Picking Conference Championship Games

Wow!  That might've been the best weekend of playoff football ever!  Not just the best Divisional Playoff weekend.  The best weekend period!  Three walk-off field goals by the visiting team, then that crazy back-and-forth classic overtime classic between the Bills and Chiefs to cap it off!  My question about the conference championship games is "How can they possibly top it?"  

Well, giving us two matchups were certainly didn't expect to see was a good start (how crazy is it, too, that we can possibly have a third 49ers-Bengals Super Bowl?).  They're also both rematches of games we saw late in the regular season...where this week's visiting team won.  We've also got one matchup between two exciting young quarterbacks and another between outstanding defenses.

Bengals (12-7) at Chiefs (14-5): Kansas City-It was when they beat the Chiefs in Week 17 that we knew the Bengals were for real.  Now they get them again in the AFC Championship Game with all the confidence in the world.  Cincinnati is playing with house money, too.  All the pressure's on the Chiefs, who are hosting the AFC Championship Game for a ridiculous fourth straight year.

After they beat the Raiders in the Wild Card Game, Joe Burrow told Bengals fans that they'd better start getting used to winning.  Then they started that crazy Divisional Playoff weekend by going on the road and knocking off the No. 1 seed.  You've got a feeling that this won't be their last trip to the AFC Championship Game with Burrow.

Patrick Mahomes, meanwhile, is a regular participant in this game.  That comeback last week might've been the most impressive of his career, too.  They were down by three with 13 seconds left, but that's all they needed to get into field goal range, force overtime, and cause social media to freakout for two days about how "unfair" it was that they won.  How about we celebrate the brilliance of the Chiefs' offense in that moment instead?

Ever since that miserable performance in Super Bowl LV, it's been their mission to get back.  Now they're 60 minutes away from getting there, and they might be playing their best football of the season.  And they'll be playing at home once again, which is another huge advantage!  We thought we might see Mahomes actually play a road playoff game for the first time (last season's Super Bowl was technically a neutral site even though they played the Bucs in Tampa).  Instead, he gets to play at Arrowhead in front of his fans.

While Kansas City's the favorite, Cincinnati can obviously win.  They beat them less than a month ago and they really believe in themselves.  The Bengals know that the Chiefs' weakness is on the defensive side of the ball, so if they can put up points and keep Mahomes off the field, they'll be in good shape.

However, a third straight AFC Championship for Kansas City seems far more likely.  The Chiefs got off to a slow start in each of their first two playoff games and still ended up 42 points in each.  That offense is too good and it's clicking.  As great as the Bengals' run this season has been, it ends one game short of a Hollywood ending.

49ers (12-7) at Rams (14-5): San Francisco-If the Rams win, congratulations Cardinals on next season's NFC Championship!  After 54 years without a Super Bowl home team, we've got the possibility of it happening back-to-back.  Either way, the winner of this NFC West showdown isn't going anywhere.  They'll be right back in SoFi Stadium two weeks from now.  (And if it's the 49ers, it would be their third game there in five weeks.)

This season has been Super Bowl or Bust for the Rams.  That's one of the reasons they traded for Matthew Stafford.  And they were certainly the better team for three-and-a-half quarters last week.  It also says a lot that they survived Brady's final fourth quarter comeback and drove down for the winning field goal without giving him another chance, setting themselves up to play a home NFC Championship Game, then possibly a home Super Bowl.

Of course, their opponent is the team that's been their kryptonite in recent years.  The 49ers swept the Rams this season and have won six in a row against them.  Sean McVay, in fact, is just 3-7 against San Francisco and 57-22 against everyone else since taking over as LA's head coach in 2017 (and two of the wins came in the Rams' Super Bowl season).  I don't know why, but the 49ers just have his number!

These two are obviously very familiar with each other.  So I'm expecting a typical Rams-49ers game.  That's typically what happens when division rivals meet in the playoffs, and it shouldn't be any different here.  The team that wins will be the one that's able to better surprise the other with something new.  That's especially true when you consider this is the second game here between these two this month!

As you know, I haven't been very high on San Francisco throughout the playoffs.  If the 49ers didn't win that game at SoFi earlier this month (on literally the last play of overtime), they wouldn't have even made the playoffs.  But they've sure made the most of their opportunity!  Their defense has been incredible, shutting down both Dallas and Green Bay, and Deebo Samuel is, without question, the breakout star of the postseason.

A lot of people have been comparing this 49ers squad to the Giants team that won the Super Bowl a decade ago (remember when the Giants were good?).  I can see the comparison.  And the NFC Championship Game is a favorable matchup for them in a stadium where they've never lost (the Chiefs have never lost their either, which could be a very interesting Super Bowl subplot).

Last Week: 2-2
Playoffs: 5-5
Overall: 176-105-1

Overtime Is Fine

Sunday's Chiefs-Bills game was an absolute classic!  Each time somebody thought they won, the other quarterback was like "Not so fast!"  It felt like whoever had the ball last would win.  That turned out to be exactly the case.  The Chiefs won the overtime coin toss, marched down, and scored a touchdown.  Game over.

That result led to plenty of armchair quarterbacking from the casual viewers who were suddenly Bills fans complaining about how "unfair" it was Buffalo never got the ball in overtime.  Plenty of these "experts" even offered their own suggestions for how the NFL should "fix" overtime.  All of which were pretty dumb.  Especially since there's nothing wrong with the NFL's overtime format.  Thus, it doesn't need to be "fixed."

My question to all these people is if they still would've thought it was "unfair" had it been the other way around?  What if the Bills had won the coin toss, marched down the field and scored a touchdown, leaving Mahomes and the Chiefs offense standing on the sidelines as their season ended (just like it did in the 2018 AFC Championship Game)?  Or is it only "unfair" because you wanted the Bills to win?

Also, let's be clear about something.  The Bills did NOT lose the game because of the overtime format!  They had a three-point lead with 13 seconds left, only to let the Kansas City offense go 40 yards in two plays to get into field goal range, then kick the game-tying field goal to send it into OT.  The defense gets a stop, the game doesn't go into overtime, and we're not having this idiotic conversation for two days.

Likewise, the Atlanta Falcons didn't lose Super Bowl LI because the Patriots won the overtime coin toss.  They lost because they blew a 28-3 lead (and because Matt Ryan took a sack to knock them out of field goal range when they were up eight).  Sure, they probably knew they were gonna lose as soon as Brady got the ball first, but that doesn't change the fact it never should've gone to OT in the first place!

Would things have been different had Buffalo won the toss and gotten the ball first?  We'll never know.  But to say that they "didn't have a chance" is simply untrue.  The Bills had a chance to win the game with a field goal, while the Chiefs did not.  All they had to do was get it done defensively.  Which they didn't.

All of the complainers seem to either ignore or not understand that fact.  Winning the coin toss doesn't "guarantee" you victory.  The only way the game ends on the first possession is if the offense scores a touchdown!  Otherwise, you ARE getting the ball!  So, it's really pretty straightforward.  It puts the onus on the defense to stop them.

Both teams understand the rules, too!  It's not like they suddenly changed them for the playoffs.  You get the ball, you score a touchdown, you win.  Otherwise, they get the ball.  If you don't win the toss, you need to rely on your defense to do the job.  I get it.  It's a horrible way for your season to end.  But you have 60 minutes of regulation to avoid that scenario!

It's also worth noting that the NFL did "fix" overtime about a decade ago.  The owners agreed that the sudden death format needed tweaking because too many teams were winning games on a first possession field goal.  So, they amended it that it had to be a first possession TOUCHDOWN or defensive score to end the game.  And that tweak worked!  It makes the team that wins the toss go for the TD, even if they're already in field goal range.

The most common suggestion among the Monday morning quarterbacks is that the NFL adopt something similar to college football overtime.  In college football, the teams alternate possessions from the opponent's 25-yard-line.  They're already in field goal range, so defense is basically taken out of it.  It becomes a "can you top this?" contest.

NFL overtime, meanwhile, isn't just a series of goal line plays.  There's a kickoff, there's a clock, the offense needs to drive down the field, and the defense needs to try and stop them.  In other words, it's a football game.  All three phases are incorporated.  If one defense can't stop the other offense, that team deserves to lose.  The whole point is to keep the ball out of the end zone!  If you don't do that, why should you get a chance to match what the other team did?

And say the rule was that each team got the ball.  When does it end?  Does it become sudden death after each team's first possession?  Or is it like a hockey/soccer shootout (or college football overtime) where it doesn't end until one team scores and the other doesn't?  And, don't forget, there's a clock in play, too.  So, the clock's gonna run out on somebody eventually!  Just ask the Chargers about that one.  (Yes, they play until there's a winner in the playoffs, but I detest ties in the NFL and regular season OT needs to go back to 15 minutes because 10 is too short!)

If there was something "wrong" with the system, there would've been a push to change it!  None has come.  That should tell you something, too.  The owners, the players and the league are fine with overtime just the way it is.  So why change it just because social media is flipping out about the ending of one playoff game?

As a Bills fan, I obviously would've preferred if the ending of that game had been different.  But the result wasn't "unfair."  The Bills weren't "screwed" by the NFL's overtime format.  An overtime format that, frankly, there's nothing wrong with.

Debate Still Not Over

Once again, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens weren't voted into the Hall of Fame by the writers.  This is not surprising news.  It was their 10th and final year on the ballot, so they won't be the constant source of debate around Hall of Fame time that they've been for the past decade anymore.  But that doesn't mean the debate is over.  Far from it.  In fact, the debate's probably gonna get a whole lot fiercer now.

Their fate now rests in the hands of the Today's Game Committee, which will meet in December for the induction Class of 2023.  It seems unlikely that they'll be elected this year, but they'll presumably be on the Today's Game ballot again in 2024, then in 2027, then in 2029, etc., until they're voted in, assuming they ever are.

