It's time to put the Eagles to rest and start talking college basketball. I would talk about the Sixers, but there is absolutely nothing to talk about. They suck.
As of late, the NCAA has been discussing expanding the NCAA tournament to allow more teams. The expansion plan that seems to be gaining the most ground is the idea to expand to 96 teams, giving the top 32 seeds a bye into round 2. I wholeheartedly disagree with this plan. First, expanding the tournament is never going to quell controversy. Whether its team 66 or 97, some team is always going to be making the arguement that they were better than team 65 or 96. That will not change. Second, granting 32 favorites a free pass to round 2 lessens the chances of a huge Cinderella upset, thus killing the spirit of what makes the NCAA tournament my favorite sporting event of the year. Under this plan, Upstart Directional School A will now have to win a game before even getting a chance to take down the big boys. So much info can be gleaned from that one game against superior competition that the large schools will be much more prepared for the little guy they historically have looked past to the delight of viewers everywhere. To top it off, most small schools will have to pull an upset to even get a chance at upsetting a top 8 seed. That KILLS what makes week 1 of the tournament exciting, the 5-12 matchup, the 3-14 game that goes down to the wire. At best, there would be 1 or 2 of such matchups anually.
What upsets me most about this plan is the obvious hypocrisy of the NCAA. Allow me to explain. They are proposing to make the NCAA tournament a month-long affair, using "fairness" to all as a smokescreen to hide the real incentive, money. Umm, excuse me. Is this the same NCAA that calls the BCS "fair" and cites prolonged distraction from academics as a big factor in their reasoning for not instituting a college football playoff?? The NCAA is full of BS. If they are to expland the NCAA tournament to 96 teams, television revenue from the the expanded coverage would be worth hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. THAT is the real incentive. If they gave two bits about fairness, Boise State and TCU would have had a shot a proving the BCS to be a flawed system, instead of being placed in a game against each other and a lose-lose position. Win and you're only better than the other non-BCS team, lose and "see, I told you they weren't that good".
As for the NCAA tournament, if the NCAA was anything other than a bunch of money-grubbing scumbags, they would seriously consider a much more feasible, much more fair expansion plan. Expand the field to 68 teams with 8 teams playing in play-in games to face the #1 seeds. This is a win-win for everyone. First, the 16 and 16a seeds will get a shot at winning a game in March instead of just being offered up as sacrificial lambs to the beasts of college basketball. Also, 3 more at-large bids will be available. This is significant because, let's be honest, there are only ever really 3 or 4 teams with a legitimate gripe for being left out of the tournament. Lessening that number by 3 would be huge because, in my opinion, 1 good team being left out of the tournament is a whole lot more fair to viewers than letting 32 mediocre teams in, diluting the product that has thrilled us for decades.
All in all, I actually find it pretty hilarious that the NCAA is spending so much energy on fixing the wrong championship format. The same people who don't want a tournament in one sport want an even larger, all-encompassing one in another. If the NCAA were a person, they would definitely have been on "I Love Money" by now.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
An Articulate Argument for the Dismissal of Andy Reid
Last week, I made an allusion to the fact that in order to ever win the Super Bowl, the Eagles must fire Andy Reid. I have voiced that opinion in several social situations since and each time been I have been disagreed with. In fact, I have yet to speak with anyone who agrees with me. I find this to be fascinating.
Before I continue, allow me to set the record straight on some parameters for this discussion. First, I am fully aware that the Eagles likely will not get rid of both Andy Reid in the same offseason, and if we are only to get rid of one of them, obviously Donovan has to be the first on voted off the island. Second, I understand that Andy Reid is, by the numbers, a very successful coach who wins a lot of games. Finally, the definition of true success in the NFL is winning the Super Bowl.
