The Patriots? Bah… drivel!

The 7 time defending ESPN champs

So, unless you have buried under a rock, you know that ESPN has crowned the New England Patriots the Super Bowl XV champion… before the season is over… and before the playoffs begin. ESPN has crowned the Patriots champion in each and every one of the past 7 consecutive seasons. This includes 2008 when the Patriots failed to qualify for the playoffs. The Patriots are now the 7 time defending ESPN champs.

OH BUT THEY WERE RIGHT IN 2004, 2005, and 2007, and they were undefeated in 2007! Undefeated in 2007, aye? Tell that to the Giants who have big fat diamond rings on their fingers.

I’ll never forget the time last season (2009) when Chris Berman referred to the Patriots as the de facto champs. Q.E.D. quo est demonstratum. For those who complain that there is no east-coast bias at ESPN, you need some of the reality potion the New York Yankees are brewing a little south of your position. Like the Patriots, the Yankees are very close to Bristol. Grab some potion after work.

ESPN has a real bad tendency to get stuck in a groove. This is because the main man, Chris Berman, is a May 10, 1955 Taurus dude. Though he is my Earth brother, and I love the guy, I have to warn you that a Taurus like Berman is the most suborn and fixated character in the zodiac. The rest of the organization has modeled itself around his example. I’ll never forget the time Chris Berman picked the 49ers and Bills as his preseason favorites for the Super Bowl NINE years in a row! It took him almost a decade to give up on that one. I have heard rumors stating that he picked the Raiders v Cowboys nine time in a row back in 1970s. That didn’t happen either.

They say the only dude a Taurus will listen to is a Virgo. If so, I hope I can get this message across clearly, and I hope it will get some consideration. ESPN has been wrong about the Patriots 5 of the last 5 seasons. They have misidentified Patriot weaknesses as strengths in each of the past 5 consecutive years. This has lead to quite considerable error. Who can evaluate that track record of error and not see some form of bias back behind it all?

I’m not buying the Patriots

By now, you should realize that I’m not buying the Patriot theory. Why not? I’ve got some good reasons. Here they are:

1. This team is not the dynasty Patriot team. The one and only hold-over from the glory days is Tom Brady. That is not enough. This is practically an all-new edition, and quite unproven.

2. They just aren’t that talented. You will note that this team doesn’t have many Pro-Bowlers; just three Patriots were elected. Once again, coach Bellichick is doing a lot with a little. This isn’t as good a thing as some would have you believe.

3. Last year, the Ravens not only beat the Patriots in the playoffs, they beat the hell out of them. Until these Patriots prove they can beat these Ravens in a significant game, I favor the Ravens in the AFC.

4. The Patriots are benefiting from unexpectedly weak competition. The Dolphins unexpectedly collapsed in 2010. The Jets have been much weaker than expected in 2010. The Bills… let’s just say those games constitute two free victories for the Patriots. Tough games on the schedule, such as the Packers, turned out to be dramatically easier due to key injuries, such as the Packers’ loss of Aaron Rodgers. The Patriot win total is a little bloated this year, and deceptive.

5. Andrew Siciliano describes the Patriots as “a 10-6 football team with few playmakers, a suspect defense, who are vulnerable on the road.” I am sure he was referencing the spanking the Patriots took from the Browns. I don’t see much wrong with his statement. Though their record is better than 10-6, it might easily be 10-6 under slightly different circumstances. We all know how they creep down the field. You witnessed the way in which Matt Flynn, the backup QB in Green Bay, put more than 30 points on the board against the Patriot defense. The Patriots won’t have to go on the road in this tournament, but home field advantage didn’t help them much last season.

6. The AFC is the second best conference in the league. The dirty little secret we’re all keeping in the closet is that the NFC is now the better conference. The AFC just ain’t what it’s cracked up to be. The NFC won the lion’s share of key matchups between contending playoff teams in 2010. The NFC also contains two of the past three Super Bowl winners. Note that the AFC Steelers nearly lost to the Cardinals in a dandy sandwiched between two NFC victories; one at the expense of the “undefeated” Patriots. My bet will probably be on the NFC champion when SB45 comes around.

7. Our best reasons for believing in the Patriots are the things we’ve heard in the echo chamber, and the echo chamber is dominated by the North Easterners at ESPN. I wonder what the prevailing national opinion of these Patriots would be if we weren’t living in an echo chamber dominated by the North Easterners at ESPN?

I’m making a non-fashionable choice

I’m taking the Ravens in the AFC. If you want to crown their ass (the Patriots) then crown them, but the Patriots are who I think they are, and this is why their opponents should take the damn field.

My comments on the "Ram News" of the day

So I get an interesting piece of bacon mailed to my email box each morning. It's a news filter that tells me the major stories swirling about my Rams in each past 24 hour period. It seems to work well. There were so many fucked up reports in this morning's bacon, the intensity of the fuckedness was so great, that I felt the need to comment here.

Why the Rams should trade for Jason Campbell

What, are you crazy? You mean to tell me we should pass on Bradford in favor of Jason Campbell? Whilst I am not an advocate of taking Bradford, that has to be the most preposterous, ludicrous, observed proposition I have heard this season. Let me make it painfully clear: Jason Campbell has not been successful in this league. This is because he is the inverse of the gunslinger QB: He is a kid who is afraid to take a shot down field. He may have some athletic ability, but the fear factor will prevent him from ever succeeding in a clutch situation. There is a definitely lack of confidence and moxie in Campbell's constitution. That is why he's not a franchise QB.

I can completely understand why the Redskins would love to pawn him off on us, but this does not mean we should be stupid enough to take the deal. A small vote of confidence here for Sam: Given protection, Sam will be 5 to 10 times the QB Campbell is in the NFL. Never pass on Bradford for Campbell. That is a sure-fire looser.

Are the Rams thinking of trading down?

I hope so. The signals have it that we are still entertaining offers for the #1 pick. If a good deal presents itself, we should be ready to take it. I am still up for the notion of drafting a couple of offensive linemen and Tim Tebow. Notwithstanding Michael Lombardi's view that Tebow will creep up into the bottom of the 1st around.

You know me. I am one of Tebow's biggest advocates. Still, I don't see him reaching the 1st round. It would be an honor he deserves, but I have witnessed the tremendous bias against Spread and Spread-Option QBs in the NFL first hand. There is a knee-jerk, visceral reflex reaction against the notion of taking any Spread or Spread-Option QB high, and this applies no matter how good the kid is. As I write this, there are still many questioning Bradford's credentials because he comes from a Spread offense. I am amazed Bradford has overcome it to the extent he has.

I have also witnessed how powerful the bias is towards QBs who have been a Pro-System in college. So great is this bias that some folks are treating Mark Sanchez as the benchmark for rookie QBs now, and they are advocating Jimmy Clausen as a high first rounder. Both propositions strike me as preposterous. There was a 6 or 7 game stretch last season where Sanchez was awful and he look like a huge bust. The playoff run made people forgetful, but he did not enjoy a good rookie campaign. I have said many times that Clausen has "bust" tattooed on his forehead and everybody seems illiterate when around him. The Pro-System bias is real, it is tangible, it is powerful, and it is largely wrong.

Anyway, this is my short reasoning explaining why I doubt Tebow will make it to the 1st round. But I digress. In summary, I do hope we trade the pick, get a 2nd 2nd, and select Tebow.

With that said, I think the chances are remote. Many have evaluated this draft as I have. They believe the best QBs will be found in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Our chances for doing a deal hinge on finding someone who is in love with Ndamukong Suh and/or Gerald McCoy. I don't know that this will happen.

Not so fast, says the Rams' GM: No decision on the Heisman QB

Several pieces from the associated press and others synthesis in the following manner:

1. Do the Rams really want Bradford?
2. Why are they offering a trade if they do?
3. Devaney has stated fairly emphatically that releasing Mar Bulger (on his birthday) does not constitute a lock on Bradford at the #1 slot.
4. Bradford declares that he and his agent are totally in the dark about what the Rams want. They have not tipped their hand to him at all.
5. The Rams are negotiating with Bradford, but so too are they negotiating with Suh, McCoy and Clausen.
6. It is wretched to think so, but is reasonable to suppose that if the Rams still hold the #1 when the countdown commences, they may chose the cheapest bargain. This may boil down to a money deal.

