You're Done Arizona, Get Lost

Arizona lost to San Francisco 27-13. The Cardinals made a game of it for about a quarter and a half, but lost in the end.

Someday I'd surely like to know how Arizona can contain almost every other wide receiver on earth, but they can't handle Michael Crabtree. He had 4 TD catches this season against Arizona. What the hell?

William Powell was lead rusher for some reason. 52 yards on 14 carries. LaRod Stephens-Howling was relegated to 1 carry for -1 yard, which means he led the team in rushing with less than 360 yards for the season. The last time the Cardinals leading rusher finished with fewer yards was 1952. Charlie Trippi, 350 yards. In 12 games. Arizona did have a lot of injuries this year. Beanie Wells (big surprise), Ryan Williams (again). But LaRod's been available all season. Why not use him more, or at least some, every week?

One more reason the entire offensive coaching staff (including Whisenhunt) needs to go. They're all morons.

At least Brian Hoyer managed to throw a TD pass. That gives Arizona 11 for the season. Hooray! Right now, given the choice between Hoyer, Lindley, or Skelton, I'd keep Hoyer. He managed to be more successful in the offense with only three weeks, than Lindley did with an entire year, or Skelton with 3. It kills me to give up on Skelton, but he's awful. No getting around it. If you asked me to pick between Hoyer and Kolb, eh, it'd be close. Kolb performed better, but he hasn't demonstrated he can stay healthy. Which might be a reason to keep both, draft someone in say the 2nd or third round, and focus on improving the OL and running game. I don't think either guy can consistently win games for you with their arm, but if they're given some help, I think they can be successful.

Hopefully they keep Dockett and Wilson around. I'd hate to lose them because they couldn't get along with a coach who ought to be fired.

Whatever, the season's truly over. Now it's playoff time. We get to watch Flacco demonstrate that he isn't an elite QB, no matter what he says. Fingers crossed he lays a giant stink bomb that wards the Cardinals off. He might be an improvement over Kolb/Hoyer, but at the price, he isn't worth it. He's not good enough to build an offense around, even if he (and his coaches, judging by their periodic ignoring of Ray Rice), think he is. Given they're playing the Colts, who have a terrible run defense, the Ravens should just give Ray Rice as many carries as he wants.

I'm inclined to give Seattle the edge over the Redskins, since it's a home game for Seattle, and they've generally played better recently. I don't think Alfred Morris will find the running as easy against the Seahawks as he did the Cowboys. I have to lean Packers in their game against the Vikings. They already beat Minnesota in Green Bay once, 200+ yards from Adrian Peterson or not.

AP, by the way, should be MVP. 6.0 yards per carry and a nearly 2,100 yards as he lead the Vikings to the playoffs. Yes, Peyton lead the Broncos to the playoffs, and they even won their division, but two things: One, the Broncos won that division last year, with a QB who could not actually throw the football. The Vikings won 3 games. Speaking of the Broncos division, that leads us to Two, the shitbox that is the AFC West. That division is a joke. Denver had 6 wins on their schedule guaranteed at the beginning of the year, just from getting to play KC, Oakland, and SD twice each. Meanwhile, the Vikings are in the same division as Green Bay and Chicago, an 11-win team and a 10-win team. Even the Lions, who only won 4 games, are no slouches. They're at least competitive, more than you can say for most of Denver's competition.

Hey credit to the Broncos for doing what they should, beating up on the patsies. But it does diminish their accomplishments a bit compared to the Vikings, and specifically, Adrian Peterson.

Week 3 And Later September Baseball

Arizona lost again this weekend. To the Seattle Seahawks. Good to know Arizona's wasting no time making me aware of their ineptitude. I know, it's early, but the Seahawks are freaking terrible, and the Cardinals can't even beat them? What do you expect me to say? "La, la, it's great, everything is sunshine and chocolate bars!"

At this point, I'd say the NFC West is San Francisco's to lose. Which is nice. The Niners have been running their mouths for three seasons about how they were really the best team in the division. Never mind the fact they didn't actually win the division in any of those seasons. Last year, all they had to do was start the season 2-3 and the division would have been theirs. But they went 0-5 instead. That's on them. Well now they've been handed a division so shitty it doesn't appear there's anyway they can't win it. Put up or shut up time Niners.

In baseball, we're entering the final three games of the season. The Braves maintain a 1 game lead over St. Louis, but it's surprising the Cardinals are even still in it. They took the first two from the Mets, but then they had a complete meltdown in the third game. Up 6-2 in the 9th, they lost 8-6 behind a total failure on Motte's part to throw strikes, aided by Furcal botching what would have been a double play ball. Subsequent attempts by Scrabble and Salas to hold the lead were ineffective.

It's sometimes said "Momentum is the next day's starting pitcher." Since the Cards would send out Carpenter for the first game of the Cubs series, they seemed to have their best chance of getting back on the winning track. Carp went 7 strong innings, but McClellan blew up in the 8th, and the Cards lost 4-1. Obviously the offense did the team no favors, either. Or perhaps I should say LaRussa did the team no favors. With Holliday still unavailable to start with a wrist injury, LaRussa opted to put Schumaker and Theriot in the lineup together, while leaving Allen Craig (who is the 3rd best available hitter with Holliday hurt) on the bench.

Still, the team managed to turn it around and win the next two against Chicago, though the offense has doze to slumber, managing only 5 runs in those two games. The first of those games was won in the 9th when Tyler Greene was walked in, then Adron Chambers scored on a wild pitch. The second game turned on a piar of solo shots in the 7th and 8th innings by Molina and Furcal, respectively. So a little longball, and a little smallball/luck. Whatever works, I suppose.

The Cardinals are about to face Houston, while Atlanta travels to Philly. I'd typically feel that favors the Cardinals, but the Phils had been on an 8-game losing streak until they won yesterday against the Mets. One can only hope they'll go out and drub the Braves to try and get themselves right for the postseason.

I'm Stumped And Lazy

I'm not entirely sure what to post about here. Both the Cardinals teams I follow are done for the season. I could (and probably will) take a look at what St. Louis has done this offseason (besides trading Brendan Ryan, which I've said my piece on). I've been considering trying to figure out if this year's Cardinals' quarterbacking was the worst I've seen, or if that title still belongs to the 1999 team, and this was merely the 2nd worst.

I don't have a lot to say about the NFL playoffs. Arizona's not involved, and the only team remotely in my area was Kansas City, was unceremoniously booted from the playoffs by Baltimore. Also, if there's no team I hold allegiance to, I prefer the playoffs to have lots of new blood. The NFC's providing some, since Seattle, Chicago, and and Atlanta weren't in last year.

The AFC is the usual suspects, with New England, Pittsburgh, the Jets, and the aforementioned Ravens. I don't have any confidence the Jets can back up the trash their coach talks, and defensive struggles don't interest me, so I doubt Ravens/Steelers will hold much interest. Plus, I still hate the Steelers for beating Arizona in the Super Bowl two years, and I imagine Roethlisberger is much more likely to have a good game than Flacco. Though Flacco did manage his first competent playoff performance last week. Only took him six games.

Saints Win Super Bowl

Well, that's nice.

I wouldn't say this was a great game, strictly from the play on the field, but it had its moments. The Saints defense managed to hold their ground just often enough, and they forced one of those turnovers they're so good at getting. They seemed to adjust on offense after the first quarter. Brees seemed to more readily find the underneath receiver, since the Colts were doing their best to prevent any deep throws. Except a team can have a pretty decent offense just throwing short passes on target and letting big receivers run with it.

The Colts ran it better than I expected, maybe better than New Orleans expected as well. I'm a little curious about the playcalling by Indy on that last drive, once they were inside the 10. OK, so pass interference pushes them back on 1st down, they get some of it back on 2nd, then they try a run. I know they'd had success running inside in the game, but it isn't their strength, and if they fail, they either have to burn their second time out, or run a quick 4th down play, which is the option they chose. Perhaps they thought by calling the play quickly the Saints would be confused. I could see that being the reason. The run still surprises me.