In order to more clearly explain my opinion I will refute the most common arguments I’ve heard regarding this topic one by one
1. It’s Donovan McNabb’s fault, we need a new QB.
While I fully agree that Donovan McNabb has choked in some big games, I would like to point out that when Donovan plays poorly, it’s the same shortcoming that causes the meltdown every time, inaccuracy. Simply put, Donovan McNabb is not an accurate quarterback. He is athletic and strong-armed. This isn’t an opinion, it is fact drawn from a decade of live action data. Having said that, why does Andy Reid continue to put McNabb in situations that require accuracy to be successful? I am of the belief, and judging from his press conferences Andy Reid is as well, that it is the coach’s responsibility to put his players in the best possible position to win. This means capitalizing on the strengths of each player and doing all you can to avoid putting players in positions that could allow for weaknesses to be exploited. Being the QB, Donovan will touch the ball every play, so it would seem paramount to game plan around his strengths and weaknesses, yet the Eagles continue to employ an offense that emphasizes the biggest weakness in Donovan McNabb’s game! How can you place all of the blame on the guy when all he is doing is using the tools available to him, his skills, to carry out a game plan dictated to him by his coach, whose prime responsibility is to design a game plan that gives his players the best chance to succeed? McNabb’s situation isn’t the only example of Reid’s inability to put the right player in the right position. Remember the disaster that was Reno Mahe as a punt returner? That decision cost the Eagles at least one game directly that season. Blaine Bishop at safety back in 2002 is another example, as is starting Levon Kirkland about 7 years after his prime. In each case, and countless others, Reid ignored glaring weaknesses in each player and expected them to do something that their skill set would simply not allow them to do. In each case, the question needs to be asked, why couldn’t the Eagles adjust their game plan accordingly? It is easiest to ask this question in the case of McNabb as it has been an ongoing issue for about a decade now. In my best estimation, the Eagles may have already won a Super Bowl had Andy Reid changed his offensive philosophy to emphasize McNabb’s strengths, like his mobility and arm strength. Only one person carries the influence to cause a sea change in philosophy like this and that person is Andy Reid, and he hasn't done it yet.
2. Look at how well he has done with such little talent.
This one is easy. Andy Reid is in control of most player personnel decisions. I haven’t checked recently so his exact title may have changed, but Reid is most definitely the most influential voice in these decisions. Any perceived lack of talent is completely his fault. Remember when he insisted that the Eagles didn’t need an explosive, cream of the crop type talent at receiver?? Well, Mr. Reid did all of the work proving himself wrong on that one. This year, his decision to go with an Andrews Brothers youth movement likely cost the Eagles at least a deeper run into the playoffs if not more.
3. He is the best coach the Eagles have ever had.
And Beast Light is the best beer made by Milwaukee’s Best brand. Point is it’s easy to be the best Eagles coach ever when we’ve pretty much always had crappy coaches. By the numbers, yes, Andy Reid is the most successful coach in Eagles history. He has won the most games, regular season and playoffs. Having said that, are we collectively forgetting how well Andy Reid manages the last two minutes of clock each and every half of each and every week? Good coaches rarely make decisions that leave points on the field at the end of halves, yet Reid does it week in and week out. Andy Reid's playcalling and decision making is anything but dynamic. The fact that anyone can tell what kind of game the Eagles are about to play, whether it be an explosive show of talent or a frustrating 3 ½ hour mess, within the first 5 minutes of action speaks volumes to his rigidity and stubbornness.
Obviously, this is a blog, not a book, so I won't continue to rehash extemporaneous details just to fill up space, but I feel my point has been made, and that is that Andy Reid is as much to blame as Donovan McNabb for the Eagles failure to win a championship despite 10+ years of generally continued success. I believe that even if the Eagles are to part with McNabb this offseason, the same problems that have plagued the Birds for years will continue and eventually we will realize that it was the coach all along. By then, the divorce from Coach Reid will be messy, and surely set this franchise back a few years. Why not save ourselves the let-downs, the trouble, and the time and start over now?
Before I continue, allow me to set the record straight on some parameters for this discussion. First, I am fully aware that the Eagles likely will not get rid of both Andy Reid in the same offseason, and if we are only to get rid of one of them, obviously Donovan has to be the first on voted off the island. Second, I understand that Andy Reid is, by the numbers, a very successful coach who wins a lot of games. Finally, the definition of true success in the NFL is winning the Super Bowl.
