By ERIC FISHER
Jimmie Johnson. Jimmie Johnson. Jimmie Johnson.
OK, now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s look at the race for second place.
Seriously, when NASCAR kicks off its Sprint Cup Series this Sunday with the Daytona 500, the overriding question will be whether anyone can overtake Johnson, who has won the last four NASCAR championships. Johnson is the gold standard. Will he win an unprecedented fifth straight title?
The following is a preview of the 2010 season. We’ll examine the issues, the questions and the drivers. But it will all be in context of “Who can catch Jimmie Johnson?”
Why should we expect anyone to be able to catch Johnson?
If Johnson continues at his current level, nobody will catch him. So why should anyone expect Johnson’s performance will drop off? Johnson and his wife are expecting their first child in July. Maybe, after the baby is born, Johnson’s priorities will change and his unmatched preparation will tail off just a little bit. Yes, we’re grasping at straws. But this is a glimmer of light for Johnson’s competitors.
Can anyone compete with Hendrick Motorsports?
The domination of Hendrick Motorsports extends well beyond Johnson. Hendrick swept the top three spots in the standings last year, with Mark Martin and Jeff Gordon finishing second and third, respectively. Dale Earnhardt Jr., in 25th place, was the only Hendrick driver outside the top three. The fact that Martin and Earnhardt earned front-row starting positions for the Daytona 500 is a good omen for Hendrick. Other teams may narrow the gap, but Hendrick should still be the top team.
Can any of the other Hendrick Motorsports drivers overtake Johnson?
Martin was the only serious challenger to Johnson’s throne last season. Martin, the best driver never to win a NASCAR championship, made a successful return to a full-time schedule by winning five races and finishing as the overall runner-up for the fifth time. At age 51, Martin will once again be a sentimental favorite to capture his first crown.
Gordon is another potential challenger. He had more top 10 finishes (25) than any other driver last year despite battling a sore back. If Gordon can reach victory lane a few more times than last year, when he did it once, he could challenge Johnson. I expect Earnhardt to improve dramatically, but not enough to challenge for the overall title.\
Could any of the non-Hendrick drivers who qualified for the Chase last year challenge Johnson?
Kasey Kahne, Juan Pablo Montoya, Ryan Newman and Brian Vickers all had fine seasons in 2009 and may continue their success in 2010. None of them, however, has the consistency and organization to contend for a championship.
Denny Hamlin, with four wins last year while finishing fifth, was considered a threat to catch Johnson until he tore the ACL in his left knee on Jan. 22. You can drive a car with a torn ACL, especially in the left knee, but it’s difficult to believe the lack of stability in that knee won’t affect his performance.
Carl Edwards, anointed the top challenger before last season, failed to win a race as Roush Fenway Racing struggled. Expect Edwards to win races this year and perhaps regain that mantle as the top challenger. Tony Stewart has the competitiveness and talent to challenge Johnson. Kurt Busch and Greg Biffle have outside shots at being serious contenders.
Could any driver who didn’t qualify for last year’s Chase challenge Johnson?
Kyle Busch is the obvious answer. The mercurial Busch finished 13th last season despite having four wins, as many as anyone except Johnson and Martin. Busch has talent and the drive to succeed. The question is whether he can control his emotions and avoid making too many enemies, especially with NASCAR loosening the reins on aggressive driving.
Will NASCAR’s attempts to create more excitement by allowing more bumping affect Johnson?
The additional leeway given to drivers to aggressively bump and draft in close quarters adds an element of unpredictability. Predictability favors the status quo, which favors Johnson. Unpredictability favors change, which works against Johnson. An accident or two at inopportune times could bring Johnson back to the pack and derail his championship train. NASCAR’s encouragement of more aggressive driving could be the greatest threat to King Jimmie’s championship reign.
Who will qualify for the Chase?
This is a tougher chore than in recent years. Consider that Kyle Busch, Matt Kenseth, Clint Bowyer, Jeff Burton, Kevin Harvick, Martin Truex Jr. and Earnhardt all finished outside the top 12 last season.
Let’s start with Hendrick’s big three of Johnson, Martin and Gordon. Edwards and Stewart should qualify. Kyle Busch is too good not to qualify for the Chase again. The acceptance of aggressive driving perfectly fits Montoya’s style. Hamlin barely hangs in there with his knee injury. The final four spots are filled by Kurt Busch, Biffle, Vickers and … Junior!
Who will win the Sprint Cup?
Johnson adds one for the thumb. But he will be severely tested this year. 3. Mark Martin; 2. Kyle Busch; 1. Jimmie Johnson.
February 17, 2010
COULD ANYBODY CHALLENGE JIMMIE?
January 28, 2010
DON’T BLAME FAVRE
By ERIC FISHER
In honor of the exciting NFC and AFC championship games, we’re going to use a hurry-up offense and execute our two-minute drill.
BLOWN OPPORTUNITY: All the attention focused on Brett Favre’s interception at the end of regulation has obscured some truths from the NFC championship game.
Truth No. 1: The Vikings didn’t lose to the Saints because of Favre. They lost because of lost fumbles, including two inside the 10-yard line, and an inexcusable penalty for 12 men on the field on the play before Favre’s interception, turning a running down into a passing down.
Truth No. 2: The Vikings never would have made it to the NFC championship game without Favre. It’s as if the interception brought all of Favre’s critics back out from under their rocks, as if that one mistake justified their opinion that signing Favre was a mistake. Wrong!
HATIN’ ON PEYTON: Speaking of wrong-headed critics, it’s unfathomable that there are still people out there who don’t consider Peyton Manning one of the greatest quarterbacks in history. Manning has won four MVP awards and has reached his second Super Bowl. But you don’t need statistics to understand Manning’s greatness. Just watch him play.
SPLIT LOYALTIES: Which team will Archie Manning root for in the Super Bowl? I suspect he’ll be rooting for his son and the Colts, but there has to be a part of him that would be pleased if his former team, New Orleans, wins its first Super Bowl.
THE NOT-SO-SUPER BOWL: The Pro Bowl has been moved to this Sunday, one week before the Super Bowl. Eagles fans who want Donovan McNabb run out of town may become furious seeing McNabb participate in the Pro Bowl – if anyone actually watches the Pro Bowl. McNabb, added as an alternate due to the withdrawal of Favre and Drew Brees’ preparation for the Super Bowl, will join Dallas’ Tony Romo as backups to Green Bay’s Aaron Rodgers.
The starting quarterback for the AFC will be Houston’s Matt Schaub, a West Chester East graduate.
BOWLING FOR STARS: The Pro Bowl is the worst of the four major sports’ all-star games. You simply can’t play football half-speed and make it entertaining.
THAT’S ENTERTAINMENT!: There was a time when fans voting a player as undeserving as Allen Iverson into the starting lineup of an all-star game would have bothered me. Not anymore. I’ve come to realize that all-star games, especially the NBA All-Star game, are all about entertainment.
A.I. is certainly entertaining. If the fans want entertainment, give them what they want!
FAILING THE FUTURE: Iverson’s presence in the NBA All-Star game doesn’t bother me, but his presence with the Sixers does bother me. Iverson hasn’t done anything wrong. In fact, I’m happy for him. However, there is no long-term benefit in having Iverson play crucial minutes while Lou Williams sits on the bench.
MIND GAMES: The first person who can explain the logic behind Sixers coach Eddie Jordan’s ever-changing rotation should receive a prize – possibly a Nobel.
IMPOSSIBLE PUZZLE?: Jordan, of course, must work with the roster he’s been given. The Sixers have talent, but they’re like a jigsaw puzzle where all the pieces don’t fit together.
TRADE WINDS: Now that the Flyers have surged back into the playoff picture, it’s time to start thinking about what they must add before the March 3 trade deadline to challenge for the Stanley Cup. With Danny Syvret still sidelined with a shoulder injury and Ryan Parent having had back surgery Monday, it wouldn’t be surprising if general manager Paul Holmgren goes shopping for a defenseman.
Calgary has a nice stockpile of quality defensemen. The Flames’ problem is they can’t score. The Flyers, who traded Joffrey Lupul and lost Mike Knuble in free agency, don’t have an excess of big scorers. Perhaps the Flyers could involve a third team with expendable offensive talent – the Atlanta Thrashers? – in order to acquire one of Calgary’s defensemen.
SIGNS OF THE TIMES: The best sign I saw this past week was at the Australian Open. Numerous fans held up signs stating, “I’ve been with Tiger.”
The runner-up for best sign wasn’t even a sign. It was a T-shirt, spotted at a Flyers game, which read, “You can’t spell Crosby without cry.”
PREDICTIONS: The winner of the Super Bowl will be … you’ll have to wait until next week. But I don’t want to leave you without a prediction for this weekend. I refuse to predict a winner in anything as worthless as the Pro Bowl. Instead, I’ll select dark horse Chris Jericho to win the WWE’s Royal Rumble.
January 15, 2010
TIME TO PULL THE PLUG ON McNABB
By ERIC FISHER
The Eagles couldn’t come up with any answers between their regular-season finale against Dallas and their first-round playoff exit. Consequently, they enter the offseason with more questions.
First and foremost, they must answer the questions about their quarterbacks. Donovan McNabb, Kevin Kolb and Michael Vick are all entering the final year of their respective contracts. All three will not be back next season.
There are other areas that need to be addressed: offensive line, defensive end, linebacker, safety, running back, etc. But the biggest decision will involve the quarterbacks. And when we’re talking about decisions on quarterbacks, we’re really talking about McNabb.
After 11 years, is the Donovan McNabb era over?
McNabb has never been as good as his cheerleaders boasted, nor has he been as bad as his detractors claimed. He’s been very good. At times, he’s been great.
He has never, however, been an elite quarterback. And he certainly isn’t an elite quarterback now. That’s why the Eagles should take the best offer they can get and trade McNabb.
The idea that McNabb is an elite quarterback is dispelled by looking at the other playoff quarterbacks. Peyton Manning (Colts), Drew Brees (Saints), Brett Favre (Vikings), Kurt Warner (Cardinals), Philip Rivers (Chargers), Tom Brady (Patriots) and Aaron Rodgers (Green Bay) are all superior to McNabb. You can even make an argument that Carson Palmer (Bengals) and, heaven forbid, Tony Romo (Cowboys) are better than McNabb.
Of the 12 starting quarterbacks from playoff teams, McNabb ranks, at best, eighth. Critics may rank him as low as ninth or 10th.
The playoff quarterbacks comparison demonstrates that McNabb is not an elite quarterback. Even if one concedes that McNabb used to be a terrific quarterback, he is no longer worth a contract extension.
Now try to imagine McNabb playing next season without a contract beyond the end of the year. McNabb isn’t the most secure guy under normal circumstances. With an expiring contract and competition waiting in the wings, the ultra-sensitive McNabb would be even more insecure.
McNabb has already had his share of quirky moments during 2010. Following the 24-0 loss in the regular-season finale, McNabb answered a question about the Eagles’ youth by saying that, yes, the Eagles showed their youth during the loss to Dallas.
