NFL Picks: Super Bowl XLVI

No more football :(


Last Week
Nick: 1-1
Figgs: 1-1
Joe: 1-1

Nick's $ Picks: 1-1


Playoffs
Nick: 7-3
Figgs: 5-5
Joe: 4-6

Nick's $ Picks: 6-3
Figgs' $ Picks: 2-2


Super Bowl XLVI

PATRIOTS (-3) vs Giants
Figgs:
Joe: Giants; I have been going back and forth on this for a week and a half so I decided to just make a damn pick. I don't like the fact that everyone seems to like the Giants, because we've seen how good Brady is when he is extra movivated (see Brady vs. Tebow in the division round). However, I just think the Giants have the better team. I thought that when they beat New England during the regular season, and I still do. They have the pass rush to be able to frustrate Brady. Eli, on the other hand, will not face nearly the type of pressure that San Fran was able to put on him and I don't see the likes of Julian Edleman being able to cover Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks. So, I like the Giants to beat New England in the Big Game for the second time in the last 5 years.
Nick:

Andy

Twenty games into the 2011-12 season, at what would normally constitute a quarter of the CaVs' season, I thought initially that I would write about what I've seen so far from the 8-12 CaVs; the rapid development of Kyrie Irving, surprising contributions from Alonzo Gee and Samardo Samuels, and a club that gets out-talented many nights but rarely outworked.

Instead, I want to talk about the Cavaliers' MVP, Anderson Varejão. Yes, I know Irving has the brightest future and is the unquestioned franchise player. But right now, I think Andy means more to the club than anyone else on the roster. A quick look at his per-game stats for the season through 19 games (tonight's Celtics game, in which he had 14 at half, not included), if you please:

Raw Numbers
10.0 points
11.0 rebounds
1.7 assists
1.4 steals
0.7 blocks

Other stats
17.3 PER (only trailing Irving among Cavs)
2nd in NBA in offensive boards
4th in NBA in rebounds
2nd in NBA in rebound % (1st in offensive rebound %)

The thing that so many have said about Varejão's contributions to the CaVs are that they are the sorts of plays that "don't show up on the stat sheet." I would submit that they do indeed show up on the stat sheet - look above if you don't believe me. That's a stat sheet! Do you kow how many NBA players currently average a double-double? Eleven - all eleven guys who pull down 10 or more boards a game, in case you were wondering. It ain't easy. Varejão puts up more impressive numbers than fans of his frenetic, hustling style may even realize.

Of course, that style does indeed add beyond-the-box-score value to Varejão's already impressive line. Even when Andy first came to the Cavaliers in 2004-05 as a raw 22-year-old, he had that scrappiness and nose for the ball that you still see today, but without nearly the finesse to his game that he has now. His knack for loose balls and tipbacks prolonged numerous Cav possessions and ended prematurely those of Cleveland's opponents. Despite the limited minutes he earned at first, Varejão was one of the six Cavs that Coach Mike Brown trusted in crunch time during those first two playoff runs in '06 and '07.

Remember how the Cavaliers acquired their Brazilian big man? From Basketball Reference:

Traded by the Orlando Magic with Drew Gooden and Steven Hunter to the Cleveland Cavaliers for Tony Battie, a 2005 2nd round draft pick (Martynas Andriuskevicius) and a 2007 2nd round draft pick (Brad Newley).

Yeah. At the time, Varejão was a lightly-regarded defensive specialist, and his defensive prowess remains his chief strength today. At 6'11" and 260, he's tall and big enough to stand up to most of the game's toughest centers, but lanky and active enough to cover power forwards as well. This is a bit anecdotal here, but I can't say that I've seen another player defend the high pick and roll as effectively as Andy - it seems that every time a team tries it he ends up running the ballhandler out to center court. And of course, he wouldn't have earned his reputation as a flopper (and the image from thesportsgeeks.com included above) without taking lots and lots of charges.

But let's not overlook the improvements he's made to his offensive game. At first, it was kind of painful to watch Andy with the ball - his handle was awkward, he had no shot outside of about three feet, and he posted a 52.4% mark at the line during his first two seasons. I used to joke that every time he went to the line he would make one and only one - he never seemed to make or miss both ends of a trip to the stripe. He's still not the smoothest player, but the improvements he's made at the offensive end are quite significant. He's always been a very smart player, adept at moving without the ball and being in position for easy baskets. That, combined with his soft hands, was how he ended up with a 51.8% shooting percentage during his first six seasons in the league. Yeah, #6 made him look good at times, but Varejão is at 50.8% from the floor since that guy departed two years ago, and with expanded range and an improved ability to create shots. It's not easy cracking 10 points a game when the team doesn't run any plays for you. Look at how his points per game has progressed from '04 through this current campaign (note that he averaged 16 minutes a game for the first two seasons, 27 over the next four, and 32 these past two seasons):

2004-5: 4.9
2005-6: 4.6

2006-7: 6.8
2007-8: 6.7
2008-9: 8.6
2009-10: 8.6

2010-11: 9.1
2011-12: 10.0

That looks a bit to me like a guy who's put some serious effort into his offensive skills, especially playing on a decidedly worse team the past couple of years. It doesn't hurt that he's improved his foul shooting acumen from that 52.4% mark in his first two years up to 66.0% over the past three seasons.

