SB Nation User Blog: Skin Patrol

Lavar Arrington: Redskins are losing because we aren't CHOO CHOO enough

Skin Patrol — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:53:39 -0000

Watching the DeAngelo Hall scrum during the Falcons game with (what appears in retrospect as) their entire sideline, it did not cross my mind that the thing wrong here was a lack of Redskins uniforms, in large part because:

3-3-ATL 40 (1:37) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan scrambles right end ran ob at ATL 44 for 4 yards (30-L.Landry). PENALTY on WAS-30-L.Landry, Unnecessary Roughness, 15 yards, enforced at ATL 44. Penaltyon WAS-92-A.Haynesworth, Unnecessary Roughness, declined.

Count me among those who desperately think this team is lacking something right now, be it passion, talent, or coaching. But one of the few jerseys that did show up to the party on Hall's behalf ended up with a penalty. At the time I thought little of the incident beyond 'this is what a frustrated, 2-5 football team looks like when they're down 21-3 heading into the half and the bad guys are about to score.'

Having watched the incident again, more than once, I was a little struck both by the dearth of teammates defending Hall and the unusually long amount of time it took them to appear. See for yourself after the jump:

Admission: I kind of have a soft spot for vigilantes, particularly those who enforce on behalf of friends or teammates, so the lack of Redskins jerseys does piss me off a bit. However, the real bad actor here is LaRon Landry, who gets pegged with the late hit. All that happened subsequent is superfluous because Haynesworth's penalty was declined. If Landry lets Matt Ryan trot off the sideline at his own 43 (would that have been the "passionate" move, I wonder?) the Falcons are 1st and 57 to go to the endzone as opposed to 1st and 41. Difference maker? Probably not: we lost by 14. But watching the above video, I will happily conclude that Landry's late hit frustrates me more than the resulting bedlam, or lack thereof.

Lavar Arrington thought differently. With a hat tipped Bog's way:

If you didn't hear LaVar Arrington's full-throated condemnation of the Redskins' defense Monday afternoon, it's worth a listen. He started off his show on 106.7 The Fan just screaming at the top of his lungs about the lack of heart when DeAngelo Hall got caught in that scrum on that Falcons' sideline. His complaint wasn't about the late hit by LaRon Landry or about Hall's actions, but about the fact that Hall was left by himself as the Atlanta net closed in.

My favorite Arrington quotes from the entire affair, emphasis added:

"Every time you want to think about what type of defense we have, just pull that clip up[.]"

(You mean, #1 passing defense in the league? Top 10 total defense? I'm not saying we're as good as our stats, given our soft schedule, but if there's anything in Washington that is not broken right now, it's the defense.)

"That's a coach grabbing on my teammate, that's the head coach pushing on my teammate, saying I'm gonna kick your [behind]. I am running in that pileup head on, 100 miles an hour, let's go, CHOO CHOO! I don't care if I've got to walk in the locker room after that. I don't care. That's heart. We're playing with heart. I saw no heart. I saw no heart. I saw no dedication, no accountability for my fellow man out there on that field, and it came from the side of the ball that I would have never thought it would have came from."

There might be a lot in Arrington's rant that has many a Redskin fan nodding his/her head. Does this team lack heart? Hell if I know, but they're certainly lacking something. But based on the reactions of the zebras, I don't think a lack of heart is where I'd point the finger after the play.

Anyways, Deangelo Hall, for his part, agreed with Arrington, if in a muted manner. Arrington wanted "disappointment":

"You know what, not disappointment," Hall said. "Like I said, it was a little bit disheartening, but disappointment is probably a little bit too big of a word that I'm prepared to throw out there. Like I said, some guys are just built different, and like I told LaVar, I'm fiery, wear my emotions on my sleeve, try to leave 100 percent out there on the field at all times. I can't speak for everybody else and their mindset and how they approach the game, but I know for me, that's just kind of how I am, that's kind of how I've always been."

I loved Lavar Arrington, he was a bright spot on some Redskins teams that I considered, at the time, to be pretty mediocre. (In hindsight, who wouldn't want to be on track for an 8-8 season?) But for all his apparently much needed passion, Arrington was 37-42 in games he accumulated stats. I don't say this to dump on one of my all time favorite Redskins, but to suggest that maybe more is needed to win games than mere passion.

What's the point? Lavar Arrington is making an observation on talk radio about the lack of support the defense had for one of its members, then surrounded by enemy uniformed soldiers physically accosting him. Pretty fair point. After reviewing the video, even I thought it strange that Haynesworth and others showed up to the fight so late. Having said that, there is a lot broken with this football team right now, much of it potentially institutional, and fans will do the team few favors by chasing down windmill bogey-men shaped as a giant lack of passion, whatever that looks like. As we contemplate the future of this team and examine crucial issues, such as the future of our current coach, or the name and curriculum vitae of the next one, we should focus holistically on what this team needs to win more than two games a season. Our alleged lack of heart is one of a million red herrings that will inevitably fit into a narrative about what coach gives us the best chance to win in the future. Do we need a player's coach or an Xs and Os guy? False dilemma?

This is what happens when you're down in the NFL. Everyone has an opinion as to why, but at 2-6 against one of the worst schedules in the league (although by some measures I'm not certain we're as bad as everyone says) if it feels like there are a million things wrong -- players? play calling? passion? -- it is probably the case that there isn't precisely one thing wrong. If it were so "clear and simple" why we can't win, then we'd have stumbled upon the clear and simple solution by now.

