Hand Peyton Manning a hankie--but don't change the OT rule again for him

If there is anything worse than Peyton Manning whining about something—whether a receiver made his “cut” a step before he was “supposed” to as an explanation for why he threw that pick-6 that handed New Orleans a Super Bowl victory, or screaming at an offensive lineman who complained that Manning was wearing them down by passing on three consecutive plays from the one-yard line just to pad his stats, or denigrating teammates for not “keeping up” with his own inability to make up his mind about what play to call—is some blowhard commentator who actually agrees with him.

In this case it is radio show host Doug Gottlieb, who commiserated with Manning’s sob story about losing this past Sunday’s contest against Seattle based on a coin flip. It just not “fair.” Hey, Peyton—you were one who called “tails,” trying to outsmart the coin and the laws of gravity. How many times do kids with a sense of “privilege” say that every time something doesn’t go their way it is not “fair”—to them? Are not such people annoying as hell? 

I think that it should be first pointed out that the Denver Broncos had no business even having a chance to win that game. The Seattle defense dominated Manning and his offense for all but the final minute of regulation just as much as it did in last season’s Super Bowl. The only reason why Denver was allowed to make a “game” of it was because of Russell Wilson’s mistakes and the generally atrophy of Seattle’s offense for most of the game. I am sick and tired of hearing about how “great” Wilson is; in regard to his general ability, he reminds me more of Phil Simms—who also won a Super Bowl, was generally a steady, but by no means “great,” quarterback. He has been out of the league for many a year now, and he still hasn’t been seriously considered for Hall of Fame induction in spite of his name recognition as a broadcaster. I’m still convinced that “politics” has much to do with the view of Wilson and some other quarterbacks in this league, a few who have after a year of two of media fascination have started to fall into suspected irrelevancy. 

But that is off-subject. The overtime rule was changed not because of a glum Brett Favre sitting on the bench while the New Orleans Saints were handed two questionable third-down pass interference calls in the 2009 NFC Championship game against Minnesota, which allowed them to kick the game-winning field goal on the first possession of overtime, but because some people didn’t think it was “fair” that the year before, Peyton Manning had to sit and watch 5-6 Darren Sproles scamper 22 yards for the game-winner in OT in the first round of the playoffs. 

Why did we have to endure the whines of Manning and Indianapolis Colts apologists? Because the Colts were the “hot” team,  winning nine straight games to finish the season 12-4; but they were forced to play an 8-8 Chargers team that had just squeaked into the playoffs winning four straight in a weak division.  They didn’t “deserve” to even play, let alone win, despite the fact that the Colts didn’t play to “standard” and didn’t deserve to win themselves—just as they didn’t deserve to win against the Seahawks.

So now we have to change the rules again just to mollify the perpetually moaning Manning? Look, he might be a great regular season quarterback, at least insofar as the stat sheet is concerned; but in the playoff he is 11-12, and 1-2 in the Super Bowl (Favre has a13-11 playoff record). His passer rating in the playoffs is 8 points lower than his regular season rating (even Mark Sanchez has a higher playoff passer rating). And now he is making pouty noises (along with his apologists) that the league (again) has to change the overtime rule? Out of “fairness” to him personally?

I say Manning needs to find his own space where we don’t have to observe a grown man cry—and maybe he can persuade Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady to join him.

Russell Wilson does what is expected from him—and that’s all

After listening to the Monday morning quarterbacking session, in which Seattle Seahawks’ Russell Wilson was being raved as “special,” tentatively placed in the “elite” category of quarterbacks, and held in thrall in the way he led the Seahawks on a game-winning drive in the overtime against the Denver Broncos, I had to ask myself “What game were they watching?” Save for Denver’s game tying touchdown drive in the final minute of regulation, the Seahawks 26-20 victory in over time left one feeling if either team deserved to win this game. 

Now, first let me say that despite having lived in the state of Washington longer than in any other location, I do not consider any of the sports teams here my “home” team. In football, that would be the Green Bay Packers and the Wisconsin Badgers. Thus I have a “dispassionate” view of the sports scene around here; while I’m happy that the Seattle Seahawks won the Super Bowl last season, that is only because I wanted to see Peyton Manning get his fundament handed to him on a platter (which is exactly what happened), and I also have a natural affinity for the team that few expect to win, because they are far from the “centers” of media power.

Because it was my fervent desire to see Denver lose this particular game, I naturally began pulling my hair as I observed the seemingly “easy” victory—17-3 early in the fourth quarter, with Denver’s offense playing as if they wanted to get off the field as quickly as possible—being tossed away by one offensive blunder after another by Wilson, and finally by an exhausted defense. Yet afterwards, I could only cringe in stupefaction as the local sports media engaged once more in its gushing “man-crush” over Wilson  and his “masterful” performance. Huh?

The reality was that the Seahawks defense, while forcing Denver to kick eight consecutive punts and allowing just one drive of substance that ended in a field goal through three quarters, saw its efforts wasting away as Wilson and the offense went into hibernation in the third quarter before deciding to  just give the game away. Wilson took a sack that was nearly a safety instead of throwing the ball away, which was subsequently accomplished when Marshawn Lynch was forced to take a hand off five yards deep in the end zone. The defense again minimized the damage by forcing Denver to punt after the free kick, but then Wilson threw an interception on the very next play, leading a quick Denver score, and suddenly a seemingly “insurmountable” 17-3 lead was cut to 17-12. 

Seriously in need of a score, instead the Seahawks were again forced to punt after a brief possession. The failure of the offense to control the ball for any length of time in the second half had taken its toll, and Manning drove the Broncos relentlessly downfield until a poor decision—trying to lob a pass over Kam Chancellor—failed, and Chancellor returned the ball to the Denver 35. With a chance to burn clock and ice the game, Wilson and the offense again failed, and allowed Denver one last chance to complete a stunning comeback with no timeouts left. 41 seconds later, the game was incomprehensibly tied at 20, with overtime the result. Whether out of its own exhaustion or premature elation, the Denver defense did its own folding on the first possession of OT, allowing the Seahawks their first drive of more than 33 yards since the second quarter, scoring a game-ending touchdown.

Now it is true that Wilson currently leads the NFL in passer rating, at 108.9.  However, his 87 passes are the second fewest of any quarterback who has played three complete games, which suggests that he is allowed to pass only when necessary and in situations propitious to do so.  One must credit offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell with minimizing Wilson’s gaffe-making opportunities and keeping him closely hewed to an overall script; Colin Kaepernick has proven himself completely devoid of judgment once the two-series script that the offense practiced to death all week has run out of pages. Likewise, whenever the Seahawks’ offense find itself in a position of crisis and sound judgment required, bad things tend to happen, as they did against the Broncos. 

Time and time again, the Seahawks’ offense shows briefs spurts of life, only to be followed by long, frustrating periods of inaction, forcing the defense to contain the damage time after time. Last week against the San Diego Chargers, a 119.1 passer rating by Wilson did not disguise the fact that when both the offense and defense break down early, there is no expectation that he will be able to make up the difference with his arm. Too often Wilson’s presence on the field seems almost tasteless, odorless and practically invisible. Whenever he completes a pass in a necessary situation, people seem to go wild, as if in sweat-drenched relief. 

But as Tee Martin proved in leading the Tennessee Volunteers to a national championship in 1999, you don’t need to be an “elite” quarterback to lead a team to a championship—as his immediate predecessor, Peyton Manning—failed to do in four years of trying. Doug Williams and Jeff Hostetler were backups with only limited playing time, yet performed efficiently enough to allow their teams to win a Super Bowl. Jim Plunkett quarterbacked the Oakland Raiders to two Super Bowl victories, and he was regarded as merely “functional.” You just need to have some decent talent and experienced hands around, and a defense that minimizes the offenses’ limitations. 

I’m nowhere near convinced that Wilson is the kind of quarterback who can make the players around him “better”—he needs them to make him “better.” Brett Favre, on the other hand, was the kind of quarterback who could make the players around him look like Pro Bowlers (i.e. Sydney Rice). People quibble about whether Wilson is a “game manager” or not, but the truth of the matter is that he is in a perfect situation for himself; he is functional within a particular system that limits the potential for costly mistakes that turn flat performances into deficits, and functions as hoped on short fields when the defense forces the other team to make mistakes. That’s it. 