And any of you who've watched Andy and the CaVs (I like that phrase) this year know that it hasn't come at the expense of the other facets of his game. Look at how his rebounding numbers have progressed over the same timeframe:

2004-5: 4.8
2005-6: 4.9

2006-7: 6.7
2007-8: 8.3
2008-9: 7.2
2009-10: 7.6

2010-11: 9.7
2011-12: 11.0

Combine that progression with all the tipbacks, blocks, steals, charges, and loose balls he collects, and you see why he's one of the CaVs' most popular and valuable players.

I mentioned at the outset that he trails Irving in John Hollinger's useful all-in-one metric Player Efficiency Rating, yet I'm still declaring Varejão the Cavaliers' MVP so far this season. As always, I think statistics are an enormously useful guide to evaluating performance, and this is no exception. Yet Hollinger himself admits that his calculation is useful mostly for measuring a player's offensive performance, and the Wikipedia article points out how it can reward volume shooting over efficient shooting; both factors hurt Varejão relative to Irving in this calculation.

So I'm picking the Brazilian's all-around game (for now), and for a final argument I'll look back to last season and an event I described as The Day the Season Died. That was January 6, the day an ankle injury suffered in practice ended Varejão's season and plunged the CaVs into an even deeper abyss. After that they simply had no defense, no cohesion, no energy, and no sense for how to win a basketball game. That showed as well as any numbers or analysis could just how valuable Anderson Varejão is to the Cavaliers.

Winning!

I wanted to follow up on Nick's fine article in favor of what should be, yet oddly isn't, the most natural thing for a sports fan to do: root for one's own favorite team.

I didn't realize at the time that his piece was a point-counterpoint to another article on The Cleveland Fan, namely Demetri Inembolidis' article that comes out semi-in-favor-of losing. I see his angle, but it's just not well-argued, and I want to deflect a few of the points he raises.

Inembolidis opens with the concept that it's impossible for a mediocre team to rise to championship level, that being middle-of-the-pack is "the worst place a rebuilding team can find themselves: Too good to have a shot at the lottery, but not good enough to even think about winning a playoff series."

This is not true. Consider two recent dynasties:

- The Chicago Bulls lost three straight opening-round series in the mid-80's, then broke through with one post-season series win, then reached the conference finals twice, then claimed three straight NBA titles.

- The LA Lakers rolled up 8th-9th-8th conference finishes in the early '90's - the worst place you can be, we're told - then rose to the middle of the conference playoff pack for several years before breaking through with three straight titles of their own.

These 8-7-8 conference finishes and first-round exits were clearly not so disastrous given what followed, so I think it's time to retire this notion that mediocrity can only beget more mediocrity. Part of what we see often in building a champion is getting that early experience, and it usually involves taking those lumps in unwinnable playoff rounds. Even though the #6-era Cavs never claimed the big prize, their surprise visits to the postseason and early forging at the hands of the veteran Pistons helped them in playoff runs down the road. I refuse to believe that these young Cavaliers overachieving and having some playoff struggles wouldn't pay off in the long run.

The author then goes on to argue against bottoming out, correctly pointing out that, "A losing culture is something that is very difficult to exorcise from a team. Those of us who 'want the Cavs to lose games' do not want the Cavs to be in the situation that the Wizards are in." This seems to be the opposite of his general pro-losing thesis, and supportive of the idea that we should be relishing the development of the young Cavaliers and that development manifesting itself as wins.

Inembolidis favors the "Oklahoma City Thunder model," which is to have two more awful years, THEN reach the playoffs as an eight seed, then lose in the first round like OKC did. The Thunder are now a top team, so this series of events has paid dividends. Yet I fail to see how this is a better approach. Why not play it more like Derrick Rose's Bulls, a bunch who everyone agreed were far from contention in Rose's rookie campaign, yet took the Celtics to seven in a thrilling seven-game first-round series? Those same Bulls lost to the Cavs in five the following year and now sit among the NBA's elite just two years later. Those years in the dreaded eight zone dropping first-round series have not stunted their development too much.

My point is that history doesn't back the notion that so-so teams cannot improve steadily and make the leap to contender status without tanking for a couple of years first. It's not that the Oklahoma City Thunder model can't or doesn't work - it's that the Chicago Bulls one does too. His claim that "Getting swept out of the playoffs in the 1st round or getting the 12th pick in the draft every year is guaranteed to not be effective team building" is simply not supported by historical fact. Gotta get those playoff reps.

