A full day of coverage on WTEM and Jim Zorn press conferences has revealed one thing - apparently five games wasn't enough.  Most fans at present find the shield to be infallible.  Judging by Thursday's game, I see a major problem.  The Giants looked good for two quarters.  Then they saw it was likely all they needed.

Zorn blamed Jason Campbell's performance on a lack of repetition with the new offense.  Pardon me?  Isn't that the point of preseason?  This weekend will be quite telling as to whether the kit glove treatment is harming the product.

We hear over and over how the preseason is an inferior product.  Fans are right to complain.  Regular season prices for games that don't count?  As a parallel, I sat two rows behind the Tampa dugout to see a spring training game.  I paid six bucks, and had a great experience.  The NFL understands that it fails to provide a regular season experience for regular season prices.  The solution we hear about is two more regular season games.

It sounds great.  But has anyone thought that maybe, just maybe, we'll wind up with three weeks of inferior play instead of just one?  Zorn seems to think that the season is OTJ.  I'm not a ticket buyer for the Redskins, but if I were, I'd be angry to hear this.  After swallowing two weeks of preseason prices (second highest gameday experience in the league), fans should expect that week one is for real. 

So if the NFL goes to a 2:18 format instead of 4:16, something needs to be done.  The preseason needs to mean something if it goes 2:18.  If it doesn't, fans will see inferior play when the game is supposed to count for something.  If the NFL keeps its current schedule, I would be interested to see if any teams get creative. 

Take the Redskins as an example.  There is a waiting list for season tickets (shrinking and some suggest fabricated to some degree - but I digress).  There is a stadium being virtually unused.  FedEx field is a money grab for Daniel Snyder.  How many fans without season tickets would pay for preseason games at RFK?  The premium charged would at least come with a novelty.  Teams could visit secondary markets and serve them.  These fans WOULD pay the premium for preseason games.

Just a thought.  I know one thing - I'm tired of teams having their cake and eating it too.

It was Wednesday June 4th in Rockville, Maryland.  The sky had turned all shades of the rainbow that afternoon.  A storm was coming.  At 5 pm, the sky in Rockville was red.  That is to say, it was announced that Red Zebra had purchased DC's Sportstalk 980 from Clear Channel Communications.  Sure the sky literally turned charcoal (I've seen some crazy rainbows man) and dumped rain on the area for a few hours, but the real storm that day had already occurred. 

Radio stations are bought and sold everyday in this nation.  What's the big deal?  Well, Sportstalk 980 joins Six Flags, Johnny Rockets restaurants, the Redskins, and even Tom Cruise as part of the Daniel Snyder entertainment conglamerate that has no real direction other than for one guy to say "Yeah I got one of those."  The problem is - when it comes to sports radio, Daniel Snyder already had one of those.

Snyder's Red Zebra already owned AM730 (and other stations to form Triple X ESPN radio) which functions as the official station of the Redskins.  Sportstalk 980 was free to cover the team in an objective manner.  In the case of 980, the team did not own the medium through which it was being covered.  If the station wanted to examine the wag the dog approach that the Redksins (namely Clinton Portis) had taken in Gibbs 2.0, it was free to explore that realm.  If an unlikely playoff run were to occur after the death of a teammate, they were also free to explore the canonization path that the official station endorses.

The Redskins have effectively purchased public opinion.  Their relationship with The Washington Post is all but dead after some unflattering coverage of Snyder by the paper.  Sure the paper covers the team, but one need look no further than the buyout granted to Tony Kornheiser, critic Steven Hunter, et al, to understand where that business is headed.  The court of public opinion is on the airwaves and on this bandwidth.  I can only hope that my blog colors can remain orange and #### opposed to burgundy and gold, because the airwaves will now be cluttered with renditions of "Hail to the Redskins."  There aren't enough stations in the world that can tell me that Jim Zorn can lead this team to glory.  Nor are there enough stations that can convice me that Vinnie Ceratto is a top notch GM. 

