SBNation.com User Blog: Skin Patrol

Nice.

Skin Patrol — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:52:15 -0000

Nice.

Witness the Gambling Community Valuing RGIII

Skin Patrol — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:07:49 -0000

This week's NFL Vegas Lines are out--conspicuously absent are picks for our game against Cleveland on Sunday. So far as I can tell, only YouWager.eu has opened, with Cleveland a 7 point favorite. All the other teams' lines are rather developed (although some places are still thinking hard about the Indy/Houston, SF/NE games). The Vegas casinos haven't touched Redskins @ Cleveland, almost certainly because information is still unavailable on our starting QB:

12/16 1:00 PM 311 Washington 312 Cleveland	37½u-10 -7 -15	37½u-10 -7 -15
WAS-QB-Robert Griffin III-? \| TV: FOX, DTV: 706

I've long been a proponent of having Las Vegas pick the BCS standings for CFB, because their lines are creepily accurate. As gamblers know, however, their lines aren't (strictly speaking) predictive of outcomes, but are rather designed to create the same amount of action on either side of the line. Public gambling trends (like choosing home teams, the favorite, etc. more often than not) will skew lines away from being purely predictive. But they're still pretty solid.

If he is announced to start Sunday we'll get to see immediately how many points the line-setters value (an injured) RGIII in real points. YouWager.eu's line probably reflects their own assumption that RGIII isn't going to play. In any case, we should get to see how much RGIII is worth in terms of total points, at least according to people who predict such things for a living.

EDIT: I forgot to make my own prediction. I think that Mike Shanahan will not announce RGIII ready this week--or if he does, not until the last possible moment--confounding the lines, and likely preventing much action on this game. If he announced tomorrow that RGIII is practicing, looks healthy, and is ready to play, and did so believably, I think the line would move to even money. If RGIII were not injured, I think we would be a -1 or -1.5 point favorite. In other words, I think the difference between RGIII and not-RGIII is about 8 points, although that's only because Kirk Cousins is still an unknown commodity. He could certainly shrink that gap with an impressive performance this weekend, though hopefully that won't be necessary.

12/16 1:00 PM 311 Washington 312 Cleveland	37½u-10 -7 -15	37½u-10 -7 -15
WAS-QB-Robert Griffin III-? \| TV: FOX, DTV: 706

Will NFL Defenses figure out RGIII like they "figured out" Cam Newton?

Skin Patrol — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 17:04:54 -0000

There is an article on NFL.com today by Steve Young, opining that an option-led offense is unsustainable in the NFL. His point, which I don't agree with, is that with history as a guide nobody has ever won with a pistol offense. (This is asinine, as it was true of every major offensive development until it wasn't, including the forward pass, and the West Coast Offense he played in under Bill Walsh--as Steve Young said, scheme can be a QB's best friend.) His other point is the normal "running quarterbacks get injured" trope, which is sensible and agreeable enough.

I don't much care about that.

In a comment, someone made the familiar point that NFL defenses adjust, evidenced by Cam Newton's alleged struggles this year:

Stop crying people, RG3 is good. Really good but what steve is saying is that defenses catch on quick. Example: Look at Cam Newton last year, now look at him this year. Big difference when the D catches on. All Steve is saying that the coach needs to make sure he doesn't try the same exact thing next year for RG3 because it wont be as successful. RG3 will be fine as long as Shannahan does what he needs to do.

I'm not sure that was what "steve" was saying at all, but let's set that aside. The belief that Cam Newton has been "figured out" is widespread, and not just among commenters at nfl.com. Cam Newton's alleged regression is a popular theme this year, and RGIII HATERS Y'ALL have already made the connection, asserting (prematurely) that he is destined for the same. The question is: The same what? Let's address the assumption.

Here are Cam Newton's passing statistics from the first two years, with 2012 averaged out over a 16 game season. Guess which is which:

Year X:

517 attempts, 310 completions for a 60 comp. %, 4,051 yards or 7.8 YPA, 21 TD/17 Int ratio, 3.3 int. %, QB Rating 84.5, QBR 55.04

Year Y:

473 attempts, 272 completions for a 57.5 comp. %, 3,910 yards or 8.3 YPA, 19 TD/13 Int ratio, 2.8 int. %, QB Rating 85.8, QBR 49.54

And the rushing statistics, similarly adjusting the shorter season:

Year X:

126 attempts, 706 yards 14 TDs, 5.6 YPA, 44.1 YPG

Year Y:

127 attempts, 699 yards 8 TDs, 5.5 YPA, 43.7 YPG

The remarkable thing is not a demonstrable regression but how eerily similar 2011 Cam Newton (Year X) and 2012 projected (Year Y) Cam Newton look. 2011 Cam Newton threw more interceptions, had a higher completion percentage, but fewer yards per attempt. He scored more rushing touchdowns, but didn't have statistically meaningful higher yards per attempt, or per game. If you are not a fan of traditional statistics, Football Outsiders shows no meaningful regression, either. His passing DVOA in 2011 was 0.8%, his DYAR was 404. By contrast, this year his passing DVOA is 1.6%, his DYAR 299, which means he's probably on pace to match or surpass last year's DYAR.

The main difference between "Cam Newton" in 2011 and Cam Newton in 2012 is that a team that got hot at the end of last year hasn't maintained that success, and quarterbacks shoulder a disproportional degree of the blame when seasons aren't going well (and a disproportional credit when they are).

Let's not forget that Carolina in 2011 had 3 wins after Week 12 last year, just like this year. The most glaring difference between this year's Carolina and last year isn't Cam Newton--he's nearly identical in both the passing and rushing game--but a significantly worse running game occasioned by regressions by DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart. In 2011 they both led Cam Newton in total rushing yards, were averaging 5.4 YPC each, boosting the team to a 150 RYPG average that year. This year Cam Newton is the leading rusher on the team, neither DeAngelo Williams nor Jonathan Stewart has topped 3.7 YPC, or 50 YPG, and the team is down to 112.8 RYPG. This squares with Football Outsiders' analysis. In 2011 Carolina had the 4th best offensive DVOA, ~ 15th in passing (13.8%) but 1st in rushing (32.1%, which is preposterously high). This year, Carolina has the 15th best offensive DVOA, improving slightly in passing (16.6% DVOA) but comically regressing in rushing offense (-2.6%, or 16th in the league).

Some, but not all of that drop, can be attributed to Cam Newton's lower efficiency (by FO's measure) at running the ball. (He has dropped from 14.5% rushing DVOA to 5.4% rushing DVOA--as pointed out, his passing DVOA is better in 2012). Newton's YPR have not changed, nor has his YPG. The real drop has been in Carolina's overall rushing game, probably attributable to offensive line collapse, although I haven't watched enough Carolina games to opine intelligently on that.

