The uncertain future of football

For anyone (including myself) struggling to keep up with the machinations of the current NFL Labour dispute, yesterday's Freakonomics podcast is an excellent overview of the issues at stake.

Essentially the podcast only served to reinforce my backing of the players, not least because the owner featured, Green Bay's Mark Murphy, didn't particularly make a good case for their position.

Murphy not only admitted that the owners had readily agreed to the deal just a few years ago which they are now rejecting, but as one of his core arguments stated that cities and municipalities no longer finance the building of stadiums as they once did, and that this was an expense that the owners had not previously had to account for.

Now, most people know that the NFL actively forwards money to the owners for the building of new stadiums under their G-3 stadium financing program, partly in an attempt to keep want-away owners from moving franchises and remaining in their existing city. So the financing of new stadiums as justification for a new agreement is a red herring.

And who wants these new stadiums in the first place? The owners themselves, who by building new luxury boxes and concession stands can generate more revenue that they can keep exclusively for themselves. The experience for fans is the creation of largely clean and spacious but sterile and corporate identikit arenas that chip away the history and character of the game.

Murphy also unwisely went on to criticise players for not appreciating the supposed benefits that the NFL provides in terms of health care coverage and benefits packages. I've never heard anyone say anything but the opposite about the health care most players end up receiving; fundamentally it's not nearly enough. Former players such as John Mackey, who now suffers from dementia caused by his days in the League, had to battle both the Union and the League for recognition of the causes of his condition and suitable compensation.

Yet Murphy stated that he wondered if the League does 'too much for the players', and made the comparison back to the Vince Lombardi-era, when players would work in the off-season to support their football income.

But this isn't that era, and here is where the problem lies. The public in general have a hard time seeing beyond the large salaries that players earn, conveniently forgetting that their careers are both short and fraught with possible risks to their future health.

Not only that, but to even have a chance of playing in the NFL in the first place, players have to commit their entire life to an uncertain career path of struggle; physical and mental toil on a daily basis that most of us can't fully comprehend.

In other words, if they're on an NFL roster, they've worked hard enough to get there and will likely have made plenty of personal sacrifices along the way. Moreover, many will have come from impoverished backgrounds to relative wealth.

If that income source is suddenly stripped away, not many will have transferable skills that will allow them to find an income-equivalent replacement in any walk of life. And why should they have to because the owners are suddenly demanding more money?

• The podcast also alerted me to Dave Duerson's suicide last week, yet another death linked to CTE. Duerson had asked in a note left that his brain be examined by the researchers at Boston University in order to establish the extent of his suspected brain damage caused by playing football.
  
  I had meant to link to this article sooner, and also this short ESPN video on the future of youth football, with former professional players stating that they won't let their children play football for fear of their susceptibility to brain injuries.
  
  With an increasing number of cases gaining more media attention, the future of the sport in its current guise could be in serious jeopardy. The CBA dispute then is just one hurdle the NFL must overcome in the months and years ahead.
  
  
  
  

An excellent article.

Perhaps the most insightful article I have read whilst following the sport. An excellent summation of the hypocrisy and egotism of the league and those now in the positions of power.

I'm beginning to hope that there is a lockout, if only for it to signify that the NFLPA hasn't capitulated to the demands of the owners. But of course the owners are the ones least dramatically impacted by a lockout; the players and fans suffer far more.

Oh for Pete Rozelle to return as commissioner now; he must be turning in his grave.

In which Nick Halling semi-implodes

The Sky Sports NFL pundit Nick Halling yesterday published a strange article on the NFLUK.com website ostensibly looking ahead to the uncertain future of the NFL, but one that ended up being a passive aggressive attack on his detractors.

Regular visitors to the site will be familiar with the large amount of negative content targeted at Sky's coverage of the game and Halling himself. As I don't have access to Sky, my opinions on Halling are largely based around the work he does on the NFLUK podcast, Inside the Huddle.

Much of the criticism of Halling stems from his supposed bias for his favourite team, the Pittsburgh Steelers. And when he talks about the Steelers there is clearly an intensity to his love for the side. When Pittsburgh are playing on Sky, Halling tends to let his colours shine through rather too vividly for some people's liking.

I can live with that. Whether a sports pundit should ever come out openly as a fan of any team is another matter, but Halling supporting the Steelers shouldn't necessarily cloud the judgement of his analysis.

However, having listened to his breakdown of many games, he does seem to have certain personal prejudices against figures within the game, such as the questioning of the methods of Patriots coach Bill Belichick in the AFC Divisional game against the Jets in benching Wes Welker:

'Well you know what I think about Belichick. The man lives in his own weird world. If they ever did a psychological evaluation of Bill Belichick, he'd be a care in the community case.'

For a prominent pundit on the game to come out and make such extreme statements about one of the leading coaches, even if it were in jest, is showing a serious lack of tact.

More frustrating still is the vague air of arrogance that surrounds the analysis on occasion. Halling has worked in the sport for so long that his knowledge clearly outweighs the majority of us, but the manner in which he delivers information can come across in an abrasive fashion. For example when commenting on a key interception made by Jarrett Bush in the Super Bowl, Halling referred to the relatively obscure player with matey familiarity as a 'smashing fella', an endorsement which rightly or wrongly doesn't ring true.

So Halling doesn't always offer the most in-depth analysis available, but maybe this is unfairly stretching his remit. His role on Sky is to be a familiar face that can make the game more accessible to the more casual fan, a job he does well.

