sportsfanIQ

After bashing the NFL Draft, and all the commercialism that it embodies, I decided to give it another shot this year.  With the first round cushioned comfortably in prime time (and the convenience of DVR), I tuned in to witness what all the hoopla was about.  

Who would go first?  Would Tim Tebow be one of the first 32 to get picked?  Would Ben Roethlisberger be traded for a top-10 selection?  

Like two fronts converging, these questions, and more, left the 75th NFL Draft shaping up to be a thunderous event.

In the past, frankly, I didn't give a hoot about anyone outside the first 10 selections.  Did I really care if Denver traded up to grab an outside linebacker from Fresno State?  Or that New England decided to forgo their first-round position for an additional one later on?

But because everyone, and I mean everyone, obsesses about this event as if it were sacrilegious not to, I decided to dive in head first.  

Here's what I noticed:

- Giving the draft, especially the first round, prime time relevance was the smartest thing the NFL could have done.  It's not that the NFL hasn't been orchestrating the draft brilliantly already, but allowing the first 32 picks to be televised by themselves—without the continued barrage of immediate rounds to follow—was, incredibly enough, more brilliant.  

How can I say this?  Because if the draft caught my eye, an eye that was intentionally blindfolded to this event in all years past, then the NFL captured the audience they were after—the small percentage that wasn't watching before. (Now if they can manage to gain my interest in rounds two through seven they'd really be onto something.)

- Can ESPN have more guys offering their opinions on each team's selection?  Besides the usual thoughts of Mel Kiper, Jr. and Todd McShay, the draft's panel consisted of Kiper, Jon Gruden, Steve Young, and Tom Jackson.  Out of this group, only Jon Gruden has a perspective worth a lick.  Kiper had Colt McCoy going 11th and McShay had Jimmy Clausen going 13th.  Considering they went 85th and 48th, respectively, why should we be subjected to their projections?  Give me someone who's been there before.  ESPN employs former athletes, coaches, and executives.  What about former scouts?  Now them I'll listen to around draft time.

- At one point during the lead-up to the No. 1 pick, after I was forced to watch the 40-second mock draft scenario, I wondered how many mock draft variations there are.  I then wished I paid attention in statistics more because I could have at least gotten in the ballpark of the answer.  Think about it: 224 picks, only Kiper and McShay know how many available to choose from, and every which way to mix them up to get another mock draft.  It's gotta be millions.  If anyone gets the answer, send it along.  

- Thirty-two picks is a bit long for my attention span.  I was told Tim Tebow would go in the bottom third of the first round so I hung around to find out.  Sure enough, with the 25th pick in the 2010 NFL Draft, the Denver Broncos selected Tim Tebow, quarterback from the University of Florida.  And then the questions for Josh McDaniels came.  What was he thinking taking Tebow at 25...Are they really filling their holes?    

And that's where I tuned out.

After this year, I'll admit, my reasons for disliking the draft were harder to come by.  Maybe it's the constant analyzing that pushes me away.  Or maybe it's the fact that every other sport has the exact same format for selecting their players, but only the NFL markets theirs to perfection and shoves it down our throats.

Of the three-and-a-half hours worth of first round coverage, I studiously took in about three.  I knew I'd be reporting my findings here, and for that I was determined to learn why the draft is so special.

My conclusion: It's special because there are others who enjoy it much more than me.  And now, after giving it a shot and not experiencing the same joy as those around me, I'm OK with that.

A lot of fans love the NFL Draft, it's just not for me.

This article was inspired by a close friend, one whose NFL opinion I have the utmost respect for.  Last week, while referring to Peyton Manning, he declared the following sentiment: “I think we’re witnessing the best ever.”

I digested his remark, while I demurred slightly with my reluctance to cast him as the “greatest” ever because of the advantageous nature of playing half his career in a dome, and contemplated it some more.

After further thought and a little research, I offer you my conclusion here.

This Sunday, in Super Bowl XLIV, Manning looks to capture his second championship.  If successful, he’ll join a quarterback class of multiple Super Bowl winners: Bart Starr, Bob Griese, Roger Staubach, Terry Bradshaw, Jim Plunkett, Joe Montana, Troy Aikman, John Elway, Tom Brady, and Ben Roethlisberger. 

Of course, holding multiple Super Bowl trophies doesn’t automatically grant a quarterback the title of “greatest of all time.”  If it did, Joe Montana and Terry Bradshaw, who each possess four Lombardi Trophies, would already be awarded this honor.  It is needed, however, as qualification for the conservation.

