NFC Championship Game Facts

This year's NFC representative in the Super Bowl will be either a team that hasn't been to the big game in 33 years or a team that has never been there. Either way, that's kinda cool.

The most points ever scored in an NFC Championship Game is 66, when the 49ers beat the Cowboys 38-28 in January 1995. There's a reasonable chance that will be exceeded on Sunday.

Only the Cowboys (14), 49ers (12), and Rams (9) have been in more NFC Championship Games than the Vikings (8). The 49ers and Cowboys have squared off five times in the game.

Road teams are 13-26 in the NFC Championship Game.

The last time Brett Favre was in an NFC Championship Game (1998), Drew Brees was a sophomore at Purdue and Percy Harvin was nine years old.

Chester Taylor had more combined rush-receive yards (727) in 2009 than Reggie Bush (725).

I am officially tired of typing "NFC Championship Game."

And then there were four

Well, you can forget about talks of "hot" teams and streaks and all that nonsense and how much impact it has on the playoffs. Teams on 11- and four-game winning streaks (San Diego and Dallas) lost, while the four teams that won this weekend were a combined 4-8 in their last three games of the regular season. Among them were the Vikings, who put a 34-3 throttling on the Dallas Cowboys to go to their first NFC Championship game since the 2000 season.

At this point, I don't even care that the Vikings are a pass-first team and are almost completely impotent at running the football. You'll still hear the usual tripe about how the Saints "must stop Adrian Peterson," but he's currently playing like, at best, the third-best player on the offense, behind Brett Favre and Sidney Rice. Even Chester Taylor looked better the few times he touched the ball on Sunday.

On the bright side, the Vikings will play a team next Sunday that was 22nd against the run in total yardage and 26th in yards per carry, and gave up a 70-yard run on the first play from scrimmage on yesterday's game. The Saints, in fact, were 18th in scoring defense and 25th in total yards allowed (the Vikings were ninth in both categories), and, for all their offensive firepower, scored just 40 points more than the Vikings, or less than a field goal per game. And while it is a road game, playing in a dome suits the Vikings just fine. This has all the potential makings of a high-scoring, but close game.

But that's the future. For now, I'm just basking in the heady glow of knowing that the Vikings are just 60 minutes away from their first Super Bowl in 33 years. And despite my better judgment, I'm actually believing it can happen.

Streakers come to Minnesota

If I was completely impartial and unbiased, I would probably say that the Vikings are the most likely home team to lose this weekend. Dallas has been hot for the last month, the Vikings have been hit-or-miss, and Tony Romo is that type of elusive quarterback who gives our pass rushers nightmares. (Remember the Jeff Garcia Tampa Bay game in 2008? Yeah, I've tried to forget it, too.) The oddsmakers would seem to agree with this, making the Vikings just a 2.5-point favorite, the lowest of all the home teams.

Fortunately, I'm not impartial and unbiased. Well, I am, and I do think the Vikings will struggle, but the team that I think will really have troubles this week is New Orleans because they've struggled even worse than the Vikings down the stretch.

Here are the results of the Saints' last five games:

23-10 loss @ Carolina (where the starters barely played)
20-17 loss vs. Tampa Bay
24-17 loss vs. Dallas
26-23 win @ Atlanta
33-30 win @ Washington

The tight Atlanta win came without having to face Matt Ryan or Michael Turner and the Washington win...well, it was against Washington. That's five straight weeks of subpar performances, including two wins against teams they should have dominated. And then there was that Tampa Bay loss.

So I think Arizona has a better than average chance of beating the Saints, especially on the fast surface of the Superdome. So, what about those "hot" Cowboys? Well, they beat New Orleans, which, as previously mentioned, may or may not be impressive. Then they shut out Washington -- no great feat -- and twice hammered Philadelphia, which came into their week 17 contest on a six-game winning streak. So much for being "hot."

A few years ago, I did a study on streaking teams in MLB and the NFL to see if there really was any correlation between being on a win streak and whether a team would win its next game. The correlation in baseball was virtually nil. In 2005, a team that had won six or more games actually won its next game less than 50% of the time. Football, with its smaller sample size, was a little more volatile. Over the five seasons I looked at, a team with a four-game or higher win streak was 107-54 (.664) in its next game.

So, what's all that mean? That Dallas's win streak means less than the fact that the team is talented. So are the Vikings. (And consider that San Diego, on an 11-game winning streak, is still not favored to win the Super Bowl.) I think the "buzz" over the Cowboys playing well in December and January and the Vikings being so-so over that same time span is enough to influence people to think that the Cowboys are the better team. But we're all too smart for that, right?