He should have responded that all the Eagles, young and old, played poorly and it takes a team effort to lose 24-0. Instead, McNabb seemingly threw the younger players, including receivers DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin, under the bus. McNabb’s passing of the buck was as off-target as his passes to Jackson and Maclin on deep routes behind the Dallas secondary.
This isn’t to say the losses to the Cowboys were McNabb’s fault. There was plenty of blame to go around. But it’s not McNabb’s job to spread that blame.
Another uncomfortable moment came as McNabb led the Eagles down the tunnel to the field prior to their playoff debacle. Actually, “led” is probably the wrong word. His teammates, including Jackson, appeared embarrassed by McNabb’s air-guitar routine.
McNabb’s pregame routine appeared to be another attempt of trying too hard to act cool and relaxed – as if nothing bothers him – when nothing could be further from the truth. We have repeatedly seen this dynamic in effect at numerous news conferences.
Speaking of news conferences, McNabb’s final quirky off-the-field moment came when he proclaimed that, despite the consecutive losses to the Cowboys, this was a great season. He also resorted to passive-aggressive behavior by sarcastically apologizing for not winning all 16 regular-season games.
Hey, Donovan! You’ve been in Philly long enough to know that any season that ends with two humiliating losses to the Cowboys isn’t a great season. And nobody is complaining that the Eagles didn’t go 16-0. But is one or two victories over playoff teams too much to ask?
It’s time to cut ties with McNabb. It’s been a great run. But it’s over. The Eagles may or may not be better with Kevin Kolb. They won’t, however, be better with McNabb returning as the starter.
My intial reaction to the idea of trading or cutting McNabb was that Andy Reid will never do it. Reid and McNabb seem joined at the hip.
Then I started thinking about the contract situation. When the Eagles restructured McNabb’s contract, they gave him more money, but did not extend it for additional years. The hesitation to extend the contract certainly indicates the Eagles’ reluctance to commit to McNabb. That is a sign that Reid may decide to go in a different direction.
The different direction is Kolb. The third-year quarterback looked good earlier this season when McNabb was injured. It’s time to let Kolb grow with the young receivers and running backs.
Elevating Kolb would also indicate that the Eagles are making a transition to the future. Bringing McNabb back would indicate to Eagles fans that they’re in for more of the same.
A new beginning trumps more of the same.
That’s why it is time for the Eagles to cut ties with Donovan McNabb.
January 8, 2010
THE BOYS ARE BETTER
By ERIC FISHER
The Eagles lost to a better football team on Sunday. It’s that simple.
The Dallas Cowboys beat the Eagles twice this season. That’s not a fluke. Especially when the second game was a 24-0 shellacking.
Unlike Cincinnati or Arizona, which can claim that their rematches this weekend with the Jets and Packers, respectively, will be different than Sunday’s lopsided defeats, the Eagles have no such defense. The Bengals and Cardinals had no incentive to play well. The Eagles did.
If the Eagles had defeated the Cowboys, they would have secured the No. 2 seed in the NFC. They would have had a bye this weekend and would have been guaranteed at least one home playoff game. Now, the Birds must win three road games to reach the Super Bowl.
But, as coaches say every week: one game at a time. First, the Eagles have to get past Dallas.
History says the Eagles will win this Saturday (8 p.m., NBC). Since Andy Reid became head coach, the Eagles are 7-0 in their opening playoff game. During this same stretch, the Cowboys haven’t won a playoff game. While the Eagles were going to five NFC championship games and one Super Bowl, the Cowboys were missing the playoffs or going one-and-done.
Cowboys coach Wade Phillips is 0-4 in playoff games. Quarterback Tony Romo is 0-2.
Unfortunately for the Eagles, Saturday’s game won’t be decided by history. It will be decided by this year’s Cowboys and Eagles. And this year’s two head-to-head meetings are evidence that the Cowboys are better.
Additional evidence supporting the Cowboys’ superiority can be found in the teams’ records. The Cowboys went 4-2 against teams that finished the season with a winning record, including a 3-2 mark against playoff teams (beating the Eagles twice and New Orleans once; losing to San Diego and Green Bay).
The Eagles compiled a 1-4 record against teams that finished the season with a winning record, with the only victory coming against Atlanta (9-7), which was missing quarterback Matt Ryan and running back Michael Turner. Otherwise the Eagles did not defeat a team that finished with a winning record, going winless against playoff teams (losing twice to Dallas and once to the Chargers and Saints).
This isn’t to suggest that the Eagles’ 11-5 record is a house of cards or some sort of mirage. It was real. The Eagles deserve credit for achieving that record despite numerous injuries.
At the same time, however, the Eagles aren’t quite as good as their gaudy record and six-game winning streak made it appear. Their six-game winning streak included narrow victories over the Bears, Redskins and Broncos, as well as a wild 45-38 win over the Giants. Again, the Eagles deserve praise for pulling those games out, but they are a good team capable of producing big plays at crucial moments rather than a terrific team that can dominate opponents.
The problem for the Eagles this Saturday is that they haven’t been able to generate those big plays against the Cowboys. Dallas has allowed just 250 points all season, second only to the Jets, so their ability to bottle up the Eagles isn’t an accident.
Not only has the Cowboys defense stifled the Eagles offense twice this season, but the Cowboys offense moved the ball at will against the Eagles defense on Sunday. The Cowboys ran the ball. The Cowboys threw the ball. The Cowboys controlled the ball.
Unless you believe that Reid brilliantly kept his cards close to his vest, thereby lulling the Cowboys into a false sense of security, the Eagles are in trouble Saturday.
This doesn’t mean the Eagles can’t win. I fully expect them to make a better effort than they did Sunday.
There are several things the Eagles can do in order to prevail. First, they must apply more pressure on Romo. One way to do that is by taking an early lead. An early Eagles lead may force Romo to try to make more big plays, and that should make him more prone to turnovers.
The problem with that scenario is that Romo, whom the Eagles used to be able to rattle, has been largely unflappable this season. One reason for that is the Cowboys’ balanced offense doesn’t put all the weight on his shoulders.
Speaking of balanced offenses, the Eagles should use one to defeat the Cowboys. Reid and offensive coordinator Marty Mornhinweg only called eight running plays Sunday. That’s absurd. A better running game will set up effective play-action fakes that could produce big plays in the passing game. It will also help the Eagles control the clock and keep their defense off the field.
Remember, however, that center Jamaal Jackson’s season-ending knee injury means the Eagles are once again running behind a revamped offensive line. Nick Cole, Max Jean-Gilles and Winston Justice are not a trio anyone envisioned starting for a playoff team.
Does all this mean the Eagles can’t win? Of course not.
The Eagles can win Saturday. But to do so, they must beat a better team.
NHL’S SHOWCASE GAME MORE THAN A CLASSIC
By ERIC FISHER
Standing outside in the cold on January 1 doesn’t sound very appealing, but hundreds of thousands of people entered a drawing to have that opportunity. And they were willing to pay for it.
As the demand for tickets demonstrates, the NHL has found a winner in the Winter Classic.
This year’s game, the third in the series, took place in historic Fenway Park. The game featured the hometown Boston Bruins hosting the Flyers.
To call the Winter Classic a game doesn’t do it justice. It isn’t simply a game. It’s an event. In fact, at times the game appears secondary.
The atmosphere inside Fenway was incredible. The atmosphere outside was amazing as well, with Yawkey Way and Lansdowne St. (behind the Green Monster) closed off to traffic. The other streets surrounding Fenway weren’t closed to traffic, but cars moved slowly and carefully as fans of both teams filled the streets.
The NHL, which frequently is on the receiving end of blunt criticism, deserves nothing except praise for the Winter Classic. The presentation of the event was just about perfect.
I had the privilege of attending this year’s Winter Classic. The following are some observations from Fenway:
CLASSIC DUO: The honorary captains for the game were Boston’s Bobby Orr, considered by many observers to be the greatest defenseman of all-time, and the Flyers’ Bob Clarke, the diabetic kid the Flyers took a chance on, and the move paid off when Clarke developed into the team’s leader, an NHL MVP and the captain of two Stanley Cup championship teams. Having Orr and Clarke take the ceremonial opening face-off was perfect. (No, Clarke didn’t slash or spear Orr.)
COOLEST MOMENT: Aside from seeing Clarke and Orr together on the ice, the coolest moment was when the stealth bomber flew over the field just before the game. The bomber emerged silently from beyond the green monster. You didn’t hear a thing, then, all of a sudden, the plane is upon you, making no sound as it approaches.
CLASSIC FIGHT: There seemed little doubt the Flyers and Bruins would produce the first fight in Winter Classic history. Sure enough, the Flyers’ Dan Carcillo pounded the Bruins’ Shawn Thornton during the first period.
WEATHER REPORT: Despite worries caused by the weather forecasters during the days prior to the game, the weather was perfect. First, there was no rain. Second, the temperature never got warm enough to affect the ice and make playing conditions overly difficult. I didn’t even wear a hat at the game and my gloves stayed in my jacket pocket until in between the second and third periods.
FREQUENT FLYERS: Flyers fans continue to “travel well.” Tons of Flyers fans made the trek to Fenway. Although outnumbered 4:1 or 5:1, Flyers fans more than held their own as the respective fan bases chanted “Let’s Go Flyers!” and “Let’s Go Bruins!” back and forth throughout the game.
COMMON GROUND: Flyers and Bruins fans found something they could agree upon. Alternating “Let’s Go (Flyers/Bruins)!” chants were replaced with derogatory chants about the world champion New York Yankees, disliked by both Flyers and Bruins fans.
COMMON GROUND II: A similar thing happened after the NHL showed commercials on the center field video screen. The commercials featured Penguins center Sidney Crosby, who became the focus of additional negative chants shared by both Bruins and Flyers fans.
FAN FRIENDLY: The Flyers received cheers from Flyers fans every time they entered or exited via the third-base dugout. Most Flyers acknowledged the crowd in one way or another. A few players, most notably Scott Hartnell, even gave out pucks to the crowd.
LORDS OF THE RINGS: Another addition to this year’s festivities was that the United States Olympic Hockey team announced its roster shortly after the game ended.
HARD HITS: Appropriately for a baseball stadium, there was a lot of hitting during the Bruins-Flyers game. With these two blue-collar fan bases, you weren’t expecting the Ice Capades, were you?
HIGH FIVE … OR SIX!: The Flyers were irate after the referees and linesmen missed a fairly obvious too-man-men-on-the-ice penalty on the Bruins during overtime. During overtime, each team is only allowed four players plus a goalie. It appeared the at the Bruins had five – and possibly even six – players on the ice as they moved the puck from their own zone toward the Flyers’ zone and produced the winning goal in the Bruins’ 2-1 triumph.
SAME TIME NEXT YEAR: Rumors are that next season’s Winter Classic will be held in New York, at either Yankees Stadium or the one of the other new stadiums. The likely opponent would be Washington, which features exciting goal-scorer Alex Ovechkin. Other possible sites include Minnesota and Colorado.
