Having thoroughly annihilated the bye week competition and covering the immense 24 point spread against that team of nobody’s this week, we can now move our focus on to the next in the line of must win games beginning with the Buffalo Bills. On Sunday, the bastard sons of New York managed to stifle the offensive prowess of Trent Green and the Chiefers albeit down one Priest, and I don’t mean the molesting kind. One should not doubt the impact that the aforementioned clergyman has on that team’s offense. And as good as Larry Johnson is, he is not the Priest, as he racked up the yards yet never found the end zone. But, now is not the time to speak of the Chiefers handicaps, or yet to debate the shortcomings of J.P. ‘Loss Man’ (Second place in the Fraternity President’s name contest) and the gang. I want to use this space to talk about an article written late last week by one of San Diego’s most respected sports columnists, one Nick Canepa.
Now, I am not usually critical of Nick and his opinion of our football team. This is a guy that has been writing about sports since the times that I was still trying to figure out how not to soil my own shorts daily. His knowledge of our sports teams is held in my circle in a pretty high regard which is fairly difficult to do, because I am harshly critical of just about everything. But Nick wrote something that was rather uncharacteristic last Thursday and I thought that since I have a forum here that is free of editors and censors, I would respond to the pile of horse puckey that I firmly believe the Chargers asked Nick to produce, in order to diffuse the public outcry that has begun to swing popular opinion from Marty’s side (Side Note: I haven’t been this upset with coaching or heard this much from the public since the Gilbride Era.) Strangely missing from his piece last week was his fair criticism of our team that usually accompanies his columns allowing us to feel as if we had a bit of inside information with regards to this team. What I saw was not a Nick Canepa piece, but hard core fluff about Marty and his ‘coaching style word that isn’t being mentioned here anymore’. Here are some excerpts in order, starting with the title... (parentheticals contain my thoughts and reactions, simple minded as they may be.)
‘Don’t Call this Martyball, It’s Fun to Watch...’ (This is a direct quote, in fact as mentioned, it’s the title. I didn’t use ‘that’ word, and as I said before, I won’t. When I read this, I knew something was fishy. I have felt like I was about to cough up my heart in every single loss this year, and now some of the wins. Fun to watch? Pretty sure ‘fun’ isn’t the word I would use.)
‘This is not Martyball. Martyball is running it, hanging on to it, winning field position with special teams, creating turnovers and being smart. Against the Jets on Sunday, the Chargers had 12 penalties for 124 yards, two turnovers and sold far too much real estate on kickoff returns.’ (Yes, penalties were a problem early in the game. Yes, the kickoff coverage was abominable. But, “IT” is running it, predictably, in situations where everyone on the field, the stands, and the television audience across the country knows you will be running the ball out of the same formation you always use to run the ball when you are trying to chew up clock instead of utilizing your weapons. Like the two drives that we ran late in the fourth quarter that led to a fumble and a punt. Oh, and the third down running play from the two yard line to the fullback instead of the league’s best player wearing number 21, who had four touchdowns on the day. Did I mention that? And isn’t ‘running it, hanging on to it, winning field position... exactly what we tried to do? Someone let me know if I am wrong here.)
Was it Martyball when, on third-and-long, late in the game in New York, with a lead, quarterback Drew Brees went back to pass, was sacked and fumbled the ball away? (Nick is right here. The third and long play wasn’t “IT”. But, “IT” was the two plays before the fumble, both of which were running plays out of very similar formations that netted minus four yards, putting us into a third and fourteen that led us to inexplicably try to throw the ball to convert, against an obvious blitz situation.)
"If we did that last year in the playoff game with the Jets, we would have lost the opportunity to win the game when we were in field goal position, and we did have an opportunity to win the game," he says. (Are we suffering memory loss here? Or is this just denial? Isn't this exactly what we did? Do we forget the three running plays that netted possibly two yards out of the same formation giving our rookie kicker all the disadvantages in the world on a wet field in overtime? I guess there is no debate on what the impact of a play action pass may have had there when the Jets had 22 people in the box waiting for the inevitable running play. Certainly no presence of “IT” there.)
There also were complaints that the coach should have gone for the touchdown instead of the field goal Sunday when the ball was on the Jets' half-yard line. But, with the Chargers up 28-20, the kick was the right play there. (Uhhhh? Doesn’t that look rather ridiculous in print? No? Read the part about the half yard line again. Yeah, I thought so. Wait, it gets better)
"You've got to make it a two-possession game," he says. "If we go for the touchdown and don't make it, on that final drive all the Jets had to do was make a field goal to win." (That is of course predicated on them traveling 99 2/3 yards on the hypothetical ensuing drive to tie the game with a touchdown and a two point conversion, IF, we didn’t make it from six inches away, thoroughly breaking their spirits and their will to live. I will not change my mind on this no matter who is trying to save that decision as a good one. This smells awfully ‘Spanosish” does it not???)
All things considered, Schottenheimer may be doing a better job coaching this team than he did last year. The end result may not be as positive. This is a brutal road the team is taking. (Can anyone tell me if the Spanos’ have mafia ties? Cause this sounds like someone talking with an ice pick pressed firmly into the back of their brain stem. This statement is just absolutely ridiculous. Tough schedule, yes. “Brutal road”? We have blown fourth quarter leads in every single loss. I wouldn’t be so upset if we had possibly, and this is just an idea, extended some of those leads like we did last year. If I disappear tonight and no one hears from me, I have either gone off to Mexico, or I am wearing concrete shoes in the bay. I am just sayin...)
"It's just that the expectations for us last year were nothing. They're far higher this year." (Yes, yes they are. So, because expectations are higher, it’s okay to use that as an excuse for your mistakes? I am not sure I understand what this sentence is trying to say. Is this how I am to understand this, “Uh, we are supposed to be better this year than we were last year. People are expecting us to be better. But we aren’t when it matters. But that’s okay, no one is accountable, because last year we were better than we were supposed to be.” Give me a break.)
These were just some examples of the poor attempt to protect Mr. Schottenheimer from what I feel is fair criticism of his performance to date. I am not in the ‘Let’s run out and fire the man, hang him from the goalposts and beat him like a three legged piñata!” group yet. But, there should definitely be some accountability for not finishing the games we have lost, and now, not finishing the games that we have won. I believe that there are some legitimate concerns here that should not go ignored. Although the local paper would like for you to do just that. I wonder if the Spanos’ have any ownership stake in the U.T.???
Here you can read the full text of the article http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/canepa/20051110-9999-1s10canepa.html Feel free to form your own opinion in case I am jumping the gun and not representing the facts accurately. I hope that Mr. Canepa is able to regain his objectivity soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment