OK, enough, we get it: the Yankees are bullies, don't they know that the economy stinks right now, it's totally unfair, the Yankees are going to buy another World Series.
I'll admit, it's getting tougher and tougher to defend the Yankees as this off-season shopping spree goes on, but I'm going to try.
First off, concerning my post on Mark Teixera last week, there is a big part of me that still wishes he had gone to his hometown Orioles. Am I happy to see him wearing pinstripes? Of course. He is a hard-working, exciting ballplayer; the kind of player I think young kids should emulate. But like I said last week, it would have been a good story had he taken less money and gone to his hometown team.
Next, I am sick and tired (and it's only been one day) of reading articles that say Teixera is despicable and that all he cares about is the money. How dare these people? He has earned the right to sign wherever he wants and for how much he wants after putting up excellent numbers and playing stellar defense over his career. It is not the player's fault that teams are throwing ridiculous sums of money at him.
Now, here's where it gets tough. I tried to argue a few weeks ago that the Yankees spending a ton of money on a player is simply the way things are. They have more money than any other team, and they intend on spending it. The best ways I could defend this are a) they sometimes makes very poor decisions on who they choose to throw money at, and b) they have not won a world series this decade despite all the money they have spent. However, with the team now holding the 4 highest paid players in all of baseball, and committing almost a half a billion dollars to 3 players in this off-season I am finding it difficult to continue to justify my reasons.
Nothing has really changed in my argument. This is simply how things are, but there does seem to be a sense of unfairness to it all when the top 3 free agents all go to the same team in the matter of a week. It just doesn't feel right.
Despite my uneasy feeling though, I still think people should stop with this ridiculous chorus of "The Yankees bought the World Series." Just because they're the favorites now doesn't mean they're going to win it all next October. This statement pings of jealousy. "Oh, the Yankees only won this year because they bought all the best players. They didn't really win the World Series." Oh, really? Then let's not even play the next season. Let's just give the Yankees the trophy now and call it a day. And I didn't hear these people chirping when the Yankees came in third last year. There weren't too many chants of "Oh, they bought 3rd place this year." This absolutely absurd whining needs to stop NOW.
Ok, deep breaths Michael. I digress....
Baseball executives are split on how they feel about all these signings. Some say that it's bad for baseball and that it's impossible for other teams to survive in this climate. Others, like Toronto GM J.P. Ricciardi, said that teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs are great for baseball. This coming from a GM who shares a division with the Yanks and Red Sox. He commented this morning on WFAN in NY that these teams always sell out stadiums when they are on the road, they bring lots of attention and excitement to the sport, they make other teams really work hard at developing good ball players and building great teams, and he said he doesn't hear anyone complaining when the Yankees pay their big luxury tax to the other teams.
Clearly this is a divisive issue among fans and MLB personnel alike. I still defend my Yankees, but I have to admit, I don't do it with that same sense of righteousness that I did one week ago.
But I still don't want to hear anyone complaining that they bought the World Series if they win it all in '09. Someday soon, the rules might change when it comes to player contracts and salary caps, but until that day comes, the way the Yankees do business is just how things are.
And if you disagree....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
Heads or Tails
What a game last night!! Giants beat the Panthers in OT 34-28 for homefield advantage in the playoffs. It was a dramatic, intense, back and forth, electrifying game, and all I can say is this: thank god both teams touched the ball in overtime. As I sat watching the game as regulation time expired all I could think about was how this game could be determined by the flip of a coin.
I mean, seriously, could there be a dumber rule in all of sports? I know that not every overtime game is won on that first possession, but the fact that a team can win a game without the other team even touching the ball is possibly the stupidest concept ever created. I simply do not understand the rationale behind this. Two teams battle it out for 4 quarters. Guys have played their butts off fighting for every last yard and the game is now potentially decided by whether a shiny piece of metal comes up one way or the other? Ridiculous.
But rather than continue to complain, I will offer my 2 solutions.
1) No Sudden Death Overtime:
This one is pretty self explanatory.
Right now, all you have to do to win the game is kick a field goal. Drive your team within the other team's 35 yard line and you've got a pretty good chance of winning the game. Teams aren't compelled to go for the end zone. They just want to get it close enough so their place-kicker can send everyone home. And field goals aren't exactly difficult to come by. Even in low-scoring affairs, you're bound to see at least a few field goals kicked.
So just play the Overtime as if it were the 5th quarter. If the game is still tied at the end of the 15 minutes....so be it, the game ends in a tie.
I don't love this solution because ties are more likely than they are in the current format, and no one likes to see a game end in a tie. Which is why I would like to see my next solution implemented....
2) Do it Like the College Kids (With a slight modification):
The NCAA really got it right when it comes to OT. There is nothing more exciting than how college football determines a winner in overtime. Each team gets the ball 1st and 10 at the opponent's 25 yard line. The team with the ball first tries to score, then the other team tries to match or out-do what the first team did, and you repeat the process until there is a winner. There is an emphasis on both offense and defense. There is drama and strategy. How exciting is it when that first team is faced with a 4th and 1 and needs to decide whether to settle for a field goal, or go for it and risk not getting any points at all?
What I really like most about this system though, is the equanimity of opportunity. Both teams are guaranteed a shot at the ball, and both the offense and the defense have to do their jobs.
Here is my one small tweak to what they do in college. In the NCAA, the ball is placed on the 25 yard line. That means if the offense were to go absolutely nowhere in their first 3 downs, they could take a shot at a 42 yard field goal, which in college is definitely not a gimme. In the NFL however, a 42 yarder is a very make-able kick. So I suggest moving the ball back to the 35 yard line. This would set up a potential 52 yarder if the team goes 0 yards in their 3 plays. Definitely not an automatic kick, but still make-able. All the same rules apply from there.
I think it would make the overtime much more exciting, and never again would you have to hear someone say, "We got screwed! We never even touched the ball in overtime!!" And all because of a flip of a coin.
And if you disagree....go ahead an tell me I'm wrong.
I mean, seriously, could there be a dumber rule in all of sports? I know that not every overtime game is won on that first possession, but the fact that a team can win a game without the other team even touching the ball is possibly the stupidest concept ever created. I simply do not understand the rationale behind this. Two teams battle it out for 4 quarters. Guys have played their butts off fighting for every last yard and the game is now potentially decided by whether a shiny piece of metal comes up one way or the other? Ridiculous.
But rather than continue to complain, I will offer my 2 solutions.
1) No Sudden Death Overtime:
This one is pretty self explanatory.
Right now, all you have to do to win the game is kick a field goal. Drive your team within the other team's 35 yard line and you've got a pretty good chance of winning the game. Teams aren't compelled to go for the end zone. They just want to get it close enough so their place-kicker can send everyone home. And field goals aren't exactly difficult to come by. Even in low-scoring affairs, you're bound to see at least a few field goals kicked.
So just play the Overtime as if it were the 5th quarter. If the game is still tied at the end of the 15 minutes....so be it, the game ends in a tie.
I don't love this solution because ties are more likely than they are in the current format, and no one likes to see a game end in a tie. Which is why I would like to see my next solution implemented....
2) Do it Like the College Kids (With a slight modification):
The NCAA really got it right when it comes to OT. There is nothing more exciting than how college football determines a winner in overtime. Each team gets the ball 1st and 10 at the opponent's 25 yard line. The team with the ball first tries to score, then the other team tries to match or out-do what the first team did, and you repeat the process until there is a winner. There is an emphasis on both offense and defense. There is drama and strategy. How exciting is it when that first team is faced with a 4th and 1 and needs to decide whether to settle for a field goal, or go for it and risk not getting any points at all?
What I really like most about this system though, is the equanimity of opportunity. Both teams are guaranteed a shot at the ball, and both the offense and the defense have to do their jobs.
Here is my one small tweak to what they do in college. In the NCAA, the ball is placed on the 25 yard line. That means if the offense were to go absolutely nowhere in their first 3 downs, they could take a shot at a 42 yard field goal, which in college is definitely not a gimme. In the NFL however, a 42 yarder is a very make-able kick. So I suggest moving the ball back to the 35 yard line. This would set up a potential 52 yarder if the team goes 0 yards in their 3 plays. Definitely not an automatic kick, but still make-able. All the same rules apply from there.
I think it would make the overtime much more exciting, and never again would you have to hear someone say, "We got screwed! We never even touched the ball in overtime!!" And all because of a flip of a coin.
And if you disagree....go ahead an tell me I'm wrong.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Deep In the Heart of Tex
I was a little disappointed to read today that the Baltimore Orioles have fallen behind in the Mark Teixera sweepstakes. People who know me may ask why I care considering that I'm a Yankee fan. And if you think it's because I'm worried he'll go to the Red Sox, you're mostly wrong. Sure, I don't want to see him in Boston, but the reason why I'm sad that he's likely not going to the Orioles is because it has been well documented that the Orioles are Mark Teixera's hometown team.
