Last week was bad. I'll be the first to admit that. Thanks to the Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, Steelers, Chiefs, Saints and replacement refs, I suffered through an embarrassing 8-8 campaign in Week 3. (If the fake refs hadn't screwed the Packers, that 9-7 I would've been would look so much better than the 8-8 does.) Looking for the positive in such a dismal showing, I'm going to say that I hopefully got my bad week out of the way early. I also don't think it's possible for me to do any worse this week. With that, here we go with the Week 4 picks...
Panthers (1-2) at Falcons (3-0): Atlanta-As I said the other day when I released my NFL power rankings, I think Atlanta is the best team in the NFL. That rout in San Diego proved that more than anything. After three wins against the AFC West, the Falcons actually play a team from their own division for the first time. I don't see that making too much of a difference. Atlanta keeps rolling.
Patriots (1-2) at Bills (2-1): New England-When was the last time New England was below .500? I think they had a two-game losing streak last year, too, and that was the first time in like eight years. Let's keep in mind, though, that the Patriots' two losses came against Arizona (the most surprising team in the NFL this season) and Baltimore (after leading for most of the game and having the replacement officials almost give it to them). The Patriots will be fine. The Bills, meanwhile, have a deceptive 2-1 record. Their wins are against the Chiefs and the Browns. If they beat New England, then maybe I can buy into Buffalo's record a little bit more.
Vikings (2-1) at Lions (1-2): Detroit-This matchup is similar to New England-Buffalo. The Lions have a good loss in San Francisco and a "bad"/OK loss in Tennessee, while the Vikings' 2-1 mark includes an overtime win over Jacksonville. The Vikings did shock everybody and beat the 49ers last week, though. I still say Detroit at home is the safe bet, but who knows? Maybe Minnesota's better than we thought.
Chargers (2-1) at Chiefs (1-2): San Diego-All the Chiefs' win last week did was establish that the New Orleans Saints are officially a mess. Beating the Saints doesn't really seem to mean that much anymore. Meanwhile, some people view the Chargers' 2-0 start as a mirage after they got spanked at home by the Falcons. However, as I've said, I think Atlanta's the best team in football, so there's no shame there. In this matchup, San Diego's the better team.
Seahawks ("2-1") at Rams (1-2): Seattle-If anybody's going to miss the replacement refs, it's Golden Tate and the Seahawks. The end of that Monday night game was a travesty, although, there is a silver lining, since that's what led to the NFL and the referees coming to a deal. Now they have to venture out of the Pacific time zone for the first time this season. I think the Seahawks will pull it out, but Seattle should be on upset alert.
49ers (2-1) at Jets (2-1): San Francisco-Here's where we learn how good the New York Jets actually are. The Jets won both of their division games, but were slaughtered when they played Pittsburgh. Now they face another actual opponent in the 49ers, who are coming off that surprise loss in Minnesota. I'm banking on that loss being just a bad week. If the real 49ers show up, they should rebound against the Jets.
Titans (1-2) at Texans (3-0): Houston-Houston is the best team in the AFC. The Texans are 3-0 for the first time ever and really showed a lot by going into Denver and coming back with a win last week. The Titans offense seemed to finally figure things out against the Lions, scoring 44 points in the overtime win. The Titans aren't bad, but the Texans haven't been home since Week1 and will enjoy the opportunity to play at Reliant Stadium.
Raiders (1-2) at Broncos (1-2): Denver-The Broncos might have the best 1-2 record in NFL history. Sure, 1-2 looks bad on paper, but look at who the losses are to and consider the fact that they were in both of those games (including on the road in Atlanta). Their 1-2 is similar to the Patriots' 1-2. Both will be fine. Thanks to the Steelers' injuries, the Raiders aren't 0-3. As for their first meeting against Peyton in an orange jersey, I think they go back to being the Raiders.
Dolphins (1-2) at Cardinals (3-0): Arizona-Is there any argument that Arizona has been the most surprising team in the NFL this season? Just when their win over the Patriots looked like a fluke, they go and slaughter the Eagles. I don't see Miami being much of a challenge.
Bengals (2-1) at Jaguars (1-2): Cincinnati-This might be the most unappealing matchup of the entire week. There's nothing about the Jaguars that gets you excited. Cincinnati might be 2-1, but the Bengals barely got by the Browns and Redskins, two not-very-good teams that they only beat by a touchdown each. That probably means another ugly Cincinnati win.
Saints (0-3) at Packers ("1-2"): Green Bay-When this one was set as the national doubleheader game, I don't think anybody expected it to be an early "must-win" game for both teams. But here we are with the pissed off Saints taking on the pissed off Packers. Of course, they're pissed off for very different reasons. New Orleans is gradually realizing they aren't anywhere near as good as they thought, while the Packers are rightfully fuming after having a win literally taken away from them by a bad call last week. I think all of that is more than enough to motivate Green Bay to the victory. And this time, the real officials won't find a way to screw them out of it like the replacements did in Seattle.
Redskins (1-2) at Buccaneers (1-2): Washington-Washington and Tampa Bay. If nothing else, this game will probably be entertaining. The Bucs continue their journey through the NFC East, against the Redskins, who, despite losing, seemed to rebound nicely in Cincinnati last week. The Redskins have learned how to score points. Tampa Bay's the favorite, but I think Washington will find a way to pull this one out.
Giants (2-1) at Eagles (2-1): Philadelphia-The Giants finally looked like the Giants last week, while the Eagles got spanked in Arizona. Maybe we should've seen that coming after Philadelphia managed to win its first two games by one-point each despite committing nine turnovers against Cleveland and Baltimore. It would seem like everything points to a Giants win in this one, but the Eagles have dominated this series of late, especially in their annual Sunday night game. As a result, I'm playing the odds and going with Philly.
Bears (2-1) at Cowboys (2-1): Chicago-Remember back in the old days when the Monday night game was the best matchup of the week? Well, this week we lucked out. Because that's exactly what we've got. And it'll be an important one in determining where the Bears and Cowboys actually stand. Chicago's two wins have been by big margins, but they came against Indianapolis and St. Louis, and Dallas isn't going to shake that loss in Seattle anytime soon. This should be a great game between two very good teams. It's a toss-up, but I'm going with the Bears.
Last Week: 8-8 (I know. I'm embarrassed to even write that.)
This Week: 1-0
Season: 32-17
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
Dissecting October
I was asked today how I feel about the Yankees' chances in the playoffs. Like most, I'm assuming that the Yankees are going to end up in the playoffs one way or another. In fact, I still predict they'll win the AL East. But winning the World Series? I can't say I see that happening. This Yankees team has losing the Division Series winning all over it. If they do win the pennant, that wouldn't entirely surprise me either, though. Point is...I really have no idea what's going to happen. There are flaws in every potential playoff team. I know that one of them has to win the World Series. I'm just having a hard time figuring out which.
Let's start with the Rangers. I don't see how it's possible they lose the World Series again. Texas winning a third straight pennant could happen. They're the best team in the American League, and if everything clicks the way it has the last two seasons, I'd still have to say the Rangers are the team to beat in AL. And if they do get back to the World Series, this time I see them finishing the job. I don't see how they can't. But an ALCS loss is also something I can easily see.
The Yankees? Assuming they get the No. 2 seed in the AL, that means they'll play the Central winner. If that's the White Sox, the Yankees probably survive. If that's the Tigers, I don't think there's any way they do. They lost in five to Detroit in that crazy Division Series last season, so the Tigers know they can beat them, and Detroit's a better team this year. The Tigers have finally started to play like the team they should've been all season. If they get into the playoffs, they might be my pick to win the AL pennant, if not the whole thing.
Assuming the wild card game is Orioles-A's, I'd say the winner has absolutely no chance of reaching the World Series. Baltimore would be completely overmatched against Texas, while Oakland's lack of offense will be problematic come October. Again, I'm still not sure how the A's are good. But pitching is what wins you games in the playoffs and that's Oakland's bread-and-butter. Can they shut down the lineups of the Orioles, Rangers and Yankees/Tigers in succession though? I'm banking on "No."
As for the other three teams alive in the AL--the Rays, White Sox and Angels--I think only one of them actually has a chance to do some damage should they make it to October. The Rays are always dangerous down the stretch, so I'm not christening Baltimore as a participant in the wild card game just yet (the final series is Orioles-Rays). I don't think they have enough to win eight playoff games with that lineup, though. Should the White Sox get in, they'll need to rely on their pitching. It's possible they do enough to get by the Yankees in the Division Series, but both the Yankees and Rangers ain't happening.
The Angels, however. That's the team everybody else needs to hope doesn't claw its way into that second wild card. Like the Tigers, the Angels figured out that they're supposed to be good too late. Should they manage to get in, though, the Angels are scary. Jered Weaver, Ervin Santana and C.J. Wilson make up a powerful rotation, the bullpen is very good, and need I mention the fact that they have Albert Pujols, Mike Trout and Mark Trumbo?
Same thing with the four National League teams. Washington might have the pitching depth to survive not using its best pitcher in the playoffs. But you can't say the Nationals are better off with Ross Detwiler or John Lannan as their fourth starter as opposed to Strasburg (especially if they go up against somebody like San Francisco and you have a Detwiler vs. Zito matchup). Their lack of playoff experience could come into play, too. Look what happened tho the Reds against the Phillies two years ago.
Speaking of the Reds, they're probably going to end up with an unfavorable matchup against the Giants. I'm not saying Cincinnati wouldn't win that series, but if that is the matchup, I'd have to take San Francisco. But I can easily see the Reds winning that series, too. Out of the five National League playoff teams, the Reds have both the best lineup and the best bullpen. If I was picking a National League pennant winner right now, though, I'd have to pick the Giants. San Francisco has the pitching, and the lineup's better than it was two years ago when they won the World Series. In fact, I think that, overall, the Giants are a better team now than in 2010.
Atlanta is Exhibit A as to why two wild cards is a dumb idea. The Braves are clearly the fourth-best team in the National League. Like I said, the Braves are the fourth-best team in the National League. Sure, they've got the personnel and the familiarity to knock of Washington in the Division Series, but I don't see them getting by either the Reds or the Giants in the NLCS. Although, I'm not exactly rooting against them, since it would be incredible to see Chipper end his career by playing in one last World Series (which would be his fourth). It looks like the Cardinals are going to be Atlanta's guest in the inaugural NL Wild Card Game. Common sense says that St. Louis has no chance of getting back to the World Series, but last year they only made the playoffs because the Braves choked and look what happened. As a result, I'm not counting the Cardinals completely out. I do consider them a longshot, though.
Ultimately, every team that's going to make the playoffs has its flaws. Two of them have to meet in the World Series, though. And since I think they have the fewest flaws in their respective leagues, I'd have to say that right now, I think the two most likely to earn those World Series berths are the Tigers and Giants. It wouldn't surprise me if they both lose in the Division Series, though.
Let's start with the Rangers. I don't see how it's possible they lose the World Series again. Texas winning a third straight pennant could happen. They're the best team in the American League, and if everything clicks the way it has the last two seasons, I'd still have to say the Rangers are the team to beat in AL. And if they do get back to the World Series, this time I see them finishing the job. I don't see how they can't. But an ALCS loss is also something I can easily see.
The Yankees? Assuming they get the No. 2 seed in the AL, that means they'll play the Central winner. If that's the White Sox, the Yankees probably survive. If that's the Tigers, I don't think there's any way they do. They lost in five to Detroit in that crazy Division Series last season, so the Tigers know they can beat them, and Detroit's a better team this year. The Tigers have finally started to play like the team they should've been all season. If they get into the playoffs, they might be my pick to win the AL pennant, if not the whole thing.
Assuming the wild card game is Orioles-A's, I'd say the winner has absolutely no chance of reaching the World Series. Baltimore would be completely overmatched against Texas, while Oakland's lack of offense will be problematic come October. Again, I'm still not sure how the A's are good. But pitching is what wins you games in the playoffs and that's Oakland's bread-and-butter. Can they shut down the lineups of the Orioles, Rangers and Yankees/Tigers in succession though? I'm banking on "No."
As for the other three teams alive in the AL--the Rays, White Sox and Angels--I think only one of them actually has a chance to do some damage should they make it to October. The Rays are always dangerous down the stretch, so I'm not christening Baltimore as a participant in the wild card game just yet (the final series is Orioles-Rays). I don't think they have enough to win eight playoff games with that lineup, though. Should the White Sox get in, they'll need to rely on their pitching. It's possible they do enough to get by the Yankees in the Division Series, but both the Yankees and Rangers ain't happening.
The Angels, however. That's the team everybody else needs to hope doesn't claw its way into that second wild card. Like the Tigers, the Angels figured out that they're supposed to be good too late. Should they manage to get in, though, the Angels are scary. Jered Weaver, Ervin Santana and C.J. Wilson make up a powerful rotation, the bullpen is very good, and need I mention the fact that they have Albert Pujols, Mike Trout and Mark Trumbo?
Same thing with the four National League teams. Washington might have the pitching depth to survive not using its best pitcher in the playoffs. But you can't say the Nationals are better off with Ross Detwiler or John Lannan as their fourth starter as opposed to Strasburg (especially if they go up against somebody like San Francisco and you have a Detwiler vs. Zito matchup). Their lack of playoff experience could come into play, too. Look what happened tho the Reds against the Phillies two years ago.
Speaking of the Reds, they're probably going to end up with an unfavorable matchup against the Giants. I'm not saying Cincinnati wouldn't win that series, but if that is the matchup, I'd have to take San Francisco. But I can easily see the Reds winning that series, too. Out of the five National League playoff teams, the Reds have both the best lineup and the best bullpen. If I was picking a National League pennant winner right now, though, I'd have to pick the Giants. San Francisco has the pitching, and the lineup's better than it was two years ago when they won the World Series. In fact, I think that, overall, the Giants are a better team now than in 2010.
Atlanta is Exhibit A as to why two wild cards is a dumb idea. The Braves are clearly the fourth-best team in the National League. Like I said, the Braves are the fourth-best team in the National League. Sure, they've got the personnel and the familiarity to knock of Washington in the Division Series, but I don't see them getting by either the Reds or the Giants in the NLCS. Although, I'm not exactly rooting against them, since it would be incredible to see Chipper end his career by playing in one last World Series (which would be his fourth). It looks like the Cardinals are going to be Atlanta's guest in the inaugural NL Wild Card Game. Common sense says that St. Louis has no chance of getting back to the World Series, but last year they only made the playoffs because the Braves choked and look what happened. As a result, I'm not counting the Cardinals completely out. I do consider them a longshot, though.
Ultimately, every team that's going to make the playoffs has its flaws. Two of them have to meet in the World Series, though. And since I think they have the fewest flaws in their respective leagues, I'd have to say that right now, I think the two most likely to earn those World Series berths are the Tigers and Giants. It wouldn't surprise me if they both lose in the Division Series, though.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
NFL Power Rankings
When I posted my Week 3 picks (which, thanks to the Steelers, Saints, 49ers and replacement refs, were crap), I mentioned my NFL power rankings. After I posted the link to that post on Facebook, I was asked where I have the Giants in the power rankings. It's still kind of early in the NFL season, but the first round of byes (the Colts and Steelers) are coming up this week, so figured now might be as good a time as any to rank everybody from 1-32. (If they can rank the college teams every week, why not rank the NFL teams?)
1. Falcons (3-0): Atlanta's really good. I don't even wanna throw a MIGHT be the best team in the NFL out there. In my opinion, there's no question who the best team in the league after three weeks is. That Falcon offense is ridiculous. And the defense is just as good.
2. Texans (3-0): I wasn't completely sold on Houston as the best team in the AFC until last week, when they went into Denver and beat the Broncos. We all knew that the Texans were good. But I now find myself in a position of looking at them as a Super Bowl contender.
3. Ravens (2-1): If not for that one-point loss to the Eagles, the Ravens would be No. 1 on this list. That was a huge win over the Patriots on Sunday night. Not just because they beat New England. Because Joe Flacco won them that game and proved he's an elite NFL quarterback.
