I promised a second note last week and forgot. Well here it is, dreadfully late.
An interesting thing happened in the Cleveland-Green Bay game. The Browns were up by 2 points with just over two minutes left and the Packers having no timeouts left. One more first down and the game is over because they’ll be able to kneel down three times and run out the final two minutes.
Trent Dilfer throws a pass complete to Heiden who then breaks free for a first down and keeps running. All he needs to do is get tackled or run out of bounds and the game is over, because kneel-downs are academic. But he did what I see so often, which is keep running all the way to the endzone for a touchdown. Sure that pretty much puts it away, going up by 9 with so little time left. But it actually gives Green Bay a chance because they’ll get the ball back, and you never know what might happen.
Even the commentator said what I hear so often in that situation. “Well, that pretty much cements the win.” Uh, no, had he knelt down or run out of bounds at the 1 yard line, that would have cemented the win. But no players ever do that. Of course not, they want the TD. But it actually gives the other team a pulse, not the opposite.
In fact in this case, Green Bay almost did it. They scored a touchdown with 4 seconds left, and if they had recovered the onside kick and then a hail mary, they could have won. It’s farfetched, but it can happen. One of these days, it will.
I've been getting behind on my posts, and this by no means gets me back on track. But I'm going to do my best to get there... soon... really...
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Monday, September 19, 2005
I have a few thoughts on this weekend’s NFL action. I’ll start with one of my favourite QBs, Kurt Warner and how he and his new team blew his chance to exact “revenge” against the team that unceremoniously dismissed him after having led them to two Super Bowls. (I’m not saying they made a mistake… okay, I am, but that’s a topic for another post.)
But there’s two things I don’t understand about how the game ended. With 27 seconds left and no timeouts, the Cardinals are at the Rams’ 5 yard line on first down trailing by 5 points. For some reason Warner takes the snap from under centre instead of from the shotgun. The Rams come with the blitz and get Warner down before he’s even able to drop back two steps. That was a bad play call, IMHO, but I don’t know if it was Warner or the coach or the co-ordinators.
But then, as the time is ticking off, instead of lining up and spiking the ball to stop the clock, giving them two more downs and enough time for two more shots to the end zone, Warner tries to call another play on the fly. Only 7 seconds remain when the ball is snapped, but there was a false start (which I didn’t see myself, but that’s another beef), which because it was an offensive penalty by a team with no timeouts under two minutes, signifies the end of the game. Why oh why didn’t they spike the ball? Again, I don’t know if it was Warner who screwed up or if the coaches were telling him to go ahead with a play to try to catch the defence disorganized. Evidently, they caught themselves disorganized and it cost them the game.
Yet it also brought up another point, which is why that rule exists. Namely, if an offensive team commits a foul in the last two minutes of the game, then there is a 10 second run-off of time on the clock. The exception is that if the team has a timeout left, they have the option of using it to avoid the run-off. Presumably, this is to stop teams who are out of timeouts late in the game from getting a “cheap” timeout, by intentionally committing a false start and thus exchanging a loss of 5 yards for some extra time to prepare for the next play. Okay, I’ll buy that, but I think there should be another exception. A team should be able to take a loss of down instead of the time run-off. It’s the same concept. If the team “could have” taken a timeout, then they just as easily “could have” spiked the ball.
In this case, instead of the game just ending because of a questionable false start, the team should be penalized 5 yards as usual, but also lose a down in lieu of the time run-off, as if the team had immediately lined up again 5 yards back and spiked the ball. That way they don’t gain an advantage as if they had had a timeout, but there not so severely punished for a simple penalty. The game shouldn’t have ended the way it did.
My thoughts on another game will come later this week…
But there’s two things I don’t understand about how the game ended. With 27 seconds left and no timeouts, the Cardinals are at the Rams’ 5 yard line on first down trailing by 5 points. For some reason Warner takes the snap from under centre instead of from the shotgun. The Rams come with the blitz and get Warner down before he’s even able to drop back two steps. That was a bad play call, IMHO, but I don’t know if it was Warner or the coach or the co-ordinators.
But then, as the time is ticking off, instead of lining up and spiking the ball to stop the clock, giving them two more downs and enough time for two more shots to the end zone, Warner tries to call another play on the fly. Only 7 seconds remain when the ball is snapped, but there was a false start (which I didn’t see myself, but that’s another beef), which because it was an offensive penalty by a team with no timeouts under two minutes, signifies the end of the game. Why oh why didn’t they spike the ball? Again, I don’t know if it was Warner who screwed up or if the coaches were telling him to go ahead with a play to try to catch the defence disorganized. Evidently, they caught themselves disorganized and it cost them the game.
Yet it also brought up another point, which is why that rule exists. Namely, if an offensive team commits a foul in the last two minutes of the game, then there is a 10 second run-off of time on the clock. The exception is that if the team has a timeout left, they have the option of using it to avoid the run-off. Presumably, this is to stop teams who are out of timeouts late in the game from getting a “cheap” timeout, by intentionally committing a false start and thus exchanging a loss of 5 yards for some extra time to prepare for the next play. Okay, I’ll buy that, but I think there should be another exception. A team should be able to take a loss of down instead of the time run-off. It’s the same concept. If the team “could have” taken a timeout, then they just as easily “could have” spiked the ball.
