People never learn. Clearly. Just talk to most of 'em, and learning is just not there.
A few weeks ago, Falcons folks went loopy because ESPN's Trent Dilfer said the Saints could win in Atlanta.
Now, why that was a shocking statement is befuddling. It wasn't shocking, it was objective and based on Dilfer's experience and of probably some film work.
One needn't have NFL experience and access to video to know it was true and possible, one need only have a clue, some three-digit IQ moments and some common sense.
New Orleans was the defending Super Bowl champ. Atlanta didn't make the playoffs last season. The Saints had earlier struggles but seemed to be righting the ship. The Falcons had a great record, but were anything but dominant or exceptionally convincing.
And New Orleans won.
No wonder the country's an intellectual and paranoid mess, and not just because of one loony bird's show on a news network. People can't admit anything when it involves their team, or give somebody else credit.
So we move on to the Saturday NFL wild-card playoffs, and New Orleans' visit to Seattle.
OK, I figured it would be a close game for awhile, at least into the second half. Again, for logical reasons.
1: New Orleans wasn't an exceptionally healthy team.
The Saints finished the game using their No. 3 tailback - although offense wasn't the issue - and had three or four regular defenders nowhere near 100 percent. Assorted regulars on offense were a little hobbled, too.
2: The Saints still had an iffy defense, although statistically it was pretty good.
But they gave up 30 to Arizona, 30 to Cleveland, 27 to Dallas, and 30 to Cincinnati. They weren't consistent, and gave up points to non-playoff teams.
3. Seattle wasn't horrible, and the Seahawks were at home and hungry.
They had wins over Chicago and San Diego and competitive losses to New Orleans and Atlanta.
No, they certainly weren't consistent, but nobody in the West was.
But on a three-game losing streak with the division title on the line, they bowed up and won. All you need is the door open, and it was, and the Seahawks took care of business in the final week with their backup quarterback. There was no reason for them to not be a little bit confident.
In the first meeting, in New Orleans, it was a two-touchdown game with neither team doing much in the second half. Matt Hasselbeck threw for 366 yards and was 32 of 44. Pretty good numbers.
All that said, part I: Noooosir, didn't foresee Seattle answering everything New Orleans offered. Didn't see New Orleans not really having the energy one expected.
Didn't see Seattle - which scored 23, 19, 24 and 18 against the four playoff teams it played - racking up 41 points, at home or anywhere else.
All that said, part II: Yes, Atlanta can go to the Super Bowl and win it. And yes, Atlanta can lose at home in its first game on Saturday, regardless of the opponent.
Even Seattle. The Falcons didn't have a great game in Seattle, which didn't have a great game, either. Atlanta settled for two field goals and needed a defensive touchdown against a shaky Seahawks offense.
Once you get past the first round of the playoffs, one never knows. Remember another NFC West team nobody took seriously a couple seasons ago?
Yeah, the 9-7 Cardinals went to the Super Bowl.
Seattle winning is a surprise, no question, but not a stop-the-earth's-rotation shocker. It's the NFL, which for so many reasons really does mean Not For Long.
And it made every game the rest of the way a bigger battle. Nobody takes anything for granted, including winning at home when you're used to winning at home.
AW YEAH, LET’S PLAY
From almost the start, the pick here Monday night as been Oregon over Auburn, with no earthly idea of the score or over/under.
The only thing that would be a surprise is if it isn't a fascinatingly enjoyable game.
But the difference - the guess, anyway - is giving a defensive edge to Oregon.
The Ducks are 49th in passing yards and 16th in efficiency. The Tigers are 106th in passing yards defense and 75th in defensive efficiency.
Auburn has the edge if it's close in the fourth quarter, because the Tigers have played closer games, often against "lesser" opponents or teams with substantially fewer weapons (Kentucky, LSU, Georgia, Clemson).
But Oregon's pace is different. Oregon probably has more speed than Auburn's seen, even as a member of the almighty - genuflect, pal - SEC. That pace is likely a difference, as well as an ability to avoid Nick Fairley up front.
The chess match of Oregon's defense and Cam Newton will be something to watch. What do the Ducks do? What tweaks to the Tigers make? Who adjusts better at halftime?
Should be better than a movie. Don’t be surprised.
LOUGHDMOUTHINGS
Tony Gwynn's latest cancer treatment is over and it appears he'll be back in the dugout at San Diego State.
Obviously, a good thing, because sports needs as many good people out there as possible. ...
Nothing really against him, but I'm so tired of hearing "Michael Vick" I could throw up. The Eagles did pretty well before he got there, did well with him there and not playing, and will do well again.
He isn't the second coming of anything. Just hearing his name too much from the TV twits. ...
And don't be surprised if Green Bay wins in Philly. The Packers are as good as anybody in the NFC.
The Super Bowl is, at this point, New England's to lose. ...
Human resources help from Dwight Perry of the Seattle Times:
The man Michigan most covets to be its next football coach is:
a) Allen Iverson (no way he'd ever get accused of practicing too much).
b) Bo Pelini (unless they can find another guy named Schembechler coaching out there).
c) Mark Mangino (what? Oh, sorry — we thought the boosters said they wanted "a Michelin man").
No comments:
Post a Comment