On Saturday, the Houston Texans showed us all why coaching staffs often receive too much of the blame for perennial failures on the gridiron.In its infinite wisdom, the Houston camp selected defensive end Mario Williams, the undisputed top defensive player in the draft, over Reggie Bush, the undisputed top prospect since Barry Sanders.
I won't pretend I know who made the decision, why it was made, or whether the new coaching staff had anything to say about it, but I will say that the front office should always be held responsible for draft picks, regardless of how much input the coaching staff may have.
Considering Houston only won two games last season, and given Dominic Davis' history of nagging injuries, one might think the Texans would be salivating at the prospect of landing quite possibly one of the most talented football players in history, and one who could single-handedly win them at least two more games next year (and that's a conservative estimate).
But defense wins championships, right?Pittsburgh, New England, Baltimore, and Tampa Bay all did it with defense.And look at the pathetic Chargers, Chiefs, and Colts: teams which have had vibrant offensive schemes for years and yet not managed to make it to the big game.I can just see Houston's front office personnel, thinking how brilliant they are for passing up the temptation of Reggie Bush for the more "mature" defensive strategy; "we want to win Super Bowls, not just division titles," they say.
But wait a minute.The Texans only won twogames last season.They're a far cry from a .500 record, let alone a Super Bowl.As much as you may want to knock the Colts for not winning the AFC title over the past six years, they have been among the NFL's best, consistently finishing atop their division and playing some very exciting playoff football again some of the best teams in the league.It's hard not to call that successful.
Furthermore, one outstanding defensive player, or even an entire draft crop of them, will not help Houston win more games next year to buy the new coaching staff some necessary time and patience.Coaches are often scapegoats for buisness mistakes made by incompetent front office personnel (see Matt Millen, Detroit Lions GM).Reggie Bush could help take some pressure off the coaches while they build the defense, while generating local excitement, fan support, and ticket sales.
Defense does win championships, but only as an entire unit, and that unit takes time to build.Meanwhile, a player like Reggie is not only a great offensive asset for the future, but also a great public-relations distraction for right now, while a team like Houston is building a defense for him.Quietly, without garnering much attention, the Texans could build a world-class defensive unit for a reasonable price without worrying about impatient fans or ownership.Reggie Bush would steal the show.
All that matters for Houston is winning more games each year to show improvement.Reggie Bush would further that goal immediately, regardless of how many points the Texans allow.Chances are they'll be able to take a stud defender next year anyway.And as for winning division titles, I'm sure everyone in the Colts organization will tell you that's better than going 2-14, even if you lose in the playoffs every year.
Yes, the Steelers won with defense, and without a so-called franchise running back.But the Steelers also showed what a great defense could be built from draft picks after the first round.And Jerome Bettis was the franchise running back.It just took his whole career to win the Super Bowl!
The Texans did not need to snub the greatest prospect in decades for the sake of defense.They had the top pick in most every round, and Dominick Davis would not have been hard to trade if Reggie pushed him out of a starting job.Instead, Houston's front office has basically dug a hole for the new coaching staff.There's no way Mario Williams has the kind of impact next year that will actually result in the Texans giving up fewer points.Reggie Bush could at least help them outscore some opponents.
Now Houston is no better off (in terms of immediate winning capability) than they were at the end of last season.Andr
It's been two years since the last time playoff hockey was going on this time of year, and I can remember thinking at that time just how distraught I was with the level of play in the league, lack of parity, and all the denials about how much money certain teams really were losing.
Now we have the new NHL, and it took a whole season lost for it to happen.Certainly, the result of the lockout and subsequent implementation of the salary cap resulted in a redistribution of many of the league's entrenched veteran stars, such as Jaromir Jagr or Peter Forsberg, much to the chagrin of fans who thought some of these players would never play anywhere else.
But the new deal is working.We're only halfway through the first round of the first playoff season since the lockout, and so far, the overall level of play has been astounding.The action is faster, there are fewer useless whistles, and more players seem willing to just shut up and play.Teams are also more evenly matched.The Colorado Avalanche were nearly 15 games above .500, and they got a seven seed.In the past, one could sometimes expect a seven seed to give a two seed problems, but the games just weren't as intense, and eight seeds certainly stood no chance against the best team in each conference.Even when lesser seeded teams did win, it was obvious that they were playing way above their heads.