Let's hope so.

Happy birthday (and anniversary)

Happy 40th, you old coot.

Meanwhile, 20 years ago, while the Brett Favre in that picture (or thereabouts) was celebrating his 20th birthday, the Minnesota Vikings were, by all appearances, deep in discussions with the Dallas Cowboys regarding a monumental trade that would reverberate through the NFL for years to come.

Yes, it's been nearly 20 years to the day since the infamous Herschel Walker trade. The deal went down on Oct. 12, 1989 and, while it did pave the way for the Cowboy championships of the early '90s and hamstring the Vikings' development for a similar period of time, it did have the positive effect of, for whatever reason, getting me interested in football. The graphic of a bunch of Viking helmets vs. 1 Cowboy helmet on SportsCenter that night somehow grabbed my attention and sticks with me to that day. That Sunday, I watched...well, not my first Vikings game, technically...but it was the first one that I really paid attention to as a fan and tried to understand and enjoy.

Plus, it was against Green Bay. What better way to break into the realm of Viking fandom than to watch the Vikes trounce the Pack 26-14. Interestingly, it was Walker's second straight game against the Packers, having played them as a Cowboy the previous week. With Dallas, Walker ran for just 44 yards 12 carries; with Minnesota, Walker ran for 148 yards on 18 carries, his third-highest single-game total ever and the most he'd ever have as a Viking. It was all downhill from there.

When a team makes a trade for an aging. past-his-prime veteran, we often hear that the reason is not just to add that player's eroding skills to the team but also as a PR move to sell tickets and generate interest. Ken Griffey Jr. didn't do much to boost the Mariners' on-field product in 2008, but he likely evoked a lot of nostalgic thoughts in Seattle. Will Shaquille O'Neal really help Lebron James and the Cavaliers this season on the court or is he just in Cleveland for his charisma and draw at the ticket office? Oh, and then there was that guy the Vikings picked up this year who's starting to look like he might have actually been worth the hassle.

Herschel Walker was 27 when he was traded -- a bit long-in-the-tooth for a running back, but not overly so. The price in players and draft picks was a net +8 for the Cowboys (1 player and 4 picks from the Cowboys vs. 5 players and 8 picks from the Vikings), and, when you look at who the Cowboys selected with those draft picks -- Emmitt Smith, Alvin Harper, and Darren Woodson, most notably -- it could only be termed a disaster for the Vikings (though we did net Jake Reed with one of the picks we got from Dallas). Walker was run out of town just two and a half years later and the entire affair lives on in NFL front-office infamy.

But it did get people talking, and keeps them talking to this day. And it got at least one person interested in the on-field product, even if that product was damaged goods. Maybe it wasn't such a bad deal after all.

Revisiting receivers

I knew something seemed a little amiss with yesterday's post, and it bugged me all afternoon. (I still need a life.) If I was trying to "prove" that the quality of a #2 receiver had no effect on a #1's yardage total, then I should start with the #2s and try to see what seasons their complementary #1s have.

So I made two changes to my initial analysis. First, I removed all instances of a #2 having a better season than a #1 on his same team, leaving me with 83 pairings. That way, I'll only be looking at #2s who were inferior (at least from a yardage standpoint) to their #1s. Second, I reversed the direction of my study by grouping the #2s together and seeing how their corresponding #1s performed.

As I did with #1s yesterday, I split the #2s into three groups, of 28, 27, and 28. The top 28 had the most yardage, the middle 27 the second most and the bottom 28 the least. If yesterday's "Situation A" is correct -- that, if you have a poor #2, the #1 will rack up great stats as the only viable receiver -- we'd expect that the low group should have the highest corresponding yardage for its #1s. If "Situation B" is correct -- that having multiple good receivers means that defenses can't concentrate on shutting down one or the other -- we'd expect the highest yardage to belong to the top group. Here's what we get:

	Avg. #2 Yds.	Avg. #1 Yds.
Top 28	1,185	1,362
Mid 27	873	1,358
Bot 28	584	1,381

These results seem to verify yesterday's results, namely that the quality of the #2 receiver has little to no effect on how many yards the #1 will rack up. With a very good #2, averaging nearly the same 1,200 yards I set as a minimum to qualify as a #1, #1s managed only 19 fewer yards on average than they did with a poor #2. The correlation between the two groups (which was changed only due to my removing the "#2 > #1" pairings and not by my sorting things differently) is 0.047, still small enough to be insignificant.

I read somewhere today that, with Terrell Owens gone, Jason Witten could have a huge season. Don't you believe it. Witten might very well have a great season, but it won't have the slightest thing to do with Terrell Owens, just as Lee Evans' 2009 won't have anything to do with Owens going to the Bills.

And besides, we all know the real reason the Cowboys passing game will improve this year...

ESPN = One big blog

Following the ESPN mandate of "Don't report bad things about Brett Favre" and their eventual "caving in" on the subject when Favre himself finally came forth, I made a decision. I wiped ESPN and ESPN2 (the only ones I get) from my channel list on my TV. Tony Kornheiser has become insufferable on PTI (and MNF, but I'll get to that in a second) and OpinionCenter -- I mean, CowboysCenter -- I mean, FavreCenterButOnlyWhenWeWantTo -- I mean, SportsCenter -- has only been vaguely watchable for some time. I can get my NFL coverage from the web or other networks on Sunday morning, so, really, what's left to watch? What am I missing?

The answer: not much. And I'm OK with it, after two weeks and counting.

And really, that's the only thing that will work. I'm not hooked up to a Nielsen box or anything, and I don't expect everyone else to shut out ESPN from their lives, but as long as people keep watching to see how Terrell Owens feels about Brad Johnson as his quarterback or what Woody Paige or Skip Bayless (two of the biggest wastes of air time on the whole network -- and if you don't believe me, read this) think about, well, anything, they'll keep shoving it down our throats.

So I don't watch it any more. I don't need half-educated opinions spouted at me from someone who claims to be an "expert." I can get just as good commentary from the web (especially some of the spectacular blogs I frequent). I have allowed myself, though, to watch actual sporting events, such as Monday Night Football and some college games. But all the noise and clutter and "to win in the NFL all you have to do is run the ball and stop the run" -- yeah, I don't need that.

In effect, ESPN has become a blog. It's full of people offering up their opinions on whatever the heck they feel like, only occasionally supported by facts and research, which is about the same level of quality "journalism" you get on the web. Let's face it: There's a lot of crap out there on the Internet. When you give people an essentially unfiltered platform to say whatever they want, they will, and a lot of it won't be very good. Unfortunately, ESPN has essentially given that same platform to many of its "personalities" (as long as they don't talk bad about Brett Favre) and the quality of their programming has likewise suffered for it.

I like to think that, as ESPN continues, people my age or younger, who actually understand the Internet and that the wide percentage of sports journalism is actually do-able by more people than the professionals would like us to believe, will eventually move into positions of power at the network and present more capable, more rational coverage that actually uses facts instead of opinions to push their stories. Heck, I could even live with feel-good, human interest stuff, like on E60. Because, you know, that actually resembles journalism. I can't go to a pro athlete and ask him about the car accident he was in when he was a kid and how it changed his life. When two guys are arguing about whether Kerry Collins will lead the Titans to the Super Bowl, using whatever flimsy arguments they feel like at the time, that's something you or I or any of those "uneducated masses" on the Internet could do.

And why should I watch on TV something I can get just as easily from the Internet or, even better, do up myself? Since I can't play football myself, I'll watch football on the station. And sometimes the actual anaysis (like what Ron Jaworski used to do in breaking down plays -- does he still do that ever?) is really good. But I don't need four weeks of how the Cowboys will be affected by Tony Romo's thumb injury, especially when every analyst -- every damn one I heard -- said Brad Johnson, who was 40 years old and hadn't been good in three years -- would do just fine. Guess what? He's 40 years old and hasn't been good in three years. He wasn't fine. Can't wait to hear all the talk this weekend about how Daunte Culpepper (who hasn't been good in four years) will be just what the Lions need. (He won't.)

And see? I can tell you that without you paying the cable company. Unless you go through them for your Internet, that is.

One undeniable truth

There's only one thing I can conclude fully and completely after watching Sunday's games:

Say what you will about the Vikings' current quarterbacks, but man, am I glad my team doesn't have Brad Johnson and Brooks Bollinger manning the position any more.

Poking fun at Dallas aside (and I'll get more into that later this week), the Vikings' win over Houston was about as smooth a victory as the team looks to have all year. For the most part, I wasn't worried about the team's chances throughout, as the superior team beat (and beat up) the inferior team at home, like it's supposed to.

Bernard Berrian had a sink-or-swim performance, hauling in two long passes, one that went for a touchdown and another that set up a touchdown, but his bobble in the first quarter bounced right into the hands of Texan Jacque Reeves, who took it back for six. That was the only turnover of the day for the Vikings' offense, which started strong and got some key runs from Adrian Peterson late to help seal the 28-21 victory. Gus Frerotte shook off the early interception to have a good, efficient day for the Vikings, throwing just 18 times and completing 11 for 182 yards (a 10+ yard average) and three touchdowns, while handing off 32 times (25 to Peterson and 7 to Chester Taylor). Wow, who knew that would work? Other than everyone, that is.

As for the defense...well, it's not to say that turnovers are all about luck (and if you don't believe that, read this post), but you can't expect your defense to give up 350+ passing yards to two quarterbacks and come up with multiple red zone interceptions every game. The absence of E.J. Henderson was acutely felt, as the nearly anonymous tight end Owen Daniels caught 11 passes for 133 yards yesterday, most of them in the area where Henderson would have been defending. Considering the injuries at linebacker and how little teams run against them anyway, maybe the Vikings should consider going into a nickel defense automatically on 2nd or 3rd and more than 5, leaving Ben Leber and Chad Greenway on the field and subbing in a fifth DB for Napoleon Harris, who was apparently cut for a reason. Of course, that would take ingenuity and creative coaching, which pretty much guarantees it'll never happen. On the bright side, if you have a tight end facing the Vikings the next few weeks in your fantasy league, that's an easy start.

It was good to see Madieu Williams finally make his debut with the team, and he had one of the red-zone interceptions that halted a sure scoring drive for the Texans. Sidney Rice also returned at full strength, with his sole catch an 8-yard touchdown that put the team ahead for good in the second quarter. Next up: The team gets a chance to avenge its opening-day loss to the now-reeling Green Bay Packers in the Metrodome. Let's hope that Aaron Rodgers has the same jitters Brett Favre did under the big white roof.

Vikings notes 10/16

To help shore up the linebacking corps, which will miss E.J. Henderson for the rest of the year and might be without his replacement David Herron, who suffered a hip injury in Sunday's game against the Lions, the Vikings signed former a pair of former Viking linebackers this week.

Napoleon Harris is best known in the Twin Cities as the player obtained from the Raiders in the Randy Moss deal in 2005, along with a first-round draft pick that produced Troy Williamson. Also returning to the fold was Dontarrious Thomas, a second-round pick by the team in 2004, who was cut after the 2007 season. Harris, cut by Kansas City earlier this week, spent a little more than one full season as a starting linebacker with the Vikings, while Thomas only racked up 10 starts in his four years with the team.

Obviously, neither will provide the presence that Henderson, or probably even Herron, did over the middle of the defense. While the run defense up the middle is stout, with the Williams boys jamming it up inside, look for teams to run more short passes over the middle against the Vikings to take advantage of their weakness at middle linebacker. As if teams needed another reason to pass on us....

* Speaking of Troy Williamson, I caught a little bit of the Jaguars/Broncos game on Sunday, enough to see him haul in a spectacular 50+ yard reception...which was then promptly negated by a holding penalty on Jacksonville. Even when it goes right for Troy -- which isn't often (officially, he has two catches for 11 yards this season) -- it goes wrong.

* If Tony Romo can't go for the Cowboys, Dallas will start Brad Johnson, who will be backed up by Brooks Bollinger. Is this the 2008 Cowboys or the 2006 Vikings?

* Speaking of the Cowboys, this is the rare week when Minnesota and Dallas play at the same time on Sunday, so Adrian Peterson fans in Oklahoma will be forced to watch the Cowboys/Rams instead of Vikings/Bears at noon local time. I think watching the Rams this year is a form of cruel and unusual punishment, but at least they won't be subject to Detroit/Houston (which occupies only a tiny area of the map), which could have been an epic clash of winless teams if the Texans hadn't ruined it by pulling out a win last week against Miami.

* Former Golden Gopher and Philadelphia Eagle fullback Thomas Tapeh, who signed a free-agent deal to come to Minnesota in the offseason, hasn't even seen the field in 2008. Now it turns out that Tapeh had surgery on his knee just before signing his free-agent deal and the team might be looking to void his contract based on his injury status.

Which is really too bad, because I've been running the Vikings in franchise mode in my Madden '09 and that guy is a great safety valve out of the backfield. Then again, in that third year, Tarvaris Jackson is up to a 96 overall QB, so maybe it's not the most accurate judge of player's abilities.

* 9% and nearly twice as many votes as the second-most guy.

* So it was the Packers who were the front-runners to get TE Tony Gonzalez from Kansas City. Welcome to the world of having to deal with Chiefs GM Carl Peterson. Jared Allen says "Hi."

* Finally, Beverly Hills Chihuahua is the #1 movie in the nation? Really?