Lounging Pass

The Wire: Top 50 Characters #23-11

2012-02-10T02:38:00.005-05:00

23.) Duquan "Dukie" Weems

Dukie was probably the most pitiable, sympathetic member of the Little 4 Boys. His private life was built to be so openly awful. What a beautiful display of abject poverty, and the hidden treasures that lie in the piles of rubbish in deep Baltimore. One of the most special moments of the run of the show was when Dukie's face lights up when he gets the computer working. The one thing that ruined Dukie for me is that I saw his slide into drugs, and into working with the scrap-man as a little too quick. Dukie had the strongest moral standing of any of the kids, so his quick turn into a drug addict seemed off key. Dukie could have been so much more as a character, just as he could have been so much more as a person, but I guess that is the point.

22.) Chris Partlow

The Wee-Bey of the Stanfield crew, Partlow had about 1% more personality than Stanfield, but his stone demeanor felt more apt in his role as main enforcer. Partlow's calmness made his more human, more emotional moments seem so much more extreme. His callous beating of Michael's molester, drumming him like a mule. His quick thinking of asking each presumed foreign dealer a Baltimore related question was a stroke of genius. Partlow was a machine-like killer, but it was the mix of a calculating military general with a man ready to explode that made hm an intriguing character.

Memorable Quotes: "You ain't never want to be the last man to a party," & when he was forcing Bodie to take Stanfield's package, "Why ain't in your repertoire anymore."

21.) Dennis "Cutty" Wise

I will say from now on until the #1 character, every single one is brilliant. Every one is brilliantly constructed, written, and acted. They are all round and dense. This is why The Wire is so brilliant. There are 21 incredible characters. Cutty was the only story of redemption gained in the run of The Wire. His transformation from inmate to returning enforcer to man without a cause, to owner and runner of a gym, to mentor. Cutty was the man of many roles, and he played them all well. His run in the gym might have been the only story on The Wire with a true happy ending. That said, it was always tough to see him try to reach out to boys like Spyder and more so Michael. Cutty was the symbol that the prison can do its intended process, that it can rehabilitate. And seeing Cutty changed by his time in prison, and reject his past and try to become a teacher a mentor so completely was wonderful.

Memorable Quotes: "I ain't making myself clear. The Game ain't in me no more. None of it." (1:40) & "Young man, if I was talking to you, you would know." (0:45)

20.) Ziggy Sobotka

A lot of people thought he was a bad, annoying character and the worst of the Sobotka family members. I completely disagree. There was a better Sobotka, but Ziggy was such a complex character, a true Greek tragic figure. Ziggy, as Alan Sepinwall said, was a person who was just a clown. Had he gone to a normal college, he could have found a nice niche as a Frat joker. He was just misunderstood and misplaced in a world that demanded exacting work and patience from a man that had neither. Zig wanted to be his father. At least that is what he externally wanted, but it was the conflict between his desire and the fact that he just was not the person who could achieve it was the brilliance of Ziggy Sobotka. His crazy death spiral into a manic murderer, who shook and laughed in fear after offing the person who laughed at him one too many times, was just a startling storyline.

Memorable Quotes: "No, oh no. No Fucking Way. We had a deal montherfucker. You listen to me. It was my fucking ass on the line; mine. And this piddling shit, you don't play me like that. You don't!... Fuck you, you thieving Greek cunt.", with the duck, "Like I'm the only guy in South Baltimore to try to win the affections of a farm animal." & to his dad, "I remember when you all went down to picket them scabs at Covington piers... I remember when fat rick was killed dead... I remember everything, everything."

19.) D'Angelo Barsksdale

The first of four main S1 members who would be dead by S4, D'Angelo was one of the most interesting, complete characters in the show's history. He was the first man to question what the game was all about. He was the first one to think that violence does not need a place in the game. In many ways, he was the Barksdale version of Ziggy. He wanted to be Avon's protege, but he knew that this was not him, that in the end he was heading down an alley that was too dark and dangerous for him. Like Ziggy, he ended behind bars for years and years. D'Angelo was a figure who could both gain the largest of sympathy from the viewer while being someone who started the show escaping a murder charge that he was all too guilty of. His heart was what made him great. His heart was what also made him a victim, a man who wanted in and wanted out of the game at the same time.

Memorable Quotes: "This look like money to you, motherfucker. Money be green.", in the prison book-club about Gatsby, "You can change up, right? You can say you somebody new, you can give yourself a whole new story. But what came first - is who you really are. And what happened before - is what really happened. And it don't matter if some fool say he different, cause the only thing that make you different is what you do, is what you really go through." (0:42) & of course, "Where's Wallace at? Where's the boy, String?... Where's Wallace?... Where the fuck is Wallace, huh? String. String! Look at me! Where the fuck is Wallace?" (0:41)

18.) Roland "Prez(bo)" Prebylewski

No character grew as a person more than Prez. He was a hump cop that had a serious complex that he was too nerdy, too dumb to be a real police. His stunt where he cold-cocked that kid and blinded him in S1 just reassured the idea that Prez was (and here is a theme) a guy who wanted to be a cop and didn't at the same time (like Zig, and D'Angelo). Then we saw him crack a code, and a brilliant character was born. Prez was a genius who was tied to his personal heaven and hell at the same time as he was tied to inside office work. This allowed to see the brighter side of police-work, the side where he could make a difference. Of course, when he woke up from hibernation and was allowed back outside he unsuspectingly shot a cop. Which allowed him to go to school. Prez the teacher was an inspired move. He saw how he could really help Baltimore, really connect to people. His scenes with the kids were Gold. His relationship with Dukie was inspired. Prezbo became an incredible work of art.

Memorable Quote: "You trick them into thinking they aren't learning, and they do."

17.) Bunny Colvin

Bunny Colvin, the quiet star of the show's 3rd season, was a character who really grew on me. In the beginning, I found his whole idea of Hamsterdam a little too ridiculous for even The Wire, but when you see the incredible lengths he had gone in thinking that idea true, and the person of great character he was behind his idea, he became an incredibly well constructed character. It was obvious that the only reason Colvin thought of actually pulling his idea of a drug-free zone off was that he was about to retire anyway, but the idea itself worked. The saddest part of his storyline was almost everyone, from Rawls to Carcetti, saw the merit of the idea, saw that the idea of a drug-free zone made sense in every way. However, minds that challenge convention and push the edge of the envelope have no place in Baltimore. The fact that he decided to pull his idea in a more direct setting and help brash kids, and then had the heart to pull Namond away from a life of sure destruction. Colvin was really the closest thing the show had to a true hero in the sense of the word.

Memorable Quote: when introducing Hamsterdam, "Somewheres, back in the dawn of time, this district had itself a civic dilemma of epic proportion. The city council had just passed a law that forbid alcoholic consumption in public places, on the streets and on the corners. But the corner is, and it was, and it always will be the poor man's lounge. It's where a man wants to be on a hot summer's night. It's cheaper than a bar, catch a nice breeze, you watch the girls go by. But the law is the law. And the Western cops, rolling by, what were they going to do? If they arrested every dude out there tipping back a High Life, there'd be no other time for any other kind of police work. And if they looked the other way, they'd open themselves to all kinds of flaunting, all kinds of disrespect. Now, this is before my time when it happened, but somewhere back in the '50s or '60s, there was a small moment of goddamn genius by some nameless smoke hound who comes out the Cut Rate one day and on his way to the corner, he slips that just-bought pint of elderberry into a paper bag. A great moment of civic compromise. That small wrinkled-ass paper bag allowed the corner boys to have their drink in peace, and it gave us permission to go and do police work. The kind of police work that's worth the effort, that's worth actually taking a bullet for. Dozerman, he got shot last night trying to buy three vials. Three! There's never been a paper bag for drugs. Until now." (0:50)

16.) Jay Landsman

These next two might be totally way too high, but they are here just because they were consistently brilliant, not because they were all that deep. Landsman was nothing more than a consistent source of comedy for five seasons. His description of Fraemon and Bunk's style was hilarious. His ability to suck up to Rawls caused fits of laughter. His constant eating was a great idea. Mr. Overall's was the comic in the BPD. Nothing though was better than his speeches at the Police Wakes of Ray Cole and Jimmy. Jay Landsman liked nothing more than having fun, staring at nudie magazines, and staying put in a job he loved.

Memorable Quote: "Although there is some small charm to a woman being in uniform, we wear plain clothes in homicide. Which is not to say the clothes need to be plain. For you, I suggest some pantsuits, muted in color. Something to offset Detective Moreland's pinstripe lawyerly affectations and the brash, tweedy impertinence of Detective Freeman."

15.)William Rawls

Bill Rawls was a bad guy. He cared more about keeping his status than bettering the department. However, the biggest difference between him and Burrell was he didn't want to cheat. He didn't want to play games. He just wanted to get the most clearances he could. He wanted people to solve cases. Rawls demanded everything of his subordinates, and I loved him for it. His feud with and hatred for McNulty was so genuinely played that I sure thought he actually hated actor Dominic West and was playing that hatred out for real. Bill Rawls also gave one of the most real, least pandering speeches in the history of the show when he demanded McNulty to stop acting like a self-hating pissant after Kima was shot. Rawls was actually what a realistic head of a police department should be. Tough, caring and wanting fair police work.

Memorable Quote: "Listen to me, you fuck. You played a lot of cards, and, you made a lot of fucking people do a lot of things they didn't want to do... You, McNulty are a gaping asshole. We both know the, and fuck if everybody in CID didn't know it. But, I'll be also fucked if I let you sit here and think you did a single fucking thing to get a fucking cop shot. Believe it or not, not everything is about you. And the motherfucker telling you this, he fucking hates your guts. So, you know, if it was on you, I'd be the son of a bitch to tell you."(2:03 - but the whole scene is great Rawls), & after finding out about the fake serial killer, "You're not killing them yourself, McNulty? At least assure me of that." (0:29)

14.) Randy Wagstaff

Randy Wagstaff, the highest ranking member of the four kids, was the symbol of how easy innocence can be lost. He did nothing wrong but help lookout for two guys tag-teaming a girl in the bathroom. He did nothing wrong, but speak to the cops because he was afraid. He did nothing wrong, but he lost his foster mother, lost his house, and finally lost his innocence. Seeing Randy bulky and rugged in Season 5 was more heartbreaking to me than seeing Dukie take drugs (which just made me angry), or Michael turn into a killer. Seeing Randy lose that beautiful smile, that way of life was just horrible.

Memorable Quote: Yelling at Carver who let him down, "You gonna help, huh? You gonna look out for me? You gonna look out for me, Sgt. Carver? You mean it? You gonna look out for me? You promise? You got my back, huh?" (2:13)

13.) Bunk Moreland

I really had a hard time picking the order of the next two. They were clearly the 2nd and 3rd best characters from the BPD. Moreland was just so well done. He was McNulty, but was consistently charming. He was the perfect subordinate. He toed the line, did his job (and did it damn well), but didn't demand anything more or less from his job. He saw his work as his work. He knew how to play the bureaucratic game better than most. What I loved about Moreland to was his incredibly brazen, drunken attitude. McNulty was the person that we wanted a cop to be, while Moreland was the person that was what a cop is at his best. In Bunk we Trust.

Memorable Quote: "I'm just a humble mother fucker with a big ass dick... OK then. I'm not that humble," (0:24) & when chiding Omar, "Makes me a sick motherfucker how far we done fell." (3:37 - whole scene is great).

12.) Lester Freamon

Cool Lester Smooth. He was 'The Boss' of the BPD. He was the most interesting police in the world. He was a genius of a cop. He carved miniature furniture. He landed a classy stripper (believe me, not an oxymoron in this case). He believed in his work, but he believed in doing what he thought was right (not what the BPD thought was right). Lester Freamon was the guy who realized that Stanfield was dumping bodies in houses, and he was the guy who went along with McNulty's fake serial killer plan. Cool Lester Smooth. He wasn't just the black McNulty, but the black McNulty with more moves.

Memorable Quote: "You follow the drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. You follow the money? You don't know where the fuck is going to take you."

11.) Spiros Vondas

I first had him a bit higher, but then I realized that he didn't have as much complexity as I first thought. He definitely fit the bill that the #2's are more important in most organizations (Stringer, Asst. Principal Donnelly, Burrell and Rawls as Deputies). Vondas was the classic gangster. He was calm. confident, calculating. He never got too hot or too cold, and mostly, he was loyal and saw potential. His fondness for Nick, viewing him as a protege and someone to mentor into the business was really the only other side he had, but that first side was good enough. He gave one half of the best dichotomy of lines in The Wire's history. The embodiment of capitalism (as The Wire showrunner David Simon called him and The Greek) was also the embodiment of the high profile gangster, the man who was high enough that however violent he was, he knew nothing would be brought back on him.

Memorable Quote: About Nick knowing his name, "He knows my name... but my name is not my name." (6:38)

The Top 10 is next, and they are all absolutely brilliant.

2011 NFL Playoffs: Looking Back at the Best Playoffs in Years

2012-02-08T23:30:00.002-05:00

The 2011 season was God Awful for me. The Colts went 2-14. More importantly, Peyton Manning's career might be over, and his career with the Colts is almost certainly over. The Raiders blew a division title and Hue Jackson 15 minutes of fame came with a huge cost: one 1st round pick, and another 2nd. Of course, that pick could become another 1st if Palmer leads the Raiders to the AFC Title Game in 2012, which if that is the case, I guess I don't hate the trade (btw, I like getting Palmer. I think the Raiders will be a playoff team in 2012 - and if not for a ridiculous amounts of injuries to skill position guys, this was a playoff team in 2011 and a dangerous one), but I hate what it has led to. Then, the Pats got the 1st seed in the AFC again. Of course, I also had to see offense just turn the tables on defense, mainly because QBs are being protected to silly degrees. I'm sorry, but no matter how good Rodgers, Brees, Brady and Stafford are, they never should have ALL had the years they had in the same year. It was basically the steroid era of football in one season. Let's see if it continues in 2011. I'll say it now: No QB is throwing for 5,000 yards next year.

Anyway, I wrote before the playoffs started that this was a pivotal playoffs for the NFL if they didn't want to lose the defensive-fan base. Fans of defense were hanging on a thread all year. Fans of the idea that teams can be constructed in more than one way were hanging on a thread. Of course, in the end the Super Bowl pitted two teams with 4,900+ yd QBs and horrific pass defenses (at least in the regular season) but they fact that they were basically even with the defensive-oriented 49ers and Ravens? That made me smile. I mean, the Super Bowl could have easily, with changing just one play in each game (Evans holds onto the ball, and Bradshaw's forward progress was not deemed to have been stopped before fumbling), been a match up of Joe Flacco and Alex Smith at QB. In fact, I kind of wish this was the Super Bowl because that would have created some internal tension between all the people that have spent the year orgasming at Brady, Brees & Rodgers. Of course, we got a different matchup, but a very good game, and thankfully for me, Brady losing.

Here are my random thoughts on Super Bowl XLVI and the 2011 Playoffs in general:

This might have been the best combination of title games and Super Bowl I have ever seen. Firstly, for the first time that I can remember we had two great Title Games. 2009 had a classic in Minnesota-New Orleans, and a fun game in Jets-Colts. 2008 had two close games. But this was two great games. That day of football was incredible. I do think the Ravens-Pats game would be remembered more fondly five years from now if it goes to OT (or Evans makes the catch). The fact that it ended with that field goal miss really hurt. The NFC Title Game was just perfect. Old-school football, in one of the few remaining cathedrals of football in Candlestick. That was an epic, and I can't wait to set aside three hours and watch it again.
That said, the fact that the first two rounds of the playoffs gave us just two memorable games (Steelers-Broncos, Saints-49ers), and a few other interesting but ultimately forgettable games (CIN-HOU, HOU-BAL) and then a bunch of blowouts, does make the 2011 postseason a little less memorable. I am not sure if collectively it was as great a postseason as 2006. In fact, let's do a breakdown:

Wild Card Round (worth 3/4ths of the other rounds): 2006 {Chiefs 8 @ Colts 23; Cowboys 20 @ Seahawks 21; Jets 16 @ Patriots 37; Giants 20 @ Eagles 23} vs. 2011 {Bengals 10 @ Texans 31, Lions 28 @ Saints 45, Falcons 2 @ Giants 24, Steelers 23 @ Broncos 29}

I give 2006 a 8/10 (there's a curve for Wild Card weekend which almost always features some bad games). The only forgettable game was the first one. The Romo Fumble game is probably one of the 10 most famous playoff games in the past 10 years. The Jets-Pats game was closer than the score, and had the Mangini/Belichick handshake feud factor (remember, the handshake stuff started before Spygate). The Giants-Eagles game was a forgotten great game. I give 2011 a 6.5/10. It did have one classic game in the Tebow Redemption. The Bengals @ Texans game was exiting just because it was the first playoff game in Houston. The Saints game and Giants games were both extremely boring in the 2nd half.

Divisional Round: 2006 {Colts 15 @ Ravens 6; Eagles 24 @ Saints 27; Seahawks 24 @ Bears 27; Patriots 27 @ Chargers 24} vs. 2011 {Saints 32 @ 49ers 36; Broncos 10 @ Patriots 45; Texans 13 @ Ravens 20; Giants 37 @ Packers 20}

I give 2006 a 9.5. It is almost impossible to get a 10/10, and I probably give this the dinstinction of the best playoff weekend I have ever seen. My God, does it get better than that. The Colts @ Ravens game was the only one decided by more than 3 points, and it was a real slugfest of a game, a great chess match between Manning and the best defense of the past 5 years. The Saints game is still the loudest playoff atmosphere I have seen. It was the first playoff game in the Superdome since Katrina. The Bears/Seahawks game is probably the most underrated overtime playoff game of the past 10 years. The Chargers/Patriots game was an instant-classic, with Marty's final act, the "clutch" 3-int performance of Brady, and the whole LT vs. Belichick classy debate after. Man, what a weekend. I give 2011 a 6/10. There was one awful game at the most fun timeslot. There was another boring slugfest (Texans @ Ravens). Giants @ Packers was fun in a way, but the only game I would watch again is the Saints @ 49ers, which was admittedly an awesome game and probably on its own better than any of the 2006 games.

Conference Title Sunday: 2006 {Saints 14 @ Bears 39; Patriots 34 @ Colts 38} vs. 2011 {Ravens 20 @ Patriots 23; Giants 20 @ 49ers 17}

This is incredibly difficult. I'll give 2006 a 8/10. The Pats/Colts game arguably the best non-Super Bowl in at least 20 years. The Bears Saints game was a 2 point game late in the 3rd quarter. It was by no means a great game, and was really sloppy, but it was definitely more entertaining than that scoreline would indicate. The 2011 pair gets a 9.5/10 though. That was incredible. I don't either game individually was as good as the Pats/Colts game, but the Giants/49ers was damn close. That was truly an epic. Books could be written about that game.

Super Bowl: 2006 {Colts 29 vs. Bears 17} vs. 2011 {Giants 21 vs. Patriots 17}

This isn't close. I will say that 2006 featured the best 1st quarter in Super Bowl history. There were three 50+ yard plays, Hester's KO Ret TD, Wayne's long TD, Three turnovers, and a bobbled hold. All in the 1st quarter. Also it gets some bonus points for being in the rain. The 2006 game gets a 7/10. This past week gets a 9/10. Great game between two totally even teams. That was the best part about it.

Final Tally 2006 (8/10 * .75 + 9.5/10 + 8/10 + 7/10) = .7625 vs. 2011 (6.5/10 *.75 + 6/10 + 9.5/10 + 9/10) = .7344. 2006 wins, by a hair.

Anyway, now that that extremely long, pointless tangent is over, let's get back to the Super bowl.
Eli Manning is not better than Peyton Manning. I love Eli. He's given me two great fan moments in Super Bowl XLII and Super Bowl XLVI. He's slayed my most hated dragon. He's also been a key member of two epic NFC Title Games. He's also the younger brother of my favorite QB, and what Peyton loves, we love. That said, please. He is not better than Eli. After the Super Bowl every show asked the same question about Eli, which was "Is he a Hall of Famer?". If there even needs to be a debate about that, then how the hell is "Is Eli better than Peyton?" even up for debate? Peyton Manning was recently ranked by a panel of old players, coaches, executives and journalists as the #8 NFL Player of all time (this was before the 2010 season). Peyton has more MVP's than Eli has pro-bowl appearances. This was by far Eli's best statistical season of his career (regular season), and it would be behind Peyton's 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009 seasons. Basically, at this juncture, Eli's best season was comaprable to Peyton's 7th best season.
That said, Eli is going to be a HOFer. So is Tom Coughlin. The media I feel like only puts more importance on Super Bowls now than they used to, even though people generally are smarter when analyzing sports. People who are smart when analyzing sports realize that teams win games and players don't. Also, a QB can perform well and lose. Peyton has perfected this. Anyway, Congratulations to Eli Manning, Tom Coughlin and the rest of the Giants. Incredible Job.
For the fifth time in seven years, a team that did not have a first-round bye won the Super Bowl. I think the days of the bye teams dominating is long past. That said, I wouldn't try to make this into something more important than it is. This doesn't mean teams should not aim for the bye, or be afraid of resting their starters (didn't seem to hurt anyone in 2009 apart from San Diego and Cincinnati). But people should no longer get angry that weaker and weaker teams are winning Super Bowls.
The Giants should be good next year. I actually think they are going to follow the same formula from 2007 just a little but further. In 2008, the Giants started out 11-1 and were the best team in the NFL at that point. Around that time, Plax decided to shoot himself in the leg, and then Eli discovered that he couldn't throw in the wind in the Divisional Round against the Eagles. In 2012, I think something similar will happen. It would not surprise me to see the Giants go 13-3. Also, if I had to pick who to play the role of Plax, I'll go with Victor Cruz. He already seems to love dancing, so a night club with a gun is just two steps away.
That said, it would not surprise me to see the Giants not win a playoff game next year. The NFC is just loaded right now. The Packers, 49ers and Saints are due for some regression, but the Lions are still on the upswing, and the Eagles should definitely be better. The Bears get Cutler back, and when he got hurt, the Bears were a top-5 team. Also, when Peyton Manning's laces it up for the Cardinals, you have them in the mix as well.
As for the AFC. It looks like a done deal for the Pats to get back right now, but I think the Ravens and Steelers will be right there. People seem to think that the Ravens are old on defense, but that age is primarily Lewis and Reed, who are both nowhere near as essential to the Ravens as they were three years ago (especially Lewis). The Texans should also be great assuming they don't have horrific injury luck again. That said, the AFC is not deep at all. Sleeper team: San Diego. I can't wait to get screwed over by them again.
To finish this up, Congratulations again to the Giants. They showed again how hard work and team play, as well as supreme confidence, can make any team great. Of course, it helps when that team is also talented and capable of playing great. The Giants have now saved me from two more Patriots titles and I can't thank them enough. Thanks, Big Blue.

Enjoy the offseason!!!

2011 NFL Playoffs: Super Bowl XLVI - A Beautiful Game

2012-02-07T22:11:00.003-05:00

I know what it feels like to lose a Super Bowl that was legacy defining (I guess you all knew what it felt like as well). I know what it is like when nothing goes your way in a game. For us, it was Garcon's huge drop on what would have been a 30+ yard pass up 10-3. Or Kendra's lap-dog husband muffing that onside kick. Or our coach asking our ancient kicker to attempt a 51 yard field goal. For us Colts fans, because of the events of the following 24 months since February 2010, that game hurts more and more. I don't want the Pats to win another Super Bowl in this era (maybe one around 2030 will be fine), but I hope that Pats fans feel worse about the game today than you will in February 2014 (and also that your QB is not having a public pr game with an over-his-head owner).

As for the game. It was one of the most even Super Bowl's I have ever seen, and a game where I think every unit played well. The Pats defense tightened in the red zone like they always do. The Giants defense held the Patriots to only short gains, and once the rush got going in the middle of the 3rd quarter, they effectively held the Patriots at bay. Both offenses had their moments, with the Giants starting hot and rarely having a bad drive (just too many that petered out even before field goal range), while the Pats for two straight drives looked like a machine on offense. This was a Super Bowl, but after all the hype and the buildup it was just a game of football. A good one. A beautiful one.

I like defense. By rule, this made me hate the ridiculous offensive numbers that the 2011 football season produced. That opinion might have changed had my favorite quarterback been able to get it on the fun, but it still hurt me to see three teams score 500 points, and three QBs throw for 5,000 yards and two of them smash Marino's record. I mean, nothing better exemplified this ridiculous season like Matthew Stafford throwing for 5,000 yards and 40 tds and being statistically no better than the 4th best QB in the NFL in 2011. Nothing then made me happier than the last three games of the 2011 NFL season. No team scored more than 23. No QB threw for more than 316 yards, and that QB needed 61 passes to do so. More incredibly, no team topped 400 yards of total offense. I loved it. I might have hated the outcome of the AFC Title Game, but it was good to know that defense still mattered.

And nowhere was this more true than in Super Bowl XLVI. One team scored 19 offensive points, and the other scored 17. This was probably the best game the modern pass-happy NFL can give you. Each yard was hard to come by. Eli Manning had to hit some really tight windows. Tom Brady was pressured, and when he wasn't, nothing was open downfield. The defenses weren't perfect, but a 9-6 game would have been boring. The defenses were good enough. The offenses were good enough. In all honesty, both teams were good enough. One team just got a little more breaks.

This wasn't Super Bowl XLII. That was one of the greatest teams having a bad game against a good team having a great game. This was different. This was two teams that by this point of the season were both about equal, and both played about equal, but one team just made one more play. This is the type of game that the NFL is all about. The fact that it was a Super Bowl made it all the more special. To me, this was the best, most evenly played, Super Bowl since the Rams evaded overtime by a yard. This was pure football. And honestly, it made me feel for the Pats for the first time ever.

I obviously felt nothing but glee after the last playoff game the Pats played in Indy. I felt nothing but more glee about seeing 18-0 go down in flames in the most amazing way possible. I even lapped up every bit of that beatdown the Ravens handed to them two years ago. But this, I actually felt bad. It might have been that haunting look at Robert Kraft react to the hail mary bouncing on the ground, and realizing that the season that helped him escape his personal tragedy was over. It humanized Kraft. Seeing Wes Welker, a man that I've never liked ever since his "F**k you" that he yelled after catching the game-icing pass in Super Bowl 41.5, reduced to tears because he dropped what was, in my mind, a damn hard pass humanized him. (I should say that to you all these guys have always been human, but to a Pats hater, not so much). I actually felt bad for even Brady, who I think was hurt in some way by that sack by Tuck in the 3rd quarter, as he was quite mediocre after that. He was playing lights out in the biggest game, but was undone by his body (again, I'm assuming he was injured in some way). I hate the fact that this game made me feel bad about hating the Pats so much.

This was a great exhibition of football played well. It wasn't just great offense, just great defense, it was good everything. It was the definition of a good, close, tight, well-played football game. And, if the end result is it makes me reconsider my hatred of a team that doesn't do anything but win and get silly levels of praise from people living from 7 years ago (see: "You can't bet against Belichick with two weeks to prepare"), then I'll take it. That's a fine side effective of a beautiful game.

I'll have some thoughts about the actual game a bit later.

and of course.... Bradying

2011 NFL Playoffs: Super Bowl Pick

2012-02-05T15:50:00.001-05:00

Well, it is here. I have avoided all the hype, and the talking heads, all the things that usually make the two-week lead-up to a Super Bowl a waste of time for me. I've tried to separate myself. Why? Because the Pats somehow won another playoff game they barely deserved. How many times have I seen that script. Baltimore did almost everything right, but at the end, their guy just couldn't hold onto the ball in the end zone for another half-second. Anyway, I'm finally over that whole ordeal. I don't know if John Harbaugh and more so Billy Cundiff are, but I am. I am ready to start talking about this game.

Super Bowl XLVI

New York Giants vs New England Patriots (-2.5)

I was really confident after Championship Sunday that the Giants would win. It wasn't like my 'confidence' about the Ravens winning. I thought they could, I knew it would be close, but I wasn't surprised. My immediate reaction to the Super Bowl was that I would be surprised if New England won. I'm not that anymore. Maybe it is the two week layoff. Maybe it me coming out of my denial that New England could easily win the Super Bowl AGAIN. Maybe it is all of these things, but I am now a lot more concerned than I was fourteen days ago.

It isn't all due to the fact that more people seem to be picking the Giants, and that is because that is a really overused line. The Patriots are still the official favorites. The picks are maybe 60/40 for the Giants, and as far as experts go, it is leaning towards New England. ESPN had 40 people pick the game, and it went 22-18 NE. SI had five people, and it was 4-1 for New England. The funniest part was that a lot of the people picking New England were saying that they loved them because no one is picking them. A lot of people are.

No, the reason I am concerned is that this isn't as clear.cut as I thought. The Patriots defense has stepped up against the better teams they have played. The Patriots offense is still very good and I don't think anyone on the Giants can really cover Wes Welker. The Giants o-line is not very good and the Patriots pass rush is actually evident this year. I still like the Giants though, but I am just not sure. I do not think the Patriots can stop the Giants enough. To me, that is a bigger mismatch than the the other side of the Pats offense and the Giants defense. The Giants defense is substantially better now than it was in the middle of the year. Michael Boley is the play-caller of the defense. He was missing a lot of the season. That pass rush is better now than what it was earlier in the season. Osi is healthy. Tuck is healthy. JPP is a beast. The pass rush isn't as good as it was in 2007, but it doesn't need to be because the Pats aren't as good in 2007, especially at the o-line. The o-line in 2007 was incredible until the Super Bowl. This o-line wasn't as good.

