The Drug of the Nation

"Armchair supporters” get a bad reputation, which is unfair in my opinion. Not everybody has the time, money, ability or desire to travel to live sporting events. So what, does it make them less of a fan? And who cares if some people prefer watching their sport from the comfort of their living room. I’m often grateful when I decide not to go to football matches – just this Saturday I made the decision not to go to watch Gillingham play at Accrington Stanley (who my girlfriend thought were a firm of accountants!). A 4-3 defeat later and, whilst I was annoyed at the result, I was pleased I hadn’t spent the day travelling to the game and standing in the cold. An afternoon with Gillette Soccer Saturday, Twitter and a glass of wine seems entirely more sensible. I love attending live sport but sometimes the warmer, cheaper, calmer alternative is far more sensible.

Of course, when it comes to watching the NFL, I’m a full time armchair fan. Aside from an annual pilgrimage to Wembley, my NFL viewing is entirely dependent on the black mirror in the corner of the room. It’s the same for the overwhelming majority of UK NFL fans. So, the quality of coverage is paramount to the enjoyment of being a fan.

Luckily, the sport’s coverage in the UK is excellent. On free to air TV, there is one live game per week during the regular season. Given that the sport is overseas based and a minority sport in this country, that’s as good as it’s ever going to get. The time zone factor is an inevitable and unavoidable problem, but for a sport that isn’t played professionally in the UK to have any live free to air coverage is an achievement.

On Sky Sports, you get a minimum of 2 live games per week plus the “Red Zone” option (more of that later). When you think of this compared to the early days of Sky or indeed the pre Sky era, it’s clear that the modern day NFL fan is in a very lucky position. For those people who subscribe to ESPN there is an additional game every Monday evening, but it’s Sky who are regarded as being the television “home” of NFL in the UK. I’m sure I speak for many other fans when I say that if I didn’t have Sky then I wouldn’t be a fan of the sport at all. It was via Sky Sports that I got into the NFL and it’s on there that I spend my Sunday evenings watching the games.

So, if I’m going to be supporting an NFL team I want to be able to watch them live!

There are 2 additional options for watching teams live in the NFL from the comfort of your sofa. Firstly, there is NFL Gamepass. This is a style of coverage that I can see becoming available for a lot of other sports in the future. Similar to Sky’s Champions League coverage it enables you, via your computer, to pick from any NFL game and watch it live, as well as looking at highlights form other games and joining in with online chats, as well as lots of other sexy options. It costs around £175 for a season. It’s not an option I’ve ever had but is certainly something I’ll consider when I’ve chosen my team to support. My current thinking is that this will be the basis of a “post selection” article.

The other option provided by Sky is the “Red Zone”, conveniently enough found by pressing the red button. A simple enough system, but one that used to baffle my Nan, as any on screen request to press her Red Button led to her turning off the television by mistake. A problem that invariably led to phone calls complaining of a broken TV!



"There's an incompletion in St Louis!!!"



Anyway, I digress, the red button option is reminiscent of watching Soccer Saturday or listening to Radio 5 on a weekend afternoon, but this is with live action. The uber enthusiastic Scott Hanson presents the coverage and cuts to live footage of any game that has a team within the “Red Zone” (In other words 20 yards or less from scoring a touchdown), so you can pretty much guarantee that you will see a touchdown, turnover or, at worst, a field goal every time you cut to some action. If 2 or more games are in the “red Zone simultaneously then we just watch a re run of the non live game(s). When no games are in the “Red Zone” then Hanson shouts excitedly about mundane events. “We’re going to Carolina, where the Bills are in midfield and about to punt!!!” Cut to said punt being kicked out of the end zone and back to Hanson looking a bit unsure about where to go next. It’s a fairly enjoyable way to watch the coverage, and I end up watching it if the live game on Sky is either dull or one sided. But the main problem I have with Red Zone is that you don’t get the “story” of any game. You just get the best bits. I’m not a fan of watching sport in highlight form. For example if you watch cricket highlights you know every ball shown will be a wicket, a four, a six or occasionally a dropped catch, you get no real understanding of how the game is developing – what is happening in between? Are the batsmen struggling? Is the bowl turning? And so on.

It the same with the NFL – take the recent New Orleans v San Francisco play off match. Most people agree that it was an all time classic and certainly it was the best match I’ve watched since I became a fan. But imagine watching that on Red Zone if there were 10 other games being played at the same time. You’d just have seen a succession of touchdown plays and would even have missed a few of them as they were long yardage scores. It would have taken away from the majesty of the match entirely. Similarly, had the San Francisco - New York Giants game been a regular season Red Zone match then it’s probably that we would have missed the game defining moment. We wouldn’t have seen the punt return fumble that led to the game winning field goal; instead we would have just cut to the match to watch Lawrence Tynes go for the, relatively short, game winning kick.

So, at present it’s Sky Sports for my main NFL fix plus the occasional Channel 4 late night match with the aid of Sky+. I usually accompany my viewing by logging on to NFL.com for the latest scores from other games and some highlights form key moments in matches. Whilst I’m keen to explore other options such as Gamepass, I thoroughly enjoy my current Sunday evening viewing option.

So what’s this got to do with me picking a team to support? Well, being an armchair fan it stands to reason that I want my team to be shown live on TV! If I end up not getting Gamepass then it’s my only chance to see my team play live.

This elimination is going to be based on the team that was shown least on TV last season. In some ways this is unfair, as the live TV schedule changes every year and in the second half of the season it is based on the most meaningful games at that point. A team shown 0 times this season could end up being shown 10 times next. In many ways this season’s figures are irrelevant – but hey, I’ve got 31 teams to eliminate and to quote Snoop from the Wire “deserve got nothing to do with it”.

Over the course of the 2011 regular season, the number of times each was shown live in the UK was:

11	New York Giants
10	Green Bay Packers
9	Dallas Cowboys
9	New York Jets
9	Pittsburgh Steelers
8	Philadelphia Eagles
7	Chicago Bears
7	New Orleans Saints
6	Baltimore Ravens
6	New England Patriots
6	San Diego Chargers
5	Atlanta Falcons
5	Detroit Lions
5	Minnesota Vikings
5	Tampa Bay Bucs
4	Denver Broncos
4	Indianapolis Colts
4	Jacksonville Jaguars
4	Kansas City Chiefs
4	Miami Dolphins
4	Oakland Raiders
3	Cincinnati Bengals
3	San Francisco 49ers
3	Washington Redskins
2	Buffalo Bills
2	Carolina Panthers
2	Houston Texans
2	Seattle Seahawks
2	St Louis Rama
2	Tennessee Titans
1	Cleveland Browns
0	Arizona Cardinals

As I’ve said before, it’s fairly irrelevant information, although it might prompt a few talking points. But I’m operating a strict elimination policy so it’s goodbye to Arizona.

It’s worth noting that over the first 8 weeks of the season no team were shown more than 4 times, but in the last 9 weeks the Giants were televised 8 times!

Dallas and the Jets received 9 live games despite not reaching the play offs whilst Houston were only shown twice even though they won their division.

Other anomalies include:

The Vikings being shown 5 times even though they had a dreadful season.

San Francisco only getting 3 live games, but finishing as second seeds in the NFC.

Indianapolis getting 3 of their first 8 games live on TV. Probably due to expectations being high before the start of the season.

On the flip side the Bengals had no TV coverage up to week 8 and then were show 3 times in the second half of the season.

The strange thing about Arizona being the only non televised team is that they had a number of memorable games in 2011, including 4 overtime victories and finished the season with a respectable 8-8 record. It was certainly a more memorable season for the Cardinals than it was for the likes of the Jaguars (4 live games), the Chargers (6) and the Eagles (8).