The ironic thing about Bonds and Clemens falling off the writers' ballot now is that had they not reduced the amount of time a player stays on the ballot from 15 years to 10, their chances of getting in via the traditional route would've actually been pretty good.  When they first appeared on the ballot in 2013, Clemens received 37.6 percent of the vote and Bonds got 36.2 percent.  Neither one crossed 50 percent until 2017--their fifth year on the ballot--and they didn't cross 60 percent until 2020.

This year, Bonds received 260 votes and Clemens 257.  That's a little over 65 percent each.  As everyone knows by now, you need 75 percent.  Making that 10 percent jump in five years isn't unheard of, especially since candidates like Bert Blyleven and Tim Raines got in on their 15th and last try after years of increasing support.

And, frankly, their chances of getting in over the next five years probably would've been better in the writers' hands.  The Hall of Fame electorate has been getting younger and younger, and those younger voters, by and large, have tended to support Bonds and Clemens more than the long-time voters.  That's why their totals progressively went up each year.  So, it would've stood to figure that as more younger, more forgiving voters started filling out ballots, their support would go up even more...and potentially end in election.

Instead, their fate lies entirely in the hands of 16 of their peers.  The make-up of the Today's Game Committee changes with each election, but it always includes a mix of former players, managers and executives, as well as writers and broadcasters.  And you can bet there will be some pretty strong opinions on those two among the members of that group.

If you think about it, reaching the 75 percent threshold is actually tougher with the Era Committees than it is with the BBWAA.  All it takes is five "No" votes.  With Bonds and Clemens, that seems likely.  At least in the beginning.  Will they get there eventually, though?  Only time will tell.

But you can bet the debate's going to rage on.  Because there's still that camp that will always be a "No" on both of them who you'll never be able to convince to change their minds.  Likewise, there are those (like me) who'll always be a "Yes."  And there are those in the middle (yes, there are still some of them) who view Bonds and Clemens in a broader historical context.  Can you write the history of baseball in the 80s and 90s without them?  No, you cannot.

What makes the whole thing so much harder is that anyone who saw either one of them play knows that, "enhanced" or not, they were two of the absolute best players of their era!  When you watched them, you knew you were watching an all-time great.  They were worth the price of admission.  Every!  Single!  Time!  Both were no-doubt-about-it, sure-fire first-ballot Hall of Famers...until they weren't.

For a lot of fans and even some writers and media personalities, the fact that neither one has been elected in the 15 years since he retired is asinine.  And their argument is really based around one common point--how can the Hall of Fame call itself a museum that "preserves baseball history" when the all-time single-season and career home run leader isn't a part of it?

Continuing to exclude Bonds and Clemens, some worry, could also be setting up a situation where the Steroid Era is forgotten.  That may be exactly what some people want, but you can't just erase an entire era of baseball history!  Especially in a history museum!  Some also find it entirely hypocritical that Bud Selig, who knew exactly what was going on and turned a blind eye to it, was elected to the Hall of Fame while the players are continually being left out.

Major League Baseball essentially told the writers, "It's your problem now," which, frankly, was entirely unfair.  To both the writers and those players.  Some have taken a hardline stance and won't vote for anybody they even suspect.  Others are more selective about who they vote for.  And, with all the Steroid Era players retiring right around the same time, and many of them unlikely to get in, it was going to create a ballot backlog.  That's one of the reasons they reduced the amount of time on the ballot from 15 years to 10.  Which is another thing that hurt the players.

All of this has essentially guaranteed that the Bonds/Clemens debate will continue to rage on.  The writers had their say.  It was a "No," but perhaps not as emphatic a "No" as some expected.  Which is why there's still some hope for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.  They were widely disliked (and just as widely admired) while they were playing.  Then they became the poster children for the Steroid Era.  But their fate now lies with their peers, who know as well as anybody how difficult it is to hit a baseball or throw one 95 mph.

We're still months away from the 10-person ballot that the Today's Game Committee will consider even coming out.  Likewise, we don't even know who's on the committee.  So, it's way too early to handicap their chances later this year (or in any other future election).  And we've also seen that it's sometimes more about who you know, which is how Harold Baines ended up getting elected.  That could work in their favor or it could work against them.

Eventually, though, I think the anger over the Steroid Era will subside and the Today's Game Committee will vote both Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens into the Hall of Fame.  It may take a while, but it'll happen sooner or later.  Their numbers, which should speak for themselves, dictate that they belong.  And when you put that era in context, when it was impossible to know who was doing what, it's clear that they were the faces of it (in more ways than one).

As for the writers, they no longer need to wrestle with the Bonds and Clemens question year after year.  And who knows?  With the ballot cleared up, maybe that helps a guy like a Scott Rolen or an Andruw Jones or even a Jeff Kent.  And don't worry.  The Hall of Fame/steroid debate has now moved on to A-Rod.  A guy with his own complicated history that they'll have nine more years to think about until he, too, moves on to the Today's Game Committee.

Who Joins the Class of 2022?

We already know that there will be a Baseball Hall of Fame induction ceremony this year.  The Era Committees took care of that, electing six new Hall of Famers.  As for the BBWAA ballot, it could easily be another shutout.  The top three vote-getters last year are all in their final year on the ballot, but with the controversy surrounding each of them, I think it's doubtful any of them get in.  And the top two newcomers have their own share of controversy, so their chances are probably 50-50 at best.  So, it's good to know that we'll at least have somebody getting in (and two living inductees who'll be there to give their own speeches).

The Hall of Fame tracker (which is amazing if you've never seen it before) pretty much confirms that David Ortiz is the only player who a legitimate shot at election.  Bonds and Clemens always have more support on the ballots that are released publicly than among the voters who keep their votes private, and I'm just not sure they'll get enough support, even with the traditional final-year bump, to make the jump.  (They've both gained only three votes on the public ballots.)

As you know, I've always been a Bonds and Clemens guy.  You can't write the story of baseball in the 90s and early 2000s without them.  I've also never considered them "cheaters" because they weren't breaking any rules!  Which is more than I can say for Alex Rodriguez.  It might sound like I'm contradicting myself by taking the opposite stance on A-Rod, but that's not the case at all.  A-Rod was suspended an entire season for his steroid use!  That's why he doesn't make the cut when he would otherwise be a no-doubt-about-it first-ballot choice.

All 10 players that I "voted" for last year are still on the ballot, so you would think that would make things easy, but it, of course, doesn't.  Because I'm adding two first-year guys, which means two players have to go. 

One is Curt Schilling, who was No. 3 on my board last year, but has made his feelings on being elected to the Hall of Fame by normal means pretty clear.  You want off the ballot, Curt?  Too bad!  But the fact that you're staying on doesn't mean the people you're insulting have to vote for you.  In fact, you're giving them plenty of incentive not to!  The other is Omar Vizquel, who I had at No. 5.  Again, this'll sound crazy because of my support for Bonds and Clemens, but, after the allegations against Vizquel, I can't bring myself to say he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Ortiz is obviously a no-brainer "Yes" vote, even for this Yankees fan.  And I've already told you I'm not voting for A-Rod.  So who's the other one?  It's A-Rod's teammate on the 2009 Yankees, who I'm shocked has only gotten one vote so far!  Will Mark Teixeira really be a one-and-done?  I sure hope not!  And, hey, at least he's got me!

1. Barry Bonds, Outfielder (1986-92 Pirates, 1993-2007 Giants): They've been lumped together for 10 years.  People either vote for both of them or they don't vote for either.  And, for the 10th straight year, I'm a "Yes" on both.  Sorry, but it's ridiculous that the Hall of Fame, which is supposed to honor the greatest players in the game's history, is missing both the all-time hits leader AND the all-time home run leader.  I've heard every argument of the anti-Bonds crowd.  I don't find any of them convincing enough to keep possibly THE greatest hitter of his era out of Cooperstown!

2. Roger Clemens, Pitcher (1984-86 Red Sox, 1997-98 Blue Jays, 1999-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007 Yankees): Ditto on Roger Clemens.  The two greatest right-handed starting pitchers over the last 30 years are Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux.  He was the ace of every team he pitched on (which is the same argument I made about Jack Morris for all those years).  That should mean something.  As should the fact that hitters legitimately feared him.  As someone who remembers watching Roger Clemens pitch, a Hall of Fame without him doesn't feel complete.

3. David Ortiz, Designated Hitter (1997-2002 Twins, 2003-16 Red Sox): Is there any player over the past 25 years who was more clutch than Big Papi?  Every time he came up in the postseason, it was in a big spot, and he always delivered.  Frankly, it's not a coincidence that as soon as he arrived in Boston, the Red Sox went from a team that was cursed to one that won three World Series titles in 10 years.  Getting cut by the Twins and signing with Boston turned out to be the best thing for both team and player.  It was both career- and franchise-changing!

4. Andy Pettitte, Pitcher (1995-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007-10 Yankees, 2012-13 Yankees): My hope for Andy Pettitte is that he continues getting enough support to stay relevant in the conversation and maybe, eventually, get voted in by an Era Committee.  Because, frankly, he deserves to get in based on his postseason success alone.  He pitched in eight World Series and has 19 career postseason wins.  Sure, playing on the Yankees' dynasty helped those numbers.  But those Yankee teams also aren't a dynasty without him!

5. Jeff Kent, Second Baseman (1992 Blue Jays, 1992-96 Mets, 1996 Indians, 1997-2002 Giants, 2003-04 Astros, 2005-08 Dodgers): Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe turned in a ballot with only Jeff Kent's name on it.  While I've never been a fan of voters doing that, it's nice to see Kent finally getting some long overdue support.  Because, as I've said repeatedly in this space, he was the second-best second baseman of his era, behind only Roberto Alomar, who was elected overwhelmingly in his second year on the ballot.

6. Andruw Jones, Outfielder (1996-2007 Braves, 2008 Dodgers, 2009 Rangers, 2010 White Sox, 2011-12 Yankees): If Andruw Jones had never played another Major League game after leaving the Braves, he'd still have a pretty strong Hall of Fame case.  It might even be stronger, actually!  The three pitchers, Chipper Jones and Bobby Cox all have plaques in Cooperstown already.  Andruw Jones deserves to be the sixth member of those Atlanta teams with one.  As five-tool a player as there's ever been, he won 10 consecutive Gold Gloves in center field while also hitting 30 home runs a year and, for quite a long stretch, playing every single day.

