Nov 21 2009
By Bob Smizik | Saturday 1:30 p.m.
There are no sure things in the National Football League. But the defending Super Bowl champion, coming off a defeat to a team it once owned, playing against a team that is 8-33 over the past three seasons is about as close as it gets.
The Kansas City Chiefs, the Steelers opponent Sunday at Arrowhead Stadium, stink. About the only good thing that can be said about the Chiefs is they’re better than the Cleveland Browns and probably the Oakland Raiders. But you wouldn’t want to go much further than that.
The Chiefs are what the Steelers need -- an easy game. After consecutive games against the Minnesota Vikings, Denver Broncos and Cincinnati Bengals, the Steelers need this kind of competition.
So here’s what the Steelers need to do, and are you listening, Bruce Arians.
RUN THE BALL!
Run it early, run it often and run it down the throats of the Chiefs.
The Chiefs are an equal opportunity defender. They’re 27th in the NFL against the run, 24th against the pass.
We know the Steelers can pass, despite Ben Roethlsiberger’s sub-par game last week. He’s an elite NFL quarterback.
We’re not sure they can run. Rashard Mendenhall is a second-year pro he has flashed brilliant and dim during his time with the Steelers. Arians had so little confidence in the Steelers ability to run the ball against the Bengals that he rarely called upon Mendenhall.
He needs to lean on him Sunday. He needs to use Willie Parker, too. The Steelers need not so much to fix their running game but to gain confidence in it. The Chiefs are the team to do it against.
Arians is a proponent of a passing offense so long, at least, as Roethlisberger is the quarterback. That’s fine. But the run can’t be forgotten, as was last week against Cincinnati. Arians needs to think of Mendenhall as Jerome Bettis and allow him to run with the ball in this game so the Steelers can run the ball when they really need to in future games.
Nov 21 2009
Saturday, 1 a.m.
Q: What do you think of Jim Tracy being named National League Manager of the Year? Did the Pirates give up on him too soon? And how many games can a manager realistically win for his team?
Bobby Fitzmaurice
Bob Smizik: Tracy was very deserving and I’m not surprised he received 29 of a possible 32 first-place votes. No, I don’t think the Pirates gave up on him too soon. I think Tracy was a bad fit for the Pirates. I think he is best with a veteran and more talented team.
As for how many games a manager can win, it depends on the situation. Tracy, for example, took over a good team that had tired of former manager Clint Hurdle. The Rockies were ripe for a new voice. In a situation like that a manager can make a big difference. But in normal circumstances, I might give a manager five wins a year.
_________
Q: If Brett Keisel and James Harrison are great special teams players, and the Steelers were leading, 14-7, in the fourth quarter with a minute left and having just scored, would Mike Tomlin send them out to supplement 
the special teams? If not, why not?
Jack Huber
Bob Smizik: I don’t think you can use the present tense in describing the special team play of Harrison and Keisel. Past tense would be correct. If Keisel and Harrison had not been practicing with the special teams, no, I definitely would not send them out. If they had been taking an occasional turn, but nothing serious, in practice, I’d still probably not do it. The only case in which I might use them is if the special teams had had another bad day.
__________
Q: After The Bengals went ahead 18-12, the Steelers threw long on first down and we know the rest of the story. That was the time when they needed to get it together and begin putting some first downs together and getting a winning score. Was it too much Monday Night Football or did the Steelers blink?
Dave Hogan
Bob Smizik: I think it was too much bad play-calling by offensive coordinator Bruce Arians. I’m slow to criticize play calling because I don’t know all that’s going on, but that series of plays made no sense. The Steelers had enough time that they did not have to try low-percentage long passes.
__________
Q: Has the Big East approached Penn State about joining since the defections of Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College? It only makes sense because before it joined the Big Ten, Penn State dominated this region. But now I see them as a second-tier team. They're biggest losses are in recruiting from this area. In the late 1980s, the good recruits went to Penn State or maybe Notre Dame. Now Pitt and WVU are recruiting well in the area, along with Ohio State. I think Penn State returning to play football locally and the dominance it would have in Big East would guarantee them 10 wins almost every year and a BCS bid every other year. Wouldn't a return of Penn State benefit everyone locally (Pitt and WVU)? It would also bolster the reputation of the Big East in football.
Joseph Polinsky
Bob Smizik: I think Penn State is happy in the Big Ten and would not be interested in joining the Big East. Obviously, Penn State would be a great addition but I think the Big East knows it is set in the Big Ten and will not be making any overtures. Penn State won the Big Ten and played in the Rose Bowl last year. They have a good chance of playing in a BCS bowl this year. That is not the mark of a second-tier team.
__________
Q: It would seem that Pitt could offer an outstanding high school quarterback the “opportunity” to start for four years at a school on the upswing?
D. Conn
Bob Smizik: It is rarely a good idea to promise a high school player a starting role as a freshman. That’s particularly true since Pitt will have two quarterbacks who have been waiting their turn -- Pat Bostick and Tino Sunseri. I'm sure any good high school quarterback knows there's a chance for early playing time at Pitt with Bill Stull leaving, but first he'd have to win the job. No coach will guarantee that.
__________
Q: Unbelievable! Pitt is 9 and 1, the best record it has had in 27 years, heading for a conference championship game in a couple of weeks against a team that they can beat and all people want to do is complain about how they weren't perfect. This team and program is on the verge of something special that we have not seen in 27 years. Enjoy it.
I think that some can't stand the fact that Bill Stull is the quarterback and particularly that he is proving them wrong. I, too, had reservations at the start of the season about him being named the starter. But I admit that I was wrong Get over it. He is playing well enough to win and that is all that matters.
Enjoy the ride! Hail To Pitt!
D. B. Kohan
Bob Smizik: It’s tough to please some people but in fairness to Pitt fans, not being happy with success is common with almost all teams. Fans love to have something to complain about.
__________
Q: Joe Girardi came in last among all of the AL managers who won anything (in Manager of the Year voting). Sometimes you get third place because the guy that placed fourth didn't do anything. And it's not a given any manager would have won 103 games with the Yankees. Almost any manager would have done very well, but 103 wins is really a lot.
Kyle Moylan
Bob Smizik: My problem was not so much that Girardi finished third but that he got four first-place votes. I don’t understand that.
__________
Q: Thanks for passing along the info on the Buccos money. Looking at the team's young talent, we could have a lot of good players that can help us win. Do you think the Pirates will use this money down the road for signing these talented players to long-term deals?
Wil Hrovat
Bob Smizik: I'm not quite sure what young talent you're talking about. Other than Andrew McCutchen and possibly Garrett Jones, who's not so young, I don't see a ``lot of good players.'' As for signing good players to long-term deals, there is no indication the Pirates will do that when the time comes. But you never know.
Nov 20 2009
By Bob Smizik | Friday 9:35 a.m.
Pirates general manager Neal Huntington was talking positive to the Post-Gazette’s Chuck Finder in a story in today’s print edition of the newspaper.
I hope Huntington doesn’t believe that.
I know he doesn’t believe that.
Huntington is too smart a baseball man, too understanding of what it takes to be a winner in MLB, to believe the blarney he was dispensing.
Here’s what he told Finder:
``With Garrett Jones and Jeff Clement [at first base] and [left fielder] Lastings Milledge and [third baseman] 
Andy LaRoche and Jose Tabata and Pedro Alvarez we feel we have the four corners covered nicely.’’
If Huntington truly believes a group of players that does not include one established major-league hitter has the four power positions ``covered nicely,’’ he should resign his position immediately.
How do the Pirates prospective corner players compare with those of the New York Yankees: Mark Teixeira, Alex Rodriquez, Johnny Damon and Nick Swisher?
If the Yankees are a bit much, just look at three of the players the St. Louis Cardinals had in their corner positions when they won the National League Central Division: Albert Pujols, Matt Holliday, Ryan Ludwick.
The Chicago Cubs: Derrek Lee, Aramis Ramirez, Alfonso Soriano, Milton Bradley.