In order to more clearly explain my opinion I will refute the most common arguments I’ve heard regarding this topic one by one
1. It’s Donovan McNabb’s fault, we need a new QB.
While I fully agree that Donovan McNabb has choked in some big games, I would like to point out that when Donovan plays poorly, it’s the same shortcoming that causes the meltdown every time, inaccuracy. Simply put, Donovan McNabb is not an accurate quarterback. He is athletic and strong-armed. This isn’t an opinion, it is fact drawn from a decade of live action data. Having said that, why does Andy Reid continue to put McNabb in situations that require accuracy to be successful? I am of the belief, and judging from his press conferences Andy Reid is as well, that it is the coach’s responsibility to put his players in the best possible position to win. This means capitalizing on the strengths of each player and doing all you can to avoid putting players in positions that could allow for weaknesses to be exploited. Being the QB, Donovan will touch the ball every play, so it would seem paramount to game plan around his strengths and weaknesses, yet the Eagles continue to employ an offense that emphasizes the biggest weakness in Donovan McNabb’s game! How can you place all of the blame on the guy when all he is doing is using the tools available to him, his skills, to carry out a game plan dictated to him by his coach, whose prime responsibility is to design a game plan that gives his players the best chance to succeed? McNabb’s situation isn’t the only example of Reid’s inability to put the right player in the right position. Remember the disaster that was Reno Mahe as a punt returner? That decision cost the Eagles at least one game directly that season. Blaine Bishop at safety back in 2002 is another example, as is starting Levon Kirkland about 7 years after his prime. In each case, and countless others, Reid ignored glaring weaknesses in each player and expected them to do something that their skill set would simply not allow them to do. In each case, the question needs to be asked, why couldn’t the Eagles adjust their game plan accordingly? It is easiest to ask this question in the case of McNabb as it has been an ongoing issue for about a decade now. In my best estimation, the Eagles may have already won a Super Bowl had Andy Reid changed his offensive philosophy to emphasize McNabb’s strengths, like his mobility and arm strength. Only one person carries the influence to cause a sea change in philosophy like this and that person is Andy Reid, and he hasn't done it yet.
2. Look at how well he has done with such little talent.
This one is easy. Andy Reid is in control of most player personnel decisions. I haven’t checked recently so his exact title may have changed, but Reid is most definitely the most influential voice in these decisions. Any perceived lack of talent is completely his fault. Remember when he insisted that the Eagles didn’t need an explosive, cream of the crop type talent at receiver?? Well, Mr. Reid did all of the work proving himself wrong on that one. This year, his decision to go with an Andrews Brothers youth movement likely cost the Eagles at least a deeper run into the playoffs if not more.
3. He is the best coach the Eagles have ever had.
And Beast Light is the best beer made by Milwaukee’s Best brand. Point is it’s easy to be the best Eagles coach ever when we’ve pretty much always had crappy coaches. By the numbers, yes, Andy Reid is the most successful coach in Eagles history. He has won the most games, regular season and playoffs. Having said that, are we collectively forgetting how well Andy Reid manages the last two minutes of clock each and every half of each and every week? Good coaches rarely make decisions that leave points on the field at the end of halves, yet Reid does it week in and week out. Andy Reid's playcalling and decision making is anything but dynamic. The fact that anyone can tell what kind of game the Eagles are about to play, whether it be an explosive show of talent or a frustrating 3 ½ hour mess, within the first 5 minutes of action speaks volumes to his rigidity and stubbornness.
Obviously, this is a blog, not a book, so I won't continue to rehash extemporaneous details just to fill up space, but I feel my point has been made, and that is that Andy Reid is as much to blame as Donovan McNabb for the Eagles failure to win a championship despite 10+ years of generally continued success. I believe that even if the Eagles are to part with McNabb this offseason, the same problems that have plagued the Birds for years will continue and eventually we will realize that it was the coach all along. By then, the divorce from Coach Reid will be messy, and surely set this franchise back a few years. Why not save ourselves the let-downs, the trouble, and the time and start over now?
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Birds Get Spanked, What's Next?
By this time, everyone knows what a debacle Saturday night was. It's been rehashed ad nauseum and, quite frankly, I don't want to even think about it. So I won't. Instead, I'll look to the future and try and figure out where the Birds go from here.
Due to the looming Collective Bargaining dispute between the league and the Players Association, things have never been more difficult to read in the NFL. As it stands now, next year's salary cap will be slightly lower than this year's, with 2011 then being an uncapped year. That uncapped year off in the distance will more than likely have huge influence on what the Eagles will do.
If you listen to the populace here in Philly, the call for Donovan McNabb to be run out of town has grown to an almost deafening roar. I've had conversations with people regarding his inability to be accurate, the fact that you never see Donovan studying snapshots of the defense or speaking on the phone with the guys upstairs, and, of course, his incessantly annoying laugh every time something bad happens. All of these are valid points. I think the bigger issue with Donovan is the fact that the Eagles seem unwilling to accept that he is not a West Coast QB. He can't consistently hit the underneath route, everyone knows this, yet Andy Ried seems unwilling to accept this and adjust. Because of this, I am not one to heap all of the blame on Donovan. How can you blame a guy for his coaches' inability to recognize his limitations? I am fairly sure that no matter where Donovan ends up, he will remain to be rather successful.
So what will happen with Donovan? His current deal runs through next year, making him a free agent just in time for the uncapped year. That fact alone, I believe, has to prevent the Eagles from bringing him back next year. Think of it this way... The Eagles could trade Donovan now, likely get a 2nd Round pick for him, or at least a larger package of mid round picks. Those draftees are generally inked to 3-5 year deals right after the draft, all at relatively low value as the players need to prove themselves. If the Eagles follow through with the trade, they can effectively cut Donovan loose at a time when not too many people would complain, AND get something of value in return for him.
Now consider if we keep Donovan for this final year of his contract. If he plays well, he will command a large salary on the open market, a large salary that the Eagles would be unlikely to be willing to match, thus allowing him to walk for nothing in return. If by some miracle Donovan guides the Eagles to the Promised Land, the organization would look terrible for letting him walk, and they would then owe him a pretty sum in order to keep him around and save some face in the public eye. By those calculations, keeping Donovan is a lose-lose propostition.
My suggestion? I believe the Eagles should trade Donovan McNabb to a team willing to part with a 3rd and 4th rounder next year, as well as a 5th rounder the following year. They should then release Mike Vick (no shock there) and offer Kevin Kolb a modest extension that says, "you're gonna get a few years to prove yourself as a starter, but we aren't giving you Pro Bowl money until you get there." They should then use one of the draft picks received for McNabb on an accurate college quarterback who can move in the pocket, but would still be considered a project. Said QB will become your 3rd QB on your roster. As for your backup, why not bring back Jeff Garcia or someone like that? All you need in your backup is a savvy vet who can come in and grind out victories.
If the Eagles follow my plan for their QB situation, it would also open up a ton of money for the uncapped year, giving the Eagles the opportunity to sign some big talent at prices higher than most teams would be willing to offer. I know its tough to part with arguably the best QB in franchise history, but the time is now.
Due to the looming Collective Bargaining dispute between the league and the Players Association, things have never been more difficult to read in the NFL. As it stands now, next year's salary cap will be slightly lower than this year's, with 2011 then being an uncapped year. That uncapped year off in the distance will more than likely have huge influence on what the Eagles will do.
