It seems weird to be talking about hockey at this time of year, but this is actually when we should be talking about hockey. And let's be thankful that we ARE talking about hockey. Because at this time last year, we were in the midst of a ridiculous lockout wondering when and if there would be a hockey season.
This year also brings about a significant amount of change in the NHL, most notably realignment. A lot of experts and fans are in favor of these new divisions, but I am not. The 16-14 split really bothers me, as does the new playoff structure. And don't get me started on the name of the "Metropolitan" division. The one thing I like, though, is the schedule. Now you play a home-and-home with everybody after years of playing only 18 interconference games.
Aside from the obvious issue of it being easier to make the playoffs in the Western Conference, my big problem with the new division-based playoff format is that you're not necessarily going to have the two best teams in a conference meet in the conference finals. Two years ago, the Rangers and Penguins were in a spirited season-long battle for the No. 1 seed in the East, with the team that finished second in the Atlantic Division knowing that it would be the No. 4 seed. But since the NHL reseeded between rounds, it was still possible for them to face each other in the conference finals. That can't happen anymore, though. Each of the four "division champions" will be in the conference finals. So, using the Rangers and Penguins as the example again. If the Rangers were to finish with 108 points and the Penguins with 106, they'd have to play in the conference semifinals no matter what while 96-point Boston and 93-point Montreal play in the other series. This was a frequent problem in the late 80s/early 90s, which is one of the reasons why the NHL went away from the division-based format in the first place.
Since I've already started talking about the East, I might as well continue. I'd also like to point out that the NHL has decided to add to our confusion by changing the division names. They added the Florida teams to the Northeast Division, so they obviously couldn't call it the Northeast anymore. Instead they opted to call it the "Atlantic," evidently ignoring the fact that three of the teams are in Canada, one's in Buffalo and one's in Detroit. And, oh yeah, the fact that they already had a division called the "Atlantic." As a result, the artist formerly known as the Atlantic Division was stuck with that ridiculous "Metropolitan" name. (Like I said, I've got a lot of problems with the NHL realignment.)
Speaking of the Metropolitan Division, this division has a couple of really good teams, a couple teams you know have no shot at the playoffs, and a couple that'll be right there in the middle fighting for those two "wild card" playoff berths. Pittsburgh is still among the class of the league. The Penguins ran away with this division last year, but survived a couple scares in the playoffs before ultimately falling to a better Bruins team. All this without Sidney Crosby for much of the season. Pittsburgh should have no problem claiming one of those three automatic playoff spots. The Rangers shouldn't, either. The Rangers, of course, traded coaches with Vancouver, bringing in Alain Vigneaut after a disappointing 2013. Vigneaut's the right coach for this team that still has loads of talent and, most importantly, Henrik Lundqvist. Playing a full season should also help the Rangers.
After a few years of beating on the cupcakes of the now-defunct Southeast Division, Washington is reunited with its former Patrick Division friends. We'll finally get to see how good the Capitals actually are now that they won't be feasting on Tampa Bay, Florida, Carolina and Winnipeg so much. I still the Caps will be in the mix for the playoffs, though (after all, I think a Rangers-Capitals playoff series is an NHL rule). Their biggest worry is keeping Alex Ovechkin's head in the game. He's preoccupied with the Sochi Olympics. Fighting Washington for third place will probably be the Islanders and Philadelphia. The Islanders made the playoffs last season and are out to prove that was the beginning of something rather than a flash in the pan. They might be a better team this season, but making the playoffs has gotten much tougher. I also expect a bounce-back season from the Flyers, who I think would've made the playoffs if they'd played a full season last year. It should be a fight between those three teams for the one automatic playoff berth.
The Devils' massive contract to Ilya Kovalchuk was one of the reasons the lockout dragged on so long last season. Now Kovalchuk has spurned the Devils to go play in the KHL. And Martin Brodeur is a legend, but he's getting old. Columbus showed signs of turning things around last year, even fighting for a playoff berth, but I'm not sure how competitive I see the Blue Jackets being in this division. Be careful what you wish for. You're finally in the Eastern Conference, but would've had a better chance at being competitive in the West. Carolina wasn't done any favors by being placed in this division, either.
The new Atlantic Division just might be the NHL's favorite. Half of the division is Original Six teams, and they all made the playoffs last season. That's why I think this will probably be the most competitive of the four divisions. Like Pittsburgh, Boston's one of the best teams in hockey. The Bruins are three seasons removed from winning the Cup and coming off a Final appearance. There's no reason to think the Bruins won't continue that run this season. The Red Wings finally got what they wanted with this move to the Eastern Conference. And that's bad news for the fringe playoff teams, because I don't see the Red Wings' run of playoff appearances coming to an end. It'll be a slight adjustment, but Detroit's talent is too great.
Montreal and Toronto, the other two Original Six teams in the Atlantic Division, are also strong. The Maple Leafs finally snapped their playoff drought last season, while the Canadiens actually won the division over the Bruins before being upset by Ottawa in the playoffs. They'll both be pushed down a little because of the Red Wings' presence in the division, but they're both strong enough to return to the playoffs. So is Ottawa. Even without Daniel Alfredsson (who's now in Detroit). I wouldn't count the Sabres out, either. While I don't think they have the talent to make the playoffs, Ryan Miller, if he returns to form, is a top-notch goalie capable of stealing a game. The Sabres can definitely make life interesting for teams, even if they're not necessarily playoff-caliber.
I think it's safe to say there won't be any playoff hockey in Florida this season. The two teams screwed the most by the realignment were the Lightning and Panthers, whose only division rivals that are even remotely close are each other. All those trips to Canada (Detroit and Buffalo included) won't be fun. Especially for two teams that would've struggled in the old Southeast Division.
So, here are the teams I foresee qualifying for the playoffs out of the Eastern Conference...
Metropolitan-Pittsburgh, Rangers, Washington
Atlantic-Boston, Detroit, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa
Monday, September 30, 2013
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Week 4 NFL Picks
OK, so...last week sucked. I needed wins on Sunday and Monday night just to get to .500. Fortunately, the Bears and Broncos both pulled it out. Cause that would've been simply embarrassing. Hopefully, that means my bad week is also out of the way. But of course, this week gives us some tough ones. There are a lot of games between good teams that could go either way. I feel bad for people who attach confidence points to their picks. Because those middle games this week are very tough. Hey, at least I'm off to a 1-0 start...
Ravens (2-1) at Bills (1-2): Baltimore-The Ravens head to Buffalo for their first road game since the season-opening debacle in Denver. I think the real Baltimore Ravens have returned, though, winning handily against Houston last week. I also thought the Bills-Jets game would be more competitive than it was. Buffalo looked great against New England and beat Carolina, then go to the Meadowlands and lose the to Jets. At least they're back at home. Unfortunately, the Ravens have found their groove.
Bengals (2-1) at Browns (1-2): Cincinnati-I'm starting to come around on the Cincinnati Bengals. They were especially impressive in that win over the Packers last week. Cincinnati could end up winning the AFC North. The Browns, meanwhile, traded Trent Richardson, then put up a 31-spot in Minnesota without him. I don't get it. The Bengals are a much better team than the Vikings, though. Reality check time for Cleveland. They'll probably be watching the Indians game anyway.
Bears (3-0) at Lions (2-1): Chicago-I really high on the Chicago Bears. I know, I know. I got like this last season, too, but this just feels different. The Bears have an offense now. The Lions got a confidence boost from winning in Washington for the first time ever last week, but the Redskins are reeling. The Bears aren't. Chicago wins.
Giants (0-3) at Chiefs (3-0): Kansas City-Talk about teams that are reeling, how about the New York Football Giants. I thought last week was their chance to right the ship. Then the Panthers put up 38 points on that defense while the offense does absolutely NOTHING. Meanwhile, Andy Reid's NFC East Reunion Tour continues. Seeing how frequently the Eagles beat the Giants when Reid was in Philly, and how much of a mess the Giants are right now, I think KC stays undefeated.
Steelers (0-3) vs. Vikings (0-3): Minnesota-These two have to travel all the way to London in pursuit of a win...and one of them will head back across the pond at 0-4. I feel somewhat bad for the London fans. They get two games this year. This is one and the Jaguars are playing in the other. Anyway, even without Christian Ponder, the Vikings are in better shape than the Steelers. Adrian Peterson will run wild on the British "pitch."
Cardinals (1-2) at Buccaneers (0-3): Tampa Bay-Greg Schiano has benched Josh Freeman. I don't think Freeman's the cause of the Bucs' problems, though. They played two good games, probably should've won both, and weren't going to win in New England either way. Yes, they got slaughtered, but what did you expect? Anyway, hosting the Cardinals in an early game is a good remedy for what ails Tampa Bay.
Colts (2-1) at Jaguars (0-3): Indianapolis-Good news, people of Jacksonville. This is a Jaguars home game, so you won't be forced to watch it. After two straight games on the West Coast, the Jaguars get to lose at home, where they've scored a grand total of TWO points all season, this week.
Seahawks (3-0) at Texans (2-1): Houston-This is one of the best games of the week. Seattle has looked unbeatable over the last two weeks. But both of those games were in Seattle. The Seahawks are a much different team when they don't have that deafening crowd behind them. This week, on the road against a good team, we get to see what they're really made of. I don't think they'll be undefeated anymore when they head home from Houston.
Jets (2-1) at Titans (2-1): Tennessee-The Titans have been one of the most surprising teams in the NFL this season. Tennessee's going to make some noise this season. Before Jets fans get too excited about their 2-1 record, I feel the need to point out that the wins came at home against Tampa Bay and Buffalo. Not exactly teams that'll be coming back to the Meadowlands in February. Another interesting tidbit, it was after that Monday night game in Nashville last year where the Jets decided that they were finally going to bench Mark Sanchez...and still not start Tebow.
Eagles (1-2) at Broncos (3-0): Denver-In my opinion, Denver, not Seattle, is the best team in football. The Broncos have won each of their first three games handily. And they can thank their division rival Chargers for the blueprint on how to slow down the Eagles' offense. Denver wins to set up that monster showdown next week in Dallas.
Redskins (0-3) at Raiders (1-2): Washington-Is this the week Washington finally breaks its skid? The Redskins are really feeling the effects of a limited Robert Griffin III. The Raiders, meanwhile, are starting to resemble an NFL team again. They might've found their quarterback in Terrelle Pryor (I wonder if he's gotten a Raiders tattoo yet). This one could easily go either way, but Mike Shanahan always takes special pride in beating the Raiders.
Cowboys (2-1) at Chargers (1-2): San Diego-The final game of the NFC East at AFC West Extravaganza is Dallas-San Diego. Both teams have followed similar trajectories this season. The Cowboys have won a pair of home games and lost in Kansas City. The Chargers have a pair of losses to AFC South foes and a victory in Philadelphia. I'm still not a total believer in the Cowboys, even though they're the only NFC East team that's currently above .500. Maybe I'll come around if they win in San Diego, but I'll take Phillip Rivers and the Chargers.
Patriots (3-0) at Falcons (1-2): Atlanta-You've already got obnoxious Patriots fans going on and on about their 3-0 record. Calm down. They've played the Bills, Jets and Bucs! Did anybody not expect them to be 3-0 right now? Atlanta's record is a surprise. Not so much that they lost their opener in New Orleans, but that loss last week to the Dolphins was definitely surprising. I think it says more about Miami than Atlanta, though. If the Patriots win this week, then maybe their fans can start talking. But this is a must-win for the Falcons. I think they get it done.
Dolphins (3-0) at Saints (3-0): New Orleans-Somebody gets knocked from the land of the undefeated on Monday night. The Saints want to prove that they're back among the NFL's elite teams. I'm still not quite buying it, especially since the only game they played away from home they barely won. New Orleans does always seem to play its best underneath the bright lights, though, and the lights don't get much brighter than Monday Night Football. The 4-0 team will be the Saints.
BYE: Carolina, Green Bay
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-8
Season: 31-18
Ravens (2-1) at Bills (1-2): Baltimore-The Ravens head to Buffalo for their first road game since the season-opening debacle in Denver. I think the real Baltimore Ravens have returned, though, winning handily against Houston last week. I also thought the Bills-Jets game would be more competitive than it was. Buffalo looked great against New England and beat Carolina, then go to the Meadowlands and lose the to Jets. At least they're back at home. Unfortunately, the Ravens have found their groove.
Bengals (2-1) at Browns (1-2): Cincinnati-I'm starting to come around on the Cincinnati Bengals. They were especially impressive in that win over the Packers last week. Cincinnati could end up winning the AFC North. The Browns, meanwhile, traded Trent Richardson, then put up a 31-spot in Minnesota without him. I don't get it. The Bengals are a much better team than the Vikings, though. Reality check time for Cleveland. They'll probably be watching the Indians game anyway.
Bears (3-0) at Lions (2-1): Chicago-I really high on the Chicago Bears. I know, I know. I got like this last season, too, but this just feels different. The Bears have an offense now. The Lions got a confidence boost from winning in Washington for the first time ever last week, but the Redskins are reeling. The Bears aren't. Chicago wins.
Giants (0-3) at Chiefs (3-0): Kansas City-Talk about teams that are reeling, how about the New York Football Giants. I thought last week was their chance to right the ship. Then the Panthers put up 38 points on that defense while the offense does absolutely NOTHING. Meanwhile, Andy Reid's NFC East Reunion Tour continues. Seeing how frequently the Eagles beat the Giants when Reid was in Philly, and how much of a mess the Giants are right now, I think KC stays undefeated.
Steelers (0-3) vs. Vikings (0-3): Minnesota-These two have to travel all the way to London in pursuit of a win...and one of them will head back across the pond at 0-4. I feel somewhat bad for the London fans. They get two games this year. This is one and the Jaguars are playing in the other. Anyway, even without Christian Ponder, the Vikings are in better shape than the Steelers. Adrian Peterson will run wild on the British "pitch."
Cardinals (1-2) at Buccaneers (0-3): Tampa Bay-Greg Schiano has benched Josh Freeman. I don't think Freeman's the cause of the Bucs' problems, though. They played two good games, probably should've won both, and weren't going to win in New England either way. Yes, they got slaughtered, but what did you expect? Anyway, hosting the Cardinals in an early game is a good remedy for what ails Tampa Bay.
Colts (2-1) at Jaguars (0-3): Indianapolis-Good news, people of Jacksonville. This is a Jaguars home game, so you won't be forced to watch it. After two straight games on the West Coast, the Jaguars get to lose at home, where they've scored a grand total of TWO points all season, this week.
Seahawks (3-0) at Texans (2-1): Houston-This is one of the best games of the week. Seattle has looked unbeatable over the last two weeks. But both of those games were in Seattle. The Seahawks are a much different team when they don't have that deafening crowd behind them. This week, on the road against a good team, we get to see what they're really made of. I don't think they'll be undefeated anymore when they head home from Houston.
Jets (2-1) at Titans (2-1): Tennessee-The Titans have been one of the most surprising teams in the NFL this season. Tennessee's going to make some noise this season. Before Jets fans get too excited about their 2-1 record, I feel the need to point out that the wins came at home against Tampa Bay and Buffalo. Not exactly teams that'll be coming back to the Meadowlands in February. Another interesting tidbit, it was after that Monday night game in Nashville last year where the Jets decided that they were finally going to bench Mark Sanchez...and still not start Tebow.
Eagles (1-2) at Broncos (3-0): Denver-In my opinion, Denver, not Seattle, is the best team in football. The Broncos have won each of their first three games handily. And they can thank their division rival Chargers for the blueprint on how to slow down the Eagles' offense. Denver wins to set up that monster showdown next week in Dallas.
Redskins (0-3) at Raiders (1-2): Washington-Is this the week Washington finally breaks its skid? The Redskins are really feeling the effects of a limited Robert Griffin III. The Raiders, meanwhile, are starting to resemble an NFL team again. They might've found their quarterback in Terrelle Pryor (I wonder if he's gotten a Raiders tattoo yet). This one could easily go either way, but Mike Shanahan always takes special pride in beating the Raiders.
Cowboys (2-1) at Chargers (1-2): San Diego-The final game of the NFC East at AFC West Extravaganza is Dallas-San Diego. Both teams have followed similar trajectories this season. The Cowboys have won a pair of home games and lost in Kansas City. The Chargers have a pair of losses to AFC South foes and a victory in Philadelphia. I'm still not a total believer in the Cowboys, even though they're the only NFC East team that's currently above .500. Maybe I'll come around if they win in San Diego, but I'll take Phillip Rivers and the Chargers.
Patriots (3-0) at Falcons (1-2): Atlanta-You've already got obnoxious Patriots fans going on and on about their 3-0 record. Calm down. They've played the Bills, Jets and Bucs! Did anybody not expect them to be 3-0 right now? Atlanta's record is a surprise. Not so much that they lost their opener in New Orleans, but that loss last week to the Dolphins was definitely surprising. I think it says more about Miami than Atlanta, though. If the Patriots win this week, then maybe their fans can start talking. But this is a must-win for the Falcons. I think they get it done.
Dolphins (3-0) at Saints (3-0): New Orleans-Somebody gets knocked from the land of the undefeated on Monday night. The Saints want to prove that they're back among the NFL's elite teams. I'm still not quite buying it, especially since the only game they played away from home they barely won. New Orleans does always seem to play its best underneath the bright lights, though, and the lights don't get much brighter than Monday Night Football. The 4-0 team will be the Saints.
BYE: Carolina, Green Bay
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-8
Season: 31-18
Friday, September 27, 2013
Who Stays, Who Goes
Now that the Yankees have been eliminated from playoff contention and an all-time great has made his final appearance at Yankee Stadium, it's time to mercifully start looking past this dreadful season and towards next year. More specifically, it's time to look at next year's roster. There are a lot of guys that won't be returning. We've been counting down the days to some of these departures (I'm talking to you, Fatso), while others are incredibly bittersweet (I can't think of life without Mariano). But this much is for sure, there's going to be a lot of roster turnover.