In this case, instead of the game just ending because of a questionable false start, the team should be penalized 5 yards as usual, but also lose a down in lieu of the time run-off, as if the team had immediately lined up again 5 yards back and spiked the ball. That way they don’t gain an advantage as if they had had a timeout, but there not so severely punished for a simple penalty. The game shouldn’t have ended the way it did.
My thoughts on another game will come later this week…
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
The NFL just completed the first week of its 2005 regular season. My question is why?
Four years ago, the NFL has just completed its first week of the season and was getting prepared for week two. Then on Tuesday, September 11th, something big happened. I don’t really need to explain what happened on that day, but I should remind people that within a few days the NFL made an announcement that it will not be playing football in the upcoming weekend.
It seemed like the absolutely right think to do back then, and it’s hard to think otherwise now. But in light of what’s happened in New Orleans, let’s consider making a comparison.
Two towers are knocked down and almost 3,000 people killed and the NFL cancels its second week of the season.
Meanwhile, four years later, an entire city is washed away and a possible 10,000 could end up being the death toll, yet nobody has even hinted at the NFL doing the same thing it did four years ago. Why not?
I’m not saying it should have. In fact, I didn’t even consider it myself. But why not, I wonder? Is it because what happened this year took place in poor parts of the southern U.S., while four years ago was in New York City? If anyone is thinking that racism is at play in this situation, you might look at this. But I don’t think so – at least I hope not.
Is it because what happened back then was more personal – a terrorist attack vs. a natural disaster – or that people were in fear and couldn’t concentrate on football? Perhaps, but for those who have had loved ones die I doubt they care how it came about – they’re in mourning either way. And the fear didn’t subside in one week.
I think what it really is was that 9/11 came so suddenly, and for the most part people died instantly, that mourning could take place right away. Whereas this year, it was and has been an ongoing disaster, and it’s not clear when mourning can begin. People died gradually and continue to. If the NFL were to cancel the first week of games, there would be no reason why not to cancel the second, or third, or etc.
So the NFL went on in Week 1, and as luck would have it (and I use the word ‘luck’ loosely here), the New Orleans Saints happened to be on the road for Week 1. And as luck would have it (and I use the word ‘luck’ very loosely here), the Saints pulled off an improbably and inspirational win.
When asked what this meant for the citizens of New Orleans, Ernie Conwell, the team spokesman and Christian incidentally, said he was proud that the team was able to bring a little bit of joy in the midst of such grief. Although I doubt it brought that much joy to people who have lost family members and/or homes, I would say it is certainly better than had they not played at all.
Four years ago, the NFL has just completed its first week of the season and was getting prepared for week two. Then on Tuesday, September 11th, something big happened. I don’t really need to explain what happened on that day, but I should remind people that within a few days the NFL made an announcement that it will not be playing football in the upcoming weekend.
It seemed like the absolutely right think to do back then, and it’s hard to think otherwise now. But in light of what’s happened in New Orleans, let’s consider making a comparison.
Two towers are knocked down and almost 3,000 people killed and the NFL cancels its second week of the season.
Meanwhile, four years later, an entire city is washed away and a possible 10,000 could end up being the death toll, yet nobody has even hinted at the NFL doing the same thing it did four years ago. Why not?
I’m not saying it should have. In fact, I didn’t even consider it myself. But why not, I wonder? Is it because what happened this year took place in poor parts of the southern U.S., while four years ago was in New York City? If anyone is thinking that racism is at play in this situation, you might look at this. But I don’t think so – at least I hope not.
Is it because what happened back then was more personal – a terrorist attack vs. a natural disaster – or that people were in fear and couldn’t concentrate on football? Perhaps, but for those who have had loved ones die I doubt they care how it came about – they’re in mourning either way. And the fear didn’t subside in one week.
I think what it really is was that 9/11 came so suddenly, and for the most part people died instantly, that mourning could take place right away. Whereas this year, it was and has been an ongoing disaster, and it’s not clear when mourning can begin. People died gradually and continue to. If the NFL were to cancel the first week of games, there would be no reason why not to cancel the second, or third, or etc.
So the NFL went on in Week 1, and as luck would have it (and I use the word ‘luck’ loosely here), the New Orleans Saints happened to be on the road for Week 1. And as luck would have it (and I use the word ‘luck’ very loosely here), the Saints pulled off an improbably and inspirational win.
When asked what this meant for the citizens of New Orleans, Ernie Conwell, the team spokesman and Christian incidentally, said he was proud that the team was able to bring a little bit of joy in the midst of such grief. Although I doubt it brought that much joy to people who have lost family members and/or homes, I would say it is certainly better than had they not played at all.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
I have to say something about what’s happened in New Orleans. I’ll try to tie it into sports, but only as an afterthought.