I’m a bit sad to be eliminating the Cardinals as they feature some of the most exciting players in the league in Larry Fitzgerald and Patrick Peterson, as well as being one of the more likeable franchises in the league. I’ve had a soft spot for them since their Superbowl run in 2008-09, but rules are rules so I won’t be supporting Arizona next season…

Paying the Penalty

Mention the NFL to any non fans and there's a fair chance you'll be meet with a comment along the lines of "too many breaks" or "too slow" or "They stop every 5 seconds".  I know because it was my viewpoint before I got into the sport.  Since I've become a fan I've realised that the argument is largely ignorant and somewhat narrow minded.
The time gap between plays in the NFL is 40 seconds. Compare that to the time taken between serves in tennis, shots in golf, dead ball restarts in football/rugby, balls in cricket (by a fast bowler!) or any number of other sporting scenarios.  Basically, all sports are somewhat stop/start.  Go to an athletics, horse racing or swimming event and there's a huge gap between races. The only sport I can think of that has an almost continuous flow is darts!

Whilst I don't think the time between plays or after scores is unreasonable, I do have a bit of a gripe with a couple of other stoppages in the NFL, and can perhaps sympathize with the sports knockers.

Firstly, Timeouts -specifically those that occur when a team has made a mistake. 12 players on the pitch? Wrong formation? Players not ready before the clock expires?  No problem, just call a timeout so we can all sit around for 5 minutes whilst the coaches sort out what they got wrong! It's like a "Get out of jail free" card and to me it seems a bit unfair.  If you've got your tactics or planning wrong then tough. It just seems like a cheap option to cover your errors.  I've got no problem with the 30 second time outs in the last 2 minutes as clock management is part of the skill of coaching and playing.  Similarly the "2 minute warning" is a chance for the players and coaches to reassess their strategy for the end of the half. Whilst video reviews and injuries are part of the game  It's just the long timeouts due to team errors that are annoying!

Except that is for the reason I'm eliminating my next team...penalties!

Penalties are annoying in all sports as they are down to player error most of the time. Sure there are referring mistakes and the occasional bit of bad luck but most of the time it's down to a dumb bit of play from a highly paid professional.  When I watch sport I find that my negative emotions aren't triggered by opposition players, fans or even referees. Most of the time my anger and frustration is directed to my own team's players.

In the NFL it's just as annoying, a grab of a helmet, an early movement, an over excited celebration or -worst of all - an offence after the play is called dead.  I found it all very frustrating, especially at 1am on a Sunday night when my window for sleep is growing ever smaller! So, I really don't want to support a team that commits the most penalties in the league - that would just annoy me and make me regret my choice...so it's back to the stats.

Anyway who follows the NFL won't be overly surprised at the identity of the worst culprits in the league, it's that friendly bunch from California, the Oakland Raiders.  Averaging a whopping 10.2 penalties per game, the Raiders are almost 2 fouls per match ahead of their nearest challenges (the Seattle Seahawks). In terms of distance, the Raiders give up an average of 84 yards per match! which is near enough the entire length of the field - effectively another score for the opposition.

So it's bye bye to Oakland, which leaves me a bit ambivalent. I know the Raiders provoke a lot of strong emotions in fans but they've never had that effect on me.  I'm not a Raiders hater like some people, in fact I like some of their players - in particular their kicker/punter duo of Janokowski and Lechler.  A pairing who give hope to everyone that no maybe what shape or size they are they can still make it as a top level sportsman.  But there do seem to be a very frustrating team to support, on top of the penalties they do have a penchant in recent years for failing to make the most of their chances.  This year they were in pole position in a very weak division and contrived to allow Denver to overtake them thanks to some silly defeats.

All of which leaves me with 21 teams...

You've had your Chance...

I have to admit that when I started this blog, I completely forgot that the NFL International Series game was being announced in January. The St Louis Rams v the New England Patriots, is the start of a series of 3 Rams "home" games being played at Wembley. I posted a long (possibly too long!) post on the nfluk forum (http://forum.nfluk.com/showthread.php?t=87734) about this move and overall I think it's a great move for the Rams and UK fans.  However, it won't turn me into a Rams fans for any longer than the duration of the match!
Ok, I know I've already eliminated them form my search but regardless of that I'm pretty certain I won't be getting the St Louis bug in October.

The NFL International Series is an amazing event. I've attended a wide range of sporting events around the world and can honestly say that the Wembley game is one of the very best.
The atmosphere, the spectacle, the fans and the organisation are all brilliant.  I've attended the event 3 times and watched five different teams play.  Five teams with an opportunity to turn me into a fan, to make me follow them for life. And they all failed!

It goes back to the intangibility of who people support. I could easily have turned into a fan of any of these teams in the same way that I hope a lot of people will become Rams fans this year.  When I became a fan of the football and cricket teams I support, it was because of the instant hit I had when I first saw them play.  Seeing as I was 6 at the time I was probably more easily influenced back then!  As an adult, I didn't "take" to the Wembley teams when I saw them, so they've missed their opportunity to have me as a fan.  Which means I can eliminate a whopping 5 teams from my search.  But why didn't I fall for any of the 5 teams...

New Orleans Saints - My first visit to the International Series was in 2008 and was by some distance the best match of the 5 Wembley games thus far. As the home team, there was a heavy Saints theme to the pre match Tailgate proceedings - traditional New Orleans food, mardi gras, Saints cheerleaders etc.  It made for a great afternoon, comfortably the best of the Tailgates I've been to. And the Saints won a pulsating game, playing some excellent football along the way.
But I didn't end up supporting them, I guess as it was the early days of my NFL support I was still learning and didn't know as much as I do now.  Maybe, if it had been the Saints in 2011 I would have jumped at the chance to support them?  Either way, they had their chance to win my support and failed to do so.

San Diego Chargers - Definitely in the near miss category.  A started liking the Chargers during the 07/08 playoffs  I enjoyed the fired up intensity/anger of QB Philip Rivers, the speed of the tiny Darren Sproles and  the winning touchdown by back up Billy Volek against the Colts. When I joined the nfl website, I picked the Chargers as my team.  When the Chargers were selected as the Saints opponents for the Wembley game I was excited about seeing my favourite team play.  But then...nothing.   I wasn't yet into following the league during the off season and to all intents and purposes I lost interest in the Chargers, so when the 08 season began I was back to square one.  I was watching different teams every week and the Chargers were just tone of the 32 again.  By the time Wembley cam around I was pretty much neutral about the outcome.  But how knows, maybe if the Chargers had won I'd have become a fan. A last second hail mary away from finding my team?

Tampa Bay Buccaneers -  The Bucs have been the home team on 2 of my 3 Wembley visits (I couldn't make it in 2010).  Both times they lost, for at least 75% of the time they played poorly and quite frankly they didn't do anything on the pitch to endear me to them.  But support isn't just about picking a winning , it's aobut developing a love for a team. Sure, on field success helps but the Bucs could have lured me in without getting a W on the pitch.
The main reason they didn't was the atmosphere around the games, at both the Tailgate and the pubs around Wembley it felt like I was at some kind of NFL fan fest (which in many ways it was!) rather than a Bucs home game.  Naturally enough, fans of other teams were wearing their teams' shirts and the Bucs weren't really any more prominent than any other team.  I'm not blaming the Bucs for this as it's normal for fans to show their support in such a way at an annual event, it just didn't lend itself to encouraging people to support Tampa Bay.  As an aside I think this is something the NFL need to address for the Rams game, there are a lot of people open to supporting a new team and having the matchday experience feel like a Rams home game will massively help in this area.

New England Patriots - Nobody likes the school bully! As the Pat's cruised to a comprehensive win in 2009, I couldn't muster anything in the way of enthusiasm for the way things went down.  It was comfortably the weakest of the 3 games I've attended.  No fault of New England and it was a pleasure to watch Tom Brady perform, but picking off the array of no name Bucs was a simple task and not really a great opportunity for them to showcase how great they can be.  Again, who knows - if it had been a victory over a high quality team I may have develop some love for the Pats.

Chicago Bears - Similar to the Saints, this is a bit of an intangible. The Bears played well, I like quite a few of their players (Forte, Urlacher, Briggs, Hester) and I enjoyed the match.  But it just didn't click, I was watching them from a neutral point of view and I actually wanted the Bucs to win in the final quarter.  I guess it's the British penchant for routing for the underdog and wanting a last minute winner. So again, through no real fault of their own the Bears are eliminated from my search.