4. Cardinals (3-0): OK, I give. The Arizona Cardinals actually are good. First that crazy upset of the Patriots in New England. Then they slaughter the Eagles at home. Maybe the 49ers won't run away with the NFC West.
5. 49ers (2-1): This might be a little high considering what happened in Minnesota, but I'm choosing to look at the loss to the Vikings as nothing more than a bad day. I think the 49ers team that beat the Packers in Green Bay is the real 49ers team. They'll bounce back and should be back in the Top 3 soon enough.
6. Chargers (2-1): Getting slaughtered by the Falcons aside, I've been impressed by the Chargers so far this season. Will this be the year they finally actually play for an entire season?
7. Eagles (2-1): Very little separates that triumverate at the top of the NFC East. But I give Philly the nod because they found a way to win those first two games despite not playing well at all. Sure they got slaughtered by the Cardinals, but the Eagles haven't really played that well yet, are 2-1, and have a win over the Ravens.
8. Bears (2-1): Call me crazy, but I think Chicago's a legitimate contender in the NFC. Sure, they have what could be considered two "soft" home wins over Indianapolis and St. Louis, but their only loss came at Lambeau Field, which can't be considered a "bad" loss.
9. Cowboys (2-1): If not for the loss in Seattle, the Cowboys would rank higher. As it is, Dallas continues to be an enigma. Really good one week, really bad the next. Which Cowboys team shows up for that terrific Monday night matchup with Chicago?
10. Giants (2-1): The Giants stunk up the joint in the season opener against the Cowboys, and they didn't look much better for three quarters against Tampa Bay. But after that incredible fourth-quarter comeback in the Bucs game, followed by that total dismantling of the Panthers, the Giants seem to be back on track.
11. Bengals (2-1): Prior to the season, I pegged Cincinnati as the 2011 playoff team least likely to return to the postseason. However, my opinion has changed. The Bengals have done what they need to do to win in their last two games, and with a soft schedule, they could easily stockpile some wins before a Week 7 matchup with the Steelers.
12. Jets (2-1): Despite all this ridiculous obsession with how they do or don't use Tebow, the Jets have played three very distinct games this season. They looked great against Buffalo, horrible against Pittsburgh and OK against Miami. I still don't know what to make of the Jets, which is why they aren't ranked higher.
13. Broncos (1-2): This may seem high for a 1-2 team, especially considering they're ranked above a couple 2-1 squads, but Denver's had an incredibly tough schedule so far and was competitive in both of the losses, which happened to come against Atlanta and Houston. Nothing to be ashamed of there. The Broncos are legit.
14. Patriots (1-2): New England's not as good as they've been in years past. But I still expect them to win the AFC East. That home loss to Arizona was certainly a surprise, and they probably should've beaten Baltimore.
15. Packers (1-2): That 1-2 record should either be in quotes or have an asterisk after it. Monday night's game was an embarrassment for the NFL. That loss to the 49ers was acceptable, and the comeback against Seattle was impressive. It's just a shame the refs took the win away from them.
16. Seahawks (2-1): If there's one team that likes having replacement officials, it's probably the Seahawks. First, they get an extra timeout in Week 1, then they get a "win" in Week 3. Combine that with their actual win over Dallas and you've got a 2-1 team.
17. Vikings (2-1): Minnesota's still got a lot of problems, but maybe they turned a corner with that unexpected win over the 49ers. If they win in Detroit this week, then they'll really have shown me something.
18. Bills (2-1): The Bills are the lowest ranked of the 2-1 teams simply because the two teams they've beaten aren't very good. And they were completely embarrassed in that Week 1 loss to the Jets.
19. Steelers (1-2): I'm not really sure what happened in Oakland. The Steelers have been hit hard by injuries, especially on defense. They'll be fine, though. Having an early bye this weekend could end up helping them in the long run.
20. Titans (1-2): Tennessee scored 44 points and beat the Lions last week. That was impressive. And with that, the Titans might've turned a corner. Their two losses were to New England and San Diego, neither of which could really be considered "bad."
21. Buccaneers (1-2): Greg Schiano's going to turn the Bucs into a contender quickly. They pulled off an upset against the Panthers, then almost beat both the Giants and Cowboys. Sure, that stunt Schiano pulled at the end of the Giant game didn't make him any friends, but this team's on the way up.
22. Lions (1-2): This is more a ranking based on how I feel about Tampa Bay than how I feel about Detroit. Although, it's hard to ignore the fact that the Lions barely beat the Rams and lost to the Titans. They kept it close with the 49ers in San Francisco, though.
23. Panthers (1-2): Carolina's another team where I have no idea what to make of them. They lose to the Bucs, score 35 points in a win over the Saints, then get blown out by the Giants. I can easily see the Panthers doing that all season. Their defense is going to give up a lot of points, but Cam Newton and Co. are going to score a bunch, too.
24. Dolphins (1-2): I still don't know what to make of Miami. I think Ryan Tannehill actually has the potential to be a good NFL quarterback, and they looked pretty good against the Jets last week. But their only win came against the Raiders, which makes it hard for me to rank them any higher.
25. Jaguars (1-2): Jacksonville isn't good. In fact, the Jaguars are pretty bad. But they have a win over the Colts, which is enough to give them a slight nod over Indy.
26. Colts (1-2): I'll say this about the Colts. They aren't the worst team in the NFL anymore. But they're still pretty bad. They went 3-13 in Peyton's rookie year. The first year of the Andrew Luck Era might be similar.
27. Raiders (1-2): The only reason the Raiders get the nod here is because their win came against the Steelers. Pittsburgh had a bad game and Oakland had a good game at the same time, and look what happened.
28. Chiefs (1-2): They moved up from No. 32 by getting their first win last week. Sure it was against the Saints and their offense is still anemic, but you can't tell me Kansas City's any worse than the four teams I rank below them.
29. Redskins (1-2): When they beat the Saints in Week 1, it gave Redskins fans hope. Turns out that's all it was, seeing as they immediately followed it with a loss to the Rams. And it turns out the Saints aren't as good as anybody thought, either.
30. Rams (1-2): Yes they have a win. By three points over the Redskins. And sure, they almost beat the Lions. But against the Bears, they looked like the same old Rams.
31. Saints (0-3): Raise your hand if you saw this coming in New Orleans. Nobody? I'm the only one? Hate to say, "I told you so," but I had a feeling this season would be a mess for the Saints. They could easily be 0-6 when Joe Vitt is allowed to start coaching them. That home Super Bowl Saints fans couldn't shut up about ain't happening.
32. Browns (0-3): Sorry, Cleveland. I don't see things getting any better for the Browns any time soon. At least they have Trent Richardson. He's fun to watch.
1. Falcons (3-0): Atlanta's really good. I don't even wanna throw a MIGHT be the best team in the NFL out there. In my opinion, there's no question who the best team in the league after three weeks is. That Falcon offense is ridiculous. And the defense is just as good.
2. Texans (3-0): I wasn't completely sold on Houston as the best team in the AFC until last week, when they went into Denver and beat the Broncos. We all knew that the Texans were good. But I now find myself in a position of looking at them as a Super Bowl contender.
3. Ravens (2-1): If not for that one-point loss to the Eagles, the Ravens would be No. 1 on this list. That was a huge win over the Patriots on Sunday night. Not just because they beat New England. Because Joe Flacco won them that game and proved he's an elite NFL quarterback.
4. Cardinals (3-0): OK, I give. The Arizona Cardinals actually are good. First that crazy upset of the Patriots in New England. Then they slaughter the Eagles at home. Maybe the 49ers won't run away with the NFC West.
5. 49ers (2-1): This might be a little high considering what happened in Minnesota, but I'm choosing to look at the loss to the Vikings as nothing more than a bad day. I think the 49ers team that beat the Packers in Green Bay is the real 49ers team. They'll bounce back and should be back in the Top 3 soon enough.
6. Chargers (2-1): Getting slaughtered by the Falcons aside, I've been impressed by the Chargers so far this season. Will this be the year they finally actually play for an entire season?
7. Eagles (2-1): Very little separates that triumverate at the top of the NFC East. But I give Philly the nod because they found a way to win those first two games despite not playing well at all. Sure they got slaughtered by the Cardinals, but the Eagles haven't really played that well yet, are 2-1, and have a win over the Ravens.
8. Bears (2-1): Call me crazy, but I think Chicago's a legitimate contender in the NFC. Sure, they have what could be considered two "soft" home wins over Indianapolis and St. Louis, but their only loss came at Lambeau Field, which can't be considered a "bad" loss.
9. Cowboys (2-1): If not for the loss in Seattle, the Cowboys would rank higher. As it is, Dallas continues to be an enigma. Really good one week, really bad the next. Which Cowboys team shows up for that terrific Monday night matchup with Chicago?
10. Giants (2-1): The Giants stunk up the joint in the season opener against the Cowboys, and they didn't look much better for three quarters against Tampa Bay. But after that incredible fourth-quarter comeback in the Bucs game, followed by that total dismantling of the Panthers, the Giants seem to be back on track.
11. Bengals (2-1): Prior to the season, I pegged Cincinnati as the 2011 playoff team least likely to return to the postseason. However, my opinion has changed. The Bengals have done what they need to do to win in their last two games, and with a soft schedule, they could easily stockpile some wins before a Week 7 matchup with the Steelers.
12. Jets (2-1): Despite all this ridiculous obsession with how they do or don't use Tebow, the Jets have played three very distinct games this season. They looked great against Buffalo, horrible against Pittsburgh and OK against Miami. I still don't know what to make of the Jets, which is why they aren't ranked higher.
13. Broncos (1-2): This may seem high for a 1-2 team, especially considering they're ranked above a couple 2-1 squads, but Denver's had an incredibly tough schedule so far and was competitive in both of the losses, which happened to come against Atlanta and Houston. Nothing to be ashamed of there. The Broncos are legit.
14. Patriots (1-2): New England's not as good as they've been in years past. But I still expect them to win the AFC East. That home loss to Arizona was certainly a surprise, and they probably should've beaten Baltimore.
15. Packers (1-2): That 1-2 record should either be in quotes or have an asterisk after it. Monday night's game was an embarrassment for the NFL. That loss to the 49ers was acceptable, and the comeback against Seattle was impressive. It's just a shame the refs took the win away from them.
16. Seahawks (2-1): If there's one team that likes having replacement officials, it's probably the Seahawks. First, they get an extra timeout in Week 1, then they get a "win" in Week 3. Combine that with their actual win over Dallas and you've got a 2-1 team.
17. Vikings (2-1): Minnesota's still got a lot of problems, but maybe they turned a corner with that unexpected win over the 49ers. If they win in Detroit this week, then they'll really have shown me something.
18. Bills (2-1): The Bills are the lowest ranked of the 2-1 teams simply because the two teams they've beaten aren't very good. And they were completely embarrassed in that Week 1 loss to the Jets.
19. Steelers (1-2): I'm not really sure what happened in Oakland. The Steelers have been hit hard by injuries, especially on defense. They'll be fine, though. Having an early bye this weekend could end up helping them in the long run.
20. Titans (1-2): Tennessee scored 44 points and beat the Lions last week. That was impressive. And with that, the Titans might've turned a corner. Their two losses were to New England and San Diego, neither of which could really be considered "bad."
21. Buccaneers (1-2): Greg Schiano's going to turn the Bucs into a contender quickly. They pulled off an upset against the Panthers, then almost beat both the Giants and Cowboys. Sure, that stunt Schiano pulled at the end of the Giant game didn't make him any friends, but this team's on the way up.
22. Lions (1-2): This is more a ranking based on how I feel about Tampa Bay than how I feel about Detroit. Although, it's hard to ignore the fact that the Lions barely beat the Rams and lost to the Titans. They kept it close with the 49ers in San Francisco, though.
23. Panthers (1-2): Carolina's another team where I have no idea what to make of them. They lose to the Bucs, score 35 points in a win over the Saints, then get blown out by the Giants. I can easily see the Panthers doing that all season. Their defense is going to give up a lot of points, but Cam Newton and Co. are going to score a bunch, too.
24. Dolphins (1-2): I still don't know what to make of Miami. I think Ryan Tannehill actually has the potential to be a good NFL quarterback, and they looked pretty good against the Jets last week. But their only win came against the Raiders, which makes it hard for me to rank them any higher.
25. Jaguars (1-2): Jacksonville isn't good. In fact, the Jaguars are pretty bad. But they have a win over the Colts, which is enough to give them a slight nod over Indy.
26. Colts (1-2): I'll say this about the Colts. They aren't the worst team in the NFL anymore. But they're still pretty bad. They went 3-13 in Peyton's rookie year. The first year of the Andrew Luck Era might be similar.
27. Raiders (1-2): The only reason the Raiders get the nod here is because their win came against the Steelers. Pittsburgh had a bad game and Oakland had a good game at the same time, and look what happened.
28. Chiefs (1-2): They moved up from No. 32 by getting their first win last week. Sure it was against the Saints and their offense is still anemic, but you can't tell me Kansas City's any worse than the four teams I rank below them.
29. Redskins (1-2): When they beat the Saints in Week 1, it gave Redskins fans hope. Turns out that's all it was, seeing as they immediately followed it with a loss to the Rams. And it turns out the Saints aren't as good as anybody thought, either.
30. Rams (1-2): Yes they have a win. By three points over the Redskins. And sure, they almost beat the Lions. But against the Bears, they looked like the same old Rams.
31. Saints (0-3): Raise your hand if you saw this coming in New Orleans. Nobody? I'm the only one? Hate to say, "I told you so," but I had a feeling this season would be a mess for the Saints. They could easily be 0-6 when Joe Vitt is allowed to start coaching them. That home Super Bowl Saints fans couldn't shut up about ain't happening.
32. Browns (0-3): Sorry, Cleveland. I don't see things getting any better for the Browns any time soon. At least they have Trent Richardson. He's fun to watch.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Races? What Races?
I've already gone on record as not being a fan of the second wild card. This year's "pennant races" are further proof as to why I feel that way. The whole idea behind the second wild card was to give more teams a "realistic" chance at the playoffs. Yeah, well, tell that to everybody but the 10 teams who acutally will make the playoffs. Because this two wild card thing is making the month of September incredibly anticlimactic.
Take that three-way battle for the AL East and wild card. The Yankees and Orioles are engaged in quite a race in the AL East. It feels like the Yankees' lead has been one game for like two weeks. They either both win or both lose every day. However, it looks like they're both going to make the playoffs no matter what. Sure, the new format has placed an extra emphasis on winning the division, which gives them both the incentive to fight for the AL East title, but knowing that they're both going to get in has really taken something out of that race.
Same thing in the AL wild card "race." Oakland has basically the same record as the Yankees and Orioles, so in years past, those two wouldn't have had to worry about just each other. They'd have to worry about the A's, too. But, again, the fact that there's a second wild card this season has made this "race" somewhat irrelevant. As fans, we're being deprived of one of the best parts of September baseball. Instead of a great three-team race for two spots, the only "suspense" going into the final 10 days of the regular season revolves around which AL East team will get stuck playing in the wild card game and which team will have to fly cross-country to play in it.
This whole idea that the extra wild card will keep more teams alive later in the season has proven not to be the case, at least for this year. It could simply be a one-year anamoly, but the "competiton" for the two wild card spots is non-existent. The Angels and Rays, the teams most observers thought would be the two to snag those playoff berths in the preseason, are 2.5 and 3.5 games back of Oakland, respectively. It'll take either a miracle or a 2007-08 Mets/2011 Red Sox/2011 Braves-like collapse for either of them to come anywhere close to the Orioles and A's.
And it might just be because I live in New York and I have family in Baltimore that's made the AL East completely overshadow everything, but there's only one real race in the American League, and it seems like nobody is talking about it. The White Sox lead the Tigers by just one game in the AL Central. Unlike the East/wild card, this is an actual pennant race. The winner will make the playoffs and the loser won't. In fact, the way I see it, White Sox-Tigers is the ONLY pennant race in all of baseball. (And it's incredibly hard to believe that the Tigers are actually in this position to begin with.)
