Lindsey's Last Olympics

When Lindsey Vonn came back to ski racing then, once she started competing again, made it seem like she had never left, I don't think this is what she had in mind.  She envisioned her comeback having a storybook ending with an Olympic medal on one of her favorite hills.  Instead, it ended with her being airlifted off the mountain after breaking her leg.  Instead of heartwarming, it was heartbreaking.

The fact that she even made it to the starting line in Cortina was a pretty remarkable feat in itself.  She tore her ACL in the final race a week before the Olympics.  If it wasn't the Olympics, which was the entire point of her comeback to begin with, she probably would've called it a season and not even tried to race on it.  But it was the Olympics and this is Lindsey Vonn, so it was no surprise that she was gonna do everything she could to compete.

It's ridiculous that people are criticizing her for racing with a busted knee and assuming it had anything to do with her crash.  Lindsey Vonn herself, when providing an update to her followers on social media, make it clear exactly what happened.  She got too close to the gate, her arm got caught, and it sent her flying.  It's just something that can happen if you make a mistake while going 70 mph down a mountain!  If she was perfectly healthy, she could've had the same crash and still broken her leg.

And it's just as irresponsible to blame the doctors and coaches for allowing her to compete (as if she didn't have the final say).  If they didn't think she should compete or that it would do further damage if she tried, they would've told her that.  The fact that they cleared her was a pretty clear indication that it was fine.  (Once your ACL's off, it's off.)

She was also required to complete at least one training run in order to even enter the Olympic Downhill.  She completed two, looking like her old self in the process.  So, clearly the knee wasn't an issue.  If it was, she wouldn't have even been able to finish the training runs (or she wouldn't have been cleared to continue).  That narrative is simply incorrect.

In fact, I'd argue that the fact she was even in the starting gate is just another example of her incredible resilience.  Whether it was a wise thing to do or not isn't even relevant.  The fact remains she suffered a torn ACL a week before the Olympics, yet was there on race day as a medal contender.  When she crashed on Jan. 30, nobody expected to see her in Cortina.  Nobody except Lindsey Vonn.  So maybe we should've.  Because when Lindsey Vonn sets her mind to something, she'll likely do everything she can to do it.

Just think about the story it would've been if this actually did have a storybook ending, too.  She retired because of injuries.  At the 2022 Olympics, she was working for NBC!  Then, eight years after her "last race," at age 41, Lindsey Vonn was back and making a run at another Olympics...where she was a legitimate medal contender!  That alone was a great story.  Now imagine if she had medaled?!

If it were up to NBC, that's exactly what would've happened.  She would've won the gold medal.  Not been screaming in pain and taken from the course in a helicopter.  Then she would've teamed with Mikaela Shiffrin in the team combined and they would've won the gold together.  America's two alpine skiing darlings.  It would've been ratings gold!

Sports don't always work that way, though.  The script was already written.  NBC would show the Super Bowl, then everyone would stick around to watch Lindsey Vonn win an Olympic gold.  Fate had other plans, though.  And an American woman did win a gold medal in the Downhill after the Super Bowl.  It just wasn't the American woman everyone thought or expected.  (It was also funny how they changed all of their Olympic promos that aired during the Super Bowl from being about Lindsey Vonn to being about Breezy Johnson.)

Injuries happen.  Especially in sports as volatile and dangerous as alpine skiing.  Lindsey Vonn knows and understands the risks better than anybody.  (She missed the 2014 Olympics due to injury.)  For her, it was worth it to come back and make another Olympic run.  The fact that it ended the way it didn't change the journey or make it any less valuable.  For her part, Vonn has even said she has no regrets.

Whether this is how her Olympic career ends only she knows, but it seems unlikely she'll compete again.  I can understand not wanting it to end this way, but recovering from and rehabbing the broken leg won't exactly be a quick process, and she's already 41.  In 2030, she'll be 45!  Besides, one of the reasons she came back for this Olympics is because she loves that hill in Cortina and has had success there.  Can the same be said about the Courchevel and Val d'Isere courses in France, where the next Olympics will be held?

We know what her dad's vote is if he has any say.  Alan Kildow was in the stands for Lindsey's accident and spent the night with her in the hospital.  He very publicly hopes that this is it.  He doesn't want her to attempt another comeback.  He's obviously a concerned father, so that's definitely influencing his feelings.  But his opinion is shared by many others.

I'm one of those who agrees with her dad.  I, frankly, never thought we'd see her at an Olympics again and was shocked when she announced her comeback.  But then she came back and was Lindsey Vonn again, as if any of us should've been surprised.  She came back for one more Olympics.  In Cortina.  I think she was planning on retiring again (permanently this time) after the Olympics anyway.  So, I'm not sure this injury will change that.  (Although, another comeback for 2030 would only add to her remarkable legacy some more.)

So, yes, this is probably the last we've seen of Lindsey Vonn the Ski Racer.  It didn't end the way anybody would've wanted, but that's what happens sometimes.  The fact that she was there at all, though, is an incredible story of resilience and perseverance.  Let's not focus on the end.  Let's focus on the journey.  And what a journey it's been!

NFL Picks, Super Bowl LX

We've finally made it!  After two weeks of analysis and every random stat under the sun, Super Bowl LX is upon us.  The Patriots will either be alone with the most wins in Super Bowl history or the most losses in Super Bowl history (that's what happens when you have four more appearances than anybody else).  The Seahawks will either get a small measure redemption for one of the worst play calls in Super Bowl history or lose to New England with the Lombardi Trophy on the line for the second time.

Also, a message to all of those "anybody but the Chiefs" people.  Congratulations, you got what you wanted!  Instead of the Chiefs, we're back to the Patriots (the team everybody hated and was sick of before Kansas City).  So, good job on that one!

The domination of those two teams really is incredible if you think about it.  Kansas City went to five out of six.  New England went to four out of five before that.  Now they've made it again.  So, it's been either the Patriots or Chiefs representing the AFC in 10 of the last 12 Super Bowls.  The only exceptions were Super Bowl 50 (when New England lost the AFC Championship Game) and Super Bowl LIV (when Kansas City lost the AFC Championship Game).  If those two AFC Championship Game results were reversed, it'd be 12 straight Super Bowls between them.

Is this the start of another dynasty era in New England?  It's too early to say.  Drake Maye will become the youngest quarterback to start a Super Bowl since Dan Marino, but Super Bowl XIX is the only one Marino ever played in.  At the time, it was just assumed the Dolphins would eventually make it back, but it never happened.  I'm not saying the same thing will happen to Maye.  I suspect it won't.  But you never know.  (People sure didn't think Super Bowl XXXVI would be the start of nearly two decades of Bradicheck domination.)

This is an incredibly important game for the Patriots franchise simply because of who's not here.  Tom Brady's in the broadcast booth and Bill Belichick's coaching college.  New England made it back here without them.  Their legacy cannot be taken away, and I don't think anyone wants to.  But the Patriots also needed to show that they could get to a Super Bowl without Bradicheck.  Which they have.

And how can you not feel incredible for Sam Darnold?  This is a guy who was passed around the league.  Even the bad teams decided he wasn't good enough.  That certainly wasn't the case (and further proof that maybe the Jets are the problem, not the quarterbacks).  After what he did last year in Minnesota, there was a question if he'd be able to follow it up.  He did and then some!  There's no question anymore about whether Sam Darnold is a viable NFL starter.

You know Seattle is relishing the opportunity to play New England again, too.  They were on the verge of repeating as Super Bowl champions until that fateful Malcolm Butler interception (which started the Bradicheck 2.0 run).  They've had to live with that for 11 years.  Beating the Patriots this time won't take that away or change the result, of course.  But it would be at least a small measure of revenge.

One of these teams will also be one of the more unlikely champions in recent memory.  Which is only fitting for this crazy season.  Both teams missed the playoffs last year.  At the start of the season, nobody had either one of them playing in the Super Bowl--let alone both!  They both lost in Week 1.  New England was 1-2.  Then they both went on massive winning streaks that got them to this point.  (They've lost a combined one game since mid-November!)

Seahawks (16-3) vs Patriots (17-3): Seattle-Both defenses have been dominant throughout the playoffs, so it would be wise to take the under.  New England has allowed a grand total of two touchdowns in three postseason games.  The Broncos scored on their second drive of the AFC Championship Game and not again.  And, yes, the Seahawks gave up 27 points in the NFC Championship Game.  But their defense came up big when it needed to in the fourth quarter, stopping the Rams on that final drive.

With that in mind, would it surprise anyone if a big defensive play impacts the game?  Whether it's a key stop or a big sack or a turnover, you know these defenses will make a difference.  Especially when the margin between the two teams is so small.  I'm not only expecting it to be low-scoring, I'm expecting field position to matter.  Neither offense is quick-strike.  They're both fine with long drives that eat a lot of clock.  And neither coach is afraid to kick a field goal.

Of course, the Seahawks aren't afraid to be aggressive when the situation calls for it, either.  Going for two against the Rams in the regular season played a big role in them getting here.  And, let's not forget, they have an All-Pro return man in Rashid Shaheed.  Mike Vrabel will have to take that into account with his decision making.  And Shaheed's presence could end up in his being a little more aggressive than he otherwise would've been.

Let's not forget, either, that neither quarterback has been here before.  Darnold has at least experienced the Super Bowl as a backup in San Francisco, but he didn't play a snap behind Brock Purdy.  Still, having gone through the routine and the two weeks of buildup will have to help.  As does the fact that he's a veteran.  It's the biggest game of Darnold's life.  Obviously.  But is the stage too big for him?  I don't think so.

Will the stage be too big for Maye?  So far, nothing has fazed him in his two-year NFL career.  This is the Super Bowl, though.  For New England to have any chance, Maye will need to play like the MVP runner-up he is.  If he can't or doesn't play up to the moment, that Seahawks defense might eat him alive.  I'm not saying the Patriots need him to win the game for them.  But he can't lose it.