Before I go any further I will readily admit all of these issues:
1) Teixera has the right to sign anywhere he wants
2) He has earned the right to a large contract because of his stellar play
3) He has the right to choose a team that is already a contender
I think part of me wants to see him go to his hometown team because so many of us who played baseball growing up dreamed of playing for our favorite team and hitting the winning home run that won our team the world series. There is something very romantic about putting on the uniform of your childhood heroes (and getting paid handsomely to do it -- though I guarantee there are those of us that would do it for free). So now we see a major leaguer with a chance to do just that. And not only play for his hometown team, he could be the savior of his hometown team that has struggled so mightily in the last few years, and is in desperate need of that major superstar that will help them back on the path to contendership.
You know that the fans of Baltimore are praying that this guy will give them a "hometown discount." It's so hard to bring a superstar to a floundering club, especially if they feel no special tie to the organization, and it's particularly frustrating for the fans. And not only will they lose out on Teixera, but they will in a way lose out on the other free agents who might have signed in Baltimore if they see a superstar like Teixera signing there. A player like Tex automatically gives the organization more credibility.
Believe me, as an Islander fan I understand this. Right now, no big name player wants to play for the Islanders. They are a very bad team that is in serious rebuilding mode. They play in an old building with a very localized fan base. When the hockey off-season rolls around, I can guarantee you that the major free agents aren't going to have the Islanders at the top of their list....however, if there was a great player who grew up on Long Island, rooting for the Islanders, and decided to come to the organization as free agent, it would help gain the team a measure of respect, and maybe we could lure some other good players, instead of the leftovers that nobody else wants (I really hope this blog reaches Chris Higgins).
In a sports world right now where everyone wants to play for the big market teams, or go to the highest bidder, it would be nice to see a guy go back to his roots. Who said you can't go home?
Tex has every right in the world to sign where he wants and take whatever contract he wants, but the romantic in me would like to see him go play for the hometown team, and be the hero that I'm sure he dreamed of being as a kid.
And if you disagree...go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
Before I go any further I will readily admit all of these issues:
1) Teixera has the right to sign anywhere he wants
2) He has earned the right to a large contract because of his stellar play
3) He has the right to choose a team that is already a contender
I think part of me wants to see him go to his hometown team because so many of us who played baseball growing up dreamed of playing for our favorite team and hitting the winning home run that won our team the world series. There is something very romantic about putting on the uniform of your childhood heroes (and getting paid handsomely to do it -- though I guarantee there are those of us that would do it for free). So now we see a major leaguer with a chance to do just that. And not only play for his hometown team, he could be the savior of his hometown team that has struggled so mightily in the last few years, and is in desperate need of that major superstar that will help them back on the path to contendership.
You know that the fans of Baltimore are praying that this guy will give them a "hometown discount." It's so hard to bring a superstar to a floundering club, especially if they feel no special tie to the organization, and it's particularly frustrating for the fans. And not only will they lose out on Teixera, but they will in a way lose out on the other free agents who might have signed in Baltimore if they see a superstar like Teixera signing there. A player like Tex automatically gives the organization more credibility.
Believe me, as an Islander fan I understand this. Right now, no big name player wants to play for the Islanders. They are a very bad team that is in serious rebuilding mode. They play in an old building with a very localized fan base. When the hockey off-season rolls around, I can guarantee you that the major free agents aren't going to have the Islanders at the top of their list....however, if there was a great player who grew up on Long Island, rooting for the Islanders, and decided to come to the organization as free agent, it would help gain the team a measure of respect, and maybe we could lure some other good players, instead of the leftovers that nobody else wants (I really hope this blog reaches Chris Higgins).
In a sports world right now where everyone wants to play for the big market teams, or go to the highest bidder, it would be nice to see a guy go back to his roots. Who said you can't go home?
Tex has every right in the world to sign where he wants and take whatever contract he wants, but the romantic in me would like to see him go play for the hometown team, and be the hero that I'm sure he dreamed of being as a kid.
And if you disagree...go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
Oh Man-ny
Here is an image I never thought I'd see, let alone talked about....Manny Ramirez in Yankee Pinstripes. Yet there are several sources this morning claiming that the Yankees are showing some legitimate interest in going after this egocentric malcontent.
I won't deny that acquiring Manny would essentially assure the Yankees a return to the post-season, and potentially even make them the favorites to win it all, but it just seems so wrong.