Over in the National League, "anticlimactic" doesn't begin to describe it. The Reds and Giants have already clinched the division, and the Nationals have clinched their first playoff spot in 30 years. Washington's NL East title is a mere formality. So is the Braves' wild card. Even if they do choke the way they did last year, it'll be virtually impossible for Atlanta to miss the playoffs again because of the second wild card. In fact, at this point, it would be virtually impossible for them not to host the NL Wild Card Game. At least the TBS suits won't have to travel far for the NL Wild Card Game in Atlanta.
The only thing the second wild card has done in the National League is prevent the Braves from getting that guaranteed place in the Division Series that they obviously deserve. But it's not like the race for wild card No. 2 is any closer. The Cardinals have a three-game lead on the Dodgers and Brewers. The likelihood of St. Louis missing the playoffs also appears slim. Sure, there's a chance they can get caught, but I think virtually everyone's in agreement that the inaugural NL Wild Card Game will be St. Louis at Atlanta.
As it stands now, the only thing worth paying attention to in the National League is the race for the 1-seed between the Nationals and Reds. San Francisco's going to be the No. 3 seed, which isn't really the worst thing for them, since that means they get Games 1 and 2 at home. (Same thing with the White Sox-Tigers winner, by the way.) The winner of the AL East can conceivably overtake the Rangers, too, but I think, in the American League especially, it's an advantage to be the No. 2 seed this year. Think about it. You'll know who you're playing and where. That makes everything (from rotation to matchups to whatever) a lot easier planning-wise. Add that to the list of problems with the new playoff format. The "advantage" that comes with the best record is virtually non-existent in the Division Series.
Maybe last year's final day was simply too good to be true. We ain't gonna have anything like it this season. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if all 10 spots (not just the teams, the actual places) are locked in by next Wednesday. In which case, year one of the second wild card will go down as an absolute dud. Because if you were looking for added excitement and more playoff races, you came to the wrong place.
Take that three-way battle for the AL East and wild card. The Yankees and Orioles are engaged in quite a race in the AL East. It feels like the Yankees' lead has been one game for like two weeks. They either both win or both lose every day. However, it looks like they're both going to make the playoffs no matter what. Sure, the new format has placed an extra emphasis on winning the division, which gives them both the incentive to fight for the AL East title, but knowing that they're both going to get in has really taken something out of that race.
Same thing in the AL wild card "race." Oakland has basically the same record as the Yankees and Orioles, so in years past, those two wouldn't have had to worry about just each other. They'd have to worry about the A's, too. But, again, the fact that there's a second wild card this season has made this "race" somewhat irrelevant. As fans, we're being deprived of one of the best parts of September baseball. Instead of a great three-team race for two spots, the only "suspense" going into the final 10 days of the regular season revolves around which AL East team will get stuck playing in the wild card game and which team will have to fly cross-country to play in it.
This whole idea that the extra wild card will keep more teams alive later in the season has proven not to be the case, at least for this year. It could simply be a one-year anamoly, but the "competiton" for the two wild card spots is non-existent. The Angels and Rays, the teams most observers thought would be the two to snag those playoff berths in the preseason, are 2.5 and 3.5 games back of Oakland, respectively. It'll take either a miracle or a 2007-08 Mets/2011 Red Sox/2011 Braves-like collapse for either of them to come anywhere close to the Orioles and A's.
And it might just be because I live in New York and I have family in Baltimore that's made the AL East completely overshadow everything, but there's only one real race in the American League, and it seems like nobody is talking about it. The White Sox lead the Tigers by just one game in the AL Central. Unlike the East/wild card, this is an actual pennant race. The winner will make the playoffs and the loser won't. In fact, the way I see it, White Sox-Tigers is the ONLY pennant race in all of baseball. (And it's incredibly hard to believe that the Tigers are actually in this position to begin with.)
Over in the National League, "anticlimactic" doesn't begin to describe it. The Reds and Giants have already clinched the division, and the Nationals have clinched their first playoff spot in 30 years. Washington's NL East title is a mere formality. So is the Braves' wild card. Even if they do choke the way they did last year, it'll be virtually impossible for Atlanta to miss the playoffs again because of the second wild card. In fact, at this point, it would be virtually impossible for them not to host the NL Wild Card Game. At least the TBS suits won't have to travel far for the NL Wild Card Game in Atlanta.
The only thing the second wild card has done in the National League is prevent the Braves from getting that guaranteed place in the Division Series that they obviously deserve. But it's not like the race for wild card No. 2 is any closer. The Cardinals have a three-game lead on the Dodgers and Brewers. The likelihood of St. Louis missing the playoffs also appears slim. Sure, there's a chance they can get caught, but I think virtually everyone's in agreement that the inaugural NL Wild Card Game will be St. Louis at Atlanta.
As it stands now, the only thing worth paying attention to in the National League is the race for the 1-seed between the Nationals and Reds. San Francisco's going to be the No. 3 seed, which isn't really the worst thing for them, since that means they get Games 1 and 2 at home. (Same thing with the White Sox-Tigers winner, by the way.) The winner of the AL East can conceivably overtake the Rangers, too, but I think, in the American League especially, it's an advantage to be the No. 2 seed this year. Think about it. You'll know who you're playing and where. That makes everything (from rotation to matchups to whatever) a lot easier planning-wise. Add that to the list of problems with the new playoff format. The "advantage" that comes with the best record is virtually non-existent in the Division Series.
Maybe last year's final day was simply too good to be true. We ain't gonna have anything like it this season. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if all 10 spots (not just the teams, the actual places) are locked in by next Wednesday. In which case, year one of the second wild card will go down as an absolute dud. Because if you were looking for added excitement and more playoff races, you came to the wrong place.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
NFL Week 3 Picks
It's only Week 3, yet the parity in the NFL has already been made abundantly clear. There are only six 2-0 teams (four of whom face each other this week) and six 0-2 teams (two of whom play this week), leaving the rest of the league at 1-1 after their first game. That's a whopping 20 teams! So, basically, we don't know much about who's good and who's not, especially since some of the good teams have already played each other and one of the 2-0 teams (Philadelphia) has a point differential of just +2. After Week 3, I doubt we'll know much more than we did last week. With that in mind, here are the picks:
Rams (1-1) at Bears (1-1): Chicago-The thing about these Thursday night games is that it seems like we go a loooooooooooong time between games for the teams that play in them. Take the Bears. It seriously seems like it's been weeks since we've seen them play. They looked great in a Week 1 home win over Indianapolis, then ran into that buzzsaw known as a Packers team that needed a win at Lambeau Field. The Rams, meanwhile, picked up a win last week against a Redskins squad that might not actually be as good as everybody thought after Week 1. They've got a good coach in Jeff Fisher and will win games like that, but beating the Bears in Chicago is an entirely different matter. I don't see it happening.
Bills (1-1) at Browns (0-2): Buffalo-Poor Cleveland. A one-point loss to the Eagles, then they lose by a touchdown to the rival Bengals in a game that they had a chance to win. Now they take on a Bills team that looked really bad in Week 1 and really good in Week 2. I think the fact that they were playing Kansas City had a lot to do with the Bills jumping out to that big lead last week. The Browns are on the same level as the Chiefs. As a result, I'm going with the Bills.
Buccaneers (1-1) at Cowboys (1-1): Dallas-Which Cowboys team will show up? The one that looked great against the Giants? Or the one that laid a complete egg in last week's loss in Seattle? I could probably ask that same question about the Bucs, who probably should've also beaten the Giants if not for Eli Manning and that fourth-quarter comeback. This could be one of the more telling games of the weekend, since we may finally find out where these two teams stand. Since it's the Cowboys' home opener, I'm taking Dallas in a close one.
Lions (1-1) at Titans (0-2): Detroit-Detroit finally gets a regularly-scheduled primetime game and look what happens. Although, I do give the Lions a lot of credit for keeping it close against a 49ers team that might be the best in the NFL. Tennessee has gotten its butt whooped twice...by the Patriots and Chargers. In other words, no shame in that. I think they're probably the second-best 0-2 team behind the Saints. Unfortunately, they'll be the best 0-3 team after losing to the Lions this week.
Jaguars (0-2) at Colts (1-1): Indianapolis-Don't let last week's win fool you. The Andrew Luck edition of the Indianapolis Colts are still nowhere near the quality of the Peyton Manning version. It just so happens they played equally bad Minnesota at home. Likewise, they're playing Jacksonville at home this week. The Colts will be a very deceptive 2-1 going into their incredibly early bye.
Jets (1-1) at Dolphins (1-1): Jets-The Jets' need for attention really is hilarious. Mark Sanchez plays like crap against the Steelers, so people start to wonder if that means Tebow will play this week. Yet the only thing people can talk about is how Tebow's been a non-factor in the offense so far (that's what happens when you get a guy for no reason other than publicity) and how he might want out of New York after the season. Even Rex Ryan is sick of talking about Tim Tebow! Did anybody ever think that would actually happen? The Dolphins benefitted from playing the Raiders last week, but the Jets aren't the same quality as Oakland. Just like Miami is nowhere near the same quality as Pittsburgh.
49ers (2-0) at Vikings (0-2): San Francisco-The 49ers continue their tour of the NFC North this week in Minnesota. After what happened last week in Foxboro, I'm not going to say that the Vikings have no chance. But I'm one of the many who thinks San Francisco just might be the best team in the NFL. Minnesota shouldn't be a problem for them.
Chiefs (0-2) at Saints (0-2): New Orleans-One of these teams will finally pick up its first win! Kansas City hasn't shown any signs of actually being this "elite" team that a lot of people think they have the potential to be. The Saints haven't, either. Before the season started, I was one of the few people who predicted this year could be a mess in New Orleans. It's not entirely out of the question to envision the Saints at 1-4 at their bye week. With the 1 coming this week.
Bengals (1-1) at Redskins (1-1): Cincinnati-This game's a toss-up. Like the archrival Cowboys, the Redskins finally get to play a home game in Week 3, and it should be fun for the FedEx Field Faithful to finally see RG3 live and in person. That's why some part of me is tempted to pick the Redskins. But the rest of me is more inclined to go with Cincinnati. Even though the Bengals almost blew it against the Browns last week, I think the better team wins this one. That's Cincinnati.
Eagles (2-0) at Cardinals (2-0): Philadelphia-One of the two 2-0 vs. 2-0 matchups pits an Eagles team that's won its two games by a combined two points against the most surprising undefeated squad of all--Arizona. Now, I'll be the first to admit I didn't see last week coming (as evidence by my first strike in my survival pick 'em league). Maybe that's a sign the Cardinals are for real. Or maybe it's just proof that the Patriots took them lightly. Either way, I think it's gotta be pretty good to be an Eagles fan right now. They haven't played well at all (they committed nine turnovers in their first two games), but they're 2-0 and in first place, so who really cares? Philly's actually going to play well sooner or later. It might be this week. But with the way things are going, I think the Eagles win anyway.
Falcons (2-0) at Chargers (2-0): Atlanta-The other 2-0 vs. 2-0 game. San Diego's finally playing like the team we've all thought they can be for the past few years. Atlanta, meanwhile, I've got ranked at No. 3 behind San Francisco and Houston in my current NFL power rankings. Basically what I'm saying here is that I love this matchup. The fact that the game's in San Diego is obviously Advantage Chargers, but I was really encouraged by the Falcons' effort in that debacle of a "game" on Monday night. They can really prove that they're among the NFL's elite with a win over the Chargers in SoCal.
Texans (2-0) at Broncos (1-1): Denver-So, the Broncos won't go undefeated this year. I still liked what I saw from Peyton with that comeback after the Falcons took that big lead, though. As for the Texans, they've looked unbeatable against Miami and Jacksonville. Houston might be the best team in the AFC, but it's also necessary to consider that the teams they've played so far are Miami and Jacksonville. CBS gets another good one in the doubleheader game. This is a great matchup between two good teams. When he was in Indy, it was very rare for Peyton to lose two weeks in a row. Even though his horse is different and his jersey is orange now, I see that trend continuing in Denver.
Steelers (1-1) at Raiders (0-2): Pittsburgh-Welcome back to the 1970s! OK, there are some major differences between Steelers-Raiders now and Steelers-Raiders then. For starters, only one of these teams is good now. Even without Harrison and Polamalu, Pittsburgh should have more than enough fire power to take down Oakland. Especially since the Raiders' offense was one of the most anemic in the NFL in the first two weeks.
Patriots (1-1) at Ravens (1-1): Baltimore-Most people expected this one to be a battle of undefeateds, but the Ravens' one-point loss and Stephen Gostkowski's missed field goal took care of that. Regardless, it's an ideal matchup for an early-season Sunday night game. The rematch of last season's AFC title game. It's crazy to think that the loser will actually dip below .500 on the season. I'm not sure the last time that happened for either team, yet come Sunday night at midnight, that'll be the case for one of them. New England lost a lot more than a game last week. They're going to be hurting without Aaron Hernandez and all that he brings to the offense. As a result, I like the Ravens defense in this one.
Packers (1-1) at Seahawks (1-1): Green Bay-The Packers get a Cowboys-like Thursday night-Monday night break. And just like Dallas, that extended break ends with a trip to Seattle. The Seahawks pulled the upset last week, but I think that had more to do with the Cowboys' effort than their own. The Packers learned from that game, and, unlike Dallas, they're not going to take the Seahawks lightly. I'd normally go with Green Bay anyway, but especially with extra rest.
Last Week: 10-6
This Week: 1-0
Season: 24-9
Rams (1-1) at Bears (1-1): Chicago-The thing about these Thursday night games is that it seems like we go a loooooooooooong time between games for the teams that play in them. Take the Bears. It seriously seems like it's been weeks since we've seen them play. They looked great in a Week 1 home win over Indianapolis, then ran into that buzzsaw known as a Packers team that needed a win at Lambeau Field. The Rams, meanwhile, picked up a win last week against a Redskins squad that might not actually be as good as everybody thought after Week 1. They've got a good coach in Jeff Fisher and will win games like that, but beating the Bears in Chicago is an entirely different matter. I don't see it happening.
Bills (1-1) at Browns (0-2): Buffalo-Poor Cleveland. A one-point loss to the Eagles, then they lose by a touchdown to the rival Bengals in a game that they had a chance to win. Now they take on a Bills team that looked really bad in Week 1 and really good in Week 2. I think the fact that they were playing Kansas City had a lot to do with the Bills jumping out to that big lead last week. The Browns are on the same level as the Chiefs. As a result, I'm going with the Bills.
Buccaneers (1-1) at Cowboys (1-1): Dallas-Which Cowboys team will show up? The one that looked great against the Giants? Or the one that laid a complete egg in last week's loss in Seattle? I could probably ask that same question about the Bucs, who probably should've also beaten the Giants if not for Eli Manning and that fourth-quarter comeback. This could be one of the more telling games of the weekend, since we may finally find out where these two teams stand. Since it's the Cowboys' home opener, I'm taking Dallas in a close one.
Lions (1-1) at Titans (0-2): Detroit-Detroit finally gets a regularly-scheduled primetime game and look what happens. Although, I do give the Lions a lot of credit for keeping it close against a 49ers team that might be the best in the NFL. Tennessee has gotten its butt whooped twice...by the Patriots and Chargers. In other words, no shame in that. I think they're probably the second-best 0-2 team behind the Saints. Unfortunately, they'll be the best 0-3 team after losing to the Lions this week.
Jaguars (0-2) at Colts (1-1): Indianapolis-Don't let last week's win fool you. The Andrew Luck edition of the Indianapolis Colts are still nowhere near the quality of the Peyton Manning version. It just so happens they played equally bad Minnesota at home. Likewise, they're playing Jacksonville at home this week. The Colts will be a very deceptive 2-1 going into their incredibly early bye.
Jets (1-1) at Dolphins (1-1): Jets-The Jets' need for attention really is hilarious. Mark Sanchez plays like crap against the Steelers, so people start to wonder if that means Tebow will play this week. Yet the only thing people can talk about is how Tebow's been a non-factor in the offense so far (that's what happens when you get a guy for no reason other than publicity) and how he might want out of New York after the season. Even Rex Ryan is sick of talking about Tim Tebow! Did anybody ever think that would actually happen? The Dolphins benefitted from playing the Raiders last week, but the Jets aren't the same quality as Oakland. Just like Miami is nowhere near the same quality as Pittsburgh.
49ers (2-0) at Vikings (0-2): San Francisco-The 49ers continue their tour of the NFC North this week in Minnesota. After what happened last week in Foxboro, I'm not going to say that the Vikings have no chance. But I'm one of the many who thinks San Francisco just might be the best team in the NFL. Minnesota shouldn't be a problem for them.
Chiefs (0-2) at Saints (0-2): New Orleans-One of these teams will finally pick up its first win! Kansas City hasn't shown any signs of actually being this "elite" team that a lot of people think they have the potential to be. The Saints haven't, either. Before the season started, I was one of the few people who predicted this year could be a mess in New Orleans. It's not entirely out of the question to envision the Saints at 1-4 at their bye week. With the 1 coming this week.
Bengals (1-1) at Redskins (1-1): Cincinnati-This game's a toss-up. Like the archrival Cowboys, the Redskins finally get to play a home game in Week 3, and it should be fun for the FedEx Field Faithful to finally see RG3 live and in person. That's why some part of me is tempted to pick the Redskins. But the rest of me is more inclined to go with Cincinnati. Even though the Bengals almost blew it against the Browns last week, I think the better team wins this one. That's Cincinnati.
Eagles (2-0) at Cardinals (2-0): Philadelphia-One of the two 2-0 vs. 2-0 matchups pits an Eagles team that's won its two games by a combined two points against the most surprising undefeated squad of all--Arizona. Now, I'll be the first to admit I didn't see last week coming (as evidence by my first strike in my survival pick 'em league). Maybe that's a sign the Cardinals are for real. Or maybe it's just proof that the Patriots took them lightly. Either way, I think it's gotta be pretty good to be an Eagles fan right now. They haven't played well at all (they committed nine turnovers in their first two games), but they're 2-0 and in first place, so who really cares? Philly's actually going to play well sooner or later. It might be this week. But with the way things are going, I think the Eagles win anyway.
Falcons (2-0) at Chargers (2-0): Atlanta-The other 2-0 vs. 2-0 game. San Diego's finally playing like the team we've all thought they can be for the past few years. Atlanta, meanwhile, I've got ranked at No. 3 behind San Francisco and Houston in my current NFL power rankings. Basically what I'm saying here is that I love this matchup. The fact that the game's in San Diego is obviously Advantage Chargers, but I was really encouraged by the Falcons' effort in that debacle of a "game" on Monday night. They can really prove that they're among the NFL's elite with a win over the Chargers in SoCal.
Texans (2-0) at Broncos (1-1): Denver-So, the Broncos won't go undefeated this year. I still liked what I saw from Peyton with that comeback after the Falcons took that big lead, though. As for the Texans, they've looked unbeatable against Miami and Jacksonville. Houston might be the best team in the AFC, but it's also necessary to consider that the teams they've played so far are Miami and Jacksonville. CBS gets another good one in the doubleheader game. This is a great matchup between two good teams. When he was in Indy, it was very rare for Peyton to lose two weeks in a row. Even though his horse is different and his jersey is orange now, I see that trend continuing in Denver.
Steelers (1-1) at Raiders (0-2): Pittsburgh-Welcome back to the 1970s! OK, there are some major differences between Steelers-Raiders now and Steelers-Raiders then. For starters, only one of these teams is good now. Even without Harrison and Polamalu, Pittsburgh should have more than enough fire power to take down Oakland. Especially since the Raiders' offense was one of the most anemic in the NFL in the first two weeks.
Patriots (1-1) at Ravens (1-1): Baltimore-Most people expected this one to be a battle of undefeateds, but the Ravens' one-point loss and Stephen Gostkowski's missed field goal took care of that. Regardless, it's an ideal matchup for an early-season Sunday night game. The rematch of last season's AFC title game. It's crazy to think that the loser will actually dip below .500 on the season. I'm not sure the last time that happened for either team, yet come Sunday night at midnight, that'll be the case for one of them. New England lost a lot more than a game last week. They're going to be hurting without Aaron Hernandez and all that he brings to the offense. As a result, I like the Ravens defense in this one.
Packers (1-1) at Seahawks (1-1): Green Bay-The Packers get a Cowboys-like Thursday night-Monday night break. And just like Dallas, that extended break ends with a trip to Seattle. The Seahawks pulled the upset last week, but I think that had more to do with the Cowboys' effort than their own. The Packers learned from that game, and, unlike Dallas, they're not going to take the Seahawks lightly. I'd normally go with Green Bay anyway, but especially with extra rest.
Last Week: 10-6
This Week: 1-0
Season: 24-9
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Time to Replace the Replacements
Today the NFL sent a memo to its teams telling them to behave themselves on the field. This comes after a Week 2 in which several coaches were seen berating the replacement officials on the sidelines during games. All it really does, though, is continue to make the NFL look like fools for keeping the referees locked out for reasons that really just seem petty.
Now, this isn't a criticism of the replacement officials. They're doing the best they can. But they aren't NFL officials. And, as has been proven time and again this season, it turns out officiating an NFL game is hard. Not just anybody can do it. These guys, as well-intentioned as they may be, are in over their heads. They know it. The players know it. The owners know it. Even Roger Goddell knows it. Yet the lockout continues.
With the exception of the Seahawks being given an extra timeout because the officials didn't know the rules, the officiating in the Week 1 games, frankly, wasn't that bad. But the number of obvious mistakes last week were noticeable, and we're in for more of the same every week until the regular officials come back. And the officials not knowing the rules and having to huddle every time there's a penalty or a replay have made games drag on to unbearable paces. I got home at like 10:30 on Monday night and was shocked to see that the Broncos-Falcons game wasn't even at halftime yet! Two hours into the game! (And let's not forget the games that the officials seemed to lose control of completely.)
Then there's the Saints fan who just happened to be assigned as the side judge for last weekend's Saints-Panthers game. Maybe they should've checked on something like that before the officials assignments were made. And I didn't know this one until today, but evidently in another game last weekend, one of the officials actually told one of the players that he was on said official's fantasy team. Nope. No conflict of interest there either.
As embarrassing as those incidents were, the NFL's biggest problem here is that they look like total hypocrites. How much does the NFL get from the new TV contract? Yet the officials wanting some more money, too, is somehow unreasonable?
Even more importantly, a big emphasis over the past couple of years has been player safety. Yet they're putting player safety in the hands of untrained, underqualified officials who've missed countless obvious unnecessary roughness and unsportsmanlike conduct penalties already. Fortunately there hasn't been a serious injury because of a non-call yet. But it feels like it's only a matter of time until there is one. That's the players' biggest gripe with the league right now, and I don't blame them.
The regular officials are trained to look for the signs of a possible concussion. These guys aren't. With everything that's come out over the past year about post-concussion symptons suffered by former players years after they retire, you would think the NFL would be serious about doing something to prevent it. Junior Seau's suicide is still fresh on all of our minds. How many other future Hall of Famers won't get to deliver their own speech in Canton before the NFL steps up?
No one is benefitting from the officials lockout, and the game is suffering as a result. The fans deserve to see the type of game they would expect. The players, the best football players in the world, deserve to have the best, most qualified professionals officiating their games. The owners deserve to have their assets (the players) protected and their product (the games) to be something worth paying to see.
Worst of all, there was really no reason for the NFL to lock out the officials in the first place. And the lockout certainly shouldn't have lasted this long. The NFL is stubbornly clinging to its very petty stance, while the officials aren't really looking for that much. If the sides actually sat down at the bargaining table, I bet it wouldn't be that hard to find a middle ground. I can say one thing that's positive about this unnecessary lockout, though. It's given us all a much better appreciation of the NFL officials, all of whom will be welcomed back with open arms. I just hope it's sooner rather than later.
Now, this isn't a criticism of the replacement officials. They're doing the best they can. But they aren't NFL officials. And, as has been proven time and again this season, it turns out officiating an NFL game is hard. Not just anybody can do it. These guys, as well-intentioned as they may be, are in over their heads. They know it. The players know it. The owners know it. Even Roger Goddell knows it. Yet the lockout continues.
With the exception of the Seahawks being given an extra timeout because the officials didn't know the rules, the officiating in the Week 1 games, frankly, wasn't that bad. But the number of obvious mistakes last week were noticeable, and we're in for more of the same every week until the regular officials come back. And the officials not knowing the rules and having to huddle every time there's a penalty or a replay have made games drag on to unbearable paces. I got home at like 10:30 on Monday night and was shocked to see that the Broncos-Falcons game wasn't even at halftime yet! Two hours into the game! (And let's not forget the games that the officials seemed to lose control of completely.)
Then there's the Saints fan who just happened to be assigned as the side judge for last weekend's Saints-Panthers game. Maybe they should've checked on something like that before the officials assignments were made. And I didn't know this one until today, but evidently in another game last weekend, one of the officials actually told one of the players that he was on said official's fantasy team. Nope. No conflict of interest there either.
As embarrassing as those incidents were, the NFL's biggest problem here is that they look like total hypocrites. How much does the NFL get from the new TV contract? Yet the officials wanting some more money, too, is somehow unreasonable?
Even more importantly, a big emphasis over the past couple of years has been player safety. Yet they're putting player safety in the hands of untrained, underqualified officials who've missed countless obvious unnecessary roughness and unsportsmanlike conduct penalties already. Fortunately there hasn't been a serious injury because of a non-call yet. But it feels like it's only a matter of time until there is one. That's the players' biggest gripe with the league right now, and I don't blame them.
The regular officials are trained to look for the signs of a possible concussion. These guys aren't. With everything that's come out over the past year about post-concussion symptons suffered by former players years after they retire, you would think the NFL would be serious about doing something to prevent it. Junior Seau's suicide is still fresh on all of our minds. How many other future Hall of Famers won't get to deliver their own speech in Canton before the NFL steps up?
No one is benefitting from the officials lockout, and the game is suffering as a result. The fans deserve to see the type of game they would expect. The players, the best football players in the world, deserve to have the best, most qualified professionals officiating their games. The owners deserve to have their assets (the players) protected and their product (the games) to be something worth paying to see.
Worst of all, there was really no reason for the NFL to lock out the officials in the first place. And the lockout certainly shouldn't have lasted this long. The NFL is stubbornly clinging to its very petty stance, while the officials aren't really looking for that much. If the sides actually sat down at the bargaining table, I bet it wouldn't be that hard to find a middle ground. I can say one thing that's positive about this unnecessary lockout, though. It's given us all a much better appreciation of the NFL officials, all of whom will be welcomed back with open arms. I just hope it's sooner rather than later.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Here We Go Again
As if the last one wasn't fun enough, NHL Lockout 2.0 is upon us. I was optimistic that the owners would come to their senses and realize that, unlike 2004-05, they actually won't be better off not playing this time, but evidently common sense doesn't run rampant among NHL owners. How else do you explain the fact that one of the things they don't like the most about the recently-expired CBA is the ridiculous front-loaded contracts that they've been more than willing to hand out repeatedly over the past couple seasons? (If you don't want those crazy deals, here's a plan, don't offer them!)
Even though this lockout seemed as inevitable as the last one, I doubt the NHL will lose an entire season again (at least I'm holding out hope it doesn't). As a league, it has too much to lose. Hockey's always been a niche sport as it is. Even in the big cities that relatively care, the hockey teams don't get any press. I'm pretty sure the newspapers/TV stations will find something else to cover. But more importantly, do they really expect the fans to continually come back if they keep doing this year after year? How long did it take the fans to come back after the 2004-05 season was cancelled? Some still haven't. The longer this lockout drags on, the more fans the NHL will lose. (Not to mention the lost revenue for the small-market teams once/if they start cancelling games.)
Eight years ago, I was on the owners' side. The system was broken and needed fixing. If it took the loss of a season to achieve that goal, so be it. Unfortunately, that's what happened, but the owners definitely came out ahead in the last CBA. They got their salary cap. They got their competitive parity (there have been seven different Stanley Cup winners in the seven seasons since the last lockout). They got rules changes that made for a better product.
This time, I've gotta say I'm siding with the players. All of the owners' issues are of their own making. It's not the union's fault the stars were being offered those ridiculous contracts. What are they going to do? Not sign them? To their credit, the players have no issue with the salary cap, which you figure would probably be their biggest gripe. Yet they're fine with it. And in their defense, the 2004-05 lockout ended when the players made some big concessions. They rightfully feel that it shouldn't be all-give, no-take again.
Let's also keep in mind that the players have Donald Fehr on their side. Fehr's the guy who led baseball's players union during the 1994-95 strike. A strike that ended when the owners relented on their demand for a salary cap, which Major League Baseball still doesn't have 20 years later. (It should also be noted that baseball hasn't had a work stoppage since the strike, while each of the other three has had a lockout in the past 18 months.) It seems highly unlikely Fehr will back down, and if he wasn't intimidated by the MLB owners, there's no doubt that the NHL owners don't scare him, either.
It also seems like the owners aren't unanimous in their desire to drascially change the current system. Do you really think the owners of the LA Kings don't want to get to the business of defending their Stanley Cup title as soon as possible? People in Winnipeg just got a team back. Would it be wise to keep those fans away? The NHL is in a period of record growth and, by extension, record revenue. But a handful of influential big-market owners want more of that money than they're already getting. They aren't going to budge, strongarmed everybody else, and got Gary Bettman to impose yet another lockout (the league's third in his tenure as commissioner).
While we're probably going to lose at least a portion of the season, there's reason for optimism. Unlike eight years ago, there's no philosophical difference (the salary cap) causing a huge rift between the sides. Rather, they can't figure out how to share $3.3 billion. Under the previous deal, the players received 57 percent of hockey-related revenues (which does seem high). The owners wanted to reverse that (they get 57, the players get 43), and the union rightfully lauged in their faces. The latest proposal is a more modest 47-49 percent. (Has 50-50 ever occurred to these people?) The players would probably be willing to do that, but not with the dramatic immediate rollback the owners want. (Although, it doesn't help that the sides can't agree on what "hockey-related revenues" actually are.)
Gary Bettman said that the owners' latest proposal would be taken off the table once the lockout started since the NHL would have to "reassess what it could then offer." But as the players pointed out, the lockout wasn't a "necessity." It was a choice. They were more than willing to keep playing under the previous deal while the two sides worked on a new one. The owners were having none of it, though. They figure that since they've got more money, they can afford to hold out longer than the players can. (For some reason, the owners still get the money from the NBC contract this season whether they play or not, which doesn't seem right at all.)
I'm confident we won't lose an entire NHL season for the second time in a decade. There seems to be more common ground from which to negotiate, and, unlike last time, the sides are at least talking. The players will have to give a little, which they're willing to do if it means getting back on the ice. But the owners, whether they like it or not, will have to give a little too. Sooner or later, they're going to realize that. Hopefully it's before too much damage is done.
Even though this lockout seemed as inevitable as the last one, I doubt the NHL will lose an entire season again (at least I'm holding out hope it doesn't). As a league, it has too much to lose. Hockey's always been a niche sport as it is. Even in the big cities that relatively care, the hockey teams don't get any press. I'm pretty sure the newspapers/TV stations will find something else to cover. But more importantly, do they really expect the fans to continually come back if they keep doing this year after year? How long did it take the fans to come back after the 2004-05 season was cancelled? Some still haven't. The longer this lockout drags on, the more fans the NHL will lose. (Not to mention the lost revenue for the small-market teams once/if they start cancelling games.)
Eight years ago, I was on the owners' side. The system was broken and needed fixing. If it took the loss of a season to achieve that goal, so be it. Unfortunately, that's what happened, but the owners definitely came out ahead in the last CBA. They got their salary cap. They got their competitive parity (there have been seven different Stanley Cup winners in the seven seasons since the last lockout). They got rules changes that made for a better product.
This time, I've gotta say I'm siding with the players. All of the owners' issues are of their own making. It's not the union's fault the stars were being offered those ridiculous contracts. What are they going to do? Not sign them? To their credit, the players have no issue with the salary cap, which you figure would probably be their biggest gripe. Yet they're fine with it. And in their defense, the 2004-05 lockout ended when the players made some big concessions. They rightfully feel that it shouldn't be all-give, no-take again.
Let's also keep in mind that the players have Donald Fehr on their side. Fehr's the guy who led baseball's players union during the 1994-95 strike. A strike that ended when the owners relented on their demand for a salary cap, which Major League Baseball still doesn't have 20 years later. (It should also be noted that baseball hasn't had a work stoppage since the strike, while each of the other three has had a lockout in the past 18 months.) It seems highly unlikely Fehr will back down, and if he wasn't intimidated by the MLB owners, there's no doubt that the NHL owners don't scare him, either.
It also seems like the owners aren't unanimous in their desire to drascially change the current system. Do you really think the owners of the LA Kings don't want to get to the business of defending their Stanley Cup title as soon as possible? People in Winnipeg just got a team back. Would it be wise to keep those fans away? The NHL is in a period of record growth and, by extension, record revenue. But a handful of influential big-market owners want more of that money than they're already getting. They aren't going to budge, strongarmed everybody else, and got Gary Bettman to impose yet another lockout (the league's third in his tenure as commissioner).
While we're probably going to lose at least a portion of the season, there's reason for optimism. Unlike eight years ago, there's no philosophical difference (the salary cap) causing a huge rift between the sides. Rather, they can't figure out how to share $3.3 billion. Under the previous deal, the players received 57 percent of hockey-related revenues (which does seem high). The owners wanted to reverse that (they get 57, the players get 43), and the union rightfully lauged in their faces. The latest proposal is a more modest 47-49 percent. (Has 50-50 ever occurred to these people?) The players would probably be willing to do that, but not with the dramatic immediate rollback the owners want. (Although, it doesn't help that the sides can't agree on what "hockey-related revenues" actually are.)
Gary Bettman said that the owners' latest proposal would be taken off the table once the lockout started since the NHL would have to "reassess what it could then offer." But as the players pointed out, the lockout wasn't a "necessity." It was a choice. They were more than willing to keep playing under the previous deal while the two sides worked on a new one. The owners were having none of it, though. They figure that since they've got more money, they can afford to hold out longer than the players can. (For some reason, the owners still get the money from the NBC contract this season whether they play or not, which doesn't seem right at all.)
I'm confident we won't lose an entire NHL season for the second time in a decade. There seems to be more common ground from which to negotiate, and, unlike last time, the sides are at least talking. The players will have to give a little, which they're willing to do if it means getting back on the ice. But the owners, whether they like it or not, will have to give a little too. Sooner or later, they're going to realize that. Hopefully it's before too much damage is done.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
NFL Week 2 Picks
Week 1 in the NFL sure was something, wasn't it? I've gotta say, the Red Zone channel is awesome! I don't know how I lived without it. It sure was solace to be able to put on Red Zone and flip between every game instead of simply being stuck watching the Jets completely slaughter the Bills. (I also have to admit that I was confused after the Vikings kicked a field goal in overtime, but the game continued. I forgot they have the new overtime rules this season.) As for the picks front, I did awesome there, too. 13-3. Hopefully I'm able to keep it up. Week 2's already off to a good start. I hit with the Packers on Thursday night, bringing me to 14-3 on the season.
Chiefs (0-1) at Bills (0-1): Buffalo-Out of all 32 teams in the league, I'm not sure anybody looked worse in Week 1 than the Bills. I can't even begin to describe how terrible they looked against the Jets, and I highly doubt it's because of the Jets offense. Anyway, the Chiefs are a much better matchup for Buffalo, and the fact that the Bills are playing at home is certainly a plus, too. (For what it's worth, Kansas City didn't look that great against Atlanta, either.) I see both of these teams finishing 6-10. Since the game's in Buffalo, I'm going with the Bills.
Browns (0-1) at Bengals (0-1): Cincinnati-We all knew the Bengals weren't going to beat the Ravens, but they certainly put up a good fight for three quarters. I'm really impressed with the Browns' performance against the Eagles, too. Cleveland almost (and probably should've) won that game. These two teams don't like each other, which adds an element to the game. But the Bengals are better, which I think will be the difference.
Vikings (1-0) at Colts (0-1): Indianapolis-Minnesota's one of the worst teams in the league, yet could very realistically start 2-0. The Colts learned last week that life without Peyton might not necessarily be as wonderful as they think it's going to be. Brian Urlacher and the Bears made that clear. Everything in me tells me that Minnesota should win this game. But I have a feeling that the Colts will.
Raiders (0-1) at Dolphins (0-1): Miami-Another matchup of two bad teams. The Raiders were in the running for the Worst-Looking Team of Week 1 Award, but they didn't give up anywhere near as many touchdowns as the Bills, so the honor went to Buffalo. Miami, meanwhile, actually looked like a real NFL team at times against Houston. That, and the fact that Oakland's flying cross-country on a short week, is enough of a reason for me to take the Dolphins.
Cardinals (1-0) at Patriots (1-0): New England-Arizona at New England. I could get up on a soapbox and give you all the reasons why I think this game might be competitive, but who we kidding? It's the Patriots' home opener. They're not going to lose to the Cardinals.
Buccaneers (1-0) at Giants (0-1): Giants-I had a feeling about Tampa Bay last week and I turned out to be right. Now Greg Schiano returns to New Jersey to face a Giants team that it seems like hasn't played since the Super Bowl. That Wednesday night opener feels so long ago, which is a good thing. I barely remember them losing. (By the way, Wednesday-Sunday-Thursday, most screwed up early-season schedule job in NFL history). The Giants usually lose games like this, but after the loss to Dallas, then a week and a half off, I don't think they will. They'll acutally play like the Super Bowl champs this week, which is more than I can say about their Week 1 performance.
Ravens (1-0) at Eagles (1-0): Baltimore-Without question the game of the week. Philly didn't look great in its opener, but I give the Eagles a lot of credit for finding a way to beat the Browns. The score doesn't matter. All that matters is they're 1-0. The Ravens, however, were very impressive against Cincinnati. They've always been all about the defense, but Baltimore put up 44 points on Monday night! This might be the best team in the AFC. This should be a good one between two good teams. Baltimore's the better team, though. Even though they're on the road, I'm going with the Ravens.
Saints (0-1) at Panthers (0-1): New Orleans-OK, I didn't see the Saints getting pretty thoroughly destroyed by Robert Griffin III coming. That did reveal some of the questions I've been asking about New Orleans all along, though. I really do think the Saints will struggle to just get into the playoffs. Even though it's early, the Panthers probably feel like they need a win after dropping that game in Tampa last week. The Saints, though, have the firepower to outscore anybody. A substandard Carolina defense is a prime candidate to give up 40 to Drew Brees.
Texans (1-0) at Jaguars (0-1): Houston-I'll give the Jaguars credit. They almost won last week. Houston's the class of the AFC South, if not among the best teams among the entire AFC. They certainly showed why against the Dolphins in Week 1. In front of 20,000 fans against a bad Jacksonville team, I'd expect the Texans to again display why they're among the AFC's elite.
Redskins (1-0) at Rams (0-1): Washington-It's weird and I know it's only been one week, but I'm actually excited to watch the Redskins play now. As much as it pains me to say, Robert Griffin III certainly looks like the real deal. The Rams are also significantly better with Jeff Fisher as their coach. Suddenly, this matchup is no longer unwatchable. I'm going with Washington for one reason. The Rams play in a dome, just like New Orleans. We saw what he did in a dome against the Saints, so there's no reason to believe he won't do the same thing against St. Louis.
Cowboys (1-0) at Seahawks (0-1): Dallas-Again, it seems like forever since that Giants-Cowboys season opener. So, how much momentum can Dallas actually be carrying from a game that was 10 days ago? Especially since they have to make that difficult trip to the Pacific Northwest. Seattle gives off that impression that they'll scare, and probably even beat, a good team or two. Dallas won't be one of them.
Jets (1-0) at Steelers (0-1): Pittsburgh-The second part of the CBS doubleheader is just as yummy as Part I (Eagles-Ravens). I don't think the Jets are as good as the Bills made them look last week. Just like I don't believe the Steelers are as bad as Peyton Manning made them look. That was a difficult Week 1 assignment for the Steelers. This one is a lot more favorable for a Steelers team that needs to win in order to keep pace with Baltimore. (I know it sounds crazy to say that in Week 2, but you've gotta think Baltimore wins the AFC North if they start 2-0 and the Steelers start 0-2.) The last time the Jets visited Pittsburgh, they won. That's not going to happen this time. The Jets are welcomed back to reality with a Steelers victory.
Titans (0-1) at Chargers (1-0): San Diego-Even though they came away with a victory on Monday night, you know the Chargers have to be disappointed with their inability to get the ball in the end zone. Against teams that are better than the Raiders, that will be problematic. I still don't know what to make of the Titans. They didn't show me anything against the Patriots, but that might've only been because they were playing the Patriots. Regardless, this matchup's in San Diego, which gives the edge to the Chargers no matter how you slice it.
Lions (1-0) at 49ers (1-0): San Francisco-Detroit vs. San Francisco. If I'd told you three years ago that this would be a Week 2 Sunday night game, there's no way in hell you would've believed me. Yet here we are, with a matchup between two 2011 playoff teams. Who wasn't impressed with San Franicsco after they went into Green Bay and left with a victory? That Week 1 game might play a hand in who gets NFC home field in January. As for the Lions, they didn't play their best, but still pulled it out against the Rams, which is the mark of a good team. Of course, it was the 49ers that ended Detroit's undefeated run last season, and that game also had the infamous Jim Harbaugh-Jim Schwartz handshake, which I think the media cares more about than either coach. The Lions would love revenge for last season. I highly doubt they get it in the 49ers' home opener.
Broncos (1-0) at Falcons (1-0): Denver-Peyton hits the road for the first time as a Bronco after looking like the Peyton of old last week against Pittsburgh. (Memo to John Fox: don't screw around with huddles, let Peyton make it up as he goes along.) Fox used to coach against Atlanta twice a year when he was with the Panthers. The Falcons are very good, but I don't know if they can handle that combination. And lest we forget, Denver's also actually good now. This should be a fun game to watch, but, in the end, I'll take Peyton over Matt Ryan any day.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 13-3
Season: 14-3
Chiefs (0-1) at Bills (0-1): Buffalo-Out of all 32 teams in the league, I'm not sure anybody looked worse in Week 1 than the Bills. I can't even begin to describe how terrible they looked against the Jets, and I highly doubt it's because of the Jets offense. Anyway, the Chiefs are a much better matchup for Buffalo, and the fact that the Bills are playing at home is certainly a plus, too. (For what it's worth, Kansas City didn't look that great against Atlanta, either.) I see both of these teams finishing 6-10. Since the game's in Buffalo, I'm going with the Bills.
Browns (0-1) at Bengals (0-1): Cincinnati-We all knew the Bengals weren't going to beat the Ravens, but they certainly put up a good fight for three quarters. I'm really impressed with the Browns' performance against the Eagles, too. Cleveland almost (and probably should've) won that game. These two teams don't like each other, which adds an element to the game. But the Bengals are better, which I think will be the difference.
Vikings (1-0) at Colts (0-1): Indianapolis-Minnesota's one of the worst teams in the league, yet could very realistically start 2-0. The Colts learned last week that life without Peyton might not necessarily be as wonderful as they think it's going to be. Brian Urlacher and the Bears made that clear. Everything in me tells me that Minnesota should win this game. But I have a feeling that the Colts will.
Raiders (0-1) at Dolphins (0-1): Miami-Another matchup of two bad teams. The Raiders were in the running for the Worst-Looking Team of Week 1 Award, but they didn't give up anywhere near as many touchdowns as the Bills, so the honor went to Buffalo. Miami, meanwhile, actually looked like a real NFL team at times against Houston. That, and the fact that Oakland's flying cross-country on a short week, is enough of a reason for me to take the Dolphins.
Cardinals (1-0) at Patriots (1-0): New England-Arizona at New England. I could get up on a soapbox and give you all the reasons why I think this game might be competitive, but who we kidding? It's the Patriots' home opener. They're not going to lose to the Cardinals.
Buccaneers (1-0) at Giants (0-1): Giants-I had a feeling about Tampa Bay last week and I turned out to be right. Now Greg Schiano returns to New Jersey to face a Giants team that it seems like hasn't played since the Super Bowl. That Wednesday night opener feels so long ago, which is a good thing. I barely remember them losing. (By the way, Wednesday-Sunday-Thursday, most screwed up early-season schedule job in NFL history). The Giants usually lose games like this, but after the loss to Dallas, then a week and a half off, I don't think they will. They'll acutally play like the Super Bowl champs this week, which is more than I can say about their Week 1 performance.
Ravens (1-0) at Eagles (1-0): Baltimore-Without question the game of the week. Philly didn't look great in its opener, but I give the Eagles a lot of credit for finding a way to beat the Browns. The score doesn't matter. All that matters is they're 1-0. The Ravens, however, were very impressive against Cincinnati. They've always been all about the defense, but Baltimore put up 44 points on Monday night! This might be the best team in the AFC. This should be a good one between two good teams. Baltimore's the better team, though. Even though they're on the road, I'm going with the Ravens.
Saints (0-1) at Panthers (0-1): New Orleans-OK, I didn't see the Saints getting pretty thoroughly destroyed by Robert Griffin III coming. That did reveal some of the questions I've been asking about New Orleans all along, though. I really do think the Saints will struggle to just get into the playoffs. Even though it's early, the Panthers probably feel like they need a win after dropping that game in Tampa last week. The Saints, though, have the firepower to outscore anybody. A substandard Carolina defense is a prime candidate to give up 40 to Drew Brees.
Texans (1-0) at Jaguars (0-1): Houston-I'll give the Jaguars credit. They almost won last week. Houston's the class of the AFC South, if not among the best teams among the entire AFC. They certainly showed why against the Dolphins in Week 1. In front of 20,000 fans against a bad Jacksonville team, I'd expect the Texans to again display why they're among the AFC's elite.
Redskins (1-0) at Rams (0-1): Washington-It's weird and I know it's only been one week, but I'm actually excited to watch the Redskins play now. As much as it pains me to say, Robert Griffin III certainly looks like the real deal. The Rams are also significantly better with Jeff Fisher as their coach. Suddenly, this matchup is no longer unwatchable. I'm going with Washington for one reason. The Rams play in a dome, just like New Orleans. We saw what he did in a dome against the Saints, so there's no reason to believe he won't do the same thing against St. Louis.
Cowboys (1-0) at Seahawks (0-1): Dallas-Again, it seems like forever since that Giants-Cowboys season opener. So, how much momentum can Dallas actually be carrying from a game that was 10 days ago? Especially since they have to make that difficult trip to the Pacific Northwest. Seattle gives off that impression that they'll scare, and probably even beat, a good team or two. Dallas won't be one of them.
Jets (1-0) at Steelers (0-1): Pittsburgh-The second part of the CBS doubleheader is just as yummy as Part I (Eagles-Ravens). I don't think the Jets are as good as the Bills made them look last week. Just like I don't believe the Steelers are as bad as Peyton Manning made them look. That was a difficult Week 1 assignment for the Steelers. This one is a lot more favorable for a Steelers team that needs to win in order to keep pace with Baltimore. (I know it sounds crazy to say that in Week 2, but you've gotta think Baltimore wins the AFC North if they start 2-0 and the Steelers start 0-2.) The last time the Jets visited Pittsburgh, they won. That's not going to happen this time. The Jets are welcomed back to reality with a Steelers victory.
Titans (0-1) at Chargers (1-0): San Diego-Even though they came away with a victory on Monday night, you know the Chargers have to be disappointed with their inability to get the ball in the end zone. Against teams that are better than the Raiders, that will be problematic. I still don't know what to make of the Titans. They didn't show me anything against the Patriots, but that might've only been because they were playing the Patriots. Regardless, this matchup's in San Diego, which gives the edge to the Chargers no matter how you slice it.
Lions (1-0) at 49ers (1-0): San Francisco-Detroit vs. San Francisco. If I'd told you three years ago that this would be a Week 2 Sunday night game, there's no way in hell you would've believed me. Yet here we are, with a matchup between two 2011 playoff teams. Who wasn't impressed with San Franicsco after they went into Green Bay and left with a victory? That Week 1 game might play a hand in who gets NFC home field in January. As for the Lions, they didn't play their best, but still pulled it out against the Rams, which is the mark of a good team. Of course, it was the 49ers that ended Detroit's undefeated run last season, and that game also had the infamous Jim Harbaugh-Jim Schwartz handshake, which I think the media cares more about than either coach. The Lions would love revenge for last season. I highly doubt they get it in the 49ers' home opener.
Broncos (1-0) at Falcons (1-0): Denver-Peyton hits the road for the first time as a Bronco after looking like the Peyton of old last week against Pittsburgh. (Memo to John Fox: don't screw around with huddles, let Peyton make it up as he goes along.) Fox used to coach against Atlanta twice a year when he was with the Panthers. The Falcons are very good, but I don't know if they can handle that combination. And lest we forget, Denver's also actually good now. This should be a fun game to watch, but, in the end, I'll take Peyton over Matt Ryan any day.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 13-3
Season: 14-3
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Interleague Everyday
Yesterday, Major League Baseball answered the pressing question that had existed ever since the Astros' move from the NL Central to the AL West next season was announced: "How are they going to make the schedule?" Well, there's going to be an interleague series every day of the season. We already knew that. With 15 teams in each league, it would've been impossible not to do that. But how many games against who remained a mystery until yesterday.
There are elements of the new schedule that I like. For starters, Opening Day is back where it belongs. On the first Monday in April. That Thursday-Wednesday schedule they tried for the last two years simply didn't work. Thursday is not Opening Day. It's hard to get up for a midweek game the way you should for Opening Day. Opening Day is an event that needs to be treated as such. Besides, football has its Thursday night opener. Baseball should have its Sunday night opener. I'm glad it's back. (And as awesome as the final day of last season was, the season shouldn't end on a Wednesday. It should end on a weekend. When fans can actually come out to the ballpark. Flipping between the NFL and the final day of the baseball season has always been part of the fun on that last Sunday in September.)
Now you only play two series against each of the non-division teams in your own league, one at home, one away. This was going to be the tricky part (since there was also that one extra home series you played with somebody in the past), but I like the solution they came up with. One of the main purposes of the realignment was so that teams in the same division would have as close to an identical schedule as possible. The randomness of who that extra series would've been against (say the Yankees got the Tigers and the Red Sox got the Royals, that's the same strength of schedule argument used regarding interleague play) could've determined a pennant race, which is what they were trying to avoid. So, now it's 19 games against your division and six (four teams) or seven (six teams) against the other two divisions in your league.
I also like it that interleague play is going to be a lot less random. Your guess as to how they determined the matchups previously is as good as mine. This year it was East vs. East, but the Yankees played the Reds and had a home-and-home with the Braves, yet didn't play the Phillies (who they faced at home two years in a row) or Marlins. I kind of understood this in the National League since two NL teams had to play against each other even during interleague play, but it really made no sense with the American League teams. Next season, teams in the same division will actually all play the same interleague opponents with the exception of their natural rivalries. (It also really, really bugged me about the old schedule that the Dodgers have never hosted the Rays or visited the Yankees and the Mets have never hosted the White Sox, all of which will finally change next season.)
And interleague play everyday is going to be awesome! Sure, that Angels-Reds Opening Day matchup is kinda weird, but it's just a new little wrinkle that's going to be fun. It'll be interesting to see how teams adjust to having to play an interleague series in the middle of a pennant race, too. The reason I like spreading out interleague play, though, is that teams can't really get screwed by their interleague schedule anymore. How many times in the past couple years has an American League team played nine straight interleague road games, forcing them to take their DH out of the starting lineup for a week and a half? Sure, you'll still have your six-game interleague trips (if you go to the West Coast, for instance), but those are a lot more manageable.
However, I'm not enamored with the new interleague format. First off, I don't think they needed to increase the number of games from 18 to 20. That, of course, means you have 10 home games and 10 road games. The only way to make that math work is four games with one team, split into two two-game series. Everybody hates two-game series. I thought the whole point was to bascially eliminate them. You also haven't eliminated that randomness, since you have to play that extra interleague game against somebody.
The number of interleague games between natural rivals has been dropped from six to four. I realize that in my proposed schedule, I had the natural rivals playing only one three-game series except in the three years it would be division vs. division, but that's mainly because I think the 18-game format (six three-game series) made the most sense. I suppose the reason they didn't do that was so that they'd continue to be guaranteed to play in both ballparks each season. And I guess that was the only way to accomodate for the week everybody has to play three series because of the All-Star Break. But I really don't like the idea of having Mets-Yankees and Cubs-White Sox and Dodgers-Angels relegated to midweek instead of the weekend.
What really confuses me about the new interleague format is what happens every third year when the natural rivals' divisions play each other. Do they play eight games in those seasons? That's too many. Or do they play six and figure out the four two-game sets? Since the corresponding divisions played each other this season, MLB doesn't have to worry about that until 2015, but I still wonder if any thought has been put into that situation. Or if they'll come up with something different entirely by then.
With everything that has to be considered and everything that goes into it, it must be incredibly hard to create a schedule for 30 different Major League Baseball teams. This much I know. The Astros switching leagues probably made things a little easier, but I'm sure there were plenty of problems that came about, too. But judging this schedule on first look, I think they did a great job implementing this new format. Only time will tell if the format works. And if it doesn't, they'll change it.
There are elements of the new schedule that I like. For starters, Opening Day is back where it belongs. On the first Monday in April. That Thursday-Wednesday schedule they tried for the last two years simply didn't work. Thursday is not Opening Day. It's hard to get up for a midweek game the way you should for Opening Day. Opening Day is an event that needs to be treated as such. Besides, football has its Thursday night opener. Baseball should have its Sunday night opener. I'm glad it's back. (And as awesome as the final day of last season was, the season shouldn't end on a Wednesday. It should end on a weekend. When fans can actually come out to the ballpark. Flipping between the NFL and the final day of the baseball season has always been part of the fun on that last Sunday in September.)
Now you only play two series against each of the non-division teams in your own league, one at home, one away. This was going to be the tricky part (since there was also that one extra home series you played with somebody in the past), but I like the solution they came up with. One of the main purposes of the realignment was so that teams in the same division would have as close to an identical schedule as possible. The randomness of who that extra series would've been against (say the Yankees got the Tigers and the Red Sox got the Royals, that's the same strength of schedule argument used regarding interleague play) could've determined a pennant race, which is what they were trying to avoid. So, now it's 19 games against your division and six (four teams) or seven (six teams) against the other two divisions in your league.
I also like it that interleague play is going to be a lot less random. Your guess as to how they determined the matchups previously is as good as mine. This year it was East vs. East, but the Yankees played the Reds and had a home-and-home with the Braves, yet didn't play the Phillies (who they faced at home two years in a row) or Marlins. I kind of understood this in the National League since two NL teams had to play against each other even during interleague play, but it really made no sense with the American League teams. Next season, teams in the same division will actually all play the same interleague opponents with the exception of their natural rivalries. (It also really, really bugged me about the old schedule that the Dodgers have never hosted the Rays or visited the Yankees and the Mets have never hosted the White Sox, all of which will finally change next season.)
And interleague play everyday is going to be awesome! Sure, that Angels-Reds Opening Day matchup is kinda weird, but it's just a new little wrinkle that's going to be fun. It'll be interesting to see how teams adjust to having to play an interleague series in the middle of a pennant race, too. The reason I like spreading out interleague play, though, is that teams can't really get screwed by their interleague schedule anymore. How many times in the past couple years has an American League team played nine straight interleague road games, forcing them to take their DH out of the starting lineup for a week and a half? Sure, you'll still have your six-game interleague trips (if you go to the West Coast, for instance), but those are a lot more manageable.
However, I'm not enamored with the new interleague format. First off, I don't think they needed to increase the number of games from 18 to 20. That, of course, means you have 10 home games and 10 road games. The only way to make that math work is four games with one team, split into two two-game series. Everybody hates two-game series. I thought the whole point was to bascially eliminate them. You also haven't eliminated that randomness, since you have to play that extra interleague game against somebody.
The number of interleague games between natural rivals has been dropped from six to four. I realize that in my proposed schedule, I had the natural rivals playing only one three-game series except in the three years it would be division vs. division, but that's mainly because I think the 18-game format (six three-game series) made the most sense. I suppose the reason they didn't do that was so that they'd continue to be guaranteed to play in both ballparks each season. And I guess that was the only way to accomodate for the week everybody has to play three series because of the All-Star Break. But I really don't like the idea of having Mets-Yankees and Cubs-White Sox and Dodgers-Angels relegated to midweek instead of the weekend.
What really confuses me about the new interleague format is what happens every third year when the natural rivals' divisions play each other. Do they play eight games in those seasons? That's too many. Or do they play six and figure out the four two-game sets? Since the corresponding divisions played each other this season, MLB doesn't have to worry about that until 2015, but I still wonder if any thought has been put into that situation. Or if they'll come up with something different entirely by then.
With everything that has to be considered and everything that goes into it, it must be incredibly hard to create a schedule for 30 different Major League Baseball teams. This much I know. The Astros switching leagues probably made things a little easier, but I'm sure there were plenty of problems that came about, too. But judging this schedule on first look, I think they did a great job implementing this new format. Only time will tell if the format works. And if it doesn't, they'll change it.
Monday, September 10, 2012
The Schedule and the Roof
Andy Murray is finally a Grand Slam champion! The crown of "Best Player Never to Win a Major" is officially up for grabs, boys. He beat Novak Djokovic in the fifth straight US Open Monday final. This has angered officials and tennis fans from all over, many of whom have offered their own suggestions about what needs to be done in order to avoid Monday finals in the future. Many of these suggestions are impractical, stupid, or both.
The most common refrain has been, "Why don't they put a roof on the stadium?" Wimbledon famously added a roof to Centre Court a couple years ago, the Australian Open has roofs on both of its main show courts, and the French Open recently announced plans to build a retractable roof in the near future, leaving the US Open as the only Grand Slam tournament without one. This argument only intensified when the USTA announced plans for a massive expansion/renovation of the Tennis Center, but a roof on Arthur Ashe Stadidum was nowhere to be found.
I don't see why this is such a big "problem." If you think about the number of rain delays at the US Open each year, there really aren't that many. The unfortunate timing of those rain delays late in the second week (when it's a lot harder to make up cancelled/postponed matches) is the only reason why the tournament has been extended by a day in each of the last five years. If it rained on Monday or Tuesday of the first week, it would be a non-issue.
Besides, putting a roof on the massive Arthur Ashe Stadium would be impossible. The stadium seats 23,000 people and sits on swampland. The extra weight of the roof would make it sink into the ground. Some argue that it's too big, but they sell all those tickets every year, so I'm not buying that argument. Those who make that argument claim that they could simply remove the top few rows of the upper section to make room for a roof while also removing some of the extra weight. Removing, say, 6,000 seats per session over the course of 22 sessions in 14 days would be a tremendous revenue hit. And an unnecessary one.
I don't like the idea of a roof for another reason, though. It's not the US Open. The US Open is the players feeding off the energy of the crowd during night matches. Something would be lost if those matches were suddenly inside. It's like the difference between watching a baseball game outside (think Yankee Stadium) and watching one in a dome (dark, dingy Tropicana Field, which has absolutely no energy whatsoever). Each of the other Grand Slams needs a roof for very particular reasons. Australia gets unbearably hot in the middle of January. The rain in London is as much a Wimbledon tradition as tennis whites. Roland Garros doesn't have lights, so play at the French Open has to stop when it gets dark. Night tennis was invented at the US Open. The players and fans love it. The mystique of playing under the lights is gone if you put a roof on the stadium.
Another idea that was suggested in Sports Illustrated was switching the surface from hardcourt to clay. This is possibly the stupidest idea I've ever heard. (ST's argument included the fact that the US Open was played on clay for three years in the mid-70s. This is true. However, that was during the final three years at the West Side Tennis Club, which ditched grass courts, before the move to the National Tennis Center was made in 1978.)
Where do I start on how bad that idea is? Well, they already have a Grand Slam played on clay. It's called the French Open. That's the one the Americans suck at. The US Open is the hardcourt Grand Slam. Those blue courts are as much a part of the tournament's identity as grass is a part of Wimbledon's. Second, pretty much every tennis court in North America is a hardcourt. That's the surface Americans know. Why would you not want to play the US Open on the surface that American players are most familiar with and feel most comfortable on? You'd also need to have every tournament in the six-week long US Open Series (which is also know as the "summer hardcourt series") switch over to clay if you did that. That would make about as much sense as creating another clay court tournament (in the United States!) for Rafael Nadal to win every year. Leave the clay to Europe. North America is hardcourts. (Not to mention the fact that the courts at the National Tennis Center are open to the public 11 months a year, so you'd be forcing everybody who pays to use them to now play on clay, which makes you disgusting, instead of hardcourts.)
The biggest reason the roof debate has become such a hot-button issue is because of the five straight Monday finishes. The Monday finishes have been necessary because of the lack of flexibility in the US Open schedule. Due mainly to TV committments, the US Open is the only Grand Slam that doesn't give the players a day off between the semifinals and final. This Saturday-Sunday format for the men (Friday-Saturday for the women) has been the biggest problem, since a postponed semifinal means you automatically have to postpone the final. Come next year, that's not going to be a problem, since the tournament organizers have finally bowed to pressure from the players and will give the men an off day starting next year.
Obviously, this means the US Open schedule is going to change in 2013. The question is how? There are two solutions that seem to make the most sense. The first is having all four semifinals on Friday, with the women's final on Saturday night and the men's final on Sunday afternoon. The other is leaving the semifinals the way they are, moving the women's final from Saturday night to Sunday afternoon and moving the men's final to Monday permanently.
USTA higher-ups aren't enamored with the Monday finals, but I think that's the most sensible soultion (and fans will be a lot more accomodating if the final is actually scheduled for Monday instead of rescheduled from Sunday). CBS isn't going to give up that Sunday afternoon post-football timeslot, so one of the finals has to stay on Sunday. But that Saturday night women's final hasn't been that big of a ratings draw since the Williams sisters led to its creation in the early 00s.
More importantly, if you're going to give the men a day off and keep the final on Sunday, then you're giving up those Saturday afternoon semifinals that draw pretty good ratings and replacing them with what? Doubles finals? Doesn't seem like a smart idea. Ditching Saturday night and putting the women after football probably means you'll get higher ratings for the women's final, as well. And if the men's final is scheduled for Monday right off the bat, it's a lot easier for CBS to determine a time and schedule around it. (Think about how cool a Monday night men's final would be.)
Lastly, CBS isn't going to preempt its regular daytime programming on both Thursday and Friday. That means all four semifinals would be on Friday. This would work (you have three in the afternoon and the second men's match at night), but that night match would likely end up on ESPN2, not CBS, which I'm sure both CBS and the USTA don't want. You'd also then still have the women playing back-to-back. If the whole point of changing the schedule is to give the men a day off between the semis and the final, you have to do the same for the women. It's not fair to them if you don't. (I understand it's harder on the body to play best-of-five than best-of-three, but that doesn't change the fact you can't give one a day off and not the other.)
These five straight Monday finals might've been a blessing in disguise for the US Open. As fans, we've gotten used to, and even accepted, them. Making them permanent seems, to me at least, the easiest, most sensible solution when the USTA changes the schedule next year.
The most common refrain has been, "Why don't they put a roof on the stadium?" Wimbledon famously added a roof to Centre Court a couple years ago, the Australian Open has roofs on both of its main show courts, and the French Open recently announced plans to build a retractable roof in the near future, leaving the US Open as the only Grand Slam tournament without one. This argument only intensified when the USTA announced plans for a massive expansion/renovation of the Tennis Center, but a roof on Arthur Ashe Stadidum was nowhere to be found.