Anyway, I'm nowhere near as confident as I was when the two-week break started. I think this game is going to be damn close, which will be bad for my heart pressure and sanity. I think the Giants will win the game, but I won't be surprised if the Pats win. I'll just be incredibly depressed as a sports fan.

Giants 27 (NYG) Patriots (23)

The Wire: Top 50 Characters #36-24

2012-01-30T20:42:00.000-05:00

We return to my countdown of the Top-50 Wire Characters. This list will takes us through politics, police, drugs and docks. Basically, well, a nice little look at the entirety of The Wire's breadth. Let's get going.

36.) Odell Watkins

Old Wheel-Chair bound Odell Watkins was interesting to me mainly because he was basically a metaphor. He was the symbol of the disproportionate influence lower members of government have over higher members. Because Odell was closer in governmental distance to the people of Baltimore, he held their beliefs, he was their leader, moreso than Mayor Royce or Tommy Carcetti. Plus, it was funny that even The Wire, a show that never followed any usual tv trope, did fill out the "Handicapped character" in it's "How to exhaustively fill out each type of person" checklist.

35.) Clay Davis

If Odell was the symbol he was, Clay Davis was an even more obvious, but nonetheless important, symbol of outsider's influence in politics. Clay Davis was one of the most despicable people to appear in that hellscape of Baltimore. That said, he has to be on this list. Him not on it.... 'Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit"

Memorable Quote: "Fool, what do you think? That we know anything about who gives money? That we give a damn about who they are or what they want? We have no way of running down them or their stories. We don't care. We just cash the damn cheques, count the votes and move on."

34.) Beadie Russell

Adorable Beadie Russell. Her transition from naive, innocent dock cop to adequate member of the detail in Season 2 was as implausible as it was interesting. However, her great job in dealing with McNulty is a boyfriend was a much more interesting storyline. Also, the scene of McNulty appearing at Beadie's doorstep late in S3 was beautiful (as much as she was in the scene).

Memorable Quote: "The next time, you leave. Because I own this fucking house."

33.) Nick Sobotka

I found his protege-mentor relationship with Vondas to be much more interesting on the Vondas side than the Nick side. I am probably one of the few people who have Nick as the least interesting of the three main Sobotkas. He never really changed, and I thought his straight turn to the drug life seemed a little more stretched than that of his cousin and Uncle. Nick did have a hot girlfriend though. That was a nice touch.

32.) Gus Haynes

Gus Haynes was the main protagonist of the S5 Baltimore Sun story arc. However, unlike almost every other 'protagonist' on the show, there was no bad qualities of Haynes. He was written and played as a straight, good, smart editor with high integrity. That basically makes him a saint on the Wire. Creator David Simon (former writer for the Baltimore Sun) was criticized by a lot in the journalism community for the Sun storyline because they saw it as a malicious portrayal of a newspaper where a smart editor (Haynes/Simon) was undone by bad bosses (Klebanow). To me, that really shone through.

Memorable Quotes: "You know what a healthy newsroom is? It's a magical place where people argue, all the time."

31.) Michael Lee

Talk about a tragic figure. Actually, that can be said about all of the four kids in S4, but Michael Lee might be the most haunting. The fact that he emitted a great sense of character that all the authority figures in his life (teacher, trainer, Marlo) all wanted to mentor him was made more painful due to the fact that he was molested as a child and didn't trust authority. The only one that he could connect with was Marlo, mainly because Marlo wasn't old enough so Michael didn't see him as a possible monster hiding behind a helpful smile. His transition into drug runner was as sad as his ending transition into the new Omar was hysterical.

Memorable Quotes: To Chris and Snoop, "Marlo ain't suck no dick, right? So, if Marlo knows he ain't suck dick, then what the fuck he care what Junebug say? What anybody say? Why this boy gotta get dead just for talkin' shit?"

30.) Kima Greggs

She was probably the only cop who didn't have any real bad blood in her. She was the moral one. I'm not sure if The Wire didn't go a little too far in making her a moralist. Her not pretending to see Wee-Bey shoot her was one thing. That was reasonable. Her turning in McNulty and Freamon by alerting Daniels about the fake serial killer? The worst thing she did was lose her relationship after she felt forced by her partner to agree to adopt a child. That did lead to her absolutely magnificent scene with the boy in S5.

Memorable Quote: To her son to make him sleep, "Let's say goodnight to everybody... Goodbye moon... goodnight stars... goodnight po-pos... goodnight fiends... goodnight hoppers... goodnight hustlers... goodnight scammers... goodnight to everybody... goodnight one and all."

29.) Snoop Pearson

Honestly, it took me about two episodes to realize that Snoop was a girl. And damn if this wasn't one of the most daring characters (and casting decisions) in TV history. Not only were they going to make one of Marlo's two top enforcers, nonetheless one as ruthless and violent as Snoop, a female, but then Simon went out and cast a convicted drug dealer with little previous acting experience to play the role. Snoop was damn hard to understand, but was interesting mainly for just how unique the whole situation was. I was surprised by how much her death hurt me as a viewer.

Memorable Quotes: "Man already shit himself....and we ain't get started yet! He's funky, yo." & before Michael kills her, "How my hair look, Mike?"

28.) Slim Charles

On the list for two reasons; 1.) He kills Cheese is the baddest way possible - when Cheese was in mid-rant. And he did it for Prop Joe. 2.) He won the game. By not caring about loyalties (switching seamlessly from Barksdale to Prop Joe after S3) and turf and West-vs-East, he was the last man standing. Of course, that fucker Fat Face Rick was also there, but we know Slim was gonna run Bal'mor.

Memorable Quote: "Don't matter who did what to who at this point. Fact is, we went to war and there ain't no turnin' back. I mean, shit, it's what war is, you know? Once you in it, you in it. If it's a lie, then we fight on that lie. But we gotta fight."

27.) Lt. Cedric Daniels

Did anyone chage from good to bad, from supporter of good police work to ardent company man more than Lt. Daniels? His ability to do this, and accomplish both, was incredible. He showed that there is a way to advance in the BPD while doing good work, something that McNulty (good police, shitty company man) and Herc (company man, bad police) could never understand. There was nothing scarier in early episodes of The Wire than that menacing, quiet stare of Daniels. He was also the one man who did hold some integrity the higher in the BPD he went.

Memorable Quotes: "You'd rather live in shit than let the world see you work a shovel" & when told that their detail was going to end prematurely, "This is BULL-SHIT

26.) The Greek

Shady, shady man. The Greek was the baddest gangster on the show. Avon, Marlo, Prop. Those bitches (and they were bitches compared to the Greek) came and went. The Greek is there forever. Created as the embodiment of capitalism, the Greek encaptured what the drug was is about at the highest level (that of the distributor). It is money. Period. It is business. "Business, always business." The only reason he isn't higher is that he wasn't shown all that much.

Memorable Quote: After Vondas tells him that the cops only know him as The Greek, "But of course, I'm not even Greek."

25.) Tommy Carcetti

He's a character who I wonder if David Simon increased his role after it started. Tommy Carcetti started out as a gutless, filandering, political climber who cheated on his cute wife at any chance. However, when Tommy found out that he actually had a shot to win the mayoral race, he actually grew. He then became a man who actually seemed to think he could change Baltimore. He was a bad human in his personal life, but someone with the convictions of a great leader. Of course, his final use was to be The Wire's symbol for the inevitable problem of government: there are too many people to appease to and too much red tape to get anything done, regardless of intentions.

Memorable Quotes: "Yummy, my first bowl of shit" & "This is Baltimore. No one lives forever."

24.) Marlo Stanfield

Yup. The Kingpin who got out without jail is put as the first man in the upper half. It wasn't that Marlo wasn't a good character. He was a great illustration of the horrible path the drug war is taking. It is more about violence, about pride, about individualism than it ever was. Marlo didn't care about living. He didn't care about friends, family. All he cared about was being the king, no matter how long that reign lasted. His final outcome where he was basically ex-communicated from the game, was arguably the most interesting end for any character. Marlo kept his money, he kept his freedom. But he might be more shackled than ever. He doesn't have the one thing he always wanted: the crown, and the reputation as a legendary gangster; dead or alive.

Memorable Quotes: To Prop Joe, "I ain't made to play the son." & of course, "What the fuck you know about what I need on my mind, motherfucker? My name is on the street? When we bounce from this shit here y'all gonna go down to them corners, let them people know: word did not get back to me! Let 'em know Marlo step to any motherfucker: Omar, Barksdale, whoever. My name is my name!"

The Wire: Top 50 Characters #50-37

2012-01-28T18:41:00.002-05:00

I just finished watching all 5 seasons of The Wire. For the first time. I make that distinction because guess what I did after finishing the 5th season: started it all over again. I honestly think I could do that cycle three or four times. The show is just too amazing. I went in expecting big things, mainly because I had heard from many people, and read many times, that this was the best show of the past decade. That this was possibly the greatest tv drama of all time. Of course, I also thought it was just a show about the drug war inner Baltimore. God, did I underestimate just how encompassing the show would be. The wonderful 2nd season about the decline of blue-collar America through the eyes of the ports in Baltimore (a season that basically kept half of the characters from S1 on the bench for a year) made me realize that this was no ordinary show. The best part of the show was just how incredible all the characters were. It speaks volumes about a show that basically all the non-police characters in the 1st season would either be dead or in jail by Season 4, and I didn't care at all. Each character was opened and analyzed fully. There was no good and there was no bad. The goods had demons. The bads had wonderful characteristics. The only purely evil character I could think of was Marlo, but even he was constructed in a brilliant way, as a evil born from the womb of a city that turned itself away from its problems. The Wire really did change my way of thinking about just how great the television medium could be.

The irony is that all this happened about 4 months after I had decided that a show I had just finished burning through was the best drama I had ever seen. That show was Breaking Bad. There are still things that Breaking Bad does better than The Wire. Breaking Bad has more nerve-racking moments (partly because The Wire episodes rarely end with a cliff-hanger, as their most dramatic, tense moments happen in the second to last act). Breaking Bad is shot more artistically. Anyway, as good as Breaking Bad is, it is not The Wire. It really isn't close. (saying all this, Breaking Bad is closer to The Wire in my book than any sitcom I have ever seen is to Arrested Development).

Just for a quick intro into my mindset of the wire. My favorite season is the first. It is the simplest, in that it really has only one major plot: the detail vs. the Barksdale Organization. Every other season has more. That said, I just loved everything about the first season. Season 4 (most people's favorite) is 2nd. I love every non-drug stroyline about S4 (the politics, the school, the four kids) but I just never loved the Stanfield era of the show. The Barksdale crew always seemed a lot more interesting and, as weird as this sounds about a gang of murderous drug lords, lovable. My overall season ranking is 1-4-3/2 (tied) - 5. That said, even S5 has its brilliant moments (one that particularly stands out is Bubbles' speech late in the season where he admits to poisoning Sherrod to his NA group).

This ranking is purely random. Purely based on just how memorable and thought-inducing the characters were. I am strange in that I often consider certain characters a lot more interesting than the who the general public considers so. Case in point is that good ol' Arrested. In my mind, Lucille is the most consistently brilliant character on the show, but I doubt most people have her in their top 3. That is the way I am looking at this list. If you haven't seen the show... SEE IT NOW. In reality, this will be filled with spoilers. It will probably mention if a certain character dies and such. It will also be released in two parts, because it will take some time. Here we go, my personal favorite characters - numbers 50 through 26.

50.) Rhonda Pearlman

I never really thought of her as a great character. She really had no true emotions. She was a little more demonstrative in early seasons. Also, her romance with Daniels felt a little rushed, and I think that really silenced her character.

Memorable Quote: After Clay Davis compares himself to Martin Luther King while on trail, "They don't teach that in law school."

49.) Thomas Klebanow

The first of just two members of S5's Newspaper Staff, Klebanow was the managing editor of the Sun, and a man totally obsessed with awards. The reason why Klebanow's position (and really the reason that I didn't care for a lot of the newspaper stories) didn't make an impact was that there was no other side. We never really got to see what made him a person who cared solely about awards, especially when Pulitzer Prizes do not sell papers.

48.) Cheese Wagstaff

There are multiple characters listed mainly for one small thing or part (or even line) that they had hand in. Cheese is one of them. Played by Method Man (the only established rapper to play a recurring role in The Wire - mostly because he actually auditioned for the role), Cheese was memorable for his incredible disloyalty, and the way he was ceremoniously killed. That sequence of him railing against nostalgia and remembering and caring for the old, and then being capped mid-diatribe by Slim was excellent. Also, the dogfighting scene (which happened before Vick) was hauntingly real.

Memorable Quote: "Omar had one of them commando squads with him man. I mean, he had this one ho pullin' guns out her pussy, Unc. That shit was unseemly, man" (go to 5:14 for the line)

47.) Sergei Malatov

The badass enforcer of The Greek Organization, Sergei was the man. He had no real memorable scenes, and never had much depth. That said, his reappearance in S5 was great. I don't really know what to say about Sergei, but that I probably am the only one who would even have him on a list. Also, I found the recurring bit of everyone calling him 'Boris' one of the more humorous sources of comedy.

Memorable Quote: "Did [the body] have hands? Did it have a face? Yes?... Then it wasn't us"

46.) Stan Valchek

Arguably the most reprehensible member of the police force on the show, Valchek is mostly remembered for being the man whose ridiculous grudge is responsible for essentially what happened in S2. Because the port workers union beats him in a race to get an imported stain glass painting up in the polish church, Valchek decides that it is time to look into where they are getting that extra cash. That sets everything up. And for being the man responsible for the most underrated season of the shows run, he gets on the list.

45.) Brother Mouzone

I think adding him to a show that already had Omar was a little too much. He was also too stereotypical in the way that his purpose was to be a clean, erudite killer. It seemed a little broad of a character in a show filled with the most realistic characters ever. That said, he did have his moments. I could have done without the bow-tied assassin.

Memorable Quote: [to Cheese] "Let me be emphatic: You need to get your black ass across Charles Street where it belongs"

44.) Clarence Royce

His scene with Carcetti after he lost the election (the one where he tells Carcetti to sit in his chair) is to me a great scene because it shows Royce unfettered. For once, he wasn't politicking. He was a man who had a burden lifted, and it was a beautiful moment. He was finally able to have a real conversation, able to be amiable. That makes up for the fact that as a mayor, he was a total dick.

Memorable Quote: "Come November, I'm still going to be the only game in town. Odell, don't turn your back on me." and after Odell leaves, "Fuck that holier than thou mother fucker."

43.) Maurice Levy

Another thing that Breaking Bad did better was they came up with a more interesting attorney for the drug pushers. Levy was definitely sleazier (and a lot more hilariously Jewish), but wasn't as funny. It was great to see him be delighted when Marlo's crew finally started using cell phones for the sole reason that that would allow the police a better chance of catching him, netting Levy a bigger fee. That's the level of capitalistic sleaze I want from a crooked lawyer.