Some problems are complicated enough to require more than head-butting choo choo trains. As the season goes on and if/when the losses continue, speculation will be legion as to why/how/who/what has gone wrong with our beloved 'Skins. In answering that quandary, I say we stick to the measurables -- penalty yards, for instance -- before pointing accusatory fingers at the size of our player's hearts. It is tempting but cheap, in my opinion.

But what do I know?

Poll

Lavar Arrington should...

Double T Nation Bid 12 Roundtable: Early Edition

Skin Patrol — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:01:41 -0000

A bit early, perhaps, but here comes Double T Nation's Big 12 Roundtable, hosted at Rock M Nation later this week. I reason that the sooner I get this post up during the week, the more time you will have to fix my wrong answers. Enjoy a teaser and the rest of the questions follow post-jump:

Rock M Nation: This question was posed by Rock Chalk Talk's Denverjhawk in Rock M Nation's Live Thread on Saturday: Could a Big 12 North all-star team compete with and/or beat Texas?

Skin Patrol: I say the answer is yes. UT is the toast of the Big 12, but that does not make them some kind of unbeatable behemoth. In stranger years, like 2006 and 2007, barely or not bowl eligible Kansas State teams have beaten Texas with something approaching ease. Whether or not those versions of Texas were comparable to this year's is certainly debatable, but Texas of 2009 has not looked unbeatable in the same way that Texas v.2005 did. I think my answer is likely to change as the season progresses, because I have a hard time believing that Texas will continue to play as lackadaisically on offense for the remainder of the season as it has at times thus far. The UT offense will click, and then we'll start seeing fewer, if any, truly close games.

RMN: Forget ACC Roulette. For our intents and purposes, the Big 12 North is now the most entertaining battle of supremacy in mediocrity. Handicap what happens with the division from here.

SP: Uhm, you guys bloody the hell out of each other for a few more weeks and the winner happens to be that crafty devil who managed it this far without looking too much like a crash test dummy. Kansas State is going to win this thing, or my name ain't Nathan Arizona. I had no faith in Colorado or Iowa State (although only a tiny bit in Kansas State) and whatever misplaced faith I had in Missouri or Nebraska or Kansas has same-wise skedaddled. Hot Potato always ends with a winner, and it is K-State.

RMN: Is Oklahoma back on track after taking care of business against Kansas? Their national aspirations are obviously done, but can we expect to see a fairly dominant Sooner team down the stretch?

SP: Er... well they beat Kansas, which means Oklahoma and Colorado have that in common now, I suppose. Cynicism aside, Vegas is still ruthlessly behind Oklahoma, and wise man say: When sinners are behind Sooners, general public should be too. OU politicking aside, the reality is that they've lost to some pretty good teams by some pretty slim margins, and are probably one of the better 4-3 teams in the country. A good rule of thumb for a team as talented and well-coached as Oklahoma is that if it looks dead, it's probably just sleeping.

RMN: Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Kansas State managed to completely shred the transitive property. What did the games between these schools tell us about these teams?

SP: My logic circuit is fried so I have no answer to this. It tells me that we don't live in a just world, because in that place Texas Tech scores 1,000 points against A&M, I don't get swine flu (cured by oinkment, I'm told), and it isn't raining outside. We're all bad? For the record, if Sticks had been in, we would've thrown Texas A&M over them mountains, not withstanding the 950+ feet we gave up on the ground.

RMN: Did Texas find its mojo in Missouri, and does Oklahoma State have enough to take the Horns down in Stillwater this week?

SP: First half answer: No, Austin Powers taught us that mojo is not something to be lost and later found but rather something eternally with us all. No Sooner or one-half against Wyoming or Colorado can steal from us our mojo anymore than Dr. Evil can do the same by sending secret agents back in time. Sometimes great teams play poorly, but most of the time they play really, really well. Texas played really, really well against Missouri. The difference between great teams and elite ones (think Texas '05) is that elite teams always plays really, really well. Perhaps Texas is just a great team?

Oklahoma State does have enough to take the Horns down. But they probably will not win.

RMN: Power Poll! Who wins on a neutral field?

SP: I refuse. Last week I pleaded that Tech be considered by all as the clear #2 best team in the Big 12, and was rewarded with furious anger from the football gods, who smote me bad. DTN readers: This is perilous stuff, and I urge you to stay away from auguring neutral field champions from among twelve still largely unknowns. In a universe where Iowa State beats Nebraska in Lincoln for the first time in a million years, what do we really know about who beats who on neutral field?

Don't Be Mean

Skin Patrol — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:14:46 -0000

Don't Be Mean

One of the many strengths of DTN is that it is a place where people with divergent views about a team they love can meet to discuss the same. This is not, however, Vietnam. There are rules. More precisely, there is rule: Don't be mean. We are all in a distressed place right now. No one here is accustomed to losing to Texas A&M in the manner we did last night. We're all pissed off. We all have wildly outrageous views about the direction of this team, where it should be, where it is going, whether the coaching staff in place is the correct group, etc. This is as fine a place to discuss those views as anywhere.

However, if you feel that the piece of writing that you are about to plaster on the website, for the world to see, is even remotely likely to violate the Rule -- Don't be mean -- then it probably violates the rule. In times of merry, like when we beat Nebraska on the road last week, there's no need to enforce the rule because we're all in joyful agreement. Now, more then ever, we have to respect each others' dissenting views, because failure to do so will lead us down the (typically unfamiliar for this website) path of name-calling, random cursing, and vindictive hyperbole.