7. Todd Helton, First Baseman (1997-2013 Rockies): Now that Larry Walker is in, Rockies Nation will turn its attention completely on Todd Helton, who was also the backup quarterback to a certain Pro Football Hall of Famer while at Tennessee.  Helton's consistency was incredible.  He hit .300 in 10 consecutive seasons, including a ridiculous .372 in 2000!  He also hit 42 home runs that year and 49 the next!  And not to mention his solid defense at first base.  For 17 years!

8. Billy Wagner, Pitcher (1995-2003 Astros, 2004-05 Phillies, 2006-09 Mets, 2009 Red Sox, 2010 Braves): Whether he's elected by the writers or not, you've gotta think Billy Wagner's chances to eventually get in (even if it's via the Era Committee) have to be pretty good.  He's the best eligible relief pitcher who isn't already in.  So what if he's only the third best closer of his era?  That's pretty good when the two in front of him are Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman, arguably the two greatest ever!  I wasn't always in the Billy Wagner camp, but I've come around.  He belongs.  So he gets one of my 10 votes.

9. Mark Teixiera, First Baseman (2003-07 Rangers, 2007-08 Braves, 2008 Angels, 2009-16 Yankees): Had injuries not limited Teixiera towards the end of his career, his Hall of Fame candidacy would be much stronger.  Because during his prime, Tex was one of the most feared power-hitting first basemen in all of baseball!  He was so coveted that he was traded at the deadline in back-to-back years before singing that big free agent deal with the Yankees...and helping them win the World Series in his first season!  And, let's not forget, even with all the injuries, he still got to 400 home runs, one of just five switch-hitters in MLB history to do that!  Three of the other four (Mickey Mantle, Eddie Murray, Chipper Jones) are already Hall of Famers, and the fourth (Carlos Beltran) isn't eligible yet.

10. Gary Sheffield, Outfielder (1988-91 Brewers, 1992-93 Padres, 1993-98 Marlins, 1998-2001 Dodgers, 2002-03 Braves, 2004-06 Yankees, 2007-08 Tigers, 2009 Mets): Last year, I had one available spot remaining and had to choose between Sheffield and Scott Rolen.  I went with Sheffield then, and I'm going with Sheffield again now.  My reasoning is the same.  Sheffield was remarkably consistent for a long time.  His 162-game averages were 32 homers and 105 RBIs over the course of a 22-year career!  (Next year, when Bonds and Clemens drop off the ballot, Rolen will likely return to mine.)

Picking Divisional Playoff Games

Well, that sure was an eventful Super Wild Card Weekend!  An inadvertent whistle on a touchdown pass.  A quarterback sneak with no timeouts left when you're losing.  And four absolutely dominant performances.  What do the Divisional Playoffs have in store as an encore?

Bengals (11-7) at Titans (12-5): Tennessee-You want to know something crazy?  The AFC Championship Game has never been in either Houston or Nashville!  All five of the Oilers/Titans' appearances have been on the road.  They, of course, have a chance to change that little bit of trivia this weekend when they begin the Divisional Playoffs by hosting Cincinnati.

Congratulations to the Bengals on finally snapping their playoff losing streak and earning their first postseason win in 31 years (which, coincidentally enough, was against the Oilers).  Can they make it two straight and make their first AFC Championship Game appearance since 1988?  It's definitely possible.  They'll have to play a flawless game, though.  Because the Titans are the better team and won't just give it to them.

Tennessee beat pretty much every other AFC playoff team in the regular season, but didn't play the Bengals.  If they had, I'm sure they would've won that game, too.  The Titans have been remarkably consistent this season.  Mike Vrabel always comes up with a great game plan, especially against good teams.  That shouldn't be any different this week.  Especially since the Titans have that week off to rest.

49ers (11-7) at Packers (13-4): Green Bay-San Francisco was the only road team to win last week, which surprised me.  Partially because I thought the 49ers had no chance against the Cowboys (even though so many people were telling me it would be close) and partially because I figured there would be at least two road winners on Wild Card Weekend.  But I guess it's lesson learned about the 49ers.  They're better than I want to give them credit for.

Green Bay, meanwhile, is the best team in the NFC.  The Packers are the No. 1 seed for the second straight year and are looking to reach their third straight NFC Championship Game (and fifth in eight years).  And they won't just have home field advantage.  They'll be playing a night game at Lambeau in sub-zero temperatures against a warm-weather team.

I've learned my lesson about the 49ers.  I'm not gonna say they're overmatched.  However, they're also not as good as the Packers.  It's Super Bowl or bust for Green Bay.  They get one step closer.

Rams (13-5) at Buccaneers (14-4): Rams-Tom Brady is now 5-0 in the postseason as a member of the Bucs.  Matthew Stafford, meanwhile, finally got his long-awaited first playoff win in a very impressive performance against the Cardinals on Monday night.  Now they have to fly cross-country on a short week to play early Sunday start while Tampa didn't have to travel at all.  Will that make a difference?

While that may have an impact, I don't think it'll be the deciding factor.  Not when you have a defense like the Rams.  That thing can travel, and it's gonna be what keeps the game close until the offense gets going.  And don't discount how important that win on Monday night was for Stafford, who got the playoff monkey off his back.  He's a veteran A matchup against the GOAT shouldn't faze him in the slightest.

These two met in Week 3, when people couldn't shut up about how amazing Tampa Bay was and wondering if they could possibly go undefeated.  The Rams won.  I'd expect them to have a similar game plan this time around.  Except now they have Von Miller and OBJ.  I'm calling it.  Last year, Tampa Bay became the first team to play a home Super Bowl.  The Rams will move within a game of becoming the second.

Bills (12-6) at Chiefs (13-5): Kansas City-This isn't just a rematch of last year's AFC Championship Game.  It's also a matchup of the teams that looked by far the most impressive last week.  The Bills had a perfect offensive performance.  Seven touchdowns and a kneel down in eight possessions.  Kansas City got off to a slow start before starting to look like the Chiefs and dominating Pittsburgh in the second half.

Can Buffalo repeat that performance against Kansas City?  Most likely not.  Just like the Chiefs probably won't be able to repeat their performance from last week.  But if either one gets something even remotely close, it's gonna be very tough for the opposing defense.  And, should this one turn into a shootout, the winner will be favored in the AFC Championship Game, even if the game's in Nashville.

When they met in the regular season, the Bills won pretty handily.  That was way back in September, though, when the Chiefs were still figuring things out.  They're obviously a much different team now.  And a much better one.  Kansas City has been to three straight AFC Championship Games.  They'll make it four.

One of the biggest takeaways from Super Wild Card Weekend was that all eight of these teams are capable of not just getting to the Super Bowl, but winning it.  So I expect all four games this weekend to be close.  These won't be like the blowouts we saw last week.

Last Week: 3-3
Overall: 174-103-1 

Locked Out of Baseball

We're more than seven weeks into the baseball lockout and I haven't blogged about it yet.  I know!  Right?!  Part of the reason for that is because there's simply been no progress made towards actually resolving it.  Although, the two sides have finally started talking and exchanging proposals, so it looks like the ball may finally start moving.  And it needs to soon if Spring Training is going to start on time!

The fact that we're in a lockout wasn't at all unexpected.  The players and owners were (and still are) so far apart on the core economic issues that everyone saw one coming.  The challenge will be coming up with a new CBA that they're both happy with, which won't be easy.  The owners liked the one that just expired.  The players didn't.

There's obviously some common ground to be found if the sides are both willing to compromise.  So far, that's not the case.  The owners have made some concessions, but not enough to satisfy the players, who are holding firm on what they want.  For now at least.  We'll see what's in their counterproposal that's set to be delivered on Monday.

A deal will be reached eventually.  Everybody knows that.  Will both sides be totally happy with it?  Probably not.  But that's actually the sign of a good CBA.  Neither side gets everything they want, but they can both live with it.  That's likely what'll happen here, too.

While I won't even pretend to know the ins and outs of labor law, there are some of what Tom Verducci calls the "math equations" that they both agree on and can easily be hammered out.  On the other issues, however, is where the real negotiating needs to take place.  In an ideal world, they'd meet somewhere in the middle on those big-ticket items.  Especially when there are obvious solutions out there!

Some things do seem sort of inevitable.  The universal DH was used during the pandemic-shortened 2020 season and turned out not to be the end of the world.  We were subjected to pitchers "hitting" for one final time in 2021, but pretty much everyone agrees that there will indeed be a DH in both leagues next season.

Likewise, playoff expansion, unfortunately, also seems likely.  The owners want 14 teams.  The players countered with 12.  I'm not a fan of playoff expansion at all, but, given that it's going to happen, 12 teams is less drastic, so I'll say that's the less-bad choice.  That way the 1- and 2-seeds in each league would get first-round byes while the 3- and 4-seeds host the best-of-three Wild Card Series.

Frankly, playoff expansion seems like an on-ramp to a full-scale expansion to 32 teams.  MLB hasn't expanded since 1998, and there's been way too much talk about it recently for it not to be on the radar.  The question is Montreal and who else?  But, side-track aside, 16 teams in each league split into four divisions of four with a six-team playoff field would allow each division winner to either host a Wild Card Series or get a bye (yes, that's exactly how the NFL used to do it).

Unfortunately, things are a little more complicated on those bigger issues.  Players want some major changes to the core economics, particularly when it comes to free agency and salaries, as well as concerns about service time manipulation and competitive balance.  Let's tackle those issues one at a time and come up with a workable solution for each...

Free Agency: This is probably the biggest sticking point for the players.  For years, players haven't been eligible for free agency until after their sixth season.  They'd like that to be earlier.  Likewise, the draft-pick compensation attached to certain free agents has severely limited the market for those players.  That's been the biggest source of frustration, as it's clearly been the thing preventing some free agents from getting jobs in recent offseasons.  The draft pick compensation has got to go.