42.) Ellis Carver

He was a cop who, through his failure to make Lieutenant over his seemingly bumbling buddy, broke good. He really did change more than all but one cop (who comes a lot higher up the list). He really grew as a person. Sadly, this changed seemed a little too forced, as he went from a stereotypical fake tough guy cop who bashed nobodies for fun to a guy willing to rat out a subordinate cop who did the same thing. Not sure if I totally bought that.

Memorable Quote: After Wee-Bey claims that he didn't know the drug money was in the van, " You know, I know how that shit is. The other day, I took up the sofa cushions on my couch, I found a buck forty I didn't know was there"

41.) Ervin Burrell

David Simon created Burrell in a really interesting fashion. In the first few episodes, he was seemingly the good cop (as opposed to William Rawls - who wanted McNulty's ass on a plate). But, from the moment that he told Daniels to give back Day-Day Price's drug money because he was a state senator's driver, we then saw what Burrell really was: a career politician dressed as a cop. He was only interested in self-preservation. What made him interesting is that he was a tragic figure in his inability to adjust. He was developed in a culture where crime rate was everything, and was put in charge of a culture where it wasn't.

Memorable Quote: To his subordinates, "The Gods are fucking you? You find a way to fuck them back. It's Baltimore, gentleman. The God's will not save you."

40.) Anton "Stinkum" Artis

The first of the Barksdale Big 4 is far below the other three, but considering a lot of people probably would not even remember Stinkum, I wanted him on the list. His death really signaled the beginning of the end of the Glorious Barksdale Organization. I loved Stinkum for his ridiculous line read about Omar on the basketball court. Anton Artis; Gone long before he should have.

Memorable Quotes: About Omar, "You know Bird jail with Omar down the cut right? He said he all faggot" (line at 0:42); "Nigga please, you think I run a red light with 40 large on board. Fuck, man"

39.) Marcia Donnelly

She always seemed fun because of the level of respect she commanded in Tilghman Middle School. First of all, she was a white, which at Tilghman meant something. I'm surprised the kids never acted out. Also, she was just the Assistant Principle. This was arguably the most prominent use of the long-standing Wire trope that the #2 in most organizations is the real figure of importance (Vondas, Stringer, Donnelly). For most of the season, you don't even see the actual principle.

38.) Judge Daniel Phelan

He was a huge figure in S1. He was the Valchek of S1, in that it was his actions that led to the Barksdale detail being created, and the detail actually accomplishing something. His odd attraction to Pearlman was strange, as was his mentor-like relationship of McNulty. He's another character here more because of one great line.

Memorable Quote: After telling Burrell to let the Wire continue to be up lest he be brought in on chargers of contempt of court, to McNulty, "Who's your Daddy now?"

37.) Namond Brice

The first of the other Big 4 - The Four Schoolchildren from S4 - Namond was the only one saved. The lesson was supposed to be to show the extreme lengths necessary that someone has to go to to save someone from the drug world, but Namond also served to show that the special class in S4 did work, as before it was disbanded, he was making progress. A lot of people never viewed Namond as a tragic, sympathetic figure, which the other three boys all seemed to be. I always felt differently, as he was the only one who grew up with means, but as a condition almost, he was forced into the game when he never wanted any part of it. He was deathly afriad of the Game, but more afraid of failing to live up to family expectations. He was quietly a deep character.

Memorable Quote: After Colvin tells Carver that it was only a few weeks ago that Namond said 'Mr. Colvin, Fuck You,' - "Yo, at least I said mister"

2011 NFL Playoffs: Championship Round Picks

2012-01-20T17:03:00.001-05:00

So, here we are. The last day of true football for 2011. It is arguable that these have been the most depressing 19 weeks of my football watching career. From the moment it was announced that Peyton needed another surgery back in September, until now, I have seen passing offenses bastardize the game to a level where three guys threw for 5,000+ yards, and one more got stuck in the 4,900's (not to mention Rodgers who ended with 4,600+ and didn't play Week 17). I finally got some respite last weekend as the Saints and Packers were both exiled by teams who had great defensive performances. The Giants are not the great defense that the 49ers are, but when that pass rush is coming, they are about as good. Only one great offense is left (although Mr. 4,900 yards is still around as well), but defense can really show who owns the NFL if Baltimore can take out the Patriots.

I will say now that I am praying for the Ravens to beat New England. If they do, I honestly would not care one minute about who wins the Super Bowl between the three remaining teams (Ravens, Giants, 49ers). If the Patriots win, well, I don't care who wins in the NFC, because I think they are really close to even, and either could beat New England in the Super Bowl. That said, I just want the football Gods to grant me this one wish. Sure, I've been given a Super Bowl as a gift, but I also had to deal with heartbreaking loss after heartbreaking loss. Colts fans have already experienced losing like the Steelers did to Denver this year. We were there, in 2008, playing as a 12-4 Wild Card at an 8-8 champ from the AFC West. We too didn't see the ball in OT. We too fell victim to a higher power. No, it wasn't Tebow, but it was Mike Scifres pinning four punts inside the 10 yard line. Colts fans have also experienced what Packers fans feel now. We were there, in 2005, as the clear best team in the NFL, playing with a heavy heart after the tragic death of a coach's sun. We were playing a team we had already beat, but fell victim to a hot QB, and a great pass rush. Colts fans have also experienced losing like the Saints. We were there in 2007, twice blowing the lead in the 4th quarter, and having the ignominy of giving up a 4th quarter comeback to Billy Volek of all people. I've been there. All I ask is this year, let those damn Pats lose. Let Ed Reed get a chance at a ring. Tom Brady doesn't need any more. Gronk will have plenty more opportunities to get one. Ed Reed is deserving. He's a top-5 all-time safety. He should get a ring. Anyone but NE. Anyone but NE.

Baltimore Ravens @ New England Patriots (-7.5)

This is a large line. This is definitely a classic case of overrating the previous weekend. All the time we hear that the NFL, much like March Madness, is about winning and advancing. That there are no style points, that this isn't a BCS system, and all that matters is you get the win and move on. Well, the Ravens got that last week. And for how mediocre they played in the first half, they shut the Texans down in the 2nd. The Texans drives in the 2nd half went: punt, punt, punt, int, punt, int, downs. Foster didn't get much in the 2nd half. On the other side you have the Patriots who obliterated Denver. That said, Denver should never have even been in the playoffs. Denver wasn't worthy of being one of the last eight teams. Denver has lost games just like that before. Hell, they lost a game by a worse score at home. Detroit slammed Denver 45-10. They were up 45-3. They sacked Tebow 7 times, and returned a pick for a TD. What did Detroit then do? Lose three of their next four. Beating Denver one week doesn't automatically make you "unstoppable". We went through this exact same thing last year with Green Bay. They smashed Atlanta 48-21 in the divisional round, and then squeaked by Chicago, nearly blowing a 14-0 lead to a third string QB (they did cover, but their offense was slowed down - a lot). That was actually more impressive, beating the NFC's #1 seed on the road. This was beating the playoff fraud. I have a feeling that if just two of those Brady TD passes, were rushing touchdowns, this line is two points lower. Also, people always overreact to teams coming off of big wins. Teams in the playoffs coming off of wins of 20+ points are 8-12 the next week, and teams that score 40+ points in a playoff win are 4-8 the following week, and just 2-10 against the spread (the two ATS wins were the 2010 Packers and 2003 Colts; the 2009 Saints and 2004 Pats won the following week but lost ATS). Simply put, teams that were great in one game get overrated.

As for the matchups. The key for NE is getting pressure. You aren't going to take away their tight ends. The best way is just to make Brady throw it soon enough to limit them. Baltimore's pass rush was below par against the Texans, but the Texans have a great o-line. The Patriots line isn't nearly as good as the Patriots o-lines of years past. Suggs and Ngata both have favorable matchups. The Ravens don't have the cover guys to really stop Gronk one-on-one (personally, I think you play to stop Gronk. Hernandez is just merely a nice TE, not a monster like Gronk, but he gets pumped up due to playing with Gronk), but they do have the players in the middle to make them struggle to get open and get YAC. I don't think there will be any plays for Gronk like that TD in the Redskins game where he broke tacklers all over the place. No, the Ravens will get him on the ground. The Ravens also won't allow the run game to really get going.

On the other side, the Pats defense is no more or less awful than it was one week ago. Being able to stop Tim Tebow is nothing like stopping the Ravens, even if the Ravens themselves aren't a great offense. That said, they are better than what they showed against the Texans. Their offense ranked 13th in Football Outsiders' DVOA. While the Patriots defense ranked 30th. That seems to be a bigger mismatch than the Ravens #1 defense against the Patriots #3 offense (it should be noted that the only reason the Pats are #3 is that the Packers and Saints had historically good offenses, and Baltimore is one of the 'worst' #1 defenses that they've ever rated). Anyway, Ray Rice should get his, but the key is Flacco. Flacco has the weapons. He also has two good tight ends (of course, none of them is as good as Gronk, but at least my opinion is Ed Dickson is at least Hernandez), and one receiver who in their meeting last year the Patriots couldn't really stop (Boldin). Torrey Smith is still there, and there was even a Lee Evans sighting last week. The real issue is pass protection. The Ravens were awful at it on Sunday. The Texans pass rush is better than the Patriots, but they will have to block a lot better to have a chance. Personally, I think they will.

Overall, I'm going with my heart. My head says New England. That Baltimore's defense is merely very good and not great, and that the Patriots offense is great (but not other-worldly). Then, I look to one year ago. The Patriots were the #1 seed. The Jets were a very good but not great defense (by any measure, the 2010 Jets defensively were worse than the 2009 Jets defense). The Patriots offense actually had a better year in 2010 than 2011. That Patriots team was stopped. They scored 14 points (added 7 in garbage time). They slowed them down. It is possible. Anything is possible. This is the NFL for fucks sake. Also, the Ravens are too good to be underdogs by this many points. They've only lost one game this year by more than 7, and although that was a thrashing given out by the Chargers, the Chargers attacked the Ravens deep, which is something New England does not really do. Give me the defense. Give me the team with two lock Hall of Famers, over the team with One.

Ravens 27 (BAL) Patriots 24

New York Giants @ San Francisco 49ers (-2.5)

I really think this will be a great title game. That is why I hope even more that the Ravens win the AFC game, because then I can properly take in what should be a great football game. The rain could temper it a bit, but it should be what football is. Two teams that have solid defenses, stocked with players that can whip blockers one-on-one (Justin and Aldon Smith, JPP, Osi and Tuck). They feature offenses that have true identities, with the short passing and running game for the 49ers and the deep passing of the Giants. They have two coaches that are fun to watch on game-day (the stares of Coughlin, the focused exuberance of Harbaugh). The game is being played in one of the three cathedrals of the sport, in that Candlestick is one of the few remaining stadiums that have been host to memorable games and plays along with Lambeau Field and that mountain in Oakland (Oakland gets the nod, since original Soldier Field, Giants Stadium, RFK, Texas Stadium and Three Rivers are all gone, as well as the Orange Bowl). It should be a hell of a ride.

There are a lot of odd similarities to this and the 1981 NFC Title Game between the Cowboys and 49ers. Both 49ers teams entered with a 13-3 record. Both teams had the NFL's #2 scoring defense, and similar scoring numbers (357-250 in 1981, 380-259 this year). Obviously, one QB being Montana and the other being Alex Smith seems like a super stretch of a comparison, but they had similar years (Montana: 311/488 (63.7%) for 3,565 yds (11.5/7.3 ypc/ypa) and 19 TDs, 12 INTs and a passer rating of 88.4; Smith: 273/445 (61.3%) for 3,144 yds (11.5/7.1) and 17 TDs, 5 INTs and a passer rating of 90.7). Both were coached by ex-Stanford coaches (Walsh, Harbuagh) and both faced a recent NFC Champion (Cowboys were NFC Champs in 1978, Giants in 2007). Anyway, I have no idea if the 49ers are about to start another dynasty in two weeks, but there are some interesting parallels. Anyway, let's get to the actual games.

The Giants offense has been on a roll with their passing game, featuring long YAC plays that lead to quick TDs that jump-started the team. Their offense was better against GB, but that is no surprise given how bad the GB defense was. The 49ers, in my opinion, are not a great matchup for the Giants on offense. The 49ers are as sure tackling as any team in the NFL and should limit YAC. The 49ers can get pressure with four, and will definitely pressure Manning more than the Packers did. The 49ers are the best 3rd down defense in the NFL. The 49ers also should erase any potential run game, which could be crucial in a wet, sloppy Candlestick Park. I don't see the Giants approaching 37 points this week, unless they get some turnovers from the 49ers.

Therein lies the issue for the Giants. Including last week's game, the 49ers have a turnover ratio of 43/11. That is scary. All week people claimed how many turnovers the 49ers force and how few they give up, and they went out and did just that to the Saints. If the 49ers can force a couple more this week, and win field position (which they almost always do), they should be tough to beat. That is basically the formula they used to beat the Giants earlier in the year. The 49ers offense really runs through Vernon Davis. Crabtree was awful against the Saints, and the other receivers (Kyle Williams, and whoever else) didn't do much. They might need to, or moreso, be able to, this week. The Giants, as per Football Outsiders, are average defending #1, #2 WRs and TEs, but are really bad against other WRs. Another little matchup is that the 49ers o-line has been good against a 4-man rush. Now, I don't know if anyone can be good against the Giants 4-man rush right now, but the 49ers are a lot more susceptible to the blitz, as shown by their performances against blitzes brought by the Saints last week, and the Cardinals and Ravens earlier in the year (their only two losses since September). The Giants might want to think about bringing the blitz a little more. Gore should be nuetralized, because when the Giants front is playing like it is, running is never really a successful option.

I have no idea where to go with this game. A lot of what I wrote would make it seem that I am leaning towards the 49ers, and that is what my head says. My head thinks that this team is special. Their defense, especially at home, is awesome. They have the same special sauce as that 49ers team 30 years earlier. They really do. But then again, the Giants have that look of that special team of four years. The only difference is instead of scraping by, this Giants team has dominated, winning their first two playoff games with a combined score of 54-29, including thoroughly dismantling the NFCs top seed, a lot like last year, when the Packers thoroughly dismantled the NFCs top seed. I'm flipping a coin basically here. I just think that at the end of the day, the 49ers defense is just a little too solid. In the regular season, the Giants showed they could move it at ease against the bad defenses (Packers, Patriots) but struggled in some games against better defenses (Washington, Philly #2, and the 49ers). I also don't like Eli in the elements. He's conquered the cold, but wind is still an enemy. Give me the 49ers. One last parallel between this 49ers team and that one from 1981. The record of the 1980 49ers: 10-6 - the exact same as the 2010 49ers. Candlestick is an eerie place.

