Thank God there's a pre-season, so the Patriots can work on their flaws

I haven’t seen all of the Patriots’ pre-season opener against Washington as I had to work at a One Direction show Thursday night. Thank God for noise-cancelling headsets and ibuprofen. Having seen what I've seen in the Pats game so far, I’m also thankful for pre-season football, as it gives the team a chance to work on some flaws that must be improved upon before the games count.

The tackling was awful. Washington could run the ball at will and pick up significant chunks on the ground.

The offensive line didn't give Mallett much time to throw. They frequently got beat inside.

The pass coverage wasn't good. The Pats may have been without Revis, but the Redskins were playing without DeSean Jackson and Pierre Garcon. Apart from Malcolm Butler making a few plays in coverage, the passing defense was either beat straight-up, or penalized.

In general I don’t mind Brandon Browner and the Pats taking penalties in the passing game, but it depends on the situation. If it’s 3rd and 10, and Browner bumps his receiver 6 yards downfield and his guy wasn't even the target on the play or Browner could cover him well without the bump, and the penalty gives the opponent an automatic first down, then it’s a dumb penalty. If it's 20 yards downfield and you'll get burned for a big play if you don't bump, then a 5-yard flag is a good thing.

Situational penalties.

And as long as they're called both ways, and Edelman and Amendola are drawing penalties when someone breathes on them, then it is what it is. The Pats will get flags, the opponent will get flags. The NFL wants to redefine flag football.

Ryan Mallett isn't a starting QB in the NFL. He has an amazing arm. He's very tall. He has all the required physical qualities of a quarterback. But haven't we learned from watching Mr. Brady, that decision making and reading defenses and finding the open receiver is what separates the talented QBs from the great QBs?

These pre-season games are meant to give Mallett a chance to show he's a starter, which could potentially increase his trade value. I don't think he's shown that.

These games do not give Mallett a chance to show what he can do as a backup, as the guy who's called in when Brady gets banged up, and needs to keep the team afloat for a series, or a quarter, or a game. The backup the Pats want should be able to manage a game, make smart decisions, find the easy plays that are there, NEVER turn the ball over (which we've seen Mallett do in the past as a backup playing in a blowout game, which forced the Pats to but Brady back in).

Ryan Mallett hasn't passed the audition as an NFL starter. But we can't see in pre-season games like this, if he has the mental makeup to be a solid backup.

Jimmy Garappolo is not yet ready to be a #2 QB. He's still learning how to take snaps under center.

I'm not concerned about the tackling, or the defensive backs. I do have some worries about the offensive line protecting Brady because they struggled with it last year and Dante Scarnecchia is gone. And can we stop with the Ryan Mallett trade talk? I don't think the Pats would get much for him. He's not a starter, at least he hasn't shown that he is.

Photo Credit: Alex Brandon/AP

Redskins, Just Change Your Name Already

The US Patent Office has revoked the trademark on the Redskins' name, claiming that said name is disparaging. While I don't disagree with that assessment, it's a sneaky, roundabout way for the US Government to get involved and try to compel the Redskins to change their name. Which they cannot do directly.

While I think the Government should be less involved in the controversy over the Redskins' name, the NFL has left a vacuum to be filled. The NFL normally micromanages every aspect of the game that involves appearance and image. They punish players for not tucking their shirt in, for choreographed celebration, and for doing anything that might tarnish the league's image.

Yet they've passed the buck of responsibility on the Redskins issue. They won't ask/request/demand that the Redskins change their name. Nor will they stand behind the name and defend it from its critics and detractors. They've wiped their hands of the issue. Which is decidedly indecisive of them. It's very un-Goodell-like.

Daniel Snyder, just change the name. Teams change their names all the time. Teams change cities with even more ease.

The Texans were the Oilers, the Ravens were the Browns, the Chiefs were the Texans, the Colts played in Baltimore, the Cardinals in St. Louis, the Rams in LA. The Washington Redskins were once the Boston Braves (changed to Redskins when they moved to Fenway Park in 1933). It happens.

The Red Sox were once the Pilgrims, once the Americans. The Yankees were once the Highlanders. The baseball Braves were once the Beaneaters. The Giants were once the Haymakers. From 1953 to 1959 the Cincinnati Reds changed their name to Redlegs because they didn't want to be associated with Communism.

Straw Man Argument #1:
The name isn't that offensive, here are some polls to back me up.

Who cares what percentage of randomly polled people find it offensive? It's not about being offensive, it's about being an outdated term. Like "negro" or "colored" are outdated terms. If you had a Native American friend, would you introduce him by saying "That Redskin over there is Charlie, he lives next door?"

People probably aren't offended by "redskin" because nobody uses it. But if people did use it, it would be considered a derogatory term. You wouldn't use it in conversation with a Native American. You'd get written up at work if you used it.

If you wouldn't use the term to the face of the person the term is supposed to describe, it's probably not a good term.

Straw Man Argument #2:
Slippery slope! Changing the name might lead to ridiculous requests to change other team's names.

So changing the Redskins' isn't a ridiculous request, but you're worried about future ridiculous requests. Lame argument. Deal with the absurd requests when they come. The Cleveland Indians might need to change their name, and their cartoonishly racist logo. The Chiefs should be okay because the term "chief" isn't racist. The Braves might be in some trouble. But let's deal with those discussions as they come up.

Not giving in now because you don't want to give in later is irrational.

Straw Man Argument #3:
History and tradition

I don't think you want to go down the road of history when discussing Native American issues.

This is a foolish argument anyway. It's like going back to the 1920s and arguing that women shouldn't have the right to vote because they traditionally and historically haven't had it. It's like arguing that we should continue to use terms like "negro" and "colored" because they're traditional and historical.

The Redskins have a rich history as the Redskins. Changing the name won't erase that history. The Syracuse Orange used to be the Orangemen until 2004, yet SU fans still shove their history down everyone's throat.

So Redskins, you've had your name for 80 years. It was a good run. But it's a term from the 1930s. It's time to grow up and find a new name for yourselves. Nobody uses the term "Redskin" anymore. You shouldn't either. You've changed names before, changed cities, changed stadiums, changed uniforms, changed logos. Time to find a new name.

NFL to Solve Racism By Banning N-Word... Homophobic Slurs Soon to Follow?

The NFL is considering banning the N-word on the field of play. Players who use the word could be assessed a 15 yard penalty. This proposal comes after the Richie Incognito bullying/hazing/abuse scandal. There's also a strong possibility that Michael Sam will become the NFL's first openly homosexual player. With eyes and ears open and looking for bigotry in the NFL, the League is motivated to crack down on slurs like the N-word. And perhaps homophobic slurs are next.

It's a nice sentiment from the NFL, but incorrectly focused. It's addressing the symptoms of an illness, but not the cause. Richie Incognito's behavior, for example, is a symptom of a much worse, much more deeply embedded disease. And he'd still be a complete jerk and his actions would still be egregiously wrong even if he never called Jonathan Martin a n-----.

And homophobia doesn't disappear just because people don't call someone a f-- to their face. Any discrimination and any obstacles Michael Sam might face will not be eliminated if the f-word is eliminated from the field of play.

Most of the times you hear n----- on the field, it's from one black player to another. Although sometimes it will be from a white wide receiver to a black security guard. Most of the time it will be between two or more black players, sometimes on the same team, sometimes on different teams, sometimes in a casual way, sometimes as part of aggressive trash talk.

A rule intended to reduce racism against black players will wind up penalizing more black players than white racists.

Enforcing this rule will add more workload to officials who already struggle to enforce basic black and white (forgive the pun) rules in a consistent manner. Officials will have to monitor the voices of 22 men on a field, surrounded by dozens of yelling players and coaches on the sideline, all while 70,000 fans are screaming. Good luck, refs.

This also means louder stadiums will see fewer penalties called. Crowd noise on offense/defense will also have an impact on this penalty.

And if two players from opposing teams both use it, then it offsets? What if one uses it twice and the other only once? What if the ref only hears one player? What if the ref hears it in a pile but can't identify who said it? And it's one thing for a ref to mistakenly call pass interference, it's another if a ref mistakenly penalizes a player for racism.

Officiating decisions determined too many games last year. This misguided attempt to remove racism from the game shouldn't allow officials to spoil any more games with their inconsistent application of rules.

Rules like this would be better enforced with fines after games, and possible suspensions for repeated violations or extreme incidents (example: a white player using the word toward a black player). There are many microphones surrounding a football field, and audio can be reviewed, enhanced, and analyzed. Use technology for this, not human ears, which are prone to human error.

The NFL is taking on a challenge that can't be solved by rules or by removing words from the field. Race relations/civil rights is one of the most complex and contentious issues in American history. I don't think the NFL is going to eliminate any racism in their League by eliminating racist language from the game.

This is an attempt to make a show of effort. It's just for display. After the Incognito story and the impending arrival of Michael Sam, the NFL is being scrutinized. And its skeletons are out in the open, not even hidden in closets. They even have a team called the Redskins!

The NFL is now trying to seem like these issues are an important priority. Either that or the League is misguided/dumb enough to think that penalizing players for words will do anything to eliminate bigotry.

The NFL is a League of contradiction between how it wants to be perceived and how it actually is. The NFL wants a clean image to go along with its product of violence and primal intensity. They want players faster and stronger and hitting each other with more brutality, but they don't want bonuses paid out for hard hits. They want players who push their bodies beyond normal human tolerances, but not if certain substances are used to surpass those tolerances.

Now they want men who play with raw emotions and use their instinct instead of thinking, but who also watch their language.

NFL Refs Conspiring to Ruin Football Games? Revenge for Lockout?

