Before I get into the main topic, I want to first say that
for me, the “most hated” team in the NFL should not be the New England
Patriots, but the New York Giants. This is a team that naps during the regular
season, and then has the temerity to upset the tide of history on two occasions
after waking itself up after falling over. On this Sunday evening, just as they
did in the playoffs last season, the Giants carved-up the Green Bay offensive
line and Aaron Rodgers, but that just wasn’t enough. Up 38-10, Eli Manning passed
on fourth-and-short twice in the final 5 minutes of the game. This team needs
to be taught a lesson in humility in a major way.
Anyway, after the Miami Dolphins defeated the favored
Seattle Seahawks 24-21 this weekend, I listened to the post-game show on the
radio with Dori Monson and company. For some reason, every time I listen to
these homers I’m reminded of the DeFilipo brothers on the SCTV series 5 episode
“Melonvote”—a couple of district attorneys who had zero convictions in two years
running for reelection (You can do better, but I’m running” says their
opponent); these guys, who took “courtroom argument” to psychotic extremes, claimed
that their “record” of no convictions actually demonstrates their “success” in
office, because there is “no crime” in Melonville.
With the Seahawks post-game “analysts,” what is “right” and “wrong”
with the team occupies about the same stratosphere of absurdity. As I mentioned
following the Seattle-Green Bay game and the controversial “interceptdown,” Monson
and company never even intimated that there was a controversy on Golden Tate’s
so-called catch, while the outside world was baying for Seahawk blood. Nor did
they mention the fact that another Russell Wilson interception in that game was
nullified by incidental contact on his ankle. Yet after the Miami game, they
were howling like coyotes in heat because a Seahawk interception was nullified
after a defender tried to ram Dolphin quarterback Ryan Tannehill’s jaw into his
braincase; one the “analysts” whined that Tannehill either should have moved
out of the way, or taken it like a man. Whenever the Seahawks benefit from
such a circumstance, it’s not even a matter of debate; but if it adversely affects
“their” team, the league needs to change the rule.
But even more aggravating is the continuing pampering of
Russell Wilson. When he wasn’t playing well early in the season, his “issues”
were blamed for a lack of “weapons.” Now, it’s that his teammates are not up to
his “level.” You should have heard all the superlatives Wilson’s grovelers laid
at his feet after this loss: “Superb,” “outstanding,” “awesome,” “masterful,” “terrific,”
“brilliant,” etcetera and so forth. Once more, the team lost because of
everyone but Wilson. I mean, there must be point where the other players listen
to this constant refrain and think to themselves “We’ve been taking these
slings and arrows for this guy all year, and we’re not going to take it anymore.”
And they shouldn’t. On the surface, Wilson’s 21 for 27, 224
yards and 2 TD passes against the Dolphins was an above average performance. Yet
the team only scored 14 points on offense. Sure, the running game was subpar,
but if Wilson is so “great”—even as a rookie—then shouldn’t he overcome the occasional
hiccup? Isn’t that what good quarterbacks do? You know, like the 480 yards and
6 TD passes Matt Flynn put-up against the Detroit Lions last year, a team with
same “awful” secondary that Wilson only managed 236 yards against? Against
Miami, the fact is that it was another rookie, Ryan Tannehill, who was the one who
played with more poise and precision.
Some minor details demonstrate how Seattle’s offense cannot
function when it depends on its passing game when its ground game grinds to a
halt. Seattle had more plays (56-55), but Miami averaged 7.9 yards per play to
5.6. Seattle had more third down plays (14-9), but Miami had more first downs,
23-16. What does this mean? Seattle had one first down per 3.5 plays, compared
to Miami’s one per 2.5 plays—meaning the Dolphins were more likely to acquire a
first down on first and second down. And
while Wilson was 12-12 for 148 yards on the two touchdown drives, he was 9-15
for 76 yards the rest of the game; he was sacked twice, for a net of 68 yards
for an average of 4 yards per pass play. This inconsistency has been a continuing problem
with the Seahawks passing game.
Our “analysts” never want to give the opposing team any
credit, but it doesn’t make sense to blame just the “other” players on the team
for this inconsistency. The quarterback still has to put the ball in the right
place, and occasionally help a receiver by throwing him “open.” While Wilson
always seems to be “on” for two or three series that pad his stats, for most of
a game he seems to be merely ordinary or ineffective. No quarterback is always
consistent, but with Wilson it’s like a baseball player on a hot streak; .300
batting average—say 15 hits in 50 at-bats—might sound impressive, but if that
included a 10 hits in 15 at-bats streak, that means he hit just .143 in the remaining 35
at-bats. It is a short-term benefit and long-term detriment.
Alright, I will confess that Wilson has played much better
than I was willing to give him credit for. I still think Matt Flynn would
probably be the more consistently productive quarterback, and it won’t surprise
me if Flynn and his agent seek a trade to a team willing to give him an honest
shot. But I have my suspicion is that Wilson will play well enough to fool many
people into thinking that he is one of those “athletic” quarterbacks—the run
and pass type—who is exciting to watch and whose flaws go under the radar
because the players around him are dependent on him to make them “look good”—just
ask Sidney Rice when he played with Brett Favre. Favre transformed raw talents
like Greg Jennings and James Jones into top receivers in his last season in
Green Bay. Can the same be said about Wilson, who all his local media fans
think he is the “greatest?”
No comments:
Post a Comment