Best NFL Teams Ever, Part III: 1970-2012

And here we are:  post AFL-NFL merger.  Basically, this is the part of history football fans are generally familiar with.  Let's get straight to it.  Here's the 1970s:

1973 Los Angeles Rams, .885
1976 Pittsburgh Steelers, .880
1972 Miami Dolphins, .877
1975 Pittsburgh Steelers, .865
1970 Minnesota Vikings, .856
1973 Miami Dolphins, .854
1975 Minnesota Vikings, .841
1971 Dallas Cowboys, .839
1973 Dallas Cowboys, .828
1977 Los Angeles Rams, .824

Okay, be honest:  raise your hand if you thought the 1972 Dolphins were going to be the top team of the decade.  It's fine if you didn't.  But seriously, I'm SUPER impressed if you had the Rams with TWO of the top-ten teams of the decade.  The Rams did make one Super Bowl, but that was in 1979, when they scored only 14 more points than they allowed and went 9-7.  Both years, 1973 and 1977, they were upset in the  first round of the playoffs.  And in 1973, they actually did have the best record in the league:  12-2 - which is the record my system predicts, more or less (12.4-1.6).

The Vikings also had two great teams this decade, and made the Super Bowl thrice; just not in their best years, appearing in 1973, 1974, and 1976 (they also lost the Big Game in 1969).  The stars never seemed to align for the Vikes in the 1970s... or otherwise.

The 1972 Dolphins went undefeated, but weren't that great of a team.  In my opinion, calling them even a top-five all-time team is preposterous, and there's certainly an argument to be made via this model that they're not a top-20 team.  They just got lucky enough to win one-and-a-half more than they were expected.

The 1980s:

1985 Chicago Bears, .874
1984 San Francisco 49ers, .865
1984 Miami Dolphins, .817
1983 Washington Redskins, .799
1987 San Francisco 49ers, .798
1989 San Francisco 49ers, .786
1988 Minnesota Vikings, .767
1986 Chicago Bears, .751
1980 Philadelphia Eagles, .747
1981 Philadelphia Eagles, .722

Remember how, in the 1980s, the Raiders won two Super Bowls, and all the rest were won by NFC teams?  Well, this nearly-all-NFC top-ten may give an indication why that was.  The 1980s had probably the most parity of any decade.  It's actually crazy in how many seasons the teams were jammed pretty closely together.  In the 1960s, there were more teams with a .900 "record" than there were .800 teams in the 1980s!  The reason this is interesting, I think, is that you often hear the 1985 Bears and the 1984 'Niners and the 1989 'Niners in
discussions of greatest ever teams.  Only the top two teams of the 1980s would have even made the 1970s top ten.  It seems to me that the most dominant teams of the 1980s simply weren't that dominant relative to their peers, at least in the regular season.  That being said, the 1985 Bears were a pretty special team.  They are a reasonable group to have in a discussion of the best-ever teams, as are the 1984 49ers.  But the fact of the matter remains, neither of those teams can stack up to the sheer dominance of earlier teams, like the 1968 Colts or 1962 Packers, or the later dominance of some teams from the 1990s or the 2000s.  Actually, the 1980s look a lot like the 2010s.  The only difference is, the 2010s aren't even half over, and have plenty of time for a few dominant teams to sneak in.

The 1990s:

If I asked you to guess the best team of the 1990s, I can guess that you'd think of a few teams:  perhaps the 1992, '93, or '95 Cowboys.  Maybe you're sneaky, and you know how great the '94 49ers were.  Perhaps you remember 1998:  the year of five truly dominant teams, particularly Denver and Minnesota.  Maybe you like a team that was basically the 1998 Vikings 2.0:  the 1999 Rams, the Greatest Show on Turf.  Or maybe you favor the all-around dominance of the 1996 Packers.  Do you know which one was best?  Take a look:

1991 Washington Redskins, .929
1999 St. Louis Rams, .926
1998 Minnesota Vikings, .882
1996 Green Bay Packers, .876
1992 San Francisco 49ers, .825
1994 San Francisco 49ers, .822
1993 San Francisco 49ers, .797
1995 San Francisco 49ers, .789
1998 Denver Broncos, .782
1997 Denver Broncos,  .779

The 1991 Washington Redskins are a team that I often worry history will somehow forget.  They weren't dynastic.  They played a little worse than they're points scored/allowed total should have indicated (I have them at 14.87 wins; basically, they should have gone 15-1).  They rolled through the playoffs, thrashing Atlanta 24-7, crushing Detroit 41-10, and very solidly handling a very good Bills team, 37-24.  It was an excellent team, but the year before they were 10-6, the year after 9-7.  And they were sandwiched in the 49ers-Cowboys era of dominance, which makes them forgettable - even if they were the best team of the bunch.
The four 49ers squad above rank as the #2, 3, 5, and 6 49ers teams of the 1980s-1990s dynasty.  It's actually quite possible that, in spite of only winning one Super Bowl, the 49ers were better in the 1990s than they were in the 1980s.  That's insane to think about, considering they won four titles in the 1980s.
The 1997 Broncos were supposed to lose the Super Bowl to Green Bay, who was coming off a title in 1996.  The AFC hadn't won a Super Bowl since the 1983 season, when the LA Raiders defeated the heavily-favored Redskins.  What all the pundits ignored, though, was that the 1997 Broncos were a better team than the Packers.  The 1998 Broncos get more press because they started off 13-0; what no one ever tells you is that they were, from a point-differential perspective, more or less the exact same team as the year before - only 3 one-thousandths of a point different.
The 1996 Packers are a team that I have often, in barroom-type arguments, argued were more or less the equal of the 1985 Bears.  I used to make this claim in spite of not having done this research.  Those Bears outperformed their expected record by a game; the Packers underperformed theirs.  But they profile, basically, as exactly the same.

The 2000s:

2007 New England Patriots, .954
2001 St. Louis Rams, .856
2005 Indianapolis Colts, .791
2006 San Diego Chargers, .785
2005 Seattle Seahawks, .774
2000 Oakland Raiders, .772
2007 Indianapolis Colts, .771
2006 Chicago Bears, .760
2004 New England Patriots, .757

If you're surprised by the top team of the 2000s, you weren't paying attention to the teams of the era.  I'm quite certain that, even if I included playoffs, I would reach the same conclusion:  the 2007 Patriots were the best team of the decade, bar none.  And, if you're into making timeline adjustments when ranking teams, there's an extremely reasonable argument that the 2007 Pats are the greatest team ever.  The only other team since 1943 to best the Pats' .954 mark is the 1946 Browns of the AAFC.  And if you don't want to count them, that's fine.  The only team who's particularly close to the Pats is the 1968 Colts, at .949.
Of all the various top-tens I've shown, this one had the best rate of getting to the Super Bowl:  half of these teams made the Big Game.  They have the worst rate of winning it; only one team did (the 2004 Pats).
The gap between the best team of the decade and the 3rd-best is astronomical, with the #2 team closer to #3 than #1.  The near-100-point-gap between 1st and 2nd is also, far and away, the largest of any decade.  The 1999 Rams were much closer to the 2007 Pats than the 2001 Rams were.
Much like the 49ers of the 1990s being superior to the 49ers of the 1980s, there's ALREADY an argument that the Patriots teams of the 2010s will have been better than the Patriots teams of the 2000s, even if they go completely without a title.