I wonder how this performance will effect Peyton Manning's image. There was at least one fellow (Ross Tucker) who said that if Peyton won, he'd would consider him the best QB of the last 30 years, and there were some similar sentiments elsewhere that when it came strictly to passing, Peyton was as good as there's ever been. Still, he's never been that superb of a postseason performer. In the Colts' prior Super Bowl run, he threw more INTs than TDs, which is hardly the stuff of legends. He's still a really good QB, but I think he's going to need to do more in the postseason to be considered an all-time great.

Barely Coherent Thoughts On Last Weekend's Games

It's a good thing I'm not a gambler, huh? Those were some poor picks on my part.

I'm most disappointed by Arizona's loss, as you might expect. I really thought they could do better, but half their defense seemed to be injured, and the other half wasn't nearly good enough to stop the Saints. Not sure why they didn't try to run more, especially as the defense fell apart. Keeps Brees off the field, tones down the number of hits Warner takes. Oh well, something for them to keep in mind for next season.

As for the rest, the Jets defense must be even better than I thought. I guess I'll root for them next week. Not that I'm a Jets fan or anything, I'm mostly annoyed with the Colts and their unwillingness to go for the perfect season. I understand they want to keep their best guys healthy, but this is football, a guy can get knocked out at any moment. Remember when the Bengals made the playoffs a few years ago, and Carson Palmer's knee got blown out on his first pass of their first playoff game? The Bengals had managed to keep him upright all season and just like that, he's gone. You can try to protect guys as much as you want, but you never know. Heck, peyton Manning might doze off in a recliner this week, wake up to get a snack, forget to set aside a blanket he's sleeping under, only to trip over it and fracture his pelvis.

OK, that was my grandmother that happened to, and Peyton's hopefully more aware of his surroundings than she is, but there's no telling, so trying to protect them could all be for naught. I think a perfect season is so rare, and so impressive, that if you have the chance, you have to go for it. Then again, I don't have to answer to anyone if that blows up in the team's face.

As for Saints/Vikings, on the one hand, I don't want to root for the Saints, because they knocked Arizona out emphatically, and I tend to hold grudges. On the other hand, you Favre, and I'm not sure I could deal with the hosannas that would be sung for him if he leads this team to a Super Bowl. Certainly Jason Whitlock would never shut up about, and probably use it to call the Packers' GM Ted Thompson a moron for the next 7 years or so. Or until Thompson is shown to have made the right decision, at which point Whitlock will reverse course and pretend he knew Thompson was right all along*. Where was I? Oh yeah, Favre. That's not Favre's fault, but it's still not something I'd be looking forward to having to avoid for several months.

Although, if New Orleans wins, then you have the inevitable stories about the Saints saving New Orleans or something to that effect. I guess I'll root for a Saints/Jets Super Bowl. The Saints, when they're on, are the best offense in the league, and the Jets are the best defense. Immovable object versus irresistible force and all that. Plus, neither of those teams has experienced real playoff success in a long time (or ever, in the Saints' case). I know the Vikings haven't been to a Super Bowl since the 1970s, but that's still better than New Orleans.

* When he still wrote for ESPN, Whitlock penned a column blasting Doug Flutie** and Marty Schottenheimer when they were both in San Diego. He went after Marty for starting Flutie over Brees, and talked about how Marty had made a similar mistake in choosing his QB when he picked Elvis Grbac and let Rich Gannon walk after the '98 season. Except, Whitlock didn't have a problem with that choice back then, going so far as to describe Grbac as a bigger, younger, stronger, faster version of Gannon after the first time Gannon's Raiders played Grbac's Chiefs. But then, five years later, Whitlock's hammering Marty for it, without admitting he was wrong as well? I call bullshit.

** Whitlock's shot at Flutie was that he submarined Rob Johnson's career in Buffalo. See, I thought it was Johnson's inability to stay healthy for more than five minutes that cost him his job. Rob Johnson was the J.D. Drew of NFL QBs. he could be real good when he was on the field, he was just never on the field. Also, if Flutie was the problem in Buffalo, what happened to Rob Johnson in Tampa Bay? Flutie was thousands of miles away, and Jon Gruden was trying to hand the starting job to anyone that wasn't Brad Johnson***, and Rob couldn't even beat out Shaun King. Is that Flutie's fault too, Whitlock?

*** When all Johnson did was QB the team to a Super Bowl. Yeah, their defense deserves most credit, but the run game was 27th in the league, while the passing game was 15th, so the offense fell to Johnson's arm, and all he did was stand in there until the last second, before completing passes and getting leveled.

Looking Ahead To This Weekend's Playoff Games

We can only hope they're more competitive than last week's selection. Well, I'd prefer Arizona win in a blowout, but I'm willing to accept any victory, no matter how narrow. Now, for your amusement, my predictions for the weekend.

I know the Jets are a good running team, and a very good defensive team, while the Chargers are average on defense (and weaker against the run), and more pass-oriented offensively (they run the ball about as well as last year's Cardinals team). I'm going to take the Chargers. I think they can score a couple times early, and while the Jets running attack will control the clock, it won't net enough points, so they'll have to rely more on Mark Sanchez, and I don't think that's a winning formula. Chargers 27, Jets 13.

So the Colts are dead last in rushing the ball, but first in passing. If last week was any indication, the Ravens are good at pressuring the QB and hitting the receivers hard. I think Peyton has more weapons at his disposal than Brady, though. I wonder if Joe Flacco can do anything useful this week. OK, last week he did complete that one 17-yard pass to make a first down, but can he do that more than once? Upside, the Colts are 24th against the run, but if they can jump out to a big lead that won't matter much. More upside for Baltimore: Manning seemed to have a lot of multiple pick games, especially around and after that New England game. That could be the inexperienced receivers he has this year, but it's something the Ravens ought to be able to exploit. If they can stop the Colts early, they can keep pounding the ball, and so what the heck, Ravens 23, Colts 20.

OK, I'm back. Cowboys and Vikings. The Cowboys have looked good the last three weeks of the regular season, and in last week's beating of Philly. The Vikings struggled for a few weeks, starting with stomping Arizona handed them, but seemed to maybe pull themselves together against the Giants. Assuming the Giants didn't just roll over, that is. The Cowboys defense is playing well, but I'd think the Vikings can challenge them a bit more in the run game than the Eagles did. If they're smart, that's what they'll do. It reduces the pressure on Favre, which seemed to work pretty well for Minnesota the first couple months of the season. Other bit of good news for Minnesota is they ranked second on defense against the run. Seeing as the Cowboys have that three-headed monster of Barber, Jones, and Choice, it'd be helpful if the Vikes' D can play up to that ranking. I don't know who I want to win here. I hate Dallas, but I'm not sure I want the Vikings advancing, since that means more talking about Favre. Of course, if the Vikings lose, the talk will be about whether Favre is finally going to retire for real, so maybe it's better to have it be about his actual play on the field. Vikings 30, Cowboys 17.

I want the Cardinals to beat New Orleans. Nothing against the Saints, but the Cardinals are my team. I always want them to win. And I think they can. Won't be easy, but they can do it. New Orleans' defense actually ranks below Arizona's in both run and pass defense, though they're better at forcing turnovers. The Saints are also 6th in rushing offense, which surprised me. I was under the impression their run game was week. So much for that. The good news is, Arizona does have a running game, if they opt to use it. And while Collinsworth told Jim Rome that Warner loves passing against the blitz, and Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams loves to blitz, I think Arizona ought to consider lots of Beanie Wells. Drew Brees can't score if he can't get on the field. I don't expect this to be as high-scoring as last week's game. I know Arizona's defense can play better than that, and Arizona as a whole seems to play better when they can be the underdog, " we get no respect" team, which I think they can do this week. I'm not saying the Saints are overwhelming favorites, but the general consensus seems to be that if Aaron Rodgers could torch Arizona like that on the road, what will Brees do playing at home? Tha being said, I still expect this to be the highest scoring game of the week, and for both QBs to put up good numbers. Cardinals 34, Saints 30.