Player Salaries: Stars are still gonna get paid.  The massive contracts signed by Max Scherzer and Corey Seager prior to the lockout (as well as the megadeals for Mike Trout, Bryce Harper and Manny Machado, among others) are misleading, though.  Because the vast majority of MLB players (78 percent) play at or just above the league minimum, no matter how good they are.  This is another thing driving some older free agents out of the game, since owners can pay younger players less.  The union would like to see those younger players compensated based on their actual value instead of having to wait out their years of team control before finally getting paid what they deserve.

Service Time: Kris Bryant is the poster child for service time manipulation, but he's not the only one.  It's become so commonplace (and so obvious) that it's a big sticking point with the players.  Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there's an easy solution to it, though.  In one of their offers, the owners proposed an age-based system for free agency rather than doing it based on service time.  That could theoretically make those players free agents earlier.

Competitive Balance: Competitive balance has become a major problem over the past several years.  Too many teams are trying to take a page out of the Astros' and Cubs' book and voluntarily being uncompetitive so that they can stockpile draft picks.  Worse yet, they take the money they receive from revenue sharing and pocket it instead of investing it back into their teams.  Which is unfair to fans who have to watch their team actively try to not win.  It's unfair to the players, too.  Because those teams are intentionally keeping a low payroll, which means they won't be in the market for veteran free agents.  They'll stick with the young guys, who are cheaper.

I've been saying that there's an easy solution to the tanking problem: a salary floor.  The owners actually included a salary floor in their December proposal, but the players rejected it.  Even though the players want tanking to be addressed, they don't think that's the answer.  Their fear is that once a salary floor's in place, a salary cap won't be too far behind.  And a salary cap will forever be a non-starter with the MLBPA.

In their latest proposal, the owners also offered another way to address tanking: an NBA-style draft lottery.  I think this may actually be the way to go if the players are unwilling to accept a salary floor (which I think they should).  The owners proposed three teams.  The players countered with eight.  Do you meet in the middle and go five with the caveat that the same team can't pick first in back-to-back years?

Regardless of how this week's negotiations pan out, we're finally getting some movement after six weeks of nothing.  How much the latest round of proposals moves the needle remains to be seen, but at least they're talking, which is an important and necessary step.  MLB has never lost regular season games because of an offseason work stoppage, and I really don't think they will now either.  My guess is they get a deal done sometime in the middle of February.

Ranking the Available Coaching Jobs

Almost immediately after the Cowboys' playoff loss to the 49ers, the speculation about Head Coach Mike McCarthy's job started.  It was Super Bowl or nothing in Dallas this season, and they didn't even win a playoff game!  (For the record, I actually didn't mind the play call.  The problem was Dak went too far downfield.)  But to think McCarthy's job is or should be in jeopardy is ridiculous.

The Cowboys are in a far better position entering next season than the eight teams that will have new head coaches.  And, even among those eight, some are in much better shape than others.  Three of them (the Bears, Giants and Vikings) need to replace their GM, as well.  Frankly, I was surprised a few of these coaches were let go, which is a sign that with the right coaching hire, they could very well be a playoff team next season.

For the sake of this list, I'm including the Raiders, even though I don't think that job will be "available" for long.  Interim Head Coach Rich Bisaccia did a great job, going 7-5 after taking over for Jon Gruden and leading Las Vegas to the playoffs.  He has the players' support, and I'd be very surprised if they don't make him the full-time head coach.  They haven't yet, though, so they're still counted among the eight teams currently in the coaching market.

I also don't expect two of the recently fired coaches to be out of work long.  Brian Flores has already interviewed with the Texans and will almost certainly end up somewhere.  I'm willing to bet Mike Zimmer will, too.  Frankly, I didn't think either one of them deserved to be fired.  Which lets you know where the Dolphins and Vikings probably fall on this list...

8. Giants: It says all you need to know that of the two New York football teams, the Jets are in better shape right now.  John Mara's not the only one embarrassed about the state of the Giants right now!  Three bad head coaching hires in a row were only the start of it.  (They'll actually be paying three different head coaches next season!)  The roster's also a pretty big problem.  Somebody will be willing to hop on this trainwreck, but it's gonna be quite a challenge for whoever does.

7. Bears: As you know, I've long thought the Bears are overrated.  They clearly think they're better than they actually are.  Which is part of what doomed Matt Nagy (although he was coaching like he didn't want to be there in the last few games).  But they're still in slightly better shape than the Giants.  And, hey, they did make the playoffs last season!

6. Jaguars: Urban Meyer was never going to work.  I don't think anyone expected it to bomb so spectacularly, though.  And Meyer's firing also exposed how dysfunctional that organization truly is.  The Jags do have a couple things going for them, though.  One is Trevor Lawrence.  The other is the fact that they're drafting No. 1 again in this year's draft.  That's a good foundation to build around.

5. Broncos: Peyton Manning retired after Super Bowl 50, and the Broncos haven't made the playoffs since.  That's a long time for such a proud organization.  They're biggest problem is that they've been looking for a quarterback ever since Peyton retired.  Being in the same division as Kansas City doesn't exactly help, either.  They should also have a new owner soon.  All of those sound like negatives (and they are), but Denver's still in slightly better shape than the three teams below them.

4. Texans: Most people expected Houston to be the worst team in the league this season and they weren't even the worst team in their division!  The Texans definitely showed flashes, especially in the two games against Tennessee, so the path towards competitiveness is there.  And things will only get better once they resolve the DeShaun Watson situation.  While I think Flores will also interview other places, he'd be a really good fit here.

3. Raiders: If, for whatever reason, they decide not to make Bisaccia the permanent head coach, this will be one of the more desirable jobs for any candidate.  They're the only playoff team on the list, and they obviously have the talent.  The fact that they already have a franchise quarterback in Derek Carr helps, too.  It's the Raiders, so you know there'll be plenty of pressure.  But there's a reason for that.  Because whoever they hire will be taking over a damn good team!

2. Dolphins: Miami letting Brian Flores go was, frankly, the most surprising coaching move of them all.  The Dolphins didn't make the playoffs in three seasons under Flores, but he went 4-2 against the Patriots and had a 10-win season in 2020.  He definitely had them moving in the right direction, and I think Flores would've taken them to the playoffs next season.  Instead, whoever they hire will get that opportunity.

1. Vikings: After eight years under Mike Zimmer, it was time to go in a new direction.  I get that.  But I wonder if things would've been different had they won some of those one-possession games they lost this season.  Frankly, Minnesota was better than some of the playoff teams.  And they should be just as good next season.  Which is why I think this is the best of the available coaching jobs.  Because whoever comes in should be able to win right away.

Of course, how well these teams (and their new coaches) fare next season could really depend on who they end up hiring.  Will they go with somebody who used to be a head coach but is currently working as a coordinator?  Somebody like Dan Quinn or Doug Pedersen.  Will one of them finally take a chance on an Eric Bienemy or Byron Leftwich?  Other than Flores, will any of the other recently-fired coaches immediately land somewhere else?

Regardless of who they each end up hiring, he needs to be the right fit.  Because if he's not, things won't get any better and these teams will once again be looking to hire a new head coach sooner than they would like.  If he is the right fit, though, it could be a marriage made in heaven!

No Djokovic Makes It Wide Open

As it turns out, Novak Djokovic won't be playing in the Australian Open after all.  Which is probably the best thing for everybody.  Because as long as he was in the country, he was going to dominate the conversation in much the same way Naomi Osaka's press boycott overshadowed last year's French Open.  Rafael Nadal even mentioned how all of the other players were fed up with the Djokovic circus, and he's right.  So, now that the visa saga is settled, we can finally start talking about the 256 players who actually will be participating in the tournament.

While I don't think he would've won this year after all that time he spent in detention, there's no denying that Djokovic's absence leaves the men's field wide open.  In fact, there's only one former winner in the field--Nadal, who won the tournament 12 years ago!  And no one would consider Nadal a favorite here.  Not when this is his first tournament back from injury.

Instead, we're likely to see somebody's Grand Slam breakthrough.  Second-seeded US Open champion Daniil Medvedev was the finalist here last year and would have to be considered the favorite, but this is a great opportunity for some of those other "on the brink" players in the top 10 to finally win a Grand Slam.  Guys like Olympic gold medalist Alexander Zverev and 2021 French Open finalist Stefanos Tsitsipas, a semifinalist here in two of the last three years.

Fifth-seeded Andrey Rublev, meanwhile, suffered a little bit of bad luck with the timing of the whole Djokovic thing.  Had Djokovic been deported earlier, Rublev would've moved into his spot in the bracket and had a clear path to the semifinals.  But, since the Day 1 schedule was already out, Rublev stayed where he was, which means a potential quarterfinal matchup with Medvedev.

Thanks to the Big Three's 15 years of dominance, it's been a long time since we've gone into a men's Grand Slam without a clear favorite.  That's exactly what we have here, though.  And, frankly, I'm intrigued to see how the other players approach a Grand Slam knowing they finally have a chance (in much the same way the 2020 US Open became anybody's to win after Djokovic was DQ'ed).

Adding to the intrigue is the fact that both Medvedev and Zverev have a chance to take over the No. 1 ranking from our unvaccinated friend by winning the tournament.  Fortunately, they ended up on opposite sides of the draw.  So, it's quite possible (I'd even say likely) that they could meet in the final with not just the Australian Open title, but also the No. 1 ranking on the line.

I'd love to see that match, too.  They've won the last two significant hardcourt tournaments--Zverev at the Olympics and Medvedev at the US Open, with each beating Djokovic along the way as Novak was still chasing history.  The difference, of course, is that Medvedev has the one thing Zverev doesn't.  While an Olympic gold medal is still coveted, it's not a Grand Slam title.  Zverev will get that in two weeks.

