Well, I got my bad week out of the way. I hope. But that 7-9 is in the rear-view mirror. Just like I hope all this furor over the anthem protests is. Seriously, I've never heard more people make such a point out of saying how angry they are and how they're not going to watch the NFL anymore. I'm not one of those people. And I'm ready for Week 4.
Saints (1-2) vs. Dolphins (1-1): Miami-Another week, another London game. This is the Dolphins' first "home" game of the season after playing their first two on the road. And they'll have done a lot of traveling by the time they finally play in Miami. Los Angeles, New York, London (there was supposed to be a Miami before all that). Maybe they'll be travel-weary. Or maybe they'll show that they're better than the team that laid an egg last week against the Jets.
Bills (2-1) at Falcons (3-0): Atlanta-There are two 3-0 teams in football. Atlanta and Kansas City. The Falcons are clearly showing no signs of Super Bowl hangover. In fact, they look like they might even be better than last year. The Bills, meanwhile, enter this game at 2-1 after that impressive win over Denver. But their loss was in their only previous road game, when they were held to just a field goal in Carolina. If they don't find some offense this week, it could be a blowout.
Bengals (0-3) at Browns (0-3): Cincinnati-Both Ohio teams are 0-3 and desperately in need of a win. The loser will fall three games behind the Steelers/Ravens winner, and it's only Week 4. They both looked significantly better last week than they did in their first two games, and the Bengals probably should've pulled it out in Green Bay. They seem to have gotten their mojo back. Their first win shouldn't be too far behind.
Rams (2-1) at Cowboys (2-1): Dallas-Would the real Dallas Cowboys please stand up? They get completely slaughtered in Denver, then come back and win in Arizona despite letting the Cardinals have the ball for the entire first quarter. The Rams, meanwhile, are a first-place team after that highly-entertaining win over the 49ers. Can they keep it going against the Cowboys' defense? Probably not. But I think this game has the potential to be just as entertaining.
Lions (2-1) at Vikings (2-1): Detroit-Call me crazy, but I think the Detroit Lions are one of the best teams in football. I would've loved to have seen them actually get a chance to beat the Falcons last week instead of having the game end on that bizarre replay overturn. I'm sure we'll see that rule be a topic of discussion during the offseason. Anyway, they both need a win to keep pace with the Packers after Green Bay's dominant performance on Thursday night. And I think it'll be the Lions and Packers tied for first come Sunday night.
Panthers (2-1) at Patriots (2-1): New England-The Patriots were thisclose to being 1-2. Then Brady went and did Brady things, and New England once again pulled a victory out of nowhere. I think it's safe to say they've recovered from that season-opening loss to the Chiefs. The Panthers defense will present another tough challenge, especially after playing the Texans, but Brady will likely figure it out again.
Jaguars (2-1) at Jets (1-2): Jacksonville-Is Jacksonville actually a road favorite? What has this world come to? If there's actually going to be an NFL team that moves to London, it might just be the Jaguars. They've won four games in London and three in Jacksonville over the last four seasons. That's just crazy. Now they have a chance to get to 3-1 against a Jets team that won in equally-surprising fashion last week.
Steelers (2-1) at Ravens (2-1): Pittsburgh-Were the Steelers looking ahead to their rivalry game, or were they just too busy trying to figure out how they would protest during the anthem? Either way, losing to the Bears the way they did was just unacceptable. Although, Pittsburgh does have that tendency to have the one random road loss each season. And they usually bounce back by spanking whoever they play the next week. They'll definitely have their focus back for the Ravens.
Titans (2-1) at Texans (1-2): Houston-Houston is the best 1-2 team in football. They had the Patriots beat last week until the final play (did they see the Super Bowl? You don't give Brady time at the end!). Anyway, they need to prove they're still the best team in a suddenly-competitive AFC South. Playing at home, I like them to even up their record.
49ers (0-3) at Cardinals (1-2): Arizona-How did the Cardinals lose last week? That game turned when they had the ball for the entire first quarter and only scored seven points. Fortunately for them, they play the 49ers, at home, this week. San Francisco isn't good. They entertained us last Thursday night, but that game helped exploit the fact they don't have any defense whatsoever. Arizona should roll them and get back to .500, which could also mean a share of first place if the Cowboys beat the Rams.
Eagles (2-1) at Chargers (0-3): Philadelphia-I should be upset about last week's Giants game, but I'm not. I can't help but be impressed by that rookie kicker's ridiculous 61-yard field goal to win the game. If not for their rookie kicker, the Chargers could easily be 2-1. As it is, they're losing touch in the super-competitive AFC West, where it's not unrealistic to think each of the other three teams could make the playoffs. The Chargers are better than their 0-3 record. What I'm curious to see is if the Eagles are as good as theirs. We'll find out as they make the cross-country trip.
Giants (0-3) at Buccaneers (1-1): Tampa Bay-This is a tricky one for the Giants, who are still searching for their first win. Mainly because there are so many questions surrounding Tampa Bay. The Bucs were dominant in their opener, but how much of that was playing the Bears? Because last week in Minnesota, they didn't look very good at all. I'm worried the Giants could be in Bears territory, and it's obvious how much they need a win. We'll find out a lot about both these teams in this one.
Raiders (2-1) at Broncos (2-1): Oakland-Here we go. The first of the four games that will determine which team wins the AFC West, and, potentially, which of the three will miss out on the playoffs altogether. It should be a good one, which probably explains why CBS has it as an exclusive national game. As for who's going to win, I like the Raiders. Not sure why. I just have a feeling.
Colts (1-2) at Seahawks (1-2): Seattle-Why is this the Sunday night game? Even if Luck was playing, this wouldn't be a matchup worthy of primetime. They both come in 1-2, but the Seahawks are obviously a better team. Their losses are at Green Bay and at Tennessee. The close game against the 49ers aside, they're much better at home, too.
Redskins (2-1) at Chiefs (3-0): Kansas City-One of the picks I actually got right last week was Washington over Oakland. Now the Redskins take on the other best team in the AFC West, undefeated Kansas City. This one should be a different story. The Chiefs have a rough stretch coming up (at Houston, Pittsburgh, at Oakland, Denver, at Dallas). They can't afford to look past Washington, and I think they know it. They usually play their best under the lights, too.
Thursday Night: Green Bay (Win)
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 7-9
Overall: 31-17
Saturday, September 30, 2017
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Pitino Strikes Out
We probably shouldn't have been surprised that Rick Pitino's Hall of Fame career would end like this. He hasn't officially been fired by Louisville yet, but that's only because it says in his contract that they have to wait 10 days. But by this time next week, he'll be the Cardinals' former head coach. And, frankly, they didn't have a choice.
This is the third major scandal Louisville has been involved in since Pitino took over, and it's by far the most serious. Even if it was his first violation, it likely would've resulted in the same ending. The first two were bad enough, but even Rick Pitino wasn't going to be able to talk his way out of this one. There's no way he could've claimed he didn't know, and even if he had, no one would've believed him.
Normally, you'd wait and let things play out, using the term "if these allegations are true..." until the facts came out. But in this case, I think it's pretty clear cut what was going on. A two-year federal investigation that leads to multiple arrests, including coaches at four different schools, is pretty damning evidence. This is the biggest scandal in college basketball since at least the Baylor situation in the mid-2000s, although this one is on a much larger scale.
The college basketball world was rocked by this news, which, frankly, wasn't entirely shocking. With the amount of money that goes into major college basketball, something like this was inevitable. That doesn't make it any less bad. You can debate the merits of the NCAA's "amateurism" rules all you want. That's not even remotely close to the point here. The point is you know that the No. 1 rule is you can't pay players, and that rule was deliberately broken over and over again. When SMU's football program was found guilty of doing the same thing in the mid-80s, they were banned from competition for two years.
In a radio interview this afternoon, Ohio State football coach Urban Meyer made his stance on the issue abundantly clear. He said that if you're found intentionally committing violations and lie about it, your career is done. I've gotta say, that sounds pretty good. You're probably not gonna stop programs from trying to circumvent the rules, but that's quite a deterrent if you get caught.
Either way, Rick Pitino's career is likely over. He had a remarkable record at Louisville, but all that success on the court will be overshadowed by the way it all ended. First there was the extortion case, where he admitted to sleeping with the woman and giving her money for an abortion. Then there was the sex parties organized by an assistant coach for players and recruits. Pitino managed to pass off the blame on that one and keep is job, but can anyone really believe he didn't know what was going on?
Now there's the most serious violation of them all. Louisville was not cited by name in the federal complaint, but it was later confirmed that it was, indeed, the university referenced. The capper was the $100,000 bribe to secure an elite prospect would sign with the Cardinals, which he did a few days after the payment was made. It's also been confirmed that the "Coach 2" referred to in the federal complaint is, in fact, Rick Pitino. Which makes you wonder if anything he's done at Louisville was on the up-and-up.
It was quite a run Louisville had under Pitino, too. He was brought in to revive a once-proud program, and he sure did. Louisville was brought in as a replacement after the first round of Big East defections and went on to dominate the league so much that it led to an ACC invite. That run included three Final Four appearances, making Pitino the first coach to take three different schools to the Final Four, and the National Championship in 2013, making him the first to win national titles at two different schools.
But...there were also the NCAA violations, which led to Louisville sitting out the 2016 NCAA Tournament as part of a self-imposed penalty. They thought that would be enough to satisfy the NCAA, but they'll likely have to vacate wins, possibly including the 2013 title, as a result of the sex-party investigation.
For years, Rick Pitino was considered above reproach. It turns out, that was all a fraud. One of the greatest coaching talents in history won't be remembered for all of his wins and all of his records during a Hall of Fame career. Instead his legacy will be that of a serial rules violator. A guy who tried so hard to get ahead that he was willing to do whatever it took. Whether or not it was within the rules didn't matter.
And, here's the sad part: he didn't need to. Yet he did. And now his legacy is forever tarnished.
Pitino wasn't the only coach involved in this scandal. He wasn't even arrested. But he was by far the biggest name, and Louisville was by far the biggest program. As a result, he took the biggest fall. Which, frankly, is probably what he deserved.
Any other coach likely would've been fired after either of those previous scandals. But Rick Pitino survived by passing off blame and using plausible deniability. Well, he could only fool us for so long. This probably wasn't his first NCAA violation, but it was his last. "Beyond reproach?" Hardly.
This is the third major scandal Louisville has been involved in since Pitino took over, and it's by far the most serious. Even if it was his first violation, it likely would've resulted in the same ending. The first two were bad enough, but even Rick Pitino wasn't going to be able to talk his way out of this one. There's no way he could've claimed he didn't know, and even if he had, no one would've believed him.
Normally, you'd wait and let things play out, using the term "if these allegations are true..." until the facts came out. But in this case, I think it's pretty clear cut what was going on. A two-year federal investigation that leads to multiple arrests, including coaches at four different schools, is pretty damning evidence. This is the biggest scandal in college basketball since at least the Baylor situation in the mid-2000s, although this one is on a much larger scale.
The college basketball world was rocked by this news, which, frankly, wasn't entirely shocking. With the amount of money that goes into major college basketball, something like this was inevitable. That doesn't make it any less bad. You can debate the merits of the NCAA's "amateurism" rules all you want. That's not even remotely close to the point here. The point is you know that the No. 1 rule is you can't pay players, and that rule was deliberately broken over and over again. When SMU's football program was found guilty of doing the same thing in the mid-80s, they were banned from competition for two years.
In a radio interview this afternoon, Ohio State football coach Urban Meyer made his stance on the issue abundantly clear. He said that if you're found intentionally committing violations and lie about it, your career is done. I've gotta say, that sounds pretty good. You're probably not gonna stop programs from trying to circumvent the rules, but that's quite a deterrent if you get caught.
Either way, Rick Pitino's career is likely over. He had a remarkable record at Louisville, but all that success on the court will be overshadowed by the way it all ended. First there was the extortion case, where he admitted to sleeping with the woman and giving her money for an abortion. Then there was the sex parties organized by an assistant coach for players and recruits. Pitino managed to pass off the blame on that one and keep is job, but can anyone really believe he didn't know what was going on?
Now there's the most serious violation of them all. Louisville was not cited by name in the federal complaint, but it was later confirmed that it was, indeed, the university referenced. The capper was the $100,000 bribe to secure an elite prospect would sign with the Cardinals, which he did a few days after the payment was made. It's also been confirmed that the "Coach 2" referred to in the federal complaint is, in fact, Rick Pitino. Which makes you wonder if anything he's done at Louisville was on the up-and-up.
It was quite a run Louisville had under Pitino, too. He was brought in to revive a once-proud program, and he sure did. Louisville was brought in as a replacement after the first round of Big East defections and went on to dominate the league so much that it led to an ACC invite. That run included three Final Four appearances, making Pitino the first coach to take three different schools to the Final Four, and the National Championship in 2013, making him the first to win national titles at two different schools.
But...there were also the NCAA violations, which led to Louisville sitting out the 2016 NCAA Tournament as part of a self-imposed penalty. They thought that would be enough to satisfy the NCAA, but they'll likely have to vacate wins, possibly including the 2013 title, as a result of the sex-party investigation.
For years, Rick Pitino was considered above reproach. It turns out, that was all a fraud. One of the greatest coaching talents in history won't be remembered for all of his wins and all of his records during a Hall of Fame career. Instead his legacy will be that of a serial rules violator. A guy who tried so hard to get ahead that he was willing to do whatever it took. Whether or not it was within the rules didn't matter.
And, here's the sad part: he didn't need to. Yet he did. And now his legacy is forever tarnished.
Pitino wasn't the only coach involved in this scandal. He wasn't even arrested. But he was by far the biggest name, and Louisville was by far the biggest program. As a result, he took the biggest fall. Which, frankly, is probably what he deserved.
Any other coach likely would've been fired after either of those previous scandals. But Rick Pitino survived by passing off blame and using plausible deniability. Well, he could only fool us for so long. This probably wasn't his first NCAA violation, but it was his last. "Beyond reproach?" Hardly.
Monday, September 25, 2017
The Flag Stands For Freedom
As you know, this is a sports blog. I generally try to keep my politics out of it. But this week has been one of those occasions where sports and politics overlapped. And plenty of people have voiced their opinions about it.
Now, I didn't vote for Donald Trump and I disagree with pretty much everything he's said and done in the nine months since he took office. But he's the President and there's nothing I can do about it (at least not until Election Day in 2020). Trump's supporters think he's doing a great job, while his detractors (and there are many) think he's any number of adjectives. One of the nicest I can think of is "terrible."
Anyway, what Trump doesn't seem to understand is that the first word in the name of this country is United. Because the United States are anything but right now. In fact, as Oprah's excellent piece on 60 Minutes displayed, we're more divided than ever before.
That division was never more evident than on Sunday. After what the President said about NFL players who protest during the national anthem (Donald, you're not on The Apprentice anymore! "You're Fired!" is no longer your catchphrase!), you knew there was going to be some sort of reaction from the players. Likewise, fans having their own response to the players was equally predictable. I don't think anyone expected that reaction to be this strong, though.
Seemingly everyone has an opinion on the numerous protests we saw at Sunday's Week 3 NFL games. And those reactions went predictably along party lines. Trump supporters were outraged at the level of "disrespect" the players showed towards our flag, while others see no problem with the players expressing their First Amendment rights, and still others are wondering why Colin Kaepernick can't get a job when the entire league is protesting now.
I'll start with the first one since that's the easiest and most straight-forward. There are a lot of reasons why Colin Kaepernick doesn't currently have an NFL job. There most likely are some outside factors contributing to the fact that Kaepernick remains unsigned, but the biggest reason he doesn't have a team right now is because he's simply not that good. He'd be a backup quarterback at best, and even that's a stretch. Either way, he's not worth the headache he'd bring.
Also, this has nothing to do with Colin Kaepernick. This has everything to do with Donald Trump. Sure, there were still some NFL players who were protesting during the national anthem for the same reason they decided to join in Kaepernick's well-publicized protest last year. But this didn't become a league-wide stance until the President decided to call out NFL players (with no provocation) at a political rally in Alabama. His comments were inappropriate and wrong, and the players decided to take a stand. In other words, they decided to show unity (there's that magic word again).
When Kaepernick decided to start his protest last year, I didn't agree with it. I thought he was making it about himself rather than bringing light to a larger issue. This situation is completely different. This was the NFL's players standing (or kneeling, or locking arms) together to say that, as a group, they disagree with the President's comments and they wanted to make sure everyone knew it.
They weren't disrespecting the flag or the military or first responders or anyone else. They were sending a message to Donald Trump. And it should be awfully telling that those involved in the protests included players of all races, as well as coaches and team owners. (Don't be surprised if we see similar protests in the NBA once that season starts.)
Of course, that explanation isn't good enough for some. And they're completely entitled to that opinion. But, even if people stop watching or going to games in response to the protests (as Trump has advocated), there will be plenty of others to take their place. The NFL's not going anywhere, and neither are football fans. In fact, there are also plenty of people out there who agree with the players' decision to protest this weekend.
Steelers fans seem to be the most outraged, which makes sense, seeing as rural Pennsylvania is one of the key areas that swayed the election in Trump's favor. Pittsburgh's protest was also the most noticeable. They didn't want to make players feel like they had to express themselves one way or the other, so they just stayed in the locker room during the national anthem, a move Ben Roethlisberger now regrets.
Of course, the most ironic thing about this weekend's protests is that so many people missed the point. Whether you agree with the President or not, there's no law saying that you have to stand during the national anthem. Quite the contrary actually. Our laws protect your ability to protest in a peaceful manner. Yet all of these people are expressing pure outrage over the players simply exercising their constitutional rights. Constitutional rights that are granted to all Americans.
This is the best country in the world. Precisely because we have this freedom. Our country works (and has for 250 years) because everyone is allowed to express their viewpoint. You don't have to agree with it, just like they don't have to agree with you. That's what makes this country so great.
During his campaign, Trump claimed that he was going to "Make America Great Again." Well, in order for that to happen, we need to start listening to and understanding each other. Because the unfortunate truth, as illustrated by the reaction to this weekend's NFL protests, is that we're not doing that. We aren't coming together as a nation. We're drifting further apart.
Now, I didn't vote for Donald Trump and I disagree with pretty much everything he's said and done in the nine months since he took office. But he's the President and there's nothing I can do about it (at least not until Election Day in 2020). Trump's supporters think he's doing a great job, while his detractors (and there are many) think he's any number of adjectives. One of the nicest I can think of is "terrible."
Anyway, what Trump doesn't seem to understand is that the first word in the name of this country is United. Because the United States are anything but right now. In fact, as Oprah's excellent piece on 60 Minutes displayed, we're more divided than ever before.
That division was never more evident than on Sunday. After what the President said about NFL players who protest during the national anthem (Donald, you're not on The Apprentice anymore! "You're Fired!" is no longer your catchphrase!), you knew there was going to be some sort of reaction from the players. Likewise, fans having their own response to the players was equally predictable. I don't think anyone expected that reaction to be this strong, though.
Seemingly everyone has an opinion on the numerous protests we saw at Sunday's Week 3 NFL games. And those reactions went predictably along party lines. Trump supporters were outraged at the level of "disrespect" the players showed towards our flag, while others see no problem with the players expressing their First Amendment rights, and still others are wondering why Colin Kaepernick can't get a job when the entire league is protesting now.
I'll start with the first one since that's the easiest and most straight-forward. There are a lot of reasons why Colin Kaepernick doesn't currently have an NFL job. There most likely are some outside factors contributing to the fact that Kaepernick remains unsigned, but the biggest reason he doesn't have a team right now is because he's simply not that good. He'd be a backup quarterback at best, and even that's a stretch. Either way, he's not worth the headache he'd bring.
Also, this has nothing to do with Colin Kaepernick. This has everything to do with Donald Trump. Sure, there were still some NFL players who were protesting during the national anthem for the same reason they decided to join in Kaepernick's well-publicized protest last year. But this didn't become a league-wide stance until the President decided to call out NFL players (with no provocation) at a political rally in Alabama. His comments were inappropriate and wrong, and the players decided to take a stand. In other words, they decided to show unity (there's that magic word again).
When Kaepernick decided to start his protest last year, I didn't agree with it. I thought he was making it about himself rather than bringing light to a larger issue. This situation is completely different. This was the NFL's players standing (or kneeling, or locking arms) together to say that, as a group, they disagree with the President's comments and they wanted to make sure everyone knew it.
They weren't disrespecting the flag or the military or first responders or anyone else. They were sending a message to Donald Trump. And it should be awfully telling that those involved in the protests included players of all races, as well as coaches and team owners. (Don't be surprised if we see similar protests in the NBA once that season starts.)
Of course, that explanation isn't good enough for some. And they're completely entitled to that opinion. But, even if people stop watching or going to games in response to the protests (as Trump has advocated), there will be plenty of others to take their place. The NFL's not going anywhere, and neither are football fans. In fact, there are also plenty of people out there who agree with the players' decision to protest this weekend.
Steelers fans seem to be the most outraged, which makes sense, seeing as rural Pennsylvania is one of the key areas that swayed the election in Trump's favor. Pittsburgh's protest was also the most noticeable. They didn't want to make players feel like they had to express themselves one way or the other, so they just stayed in the locker room during the national anthem, a move Ben Roethlisberger now regrets.
Of course, the most ironic thing about this weekend's protests is that so many people missed the point. Whether you agree with the President or not, there's no law saying that you have to stand during the national anthem. Quite the contrary actually. Our laws protect your ability to protest in a peaceful manner. Yet all of these people are expressing pure outrage over the players simply exercising their constitutional rights. Constitutional rights that are granted to all Americans.
This is the best country in the world. Precisely because we have this freedom. Our country works (and has for 250 years) because everyone is allowed to express their viewpoint. You don't have to agree with it, just like they don't have to agree with you. That's what makes this country so great.
During his campaign, Trump claimed that he was going to "Make America Great Again." Well, in order for that to happen, we need to start listening to and understanding each other. Because the unfortunate truth, as illustrated by the reaction to this weekend's NFL protests, is that we're not doing that. We aren't coming together as a nation. We're drifting further apart.
Sunday, September 24, 2017
Football Picks, Week 3
Before I get to this week's picks, a few comments about the Thursday night game. 1) As much as I hate the "Color Rush," the Rams' all gold uniform was awesome! 2) They've had white horns for two weeks, and I already miss the Rams' old helmets. Terrible idea to change the horn color.
And with that, we move on to the rest of Week 3...
Ravens (2-0) vs. Jaguars (1-1): Baltimore-Jacksonville's annual "home" game in London...which will still draw more than any of their home games in Jacksonville. You know my thoughts on the London games, so I'm not gonna get going on that now. But this is the first of four games being played across the pond. None of which is really that good a matchup. Maybe that's why the NFL didn't even bother putting this one on actual TV. Everyone can watch it for free on Yahoo! though. Yippee! We get to watch the Ravens win at 9:30 a.m., then get on to the games people might actually want to see.
Broncos (2-0) at Bills (1-1): Denver-Of the eight teams that are 2-0, Denver's got to be the most surprising. The Broncos absolutely crushed the Cowboys last week, and looked mighty impressive while doing it. The defense that won them a Super Bowl two years ago sure looks like it's firing on all cylinders again. With the Raiders, Chiefs and Broncos, the AFC West is absolutely the best division in football right now. We know how good the AFC East is. The Bills went to Carolina last week and put a whopping three points on the board! Can you really see them doing much more against the Broncos defense? I can't.
Steelers (2-0) at Bears (0-2): Pittsburgh-Chicago isn't the worst team in football, but they're definitely one of the worst. In the NFC, I have only the 49ers rated below them. We saw what the Steelers did to a good NFC North team last week. (OK, it wasn't the Packers or Lions, but the Vikings are still significantly better than the Bears.) Even in Chicago, do you think this week will be much different?
Falcons (2-0) at Lions (2-0): Detroit-One of these 2-0 teams will suffer its first loss of the season (yes, I know, there can be a tie). Atlanta has shown no signs of Super Bowl hangover, but it's the Lions who've been truly impressive. They put up 35 points on Arizona, then completely dominated the Giants on Monday night. Head Coach Jim Caldwell has already been given an extension, and it's easy to see why. I think Detroit wins this one, too.
Browns (0-2) at Colts (0-2): Indianapolis-Just like Falcons-Lions will result in somebody's first loss, either the Browns or Colts is (most likely) guaranteed a win. I saw a poll asking which 0-2 team was the most likely to win this week, and with these two playing each other, it's obviously got to be one of them. If this game was in Cleveland, the Browns might actually be favored. Even with the game in Indianapolis, it's not inconceivable to see them winning. But since it's in Indy, I'm taking the equally not-good Colts.
Buccaneers (1-0) at Vikings (1-1): Tampa Bay-I don't know if it was that Week 1 bye or playing the Bears or a combination of both, but the Bucs made me look awfully good for picking them to win the NFC South last week. Their first road trip takes them to Minnesota for a matchup with a Vikings team that's been a mixed bag over the first two weeks. Really good against New Orleans, really bad against Pittsburgh. Which Vikings team shows up? I'm not sure it matters. Because I like the Bucs either way.
Texans (1-1) at Patriots (1-1): New England-Last year in the playoffs, the Texans actually played the Patriots a lot closer than the final score indicated. You can't help but wonder how different that game would've been had J.J. Watt played. Well, Watt will be in the lineup this time. Except the Patriots beat Houston twice last season, including that Thursday night shutout during Brady's suspension, and both of those games were at Foxboro. Where's this one?
Dolphins (1-0) at Jets (0-2): Miami-The first-place Dolphins look to pad their division lead, as they play the Jets in their home opener. Everybody knew the Jets weren't going to be any good, but I don't think anyone anticipated they'd be this bad either. Sure, it's just two games and they were both on the road, but they're as close to unwatchable as any team in the NFL. The Dolphins will get their win and get on that flight from JFK to Heathrow with a 2-0 record.
Giants (0-2) at Eagles (1-1): Philadelphia-It's early. It's only Week 3. But I think the Giants are close to pushing the panic button. One touchdown in two games, and they haven't scored 20 points since last November. (And the crazy thing is they're only the second-worst team in New York!) It doesn't get any easier in Philadelphia, where the Eagles are a couple bounces away from being 2-0.
Saints (0-2) at Panthers (2-0): Carolina-An NFC South game in September? Did the schedule-maker screw up somehow? So many people like to talk about New Orleans as this sleeper playoff team, but I don't see how in this division. The Panthers, Falcons and Bucs are all better than them. Yes, Drew Brees and Co. are capable of putting up a ton of points. But so is Cam Newton, and, unlike New Orleans, the Panthers actually have a defense.
Seahawks (1-1) at Titans (1-1): Seattle-Seattle's road woes are well-publicized, and they barely beat San Francisco at home last week. Their first road game was in Green Bay, so they get a pass there, but it's their offense that I'm really getting worried about. This definitely isn't the Seahawks team that went to back-to-back Super Bowls. Yet for some reason I see them winning this game. I still need the Titans to prove it to me.
Bengals (0-2) at Packers (1-1): Green Bay-Cincinnati opened the season with two home games, lost them both, and didn't score a touchdown in either one. So they fired their offensive coordinator. Unfortunately for them, things aren't going to get any easier with a trip to Lambeau. They've had 10 days to prepare, but is that enough? I doubt it. The Bengals are in for a long afternoon.
Chiefs (2-0) at Chargers (0-2): Kansas City-Just think, if the Chargers had a better kicker, they could be 2-0 (they'd definitely be at least 1-1). As the fourth team in the ridiculously good AFC West, wins were already going to be hard to come by. They're trying to build a fan base basically from scratch (if their home opener is any indication, SAN DIEGO Charger fans aren't making the two-hour drive north), and a 2-0 record would've made it a lot easier to jump on board. As it is, they're staring at 0-3 instead. Although they probably won't lose on a missed field goal this week.
Raiders (2-0) at Redskins (1-1): Washington-Al Michaels was really excited for this Sunday night matchup, mainly because the Raiders and Redskins almost never play (only once every four years). It's still somewhat interesting that NBC and the NFL chose this one for a Sunday nighter, though, since the Redskins aren't really that good. The Raiders definitely deserve the Sunday night spotlight, especially after their dominant first two games (I'm aware they played the Jets last week). But can they fly cross country and steal a win? That I'm not so sure. Even though Oakland's the better team, I think Washington pulls the upset.
Cowboys (1-1) at Cardinals (1-1): Arizona-On Monday night, we've got Dallas heading to Arizona. Which Cowboys team will show up? The one that dominated the Giants in Week 1 or the one that got thoroughly throttled in Denver? Arizona, meanwhile, got rocked in Detroit and needed overtime in Indianapolis. So why am I picking the Cardinals then? Because they're finally getting to play a home game. That's why. No 1:00 start this week. I think we might actually see the real Cardinals team as a result.
Thursday Night: Rams (Win)
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 12-4
Overall: 24-8
And with that, we move on to the rest of Week 3...
Ravens (2-0) vs. Jaguars (1-1): Baltimore-Jacksonville's annual "home" game in London...which will still draw more than any of their home games in Jacksonville. You know my thoughts on the London games, so I'm not gonna get going on that now. But this is the first of four games being played across the pond. None of which is really that good a matchup. Maybe that's why the NFL didn't even bother putting this one on actual TV. Everyone can watch it for free on Yahoo! though. Yippee! We get to watch the Ravens win at 9:30 a.m., then get on to the games people might actually want to see.
Broncos (2-0) at Bills (1-1): Denver-Of the eight teams that are 2-0, Denver's got to be the most surprising. The Broncos absolutely crushed the Cowboys last week, and looked mighty impressive while doing it. The defense that won them a Super Bowl two years ago sure looks like it's firing on all cylinders again. With the Raiders, Chiefs and Broncos, the AFC West is absolutely the best division in football right now. We know how good the AFC East is. The Bills went to Carolina last week and put a whopping three points on the board! Can you really see them doing much more against the Broncos defense? I can't.
Steelers (2-0) at Bears (0-2): Pittsburgh-Chicago isn't the worst team in football, but they're definitely one of the worst. In the NFC, I have only the 49ers rated below them. We saw what the Steelers did to a good NFC North team last week. (OK, it wasn't the Packers or Lions, but the Vikings are still significantly better than the Bears.) Even in Chicago, do you think this week will be much different?
Falcons (2-0) at Lions (2-0): Detroit-One of these 2-0 teams will suffer its first loss of the season (yes, I know, there can be a tie). Atlanta has shown no signs of Super Bowl hangover, but it's the Lions who've been truly impressive. They put up 35 points on Arizona, then completely dominated the Giants on Monday night. Head Coach Jim Caldwell has already been given an extension, and it's easy to see why. I think Detroit wins this one, too.
Browns (0-2) at Colts (0-2): Indianapolis-Just like Falcons-Lions will result in somebody's first loss, either the Browns or Colts is (most likely) guaranteed a win. I saw a poll asking which 0-2 team was the most likely to win this week, and with these two playing each other, it's obviously got to be one of them. If this game was in Cleveland, the Browns might actually be favored. Even with the game in Indianapolis, it's not inconceivable to see them winning. But since it's in Indy, I'm taking the equally not-good Colts.
Buccaneers (1-0) at Vikings (1-1): Tampa Bay-I don't know if it was that Week 1 bye or playing the Bears or a combination of both, but the Bucs made me look awfully good for picking them to win the NFC South last week. Their first road trip takes them to Minnesota for a matchup with a Vikings team that's been a mixed bag over the first two weeks. Really good against New Orleans, really bad against Pittsburgh. Which Vikings team shows up? I'm not sure it matters. Because I like the Bucs either way.
Texans (1-1) at Patriots (1-1): New England-Last year in the playoffs, the Texans actually played the Patriots a lot closer than the final score indicated. You can't help but wonder how different that game would've been had J.J. Watt played. Well, Watt will be in the lineup this time. Except the Patriots beat Houston twice last season, including that Thursday night shutout during Brady's suspension, and both of those games were at Foxboro. Where's this one?
Dolphins (1-0) at Jets (0-2): Miami-The first-place Dolphins look to pad their division lead, as they play the Jets in their home opener. Everybody knew the Jets weren't going to be any good, but I don't think anyone anticipated they'd be this bad either. Sure, it's just two games and they were both on the road, but they're as close to unwatchable as any team in the NFL. The Dolphins will get their win and get on that flight from JFK to Heathrow with a 2-0 record.
Giants (0-2) at Eagles (1-1): Philadelphia-It's early. It's only Week 3. But I think the Giants are close to pushing the panic button. One touchdown in two games, and they haven't scored 20 points since last November. (And the crazy thing is they're only the second-worst team in New York!) It doesn't get any easier in Philadelphia, where the Eagles are a couple bounces away from being 2-0.
Saints (0-2) at Panthers (2-0): Carolina-An NFC South game in September? Did the schedule-maker screw up somehow? So many people like to talk about New Orleans as this sleeper playoff team, but I don't see how in this division. The Panthers, Falcons and Bucs are all better than them. Yes, Drew Brees and Co. are capable of putting up a ton of points. But so is Cam Newton, and, unlike New Orleans, the Panthers actually have a defense.
Seahawks (1-1) at Titans (1-1): Seattle-Seattle's road woes are well-publicized, and they barely beat San Francisco at home last week. Their first road game was in Green Bay, so they get a pass there, but it's their offense that I'm really getting worried about. This definitely isn't the Seahawks team that went to back-to-back Super Bowls. Yet for some reason I see them winning this game. I still need the Titans to prove it to me.
Bengals (0-2) at Packers (1-1): Green Bay-Cincinnati opened the season with two home games, lost them both, and didn't score a touchdown in either one. So they fired their offensive coordinator. Unfortunately for them, things aren't going to get any easier with a trip to Lambeau. They've had 10 days to prepare, but is that enough? I doubt it. The Bengals are in for a long afternoon.
Chiefs (2-0) at Chargers (0-2): Kansas City-Just think, if the Chargers had a better kicker, they could be 2-0 (they'd definitely be at least 1-1). As the fourth team in the ridiculously good AFC West, wins were already going to be hard to come by. They're trying to build a fan base basically from scratch (if their home opener is any indication, SAN DIEGO Charger fans aren't making the two-hour drive north), and a 2-0 record would've made it a lot easier to jump on board. As it is, they're staring at 0-3 instead. Although they probably won't lose on a missed field goal this week.
Raiders (2-0) at Redskins (1-1): Washington-Al Michaels was really excited for this Sunday night matchup, mainly because the Raiders and Redskins almost never play (only once every four years). It's still somewhat interesting that NBC and the NFL chose this one for a Sunday nighter, though, since the Redskins aren't really that good. The Raiders definitely deserve the Sunday night spotlight, especially after their dominant first two games (I'm aware they played the Jets last week). But can they fly cross country and steal a win? That I'm not so sure. Even though Oakland's the better team, I think Washington pulls the upset.
Cowboys (1-1) at Cardinals (1-1): Arizona-On Monday night, we've got Dallas heading to Arizona. Which Cowboys team will show up? The one that dominated the Giants in Week 1 or the one that got thoroughly throttled in Denver? Arizona, meanwhile, got rocked in Detroit and needed overtime in Indianapolis. So why am I picking the Cardinals then? Because they're finally getting to play a home game. That's why. No 1:00 start this week. I think we might actually see the real Cardinals team as a result.
Thursday Night: Rams (Win)
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 12-4
Overall: 24-8
Friday, September 22, 2017
Leave the Decision Up to the Clubs
I was at the Yankee game on Wednesday afternoon, so I was there for the little girl getting hit by the foul ball. I'll be honest. From where I was, I couldn't really tell what happened. All I saw was the ball going into the stands. It wasn't until I saw the medical personnel running to the area that I realized it hit somebody. And it wasn't until I got home that I found out it was a 2-year-old girl who got hit.
The reaction to what happened was predictably horrified. Todd Frazier, who hit the ball, was visibly shaken, and Matt Holliday was brought to tears. When asked about it after the game, Twins second baseman Brian Dozier suggested that all ballparks need to extend the netting to cover more of the stands, a sentiment that was shared by many on ESPN and MLB Network and every other place the play was discussed.
On one of these shows (I think it was Mark Teixeira on Baseball Tonight), they made the point that it takes something like this for the topic of extending the netting to be discussed, suggesting that it's a conversation that should be taking place anyway. I'm all for fan safety, and I'm glad the little girl is going to be alright, but I think these responses, while predictable, are overreactions.
They're right in saying that you should be able to go to a baseball game without worrying about getting hurt. But there are signs all over the ballpark and how many announcements per game telling you to be alert of balls and bats, especially in field level seats? You know the risks if you want to sit there, so some of the burden has to fall on the fans that choose to buy those tickets. In fact, the ability to catch a foul ball is usually the reason why people buy tickets in those sections. And if you want those seats, you'd better pay attention. Because a ball can come flying in your direction at pretty much any moment.
Every Major League ballpark has a protective net behind home plate, generally extending across the area between the dugouts. The incident at Yankee Stadium has led for calls to extend that netting at various stadiums, and many teams have announced their plans to do it as early as next season. Most of the extended netting will cover the entire area behind each dugout (for the record, the little girl's family was sitting down the third base line, well past the dugout and beyond where even extended netting would end).
These decisions are being left up to the 30 individual teams, although some would like to see it mandated across the Majors. And those people would be wrong. Because, while their concern for fan safety is admirable, they want to take away one of the best parts of the fan experience.
Why do people sit right behind the dugout? So that they can see the game up-close and maybe, just maybe, catch a foul ball. That's why kids race down to the field level for autographs during batting practice. And how often do you see a player flip a ball to somebody in the stands from the dugout? If you extend the netting to the entire dugout area, there goes that part of the fan experience.
You know what else you would lose by extending the home plate netting? Those memorable plays. Derek Jeter's face-first dive into the stands? Not possible. Steve Bartman? Not possible. Any of those other close fan vs. player foul balls down the line? Not possible.
And you know something else? Even if you were to have the protective netting extend from foul pole to foul pole (which they do in Japan), you're still not making the ballpark completely "safe." No one's advocating protective netting in the outfield, which is obvioulsy where all home run balls land. And someone could just as easily get hit by a home run ball. Or worse. Remember a few years ago when that guy in Texas died after falling over a railing going for a home run?
This reminds me of when the NHL mandated netting behind the goals in the mid-2000s, a situation many people have likened this to. The situations are similar, I'll give them that. The NHL mandated it after a girl who wasn't paying attention died after getting hit by a puck that went into the stands in Columbus.
But there's also a key difference. In the NHL, they only mandated it behind the nets because that's where a majority of pucks that end up out of play go (obviously on shots). They didn't mandate it across the entire arena, even though pucks can still go out over the side, albeit with much less frequency.
In baseball, there's no way to predict where a foul ball's going to go, so it's impossible to try and set up netting that can protect everyone. Most foul balls go straight back, which is why there's a backstop behind home plate in pretty much every ballpark in the world. Unless you sit behind home plate (and sometimes even if you do depending on how high the backstop is), you're sitting there at your own risk, knowing that a foul ball could come your way at anytime.
There aren't backstops in MLB parks, but the home plate netting effectively serves the same purpose. As for the rest of the stadium, that same assumption of risk has to apply. A lot of people want to sit close simply because of the possibility of getting a foul ball. That's why the signs are there. And those signs are very clear. They say "be alert."
Even with those warnings, people are still, unfortunately, going to get hurt. Teams and ballparks can implement all the safety procedures they want, but that possibility is still going to exist, even with extended netting. That's why some of the onus needs to be put on the fans, as well. Your safety is important. Act like it. Pay attention to the game.
The reaction to what happened was predictably horrified. Todd Frazier, who hit the ball, was visibly shaken, and Matt Holliday was brought to tears. When asked about it after the game, Twins second baseman Brian Dozier suggested that all ballparks need to extend the netting to cover more of the stands, a sentiment that was shared by many on ESPN and MLB Network and every other place the play was discussed.
On one of these shows (I think it was Mark Teixeira on Baseball Tonight), they made the point that it takes something like this for the topic of extending the netting to be discussed, suggesting that it's a conversation that should be taking place anyway. I'm all for fan safety, and I'm glad the little girl is going to be alright, but I think these responses, while predictable, are overreactions.
They're right in saying that you should be able to go to a baseball game without worrying about getting hurt. But there are signs all over the ballpark and how many announcements per game telling you to be alert of balls and bats, especially in field level seats? You know the risks if you want to sit there, so some of the burden has to fall on the fans that choose to buy those tickets. In fact, the ability to catch a foul ball is usually the reason why people buy tickets in those sections. And if you want those seats, you'd better pay attention. Because a ball can come flying in your direction at pretty much any moment.
Every Major League ballpark has a protective net behind home plate, generally extending across the area between the dugouts. The incident at Yankee Stadium has led for calls to extend that netting at various stadiums, and many teams have announced their plans to do it as early as next season. Most of the extended netting will cover the entire area behind each dugout (for the record, the little girl's family was sitting down the third base line, well past the dugout and beyond where even extended netting would end).
These decisions are being left up to the 30 individual teams, although some would like to see it mandated across the Majors. And those people would be wrong. Because, while their concern for fan safety is admirable, they want to take away one of the best parts of the fan experience.
Why do people sit right behind the dugout? So that they can see the game up-close and maybe, just maybe, catch a foul ball. That's why kids race down to the field level for autographs during batting practice. And how often do you see a player flip a ball to somebody in the stands from the dugout? If you extend the netting to the entire dugout area, there goes that part of the fan experience.
You know what else you would lose by extending the home plate netting? Those memorable plays. Derek Jeter's face-first dive into the stands? Not possible. Steve Bartman? Not possible. Any of those other close fan vs. player foul balls down the line? Not possible.
And you know something else? Even if you were to have the protective netting extend from foul pole to foul pole (which they do in Japan), you're still not making the ballpark completely "safe." No one's advocating protective netting in the outfield, which is obvioulsy where all home run balls land. And someone could just as easily get hit by a home run ball. Or worse. Remember a few years ago when that guy in Texas died after falling over a railing going for a home run?
This reminds me of when the NHL mandated netting behind the goals in the mid-2000s, a situation many people have likened this to. The situations are similar, I'll give them that. The NHL mandated it after a girl who wasn't paying attention died after getting hit by a puck that went into the stands in Columbus.
But there's also a key difference. In the NHL, they only mandated it behind the nets because that's where a majority of pucks that end up out of play go (obviously on shots). They didn't mandate it across the entire arena, even though pucks can still go out over the side, albeit with much less frequency.
In baseball, there's no way to predict where a foul ball's going to go, so it's impossible to try and set up netting that can protect everyone. Most foul balls go straight back, which is why there's a backstop behind home plate in pretty much every ballpark in the world. Unless you sit behind home plate (and sometimes even if you do depending on how high the backstop is), you're sitting there at your own risk, knowing that a foul ball could come your way at anytime.
There aren't backstops in MLB parks, but the home plate netting effectively serves the same purpose. As for the rest of the stadium, that same assumption of risk has to apply. A lot of people want to sit close simply because of the possibility of getting a foul ball. That's why the signs are there. And those signs are very clear. They say "be alert."
Even with those warnings, people are still, unfortunately, going to get hurt. Teams and ballparks can implement all the safety procedures they want, but that possibility is still going to exist, even with extended netting. That's why some of the onus needs to be put on the fans, as well. Your safety is important. Act like it. Pay attention to the game.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
The Value of a Win
Over the last 10 years or so, ever since the word "sabermetrics" entered baseball vocabulary, people have been trying to devalue the win. The argument is that there are so many factors other than how well the pitcher actually pitched that the "win" isn't really indicative of his performance. He could pitch well and get no run support in a loss or no decision or, conversely, get a win despite not pitching that great because he made it through five innings with a ton of run support.
Well, if the win is so insignificant, why does it still mean so much to the pitchers themselves? Twice last week, Yankees manager Joe Girardi took his starting pitcher out in the fifth inning of a game the Yankees were leading, making them ineligible for the win. Both pitchers--CC Sabathia and Jaime Garcia--were visibly upset. Girardi didn't care, and he shouldn't. His priority was the team win (the Yankees did win both games). But, even in this sabermetric era, getting the win is still pretty important to the pitcher.
Yes, I'm stating the obvious here. Pitchers want the win. It's important to them. Sure, owners and GMs might look at ERAs and strikeouts and WHIPs and fastball velocity when scouting pitchers and considering which free agents to sign. But what's the only thing listed on every box score? The winner, the loser, and who got the save (if there was one). And, whatever their other stats might be, it's the pitchers who win that make the most money when the time comes to get paid.
Think of some of the best pitchers in baseball. Max Scherzer, Clayton Kershaw, Corey Kluber, Chris Sale. They all pitch deep into games and, as a result, get decisions. No one, not even the sabermetrics crowd, can question the validity of their records, which, for the most part, are the same as their teams' record in their starts (which is actually one of my favorite stats to look up).
This all came to a head a few years ago when the AL Cy Young went to Felix Hernandez, who went 13-12 for the last-place Mariners, instead of 21-game winner David Price, whose Rays won the AL East. I, personally, thought Price deserved to win over Hernandez, but that's besides the point. What that Cy Young race showed us is the changing view of writers about traditional statistics.
Except here's the problem: many of those same writers are Hall of Fame voters. And what do Hall of Fame voters look at? Strikeouts and ERA, yes, but also wins and winning percentage. So, if wins aren't important anymore, why do they still matter when it comes time to vote for the Hall of Fame? You can't have it both ways. It either matters or it doesn't.
Maybe that's why going five innings and getting the win was so important to CC Sabathia. Yes, it's one game over the span of a 17-year career. CC Sabathia was already a borderline Hall of Famer, and whether he ends his career with 290 wins or 289 (or whatever number) isn't going to determine whether or not he gets a plaque in Cooperstown. (For the record, I think the Big Guy will get in eventually.)
There's also talk that CC could be the last guy to get to 300 wins, which has always been the magic number. It's another sign of the times. Every team has a deep bullpen, so they don't need their starters to go as deep into games. And you have teams limiting innings and skipping starts, further limiting their opportunities. That's why the 20-win season, long the indicator of pitching success, has also become a thing of the past (four pitchers are tied for the Major League lead with 17 wins, so we likely won't have one this season).
But, even if no one else does, starting pitchers still see the value in the win. They only pitch once every five days. They can only make an impact 35 times a season. They want to make the most of it. And the best way for a starting pitcher to help his team win is to pitch well enough to earn one himself. And, if you think about it, in order for a pitcher to get a win, his team first has to win. And the teams that win the most are the ones that end up in the playoffs.
One last point about starting pitchers and wins. What's the first category listed under pitching leaders (and the first one that people look up)? What's the stat that appears next to a pitcher's name on the day he pitches? What's the stat most frequently tied to bonus thresholds in contracts (which agents are quick to point out)? What's the one pitching category every fantasy baseball league, even the most basic ones, assigns the most weight to?
So, who gets the win might not matter to sabermetricians or managers. But it matters a great deal to the men actually going out there and standing on the hill. Try telling them that the winning pitcher is irrelevant.
Who gets the win is important. Just like it always has been. Just like it always will be.
Sunday, September 17, 2017
Football Picks, Week 2
Well folks, Week 1 gave us its share of surprises, didn't it? The Bills, Jaguars and Rams are all in sole possession of first place in their divisions, while we also saw something we thought we might not see all season--a Patriots loss. What's in store for Week 2? Well, we've already seen Cincinnati fire its offensive coordinator after failing to score a touchdown on Thursday night, but I'm sure there's much more to come.
Cardinals (0-1) at Colts (0-1): Arizona-Arizona wasn't dealt an easy hand to start the season. Back-to-back trips to the Midwest for 1:00 kickoffs. Last week, they got outclassed in Detroit, but they'll likely have a far better result in Indianapolis. The Colts went out to LA last week and the game looked like a USC vs. Idaho guarantee game. They aren't that good with Andrew Luck. Without him, they're just bad.
Eagles (1-0) at Chiefs (1-0): Kansas City-Thank you Chiefs for making us not have to listen to "Can the Patriots go undefeated?" talk this year. Anyway, we all knew Kansas City was good. All they did on Thursday night was give us further evidence of that fact. Now they take on Andy Reid's former team in their home opener. Nice win by the Eagles last week, but the Redskins are not the Chiefs. Kansas City wins.
Patriots (0-1) at Saints (0-1): New England-Sound the panic alarm! The Patriots lost at home in their opener! Remember the last time they lost big to Kansas City? They didn't lose again that season and won the Super Bowl. Belichick's had an extra three days to figure out what went wrong last week and how to fix it. And, more importantly, they're playing the Saints instead of the Chiefs this week. The last-place Patriots' stay at the bottom of the AFC East standings will likely be a short one.
Vikings (1-0) at Steelers (1-0): Pittsburgh-On paper, this might be the best matchup of Week 2. Minnesota really controlled play pretty much all night against New Orleans, while Pittsburgh had some surprisingly tense moments in Cleveland. Their result was the same, though, and one of them will be 2-0 after this week. While they looked good last week, I'm not completely sold on the Vikings. Let's see how they do in their first road game of the year, which is, obviously, a very tough test. I'm taking the Steelers.
Bears (0-1) at Buccaneers (0-0): Tampa Bay-They're playing in Tampa less than a week after Irma, as the Bucs welcome their former quarterback Mike Glennon for their opener. Playing 16 straight weeks could definitely have a bearing on this potential playoff team down the stretch (especially since their Thursday night game is early). But the extra rest should help them this week. They didn't need extra time to prepare for the Bears, but they got it. The Bucs win this one for Tampa (now if the Rays could just do some winning for Tampa against the Red Sox).
Bills (1-0) at Panthers (1-0): Carolina-Ladies and gentlemen, the Buffalo Bills are in sole possession of first place in the AFC East. It's not going to last long, so I just wanted to make sure I got it out there. Both of these teams beat an opponent that's pretty bad last week, so this week will provide a much tougher challenge. The Panthers are a better team than the Bills and they're playing at home. That's enough for me.
Titans (0-1) at Jaguars (1-0): Tennessee-Raise your had if you thought Jacksonville was going to beat Houston last week. Anybody? Didn't think so. Not only that, the Jaguars smacked the Texans. Definitely one of the surprises of Week 1. Now they play another division game against the Titans, who lost at home to Oakland last week. I'm still going to say Tennessee should win this game, but the Jaguars pulled it off last week, and I think the Texans are better than the Titans, so first-place Jacksonville getting to 2-0 suddenly doesn't seem like much of a stretch, either.
Browns (0-1) at Ravens (1-0): Baltimore-Cleveland kept it surprisingly close against Pittsburgh last week, but, in true Browns fashion, they found a way to lose. Maybe it's because the Indians were winning enough for all three Cleveland teams. Well, the Indians finally stopped winning, so maybe they'll share some with Cleveland's "football" team. Then again, maybe not. Do you really see them beating the Ravens, a team that shut out the Bengals in Cincinnati, in Baltimore? I don't.
Jets (0-1) at Raiders (1-0): Oakland-Two teams play their home games at MetLife Stadium. So why in God's name did it sit empty for the first two Sundays of the season?! Anyway, the Jets take their traveling circus cross country for a matchup with the Raiders. This would be one game you could count on Oakland to win when both teams were bad. Now that the Raiders are good, it's not going to be pretty. Fortunately I'll be able to watch the Cowboys-Broncos game instead.
Dolphins (0-0) at Chargers (0-1): Miami-The Dolphins have spent the week in Southern California getting ready for their delayed opener. The Chargers, meanwhile, have a short week after playing the second Monday night game (and giving it away with that missed field goal on the final play). It's their first game in their temporary home, but they're evidently having trouble selling tickets even in a 30,000-seat soccer stadium (mainly because no one, including the Chargers, wants them in LA). It'll be very interesting to see how many people actually show up to see the Dolphins win.
Cowboys (1-0) at Broncos (1-0): Dallas-As long as Ezekiel Elliott is allowed to play (which I think will be the entire season), Dallas should be favored in most, if not all of their games. The last time Denver played Dallas, Peyton Manning was at the helm for the Broncos. Now it's Trevor Siemian, which isn't quite the same thing. Denver barely beat the Chargers on Monday night, while the Cowboys pretty thoroughly handled the Giants. The Broncos' defense may be the strength of the team, but the Cowboys have enough offense that they'll score just enough points to get it done.
Redskins (0-1) at Rams (1-0): Rams-OK, here's what I've got to say about the woeful attendance at the Rams-Colts game (a crowd that rivaled the one at Trump's inauguration)...the LA Coliseum made it look much worse than it actually was. I'm not saying all those empty seats were a good thing. But the LA Coliseum seats 90,000 people. It also looked empty for Super Bowl I. If you had 50,000 people sitting in a 65,000-seat stadium, it wouldn't have looked nearly as bad. The LA Coliseum, of course, won't be empty for the track & field events at the 2028 Olympics. IOC President Thomas Bach is coming to this game to celebrate LA's being awarded those Games. Unfortunately, he won't see a very good football game. I'll take the Rams because, why not? (Also, why are both LA teams home this week? You're gonna complain about the attendance for both of them anyway, so maybe making fans choose between the games wasn't the brightest idea.)
49ers (0-1) at Seahawks (0-1): Seattle-Both of these teams lost last week. One lost on the road against one of the favorites in the NFC. The other got smacked around at home. See where I'm going with this? The Seahawks don't lose at home period. They certainly won't against a 49ers team that they're far superior to.
Packers (1-0) at Falcons (1-0): Green Bay-Atlanta opens its new stadium on Sunday Night Football with a rematch of the NFC Championship Game. This is the Falcons' first real test of the season after opening against the Bears. The Packers, meanwhile, get their second straight playoff team to open 2017. You know that after losing the final game at the Georgia Dome, Aaron Rodgers and Co. would like nothing more than to spoil the opening of Mercedes-Benz Stadium. I think they will, too.
Lions (1-0) at Giants (0-1): Giants-Detroit was impressive in its Week 1 win over Arizona. The Giants were not in their Week 1 loss at Dallas. In fact, they made it abundantly clear that they're not the same team without Odell Beckham, Jr., and that overall lack of offense going back to last season is definitely troubling. So why am I picking the Giants? Because I don't see that defense having two bad games in a row, and Detroit's offense should give them far fewer problems than Dallas did.
Thursday Night: Houston (Win)
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-4
Season: 12-4
Cardinals (0-1) at Colts (0-1): Arizona-Arizona wasn't dealt an easy hand to start the season. Back-to-back trips to the Midwest for 1:00 kickoffs. Last week, they got outclassed in Detroit, but they'll likely have a far better result in Indianapolis. The Colts went out to LA last week and the game looked like a USC vs. Idaho guarantee game. They aren't that good with Andrew Luck. Without him, they're just bad.
Eagles (1-0) at Chiefs (1-0): Kansas City-Thank you Chiefs for making us not have to listen to "Can the Patriots go undefeated?" talk this year. Anyway, we all knew Kansas City was good. All they did on Thursday night was give us further evidence of that fact. Now they take on Andy Reid's former team in their home opener. Nice win by the Eagles last week, but the Redskins are not the Chiefs. Kansas City wins.
Patriots (0-1) at Saints (0-1): New England-Sound the panic alarm! The Patriots lost at home in their opener! Remember the last time they lost big to Kansas City? They didn't lose again that season and won the Super Bowl. Belichick's had an extra three days to figure out what went wrong last week and how to fix it. And, more importantly, they're playing the Saints instead of the Chiefs this week. The last-place Patriots' stay at the bottom of the AFC East standings will likely be a short one.
Vikings (1-0) at Steelers (1-0): Pittsburgh-On paper, this might be the best matchup of Week 2. Minnesota really controlled play pretty much all night against New Orleans, while Pittsburgh had some surprisingly tense moments in Cleveland. Their result was the same, though, and one of them will be 2-0 after this week. While they looked good last week, I'm not completely sold on the Vikings. Let's see how they do in their first road game of the year, which is, obviously, a very tough test. I'm taking the Steelers.
Bears (0-1) at Buccaneers (0-0): Tampa Bay-They're playing in Tampa less than a week after Irma, as the Bucs welcome their former quarterback Mike Glennon for their opener. Playing 16 straight weeks could definitely have a bearing on this potential playoff team down the stretch (especially since their Thursday night game is early). But the extra rest should help them this week. They didn't need extra time to prepare for the Bears, but they got it. The Bucs win this one for Tampa (now if the Rays could just do some winning for Tampa against the Red Sox).
Bills (1-0) at Panthers (1-0): Carolina-Ladies and gentlemen, the Buffalo Bills are in sole possession of first place in the AFC East. It's not going to last long, so I just wanted to make sure I got it out there. Both of these teams beat an opponent that's pretty bad last week, so this week will provide a much tougher challenge. The Panthers are a better team than the Bills and they're playing at home. That's enough for me.
Titans (0-1) at Jaguars (1-0): Tennessee-Raise your had if you thought Jacksonville was going to beat Houston last week. Anybody? Didn't think so. Not only that, the Jaguars smacked the Texans. Definitely one of the surprises of Week 1. Now they play another division game against the Titans, who lost at home to Oakland last week. I'm still going to say Tennessee should win this game, but the Jaguars pulled it off last week, and I think the Texans are better than the Titans, so first-place Jacksonville getting to 2-0 suddenly doesn't seem like much of a stretch, either.
Browns (0-1) at Ravens (1-0): Baltimore-Cleveland kept it surprisingly close against Pittsburgh last week, but, in true Browns fashion, they found a way to lose. Maybe it's because the Indians were winning enough for all three Cleveland teams. Well, the Indians finally stopped winning, so maybe they'll share some with Cleveland's "football" team. Then again, maybe not. Do you really see them beating the Ravens, a team that shut out the Bengals in Cincinnati, in Baltimore? I don't.
Jets (0-1) at Raiders (1-0): Oakland-Two teams play their home games at MetLife Stadium. So why in God's name did it sit empty for the first two Sundays of the season?! Anyway, the Jets take their traveling circus cross country for a matchup with the Raiders. This would be one game you could count on Oakland to win when both teams were bad. Now that the Raiders are good, it's not going to be pretty. Fortunately I'll be able to watch the Cowboys-Broncos game instead.
Dolphins (0-0) at Chargers (0-1): Miami-The Dolphins have spent the week in Southern California getting ready for their delayed opener. The Chargers, meanwhile, have a short week after playing the second Monday night game (and giving it away with that missed field goal on the final play). It's their first game in their temporary home, but they're evidently having trouble selling tickets even in a 30,000-seat soccer stadium (mainly because no one, including the Chargers, wants them in LA). It'll be very interesting to see how many people actually show up to see the Dolphins win.
Cowboys (1-0) at Broncos (1-0): Dallas-As long as Ezekiel Elliott is allowed to play (which I think will be the entire season), Dallas should be favored in most, if not all of their games. The last time Denver played Dallas, Peyton Manning was at the helm for the Broncos. Now it's Trevor Siemian, which isn't quite the same thing. Denver barely beat the Chargers on Monday night, while the Cowboys pretty thoroughly handled the Giants. The Broncos' defense may be the strength of the team, but the Cowboys have enough offense that they'll score just enough points to get it done.
Redskins (0-1) at Rams (1-0): Rams-OK, here's what I've got to say about the woeful attendance at the Rams-Colts game (a crowd that rivaled the one at Trump's inauguration)...the LA Coliseum made it look much worse than it actually was. I'm not saying all those empty seats were a good thing. But the LA Coliseum seats 90,000 people. It also looked empty for Super Bowl I. If you had 50,000 people sitting in a 65,000-seat stadium, it wouldn't have looked nearly as bad. The LA Coliseum, of course, won't be empty for the track & field events at the 2028 Olympics. IOC President Thomas Bach is coming to this game to celebrate LA's being awarded those Games. Unfortunately, he won't see a very good football game. I'll take the Rams because, why not? (Also, why are both LA teams home this week? You're gonna complain about the attendance for both of them anyway, so maybe making fans choose between the games wasn't the brightest idea.)
49ers (0-1) at Seahawks (0-1): Seattle-Both of these teams lost last week. One lost on the road against one of the favorites in the NFC. The other got smacked around at home. See where I'm going with this? The Seahawks don't lose at home period. They certainly won't against a 49ers team that they're far superior to.
Packers (1-0) at Falcons (1-0): Green Bay-Atlanta opens its new stadium on Sunday Night Football with a rematch of the NFC Championship Game. This is the Falcons' first real test of the season after opening against the Bears. The Packers, meanwhile, get their second straight playoff team to open 2017. You know that after losing the final game at the Georgia Dome, Aaron Rodgers and Co. would like nothing more than to spoil the opening of Mercedes-Benz Stadium. I think they will, too.
Lions (1-0) at Giants (0-1): Giants-Detroit was impressive in its Week 1 win over Arizona. The Giants were not in their Week 1 loss at Dallas. In fact, they made it abundantly clear that they're not the same team without Odell Beckham, Jr., and that overall lack of offense going back to last season is definitely troubling. So why am I picking the Giants? Because I don't see that defense having two bad games in a row, and Detroit's offense should give them far fewer problems than Dallas did.
Thursday Night: Houston (Win)
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-4
Season: 12-4
Friday, September 15, 2017
The Best Commissioner In Sports
The NBA has the best commissioner in sports. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Everyone except the owners knows Roger Baddell is terrible (and I think even some of the owners know, too). Gary Bettman doesn't give a crap about the players or fans and has guaranteed himself Lockout 3.0. And Rob Manfred is preoccupied with "fixing" problems that don't exist.
Then there's Adam Silver. He knows that the NBA has some serious issues. He knows something has to be done about them. So, instead of pushing them under the rug, that's exactly what he's doing. Silver is making tough decisions that he knows are the best for the league...and he's making the owners see that, too. As a result, he's gonna get things done.
One of the biggest issues that's been plaguing the NBA for the last couple seasons has been that ridiculous "DNP-Rest" you see over and over again in box scores. We all know the story with this one. The Cavs, Warriors and Spurs (among others) are the biggest culprits here. They've made it a habit to sit healthy star players for nationally-televised games.
Each team has offered their different reasons for sitting out their best players, but each of those explanations rings pretty hollow. Fans aren't buying tickets to see LeBron or Steph Curry sit on the bench. Especially if it's their only visit to that particular city. People also aren't going to tune in to watch what's essentially a preseason game between the Cavs and Celtics, either. That effects the ratings for TNT/ABC/ESPN. And if the ratings go down, there goes the advertising revenue.
That's how Silver was able to sell the owners on the fact that this was a change that needed to happen. As an economic issue. And we all know how loudly the almighty dollar speaks. (This is, after all, the league that agreed to jersey sponsorships beginning this season.) When you threaten the amount of money that the owners are able to make, they suddenly care very strongly about an issue.
Another issue that's been plaguing the NBA for even longer than the "DNP-Rest" is the tanking issue. This truly came to light after the 76ers infamously tanked their way thru the 2013-14 season, knowing that their reward would be no worse than the No. 4 pick in the draft. Silver wanted to do something about it then, but, as a new commissioner, didn't have the support among the owners. Four years later, he does. Which is why draft reform is definitely going to happen.
Under the current system, the worst team in the NBA has a 25 percent chance of winning the lottery and can draft no lower than fourth. The new plan evens out those odds to 14 percent for each of the three worst teams, with the odds only dropping by a point or two for the other lottery teams (previously, just missing the playoffs meant you had virtually no shot at winning the lottery). And now the worst team is guaranteed only a top-five (instead of top-four) pick.
I like the idea of evening out the odds a little, but I'd take it one step further. You can't win the lottery in back-to-back years. If you get the No. 1 pick one year and end up back in the lottery the next, you can pick no higher than second. I'm not sure exactly how they'd be able to put that stipulation in place, but it would definitely give teams more of an incentive to put a competitive team out there.
Adam Silver has tackled both of these issues head-on, and he'll make it a point to see them enacted. There are other issues he's going to address, too. The All*Star Game is a joke, which everyone acknowledges. That's also on his agenda. But the draft and the resting of healthy players were much more pressing. Which is why Silver felt the need to deal with those problems first.
And, let's be clear about one last point. Adam Silver is going to get his way on both of these issues. He wouldn't be discussing them publicly if he wasn't. These were problems that the commissioner found a solution for. And he found solutions that work for everybody. Once again proving that he's the best commissioner among the four major sports.
Then there's Adam Silver. He knows that the NBA has some serious issues. He knows something has to be done about them. So, instead of pushing them under the rug, that's exactly what he's doing. Silver is making tough decisions that he knows are the best for the league...and he's making the owners see that, too. As a result, he's gonna get things done.
One of the biggest issues that's been plaguing the NBA for the last couple seasons has been that ridiculous "DNP-Rest" you see over and over again in box scores. We all know the story with this one. The Cavs, Warriors and Spurs (among others) are the biggest culprits here. They've made it a habit to sit healthy star players for nationally-televised games.
Each team has offered their different reasons for sitting out their best players, but each of those explanations rings pretty hollow. Fans aren't buying tickets to see LeBron or Steph Curry sit on the bench. Especially if it's their only visit to that particular city. People also aren't going to tune in to watch what's essentially a preseason game between the Cavs and Celtics, either. That effects the ratings for TNT/ABC/ESPN. And if the ratings go down, there goes the advertising revenue.
That's how Silver was able to sell the owners on the fact that this was a change that needed to happen. As an economic issue. And we all know how loudly the almighty dollar speaks. (This is, after all, the league that agreed to jersey sponsorships beginning this season.) When you threaten the amount of money that the owners are able to make, they suddenly care very strongly about an issue.
Another issue that's been plaguing the NBA for even longer than the "DNP-Rest" is the tanking issue. This truly came to light after the 76ers infamously tanked their way thru the 2013-14 season, knowing that their reward would be no worse than the No. 4 pick in the draft. Silver wanted to do something about it then, but, as a new commissioner, didn't have the support among the owners. Four years later, he does. Which is why draft reform is definitely going to happen.
Under the current system, the worst team in the NBA has a 25 percent chance of winning the lottery and can draft no lower than fourth. The new plan evens out those odds to 14 percent for each of the three worst teams, with the odds only dropping by a point or two for the other lottery teams (previously, just missing the playoffs meant you had virtually no shot at winning the lottery). And now the worst team is guaranteed only a top-five (instead of top-four) pick.
I like the idea of evening out the odds a little, but I'd take it one step further. You can't win the lottery in back-to-back years. If you get the No. 1 pick one year and end up back in the lottery the next, you can pick no higher than second. I'm not sure exactly how they'd be able to put that stipulation in place, but it would definitely give teams more of an incentive to put a competitive team out there.
Adam Silver has tackled both of these issues head-on, and he'll make it a point to see them enacted. There are other issues he's going to address, too. The All*Star Game is a joke, which everyone acknowledges. That's also on his agenda. But the draft and the resting of healthy players were much more pressing. Which is why Silver felt the need to deal with those problems first.
And, let's be clear about one last point. Adam Silver is going to get his way on both of these issues. He wouldn't be discussing them publicly if he wasn't. These were problems that the commissioner found a solution for. And he found solutions that work for everybody. Once again proving that he's the best commissioner among the four major sports.
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
A Win-Win-Win
Are you ready for the end of the most anticlimactic Olympic bid race in recent memory (perhaps ever)? On Wednesday afternoon, what we've all known for months will finally be made official. The 2024 Olympics will be awarded to Paris, and the 2028 Games will go to Los Angeles. And with that, both cities will join London as three-time hosts.
Ordinarily, this would be the day that bidding cities spend years leading up to...only for most of them to see all that time and money go for naught. But not this time. They don't even have "vote" written anywhere on the agenda for the IOC Session. It's simply presentations by both cities, followed by ratification of the three-way agreement and the signing of the host city contracts.
At a normal IOC election, this would be the day with all the fanfare. You'd have heads of state flying in and famous athletes from each country describing how wonderful the experience of their Olympic Games would be. Each bid would be given 45 minutes, complete with videos and speeches, in their final chance to impress the voters (for many of whom this is the main perk of IOC membership) before those voters decide where the Olympics will be in seven years.
Things are going to be very, very different this time, though. The IOC told both cities not to go overboard in their presentations. Each organizing committee will only be given 25 minutes. Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron will not attend. There will be no vote. And there will be no loser. Both Paris and Los Angeles will come away with their ultimate goal of hosting the Olympics.
This is, of course, a unique, one-time occurrence. And it's one that really only came about after Budapest withdrew its bid, dropping this race from three cities to two. People had been hinting at the dual-awarding even while Budapest was still in the running, but it wasn't going to happen unless it was just the two of them. So, in a way, Budapest did the IOC a favor. It gave them this unique opportunity that they were smart to take advantage of.
But, you also can't help but wonder how much this day would be different had Budapest not dropped out and this was still a competition between three cities. Budapest wasn't going to win. But these would've been the final presentations we're used to. All of the usual bells and whistles present at these final IOC Session would've come out.
And we likely would've seen Paris win. They'd been the favorites for 2024 the entire time, and nothing would've changed heading into the vote. (Of course, we said that about their 2005 bid for the 2012 Games that ultimately went to London, but Paris wasn't going to be passed over again.) So, for Paris, and, really, for France as a whole, the only difference is they know going in that the 2024 Olympics will definitely be in Paris instead of just hoping they will be.
The biggest difference is that instead of LA and the USOC left feeling defeated and licking their wounds over another Olympic loss, everyone will walk out winners. Sure, LA's 11-year wait will be the longest in Olympic history. But had it been a straight up head-to-head competition won by Paris, the likelihood of LA (or any other American city) bidding for 2028 would've been slim to none. And, for the certainty of knowing that the LA Olympics are definitely going to happen, the extra four years seems well worth it.
Now the attention will turn to the 2026 Winter Games, which the IOC desperately hopes will turn the tide after all the withdrawals that have plagued the last two bid cycles. Denver and Salt Lake City have both expressed an interest in those Winter Olympics, but they'd be advised to hold off. Not only are the 2026 Olympics likely headed to Europe, the 2026 World Cup is going to be in the U.S., and with LA 2028 becoming official, you'd have to think they won't put back-to-back Olympics in the same country.
That's a discussion for another day, though. Instead we get to celebrate the end of another bid cycle. One of the most unique in Olympic history. Paris gets exactly what they set out for. LA gets a consolation prize that really doesn't seem like one.
Meanwhile, the much-maligned IOC comes out as perhaps the biggest winner. Because for all the problems they've had in recent years, they're locking two Olympic Games into first-rate cities in countries that are important to the Olympic Movement while also buying themselves plenty of time to get things right. Whether or not they can is a different question.
Ordinarily, this would be the day that bidding cities spend years leading up to...only for most of them to see all that time and money go for naught. But not this time. They don't even have "vote" written anywhere on the agenda for the IOC Session. It's simply presentations by both cities, followed by ratification of the three-way agreement and the signing of the host city contracts.
At a normal IOC election, this would be the day with all the fanfare. You'd have heads of state flying in and famous athletes from each country describing how wonderful the experience of their Olympic Games would be. Each bid would be given 45 minutes, complete with videos and speeches, in their final chance to impress the voters (for many of whom this is the main perk of IOC membership) before those voters decide where the Olympics will be in seven years.
Things are going to be very, very different this time, though. The IOC told both cities not to go overboard in their presentations. Each organizing committee will only be given 25 minutes. Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron will not attend. There will be no vote. And there will be no loser. Both Paris and Los Angeles will come away with their ultimate goal of hosting the Olympics.
This is, of course, a unique, one-time occurrence. And it's one that really only came about after Budapest withdrew its bid, dropping this race from three cities to two. People had been hinting at the dual-awarding even while Budapest was still in the running, but it wasn't going to happen unless it was just the two of them. So, in a way, Budapest did the IOC a favor. It gave them this unique opportunity that they were smart to take advantage of.
But, you also can't help but wonder how much this day would be different had Budapest not dropped out and this was still a competition between three cities. Budapest wasn't going to win. But these would've been the final presentations we're used to. All of the usual bells and whistles present at these final IOC Session would've come out.
And we likely would've seen Paris win. They'd been the favorites for 2024 the entire time, and nothing would've changed heading into the vote. (Of course, we said that about their 2005 bid for the 2012 Games that ultimately went to London, but Paris wasn't going to be passed over again.) So, for Paris, and, really, for France as a whole, the only difference is they know going in that the 2024 Olympics will definitely be in Paris instead of just hoping they will be.
The biggest difference is that instead of LA and the USOC left feeling defeated and licking their wounds over another Olympic loss, everyone will walk out winners. Sure, LA's 11-year wait will be the longest in Olympic history. But had it been a straight up head-to-head competition won by Paris, the likelihood of LA (or any other American city) bidding for 2028 would've been slim to none. And, for the certainty of knowing that the LA Olympics are definitely going to happen, the extra four years seems well worth it.
Now the attention will turn to the 2026 Winter Games, which the IOC desperately hopes will turn the tide after all the withdrawals that have plagued the last two bid cycles. Denver and Salt Lake City have both expressed an interest in those Winter Olympics, but they'd be advised to hold off. Not only are the 2026 Olympics likely headed to Europe, the 2026 World Cup is going to be in the U.S., and with LA 2028 becoming official, you'd have to think they won't put back-to-back Olympics in the same country.
That's a discussion for another day, though. Instead we get to celebrate the end of another bid cycle. One of the most unique in Olympic history. Paris gets exactly what they set out for. LA gets a consolation prize that really doesn't seem like one.
Meanwhile, the much-maligned IOC comes out as perhaps the biggest winner. Because for all the problems they've had in recent years, they're locking two Olympic Games into first-rate cities in countries that are important to the Olympic Movement while also buying themselves plenty of time to get things right. Whether or not they can is a different question.
Monday, September 11, 2017
NFL Justice
Ezekiel Elliott played in the Cowboys' season-opening win over the Giants on Sunday night and could very well end up playing the entire season. This despite being suspended by the league for six games. And with that, Elliott became the most recent example of a player defeating the NFL in court.
We all know that the NFL's system of player discipline is incredibly flawed. Roger Baddell has way too much power in the current system. It's an issue that will be discussed heavily during the next round of collective bargaining, and it's one of the main reasons there will be a work stoppage when the current CBA expires. (I'm not being grim, I'm simply reiterating a declaration the NFLPA made when Baddell's contract was extended.)
Although, as stupid as it may be that Baddell gets to play judge, jury and executioner, the players have found the one forum where they actually have a chance--actual courts of law. Elliott is allowed to play because a federal judge blocked his suspension. The NFL has appealed, but he'll likely remain eligible until that appeal is heard. Which is why it's likely he won't serve a suspension until 2018, if at all.
Elliott isn't the first player to take the NFL to court over a suspension, and he almost certainly won't be the last. And why shouldn't he? Because time and again, legal challenges to NFL suspensions have proven to be the players' most viable recourse against a deck that really is stacked against them. Even the "neutral" arbitrators, who are appointed and paid by the league, simply serve to validate whatever punishment the commissioner decides to levy. There's nothing neutral about it.
It makes sense that you'd want a person who's actually impartial to hear the case. And as we've seen, the federal courts are much more favorable to the players' cases than anyone involved with the league, where Baddell has an iron-clad grip. Even if they don't get their suspensions reduced or thrown out, going through the federal courts proves a point. The current system doesn't work and is badly in need of improvement.
This isn't groundbreaking news. We all know that the NFL's system of player discipline is incredibly flawed. That's why it will, and should, be a significant point of emphasis during the CBA negotiations. Especially considering how arbitrary it is. Frankly, it doesn't make the NFL come off looking too good, either. Baddell usually comes out of these things looking like a fool.
Consider: Deflategate--Brady drags it on for more than a year...Bountygate--all of the suspensions are thrown out...Adrian Peterson--challenged, although the NFL ultimately won on appeal. Now another high-profile suspension where the player succeeds, even temporarily, in court.
The fact that this is the fourth NFL disciplinary case that has gone to the federal courts in the last several years is proof enough that the system is badly broken. An appeal to a higher court should be a last resort. Instead, we're surprised when an NFL player doesn't appeal a suspension for a violation of the extremely ambiguous personal conduct policy (which is part of the problem).
Now, I'm not saying these players didn't deserve to be suspended. Quite the contrary. I think all of these suspensions were completely warranted. But ever since he badly bungled the Ray Rice situation, Baddell has definitely been a little overzealous when it comes to violations of the personal conduct policy. And that's the problem.
There's plenty of blame to go around here. The league and commissioner have put themselves into this situation, where they have to spend millions on legal fees, because they refuse to admit they need to fix the system. The players, meanwhile, are just as responsible, since they granted Baddell that authority in the first place. Frankly, the only people who don't have an issue with things the way they are would probably be the lawyers.
Is there a solution to be found? Without a doubt. Baddell needs to realize that he has to give a little and yield some of his authoritarian power if he doesn't want every suspension he issues to be challenged in court. It shouldn't just be him. It should be a panel. There also needs to be a set of guidelines put in place so that the players have some general idea of what their punishment might be, rather than just the commissioner's whim. Lastly, the arbitration process needs to truly be neutral. The players need a chance to present their case to someone who'll actually be objective.
Otherwise, we're destined to continue with the ridiculously flawed system that's currently in place. A long, drawn-out process that we can all agree needs to be replaced.
We all know that the NFL's system of player discipline is incredibly flawed. Roger Baddell has way too much power in the current system. It's an issue that will be discussed heavily during the next round of collective bargaining, and it's one of the main reasons there will be a work stoppage when the current CBA expires. (I'm not being grim, I'm simply reiterating a declaration the NFLPA made when Baddell's contract was extended.)
Although, as stupid as it may be that Baddell gets to play judge, jury and executioner, the players have found the one forum where they actually have a chance--actual courts of law. Elliott is allowed to play because a federal judge blocked his suspension. The NFL has appealed, but he'll likely remain eligible until that appeal is heard. Which is why it's likely he won't serve a suspension until 2018, if at all.
Elliott isn't the first player to take the NFL to court over a suspension, and he almost certainly won't be the last. And why shouldn't he? Because time and again, legal challenges to NFL suspensions have proven to be the players' most viable recourse against a deck that really is stacked against them. Even the "neutral" arbitrators, who are appointed and paid by the league, simply serve to validate whatever punishment the commissioner decides to levy. There's nothing neutral about it.
It makes sense that you'd want a person who's actually impartial to hear the case. And as we've seen, the federal courts are much more favorable to the players' cases than anyone involved with the league, where Baddell has an iron-clad grip. Even if they don't get their suspensions reduced or thrown out, going through the federal courts proves a point. The current system doesn't work and is badly in need of improvement.
This isn't groundbreaking news. We all know that the NFL's system of player discipline is incredibly flawed. That's why it will, and should, be a significant point of emphasis during the CBA negotiations. Especially considering how arbitrary it is. Frankly, it doesn't make the NFL come off looking too good, either. Baddell usually comes out of these things looking like a fool.
Consider: Deflategate--Brady drags it on for more than a year...Bountygate--all of the suspensions are thrown out...Adrian Peterson--challenged, although the NFL ultimately won on appeal. Now another high-profile suspension where the player succeeds, even temporarily, in court.
The fact that this is the fourth NFL disciplinary case that has gone to the federal courts in the last several years is proof enough that the system is badly broken. An appeal to a higher court should be a last resort. Instead, we're surprised when an NFL player doesn't appeal a suspension for a violation of the extremely ambiguous personal conduct policy (which is part of the problem).
Now, I'm not saying these players didn't deserve to be suspended. Quite the contrary. I think all of these suspensions were completely warranted. But ever since he badly bungled the Ray Rice situation, Baddell has definitely been a little overzealous when it comes to violations of the personal conduct policy. And that's the problem.
There's plenty of blame to go around here. The league and commissioner have put themselves into this situation, where they have to spend millions on legal fees, because they refuse to admit they need to fix the system. The players, meanwhile, are just as responsible, since they granted Baddell that authority in the first place. Frankly, the only people who don't have an issue with things the way they are would probably be the lawyers.
Is there a solution to be found? Without a doubt. Baddell needs to realize that he has to give a little and yield some of his authoritarian power if he doesn't want every suspension he issues to be challenged in court. It shouldn't just be him. It should be a panel. There also needs to be a set of guidelines put in place so that the players have some general idea of what their punishment might be, rather than just the commissioner's whim. Lastly, the arbitration process needs to truly be neutral. The players need a chance to present their case to someone who'll actually be objective.
Otherwise, we're destined to continue with the ridiculously flawed system that's currently in place. A long, drawn-out process that we can all agree needs to be replaced.
Friday, September 8, 2017
Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick
The man most responsible for the Yankees Dynasty in the late 90s wasn't Derek Jeter. It wasn't Joe Torre or Brian Cashman either. It wasn't even George Steinbrenner. It was the architect of those teams, Gene "Stick" Michael.
Stick passed away on Thursday, and his loss was felt throughout the Yankees organization. He served the team in every capacity imaginable, from player to manager to scout to GM to team executive. And his impact on the organization is nearly as vast. Which is why his death affected so many so strongly. From former players to current Yankees to longtime team staffers, everyone will feel his loss.
In recent years, he was perhaps better known as a regular at Old Timer's Day. He never missed one. In fact, he had a very important job. Stick served as manager of both teams. Now, Yankees Old Timer's Day sometimes seems like a bit of a free-for-all. But there was Gene Michael trying to organize the chaos. Someone had to make out the lineups, after all. But he was so much more than that. If it weren't for Gene Michael, the Yankees' run from 1996-2000 probably never happens.
Michael deserves most, if not all of the credit, for how those Yankees teams that won four World Series in five years were constructed. Remember, prior to that run were some down years for the Yankees. They went 15 years without a World Series appearance from 1981-96. Then, George Steinbrenner was suspended in the early 90s and Michael was given free reign to run the organization's baseball operations. And it was during that time a dynasty was built.
It was Gene Michael who made the trade for Paul O'Neill. He sent Roberto Kelly, an All-Star, to Cincinnati for O'Neill in the winter of 1993 because he liked the way O'Neill played. And Paul O'Neill became one of the most important parts of that championship nucleus. Another player who helped spark the Yankees' resurgence was Jimmy Key, who signed as a free agent prior to the 1993 season. Prior to Key, the Yankees had been having trouble attracting free agents. Who's the GM that changed that perception? Gene Michael.
He also drafted Bernie Williams and Andy Pettitte and Mariano Rivera and Jorge Posada and Derek Jeter. And, more importantly, he held on to them. The Core Four and Bernie were all able to develop in the Yankees system, and they all got to the Majors at roughly the same time. Once they did, there was no stopping the Yankees. Brian Cashman had taken over as GM by then, but all of those championship pieces were put in place by his mentor, Gene Michael.
Perhaps just as importantly, Stick resisted the urge to trade them. The Yankees went through some very lean years in the early 90s, but instead of making the impulsive moves to get better right away, Michael remained committed to his plan. He knew these guys were going to be stars. And he wanted them to be stars as Yankees.
Boy, was he right. He had a chance to trade Mariano Rivera. He didn't do it. In an oft-told story, the Yankees were unsure about Jeter prior to the 1996 season and were seriously considering dealing Rivera for Cleveland's Felix Fermin. We all know the rest of the story.
Now, just imagine for a second that they do make that deal. The entire narrative of the last 20 years is completely changed. There's no four World Championships. Jeter and Rivera don't become Yankees legends. They still might've been headed to Cooperstown, but they wouldn't be beloved figures with their numbers on the wall in Monument Park. (Felix Fermin, by the way, played his last Major League game in 1998.)
Speaking of Monument Park, there's room left for one plaque against the back wall. I know the perfect person to occupy that space. Frankly, it's crazy he doesn't have one already. Because no one is more deserving than Gene Michael. He's had such a deep impact on the organization for so long (in so many different ways) that there's no tribute more fitting to a man who proudly wore the Pinstripes for nearly half his life.
Gene Michael will be missed, but his legacy will live on. For a long time. And he will most definitely be remembered. Fondly. By all Yankees fans, players and front office personnel alike.
Stick passed away on Thursday, and his loss was felt throughout the Yankees organization. He served the team in every capacity imaginable, from player to manager to scout to GM to team executive. And his impact on the organization is nearly as vast. Which is why his death affected so many so strongly. From former players to current Yankees to longtime team staffers, everyone will feel his loss.
In recent years, he was perhaps better known as a regular at Old Timer's Day. He never missed one. In fact, he had a very important job. Stick served as manager of both teams. Now, Yankees Old Timer's Day sometimes seems like a bit of a free-for-all. But there was Gene Michael trying to organize the chaos. Someone had to make out the lineups, after all. But he was so much more than that. If it weren't for Gene Michael, the Yankees' run from 1996-2000 probably never happens.
Michael deserves most, if not all of the credit, for how those Yankees teams that won four World Series in five years were constructed. Remember, prior to that run were some down years for the Yankees. They went 15 years without a World Series appearance from 1981-96. Then, George Steinbrenner was suspended in the early 90s and Michael was given free reign to run the organization's baseball operations. And it was during that time a dynasty was built.
It was Gene Michael who made the trade for Paul O'Neill. He sent Roberto Kelly, an All-Star, to Cincinnati for O'Neill in the winter of 1993 because he liked the way O'Neill played. And Paul O'Neill became one of the most important parts of that championship nucleus. Another player who helped spark the Yankees' resurgence was Jimmy Key, who signed as a free agent prior to the 1993 season. Prior to Key, the Yankees had been having trouble attracting free agents. Who's the GM that changed that perception? Gene Michael.
He also drafted Bernie Williams and Andy Pettitte and Mariano Rivera and Jorge Posada and Derek Jeter. And, more importantly, he held on to them. The Core Four and Bernie were all able to develop in the Yankees system, and they all got to the Majors at roughly the same time. Once they did, there was no stopping the Yankees. Brian Cashman had taken over as GM by then, but all of those championship pieces were put in place by his mentor, Gene Michael.
Perhaps just as importantly, Stick resisted the urge to trade them. The Yankees went through some very lean years in the early 90s, but instead of making the impulsive moves to get better right away, Michael remained committed to his plan. He knew these guys were going to be stars. And he wanted them to be stars as Yankees.
Boy, was he right. He had a chance to trade Mariano Rivera. He didn't do it. In an oft-told story, the Yankees were unsure about Jeter prior to the 1996 season and were seriously considering dealing Rivera for Cleveland's Felix Fermin. We all know the rest of the story.
Now, just imagine for a second that they do make that deal. The entire narrative of the last 20 years is completely changed. There's no four World Championships. Jeter and Rivera don't become Yankees legends. They still might've been headed to Cooperstown, but they wouldn't be beloved figures with their numbers on the wall in Monument Park. (Felix Fermin, by the way, played his last Major League game in 1998.)
Speaking of Monument Park, there's room left for one plaque against the back wall. I know the perfect person to occupy that space. Frankly, it's crazy he doesn't have one already. Because no one is more deserving than Gene Michael. He's had such a deep impact on the organization for so long (in so many different ways) that there's no tribute more fitting to a man who proudly wore the Pinstripes for nearly half his life.
Gene Michael will be missed, but his legacy will live on. For a long time. And he will most definitely be remembered. Fondly. By all Yankees fans, players and front office personnel alike.
Thursday, September 7, 2017
Football Picks, Week 1
Well, ladies and gentlemen, we've reached another football season. And with that, the return of my weekly football picks. For those of you who are new to this, I always lock in my picks prior to the Thursday night game, but I usually don't post them until Saturday night or early Sunday. The exceptions are Week 1 and Thanksgiving.
And I don't care what the spread is. The spread has nothing to do with the actual outcome of the game. If a team covers the spread and loses, they still lost. You don't make the playoffs because you covered the spread the most. You make the playoffs because you won the most. Which is why my picks are who I think will win the game, not whether or not I think the favorite will cover.
Before I get to the picks, that was 100 percent the right move to postpone the Dolphins-Bucs game. Yes, it sucks that they'll have to play 16 weeks in a row (they'll become just the sixth and seventh teams since byes were created in 1990 not to have one). But public safety is more important than a football game. Just ask the Saints how devastating a Category 5 hurricane can be.
Chiefs at Patriots: New England-I'm aware of the fact this game has already started. Doesn't matter. I'd be picking the Patriots regardless. Do you really think there's any chance the defending champs will lose that Thursday night opener with the banner going up? Because I sure don't. Especially since New England is probably better this year than they were last season.
Jets at Bills: Buffalo-Last year, the Jets actually won both games against the Bills, and one of them will be tied for first place after Week 1 (assuming they don't tie). The Bills have a new head coach and a whole new system, but I'm not sure that makes them much better. The Jets, however, we all know are going to stink. This might be one of the few chances for each to win. I'm going with the home team.
Falcons at Bears: Atlanta-This is Atlanta's first game since that Super Bowl debacle. I'm very curious to see how that impacts their season (remember how badly the Panthers started last year?). We could get an indication against the Bears. Because the Falcons are a better team than Chicago and should easily win this game regardless.
Ravens at Bengals: Baltimore-The first of the two AFC North matchups is an interesting one. They're both probably considered outside wild card contenders, which increases the importance on a Week 1 division game. The Bengals actually requested a Week 1 home game because they usually end up starting on the road. I don't know why I find that so fascinating, but I do. Anyway, I think Cincinnati's time has passed. Baltimore, however, could be on the way back, which is why I'm picking the Ravens.
Steelers at Browns: Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh's probably the best team in the AFC not based in New England. Cleveland's probably the worst team in the NFL based anywhere. If the Steelers do find a way to lose this one, they might as well all start looking for new teams to join on Monday.
Cardinals at Lions: Detroit-Does Arizona have one last playoff run in them during the Carson Palmer/Larry Fitzgerald Era? Are the Lions capable of returning to the postseason? This is one of the more intriguing Week 1 matchups, and that's primarily the reason why. And once again, a Week 1 result could end up having a bearing on who's playing in January. Detroit finally ditched all that ridiculous extraneous black on its uniform, and I like that, so I'm throwing the Lions a pick.
Raiders at Titans: Oakland-Derek Carr is back. The Raiders are obviously a much better team with him under center. One that can beat pretty much anybody. A lot of people are high on the Titans, and even more will jump on that bandwagon if Tennessee wins the opener. Oakland will also gain a lot of believers if they go into Nashville and win. Which I think they will.
Eagles at Redskins: Washington-It's always a battle when the NFC East teams play each other, especially in Week 1. Of course, the other two NFC East teams will probably be the ones fighting for the division title, but the Redskins and Eagles love to play spoilers. As it is, one of them will probably have their own season spoiled right off the bat. I think the Redskins are better than the Eagles, so I'm going with Washington.
Jaguars at Texans: Houston-When Harvey was pelting Houston, there were some questions about whether or not this game would be played. Since it's a division game, moving it to Jacksonville was considered an option. It's a good thing (for a number of reasons) that it didn't come to that. The Texans are obviously the pick, but how about J.J. Watt and all the money he raised for the hurricane victims in the Houston area? Incredible. You might as well hand him the Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year Award right now.
Colts at Rams: Rams-A significant player on each side will be sitting out in this tussle at the LA Coliseum. The Colts are without the oft-injured Andrew Luck, who won't get a chance to relive those Stanford vs. USC games. The Rams, meanwhile, don't have their best defensive player, as Aaron Donald continues to hold out (maybe he thinks those white ram horns on the helmet are as ugly as I do?). Anyway, that loss is easier for the Rams to absorb than it will be for Indy to adjust to Scott Tolzein at quarterback.
Seahawks at Packers: Green Bay-These two meet at Lambeau for the third consecutive season and FOX wisely made it the national late game. The home team has actually won the last six games in this series, which makes sense, seeing how good they both are at home. Green Bay's got a Super Bowl in its sights, and they can't afford a home loss to the Seahawks, especially since they'll likely both be in the playoff mix and that would give Seattle the tiebreaker. Another example of the long-term importance of Week 1. Mike McCarthy knows how important this one is. And he won't let his team forget it.
Panthers at 49ers: Carolina-Yeah, I don't really have much to say about this one. Now that they rid themselves of Colin Kaepernick (I forgot who it was that said it, but it was a player, and he was spot on. Kaepernick's not good enough to be this annoying. That's why teams don't want to sign him), the 49ers are simply just an irrelevant bad team. One that Cam and Co. should have no issues with.
Giants at Cowboys: Giants-If there's one team that has Dallas' number, it's the New York Football Giants. The Cowboys lost three regular season games last year...two of them to the Giants. So, as these two get ready for their annual Week 1 Sunday night tilt in Dallas (third year in a row, fourth time in five years), you can't be blamed for thinking it'll be more of the same. Although, we already know Ezekiel Elliott is going to play. What we don't know is whether or not Odell Beckham, Jr., will. If he doesn't, that definitely favors the Cowboys.
Saints at Vikings: Minnesota-Our first Monday night game is the Adrian Peterson Bowl, as the Saints' new running back returns to face the team he accumulated so many rushing yards for. I'm actually curious to see what a Peterson-less Vikings will look like. They've been so run-heavy for so long. Peterson, meanwhile, went to a pass-heavy team that likes to score a lot of points. Where has it gotten them in recent years, though? I think Minnesota's defense will stop them enough to get the win.
Chargers at Broncos: Denver-Finally, we have the first game for the LOS ANGELES Chargers (God, that still looks weird) since their inaugural season, as they visit Brock Osweiler and the Denver Broncos. Denver's better than last year's team that missed the playoffs. No, they're not the Super Bowl-winning Broncos of two years ago. But that defense is still awesome. I predict three sacks for Von Miller in a Denver victory.
And I don't care what the spread is. The spread has nothing to do with the actual outcome of the game. If a team covers the spread and loses, they still lost. You don't make the playoffs because you covered the spread the most. You make the playoffs because you won the most. Which is why my picks are who I think will win the game, not whether or not I think the favorite will cover.
Before I get to the picks, that was 100 percent the right move to postpone the Dolphins-Bucs game. Yes, it sucks that they'll have to play 16 weeks in a row (they'll become just the sixth and seventh teams since byes were created in 1990 not to have one). But public safety is more important than a football game. Just ask the Saints how devastating a Category 5 hurricane can be.
Chiefs at Patriots: New England-I'm aware of the fact this game has already started. Doesn't matter. I'd be picking the Patriots regardless. Do you really think there's any chance the defending champs will lose that Thursday night opener with the banner going up? Because I sure don't. Especially since New England is probably better this year than they were last season.
Jets at Bills: Buffalo-Last year, the Jets actually won both games against the Bills, and one of them will be tied for first place after Week 1 (assuming they don't tie). The Bills have a new head coach and a whole new system, but I'm not sure that makes them much better. The Jets, however, we all know are going to stink. This might be one of the few chances for each to win. I'm going with the home team.
Falcons at Bears: Atlanta-This is Atlanta's first game since that Super Bowl debacle. I'm very curious to see how that impacts their season (remember how badly the Panthers started last year?). We could get an indication against the Bears. Because the Falcons are a better team than Chicago and should easily win this game regardless.
Ravens at Bengals: Baltimore-The first of the two AFC North matchups is an interesting one. They're both probably considered outside wild card contenders, which increases the importance on a Week 1 division game. The Bengals actually requested a Week 1 home game because they usually end up starting on the road. I don't know why I find that so fascinating, but I do. Anyway, I think Cincinnati's time has passed. Baltimore, however, could be on the way back, which is why I'm picking the Ravens.
Steelers at Browns: Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh's probably the best team in the AFC not based in New England. Cleveland's probably the worst team in the NFL based anywhere. If the Steelers do find a way to lose this one, they might as well all start looking for new teams to join on Monday.
Cardinals at Lions: Detroit-Does Arizona have one last playoff run in them during the Carson Palmer/Larry Fitzgerald Era? Are the Lions capable of returning to the postseason? This is one of the more intriguing Week 1 matchups, and that's primarily the reason why. And once again, a Week 1 result could end up having a bearing on who's playing in January. Detroit finally ditched all that ridiculous extraneous black on its uniform, and I like that, so I'm throwing the Lions a pick.
Raiders at Titans: Oakland-Derek Carr is back. The Raiders are obviously a much better team with him under center. One that can beat pretty much anybody. A lot of people are high on the Titans, and even more will jump on that bandwagon if Tennessee wins the opener. Oakland will also gain a lot of believers if they go into Nashville and win. Which I think they will.
Eagles at Redskins: Washington-It's always a battle when the NFC East teams play each other, especially in Week 1. Of course, the other two NFC East teams will probably be the ones fighting for the division title, but the Redskins and Eagles love to play spoilers. As it is, one of them will probably have their own season spoiled right off the bat. I think the Redskins are better than the Eagles, so I'm going with Washington.
Jaguars at Texans: Houston-When Harvey was pelting Houston, there were some questions about whether or not this game would be played. Since it's a division game, moving it to Jacksonville was considered an option. It's a good thing (for a number of reasons) that it didn't come to that. The Texans are obviously the pick, but how about J.J. Watt and all the money he raised for the hurricane victims in the Houston area? Incredible. You might as well hand him the Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year Award right now.
Colts at Rams: Rams-A significant player on each side will be sitting out in this tussle at the LA Coliseum. The Colts are without the oft-injured Andrew Luck, who won't get a chance to relive those Stanford vs. USC games. The Rams, meanwhile, don't have their best defensive player, as Aaron Donald continues to hold out (maybe he thinks those white ram horns on the helmet are as ugly as I do?). Anyway, that loss is easier for the Rams to absorb than it will be for Indy to adjust to Scott Tolzein at quarterback.
Seahawks at Packers: Green Bay-These two meet at Lambeau for the third consecutive season and FOX wisely made it the national late game. The home team has actually won the last six games in this series, which makes sense, seeing how good they both are at home. Green Bay's got a Super Bowl in its sights, and they can't afford a home loss to the Seahawks, especially since they'll likely both be in the playoff mix and that would give Seattle the tiebreaker. Another example of the long-term importance of Week 1. Mike McCarthy knows how important this one is. And he won't let his team forget it.
Panthers at 49ers: Carolina-Yeah, I don't really have much to say about this one. Now that they rid themselves of Colin Kaepernick (I forgot who it was that said it, but it was a player, and he was spot on. Kaepernick's not good enough to be this annoying. That's why teams don't want to sign him), the 49ers are simply just an irrelevant bad team. One that Cam and Co. should have no issues with.
Giants at Cowboys: Giants-If there's one team that has Dallas' number, it's the New York Football Giants. The Cowboys lost three regular season games last year...two of them to the Giants. So, as these two get ready for their annual Week 1 Sunday night tilt in Dallas (third year in a row, fourth time in five years), you can't be blamed for thinking it'll be more of the same. Although, we already know Ezekiel Elliott is going to play. What we don't know is whether or not Odell Beckham, Jr., will. If he doesn't, that definitely favors the Cowboys.
Saints at Vikings: Minnesota-Our first Monday night game is the Adrian Peterson Bowl, as the Saints' new running back returns to face the team he accumulated so many rushing yards for. I'm actually curious to see what a Peterson-less Vikings will look like. They've been so run-heavy for so long. Peterson, meanwhile, went to a pass-heavy team that likes to score a lot of points. Where has it gotten them in recent years, though? I think Minnesota's defense will stop them enough to get the win.
Chargers at Broncos: Denver-Finally, we have the first game for the LOS ANGELES Chargers (God, that still looks weird) since their inaugural season, as they visit Brock Osweiler and the Denver Broncos. Denver's better than last year's team that missed the playoffs. No, they're not the Super Bowl-winning Broncos of two years ago. But that defense is still awesome. I predict three sacks for Von Miller in a Denver victory.
Monday, September 4, 2017
Football's Back (NFC)
Unlike the AFC, where pretty much everyone is in agreement that the Patriots are head and shoulders above the others, we don't know what the NFC has in store for us this season. We know who the good teams are, but there are some serious questions regarding each one.
The biggest of those questions, of course, revolve around Ezekiel Elliott (by the way, how in God's name did the Rookie of the Year voters give it to Dak instead of him last year?). How long will he be suspended, and when will that suspension start? Without any sort of resolution forthcoming, it looks like he'll be suiting up against the Giants in Week 1. But how many games he misses and when could have a big bearing on the NFC playoff picture (although we were asking those same questions about Brady after Deflategate, and we all know how that turned out).
If his suspension is shortened (which seems likely), Dallas may be able to weather being without Zeke for a few games. That, of course, is assuming there's no sophomore slump for him and Prescott, who is now officially the Cowboys' quarterback after Tony Romo retired and moved into the CBS broadcast booth (hiring a complete novice as your No. 1 analyst when you already have Phil Simms?).
NFC East: Because of all the uncertainty surrounding Elliott, making picks in the NFC East, let alone the NFC as a whole, is extremely difficult. Dallas is the best team. But Elliott's their best player. They're deep enough to be a playoff team either way, but when they lose him (and for how long) will be key. Especially with an early road trip to Denver and Arizona and a midseason stretch against Kansas City and Atlanta. They won every non-division game they played last year, but I don't expect that to happen again.
And, again, knowing how much time Elliott will miss is vital to predicting a champion in the NFC East. Because a very good New York Football Giants team is ready to pounce. After all, they handed the Cowboys two of their three regular season losses last year en route to the playoffs, where they were embarrassed in Lambeau. Even if they don't win the division, the Giants certainly look like they'll be a playoff team again. And I'm sure they'll probably do what they usually do in the regular season. They'll beat good teams and have a random loss or two against a team that has no business beating them (like either LA team or the 49ers), which will likely cost them a playoff seed.
Washington's chances at making the playoffs involve everything going right and a little bit of luck. However, the Redskins simply aren't good enough to be a playoff team. Same thing with the Eagles. Although you know they'll both give their buddies in Texas and New York all kinds of headaches during the season.
NFC North: There's one team in the NFC that everybody agrees on, and that's the Green Bay Packers. Many experts have the Packers pegged as New England's Super Bowl opponent, and it's easy to see why. They're one of the most consistently good teams in football year in and year out. And with the rest of the NFC North down, they should easily win the division title. The Packers' focus should be on getting that first-round playoff bye and avoiding the extra game.
Minnesota made the right call in letting Adrian Peterson go. It's going to make the Vikings a better team in the long run. The 2017 edition is more like the team that ended last season than the one that started it 5-0, though. Detroit was a playoff team last year, but the Lions will need a lot of things to go their way to get back. That's not to say the Lions can't. I just think the rest of the competition for a wild card has gotten better. One team that hasn't gotten better is the Bears. Chicago will be lucky to go 5-11. And Mitch, sorry "Mitchell," Trubisky is not the answer at quarterback.
NFC South: Here's my bold prediction for 2017...the Tampa Bay Bucs will win the NFC South. The Bucs have been building for the last couple of seasons, and this year is the year they'll get over the top. They've got a really good offense, which is key in the NFC South, and their defense is very underrated. I think it's that defense that will make the difference in a division that's always decided by a game or two.
Atlanta's Super Bowl collapse was epic. How will they recover from it? We'll probably find out pretty early. If they show no ill-effects, they're perhaps the best team in the NFC. But I have a feeling they'll have Super Bowl hangover, just like the Panthers did last year (how could they not?). Even if they do, the Falcons are still probably good enough to snag a wild card.
This is the NFC South we're talking about, though. And seeing the Panthers return to their 15-1 form from 2015 wouldn't be that great of a shock, either. Carolina's probably somewhere in the middle of that team and last year's 6-10 squad. I can see a rebound to 9-7. The Saints, meanwhile, have gone 7-9 in four of the last five years. Why shouldn't we expect it to happen again?
NFC West: Last season was a "down" year in Seattle, and the Seahawks still managed 10 wins, including a victory in New England. We all know that they're one of the best home teams in the league. It's how well they do on the road that will determine how many home playoff games they get. Because winning the NFC West shouldn't be a problem.
Arizona's window of opportunity is closing. The Cardinals can be a playoff team again. But if they are, it'll be as a wild card team. I don't like the Rams' new helmets at all. And, worst of all, the gold trim on their uniforms makes completely no sense now. I will say this about LA, though. At least they're not the 49ers. Incredibly, the Rams were the only team that came between San Francisco and 0-16 last year. The 49ers swept the Rams and lost to everybody else. They play the AFC South this year, so beating a different team is possible. They won't beat many, though. Another 2-14 season is a definite possibility.
So, that leaves us with five of last year's playoff teams returning. The Cowboys (East), Packers (North) and Seahawks (West) as division champions, the Giants and Falcons as wild cards. The only playoff newcomer will be Tampa Bay (South). I've got the Falcons beating the Bucs and the Seahawks beating the Giants, then Green Bay beating Atlanta and Dallas beating Seattle. Like many others, I've got the Packers winning the NFC title (over Dallas) before losing to the Patriots in the Super Bowl.
The biggest of those questions, of course, revolve around Ezekiel Elliott (by the way, how in God's name did the Rookie of the Year voters give it to Dak instead of him last year?). How long will he be suspended, and when will that suspension start? Without any sort of resolution forthcoming, it looks like he'll be suiting up against the Giants in Week 1. But how many games he misses and when could have a big bearing on the NFC playoff picture (although we were asking those same questions about Brady after Deflategate, and we all know how that turned out).
If his suspension is shortened (which seems likely), Dallas may be able to weather being without Zeke for a few games. That, of course, is assuming there's no sophomore slump for him and Prescott, who is now officially the Cowboys' quarterback after Tony Romo retired and moved into the CBS broadcast booth (hiring a complete novice as your No. 1 analyst when you already have Phil Simms?).
NFC East: Because of all the uncertainty surrounding Elliott, making picks in the NFC East, let alone the NFC as a whole, is extremely difficult. Dallas is the best team. But Elliott's their best player. They're deep enough to be a playoff team either way, but when they lose him (and for how long) will be key. Especially with an early road trip to Denver and Arizona and a midseason stretch against Kansas City and Atlanta. They won every non-division game they played last year, but I don't expect that to happen again.
And, again, knowing how much time Elliott will miss is vital to predicting a champion in the NFC East. Because a very good New York Football Giants team is ready to pounce. After all, they handed the Cowboys two of their three regular season losses last year en route to the playoffs, where they were embarrassed in Lambeau. Even if they don't win the division, the Giants certainly look like they'll be a playoff team again. And I'm sure they'll probably do what they usually do in the regular season. They'll beat good teams and have a random loss or two against a team that has no business beating them (like either LA team or the 49ers), which will likely cost them a playoff seed.
Washington's chances at making the playoffs involve everything going right and a little bit of luck. However, the Redskins simply aren't good enough to be a playoff team. Same thing with the Eagles. Although you know they'll both give their buddies in Texas and New York all kinds of headaches during the season.
NFC North: There's one team in the NFC that everybody agrees on, and that's the Green Bay Packers. Many experts have the Packers pegged as New England's Super Bowl opponent, and it's easy to see why. They're one of the most consistently good teams in football year in and year out. And with the rest of the NFC North down, they should easily win the division title. The Packers' focus should be on getting that first-round playoff bye and avoiding the extra game.
Minnesota made the right call in letting Adrian Peterson go. It's going to make the Vikings a better team in the long run. The 2017 edition is more like the team that ended last season than the one that started it 5-0, though. Detroit was a playoff team last year, but the Lions will need a lot of things to go their way to get back. That's not to say the Lions can't. I just think the rest of the competition for a wild card has gotten better. One team that hasn't gotten better is the Bears. Chicago will be lucky to go 5-11. And Mitch, sorry "Mitchell," Trubisky is not the answer at quarterback.
NFC South: Here's my bold prediction for 2017...the Tampa Bay Bucs will win the NFC South. The Bucs have been building for the last couple of seasons, and this year is the year they'll get over the top. They've got a really good offense, which is key in the NFC South, and their defense is very underrated. I think it's that defense that will make the difference in a division that's always decided by a game or two.
Atlanta's Super Bowl collapse was epic. How will they recover from it? We'll probably find out pretty early. If they show no ill-effects, they're perhaps the best team in the NFC. But I have a feeling they'll have Super Bowl hangover, just like the Panthers did last year (how could they not?). Even if they do, the Falcons are still probably good enough to snag a wild card.
This is the NFC South we're talking about, though. And seeing the Panthers return to their 15-1 form from 2015 wouldn't be that great of a shock, either. Carolina's probably somewhere in the middle of that team and last year's 6-10 squad. I can see a rebound to 9-7. The Saints, meanwhile, have gone 7-9 in four of the last five years. Why shouldn't we expect it to happen again?
NFC West: Last season was a "down" year in Seattle, and the Seahawks still managed 10 wins, including a victory in New England. We all know that they're one of the best home teams in the league. It's how well they do on the road that will determine how many home playoff games they get. Because winning the NFC West shouldn't be a problem.
Arizona's window of opportunity is closing. The Cardinals can be a playoff team again. But if they are, it'll be as a wild card team. I don't like the Rams' new helmets at all. And, worst of all, the gold trim on their uniforms makes completely no sense now. I will say this about LA, though. At least they're not the 49ers. Incredibly, the Rams were the only team that came between San Francisco and 0-16 last year. The 49ers swept the Rams and lost to everybody else. They play the AFC South this year, so beating a different team is possible. They won't beat many, though. Another 2-14 season is a definite possibility.
So, that leaves us with five of last year's playoff teams returning. The Cowboys (East), Packers (North) and Seahawks (West) as division champions, the Giants and Falcons as wild cards. The only playoff newcomer will be Tampa Bay (South). I've got the Falcons beating the Bucs and the Seahawks beating the Giants, then Green Bay beating Atlanta and Dallas beating Seattle. Like many others, I've got the Packers winning the NFC title (over Dallas) before losing to the Patriots in the Super Bowl.
Sunday, September 3, 2017
Football's Back (AFC)
Ladies and Gentlemen, we've reached that time of the year. Football season. This week marked the final Sunday until February without NFL football.
In the NFL, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The Patriots won the Super Bowl and might be even better this season. The Texans have a ridiculous defense, but are very questionable on offense. The Browns and Jets are a mess. A lot of people think the Jaguars might actually be good, but they're probably going to be proven wrong pretty quickly. And the AFC playoff teams will likely be the usual suspects, with the road to Minneapolis undoubtedly going through New England.
AFC East: Let's not kid ourselves into thinking things in the AFC East will be any different than they've been for the last 15 years. If the Patriots are thinking about the regular season at all, they might be thinking about a second 16-0 run 10 years after their first. Although, they also remember what happened in the Super Bowl after that undefeated regular season, so I'm sure a loss or two won't bother them too badly. Their focus is on January and February. New England enters the season as the clear favorites to become the first team to repeat as Super Bowl champions since they did it in 2003-04. And they should be. Because this team has very few flaws.
If anybody has a chance of actually making the AFC East seem somewhat competitive, it's Miami. The Dolphins were a playoff team last year, and a lot of people think they can return. While I do think they'll be in the mix for a wild card, I think Miami will end up just out of the playoffs. Probably 9-7. The Bills have a new head coach in Sean McDermott, but he faces an uphill battle. Don't count on Buffalo ending its playoff drought. But at least they're not the Jets. According to some Jets fans I know, this season will be different...because even they know they aren't any good and have committed themselves to a rebuilding year.
AFC North: It's easy to overlook the consistent of Ben Roethlisberger because he's a contemporary of Tom Brady. But if not for the Patriots, the Steelers would almost certainly have won more than two titles during the Roethlisberger Era. Will Pittsburgh beat New England this January? If anyone's going to, they seem like the best candidate. They've got that dynamic offense and a defense that I think is much improved. They just need to avoid the random losses they always seem to suffer that result in their getting the 3-seed and having to play that extra playoff game, which is one of the things that cost them in last year's AFC Championship Game.
Baltimore and Cincinnati will both hang around the wild card race, with the Ravens more likely to snag a playoff berth. Last year's 6-9-1 record snapped the Bengals' run of consecutive playoff seasons, and I think they'll miss out for the second straight year. Frankly, I'm surprised Marvin Lewis is back in Cincinnati. He's been very successful as the Bengals' coach, but it sure seems like it's time for a change. The Cleveland Browns are also members of the AFC North. Their biggest claim to fame entering the 2017 season was a typical Browns move. For some reason, they took Brock Osweiler off Houston's hands, then released him and his $16 million contract without him ever taking a regular season snap for Cleveland.
AFC South: Tennessee is a chic pick in the AFC South, but I'm not completely sold on the Titans. I do think they'll be in the mix and are definitely a potential wild card team, but those predictions are relying on a number of rookies to be this year's versions of Dak Prescott and Ezekiel Elliott. If the rookies do pan out and Marcus Mariota can stay healthy, that takes a big load off DeMarco Murray's shoulders. And if Houston falters (and the Texans have plety of their own question marks), the Titans could sneak into an AFC South title at 9-7.
The Texans still have to be considered the favorites in the AFC South, though. Yes, they are perhaps too reliant on their defense, but can you blame them? The three best players on the team (J.J. Watt, Jadeveon Clowney, Brian Cushing) are all on the defensive side of the ball. No, their offense isn't good enough to beat the Patriots or Steelers in January. But is it good enough to beat the Titans, Colts and Jaguars twice each? Yes.
Speaking of the Colts and Jaguars...if Indianapolis has any chance of finishing better than 6-10, they need a healthy Andrew Luck, which is by no means a certainty. And Jacksonville, yet again, is being hyped as a team "on the rise." But people have been saying that for how many years now? I'll believe it when I see it. With that being said, though, Tom Coughlin being back with the organization should make them slightly less bad.
AFC West: Last year we saw just how important Derek Carr is to the Oakland Raiders. They looked like a potential Super Bowl team...until Carr broke his leg on Christmas Eve, and they ended up dropping into a wild card game, where they lost to Houston. This season, they've added Marshawn Lynch. If they give him enough Skittles, that's the missing piece that could put them over the top.
You can't overlook Kansas City, though. The Chiefs were the main beneficiaries of the Raiders' fall, winning the division and getting a first round bye. Although, they lost to Pittsburgh, so you know there's some motivation to get playoff redemption. Especially since a third straight trip to the postseason appears likely. They should battle the Raiders for the division title to the end once again.
Denver went from Super Bowl champions to out of the playoffs entirely, and the Broncos look destined to be a third-place team once again. They simply aren't as good as the Raiders or Chiefs. And they're probably the third- or fourth-best of the teams fighting for that other wild card. The Chargers' return to Los Angeles will be bumpy to say the least. Phillip Rivers deserves better. Frankly, so does the team. They wanted to stay in San Diego, but San Diego didn't want them. At least they only moved two hours north...to become second fiddle behind another bad team, and play in a 30,000-seat soccer stadium.
My AFC playoff field is New England (East), Pittsburgh (North), Houston (South), Oakland (West), Kansas City and Tennessee (wild cards). I've got the Raiders beating the Titans and the Chiefs beating the Texans in the wild card games. Patriots over Chiefs and Raiders over Steelers in the divisional round, with New England making its seventh Super Bowl trip in the Bradicheck Era.
In the NFL, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The Patriots won the Super Bowl and might be even better this season. The Texans have a ridiculous defense, but are very questionable on offense. The Browns and Jets are a mess. A lot of people think the Jaguars might actually be good, but they're probably going to be proven wrong pretty quickly. And the AFC playoff teams will likely be the usual suspects, with the road to Minneapolis undoubtedly going through New England.
AFC East: Let's not kid ourselves into thinking things in the AFC East will be any different than they've been for the last 15 years. If the Patriots are thinking about the regular season at all, they might be thinking about a second 16-0 run 10 years after their first. Although, they also remember what happened in the Super Bowl after that undefeated regular season, so I'm sure a loss or two won't bother them too badly. Their focus is on January and February. New England enters the season as the clear favorites to become the first team to repeat as Super Bowl champions since they did it in 2003-04. And they should be. Because this team has very few flaws.
If anybody has a chance of actually making the AFC East seem somewhat competitive, it's Miami. The Dolphins were a playoff team last year, and a lot of people think they can return. While I do think they'll be in the mix for a wild card, I think Miami will end up just out of the playoffs. Probably 9-7. The Bills have a new head coach in Sean McDermott, but he faces an uphill battle. Don't count on Buffalo ending its playoff drought. But at least they're not the Jets. According to some Jets fans I know, this season will be different...because even they know they aren't any good and have committed themselves to a rebuilding year.
AFC North: It's easy to overlook the consistent of Ben Roethlisberger because he's a contemporary of Tom Brady. But if not for the Patriots, the Steelers would almost certainly have won more than two titles during the Roethlisberger Era. Will Pittsburgh beat New England this January? If anyone's going to, they seem like the best candidate. They've got that dynamic offense and a defense that I think is much improved. They just need to avoid the random losses they always seem to suffer that result in their getting the 3-seed and having to play that extra playoff game, which is one of the things that cost them in last year's AFC Championship Game.
Baltimore and Cincinnati will both hang around the wild card race, with the Ravens more likely to snag a playoff berth. Last year's 6-9-1 record snapped the Bengals' run of consecutive playoff seasons, and I think they'll miss out for the second straight year. Frankly, I'm surprised Marvin Lewis is back in Cincinnati. He's been very successful as the Bengals' coach, but it sure seems like it's time for a change. The Cleveland Browns are also members of the AFC North. Their biggest claim to fame entering the 2017 season was a typical Browns move. For some reason, they took Brock Osweiler off Houston's hands, then released him and his $16 million contract without him ever taking a regular season snap for Cleveland.
AFC South: Tennessee is a chic pick in the AFC South, but I'm not completely sold on the Titans. I do think they'll be in the mix and are definitely a potential wild card team, but those predictions are relying on a number of rookies to be this year's versions of Dak Prescott and Ezekiel Elliott. If the rookies do pan out and Marcus Mariota can stay healthy, that takes a big load off DeMarco Murray's shoulders. And if Houston falters (and the Texans have plety of their own question marks), the Titans could sneak into an AFC South title at 9-7.
The Texans still have to be considered the favorites in the AFC South, though. Yes, they are perhaps too reliant on their defense, but can you blame them? The three best players on the team (J.J. Watt, Jadeveon Clowney, Brian Cushing) are all on the defensive side of the ball. No, their offense isn't good enough to beat the Patriots or Steelers in January. But is it good enough to beat the Titans, Colts and Jaguars twice each? Yes.
Speaking of the Colts and Jaguars...if Indianapolis has any chance of finishing better than 6-10, they need a healthy Andrew Luck, which is by no means a certainty. And Jacksonville, yet again, is being hyped as a team "on the rise." But people have been saying that for how many years now? I'll believe it when I see it. With that being said, though, Tom Coughlin being back with the organization should make them slightly less bad.
AFC West: Last year we saw just how important Derek Carr is to the Oakland Raiders. They looked like a potential Super Bowl team...until Carr broke his leg on Christmas Eve, and they ended up dropping into a wild card game, where they lost to Houston. This season, they've added Marshawn Lynch. If they give him enough Skittles, that's the missing piece that could put them over the top.
You can't overlook Kansas City, though. The Chiefs were the main beneficiaries of the Raiders' fall, winning the division and getting a first round bye. Although, they lost to Pittsburgh, so you know there's some motivation to get playoff redemption. Especially since a third straight trip to the postseason appears likely. They should battle the Raiders for the division title to the end once again.
Denver went from Super Bowl champions to out of the playoffs entirely, and the Broncos look destined to be a third-place team once again. They simply aren't as good as the Raiders or Chiefs. And they're probably the third- or fourth-best of the teams fighting for that other wild card. The Chargers' return to Los Angeles will be bumpy to say the least. Phillip Rivers deserves better. Frankly, so does the team. They wanted to stay in San Diego, but San Diego didn't want them. At least they only moved two hours north...to become second fiddle behind another bad team, and play in a 30,000-seat soccer stadium.
My AFC playoff field is New England (East), Pittsburgh (North), Houston (South), Oakland (West), Kansas City and Tennessee (wild cards). I've got the Raiders beating the Titans and the Chiefs beating the Texans in the wild card games. Patriots over Chiefs and Raiders over Steelers in the divisional round, with New England making its seventh Super Bowl trip in the Bradicheck Era.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)