Footballblogging
I’m officially wrong about the 2007 Redskins as of last night. I predicted 4-12; they’ve got a good chance of doubling that. They are not an awful team. Rather, they have earned a descriptor too easily bestowed in today’s NFL: mediocre. (Commentators regularly refer to teams that go 5-11 and 6-10 year after year as “mediocre.” Such teams are bad. We should reserve “mediocre” for teams in the 7-9 to 9-7 range.) I’d like to thank Brandon “Skillet-Hands” Jacobs for helping Washington along.
The downside of the team’s recent success is that it will tempt the staff – esp. Joe Gibbs and Dan Snyder – to take it for validation of their overall approach: scant the draft; overpay other people’s players; shaft your own. Managing to go 8-8 or 9-7 thanks to a last-minute surge is like getting a “C” on finals after pulling an all-nighter. But they’ll think they just got picked for valedictorian. (Picking up a wild-card spot in the process, which could happen, makes it a B-.)
Meanwhile, what happened to the Steelers yesterday? I didn’t see the game. Is the dodgy O-line play catching up to them? Are they suffering from the loss of DE Aaron Smith? Is Ben mimicking the decline of Daunte Culpepper as well as his rise? (O noes! Broke iron law of football punditry by directly comparing QBs of different races!)
Comment by Rob —
December 17, 2007 @ 9:41 am
Did Ben lose Randy Moss? No?
Culpepper was never very good, Moss made him into a pro bowler.
The Steelers just aren’t that good. They’re good which in the current NFL makes them great. I don’t remember seeing so many bad teams as there are currently in th e NFL. I mean both the Seahawks and the Giants look to be playoff locks and one just got trounced by Carolina and the other at home to a Washington team down to a 35 year old backup.
Comment by solarjetman —
December 17, 2007 @ 10:08 am
The Jax-Pit game was pretty simple; the Steelers got dominated on the line of scrimmage. They couldn’t pass-block the Jaguars’ defensive line (though they ran pretty well), and the Jags ran the ball down their throat repeatedly. Both quarterbacks played pretty well considering the conditions; Garrard had one inaccurate pass intercepted which started the Steeler rally but was otherwise solid, and Ben was running for his life all day but made plays anyway.
And then with 5 minutes left and the score tied, the Jags got a 20 yard pass and then ran the ball for the remaining 53 yards on 5 carries.
The Jaguars wanted to prove they could play a physical game in cold weather, and they did so. It was impressive.
Comment by Jim Henley —
December 17, 2007 @ 10:10 am
Damn, so Cala’s and my complaints about the Steeler O-line bear out. Thanks for the recap.
Comment by mpowell —
December 17, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
The Steelers just aren’t that good. They’re good which in the current NFL makes them great. I don’t remember seeing so many bad teams as there are currently in th e NFL. I mean both the Seahawks and the Giants look to be playoff locks and one just got trounced by Carolina and the other at home to a Washington team down to a 35 year old backup.
This whole comment highlights a certain strand of stupidity among football fans and commentators. This isn’t even that mysterious of a problem. Its not that there are no great teams in the NFL, its that there are some great teams and a lot of good teams. Now introduce the concept of any given Sunday: even if a team is having a bad season, they still have a lot of good players and if their coaches do a good job of game planning and they really come to play, they can really take it a team with a better record in a surprising fasion. The other big factor here is the level of diversity of talent among players. Due to the increase in competitiveness, the difference between the best and replacement level player at any position is less than it used to be. The exception is QB, b/c advances in game strategy demand more and more of a QB: he has to be durable, have a big arm, be really accurate, be able to study lots of game tape and understand it, and have the right instincts during the game.
But at the end of the day, most teams in the modern NFL would wipe the table with teams from previous eras.
The funny thing about the Redskins and similar teams, is that everyone gets all in a huff about the difference between 7-9 and 9-7. Fact of the matter is, this is not a huge difference. But it can be the difference in the eyes of the media between a ‘promising’ team and a ‘mediocre’ one that needs to think about changing direction. This is pretty ironic when one single coaching mistake pretty much made the difference in the Buffalo loss this year.
Comment by IOZ —
December 17, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Eh. Typical Steelers year. Dominant early in the season, banged up by the final third, rally (my prediction) in last game or two, enter the playoffs without a bye, win maybe a game, then get knocked out.
The O-line is pretty mediocre, but Ben likes to scramble anyway, so I’m not convinced that this is the problem. Seems to me that although Willie Parker has good numbers on paper, the Steelers don’t have a playmaking running game, and the lack of offensive depth hurts them. Defense is good, but if offense can’t control the ball and the clock and, obviously, score touchdowns, then no defense can carry you four full quarters against a decent and determined opponent.
Comment by Cala —
December 17, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
The thing with the NFL is that it’s rare that any one team is truly outclassed, which makes it exciting, and it also means that with a few exceptions, most matchups are winnable by any team. The talent isn’t nearly as glumped together as it is, say, in college teams.
Steelers!! No collapsing the pocket!!!!
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 17, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
‘I predicted 4-12; they’ve got a good chance of doubling that.’
Wow, if they can go 8-24 I’m going to be really impressed.
Comment by Jim Henley —
December 17, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
Pedant.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 17, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
Radix lecti
Comment by Eric Scharf —
December 17, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Due to the increase in competitiveness, the difference between the best and replacement level player at any position is less than it used to be. The exception is QB, b/c advances in game strategy demand more and more of a QB: he has to be durable, have a big arm, be really accurate, be able to study lots of game tape and understand it, and have the right instincts during the game.
The next time Paul Krugman tries to explain runaway CEO compensation, he could do worse than to examine the role of shared self-image fantasies within the executive class.
Comment by Rob —
December 17, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
I’m sorry but no the play is terrible. Mostly its due to there being maybe 10 decent QBs for 30 teams. when Trent Dilfer, who was never good, is starting you have crappy play. Vinny Testerverde is starting.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
December 19, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Wait, Vinny Testaverde is still alive?