To write an article wallowing in self-pity comes across as unprofessional at best. Whilst there is undoubtedly an disproportionate percentage of bile aimed at Sky's coverage in general in the forums at NFLUK, this criticism should always be taken with a pinch of salt.

The internet is awash with forums full of people whose sole pleasure in life is attacking anything and everything produced by someone else, and when much of the content is written in semi-literate English and adds nothing constructive, it is best considered void as an opinion.

Given this, the idea that Halling reads the spam and troll-infested NFLUK forums at all is surprising, and more surprising still that such comments would personally hurt him. The modern journalist needs a thicker skin; the new interactive media world has changed dramatically to that in which Halling began his career.

Halling has contributed a significant amount to the growth of interest in the sport in Britain, and it would be a shame for him to turn his back on the game now, and more so in such a disappointing way.

A prophetic warning

I recently finished the Michael McCambridge work 'America's Game', which I can't recommend highly enough, and since I then I've been dipping back into passages here and there because I found it such a joy to take in.

McCambridge concludes the book (published in 2004) by praising the control of the league exhibited by commissioners Bert Bell, Pete Rozelle and Paul Tagliabue in keeping it prosperous and steady, the professional league with the best setup in terms of creating relatively even competition on the field, and sustainable finances off it.

But he ends the book with a prophetic warning note that is particularly telling in the current disagreement between players and owners that seems increasingly likely to threaten the existence of an NFL season this autumn:

'But just as in the days of Pete Rozelle, the ultimate decision is up to the owners of the National Football League franchises. The people who own those thirty-two clubs are inheritors of one of the great enterprises in modern American society. The game has a purpose that goes far beyond business and a meaning that goes far beyond entertainment.

But history, and the fall of Major League Baseball, has shown us that the NFL's status is not a birthright. If pro football falters, it won't be because its players misbehave, or its fans are fickle, or because the networks drive too hard of a bargain. It will be because, in seeking ever greater riches, the owners commit the cardinal sin of taking their eyes off the ball.'

I don't claim to know the inside details of the current fractious state of affairs, but it seems to fundamentally revolve around owners determined to keep more money back from the players and share less of it with fellow owners. In this sense it contrasts the spirit of the old owners, who recognised or could be persuaded of the need to maintain strong competition. This old guard have now largely passed on and are increasingly thin in number, against the new breed of investor in franchises, generally more concerned about bottom line revenues against the success of competition on the field.

As Mike Carlson is repeatedly at pains to point out, it seems utterly reckless to throw away a setup that put the NFL well above the more chaotic and less egalitarian baseball and hockey organisations (both of which have seen more labour related disputes and strikes over recent decades than pro football) for the sake of small percentage differences that would result in the owners lining their pockets.

The fact that Super Bowl XLV was set in the house that Jerry Jones built, representative of an owner keen to dredge additional money from large new corporate stadiums that can provide lavish luxury suites, was won by Green Bay, a non-profit community owned franchise, was not lost amongst many sports writers.

Super Bowl aftermath

I need more time to fully review the game as I'm short on sleep and still buzzing in the aftermath, but that was an odd feeling game to me, and I'm not sure if I can put my finger on it.

At times it felt like I was watching a video-game version of American football where the parameters of the familiar sport are slightly skewed. There was almost no running by Green Bay. The Packers got into difficult third and long situations and then easily completed huge passes to keep the ball. The Steelers could seemingly score with ease towards the end of the game in a laissez-faire fashion.

I'm glad that this game was this way because it will attract those that stayed up and witnessed the near comeback to take an interest in the sport, and it certainly helps you stay alert in the early hours when the game is a close one.

This would have been an all-time classic game if Ben Roethlisberger had completed the improbable comeback for Pittsburgh, and although the scene seemed to have been set perfectly within the final two minutes to establish a game-winning drive, it petered out disappointingly.

If the Packers had lost despite causing numerous turnovers and capitalising on the mistake with points, the historical statisticians' brains would have been frying in attempting to recall a similar feat.

But it was an excellent and very watchable second half after a first that only entertained in fits and starts, and a half-time show that was spectacularly awful. The depreciation value of a show that has had memorable performances by Bruce Springsteen, The Who and Prince in recent years was in clear evidence.

The sound quality for the half time show was equally abysmal, and from having seen their playoff coverage this year Fox appear unable to correctly balance stadium sounds for a broadcast. Their noise suppression filters to dampen the crowd completely sucked the energy out of what otherwise sounded like a charged atmosphere in Dallas, and instead inverted it into an awful echoing tinny murmur.

Joe Buck and Troy Aikman were their usual underwhelming presences in the Fox booth, and the BBC was hit and miss. Mike Carlson and Tiki Barber were excellent, offering the usual sharp insight with good humour and energy. But why was Jake Humphreys hosting on a day where he had already been involved with the earlier South Wales derby, and was clearly flagging as a result towards the end?

When Humphreys started to lounge backwards in his chair and make the stereotypically British-sounding irritation noises towards the Packers being labelled 'World Champions', he had clearly begun to lose interest. It was disappointing as Humphreys has hosted several Super Bowls before and has usually done a good job. We can blame tiredness for this poor display, so why didn't the BBC replace him with Matt Roberts who hosts the playoff highlights, or Gary Imlach from Channel 4?