With that said Bernie Miklasz of the St, Louis Post-Dispatch tried to explode this notion a piece he penned this morning. You can read it here. He basically says the following.

1. Stop the charade
2. You ain't fooling anybody
3. It's obvious you love Bradford
4. You've done everything shy of filing personal adoption papers in court.
5. You had better protect this kid with a good offensive line.
6. Upgrade the receivers
7. Don't rush Bradford
8. Put Pat Shurmer in charge of Bradford's development

Bernie is in St. Louis. He supposedly has access to the organization. So too does D'Marco Farr. Both of these guys have turned around lately and are saying all the signals are towards Bradford at this point. I am going to have to trust them on this, but from where I sit, here in Los Angeles, they look mighty indecisive and willing to reconsider.

I don't want to digress much here, but I would dismiss the Pat Shurmer notion. Why do you have any confidence in that guy? What Quarterback did he ever develop? Donovan McNabb? Please... he predated Shurmer by a long shot. Kolb? Nah, I don't accept that as positive case yet. If he shows strong like Rodgers, perhaps I will. I he does a great job with Bradford, perhaps I will.

Right now I want him fired, and I want Mike Leach in charge.

Rumors of Possible Haynesworth Trade Not Rumors

Is a trade for Haynesworth in the works for St. Louis? No, these are not rumors, just bullshit. John Clayton of ESPN threw that one out, supposedly... although I did not hear him do so on the air.

Look, Haynesworth is an over-paid prima donna who doesn't want to play nose tackle, although he did precisely this with the Titans. The guy did not perform well last season with the Redskins, and this is why they are shopping him. He isn't worth the $100m contract Snyder gave him; still one of the most preposterous moves I've seen in free agency. Several experts, including Mike Mayock, said he was a system player, who owed much of his greatness to the scheme he was in. They didn't think he would fair well away from Tennessee. Boy does that seem prescient now! Haynesworth did not do well away from Tennessee.

Now you have the complete task of explaining to me why the Rams, a team with cash-flow problems in the middle of an ownership change, would acquire a $45m expensive rookie QB and a $100m overpaid prima donna DT in the same season? The #1 pick is already described by many as a money-pit. Why complicate the situation by seeking Haynesworth's $100m contract also?

Are you stumped yet? So am I. I do not believe this plan is economically feasible for the Rams at this stage of the game. Ergo it is bullshit.

Dilfer says it would be a catastrophic mistake for the Rams to select Bradford

My home-boy Trent Dilfer was asked to comment on Devaney's statement that selecting Bradford is no sure-thing. Dilfer applauded this comment, and made a few controversial statements. What were they?

1. Bradford is not close to being the #1 athlete in this draft. I would accept that statement.
2. Bradford faced a lot of soft defenses in the Big-12. It is an interesting point. In the 2009 BCS game he faced a hard-ass SEC defense in Florida, and put 14 points on the board, not 60.
3. Clausen is the most pro-ready. Ooopss! I knew he had to fuck up somewhere. Trent, quit injecting Fentanyl into your veins. Don't make me send you to rehab. Come out of narcotic induced delusions and read the tattoo on Clausen's forehead that says "BUST". I am telling you now that this kid is never going to make it in the NFL. You will all be scratching you heads in a few years saying "What happened?" You criteria is wrong. The pro-system doesn't predict shit. It is a meaningless indication of nothing in particular.
4. Colt McCoy may be the kid who winds up having the best pro career. It is an interesting idea. I have mulled that notion over several times. Colt looks damn good to me. I am still betting on Tebow, but my secondary bet is on McCoy. Implicit within this declaration is the notion that the pro-system is a meaningless indication of nothing in particular. Colt is a spread QB.

I don't agree with Trent's somewhat hysterical use of the term 'Catastrophic'. I do believe Bradford will become a great passer... give a steel-reinforced concrete offensive line like that of the Jets. We do not have such a line, ergo we run the risk of making him a medical bust. Even in Bernie's article, I still see major cases of denial about the state of our offensive line, which is still 3 players away from being solid. Bradford is a terrific kid, but with such poor protection, he is in for great difficulty.