In any event, the comparisons between Cam Newton's scary-good rookie season, surpassed by RGIII's even scarier-rookie season, were inevitable. But analogizing to a Newtonesque regression is pointless, as it isn't at all obvious that such a regression has occurred. Factor in that RGIII has had to play this season without some of his best offensive weapons (Fred Davis and Pierre Garcon) and there are reasons to think that even if RGIII does "regress" a bit (which he should; his rookie campaign has been so spectacular he's statistically likely to regress towards the mean), the offense may yet improve. Better yet, a healthy defense will almost certainly make his job easier. Even if we ultimately miss out on the playoffs this year, there are a lot of reasons to think the Redskins are going into 2013 as playoff favorites, notwithstanding much hand-wringing comparisons between RGIII and Cam Newton's second years.

I don't much care about that.

In a comment, someone made the familiar point that NFL defenses adjust, evidenced by Cam Newton's alleged struggles this year:

Stop crying people, RG3 is good. Really good but what steve is saying is that defenses catch on quick. Example: Look at Cam Newton last year, now look at him this year. Big difference when the D catches on. All Steve is saying that the coach needs to make sure he doesn't try the same exact thing next year for RG3 because it wont be as successful. RG3 will be fine as long as Shannahan does what he needs to do.

Here are Cam Newton's passing statistics from the first two years, with 2012 averaged out over a 16 game season. Guess which is which:

Year X:

517 attempts, 310 completions for a 60 comp. %, 4,051 yards or 7.8 YPA, 21 TD/17 Int ratio, 3.3 int. %, QB Rating 84.5, QBR 55.04

Year Y:

473 attempts, 272 completions for a 57.5 comp. %, 3,910 yards or 8.3 YPA, 19 TD/13 Int ratio, 2.8 int. %, QB Rating 85.8, QBR 49.54

And the rushing statistics, similarly adjusting the shorter season:

Year X:

126 attempts, 706 yards 14 TDs, 5.6 YPA, 44.1 YPG

Year Y:

127 attempts, 699 yards 8 TDs, 5.5 YPA, 43.7 YPG

She be ours: Texas Tech successfully defends the College Football Belt Championship against TCU

Skin Patrol — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:33:27 -0000

When I was a kid my brother and I watched a lot of WWF. We'd order the Wrestlemanias (or Royal Rumble--I really loved Royal Rumble) on pay-per-view, or rent old ones from Blockbuster, which was the style at the time. Wrestling being more focused on entertainment than the Platonic ideal of sports or some shit, its interest was primarily constant, meaningful battles over shiny trophies, either the WWF Championship belt or, for my tastes, the WWF Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship. To create the drama, it forced its gladiators to routinely defend their Belts, usually at expensive pay-per-view events with complex story-lines accompanying them.

WrestleMania VIII was and remains the greatest event in sports history (seriously look at this lineup: Undertaker over Jake the Snake, who was also one of my favorites, 8-man tag-team figh, Hulk Hogan over Sid Justice with a surprise appearance by the Ultimate Warrior, I mean this is like reliving 11 Super Bowls) with the Macho Man Randy Savage taking the WWF Championship belt from Ric Flair, who had intimated that he had scandalous photographs of Miss Elizabeth, the Macho Man's main squeeze. High drama. The event ended with the Ultimate Warrior screaming characteristically maniacally into the ring to save Hulk Hogan from a double-team dirty-dogging by Sid Justice and Papa Shango. Good script? No, greatest of all time. I was so amped after the event that I suplexed like 17 invisible opponents and DDTed my dog. (She was ok.)

The best match of the evening, however, involved the psychotic Rowdy Roddy Piper against my favorite wrestler, Bret the Hit Man Hart. Rowdy Roddy Piper played a very convincing sociopath, and pre-match, as was typical, he and Bret had to mouth off at one another. Piper had the Intercontinental Belt slung over his shoulder and is pointing at it with his other hand, and just as the interview is going dead, he perfectly delivered the bat-shittiest crazy but deadly frank "SHE BE MINE" while staring googly-eyed into the camera. I still laugh about it with my brother. She wasn't--Bret Hart won the belt in a 14-minute match that I probably watched a dozen times after--but still one of the all-time great moments in sports, and that was before the fight had even started.

As a Texas Tech fan, I've not experienced the dizzying highs of a National Championship (or a Big XII title, for that matter). There are simply too many unlikely events that have to coalesce into just the perfect season for us to even have a shot at a miracle followed by another miracle and another, and if all that goes right, maybe the polls will see fit to give us a national championship appearance, in which case we will almost certainly go in as major underdogs.

If I can't have a national championship in the foreseeable future, why not some WWF-style manufactured drama?

So this is a thing:

Sometime during the 1980’s, most likely 1983 when Miami jumped four spots in the polls over Auburn to claim a National Championship or 1984 when Brigham Young was named National Champions after they had defeated a Michigan team that finished 6-6, we decided to create our own championship. Our logic was simple; we watch as much college football as anyone else so why can’t we name a champion? We wanted the championship to have some history but we had to work within the scheduled games available since we could not create a match-up. The big thing was we wanted the title to be decided on the field like a fight is decided in the ring; this is how The Belt was born. The concept was easy, no one could claim The Belt without defeating the current title-holder on the field. But where do we start? Who would be the first Belt holder?

The College Football Belt Championship is tracked weekly by the geniuses at CollegeFootballBelt.com. To end the suspense, they originally and somewhat arbitrarily started with the 1971 Nebraska Cornhuskers as the original Belt Title Holders and have tracked each and every contender, weekly, since. (They later found out that the first AP National Champion 1936 Minnesota Gophers, and the winner of the first college football game between Princeton and Rutgers, ultimately merged into the 1971 Nebraska Cornhuskers anyways, so no harm no foul.)

Thus the team holding the College Football Belt must defend it against a new challenger, each and every game, and has been doing so since the first College football game/champion. In this way the Belt proceeds from champion to champion much the same way that boxing and wrestling crown heroes. West Virginia snagged the belt from Clemson in last year's ACC Championship game, and then traitoursly brought the belt with it to the Big XII. I was secretly rooting for WVU over Texas on October 6th, thereby guaranteeing Tech a shot at the belt. And we took it, with much violence and furor, in our de-pantsing of WVU (and others) two weeks ago.

The Belt Championship has several virtues over the actual BCS Championship, notably that it can only be purchased on the field of battle--it must be won, not merely selected--and is more egalitarian for the populists out there. (Even Rice has held it at one point.)

Tech's Belt History, [applause].

As importantly, the belt must be defended constantly, including this week against the best team in the Big XII, Kansas State. I don't know if we're going to win, but for now, at least, she be ours, K-State. Come and take it.

Notes: Coach Tuberville is 5-1 in Belt Championship games heading into this weekend's title bout against Kansas State. If you have a gambling problem--and I do--you'd know that Kansas State opened as an 8-point favorite yesterday, with the betting public having little impact on that open. (Right now it looks like, depending who you ask, we're a 7-7.5 point dog.)

Wreck 'Em Belt Champions.

Red Raiders vs Wildcats coverage

Bring On The Cats

Texas Tech is going places

Skin Patrol — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 16:44:55 -0000

Dare we dream?

The year was 2011, and we had just defeated the, heh, mighty Kansas Jayhawks, and easily. Tech was averaging something like 50 points a game, and I (mistakenly) thought we were kind of good but then A WILD SEASON APPEARED and the wheels came off and something something 1-8 tire fire. October 1st precisely one year ago was the last chance Tech fans had to be wildly and irrationally optimistic about something we love, just like the last time my mother sincerely said I could become anything I wanted--even an astronaut! I did not. (Curse you, mother.)

Wild and irrational optimism is endearingly quintessential to fanaticism; indeed, uncritical but obviously motivated enthusiasm is fanatical. There are limits: On November 26, 2011, our game against Baylor could not result in a conference championship, much less a national one. Our crazy but hapless dreams had already been crushed many months prior. We were not astronauts, the rules had turned against us, although I hope the sun rises tomorrow, I cannot deny that it set yesterday, etc.

For Now, However

Jeff Sagarin is a cyborg contributor to the much-maligned BCS computer rankings, and therefore plays a non-trivial role in Tech football's actual fate, hopes aside. He also thinks we look like astronauts and are cool: Here is how this works:

To make predictions for upcoming games, simply compare the RATINGS of the teams in question and allow an ADDITIONAL 3 points for the home team. Thus, for example, a HOME team with a rating of 92 would be favored by 5 points over a VISITING team having a rating of 90. Or a VISITING team with a rating of 89 would be favored by 7 points over a HOME team having a rating of 79.

His "PURE POINTS. . . PREDICTOR, BALLANTINE, RHEINGOLD, WHITE OWL. . . is the best single PREDICTOR of future games" and this is so because, unlike the BCS computers, PREDICTOR computer considers margin of victory (and only margin of victory) in tabulating its majestic results. And majestic they are: Texas Tech is the 10th best team in the country according to our computer overlord.

College Football 2012 through games of September 29 Saturday         the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from here
                                RATING    W   L  SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS    | PREDICTOR  
                HOME ADVANTAGE=[  2.53]                                               [  2.48]       [  2.69]
   1  Alabama              A  =  99.71    5   0   67.63(  58)    0   0  |    0   0  |   93.80    2 |  101.30    1
   2  Texas                A  =  91.71    4   0   70.55(  34)    0   0  |    1   0  |   89.84    8 |   91.87    3
   3  Florida              A  =  91.14    4   0   72.85(  20)    1   0  |    1   0  |   93.69    3 |   90.52    6
   4  South Carolina       A  =  90.92    5   0   68.48(  50)    0   0  |    1   0  |   90.17    7 |   90.84    4
   5  Oregon               A  =  90.85    5   0   62.42( 110)    0   0  |    0   0  |   89.77    9 |   90.84    5
   6  Texas A&M            A  =  89.96    3   1   67.87(  55)    0   1  |    0   1  |   80.92   28 |   92.79    2
   7  LSU                  A  =  89.22    5   0   60.98( 120)    0   0  |    0   0  |   94.37    1 |   88.29    8
   8  Florida State        A  =  89.10    5   0   57.71( 140)    0   0  |    1   0  |   89.69   10 |   88.78    7
   9  Notre Dame           A  =  88.25    4   0   73.13(  17)    0   0  |    0   0  |   91.01    6 |   87.59   11
  10  Georgia              A  =  87.94    5   0   65.18(  79)    0   0  |    1   0  |   92.85    4 |   87.03   12
College Football 2012 through games of September 29 Saturday         the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from here
                                RATING    W   L  SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS    | PREDICTOR  
                HOME ADVANTAGE=[  2.53]                                               [  2.48]       [  2.69]
  11  Texas Tech           A  =  87.88    4   0   60.71( 124)    0   0  |    0   0  |   87.05   13 |   87.82   10

(ELO Chess--ranking Texas Tech 13th--is the actual ranking used in the BCS, is cowardly, and considers only wins and losses. Scoff.)

I say these things because, as noted by Seth, the rest of October is a murderer's row involving home games against Oklahoma and West Virginia (if we score 80+ points we have a chance) epilogued by road wars at TCU, and Kansas State. Right now, Jeff genius Sagarin thinks we'd be favored over all those teams (at home). Put differently , Jeff Sagawesome thinks we're the favorite in every game on our schedule, minus Texas (EDIT: at home). Inevitably something horrible will happen, and we are thus running out of time to have wildly indefensible but vehemently defended beliefs about Texas Tech football. We rule, man.

What I am trying to communicate is that so what if Iowa State was an ugly win? Enjoy it as hard and strong and violently as you can, because in all likelihood we will not remain undefeated by season's end. For now, at least, we can still be astronauts.

Wreck 'em (4-0).

Need help from London Raider

Skin Patrol — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:07:33 -0000

Or any other able-bodied Texas Tech fan in the London area. I've got an amiga heading to London for an extended work vacation, and she needs to know where to catch some football. I was going to send her to the Texas Embassy, but I'm not sure if they show games, or what the story is there.

Where does one catch college or pro football games while in London? I've been there several times, but can't recall ever watching a football game.

Longest tenured Redskin?

Skin Patrol — Tue, 01 May 2012 03:35:19 -0000

Who has been here the longest?

I was reading KeelyDiven's post on the Jonathan Goff signing and remembered that Lorenzo Alexander was first signed just around the time this blog started (at the time, as a defensive linemen, if memory serves--he's since played tight end, offensive linemen, and now linebacker). It got me wondering about who the longest full-time tenured current Redskin is, which is to say, those lucky few who have spent their entire careers as Redskins:

Chris Cooley Redskin since 2004

Reed Doughty Redskin since 2006

Kedric Golston Redskin since 2006

Rocky McIntosh Redskin since 2006 (not for long)

Lorenzo Alexander Redskin since 2007 (he did play for several other teams, but never made a final roster if I recall correctly)

Honorable mention goes to Santana Moss, who has been in Washington since 2005 (he was a Jet beforehand).

Super honorable mention goes to Mike Sellers. He was released in March, but I had forgotten that he originally joined the team in 1998, spending only one NF Lseason outside of Washington (in Cleveland--2001).

Anyways, in the N.ot F.or L.ong league, I thought it was worth revisiting which players had actually been here the longest. As a superfan of Darrell Green, I wish there were more "career" Redskins. A different era, I suppose.

Poll

Who will you miss the most?

Chris Cooley

96 votes

Reed Doughty

7 votes

Kedric Golston

3 votes

Rocky McIntosh

4 votes

Lorenzo Alexander

12 votes

122 votes | Poll has closed

Hogs Haven Podcast

Skin Patrol — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:48:54 -0000

There is a board and more points need to be on it.

Skin Patrol — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 02:55:34 -0000

This is therapy, but it is not a "What if" exercise, because the plural of anecdote is not data, and, frankly, I don't want to dwell on the result. I listened to this entire game intently because Gus Johnson was calling it, and he's incredible. I think he should call every Texas Tech game. I would pay my cable provider a service fee to make sure that happens. I wish he called my life. His boothmate was forgettable, and indeed I forgot him. I wish he was more forgettable, because I do recall two thing he said:

1) On one of what felt like a dozen field goals we kicked tonight, Gus asked him about going for it on fourth in scoring territory, and Forgettable repeated agreed with the move, stating something like the conventional wisdom of "You never leave points on the board."

