Read Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer’s arguments for which division in the NFL will be the toughest in the 2009 season.
The toughest division in the NFL this season has nothing to do with 2008, and everything to do with 2009. An influx of talent, and necessary culture of change for the better, must be unmatched in any other division. With the topsy-turvy “what have you done lately” nature of the NFL, the secret to forecasting the toughest division in the NFL lies with the division with the most untapped potential. That division, without question, is the NFC North.
Rather than rookies peppering the new talent landscape in the NFC North, the new players come with tremendous experience and physical ability. Taking that into consideration, along with the fact that we are naming the TOUGHEST division, how can anyone argue against a division that includes premier linebackers Brian Urlacher and A.J. Hawk? The NFC North is synonymous with toughness, and 2009 is no exception.
The Chicago Bears focused their offseason on a single position, and vastly improved their outlook for 2009 by remaking the quarterback position. Jay Cutler offers control (as he exhibited in the third preseason game IN Denver), talent, and leadership. General manager Jerry Angelo also brought in future hall of fame left tackle Orlando Pace to protect Cutler’s blind side and also get more push on the left side in goal line situations. Offensive coordinator Ron Turner has also tailored the offense to Cutler’s liking, giving him plenty of long ball opportunities (to avoid the desire to force one) while also creating excellent check downs to running backs Matt Forte and Kevin Jones. The Bears have great special teams, too. Oh, then there’s the defense. While they were riddled with injuries in 2008, the entire defense returns healthy. Perhaps most importantly, the Bears are avoiding indecision and transition now. Eliminating former quarterbacks Kyle Orton and Rex Grossman are big helps, but also getting rid of perpetually injured strong safety Mike Brown was important. Certainty and consistent are the friends of winning teams.
Speaking of which, perhaps the team with the most upside and potential for 2009 is the team with the least movement in the 2008-2009 offseason. The Green Bay Packers got better by playing together and getting more comfortable on both the offensive and defensive sides. They have needed no big offseason acquisitions, no splashy trades, no tough losses to free agency. They were steady from a personnel standpoint. Normally this brings words like “plateau” and “status quo” to mind. But the Packers will improve. They have quarterback Aaron Rodgers, in my opinion the best draft pick from 2005 draft. All he did was throw for over 4,000 yards last season with strong and steady wide receivers Donald Driver and Greg Jennings. The running back position is more solid for 2009, too, with five capable running backs on the roster. Starter Ryan Grant is now a proven force in the league, but Brandon Jackson proved he is an excellent third down back and running option. Youngsters Kregg Lumpkin and rookie Tyrell Sutton are a good potential thunder and lightning type combination, and DeShawn Wynn has the type of balance and explosiveness all general manager’s seek.
The Minnesota Vikings were already strong on defense and special teams last season (how is this the first season where special teams coordinator is regarded as an “official” coordinator??). The offense needed to improve and become more consistent. It has, thanks to the late preseason acquisition of quarterback Brett Favre. Though some in the clubhouse have not welcomed Favre with open arms, his style and success will change all of that. Once open receivers are hit, along with the balance of running back Adrian Peterson, a good offense becomes a potentially big play offense. Playmaker Percy Harvin adds excitement to the mix, as well, improving the overall team speed and explosiveness. The defense was good last year and will remain good, frustrating good running games with the Williams brothers in the middle and creating havoc in the passing game with pass rush specialist Jared Allen.
And then there is the Detroit Lions. I will not insult anyone by saying they will be tough. But, three top notch teams in a division is pretty darn good. At year’s end, they will be better than any other division – this season’s version of the AFC East.
You may have read this entire article and still ask yourself, “How in the world can this moron pick a division that contained a 0-16 team as the toughest?” Simple – momentum. How can the Lions get any worse? That cannot. And there is a good chance they will be good. New coaches, fresh perspective, easy schedule, and low expectations. It is a good formula for surprising in the NFL. They will just have to get past the rest of their division, and that will be no easy task.
The reality and parity of the NFL dictates that it is impossible to forecast or predict anything. Making an unconventional, bold pick is the surest way to be labeled a moron in the preseason, and get forgotten when it actually happens. As I have pointed out before, bold is my middle name. I do not shy away from making a courageous proclamation. Especially when I feel I am right.
The 2005 NFL draft. What a doozy! Er, snoozy. When San Francisco 49ers quarterback Alex Smith is the supposed “class of the draft” you know something is wrong. That “something” is a real dearth of talent. It is strange, looking back, to analyze what a truly terrible first round that was. Most NFL drafts have one or two redeeming players taken in the first, the kind of player that changes the complexion of a team, or the balance in a division, or proves to carry the burden of the franchise mantle for years to come. Instead NFL fans and teams were stuck with the likes of Miami Dolphins running back Ronnie Brown (read: no consistency), Cleveland Browns wide “receiver” Braylon Edwards (every time a bell rings Edwards drops a pass), Cincinnati Bengals running back Cedric Benson (aye, aye, Cedric), and Tampa Bay Buccaneers running back Cadillac Williams (too many blown tires) to round out the top five of that draft. Yikes.
But, continuing to read down the list of players taken in the first round of the draft, it’s hard not to stop and stare at the name Aaron Rodgers, starting quarterback for the Green Bay Packers. If quarterback’s are supposed to have patience, he has plenty to spare. Playing by semi/almost/perhaps/maybe retired quarterback Brett Favre isn’t easy, but he waited his turn with class. His prolonged debut in the NFL was not because of a lack of skill or experience, it was because he was following a beloved legend. Most young players like Rodgers would lose their patience or demand a trade. Rodgers kept his head down and, get this folks, WORKED. HARD. On one hand it is a shame that hard work is such an impressive trait, on the other hand his willingness to stick out tough circumstances proved he has the poise to lead – a skill matched only by his physical abilities.
Rodgers is also 1-1 against division rival Chicago. This is important for Green Bay. Though he has a way to go before matching his predecessor’s 22-8 record against the Monsters of the Midway, he held his own in his first season, drubbing the Bears at home 37-3 before losing a close one on the road in the second to last week of the season.
It’s clear that Aaron Rodgers is the best player taken in the first round of the 2005 NFL Draft, and was very deserving of the contract extension he already signed. It is easy to see why the Packers invested $66M in Rodgers, a 25 year-old up and coming leader with good decision making skills and a laser arm. He really is a franchise quarterback, at a franchise that LOVES franchise quarterbacks.
Despite the massive expectations heaved upon him by the stock-owning fans in Green Bay, Rodgers performed consistently behind an offensive line that was not always in the mood to protect him (sacked 34 times last season). Rodgers still managed to toss 28 touchdowns and throw for over 4,000 yards. Not bad for a first time starter.
All in all, very few first round picks from 2005 deserve to be resigned as their rookie contracts expire. The class was almost a complete bust. Rodgers, however, is an important exception. But, a low-key player like Rodgers is often under the radar, which is impressive for a guy who was good enough to make a once Favre-crazed city forget about #4.
It’s an age-old question in ethics – just because you can, should you? This ethical dilemma should be contemplated within the walls of ESPN. “Just because we CAN hype the crap out of a Monday Night Football, SHOULD we?” The answer is a resounding no!
In the Fall, Sports Geek changes the channel whenever ESPN starts rolling out the hype machine for the next Monday Night Football game. ESPN is relentlessly in the face of their viewers promoting Monday Night Football. First, there are those “Is it Monday yet?” and “Monday can’t come soon enough!” ads that start on Tuesday of the previous week. Then it’s PTI live from a set outside the stadium where MNF is taking place. Then it’s Sportscenter, live from inside the stadium at 6p Eastern (two and half hours before “game time”… even though the game REALLY starts at 8:47p Eastern). Then it’s one of the NFL panels, broadcasting live from the secret basement of the same stadium, and doing several break-ins during Sportscenter. (This year, with Sportscenter live all day, I’m sure ESPN will devote the entire broadcast day to the monday night game.) Then, it’s Monday Night Countdown starting during/after Sportscenter, live from Section 155, Row C, Seat 15 – with real shots of the real players really warming up – discussing more stuff no one cares about.
One of the worst things about the MNF hype from 2008 was the presence of Emmitt Smith on one of the 75 different “expert” panels (you know, the ones ESPN hides in semi-secret locations throughout the stadium). His routine destruction of the English language was well-documented by PFT. But, for some reason, ESPN didn’t take him off the air for two years, perhaps because he had proven himself as a great football player, a nice guy, a heckuva dancer. Here’s a gem from Emmitt when hyping a MNF game featuring the Dallas Cowboys and running backs Marion Barber and Felix Jones: “Marion and Felix, I’ve only got one word of advice: Don’t get hurt.” Classic.
The absolute worst thing about the ESPN hype-overload is that the games are usually terrible.
Let’s examine the last seven weeks of the 2008 season – when the games are supposed to really start meaning something. ESPN featured the following teams, in order, on their MNF schedule: San Francisco 49ers (7-9), Cleveland Browns (4-12), Green Bay Packers (6-10), Jacksonville Jaguars (5-11), Tampa Bay Buccaneers (9-7), Cleveland Browns again (still 4-12), and the Green Bay Packers again (still 6-10). For the final seven weeks of the season – “crunch time” by anyone’s standards – ESPN managed to feature one game, ONE, where both teams had a winning record, and something to play for.
Contrast that with arguably under-hyped NBC’s Football Night In America on Sunday nights. In their final seven weeks they featured only one team with a .500 record – the rest were well-over .500 and headed for the playoffs.
The more ESPN tries to tell us a meaningless game matters, the more they lose credibility as the WorldWide Leader.
I get that flexible scheduling gives NBC a HUGE advantage over ESPN. I also understand that ESPN has a job to do. They must advertise their games in order get good ratings. The problem with that approach is, however, that FANS ARE NOT STUPID!! If a game doesn’t feature good teams, then it just isn’t going to get ratings. Period. So all the airtime and millions of dollars ESPN spends to promote a bad game is just insulting to the fans, not effective.
Sports Geek, Bleacher Fan, and I are huge sports fans. As a result, we watch quite a lot of sports on TV, whether it’s an actual sporting event or a sports news show. So we thought we’d take time on Friday to discuss, in King of the Hill style, which sports story turns our collective stomachs – and turns our televisions – away from ESPN.
I can’t speak for the other two, but I watch a lot of ESPN – the self-proclaimed “Worldwide Leader in Sports.” And there’s one athlete that gets so much attention on ESPN that it often makes me turn the channel. He’s a future Hall of Fame quarterback, but in the past couple of years (especially the past two months) I have grown increasingly tired of seeing his gruff face on my 37-inch flat screen television. Who might this person be? I’m sure you’ve guessed by now that it’s Brett Favre!!!!
For years I always admired Brett Favre. He played for one of the more storied franchises in the NFL with the Green Bay Packers. He set record after record with that gun-slinging arm. He had that “good ol boy” image that I enjoyed. He was never clean shaved. If you saw him at a press conference, he usually had on a t-shirt. He was, let’s face it, a roughneck. He doesn’t have the pretty boy look that other NFL players do. I even stuck by him when, in 1996, he admitted that he became addicted to painkillers. I justified it by saying, “He takes a beating every Sunday. I’d take them too!” But, my attitude changed in the middle of this decade.
It became a yearly ‘Will he or won’t he’ ordeal with Favre. Will he retire? Will he come back? In the spring of 2008, he finally decided to retire! Yes! Great job Brett! We salute you! Enjoy your ride off into the sunset!
But wait! What? You decide later that year that you want to come back? What about that tearful retirement press conference that got so much coverage on ESPN? What about you telling the Packers to move on and build around current Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers? Was all of that for naught? Luckily, the Packers held their ground and traded you to the J-E-T-S, JETS, JETS, JETS. After an up and down 2008 season, you decide that retirement is for real this time. Yeah, you stayed at least a year too long, but good riddance to you!
But wait! What’s this? A possible comeback to play for the Minnesota Vikings, who happen to be one of the Packers’ biggest rivals? Is this just to stick it to Green Bay? Why are you going to see Dr. James Andrews about your arm? I thought you were happy at your ranch in Mississippi!?
All of these are valid questions! And guess who is there to talk about these questions, and still come up with NO answers?
ESPN!
ESPN might as well become The Favre Network these last six weeks. Minute after minute, and hour after hour, you can get your Favre fix on ESPN. Turn on any of the channels in the ESPN Family of networks and you’re sure to hear about #4. Heck, just leave it on ESPN News and you’ll hear anything and everything about Favre. Guess what? Favre threw passes with players at a local high school. (This really happened and was documented!) Favre ate lunch at a local diner. Favre went to the bathroom today. Do we really need all this coverage?
Well, I can only speak for myself, but I don’t need this. It’s not ending anytime soon because he hasn’t made up his mind yet! So what do I do? I turn the channel! I hope you do too!
After posting my last article, I was convinced that I was ready to call it quits. My run on TSD was a good one: I have won 2 out of 4 courtroom debates, and am a whopping 3-1 on King of the Hills (Thanks again to all my Bleacher Fan brethren!).
Despite that success, I felt tired. However, having taken this time away from TSD since noon yesterday, I realized that I have a lot more left in me, so it gives me GREAT pleasure to announce that I am coming out of retirement to continue debating! Effective immediately, I am declaring myself once again eligible for participation in newest phenomenon that is The Sports Debates!
As my first act of business, I am honored to tell you that I have made a decision regarding the topic of whether or not the manner in which an athlete retires affects their legacy. I’m awarding this ‘W’ to…
Loyal Homer!!!!!
If I’m being completely honest, I came into this debate a little one-sided, actually in favor of Sports Geek. I was pretty convinced before I even heard this debate that a player’s exit from the game would HAVE to influence their legacy. How could a guy like Brett Fah-vruh, who retired from the Green Bay Packers as a hero, EVER be remembered as fondly after his retirement saga?
But, Loyal Homer hit the nail on the head with his argument, an argument I never even considered. When you ask who the greatest basketball player of all time was, the majority of the responses are “Michael Jordan.” When you think about guys like Jordan – or Hank Aaron, or Joe Namath – no one ever talks about how they retired (except maybe as a punch line). I actually had forgotten that Aaron retired as a Milwaukee Brewer!
Sports Geek raised some interesting counterpoints, such as the fact that Jordan’s stats may have been even greater had his career gone uninterrupted. However, thinking about “what might have been” with Jordan’s career does not change the fact that his career is still widely regarded as one of – if not THE – greatest in basketball. Consider Jim Brown or Barry Sanders, arguably two of the greatest running backs in professional football history, and two people who ended their career shockingly early. Both left fans reeling with “what might have been” thoughts running through their heads, but both are still remembered for amazing careers.
Sports Geek’s other counterpoint, the fact that a lesser percentage of people from Favre’s “neck of the woods” want to see him play some more, doesn’t truly address their thoughts regarding his career. Just because the good people of Hattiesburg, Mississippi don’t want to see Favre play another season, that doesn’t mean that they think less of his career.
Whether the decision is a faux retirement, staged only so that you can call your next fight a “comeback” in the hopes of making a little extra money (I’m talking to you, Floyd Mayweather, Jr.), or a refusal to admit you’ve no longer got it, it is what you did on the field that will ultimately be your legacy.
As sports fans, we like our history uncomplicated. We like underdogs. We like happy endings. We don’t like any negativity sprinkled into a result. For example, how many diehard New York Yankees fans would be glad for a win if shortstop Derek Jeter and first baseman Mark Teixieieiiieeieieeieeira were both lost for the year? They wouldn’t. Fans like simple, positive results, and that same truth applies to the legacies of our favorite sports stars as they contemplate retirement. It’s clear that fans think about a player’s career differently depending on how they go about retiring. I have two examples.
First, let’s look at Loyal Homer’s Michael Jordan example. Here’s a legend that had a see-saw battle with retirement, first retiring from basketball on the heels of winning three consecutive NBA titles. Now, this wasn’t a Seinfeldian “we can accomplish nothing more let’s get out while we’re on top” type retirement. No, October 6, 1993 was about Jordan wanting to play professional baseball (apparently only in the minors, thanks to his robust .202 batting average). How do you I remember the exact date? Because my English class stopped what we were doing, and at the behest of the instructor, watched the breaking news press conference live in the middle of the day (thanks, Mrs. Gessler). The second time he retired it was about a situation with management that he was unable to resolve. The THIRD time he retired was about being done playing basketball. I agree with Loyal Homer that Jordan’s statistics with the Wizards weren’t really that bad, and those stats don’t change how we think about Jordan on the court. But, it’s impossible to dismiss these brief retiring stints from Jordan’s history. Moreover, it’s impossible not to think about what MIGHT have been. How much farther out of reach would some of his league-leading stats be if he played each season consecutively? So, did the way Jordan retired affect how we think about his career? Of course.
For the second example, let’s examine our perpetually topical friend, Brett Favre. The first time Favre retired from the Green Bay Packers he was “mentally tired.” The second time he “retired” he decided to skip the tear-filled press conference and just say it from his house in Mississippi. Now he’s contemplating coming out of retirement again, just so he can retire a third time. (Interestingly, Favre’s retirement saga is very similar to his career as a player, with many questioning his decision-making while he was still able to muscle his way in to whatever situation he wanted.) To get some perspective from the source, I placed a call to sports writer Tyler Cleveland of the Hattiesburg American in Mississippi. Cleveland told me that the first time Favre was contemplating ending his retirement his droves of fans in Mississippi were thrilled at the prospect of continuing to watch him play. According to Cleveland, a “vast majority” of people wanted to see him play. Now the feeling from the locals is different. Cleveland puts the sentiment from the diehard local fans Favre has always had in his corner at 50-50. That’s a substantial difference. Has the way Favre is approaching retirement affected how fans think about his legacy and his career? Yep.
This back and forth about retirement remains newsworthy for years to come in part because it can impact the decision-making of their former(ish) organization, too. The longer a player contemplates retirement, the bigger the void in the organization, and the harder it is to recover. The player’s legacy lives in infamy within the organization they decide to leave(ish).
For a retiring player to avoid negatively impacting their legacy they must make the decision to leave the sport in private, publically announce it after they’re certain (but not at a huge worldwide press conference), and be disciplined about sticking to it. It’s not like a player has to quit cold-turkey. Look at the revolving door of ex-players who are cast as an “analyst” or talking head on TV? It seems to me that any respectable player (or Trent Dilfer) that wants a job in TV can get one. There’s always the prospect of coaching, too.
Going back and forth about retiring is human. It’s natural. It doesn’t completely destroy a legacy, either. But, does indecision impact how a career is thought about? Sure. Indecision about playing or retiring is an unavoidable footnote that gets branded onto a player’s history – and a fan’s memory – for all eternity.
Do I have a problem with the fact that the NFL is allowing teams to place patches containing sponsors on their practice jerseys? Absolutely not! Nobody is going to see these patches except for the few hundred people who actually go watch training camp anyway.
The beauty of a capitalist society like America is that organizations have the right to do whatever they want in order to make money, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of anyone else. Who cares if the Packers or Texans want to have a “Brawndo: The Thirst Mutilator” patch on their sleeve while they do calisthenics in front of a crowd of boy scouts and fantasy football addicts? (MAN do I miss football!)
I visited the Cleveland Browns’ Training Camp many times, and there’s already sponsorship crap everywhere! From spinning the banking wheel to signing up for health insurance, the whole scene is littered with slogans and “Official Team Sponsor” verbiage. Why should a player’s jerseys be any different?
People visit Training Camp to get a pre-season look at the talent on their beloved teams. They get to enjoy some warm, summer air and resume their football conversations about which team has really made the move to contend, etc. Now, there’s just going to be a patch on a player’s practice jerseys to go with it.
I understand that the NFL is already a money-making machine that really doesn’t need to invent new ways to earn income, but is it hurting anyone?! What if this is how the Packers and Texans intend to offset the need to raise ticket prices? Would it really make a difference?!
I do think the NFL should keep this new advertising opportunity limited strictly to pre-season practice. I don’t need to see what appears to be two NASCAR pit crews rolling around on the gridiron on a cold November Sunday. I also don’t need to hear Eric Mangini as he hoists the Vince Lombardi Castrol GTX Motor Oil Trophy over his head (prediction?!), screaming “This one is for the fans, and for the good, hard working people at UPS, and for the Home Depot, and Valtrex, and Oops, I Crapped My Pants adult diapers!”
There is a lot of pride and history in the appearance of each team’s uniform and helmet. The logo means something, the colors mean something, the numbers mean something, and I don’t want to see a StayPuft Marshmallow Man logo slapped on the back of any helmets to take away from that tradition. Other than that, advertise away!
Why don’t we talk about the REAL problem of appearance at NFL training camps… guys like Romeo Crennel, Bill Parcells, and Wade Phillips running around in sweat-soaked tee-shirts and shorts that are a little too short for comfort. That’s just disgusting!!!
Posted by Sports Geek 
