Jack’s Blog

After inexplicably allowing the Ravens’ Jacoby Jones to get behind . . . everybody, the Broncos found themselves in a tie game.  It should never have happened.  Denver was up seven and in the proper defense.  It’s just that Rahim Moore misjudged Joe Flacco’s Hail Mary and Jones hauled in the ball, underthrown as it was.

Still, there were 41 seconds left in the game.  And the Broncos were at home and had . . . Peyton Manning.  The Broncos’ coaching staff decided the best move was to kneel down and take their chances in overtime.  Then the Ravens won the toss and, of course, took the ball.  If they scored a touchdown, the game would have been over.  Imagine how the fan base would have reacted to the “take a knee” decision then!

But the Ravens didn’t score and Denver got the ball, needing only a field goal to move on to the conference championship game.  Manning, then, did the unthinkable.  He threw an interception.  A pick.  In (almost) field goal territory.  Sure enough, it didn’t take long for Baltimore to kick the game winner, ending the dream season too early for the Bronco faithful.

The post game phone lines were lit and more were holding.  “Why did we take a knee with 41 seconds to go?  Peyton had just driven us for a score on the last series?  We only needed a couple (few) first downs.  Peyton had more than enough time.  Our guy should have ended it with a kick.”  It’s surprising a riot or two didn’t occur.  The entire Bronco Nation was up in arms over coach John Fox’s cowardly call with 41 seconds to go.

The guy who saved Denver from mass destruction was the very same who gave them their greatest thrills.  John Elway, at yesterday’s press conference, spoke like a true football man.  He talked about how stunned the Broncos were, the look in their eyes after the Jones’ TD and how taking a knee was the right move.

What the average fan seldom takes into consideration is that, although Peyton Manning has performed miracles on several previous occasions, can anyone imagine if the Broncos had not taken a knee and Manning threw an interception similar to the one he did minutes later?  The second guessers would have had a field day.

Jocelyn Murray summed up a situation like this best when she said:

“Do not bother yourself with what ifs.”

Politics in America today have turned into theater, which may be appealing to the performers but does little for many of us who would like to hear what they think of the real issues and how they plan on improving the country.  So, representing this brand of individual is none other than yours truly.  Here are the (my) rules:

1) The moderator is equipped with a taser to be used as soon as one candidate a) so much as mentions the other’s name, b) refers to what my opponent’s plan is or will be and c) talks over the other, out of turn.  In other words, tell Americans about you and what electing you would mean to us.  Note: If a taser is deemed to be overly excessive, the rule shall be amended, to, rather than tase the offender, mute his/her microphone.

2) Each candidate will be allowed to bring a special adviser, whomever he or she considers an expert on the subject being discussed and whose views reflect those of the candidate.  These advisers will or will not necessarily be a current or potential Cabinet member.  The reason for this rule is simple.  The job of president is entirely too difficult for one person to do by him or herself.  The candidate will answer the question but will be allowed to confer with his or her adviser before doing so.

The nation, if not the world, has become one of specialists.  No one ought to be expected to know everything.  It is now commonplace for an honest gaffe to be recorded and YouTubed forever.  A candidate may has changed his or her opinion from years ago, yet the former version is still out there for anyone and everyone to see, hear, email, text or tweet.  Everyone’s job - especially the POTUS - is infinitely more difficult since the invention of the Internet.

3)  There should be a gallery of people who have used dishonest methods in the past to attain personal fame, power or fortune.  Should candidates find it necessary to use any such person in their campaign, it should be duly noted and the candidate should disclose his or her reason for wanting to be associated with such an individual.  This is not negative campaigning as the agenda of each of these people has been exposed and we should see them for what they are - people who will win at any cost.  There shouldn’t be any room for such people in politics.  Examples are Michael Moore, Karl Rove and hundreds of others - on both sides.

4) Each candidate must explain how he or she plans to work with members of the opposing party.  Once again, there is to be no speaking over the opponent.  In this one case there will be an exception and each candidate will have a limited amount of time (two minutes?) to explain why his or her opponent’s “across-the-aisle” techniques won’t succeed but there needs to be evidence why the methods won’t work .

Why, you might ask, would I, someone who admittedly knows next-to-nothing about politics - and cares just a smidgen less - would decide to come up with something like the above?  The recent negativity in campaigning is, or at least out to be, embarrassing to all Americans - and outlawed.  Plus, it’s hard to blog on something every day!  Seriously, if selecting a leader is vital - and it is - how important is picking someone to lead the country for the next four years?  Seemingly, the overwhelming majority of our citizens aren’t happy with the direction our nation is headed in so many areas - educationally, economically, taking care of our seniors, younger folks being able to take care of themselves, the use of our military, . . .  whatever!   We have a chance to improve it but only if we change our attitudes.

As best selling author John Maxwell says:

“It’s not our conditions that determine our choices; it’s our choices that determine our conditions.”

As much as the NFL drug policy has been publicized, you’d think players would either 1) not do anything that would result in a positive test or 2) find a way to . . . not do anything that would result in a positive test, i.e. cheat the system.  Since salaries are what they are, players can’t afford to fail tests.  One huge problem is that, for a number of these guys, the reason they’re making those salaries is because they, let’s say, had a little help - the kind of help that produces positive tests.  I’m not talking about marijuana or any street drug.

What’s causing many failed drug tests is the players’ dependency on steroids.  This brings us to the subject of this blog: D.J. Williams of the Denver Broncos.  Now I’m assuming his first two failed drug tests (he’s been suspended for the first six games of the season) were for some kind of performance enhancing drugs, not street drugs.  Williams submitted a another specimen.  Except this time a bottle fell out from his waist.  Testers came to the conclusion that the urine was from a non-human!  There isn’t a stupidity clause that keeps a guy out of the NFL.  But maybe there ought to be.  

There are companies that allegedly sell “clean” urine.  If you’re not dabbling in anything you shouldn’t be, think about the next time you go to the bathroom and the term “pissing away money” might come to mind.

Someone close to me related a story about a fellow worker who no longer uses steroids but did when he got into body building.  His feeling about them is:

“The major side effect of steroids is . . . they work!

This post will be brief - to make a point.  Josh McDaniels cut his coaching teeth in the Bill Belichick school of leadership.  No doubt, Belichick isn’t perfect, but as a football coach, he accomplishes what he’s paid to do - get his players to play at the highest level.

When McDaniels took over the Denver Broncos, he immediately jettisoned Jay Cutler.  Possibly he felt the team couldn’t win with Cutler as QB, possibly McDaniels wanted to show he was in charge.  There were a couple of other moves, mostly involving trades that didn’t work out, that illustrated McDaniels was adamant about being in control.

Bill Belichick is his own man.  It seemed that Josh McDaniels wanted to show he was his own man too, but he came off looking as though he wanted to be Bill Belichick.  Did he learn from his old boss?

As the saying goes:

“You can communicate knowledge, but you can’t communicate wisdom.”

Anytime a team wins, especially when it comes out of the gate undefeated - AND - no one saw it happening that way, everybody wants to know the “secret.”  Although a couple losses could relegate the squad to “I knew it all along” status, the “bask in the glory” and “live for the moment” mantras might as well be enjoyed.  In the NFL, the bubble can burst on any given Sunday (or, with TV now running the league, nearly any day of the week).  Oh no, that’s college football.

The latest wonder team is the Denver Broncos, especially after last week’s win over the mighty Patriots, dubbed “pupil beats the mentor” (no doubt that headline was prewritten, just there’s no doubt “mentor teaches pupil” was tossed).  Josh McDaniels and his Mile High guys are the talk of the NFL (the Colts are too old hat to warrant talk).

It didn’t start out that way, though, when McDaniels purged the team (by those who didn’t like him) or put his signature on it by his supporters (not nearly as many or as vocal).  His club has 27 new faces on it and its style is nothing like the Denver fans have seen in quite a while.  All-star QB Jay Cutler had his feelings hurt when McDaniels wasn’t quick to embrace him, so the coach did the unthinkable - he traded him and then Coach Josh had to hear all about it from Cutler (naturally through the media).  Seems Jay is no advocate of the “don’t burn bridges” philosophy.

So, the big question is, “How in the world are these guys doing it?“  First and foremost, and take it from a guy who coached 35 years (granted, the sport was basketball, although I did get in a couple years of coaching high school football), buying into what the coach(es) is (are) selling is the number one aspect in building a winning team.  Of course, talent trumps all, but as far as building, the talent seems to rise to the level of a winner once the buy-in takes place.  Besides, everybody in the NFL has talent. 

And as long as it’s a team sport, which one it is doesn’t matter.  The coach (or coaching staff) must get the players to believe what (s)he believes - as strongly as (s)he believes it.  Accomplish that and you have a winner because what happens next is what Broncos’ newcomer (DE) Vonnie Holliday said in the 10/12/09 issue of SI: 

“When you get guys in a locker room who believe in each other and lay it on the line for each other and hold each other accountable, good things happen.” �