The 2010s;

Admittedly, there's not much to write home about here... yet.  We're still waiting for our most dominant teams, which I assume will be coming later.  Here's the top-5 so far:

2010 New England Patriots, .791
2011 Green Bay Packers, .783
2012 Denver Broncos, .764
2011 New England Patriots, .741
2012 Seattle Seahawks, .729

Yup, Denver and Seattle were the two best teams last year.
I can't help but think that a Green Bay-New England matchup in 2011 would have made for a great Super Bowl.  Not that the Giants-Pats game was a bad one.  It just would have been interesting.
I think most people would have guessed the 2011 Packers as the top team of the decade so far, since they went 15-1.  Of course, they actually profiled to be a 12.5-win team, not a 15-win team.

So far, the best team of the current season is the Denver Broncos (in spite of their first loss to the Colts yesterday), who are +101 on the season.  The undefeated Chiefs are at +88.  If I were to do percentages today, before the Monday Night game, I could do that.  There have been 106 games this year.  There have been 4896 points scored.  That's 46.188 per game - the highest scoring season since 1965, if the trend were to continue.  The Broncos are +101 through 7 games, which profiles to 5.6867 wins in 7 games, a percentage of .812.  The Chiefs are at .772.  So it's possible that Denver is headed towards being the best team of the decade so far.  Only time will tell.

WEEK 15 UPDATE:
It's been a couple weeks since I last updated this, which was in week 11.  Whoops.  We're officially 224 games into the 256-game NFL season, so just two weeks remain.  At the moment, there have been 10634 points scored in the NFL this year.  That's 47.5 per game (one of the highest numbers of all-time; maybe THE highest number of all-time; I haven't checked for a while).  Here are the top seven "winning percentages" as of week 15:

Seattle Seahawks - .763
Denver Broncos - .745
Kansas City Chiefs - .717
San Francisco 49ers - .682
Carolina Panthers - .681
New Orleans Saints - .634
Cincinnati Bengals - .620

I should really schedule-adjust these rankings, but I'm not going to do that just yet, as it would be a crapton of work, and I do this all manually.  As it stands, Denver is 12 points behind Seattle; we'll see if one of them can manage two blowouts in the last to weeks to go down as the "team of the decade."

Best NFL Teams Ever, Continued: 1943-1969

This era of NFL history is oft forgotten, and it's a shame.  Football fans, for some reason, think of history as beginning with the Super Bowl.  But it just plain didn't.  And it's unfortunate that they think that way.  In this era, I'm going to start looking at best teams by decade, because I think that'll be more fun that just lumping everything together.  So, the first "decade" will be 1943-1949.  But that's only 7 years, you say.  Well, keep in mind that we covered 1940-1942 in the last post.  But even so, the 1943-1949 "decade" covers 11 seasons, because the AAFC days were four years long, meaning there were two seasons each year from 1946-1949.  So we're still covering 11 "years" in this group!  Without further ado, the best teams of 1943-1949:

1946 Cleveland Browns, 1.018
1949 Philadelphia Eagles, .922
1948 Chicago Bears, .896
1948 Philadelphia Eagles, .889
1948 San Francisco 49ers, .887
1947 Cleveland Browns, .879
1949 San Francisco 49ers, .869
1943 Chicago Bears, .868
1945 Philadelphia Eagles, .868
1949 Cleveland Browns, .828

As I'm sure you noticed, the Browns from three out of the four AAFC years made the list.  Also, in the last post, I said that no teams should have "won" more games than they played outside of the 1920-1942 era.  Well, obviously I was wrong, because the 1946 Browns so thoroughly dominated the competition that they deserve a spot in that group, as well.  Of course, it wasn't actually the NFL, so maybe you'll forgive my mistake.  Anyway, the Eagles had probably their best decade ever in the 1940s.  Which is why it's a real shame for Eagles fans that NFL fans so quickly forget this era of pro football.  You may also have noticed that teams 3-5 all played in the same year:  1948.  San Francisco, obviously was in a different league than the other two, so never played them.  The 'Niners didn't even make the playoffs in their league; despite having the better point differential, the 'Niners went 12-2, while Cleveland went undefeated, and got to play a Buffalo team that went 7-7 in the regular season for the title.  Cleveland won, and that San Francisco team was forgotten.  You'll also notice that the 1948 Cleveland team is the only AAFC Cleveland team not to make the top ten.  They were #11.  In the NFL in 1948, Philadelphia won the championship, but not over Chicago.  Much like in the AAFC, the Bears (10-2) didn't even win their division, so the Cardinals (11-1) were the losers to the Eagles.  That's just how it goes sometimes.

The 1950s:

1953 Cleveland Browns, .860
1951 Cleveland Browns, .840
1954 Cleveland Browns, .831
1958 Baltimore Colts, .828
1950 Cleveland Browns, .801
1956 Chicago Bears, .801
1950 Los Angeles Rams, .785
1952 Detroit Lions, .784
1954 Detroit Lions, .782
1953 Chicago Bears,  .765

Holy Cleveland!  Again, much like Philadelphia in the 1940s, Cleveland's Golden Age for pro football was the forgotten 1950s.  And that's a shame.  Cleveland won NFL titles in 1950, 1954, and 1955, and probably also had the best team in the league in 1951 and 1953.  In their first six years in the NFL, only Detroit in 1952 managed to beat them both head-to-head, and in cumulative points.  Detroit also won back-to-back titles in 1952 and 1953, and had a team just as good in 1954... but they were crushed 56-10 by the Browns.  Even so, this was the Lions' best decade.  And it's been forgotten.  You'll notice a theme:  for these teams who had their best years in these "forgotten" eras of the NFL's past, they haven't won a title since.  It's time to start celebrating history; we may not see a title in Cleveland or Detroit for a looooong time otherwise!

The 1960s:

Basically, the 1960s gets a break.  People kinda start to think of this as the "modern" game, mostly because the Lombardi Packers dominated the decade, both before and after the Super Bowl began.  This allows people to think of it as more or less the same game, so you'll sometimes see NFL "historians" reference the 1960s as being part of the "real" history of the NFL... even though there hadn't been any real changes between the game of the 1950s and the game of the 1960s.  Anyway, keep in mind that the 1960s includes 10 years of the AFL; therefore, there were 20 "seasons" in the 1960s.  So here's the list:

1968 Baltimore Colts, .949
1962 Green Bay Packers, .927
1968 Dallas Cowboys, .927
1969 Minnesota Vikings, .920
1961 Houston Oilers, .900
1967 Oakland Raiders, .872
1961 New York Giants, .865
1968 Oakland Raiders, .856
1966 Dallas Cowboys, .839
1967 Los Angeles Rams, .830
1964 Baltimore Colts, .829
1968 Kansas City Chiefs, .825
1967 Baltimore Colts, .820
1969 Kansas City Chiefs, .808
1966 Green Bay Packers, .783
1960 Cleveland Browns, .780
1961 Green Bay Packers, .779
1966 Kansas City Chiefs, .774
1963 New York Giants, .773
1963 Green Bay Packers, .765

I was extremely surprised by two things Packers-related.  First, I didn't realize that Lombardi's Packers had so frequently outperformed their point differentials.  It may have been luck.  It may have been something about the team.  I doubt you'd find another team as successful as they who so often outperformed superior teams.  Second, I was certain that the 1962 Packers would rank as the best team of the decade.  But it was, in fact, the infamous 1968 Colts (who famously lost to the Jets in Super Bowl III) who took the honor of "team of the decade."  This puts a whole new spin on the idea on just how big of an upset that game was.  The five teams above .900 are the most by any decade since 1943.  I wonder if that'll hold.

