[Previous entry: "Pictures 31: No! No! No! No!"] [Next entry: "Pictures 32: No! No! No! No! No!"]
02/07/2005: "Mix It Up"
When I was in fifth grade, I had a very vivid dream that I still remember, even though I only had it once.
I was on the Giants, in a key game against the Cowboys. I was the quarterback and threw for the winning touchdown as time expired. The next thing I knew, I was kissing the girl that I had a crush on at the time.
Yes, that was the moment I knew.
I knew that I was a hopeless dreaming sports fan.
The second part of the dream was that I was still on the Giants, only now we were wearing Giants-themed basketball uniforms and playing against the Boston Celtics. Why the Celtics? I don't know, and that's not the point anyway. And the stupid logical part of my brain wouldn't even let me dream of leading the Giants past the Celtics in basketball.
But I was thinking about it after the Super Bowl. What if the Patriots were a basketball team? Or a baseball team? The Patriots were 14-2 this year. Project that out over a 162-game baseball season and they were 140-20, presuming a couple of rainouts.
That's simple enough math, but what I got to thinking is that the Patriots, as a baseball team, would never have gone 140-20, or even 140-22. The theory that I came up with is that if you're going to say that each football game is worth 10 baseball games, the one win on Sunday cannot simply be equal to a baseball team going 10-0.
So how do you break up the football games into 10 pieces?
Trying to look at it as coldly and analytically as possible, I think a football game can be broken down into matchups. Baseball can kind of work this way if you're trying to project a season -- for instance, I think the Mets will lose games this year because of weak middle relief that will cost them dearly when their injury-prone starting pitchers can't go deep into games. Maybe this will be only one out of 20 games, but over the course of a 162-game season, that adds up to eight or nine losses, potentially the difference between making the playoffs and spending October at home. It could also be the difference between finishing above and below .500, depending on how the other parts of the team work. You get the point.
The matchups that define a football game are the quarterbacks against each other, the coaches matching wits, the offensive line against the opponent's defensive line and linebackers and the receivers against the secondary. Thanks to the Broncos producing a new "star" back every year behind an excellent offensive line and the Patriots winning a Super Bowl with Antowain Smith as their feature back, I fully believe that in most cases, it's the line, not the running backs, who create an effective rushing game. If you have one of the top five or bottom five backs in the league, talent-wise, it'll make a difference. (The Patriots did have that this year in Corey Dillon).
I'd say, and I'm flying by the seat of my pants now, that the quarterbacks are worth "two games" apiece, the coaches three, each side of the line one, each side of the passing game one. That leaves an extra "game" to be claimed by a star running back, linebacker or something else.
With Bill Belichick at the helm -- and we'll see how much Charlie Weis and Romeo Crennel had to do with this next season -- the Patriots have been a cinch to win the coaching matchup every week. They consistently have the best game plans. So, every week, they start out up 3-0 or 2-1. That's a huge edge.
The next obvious category is the Patriots' secondary, which was not good this year because of all the injuries. They did play well, but it was a worry point every week, so let's just say that it knocked them down to 3-1 or 2-2 on a weekly basis.
The Patriots don't have any top wide receivers, but everyone they do have is very capable. Deion Branch, David Givens, Troy Brown... even the tight ends, Christian Fauria and Daniel Graham, catch all the balls that are thrown their way. They're not gamebreakers, for the most part, but they get the job done, and they can exploit mismatches by overwhelming an opponent with their depth. Branch was wide open all night last night because the Patriots had too many No. 2 receivers and the Eagles didn't have enough No. 1 and 2 guys in the secondary, even with three Pro Bowlers. If it's an edge against the Eagles, with perhaps the best secondary in the league, it's an edge against anyone. Make it 4-1 or 3-2 for the Patriots.
There's a reason Tom Brady never gets sacked, a reason that he always seems to have all day to find one of those wide open receivers. It's the Patriots' offensive line. Again, not the most talented group in the league, but one that plays well together, reads blitzes with amazing efficiency and sets up the running game. After what they did to the Steelers, the best defense in the league this season, I'm again willing to give this battle to the Patriots every week, so it's 5-1 or 4-2.
Then there's the defensive line and linebackers. They're pretty scheme-oriented on the Patriots -- they can play well if the game plan is good, but they can also be handled. It's a toss-up. Look at the Colts game in Week 1 and the Colts game in the playoffs. I'd say now that the Patriots lead either 6-1, 5-2 or 4-3.
Which brings us to Brady, whose position is a three-gamer. As talent goes, I'll admit that he's in the Top 10 in the NFL. I don't think I've ever denied that. I've just said that he's overrated, which will be true of anyone who is compared so often to Joe Montana. If we're talking a three-game series, Montana was 3-0 or 2-1 every single time, usually 3-0. Brady isn't.
Brady is 0-3 against Peyton Manning on talent every time, but Manning slips on his mental game. In Week 1, with Tony Dungy able to perhaps steal one of three from Belichick, the Patriots probably had about a 4-3 edge on the Colts. But Belichick steals one back from Manning on the mental thing, letting Brady get to 2-1, a 5-5 tie. Enter Adam Vinatieri and the Patriots win.
OK, I mixed it up there. But these things aren't cut and dry, especially when I'm coming up with them at 3 or 4 in the morning.
But, if I had to guess, over a 162-game season, I think the Patriots probably go somewhere around 92-70. The 49ers of the 1980s and the Steelers of the 1970s were probably going about 108-54.
My points?
1. The Patriots are a darn good team, proof that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
2. The Patriots wouldn't beat the great teams of the past that could dominate in all aspects of the game. The way the NFL is set up now doesn't allow that kind of thing. The key is to be above average everywhere, with one great asset on your side. For the Patriots, it's the coach.
3. Comparing Tom Brady to Joe Montana borders on insanity. Montana was great enough that even in the twilight of his career, he could lift the Chiefs into contention for the AFC title. Put Brady in my dream shoes, on the Giants, behind their offensive line and running Tom Coughlin's playbook, and see how he does.
The other funny thing is that, as far as quarterback rating goes, Brady had his best Super Bowl last night and wasn't MVP. He clearly didn't deserve it against the Rams and it probably should have been Branch last year with his 10 receptions, or maybe Vinatieri.
Either way, it's over now, and Brady will be forever on yapped about as a great quarterback, even though my lifetime of watching football tells me that he's not, and the Patriots will be called a great team, even though my lifetime of watching football tells me what I just told you, that they're a group of above average players with an excellent coach -- a hell of an achievement in the salary cap era, but hardly among the all-timers.
But the most important thing about the Super Bowl was that it marked another day closer on the calendar to pitchers and catchers. A week and a day to go!
3 PM Note: I deleted a small part of what I originally had written here, because I thought it was weird, unrelated to the rest of the entry and a little more personal than I usually like to be in this space. Please forgive my late edit, and please forgive the earlier unrelated rambling. Thank you.
About