The Winter Classic isn’t simply a game. It’s an event. It’s a spectacle.
The atmosphere was incredible. The game was terrific.
Watching the Flyers battle the Bruins outdoors at Fenway Park truly was a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
Who ever imagined that sitting out in the cold on New Year’s Day could be so much fun?
January 2, 2010
A COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF SYSTEM THAT REALLY WORKS
By ERIC FISHER
ERIC FISHER
If you want additional time to build toward the championship game, make the tournament five weeks. If you want to cut the field to eight teams, that’s fine, too.
Can’t be done? Logistics too difficult?
Wrong. It’s already been done – by the NCAA.
Two weeks ago, Villanova celebrated its first national championship after defeating Montana, 23-21, in the NCAA Football Championship Subdivision title game. Aside from the awkward-sounding name, the game was wonderful.
The game was wonderful because it was the culmination of a fantastic season. The championship was the also the culmination of a month-long tournament. That tournament included a 38-28 victory over Holy Cross, a 46-7 stomping of New Hampshire, avenging Villanova’s only loss this season, and a dramatic 14-13 triumph over William & Mary. The road to the title made the championship even sweeter for quarterback Chris Whitney, all-purpose receiver Matt Szczur and the rest of the Villanova Wildcats.
In contrast to Villanova’s month-long journey, Texas and Alabama will have spent a month of doing nothing prior to their national championship game on …
How many of you can complete the previous sentence? What day is the national championship game? Where is the game being played?
The fact that many of you can’t answer those questions demonstrates the problem with the current system in the Bowl Championship Series, or whatever they’re calling Division I football these days. The NCAA might be making a lot of money from the BCS, but this system is damaging overall interest.
Remember when New Year’s Day meant something in college football? There are five bowl games on New Year’s Day this week. There are five more on January 2. Not one of them means a darn thing in terms of the national title picture.
Time for another quiz: Aside from Penn State’s game, how many of the New Year’s Day bowl matchups can you name? How about the five games on Jan. 2?
The reason you can’t name them is, aside from the game involving your local team, the other games are virtually meaningless. Yes, the teams and conferences involved receive money. Yes, there’s pride on the line. Otherwise, nobody cares. The magic of college football on New Year’s Day is gone.
For the record, the New Year’s Day bowls are the Outback (Northwestern vs. Auburn); Capital One (Penn State vs. LSU); Gator (West Virginia vs. Florida State); Rose (Oregon vs. Ohio State); and Sugar (Florida vs. Cincinnati).
There are some intriguing matchups on New Year’s Day. They’re interesting, but meaningless.
The same intrigue isn’t there for the Jan. 2 slate of bowl games: Cotton (Oklahoma State vs. Mississippi); Liberty (East Carolina vs. Arkansas); International (South Florida vs. Northern Illinois); Papajohns.com (Connecticut vs. South Carolina); and Alamo (Michigan State vs. Texas Tech). I know you’re excited about seeing South Florida play Northern Illinois in Toronto!
The most interesting event over the New Year’s holiday weekend, arguably, isn’t even a college football game. It’s the NHL’s Winter Classic, pitting the Flyers against the Boston Bruins in an outdoor game at historic Fenway Park. (Not to mention NFL games with playoff implications.)
The bowl schedule, of course, doesn’t end this weekend. Boise State will face TCU in the Fiesta Bowl on Monday.
How many people are interested in the Fiesta Bowl’s battle of unbeatens? Now, imagine this game was a national semifinal or quarterfinal game. Would you be more interested?
Better yet, imagine TCU or Boise State playing one of the big conference teams in a playoff. The interest level would far exceed the interest in Monday night’s Fiesta Bowl.
The major arguments against a playoff system are the logistics are too difficult and that the student/athletes would miss too much class time.
The second argument is simply laughable. The NCAA holds championship tournaments in every other sport and in every other level of football except its highest level of competition.
Those Villanova student-athletes were able to juggle football and academics. In fact, their tournament took place during the final month of the semester. The end of the BCS tournament would take place during winter vacation. Logistics also aren’t a huge problem in the other playoffs.
The BCS system is all about money. The NCAA and the big conferences that control the BCS make a lot of money from this system.
But the NCAA and big conference schools are short-sighted. They are taking short-term gain (money) over long-term gain (interest).
The national championship game is next Thursday in Pasadena, in case you didn’t know. What if Texas had reached the championship game by edging Ohio State and holding off upstart TCU? What if Alabama got there by surviving a scare from Oregon and thwarting Boise State’s upset bid?
In addition to building interest for the national championship game, a playoff system would crown a true national champion and enhance the champions’ feeling of accomplishment.
Just ask Chris Whitney, Matt Szczur and the rest of the Villanova Wildcats.
December 10, 2009
BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VICK, A.I.
By ERIC FISHER
Two homecomings. Two different reactions – at least from me.
Allen Iverson and Michael Vick made their respective homecomings this week, with Iverson returning to Philadelphia, where he spent the bulk of his NBA career, and Vick returning to Atlanta, where he became a star quarterback for the Falcons.
The return of Iverson brought a smile to my face. Vick’s return to Atlanta left me snarly.
Last week’s column made it clear that I wasn’t in favor of the 76ers bringing back Iverson. From a basketball standpoint, it makes no sense. It takes playing time away from young players and, in a “best-case” scenario, may even cause the Sixers to get a worse draft pick.