Another unfortunate side-effect of people forgetting the pre-Super-Bowl-era is that the great teams of the AFL, like the 1961 Oilers, are basically forgotten.  Also, one more Packers-related thing:  the team won 5 NFL titles in 7 years.  But their 4th best team of that stretch is one that didn't:  1963, the #20 team of the decade.

Well, that's it for post #2.  We'll see if I can fit in everything since 1970 in one post.  Catch you later.

Best NFL Teams Ever: A Mathematical System

I've laid out on this blog before why I think using the Pythagorean formula for NFL team records is stupid.  The season's too short, and going with a linear, rather than quadratic, model shows the results pretty perfectly, ESPECIALLY at the extremes (i.e. Pythagorean will never predict winless or undefeated teams, and not even 1-15 or 15-1 teams, yet they happen ALL THE TIME, relatively speaking).  So I've devised this simple formula:

(TeamPointsScored-TeamPointsAllowed)/(AveragePointsInAnNFLGame)

Then you add that total to a .500 record, however many games that may be.

For the last variable, you take the average number of TOTAL points of an NFL game (usually about 44), not just the average for one team.  It's really simple.  

For example, the Pythagorean formula gives the 2007 Pats an expected W/L in the regular season of 13.8-2.2.  In my method, the Pats scored 589 and allowed 274, for a differential of 315.  In 2007, there were 256 regular season games played and 11104 points scored.  That's a total of 43.375 PPG.  315/43.375=7.26.  Then we add a half-season's worth of wins (8), and we get an expected W/L record of 15.26-0.74... WAY closer to their actual 16-0.

Anyway, I was thinking about this again, and thinking how it would be a good way to compare teams over time.  Except, of course, for the schedule-length issue.  So, I just take the answer and divide by the number of games in a season to get an expected winning percentage.  And that's what we'll go with.  Totally objectively ask the question:  "to what extent did this team dominate their opponents?"

I was initially going to publish the complete list of teams I did.  I took one to five teams from each year in NFL/AFL/APFA/AAFC history.  I'm pretty sure each franchise is represented at least once.  I wound up with 241 teams on the list.  Now, I'm pretty positive they're not the top 241 teams of all-time.  I probably missed as many as 50 or 60 that might be better than the worst team on this list.  But I'm absolutely CERTAIN that the top teams of all-time are represented.

Anyway, I'm not going to publish the full list because it's long.  So I'll start with this post in which I'll look at the early, pre-modern days of the NFL and APFA.  For me, the "modern" NFL starts in 1943.  That's basically when scoring reaches modern levels, and we stop having teams projected to win more than 100% of their games.  Anyway, in this post, I'll have 1920-1942.  In my next post, I'll detail 1943-1969, which includes the AFL and AAFC days.  And my final post will be about the true "modern" NFL, from 1970 to the present.  Here we go.

Before 1950, there is a problem with estmating winning percentages with my method.  That problem is that you will get winning percentages over 1.000.  It happens in more or less every single season.  Sometimes more than one team will be projected to have gone undefeated.  This happens because the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" is too wide.  If I had looked for the worst teams of all-time, they would all have been from this era; likewise with the best.

You have to keep in mind a few things about this era:  not every team played the same number of games each year (at least until 1936; that's when every team started playing the same number of games, and there was an actual, organized schedule).  Not every team was in the league from year to year.  This creates HUGE gaps between the best an the worst.  Ties were extremely common.  For much of the era, there was no bowl game at the end of the season, so a champion was simply crowned.  It was a mess.  But I present to you (again, based on regular-season only) the greatest teams of the early days of the NFL (including its days as the APFA in 1920 and '21), from 1920-1942:

1923 Canton Bulldogs, 1.695
1925 Pottsville Maroons, 1.559
1922 Rock Island Independents, 1.494
1924 Cleveland Bulldogs, 1.407
1920 Buffalo All-Americans, 1.327
1942 Chicago Bears, 1.320
1929 New York Giants, 1.285
1922 Canton Bulldogs, 1.271
1921 Buffalo All-Americans, 1.269
1927 New York Giants

These ten teams are the greatest ten teams in NFL history, by this method.  Again, this is why we need to split everything that happened up to 1942 separately from the rest of NFL history.  There are a total of 27 teams in NFL history that were projected to win more games than they actually played; all of them are from this era.

You may also have noticed that these team names are not familiar.  Just because these teams were great in their own times, doesn't mean that they stuck around.  Canton/Cleveland, as you can see, was a dynasty.  The Bears of 1942 played in what was the closest to the modern NFL of any of these, and not just because they were the most recent of the bunch.  In 1942, in the average NFL game, the two teams combined for 32.38 points per game.  Scoring was under 30 points per game from 1920 to 1938.  Then in 1939, it reached 30, and hung right around there until 1942.  Then, in 1943, there was an explosion of offense, leading to a 39.65 points per game total.  The lowest it has been since then was in 1977, when it dipped as low as 34.35 points per game.  In other words, still higher than every year up to 1942.

Well, that's all I've got in terms of a history lesson for you tonight.  I'm just gonna keep posting until I get bored, so don't be surprised if there's another one up shortly!

How to Make Football a Better Game

I can hear you thinking it.  "But David - football is already the most popular game in America.  How are you going to make it better?"

What if I said that I could eliminate the most boring play in the game, make football higher-scoring, and make virtually every possession have at least one edge-of-your-seat play?  Would you be interested?

Here's how it works: 

First, in my football dream world, kickoffs and punts would also be eliminated.  Every drive starts from the 20, and you get four downs - if you don’t convert, sucks to be you.  I think the 20 is a good spot to start because it's not SO far back, but it's not so far up that teams can just play conservatively back and forth, gaining one or two first downs and then turning the ball over on downs.  If you are facing fourth-and-four from the 26 yard line and you MISS it - you're screwed.  The other team starts in GREAT field position.  Thus, the game becomes higher scoring.  If you can't punt, even when you're in horrible field position, teams have to get more creative and riskier, and that results in more turnovers, more spectacular plays, and a better game overall.

Second, there's a change in OT.  Overtime will still be sudden-death.  Home team has a choice of ball or wind.  Why?  Because they're the home team.  Whoever starts on offense starts from their own 35.  Why the 35?  Because if they fail to convert, their opponents start with the ball less than half a field away.  This yardline could be changed if the 35 is too problematic.  Hopefully, though, the field position and wind disadvantages and the possession advantage even one another out.  If defense stops the offense, good for them.

Third, the extra point is eliminated.  Every TD is worth 7 points.  However, if you'd like to get an "extra" point, you can.  All you have to do is wager one of your 7 points.  In other words, you'd get one down from the three yard-line.  If you made it, you'd have 8 points.  If you missed it, you'd LOSE one of your 7, and you'd only have 6.  It makes a game-tying TD ACTUALLY tie the game, most of the time.  And, if you tie on the last play of the game, you can choose to win or lose, right there.  No time to think about overtime or not.  You either win, or go home.

Fourth, I wouldn't eliminate the kicking game entirely.  The only vestige of the kicking game I appreciate is the field goal.  The rest of it can just go.  But I also support progressive field goal scoring (2 points for a field goal of 20-29 yards, 3 points for a field goal of 30-39 yards, etc.).  It rewards strong-legged, accurate kickers.  And it creates some interesting scenarios, like this vignette:

You're the home team.  There's a decent-speed wind with you, for now.  It’s four and one from the 39, with your team down by 5 with two minutes to play, and you have Sebastian Janikowski (or a similarly strong-legged kicker).  Do you:

a.  Go for the conversion, and try to keep moving the ball, trying to score while running out the clock?
b.  Kick a field goal from the standard distance (~17 yards farther than your yardline), which would be a 5-pointer to tie the game, but leave time on the clock?
c.  Have your holder line up an extra four yards back and kick a 6-pointer to tie the game while leaving time on the clock?