Never mind the fact that he was a Yankee killer and persona non grata when he came to play in Yankee Stadium. What bothers me about Manny is the way he plays the game and all that "Manny being Manny" nonsense. He disrespects the game. Last year when he refused to run out a potential double-play ball in a key situation in a game when he was still playing for the Red Sox speaks volumes. When he was totally fed up with playing in Boston and demanded a trade, he feigned an injury and insisted that he would not play. Unless he is %100 happy, Manny won't be Manny on the field.
I can't justify rooting for this guy. Not to mention I don't think he should be rewarded with another huge contract after the way he forced the hand of the Red Sox last year with his contract situation. I also happen to think that if the Yanks sign him -- considering their other recent signings -- that it will be overkill. You'll start to see talk of the "Evil Empire" coming back.
I suppose if they sign him, I'll cheer when he hits a home run, or makes a nice catch, or drives in a winning run, but only because of the interlocking NY on his uniform and cap, and not because of the man wearing them.
If nothing else it will make me pine for the days when hard-nosed team players like Scott Brosius, Tino Martinez, and my favorite, Paul O'Neill, were wearing the pinstripes and winning championships.
The Yanks don't need Manny's antics, his attitude, his mercurial temperament and they sure as hell don't need him to win it all.
And if you disagree with me....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
I won't deny that acquiring Manny would essentially assure the Yankees a return to the post-season, and potentially even make them the favorites to win it all, but it just seems so wrong.
Never mind the fact that he was a Yankee killer and persona non grata when he came to play in Yankee Stadium. What bothers me about Manny is the way he plays the game and all that "Manny being Manny" nonsense. He disrespects the game. Last year when he refused to run out a potential double-play ball in a key situation in a game when he was still playing for the Red Sox speaks volumes. When he was totally fed up with playing in Boston and demanded a trade, he feigned an injury and insisted that he would not play. Unless he is %100 happy, Manny won't be Manny on the field.
I can't justify rooting for this guy. Not to mention I don't think he should be rewarded with another huge contract after the way he forced the hand of the Red Sox last year with his contract situation. I also happen to think that if the Yanks sign him -- considering their other recent signings -- that it will be overkill. You'll start to see talk of the "Evil Empire" coming back.
I suppose if they sign him, I'll cheer when he hits a home run, or makes a nice catch, or drives in a winning run, but only because of the interlocking NY on his uniform and cap, and not because of the man wearing them.
If nothing else it will make me pine for the days when hard-nosed team players like Scott Brosius, Tino Martinez, and my favorite, Paul O'Neill, were wearing the pinstripes and winning championships.
The Yanks don't need Manny's antics, his attitude, his mercurial temperament and they sure as hell don't need him to win it all.
And if you disagree with me....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
Friday, December 12, 2008
AJ Burnott
I have one really small thought today. Just something I'd like to say to the Yankee front office..........
DON'T SIGN AJ BURNETT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Haven't we learned anything from the past???
Can anybody tell me the last player the Yankees signed to a massive contract because he had a great contract year, but had been prone to injuries before?
Does the name Carl Pavano ring a bell?
Look, I'll admit that Burnett had a great year, and he has had success before, but a player whose statistics in their contract years are so much stronger than every other year, has to cause you concern. And of course, so does his injury history. In his 8 full seasons he has thrown over 200 innings only 3 times. He has won more than 12 games only once (last year), and in 4 of those seasons, started only 25 games or less.
The biggest red flag has to be this fun little list though:
1)April 2004, Placed on 15 day DL (recovering from elbow surgery)
2) June 2004 transferred to 60 Day DL
3) March 2006, Placed on 15 Day DL (Right elbow soreness)
4) April 2006, Placed on 15 Day DL (Right elbow soreness)
5) May 2006, Transferred to 60 Day DL
6) June 2007, Placed on 15 Day DL (Right shoulder pain)
7) July 2007, Placed on 15 Day DL (Sore right shoulder)
8) November 2008 -- Declares free agency after not suffering any injuries in his contract year
See what I'm getting at? I think the Yankees should learn from their mistakes and refrain from signing a pitcher whose pitching arm seems to be made of fine tissue paper.
Go sign Derek Lowe. He's reliable. He's pitched in the big games before. He's a tough competitor and a gamer. He's a sinker baller which will prevent the short-porch home runs that Yankee Stadium is known for (the dimensions in the new ballpark are the same). He also commands less money. It just makes sense.
If the Yankees sign Burnett, I hope I'm wrong. And if you think I am...go ahead and tell me.
DON'T SIGN AJ BURNETT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Haven't we learned anything from the past???
Can anybody tell me the last player the Yankees signed to a massive contract because he had a great contract year, but had been prone to injuries before?
Does the name Carl Pavano ring a bell?
Look, I'll admit that Burnett had a great year, and he has had success before, but a player whose statistics in their contract years are so much stronger than every other year, has to cause you concern. And of course, so does his injury history. In his 8 full seasons he has thrown over 200 innings only 3 times. He has won more than 12 games only once (last year), and in 4 of those seasons, started only 25 games or less.
The biggest red flag has to be this fun little list though:
1)April 2004, Placed on 15 day DL (recovering from elbow surgery)
2) June 2004 transferred to 60 Day DL
3) March 2006, Placed on 15 Day DL (Right elbow soreness)
4) April 2006, Placed on 15 Day DL (Right elbow soreness)
5) May 2006, Transferred to 60 Day DL
6) June 2007, Placed on 15 Day DL (Right shoulder pain)
7) July 2007, Placed on 15 Day DL (Sore right shoulder)
8) November 2008 -- Declares free agency after not suffering any injuries in his contract year
See what I'm getting at? I think the Yankees should learn from their mistakes and refrain from signing a pitcher whose pitching arm seems to be made of fine tissue paper.
Go sign Derek Lowe. He's reliable. He's pitched in the big games before. He's a tough competitor and a gamer. He's a sinker baller which will prevent the short-porch home runs that Yankee Stadium is known for (the dimensions in the new ballpark are the same). He also commands less money. It just makes sense.
If the Yankees sign Burnett, I hope I'm wrong. And if you think I am...go ahead and tell me.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Baseball Loyalty
In a previous column I talked about whether or not CC Sabathia signing a huge contract with the Yankees was good for baseball. Most of what I was discussing had to do with the dynamics of the league and how small market teams have to be creative/strategically sound in order to compete with the mega-franchises. Yet, I overlooked a key point -- and I have to give credit to my friend Aaron for bringing this up -- there is very little loyalty left in the game of baseball. With the blockbuster contracts that high profile (and even some low profile) players are signing these days when they hit the free agent market, it is very rare to see a player that stays with the team that brought him up/gave him his first shot.
With this in mind, I went around the league and tried to find players that have shown great loyalty to their team. Here are the criteria: Since at least the 2000 season they have, a) spent their entire career with one team b) were traded early in their career and have remained with the team that traded for them
*I acknowledge that the D-Backs and Rays are only 10 years old and therefore it is difficult to include them in this discussion.
Here are the results:
Arizona Diamondbacks: None
Atlanta Braves: John Smoltz, Chipper Jones, *special mention here for Greg Maddux who spent
the majority of his career with the Braves, and then signed with the Cubs, the
team that originally brought him up when the Braves wanted to move in a
different diretion
Baltimore Orioles: Melvin Mora, Brian Roberts
Boston Red Sox: Tim Wakefield, Jason Varitek
Chicago White Sox: Mark Buehrle, Paul Konerko
Chicago Cubs: None
Cincinnati Reds: None
Cleveland Indians: Jake Westbrook
Colorado Rockies: Todd Helton
Detroit Tigers: Brandon Inge
Florida Marlins: None
Houston Astros: Roy Oswalt, Lance Berkman
Kansas City Royals: None
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim: Scott Shields
Los Angeles Dodgers: None
Milwaukee Brewers: None
Minnesota Twins: Michael Cuddyer
New York Yankees: Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, Derek Jeter, Andy Pettite (Though he did
leave for a couple years to play for the Astros, he did come back to the
Yankees, and had played over 10 years for them at the start of his career)
New York Mets: None
Oakland A's: Eric Chavez
Philadelphia Phillies: Jimmy Rollins
Pittsburgh Pirates: Jack Wilson
San Diego Padres: Trevor Hoffman
San Francisco Giants: None
Seattle Mariners: Ichiro Suzuki
St. Louis Cardinals: Albert Pujols
Tampa Bay Rays: None
Texas Rangers: Michael Young
Toronto Blue Jays: Roy Halladay, Vernon Wells
Washington Nationals: None
So there you go, 29 out of over 750 ball players. There are several pretty big names on here, but not all of them are household names. I don't mean to suggest anything by this, I simply think it is interesting to point out.
With this in mind, I went around the league and tried to find players that have shown great loyalty to their team. Here are the criteria: Since at least the 2000 season they have, a) spent their entire career with one team b) were traded early in their career and have remained with the team that traded for them
*I acknowledge that the D-Backs and Rays are only 10 years old and therefore it is difficult to include them in this discussion.
Here are the results:
Arizona Diamondbacks: None
Atlanta Braves: John Smoltz, Chipper Jones, *special mention here for Greg Maddux who spent
the majority of his career with the Braves, and then signed with the Cubs, the
team that originally brought him up when the Braves wanted to move in a
different diretion
Baltimore Orioles: Melvin Mora, Brian Roberts
Boston Red Sox: Tim Wakefield, Jason Varitek
Chicago White Sox: Mark Buehrle, Paul Konerko
Chicago Cubs: None
Cincinnati Reds: None
Cleveland Indians: Jake Westbrook
Colorado Rockies: Todd Helton
Detroit Tigers: Brandon Inge
Florida Marlins: None
Houston Astros: Roy Oswalt, Lance Berkman
Kansas City Royals: None
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim: Scott Shields
Los Angeles Dodgers: None
Milwaukee Brewers: None
Minnesota Twins: Michael Cuddyer
New York Yankees: Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, Derek Jeter, Andy Pettite (Though he did
leave for a couple years to play for the Astros, he did come back to the
Yankees, and had played over 10 years for them at the start of his career)
New York Mets: None
Oakland A's: Eric Chavez
Philadelphia Phillies: Jimmy Rollins
Pittsburgh Pirates: Jack Wilson
San Diego Padres: Trevor Hoffman
San Francisco Giants: None
Seattle Mariners: Ichiro Suzuki
St. Louis Cardinals: Albert Pujols
Tampa Bay Rays: None
Texas Rangers: Michael Young
Toronto Blue Jays: Roy Halladay, Vernon Wells
Washington Nationals: None
So there you go, 29 out of over 750 ball players. There are several pretty big names on here, but not all of them are household names. I don't mean to suggest anything by this, I simply think it is interesting to point out.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
A Quick Thought on the NFL Playoffs
I have read several stories in the past few days about how the NY Giants backed into the playoffs this week. To catch everyone up who may not be a Giants fan; the Giants lost on Sunday to the Eagles, but when Dallas lost to Pittsburgh later in the day, it clinched the NFC East title for the Giants. So these articles are saying that because the Giants didn't win their game on Sunday and won the division because another team lost, that they backed into the NFC East title.
Ummm.......EXCUSE ME??!!!
How is this backing into the playoffs?? Did we all just forget the 11-1 start that the Giants had that put them in position to win the division in Week 14 of the season? Or the fact that up until Sunday they hadn't lost to anyone in their division, let alone the entire NFC? They beat the 1st place Arizona Cardinals, the 1st place Steelers, and demolished the likely playoff bound Baltimore Ravens.
Backing into the playoffs is a team that wins its division with a 9-7 record, after it loses its final regular season game, and only goes to the playoffs because the other teams in their division also lost their last games and ended up with worse records.
The Giants just happened to lose this week when they were able to clinch the division early. They put themselves into that position on the shoulders of their 11-1 start. They didn't back in because Dallas lost, they earned their spot by being dominant over the first 13 weeks of the season.
I feel bad for the Cowboys, Panthers, and Vikings who all have to face the Giants in the final 3 games of the season, because as we've seen in the past, the G-Men don't take too kindly to being disrespected like that, and they tend to take it out on whatever team they happen to be facing that week.
And if you disagree....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
Ummm.......EXCUSE ME??!!!
How is this backing into the playoffs?? Did we all just forget the 11-1 start that the Giants had that put them in position to win the division in Week 14 of the season? Or the fact that up until Sunday they hadn't lost to anyone in their division, let alone the entire NFC? They beat the 1st place Arizona Cardinals, the 1st place Steelers, and demolished the likely playoff bound Baltimore Ravens.
Backing into the playoffs is a team that wins its division with a 9-7 record, after it loses its final regular season game, and only goes to the playoffs because the other teams in their division also lost their last games and ended up with worse records.
The Giants just happened to lose this week when they were able to clinch the division early. They put themselves into that position on the shoulders of their 11-1 start. They didn't back in because Dallas lost, they earned their spot by being dominant over the first 13 weeks of the season.
I feel bad for the Cowboys, Panthers, and Vikings who all have to face the Giants in the final 3 games of the season, because as we've seen in the past, the G-Men don't take too kindly to being disrespected like that, and they tend to take it out on whatever team they happen to be facing that week.
And if you disagree....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