Giants 17 49ers 23 (SF)

NFL Playoff Trends

2012-01-17T22:27:00.001-05:00

I've long held the belief that the time you play often impacts the game. I've always felt that night games are generally won by the home team at a higher rate than normal daily games, and even the 4pm games are won more than the 1pm games. I looked back at all the playoff games since realignment to see if these predisposed ideas were in fact true, and what other trends I could pick up. I picked to start in 2002 since that was the first year of the NFL that exists today. 32 teams. 8 divisions. 2 wild cards. It does leave out one year of night games (the NFL started 8:00 Saturday Night playoff games in 2001, with the Raiders beating the Jets, and then losing to the Patriots in the Tuck Rule game), but captures the NFL in a time when upsets were happening at a rate that is significantly higher than what had occured before. Hell, four of the last five #1 seeds in the NFC have lost. It spans the Giants beating the Cowboys in 2007, to the Giants beating the Packers in 2011, with the Giants themselves falling victims to it in-between. Anyway, this also led to an NFL where the #5 seed was often stronger than the #4 seed by record. In the 32 team NFL no wild card team could have a home game (unless there was a #5 vs #6 Title Game), so it also increased the amount of road favorites. Anyway, before we break it down, here is a handy little pictorial that shows the findings:

So, the first three charts are just the playoff results each weekend, by year on one axis and by time on the other. I realize the Super Bowl does have a designated home, but that designation really has no impact, so the numbers on the fourth chart are just for the firs three rounds of the playoffs. The corresponding number is just how many games ended that way out of how many there were with that team favored.

Overall, some immediate takeaways (I'll put the disclaimer right now that everything that I can infer or take out of this analysis is far from completely certain since this is still a small sample size):

There have been 14 road favorites, and the occurrence is only increasing. From 2002-2007 there were just four road favorites, and they all won. In the past four years, a road team has been favored 10 times, and is just 4-6. So either home underdogs are now taking this as a sign of respect, or Vegas feels that the public is buying into over-hyping "hot" away teams. It comes as no surprise that only one of these road favorites has come in the divisional round, since the team off of the bye is almost always the better team, but it did happen this year.
Home teams are better on Saturday than on Sunday. Home teams overall are 27-13 on Saturday (including 14-6 for the late Saturday games), while just 21-19 on Sunday. The one affecting variable is that there have been more road favorites on Sunday, but even if we restrict it to home favorites, Saturday teams are 24-11, while Sunday teams are 19-15.
It may seem that teams off of byes are more vulnerable than ever, but actually, 2nd round upsets have calmed down in the past three years. There was a ridiculous stretch from 2005-2008 where home teams (all favored) went 7-9 straight up and 4-12 ATS. This was definitely a case of lines just being too high for home teams.
Furthermore, the league went 13 straight divisional games with just one cover. Starting with the Steelers upset of the Colts in 2005, and ending with the Eagles upset of the Giants in 2008, there was just one cover, and 9 home teams lost outright.
I used to always think that the 1pm game had the largest chance of an upset, because crowds and teams are usually lethargic at 1pm, and get progressively more amped (as well as progressively drunker, as far as fans are concerned) throughout the day. However, it looks like the real jinx is just playing on Sunday. There have been 10 wins by road teams since 2002 for the Sunday 4pm game (2 by road favorites), and 9 by road teams at 1pm (2 by road favorites). The 4pm is really kryptonite for home teams, as in the past 16 playoff games at 4pm on Sunday, the home team is just 6-10 (4-8 as a home favorite), while this game has given us a road upset in six of the past seven divisional rounds.
That 6 of the past 7 divisional round 4pm Sunday game upset stretch might truly be the most unbelievable stat in this process I have come across (other than maybe the fact that only one road favorite has won and not covered). Other time slots had odd stretches, such as 3 straight road wins in the Saturday 4pm Wild Card game from 2003-2005, or the four straight road wins in the Sunday 1pm Wild Card game from 2007-2010, but those were both effected by road favorites. This was six out of seven home favorites off of a bye going down.
From 1997-2006 one of the two home teams on Championship Sunday went down ('97 - both, '98 - Vikings, '99 - Jags, '00 - Raiders, '01 - Steelers, '02 - Eagles, '03 - Eagles, '04 - Steelers, '05 - Broncos). Since then, the home teams have swept three of the past five years. Championship Games have the best home winning percentage (12/6 vs. 22/18 and 25/15) and favorite cover percentage (11/7 vs. 19/21 and 16/24).

Anyway, peruse the thing at your will.

Something coming tomorrow!

Divisional Round Review

2012-01-16T23:42:00.001-05:00

Well, when the Patriots scored in under 2:00, I was pretty sure that that pick was going to be really, really wrong. I did get all four games right in that I picked the winner, heads up. The Ravens inexplicable ability to do block anyone allowed the Texans to cover by .5 points, which limited me to 2-2 on the weekend.

Overall, the weekend went about as well as any weekend I've had picking games since the 2009 Divisional (Colts win big, best two NFC teams get through, and correctly calling the Jets knocking off the Chargers). The Pats won, but I expected it. The Ravens played great defense. The 49ers played great defense for 56 minutes. The Giants probably had the best performance of any team in a divisional round in years. Not only did they beat the #1 seed (which, especially in the NFC, is becoming no big thing), they drummed them. And this wasn't any #1 seed. It was a 15-1 team, a team with the best offense in the NFL, and a team that had trailed for just over three minutes all year at home with Aaron Rodgers playing. In the end, it was a stunner, but the Giants are really strange. They are 9-7, but healthy, they are what I thought they were. Actually, other than some notable mistakes (the Chargers winning the Super Bowl, for example, and the 49ers being bad) I did a pretty good job with preseason predictions.

Here's the rundown:
1.) Correctly picked 8 of the 12 playoff teams (Saints, Packers, Giants, Lions, Patriots, Ravens, Steelers, Texans); and my four misses weren't all chalk teams (Eagles - yeah, I guess they were chalk; Raiders - could have made it if they didn't gag that Lions game; Cardinals - Skelton mania started too late; Chargers - again, fuck the Broncos).
2.) All 8 playoff teams I picked right I picked in their correct spot (Saints, Packers, Giants, Patriots, Ravens and Texans winning division, Steelers and Lions winning wild cards).
3.) As far as the playoffs - I correctly predicted 6 of the 8 divisional round teams (Packers, Saints, Giants, Patriots, Ravens and Texans).
4.) And what may be my greatest moment ever predicting things months in advance, I correctly predicted a Giants upset of the Packers in Lambeau and a Ravens win over the Texans in the divisional round. I had the seeds wrong, but I called those two games. I even had the Ravens winning by 7 (24-17), but did have the Giants winning close (28-24).

Anyway, enough with fellating myself, let's get to the weekend. Especially since that brilliance is about to go away, since I picked both the Giants and Ravens to lose in the title games (to the Saints and Chargers).

Player of the Week - Vernon Davis, TE, 49ers

With Michael Crabtree doing a great Darrius Heyward-Bey impression by dropping everything in sight (guess who had more yards in 2011 between those two, btw), Vernon Davis stepped up to another level.Sure, two other tight ends had big games, and one receiver caught a 66-yard TD and a Hail Mary, and a QB threw for 6 tds, but Vernon Davis basically won the game. If Rob Gronkowski caught zero TDs, the Pats still win. If Tom Brady throws for half the TDs, the Pats still win. If Vernon Davis doesn't catch one of his two TDs, they lose. Think about this. The 49ers were down by 3 with 45 seconds to go 70 yards from the end zone. They picked up 63 of those successive yards through Davis. Vernon Davis was the highest drafted TE ever, mainly because he had a sub-4.4 40, and the fact that he played fucking TE, but he wasn't anything special for the first three years. Then, he exploded and this was the end result. He basically beat the Saints. He was the best offensive player on the field in a game that featured the offense that put up more yards than any team in history.

Goat of the Week - The Packers Offense

No one player had a truly awful week. Tim Tebow came the closest, but I never expected too much better from him. The Packers offense though was just awful. Yes, the Giants defense was great, and they didn't give up much. But when they did, the Packers couldn't take advantage. So many drops. So many fumbles. So many miscommunications. Some of it is on Rodgers, who played for from great, but the amount of drops by his receivers was just laughable. The ball security by everyone was bad. Five fumbles. One came after the runner was down. One was stupidly not given (had the game been closer, Bill Leavy definitely wins Goat of the Week). But Kuhn, Grant and Rodgers showed real inability to control the ball. It was just a bad performance by one of the best offenses I've ever seen. They didn't go down swinging like the Saints. They went down cold, much like the field they call home.

Surprise of the Week - The Patriots Pass Rush

The Pass Rush was good the first time against Denver, but a lot of that had to do with Tebow keeping the ball. This time it was great. The Denver line did such a good job against the Steelers so this was shocking. If they can repeat that, they will be tough to beat. Personally, I don't think they can. They had a great read on Denver, but haven't shown close to that type of pass rush against non-Denver teams. Credit is due where it is though. They made huge plays. They kept the Broncos offense from making this close to a game. Well done, Pats. Well done.

Disappointment of the Week - Aaron Rodgers

This gets a different category than the Packers offense in general, because that was more about their drops and fumbles issues. Rodgers gets this because it was so unexpected. The Giants rush really only came on in the second half. Until then, Rodgers had time, and he did a great job of running for 1st downs when nothing was there, but Rodgers had no ability to hit his guys. That offense worked like clockwork all year long, and the receivers did their job in getting open. When they weren't dropping the ball, Rodgers was doing it figuratively. Rodgers missed Jennings for a TD on theri first drive. Rodgers missed Finley for a huge first down when trailing 20-13. Rodgers had his second worst day of the year in his biggest game. The last time Rodgers lost a playoff game he did everything but win it. He three for 400 yards and 4 TDs and brought his team back from 31-10 on the road. This time it was 26/46, for barely 10 yards per completion, and two TDs, both on drives that should have ended if not for bad calls. Rodgers just didn't have it. He's human though. After how well he played for much of the year, that is good to know.

Team Unit Performance of the Week - Texans & Giants Defense

Yes, only one of these teams won, but they were both excellent. The Texans played inspired defense. They went to the Cathedral of Defense (Heinz is the Basilica, in my mind), and outplayed the Ravens on that side of the ball. That pass rush is furious. And to think they did that without Mario Williams. That is a scary team going forward. I really think they were Super Bowl bound if Schaub didn't go down. Yates made mistakes. That defense didn't. The Giants actually won, but their performance was no better. They got lucky that the Packers dropped so many balls and missed so many chances. But fuck luck, they dominated everything else. When the pass rush wasn't landing in the 1st half, the coverage downfield was impeccable. When the pass rush landed in the 2nd half, it was over. That is all they needed. The Giants have now taken down the two highest scoring offenses of all time in the playoffs in the last 4 years. They held the highest scoring offense to 14, and with better luck by refs, they could have held this offense to 13 or even 6. Just an incredible performance. The offense is there. The defense is getting there as well.

Team Lay Down of the Week - The Broncos

Holy Shit. Holy Balls. That was completely embarrassing. They couldn't stop the offense. The Bills at least stopped them for a quarter. The Dolphins stopped them for a half. The Broncos couldn't stop them for a second. On offense, it was even worse. Tebow was deplorable. The o-line gave him no time. Demaryius Thomas and McGahee did okay, but that wasn't going to do it. To think, the Steelers , or the Raiders and Chargers would have had to make the Pats do something. It could have been a really nice late night game. Instead, it just gave me the opportunity to cut short an hour and a half early and run off two episodes of the Wire. So, to the Broncos, fuck you for not showing up, but thanks for letting me know it soon enough to get away.

Story That Will Be Beaten Into the Ground This Week - It is 2007 Again!!

The Pats are going to steamroll their way to the Super Bowl!! The Giants are going to beat another 13-3+ team on the road!!! The Giants are road warriors!! The Patriots are the greatest thing ever put on a football field. This is such an overplayed storyline, but there is a good chance it becomes true, The Giants are nothing like their 2007 team other than the pass rush (which was better in 2007, at least in the Dallas game, and that incredible performance in Super Bowl XLII). That Giants team had a great rushing game. That Giants team had veteran receivers and a QB who was praised for making it through three games for making two dozen throws and not throwing a pick. This team has a bad running game, but a great passing game that can slash teams. The biggest difference though is that this Giants team is just dominating teams. That Giants team barely beat the Cowboys and although outplayed the Packers, needed some fortunate bounces to go their way (like recovering their own muffed punt with two minutes to go tied 20-20). This Giants team basically shut-out the Falcons. This Giants team smacked the Packers around. That might have been the most impressive performance I have ever seen in a divisional round. This is not the 2007 Giants. Also, that is not the 2007 Patriots. But more on that later.

More coming up soon.

2011 NFL Playoffs: Divisional Round Picks

2012-01-13T18:44:00.001-05:00

Here we are, at the best weekend of the year. I went 3-1 in the first week, so it looks like it may be possible to top my 8-3 playoff record ATS from 2009. Last year I made only three picks and got them all wrong (in my defense, I got the winner of Jets/Steelers right, but not against the spread). Divisional Weekend is probably the greatest football weekend of the year (at least until they make the AFC and NFC Championships on different days, which they should definitely do, because that makes each one more important). It has four games, with the four best teams all at home. It gets extra special if you have some nice home crowds. Other than New England, all the home crowds should be great. I wish they switched the NE and BAL game times and had the Ravens have the night game. Their crowd would've been insane. The Patriots crowd will probably be as quiet and lifeless as it always is no matter what time the game is played (plus, home teams lose 1pm starts more often than any other start time). But alas, the Gods wanted Tebow and Brady to be played at primetime. Anyway, two of these games should be fun (the NFC ones), and the other two could easily both be really, really one-sided. The last time there was this dichotomy between the attractiveness of the divisional games was probably in 2004, where the AFC had a 15-1 Steelers team hosting an underrated Jets team, and the Pats-Colts rematch, while the NFC gave us two 9-8 teams on the road , against the Falcons and Eagles. Hopefully the games this year are a little more fun than those that weekend. Anyway, on to the games.

New Orleans Saints (-3.5) @ San Francisco 49ers

This is just the second time EVER that a road team is favored in the divisional round. The other time was in 1996, when the 11-6 Cowboys were favored by three in Carolina. It made no sense then (Carolina was a lot better in the regular season), and the only reasons to be made for the Cowboys to be favored was their 40-15 win in the WC round, and their pedigree. It is a little more understandable, because both of these teams were 13-3 in the regular season, and both are legitimately very good teams, with major strengths (NO's offense, SF's defense). Three other times the road team has been favored in a round after the wild card round (WC road favorites are common since they can often have better records than their opponent). They are 2-1 heads up and ATS, with the 2004 Patriots and 2010 Packers winning as road favorites in Pittsburgh and Chicago, and the 2008 Eagles losing in Carolina. Anyway, this line is a major form of disrespect, and I have a feeling the 49ers will play with this knowledge.