One thing is for certain, within a month, there certainly won't be enough stations that are going to be able to tell you otherwise.

Home computers, power grids, banking systems, and frankly anything on a network was sent into a tailspin early Monday when scientists decided to reset the calendar. Randall Marsh of the Colorado Springs observatory thought that something was amiss but couldn't quite put his finger on it:

"Leap Year coincides with the Summer Olympics and Presidential elections. So we thought we had it right. After all, when did the word superdelegate enter my lexicon? For that matter, when did lexicon make its way into my lexicon? Anyway, it wasn't until I saw the early morning SportsCenter that I realized the scientific community's error."

What Marsh is referring to is the bevy of Randy Moss news that has been on the airwaves the past 72 hours. Sunday's news was that Moss was willing to reunite with Viking teammate Daunte Culpeper. The caveat, of course, is that a team has to make the decision that they are seeing too much time of possession and need a few extra turnovers to cut down on that number.

Early Monday news was that Moss would be interested in huddling up with Brett Favre. This is the piece of news for Marsh that was out of place. Marsh explains, "This event occurs every March 4th. Seventy-hours pass after the beginning of free agency. There are no takers. So Randy throws out an olive branch of sorts to Brett Favre and the Green Bay faithful. In essence, we should not have had leap year this year."

Millions of bills went overdue, with some reports of triggered foreclosures. On the plus side, since February 29th technically did not exist, any power consumed, or purchases made on cresit cards will not be placed on accounts. This was extremely upsetting to Knoxville resident Ron "Two Shits" Reynolds who declared, "Man I stole that credit card and bought that big screen on the 28th. If I had only been more patient, the 5-0 would have no way to trace those purchases back to me."

As of press time, no word had come from the Green Bay Packers as to whether they are interested. Scientists will re-check the calendar two weeks from now when Brett Favre complains that Green Bay didn't do enough to get Randy Moss. This occurs every March 21st, one day after he makes his decision to return for an umpteenth season.

You should go to www.sportscomedian.com for funny stuff not written by people who take their blogging so damned seriously.

I think I'm going to make a list of people who make this error and add to it.  The only problem is trying to name the problem.  I could go with the Cowherd honorarium, but he gets so much of my attention.  Perhaps this should be called the Salisbury Malfeasance List.  Anyway, I have heard the same thing from no fewer than Salisbury, Golic, Cowherd, can I finish yet?  I'm tired of radio hosts playing the "Congress has better things to do card." 

This was popular in 2005 during the steroid hearings.  And come on, what did those get us?  So we caught four or five people in a trap.  Why go on a witch hunt to persecute four people?  It's not like the problem was so widespread that a federal investigation took place in San Fransisco, or that the Albany DA is uncovering Internet drug rings.  And like MLB will ever do anything about it anyway.  Oh wait, those things all happened.  You and I may not want a mirror held up to our past times, but Congressional hearings, as a concept, seems to get the fire lit under some ####.

Now the NFL is the target for its handling of the Patriots "spygate" investigation.  Arlen Specter (R-PA) wants to speak with Commissioner Goodell ASAP.  Salisbury wants Specter to keep his hands "out of our NFL."  Of course, adding, "with everything going on, doesn't Congress have..."  The short answer is no.

Here's what most people don't understand.  Congress is just a voting body.  The real action takes place in committees and sub-committees that draft policy, and constantly analyze it.  Dozens of hearings take place on Capitol Hill each week.  Only one every ten months or so winds up on ESPN.  ESPN and others have taken the position that Congress lies in wait, and takes this opportunity to pounce.  Sorry, but the judiciary committee is often reviewing businesses with antitrust provisions.  This time, it isn't the post office or the cable company, it was our beloved NFL.

My suggestion for Sean Salisbury is to run for President.  If he feels that the Judiciary committee should be responsible for the economy or Iraq, then perhaps VP Cowherd can restructure Congress to do so.  But it doesn't work that way in the real world.  The chairman sees the possibility of an antitrust violation, and he's acting upon it.  That is what Congress does - all the time.  And when the Armed Services committee has a war funding bill for the entire Senate to vote upon, I'm confident Arlen Specter will be there for it.  Don't worry (baby).

   http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/d_thr
ee_sections_with_teasers/committees_home.htmp>

.....