To me, that would all make football a MORE exciting and interesting game, rather than what it is now.  Defense matters more, because there's no onside-kick to fall back on.  Another scenario, with the same team:  If you're down by two TDs with 3 minutes left, and you score, now you're down by one TD.  If your defense creates a four-and-out, they turn the ball over to you inside their own 30!  You're in great position to score again.  And, if you do, you can choose to go for the extra point, at which point you'll either win the game, or lose.  And if you choose to play for overtime, you now have to choose if you want the ball, at which point you'll have to fight the wind even if you're in "normal" range for your strong-legged kicker, or you can give the ball to the other team in the hope that your D can stop them again.  It's a boatload more strategy, more second-guessing of coaches, fewer gimmicks, fewer scary special teams plays that cause injuries, more scoring, defense is more important, there's more appreciation for strong-legged kickers, and there's a freed-up roster spot because no team carries a punter anymore.  It's pretty much the best of all possible worlds.

What do you think?  Do you have answers for the posited scenarios?  Do you think these would be good changes?

Win Estimators, or Why Baseball and Football are Different

What would it take for you to believe that a Major League Baseball team went undefeated? I mean in terms of runs scored and allowed. Like, if those were the only two pieces of information you had, what would they need to be (or be like) for you to believe a season was undefeated?  I think, for me, it would take something pretty incredible - like allowing no runs for the entire season (or, like 10).  Because, even if a team scored like 4000 runs, but gave up 500... well, don't you think it's possible that they'd lose, I don't know... 2 or 3 games?  The basic Pythagorean formula (Runs squared over (runs squared plus runs allowed squared)) says a team like that would go 159.5-2.5 (I guessed two or three games before doing the calculation, by the way, so I'm pretty proud of that guess).  And that seems about right, doesn't it?  I mean, even with a run differential that big, you'd still expect to lose a game or two.  Which, in the scheme of a 162-game season, is nothing.  But the point is, the run differential it would take to believe in an undefeated baseball season is astronomical.  I mean, this hypothetical team, which averages a 25-3 game, could hypothetically lose 12-11 twice or thrice during the year, right?

But football is fundamentally different, because it takes place in a small sample size.  For example, if I told you a team scored 400 points on the season, and gave up only 50, well, you'd assume they went undefeated.  And you'd probably be right.  The pythagorean formula agrees with this one.  Because it predicts this team to go 15.75-.25... so yeah.  They'd probably go undefeated.

But what if we double their points allowed?  What if they scored 400, and gave up 100?  That's an average score of 25-10... but would they go undefeated?  The Pythagorean formula says they'd go 15-1.  My guess is, in an NFL where the average team scores 22 points/game (close to the historical average, and in fact just behind the average for 2011 of 22.2), that's  probably about right.  But, frankly, in a league where an average team scores 22 ppg, 400 points isn't that many (average team would score 352).  So we'd expect the offense to fail once in the season, even if the defense is tough.

Anyway, why are we talking about this?  I mean, who cares?

Well, I do.  Because here are some real numbers.  I'm going to list the team, their points scored/allowed, Pythag. record, and then actual record.  Here goes:

2007 Patriots - 589-274; 13.8-2.2; 16-0

1985 Bears - 456-198; 14.1-1.9; 15-1

1998 Vikings - 556-296; 13.1-2.9; 15-1

1972 Dolphins - 385-171; 12.2-1.8; 14-0

2008 Lions - 268-517; 2.8-13.2; 0-16

1976 Buccaneers - 125-412; .8-13.2; 0-14

What you see here is that it's basically impossible, by the Pythagorean formula, to ever expect an undefeated season in the NFL . . . or a winless one.  The reason is because of a quirk of the Pythagorean formula, in which the PSsq/(PSsq+PAsq) will only yield a 0 if the team scores no points, and will only yield 100 if the team allows no points.  But the truth is, teams do go undefeated.  So it makes no sense to use a quadratic equation when we know that football doesn't quite work that way.

So what do I suggest we do about this?  Well, it's a pretty easy solution, actually.  You go linear.  And how does one do that?  Like so:

Use the information we already have.

Figure out the number of points/game.

That's all you need.

Take the team's points differential.  Divide by 2*(ppg).  Add to half of the number of games in a season.  That's it.

For example, in 2007, all NFL teams scored 11104 points.  If we divide that by 32 (number of teams), by 16 (number of games), and then multiply by two (because two teams play in each game), we get 43.375 as the number of ppg.  The Patriots that year had a points differential of (589-274=)315 points.  315/43.375=7.26 wins, plus 8 (a half-season's worth) = 15.26 wins.  So, by my formula, we'd expect the 2007 Patriots to have gone 15.3-.7... which is much closer to their actual record of 16-0 than the Pythagorean expectation, which gave them less than 14 wins (13.8).

Here are the expectations for the other teams I mentioned:

1985 Bears - 14.0-2.0

1998 Vikings - 14.1-1.9

1972 Dolphins - 12.3-1.7

2008 Lions - 2.3-13.7

1972 Bucs - -.4-14.4

Yes, that is a negative expectation of wins for the 1972 Buccaneers.  They were that bad.  In every case, this linear method comes closer to the team's actual record (for the Vikings, it's one full win closer!), except the 1985 Bears, which my method misses by .1 wins more than the classic way of doing it.  Frankly, I don't really see how anyone could use the Pythagorean method when one could do this, which is just as easy, works the same for middle-of-the-pack teams, and works significantly better for teams at the periphery.

Longest NFL Win Streaks

So, not living in Wisconsin anymore, I've been a little out of the loop. I mean, don't get me wrong - I watch the Packers pretty much every week (although once in a while, living in Chicago, I don't actually get the games, and I'm not always free to just go to a bar). I at least always follow a play-by-play online.

Anyway, I'm writing about the NFL today because of a couple of things. First, I haven't written about anything besides baseball in a really REALLY long time. Second, it seems like a good time to do it. Anyway, I've been wondering what the longest winning streak in NFL history is. Honestly, it's pretty hard to find. At the moment, SI has a gallery of the longest single-season winning streaks, and that's pretty neat, but not what I'm looking for. So I looked elsewhere online. Everyone knows the longest regular season winning streaks and keeps track of those. But what about the longest OVERALL streaks? At the current time, I have yet to find it. So, I went digging. Using only my knowledge of teams who happened to win a lot of games, I found some pretty long streaks. I think this is pretty complete.

First of all, if we allow for going WAY back, and not even to the NFL, the Cleveland Browns of the AAFC once won 18 in a row - the end of the 1947 season, and all 14 (plus one playoff) in 1948. They tied the opener, then won four in a row to start 1949, giving them a 22-0-1 record in a span of 23 games. Of course, it wasn't the NFL, but they still rocked it, and won 18 in a row. Of course, is that as good as the 1985-86 Bears going 24-1 over a 25 game stretch? Probably not, in a more competitive league. But regardless, those have blemishes. These do not. And like I said, I'm fairly certain these are ALL the streaks of 15 or more consecutive wins in NFL history. Here you go!