I don't see why this is such a big "problem." If you think about the number of rain delays at the US Open each year, there really aren't that many. The unfortunate timing of those rain delays late in the second week (when it's a lot harder to make up cancelled/postponed matches) is the only reason why the tournament has been extended by a day in each of the last five years. If it rained on Monday or Tuesday of the first week, it would be a non-issue.
Besides, putting a roof on the massive Arthur Ashe Stadium would be impossible. The stadium seats 23,000 people and sits on swampland. The extra weight of the roof would make it sink into the ground. Some argue that it's too big, but they sell all those tickets every year, so I'm not buying that argument. Those who make that argument claim that they could simply remove the top few rows of the upper section to make room for a roof while also removing some of the extra weight. Removing, say, 6,000 seats per session over the course of 22 sessions in 14 days would be a tremendous revenue hit. And an unnecessary one.
I don't like the idea of a roof for another reason, though. It's not the US Open. The US Open is the players feeding off the energy of the crowd during night matches. Something would be lost if those matches were suddenly inside. It's like the difference between watching a baseball game outside (think Yankee Stadium) and watching one in a dome (dark, dingy Tropicana Field, which has absolutely no energy whatsoever). Each of the other Grand Slams needs a roof for very particular reasons. Australia gets unbearably hot in the middle of January. The rain in London is as much a Wimbledon tradition as tennis whites. Roland Garros doesn't have lights, so play at the French Open has to stop when it gets dark. Night tennis was invented at the US Open. The players and fans love it. The mystique of playing under the lights is gone if you put a roof on the stadium.
Another idea that was suggested in Sports Illustrated was switching the surface from hardcourt to clay. This is possibly the stupidest idea I've ever heard. (ST's argument included the fact that the US Open was played on clay for three years in the mid-70s. This is true. However, that was during the final three years at the West Side Tennis Club, which ditched grass courts, before the move to the National Tennis Center was made in 1978.)
Where do I start on how bad that idea is? Well, they already have a Grand Slam played on clay. It's called the French Open. That's the one the Americans suck at. The US Open is the hardcourt Grand Slam. Those blue courts are as much a part of the tournament's identity as grass is a part of Wimbledon's. Second, pretty much every tennis court in North America is a hardcourt. That's the surface Americans know. Why would you not want to play the US Open on the surface that American players are most familiar with and feel most comfortable on? You'd also need to have every tournament in the six-week long US Open Series (which is also know as the "summer hardcourt series") switch over to clay if you did that. That would make about as much sense as creating another clay court tournament (in the United States!) for Rafael Nadal to win every year. Leave the clay to Europe. North America is hardcourts. (Not to mention the fact that the courts at the National Tennis Center are open to the public 11 months a year, so you'd be forcing everybody who pays to use them to now play on clay, which makes you disgusting, instead of hardcourts.)
The biggest reason the roof debate has become such a hot-button issue is because of the five straight Monday finishes. The Monday finishes have been necessary because of the lack of flexibility in the US Open schedule. Due mainly to TV committments, the US Open is the only Grand Slam that doesn't give the players a day off between the semifinals and final. This Saturday-Sunday format for the men (Friday-Saturday for the women) has been the biggest problem, since a postponed semifinal means you automatically have to postpone the final. Come next year, that's not going to be a problem, since the tournament organizers have finally bowed to pressure from the players and will give the men an off day starting next year.
Obviously, this means the US Open schedule is going to change in 2013. The question is how? There are two solutions that seem to make the most sense. The first is having all four semifinals on Friday, with the women's final on Saturday night and the men's final on Sunday afternoon. The other is leaving the semifinals the way they are, moving the women's final from Saturday night to Sunday afternoon and moving the men's final to Monday permanently.
USTA higher-ups aren't enamored with the Monday finals, but I think that's the most sensible soultion (and fans will be a lot more accomodating if the final is actually scheduled for Monday instead of rescheduled from Sunday). CBS isn't going to give up that Sunday afternoon post-football timeslot, so one of the finals has to stay on Sunday. But that Saturday night women's final hasn't been that big of a ratings draw since the Williams sisters led to its creation in the early 00s.
More importantly, if you're going to give the men a day off and keep the final on Sunday, then you're giving up those Saturday afternoon semifinals that draw pretty good ratings and replacing them with what? Doubles finals? Doesn't seem like a smart idea. Ditching Saturday night and putting the women after football probably means you'll get higher ratings for the women's final, as well. And if the men's final is scheduled for Monday right off the bat, it's a lot easier for CBS to determine a time and schedule around it. (Think about how cool a Monday night men's final would be.)
Lastly, CBS isn't going to preempt its regular daytime programming on both Thursday and Friday. That means all four semifinals would be on Friday. This would work (you have three in the afternoon and the second men's match at night), but that night match would likely end up on ESPN2, not CBS, which I'm sure both CBS and the USTA don't want. You'd also then still have the women playing back-to-back. If the whole point of changing the schedule is to give the men a day off between the semis and the final, you have to do the same for the women. It's not fair to them if you don't. (I understand it's harder on the body to play best-of-five than best-of-three, but that doesn't change the fact you can't give one a day off and not the other.)
These five straight Monday finals might've been a blessing in disguise for the US Open. As fans, we've gotten used to, and even accepted, them. Making them permanent seems, to me at least, the easiest, most sensible solution when the USTA changes the schedule next year.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
NFL Week 1 Picks
The NFL season is finally here! It's crazy to think that we've gone eight months without football, isn't it? Anyway, with the dawn of a new season comes a new season of everyone's favorite pastime (other than their fantasy team)--NFL picks. I didn't have the best year when it came to picks in 2011, so I'm looking to rebound this season. However, I'm off to an 0-1 start thanks to the egg laid by the Defending Super Bowl Champion New York Football Giants in their opener against the Cowboys on Wednesday night. Week 1's always tough to pick, but here goes nothing:
Colts at Bears: Chicago-I think the Bears are going to be very good this year. They're certainly much better than the Colts. For Indianapolis, this is, of course, the dawn of a new era. Brian Urlacher is going to give Andrew Luck a "Welcome to the NFL" moment or two right off the bat.
Eagles at Browns: Philadelphia-This matchup doesn't really seem that fair in Week 1. If the Eagles play the way they did at the end of last season, they're going to be one of the best teams in the NFL. Against Cleveland, they don't really need to play that well to win. Browns fans are going to boo their team at some point during the game. That goes without saying. I just hope they don't boo during the tribute to Art Modell, no matter how much they hate him.
Rams at Lions: Detroit-Remember not that long ago when this was that game only people in St. Louis were going to be subjected to (since it would be blacked out in Detroit)? Well, times have certainly changed. The Lions are one of the best yong teams in the NFL and coming off a playoff berth. The Rams still suck, though, which should make this an easy win for Detroit.
Patriots at Titans: New England-Amazingly, this, and not the New York Tebows against Buffalo is the CBS No. 1 game. As I've said in the past, the Titans are that team that always manages to hang around the playoff race even though nobody really thinks they're any good. This is one of the "tough" games on the Patriots' schedule. That doesn't mean New England's going to lose.
Falcons at Chiefs: Atlanta-Kansas City's another enigma. The Chiefs are either going to be really good or really bad. I'm not sure which. The Falcons, however, are really good. Atlanta might even be among the NFL's elite. Due to my general confusion about Kansas City, I have no idea whether this is going to be a close game or not. I don't think so. The Falcons are the better team no matter how you slice it.
Jaguars at Vikings: Minnesota-One of these teams is going to be 1-0. I really would like to know what the NFL's thought process is when they decide to put two of the worst teams in the league against each other in Week 1. Who's going to win? It doesn't matter. But since the game's in Minnesota and the Vikings are somewhat less bad, I'll go with the home team.
Redskins at Saints: New Orleans-Don't get me started on the ridiculousness of the Saints' Bountygate suspensions being overturned. At least we know Jonathan Vilma's not going to play this week, but that's only a small consolation. Anyway, whether or not those guys were playing wasn't going to matter against the Redskins. Robert Griffin III might make the Washington offense slightly better. But he'd better pay attention when the Saints have the ball. That way he can learn from Drew Brees what an actual NFL offense looks like.
Bills at Jets: Jets-A lot of people think Mario Williams was that missing piece to finally bring the Bills back to the playoffs for the first time since 1999. I'm hopeful, but not overly optimistic about that. As for the Jets, I'm not sure if you know this, but they have a new backup quarterback. The Great Sanchez-Tebow Experiment is probably going to be a disaster, but that's my opinion. How it plays out in Week 1, though, is the Jets fall behind, Tebow comes in does his Denver stuff, the New York media acts like the Jets just won the Super Bowl (instead of, you know, beat the Bills at home in Week 1), and the "controversy" is on.
Dolphins at Texans: Houston-It might sound crazy with Mario Williams and DeMeco Ryans gone, but I think Houston might actually be better this year than they were last year. Starting against the Dolphins is a good recipe for a lot of Texans points. There's no way they lose on the day they raise their first-ever division championship banner in Reliant Stadium.
49ers at Packers: Green Bay-This is clearly the Game of the Week. Green Bay and San Francisco were arguably the two best teams in the NFL for most of the season last year. I think they've both gotten slightly better. It's crazy to think, but a Week 1 matchup could go a long way in determining home field advantage in January. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the 49ers pulled the upset, but, going into Lambeau Field in the season opener, I simply don't see that happening.
Seahawks at Cardinals: Arizona-Provided San Francisco loses that game, the winner of this one will be in first place in the NFC West after Week 1. I think the Seahawks' new uniforms are really ugly and, crazy as it sounds, I trust John Skelton at quarterback more than I trust a rookie. That's why I'm going with Arizona.
Panthers at Buccaneers: Tampa Bay-Call me crazy, but I think the Bucs are going to pull this one out. On paper, everything points in Carolina's direction. If Cam Newton slices and dices the Tampa Bay defense, it's going to be a long day for the Bucs. If the defense is able to shut him down even a little, Greg Schiano's debut might be a winning one.
Steelers at Broncos: Denver-It's Peyton's Denver debut! The Broncos take on a Steelers team that they somehow beat in last season's playoffs on Sunday night. Again, the Broncos weren't that good, yet still won their division and a playoff game last season. Now they have an actual quarterback and offense to go with that tremendous defense. This will be a good test for the new-look Broncos. I think they match-up pretty well with the Steelers. It's also probably a good thing that Peyton's first game as a Bronco is against a defense that will actually pressure him. This way, we'll be able to tell right away how he'll handle getting pressured and, more importantly, hit. As for the winner of the game, do you really think there's any chance Peyton doesn't win his first game with a new team? Believe it or not, he feels like he's got something to prove on Sunday night. He'll prove it.
Bengals at Ravens: Baltimore-As I said in my AFC preview the other day, I think it's going to be very difficult for Cincinnati to get back to the playoffs this season. The Bengals were a nice story last year, but they play in the toughest division in football. And a Monday night opener in Baltimore isn't going to be fun. The Ravens always get up for night games, and they'll have the added emotion of Art Modell's passing. Baltimore's an elite team. They'll show why on Monday night.
Chargers at Raiders: San Diego-I think Part II of the Monday night doubleheader is going to be an entertaining game between two teams that hate each other. The Raiders' usual M.O. is playing very tough against its division teams, but losing to everybody else. The Chargers' usual M.O. is playing like crap for 10 weeks before going undefeated in December. Both of those things would lead you to believe the Raiders will win. San Diego's better, though. That's why I'm taking the Chargers in a close one. It might be worth the effort to try and make it to the end.
This Week: 0-1
Season: 0-1
Colts at Bears: Chicago-I think the Bears are going to be very good this year. They're certainly much better than the Colts. For Indianapolis, this is, of course, the dawn of a new era. Brian Urlacher is going to give Andrew Luck a "Welcome to the NFL" moment or two right off the bat.
Eagles at Browns: Philadelphia-This matchup doesn't really seem that fair in Week 1. If the Eagles play the way they did at the end of last season, they're going to be one of the best teams in the NFL. Against Cleveland, they don't really need to play that well to win. Browns fans are going to boo their team at some point during the game. That goes without saying. I just hope they don't boo during the tribute to Art Modell, no matter how much they hate him.
Rams at Lions: Detroit-Remember not that long ago when this was that game only people in St. Louis were going to be subjected to (since it would be blacked out in Detroit)? Well, times have certainly changed. The Lions are one of the best yong teams in the NFL and coming off a playoff berth. The Rams still suck, though, which should make this an easy win for Detroit.
Patriots at Titans: New England-Amazingly, this, and not the New York Tebows against Buffalo is the CBS No. 1 game. As I've said in the past, the Titans are that team that always manages to hang around the playoff race even though nobody really thinks they're any good. This is one of the "tough" games on the Patriots' schedule. That doesn't mean New England's going to lose.
Falcons at Chiefs: Atlanta-Kansas City's another enigma. The Chiefs are either going to be really good or really bad. I'm not sure which. The Falcons, however, are really good. Atlanta might even be among the NFL's elite. Due to my general confusion about Kansas City, I have no idea whether this is going to be a close game or not. I don't think so. The Falcons are the better team no matter how you slice it.
Jaguars at Vikings: Minnesota-One of these teams is going to be 1-0. I really would like to know what the NFL's thought process is when they decide to put two of the worst teams in the league against each other in Week 1. Who's going to win? It doesn't matter. But since the game's in Minnesota and the Vikings are somewhat less bad, I'll go with the home team.
Redskins at Saints: New Orleans-Don't get me started on the ridiculousness of the Saints' Bountygate suspensions being overturned. At least we know Jonathan Vilma's not going to play this week, but that's only a small consolation. Anyway, whether or not those guys were playing wasn't going to matter against the Redskins. Robert Griffin III might make the Washington offense slightly better. But he'd better pay attention when the Saints have the ball. That way he can learn from Drew Brees what an actual NFL offense looks like.
Bills at Jets: Jets-A lot of people think Mario Williams was that missing piece to finally bring the Bills back to the playoffs for the first time since 1999. I'm hopeful, but not overly optimistic about that. As for the Jets, I'm not sure if you know this, but they have a new backup quarterback. The Great Sanchez-Tebow Experiment is probably going to be a disaster, but that's my opinion. How it plays out in Week 1, though, is the Jets fall behind, Tebow comes in does his Denver stuff, the New York media acts like the Jets just won the Super Bowl (instead of, you know, beat the Bills at home in Week 1), and the "controversy" is on.
Dolphins at Texans: Houston-It might sound crazy with Mario Williams and DeMeco Ryans gone, but I think Houston might actually be better this year than they were last year. Starting against the Dolphins is a good recipe for a lot of Texans points. There's no way they lose on the day they raise their first-ever division championship banner in Reliant Stadium.
49ers at Packers: Green Bay-This is clearly the Game of the Week. Green Bay and San Francisco were arguably the two best teams in the NFL for most of the season last year. I think they've both gotten slightly better. It's crazy to think, but a Week 1 matchup could go a long way in determining home field advantage in January. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the 49ers pulled the upset, but, going into Lambeau Field in the season opener, I simply don't see that happening.
Seahawks at Cardinals: Arizona-Provided San Francisco loses that game, the winner of this one will be in first place in the NFC West after Week 1. I think the Seahawks' new uniforms are really ugly and, crazy as it sounds, I trust John Skelton at quarterback more than I trust a rookie. That's why I'm going with Arizona.
Panthers at Buccaneers: Tampa Bay-Call me crazy, but I think the Bucs are going to pull this one out. On paper, everything points in Carolina's direction. If Cam Newton slices and dices the Tampa Bay defense, it's going to be a long day for the Bucs. If the defense is able to shut him down even a little, Greg Schiano's debut might be a winning one.