Now we sit back and see how badly I whiffed on these.

Well That's Just Swell, He Said Sarcastically

I read that some Arizona Cardinals' "fans" decided a proper celebration for the team's trip to the Super Bowl would be to burn cheers in the yard of Donovan McNabb's home.

Fantastic. People are just now finding out there actually are Cardinals fans, even if they think we're probably all bandwagon jumpers, and now they're going to think we're nothing but a bunch of goddamn soccer hooligan wannabes!

I'd like to think we could handle prosperity a little better than that, but I guess there are always going to be a few jackasses in the bunch. Too bad for McNabb, like he's not going to have enough trouble. I'm sure the NFC Championship loss with start up the talk about letting him go again in Philly, and the stuff about whether he shrinks in the big moments, or whatever else he'll have to hear about, now he's got to get his yard fixed up.

Conference Championship Recap

Steelers 23, Ravens 14 - Now, let's have no more of this "Joe Flacco is Joe Cool" nonsense, alright? At least not until he steps his game up considerably. Thumbs Up to Mitch Berger for that tackle on Leonard on the punt return. Not only did you tackle him, you stripped the ball, even if it did tumble out of bounds and remain in Baltimore's possession. On the other hand, Thumbs Down to Berger for that flop that drew the roughing the kicker penalty in the first half. Thumbs Down to the ref that called it while we're at it. The guy barely grazed Berger, and I do not approve of rewarding people who took acting lessons from Vlade Divac. Fucking kickers, that's why nobody likes you.

Lot of hard hitting in that game. The Ravens defensive backfield looked to be getting a little thin there for awhile, especially that one play late in the first half when Heath Miller ran over the guy who tried to tackle him, and one of the wideouts leveled another Ravens' DB. Personally, not the matchup I would have preferred for Arizona. Sure, the Ravens are a fierce defensive team too, but Pittsburgh actually has an offense that can produce points without getting awesome field position thanks to their defense. Baltimore didn't seem quite as capable. Also, I'm concerned about the pressure Pittsburgh can bring getting aimed at Warner. Sure, he's smarter than Flacco, but he's a lot less mobile too. Offensive line better get ready.

Arizona 32, Eagles 25 - They wouldn't be the Arizona Cardinals if they made it easy would they? Last week's game against Carolina notwithstanding. Rack up huge lead, blow huge lead, then retake lead and hold it. I see a few fans complaining about the lack of pass interference on the 4th and 10 throw to Curtis. I'd say it was questionable, because Curtis did appear to be losing his footing on his own at roughly the same time, so I don't know how much Hood did. Besides, Curtis still ought to have caught the ball.

Anyway, if the ref swallowed the flag, then I figure that makes us even for the no call on the pass interference at the end of the regular season contest against the Cowboys in Arizona, back in 1998. Arizona got screwed when the refs looked the other way on a much more egregious example of pass interference, so this evens the score. I find the accusations of conspiracy by the league amusing. The NFL would rather have the Arizona Cardinals' and their diminutive fan base in the Super Bowl, rather than the Eagles and their fans, who would likely be rabid at the prospect of adding a Super Bowl title to the Phillies' recent World Series triumph?

Ah well, Arizona's in, so now all that's left to do is sit through the tedious two weeks of buildup before the actual game. I hate that they wait two weeks. Why? Doesn't that throw the players out of their groove? Granted, it's not nearly as bad as college football, with the six weeks or whatever in between the end of the regular season and their "championship" game, but still. Is it to get both teams as healthy as possible, and if so, how often does the second week actually help there?

Divisional Round Recap

It's a madhouse, a madhouse! Lower seeds winning, home field advantage counting four naught! Well, almost.

Steelers 35, Chargers 24 - Things just didn't seem to go San Diego's way. Darren Sproles busts off a 63 yard kickoff return? Rivers first pass afterward gets tipped at the line and intercepted. San Diego's D actually holds and forces a punt? It bounces off one of their player's heads and the Steelers recover.

I'm oversimplifying it, of course. The Steelers offensive line, which had been letting Ben Roethlisberger get a tad battered this year, actually held up well. San Diego got a grand total of 1 sack, and Ben had plenty of time to convert on all those third-and-long situations, even with the Chargers seemingly frequent blitzes. Plus, San Diego couldn't seem to stop Willie Parker after the 1st quarter. He wound up with 146 yards rushing, with an average of 5.4 yards a rush. On the other side, Sproles couldn't duplicate last week's magic. It seemed as though San Diego had him charging into the heart of the line an awful lot. I know the Steelers have a fast defense, but with a small back, I'm not sure that's the best use for him.

Eagles 23, Giants 11 - First time an NFL game had that final score. The Giants ran the ball pretty successfully, except on those two 4th and inches in the 4th quarter. Which, I guess, is when they needed it most. So maybe you could say they didn't run the ball successfully, if you wanted to. The Giants did their job on Westbrook, 46 total yards on 20 touches, but the Eagles had some excellent field position where they didn't have to move the ball much to score points. Oh, and the Giants kicker missed two field goals. I guess we can argue about how much those mattered, six points in a game with a 12 point margin of victory, but the miss could cost momentum, provide Philly with decent field position, and it wasn't a 12-point game when they were being missed, so who knows. I'd say what it boiled down to was Eli Manning had a less than impressive game. He couldn't seem to make the throws he needed to. Maybe it was the wind (McNabb wasn't exactly stellar, either), or his receivers (there were a couple of passes that just missed, and I can't tell whether Eli got too much on it, or if the receiver slowed down too soon), but the numbers say he didn't come through for them.

Ravens 13, Titans 10 - Credit to the Ravens' defense, they forced turnovers, whether it was by putting pressure on Collins (the INT), or hitting Titan ballcarriers really hard (the two fumbles). Still, the Titans shot themselves in the foot with all those penalties (12, costing 89 yards), and with all the turnovers deep in Ravens territory, they only have themselves to blame.

I don't know what to make of Flacco's performance. After two playoff games, he's 20 for 45, for about 320 yards. He does make a couple of nice deep passes each game, which I guess scares the defense just enough they have to play back, which helps the run. Still, I about did a spit-take when one of the announcers called him "Joe Cool". Uh, NO. That's Joe Montana's nickname. Until Flacco wins 4 Super Bowls (or at least starts completing more than 50% of his passes), he doesn't get tabbed with that name. No sirree.

Brief aside: I was really pleased with the day Justin Gage had (10 catches, 135 yards). Too bad his teammates cocked everything up. Two thoughts emerge from that performance, the first being where was that during his time in Chicago? I don't recall the Bears having a stupendous receiving core during his time there, so I can't figure whether it was a lack of effort by him, a misjudgment by the coaches, or a mark of how bad the QBs were. Secondly, if i were the ravens, I'd be concerned what Pittsburgh will do. I like Gage, but I have to say that Hines Ward is probably better, so what's he going to do to them?

Cardinals 33, Panthers 13 - Well, damn. That exceeded my expectations considerably. Arizona not only won, they went east and won. Not only that, they feel behind almost immediately, then scored 33 unanswered points, before Steve Smith's meaningless TD with 50 seconds left. I can't understand why Carolian abandoned the run so early. I know they fell behind, but it was only 20-7 with over 5 minutes left in the 2nd quarter. The Panthers were down 17-3 to Arizona in the 3rd quarter back in Week 8, and they kept running the ball. And it's not as if they weren't successful on Saturday, with 15 carries for 75 yards. Yes, 31 of those yards came on D'Angelo Williams' carry on the opening drive, and excluding that Arizona held them to 44 yards on 14 carries (3.14 yds./carry), but I don't think you can just forget about the running game. Well, if you were Kurt Warner throwing to Fitzgerald, Boldin and Breaston, you could but Delhomme is not Warner, past playoff performances to the contrary.

I'm glad Arizona decided to go beyond the "tackle Steve Smith" strategy, directly to the "keep the ball away from Steve Smith" plan, which worked all the way up to the final minute of the 3rd quarter. Curiously, Carolina adopted the "don't tackle" plan Arizona used on Smith in Week 8, and employed it against Larry Fitzgerald. Didn't work any better for them than it did the Cardinals. Also, big ups to Hightower. I've been down on him this year, owing largely to his poor showing once he became the starting RB. This time, he went for 76 yards on 17 carries, plus a 3-yard TD catch. James added another 57 yards on 20 carries. Granted, that's not a great average, and the team only averaged 3.4 yards a carry, but they ran it 43 times. Love that commitment to the running game (being way ahead helps, I imagine).

Also, congrats to the defense. I know Delhomme made some bad decisions, and Carolina's playcalling was questionable, but I think the defense deserves at least some of the credit for those six turnovers, you know? They pressured him, even if they only had 2 sacks, forced him to move, throw on the run, and when they had the chance, they held on to the passes he threw to them. Worth noting: Arizona had 30 takeaways in the regular season, which is nothing to sneeze at. So far they have 9 in the playoffs, compared to 2 turnovers.

And now, we see what happens in the conference finals.

Wild Card Round Recap

So, all the road teams were favorites and on Sunday, that held true. Saturday? Not so much.

Eagles vs. Vikings - I caught the first half and the 4th quarter. Spent the 3rd on the computer, apparently missed a fumble by McNabb (or a forced fumble by Jared Allen, depending on how you want to view it) and a bunch of punts. Looks like the Eagles were willing to keep trying to run, even though it wasn't working (23 carries for 67 yards, and that's with a 27 yard run by Buckhalter), and since that meant lots of touches for Westbrook, the Vikings at least had to honor it as a threat. Plus, McNabb didn't seem to let the noise or the hits the Vikes were delivering phase him, while Jackson seemed to get more rattled the longer the game went, even though he wasn't getting hit that often.

I wasn't that impressed with Adrian Peterson. He had the 40-yard TD run, but didn't seem to do much otherwise. Chester Taylor seemed to be generating positive yards more consistently. Maybe Peterson is more of a Barry Sanders back, good for the home run, but prone to losing yards. Or maybe the Eagles run defense just did a solid job (excluding letting Peterson roll for that 40 yard TD).

Ravens vs. Dolphins - I saw the first half of this, went for a walk, and came back early in the 4th quarter, with Baltimore leading 20-9. Simmons said the Ravens' one weakness was the big play downfield, and if that's true, then yeah, the Dolphins were pretty much screwed, with Pennington having a less than outstanding arm. Miami couldn't run, and Pennington made some mistakes thanks to Baltimore's pressure, and the Ravens just ran the ball down their throat. Which was nice, because it meant that it didn't matter that Flacco did jack all. OK, he did have two 31 yard completions, one to Mason and one to Heap, but other than that he didn't do anything. Which is fine, since "anything" includes not making any mistakes, like throwing picks, and I get the impression Flacco is Trent Dilfer, the Next Generation. How well that will work against the Titans, I don't know.

Colts vs. Chargers - OK, I didn't watch any of this game. Don't judge me, I was watching Equilibrium and Grosse Pointe Blank. From the highlights I garner that the two keys were that a) Indy couldn't tackle Sproles to save their lives, and b) San Diego punter Mike Scifres kept the Colts pinned down in the shadow of their end zone all day. Going to be rough on any offense to go over 80 yards for touchdowns seemingly every damn time. Only other thing I have to say about the game was that was a pretty cute trick the Colts pulled on that quick snap that lead to the big Reggie Wayne TD catch. It was so cute, the Eagles went and used it against the Vikings on a short yardage situation, except Griffin wasn't busy looking at the sideline like Cromartie and picked off the pass. Whoops, guess Minnesota was watching the game too.

Falcons vs. Cardinals - I'm not going to sit here and say I knew Arizona would win the game. I believed they could, but wasn't sure they would. But hey, they did win! Super! They shut Turner down (18 carries, 42 yards), pressured Ryan (2 picks, fumble, safety), and ran the ball. They weren't enormously successful (28 carries, 86 yards, 3.1 yards/carry), but like the Eagles, they kept at it, and the Falcons had to at least keep it in mind, which helps lead to 42 yard TD passes to Larry Fitzgerald off a flea-flicker. Boo-ya! That was a beautiful catch.

Interesting stat I saw. Edge James had 16 carries for 73 yards. That's not the interesting stat. What's interesting was every carry went for between zero and ten yards. I think I mentioned this in my last post, but the thing I think James gives the Cards is a guy who is going to keep going forward, rather than dance around in the backfield. He won't explode for a 40 yard run like Adrian Peterson, but he won't get caught for losses in the backfield either. He at least gets the Cardinals a couple of yards, which helps keep them in shorter yardage situations.

Now they get Carolina, which is the matchup I preferred. Not because I think the Panthers are any easier than the Giants to beat. The Cardinals have played them both (Carolina on the road, the Giants at home), and lost both times, though they kept it close against the Giants and were leading in the 4th quarter against Carolina before they decided to stop tackling Steve Smith (never an advisable strategy). Both teams run a lot, throw when they need to, and play tough defense. So either way, Arizona has to do what they did against Atlanta: run often enough and with enough success that the defense doesn't drop 7 into pass coverage, and their defense has to avoid giving up 21 points in the first quarter and screwing with any chance of having a balanced offense. The reason I'd rather face Carolina is, Arizona is still going to throw frequently, and I imagine the weather will be more helpful in Carolina than in the Meadowlands.

Well, That's Encouraging

Arizona actually managed to win a game. So they win the division at 9-7, rather than 8-8, which feels significant to me. Even more important, they actually rushed for 119 yards. Sure, that doesn't sound all that impressive, until you consider that Arizona hadn't rushed for 100 yards in a game since they beat the Rams in St. Louis. That put their record at 5-3. Yes, they went 7 games not rushing for 100 yards. Freaking embarrassing, you know?

What's interesting is that Edgerrin James got almost all the carries today, which hadn't happened since the 7th game of the season. Starting with the aforementioned Rams' game, Tim Hightower had been getting almost all the carries, and James had hardly even gotten on the field. Hightower ran for 134 yards in the Rams game, but he's still under 400 yards for the season. I'm not sure he made it over 50 yards in any other game this season. So, does this mean Whisenhunt has decided to go back to Edge? I hope so. I get the impression that Hightower was more of a shifty running back, which can get you tackled behind the line, whereas James is more inclined to charge into that line. While that may limit James' elusiveness, it usually guarantees he'll get at least a couple of yards, something the Cardinals' running game hasn't seemed capable of lately. Or maybe it's just a consequence of James being a seasoned vet, and Hightower being the rookie who's still learning about finding holes. All I know is Arizona had five games this season with 100 yards rushing or more. In 4 of those, Edge was the starter, Hightower was the starter in just one of those.

OK, maybe I'm getting too excited about a 100-yard running game against the Seahawks, but they'd been playing better lately, and the way Arizona had been going lately, anything positive is reason for cheer. Now I just have to hope Arizona can keep Michael Turner under wraps. Man can dream, right?

Well, How About That?

Your NFC West champions for 2008, the Arizona Cardinals! I'm happy, though that's really more about the fact they beat up on the Rams. After those last two losses I was getting a little worried, and the fact they beat up on a team they should beat up on was encouraging. Arizona isn't a great team, but they beat the teams they ought (read: bad teams), so they're at least good.