Inembolidis then moves on to the current Cavaliers roster and deems it insufficient, as currently constructed, to be a top-tier club. No doubt he is correct in this assessment. This team absolutely needs more pieces. Then he moves to an odd claim from recent history that, "the Cavs were destined to lose because LeBron James made the team too good too fast," apparently in the same fashion that San Antonio was destined to lose because Tim Duncan made them too good too fast or how Dwyane Wade's early success in Miami (4th seed first year, 1st seed second year) pretty much sabotaged that franchise (championship third year). OK, I promise, no more counterexamples.

Then Inembolidis goes on the attack:

Nobody actively roots for their favorite team to lose.
Perhaps, but you're kind of advocating just that.

It is a matter of pragmatism
Here's what I see as a pragmatic view: my rooting for or against a team doesn't affect how well they play. May as well have fun with it!

There is a very real problem of the Cavs not being good enough to contend now or in the future and we simply want to change that.
As I've demonstrated, this can and has been changed many times previously without fans having to go through this soul-crushing wanting-the-club-to-lose experience.

As the Herm Edwards crowd would like to make you believe, it doesn’t make us any less of fans.
This sentence needs to be rephrased, but I think I take the meaning. I don't think this fellow is any less of a fan - I just think he's taking a poor approach to supporting a club by not enjoying wins when and as they come. If anything, he's more actively smearing my perspective than the other way around.

We all want the same thing, but it is a matter of having different philosophies of how to get there.
Kind of. It's also a matter of recognizing that there is more than one path.

I am willing to wait a few years like Thunder fans did to get a team that is favored to win their conference instead of having the cheap thrill of simply making it to the playoffs.
Getting kicked around in the first round is not a "cheap thrill" and I resent this potshot. If I wanted cheap thrills from sports, I wouldn't still be a Cleveland fan after 26 title-less years. "Simply making it to the playoffs" is almost always a necessary precursor to teams ultimately hoisting the Larry O'Brien, and those early-round exits are usually more painful than thrilling. And once again, this is a completely false dichotomy he's establishing.

It's the final part where I have the most disagreement:

Nobody is asking the front office or coaching staff to actively try and lose games. That would be transparent and going against the nature of competitive spirit.
Root for the Cavs to win then! Basketball is fun! Slam dunk!

The current NBA system penalizes teams that are kind of good and rewards great teams (by contending for a championship) and very bad teams (by having better lottery odds).
I hope I have provided enough examples to convince everyone that this is not the case.

It would be silly for the Cavs to stubbornly make personnel decisions that do not put the team in the best position to win. The Cavs need to avoid making any trades that will bring an established player that will help them win. They should probably sell high on veterans at the expense of winning games. They need to give the rookies larger roles and extended minutes. They need to consider buying out Antawn Jamison if they cannot trade him at the deadline. If the front office does these things, they will be putting the Cavs in a worse position this year, but it will give the team a brighter future moving forward.
I'm good with all of this. What he's missing here is recognition that the Front Office behavior is not the same as fan behavior. Fandom doesn't need to be the same rational, calculating endeavor that effective sports management does. We're free to pull for our team and enjoy exciting wins like yesterday's 88-87 thriller in Boston without fretting about trades and salary caps. Enjoy the wins, and when the Cavs lose games (and don't worry, they're going to lose a bunch more) take some solace in the knowledge that they've likely improved their draft position, which may help in the future.

Making the playoffs this year is fool’s gold and will stunt the team’s growth and potential.
This did not happen to the '04 Heat and '09 Bulls, for example.

The question is what matters more, winning some games now or winning playoff series in the future.
This is absolutely not the question - this is a straw man. Every fan of every team ever in the universe ever would pick the latter. What I'm saying is: enjoy the games. Enjoy the wins, sparse though they may be. I had an absolute blast during that win over the Heat last March and we still have Kyrie Irving. Watch the games and root for Irving, Varejao, Jamison, Gee, Samuels, and the gang, and if/when they fall short, they'll get some new blood and keep improving.

Go Cavs!

Photo by Michael Dwyer, AP

"Just win, baby"

I’ve always been a long-term thinker; it’s just how I’m wired. Cleveland sports are so deeply embedded in my DNA that I probably have John Hart to thank for that.

During my elementary school days I was always thrilled to read news that our beloved Wahoos had inked guys like Lofton, Thome, Ramirez, and Vizquel to long-term deals. Those were sound business decisions and in general it’s probably a good policy to forego instant gratification for a bigger payoff down the road. (There’s definitely a PG-13 joke to be made there, but I have too much journalistic integrity to pull the trigger. You’re welcome.)