Steelers at Broncos: Denver-It's Peyton's Denver debut! The Broncos take on a Steelers team that they somehow beat in last season's playoffs on Sunday night. Again, the Broncos weren't that good, yet still won their division and a playoff game last season. Now they have an actual quarterback and offense to go with that tremendous defense. This will be a good test for the new-look Broncos. I think they match-up pretty well with the Steelers. It's also probably a good thing that Peyton's first game as a Bronco is against a defense that will actually pressure him. This way, we'll be able to tell right away how he'll handle getting pressured and, more importantly, hit. As for the winner of the game, do you really think there's any chance Peyton doesn't win his first game with a new team? Believe it or not, he feels like he's got something to prove on Sunday night. He'll prove it.
Bengals at Ravens: Baltimore-As I said in my AFC preview the other day, I think it's going to be very difficult for Cincinnati to get back to the playoffs this season. The Bengals were a nice story last year, but they play in the toughest division in football. And a Monday night opener in Baltimore isn't going to be fun. The Ravens always get up for night games, and they'll have the added emotion of Art Modell's passing. Baltimore's an elite team. They'll show why on Monday night.
Chargers at Raiders: San Diego-I think Part II of the Monday night doubleheader is going to be an entertaining game between two teams that hate each other. The Raiders' usual M.O. is playing very tough against its division teams, but losing to everybody else. The Chargers' usual M.O. is playing like crap for 10 weeks before going undefeated in December. Both of those things would lead you to believe the Raiders will win. San Diego's better, though. That's why I'm taking the Chargers in a close one. It might be worth the effort to try and make it to the end.
This Week: 0-1
Season: 0-1
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Images From Andy's Farewell
When he announced his retirement last week, I did a blog thanking Andy Roddick for his career and what he's meant to American tennis over the past decade. Yesterday, I had the good fortune to attend his final match. (Please note this post was delayed a day because I got wrapped up in the Giant game immediately once I got home.) I can honestly say that it was something I'll never forget. You don't get many of those moments in your lifetime, and it's even rarer when you know it as it's happening. Even with a two-hour rain delay, it was a privilege to be in Arthur Ashe Stadium yesterday.
I know it's cliche, but the phrase "You had to be there" really applies in this case. I took pictures, but they can only go so far in telling the story. Pictures don't reveal how it felt to be part of that crowd chanting "Let's Go Andy" during his final service game. And applauded him the entire time during the final changeover. And immediately drowned out the 12 Argentinians when they started cheering for Del Potro. And gave him an extended standing ovation as soon as the match ended. Or the raw emotion listening to his farewell address. I'll be honest, I started to tear up during his postmatch interview.
Regardless, I'm going to do the best I can to sum up the day in pictures...
I know it's cliche, but the phrase "You had to be there" really applies in this case. I took pictures, but they can only go so far in telling the story. Pictures don't reveal how it felt to be part of that crowd chanting "Let's Go Andy" during his final service game. And applauded him the entire time during the final changeover. And immediately drowned out the 12 Argentinians when they started cheering for Del Potro. And gave him an extended standing ovation as soon as the match ended. Or the raw emotion listening to his farewell address. I'll be honest, I started to tear up during his postmatch interview.
Regardless, I'm going to do the best I can to sum up the day in pictures...
 |
| Oh yeah, the day started with a certain hot, tall, blonde Russian. Obviously off to a good start. |
 |
| Yes, Maria won. 6-4 in the third. |
 |
| During the warmup. |
 |
| Just about to start the final game of Roddick's career. (It wasn't full, but it sure felt and sounded like it.) |
 |
| That's it. Del Potro wins. |
 |
| Andy's standing ovation. |
 |
| I don't think this one needs a description. |
 |
| One of the classiest things I've ever seen in sports was Juan Martin Del Potro stopping his own postmatch interview after one question to give Andy his moment... |
 |
| ...then hanging around to be a part of it. I gained a lot of respect for Juan Martin Del Potro yesterday. |
 |
| I'll forever refer to this as Andy Roddick's "Farewell Address." |
 |
| Walking off the court one last time. |
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
2012 NFL Preview, Part II (NFC)
The NFL season offically kicks off tomorrow with the Defending Super Bowl Champion New York Football Giants (that's the full name by which I will refer to them this season) taking on Dallas. It'll be the third straight game between the two on NBC, which I'm sure FOX is thrilled about. Anyway, I started my NFL preview the other day with a look at the AFC. Since the season is literally on the horizon, I'd better finish it before the game kicks off. With that in mind, here comes Part II, a look at the NFC:
NFC East
The Eagles figured out in December how good they were actually supposed to be all season last year. That, of course, worked to the benefit of the Defending Super Bowl Champion New York Football Giants, so I'm not complaining, but talent-wise, I don't think there's any debate that Philadelphia is the best team in the division. If they play like it all season, the Eagles will be very difficult to stop. I realize I said all of these same things about Philadelphia going into 2011 and got burned by it, but, again, the Eagles team that showed up last December is the real Eagles team. Michael Vick, LeSean McCoy, DeSean Jackson and Brent Celek are all among the Top 10 in the NFL at their positions, and an already sick defense got better with the addition of DeMeco Ryans. They finished a disappointing 8-8 last season. If that happens again, I'll agree with all the people calling for Andy Reid's job. This team is good enough to win 12 games, but with the schedule NFC East teams have to play this year, 10 should do it.
Giants-Cowboys is a toss-up for second place. Dallas seems to have the same team on paper every year. Sometimes it results in 11-5. Other times it results in 7-9. I think they're closer to the 10-6, 9-7 side of that gap though. Dallas's playoff chances could come down to the division games. They always have a tough time with Washington, got swept by the Giants last season, and lost that crucial game against Philly on Christmas Eve. For the Cowboys to be a playoff team, they have to at least split the division games.
As for the Defending Super Bowl Champion New York Football Giants, a tough schedule is going to make getting back to the playoffs a challenge. Remember, they were only 9-7 last year. They might be staring that record in the face again this season, but this time it might not even be enough to make the playoffs. I also think the Giants were a slightly better team last year. Regarding the Redskins, I have two pressing questions. How do you win only five games, yet beat the Super Bowl champions twice? And, does Robert Griffin III realize that his last name is "Griffin" not "Griffin III?" The III isn't necessary on his jersey. (Also, will he name his kid Robert Griffin IV, Robert Griffin III Jr. or something like Tom Griffin III?)
NFC North
I don't think there's anybody who'd argue with me that the Green Bay Packers were the best team in football for a majority of the season. The Packers weren't as good as their 15-1 record indicated, though, and the Giants exposed those flaws in the playoffs. Regardless, the Packers bring virtually everybody back from last season, and they have the benefit of all those guys being healthy (at least to start the year). Plus, giving Aaron Rodgers an acutal running back (Cedric Benson) and an actual center (Jeff Saturday) will make Green Bay's offense a tad better. Will they go 15-1 again? No. Will they win the NFC North? Probably.
Second place is tight between the Bears and the Lions. Detroit finally ended its playoff drought last season and looks poised to be good for a while, but I think Chicago is slightly better. If they can stay reasonably healthy, this season's Bears have their standard easy-schedule 11-5 written all over them. The Lions aren't going to sneak up on anybody this year, which is why I rank Chicago slightly ahead of them. A return to the playoffs isn't completely out of the question, though. Suddenly, the NFC North has become one of the better divisions in football. That doesn't include the Vikings, however. It'll be another long year in Minnesota. Adrian Peterson's fun to watch and Jared Allen's a beast. That's about all I can say about the Vikings. They start with Jacksonville and Indianapolis, so a 2-0 start is possible. After that, things will go downhill quickly.
NFC South
This division is always interesting, mainly because the four teams are so bunched together. The Saints had visions in their heads of becoming the first home team ever to play in a Super Bowl. There are some people who still think that. However, that line of thinking now has to be classified as "delusional." New Orleans has no coach and doesn't have its best defensive player. Sure, they have Drew Brees and a ton of talent, but Super Bowl dreams aren't realistic. Especially since they'll have to deal with Atlanta and Carolina twice each. Winning the division's not out of the question, but I think it's more likely New Orleans contends for a wild card before falling just short of the playoffs.
In my opinion, the Falcons are the best team in this division. What I like most about Atlanta is the offense. It's going to be tough for opposing defenses to stop Michael Turner, Julio Jones, Roddy White AND Tony Gonzalez. The Falcons' defense isn't that great, but they might be able to score their way to an 11-5 record and a division title. Carolina's definitely a sleeper candidate. The Panthers were a much better team towards the end of the season last year, when Cam Newton finally seemed comfortable with the role of NFL starting quarterback. Now that he's actually had an offseason, Newton will probably be even better this year. That's a scary proposition. Carolina's not going to make the playoffs, but they'll come close. They're a year or two away from being Super Bowl contenders. The Bucs will be better, too. Their problem is that they're still the fourth-best team in this division, so the playoffs are out of the question. Tampa Bay will be a tough out in non-division games, though. I can reasonably see the Bucs finishing 7-9 or 8-8.
NFC West
San Francisco 49ers. I should just stop right there. There's one actual NFL team in this division. Sure they flirted with Peyton before settling on another year of Alex Smith, which isn't the worst thing in the world. (They did finish an overtime loss away from the Super Bowl last season, remember.) Let's also keep in mind that with the addition of all those wide receivers, the offense should be much better than it was a year ago. And the defense is one of the best in the NFL. They probably won't go 13-3 again. It doesn't matter. They'll still win the division going away.
Should injuries or something else drop the 49ers down a peg, the team that stands to benefit the most is Seattle. The Seahawks are probably the only other team in the NFC West that can realistically see themselves coming anywhere near a playoff spot. It's not going to happen though. I'm pretty sure Pete Carroll's old team (yes, I mean USC) could give the Seahawks a game. After a couple years of being the class of the division, Arizona has regressed to once again being the Cardinals. If they had an actual quarterback instead of John Skelton, I'd be a little more confident in the offense. The defense is OK, but not good enough for them to win 14-10 games. At least they're better than the Rams, though. Jeff Fisher's got some work to do in St. Louis. Sam Bradford needs to stay healthy and Steven Jackson needs some help for them to have any shot. A defense that features six newcomers as projected starters and won't be coached by Gregg Williams, the rightfully suspended mastermind of Bountygate, really scares me, too.
Division Winners: Philadelphia, Green Bay, Atlanta, San Francisco
Wild Cards: Dallas, Chicago
NFC Champion: Green Bay
NFC East
The Eagles figured out in December how good they were actually supposed to be all season last year. That, of course, worked to the benefit of the Defending Super Bowl Champion New York Football Giants, so I'm not complaining, but talent-wise, I don't think there's any debate that Philadelphia is the best team in the division. If they play like it all season, the Eagles will be very difficult to stop. I realize I said all of these same things about Philadelphia going into 2011 and got burned by it, but, again, the Eagles team that showed up last December is the real Eagles team. Michael Vick, LeSean McCoy, DeSean Jackson and Brent Celek are all among the Top 10 in the NFL at their positions, and an already sick defense got better with the addition of DeMeco Ryans. They finished a disappointing 8-8 last season. If that happens again, I'll agree with all the people calling for Andy Reid's job. This team is good enough to win 12 games, but with the schedule NFC East teams have to play this year, 10 should do it.
Giants-Cowboys is a toss-up for second place. Dallas seems to have the same team on paper every year. Sometimes it results in 11-5. Other times it results in 7-9. I think they're closer to the 10-6, 9-7 side of that gap though. Dallas's playoff chances could come down to the division games. They always have a tough time with Washington, got swept by the Giants last season, and lost that crucial game against Philly on Christmas Eve. For the Cowboys to be a playoff team, they have to at least split the division games.
As for the Defending Super Bowl Champion New York Football Giants, a tough schedule is going to make getting back to the playoffs a challenge. Remember, they were only 9-7 last year. They might be staring that record in the face again this season, but this time it might not even be enough to make the playoffs. I also think the Giants were a slightly better team last year. Regarding the Redskins, I have two pressing questions. How do you win only five games, yet beat the Super Bowl champions twice? And, does Robert Griffin III realize that his last name is "Griffin" not "Griffin III?" The III isn't necessary on his jersey. (Also, will he name his kid Robert Griffin IV, Robert Griffin III Jr. or something like Tom Griffin III?)
NFC North
I don't think there's anybody who'd argue with me that the Green Bay Packers were the best team in football for a majority of the season. The Packers weren't as good as their 15-1 record indicated, though, and the Giants exposed those flaws in the playoffs. Regardless, the Packers bring virtually everybody back from last season, and they have the benefit of all those guys being healthy (at least to start the year). Plus, giving Aaron Rodgers an acutal running back (Cedric Benson) and an actual center (Jeff Saturday) will make Green Bay's offense a tad better. Will they go 15-1 again? No. Will they win the NFC North? Probably.
Second place is tight between the Bears and the Lions. Detroit finally ended its playoff drought last season and looks poised to be good for a while, but I think Chicago is slightly better. If they can stay reasonably healthy, this season's Bears have their standard easy-schedule 11-5 written all over them. The Lions aren't going to sneak up on anybody this year, which is why I rank Chicago slightly ahead of them. A return to the playoffs isn't completely out of the question, though. Suddenly, the NFC North has become one of the better divisions in football. That doesn't include the Vikings, however. It'll be another long year in Minnesota. Adrian Peterson's fun to watch and Jared Allen's a beast. That's about all I can say about the Vikings. They start with Jacksonville and Indianapolis, so a 2-0 start is possible. After that, things will go downhill quickly.
NFC South
This division is always interesting, mainly because the four teams are so bunched together. The Saints had visions in their heads of becoming the first home team ever to play in a Super Bowl. There are some people who still think that. However, that line of thinking now has to be classified as "delusional." New Orleans has no coach and doesn't have its best defensive player. Sure, they have Drew Brees and a ton of talent, but Super Bowl dreams aren't realistic. Especially since they'll have to deal with Atlanta and Carolina twice each. Winning the division's not out of the question, but I think it's more likely New Orleans contends for a wild card before falling just short of the playoffs.
In my opinion, the Falcons are the best team in this division. What I like most about Atlanta is the offense. It's going to be tough for opposing defenses to stop Michael Turner, Julio Jones, Roddy White AND Tony Gonzalez. The Falcons' defense isn't that great, but they might be able to score their way to an 11-5 record and a division title. Carolina's definitely a sleeper candidate. The Panthers were a much better team towards the end of the season last year, when Cam Newton finally seemed comfortable with the role of NFL starting quarterback. Now that he's actually had an offseason, Newton will probably be even better this year. That's a scary proposition. Carolina's not going to make the playoffs, but they'll come close. They're a year or two away from being Super Bowl contenders. The Bucs will be better, too. Their problem is that they're still the fourth-best team in this division, so the playoffs are out of the question. Tampa Bay will be a tough out in non-division games, though. I can reasonably see the Bucs finishing 7-9 or 8-8.
NFC West
San Francisco 49ers. I should just stop right there. There's one actual NFL team in this division. Sure they flirted with Peyton before settling on another year of Alex Smith, which isn't the worst thing in the world. (They did finish an overtime loss away from the Super Bowl last season, remember.) Let's also keep in mind that with the addition of all those wide receivers, the offense should be much better than it was a year ago. And the defense is one of the best in the NFL. They probably won't go 13-3 again. It doesn't matter. They'll still win the division going away.
Should injuries or something else drop the 49ers down a peg, the team that stands to benefit the most is Seattle. The Seahawks are probably the only other team in the NFC West that can realistically see themselves coming anywhere near a playoff spot. It's not going to happen though. I'm pretty sure Pete Carroll's old team (yes, I mean USC) could give the Seahawks a game. After a couple years of being the class of the division, Arizona has regressed to once again being the Cardinals. If they had an actual quarterback instead of John Skelton, I'd be a little more confident in the offense. The defense is OK, but not good enough for them to win 14-10 games. At least they're better than the Rams, though. Jeff Fisher's got some work to do in St. Louis. Sam Bradford needs to stay healthy and Steven Jackson needs some help for them to have any shot. A defense that features six newcomers as projected starters and won't be coached by Gregg Williams, the rightfully suspended mastermind of Bountygate, really scares me, too.
Division Winners: Philadelphia, Green Bay, Atlanta, San Francisco
Wild Cards: Dallas, Chicago
NFC Champion: Green Bay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)