The Saints offense is of course great, but on the road, and especially outdoors, they are merely good. The Saints played five outdoor games this season (@ GB, JAX, CAR, TB, TEN). Other than GB, none of these teams are all that great (and GB's defense is bad), and the Saints averaged 25.8 points in those games (going 3-2). The Saints actually put up more yards outdoors than indoors (462.8 ypg outdoors), but turned it over a lot more, and kicked a lot of field goals. The Saints had to kick 13 field goals in those five games, and turned it over 10 times. In the eleven indoor games, they kicked only 15 field goals, and turned it over 9 times. This isn't just a lie that they are better indoors. They are appreciably better. The worst part is, the 49ers defense is better than any of those defenses. I really doubt the Saints crack 30, which seems crazy since their last four games saw them score 42, 45, 45 and 45 points. However, to further my point, the game before those was @TEN, and the Saints won 22-17, kicking three field goals, turning it over twice and giving up two sacks.

That said, the Saints could still win because the 49ers offense isn't great. However, if they turn it over, it will be a major surprise. The 49ers had just 10 turnovers all year long. The Saints had just 16 takeaways all year long (why they fuck couldn't they have had just 16 takeaways in 2009??). Alex Smith may not be great, but he is great at not throwing picks. He had the lowest int% in the NFL. Now, this might have been a fluke since his previous years were nothing close to as good, but he's been doing it consistently all year long. The 49ers offense is predicated on the run, but Vernon Davis is good enough to make plays against a flaccid secondary. There is no Calvin Johnson type, but the 49ers won't need one. The great unequalizer in this game is special teams. The 49ers have incredible coverage teams, and routinely puts the opposition deep in their own territory. This doesn't bode well for any team, because even as good as the Saints are, having to go 90 yards time and time again is hard for any offense.

The final factor for this game (btw, I should note my breakdown for this game is longer than all the others, because it is by far the most interesting matchup for a football geek, with contrasting styles like these) is just the fact that I can't get over a 13-3 team who was 7-1 at home (the loss being in OT) being an underdog against a team with a track record of plodding play at home. I remember back in 2009, how everyone loved the Cowboys #2 ranked offense. However, that #2 ranked offense scored just under 25 points per game. They were bad in yards/point, a ratio I believe in. If you average a lot of yards to score points, it either means that your special teams is awful or you kick a lot of field goals. For the Saints, outdoors, it is both (17.9 yards/point - compared to 12.3 indoors). That isn't good. And this matchup isn't.

The Pick:

Saints 23 49ers 27 (SF)

Denver Broncos @ New England Patriots (-13.5)

This is a high line. That said, this is a game that on paper isn't that close. The Patriots are 13-3, with a great offense. The Broncos are 9-8, with an above average defense and a sporadically mediocre offense. They met just five weeks ago in Denver and New England won handily. However, there are a couple reasons why that game was closer than the score. The Broncos committed back-to-back-to-back turnovers, and that saw the game switch from a 16-7 lead to a 27-16 halftime defecit. the Broncos can take from the game that before the turnover frenzy (some of them flukey like a muffed punt), they were competitive. They also did something good in that they forced NE to kick two field goals from inside the red zone, which they will need to do more of.

That said, New England will probably play Tebow better the second time around. They had a pretty good read on his runs the first time, and that should continue. Tom Brady wasn't rushed too much and had a flawless game. Aaron Hernandez ran wide open time and time again. The Patriots offense did what the Patriots offense does, and there is no reason that shouldn't continue. The Denver pass rush could be better, as Von Miller has adjusted to his cast. But even then, Brady should have time.

There are many reasons why I don't like the Patriots as a team overall. Namely, the fact that they built their 8-game winning streak to end the season on beating the following QBs: Sanchez, Palko, Vince Young, Dan Orlovsky, Grossman, Tebow, Matt Moore and Ryan Fitzpatrick, and only gave up more than 20 points in each of their last six games. They also fell behind 17-0 and 21-0 in their past two games before recoving, but that was against Miami (a game they only won by 3) and Buffalo (which they got the help of Stevie Johnson being benched and a flukey interception as the Bills were driving in a one score game). But none of that matters right now. The Broncos aren't good enough to win, but are they good enough to not allow the Pats to cover? That is another issue.

The Patriots haven't covered a spread in the playoffs since the 2006 Divisional in San Diego. I shit you not. They came close in their loss the next week (Indy, favored by 3.5 won by 4), but they didn't cover any of their playoff games in 2007. Of course, we all know they've lost three straight (Brady is 4-5 since that magical 10-0 start). In fact, the Patriots, ever since they truly became a public team in 2007, have been handed a load of high lines and haven't done really well in covering them. The Patriots under Tom Brady are 6-16 ATS as a home favorite of 9 or more since November 2007 (the end of their eff-you period). That is not good. I don't think the Patriots lose, but I think they got a lot of breaks in that first game, and won by 18. Vegas did a good job with this line. I'll go with my head for the overall pick, and gut for the cover.

The Pick:

Broncos 24 (DEN) Patriots 34

Houston Texans @ Baltimore Ravens (-7.5)

I've heard a lot of people trying to talk themselves into Baltimore, and I put that down to the fact that on paper, if Houston is what we think they will be, this game will be boring. That is okay. There is usually one awful, boring divisional game each year, and it is often the 1pm start on Sunday. Think the 35-24 Bears win last year, or the 34-3 Vikings win over Dallas in 2009 (it was fun if you like seeing Romo run for his life, though), or even the desultory 23-11 Eagles win in 2008. The 1pm game is also the game with the most road wins since the playoffs went to their new scheduling in 2001. Since then, 21 1pm games have been played (WC and Divisional in 2001-2010, and last weeks NYG-ATL game). The home team has been favored in all but two of these games (Baltimore was favored @ MIA and @ KC in 2008 and 2010), and had a record heads up of 12-7 in those games (the good). However, the were 9-10 ATS in that timeframe. Anyway, just something to think about.

As for the game, these teams met in Week 6. Baltimore won (one of their six wins against zero losses against 2011 playoff teams - including 6-0 ATS) 29-14. The Texans actually led 14-13, mainly because they got some breaks. I've heard a lot in this game that if Flacco plays badly, the Texans can win, but Flacco didn't even play all that well the first time, going 20-33 for 305 yards and an interception and fumble. The Texans actually won the turnover battle in that game 2-0, and forced the Ravens to kick 5 field goals. Again, they lost that game by four-fucking-teen. Don't tell me these teams are even. Yes, the Ravens have had some bad games against less-than competition on the road, but they have been money at home.

Matt Schaub played in that game, but conversely Andre Johnson did not. Make what you will out of that on your own presumption of who is more important, but either way, it is close to a wash. The Ravens got tons of pressure against a good o-line (four sacks), and really shut down Arian Foster (15 carries for 49 yards). The Texans scored 7 points on offense that day. They couldn't really move the ball at all. Why should this matchup be any different.

It may be blind faith in Baltimore, but I think the Ravens are a lot better than most. They have the most impressive resume apart from Green Bay, going 6-0 against playoff teams, including beating the 49ers and Steelers (combined 25-7 in the regular season) a total of three times, including a combined 51-13 scoreline at home. They beat the Texans with Schaub. They'll beat them with Yates.

The Pick:

Texans 10 Ravens 27 (BAL)

New York Giants @ Green Bay Packers (-7.5)

Ah, the fun one. Hopefully, if some of my picks are right (mostly the Baltimore one), this will be an excellent way to cap off a weekend. The 4pm game is usually the marquee game of the weekend, and has given us classics like the Jets upset last year (or the Jets upset the year before that), and the Patriots stunning win in San Diego, and 4th and 26. Especially when this game is played at a location not on the West Coast, and night sets in, it is a football sight to behold. This brings me back to the 2007 NFC Championship Game. Yes, the Packers in 2011 are better than that team, but so are the Giants. Anyway, those two teams played a beautiful game, in actuality and aesthetically as well, with the green of the Packers perfectly contrasting the white with red and blue trim of the Giants. It was one of the most visually pleasing games I have ever seen (the Giants are one of the few teams who's road uniform I prefer to the home one). The colors will be the same, but the tone of the game will be a lot different.

Passing. Passing. Passing. The first three games feature two great HOF QBs, but they are going up against a great defense, and a great run game. Here we have two butting heads. Eli Manning reminds me a lot of Peyton. He's nowhere near as good as Peyton in his prime, but he has that same unflappable demeanor that Peyton had in 2008 and 2009 (his apex of his clutch play, if there is such a thing). Nothing bothers Eli. Other teams score? Not a problem. Rolling out to the right needing to throw into a tight window? Not a problem. Eli Manning and those receivers are great. The running game is actually doing something now, and if it gets going, the Giants offense could really put up numbers.

Of course, there is that Packers offense. Here is where the game will be won. This matchup. Eli and the offense will probably score around 27. The only question is will they keep the Packers above or below that number. Rodgers was great against the Giants the first time around, but his accuracy was a little off (for him, of course). He also threw one of his only bad interceptions of the year. He was pressured quite a bit, and the Giants pass rush is only better now. They key for the Packers (other than the Clay Matthews pick-6) was the fact that they were 7-12 on third down. On their drive to take a 28-17 lead, the Packers went 3-3 on 3rd down, including the TD. If the Giants can make plays on 3rd down, they have a shot. The Giants defense can rush with four, and that has worked against the Packers. the Chiefs did it well, as did the Rams and the Buccaneers, both losing to the Packers but playing respectably against the Packers offense. The key is 3rd down. I think if the Packers convert less than 50% of 3rd downs, they will lose.

Here is my thinking about this game. I probably have never thought this way ever, but I think the outcome of the Saturday game will impact this game. If the Saints win, I think the Giants will have a let-down. The Giants do not want to go to New Orleans. They've given up 48 and 49 points the last two times, and the Saints are a guaranteed 38 at home. If the 49ers win, the Giants might be jacked up. I think the outcome of the Saturday game has effected Sunday games before, with one of my notable assumptions being that the fact the Patriots lost in 2005 relaxed the Colts, thinking their biggest rival was out of the way. So, here is my pick. Technically, it is two picks, but only one counts. I think the Giants pull it off if the Saints lose, but lose, and lose ATS if the Saints win.

The Pick:

If the Saints win:

Giants 24 Packers 34 (GB)

If the 49ers win:

Giants 27 (NYG) Packers 24

Enjoy the games!!

2011 NFL Playoffs: Wild Card Picks

2012-01-10T20:26:00.001-05:00

Yes I forgot to post these, but believe me, they were my picks. Honestly, I wish I could take back everything I said from that Steelers/Broncos pick. I'm sorry Mr. Tebow.

Cincinnati Bengals @ Houston Texans (-3)

The Texans have a better running game. They have a better defense. They have equal receivers. They have a much better o-line. The Texans are at home, and will have a jacked-up crowd. I don't think it is a blowout, because Yates is probably not good enough for that too happen, but I don't understand the case for the Bengals. They faced a Texans team in a worse situation 6 weeks ago and lost. They do again here.

Bengals 13 Texans 20 (HOU)

Detroit Lions @ New Orleans Saints (-11.5)

I really want to pick the Lions to cover, because that first game was closer than the score indicated, and they are getting Suh and Delmas in this game. Also, the Lions had decent success against hte Saints offense, at least relative to the other teams who played them in the dome (stat that will shock you: the Buccaneers are the team that gave up the fewest points to the Saints in the Superdome - 27). The Superdome is just too much of a factor. They will not lose there this season. Unluckily for them, unless GB gets knocked off, they won't play there again.

Lions 24 Saints 38 (NO)

Atlanta Falcons @ New York Giants (-4)

The Giants are the better team, but they are capable of laying an egg. The Falcons are a team that dominates bad teams (their wins over the Colts, Jags, Bucs) but really struggles to get good offensive production against good teams (their losses to the Packers and Saints, neither of whom have great defenses). I feel bad for Matt Ryan because I think his playoff record will drop to 0-3, but then again, Peyton Manning started his playoff career 0-3, and the great Tom Brady is 0-for-his-last-3 in the playoffs. The Giants will be able to get enough pressure on Ryan to contain the explosivity of the Falcons receivers (I love talking like Brian Billick). The Giants on the other hand will really be able to make hay without Brent Grimes. Running game is an advantage for the Falcons, but in 2011, that really isn't a huge deal, especially since Atlanta really isn't a great running team but merely a decent one.

Falcons 17 Giants 27 (NYG)

Pittsburgh Steelers (-10.5) @ Denver Broncos

I'm taking Pittsburgh. I don't see how Denver wins unless Ben is just really hobbled, and with Mendenhall out they cannot relieve some of that with running. Honestly, if they get a quick lead, if I'm Tomlin, I'm putting in Charlie Batch, who has proved more than capable in the past. The Tebow miracle ends here. I just have to think that at some point, he will need to complete some big plays, and after seeing the last three weeks, he really cannot right now. I hate taking all favorites, and I promise it will not come close to happening next week, but I'm doing it.

Steeelers 27 Broncos 13 (PIT)

Enjoy the Games!!

2011 NFL Playoffs: The NFL at a Crossroads

2012-01-06T19:15:00.001-05:00

Before 2011, there were just two men who had ever thrown for 5,000 yards in one season. Dan Marino did it in 1984, in a season that was so legendary for its time it really just looks like numbers that Ruth put up in 1927 or Gretzky in 1981. The other man was Drew Brees in 2008, who fell 15 yards short of breaking the record. Here's the thing about that Brees season, though: It wasn't that great. He had to throw the ball 635 times. He only completed 65.0% of his passes (it is amazing how great Brees has been at accuracy that having that number legitimately deserves an "only" qualifier). He threw 17 interceptions. He ended up with a passer rating of 96.2. His team did lead the league in scoring, but ended 8-8, last in its division, and missed the playoffs for the 2nd straight year. It was obvious that throwing for gobs of yards doesn't automatically ensure success. This was true in 2009 and 2010, as Matt Schaub and Philip Rivers led the NFL in passing yards for teams that finished 8-8 and 9-7, and like Brees, at home in January.

Then 2011 happened. Ten QBs topped 4,000 yards, which had been done before in 2009, but six of them topped 4,600 yards. Four topped 4,900 yards (Aaron Rodgers undoubtedly would have also if he played in Week 17), and three got to 5,000 yards. Two passed a record that had stood for 27 years. We had a sport have a similar sort of season just 13 years ago. In fact that sport had a decade of similar league-wide production relative to the norm, and we ended up calling it "The Steroid Era" and it included tarnishing the name of the Greatest Hitter of the last 40 years, as well as future Hall-of-Famers. Of course, in that sport, steroids were being used, but we still had a sport who's offensive records were being re-written each year. In 2002, 16 MLB players hit 40 home runs. That was unheard of. In 2011, 6 NFL players topped 4,600 yards. That is also unheard of. One sport became embroiled in scandal. The other sport is mostly being lauded for its excitement and exquisite play by its top quarterbacks.

