What watching the NFL has taught me about defense

The cliche's are well known.

The best offense is a strong defense.

Defense wins championships.

It might be purely coincidental, or it may be because the Seahawks won the most recent Super Bowl while sporting a pretty wicked defense, but I have been hearing the latter cliche' in seemingly record amounts lately.  

So it's got me wondering, does defense really win championships? Will an especially resilient defense make up for a deplorable offense?

Certainly there are examples of teams with a defensive focus making the Super Bowl, even a few of them winning it. As a Bears fan my mind immediately goes to the 1985 Bears, who fielded one of the top defensive units of all time, and the 2001 Ravens. The 1985 Bears also fielded the 2nd highest scoring offense in the league that season, while the 2001 Ravens were led by Trent Dilfer at QB (ouch) and their offense was fairly mediocre.

The Super Bowl XLVIII champion Seattle Seahawks team from last season fielded the NFL's toughest defense. Nicknamed the "Legion of Boom", the Hawks made a strong statement in the Super Bowl, nearly shutting out Peyton Manning and the electric Broncos offense and allowing just one score in the blowout win.Offensively, the Seahawks fielded an offense in the lower half of the league in terms of total performance.

So what is the trend? What is the big takeaway here?

I think the cliche has some truth to it. Defense will, more often than not, put a team in a position to win a championship. However I think when considering super bowl winners from the past two decades, it becomes apparent that neglecting the offense to stack the defense will decrease a teams chances to win a championship. Even moreso in today's NFL than the older era, defense is becoming much harder to play well. New rules prohibit many things that were previously considered normal on the football field, so while the "Legion of Boom" were able to defy that truth and win the Super Bowl, their ability to repeat such a feat is questionable.

I don't believe that the cliche "defense wins championships" holds much weight in today's NFL. With the rules being the way they are, and punishing hard hits and plays that have always been legal, we have seen points per game increase, as defenses find it harder to make the plays they are expected to. In today's NFL, the best way to win seems to either have a great defense mirrored by a good offense, or a great offense that can score on every possession to outpace the other team.

But if I were to pick one reason, my biggest reason for not believing the formula that the top defensive teams win the championships, it would be this. If the formula were to hold true, then the team that has led the NFL this season in total defense would be the most likely candidate to win the Super Bowl, and that team is none other than....




THE DETROIT LIONS.

 

 

 

Meow?

I'm telling you people, that isn't gonna happen, and if it does, I'll eat my sock*.





*The Committed Fan reserves the right to cut the sock into smaller pieces in the event that consumption is called for...

Forgiving the cursed Cub fan

I am, somewhat unfortunately, a Cubs fan.

I didn't consciously choose this, it was chosen for me.

Interestingly enough, while some people treat sports like a religion, in some ways, it is very similar. How many people in the world made a well informed decision, considering all available options at the tender time of youth, on what particular religion they would follow? For most people, myself included, the religion you likely followed (if you grew up in a religious household) was whatever your parents or grandparents believed.

Very often we use the same criteria when choosing a sports team to follow. A close second behind the geographical area you live in, the sports team of a parental or other family figure often becomes the go-to team to cheer for. Occasionally this leaves you with cheering for a team from a struggling, once proud auto capitol in MI, but hey, we all make bad decisions sometimes....

For me, I started my journey as a Cubs fan on my 8th birthday, when my parents took me to Wrigley Field for the first time. I couldn't tell you who played on either team at the time, couldn't tell you if the Cubs won or lost (lets be honest, they probably lost) but it was a start. I had my jersey on, and I had my glove, in case a fly ball came near us.

I like to think if I could do it all over, if I had a blank slate and could choose a new team,  I'd probably still pick the Cubs. I love Chicago, it's a very cool place and Wrigley field is simply overflowing with the atmosphere of an old school baseball stadium.

The reason I'm taking you all back on the Nostalgia Express (seriously, who thought this was a good idea?) is because today is the anniversary of the day every Cubs fan should know. They'll know it, because they hate it. They'll know it, because the most recent chance they had at ending the 106 year streak without a World Series ended 11 years ago today, when the infamous Bartman incident occured.

Steve Bartman was a Cubs fan who came to watch the Cubs (presumably) finish out the 2003 National League Championship Series against the Florida Marlins at Wrigley Field. The Cubs were just a few outs shy of clinching the 6th game by a 3-0 score, propelling them into the World Series. A foul ball, hit by Marlins second baseman Luis Castillo, flew out to Bartman's section, and being in the general area of where it would land, he made an attempt to grab it and....

...interfered with Cubs outfielder Moises Alou, who had a chance, some would say very good chance at catching the ball and registering the out. Instead, Castillo continued his at bat and walked, the Marlins mounted an improbable rally and ended up scoring 8 runs to steal the game away from the shocked Cubs. The Marlins rallied again to take the series from the Cubs the following night, and went on to beat the Yankees in the World Series.

The man himself. Only crime I see is that turtleneck, am I right?

Bartman's name has become the curse of many a Chicago sports bar, im sure, and the public backlash facing him after the game was very real, and very chaotic. And while I'm not pleased with how the game ended, I think it's a bit of a stretch to blame him for the whole debacle and not winning the World Series that year. I don't wish any harm on old Stevie, and I hope everyone else has forgiven him by now as well, because Steve Bartman is really only guilty of doing what I did on my 8th birthday for my first time at Wrigley. Taking a seat, watching the game, and hoping for the off chance that a foul ball comes to me.

The Great Outdoors

I took a trip this past weekend.

Me and two buddies hopped in a car, drove 100 miles north into the woods till we got away from civilization and lived in the woods for three days.

You could do a lot worse than this as a view

Besides being the best trip I've taken in recent memory, it gave me an appreciation for the little things. Surrounded by nature, delivered from the droves of selfies and miles from the nearest coffee joint (not that I drink it anyways), I felt entirely unconnected with the world I've grown accustomed to and instead felt intrinsically connected to the environment for the first time in years, and it felt great.

Now I admit, I missed being connected to the world of sports, and in a weekend full of college and NFL games, I felt like I missed a lot. However the world of sports will always be available to me, whereas being out in the beauty of nature is something many people lose the ability to do.

I needed this trip. The trials and tribulations that have come at me already this semester had starting to take their toll, and I needed the way to release the stress. It was hardly a leap of faith to go on this trip, but deciding to go against the normal weekend routine and travel brought me more peace of mind in one weekend than I've had all semester long.

The world is a stressful place. Stress comes from everywhere, whether it be the ending of a relationship, the passing of a family member, struggles with schoolwork or a job, so it's especially important to find the things, however small, that make you happy, and go out and get those things in your life.

So I apologize to anyone of you who came here expecting something more based on sports, and I realize this post may be one of the most cliche', Tumblr-esque posts of all time, but I felt like it personally needed to be said. I hope you enjoyed this post, and I hope all 5 of you who read this blog may take this concept to heart.

The Motivation Behind Change in Professional Sports

It's been a rough week for the NFL.

While the NFL slogged though the mess that resulted from the video showing Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice punching his wife in an elevator, details came out exposing injuries to the four year old son of Adrian Peterson, at least some of which, if not all, were caused by him.

It took just hours after both of these incidents first broke for them to spread around the internet like wildfire, and as it typical for the internet, opinions are divided. While most people familiar with the story have condemned Ray Rice for committing domestic abuse, opinions are a little more divided on the issue of whether Peterson was simply disciplining his child or if what he did constitutes child abuse.

The reaction from the NFL was swift. Rice has been cut from the Ravens, and the NFL has since hired three female consultants to examine domestic abuse and its prevalence among NFL players. Peterson was suspended for this past weekend's game, and could face further suspension once all the details are gathered. In response to both incidents, the NFL promoted Anna Isaacson, the league's vice president of community affairs and philanthropy, to the newly created vice president of social responsibility position.

At first glance, these responses appear to be driven by social pressure, and the NFL is more than happy to let people think that is why these changes were made. In reality, it likely has more to do with the reason players don pink cleats and gloves in October.

HINT: It isn't because they care about finding a cure for cancer. 

If the knowledge that the NFL only donates 10% of every dollar raised by their pink campaign to actual cancer research isn't enough to convince you of that, then how about the knowledge that the NFL's most targeted demographic is women? New data shows that women make up 45% of the league's fan base, which adds a whole new level of importance in how the NFL is seen to be handling these issues, specifically the Ray Rice issue.

For some feminine groups, Ray Rice being punished is not enough. Though players in the NFL have been found guilty of domestic violence before, this case is different because of the undeniable truth of the internet regarding videos. Everything is worse in video than in print. Don't believe me? Read the details about an accident on the highway and then watch a video of the incident and tell me what is more shocking. Before TMZ leaked the video from the elevator, this issue was relatively small in coverage, and had it not surfaced, this media firestorm would likely not have happened. However, since the video has circulated, activist groups and members of the general public will not give up until heads roll, specifically that of commissioner Roger Goodell.

So will he step down?

Likely, no. And I don't think he should. It is obvious that the NFL was aware of details of the case before the public was, including the video showing Rice punching his fiance. So yes, a cover up was orchestrated, very poorly, but orchestrated nonetheless. So a valid point could be made that Goodell has very questionable morals, and you could say (and plenty have) that he is a bad person for what he did. That's fine, I won't disagree with you. However the point that no one wants to take into consideration is that the NFL is, above all, a BUSINESS. They are a for profit entity, and profits are good. So while the NFL is willing to make "amends" for the wrongs of its players, it has to put more thought into the state of its commissioner. Goodell has brought the NFL some of its most lucrative media contracts in his tenure, and the league has experience nothing but growth as of late, so the likelihood of him being forced to step down is very low.

The biggest fallacy in the general public right now is that the NFL "needs" to do this, or "needs" to do that because of how it makes an individual feel. The NFL does not exist to make you feel good, it exists to entertain people and thus gain their disposable income. The NFL employs PLENTY of athletes who are better football players than people. I'm not saying it is right, or wrong, I'm just saying how it is.

Now I want to make it clear that I don't support or condone anything that Ray Rice has done. That should go without saying but this way no one has to assume I support domestic abuse. As far as the Peterson case goes, I think there is a line that was crossed in the disciplining of a child in a method that I would normally support, and in going past that point, Peterson caused significant damage to his child, and I obviously object to that. But both of these cases are not as cut and dry as people would like to make it.

Now I understand how easy it is to jump on the social change bandwagon. It's how the internet generation handles problems. Don't like something someone has done? Shame them on social media. But this is an instance where the mob mentality is not going to prevail and get everything they want. The NFL is perfectly willing to lose Adrian Peterson or Ray Rice to this, but it will not give up on the one principle it holds most dear; making ALOT of money. And if that's not something you support, then your only real option is to resist and boycott the league. After all, we all just represent dollar signs to them. I'm a dollar sign, you're a dollar sign, hundreds of thousands of new dollar signs are born every day. That doesn't change because of the poor judgement of a handful of NFL players.

That is capitalism at its finest. 

Finding a pulse

CLEAR!

*cue steady machine beep*

Yes, there it is, a sign of life. A pulse, starting slowly but gaining strength. A being, once vibrant and full of life, finding once again the will to live, the motivation to look around and take in the reason for its purpose.

Football has returned.


Alright, I'm just kidding, my life isn't nearly that dramatic. I also have plenty of reasons to live that don't involve body pads and pigskins. However there is truth in my words about returning to life in regards to this blog. I took a hiatus this summer, more than what I had planned, because life has a way of interfering with your plans, but I'm back here again, shaking off the dust and anxious to get back into the swing of things.

