Post-game reaction (Eagles-Cowboys on MNF, Week 2)
The thing about this game is that there's no reason to expect a win. It's a house money game. You're on the road, early in the season, against one of the best teams in football. Dallas has front line talent that isn't very deep; they are going to be good early. All of this is why I picked the Cowboys to win and cover, and they wound up doing both.
Having said that, you hate -- hate! -- to leave money on the table. Even house money.
> Three times in the first half, the Eagles were deep and settled for field goals. And yet, they still had 30 points in the first half. When has that ever happened?
> As much as Terrell Owens is the perpetual splinter under the fingernail, he disappeared for most of the second half (thanks to Lito Sheppard), and only had three catches.
Unfortunately, one was a massive bomb, and another was an easy touchdown. In terms of taking away their main weapon, no, not so much.
> It's fun to have Donovan McNabb frisky again. It's also fun to have an actual game-breaking weapon in DeSean Jackson, who became the first rookie in 65 years (!) to start his career with two 100-yard games.
Now, if we can just convince Don that it's OK to throw the ball away rather than take a sack -- as in the last drive -- and for DJ to actually carry the ball over the goal line on his touchdowns, life will be much better. (No one, of course, will ever remember that Brian Westbrook cleaned up that Leon Lett-ish play a moment later. DJ, there are better ways to make a splash on national television.)
> I've never seen a defense commit as many face mask penalties as the Cowboys did tonight -- they had three or four 15-yarders, all of them major, and a couple that weren't called. Is everyone going for the horse collar now?
> Felix Jones is a problem, and for a long while tonight, he was the better back than Marion Barber against the Eagles defense. There's something to be said for getting off the field without long drives, even if those short drives are crushing long plays for touchdowns...
> Speaking of Jones, the kickoff return actually gave me a little bit of hope, in that (believe it or not) you lose more often than you win when you run a kickoff back for a touchdown. Time of possession is that big of a deal, folks.
> Is there any doubt that, at this stage in the season, the NFC has achieved parity with the AFC? The Eagles and Cowboys look to be two of the five best teams in football. The Giants are the undefeated Super Bowl champion. The Packers look better without Favre. The Panthers are intriguing. Heck, even the Cardinals seem dangerous. Meanwhile in the AFC, none of the undefeated teams looks all that intimidating, and the top teams coming into the season are all diminished by injury (with the possible exception of Pittsburgh).
> Getting back to the Eagles... I think they win this game if McNabb doesn't pump-fake Westbrook on the inside handoff. When that play happens, there is nine minutes left in the game, they've got the ball in field goal position, and they are up 3 on a night when the Cowboys only forced three punts. Even a field goal makes it six there, and the final drive has a lot less desperation, since the Birds would only need 3, not 7.
But... but... but... that's why you have to keep reminding yourself -- playing with house money. Playing with house money. Now, I'm off to go find a dog to kick. Hard.
4 comments:
The Steelers do have an injury, two actually, which could be an issue, especially next week against the Eagles. Brett Keisel is out (2 months??) with a calf injury and Big Ben's shoulder is nicked. The former is the bigger issue now. Keisel may not get the sacks, but he is a big reason the LBs get so much pressure on the other side of the line. Not time to panic, but worth keeping track of.
iller1267"...(believe it or not) you lose more often than you win when you run a kickoff back for a touchdown. Time of possession is that big of a deal, folks."
Had to check this one out:
Using 2007, in which 19 games saw a kickoff returned for a TD, the team with the return was 8-11. So technically, Dave is correct (though it was hardly overwhelmingly the case).
Looking a bit closer at the allusion to TOP - I'm not certain Dave meant it as "KO Return = Loss of TOP", but it seems to be the gist of the argument that the quickness of a KO TD return is detrimental to TOP, ergo the resultant loss is a result of losing TOP due in some significant way to the returned TD not taking time off the clock.
If so, the results were:
In 3 of those 11 losses, the returned KO team actually WON time of possession, and in 4 of the remaining 8 losses, lost TOP by more than 10 minutes (meaning the return didn't have much impact on TOP outcome). In addition, twice in those losses the return was on the opening kickoff - which meant it took less than 30 seconds of clock time at the start of the game - essentially a spotting of 7 points to start the game - hardly much of an impact on TOP as it was before anyone actually had possession of the ball for a down.
What about the 8 wins? In 3 of the 8 wins, the returned KO team actually LOST time of possession (twice by about 3-4 minutes, twice by around 6 minutes, and once by 13 minutes). In the other 5 wins, 2X TOP advantage was 3 minutes or less, 2X 6 minutes or less, once it was a 14 minute advantage.
So in the final analysis, I think Dave is technically correct but I think to believe there is a causal relationship or trend between KO Rrturns and losses, especially due to the impact of a KO return on time of possession, is wishful thinking.
Woops mistake there - cut out the "twice by around 6 minutes" part about teasm that won.
I should have been more clear. I have no real idea why teams lose more often than they win after taking a kickoff back; it seems nonsensical on every level. And yet, there it is.
Post a Comment