And since once the competitive portion of the season ends, everybody starts playing the "Who should stay, who should go" game, I thought that might be fun.
Just to be clear, I'm not going to touch the players who are already under contract for next year. CC Sabathia, Mark Teixeira, Alfonso Soriano and Ichiro Suzuki are among the most prominent members of that group. David Robertson will be promoted to closer and Derek Jeter has a player option that there's no chance he won't exercise. And A-Rod's still under contract, even though the likelihood of him playing a full season next year are minimal at best. I'm working under the assumption his suspension will last the entire season, and the Yankees probably are too.
But as for everybody else, here's my take, starting with the elephant in the room...
Robinson Cano: He wants 10 years and $300 million. Correction, Jay-Z wants 10 years and $300 million. There's no chance the Yankees will give him that. Either the money or the years. But nobody else is going to, either. There's a middle ground to be found, and I'm pretty sure they'll find it. The Yankees know they have to re-sign him. Even if they have to overpay to do it. Keep him.
Curtis Granderson: He's a free agent, and they seem to be set with a Soriano-Gardner-Ichiro outfield, so I'm not entirely sure where Granderson fits into that mix. But I'm also not sure how many offers he'll receive elsewhere (although two freak injuries shouldn't hurt his value too much). He probably wants to come back, and they could easily figure out a rotation that will include DH days and off days for all four (while also giving themselves some built-in injury protection). I don't think him returning next season is a stretch, nor would it be an entirely bad move. If the Yankees make him an offer, Granderson probably returns. Keep him.
Hiroki Kuroda: Kuroda was great for four months, but badly faded down the stretch. He's 38 years old and reportedly wants to end his career back in Japan. This is another tough one, and I ultimately think the Yankees might leave it up to him. If Kuroda wants to come back, he probably gets a one-year deal. Seeing as they're going to need at least two starting pitchers (three if he leaves), its worth another year. Keep him.
Boone Logan: This is a situation that's somewhat like Granderson's. He needs to have elbow surgery, which might limit the interest he receives from other teams. Which could be good for the Yankees. Logan's been so good as the lefty specialist in the bullpen that it's worth making him an offer. Bringing him back seems like a low-risk proposition. Keep him.
Mark Reynolds: Talk about a worthwhile midseason pickup. Reynolds goes from Yankee Killer to Yankee, and his value cannot be overstated. A right-handed power hitter who can play both corner infield positions and DH. He can start at third and be Teixeira's backup at first. In my opinion, this one's a no-brainer. Keep him.
Eduardo Nunez: Nunez takes a lot of criticism for his fielding, but they still view him as the shortstop of the future, and he's gotten a lot more comfortable at third. Plus, he's a better hitter than Ryan, Nix or some of the other in-house options. He's injury-prone, but that's the only reason I can think of that doesn't make bringing him back an absolute slam dunk. Keep him.
Jayson Nix: A utility infielder is an incredibly valuable thing to have. That became even more evident once Nix was lost for the year. He's better suited to the utility role than Nunez. Keep him.
Francisco Cervelli: Biogenesis aside, he deserves a full season. He won the catching job in Spring Training, only to break his hand in May. Other teams won't want to go anywhere near him because of the Biogenesis thing, the Yankees still control his contract, and he's well-liked among his teammates and the pitching staff. There's no reason not to bring Cervelli back. Keep him.
Austin Romine: See above, minus the part about Biogenesis. He got much more comfortable once he realized he wasn't going to get sent down. He probably starts next season at Triple-A. Keep him.
Zolio Almonte: Ditto. He's still under club control and will likely start the season in Scranton. Keep him.
Phil Hughes: It just didn't work out the way everyone had hoped. A fly ball pitcher and Yankee Stadium aren't a good mix. He'll probably go to some National League team with a big ballpark and thrive. I hope he does. Dump him.
Joba Chamberlain: Bye! I've been waiting for Fatso to get out of town for like three years. I'm finally going to get my wish. He's already cleaned out his locker. He knows what's coming. No chance he returns. Dump him.
Lyle Overbay: I can't sing Lyle Overbay's praises enough. He proved to be one of the most valuable Yankees this season. Without Overbay at first, they don't stay in the race as long as they do. But if Teixeira comes back healthy and Reynolds returns as the backup, there's no place for Overbay next season. Dump him.
Travis Hafner: I almost forgot Pronk was on the Yankees for a bit. He was good for like a month before his annual injury. They have absolutely no need for a left-handed DH who can't play the field. Especially if they have to spread DH at-bats around to the regulars. Dump him.
Kevin Youkilis: When they signed him, I was all about it. Then he missed most of the season with a back injury. A healthy Youkilis would've been useful and helpful to have. Unfortunately, he was on that long list. His health is too much of a risk, especially since Reynolds would be much cheaper and fill the exact same role. Dump him.
Vernon Wells: Ah, Vernon. Things started off so well. Then he just looked old. It worked out for a while, but then his playing time became greatly reduced after the Soriano trade. But this season they paid for not re-signing Raul Ibanez. I'm on the fence here. He's a veteran whose bat still has some pop. Bringing him back could easily turn into an Andruw Jones situation, though. I can live with him staying, but I think it's more likely he goes. Dump him.
Brendan Ryan: Why does everybody think this guy is the Second Coming? He's been on the team for two weeks, and they only got him once they decided Jeter's season was over! Sure, he's great at shortstop. But he can't hit! And they don't need a shortstop. Jeter's coming back. Dump him.
Chris Stewart: Letting Russell Martin leave as a free agent was one of the things that set this team back the most this season. The Stewart-Cervelli/Romine/Murphy platoon didn't work as well as they had hoped. Stewart played more than ever before, and he couldn't hit at all by the end of the season. If they're going to make a run at somebody like Brian McCann, which I think they should, Stewart's expendable. Dump him.
That's obviously a limited selection. Guys like Gardner and Nova were obvious keeps, so I didn't feel the need to include them. Likewise, I'd keep most of those guys in the bullpen, although some roles will be changed around next season. Those guys are cheap and, for the most part, did a great job. (One of the reasons the bullpen imploded was because of the workload.) If Logan doesn't return, Cesar Cabral could become the lefty specialist, while Adam Warren could be good in Robertson's current eighth-inning role. I also have confidence in Preston Claiborne, who got tired towards the end of the season.
We can rest assured, though, this is going to be a busy offseason in the Bronx. Hank and Hal said they want to get the payroll down around $187 million, but how realistic is that? If their father was still running the team, we know what the answer to that question would've been. The last time the Yankees missed the playoffs in 2008, the offseason resulted in a spending spree that landed CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira. And we all know what happened in 2009.
And since once the competitive portion of the season ends, everybody starts playing the "Who should stay, who should go" game, I thought that might be fun.
Just to be clear, I'm not going to touch the players who are already under contract for next year. CC Sabathia, Mark Teixeira, Alfonso Soriano and Ichiro Suzuki are among the most prominent members of that group. David Robertson will be promoted to closer and Derek Jeter has a player option that there's no chance he won't exercise. And A-Rod's still under contract, even though the likelihood of him playing a full season next year are minimal at best. I'm working under the assumption his suspension will last the entire season, and the Yankees probably are too.
But as for everybody else, here's my take, starting with the elephant in the room...
Robinson Cano: He wants 10 years and $300 million. Correction, Jay-Z wants 10 years and $300 million. There's no chance the Yankees will give him that. Either the money or the years. But nobody else is going to, either. There's a middle ground to be found, and I'm pretty sure they'll find it. The Yankees know they have to re-sign him. Even if they have to overpay to do it. Keep him.
Curtis Granderson: He's a free agent, and they seem to be set with a Soriano-Gardner-Ichiro outfield, so I'm not entirely sure where Granderson fits into that mix. But I'm also not sure how many offers he'll receive elsewhere (although two freak injuries shouldn't hurt his value too much). He probably wants to come back, and they could easily figure out a rotation that will include DH days and off days for all four (while also giving themselves some built-in injury protection). I don't think him returning next season is a stretch, nor would it be an entirely bad move. If the Yankees make him an offer, Granderson probably returns. Keep him.
Hiroki Kuroda: Kuroda was great for four months, but badly faded down the stretch. He's 38 years old and reportedly wants to end his career back in Japan. This is another tough one, and I ultimately think the Yankees might leave it up to him. If Kuroda wants to come back, he probably gets a one-year deal. Seeing as they're going to need at least two starting pitchers (three if he leaves), its worth another year. Keep him.
Boone Logan: This is a situation that's somewhat like Granderson's. He needs to have elbow surgery, which might limit the interest he receives from other teams. Which could be good for the Yankees. Logan's been so good as the lefty specialist in the bullpen that it's worth making him an offer. Bringing him back seems like a low-risk proposition. Keep him.
Mark Reynolds: Talk about a worthwhile midseason pickup. Reynolds goes from Yankee Killer to Yankee, and his value cannot be overstated. A right-handed power hitter who can play both corner infield positions and DH. He can start at third and be Teixeira's backup at first. In my opinion, this one's a no-brainer. Keep him.
Eduardo Nunez: Nunez takes a lot of criticism for his fielding, but they still view him as the shortstop of the future, and he's gotten a lot more comfortable at third. Plus, he's a better hitter than Ryan, Nix or some of the other in-house options. He's injury-prone, but that's the only reason I can think of that doesn't make bringing him back an absolute slam dunk. Keep him.
Jayson Nix: A utility infielder is an incredibly valuable thing to have. That became even more evident once Nix was lost for the year. He's better suited to the utility role than Nunez. Keep him.
Francisco Cervelli: Biogenesis aside, he deserves a full season. He won the catching job in Spring Training, only to break his hand in May. Other teams won't want to go anywhere near him because of the Biogenesis thing, the Yankees still control his contract, and he's well-liked among his teammates and the pitching staff. There's no reason not to bring Cervelli back. Keep him.
Austin Romine: See above, minus the part about Biogenesis. He got much more comfortable once he realized he wasn't going to get sent down. He probably starts next season at Triple-A. Keep him.
Zolio Almonte: Ditto. He's still under club control and will likely start the season in Scranton. Keep him.
Phil Hughes: It just didn't work out the way everyone had hoped. A fly ball pitcher and Yankee Stadium aren't a good mix. He'll probably go to some National League team with a big ballpark and thrive. I hope he does. Dump him.
Joba Chamberlain: Bye! I've been waiting for Fatso to get out of town for like three years. I'm finally going to get my wish. He's already cleaned out his locker. He knows what's coming. No chance he returns. Dump him.
Lyle Overbay: I can't sing Lyle Overbay's praises enough. He proved to be one of the most valuable Yankees this season. Without Overbay at first, they don't stay in the race as long as they do. But if Teixeira comes back healthy and Reynolds returns as the backup, there's no place for Overbay next season. Dump him.
Travis Hafner: I almost forgot Pronk was on the Yankees for a bit. He was good for like a month before his annual injury. They have absolutely no need for a left-handed DH who can't play the field. Especially if they have to spread DH at-bats around to the regulars. Dump him.
Kevin Youkilis: When they signed him, I was all about it. Then he missed most of the season with a back injury. A healthy Youkilis would've been useful and helpful to have. Unfortunately, he was on that long list. His health is too much of a risk, especially since Reynolds would be much cheaper and fill the exact same role. Dump him.
Vernon Wells: Ah, Vernon. Things started off so well. Then he just looked old. It worked out for a while, but then his playing time became greatly reduced after the Soriano trade. But this season they paid for not re-signing Raul Ibanez. I'm on the fence here. He's a veteran whose bat still has some pop. Bringing him back could easily turn into an Andruw Jones situation, though. I can live with him staying, but I think it's more likely he goes. Dump him.
Brendan Ryan: Why does everybody think this guy is the Second Coming? He's been on the team for two weeks, and they only got him once they decided Jeter's season was over! Sure, he's great at shortstop. But he can't hit! And they don't need a shortstop. Jeter's coming back. Dump him.
Chris Stewart: Letting Russell Martin leave as a free agent was one of the things that set this team back the most this season. The Stewart-Cervelli/Romine/Murphy platoon didn't work as well as they had hoped. Stewart played more than ever before, and he couldn't hit at all by the end of the season. If they're going to make a run at somebody like Brian McCann, which I think they should, Stewart's expendable. Dump him.
That's obviously a limited selection. Guys like Gardner and Nova were obvious keeps, so I didn't feel the need to include them. Likewise, I'd keep most of those guys in the bullpen, although some roles will be changed around next season. Those guys are cheap and, for the most part, did a great job. (One of the reasons the bullpen imploded was because of the workload.) If Logan doesn't return, Cesar Cabral could become the lefty specialist, while Adam Warren could be good in Robertson's current eighth-inning role. I also have confidence in Preston Claiborne, who got tired towards the end of the season.
We can rest assured, though, this is going to be a busy offseason in the Bronx. Hank and Hal said they want to get the payroll down around $187 million, but how realistic is that? If their father was still running the team, we know what the answer to that question would've been. The last time the Yankees missed the playoffs in 2008, the offseason resulted in a spending spree that landed CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira. And we all know what happened in 2009.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Exit Sandman
Now that it's become even more apparent that the Yankees aren't going to make the playoffs, this week is really going to be about Mariano Rivera. Of course, it'll be somewhat anticlimactic after that wonderful pregame ceremony that included his number being retired (how many players have ever had their number retired while they're still active), Metallica performing "Enter Sandman" live and the return of some of greatest teammates from the late-90s dynasty.
There were so many touching elements during the ceremony. It was especially poignant to see Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti, the Yankees' former saves leader, come out to greet him. I'm not sure if they picked the Giants because it was a Sunday or so Righetti could be there, but it was a nice touch nonetheless. Mariano's relationship with Rachel Robinson is also a beautiful thing. He fully appreciates being the final player in Major League history to wear No. 42 and has always been mindful of its significance. For her part, Rachel Robinson respects Mariano Rivera as a person and everything he represents. It's a fitting connection, and it just felt right to have her be a part of the ceremony.
And of course, he was given some more gifts. I really don't know where he's going to put all this stuff he's been given by all of the different teams the Yankees have played this season. One of the best coming into Sunday was the "Chair of Broken Dreams" made of broken bats that the Twins gave him. Well, the Yankees stole that idea and gave him a broken-bat rocking chair of their own. Their best gift, though, had to be the Waterford crystal replica of his glove, down to every last detail. That thing was absolutely beautiful. It ranks right up there with the coolest things he's received on this retirement tour.
As for that retirement tour, Cleveland set the bar pretty early with the "Enter Sandman" gold record (and Metallica giving him a personalized speaker case was pretty freakin' awesome too). Minnesota topped it with the broken bat rocking chair, and I also though what he was given in Texas was pretty cool. Not so much that they gave him a Stetson hat and personalized cowboy boots, but more that it was John Wetteland, the Yankees' closer before Mariano and now a Rangers executive, and Texas closer Joe Nathan, who pitched the ninth in the All-Star Game, who made the presentation. Same thing in San Diego, which has no significance, where the presentation was made by their future Hall of Fame closer Trevor Hoffman. I was also a pretty cool touch that the Giants gave him something, even though they were the road team, and San Francisco's gifts included a guitar signed by Willie Mays. Willie Freakin' Mays. The greatest living ballplayer.
But the cake goes to Boston. As much as the fans (and teams) dislike each other, there's a mutual respect between the Yankees and the Red Sox. Mariano Rivera is Exhibit A. His relationship with the Boston fans is unique to say the least, and he forever endeared himself to Red Sox Nation on Opening Day in 2005. It was so perfect that they gave him a painting of that moment. However, the coolest and classiest gift that he received during this entire farewell tour was the 42 placard from the Green Monster. They're never going to need it again, so he might as well have it. It was perfect. And Mariano expressed his appreciation by writing a goodbye message in the Fenway bullpen.
This year also featured an unexpected going-away present. Everyone knew that with the All-Star Game being held in Citi Field, Mariano was going to make one last All-Star appearance...in his home city. It was the only place other than Yankee Stadium where you could envision "Enter Sandman" blaring on the stadium speakers and the crowd going absolutely nuts! Then there was that standing ovation when he alone on the field. It didn't even matter that he came in an inning early. What was the only way to cap the night? Giving him the crystal bat as All-Star Game MVP.
That ranks as my favorite Mo-ment of the year, and one of the best of all-time. They've had a booth set up in the Great Hall of Yankee Stadium for the last few months where fans can record a goodbye message to Mariano. In my video, the All-Star Game was one of the two favorite Mo-ments I mentioned. The other, ironically, also took place at Citi Field. It was the night he picked up his 500th save, but that's not why. He came in during the eighth inning, and when the Yankees rallied in the top of the ninth he ended up having to bat. And he drew a bases loaded walk for his first career RBI!
Sure, there have been plenty of other Mo-ments that we were privileged to watch over the years. The sheer relief/ecstasy he showed while collapsing next to the mound after Aaron Boone's homer in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS. The ovation he received during the 2008 All-Star Game at the Old Stadium. Making the final pitch at the Old Stadium. The four World Series-clinching outs, none sweeter than 2009. The all-time record save, of course.
All this and so much more are why his ticket to Cooperstown is already punched, and why I'll be there right beside those thousands of other Yankees fans five years from now. I have to admit, it'll be weird to go into the ninth inning without knowing the outcome is already determined. Or seeing that bullpen gate swing open to the sound of "Enter Sandman." Just like hearing "Enter Sandman" will always make me think of Mariano Rivera.
I went to the game on Friday night. All I wanted was one last opportunity to see Mariano pitch live. To see the all-time greatest do his thing one more time. It's rare that you know you're watching a legend at work. Fifty years from now, I'll be able to tell my grandchildren stories of the great Mariano Rivera the same way my grandpa told me stories about Mickey Mantle. It's been more than a privilege to watch Mariano pitch all these years. It's been an absolute honor.