2) After we kicked our extra point, Forgettable asserted that "this" ("this" being that we were losing a football game 45-40 with 33 seconds left on the clock) was the reason you kick field goals, I guess referencing our field goal on 4th and 9 in scoring territory early in the fourth quarter, although he might have been talking about the other five that we attempted. I assume his point is that kicking field goals puts you in a position to win games, so long as you successfully onside kick the ball with 33 seconds left and score a touchdown.

To his first comment; he's right, which is precisely why you shouldn't kick field goals. To his second point, he's wrong, one reason we were losing 45-40 with 33 seconds left was because we kicked field goals. Maybe. I fundamentally disagree with him that kicking field goals is a wise decision, in most situations that we and other teams kick (or punt for that matter, which we shouldn't have done on 4th and 1 at our own 15). Exactly one of us is right about that. Jump.

The question is whether there is something systematically broken with the way coaches approach scoring points. I have taken the radical position that in many, or even most, situations when a field goal is the assumed play, everyone else is wrong. Tonight wasn't even a very good example of that, as the only uncontroversially stupid field goal was 4th and 2 down 17-10 at the beginning of the 2nd quarter. (I probably would have gone for it on one of the three times we kicked the FG on 4th and 8-9, one of which resulted in 7 points for the Aggies.)

Back in 2008 I was impressed by David Romer's paper: Do Firms Maximize? Evidence from Professional Football. Professor Romer (of Berkley) set out to analyze the "assumption that firms maximize profits" which maybe they don't, I'm not an economist. The interesting thing about Professor Romer's paper is that he analyzed it through the lens of professional football. At the risk of butchering his conclusions, the concern is that humans aren't perfectly rational, and because humans run "Firms" like Professional Football teams (and college ones), maybe coaching decisions aren't rational, either. From his abstract:

This paper examines a single, narrow decision--the choice on fourth down in the National Football League between kicking and trying for a first down--as a case study of the standard view that competition in the goods, capital, and labor markets leads firms to maximizing choices. Play-by-play data and dynamic programming are used to estimate the average payoffs to kicking and trying for a first down under different circumstances. Examination of teams' actual decisions show systematic, clear-cut, and overwhelmingly statistically significant departures from the decisions that would maximize teams' chance of winning."

(Author Michael Lewis thought he was right.) You can argue with his data--others have, smart people, too, although I cannot find it now, I know that there were academic responses to his paper--but I won't recount it here. Advanced NFL Statistics had a similar approach. (Before continuing, an important point is "expected value," which you can read more about here. In brief, it is critical to keep in mind that kicking field goals and punting is evil not only because it leaves points on the board, but because it gives your opponent an opportunity to score, in the case of punts because they get the ball, in the case of field goals because they get to return a kick, or may block it.) Advanced NFL Statistics also created several helpful graphs, one of which looks like this:

via farm3.static.flickr.com

This is the result of synthesizing "Expected Points" for punts (see also Jason Scheib's guest column in Football Outsiders, concluding that punting is idiotic) and field goals using NFL conversion rates. This is a decision-chart, the Y axis is yards to go, the X axis is your field position, devised by analyzing thousands of data points for NFL teams' conversion rates, and the expected value of decisions like punting or kicking field goals. If you are below the line, say 4th and 1 on on your own 40, you should go for it. Plugging that into tonight's results, if Texas Tech were an average NFL team, it should have attempted two field goals, not five. And we shouldn't have punted on 4th and 1 on our own 15 yard line.

Does going for it make less sense for Texas Tech? I am going to suggest not, because we actually have a pretty good 4th down conversion rate. More importantly, though, is that all the data I've ever found on how often teams kick field goals, or punt, suggests that football coaches are more conservative than the data informs. If anyone has evidence--not anecdotes, but data--to the contrary, I'm begging you for it. I'm also interested in your arguments.

One argument, for example, is that going for it on 4th down, but failing, affects a game's "momentum." Here's what a former NFL coach had to say about it back in 2008:

"If I don't get the first down, what are the repercussions?" . . . "Are they moving the football? If you're on the road and don't get that fourth down the momentum is going to change over to the other team."

The speaker is current Texas A&M coach Mike Sherman. Last week he took his team to Arlington, Texas, and in the 4th quarter, sitting on an 8-point lead, he punted on 4th and 1 at midfield. Arkansas took the ball, scored a touchdown, and successfully converted for two points. About ten minutes later Sherman kicked a field goal on 4th and 2, from 6 yards away. Plug those decisions into the above chart. Just an anecdote.

Scoring more points than your opponent is the only way to win. When Forgettable says "You never leave points on the board" I agree; so why are we kicking and punting so much? I'm not a smart man, so pan me in the comments.

PS: I think Carona played great tonight, and this is not a criticism of him.

Texas Tech's problems are our responsibility.

Skin Patrol — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:16:53 -0000

Let's do something right.

Major conference realignment appears certain even though Tech's ultimate destination is anything but. We have been at the perpetual mercy of Texas and Texas A&M; at first with the on-off-on-off-again, er, imminent, departure to the Pac-10, which would have been my preference, and now with the Big-12 collapsing as A&M (and perhaps Missouri) flee for the SEC.

Hopefully we will end up in a recharged Pac-10. But that will depend at least in some small part on overcoming the justifiable perception that Texas Tech is not in the same academic universe as the UCLA or Berkleys of the world.

We are not a respected academic institution. Although the State is finally pushing towards more tier one public Universities, we are in the middle of both national and state budget crises which are already causing massive cuts in public education in a State that is running out holes to fall down. Disturbingly:

From fiscal years 2002 to 2006, average tuition and fees at public universities increased 61.4%. Average tuition and fees at community colleges increased 51.3%.

From fiscal years 2002 to 2007, the Texas state budget was cut in terms of real dollar, per-student funding for universities by 19.92%; for community colleges the per-student cut was 35.29%.

California has nine nationally recognized research institutions; New York has seven; Pennsylvania has four; while Texas, the second most populous state in the nation, has only three.

Out of Texas’ 145 public and private higher education institutions, only one private institution, Rice University, ranked among the nation’s top 50.

That is going to get worse before it gets better, and Texas Tech is nowhere close to where we can, and should, be (although we are making progress).

Conference realignment exposed a symptom of this; conferences that take academics seriously aren't going to consider Tech desirable on our own unless and until we raise our academic profile. It is unfortunate and pathetic that Tech must ride the coattails of Texas, or Oklahoma, or Texas A&M, in order to sneak our way into a conference we want. Whatever happens with this round of realignment, Texas Tech fans, students, supporters, and alumni have a responsibility to ensure that next time, whenever that day comes,Texas Tech will be a valued addition to any conference, and on our own merits.

Getting there will not just happen, and we can't sit around waiting for the legislature, which has its own problems, to solve what is fundamentally our problem. We need to take education more seriously, today, and not merely to improve our lot in the academic pecking order so as to better leverage more enticing athletic conference placement. Education is the the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life. In other words, it is sacred pursuit to improve the human condition and its advancement is therefore almost as important as drinking.

So go give the school some fucking money. I don't have a lot of it, but I'm going to give $100 to the "Quest for Tier 1" Fund (additional information available here) and will match the first DTN reader's $100 gift to Texas Tech by donating another $100 to the Mary W. Doak Grant Endowment (more information here, Mary Doak was the first Dean of Women at Texas Tech and was also my great-great grandmother).

I and many other Tech fans could also improve Texas Tech's national footprint by doing a better job treating other people, even fans of hated rivals, more like adults. I will try harder and encourage others to as well, not in response to mickey mouse accusations of classlessness, but because treating others respectfully is moral and virtuous and quintessentially West Texan.

I also sincerely believe that this:

via i.cdn.turner.com

and this

via austinwparadigm.files.wordpress.com

and of course this

via assets.sbnation.com

reflects one of the most interesting and passionate fan bases in the country, and one for which we should be proud, and that any conference would be blessed to claim. We take seriously not taking ourselves too seriously, which is a criminally under-utilized and under-appreciated quality. At Texas Tech our fans are creative and fearless and fearlessly creative and eat beer for breakfast. I want to be associated with them, and you should too.

I am also damn proud that Texas Tech fans exhibit much less pretentiousness and inflated sense of self worth than do SOME OF our rivals in Austin or College Station, who often forget that moral worth and consideration are human rights earned by virtue of existence and not through SAT scores. As Tech improves academically I hope we never lose this humility, and remember that it is more just to help that poor struggling bastard next to you reach the top than it is to jealously guard what good circumstances has gifted you.

Also our co-eds are like super hot:

via www.popcrunch.com

In conclusion, Texas and Texas A&M are not going to help us get where we want or need to be, and our place in the academic pecking order, or the College Football Universe, is our problem and our problem alone. We need to take ownership of it and recognize that there's room for improvement. Fortunate and gainfully employed Texas Tech supporters owe it to the school, and humanity, to support public education. Donating to Texas Tech is a good place to start, get it done.

Wreck'em Tech.

(I MEAN TOTALLY HOT.)

P.S.: No quarter, never forget:

via jayjanner.files.wordpress.com

Redskins University

Skin Patrol — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:26:32 -0000

Timmy Smith was a great Redskin, if only for a moment. Recall that Smith set a rushing record in Super bowl XXII (204 yards and a pair of scores) and would surely have been named the game's MVP but for Doug Williams's brilliant performance in destroying a Dan Reeves led Denver Broncos 42-10. Smith remains one of my all time favorite Redskins despite his short tenure with the team. He accomplished nothing of consequence subsequently and retired just a few short years later (in a Cowboys jersey, unfortunately). Although the rushing record was nice (and remains to this day, putting Smith among greats like Marcus Allen [191] and John Riggins [166 booya]), my affinity for stems mostly from his combination of my two great passions: 1) Washington Redskins football and 2) ~~Federal cocaine convictions~~ Texas Tech football -- both Timmy Smith and I claim the Red Raiders as our alma mater.

Forgive the fluff piece, but this time of year is still somewhat slow on the news cycle and we're all grasping at things to pass the time. Preseason always seems to move slower than Christmas for me if only because the great long wait of the offseason is punctuated by a series of teaser events that kind of sort of but not really resembles what we have all been waiting for. A cruel trick, that, but a necessary evil to reduce the roster size by a dozen or so come August 31st and to the final 53 on September 4th. The big stories this time of year, if you're lucky at least (injuries being the unlucky story), are who is and who isn't going to make the team. As I type this a post goes up about Anthony Armstrong and Brandon Banks among others battling to make the team. Neither is guaranteed a spot but both have certainly had their deserving cases heard for a coveted place among the 53. I was perusing the Redskins roster searching hopefully for some Texas Tech Red Raider that I could hang my hat for the remainder of preseason. None. Very unfortunate

But I compiled these numbers anyways so that you lucky few could better cheer on your favorite college football teams through the rest of the preseason. Results follow for Redskins University which will hopefully supplement your preseason viewing guide for the remainder of the fake season.

Redskins Universities: Oklahoma Sooners and LSU.

Both schools have four players on the roster. For OU: OT Jammal Brown, S Lendy Homes, WR Malcolm Kelly, OT Trent Williams. Depending who you ask, of those I see only Lendy Homes as the serious risk not to make the team, although he was a Redskin last year. Malcolm Kelly is a developing tragic story, but Boomer Sooner fans don't need me to remind them where he went to school or that he's on the roster.

For LSU: NT Howard Green, S LaRon Landry, LB Perry Riley, RB Keiland Williams. More interesting stuff here. Keiland Williams and Howard Green need your cheers, Tigers. Williams was an undrafted rookie and Green was signed as a free agent. Landry isn't going anywhere and Riley was a 4th round pick, so he should make the team.

Runners up: The Ohio State Buckeyes, Maryland Terrapins, UCLA, the U (Miami-FL) and California Berkley (my girlfriend's alma mater) all have three a piece. Texas has three if you count Mike Williams, but he's on Reserve/Non-Football Injury.

Redskins BCS Conference:

Caveat: Distinction between BCS and non-BCS conferences made intentionally and cheaply to trick Hogs Haveners into engaging each other in internet fisticuffs over the merits or demerits of a a college football playoffs, or to goad one another about how my conference is better than your conference nah nah nah nah. For full disclosure, playoffs yes, and the Big XII is the bestest. I counted current BCS teams, so Utah isn't in the Pac-10 just yet, Nebraska is still a Big XII school, etc.

And the winner is? Who else? SEC.

Unfortunately this will do little to dispel delusions of SEC's domination of everything, everywhere, ever. But with 14 members currently on the roster the SEC wins (ACC had 13, close, Pac-10 has 11, Big XII has 10 -- just like the conference, now -- and the Big 10 has 6. Big Least has 3.)

In addition to the four gentlemen from LSU, the SEC claims Auburn CB Carlos Rogers, Alabama NT Anthony Bryant and CB Ramzee Robinson, Georgia DE Phillip Daniels and DT Kedric "The Barbarian" Golston, Vanderbilt LB Curtis Gatewood, Florida QB Rex Grossman, Tennessee DT Albert Haynesworth, Ole Miss WR Shay Hodge, and Kentucky DE Jeremy Jarmon.

Redskins Mid-Major: Mountain West Conference

And it isn't close. With six, the MWC dwarfs C-USA, the WAC, and Mid-American (all have just two). No other mid majors are represented, by my count. For the Mountain West: Brigham Young QB John Beck, Colorado State OT Clint Oldenburg, San Diego State OT William Robinson, New Mexico C/G Erik Cook, Utah NT Ma'ake Kemoeatu, and TCU LB Robert Henson.