Ultimately, though, I think the X factor will be the Seattle offense.  For all the talk about the Seahawks defense, it's easy to forget they've scored 72 points in two playoff games.  Jaxson Smith-Njigba is also the best player on either team.  Don't think the Offensive Player of the Year will just be silent.  Darnold, SJN and the Seahawks offense will do enough to claim an unlikely Super Bowl title and bring the Lombardi Trophy home to the 12s.

Conference Championships: 1-1
Playoffs: 8-4
Overall: 179-104-1

Brava Italia

After that trainwreck (or, since it was on boats, I guess shipwreck) of an Opening Ceremony in Paris, the Italians had quite a challenge on their hands with the Opening Ceremony for the Milan Cortina Games.  Especially since they had an ambitious plan to allow the athletes participating in each of the mountain clusters to participate in the ceremony.  Not only did they pull it off, they did so brilliantly!  Job well done, Italy!

When I first heard about the idea of having the main ceremony in Milan, with a separate, simultaneous ceremony in Cortina, I was a little skeptical.  I thought it was an intriguing idea that could either be spectacular if it worked or a disaster if it didn't.  As it turns out, there was no reason to worry.  The jumping between locations was seamless, and it really was cool to see the athletes be able to march in the parade regardless of where they were competing.  Milan Cortina very well might've started something that we'll see at future Winter Olympics.

What I loved most about the four separate Parades of Nations was how they still all felt like one.  Each venue had the ring for the athletes to start walking out at the same time as their teammates.  And my biggest question going in was how they'd handle having flagbearers at different locations.  Well, if they were at different locations, there were two flags and they each carried one.  If they were together, they carried the flag together.  And if there was no flagbearer at their location, they walked out with no flag.  Just a placard.  Italy even had two different sets of flagbearers, which I guess they can get away with as the host nation.  

Some people who were at the ceremony posted pictures online of just a placard entering the stadium with no flag or team behind it.  I will admit that was probably a very weird sight to see live, but the alternative would've been those athletes having to travel hours back and forth between the site of their competition and the Opening Ceremony.  Or missing the ceremony altogether.  Plus, Cortina is billed as the official co-host of these Olympics, so Cortina had to play a role in the ceremony in some way.

Cortina's ceremony was separate and distinct, but also brilliantly integrated into the ceremony that took place in Milan.  The Italian flag was raised and Italian anthem sung simultaneously in both places.  Ditto with the Olympic flag and anthem.  And, for the first time, there were two Olympic cauldrons.  Both were lit by alpine skiing legends--Alberto Tomba and Deborah Compagnoni in Milan, Sofia Goggia in Cortina.

My one issue is something that really isn't Milan's fault.  It's more an annoying trend that we've seen more and more at recent Olympics (both Winter & Summer).  The cauldron isn't inside a stadium.  In one respect, I get it.  They want it somewhere in the city where it's more accessible to more people and everyone can see it.  And, since the stadium was literally only being used for the Opening Ceremony, it wouldn't have made much sense for it to be in there.  Still, though, the lighting of the cauldron is the signature event of any Opening Ceremony, and it really feels like it's missing something when the cauldron isn't in the main stadium.

The rest of the ceremony, however, was spectacular.  It was quintessentially Italian and quintessentially Milan.  Milan is fashion.  Milan is art.  Milan is culture.  They captured all of it.  And they incorporated the synergy between the city and the mountains, uniting the two hosts that will be forever linked by these Olympics.  I would've liked to have seen more of a recognition of the 1956 Winter Olympics, the first time Cortina hosted, but that's just me being nitpicky.

I especially enjoyed the artistic program.  It's not uncommon for the artistic presentation at the Olympic Opening Ceremony to require a lot of explanation.  That wasn't the case here.  They celebrated Milan. They celebrated Italian history.  They honored a century of the Winter Olympics.  And they did it in a way where exposition wasn't needed.  It was the less is more approach.  And it worked.

In 2006, the finale of the Olympic Opening Ceremony in Torino was Pavarotti singing one of his signature songs--"Nessun Dorma."  It was his final performance before his death the following year.  Ever since then, Andrea Bocelli has been the signature Italian tenor.  So, it really was perfect for Pavarotti's successor to sing Pavarotti's song 20 years later at Italy's next Winter Olympics (in the home stadium of Inter Milan, Bocelli's favorite team).  And he performed it just as beautifully as Pavarotti did two decades ago.

As Bocelli was singing, the Olympic flame entered and made its way through the stadium.  I have to admit I found this a little weird, mainly because of the timing.  I was sitting there thinking, "It's too early," because there were several protocols that still hadn't happened.  The Games hadn't been declared open yet.  The Olympic flag hadn't even entered the stadium.  As it turns out, that was just a preview so that the fans in the stadium could see the Olympic flame before it made its way to its final destination at the heart of the city.  Seeing as the cauldron was outside the stadium, it was actually kind of cool that they did that.  Although, that didn't make it any less confusing.

Mostly, though, you couldn't help but be impressed by the show Milan and Cortina put on.  It ran a little on the long side.  At 3 1/2 hours, it was the longest Winter Olympic Opening Ceremony in history.  But part of the reason for that might've been the logistics of coordinating four separate Parades of Nations, as well as segments in both host cities.  And if that's the case, that was a small price to pay.  Because that's the element of this Opening Ceremony people will remember most.

Overall, that's the biggest takeaway from the Opening Ceremony of the Milan Cortina Olympics.  The cultural presentation was excellent, but that wasn't the memorable part.  It's how two separate ceremonies and four separate Parades of Nations were effortlessly worked together into one.  That will certainly be the biggest takeaway for the athletes.  They made it so that everybody could take part, no matter where they're competing.  The most spread out Winter Olympics in history found a way to bring all the athletes together as teammates despite the distance between them.

This, obviously, was just the start.  An ambitious Opening Ceremony as part of an ambitious Games plan that has venues scattered all across Northern Italy.  It's a huge undertaking to say the least.  But, coordinating all of the moving pieces for the Opening Ceremony was the hard part, and they passed that test with flying colors.  The Olympics themselves should be a breeze!

Milan Cortina is already one step ahead of Paris, too.  Paris recovered from a terrible Opening Ceremony to put on a spectacular Games.  If what we've got in store over the next two weeks comes anywhere close to what we saw on Friday night, the Italians are well on their way to putting on a spectacular Olympics of their own.

2025 NFL Awards

While most of the attention has gone to the Hall of Fame, let's not forget that the NFL Honors also includes the announcement of the league's annual awards.  It's been a few years since they moved it to Thursday night, which I have to say is much better.  Not only is Thursday Night Football an established part of the weekly schedule, doing the awards on Thursday gives them a little more of showcase.  On Saturday night, they were overshadowed by the game.

Anyway, this year, I'm especially interested to see how two of the races are decided.  MVP is most likely down to either Matthew Stafford or Drake Maye, while this is one of the most competitive Coach of the Year fields I've seen in quite some time.  While I think there's a clear winner, you could make a legitimate argument for all five finalists.

Speaking of all five finalists, I love that the NFL and AP have followed Baseball's lead by announcing them in advance.  Granted, it's mainly to invite them to the NFL Honors and make sure they're present to accept their award (unless, of course, they're playing in the Super Bowl).  But it also gives everyone a heads up who else is in the running, even if the winner is obvious.  And it really is nice to know who finished in the top five of the voting.

I've also noticed a significant change over the past few years.  It used to be taken for granted that the MVP and Offensive Player of the Year would be the same person.  That hasn't happened in quite a while.  They're two separate awards and they're treated as such.  The Offensive Player of the Year isn't necessarily the MVP and vice versa.  That's not saying they can't be the same player, of course, but you can be one and not the other.  As we've started to see regularly in recent years.  Which is a good thing.

MVP: Matthew Stafford, Rams-By December, Stafford and Drake Maye had separated themselves as the clear leaders in the MVP conversation.  I think Stafford has the slight edge, though.  The Rams had the best offense in football, and their 37-year-old quarterback had the best season of his 17-year career.  Stafford threw for 4,707 yards and 46 touchdowns (to just eight interceptions) and had a career-high 109.2 passer rating.  Maye had a higher QB rating, but Stafford was better in every other category.

Defensive Player: Myles Garrett, Browns-This is probably the easiest one of them all.  Garrett set an NFL record with 23 sacks playing for a bad Browns team.  Sometimes a performer can stand out on a bad team.  This is one of those years.  Garrett's record cannot be ignored.  The vote could be unanimous.

Offensive Player: Jaxon Smith-Njigba, Seahawks-What a year for JSN!  He was arguably the best receiver in the game this season and a big reason for the Seahawks' success.  Smith-Njigba had nearly 1,800 receiving yards on 119 catches, 10 of which went for touchdowns.  He obviously clicked with Sam Darnold!  Just like Saquon last year, Seattle is nowhere near as good this season without the type of year Jaxon Smith-Njigba had.

Offensive Rookie: Tetairoa McMillan, Panthers-It's kind of strange how there wasn't really a standout rookie anywhere on the offensive side of the ball this season.  No clear-cut Offensive Rookie of the Year.  The field is so weak that Jaxson Dart is a finalist!  I'm going with Carolina's Tetairoa McMillan simply because I think he had the most impact on his team's success.

Defensive Rookie: Nick Emmanwori, Seahawks-Unlike on offense, there are worthwhile choices for Defensive Rookie of the Year.  For a similar reason as McMillan, my choice is Seattle's Nick Emmanwori.  The Seahawks' offense got a lot of the credit (and deservedly so), but let's not forget how good their defense was.  It was no Legion of Boom, but it's a big a reason as any why Seattle is playing on Sunday.  Emmawori's presence in the secondary, especially late in the season, was a huge reason for that success.

Comeback Player: Christian McCaffrey, 49ers-McCaffrey missed A LOT of time in 2024.  First it was an ACL, then his season ended in Week 13.  In 2025, not only did he stay healthy, he played so well that he's a finalist for three different awards.  He won't win MVP or Offensive Player of the Year, but CMC should be a lock for Comeback Player.  The 49ers' success really hinges on his ability to stay healthy, and he showed why this year with an MVP-caliber season.

Coach: Mike Vrabel, Patriots-As deserving as the other candidates are, Vrabel is the clear choice for Coach of the Year.  He's the guy Kraft really wanted when Belichick retired, and we all saw why this season.  The Titans must feel like fools for letting him go!  But Tennessee's loss was New England's gain.  Vrabel led a worst-to-first turnaround that included a 10-game winning streak and an undefeated road record.  Is it any surprise then that the Patriots are back in the Super Bowl?

Assistant Coach: Klint Kubiak, Seahawks-After the Super Bowl, he'll go from Seahawks Offensive Coordinator to Raiders Head Coach.  That offense is one of the biggest reasons why Seattle had the best record in football and won the NFC title.  Sam Darnold proved last season in Minnesota wasn't a fluke and JSN had a career year.  The Seahawks were aggressive on offense, too, and more often than not, it paid off.  That two-point conversion in overtime against the Rams helped propel them to the Super Bowl.

Finally, we have the NFL's biggest honor.  This is always the toughest one because it isn't based on on-field performance.  That's important, but not as important as the impact on the community.  It's also the only award where all 32 teams designate their own nominee, and all of those nominees are on stage for the announcement.  As always, all 32 candidates are worthy of the honor.

Man of the Year: Dion Dawkins, Bills-Offensive linemen typically don't get the accolades.  They're the blue-collar, down-in-the-trenches guys who work hard.  Kind of like the City of Buffalo.  Which is why Dion Dawkins fits in so well with Western New Yorkers.  He's one of them.  Dawkins is so beloved by his team and its city that he's the Bills' nominee for the fourth straight year, and he's given his heart and soul to the people of Buffalo, both on the field and off.  Dawkins went out on a limb for his fellow offensive linemen, too.  He was a driving force in the creation of the "Protector of the Year" Award, ensuring that offensive linemen do get those deserved accolades.

My 2026 Football Hall of Fame Ballot

I've been talking about the Pro Football Hall of Fame enough over the past week that I figured it was time to actually reveal my selections.  I've been incredibly critical of the selection process, which resulted in a class of only four (of a possible eight) last year and likely won't give us the maximum number again this year.  We already know that Bill Belichick didn't get in.  I just hope our Modern-Era player class is more than last year's ridiculously low three.  Especially since there are two guaranteed first-ballot Hall of Famers up for election.

There are actually four players who could be first-time electees, but it's probably a stretch to think that Frank Gore and Jason Witten will be joining Larry Fitzgerald and Drew Brees in this year's class.  I'm not even 100 percent sure about Brees.  The only player I can say with absolute certainty will get in is Larry Fitzgerald.

As for who'll join him in Canton, I have no freakin' clue!  I don't think anybody does (except for the voters and the inductees).  Predicting who'll get into the Pro Football Hall of Fame each year has turned into a virtually impossible challenge.  Especially with this new wrinkle of it not necessarily being five Modern Era players every year.

So, this isn't my attempt to predict who'll be in this year's class.  Because it would be a guess.  Nothing more.  Rather, it's the eight people I would've voted for if I had an actual vote.  Which includes at least one person I know didn't get in.  Because, yes, Belichick is one of the names.  I'm starting with the five Modern Era candidates, though.

Larry Fitzgerald, Wide Receiver (2004-20 Cardinals): This should be an easy one.  But we also said that about Belichick, so who knows?  Seriously, though, if 11 or more of those voters didn't have Larry Fitzgerald on their ballot, why are they even Hall of Fame voters?  He might be the second-greatest receiver in NFL history behind Jerry Rice.  Larry Fitz spent his entire career in Arizona and actually made the Cardinals relevant, including their only Super Bowl appearance.  And he had 1,400 freakin' catches in his career!

Drew Brees, Quarterback (2001-05 Chargers, 2006-20 Saints): While Fitzgerald is the clear leader of the pack, Brees isn't far behind.  His going to the Saints is one of the greatest free agent signings in NFL history, changing the fortunes of both that team and that city.  Brees was a damn good quarterback, too!  He's second all-time in both passing yards and passing touchdowns.  Yet, he wasn't named to the NFL 100 All-Century Team despite being ahead of both John Elway and Dan Marino (who were) in both categories.

Terrell Suggs, Linebacker/Defensive End (2003-18 Ravens, 2019 Cardinals, 2019 Chiefs): Is it possible that Terrell Suggs is still underrated?  I thought he'd get in last year, and he didn't even make the final cut to seven.  He makes my cut to five, though.  Suggs was a part of that dominant Ravens defense that won Super Bowl XLVII, was a Defensive Rookie of Year and Defensive Player of the Year, and is the NFL's all-time leader in tackles for loss.

Adam Vinatieri, Kicker (1996-2005 Patriots, 2006-19 Colts): It was kind of surprising that Vinatieri made it all the way to the final cut in his first year on the ballot.  Although, it's also completely understandable.  Simply put, he's the greatest, most clutch kicker in NFL history.  That Patriots dynasty doesn't start without Vinatieri, first in the Tuck Rule game vs. Oakland, then in the Super Bowl against the Rams.  And why not kick another last-second field goal to win the Super Bowl two years later?  It would be kind of fitting if both he and Robert Kraft go in together this year.

Jason Witten, Tight End (2003-17, 2019 Cowboys, 2020 Raiders): My final Modern Era player selection came down to two first-timers--Jason Witten and Frank Gore.  Ultimately, I decided to go with Witten.  The fact that he only missed one game in 17 seasons while playing such a physically demanding position as tight end really stuck out to me.  He retired in 2018, but it didn't take, and he played every game for the next two years.  Witten's 1,228 career receptions are fourth-most all-time and second-most for a tight end, behind only Tony Gonzalez.

Now's where it gets hairy.  One of the voters who didn't vote for Belichick lamented the fact that he couldn't vote for the seniors and Kraft and Belichick.  I have the same problem.  I want to vote for four of the five Senior/Coach/Contributor candidates, but can only put a maximum of three.  Which left me with just one senior!  So, unfortunately, I had to drop L.C. Greenwood, the only member of that Steel Curtain defense who isn't in Canton and I absolutely believe should be.  I've even strongly advocated for him in the past.  But, if I'm only picking one senior, it had to be someone I've been advocating for longer and who's omission from Canton has been a huge miss.  Until now.

Roger Craig, Running Back (1983-90 49ers, 1991 Raiders, 1992-93 Vikings): Roger Craig was Marshall Faulk and Christian McCaffrey before Marshall Faulk and Christian McCaffrey.  It absolutely blows my mind how he's been overlooked by the Hall of Fame all this time!  Craig won three Super Bowls in San Francisco and was one of the most important pieces for that 49ers offense.  He was the first player in NFL history with 1,000 yards rushing and receiving in the same season.  He led the league in receptions in 1985.  As a freakin' running back!  With the Super Bowl being hosted by the 49ers this season, it's time for him to finally get his just due and receive the biggest cheers of them all when the class is announced.

Bill Belichick, Coach (1991-95 Browns, 2000-23 Patriots): Belichick's resume speaks for itself.  Even the 11 people who didn't vote for him acknowledge that.  Six Super Bowl wins as a head coach with an additional two as a Giants assistant.  Nine Super Bowl appearances as a head coach.  Architect of the greatest dynasty in NFL history.  This really should've been as big a no-brainer as Tom Brady will be in a few years.

Robert Kraft, Owner (1994- Patriots): When Robert Kraft bought the Patriots, they were one of the worst teams in the league.  He immediately turned the franchise around and didn't just build a dynasty, he established a model for success for other teams to follow.  Kraft's impact goes far beyond Bradicheck, too.  He's played an instrumental role in labor negotiations and been a key voice in establishing the league's broadcast contract.  He and Jerry Jones are arguably the two most important owners in football.  Jerry Jones is already in the Hall of Fame.  Time for Kraft to join him.

Other than Larry Fitzgerald, I have no idea who'll actually get in!  So, I'm not even gonna try!  I'll just let myself be surprised during the NFL Honors like everybody else.  Although, I sure hope Roger Craig and L.C. Greenwood finally get their long overdue Hall of Fame call (posthumously in Greenwood's case).

A Flawed System

The leak about Bill Belichick not getting into the Pro Football Hall of Fame has created, as expected, tremendous backlash.  And it's also created an unprecedented response from the Hall of Fame.  First, they released a statement defending the voting process (more on that in a minute).  Then, the voters who didn't vote for Belichick began to trickle out and give their reasons.  And now, we found out the vote total.  He missed by one vote, getting 39 of the required 40.  If one of the 11 voters who didn't put his name down had, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.  (And I'm betting at least one of them wishes he had at this point.)

Since you need 80 percent, we knew it had to be at least 11.  As it turns out, it was exactly 11.  So far, two of the "No" voters have explained themselves, and, while I don't necessarily agree with them, I can understand their reasons.  Vahe Gregorian of the Kansas City Star blamed the system.  There were five candidates--Belichick, Robert Kraft, and three senior nominees (Ken Anderson, Roger Craig, L.C. Greenwood).  Voters could only vote for three of them.  Gregorian wrote an article explaining his "No" vote and said that he believes Belichick is a Hall of Famer, but he wanted to throw his support for the three senior candidates.  He was voting for them rather than against Belichick.  Which I can respect.

Another voter, Mike Chappell, explained that he voted for two of the senior candidates, which left him with only one spot left for either Belichick or Kraft.  He decided to vote for Kraft.  Chappell credited Kraft for everything he did for the NFL beyond just building the Patriots dynasty (such as ending the 2011 lockout and his role in negotiating the league's broadcast deals).  He also noted that Spygate impacted his decision.  Does he think Belichick should not get into the Hall of Fame because of it?  Of course not.  (Deflategate's not gonna keep Brady out.)  But, left with the choice between Kraft and Belichick, he went with Kraft.  Which, again, you can understand.

What all of this controversy has exposed is how the Pro Football Hall of Fame's voting system is incredibly flawed.  It was already the most exclusive voting body among all of the Hall of Fame.  There are only 50 total voters.  It's also the only one where they go into a room and discuss the candidates face-to-face before making their individual decisions.  Then, throw in the fact that each voter only gets to pick three, you're looking at a finite number of 150 votes.