“Waiting for next year” has long been the mantra of the Cleveland fan. When you’re six years old, that’s no problem whatsoever. After all, very few of us had much perspective or feel for life’s inherent brevity while we were still wearing short pants.
To say that the last few years have been lean for fans on the North Coast isn’t even an understatement – it’s just wrong. The Indians haven’t had a winning season in five years. The Browns are in the same boat, posting a robust winning percentage of .281 during that timeframe. If memory serves, something bad happened to the Cavaliers a couple years ago, but all I can remember is a rage blackout.

Recently, Cleveland has been on the receiving end of countless jokes. Some of them are founded in truth, but as a good friend of mine frequently points out, most people who trash Cleveland haven’t ever visited the city. (Otherwise known as the Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure corollary. Yeah, I’m a dork.)

Regardless, I’m willing to concede that Cleveland’s rough winters and smaller market don’t make it much of a destination for free agents. This is particularly true in the NBA, where players routinely gravitate towards higher-profile cities like New York and Los Angeles.

Cleveland is a great baseball town when the Tribe is competitive, but the state of Major League Baseball leaves smaller markets like C-Town boxing one-handed when it comes to free agency or even retaining their own quality players. In the NFL, free agents are vastly overpriced and the best ones usually never hit the open market.

My somewhat long-winded point is that for each of the Cleveland teams and their respective circumstances, quality drafting and player development is the best (and sometimes only) way to compete consistently. For the last few years, that grim reality has left me – and I know I’m not alone here – hoping to see some of our lousy clubs post inflated loss totals to improve their draft positions and hopefully return to competitiveness more quickly.

As of today I’m tendering my resignation from that club. I just can’t do it anymore.

The 2011-12 Cavaliers have been a big part of this decision. Sure, it would be great if they could add a premier small forward or shooting guard via the NBA lottery, but that possibility doesn’t help me pass the doldrums of winter any more quickly. Sports are meant to be a pleasant distraction and watching the Browns play out their December schedule hoping that they will come up short leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth.

Obviously we’d all go absolutely crazy if one of our ill-fated teams could somehow win a title. A higher draft pick could help, but teams (especially our teams) whiff on top picks all the time. There are no guarantees.

The fact that we have such an inferiority complex built on years of losing has, frankly, made us all a little too title-centric. Getting to the summit is the goal and if we ever reach that point it will be fantastic, but I’m beginning to believe that the ride is much more important.

For something that we as fans have almost zero control over, it just doesn’t make sense to hope your team is going to lose and take no pleasure in their victories. A few random wins during the regular season probably won’t mean much in the bigger picture of winning a championship, but what they will do is give us some excitement on an otherwise boring Tuesday night in February when there’s a foot and a half of snow on the ground.

I’m going to assume that most people reading this have at least played an organized sport in some form of rec league at some point, and if you haven’t then just bear with me. While it’s great to win league “championships,” the reality is that you often end up on teams that are mediocre or downright awful. You know that there’s little or no chance of being number one, but it’s just fun to compete and take a victory home once in a while.

I’m trying to bring that philosophy to my day-to-day fandom, because making championships the sole impetus for following a team just doesn’t seem like a great investment of my time and sanity anymore. Winning championships is still a big part of following a team, but focusing on rings and trophies can’t trump the simple pleasure of enjoying victories.

There are other arguments I planned on making here; teams rarely go from worst to first overnight, building a winning culture is important, and one player can’t win on his own (not even in basketball), etc. In the end it comes down to the fact that I need to enjoy wins. If I can’t do that, then why invest all this time and emotion?

Although the Tribe certainly has a shot to make the postseason in 2012, it’s likely that Cleveland’s playoff drought will stretch another 2-3 years before a team breaks through. Do you really want to spend all that time hoping the Cavs lose 65 games and that the Indians embarrass themselves badly enough to take a chance on the next Stephen Strasburg? Maybe you can live with that and that’s certainly your prerogative, but because my perspective has shifted (and also because I’ve come this far without hitting my self-imposed quota for Star Wars references), “I’m getting too old for this sort of thing.”

Why the Browns should draft RG3

Disclaimer: When I originally thought of the idea to write this post, Griffin was still a long shot to be drafted by the Browns at pick four. Now, it seems he may not even be available then, and if he is it's almost consensus that Cleveland will take him. But bear with me anyway and listen to my thought process on the whole situation.

Coming into the 2011 college football season, I had heard of Baylor quarterback Robert Griffin III. I knew of him from the previous year as being a fun-to-watch, running QB. I watched him in the opening weekend of the season when he dicked all over the vaunted TCU defense in a 50-48 win. At this point I thought, “He’s going to be a very exciting player to watch all season long” - nothing more.

Early in the season, my brother, Joe, said that the Browns should take Griffin in the first round, and I literally laughed in his face. As you know, Joe has an incredible man-crush on Cam Newton, and I guess he was the first to see Cam 2.0 in RG3. Keep in mind, this was well before anyone else was mentioning him as a first-rounder. I, like most people, saw him as more of a mid-round pick that will probably end up playing WR or RB in the pros, if anything.

As Griffin continued to play outstanding football and put up ridiculous numbers throughout the season, he started gaining more and more national media coverage. By the time he was awarded the Heisman Trophy at season’s end, he was legitimately being considered a top-10 pick. I was still skeptical, questioning how his game would translate to the NFL.

Then RG3 went H.A.M. against Washington in the Alamo Bowl - gaining 350 yards of total offense while scoring twice and not turning the ball over once, en route to leading Baylor to 67 points while shattering NCAA record after record. After seeing this performance, I finally started to give him credit, noticing that he was not just a runner, but that he can really throw the ball as well. I now feel that he might be able to develop into a good NFL QB, but I still don’t think he’s worth the #4 pick of the draft...for any team other than the Cleveland Browns.

The reason I’m going against my gut here is simple: what the Browns are doing isn’t working. That much is obvious. We’ve tried to sign veteran QBs - Jeff Garcia, Trent Dilfer, Jake Delhomme, and they didn’t work. We’ve tried to draft guys in the late first and second round - Charlie Frye, Brady Quinn, Colt McCoy, and they didn’t work.

It is time to do something different. Go nuts. Take a chance. What’s the worst that could happen? What do we have to lose? We go 3-13 instead of 4-12? Who gives a shit? How many rhetorical questions can I ask in a row? The Cleveland Browns need to switch things up, and Robert Griffin III presents the perfect opportunity to do just that.

NFL Picks: Championship Round

Nick came back to Earth a bit after a 6-0 start, but is still enjoying quite a good playoffs. Is anyone else a bit sad that there are only three football games left?

Last Week
Nick: 2-2
Figgs: 2-2
Joe: 1-3

Nick's $ Picks: 2-2


Playoffs
Nick: 6-2
Figgs: 4-4
Joe: 3-5

Nick's $ Picks: 5-2
Figgs' $ Picks: 2-2


Sunday, 3 pm kickoff

PATRIOTS (-7) vs Ravens
Figgs: ratbirds. I had all intentions of picking the Pats here, then I read Nick's comments. I think he is a lifetime 0-35 when he "chalks it up" or "writes it down" before the game begins. I definitely think (and hope) NE still wins, but I'm okay with picking Balt to keep it within a TD.
Joe: Patriots; For three reasons: 1) The Ravens failed to sack TJ Yates even once. Good luck with Tom Brady. 2) Joe Flacco beat Houston simply by not turning the ball over and letting Yates make the mistakes. His play was awful except for the no picks. That was good enough against a 3rd-string QB that was turnover prone. Good luck with Tom Brady. 3) Cam Cameron either has some kind of beef personally with Ray Rice, or he is simply a moronic play caller. Either way, if Rice doesn't get 20-25 touches, the Rats have no chance in my opinion. All that being said, plus the game being at New England, I like the Pats to cover since Baltimore is simply average on the road this year (4-4).
Nick: Patriots. Baltimore got pushed around on both sides of the ball last week and would have lost had TJ Yates just been mediocre. Now we're putting Joe Flacco on the road, in Foxboro, in a revenge game against an opponent that is going to force the Ravens to play from behind. Flacco can't do it, and this is an easy pick. I'm gloating, and I'm already doing my touchdown dance. ($)


Sunday 6:30 pm kickoff

49ERS (-2.5) vs Giants
Figgs: Niners. I consider this one basically a coin flip, so I figured I'd go against these other two on both games just for funsies. I've really enjoyed watching SanFran all year, especially last week's thriller in New Orleans. Looking forward to a great game either way.
Joe: Giants. I am very conflicted in this game. My initial instinct was to go Giants, then I thought about switching it, but I am so unsure that I decided to stay with my initial instinct. Alex Smith played his best game as a pro last week in outdueling Drew Brees, but I don't see that happening again. If he does the same thing against Eli, than the 9ers deserve to be in the Super Bowl. I just love the Giants pass rush, though, and I think they will put enough pressure on Smith to avoid that happening. I don't think being on the road ever affects the Giants, and I think Manning will make enough plays against a great 49ers defense to squeak out a close win.
Nick: Giants. The Giants have been rolling the last three weeks and just embarrassed a Packers team that came within a few dropped passes of going 16-0. Oh, and the Giants did it at Lambeau. This should be a close, ugly game, but I'm banking on Alex Smith failing to play two great games in a row, and the Niners failing to force eleventy-billion turnovers for the second week in a row. ($ +3)

The 2011 Cleveland Browns

I'm sure your first thought upon reading this headline was some variety of the simple question "why"? Or perhaps, "really"?

Yes, I'm really doing this. I'm nothing if not dedicated to my craft. After watching two weekends of quality postseason football (though fewer close games than I would have preferred), I've decided to go back and revisit the Browns' 2011 campaign. I'd like to present a few numbers and then a few impressions of a 4-12 campaign that left the Browns mired in the basement of AFC North and showed that Cleveland still has more questions than answers on the football field right now.