Strangest School Shout Out: Walla Walla Community College

I do this every year. Lots of schools on the list that I'm none too familiar with. London Fletcher went to John Carroll, which I think is a Jesuit school. Byron Westbrook's Salisbury University was a candidate but that's local to Maryland so surely someone around here has heard of them. Kareem Moore attended Nicholls State in Thibodaux, Louisiana. And Chris Wilson hails from Northwood University.

But manbeast Mike Sellers wins. He called Walla Walla Community College of Washington State home. Although it probably exists only in my imagination, Walla Walla Community College's Museum of Dead Oregon Trail Heroes is littered with the decayed corpses of brave cyber-travelers who had steadfastly refused to succumb to snakebites, diarrhea (the silent killer!) or the measles only to drown on route to Fort Walla Walla. Respect.

Mike Sellers braved the elements and escaped from his own Oregon Trail unscathed, surviving Walla Walla Community College as a distinguished linebacker before suffering through Canada for some years and later joining us in Washington (D.C., that is). Walla Walla CC's mascot is the Warrior.

UPDATE: Typhoid has died of Mike Sellers.

What has Bill Walsh done for you lately? He gave us a workaholic.

Skin Patrol — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:38:10 -0000

Kevin already touched on Coach Shanahan's Bill Walsh Coaching Tree roots (pictured). Recap: George Seifert coached under Bill Walsh in the 80s before taking the reigns in 1989. Although Seifert ultimately ended his career in somewhat forgettable fashion at Carolina (1-15 in 2001, doh) his eight seasons as 49ers Head Coach included eight 10 win regular seasons in a row, six division championships, five NFC championship appearances and two Super Bowl rings. Not a bad run, shared in part by offensive coordinator Mike Shanahan from '92-'94, thus placing Shanahan in the Bill Walsh coaching tree (incidentally this also places Shanahan somewhere in the the Sid Gillman coaching tree, among our very own George Allen and Shanahan's former boss Al Davis, more on that below. Understated conclusion: Minus Al Davis, decent company, Coach.)

I think Bill Walsh's legend is growing excessively, but kill me for that in the comments. I'm told, however, that one of his greatest contributions to the game was meticulous gameplanning:

If [Walsh's] legacy is not about reducing the risks of throwing the ball through a disciplined approach, it is by revolutionizing how coaches prepare for games through simple organization: scripting plays, analyzing tendencies, self-scouting, probing defenses to look for weaknesses, and so on. As with his plays, none of Walsh’s innovations here were truly new, but his approach obviously worked because not only was his success outsized but so has been the success of those who coached with him — those that were able to observe his methods.

Meticulousness is not often associated with lethargy. Coach Shanahan has, forgivably, perhaps taken meticulous gameplanning to its illogical limits. Exhibit A: A Shanahan authored novel-length two hundred page scouting report for the Broncos-Indy Colts game of January 6, 2002. By way of example, and I can't really read this, page 166:

via htmlimg3.scribdassets.com

And there are dozens more just like this. The planning was for naught, unfortunately, as the Broncos lost 29-10. That is obviously not the point. But it does suggest that we now have, refreshingly, a proven workaholic, gameplanning nut in Washington. This is in stark contrast to, by way of example, Steve Spurrier. For those of you self-loathing enough to recall, Spurrier's time in Washington was peppered throughout with rumors of his disdain for long hours. Hat tip the Bog a while back with a nice little anecdote from the Associated Press:

[Spurrier] stressed that he doesn't want a job where he's in charge of personnel or the salary cap - "They've got other guys who can do math, don't they?" - and he doesn't think being in the NFL has to be a 100-hour-a-week job.

"I saw a story saying [current Redskins Defensive Coordinator and apparent workaholic] Jim Haslett comes in at 4:30 every morning - that's not doing him much good," Spurrier said of the Saints coach, who went 7-9 this year.

Yuck yuck yuck but the joke was ultimately on Spurrier (and us I suppose). Haslett's 7-9 in 2001 matched Spurrier's best year in Washington, before walking away from the NFL permanently after a 5-11 disaster. Haslett's 4:30 starts did him much good the year prior, when he was named NFL Coach of the Year (I think it was the Sporting News) for taking a Jeff Blake led Saints to the playoffs (and a winning season) for the first time in eight seasons. It also helped him destroy a Spurrier led Redskins 43-27 in Steve's first year. Dan Steinberg noted Haslett's hours:

"Steve can work whatever time he wants, I really don't care," Haslett said then, while telling the press that his typical work day was between 12 and 18 hours long. "He can do his deal, and I'll do my deal. There's not a coach in this league that doesn't work hard. I don't know any coach that comes in at 9 o'clock and leaves at 4 o'clock."

Back to Shanahan, who picked up his meticulous gameplanning work ethic by time served under the Bill Walsh tree and has followed that up with a ludicrous workaholism that rivals and perhaps exceeds that of beloved Coach Joe Gibbs (legendary workaholic). Mere willingness to live to work guarantees nothing in the NFL but does provide some peace of mind after the Spurrier experience. If you aren't the best at your job, then at least work the hardest, etc.

How big of a work-nut is Shanahan? It was rumored (but probably false) that Shanahan took a total of two days off while toiling for tyrant Al Davis from 1988-89. Why?

``With the Raiders, it was like, that was the thing to do,'' Shanahan said. ``Nobody took any time off because Al (Davis) didn't want anybody to take time off. That was kind of . . . '' His voice trailed off, and if you could imagine a window into his head you could almost see the little red flag popping up, warning him not to say more. But it was clear from the dismissive expression on his face that such public shows of self-denial don't do much for him.

Not just for fear of Davis has Shanahan worked, however. In addition to Exhibit A, Shanahan has a well-documented "tireless work ethic" spanning decades (see "workaholic" here) which he has apparently instilled in offensive coordinator and son Kyle Shanahan. Even when he's not working he's, er, working putting in hours to prepare for putting in more hours once employment resumes:

[After his firing from Denver] Shanahan was offered several network television jobs, said his friend, but preferred not to put himself in a position to have to say negative things about prospective employers.

Instead, Shanahan took an office not far from the Broncos' complex and spends three to five hours a day studying film. During the offseason, NFL and college coaches came in to confer with him. During training camp, Shanahan visited four or five college and pro teams -- including Urban Meyer's Florida Gators and Bill Belichick's New England Patriots -- to study what they were doing.

The cynic in me doubts that the mere will to work will actually yield the only currency traded by fans: Ws. There is ample evidence in this post that gameplanning religiously or showing up at 4:30 in the morning can still lose you games. But Shanahan is a proven winner and has assembled an accomplished staff consisting of suspected or proven workaholics at the highest levels. I believe that Shanahan's success has had at least as much to do with his work ethic (and the same can be said for Coach Gibbs as well) than some inherent football coaching genius, an elusive trait that is difficult to document, in any event. So even if Shanahan is not a genius -- who knows, certainly not me -- there is no doubt that he will have put in at least as many hours as that guy/awful sumbitch on the other sideline.

I for one will rest a little easier knowing that Coach does not.

Redskins 2010 Preview Magazine

Skin Patrol — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:48:54 -0000

Maple Street Press Redskins Annual
Coming out now and available for order.