College football is back into the mix, and while I anxiously await the start of the NFL season just days away, the changing of the guard is already in effect. The loathsome, dragging baseball season is on its way out, golf will soon fade back to obscurity and the WNBA will continue being ignored by most of the sports world (sorry ladies). Football will, as in years past, be pushed to the front page. Not to say that is right, but it is the way things have always happened, which brings me to the topic of Michael Sam.

Sam, a 7th round draft pick out of Missouri, was the first openly gay NFL player to see action on the field this fall but has since become a casualty of the Ram's depth at the defensive line, being left off the final roster and being thrust into free agency. Now, Sam's decision to come out was brave, and he is a pioneer in social progress, that much is sure. His impact in the league extends beyond the playing field, however the NFL is a business and the Rams are one of 31 teams vying for a championship (lets be honest, the Raiders don't have a chance). When you only get 53 roster spots, teams will go with the 53 best players they have more often than not. Sam played well in the preseason, but that doesn't guarantee anyone a roster spot. I don't feel like the Rams left Sam off because of the media circus surrounding his young career, but it wouldn't be the first time a team had parted ways with a player in that situation, and it won't be the last. It is just the way it is. I genuinely hope we see the full inclusion of any player with the necessary skills, regardless of sexual preference, but it is not about what I want...

...which is obvious when considering the decision of Central Michigan University athletics to move the student section from the south endzone (where it has been for all 5 seasons I have watched them) to the east stands, a decision I thought was a very bad move. Based off the attendance from last season, it seemed like a good way to make the student section even less of a presence, but at least for the first game of the season I was dead wrong. Seven full sections of the east stands were filled, easily 3000-5000 students yelling, cheering and enthusiatically supporting the Chippewas. It may last, it may not, but at least for one game, the students cheered up, and showed me once again that a rash decision is typically a wrong decision...

...which is probably why Josh Gordon seems unable to make good choices. Gordon, one of the NFL's most talented receivers and a freak athlete, recently had his year long suspension for violating the leagues substance abuse policy upheld, meaning he will watch from the sidelines as the Browns sputter through another losing season (just kidding, maybe...probably a good guess). And as far as sympathy goes, I have none for him...

Carefully steps onto soapbox, cue rant....

 I am a big believer in second chances, and recognizing that people make mistakes and can face adversity and move past it, if given the opportunity. Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner, seems to agree with this principle, which is why he didn't throw the book at Ray Rice (for alleged domestic violence) and is now throwing the book at Gordon for multiple offenses. However at a certain point, which Gordon is at, my sympathy and understanding runs out. When someone is made aware of a strict drug policy that their employer has for them, and yet continuously violates and or makes light of said policy, and when all that person needs to do is not smoke marijuana for a few years while collecting some of the fattest checks known to man, then that person is, without a doubt, a moron. There simply isn't another term for it. I don't care who you are or where you came from, if you cannot choose to put down a drug in favor of a paycheck to support yourself then there are more serious issues there. Perhaps with a year off he'll have time to think about what is TRULY important to him and make the right choices, and if not, then that is truly tragic.

Awkwardly step off soapbox, almost fall.

While I have the opportunity, and since I own this platform and don't have an agenda to push (take that, ESPN!) i'd like to give a shout out to some of the sports that are the forgotten middle children of the sports world. If the NFL were Eminem, these sports would be the Vanilla Ice of the sports sphere. This list includes the aforementioned golf, the NHL (still a professional league, who knew?!), tennis since the decline of Roger Federer, the WNBA since the beginning of time (sorry again, ladies), any college sport not named football or basketball and last but certainly not least, the game where they drive the cars around the track really fast.

Oh and also I want to bring attention to the FIBA games going on right now, which stands for the International Basketball Federation. Similar to the World Cup for soccer, this contest pits the top national teams for all the worlds countries against each other, and very much unlike the World Cup, the USA is actually top of the world in this regard, which is why the rest of the world tries to pretend the FIBA championships don't exist. So if you're a fan of basketball and or America, and want to feel the rush of freedom through your veins that only follows a red white and blue victory, then tune in and watch our national team play.