I hate this development. I like defense. I like the challenge of being able to stop offenses. I believe that excelling at this end of the ball is relatively more important than excelling at offense. I believe this is true of every sport (switch it to pitching in baseball instead of 'defense'). This is an odd position to take as a person who's favorite NFL team has been offense-first for 15 years, and who's QB really started this era of incredible QB play, where teams basically devalued defense for offense, but it is what I truly believe. I'm someone who thinks a perfectly executed blitz is just as exhilarating as Aaron Rodgers heaving the ball 40 yards to Jordy Nelson, who then catches it because he can outrun someone who isn't allowed to touch him after 5 yards. I'm someone who loved that football was a sport that allowed great offense teams and great defense teams to be as successful; a sport that allowed for more than one way of building a winning team. I'm afraid that this is no longer the case today.

The reason that I'm not a huge fan of the NBA is that I feel the league is unfair. Not in the way that baseball is unfair (no salary-cap to limit spending), but unfair because one player can make a disproportionate impact. Landing one all-time great player can truly be all a franchise needs. The lucky bounce of a ping-pong ball (or shady pick of an envelope) and a franchise can be set. It doesn't really take that much ability to be the GM of a basketball team, or at least the GM of a championship one. Just get a superstar. Just be lucky to get LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan. And then you are set. The NFL might be becoming the same way. Just get a QB and you are set.

With the relaxed rules, having a great QB is now of disproportionate importance in the NFL. The Patriots, Saints, Packers, Giants and before them, Colts, all won really just because they had a great QB. If you don't have one (you didn't draft one), well then it is becoming a 'no soup for you' situation. The NFL hasn't totally crossed into the NBA area yet. I mean, there is still tremendous parity year-after-year (once again, half the playoff teams for 2011 did not make it in 2010). However, that parity is lessening. From 2002-2007 six teams made the playoffs in back-to-back-to-back seasons (the Pats from 2003-2007, the Seahawks from 2003-2007, the Eagles from 2002-2004, the Packers from 2002-2004, the Broncos from 2003-2005 and the Colts in all of those years). Two of those teams were QB first teams (Colts, Packers). One was a defense first team fattening up in a mostly weak division in the weaker conference (Eagles). Two were offense first teams that relied on their run game and superior o-line play (Denver, Seattle). The other started out as a defense first team, became a team led by its QB, and then switched back to defensive excellence, and finally ended with the most dominant season I have ever seen (Patriots). In the past four years, here are the teams that have made back-to-back-to-back trips: Colts (2008-2010), Patriots (2009-2011), Packers (2009-2011), Saints (2009-2011), Ravens (2008-2011), Eagles (2008-2010). Six teams, in a shorter amount of time. Other than the Ravens and Eagles, all have. Only one really did it with defense (Baltimore). Contrast that with the three that did it with defense in the earlier set (Pats, Broncos, Eagles). None have done it primarily running the ball, except for the third Eagles team and the Ravens. QBs are ruling the day. QBs are all you need to succeed year to year in the NFL.

Will we ever see a team like the mid-90's Chiefs, who made the playoffs 6 out of 7 years starting three different QBs in that time frame, with the only one close to great being Joe Montana playing out the string of his career? How about the Tampa-2 Bucs, who made the playoffs 5 out of 6 years from 1997-2002, and had three different QBs start playoff games (Dilfer, King, Johnson). Offense is ruling the day. It is impossible to see teams like the Packers, Saints, Patriots, and before Manning got injured, Colts ever missing the playoffs, just because they made good with their QB. The worst part of the problem is, is the NFL really worse this way?

The NFL QB conundrum isn't totally analogous with the NBA superstar problem because at least some of these teams actually developed their amazing QB like the Packers, or didn't get one due to the luck of a draft lottery (or tanking games in the NFL, as it were) like the Patriots. That said, this new NFL will probably never look like the old NFL. There will probably be multiple teams challenging the 500 point mark each year, and nearly ten QBs throwing for over 4,000 yards. Having this many 5,000 yard passers will probably not happen, but league-wide passing numbers should rise each year. Again, does this make the game any worse? Probably not, but as a fan of defense, it does for me.

Now we have come to a crossroads. There are 6 frontrunners for the Super Bowl. The 15-1 Packers. The 13-3 Patriots, 49ers and Saints, and the 12-4 Steelers and Ravens. If one of these 6 doesn't win the Super Bowl it will be a huge upset. This is also a perfect set of teams. Three have great HOF QBs and offenses that scoredd 500 points. The other three were the best three defenses in the NFL. Undoubtedly there will be matchups where great offense will face great defense. It really will be interesting to see if defense can at least still rule January. 2004 was actually similar. That was really the first year of the passing expansion, a year where a 39 TD 11 INT, 4700 yard season wasn't the best season put up by a QB (BTW, that would be good for 4th or 5th in 2011). In those playoffs there were three matchups that had a great offense take on a great defense. The defense won each time (Jets over Chargers, Patriots over Colts, Eagles over Vikings). The one difference is that time, other than the Jets, the great defense were at home. We'll have to see if one of these defenses can go on the road and take on great offenses. It definitely will be a good way to test if defense is still a viable way of building a champion in the NFL.

The most exciting prospect is probably the 49ers. The Ravens and Steelers are respected enough that people believe they are both definite title contenders (apart from the reservations on Flacco). They've been great defenses for 12 years now. The 49ers are new. Their defense is possibly the best out of the three. Despite that, and the fact that a potential game against the Saints will come in Candlestick Park, few people think the 49ers really have a shot. I do. In reality, I hope they do. I'm rooting for these teams. Teams that can play defense. Teams that don't give up 400 yards a game. I'll go for them. I'm marking it down right now, that if the 49ers and Saints do play next Saturday, I am picking the 49ers. I have to believe that defense still matters. Hopefully, next year, when 10 more QBs throw for 4,000 yards, I can take solace that at least defense matters in January. If not, well then, we might as well call the NFL what it is: Arena League, but outdoors and with better team names.

The Autumn Wind Will Always Be a Raider

2011-10-13T00:11:00.003-04:00

I'll be honest, I wasn't too saddened with the death of Steve Jobs. Yes, he was a visionary and an innovator. Yes, he's the man who's mind is responsible for millions of phones and helping to make the music industry somewhat profitable again. Yes, he's the man who made us all see that Microsoft won in spite of it being the worse product. But after all that, he's just a guy who headed a company. Our lives wouldn't be radically different if Steve Jobs never lived. Computers and the internet would still be here. The iPod wouldn't but there were mp3 players long before the 1st iPod. The iPhone wouldn't be there, but I don't have one, and Android phones will overtake iPhones at some point. There were tablet PCs well before the iPad. All of that said, we all owe Jobs a thank you, because he made everything move faster, but I was never along for the ride (except for the iPod - curiously the only Apple product which is buggy as shit). I have an Android. I've been a PC user my whole life. Jobs' tragic defeat in his battle with cancer wasn't that big of a deal.

The loss of Al Davis? That killed me. See my life wouldn't be too different without Jobs (I would have had a Zune, which yes is awful, but without the iPod to compare it to, it would've seemed great). My life would be totally different without Davis and his Raiders. They were the NFL team I loved first. It was the 2000 NFC Championship Game and the Raiders were hosting the Ravens. I did not watch football at the time except for the previous two Super Bowls and still with just a passing interest (my love of Super Bowl XXXIV the year before is mainly from re-viewings years later) in either. Then I watched that game at the at-that-time McAfee Coliseum. I saw throngs of Raiders fans dressed in everything but a NFL jersey. There were countless Darth Vader costumes, Skeleton costumes, spikes and gorilla masks. There was every dark costume you could think of. It didn't matter that the Raiders lost that day 16-3. I was hooked. I was a Raider fan. Some would call this joining the band-wagon, but hell, I was 9 at the time, had no team that I was jumping from, and at least I didn't pick the Ravens who won the Super Bowl that year. I was a Raider fan, and that led me directly to being an Al Davis fan.

To this point in my Raider Fan life, which has spanned nearly 11 years, I've seen the team suffer the worst defeat of any team in any sport in the last decade (my opinion) in the Tuck Rule Game. I've seen them make the Super Bowl, before summarily being crushed in that game. Then I saw them win 4-5-4-2-4-5-and-5 games in 7 years. I saw a team that went 33-15 (4-3 in the playoffs) in three years then go 24-88 over the next seven. It was a tough time to be a Raider fan, a tough time to an Al Davis fan. But I always knew that sooner or later, Al would once again become that brilliant football mind that he used to be. The Raiders wouldn't always be bad. Now, they are a legitimate 3-2 after being 8-8 the previous year. They aren't bad. Hell, in many ways, they are good. They have explosive receivers. They have one of the league's best D-Lines. They have the league's best runningback at the moment. Their O-Line is solid. They have the league's best punter, and a kicker who has already hit field goals from 63, 56, 55, 54 and 50 yards on the season. They are everything Al Davis would've wanted his team to be. The only thing now missing is Al.

Football fans that are my age have long been told that Al Davis was a visionary and once one of the brightest football minds alive. That his teams were dominant for 25 years straight, and that they were the most feared team in the league, while also being the team that had the most fun. They had womanizing, boozing Quarterbacks, and fast receivers with weird numbers (Biletnikoff was #25?_. They had great hard hitting players on defense, and a string of all-pro cornerbacks. We all were told how great the Raiders used to be. I'm sure we all thought that part of this was just a myth. I iknow I did. But none of it is.

When you research the life of Al Davis, the words innovator, visionary and maverick aren't really enough. No, Al was a genius. Not in the same way Bill Walsh (although Al Davis identified that bit of genius, hiring Walsh once) was, or Bill Belichick or Joe Gibbs. No, he was a genius because he could do it all, and do it all his own way, and it all worked. It has been mentioned in scores of articles since his death that Al Davis was a scout, coach, GM, owner and commissioner at some point in his football life. Yes, he was against the merger, but that didn't really come in the way of him being associated with it. He was one of the first AFL owners to start the bidding war with the NFL, the single biggest point of ignition for the merger in 1970. He was the AFL commissioner and deeply believed that the AFL, if it stayed separated, could beat the NFL in popularity. He was the driving force behind the AFL being able to compete with the NFL. Al Davis changed football in that literal sense, but he did it in more ways than just the events of the 60's.

Al Davis' vertical offense was revolutionary. Bill Walsh used a lot of it to create his West Coast Offense. Al Davis' was groundbreaking, as he was made the Raiders first the first NFL team to be coached by a Latino (Tom Flores, who just went on to win 2 Super Bowls), and then the first NFL team to be coached by an African-American (Art Shell), and recently made the Raiders the first team headed by a woman (CEO Amy Trask). He never saw color, or gender, he just saw his team and wanted them to win. He didn't hire Flores because he was Latino, or hire Shell because he was black. He Hired them because he thought they were good coaches and wanted to win. That's why we love him.

Al Davis was the Raiders. It was his renegade image that fronted the team and then the ideal. He collected castoff veterans who were axed because partly because they didn't fit in, and partly because they were doing too much on the side to have the time to fit in. He brought in drunks, and playboys. All he asked them to do was win, and they did. 13-1, 12-2, 12-1-1, 8-4-2, 8-4-2, 10-3-1, 9-4-1, 12-2, 11-3, 13-1, 11-3, 9-7, 9-7, 11-5, 7-9, 8-1, 12-4, 11-5, 12-4. That was the Raiders' records from 1967-1985. Those 19 years were legendary. In that time, the Raiders won three Super Bowls, lost another and made four other AFC Title Games. Only the Steelers were more successful in that time-frame. It was John Madden, Daryl Lamonica, Ken Stabler, Art Shell, Gene Upshaw, Jim Otto, Marcus Allen, Cliff Branch, Ted Hendricks, Willie Brown, Mike Haynes, Fred Biletnikoff, Ray Guy. But most of all, it was Al Davis.

No team is identified by its owner. The one exception is possibly the Yankees and Steinbrenner, but the Yankees have a host of other candidates to identify the team by. The Raiders have had great players, but it was always Al Davis in front of everything. He was the guy who put all of those great players together, who hired young coaches, like John Madden at 32, Mike Shanahan at 35, Jon Gruden at 34, identifying coaching talent well before the rest of the league did. Al Davis was one of the few men who fought the league head on, and won, winning his lawsuit to move the team to LA (Reggie White is probably the other notable example). Al Davis did not like Pete Rozzelle, which led to one of the most iconic football images of the 80's not involving the 49ers, with Al Davis accepting the Lombardi trophy from Rozzelle. Al Davis' was iconic, with that white or black tracksuit as lasting as the silver-and-black team on the field. He loved the silver-and-black. No uniform has been changed less than the Raiders, and for good measure. How can you change a uniform that is perfect? It was so good so many teams in every sport started incorporating black uniforms; some good (Baltimore Ravens), some horrible (Philadelphia Eagles). Al Davis' teams weren't perfect, and neither was his behavior, but the look of him and the team he created. That was as perfect as could be.

Al Davis died last Saturday. In a way, one era of the Raiders died as well. Although he was in bad health, no one was really ready for this day to come, which is why the question of where the Raiders go from here is so interesting. Mark Davis, his son, is the successor for now (I hope for long, I would hate to see them back in LA), and the team looks to have a good foundation off of three straight fruitful drafts by Davis. But the Raiders are no longer Al's team. No other NFL team as old as the Raiders have had one owner. Yes, some have had the same family (Bidwill's, Rooney's, Mara's), but this is just one guy. This was a small-business prospering in the biggest sports business in the world. This was one man against 31 others, and for most of his life, he was up to the task.

The Raiders have always had an image, and it has always been the same image. I think the Steelers are the only other team that can say that. The Steelers have almost always been a great defensive team with tough QBs embodying the city they play in. The Raiders have always been a team with speed and flash on the outside (WRs, CBs) and toughness in the middle (o-line, d-line). It has always been the same. It probably will always be the same. It is sad Al Davis had to die this year. His team was finally right again. He finally had the fast receivers that could actually dominate games. He had the fast running back. He had a stable of fast corners (though his last great corner was gone in the offseason). Al Davis was finally about to prove that the NFL had not passed him by over the last decade. That his tricks weren't too old, that his ideas too antiquated, that the Raiders weren't too far gone.

I loved that image that the Raiders portrayed, which was what kept me with them. They were a team that didn't give a shit what anyone one else thought about how they did business. Their fans were fanatic and they were all over. The Raiders are, in my opinion, one of the four national NFL franchises, along with the Steelers, Packers and Cowboys, in that they have a national fanbase, with a lot of fans outside their own city. The Raiders have those fans, and I am one of them, mainly because of that image of rowdiness, of toughness, of living life on the edge of the rules, of fighting against the Man, of getting your opponent down on the ground, of running by him laughing, of winning. That image was built by Al Davis, and I am sure it will go on many years from now, and Al Davis will smiling all the way.

'Till Next Time (which should be my inaugaral 2011 MLB Playoff Running Diary, and my first attempt at a Running Diary Doubleheader, with the two baseball games tomorrow).