Nevertheless, I will grant that Wilson has enough of a head on his shoulders to avoid making dumb mistakes when minimal pressure is on him—unlike, say, Kaepernick and Geno Smith, who on Monday night against the Chicago Bears demonstrated that his inept play in the second half against the Packers was no “fluke.”

 

NFL week 3 notes

Although the Detroit Lions were slight favorites to defeat the Green Bay Packers at home, it seemed that most observers presumed that a healthy Aaron Rodgers would take care of business and lead the Packers to victory. Despite leading the game 9-7, I observed that the Lions scored their points on a 40-yard return of an Eddie Lacy fumble, and then a safety, with Lacy again the culprit. Surely after a slow start, the “elite” quarterback, Rodgers, who slice-up the Lions beat-up secondary and carry the team going away.  After all, this was a Lions that beat up the Giants bad defense in week one, but were smothered by Carolina’s serviceable defense last week. 

But I, like most other commentators, forgot something: The Packers still have a defense of questionable quality--at least compared to the Lions'. Sure, after spotting the Jets 21 points last week, they shut down Geno Smith the rest of the way. But that was just Geno Smith, not Matthew Stafford who can on occasion light-up the yardage (if not necessarily the scoreboard). He didn’t really do either in this game, throwing for 246 yards, no touchdowns and two interceptions for a paltry 61.6 QBR. 

Yet the Lions dominated the Packers more than the 19-7 final indicated. Rodgers’ one touchdown pass, no interceptions and 88.8 QBR may have looked “good” compared to Stafford’s line, but he had one of his worst days ever for covering ground over the course of an entire game free from injury. The Lions pass rush made Rodgers look like a rag doll all day; his 162 yards passing was the fewest he threw since way back in November of 2008 against the Vikings, his first season as a starter, when he threw a career low of 142 yards while playing the entire game. 

It is interesting to note, however, that in Rodgers’ case stats don’t necessarily “lie.” His career passer rating is the highest in NFL history, at over 100. In his 90 career starts, he has had a passer rating of 100+ 52 times, and has won 43 of those games. On the other hand, Rodgers is 16-22 in games in which his passer rating was less than 100, of which only 9 were below 80. Of course, much of the blame has to go to the defense, but at times—such as in this game—the blame principally lies with the offense. 

After that mind-blowing blow-out loss to the New York Giants after finishing the 2011 season 15-1, I’ve never taken anything for granted with Rodgers. This isn’t in the same way you never took anything for granted with Brett Favre was on the field, where you had a tendency to keep your fingers crossed and hope for the best every time he went back to pass. With Rodgers, you either could expect the “big play,” or nothing—and those “big plays” can really be impressive on the final stat line, even if the rest doesn’t amount to much. 

In other games, for the second straight week Colin Kaepernick and the 49ers squandered an early lead and were offensively inept in the second half. Whose is to blame?  The quarterback who is decision-making-challenged? How about what was supposed to be the “laugher” of the day, New England against the hapless Raiders? Only an opportune call that nullified a game-tying touchdown kept the Patriots from experiencing a more embarrassing loss than the one in week one against Miami. The Redskins’ Kirk Cousins threw for 427 yards and 3 touchdowns in a 37-34 loss to Philadelphia; I don’t think this result will cause many Redskins fans to pine after Robert Griffin III. Andrew Luck had the most efficient game of his career so far, completing 31 of 39 passes for 370 yards, 4 touchdowns and no interceptions; even if you are playing the defenseless Jacksonville Jaguars, it still takes some skill to hit a stationary target every time. 

And the Seahawks squandered a 14-point lead in the fourth quarter and stellar defense with inept offensive play by Russell Wilson and company. After Kam Chancellor apparently “saved” the game late with an interception, the Seahawks gave the ball right back and “predictably” the defense fell apart, allowing Peyton Manning to march 80 yards in just 41 seconds to tie the game at 20-20 and send the game into overtime. Fortunately for the Seahawks, they won  in overtime, as this time it was the Broncos’ defense that forgot that there was a still a game going on, taking a “breather”—apparently unmindful of the rule that a touchdown by the team that has the ball first is the automatic winner. There will be those who will complain that the Seahawks were “fortunate” to win the game based on a coin toss, but the fact was that it was Seahawk mistakes in the fourth quarter that even allowed the Broncos to avoid another shaming defeat. 

Washington State Supreme Court education decision inspires only "contempt" from Republicans

In 1976, the Seattle School District sued the state of Washington for failing to provide adequate funding for education as mandated by the state constitution. That led to the Doran decision, which obliged the state legislature to abide by its constitution responsibilities. The failure of the legislature to conform to the ruling led to a second Doran decision in the 1980s, and things haven’t really changed since then.

And now the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that the state legislature is in contempt of yet another attempt to force it to meet its obligations—the 1994 McCleary ruling—to adequately fund public education (not to mention higher education).  People should be surprised to learn that in this supposedly “progressive” state, there are plenty of regressive voters who expect the Republicans they put into office to do their provincial, bigoted bidding. I hold that Democrats support policies that benefit all of the people, while Republicans only support policies that benefit the few, and the education funding is a case in point. 

Depending upon what numbers are used, the state of Washington ranks either 43^rd or 44^th out of fifty states for funding per student. The state’s per-student outlay is 80 percent of the national average, and it is currently $2,000 ($2,679 according another source) per-student behind the level mandated by the McCleary standard set 20 years ago. Worse, approximately $2.6 billion dollars has been cut from the education budget over recent years. 

Yet Republicans in the legislature continue to insist that the level is funding is “adequate,” and instead of raising levels of revenue in a state that has seen continuous shortfalls in revenues over the past decade—such as by raising taxes slightly or allowing tax breaks that have done nothing for the state but expand the wallets of those receiving them—they claim that the “solution” is to find ways to cut “waste” and “invest” what money there is more “wisely.” Republicans, of course, rather mendaciously call their plan “reform,” when it is nothing of the sort; it is just a desperate way to satisfy its anti-tax, anti-government, gun-toting constituency. $10 billion has already been cut from the state budget since the Great Recession in 2008. How much more “waste” can there be without causing more pain to students and people in need?

And this doesn’t take into account that public school teachers in the state are among the lowest paid in the country. As a “last resort,” Republican lawmakers insist that additional funding can only come from cutting other public programs, again demonstrating their (and their constituency’s) absolute contempt for people other than themselves.

The state Supreme Court has not been fooled by Republican double-talk, nor has it accepted the argument that the court is overreaching its authority by telling the legislature how to do its business, which it has failed miserably at ever since two dough-faced Democrats in the state senate decided to “caucus” with the Republicans to form a “bi-partisan” majority:

But as the court has repeatedly stated, it does not wish to dictate the means by which the legislature carries out its constitutional responsibility or otherwise directly involve itself in the choices and trade-offs that are uniquely within the legislature’s purview. Rather, the court has fulfilled its constitutional role to determine whether the State to provide its detailed plan in December 2012, prior to the 2013 legislative session, and it has repeatedly emphasized that the State is engaged in an ongoing violation of its constitutional duty to K-12 children. The State, moreover, has known for decades that its funding of public education is constitutionally inadequate.. This proceeding is therefore the culmination of a long series of events, not merely the result of a single violation. In retaining jurisdiction in McCleary, the court observed that it cannot stand idly by as the legislature makes unfulfilled promises for reform. McCleary. Neither can the court stand idly by while its lawful orders are disregarded. To do so would be to abdicate the court’s own duty as a coordinate and independent branch of the government.

The court has threatened the legislature with unspecified “sanctions” unless it gets its act together soon, that is to say, during the 2015 legislative session. But “contempt” is something that some Republicans have for the decision, so we shouldn’t have any undue expectations. Republican state senator Michael Baumgartner insisted that the court was “way out of its lane,” and its ruling was “a disappointing, strange and inconsequential decision,” and would not have any effect on the legislature.