The Philadelphia Phillies: Ryan Howard, Pedro Feliz, Raul Ibanez, Jayson Werth.
That’s what it takes to be a contender and a champion.
But what is truly disheartening about Huntington’s comments was that he gave scant indication the Pirates would be any kind of players in free agency or that the team was significantly interested in upgrading its current talent level.
``We continue to look to upgrade,’’ he said, ``but don’t feel a desperate need to fill any hole.’’
Over the final 65 games, the Pirates played at a 114-loss pace. How does that not leave them in a desperate mode?
The payroll was down almost to $30 million after the massive trading spree last summer and judging from Huntington’s word the team has little interest in even getting it back to the $50 million level where it has been for several seasons.
It’s clear the Pirates are content to put a loser on the field and hope their fans buy into their young players and the future.
How long have we been fed that line?
And does anyone believe it?
Nov 19 2009
Thursday, 4:15 p.m.
(In a report today on ESPN.com, Jayson Stark, their crack baseball columnist, wrote that teams like the Pirates are receiving as much as $80 million from MLB and local television revenue and that's before ``they opened their ticket windows, let one car into their parking lots or sold one slice of pizza . . . ''
Stark has statistical evidence to back up this report. It makes for fascinating reading and is certain to get the blood boiling of those who believe Pirates owner Bob Nutting is pocketing a handsome profit while fielding a horrible baseball team.
Stark's story is copied below, as is one by Ken Rosenthal, also an oustanding baseball reporter, who writes for Fox. In Rosenthal's story, Pirates president Frank Coonelly denies the $80 million figure but does not name the amount the team receives from MLB.
Here's Stark's story. Rosenthal's follows. -- Bob Smizik)
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Pushing for a minimum payroll threshold
By Jayson Stark
ESPN.com
The Yankees just won another World Series (as you might have heard someplace) -- and we all know what that means:
The crying game is on.
It isn't fair. … We need a salary cap. … The system's broken.
Sound familiar?
Well, the system may be broken, all right. But don't just look at the top.
Anybody checked out the bottom teams lately?
If you live in Pittsburgh or South Florida, you've probably gotten so used to blaming The System for all your team's problems, there's an excellent chance you never noticed something every fan of these two "small-market" operations should know:
Your team collected more money this season -- before it ever sold one ticket -- than it spent on its entire major league payroll. In fact, it collected more than it spent on its major league payroll and its player-development system combined.
But it isn't just the Pirates and Marlins who are cashing checks larger than their payrolls before the ticket offices open. By some estimates, a third of the teams in the sport are doing exactly the same thing.
So how big an issue is that for baseball? We've spent the week exploring that topic with people who work in virtually every aspect of baseball management. We'll let you judge for yourself.
Nobody wants you to know, of course, exactly how many dollars each team takes in from a humongous pot that includes revenue sharing, TV-radio money, merchandising, sponsorships, etc. And, depending on which side of the sport you reside on, estimates of those amounts vary. But after numerous conversations, we now have a pretty fair idea. So here goes.
Read the rest of the story here
By Ken Rosenthal
Ken Rosenthal has been the senior baseball writer for FOXSports.com since Aug. 2005. He appears weekly on the FSN Baseball Report and MLB on FOX.
Updated: November 19, 2009, 2:58 AM EST
What you are about to read is a nasty exchange between Scott Boras, the game's most prominent agent, and Rob Manfred, baseball's chief of labor relations.
Manfred says Boras is lying when he portrays the sport's finances in glowing terms. Boras says Manfred is biased because he works for the owner.
The real story is much deeper. And much more disturbing.
The free-agent market opens Friday, and tension is rising between representatives of the players and owners.
The players' side says that baseball is doing remarkably good business, even in a harsh national economy. The owners' side says that baseball is not immune to the economic downturn, and teams are adjusting accordingly.
By 2011, when the current collective-bargaining agreement expires, baseball will have completed an unprecedented 16 straight years of labor peace. But that peace is now threatened — threatened by the increasing hostility and historic distrust between the two sides.
Many agents and some union officials suspect that the owners are again engaging in collusion, an illegal conspiracy to hold down salaries.
Enter Boras.
In recent weeks, Boras has pointed out frequently that baseball had its highest revenues in 2008, $6.6 billion, and its second-highest in '09, a number that the union estimates is about $6.3 billion, or just 5 percent lower.
I called Manfred on Tuesday to ask his reaction to Boras' remarks. He responded by making apparent reference to a recent Boston Globe report in which Boras was quoted as saying that some teams are getting a combined $80 million to $90 million per season from revenue sharing and baseball's central fund — and spending little enough on payroll to turn handsome profits.
Read the rest of the story here.
Nov 19 2009
By Bob Smizik | Thursday, 1:00 a.m.
There were some excellent football games in Pittsburgh over the weekend -- Pitt beat Notre Dame and the Steelers barely lost to the Cincinnati Bengals.
But we’re offering up a better game today. It’s time to play the What-If Game.
Specifically: What if Pitt hadn’t lost to North Carolina State?
For starters, the Panthers would be undefeated and ranked a notch or two higher in the polls than their current eighth slot. Of more significance, they’d be in the hunt for the national championship. They would be an underdog in such a quest, just as Cincinnati is, but if a few things went the right way and with Pitt having a good chance of winning its final two games, we’d at least be talking about the possibility.
But all that talk ended on Sept. 27 in Raleigh, N.C. when the Panthers inexplicably were beaten by the Wolfpack. Not only is NC State a considerably inferior team to Pitt, but Pitt was beaten when its normally stout defense gave up three touchdowns in little more than a quarter to surrender a 14-point lead and lose, 38-31.
Since that game, the Wolfpack has lost four in a row and five of six. They lost to Wake Forest, Duke, Boston College and Florida State before beating Maryland and then lost again to Clemson.
NC State is 4-6 but has beaten only two Division I-A opponents, Pitt, which is 9-1, and Maryland, which is 2-8.
To review the carnage:
Pitt scored with 4:15 remaining in the third quarter to take a 31-17 lead.
Thanks to a good runback on the ensuing kickoff and a 15-yard face-mask penalty against Pitt, the Wolfpack started on the Panthers’ 45 and scored in five plays with quarterback Russell Wilson passing 33 yards to Jarvis Williams for the score. The drive took 91 seconds.
Pitt went three and out -- pass, run, pass -- and North Carolina State took over on its own 17.
Wilson, who threw four touchdown passes, ran 25 yards on first down and two plays later, the first play of the fourth quarter, passed for 29 yards to the Pitt 24. On a fourth and 14, Wilson scrambled for 21 yards to the Pitt 7, from where he threw a touchdown pass. The drive was 83 yards in 2 minutes, 11 seconds and the game was tied.
Pitt could not answer. It went three and out -- pass, run pass, with a 9-yard holding penalty -- and North Carolina State took over on its own 29. Pitt was called for pass interference twice on third down as the Wolfpack moved 71 yards in 10 plays to take the lead.
Pitt again went three and out -- run, penalty, pass, pass -- but got one more chance when it recovered a fumble on the North Carolina State 29. After a run got 1 yards and a pass -1, on third and 10, Bill Stull three too high for Dorin Dickerson in the end zone and on fourth down he threw as miserable a pass as might be seen, which was near no one.
North Carolina State ran out the clock.
After the game coach Dave Wannstedt said, ``Our guys gave enough effort to win the game but we made too many mistakes to win the game. What is so disappointing is the penalties.
``There is no excuse for these penalties. The pass interference penalties are always debatable but where there is smoke, there is usually fire and you don't get called that many times week after week without there being something there. The penalties we had on defense were mind boggling’’
It can’t be said that a great season slipped away on that day because the Panthers are still capable of a great season. But a possibly historic season did disappear.
It bring to mind that fabulous stretch when Pitt lost three games in three years from 1979-81 -- going 11-1 each season. In particular, the 1980 loss to Florida State, with what was the most talented Pitt team in history, and the infamous 48-14 loss to Penn State in 1981 cost Pitt chances at national championships.