If you listen to the populace here in Philly, the call for Donovan McNabb to be run out of town has grown to an almost deafening roar. I've had conversations with people regarding his inability to be accurate, the fact that you never see Donovan studying snapshots of the defense or speaking on the phone with the guys upstairs, and, of course, his incessantly annoying laugh every time something bad happens. All of these are valid points. I think the bigger issue with Donovan is the fact that the Eagles seem unwilling to accept that he is not a West Coast QB. He can't consistently hit the underneath route, everyone knows this, yet Andy Ried seems unwilling to accept this and adjust. Because of this, I am not one to heap all of the blame on Donovan. How can you blame a guy for his coaches' inability to recognize his limitations? I am fairly sure that no matter where Donovan ends up, he will remain to be rather successful.
So what will happen with Donovan? His current deal runs through next year, making him a free agent just in time for the uncapped year. That fact alone, I believe, has to prevent the Eagles from bringing him back next year. Think of it this way... The Eagles could trade Donovan now, likely get a 2nd Round pick for him, or at least a larger package of mid round picks. Those draftees are generally inked to 3-5 year deals right after the draft, all at relatively low value as the players need to prove themselves. If the Eagles follow through with the trade, they can effectively cut Donovan loose at a time when not too many people would complain, AND get something of value in return for him.
Now consider if we keep Donovan for this final year of his contract. If he plays well, he will command a large salary on the open market, a large salary that the Eagles would be unlikely to be willing to match, thus allowing him to walk for nothing in return. If by some miracle Donovan guides the Eagles to the Promised Land, the organization would look terrible for letting him walk, and they would then owe him a pretty sum in order to keep him around and save some face in the public eye. By those calculations, keeping Donovan is a lose-lose propostition.
My suggestion? I believe the Eagles should trade Donovan McNabb to a team willing to part with a 3rd and 4th rounder next year, as well as a 5th rounder the following year. They should then release Mike Vick (no shock there) and offer Kevin Kolb a modest extension that says, "you're gonna get a few years to prove yourself as a starter, but we aren't giving you Pro Bowl money until you get there." They should then use one of the draft picks received for McNabb on an accurate college quarterback who can move in the pocket, but would still be considered a project. Said QB will become your 3rd QB on your roster. As for your backup, why not bring back Jeff Garcia or someone like that? All you need in your backup is a savvy vet who can come in and grind out victories.
If the Eagles follow my plan for their QB situation, it would also open up a ton of money for the uncapped year, giving the Eagles the opportunity to sign some big talent at prices higher than most teams would be willing to offer. I know its tough to part with arguably the best QB in franchise history, but the time is now.
Friday, January 8, 2010
PLAYOFFS!?!?!?!?
The playoffs are here! While the end of NFL RedZone for the year leaves me with great sadness, it is the playoffs that keep me going. The lines for these picks are directly off of Bodog.com, so dont get mad at me if it is different from what you have....
Jets @ Bengals - In this game I am taking the Bengals at -3 and the over at 34.5. Why? The Jets destruction of the Bengals last week was a major tease for Jets fans. It was like being at a bar dancing with the hottest chick there, she seems into it, you're nailing all of your coolest dance moves, things are going great. You even get her number to hang out again next week. Then, you meet up a week later, find out that she was really just in the mood to dance last week, find out further that she was pretty hammered when she agreed to go out with you, and then, when you go to the bathroom, she sneaks out the door, crushing your hopes. This is how Jets fans will feel. Everyone is talking them up based on last week's performance, forgetting that 3 weeks ago, their own coach stuck a fork in 'em. Cincy will come out and be an entirely different team from the team the Jets saw last week, and the Jets won't have an answer readily available.
Bengals - 24 Jets - 13 *** caveat!: My pick for the over completely depends on the weather in Cincinnati, which has the potential to be -3 with 40 mph wind gusts if history is any indication. In that case, the over/under should be 3.
Ravens @ Pats - I am taking the Pats at -3.5 and the over at 43. Why? Lost in all the drama surrounding Wes Welker's season-ending injury is the fact that the role he plays in that offense isn't necessarily a difficult role to fill. Julian Edelman has shown, on several occasions this season, that he is capable of being a dependable receiver who runs excellent routes, which is really all Wes Welker is anyway. Remember, Welker wasn't The Great White Hope when he was with the Dolphins. He was just solid. Then he comes to NE, has Randy Moss clearing the underneath routes for him on every play, and all of a sudden he is irreplaceable. Not so fast, Bostonians. Welker's good, but you'll see that he's really just a cog in the system this weekend. The offense will play better than you expect and simply outscore the Ravens.
Pats - 38 Ravens - 24
Packers @ Cards - I am taking the Cards at +1.5 and the over at 47. Why? The Cards are in a similar situation as the Bengals. They laid down and took a beating last week, knowing full well the real game was coming up this weekend. Both teams in this matchup sport explosive offenses, and I've heard plenty about how good Aaron Rodgers is, but what about Kurt Warner? The man suddenly goes from being a solid pro QB during the regular season to a first ballot Hall of Famer during the playoffs. His receivers are better than the weaponry Rodgers has to choose from, as are his RB's, and the two defenses are about the same. Add to that the can of disrespect the Packers opened on the Cards last week in a meaningless game, home field advantage, AND the fact that my roommate is picking the Packers (he's a mush), and I think you have what should be a thrilling Cards victory.
Cards - 34 Packers - 28
Eagles @ Cowboys - I am taking the Birds at +4 and the under at 45. Why? For all the talk about these 2 offenses this season, there have only been 60 points scored in 2 games between these teams. The Cowboys defense is undeniably good. The Eagles will not be able to put up 35 points on 5 long TD's on this D. The Eagles need to adjust to utilizing more screens and draws to catch this aggressive D off guard, then take advantage when a big play presents itself. Having said that, I don't see them scoring more than 21 on the Cowboys, which brings us to the Eagles D. The Eagles D admittedly played conservatively last week, opting not to employ their aggressive blitz scheme. Romo and Co. got comfortable and, given the time they had to develop plays, it was no wonder the Birds couldn't stop the "Boys. However, especially with the game well in hand in the second half, you had to get the sense the Eagles were holding back, electing to save some sets and looks for this week. Everyone knows Romo is 3000% worse with pressure in his face, and everyone knows the Eagles D is predicated upon pressure. I expect the Eagles to come hard and fast this week, getting into Romo's head, and unraveling the Cowboys offense from there.
Eagles - 21 Cowboys -17
Jets @ Bengals - In this game I am taking the Bengals at -3 and the over at 34.5. Why? The Jets destruction of the Bengals last week was a major tease for Jets fans. It was like being at a bar dancing with the hottest chick there, she seems into it, you're nailing all of your coolest dance moves, things are going great. You even get her number to hang out again next week. Then, you meet up a week later, find out that she was really just in the mood to dance last week, find out further that she was pretty hammered when she agreed to go out with you, and then, when you go to the bathroom, she sneaks out the door, crushing your hopes. This is how Jets fans will feel. Everyone is talking them up based on last week's performance, forgetting that 3 weeks ago, their own coach stuck a fork in 'em. Cincy will come out and be an entirely different team from the team the Jets saw last week, and the Jets won't have an answer readily available.
Bengals - 24 Jets - 13 *** caveat!: My pick for the over completely depends on the weather in Cincinnati, which has the potential to be -3 with 40 mph wind gusts if history is any indication. In that case, the over/under should be 3.
Ravens @ Pats - I am taking the Pats at -3.5 and the over at 43. Why? Lost in all the drama surrounding Wes Welker's season-ending injury is the fact that the role he plays in that offense isn't necessarily a difficult role to fill. Julian Edelman has shown, on several occasions this season, that he is capable of being a dependable receiver who runs excellent routes, which is really all Wes Welker is anyway. Remember, Welker wasn't The Great White Hope when he was with the Dolphins. He was just solid. Then he comes to NE, has Randy Moss clearing the underneath routes for him on every play, and all of a sudden he is irreplaceable. Not so fast, Bostonians. Welker's good, but you'll see that he's really just a cog in the system this weekend. The offense will play better than you expect and simply outscore the Ravens.
Pats - 38 Ravens - 24
Packers @ Cards - I am taking the Cards at +1.5 and the over at 47. Why? The Cards are in a similar situation as the Bengals. They laid down and took a beating last week, knowing full well the real game was coming up this weekend. Both teams in this matchup sport explosive offenses, and I've heard plenty about how good Aaron Rodgers is, but what about Kurt Warner? The man suddenly goes from being a solid pro QB during the regular season to a first ballot Hall of Famer during the playoffs. His receivers are better than the weaponry Rodgers has to choose from, as are his RB's, and the two defenses are about the same. Add to that the can of disrespect the Packers opened on the Cards last week in a meaningless game, home field advantage, AND the fact that my roommate is picking the Packers (he's a mush), and I think you have what should be a thrilling Cards victory.
Cards - 34 Packers - 28
Eagles @ Cowboys - I am taking the Birds at +4 and the under at 45. Why? For all the talk about these 2 offenses this season, there have only been 60 points scored in 2 games between these teams. The Cowboys defense is undeniably good. The Eagles will not be able to put up 35 points on 5 long TD's on this D. The Eagles need to adjust to utilizing more screens and draws to catch this aggressive D off guard, then take advantage when a big play presents itself. Having said that, I don't see them scoring more than 21 on the Cowboys, which brings us to the Eagles D. The Eagles D admittedly played conservatively last week, opting not to employ their aggressive blitz scheme. Romo and Co. got comfortable and, given the time they had to develop plays, it was no wonder the Birds couldn't stop the "Boys. However, especially with the game well in hand in the second half, you had to get the sense the Eagles were holding back, electing to save some sets and looks for this week. Everyone knows Romo is 3000% worse with pressure in his face, and everyone knows the Eagles D is predicated upon pressure. I expect the Eagles to come hard and fast this week, getting into Romo's head, and unraveling the Cowboys offense from there.
Eagles - 21 Cowboys -17
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Rebirth
Today marks a new beginning in PhillyPhanhood. I fell off the map for a while, distracted by golf, summer, beer, Jersey Shore, and overall laziness, but after much thought, it occured to me that I need to give myself this forum, regardless of whether it gets read or not.
Posting for the first time in almost 10 months, I find my beloved Eagles back in the playoffs, on the road in a wild card game. If you listen to the pundits and prognosticators, this game is over before it starts and Cowboys fans should probably start booking hotel accomodations in Miami. Thankfully, pundits and prognosticators are rarely right. As an Eagles fan, I know this is difficult to believe, but there were positives to be taken from Sunday's game. The Birds were, on several occasions, inches from the game-breaking big play we've grown accustomed to this year. Offensively, the reads were there, unfortunately the throws were not. That is not something that happens to the Eagles 2 weeks in a row. The Cowboys defense, while disruptive, has holes the Eagles can exploit. Defensively, the Eagles were put on their heels by a terrible call on the Cowboys' first drive and never really seemed to recover. They played less aggressively than normal, and, like the offense, missed by inches on several big plays that turned into even bigger plays for the Cowboys. All in all, the Eagles did not bring their A game last Sunday, the Cowboys did. I do not believe that the Cowboys can up their level of play any further, whereas the Eagles can improve drastically in all facets of the game. I think this weekend's game will be a lot closer than many are predicting. My game predictions will come Friday.
On to music... New Year's brought us a new decade and a huge Penn State win, but overlooked in all the celebrating was Chris Cornell's announcement that Soundgarden will reunite for a series of concerts this year. For the life of me, I cannot understand why people haven't been talking about this more. There were four bands mainly responsible for the global popularity of so-called "grunge" music: Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, Nirvana, and Pearl Jam. Pearl Jam is still, by all accounts, hugely popular. Alice In Chains is making a comeback after taking a hiatus due to the death of Layne Staley, however everyone knows that they are not really Alice In Chains without him so I can understand the lack of buzz surrounding their current tour, but nevertheless their original music is everywhere. Nirvana's music has lived on and is still hugely popular despite the death of Kurt Cobain. For some reason unbeknownst to me, Soundgarden has largely fallen off the radar so to speak. Rarely are Soundgarden's hits played on the radio, and if they are, the number of times they are played is drastically less than those of Pearl Jam, AIC, or Nirvana. All I've heard in regards to Cornell's announcement have been lukewarm side comments. As I remember it, Soundgarden's last album was highly anticipated with lots of pre-release press. They then announced they would take a break and the rest is history.
My question is this: What pushed Soundgarden to the bottom of the Big 4? Was it because there was no tragedy involved in their decision to break up? No martyred figure for the press to hail as a troubled genius, thus bringing the band's music into and stay within the conciousness of the general public? And if that is the case, is the music of Nirvana and the original AIC held in higher regard than it naturally would be?
All I know is that when I was young, Soundgarden was a big deal. Their music was of the same style and quality as the aformentioned bands whose success has withstood the test of time, yet Soundgarden has announced intentions to reunite with little fan fare, and few under the age of maybe 15 would know "Spoonman" or "Burden In My Hand" or even "Black Hole Sun". What happened??
Posting for the first time in almost 10 months, I find my beloved Eagles back in the playoffs, on the road in a wild card game. If you listen to the pundits and prognosticators, this game is over before it starts and Cowboys fans should probably start booking hotel accomodations in Miami. Thankfully, pundits and prognosticators are rarely right. As an Eagles fan, I know this is difficult to believe, but there were positives to be taken from Sunday's game. The Birds were, on several occasions, inches from the game-breaking big play we've grown accustomed to this year. Offensively, the reads were there, unfortunately the throws were not. That is not something that happens to the Eagles 2 weeks in a row. The Cowboys defense, while disruptive, has holes the Eagles can exploit. Defensively, the Eagles were put on their heels by a terrible call on the Cowboys' first drive and never really seemed to recover. They played less aggressively than normal, and, like the offense, missed by inches on several big plays that turned into even bigger plays for the Cowboys. All in all, the Eagles did not bring their A game last Sunday, the Cowboys did. I do not believe that the Cowboys can up their level of play any further, whereas the Eagles can improve drastically in all facets of the game. I think this weekend's game will be a lot closer than many are predicting. My game predictions will come Friday.
On to music... New Year's brought us a new decade and a huge Penn State win, but overlooked in all the celebrating was Chris Cornell's announcement that Soundgarden will reunite for a series of concerts this year. For the life of me, I cannot understand why people haven't been talking about this more. There were four bands mainly responsible for the global popularity of so-called "grunge" music: Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, Nirvana, and Pearl Jam. Pearl Jam is still, by all accounts, hugely popular. Alice In Chains is making a comeback after taking a hiatus due to the death of Layne Staley, however everyone knows that they are not really Alice In Chains without him so I can understand the lack of buzz surrounding their current tour, but nevertheless their original music is everywhere. Nirvana's music has lived on and is still hugely popular despite the death of Kurt Cobain. For some reason unbeknownst to me, Soundgarden has largely fallen off the radar so to speak. Rarely are Soundgarden's hits played on the radio, and if they are, the number of times they are played is drastically less than those of Pearl Jam, AIC, or Nirvana. All I've heard in regards to Cornell's announcement have been lukewarm side comments. As I remember it, Soundgarden's last album was highly anticipated with lots of pre-release press. They then announced they would take a break and the rest is history.
My question is this: What pushed Soundgarden to the bottom of the Big 4? Was it because there was no tragedy involved in their decision to break up? No martyred figure for the press to hail as a troubled genius, thus bringing the band's music into and stay within the conciousness of the general public? And if that is the case, is the music of Nirvana and the original AIC held in higher regard than it naturally would be?
All I know is that when I was young, Soundgarden was a big deal. Their music was of the same style and quality as the aformentioned bands whose success has withstood the test of time, yet Soundgarden has announced intentions to reunite with little fan fare, and few under the age of maybe 15 would know "Spoonman" or "Burden In My Hand" or even "Black Hole Sun". What happened??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)