Regardless of the skills required to excel at the position, there are telling statistics that jump off the page when analyzing a quarterback.  Since all quarterbacks are made differently, comparisons using the standard metrics of touchdowns and interceptions, or even yards thrown, are hopeless endeavors. 

Instead, there are more indicative numbers that shall benefit our discussion. 

To begin with, because I raised the issue of Peyton Manning’s home field advantage, it would stand to reason that we should assess the other half of his career, as well as other Super Bowl winning quarterbacks, on the road.    

Here are the most notables. 

The first number represents each quarterback’s road winning percentage, followed by their playoff road record, then finally the number of road championship games they’ve won:

Montana—0.747, 2-4, 1
Brady—0.683, 2-3, 2
Manning—0.635, 2-4, 0
Roethlisberger—0.605, 3-0, 1
Bradshaw—0.500, 2-3, 1
Aikman—0.469, 2-4, 1
Elway—0.461, 3-3, 2

According to this measure, Manning doesn’t even crack the top two, especially because he’s yet to win a road championship game (he’s 0-1).  But these numbers do not tell the whole story.   

There are also the quarterback ratings for the same group, both home and away, which in some cases provide evidence of successful play, regardless of the outcome.   

They are as follows:

                       Home          Away
Manning            89.9          112.6
Roethlisberger    98.2          103.2
Montana           76.2           90.2
Brady              109.2           81.7
Elway              118.1           65.2
Aikman             90.8            36.5
Bradshaw          N/A            N/A

Judging by these numbers, Manning not only successfully orchestrates his offense at home, he marches them down the field to a tune of 23 more points on the road. 

But before we move on to the clinching statistic that will unveil our verdict, let’s appease those who desire the basics. 

Out of our seven quarterbacks being scrutinized, for their careers, Manning’s thrown 66 more TDs than second place Elway, almost 10,000 more yards than second place Montana, holds a point and a half higher completion percentage (64.8) than the rest of the pack, and leads everyone in QB rating with a 95.2. 

Nevertheless, the most convincing achievement is Manning’s ability to produce in the fourth quarter, both when trailing or tied. 

Manning’s QB rating when his Colts are trailing is a 109.9; when tied it’s a 108.8.  And although Joe Montana has the highest QB rating when his teams were tied (113.9), he had a 71.6 rating when they were trailing, which helps illustrate Manning’s worthiness. 

What’s more, even John Elway, who had a knack for leading two-minute-drive comebacks, posted a career 84.2 when his Broncos were behind.   

So in conclusion, it isn’t the fact that Peyton Manning can step up to the line, recognize the defense, and then call an appropriate play that makes him the leader at his position.  It’s that he executes and embodies the entire essence of what a quarterback is: intelligence, accuracy, arm strength, devotion to chemistry with teammates, and of course, an understanding of the defense.    

The Indianapolis Colts have won 12 games for seven consecutive seasons.  Whether they’re behind, tied, on the road or in a dome, they can always turn to their general—Peyton Manning.  

If he can seize his second Super Bowl on Sunday evening, he will become, at least for now, “the greatest of all time.” 

As the Jets stunned the San Diego Chargers 17-14 on Sunday, thus propelling them into an AFC Championship clash with the Indianapolis Colts, I was reminded of my number one sports' philosophy: when you don't have a rooting interest in a game, and live within 45 miles of a particular team, you have little reason not to support that team when they are making a run at a title.

In 2007, I had a sports' dilemma of deciding between cheering for a historic witnessing of a Patriots' 19-0 season, or a hometown championship shocker for the New York Giants.  I chose the latter and was rewarded with one of the most memorable Super Bowls ever.

Now, just two years later, the 2009 New York Jets are officially vying for my fan hood, if only temporarily.  

Before I support my position, allow me to rebut any claim of "jumping on the bandwagon."  Because according to my definition, jumping on the bandwagon consists of pretending to understand forty years of disappointment.  

I shall not even begin to make such a naive stance. 

Instead, it's my belief that, as a fan, witnessing your team capture a championship is exhilarating and should be felt by all.  I'm not attempting to live vicariously through a Jets' Super Bowl victory; I only intend to pool my energies together with the diehards in the hopes of bringing something magical to their lives.  

As for the J-E-T-S, who have the unfortunate shared-occupancy lifestyle, there are many that have hatred for their fans.  