Nothing will ever match the ineptitude of last year's replacement refs. They couldn't keep up with the pace of the game. They made obvious blunders. They ruined the on-field product so badly that the NFL caved and we all celebrated the return of the real refs, who performed so much better than their scab counterparts.

Then there's this year. For the most part NFL refs have been fine. They're not perfect. They make mistakes. And there's the same old inconsistencies with holding and P.I. and all that stuff that's always been annoying.

Then there are a handful of weird plays, all at the ends of big games, that involve obscure rules, or questionable rule interpretations, or forgetting what down it is.

The Patriots and Jets played an overtime game that turned when the Pats were flagged for pushing each other while attempting to block a hopelessly long field goal. Two Sundays ago the Patriots were in Charlotte and the game ended with a pass interference flag being picked up. And this past Sunday the Redskins were apparently given a 1st down, which was actually 3rd down, then the refs caught the "mistake" and reset the dial-a-down to indicate a 4th down. They also failed to measure the very close 1st down that wasn't actually a 1st down.

Mike Shanahan probably didn't ask for a measurement since he seemed to think his team already had a 1st down.

It's just weird that these things are happening. That was replacement level incompetence in the Redskins game. I haven't seen that pushing penalty called since the Pats/Jets game. And few people who don't work for the NFL think it was correct for the officials to pick up the P.I. flag in the Pats/Panthers game.

There was also the Steelers game on Thanksgiving, in which the refs took a touchdown off the board because the ball carrier's helmet was knocked off half a second before he scored a touchdown.

Is there a conspiracy? I doubt it.

Or do I?

Are a group of rogue referees trying to get revenge on the NFL for last year's lockout? Have they decided to spoil the endings of close marquee NFL games with confusion? They waited until the end of the game to penalize the Patriots for their pushing. They tried to go back in take a touchdown from the Steelers. They royally screwed up the end of the Redskins game, and never paused to explain the confusion to anyone on either sideline.

Lack of explanation is another trend in these calls. Belichick didn't get one in Carolina. Shanahan didn't get one Sunday night.

How many times have we heard football pundits and talking heads say "I've never seen anything like this," in regards to officials this year?

It's almost too odd. And keep in mind, the crew that officiated that Steelers game also did the Pats/Panthers game with that waved off pass interference in the end zone.

And three of these four games were nationally televised. The Steelers and Redskins games were on NBC, the Pats/Panthers game was on a Monday Night. Three were divisional matchups. Three were rivalry games. And 6 of the 7 different teams involved are among the NFL's most popular. The teams involved have also won 9 of the last 13 Super Bowls.

It's just too weird for the best football refs to make such bizarre decisions at the endings of big games. A little too weird.

Escape From DC

Let me start with a paragraph overreacting to the shouting match witnessed between Tom Brady and Bill O'Brien. This paragraph will sensationalize the heated discussion between the Patriots' QB and offensive coordinator. This paragraph will not mention that Brady and O'Brien were moments later seen calmly discussing things on the sideline, sitting next to each other. This paragraph will make implicating observations and comments about the chemistry in the Pats' locker room, and will end with an inflammatory question: Who really calls the offensive shots in Foxborough? Brady or O'Brien?

All they were really saying was "rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble."

Now with that over with, let's discuss this game. I think all except the most foolish of fans out there realize that the Patriots defense is a joke. Slater and Edelman are getting significant playing time. There are occasional turnovers forced, but there are also big plays allowed going the other way. This defense makes bad QBs look decent, decent QBs look good, good QBs look great, and great QBs look godlike. This defense has the same effect on quarterbacks as alcohol has on women at a bar, it makes them look much better than they actually are.

Devin McCourty is awful. He would have had a pick if not for a roughing penalty, but he has looked vulnerable all season long. It's not just a sophomore slump, it's a sophomore collapse. He gets torched, he struggles to cover, and he commits penalties to compensate for his failures. Fans shouldn't be allowed to wear McCourty jerseys to games, because opposing QBs will throw footballs in their direction again and again. And that could prove dangerous to spectators.

This team wins and loses based ENTIRELY on how well its offense performs. Brady had a slow start again (8/19 in the first half), and the half ended 20-20. Then Brady played a great 3rd and the Pats took a lead. The offense could have put it away, but Brady threw that argument inciting interception. And of course, the defense almost blew the lead.

When Brady and the offense are perfect, this team cannot lose. When he's great, this team is very difficult to beat. When he's just okay or a bit off for a few series, this team kind of sucks.

Gronkowski is the second most important player on this team. He's hauled in close to half of Brady's TD catches. He is the new NFL record holder for TDs caught by a tight-end. He also passed the 1,000 yard mark in this game.

Is this team going to go deep into the playoffs? That depends completely on the offense, because the defense is going to get ripped apart.

The Pats need to play much better as they're on the road against a hot team that's leading its division. Pats @ Tebow next Sunday evening.

Photo Credit:
AP Photo