Given my objection to re-signing Iverson, you might be surprised that I enjoyed his return. From his tearful news conference to his kissing of the Sixers logo at midcourt after he was introduced Monday, Iverson’s return was outstanding entertainment. Even seeing his mother, Ann, holding up a sign stating “My Son is The Answer” during Wednesday’s game against Detroit made me laugh.
Iverson made a lot of mistakes during his career with the Sixers. Hey, he missed a flight coming to Philly last week for his news conference and didn’t show up until 5:55 p.m. for Monday’s 7 p.m. game against Denver.
Still, Iverson is so genuine that you can’t help but feel good for him. He feels like he’s home. He feels like he’s wanted. Watching him spill his guts during his emotional news conference and bounce around the court like the “little kid” Larry Brown calls him instead of a 34-year-old veteran were heartwarming moments. Regardless of his past mistakes, you couldn’t help but feel happy for Iverson.
The same can’t be said for Vick. Unlike Iverson’s return, which has included two straight losses, Vick returned to Atlanta with an emphatic victory. Not only did the Eagles flatten the Falcons, 34-7, but Vick ran for one touchdown and passed for another.
Vick led the Eagles out to the field, receiving a mixed reaction from the Atlanta crowd. Midway through the game, the reaction had changed to mostly cheers. By the latter stages of the game, the fans were actually chanting “We want Vick!”
Sitting at home, however, I didn’t share that sentiment. I didn’t rejoice with the crowd and Vick’s teammates when he scored his touchdown.
The Vick touchdown didn’t warm my heart. I didn’t view it as a wonderful moment of redemption. Contrary to how I felt about Iverson, I wasn’t even happy for Vick. I wanted to vomit.
Please understand that I’m not saying Vick shouldn’t have received a second chance. He served his prison time. He has the right to earn a living. He has a right to play in the NFL.
But I have the right not to be happy about it. I have the right to wish Vick was making his return in a uniform other than the midnight green of the Philadelphia Eagles.
The difference between Iverson and Vick is the nature of their transgressions. Iverson didn’t practice. Vick sponsored unspeakable cruelty to dogs.
Iverson showed up late. He blew off fan appreciation night. He stabbed coaches in the back. He didn’t always conduct himself professionally away from the court.
Vick ordered the murder of dogs.
I simply can’t get past the heinous nature of Vick’s crimes. Maybe that’s because I still haven’t heard Vick take responsibility for what he’s done. Yes, he says he’s sorry for what happened. He always says that. But he always seems to deflect the responsibility.
He’s sorry he was influenced by that culture. He’s sorry he allowed himself to be sucked into dog fighting. He’s sorry he allowed himself to be led astray. What we never hear, however, is Vick taking full responsibility for his actions.
Vick wasn’t an innocent bystander. He bankrolled the dog-fighting business. And he wasn’t an absentee owner. He visited his property that was home to his dog-fighting venture. He even ordered an under-performing dog to be electrocuted.
Even if he took full responsibility, I don’t know that I could ever fully embrace Vick. I question the character of a human being who could order a dog electrocuted or beaten to death.
Maybe I should get over it. But I can’t. Having seen the images from Vick’s dog-fighting operation and read the accounts of incidents of cruelty in which he was personally involved, I won’t ever be able to root for Vick.
I don’t care if the Eagles are in the Super Bowl and Donovan McNabb is injured. I wouldn’t feel good about Michael Vick leading the Eagles to a coveted Super Bowl triumph.
On the other hand, I find myself rooting for Iverson. The chances of Iverson leading the Sixers to an NBA championship are virtually nil. Right now I’d be happy to see Iverson lead them to a victory. Just one. Eleven losses in a row force you to adjust your goals.
But I find myself rooting for Allen Iverson. I can’t – and won’t – root for Michael Vick.
November 19, 2009
BIRDS HAVEN’T LEARNED FROM HISTORY
By ERIC FISHER
“What do they say? If you keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result, you’re kind of kidding yourself.”
– Eagles president Joe Banner—
Banner uttered this paraphrasing of the famous quote about the definition of insanity following the Eagles’ loss to Arizona in last season’s NFC championship game. Banner later tried to quell the firestorm created by his statement. Although insisting that he thought his quote was unambiguous, Banner stressed that Andy Reid is a “heck of a coach” and that “we can win a championship with those people … we’re very lucky to have them.”
Now let’s fast-forward to this season. Lack of commitment to the running game. Poor clock management. Wasted timeouts. Inability to convert short-yardage situations. An apparent failure to adjust during games.
Or is that a rewind to last season? Or the season before? Or the one before that?
The reason it’s difficult to figure out which year those problems refer to is because the list of problems remains the same year after year.
The Eagles (5-4) aren’t a bad team. In fact, if the season ended today, they would earn one of the NFC’s wild-card berths based on tie-breakers. But the obstacles that have prevented the Birds from winning the Super Bowl remain the same year after year.
Remember the Eagles’ difficulty in converting on short-yardage situations last year? The Eagles addressed that problem by revamping their offensive line. They replaced aging tackles Tra Thomas and Jon Runyan with younger tackles Jason Peters and Stacy Andrews. Stacy Andrews then moved to right guard, switching positions with younger brother Shawn. We all know how that move worked out.
The Eagles also finally brought in a true fullback, Leonard Weaver, to serve as a lead blocker or power runner in short-yardage situations.
So, when the Eagles faced first-and-goal on the 1-yard line Sunday at San Diego, they ran the ball right into the end zone, right? Um, no.
Weaver got stopped on first down. Inexplicably, the Eagles had McNabb throw a low-percentage pass to the far side of the end zone on second down. The pass fell incomplete.