That might not be able to be said about this team. But because of the loss to North Carolina State we’ll never know for sure.
Nov 18 2009
By Bob Smizik | Tuesday, 7:50 p.m.
In a vote of the Baseball Writers Association of America, Mike Scioscia today was named American League Manager of the Year.
No surprise there. Scioscia is considered among the best managers in the game and his Los Angeles Angels won the American League West.
Runnerup in the voting, conducted by two members in every AL city, was Ron Gardenhire of the Minnesota Twins.
No surprise there. Gardenhire’s underfunded team won the Central Division.
Finishing third, with four first-place votes, was Joe Girardi of the New York Yankees, whose team won the AL East.
Utter amazement and astonishment there. What were my brethren in the BBWAA thinking when they cast ballots of Girardi? It makes you wonder whether testing should be mandatory not just for the players but for the voters.
Some background: In his first season as manager of the Yankees in 2008, Girardi led them to a third-place finish, which meant not making the playoffs for the first time in 13 years.
So going from third place with 89 wins to first place with 103 is a nice accomplishment and certainly the manager deserves some credit.
Except for this:
In the off-season the Yankees took the free-agent market hostage and added the following players for the following terms:
First baseman Mark Teixeira: 8 years, $180 million
Starting pitcher C. C. Sabathia: 7 years, $161 million
Starting pitcher A. J. Burnett: 5 years, $82.5 million
For good measure the re-signed their own free agent starter Andy Pettitte for one year at $5.5 million with about another $5 million in easily attainable bonuses.
If that were not enough, they also traded for outfielder Nick Swisher and picked up the $22 million he had remaining on his contract.
The Yankees bought themselves a first-place finish and a World Series, which was accentuated by the fact every post-season game was started either by Sabathia, Burnett or Pettitte.
These signings would have made the Pirates a contender and they clearly made the Yankees a champion.
What exactly did Girardi do but write out a lineup card every day.
He no more deserved a vote for Manager of the Year than did the Pirates John Russell.
Nov 18 2009
By Bob Smizik | Wednesday 1 a.m.
The term ``human sacrifice’’ is enough to make your skin crawl so I won’t use it in describing the Steelers decision to release linebacker Arnold Harrison, whose chief role with the Steelers was to play on special teams.
Just let it be known that Harrison was cast aside two days after the Steelers gave up yet another special teams touchdown because he had not performed his job in a satisfactory manner and, well, it sends out a pretty straightforward message to the rest of the guys.
Do your job better or you, too, can be released next week.
If special teams coach Bob Ligashesky and assistant special teams coach Amos Jones were having trouble getting the attention of their charges, that probably is no longer the case.
Bernard Scott returned a kickoff 96 yards for a touchdown Sunday and it was the margin of victory, as well as the only touchdown in the game, in the Cincinnati Bengals' 18-12 win over the Steelers. It was the third kick
returned for a touchdown this season against the Steelers.
The knee-jerk reaction from some fans was to immediately fire Ligashesky and Jones. That idea might have some merit, except for this. With Ligashesky and Jones in charge last season, the Steelers were first in the NFL in defending against kickoff returns and fourth against punt returns.
Neither Ligashesky nor Jones has undergone a brain transplant since the end of the 2008 season.
As is usually the case with these malfunctions, the players are the culprits and coach Mike Tomlin made that clear yesterday when he fired Harrison instead of Ligashesky and Jones.
Donovan Woods, also a linebacker, will take Harrison’s roster spot. Keep in mind that the Steelers have struggled all season on kick coverage, which means if Woods were anything really special he would not have been on the practice squad. Still, he almost has to be an upgrade.
The conventional wisdom concerning kick coverage is that it’s a desire issue and if the guys really, really want to do it, they can and will.
Except for this: The opposition has special teams players, too, and those guys also may really, really want to do it.
So if there are two teams with guys who really, really want to do it then it comes down to playing talent -- as it usually does.
Tomlin said, ``It's detail. It's about shedding blocks and making tackles and being schematically sound.''
Tomlin could alter that talent scale by using some of his starters on special teams. Defensive end Brett Keisel and linebacker James Harrison are well-known for their special teams ability and certainly would juice up the product.
But that could be counterproductive. Keisel and Harrison are 31, which is not young for NFL players. Asking them to run under kicks and then immediately assume their defensive duties -- providing, of course, the kick was not returned for a touchdown -- is asking too much.
No, Ligashesky and Jones will have to deal pretty much with what they have. There can be adjustments in scheme and alterations in roles but it all comes down to the players performing better.
``We’ve got to rectify it,’’ said Hines Ward. ``We have to get guys out there inspired to play.’’
If the sudden departure of Arnold Harrison doesn’t do that, nothing will.
Nov 17 2009
Tuesday, 9 a.m.
(Penn State is planning a new pricing structure for football season ticket holders that will raise the cost of a seat by as much as 500 percent. The increase is expected to go into effect in 2011.
Neil Rudel, managing editor of the Altoona Mirror and who has covered Penn State expertly for years, has all the details. Rudel thinks it's too much and offers some alternatives. -- Bob Smizik)
By Neil Rudel
Nov. 17, 2009
Penn State is working on a new pricing structure for football season tickets that, effective in 2011, will in some cases increase the cost by 500 percent per seat.
Cutting to the chase: For many years, Penn State has charged Nittany Lion Club members a minimum of $100 per seat per season for the opportunity to purchase tickets. That goes for tickets on the 50-yard line or in the end zone.
The school has not yet announced specifics of the proposed arrangements, but according to a report in Sunday's Harrisburg Patriot-News, which school spokesman Greg Myford did not dispute in Monday's Mirror, PSU is considering raising the mandatory minimum to $600 between the 40-yard lines, $400 between the 40s and the goal lines and $200 in the end zone.
And you thought the health-care costs in this country are out of control.
This, remember, is per seat, per season.
Those who balk will be shown the end zone.
Most businesses have faced rising expenses, and Penn State is no different. And while no one likes when prices go up on anything, let alone entertainment, they accept and adjust when it's done in reasonable increments.
This does not seem to be a reasonable increment.
Penn State football takes pride in paying the freight for the school's 29 varsity sports as only football and men's basketball are profitable.
In the past 10 years, it has launched skyboxes and club seats at Beaver Stadium, at premium prices, but that apparently is not enough, and the university has now put Joe Lunchbucket in its cross hairs.
At what point does Penn State consider reducing a handful of sports to the club level?
The answer, obviously, is not yet.
Not if it can shake enough of you to double your football bill and, for example, change it from $2,160 for four seats on the 40 - at $55 per seat times eight home games plus the $400 for the "right" to watch these special teams - to $4,160.
Read the rest of the story here.
Nov 17 2009
By Bob Smizik | Tuesday, 12:30 a.m.
It was somewhat jarring in the aftermath of the Steelers loss Sunday to hear free safety Ryan Clark concede the division title to the Cincinnati Bengals.
That’s taking good sportsmanship a step or two or three too far. Clark was being gracious to a fault.
The Bengals have what amounts to a two-game lead over the Steelers with seven games remaining. That puts them in a good situation but not yet a championship situation.
The Bengals, as the Steelers have discovered, are a good team. But they’re not a great one. They are capable of losing two games the remainder of the way, perhaps even three.
The question is: Are the Steelers capable of mounting the near-perfect finish it will take to catch the Bengals?
Cincinnati’s next three games are against Oakland, Cleveland and Detroit, teams with a combined 4-23 record. If they win all three, and they should, they’ll be 10-2 and riding a torrent of momentum.
But then comes games at Minnesota and San Diego, team with a combined 14-3 record. They follow that with a home game against Kansas City (2-7) and on the road against the New York Jets (4-5).
It would not be astonishing for the Bengals to lose at Minnesota and San Diego. Nor will the Jets, if they’re still in the playoff hunt, be an easy opponent.
This could provide the Steelers with the opening they need. But they are going to have to play better to finish in a manner that will enable them to catch Cincinnati.