Last year, the Pro Football Hall of Fame made a number of changes to the voting system.  Those changes, which were completely unnecessary and not many agree with them, made it that much harder to get into the Hall.  As we saw last year, when only four players (only three of the Modern Era finalists) were selected.  To put that in perspective, more people got into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2025 than the Football Hall of Fame!

I have no idea why they felt the need to make the Pro Football Hall of Fame more exclusive, but they did.  It seems likely that the outrage Belichick's snub has created will lead to additional changes next year.  Whether that means going back to the old system or something different, more change is definitely in order.  Because the current system is flawed at best and stupid at worst.

One of the biggest reasons for this controversy is also one of the biggest nonsensical things they did when they revamped the system last year.  Previously, coaches, contributors and seniors were all considered separately.  Now they're all lumped together.  And voters can only pick three of the five.  Which means they have to decide between voting for the senior candidates, who've been overlooked to this point and may never be finalists again, or coaches and contributors (which means not voting for at least one of the seniors).  As Gregorian noted, a lot of voters have a problem with that.

An obvious solution would be going back to having those three groups considered separately.  If they want to keep the coaches and contributors together, fine.  But they shouldn't be grouped in with the seniors.  That does a disservice to both groups.  Because you'll inevitably have fewer people getting in since there will almost certainly be split votes.  (We'll see what happens this year, but last year, Sterling Sharpe was the only member of the senior/coach/contributor group to get in.  Since the leading vote-getter is guaranteed to get in regardless, I bet nobody got 80 percent on that ballot last year.)

If they want to reduce the number of finalists in each category to keep the class size more manageable, that could be a reasonable solution.  They could even do something similar to what baseball does with its Era Committees and not vote for each group every year.  I think you need to keep the annual senior vote, but, if you do the coaches and contributors in alternating years, that might work, too.  Whatever they do, they need to re-separate the three groups.  As we've seen, lumping the seniors, coaches and contributors all together doesn't work.  They're three distinct categories and should be considered as such.

Likewise, they need to get rid of the maximum number of votes per person.  I think that was the biggest reason we had a ridiculously small class last year and was likely the biggest reason why Belichick didn't make the cut this year.  The 80 percent threshold is difficult enough without the limited number of selections.  Especially since the voting body is so small.  Candidates need to get 40 of 50 votes to be elected.  That's not a big margin for error even without a finite number of choices per voter.

Before last year's changes, once the voting body made its final round of cuts, it was just a straight "Yes/No" vote for the five remaining candidates.  If they reached that point, a "Yes" vote was pretty much guaranteed and the selection committee essentially just rubber-stamped the final list.  Last year, they increased that number to seven, of which a maximum of five could get in.  Only three did.  Four didn't.  More players who reached the finalist stage didn't get in than did!  No doubt because the voters only had a certain number of votes apiece and couldn't vote for someone they otherwise would have.

Those four players--Willie Anderson, Torry Holt, Luke Kuechly and Adam Vinatieri--became automatic finalists this year.  Which is little consolation.  Because the ballot changes every year, and this year's list of finalists includes two sure-fire first-ballot names (Drew Brees and Larry Fitzgerald), as well as two other first-timers who'll get in fairly soon, if not this year (Frank Gore and Jason Witten).  Last year might've been Anderson, Holt, Kuechly and Vinatieri's best chance, at least for a while.  The fact that they didn't max out at five inductees (especially knowing that these loaded classes were coming) is absurd!  And, as a result, those guys could very well now end up in ballot purgatory.

So, it's not just the senior/coach/contributor voting system that's flawed.  The 2025 changes impacted the Modern Era vote, too.  We obviously don't know how many people will be in this year's Hall of Fame class, but the ridiculously small class last year was a direct result of those changes.  They took an imperfect system and made it worse.

Fortunately, it's not too late to fix what they broke.  So, maybe some good will end up coming out of this.  If Bill Belichick, a first-ballot Hall of Famer if there ever was one, didn't get in on the first ballot, something's wrong.  His failure to get in exposed a flawed voting system for exactly what it is.  Flawed.  And I'd expect some corrective measures to be taken that ensure something like this can't happen again in 2027.

Two Host Cities, One Opening Ceremony

We're a little less than a week away from the Opening Ceremony of the Milan Cortina Olympics and a little more than a year and a half removed from the, let's go with, "unique" Opening Ceremony we saw in Paris.  This one promises to be unique in its own way, with venues spread across Northern Italy.  The main ceremony will be in Milan at San Siro, the historic home of both AC Milan and Inter Milan, but the athletes will all be able to participate no matter where they're competing.  It's an adventurous plan that will either work seamlessly and be amazing or be doomed by poor execution.  I'm curious to see which it'll be.

There are a few things about the ceremony that we do know.  The most prominent of which is that there'll be two Olympic cauldrons--one in Milan, one in Cortina.  It stands to reason, then, that since there are two cauldrons, there will be at least two final torchbearers.  My money's on Armin Zoeggler to be one of them.  That's only one interesting aspect of the two-city/two-stadium Opening Ceremony being planned.  With the athletes being so spread out, how will the countries choose their flagbearers?

Since the Tokyo Games, countries have been allowed to have two flagbearers--one man, one woman.  While I expect that to continue in Milan Cortina, how exactly will that work?  Only a handful of sports are being based in Milan, so will it be limited to those ice athletes?  Or will some nations go with two skiers, who'll be based in Cortina?  What if the athletes who are chosen are competing in different places?  I really am fascinated about how it'll all work.

For Team USA, I think there are three realistic options.  They could have the flagbearers both come from the Milan-based sports and walk in together.  Ditto about choosing two flagbearers from Cortina-based sports.  Or, they could have one of each, with one walking in the Milan portion of the Parade of Nations and the other leading the Cortina portion.  Which, obviously, will be very a logistical challenge, but would actually be pretty cool if they can pull it off.

Who ultimately gets chosen could very well depend on which of those options they go with.  I do think it'll be two flagbearers.  There's no reason for it not to be.  And those American flagbearers will come out of a very deep pool of candidates.  Such as...

Nick Baumgartner: Baumgartner was one of the best stories of the Beijing Winter Games.  He was eliminated in the quarterfinals of men's snowboard cross and thought his Olympic career was over.  Then the 40-year-old was selected for the mixed team event and won gold with Lindsey Jacobellis.  Now 44, Baumgartner is back for his fifth Olympics.

Erin Jackson: Jackson originally didn't make the team four years ago, but Brittany Bowe gave up her spot in the 500 meters so that Jackson could take her place.  Jackson went on to win the gold, becoming the first American woman to win speed skating gold in 20 years.  More significantly, she became the first Black American woman to win any Olympic speed skating medal and the first Black woman to win an individual Olympic gold in any sport.

Nick Goepper: In 2022, Goepper won silver in slopestyle for the second straight Olympics.  He also has an Olympic bronze in the event from Sochi.  On his way home from Beijing, he decided he was done.  He didn't want to ski anymore and told his sponsors he was retiring.  Since then, he's regained his passion for the sport and switched events.  Goepper comes into Milan Cortina as one of the favorites in the halfpipe.

Hilary Knight: Women's hockey captain Hilary Knight will be competing in her fifth and final Olympics.  Team USA's first game is on Thursday and their second is on Saturday, so it's probably unlikely that Knight participates in the Opening Ceremony.  But it'd still be such a tremendous honor for a woman who's meant so much to her sport and is looking for a fifth Olympic medal.

Campbell Wright: Biathlon is the one winter sport in which the U.S. has never won a medal (not counting ski mountaineering, which makes its debut in Milan Cortina).  Campbell Wright can change that.  He won two medals at the World Championships last year and was on the podium at the last pre-Olympic World Cup stop.  I'll admit that his carrying the flag in the Opening Ceremony is unlikely.  If he does medal, though, carrying it in the Closing Ceremony could be a very realistic possibility.

Kaillie Humphries: The 40-year-old Humphries began her Olympic career in Italy 20 years ago, when she was an alternate on the Canadian team.  She went on to win three medals for our neighbors to the north (two gold, one bronze) at the next three Winter Games before switching allegiances to the United States just before the 2022 Olympics...where she won gold for the U.S. in the first-ever women's monobob event.  These Olympics will be her first as a mother.

Ryan Cochran-Siegle: As decorated as the U.S. women's alpine skiing team has been an is expected to be again, the only American alpine medal in Beijing came in the men's Super G.  It was won by Ryan Cochran-Siegle, whose mother was an Olympic champion in the slalom 50 years earlier.  The women's team may generate the headlines with superstars Mikaela Shiffrin and Lindsey Vonn, but it's the 33-year-old Cochran-Siegle, now a three-time Olympian, who's the veteran leader of the men's squad.

Jessie Diggins: She's the face of her sport and the greatest American cross country skier in history.  Diggins was the American flagbearer at the 2018 Closing Ceremony, then won two individual medals in 2022.  She competes on Saturday morning, so the chances of her actually marching in the Opening Ceremony on Friday night are slim to none.  So, even if she were selected, she'd likely decline the honor.  It's an honor she'd certainly deserve, though.

Any of those athletes would be a fine selection, but I'm not going with any of them.  No, my choice for the American flagbearers is the married ice dancers Madison Chock & Evan Bates.  This will be the fourth Olympics for Chock & Bates, who'll likely be the captains of the U.S. figure skating team.  They won team event gold in 2022, are three-time defending World Champions, and are favored to take home two golds in Milan.  They'll actually be competing on the morning of the Opening Ceremony, too, in the opening stage of the team event.  So, because of that, I can see them not marching.  If they do march, however, they should be holding the Stars & Stripes as they lead Team USA into San Siro.

A Hall of Fame Second Look

It was shocking to find out that Bill Belichick wasn't selected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.  Most people had pretty much just assumed that was a given, but clearly at least 11 of the voters in the room didn't agree.  That'll certainly have an impact on my Pro Football Hall of Fame "ballot," which I'll post next week.  Because I'm one of those people who took it for granted that Belichick would get in.

Today, though, I'm gonna talk about some of the players who've been overlooked for another Hall of Fame...the Baseball Hall of Fame.  During my snow day, I watched the announcement of this year's class (congratulations to Carlos Beltran and Andruw Jones), as well as the show that preceded it.  On that preshow, they discussed this year's candidates, of course, but also how they compare to some of those players who've been overlooked in the past.  Essentially, the argument was that if the definition of what makes a "Hall of Famer" has evolved and will continue to evolve with the modern game, do those players from the 70s and 80s (and even the 90s) deserve to be looked at thru a different lens?

That, of course, is the entire point of the Eras Committees.  And those Eras Committees generally do evaluate those on the ballot differently than the BBWAA.  That doesn't mean some players haven't still fallen through the cracks, though.  Here are 10 players who will hopefully end up getting that Hall of Fame call after their careers are reevaluated by an Eras Committee.  (Please note this doesn't include anyone who's still eligible for the BBWAA ballot.)

Steve Garvey: Garvey peaked at 42.6 percent of the vote during his 15 years on the BBWAA ballot.  I have no idea why!  The fact that he never garnered the support of at least half the voters boggles my mind!  The dude was a 10-time All*Star, an MVP, a two-time NLCS MVP, played in over 1,200 consecutive games and was a monster in the postseason.  He was the anchor and biggest name on those outstanding Dodgers teams of the 70s.  It seriously makes no sense that he hasn't come close to induction.

Lou Whitaker: A lot of the talk about this year's vote surrounded around the fact that Chase Utley got significantly more support than Jimmy Rollins.  The argument was, basically, how can you separate them?  And it brought to mind another long-time double play tandem--Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker.  Trammell got voted in by the Eras Committee in 2018, and campaigned for Whitaker in his induction speech.  While I agree Trammell was the better player, Whitaker's definitely deserving of a second look.

Don Mattingly: There's still hope for Don Mattingly, and I do think an Eras Committee will eventually give him the nod.  He certainly checks all the boxes.  Mattingly was the best first baseman in the American League throughout the 80s and he was the face of the most famous franchise in the sport for most of his career.  So, he's definitely got the "fame" part covered.  And, while it shouldn't make a difference in terms of his playing career, the fact that he's been a successful manager, as well, does stand out.

Keith Hernandez: While we're talking about first basemen who played in New York in the 80s, let's go across town.  There's very little debate that Hernandez is the best defensive first baseman in history.  His hitting is underrated, though.  Hernandez won a batting title and two Silver Sluggers and had a .296 career average.  Then there's the leadership.  He won an MVP and was the heart and soul of two World Series-winning teams.  It was trading for Hernandez and Gary Carter, in fact, that set the Mets up for that legendary 1986 season.

Dale Murphy: Another player who'd get a lot more support if he were on the ballot today is Dale Murphy.  He was one of the best damn players in the entire National League playing for some bad Braves teams.  (Meanwhile, the 1997 Braves, who lost in the NLCS, now have six Hall of Fame players, as well as their manager and GM.)  Murphy was a two-time MVP and seven-time All*Star who won both the Gold Glove and Silver Slugger four years in a row.  And, as was mentioned multiple times after two center fielders were voted in, the position is greatly underrepresented in Cooperstown.

Bernie Williams: All six of those 90s Braves are absolutely Hall of Famers.  There's no doubt about that.  You know how many players from the 90s Yankees (who won four Word Series in five years) are in the Hall of Fame?  Two!  Tim Raines and Wade Boggs were there in 1996 and Mike Mussina was there in the early 2000s, but Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera were the only players who were there throughout the dynasty who have plaques in Cooperstown.  Hopefully Andy Pettitte will join them at some point, but Bernie Williams should, too.  He was a good center fielder for a long time and a consistent postseason performer for a team that won four championships (with him hitting in the middle of the lineup).  And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't winning the entire point?  Yet he fell off the BBWAA ballot after just two years.

Tommy John: Appreciation has certainly grown for Tommy John's longevity.  He pitched for 26 seasons from 1963-89.  Did that longevity contribute to some of his career numbers?  Absolutely.  But, he was an ace during his prime with the Dodgers and won 13 games with the Yankees as a 45-year-old in 1987.  And let's not forget his namesake surgery, which changed baseball and has lengthened countless careers.  That only adds to his Hall of Fame case.

Vida Blue: Vida Blue had well-documented substance abuse problems, which might've been what led to his quick departure from the BBWAA ballot.  But Blue died in 2023, so maybe it's worth taking another look at his career posthumously.  Because he's another one who puts the "Fame" part in Hall of Fame.  There was no bigger name or personality in the early 70s than the ace of the Oakland A's.  He was the AL MVP and Cy Young winner in 1971, then Oakland won three straight championships from 1972-74.  Yes, he had only 209 career wins and his career ERA was 3.27.  So what?  At his peak, he was the best in the game.

Don Newcombe: Taking it way back, the late Don Newcombe never got the Hall of Fame love I feel he deserved.  Newcombe's MLB career was relatively short, but you also have to consider the fact that he played in the Negro Leageus for two years before joining the Dodgers, then missed time serving in the Korean War.  Anyway, Newcombe was the ace of those Brooklyn teams.  He was the 1949 NL Rookie of the Year, then won the NL MVP, as well as the first-ever Cy Young Award (which was one award that went to the best pitcher across both leagues at the time) in 1956.

Bob Meusel: I've made the case for Bob Meusel before, and I will again here.  Meusel played for the "Murderers' Row" Yankees in the 1920s, where he was obviously overshadowed by Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig.  Those teams also featured other Hall of Famers Tony Lazzeri, Bill Dickey and Earle Combs in the lineup, but Meusel held his own.  He was a career .309 hitter, had the fourth-most RBIs in the American League during the 1920s and won the AL home run in 1925.

Are all 10 of the players Hall of Famers?  I don't know.  Will some of them eventually get in?  Hopefully.  My point is that their case should be heard.  And giving their careers another look could very well end up with a deserved plaque in Cooperstown.

Next Season's Opener

The Rams actually did the NFL a big favor by losing the NFC Championship Game.  They're scheduled to open next season in Australia, but it's also a longstanding NFL tradition that the Super Bowl champion plays in the season-opening Thursday night game.  While it would've been interesting to see how they figured it out had the Rams won the Super Bowl (just playing the Australia game on Thursday night here/Friday afternoon there?), they no longer have to worry about it.  Instead, either the Seahawks or Patriots will get the honor of opening at home on Thursday night.

Of course, the Rams have been eliminated as a potential opponent for the Seahawks should they win.  Which, frankly, isn't as big a deal.  Sure, a rematch of the NFC Championship Game (which is also a rivalry game) would've been a great option.  But it wasn't the only one available to Seattle.  In fact, with the Rams out of the equation, there are still five worthwhile choices should the Seahawks earn the honor...

Patriots: Let's start with the most obvious.  The NFC has the extra home game next season, and the AFC East is the NFC West's 17th opponent.  So, we'll have a Super Bowl rematch in Seattle.  It would be totally understandable if the NFL wants to hold this one off until later in the year (perhaps as a standalone doubleheader game in the 4:25 window at some point), but I can also see them having it open the season.  Although, they can only play it in Week 1 if the Seahawks win, so it'll be Option B if the Patriots win.

Chiefs: I know, I know.  But there's no denying that the Chiefs will still be a draw and will still be prominently featured on national broadcasts next season.  Even if Kelce retires, this would still presumably be Mahomes' grand return, and you know Cris Collinsworth would like that.  I don't think this one is likely, but I don't think it's completely inconceivable either.

Bears: It wouldn't surprise me at all if they went with this one.  Had overtime gone the Bears' way, this would've been an NFC Championship Game rematch.  And the NFL loves putting the Bears in primetime.  So, this seems like a very realistic possibility.  Unless they want to give it to FOX as the national game on one of their doubleheader weekends.

Cowboys: Dallas was Philadelphia's opponent in this year's Thursday night opener.  Would they really have it be the Cowboys two years in a row?  While it's probably not likely, it certainly seems possible.  Yes, a lot of people hate the Cowboys.  But they're also a TV draw whenever they're on.  That's why they always max out on their primetime appearances no matter how good they were the previous season.  Still, I think the only way the same team gets to play in the opener two years in a row would be to win back-to-back Super Bowls, which the Cowboys, of course, haven't done since the early 90s.

49ers: If they wanted to go with a division game and the Rams are out, that leaves San Francisco.  Of course, there's also the possibility that they're considering the 49ers for the Rams' opponent in Australia, which would eliminate this option.  (The Seahawks also want in on the Australia game, so could the NFC Championship Game rematch be headed Down Under if New England wins the Super Bowl?)  Although, 49ers at Seahawks was also a Week 1 game this season, so do you really want to go there two years in a row?  Especially when this is an easy one to make a Thursday night game later in the season?

For New England, there aren't as many options.  The Patriots play one fewer home game than the Seahawks, and the schedule rotation has the AFC East playing the AFC West and NFC North.  Which is fine until you look at the home/road split and see that the Patriots' more attractive matchups are mostly on the road.  Still, there are four that I can see...

Broncos: A rematch of the AFC Championship Game could certainly work.  I'm not sure how much Denver will end up being featured in primetime games next season, but you know there will be at least a few.  And it wouldn't surprise me if they're frontloaded.  Either way, you'd have to think this one is headed for national TV no matter what.  So why not on Thursday night in Week 1?

Bills: Buffalo's opening a new stadium, so it would make sense for the Bills to get a home primetime window in Week 1.  That would mean either Sunday or Monday night.  Which would, theoretically, remove Week 1 at New England as a possibility.  Although, they could also have the Bills visit the Patriots in Week 1 and still open the new stadium on Monday night in Week 2.

Steelers: This one really depends on if Aaron Rodgers comes back next season or not.  Pittsburgh's still an attractive team for primetime without him.  Attractive enough for the standalone season opener?  Questionable.  With Rodgers, I can absolutely see it.  Without him, I doubt it.