The 1971 Dolphins lost the Super Bowl. So the started with a blank streak. But of course, the went undefeated, including playoffs, to win the title. The didn't lose until week two the following year.

1972-73 Dolphins: 15 games

The 2004 Pittsburgh Steelers will, undoubtedly be the oddest team on this list. They lost in week two. They lost the AFC Championship Game. They're utterly forgettable. Except, of course, that they won all 15 games they played in between.

2004 Pittsburgh Steelers: 15 games

Perhaps it's because the '72 Dolphins had already filled the need for a football team with a long winning streak, but their Super-Bowl-era record winning streak was eclipsed later in the same decade. The 1976 Oakland Raiders were absolutely CRUSHED by the Patriots in week three. Apparently, that made the mad enough to win their next 13 in a row, including the Super Bowl. It carried over to 1977, when they started 4-0.

1976-77 Oakland Raiders: 17 games

Now, of course, the failure of the 2004 Steelers reminds us of an even greater failure, and a longer streak. What can be said about the 2007 Pats that hasn't already been said? This, by the way, is the most familiar and most recent of our 18-gamers. It's also the only one that doesn't include a championship with it.

2007 New England Patriots: 18 games

The 1933 Chicago Bears won their last five games, to win the NFL Championship. That probably wouldn't mean anything special, except they also won all 13 of their regular season games in 1934 (they lost to the Giants in the NFL Championship Game). They were the first team to win 18 in a row.

1933-34 Chicago Bears: 18 games

In a somewhat eerie repeat for the franchise, the 1941 Bears won their last seven (Championship Game inclusive), and went undefeated the following year, only to lose the Championship Game, this time to the Redskins.

1941-42 Chicago Bears: 18 games

The 1989 49ers are, for whatever reason, not often considered to be among the best teams of all-time. But, during the season, they lost once by 1, and again by 4. After that 4-point loss to the Packers, they reeled off 8 straight. Then they began 1990 10-0. Although they would eventually lose in the NFC Championship game that year, in many ways, this was the crowning achievement of the 49ers dynasty under Bill Walsh and George Seifert.

1989-90 San Francisco 49ers: 18 games

Finally, other than the 2007 Patriots, can you name the most recent team to win 18 consecutive games? By the way, this team is also interesting because it's the only team on this entire list other than the 1972-73 Dolphins and the last team (I'll let the suspense keep building) to have streaks which covered two seasons, and to actually WIN the title in both seasons. That's right: the 1997-98 Broncos won 18 straight. They won their final regular season game of 1997 heading into the playoffs. Then they won four in a row, including upsetting the heavily favored Packers in the Super Bowl, in one of the best Super Bowls ever played. Then, they began the 1998 season 13-0 before losing two in a row. They recovered to win their final regular season game, and breezed through the playoffs, outscoring their opponents 95-32.

1997-98 Denver Broncos: 18 games

Finally, there's one team that absolutely DWARFED the 18 game streaks of other teams. Many people forget, I think, because they didn't start either season particularly hot. In 2004, they won their first 6 games. But that's nothing that special. It happens almost every year. And in '03, they had started out 2-2. Of course, after that 2-2 start, the New England Patriots won 15 straight, including the Super Bowl, and then the first six the following year. It's kind of unbelievable that Bill Belichick has presided over the two longest winning streaks in NFL history, but it's true. So this is the standard. Oh, and of course the 2004 Pats were repeat champs, like the Broncos and Dolphins before them, so that have that going for them, too.

Finally, why have I written all this? Well, the Green Bay Packers have, as of Thanksgiving day 2011, tied the 1976-77 Raiders with 17 straight wins. They will have a very tough game against the NFC East-leading Giants to tie the record. What will the fate of this Packers team be? Will they tie the 18-game mark against the Giants? Surpass it against the Raiders? Can they possibly catch the 2003-04 Dolphins (they'd have to keep winning, and they would tie it on Christmas day versus the Bears - to pass the Pats, they'd have to go undefeated, beating the Lions in week 17)? Will they join the 1934 and 1942 Bears by having undefeated seasons following a Championship? Will the buck the trend of those two teams, and follow in the lead of the 1973 Dolphins and 1998 Broncos and 2004 Patriots and win back-to-back titles? Or will they carve out some completely new, uncharted legacy? We will have to see between now and the Super Bowl. But no matter what the outcome, I think it's safe to say the 2010-2011 Packers have etched their names among the elite teams in NFL history already, regardless of how it all turns out.

2010-2011 Packers: 17 games (and counting?)

PFC #10: Indianapolis Colts

QB: Peyton Manning, Johnny Unitas, Bert Jones
RB: Marshall Faulk, Edgerrin James, Lenny Moore
WR: Marvin Harrison, Raymond Berry, John Mackey
OL: Jim Parker
DF: Gino Marchetti, Dwight Freeney, Bob Sanders, Art Donovan
ST: Mike Vanderjagt
CO: Weeb Ewbank, Tony Dungy
Extra: Earl Morrall (QB), Alan Ameche (RB), Reggie Wayne (WR), Don Shula (CO),

Let's see...
By far the best QBs of any team yet presented. Best coaches (heck-- the all-time wins leader is ON THE BENCH, for goodness sakes!), best overall receivers, and their running backs are so stacked, I had to put a Hall of Famer in the "Extra" section. Lenny Moore would also be a fine returner, by the way. One of the best in this tournament, actually, and he's already on the roster, which is why I didn't include him a second time. As for the defense, I know it's a little early on Bob Sanders, but the guy is lights-out. Also, Marchetti is one of the 10-12 DEs who got absolutely SCREWED by the fact that sacks were not counted until the 80s. One of the best passrushers of all-time-- and Dwight Freeney is another, so that will go nicely together. The hardest choice was a fourth defender. To be honest, Colts defenders are a pretty lackluster group (especially at linebacker), but since we're not emphasizing defense too much, that'll work in their favor. By the way, I knew Jim Parker was a great offensive lineman, but what I learned is that he was the first full-time O-lineman in the Hall of Fame. Interesting, no? Anyway, I really, really like this team, and expect them to do very well. They're first-round matchup with the Niners should be fascinating, since this team is probably the most similar team to San Francisco of any team in the tournament.

PFC #15: San Diego Chargers

In our Pro-Football Challenge, I'm going to lead off with my lowest-seeded team, and perhaps the most surprising inclusion of the top 16: the San Diego Chargers. Well, here are the players.

QB: Dan Fouts, Philip Rivers, John Hadl
RB: LaDanian Tomlinson, Natrone Means, Chuck Muncie
WR: Lance Alworth, Kellen Winslow, Charlie Joiner
OL: Ron Mix
DF: Junior Seau, Leslie O'Neal, Rodney Harrison, Fred Dean
ST: Darren Bennett
CO: Don Coryell, Sid Gillman
Extra: Antonio Gates (TE), Darren Sproles (KR)

This is a really trick franchise to pin down. They have some really stong points, like QB and especially special teams (I didn't mention Andre Coleman above, but you may remember this play, formerly the longest play in Super Bowl history; also, his 1995 season was pretty great all-around). The defense isn't strong past these four, but what a strong four! Fred Dean may be the most underrated defensive player in the history of pro football. Look him up.
The rub with the Chargers, though, is that the other positions are just awful. True, Lance Alworth and Kellen Winslow are all-time greats, but there's really not much after that. I like Charlie Joiner, but his numbers, even for his era, aren't great-- they're very, very good, but not great. The gaps that hurt the most, though are at running back and o-line. I find it pretty hard to believe that they'll go very far in this tournament with the three slightly-above-average backs on this roster. I shouldn't be so harsh: Tomlinson is an all-time great. But seriously: no one better? I thought about Terrell Fletcher, but if you're even CONSIDERING Terrell Fletcher, what does that say about the team you're working with? Well, we'll see how they do. First up for them is the Dolphins.

