Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Final NFL offseason revelations.

A lot can happen in a week; this is a common theme in the NFL and it appears this season is no different already. We'll start with some NFC North news - namely, the odd surgery for Sidney Rice that will result in him missing at least the first half of the season. Immediately, this appeared dire for the Vikings and it still is a loss, no matter what, as Favre appeared to favor Rice to his other receivers. However, give the Vikings credit for having made what seems like a lopsided trade in their favor for Greg Camarillo, who was - in my opinion - a somewhat unheralded guy in Miami with fantastic hands, even if he lacks game-breaking speed. He seems like a good 3rd-down target for Favre, who I wouldn't be surprised to see develop significant trust in Camarillo fast. While I'm sure the Vikings would rather have Rice playing, the Camarillo move spares them having their receiving corps in disarray; now they'll still field one of the stronger receiving corps in the NFL with a likely four-some of Bernard Berrian, Percy Harvin, Camarillo and Greg Camarillo, not to mention tight end Visanthe Shiancoe and Adrian Peterson's ability to run a screen. Not a bad spot to be in after seeing your #1 WR go down.

Meanwhile, what's the preseason without a good quarterback controversy? Not surprising, the Arizona Cardinals didn't take long to lose faith in Kurt Warner's heir-apparent, Matt Leinart, who might be getting usurped with Derek Anderson as the preseason goes on. The Cardinals have a few options here, but I imagine Leinart has grown very weary of losing the confidence of Ken Whisenhunt's staff, who benched him for Kurt Warner two years ago, as well. It's becoming clear to me that Leinart's future might not be in the red-and-white of the Cardinals and, if it isn't Whisenhunt's desire to start him, it might be most fair to the young signal-caller to trade him, as well as most viable for the Cardinals, who still might be able to turn him for a 3rd- or 4th-round pick to any number of teams lacking capable quarterbacks to start.

It's become clear as the offseason has gone on that Roger Goodell will stop at nothing to push the sport to an 18-game regular season. I find this an intriguing concept only because I don't think football is particularly broken right now. It is by far the most popular American sport and I believe part of that is because it's a short season - 16 games makes every game meaningful (almost) and easy to keep track of. Adding games only complicates the game, risks more meaningless games than the couple that it has, and, of course, puts the players in harm's way for longer. I find that last point most interesting, given that player sentiment on the topic gravitates towards the additional damage per season an extra 2 games would put on them. It seems an odd card by the commissioner to play as a possible lockout looms for 2011. However, all of my reading suggests he is going to stick to his guns on this. Is it possible that he's doing this to use as a bargaining chip with the players in the collective bargaining negotiations? Personally, I see an 18-game season as detrimental to the sport compared to how it is now. The extensive, 4-game preseason may be a drag to casual fans, but I see the value to the sport of having that much time to evaluate personnel in actual game situations. The NFL isn't like the NHL or MLB, both of which have extensive farm systems to develop and evaluate talent. The NFL has the preseason and offseason workouts to figure things out - diminishing that time, in my opinion, will result in coaches having less time to evaluate prospects and thus may result in more busts than we already see, while deserving players - those rare gems that make their presences known in later preseason games - may end up going unnoticed. I remain open-minded, but as it stands now, I see a longer season as something extremely disadvantageous to the player base and I'll be interested to see how that plays out in the ongoing labor agreement negotiations.

I'll close this entry with my current radical theory. It's been well-documented that Tom Brady's involvement in the Patriots is less than it once was - he's older now, in his 30s, and not the same fired-up youngster he once was. He has a wife and children on the West Coast and it was clear this offseason that his priority was his family, not football. Even when I see him now, he looks less interested than he used to. This has led me to wonder... what does Tom Brady have to gain from playing for much longer? He holds several single-season records. He's won multiple Super Bowls. He's been a Super Bowl MVP and a regular season MVP. He won't ever threaten career passing records. At the same time, the Patriots - ever-thrifty front office they are - haven't been in much of a rush to get him resigned, as he is in the final year of his contract. They may be waiting for more news on the labor agreement, but part of me wonders... let's assume next year is a locked-out year, that there is (sadly) no football in 2011. I would not be surprised if Brady retired after this season, particularly if the Patriots don't offer him a respectable contract. Here's someone I could see being uninterested in watching his body deteriorate as he plays into his late-30s, not when he could be home with his wife and kids and growing old to still be able to play with those kids, or his grandkids. I could see him doing like Bill Cowher did and taking a nice broadcasting gig in the meantime. Anyway, it's a thought... we've seen better players than Brady leave the game prematurely so as to preserve their body. It's not outside of the realm of possibility. But it would certainly be different, a much-needed shock of reality to a sport that routinely has athletes put their bodies on the line at the expense of their futures... especially as the 18-game debate starts to close and become reality.

No comments:

Post a Comment