Packers: Finally, there's Green Bay.  This is, admittedly, a bit of an off-the-wall suggestion.  And it's probably as likely as Seattle-Dallas would be.  I still think it'll be considered, though, even it seems like a stretch that it'll be ultimately chosen.  The Packers are like the Bears in that the NFL likes to feature them in national games a lot, sometimes against pretty random opponents.  New England would definitely qualify as a random opponent.  The Packers and Patriots don't play each other very often.

They obviously need to actually play the Super Bowl first.  But you know the NFL's schedule-makers are already looking at the possibilities and look at all of their options for which game would be the best one to feature on September 10.  You know NBC will have input, too.  And things could certainly change based on what happens during the offseason, which could make certain teams either more or less appealing.

Either way, I think there's a good chance we'll see the Patriots on that opening Thursday night next season.  If the Seahawks win, I can certainly see them going with the Super Bowl rematch.  Especially since both games will be on NBC.  If New England wins, meanwhile, I'll say they host the Broncos after unveiling their first post-Bradicheck Super Bowl banner.

NFL Picks, Conference Championships

We're down to four possible Super Bowl matchups, three of which have happened before.  The only one that hasn't is Rams-Broncos, which, if we're being honest, is probably the most unlikely of the four.  That's not to say it won't be a Rams-Broncos Super Bowl.  It would just be a surprise.  Meanwhile, if we get Rams-Patriots, it would be the third time, tying Cowboys-Steelers as the most frequent Super Bowl matchup.

Those two Rams-Patriots Super Bowls were both significant.  They were the first and last of the six wins during the Bradicheck Era.  One was incredibly exciting and was decided on a last-second field goal.  The other was incredibly boring, the lowest-scoring Super Bowl in history, and the Rams became just the second team ever not to score a touchdown.

Super Bowl LIII also started a crazy run that has a chance to continue this year.  If the Rams win, this will be the eighth consecutive Super Bowl to feature either them or the Chiefs...yet they've never played each other!  Kansas City went to five out of six, with the Rams going the year before, the year in between and, potentially, the year after.  They're doing their own little Brady-Manning alternating thing.

Seattle faced both Manning and Brady back-to-back, so it's funny that if they go back, they'll get either the Broncos or Patriots again.  That Broncos-Seahawks Super Bowl at MetLife Stadium was not a good game by any stretch!  It was a 43-8 blowout!  Instead of going back-to-back, they decided to throw on 1st-and-goal instead of handing off to Marshawn Lynch, allowing the Patriots to make the game-sealing interception.  That, of course, was 11 years ago.   But do you think anyone in Seattle has forgotten it?

Two other fun facts before I move on to talking about the actual games, one in each conference.  For Patriots-Broncos, it's this, which really is fascinating: Including this season, they've made 20 Super Bowl appearances.  They've literally represented the AFC in 1/3 of all Super Bowls!  (And they're actually tied for the most Super Bowl losses with five apiece.)  And they made a combined one appearance between Super Bowls I-XIX.  So, in the last 41 years, they've been the AFC representative in nearly half of all Super Bowls!

In the NFC, it's how this is the worst-case scenario NFC Championship Game for 49ers fans.  The two teams they hate the most are the Rams and the Seahawks (well, I guess they hate the Cowboys, too).  One of them is guaranteed to play in the Super Bowl on San Francisco's home field.  And one of them is guaranteed to continue a trend where eight of the last 14 NFC champions have come out of the NFC West (with the Eagles accounting for three of the other six).

Patriots (16-3) at Broncos (15-3): New England-Denver doesn't have a quarterback.  Unfortunately, that will be the storyline that dominates the AFC Championship Game. Maybe Jarrett Stidham can pull a Jeff Hostetler and lead Denver to the title, but Bo Nix's injury can't be overlooked.  The Broncos are a completely different team without him, which is why it'll be an uphill battle.

For the Broncos to win, they'll need to rely on that outstanding defense.  They came up with the big plays against the Bills (especially on the catch/interception in overtime that was correctly ruled an interception).  Buffalo also scored 30 points, though, so the offense will need to keep up with Drake Maye and Co.  And I'm not entirely sure they'll be able to do that with Stidham instead of Nix.  

Not enough people are talking about the New England defense, either.  Maye and the offense get all the credit, but that defense has been lockdown all postseason.  They've allowed a grand total of one touchdown in two playoff games.  Against Justin Herbert and C.J. Stroud.  This is a Broncos offense without its starting quarterback.  So, you'd have to figure Denver will have just as much trouble scoring against the Patriots as the Chargers and Texans did.  Which is why New England goes into this game as the favorite.

The Broncos are at home and has never lost an AFC Championship in Denver.  They're also undefeated in AFC Championship Games against the Patriots.  Sadly, both of those streaks may come to an end.  If Bo Nix was playing, it'd be a completely different story, although New England might've been favored anyway.  Without him, the Broncos' chances aren't great.  Which is why Mike Vrabel takes the Patriots to their first post-Bradicheck Super Bowl.

Rams (14-5) at Seahawks (15-3): Rams-These two were responsible for two of the best games all season.  In the second one, on a fateful Thursday night, Mike MacDonald decided to go for two in overtime, completely flipping not just the division, but the entire NFC playoff picture.  That decision paved the way for the Seahawks to get the No. 1 seed and, more importantly, home field advantage in the NFC Championship Game.

And let's not forget about that Seattle defense.  In the two games against San Francisco, they allowed a grand total of nine points.  The 49ers never had a chance last week.  That's because the Seahawks never gave them one.  So, there's no reason to think they'll deviate from their recipe for success.  Especially when you consider the fact that the offense clicked just as much as the defense last week.  And wouldn't it be something to see Sam Darnold start a Super Bowl?!

Still, I've been saying for most of the season that I think the Rams are the best team.  Nothing that's happened in the playoffs has done anything to change that opinion.  As a wild card, they had to go on the road twice.  They won both.  In very different ways.  Now they go on the road again, but to play a very familiar opponent who they've already beaten this season.  The Seahawks haven't lost since then, but they know they've got a fight on their hands.

Whoever wins this game is gonna earn it and will likely be the favorites in the Super Bowl.  I keep coming back to the idea that the Rams are the best team, though.  Ultimately, that'll be what makes the difference.  Of the six wild card teams, they were the only one capable of winning three road games to get to the Super Bowl.  Two down.  One to go.

Last Week: 4-0
Playoffs: 7-3
Overall: 178-103-1

No Game, But Still All*Stars

For the second year in a row, there's no NHL All*Star Game this season.  There was supposed to be.  It was originally scheduled for UBS Arena as the final game before the players left for Milan.  Then they turned it into an Olympic send-off event.  Then they cancelled it entirely and gave UBS Arena the 2027 All*Star Game instead (assuming there is one).

Last year, of course, the All*Star Game was replaced by the Four Nations Face-Off, which everyone agreed was better than an All*Star Game anyway.  That was just the appetizer for the NHL's return to the Olympics, where it won't just be four nations, it'll be 12!  And every NHL team will be represented by at least one player at the Olympics, too (and every country except for Italy will have at least one NHL player on its roster).

I get why the NHL ultimately decided against playing an All*Star Game this season, and I admit it would've been weird to have both the All*Star Game and the Olympics in the same year.  That hasn't happened since 2002 (the original plan for 2022 was the same as this year, they'd play in the All*Star Game, then leave for the Olympics from there).  So, the All*Star Game not being played in an Olympic year is not a problem at all.

Still, though, this means we're going two consecutive years without a formal All*Star Game.  And, assuming the World Cup of Hockey returns in 2028 as planned, it seems like it'll only be an every-other-year thing moving forward, with the international tournament (either the Olympics or World Cup) replacing the All*Star Game in even years.  Which is kind of unfortunate for other reasons.

By the NHL not having an All*Star Game in either of the last two seasons (and Russia being ineligible for international play), they haven't been able to properly recognize the league's all-time leading goal scorer on such a stage.  Alex Ovechkin hasn't played in an All*Star Game since 2023.  Assuming this is his last season, as many suspect, that will also be his last All*Star Game.

Ovechkin's not the only one.  There are some players whose only All*Star-caliber seasons came in years when there was no All*Star Game.  Sure, that's a combination of unfortunate timing and bad luck.  But it'll happen more as the All*Star Game continues to be played infrequently.  (For the quality of play and growth of the game perspective, replacing it with international play, which will be better anyway, makes complete sense.  I'm not suggesting they should have the All*Star Game instead of the international events in those years.  I'm just saying it sucks for those players.)

Anyway, where am I going with all this?  Well, just because there's no All*Star Game, that doesn't mean I can't select All*Stars.  So, that's exactly what I'm doing.  And, since the planned date is about two weeks away, roster announcements would've been right around now.  Which means now's as good a time as any to name my selections.

At the last NHL All*Star Game in 2024, fans chose one player from each division to serve as captains, but they used that stupid "pick your own teams" format and had the All*Star Draft as part of the Skills Competition.  As you can tell, I hate that format.  So, I'm not doing that.  Instead, I'm going back to the previous format of four division-based teams.  I'm keeping the fan-selected captains, but that's it.

Those four captains are Auston Matthews (Atlantic), Alex Ovechkin (Metropolitan), Nathan MacKinnon (Central) and Connor McDavid (Pacific).  Another selection criterion to keep in mind are that each division has an 11-member team consisting of two goalies, three defensemen and six forwards.  The complete lack of defensemen in recent All*Star Games is beyond bothersome, so I'm doing something about that.  Also, every team must be represented.  So, with 44 players and 32 teams, only a handful have multiple All*Stars.

That every team thing actually briefly tripped me up.  I had Rasmus Andersson as my Flame, but he was traded to Vegas, so I had to choose another Calgary player and ended up replacing Andersson with another defenseman since my replacement Flame was a forward.  And, as usual, some deserving players got left off because they already had a teammate going and I had to have somebody from every team.  Still, though, I think these rosters that I came up with are pretty good...