The Eagles trailed 14-0 at this point. Getting seven points was imperative. So in this crucial third-and-goal situation, Reid had Donovan McNabb hand the ball to Eldra Buckley, whose previous NFL rushing experience consisted of three meaningless carries in two blowout wins earlier this season.
Buckley was stopped. To be fair, however, it wasn’t as if he missed the hole. There weren’t any holes. On fourth down, Reid had David Akers kick the short field goal.
As if these decisions didn’t cause enough head-scratching, Reid reversed the pattern later in the half when the Eagles had first-and-goal at the 9-yard line. An incomplete pass on first down was followed by a Brian Westbrook run to the outside on second down, resulting in no gain. Why would you run on second-and-goal from the 8 when you didn’t run on second-and-goal from the 1?
The offensive linemen change. The fullback changes. The ballcarriers change. But one thing remains the same: the Eagles continue to have difficulty in short-yardage situations.
So what’s the common denominator? The play-calling.
Play-calling is a huge problem for the Eagles. And it’s a much larger problem than these two series.
Reid seems determined to prove that he can win a Super Bowl with a pass-first offense. Game after game, year after year, Reid abandons the running game and relies overwhelmingly on the passing game.
The Eagles have experienced success using Reid’s formula. The attempted comeback during Sunday’s 31-23 loss to the Chargers was a good example. The Eagles offense was most effective when McNabb was throwing all over the field to tight end Brent Celek and receivers DeSean Jackson, Jeremy Maclin and Jason Avant.
There are times, however, when an NFL team must be able to run the ball. A team must be able to run the ball when it’s ahead. That takes time off the clock. Good teams also must be able to convert short-yardage situations.
How can the Eagles be expected to convert in short-yardage situations when they don’t run the ball very often? Linemen who spend almost the entire game dropping back in pass protection are expected to suddenly drive-block and push defenders backward.
You might think the connection between the paucity of running plays called and the lack of success in short-yardage situations would occur to Reid. Wrong. There was a glimmer of hope when, following the disgraceful 13-9 loss to Oakland, Reid admitted that maybe the Eagles should have run the ball more often. That hope was quickly extinguished.
Reid keeps returning to the same formula. Game after game. Year after year. Not surprisingly, the results remain the same.
There are only two ways the results could change. Either the coach changes his philosophy or the Eagles change coaches. Neither is likely to happen.
Why not? To paraphrase another famous quote, the Eagles haven’t learned from history, so they seem destined to repeat it.
November 11, 2009
SIMILAR PROBLEMS HAUNT PSU, BIRDS
By ERIC FISHER
To borrow an infamous line from former NFL coach Dennis Green, maybe “they are who we thought they were.”
Penn State and the Philadelphia Eagles both lost critical games last weekend. Both games were at home. Both were against archrivals.
The similarities, however, don’t end there. These losses may also have revealed these teams to be what many of us expected.
The football season is filled with peaks and valleys. A monumental victory provides us with a one-week high. A loss sends us tumbling down into the depths of despair.
Our teams rarely are as good as we think they are after an exhilarating triumph. And they’re rarely as bad as we think they are after a bitter defeat. The truth often can be found somewhere in the middle.
Penn State is not as bad as it appeared during Saturday’s 24-7 loss to Ohio State. If the Nittany Lions were that bad, they wouldn’t be 8-2.
The loss, however, did expose problems. The Nittany Lions, much like the Eagles, aren’t consistent on offense. Also like the Eagles, the Nittany Lions’ problems on offense start with their offensive line.
Continuity is a huge factor for offensive lines. The line must work as a cohesive unit. The longer the members of the offensive line play together, the better the line usually performs. The more players are shuffled in and out of the lineup and shifted from position to position, the more difficulty the offensive line has in developing consistency.
Penn State’s offensive line consists of five players new to their starting positions. Even the two returning starters, center Stefen Wisniewski and left tackle Dennis Landolt, are playing new positions, with Wisniewski moving from guard and Landolt flipping from right to left tackle to protect quarterback Daryll Clark’s blind side.
The offensive line has played well in stretches, but it hasn’t developed consistency. Several players have started at guard and right tackle. All those elements make it difficult to develop consistency. That’s why the line looks good in stretches, but struggles against better opponents.
The offensive line’s struggles are evident in the running game. Even if Stephfon Green’s ankle problems are taken into account, the running game has declined since last season. That makes it easier for opposing defenses to focus on Clark and the passing game. Clark doesn’t have as much time to make a play, which makes it more difficult for the receivers to get open.
Remember, the Nittany Lions lost receivers Derrick Williams, Jordan Norwood and Deon Butler to graduation. They lost starting offensive linemen A.Q. Shipley, Rich Ohrnberger and Gerald Cadogan. They lost defensive ends Aaron Maybin, Maurice Evans and Josh Gaines, as well as the entire starting secondary.
So maybe two losses is about right for the Nittany Lions. I thought they had an opportunity to be a one-loss team and qualify for a BCS bowl, but a two-loss season is probably about right. In other words, the Nittany Lions are who we thought they were.
Whether the Eagles are who you thought they were depends on who you thought they were. If you had Super Bowl aspirations or envisioned the Eagles as a 12-win team, you’re probably disappointed (and a bit delusional).
If, however, you viewed the Eagles as an inconsistent team that may struggle to sneak into the playoffs, as they did last year, then the Eagles are who you thought they were.
One week, as against the Giants, the Birds look terrific. Another week, as against the awful Raiders, the Birds look like roadkill. That is why they are 5-3 despite a first-half schedule that included Washington, Oakland, Kansas City and Tampa Bay.