Pro Football Challenge

Here's a little dose of football for you in the offseason, so my baseball posts don't keep boring you.

Jordan and I were discussing the other day about which NFL franchise was the greatest. We decided that perhaps the best way to determine this would be choose an all-time team for each franchise, and have them "play" in a tournament. We decided on 16 teams, because not all 32 (nor the many that have folded) actually merit inclusion in this discussion. Here are the teams we are using:
Cowboys - .580
Dolphins - .579
Bears - .577
Packers - .558
Vikings - .555
Browns - .553
49ers - .551
Raiders - .550
Giants - .547
Colts - .531
Broncos - .528
Patriots - .518
Steelers - .517
Redskins - .517
Chargers - .503
Eagles - .483

They are seeded by all-time winning percentage. The Steelers won the honor of playing lower-seeded Green Bay while Washington will play Chicago because the Pittsburgh has won more Super Bowls. It was an arbitrary tiebreaker, but I knew the answer offhand and didn't need to look it up, so that's why it was chosen. Anyway, each "team" will consist of the following:
3 QBs
3 RBs
3 WR/TE
1 OL
4 Defensive players
1 Special teamer (meaning kicker, punter, or returner)
2 Coaches
Any additional players or coaches the picker sees fit. For example, if, as a picker, one of us we saw that there were two, three, or even four offensive linemen who merited inclusion, we would certainly be entitled to mentioning those players here. The above numbers are simply minimums (or minima, if you're into Latin plurals).

Beyond that, things should be pretty self-explanatory. We split up the teams, so we'll each take eight. We're hoping to post at least one per week, but that is going to be a little tricky for me in the coming weeks, since I'm getting married two weeks from today. If nothing else, I'll catch up when I get back. Regardless, it'll start with a quick team-profile, and once all 16 teams are selected, we'll start the "tournament." Hope you enjoy!

Favre or Fiction

2 posts tonight, to make up for the general laziness of the last couple weeks. Enjoy!

In my wildest dreams, here's what we find out in the coming months, in 2 minutes or less:

July 14: (from the Associated Press) Vikings' coach Brad Childress reports today that Brett Favre is still undecided about returning to the NFL, and that there is still no deadline for Favre's return. It is widely assumed that Favre will rejoin the team after training camp is over.

August 15: (from the Associated Press) Now that training camp has ended, Brett Favre has yet to return to the Vikings. Sources close to the team indicate that he will likely rejoin the Vikings sometime next week.

August 17: (from the Minneapolis Star Tribune) Our Savior has returned! Not since the Jesus' early followers awoke that first Easter morning to the empty tomb, has a group been as excited to be reunited with their leader as the Vikings are to have Brett Favre back. The Vikings took pains this offseason to avoid taking a quarterback to please Favre. Minnesota passed on quarterbacks round after round in the draft (although they did draft one who will be converted to receiver), and chose to remain with Sage Rosenfels and Tarvaris Jackson. This, they hoped, would indicate to Favre that the Vikings had no intention of pushing him out the door. All that was left was to hope and pray that Favre would return. And it looks like that strategy has paid off.

September 3: (from the Minneapolis Star Tribune) In a shocking move, it appears that Brett Favre has elected to re-retire. This is a surprise for everyone, but most particularly for Vikings' coach Brad Childress. "Since last winter, Brett and I had the understanding that this whole "retirement" thing was a ruse to allow him to skip training camp. I'm just beside myself." The other Vikings players felt much the same. "Total shock. Total and complete shock," was Jared Allen's only comment to the media. Favre released a statement ealier in the day, alerting EPSN, CBS, and several other major news outlets before informing his employer, the Vikings. He then read aloud the statement in a public press conference. "I believe that I have already given everything I have to give. I am now going to spend more time with my family, and more time golfing. I can't thank the NFL, the organizations I've played for, and my teammates and opponents enough for my many years of football. I will miss the game, but my retirement will be my complete severance from the game. Thank you." Favre did not take questions from reporters after delivering this prepared statement.

November 1: (from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) In the biggest show of loyalty perhaps in the history of professional team sports, Brett Favre announced in an interview last night with Bob Costas his intentions in playing for the Vikings. Here are some excerpted quotations from Favre:
"Well, sure. Ted [Thompson, Packers' GM] and I had an understanding. I was going to move on, help my statistics, and that was that."
"I know it seems sketchy, but the Packers were my team. And while I was in Green Bay, I learned to hate the Vikings. I actually agreed with the Packers before they let me go that I would never help either the Vikings or the Bears to win a Super Bowl, so I made sure of that last year. Remember that 'fumbled handoff' to Adrian Peterson? I hit it against his arm on purpose. And don't think that interception at the end of the NFC Championship Game was an accident."
"I figured the ultimate blow would be letting Minnesota think I was playing and string them along for as long as possible. Now, I couldn't retire mid-season-- that seemed too mean after all I've put them through, not that it didn't cross my mind. But right after the preseason seemed like it would sting the most."
A rush of crime in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area last night is blamed on Favre's confession.

The End

Eagles decided to trade their franchises best QB to their division rival for a 2010 2nd round pick and a 2011 conditional pick. To say that this is the dumbest trade in Philadelphia sports history would be a huge understatement. The Eagles did not just trade a quarterback, but they traded away a tradition of winning. Ever since the turn of the new millenium the Eagles have been associated with organizations like the Patriots, Colts, and Steelers as gold standard franchises. In the past the Eagles were able to let go of key players like Troy Vincent, Bobby Taylor, and Hugh Douglas and not miss a beat. However, it seems that the organization has over played it's hand. The Eagles are in the transition of being ran by new management. The Eagles have a new GM and he has decided to clean house. The Eagles have let go a league high of 12 players and in half of an off-season the Eagles went from a veteran team to the youngest team in the NFL, and for what? Talk about knee jerk reaction. I know nobody in Philadelphia was happy about losing to the Cowboys three times in the season, but I don't think that's a reason to blow up the entire team.

I thought the Eagles would have learned their lesson about premature decisions after mistakenly letting go of Brian Dawkins last year. Brian Dawkins (the Wolverine) was supposed to be over the hill but all he did was go to the Pro Bowl and become the leader of a revamped Broncos defense. Now the Eagles will go into next season with essentially a rookie QB and low expectations. For ten years the Eagles have been super bowl contenders and now that is all gone. I know there are a good number of Eagles fans who where happy to see McNabb go but I wonder if those fans really understand how special McNabb was to the Eagles franchise. Before McNabb and after Randal Cunningham the Eagles went through QBs the way the Lions go through receivers. I remember this vividly because I started watching the Eagles in 1995. From then until Donovan was named the starter, the Eagles had QBs like Bobby Hoying, Rodney Pete, Ty Detmer, Koy Detmer, and Doug Peterson. I'm not kidding-- these guys were the face of the Eagles franchise. I remember when the Eagles let Bobby Hoying take the keys of the car away from Rodney Pete after he helped lead the Eagles to a 11-5 season. Bobby was the young guy with a big arm and was considered a more accurate QB. Everyone in Philly thought that this guy was going to lead the franchise for the next ten years, but he barely made it out of two seasons. Now I don't think that will be Kevin Kolb, but I wonder if this is just wishful thinking.

