This weekend, we came across a gem in the 1/19/09 issue of Sports Illustrated that we really wish we had seen before the NFC Championship, in a piece by Damon Hack breaking down the Eagles win over the Giants in the Divisional round:"[Eagles defensive coordinator Jim] Johnson immediately recognized that the Giants were a different team without 6'5" recevier Plaxico Burress, who'd caused the Eagles problems for years with his height . . . With him, [the Giants] beat Philly; without him, they lost. . . .
[Now here comes the really good part.]
"'We didn't have anybody we really could match up [against Burress],' Johnson said. 'We feel like we have a guy who can match up against [Domenik] Hixon a bit.'"
Well, shucks. It's the Eagles defensive coordinator, telling the world, before the NFC Championship game, that they didn't have a guy who could guard Plaxico Burress. And if they didn't have a guy who could guard Plax, who did they have that would guard Cardinals superstar Larry Fitzgerald? Of course, nobody! And nobody is exactly who guarded him. Jeez. Sometimes it really is that easy.
Which shows why it's so important to read. Especially publications with the big budgets and big access that SI has. The kind that let's them talk to defensive coordinators who tell them things like that they don't have anybody to guard a certain guy on the other team.
We scoured the latest print editions of Sports Illustrated and ESPN mag for any similar gems, and came up empty-handed. We will continue our search on the web this week, and hope you will do the same (and, of course, share your results in the comments).
Now for some things that we wish we hadn't read this weekend, relating to the Browns, of course:
From the ABJ's Patrick McManamon,
"The other night at the Cleveland Sports Awards banquet, Mangini and defensive tackle Shaun Rogers crossed paths without a greeting. Apparently, the Pro Bowl defensive tackle had never met Mangini, and even though the two had a chance to shake hands, they walked within a few feet of each other and said nothing."
Nice.
And this from the same piece,
"Dante Lavelli, a Browns hall of famer, died Tuesday night. By week's end, the team had not released a single statement on his death. A call about Lavelli from a Beacon Journal reporter was not returned. They did have a story on the Internet about Lavelli. It was written by Steve King. He wrote it Tuesday night, then was laid off Wednesday morning."
Shoot.
Can we chalk this up to "transition pains"? We know that Master Lerner is likely distracted, given that his beloved Aston Villa soccer club has found itself in a spot of bother after being played to a draw by a lower-division team that was 38 places lower than it in the English League standings.
We'll do our best to remain optimistic, and on that note, we'll leave you with a sunny spin on the Mangenius's much-reviled decision to paint over a mural of Browns legends at the team's Berea practice facility.
Mike Florio of PFT says of the paint job, that:
"The easy reaction is outrage.
"The deeper reaction, given the specific dynamics of the Browns organization, is encouragement.
"The Browns, like many NFL teams, have a rich and storied history. But too much of that history (specifically, too many of their historical players) have a voice in the current affairs of the franchise.
"It’d be different if those former players had collected a case full of Lombardi trophies. But this group of former players who are regarded as deities by fans and, apparently, current ownership of the team have failed to even generate a single Super Bowl appearance.
"With the Cardinals qualifying for a berth in the 43rd edition of the game, the Browns are now one of only five franchises who have never made it. The others are the Texans, Jaguars, Lions, and Saints.
"Two of them, the Texans and the Jaguars, have partial excuses — neither existed before 1995. For the Browns, the only solace is that the franchise was gone from 1996 through 1998, and thus has missed out on only 40 chances to win (or to lose) a Super Bowl.
"So to the extent that Mangini was trying to send a message to the current players that the past is the past and all that matters is the present and the future, we applaud him."
Us too. Happy Monday, folks.
Posts
4 comments:
Get used to a lot of alienation in the locker room, growing dissent from assistant coaches and asinine attempts to motivate the team, including visits from Mangini's buddy Teddy Atlas.
I have a real problem with this statement:
"With the Cardinals qualifying for a berth in the 43rd edition of the game, the Browns are now one of only five franchises who have never made it. The others are the Texans, Jaguars, Lions, and Saints."
Bullshit. The "Browns" sure as hell made the Super Bowl, and won it, in 2001. Based on this logic, the Indianapolis Colts had not made the big game until two years ago (because all the team's success was in Baltimore). That highlights the problem with the Browns that fans forget. Legalities aside, organizationaly speaking, the New Browns are an expansion franchise. Comparing the franchise with any team other than the Texans is unfair. The Browns organization (which became the Ravens) was largely in place before the move. They had their OTJ training while they were the Browns. Ozzie Newsome especially grew. Keep the Ravens in Cleveland, and I see a very similar situation playing out. The commercial effort to connect these Browns with the teams of the past should not blind people to the fact that this is one of the two most recent expansion franchises. At least the New Browns have made the playoffs, and have generally been more successful than Houston, despite the false start of the initial regime (see Terry Pluto's excellent work False Start).
Especially in the minds of the players, coaches and front office, they should consider themselves a new org., making a fresh start rather than being weighted down by the glories and failures of the Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens.
That's a great point, d, and probably worth its own post.
D is absolutely correct.
Post a Comment