8x10, 128 pages, full-color, filled with photos.
Edited by Kevin Ewoldt & Ken Meringolo with feature articles from Doug Farrar, Matt Bowen, Rich Tandler, Mike Richman, and more. Learn the exact terminology from Shanahan's playbook.

Order Now >>

Contact / Media Requests

Skin Patrol — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:48:54 -0000

Email - hogshaven@gmail.com (at) gmail.com
	href="http://twitter.com/hogshaven" target="_blank">class="photo" src="http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/382898/twitter_badge_medium.jpg" height="65" alt="Twitter_badge_medium" width="141" />
	href="http://www.facebook.com/hogshaven" target="_blank">class="photo" src="http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/382901/find_us_on_facebook_badge_medium.gif" alt="Find_us_on_facebook_badge_medium" />
	href="http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/382901/find_us_on_facebook_badge.gif">

There's never too many cooks?

Skin Patrol — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:01:02 -0000

Coach-speak is a difficult language to process, particularly because it is usually coded and frequently presented in sound bites that lack context and do inadequate justice to the nuances involved. While I recognize the danger of taking at face value what a Coach says about a complicated web of quarterback transactions, extending over months, and subject to circumstances that are unknown and unknowable, Coach says a possible future world involves a Redskins quarterback trio of:

1. Donovan McNabb

2. Jason Campbell

3. Sam Bradford/Colt McCoy

4. Presumably, Rex Grossman

Coach Shanahan brought us McNabb. Shanahan also assured Jason Campbell the opportunity to seek a trade elsewhere, so that he may start, somewhere. But if nothing materializes, Coach at least pays lip service to keeping Campbell around. And even in the event that McNabb and Campbell stick around, we're still open to drafting a QB in the 1st round?

[Kelli] Johnson noted that the team was still hosting top QB prospects like Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy, and Shanahan suggested that there was nothing odd there.

"I think if you take a look at Philip Rivers, when did he start? His third year," the coach said. "You take a look at Aaron Rodgers? His third year.... I think a perfect scenario would be a young quarterback coming in here and backing up. You never know what's gonna happen on draft day."

If we have McNabb and Jason Campbell on the roster come draft day, and considering our switch from a 4-3 to a 3-4 defense, I think we're better off not drafting a QB or trading down for additional picks. I suspect that Jason Campbell is probably not going to be here next year -- that's too bad, I've always liked Jason and, full disclosure, have been lobbying on his behalf since at least November of 2006 -- but if he is still here, why the need for a Colt McCoy/Sam Bradford? Do we really need to go out and get a Phillip Rivers three-years-down-the-way?

I'm giving Campbell too much credit here, and the circumstances weren't right, but would San Diego have been better off with Drew Brees instead of Phillip Rivers?

I see where Coach is coming from. Having three quarterbacks on the roster, two of whom are proven NFL quality starters, and one talented potential future-star, is a great problem to have. But we have a lot of needs and a valuable first round pick, and maybe having two proven starters (maybe three, depending on one's feelings towards Grossman?) on the roster this year is enough, and we can worry about getting that star quarterback down the road. I guess my position is, when the kitchen is dirty with a broken oven and new management, maybe resources are better spent fixing the appliances and cleaning the floors, rather than hiring the three best cooks in town.

Is Rex Grossman not a serviceable 3rd-string QB? What of Colt Brennan? I want the team to protect itself from the horrors of starting the wrong quarterback, but let's not overdo it when the rest of the team has needs too.

1. Donovan McNabb

2. Jason Campbell

3. Sam Bradford/Colt McCoy

4. Presumably, Rex Grossman

[Kelli] Johnson noted that the team was still hosting top QB prospects like Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy, and Shanahan suggested that there was nothing odd there.

"I think if you take a look at Philip Rivers, when did he start? His third year," the coach said. "You take a look at Aaron Rodgers? His third year.... I think a perfect scenario would be a young quarterback coming in here and backing up. You never know what's gonna happen on draft day."

I'm giving Campbell too much credit here, and the circumstances weren't right, but would San Diego have been better off with Drew Brees instead of Phillip Rivers?

Mike Leach transcripts, unedited.

Skin Patrol — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:55:47 -0000

How dare you beat Baylor by less than a million points. Prepare to be eaten for your indiscretions. Below the jump, please enjoy the NSFW NSFW NSFW NSFW NSFW transcript from the Mike Leach post-Baylor rant, and if I have time, also after the Kansas game. So far as I can tell, no one has taken the time to pen the entire thing. Part of me is doing this to forever preserve, in the old media of written word, the motivational speeches of the great Captain. Part of me is lying. And part of me just thinks it will look as funny on my monitor as it sounds in my ears.

Enjoy (did I mention NSFW?):