It's patronising to believe that viewers here need a familiar face on their screen to make them feel at ease watching the programme. It would be far better to have someone with plenty of relevant knowledge to offer (not referring to Formula 1 during the game, for example), and energy for the long night ahead.

In contrast, from the frequent moments I tuned in during the night, Radio 5 sounded as if they did their usual sterling job in covering the game. Listening by radio is actually far more involving for most sporting events, and American football is no different. Darren Fletcher and Greg Brady were informative, enthusiastic and involved with the game from the kickoff, and the broadcast actually did a better job of conveying the carnival atmosphere to the listener than the television production.

Defense wins championships?

Some good last minute reading material to be had over at Smart Football in the form of some defensive analysis focusing on zone blitzing.

A lock-out looms

A quote from Mike Carlson's weekly column on NFLUK. I think it speaks for itself:

'Green Bay, of course, is the only NFL team without an owner, being a publicly-held company whose shareholders choose a board which chooses a president. This also means they are the only NFL team whose finances are open to public scrutiny, which is important when you're examining the battle over a new CBA, because the real issue is not what percentage of revenue goes to the players, but revenue goes into the pot that is shared. The owners want money set aside so they can build new stadia, and they want more money kept out of the pot which they share, not just with the players, but with other owners.

This is the legacy of Pete Rozelle being destroyed just as surely as politics over the past 30 years has been dedicated to destroying the remnants of the New Deal in America or the welfare state here. My question is which would YOU prefer: the publicly-owned Packers, who can't threaten to move to LA or charge $20 to park at pre-season practice, or butcher rosters and play with coaches with impunity, or more Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, or Al Davis? Snyder, BTW, is using Super Bowl week to launch the mother of all libel suits against the Washington City Paper, who illustrated their very complete and to all impressions accurate guide with a photo of Dan grafittied to look like the devil, which his lawyers say is anti-Semetic. Call it the Protocols of the Elders of Zorn.'

Super Bowl anticipation

I come to dread Super Bowl week in Britain because you are suddenly visible as the American football fan within your social life, and the anonymity of the rest of the year disappears.

Every year those that otherwise have no interest in the sport sit down and watch the one game, only to be disappointed, bored or suddenly alive with the urge to criticise everything about the sport and therefore America, and of course relay this information on to the one or two fans they know.

Because I love an American sport, it is frequently assumed that I have an equally unrelenting love of American culture, which is only partly true. America is a country I am truly fascinated by, in equal parts admiration and repulsion. These feelings for the most part extend to the game of football, with more emphasis on the admiration. If you can truly understand a society through its favourite sports as I believe you can, American football has been extremely revealing about the American psyche, which only serves to add to my interest.

As the British Super Bowl audience are sold the game with endless montages of extreme catches, runs and touchdowns their patience is immediately tested when they realise the game is more equivalent in pace to a violent chess game broken down into separate plays, a concept that to a British sports fan, is largely alien.

Equally, the hype surrounding the game doesn't do anything to ensure more reasonable expectations of entertainment. When games descend into conservative punting competitions the interest level falls once again, and their voices grow louder: 'How can you find this sport interesting?'

By half time, most have disappeared to bed, and the few converts blinking back the tiredness are usually the ones witnessing the greatest finishes. Over recent years we have been treated to fantastic conclusions to games; the Giants extraordinary winning drive to beat the Patriots in a game that had been gently simmering until the final quarter. And the Arizona Cardinals comeback to almost beat Pittsburgh in 2009, only to be crushed by another winning drive by the Steelers.

Super Bowl night is certainly one of my favourite sporting events, like being treated to a World Cup final with all the same significance and emotion but on a yearly basis.

Those who just tune in for the novelty factor on Sunday night, are often oblivious to the five brutal months of games, heartbreak and sheer joy culminating in the one night that may mark the highest point in the featured players' careers. I was one such person tuning in to Radio 5 for the sheer novelty in 2003, and though I understood nothing of Jonathan Pearce's breathless commentary, I was hooked on the intoxicating atmosphere of the event.

Hopefully this year again, thousands will be converted into taking a serious interest in the sport, a sport of hidden complexities that mixes physics and strategy in creating moments of explosive action.

Filling the Pro Bowl vacuum

I spent the dreaded Pro Bowl week instead catching up with the Senior Bowl practices and the game itself. I must admit that for all my good intentions when each off-season comes around, my attention usually only just about stretches to checking out the draft and the big free agency signings, something I'm trying to rectify this year.

Watching the Senior Bowl practices was strangely relaxing, but I'm not sure how much of it taught me anything. The NFL Network now goes big on selling it signaling the workouts as part of the 'Path to Primetime' (presumably the path to the NFL itself as opposed to the driveway to Deion Sanders' mansion) and it was certainly interesting watching the future pros in more intimate environs with one-on-one teaching.

The basic techniques being evaluated were also fascinating. The O-line and D-line scrimmages were very revealing about players on form and those who were struggling. Equally, the wide receivers against the defensive backs seemed to show a clear difference between the cream of the crop and the lower round choices.

But of course we are only getting a snapshot of what the trainers and scouts have been seeing in these players across the months and years they have been following their progress. Taking the brief practices (and to a lesser extent, the Bowl itself) as your sole evidence for a player's ability is impossibly unfair. Even as someone who watches their fair share of college football across the season, I can't begin to make more than a few generalised observations about a player that could be completely irrelevant come the pros.

And that's where the supposed 'all-access' tag applied to showing so much of the offseason; the Senior Bowl, the combine, the draft itself, could be called somewhat disingenuous to the average fan. It's certainly very interesting, but as to it's overall usefulness to me, I'm perhaps yet to be sold.

Having said that, the input of Mike Mayock and Charles Woodson was excellent. Mayock in particular has thoroughly done his research and watched copious amounts of game film. His comments about players were always incisive and revealing, and he kept viewers on track as to what they should be looking out for during each drill.

• Also this week I've spent time examining various playbooks that can be found for free across the internet. If you have never seen a playbook before they are certainly worth checking out. Half of the content is largely indecipherable, even to someone who has mis-spent their youth on Madden. But there is a fantastic level of detail involved that I had not considered before, such as the strict rules in the Patriots 2004 playbook regarding lining up in the huddle: 'Do not lean on other men in the huddle - place your hands on your hips.' I'd like to imagine that only the fastidious nature of Bill Belichick ensured this detail entered the text, but it sadly appears common place amongst the pro organisations.
  
  The differences between the formal wordings of the NFL playbooks is contrasted sharply in some of the college tomes, such as Air Force's 1998 set, filled with lecture notes, reminders of the players responsibilities, and stirring words to motivate the program to greatness.
  
  
  
  The real value of these playbooks comes with matching them up against archival game footage, but on their own they stand as records of coaching philosophies both still in development or at their peak.

Run Ricky Run

I've finally gotten around to watching some of ESPN's acclaimed '30-for-30' series of short films about a wide variety of sports people and memorable incidents from across the last 30 years.

'Run, Ricky, Run' focused on Dolphins running back Ricky Williams, and his controversial years as a professional player in the NFL. Williams apparently cut his own career short after the 2004 season when allegations of his marijuana usage surfaced in the media, before beginning a year's sabbatical of traveling the world, introspection and beginning training as a holistic healer.

I'm guessing like many fans, my knowledge of Williams from that time was largely if not completely shaped by his over-simplified portrayal in the media as a 'drug user', and a mercenary who had bailed out on a well-paid contract to suit his own ends.

This documentary instead showed us the gentle and very likable man whose absence from the league had been driven by a need for a period of recovery and inner discovery that must be largely absent from within the ranks of his chosen profession.

The fact that this was an ESPN production is fairly incredible, given that the vast majority of the clips used from their own programming made them look like the Fox News of sportscasting; an assortment of panelists and 'analysts' ridiculing and criticising his actions at almost every turn.

Particularly unbearable was listening to the clip of Joe Theismann slamming the Canadian league side Toronto Argonauts when they signed him to a contract in 2006:

'"I don't ever want to be mentioned in the same breath as Ricky Williams as a football player. He's a disgrace to the game. The man doesn't deserve to play football. He should go on with his life and treat his drug addictions or go do whatever he wants to do. He's been suspended from the National Football League on multiple occasions. Doesn't anybody have any class anywhere? For gosh sakes, let the kid go do what he wants to do. He doesn't want to play football."'

Theismann is already on my ones-to-avoid list thanks to his generally terrible in-game analysis and sense of smug self-righteousness whenever he opens his mouth. Indeed, a brief investigation into his background reveals his son's own troubles with drug problems.

All this was in stark contrast to the softly-spoken Williams, often given to great moments of philosophical clarity and openness despite a troubled history of familial abuse and diagnosed social anxiety disorder.

The film carefully exposed the pressures of fame and fortune, the hypocrisy and savagery of the sports media and the sheer inner strength of Williams in being so open to having such an intimate documentary about his life being produced, and his own admitted imperfections.

It's well worth digging a copy out if you can find it. The world would be a better place if it were filled with less people like Joe Theismann and more like Ricky Williams.

Conference Championships review

It was all a bit underwhelming wasn't it?

But at least the two games gave us the best Super Bowl match-up of the possible combinations left.

Another average performance by the CBS crew last night. This quote from Football Outsiders pretty much summed up my thoughts:

'Amazing that CBS guys are lionizing Roethlisberger for coming through on third downs and having intangibles and making plays. He was 10-of-19. He threw for 133 yards and two picks. He scrambled for a touchdown ... and averaged fewer than two yards a carry on 11 attempts. The only reason the Jets had a chance was because Roethlisberger, in fact, was awful until the last series.'

Earlier in the game, Phil Simms had stated that the statistics of a game sometimes don't tell the truth. He meant to say, they don't tell the story as we'd like to write it, and we'll ignore them if we feel like it.

• The other big story of today is the criticism Jay Cutler is receiving for apparently being unwilling to return to the game after suffering an unknown injury.
  
  For all I will criticise Cutler's play on the field when I feel he is underperforming, to speculate wildly on an injury we know nothing about based on a few fellow professionals tweeting their thoughts seems particularly mindless.
  
  In the modern age of instant communication, speculation and access-all-areas, the fans sometimes seem to believe that they not only have the right to know everything, but that what they have pieced together is unquestionable fact.
  
  'Knee-gate', as some moron has already termed it (and I'm helpfully repeating), is symptomatic of a Sunday of average entertainment and crushed Chicago fans looking for a scapegoat.

Championship Sunday

Conference Championship Sunday is perhaps more enjoyable to me than the Super Bowl itself. There's no two week period beforehand of extended hype, no half-hearted hangers-on watching the game for the sake of it, no real expectation of being entertained to an unrealistic level, just a more concentrated dose of pure football.

Championship weekend this year brings back rather less favourable memories, following the Vikings exhausting loss to New Orleans at the same stage last year. It has been like suffering a year long hangover to this point, but the prospect of two interesting games has just about finally shaken off the stupor.

Both games are extensively previewed at Football Outsiders, and I'm struggling to work out which will prove more eventful. In both Championships the sides have already met at least once this season, and with the Bears and Packers this is the winner-takes-all third round decider. I've watched both the previous games and their match-up in the final week of the regular season was a much underrated low-scoring chess match.

Despite John Madden emphasising last week that playoff games between two sides familiar with one another generally lead to more conservative play-calling, the act of feeling the opponent out one last time to find that one wrinkle or unexpected formation that could make the ultimate difference is what makes these games so appealing to the strategist in me.

It helps that the game could be played on a surface inferior to the condition of the turf on my back lawn at the moment, and if wind and rain become involved it will more likely negatively affect the visitors ('a dome team' as noted by Bill Simmons on last week's B.S Report podcast).

• A few interesting articles came to my attention from around the web this week. The first by Sports Illustrated's Joe Posnanski assesses the validity of the NFL playoff system in its current guise, and raises some interesting comparisons between the pro and college systems.
  
  The second, from the excellent 'Smart Football' site, examines a new study by a Yale professor considering the importance of first down gains in being successful across a game. It would seem to follow in the footsteps of the celebrated work 'The Hidden Game of Football' now aging gracefully.
  
  Finally, the latest college football machinations in the aftermath of the conference memberships chopping and changing. Texas has secured a Longhorns-only network deal with ESPN production which could, potentially at least, spell the beginning of more colleges seeking individual television deals and creating greater divisions between the haves and have-nots.

Evaluating American football

Like most sports, American football is over-simplified by much of the post-game analysis. Thanks to the Jets win in Foxboro, Mark Sanchez is now a proven 'playoff-winner' (whatever that means), and we are told we have to 're-evaluate Tom Brady'. Do we?

The problem with the need for snappy sports-writing and attention grabbing angles and headlines is that that approach clashes badly with the game of American football. The story of most games is more accurately told through consistency of good or above average play by one unit, which is often both difficult to notice amongst the frequent disruptions and stoppages in play, and less exciting to report on.

It's therefore a dream scenario when a single 'game-defining' incident occurs, that journalists can seize upon and base a whole report around, often ignoring the trends of the game up until that point.

Instead, journalists have helped create a mythology around events that have defined the sport; 'The Immaculate Reception', 'The Catch', and the 'The Snow Plow Game'. The history of American football is littered not by remembering three hours of action of any given game, or even great scoring drives or defensive stands, but through snapshots of a single play, and rebuilding the memories from that moment.

And without wishing to sound like a cheesy commerical, that's why I value sites like Football Outsiders; because I know I can visit with my head swimming in the aftermath of a game like New York-New England and not be force-fed easy answers as to why things turned out that way.

Indeed, in the aftermath of the game, FO's Ned Macey was struggling with the same issues:

' A little over an hour after the game, I haven't exactly figured everything out, but I just wonder if anyone can make a coherent "rings = greatness" argument anymore for individual players. Tom Brady in 2001 and 2003 was nowhere near the QB that Tom Brady is in 2005-2010. If Tom Brady had the defense he's had since 2004 in 2001 and 2003, I guarantee he would have lost in both of those years. After all the time I feel we've (and anyone with any sense of objectivity) beaten our heads against the wall on this, and with all the evidence that no individual player wins Super Bowls, it just won't die. Instead, the lesson is going to be that Sanchez, thanks to two successful playoffs (for his team) with a great defense (this year's may not be great but played great over the past two weeks) is now a "winner," while Brady must have lost something. It just is really dumb and intellectually embarrassing for whoever does it. I suggest keeping a list of anyone who writes it and then remembering to never take anything they say seriously again.

If you want to play the ridiculous psychology nonsense with this game, it isn't Sanchez=winner, it has to be Belichick got his team in the wrong frame of mind by benching Welker. That's at least a storyline that doesn't fail every sense of logic because it is unprovable in either direction. I don't think it impacted the game, but I do bet his players thought it was the wrong move.

As for the game itself, I don't think there's a ceiling on what an offense without star receivers can do, but the failure to adjust was sort of amazing to watch. Brady looked so uncomfortable when he couldn't get the ball out quick, leading to all the sacks and some incompletions where he held the ball and got jumpy. But, this is the same offense that put up 45 on the same defense, so I think it is a one-game thing. The Pats would obviously be better served with better wide receivers, but they won three Super Bowls with equal or worse receivers, and I've seen the Colts look bad in the playoffs with some pretty good wide receivers. I think the better lesson of the Colts' failures and this game plus the 2007 Super Bowl is that no matter how good your offense is, in the playoffs you will sometimes have to win some games with defense.'

The love-hate affair with Phil Simms

I can't be alone in questioning whether Phil Simms is regressing as an in-game analyst. Whilst I like the opinions Simms brings to the table on Inside the NFL, I find myself increasingly baffled by comments or analysis he'll come up with during his CBS games. It isn't so much the quality of his analysis which can still be very strong, but rather the consistency of what he delivers.

Simms' divisional Jets-Patriots game didn't start promisingly when footage he had brought up to show examples of good offensive blocking apparently showed a Jets lineman managing to miss all of his blocking assignments on the play. Thankfully, the great Awful Announcing site spotted it too, before I imagined I was going mad.

There were other sporadic incidents throughout. After viewers had clearly seen Logan Mankins pushing a Jets player to the ground following a play and the network cameras trailed the guilty party before the referee made his penalty call, Simms stated: 'We don't know who this is on'.

Late in the game, Vince Wilfork shoved Mark Sanchez to the ground towards the end of a play. Simms defended Wilfork, not by expressing the clear frustration the Patriots player was exhibiting, but by arguing that the offence had occurred in lineman territory: 'Well Vince Wilfork says: 'this is our area here big boy.''

After the Patriots had decided to go for the two point conversion in the third quarter, Simms stressed his familiar position that he felt it too early to go for the play. 'If it was me making the decision, I would say no.'

When the Pats converted with ease with a well-designed direct snap to running back Sammy Morris, Simms snapped: 'Well they had a play ready for that situation', as if this somehow negated his earlier viewpoint, when in reality most teams would have a designed or preferred two-point conversion play.

Simms also manages to throw acts of petulance into the mix. Having played up to this on Inside the NFL where fellow panelists Cris Collinsworth and Warren Sapp frequently try to wind the former Giants quarterback up, I had assumed it was merely an act.

But during the third quarter when play-by-play announcer Jim Nantz insisted that Tom Brady was not guilty of intentional grounding because receiver Danny Woodhead, obscured by bodies, was within distance of the ball, Simms snapped back. His voice barely disguised the sarcasm:

'Yeah? Well Woodhead is on the ground. Good call, I did not see him laying down there. You're right, I'm looking for the guy he's trying to throw the screen to. I was about to really tell (referee) Bill Leavy, 'Hey, you're wrong.''

Nantz shot back, only semi-jokingly:

'Hey, Woodhead's sometimes a hard guy to find out there on the field, partner. I'll cut you some slack.'

This slight awkwardness between the two was neatly summarised when the Jets scored the decisive touchdown. Nantz came over all-Joe Buck and immediately criticised the Jets for over-celebrating:

'I've never understood the absurdity of all this self-aggrandising. Now you're gonna cost yourselves fifteen yards on the kick. You're gonna give Brady and his unit a chance to do a little something here with one timeout to go.'

This is nothing new for the announcer. During the CBS broadcast of Jets-Steelers in December, Nantz commented on pictures from the incredible DeSean Jackson punt return touchdown to close out the Eagles win in New York in which he ran across the field to ensure he ran out the clock. Nantz, commentating on a different game and with only those pictures to glance at, announced:

'And he couldn't resist to showboat again. With the game on the line, just straddling the goal line. That's pretty sad.'

But conquering the Patriots was a huge win for the Jets, their second in the space of a week and both on the road at the two conference superpowers. They were due a little celebrating in other words, and Phil Simms agreed: 'Well you just cover the kick like you didn't get a 15 yard penalty. I got to say this: There's a time to celebrate, Jim that was it.'

And with that, Simms went some way to winning me back around.

Books review

On my bedside cabinet amongst the old credit cards, dollar bills from last year's New York trip, and other assorted bits and pieces, sit several American football-related books that I have either finished, am partially through, or have just begun.

As a huge fan of the sport, I like to do more than just watch the games and trawl the internet for news. There's something uniquely satisfying and therapeutic about reading a book, and I've tried to target those titles that will offer the more intelligent and interesting analysis or history of the game.

Michael MacCambridge's 'America's Game: The Epic Story of How Pro Football Captured a Nation' is a brilliant and all-encompassing history of the sport. It packs in both the smaller detail and the important milestones in the development of the professional game whilst remaining very readable and interesting. The excellent ordering also creates a strong narrative arc that replicates the feeling of a definitive documentary.

It's so well-written that it comfortably doubles as an historical overview of the period in America which it covers (predominantly the latter half of the twentieth century). I'd consider it essential reading for every American football fan even remotely interested in the way the league has come to dominate the domestic American sporting scene.

'NFL Unplugged' by Anthony Gargano and 'Take Your Eye Off The Ball' by Pat Kirwan both offer differing views of the game that we think we know. The former is more concerned with the actions of individuals on the field through various anecdotes and brief histories, whilst the latter breaks down aspects of the game and explains how they work in detail.

It might be a personal issue, but 'Unplugged' didn't connect with me as much as I had hoped it would. I felt that most of the topics discussed, some of which can be paraphrased as: 'players have to enter a dark zone when they take to the field', 'finding a spot on a pro team is a nightmare' and 'terrible things happen in pile-ups after a fumble' were largely common knowledge to the average fan.

For instance, I've always felt fairly able to fill in the blanks as to what happens at the bottom of a football pile-on, and Hard Knocks has shown me the reality of training camp in equal and more colourful detail.

It's not to say that what's here isn't well written or fairly entertaining reading. I do like the way the book is written in a series of quick flashes through training camp, pre-game and the game itself ('Inside a Unit Meeting, 8.35pm') and there some occasionally interesting revelations. It's just that the content doesn't surprise you in the manner the blurb would have you believe.

It also strays slightly too closely to glamorising the players as warriors, which is where the fine line between reality and fantasy often occurs with American football.

In contrast I found 'Take Your Eye Off The Ball' to be very good. It offers an intelligent break down of typical game events (what occurs during pre-snap reads by the quarterbacks, how the wide receivers change their routes, and how defensive formations and alignments may effect plays) and summarises them with brevity and accuracy.

All simple stuff, you may think. But even for someone like myself who feels as if they should know what the play-call 'I Weak Right Boot Right 819 Fullback Opposite' may translate to in English, it's an invaluable reassessment of the fundamentals of the game that it's possible to overlook each Sunday.

Presentation-wise it's also superb, breaking each chapter into logical areas and using full-page diagrams with text where necessary. The effect is to create the impression that there is a lot of complex information being broken down into an easy-to-digest format.

ESPN analyst Ron Jaworski recently released his book entitled 'The Games That Changed The Game', which takes the reader on a journey across seven different games that the author believes fundamentally shaped the evolution of the sport.

It's fascinating reading, providing both extraordinary detail and interest in setting the scene in which the games took place, breaking the encounters down into quarters and describing the relevant plays. It also provides a fitting memorial for the ideas, schemes and plays that filled each match-up. Whilst some reviewers on Amazon felt the book was too bogged down in technicalities, I loved it because it provides such intricate detail rather than simply skimming the surface. It wouldn't be half the book without it.

The book also retains a great sense of the atmosphere and period in which the games were conducted, offering personal memories from Jaworski where appropriate, and interviews with the players and coaches involved looking back at the action.

If Cris Collinsworth is the leading active NFL analyst, Jaworski isn't far behind, and this depth of knowledge and enthusiasm for the sport is in clear evidence with this work.

'Blood, Sweat And Chalk' by Tim Layden is a book that is written along similar lines; breaking down the evolution of the game according to schematics, formations and ideologies. I'm only in the relatively early stages of reading it, and it's been a mixed bag so far.

The content chosen should provide interesting reading material, but the writing style has yet to fully engage my attention. Each chapter so far has felt rather fleeting in its coverage of a formation, pausing only to list a series of relevant dates where the formation was utilised or evolved.

More worryingly perhaps, is the Amazon review I read prior to purchasing, which can be viewed here (Chris Sabin-Flawed). Whilst Amazon reviews normally don't overly concern me, the points the reviewer raises as to the accuracy of the Layden book's content is potentially discouraging. I would certainly agree that the diagrams used to open each chapter could be more clearly designed as to avoid confusion.

It is worth noting that a new edition is slated for an August release this year, which will hopefully eradicate some of these problems.

Note - There are three additional books that will be added to this list upon completion, Brian Billick's, 'More Than a Game: The Glorious Present and Uncertain Future of the NFL', 'The GM' by Tom Callahan and Vince Lombardi's 'Run To Daylight'. I hope to have these reviewed in the near future.

A disgusting act

I love this clip for so many reasons.

Firstly it's my team, the Vikings, extending their lead against their hated rivals Green Bay at Lambeau Field.

Secondly, it's one of the games' greatest ever receivers making a great cornerback look terrible in making the catch whilst almost trotting into the endzone.

Thirdly it's a ridiculous, and at worst, if you will, a 'cheeky' celebration.

And while analyst Cris Collinsworth sounds as if he sees the amusing side, Joe Buck's self-righteous, indignant verbal explosion combined with, I imagine, a contorted reddening face and desk-jabbing finger, only gets funnier with each viewing.

Jets-Patriots round three. And this time (again), it's personal

I'm still very much on the fence when it comes to Rex Ryan. Half the time I hate the boneheaded 'smash them in the mouth' all talk approach, but then I appreciate you can't argue the fact that those who play for him love his style and enthusiasm.

Ryan has come out again ahead of the Divisional Round and said the clash with Bill Belichick on Sunday is 'personal' once more, as he did with Colts quarterback Peyton Manning last week.

But as Mike Carlson noted on the Inside the Huddle podcast, it's not. Ryan needs to distract attention away from his team, help alleviate the pressure from returning to the scene of their heavy beating in November, and protect his quarterback Mark Sanchez.

Sanchez failed to impress me and many viewers last weekend. This was underlined by an offensive series just before the interval, where Sanchez over-threw his receivers on consecutive downs, before throwing a poor interception on third down.

Ryan looked frustrated on the sidelines in the aftermath of the drive, and whilst he blamed poor offensive protection as the source of his anger at half-time, the second half saw the Jets change strategy dramatically.

Their first scoring drive of the half featured 8 runs and just two passes, and this imbalance continued throughout the second half. Sanchez was relegated to making more easy passes, and whilst it is true that he threw the key pass to Braylon Edwards in setting up the game-winning field goal, the completion had more to do with poor coverage by Jacob Lacey and an excellent effort by Edwards in securing the ball.

How the Jets will fare against the Patriots this time around is anyone's guess given events in Seattle last Saturday, but it's fair to say a closer scoreline is expected. With the Patriots having key interior defensive players injured, the Jets' heavy run diet may return.

My admiration for Belichick's ability to feed unheard of players into the system he creates had been demonstrated once again this year, with his 'no-name' defense that has stifled opponents and made stars of cornerback Devin McCourty and linebacker Brandon Spikes, and offensive acquisitions that have proved equally effective; notably Rob Gronkowski at tight end and the continuing emergence of running back BenJarvus Green-Ellis.

I always enjoy watching a Belichick team's gameplanning strategy; he favours attacking an opponent's weakness rather than focusing solely on managing a balanced attack.