Why?

To those that do, do you honestly feel your methods of celebrating are any more sophisticated, or humble than others?  I'm here to inform you that they are not.

Sure, there's the exception to every rule, but as a majority, all fans are obnoxious in their own way and probably hated on some level by any opposing counter.  It's every fans' right. (And for that matter, every fan has the right to root for a local team for the sake of wanting to cast jubilation upon them.) 

Even as a Yankees' fan, I know the arrogance that exudes from the pores of 55,000 New Yorkers as a Boston Red Sox takes the field at Yankee Stadium.  Sports are about passion and subjectivity; I'm not denying that.

I am, rather, requesting that as a passionate sports fan, you remove your guard and cheer for your local fan base as if it were your own.  I promise it'll be worth it.

But here's the key to maximizing the experience:

Don't pretend to be one of the crowd.  Just stand afar from the pack, yet still engulfing your emotions in the battle. 

Perhaps Jets' fans do not want your support.  Fine.  But offer it anyway.  If you're at a bar with a friend who happens to be living and dying with every play call, slap him a high five when his team does well.  Don't, however, offer commiseration when his team doesn't.

I've had good fortune with my sports' interests.  And for that, some might argue that it's easy for me to lay such a ludicrous expectation on others. 

If that's the case, then so be it. 

But I'll admit to one secret.  Prior to 2004, it was my feeling that even a Boston Red Sox fan should have the satisfaction of being overwhelmed with the joy of a title. (For the record, though, I never thought they should be treated to two.)

So regardless of if your team wins nothing in twenty years, or three in four, do the right thing. 

For every enthusiastic sports fan that hopes this year's the year his team will bring it home, root for them. 

For the guy you grew up with, the one you haven't seen in fifteen years but always could remember his fan hood, root for them. 

For the guy you see around town sporting the worn out local hat, root for them.  

For the couple who own season tickets, tailgate to every home game, and raise their children to one day do the same, root for them. 

For the elderly fan that waves the sign that reads, "Now I can die in peace," root for them. 

For the grown men who plan on crying when their team finally wins it all, root for them. 

Come this Sunday, even if you believe the Jets, Colts, Saints, or Vikings have little chance in their respective games because you do not bleed the colors they wear, but live within ear shot of their battle cries, root for them. 

Frankly, what do you have to lose?    

One week into the NFL season and already there's thought for concern. 

When the Tennessee Titans lost on the opening drive of overtime against the defending Super Bowl Champion Pittsburgh Steelers, once again, the overtime system came under fire.

When you actually review the numbers of it, though, the odds favor the system.

Since 2001, including the playoffs, there have been 136 overtime games.  With the exception of two ties, thirty-eight percent of the time the team that won the toss, won the game on its ensuing drive.

This means that close to sixty-one percent of the time, what appeared to be an overwhelming advantage - that the team offered the ball first had a greater chance to win the game - proved otherwise.

But wins and losses shouldn't support the heads or tails argument.    

The coin toss is an illogical and, according to the aforementioned numbers, deceiving option.  

Sure, the opening moments of a game are decided on a 50/50 call, but that gets sliced into two halves.  If one team receives the ball in the first quarter, the other gets it to start the third.  

In no other sport (removing home field) does an overtime arrangement give one team an advantage over the other.  

In baseball, each team gets a crack.  In hockey and basketball, the puck and ball are dropped down or thrown up in a free-for-all.  In golf or tennis, each player gets an equal chance to win, whether it be a set, a match or a hole.

But in football, sorry, call it in the air.

The rebutting argument is: it's the defense's job to stop the offense.

Perhaps.

But not even the most formidable defenses in NFL history would lead a coach to kickoff in overtime.  

No.  Any coach, with the game on the line, would want the ball first.  

But this debate isn't new.  It's been going on for quite a while and the NFL seems to stubbornly ignore it.

So should they be?

Ironically, this displeasure with the system usually resurfaces when a meaningful game concludes on an opening overtime drive, leaving a star QB helplessly on the sideline. (Think Peyton Manning vs. the Chargers in 2008.)

When viewed through the prism of playoff implications, it's fair to say the system needs revamping.  

The NFL's claim has always been that in order to uphold the integrity of the sport, the overall format of overtime must remain in place.

And maybe so.

Although this does not suggest that from goal line to goal line needs changing, as was the case with the college format.  It does imply, however, that the game's balance shouldn't hinge on the side of a coin.