We are all on the same team here. Ok? We should be consoling each other and finding ways to move on, not cannibalizing ourselves.

Let's be friends and sing kumbaya and make chocolate covered smores together. Or at least let's not call each other naughty names.

Double T Nation Big 12 Roundtable

Skin Patrol — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:59:32 -0000

Another week, another Big 12 Roundtable; you get the shtick. Post your own answers below and let me know what I got horribly wrong. Much thanks to Bring on the Cats for hosting this week. Remaining questions are after the break.

Bring on the Cats: Though not true of everyone -- Texas continued its "just take care of business" approach -- Saturday shook a lot assumptions we had about some teams. What, if anything, can you say with confidence about your team?

Skin Patrol: I can state with confidence that we beat Nebraska, on the road, 31-10. Beyond that, whatever I say is mere conjecture. My confident conjecture, since you're asking, is that, as of this moment, we're the second best team in the Big 12. The only teams from the north challenging were, perhaps, Nebraska and Kansas and both lost this past weekend. We took out Nebraska on the road, despite a lackluster effort offensively. It is a rare thing indeed for Tech to be able to state that its defense won a game, and this is probably the biggest game of the Leach era that defense definitively won. On the road. That's a problem for people that aren't Tech (although one could argue it's a problem for us; why did the offense look so flat? Maybe because Nebraska is about as strong a defense as exists in the Big 12). The current leader of the north, plucky Kansas State, was deconstructed by us two weeks ago. From the south it would be Oklahoma State and Oklahoma to contend with. There is no shame in losing to very good BYU (~~at home!~~ on neutral field) and Miami teams by one point, nor is there any shame in losing to Texas by three on neutral ground. We've played three ranked teams on the road and we're 1-2. That first number is what distinguishes us from Oklahoma. Oklahoma State has a ranked victory (although it's looking less and less impressive) at home. We have a ranked victory on the road. Against common opponents we probably look better: We lost to Houston by one, at their house, and handled Rice better than them. Acknowledging the weakness of the transitive property in football, Oklahoma State's toughish win against A&M is suspect given that they lost to K-State so bad... who lost to Texas Tech with equal fail. If I assume that Texas one day beats Oklahoma State, and I am, then I'm taking Tech. Our game against Texas A&M could well settle that issue against us, but by resume of this date, I state confidently that Texas Tech has the 2nd best in the Big 12. Take me to task for it.

BOTC: Two weeks ago, we discussed whether the divide between K-State, Iowa State and Colorado and the rest of the conference was widening. After the North's total faceplant in "referendum" weekend, do we need to ask if the gap between the divisions is continuing to widen?

SP: I feel stupid switching from widening to shrinking on a weekly basis, but what a powerful data point. Kansas State demolishes A&M, Iowa State takes out Baylor, and Colorado unseats a north favorite. It must be admitted that none of these teams were as bad as we thought. Maybe the lesson here is that teams are neither as good or as bad as their last win, their last few wins, or the season to date, or last season. Because this is a game played by young adults, with a ball that is seemingly designed to bounce randomly, outcomes determined by inches, etc. the rule of thumb should be that hyperbole about the goodness or badness of teams (which is what we're engaging in when we say things like "K-State, Iowa State, and Colorado are so, so bad, and getting worse) is best kept in check. Texas A&M, like its disposer K-State, is probably not as bad as the week prior's result. If we only beat A&M by 3 points or, yikes, they beat us, it will probably indicate that rumors of their demise had been greatly exaggerated. Let's wait on some data.

BOTC: Speaking of that question two weeks ago, does yesterday's 3-0 showing by the three teams originally discussed -- K-State, Iowa State, and Colorado -- change your answer to that question, or was it just a random weekend where those three teams beat teams who weren't as good as we thought?

SP: Of course it changed my answer. I like to adjust my thoughts to reality, and data is data. I think the tendency of people to refuse to alter their opinions in the face of contrary data is a most unattractive trait. Such people cannot be reasoned with.

BOTC: Next weekend, we see an interesting matchup of suddenly desperate teams in Lawrence, Kansas. Which team needs that game worse? Oklahoma, to show that they're not going to pack it in and have a disastrously bad season, or KU, to show that they are still in the running for the North division?

SP: Kansas because there is more at stake. Oklahoma cannot win the Big 12 South, and thus will not be going to the Big 12 Championship. Kansas could still go to that game, could conceivably win it, and thus could advance to a BCS game. Oklahoma can make a bowl game, yet. All they have to lose is face and a slightly better non-BCS bowl game. Because need is not always determinative, I'm still picking Oklahoma to win.

BOTC: After a low-scoring, fumble-ridden -- I seriously think the guys on the sidelines handling the footballs were eating fried butter from the Texas State Fair, thus greasing the pigskin -- win in the Red River Shootout, Texas has continued its "just win, baby" season. You're on the spot, right now: Do the Longhorns play for the national title in Pasadena this January?