Here are the facts. The facts are, for significant portions of this season, this team has felt like they are entitled to something just 'cause the team before us won 11 games, and some of us participated in that. Well that's fucking bullshit. You see it happening around the country with some teams too. You know, everybody says what's wrong with this team, what's wrong with that team, odds are it's something similar. Odds are it's something similar. You know, as a team we act like, well, we're 11-2 and we just have to [mumble mumble] fuck that. You know, as a coach I didn't [mumble] call, the plays I called last year, they're all last year, they're just that; last year. As a player any play you made, that's all last year. And I'll tell you another thing. Some of you mother fuckers didn't play a snap last year? I mean if you're a receiver and you think you got credit because of Michael, because of one of Michael Crabtree's plays, you're out of your fucking mind, Michael Crabtree made that play! Graham Harrell made that play. Rylan Reed made that play. And over there on defense, the same thing. You know, you think, uh, you think you made that play? No, no Charbonnet made that play. Daniel Charbonnet. I mean, Darcel McBath made that play. Not you. Not you. I mean none of that shit adds up to this fucking year. [mumble] None of it. But the thing is it hasn't sunk in. And as coaches we failed to make it sink in for the duration of this year. Now, failed to make it sink in, well how do you make it sink in. Well you start by probably cutting some people. You start by getting some people who are more mentally tough. You start by benching people. You start by rolling the fuck out of somebody. I mean that's the fact of the matter. But I'll tell you -- here's how the season went, with all of our unsatisfactory games. Ok, against Texas, we'll play it close. We play that mother fucker close, and everybody's mommies and daddies are telling them how great they fucking are 'cause we played it close. Fuck playing it close, we lost the god damn game to the University of Texas and we could've won the mother fucker. Ok then based on that, the wealth of material that we did vs. Texas, we go play Houston, and the honest truth is, we're thinking well don't you remember, we're fucking 11-2 Texas Tech, we're just a little too good to play at Houston. When we lost our fucking asses, because we thought we were too good to fucking play. So then, we get on a roll, we do some good things, and we play Texas A&M. And we lost our fucking ass 'cause we thought we were too good to play Texas fucking A&M. Now how in the fuck can that be? Because we beat Kansas State? Because we put a thing on Kansas State as they put on A&M? Bullshit! How many of those plays were we able to dial up. How many? How many plays were we able to dial up? Not a fucking one. Alright, so then, we go play, uh, Oklahoma State where we go play together. We spent the whole day playing with nine. And I don't quite understand why we spent the whole day playing with nine. But we spent the whole day playing with nine. That's what happened. And, and, and I don't think, I don't know that we thought we were too good to play but we spent the whole day playing with nine. Ok. And then we came out and play these mother fuckers, and for two years in a row we thought we were too good to play. They thought last year's, the mighty 11-2 team, did not one of their fucking plays count this year? We thought we were too good to play Baylor. We thought we were too good. The mighty Red Raiders, oh yea, poo poo, fucking Baylor. Fuck you. And fuck me. And fuck everybody. That is fucking bullshit. And then we come out this year, after they rub our nose in the fact that we, they, that we're not too good to play with them and they do the same fucking thing this year. Because we don't fucking listen, and we can't pay attention to history, and we only half-ass fucking pay attention and listen! Because we want to tell everybody, yea at one time I was 11-2. Well that doesn't make you shit anymore! That doesn't make you shit. Oh but we're a young team, and then in the back of some of your minds, even though we don't talk about it, oh but we've been injured. Fuck that. Fuck. That. You know it's fucking bullshit, and I want that shit changed. I want that shit changed. As coaches we need to change it, as players we need to change it. We can't deal with success. As soon as we have a little bit of success, we think we're too fucking good. Ok, last year, we beat a team that's going to put, or last week we beat a team that's going to put a bunch of draft picks in the NFL. Yea we did, but that was last fucking week! That wasn't this week. That was last, fucking, week! That was last week. That wasn't this week. And so we're too good to play Baylor. Fuck us. That ain't true. You know, shit, what are our three goals, they beat us on all of them. Be a team. Be the most excited to play, be the best at doing your fucking job. They beat us on all three. They didn't win the game, but they beat us on all three. Now, as coaches, we're going to meet, and we're going to meet, and we're going to decide what we're going to do this next week, and I don't know what it's going to be; I haven't quite decided. But I'll tell you one fucking thing. We do not have the mentality and identity that we need to beat a team that we need to beat. And I'll tell you that there's a couple of you guys, uh, that your current living situation is going to change. You know, I was sitting there, you know, we've got several of you, uh, particularly on offense, that all you do is pull mediocrity out of one another. Well you're going to live somewhere else. Last time I checked, we're paying the fucking bills. Last time I checked, you said you were either coaching or allowing it to happen. Well is this going to fix anything? I don't know. But I'm not going to sit there and watch people room together and be fucking mediocre. [Video ends.]

I would comment further but I'm too motivated. Instead, I am man, I am everything that is man, and I will punch 22 holes in my bedroom wall, run up the biggest hill in town and then throw myself down it, help an old lady cross the street, revive a dead squirrel just by scowling at it for being such a pussy, rob Toys R Us using just my charm, wit, and a bazooka, steal a Sega Genesis, even though they no longer sell Sega Genesis, and beat Altered Beast, twice, without picking up a single power up. I need no wolfman powers. I am the wolfman. I will do these things for you Coach Leach. Just please, I beg your mercy, do not roll the fuck out of me. It sounds something unpleasant.

Thanks for ten great years.

Update: Alright, the Kansas one is shorter, I'll do it too. Enjoy:

Transcript:

And I'll tell you another thing. Some of you, you uh, God squad guys I want you to think about this and then you can tell the others. Ok. What, what's God say, if you're lukewarm I will spew you out. [Players: Amen. Preach on Coach.] You know, if you're thinking about playing, if you're thinking about playing defense on this side of the brain, naw but the reason I mention this is as long we're going to be having all these prayers on the field and as long as we're doing all this other stuff, I want you to make sure that that's directed towards football, and that's fine, but you direct it towards football, too, ok? So you've got one side of the brain, you're a defensive player, I don't need one side of the brain that's playing defense and one side, gee I wonder this, I wonder that, I wonder the other thing, no, no screw that. Your whole head has got to be on defense. Your whole head has got to be on offense. Your whole head, for that play, has got to be on special teams. And if you're not doing that, uh, you guys throwing the Book around all the time, you're defying the Book.

Update 2: Garth Holliday thinks this is bullshit.

Rest in Peace, Sports

Skin Patrol — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:22:42 -0000

Sports died unexpectedly Wednesday from an apparent suicide, when one of the last bastions of integrity in college football decided that contract price and opportunism were more important than graduation rates and success. Sports was as old as human history.

Texas Tech University, speaking on behalf of college football, stated Wednesday that battling entitlement was simply too challenging, because teaching kids about hard work is expensive. "We really wanted to get the message out," Tech said in a prepared statement, "that a kid having to spend two practices in an air conditioned room is too high a price to pay for graduating athletes and teaching boys how to become men." Fans were shocked that college football's capitulation would be announced from Lubbock, considered one of the toughest parts of Texas. "Well paint me [expletive] surprised," said Grizzled Badass West-Texan between bites from his hammers and nails filled omelet, "I guess I was wrong about college football being a man's game. Has women's basketball started yet? Here I come."

Sports had been engaged in a well publicized losing battle with chronic softness for years, a fight that has already taken the life of basketball. With the demise of college football, once thought to be sport's best chance of battling entitlement, doctors maintained little hope for sport's future.

"I'm really disappointed," said God, fighting back tears, "I went to a whole lot of trouble to provide a meaningful escape that also afforded you all an opportunity to learn about virtue, and now you've gone and screwed it up. Jesus Christ bananas, I'm out." College football was unavailable for comment, because it has nothing to say for itself.

There will be a service at the 2010 Alamo Bowl. Many seats are still available, and will probably remain so throughout the game.

Mike Leach was not only my head coach, but he was my position coach all five of my years at Texas...

Skin Patrol — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:51:47 -0000

Mike Leach was not only my head coach, but he was my position coach all five of my years at Texas Tech. I spent more time with him than any other player during my five years and had meetings with him every day. He was very hard on me and every other player in program and he held very high expectations for every player. He would push us all every day during the season and during the off-season. He felt that hard work, dedication and doing things right was the only way we could be successful and compete in the Big XII conference. He worked harder and longer than anyone else in program and was committed to winning at all cost. He would never have been unfair to a player or not played the best players he had because he wanted to win more than anything else. Coach Leach also expected us to be tough but smart at the same time. He would not pressure a kid to play with a serious injury or play when he did not feel ready to play. Coach Leach is a man that cares about his player and puts his players, coaches and the well being of the Texas Tech football program above all else.

Graham Harrell

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...

Pipe down.

36 votes

Who cares?

89 votes

SUIT UP, GET ON THAT SIDELINE AND CHOO CHOO ALL OVER THE PLACE; BRING BACK LAVAR

152 votes

277 votes | Poll has closed

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.

T-Shirts

Skin Patrol — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:48:54 -0000

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

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

Hogs Haven Twitter

Skin Patrol — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:48:54 -0000

Mission Statement

Skin Patrol — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:01:14 -0000

Global domination.

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.