ATLANTIC
G: Jeremy Swayman (BOS), Andrei Vasilevskiy (TB)
D: Moritz Seider (DET), Lane Hutson (MTL), Jake Sanderson (OTT)
F: *Auston Matthews (TOR, captain), David Pastrnak (BOS), Tage Thompson (BUF), Alex DeBrincat (DET), Sam Reinhart (FLA), Nikita Kucherov (TB)

METROPOLITAN
G: Ilya Sorokin (NYI), Logan Thompson (WSH)
D: Zach Werenski (CBJ), Matthew Schaefer (NYI), Jacob Chychrun (WSH)
F: *Alex Ovechkin (WSH, captain), Sebastian Aho (CAR), Trevor Zegras (PHI), Sidney Crosby (PIT), Nico Hischier (NJ), Artemi Panarin (NYR)

CENTRAL
G: Scott Wedgewood (COL), Karel Vejmelka (UTA)
D: Cale Makar (COL), Justin Faulk (STL), Josh Marino (UTA)
F: *Nathan MacKinnon (COL, captain), Conor Bedard (CHI), Mikko Rantanen (DAL), Kirill Kaprizov (MIN), Ryan O'Reilly (NSH), Mark Scheifele (WPG)

PACIFIC
G: Darcy Kuemper (LA), Akira Schmid (VGK)
D: Evan Bouchard (EDM), Filip Hronek (VAN), Shea Theodore (VGK)
F: *Connor McDavid (EDM, captain), Leo Carlsson (ANA), Mikael Backlund (CGY), Leon Draisaitl (EDM), Macklin Celebrini (SJ), Jordan Eberle (SEA)

Baseball Hall Call, 2026

We've been spoiled with the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot over the past few years.  After nobody was elected period in 2021, there have been five first-ballot inductees in the past four elections.  This year, we don't have an Ichiro.  There may not be a first-ballot lock next year, either.  Then we get to Albert Pujols in 2028 and Miguel Cabrera in 2029.  Fortunately, the Eras Committee voted in Jeff Kent, so there will be an induction ceremony this year.  But who will the writers elect to join him on stage in Cooperstown?

All signs are pointing towards Carlos Beltran getting in.  Since he played for a lot of teams, it's really more of a question which hat will be on his plaque.  (My money's on Mets.)  He almost got in last year and is the clear headliner on the 2026 ballot.  Beltran's over 89 percent on the Hall of Fame tracker, so his finishing over the required 75 percent seems likely.  Will he be the only one, though?

The other name that's getting a lot of traction is Andruw Jones.  The Hall of Fame tracker has him at 83 percent, so he's not quite the lock that Beltran seems to be.  In fact, I think he will stay above the 75 percent threshold and also receive the call to give us a three-member Hall of Fame class.  If he doesn't get in, he'll be close (and the likely headliner next year, which would be his final time on the ballot).

What I'm curious to see is how everybody else falls.  Without the sure-fire first-ballot guy and with the Steroid Era players cycling off the ballot, that theoretically leaves more votes out there for everyone else.  How close will players like Andy Pettitte and Chase Utley and Felix Hernandez get?  What about David Wright and Dustin Pedroia, the one-team guys whose careers were derailed by injuries?  Will Cole Hamels be the only new addition who survives to a second year on the ballot?

As usual, I'm using this space to reveal the 10 players who I'd include on my ballot if I had one.  Last year, I had all three who were elected, so that gives me three additional spots to go with the seven players I voted for in 2025.  And Cole Hamels is the only new name who makes the cut for me, so I'm voting for two players this year who I didn't have last year.

1. Andy Pettitte, Pitcher (1995-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007-10 Yankees, 2012-13 Yankees): How Andy Pettitte hasn't gotten more Hall of Fame support really boggles my mind.  He's trending upward on the tracker, though, so maybe he's on his way to election.  As he should be.  The whole point is winning.  Andy Pettitte was a winner.  He won five World Series rings, and not just because he was on those Yankees dynasty teams.  I'd argue that the Yankees won those World Series because of him!  Pettitte's postseason dominance, frankly, is enough before you even take his regular season success into consideration.

2. Carlos Beltran, Outfielder (1998-2004 Royals, 2004 Astros, 2005-11 Mets, 2011 Giants, 2012-13 Cardinals, 2014-16 Yankees, 2016 Rangers, 2017 Astros): I rank my votes based on who's a definite "Yes" and who's the last on/first off.  That's the only reason I have Pettitte above Beltran.  Don't get me wrong, though.  I absolutely think Carlos Beltran is a Hall of Famer!  He hit 435 home runs, played Gold Glove defense in center field, and was a productive hitter into his late 30s.  Beltran is one of four players all-time with 1,500 runs scored, 2,700 hits, 400 homers and 300 steals.

3. Andruw Jones, Outfielder (1996-2007 Braves, 2008 Dodgers, 2009 Rangers, 2010 White Sox, 2011-12 Yankees): With Andruw Jones, the question has been whether those years at the end when he was just hanging on diminished his Hall of Fame case.  To which my response is, had he retired after the 2007 season, would his Braves career alone be enough?  And I think it would.  He was the premier defensive center fielder of the late 90s/early 2000s (sorry, Junior), winning 10 consecutive Gold Gloves.  He also hit 20 home runs in all 10 of those seasons, so he wasn't just a one-trick pony.  When/if he gets the call, he'll become the first Hall of Famer from Curacao (or, as Wayne Gretzky calls it, "Cuh-Rock-Oh.")

4. Omar Vizquel, Shortstop (1989-93 Mariners, 1994-2004 Indians, 2005-08 Giants, 2009 Rangers, 2010-11 White Sox, 2012 Blue Jays): Vizquel is one where I really had some trouble.  I really considered dropping him from my list of 10.  But, ultimately, I decided to keep him on, mainly because I've put Vizquel down every year.  The allegations against him did give me pause and are probably why he hasn't gotten as much support as he probably otherwise would have.  But, again, I've either had or considered Omar Vizquel every year he's been eligible, so why stop now?

5. Dustin Pedroia, Second Baseman (2006-19 Red Sox): Pedroia only played nine total games over his final two seasons, so his career arc really only stretches 12 years from 2006-17.  That career arc was a might impressive one, though!  Boston won two World Series in that span (he picked up a third ring in 2018), during which Pedroia won both a Rookie of the Year (2007) and an MVP (2008).  He also won four Gold Gloves and a Silver Slugger.  Not to mention the leadership he provided on good Red Sox teams.

6. Mark Buerhle, Pitcher (2000-11 White Sox, 2012 Marlins, 2013-15 Blue Jays): It doesn't seem likely that we'll see a Mark Buerhle-type starting pitcher again anytime soon.  Sure, Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander are still kicking around, but once they're gone, the horse who'll just go out there every five days and you know you'll get seven innings out of him.  Last season, only three pitchers in the Majors reached 200 innings pitched.  Buerhle threw 200 innings in 14 consecutive years!

7. David Wright, Third Baseman (2004-16, 2018 Mets): Oh, what could have been for the longtime face of the New York Mets?!  Like Pedroia, he's an icon to a fan base after spending his entire career with one team.  Like Pedroia, his career was derailed by injuries.  But when he was healthy and at his peak, boy, was he something else!  The best third baseman in baseball?  No, he was one of the best players in baseball!

8. Chase Utley, Second Baseman (2003-15 Phillies, 2015-18 Dodgers): If I'd had 11 spots last year, the 11th would've gone to Utley.  With three extra places available this year, Utley's on.  Kent's election has brought up the lack of second basemen in Cooperstown, and Utley certainly belongs.  He was the heart and soul of those Phillies teams, and he was consistently one of the best second basemen in the Majors throughout his career.  Utley was a six-time All*Star, four-time Silver Slugger and incredible postseason performer.  He hit seven career World Series home runs (including five in 2009), the most ever by a second baseman.

9. Cole Hamels, Pitcher (2006-15 Phillies, 2015-18 Rangers, 2018-19 Cubs, 2020 Braves): Welcome to the ballot Cole Hamels, who apparently ended his career with the 2020 Braves?!  Anyway, he was the stalwart in that rotation as the Phillies won back-to-back pennants and the 2008 World Series.  He, of course, started the longest game in World Series history and was actually on deck during the two-day rain delay.  My other favorite Cole Hamels fun fact is how, in 2015, he threw a no-hitter in what would end up being his final start for the Phillies before being traded to Texas.

10. Felix Hernandez, Pitcher (2005-19 Mariners): Ultimately, it came down to Jimmy Rollins or Felix Hernandez for the final spot on my ballot.  As weird as it feels to vote for Utley and not Rollins, it also would've felt weird to put all three of the Phillies and leave King Felix off.  Because Felix Hernandez was ahead of his time.  He's the type of starting pitcher we see in baseball now.  Yes, his career was short and he was essentially done once he turned 30.  But when King Felix was in his prime, he wasn't just dominant.  He was the best pitcher in the game.

Before I sign off, I'd be remiss without mentioning my friend Jim Henneman.  Jim was a Hall of Fame voter for years and served on several Eras Committees, as well.  The first time he attended the induction ceremony was in 1966 for Casey Stengel and Ted Williams (not a bad class!).  He passed away last year, so he won't be attending this year's induction ceremony and didn't vote in this year's election.  But his spirit definitely lives on, and I'm dedicating this post (as well as all future Baseball Hall of Fame posts) to Jim's memory.

Australian Open 2026

My favorite thing about this year's Australian Open already happened.  After the US Open moved the mixed doubles tournament to the week before the tournament proper, you knew Australia would come up with something of its own.  What they came up with was a One-Point Tournament, where pros, celebrities, random amateurs, men, women all competed against each other in a single-elimination event.  It was exactly like it sounds.  Each match was one point.  You serve and hit an ace, you win.  You serve and hit an error, you lose.  Anyway, some local dude beat Jannik Sinner and went on to win the whole thing!

Sinner may not have won the One-Point Tournament, but don't expect it to have any impact on his pursuit of a third straight Australian Open title.  It was here in 2024 that he beat Novak Djokovic (badly) in the semifinals and started this new era in men's tennis where he and Carlos Alcaraz have split the last eight Grand Slam titles between them (four apiece).  Sinner has to come into the tournament as the favorite to make it three in a row.  Alcaraz, after all, has never been past the quarterfinals here.  But to say he's motivated would be an understatement.

Alcaraz has already done so much in his career, and he got back to No. 1 after winning the US Open last year.  And he hasn't been shy about how much he wants this title.  It's the only one he's missing for a career Grand Slam.  Alcaraz is still just 22.  If he wins, he'll become the youngest man to complete the career Grand Slam.  He's obviously got plenty of time to win the Australian Open, but he really wants it here.  (Sinner will look to finish off his career Grand Slam at the French Open.)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it sure looks like we're on a collision course for another Sinner vs. Alcaraz Grand Slam final.  Should it happen, that would make it four Grand Slams in a row where they've met for the title.  And, frankly, I'm not sure I see anybody getting in either of their way.  Well, except for maybe one guy.

We didn't know it at the time, but Sinner's win over Djokovic in the 2024 semifinals really was a changing of the guard.  Novak's still looking for that 25th Grand Slam title, which would leave him alone as the all-time leader.  Simply by playing in the tournament, he'll tie another all-time record.  This will be Djokovic's 81st appearance in a Grand Slam, matching Roger Federer and Feliciano Lopez.  Assuming he's healthy, he'll break that record in Paris.  (He's been to at least the semifinals in 53 of the previous 80, an insane percentage!)

Djokovic can reach two other milestones during the tournament.  A first-round victory would be his 100th at Melbourne Park, making this the third Grand Slam where he'll have 100 wins (which is kinda odd, considering he's a 10-time champion).  He needs three wins to become the first player ever with 400 career Grand Slam match victories.  If those numbers sound insane, it's because they are.  As are his 10 Australian Open titles.

Is Djokovic a favorite to make it 11?  No.  But a run wouldn't surprise anyone.  And, don't forget, he made the semifinals last year, but had to retire after losing the first set to Alexander Zverev.  If he wasn't injured, we very well might've seen a Djokovic vs. Sinner final in 2025.  This year, they'd face each other in the semifinals should they both get there.  Should that happen, you'd have to think it'd be Sinner's match to lose.

Zverev is worth mentioning, too.  He was the finalist last year and blew a two-set lead in the 2024 semifinals.  Zverev has the Olympic gold from Tokyo, but still hasn't gotten over the hump at a Slam.  Could this finally be his time?  Unfortunately, I don't think so.  Not when he'll have to be Alcaraz in the semis and either Sinner or Djokovic in the final.

There's also somebody looking to complete a career Grand Slam on the women's side--Iga Swiatek.  Last year, Swiatek reached the semifinals for the second time in her career, losing a third-set tiebreak to Madison Keys.  As fate would have it, that could be the semifinal matchup again this year.  After that great semifinal they played in 2025, you almost want to see the rematch.  Although, that's assuming Keys gets through the American gauntlet.

Last year, an American woman made the final at all four Grand Slams.  It's actually five in a row going back to Jessica Pegula at the 2024 US Open.  Pegula, Keys and Amanda Anisimova (who's been to the last two Grand Slam finals) are all in the same section of the draw, where they're joined by 2020 Australian Open champion Sofia Kenin.  The good news is it looks good for an American to reach the semifinals from that section of the draw.  The bad news is they'll likely have to take out each other to get there.

The other American woman who made a Grand Slam final last year was Coco Gauff, who won the French Open.  She's the No. 3 seed and on the opposite side of the draw.  Gauff followed up her 2023 US Open title by reaching the semifinals here, so a deep run wouldn't be a surprise at all.  Her second-round match could be the one worth watching, though.  Coco Gauff's big breakthrough was at Wimbledon in 2019, where she reached the fourth round.  In the first round, her first-ever Grand Slam match, the 15-year-old Gauff upset Venus Williams.  If they both win their opening matches here, Coco would play the now 45-year-old Venus in the second round.  A full-circle moment to be sure.

Of course, the one name I'm yet to mention is the best women's tennis player on the planet right now.  Not to mention the best hardcourt player.  That's World No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka, the two-time champion who saw her 20-match Australian Open winning streak snapped by Keys in last year's final.  Sabalenka has been to the last six Grand Slam finals played on hardcourts.  There's no reason to think she won't make it seven.

Sabalenka is probably a bigger favorite than Sinner is.  Especially when you look at her draw and don't really see any names that should challenge her.  Even a potential semifinal matchup against Gauff she should easily handle.  And, if Sabalenka cruises into the final (which wouldn't be a surprise), a third title in four years could easily be on order.  In fact, I think the only one who can prevent that might be Swiatek.

So, yes, I'm being boring and going with the chalk.  But going with the chalk is sometimes the wise bet.  Because Jannik Sinner and Aryna Sabalenka have just been that dominant both on hardcourts and at the Australian Open over the past several years.  Expect that to continue in 2026.

NFL Picks, Divisional Round

A lot was made about the fact that Seahawks-49ers is on Saturday and Rams-Bears is on Sunday, even though the Rams and Bears played on Saturday last week.  I agree that it would've made more sense to put that game on Saturday night and Seattle-San Francisco on Sunday.  My guess is NBC is to blame for why Bears-Rams ended up on Sunday. 

Last week, there was that interesting piece explaining why Bears-Packers was the Prime game and how NBC essentially drew the short straw on Wild Card Weekend.  That same article implied NBC would get first choice this weekend.  So, if they wanted Rams-Bears and were tapped for a Sunday game (FOX usually gets Saturday night), that would explain it.  Does it suck for the 49ers to have a cross country trip AND a short week?  Yes.  But I bet that's why.

Do I know this for sure?  No.  But it does make sense.  Just like how the "times and networks TBA" announcement after the Patriots-Chargers game makes sense in hindsight, too.  If the Steelers had won, New England-Pittsburgh likely would've been on Sunday night (probably on CBS instead of ESPN).  Since the Texans won, that game became less appealing, so Bears-Rams got the late slot on Sunday.  Do I know this for sure?  Also no.  But if the timeslots weren't dependent on the Steelers-Texans result, we almost certainly wouldn't have had to wait until after the Monday night game to find them out.

What's weird, though, is how neither of the Sunday afternoon networks has a game on Sunday afternoon.  CBS has Bills-Broncos on Saturday afternoon and FOX has Seahawks-49ers on Saturday night.  When was the last time there was a Sunday with multiple games that didn't feature any on either CBS or FOX?  Has it ever happened?  It's especially odd because CBS won't have a primetime playoff game at all this season (the AFC Championship Game is first this year).

Anyway, Divisional Playoff weekend is typically the most anticipated weekend on the NFL calendar.  The top eight teams in the league, all two wins from the Super Bowl.  I'm not sure it'll be able to match last weekend, though.  The first four games of Wild Card Weekend, especially, were exceptional.  They were decided by a combined 14 points!  Sure, the last two games weren't close.  But those were two dominant defensive performances by teams that will face each other this weekend.

Before the playoffs started, I thought it was wide open and had absolutely no idea who'll be in the Super Bowl.  What happened on Wild Card Weekend did nothing to change that opinion.  In fact, it might've had the opposite effect.  I can legitimately see all eight teams playing this weekend taking the field in Santa Clara on February 8.  So, if that's the case, this week could very well give last week a run for its money.

Bills (13-5) at Broncos (14-3): Denver-The Bills earned their first road playoff win since the 1992 AFC Championship Game last week.  And they did it because Josh Allen was being Josh Allen.  He essentially willed them to victory.  That playoff experience was on full display.  Now Buffalo is tasked with winning another road playoff game in conditions that would be a problem for any other team and any other quarterback.

When these two met in the Wild Card round last season, it was clear the Bills were the better team.  This time, I'm not so sure.  Buffalo has Josh Allen and hasn't lost a playoff game to an opponent other than Kansas City since 2022.  They obviously don't have to face the Chiefs this year, but they do have to face that Broncos defense.  In Denver.  If the game were in Buffalo, I'd take the Bills.  Since it's in Denver, I'm going with the Broncos.

49ers (13-5) at Seahawks (14-3): Seattle-These two are meeting on a Saturday night for the second time in three weeks.  And the first one directly set up this one.  Had the 49ers won, they would've gotten a week off and been at home.  Instead, they had to travel to Philadelphia and face the defending champions.  They came away with a win, but lost George Kittle, the latest in their long line of injuries.

Can they overcome another injury and take down a rested division rival on the road?  A division rival that completely shut them down two weeks ago.  That Week 18 game could end up proving to make a big difference in this one.  The Seahawks earned the 1-seed with a dominant effort in that game.  They haven't played since.  While this game won't be a carbon copy of that one, it'll be pretty close.  The NFC Championship Game will be in Seattle.

Texans (13-5) at Patriots (15-3): New England-Both of their defenses stole the show in their Wild Card wins.  Neither offense did much.  Which leads you to believe that we'll see a low-scoring struggle.  Points will almost certainly be at a premium, and whichever offense is able to move the ball with any sort of regularity will figure to be in good shape.

Houston has a championship-caliber defense and is the hottest team in football.  The Texans got their first-ever road playoff win last week, and it's a very realistic possibility that they'll be playing in their first-ever AFC Championship Game next week.  Winning on the road two weeks in a row will be a tall order, though.  The Patriots' defense isn't the Steelers' defense.  New England shuts down Houston enough to get the win.

Rams (13-5) at Bears (13-5): Rams-I saw the craziest stat the other day.  This will be Sean McVay's 15th playoff game as Rams coach.  In those 15 games, the Bears will be their 15th different opponent.  All he needs to finish off the entire NFC is the Giants and Commanders.  Of course, he can't make it 16-for-16 with a win since they've already played both Seattle and San Francisco in the postseason.

Heading into the playoffs, I thought the Rams were the best team.  They got a bigger challenge than expected from the Panthers, but managed to pull it out.  The Bears, meanwhile, did their regular thing and had a fourth-quarter comeback.  It wouldn't be a surprise at all to see them do it again.  It also wouldn't surprise me to see the Rams not let them get away with it this time.  I still think they're the best team.  They've already got one road win.  Now they'll add another.

Last Week: 3-3
Overall: 174-103-1