The team numbers
Make no mistake: the Browns earned their 4-12 record. Sure, their pythagorean expected record according to pro-football reference was 5-11, but either way they simply didn't perform on the field. The Browns posted an SRS for the year of -5.4, fourth-worst in the AFC and seventh-worst in the entire NFL. They were 30th of 32 teams in scoring offense with a paltry 13.6 ppg (the Packers led the way with 35 points a contest), topping out at 27 points in a week two victory at Indy. Perhaps surprisingly, their scoring defense (19.2 ppg) was 5th in the NFL. That number was no doubt boosted by the fact that their opponents were invariably leading late in games and had no need to score quick points, but it does indicate that there's at least something there defensively.

The offense was 30th in passing yards and 28th in rushing yards. That's a dynamite combination. Colt McCoy finished the year with a Passer Rating of 75.6 while Seneca Wallace clocked in at 65.4. The oft-injured Peyton Hillis led the club in rushing with 587 yards, but picked up just 3.6 per carry. Greg Little was our top wideout despite all the drops, with 61 catches for 709 yards. This is getting depressing.

The defense was a better unit statistically, but with a huge pass/run skew. The Browns were more effective at pressuring the passer this season, something that translated into allowing the second-fewest passing yards in the NFL this season even with safety TJ Ward inactive for most of the season. Unfortunately, their rush defense ranked 30th; both numbers I think are again indicative of the fact that no one really had to win a shootout against Cleveland this year. Call me pessimistic, but the rush number is more concerning to me than the pass defense is encouraging; a stouter run defense and improvement in our offensive output will no doubt cause a drop in our rank defending the pass. The defensive MVP was D'Qwell Jackson, who recovered from some serious injuries to post a whopping 158 tackles, second-most in the league. His 115 solo tackles were the most in the NFL.

I'm not sure how to best quantify special teams, but you all could see that ours were not nearly as good this year as in recent seasons. Brad Seely must be some sort of magician. The new kickoff rules and perhaps also drops in blocking and his own ability made Josh Cribbs less of a kick return threat, though he did take back a punt, one of his team-high five TD's this year. Brad Maynard was solid all year, averaging 40.5 yards per punt and managing to avoid dropping all but one of them in the end zone. I hate punt touchbacks, and Maynard was an artist at avoiding them. Phil Dawson was typical Awesome Dawson, hitting on 83% of his kicks including an astounding 7/8 from beyond 50 yards. Remarkable.


Impressions
The thirteen football seasons since the franchise's return to Cleveland have been one extended fiasco - we all know that. They've won less than a third of their games (.326) over that span. The Packers won more games this season than the Browns have in their past three combined. But even with that backdrop of sustained struggle, I think this was the worst Browns season since the club returned to the Forest City.

It's not the worst record-wise; that distinction belongs to the '99 (2-14) and '00 (3-13) teams. But those seasons were expansion years, and you expected to take some lumps early on. The thrill of having a team back was still fresh, and we had the Tim Couch (first) Hail Mary game in '99 to get us back in the win column for the first time in four years. Plus we beat Pittsburgh in each of those two seasons, a big old ray of sunshine.

There were three (!) other 4-12 campaigns; 04, 06, and '08, and those weren't particularly enjoyable either. But those seasons all had some moments:

2004: The Browns beat Baltimore 20-3 on Opening Day (the Browns have started 0-1 in each of the other 12 seasons since the return) and had that crazy 58-48 shootout against Cincy. They also had a 99-yard touchdown play and the comedic stylings of Terry Robiskie.

2006: At least we had the novelty of the Charlie Frye experiment and the crazy DA-led win over the Chiefs.

2008: Another terrible year, but at least there was that 35-14 MNF pasting of the defending champion Giants, which this blogger attended. It was something.

And that's the thing: even our worstest years - and there have been a lot - always had something keeping fans' attention. 2011 did not. It was a season of Pat Shurmur looking absolutely befuddled on the sideline, of the offense always coming up a yard short, of Peyton Hillis turning into a drama queen, of losing division games, of blocked kicks...of rubbish. It was the most desultory season in memory, and I think that's in part because the Browns couldn't manage even one memorable win. Can you believe they were 2-1 at one point? Look at the four wins the Browns managed, and the final records of those opponents:

Colts (2-14)
Dolphins (6-10)
Jaguars (5-11)
Seahawks (7-9)

We eked out wins over four bad teams, none of them really all that exciting. The Miami comeback was nice, and the goal-line stands against the monumentally inept Jags were fun, but those were aimless wins over aimless teams. I'm someone who obviously cares about the long-term outlook of the franchise, but who also relishes wins as and when they come along, and the cupboard was remarkably bare on that front this year.