Many alternatives are not better than the status quo, so until one is, we'll deal with what we have.

But let's end on one and see if it sticks:

The team without the ball at the end of regulation kicks off to start overtime.  Both teams play a fifteen minute quarter and the team winning at the end of that time is the victor.

It's basically a continuation of regulation whereupon the incentive to win at the end of four quarters still exists.

There are some loop holes, of course.  Teams will intentionally punt to get rid of the ball, or attempt a 65-yard field goal to get rid of their possession, but these wrinkles can be ironed out.  

For instance, the regular strategy of football cannot be compromised.  Meaning, a third down punt, or a 75-yard field goal attempt.  

Maybe it's not perfect, but neither is a coin toss.

Any ideas, let us hear them...

Growing up, all I could remember were Super Bowls blowouts.  There were usually twenty, thirty, and even in some cases, forty or more point victories (XXIV 49ers over Broncos 55-10).  But after reflecting on the outcome of Super Bowl XLIII, I'm starting to realize, the Super Bowls have been really good for quite some time now.  Here are my most memorable top five.

Number 5:  XXIII  San Francisco 49ers 20  Cincinnati Bengals 16

With the score 16-13, the 49ers and the legendary Joe Montana received the ball deep in their own end.  With just 3:10 remaining on the clock and needing a touchdown, Montana marched them 92 yards, finally hitting John Taylor with a picture-perfect spiral on a 10-yard slant leaving only 34 seconds left in the game.  Sure, Elway had his AFC Championship "drives", but now Montana had his Super Bowl "drive." 

Number 4:  XXXVI  New England Patriots 20  St. Louis Rams 17

This one finished stronger than it started.  It showcased, yet again, the "Greatest Show on Turf" as Kurt Warner and Marshall Faulk led the way.  The eventual stars, however, would become Tom Brady and Adam Vinatieri. 

After falling behind 17-3, the Rams' offense finally showed up with two quick drives to tie the game.  Left with 1:30 on the clock and no timeouts, Brady's legacy was born.  As cool as could be, Brady was flushed to his left, took one moment to gather himself, and spotted Troy Brown streaking across the field for a 23-yard strike down to the Rams 34 yard line.  Two plays later the game was over on the leg of the "Italian Stallion" Adam Vinatieri.  The 14-point underdogs were champions and little did we know then, but a dynasty was about to ensue.

Number 3:  XLII  New York Giants 17  New England Patriots 14

Must there be much said about this one?  It remains fresh in a lot of fans' minds.  But for the sake of our list, let's quickly capture the highlights.  

With the Giants' defense suffocating the record-setting Patriot offense, Brady finally found Moss for what seemed like the 19-0 perfect ending.  All the Patriots needed at that moment was a defensive stand and history would be theirs.  Eli Manning and David Tyre, however, would rewrite the past as Manning escaped a sack, fired hopefully downfield, and connected with Tyre, who somehow, someway, pinned the ball up against his helmet and held on.  Four plays later, Plaxico Burress was wide open, the Giants were champs, and the Patriots finished 18-1 only to wonder, what if.

Number 2:  XLIII  Pittsburgh Steelers 27  Arizona Cardinals 23

Talk about fresh.  This one inspired the article, so therefore, it must reside some where in it.  And how can it not?  The highlights are unnecessary, but let's touch on some record-breaking moments.

James Harrison - longest Super Bowl play (100 yards)
Mike Tomlin - both youngest to be a head coach in a Super Bowl and to win it (36)
Kurt Warner - top 3 passing performances of all time in a Super Bowl (414, 377, 365)

And not to mention, Larry Fitzgerald's entire playoff - 30 receptions, 7 touchdowns, and 534 receiving yards; all records.  Granted, he played in 4 games when most all time greats played in 3, but so what!

Number 1:  XXV  New York Giants 20  Buffalo Bills 19

"Wide right" forever became synonymous with Scott Norwood's 47-yard game winning attempt.  As it sailed right, one sideline leapt into jubilation, and one sideline sulked into despair.  Bills Parcells was carried off the field and the Giants had won their second Super Bowl in five years. 

For the Bills, it was a gut-wrenching loss - having been 8-point favorites - but nothing compared to the misery that would follow for three more consecutive years.  

So there you have it - my top five Super Bowl moments.  They aren't perfect and by all means, may not even be worthy of a top five, but their mine.  Care to name yours?