SP: Question essentially boils down to: Will Texas remain undefeated? If they do, they go. If they don't, I'd say a one loss Texas is going to have a hard time advancing in front of a lot of other teams that are undefeated, and even some of the other one loss teams, particularly since a loss for Texas will be later than, say, for USC. The question, reformed, is thus: "Do the Longhorns have a better than not chance to win all the remaining games on their schedule?" (Am I a Bayesian? Maybe.) Although I believe the University of Texas is more likely to win (than not) every single game remaining on their schedule, a number of them substantially, I'm a big fan of the field in any bet that involves "Do you think X is more or less likely to be the case?" Simply put, they've got seven remaining opportunities to not make the National Championship, and their odds of losing any of those games individually, added up, is equal to or greater than 51% in my opinion. All of which is not to say, Texas Fans, that Texas is not a current favorite to make the NC. I am just betting on the field. At least in my mind, it is currently the case that the universe where Texas plays in Pasadena is less likely an outcome than the universe in which it does not.

BOTC: Power Poll -- Rank 'em according to who you think would win on a neutral site

SP: Very intriguing poll, which was answered by Vegas -- and they might know -- the following way:

1. Texas

2. Oklahoma

3. Nebraska

4. Texas Tech

5. Oklahoma State

6. Kansas

7. Missouri

8. Everyone else

Here is mine, because sometimes they're wrong:

1. Texas

2. Your Texas Tech Red Raiders

3. Oklahoma

T4. Nebraska

T4. Oklahoma State

6. Missouri

7. Kansas

T8. Kansas State

T8. Colorado

10. Iowa State

11. Baylor

12. Texas A&M

Double T Nation Big 12 Roundtable, Week 7

Skin Patrol — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:48:05 -0000

Just another Big 12 Roundtable for your enjoyment. Post your comments/answers/recipes below. Teaser followed by remaining questions, thanks to Crimson and Cream Machine for hosting, cheers:

Crimson and Cream Machine: What is the biggest Big 12 game this weekend not involving OU and Texas? Why?

Skin Patrol: Duh, Texas Tech @ Nebraska, for the reason that I attended school at the former. Actually I don't even need shameful homerism to call this one, as Nebraska is the third highest ranked team in the Big 12, and is probably better than their ranking, relative to the competition. Oklahoma State is 16th, but is moving in the wrong direction, at least relative to the season's start. Nebraska, on the other hand, has looked better with each passing week, particularly as Virginia Tech's (Nebraska's only loss) stock continues to rise. To give you an idea of who the smart money thinks would win on neutral field between the road challengers against teen ranked teams, Tech is a 6 point dog against #15, and Mizzou is a 7 point dog against #16. So we're better, right? Yuck yuck yuck.

CCM: Sam Bradford has been hurt, Colt McCoy is throwing picks (6 Ints/10 TDs)and Dez Bryant has been suspended by the NCAA. Does the Big 12 have a legit Heisman contender left?

SP: Depends what you mean by "legit." If you mean is there a player in the Big 12 who has a shot at actually winning the Heisman, I'd say absolutely. McCoy or Bradford are going to remain in the conversation, along with Tebow, regardless of how well they play, barring some absolute collapse by any of the three. If by legit you mean deserving, meritorious, or some such, then the answer is yes, but that player is Ndamukong Suh. He is scarier than a domo kun wielding a poisonous reptile, see below.

via technabob.com

I just peed myself.

His game-by-game statistics are nuts coming from a defensive tackle (or defender, period). Bold quasi-prediction: If it is the case that Texas Tech does not score over 30 poins this game, then it will be due to unSuhprising circumstances.

CCM: Its pretty much a consensus of opinions that Dan Hawkins is already standing with one foot out the door at Colorado. Who has the better chance of getting off the hot seat this season, him or Bobby Bowden?

SP: Bobby Bowden? Admittedly all I know about Bowden's fan support comes from blogs, where the tone has been vehemently against keeping him around. I've also heard that boosters are turning on him, which bodes ill. But I have to believe that there are enough FSU fans who still pray to a God named Bowden just enough to give him the requisite support needed to stay one more year, presuming he cleans out the rest of the season favorably. Sounded to me like the President or someone at FSU had his back powerfully as well. Regarding Dan Hawkins... what has he done to earn the hearts and minds of Colorado's faithful? Even if he turns this season around, which he won't, I'm not predicting a long future for him as the head coach of the Buffalos.

CCM: We've got one full weekend of conference play under our belts. Who can you say, with confidence, that is out of the North and South division races already?

SP: In the North, Iowa State is out (though they've looked surprisingly good at moments) as is Colorado. Missouri has a tough two game stretch against OSU and Texas coming up, so they could be knocking on heaven's door. In the South, I will say only Baylor is out, not because of their record, but because Griffin was their only chance. Texas A&M? I guess it's plausible. Of course, I don't really believe that.

CCM: Which race is going to be better in the North, the race to win the division or the race to stay out of the cellar?

SP: The race to win. I suspect Kansas is a pretender but want to see it for myself. The race out of the cellar will include K-State, Colorado, and Iowa State, and I take no pleasure in watching Bill Snyder suffer, except against Texas Tech. He's almost a CFB icon.

CCM: OU/Texas - Who ya got?

SP: Texas, but it's close. Texas only needs to play one good half of football to beat most of the teams in the country. I think the players get up for this game and provide two good halves, and Texas squeaks by Oklahoma, who will also plays well. I also predict that after the game the Heisman stock of the loser will fall dramatically, and the hyperbole over the winning quarterback will have little relation, if any, with how well that player actually performed. This is one of those games where the stat line makes little difference, a narrative exists that two Heisman contenders are doing battle in a nationally recognized rivalry, and to the victor will go the spoils. I think that is unfortunate.