Well I'm sorry this stretched a little long, I guess just like with my professors there is no such thing as easy syllabus day on the Committed Fan, I hope you stayed with me and hope you continue to stay with me on the blog, giving me your time and attention.

Keep calm and chive on, friends, and be mindful of the words that the (tragically) mortal Ned Stark said.

Winter is coming

The Problems that Arise when Private Ownership Makes you a Public Figure.

The sports world has been abuzz with the recent slew of racially insensitive remarks made by Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, in which he criticizes his girlfriend for publicly fraternizing with minority groups. Critics came calling for his head, reports indicated the league might take his position away from him. Unfortunately for Sterling, new commissioner Adam Silver handed down a lifetime ban on Sterling and ordered him to pay a 2.5 million dollar fine on Tuesday.

Now whether you believe him to be right or wrong in the things that he said, and I think I can rightfully assume the majority of people would disagree with him, the truth is that he has an absolute right to have his own opinions. While it may seem odd to you that a man with racists tendencies would field a team comprised of mostly black players (as it does to me), there is a certain expectation of freedom of speech in this country, and what he does in his private phone calls and conversations has to fall under that right.

Take, for example, the case of Mark Cuban. The eccentric and outspoken owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks has put his foot in his mouth his fair share of times, and has never been one to keep quiet about something he does not like. For this, he is praised and respected, all for using his own freedom of speech to voice his opinions.

Is anybody in the league office attempting to take away Cuban's ownership?

No.

Now, to clarify, the right to freedom of speech only pertains to the government and does not specifically limit the NBA, a private entity. It also does not only protect popular opinion speech, in fact this is not at all what it was meant to protect. It was, in a way, meant to protect the opinions of those not in the majority, of which Sterling definitely applies to in this case.

So is the message the league office is trying to send that owners who harbor unpopular, even racist opinions cannot own an NBA franchise?

Well, technically that's not against the law. As a private institution the league can probably kick out Sterling for what he has said, but I think that would be wrong, and not because I condone his actions. Cuban has spoken out on the issue (no surprise there) and has said that the league kicking out owners is a “slippery slope”. When the league officials start to punish people for what they say or do in the privacy of their own homes, it will start a precedent for a punishment driven league. Cuban understands it is a bad place to end up, and I agree.

Sterling would have been punished heavily, even without the ban. Players would not line up to play for a team owned by a bigot, and draft picks would not be excited to go there. He's done the most damage to himself that he could, and has alienated his entire team. That is more severe of a punishment than he should receive for a private remark that unfortunately happened to become public.

 My main point is this. I don't know how the comments Sterling made got to the public, I don't know how the conversation with his girlfriend got taped, but either way, they were obviously remarks meant only for her. A private conversation, on a private phone, and likely in a private residence. The public expects Sterling to answer for what he does in his private life yet how many people lead private lives that may be frowned up in their own workplace?  Why does being the wealthy owner of a private sports team suddenly come with the expectation of perfection? 

It doesn't, at least for now. And it shouldn't. Adam Silver has thrown the book at Sterling to start his tenure off with an iron fist, and Donald Sterling is the unfortunate scapegoat for him to do so.

Why I like to blog

Creativity is a talent that can be expressed in an assortment of ways.

For some people, their creativity comes in a pattern of brush strokes on a canvas, or shaded areas of graphite on paper. Some people live to manipulate digital images, creating images and arrangements that defy plausibility.

Writing has become a sort of art for me, a way to express my opinions on an assortment of platforms where others can view it. Sometimes the platform calls for structure, and a restrictive style of writing. I've written a broad variety of pieces for all manner of publications, and the one truth I've found in my writing career is that this blog is the only place where my writing is truly mine, and the freedom to write what I want is only limited by my creativity.

Editors are a true example of the phrase "a double-edged sword". When I write a 500+ word feature piece, I'm bound to make a few grammatical errors, or accidentally misspell something. It's natural, I'm a human, it's not a big deal. Editors have saved me plenty of embarrassment by correcting these errors before other can see them. However I have dealt with a handful of editors in my budding career and at one point or another they have all taken a buzzsaw to my work before publishing it.

Some do it for "flow", believing that adding or subtracting a sentence makes the article smoother. Others do it because of a personal preference for how they might say something over the way the writer has it written. 

"Frankensteining" is what I call it, because it is essentially the result that you get when you take an article written one way by someone, and then interject someone else's ideas haphazardly amongst the piece. Sometimes, it isn't too bad, heck, sometimes it might even make the piece better. Far too often, however, an editor can completely commandeer a piece, much to the chagrin of the writer.

I'm not worried about whether you sympathize with my opinion here, because that's not the point. I feel like I have neglected this blog in favor of publishable material, which is unfortunate, because having the ability to write something for myself that I can share with you, my (I'd assume) loyal readers is something I should not take for granted.

An endless desire for change

I firmly believe that the pursuit of perfection can eventually begin to do more harm than good. Nothing in this life is truly perfect, and the NFL is no different. Under the leadership of Roger Goodell, however, the NFL has seen consistent rule changes in almost every off-season, and the recent discussion on removing the extra point from the NFL has got to be where the line is drawn in the sand. Goodell has called the PAT  "practically automatic", citing the five PAT misses this season out of around 1200 attempts.

My main rationale for keeping the extra point is two-fold. One, the PAT is one of the oldest plays in NFL history, and to change it changes the scoring system in a way that works against teams trying to mount a comeback.  Number two, the PAT is one of three plays in the NFL that relies on a place kicker, the other two being a field goal and the kickoff.

Removing the PAT lessens the importance of a place kicker, lowering the salaries of some of the NFL's least paid players. And if you thought everyone in the NFL was rolling in cash, you're wrong. Now, it may not raise much empathy in the minds of the general public for place kickers, but the fact remains that without kicking a PAT, the burden of securing a point after falls on the offense. More offensive snaps means more throws from the quarterback, more rushes from the runningback. In addition to added wear and tear on the star players at these positions, point after attempts will reduce the money paid to kickers and instead shovel more cash onto the heaping contracts paid to the offensive stars.

Now, if a play is really thought to be "too automatic", perhaps the play could be amended,instead of being deleted entirely. Removing one of the oldest plays in the NFL is lazy, but making a small change to increase the difficulty for the betterment of competition, now that is something I could get behind. Moving the spot of the ball back to the 15 yard line is a possible solution, making the kick harder to make and easier for opponents to block.

I understand the NFL's prerogative to  deliver the "best" product to it's fans, but this is not the way to do it. The PAT is not doing the game any harm, and I'm hoping it doesn't become the newest casualty of Roger Goodell's boredom.

You can't always get what you want

Mascots have long been a symbol of strength and identity for teams ranging from youth sports to professional sports. Some of them have historical importance, some play off the stereotypes of a group of people, and others are based off of animals.

The Chicago Cubs are one of the oldest and tradition rich sports franchises in the world, so naturally my curiosity was peaked when I heard they had finally selected an actual mascot to be the face of the franchise.

I got this.

Pants are for squares, I always say!

I don't like this mascot. It's not intimidating, it doesn't exude competitive excellence, and it gives me the willies. I mean, why is the bear so dang happy? Just think, this probably took them months of production by countless unpaid interns to design, color and release. And after all of that, I get this.

THIS is the new face of the Chicago Cubs. I mean, it was bad enough to accept season after season of lackluster effort, but now I get to do it while watching the Bernstein Bear on ecstasy.

To rub salt in the wound, this horrible rendition of your brain on drugs has a Twitter account, and it already has about 4,000 more followers than mine, and it's a day old.

Between Clark the hyperactive Cub and Jay Cutler's 7 hear hockey contract, I've been thrown into a pit of despair from which I may never emerge.