2016 NFL Week 8

Crazy as it sounds, we're almost halfway through the NFL season.  The good and bad teams are definitely starting to separate themselves.  In fact, we have six playoff teams in each conference right now without needing to apply any tiebreakers.

You also know it's Week 8 because of how few games there are on the schedule.  For some reason, there are six byes this week.  Seriously, why is four teams a week for eight weeks so difficult?  As a result of the three lost games and the three primetime games, CBS and FOX each only get five...and FOX has the 9:30 a.m. game, as well as a national late game.  Including Cubs-Indians it's a quadrupleheader on FOX, but the options still seem kinda lacking.

Redskins (4-3) vs. Bengals (3-4): Cincinnati-Finally we're done with this year's seemingly weekly London games!  This is number three, and matchup-wise it might be the best one.  A pair of division champions from a year ago.  They could both use a win, too.  The NFC East and AFC North are both getting very tightly bunched.  The Bengals are the better team, though, so I'll take Cincinnati.

Patriots (6-1) at Bills (4-3): New England-New England's only loss of the season came against Buffalo.  At Foxboro!  But that was the Patriots' final Brady-less game, and they had no idea what they were doing at quarterback that week, which showed.  That was during the Bills' four-game winning streak, which ended last week in Miami.  I think the Bills might've been looking ahead to this one a little bit.  The Patriots have been looking ahead, too.  There's no way they're going to be swept by the Bills.

Jets (2-5) at Browns (0-7): Jets-Maybe the Cavs/Indians mojo will rub off on the Browns at some point.  Cleveland raised a banner on Tuesday night and could win another title on Sunday night.  If the Browns are going to join the party, this week seems like a good one for that to happen.  Until it does, though, I'm not baking on it.  The Jetropolitans are the pick.

Chiefs (4-2) at Colts (3-4): Kansas City-What is it about the Kansas City Chiefs?  They're not flashy, but Andy Reid's guys find a way seemingly every week.  And it's got them square in a tightly-bunched AFC West race.  The AFC South race is close, too, mainly because all four of them keep losing to everybody but each other.  The Chiefs aren't in the AFC South, so that tells you what I think about the Colts' chances.

Seahawks (4-1-1) at Saints (2-4): Seattle-That tie last week certainly helped the Seahawks more than the Cardinals.  It also took Seattle out of all the tiebreakers, which could be significant later in the season.  New Orleans needs to beat somebody out of the NFC South at some point, but even that offense is no match for the Legion of Boom.

Raiders (5-2) at Buccaneers (3-3): Oakland-Remember when these two played each other in the Super Bowl?  Probably not.  Since it seems like forever since either was good.  Well, this year they both are.  The Bucs are definitely in the NFC South mix, while Jack Del Rio's Raiders are legitimate playoff contenders.  Oakland is undefeated on the road and a remarkable 4-0 in 1:00 games.  I expect that to continue.

Cardinals (3-3-1) at Panthers (1-5): Arizona-If there's ever a way to have a tie feel like a loss, the Cardinals sure experienced that feeling last week.  I'm still not sure how Arizona didn't win that game.  Now they head east for an NFC title game rematch against an equally desperate Panthers team.  One of them has to win (although, as the Cardinals proved last week, not really).  The loser not only won't be returning to the NFC Championship Game, but will have a hard time even making the playoffs (if that's not enough of a long shot already).

Lions (4-3) at Texans (4-3): Houston-The last time these two met, it was that Thanksgiving game where the Lions won because of a clear fumble that Houston wasn't allowed to challenge...leading to the rule change that all turnovers are automatically reviewed.  Detroit's won three in a row to get over .500, but all three of those games were at home.  The Texans, meanwhile, got their butts kicked in Brock Osweiler's return to Denver.  This one will be interesting, but I think Houston pulls it out.

Chargers (3-4) at Broncos (5-2): Denver-These two literally just played.  It was two weeks ago in that Thursday night game that San Diego handed the Broncos their second straight loss.  Denver had plenty of time to recover, and took care of Houston pretty handily on Monday night.  Just like the Bills-Patriots rematch, I'd be shocked to see the better team get swept.

Packers (4-2) at Falcons (4-3): Green Bay-FOX moved this one into that national late slot, and it could be an important game for playoff positioning.  Atlanta has started to come back to earth after that 4-1 start.  The Packers, meanwhile, are starting to look like the team people thought they'd be.  With this game in Atlanta, we'll really get to gauge where the Falcons and Packers actually stand.  I think Green Bay's better, so that's my pick.

Eagles (4-2) at Cowboys (5-1): Dallas-Can we get three straight overtime Sunday night games?  After last week's NFC West rivalry game somehow ended in a 6-6 tie, the NFC East rivals meet with first place on the line.  It's thanks to the Eagles that Dallas is now tied for the best record in the NFC.  That win snapped a two-game losing streak for Philadelphia.  The Cowboys, of course, haven't lost since their opener.  This is going to be a fun matchup.

Vikings (5-1) at Bears (1-6): Minnesota-Last Thursday, fans in Chicago had some decisions to make.  The Bears were playing the Packers at the same time the Cubs were playing in the NLCS.  This week, they won't have an issue.  Because the Bears are playing on Monday night, which is the World Series off day (assuming the Cubs send the series back to Cleveland).  Don't be surprised if the Bears put up a fight.  Minnesota's just too good, though.  (Also, quick sidebar, how/why did the Bears get four primetime games in the first eight weeks of the season?  We're talking about the freakin' Bears here!)

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 9-5-1
Season: 68-39-1

World Series Home Field

During his press conference prior to Game 2 of the World Series, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred hinted that he's going to talk with the Players' Union about World Series home field.  Ever since 2003, the league that wins the All-Star Game has had home field advantage in the World Series.  In those 14 seasons, the American League is 11-3 in the All-Star Game, meaning the World Series has started in the AL city 11 times during that span.

We, of course, all know the reason why World Series home field was attached to the All-Star Game.  After that ridiculous tie in 2002, Bud Selig wanted to make sure that would never happen again.  So, in order to give the All-Star Game meaning, he attached World Series home field to it.  Seeing as the home field advantage simply alternated between leagues until that point, no one really had a problem with this gimmick.

Eventually they decided to make the World Series home field attachment a regular thing, and this arrangement has certainly drawn its share of critics.  While I personally don't have an issue with the All-Star Game determining World Series home field (it sure beats the old method), those that do certainly do have a valid argument.

Most of those critics would like to see the team with the better record have home field advantage.  In theory that makes sense.  The 103-win Cubs were the best team in baseball this season.  It really is kinda dumb that if this World Series goes seven games, they won't be playing Game 7 at Wrigley.  Shouldn't the best team be rewarded for having the best record?

Like I said, that makes sense in theory.  Except there's a slight problem with simply giving home field to the team with the better record.  You might not know which team that is until two days before the series starts!  If both LCSes go seven games, one would end on Saturday and the other on Sunday.  The World Series starts on Tuesday.  Logistically that's a nightmare.  You can't have the teams find out where they're playing on Tuesday late on Sunday night!  (Yes, they do that in the NHL and NBA, but they also have significantly more days off during the playoffs in those two sports to accommodate that extra travel.)  And what if they have the same record?  Assuming they didn't play each other in interleague, how do you break that tie?

There's one even bigger issue with that scenario, though.  The DH.  The fact that the two leagues play by two different sets of rules is the biggest reason why you can't do it that way.  The DH can be a big factor in the way teams construct their rosters and set up their pitching staffs for the World Series.  They need more than two-days' notice to know whether they're going to have a DH for the first two games or not.  Likewise, if they want a certain pitcher to go at home, can you set him up to pitch Games 2 and 6 both at home?

I'm sure that's not a concern very high on the minds of the casual fan, but this World Series is actually a perfect example on the significance of having the DH vs. not having it.  If the series hadn't started in Cleveland, there's no way the Cubs would've activated Kyle Schwarber and put him in the lineup for the first two games.  And the Indians would've had to figure out their Mike Napoli/Carlos Santana Wrigley dilemma a lot earlier.  For most AL teams, the DH is a pretty important piece of the lineup, so losing it is really not ideal.  Both teams need to prepare for whichever situation they're going to be in with advance notice.

Another suggestion that's been tossed around would be to let the team with the better playoff winning percentage have home field.  Except that would create exactly the same problem as the previous scenario, and, frankly, it makes more sense to use regular season record than postseason record to determine it if those are the two options.  Going back to the old way and simply alternating every year is another option.  Although, I think most people agree about that one, and those opinions generally fall in the same range as the ones about attaching it to the All-Star Game.

Unfortunately, right now, there really aren't any better options that continuing to use the All-Star Game.  I've got a solution that might work, though.  It's kind of a hybrid of using the better regular season record (which, if it worked logistically, which it doesn't, I agree would be the best way).  Actually, I have two, both of which are kinda similar.

The first does reward the team with the best record in baseball for having the best record.  Whichever league the team with the best record plays in, that league gets home field for the World Series.  That way you get to reward them by guaranteeing they get to start (and theoretically finish) every series at home while never not having home field advantage.  The home field doesn't change if the best team is eliminated prior to the World Series, either.  They win it for their league.  So, had the Giants beaten the Cubs, the NL still would've had home field advantage this year.

My other idea is a little bit more out there, but it's the one that I think would actually work the best.  Each team plays 20 interleague games during the season.  That means there are a total of 300 interleague games each year.  How about whichever league does better against the other during interleague play gets the home field?  That would instantly add energy to interleague play, which sometimes can get a bit stale.

Yes, there'e year-round interleague play now, but, if World Series home field was at stake, each of those games would instantly have meaning.  (Imagine if the Cubs, who were running away with the NL Central played an interleague series in mid-September knowing it could affect whether or not the World Series started at Wrigley?)  And if the overall interleague series across Baseball ended up 150-150, then you use the All-Star Game as your tiebreaker, which brings us back to where we are today.

It'll be interesting to see if Manfred's conversation with the Union goes anywhere.  I'm not sure how much of a hot-button issue it is with players.  Really, it's more a topic for fans and media to discuss.  I do know this, though.  The Cubs were happy to have Kyle Schwarber in their lineup as the DH for the first two games of the World Series, just like they will be in Game 7 if it gets that far.  But had the World Series started at Wrigley, he wouldn't even have been playing.  See the difference a DH makes?

Time For C___ to Party Like It's 19_8

Cubs-Indians.  I bet you didn't have that as your World Series pick back in Spring Training (Cubs, sure, but very few people had Cleveland).  But here we are, the first-ever all-Central World Series between two teams that have waited a collective 176 years since their last championship.  For fans in either Cleveland or Chicago, the drought will finally end.  So either way, this World Series is going to be historic.

First a little perspective about the sheer remarkableness of some of the numbers involving these two teams.  We all know it's been 108 years since the Cubs last won the World Series.  In fact, Game 1 will be their first World Series game in 71 years.  That was so long ago that World War II had just ended, there were 16 teams in the Majors, the World Series wasn't yet broadcast on television and the thought of playing it at night was blasphemous.  Oh yeah, and all the players were white.  That's right.  It was two years before Jackie Robinson.  When Dexter Fowler leads off the opener, he'll become the first black Cubs player ever to appear in the World Series.

For the Indians, it's been 68 years.  And their last title came three years after the Cubs' last appearance.  Cleveland, of course, has come much closer to a title since.  The Indians went to the World Series twice in the mid-90s, losing to the Braves in 1995 and that memorable Game 7 to the Marlins in 1997.  Now, 19 years later, they're back, looking to keep Cleveland's incredible 2016 going.

How great has 2016 been in Cleveland sports?  Well, this should tell you all you need to know.  The Indians are hosting Game 1 of the World Series for the first time in franchise history.  Meanwhile, LeBron and the Cavs will be receiving their rings and seeing their banner raised on the NBA's Opening Night.  The two games are happening at the same time in venues that are next door to each other.  Downtown Cleveland is gonna be rocking!

Cleveland has been utterly sensational this postseason.  The Indians are 7-1, and their only loss came in Game 4 against Toronto when they were going for a sweep with Kluber pitching on three days' rest.  They shut down the incredible offenses of the Red Sox and Blue Jays, mainly thanks to their dominant bullpen (well, mainly ALCS MVP Andrew Miller).  It's made even more incredible because they've done it with really two and a half starting pitchers.  We'll see if Trevor Bauer is able to pitch (what kind of an idiot cuts his finger on a drone in the middle of the playoffs?!), and Danny Salazar has been added to the World Series roster, presumably to start Game 4, which I think is kinda risky seeing as he hasn't pitched in a month.

The Cubs are making a risky roster move of their own by activating Kyle Schwarber to DH in the first two games.  Schwarber was supposed to be their starting left fielder this year, but was lost for the season when he broke his leg after running into Dexter Fowler in early April.  He's an outstanding power hitter (remember the homer on top of the Wrigley scoreboard in last year's NLCS?), but it's definitely a gamble to insert Schwarber into a lineup that has been clicking ever since Game 4 of the NLCS.  Especially since he'll really only be able to pinch hit during the games at Wrigley.

And, before I get going with the pick, first a shout out to the managers.  Terry Francona and Joe Maddon have proven that they are both among the best managers in the game.  Francona won that curse-breaking title with the 2004 Red Sox, then Boston won another three years later.  (By the way, the 2013 Red Sox are everywhere.  Lester and Lackey are on the Cubs, Coco Crisp and Mike Napoli are on the Indians with Francona.  I guess they're the World Series equivalent of the 2008 Phillies in the NL playoffs.)  Maddon, meanwhile, took Tampa Bay to the World Series eight years ago and now looks to exorcise the Cubs' demons.

We know that one of these two long-suffering fan bases will finally have something to celebrate in a little more than a week (if not sooner).  But which one will it be?  Either way, the parade's going to be epic.

Anyway, the Indians' greatest strength is their pitching.  Especially the bullpen.  However, the Cubs' starters match up evenly with them, if not hold the advantage, in every game.  And the Cubs boast the World Series experience of Lester and Lackey, who've both won clinchers before.  You never know if that's going to be a factor, but it's not insignificant that they've been here before.  Cleveland wants to get it to Miller and Allen, while the Cubs really can get away with six from the starter before figuring out the seventh, then Strop/Rodon and Chapman.  If there's a slight edge on the pitching front, I give it to Chicago.

Meanwhile, the clear advantage on the offensive end goes to our friends from the North Side.  Ever since Anthony Rizzo and Addison Russell started hitting in Game 4 of the NLCS, the Cubs' bats have been on fire.  We saw Cleveland shut down two powerful AL lineups, but the Cubs are more complete than either the Red Sox or the Blue Jays.  The Indians don't have nearly as many weapons as the Cubs.  When the series shifts to Wrigley, that'll be even more of a factor.  Especially since they'll have to decide between sitting Carlos Santana or sitting Mike Napoli.

Then there's this.  When one LCS extends significantly longer than the other, the advantage tends to go to the team that hasn't had the time off.  In this case, that's the Cubs, who finished off the Dodgers on Saturday night.  The Indians, meanwhile, wrapped up the ALCS on Wednesday afternoon.  They'll have a full week off.  Is that enough to base a pick on?  No.  But the trend has been true for so long that it's too much to ignore.

I've thought all year that the Cubs were the best team in baseball.  Prior to the start of the playoffs, I compared them to the 2009 Yankees.  But the 1998 Yankees might be a more appropriate comparison.  That team was the best team of the Yankees Dynasty and probably the best team of this generation (certainly the best of the wild card era).  They didn't face much adversity during the year...until Game 4 of the ALCS, when they were down 2-1 and faced their first must-win of the season.  They didn't lose again.

That was almost an identical situation for the 2016 Cubs.  They didn't face any adversity until Game 4 of the NLCS, when they trailed 2-1 after having been shut out in the last two games.  Three wins later, they ended their 71-year World Series drought, without Steve Bartman or the Billy Goat in sight.  These Cubs seem immune to the pressure.  Mainly because so many of them are too young to care.

If you think about it, the hard part is over.  Getting to the World Series was the big hurdle for the Cubs franchise.  Now that they've made it here, there's only one way you can envision this story ending.  And what better way to celebrate a century of the Cubs at Wrigley by raising the W flag in the last game of the year?  After 108 years, it's time to party on Sheffield & Waveland.  Because Cleveland won't be making it back-to-back championships.  The Chicago Freakin' Cubs (yes, the Chicago Cubs) are going to win the World Series.  Four games to two.

2016 NFL Week 7

The NFL's ratings so far this season are down and they're not happy about it.  They've been trying to figure out the reasons why, and there are a number of theories out there.  Some blame the Hillary-Donald Factor, others blame uncompetitive primetime games, while still others think it's a combination of the two.  Then there are those who bluntly declare that people aren't interested in watching Tom Brady's backup or the Broncos without Peyton Manning.

My theory is slightly different.  The NFL is king.  But we may have reached a point of oversaturation.  There's a game on every freakin' night!  We're not going to put our lives aside just because there's a football game on.  Especially not when there's a full day of football on Sunday, then a Monday night game, then a Thursday night game, then a whole bunch of college games on Saturday for those who are so inclined.  And we're definitely not going out of our way to watch Jaguars-Titans or Browns-Bills or whatever crappy Thursday night matchup they have just so every team can play a primetime game.

I've never really been a fan of the full-season Thursday night games, for a number of reasons.  (The Color Rush has been added to that list of reasons, but I didn't like Thursday Night Football before that.)  The players hate them, and the quality of play is never really that good, even on the rare occasion that the matchup is.  And the teams that play on Thursday night often end up playing on Sunday night or Monday night the following week, so you almost forget about them when they go almost two weeks without a game.

For the record, I have no problem with the Opening Night Thursday game, and Thanksgiving games are obviously a tradition.  But I digress.  On to the picks...

Giants (3-3) vs. Rams (3-3): Giants-Ten years ago, the Giants played the first-ever NFL game in London.  Now they play the first NFL game at Twickenham Stadium, the home of English rugby.  And they play the Rams, who still played in St. Louis when they agreed to be one of the regular London teams.  Since they've moved to LA, though, add 2,000 miles to the trip and a 6:30 a.m. Pacific start time.  The Rams were cruising at 3-1, but have lost back-to-back games since.  A trip across the Atlantic isn't exactly coming at the best time.

Browns (0-6) at Bengals (2-4): Cincinnati-Maybe the Browns will celebrate the Indians' success by winning their first game of the season.  Except it probably won't happen.  The Bengals are 2-4, mainly because of their brutal schedule to start the season.  A visit by Cleveland may be just what the doctor ordered before they head over to London.

Redskins (4-2) at Lions (3-3): Washington-After starting 0-2, the Redskins have won four in a row.  The Lions have also been playing some good football, winning two straight after that inexplicable loss to the Bears.  Something's gotta give in this one.  Since I think Washington's the better team, I'm going with the Redskins, who need a win to keep pace with the Cowboys.

Colts (2-4) at Titans (3-3): Indianapolis-Things are just as crazy as they usually are in the AFC South.  Had the Colts won last week, they'd be in a three-way tie for first.  Instead, they're in last.  The Titans, meanwhile, have a chance to move into a tie for first this week if they win and the Texans lose the Osweiler Bowl on Monday night.  Except, I don't think they're going to win, so that won't matter.

Saints (2-3) at Chiefs (3-2): Kansas City-That was a big win for the Chiefs last week, going into Oakland and beating a good Raiders team.  The same thing can really be said for the Saints, who avoided a 1-4 start by knocking off the Panthers.  New Orleans has done a lot of scoring this season, even though it has resulted in only two wins.  They haven't faced a defense like Kansas City's, though.  The Chiefs get to 4-2 and keep the pressure on the Broncos and Raiders.

Bills (4-2) at Dolphins (2-4): Buffalo-Rex Ryan thinks his own team is "boring."  Well, Rex, that may be true, but you've still won four straight since firing your offensive coordinator.  Now they head to Miami without LeSean McCoy, who went nuts on the 49ers last week.  I have a friend who's a Bills fan and considers their record a "soft" 4-2 based on who they've played.  The Dolphins may have beaten the Steelers last week, but they're not exactly one of the top teams, either.

Ravens (3-3) at Jets (1-5): Baltimore-When was the last time the road team played consecutive games in the same stadium?  That's exactly what the Ravens are doing, though.  They played the Giants last week, and now return to MetLife Stadium to play the Jets (considering the proximity of Baltimore to New York, I'm assuming they went home and came back).  Last week didn't go so well for them.  This one should be better.

Vikings (5-0) at Eagles (3-2): Minnesota-It was a little bit of a surprise that NBC didn't scoop this one up and flex it into Sunday night.  Because it's one of the most intriguing matchups of the season.  Sam Bradford was traded from the Eagles to the Vikings with a week left in the preseason, handing Philly's starting job to Carson Wentz.  The trade has worked out well for all parties involved so far, especially the Vikings, who are the only remaining undefeated team.  It's a shame that this game is a 1:00 regional offering instead of the national game it should be (CBS has the doubleheader this week).

Raiders (4-2) at Jaguars (2-3): Oakland-Oakland has had a very interesting season so far.  They're 3-0 in 1:00 Eastern starts, but have lost two of their three home games.  Fortunately they're back in the early slot, as they visit Jack Del Rio's first team.  Jacksonville should keep it competitive, but I see the Raiders' East Coast mojo continuing.

Chargers (2-4) at Falcons (4-2): Atlanta-San Diego has had the lead in the fourth quarter of every game this season, but only has two wins to show for it.  Atlanta, meanwhile, has been putting up video game numbers on the offensive end, and they almost pulled off the upset in Seattle last week.  Some people are saying that this Falcons squad is different than the one that had that massive collapse last season.  I still need to see it to believe it, but I do think they'll beat the Chargers at home.

Buccaneers (2-3) at 49ers (1-5): Tampa Bay-Colin Kaepernick's first start of the season went just about how I expected.  He's not a good quarterback and San Francisco's not a good team.  The Bucs aren't great, either, but they're definitely better than the 49ers.  That trip to the West Coast could make this one interesting, but I think Jamies Winston gets his team to 3-3.

Patriots (5-1) at Steelers (4-2): New England-Were the Steelers caught looking ahead to this weekend's matchup with the Patriots?  That Miami game had "trap game" written all over it, and it turns out that was exactly what it was.  After they got smacked by the Eagles, they took it out on the Chiefs.  Well, slight problem with that plan, which won't work again.  They're playing the Patriots, and they're doing it without Big Ben.  This could be a blowout.

Seahawks (4-1) at Cardinals (3-3): Seattle-In the various NFL Power Rankings, Seattle is a pretty consensus top five team (it's usually Minnesota-New England 1-2 in either order and Dallas-Seattle 3-4 in either order).  Now they look to make a statement in a rivalry game against Arizona.  The Cardinals clinched the division in Seattle last season.  The Seahawks remember that.  Yes, it's Week 7.  But the Seahawks want to make sure the NFC West goes thru them this year.  That, and they're just better than the Cardinals right now.

Texans (4-2) at Broncos (4-2): Denver-On Monday night, we've got a good one.  Brock Osweiler returns to Denver against the suddenly reeling defending champs.  The Broncos are one of those teams I was talking about before that plays on Thursday night, then you forget about them.  Except in this case, the break might've been good.  They lost twice in five days after having not lost at all since December.  They've had plenty of time to straighten things out after being completely outplayed in every aspect in San Diego.  Osweiler may get his ring, but that'll be the only time his former teammates show him any sort of camaraderie.  It's a big game for Trevor Siemian, too.  He wants to show Broncos fans that they aren't missing out on anything by not having Osweiler under center.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-6
Overall: 60-33

Cleveland: City of Champions

Raise your hand if you ever thought you'd hear those four words said together.  But it's true.  It's great to be a Cleveland sports fan right now.  After waiting 50 years for a championship, they're on the verge of their second in a row.  LeBron gave the Cavs their long-awaited first-ever NBA title and now, four months later, the Indians are headed to the World Series.  Unfortunately, the Browns didn't get the memo.

It's weird that we're talking about Cleveland like this, but it wouldn't be the first time that a particular city has felt like the center of the sports world.  In fact, it's happened quite a few times that a city won back-to-back championships in the four major sports (Super Bowl/Stanley Cup, Stanley Cup/NBA, NBA/World Series, World Series/Super Bowl).  The last time was in 2009, when the Penguins won the Stanley Cup a few months after the Steelers won the Super Bowl.  Pittsburgh's not the only city that's had this kind of fun, though.  Almost every city that has multiple teams has enjoyed a time like this at least once.

Boston: Remember a few years ago when all four Boston teams were good and their fans got even more obnoxious?  Of course, the Patriots have been one of the NFL's elite teams for the last 15 years, winning four titles and losing to the Giants in two other Super Bowls.  In 2005, they won their second straight Super Bowl months after the Red Sox had their memorable 2004 championship.  The Red Sox have added two World Series wins since then (in 2007 and 2013), the first of which was followed by a Celtics title.  Oh yeah, and the Bruins won the Stanley Cup in 2011 for good measure, making Boston the only city with a championship in each sport this millennium.

New York: We had a memorable spring of 1994 here in New York, when Madison Square Garden was being used for both the Stanley Cup and NBA Finals simultaneously.  With the number of teams that play in New York (both currently and in the past), it's not surprising that we've seen this on multiple occasions.  But New York teams haven't earned consecutive titles in 30 years.  Not since the Mets' 1986 World Series victory was followed by the Giants winning the Super Bowl in January 1987.

Los Angeles: After Magic and the Showtime Lakers won their second consecutive title in June 1988, the Dodgers won the World Series that October.  The Lakers also lost in the NBA Finals to the Celtics seemingly every year in the 1960s, when the Dodgers won two World Series and lost another.  The LA Sparks just won the WNBA championship, and the LA Galaxy are always in the mix for the MLS Cup, so a Dodgers World Series victory would put Los Angeles in Cleveland territory in terms of most successful sports cities right now.

Bay Area: People from San Francisco take no ownership of the Oakland teams and vice versa, but the A's run of three straight World Series appearances (one of which was against the Giants) corresponded with the end of the 49ers' dynasty.  The Earthquake Series came in the midst of the 49ers' run to a second straight Super Bowl title that would culminate in a 55-10 shellacking of the Broncos three months later.  The Giants and Warriors were also both the reigning champions in their respective sports for a few months last year. 

Baltimore: This one goes back a-ways, but it still counts.  Baltimore's Memorial Stadium was the place to be in 1970.  The Orioles dynasty was at its peak.  After being upset by the Mets in '69, they defeated the Reds that fall.  Then in January 1971, the Colts beat the Cowboys in the first post-merger Super Bowl.

Philadelphia: A city doesn't necessarily need to win the championships it plays for to be a part of this party.  Take Philadelphia.  The Phillies won the World Series for the first time in 1980, then the Eagles made their first Super Bowl appearance in January 1981.  Same thing in 1983.  The Sixers won the NBA title, then the Phillies were back in the World Series, where they lost to Baltimore.

New Jersey: The state where the Giants and Jets play used to have two teams to call its own (a number that has since been reduced to one).  In 2003, they were both playing in the Finals at the same time.  The Devils won the Stanley Cup, while the Nets lost to the Spurs in the NBA Finals.

Believe it or not, despite having two baseball teams and one in each of the other sports, Chicago's never even had two teams in the finals in the same year.  Although, considering the history of the five Chicago sports teams, it does make sense.  Jordan's Bulls won their six titles in eight years in the 90s and the Blackhawks have had their recent Stanley Cup runs, but Chicago's never really had two of its teams be good at the same time.

Chicago isn't alone, though.  Dallas?  Nope.  The Avalanche and Broncos kind of overlapped in the mid-90s, but not enough for Denver to make a claim.  Same thing with Phoenix, which only has one championship period courtesy of the 2001 Diamondbacks.  Ditto with Houston.  Two titles for the Rockets and that's it.  Minnesota came close with the 1991 North Stars (who now play in Dallas) and Twins, but the Vikings haven't been to the Super Bowl in 45 years and the Timberwolves struggle to even make the playoffs.  Washington, Miami, Milwaukee?  All in the same boat as the others.

So, while it's not completely unheard of, it's not as if this happens regularly, either.  In other words, enjoy it Cleveland.  Because it really doesn't matter whether the Indians win or lose.  Your city is the center of the sports world right now.  A point that will be made even more clear on Tuesday night, when the Indians host Game 1 of the World Series while LeBron and Friends get their rings and see their banner raised next door.  Now THAT'S going to be a memorable night.

Upon Further Review

Instant replay has become an accepted part of virtually every sport.  And, frankly, it's a good thing.  The whole point of instant replay is to fix correctable errors.  Even if we're sometimes left sitting there wondering how a certain call can stand when the replay clearly shows it should be overturned or vice versa.  But at least that's better than wondering why a play can't be reviewed (or what the NFL's definition of a catch is that week).

I also agree that instant replay isn't the end-all, be-all.  There are definitely certain things that should still be left to human judgment.  Things like balls and strikes in baseball or penalties in football.  Likewise, instant replay's purpose isn't to interpret the rules.  It's a tool to help officials do their jobs.  It's not meant to replace them.

But even when instant replay is used properly, it sometimes leaves you scratching your head.  The correct call may not always be the "right" one.  Especially if it goes against the whole spirit of the replay rules in the first place.

There are two instances that come to mind regarding the use of replay in baseball, neither of which really makes too much sense to me.  The first was a game late in the regular season between the Reds and Cardinals.  St. Louis had the winning run score from first on Yadier Molina's walk-off double that kept them in the playoff race.  Except the video clearly showed it should've been a ground-rule double, which would've kept the winning run at third.  And the Reds weren't allowed to challenge it!

Apparently it's a rule that a replay request has to be immediate and the Reds took too long to say they wanted to challenge.  The thing that's really stupid about this rule, though, is that they have 30 seconds during the course of the game.  So, for the inconsequential play in the third inning, they have 30 seconds.  But on the final play of the game, it has to be immediate.  Am I the only one who thinks there's something wrong with this picture?  Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Cincinnati manager Bryan Price wasn't happy after the game, and it had nothing to do with the loss.  That wasn't even remotely close to the point.  The Cardinals might've won the game anyway.  It was more about the integrity of the process.  In that situation, replay clearly would've shown that the call on the field was incorrect and the game shouldn't have been over.  Price had a greater point.  He even said in his postgame press conference that the San Francisco Giants had every reason to be upset by that result.  It ultimately didn't, but that could've been the game that cost the Giants a playoff spot.

Price's argument that it was absolutely ridiculous that play couldn't be reviewed is one that was well-taken.  I don't know of a person who didn't agree with him, and I'm sure that will be a topic of discussion at the Winter Meetings.  I wouldn't be surprised to see a rule change put in next season, either.

Another replay rule change I'd like to see put in place involves the tag play at second on stolen base attempts.  We've seen this play called right a number of times throughout the playoffs, one of which led to an inning-long discussion between Ernie Johnson, Ron Darling and Cal Ripken during the Indians-Red Sox series.  I agree with Ernie and Ron.  While technically correct, calling the guy out because he came off the base for a split-second on the slide isn't within the spirit of the rule.

Ever since Major League Baseball instituted instant replay, middle infielders have been taught to keep their tag on any runner attempting to steal second just in case his body comes off the base at any point.  In the Cleveland-Boston game in question, I think it was Francisco Lindor had the base stolen.  He had a great jump, beat the throw by a mile, and got his hand in there.  But because there was a split second between Lindor touching the base with his hand and completing the slide that he wasn't in contact with the base...so they called him out to end the inning.

So, in other words, Lindor did everything right, yet he was out because the umpires in New York had access to 17 different angles of slow motion video that showed he was not on the base for a millisecond on an otherwise picture-perfect stolen base attempt.  How many stolen bases would that have cost Ricky Henderson or Lou Brock if they'd had replay back then?

That's not the intent of the replay rules.  If the throw beats him and he clearly doesn't touch the base or if he overslides the bag or if he goes out of the baseline I have no problem with the runner being called out.  But in situations like the one with Lindor in the Division Series, the runner should be called safe.  Because for all intents and purposes, he is.  I highly doubt they'll make any sort of rule change about this one.  But I hope they do.  At the very least, they should consider it.

While we're on the topic, I always prefer the umpires letting something play out then using replay to correct the situation rather than the other way around.  It's better to call the guy safe then overturn it than to call him out and have everybody stop, only to find out that the original call was wrong and the runners should've kept going.

Who knows?  Maybe this is enough to get Baseball talking about it.  Maybe they'll even tweak the replay rules, which wouldn't be unprecedented (remember when it first started and everyone was getting called out at first when the throw was still in the air?  That got fixed quickly).  After all, it only takes one high-profile play that gets everybody talking to prompt a change (NoVarro Bowman Rule anybody?).

2016 NFL Week 6

OK, how awesome were those Color Rush throwbacks on Thursday night?!  I've made my distaste for the whole "Color Rush" thing very clear, but thought those looked great.  The throwbacks didn't come off as a cheap gimmick, which I think is one of the reasons why they worked.  And the Broncos' old logo looked great on the navy.  In fact, it looked better on the navy than it did on that lighter shade of blue that was their actual helmet color then.

Yes, I got my Thursday night pick wrong, but I barely watched the game (that's what happens when there's a Game 5 in baseball).  Now it's on to the rest of the week

49ers (1-4) at Bills (3-2): Buffalo-America's favorite oppressed minority activist makes his first start of the season this week.  And LeSean McCoy responded by inviting cops to the game.  It really doesn't make a difference how well Kaepernick does over the final 11 games.  He's all but guaranteed to be released after the season.  Oh yeah, the Bills are playing in this game, too.  They're better than the 49ers, no matter who's playing quarterback for San Francisco.

Jaguars (1-3) at Bears (1-4): Jacksonville-One of these teams has to win this week.  Of course, for the Bears to win, that will likely require them scoring more than 17 points.  A lot of people have said that Chicago is better than its record.  I'm not sure I agree.  The Bears aren't good.  Jacksonville, however, I think IS better than its record.  Especially coming off a bye, I like the Jaguars in this one.

Rams (3-2) at Lions (2-3): Los Angeles-LA lost to Buffalo last week and is no longer in control of the NFC West.  Now they hit the road to face a Lions team that knocked the Eagles from the ranks of the undefeated last week.  But they've also lost to the Titans and Bears.  The Lions are quite the enigma.  Which Detroit team will show up?  Which Rams team will show up?  I think LA bounces back, while the Lions suffer a massive post-Eagles letdown.

Browns (0-5) at Titans (2-3): Tennessee-Another game where two bad teams take on each other.  The Titans might be just the right team to get Cleveland over the hump...because if they can't get this one, the Browns could easily be 0-12 at their bye.  Tennessee has a chance to get to .500, though.  It's been a long time since the Titans were there.  And they could actually be tied for first in the AFC South if the Colts beat the Texans.

Steelers (4-1) at Dolphins (1-4): Pittsburgh-That was quite a recovery from that blowout against the Eagles, wasn't it?  Pittsburgh's one of the best teams in football, if not THE best, and they'll get another chance to prove it against the Dolphins.

Bengals (2-3) at Patriots (4-1): New England-Cincinnati might be the best 2-3 team in football.  They've had a brutal schedule to start the season, which will start to get easier next week.  They're in danger of slipping out of contention in the AFC North, though.  Problem is they face the Patriots this week in Brady's first home game.  We saw what he did in Cleveland in his 2016 debut.  You know he'll be just as amped up to take the field in Foxboro for the first time this season.

Panthers (1-4) at Saints (1-3): New Orleans-Things have certainly gone differently for the Carolina Panthers this season, haven't they?  The same could probably be said about the Saints, too.  Both of these teams came into the season with high expectations, but are at risk of seeing Atlanta run away with the division.  The loser of this game will likely knock themselves out of wild card contention, as well.  The Panthers have lost to both the Falcons and Bucs in the last two weeks.  Make that three division losses in a row.

Ravens (3-2) at Giants (2-3): Giants-Finally some relief for a Giants team that's had to go to both Minnesota and Green Bay in the last two weeks.  And, frankly, they needed a trip home.  After three straight losses, they badly need a win, too, before next week's journey across the pond.  Baltimore's in a similar boat.  Losses to the Raiders and Redskins after starting 3-0.  Something's gotta give in this one.  Which losing streak comes to an end?  I'll say it's the home team's.

Eagles (3-1) at Redskins (3-2): Philadelphia-Not only did the Eagles suffer their first loss of the season last week, they dropped out of first place.  Now they find themselves in what probably feels like a virtual must-win in Washington.  The Redskins have been playing some good football themselves after an 0-2 start.  The winner stays firmly in the NFC East race.  I'll say that's Philly.

Chiefs (2-2) at Raiders (4-1): Oakland-When's the last time the Raiders were favored against the Chiefs?  When's the last time the Raiders were legitimately considered this good?  With Denver's loss, they've got a chance to move into first place.  You can bet on it.  Take that to Vegas.

Cowboys (4-1) at Packers (3-1): Green Bay-Talk about a marquee matchup!  Dallas-Green Bay would be worthwhile anytime, but especially now with the Cowboys and Packers both coming in playing this well.  Dallas has arguably been the best team not named Minnesota over the past couple of weeks.  But they haven't faced an opponent anywhere near the Packers' caliber yet.  Definitely not on the road.  This is the biggest test Dak Prescott and Ezekiel Elliott have had so far.

Falcons (4-1) at Seahawks (3-1): Seattle-If Cowboys-Packers wasn't enough for you, the other FOX late game is Falcons-Seahawks.  Four of the six NFC teams with either zero or one loss take on each other in the best pair of 4:30 games all season.  There's been a lot of Matt Ryan for MVP talk, mainly because the Falcons offense has been putting up video game numbers.  Their most impressive win so far came last week in Denver.  But they've spent the entire week out west in preparation for Seattle.  That was probably the right move for them.  The problem is, they have to face the Seahawks in front of the 12th Man, which isn't a fun proposition for anybody, no matter how good they are.

Colts (2-3) at Texans (3-2): Houston-We're gonna learn a lot about the AFC South on Sunday night.  Are the Texans still the best team in the division?  Or can the Colts actually challenge them?  We'll find out.  This is Houston's division until Indy proves otherwise, though.  And with the game taking place in Houston, I'm even more inclined to take the Texans.

Jets (1-4) at Cardinals (2-3): Arizona-Arizona's season has gone incredibly similar to Carolina's.  But the Cardinals have at least shown some signs of life.  Especially in last Thursday's win over the 49ers.  Arizona's had plenty of time off to get used to life without Carson Palmer, and that extra rest is probably a good thing.  The Jetropolitans, meanwhile, play their fourth road game in the first six weeks.  It hasn't been an easy stretch for them, and they cap it off with a Monday night in Phoenix.  That's not any easier.  The Cardinals get back to .500.

This Week: 0-1

Last Week: 11-3

Season: 50-28

Chicago, LA, Cleveland and Toronto

Yes, I know the ALCS already started, so my previews are coming a little late.  Blame the Dodgers, Nationals and that ridiculous 75-minute inning (not to mention the nearly five-hour nine-inning game).  But that's all done and we're left with a final four that's been waiting a while to get to this point.  They've all won multiple championships in franchise history.  Toronto's was the most recent.  In 1993.  None of these teams have even been to the World Series since the 1997 Indians.  It's been a combined 227 years (an average of 56.75) since one of these teams won the World Series.  Well, that's going to change in a couple weeks.

First, a few comments on the four Division Series.  Toronto-Texas shocked me.  Not so much because the Blue Jays won or even because they swept it.  But how easy it was.  I was expecting the Rangers to slug it out with them and have some high-scoring games.  It was only Toronto that brought the bats, though.  Meanwhile, I thought Cleveland had no shot against Boston.  But the Indians did what they've done all year.  Win with pitching.

Over in the National League, the Cubs really, really impressed me.  After the Giants won Game 3 (despite MadBum giving up a three-run bomb to the opposing pitcher), I thought their even-year mojo was going to take over, especially after they took that lead into the ninth in the Game 4.  But the Cubs, in very un-Cubs-like fashion, refused to go down quietly and put up a four-spot to win and clinch.  (Two questions regarding the San Francisco bullpen in that game: If Romo's your closer, why not start the inning with him?  And, does Bruce Bochy know that relievers are allowed to pitch to more than one hitter?)

Meanwhile, I thought the Dodgers made a tremendous mistake by starting Kershaw in Game 4.  Shows how much I know.  My rationale was that down 2-1, knowing they'd have to win one without him, I would've taken my chances with Urias at home and gone ace vs. ace in Game 5 rather than giving Washington the clear pitching advantage (at least when it came to starters) in the finale.  Well, we of course saw things play out a little differently, as Dave Roberts totally outmanaged Dusty Baker, Clayton Kershaw exorcised his playoff demons, and the Dodgers finally won a playoff series.

So now we're left with two of the most historic, beloved franchises in the game, while we've got the ALCS that no one would've expected (and the matchup I'm sure TBS was hoping for).  When they revealed the LCS schedules, they mentioned the "Cubs factor" as the reason the NLCS is in primetime on the days when both series have a game.  Except it doesn't really have anything to do with the Cubs.  Yes, Cubs-Dodgers is the marquee matchup.  But you've got LA and Chicago, the second- and third-largest cities in America, while on the other side you've got Cleveland (a mid-sized market) and Toronto (a major city, yes, but in another country).  Last year, when the NLCS was Cubs-Mets, that series was primarily in primetime, so why would this year be any different?

Anyway, we'll start in the AL because that's the series that's already underway.  And it's basically the polar opposites of Cleveland pitching against Toronto hitting.  Which puts the onus on the Indians' pitchers.  Because the Blue Jays lineup got in a groove during that Texas series.  And if they hit the way they can (and displayed against the Rangers), it'll be really tough on Cleveland's pitching staff.  Because any little mistake will get hit from here to Mississauga.

That I think is the biggest thing that will separate these two teams.  I'm not sure how long you can expect to keep Toronto's bats quiet.  Especially in a seven-game series.  Don't get me wrong, Cleveland's got a great pitching staff, but the Blue Jays pitching staff is incredibly underrated.  Their offense gets all the attention, and rightfully so, but they wouldn't have made back-to-back ALCS if they didn't have the pitching to back it up.

That's why I think Toronto will win this series.  The Blue Jays definitely have the advantage in the lineup, and the Indians definitely have the advantage in the bullpen.  I rate Cleveland's starters as slightly better than Toronto's, but not to that great of an extent.  And the Blue Jays pitchers don't have to face that lineup.  They know their window is closing.  Bautista and Encarnacion are probably both gone after the season.  The Blue Jays won't want to waste this era without a World Series appearance, and I don't think they will.  Toronto in six.

Cubs-Dodgers.  This is the NLCS the baseball purists wanted.  One of the game's marquee franchises back on the game's grandest stage.  For the Dodgers, it seems like it's been a lifetime.  For the Cubs, it actually has been.  The last time Chicago even played in the World Series was four months after World War II ended.  During the Giants series, someone posted a stat that AT&T Park has hosted more postseason games than Wrigley.  Then I saw that the Cubs are winless all-time in LCS play (their last World Series appearance came 24 years before the LCS existed).

In Dodgerland, 28 years without playing in the World Series might as well be an eternity.  And who would've thought it would be this Dodgers team that finally had that playoff breakthrough.  Kershaw's literally their only worthwhile starting pitcher, and this mix-and-match lineup they've got is nowhere near as good as the lineups of Dodgers teams past (it also really bothers me that they have like seven starting outfielders, yet continue to use Andrew Toles in left).

Also, quick sidebar, you know my feelings on pitchers with single-digit numbers.  Well, we're guaranteed to have at least one in the World Series, two if Toronto advances.  See what you started Marcus Stroman!  (Since they're the only remaining team without one, does that mean I should root for Cleveland?)

Anyway, off the soapbox.  LA obviously did everything it needed to do in Game 5 against Washington, including using three of its four starting pitchers.  The Cubs had no such problems.  They went four with the Giants, so their starters can just stay in the same order against the Dodgers.  And Chicago's advantage in the starting pitching department is massive.  Even assuming Kershaw starts Game 2, he'll be going against Kyle Hendricks, a Cy Young candidate.  But the other three matchups: Lester-Maeda, Arrieta-Hill/Urias and Lackey-Urias/Hill are all advantage Cubs.

Dave Roberts also won't be able to get away with overusing the bullpen the way he did in the Nationals series.  We all saw what the Cubs did to the Giants' bullpen.  The Dodgers have a better bullpen than San Francisco, but the Cubs shouldn't be scared of any LA reliever other than Jansen.  Their bullpen is far superior anyway.

Starting pitching: advantage Cubs.  Bullpen: advantage Cubs.  Lineup: definitely advantage Cubs.  LA's got its left-handed lineup, which isn't bad, and it's right-handed lineup, then switches in the middle of the game when a reliever comes in.  The Cubs can mix-and-match, too, but it seems like Roberts does it just to do it (this isn't Little League, everybody doesn't need to play), while Maddon does it with a purpose (also, why is Javier Baez NOT the Cubs' regular second baseman?).

San Francisco was the scariest matchup for the Cubs, and they pulled that one out in dramatic fashion.  They ended the Giants' even-year mojo, while their bad postseason karma never crept in.  The LCS is different than the Division Series.  We all know about the crazy stuff (Bill Madlock, Steve Bartman) that has come between the Cubs and the Promised Land before.  This just feels different though.  After what happened in San Francisco the other night, I think they know it too.  I'll say the series goes six because I'd like to see them clinch at Wrigley, but I'm not even sure it gets that far.  The Cubs win their first NLCS in franchise history and send the entire baseball-watching world (except for maybe Cardinals and White Sox fans) into delirium.

Hockey Season 2016-17 (West)

I said yesterday that I though the Western Conference in the NHL was significantly stronger than the East.  Why do I think that?  Because the best teams in the West are much better than the best teams in the East.  In the East, it's pretty clear that Tampa Bay and Pittsburgh are at the top.  In the West, you really can't say who the top team is.  Is it Chicago?  Is it San Jose?  Is it Anaheim?  Is it LA?  Is it St. Louis?  Is it Dallas?  An argument really could be made for any of them.

The West is much more top-heavy than the East, though.  I will say that.  With the exception of the wild cards, the playoff spots, for the most part, seem to be already locked in.  Because for all the West's haves, there are plenty of have-nots (Arizona, Edmonton, Vancouver).

Last season, the Chicago-LA rotation finally came to an end, with both of them getting knocked out early in the playoffs.  But those odd-year Blackhawks figure to be right back at the top again.  Jonathan Toews just won the World Cup and Patrick Kane is last season's Hart Trophy winner.  They know how to win and have to be disappointed with the way last year ended.  Don't be surprised if the Blackhawks are once again playing deep into May.

What's crazy, though, is that the Blackhawks might not even be the best team in the Central Division.  Nashville has gone all-in for 2016-17.  They traded their franchise player--Shea Weber--to Montreal for P.K. Subban, arguably the best defenseman in the game, which capped a busy offseason that also saw the addition of Ryan Johansen (for Seth Jones).  And they've still got Pekka Rinne between the pipes.  Nashville's got all the tools to challenge Chicago for the Central Division crown.  In fact, they might be the two best teams in hockey (once again exposing the flaws of the current playoff format, but that's a topic for another day).

St. Louis finally broke through (somewhat) last season and made that long-awaited Conference Final appearance.  The Blues have made a lot of changes, though.  They might've missed their chance.  The same could possibly be said for the Dallas Stars, too.  Although, they've still got Jamie Benn and Tyler Seguin.  The Stars can score with anybody, so they'll never be out of a game.

If there's one middle-of-the-pack Western Conference team with a chance to break through, it's Minnesota.  Zach Parise and Ryan Suter could definitely use some help, though.  But if there's an opening for a wild card spot, the Wild could easily seize it.  Colorado and Winnipeg, meanwhile, are locked into also-ran status.  If I had to pick one of the two as a potential playoff party-crasher, it'd be the Avalanche.  But I expect them both to be watching hockey come mid-April rather than playing it.

In the Pacific Division, it's still all about California.  After years and years of playoff disappointment, San Jose finally played for the Cup last season.  And this year's edition of the Sharks isn't that much different than last year's.  Assuming that last year wasn't just a fluke and they've finally crossed the threshold into a perennial contender, they could easily get back.

Los Angeles is too good to be counted out.  The Kings finally had their streak of even-year Cup wins snapped, but this team is young and talented.  Drew Doughty and Jonathan Quick are probably the most important players on that team.  The Ducks are seeing their window close.  Of the three California teams, they're the weakest.  They're still better than Arizona and the three teams in Western Canada, though, which should mean a playoff spot.

One Western Conference team that missed the playoffs last season and I'm not really sure how is Calgary.  After that postseason run two years ago, I was expecting to see Johnny Gaudreau and Co. become playoff regulars.  Instead they had a very disappointing 2015-16.  Can they rebound and make it back this year?  With former Blues goalie Brian Elliott now in the net, I'd be surprised if they didn't.

Of the other three teams, Edmonton might be the closest to contention.  You don't suck for so long and stockpile No. 1 picks without eventually reaping the dividends.  Maybe not this year, but next year is possible.  Vancouver still has the Sedin twins, but not much else.  Like the Oilers, the Coyotes are built around young talent.  Their young talent isn't as good as Edmonton's, though.  I wonder whether or not they'll even be better than Las Vegas next season.

So, my Western Conference top eight are pretty clear.  It's basically the usual suspects once again.  Chicago, Nashville and St. Louis out of the Central.  San Jose, LA and Anaheim out of the Pacific.  With Dallas and Calgary grabbing the wild cards.  As for my Stanley Cup pick from the West, it's an odd-year season, so I've gotta go with the Blackhawks.  And they win the Cup once again.  Beating Tampa Bay in the Final.

Hockey Season 2016-17 (East)

Normally it seems like hockey season just ended when the next one begins.  For some reason that's not the case this year.  I'm not sure why.  Maybe it's because the Rangers had an early playoff exit or because I was so preoccupied this summer with Copa America then the Olympics.  It feels like forever since I've watched a hockey game, though.  Even though it shouldn't.  The World Cup was literally two weeks ago.  Although, I must admit, with that pathetic performance by the American team, I tuned out of the World Cup pretty quickly.

But, alas, here we are.  The start of a new NHL season.  The last one with 30 teams (I don't know about you, but I can't wait for the Vegas team).  And this one seems wide open.  Especially in the East.  Part of that is because most of the teams in the Western Conference are simply better.  Part of it is because the best teams in the East aren't really separated by much.

That's not really true in the Atlantic Division, though.  Because Tampa Bay is much better than the other seven teams in that division.  The Lightning were in the Final two years ago and lost to Pittsburgh in the East Final last season.  There's no reason to believe they won't get back there again.  It's tough to find flaws in this Lightning team, and injuries may be the only thing that derails them.

The other playoff spots in the Atlantic are completely up for grabs, though.  Montreal has the best goalie on the planet at the moment, but we'll see what their team chemistry is like after that blockbuster P.K. Subban-Shea Weber trade.  It probably made Nashville the Stanley Cup favorites.  And it'll either help the Canadiens get back to the playoffs or sink them into a miserable season.  I expect Boston to recover after missing the playoffs last year, too.  Frankly, I'm not exactly sure how the Bruins haven't made it two years in a row.  The talent on that team is ridiculous.

Florida won the division last season, but they're going to need to prove to me that they can do it again.  They won the division a few years ago, then went right back to last place the following year, so I'm not buying that they're gonna be competitive to stay.  Detroit somehow always ends up in the playoffs (they're kinda like the St. Louis Cardinals), so there's no reason to expect the Red Wings won't be hanging around come April.

I think Ottawa is a team that could surprise.  The Senators have put some good pieces around franchise defenseman Erik Karlsson.  They have former Toronto captain Dion Phaneuf now, as well.  Speaking of the Maple Leafs, this is going to sound familiar.  They're in rebuilding mode.  At least this season no one will really care that they aren't good because now they have Auston Matthews, and it's their centennial season.  The Sabres, meanwhile, will be better than they were last season, but they need a goalie.

Over in the Metropolitan Division, you have the defending champions and defending President's Trophy winners.  However, Sidney Crosby's yearly injury has already happened (concussion), and the Capitals have proven time and again that they can't win the big one.  Yes, on paper, they're still the top two teams in the division, but the gap is not as big as it was last season.

Personally, I think the team to beat in the Metropolitan Division (and it really pains me to say this), might be Team Europe (which was essentially the entire Islanders' roster minus John Tavares).  Their only real glaring weakness entering the season is the loss of Kyle Okposo.  If they can replace his production, the Islanders might be in for another long playoff run.

Another Met Division team that I think is going to make some serious noise this year is the Philadelphia Flyers.  They snuck into the playoffs as the No. 8 seed last season, but they're really, really good.  Claude Giroux is one of the best goal scorers in the league, and I don't know any team that wouldn't want Sean Coutourier and Shayne Gostisbehre (who should've been on Team USA, not Team North America in the World Cup).  Give Philly a better goalie than Michal Neuvirth and they'll really be in business.

If you've done the math, you've probably realized that my top four teams in the Metropolitan Division do not include the New York Rangers.  I still love my team, and they still have one of the best goalies on the planet, but would somebody please score?  How long can you rely on Lundqvist to win games 2-1?  Especially when you've got Mats Zuccarello, Rick Nash, Chris Kreider, etc.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the Rangers make the playoffs.  But I wouldn't be surprised to see them miss them either.

At the bottom of the Metropolitan Division once again will be the Devils, Blue Jackets and Hurricanes.  Which says nothing about the quality of those three teams.  They just aren't as good as the rest of the division.  That doesn't mean they can't be this season's Panthers, though.  New Jersey has the same problem as that team across the river.  Columbus has a lot of young talent that I wouldn't be shocked to put something together like they did a couple years ago.  My hopes for Carolina aren't nearly as high.  The Hurricanes will have trouble breaking through in a crowded division.  When the NHL did this realignment a few years ago, I don't know of a team that was hurt by it more than the Hurricanes.

So, my Eastern Conference playoff picks are Tampa Bay, Montreal and Boston out of the Atlantic, Pittsburgh, Washington and the Islanders out of the Metropolitan, with Philadelphia and the Rangers getting the wild cards.  I know the playoffs are always crazy and the top seed never wins, but the Lightning are just too strong.  Tampa Bay's the pick to come out of the East.

2016 NFL Week 5

As we hit Week 5, there are still three undefeated teams and only Cleveland is winless (apparently the Cavs' and Indians' success didn't carry over to the Browns).  There are also a couple of division races where the first-place team has already created separation.  I know it's early, but I think we're already starting to see a bunch of teams emerge as elite.  With a whole bunch of others right smack in the middle.

Patriots (3-1) at Browns (0-4): New England-Did you know Tom Brady missed the first four games of the season?  Yeah, I know.  Nobody was talking about it.  At all.  Anyway, New England fans get their quarterback back and will need to find something new to whine about now.  Roger Goodell has angered Tom Brady.  You know what happens next.  Even the Browns know the Patriots are going to win this game.

Eagles (3-0) at Lions (1-3): Philadelphia-Who would've thought when Philadelphia traded Sam Bradford to Minnesota a week before the season started that the Eagles and Vikings would be the last two undefeated teams in the NFC?  I sure didn't.  After an early bye, the Eagles head to Detroit looking to go 4-0.  Which they need to do with Dallas bearing right on their tails.

Bears (1-3) at Colts (1-3): Indianapolis-Can someone explain to me why Indy isn't following a London game with a bye (like every team that's gone to London before them and each of the other five going this year, including the Jaguars, will)?  Doesn't seem right to me.  Things could be worse, though.  At least they're playing the Bears at home.  That should get the Colts to 2-3 after last week's surprising loss.

Titans (1-3) at Dolphins (1-3): Tennessee-With Hurricane Matthew approaching the Miami area, there was so much uncertainty about whether this game would be played as scheduled and where.  But it's all systems go for the Titans and Dolphins.  We'll see how much impact all of those questions had, but I think it's probably a little easier for the team that's traveling to minimize those distractions.

Texans (3-1) at Vikings (4-0): Minnesota-We've got a good one in Minnesota for the Vikings' first Sunday afternoon home game in the new stadium.  Houston won its first game without J.J. Watt, but that was at home against Tennessee.  A trip to Minnesota and a hot Vikings team is a completely different proposition.

Jets (1-3) at Steelers (3-1): Pittsburgh-This looked like a great early-season matchup when the schedule came out, but the Jets have labored to a 1-3 start.  Kansas City is the common bond between these two teams.  The Chiefs smacked the Jets around two weeks ago, only to get smacked around themselves by the Steelers last week.  I'd say Pittsburgh rebounded nicely from that blowout loss in Philly.  They'll get to 4-1 and stay atop the AFC North.

Redskins (2-2) at Ravens (3-1): Baltimore-It could've been interesting down by the Inner Harbor today if the Orioles had won the AL Wild Card Game.  But there's no point rubbing salt in that wound.  As it is, the Ravens are hosting the Battle of the Beltway, and both teams come in playing some good football.  Baltimore suffered its first loss last week--by a point--while the Redskins have won two in a row.  So who gets bragging rights in the State of Maryland?  I've gotta go with the home team.

Falcons (3-1) at Broncos (4-0): Denver-A couple first-place teams square off in Denver.  Who would've thought that the Broncos would be 4-0 and one of the last three remaining undefeated teams?  Now they turn to Paxton Lynch, who makes his first NFL start against a Falcons team that has averaged 42.7 points per game in the last three weeks, all wins.  None of those games were against the Broncos' defense, though.

Bengals (2-2) at Cowboys (3-1): Dallas-Cincinnati has had a brutal schedule to start the season (and things don't get much easier next week with the Patriots on deck).  That's why getting that win last week was so important.  Because a trip to Dallas isn't going to be easy.  Not with the way Dak Prescott and Ezekiel Elliott are playing.

Chargers (1-3) at Raiders (3-1): Oakland-I told you the Raiders were going to be good this year.  They've gone east three times and came away with a win in each.  Now they have the first of back-to-back division home games that will really give us an indication of where Oakland really stands.  San Diego, meanwhile, badly needs a victory.  The winner gets to join the Rams in LA!  (Just kidding.)

Bills (2-2) at Rams (3-1): Buffalo-After starting 0-2, the Bills have won two straight--against Arizona and New England.  Now they travel cross country to meet the first-place Rams (the only NFC West team playing on Sunday).  Can they keep it going in the California sunshine?  Even though the Rams are an obvious favorite in this game, I have a feeling Buffalo will.

Giants (2-2) at Packers (2-1): Green Bay-OK, what genius scheduled a presidential debate on a Sunday night?  I'm sure plenty of people will watch Trump and Hillary, but they won't be watching it on NBC, which wisely picked a really good Sunday night matchup to go opposite the candidates.  The Giants are coming off a short week and playing their second straight primetime road game.  The Packers, meanwhile, are coming off their bye.  The Giants have had lots of success at Lambeau in recent years, but they've got a lot stacked against them in this one.

Buccaneers (1-3) at Panthers (1-3): Tampa Bay-Carolina is 1-3 and doesn't have Cam Newton this week.  Tampa Bay has to be looking at this one as a game they can get.  And, I think, they won't have to endure a lighting delay in the second half this time.  I've just got a feeling that the Bucs are gonna take this one.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-6
Season: 40-24

Playoff Time In MLB

Well, the MLB Postseason has sure gotten off to an interesting start, hasn't it?  Buck Showalter is being crucified for not using Zach Britton in the AL Wild Card Game.  Meanwhile, Terry Collins did bring his closer into a tie game, and Jeurys Familia gave up the game-winning three-run homer.  I agreed with both moves.  But it just goes to show that, as John Sterling would say, you just can't predict baseball.  Although, I'd imagine most people probably predicted Madison Bumgarner would be Madison Bumgarner in the NL Wild Card Game.

Anyway, I'm going National League all the way this year.  Not just because I don't like any of the remaining AL teams.  It's because I think the NL teams are plain better.  That's been the case most of the year.  Whoever wins the National League pennant is going to earn it.  Because those might be the four best remaining teams.

Cubs vs. Giants: Oh, how the Cubs wanted the Mets to win that game.  Yes, the Mets swept the Cubs in the NLCS last season and have never lost a Division Series, but their pitching staff is so ravaged by injury.  Their entire team is, in fact.  Meanwhile, the Giants haven't lost a postseason round period since 2003.  And it's an even year.  Does anyone want to face the Giants in the postseason in an even year?  Sure, that even year thing is going to end at some point, but San Francisco is the postseason is a daunting proposition for anybody.

Beyond all the superstitious stuff, though, the Giants have the pitching to match up with the Cubs.  Bumgarner can't pitch until Game 3, but they'll have Johnny Cueto and Jeff Samardzija throw the first two, which is about an even a match as you can have against Jon Lester and Kyle Hendricks.  Before you get Arrieta vs. Bumgarner in Game 3, with Lackey vs. Moore in Game 4.  The pitching alone makes this series worth watching.

There's also that incredible pressure that will be on the Cubs.  Yes, they're the best team in baseball.  That alone brings pressure.  Add in the fact that they're the Cubs, a team that hasn't won the World Series in 108 years or even won the pennant since 1945 and has a history of playoff collapses, and it magnifies tenfold.  No. 1 seeds have had a tendency to get knocked out of the playoffs early, too.  With that being said, however, the Cubs are the best No. 1 seed in quite a while.  Probably since the 2009 champion Yankees.  Something tells me that karma is finally on the Cubs' side.  This one goes five, but they clinch it at Wrigley.

Nationals vs. Dodgers: One of them has to win!  I say that somewhat facetiously, but it's true.  Both of these teams have developed a reputation for postseason failure in recent years.  Washington has never gotten out of the Division Series (the 1981 Expos don't count), while the Dodgers, despite winning the NL West four years in a row, haven't played in the NLCS since Joe Torre was their manager.  Fortunately for them, Clayton Kershaw doesn't have to pitch against the Cardinals in the playoffs this year.

So, which team is finally going to have its postseason breakthrough?  Game 1 really could go a long way in determining that.  Kershaw vs. Scherzer.  I almost want this series to go five so there will be a rematch between the two aces.  If the Dodgers can steal Game 1, they've got a very good chance.  They almost need to win Game 1, seeing as Kershaw is the only elite pitcher they have.  Of course, the same thing could be said about the Nationals and Scherzer.  But I think Washington is better equipped to handle a Game 1 loss.

Gio Gonzalez and all the lefties in the Washington bullpen may be the biggest keys to this series, though.  The Dodgers can't hit lefties.  They haven't been able to all year.  Dusty Baker's got a lot of left-handers he can throw at them.  For LA to finally advance beyond the Division Series, they're gonna have to get some hits off left-handers.  I don't see them doing it, though.  Nationals in four.

Over in the American League, we've got the rematch nobody will admit they secretly wanted, as well as Terry Francona going against the team he led to two titles and are currently managed by his former pitching coach.  And like the National League, I can see both series going either way.

Rangers vs. Blue Jays: These two teams don't like each other.  They haven't ever since the Bat Flip Heard Around Canada last year in Game 5.  Tensions, of course, boiled over into this season, when Rougned Odor landed the Punch Heard Around the World right smack to Jose Bautista's face.  You have a sense it isn't over between these two.  Not by a long shot.

Which makes a Division Series rematch seem all the more appropriate.  You have to think Odor won't get the best reception when the series shifts to Toronto (hopefully there are no beer cans around--talk about a despicable act!), but it's not like they'll be rolling out the red carpet for Bautista in Arlington.  Will they be too busy throwing beanballs at each other to worry about the game though?  They'd better not be.  Because there's going to be a lot of hitting going on with these two lineups, especially since the games in Texas will be during the day.

Considering the amount of offense that figures to be in play, whichever team gets better pitching is going to be the one that emerges.  Which gives Toronto a great chance if they can split Games 1 & 2 against Hamels and Darvish.  Texas has a deeper lineup top to bottom, but the Blue Jays have a stronger bullpen.  It's really a matter of who blinks first.  For some reason, I think revenge-minded Texas will make sure they don't lose to the Blue Jays two years in a row.  Cole Hamels channels his former World Series MVP self in Game 5 and the Rangers advance.

Indians vs. Red Sox: Terry Francona is all over this series.  He helped build Boston into a winner, and he's done the same in Cleveland since making the move to the AL's version of the Cubs.  (The Indians also have former Red Sox Mike Napoli and Coco Crisp on the roster.)  Francona hasn't taken the Indians over the hump yet, though, and it'll be tough to do it this year.  Because the Red Sox have been the scariest of the AL playoff teams for most of season.  And you know they want David Ortiz to go out on top.

I'll admit that I haven't seen much of Cleveland this year and don't really know how the Indians are this good.  But here they are, led by their amazing 1-2 tandem of Trevor Bauer and Corey Kluber.  The Red Sox have Rick Porcello and David Price, but are really driven by that lineup.  They're about much more than home runs now, too.  Sure, they'll still hit them.  But Mookie Betts and Jackie Bradley, Jr. and Xander Bogaerts know how to win a game without going deep.  In the playoffs, that's a necessity.  Especially since Cleveland's likely going to look to manufacture runs.

Boston and Cleveland have met in three Division Series and an ALCS since 1995.  Each team has won two of those series, including two where the Red Sox came back from a massive series hole to win in the maximum games.  I see that happening again.  Boston's just too strong.  They win it in five.

As for my World Series pick, I think the best team in each league is really clear.  Thirteen years ago, back when neither team had won a title in more than 85 years, we almost had a Red Sox-Cubs World Series.  That would've been as amazing as it sounds.  A lot has changed since then.  The prospects of a Red Sox-Cubs World Series, despite the historic circumstances not being the same as they once were, at least for one of the participants, doesn't sound any less awesome today than it did in 2003, however.  And this time, I think we get it.

Everyone would be a winner if it does end up being Red Sox-Cubs.  Especially baseball.  But one of the teams would have to defeat the other.  And I've just got a feeling that this is finally the year for the Cubs.  They're my pick to win it all, although I'm half (really it's more like 80 percent) expecting them to find a way to screw it up.

A Legend Signs Off

Ladies and gentlemen, this is my 1,000th post!  I honestly can't believe it.  It really does seem like a lot.  But I've been doing this for almost six years, so I guess that number does make sense.  Anyway, I can't really think of a more appropriate topic for my 1,000th blog post than paying tribute to one of the classiest gentlemen ever to sit behind a microphone.  After 67 years, Vin Scully, the Voice of Baseball, has hung it up.

Ever since MLB Network launched in 2009, it's been a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine to watch the end of Dodgers home games during MLB Tonight.  There was only one reason.  If the Dodgers were away or they were showing another West Coast game, I watched something else.  There's just something so soothing about Vin Scully putting you to bed.

For most of this week, I did the same thing.  I knew that after Sunday I wouldn't be able to hear the Voice of Baseball anymore, so I wanted to savor every last moment of Vin Scully.  I did it all season actually.  Next season will be so weird.  Tuning into a Dodger game and hearing somebody else just doesn't seem right.

Vin Scully is more than a legend.  Most legends only last for one generation, then live on thru the stories that are passed down from those who saw them.  Babe Ruth is a legend.  Ted Williams is a legend.  But with Vin Scully, nobody needed any stories passed down to them.  Everyone has their own.  He did this for 67 years!  He was a rookie in 1950, the year before Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle.  That was so long ago that he was calling games on radio for the Brooklyn Dodgers, who were competing in an eight-team National League.  Think about that, he's been with the Dodgers so long that they were still in Brooklyn when he started.  And they've been in LA since 1958!

With Vin Scully goes the last remaining vestige of the Brooklyn Dodgers, which is remarkable considering how long they've called California home.  Some of my favorite stories about Vin Scully are from those early years in LA, when the Dodgers played in the massive LA Coliseum and fans were bringing their transistor radios to listen Vin, either because they couldn't see the action or, more likely, because they wanted to hear him describe it.

While he'll always be associated with the Dodgers first and foremost, we all remember the picture he painted of those memorable World Series moments in the 1980s, when he was NBC's lead play-by-play man.  1986: "Behind the bag.  It gets thru Buckner.  In comes Knight, and the Mets win it!  The Mets are not only alive, they are well.  And they will play the Red Sox in Game 7 tomorrow."  1988: "High fly ball into right field.  She is gone!  In a year that has been so improbable, the impossible has happened."

There are plenty more moments, of course, and everyone has their favorites.  (He also called Hank Aaron's 715th home run and Fred Lynn's grand slam in the All-Star Game.)  What I loved the most, though, were those little anecdotes about the randomest of players that you were suddenly so interested in, which often led to him talking about something else entirely.  I never knew that about that guy from Milwaukee who just got called up from Double-A, or that little tidbit from American history.

What made Vin Scully so great, and the true sign that he's the last of his breed, is that he did games alone.  He didn't need a color man.  There will never be another Vin Scully.  Even though that's what every aspiring broadcaster tries to be.  (A word of advice, kids, you won't be, so stop trying.)

His farewell at Dodger Stadium last Sunday was so poignant.  The Dodgers players all tipped their cap to the broadcast booth on their way to the plate, and the fans gave him a standing ovation after LA won on a walk-off to clinch the NL West.  And the recording of him singing "The Wind Beneath My Wings," which would've seemed so cheesy under any other circumstance or for any other announcer.  But for Vin Scully, it was perfect.

Yes, it does seem odd that his final series was in San Francisco and his final moments on the air were describing the scene as the Giants clinched a playoff berth, but in a way, that's fitting too.  The Dodgers' archrivals were on the field celebrating, and he was describing the scene with the same reverence he's always shown.  It's really been his trademark for 67 years.

And for the last word, I'll give that to the man himself.  Because he hit it out of the park with his final message to the fans.  As usual.  Would you expect anything else?:

You and I have been friends for a long time, but I know in my heart that I've always needed you more than you've ever needed me, and I'll miss our time together more than I can say.  But you know what?  There will be a new day and eventually a new year.  And when the upcoming winter gives way to spring, rest assured, once again it will be "time for Dodger baseball."  So this is Vin Scully wishing you a very pleasant afternoon, wherever you may be.

2016 NFL Week 4

Can someone explain to me why Cincinnati's uniforms were all white instead of all black (or all orange for that matter) on Thursday night?  Or why the Dolphins wore all creamsicle orange instead of all aqua?  Not that it matters, seeing as the "color rush" is extremely stupid and an obvious ploy to sell more jerseys.  It's just something I noticed.

Likewise, why are there only two teams that have byes this week?  There are 32 teams divided into eight divisions of four.  So how come they just don't have four teams with a bye for eight weeks?  Maybe that just makes too much sense.  This is the NFL we're talking about.  On that same note, why isn't the Colts' bye next week?  Since when do the teams returning from London have to play again the following week?  That's a bad precedent to set.

Colts (1-2) vs. Jaguars (0-3): Indianapolis-In the first of three London games this year, we subject the good people of England to the Jaguars once again.  Although, Jacksonville's annual visits across the pond have apparently done nothing to turn the British fans away, since this game is once again a sellout.  That same article said that the coach of the losing team in the Week 4 London game has been fired during the bye week in each of the last two seasons.  So, does that mean this is Gus Bradley's last game with the Jaguars?

Panthers (1-2) at Falcons (2-1): Atlanta-Last season, the Panthers went 15-1, with their lone regular season loss coming in Week 16 in Atlanta.  This season has gone somewhat differently for Carolina.  After that Super Bowl rematch they should've won, they dismantled the 49ers before taking another step back last week against Minnesota.  The Falcons, meanwhile, are in sole possession of first place after their impressive Monday night win in New Orleans.  Don't be surprised if they beat the Panthers at home again.

Lions (1-2) at Bears (0-3): Chicago-Are Jim Caldwell and John Fox coaching for their jobs?  Neither Detroit nor Chicago can be happy about the way their season has started.  Especially the Bears.  They've been on national TV in each of the last two weeks and got romped each time.  Now they at least move back to Sunday afternoon.  We'll see how they do without Jay Cutler, but I think they get it done at home.

Bills (1-2) at Patriots (3-0): New England-We don't know who's playing quarterback for New England.  We've also established that it doesn't matter.  I could play quarterback for the Patriots  and it wouldn't make a difference.  This is their last game before they get Tom Brady back.  Most people thought they'd be lucky to be 2-2 after Week 4.  Well, they're most likely going to be 4-0 after taking care of Rex and Rob.

Seahawks (2-1) at Jets (1-2): Seattle-The last time the Seahawks set foot in Met Life Stadium, they were busy dismantling Denver in the Super Bowl.  They also had a 23-0 victory over the Giants earlier in the 2013 season, meaning their last two games at Met Life Stadium they've won by a combined score of 66-8.  Yes, that was three years ago.  But you think they don't remember it?  Seattle's the third playoff team the Jets have played in their first four games.  They lost the previous two.  Will they make it 3-for-3?

Browns (0-3) at Redskins (1-2): Washington-Robert Griffin III's return to the nation's capital will have to wait.  That would've been THE story heading into this game, especially if both teams were 0-3.  But last week against the Giants the Redskins got into the win column.  That should calm their fans down for a little while.  Especially since a home game against the Browns should even their record at the quarter pole.

Raiders (2-1) at Ravens (3-0): Baltimore-Is there a more surprising 3-0 team than Baltimore?  (OK, maybe Minnesota.)  Everything has gone the Ravens' way thus far, but this week they face a tough test from the Raiders.  Interestingly, this is Oakland's third 1:00 game of the season.  They won the first two, but lost their only home game, which was the only game that didn't take place at 10 a.m. Pacific.  A strange little tidbit that I'm sure will even out as the season progresses.  It'll probably end this week in fact.

Titans (1-2) at Texans (2-1): Houston-For the Texans, life without J.J. Watt begins at home against the Titans.  I'm curious to see how much of an impact the best defensive player in football's absence will have as the season progresses.  It's probably a good thing that their first game without him is a division matchup.  They should have enough left in the tank to get by the Titans, then will have another week to figure things out on defense.

Broncos (3-0) at Buccaneers (1-2): Denver-Denver has found its quarterback.  Trevor Siemian is the real deal.  Yes, the Broncos played their first two games at home.  But last week, in their first road contest, they went into Cincinnati and had a strong performance against the Bengals.  And remember, Siemian only has to be good enough with that Von Miller-led defense.  Against Tampa Bay, expect that defense to keep doing its thing and the Broncos to improve to 4-0.

Rams (2-1) at Cardinals (1-2): Arizona-Arizona is a hard team to figure out.  The Cardinals crushed Tampa Bay, then hit the road for the first time and got blown out in Buffalo.  LA, meanwhile, has moved into first place after losing their opener in San Francisco.  They've already beaten Seattle, so a Rams win would put them in great position in the division after just four weeks.  If the real Carson Palmer shows up, I like Arizona.  If not, the Rams look good in this one.

Saints (0-3) at Chargers (1-2): San Diego-Of the four winless teams, none has had worse luck than New Orleans.  Those two losses by a combined four points before that Monday night home loss to the Falcons last week.  Now they have to fly cross country on a short week to take on an equally desperate San Diego team.  The Chargers have their stadium vote coming up, but they can't think about that right now.  They have to worry about making sure they take care of business against a down Saints team.

Cowboys (2-1) at 49ers (1-2): Dallas-What's Dallas going to do when Tony Romo comes back?  Who ever thought we'd be asking that question without it meaning they need him to return in order to save their season?  Dak Prescott is playing so well that Romo might not even have a job to come back to.  Dallas could, and some might even say should, be 3-0 right now.  They play the 49ers this week, so another win seems likely.

Chiefs (2-1) at Steelers (2-1): Kansas City-I think the Chiefs just intercepted Ryan Fitzpatrick again.  That was seriously ridiculous last week.  So was the Pittsburgh game.  I thought Steelers-Eagles would be a good game.  Instead it was a Philly blowout.  Based on those two performances, I'm taking the Chiefs on the road in a great Sunday night matchup that could have major playoff implications.

Giants (2-1) at Vikings (3-0): Minnesota-Something tells me that the Giants are going to regret blowing that game against the Redskins last week.  This is the first of back-to-back primetime road games against the two NFC North heavyweights, then they play Baltimore before heading to London to take on the Rams.  Not an easy stretch.  And they'll likely have to win at least two of them to be in wild card contention (yes, sometimes you have to think about it this early).  Minnesota, meanwhile, has showed us that they're able to win without Adrian Peterson.  Maybe all Sam Bradford needed was a chance to show what he can do.  Their first home game was a Sunday night win over the Packers.  Their second is a Monday nighter against the Giants.  Did they file a formal request with the NFL that all of their home games are at night?

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-7
Season: 31-18