Lincecum’s Season is Even Worse Than it Looks.

Tim Lincecum pitched so poorly over the first three months of the season that he lowered the bar of expectations practically down to the ground. The Giants won only two of his first 14 starts. When he was able to put together back-to-back quality starts in June, observers started to breathe easier, believing that the turnaround had begun.

Only it hadn’t. And hasn’t still. And I’m saying, it’s not out there.

What has become abundantly clear is that Lincecum is totally over-matched by the better teams on the Giants’ schedule. If anyone was surprised that the Nationals knocked him around Wednesday afternoon, well, they haven’t been paying attention.

Here is a list of the teams Lincecum has earned wins against this season:

  • Mets (2)
  • Dodgers (pre-Ramirez, no Kemp)
  • Astros
  • Padres
  • Phillies
  • Rockies

The only team on that list over .500 is LA, and Lincecum got them in the middle of a 7-game losing stretch during which they scored 5 runs and were shut out five times.

Here’s a list of the teams against which Lincecum gave his team a chance to win, although he did not get a W:

  • A’s (when they were four games under .500)
  • Astros

Lastly, there were two games where Timmy could honestly be called a “hard-luck loser,” when he pitched well but the team lost. Here’s that list:

  • Rockies
  • Diamondbacks

That’s it, folks. 11 decent starts out of 25, and only one of them against a team that you could expect to see in the playoffs. By the way, only four of Lincecum’s losses have come at the hands of what you would call the game’s elite teams, so the rest of his losses have come to some bad teams.

Wondering how Timmy has fared against baseball’s best (Nationals, Pirates, Rangers)? 0-4 with 21ER in 16.1 IP, ERA of 11.57.

So here’s the good news. If Bruce Bochy plays it straight the rest of the way, and nobody gets skipped, Lincecum has eight starts left. Five are against teams he has a chance to beat (Cubs, D-Backs (2), Rockies, Padres). The other three are against the Dodgers twice and the Braves.

What’s my point? Let’s quit waiting for Lincecum to go back to his 2008-10 levels. Maybe he’ll find that gear in the off-season. Let’s just hope he gives the team a chance against the lesser teams on the schedule, and expect him to get pounded by the good ones.

And be grateful that there aren’t more good ones!

Why Do The Giants Get to Keep Those Wins?

There are plenty of questions in the wake of Wednesday’s announcement that Melky Cabrera would be suspended for 50 games for testing positive for testosterone. For the Giants and their fans, the questions are of the “how could this happen?” and “what do we do now?” variety.

In Phoenix, or Los Angeles, the question being asked tonight is, “Why do they get to keep those wins?”

I understand that the answer is obvious, that there is no provision in the PED rules that would require a team to forfeit games played by a person who tests positive, but shouldn’t there be? Is it fair to the Dodgers and Diamondbacks that the Giants got 117 games of an enhanced player?

And if you’re loading up the “testosterone didn’t really help Melky” defense, don’t waste my time. If Melky thought he was capable of the season he’s having this year, and the one he had last year, without PED’s, he wouldn’t have used them. I trust his judgment on the matter, and think it’s ridiculous to try to make the case that his drug use didn’t have an impact on his play.

Cabrera was 18-for-39 this season against Arizona, with 2 homers, 6 RBI and 8 runs scored. The Giants have won four games against the D-Backs, and in those games he was 11-for-17 and scored four runs. If Arizona had won two of those games, they’d trail the Giants by 1.5 games rather than 5.5.  In the four games the Giants have won over the Dodgers, Cabrera was 5-for-15 with 3 runs scored.

According to CSN Bay Area’s Andy Baggerly, the failed test is said to have happened around the All-Star Break. That means Cabrera has played more than a month’s worth of games while he was appealing his suspension. Is that fair? Baseball has a pretty good idea that a player has an illegal edge over his opponents, and yet he gets to keep playing while they make sure?

There’s a strong current of opinion that Cabrera’s suspension is proof that baseball finally has a PED policy that works, and to a degree that’s true. A player who was trying to game the system was caught, and now he pays a penalty. In Cabrera’s case, the penalty is actually bigger than usual, because of his status as a free agent next season. It’s impossible to calculate how much money this escapade has cost him.

But while the policy punishes the guilty player, there’s no sanction against the team which benefited, either knowingly or not, from his presence in the lineup.

Cabrera Has Played His Last Game as a Giant

I’m not a “Giants’ Insider,” but I feel pretty strongly that Melky Cabrera’s suspension means we’ve seen the last of him in a Giants’ uniform. When the announcement was first made, it seemed that Giants fans rushed to their schedules to see how many games the team has left.

It doesn’t matter, folks. Cabrera is done.

Two things can happen the rest of the season. One is that the Giants pull together, hold off LA and Arizona for the Western Division title, and go deep into the playoffs. In which case, they don’t need Melky Cabrera anymore.

The other thing that could happen is that they miss the playoffs this season. While one of the things that makes baseball great is that one player is rarely the difference between a team achieving the post-season or not, if the Giants fail this season, the blame will like squarely at the feet of Melky Cabrera. Gone will be thoughts of the 117 games he played for San Francisco this season, or the 61 wins. This season will be all about the PED’s, and Cabrera’s willingness (or perhaps eagerness) to roll the dice and see how far he could get.

If that scenario comes true, I don’t see the Giants bringing Cabrera back next year. Even though his salary demands will be extremely low, there would be too much emotional baggage to have him around.

No, it’s “circle the wagons” time at AT&T Park, and Cabrera is definitely outside the circle. He’s on his own, to try to get someone to give him a contract next year. That team will not be the San Francisco Giants.

OTHER NOTES ON CABRERA:

1)      If Cabrera had accepted his suspension when he was told about the test, which, according to CSN Bay Area’s Andy Baggerly was near the All-Star break, The Giants would have had three weeks to work a trade to replace his bat. There has been some speculation that the Hunter Pence signing was a more urgent matter because the Giants had gotten wind of Cabrera’s possible suspension. That can’t be true. The Giants have needed another bat for two years now, and Pence was supposed to replace Blanco in the lineup, not Cabrera.

2)      Another benefit to Cabrera not appealing the suspension would have been that he would have come back with almost a month to play, which might have been a more appealing option to the Giants than activating him during the playoffs.

3)       For anyone who looks at sportswriters and thinks “wow, those guys get paid to go to games!,” consider Baggerly’s role in this saga. On June 27th, Baggerly had been hearing on various social networking sites that Cabrera had failed a drug test and was looking at a suspension. Before writing anything about the rumors, Baggerly went to Cabrera, telling him what he was hearing and asking for a comment. Cabrera got upset, proclaiming his innocence and indicating that he didn’t know anything about anything. Baggerly felt that by even talking Cabrera about the story he had linked the player to PED’s, and he apologized in his column for mentioning it to Cabrera. Three weeks later, it turns out that the rumors were really leaks, not rumors, and Baggerly had the story right all along. Trouble is, he never ran with it. Talk about a no-win situation!

A Few Tweaks that Could Save The MLB All-Star Game

Okay, I just can’t help myself. A sports “opinionator” is powerless when it comes to an issue like MLB’s All-Star voting.

First, a few disclaimers. I’m a baseball purist, and I’m older than 25 (okay, significantly older). Those two things may, unfortunately, have become redundant, but as the kids say today, “it is what it is.”

Since the job of All-Star voting was returned to the fans in 1970, the annual listing of the players who were “snubbed” has become as big a part of the game as the list of the guys who get in. Teams have always campaigned for their players, and players who got lots of national TV exposure always had a big advantage.

Because of that history, it’s tempting to look at the results of this year’s selection process and simply say, “well, you can’t make everyone happy,” and leave it at that. Unfortunately, if you’re an “opinionator,:” you need to try to figure out a way to fix it. So here goes.

There are several challenges to fixing this system, not the least of which is that baseball itself has absolutely no interest in doing so. They’ve made several changes to the player selection process over the last few years, including adding much-needed roster spots, but none of these has gotten to the unfortunate root of the thing, which is that most fans are woefully unqualified to pick an All-Star team.

Oh, I can hear it now, all the wailing, “It’s the fans’ game!”

Hey, you know what? Not anymore. You see, one of those changes a few years ago was to take the home field advantage in the World Series and give it to the league that won the All-Star Game. To me, that means it’s no longer “the fans’ game.” It’s serious business, as any team which has led the World Series 3-2 and lost it in seven games will tell you. In fact, you may be surprised to know that 20 of the last 25 World Series were won by the team that played the first two games at home.

It’s ironic, isn’t it, that the very thing that the Commissioner of Baseball came up with to make the game more “meaningful” (meaning: interesting for top players to play hard in) also had the effect of taking the role of the fan out of the selection process. Well, except, it didn’t. In an incredible convolution of logic, the All-Star Game became hugely important in the pursuit of the Championship of the Sport, and yet the most important factor in the game, the selection of the players, was left in the hands of mechanics, schoolteachers, astronauts, six-year-olds and other, less-qualified people.

And here’s the best part! Baseball is thrilled! This year’s voting broke all records! People voted from their computers, from their phones, from kiosks at the ballpark! Early and often (25 votes at a time). This is not going away, folks. So, let’s get back to trying to fix it.

The concern amongst reasonable people is not that Pablo Sandoval won the starting NL 3rd base spot over David Wright. Sandoval doesn’t suck, and Wright is still on the team. No, the problem isn’t what happened out here in San Francisco, it’s what ALMOST happened.

Okay, I just can’t help myself. A sports “opinionator” is powerless when it comes to an issue like MLB’s All-Star voting.

First, a few disclaimers. I’m a baseball purist, and I’m older than 25 (okay, significantly older). Those two things may, unfortunately, have become redundant, but as the kids say today, “it is what it is.”

Since the job of All-Star voting was returned to the fans in 1970, the annual listing of the players who were “snubbed” has become as big a part of the game as the list of the guys who get in. Teams have always campaigned for their players, and players who got lots of national TV exposure always had a big advantage.

Because of that history, it’s tempting to look at the results of this year’s selection process and simply say, “well, you can’t make everyone happy,” and leave it at that. Unfortunately, if you’re an “opinionator,:” you need to try to figure out a way to fix it. So here goes.

There are several challenges to fixing this system, not the least of which is that baseball itself has absolutely no interest in doing so. They’ve made several changes to the player selection process over the last few years, including adding much-needed roster spots, but none of these has gotten to the unfortunate root of the thing, which is that most fans are woefully unqualified to pick an All-Star team.

Oh, I can hear it now, all the wailing, “It’s the fans’ game!”

Hey, you know what? Not anymore. You see, one of those changes a few years ago was to take the home field advantage in the World Series and give it to the league that won the All-Star Game. To me, that means it’s no longer “the fans’ game.” It’s serious business, as any team which has led the World Series 3-2 and lost it in seven games will tell you. In fact, you may be surprised to know that 20 of the last 25 World Series were won by the team that played the first two games at home.

It’s ironic, isn’t it, that the very thing that the Commissioner of Baseball came up with to make the game more “meaningful” (meaning: interesting for top players to play hard in) also had the effect of taking the role of the fan out of the selection process. Well, except, it didn’t. In an incredible convolution of logic, the All-Star Game became hugely important in the pursuit of the Championship of the Sport, and yet the most important factor in the game, the selection of the players, was left in the hands of mechanics, schoolteachers, astronauts, six-year-olds and other, less-qualified people.

And here’s the best part! Baseball is thrilled! This year’s voting broke all records! People voted from their computers, from their phones, from kiosks at the ballpark! Early and often (25 votes at a time). This is not going away, folks. So, let’s get back to trying to fix it.

The concern amongst reasonable people is not that Pablo Sandoval won the starting NL 3rd base spot over David Wright. Sandoval doesn’t suck, and Wright is still on the team. No, the problem isn’t what happened out here in San Francisco, it’s what ALMOST happened.

Brandon Belt and Brandon Crawford, second-year Giants starters who each looked like they could get sent down to the minors at various points this season, both finished second at their positions in the All-Star voting. Crawford, whose glove is magnificent but is hitting under .240, missed getting the start by only 350,000 votes.

Aubrey Huff, who has 9 hits in 58 at-bats, finished 17th in the voting in the outfield. Freddy Sanchez, who has not spent one minute on the active roster this season, finished fourth in the balloting at second base. Both of them had over 1.9 million votes. Really!

This should scare MLB. Because of the World Series appearances in 2002 and 2010, the Giants have a very strong fan base in the 18-34 age group, and they are wired to the teeth. The fact that they’re not competent to vote for All-Star teams is not their fault. If you take someone who’s never driven a car and give them the keys, you bear some responsibility for what happens.

Okay, that’s the problem, what do you do to fix it? First of all, there has to be a way to remove people from the ballot if they haven’t played enough games. That would have taken care of not only Sanchez and Huff, but Sandoval. Pablo missed 35 of the team’s 80 games this season, and that alone should remove him from consideration for a starting spot.

Secondly, there could be a minimum performance standard for position players. Maybe a player needs to be in the top 10 in the league in any of the key offensive categories to be eligible to be voted on. This can’t be that difficult. I understand that there are still paper ballots that are printed way ahead of time, but any votes for ineligible players would simply not be counted. That would take care of the Belt and Crawford situations, which came very close to being very embarrassing for MLB.

Lastly, it’s time to recognize that things in the world have changed since 1970, and we need to let go of the rule requiring each team to have a representative in the game. It was a nice rule when it was first implemented, but again, now that the game counts, a manager has to make sure he’s got all the positions and pitcher spots covered. Ron Washington chose a rookie closer from the A’s, Ryan Cook, because he needed a relief pitcher. Cook’s been a nice surprise, but he has 7 career saves in 10 career opportunities. And he’s an All-Star? Over Josh Reddick? Really?

So there you have it. We keep fan voting, as ridiculous as the concept is, and just try to limit the damage. If they don’t do something, the Giants could have the whole starting eight next year. There’s no market that has the combination of sellout crowds, high TV ratings and internet penetration that the Giants enjoy, and they’re not afraid to use it.

Why Alex Smith Will be Back with the 49ers Next Season

March 19, 2012

So it’s decided. Peyton Manning’s going to Denver after all. For 49ers’ fans, who were casual observers of the Manning Saga until they were suddenly thrust into the middle of it Friday morning, there’s a feeling of loss today.

On the surface, nothing has changed. The team didn’t have a starting QB under contract before Friday, and they don’t today. Alex Smith was available Friday, and he still has not signed a contract.

Below the surface, however, it seems like everything is different. The 2011 49ers were a team built on chemistry and belief in each other, and it all started with Jim Harbaugh’s announcement that he would be just fine with Alex Smith as his quarterback. We all know how it turned out.

Now, we don’t know what to think. Is Harbaugh’s faith in Alex shaken? Does this mean they can’t work together anymore? What about Smith’s teammates, who took their cues about Alex from their coach? Does the team’s pursuit of Peyton Manning mean that they shouldn’t believe in #11?

No, no, and a resounding no.

Hey, I understand that part of the fun part of being a sports fan is putting yourself in the position of the people we watch and trying to imagine how they feel as events unfold. The problem is, unless you’ve actually been there, you have no idea what’s going on and how anybody feels. So before you make an analogy involving the 49ers’ pursuit of Manning and marital infidelity (an analogy I’ve heard on sports radio several times over the past few days), get a hold of yourself.

You heard it here first. Smith will be the quarterback for the 49ers this year. Not out of loyalty or some other emotional motivation; It’s simply the best fit for him. He’s played in a lot of systems for a lot of coordinators over the years, and for him to get his panties in a bunch and leave the team over their interest in a future Hall-of-Famer would be all kinds of stupid. I know there are still plenty of people who don’t believe Smith can take this team to the Super Bowl, but I never heard any of them say that the reason was that he was stupid.

From the 49ers standpoint, it makes just as much sense. Kaepernick is not ready, and nobody else is available to them who projects to win more games than Smith, now that Manning is on his way to Denver.

The irony is that Smith’s detractors will have to do two things: 1) Be impressed that the 49ers tried to upgrade the position, and 2) welcome Smith back as the best option for the team for next season. It actually removes some of the pressure on him to make up for what many people feel was a sub-par performance in the NFC Championship game last year.

Smith was wise to go to Miami and take the temperature down there. Had Manning signed with the 49ers, the Dolphins were really going to be his only option if he wanted to remain a starter.His visit there does not mean that his feelings were hurt to the point that he wouldn’t come back to the ‘Niners, it just meant that he was doing his due diligence, which, again, is a sign of his intelligence.

The 49ers kicked the tires on Peyton Manning. I think they would have gotten him if they weren’t up against  a desperate man, but John Elway was not going to lose out on his only chance to get out from under Tim Tebow. If you can blame the 49ers for anything, it was not seeing that coming. They could have saved themselves some time and trouble, but it will not cost them Alex Smith.

 

Eli: Mr Clutch? Try Mr. Lucky

Written February 8th, 2012

As is often the case, I feel the need to start this column with a disclaimer: I have nothing against Eli Manning or the New York Giants. I actually pulled for them in their first Super Bowl win four years ago, and watched this year’s game as an interested, but unbiased, observer (let’s face it, unless you’re from New England, the Patriots are pretty hard to root for).

So the viewpoint I bring to you today, while certainly a minority one, is not one developed in resentment over a game result, but one that started in my head watching the Giants beat the Packers three weeks ago, the 49ers two weeks ago, and the Patriots in the Super Bowl last night.

I have never seen a luckier big-game quarterback than Eli Manning.

I’ll go into specific plays in a moment, plays that kept the Giants’ run to the title alive that Eli had nothing (or very little) to do with, but first, I need to address the “Eli is a Hall of Fame Lock” meme that has taken hold in the sports media after SB46.

Manning’s career regular season record is 69-50. His playoff record is 8-3, but all eight of those wins have come in the Giants’ two Super Bowl runs. The Giants have been “one-and-done” three times in Manning’s seven-year career, and missed the playoffs entirely twice. In one of those seasons, the Giants made the playoffs despite being 8-8, and in the other two, had home-field advantage and still lost their only game.

Manning has the distinction of quarterbacking the Super Bowl champions with the two worst winning percentages, 10-6 in 2007 and 9-7 this year.

Not exactly Hall of Fame stuff, in my opinion, but I’ll tip my hat to him, he’s got something special going for him. Let’s examine how these two Super Bowl Championships came to be.

I’m going to just give one example of Manning’s luck from the 2007 season, but it’s a good one. Guy catches a game-changing pass on the top of his helmet. Yes, Eli made a nice play to evade the rush, and got the ball down there, but David Tyree, or any other receiver, makes that play “zero times out of a hundred.” Chris Collinsworth wasn’t doing that game, but that’s what he would have said.

That was the defining play of that game, and of that season, and for the quarterback, it was sheer luck that it worked out that way. If that pass falls incomplete, which by all rights it should have, Manning, obviously, is neither the winning QB nor the MVP.

This season, I started paying attention to the Giants’ luck in their divisional final game against Green Bay. The New York Times, however, was kind enough to write a story before last nights’ game listing a few regular-season breaks that went the Giants way and kept the playoff fires burning.

In Green Bay, the Giants benefited first from Packers’ coach Mike McCarthy’s controversial decision to rest his starters in the final regular season game, which, combined with the bye week, gave them three weeks between meaningful snaps. The Packers, who also suffered a terrible personal loss with the death of the son of OC Joe Philbin, never got in synch, and QB Aaron Rogers saw his receivers drop six very catchable balls that could have helped his cause. The game turned on a Hail Mary play at the end of the first half that seemed to take Green Bay by surprise, despite the fact that they took a timeout prior to the play. They didn’t have enough players in the end zone when the ball came down, and as a result went into halftime trailing 20-10 instead of 13-10.

Did Manning play well? Of course! He moved the ball against Green Bay’s defense at will in the second half, and kept the ball out of Rogers’ hands. Were the Giants very lucky that the Packers, who flirted with perfection until late in the regular season, picked that day to be decidedly imperfect? Yes, they were.

