Perfection. Only one team in the history of the NFL has climbed that pinnacle of perfection. The Miami Dolphins went 17-0 on the way to winning the Super Bowl in 1972, and every year we're reminded of their singular achievement as they raise a toast to themselves once the final unbeaten team finally loses. This year, we had two teams who started the season at 13-0, the Saints and the Colts. The Saints lost their 14th game, but the Colts kept their perfect season alive with yet another 4th quarter come from behind win (their 7th of the season) to beat the Jaguars 35-31.
So, here the Colts were. Two weeks from completing only the third perfect regular season ever. At home versus the Jets. Leading 15-10 in the 3rd quarter. What happened next has been talked about almost non-stop ever since... Coach Caldwell, with the blessing of the team's management, pulled Peyton Manning and some of the other starters in favor of never-used back up QB Matt Painter. To make matters worse, the Colts were starting their next offensive drive near their own 10 yard line. Not a fun place to start a drive, even for Peyton Manning, but for someone as inexperienced and, no doubt, nervous as Painter?
What could possibly go wrong?
What went wrong was a sack and a fumble recovery in the end zone to give the Jets a lead, a lead they never gave up. And just like that, the drive for perfection was over. The chance for sports immortality tossed aside like a half eaten burger, while the players and the fans remained hungry for yet another win. And for what? A little over a quarter's worth of "safety" for some of the starters?
As the 2nd half of this game started, the Colts had played 58 quarters of football. Peyton Manning is the best protected quarterback in the league. Was giving up the chance at perfection really worth rolling over for the last 20 minutes of the game?
The look on Manning's face and on the faces of his teammates as they stood helplessly on the sideline told the story: These guys had played their hearts out all season long in order to get THIS close to doing something no one has done since '72. All the sweat, all the pain, all those 4th quarter come backs... all to be undone not by getting beat, but by rolling over and giving one up for free.
Later in the week team GM Bill Polian tried to explain the team's rationale by pointing out that "Sixteen wins in a season was not our issue. It was someone else's". He even seemed to put more importance on the fact that the Colts had secured the record for the most wins in a decade (115) and regular season wins in a row (23), as if those accomplishments somehow outweighed the prospect of a perfect season. Well, I'd gladly give up both those records for a perfect season. It's not even close. While those are great accomplishments, they pale in comparison to putting together the greatest season ever.
This whole "protect our starters" strategy might not be a bad idea if not for the disastrous results the Colts have had with it in the past. Three of the past four seasons have ended with a first round playoff loss. Two of those years included coasting into the playoffs and a first round bye. The only year they survived their first playoff game was their Super Bowl run in 2006. That year they were forced to play every game of the regular season just to make the playoffs, followed by playing all three rounds of the playoffs to make it the Super Bowl. But, they got on a roll at the end of the regular season and rode it all the way to becoming champions, never resting long enough to play it "safe".
Super Bowls are won by teams who play to win, not by teams who play not to get hurt. By resting the league MVP in Manning along with other starters, the Colts sent a message that they're more concerned with not getting hurt than they are in winning games. That strategy has never worked for the Colts before, but there's a first time for everything. Right?
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Myths of Steroid Use
The steroids controversy continues its slow grind onward as names are leaked like Chinese torture from the list of players tested by MLB in 2003. Not to get too deep into the legalities, moralities and technicalities of whether or not the rest of the list should be released, I'll just say I fall on the side of releasing all the names and getting it over with.
Yes, I know none of the names should have ever been released, but this agonizing trickle of names needs to stop. And, this distraction won't end until all the names are out. Then, we can all stop for a second like Clark Griswold at the Grand Canyon, take our salacious peek, and move on. We know everyone was juiced, what's the big deal?
There are a couple of things about this situation that really bother me, though. One is when people make the excuse that steroids weren't banned at the time of the 2003 tests. It's true MLB didn't have any specific penalties for using steroids at that time, but using steroids without a prescription is illegal. It was then, it is now.
To use this excuse that these players shouldn't be looked poorly upon because MLB didn't have penalties for steroid use is a poor argument to make. MLB has no specific penalties for having "child porn", either, but if a player got caught with loads of child porn on their computer, should they be excused merely because baseball hadn't expressly banned it?
Of course not.
Besides, the idea that baseball did not have a ban on steroids is a myth.
On June 7, 1991, commissioner Fay Vincent sent a memo to each team and the players union that stated: "The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited ... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids."
Illegal steroid use was clearly banned well before the 2003 tests. So, let's get over this idea that these players weren't breaking any rules. They clearly were.
Another argument I've heard about steroid use (and Bonds used to make this one) is that steroids don't make you a better baseball player. The obvious answer to that argument is: Then why do so many players use them?
Of course steroids make you a better player. To argue otherwise is foolish. Now, steroids alone will not turn someone into a baseball player. You can't go from zero to major leaguer merely by taking steroids. The hand eye coordination, the years of practice, the dedication to the game has to already be there. But, add to all of that the advantage of steroids and you produce a great ball player where a very good ball player once existed.
And, as suggested in this Scientific American article, the true benefit of steroid use is that it allows you to perform at a higher level for a longer period of time. As the season progresses into August and September, players tend to wear down and their numbers don't continue at the level they did earlier in the season. Steroids help the body recover quicker, whether you're working out in the gym or playing baseball.
This applies to improving play as you grow older, as well. Players like Bonds and Clemens are proof that steroid use can extend careers into ages rarely seen before in the history of baseball. Where players' bodies used to begin breaking down in their mid-30's (see Ken Griffey, Jr.), Bonds and Clemens actually improved in their late-30's, early 40's. That just doesn't happen.
There are years of proof as to when the bodies of our professional athletes begin to wear down, and to improve at those ages goes completely against what we've always seen.
Steroids have always been illegal, regardless of whether or not there were penalties to be paid to MLB if you were caught. Societal laws were in place, as well as explicit bans by MLB. But, because using steroids helped players both improve their level of play and maintain that success over longer periods of time, players risked the consequences, both legal and health-wise, and took them anyway.
Yes, I know none of the names should have ever been released, but this agonizing trickle of names needs to stop. And, this distraction won't end until all the names are out. Then, we can all stop for a second like Clark Griswold at the Grand Canyon, take our salacious peek, and move on. We know everyone was juiced, what's the big deal?
There are a couple of things about this situation that really bother me, though. One is when people make the excuse that steroids weren't banned at the time of the 2003 tests. It's true MLB didn't have any specific penalties for using steroids at that time, but using steroids without a prescription is illegal. It was then, it is now.
To use this excuse that these players shouldn't be looked poorly upon because MLB didn't have penalties for steroid use is a poor argument to make. MLB has no specific penalties for having "child porn", either, but if a player got caught with loads of child porn on their computer, should they be excused merely because baseball hadn't expressly banned it?
Of course not.
Besides, the idea that baseball did not have a ban on steroids is a myth.
On June 7, 1991, commissioner Fay Vincent sent a memo to each team and the players union that stated: "The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited ... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids."
Illegal steroid use was clearly banned well before the 2003 tests. So, let's get over this idea that these players weren't breaking any rules. They clearly were.
Another argument I've heard about steroid use (and Bonds used to make this one) is that steroids don't make you a better baseball player. The obvious answer to that argument is: Then why do so many players use them?
Of course steroids make you a better player. To argue otherwise is foolish. Now, steroids alone will not turn someone into a baseball player. You can't go from zero to major leaguer merely by taking steroids. The hand eye coordination, the years of practice, the dedication to the game has to already be there. But, add to all of that the advantage of steroids and you produce a great ball player where a very good ball player once existed.
And, as suggested in this Scientific American article, the true benefit of steroid use is that it allows you to perform at a higher level for a longer period of time. As the season progresses into August and September, players tend to wear down and their numbers don't continue at the level they did earlier in the season. Steroids help the body recover quicker, whether you're working out in the gym or playing baseball.
This applies to improving play as you grow older, as well. Players like Bonds and Clemens are proof that steroid use can extend careers into ages rarely seen before in the history of baseball. Where players' bodies used to begin breaking down in their mid-30's (see Ken Griffey, Jr.), Bonds and Clemens actually improved in their late-30's, early 40's. That just doesn't happen.
There are years of proof as to when the bodies of our professional athletes begin to wear down, and to improve at those ages goes completely against what we've always seen.
Steroids have always been illegal, regardless of whether or not there were penalties to be paid to MLB if you were caught. Societal laws were in place, as well as explicit bans by MLB. But, because using steroids helped players both improve their level of play and maintain that success over longer periods of time, players risked the consequences, both legal and health-wise, and took them anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