Double T Nation Big 12 Roundtable

Skin Patrol — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:07:00 -0000

Once more into the breech with the Big 12 Roundtable. Again I am indebted to Rock M Nation for the questions, and my colleagues here at Double T Nation for providing additional answers. I hope you enjoy.

Rock M Nation: A solid 10-2 showing for the Big 12 this weekend. Which of these wins was biggest for the Big 12 and why?

Skin Patrol: Has to be Oklahoma State. After last season's humbling bowl experience, questions remained as to whether or not the Big 12 was an offensive sideshow or a conference legitimately challenging for the title to best in the land. Oklahoma State's victory over Georgia certainly doesn't answer that question by itself, but the game does represent a compelling data point towards the conclusion that we -- the Big 12 -- are the real deal. Given Oklahoma State's subsequent jump in the polls, I think it is safe to say that many voters and coaches concluded the same regarding the import of victory for the Cowboys.

Kayakyakr: Baylor made a huge jump, looking sharp early and holding off the Wake rally in ACC country. Sure, the ACC showed that they weren't all that, but it's still Baylor and still a long way from their home stadium. Most of the other wins had issues, and I'll never be one to give props to Oklahoma State.

More after the break...

RMN: Conversely, the Mountain West did its damage against Colorado and Oklahoma. What's more disconcerting -- a sleeper in Colorado coming unglued, or a power in Oklahoma getting knocked off?

SP: I'm not sure disconcerting is the right word. Colorado was questionable heading into the season, if no longer. Their loss merely confirmed what many had feared: Colorado is not a good football team (and may have a bad football coach). Oklahoma is the more meaningful game because it fundamentally alters the CFB landscape, in the Big 12 and beyond. Forgetting for a moment what it says for Texas (and others) this year and the battle for Big 12 South hegemony, a Mountain West team strolled into hostile(ish) territory and beat up on the #2 team in the country. That same mid-major has a favorable schedule that has a good chance at yielding an undefeated season. As is typically the case, it would not surprise this author if there remains no undefeated teams from a BCS conference (a misnomer, actually, since all conferences are now BCS conferences -- the better language would be non-autobid conference) by season's end. That being the case, who would argue against BYU in the MNC? Particularly if OU has a successful season if/when Bradford returns? Speaking of Bradford, I can recall no game this early in the season that so dramatically altered the Heisman race. And then there were two?

RMN: Right now, the college football world is rotating around a shoulder that can't rotate itself. What does the Sam Bradford injury mean for the conference right now?

SP: For the conference I actually think it opens more doors than it closes. On any given year contenders for the greedily held South championship need normally compete with OU and Texas simultaneously. This is a daunting task for any team (in the nation) particularly those that do not enjoy the recruiting advantages imbedded at those two programs. Oklahoma State appears to be in the best position to take advantage of a downed Oklahoma, as they will have Texas in Stillwater and will thus be in a good position to take the South with one loss. Depending on when Bradford gets back, how he plays when he does return, and whether his offensive line improves substantially throughout the season, OU has at least as much chance to lose two conference games as it has since... 2005? (Did they even lose 2 that year?) David would've fared worse against two Goliaths.

Kayakyakr: There were a lot of people in this conference looking at OU's makeshift offensive line and already predicting that they would struggle early. I don't really think that it's going to change the conference landscape much than if Bradford was healthy, especially considering that he'll likely be back before conference play starts. Their line was going to be torn apart by UT, they're still going to struggle (hopefully) in the Jones. The biggest thing that it effects is his possible non-return in time for the Baylor game. That now becomes a scary game for OU. Personally, the Gresham injury hurts more. It hurt on Saturday during the first half of BYU. He was instantly a mismatch and a safety valve for whichever QB is under center.

RMN: How, if at all, did your perception of your team change after week one, both for better and for worse?

SP: Only for the worse. Taylor Potts demonstrated that he can turn the ball over three times in one game (to one player) against an opponent almost certainly less capable on that side of the ball than nearly all of our remaining foes. The defense played fine, I suppose, but that was to be expected. Our running game, a presumed strength heading into the season, looked absolutely flat; the burden of proof shifted to that unit to prove up its own efficacy. Our RB stable will enjoy no more assumptions in their favor from me.

Having said all that, one week is one week. I was fatalistic after our game against Nevada last year and we turned out to be just fine. I acknowledge that Taylor Potts at the helm, as a first year starter, has me worried additionally due to remaining questions as to whether he is the next BJ Symons. But if the worst thing that happens to Texas Tech is that we beat an opponent by 25 someodd points that we should've beaten by 35 someodd points, life will go on.

RMN: Give us your offensive player of the week, defensive player of the week, and coaching move of the week, including justifications for your selection. You ARE eligible to vote for your own program.

SP: Do I have to vote for Big 12? Because defensively I want to say that Joel Schwenzfeier's three interceptions in North Dakota's loss against Texas Tech is one of the more impressive single game feats I can remember in recent history. If I must pick Big 12, I suppose Von Miller's 3 sacks will do. If defense incorporates special teams, as it does in Fantasy Football, I might pick Texas' DJ Monroe for an impressive 89 yard kickoff return.

Offensively there were a number of players deserving of high praise, though I suppose Jerrod Johnson (two Aggies? Christ) or Jordan Shipley would work. I do not mean to mail this answer in, but when I can't think of a single player for Texas Tech justifiably deserving of honorable mention for either offensive player of the week, I lose interest in the question.