I should also note that Colin Cowherd stood up for the destruction of the tapes citing that companies destroy records all the time.  Try using that defense in an IRS audit.  I've worked in enough dungeons to know that most companies are packrats.

So technical glitches have kept me from new entries.  I'm sure there are times when the site isn't experiencing them, but it's off-putting to see it all the time.  Nonetheless, I have decided to soldier on with IJWMFTT.  Yay?!?

It seems silly to write this entry today, knowing what has already transpired.  Perhaps there's still a sand's grain of truth to what I'm going to write about the pearl known today as Eli Manning.  It wasn't just on Mike and Mike, but as the most popular of sports talk shows, their take in this realm stays in my mind.  I heard over and over again how Eli had changed.  "Something" had happened between then and now. 

It's always interesting to hear about people changing.  They change until they revert to the person they once were.  Without knowing the entirety of Eli's career, how can we say that he had changed anymore than we can say that some of his best four games in a 60 game career were his most recent four games? 

In a bit of self contradiction, I will add, was Eli that terrible in the first place?  The Manning name has been a blessing and a curse at different times of his career.  Would he have been the #1 pick in the draft if his name weren't Manning?  Would Roethlisberger and Rivers have gone 1 and 2 in the draft if Eli Manning were Eli Wiesel?  Then again, if his name weren't Manning, would we have scrutinized his numbers the way we have?  Then then again, if his name weren't Manning, would he have been pulled in favor of Jared Lorenzen after an18-52 performance at home against Washington?

Prior to the playoffs, Eli Manning had completed less than fifty percent of his passes in four games.  He completed more than sixty percent of his passes in five games, leaving seven games with an average completion percentage.  In the playoffs, he had no below average games, but the only time he raised his completion percentage was from 52 to 55 between the NFC title game, and the Super Bowl.  Those two games were below his season average, which was perceived as bad. 

The TD/TO ratio is where Eli made his strides.  24/27 in the regular season (accounts for rushing and fumbles lost) vs 6/1 in the post-season.  He was sacked at a slightly higher rate in the post-season.  I guess one could argue that the opportunity for Eli to make turnovers was there, and he didn't.  I'm not trying to say that Eli was a good quarterback who we have mislabeled as bad.  What I am saying is that we have jumped the gun here.  The fact is that he is inconsistent in almost every sense of the word.  Until I see how 2008 shakes out, I would have to say that the stars aligned for Eli.  Bully for him.  I'm happy for him on that good for you kind of level.  I'm just not ready to put him in Brady territory.

So Colin Cowherd has taken aim at ScoutsInc.com and their ranking of the players in the Super Bowl.  Attacking a list is a good sports radio standby.  I can't wait hear this.  Kevin Faulk is ranked 29th.  Colin has a problem with this ranking.  Fair enough.  Bob Ryan has been ####ing the Kevin Faulk drum for years.  Next to Brady, Ryan has long asserted that Faulk is the MVP of this dynasty.  Not the MOP - the MVP.  That 8 reception performance against San Diego is old hat for those who have been paying attention.

Nonetheless, the MVP of the dynasty sits in the 29 spot of the rankings.  According to Colin, this is an abomination.  Why?  He is number two in rushing all-time in the SEC, the best conference in college football.  I'm not kidding.  That's why Colin thinks he should be higher on the list.  Certainly everyone sees what's wrong with this line of thought.

First of all, Herschel Walker should be number 28 or better on the list.  He leads the SEC in all-time rushing.  Oh, he isn't in the Super Bowl?  Seriously, why inject logic now?  There's also the matter of what the SEC was like when Kevin Faulk played.  We are crediting Kevin Faulk for the current landscape of the SEC.  Really?  So anyone who ever played basketball at South Carolina can lay claim to being one of the top 25 players in the NBA because the ACC is so good (SC was an ACC team).  Sorry Kentucky, Kevin Faulk is better than Randy Moss.  And South Carolina is better than you. 

The coup de grace, though, is that the number one player on this list isn't number two on his alma mater's conference's rankings.  In fact, the only time Tom Brady was number two in anything was on Michigan's depth chart.  The Super Bowl is being played in 2008 Colin, not 1998.  Start thinking like a professional - not some conference fanboy sycophant.

.....

Then we get the nugget of knowledge (or nugget of something) that football is the thinking man's game.  "Are baseball managers asking their third base coaches to read?"  "Do baseball players break down hours of film?"  Umm yeah they do.  "Moneyball" chronicled the A's use of film to develop reports on pitchers in an effort to work counts.  Film also helps provide insight into a pitcher's timing for base stealing purposes.  You also need to know where to play hitters in the field. 

I'm not here to get into a baseball vs. football argument, but that's a foolish line of thought.

The blogosphere is composed of two camps: those who share their statistical analyses to prove a point in their blog, and those who like to mention over and over again how the first camp lives in their mom's basement.  What has happened recently is the emergence of a third camp: people from the second camp who want to join the first camp, but unknowingly cite poor statistics.  It's amazing when I hear someone say they have a statistic, and then they quote a player's calories for breakfast.  This isn't what the stat camp is doing.  The stat camp isn't looking at numbers for the sake of numbers.  They do it because they want proper context.

Here's an example: Alvaro Espinoza killed the Orioles.  If I only watched those games, and nothing else,  I would be left with the impression that Espinoza was good at baseball.  The numbers would tell a different story, because they would include performances from games to which I have no access.  Local commentators are guilty of this as well.  How many NL clubs had broadcast teams try to tout David Eckstein as more dangerous than Albert Pujols?  There were a couple who did it just because Eckstein happened to draw a walk that they remembered.  Of course, they never think of the fact that if you remember a walk, then said player likely does little else.

So the whole point is that you need stats to tell the story.  I hear over and over again that they don't tell the whole story.  True, but it tells A BETTER story than anecdotal evidence.  I tell you all of this to bring you another example of a "stat" that I heard.  Colin Cowherd was talking about weather, and its impact on the title games.  In and of itself, that's valid.  What isn't valid is how we are constantly told about Green Bay's 13-2 home playoff record.  That's a stat in the most basic form.  It really tells you nothing.  It's like a pitching win in baseball, or a goalie win in hockey - saying someone gets a win provides no insight as to whether the game was 9-8, 11-2, or 1-0.

Green Bay's home playoff record has been tallied since 1961.  Brett Favre wasn't even alive.  How can we credit him (which is essentially what you're doing if you want me to believe that 1961 has any bearing on 2008) for that?  Should we also debit Bart Starr for losing that game to the Falcons?  The all-time home W/L provides no insight into what could happen in this game. 

Well anyway, I'm seeing way too much of this.  It started in the 80s with Vin Scully.  Then it was carried forward by Tim McCarver.  Now we get things like "Ohio State can't beat the SEC in bowl games."  It's more egregious at the college level because the players are guaranteed to turn over every four years.  But we still have to hear about it.  Maybe we cite this kind of stuff because it's lowest common denominator type of stuff.  But remember, if you want to bash the stat pack, take a look at these "SportsCenter Did You Know?" kinds of "stats" first.  There's much more ire to be drawn from them.

Courtesy - AP

Whilst I love "Duel," Mike Greenberg succeeded in sending me over the edge.  Bryan Burwell came close on yesterday's "The Sports Reporters."  John Madden has always made me angry over this, but it's Madden, so I expect to shake my head during half the broadcast.  I always hear the same thing when a team is attempting a comeback.  I hear a variation of the following, "I think it's too early to do what that card tells you.  I think you should throw out that card.  You can't always trust the card."