It's hard to tell where improvement will come from next season. We'll probably be on our 73rd QB in 14 years, Shurmur will seem rudderless again...I don't know. All I can hope for is that, if the Browns do submit yet another disappointing campaign, that they throw in something entertaining here and there along the way.

Notebook: Warriors 105, Cavs 95

The game in 300 words or less
Admittedly, I was nervous about this game, which couldn’t have been more of a trap game if Admiral Ackbar had said it himself. Back-to-back games for the Cavaliers and their fourth game in six nights; the scheduling essentially turned this into the eighth game of the road trip.

Injuries played a factor for both teams, as the Warriors' Stephen Curry and the Cavs' Anthony Parker were both late scratches. The Cavs caught a major break by dodging Curry, who has been nursing a bum ankle. As for Anthony Parker, you really only miss him when he’s gone.

Parker is ideally suited to a bench role, and he doesn’t stuff the stat sheet. That said, he brings stability to a position where the Cavs are woefully thin, provides a three-point threat, and plays decent defense.

The Warriors are playing four road games in five days (this is number three) and the mileage was clearly starting to accumulate. Neither team really made a move to grab this game, as a second quarter lead for the Warriors became a slim lead for the Cavs in the third quarter. It really wasn’t until David Lee stepped up for 13 in the fourth quarter that one team came out and made a run at winning this game, and by that point the Cavs just didn’t have enough offense to fight back.

This game would have been difficult for any team, but for a young Cavs team threatening to overachieve it was a sobering reminder of just how much room for improvement remains.


Irving Watch
Kyrie Irving single-handedly makes the Cavs watchable, even on rough nights like this one. Consider that Irving had a little bit of an “off night,” and he still scored 18 points on just 13 shots. Irving had just five assists against six rebounds, and as good as he’s been there will be games like this when he struggles to take care of the basketball.

Overall, it’s tough to be too upset with him. The knock on Irving coming out of Duke was that he wasn’t a true “franchise player” at the point guard position in the mold of a Chris Paul or a Derrick Rose. Those comparisons are unfair and ludicrous at this point in Irving’s career, but I will go so far as to say that he’s much closer to those big name point guards than I thought he would be.

Ultimately, if Kyrie is only what we’ve seen so far, then he’s still a very useful player. But it Kyrie continues improves like most young players do, well, then it’s going to be a fun decade.


Stat of the game

Turnovers: Cavaliers 25, Warriors 12

That’s the story of the game right there. Both teams ended up with similar shooting numbers and the Cavs actually did some nice work on the offensive glass, but that kind of turnover disparity is difficult to overcome. The Cavs aren’t good enough to beat many teams when they turn the ball over 25 times, and we can safely add the Warriors to that list.


No bell cow
I really hate typing the words “this is a night when the Cavs really could have used LeBron James,” because well, that’s true of almost every team every night. However, this was a night when the Cavs needed a guy who could carry the scoring burden and simply will his teammates to victory, especially in the fourth quarter.

Kyrie Irving might develop into the type of player who can score the tough points late in games with consistency, but we can expect this issue to rear its ugly head more than a few times this season. As much as I love the ball movement of Byron Scott’s offense and believe this team has some significant building blocks in place, there will be nights when they simply can’t score enough to win, and for all their flaws the Warriors are a team that can score, and you need to crack 100 to have a good chance to beat them.


Thompson getting sloppy
As excited as we all were about Tristan Thompson a few weeks ago, he’s been a little overshadowed by Kyrie Irving’s development, and rightfully so. However, our other lottery pick has quietly been a pretty consistent contributor and shows serious flashes of athletic ability in almost every game.

For Thompson, this wasn’t one of his better efforts. Thompsons displayed some classic “I’ve come this far, I might as well throw one up” moves on offense, and his game isn’t nearly polished enough for that mindset to work. At least for the time being, Thompson’s role is to clean the glass on both ends and pick up garbage points when they present themselves.


Erden getting comfortable?
Look who decided to have his best game as a Cavalier? That’s right, it’s Lurch, everyone’s favorite Turk!

I wasn’t a huge Semih Erden fan thus far (I mean honestly, who was?), but he showed more tonight that we had seen so far this season. Erden provided some bench scoring, pouring in 14 points in just over 15 minutes, on only 8 shots.

Just like that, it became clear why the Cavs are giving him every opportunity to play his way into a role. Erden clearly has some talent and moves pretty well for a seven-footer, which the Cavs don’t exactly have coming out their ears. Tonight Erden managed to provide some scoring and an inside defensive presence. Ultimately, that’s all the Cavs are looking for; 15 -20 decent minutes off the bench with some rebounding, defense, and 5-10 points. If Erden can become the second center, filling the role that Ryan Hollins never could, he’ll prove to be a steal. Remember, he and Luke Harangody were acquired from the Boston Celtics for just a 2013 second round pick.