Truthfully, I'll be happier if they win the Minnesota game next week. Right now, they're only guaranteed a .500 record. Beating Minnesota would make them at least a 9 win team, and they'd still have a chance at 11 wins**. In my time as a Cardinals fan, I've seen two 8-8 teams, and one 9-7 (10-8 after their postseason ended) teams. A 10 or 11 win team would be nice, I think. Really, I just don't want them in the playoffs as an 8-8 team. I know, they're the Arizona Cardinals, I should take whatever I can get. Believe me, I know. I've been struggling all season with trying to be satisfied with whatever they do, and watching how well they play sometimes and expecting them to do more, do better.

Where was I? Oh right, wanting a victory over Minnesota. The Vikings are another team like Arizona, in that they're not great, but they're good, and it'd be nice to add another team to the list of not lousy teams the Birds have beaten this year*. I'm a little worried about Adrian Peterson, though he apparently had some fumble issues this week against Detroit, and if there's one thing Arizona' D knows how to do, it's force and recover fumbles***. It's purely selfish, and not sportsmanlike at all, but I kind of hope Goodell overrules that judge and the Vikes' Williams DT combo misses the game. It may be the only was Arizona can get any positive yardage on the ground.

Which brings us to the major concern with this team, that they can't (or won't) run the ball. The last time they played the Rams, they had over 134 yards on the ground. This time it was only 63, on 22 carries. I know a grind it out, between the tackles runner like Edge doesn't really fit Arizona's spread the field and air it out style, but I think a guy who can charge in their and at least gain a few yards each time would be a welcome change. Seems like everytime I actually see the Cards trying to run the ball, the runner (usually Mr. Hightower) is getting hit in the backfield. It's concerning, you know? Oh well, division champs, hoorah!

And I guess, congrats to the Giants and the Titans for clinching their divisions. I'm sure the Giants aren't being allowed to enjoy that, what with their losing and having Tom Coughlin for a coach all. That was a pretty impressive blocked FG returned for a TD they had though. Those special teams can pick you up, or drop you on your head, can't they?

* That list is currently comprised of Dallas, Miami, and Buffalo. Hey, the Bills were still good when they got crushed by Arizona!

** I know, slim chance of beating the Patriots in Foxboro, but if they play, then there is at least a chance of victory.

*** The broadcast team for yesterday's game mentioned Arizona is first in the NFL in those categories, and they got the ball away from Steven Jackson twice yesterday.

Really George Karl, What Were You Expecting?

All I'm going to say about Arizona's loss to the Giants is this: They really need to get that running game going. 23 yards on 15 carries? Might be time to get Edge back on the field.

I didn't see much mention of it, but did anybody notice George Karl's comments about Iverson last week? Karl said that since the trade he was seeing fewer bad plays, fewer wasted possessions with Billups running the show. Apparently Karl was frustrated that Iverson didn't act like a "floor general", which I take to mean a Stocktonesque pass first point guard. Iverson too frequently wouldn't run the play Karl desired, instead choosing to go one-on-one and take a possibly ill-advised shot.

First, let's establish that Karl isn't entirely bagging on Iverson. He feels Iverson will do better in Detroit because they are a veteran team, and Iverson will be able to play 2 guard there*. I'm not clear on how Iverson is going to play 2 guard exactly, 'cause where does that leave Rip Hamilton? Is he at point now? I assume Stuckey is getting point minutes, but you still have the Hamilton/Iverson situation, unless you're going small lineup with Rasheed, Tayshaun, Rip, AI, and Stuckey? Looking at ESPN, they're listing Kwame Brown at center (at least until McDyess re-signs with them next month), so maybe they'd be better off going small. I've wandered off the point I wanted to discuss.

Karl's comments strike me as a coach trying to deflect blame from himself. He wants a guy at point who will run the offense, and not just go one-on-one whenever the mood strikes him. Well, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Nuggets trade Andre Miller for Iverson? Wasn't Miller closer to a pure point guard than AI? Miller never struck me as the sort to freelance, so if you wanted someone to run good possessions, why not stick with what you have? Let us say Miller didn't fit the team's needs. If a "floor general" was what you wanted, why trade for Iverson of all people? That would be like a team wanting to improve its team defense and trading for Steve Nash. It's an acquisition at odds with your stated goal.

Really, it's not as if Iverson taking ill-advised shots and trying to do everything himself is a new development. Hasn't this been his style of play his entire career? Why would you expect him to change? Because you're George Karl? Because you have Carmelo Anthony and Kenyon Martin? I don't see Iverson changing his style until his skills diminish to the point he has to (similar to how Gary Payton had to accept reduced roles with the Heat the year they won a ring because he wasn't the Payton who helped lead the Sonics to the Finals anymore), and that hasn't happened yet. Or if it has, Iverson hasn't realized/accepted it yet, which is essentially the same thing for the team.

It strikes me as self-delusional of Karl to act as though it's some big surprise AI would deviate from the offensive game plan from time to time.

* This was according to a commenter on the Philly.com article I found about Karl's comments. They mentioned it as evidence of biased reporting by the paper.

These Close Calls Are Tiring

While I'm certain the people at Monday Night Football, and the general viewing public, enjoyed this week's game as it was, I would have preferred Arizona win in a slightly less heart-threatening manner. Say, a nice 40-3 drubbing.

Still, first rule of Arizona Cardinal fandom is accept every win, no matter how narrow or lucky it may have been*. I've even managed to draw some encouraging things from the game, primarily that they won. Consider it: The Cardinals were at home, against an inferior team, with a chance to make other teams sit up and take notice of them. Historically, the Cardinals lose games like this. They lose to teams that appear to be even worse than them all the time. It's maddening. And while they certainly didn't play well - too many stupid penalties**, they did win, and that's a sign of progress.

You know what I didn't need though? Tirico and Kornheiser bringing up that damn Bears game from 2 years ago. Yeah, thanks for reminding me of how badly they cocked that one up. No really, I want to be reminded of that debacle.

* I am stunned that Mike Martz of all people would call for a fullback dive up the middle from the 2 for the final play. No double reverse? No option play? Not even a fake spike? I'm not complaining, but I am surprised.

** I was so worried they would blow this game, I didn't turn it on until there were 5 minutes left in the game, basically three plays before they scored the go ahead touchdown. This is probably for the best. After a stupid unnecessary roughness penalty that gave the 49ers a first down when it should have been 4th and 2 or 3, they ran a graphic that said the Cardinals had returned two INTs for TDs, only to have them recalled by penalties. Had I actually seen those, I probably would have thrown a footstool through my TV screen. So yes, best that I didn't start watching sooner.

I Am No Longer Too Angry To Discuss Hating The Cowboys

When I first started following the NFL, and foolishly selected the (then Phoenix) Cardinals as "my" team, it was easy to dislike the Cowboys. They were good, Arizona was not. The two teams played twice a year, and Dallas regularly thumped Arizona both times. From the time when I became a fan, Dallas beat the Cardinals 8 times in a row (avg. score: 25-12), and this was in the middle of a streak of 13 victories in a row (Avg. score: 25-12) by Dallas over the Cards. Fortunate then, that San Francisco was good and the Rams weren't, so there was one other matchup more one-sided.

It was so easy to hate them. Dallas won Super Bowls. Arizona could barely finish .500. Dallas was called "America's Team", which their fans loved, but made them despised by fans of lots of other teams, including this fan here. I'm an American, and Dallas sure as hell wasn't my team. There was only one fan base that hated the Cardinals, and that was the one they abandoned in St. Louis. And once the Greatest Show on Turf got going, many fans proclaimed how much happier they were now with their new team. The Cardinals were a joke, an object of derision, mocked by gasbags like Chris Berman about how, every time they would start to show some promise, they 'would remember they were the Cardinals *hur hur hur*' and go back in the tank.

