Articles from around the Web
PDF VERSION NOW DISCOUNTED OVER 30%
Click here to buy PDF version.
Click here to buy PDF version
Official Account: @fboutsiders
Scott Kacsmar: @FO_ScottKacsmar
Ben Muth: @FO_WordofMuth
Aaron Schatz: @FO_ASchatz
Vince Verhei: @FO_VVerhei
-- plus --
Bill Connelly: @SBN_BillC
J.J. Cooper: @jjcoop36
Cian Fahey: @Cianaf
Brian Fremeau: @bcfremeau
Tom Gower: @ThomasGower
Andrew Healy: @AndHealy
Rivers McCown: @RiversMcCown
Chad Peltier: @CGPeltier
Matt Waldman: @MattWaldman
Rob Weintraub: @robwein
03 Feb 2014
PK on Seattle's stomping and the Hall of Fame voting. And yes, he did title a column "Boom!"
Posted by: Rivers McCown on 03 Feb 2014
9 comments, Last at
04 Feb 2014, 7:11pm by
Agree with several things PK has to say:
1) Avril really was a better candidate for MVP, though it's not something to be too militant about
2) His take on the Hall of Fame voting is interesting, and I agree with his ranking of the major WR candidates. Was surprised to see Reed at the front of the queue.
3) Completely agree about Philip Seymour Hoffman. And "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" is a great film. Highly recommend it.
4) And yes, the Pats should bring back Edelman. I suspect they will. Jettisoning Welker was a personal decision for Belichick, not a business decision. They could have afforded him. Belichick won't make the same exact mistake two years in a row. (Right?)
Don't think I agree about the serving temperature for Guinness, though. The English and Irish serve beers at warmer temperatures than Americans do. For the most part that's because colder temperatures help hide the lack of flavor. That's not necessary for Guinness.
I'm very tired of commentary like the following:
"Look, what happened here is the NFL got lucky. Very lucky." (with respect to the weather).
Is football played in the cold? Yes/No
Is football played in all sorts of weather? Yes/No
Is the ability to play in the cold/weather a valued skill for a football player? Yes/No
I don't see how you could answer yes to those questions, and not think that, on occasion, the championship game should test those skills. AND, you can't say "weather shouldn't determine the outcome of the game", because by saying that you are already saying that it SHOULD determine the outcome, just in the way that you happen to prefer.
The problem with that analysis is simply this: Yes, *some* football games are played in the cold, in bad weather, and so on. The vast majority of them are not. When you factor in domed stadiums, the months that football is played, and so on, while every so often you do get a game like this year's Philly/Detroit snowball fight, or teams trying to pass in a monsoon, the point of playoff football, and specifically the championship, is to (as closely as possible) determine the best team in football by having them play head-to-head.
Sure, having a team set up to be able to play in cold weather or inclement conditions is a benefit. If Detroit was better in the snow, they'd have one more win than they did. Philly being good in the snow helped them to an NFC East championship.
But the championship game of football should be, as best as possible, an evaluation of the totality of the football team. No GM goes into the season saying, "I'm going to build my team for playing in the snow because the Super Bowl might be in a blizzard." It's no different than if they played the game in a dome but said, "Okay, for this game we're going to have a special rule; no passes can be thrown farther than 30 yards in the air." Weird-weather games are entertaining to watch, but they're simply not a way to evaluate the totality of a football team, and people want championships to be settled as best as possibly can by the totality of football teams.
A single elimination tournament is a much bigger problem when determining the best team in a year than snow has ever been.
Exactly. No sane football fan should ever make the mistake that the Super Bowl winner is always the best team in any given year.
Because we can't just get a quarter or a sixth of the game to be played in said conditions, I think it is perfectly fair to have a quarter or a sixth of Superbowls played in them.
The playoffs aren't even about determining who is the best team, its about having an entertaining tournament, and it is silly that when the final game actually mirrors what a lot of the rest of the tournament looks like, all the media folk crap their pants because they want a trip to Florida.
Hell, I think its stupid that the Big Ten keeps going to California all the time as its Bowl Game, why not have USC play in Madison on New Years sometime...?
When you say "vast majority", you must be a fan of a dome or warm weather team. A cold weather team plays at least a quarter of its games in adverse conditions, and more if division opponents (or that year's division matchup) have open cold stadiums. By my count, roughly half the NFL teams play in open stadiums in non-perpetual summer climates, which means about 25% of games have a chance of having weather impact them. That's a substantial percentage.
I don't get how he can rank Pittsburgh above Baltimore, Miami and the Jets, and then point out that they are way over the cap? What is the point of having a Fine Fifteen the day after the Super Bowl unless it is about next year?
The Vikings need offensive line help, while the Bears, Lions, and Packers have significant defensive concerns.
See All XP | NFL XP | College XP
© Football Outsiders, Inc. // Site powered by Stein-Wein // Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties