Keeping the Streaks Alive

Sure, there were streaks to consider. Could the Cleveland Browns be the first team to win three times on Monday night in one season? No. Would the Browns go another game without a touchdown? No, but only technically. Might head coach Romeo Crennel have double digit losses for the third time in four seasons? Yes. But for most of the nation about the only intrigue Monday night’s Browns game against the Philadelphia Eagles held was whether or not Eagles fans would boo Santa Claus. They didn’t.

As it turns out, Santa was a no show. His time obviously was better spent elsewhere. For those whose wasn’t, they saw the Browns lose for the sixth time in seven games, this time 30-10, to an Eagles team that made enough mistakes that a decent team would have exploited. But this Browns team is not all that or much else and thus could get no closer than the 20-point margin. It easily could have been far worse.

As games go, it wasn’t much of one. Sure, the Browns broke their touchdown-less streak with 9:12 remaining in the fourth quarter. That shot hear ‘round the world ended a 245 minutes and 48 seconds drought without any sort of touchdown, a franchise record. Of course the streak wasn’t broken by the offense. That dubious achievement is nearly 17 quarters strong. This touchdown came courtesy of Brandon McDonald, who returned a Kevin Kolb pass 24 yards for the score. Kolb was only in the game because Eagles’ head coach Andy Reid didn’t have the good sense to keep him on the bench where he belonged. Somewhere some gamblers are still complaining.

It was a rather interesting night for McDonald, actually. He almost had the Browns’ first touchdown in four games at the end of the first half. With just 9 seconds remaining and the ball sitting on the Cleveland 1-yard line, McNabb attempted a fade pass to receiver Hank Baskett. McDonald, however, got a great break on the pass and intercepted it four yards in the end zone. With virtually no one in front of him, McDonald sprinted down the sideline but was tracked down by Brian Westbrook. McDonald was able to escape Westbrook but was eventually hauled down by Baskett at the Eagles 7-yard line as time expired. Officially it was a 97-yard interception return with no happy ending. If you were thinking it had to be some sort of record, it is, at least for the regular season. And for the moment, given the abject futility of that moment, things looked like they couldn’t possibly get worse.

Those fireworks aside, no one expected the game to be competitive and it wasn’t at any particular point except early and that was only because it was, well, early. But that, too, ended soon enough. And despite the relatively close score, relatively being a relative word, it was only that close due to several Eagles missteps inside the Browns’ 10-yard line. As a result, a game that should have been a laugher was merely a huge guffaw instead.

Predictably, the Eagles scored a touchdown on their opening drive. They passed, they ran and 8 plays and 64 yards later they had a quick 7-0 lead thanks to a 14-yard touchdown pass from quarterback Donovan McNabb to receiver Kevin Curtis.

Predictably, the Browns didn’t score a touchdown on their opening drive. After all, doing so would have resulted in simultaneously breaking two of their more dubious streaks—20+ games without a first-drive touchdown and three+ games without a touchdown. As it turned out, when the drive died at the Eagles 19-yard line, the only time the offense penetrated inside the Eagles’ 20-yard line, and they settled for a 26-yard Phil Dawson field goal, they kept in tact a trifecta of sorts of futility, adding to it another red zone failure. Using that as a measure of success, the Browns were off to a good start.

Things got slightly better for the Browns on the Eagles’ second drive, but saying that is an acknowledgement that progress is measured in the least exactly standards possible. McNabb moved the Eagles down the field rather easily, again, but was stifled when his pass on third down from the Cleveland 6-yard line sailed over the head of tight end L.J. Smith, forcing the Eagles to settle for a 24-yard field goal from David Akers near the end of the first quarter. If the rout wasn’t quite yet on, it was undeniably germinating.

It would have been in full bloom on the Eagles next drive but for an ill-advised call by someone wearing an Eagles head set, likely Reid. After again methodically moving downfield and facing a 3rd-and-goal from the Browns’ 7-yard line, the Eagles decided a wrinkle was necessary because the other stuff was working too well apparently. Wide receiver DeSean Jackson lined up as the quarterback in the shotgun formation. With the option to pass apparently his, Jackson did just that, poorly, in the direction of Baskett. Safety Sean Jones made a nice grab in the end zone instead to end that drive.

As it turned out, the interception was only a minor bump in the road. Six plays later, Browns quarterback Ken Dorsey tossed his own interception, to cornerback Asante Samuel, at the 50-yard line. Samuel then proceeded to take it back for a touchdown. For good measure, an unidentified Eagles player blasted left tackle Joe Thomas during the run back sending him about five yards forward and to the ground. Now it was 17-3 order was restored and dignity officially stripped.

Just when it looked like the Eagles were going to put the game completely out of reach (although it already was, technically speaking) at the end of the first half, McDonald had his remarkable end zone interception and run back. But like everything else this season, it fell short.

Here’s what’s hard to figure, as if there wasn’t enough already. On the Browns’ opening drive in the second half, Dorsey had the Browns sitting at the Eagles’ 35-yard line. It was 3rd-and-9. As the play clock was ticking down, Dorsey called time out to avoid a delay penalty. Then when the third down pass fell short of its intended target by a good 5 yards or so as expected, the Browns were forced to punt. That left punter Dave Zastudil less room to place a punt inside the Eagles’ 10-yard line. Thinking quickly, the Browns tried to correct that error by deliberately taking a delay on 4th down. Of course, the Eagles declined the penalty. Zastudil’s punt, naturally, sailed in the end zone.

The Eagles then took over and for the fifth straight time took the ball deep into Cleveland territory. While the Eagles avoided a turnover this time, they couldn’t avoid their own brand of red zone futility and had to settle for a 34-yard field goal and a 20-3 lead. For the sake of everyone, the Eagles were at least gobbling up huge chunks of the game clock in the process thereby shortening the game considerably as a grateful nation applauded.

It was about at this point that Crennel took off his head set. What exactly was he going to hear that he couldn’t see? The Browns defense was offering token resistance to the Eagles offense and his own offense had just set a franchise record for not scoring a touchdown of any sort. Given how things looked at the moment, it was a total that looked to continue into next week’s game.

Before going on, stop and consider the enormity of that record, even just in recent terms. Since their return in 1999 the Browns have had some of the worst teams imaginable with some of the worst offensive coordinators and quarterbacks imaginable. And yet, it took this team this year to grab that record. No matter what comes next, it’s official. Things could get worse than the McDonald 97-yard interception return. This is worse.

Meanwhile, the Eagles looked to be running some sort of 7-on-7 drill and having fun doing it. They again drove deep into the Browns territory with virtually no resistance but again had to settle for a 34-yard Akers’ field goal that pushed the scored to a deceivingly respectable 23-3. Respectability, though, was thrown out the window shortly thereafter. Following Dorsey’s second interception of the game, this time to linebacker Stewart Bradley, McNabb found Greg Lewis in the end zone for a 10-yard touchdown two plays later and just as quickly the score was now 30-3. McDonald finished the scoring with his touchdown a few minutes later as the teams thereafter simply gave up playing and collectively watched the clock countdown to 0:0.

With no sarcasm intended, there actually was one bright spot for the Browns. Receiver Braylon Edwards had 5 catches for 102 yards and absolutely no drops. He is Mr. Monday Night. Unfortunately, given the Browns’ season Edwards isn’t likely to see any Monday night games for awhile, absent a trade. Other than Edwards, there was virtually nothing else of note. The Browns, averaging just over 200 yards offense more or less kept that streak in tact as well, endng the game with 196 total yards. Dorsey was 11-28 for 156 yards and 2 interceptions. That was good for a quarterback rating of 28.27. McNabb, meanwhile, had his way except in the red zone. Facing virtually no pass rush and only an occasional token blitz, he was 26-35 for 290 yards, two touchdowns and the McDonald interception. The Eagles had 136 yards rushing, with Correll Buckhalter getting 55 yards and Brian Westbrook adding 53.

As much as you’d like to think it’s over, the Browns do have two more games. Next week against Cincinnati, that promises to attract CBS’ 8th string announcing crew, and the finale against the Steelers. Even if the Steelers are resting their starters in that game, it still appears as though the Browns’ last best chance to score a touchdown on offense is next week. If not, then the Browns may truly own the football equivalent of Joe DiMaggio’s unbreakable 56-game hitting streak.

An Abuse of Power

There are any number of ways one might choose to conclude that the Super Bowl and all that comes with it has grown beyond surreal to out of control.

For some, the woman showing up at media day wearing a wedding dress and asking New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady to marry her may have been the crowning moment. For others, it might have been the Britney Spears-like treatment that the media gave to Brady’s allegedly injured ankle over several days last week. But for me, it was when Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania decided to use the power of his senate office to avenge a grudge he still holds over the Philadelphia Eagles losing to the Patriots in the 2005 game.

The New York Times broke the story on Friday that Specter wants NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Specter chairs, to explain the so-called “spygate” incident. What Specter really wants to know is whether or not the reason his beloved Eagles lost the 2005 Super Bowl to the Patriots was because of any spying during the game. A more obvious explanation for the loss might be the Eagles four turnovers in the game, but some relationship to “spygate” makes for better grandstanding by a disgruntled public official.

Specter wrote Goodell back in November merely asking that he be advised if anything in his investigation of the Patriots showed that they were stealing the Eagles signals during the Super Bowl. It was a fair question that any fan might ask, but coming as it did on officialSenate letterhead was intended to make it appear as though “spygate” was now a federal matter.

But by asking the question as he did, Specter displayed his overall ignorance of the underlying scandal. Putting aside for the moment whether or not stealing signals in a football game is an issue that should ever show up on the radar screen of a U.S. Senator, the Patriots weren’t accused of stealing the New York Jets signals during the game for use in that game. Instead, what they were doing was taping the signals the defensive coach made and then the play that immediately followed for possible use in future games. To the extent it’s even useful to do this, which is highly questionable, it is more so against a division rival that you play twice a season.

Even more to the point, the signals that the Eagles defensive coaches may have been making in the Super Bowl were on public display for everyone in Alltel Stadium in Jacksonville to see. Thus, even if the Patriots were gleaning something useful from the gyrations of an Eagles defensive coach on that day, it would hardly be stealing; more like observing.

Specter seemed a little annoyed that Goodell didn’t respond immediately to his annoying little missive and followed it up with another far more insidious misuse of his public office. In his second letter, Specter introduced the notion that Goodell’s destruction of the case file following the investigation was “suspicious” and that his punishment of Patriots head coach Bill Belichick was “insufficient.” Just guessing here, but Specter probably never makes that claim had the Patriots been forced to forfeit the 2005 Super Bowl and the rings instead given to a team that didn’t earn them, such as the Eagles.

If this all seems a little goofy, hold on, it gets better. In the Times story, Specter actually upped the stakes even further when he said that Goodell’s destruction of the tapes was “analogous to the C.I.A. destruction of tapes. Or any time you have records destroyed.” If Specter actually said that with a straight face, then it’s clear he’s lost any perspective or credibility he may have once had, not to mention engaging in a wasteful use of taxpayer money.

Oh where to start? In the first place, the so-called records that were destroyed were not part of an on-going investigation but instead were the work product of a completed investigation. It would be different, I suppose, if the Patriots had destroyed the evidence instead of giving it to Goodell, but by all accounts that didn’t happen. Consequently, all Goodell did, basically, was close a case file upon completion of the task undertaken. In that context, Goodell’s actions are hardly unusual, let alone suspicious.

Further, there is no reason to not give Goodell the benefit of the doubt on why he decided to destroy the case file and all that went with it. As he noted in his response to Specter, he destroyed the tapes and other information that the Patriots had gathered and also had the Patriots certify that no other copies existed, in order to ensure that no competitive advantage could be obtained by the Patriots. In other words, the investigation was complete and no rational reason remained to hold on to the material. Destruction, as opposed to locking the material in a cabinet where it could later come up “missing,” seemed like a reasonable approach to concluding the matter.

Second, rather than tossing out wild accusations against Goodall, Specter is the one that should be challenged on why he thinks it’s even appropriate to compare an insignificant football issue with a serious issue like an on-going investigation into the CIA’s alleged destruction of tapes it made of potentially unlawful interrogation techniques it used on suspected terrorists. If Specter actually believes the two issues are at all on par, then the good folks of Pennsylvania ought to consider recalling Specter now. He’s obviously lost his mind.

To Goodell’s credit Goodell offered a response to Specter that was far more dignified than he deserved. In it he noted that nothing in the investigation revealed that the Patriots stole the Eagles signals during the Super Bowl. As Goodell worte, the only other time the two teams even played during this decade was a preseason game in 2003. Probably to Specter’s chagrin, Goodell stated the obvious when he said that there is no reason to believe that the outcome of the Super Bowl was at all affected by improper taping of the Eagles defensive signals.

This gets us back to the underlying seriousness of the offense. Belichick and the Patriots were rightly punished for violating a league rule against videotaping the opposing team’s sideline during a game. They had been warned previously, continued in the conduct and paid a pretty heavy fine.

But simply because the NFL has the rule doesn’t mean that the rule itself makes any sense. It is more than fair to suggest that the NFL’s rule about taping borders on the idiotic. Even though Belichick obviously felt it would give his team some sort of competitive advantage when playing the Jets down the road, it’s hard to imagine how and I’ve yet to hear a cogent explanation from anyone, including either Belichick or the NFL, on that point. Moreover, it’s not as if a team couldn’t accomplish the same thing anyway by having a member of its staff watch the opponent from across the field, jot down each and every arm gesture or hand movement of a coach and then write down the resulting play. Notably, there is no rule against that nor could there be since, again, all of it is taking place in very public view on every sideline of every stadium every week.

But the NFL is well within its right to establish even goofy rules and enforce them, which it did in this case. But all that doesn’t give someone like Specter the right to overstate the seriousness of the situation in order to assuage his hurt feelings, or that of his constituents, over the failure of their favorite team to win the Super Bowl.

The other salient point that Specter glosses over is that neither Goodell nor the NFL were hiding the material they collected from anyone or trying to stifle any other investigation. Though government agents torturing suspects raises significant legal issues, a paranoid coach taping the public display of an opposing team’s defensive signals raises no legal issues whatsoever.

“Spygate” was and always will be solely a league investigation of a league matter and wasn’t conducted, directly or indirectly, under any sort of Senate or Congressional oversight or mandate. More to the point, the league wasn’t under any legal obligation to even announce that it was undertaking the investigation, let alone under a legal obligation to keep copies of its investigation on the off chance that an equally paranoid senator still holding a grudge might be interested in it several months later. Thus, despite the haughty language used by Specter, there was no destruction of records of an active investigation but the destruction of evidence gathered to ensure it wouldn’t be further misused. It’s akin, actually, to destroying drugs confiscated during an arrest following the trial and conviction of the perpetrator. As a former prosecutor, surely Specter understands this difference.

There is a place, certainly, for governmental oversight of major business enterprises like the NFL or Major League Baseball, particularly where the integrity of the game is threatened. But there is a huge difference between players or officials who gamble and thus might be tempted to fix games, or players who use illegal performance enhancing drugs that can unfairly alter the outcome of the game, than stealing otherwise visible coaching signals on the sideline. If that threatened the integrity of any sport, then baseball is exhibit A where a team trying to steal another team’s hitting or pitching signals is not only not frowned upon, but an acceptable form of conduct.

It’s nice that Specter could find the time in his busy schedule to use the power of his office and the taxpayer-funded resources of the federal government to weigh in on “spygate” and bring Goodall before the Senate Judiciary Committee. After all, it’s not as if a tanking economy or a foreign war with no end in sight that is bankrupting the economy and killing thousands of Americans demands much of his attention.