The Cowboys had Troy Aikman, Emmit Smith, who was pretty much guaranteed to get 150 yards on the ground when he played Arizona, Michael Irvin, and eventually that hot dog Deion Sanders, that everybody called the best cornerback in the game, despite the fact he seemed deathly afraid of contact. I once watched him "tackle" Larry Centers (not a large guy by fullback standards), by essentially going into the fetal position as Centers ran towards him. It surprised Centers so much, he tripped over Sanders. Shit, you didn't see Aeneas Williams shying away from physical contact, or failing to help in the running game. In that same game, I watched Aeneas hold Irvin to 82 yards on 5 catches (not one of Aeneas' better results, to be sure, but he was single-covering Irvin), only to watch the rest of the secondary surrender 203 receiving yards to Kevin Williams. Yeah, who? Jimmy Johnson got fed up and left, well Barry Switzer came in and netted the 'Boys another ring (or tricked Neil O'Donnell into throwing it to him).

Meanwhile, after my first year of fandom, the Cardinals fired Joe Bugel, and brought in Buddy Ryan, who declared they had a winner in town. Yeah, 8-8, then 4-12, and you wrecked the offense. Good job Buddy, you offensive coordinator punching dick. In truth, I had it pretty well. My first 4 years as a fan, Arizona went 26-38. The 4 years before that they'd gone 18-46. Still, you need that ray of hope, and after the 8-8 season was followed with 4-12, I was still looking. It came in Week 2 in '97, when Arizona beat Dallas 25-22, behind the immortal Kent Graham. It was the, to steal from Bill Simmons quoting Rocky 4, "the Russian's been cut!" moment. As you might expect, Dallas got revenge later that year, winning 24-6, sacking Jake Plummer (making career start #3) and Kent Graham 9 times. I think I may have to do a post just about stuff I remember about the Cardinals from my time as a fan thus far. The ineptitude of the '97 offensive line will be discussed.

The critical year was '98. Dallas had curb-stomped Arizona 38-10 in Week 1, but it was Week 11 now, Arizona was 5-4, and this game was on the Cardinals' home turf. Sure, with all the Dallas fans, that didn't mean too much, but you hoped it would mean something. It didn't seem like it would early. Dallas was up 28-7 at the half, but Arizona rallied, and at the end of the game sat on Dallas' 2 yard line, down 35-28. The ball was snapped, Plummer dropped back and threw a fade to Rob Moore in the corner. It was a little underthrown, so Moore turned and reached back for it. The cornerback, Kevin Smith, didn't turn around. Made no attempt to play the ball whatsoever. Instead, he opted to grab Moore's arms and hold them down, preventing him from catching the ball. The refs swallowed the whistle, and Arizona lost. I cursed and raved, and hit things, and got chastised by my mother for all of it. My dad, who'd been a Cards' fan until they left StL, and has more than once expressed regret for somehow passing that particular fandom on to me, just looked sad, and understanding.

Where was the flag? I know they say to let the players decide the game, but calling defensive pass interference there actually allows for that. Kevin Smith comitted a penalty, and got away with it. If the refs do their fucking job, the Cards get the ball on the 1 yard line, and gets one more chance, since the game can't end on a defensive penalty. Maybe they score a touchdown, maybe they don't. If they do, maybe they go for two, get it and win, maybe they fail and lose. If they kick the extra point, maybe it misses, or they still lose in OT. But we'll never know because the Cards got hosed. I was sure it was because they were playing the Cowboys (still am sure of that, in fact). I had been jealously hating the Cowboys before, now I just despised them, everything about them. Sanders' douchebag high-stepping (or goose-stepping as I dubbed it) into the end zone, Irvin's repeated run-ins with the law not seeming to harm his career one bit, goddamn Emmit who I was certain was just a product of his O-line, and their half-domed stadium. What was that? Either have a dome or don't, the middle road is for wusses, and I thought there were no wusses in the Great State of Texas. So I stewed over it.

But things occasionally work out, even for the Arizona Cardinals and their fans. Arizona got in the playoffs, by winning their last 3 games, all on field goals, either as the clock expired or in OT, including a 52-yarder the last week. And who did Arizona get in Round 1? Dallas? How lovely. Actually, not so lovely. Even though Dallas appeared to be the weakest division winner, they had still beaten Arizona 11 of the last 12 times the teams played, and this was in Dallas. There was concern. But Arizona won, handily. 20-7, and Dallas didn't get that 7 until the last few minutes of the game. They got dominated. Emmitt didn't get to 100 yards, Irvin (4 catches, 32 yards) got locked down by Aeneas, who picked off two passes Aikman tried to force in there. Deion tried to play hurt and was useless. Plummer made a big pass play by scrambling from the pocket and chucking it downfield as he was being tackled, for about a 30-yard gain to Frank Sanders. They scored their first TD on Jake seeing the blitz, ignoring it, and shovel passing it to Adrian Murrell as planned. It was a glorious game*, though I was sad my dad couldn't let himself enjoy it even a little. After all, he'd never gotten to see them win a playoff game, and he hated Dallas as much as me. It was OK to savor that, wasn't it? But he wouldn't join in on my jumping and cheering.

It didn't matter too much that Minnesota whomped Arizona next week. It certainly wasn't a fun game, but I knew that the Vikes seriously outclassed Arizona (though I think I printed a newsletter in my software class predicting Arizona would win. What's fandom, if not eternal optimism?). Desides, Arizona had beaten Dallas, in front of all their fans, on national TV. Sure, it was a Chan Gailey coached team, not Switzer or ole Jimmy, but I'd take what I could get. Still, I think something was lost at that point. Arizona had slain the dragon that had haunted my fandom. The Cowboys were in descent at this point. Unfortunately, Arizona was not in ascent, for I could have learned to enjoy the Cardinals giving Dallas a little of their own ass-beating medicine. They were in the same division 3 more years before Arizona was moved to the NFC West. They split those 6 games, each team winning all the games played at their stadium. Arizona's wins were close (13-9, 32-31, 17-10), Dallas' were not (35-7, 48-7, 17-3). Still, these weren't the same unbeatable Cowboys anymore, and the hatred cooled.

Since Arizona moved to the NFC West, they've played Dallas 5 times in the regular season (counting last weekend). Some of those games have been mighty ugly, either because Arizona got crushed (all three losses), or because the teams both played really poorly (the offenses at least). The spark wasn't there for me, and I turned my dislike towards other teams. There were the Rams, who were annoying if only because the StL sportswriters seemed to take great pleasure in writing about how the Rams beat the "Deadbirds", as some of them liked to put it. It was annoying enough that when Arizona crushed the Rams 31-7 in 2004, I think I sent Bernie Miklasz a mocking, sarcastic e-mail to celebrate Arizona's victory. There was San Francisco, who even when they were terrible, could somehow always manage to beat Arizona just when Arizona really needed the win.

As for Dallas, well, I enjoyed their failures when Bill Parcells was the coach, since I've always disliked him for some reason. But Wade Phillips is someone I can't really muster the energy to dislike, especially when his own offensive coordinator makes more money than him. Though I guess he did decide to go with Rob Johnson over Flutie in that Music City Miracle game**, but I keep forgetting that. Romo's ridiculously overhyped for a guy that's no playoff games, but he didn't ask for that. T.O.'s a giant pain in the ass, but that just means the Cowboys have to suffer through his antics. While enjoyable for me, it doesn't induce hatred. Ditto for Pacman Jones. Fortunately, you can always count of the refs to pick you up. They hosed the Cardinals out of two fumbles they forced out of Romo, one by invoking the bullshit Tuck Rule, and the other by, well, nobody seems to know. Dockett hit Romo, he fumbled (all replays showed this), the Cardinals fell on it. Ref, who never whistled the ball dead, runs in and says Cowboys' ball. Whisenhunt wants to challenge, the ref says he can't. At no point does the ref bother to explain to us, the paying audience, why it is still Dallas ball, or why Whisenhunt can't challenge the ruling. We're just left in suspense.