The Detroit Red Wings, part of that old Western guard of hockey teams that made the NHL utterly predictable and uninteresting to the casual fan each year, are floundering against the eight seed Edmonton Oilers, even though the Wings were the best in the West and seemingly poised for another Cup run.Edmonton is loaded with scoring power compared to their eight seed counterparts in the past (Chris Pronger, Ryan Smyth, Michael Peca, just to name a few) as well as a surprisingly competent goalie (another eight seed rarity).Are the Oilers just an anomaly?Evidently not.
Back East, the Carolina Hurricanes were picked by many in the media (paging ESPN) to blow by Montr
Brothers and sisters in college football fanaticism, let us rejoice, for today, there is joy in Mudville.The valiant Vince Young, the nation's truly most outstanding player, and his burnt-orange Longhorn brethren from Austin, Texas exercised their supremacy over the befuddled Trojans of Southern California, that imposter national champion that, once again, failed to prove on the field it is deserving of any national title.
We certainly come a long way since the Associated Press, in its infinite wisdom, decided that USC's 2004 Rose Bowl victory over a clearly inferior Michigan team deserved a national title over Louisiana State, the true BCS champions who had actually won the championship game.As if that were not crazy enough, the pundits on TV still act like USC's split title in 2004 was legitimate, even though according to their logic, Auburn deserved a split title in 2005, since they were snubbed from the title game and were clearly more deserving than Oklahoma was.
In my opinion, Auburn would have defeated USC in 2005, for many of the same reasons (defense, special teams, awesome ground game) that Texas did in 2006, and Auburn plays in the toughest conference in America (read my last post below for why the SEC is the best).Why should they have been penalized for playing The Citadel, when they still beat every opponent on their schedule, conference and non-conference alike?Yes, USC did the same, but in a considerably weaker Pac-10 conference in which scoring defense is virtually nonexistent, and parity is sparse.Quite frankly, USC never showed on the field that they were a better team than the Auburn Tigers, so Auburn should have at minimum had a split title, at least according to the Associated Press' logic in 2004.But I digress yet again.
As I watched the fourth quarter of Wednesday's game, trepidation spread over me with about 6 1/2 minutes left, as USC had the ball in Longhorn territory and looked as though they may put the game out of reach."How can this happen?"I thought to myself.The idea of USC winning a legitimate title made me sick; they were certainly not the best team in the country, just a fa
Does anybody remember the last time an overhyped, overrated football team from Southern California with a great offense and a shoddy defense got pulverized in a championship game?I do.It was the Oakland Raiders against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in Super Bowl XXXVII.Everyone overlooked the Bucs because of Oakland's gaudy offense and flashy style of play, but Oakland looked more like the Houston Texans in the game itself, as Tampa made Rich Gannon and Co. look ridiculous.I'm not saying that the same thing is going to happen to USC, but I am saying that they are definitely going to lose to Texas.
First of all, although some don't like to admit, there's a good reason why a one loss Oregon team didn't make the BCS.The Pac-10 is fundamentally an overrated conference with teams that have weak defenses, and most of these teams would not win more than two conference games if they had to play in the SEC, ACC, or Big 10.What good is 600 yards of offense and seven touchdowns if you give up 700 yards and eight touchdowns?I'm sure Alabama would take their 6-3 regular-season victory over Tennessee any day over that.
Furthermore, there are athletes (like Vince Young and Brady Quinn) who are as good or better than the best the Pac-10 has to offer playing on better teams with better defenses against better competition.Need we remind ourselves that the Pac-10 produces perennial NFL busts like Ryan leaf and Cade McNown because of its inflated stats and lack of defense.I'm not saying that good players don't come out of the conference, just look at Carson Palmer.But if you put a team like USC (or especially the average Pac-10 team) against quality teams from the other BCS conferences, the Pac-10 will almost always have a hard time winning.Case in point: USC's game last season against Virginia Tech at the start of the season.They very nearly lost that game, to a team that was led by Bryan Randall-a good leader, but not exactly the most skilled of quarterbacks.This year, USC should've lost to Notre Dame, and would have if instant replay could have been used.Pete Carroll must be the only person on earth left who doesn't see the value in getting a call right.But I digress...
I look forward to watching Vince Young and the Texas ground game shred the USC defense, and Young reminding everyone that the Heisman is supposed to go to the nation's most outstanding player, not the flashiest.
Send Message
Add Friend
Block User
Invite to Group
Report User