I really hope that the organization has done their homework and that they are not making this decision because Kolb threw for over 400 yards against the Chiefs. Kolb has a lot of pressure on his shoulders and nobody knows how he will handle that. Kolb does have great physical attributes but nobody knows how good his intangibles are. The one thing that is vastly underrated about McNabb is his way to keep his cool no matter the situation. Donovan is the kind of guy who could smile even if he was being car-jacked. Donovan never let the media, the city, or opposing defenses get to him. I mean yes he had bad games, but everyone is human. McNabb never looked rattled and that is a must for a QB to be successful in Philadelphia. Not only will Kolb have to deal with the pressure of playing in Philly, but he also has the pressure of playing in the same division as Donovan for the next several years. Not only does Kolb have to win in Philly but he has to be better than Donovan in Washington. Even if Kolb goes 15-1 in his first season, if Donovan and the Redskins win the Super Bowl with Donovan as the MVP everyone in Philly would consider the decision to let McNabb go a failure. Playing in Philadelphia is a unique situation and not everyone is built for that situation. Kolb's success basically comes down to how he handles playing in the most hostile sports town in America.

As for McNabb, his John Elway comparison becomes even more intriguing now that he's playing for the coach that was able to help Elway win two titles at the end of his career. Furthermore, Donovan will no longer have to throw the ball 5o times a game. Mike Shanahan prides himself on running a balanced offense which means his team will actually run the ball. This will be a foreign concept to Donovan, but I think he'll get used to it. Donovan's down fall will come if the O-line does not improve. Donovan should stay healthy with the balanced offense and the defense was very good last year, so with that taken into consideration there is no reason why Washington shouldn't improve next year. Which, again leads back to my original point of the stupidity of this deal.

I know the Eagles are saying that they traded Donovan to Washington to put him in a good situation to win, but c'mon. No franchise would put their own success in jeopardy just to make a former player happy. Thus, the Eagles traded Donovan to Washington because they think he's done. The Eagles again feel that younger is better, but to quote R-Kelly "Age ain't nothin' but a number." I do believe Donovan did make his 6th pro bowl last year did throw over 3,000 yards and 20+ TDs and again had one of the best QB ratings in the league. So, I have to believe that those last two games against Dallas is a major part of why they let him play for a division rival. Kolb's last image in the season was positive and Donovan's image was negative, and I think that influenced the front office's decision. Despite his last image, he still is an elite QB. The Eagles just made it that much harder for them to win the division or even make the playoffs as a wild card. The Eagles went from having the best QB in the division to having the worst QB in the division. The Redskins on the other hand did the exact opposite and that will probably show in their record at the end of the season.

I have been a Philadelphia sports fan for approximately 15 years and I have seen a lot of things in my life. Trading Donovan McNabb to Washington was by far the dumbest thing I have ever seen a Philadelphia franchise do. At least when the Sixers let Iverson go, he went to the Western Conference and the Sixers were not going to be setting the world on fire whether they had AI or not, so trading him was not a bad move. When the Flyers traded Eric Lindros to the Rangers I questioned the Flyers for trading a franchise player within the division, but it was a smart move. Lindros was already over the hill and he was another hit away from going into a coma, so having Lindros play as a ranger was weird but understandable. When the Phillies sent Schilling on his way to Arizona, the Phillies were at the bottom of the division and had no business holding Schilling back from playing with a contender. Again not a dumb move. I really hope the Eagles know what they are doing, but right now I can't say that they do.

AHHHHHHHHH!

Okay, to our readership of zero, I apologize for a rather lazy month. But, since it's long-past time to update, I thought I'd piggyback off of one of Jordan's thoughts from a few posts ago. He noted the over-thinking of NFL GMs when it comes to the draft. Well, here, right in front of us, is the perfect example. Here's Peter King's column from SI.com today:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/03/21/meetings/index.html?eref=sihp

Now, scroll through the NFL overtime thing (which is in just as much need to be fixed as the BCS, but that's another column). Tim Tebow's draft stock is rising. What. The. Heck. I don't understand. How? Has he become a better QB in the last two months? Didn't think so. But let's look at the case for and against Tebow. Keep in mind, Jordan and I are both anti-Tebow guys-- not because we hate him. Actually, I really respect him for being honest and sharing his beliefs and not being afraid of taking flak. My only criticisms are about him as a quarterback. So, here's what people say:

1. But look at the record-- he's proven himself!
This is one of the most common complaints of combine-haters. Now, I hate the combine, and I agree with this logic-- generally. We have to keep in mind, though, that "on-field results" have a number of factors. Yes, Tebow was a winner. So were Chris Leak, Major Applewhite, Josh Heupel, Jason White, Matt Leinart, Eric Crouch, Craig Krenzel-- the list goes on and on-- and that's just from the last decade. So clearly, winning is not the only factor. There are also statistics. Yes, Tebow's stat line is great. But so were the stat lines of the majority of the guys listed above. The things you have to look at in order to see NFL success is a combination of these factors:
a) Pro-style offense: In my opinion, Florida and Urban Meyer are too gimmicky for long-term NFL success.
b) Talent of players: Florida had tremendously talented players around Tebow, and the SEC has been down for the last three years-- that's why Florida and 'Bama have been able to dominate so thoroughly.
c) Types of patterns/routes: In my opinion, Tebow doesn't throw an NFL ball, and he doesn't throw to NFL-type routes.
Obviously, there could be a lot of disagreement about some of that stuff. I just think that the Florida football team of these last couple of years reminds me, interestingly, of the Florida basketball team of a few years ago. You have a lot of players, all of whom are so much better than the competition that they blow everyone away, and they're extremely well-coached. The thing is, though, Al Horford is probably the best pro player from those teams. Why would Tebow have to be an NFL star in order to validate the "dynasty" he had at Florida? It doesn't make sense.

2. Tebow's a great "character" guy.
True. I can't deny that Tebow's a good guy. But I have a few questions. First, how often does a rookie QB walk in, and 12-year NFL vets just listen to him? Never. Not once. QBs earn respect. He wouldn't just "walk in and be a leader," or whatever nonsense people say. On the contrary, I have a feeling veterans would resent him, call him an over-hyped virgin (which, incidentally, is true), and he'd never get the time of day. Yes, he would, in all likelihood, avoid trouble with the law. But so too, on average, do about 50 of the 53 guys on each roster. Is "but he won't get arrested!" really a good enough reason for a guy to go in the first round? No.

3. He's a warrior.
So. What. It's pointless. Only once every 30-50 years does a guy come around in each of the major sports who's legitimately tough enough to play game-in, game-out without ever having to take some days off. And Tebow won't be that guy. It requires physical and mental toughness, an insatiable will to win, and never, ever, EVER crying on the field during a loss. But Tim Tebow's not Brett Favre, or Jim Marshall, or Peyton Manning. Even if he were, he might not be as lucky as they. He's somewhere between Favre (ultimate tough guy) and Adam Morrison (awkward girl with a fake-looking mustache). The comparison to either one is too extreme, but Tebow isn't going to be either one. And even if he is, do you really think that Tebow's going to be the next Favre? I'm sorry. I just don't buy it.

In conclusion, I understand why Tebow's stock is rising. It's because we all want it to be true. We'd love for the "good guy" to be the "good player." Too prove Leo Durocher wrong-- sometimes, nice guys finish first. But this isn't the time, nor the place. This is just an example of a media story being perpetuated by the media, and cared about only by the media. Let's call it Tigerwoodssexscandalitis. Anyway, I wish Tim Tebow luck, I really do. He seems to be a smart, talented dude. That's good, because he won't be making it as a starting QB in the NFL.

