What really matters

There has been a great deal of concern in recent days over quite a few stories of national interest:

What are those debates going to be like between Palin and Biden?

Is the bailout of Fannie and Freddie socialism for the rich? (or for the stupid?)

A few harsh-looking hurricanes have spared the gulf (ours) and OPEC (in the other gulf) has stated they have no plans to cut any oil production. What is this doing to the commodities sector?

Pakistan has elected a man on the brink of insanity to guide them. Will he pad the walls of the presidential palace?

How ‘bout this particle colliding thing?

Kim Jong Il is missing, or ill, or dead, or hiding, or on vacation. Is this all just to get attention?

It's so easy with all these troubles on our mind to forget the really important things. It seems like one issue that was far too easily lost in the shuffle this week was the beginning of the NFL season. I know I probably didn't pay as much attention to it as I should have. But you know what? It happened, and there’s no excuse if you didn’t get all your shopping done.

Something that has been deeply troubling to the nation as a whole is how badly the Browns lost last Sunday. I’m sure we’re all wondering what led to their colossal defensive letdown and what fostered their disturbingly anemic offense. I would bet that a huge chunk of it was Braylon Edwards not getting the ball enough…. What’s that, you say? He was thrown to 400 times? Oh. Uh, forget it then.

The Cowboys stamped a measured victory on Sunday. By the second half, the game was so easy for them that it was obvious they were having a little too much fun. You can have a resounding victory, and you can be a better team, but when you are sending your tight end on a fly pattern while you’re up by two scores, you’re just rubbing it in.

The problem with a game like Sunday’s where the Cowboys were up 21-7 by the time halftime rolls around is that, as a fan, you are sitting there watching the TV thinking, “OK, all the Brownies have to do here is shut down the pass, contain the run, and score a few times, and they’re back in this game.” Basically, you become insane. You want them to suddenly become the 2005 team that was ranked 4^th in pass defense; so you close your eyes, and you pray really hard. Finally, after hearing your prayers, God smiles a benevolent smile down from the heavens and says, “keep drinking, asshole.”

The game was out of reach very early. Does that mean you lose hope? No. It just means you begin to justify a completely irrational future. This is quite easy because you have probably had a lot of practice. Being a Browns fan is kind of like becoming a priest: you are giving up a lot of immediate pleasure and hoping for a grand future that seems less and less likely the more you read the news.

It’s not as if the Cowpokes looked all that invulnerable. The Browns did a decent job of beating up on skill positions: Romo had his chin split open, Barber left early with bruised ribs, and TO had a pretty pedestrian day for a pro-bowl receiver. So how did the Browns still lose? Well, first of all, they’re damn good at it. Secondly, it seemed as though most of their offense consisted of the “go long and I’ll hit you” play that you generally draw up in Timmy’s back yard. It looks like the plan originally was to toss Edwards the long ball to stretch out the defense, get a few scores, and then keep a possession game going with Lewis. Their long view was likely: we will try to outlast them in a shootout, or hold the ball long enough to keep them from scoring.

Neither one worked. This is because of what is called “a critical path issue” in the MBA world. The tosses to Edwards weren’t working, so the “stretch the defense” plan pretty much hits the crapper at this point. The possession game didn’t work because it was based on the assumption that Dallas would get sick of having the ball and just hand it back to them. That is the only reason that would explain why on a 4^th and 2, on the Dallas 46, in your home stadium, with the score at zeroes in the first quarter, you decide to punt the ball.

You know what? Screw you, Cleveland. You gave up the game right there.

(Every week during the season I disown the team. And like some kind of codependent, I keep going back.)

Why else did they lose? Dallas was just the better team. From what I saw, they are The Complete Team this year; even better than they were last year. When both the run and the pass are working regardless of the players, and you are playing a secondary that could get burned by the Canadian synchronized swimming team, you’re going to put some points on the board.

So up this week is Pittsburgh. In a locker room interview, Jamal Lewis mentioned that Pittsburgh suffers no fools, and said about 50 times that you have to play physical. Obviously, he wants the ball. He certainly wants the ball more than 13 times a game if he is averaging over 4 yards a carry as he did in both cases last week.

In their last meeting with the Steelers, in November of 2007, The Browns went with their tried and true “break, don’t bend” game philosophy. After being up 21-9 in the first half, they went in to the locker room, put on their jammies, tucked each other in, and shit the bed.

In the third quarter, with the Browns winning handily, Jamal Lewis, a runningback who runs so compactly that looks like the son of Barney Rubble and a soup can, ran the ball five times in as many series. Anderson had more incomplete passes (6) during this time period.

It is worthy to note that The Steelers ran the ball 30 times not counting the five rushes from Roethlisberger, and they were behind for most of the game.

Eventually, Pittsburg pressured Anderson enough that the game in the air was not working as well as it did in the first half. Since Cleveland was only running the ball once a series, they didn’t really have to respect the run. So as tacitly as he can explain it to his team through the media, Lewis is telling them he needs the ball 20-25 times in this game if they expect to have a chance.

I am telling the team the same thing. Give Lewis the ball. If Lewis gets the ball 20 times or more in this game they have a chance. If they go with the Jeff Agoos Long Ball strategy, they will lose. They have scored a lot of points in shootouts with the Steelers since they came back to the league in 1999, but they have lost every one of those shootouts.

Run, Chud. Run.

Of course, If Lewis is out, they're screwed. (Aren't I the worst fan ever?)

-------------------

On a side note, New England will be fine. Having Brady injured is not an issue. Everyone talks about Brady, and no one talks about the fact that all the starters on the O-line that got there in 2005 or earlier. The O-line’s cohesion is the crux of that team. I would worry about Scott Pioli or Belichick getting injured before I worried about Brady. The O-line is why Brady threw 50 touchdowns last year, the O-line is why he never gets his uniform dirty, and the O-line is why Matt Cassel is going to be this week’s Joe Flacco (with a way better education).

Maybe if the Pats were to win without Brady, their fans would start remembering that whole “team” thing that was such a big story back in the day. I loved it when the pats were announced at the Super Bowl in 2001 as a team. I rooted them on right there. Hell, I was already rooting for them in the conference championship when they played the Steelers in the gleaming new Heinz Field. Bledsoe had the only passing touchdown of that game, and he came in when Brady got knocked off the field on to his chest in almost the exact same way that Bledsoe suffered his injury against the Jets that season. I mean, it was like out of a movie. Believe you me, when someone pastes the Steelers on their own turf in a conference championship with the feel-good, turn-around story of the postseason, I remember that game with zeal.

So watch for the Pats to “shock” the Jets this week with a tight win.

That said, I was 6-10 and in last place in my Pick’em pool last week.