We've got a week left to enjoy and appreciate that greatness. Then it's Exit Sandman. And, as the song says, "Off to Never Neverland."
There were so many touching elements during the ceremony. It was especially poignant to see Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti, the Yankees' former saves leader, come out to greet him. I'm not sure if they picked the Giants because it was a Sunday or so Righetti could be there, but it was a nice touch nonetheless. Mariano's relationship with Rachel Robinson is also a beautiful thing. He fully appreciates being the final player in Major League history to wear No. 42 and has always been mindful of its significance. For her part, Rachel Robinson respects Mariano Rivera as a person and everything he represents. It's a fitting connection, and it just felt right to have her be a part of the ceremony.
And of course, he was given some more gifts. I really don't know where he's going to put all this stuff he's been given by all of the different teams the Yankees have played this season. One of the best coming into Sunday was the "Chair of Broken Dreams" made of broken bats that the Twins gave him. Well, the Yankees stole that idea and gave him a broken-bat rocking chair of their own. Their best gift, though, had to be the Waterford crystal replica of his glove, down to every last detail. That thing was absolutely beautiful. It ranks right up there with the coolest things he's received on this retirement tour.
As for that retirement tour, Cleveland set the bar pretty early with the "Enter Sandman" gold record (and Metallica giving him a personalized speaker case was pretty freakin' awesome too). Minnesota topped it with the broken bat rocking chair, and I also though what he was given in Texas was pretty cool. Not so much that they gave him a Stetson hat and personalized cowboy boots, but more that it was John Wetteland, the Yankees' closer before Mariano and now a Rangers executive, and Texas closer Joe Nathan, who pitched the ninth in the All-Star Game, who made the presentation. Same thing in San Diego, which has no significance, where the presentation was made by their future Hall of Fame closer Trevor Hoffman. I was also a pretty cool touch that the Giants gave him something, even though they were the road team, and San Francisco's gifts included a guitar signed by Willie Mays. Willie Freakin' Mays. The greatest living ballplayer.
But the cake goes to Boston. As much as the fans (and teams) dislike each other, there's a mutual respect between the Yankees and the Red Sox. Mariano Rivera is Exhibit A. His relationship with the Boston fans is unique to say the least, and he forever endeared himself to Red Sox Nation on Opening Day in 2005. It was so perfect that they gave him a painting of that moment. However, the coolest and classiest gift that he received during this entire farewell tour was the 42 placard from the Green Monster. They're never going to need it again, so he might as well have it. It was perfect. And Mariano expressed his appreciation by writing a goodbye message in the Fenway bullpen.
This year also featured an unexpected going-away present. Everyone knew that with the All-Star Game being held in Citi Field, Mariano was going to make one last All-Star appearance...in his home city. It was the only place other than Yankee Stadium where you could envision "Enter Sandman" blaring on the stadium speakers and the crowd going absolutely nuts! Then there was that standing ovation when he alone on the field. It didn't even matter that he came in an inning early. What was the only way to cap the night? Giving him the crystal bat as All-Star Game MVP.
That ranks as my favorite Mo-ment of the year, and one of the best of all-time. They've had a booth set up in the Great Hall of Yankee Stadium for the last few months where fans can record a goodbye message to Mariano. In my video, the All-Star Game was one of the two favorite Mo-ments I mentioned. The other, ironically, also took place at Citi Field. It was the night he picked up his 500th save, but that's not why. He came in during the eighth inning, and when the Yankees rallied in the top of the ninth he ended up having to bat. And he drew a bases loaded walk for his first career RBI!
Sure, there have been plenty of other Mo-ments that we were privileged to watch over the years. The sheer relief/ecstasy he showed while collapsing next to the mound after Aaron Boone's homer in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS. The ovation he received during the 2008 All-Star Game at the Old Stadium. Making the final pitch at the Old Stadium. The four World Series-clinching outs, none sweeter than 2009. The all-time record save, of course.
All this and so much more are why his ticket to Cooperstown is already punched, and why I'll be there right beside those thousands of other Yankees fans five years from now. I have to admit, it'll be weird to go into the ninth inning without knowing the outcome is already determined. Or seeing that bullpen gate swing open to the sound of "Enter Sandman." Just like hearing "Enter Sandman" will always make me think of Mariano Rivera.
I went to the game on Friday night. All I wanted was one last opportunity to see Mariano pitch live. To see the all-time greatest do his thing one more time. It's rare that you know you're watching a legend at work. Fifty years from now, I'll be able to tell my grandchildren stories of the great Mariano Rivera the same way my grandpa told me stories about Mickey Mantle. It's been more than a privilege to watch Mariano pitch all these years. It's been an absolute honor.
We've got a week left to enjoy and appreciate that greatness. Then it's Exit Sandman. And, as the song says, "Off to Never Neverland."
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Week 3 NFL Picks
If you're like me and do your picks on Yahoo!, look at the percentages for some of this week's matchups. I don't think I've ever seen a 99-1 before, and this week there are two! And the crazy part is neither one surprises me. In addition to Seattle-Jacksonville and Denver-Oakland, there are two 96-4's, a 95-5 and a 93-7. There's even an 82-18 in favor of the underdog Giants. I've never seen so many matchups where the confidence in one team is so high in the same week. Which means a lot of my picks for this week will be the same as many, many others.
Packers (1-1) at Bengals (1-1): Green Bay-The Bengals got the win in dominating fashion over Pittsburgh on Monday night, but I'm not entirely sure if that says more about Cincinnati or Pittsburgh. Anyway, they get another test this week as the Packers come to town. Green Bay sure recovered from that loss to San Francisco in Week 1. They beat the Redskins by 18 in a game that wasn't even that close. That was an utter beat down from the start. I think it's safe to say Aaron Rodgers got his mojo back. And it's also safe to say that Andy Dalton is no Aaron Rodgers. Packers win.
Rams (1-1) at Cowboys (1-1): Dallas-Still not sure what to make of Dallas. The Giants tried to literally hand them the game and they only barely won, then they go and lose to Kansas City (although, I, for one, am getting higher and higher on the Chiefs). I was also really impressed with the way the Rams played in Atlanta. St. Louis has a real chance to be a spoiler this season. But this week, I'm going to take Dallas.
Chargers (1-1) at Titans (1-1): Tennessee-Let's be honest. The Titans should be 2-0. And the most impressive thing about their start is that both of their games so far have been on the road. The Chargers don't like 1:00 starts, but they pulled one off last weekend in Philadelphia and provided the rest of the NFL with the template on how to slow down the Eagles' offense in the process. I'm not sure San Diego wins two 1:00 games in a row, though. Especially against an overachieving Titans team in its home opener.
Browns (0-2) at Vikings (0-2): Minnesota-Who trades their best player (for nothing!) two games into the season? No, the Trent Richardson trade still doesn't make any sense to me. Unless the Browns felt they had to somehow get worse, make their fans even more miserable, and bring more attention to the Indians' pursuit of the AL wild card. The fact that they're playing the Vikings in Minnesota's home opener seems like a side note. Of course the Vikings are the pick. The chances of my picking Cleveland at any point from now until the end of the season aren't very good.
Buccaneers (0-2) at Patriots (2-0): New England-This is the game where the Yahoo! breakdown was 93-7 New England. The Patriots haven't looked great, but they're 2-0 and that's really what matters. And they've had 10 days off since that win over the Jets last Thursday. It's been the opposite story for the Bucs. Tampa Bay is 0-2, but has lost both games by a combined three points and could've (probably should've) won both. This week's loss won't be as close.
Cardinals (1-1) at Saints (2-0): New Orleans-New Orleans still has some things to figure out, because the Saints aren't as good as they think they are. They should beat the Cardinals at home, though.
Lions (1-1) at Redskins (0-2): Washington-Speaking of teams that aren't as good as they think they are, how about the Washington Redskins? (By the way, I highly recommend Rick Reilly's current column about the Redskins' name controversy.) I think Washington simply needs to figure out how to play with Griffin limited, but the Redskins were embarrassed last week at Lambeau. The good news is that they've got Detroit this week, so if they're able to keep RG3 on his feet, the Redskisn should be able to get their first win.
Giants (0-2) at Panthers (0-2): Giants-The Giants have a lot of problems. I'll be the first one to admit it. We were saying that last year, too, when they went into Charlotte on a Thursday night in Week 3 and absolutely destroyed the Panthers. I'm not saying that'll definitely happen again, but the Giants are probably treating this like a virtual must-win, especially with a trip to Kansas City next week. Eli Manning isn't as bad as he's looked in the first two weeks. The Panther defense has fallen apart at the end of the game twice in two games. I like his chances to straighten it out against Carolina.
Texans (2-0) at Ravens (1-1): Baltimore-The national early game matches two division winners from last season. I've really been impressed with the Texans this season. They didn't play their best in either game, and they've trailed in the fourth quarter of both. Yet they've completed two fourth quarter/overtime comebacks and are 2-0. And you've gotta think Houston's only going to get better. Same thing with the Ravens, who were embarrassed in Denver, then barely beat the Browns last week. But Joe Flacco's wife won't be having a baby just before the game starts this week, so you have to figure he'll be a little less distracted. Houston's the favorite, which surprised me. I guess that means I'm taking the underdog.
Falcons (1-1) at Dolphins (2-0): Atlanta-The third team playing its home opener in Week 3 is 2-0 Miami, who might finally give New England a challenge in the AFC East. And last week's win was the one that showed me a lot. They went into Indy, held off Andrew Luck's trademarked fourth-quarter comeback, and beat the Colts. Atlanta's the better team, though, and has the Patriots next week. This might be a bit of a trap game, but I don't think it will be.
Bills (1-1) at Jets (1-1): Buffalo-The Bills have also surprised me with how well they've played this season. E.J. Manuel looks like the real deal. A last-second loss to New England followed by a game-winning touchdown on the last play against Carolina. Since we've last seen the New York Jets, they've graduated to the fourth-worst team in the AFC, since Cleveland has pulled a Miami Marlins on everybody. Whoever wins here will believe they have a chance to be a real contender. Of the two, the only one that's true about is Buffalo. As a result, I'm going Bills.
Colts (1-1) at 49ers (1-1): San Francisco-Andrew Luck returns to the Bay Area, where he's reunited with Jim Harbaugh. And, oh yeah, the Colts have suddenly gotten significantly better since losing to the Dolphins last week. They have a running game now. Has Trent Richardson had enough time to engrain himself into that offense? Well, we'll find out. Likewise, how will the 49ers bounce back after their now-annual waxing in Seattle? I think just fine. Luck vs. Kaepernick should go the way of the dude with the tattoos. (Surprisingly, this is a 95-5 on Yahoo!)
Jaguars (0-2) at Seahawks (2-0): Seattle-This is one of those aforementioned 99-1's. The Seahawks have scheduled Jacksonville for their Homecoming Game. My only questions surrounding this game are: Did the Jaguars go back to Jacksonville or just stay on the West Coast? (My guess is the latter.) How long will the Seahawks' starters play? And, what will the margin of victory be? (Can they get to 70 like all those college teams on Saturday?)
Bears (2-0) at Steelers (0-2): Chicago-Pittsburgh's really in trouble. Where has the Steelers offense gone? It's very realistic that they could head to London 0-3, making this one an absolute must-win. But this is a different Bears team than we've seen in the past. They can score now. Both of their wins came in Chicago and this is their first road game, but I don't think that necessarily matters. Besides, they're helped by the fact they're playing a Sunday night game in Pittsburgh, which should give them similar weather. Hopefully we finally get a good one on NBC. I'll say Chicago wins a close game.
Raiders (1-1) at Broncos (2-0): Denver-There's an appliance store in Denver that's giving away stuff for free if the Broncos shut the Raiders out. Maybe they should change it to if the Broncos score 50 points, because they almost did it against the Ravens and against the Giants, so putting up half a century on the Raiders isn't a stretch at all. Oakland does have a win. But that's primarily because they're less bad than Jacksonville.
Last Week: 12-4
This Week: 0-1
Season: 22-11
Packers (1-1) at Bengals (1-1): Green Bay-The Bengals got the win in dominating fashion over Pittsburgh on Monday night, but I'm not entirely sure if that says more about Cincinnati or Pittsburgh. Anyway, they get another test this week as the Packers come to town. Green Bay sure recovered from that loss to San Francisco in Week 1. They beat the Redskins by 18 in a game that wasn't even that close. That was an utter beat down from the start. I think it's safe to say Aaron Rodgers got his mojo back. And it's also safe to say that Andy Dalton is no Aaron Rodgers. Packers win.
Rams (1-1) at Cowboys (1-1): Dallas-Still not sure what to make of Dallas. The Giants tried to literally hand them the game and they only barely won, then they go and lose to Kansas City (although, I, for one, am getting higher and higher on the Chiefs). I was also really impressed with the way the Rams played in Atlanta. St. Louis has a real chance to be a spoiler this season. But this week, I'm going to take Dallas.
Chargers (1-1) at Titans (1-1): Tennessee-Let's be honest. The Titans should be 2-0. And the most impressive thing about their start is that both of their games so far have been on the road. The Chargers don't like 1:00 starts, but they pulled one off last weekend in Philadelphia and provided the rest of the NFL with the template on how to slow down the Eagles' offense in the process. I'm not sure San Diego wins two 1:00 games in a row, though. Especially against an overachieving Titans team in its home opener.
Browns (0-2) at Vikings (0-2): Minnesota-Who trades their best player (for nothing!) two games into the season? No, the Trent Richardson trade still doesn't make any sense to me. Unless the Browns felt they had to somehow get worse, make their fans even more miserable, and bring more attention to the Indians' pursuit of the AL wild card. The fact that they're playing the Vikings in Minnesota's home opener seems like a side note. Of course the Vikings are the pick. The chances of my picking Cleveland at any point from now until the end of the season aren't very good.
Buccaneers (0-2) at Patriots (2-0): New England-This is the game where the Yahoo! breakdown was 93-7 New England. The Patriots haven't looked great, but they're 2-0 and that's really what matters. And they've had 10 days off since that win over the Jets last Thursday. It's been the opposite story for the Bucs. Tampa Bay is 0-2, but has lost both games by a combined three points and could've (probably should've) won both. This week's loss won't be as close.
Cardinals (1-1) at Saints (2-0): New Orleans-New Orleans still has some things to figure out, because the Saints aren't as good as they think they are. They should beat the Cardinals at home, though.
Lions (1-1) at Redskins (0-2): Washington-Speaking of teams that aren't as good as they think they are, how about the Washington Redskins? (By the way, I highly recommend Rick Reilly's current column about the Redskins' name controversy.) I think Washington simply needs to figure out how to play with Griffin limited, but the Redskins were embarrassed last week at Lambeau. The good news is that they've got Detroit this week, so if they're able to keep RG3 on his feet, the Redskisn should be able to get their first win.
Giants (0-2) at Panthers (0-2): Giants-The Giants have a lot of problems. I'll be the first one to admit it. We were saying that last year, too, when they went into Charlotte on a Thursday night in Week 3 and absolutely destroyed the Panthers. I'm not saying that'll definitely happen again, but the Giants are probably treating this like a virtual must-win, especially with a trip to Kansas City next week. Eli Manning isn't as bad as he's looked in the first two weeks. The Panther defense has fallen apart at the end of the game twice in two games. I like his chances to straighten it out against Carolina.
Texans (2-0) at Ravens (1-1): Baltimore-The national early game matches two division winners from last season. I've really been impressed with the Texans this season. They didn't play their best in either game, and they've trailed in the fourth quarter of both. Yet they've completed two fourth quarter/overtime comebacks and are 2-0. And you've gotta think Houston's only going to get better. Same thing with the Ravens, who were embarrassed in Denver, then barely beat the Browns last week. But Joe Flacco's wife won't be having a baby just before the game starts this week, so you have to figure he'll be a little less distracted. Houston's the favorite, which surprised me. I guess that means I'm taking the underdog.
Falcons (1-1) at Dolphins (2-0): Atlanta-The third team playing its home opener in Week 3 is 2-0 Miami, who might finally give New England a challenge in the AFC East. And last week's win was the one that showed me a lot. They went into Indy, held off Andrew Luck's trademarked fourth-quarter comeback, and beat the Colts. Atlanta's the better team, though, and has the Patriots next week. This might be a bit of a trap game, but I don't think it will be.
Bills (1-1) at Jets (1-1): Buffalo-The Bills have also surprised me with how well they've played this season. E.J. Manuel looks like the real deal. A last-second loss to New England followed by a game-winning touchdown on the last play against Carolina. Since we've last seen the New York Jets, they've graduated to the fourth-worst team in the AFC, since Cleveland has pulled a Miami Marlins on everybody. Whoever wins here will believe they have a chance to be a real contender. Of the two, the only one that's true about is Buffalo. As a result, I'm going Bills.
Colts (1-1) at 49ers (1-1): San Francisco-Andrew Luck returns to the Bay Area, where he's reunited with Jim Harbaugh. And, oh yeah, the Colts have suddenly gotten significantly better since losing to the Dolphins last week. They have a running game now. Has Trent Richardson had enough time to engrain himself into that offense? Well, we'll find out. Likewise, how will the 49ers bounce back after their now-annual waxing in Seattle? I think just fine. Luck vs. Kaepernick should go the way of the dude with the tattoos. (Surprisingly, this is a 95-5 on Yahoo!)
Jaguars (0-2) at Seahawks (2-0): Seattle-This is one of those aforementioned 99-1's. The Seahawks have scheduled Jacksonville for their Homecoming Game. My only questions surrounding this game are: Did the Jaguars go back to Jacksonville or just stay on the West Coast? (My guess is the latter.) How long will the Seahawks' starters play? And, what will the margin of victory be? (Can they get to 70 like all those college teams on Saturday?)
Bears (2-0) at Steelers (0-2): Chicago-Pittsburgh's really in trouble. Where has the Steelers offense gone? It's very realistic that they could head to London 0-3, making this one an absolute must-win. But this is a different Bears team than we've seen in the past. They can score now. Both of their wins came in Chicago and this is their first road game, but I don't think that necessarily matters. Besides, they're helped by the fact they're playing a Sunday night game in Pittsburgh, which should give them similar weather. Hopefully we finally get a good one on NBC. I'll say Chicago wins a close game.
Raiders (1-1) at Broncos (2-0): Denver-There's an appliance store in Denver that's giving away stuff for free if the Broncos shut the Raiders out. Maybe they should change it to if the Broncos score 50 points, because they almost did it against the Ravens and against the Giants, so putting up half a century on the Raiders isn't a stretch at all. Oakland does have a win. But that's primarily because they're less bad than Jacksonville.
Last Week: 12-4
This Week: 0-1
Season: 22-11
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Two Wild Cards, One Race
When Bud Selig instituted the second wild card in each league last year, the intention wasn't terrible. He reasoning was somewhat logical. A second wild card team=more teams in the race=meaningful September baseball=more people buying tickets rather than thinking about football season. But in execution, this second wild card has certainly been less than ideal. This season is Exhibit A on what we've lost as a result of the additional wild card team.
More specifically, the second wild card has deprived us of a phenomenal pennant race in the NL Central. This late run by the Nationals notwithstanding, we've basically known the five National League playoff teams since the All-Star Break. So instead of knowing that one of those three teams in the Central was going to sit at home watching the postseason, the only drama in that race is seeing which one will win the division and advance directly to the Division Series.
The Pirates and Reds play each other this weekend and again next weekend. Sure, there's still going to be plenty of intensity, especially since the division title is still in play. But imagine if the Cardinals had a comfortable margin and those two were fighting for their playoff lives. Instead, all they're fighting for is which one gets to be the home team when and if they play again in the Wild Card Game. That's not quite the same.
Then there's the American League, where the second wild card is giving a whole bunch of false hope to a whole lot of teams. Entering play today, there were six teams within 3.5 games of the two American League wild cards. In that respect, the second wild card has achieved its intended purpose. But fans of the Yankees, Orioles, Indians and Royals are delusional if they think their team would have any chance of getting past the one-and-done of the Wild Card Game, let alone beating the Tigers or Red Sox.
One of those teams might actually sneak into the playoffs only because the Rangers and/or Rays handed it to them. I can't really say any of them has played particularly inspiring baseball this month (and that includes Texas and Tampa Bay). Yet we're going to end up with not one, but two mediocre playoff teams that have 88-89 wins. It's not exactly as if the quality of this pennant race has been improved by the inclusion of several teams that have absolutely no chance.
At least the AL is giving us what Bud intended. All kinds of teams are playing meaningful games in September. Except we'd have a meaningful race even if there were fewer teams involved. What's been lost in this whole struggle, partially because they've both been trying to give it away, partially because there are so many lesser teams trying to catch them, is that Tampa Bay and Texas are engaged in a pretty intense struggle. The Rangers-Rays race is going to go down to the wire. It would anyway even if all these other teams weren't in the mix.
I've never been a fan of the second wild card, and this season is a prime example as to why. What could've been a great NL race is completely nonexistent because there's nobody else even close, so they're all going to make the playoffs anyway. Meanwhile, the AL race has been completely watered down by the presence of these four mediocre teams. Whoever "wins" is going to back into a berth because the others managed to play worse down the stretch. Not exactly the type of run that carried the 2007 Rockies all the way to the World Series.
Last year, both road teams won the Wild Card Games. In fact, the Orioles took the Yankees to five in the Division Series and the Cardinals took a 3-1 lead in the NLCS before the Giants came back and eventually won seven straight, including a World Series sweep.
So, I guess, in a way that justified the existence of the second wild card in its very first year of existence. But was it necessary? I'm still going with "No." And has it achieved all of its intended purposes? I've gotta go with "No" again. Because the second wild card has done nothing to enhance this year's playoff races. But if there was only one? Oh man! Those races would've been awesome!
More specifically, the second wild card has deprived us of a phenomenal pennant race in the NL Central. This late run by the Nationals notwithstanding, we've basically known the five National League playoff teams since the All-Star Break. So instead of knowing that one of those three teams in the Central was going to sit at home watching the postseason, the only drama in that race is seeing which one will win the division and advance directly to the Division Series.
The Pirates and Reds play each other this weekend and again next weekend. Sure, there's still going to be plenty of intensity, especially since the division title is still in play. But imagine if the Cardinals had a comfortable margin and those two were fighting for their playoff lives. Instead, all they're fighting for is which one gets to be the home team when and if they play again in the Wild Card Game. That's not quite the same.
Then there's the American League, where the second wild card is giving a whole bunch of false hope to a whole lot of teams. Entering play today, there were six teams within 3.5 games of the two American League wild cards. In that respect, the second wild card has achieved its intended purpose. But fans of the Yankees, Orioles, Indians and Royals are delusional if they think their team would have any chance of getting past the one-and-done of the Wild Card Game, let alone beating the Tigers or Red Sox.
One of those teams might actually sneak into the playoffs only because the Rangers and/or Rays handed it to them. I can't really say any of them has played particularly inspiring baseball this month (and that includes Texas and Tampa Bay). Yet we're going to end up with not one, but two mediocre playoff teams that have 88-89 wins. It's not exactly as if the quality of this pennant race has been improved by the inclusion of several teams that have absolutely no chance.
At least the AL is giving us what Bud intended. All kinds of teams are playing meaningful games in September. Except we'd have a meaningful race even if there were fewer teams involved. What's been lost in this whole struggle, partially because they've both been trying to give it away, partially because there are so many lesser teams trying to catch them, is that Tampa Bay and Texas are engaged in a pretty intense struggle. The Rangers-Rays race is going to go down to the wire. It would anyway even if all these other teams weren't in the mix.
I've never been a fan of the second wild card, and this season is a prime example as to why. What could've been a great NL race is completely nonexistent because there's nobody else even close, so they're all going to make the playoffs anyway. Meanwhile, the AL race has been completely watered down by the presence of these four mediocre teams. Whoever "wins" is going to back into a berth because the others managed to play worse down the stretch. Not exactly the type of run that carried the 2007 Rockies all the way to the World Series.
Last year, both road teams won the Wild Card Games. In fact, the Orioles took the Yankees to five in the Division Series and the Cardinals took a 3-1 lead in the NLCS before the Giants came back and eventually won seven straight, including a World Series sweep.
So, I guess, in a way that justified the existence of the second wild card in its very first year of existence. But was it necessary? I'm still going with "No." And has it achieved all of its intended purposes? I've gotta go with "No" again. Because the second wild card has done nothing to enhance this year's playoff races. But if there was only one? Oh man! Those races would've been awesome!
Monday, September 16, 2013
The Transfer Solution
There's been much confusion about the NCAA's transfer rules in recent weeks. In fact, you can trace it back a few years. Because every year there are tons of players who want to transfer and ask for an exemption that would allow them to play for their new school right away. Some are granted, some are denied. The whole process, though, is completely ambiguous and arbitrary. And that's the problem.
First, a clarification on the rule I'm talking about. The long-standing NCAA rule was that, with fex exceptions, student-athletes had to sit out a year if they transferred from one Division I school to another. Eventually parts of this rule were amended, allowing student-athletes in non-revenue sports to transfer and still play right away, so long as they hadn't transferred before. This is known as the "first-time transfer" rule. There's also the "graduate transfer" rule, which lets student-athletes who graduate but still have eligibility to go somewhere else for graduate school and play there, as long as they enroll in a graduate program that isn't offered at their previous school. Student-athletes are also, obviously, allowed to transfer and play right away if their previous school dropped the sport.
In football and men's basketball, however, the first-time transfer rule doesn't apply (the graduate transfer rule still does). Regardless of how long they've been at a school, they have to sit out a year. The reason doesn't matter. Except, sometimes it does. The way around the transfer rule that more and more players/coaches are trying to utilize is the "hardship waiver." If you have a family member who has a medical condition and you want to transfer to a school closer to home, you can apply for a "hardship waiver," which would let you play immediately if granted. Although, there's no guarantee it'll be granted.
Are you confused yet? That's alright, so is everybody else. The transfer system is incredibly complex and, despite the NCAA's best efforts, difficult to understand. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to why some requests are granted and others aren't. That's why the system needs to be changed.
A few examples to illustrate the inconsistent nature of these transfer requests. Alex Oriakhi was the center on UConn's national championship team in 2012. Last year, UConn was ineligible for the NCAA Tournament because of low APR scores, so Oriakhi transferred to Missouri. Since it was his senior year and his previous school was ineligible for postseason play, Oriakhi was allowed to play for Missouri (this same rule applies to anybody who leaves a school that receives a postseason ban as part of an NCAA penalty). But Rakeem Buckles, who transferred from Florida International to Minnesota this year was denied his request, even though it's the same situation. He's a senior and Florida International is ineligible for postseason (although his situation is a little more complicated because he previously transferred from Louisville to Florida International). Meanwhile, his FIU teammate Malik Smith also transferred to Minnesota, and WILL be eligible to play for the Gophers this season. See what I mean?
Then there's Kerwin Okoro. He's originally from New York and decided to transfer from Iowa State to Rutgers after the death of two family members in a short period. This seems like a pretty clear-cut case. Cases like this are why the hardship waiver exists. Except the NCAA denied him a hardship waiver. It was only on appeal that they reversed course and declared him eligible for Rutgers this season. They deny his request, yet approve hardship waivers under circumstances that are sometimes questionable at best? (Sometimes the guy's just unhappy and wants to leave.)
According to the NCAA, 40 percent of basketball players will transfer at least once, a ridiculously high number. (And that doesn't even take into account guys who leave school early for the NBA.) I'm not going to pretend I know the reasons why these players decide they want to transfer, but that statistic is definitely alarming. That's another reason why the transfer rules need to be streamlined. It's almost too easy to transfer sometimes. Especially if there's a possibility you can get a hardship waiver (no matter how legitimate the reason you ask for one) and play somewhere else right away.
The NCAA has taken notice, and so have the coaches. Mike Krzyzewski, probably one of the most influential people in the sport, would prefer it if there were no exceptions at all. You transfer, you sit out a year. Period. "Everybody should have to sit out, that includes a fifth-year player, just to make it equal. It's a farce really," he said. Although, it also sounds like Coach K would be fine with nobody having to sit out: "Giving certain kids the right to play and others not the right to play, it should be done the same. If they want to let everybody play right away, then let everybody play right away. Everybody should be treated the same. I don't understand why there are exceptions to this rule."
Basically, it sounds like Coach K just wants things to be consistent. And I agree with him. I don't think transfers should be allowed to play right away (unless they're graduate students or they're like Oriakhi and transferring because the school they're leaving has no postseason eligibility for the duration of their collegiate career). It might sound harsh, but at least it's clear and consistent. That way, too, it's out of the NCAA's hands to determine whose "hardship" is more legitimate than somebody else's. It would also make the system much fairer for all.
First, a clarification on the rule I'm talking about. The long-standing NCAA rule was that, with fex exceptions, student-athletes had to sit out a year if they transferred from one Division I school to another. Eventually parts of this rule were amended, allowing student-athletes in non-revenue sports to transfer and still play right away, so long as they hadn't transferred before. This is known as the "first-time transfer" rule. There's also the "graduate transfer" rule, which lets student-athletes who graduate but still have eligibility to go somewhere else for graduate school and play there, as long as they enroll in a graduate program that isn't offered at their previous school. Student-athletes are also, obviously, allowed to transfer and play right away if their previous school dropped the sport.
In football and men's basketball, however, the first-time transfer rule doesn't apply (the graduate transfer rule still does). Regardless of how long they've been at a school, they have to sit out a year. The reason doesn't matter. Except, sometimes it does. The way around the transfer rule that more and more players/coaches are trying to utilize is the "hardship waiver." If you have a family member who has a medical condition and you want to transfer to a school closer to home, you can apply for a "hardship waiver," which would let you play immediately if granted. Although, there's no guarantee it'll be granted.
Are you confused yet? That's alright, so is everybody else. The transfer system is incredibly complex and, despite the NCAA's best efforts, difficult to understand. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to why some requests are granted and others aren't. That's why the system needs to be changed.
A few examples to illustrate the inconsistent nature of these transfer requests. Alex Oriakhi was the center on UConn's national championship team in 2012. Last year, UConn was ineligible for the NCAA Tournament because of low APR scores, so Oriakhi transferred to Missouri. Since it was his senior year and his previous school was ineligible for postseason play, Oriakhi was allowed to play for Missouri (this same rule applies to anybody who leaves a school that receives a postseason ban as part of an NCAA penalty). But Rakeem Buckles, who transferred from Florida International to Minnesota this year was denied his request, even though it's the same situation. He's a senior and Florida International is ineligible for postseason (although his situation is a little more complicated because he previously transferred from Louisville to Florida International). Meanwhile, his FIU teammate Malik Smith also transferred to Minnesota, and WILL be eligible to play for the Gophers this season. See what I mean?
Then there's Kerwin Okoro. He's originally from New York and decided to transfer from Iowa State to Rutgers after the death of two family members in a short period. This seems like a pretty clear-cut case. Cases like this are why the hardship waiver exists. Except the NCAA denied him a hardship waiver. It was only on appeal that they reversed course and declared him eligible for Rutgers this season. They deny his request, yet approve hardship waivers under circumstances that are sometimes questionable at best? (Sometimes the guy's just unhappy and wants to leave.)
According to the NCAA, 40 percent of basketball players will transfer at least once, a ridiculously high number. (And that doesn't even take into account guys who leave school early for the NBA.) I'm not going to pretend I know the reasons why these players decide they want to transfer, but that statistic is definitely alarming. That's another reason why the transfer rules need to be streamlined. It's almost too easy to transfer sometimes. Especially if there's a possibility you can get a hardship waiver (no matter how legitimate the reason you ask for one) and play somewhere else right away.
The NCAA has taken notice, and so have the coaches. Mike Krzyzewski, probably one of the most influential people in the sport, would prefer it if there were no exceptions at all. You transfer, you sit out a year. Period. "Everybody should have to sit out, that includes a fifth-year player, just to make it equal. It's a farce really," he said. Although, it also sounds like Coach K would be fine with nobody having to sit out: "Giving certain kids the right to play and others not the right to play, it should be done the same. If they want to let everybody play right away, then let everybody play right away. Everybody should be treated the same. I don't understand why there are exceptions to this rule."
Basically, it sounds like Coach K just wants things to be consistent. And I agree with him. I don't think transfers should be allowed to play right away (unless they're graduate students or they're like Oriakhi and transferring because the school they're leaving has no postseason eligibility for the duration of their collegiate career). It might sound harsh, but at least it's clear and consistent. That way, too, it's out of the NCAA's hands to determine whose "hardship" is more legitimate than somebody else's. It would also make the system much fairer for all.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Week 2 NFL Picks
There were some upsets in Week 1. As a result, I only went 10-6. Not bad, but certainly not as good as I was hoping for, either. And it could've been worse if not for those late field goals by the Patriots and Texans. Besides, 10-6 is still completely respectable while also leaving room for plenty of improvement throughout the season.
My survival league has also gotten a little too close for comfort. My Week 1 pick was Colts over Raiders. Indy only won by four, and that was only after Andrew Luck's late touchdown run. This week I went with Patriots over Jets. That one worked out too, but a three-point game is certainly much closer than anyone was expecting. A win's a win, though. Right? And hey, at least I'm already 1-0 this week. As for the rest of the games...
Rams (1-0) at Falcons (0-1): Atlanta-I've gotta say I'm impressed with the Rams. I think they've got an outside shot at the playoffs. Of course, they were playing Arizona, though. As for the Falcons, yes they lost. But losing to the Saints by just six points in New Orleans isn't a bad result. The Falcons are still one of the best teams in the NFC. Playing on their home turf for the first time since the NFC Championship Game, Atlanta goes back to looking like Atlanta.
Panthers (0-1) at Bills (0-1): Buffalo-Both of these two were heavy underdogs at home against playoff teams last week...and they both almost pulled it out. Considering they were starting a rookie quarterback and how badly the Patriots have owned them over the past decade, Buffalo's effort might've been a little more impressive. Not to take anything away from the Panthers, though. Limiting Seattle to 12 points and holding the lead for most of the game was pretty good, too. So, coming off of those two showings, I think this is going to be a pretty competitive contest between two equally-matched teams. But with the Buffalo weather and that unfamiliar setting to the Panthers, I'm going with the Bills.
Vikings (0-1) at Bears (1-0): Chicago-The Bears brought in Mark Trestman because they wanted the offense to be better. After Week 1, it's so far, so good. Nice win over the Bengals, a playoff team last season, last week. The Vikings played the Lions and got a 76-yard TD run from Adrian Peterson on their first play, then little else, not helping disprove my theory that Minnesota is AP and nothing else. And after this week, the Vikings will be 0-2 with a pair of road division losses.
Redskins (0-1) at Packers (0-1): Green Bay-One of the most anticipated games of the week brings RG3 and Co. into Lambeau in a matchup of division champions from last season. Not exactly the easiest start for the Packers after traveling to San Francisco in the opener. Even though they're coming off a trip to the West Coast, they still had the extra day to prepare. And, as the Redskins showed on Monday night, they're not as good if Griffin isn't capable of doing everything he can do. Aaron Rodgers still has all of his powers, so I'm taking Green Bay.
Dolphins (1-0) at Colts (1-0): Indianapolis-Andrew Luck is certainly establishing a little reputation for himself, isn't he? The Colts are never out of a game that's close in the fourth quarter. I think the Dolphins are in good shape with Ryan Tannehill, too. They looked really impressive in Cleveland last week. However, the Colts are a better team than the Browns and Andrew Luck's a much better quarterback than Brandon Weedon.
Cowboys (1-0) at Chiefs (1-0): Dallas-Before all the Cowboys get all excited about that season-opening win over the Giants, let me provide a reality check. The Giants turned the ball over six times and still almost won (if it had been only five turnovers, they probably would've). And Tony Romo took quite a shot in the second quarter. This week, the Cowboys hit the road to visit their old friend Andy Reid, who got his Chiefs career off to a winning start because he was given the gift of playing Jacksonville in Week 1. It'll be close, but I think Dallas wins this one. Not really sure why.
Chargers (0-1) at Eagles (1-0): Philadelphia-Neither team has the advantage in terms of rest here. They both played on Monday night. Except San Diego's flying cross country and playing a 1:00 game against an offense that's going to try to run about 100 plays. The high-flying Eagles were able to use their pace to tire out Washington. I suspect things won't be any different with an already-fatigued Chargers team.
Browns (0-1) at Ravens (0-1): Baltimore-The bad news for Baltimore: Peyton Manning was treating their defense like he was still at Tennessee and playing Eastern Kentucky, they've had 10 days to think about it, and they got the worst beatdown a defending Super Bowl champion has ever gotten in its opener to fall below .500 for the first time in John Harbaugh's tenure. Now for the good news: things probably can't get any worse, they're on extra rest going into their home opener, and said home opener is against Cleveland. Oh yeah, they get to raise a banner, too.
Titans (1-0) at Texans (1-0): Houston-Did anybody see that Titans win in Pittsburgh coming? Tennessee wins the award for most pleasant surprise of Week 1. The Texans, meanwhile, escaped in San Diego on Monday night. They didn't play well, on the road, were down the entire game, yet still found a way to win. Even though it was just Week 1, that's the type of character-building win that Houston will be able to look back on later in the season. Since the Texans are much better than the Steelers, I don't see the Titans pulling off another road win this week.
Lions (1-0) at Cardinals (0-1): Arizona-When is Ndamukong Suh going to realize that he can't play the game like that? Whether or not he's actually a dirty player is irrelevant. The perception is that he is, and it's on him to either make adjustments or continue getting fined/suspended. Now that I've got that off my chest, Suh and his defensive buddies did a nice job stopping the Vikings' offense last week. Arizona lost in St. Louis, but already looks much more formidable than last year. And Bruce Arians' home debut should be a successful one.
Saints (1-0) at Buccaneers (0-1): New Orleans-How did the Bucs lose to the Jets last week? I saw the end of the game, so I know exactly how. I just still can't believe it. Talk about a stupid penalty! The Saints want to own the NFC South this year. While I'm not sure about that, a 2-0 start with a pair of division wins, including one over Atlanta, will go a long way towards at least a playoff berth.
Jaguars (0-1) at Raiders (0-1): Oakland-Thanks, NFL. Fortunately for everyone in the nation that doesn't live in the Bay Area or Northeastern Florida, the rest of the country gets the Manning Bowl. The loser gets the inside track in the Jadaveon Clowney Sweepstakes. And seeing as Jacksonville managed only a measly safety in Week 1, I'm not overly optimistic about what the Jaguars' offense will be able to do on the road.
Broncos (1-0) at Giants (0-1): Denver-Manning Bowl III. Peyton had a pretty good game last week, huh? Eli? Not so much. The Giants can ill-afford an 0-2 start, but that's what they're staring at after losing last week. And the running game is a mess. That's why Brandon Jacobs, who immediately steps back into the starting role, was brought back during the week. Despite six turnovers and that Dallas pass rush, Eli almost won last week. Except Denver's defense is better than Dallas's. And they're on extra rest. And Big Brother isn't Tony Romo. Not to mention the fact that the Broncos' confidence is, pardon the pun, a mile high right now. Peyton's 2-0 all-time against Eli. Make that 3-0.
49ers (1-0) at Seahawks (1-0): Seattle-Undercover cops are dressing as 49ers fans and sitting in the stands to hopefully keep the crowd from getting too crazy. So it is with the NFL's new big rivalry. You've got two of the best teams in the league playing a Week 2 game that could have major implications on the division race. We all know what happened when they played on a Sunday night in Seattle last season. The Seahawks, in fact, went 8-0 at home in 2012, the only team in the NFL to do so. Seattle's a tough place to play, and an even tougher place to win. Until the Seahawks actually lose at Century Link Field, you'd have to be a fool to think they will.
Steelers (0-1) at Bengals (0-1): Pittsburgh-Was any team more disappointing last weekend than Pittsburgh? Did the Steelers offense think it was still the preseason? I'm much more willing to give the Bengals a pass for their loss because they played well against a good Bears team in Chicago. Common sense and logic both dictate that I should go with Cincinnati. Yet I'm taking the Steelers. Maybe it's because I've got Pirates fever.
Last Week: 10-6
This Week: 1-0
Season: 11-6
My survival league has also gotten a little too close for comfort. My Week 1 pick was Colts over Raiders. Indy only won by four, and that was only after Andrew Luck's late touchdown run. This week I went with Patriots over Jets. That one worked out too, but a three-point game is certainly much closer than anyone was expecting. A win's a win, though. Right? And hey, at least I'm already 1-0 this week. As for the rest of the games...
Rams (1-0) at Falcons (0-1): Atlanta-I've gotta say I'm impressed with the Rams. I think they've got an outside shot at the playoffs. Of course, they were playing Arizona, though. As for the Falcons, yes they lost. But losing to the Saints by just six points in New Orleans isn't a bad result. The Falcons are still one of the best teams in the NFC. Playing on their home turf for the first time since the NFC Championship Game, Atlanta goes back to looking like Atlanta.
Panthers (0-1) at Bills (0-1): Buffalo-Both of these two were heavy underdogs at home against playoff teams last week...and they both almost pulled it out. Considering they were starting a rookie quarterback and how badly the Patriots have owned them over the past decade, Buffalo's effort might've been a little more impressive. Not to take anything away from the Panthers, though. Limiting Seattle to 12 points and holding the lead for most of the game was pretty good, too. So, coming off of those two showings, I think this is going to be a pretty competitive contest between two equally-matched teams. But with the Buffalo weather and that unfamiliar setting to the Panthers, I'm going with the Bills.
Vikings (0-1) at Bears (1-0): Chicago-The Bears brought in Mark Trestman because they wanted the offense to be better. After Week 1, it's so far, so good. Nice win over the Bengals, a playoff team last season, last week. The Vikings played the Lions and got a 76-yard TD run from Adrian Peterson on their first play, then little else, not helping disprove my theory that Minnesota is AP and nothing else. And after this week, the Vikings will be 0-2 with a pair of road division losses.
Redskins (0-1) at Packers (0-1): Green Bay-One of the most anticipated games of the week brings RG3 and Co. into Lambeau in a matchup of division champions from last season. Not exactly the easiest start for the Packers after traveling to San Francisco in the opener. Even though they're coming off a trip to the West Coast, they still had the extra day to prepare. And, as the Redskins showed on Monday night, they're not as good if Griffin isn't capable of doing everything he can do. Aaron Rodgers still has all of his powers, so I'm taking Green Bay.
Dolphins (1-0) at Colts (1-0): Indianapolis-Andrew Luck is certainly establishing a little reputation for himself, isn't he? The Colts are never out of a game that's close in the fourth quarter. I think the Dolphins are in good shape with Ryan Tannehill, too. They looked really impressive in Cleveland last week. However, the Colts are a better team than the Browns and Andrew Luck's a much better quarterback than Brandon Weedon.
Cowboys (1-0) at Chiefs (1-0): Dallas-Before all the Cowboys get all excited about that season-opening win over the Giants, let me provide a reality check. The Giants turned the ball over six times and still almost won (if it had been only five turnovers, they probably would've). And Tony Romo took quite a shot in the second quarter. This week, the Cowboys hit the road to visit their old friend Andy Reid, who got his Chiefs career off to a winning start because he was given the gift of playing Jacksonville in Week 1. It'll be close, but I think Dallas wins this one. Not really sure why.
Chargers (0-1) at Eagles (1-0): Philadelphia-Neither team has the advantage in terms of rest here. They both played on Monday night. Except San Diego's flying cross country and playing a 1:00 game against an offense that's going to try to run about 100 plays. The high-flying Eagles were able to use their pace to tire out Washington. I suspect things won't be any different with an already-fatigued Chargers team.
Browns (0-1) at Ravens (0-1): Baltimore-The bad news for Baltimore: Peyton Manning was treating their defense like he was still at Tennessee and playing Eastern Kentucky, they've had 10 days to think about it, and they got the worst beatdown a defending Super Bowl champion has ever gotten in its opener to fall below .500 for the first time in John Harbaugh's tenure. Now for the good news: things probably can't get any worse, they're on extra rest going into their home opener, and said home opener is against Cleveland. Oh yeah, they get to raise a banner, too.
Titans (1-0) at Texans (1-0): Houston-Did anybody see that Titans win in Pittsburgh coming? Tennessee wins the award for most pleasant surprise of Week 1. The Texans, meanwhile, escaped in San Diego on Monday night. They didn't play well, on the road, were down the entire game, yet still found a way to win. Even though it was just Week 1, that's the type of character-building win that Houston will be able to look back on later in the season. Since the Texans are much better than the Steelers, I don't see the Titans pulling off another road win this week.
Lions (1-0) at Cardinals (0-1): Arizona-When is Ndamukong Suh going to realize that he can't play the game like that? Whether or not he's actually a dirty player is irrelevant. The perception is that he is, and it's on him to either make adjustments or continue getting fined/suspended. Now that I've got that off my chest, Suh and his defensive buddies did a nice job stopping the Vikings' offense last week. Arizona lost in St. Louis, but already looks much more formidable than last year. And Bruce Arians' home debut should be a successful one.
Saints (1-0) at Buccaneers (0-1): New Orleans-How did the Bucs lose to the Jets last week? I saw the end of the game, so I know exactly how. I just still can't believe it. Talk about a stupid penalty! The Saints want to own the NFC South this year. While I'm not sure about that, a 2-0 start with a pair of division wins, including one over Atlanta, will go a long way towards at least a playoff berth.
Jaguars (0-1) at Raiders (0-1): Oakland-Thanks, NFL. Fortunately for everyone in the nation that doesn't live in the Bay Area or Northeastern Florida, the rest of the country gets the Manning Bowl. The loser gets the inside track in the Jadaveon Clowney Sweepstakes. And seeing as Jacksonville managed only a measly safety in Week 1, I'm not overly optimistic about what the Jaguars' offense will be able to do on the road.
Broncos (1-0) at Giants (0-1): Denver-Manning Bowl III. Peyton had a pretty good game last week, huh? Eli? Not so much. The Giants can ill-afford an 0-2 start, but that's what they're staring at after losing last week. And the running game is a mess. That's why Brandon Jacobs, who immediately steps back into the starting role, was brought back during the week. Despite six turnovers and that Dallas pass rush, Eli almost won last week. Except Denver's defense is better than Dallas's. And they're on extra rest. And Big Brother isn't Tony Romo. Not to mention the fact that the Broncos' confidence is, pardon the pun, a mile high right now. Peyton's 2-0 all-time against Eli. Make that 3-0.
49ers (1-0) at Seahawks (1-0): Seattle-Undercover cops are dressing as 49ers fans and sitting in the stands to hopefully keep the crowd from getting too crazy. So it is with the NFL's new big rivalry. You've got two of the best teams in the league playing a Week 2 game that could have major implications on the division race. We all know what happened when they played on a Sunday night in Seattle last season. The Seahawks, in fact, went 8-0 at home in 2012, the only team in the NFL to do so. Seattle's a tough place to play, and an even tougher place to win. Until the Seahawks actually lose at Century Link Field, you'd have to be a fool to think they will.
Steelers (0-1) at Bengals (0-1): Pittsburgh-Was any team more disappointing last weekend than Pittsburgh? Did the Steelers offense think it was still the preseason? I'm much more willing to give the Bengals a pass for their loss because they played well against a good Bears team in Chicago. Common sense and logic both dictate that I should go with Cincinnati. Yet I'm taking the Steelers. Maybe it's because I've got Pirates fever.
Last Week: 10-6
This Week: 1-0
Season: 11-6
Saturday, September 14, 2013
NASCAR Makes All the Right Moves
All of this drama involving NASCAR and the Chase for the Sprint Cup has been as fascinating as its been surreal. But in the wake of an unusual set of circumstances, unprecedented penalties and a lot of he said/he said, I've gotta say I really admire the way NASCAR has handled this whole situation. And today's decision to add Jeff Gordon to the Chase field, giving it 13 drivers instead of the usual 12, confirms that NASCAR has done everything right in this process.
First, a little refresher on the situation. Last week's race at Richmond was the final one before the start of the Chase, NASCAR's 10-race "playoff" for the top 12 drivers. Ryan Newman was leading the race late, and a win would've put him in the Chase as one of the wild cards, which go to the two drivers outside the top 10 with the most wins. Then with seven laps left, Clint Bowyer intentionally spun out, bringing out the caution. Newman was passed when the race went green and finished third, knocking him out of the Chase. Meanwhile, David Vickers, Bowyer's teammate, made an unnecessary green-flag pit stop late in the race, giving up a number of positions on the track. It seems all of this was done so that the third member of that team, Martin Truex Jr., would make it into the Chase.
NASCAR didn't take too kindly to this behavior. Michael Waltrip Racing, the owner of the three cars was fined $50,000 and, more significantly, each of the three drivers was penalized 50 points. That was enough to move Newman past Truex and back in the Chase where he belongs.
While it's somewhat harsh that Truex is the one who lost his spot in the Chase, despite seemingly not being directly involved in any of these shenanigans, while Bowyer, whose actions got this whole chain of events started, is safely in the field. However, the penalty itself is fair. And Newman certainly didn't deserve to be victimized by MWR's deliberate attempt to manipulate the results of the race. If Bowyer doesn't do what he does, Newman probably wins and gets into the Chase. Whether or not Truex had any knowledge of or involvement in this plan is irrelevant. As a result of what happened, he took Ryan Newman's rightful place in the Chase. Unfortunately, Truex is the one who had to pay the price. (Although, in fairness, he doesn't have a spot to lose if none of this goes down.)
If you think Ryan Newman was the only victim here, you'd be wrong. It also seems another deal was made so that Joey Logano could easily pass David Gilliland for that one extra track position, and one extra point, he might need to crack the Top 10. Sure enough, Logano ended up in the Top 10 by one point. The driver he knocked out? Jeff Gordon.
Logano, understandably, vehemently denied any collusion rumors and defended his place in the field. He wrote off the perceived collusion as typical banter between spotters, although NASCAR certainly doesn't see it that way. Logano also spewed off his results this season and correctly pointed out that even if he hadn't passed Gilliland and ended up tied with Gordon, he would've owned the tiebreaker because he has a win this season and Gordon doesn't.
The MWR trio had a vested interest in Logano finishing ahead of Gordon, too, though. If Logano hadn't finished in the Top 10, he would've taken away that wild card spot they were trying to get for Truex. So, you can't say that Logano didn't benefit from the antics at the end of last week's race. While I agree that he deserves his place in the Chase, you'd have to be a fool to think that the results weren't manipulated in his favor. And just like Ryan Newman, Jeff Gordon was a victim of all this nonsense.
Throughout the week, I argued that NASCAR needed to do more, even after the penalties against Bowyer, Vickers and Truex were announced. It wasn't fair that Jeff Gordon had been denied a spot in the Chase that he otherwise might've earned. It wouldn't have been right to remove Logano (or anyone else) from the Chase field and replace him with Gordon, but it also wasn't right that Gordon didn't get in when so many factors to alter the results of the race to his detriment existed.
My argument was always that they should add Gordon to the Chase as a 13th qualifier. That way, everybody wins. Sure, the whole idea of the Chase is that it only consists of 12 drivers, but really what's the difference between 12 and 13 anyway? There's still going to be 43 drivers in each race, 30 of whom aren't in the Chase, and there can still ultimately be only one champion at the end. There was absolutely no good reason NOT to add Jeff Gordon and have a 13-man Chase field this year. That's why I'm so glad NASCAR made what seemed like the only right decision.
Sure, Jeff Gordon is a four-time champion and incredibly popular, but I don't think this was done simply because it was Jeff Gordon that was affected. I'm sure his critics will look at it as a conspiracy, just like some of the things that happened at Richmond were a conspiracy, but even if it is, so what? NASCAR is a ratings-driven sport, so having one of the most popular guys still being relevant in the final 10 races is certainly in their best interest. That's not the point either, though.
All of this was done in the name of fairness. What went on at Richmond wasn't fair to a number of guys. NASCAR wasn't happy and wanted to make sure something like this never happens again. That's why they made such a bold and necessary move. A move that I don't see too many people complaining about. Unlike some of its drivers and teams, NASCAR did the right thing. Right by the idea of fair play, right by the two drivers that got screwed, and, most importantly, right by NASCAR fans.
First, a little refresher on the situation. Last week's race at Richmond was the final one before the start of the Chase, NASCAR's 10-race "playoff" for the top 12 drivers. Ryan Newman was leading the race late, and a win would've put him in the Chase as one of the wild cards, which go to the two drivers outside the top 10 with the most wins. Then with seven laps left, Clint Bowyer intentionally spun out, bringing out the caution. Newman was passed when the race went green and finished third, knocking him out of the Chase. Meanwhile, David Vickers, Bowyer's teammate, made an unnecessary green-flag pit stop late in the race, giving up a number of positions on the track. It seems all of this was done so that the third member of that team, Martin Truex Jr., would make it into the Chase.
NASCAR didn't take too kindly to this behavior. Michael Waltrip Racing, the owner of the three cars was fined $50,000 and, more significantly, each of the three drivers was penalized 50 points. That was enough to move Newman past Truex and back in the Chase where he belongs.
While it's somewhat harsh that Truex is the one who lost his spot in the Chase, despite seemingly not being directly involved in any of these shenanigans, while Bowyer, whose actions got this whole chain of events started, is safely in the field. However, the penalty itself is fair. And Newman certainly didn't deserve to be victimized by MWR's deliberate attempt to manipulate the results of the race. If Bowyer doesn't do what he does, Newman probably wins and gets into the Chase. Whether or not Truex had any knowledge of or involvement in this plan is irrelevant. As a result of what happened, he took Ryan Newman's rightful place in the Chase. Unfortunately, Truex is the one who had to pay the price. (Although, in fairness, he doesn't have a spot to lose if none of this goes down.)
If you think Ryan Newman was the only victim here, you'd be wrong. It also seems another deal was made so that Joey Logano could easily pass David Gilliland for that one extra track position, and one extra point, he might need to crack the Top 10. Sure enough, Logano ended up in the Top 10 by one point. The driver he knocked out? Jeff Gordon.
Logano, understandably, vehemently denied any collusion rumors and defended his place in the field. He wrote off the perceived collusion as typical banter between spotters, although NASCAR certainly doesn't see it that way. Logano also spewed off his results this season and correctly pointed out that even if he hadn't passed Gilliland and ended up tied with Gordon, he would've owned the tiebreaker because he has a win this season and Gordon doesn't.
The MWR trio had a vested interest in Logano finishing ahead of Gordon, too, though. If Logano hadn't finished in the Top 10, he would've taken away that wild card spot they were trying to get for Truex. So, you can't say that Logano didn't benefit from the antics at the end of last week's race. While I agree that he deserves his place in the Chase, you'd have to be a fool to think that the results weren't manipulated in his favor. And just like Ryan Newman, Jeff Gordon was a victim of all this nonsense.
Throughout the week, I argued that NASCAR needed to do more, even after the penalties against Bowyer, Vickers and Truex were announced. It wasn't fair that Jeff Gordon had been denied a spot in the Chase that he otherwise might've earned. It wouldn't have been right to remove Logano (or anyone else) from the Chase field and replace him with Gordon, but it also wasn't right that Gordon didn't get in when so many factors to alter the results of the race to his detriment existed.
My argument was always that they should add Gordon to the Chase as a 13th qualifier. That way, everybody wins. Sure, the whole idea of the Chase is that it only consists of 12 drivers, but really what's the difference between 12 and 13 anyway? There's still going to be 43 drivers in each race, 30 of whom aren't in the Chase, and there can still ultimately be only one champion at the end. There was absolutely no good reason NOT to add Jeff Gordon and have a 13-man Chase field this year. That's why I'm so glad NASCAR made what seemed like the only right decision.
Sure, Jeff Gordon is a four-time champion and incredibly popular, but I don't think this was done simply because it was Jeff Gordon that was affected. I'm sure his critics will look at it as a conspiracy, just like some of the things that happened at Richmond were a conspiracy, but even if it is, so what? NASCAR is a ratings-driven sport, so having one of the most popular guys still being relevant in the final 10 races is certainly in their best interest. That's not the point either, though.
All of this was done in the name of fairness. What went on at Richmond wasn't fair to a number of guys. NASCAR wasn't happy and wanted to make sure something like this never happens again. That's why they made such a bold and necessary move. A move that I don't see too many people complaining about. Unlike some of its drivers and teams, NASCAR did the right thing. Right by the idea of fair play, right by the two drivers that got screwed, and, most importantly, right by NASCAR fans.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
A Look at the 2014 Schedule
The 2014 baseball schedule came out today and, in an odd twist, the Yankees begin the season in Houston...which is the same place they're ending this season. So, if you're keeping track, that's six consecutive regular season games between the Yankees and Astros in Houston, albeit separated by several months. They also start on Tuesday, April 1, which isn't really Opening Day, but since it's the first day of April rather than March 31, I'm willing to make my peace with that.
Some other thoughts on the 2014 Yankees schedule...
Some other thoughts on the 2014 Yankees schedule...
- The Yankees open on the road for the fourth time in six seasons.
- It's the third time in as many seasons that they'll begin the year in the same place and against the same team that they ended the previous season. They ended 2011 and started 2012 at Tampa Bay, ended the 2012 season at home against the Red Sox, then played Boston at the Stadium again to open this year.
- Believe it or not, after playing the Orioles in the home opener four times in six years from 1958-63, this will be the first time since then that they've played Baltimore in the home opener. I repeat, they haven't played the Orioles in the home opener since 1963! That's 52 seasons ago! And, just in case you were wondering, the Yankees' starter in that game was Whitey Ford, and their only run in the 4-1 loss came on a Mickey Mantle homer.
- The last home series is also against the Orioles, making them the first visiting team to bookend the Yankee Stadium schedule since the 2002 Devil Rays. (It's also the first time Baltimore's ending the Yankees' home schedule since they closed the Old Stadium in 2008.)
- They play the NL Central in Interleague Play, which got me excited that the Cardinals would finally come to Yankee Stadium for the first time since 2003. Instead, they'll go to St. Louis. The Cubs, Reds and Pirates (and, of course, the Mets) are the Interleague home series.
- The home-and-home opponent is the Cubs, which means the Yankees will play in Wrigley Field, too. I'm completely on board with that plan. In fact, they're going to spend an entire week in Chicago, playing four with the White Sox after the two games at Wrigley. And they'll make that visit to St. Louis, which is like going from New York to Philadelphia, at the end of that trip. I'd say they caught a scheduling break there.
- For the last couple years, I've been able to go to a game for/on my birthday (and since my birthday's in April, it's usually my first game of the year). Since my birthday's on a Monday in 2014, there was the chance it would be an off day. Sure enough it is, but the games on either side of it are home games against the Red Sox (day before) and Cubs (day after). I think it's safe to say the tradition's going to continue.
- Just like this year, Interleague Play is spread throughout the season. Except the Yankees won't play an Interleague game after July 20. And, outside of the April 15-16 series with the Cubs and that series with the Reds from July 18-20, they play them all (including all 10 road games) within a three-week span in May. They'll play 12 straight from May 19-21, play for against the White Sox in Chicago, then go to St. Louis. In other words, a Yankee pitcher won't have to hit after May 28.
- They only have 10 home games in the entire month of May and play 17 of 22 on the road (although, in fairness, two of those are in Citi Field) from May 5-28, with 10 of those 17 coming against National League teams.
- They play 17 of their 26 September games at Yankee Stadium, including an eight-game homestand against Toronto and Baltimore before ending the season at Fenway, which I think might be some sort of rule (they either have to begin or end against the Red Sox every year).
- That September schedule also includes a span of 20 consecutive games to end the season after their last off day on September 8.
- Instead of one long West Coast trip like they had this year (they actually had two, since they played the Dodgers and Padres on the road in Interleague), they go to Anaheim separately from May 5-7 before playing Seattle and Oakland back-to-back from June 10-15.
- They don't play the Blue Jays at home until the middle of June and don't go to Baltimore until the final series before the All-Star Break.
- Longest homestand=10 games (vs. Cincinnati/Texas/Toronto, July 18-27); longest road trip=11 games (at Minnesota/Cleveland/Baltimore, July 3-13).
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Week 1 NFL Picks
We've finally arrived at the start of the NFL season, which means the return of my weekly NFL picks. I'm off to a 1-0 start (and a 60-0 fantasy lead) after Denver's thrashing of Baltimore on Thursday night. As for the rest of the games this week, there aren't that many toss-ups. The best games are probably Packers-49ers and Giants-Cowboys, while the NFL has decided that they're going to throw some of the bad teams a bone and let them start 1-0 because they're playing another bad team. With that being said, though, there's nothing appealing about a Week 1 matchup between Jacksonville and Kansas City.
Patriots at Bills: New England-Back in 2003, the Bills beat the Patriots 31-0 in Buffalo in Week 1, only to have the Patriots return the favor in Week 17. Well, as fate would have it, Buffalo and New England have the same schedule this season. That's about the only thing that's common, though. The Bills are starting rookie E.J. Manuel at quarterback despite his missing half the preseason. New England won't have Rob Gronkowski, but that hardly matters.
Bengals at Bears: Chicago-The Bengals have been to the playoffs in back-to-back seasons and view themselves as legitimate Super Bowl contenders this year. Well, they get a test right away, heading to Chicago in Week 1. If the Bengals truly want to claim a place among the NFL's elite, it's important for them to get road wins over good teams. The Bears, of course, are beginning the Marc Trestman Era, and the offense is going to be significantly better. It'll be a close one, but I'm taking the Bears here.
Dolphins at Browns: Cleveland-This matchup isn't as bad as Kansas City-Jacksonville, but it's close. The Dolphins and Browns are both viewed as having an outside shot at the playoffs by a lot of people, so the fact that they're playing each other in Week 1 will help enhance that vision for fans of one. Cleveland's going to struggle in its division, so the Browns need to get wins where they can. Starting at home in Week 1 against a Miami team that they should beat.
Vikings at Lions: Minnesota-I didn't pick many official underdogs this week, but the Vikings are one. I don't think Minnesota's going to be able to follow the same Adrian Peterson and nothing else formula this season. In fact, I think the Vikings will be hit by reality when Peterson is inevitably stopped by more than one defense. Even still, Peterson can probably do his thing against Detroit.
Raiders at Colts: Indianapolis-The Andrew Luck Era began with an unexpected playoff berth. Now Luck and the Colts are tasked with doing it again, something his predecessor did year after year. If he wants Colts fans to forget about that Peyton guy, losing at home to the lowly Raiders is not an option.
Falcons at Saints: New Orleans-This is among the most intriguing Week 1 matchups. New Orleans wants to "own" the NFC South this season, and they can go a long way towards accomplishing that goal by knocking off the defending division champs in the opener. While I'm not buying everything the overconfident Saints are selling, I do think things line up well for them in this game. Sean Payton's back, it's Opening Day, and they're playing at home against their biggest rival. For these reasons, I think the Saints will win.
Buccaneers at Jets: Tampa Bay-One of the nice things about having the Jets in New York is the unintentional comedy they provide on a daily basis. They're not a good team and Rex Ryan is clueless, yet their fans still believe. Believe in what? I'm not sure exactly. But they believe. Anyway, former Jet Darrelle Revis makes his return with the Bucs, and he shared the Jets playbook with his new teammates. Not that it matters. The Jets are a joke. Tampa Bay should give Geno Smith a rude NFL awakening.
Titans at Steelers: Pittsburgh-There are some who think Pittsburgh's going to have another down year after missing the playoffs last season. I wouldn't go that far. These are the Steelers we're talking about. They're like the Packers. Always hanging around the playoff race. Anyway, this is the type of game Pittsburgh usually wins. No reason to think that'll change.
Seahawks at Panthers: Seattle-Seattle's a chic Super Bowl pick. The Seahawks are dominant at home, so how they do on the road is really going to be the key to their season. Cross-country trips are never easy, especially to start the season, but if you have to go cross-country in Week 1, there are worse matchups than the Panthers. The travel shouldn't be an issue this early in the season. Regardless, Seattle's a much better team than Carolina.
Chiefs at Jaguars: Kansas City-Since the teams that were bad last year all have to play each other, the NFL probably figured they might as well get this one out of the way and spare us all having to watch it in Week 15. With Andy Reid, the Chiefs are going to be much better, and I don't think it's a stretch to say Kansas City is a potential playoff sleeper. Jacksonville, however, is still Jacksonville. They aren't going to be favored in many games this year, and this week is no exception.
Cardinals at Rams: St. Louis-This game isn't the dud it was a year ago, simply because both teams have gotten better. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the Rams and Cardinals that determine the NFC West race (St. Louis didn't lose to San Francisco at all last season). As for what happens when they play each other, I see a split. And since they're playing in St. Louis, that means I'm going with the Rams.
Packers at 49ers: San Francisco-Just like last year, this one's the Game of the Week. The FOX national late game against the US Open women's final. Last season, San Francisco won the opener in Green Bay, which gave the 49ers home field when they met in the Divisional Playoffs, which San Francisco won en route to the Super Bowl. You can bet neither team forgets that. And with both expected to be contenders again this season, this is perhaps the Week 1 game that's going to have the greatest long-term ramifications. Colin Kapernick's not going to surprise anybody this year, so I think he'll struggle at times. But Aaron Rodgers is going to have plenty of trouble of his own thanks to that 49ers defense. San Francisco wasn't given any favors by the schedule-makers, starting with Green Bay and Seattle. The 49ers almost can't afford to start 0-2. They'll be ready to play and come out with the win.
Giants at Cowboys: Giants-NBC gets its two favorite teams on the season premiere of Sunday Night Football. Like Yankees-Red Sox in Fenway, I think it's an unofficial rule that Giants-Cowboys in Dallas has to be on Sunday night. They open against each other for the second straight year, as Dallas ruined the party by knocking off the defending champion Giants last year in Week 1 at the Meadowlands. Anyway, these two teams are very similar, and I expect them to play a typical Giants-Cowboys game. However, revenge for last year and their undefeated all-time record at Cowboys Stadium are the two factors that will play into the Giants' hands in what should be a great game.
Eagles at Redskins: Washington-The other two NFC East teams play the first half of the Monday night doubleheader, as the Chip Kelly Era officially begins in Philadelphia against the defending division champs. The Eagles are in a bit of a rebuilding mode, but I still bet they'll be fun to watch with the way Kelly runs his offense. As for Washington, RG3's health is everything. It's still only Week 1, so I think he'll probably be fine to get through this week. As a result, the pick is Washington.
Texans at Chargers: Houston-Finally, we've got Houston and San Diego, the last two teams to start their seasons. And they're two teams going in vastly different directions. The Texans have won back-to-back division titles and have to be in that handful of teams that are legitimate threats to represent the AFC at Giants Stadium in February. San Diego will probably be a position where they'll look to be a spoiler at the end of the season. Either way, a Week 1 matchup between a good Houston team and an average-to-mediocre San Diego team, regardless of the site, should end in the Texans' favor.
This Week: 1-0
Season: 1-0
Patriots at Bills: New England-Back in 2003, the Bills beat the Patriots 31-0 in Buffalo in Week 1, only to have the Patriots return the favor in Week 17. Well, as fate would have it, Buffalo and New England have the same schedule this season. That's about the only thing that's common, though. The Bills are starting rookie E.J. Manuel at quarterback despite his missing half the preseason. New England won't have Rob Gronkowski, but that hardly matters.
Bengals at Bears: Chicago-The Bengals have been to the playoffs in back-to-back seasons and view themselves as legitimate Super Bowl contenders this year. Well, they get a test right away, heading to Chicago in Week 1. If the Bengals truly want to claim a place among the NFL's elite, it's important for them to get road wins over good teams. The Bears, of course, are beginning the Marc Trestman Era, and the offense is going to be significantly better. It'll be a close one, but I'm taking the Bears here.
Dolphins at Browns: Cleveland-This matchup isn't as bad as Kansas City-Jacksonville, but it's close. The Dolphins and Browns are both viewed as having an outside shot at the playoffs by a lot of people, so the fact that they're playing each other in Week 1 will help enhance that vision for fans of one. Cleveland's going to struggle in its division, so the Browns need to get wins where they can. Starting at home in Week 1 against a Miami team that they should beat.
Vikings at Lions: Minnesota-I didn't pick many official underdogs this week, but the Vikings are one. I don't think Minnesota's going to be able to follow the same Adrian Peterson and nothing else formula this season. In fact, I think the Vikings will be hit by reality when Peterson is inevitably stopped by more than one defense. Even still, Peterson can probably do his thing against Detroit.
Raiders at Colts: Indianapolis-The Andrew Luck Era began with an unexpected playoff berth. Now Luck and the Colts are tasked with doing it again, something his predecessor did year after year. If he wants Colts fans to forget about that Peyton guy, losing at home to the lowly Raiders is not an option.
Falcons at Saints: New Orleans-This is among the most intriguing Week 1 matchups. New Orleans wants to "own" the NFC South this season, and they can go a long way towards accomplishing that goal by knocking off the defending division champs in the opener. While I'm not buying everything the overconfident Saints are selling, I do think things line up well for them in this game. Sean Payton's back, it's Opening Day, and they're playing at home against their biggest rival. For these reasons, I think the Saints will win.
Buccaneers at Jets: Tampa Bay-One of the nice things about having the Jets in New York is the unintentional comedy they provide on a daily basis. They're not a good team and Rex Ryan is clueless, yet their fans still believe. Believe in what? I'm not sure exactly. But they believe. Anyway, former Jet Darrelle Revis makes his return with the Bucs, and he shared the Jets playbook with his new teammates. Not that it matters. The Jets are a joke. Tampa Bay should give Geno Smith a rude NFL awakening.
Titans at Steelers: Pittsburgh-There are some who think Pittsburgh's going to have another down year after missing the playoffs last season. I wouldn't go that far. These are the Steelers we're talking about. They're like the Packers. Always hanging around the playoff race. Anyway, this is the type of game Pittsburgh usually wins. No reason to think that'll change.
Seahawks at Panthers: Seattle-Seattle's a chic Super Bowl pick. The Seahawks are dominant at home, so how they do on the road is really going to be the key to their season. Cross-country trips are never easy, especially to start the season, but if you have to go cross-country in Week 1, there are worse matchups than the Panthers. The travel shouldn't be an issue this early in the season. Regardless, Seattle's a much better team than Carolina.
Chiefs at Jaguars: Kansas City-Since the teams that were bad last year all have to play each other, the NFL probably figured they might as well get this one out of the way and spare us all having to watch it in Week 15. With Andy Reid, the Chiefs are going to be much better, and I don't think it's a stretch to say Kansas City is a potential playoff sleeper. Jacksonville, however, is still Jacksonville. They aren't going to be favored in many games this year, and this week is no exception.
Cardinals at Rams: St. Louis-This game isn't the dud it was a year ago, simply because both teams have gotten better. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the Rams and Cardinals that determine the NFC West race (St. Louis didn't lose to San Francisco at all last season). As for what happens when they play each other, I see a split. And since they're playing in St. Louis, that means I'm going with the Rams.
Packers at 49ers: San Francisco-Just like last year, this one's the Game of the Week. The FOX national late game against the US Open women's final. Last season, San Francisco won the opener in Green Bay, which gave the 49ers home field when they met in the Divisional Playoffs, which San Francisco won en route to the Super Bowl. You can bet neither team forgets that. And with both expected to be contenders again this season, this is perhaps the Week 1 game that's going to have the greatest long-term ramifications. Colin Kapernick's not going to surprise anybody this year, so I think he'll struggle at times. But Aaron Rodgers is going to have plenty of trouble of his own thanks to that 49ers defense. San Francisco wasn't given any favors by the schedule-makers, starting with Green Bay and Seattle. The 49ers almost can't afford to start 0-2. They'll be ready to play and come out with the win.
Giants at Cowboys: Giants-NBC gets its two favorite teams on the season premiere of Sunday Night Football. Like Yankees-Red Sox in Fenway, I think it's an unofficial rule that Giants-Cowboys in Dallas has to be on Sunday night. They open against each other for the second straight year, as Dallas ruined the party by knocking off the defending champion Giants last year in Week 1 at the Meadowlands. Anyway, these two teams are very similar, and I expect them to play a typical Giants-Cowboys game. However, revenge for last year and their undefeated all-time record at Cowboys Stadium are the two factors that will play into the Giants' hands in what should be a great game.
Eagles at Redskins: Washington-The other two NFC East teams play the first half of the Monday night doubleheader, as the Chip Kelly Era officially begins in Philadelphia against the defending division champs. The Eagles are in a bit of a rebuilding mode, but I still bet they'll be fun to watch with the way Kelly runs his offense. As for Washington, RG3's health is everything. It's still only Week 1, so I think he'll probably be fine to get through this week. As a result, the pick is Washington.
Texans at Chargers: Houston-Finally, we've got Houston and San Diego, the last two teams to start their seasons. And they're two teams going in vastly different directions. The Texans have won back-to-back division titles and have to be in that handful of teams that are legitimate threats to represent the AFC at Giants Stadium in February. San Diego will probably be a position where they'll look to be a spoiler at the end of the season. Either way, a Week 1 matchup between a good Houston team and an average-to-mediocre San Diego team, regardless of the site, should end in the Texans' favor.
This Week: 1-0
Season: 1-0
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Big Weekend for the IOC
We've arrived at the most crucial weekend of the year for the Olympic Movement. This weekend in Buenos Aires, there will be three elections. The first is for the host of the 2020 Games. Then they'll decide which sport to add to those Games. Finally, the IOC will choose a new president after 12 years under Jacques Rogge's leadership. Since each vote is significant, let's look at them individually.
The three cities in contention for 2020 are Madrid, Tokyo and Istanbul. Unlike the last two host city elections, this one doesn't have a clear favorite. Most experts are saying that if they had to pick a favorite going in it would be Tokyo, but that doesn't mean Madrid and Istanbul have no chance. In fact, I think it's going to be an incredibly intriguing competition. All three bids have potential problems (either real or perceived), which has dominated the talk coming in, and the vote may be about which city poses the least risk. But all three are also intriguing for different reasons, and that could sway the vote in their favor.
The worries about Madrid mainly surround the Spanish economy, which is slowly but surely making its way back. But Madrid also has the cheapest budget and most of the venues are already built. Those are huge points in their favor. Likewise, many IOC members hold a lot of affection for the late IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch. His beautiful speech is one of the primary reasons why Madrid was the finalist against Rio four years ago. Will Madrid be given the Games as one last gift in recognition of Samaranch's legacy?
I don't see Tokyo as this huge favorite that a lot of other people do. Technically, their bid is probably the strongest, and they have the most support locally and from the government. It's also no secret that, like London, Tokyo is one of the world's most important metropolises. And the Japanese economy is very strong. But there's still some concerns about spending billions of dollars on the Olympics when the country is still recovering from that devastating earthquake/tsunami. There's also a concern about radiation from a power plant that' near Tokyo. Finally, this is something that hasn't been mentioned that much, but I think is actually something that works against Tokyo more than anybody might think. The 2018 Winter Olympics are in Korea. Will the European-dominated IOC want to go to the Far East back-to-back (especially after a trip to South America)?
Then there's Istanbul, which would've been the odds-on favorite if this vote was held four months ago. Since then, though, there's been protests against the government, unrest in neighboring Syria, and a terrible doping scandal that resulted in the suspension of more than 30 Turkish athletes. The potential cost is also astronomical compared to the other two bids. But the things Turkey has on its side are still the same, and they're still very, very powerful. The Olympics have never been held in a Muslim country or on two different continents. Istanbul's the unique place that can accomplish both. After going to China and South America for the first time, with Africa seeming very likely soon, they can bring the Olympics to the Muslim world for the first time.
This vote is almost impossible to predict. Because the three bids are thisclose. I think Tokyo will win the first round. It'll be close, but Istanbul (which has been my choice the whole way) will finish third and get knocked out. However, Istanbul's voters will then vote for Madrid, proving that the third time once again is the charm. Their carry-over votes, plus those coming their way from Istanbul, will be enough to push Madrid over the edge and send the 2020 Olympics to the Spanish capital.
As for the sport that will join the program in Madrid, I'm not going to waste a lot of time on that. Because unlike the host city election, this one seems pretty straightforward. The IOC knows they made a terrible mistake when they decided to cut wrestling back in February. I'd be shocked if they didn't reverse course an reinstate the sport. This is nothing against squash and baseball/softball. If wrestling hadn't unexpectedly been thrown into this position of fighting for its Olympic life, squash would've been the odds-on favorite to gain that spot. But an Olympics without wrestling doesn't make sense to a lot of people. The IOC now realizes that. I don't want to say it's 100 percent guaranteed wrestling gets back in (these are the same people who voted it out), but I'd be just as shocked if it doesn't as I was when wrestling was unceremoniously cut in the first place.
Finally, there's the president vote, which actually might be the most significant of them all. There all six candidates, and they all have different ideas for the direction of the Olympic Movement. The favorite is German Thomas Bach, while Puerto Rico's Richard Carrion and Ng Ser Mian of Singapore are probably the most likely to join him in the finals. Ukrainian pole vault world record-holder Sergei Bubka is also a candidate, but he won't be a real contender for the presidency until it comes back up at the conclusion of whoever wins term (although, Bubka would make a great president of the IAAF, which will also be looking for a new one soon). The other two candidates are Denis Oswald of Switzerland and Taiwan's C.K. Wu. If it's not Bach, which would be a surprise, I'd say it'll likely be Ng, who would be the first IOC president from Asia.
But this is the IOC we're talking about. They're notoriously unpredictable. I won't be confident in a winner of any of these elections until that winner is actually announced.
The three cities in contention for 2020 are Madrid, Tokyo and Istanbul. Unlike the last two host city elections, this one doesn't have a clear favorite. Most experts are saying that if they had to pick a favorite going in it would be Tokyo, but that doesn't mean Madrid and Istanbul have no chance. In fact, I think it's going to be an incredibly intriguing competition. All three bids have potential problems (either real or perceived), which has dominated the talk coming in, and the vote may be about which city poses the least risk. But all three are also intriguing for different reasons, and that could sway the vote in their favor.
The worries about Madrid mainly surround the Spanish economy, which is slowly but surely making its way back. But Madrid also has the cheapest budget and most of the venues are already built. Those are huge points in their favor. Likewise, many IOC members hold a lot of affection for the late IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch. His beautiful speech is one of the primary reasons why Madrid was the finalist against Rio four years ago. Will Madrid be given the Games as one last gift in recognition of Samaranch's legacy?
I don't see Tokyo as this huge favorite that a lot of other people do. Technically, their bid is probably the strongest, and they have the most support locally and from the government. It's also no secret that, like London, Tokyo is one of the world's most important metropolises. And the Japanese economy is very strong. But there's still some concerns about spending billions of dollars on the Olympics when the country is still recovering from that devastating earthquake/tsunami. There's also a concern about radiation from a power plant that' near Tokyo. Finally, this is something that hasn't been mentioned that much, but I think is actually something that works against Tokyo more than anybody might think. The 2018 Winter Olympics are in Korea. Will the European-dominated IOC want to go to the Far East back-to-back (especially after a trip to South America)?
Then there's Istanbul, which would've been the odds-on favorite if this vote was held four months ago. Since then, though, there's been protests against the government, unrest in neighboring Syria, and a terrible doping scandal that resulted in the suspension of more than 30 Turkish athletes. The potential cost is also astronomical compared to the other two bids. But the things Turkey has on its side are still the same, and they're still very, very powerful. The Olympics have never been held in a Muslim country or on two different continents. Istanbul's the unique place that can accomplish both. After going to China and South America for the first time, with Africa seeming very likely soon, they can bring the Olympics to the Muslim world for the first time.
This vote is almost impossible to predict. Because the three bids are thisclose. I think Tokyo will win the first round. It'll be close, but Istanbul (which has been my choice the whole way) will finish third and get knocked out. However, Istanbul's voters will then vote for Madrid, proving that the third time once again is the charm. Their carry-over votes, plus those coming their way from Istanbul, will be enough to push Madrid over the edge and send the 2020 Olympics to the Spanish capital.
As for the sport that will join the program in Madrid, I'm not going to waste a lot of time on that. Because unlike the host city election, this one seems pretty straightforward. The IOC knows they made a terrible mistake when they decided to cut wrestling back in February. I'd be shocked if they didn't reverse course an reinstate the sport. This is nothing against squash and baseball/softball. If wrestling hadn't unexpectedly been thrown into this position of fighting for its Olympic life, squash would've been the odds-on favorite to gain that spot. But an Olympics without wrestling doesn't make sense to a lot of people. The IOC now realizes that. I don't want to say it's 100 percent guaranteed wrestling gets back in (these are the same people who voted it out), but I'd be just as shocked if it doesn't as I was when wrestling was unceremoniously cut in the first place.
Finally, there's the president vote, which actually might be the most significant of them all. There all six candidates, and they all have different ideas for the direction of the Olympic Movement. The favorite is German Thomas Bach, while Puerto Rico's Richard Carrion and Ng Ser Mian of Singapore are probably the most likely to join him in the finals. Ukrainian pole vault world record-holder Sergei Bubka is also a candidate, but he won't be a real contender for the presidency until it comes back up at the conclusion of whoever wins term (although, Bubka would make a great president of the IAAF, which will also be looking for a new one soon). The other two candidates are Denis Oswald of Switzerland and Taiwan's C.K. Wu. If it's not Bach, which would be a surprise, I'd say it'll likely be Ng, who would be the first IOC president from Asia.
But this is the IOC we're talking about. They're notoriously unpredictable. I won't be confident in a winner of any of these elections until that winner is actually announced.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
NFL 2013, Part II
The NFL season is here. The opener between the defending Super Bowl champion Ravens and the Broncos is currently in progress. Both of those teams, obviously, are in the AFC, and I already looked at the AFC in Part I of my NFL preview the other day. Today, it's the NFC, which I think will be a much more competitive conference this season.
While the best teams in the AFC are pretty clear, the NFC is much more wide-open. I can easily envision any one of a number of teams playing in Giants Stadium on February 2. But there are two other reasons why I think the NFC will be stronger. The first is that the NFC doesn't really have any "bad" teams. You can put Carolina and maybe Arizona in that category, but even they're better than the three worst teams in the AFC (Jaguars, Raiders, Jets), and they might be better than the likes of Buffalo, Tennessee and Cleveland, too. The other is because the NFC's middle-of-the-pack teams are much closer to the top-tier than middle-of-the-pack teams in the AFC. Take the NFC East, the most competitive division in football. You could easily see 9-7 finish first and 7-9 finish last. Speaking of the NFC East...
NFC East: There's no clear favorite here. The Redskins surprised everyone last season by making that incredible run to the division title. Led by RG3 and Co., Washington should be the favorites on paper. But I'm not sure about Griffin's health, and the Redskins won't be anywhere near as good without him. And that's why I can't say I think the Redskins will repeat. Especially since the NFC East teams are notorious for beating the crap out of each other. Take Dallas. The Cowboys are always a chic playoff pick, and they have a ton of talent, but they constantly manage to underachieve according to those predictions. But if Dallas ever gets it together, they'll be incredibly dangerous. Just ask every good team that loses to the Cowboys each year. Then there's the Giants. They're my favorite team, but they're so confusing, they drive me crazy sometimes. I have no idea whether they're going to go 11-5and win the division or 8-8 and miss the playoffs. They seem equally capable of doing either. In fact, they'll probably do their trademarked Jekyll and Hyde thing once again. Look out if you're a good team playing the Giants late in the season. As for the Eagles, I'm fascinated by them this season. Chip Kelly's thing worked at Oregon, but can it in the NFL? Either way, Philadelphia should be fun to watch. And, after more than a decade of Andy Reid, they really needed a change. That alone could mean a couple wins for the Eagles this season.
NFC North: In most NFL power rankings, the Packers are up there pretty high. That's because Green Bay is consistently one of the best teams in football. I don't see any reason why that would change this year. As long as they've got Aaron Rodgers, who might be the best quarterback in the game, the Packers are going to be a safe bet to make the playoffs. At the very least, they're the best team in this division. Adrian Peterson literally carried the Vikings on his back and right into the playoffs last season. Well, I don't see that happening again. Despite his grand predictions for 2,500 yards, I highly doubt Peterson will be able to repeat his ridiculous MVP numbers from 2012. And since Minnesota has little to nothing else, I'm having a hard time saying they'll be any better than 8-8 this season. Like the Giants, the Bears are very confusing. For the first half of last season, they looked like the best team in the NFC. Then they ended up finishing third in their division! And like the Eagles, the Bears made a coaching change that could yield interesting results. Marc Trestman's an offensive whiz. That should make Chicago much better offensively. But the Bears' defense isn't as good anymore. Will they pull a 180 and actually be better on offense than defense this season? Then there's the Lions. They're the fourth-best team in the division, which unfortunately means last place, but that's not a knock on Detroit. If they were in another division, they might be challenging for a playoff spot. As it is, I think they'll have a hard time contending.
NFC South: The Saints have been pretty vocal in their desire to "own" the NFC South. Problem is that team in Atlanta. New Orleans still has Drew Brees and gets Head Coach Sean Payton back, but that doesn't change the fact the Falcons are better. And you know Atlanta's going to have a chip on its shoulder after losing at home in the NFC Championship Game last year. As long as Matt Ryan, Roddy White and Julio Jones are healthy, I've gotta say the Falcons are the favorites in that division. I've never liked New Orleans, and I'm not sold on the Saints either. I think their overconfident. Sure you've got Drew Brees, but you're not going to win every game 35-31. Until that defense improves, I'm not going to buy what the Saints are selling. With that being said, though, do I think 10-6 and a wild card are out of the question? Absolutely not! If Sean Payton is coaching last year, New Orleans probably does get into the playoffs. Tampa Bay's been a team on the rise and a popular sleeper, but the Bucs took a step back last season. I think it's more likely they'll fall somewhere in the middle this season. Tampa Bay will hang around the wild card race for a little while, but ultimately end up in the 9-7/7-9 range. Carolina is a little like Detroit. Except the Lions are significantly better than the Panthers. Carolina will play some exciting games, but won't win many of them.
NFC West: Seattle is a popular Super Bowl pick. I just don't see it, though. How can the Seahawks be the best team in the NFC when they're not even the best team in their own division? That's still San Francisco, and the 49ers came within an uncalled pass interference penalty of winning the Super Bowl last season. With a full season of Colin Kaepernick under center, and mostly everyone else back, there's no reason to think the 49ers are going to have any sort of drop-off at all. That's why I don't get all this Seattle hype. Don't get me wrong, though. I do put the Seahawks in that handful of elite teams in the league. They're going to return to the playoffs, if for no reason other than the likelihood that they'll go undefeated at home again. That division race between the 49ers and Seahawks is going to be a good one. In their second year under Jeff Fisher, the Rams showed remarkable improvement. St. Louis is definitely on the way. Problem is they're in the same division as two really good teams. Of course, the Rams didn't lose to the 49ers at all last season, but it doesn't change the fact that, at best, they're the third-best team in the NFC West. After working wonders in Indianapolis last season, Bruce Arians was given his first full-time head coaching gig in Arizona. Unfortunately, though, I don't think the magic will carry over to the desert. Like St. Louis, Arizona's in the unfortunate situation of being in the same division as the 49ers and Seahawks.
Even though the races will likely be tight, I think there are five teams that stand out above the rest. Green Bay will win the North, Atlanta and New Orleans will both make the playoffs out of the South, and the 49ers-Seahawks rivalry will result in one winning the NFC West and the other getting a wild card berth. As for the East, not much separates the four. Whoever beats the others the most could end up being the one that wins the division. Since I'm not confident in Washington or Dallas, I'm going to say that'll be the Giants. After some intense playoff football, I'll take the Packers and Falcons to advance to the NFC Championship Game. And Atlanta makes up for its disappointment of last season by finishing the deal last time, earning a berth against the Broncos in the Super Bowl.
When Denver won the second of its back-to-back titles 15 years ago, it was the Falcons that the Broncos beat in the Super Bowl. Move the game a little bit north and into much colder conditions, and you've got a recipe for a similar result. Peyton wins his second title at Eli's home stadium.
While the best teams in the AFC are pretty clear, the NFC is much more wide-open. I can easily envision any one of a number of teams playing in Giants Stadium on February 2. But there are two other reasons why I think the NFC will be stronger. The first is that the NFC doesn't really have any "bad" teams. You can put Carolina and maybe Arizona in that category, but even they're better than the three worst teams in the AFC (Jaguars, Raiders, Jets), and they might be better than the likes of Buffalo, Tennessee and Cleveland, too. The other is because the NFC's middle-of-the-pack teams are much closer to the top-tier than middle-of-the-pack teams in the AFC. Take the NFC East, the most competitive division in football. You could easily see 9-7 finish first and 7-9 finish last. Speaking of the NFC East...
NFC East: There's no clear favorite here. The Redskins surprised everyone last season by making that incredible run to the division title. Led by RG3 and Co., Washington should be the favorites on paper. But I'm not sure about Griffin's health, and the Redskins won't be anywhere near as good without him. And that's why I can't say I think the Redskins will repeat. Especially since the NFC East teams are notorious for beating the crap out of each other. Take Dallas. The Cowboys are always a chic playoff pick, and they have a ton of talent, but they constantly manage to underachieve according to those predictions. But if Dallas ever gets it together, they'll be incredibly dangerous. Just ask every good team that loses to the Cowboys each year. Then there's the Giants. They're my favorite team, but they're so confusing, they drive me crazy sometimes. I have no idea whether they're going to go 11-5and win the division or 8-8 and miss the playoffs. They seem equally capable of doing either. In fact, they'll probably do their trademarked Jekyll and Hyde thing once again. Look out if you're a good team playing the Giants late in the season. As for the Eagles, I'm fascinated by them this season. Chip Kelly's thing worked at Oregon, but can it in the NFL? Either way, Philadelphia should be fun to watch. And, after more than a decade of Andy Reid, they really needed a change. That alone could mean a couple wins for the Eagles this season.
NFC North: In most NFL power rankings, the Packers are up there pretty high. That's because Green Bay is consistently one of the best teams in football. I don't see any reason why that would change this year. As long as they've got Aaron Rodgers, who might be the best quarterback in the game, the Packers are going to be a safe bet to make the playoffs. At the very least, they're the best team in this division. Adrian Peterson literally carried the Vikings on his back and right into the playoffs last season. Well, I don't see that happening again. Despite his grand predictions for 2,500 yards, I highly doubt Peterson will be able to repeat his ridiculous MVP numbers from 2012. And since Minnesota has little to nothing else, I'm having a hard time saying they'll be any better than 8-8 this season. Like the Giants, the Bears are very confusing. For the first half of last season, they looked like the best team in the NFC. Then they ended up finishing third in their division! And like the Eagles, the Bears made a coaching change that could yield interesting results. Marc Trestman's an offensive whiz. That should make Chicago much better offensively. But the Bears' defense isn't as good anymore. Will they pull a 180 and actually be better on offense than defense this season? Then there's the Lions. They're the fourth-best team in the division, which unfortunately means last place, but that's not a knock on Detroit. If they were in another division, they might be challenging for a playoff spot. As it is, I think they'll have a hard time contending.
NFC South: The Saints have been pretty vocal in their desire to "own" the NFC South. Problem is that team in Atlanta. New Orleans still has Drew Brees and gets Head Coach Sean Payton back, but that doesn't change the fact the Falcons are better. And you know Atlanta's going to have a chip on its shoulder after losing at home in the NFC Championship Game last year. As long as Matt Ryan, Roddy White and Julio Jones are healthy, I've gotta say the Falcons are the favorites in that division. I've never liked New Orleans, and I'm not sold on the Saints either. I think their overconfident. Sure you've got Drew Brees, but you're not going to win every game 35-31. Until that defense improves, I'm not going to buy what the Saints are selling. With that being said, though, do I think 10-6 and a wild card are out of the question? Absolutely not! If Sean Payton is coaching last year, New Orleans probably does get into the playoffs. Tampa Bay's been a team on the rise and a popular sleeper, but the Bucs took a step back last season. I think it's more likely they'll fall somewhere in the middle this season. Tampa Bay will hang around the wild card race for a little while, but ultimately end up in the 9-7/7-9 range. Carolina is a little like Detroit. Except the Lions are significantly better than the Panthers. Carolina will play some exciting games, but won't win many of them.
NFC West: Seattle is a popular Super Bowl pick. I just don't see it, though. How can the Seahawks be the best team in the NFC when they're not even the best team in their own division? That's still San Francisco, and the 49ers came within an uncalled pass interference penalty of winning the Super Bowl last season. With a full season of Colin Kaepernick under center, and mostly everyone else back, there's no reason to think the 49ers are going to have any sort of drop-off at all. That's why I don't get all this Seattle hype. Don't get me wrong, though. I do put the Seahawks in that handful of elite teams in the league. They're going to return to the playoffs, if for no reason other than the likelihood that they'll go undefeated at home again. That division race between the 49ers and Seahawks is going to be a good one. In their second year under Jeff Fisher, the Rams showed remarkable improvement. St. Louis is definitely on the way. Problem is they're in the same division as two really good teams. Of course, the Rams didn't lose to the 49ers at all last season, but it doesn't change the fact that, at best, they're the third-best team in the NFC West. After working wonders in Indianapolis last season, Bruce Arians was given his first full-time head coaching gig in Arizona. Unfortunately, though, I don't think the magic will carry over to the desert. Like St. Louis, Arizona's in the unfortunate situation of being in the same division as the 49ers and Seahawks.
Even though the races will likely be tight, I think there are five teams that stand out above the rest. Green Bay will win the North, Atlanta and New Orleans will both make the playoffs out of the South, and the 49ers-Seahawks rivalry will result in one winning the NFC West and the other getting a wild card berth. As for the East, not much separates the four. Whoever beats the others the most could end up being the one that wins the division. Since I'm not confident in Washington or Dallas, I'm going to say that'll be the Giants. After some intense playoff football, I'll take the Packers and Falcons to advance to the NFC Championship Game. And Atlanta makes up for its disappointment of last season by finishing the deal last time, earning a berth against the Broncos in the Super Bowl.
When Denver won the second of its back-to-back titles 15 years ago, it was the Falcons that the Broncos beat in the Super Bowl. Move the game a little bit north and into much colder conditions, and you've got a recipe for a similar result. Peyton wins his second title at Eli's home stadium.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
NFL 2013, Part I
I'll be the first to admit I don't get even remotely excited about preseason football. I don't subscribe to that "It's football" approach that a lot of people have to justify caring about the preseason. But I don't find watching a bunch of rookies and guys fighting for backup jobs on a Friday night in August remotely entertaining. It's bad football. I'd much rather watch a middle-of-the-season pennant race baseball game than watch Peyton Manning play for three series than stand on the sidelines for three quarters of a meaningless "game" between guys who aren't even going to be on the team when the season starts.
Now that I've got that off my chest, this week is different. I'm excited about this week. Football is here. And I'm talking about football of the real variety. The regular season. It all gets started with the defending champion Ravens visiting Denver in a rematch of that epic playoff game last season. Of course, the tradition has become that the Super Bowl champions open their defense at home on Thursday night, but an unmovable conflict with the Orioles sent the Ravens on the road. It's not like they're giving us a bad opener, though.
The Broncos and Ravens should both be at the top of the AFC again this season. The AFC has become very top-heavy, and I don't expect that to change this season. Denver and New England should take advantage of being in weak divisions and clinch relatively quickly. Same thing in the AFC South. The Texans and Colts will fight each other for the division title, and they should both get into the playoffs because of how bad Tennessee and Jacksonville are. The only AFC division that can hold its weight against any of the four in the NFC is the AFC North, which put three teams in the playoffs two years ago and two last season. Cleveland fans are very excited about the Browns this season, but I think it'll be tough for them in what's clearly the conference's best division.
AFC East: The AFC East, once again, will be all about the Patriots. Although, I continue to hold firm on my stance that New England is one of the more overrated teams in football. The Patriots' record year-after-year is a by-product of being in the same division as three very weak teams than anything else. This year is absolutely no different. The only one of the three that's not an absolute joke is Miami, but even the Dolphins wouldn't be classified as an "elite" team. The Bills are going to start an undrafted rookie at quarterback against Tom Brady in Week 1. That says about all that needs to be said about their chances. Yet Buffalo's still better than the Jets, who have completed their descent into "comic relief" territory. Rex Ryan has no clue what he's doing, and neither does anybody else. They'll be lucky to win six games, and I think everybody knows it. So, yeah, we'll get another Patriots runaway, purely by default.
AFC North: The Ravens likely won't be as good as they were last season, but they're still going to be a very, very good team. Of course, winning your division means you get a first-place schedule the following year, so Baltimore will have to deal with New England, Houston and Denver, as well as Pittsburgh and Cincinnati twice each. Whoever wins those division games could determine which two of the three will get into the playoffs. You've gotta figure Baltimore gets one of those berths, which leaves us with the Steelers and Bengals. Personally, I think Pittsburgh underachieved last season, and the expectations aren't high on the Steelers this season, at least from the experts. I'm not entirely sure Pittsburgh's going to have adown year, though. I just don't see the Steelers missing the playoffs two years in a row. Likewise, I'm not completely sold on Cincinnati. The Bengals are a popular pick to make their third straight playoff appearance, or even win the division. Then there's the Browns. I completely agree with everyone who thinks Cleveland is a much-improved team, and they're going to be fun to watch as long as Trent Richardson is on the field. The Browns' problem, though, I'll reiterate, is their division. In the AFC North, I just don't see them getting out of last place.
AFC South: Who's going to win the division, the Texans or the Colts? Ultimately, I'm not sure how much it actually matters, since I think they're both getting back to the playoffs. Indy's got a lot to live up to after last season's incredible turnaround (in Year 1 of the Post-Peyton Manning Era, by the way). Not to take anything away from Chuck Pagano, but Bruce Arians deserves a lot of the credit for that turnaround. Arias is now the head coach in Arizona, however, and the task of repeating that unlikely run is Pagano's alone. Houston, of course, is thinking Super Bowl. The Texans, I think, were a little better last season, but they've still got their talented trio on offense and J.J. Watt might be the best defensive player in the game. I'll be shocked if the Texans don't win at least 11 games. At the bottom of the division, things are probably less dire in Nashville than they are in Jacksonville. (Tim Tebow really needs to take the hint. Even the Jaguars don't want him as a quarterback!) In addition to having the ugliest helmets and worst uniforms in the league, the Jaguars will probably be challenging the Jets for the No. 1 pick in April. The Titans at least have some talent and can realistically hope for a 6-10 year.
AFC West: Much like New England in the East, Denver is far-and-away the class of the AFC West. As good as the Broncos were last year, they should be that much better this season now that Peyton and Wes Welker have teamed up. Even losing Elvis Dumervil isn't going to be as much of a loss as a lot of people think, because that offense is going to be even better than it was last season. If there's any AFC West team that has a chance of remotely keeping it competitive with the Broncos, it's the Chiefs. Hiring Andy Reid was a brilliant move for Kansas City. He had certainly worn out his welcome in Philadelphia, but there's a reason he was there for so long. And the Chiefs have plenty of talent on the roster to compete, as evidence by having seven Pro Bowlers on a two-win team last season. While I think it'll probably take them a year or two to be really good, I wouldn't be surprised if the Chiefs go 10-6/9-7 and flirt with a playoff berth. If everything goes right, the Chiefs might even make the playoffs. The Chargers, of course, used to be that team that perennially underachieved despite being projected to make the playoffs, but those days are over. Nobody expects much from San Diego anymore. As for the Raiders, they're starting Terrelle Pryor at quarterback. I'm sure there's going to be a point where the Raiders are once again viewed as a model NFL franchise rather than a laughingstock. This year won't be that year, however.
As for the playoff field, two of the division winners are abundantly clear. It'll take something catastrophic for the Patriots and Broncos to NOT win their divisions. There will be two playoff teams coming out of both the North and South. In the North, I'm going with the Ravens to win the division and the Steelers to get a wild card, while Houston and Indianapolis will repeat their 1-2 standing (in that order) in the South. The AFC Championship, I think, will come down to Houston vs. Denver, with the Broncos making up for last season's disappointment and advancing to the Super Bowl in Giants Stadium. (After all, Eli won the Super Bowl in Peyton's stadium, so why shouldn't Peyton get to play in one in Eli's?)
NFC picks coming tomorrow. Those will be harder calls to make. Because the NFC is significantly stronger than the AFC this year.
Now that I've got that off my chest, this week is different. I'm excited about this week. Football is here. And I'm talking about football of the real variety. The regular season. It all gets started with the defending champion Ravens visiting Denver in a rematch of that epic playoff game last season. Of course, the tradition has become that the Super Bowl champions open their defense at home on Thursday night, but an unmovable conflict with the Orioles sent the Ravens on the road. It's not like they're giving us a bad opener, though.
The Broncos and Ravens should both be at the top of the AFC again this season. The AFC has become very top-heavy, and I don't expect that to change this season. Denver and New England should take advantage of being in weak divisions and clinch relatively quickly. Same thing in the AFC South. The Texans and Colts will fight each other for the division title, and they should both get into the playoffs because of how bad Tennessee and Jacksonville are. The only AFC division that can hold its weight against any of the four in the NFC is the AFC North, which put three teams in the playoffs two years ago and two last season. Cleveland fans are very excited about the Browns this season, but I think it'll be tough for them in what's clearly the conference's best division.
AFC East: The AFC East, once again, will be all about the Patriots. Although, I continue to hold firm on my stance that New England is one of the more overrated teams in football. The Patriots' record year-after-year is a by-product of being in the same division as three very weak teams than anything else. This year is absolutely no different. The only one of the three that's not an absolute joke is Miami, but even the Dolphins wouldn't be classified as an "elite" team. The Bills are going to start an undrafted rookie at quarterback against Tom Brady in Week 1. That says about all that needs to be said about their chances. Yet Buffalo's still better than the Jets, who have completed their descent into "comic relief" territory. Rex Ryan has no clue what he's doing, and neither does anybody else. They'll be lucky to win six games, and I think everybody knows it. So, yeah, we'll get another Patriots runaway, purely by default.
AFC North: The Ravens likely won't be as good as they were last season, but they're still going to be a very, very good team. Of course, winning your division means you get a first-place schedule the following year, so Baltimore will have to deal with New England, Houston and Denver, as well as Pittsburgh and Cincinnati twice each. Whoever wins those division games could determine which two of the three will get into the playoffs. You've gotta figure Baltimore gets one of those berths, which leaves us with the Steelers and Bengals. Personally, I think Pittsburgh underachieved last season, and the expectations aren't high on the Steelers this season, at least from the experts. I'm not entirely sure Pittsburgh's going to have adown year, though. I just don't see the Steelers missing the playoffs two years in a row. Likewise, I'm not completely sold on Cincinnati. The Bengals are a popular pick to make their third straight playoff appearance, or even win the division. Then there's the Browns. I completely agree with everyone who thinks Cleveland is a much-improved team, and they're going to be fun to watch as long as Trent Richardson is on the field. The Browns' problem, though, I'll reiterate, is their division. In the AFC North, I just don't see them getting out of last place.
AFC South: Who's going to win the division, the Texans or the Colts? Ultimately, I'm not sure how much it actually matters, since I think they're both getting back to the playoffs. Indy's got a lot to live up to after last season's incredible turnaround (in Year 1 of the Post-Peyton Manning Era, by the way). Not to take anything away from Chuck Pagano, but Bruce Arians deserves a lot of the credit for that turnaround. Arias is now the head coach in Arizona, however, and the task of repeating that unlikely run is Pagano's alone. Houston, of course, is thinking Super Bowl. The Texans, I think, were a little better last season, but they've still got their talented trio on offense and J.J. Watt might be the best defensive player in the game. I'll be shocked if the Texans don't win at least 11 games. At the bottom of the division, things are probably less dire in Nashville than they are in Jacksonville. (Tim Tebow really needs to take the hint. Even the Jaguars don't want him as a quarterback!) In addition to having the ugliest helmets and worst uniforms in the league, the Jaguars will probably be challenging the Jets for the No. 1 pick in April. The Titans at least have some talent and can realistically hope for a 6-10 year.
AFC West: Much like New England in the East, Denver is far-and-away the class of the AFC West. As good as the Broncos were last year, they should be that much better this season now that Peyton and Wes Welker have teamed up. Even losing Elvis Dumervil isn't going to be as much of a loss as a lot of people think, because that offense is going to be even better than it was last season. If there's any AFC West team that has a chance of remotely keeping it competitive with the Broncos, it's the Chiefs. Hiring Andy Reid was a brilliant move for Kansas City. He had certainly worn out his welcome in Philadelphia, but there's a reason he was there for so long. And the Chiefs have plenty of talent on the roster to compete, as evidence by having seven Pro Bowlers on a two-win team last season. While I think it'll probably take them a year or two to be really good, I wouldn't be surprised if the Chiefs go 10-6/9-7 and flirt with a playoff berth. If everything goes right, the Chiefs might even make the playoffs. The Chargers, of course, used to be that team that perennially underachieved despite being projected to make the playoffs, but those days are over. Nobody expects much from San Diego anymore. As for the Raiders, they're starting Terrelle Pryor at quarterback. I'm sure there's going to be a point where the Raiders are once again viewed as a model NFL franchise rather than a laughingstock. This year won't be that year, however.
As for the playoff field, two of the division winners are abundantly clear. It'll take something catastrophic for the Patriots and Broncos to NOT win their divisions. There will be two playoff teams coming out of both the North and South. In the North, I'm going with the Ravens to win the division and the Steelers to get a wild card, while Houston and Indianapolis will repeat their 1-2 standing (in that order) in the South. The AFC Championship, I think, will come down to Houston vs. Denver, with the Broncos making up for last season's disappointment and advancing to the Super Bowl in Giants Stadium. (After all, Eli won the Super Bowl in Peyton's stadium, so why shouldn't Peyton get to play in one in Eli's?)
NFC picks coming tomorrow. Those will be harder calls to make. Because the NFC is significantly stronger than the AFC this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)