Up Next: Friday January 20th, Chicago Bulls, 7:30 pm

NFL Picks: Divisional Playoffs

Last weekend, Nick boasted inaccurately that he "always slaughters Wild-Card weekend." A quick check of the historical record (.500 overall the past two seasons, both for all picks and money picks) disproves that claim, but credit where credit is due: Nick crushed this year's postseason opening round, rolling to a 4-0 mark and notching a perfect mark on $ games. Well done! Can the magic continue during the Divisional Round?

That Broncos win was awesome, just wanted to say that again. OK, onto the picks.

Last Week
Nick: 4-0
Figgs: 2-2
Joe: 2-2

Nick's $ Picks: 3-0
Figgs' $ Picks: 2-2


Saturday4:30 pm kickoff

49ERS (+3.5) vs Saints
Figgs: Saints. This was a really tough call for me cause I really like this Niner team and it's on the Bay, but I just don't see anyone slowing down this offense. I've been hoping to see a Saints/Packers rematch in the NFC title game ever since their thriller in Week 1, and I'm counting on getting that wish this weekend. (Side note: You'll notice no '$' this week, as Ohio St, the BCS Championship, and last weekends playoffs games officially sent me to brokeville...until I put more money in my account next season.)
Joe: Saints; Their passing attack should be able to move the ball and produce enough points to win. The 9ers have one of the best run defenses in recent memory, but that doesn't stop what Brees and Sean Payton do best, and that's chuck it. I think San Fran holds the Saints well below their ridiculous 40 point mark, but their offense will not score enough. 27-20, Saints.
Nick: Niners. It's a go-against-the-grain pick, and why not? Everyone wants to write off the Niners, but they have the league's best defense and one of the best special teams units. They will be able to move the ball on a weak Saints defense. They have home field advantage, a week off, and a great coach. Did I mention the Saints are outdoors? This is Saints-Seahawks all over again, but with a much better team. San Fran is the number two seed and they should be insulted to be more than a three-point dog at home. Captain Comeback will have his guys ready to go. ($ +4)

8 pm kickoff

PATRIOTS (-14) vs Tebows
Figgs: Pats. Thank you, Denver, for doing what you did last week. All of us owe you big time. But now let's let the real teams close out these playoffs. NE in a big, big way.
Joe: Broncos!; They can lose by 50 and it won't matter, because they already accomplished everything that I wanted them to in these playoffs. I don't know if the magic can continue this week, but this spread seems way too high. If the Broncos cut out the turnovers that killed them in their 41-23 regular season loss to the Pats, I think they have a shot. That said, I'll take New England to win 31-24, but no way I'm giving that many points.
Nick: Pats. The cinderella story ends here in ugly fashion. A healthy Pittsburgh team easily could've beaten the Broncos by double-digits. Thank the gods they weren't healthy, and let's not forget to mention that they suck. Tom Brady surgically dismantled the Broncos in Denver, and now the Patriots are healthy, rested, and have had extra time to prep. John Elway better bring his bib, because it's going to get messy. ($ -13.5)


Sunday, 1 pm kickoff

RAVENS (-9) vs Texans
Figgs: ratbirds. With shitsburgh already out, I would love to see Baltimore join them at home, but I just don't see it happening. Yates is going to get eaten up by this defense. The Ravens may only need to score 10 to cover this.
Joe: Ravens; I don't know how to read this Houston team without Schaub. I was set to take them to go to the Super Bowl with him, and then completely jumped off the bandwagon without him. I think I went too far the other way. Truth is, they're probably somewhere in the middle. If this game was in Houston, even with Yates, I would call for the upset, but Baltimore has been unbeatable at home this year (8-0). So I'll take the Rats to cover, 24-13.
Nick: Ravens. I hate this being over a touchdown, but if the Texans get down by two scores the game is over. Baltimore is undefeated at home and Houston just won their Super Bowl by winning a home playoff game. ($ -7.5)

4 pm kickoff

PACKERS (-9) vs Giants
Figgs: NYG. I like the Packers to win, but by a TD or less. The Giants have been a hard team to figure out all year, and I feel like I've usually been on the wrong side. They could come out and pull an Eli and shock the world and knock of the defending champs, or they could come out and pull an Eli and lay a total egg and lose by 25.
Joe: Giants; I think it could be a similar shootout to their regular season meeting. I love the Packers, but the GMen seem to perform their best in the playoffs as road dogs. I won't be at all surprised if New York pulls off the outright upset, but I like Green Bay, barely, 34-31.
Nick: Pack. This is a couple of points too high, as Green Bay has issues on their offensive line and in the middle of their defense. That said, the Giants have been remarkably inconsistent, and we just don't know which team will show up in Wisconsin. I'm banking on a rested Green Bay team that can mask some of its inadequacies with home field advantage and two weeks to scheme. We'll see what happens. ($ -7.5)

Since none of us is writing anything today...