That Aud Smell

Remember that conversation that some sports blogging pranksters created, and then recorded, between Buddy Nix and some other team's FO exec? Nix freely admitted: It was a terrible year to need a QB. They took their best shot.

I'm good with Tyrod coming back next year -- even knowing everything that he is, and is not. In point of fact, I'd rather they change OC's than try to do something different at QB next year (or, at least, tweak the current system so it's not such an ill fit for Taylor (and maybe that's already occurred?)). If they do draft a QB in round 1, I'd prefer he not be obliged to start.

Nice feature on Matt Milano in today's paper. The guy really has played quite well. Occurs to me: McDermott sure does love him some Boston College linebackers.

There's a LOTTA context outside of that one hit into the boards. And it was a different game in the 70s, wherein teams like the Bruins and Flyers made it their business to intimidate their opponents with physical play and regular beat-downs.

That's not how the rule gets applied, though. Yeah? I mean, players regularly draw the puck in a backward direction in the course of stick-handling or making a deke. Movement toward the goal seems to be evaluated from a bigger picture perspective.

^ That English reads pretty simply to me. I saw the Twitter replies to the NHL's posting of the video and a comment upthread. There's the talk about how lateral movement is permitted by the rule. I don't see anything about lateral movement in the rule. But it's possible that interpretive memos (remember those?) have clarified that you can move laterally across the face of the goal or goal line, so long as you remain in motion.

I read that they used ping pong balls to draw the groups. That remains the easiest lot drawing system to rig. Unreal - even for FIFA.

Not a’tall. Eff that guy forever.

Nice hit? Maybe “You’re next, big boy.”

Agree wholeheartedly, neo and d4rk. The supposed obligation to fight after a clean hit is among the dumbest things going in sports. Talking out of both sides of my mouth, I am. In my defence, we thought the hit was perhaps a bit late or cheap as we watched live. Just watched the goal broadcast. It was weak sauce. Needed RJ and a “how do you do?”

Tyrod practiced. On track to start.

Wassssup was pretty great. Dilly Dilly doesn't do it for me. Although an interview with the guy who was the creative force behind "Dilly Dilly" made me reconsider the matter -- he totally came off as a jolly, fun-loving sort of fellow, and he was carrying several extra beers around, so to speak. Maybe he's related to Santa?

Good takes generally, these two especially. I still believe that Reinhart projects as a good top-6 NHLer. But something's terribly amiss with him. I do think it's probably correctable. But maybe not. Pouliot gives me hope for JBOT as a GM. I agree on the Nolan issue. We actually stayed past the 5:00 mark, thinking there'd be a scrap. Excellent point on the thin line between success and failure. Not sure it showed up on TV, but Phaneuf got tangled up with Pominville (?) and was dinged and angry as a result, poking at Pominville with his stick. Then he went back over to the far boards and tried to make a hit, and got wrecked by someone (Risto?). He then limped off to the bench -- cat-calls raining down on him.

I went to the game. Getting through the 1st was rough — what an awful period of hockey. The 2nd was obviously quite entertaining. Yay. The first half of the 3rd, I think the Sabres had a shot or two om goal — no bueno. But then they had a few good shifts and piled up some shots, such that they didn’t need to win by taking 15 SOG and shooting 20%. A win’s a win. McKenzie said OTT is going to hell in a rocket, or something. I’d have to agree. The Sabres are still an under-achieving roster that played well for only about 40% of the game. But the Senators look checked the eff out.

I was hoping he would start to catch on and earn a spot. One step forward, two steps back, it seems. No, it does not. This one, though, sounds like a true influenza. I agree. But the guy's got to earn it -- make it impossible to take him out of the lineup. I'm inferring he started off strong, and faded. He's done that before.

I'm not suggesting that he's a manipulative genius. Maybe we're more talking past each other. I believe that he genuinely, truly believes the stuff he says and the beliefs to which he ascribes. I don't think that he's necessarily a simpleton about that stuff, though. I'm jammed up this week, and I can't clearly articulate my take on this. It's a somewhat complicated bit of business, I think.

Oh, FFS. Funny, too, how when young Kellen Winslow proclaims he's an effing soldier, there's blow-back for decades. Well turned. Yes, and yes. I think you misunderestimate him. More and more, I agree. I also will admit, though, that there's a path for that sort of BS to work in the NFL.

You’ll make your point in a stronger manner if you resist the urge to fall back on hateful, harmful turns of phrase for the purported sake of emphasis.

Well, now, wait a second. I'm not down for the broad brush of "Sean the Wrestler a/k/a the Jesus freak" stuff. He may be in over his head on some of this strategic stuff, but he's done a more than commendable job on a lot of other key items, I think. Maybe he isn't cut out for the job. But the fact that he took a path that a lot of NFL coaches would probably take doesn't seem to indicate, per se, that he's out of his depth. There's something to this. And to this! OTOH, it makes me nuts that the team's HC wasn't weighing the team's playoff hopes in the context of an OT game in December.

According to one Tweet, McDermott later specifically said that his decision to punt with 4+ minutes to go in OT was not informed by potential playoff scenarios. I'm telling you, man. Geeeez. The one potential saving grace (ha!): He kinda sorta suggested that there were things he would learn from the scenario, even while acknowledging the decision worked out in that instance.

Evidently, McDermott in today's press conference intimated that he was NOT focusing on playoff implications when he decided to punt, that it was, at most, one of many variables he would consider. He also seemed to say that a tie might have helped them under some scenarios. Welp.

NFW. Reason being:

I guess he did say that, didn't he? That's nonsense, of course. NFW McDermott didn't know the W-L situation -- he just happened to think punting there gave the team the best chance to win. Which really does seem illogical to me. Would I rather take my chances on getting a long yard, or kick the ball away and put the other team in control of the ball? Webb's improbable throw and McCoy's dash in the snow totally bailed out McDermott.

In the context of one of his rants against the punt call, I heard Schopp chirp "faith-based" during the post-game show. Amen, I say. My youngest is now a relatively decent Madden player on his Playstation. There have been two, maybe three, distinct game-management situations that McDermott has botched (if forward-thinking, strategy-based logic is to be endorsed) that my kid, who's either just started or is not yet in middle school (depending on how you measure it), immediately rebuked and decried. (The other one I recall specifically is when McDermott, for no reason I could detect, ran the clock down to :09 before kicking a FG against the Chiefs before the half. Why not let it run to :04 or :03?) It seems astonishing that NFL coaches can't, won't, or don't get that sort of stuff. With regard to the Colts game, it seems like such a simple proposition: Taking into account the time remaining and what the team needs in order to preserve its playoff hopes, what are the odds of winning if you try to get a yard at your opponent's 41, versus the odds of winning if you kick it away. What does the data say? I am sure it strongly favors going for it. There must be more to it than McDermott just not knowing about this sort of stuff, or just not getting it. There must be. But what? Is there some human relation/motivation factor that's not being accounted for? Do HC's find that the D is primed, locked, and loaded if you pin the opponent behind their 20 and affirmatively turn the matter over to your D to help save the game? ANd do HC's find that the D is correspondingly on its heels if you turn it over on downs at the 41?