The Eagles’ inconsistency was not unexpected. As I wrote before the season, “The Eagles have too many changes, from defensive coordinator to middle linebacker to most of the offensive line, to be consistent.”
Like the Nittany Lions, the Eagles’ problems begin with their offensive line. Three of their five projected starting offensive linemen were different than last year. They replaced veteran tackles Jon Runyan and Tra Thomas with Jason Peters and Shawn Andrews. That plan lasted until Andrews hurt his back during a conditioning run on the first day of training camp.
The situation got worse when starting guard Todd Herremans suffered a stress fracture in his foot. Stacy Andrews, Shawn’s brother, has struggled in his return from a knee injury and is now a very expensive backup guard.
Center Jamaal Jackson has been the only constant on the Eagles offensive line. Is it any wonder that the offense has been inconsistent?
The team has been inconsistent, but some of the problems experienced during Sunday night’s 20-16 loss to Dallas are constants. The Eagles still have difficulty converting in short-yardage situations and covering tight ends, time management is an ongoing problem and the Michael Vick/wildcat experiment is a bust.
But the inconsistency wasn’t unexpected. The only thing you can expect with the Eagles is that you never know what to expect.
Like the Nittany Lions, the Eagles are who we thought they were.
November 5, 2009
PITCHING HURT PHILS IN SERIES
By ERIC FISHER
Before we dissect the Phillies and their World Series performance, let’s take a few moments to celebrate their tremendous season.
OK. That’s long enough. (Just kidding!)
Disappointment over the ending is understandable. But we should remember that, by reaching the World Series in consecutive years, these Phillies did something that no previous team in franchise history had accomplished.
All right. Those are enough platitudes. Now it’s time to talk about what went wrong and how to fix it.
The bottom line is pitching. Perhaps you’ve heard me say this before. The importance of pitching is a theme I’ve been focusing on since the Phillies acquired Cliff Lee at the trade deadline.
How important is pitching? Think of it this way: How would the Phillies have done during the playoffs without Lee and Pedro Martinez, neither of whom was with the club the first half of the season?
The importance of pitching is also evident by looking at the Yankees. With the exception of Game 5, when the Phillies chased A.J. Burnett early, the Yankees received very good starting pitching.
Left-handers CC Sabathia and Andy Pettitte kept the Phillies’ left-handed bats tied up in knots. Chase Utley had a terrific series, but Ryan Howard set a World Series record by striking out 13 times and Raul Ibanez wasn’t a major factor. Of all the Phillies’ regular starters, only Utley, Ibanez, Carlos Ruiz and Jayson Werth hit above .250 during the Series.
By contrast, with the exception of Lee’s two outings and Martinez in Game 2, the Phillies’ starters were either mediocre or poor. You’re not going to win the World Series with three quality starts in six games.
The other aspect of the pitching staff is the bullpen. Once again, the Phillies came up short.
If there was a defining moment in the World Series, it was the ninth inning of Game 4. The Phillies had just tied the game in the bottom of the eighth on Pedro Feliz’s dramatic home run. Emotions were high. The crowd was roaring. The momentum appeared to be on the Phillies’ side.
Then Brad Lidge entered the game. I’m still puzzled as to why manager Charlie Manuel didn’t leave Ryan Madson in the game, especially because the pitcher’s spot in the batting order was coming up in the bottom of the ninth, but that’s a separate issue. The problem here is that Lidge gave up three runs and the Phillies lost, 7-4.
Instead of tying the series, the Phillies fell into a 3-1 hole. That’s a difficult hole to climb out of against a team as good as the Yankees.
This isn’t meant to single out Lidge. As a whole, the Phillies bullpen didn’t consistently maintain leads or keep the Phillies in the game.
Consistency is what you need from your bullpen. Yes, there will occasionally be blown saves or bad outings. Nobody’s perfect – except Lidge last season. But there was far too much uncertainty in the Phillies bullpen this season.
Whether Lidge can return to his old form will be a key to the Phillies’ fortunes next season. If Lidge returns to his role as the anchor, the rest of the bullpen can fall into place. Madson can resume his role as the “bridge to Lidge.” Having a defined role and a reduced workload from this season should be beneficial to Madson.
The rest of the bullpen needs work. Assuming Scott Eyre recovers from his impending elbow surgery, he is a valuable left-hander. The big question is whether J.C. Romero will regain his effectiveness. If not, the Phillies need another left-hander in the bullpen.
Manuel is confident that Lidge can once again be a solid closer. He also said he’s confident that Cole Hamels can be a good pitcher once again.
Hamels, a playoff hero in 2008, became a whipping boy in 2009. He followed up an inconsistent regular season with a poor postseason. One reason for the change may have been the huge increase in innings he pitched in 2008 compared to previous years.
If Hamels returns to his 2008 form, the Phillies’ rotation could be outstanding. They’ll have Lee for a full season. Add Joe Blanton and J.A. Happ to the mix, and the Phillies have an excellent rotation.
The Phillies must improve their bench. Nobody the Phillies send up to pinch-hit scares the opposition. Along with bullpen insurance, upgrading the bench is a major offseason priority.
Otherwise, there isn’t much to fix. With Howard, Utley and Jimmy Rollins, the Phillies have a terrific nucleus. I’m not sure you can count on Jayson Werth to hit 36 home runs next year, but he’s developed into a very good player. Ibanez, Ruiz, Feliz and Shane Victorino all make solid contributions.
The Phillies are still in their prime. They could get back to the World Series again next season. Or the year after that. Or the year after that.
We can’t allow our disappointment over a World Series defeat to overshadow the fact that this may be the best Phillies team of all-time.