RMN: Big 12 Power Poll! Rank the teams from 1-12. (Again, the simple criteria for this is power, i.e. who would beat who on a neutral field?)

SP: Were this a merit based poll I would rank according to how each team has played thus far. As it is not, I'm using last week's results only as a single, but persuasive, data point. Consequential events, like Bradford's injury, have certainly influenced me.

1. Texas
2. Oklahoma State
3. Oklahoma
4. Missouri
5. Texas Tech
6. Nebraska
7. Baylor
8. Texas A&M
9. Kansas
10. Iowa State
11. Kansas State
12. Colorado

Big move is for Oklahoma State ahead of Oklahoma, which I justify on the former's impressive victory over a very well coached Georgia team and the latter's loss of the best player on the team. I also credit the BYU game for somewhat exposing the weakness of OU's offensive line. Oklahoma remains at three because it is still one of the scariest teams on our schedule. Missouri moves up mostly because I feel I underestimated them in last week's poll. I don't want to give too much credence to one week. However, given that offseason assumptions about teams are likely wildly inaccurate and premature, evidence that Missouri is better than I gave them credit for outweighs whatever insistence I had that they were a middling team entering the season. They look like the cream of the North so far, and I had no real reason to pick them, or Nebraska, or Kansas, as the front runner beforehand. Now I do. I still maintain that Texas Tech is a strong team given our performance last season, although you can see I moved us down a spot. Nebraska, Baylor, Texas A&M, and Kansas are all clumped together because I cannot figure out where any should go relative to the others. I still think that Iowa State is one of the worst teams in the league, and Kansas State and Colorado are in the rear due to dreadful opening week performances, confirming the worst fears about both's ability to compete in the Big 12 this season.

Readers, let me know what I got right/wrong. Post your own answers in the comments section.

Double T Nation Big 12 Roundtable

Skin Patrol — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:56:49 -0000

Welcome to the Big 12 Roundtable, with much appreciation lobbed at Rock M Nation for taking the lead on this project. He issued the questions and we're firing back with answers.

Rock M Nation: Everyone knows the national talking points for each Big 12 team by now (Oklahoma has new linemen! Bill Snyder's back at Kansas State! Baylor might upset somebody!). Give us a storyline for your team that isn't quite getting the attention it should.

Skin Patrol: The typical storyline for Tech has been: How can we possibly replace Crabtree/Harrell. I am not sure this is an untold storyline, but perhaps one that deserves more attention: Taylor Potts has looked pretty damn good thus far. As relates to Tech's first timer quarterbacks, Coach Leach typically lets them wiggle around in positional purgatory, never declaring an outright winner until the last moment (first snap of game one?). Potts is pretty clearly the starter of this team and has been for longer than any other Leach first-timer, at least so far as I can tell. Leach's coaching style oscillates wildly, but if there is an identifiable method to his madness, it's that he is never shy about speaking his mind. This applies doubleplus true to his players, who he is not afraid to dress down publicly when they aren't doing as told. There is just a sense that Taylor Potts has run this offense better, as a first time starter, than anyone before him; he's received less criticism -- and considerably more praise -- than former Leach quarterbacks to this point in the CFB season. And considering that former QB list includes NCAA record holders like Cumbie, BJ Symons, and Graham Harrell, there's reason to suspect that Potts will be good for something like a million yards and touchdowns. Do you replace Harrell and Crabtree easily? No, but the caveat might be unless you are Texas Tech. Although it is hardly a hidden storyline, I think many will be surprised with just how well prepared Taylor Potts is, relative to his predecessors, to run this offense even sans one of the best receivers in CFB history. I think he will be better than Harrell in 2006 and Cumbie in 2004, but probably not better than Symons in 2003. Certainly he will be better than Hodges in 2005.

Kayakyakr: Running Game, I think.

More below...

RMN: The Big 12 continues to be derided by other conferences as a pass-happy, no defense, made-for-TV free-for-all. The question must be asked, how accurate is this description, and is the perception something of which the conference should be ashamed?

SP: Are Big 12 offenses that good or are the defenses that bad? Anecdotally we might look to Oklahoma against Florida, or Texas Tech against Ole Miss in bowl season. But I've said it before and I will say it again: Data is not the plural of anecdote. Until and unless someone does the statistical leg work, analyzing a wide range of games to determine whether the Big 12 offenses have some demonstrable deficiency against teams outside our own conference, the debate will continue unguided by a definitive answer. It should be enough to defend the good name of the Big 12 that five teams in our conference averaged 40 or more points a game last year, which is quite remarkable. By respective conference that number is: Zero (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt, WAC) one (SEC, Pac-10) or three (CUSA). Maligning the Big 12 defenses might explain some of this discrepancy, but I doubt it explains all of it. Whatever can be said of Big 12 defenses, I think it is an established fact that in the 2008 CFB season, the Big 12 had the best offenses relative to the other conferences. That perhaps helps to explain why our defenses weren't so hot. Am I drunk because I drank 15 beers or because I have a low tolerance? At what amount of beers does tolerance cease to be relevant? Twenty? Twenty five? How about 40-51 beers every Saturday?

Kayakyakr: Before the bowl season, I would have argued that greatly. After the bowl season, I think that the perceptions are about right: the Big XII defenses are kittens in a den of lions.