Phew, that seems like a hefty chunk of teams to eliminate, but it seemed a suitable time to write about the International Series and my experience of it.  And, of course, it allows me to get down to 22 teams....


Eliminated - Colts, Jaguars, Steelers, Rams, Bears, Bucs, Patriots, Chargers, Saints and Chiefs

Search for a Hero

The phrase "team sport" implies that everybody contributes to the cause, and the corporate world constantly reminds us that there is "no I in Team".  However, as sports fans, we want individual heroes, we want icons on the pitch, we want people representing us, the fans.  It could be the local lad in the team playing for his boyhood club, it could be the star player or it could simply be the player that gives his all and plays as if his life depended on it.  Either way you want to have a favourite player.

This player can be anyone. In football, it is often the leading goalscorer but it equally be the right back who grow up in the area and has played for the team all his life. It might be the player who plays in the position you play in down the park.  This applied to my cricket watching, for years my favourite player at Kent was Min Patel - not because he was the best, not because he was from my area but because he was a slow left arm bowler - as was I. I felt like I could connect with him and know what he was thinking when he was bowling.  Of course, it's a load of old rubbish and much like our favourite teams, our favourite players are just something that happens without us consciously deciding.  However, seeing as I'm approaching this in a more clinical manner I  want someone to cheer for and to have a favourite player.  Or - as this is the way we're going! - I want to avoid having nobody to cheer for. I want to avoid having a rubbish quarterback to support!

In the NFL, quarterback is king.  Sure everybody plays their part and without a good squad you're not going to win much, but the quality of the quarterback is paramount to a team's success.  Of course, there are exceptions to the rule and teams that do well without having a superstar in the position.  Currently, the Baltimore Ravens are in the last 4 of the season and this is with an average player (Joe Flacco) in the quarterback spot.  Their game plan is built on running the ball and having a strong, physical and disciplined defence.  They are an exception rather than the rule and many experts still doubt that they can win a Superbowl with Flacco pulling the strings.  A look back down the years shows that the vast majority of Superbowl's are won by a team with an outstanding quarterback.

There are numerous examples of the importance of the position just this season.  Perhaps the most glaring is in Indianapolis, pre season they were ranked as being around the 4th or 5th best team in the league, but a long term injury to quarterback Peyton Manning saw them finish the season at the very bottom of the pile (as documented a couple of weeks ago).  In Chicago, the Bears were all set for a play off spot halfway through the season but an injury to QB Jay Cutler meant they had to turn to the inexperienced and, quite frankly,  rubbish Caleb Hanie. Cue a season ending run of defeats. It can be the case that the QB, breeds confidence or nervousness in the rest of his team, thus affecting their performance.  It's easier to perform well if you know that your most important team mate can be relied upon,

Of course, they are non quarterbacks that achieve hero status - runners like Adrian Peterson and LeSean McCoy, receivers like Andre Johnson and Calvin Johnson and sometimes even defenders like Troy Polamanu and Brian Urlacher.  But what's apparent is that teams can succeed without some of these players, whilst it is virtually impossible to succeed without your quarterback.  Last season, Green Bay lost a number of vital players (1st choice running back Ryan Grant and tight end Jermichael Finley to name but two) but because they had a high quality QB in Aaron Rogers they were still able to win the Superbowl.
So, I want my team to have a quarterback I can cheer for and can achieve hero status - which means it's back to some stats!

I could spend some time explaining how quarterbacks are rated in the NFL.  I could explain the passer rating system which takes into account all aspects of play and rates the players accordingly. OR I could just let Wikipedia explain...

"The calculation of the NFL passer rating involves more steps than the NCAA formula. In order to establish a maximum value for an NFL player's passer rating, a separate calculation needs to be completed involving each of the following four categories: Completion Percentage, Average Yards Per Attempt, Percentage of Touchdown Passes, and Percentage of Interceptions. If the result in any category is less than 0, the given result should be 0. If the result in any category is greater than 2.375, the given result should be 2.375. This makes the maximum possible quarterback rating for the NFL 158.3. A perfect rating requires at least a 77.5% completion rate, at least 12.5 yards per attempt, a touchdown on at least 11.875% of attempts, and no interceptions."