My opinion of him was only slightly tainted by discovering comments from former Patriots linebacker Ted Johnson during 'concussion-gate' earlier in the season, that Belichick demanded Johnson practice even in the aftermath of having suffered a concussion.

* Mike Carlson also noted that Pete Carroll's enthusiastic collegiate-style coaching attitude has suited the Seahawks' position entering the playoffs as complete underdogs. I'll admit I have enjoyed watching Carroll pacing the sidelines these past few game, but there is only so far such energy and motivation can take you against skill and consistency. To upset the Bears (although only an average offensive team in my opinion) at Soldier Field would be a huge feat for the visitors.

National Championship review

The game revolved around the massive frame of Nick Fairley. The Auburn defender crushed plays, destroyed attempted reads, charged into tackles and represented the obstacle that even the mighty Oregon couldn't overcome; a bigger, stronger defensive line that stopped repeated opposition attempts to run the ball up the middle.

As hard as Oregon tried they couldn't sustain a legitimate running threat between the hash marks. Quarterback Darron Thomas struggled to make the correct option reads against the sheer speed of the Tigers defense that ended plays in the backfield and forced drives to sputter to a premature halt.

In contrast, the offense of Auburn was able to pick apart the seams in the Ducks' secondary coverage, frequently finding defensive end Kenny Rowe looking uncomfortable when dropping into coverage and burning the player for yards and points.

Auburn weren't completely ruthless. Heisman winner Cam Newton started the game looking rusty and made mistakes throughout - underthrowing Eric Smith when positioned to score, overthrowing a receiver who had shaken off the attentions of the defensive backs in the third quarter, and fumbling when tackled by Casey Matthews to allow the Ducks to come back and tie the game.

But Newton was still impressive. He connected for twenty passes and as ESPN's Kirk Herbstreit noted, always seems to fall forward when carrying the football himself. Newton repeatedly extended his long frame to keep the chains moving and his unit on the field.

The steady production of back Michael Dyer was also key to the Tigers' success. Dyer was productive throughout but exploded in the final quarter, and was fittingly involved in the key play of the game.


Apparently wrestled to the ground, Dyer twisted his body free from the tackler and set off again as if to continue downfield, only to stop assuming the play to be dead along with the Oregon defenders. But with the urging of his coaches on the sidelines, Dyer sprinted free once more and was not dragged down again until well inside winning field goal-territory for the Tigers.

* Oregon's best moments featured receivers Jeff Maehl and Lavasier Tuinei. Maehl's stand out moment of the game was his catch on a play-action pass for 81 yards after the Ducks had been pinned deep. Tuinei displayed great awareness in making his first significant contribution in the third quarter - catching a pass in traffic, darting past the onrushing linebacker and getting a first down, and greater athleticism in the second - reaching high over his head to pluck the ball down before heading towards the endzone, only to be dragged down yards short.

* Casey Matthews is frighteningly close in both appearance and playing style to his Green Bay-based brother. Matthews was all over the field, chasing down players and getting his just reward when forcing the fumble that kept Oregon's chance of winning alive late on. Equally worthy of a mention is

* What did I think to Oregon's latest Nike configuration? Worryingly, I quite liked them. The flashes of neon against the carbon and neutral colours kinda worked for me, as much as I hate myself for saying it.

On a related note however, it seems Mr Nike himself has an alarmingly large-sized Air Max wedged in the door of all of Oregon's footballing output according to this article.

* Richard Sandomir wrote a fairly savage review of Brent Musberger's game in the Times blog. He makes some valid points, but personally I didn't find Musberger's commentary a distraction from the game, and I'm the first to complain about poor announcing efforts. His early call on Tuinei's phantom touchdown was an easy mistake to make; on first appearance I too thought the tall receiver was just short of striding into the endzone.

'Get off me!'

The best arrived first. After Seattle's astonishing win over New Orleans on Saturday afternoon, the other wildcard encounters were always going to struggle to match the excitement and energy of the Seahawks' victory.

I was somewhat on the fence with Mike Mayock being the analyst of choice for NBC's opener at Qwest Field, but he proved to be a solid choice and far better than the Joe Theismann and Joe Gibbs tandem used in last year's equivalent game.

Mayock didn't make ground-breaking analytical points, but he understood the key moments in the game and picked up the excellent performances from Seattle defenders Will Herring and Earl Thomas.

On the downside, he did make irritatingly frequent reference to the 'veteran' status of Matt Hasselbeck and Brandon Stokely, which once noticed was almost impossible to ignore.

However Mayock's game will largely be remembered favorably for his call in the aftermath of Marshawn Lynch's 67 yard scoring run, the decisive and stand-out play of the game:



* Seattle's win was truly incredible given their distinctly poor regular season. Even their week 17 playoff-securing win over St Louis had been uninspiring; the result as much down to the unwillingness of the Rams to be more aggressive in the early going and drops by receivers when they did take their shots downfield.

The Seahawks win in that game owed as much to the brief but crucial flashes of a running game that appeared in the third quarter, and they built on that performance against the Saints on Saturday, culminating in that final run. Lynch's punch-drunk stumbling up the field from one Saints defender to the next was a thing of part beauty and part comedy.

But Matt Hasselbeck was also special; standing in and taking severe punishment whilst lofting up perfectly weighted passes and in one of my favourite plays of the game, finding receiver Mike Williams over the heads of two Saints defenders in pursuit: