DCist Interview: Michael Tunison

As a Skins fan, I struggle with Snyder. On the one hand, I know he really wants to win and he'll shell out the money he thinks is necessary to do so. On the other hand, it's plainly obvious that both he and Executive Vice President of Football Operations Vinny Cerrato are utterly incompetent. Do you see the team -- the on-field product, that is -- overcoming that and putting together a playoff year this season?

They could be a playoff team, but that's not the same as a contending team. I could see them vying for a Wild Card spot, but the ceiling with the Redskins this year looks to be maybe one playoff win, which I think would have to be considered a success for this franchise given that they only have three postseason victories since they last won the Super Bowl after the '91 season. The offense is getting dogged a lot locally, but I think the Redskins noticed the model that the Giants and the Steelers have created the previous two years, where a team with an overpowering defense and a mediocre, but clutch, offense can go deep into the playoffs. So who knows? Haynesworth and Orakpo could take an already good defense and make them enough of a force to carry the team, but that remains to be seen at this point.

Okay, let's stop talking about the 'Skins. It's making me upset. You skewer pretty much every other sport under the sun, but you do give a little credit to college football. What's the difference between your average die-hard college football fan and your average die-hard NFL fan?

I think the average college fan concentrates on hating their school's one big rival or other teams in their conference, rather than NFL teams, who because they don't have to try to follow a hundred or so teams, can be knowledgeable about their league as a whole. That isn't to say division rivalries don't mean as much -- just hang around FedEx when the Eagles come to town -- but that the scope of the NFL fan's attention is a little wider. Also, NFL fans can have fun with the game without pretending like it's somehow more innocent and pure than it really is, which is one of the more annoying things about college fans. "Oh, the NCAA isn't at all about under the table deals and perks! The kids play for fun!" Whatever.

From the book, I can probably guess your answer, but how do you feel about the movement to scrap a couple preseason games and lengthen the regular season?

The starters only really play two preseason games now anyway. Most never play in the fourth one and maybe only for the opening series in the first. So it doesn't affect much to ditch two of them. I don't think adding two games would diminish the importance of the other regular season games either. The main concern is with player durability, especially running backs. It would be more easier for them to hit that 350 carry plateau that seems to wreck havok on runners. You'd probably see even more running games by committee.

Speaking of running back by committee, everyone's getting geared up with their fantasy squads. Who are your darkhorses this year?

I really like Matt Forte a lot as a first round pick. A lot of people are high on Pierre Thomas being a high impact player, but the Saints have maintained their stance on the running back by committee thing, so I'd be a little wary of taking him too high. On the Saints, however, I do like Lance Moore as a sleeper. And DeSean Jackson should have a breakout year at receiver.

Beyond the Favre return and the Vick experiment, what do you see as the big storylines this year?

The Cowboys are already a huge part of the soap opera, and this year will be no different. Jerry has his new billion dollar stadium, it's a make-or-break year for Wade Phillips. If that team falters, it's in for a big overhaul. I think Denver will be a trainwreck on par with Detroit last year, and the Josh McDaniels disaster will get a lot of coverage. I also think Brady will do well, so that will fuel more of the constant speculation about whether the Patriots are an unstoppable juggernaut.

I guess the Brady thing brings me to my last question. We were served this nonstop is-Brady-really-hurt junk by ESPN a couple weeks ago. Seemed pretty obvious he wasn't hurt. Your book was certainly critical, on occasion, of either the lack of reporting or the incessant go-nowhere "analysis" of the ESPN (and Fox, CBS, etc.) panels, which we watch despite learning virtually nothing from them. Now the real question -- is there anyone out there who you think does a good job? Is his name Joe Theismann? And finally, how would you improve coverage of the league?

That's the sad contradiction -- while watching at home is hardly a much inferior alternate to the live NFL experience, the money you save comes at a cost of brain cells, because most of the televised coverage of the league is truly awful. I can't watch any of the pregame panel shows, or if I do it's an exercise in trying to rile myself up. There are some reporters working for the networks - Jay Glazer, Adam Schefter - who are competent, as are a small handful in the booths, but they're overwhelmed by the Phills Simms, Chris Bermans, Joe Bucks and Terry Bradshaws all bleating at me. That said, there's a lot of good written coverage of the league, especially online. Mike Silver's Yahoo! column is always a delight. As far as changing coverage of the league, the panel shows don't need to exist, especially with the crammed content they have now. I miss NFL Matchup (okay, it's still on the air, but ESPN could give it a better timeslot than 7:30 a.m. on a Sunday). Whatever you think of Jaws in the booth, that's an excellent show that actually teaches you something about the game. Coverage in general could use more of that.

Last question: who's winning the divisions, who's going to the Super Bowl?

I'll say Philly, Chicago, Atlanta and Seattle in the NFC; New England, Houston, Pittsburgh and San Diego in the AFC; and San Diego over Philly in the Super Bowl.