That luck held in San Francisco. Everyone remembers the Kyle Williams muff (unforced error) and fumble (great special teams play, Manning was on the sidelines) that turned the game around, but I think the two best examples of Manning’s not being worthy of the “Mr Clutch” label were two other fourth-quarter plays.

Eli threw two balls that not one, but two defenders had legit shots to intercept. As an added bonus for him, the first of those two plays knocked out CB Tarell Brown, and it was Brown’s replacement who was exploited for the Giants’ go-ahead TD. That score came just two snaps after the second of these throws, when Carlos Rogers and Dashon Goldson (who was also the one who collided with Brown earlier) interfered with each other’s attempt to make the pickoff.

In neither case did Manning’s intended receiver have any chance to catch the ball. If there had been only one defender present, there would have either been an interception or a drop. Either of those outcomes are acceptable, as the teams each get what they “deserve.” Interception drops happen all the time, and when they do, the defense suffers as it should.

When, however, the ball hits the turf not as a result of a defender making a bad play, but because the pass was so poorly thrown that two defenders had a shot to intercept it, then the QB is one lucky son-of-a-gun, and to have it happen twice in one quarter with the Super Bowl on the line puts a guy into lotto-winner territory.

Were the Giants lucky to win the Super Bowl? I say yes. Again, Eli stood on the sidelines and watched an opposing offense drop pass after pass. When the Patriots had a chance to put the game away in the fourth quarter, Wes Welker dropped a pass that would have kept that drive alive. When Brady got the ball back unexpectedly with a chance to win the game, his first two passes were both dropped. The Giants fumbled three times, with one being nullified by a penalty and the other two bouncing right to teammates.

I’m not saying that Eli Manning doesn’t deserve to be in the Hall of Fame ever. I’m just saying that his first seven years have been marked by inconsistency, and that his two crowning achievements were due more to luck than skill. There’s no shame in that; luck is a big part of any sport. Ask a golfer who just crushed a drive and sees it land in a divot 300 yards away about that.

When we’re talking about the Hall of Fame, however, we need to evaluate not just the end results, and not just the high points, of a player’s career. The Bradys, Montanas and Bradshaws of the NFL reached the pantheon with consistent 12+win seasons, trips to the conference finals and Super Bowls, and season MVP awards. The only time Manning has won 12 games in a season he lost his first playoff game, despite a first-round bye and home field advantage. He has never led the league in any passing statistic.

So raise your glasses and tip your hats to the Giants and Eli Manning today. They won the games, which is what the Championship

Greg Knapp is no “Re-tread”

Written February 1st, 2012

It started Monday evening, like everything else does these days, on Twitter. First I saw CSNBayArea’s Paul Gutierrez’ tweet saying that the Raiders had offered the offensive coordinator job to Greg Knapp. Hmm, I thought, I wonder how that’s going down with Raider Nation?

So I searched “Knapp”, and smoke started to slowly seep out of my phone. One tweet after another, “Greg ‘take a’ Knapp,” “Let’s bring JaMarcus back, too,” “What are they doing?” and, of course, “retread.”

On the radio today, I heard John Lund on 95.7 The Game lay out a pretty detailed analysis of Knapp’s career, including his time with the Raiders, and his conclusion, along with every guest he had on the show from Indy, was that it was a pretty good hire. What did his partner, Mychael Urban, think? “He’s a retread, John. I don’t like retreads.”

So I thought I’d try to help calm everybody down. First of all, what’s a retread in coaching? Someone who, despite a lack of success, continues to be hired to coaching positions, usually head coaching positions. Greg Knapp has been an assistant coach in the NFL for over 20 years. The Raiders years were  easily the least distinguished of his career, but you can hardly say that he hasn’t been successful. He has coached in the playoffs in San Francisco, Atlanta and Houston, the first two as a coordinator.  You could hardly blame Knapp for the Raiders’ problems those two years, and the truth is the team got worse offensively after Tom Cable stripped him of the OC title.

He has that “demotion” on his resume, but Knapp has never been “fired,” in the sense that Greg Manusky was let go by Norv Turner after this season. He’s lost jobs, but only when the head coach he worked for got axed. He was on Steve Mariucci’s staff with the 49ers when Steve was surprisingly fired, and he got canned in Atlanta when Jim Mora wore out his welcome there. Mora spent the next two years as an assistant, and as soon as he got another head coaching job, he re-hired Knapp. The Seahawks changed their minds on Mora after just one year, and Knapp was looking for work again. Gary Kubiak hired him to be the QB coach in Houston, working with Matt Schaub, whom he had coached in Atlanta.

So Schaub gets hurt, and then Matt Leinert gets hurt, and the Texans are down to C.J. Yates. You all know how that turned out, but you might have forgotten that Knapp was the guy who got the credit for “coaching him up” and winning a playoff game.

There’s a theme in Knapp’s career. People who have worked with him before want to work with him again. Do you think that Matt Schaub would have wanted Knapp to be the QB coach if he didn’t respect him from their days in Atlanta?  Think Shaub was worried that Knapp was a retread?