Frankly, I wish I had invented "the card."  As much free pub as it gets, I'd love to be the one selling it.  Here's the thing: THERE IS NO #### CARD!  IT'S THIRD GRADE MATH!  If a coach can't do third grade math, then I'm glad he coaches some other team, because I don't want him coaching mine.

Let's tackle this pragmatically.  It's real easy to question the decision to go for two two-point conversions after a two point loss.  If they work out, nobody says boo about it.  They didn't work, so now they are more responsible for the Steeler loss than Ben's picks or Garrard's thirty yard scamper.  Here are a few scenarios:

• It's 28-17 when the Steelers score a TD.  Now it's 28-23.  An extra point makes the score 28-24.  Assuming you have faith in your defense, you would operate under the assumption that Jacksonville will finish with 28 points.  If you make the two-pointer, you're down a field goal.  If you miss, you're down an indifferent five point margin (versus the 4 for making a PAT)
• Let's assume Tomlin does opt for the PAT.  It's 28-24, when the referee makes the proper call of offensive PI against Hines Ward.  Now you're down 4 with a low percentage 4th and goal.  Had a two-pointer been attempted and made, a medium percentage field goal ties the score.
• Again, let's assume that Tomlin knows that 8+3=11.  I assume he knows this since he went for the two-pointer at 28-23.  Even if he misses, he probably knows that 17+6+8-31=0.  That would require an overtime to settle.  In addition, he probably has faith that his O can bat at least .500 on plays from the two yard line.

So lay off Mike Tomlin.  He played it right at the time he played it. 

Sometimes you have to wonder if radio blowhards say everything they mean and mean everything they say.  Is it a ploy to hook listeners?  Or does the guy/gal really believe this nonsense?  When Erik Kasilias questioned not only the margin, but the mere fact that Adrian Peterson was named NFL Rookie of the Year, was he just trying to be a contrarian for the sake of poaching someone's time slot?  I thought I would give Erik the benefit of the doubt, and look at a few rookies on the offensive side of the ball.

In order to perform this review, we have to establish the emaning of this award.  Many dolts in the media like to ask about the MVP, "Are we talking valuable or most outstanding?"  Um, it's not spelled V-O-U-T-S-T-A-N-D-I-N-G, so let's go with value.  Of course, value can be quantified, but people still inject qualifiers, so the MVP is still debated.  With ROY, the same issue exists.  Is it most valuable rookie?  If so, more valuable than whom - teammates, cohorts at the same position, or just other rookies? 

Or is it most oustanding rookie?  Who had the most visible season?  If it is this criteria, then Peterson definitely should get the nod.  In fact, I would guess that as soon as AD attained yard 296, that the award was mailed to his home (fun fact: Marcus Robinson committed a goal line hold on what would have been Jamal Lewis' third TD against the Browns, and would have also given Lewis 305 yards that day, thus leaving Peterson 9 yards shy of the record).

Anyway, is it fair to neglect the other rookie campaigns based upon this outstanding performance (at this point I'm operating under this assumption which could later be proven wrong)?  Did other rookies provide value beyond what Peterson contributed to the Vikings?  Let's examine Kasilias' cas in point - Joe Thomas of the Cleveland Browns.  Offensive line is hard to quantify because as individuals, they don't get the ball.  It's usually a "whole greater than the sum of its parts" kind of a situation.  But we'll factor in what a Thomasless O-Line did for the Browns' run game in 2006 versus a Thomas led 2007, as well as look at sacks in that same time frame.

Browns 2006 Yds/YPR/3rd&4th Down%: 1335/3.6/34%

Browns 2007 Yds/YPR/3rd&4th Down%: 1895/4.3/42%

Percent increase in production: 29.5/16.2/19

Sacks/Att/% 2006: 54/512/10.5

Sacks/Att/% 2007: 19/545/3.5

Percent increase in production: 61.9%

Perhaps it's chicken and the egg.  Is Thomas one-fifth responsible for this productivity?  Is he responsible to the extent that he was better than the guy before him?  Or is he the driving factor in this production?  How about Jamal Lewis?  Is he better than Ruben Droughns, or did Thomas perform a miracle?  No matter how you slice it, Thomas shares at least some responsibility in the double digit increases in production.  Now let's look at Adrian Peterson relative to the Vikings of 2006.