I mean, I'm following this game on ostensibly neutral sites like Deadspin (well, I figure it's neutral now that Leitch is a guest blogger, not editor) and Kissing Suzy Kolber. At best, these are sites populated by people who hate Dallas, not Cardinals' fans, and they're screaming bloody murder. Mike Sando, ESPN's NFC West blogger, said Arizona got hosed. At that point, you could have told me that one of the refs hit Warner with a chair while Wade climbed the ladder to grab the championship belt and the only part of that I wouldn't have believed was Wade Phillips climbing a ladder***. That was all it took, and I was back in my "Goddamn Cowboys, in bed with the refs, trying to screw my team over" mode. When Dallas lost because their special teams stank, I jumped for joy. I had figured Arizona was toast once their "Time out as the ball is snapped" let the field goal kicker hit the game-tying kick, because that's how things go for them. They surprised me though, won the game, and the fact I loathe the Cowboys once more makes it all the sweeter.

The Cowboys are in disarray and it feels so right. Everybody sing! (Now watch Brad Johnson lead them to the Super Bowl. I think he'll do it just to remind Gruden that he had a good QB, before he started this ridiculous carousel he had now. And I say that as someone who likes Jeff Garcia).

* I saw a lot of online reaction on Sunday from Cardinals fans along the lines of "I've been a Cardinals fan for 18 years, this was their biggest win ever!" I can't help but think, "Really? A game in Week 6, in Arizona was bigger than the franchise's first playoff vistory in 50 years, over Dallas, on the road no less?" Fans are such idiots sometimes.

** I totally bought into the Flutie magic. Still do. Surest way to know Flutie's good? Merril Hoge, noted imbecile and Vince Young despiser, bad-mouthed him when he was starting ahead of Brees in San Diego. So did Jason Whitlock for that matter, and this is a guy who keeps stumping for Jeff George, 'cause they played together in college or some shit. Note that Drew Brees hadn't shown anything like what he does these days.

*** No, no, it's not a fat joke! See, Wade wouldn't be able to climb it because T.O. would run up and push the ladder over, saying wasn't devoting enough time to get Owens the ball. Or Jason Garrett would have replaced the ladder with an escalator, so Wade could never reach the belt, letting Garrett get it and present it to Mr. Jones. Jerry, not Adam. Pacman would probably hit someone with it. Actually, so might Jerry if Dallas don't get things straightened out****.

**** Fine, it is a fat joke. Happy?

Well, Back To The Old Drawing Board

In today's blog post, the role of Marvin the Martian will be played by the Arizona Cardinals. See, Arizona just gave up 56 points to the Jets, so I'd say Whisenhunt's idea about staying on the East Coast this week, rather than flying back to Arizona after the Redskins' game, could probably be considered a bust.

- Or maybe it has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with Warner, who threw 3 picks, and lost 3 fumbles to boot. The fumbles bother me more than the interceptions, because fumbles mean Kurt's back to holding onto the ball too long, which I usually interpret to mean he's getting shell-shocked*.

- Tooling around on Football-Reference, found depressing statistic: In the time I've been an Arizona Cardinals fan, they've only had 1 QB with a winning record in games started. I'm not surprised, the Cardinals have been terrible for almost the entirety of that stretch, but still. 1 out of 16, and it's Jay Schroeder of all people, who in 1994, who went 5-3. I'm not giving him credit for that, though, not with 4 TDs and 7 INTs, anymore than I'm blaming Jake for his 30-52 record. Well, I'm blaming Jake for some of those, especially in '99 and '00. His TD/INT ratio those years was 9/24 and 13/21, fer pete's sake! There's no way he isn't at least partially at fault for being 6-19 those years!

- In other news, I was all set to do a end of the baseball season post, complete with discussion of postseason matchups, and any milestones reached this year. But the White Sox and Twins both decided they'd actually like to win today, and so we have to wait to see how Detroit at Chicago plays out tomorrow. I figure I've the aforementioned post, which I might break into one post about the postseason and one post about milestones, then a Cardinals' season retrospective.

- It's not all bad news. The NL Wild Card did shake out today, with the Brewers getting in, and the Mets crashing and burning a second year in a row. *Dances merry jig* I suppose it's poor form, enjoying the failures of the Mets, but I was raised to love the Cardinals and hate the Mets (it was the '80s, they were rivals), even if the Metropolitans are no longer the coked up bat corkers (Howard Johnson) they were back in the day. In comparison, while I have no love for the Brewers, I have no real hate for them either, which I guess means I was rooting for them by default. Probably doesn't matter. Both teams' good pitchers have got to be gassed right now.

- Still, I can't help looking at the game of hot potato the Mets and Brew Crew played with the Wild Card, then look at the Cardinals and say, "Damn, if only we hadn't gone 7-10 against the Pirates!" Sure, going 6-9 against the Cubs, and 5-10 against Milwaukee didn't help, but you could at least sort of excuse that on the grounds that they were better teams, according to their records at least**. But a losing record against freaking Pittsburgh?! Ugh.

- By the by, does anyone know the reason why MLB won't let a wild card play the winner of their division in the first round of the playoffs. Hardly seems fair that the Angels, who won their (crappy) division, and locked up the best record have to face the, minimum, 94 win Red Sox, rather than the 88-win Central winner, just because Boston and Tampa are in the same division. Then again, just about anything can happen in a short series, so maybe the Angels will wind up being happy they drew Boston.

- Also, if it's all the same to you, let's just assume that, had Houston and the Cubs made up that game tomorrow (or that it had been played when originally scheduled), the Astros would have lost, thus giving them and the Cardinals the same record, and award the Cardinals 3rd place in the Central on the grounds they won the season series, 8-7, 'kay? Fantastic.

* It's odd. Most QBs, when they take a lot of hits, start "hearing footsteps", and running for their lives, throwing the ball away, and generally giving up on plays before they need to. Warner seems to go the opposite direction, like he's hearing footsteps, but thinks it's just his nerves, and so he resists the urge to bail out. He might want to start listening to that survival instinct a little more.

** With the Cubs, there's no doubt they're better, but the way the Brewers have staggered to the finish line, I'm not so sure they are better. I'm certainly not sure right now, when Ben Sheets says he has a "broke arm", when C.C. has got to be reaching his limit (doesn't he?), when their bullpen looks about as lousy as the Mets, and their defense is just bad.

The QB Whirlygig Continues

Now Warner's going to be the starting QB, because Leinart had a crappy half against Oakland. I guess the Cards' really think the division is there for the taking, and they can't risk shaky QBing sabotaging their big chance to take the NFC West. Well, if they can run the football enough to keep other teams from blitzing Warner until they knock his head off, this just might work. I have little doubt Whisenhunt will try to run, whether they'll have success is another matter.

Of course, there's the question of what Leinart's state of mind is now, and how ready he'll be if Warner does get hurt, and Leinart has to come in to save the day. He was supposedly really working hard the last few weeks, and to lose his job after a bad half, well, that could be damaging. Hopefully it all works out.

On an unrelated note, I think Shawne Merriman should probably get the full knee surgery, and just sit out this year. Playing on two torn knee ligaments just sounds like a bad idea. Besides, it's not as though the Chargers will reward him for that, especially if he gets hurt, or his play suffers (both of which seem pretty likely). They'll just cut him, thanks for the effort, sorry about your knees, but we don't need you anymore, so fuck off. The NFL is a harsh mistress.

The Cardinals Probably Can't Have Too Many QBs

The word is going around that Ken Whisenhunt has already declared Matt Leinart the starting quarterback for Arizona this year, ahead of Kurt Warner. I only know about it because it was apparently interesting enough to merit discussion on 1st and 10. Naturally the discussers disagreed, with Skip Bayless arguing this hurts Arizona's chances to take advanatge of a weak division, while his cohort, a Rob Parker of ESPN Radio, said that was OK, it was more important to look to future years, and that's why you start Leinart, and besides, Warner is old news, and we should just forget about that old man. Hey, he said it, not me.

