Not the case at all. You don’t wear a visor 24/7 so it’s still obtrusive to your vision when you put it on. And if you don’t play the game, you wouldn’t know that. And if your livelihood depends on your success as a hockey player, why would you want to handicap yourself? And then you might say, “If it’s mandatory for everyone, then it would still be an even playing field”. Really? So the answer is to handicap everyone? Make the league a shadow of it’s former self? What’s next, neck guards? Plastic blades? Full body armour? Bubble wrap?

I want to see the best this game has to offer, and if it comes at the price of a few stitches so be it. Watching a player get stitched up on the bench is something we all used to be proud of, as Canadians, and as hockey fans. And for the record I still am. And I know the players that are passionate about the game would agree, and they still wear their war wounds with pride, as they should. Yes, they do get millions of dollars to sacrifice their bodies, but even if they didn’t, they’d be down at the local rink doing it for free. Some say, “The tough guy, macho thing, is dead. Common sense now reins supreme, and we have ways to get the same result without putting yourself in harms way”. That may be true. And there is nothing wrong with using your intelligence to make calculated decisions. But sometimes you just want to feel alive, do anything for the thrill of victory, or show your team what they mean to you. So you’ll dive and block that shot, crash the net hard, or grab the biggest guy on the ice after he bumped your goalie. Sometimes a guy just wants to be a guy. You say, “That you don’t understand what that means and that its just a cliché saying”. And I say, “If you don’t understand it, maybe hockey’s not for you. Leave it for the guys that do understand”.