2006 Vikings yards/YPR: 1820/4.1

2007 Vikings yards/YPR: 2634/5.3

Precent increase in production: 30.9/22.6

Clearly the Vikings also saw major increases in production.  One drawback is Peterson's ability to lose yards, which puts the team in 3rd and long, which puts the team in the hands of shaky Tarvaris Jackson.  Also, to what degree do we need to debit Peterson and credit Chester Taylor who put up similar numbers in games 10-16 that Peterson had put up in games 1-9?

All in all, I can live with AD as the ROY just as long as PETA and the SPCA don't make him look like an SOB and give him KP (A bit from "Good Morning Vietnam").  I do have a problem with the margin of this vote.  Perhaps there needs to be a point system in place for 1-2-3, like they have for MVP.  I am in agreement with Kasilias to the extent that Joe Thomas's season shouldn't be such an afterthought.

What if someone could have pulled a Charger-esque draft maneuver and get both these guys on one team?  Championship!

I haven't really had an ear to the ground, at least in terms of the spirit of this blog.  Plenty of vacations on the airwaves - as well my own.  Let's get back into the swing of the blogosphere with some NFL musings

...

I'm a stat guy.  Yes I watch the games.  I absolutely hate it when someone espouses the benefits of statistical analysis in sports, and the retort is "well you'd come to a different conclusion if you actually watched the games."  Ignore the implication that I don't watch the games (yeah I look at data for something that I absolutely despise.  What a great use of my time), and consider that a one game anecdote can't actually be better evidence than a data set of sixteen.  I like to look at the stats and finding new ways of processing them beyond the raw numbers.  Ratios have a way of putting the raw figures in to perspective. 

Anyway, here is a set of numbers.  Let's see if you can figure out what they are: 21, 17, 56, 27, 34, 16, 7, 7, 31, 16, 37, 42, 28, 51, 20, 34.

Those are numbers that get your offensive coordinator fired.  In today's NFL, it's a well known fact that any game plan that does not provide a means to score 57 points is gross negligence.  Fine, you should probably get one pass, but I need an explanation about not coming up with that 52 point plan.  While your explaining that away, how about explaining why this offense can't score 29 points per game.    

If this mystery still baffles you, those numbers are the points GIVEN UP by the Lions in each game this season.  You don't have to be a stat guy to figure out that the Lions created the wrong fall guy here.  But let's be sure about it.  Let's look at the Lions' record in their best PF and PA games using the top fifty percentile in each.  In the Lions' eight best PA efforts, the Lions were 7-1, with 27 being the eighth best PA total.  The only game lost in this instance was a 16-10 loss to the Giants.  What does this tell us?  It tells us that the Lions won when the score was kept managable, and that the offense didn't do enough in only one game.  League average PA is almost 22 points, thus we can see that two of the Lions best games were still at or above the league average PA, and the Lions won those two games. 

On the flip side, the Lions were the median for PF/G.  They met or exceeded league average nine times.  In their eight best PF efforts, the Lions were 5-3.  It seems clear to me that the two games out of the playoffs that the Lions finished in the standings, should be attributed to the below average defense.  Mike Martz's offense can traditionally be crticized for turnovers, but the Lions were a managable -1 in that category.  Regarding the run game, Kevin Jones can't stay on the field, and the Lions were rarely ahead in the second half of the season.  I think the Lions jettisoned the wrong man.

...

I want to hear from Browns fans.  What angers you the most?

*Sorgi playing the second half against the Titans.

*Dungi not exhausting all means necessary to win (notably the timeout he stuck in his pocket at the end).

*Being 10-6 and watching a 9-7 team make the NFC playoffs

*Knowing that the Browns are, in fact, better than the Titans.