Today I weigh 177.1. I was sick for a few days, but I am starting to feel better. What really makes me sick are those new Steelers throwback jerseys.
Christ almighty, those things are ugly! I can promise you one thing, I will not be purchasing one. Unless they are in the discount bin at some point and I need a funny shirt for a party.
Actually, everyone is complaining that they look like a bumblebee, but that is not my complaint. I hate the numbers. If they could find a way to make the letters look less idiotic, I might be okay with this atrocity.
Oh well, it is only three games, good for a laugh, right?
Showing posts with label football. Show all posts
Showing posts with label football. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Weigh-In Wednesday IX
Oh yeah, a good week! I am down to 176.2. Fun fact, I noticed that some of my shirts that were starting to get tight around the neck, now fit again. I am a happy camper.
This week I would like to weigh-in on Joe Flacco's comments about being the best quarterback in the NFL. Actually, I just want to comment about what I heard on a Pittsburgh radio station about it. The host had Flacco's agent on and they debated about the comment. The people calling in were so outraged that Flacco and his agent would say such things. At least the host of the show was rational.
Obviously Flacco thinks he is one of the best QBs in the league. I bet almost every player thinks they are the best. Then people were calling in saying that Flacco is a bum and/or a very mediocre QB. Granted, I do not believe he is one of the five best (that is what his agent said), but I think you could make an argument for him being in that 10-15 range. This reminds me of the argument that Imler and I had during the Super Bowl. Off the top of my head this is my list of the best QBs:
Drew Brees
Tom Brady
Aaron Rodgers
Ben Roethlisberger
Eli Manning
Philip Rivers
Tony Romo
Matt Schaub
Matthew Stafford
Matt Ryan
Joe Flacco
Jay Cutler
Cam Newton
Mark Sanchez
Sam Bradford
When Imler and I argued, I said that Tebow was in the top 15 if you consider that winning is important. Based on last year, I would probably put him with that bottom five. I think you could probably shift the Matt's around and make an argument for all of them.
Anyways, Flacco is not as horrible as Pittsburgh fans like to think and what he said is not really all that shocking.
This week I would like to weigh-in on Joe Flacco's comments about being the best quarterback in the NFL. Actually, I just want to comment about what I heard on a Pittsburgh radio station about it. The host had Flacco's agent on and they debated about the comment. The people calling in were so outraged that Flacco and his agent would say such things. At least the host of the show was rational.
Obviously Flacco thinks he is one of the best QBs in the league. I bet almost every player thinks they are the best. Then people were calling in saying that Flacco is a bum and/or a very mediocre QB. Granted, I do not believe he is one of the five best (that is what his agent said), but I think you could make an argument for him being in that 10-15 range. This reminds me of the argument that Imler and I had during the Super Bowl. Off the top of my head this is my list of the best QBs:
Drew Brees
Tom Brady
Aaron Rodgers
Ben Roethlisberger
Eli Manning
Philip Rivers
Tony Romo
Matt Schaub
Matthew Stafford
Matt Ryan
Joe Flacco
Jay Cutler
Cam Newton
Mark Sanchez
Sam Bradford
When Imler and I argued, I said that Tebow was in the top 15 if you consider that winning is important. Based on last year, I would probably put him with that bottom five. I think you could probably shift the Matt's around and make an argument for all of them.
Anyways, Flacco is not as horrible as Pittsburgh fans like to think and what he said is not really all that shocking.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Pittsburgh Sports Stuff
AJ Burnett and the DH Debate
As most of you know, Burnett injured his eye socket during a bunting drill and will probably miss some time. Last night, I heard one of the guys on 93.7 The Fan saying that if the NL had the DH, then this would not have happened.
He made a good point that it seems like MLB will probably push towards a DH in both leagues over time, especially now that there is expanded interleague play starting next season. He kept saying that owners want the DH because they do not want their investments hurt doing something that is not necessary for them. Although, what if Albert Pujols trips over first base after hitting his first home run with the Angels, destroying his knee and missing the entire season? Wouldn't we find it ridiculous if the Angels owner started saying that running the bases after a home run should be removed from the game?
This got me thinking about the DH and whether or not I would actually care if the NL started using it. Then I had a brilliant idea: at the beginning of the game, have a coin toss, the manager that calls it correctly gets to choose whether or not they will use the DH. Before you laugh, think about the strategy for a second.
-If you are playing against a team with a dominant ace, say Justin Verlander, you may want to elect not to use the DH. That way if it is close, the Tigers might have to pull him earlier than they would like in order to pinch hit.
-You can force a team to make a tough decision about their lineup. Using the Tigers again, they may have to keep Fielder on the bench in order to have a stronger defense behind them. Or if they do go with Cabrera at third base, a team could try and take advantage of a weakened infield.
-If a team has a pitcher with a little pop in their bat, they may want to elect to allow him to hit. Zambrano (back in his good pitching days) comes to mind, or maybe Micah Owings. I especially like the idea if a team has a monster hitter who really cannot field.
-There would also be major strategy changes in building a team. Obviously there are not enough elite power hitters to go around for every team. I think you would start to see teams employ more one-dimensional players who just crush balls or strikeout.
If Bud Selig decides to institute a league-wide designated-hitter, then I hope he stops by here to read this and use my coin-toss idea.
Hines Ward
The Steelers decided to part ways with everyone's favorite wide receiver, Hines Ward. I honestly wish he would just retire, but instead he will go to another team and most likely play about half the season before being cut.
One thing I will never understand though is the way some Steelers fans never see any fault in Ward. The guy has been voted the most dirty player in the league by his peers a few years in a row, yet Steelers fans say that he is just hard-nosed. If a Raven played like him, they would hate that guy. I guess that is the way it is with all teams though.
The other big question is whether or not Ward deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. I am going to say yes. I think he gets in, but it takes a few tries.
Greatest Games
On Mike and Mike this morning they were discussing Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game. They were asking the question if that was the greatest single game ever. They mentioned Don Larsen's perfect game in the World Series as probably the greatest performance in a game ever. I actually cannot argue with this one.
Unfortunately, they started naming other great things and they immediately went outside of team sports. They never once mentioned hockey. I am sure there have been some amazing hockey game performances. the one that came to mind immediately was Mario Lemieux's five goals in different ways (shorthanded, full strength, power play, penalty shot, and empty net). I just think that one is cool.
I can imagine Gretzky had some amazing games as well. Or what about some goalie performances? It just boggles my mind that ESPN does not even try to pretend to care about hockey.
As most of you know, Burnett injured his eye socket during a bunting drill and will probably miss some time. Last night, I heard one of the guys on 93.7 The Fan saying that if the NL had the DH, then this would not have happened.
He made a good point that it seems like MLB will probably push towards a DH in both leagues over time, especially now that there is expanded interleague play starting next season. He kept saying that owners want the DH because they do not want their investments hurt doing something that is not necessary for them. Although, what if Albert Pujols trips over first base after hitting his first home run with the Angels, destroying his knee and missing the entire season? Wouldn't we find it ridiculous if the Angels owner started saying that running the bases after a home run should be removed from the game?
This got me thinking about the DH and whether or not I would actually care if the NL started using it. Then I had a brilliant idea: at the beginning of the game, have a coin toss, the manager that calls it correctly gets to choose whether or not they will use the DH. Before you laugh, think about the strategy for a second.
-If you are playing against a team with a dominant ace, say Justin Verlander, you may want to elect not to use the DH. That way if it is close, the Tigers might have to pull him earlier than they would like in order to pinch hit.
-You can force a team to make a tough decision about their lineup. Using the Tigers again, they may have to keep Fielder on the bench in order to have a stronger defense behind them. Or if they do go with Cabrera at third base, a team could try and take advantage of a weakened infield.
-If a team has a pitcher with a little pop in their bat, they may want to elect to allow him to hit. Zambrano (back in his good pitching days) comes to mind, or maybe Micah Owings. I especially like the idea if a team has a monster hitter who really cannot field.
-There would also be major strategy changes in building a team. Obviously there are not enough elite power hitters to go around for every team. I think you would start to see teams employ more one-dimensional players who just crush balls or strikeout.
If Bud Selig decides to institute a league-wide designated-hitter, then I hope he stops by here to read this and use my coin-toss idea.
Hines Ward
The Steelers decided to part ways with everyone's favorite wide receiver, Hines Ward. I honestly wish he would just retire, but instead he will go to another team and most likely play about half the season before being cut.
One thing I will never understand though is the way some Steelers fans never see any fault in Ward. The guy has been voted the most dirty player in the league by his peers a few years in a row, yet Steelers fans say that he is just hard-nosed. If a Raven played like him, they would hate that guy. I guess that is the way it is with all teams though.
The other big question is whether or not Ward deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. I am going to say yes. I think he gets in, but it takes a few tries.
Greatest Games
On Mike and Mike this morning they were discussing Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game. They were asking the question if that was the greatest single game ever. They mentioned Don Larsen's perfect game in the World Series as probably the greatest performance in a game ever. I actually cannot argue with this one.
Unfortunately, they started naming other great things and they immediately went outside of team sports. They never once mentioned hockey. I am sure there have been some amazing hockey game performances. the one that came to mind immediately was Mario Lemieux's five goals in different ways (shorthanded, full strength, power play, penalty shot, and empty net). I just think that one is cool.
I can imagine Gretzky had some amazing games as well. Or what about some goalie performances? It just boggles my mind that ESPN does not even try to pretend to care about hockey.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
NFL Pick 'Em: Super Bowl Version
I was 2-0, which brings me to 5-5 for the playoffs, which means my total record for the year is 128-128. I need to get the Super Bowl right to have a winning record. Pretty crazy.
New York Giants vs. New England Patriots (-3.0): Giants
I do not have a lot of reasoning behind this one. It just seems to me that the Giants are going to win the game. Plus, you should not come to me for in-depth analysis, go to ESPN or any other channel covering such things.
Instead though, let us look at some of the fun prop bets:
Coin Toss: Heads
Kelly Clarkson Bets
-Will she forget words?--No
-Will she wear a jersey?--No
-How long to sing the anthem?--Under 1:34
-Show her bare belly?--Yes
Other People Mentions:
-Number of times Peyton Manning shown?--Over 3.5 (I would say five times)
-Number of times they show Giselle?--Over .5 (I would say at least two times)
-How many times will Andrew Luck be mentioned?--Over 1.0 (I say three times)
Random:
-Color of Gatorade on winning coach: Blue (it's a 10:1 long-shot)
-Super Bowl MVP Thank First? God
And that is all I am doing, I will not even mention any of the stupid Madonna stuff.
New York Giants vs. New England Patriots (-3.0): Giants
I do not have a lot of reasoning behind this one. It just seems to me that the Giants are going to win the game. Plus, you should not come to me for in-depth analysis, go to ESPN or any other channel covering such things.
Instead though, let us look at some of the fun prop bets:
Coin Toss: Heads
Kelly Clarkson Bets
-Will she forget words?--No
-Will she wear a jersey?--No
-How long to sing the anthem?--Under 1:34
-Show her bare belly?--Yes
Other People Mentions:
-Number of times Peyton Manning shown?--Over 3.5 (I would say five times)
-Number of times they show Giselle?--Over .5 (I would say at least two times)
-How many times will Andrew Luck be mentioned?--Over 1.0 (I say three times)
Random:
-Color of Gatorade on winning coach: Blue (it's a 10:1 long-shot)
-Super Bowl MVP Thank First? God
And that is all I am doing, I will not even mention any of the stupid Madonna stuff.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
NFL Pick 'Em: Playoff Version Week Three
Last week I did a little better by going 2-2, which puts me at 3-5 for the playoffs.
Baltimore at New England (-7.0): Baltimore
New England has pretty much been on fire since losing back-to-back games to the Steelers and Giants. I honestly do not see them losing to the Ravens, but I think Baltimore will keep it pretty close. Actually, if the Ravens can keep the Patriots from scoring over 24, I would say they have a pretty good shot at winning.
New York at San Francisco (-2.5): New York
Last time these teams met, the 49ers won 27-20, which then caused the Giants to lose the next three games. Seriously, did the Giants have the toughest schedule in the NFL this year? This is who they played in a row: New England, San Francisco, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and Green Bay. I made the mistake of underestimating this team too many times, well now I am done. GO GIANTS!
It looks like, if I am right, it could be a rematch of 2008 (remember, I still think the Patriots win the game against the Ravens), which would be a helluva lot better than a rematch of the Harbaugh Bowl. It was bad enough having to put up with that crap during the regular season, can you imagine what we would have to endure for two weeks if it were the 49ers/Ravens?
Stupid shit like this...
I would rather spend the entire two weeks hearing about Tom Brady's hair and how Eli Manning could be a better QB than Peyton if he wins that second ring. I will take all of that shit over stupid jokes about it being a Civil War, Brother vs. Brother, a Family Thing, or any of the other idiotic things the media will shove down our throats.
Baltimore at New England (-7.0): Baltimore
New England has pretty much been on fire since losing back-to-back games to the Steelers and Giants. I honestly do not see them losing to the Ravens, but I think Baltimore will keep it pretty close. Actually, if the Ravens can keep the Patriots from scoring over 24, I would say they have a pretty good shot at winning.
New York at San Francisco (-2.5): New York
Last time these teams met, the 49ers won 27-20, which then caused the Giants to lose the next three games. Seriously, did the Giants have the toughest schedule in the NFL this year? This is who they played in a row: New England, San Francisco, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and Green Bay. I made the mistake of underestimating this team too many times, well now I am done. GO GIANTS!
It looks like, if I am right, it could be a rematch of 2008 (remember, I still think the Patriots win the game against the Ravens), which would be a helluva lot better than a rematch of the Harbaugh Bowl. It was bad enough having to put up with that crap during the regular season, can you imagine what we would have to endure for two weeks if it were the 49ers/Ravens?
Stupid shit like this...
I would rather spend the entire two weeks hearing about Tom Brady's hair and how Eli Manning could be a better QB than Peyton if he wins that second ring. I will take all of that shit over stupid jokes about it being a Civil War, Brother vs. Brother, a Family Thing, or any of the other idiotic things the media will shove down our throats.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Funny Football Videos
My brother sent me this on facebook, and I know it is pretty much everywhere, but I will still share it with you.
Also, I got this one from Rumbunter, which is also pretty funny.
Also, I got this one from Rumbunter, which is also pretty funny.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Interceptions and My Idiotic Perception
The other night I was out with Jason and we were having a discussion about quarterbacks. I made a comment about how I think defensive backs will eventually benefit from this new passing heavy league. My idea was that if there more passes being thrown, then it should make sense that there will be more interceptions. Jason argued with me and feels that it is a horrible time for defensive backs.
I figured (and I think towards the end of a very long rant that Jason agreed with me) that if QBs are throwing way more passes and the rate of interceptions stays relatively the same over time, that there should be more total interceptions. My reasoning was that if you looked back at the old days, there were less passes thrown, but aside from a few outliers, interception numbers would probably be pretty low as well.
I was completely wrong. I am actually shocked by what I found. Here is the data: INT is interceptions, the next column is interceptions per team per game, the next one is pass attempts, after that we have pass attempts per team per game, and last we have the percentage of passes thrown for interception (or interception per attempt).
I realize it looks like a lot to digest, so I was nice and made some graphs.


A few quick notes: 1982 was a shortened season, only nine games were played. From 2011-2002 there were 32 teams that played 16 games. From 2001-1999 there were 31 teams. 1998-1995 30 teams. 1994-1978 28 teams. 1977-1976 28 teams playing 14 games. 1975-1970 26 teams playing 14 games. 1969-1960 was the AFL-NFL times (I had to combine the numbers, the majority of the time they both played 14 games, except in 1960 when the NFL only played 12 games). From 1959-1951 there were 12 teams playing 12 games and in 1950 there were 13 teams that played 12 games.
Here is the interesting thing, the number interceptions has stayed pretty steady since the 1960s. In fact, as the number of attempts increases over time, the rate of interceptions decreases. To me that seems pretty crazy, but I guess it should make sense if you take into consideration that coaches must know what they are doing. I mean, if all these QBs were pretty crappy, they probably would want them to continuing throwing less. Also, there are the rule changes to take into consideration. I am not about to go that deep into this.
I am shocked that coaches passed at all in the 1950s, teams were averaging two interceptions per game and there was almost an 8% chance of an attempt being picked off.
I guess being a defensive back in this era must really suck.
I figured (and I think towards the end of a very long rant that Jason agreed with me) that if QBs are throwing way more passes and the rate of interceptions stays relatively the same over time, that there should be more total interceptions. My reasoning was that if you looked back at the old days, there were less passes thrown, but aside from a few outliers, interception numbers would probably be pretty low as well.
I was completely wrong. I am actually shocked by what I found. Here is the data: INT is interceptions, the next column is interceptions per team per game, the next one is pass attempts, after that we have pass attempts per team per game, and last we have the percentage of passes thrown for interception (or interception per attempt).
Year | INT | INT/Tm/Gm | Pass Attempts | PA/Tm/Gm | Int/Attempt |
2011 | 506 | 0.9882 | 17410 | 34.0039 | 2.9064% |
2010 | 511 | 0.9980 | 17269 | 33.7285 | 2.9591% |
2009 | 525 | 1.0254 | 17033 | 33.2676 | 3.0823% |
2008 | 465 | 0.9082 | 16526 | 32.2773 | 2.8137% |
2007 | 720 | 1.4063 | 17045 | 33.2910 | 4.2241% |
2006 | 520 | 1.0156 | 16389 | 32.0098 | 3.1729% |
2005 | 506 | 0.9883 | 16464 | 32.1563 | 3.0734% |
2004 | 524 | 1.0234 | 16354 | 31.9414 | 3.2041% |
2003 | 538 | 1.0508 | 16493 | 32.2129 | 3.2620% |
2002 | 528 | 1.0313 | 17292 | 33.7734 | 3.0534% |
2001 | 545 | 1.0988 | 16181 | 32.6230 | 3.3681% |
2000 | 634 | 1.2782 | 16322 | 32.9073 | 3.8843% |
1999 | 562 | 1.1331 | 16760 | 33.7903 | 3.3532% |
1998 | 509 | 1.0604 | 15489 | 32.2688 | 3.2862% |
1997 | 479 | 0.9979 | 15729 | 32.7688 | 3.0453% |
1996 | 542 | 1.1292 | 15966 | 33.2625 | 3.3947% |
1995 | 512 | 1.0667 | 16699 | 34.7896 | 3.0661% |
1994 | 474 | 1.0580 | 15056 | 33.6071 | 3.1482% |
1993 | 469 | 1.0469 | 14414 | 32.1741 | 3.2538% |
1992 | 519 | 1.1585 | 13408 | 29.9286 | 3.8708% |
1991 | 488 | 1.0893 | 13950 | 31.1384 | 3.4982% |
1990 | 480 | 1.0714 | 13516 | 30.1696 | 3.5513% |
1989 | 559 | 1.2478 | 14338 | 32.0045 | 3.8987% |
1988 | 553 | 1.2344 | 14131 | 31.5424 | 3.9134% |
1987 | 540 | 1.2054 | 13491 | 30.1138 | 4.0027% |
1986 | 581 | 1.2969 | 14469 | 32.2969 | 4.0155% |
1985 | 602 | 1.3438 | 14423 | 32.1942 | 4.1739% |
1984 | 584 | 1.3036 | 14325 | 31.9754 | 4.0768% |
1983 | 620 | 1.3839 | 14047 | 31.3549 | 4.4138% |
1982 | 349 | 1.3849 | 7933 | 31.4802 | 4.3993% |
1981 | 609 | 1.3594 | 14180 | 31.6518 | 4.2948% |
1980 | 627 | 1.3996 | 13705 | 30.5915 | 4.5750% |
1979 | 597 | 1.3326 | 12979 | 28.9710 | 4.5997% |
1978 | 639 | 1.4263 | 11829 | 26.4040 | 5.4020% |
1977 | 562 | 1.4337 | 9786 | 24.9643 | 5.7429% |
1976 | 497 | 1.2679 | 10260 | 26.1735 | 4.8441% |
1975 | 533 | 1.4643 | 9973 | 27.3984 | 5.3444% |
1974 | 500 | 1.3736 | 9609 | 26.3984 | 5.2035% |
1973 | 470 | 1.2912 | 8845 | 24.2995 | 5.3137% |
1972 | 480 | 1.3187 | 9011 | 24.7555 | 5.3268% |
1971 | 544 | 1.4945 | 9412 | 25.8571 | 5.7799% |
1970 | 510 | 1.4011 | 9796 | 26.9121 | 5.2062% |
1969 | 544 | 1.4945 | 10377 | 28.5082 | 5.2424% |
1968 | 554 | 1.5220 | 10034 | 27.5659 | 5.5212% |
1967 | 593 | 1.6943 | 10329 | 29.5114 | 5.7411% |
1966 | 535 | 1.5923 | 10090 | 30.0298 | 5.3023% |
1965 | 480 | 1.5584 | 9059 | 29.4123 | 5.2986% |
1964 | 501 | 1.6266 | 9187 | 29.8279 | 5.4534% |
1963 | 514 | 1.6688 | 8954 | 29.0714 | 5.7405% |
1962 | 567 | 1.8409 | 8812 | 28.6104 | 6.4344% |
1961 | 564 | 1.8312 | 8922 | 28.9675 | 6.3215% |
1960 | 493 | 1.8396 | 7813 | 29.1530 | 6.3100% |
1959 | 221 | 1.5347 | 3714 | 25.7917 | 5.9505% |
1958 | 243 | 1.6874 | 3951 | 27.4375 | 6.1503% |
1957 | 231 | 1.6042 | 3339 | 23.1875 | 6.9182% |
1956 | 240 | 1.6667 | 3282 | 22.7917 | 7.3126% |
1955 | 258 | 1.7917 | 3820 | 26.5278 | 6.7539% |
1954 | 294 | 2.0417 | 4232 | 29.3889 | 6.9471% |
1953 | 306 | 2.1250 | 4267 | 29.6319 | 7.1713% |
1952 | 297 | 2.0625 | 4024 | 27.9444 | 7.3807% |
1951 | 288 | 2.0000 | 3881 | 26.9514 | 7.4208% |
1950 | 343 | 2.1987 | 4307 | 27.6090 | 7.9638% |
I realize it looks like a lot to digest, so I was nice and made some graphs.
A few quick notes: 1982 was a shortened season, only nine games were played. From 2011-2002 there were 32 teams that played 16 games. From 2001-1999 there were 31 teams. 1998-1995 30 teams. 1994-1978 28 teams. 1977-1976 28 teams playing 14 games. 1975-1970 26 teams playing 14 games. 1969-1960 was the AFL-NFL times (I had to combine the numbers, the majority of the time they both played 14 games, except in 1960 when the NFL only played 12 games). From 1959-1951 there were 12 teams playing 12 games and in 1950 there were 13 teams that played 12 games.
Here is the interesting thing, the number interceptions has stayed pretty steady since the 1960s. In fact, as the number of attempts increases over time, the rate of interceptions decreases. To me that seems pretty crazy, but I guess it should make sense if you take into consideration that coaches must know what they are doing. I mean, if all these QBs were pretty crappy, they probably would want them to continuing throwing less. Also, there are the rule changes to take into consideration. I am not about to go that deep into this.
I am shocked that coaches passed at all in the 1950s, teams were averaging two interceptions per game and there was almost an 8% chance of an attempt being picked off.
I guess being a defensive back in this era must really suck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)