My first thought is this: how can you have a city in which you know that if a levee breaks, it’s going to be flooded, and not be better prepared for it? I just don’t get it. Okay, maybe you think it’s unlikely. But why have that gamble? If you think about it, it’s not even really accurate to say that Hurricane Katrina caused the major damage. Yes it was the hurricane that broke the levee. But it was the flooding that caused the damage, which could have happened if there were a terrorist strike on the levee, or a plane crashing into it, or an asteroid hitting it – yes, a little farfetched, but the point is, the potential for such a flood has always been there even in ways for which you’d have no preparation at all!
Should the federal response have been better? Maybe, but is the president supposed to know every potential emergency management situation for each and every city in the entire United States? Isn’t that up to the city itself, and to a lesser degree, the state in which the city belongs? It’s unfathomable that they weren’t better prepared.
And now the New Orleans Saints are possibly going to be playing their home games in San Antonio, Texas, which means it will be like a free test run, because the owner Tom Benson has been considering moving the team there. Is it right to exploit this situation for that purpose? I think not. It certainly seems like it would be a good opportunity to try out that market, or for the NFL to bring a team to LA again and give that a go. But I don’t think we should be looking for any “good opportunities” here, apart from “opportunities” to learn from the tragic events and not make the same mistakes again.
Yes, of course the Saints should play this season. But keep them in the state of Louisiana, like LSU's Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge. It certainly won’t be any solace for those who have lost loved ones. But it won’t feel like one of the city’s staples, the Saints, are running away too.
My first thought is this: how can you have a city in which you know that if a levee breaks, it’s going to be flooded, and not be better prepared for it? I just don’t get it. Okay, maybe you think it’s unlikely. But why have that gamble? If you think about it, it’s not even really accurate to say that Hurricane Katrina caused the major damage. Yes it was the hurricane that broke the levee. But it was the flooding that caused the damage, which could have happened if there were a terrorist strike on the levee, or a plane crashing into it, or an asteroid hitting it – yes, a little farfetched, but the point is, the potential for such a flood has always been there even in ways for which you’d have no preparation at all!
Should the federal response have been better? Maybe, but is the president supposed to know every potential emergency management situation for each and every city in the entire United States? Isn’t that up to the city itself, and to a lesser degree, the state in which the city belongs? It’s unfathomable that they weren’t better prepared.
And now the New Orleans Saints are possibly going to be playing their home games in San Antonio, Texas, which means it will be like a free test run, because the owner Tom Benson has been considering moving the team there. Is it right to exploit this situation for that purpose? I think not. It certainly seems like it would be a good opportunity to try out that market, or for the NFL to bring a team to LA again and give that a go. But I don’t think we should be looking for any “good opportunities” here, apart from “opportunities” to learn from the tragic events and not make the same mistakes again.
Yes, of course the Saints should play this season. But keep them in the state of Louisiana, like LSU's Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge. It certainly won’t be any solace for those who have lost loved ones. But it won’t feel like one of the city’s staples, the Saints, are running away too.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
I finally saw “Million Dollar Baby.” As far as Clint Eastwood movies go, it was pretty good. I don’t know what the fascination is with Clint Eastwood as a director though. Why does Hollywood love him so much? His movies can be so long and drawn out at times.
Take for example “Unforgiven”. He won an Oscar for directing for that too, but what was the message supposed to be? You’re going along in this movie thinking there’s going to be some kind of redemption, and in the end he just kills everyone, even innocent people.
And there always seems to be a scene or two that just seem out of place. In “Space Cowboys,” when Tommy Lee Jones is sent up into nowhere. Or in “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil” with the guy who carries around a bottle with bugs in it everywhere he goes. What was the point of that? In filmmaking, every scene needs to contribute to the overall theme or plot of the movie. Maybe in his mind it did, but I just don’t see it. But I’m not a filmmaker. I’m just someone whose studied it.
Anyway, “Million Dollar Baby” seemed to be pretty well on point, although it did have some drawn out moments. The third act took a little longer than it should have I think, and I’m not really sure exactly what I would call the climax. Nor am I sure what to think of how it ends – or rather, what Eastwood was trying to say, if anything. But it was interesting.
No huge points this time, just some thoughts.
Take for example “Unforgiven”. He won an Oscar for directing for that too, but what was the message supposed to be? You’re going along in this movie thinking there’s going to be some kind of redemption, and in the end he just kills everyone, even innocent people.
And there always seems to be a scene or two that just seem out of place. In “Space Cowboys,” when Tommy Lee Jones is sent up into nowhere. Or in “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil” with the guy who carries around a bottle with bugs in it everywhere he goes. What was the point of that? In filmmaking, every scene needs to contribute to the overall theme or plot of the movie. Maybe in his mind it did, but I just don’t see it. But I’m not a filmmaker. I’m just someone whose studied it.
Anyway, “Million Dollar Baby” seemed to be pretty well on point, although it did have some drawn out moments. The third act took a little longer than it should have I think, and I’m not really sure exactly what I would call the climax. Nor am I sure what to think of how it ends – or rather, what Eastwood was trying to say, if anything. But it was interesting.
No huge points this time, just some thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)