Here’s another way to look at it, Raiders fans. Let’s just say Dennis Allen really wanted Greg Knapp, but the people in the Raiders’ offices really didn’t like him. There are still many people in that organization who were there when Knapp was there. They know better than any of us what went wrong in those lost seasons, and if Knapp was to blame, they wouldn’t want him back. Would Allen want the distraction of shoving Knapp down the organization’s throat, with all he has to do the next couple of years? No way.

All right, I’m going to make one more pass at this to help Raider fans give this guy a chance. Do you like Darren McFadden, Raider Fans? Of course you do. Well, McFadden will love Greg Knapp. His SF teams were 2nd, 5th and 6th in rushing in his three years there, and the Falcons led the league in rushing in all three of his seasons running that show.

Did you see how Texas ran the ball the last few years? Okay, I can see how you don’t want to give Knapp credit for that, it wasn’t his offense. But the architect of the blocking schemes that the Texans use to run the ball is a guy named Alex Gibbs. Who’s that? Just the guy who put the Denver Broncos running game together that finally carried John Elway to the Super Bowl Championship in the 90’s. Remember those Broncos teams, how 1,000-yard rushers would appear out of nowhere every year? Gibbs did that. Kubiak brought him to Houston in 2008 to do the same thing in Houston.

What does this have to do with Greg Knapp? Alex Gibbs was also on the Falcons staff with Knapp and Dennis Allen. I think you can expect that the Raiders will hire an OL coach with experience in Gibbs’ system, and Knapp will coordinate an offense that will make Darren McFadden and his fans very happy.

I think this is the fourth straight outstanding move by the Raiders. The hiring of Reggie McKenzie, the decision to cut ties with Hue Jackson, and the hiring of Allen were all big steps forward for this team, and Knapp is another piece of the puzzle they’re trying to put together.

Raider Fans, you’ve been through a lot these past ten years, but hang in there. There’s a light at the end of the tunnel, and it might not be a train.

 

Super Bowl XI – Raiders break through

Published at CSNBayArea.com on February 2nd, 2012

Much was made a few weeks ago about the 30th anniversary of “The Catch,” but this season is also a significant anniversary for the NFL team on the other side of the Bay. Thirty-five years ago, the Oakland Raiders won the first of their three Super Bowls, defeating the Minnesota Vikings 32-14.

For the Raiders, the victory was made sweeter by the fact that they had finally won “The Big One” after years of frustration. Oakland had played for a Super Bowl berth six times in the eight seasons between 1968 and 1975. It lost every one of those games and every single time, the victors went on to win the Super Bowl.

Thus, the 1976 season began with a huge weight on the shoulders of the Raiders, and especially coach John Madden and quarterback Ken Stabler.  As fate would have it, their very first game was against the team that had ended their previous two seasons, the Pittsburgh Steelers.  The Steelers took a 21-7 lead early in the fourth quarter, but the Raiders came storming back with 24 fourth-quarter points and won the game on a late field goal.

The Steelers and Raiders were famous for their dislike for one another, and things didn’t get any better in this game. Raiders safety George Atkinson knocked Steelers receiver Lynn Swann out with a forearm to the back of the head — on a running play. In fact, on the NFL Films highlight you can see Atkinson clock Swann — then a second later Franco Harris barrels past on a 25-yard run!

The comeback win, and the Atkinson-Swann incident, set the tone for the Raiders’ season. They barely survived games against Kansas City and Houston, and took a shaky 3-0 record to New England to face the Patriots. The Raiders were blown out, as Steve Grogan threw two TD passes to Darryl Stingley and ran for two more scores. The final score was 48-17.

As it turned out, that was the only game the Raiders lost in 1976. They had a couple of close calls, the closest being when Bears kicker Bob Thomas hit the upright on what would have been a game-winning field goal. Their biggest blowout of the season was a 49-16 win over the expansion Tampa Buccaneers led by QB Steve Spurrier.

The Raiders were unconventional on both sides of the ball. On offense, they were “left-handed,” with a southpaw QB in Stabler and perennial All-Pros Gene Upshaw and Art Shell at left guard and left tackle, respectively. Tight End Dave Casper often lined up on the left side, which was highly unusual at the time. They controlled the ball on the ground with an incredible line and backs Mark Van Eeghen and Clarence Davis, with Pete Banaszak coming off the bench when it was time to stick it in the end zone.

When defenses cheated up to play the run, they paid a terrible price. Flanker Cliff Branch, one of the most underrated players in NFL history, had his best season in 1976. He averaged a stunning 24.15 yards per catch, and scored 12 TDs. While he was stretching the field vertically, sticky-fingered split-end Fred Biletnikoff and Casper were finding holes underneath. Stabler completed exactly two-thirds of his 291 passes, leading the league by a fairly wide margin.

On the defensive side of the ball, the Raiders had changed to a 3-4 defense, still a pretty novel concept at the time.  The personnel was a combination of All-Pros (Ted Hendricks, Phil Villapiano, Willie Brown) and guys who came out of nowhere (Willie Hall, Monte Johnson, Skip Thomas). The result was a defense that was not easy to run on (10th in the NFL), which was a bigger deal back in 1976 than it is now.
There was little drama involving the AFC West, as the Raiders clinched the title in Week 12. The remaining intrigue in the regular season centered around Game 13, a Monday night matchup at home against the 9-3 Cincinnati Bengals. If Cincinnati won, the Steelers would have been eliminated from the playoffs, and more than one observer felt the Raiders would have been better served to lose to Cincinnati to avoid the red-hot Steel Curtain.

Madden, of course, was not interested in any such scenario, and he later called the 35-20 win over the Bengals one of the proudest of his career.

To start the playoffs, the Raiders had a rematch with the Patriots, the one team that had beaten them. The playoff game looked like a repeat, with New England taking a 21-10 lead into the 4th quarter in Oakland. Stabler dug into his bag of comebacks, however, and the Raiders survived to meet Pittsburgh in the AFC Championship for the third straight time.

Unfortunately for history, the Steeler team that played in Oakland that day was without both starting running backs, Franco Harris and Rocky Bleier, and the Raiders rolled 24-7.

After six failures on the doorstep, the Raiders weren’t going to be fussy about how they finally got to the Super Bowl. Instead, they dealt out some misery of their own, handing the Minnesota Vikings their fourth Super Bowl loss, controlling the game from start to finish. Biletnikoff was named the game’s MVP, although he didn’t score any of the Raiders’ four TDs. He did have four catches for 79 yards, and three times was tackled at the Vikings’ 1-yard line.

It was a glorious day in Pasadena, the last outdoor day game in Super Bowl history, and as the Raiders carried John Madden off the field on their shoulders his grin was so wide that radio announcer Bill King said he looked “like a split watermelon.” It was the grin, finally, of a champion.

49ers-Giants a rivalry for the ages

Published on CSNBayArea.com on January 19, 2012

Since the 49ers clinched the NFC West title and assured themselves a spot in the playoffs, people have been talking about their last playoff appearance nine years ago, highlighted by that wild 39-38 win over the Giants at Candlestick Park.

What people may not remember is that the 49ers and Giants have a rich playoff history, both in number (this is the eighth postseason meeting between the two teams, which ties an NFL record) and significance. Here is a rundown of that history:

49ers 38, Giants 24 – NFC Divisional Playoff, Jan. 3, 1982
This was the first playoff appearance for the 49ers in 10 years. Two seasons before, the 49ers had been 2-14 in Bill Walsh’s first year. Suddenly they were 13-3 and hosting a playoff game! The Niners never trailed, taking advantage of four Giants turnovers. Ronnie Lott had two picks, one of which he returned for a TD to put the game away in the fourth quarter.
Significance:  Without this win, there’s no “The Catch.” Dallas was the next opponent for the 49ers on the march toward their first Super Bowl.

49ers 21, Giants 10 – NFC Divisional Playoff, Dec. 29, 1984
The 49ers rolled through the NFL that year, losing only one regular-season game. They scored twice in the first quarter on passes from Joe Montana to Dwight Clark and Russ Francis, and cruised to victory despite Montana throwing three interceptions. The  defense also forced three turnovers, and no points were scored in the second half.
Significance: The Giants may have gone quietly in this game, but they were becoming the team that would win two Super Bowls.  Bill Parcells had become head coach, and Phil Simms and Joe Morris were established starters. From the 49ers standpoint, it’s easy to forget that while this may have been their best team, Jerry Rice was a still senior at Mississippi Valley State.

Giants 17, 49ers 3 – NFC Wild Card game, Dec. 29, 1985
What a difference exactly one year made! The 49ers finished second to the Los Angeles Rams in the NFC West, so they were forced to go to the Meadowlands to face the Giants, who also were 10-6 but had won the NFC East. The Giants ran the ball down San Francisco’s throat with Joe Morris, and while the 49ers were able to move the ball through the air (Montana threw for 296 yards), the Giants kept them out of the end zone.
Significance: This was the first time in the Bill Walsh Era that the 49ers failed to score a touchdown in a playoff game. It would not, unfortunately, be the last.

Giants 49, 49ers 3, NFC Divisional Playoff, Jan. 4, 1987
Easily the worst playoff loss for the 49ers in terms of the score, but this one hurt in more ways than one. In the second quarter, with the Giants already leading 21-3, Giants nose tackle Jim Burt hit Joe Montana as he was releasing a pass. Montana bounced off the Meadowlands Astroturf with a sickening thud, and Lawrence Taylor intercepted the pass and returned it for a TD. Montana did not return to the game, and the 49ers’ chances of winning left with him.
Significance: For the third time in the four playoff matchups between these two teams, the winner would go on to win the Super Bowl.

Giants 15, 49ers 13, NFC Championship Game, Jan. 20, 1991
After the playoff debacle of four years before, the 49ers had re-asserted themselves as the top dog in the NFL. They won Super Bowls following the 1988 and 1989 seasons, surviving the retirement of Bill Walsh in-between. They had also dominated their rivals from the east, beating the Giants in four straight regular-season matchups, including a 7-3 struggle earlier in the 1990 season. The 49ers seemed to have this game in hand with a 13-12 lead in the fourth quarter when Roger Craig fumbled while trying to run out the clock. The Giants recovered, kicked a field goal, and won 15-13.
Significance: There are two significant facts from this game: 1) Seven times in NFL history, Super Bowl champions have repeated the following year. No team has ever won three in a row. You could make an argument the 49ers came closer to accomplishing that feat than any other team in NFL history. This loss, while it doesn’t tarnish the team’s great legacy, still stings for 49ers players, coaches and fans alike. 2) As if the loss alone wasn’t enough, this game was effectively the end of Joe Montana’s incredible career with the 49ers. He was injured late in the game, taking a huge shot from Leonard Marshall, missed almost the entire 1991 season, and was traded to Kansas City.

49ers 44, Giants 3, NFC Divisional Playoff, Jan. 15, 1994
This was a different 49ers team than the one which had those great battles with the Giants over the previous 10 years. Rickey Watters scored 5 TDs but the 49ers would fall next week to the Cowboys.
Significance: It put the fire in the belly of the Steve Young-led team that won the Super Bowl over San Diego the next season, propelled by a win over Chicago in the NFC Divisional game and a 38-21 defeat of Dallas in the NFC title game.

49ers 39, Giants 38, NFC Wild Card Game, Jan. 5, 2003
The Giants were seemingly in control 38-14 in the third quarter before Jeff Garcia led the 49ers to 35 unanswered points. The Giants had a chance to win the game with a late field goal, but a botched snap cost them that opportunity.
Significance: This was the last gasp of the 49ers Dynasty, as it turned out. Twenty-one years after the first playoff meeting between these two teams, they met again on the soggy turf at Candlestick . The outcome, a crazy finish Hollywood would have turned down, was an indication of things to come as the once-proud franchise turned into a revolving door of coaches and players. Until now.

McKenzie’s House-Cleaning is the Obvious Course

January 14, 2012

There will be considerable hand-wringing and consternation on the part of many Raiders fans as they learn that Hue Jackson is no longer their team’s head coach.

For reasons I’ve had a hard time understanding, Jackson has largely escaped blame for the disastrous 8-8 season the Raiders just completed, and fans and many media members just assumed he’d be back for a second season.

But what would you do in McKenzie’s situation? Here is your choice regarding the head coach. First, let’s look at the reasons to keep him:

1)      He was a rookie last year, and should get better

2)      The team had several key injuries last year

That’s about all I have. I can’t think of one thing that Hue Jackson did for the Raiders, one stamp he put on that team, which would lead to him being given the precious spot as “Reggie McKenzie’s First Coach.”

Now, here are just a few things on the other side of the ledger:

1)      The play by the team in the fourth quarter was atrocious all season long

2)      The Raiders broke a record for penalties. It wasn’t just the usual Raider penalties; they were not lining up correctly, even late in the season

3)      His handling of the media was unprofessional at best. This was probably best exemplified when he kept everyone in the dark regarding whether Carson Palmer would play against Kansas City.

4)      His post-season press conference, when he said that “now that the season is over, I can tell you what I really think,” told everyone that he had been dishonest with them all season.

5)      The fact that all of the above reasons were present all season  gives no indication that Jackson was aware of the problems or had any idea how to fix them.

McKenzie reportedly told Jackson that none of these things were factors in the decision to not bring him back, and that is probably true. McKenzie has been waiting a really long time for this opportunity, and he’d be crazy not to look at every coaching possibility. He’s probably been keeping notes for years about people he’d call if he ever got this far, and I’m guessing that Jackson was not on that list. Announcing the firing before his introductory press conference removes that distraction, and also sends the message throughout the organization (and the locker room) that everyone is up for review.

The bottom line, Raider fans, is that this is really good news for you. Jackson hired by the only person in the NFL who ever would have hired him, Al Davis. 15 years as an assistant at five colleges, nobody ever gave him the shot. 11 years as an assistant in the pros with five teams, and finally Al Davis promoted him to head coach.

Al, as we all know, liked a particular kind of head coach, and one of the things he liked was a coach that was extremely grateful for the opportunity. 25-year assistants are that kind of grateful.  Davis wanted to call the shots, and he didn’t want an accomplished head coach disagreeing with him on anything. Even the men he hired who had been head coaches (Norv Turner, Joe Bugel, Art Shell), were not sought-after candidates.

Reggie McKenzie brings to the Raiders the experience in working in one of the league’s best organizations. He will structure the team in the Packers’ likeness, and that includes a strong head coach who will run that part of the program. Look for similar hires in personnel and “capology.” In the days following McKenzie’s hiring, the chorus from around the NFL was unanimous, “good guy, smart guy.” This means he will have his pick of people that he wants to surround himself with, and that can only be good for the Raider fans.

It might not be good for current Raiders’ employees, however. I wouldn’t be signing long-term leases right now if I were working in that front office, or if was a free-agent player. To steal a line from “48 hours,” There’s a new sheriff in town, and his name is Reggie McKenzie.