RMN: Over the summer, ESPN's Tim Griffin compiled a list of the Top 25 moments of the Big 12 era that stirred up a bit of internal debate. Which moments for your program were either overrated or underrated?

SP: Texas Tech makes a few appearances on the list. I do not think the Gundy/Leach postgame rants after the Tech/OSU 2007 game is really a Tech moment, as Gundy stole that show and history will remember him more than the game (do any of you non-Tech fans even recall who Gundy played that week?). In terms of ranking the moments, I have no problem claiming that #2 is absolutely warranted for the Crabtree catch over UT. UT was number one in the country and on its way to a national championship. Crabtree had an amazing catch at the end of the game to clinch for Texas Tech and the world was watching. It was a huge moment that reverberated throughout the remainder of the season, ultimately responsible in large part for the three way poopstorm in the Big 12 south that eventually sent Oklahoma -- not Texas -- to the NC game. At least as much as any other single moment last season, the Crabtree catch impacted who would or would not get to challenge for the title of best team in the country. It speaks to the strength of the Big 12 (particularly the south) that we probably had two teams deserving of going to the National Championship last year. One play made that decision.

In so far as #20 is Texas Tech's come from behind victory over Minnesota (the link is not so clear) in the Insight Bowl, I'd say it is ranked too low. The OU and Boise State game completely overshadowed that moment, and for that reason and that reason alone I think Tech's victory is forgotten. To clarify: Texas Tech is responsible for the largest comeback in bowl history. A lot of people don't know that because that wasn't the game people were talking about the following week. I think that's unfortunate, because it really was one of the most fascinating games I've ever watched. Tech's comeback was more methodic than dramatic. There was never, until the fleeting minutes of the game, a real sense of urgency. It was just Tech doing what we do best, scoring, and our defense doing what we do rarely, stopping. It wasn't punt returns and interceptions for touchdowns, botched kicks, freak plays, flea flickers. We flat outplayed them so bad, albeit for a short period of time, that two and a half someodd bad quarters wasn't enough to sink us. GREAT GAME, watch it if you ever get a chance.

RMN: We've seen no less than 30-40 "Best Big 12 Coaches" power rankings in the offseason, but rarely is there the same press for the coordinators. If you had to replace your offensive coordinator and defensive coordinator with coordinators from within the conference, who are you poaching and why?

SP: This question might be a problem for me, since it could amount to replacing the Head Coach. But if we're just talking about poaching someone else's young, I guess I would go with Kevin Wilson. That is not me stating that Wilson is better than Greg Davis or any other Big 12 offensive coordinator, which is rich in talent, but just that I can't ignore what he did last year. Really my answer to this question is: I wouldn't. Leach has been the most consistent in the league, with inferior talent to some of the other participants, and I'll keep betting on history. With this emphasis on consistency, I might lean towards Davis just because Kevin Wilson owns OU's 2005 season as much as he owns 2008. In any event:

I poach nothing, final answer.

Kayakyakr: No offensive coordinator, so no replacement needed. I'd go for Muschamp for d-coordinator, if only because I like his style

RMN: Time to start our weekly Big 12 Power Poll. Rank the Big 12 teams from 1 to 12. (Note: This IS a power poll and isn't intended to account for schedule)

SP: 1. Texas
2. Oklahoma
3. Oklahoma State
4. Texas Tech
5. Nebraska
6. Kansas
7. Baylor
8. Missouri
9. Colorado
10. Texas A&M
11. Kansas State
12. Iowa State

I find this exercise quite daunting because so much here is considered controversial by so many, and I can't speak intelligently about all twelve programs (maybe not even one of them). The top two are probably unimpeachable, as some variation of Texas/Oklahoma deserves prime billing. Oklahoma State is the Texas Tech of yesteryear as a nice choice to finish third in the south. I think they could be much lower, though. Texas Tech at four demands some justification, as the prevailing storyline is that we're doooooooomed because no more Crabtree and no more Harrell. Likely future fact: Texas Tech will finish in the top 10 in scoring and total offense, just as we have almost every year since 2002. We've had a lot of WRs and a lot of QBs and a lot of offensive linemen, etc. in that time but have consistently scored like Wilt Chamberlain and moved chains like a prison gang. Michael Crabtree and Graham Harrell went somewhere. The Texas Tech offense didn't. The real issue for us is, as always, the defense. A young secondary and a bad schedule scares me more than missing number five. I think we're the fourth strongest team in the Big 12, and would pick us at home against every team except Texas or Oklahoma, and maybe even against one of them, considering we haven't lost to Oklahoma at home since 2003 and beat number one Texas last year at Davey Jones' Locker. Our offense will keep us in most games, particularly against the teams ranked below Texas Tech (and maybe the one ranked immediately above). The rest of the teams? Christ I don't know, I'm not that knowledgeable. Nebraska and Kansas might be interchangeable. Baylor is probably too high but I can't resist joining in the HERE COME THEM BEARS movement. Missouri could move up, Colorado could go in either direction. Texas A&M is probably too low, though last season justifies their spot. I think people putting them 11th or 12th are taking that point too seriously, though. Iowa State is an unconteroversial cellar dwellar.

Readers, what did I get wrong? Post your own answers to the SB Nation Big 12 Roundtable below. Wreck 'Em.

So how is everyone doing?