The Over-Thinkers

I always remember being told when it comes to making a decision to measure twice and cut once. This is great advice in being precise when it comes to executing anything. However, I think NFL scouts don't quite get that concept. It seems far too often that many NFL teams over-analyze players to the extent that they are so far in the forest that they lose sight of the trees. Too many times, it seems that players are drafted based off of ridiculous physical attributes instead of what is important, which is their football playing abilities. The NFL is the only professional sport that I can think of where a player can become a first round pick just by looking the part. I mean don't get me wrong: there are players that are drafted too high in all of the major sports, but I never hear of a guard becoming a lottery pick just because of some random track and field number. However, in the NFL we see guys like Matt Jones become a first round just because he showed superhuman abilities at the NFL combine. Yes, he might be able to run faster than a speeding bullet and leap tall buildings in a single bound, but shouldn't the Jaguars have been concerned with the fact that he NEVER PLAYED THE POSITION OF WIDE RECEIVER BEFORE?!?! But it would be unfair to just to criticize the Jaguars. Every team has participated this foolishness and it will only get worse due to the current condition of the NFL scouting process.

One of the biggest problem with the current condition of the NFL scouting process is the amount of time NFL scouts and front office personnel have between the end of the season and the actual draft. The NFL season ends at the beginning of February and the draft takes place at the end of April. This means that scouts and front office personnel have roughly three months to wrap their heads around who they want to welcome into their franchise. By the end of the college football season, it's pretty simple to realize who the best players are just based off their regular season performances and their career performances. Furthermore, at the end of the college football season there are various senior bowl games which provide even more insight into these players. It's not that these games are important but the fact that practices for these all-star games are run by NFL teams, which allows NFL coaches to see how these former college all-stars can perform on a professional level. I understand that underclassmen do not get to perform in these games, but that rule should change for the fact that many of the players that do participate are non-factor players. The amount of time wasted on a 7th round type senior player should be invested into a junior who is projected as a first or second round pick. This may seem unfair to the senior who was a hero at his local school, but this is the NFL. Pro scouts should be more focused on making the right selections from a pool of the best prospects. These players are suppose to be the building blocks of a franchise since they are being paid as so, but so many teams reach for projects and basically flush money away on risky players.

A player like Darius Heyward-Bey should never be drafted in the first round. During his college career he was able to make great plays in the ACC because he was obviously the fastest player on the field. He only ran two routes throughout his career, fly routes and slants. Even though he was a good player in the ACC he never made an all-ACC team, but players like Jeremy Maclin and Michael Crabtree who were all conference players and all NCAA players were drafted behind Mr. Heyward-Bey. Darius Heyward-Bey was the first receiver picked in the 2009 draft due to his blazing 40-yard dash time. He has gone on to be plagued by his limited route running ability and is his inability to catch a football on a consistent basis. I believe for a receiver it's important to know how to catch a football; but what would I know? I just watch football. It seems with the amount of time that these scouts and front office personnel have they seem to second guess their instincts and make egregious decisions. But, it's sort of not just the scouts' fault. Yes, I believe that if the NFL draft was held in the the middle of March or the end of February, more teams would make the right decisions. With the shorter amount of time, I believe more teams would focus on a player's career stats and intangibles and not their superficial attributes. The media's attention to these superficial stats contribute a lot to the awful decisions that are made on draft day.

I have no idea how fast Derrick Rose can run a 40 yard dash and I don't know how much Kevin Durant can bench, but these things that seem to be oh so important to the media in the NFL draft never come up in the NBA draft, which is the pro league that relies on athleticism the most. Though there are cases in the NBA were the height of a player can raise or lower a players stock, in the NFL too many superficial statistics create Darius Heyward-Bey-type choices. The NFL combine is now on television and gives even more attention to the things that can help a NFL player, but not essentially create an NFL player. The media creates so much buzz for a player through the combines and their pro day workouts that it seems that their career production becomes a non-factor in the players evaluation. I understand that the combine workouts and pro day workouts can provide more exposure to players who played at smaller schools, but for guys that played in BCS conferences, their career numbers should not be overshadowed by their superficial makeup. Ryan Leaf was basically a QB created by the media. His size, athleticism, and performance in one game created the most ridiculous QB debate in my NFL lifetime. Ryan Leaf was such a physical freak many people questioned if he was a better QB than a guy named Peyton Manning. Now Manning had a college career which landed him various awards throughout his college career and was a two time top 6 Heisman trophy finalist. Manning shattered SEC records, team records, and was the leader of Tennessee for four years. Manning obviously had the type of college career that warranted him for being the top pick in the draft and there was not another college QB that could compete with him. However, the media decided to create this hype machine around Ryan Leaf who was an unknown until his performance in the Rose Bowl.

The criticism of Manning's lack of athletic ability and awkward throwing motion opened the door for Ryan Leaf to make a case for being the best QB prospect in the draft. Luckily the Colts decided to ignore the fluff and draft the right player. Unfortunately the San Diego Chargers were not that lucky. Needless to say Manning has gone on to become the Hall of Fame QB that we expected him to be while Ryan Leaf has been absent from the NFL for 8 years now and has been regarded as one of the biggest bust in NFL history. And I know many will say,"... but Ryan Leaf was a Heisman trophy finalist during his Junior year so he wasn't just a hype machine." Well all I can say is Danny Wuerffel, Jason White, and Brad Banks were all Heisman trophy finalist too, but I didn't see them become 1st round picks and for obvious reasons.

I know the NFL will never change the draft date to avoid the delay between the end of the season and the actual draft because of the amount of money involved in televising the draft. If the draft was held in March it would have to compete with March Madness which I know the league does not want to do. However, I think a change is desperately in order. I'm tired of seeing the Darrius Heyward-Bey-type of picks in the NFL draft year after year. As a fan I expect more from my team's front office personnel and scouts. The NFL draft has become a big show for the NFL, but I have to wonder at what cost?

Welcome

Welcome, Willkommen, Bienvenue!

The game was tied at 0. With nothing to lose, we moved down inside the 5. Playing in a wishbone, it was probably obvious we would be running on every down. On 1st down, we plow forward for two yards. Same on 2nd. Unfortunately, on 2nd, one of our starting tailbacks was injured. Fortunately, however, we still had another, who plowed forward for no gain on 3rd, when he was injured. That left us with 4th and goal from the 1. As the backup fullback (on a bad, bad football team, mind you) we were nearly out of ideas, when the coach calls my name. Excited, I enter the game. The coach draws up a play not in our playbook in which the starting fullback runs inside as a lead blocker, I follow him second, and we hand to the backup tailback who follows us in for an easy score. Then, at the last moment, the coach changes his mind. He calls timeout. He calls for a fullback dive (for the starter, not for me). The backup tailback and I did nothing. Needless to say, it was exactly what the defense was expecting, and we were stuffed. The game ended 0-0. It was about as good as it ever got for us. After the game, one of our players asked the coach if he was mad. Memorably, he told us, "Fellas, I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed." We (the whole team, I mean) had trouble stifling our laughter. It became a favorite quote for all of us since that game, and also became the inspiration for the title of this blog. Is it going to be all high school football stories? Absolutely not. It will mostly be musings on pro and college sports, arguments about who the best team/player/franchise is, and probably occasionally high school sports stories. We hope you enjoy.