On the women's side, you've got Osaka returning to Melbourne as the defending champion with a new lease on life.  That mental health break she took after the US Open seems to have done her some good, and we'll see how much that new attitude impacts her tennis.  Because she's arguably the best hardcourt player on the women's tour.  Although, both of her Australian Open titles came immediately after winning the US Open.  And, as we know, she didn't win the 2021 US Open.  Emma Raducanu did.

Speaking of Raducanu, she burst onto the scene so suddenly that this is her Australian Open debut.  In fact, it's just her third career Grand Slam tournament, and the first she's qualified for one directly (she got a wild card into Wimbledon and when through qualifying at the US Open last year).  That's a pretty dramatic change in a span of just a few months.  She went from a nobody to one of the favorites overnight.  Can she live up to it?

Or will it be someone else?  You can't forget about Sofia Kenin, the 2020 champion, or Garbine Muguruza, who she beat in the final that year and is seeded third here.  Not that many people are talking about Muguruza as a potential champion, but they should be.  They should also be talking about Aryna Sabalenka and Maria Sakkari, two top-five players who are still waiting for their Grand Slam breakthrough.

Then there's the hometown favorite, world No. 1 Ash Barty.  Barty's a two-time Grand Slam champion and the biggest hope to give Australia its first women's champion since 1978.  While she isn't the strongest hardcourt player, there's no denying that she benefits from playing in front of the hometown crowd.  She's gone quarters, semis, quarters in the last three years, so a deep run is not out of the question.  Even if a title might be.

One of the reasons I doubt Barty's chances is because the top half of the bracket is simply loaded.  Osaka and Kenin, who've combined to win the last three Australian Opens, are up there.  As is two-time champ Vika Azarenka.  Yes, it was a decade ago.  But Vika's still one of the better hardcourt players among the women.  There's also Sakkari, Ons Jabuer and Elina Svitolina, who I'm still waiting to see make that run to a final she's definitely capable of.

The bottom half of the draw is definitely the weaker section, which is another thing that I think works in Muguruza's favor.  Unfortunately, she, Raducanu and Simona Halep are all in the same section, meaning only one of them can make the quarterfinals.  Which is great news for Petra Kvitova (the 2019 finalist) and Angie Kerber (the 2016 champion).  There's also one random women's player who reaches at least the quarters at the Aussie Open every year.  I wouldn't be surprised if she comes out of the bottom half.

Call me crazy, but I really like Garbine Muguruza for some reason.  I just think everything has lined up perfectly for her.  So much so that she's my pick to win it.  As for her opponent, I'm going with Svitolina.  Which means she'll probably lose in the first round.

Picking Wild Card Games

Wow!  Now THAT was quite a weekend to end the regular season!  It wasn't until literally the last play of the regular season that the Raiders kicked the winning field goal to set the AFC field.  And, boy, does that field look different than it did when Week 18 started!  Raiders and Steelers in, Colts and Chargers out.  Although, sorry Indy, it's your own damn fault!

Over in the NFC, the Packers lost to the Lions because they simply didn't care and the 49ers beat the Rams in another OT game to claim the final spot over the Saints.  While I'm not surprised by the NFC field at all, I am happy with how the seeds shifted around.  Because I think Green Bay and Dallas are the two best teams and now that the Cowboys are the 3-seed, they can't meet until the NFC Championship Game. 

Spoiler alert, that's my pick for the NFC Championship Game matchup.  The rest of the playoffs-as-a-whole picks will come after I go through this week's six games, including the first-ever Monday night Wild Card Game, which, frankly, is just awesome!

Raiders (10-7) at Bengals (10-7): Cincinnati-Thirty-one years ago in the Divisional Playoffs, the Bengals broke Bo Jackson.  Their punishment for doing that was to lose that game...and every playoff game they've played since!  It's also been a while since the Raiders won a playoff game.  The 2002 AFC Championship Game to be exact.  In fact, this will be just their second playoff game since then!  So, one of these teams will finally end a long playoff drought!

I wonder if playing the Sunday night game then turning around and playing a Sunday afternoon game will have any impact on the Raiders.  More likely, the cold weather in Cincinnati will be a factor.  It was an incredible run by Las Vegas to sneak in when everybody thought they were out of it, but I think that run ends here.  The Bengals have had a chip on their shoulder all season and still feel like they have something to prove.  They'll go a long way towards proving it with their first playoff win since 1990.

Patriots (10-7) at Bills (11-6): New England-Snow?  Frigid temperatures?  Sounds like a typical January day in Buffalo!  It also sounds like a great day for some playoff football!  Although, any advantage the Bills would've had because of the elements is negated by the fact that their division rivals are used to these conditions, too (and pretty famously won a playoff game in a blizzard 20 years ago this week).

This is the rubber match between these two.  The road team won both regular season meetings, with the Bills doing absolutely nothing offensively on that windy Monday night six weeks ago.  They rebounded to put up 33 points at Foxboro in Week 16, which is what gave them the division title.  So, really, who has the edge depends on what type of game they play.  If it's like Week 13, it's advantage New England.  If it's like Week 16, it's advantage Buffalo.  Considering what the weather is supposed to be and Belichick, I've gotta go with the Patriots.

Eagles (9-8) at Buccaneers (13-4): Tampa Bay-Last season, Tampa Bay played all road games before becoming the first-ever Super Bowl home team.  This time, they get to start the playoffs at Raymond James Stadium after winning their first division title since 2007.  Perhaps more importantly, though, their win and the Rams' loss last week moved them up to the 2-seed, which means they'll get another home game next week.

Their opponent this week is a team they used to face in the playoffs seemingly every year--the Philadelphia Eagles.  Great job by the Eagles to make the playoffs, but they're overmatched here and they know it.  You can only take so much from last week's result when they clearly didn't care, but, still, going into the playoffs having given up 51 points in your last game doesn't exactly exude confidence.  That and the fact that their opponent is Tom Brady.

49ers (10-7) at Cowboys (12-5): Dallas-Speaking of teams that used to play in the playoffs every year, I present Dallas and San Francisco.  The Cowboys and 49ers have played some all-time classics, and their rivalry in the 90s was epic!  What does this latest chapter have in store?

Well, if the Dallas Cowboys play like they did last week, they're gonna be very difficult to beat.  I've been saying all season that I think Dallas is the best team.  They're certaily the most complete.  And last week was probably their best all-around effort of the season.  Even if only one of their units is firing on all cylinders, that should be enough.  San Francisco won four of its last five to go from 6-7 to 10-7, but their season ends here.

Steelers (9-7-1) at Chiefs (12-5): Kansas City-That stupid tie against the Lions got the Steelers into the playoffs!  Although, to their credit, they did what they had to do and had everything they needed to happen go their way (I can only imagine how crazy their fans must've been going when Raiders-Chargers went to OT, knowing that they were out if that game ended in a tie!).  And, as a result, Ben Roethlisberger gets one last game.  On Sunday Night Football no less!

People aren't giving Pittsburgh much of a chance here, and the Chiefs are even promoting this as the "Ben Roetlisberger Retirement Party."  You obviously don't want to get caught being overconfident (which I think the Steelers did in their playoff loss to the Browns last year), but Kansas City knows they're the better team.  My biggest concern regarding the Chiefs will be in a few weeks, when Mahomes has to go on the road in the postseason for the first time.  I don't think not having the bye will have any impact.

Cardinals (11-6) at Rams (12-5): Arizona-We wrap up Super Wild Card Weekend with a rematch of a regular season Monday night game that the Rams won.  That proved to be the difference that gave the Rams the division crown, although the standings would've flipped had the Cardinals beaten Seattle last week.  I'm not sure Arizona's too bothered by that, though, since they were such a good road team this season.  The Rams, however, are certainly helped by playing at SoFi.

Just like Bills-Patriots, these two split in the regular season, with the road team winning both games.  Unlike Bills-Patriots, the two games in this series were spread apart.  The first one was early in the season when Arizona was in the midst of its 7-0 start.  The second one, meanwhile, is what got the Rams going on their strong stretch run.  I'd say meeting No. 3 is a coin flip, and I'm going to call "tails," an Arizona victory.

As for my overall playoff picks, I already told you what I think in the NFC.  In the AFC, meanwhile, I've got a Titans-Chiefs Championship Game.  My Super Bowl matchup is Dallas-Tennessee.  With the Dallas Cowboys winning their sixth Super Bowl.

Last Week: 9-7
Overall: 171-100-1 

My 2022 NHL All-Stars

This year's NHL All-Star Game was supposed to be a grand send-off into the Olympic break.  The players were gonna gather in Las Vegas, then head to Beijing to compete for their countries.  Instead, they'll be gathering in Las Vegas, then going back to their teams to resume the season.  So, basically, it's just like any other All-Star Game...except it's not.

It's the celebration of hockey that we all need after two miserable years.  And, yes, it would've been the perfect way for the NHL to head into its Olympic return, but all of the postponements made that impossible.  So, instead of seeing the NHL's best representing their countries, we'll have to settle for them representing their divisions.

When the NHL went to that format for the All-Star Game, I absolutely loved it!  (Although, frankly, anything would've been better than that idiotic pick your own team nonsense.)  Since the NHL was supposed to be playing in the Olympics this year, there was talk of changing it to some sort of international-based format similar to the North America vs. the World thing they did in the early 2000s.  But I'm glad they didn't.  Because the four-division tournament is so great!

I also love the idea of having it in Las Vegas.  The Golden Knights have been a sensation since joining the league five years ago.  The NHL hit a home run with that franchise.  Everything about it.  So it makes sense to keep that train going and have an All-Star Game at T-Mobile Arena.

What's crazy is that it's actually the first of two All-Star Games in Las Vegas in the same weekend.  First the NHL All-Star Game, then the Pro Bowl the following day.  And they're getting a Super Bowl soon, too.  I think it's safe to say Las Vegas is definitely a major league town now!  Quite a change to say the least!  (And there are constant advertisements for the gambling websites on every broadcast now, so the leagues' stance on gambling itself is obviously much different now, too.)

And, just like many shows in Las Vegas, this should be a good one.  The 3-on-3 thing is so exciting!  And the tournament format definitely makes it more competitive than the no-hitting, no-defense All-Star Games of the past that were essentially skills competitions (after the regular Skills Competition the night before).  Not that there won't be offense, though!  Not with the star power in the league!

They'll announce at the same time as the full rosters, but I think it's probably a safe bet to assume Auston Matthews, Alex Ovechkin, Nathan MacKinnon and Connor McDavid should hold their leads.  And, I've got to say, that's a great group of captains.  The fans sure got it right with those four, all of whom likely would've been All-Stars either way.

As for the remainder of the rosters, it's definitely got to be a challenge.  I love that every team is represented, but with 11-man rosters and eight-team divisions, that only leaves three extra spots for second (or third) representatives.  Which means a lot of deserving guys won't be heading to Vegas.  (Although, I'd still rather that than seeing the Atlantic Division team be the Tampa Bay Lightning + Auston Matthews.)

NHL.com and ESPN.com have both done their mock rosters, and, as you'd expect, they're not in complete agreement about who'll make each team.  There's obviously some about the no-brainers, but the single-team selections are where it gets complicated.  I looked at both sites and I agree with some, I don't agree with others, and I had to make some adjustments based on who would make the best sole representative from his team.  So now, without further ado, I present the 2022 Joe Brackets NHL All-Stars...

ATLANTIC
G: Andrei Vasilevskiy, TB; Jack Campbell, TOR
D: Rasmus Dahlin, BUF; Aaron Ekblad, FLA; Thomas Chabot, OTT
F: *Auston Matthews, TOR; Brad Marchand, BOS; Lucas Raymond, DET; Jonathan Huberdeau, FLA; Nick Suzuki, MTL; Steven Stamkos, TB

METROPOLITAN
G: Fredrik Andersen, CAR; Tristan Jarry, PIT
D: Zach Werenski, CBJ; Adam Fox, NYR; John Carlson, WSH
F: *Alex Ovechkin, WSH; Sebastian Aho, CAR; Jesper Bratt, NJ; Mathew Barzal, NYI; Chris Kreider, NYR; Claude Giroux, PHI

CENTRAL
G: Darcy Kuemper, COL; Juuse Saros, NSH
D: Shayne Gostisbehre, ARZ; Cale Makar, COL; Roman Josi, NSH
F: *Nathan MacKinnon, COL; Patrick Kane, CHI; Joe Pavelski, DAL; Kirill Kaprizov, MIN; Jordan Kyrou, STL; Kyle Connor, WPG

PACIFIC
G: Jacob Markstrom, CGY; Thatcher Demko, VAN
D: Drew Doughty, LA; Quinn Hughes, VAN; Shea Theodore, VGK
F: *Connor McDavid, EDM; Troy Terry, ANA; Johnny Gaudreau, CGY; Leon Draisaitl, EDM; Timo Meier, SJ; Jordan Eberle, SEA

All four of these teams are pretty evenly matched.  If I had to pick a favorite, I'd probably say the Central, but it's very close.  Although, interestingly, only the Pacific and Metropolitan have ever won All-Star Games in this format.  Will that change this year?  I can't wait to find out!

Picking Football Games, Week 18

Well kids, we've made it!  The end of the 2021 season, the NFL's first with 17 games.  And we enter the season finale with a few things still up in the air.  The AFC's No. 1 seed is still at stake, as well as the AFC East and NFC West titles.  There are three wild card spots left, too, including one that'll go to the winner of Sunday night's Raiders-Chargers game.

I've also gotta say that it's pretty impressive we're guaranteed to have every playoff team be 9-8 or better.  Because, for a while, it looked like one of the NFC wild cards would only have eight wins, which really would've been a bad look for both the expanded playoffs and the expanded season.  I'm less bothered by the AFC's No. 1 seed having at least five losses.  It's really just a sign of parity in a conference that had 13 teams still mathematically alive for the playoffs last week!

Chiefs (11-5) at Broncos (7-9): Kansas City-After taking care of the Broncos to start Week 18, you know Kansas City will be watching Sunday's games pretty intently to see whether they're playing next week or not.  Although, what really should concern the Chiefs is that of their five losses this season, three have come against the other three AFC division champions (assuming Buffalo wins the East) and the fourth came against the Chargers, who they could end up facing in the Wild Card Game.  So, no matter what, it looks like the Chiefs will have to face a team they lost to this season in the playoffs.

Cowboys (11-5) at Eagles (9-7): Dallas-Dallas entered last week's game as the NFC's No. 2 seed.  They enter this week's game knowing that they're pretty much locked into No. 4.  Which means either the Cardinals or Rams next week, then possibly a trip to Green Bay for the Divisional Playoffs.  So, yeah, it was a pretty significant loss for them.  The Eagles are also headed to the playoffs, having used a four-game winning streak to clinch a spot.  Of course, their opponents during that streak were the Giants, Jets and Washington twice, though.  So, needless to say, this is a bit of a step up in quality of opponent.

Bengals (10-6) at Browns (7-9): Cincinnati-Who Dey?  Who Dey?  Who Dey Gonna Beat Them Bengals?  No one!  Talk about signature wins, that's exactly what the AFC North champs got last week!  Sure, they got some help on 4th-and-goal, but that's not the point.  The point is the Cincinnati Bengals are for real!  And, if the Chiefs lose to Denver, they're actually still alive for No. 1.  The Bengals are also undefeated in the division, and a perfect run through a division that had three playoff teams last season is definitely something worth playing for.

Packers (13-3) at Lions (2-13-1): Green Bay-Even though the Packers have already locked up the 1-seed, Aaron Rodgers is gonna play for some reason.  Maybe they don't want him to have two full weeks off.  Maybe they'll treat it like a preseason game and he won't play the whole time.  Or maybe they want him to get that 16th game to bolster his MVP candidacy.  Either way, it doesn't really matter.  The Packers don't care whether they win or not, but if Rodgers plays a decent amount they probably will.

Bears (6-10) at Vikings (7-9): Minnesota-You've gotta wonder how things would've been different had luck been on the Vikings' side at all this season.  Minnesota played more games than I can count (the win over the Steelers and last week's loss in Green Bay are the only blowouts I can think of), but what do they have to show for it?  A bunch of one-score losses and a sub-.500 record.  Which is more than I can say for a not-very-good Bears team that's already told its coach he's being fired after the game.

Washington (6-10) at Giants (4-12): Giants-Washington's final game as the "Football Team" (Thank Goodness!) will also hopefully be the final game for Giants Head Coach Joe Judge and GM Dave Gettleman.  This one is obviously meaningless, so it might be a matter of which team doesn't give a crap less.  Frankly, it doesn't matter.  Although, since the Giants should've won the first game and this one's at home, I'll go with them.

Colts (9-7) at Jaguars (2-14): Indianapolis-The Colts sure made a mess for themselves, didn't they?  Instead of wrapping up their playoff spot last week and still having a shot at winning the AFC South, they find themselves needing a win in Week 18 or being out entirely.  The good news is their finale is against the Jaguars.  They won't need to sweat it out until the end of the Chargers-Raiders game to know whether they're in the playoffs or not.  Because, frankly, if they can't beat Jacksonville, they don't deserve to be.

Steelers (8-7-1) at Ravens (8-8): Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh has never finished below .500 in Ben Roetlisberger's career, and the Steelers guaranteed that they won't in his final season with their win last week in Cleveland.  That's truly a remarkable stat.  They're also the only team in the league capable of finishing exactly .500 this season, so I kinda want them to lose for that reason alone.  But, the Steelers incredibly still have a shot at the playoffs, and a win is required for that highly unlikely scenario to play out.  Either way, do you really see them sending Big Ben out with anything other than a victory?

Titans (11-5) at Texans (4-12): Tennessee-Had the Texans not beaten the Titans the first time, Tennessee would have already clinched the AFC's No. 1 seed.  So you know they're not taking Houston lightly.  They'll also know whether the Chiefs already won, which only amps up the pressure even more.  Not that they need the pressure amped up, though.  That loss to Houston in Week 11 is more than enough motivation.  They get their bye and force Kansas City to play next week.

Saints (8-8) at Falcons (7-9): New Orleans-Things looked really bleak for the Saints to make the playoffs just a few weeks ago.  Then they shut out Tampa Bay and, with their favorable schedule, it suddenly seemed possible.  Now, they head into their finale in Atlanta knowing that a win and a 49ers loss gets them in.  Which is very realistic.  Of course, while they have no control over Rams-49ers, they can easily take care of their part.

Jets (4-12) at Bills (10-6): Buffalo-Despite all of their inconsistency in the middle of the season, all the Bills need to do to secure their second straight AFC East title is beat the Jets at home.  Not a bad deal!  And they've actually looked like a playoff-bound team again during their three-game winning streak (and even in their OT loss to Tampa Bay).  Of course, they can thank their friends from Miami for the division title.  Because it's the Dolphins' Week 1 win over the Patriots that's the tiebreaker in Buffalo's favor right now.

49ers (9-7) at Rams (12-4): San Francisco-For some reason, the Rams can't beat the 49ers.  San Francisco swept the season series last year and won the first meeting this season.  Which makes this game incredibly intriguing.  Because they both need a win.  The 49ers looked like a lock for the playoffs a few weeks ago, but they could end up seeing the Saints steal their wild card.  The Rams, meanwhile, fought their way back to the NFC West lead, but fall right back to a wild card if they lose and the Cardinals win.  Get ready for Rams-Cowboys next Sunday night!  Because San Francisco's getting that last playoff spot.

Patriots (10-6) at Dolphins (8-8): New England-Miami started the season with a win in New England, then went on to lose seven in a row before winning seven in a row.  They were eliminated from playoff contention last week, though, so their up-and-down season ends the same way it began--against the Patriots.  Miami is the one team that has consistently given Belichick trouble, so expect this to be another close one.  The division title is still in play for New England, though.  And that should be enough motivation to put the Patriots on top.

Seahawks (6-10) at Cardinals (11-5): Arizona-There's no way to understate how important last week's win in Dallas was for the Cardinals.  They already knew they were headed to the playoffs, but now they go into Week 18 still with a (very realistic) shot at winning the NFC West and getting a home game next week.  They obviously can't control what happens in the Rams-49ers game.  All they can do is take care of business in Seattle.  At the very worst, they'll know they're headed right back to Dallas, where they just won.

Panthers (5-11) at Buccaneers (12-4): Tampa Bay-Not to make light of it, but did anyone see the Antonio Brown thing ending any other way?  That was seriously one of the strangest things I've ever seen happen on a football field!  It's a good thing the Bucs didn't lose to the Jets and make that an even bigger story.  A loss there would've also pretty much locked them into the 3-seed, but No. 2 is still very much in play.  Of course, that could mean facing the Saints for a third time (although, they did beat New Orleans in the playoffs last year after getting swept in the regular season).

Chargers (9-7) at Raiders (9-7): Chargers-It's win and in in Game 272 (sorry, but Game 256 sounds better).  It's not surprising that the Chargers are in this position.  They were 4-1 at one point and many people have considered them among the best teams in the AFC all season.  The Raiders though?  They looked lost for a little while after the Gruden firing/resignation, but they've sure righted the ship, and they got that win in Indy last week to put themselves into this position.  The fact that the game is in Las Vegas helps the Raiders, but the Chargers are the better team and, frankly, deserve to be in the playoffs more.

Last Week: 11-5
Overall: 162-93-1 

No Winners Here

Whether Novak Djokovic ends up being allowed to play in the Australian Open or not, he's already lost.  So have the tournament organizers.  And the Australian government.  And really anyone involved in this entire saga, which still isn't over.

It didn't have to be this way.  But Djokovic made his choice, which he was completely entitled to do.  And, as Rafael Nadal pointed out, that choice came with consequences that he's now paying.  It's not like he was singled out or they suddenly changed their policy.  Players have known for months that there would be a vaccine requirement to play in the Australian Open!  And the speculation about Djokovic's status for the tournament he's won nine times has been going nearly as long.

I love it how every time there's an article about somebody who's unvaccinated, be it Kyrie Irving, Novak Djokovic, Aaron Rodgers or any number of Republicans in Congress, they're very careful to say "XXXXXX's vaccination status is unclear" as if we're stupid and can't figure out on our own that they aren't.  If you need to be fully vaccinated to do something and they can't do it, it's pretty obvious why.  (Likewise, everyone who thinks they're clever by invoking their right to privacy to not discuss their vaccination status is pretty much confirming that they're not.  Otherwise, they'd have no issue talking about it.)

Although, we didn't need the "medical exemption" or what happened at the Melbourne airport to know that Novak Djokovic isn't vaccinated.  His public comments have made his stance pretty clear.  Then there was his father suggesting the Australian Open was trying to blackmail him into getting it.  If he was already vaccinated why would the tournament requiring it be an issue?  Likewise, if he was already vaccinated, why would he need a medical exemption? 

Djokovic is making himself out to be a victim here.  He's anything but.  And, frankly, what happened "to" him shouldn't have been a surprise.  Even if how it went down was flat out weird!

Let's start with the dubious medical exemption, which is what got the ball rolling in the first place.  Tennis Australia insists all of the applications were blind and that his was one of only a handful that were accepted.  Whether it's true that the process was blind or not doesn't really matter.  Because it screams "special treatment!"  Especially since Djokovic's stance on the vaccine is so well-known.  Yet he somehow qualified for a medical exemption, an option that wasn't even possible until a few weeks ago?

Some explanation would've been helpful.  Why was his application approved when so many others weren't?  The assumption is that he's had COVID within the last six months, which is one of the reasons Tennis Australia listed as a reason for a player to potentially be granted a medical exemption.  If that's the case, it's taking advantage of a loophole.  If that's not the case, then they really need to say so.  Because otherwise, it sure looks like they created a separate set of rules that apply only to Novak Djokovic while everyone else has to follow the previous rules.

Meanwhile, as we've learned, being allowed to enter the tournament and being allowed to enter the country are not the same thing.  The issue here is the type of visa.  The one he applied for doesn't allow medical exemptions.  So, since he couldn't provide the proper paperwork once his flight landed in Australia, his visa application was rejected.

That's where we currently stand.  Djokovic is quarantined in a hotel waiting to see whether he'll be allowed into the country or be forced to return home.  They expedited his hearing, which will be on Monday, after which we'll know once and for all whether he'll be going for a 10th Australian Open title or not.  Although, if he is allowed to play, don't expect the Melbourne crowd to embrace him.  In fact, I'd expect the reaction to be very hostile.

We can't overlook that part of the whole situation.  Australia has had some of the strictest COVID restrictions anywhere in the world.  So it didn't exactly sit well with Australians who had to endure two months-long lockdowns to see an unvaccinated foreigner be allowed to enter the country and not have to quarantine or anything when even some vaccinated Australians can't.  Again, it reeks of special treatment.  (Djokovic's tweet from the airport saying he was on his way to Australia didn't help, either.)

Did the Australian public's reaction prompt the government's response?  Perhaps.  I'd even say, "most likely."  The visa issue probably could've been resolved right there at the Melbourne airport.  But, the fact is Tennis Australia put both the federal and state government in an impossible position.  They could either let him in, piss off their own citizens and also be accused of giving Djokovic special treatment or they could enforce the same rules that apply to everyone else who isn't the top-ranked tennis player in the world, take the PR hit and deal with the (predictable) legal fight.

There are, of course, plenty of people on both sides of the issue.  Djokovic has plenty of supporters who argue that his vaccination status is nobody else's business and that he did everything within the rules.  He applied for and received the medical exemption, which should be enough for him to be allowed to play and he's unfairly being singled out because of who he is.

Except the other side is making that exact same argument!  Novak Djokovic shouldn't be treated differently because of who he is, but that's exactly what he wants.  He thinks that because he's Novak Djokovic, he shouldn't have to get vaccinated, but should still be able to travel freely around the world (in the middle of a global pandemic!) to play tennis.  Because he's a famous athlete, he should get special privileges that us everyday schmoes aren't worthy of.

This problem isn't limited to Australia, either.  Each country has its own laws and is handling COVID its own way.  And many of them are requiring any foreigners entering the country to be fully vaccinated.  That includes France, Great Britain and the United States.  So, Djokovic could conceivably run into this same issue before each Grand Slam this season.

Now, there's one obvious solution to all of this.  If Djokovic was vaccinated, he wouldn't be in this situation.  He'd be able to travel freely around the world (which is a requirement for his job) and not have to worry about quarantines or any other COVID-related restrictions.  And, frankly, it would be the responsible thing to do for a person whose job it is to be in a different country every week.

Instead, we've got this mess.  A situation that was entirely avoidable where everybody looks bad.  Make no mistake, though.  Tennis Australia and the Australian government are only in this situation because of Novak Djokovic.  So, yes, this is very much about him.  It always has been.  He made sure of that.

A Problem of Their Own Making

As I hinted the other day, the NFL will have a very unique problem on its hands next season.  Christmas is on a Sunday this year, which means New Year's Day 2023 is, as well.  Until this season, that meant the regular season would end with the Sunday night game on New Year's Day.  But, because of the stupid 17th game, next season won't end until Jan. 8 and New Year's is just a regular week--which would typically include the final Monday night game.

Except...when New Year's Day is on a Sunday, that moves the New Year's Six bowl games to Monday.  Which means the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl, which air at 5:00 and 8:30.  Those start times are written into ESPN's contract with those two games.  And what network broadcasts Monday Night Football?  ESPN!

They obviously can't broadcast both the Sugar Bowl and Monday Night Football at the same time, but figuring out a way around this (completely avoidable) situation will require some expert-level finagling.  Finagling that I'm not sure is possible because of how jam-packed the schedules of both ABC and ESPN are that weekend.

Now, my level of sympathy for the NFL's little dilemma is completely nonexistent.  This situation was both foreseeable and preventable, but they decided to forge ahead with a 17th game anyway and they still have an aversion to Labor Day Weekend that I still don't entirely understand.  If they played on Labor Day Weekend or the schedule was still only 16 games in 17 weeks, this would be a non-issue.  Instead, they have a pretty significant problem that they brought entirely upon themselves.

Complicating matters is that next season's College Football Playoff semifinals are on New Year's Eve.  So, that takes what would otherwise be the simplest solution out of play.  They can't just move the Monday night game to Saturday because ESPN will already be broadcasting the two CFP games.  What to do instead then?  I've got a few ideas...

Solution 1: Move the Monday night game to ABC
While this seems like the most obvious solution and the easiest way to solve the problem, it would actually put ESPN in a terrible position.  They'd be going against themselves for (primarily the same) viewers, which is just dumb.  And it would also probably make both of their biggest partners--the NFL and the CFP--unhappy.  So, Monday Night Football vs. the Sugar Bowl doesn't seem like the best option.

Solution 2: Play on Saturday night on ABC
This one wouldn't work for a couple reasons.  First, see above, except instead of the Sugar Bowl it would be one of the semifinal games.  Perhaps more significantly, they can't move it to ABC either because of New Year's Rockin' Eve.  NBC would be willing to bump their New Year's Eve show for a Sunday night game (and has before), but New Year's Rockin' Eve is a different animal.  Even the NFL can't (and won't) compete with that.  (In fact, ABC's contract with New Year's Rockin' Eve runs until 2024, so even if they wanted to play on ABC on New Year's Eve, they couldn't.)

Solution 3: Play on Friday night
Next season's Orange Bowl is currently scheduled to be played on Friday night, Dec. 30.  They could easily move it to Thursday night, though, which would free up Friday for the "Monday" night game.  The NFL avoids Thursday night games in the second-to-last week so nobody has extra rest heading into the last game, but they may be willing to do Friday night.  The only question is how flexible the Orange Bowl's date is.

Solution 4: No Week 17 Monday night game
Playing on Tuesday wouldn't work since that would give somebody a short week heading into the last game, so my last proposal is simply not having a Monday night game in Week 17.  ESPN/ABC could compensate for the week off by playing a doubleheader one week or getting one of the Saturday night games that's usually on NFL Network (or a Friday night game on Dec. 23).  I'm not sure how that would work with the guarantees in the new TV contract, but it seems like it would be the one that would work best logistically.

Of those four options, Solutions 3 and 4 would seem to be the ones that would work best.  If they're able to move the Orange Bowl to Thursday night, I'd say Solution 3 is the way to go.  Otherwise, Solution 1 beats Solution 4.  Neither one is ideal, but neither is the alternative.

While having a Monday night doubleheader in Week 1 would make it so that skipping Week 17 is possible, that would leave ESPN without a game in a late-season week that's critical for playoff positioning (this after being given Monday night flex scheduling in the new contract).  Beyond that, though, since there's no Monday night game in Week 18, they'd go two straight Mondays without an NFL game before the Monday night Wild Card Game.  Those would be filled by the Sugar Bowl and CFP National Championship Game, so it's not like they wouldn't be showing football, but the point remains. 

In fact, this issue isn't just limited to the 2022 NFL season.  They'll have the same problem in 2023, when Christmas and New Year's are on Mondays (and, thus, the Sugar Bowl is on Monday).  And it's something that will happen again the next time those holidays fall on either Sunday or Monday.  (Although, it should be noted, a Saturday night game on Dec. 30 IS possible, unlike a Saturday night game on New Year's Eve.)

So, yeah, they're gonna have to come up with a solution that works for everybody moving forward.  I'm not sure what that solution is, though.  Because not playing Monday Night Football on Monday night in Week 17 of an 18-week season doesn't seem ideal!  Especially with ESPN/ABC getting the new perks of flexible scheduling and being in the Super Bowl rotation in the new TV contract.

Is this a major problem in the grand scheme of things?  Of course not!  But it's another thing that the NFL never had to worry about before that has suddenly become an issue because they added a week to the season (and still refuse to play on Labor Day weekend, which would resolve it right then and there).  Yet another reason to hate Week 18!

Picking Football Games, Week 17

Next season, the NFL will have a very interesting problem entirely of its own making in Week 17.  More on that next time.  But first, we have Week 17 of the 2021 season, which isn't the end of the road.  Game 256 is Browns-Steelers on Monday night, but Game 256 isn't significant anymore.  Game 272 is.  And, frankly, that doesn't have the same ring to it.

Falcons (7-8) at Bills (9-6): Buffalo-Last week's victory in New England was huge for the Bills, who'll win the AFC East if they win both of their remaining games.  There are a bunch of scenarios where they'll clinch a playoff berth this week, the most direct of which is a win and a Rams win over the Ravens.  That's very doable.  Of course, if they don't beat the Falcons, not only is the Rams-Ravens game irrelevant to them, the division title is no longer solely in their control either.  They certainly don't want that.

Giants (4-11) at Bears (5-10): Giants-For the Giants, is it better to win and improve your chances of picking back-to-back or to lose and stagger your two top 10 picks a little bit?  Am I giving them too much credit for even thinking about that?  I guess that's what happens when you have two out of contention teams facing each other in the penultimate week.  I'll go with the Giants because why not?  (And because I've been pretty clear all season about the fact that I don't think the Bears are very good.)

Chiefs (11-4) at Bengals (9-6): Kansas City-Believe it or not, Cincinnati can clinch the AFC North with a win.  Of course, that's easier said than done against a red-hot Chiefs team that enters this one on an eight-game winning streak.  A loss before the playoffs start wouldn't be the worst thing for Kansas City, and you can bet they're hoping they wrap up home field this week so they can potentially rest starters against Denver.  I also think it's entirely possible that these two see each other again in a couple weeks.

Dolphins (8-7) at Titans (10-5): Tennessee-Miami's season really has been incredible.  A seven-game losing streak followed by a seven-game winning streak that has them currently sitting in playoff position.  And who would they play in the Wild Card Game?  The Tennessee Titans!  We're a long way from calling this a "playoff preview," though.  Especially since the Titans haven't even clinched their playoff berth yet.  Of course, that's just a formality.  In fact, they'll lock up the AFC South with a win.

Raiders (8-7) at Colts (9-6): Indianapolis-For the Colts, it's win and in.  For the Raiders, it's win to stay alive.  Here's the interesting thing, though: a Las Vegas win would give them the head-to-head tiebreaker over the Colts.  A Raiders win would also potentially set up a winner-gets-the-last-wild-card scenario next week against the Chargers (in a game that would almost certainly be on Sunday night).  Don't bet on that scenario happening.  Because Indy's gonna keep rolling.

Jaguars (2-13) at Patriots (9-6): New England-Suddenly, after two straight losses, the Patriots find themselves back in wild card position.  The good news is New England's still got a one-game lead on that whole 8-7 pack.  The other good news is that they get to play Jacksonville this week.  Of course, the Jaguars' wins this season are against the other two AFC East playoff contenders, but this one should be a little different.

Buccaneers (11-4) at Jets (4-11): Tampa Bay-Over the past few seasons, it seemed the Jets would always play the Patriots sometime around now.  Both of their meetings with New England this season were earlier, so they'll have to settle for facing Brady instead.  Tampa Bay's already wrapped up the division, but still has seeding to think about.  Beating the Jets doesn't really help them, but losing to one of the worst teams in the league will essentially lock them into No. 4 and a matchup with the NFC West wild card team, which is something they don't want.

Eagles (8-7) at Washington (6-9): Washington-If everything falls their way, the Eagles can actually wrap up a wild card this week.  Quite a turnaround for a team that nobody thought had a shot at the playoffs even a few weeks ago.  And they've got the Cowboys next week, so they know that this game is essentially a must-win.  The fact that they just played Washington makes me hesitant though.  Especially after Washington got its butt kicked by Dallas last week.  You know they'd love screwing up the Eagles' playoff chances, too.

Rams (11-4) at Ravens (8-7): Rams-A Rams win and a Cowboys win, and we've got all four NFC divisions locked up.  The Rams have sure recovered from their little midseason hiccup.  The Ravens, on the other hand, sure haven't.  Baltimore has tumbled all the way to 10th place in the AFC standings, and it's not like things are getting any easier.  Since another Ravens loss factors into so many playoff scenarios, there are a lot of other AFC teams rooting for the Rams in this one.

Broncos (7-8) at Chargers (8-7): Chargers-Oh man!  Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot!  The Chargers went to Houston and gave up 41 points to one of the worst teams in the league.  And, as a result, their playoff position is a lot more precarious.  That turned this game into an absolute must-win.  It's also a must-win for the Broncos, but Denver's playoff chances aren't nearly as good as the Chargers'.  Those chances will drop to zero after this one.

Texans (4-11) at 49ers (8-7): San Francisco-Don't look past the Texans!  That's a lesson the Titans and Chargers both learned, and the 49ers would be advised to pay attention to it.  Of course, the big difference between last week's game and this week's is that this one is in Santa Clara.  And a win all but locks up a playoff spot for San Francisco, regardless of what happens next week.  (In fact, they will clinch with a win and a Saints loss.)

Cardinals (10-5) at Cowboys (11-4): Dallas-People have had this one circled for weeks because of its importance to the NFC playoff race.  Of course, that's before Arizona went into a free fall.  It's still important, but not as important as it could've been.  Because the Dallas Cowboys look ready for the playoffs to start.  The Arizona Cardinals don't.  Dallas will show that again.

Panthers (5-10) at Saints (7-8): New Orleans-The Saints sure made a mess for themselves on Monday night, didn't they!  New Orleans had the clearest path to the playoffs of all the NFC wild card contenders.  Instead, they laid an absolute egg against the Dolphins.  They haven't scored a touchdown in two weeks, either, which is also a big problem.  Nonetheless, I see them beating Carolina.  (Also, shout out to the Superdome facilities crew, who'll only have a few hours to turn the stadium over after the Sugar Bowl.)

Lions (2-12-1) at Seahawks (5-10): Seattle-Detroit winning wouldn't shock me.  Because, frankly, I think the Seahawks are mailing it in and have been for a few weeks.  Not that I entirely blame them.  After all, this is the first time in the Pete Carroll-Russell Wilson Era that they've been out of it.  I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, though, and say they close out their home schedule with a victory.

Vikings (7-8) at Packers (12-3): Green Bay-It's gonna be COLD at Lambeau on Sunday night!  Not as cold as it was in Minneapolis for the Winter Classic, but cold enough for you to know it's a January Packers home game.  They'll know before the game starts whether they can guarantee themselves nothing but home games throughout the playoffs.  At the very least, they want the satisfaction of essentially eliminating a Vikings team that has already beaten them this season and won't have its quarterback.

Browns (7-8) at Steelers (7-7-1): Pittsburgh-Big Ben hasn't officially said he's retiring, but he's also indicated that this "might" be his final game at Heinz Field.  The fact that it's against the rival Browns, who absolutely destroyed them the last time they visited Pittsburgh in last season's playoffs, only adds fuel to his competitive fire.  And, more importantly, it'll keep the Steelers' very faint playoff hopes alive heading into the finale (while also eliminating Cleveland).  I just don't see Roethlisberger letting Pittsburgh lose this one.

BONUS PICK--Week 18 Flex Games: New England at Miami, Cincinnati at Cleveland, Chargers at Las Vegas-Since the NFL is trying something new this season and having three flex games in the final week (two on Saturday, as well as Sunday night), I thought I'd also try something new and pick which games I think will get flexed into those spots.  The only two NFC contenders are Cowboys-Eagles and 49ers-Rams, but I think all three will end up being AFC games (especially if all seven NFC spots are already clinched).  Which is why I went with Bengals-Browns, Patriots-Dolphins and Chargers-Raiders.  Cincinnati will have either already won the AFC North or have the chance to clinch it with a win, while the other two could determine wild card spots.

Last Week: 9-7
Overall: 151-88-1