So there you go. Simple. Not surprisingly, it's not a universally liked system and there are plenty of examples
of players who are misrepresented by the stat. But seeing as nobody has come up with a better system it's going to be the one we got with!

I'm only including the main starters for teams as there are a number of players who have filled in at the position for periods of a game and even some examples of non quarterbacks attempting passes. At the top of the pile are star names like the aforementioned Aaron Rogers, Drew Brees and Tom Brady. Predictably, these are players at teams that have had good seasons. Going down the list and it becomes obvious that the quality of the quarterback is directly linked to the success of the teams.

Before I wrote this, I hadn't looked to see who was bottom of the pile, but I'll give myself a fan point for correctly guessing the incumbent. Step forward Mr Blaine Gabbert of the Jacksonville Jaguars.  Gabbert has had something of a nightmare 1st season, with interceptions and misplaced passes a plenty.  He also looks like he could be the villain in a High School serial killer film directed by Wes Craven. Gabbert completed just half of his pass attempts during the season and only contributed 12 touchdown passes to the cause.

 

I'm actually not overly bothered about losing the Jaguars, they are a largely anonymous bunch apart from the exceptional running back Maurice Jones-Drew. Furthermore, there never seems to be much of an atmosphere at their stadium and they receive a relatively low amount of media coverage.

So with the Colts, Steelers, Rams, Chiefs and now Jaguars out of the running that leaves me with 27 possible teams...

Fun, Fun, Fun

I've established that winning is important when I come to selecting my team or, more to the point, not getting thrashed every week. But, winning isn't everything, I want to have fun as well whilst supporting my team.

A good team sport requires a form of scoring that has some form of rarity value - football has goals, rugby has tries, cricket has wickets or boundaries. I don't like basketball and one of the prime reasons is that there seems to be a score every 30 seconds - how can you get excited about your team scoring when you know it's probably going to happen again in the next couple of minutes.

In American Football, touchdowns (6 points) are the aim of the game. The only other means of scoring is via a field goals by the kicker (3 points or 1 point for the kick after touchdown), but it's touchdowns that get people excited. On average there are around 5 touchdowns per NFL match, and I want to see my fair share of them!

Luckily, the NFL is about the most stats heavy sport I've ever encountered, you can find out virtually anything about every team and player in the league. Want to know the average kick by the Carolina Panthers punter? No problem. Got a bet concerning which member of the San Diego defense has made the most pass deflections? Easily resolved.

It's an area that has grown beyond comprehension in the modern era. It's useful for coaches when planning for matches and for analysts when talking about them. It's also useful for fans as it gives them a suggestion of what to look for and expect in matches. On a personal level, it's going to be useful in helping me find a team...

I want to cheer for touchdowns...but what's more important than seeing loads of them is avoiding a chronic lack of them. I've sat through more than my fair share of dull sports encounters - the slow, wicketless session of cricket, the drab 0-0 draw, I've even experienced the mind numbing boredom of the longest frame in snooker history! An experience that lasted 83 minutes, during which I was trapped in a silent, dark room, unable to leave my seat. If they ever make another Saw movie, it'd make a great opening sequence.

So, I'm going to eliminate the team that scored the least amount of touchdowns in the 2011 NFL season, in other words the team that generated the least excitement in the league. As it turns out, number 32 on the list is the St Louis Rams - which helps to justify my elimination of them last week.

At the number 31 on the list are the Kansas City Chiefs with just 20 touchdowns in their 16 matches, so unfortunately I'm eliminating them from their search. I say unfortunately because they are the first team to be eliminated that I actually quite like and it's been an unfortunate season for them on the injury front. The lack of touchdowns is partially down to losing their best quarterback, best runner and best defender for large chunks of the season, but I've got to have rules so I won't be supporting Kansas next season...