Is global warming really occurring? It depends upon where you live

I generally accept the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website as a “reliable” source for  latest local weather happenings, although it can’t help but be wrong on occasion; the day we saw almost an inch-and-half of rainfall over an 8-hour period last month, there was supposed to be only a “slight”—20 percent—chance of rainfall. Still, on my way there the NOAA provides some interesting stories explaining (or trying to) what is going on with Nature.

For example, it is now being reported that action on an international scale to confront ecological problems may actually work, if given enough time. Three decades ago the Montreal Protocols was signed off on by most nations to combat the depletion of the ozone layer, which protects the earth from ultraviolet radiation (the kind that causes skin cancer). The use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons (chemicals used to deter the combustion process in fires) were to be phased out by 2000. It is not clear how much the ozone has recovered, however, only that there are now a significant decrease in ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere. 

On the other hand, it is noted that chemicals that replaced CFCs and halons—such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)—“are potent greenhouse gases and could contribute substantially to climate change in the coming decades,” emphasizing “the complex connections between ozone layer recovery and climate change, he said. For example, some of the replacements for ozone-depleting substances are safe for the ozone layer but cause climate warming.” One is reminded of all those drug commercials on television where the “benefit” is barely mentioned as the list of potential “side-effects”—including death—goes on, and on, and on.

Anyways, August was a hot month around here. According to NOAA statistics, Seattle saw the second highest average high temperatures on record, and the Northwest in general was well above normal both in temperature and precipitation since January (the latter reported in Seattle was also a near record total). In fact, the entire western Pacific coast all the way to Alaska reported record or near record temperatures, due to the El Nino effect; California had its hottest Jan-Aug on record, and  in southern California, Pacific water temperatures of 75 degrees were recorded. 

This has not been good news for California, which has seen the lowest three-year precipitation levels since 1895, when the need for water was obviously much lower. “Spring snowpack conditions helped set the stage for a brutal summer, according to NOAA. “The fifth and final snow survey of the season in May 2014 recorded snowpack at only 18 percent of average statewide. By the end of the month, the Sierra snowpack water equivalent decreased to almost zero. Current reservoir conditions show most of the state’s reservoirs below 50 percent of their total capacity. Many are also below 50 percent of their historical average capacity.”

The state has been forced to pump groundwater to make up most of the difference. Groundwater comes from precipitation that is too much for the upper layers of soil to hold, percolating downward until it encounters dense rock to form aquifers from which water can be drawn to the surface for human consumption. Unfortunately for California, since this source of water is dependent for its “recharge” by precipitation, the drought has brought to the fore the question of how much water is left in these aquifers. In fact, very little is known about how much water actually resides in them; all that is known is that a huge amount of water has been drained from them.

But while the West has seen spectacularly high temperatures, the rest of the country—particularly east of the Mississippi River—have near record low average temperatures since January. In August, the temperature variation between the west and the eastern seaboard could not be any more stark. Precipitation levels also showed wide variation even on the east coast, while one New York locale saw an astonishing 13.57 inches of rain fall in one 24-hour period in August, Georgia has seen drought conditions continue over most of the state. 

All this is, of course, food for fodder for opponents of the concept of global warming, but not to “worry.” The Global analysis of worldwide temperatures still point in that direction:

“The average temperature across the world's land and ocean surfaces during July 2014 was 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average, the fourth highest for July on record. The record warmest July occurred in 1998, with a temperature that was 0.73°C (1.31°F) higher than average. Eight of the 10 warmest Julys have occurred within the past 10 years (2002 also ranks among the 10 warmest). Additionally, July 2014 marked the 38th consecutive July and 353rd consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average global temperature for July was July 1976 and the last below-average global temperature for any month was February 1985. With the exception of February (21st warmest), each month during 2014 to date has ranked among the four warmest compared to its respective month.”

We out here in the Pacific Northwest will enjoy it while it lasts. How long will this fine summer weather last—or better yet, will it carry into the normally miserable months of rain and cold? NOAA is less certain than it was that the EL Nino effect—when Pacific trade winds drop, which allows warm water to linger in the eastern Pacific rather than travelling west—will continue into the Fall and Winter, with a 60-65 percent chance that a weak effect will occur.