Four Downs with Dang & Doc
by Brian Davis and Paul Hopkins
October 22nd 2010
 
This week Dang and Doc debate the mid-season firing of Head Coaches, the issue of helmet to helmet hits as well as the passing of the trade deadline. Meanwhile, in the NCAA the BCS rankings came out with a surprise at #1. Do we agree?
 
Do you believe the popular convention that mid-season firings of Head Coaches are counter-productive?
 
DOC – No I don't. But I don't believe it's a simple cut and dried picture though. But I do believe that there are times when there is no reason not to cut your losses, possibly try something else and then you'll be able to have a completely new slate with no loose ends hanging or question marks lingering. To listen to some of these experts out there, firing a Head Coach mid-season never works, should never happen and should probably be outlawed. What a load of rubbish. It can work and I tell you, it should be happening right now in Dallas. I know the NFC is garbage; I know the Cowboys are (statistically only in reality) still in the race for the playoffs but that negates the fact that this ragbag of players is the most ill-disciplined, stupid and self-defeating players I've ever seen in sports. My God, it's breathtaking to see how they manage to shoot themselves in the foot on a weekly basis. And much as they all speak so fondly of him – probably because he's so soft on them – Wade Phillips is a joke. A total and utter joke. He enables this to happen through his lackadaisical bumpkin attitude, where he waddles up and down the sidelines looking like an escapee from an old person's mental institution. The only – and I mean only – reason to keep him around was that he was an excellent defensive coordinator. Well you know what? This year, the defence (Newman and Ware) aside has stunk. Therefore there's no reason worth keeping this bluffer around any longer. We've been led to believe that Jason Garrett is the heir apparent to the throne and believe me there's been no harsher critic of him than me. And indeed in the first two weeks I was completely apoplectic at what he was doing, but to be fair things have improved of late and look more balanced. So make the change, stick Garrett in charge and see how he gets on. Hopefully he fails and there can be a complete clear out in the off-season. If they don't do it now, then the Garrett issue comes up in January and we either waste a year seeing if he can do it (when this team doesn't have yet another year to waste on a garbage coach) or we have the issue continuing under a new coach. Do it now. Find out what the future of this team should be. If this isn't a perfect case of a time it should happen then the world has gone mad. Coach Cupcake OUT!
 
DANG – Counter-productive.  I think it always has been.  You only have to look at the 49ers for instance.  Singletary made a nice start to his coaching career, but one year later, they are in the same, if not worse position. The new Coach buys you a few more weeks of being a bad team, says the right things the fans want to hear, makes some of the changes the fans want to see and the players play hard for the new coach for the remainder of the year, but it's like any sport, without your stamp on the team, your players, your coaches, your thinking you are just inheriting somebody else's poorly coached team. At the half way point of a season it can never by wholly effective and does a “big name Coach” really want to inherit those problems mid-season?  I doubt it.  He wants to come in at the turn of a new year and work it all out himself from fresh.
Since 1970, no NFL Head Coach hired midseason has made the playoffs. It doesn't take a genius to work out that the short term gain of a midseason change is counter-productive.
 
After a spate of helmet to helmet hits knocking players out of games on Sunday, do you agree that the NFL should suspend players responsible?
 
DOC – Yes I do. Some of the hits of late have been horrific. The Robinson hit on DeSean Jackson was one of the scariest things I've seen on a football field. More than that it's become more frequent that players are being laid out. I don't doubt for a second this has come about because the pressure has grown on the NFL to take this issue seriously – as they really did not give it the respect it deserved for a number of years. But at the same time there are more incidents taking part. The game is getting faster, players on the defensive side are getting faster, bigger and stronger and so the impacts are far greater. Helmets are, like it or not – a weapon. Yes, they're there for protection but they're also there to use in pursuit of winning the game. We might not like it, but it's a fact. However, I think it's vital that it doesn't turn into a witch hunt. There was a very intelligent (surprising given the participants) discussion about this on the Monday Night Countdown this week, where it was recognised that sometimes these hits are caused by a miniscule adjustment in a fraction of a second. Where a receiver moves ever so slightly and a shoulder hit from the defender ends up being helmet to helmet contact. That's why it is essential – vital even, that each case gets taken on a case by case basis. Talk to the players involved, talk to the union, its important players buy into this and understand it. Violent and overly aggressive hits; yes come down to stamp them out. But if it's unavoidable and accidental, don't hang a player out to dry, don't have a knee jerk reaction. Try and find a way to make the game that little bit safer. Whilst we need to protect players, we also have to remember this is a physical game which trades and benefits from its physical image. We can't hang players out to dry for what might be an accident when at the same time; the League makes money from its tough image. So do something about it, but take some time and don't make a knee-jerk reaction. Hopefully Goodell will resist.
 
DANG – I think suspension was inevitable with the way the league is moving on concussions and for a flat out helmet to helmet I do very much agree, because health MUST come first in these instances.
I don't however agree with forearm or shoulder use at shoulder height resulting in a week suspension, the Dunta Robinson/DeSean Jackson hit is a prime example, Robinson meant no harm with that hit. The helmet hit came after the shoulder hit, it was unavoidable and Robinson was injured in the play himself, Robinson shouldn't receive a suspension following that and nor should anybody else for a hard football hit. Now James Harrison and Brandon Merriweather are totally different examples, those were absolutely brutal blows that should warrant a suspension.  We can't forget that this is a contact sport. The players know the score before they step on the field. The big hits are exciting.  That's why we watch, we can't take the big hits out of the game, helmet to helmet – remove. Hard hits have to stay.
 
The trade deadline has passed without a murmur. If one trade should have taken place, what would it have been?
 
DOC – Well the three big names being talked about are Logan Mankins, Vincent Jackson and serial malcontent Albert Haynesworth. Maybe one or more of them should have found a new home and I'm sure there would be more than a few franchises more than happy to take them off their respective teams hands; if perhaps not their salary demands/contracts. But if there's one team that really needs something that could take them that little bit further it's the Green Bay Packers. The NFC is wide open; it's poor and its there for the taking for a lot of teams. The Packers are hurting with injuries; the loss of Jermichael Finley is a massive blow but I think the lack of a rushing game is likely to hurt them just as much. Ryan Grant is gone and Brandon Jackson really just isn't that good. So, if I was the Green Bay Packers I would have forced the issue with the Dallas Cowboys to take Tashard Choice off their hands. They probably could equally have made a move for Marion Barber but if I was the Packers I would go for Choice. Barber has arguably seen his best days now. His physical style looks to have taken a toll and he really lacks the burst and zip that came along with his bruising approach, highlighted in his early years. He still has some value but he would also come with the mega contract that Jerry Jones rather foolishly gave him a year or two ago. If the Packers had made a move for Barber they'd have likely had to either take that on or renegotiate it and that would likely prove to be a problem. The better choice (no pun intended) for them would be to go for Choice who has disappeared from the Cowboys playbook of late. He's young, talented, and doesn't have many miles on his clock. Choice doesn't do any one thing particularly excellently; not one particular facet stands out. But he does everything well and backs like that are not easy to find. The Cowboys should resist because when they have a clearout Marion Barber is more than likely (and should) be the odd one out, and Choice should benefit from this. But I don't understand why the Packers haven't made a move for a good back as this could push them to the forefront of a weak conference.
 
DANG – I thought that Green Bay would have made an earlier move for Marshawn Lynch in all honesty, especially considering he went for a 4th round pick, I really don't think Brandon Jackson is going to bail them out too much.  Green Bay has James Starks coming back off the PUP list, but even with both of them I'm not convinced that's a strong enough running game to make up for the loss of Ryan Grant.
Haynesworth is an interesting one, but I wouldn't say I was surprised he didn't move, I think the price is still currently too high, the same could be said for Vincent Jackson.  Not overly surprised nothing major was done and after Randy Moss' earlier trade, it would have taken something monumental to have even come close to that.
 
Explain how Oklahoma find themselves ranked #1 in the BCS when they're #3 in every other poll.
 
DOC – Because, to put it politely the BCS is complete rubbish that's why. I've read all the rules about how the BCS works, about how the computer puts it all together and I'm sorry, I don't see how they've got the Sooners atop the rankings. Ok, on the plus side they pounded Florida State who is moving up at the present time and they beat Texas (just) and no doubt Texas toppling Nebraska helps as well. But they limped past – at home as well – teams that they should have beaten with ease. If positive style points count against teams that are equally doing well, then surely there should be some negatives counting against them for their struggles. If the coaches are saying that Oregon are the best team then why on earth is the BCS saying otherwise? The Ducks have probably the stiffest schedule left in the very deep Pac 10 so surely if they run the table they'll be rewarded with the #1 spot. Boise State? Well, their scenario ahs been talked to death so I'm just going to leave that. So let's just hope that Missouri beat Oklahoma this week and cause complete chaos, but more importantly drop this fraudulent team down the rankings so we're left with the consensus two best teams in the country in Oregon and Boise State atop the rankings.
 
DANG – Is there any way of explaining the BCS.  Does anybody actually know how this works properly?  Just when I think I kind of know what's going on it throws out these curve balls. As per our college picks this week, I think Oklahoma comes unstuck at Missouri this weekend, therefore I think this system will be shown to be floored, I really don't see how Oklahoma jumps Boise State and Oregon after having such an insipid start to the year, particularly Oregon who are in a very strong PAC10 this year?