Archive for category: Football

I don’t use this space to make one-day predictions, but I am stunned that so many commentators are giving the Vikings any chance against the Packers tomorrow. Haven’t they noticed the comparative scores? The Packers have been demolishing opponents, while the Vikings have been squeaking by. The Vikings’ eight-game win streak has come against the weakest of opponents, and their early-season wins were against backup quarterbacks. They haven’t been a quality opponent all year. Yes, they beat the Packers in Green Bay, but that was early in the season and the Packers were without Jordan Love. Other than that, the Packers have lost only to the superior Lions and Eagles (whom the Vikes didn’t play). The game is in Minnesota, which should help the Vikings, but they’ve lost plenty of times to the Pack at home, and I expect it to happen again.

PS: I’m of course delighted that the Vikings proved me wrong and beat the Packers, 27-25. Once again, though, they failed to dominate despite building a healthy lead and could easily have lost at the end. In short, the win left me without confidence in their chances against the Lions next Sunday, or even when they start the Playoffs. I also want to cast some shade on all the praise being thrown Sam Darnold’s way. Yes, he threw three TD passes, only one of which was hard, but he also almost singlehandedly threw the game away in the fourth quarter. (I say “almost singlehandedly” because kicker Will Reichard shares some blame for clunking his 45-yard field goal attempt off an upright: a 5-point lead at the end would have felt far more comfortable than 2 points.) First (although I’m not sure of the order), Darnold threw an interception when the Vikings held a 27-10 lead and were cruising to the finish line. This not only gave the Packers a short field for a touchdown but shifted the momentum. I don’t know how much the interception was Darnold’s fault–he threw it where we wanted–or how much it was a bad call or just a good play by the off-ball defensive back; but it’s on his record. The next, and even more crucial, error was a legitimately bad throw (announcer Tom Brady graded it a “D”) that went over Justin Jefferson’s leap on a third-down play when they Vikes had a chance to regain momentum and basically ice the game. Jefferson was open and it was Darnold’s worst throw of the day. Unless, perhaps, you give that designation to the game-winning soft toss to Cam Akers on third-and-two with less than two minutes to play. With no defender in the vicinity, Akers had to stop in his tracks, lean back and grab the short toss before it hit the ground. Darnold has been good, but he hasn’t yet shown me that he is a closer. Or worth mortgaging the future on.

Much of the reporting on the USWNT’s overtime loss concentrated on Sweden’s winning penalty kick, which crossed the goal line by one, or maybe two, millimeters after being largely saved by US goalie Alyssa Naeher. Had it been saved, however, there was no guarantee the result would have been any different. The US would still have had to convert a penalty and hope for a corresponding Swedish miss, when the US women had already flubbed three of their last four tries. No, the crucial game-defining moment was Sophia Smith’s attempt. The US, thanks to Naeher’s save, had a 3-2 lead. If Smith scored, the US would be up 4-2 with only one Swedish shot to go. I was already envisioning an American celebration. The press, however, has been nice to her, which is okay, but different than they would be to, say, Kirk Cousins. She is young, gifted and Black, and has a lot of time to make people forget this one bad moment. Megan Rapinoe’s shot was even worse. As it turned out, the Americans would have won if she had converted, although we didn’t know that at the time (Naeher’s save came later and effectively neutralized the damage for the moment). Rapinoe, the face of women’s soccer and, indeed, of women’s sports for the last decade, was understandably given a pass as well. Kelley O’Hara was the third US player to miss–her soft shot (why?) bounced off the post–giving Sweden its opportunity to close out the match. O’Hara had been substituted into the game in the final minute (along with Kristie Mewis, who made her shot), solely to take a penalty kick if needed. One is tempted to blame the coach as much as O’Hara for putting her in that spot. Why not let the players who have played 120 minutes get to decide the outcome?
I am not a goalie, although I played one for the Aujila town team in Libya, but I wonder that goalies invariably dive left or right when facing a penalty kick. Yes, they generally have a 50/50 chance of guessing the correct direction, but that is not enough. If the shot is higher than their outstretched arm or too hard to stop, the correct guess won’t matter. Of the ten penalties on goal in this game, the goalies dove in the right direction a majority of the time but stopped only one shot. If I were a shooter–and I only attempted one penalty kick in my soccer career–I would aim straight ahead. There’s less, maybe no, chance of missing the net, and so long as the goalie dives, it doesn’t matter in which direction she goes. Naeher was the only shooter who took this route, scoring easily. The converse advantage for the goalie is that if she stays on her line and guesses right, the save will be relatively easy, whether the kick is low, high, hard or soft. Even if the US is no longer playing, I’ll be watching how penalty kicks play out the rest of this World Cup. And I’ll be rooting for Japan.

PS: The penalty shootout in the Australia-France game underscored just how bad the U.S. effort was. The two teams combined for twenty (20!) PKs, and not one went over the crossbar. All 20 were well struck; and while three hit the post and four were saved, or vice versa, none of the strikers were as embarrassed as the three missing Yanks should have been.

The Minnesota Vikings’ miraculous 2022 season was brought to a merciful close by the New York Giants last Sunday. The 31-24 loss was a respectable score to bow out with, and it saved the Vikings from being utterly humiliated in the next round. Maybe they wouldn’t have lost as badly as the Giants did to the Eagles (38-7), because they would have played the 49ers instead, but it wouldn’t have been pretty. Of the Vikings’ 13 regular-season wins, 11 were by one score or less and almost all of them could have as easily been losses. They were consistently outgained on offense and ended the season giving up more points than they scored. The fact that they won so many games–especially over the Bills and the Giants–was an undeserved pleasure. Early in the season they managed to face a string of backup quarterbacks, which helped, and the schedule was soft. Next year, because they won their division, their schedule will be much tougher, and it is not impossible that their record will go from 13-4 to 4-13.

For as long as I can remember, the Vikings have not had an offensive line that can protect their quarterback. I watch other teams, not just Tom Brady’s, and I see quarterbacks scanning the field before picking out a target to throw to. The Vikings qb has to throw on first look or he’s dead. I’m not a huge fan of Kirk Cousins (more later), but I have to give him credit on two accounts. One, he is as accurate a passer as there is in the game. Second, he is amazingly durable. Almost every other NFL team lost its quarterback to injury at some point in the season; Cousins started and finished every game, despite the porous line in front of him. It’s to Cousins’s credit that Justin Jefferson was able to lead the league in receptions and receiving yards, and T.J. Hockenson set team records for a tight end. Adding to the degree of difficulty was the Vikings’ weak running game, which often left Cousins with difficult third-and-long situations.

The knock against Cousins is two-fold. He is immobile, a style that has gone out of fashion in the era of Jalen Hurts, Justin Fields, Josh Allen, Patrick Mahomes, Lamar Jackson, even Daniel Jones. The next rap is epitomized by his final pass of the season, when, faced with a do-or-die fourth and 8, he threw a 3-yard checkdown pass to Hockenson, effectively ending the game. Bad decision-making, or lack of courage in the clutch was the criticism that came with him from his time in Washington. Not throwing the ball downfield in that situation was inexplicable and inexcusable, especially with Jefferson angling over the middle, regardless of how he was covered. It used to be, “he can’t win on Monday Night Football,” or “he can’t win on national television,” or “he can’t win the big one.” Well, he did pretty darn well in most of those games this year; so it was disappointing, and a little disheartening, to see him regress at the very end.

The Vikings’ big problem this year, however, wasn’t their quarterback or even the outmanned offensive line. It was their defense, statistically the worst (or almost the worst) in the NFL.  They were pretty good, or lucky, in the red zone, but opposing teams had very little trouble marching down the field to get there. Their consistent four-man pass rush never got to the quarterback; any sacks they had were the result of the quarterback holding the ball forever or scrambling. For some reason, they rarely blitzed. Nor was their run defense notable. The defensive backs never played man-to-man and their zone seemed designed to allow completions up to 15 yards in the middle. Maybe they were slow, as the critics complained, or maybe their coverage was too predictable or just too loose. In any event, it is hard to think of a player on defense that I am excited about having come back next year.

And where will the help for next year come from? I believe they have only four draft picks, which doesn’t begin to cover their needs: e.g., offensive linemen, defensive backs, pass rushers, and a quarterback-in-training. They will have to cut at least four of their veterans for salary-cap purposes. And not only will they need new starters: the toll of injuries on every team has shown the need for depth at almost every position. For the Twins, hope springs eternal. For the Vikings, I fear a coming drought.

Some sports columnists are lauding ex-Dolphin coach Brian Flores for challenging the NFL for its dearth of Black head coaches, and commissioner Roger Goodell has said he finds it “completely unacceptable” that the roster of Black coaches has been reduced to one. Critics point out that 70% of the NFL players are Black, as if that requires that a larger percentage of coaches be Black, although no one is quite saying that percentage need by 70%. “Lack of diversity” in the head-coaching ranks is tossed about as a self-evident offense.
But in my view, “diversity” in this context is meaningless. Yes, if you have a company or a political body or a committee, it is valuable, even important, that diverse voices and backgrounds be included. The days of ten white males making decisions that affect others are, or should be, over. But the 32 NFL head coaches are not one body. They do not get together and make decisions. Each runs a separate organization. There should be diversity in their staffs, and there is; but that is within an organization. Each owner has the right, and the obligation, to choose the individual he thinks will do the best job running his team, without any consideration of what the other 31 owners are doing. The idea that any team should hire a Black coach because the other teams haven’t is absurd.

Contrast this with the “debate” over whether Biden should name a Black woman to the Supreme Court. Republicans, conveniently overlooking Clarence Thomas (and Amy Coney Barrett), are screaming that Biden must pick based on qualifications for the job, not because of someone’s gender or color. The Supreme Court, however, is precisely the venue where diversity, per se, matters. There is no “best person for the job.” There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of lawyers who are qualified and could handle the job (most third-year law students felt this way). What is important for the Supreme Court, once basic qualifications are established, is that its members reflect the society that will be impacted by its decisions. There are constituencies besides Black females that could claim they should be represented, but this is a good place to start. The over-representation of Catholics cuts the other way.

Flores claims that the “Rooney Rule,” the NFL’s rule that two minority candidates must be interviewed for any head coaching job, is a sham. I’m sure some teams treat it that way. But so what? The Rooney Rule has no legal force. The league can’t make any of its owners hire anyone. All it can do is make them take a look. If a Black coach thinks he is being used, he doesn’t have to agree to the interview. Some interview, somewhere along the line, may open some eyes. It’s better than nothing, which is what existed before. There is a discussion to be had as to why there are so many more white coaches, but that’s for another day and another place.