When the NFL started handing out all their awards in one shot the night before the Patriots Game, I wasn't sure it would last. Well, now we're eight years in, so I think it's safe to say the NFL Honors is here to stay. And, since this year's game is in Atlanta, that means Steve Harvey is hosting. Because, well, you can't have an event in Atlanta without Steve Harvey.
It's really annoying not to find out the Hall of Fame selections during the day, but it's cool that they get recognized on the big stage during the show. As for the others who'll get recognized during the show...
MVP: Patrick Mahomes, Chiefs-For most of the season, I thought it was two-way race between Mahomes and Drew Brees. But, by the end of the year, it was clearly Mahomes' to lose. His numbers were simply staggering. In his first season as a starter, he had 50 touchdown passes (compared to just 12 interceptions) and 50,000 yards while leading the Chiefs and that dynamic offense to the best record in the AFC. And let's not forget that performance in the second half of the AFC Championship Game, which doesn't count for MVP voting, but was still mighty impressive. You kinda got the feeling that 2018 was just a sign of things to come.
Offensive Player: Patrick Mahomes, Chiefs-The MVP and Offensive Player of the Year don't always go to the same player, but this year I think they probably will. Brees was sensational. He threw just five interceptions all season and had a QB rating of 115.7. But the numbers that Mahomes put up were simply absurd. I can see the voters splitting it and giving Offensive Player to Brees as a consolation prize. But Mahomes deserves both.
Defensive Player: Aaron Donald, Rams-He won it last year, and it seems like a virtual certainty that he'll make it two in a row. Donald is simply the best defensive player in football. Period. The Rams' offense gets all the credit, but Aaron Donald and that defense is the reason LA made it to the Patriots Game. Last year he won this award despite missing two games. This year his numbers were even better. A league-leading 20.5 sacks, 25 tackles for loss, four forced fumbles, and a countless amount of intimidation.
Offensive Rookie: Saquon Barkley, Giants-Both teams picking at the top of the draft completely nailed it with their picks. The Browns finally found their franchise QB, and suddenly became contenders with Baker Mayfield under center. The Giants, meanwhile, got potentially the next great NFL running back. He led the league with more than 2,000 scrimmage yards and made the Pro Bowl. Barkley already won the Pepsi Rookie of the Year, and he should add AP honors. As great as Mayfield was, he only played a half-season. Saquon was great from Week 1.
Defensive Rookie: Darius Leonard, Colts-There were five finalists for Pepsi Rookie of the Year, and Leonard was the only defensive player on the list. It's fairly obvious that Defensive Rookie of the Year is his to lose, just like it has been since about Week 10. He had the most tackles in the league and set a Colts franchise record. He twice won Defensive Player of the Month. Defensive Player. Not Defensive Rookie. This will likely be unanimous.
Coach: Matt Nagy, Bears-This one is a toss-up between Nagy and Frank Reich. Neither one would be a bad choice. Reich took the Colts to the playoffs after a 1-5 start. But what Nagy did with the Bears all season was downright impressive. He turned Mitchell Trubisky into a legitimate NFL quarterback and led Chicago to its first division title in eight years. The Bears started 3-3 and finished 9-1, with a win over the Rams and a sweep of the Vikings.
Comeback: Andrew Luck, Colts-Easy one. There's plenty of credit to go around for Indy's return to the playoffs, but having a healthy Luck back was one of the biggest reasons. He missed all of 2017 after shoulder surgery and some thought he might not ever be able to play football again. Well, he was able to. He started every game, had career-highs in completions in passer rating, was one touchdown pass shy of his career-high, and was selected to the Pro Bowl. In short, he was the Andrew Luck of his first three seasons.
Man of the Year: Kyle Rudolph, Vikings-As always, all 32 candidates for the Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year are incredibly deserving. This is such an outstanding award, and it's the biggest honor of the night. Last year, it was pretty obvious J.J. Watt was going to win for his work in Houston after the hurricane. This year's winner isn't as obvious, but Kyle Rudolph was the fans' choice, and that's good enough for me. He paid for a wing at the University of Minnesota Masonic Children's Hospital where the kids can just be kids.
Thursday, January 31, 2019
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Ranking the Bradicheck Super Bowls
As annoying as it is that the Patriots are in Super Bowl EVERY! FREAKING! YEAR! (I've taken to simply calling it "the Patriots game"), there's no denying that what they've done over the past 17 years is nothing short of remarkable. Especially in this salary cap era, it's completely unfathomable to think of the same team playing in nine Super Bowls (so far) over a 17-year period. With all due respect to the 70s Steelers, 80s 49ers and 90s Cowboys, this is the greatest dynasty the NFL has ever seen, and we'll almost certainly never see another like it again.
The numbers in the Bradicheck Era are mind-boggling (10 straight division titles, 8 straight AFC Championship Games, 3 straight Super Bowls), but owner Robert Kraft deserves just as much credit for building the NFL's model franchise. When he bought the team in 1994, they'd made a grand total of one Super Bowl appearance in their history. Since then, they've made 10. Or, one every 2.5 years.
To put it another way, the Dallas Cowboys played in eight of the first 30 Super Bowls and haven't been back since. Meanwhile, the Patriots, who played in one of those first 30, have appeared in 10 of the last 23. (It's also crazy to think that more than half of all AFC Championships have been won by just three teams--the Patriots, Steelers and Broncos.)
They went to three in four seasons a decade ago, and now they've been to four of the last five. They're the first team to win three straight conference championships since the 1990-93 Bills lost four straight Super Bowls. And the 1971-73 Dolphins are the only other team in history to make three consecutive Super Bowl appearances.
One thing you can say about the Patriots' annual Super Bowl appearance is that it usually means we're in for a good game. They got blown out by all-time great teams (the '85 Bears and '96 Packers) in their two pre-Bradicheck appearances. But the eight Bradicheck games have all been decided by a touchdown or less (the first three by a field goal, the next three by four, the last two by a touchdown).
It all started against the Rams, back when America wasn't sick of them and most people were actually rooting for them. (Fun fact about Super Bowl XXXVI, it was the first non-Pro Bowl NFL game ever played in February.) Now it's come full circle as they play the Rams again. (For perspective, when the Patriots played the St. Louis Rams 17 years ago, current Los Angeles Rams Head Coach Sean McVay was 15 and current Rams quarterback Jared Goff was is second grade.)
My guess is we'll have another competitive Patriots Super Bowl. But where will 53 rank compared to the other eight? Here's how I think they stack up:
8. XXXIX vs. Eagles: Easily the most forgettable of Bradicheck's eight previous Super Bowl trips. Not that it was a bad game. It just wasn't nearly as memorable as the others. It was their third three-point win in four years, and it's the only time during this run that they won back-to-back titles. The biggest difference between this one and the first two is that the winning field goal came in the middle of the fourth quarter instead of on the final play.
7. XXXVIII vs. Panthers: About 18 minutes of scintillating football and 42 minutes of a snoozefest. Neither team scored in the first or third quarter, but the fourth quarter was one of the greatest in Super Bowl history. Punching and counter-punching to the tune of 37 total points. The Panthers tied it at 29-29 with 1:08 left, but the kickoff went out of bounds, setting the stage for Brady and Adam Vinatieri to do their thing for the second time in three years. (This was also the night the term "wardrobe malfunction" entered the American vocabulary.)
6. XLVI vs. Giants: Four years later, they did it again. Was it as memorable as the first one? No. But it did have its moments, capped by Ahmad Bradshaw reluctantly falling into the end zone with the game-winning touchdown, then the Giants' defense stopping Brady on New England's final drive. If not for Tom Coughlin and Eli Manning, Bradicheck would be already be working on their second hand's worth of rings.
5. LII vs. Eagles: Bradicheck had been undefeated against all teams other than the Giants until Nick Foles was unleashed on them last year. It was by no means a defensive clinic. It was, however, a highly-entertaining shootout. The Eagles scored nine unanswered points in the fourth quarter after New England took a one-point lead, then their defense made the play at the end to claim their first Lombardi Trophy.
4. XXXVI vs. Rams: Hall of Famers Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk and the Greatest Show On Turf were looking for their second title in three years, and they were the heavy favorites against a then-unknown Tom Brady. The Patriots led 17-3 until Warner led two fourth quarter touchdown drives to tie it with 1:30 left. And that's when the Legend of Brady began. He put the Patriots in position, and Vinatieri ended it with the first walk-off field goal in Super Bowl history. Little did any of us know what this game would start.
3. XLIX vs. Seahawks: What everyone remembers most about this game is an idiotic play call by the Seahawks on the 1-yard line that resulted in Malcolm Butler's game-sealing interception. What people don't remember is the Patriots overcoming a 24-14 deficit with two fourth quarter touchdowns, including Brady's three-yard strike to Julian Edelman with two minutes left that gave New England the lead.
2. LI vs. Falcons: Never count Tom Brady out. Although, you can't really blame people for doing just that when it was 28-3 Atlanta midway through the third quarter. No problem. It was just setting the stage for the biggest comeback in Super Bowl history. When the Falcons punted up eight late in the fourth quarter, you knew Brady was going to drive the Patriots down to tie the game and send the Super Bowl to overtime for the first time ever. Just like when the Patriots won the overtime coin toss, you knew Brady would drive them down and win the game.
1. XLII vs. Giants: Yes, I'm a Giants fan, but that's not why I have this as No. 1. Many experts consider right at the top, if not AT the top, of the list of all-time great Super Bowls. This was supposed to be the culmination of the Patriots' 19-0 season. Instead, it was one of the biggest upsets in history.
These rankings are, of course, completely subjective. Your order could look completely different than mine and be just as correct. The Patriots Super Bowls have simply been that good in terms of game quality. And I'd expect no different from this year's matchup against the Rams.
The numbers in the Bradicheck Era are mind-boggling (10 straight division titles, 8 straight AFC Championship Games, 3 straight Super Bowls), but owner Robert Kraft deserves just as much credit for building the NFL's model franchise. When he bought the team in 1994, they'd made a grand total of one Super Bowl appearance in their history. Since then, they've made 10. Or, one every 2.5 years.
To put it another way, the Dallas Cowboys played in eight of the first 30 Super Bowls and haven't been back since. Meanwhile, the Patriots, who played in one of those first 30, have appeared in 10 of the last 23. (It's also crazy to think that more than half of all AFC Championships have been won by just three teams--the Patriots, Steelers and Broncos.)
They went to three in four seasons a decade ago, and now they've been to four of the last five. They're the first team to win three straight conference championships since the 1990-93 Bills lost four straight Super Bowls. And the 1971-73 Dolphins are the only other team in history to make three consecutive Super Bowl appearances.
One thing you can say about the Patriots' annual Super Bowl appearance is that it usually means we're in for a good game. They got blown out by all-time great teams (the '85 Bears and '96 Packers) in their two pre-Bradicheck appearances. But the eight Bradicheck games have all been decided by a touchdown or less (the first three by a field goal, the next three by four, the last two by a touchdown).
It all started against the Rams, back when America wasn't sick of them and most people were actually rooting for them. (Fun fact about Super Bowl XXXVI, it was the first non-Pro Bowl NFL game ever played in February.) Now it's come full circle as they play the Rams again. (For perspective, when the Patriots played the St. Louis Rams 17 years ago, current Los Angeles Rams Head Coach Sean McVay was 15 and current Rams quarterback Jared Goff was is second grade.)
My guess is we'll have another competitive Patriots Super Bowl. But where will 53 rank compared to the other eight? Here's how I think they stack up:
8. XXXIX vs. Eagles: Easily the most forgettable of Bradicheck's eight previous Super Bowl trips. Not that it was a bad game. It just wasn't nearly as memorable as the others. It was their third three-point win in four years, and it's the only time during this run that they won back-to-back titles. The biggest difference between this one and the first two is that the winning field goal came in the middle of the fourth quarter instead of on the final play.
7. XXXVIII vs. Panthers: About 18 minutes of scintillating football and 42 minutes of a snoozefest. Neither team scored in the first or third quarter, but the fourth quarter was one of the greatest in Super Bowl history. Punching and counter-punching to the tune of 37 total points. The Panthers tied it at 29-29 with 1:08 left, but the kickoff went out of bounds, setting the stage for Brady and Adam Vinatieri to do their thing for the second time in three years. (This was also the night the term "wardrobe malfunction" entered the American vocabulary.)
6. XLVI vs. Giants: Four years later, they did it again. Was it as memorable as the first one? No. But it did have its moments, capped by Ahmad Bradshaw reluctantly falling into the end zone with the game-winning touchdown, then the Giants' defense stopping Brady on New England's final drive. If not for Tom Coughlin and Eli Manning, Bradicheck would be already be working on their second hand's worth of rings.
5. LII vs. Eagles: Bradicheck had been undefeated against all teams other than the Giants until Nick Foles was unleashed on them last year. It was by no means a defensive clinic. It was, however, a highly-entertaining shootout. The Eagles scored nine unanswered points in the fourth quarter after New England took a one-point lead, then their defense made the play at the end to claim their first Lombardi Trophy.
4. XXXVI vs. Rams: Hall of Famers Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk and the Greatest Show On Turf were looking for their second title in three years, and they were the heavy favorites against a then-unknown Tom Brady. The Patriots led 17-3 until Warner led two fourth quarter touchdown drives to tie it with 1:30 left. And that's when the Legend of Brady began. He put the Patriots in position, and Vinatieri ended it with the first walk-off field goal in Super Bowl history. Little did any of us know what this game would start.
3. XLIX vs. Seahawks: What everyone remembers most about this game is an idiotic play call by the Seahawks on the 1-yard line that resulted in Malcolm Butler's game-sealing interception. What people don't remember is the Patriots overcoming a 24-14 deficit with two fourth quarter touchdowns, including Brady's three-yard strike to Julian Edelman with two minutes left that gave New England the lead.
2. LI vs. Falcons: Never count Tom Brady out. Although, you can't really blame people for doing just that when it was 28-3 Atlanta midway through the third quarter. No problem. It was just setting the stage for the biggest comeback in Super Bowl history. When the Falcons punted up eight late in the fourth quarter, you knew Brady was going to drive the Patriots down to tie the game and send the Super Bowl to overtime for the first time ever. Just like when the Patriots won the overtime coin toss, you knew Brady would drive them down and win the game.
1. XLII vs. Giants: Yes, I'm a Giants fan, but that's not why I have this as No. 1. Many experts consider right at the top, if not AT the top, of the list of all-time great Super Bowls. This was supposed to be the culmination of the Patriots' 19-0 season. Instead, it was one of the biggest upsets in history.
These rankings are, of course, completely subjective. Your order could look completely different than mine and be just as correct. The Patriots Super Bowls have simply been that good in terms of game quality. And I'd expect no different from this year's matchup against the Rams.
Monday, January 28, 2019
Upon Further Review
It's been a week since the NFC Championship Game, and Saints fans are still pretty livid about the no-call that sent the Rams to the Super Bowl instead of them. Everyone can agree that it was a horrible no-call. The NFL admitted it. Even Rams cornerback Nickell Robey-Coleman admitted it!
Naturally, the reaction was swift. But it's not like there's much anybody could do about it. Yes, there's a rule on the books that says the commissioner has the authority to order the game replayed from that point. But it's ridiculous to suggest he should've used that power. The Saints have every right to feel cheated, but the Rams would feel equally as cheated if their victory had been taken away from them. It's not the first blown call in NFL history!
There's also now a conspiracy theory regarding the officials in the NFC Championship Game. Four of them live in Southern California, and they were all involved in the blown call. I get the perceived conflict of interest, but to think there was some sort of bias favoring the Rams is ridiculous. Keep in mind, there was no NFL team in the Los Angeles area from 1994 until three years ago.
Sure, they could've assigned that crew to Patriots-Chiefs instead (then the Patriots fans could've shut up about them getting Clete Blakeman, too). But neither team objected when the official assignments were made. Just like no one objected when they did the first Saints-Rams game this season (which is the reason, the NFL said, that they were assigned to the NFC game). And, if there hadn't been one of the most infamous no-calls in NFL history at the end of the game, where the officials live wouldn't have even come up.
We all know it should've been a penalty. Even Robey-Coleman was surprised a flag didn't come out. Most people were clamoring for pass interference, although I can see how they missed that in real time. However, even if the ball had been tipped, which was the official's original explanation for not throwing a flag for pass interference, there should've been a 15-yard personal foul penalty for the obvious helmet-to-helmet hit! Everyone knows that, which is why NFL VP of Officiating Al Riveron called Saints coach Sean Payton immediately after the game to admit they screwed up.
In the aftermath of the no-call, the discussion turned to whether or not the play should've/could've been reviewed. The NFL has always been leery of including judgment plays subject to review, and with good reason. They don't want to take the subjectivity out of it, especially on bang-bang plays, and they don't want plays essentially being officiated twice (once on the field, once in the booth).
However, plays in marquee/playoff games have a tendency to draw the Competition Committee's attention. I'm still not sure how that wasn't a catch for Dez Bryant in that Dallas-Green Bay playoff game, but it was after the Jesse James play that they realized the definition of a catch had to change. Same thing with the tuck rule, which doesn't even exist anymore. Same thing with the after-the-fact unnecessary roughness penalties/suspensions after the high-profile incidents with Rob Gronkowski and Odell Beckham, Jr.
Next, it's pass interference. Don't be surprised if defensive pass interference is something that becomes reviewable starting in the 2019 season. At the very least, it'll be discussed. At length.
For the most part, I agree with the NFL's stance on whether or not penalties should be reviewable. They could call holding on every play if they wanted to. And the last thing anyone needs is coaches throwing out the red challenge flag on every play where they think a penalty should've been called and wasn't. But pass interference is different. Because we've seen so many games turned on phantom PI calls or, like the NFC Championship Game, where it should've been called and wasn't.
If they do make it reviewable, it would only be on plays where a flag is actually thrown. Call the penalty, then determine if it wasn't. You're getting into very dangerous territory if you do it the other way. You can't have officials in the replay room who have the benefit of all those replays from all those different angles overruling the officials down on the field who have to make that decision in the moment while also watching everything else that's going on during the play. There's no momentum for that, either. Don't make it a penalty after the fact.
And that's the irony of the entire Saints-Rams situation. Even if pass interference was a reviewable play, they wouldn't have been able to review the Robey-Coleman play because no flag was thrown.
Making pass interference reviewable seems to be the next logical step, though. They've had it in the CFL since 2014, so they have a model that works to use as a basis for developing an NFL rule. In fact, I'd imagine it would be very similar to the Canadian rule, where they can use any of their challenges on pass interference as long as they have timeouts except for in the last three minutes (the CFL has a three-minute warning instead of a two-minute warning).
The only difference I'd suggest would be that you can only challenge if the flag is thrown. This won't make Saints fans happy, but you can't challenge plays where no flag is thrown and you think there should be. In Canada, either team can challenge a potential pass interference, whether a flag is thrown or not.
Was the NFC Championship Game fundamentally changed by the no-call on Nickell Robey-Coleman's pass interference? Yes! It might've cost the Saints a chance at the Super Bowl (although you can't say they definitely would've won had it been called), but it could end up benefiting the entire league in the long run. Because making pass interference subject to instant replay would be a game-changer.
Naturally, the reaction was swift. But it's not like there's much anybody could do about it. Yes, there's a rule on the books that says the commissioner has the authority to order the game replayed from that point. But it's ridiculous to suggest he should've used that power. The Saints have every right to feel cheated, but the Rams would feel equally as cheated if their victory had been taken away from them. It's not the first blown call in NFL history!
There's also now a conspiracy theory regarding the officials in the NFC Championship Game. Four of them live in Southern California, and they were all involved in the blown call. I get the perceived conflict of interest, but to think there was some sort of bias favoring the Rams is ridiculous. Keep in mind, there was no NFL team in the Los Angeles area from 1994 until three years ago.
Sure, they could've assigned that crew to Patriots-Chiefs instead (then the Patriots fans could've shut up about them getting Clete Blakeman, too). But neither team objected when the official assignments were made. Just like no one objected when they did the first Saints-Rams game this season (which is the reason, the NFL said, that they were assigned to the NFC game). And, if there hadn't been one of the most infamous no-calls in NFL history at the end of the game, where the officials live wouldn't have even come up.
We all know it should've been a penalty. Even Robey-Coleman was surprised a flag didn't come out. Most people were clamoring for pass interference, although I can see how they missed that in real time. However, even if the ball had been tipped, which was the official's original explanation for not throwing a flag for pass interference, there should've been a 15-yard personal foul penalty for the obvious helmet-to-helmet hit! Everyone knows that, which is why NFL VP of Officiating Al Riveron called Saints coach Sean Payton immediately after the game to admit they screwed up.
In the aftermath of the no-call, the discussion turned to whether or not the play should've/could've been reviewed. The NFL has always been leery of including judgment plays subject to review, and with good reason. They don't want to take the subjectivity out of it, especially on bang-bang plays, and they don't want plays essentially being officiated twice (once on the field, once in the booth).
However, plays in marquee/playoff games have a tendency to draw the Competition Committee's attention. I'm still not sure how that wasn't a catch for Dez Bryant in that Dallas-Green Bay playoff game, but it was after the Jesse James play that they realized the definition of a catch had to change. Same thing with the tuck rule, which doesn't even exist anymore. Same thing with the after-the-fact unnecessary roughness penalties/suspensions after the high-profile incidents with Rob Gronkowski and Odell Beckham, Jr.
Next, it's pass interference. Don't be surprised if defensive pass interference is something that becomes reviewable starting in the 2019 season. At the very least, it'll be discussed. At length.
For the most part, I agree with the NFL's stance on whether or not penalties should be reviewable. They could call holding on every play if they wanted to. And the last thing anyone needs is coaches throwing out the red challenge flag on every play where they think a penalty should've been called and wasn't. But pass interference is different. Because we've seen so many games turned on phantom PI calls or, like the NFC Championship Game, where it should've been called and wasn't.
If they do make it reviewable, it would only be on plays where a flag is actually thrown. Call the penalty, then determine if it wasn't. You're getting into very dangerous territory if you do it the other way. You can't have officials in the replay room who have the benefit of all those replays from all those different angles overruling the officials down on the field who have to make that decision in the moment while also watching everything else that's going on during the play. There's no momentum for that, either. Don't make it a penalty after the fact.
And that's the irony of the entire Saints-Rams situation. Even if pass interference was a reviewable play, they wouldn't have been able to review the Robey-Coleman play because no flag was thrown.
Making pass interference reviewable seems to be the next logical step, though. They've had it in the CFL since 2014, so they have a model that works to use as a basis for developing an NFL rule. In fact, I'd imagine it would be very similar to the Canadian rule, where they can use any of their challenges on pass interference as long as they have timeouts except for in the last three minutes (the CFL has a three-minute warning instead of a two-minute warning).
The only difference I'd suggest would be that you can only challenge if the flag is thrown. This won't make Saints fans happy, but you can't challenge plays where no flag is thrown and you think there should be. In Canada, either team can challenge a potential pass interference, whether a flag is thrown or not.
Was the NFC Championship Game fundamentally changed by the no-call on Nickell Robey-Coleman's pass interference? Yes! It might've cost the Saints a chance at the Super Bowl (although you can't say they definitely would've won had it been called), but it could end up benefiting the entire league in the long run. Because making pass interference subject to instant replay would be a game-changer.
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Settling Hall Hat Debates
Well, at least Mariano and Edgar made it easy for them. They spent their entire careers with the same team, so the hat that'll be on their Hall of Fame plaques didn't require much thought.
I didn't think there was much thought required for Roy Halladay, either, so it was a bit of a surprise when they announced that Halladay's plaque would be logo-less. Halladay's wife said she couldn't decide because his time in both Toronto and Philadelphia meant so much to him. It's ultimately the Hall of Fame's decision, but they certainly took his family's wishes into consideration. Even still, I'm surprised. Because I thought the only question regarding Halladay's hat would be which design they'd be using for the Blue Jays logo.
When MLB Network asked Mike Mussina what team he'll represent, he was understandably noncommittal. He spent 10 years in Baltimore and eight with the Yankees, so his career was pretty evenly split, both in terms of years and numbers. Of course, I think the decision on Mussina should also be an easy one. He should go in as an Oriole. My rationale for that is this: it really doesn't matter to Yankees fans which one he wears, but Orioles fans will be LIVID if he goes in as a Yankee. Mussina is an Orioles legend. On the Yankees, he was the No. 3 starter. To me, it's a no-brainer. All of Baltimore isn't traveling to Cooperstown to see two Yankees pitchers.
Mussina, Halladay and Greg Maddux before them are just three of the latest examples of the conundrum the Hall of Fame often finds itself in. The players like Mariano and Edgar who spend their whole career with the same team are becoming fewer and fewer. Because of free agency, players are becoming associated with two or more teams, making these Hall of Fame hat decisions all the more complicated.
Still, even though they might play for multiple teams, there's going to be that one you think of first when you reflect on a Hall of Famer's career. So, to make things easier for them, I'm going to decide right now for some of this year's guys, as well as those hitting the ballot soon and some current players who've already put together Cooperstown-worthy resumes.
Curt Schilling: He's probably the guy most likely to join Derek Jeter in next year's class, and there are three legitimate choices. He won a World Series in Arizona and two in Boston. He spent the most amount of time in Philadelphia, though, and earned nearly half of his career wins there. Schilling goes in as a Phillie.
Roger Clemens: Assuming Bonds (who obviously would be a Giant) and Clemens eventually get in, Clemens presents another interesting predicament. Except not really. The Yankees are really the only other option, but not really. The whole reason Clemens and Bonds are looked at differently than the rest of the Steroid Era guys is because they were already on a Hall of Fame track. And Clemens got on that track in Boston.
Omar Vizquel: Not that hard. He spent 11 years in Cleveland. That's where Vizquel made his mark. And if he does get in, they'll probably give him the wrong Indians hat, just like they did Jim Thome.
Fred McGriff: McGriff is a prime example of what I was talking about with free agents not really making a home for themselves. Nevertheless, McGriff appears Hall of Fame bound via the Veterans Committee at some point. And when he does, they've got six different hats to choose from. Except I think everyone would agree Atlanta is the only real choice. That's where he won a World Series and played in two others.
Among the newly-eligible candidates over the next several years, there are only two obvious guys. And the team on their hat is just as obvious (the Yankees for Jeter, the Red Sox for Ortiz). The others are fringe candidates at best. But some of them would still require a decision.
Adrian Beltre: The longer his career went, Beltre's Hall of Fame candidacy went from maybe to no-doubt-about-it. He had great numbers with the Dodgers at the start. But he didn't become a sure-fire Hall of Famer until his time in Texas. And all of the biggest moments in his career came as a Ranger.
Carlos Beltran: Yes, he's a long shot. But not the longest one. So, it's not crazy to think of Carlos Beltran possibly giving a Hall of Fame speech one day. And his plaque selection would prove to be quite the dilemma. It really would come down to Mets vs. Royals, though. He was a five-time All-Star in seven seasons with a good Mets team. That's the deciding factor for me.
Mark Teixeira: Is Mark Teixeira a Hall of Famer? Probably not. His situation is an interesting one, though. Because his best years were the four and a half at the start of his career in Texas. Even though he spent eight of his 14 years with the Yankees, I'd put Teixeira in as a Ranger. However, it's unlikely to matter ultimately.
Alex Rodriguez: A-Rod has even less of a chance of being elected than Bonds and Clemens. Even he knows that. But, for the sake of argument (and this post), let's assume he's got a shot. He was great in Seattle. He was great in Texas. He was great with the Yankees. That's where he spent 12 years, hit more than half of his home runs and had more than half of his RBIs. His Cooperstown hat would have an interlocking NY on it.
There are also two active players who fit this description, but I don't think either one of them is a particularly hard call. Albert Pujols and Ichiro were the Rookies of the Year in 2001, and they're both destined for Cooperstown.
By the time he actually retires, Albert will have spent nearly as much time in Anaheim as he did in St. Louis, which is crazy to think about. Remember how good he was with the Cardinals? That's the guy who earned a spot in the Hall of Fame. Not this old guy playing in Anaheim now. Likewise, Ichiro will always and forever be a Seattle Mariner. Since Randy Johnson went in as a Diamondback, he'll be the next one wearing a Mariners hat in the Hall of Fame. Of course, that would require Ichiro actually retiring first...
I didn't think there was much thought required for Roy Halladay, either, so it was a bit of a surprise when they announced that Halladay's plaque would be logo-less. Halladay's wife said she couldn't decide because his time in both Toronto and Philadelphia meant so much to him. It's ultimately the Hall of Fame's decision, but they certainly took his family's wishes into consideration. Even still, I'm surprised. Because I thought the only question regarding Halladay's hat would be which design they'd be using for the Blue Jays logo.
When MLB Network asked Mike Mussina what team he'll represent, he was understandably noncommittal. He spent 10 years in Baltimore and eight with the Yankees, so his career was pretty evenly split, both in terms of years and numbers. Of course, I think the decision on Mussina should also be an easy one. He should go in as an Oriole. My rationale for that is this: it really doesn't matter to Yankees fans which one he wears, but Orioles fans will be LIVID if he goes in as a Yankee. Mussina is an Orioles legend. On the Yankees, he was the No. 3 starter. To me, it's a no-brainer. All of Baltimore isn't traveling to Cooperstown to see two Yankees pitchers.
Mussina, Halladay and Greg Maddux before them are just three of the latest examples of the conundrum the Hall of Fame often finds itself in. The players like Mariano and Edgar who spend their whole career with the same team are becoming fewer and fewer. Because of free agency, players are becoming associated with two or more teams, making these Hall of Fame hat decisions all the more complicated.
Still, even though they might play for multiple teams, there's going to be that one you think of first when you reflect on a Hall of Famer's career. So, to make things easier for them, I'm going to decide right now for some of this year's guys, as well as those hitting the ballot soon and some current players who've already put together Cooperstown-worthy resumes.
Curt Schilling: He's probably the guy most likely to join Derek Jeter in next year's class, and there are three legitimate choices. He won a World Series in Arizona and two in Boston. He spent the most amount of time in Philadelphia, though, and earned nearly half of his career wins there. Schilling goes in as a Phillie.
Roger Clemens: Assuming Bonds (who obviously would be a Giant) and Clemens eventually get in, Clemens presents another interesting predicament. Except not really. The Yankees are really the only other option, but not really. The whole reason Clemens and Bonds are looked at differently than the rest of the Steroid Era guys is because they were already on a Hall of Fame track. And Clemens got on that track in Boston.
Omar Vizquel: Not that hard. He spent 11 years in Cleveland. That's where Vizquel made his mark. And if he does get in, they'll probably give him the wrong Indians hat, just like they did Jim Thome.
Fred McGriff: McGriff is a prime example of what I was talking about with free agents not really making a home for themselves. Nevertheless, McGriff appears Hall of Fame bound via the Veterans Committee at some point. And when he does, they've got six different hats to choose from. Except I think everyone would agree Atlanta is the only real choice. That's where he won a World Series and played in two others.
Among the newly-eligible candidates over the next several years, there are only two obvious guys. And the team on their hat is just as obvious (the Yankees for Jeter, the Red Sox for Ortiz). The others are fringe candidates at best. But some of them would still require a decision.
Adrian Beltre: The longer his career went, Beltre's Hall of Fame candidacy went from maybe to no-doubt-about-it. He had great numbers with the Dodgers at the start. But he didn't become a sure-fire Hall of Famer until his time in Texas. And all of the biggest moments in his career came as a Ranger.
Carlos Beltran: Yes, he's a long shot. But not the longest one. So, it's not crazy to think of Carlos Beltran possibly giving a Hall of Fame speech one day. And his plaque selection would prove to be quite the dilemma. It really would come down to Mets vs. Royals, though. He was a five-time All-Star in seven seasons with a good Mets team. That's the deciding factor for me.
Mark Teixeira: Is Mark Teixeira a Hall of Famer? Probably not. His situation is an interesting one, though. Because his best years were the four and a half at the start of his career in Texas. Even though he spent eight of his 14 years with the Yankees, I'd put Teixeira in as a Ranger. However, it's unlikely to matter ultimately.
Alex Rodriguez: A-Rod has even less of a chance of being elected than Bonds and Clemens. Even he knows that. But, for the sake of argument (and this post), let's assume he's got a shot. He was great in Seattle. He was great in Texas. He was great with the Yankees. That's where he spent 12 years, hit more than half of his home runs and had more than half of his RBIs. His Cooperstown hat would have an interlocking NY on it.
There are also two active players who fit this description, but I don't think either one of them is a particularly hard call. Albert Pujols and Ichiro were the Rookies of the Year in 2001, and they're both destined for Cooperstown.
By the time he actually retires, Albert will have spent nearly as much time in Anaheim as he did in St. Louis, which is crazy to think about. Remember how good he was with the Cardinals? That's the guy who earned a spot in the Hall of Fame. Not this old guy playing in Anaheim now. Likewise, Ichiro will always and forever be a Seattle Mariner. Since Randy Johnson went in as a Diamondback, he'll be the next one wearing a Mariners hat in the Hall of Fame. Of course, that would require Ichiro actually retiring first...
Monday, January 21, 2019
Enter (The Hall) Sandman
If Edgar is the only other player voted in by the writers, this is going to be the baseball purist's dream Hall of Fame class. Two closers and two DHs. I do think Edgar will join Mariano, Lee Smith and Harold Baines on the stage in Cooperstown, but I don't think they'll be the only ones. The ballots that have been made public so far indicate that there will be at least one other player elected...maybe more.
This is always one of my favorite posts of the year. I love the Baseball Hall of Fame vote and the debate it creates. Mariano Rivera is obviously going to get in as the head of the class. Thanks to that rube from Boston, it won't be unanimous. But there's definitely a chance he'll break Ken Griffey, Jr.'s record percentage of 99.32. Three people didn't vote for Junior. Will anyone else not vote for Mo?
I'm also curious to see how the controversial election of Baines affects the borderline guys on the writers' ballot. Because there are a lot of players who were a lot better than Harold Baines that have come closer to five percent than 75. Will Baines getting in get fellow Hall of Very Good player Fred McGriff any additional voter love?
As a refresher, I rank my selections. With voters limited to 10 votes, I find that to be the easiest way, especially when there are more than 10 worthy candidates. Four players were voted in last year, which means I have six returners. There are three obvious choices among first-timers. So, somebody new is making his way to my ballot for the first time.
My stance on Bonds and Clemens hasn't changed either. I've "voted" for them every year, and I will continue to do so until they're either elected or no longer on the ballot. I also ended up using half my ballot on starting pitchers representing every team in the AL East except for Tampa Bay. Completely unintentional. But it further shows just how good that division was in the late 90s and early 2000s.
1. Mariano Rivera, Pitcher (1995-2013 Yankees): Talk about an easy one. They probably started working on his plaque the second he announced 2013 would be his final season, if not earlier than that. It's impossible to overstate Mariano's greatness. He was the best ever in his role. There's all the superlatives. The five rings. All the All*Star selections. The fact that everyone else knew they were watching greatness when he pitched. Opposing teams sending right-handers up there as pinch hitters because lefties couldn't hit his cutter. But the biggest testament to Mariano Rivera is this: Most fans leave when the home team is ahead after eight innings. Nobody ever left after eight innings at Yankee Stadium, though. Instead, fans wanted the bottom of the eighth to go quickly just so they could hear "Enter Sandman" and see that bullpen door swing open.
2. Barry Bonds, Outfielder (1986-92 Pirates, 1993-2007 Giants): Can you write the history of baseball, especially in the 90s and 2000s, without mentioning Barry Bonds? Of course not! Can you write the history of baseball in the 1980s and 90s without Harold Baines? Yes you can! I don't mean to keep picking on Baines, but the Hall of Fame wouldn't feel incomplete without him. It does feel incomplete without Barry Bonds. And it will until he finally gets in.
3. Roger Clemens, Pitcher (1984-96 Red Sox, 1997-98 Blue Jays, 1999-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007 Yankees): The same goes for Roger Clemens. I realize I sound like a broken record on these two, but Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson were the two most feared strikeout pitchers of their era. He and Bonds were Hall of Famers before what they were alleged of doing, which wasn't against the rules at the time. That's why they have my support. They were already on a Hall of Fame path and they weren't breaking any rules. So, if people were OK with it then, why aren't they now?
4. Curt Schilling, Pitcher (1988-90 Orioles, 1991 Astros, 1992-2000 Phillies, 2000-03 Diamondbacks, 2004-07 Red Sox): Mussina seems more likely to get in, but I rank Schilling slightly ahead of him. Why? Because he was dominant in the postseason. Ace of a Phillies team that made the World Series in 1993. World Series Co-MVP with the 2001 Diamondbacks. Two titles in Boston. That career postseason mark of 11-2, including 7-0 in elimination games stands out way too much, which is why, if I could only choose one of the two, I'd pick Schilling.
5. Mike Mussina, Pitcher (1991-2000 Orioles, 2001-08 Yankees): Fortunately, I don't have to choose between them. I've got plenty of room on my ballot for both. And all votes count the same. He pitched his entire career in the AL East during a ridiculous offensive era and managed to win 270 games. Critics like to make an argument about his ERA being "too high." But there were a lot of runs being scored those days, and he was giving up less than his team was scoring. Mussina is trending upwards. He may or may not get 75 percent this year. Even if he doesn't, his election seems likely sometime soon.
6. Edgar Martinez, Designated Hitter (1987-2004 Mariners): July 21, 2019 will join April 10, 1973 as the two greatest days in the history of the designated hitter. Because two DHs will be inducted into the Hall of Fame on the same day in a few months. Edgar's in his final year on the ballot, and it seems likely he'll be elected. Which he should be. The guy got a double every time he stepped to the plate, and more often than not that double drove in a run. Mariano Rivera and Pedro Martinez have both said he's the toughest out they ever faced. They named the freakin' DH award after him for crying out loud! He's a Hall of Famer.
7. Roy Halladay, Pitcher (1998-2009 Blue Jays, 2010-13 Phillies): Whether it's because of his untimely death or because the voters truly consider him a first-ballot Hall of Fame lock, there stands a really good chance that Roy Halladay will be elected. And in all the Hall of Fame stuff I've seen/read, the case that's been made for Halladay is pretty compelling. He was the best pitcher in the game for a span of 5-6 years, won a Cy Young in both leagues, twice finished in the top 10 in MVP voting, and finished his career 100 games over .500. And let's not forget his first year with the Phillies in 2010, when he threw a perfect game in the regular season and another no-hitter in the playoffs. So, upon further consideration, Roy Halladay's Hall of Fame case is pretty strong.
8. Andy Pettitte, Pitcher (1995-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007-10 Yankees, 2012-13 Yankees): He's not going to get in. In fact, he might even be in danger of getting less than the five percent needed to stay on the ballot. Which would be a shame. Because he deserves a closer look. Was Andy Pettitte as good as the other starting pitchers on the ballot? No. But there's nobody else I would've wanted to have the ball in the postseason. Yes, pitching for the Yankees during the dynasty years helped. But his postseason brilliance can't be ignored, either. I'm sure his HGH admission will be held against him. Hopefully not enough for him to be a one-and-done guy.
9. Larry Walker, Outfielder (1989-94 Expos, 1995-2004 Rockies, 2004-05 Cardinals): After the ballot logjam cleared up, I finally had room to vote for Walker last year. I think the actual voters' opinion of Larry Walker has started to change a little bit, too. He's more than just a product of Coors Field. Yes, playing in Colorado helped, but this guy was a complete hitter who always came up clutch. And he played a damn good right field too.
10. Fred McGriff, First Baseman (1986-90 Blue Jays, 1990-93 Padres, 1993-97 Braves, 1998-2001 Devil Rays, 2001-02 Cubs, 2003 Dodgers, 2004 Devil Rays): In his final year on the ballot, I give my last vote to Fred McGriff. The fact that it's his last year was the deciding factor, but it's not the only reason I gave the nod to the Crime Dog. As has been (correctly) pointed out, no one was hurt more by the Steroid Era. While everybody else's home run totals became inflated, he was consistently getting 30 and 100 without the hint of controversy. He finished with 493 home runs, which likely would've been 500 if not for the 1994 strike, in which case he'd probably be in already. Mostly, though, and sorry to bring it back to this again, I think Fred McGriff was a better player than Harold Baines. And if Baines is a Hall of Famer, so is McGriff.
Once again, I have more than 10 players who I wanted to vote for. Omar Vizquel came thisclose to getting my last vote. I had him above McGriff last year, but I've started to look at McGriff's career in a new context, and it was enough to push him ahead of Vizquel. The other players I would've voted for without the 10 limit: Jeff Kent, Andruw Jones, Todd Helton, with Billy Wagner, Gary Sheffield and Miguel Tejada also getting some consideration.
This is always one of my favorite posts of the year. I love the Baseball Hall of Fame vote and the debate it creates. Mariano Rivera is obviously going to get in as the head of the class. Thanks to that rube from Boston, it won't be unanimous. But there's definitely a chance he'll break Ken Griffey, Jr.'s record percentage of 99.32. Three people didn't vote for Junior. Will anyone else not vote for Mo?
I'm also curious to see how the controversial election of Baines affects the borderline guys on the writers' ballot. Because there are a lot of players who were a lot better than Harold Baines that have come closer to five percent than 75. Will Baines getting in get fellow Hall of Very Good player Fred McGriff any additional voter love?
As a refresher, I rank my selections. With voters limited to 10 votes, I find that to be the easiest way, especially when there are more than 10 worthy candidates. Four players were voted in last year, which means I have six returners. There are three obvious choices among first-timers. So, somebody new is making his way to my ballot for the first time.
My stance on Bonds and Clemens hasn't changed either. I've "voted" for them every year, and I will continue to do so until they're either elected or no longer on the ballot. I also ended up using half my ballot on starting pitchers representing every team in the AL East except for Tampa Bay. Completely unintentional. But it further shows just how good that division was in the late 90s and early 2000s.
1. Mariano Rivera, Pitcher (1995-2013 Yankees): Talk about an easy one. They probably started working on his plaque the second he announced 2013 would be his final season, if not earlier than that. It's impossible to overstate Mariano's greatness. He was the best ever in his role. There's all the superlatives. The five rings. All the All*Star selections. The fact that everyone else knew they were watching greatness when he pitched. Opposing teams sending right-handers up there as pinch hitters because lefties couldn't hit his cutter. But the biggest testament to Mariano Rivera is this: Most fans leave when the home team is ahead after eight innings. Nobody ever left after eight innings at Yankee Stadium, though. Instead, fans wanted the bottom of the eighth to go quickly just so they could hear "Enter Sandman" and see that bullpen door swing open.
2. Barry Bonds, Outfielder (1986-92 Pirates, 1993-2007 Giants): Can you write the history of baseball, especially in the 90s and 2000s, without mentioning Barry Bonds? Of course not! Can you write the history of baseball in the 1980s and 90s without Harold Baines? Yes you can! I don't mean to keep picking on Baines, but the Hall of Fame wouldn't feel incomplete without him. It does feel incomplete without Barry Bonds. And it will until he finally gets in.
3. Roger Clemens, Pitcher (1984-96 Red Sox, 1997-98 Blue Jays, 1999-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007 Yankees): The same goes for Roger Clemens. I realize I sound like a broken record on these two, but Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson were the two most feared strikeout pitchers of their era. He and Bonds were Hall of Famers before what they were alleged of doing, which wasn't against the rules at the time. That's why they have my support. They were already on a Hall of Fame path and they weren't breaking any rules. So, if people were OK with it then, why aren't they now?
4. Curt Schilling, Pitcher (1988-90 Orioles, 1991 Astros, 1992-2000 Phillies, 2000-03 Diamondbacks, 2004-07 Red Sox): Mussina seems more likely to get in, but I rank Schilling slightly ahead of him. Why? Because he was dominant in the postseason. Ace of a Phillies team that made the World Series in 1993. World Series Co-MVP with the 2001 Diamondbacks. Two titles in Boston. That career postseason mark of 11-2, including 7-0 in elimination games stands out way too much, which is why, if I could only choose one of the two, I'd pick Schilling.
5. Mike Mussina, Pitcher (1991-2000 Orioles, 2001-08 Yankees): Fortunately, I don't have to choose between them. I've got plenty of room on my ballot for both. And all votes count the same. He pitched his entire career in the AL East during a ridiculous offensive era and managed to win 270 games. Critics like to make an argument about his ERA being "too high." But there were a lot of runs being scored those days, and he was giving up less than his team was scoring. Mussina is trending upwards. He may or may not get 75 percent this year. Even if he doesn't, his election seems likely sometime soon.
6. Edgar Martinez, Designated Hitter (1987-2004 Mariners): July 21, 2019 will join April 10, 1973 as the two greatest days in the history of the designated hitter. Because two DHs will be inducted into the Hall of Fame on the same day in a few months. Edgar's in his final year on the ballot, and it seems likely he'll be elected. Which he should be. The guy got a double every time he stepped to the plate, and more often than not that double drove in a run. Mariano Rivera and Pedro Martinez have both said he's the toughest out they ever faced. They named the freakin' DH award after him for crying out loud! He's a Hall of Famer.
7. Roy Halladay, Pitcher (1998-2009 Blue Jays, 2010-13 Phillies): Whether it's because of his untimely death or because the voters truly consider him a first-ballot Hall of Fame lock, there stands a really good chance that Roy Halladay will be elected. And in all the Hall of Fame stuff I've seen/read, the case that's been made for Halladay is pretty compelling. He was the best pitcher in the game for a span of 5-6 years, won a Cy Young in both leagues, twice finished in the top 10 in MVP voting, and finished his career 100 games over .500. And let's not forget his first year with the Phillies in 2010, when he threw a perfect game in the regular season and another no-hitter in the playoffs. So, upon further consideration, Roy Halladay's Hall of Fame case is pretty strong.
8. Andy Pettitte, Pitcher (1995-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007-10 Yankees, 2012-13 Yankees): He's not going to get in. In fact, he might even be in danger of getting less than the five percent needed to stay on the ballot. Which would be a shame. Because he deserves a closer look. Was Andy Pettitte as good as the other starting pitchers on the ballot? No. But there's nobody else I would've wanted to have the ball in the postseason. Yes, pitching for the Yankees during the dynasty years helped. But his postseason brilliance can't be ignored, either. I'm sure his HGH admission will be held against him. Hopefully not enough for him to be a one-and-done guy.
9. Larry Walker, Outfielder (1989-94 Expos, 1995-2004 Rockies, 2004-05 Cardinals): After the ballot logjam cleared up, I finally had room to vote for Walker last year. I think the actual voters' opinion of Larry Walker has started to change a little bit, too. He's more than just a product of Coors Field. Yes, playing in Colorado helped, but this guy was a complete hitter who always came up clutch. And he played a damn good right field too.
10. Fred McGriff, First Baseman (1986-90 Blue Jays, 1990-93 Padres, 1993-97 Braves, 1998-2001 Devil Rays, 2001-02 Cubs, 2003 Dodgers, 2004 Devil Rays): In his final year on the ballot, I give my last vote to Fred McGriff. The fact that it's his last year was the deciding factor, but it's not the only reason I gave the nod to the Crime Dog. As has been (correctly) pointed out, no one was hurt more by the Steroid Era. While everybody else's home run totals became inflated, he was consistently getting 30 and 100 without the hint of controversy. He finished with 493 home runs, which likely would've been 500 if not for the 1994 strike, in which case he'd probably be in already. Mostly, though, and sorry to bring it back to this again, I think Fred McGriff was a better player than Harold Baines. And if Baines is a Hall of Famer, so is McGriff.
Once again, I have more than 10 players who I wanted to vote for. Omar Vizquel came thisclose to getting my last vote. I had him above McGriff last year, but I've started to look at McGriff's career in a new context, and it was enough to push him ahead of Vizquel. The other players I would've voted for without the 10 limit: Jeff Kent, Andruw Jones, Todd Helton, with Billy Wagner, Gary Sheffield and Miguel Tejada also getting some consideration.
Sunday, January 20, 2019
NFL Playoffs, Conference Championships
That Rams-Chiefs Monday night shootout in November was the best NFL game of the year. During the game, they kept teasing that it could be a Super Bowl preview, and people were left salivating at that possibility. And now that possibility is staring us in the face! If they win their respective conference championship games, we'll get that rematch two weeks from now in Atlanta.
Of the four possible Super Bowl matchups, Chiefs-Rams would by far be the most entertaining. But all four are intriguing in their own way. If it's Saints-Patriots, we've got two Hall of Famers still slinging it in their 40s. And Saints-Chiefs or Patriots-Rams would be one of those old guys against the new superstar QB.
In fact, that's what we've got in both Conference Championship Games. Can Patrick Mahomes and the Chiefs keep Bradicheck from going to their 85th Super Bowl together? Will Drew Brees add a second Super Bowl trip to his Hall of Fame resume or will the Rams get revenge for their first loss of the year?
Personally, I'd like to see a Chiefs-Rams Super Bowl, and not just because I, like most of America, am suffering from Patriots fatigue. It's because I think those truly are the two best teams in the NFL, and they have been all season. These are the four best teams in the league, though (which doesn't always happen in the Conference Championships), and both games could definitely go either way. They're both regular season rematches. But in each case, I'm going with the team that lost the first meeting.
Rams (14-3) at Saints (14-3): Rams-The first time these two met was in early November. The Rams came into New Orleans undefeated, only to be outscored by the Saints. At the time, most people thought it would determine the No. 1 seed in the NFC, and they turned out to be right. As that win gave New Orleans the right to host the rematch.
I'm expecting this one to be different. I'm thinking the defenses will play a much larger roll than they did in Week 9. Last week, New Orleans allowed touchdowns on the Eagles' first two possessions of the game. And then...nothing! The Rams, meanwhile, stopped Dallas when they needed to. Let's not forget, too, that they've got Aaron Donald, who just might be the best defensive player in football.
The biggest thing the Saints will have going for them isn't Drew Brees or their defense. It's that dome. They're tough to beat at home for a reason. Those fans provide a tremendous boost, and their offense is much more dynamic in that controlled environment. It's why home field advantage was so important to them. Which makes it even more imperative to get them off the field on third down. If Brees and Kamara can get into a rhythm, it'll be a long day for the Rams' defense.
However, the Rams' offense will also be different than when they first met the Saints. Todd Gurley is great, but they been operating at a different level offensively since they started splitting carries between him and C.J. Anderson in mid-December. Having a strong all-around running game has helped take some of the pressure off Jared Goff, which has helped him get his mojo back.
And that improved running game could be the difference. It's one element the Rams didn't have and the Saints took advantage of in the first meeting. If LA can run the ball effectively and control the clock, it'll limit the amount of damage Brees and Co. are able to do. In a close one, I say the Rams take it 24-21.
Patriots (12-5) at Chiefs (13-4): Kansas City-So much for the Chargers being the only team capable of giving the Patriots a game at Foxboro. New England dominated them from the start and never let up to secure their annual berth in the AFC Championship Game. The difference this time, though, is that they're on the road. And that could be a huge factor. Especially considering the fact that the AFC Championship Game has never been in Kansas City before.
A lot has been made about New England's dominance at home. And with good reason. They were the only team in the league to go undefeated in their own stadium this season and they've won nine consecutive home playoff games. They haven't won a playoff game on the road since 2006, though (of course, they never play any, but still). However, Bradicheck will have to take the show on the road this time, and that could prove to be a huge difference. Especially considering they were only 3-5 on the road this year, with two of those wins coming against the Bills and Jets.
Patriots fanholes are famous for their ability to think rationally about their football team. It's obviously a conspiracy by the NFL against them that Clete Blakeman is the referee. Never mind that he was the AFC Championship Game referee last year (when they won). All they're focused on is the fact that he was also the referee for the Deflategate game (which New England also won, by the way).
Well, I hate to break it to you Patriots fans, but who the referee is will matter very little in the outcome of the game. What the Chiefs need to do is not let the moment get the best of them. Mahomes and Co. just need to do what they've done all season. Controlling the ball will be key, too. Because they'll want to keep Brady off the field. Kansas City's defense obviously needs to step up, as well. And they need to have a better defensive game plan than the Chargers did. If Brady starts doing his thing, they need to make adjustments on the fly. It's going to be cold in Kansas City, though. Which means it might come down to the running game, where the Chiefs have the advantage.
When he was with the Eagles, Andy Reid developed a reputation for getting to the NFC Championship Game and not winning it. This is his first trip with Kansas City. He's been building the Chiefs to this point for a few years, and they are the best team in the AFC. Combine that with New England's road woes, and I think we'll see Kansas City in the Super Bowl for the first time in 49 years. The AFC Championship trophy is named after Chiefs founder Lamar Hunt. It's about time they got one.
Last Week: 3-1
Playoffs: 4-4
Overall: 166-96-2
Of the four possible Super Bowl matchups, Chiefs-Rams would by far be the most entertaining. But all four are intriguing in their own way. If it's Saints-Patriots, we've got two Hall of Famers still slinging it in their 40s. And Saints-Chiefs or Patriots-Rams would be one of those old guys against the new superstar QB.
In fact, that's what we've got in both Conference Championship Games. Can Patrick Mahomes and the Chiefs keep Bradicheck from going to their 85th Super Bowl together? Will Drew Brees add a second Super Bowl trip to his Hall of Fame resume or will the Rams get revenge for their first loss of the year?
Personally, I'd like to see a Chiefs-Rams Super Bowl, and not just because I, like most of America, am suffering from Patriots fatigue. It's because I think those truly are the two best teams in the NFL, and they have been all season. These are the four best teams in the league, though (which doesn't always happen in the Conference Championships), and both games could definitely go either way. They're both regular season rematches. But in each case, I'm going with the team that lost the first meeting.
Rams (14-3) at Saints (14-3): Rams-The first time these two met was in early November. The Rams came into New Orleans undefeated, only to be outscored by the Saints. At the time, most people thought it would determine the No. 1 seed in the NFC, and they turned out to be right. As that win gave New Orleans the right to host the rematch.
I'm expecting this one to be different. I'm thinking the defenses will play a much larger roll than they did in Week 9. Last week, New Orleans allowed touchdowns on the Eagles' first two possessions of the game. And then...nothing! The Rams, meanwhile, stopped Dallas when they needed to. Let's not forget, too, that they've got Aaron Donald, who just might be the best defensive player in football.
The biggest thing the Saints will have going for them isn't Drew Brees or their defense. It's that dome. They're tough to beat at home for a reason. Those fans provide a tremendous boost, and their offense is much more dynamic in that controlled environment. It's why home field advantage was so important to them. Which makes it even more imperative to get them off the field on third down. If Brees and Kamara can get into a rhythm, it'll be a long day for the Rams' defense.
However, the Rams' offense will also be different than when they first met the Saints. Todd Gurley is great, but they been operating at a different level offensively since they started splitting carries between him and C.J. Anderson in mid-December. Having a strong all-around running game has helped take some of the pressure off Jared Goff, which has helped him get his mojo back.
And that improved running game could be the difference. It's one element the Rams didn't have and the Saints took advantage of in the first meeting. If LA can run the ball effectively and control the clock, it'll limit the amount of damage Brees and Co. are able to do. In a close one, I say the Rams take it 24-21.
Patriots (12-5) at Chiefs (13-4): Kansas City-So much for the Chargers being the only team capable of giving the Patriots a game at Foxboro. New England dominated them from the start and never let up to secure their annual berth in the AFC Championship Game. The difference this time, though, is that they're on the road. And that could be a huge factor. Especially considering the fact that the AFC Championship Game has never been in Kansas City before.
A lot has been made about New England's dominance at home. And with good reason. They were the only team in the league to go undefeated in their own stadium this season and they've won nine consecutive home playoff games. They haven't won a playoff game on the road since 2006, though (of course, they never play any, but still). However, Bradicheck will have to take the show on the road this time, and that could prove to be a huge difference. Especially considering they were only 3-5 on the road this year, with two of those wins coming against the Bills and Jets.
Patriots fanholes are famous for their ability to think rationally about their football team. It's obviously a conspiracy by the NFL against them that Clete Blakeman is the referee. Never mind that he was the AFC Championship Game referee last year (when they won). All they're focused on is the fact that he was also the referee for the Deflategate game (which New England also won, by the way).
Well, I hate to break it to you Patriots fans, but who the referee is will matter very little in the outcome of the game. What the Chiefs need to do is not let the moment get the best of them. Mahomes and Co. just need to do what they've done all season. Controlling the ball will be key, too. Because they'll want to keep Brady off the field. Kansas City's defense obviously needs to step up, as well. And they need to have a better defensive game plan than the Chargers did. If Brady starts doing his thing, they need to make adjustments on the fly. It's going to be cold in Kansas City, though. Which means it might come down to the running game, where the Chiefs have the advantage.
When he was with the Eagles, Andy Reid developed a reputation for getting to the NFC Championship Game and not winning it. This is his first trip with Kansas City. He's been building the Chiefs to this point for a few years, and they are the best team in the AFC. Combine that with New England's road woes, and I think we'll see Kansas City in the Super Bowl for the first time in 49 years. The AFC Championship trophy is named after Chiefs founder Lamar Hunt. It's about time they got one.
Last Week: 3-1
Playoffs: 4-4
Overall: 166-96-2
Thursday, January 17, 2019
End of an Era at NBC
Bob Costas has always been my favorite sportscaster. As someone who grew up loving the Olympics, he essentially narrated my childhood and early adulthood. The first Olympics that I can truly remember is Barcelona 1992, which was his first as NBC's primetime host. So, for an entire generation of fans, he WAS the Olympics. The Games didn't start until Bob Costas welcomed us to the host city and they didn't end until his farewell message after the Closing Ceremony.
I always wanted to be a sportscaster growing up, and I thought he had the coolest job in the world. And I wanted it. I wanted to BE Bob Costas. I still kinda do.
My first job out of grad school was at Yale. A few months after I stopped working there, he spoke at Yale, and I went back for the speech. Then I was invited by my former boss to stick around for the dinner afterwards. I got the chance to meet my idol!
We all knew the day would eventually come when he was no longer NBC's Olympic host. And when NBC hired Mike Tirico away from ESPN, it was just as clear who his successor would be. And he's a worthy one. It was definitely a little weird to not have Bob Costas at the start of the PyeongChang Games. But Tirico didn't miss a beat. And by the end of the Olympics, you almost forgot he wasn't there. Which is more a credit to Mike Tirico than any sort of knock on Bob Costas.
He stepped away from the Olympics voluntarily. Part of the reason why was because he knew they were in good hands. Initially I thought he might take on a Tom Brokaw-type role and still do some feature stories in PyeongChang, so it was a bit of a surprise to not see him in Korea at all. But I can also understand that he wanted to make a clean break.
But not doing the Olympics and not wanting anything to do with football left him with very little to do at NBC period. Those are the network's two biggest sports properties, and he wasn't involved in either. He was noticeably absent from their Super Bowl LII coverage (even though Tirico was already in Korea preparing for the Olympics) and, outside of presenting the Triple Crown to Justify's owners at the Belmont, I can't even think of an NBC sporting event that he hosted instead of Tirico in 2018.
Rumors that he was no longer happy at NBC had been swirling for a while, so the exit after 40 years doesn't come as a complete surprise. Unlike Matt Lauer and Megyn Kelly, this one was completely mutual. Bob Costas could've stayed at NBC until his contract expired in 2021 if he wanted to, but he was ready to move on. And there's enough mutual respect that NBC wasn't going to make him stay.
As he said to the New York Post, which broke the story, "Sometimes you get to a point where it is not a fit anymore. It doesn't mean that anyone is angry or upset." I think that sums it up perfectly. He was the face of NBC Sports for a long time, but his role had changed and he was no longer content. He wanted that passion back.
His biggest passion is baseball, and he was inducted into the broadcasters' wing of the Hall of Fame last year. He's been involved with MLB Network since literally day one. The very first program on MLB Network 10 years ago was Don Larsen's perfect game, with Bob Costas hosting and interviewing both Larsen and Yogi Berra. He's done both games and studio stuff on MLB Network ever since. My guess is now he'll do more.
One of his greatest strengths as a broadcaster, though, is the fact that he's an incredible interviewer. It's because of his interview skills that he's won multiple Emmys. His interviewing talents went beyond sports, too. In fact, he hosted his own NBC late night talk show that aired after David Letterman for six years from 1988-94. There were also his HBO programs, On the Record and Costas Now, both of which were not only excellent, but incredibly well-received.
These are the types of projects that he wanted to get back to, but couldn't because of the restrictions in his NBC contract. Now he's free to pursue them, as well as other projects he's passionate about. Whether that means an increased presence on MLB Network (which seems likely) or a new show on another network remains to be seen. But what we do know is that we haven't seen the last of Bob Costas, Even though he won't be on NBC anymore, this is definitely not a retirement.
Which is a good thing. Because I don't think I'm mentally prepared for Bob Costas to not be on TV at all. We'll continue to enjoy his brilliant work on MLB Network, as well as whatever else he chooses to pursue. Still, it'll be weird to not see him on NBC. He may be moving on, but it was one hell of a run for Bob Costas at NBC Sports.
I always wanted to be a sportscaster growing up, and I thought he had the coolest job in the world. And I wanted it. I wanted to BE Bob Costas. I still kinda do.
My first job out of grad school was at Yale. A few months after I stopped working there, he spoke at Yale, and I went back for the speech. Then I was invited by my former boss to stick around for the dinner afterwards. I got the chance to meet my idol!
We all knew the day would eventually come when he was no longer NBC's Olympic host. And when NBC hired Mike Tirico away from ESPN, it was just as clear who his successor would be. And he's a worthy one. It was definitely a little weird to not have Bob Costas at the start of the PyeongChang Games. But Tirico didn't miss a beat. And by the end of the Olympics, you almost forgot he wasn't there. Which is more a credit to Mike Tirico than any sort of knock on Bob Costas.
He stepped away from the Olympics voluntarily. Part of the reason why was because he knew they were in good hands. Initially I thought he might take on a Tom Brokaw-type role and still do some feature stories in PyeongChang, so it was a bit of a surprise to not see him in Korea at all. But I can also understand that he wanted to make a clean break.
But not doing the Olympics and not wanting anything to do with football left him with very little to do at NBC period. Those are the network's two biggest sports properties, and he wasn't involved in either. He was noticeably absent from their Super Bowl LII coverage (even though Tirico was already in Korea preparing for the Olympics) and, outside of presenting the Triple Crown to Justify's owners at the Belmont, I can't even think of an NBC sporting event that he hosted instead of Tirico in 2018.
Rumors that he was no longer happy at NBC had been swirling for a while, so the exit after 40 years doesn't come as a complete surprise. Unlike Matt Lauer and Megyn Kelly, this one was completely mutual. Bob Costas could've stayed at NBC until his contract expired in 2021 if he wanted to, but he was ready to move on. And there's enough mutual respect that NBC wasn't going to make him stay.
As he said to the New York Post, which broke the story, "Sometimes you get to a point where it is not a fit anymore. It doesn't mean that anyone is angry or upset." I think that sums it up perfectly. He was the face of NBC Sports for a long time, but his role had changed and he was no longer content. He wanted that passion back.
His biggest passion is baseball, and he was inducted into the broadcasters' wing of the Hall of Fame last year. He's been involved with MLB Network since literally day one. The very first program on MLB Network 10 years ago was Don Larsen's perfect game, with Bob Costas hosting and interviewing both Larsen and Yogi Berra. He's done both games and studio stuff on MLB Network ever since. My guess is now he'll do more.
One of his greatest strengths as a broadcaster, though, is the fact that he's an incredible interviewer. It's because of his interview skills that he's won multiple Emmys. His interviewing talents went beyond sports, too. In fact, he hosted his own NBC late night talk show that aired after David Letterman for six years from 1988-94. There were also his HBO programs, On the Record and Costas Now, both of which were not only excellent, but incredibly well-received.
These are the types of projects that he wanted to get back to, but couldn't because of the restrictions in his NBC contract. Now he's free to pursue them, as well as other projects he's passionate about. Whether that means an increased presence on MLB Network (which seems likely) or a new show on another network remains to be seen. But what we do know is that we haven't seen the last of Bob Costas, Even though he won't be on NBC anymore, this is definitely not a retirement.
Which is a good thing. Because I don't think I'm mentally prepared for Bob Costas to not be on TV at all. We'll continue to enjoy his brilliant work on MLB Network, as well as whatever else he chooses to pursue. Still, it'll be weird to not see him on NBC. He may be moving on, but it was one hell of a run for Bob Costas at NBC Sports.
Sunday, January 13, 2019
Aussie Open 2019
There's one thing I forgot to mention in my post about Andy Murray's retirement the other day. I touched on it a little bit, but not to the extent I should've. Murray's won three Grand Slam titles and two Olympic gold medals. It certainly would've been more if he hadn't had the misfortune of playing at the same time as three all-time greats. But the fact that he was able to wrestle three away from them in this era actually speaks to Murray's greatness.
He's been a finalist in Australia five times, more than the other three Grand Slams put together. Yet he's never won the title Down Under, losing his first final to Federer and the others to Djokovic. Murray's not going to win this year, either. He might not even get out of the first round in his final Australian Open. But it would be great if he could somehow summon a run and win a round or two (which would almost guarantee he won't make it until Wimbledon).
Djokovic is the near-unanimous favorite on the men's side. And with good reason. He's clearly back to his old self after that 2017 wrist injury. In fact, he's halfway to a second Nole Slam after winning last year's Wimbledon and US Open. It was the third time that he won both Wimbledon and the US Open in the same year. And both previous times he followed it up by winning in Australia.
This has traditionally been his best tournament. He's won six titles, including a ridiculous five in six years from 2011-16. Djokovic and two-time defending champion Roger Federer are tied for the all-time record with six Australian Open titles, and it's a good bet that one of them will hold the record all by himself in two weeks. Because between them, they've won 12 of the last 15 tournaments. And there's no reason to think one of them won't win again this year.
And with Djokovic and Federer on opposite sides of the draw, I'm even having a hard time envisioning someone else preventing them from facing each other in the final. Sure, Federer's road is a little harder. He could see Marin Cilic in a rematch of last year's final in the quarters, then potentially face Nadal in the semis. Djokovic, meanwhile, I'd be very surprised if he even drops a set before the final.
Another potential highlight of the men's draw is the possible round of 16 match between Kevin Anderson and John Isner. It was the six-hour Wimbledon semifinal between those two that got the powers-to-be at the All-England Club to finally give in and institute final-set tiebreakers.
They'll be using final-set tiebreakers here for the first time, too. Which is long overdue. Because Melbourne is notorious for its summer heat, and that often becomes a storyline unto itself every year. With final set tiebreakers, the midday five-set marathons in that heat, while not being eliminated completely, now have a definite endpoint. And that should result in fewer retirements, as well as potentially keeping those players fresher later in the tournament.
Serena Williams is the pre-tournament favorite on the women's side. But the margin between her and the other women is much closer than the margin between Djokovic vs. the men's field. There are a number of women I can see hoisting the trophy, including defending champion Caroline Wozniacki, 2016 winner Angelique Kerber and world No. 1 Simona Halep. As well as the last two US Open champs--Sloane Stephens and Naomi Osaka.
Let's start with Serena. This is her first trip to Australia since winning the title while pregnant in 2017. That was her 23rd Grand Slam title, leaving her one shy of tying Margaret Court (the namesake for one of the Australian Open's stadiums) for the all-time record. Like Djokovic, there's no question Serena's back. She made that abundantly clear by reaching the final at both Wimbledon and the US Open. She lost both, though, (the US Open loss to Osaka in spectacular fashion) so her total stays at 23. Can she get the 24th here?
Her draw isn't exactly easy. No special seeding for her. She's ranked 16th, so she was seeded 16th. Although that meant she would draw a top-8 seed in the round of 16, and the top-8 seed she ended up with was No. 1 Halep, assuming Halep beats Venus (who's unseeded after dropping to No. 37 in the world) in the previous round.
Of course, everyone knows that that when Serena Williams is involved, you can throw the rankings out the window. When she's healthy, she's the best player in the world. Nothing has changed. But, as Kerber proved in the final here three years ago and Osaka proved in the US Open final, she's not invincible. And Serena has lost to some no-names at Grand Slams during her career, as well. She deserves to be the favorite, but this isn't Nadal at the French. She'll have to earn it.
I'm also curious to see what kind of a tournament Woz is going to have. She finally got that Grand Slam monkey off her back last year. Now she'll return to Australia as the defending champion, which brings a whole different set of challenges/expectations. She's also been notorious for some early Grand Slam exits. In fact, it's usually all or nothing with Wozniacki. She either loses in the first week or makes a deep run. Which Woz will show up?
Woziacki, by the way, could end up playing Sharapova in the third round, a matchup that would almost be worth waking up at 3:30 in the morning to watch. It was the Australian Open, of course, that triggered Maria's meldonium suspension in 2016. Last year was her first time back and she made the third round. But, like a Serena, a healthy and in-form Maria Sharapova is always a threat. If she doesn't lose in the first or second round.
None of these women are my pick, though. That would be Angelique Kerber. She picked Serena apart in winning the 2016 title, a year in which she made three Grand Slam finals and was the year-end No. 1. After struggling in 2017, Kerber returned to that championship form last year. I think that continues into 2019. In a repeat of 2016, gimme Kerber over Serena for the title.
He's been a finalist in Australia five times, more than the other three Grand Slams put together. Yet he's never won the title Down Under, losing his first final to Federer and the others to Djokovic. Murray's not going to win this year, either. He might not even get out of the first round in his final Australian Open. But it would be great if he could somehow summon a run and win a round or two (which would almost guarantee he won't make it until Wimbledon).
Djokovic is the near-unanimous favorite on the men's side. And with good reason. He's clearly back to his old self after that 2017 wrist injury. In fact, he's halfway to a second Nole Slam after winning last year's Wimbledon and US Open. It was the third time that he won both Wimbledon and the US Open in the same year. And both previous times he followed it up by winning in Australia.
This has traditionally been his best tournament. He's won six titles, including a ridiculous five in six years from 2011-16. Djokovic and two-time defending champion Roger Federer are tied for the all-time record with six Australian Open titles, and it's a good bet that one of them will hold the record all by himself in two weeks. Because between them, they've won 12 of the last 15 tournaments. And there's no reason to think one of them won't win again this year.
And with Djokovic and Federer on opposite sides of the draw, I'm even having a hard time envisioning someone else preventing them from facing each other in the final. Sure, Federer's road is a little harder. He could see Marin Cilic in a rematch of last year's final in the quarters, then potentially face Nadal in the semis. Djokovic, meanwhile, I'd be very surprised if he even drops a set before the final.
Another potential highlight of the men's draw is the possible round of 16 match between Kevin Anderson and John Isner. It was the six-hour Wimbledon semifinal between those two that got the powers-to-be at the All-England Club to finally give in and institute final-set tiebreakers.
They'll be using final-set tiebreakers here for the first time, too. Which is long overdue. Because Melbourne is notorious for its summer heat, and that often becomes a storyline unto itself every year. With final set tiebreakers, the midday five-set marathons in that heat, while not being eliminated completely, now have a definite endpoint. And that should result in fewer retirements, as well as potentially keeping those players fresher later in the tournament.
Serena Williams is the pre-tournament favorite on the women's side. But the margin between her and the other women is much closer than the margin between Djokovic vs. the men's field. There are a number of women I can see hoisting the trophy, including defending champion Caroline Wozniacki, 2016 winner Angelique Kerber and world No. 1 Simona Halep. As well as the last two US Open champs--Sloane Stephens and Naomi Osaka.
Let's start with Serena. This is her first trip to Australia since winning the title while pregnant in 2017. That was her 23rd Grand Slam title, leaving her one shy of tying Margaret Court (the namesake for one of the Australian Open's stadiums) for the all-time record. Like Djokovic, there's no question Serena's back. She made that abundantly clear by reaching the final at both Wimbledon and the US Open. She lost both, though, (the US Open loss to Osaka in spectacular fashion) so her total stays at 23. Can she get the 24th here?
Her draw isn't exactly easy. No special seeding for her. She's ranked 16th, so she was seeded 16th. Although that meant she would draw a top-8 seed in the round of 16, and the top-8 seed she ended up with was No. 1 Halep, assuming Halep beats Venus (who's unseeded after dropping to No. 37 in the world) in the previous round.
Of course, everyone knows that that when Serena Williams is involved, you can throw the rankings out the window. When she's healthy, she's the best player in the world. Nothing has changed. But, as Kerber proved in the final here three years ago and Osaka proved in the US Open final, she's not invincible. And Serena has lost to some no-names at Grand Slams during her career, as well. She deserves to be the favorite, but this isn't Nadal at the French. She'll have to earn it.
I'm also curious to see what kind of a tournament Woz is going to have. She finally got that Grand Slam monkey off her back last year. Now she'll return to Australia as the defending champion, which brings a whole different set of challenges/expectations. She's also been notorious for some early Grand Slam exits. In fact, it's usually all or nothing with Wozniacki. She either loses in the first week or makes a deep run. Which Woz will show up?
Woziacki, by the way, could end up playing Sharapova in the third round, a matchup that would almost be worth waking up at 3:30 in the morning to watch. It was the Australian Open, of course, that triggered Maria's meldonium suspension in 2016. Last year was her first time back and she made the third round. But, like a Serena, a healthy and in-form Maria Sharapova is always a threat. If she doesn't lose in the first or second round.
None of these women are my pick, though. That would be Angelique Kerber. She picked Serena apart in winning the 2016 title, a year in which she made three Grand Slam finals and was the year-end No. 1. After struggling in 2017, Kerber returned to that championship form last year. I think that continues into 2019. In a repeat of 2016, gimme Kerber over Serena for the title.
Saturday, January 12, 2019
NFL Playoffs, Round 2
All four teams that won last week have the same game time this week. That has nothing to do with anything. Just a fun fact that I'm not sure has ever happened before.
Outside of Colts-Texans and the first three quarters of Chargers-Ravens, we had some really entertaining games last week. And now we move on to what many consider the best week in football. The Divisional Playoffs. The four best teams in the league are well-rested and at home, knowing that they're two wins away from the Super Bowl. Although, if last week's winners play like that again, all four home teams could definitely be vulnerable. Whoever plays in the conference championship games is definitely going to earn it.
Colts (11-6) at Chiefs (12-4): Kansas City-Kansas City has never beaten Indianapolis in the playoffs in four all-time meetings. And the last one, which wasn't too long ago, featured that ridiculous Andrew Luck comeback in the fourth quarter, as Indy won 45-44. You know that game is in the back of the Chiefs' minds. As are the two-point loss to the Steelers two years ago and the one-point loss to Tennessee last season. So, for all their regular season success, the pressure is definitely on for the AFC's No. 1 seed.
If the Chiefs want to shed that label as a great regular season team and get the monkey off Andy Reid's back (did it follow him from Philadelphia?), they can't have another playoff one-and-done. Especially with home field advantage (even though those losses to Pittsburgh and Tennessee were both at home). Especially with a team this good. The Chiefs have a chance to reach their first AFC Championship Game in 25 years. But they're definitely gonna need to earn it.
Of course, streaking Indianapolis is the team no one wants to face right now. The Colts thoroughly dismantled the Texans last week for their 10th win in 11 games. If they play like that again, Kansas City won't be able to get away with any mistakes. I'm not saying the Chiefs need to play the perfect game, but Patrick Mahomes' first playoff start can't be like DeShaun Watson's. I don't think it will be. This Chiefs team is too good. Get ready for the AFC Championship Game to be in Kansas City for the first time ever.
Cowboys (11-6) at Rams (13-3): Rams-Other than the Eagles, there was probably no team happier Cody Parkey hit the post than the Los Angeles Rams. Now, instead of playing the Bears, they're playing the Cowboys (and the Saints have to deal with Philadelphia). Which is a much better matchup for them.
That was an impressive performance Dallas had against Seattle. But that was at Jerry's World, and we all know they're a totally different team away from home. So, doing it again on the road against a rested Rams offense is a different proposition altogether. Having to play for a bye in Week 17 might've been a good thing for them. Because they got their offensive mojo back. And the Dallas defense they'll face is nothing compared to the Bears defense that held them to six points in the regular season. You know they have to be relieved about that.
Believe it or not, this is the ninth all-time playoff matchup between these two, although they haven't met since the 1985 Divisional round. The series is even at 4-4. Will the Rams break the tie and make their first NFC Championship Game trip in 17 years? Or will the Cowboys go for the first time in 23 seasons? Sorry Dallas, but this Rams team has seemed destined for the NFC Championship Game all season.
Chargers (13-4) at Patriots (11-5): Chargers-It's an NFL rule that the Patriots play in the AFC Championship Game. But of their three possible Divisional Playoff opponents, the one they least wanted to play was probably the Chargers. Because the Chargers aren't going to be intimidated going into Foxboro. And New England knows it. Phillip Rivers has been waiting 11 years to get another shot at the Patriots in the playoffs. He's ready for it. He said as much in his postgame interview after the Chargers beat Baltimore.
Of the four road teams this week, I think the Chargers have the best chance of pulling it off. And it's because of their defense. They won't be able to get away with that brilliant defensive game plan they used against Baltimore again this week. Not against Tom Brady. But you know they've got something else up their sleeves. Of course, so do Brady and Belichick. New England has been to seven straight AFC Championship Games for a reason, after all. So it's really a matter of which team's creative thinking during the week (or, in Brady's case, the game) was better that could prove to be the difference.
The Chargers haven't lost a game outside of Southern California all year. The Patriots are the only team in the NFL that went undefeated at home during the regular season. So something's gotta give here. Call me crazy, but I think the Chargers can pull it off. For the first time in eight years, Bradicheck will be watching the AFC Championship Game.
Eagles (10-7) at Saints (13-3): New Orleans-Ending the week is the matchup that looks the best on paper and is the one people are looking forward to the most. If not for the Minneapolis Miracle, it would've been the NFC Championship Game matchup last season. Now you've got the red-hot defending champs heading south to take on the team with the best record in football. And adding to the intrigue is the fact that Drew Brees and Nick Foles went to the same high school.
Foles just has an aura around him. As great as Carson Wentz is, the Eagles simply can't lose with Foles under center. It's not a coincidence that this run started when he took over as the starter after Wentz got hurt. But how long can it continue? It almost came to an end last week, but that Foles magic continued in Chicago. Going to New Orleans and playing the Saints offense on that turf is a completely different proposition, though.
Yes, New Orleans did lose to Carolina in Week 17. But the main reason for that is because the Saints completely didn't care one iota about that game. They'll amp it back up for the playoffs. And beating them in the Superdome isn't going to be easy. This might be where Foles' magic runs out. After all, the Football Gods owe New Orleans one after what happened to them last year. (Although, I haven't picked Philadelphia once in a single playoff game over the past two seasons, so Eagles fans will probably end up thanking me for picking the Saints after they're done booking their flights to LA.)
Last Week: 1-3
Regular Season: 162-92-2
Overall: 163-95-2
Outside of Colts-Texans and the first three quarters of Chargers-Ravens, we had some really entertaining games last week. And now we move on to what many consider the best week in football. The Divisional Playoffs. The four best teams in the league are well-rested and at home, knowing that they're two wins away from the Super Bowl. Although, if last week's winners play like that again, all four home teams could definitely be vulnerable. Whoever plays in the conference championship games is definitely going to earn it.
Colts (11-6) at Chiefs (12-4): Kansas City-Kansas City has never beaten Indianapolis in the playoffs in four all-time meetings. And the last one, which wasn't too long ago, featured that ridiculous Andrew Luck comeback in the fourth quarter, as Indy won 45-44. You know that game is in the back of the Chiefs' minds. As are the two-point loss to the Steelers two years ago and the one-point loss to Tennessee last season. So, for all their regular season success, the pressure is definitely on for the AFC's No. 1 seed.
If the Chiefs want to shed that label as a great regular season team and get the monkey off Andy Reid's back (did it follow him from Philadelphia?), they can't have another playoff one-and-done. Especially with home field advantage (even though those losses to Pittsburgh and Tennessee were both at home). Especially with a team this good. The Chiefs have a chance to reach their first AFC Championship Game in 25 years. But they're definitely gonna need to earn it.
Of course, streaking Indianapolis is the team no one wants to face right now. The Colts thoroughly dismantled the Texans last week for their 10th win in 11 games. If they play like that again, Kansas City won't be able to get away with any mistakes. I'm not saying the Chiefs need to play the perfect game, but Patrick Mahomes' first playoff start can't be like DeShaun Watson's. I don't think it will be. This Chiefs team is too good. Get ready for the AFC Championship Game to be in Kansas City for the first time ever.
Cowboys (11-6) at Rams (13-3): Rams-Other than the Eagles, there was probably no team happier Cody Parkey hit the post than the Los Angeles Rams. Now, instead of playing the Bears, they're playing the Cowboys (and the Saints have to deal with Philadelphia). Which is a much better matchup for them.
That was an impressive performance Dallas had against Seattle. But that was at Jerry's World, and we all know they're a totally different team away from home. So, doing it again on the road against a rested Rams offense is a different proposition altogether. Having to play for a bye in Week 17 might've been a good thing for them. Because they got their offensive mojo back. And the Dallas defense they'll face is nothing compared to the Bears defense that held them to six points in the regular season. You know they have to be relieved about that.
Believe it or not, this is the ninth all-time playoff matchup between these two, although they haven't met since the 1985 Divisional round. The series is even at 4-4. Will the Rams break the tie and make their first NFC Championship Game trip in 17 years? Or will the Cowboys go for the first time in 23 seasons? Sorry Dallas, but this Rams team has seemed destined for the NFC Championship Game all season.
Chargers (13-4) at Patriots (11-5): Chargers-It's an NFL rule that the Patriots play in the AFC Championship Game. But of their three possible Divisional Playoff opponents, the one they least wanted to play was probably the Chargers. Because the Chargers aren't going to be intimidated going into Foxboro. And New England knows it. Phillip Rivers has been waiting 11 years to get another shot at the Patriots in the playoffs. He's ready for it. He said as much in his postgame interview after the Chargers beat Baltimore.
Of the four road teams this week, I think the Chargers have the best chance of pulling it off. And it's because of their defense. They won't be able to get away with that brilliant defensive game plan they used against Baltimore again this week. Not against Tom Brady. But you know they've got something else up their sleeves. Of course, so do Brady and Belichick. New England has been to seven straight AFC Championship Games for a reason, after all. So it's really a matter of which team's creative thinking during the week (or, in Brady's case, the game) was better that could prove to be the difference.
The Chargers haven't lost a game outside of Southern California all year. The Patriots are the only team in the NFL that went undefeated at home during the regular season. So something's gotta give here. Call me crazy, but I think the Chargers can pull it off. For the first time in eight years, Bradicheck will be watching the AFC Championship Game.
Eagles (10-7) at Saints (13-3): New Orleans-Ending the week is the matchup that looks the best on paper and is the one people are looking forward to the most. If not for the Minneapolis Miracle, it would've been the NFC Championship Game matchup last season. Now you've got the red-hot defending champs heading south to take on the team with the best record in football. And adding to the intrigue is the fact that Drew Brees and Nick Foles went to the same high school.
Foles just has an aura around him. As great as Carson Wentz is, the Eagles simply can't lose with Foles under center. It's not a coincidence that this run started when he took over as the starter after Wentz got hurt. But how long can it continue? It almost came to an end last week, but that Foles magic continued in Chicago. Going to New Orleans and playing the Saints offense on that turf is a completely different proposition, though.
Yes, New Orleans did lose to Carolina in Week 17. But the main reason for that is because the Saints completely didn't care one iota about that game. They'll amp it back up for the playoffs. And beating them in the Superdome isn't going to be easy. This might be where Foles' magic runs out. After all, the Football Gods owe New Orleans one after what happened to them last year. (Although, I haven't picked Philadelphia once in a single playoff game over the past two seasons, so Eagles fans will probably end up thanking me for picking the Saints after they're done booking their flights to LA.)
Last Week: 1-3
Regular Season: 162-92-2
Overall: 163-95-2
Thursday, January 10, 2019
Big Four Down to Three
It's been a rough year and a half for Andy Murray. He's barely played over the last 18 months because of a hip injury. We all kept hoping that by taking the appropriate amount of time off, he'd get back to his old form and the Big Four would all be battling out at the top again.
Well, unfortunately, that's not going to happen. When Murray returned, he was a shell of his former self. The pain clearly hadn't gone away. And it still hasn't. Which is why he made the announcement today that he's retiring after Wimbledon. If he can make it that far. Murray's not even sure his body will make it past the Australian Open.
Murray's preference is obviously to go out at Wimbledon. And it should be. I'd even argue that he shouldn't play at all between now and then. Because it'll be a shame if the greatest British player of the Open Era (if not ever) doesn't get a chance to say goodbye on the grounds of the All-England Club. Which is why, after the Australian Open, I don't think he should play again before Wimbledon. As a former champ and, more importantly, as a Brit, he'll get a wild card. And that way his final match will be where it should be. On Centre Court.
Because Andy Murray's career was defined by those grass courts where most of his greatest moments took place. He was the great British hope to finally win at home after all those years. In 2012, he finally got to the final, only to fall victim to Roger Federer's greatness. But it just so happened that the Olympics were in London that year and the tennis tournament, of course, was being held at Wimbledon. And, just a few weeks after that loss, Andy Murray won the gold medal for Great Britain on Centre Court (with Will & Kate sitting in the Royal Box). He followed that up by winning the US Open.
Then in 2013, the drought finally ended. He became the first British man to win the Wimbledon title since 1936. Three years later, he did it again. Before defending his Olympic gold medal a few weeks later in Rio, making him the first player to do that (he's also got a mixed doubles silver from London). Oh, and Murray also went 11-0 in Davis Cup in 2015, as Great Britain won its first title in nearly 80 years.
Who knows how many more Grand Slam titles he'd won if not for Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic. Murray lost three Grand Slam finals to Federer and five to Djokovic, who he's also beaten twice. But he also achieved what many thought was impossible. He broke through and turned the Big Three into a Big Four. He was even ranked No. 1 for 41 weeks in 2016-17.
But if you asked me which of the four would be the first to retire, Murray would've been my fourth choice. In fact, he was the one I figured would keep playing the longest. Roger's the oldest, Nadal's style of play is so brutal on the body that he won't be able to handle it physically too much longer, and Djokovic has had his own injury issues that now seem to be resolved. Murray, meanwhile, was the one guy you always expected to see there, even if he wasn't necessarily at his best.
Unfortunately, his hip had other ideas. And I give Murray credit for deciding that his health comes first. He doesn't want to play in pain, and he doesn't want to keep having surgery after surgery just so he can maybe come back and play again. Especially since there's no guarantee he'd ever get back to that top level. Murray has indicated that he will have another surgery. Because he wants to be pain-free in his everyday life. And if that's his reason for stepping away, you have to respect that.
He seems completely at peace with the decision, too. Nobody knows what's going on in the heads of professional athletes when they're faced with the finality of the career that has defined them for so long. But tennis players, by and large, tend to be different. When they step away, they're away. Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi knew it was time, and Andy Roddick has never thought twice about it. I think it'll be the same with the British Andy.
Of course, retired tennis players are never truly away from the game. Many go on to second careers as coaches or broadcasters (or both), and I have no doubt it'll be the same for Andy Murray. He'd probably be successful as either. And it seems highly likely that he'll end up becoming the British Davis Cup captain at some point in the near future.
Which isn't to say the thought of men's tennis without Andy Murray won't require some getting used to. The British fans won't have one of their own to go crazy for at Wimbledon. The Big Four will be down a member. The Djokovic-Federer-Nadal triumvirate won't have to deal with the counter-puncher who held his own against all three of them.
When he beat James Duckworth on New Year's Day in the first round of the Brisbane International, a clearly emotional Murray made it pretty obvious he was close to the end. A great moment to start 2019 after a miserable 2018. Hopefully that's not the last great moment of his career. Hopefully he's still got one or two left in him.
Hopefully he makes it to Wimbledon. Because Andy Murray deserves to go out with an adoring Centre Court showering him with cheers after his final match. But if he doesn't, that adoration will come in Australia, where he's made the final five times. Wherever those final cheers come, he'll deserve every one of them.
Andy Murray was one of the best players of his generation. He gave his all to the sport. He gave so much, in fact, that he doesn't have anything left to give. His body won't let him do it anymore. So he's hanging it up. On his own terms.
Well, unfortunately, that's not going to happen. When Murray returned, he was a shell of his former self. The pain clearly hadn't gone away. And it still hasn't. Which is why he made the announcement today that he's retiring after Wimbledon. If he can make it that far. Murray's not even sure his body will make it past the Australian Open.
Murray's preference is obviously to go out at Wimbledon. And it should be. I'd even argue that he shouldn't play at all between now and then. Because it'll be a shame if the greatest British player of the Open Era (if not ever) doesn't get a chance to say goodbye on the grounds of the All-England Club. Which is why, after the Australian Open, I don't think he should play again before Wimbledon. As a former champ and, more importantly, as a Brit, he'll get a wild card. And that way his final match will be where it should be. On Centre Court.
Because Andy Murray's career was defined by those grass courts where most of his greatest moments took place. He was the great British hope to finally win at home after all those years. In 2012, he finally got to the final, only to fall victim to Roger Federer's greatness. But it just so happened that the Olympics were in London that year and the tennis tournament, of course, was being held at Wimbledon. And, just a few weeks after that loss, Andy Murray won the gold medal for Great Britain on Centre Court (with Will & Kate sitting in the Royal Box). He followed that up by winning the US Open.
Then in 2013, the drought finally ended. He became the first British man to win the Wimbledon title since 1936. Three years later, he did it again. Before defending his Olympic gold medal a few weeks later in Rio, making him the first player to do that (he's also got a mixed doubles silver from London). Oh, and Murray also went 11-0 in Davis Cup in 2015, as Great Britain won its first title in nearly 80 years.
Who knows how many more Grand Slam titles he'd won if not for Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic. Murray lost three Grand Slam finals to Federer and five to Djokovic, who he's also beaten twice. But he also achieved what many thought was impossible. He broke through and turned the Big Three into a Big Four. He was even ranked No. 1 for 41 weeks in 2016-17.
But if you asked me which of the four would be the first to retire, Murray would've been my fourth choice. In fact, he was the one I figured would keep playing the longest. Roger's the oldest, Nadal's style of play is so brutal on the body that he won't be able to handle it physically too much longer, and Djokovic has had his own injury issues that now seem to be resolved. Murray, meanwhile, was the one guy you always expected to see there, even if he wasn't necessarily at his best.
Unfortunately, his hip had other ideas. And I give Murray credit for deciding that his health comes first. He doesn't want to play in pain, and he doesn't want to keep having surgery after surgery just so he can maybe come back and play again. Especially since there's no guarantee he'd ever get back to that top level. Murray has indicated that he will have another surgery. Because he wants to be pain-free in his everyday life. And if that's his reason for stepping away, you have to respect that.
He seems completely at peace with the decision, too. Nobody knows what's going on in the heads of professional athletes when they're faced with the finality of the career that has defined them for so long. But tennis players, by and large, tend to be different. When they step away, they're away. Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi knew it was time, and Andy Roddick has never thought twice about it. I think it'll be the same with the British Andy.
Of course, retired tennis players are never truly away from the game. Many go on to second careers as coaches or broadcasters (or both), and I have no doubt it'll be the same for Andy Murray. He'd probably be successful as either. And it seems highly likely that he'll end up becoming the British Davis Cup captain at some point in the near future.
Which isn't to say the thought of men's tennis without Andy Murray won't require some getting used to. The British fans won't have one of their own to go crazy for at Wimbledon. The Big Four will be down a member. The Djokovic-Federer-Nadal triumvirate won't have to deal with the counter-puncher who held his own against all three of them.
When he beat James Duckworth on New Year's Day in the first round of the Brisbane International, a clearly emotional Murray made it pretty obvious he was close to the end. A great moment to start 2019 after a miserable 2018. Hopefully that's not the last great moment of his career. Hopefully he's still got one or two left in him.
Hopefully he makes it to Wimbledon. Because Andy Murray deserves to go out with an adoring Centre Court showering him with cheers after his final match. But if he doesn't, that adoration will come in Australia, where he's made the final five times. Wherever those final cheers come, he'll deserve every one of them.
Andy Murray was one of the best players of his generation. He gave his all to the sport. He gave so much, in fact, that he doesn't have anything left to give. His body won't let him do it anymore. So he's hanging it up. On his own terms.
Monday, January 7, 2019
Where's Joe (Flacco) Gonna Go?
As the baseball world waits for Bryce Harper to re-sign with Washington and Manny Machado to decide between the Yankees and the Phillies, one of the biggest names in football who'll be switching teams can begin plotting his next course. Despite Lamar Jackson's miserable performance for three quarters, Joe Flacco sat on the bench in a ski cap and Ravens parka as Baltimore's season came to an end on Sunday. The fact that he never entered the game, even if John Harbaugh insists he "considered" it at halftime, makes it pretty obvious that the Ravens have moved on. Which means Flacco soon will too.
And Flacco will have no shortage of suitors. It's not everyday that a proven winner who's been a Super Bowl MVP hits the open market. The last time it happened, Peyton Manning went to Denver, and all the Broncos did in four seasons with them was win a Super Bowl, go to another, and get a playoff bye every year. I'm not saying that's going to happen again. Joe Flacco's no Peyton Manning. But he'll be highly sought-after. With good reason. And, like Manning, Flacco will probably get to choose his destination.
There are some teams in need of a quarterback who'll likely pursue on in the draft. And some potential landing spots are also in the midst of a coaching search, which they'll obviously need to take care of first. Likewise, some teams may be hoping Flacco's willing to take a backup role. There's also the possibility, however unlikely, that he goes into training camp unsigned and lands somewhere when the starter suffers an injury, which obviously nobody hopes happens.
The way I see it, there are three teams that make the most sense for Flacco, and he'd immediately be inserted as the starter with any of them. Two are currently without a coach, though. But, assuming they hire one before the Super Bowl, Flacco's pending availability could solve a quarterback problem that's been a consistent issue for both of them.
I'm, of course, talking about Denver and Miami. The Broncos' last playoff game was Super Bowl 50, after which Peyton Manning retired. They've spent the last three seasons looking for his replacement. Trevor Siemian wasn't it. Neither was Brock Osweiler. Or Paxton Lynch. They thought they found the answer in Case Keenum. As it turns out, he wasn't it, either. So, they're still looking.
Meanwhile, the Dolphins have spent 20 years looking for another Dan Marino. With the exception of 2017 when he was injured, Ryan Tannehill has been Miami's starter since 2012. His career record is 42-46. The Dolphins have made the playoffs a grand total of once since then. When Matt Moore started a 30-12 loss to the Steelers in the wild card round. If it isn't obvious by now, they ain't beating Bradicheck with Ryan Tannehill at quarterback. It's time to move on.
So, if those are options 1 and 1A and they're both interested, which one is a better fit? Probably Denver. The Broncos have an elite defense. That hasn't changed in the three years they've been out of the playoffs. They just need a quarterback who's good enough to get the job done. Which is exactly what Joe Flacco is. Heck, he won a Super Bowl as a game manager for an elite defense. And his pedigree is far superior to any of the quarterbacks Denver has tried since Peyton exited stage right.
Denver is also a better team than Miami. Yes, the Broncos went just 11-21 over the past two seasons. But they've still got Von Miller and a bunch of other pieces from the Super Bowl winners of just four seasons ago. Plus, Denver's got John Elway. The Hall of Fame quarterback already lured one high-profile passer to Denver after he was cut loose by his former team. It's not unreasonable to think he'll make the same move for Flacco.
Miami's problems are far bigger than just New England. The Dolphins (like the rest of the AFC East) simply aren't that good. They need much more than a quarterback to be competitive, especially since the Patriots have given no indication of giving up their stranglehold on the division. Yes, Flacco would be an improvement over Tannehill. But he's not enough to put them over the top.
Or maybe that third team will end up winning the Flacco Sweepstakes. That third team is the Jacksonville Jaguars. Jacksonville is similar to Denver (and Baltimore) in a lot of ways. The Jaguars have an elite defense. It got them to the AFC Championship Game last season. What they don't have is the offense to go with it. Blake Bortles is a completely serviceable NFL quarterback. But he's not an NFL starter. Joe Flacco is.
Of course, there's also the possibility that Flacco is willing to accept a backup job for whatever reason. Which opens up a whole new group of teams. Maybe a team like Arizona or the Jets that's looking for a veteran to mentor their young starter. Maybe a team like the Rams that want a proven backup just in case something happens. Or maybe Flacco takes a backup job simply for the chance to win another ring.
That seems unlikely, but it isn't completely out of the question. Although, I think it'll be down to a choice between Denver and Miami. And the option that makes the most sense is the Denver Broncos. Expect to see Joe Flacco wearing orange next season.
And Flacco will have no shortage of suitors. It's not everyday that a proven winner who's been a Super Bowl MVP hits the open market. The last time it happened, Peyton Manning went to Denver, and all the Broncos did in four seasons with them was win a Super Bowl, go to another, and get a playoff bye every year. I'm not saying that's going to happen again. Joe Flacco's no Peyton Manning. But he'll be highly sought-after. With good reason. And, like Manning, Flacco will probably get to choose his destination.
There are some teams in need of a quarterback who'll likely pursue on in the draft. And some potential landing spots are also in the midst of a coaching search, which they'll obviously need to take care of first. Likewise, some teams may be hoping Flacco's willing to take a backup role. There's also the possibility, however unlikely, that he goes into training camp unsigned and lands somewhere when the starter suffers an injury, which obviously nobody hopes happens.
The way I see it, there are three teams that make the most sense for Flacco, and he'd immediately be inserted as the starter with any of them. Two are currently without a coach, though. But, assuming they hire one before the Super Bowl, Flacco's pending availability could solve a quarterback problem that's been a consistent issue for both of them.
I'm, of course, talking about Denver and Miami. The Broncos' last playoff game was Super Bowl 50, after which Peyton Manning retired. They've spent the last three seasons looking for his replacement. Trevor Siemian wasn't it. Neither was Brock Osweiler. Or Paxton Lynch. They thought they found the answer in Case Keenum. As it turns out, he wasn't it, either. So, they're still looking.
Meanwhile, the Dolphins have spent 20 years looking for another Dan Marino. With the exception of 2017 when he was injured, Ryan Tannehill has been Miami's starter since 2012. His career record is 42-46. The Dolphins have made the playoffs a grand total of once since then. When Matt Moore started a 30-12 loss to the Steelers in the wild card round. If it isn't obvious by now, they ain't beating Bradicheck with Ryan Tannehill at quarterback. It's time to move on.
So, if those are options 1 and 1A and they're both interested, which one is a better fit? Probably Denver. The Broncos have an elite defense. That hasn't changed in the three years they've been out of the playoffs. They just need a quarterback who's good enough to get the job done. Which is exactly what Joe Flacco is. Heck, he won a Super Bowl as a game manager for an elite defense. And his pedigree is far superior to any of the quarterbacks Denver has tried since Peyton exited stage right.
Denver is also a better team than Miami. Yes, the Broncos went just 11-21 over the past two seasons. But they've still got Von Miller and a bunch of other pieces from the Super Bowl winners of just four seasons ago. Plus, Denver's got John Elway. The Hall of Fame quarterback already lured one high-profile passer to Denver after he was cut loose by his former team. It's not unreasonable to think he'll make the same move for Flacco.
Miami's problems are far bigger than just New England. The Dolphins (like the rest of the AFC East) simply aren't that good. They need much more than a quarterback to be competitive, especially since the Patriots have given no indication of giving up their stranglehold on the division. Yes, Flacco would be an improvement over Tannehill. But he's not enough to put them over the top.
Or maybe that third team will end up winning the Flacco Sweepstakes. That third team is the Jacksonville Jaguars. Jacksonville is similar to Denver (and Baltimore) in a lot of ways. The Jaguars have an elite defense. It got them to the AFC Championship Game last season. What they don't have is the offense to go with it. Blake Bortles is a completely serviceable NFL quarterback. But he's not an NFL starter. Joe Flacco is.
Of course, there's also the possibility that Flacco is willing to accept a backup job for whatever reason. Which opens up a whole new group of teams. Maybe a team like Arizona or the Jets that's looking for a veteran to mentor their young starter. Maybe a team like the Rams that want a proven backup just in case something happens. Or maybe Flacco takes a backup job simply for the chance to win another ring.
That seems unlikely, but it isn't completely out of the question. Although, I think it'll be down to a choice between Denver and Miami. And the option that makes the most sense is the Denver Broncos. Expect to see Joe Flacco wearing orange next season.
Saturday, January 5, 2019
NFL Playoffs, Round 1
For the first time since the 2006 season, both the Steelers and Packers missed the playoffs. It'll definitely be weird not seeing either one of them, but that's not the only thing that'll be different this year. These playoffs are so wide open that you can realistically see almost every team making its way to Atlanta.
Of course, the four teams that have byes have them for a reason, but I don't think any of this week's winners will be intimidated going into their building next week. Just like I can easily see all four road teams winning this week. But we could just as easily see all four home teams win. The differences between the sides in all four of these matchups are so minimal. It should make for some great football.
Colts (10-6) at Texans (11-5): Houston-Not surprisingly, the AFC South matchup gets us started on Saturday afternoon. What a job by both of these teams to get into the playoffs. Houston started 0-3. Indianapolis was 1-5. Yet here they are still playing in January.
It's always interesting whenever division teams face each other in the playoffs. The familiarity and dislike generally leads to a third game that was similar to the first two. And I'd expect this to be no different. They split during the regular season, with Houston winning the first game on a last-second field goal in overtime after Frank Reich went for it on fourth down. Indy then won in Houston to snap the Texans' nine-game winning streak.
Those stats tend to favor the Colts. And Indianapolis has been one of the hottest teams in the league for two months. The Colts have essentially won a road playoff game against a division rival already, too, and they really dominated the Titans last week. This is a different situation, though. Tennessee wasn't healthy. Houston is. Plus, a lot of people are counting the Texans out for some reason, which is a bad idea. I'm sure they would've preferred playing the Titans instead of the Colts, and Indianapolis has definitely had their number this season. But I think the Texans defense will have a big game and DeShaun Watson will shine in his first career playoff start, as Houston gets a chance to avenge its loss to New England.
Seahawks (10-6) at Cowboys (10-6): Seattle-I completely nailed it when I tried to guess the playoff schedule last week. The only thing I got wrong with this game was the network. Still not sure why it's on FOX instead of NBC. Did Thursday Night Football put FOX so far over budget on travel that they decided they couldn't afford to fly Troy Aikman places anymore? Seriously, he's gotta have his own parking space at Jerry's World by now, right?
There's plenty of Saturday night playoff history between these two, as well. In the aforementioned Packer & Steeler-less 2006 postseason, they met in a pretty infamous wild card game. That's the game where Tony Romo botched the snap on what would've been the game-tying extra point and Seattle won by one.
Frankly, I think this is the hardest game of the weekend to pick. Dallas surprised me last week by playing (with a few exceptions) its starters essentially the whole way in a game that was virtually meaningless. Seattle, meanwhile, got an unexpected challenge from Arizona in its just-as-meaningless finale. The Seahawks are favored in this game, though. And I can see why. Seattle is simply better than Dallas. It's just by a little, but that's enough to make a difference.
Chargers (12-4) at Ravens (10-6): Chargers-These two played just two weeks ago, and it's essentially what got the Ravens into the playoffs. And had the Chargers won, they'd be enjoying the playoffs in sunny California instead of traveling cross country for a 1:00 start (which is the only reason I thought they might NOT make this the early Sunday game).
The Chargers' road is obviously much more difficult now than it would've been had they beaten Baltimore the first time. And the Ravens are a dangerous matchup for anyone in the AFC. They've always had the defense. But now their offense is so much more dynamic with Lamar Jackson running the show instead of Joe Flacco. You put those together and you've got a team nobody should want to face.
Except I think the fact that they played just two weeks ago actually helps the Chargers. The game is still fresh in their minds (for both teams), and the Chargers won't be taken by surprise this time. They'll make the necessary adjustments on the offensive end. After having a season this good, they can't be one-and-done in the playoffs. Also, an interesting note on this game that NFL Network had on the bottom line all week is that the Chargers' only road loss this season was against the Rams. They're undefeated outside of Southern California. Expect that to continue in the wild card round.
Eagles (9-7) at Bears (12-4): Chicago-Can someone please explain to me what the Chicago Bears were doing last week? The Rams had a big lead, so they knew they weren't getting a bye. Which meant they were either going to play Minnesota again or face the defending champion Eagles. Seems like an easy choice, right? Except they decide to keep their starters in the whole time, end up winning the game, and giving themselves a harder matchup.
Nobody in the NFC, except for evidently the Bears, wanted to see the Eagles in the playoffs. Now they just need to hope it doesn't come back to bite them. Because not only is Philly hot, they've got that experience from last year to bank on. Plus, there's just something about Nick Foles. The Eagles are a different team with him under center.
However, their decision to play their starters the entire game last week could've also been the Bears' way of sending a message that they're coming to play no matter what. They haven't been here in a while, and you can bet they're gonna make sure it isn't a short stay. Khalil Mack will take up residence in the Eagles backfield and that Chicago defense will set the tone. (Also, how weird was it to see NBC promoting the Golden Globes starting at 7 after they'd already announced that this was their game? And there's no possible way a 4:30 game will be over by 7. I know they couldn't change the ads right away, but it still looked kinda awkward.)
Last Week: 11-5
Overall: 162-92-2
Of course, the four teams that have byes have them for a reason, but I don't think any of this week's winners will be intimidated going into their building next week. Just like I can easily see all four road teams winning this week. But we could just as easily see all four home teams win. The differences between the sides in all four of these matchups are so minimal. It should make for some great football.
Colts (10-6) at Texans (11-5): Houston-Not surprisingly, the AFC South matchup gets us started on Saturday afternoon. What a job by both of these teams to get into the playoffs. Houston started 0-3. Indianapolis was 1-5. Yet here they are still playing in January.
It's always interesting whenever division teams face each other in the playoffs. The familiarity and dislike generally leads to a third game that was similar to the first two. And I'd expect this to be no different. They split during the regular season, with Houston winning the first game on a last-second field goal in overtime after Frank Reich went for it on fourth down. Indy then won in Houston to snap the Texans' nine-game winning streak.
Those stats tend to favor the Colts. And Indianapolis has been one of the hottest teams in the league for two months. The Colts have essentially won a road playoff game against a division rival already, too, and they really dominated the Titans last week. This is a different situation, though. Tennessee wasn't healthy. Houston is. Plus, a lot of people are counting the Texans out for some reason, which is a bad idea. I'm sure they would've preferred playing the Titans instead of the Colts, and Indianapolis has definitely had their number this season. But I think the Texans defense will have a big game and DeShaun Watson will shine in his first career playoff start, as Houston gets a chance to avenge its loss to New England.
Seahawks (10-6) at Cowboys (10-6): Seattle-I completely nailed it when I tried to guess the playoff schedule last week. The only thing I got wrong with this game was the network. Still not sure why it's on FOX instead of NBC. Did Thursday Night Football put FOX so far over budget on travel that they decided they couldn't afford to fly Troy Aikman places anymore? Seriously, he's gotta have his own parking space at Jerry's World by now, right?
There's plenty of Saturday night playoff history between these two, as well. In the aforementioned Packer & Steeler-less 2006 postseason, they met in a pretty infamous wild card game. That's the game where Tony Romo botched the snap on what would've been the game-tying extra point and Seattle won by one.
Frankly, I think this is the hardest game of the weekend to pick. Dallas surprised me last week by playing (with a few exceptions) its starters essentially the whole way in a game that was virtually meaningless. Seattle, meanwhile, got an unexpected challenge from Arizona in its just-as-meaningless finale. The Seahawks are favored in this game, though. And I can see why. Seattle is simply better than Dallas. It's just by a little, but that's enough to make a difference.
Chargers (12-4) at Ravens (10-6): Chargers-These two played just two weeks ago, and it's essentially what got the Ravens into the playoffs. And had the Chargers won, they'd be enjoying the playoffs in sunny California instead of traveling cross country for a 1:00 start (which is the only reason I thought they might NOT make this the early Sunday game).
The Chargers' road is obviously much more difficult now than it would've been had they beaten Baltimore the first time. And the Ravens are a dangerous matchup for anyone in the AFC. They've always had the defense. But now their offense is so much more dynamic with Lamar Jackson running the show instead of Joe Flacco. You put those together and you've got a team nobody should want to face.
Except I think the fact that they played just two weeks ago actually helps the Chargers. The game is still fresh in their minds (for both teams), and the Chargers won't be taken by surprise this time. They'll make the necessary adjustments on the offensive end. After having a season this good, they can't be one-and-done in the playoffs. Also, an interesting note on this game that NFL Network had on the bottom line all week is that the Chargers' only road loss this season was against the Rams. They're undefeated outside of Southern California. Expect that to continue in the wild card round.
Eagles (9-7) at Bears (12-4): Chicago-Can someone please explain to me what the Chicago Bears were doing last week? The Rams had a big lead, so they knew they weren't getting a bye. Which meant they were either going to play Minnesota again or face the defending champion Eagles. Seems like an easy choice, right? Except they decide to keep their starters in the whole time, end up winning the game, and giving themselves a harder matchup.
Nobody in the NFC, except for evidently the Bears, wanted to see the Eagles in the playoffs. Now they just need to hope it doesn't come back to bite them. Because not only is Philly hot, they've got that experience from last year to bank on. Plus, there's just something about Nick Foles. The Eagles are a different team with him under center.
However, their decision to play their starters the entire game last week could've also been the Bears' way of sending a message that they're coming to play no matter what. They haven't been here in a while, and you can bet they're gonna make sure it isn't a short stay. Khalil Mack will take up residence in the Eagles backfield and that Chicago defense will set the tone. (Also, how weird was it to see NBC promoting the Golden Globes starting at 7 after they'd already announced that this was their game? And there's no possible way a 4:30 game will be over by 7. I know they couldn't change the ads right away, but it still looked kinda awkward.)
Last Week: 11-5
Overall: 162-92-2
Friday, January 4, 2019
Stars vs. Who?
When they said that Gary Bettman was going to make a "big announcement" during the second intermission of the Winter Classic, I figured it meant he was going to announce where next year's game was and who was playing in it. I was half right. He announced where the game was. But he only announced half of the who.
As I was going through the places the Winter Classic hasn't been yet, Dallas never even crossed my mind. I figured a return trip to Pittsburgh was in the offing, and I was anticipating a Penguins-Flyers matchup. After all, they're running out of combinations involving the same seven teams and they haven't done that one yet (although they have played each other in the Stadium Series).
But I'll give them credit for branching beyond their traditional Northeast/Detroit/Chicago base. The Winter Classic is the NHL's marquee regular season event, and it's good to get other teams involved. And Dallas has wintry-enough weather (remember the ice storm at the Super Bowl?) that the event won't lose the intended effect.
One of the reasons I never considered Dallas was because the Rangers are getting a new stadium and Jerry's World will obviously be in use with the Cowboys and the Cotton Bowl. I never thought of using the Cotton Bowl itself, but it makes complete sense. And seeing as the two largest crowds they've had were at Michigan and Notre Dame, using a giant college football stadium clearly works. They're also bringing some novelty back to the Winter Classic by bringing it somewhere completely different for the first time.
This is also an opportunity for the NHL to showcase somebody new. The Stars have never played in the Winter Classic before, and they've got some real talents in Jamie Benn and Tyler Seguin, players that most of the hockey-watching public doesn't get to see on a regular basis. Surprising to learn, I know, that there are players in the NHL not named Crosby, Ovechkin or Kane.
Of course, it's always possible that they could still have one of the Winter Classic staples be the Stars' opponent. Chicago has played in four Winter Classics, but clearly there's no Blackhawks fatigue. This year's Winter Classic ratings were the highest since 2015...when it was Chicago and Washington. Interestingly, the Blackhawks are 0-4 all-time in the Winter Classic, so future hosts are probably lining up to have Chicago be their opponent.
I'm thinking the NHL will probably continue its trend of doing the Blackhawks every other year, though, which means it'll be the Stars vs. somebody else. And the possibilities are endless. Because unlike most of the past Winter Classic matchups, there's no obvious rivalry or historic anniversary to showcase. So, if they're smart, they'll take this opportunity to go outside of their traditional group of teams.
Personally, I'd like to see two Winter Classic first-timers in 2020. And there are three exciting possibilities that would all make excellent choices as the Stars' opponent.
The first is the Tampa Bay Lightning. They've been one of the better teams in the NHL for the past few years, yet they're often overshadowed by the other star-studded teams in the East. Obviously, playing in Tampa doesn't give them much of an opportunity to host an outdoor game. And the team that it would make the most sense for them to play in one--the Florida Panthers--isn't good enough to justify the national TV audience. (Although, they could easily schedule the Lightning vs. someone like Washington, Boston or the Rangers in an outdoor game.) This would be the perfect opportunity to feature the Lightning, though. And it would really be cool if the NHL featured two Southern-based teams in the Winter Classic.
Tampa Bay would be a good choice, but I consider that option No. 3. Option No. 2 is the Minnesota Wild. This is the perhaps the one potential matchup that has fans the most excited, and it's probably the one that has the most historical significance. All because the Stars played in Minnesota for 26 years before moving to Dallas in 1993. The move south worked and Minnesota got a team back, albeit after seven years without hockey in the Twin Cities.
Competitively it would be a good matchup, too. The Wild are a team that, like the Stars, has a bunch of talented players that are either up-and-coming (Jordan Greenway), you've never heard of (Devan Dubnyk) or haven't been on a stage like this in quite some time (Zach Parise) or at all (Mikku Koivu). They've also made the playoffs in each of the last six seasons.
My choice, though, is the Nashville Predators. The Predators check all the boxes. They're good, they're fun to watch, and they've got star power in P.K. Subban and Pekka Rinne. And let's not forget, they made the Final two years ago and won the President's Trophy last season. This is the type of team the NHL should want to showcase, and this is a golden opportunity to do it.
Believe it or not, the Predators are also the closest team to Dallas geographically. Plus, just think of how much fun it'll be to have teams from Texas and Tennessee playing a hockey game in a college football stadium on New Year's Day. As we saw when they played the Penguins for the Cup, Predators games are fun. Bring it down to Texas, the other hotbed for country music, and the 2020 Winter Classic could really be a party.
Sure, the NHL may surprise us and choose someone else. The Sabres have the historical connection, and Buffalo is a reliable market for high ratings. Then there's Bettman's shiny (still) new toy in Las Vegas that you know he'd love to get into a Winter Classic. But I don't think it should be either the Sabres or the Golden Knights. The Predators are the best option. The 2020 Winter Classic should be Dallas vs. Nashville.
As I was going through the places the Winter Classic hasn't been yet, Dallas never even crossed my mind. I figured a return trip to Pittsburgh was in the offing, and I was anticipating a Penguins-Flyers matchup. After all, they're running out of combinations involving the same seven teams and they haven't done that one yet (although they have played each other in the Stadium Series).
But I'll give them credit for branching beyond their traditional Northeast/Detroit/Chicago base. The Winter Classic is the NHL's marquee regular season event, and it's good to get other teams involved. And Dallas has wintry-enough weather (remember the ice storm at the Super Bowl?) that the event won't lose the intended effect.
One of the reasons I never considered Dallas was because the Rangers are getting a new stadium and Jerry's World will obviously be in use with the Cowboys and the Cotton Bowl. I never thought of using the Cotton Bowl itself, but it makes complete sense. And seeing as the two largest crowds they've had were at Michigan and Notre Dame, using a giant college football stadium clearly works. They're also bringing some novelty back to the Winter Classic by bringing it somewhere completely different for the first time.
This is also an opportunity for the NHL to showcase somebody new. The Stars have never played in the Winter Classic before, and they've got some real talents in Jamie Benn and Tyler Seguin, players that most of the hockey-watching public doesn't get to see on a regular basis. Surprising to learn, I know, that there are players in the NHL not named Crosby, Ovechkin or Kane.
Of course, it's always possible that they could still have one of the Winter Classic staples be the Stars' opponent. Chicago has played in four Winter Classics, but clearly there's no Blackhawks fatigue. This year's Winter Classic ratings were the highest since 2015...when it was Chicago and Washington. Interestingly, the Blackhawks are 0-4 all-time in the Winter Classic, so future hosts are probably lining up to have Chicago be their opponent.
I'm thinking the NHL will probably continue its trend of doing the Blackhawks every other year, though, which means it'll be the Stars vs. somebody else. And the possibilities are endless. Because unlike most of the past Winter Classic matchups, there's no obvious rivalry or historic anniversary to showcase. So, if they're smart, they'll take this opportunity to go outside of their traditional group of teams.
Personally, I'd like to see two Winter Classic first-timers in 2020. And there are three exciting possibilities that would all make excellent choices as the Stars' opponent.
The first is the Tampa Bay Lightning. They've been one of the better teams in the NHL for the past few years, yet they're often overshadowed by the other star-studded teams in the East. Obviously, playing in Tampa doesn't give them much of an opportunity to host an outdoor game. And the team that it would make the most sense for them to play in one--the Florida Panthers--isn't good enough to justify the national TV audience. (Although, they could easily schedule the Lightning vs. someone like Washington, Boston or the Rangers in an outdoor game.) This would be the perfect opportunity to feature the Lightning, though. And it would really be cool if the NHL featured two Southern-based teams in the Winter Classic.
Tampa Bay would be a good choice, but I consider that option No. 3. Option No. 2 is the Minnesota Wild. This is the perhaps the one potential matchup that has fans the most excited, and it's probably the one that has the most historical significance. All because the Stars played in Minnesota for 26 years before moving to Dallas in 1993. The move south worked and Minnesota got a team back, albeit after seven years without hockey in the Twin Cities.
Competitively it would be a good matchup, too. The Wild are a team that, like the Stars, has a bunch of talented players that are either up-and-coming (Jordan Greenway), you've never heard of (Devan Dubnyk) or haven't been on a stage like this in quite some time (Zach Parise) or at all (Mikku Koivu). They've also made the playoffs in each of the last six seasons.
My choice, though, is the Nashville Predators. The Predators check all the boxes. They're good, they're fun to watch, and they've got star power in P.K. Subban and Pekka Rinne. And let's not forget, they made the Final two years ago and won the President's Trophy last season. This is the type of team the NHL should want to showcase, and this is a golden opportunity to do it.
Believe it or not, the Predators are also the closest team to Dallas geographically. Plus, just think of how much fun it'll be to have teams from Texas and Tennessee playing a hockey game in a college football stadium on New Year's Day. As we saw when they played the Penguins for the Cup, Predators games are fun. Bring it down to Texas, the other hotbed for country music, and the 2020 Winter Classic could really be a party.
Sure, the NHL may surprise us and choose someone else. The Sabres have the historical connection, and Buffalo is a reliable market for high ratings. Then there's Bettman's shiny (still) new toy in Las Vegas that you know he'd love to get into a Winter Classic. But I don't think it should be either the Sabres or the Golden Knights. The Predators are the best option. The 2020 Winter Classic should be Dallas vs. Nashville.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
Looking Ahead to 2019
A loaded 2019 sports calendar has already gotten off to a thrilling start with one of the best Winter Classics in the 11-year history of the event. That was just the beginning. There's plenty more ahead, and not just the annual events we look forward to every year.
It's now officially the pre-Olympic year, which means qualifying for Tokyo will get into full swing (and some Olympic berths will be claimed). Most Olympic sports hold their World Championships in odd-numbered years, and this year is no different. Beach volleyball's will be in Hamburg in late June/early July, a few weeks before swimming's in Gwangju, South Korea. The track & field World Championships, meanwhile, are later than they've ever been. They'll be in Doha in late September/early October, a mere 10 months before Tokyo.
We've also got three World Cups ahead of us this year. The U.S. women's soccer team will look to win a World Cup in Europe for the first time, as they try to defend their title from 2015 in France. The Women's World Cup runs from June 7-July 7.
They've also moved the men's basketball World Cup off the same cycle as the men's soccer World Cup, which pushed it back to this year. Now that the World Cup and Olympics are in consecutive years, they're using the World Cup as the main qualifier. Eight teams (including Japan) will advance directly to Tokyo based on what happens in China in September. The USA used a team made up mostly of G-Leaguers to qualify, but the NBA guys are expected to play in the World Cup itself. How many of those guys also end up playing in Tokyo is a different question. I bet it isn't many. Seeing as the World Cup is in September (right before training camp) and that would mean essentially two full years of top-level basketball without a break.
As the entire world gets ready to come to Japan in 2020, the 2019 Rugby World Cup will give us a bit of a preview. The tournament runs from September 20-November 2 and was supposed to end at Tokyo's National Stadium. Construction delays have led to a change of plans, though, so the final will be at the same stadium in Yokohama where the 2002 soccer World Cup final was played. Will the All Blacks make it three in a row? Or will another nation rise to the top of the rugby world?
Soccer's biggest men's tournament this year is the Copa America, which is back to normal after that special centennial edition in the United States in 2016. This year's tournament will be in Brazil. The United States and Mexico won't be there, though. That's because the CONCACAF Gold Cup is taking place at the same time. For the U.S., it'll be the first games that actually matter for something since the dumpster fire that was 2018 World Cup qualifying. This is a chance to make a statement and begin recovery from that embarrassment as the new World Cup cycle begins.
UEFA's big event in 2019 is the inaugural Nations League finals. It's their new thing for the national teams so that the good European teams only play each other instead of playing friendlies. Anyway, the Netherlands, Switzerland, England and Portugal are the four teams that made the semifinals, with the final being played two days after the Women's World Cup starts (the women are rightfully perturbed by FIFA's scheduling of the men's events).
The pre-Olympic year also brings the continental version of multi-sport competition. The Pan Am Games will be in Lima almost exactly a year before the Tokyo Olympics. The European Games are still trying to find their footing, and they've come up with some I'll go with "innovative" competition formats for their second go-round in Minsk. Another event in Minsk that I am excited about, though, is a good old-fashioned track & field dual meet between the United States and Europe in the lead-up to Worlds.
There's only one Olympics in the next 10 years that doesn't yet have a host city. That'll be taken care of in June, when the IOC decides between Stockholm and the joint Italian bid for the 2026 Winter Games. That's assuming, of course, that they both make it to the election. The IOC has said repeatedly that they don't have a backup plan, so that'll be interesting to keep an eye on over the next several months.
Bringing it back Stateside, the 2019 season is the NFL's 100th. I'm sure we'll get more details about what kind of centennial celebrations are planned after the Super Bowl, but you know that they've got plenty of things in mind. I also wouldn't be surprised to see the centennial events extend into 2020, which is the actual 100th anniversary of the league's formation. The Bears and Cardinals are the only original teams still in existence (the Packers didn't join the NFL until 1921), but they don't play next season.
In just a few weeks, the Alliance of American Football makes its debut. Personally, I'm skeptical about the new league. (And I really don't think we need two.) But it's got the backing of CBS Sports, several prominent ex-players in high-ranking positions, and a Hall of Fame co-founder in Bill Polian. At the very least, they'll have this season. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the AAF lasts beyond that.
And, of course, there are all the regular events that we annually look forward to on the sporting calendar. So, in other words, 2019 in sports certainly won't be boring. There's plenty in store to keep both the die-hards and the casual fans occupied all year long.
It's now officially the pre-Olympic year, which means qualifying for Tokyo will get into full swing (and some Olympic berths will be claimed). Most Olympic sports hold their World Championships in odd-numbered years, and this year is no different. Beach volleyball's will be in Hamburg in late June/early July, a few weeks before swimming's in Gwangju, South Korea. The track & field World Championships, meanwhile, are later than they've ever been. They'll be in Doha in late September/early October, a mere 10 months before Tokyo.
We've also got three World Cups ahead of us this year. The U.S. women's soccer team will look to win a World Cup in Europe for the first time, as they try to defend their title from 2015 in France. The Women's World Cup runs from June 7-July 7.
They've also moved the men's basketball World Cup off the same cycle as the men's soccer World Cup, which pushed it back to this year. Now that the World Cup and Olympics are in consecutive years, they're using the World Cup as the main qualifier. Eight teams (including Japan) will advance directly to Tokyo based on what happens in China in September. The USA used a team made up mostly of G-Leaguers to qualify, but the NBA guys are expected to play in the World Cup itself. How many of those guys also end up playing in Tokyo is a different question. I bet it isn't many. Seeing as the World Cup is in September (right before training camp) and that would mean essentially two full years of top-level basketball without a break.
As the entire world gets ready to come to Japan in 2020, the 2019 Rugby World Cup will give us a bit of a preview. The tournament runs from September 20-November 2 and was supposed to end at Tokyo's National Stadium. Construction delays have led to a change of plans, though, so the final will be at the same stadium in Yokohama where the 2002 soccer World Cup final was played. Will the All Blacks make it three in a row? Or will another nation rise to the top of the rugby world?
Soccer's biggest men's tournament this year is the Copa America, which is back to normal after that special centennial edition in the United States in 2016. This year's tournament will be in Brazil. The United States and Mexico won't be there, though. That's because the CONCACAF Gold Cup is taking place at the same time. For the U.S., it'll be the first games that actually matter for something since the dumpster fire that was 2018 World Cup qualifying. This is a chance to make a statement and begin recovery from that embarrassment as the new World Cup cycle begins.
UEFA's big event in 2019 is the inaugural Nations League finals. It's their new thing for the national teams so that the good European teams only play each other instead of playing friendlies. Anyway, the Netherlands, Switzerland, England and Portugal are the four teams that made the semifinals, with the final being played two days after the Women's World Cup starts (the women are rightfully perturbed by FIFA's scheduling of the men's events).
The pre-Olympic year also brings the continental version of multi-sport competition. The Pan Am Games will be in Lima almost exactly a year before the Tokyo Olympics. The European Games are still trying to find their footing, and they've come up with some I'll go with "innovative" competition formats for their second go-round in Minsk. Another event in Minsk that I am excited about, though, is a good old-fashioned track & field dual meet between the United States and Europe in the lead-up to Worlds.
There's only one Olympics in the next 10 years that doesn't yet have a host city. That'll be taken care of in June, when the IOC decides between Stockholm and the joint Italian bid for the 2026 Winter Games. That's assuming, of course, that they both make it to the election. The IOC has said repeatedly that they don't have a backup plan, so that'll be interesting to keep an eye on over the next several months.
Bringing it back Stateside, the 2019 season is the NFL's 100th. I'm sure we'll get more details about what kind of centennial celebrations are planned after the Super Bowl, but you know that they've got plenty of things in mind. I also wouldn't be surprised to see the centennial events extend into 2020, which is the actual 100th anniversary of the league's formation. The Bears and Cardinals are the only original teams still in existence (the Packers didn't join the NFL until 1921), but they don't play next season.
In just a few weeks, the Alliance of American Football makes its debut. Personally, I'm skeptical about the new league. (And I really don't think we need two.) But it's got the backing of CBS Sports, several prominent ex-players in high-ranking positions, and a Hall of Fame co-founder in Bill Polian. At the very least, they'll have this season. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the AAF lasts beyond that.
And, of course, there are all the regular events that we annually look forward to on the sporting calendar. So, in other words, 2019 in sports certainly won't be boring. There's plenty in store to keep both the die-hards and the casual fans occupied all year long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)