I'm a bit torn on the issue. After Leinart got hurt last year against the Rams, Warner took over as starter, and racked up a 5-3 record (though the Browns were the only team of note he beat, and they lost to the Saints and the 49ers), which, since this is the Cardinals we're talking about, is nothing to sneeze at. Leinart hasn't done anything in two years (13 TDs/16 INTs in 17 games) to prove he's better than Warner (33 TDs/22INTs in 21 games). He hasn't even proved he's more durable than Warner is at this stage in his career, and that's after Warner's gotten pummeled for years.

The downside to that is Warner gets punch drunk when he gets hits a lot (say the first few games of '02, or '04 with the Giants). Hey, I love the fact that he'll stand there in the face of the rush that extra second to make the throw (except when he stands there a second too long) but that's a good way to get beat all to hell, and then his play suffers. He starts holding onto the ball too long more frequently, and his fumbles seem to increase. So he probably doesn't work as a long-term starter, unless you run the ball a lot, or have one outstanding offensive line*. Plus, Leinart is the first round draft pick that's making some big bucks, and you'd like to start seeing a better return on that. He is the guy for the future, certainly more than Warner anyway, and he's got to play if he's going to improve.

Truthfully though, I don't think it's any big deal. With the hits QBs take now (even with all the rules to protect them), you're not likely to keep one QB under center the entire year, so having two competent signal-callers is handy. I wonder whether they'll do what they did last year, with Leinart running the basic offense, and Warner taking the ball when it's time for the two-minute drill/no huddle offense. That seemed to work pretty well, since it eased the decision making process on Leinart, and let Warner handle the situations where you needed to make calls on the fly. Plus, a hurry-up offense wears down the defense, since they can't make substitutions, which blunts the pass rush Warner would have to deal with a little.

I suppose Leinart has to learn to handle those situations at some point though, so I guess it depends on what the team's goals are this year. If they're still primarily concerned with building up the team for the future, then you give the ball to Leinart and let him play until he physically can't, even if Warner might be better in a particular situation. If you're set on making the biggest splash possible this season, then I think you go ahead and use Warner when it's most advantageous, regardless of whether it stunts Leinart's progress.

Personally, I want Leinart to start, but have Warner ready to jump-start things if Leinart just looks completely lost out there. We're talking dire straits here, so hopefully Matt doesn't start looking over his shoulder. Honestly, with the weapons the Cardinals have, Leinart ought to be able to avoid prolonged struggles, barring massive, debilitating injuries to their playmakers.

* Either of those circumstances would be a nice change of pace for the Cardinals.

Is It Over? Is It Safe To Watch ESPN?

OK, so now that Favre's been traded, we won't hear anymore about him, right? The reign of terror is over? What? He's playing for a team very near the New York metropolitan area? Aw crap. Hopefully the discussion will at least center on how well he can play this year (as in, was his good 2007 a sign he'd rebounded from a couple of ugly years, or just an aberration as he continues his decline?) and what it means for the Jets. You know, actually football discussion, as opposed to this video tape of Farve getting off the airplane. Who is he, the fucking Pope or something*?

I do look forward to that Ombudsman they have on the ESPN website, LeAnn Schreiber I believe, covering this in her next column. I'm sure she's going to get a lot of e-mails from people sick and tired of being beaten over the head about this stuff.

Maybe this whole situation will teach teams not to push players so hard in the off-season. Players don't get any time to really reflect and think about what lies ahead, because as soon as a team's season is over, the coaches and general manager are already focusing on next year: who'll they'll draft, who they need to resign, who needs to be replaced, etc. A player can't get enough time to really think about it. I don't think anything will change though, because a team is rarely going to be as hesitant to just release a player uncertain about their status as the Packers were with Favre.

Aaron Rodgers is really under the gun now though, huh? He's the guy whose presence convinced the Packers they could go on with Number 4, and the fans are going to be on him from the start. Well, the Farve fans will be, Packers' fans may be more accomodating (one can only hope). Too bad for Rodgers he couldn't have taken over after the '05 season (when Farve threw 29 picks), or even the '06 when Farve's TD/Int ratio was 18/18. Could have eased expectations a bit. And what about Chad Pennington? As I understood it, he was at least in the hunt with Kellen Clemens for the Jets' starting QB job, then Farve comes along and he's out on the streets. Ouch. I'm sure Jeff Garcia's fine with this turn of events though.

* You knew it was getting bad when you turn on Sportscenter in the morning, and they have that little list of what they're talking about now, and the next 7 or so topics, and about 75% of it is Farve-related. Then maybe highlights from 2 baseball games, six more Farve segments, a couple of more baseball games, more Farve. Insane.

Discussing The Concept Of Liberated Fandom

I was introduced to the term while reading Freedarko, which is a blog that discusses basketball, usually by comparing styles of play and/or players to film directors, schools of political thought, or psychological styles, to name a few. So you get posts and comments where the Phoenix Suns of 05-06 are compared to Godard, while the 07-08 Lakers are Bertolucci. As a biology major, most of that just goes right over my head. If it's going to make sense to me, compare the Suns trade for Shaq, and its subsequent failure to produce better results to the Biological Species Concept.

Actually, don't do that, because I've decided I will.

At any rate, "liberated fandom" as I understand it, is that a fan should not just be someone who always roots for a team, and does so because they've rooted for that team since they were a child, just like their father and grandfather (or mother and grandmother, or whatever). That kind of fandom is perfectly OK, but so is the Freedarko style of rooting for a team because of the way they play, or rooting for a player because of their style, or what they represent, and that can vary with each fan's personal taste.

To me, it seems that the later in life I became invested in a sport, the more my fandom incorporates the latter style. I started watching baseball when I was five or six, and for me it has been pretty much the Cardinals or bust*. There are players on teams other than the Cardinals that I like, or respect the skills of**, but it isn't enough for me to really root for their team due to their presence.

I started watching the NFL in 1993, and while I have stuck with the Arizona Cardinals through that, there have been a host of other teams I rooted for at various times, usually because of a particular player. In a lot of cases, that player was a quarterback, usually one with a fairly average arm, but good mobility. I rooted for the Chiefs because of Joe Montana, and I stayed with the Chiefs until they decided to go with Elvis Grbac as their starting QB, and let Rich Gannon go***. So I followed Gannon to the Raiders. When the Bills signed Doug Flutie, I had the opportunity to read a few articles about him, and so I rooted for the Bills as a result. When the Bills opted to dump Flutie to stick with Rob Johnson, I started following the Chargers****. I sort of idly watched the Rams during their first 2 "Greatest Show on Turf" years because I like high-octane football, and the Rams were providing it. I only actively rooted for the Rams when Arizona traded Aeneas Williams to them, because I wanted him to get a ring*****. When Vermeil took over the Chiefs, I went back to them because we got the best kind of football for my viewing pleasure: A team with a great offense and lousy defense, so everybody scores lots of points. Woo-hoo!

I didn't really start watching the NBA until 97-98 (also known as the 2nd year the T-Wolves lost in the 1st round). I was a Timberwolves fan for about 8 years, but when it became clear that it wasn't going to happen for them, I kind of lost interest and gravitated to the Suns and eventually the Warriors, with their run-and-gun style. I don't know what it means that I seem less loyal to teams as I get older, but that seems to be the trend. Maybe I figure I can't keep adopting sad sack franchises, when I've already got Arizona.

* There was a time early on where I chose the Blue Jays as my AL team, but then I decided I had no use for the DH, so that died a quick death.

** Jamie Moyer in the first category, Alex Rodriguez in the second. Mostly I feel bad for A-Rod. He takes so much shit when he doesn't merit it.

*** That certainly worked well for Kansas City.

**** Man, general managers are some dumb folks some time. Just because a guy has a big arm doesn't mean he's any good. Honestly, you'd think Montana would have taught them that.

***** He came so close, too. Stupid Martz and his refusal to run the football.