That’s not to say they haven’t been playing well. They have. They had three consecutive games against team that had lost a combined three games -- Minnesota, Denver and Cincinnati -- and they won two of them. But their offense, the expected strength of the team, has been in decline.
Any offense is going to have difficulties against the top-of-the line teams the Steelers have been playing, but their failure to score a touchdown against the Bengals was alarming and a continuation of some poor play.
The Steelers have scored only four offensive touchdowns in their past three games. And one of those came against Denver following an interception by Troy Polamalu that gave them the ball on the Broncos’ 25.
The Steelers have a chance to get better in their upcoming games and put some heat on Cincinnati. They play at Kansas City Sunday then have games against Baltimore (5-4), Oakland (2-7) and Cleveland (1-8). The Ravens have been a fierce and worthy rival of the Steelers for most of this decade. But after a strong start this season they look to be a team in decline. Their sluggish performance in a win over Cleveland last night does not change that perception.
The Steelers finish at home against Green Bay and Baltimore and on the road at Miami.
They have the capability of finishing strong -- if they start to play better on offense.
The Bengals, of course, have to cooperate, but stranger things have been known to happen.
The Bengals are in charge in the AFC North, but they’re not yet champions of it.
Nov 16 2009
Monday, 4:15 p.m.
(New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick had the entire football world talking today about his ultra-daring strategy against the Indianapolis Colts Sunday night. Leading the Colts late in the game, Belichick went for it on fourth and 2 deep in his own territory. He wanted to keep the ball out of the hands of Indianapolis quarterback Peyton Manning. The strategy backfired. The Patriots did not convert, Manning got the ball and won the game.
Most people considered the strategy stupid. I liked it and thought it was worth the gamble -- although I'd have liked it better if it was fourth and 1. I like coaches who are daring and willing to stray from the conventional wisdom of the game.
Judy Battista, who reports on the NFL for the New York Times, covers all the bases on this story in her article today. -- Bob Smizik)
November 17, 2009
N.F.L. Fast Forward
Belichick’s Latest Gamble Backfires
Forget the Barry Switzer references. Yes, Bozo the Coach, which is what The New York Post called Switzer in a headline in 1995 when his Cowboys failed to convert a fourth-down attempt at their 29-yard-line against the Eagles — made the same decision that Bill Belichick did Sunday night in the Patriots’ 35-34 loss to the Colts.
But as second-guessing continues to rage about Belichick’s stunning decision to keep his offense on the field on fourth-and-2 deep in his own territory, with quarterback Peyton Manning waiting on the opposite sideline, the best point of comparison may be Belichick himself earlier this season.
Against Atlanta on Sept. 27, Belichick went for it on fourth-and-1 from his own 24-yard line. The Patriots converted. Belichick was hailed for his you-play-to-win-the-game moxie. And in his postgame comments, he sounded strikingly the way he did Sunday night, if a lot more jovial.
“I felt like we could get a yard,” he said that day. “There would have been plenty of criticism if we didn’t. But then we were able to get that and basically hold on to the ball.”
That’s exactly what Belichick was trying to do Sunday. The differences, of course, were substantial. The Patriots were leading when Belichick made his gambit against Atlanta, too. But it was only the third quarter. There was plenty of time to recover. And with all due respect to Matt Ryan, it was not Manning who was preparing to take over if the Patriots came up short.
But the Patriots’ offense was struggling for consistency at the time, so the decision to hand off to Sammy Morris seemed outrageous then, too. It worked: the Patriots held the ball for almost the rest of the third quarter, kicked a field goal, and packed the game away. Which is why you haven’t heard much more about it until now. The Patriots, by the way, are 17th in the N.F.L. in fourth-down efficiency. They have gone for it 11 times on fourth down and converted five times.
“Bill obviously has more faith in the ability of his offense to get a yard than for his defense to keep Manning and the Colts from orchestrating a two-minute drive,” the former Ravens Coach Brian Billick said. “No one knows his team better than Bill. I do wonder what message it sends to the defensive players.”
Read the rest of the story here
More Posts
Next page »