Skin Patrol — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:00:07 -0000

Not particularly Redskins related, I guess, but I thought I would stop by and drop a line to see how everyone is doing. Not sure if anyone even remembers me at this point. We're something like 22 hours shy of Redskins football and I couldn't be more excited. I'm finishing up a summer job right now before heading back to school, which will hopefully free up enough time so that I can get back into the mix of things here and start contributing again. Site looks great and has obviously gone on to bigger and better things without yours truly, which is a huge credit to KevinE and Sugar.

Line for the game looks something like 31 and a half, which seems low to me for a preseason game. I'm calling the over.

I'll be around.

Go Skins

John Riggins: Clinton Portis has team "over a barrel."

Skin Patrol — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:53:36 -0000

From various sources comes an emerging and troubling potential Clinton Portis vs. John Riggins duel the likes of which have not been seen since, well, the last time Clinton Portis got into it with anoter former Redskin. Remember this?

Portis: What you go on TV and say, what you sit on your radio show and say, 'Portis need to shut up?' Portis gonna keep talking.
Mitchell: You keep talking. Keep talking, bro.
Portis: So the fools saying Portis need to shut up, they can kiss Portis's ass. I'm saying that. Ain't nothing gonna change, my man....
Mitchell: Clinton, I'm gonna tell you like this bro. I always talk. I'm an analyst. I analyze positive and negative. If you can't handle the negative....
Portis: You're a hater, that's what you are....
Host John Thompson: "Both of y'all are guys that we're both proud of, and when you see one another, eat a sausage sandwich, sit back and put your toes up and laugh about this crap."

That was just months ago and was widely reported as escalating dangerously towards a physical altercation. Now John Riggins is piling on though, thankfully, no one's pockets are losing their straightness as a result. Net yet, at least. Pro Football Weekly and Mark Maske provide the potentially offending quote:

"I don't think there's any turning back now because obviously to a certain extent Clinton Portis has the team over a barrel from my understanding of the amount of money that he's owed, guaranteed money that becomes really cost-prohibitive to get rid of him over a [salary] cap issue. There's not that many teams that would be interested in Clinton Portis, I don't think, and so they have a bad situation on their hands. [That's] my personal take on it."

We'll talk more about the salary implications in a moment, but what's all this noise about, anyways? Something like:

Redskins RB Clinton Portis spoke with a small group of media, including PFW, in Tampa before the Super Bowl and said he still isn’t sure if he’ll be a part of the team’s offseason workouts in the D.C. area or if he’ll work out in Miami, as he has become accustomed to doing — but something the coaching staff would rather he not do.

“I’m going to play it by ear,” he said. “I’m going to be taking my time. I know I’m winding down. I’m going to take my time and make the decision best for me to help carry this team.”

Part of me wants to know more about this "winding down" and wonders why it is that NFL employees get to "play it by ear" when it comes to what their employers want whereas the likes of me do what we're told. Part of me also recognizes that this is hardly business as unusual, and that Clinton Portis (and others) routinely trains outside of Washington in the off-season. So I'm somewhere between lamenting one of our best players effectively telling the staff that what they want may or may not matter, and really being disinterested in his off-season workout destination so long as he shows up healthy. (Mark Newgent correctly points out that perhaps John Riggins isn't the appropriate task-master for this, as he was hardly a boyscout.)

But about this being over a barrel business... Just start adding zeros. Although slightly dated, I don't think much of Portis' contract has changed since January 1st of this year, and Warpath's figures have Clinton as:

The highest compensated player on the team through 2013, escalating dramatically in 2010 to over 10M a year.
His release fees start at 13M in 2009 and go down about 2.5M-3M a year as additional guaranteed moneys are prorated out of his contract. Keep in mind this number is just as likely to increase as decrease, because the preferred solution for solving every Redskin salary cap problem is renegotiating formerly unguaranteed money into guaranteed money prorated over the course of the contract, thereby increasing the penalty for early release.
Cursory examination shows that Portis is just above Chris Samuels and just below Chris Cooley in terms of release penalties over the next 3 years.
Incredibly, the team is in the unenviable position of taking a 7 digit penalty for cutting Portis at any moment before 2013. I love Clinton Portis, he's one of my favorite players on the team. I am incapable, though, of defending our decision to tie so many funds into his contract necessarily. Fates change rapidly in the NFL and you're better off not marrying yourself to (virtually) any player for that much change. I think this is especially true of running backs, as the position is one of the more fungible ones in the game.
Because he's set to cost the team an alarming 10+M in 2010, the team can actually save money by cutting him (with a penalty of around 8.5M) which would then give us the largest individual dead cap hit that I can recall seeing in Washington (for a nice comparison, we paid ~ 6M in total dead cap hit last year) though I could be wrong about that.

I harp on it too often and will forget the point for now, but briefly: I do not think restructuring unguaranteed moneys into guaranteed money is a wise strategy generally, and the sheer volume in dead cap hits that we'd suffer from cutting Clinton Portis at any time over the next 3 years is partial evidence of that, in my opinion. Having said that I urge everyone to fall back in love with Clinton Portis, because whatever happens he's either going to be here for a while, or haters should exercise caution over what they wish, as Portis cut and sent packing out of town represents (relatively) dire financial consequence for the team. In other words: Yea, over a barrel sounds about right.

Danny Rouhier becomes a Cardinals fan and speaks for a nation. I know who I am cheering for this...

Skin Patrol — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:14:01 -0000

Danny Rouhier becomes a Cardinals fan and speaks for a nation. I know who I am cheering for this Super Bowl.