Week 6 NFL Power Rankings

2011-10-12T17:30:00.003-04:00

After 5 Weeks, it is still too early to make any real judgements on any team not 0-5 (0-4) or 5-0. 1-4 is pretty much done, and 4-1 is pretty much real, but anything in between is just a mash. Anyway, here we go, with a quick version of the power rankings.

32.) St. Louis Rams (0-4)

I hate to blame a team for picking a QB #1 overall, but will we look back and say that the Rams made a horrible pick with Sam Bradford over Ndamukong Suh? Bradford was a consensus top-5 pick so you can't blame the Rams too much, but everyone saw this Suh thing coming.

31.) Miami Dolphins (0-4)

Well, the Dolphins got a nice bye week. I'm surprised Sparano wasn't axed over the bye week, as that is usually a favorite time to in-season fire a coach. I don't think it is all Sparano's fault, mainly because the one thing Miami was counting on, their defense, has been really bad.

30.) Denver Broncos (1-4)

Tebow time!!! I've never seen someone go 4-10 passing and be praised like Tebow has. Orton was not the problem. He wasn't the solution. But this might be a scheme to go get Andrew Luck.

29.) Jacksonville Jaguars (1-4)

They should also follow a scheme to get Andrew Luck, but they probably would rather get some corners. I was in Jacksonville over the weekend, and the headlines were talking about a Jack Del Rio getting fired, which is odd, since I thought no one cared.

28.) Indianapolis Colts (0-5)

If Manning was playing they easily win the Chiefs, Browns and Bucs games, and probably win the Steelers game (it helped the Steelers played like shit). I don't know about that Texans game, but they would be 4-1. Fuck neck injuries.

27.) Kansas City Chiefs (2-3)

Somehow, they've won two straight games. Somehow, Todd Haley and Matt Cassel may make it to year 4 together. This makes me so happy, because this team is not any good, and having the Raiders play him twice a year is good.

26.) Seattle Seahawks (2-3)

In a similar vein, the Seahawks are somehow 2-3. I believe in them slightly more than the Chiefs just because they have that home field, and they have more talent. I think they'll stick with Charlie Whitehurst now, which lends me to wonder why they ever wanted Tarvaris.

25.) Arizona Cardinals (1-4)

I still think they are the 2nd best team in the division. That was the first time they weren't competitive in a game. Kolb looks to be somewhat of a disaster, but he's no worse than Tarvaris/Whitehurst or Bradford.

24.) Cleveland Browns (2-2)

2-2, and the two wins are against teams that are currently 0-9. They do have an easy schedule the rest of the way, so their record will probably end up better than their actual level of play. Watching Colt McCoy really reminds me of watching a shittier Brian Griese.

23.) Minnesota Vikings (1-4)

So, after four straight close losses they drill the Cards. Their season is pretty much shot, but at least they are still trying damn hard. Jared Allen is a fucking monster. Watching Jared Allen and Dwight Freeney play great for bad teams is really tough to stomach.

22.) Carolina Panthers (1-4)

The Cam Express is still doing business, but all the attention being paid to Cam overscores what the real issue his. HolyFuckingSteveRules&RegulationsSmith. Steve Smith is a monster, close to what he was in 2005. 609 yards in just 27 catches? That is insane.

21.) New York Jets (2-3)

I still see this team as not being good. They can turn it around if they can get that running game going, and it was good for them to have Mangold back, but the Jets don't have an offensive identity, and as I've said a lot so far in 2011, that defense just isn't as good.

20.) Philadelphia Eagles (1-4)

They could easily be 4-1 (The Giants loss was totally legitimate), but that doesn't mean anything now. There has been five teams that were 1-4 that made the playoffs. Three happpened in the last 10 years ('02 Jets, '02 Titans, '04 Packers). They have a shot, but it better get turned around quick.

19.) Cincinnati Bengals (3-2)

Where was this defense last year? Does Carson Palmer want to know unretire? How are they winning games with Andy Dalton and Bruce Gradkowski? The Bengals are doing kind of what the '09 Bengals did, just without as good of a QB. That's the difference from 7-9 and 10-6.

18.) Tampa Bay Buccaneers (3-2)

I never really believed in them. Two teams have beaten the Colts by less than a touchdown (Steelers, Bucs) and both lost their next game. The difference was the Bucs got smacked in a way that hurts. The Bucs just can't consistently play offense the way they need to.

17.) Atlanta Falcons (2-3)

That game showed the Falcons just aren't Super Bowl worthy. They controlled the Packers in the 1st half, but sooner or later, Matt Ryan and his cavalcade of plodding receivers and mid-level throws stop getting it done. That defense hasn't done enough either.

16.) Chicago Bears (2-3)

The Bears have lost by 10 to the Packers and 11 to the Lions. That's about where I see them. They have had a really tough schedule so far (their three losses are to teams currently 14-1), and here on out it isn't as bad. Look for them to make a run at some point.

15.) Tennessee Titans (3-2)

Mike Munchak finally got his welcome to the NFL. That was one team who was 3-1 off an easy schedule and a flukey win (over Baltimore) playing a team with a defense that can still tar up a bad offense. Hasselbeck finally looked like a 38 year old.

14.) Dallas Cowboys (2-2)

I'll talk more about this later, but the Cowboys are a bad matchup for New England. They can throw and throw and throw, and the Pats can't stop the pass. The Cowboys can rush the passer without blitzing, which is key to beating the Pats. I expect this game to be relatively close.

13.) Washington Redskins (3-1)

The NFC East will be a dogfight, but with three dogs that aren't best in show. Rex Grossman is still doing a Jake Plummer impression, but Plummer only once went better than 10-6. The Redskins defense is still excellent.

12.) New York Giants (3-2)

That was a horrifying loss. I did not see that coming at all. The Giants should have pulled it off, and that was a truly flukey interception that Seattle returned for 6, but the Giants should never have been in that sort of game. They have Buffalo and @NE in their next three games. Step up, New York.

11.) Houston Texans (3-2)

Tough loss, but that was a game that would be tough. Losing to the Raiders is not a bad loss anymore. They way it ended was tough with Schaub throwing that pick, but he did convert a 3rd and 23 two plays earlier. I feel bad for them with Mario out, but Wade should be able to scheme them well enough.

10.) San Francisco 49ers (4-1)

I still don't trust this team to be the elite, but they should win the division. They still have Zona and St. Louis twice, as well as Cleveland. The NFL Playoffs will return to the Bay. Will it return to both sides of the bay? Well, that should be interesting to watch play out.

9.) Pittsburgh Steelers (3-2)

The Steelers have one win where they were shitty (@IND), and two blowout wins. They also have two losses were they looked really bad. I think the Steelers will not catch the Ravens, but they have a pretty easy schedule, with St. Louis and Arizona still on it.

8.) Oakland Raiders (3-2)

They should be 4-1. They blew that Bills game. Their defense has been bad so far, but they have played three excellent offenses (Pats, Texans and Bills). Their pass rush is still excellent. The problem is their corners, but they'll get experience as the year goes on. BTW, look for an Al Davis piece coming up later this week.

7.) Buffalo Bills (4-1)

Teams that get a lot of interceptions usually are more than being just lucky. The Bills have had talented players in the sencondary for years, and although I didn't think they had that, they obviously do. The Bills offense is also still legitimate.

6.) Detroit Lions (5-0)

They aren't as good as the other 4-1 (or 5-0 in GB's case) teams in front of them. They still have a big play offense, but if they can't get those plays, I'm not sure how good their offense really is. Megatron is amazing, but he makes up for a lot of spotty throws by Stafford.

5.) San Diego Chargers (4-1)

Here is the scary part about the Chargers. They've started slow like they always do. Phil Rivers hasn't really played well yet. Antonio Gates will come back at some point. They are still already 4-1. They have a chance to go on a run. The schedule is tough, but history points to the Chargers getting a lot better.

4.) New England Patriots (4-1)

38, 35, 31, 31, 30. That is their point total in their games in order. Yup, it has been decreasing each week. They are still an excellent offense, but they can't count on getting huge Welker plays each game. The Patriots will have a game sooner or later where they need their defense to step up. I'm not sure what will happen then.

3.) New Orleans Saints (4-1)

They are like the Chargers in that they haven't got it fully together yet, but are still 4-1 with a great QB. They have the full cavalcade of offensive weapons back (in that direction, how good is Jimmy Graham?). They've already finished 3 road games, and will end with 4 of 6 in the dome.

2.) Baltimore Ravens (3-1)

That defense is something I want to see again. Leaguewide the offensive numbers are scarily high, but the Ravens are playing better defense than anything they've played since 2008 or 2006. They get a banged up Texans team and then Jacksonville and Arizona before a showdown with the Steelers in Heinz. The Ravens should enter that game 6-1.

1.) Green Bay Packers (5-0)

I always say that until the Champs lose, they have the top spot. Even if they weren't the Champs, the Packers would have the top spot. The Packers just won a road primetime game against a team that is still talented, and won by 11 without playing anything near their best. They will lose eventually, but it will take a great effort for it too happen, or for Rodgers to play badly. Rodgers played about a "C" against Carolina, so it is still possible.

Projected Playoff Predictions

AFC

1.) Baltimore Ravens 13-3
2.) San Diego Chargers 13-3
3.) New England Patriots 12-4
4.) Houston Texans 10-6
5.) Buffalo Bills 11-5
6.) Oakland Raiders 10-6

NFC

1.) Green Bay Packers 13-3
2.) New Orleans Saints 13-3
3.) New York Giants 10-6
4.) San Francisco 49ers 10-6
5.) Detroit Lions 12-4
6.) Dallas Cowboys 10-6

'Till Next Time

Week 5 NFL Picks

2011-10-11T22:40:00.003-04:00

Doing this quick because I have wedding festivities to attend to.

Kansas City Chiefs @ Indianapolis Colts (-1.5)

If the Colts can't win this game, they might be going 0-16, which is really sad, because the Colts would be 3-1 right now if Manning was playing.

Chiefs 17 Colts 24 (IND)

Arizona Cardinals @ Minnesota Vikings (-3.5)

I don't think the Vikings will lose this game. They are at home, and the teams are pretty much even. Both have played better than their record. I'll go with the team who's defense I trust.

Cardinals 16 Vikings 23 (MIN)

Philadelphia Eagles (-3) @ Buffalo Bills

The one reason to like Philly is that they can't keep losing forever. The reason to like the Bills is that they already beat the Pats, and are being horribly disrespected be being underdogs to a 1-3 team whilst being 3-1.

Eagles 24 Bills 28 (BUF)

Oakland Raiders @ Houston Texans (-5)

I wish Oakland won last week because then I wouldn't care as much about this game. I like Houston at home. They finally seem to have gotten their shit together, and they won't drop games at home to average teams.

Raiders 20 Texans 27 (HOU)

New Orleans Saints (-6.5) @ Carolina Panthers

The Panthers are keeping every game close. Yes, they are losing most of them, but they keep them close. The Saints were impressive in a weird way last week, but I think that they won't be here. Second straight road game and all.

Saints 30 Panthers 24 (CAR)

Cincinnati Bengals (-2.5) @ Jacksonville Jaguars

The Jaguars suck. Jack Del Rio will be fired very, very soon. The Bengals defense is really underrated and will hold anyone to less than 30.

Bengals 23 (CIN) Jaguars 13

Tennessee Titans @ Pittsburgh Steelers (-3)

The Titans are 3-1 with Chris Johnson doing nothing and Matt Hasselbeck at QB and a lunatic at QB? That is hard to believe. The Steelers are nowhere near a great team, but I think they put the hammer down in this one.

Titans 13 Steelers 30 (PIT)

Seattle Seahawks @ New York Giants (-10)

The Giants escaped Zona like I thought they will. Zona always played them tough (2008, 2009). The Seahawks never do. This one is quite easy to call.

Seahawks 16 Giants 31 (NYG)

New York Jets @ New England Patriots (-7.5)

This is a high line considering the Jets have at times done a good job against this offense. That said, I still don't think the Jets are any good. Mark Sanchez is still overrated. Santonio Holmes has really disappeared. The Pats are just better.

Jets 17 Patriots 28 (NE)

San Diego Chargers (-3.5) @ Denver Broncos

Easiest line of the week. I know that the Chargers haven't blown anyone out yet, but the Broncos aren't any good. The Chargers, I think, will get it going this week.

Chargers 35 (SD) Broncos 17

Green Bay Packers (-6) @ Atlanta Falcons

I actually like Atlanta in this game to keep it close. The Falcons are playing a revenge game that no one thinks they have a shot at.

Packers 23 Falcons 20 (ATL)

Chicago Bears @ Detroit Lions (-6.5)

I think the Bears can cover this one too. The Lions are not a great team. What I mean is that they are not 4-0 good. The Bears will be able to do something against the Lions offense, and do enough to keep it close.

Bears 20 (CHI) Lions 24

Last Week: 11-5

Season to Date: 28-19-1

Enjoy the Games!

Week 5 NFL Power Rankings

2011-10-04T19:33:00.003-04:00

That was a less satisfying week of football, but the last two night games were good. The Sunday Night Game showed that when they are riled up, in that stadium, the Ravens are the most amazing defense on earth, still. On Monday Night, we saw that the Colts are a proud team. They would be 3-1 if Manning was still playing. The AFC is below the NFC right now, which makes it worse that the Colts can't take advantage of a weaker AFC.

32.) St. Louis Rams 0-4

Boy, oh boy. The defense finally played competently again, but the offense continues to be awful. In the "Year of the QB" Sam Bradford is putting up lethargic numbers. Maybe, just maybe, we just shouldn't of anointed a player who went 7-9 in the first season mainly because the defense got a lot better. Oh, and in other news, Roger Saffold is absolute crap.

31.) Miami Dolphins 0-4

Tony Sparano watch is on, since they are on a bye-week right now, the perfect time to make a change. Chad Henne is not the problem. He's not the answer, but he's basically what Jason Campbell was when he was in Washington. There are loads of problems on that team, like Reggie Bush being a bust in Miami and that defense really deteriorating.

30.) Minnesota Vikings 0-4

I still think they are talented, and the Vikings could easily be 3-1 after losing three straight close games. At this point, I think they should switch to Christian Ponder. McNabb is not getting them anywhere, and in a hyper-competitive NFC, they are absolutely done. Adrian Peterson's long extension is looking like a move that will keep him on a middling team for the rest of his productive career.

29.) Kansas City Chiefs 1-3

It is great that they have looked like an actual NFL team again the last two weeks, but they needed a lot to beat an 0-3 team last week at home. They still have the 2nd worst point differential in football. I still wouldn't trust them to win three more games. If any team should "suck for luck" it is the Chiefs, who's true biggest liability is at quarterback.

28.) Jacksonville Jaguars 1-3

They won their opening game. Since then, they put up 3 points against a Jets team in an effort that looks more embarrassing each week. They then put up 8 against Carolina (admittedly, part of that game was played in a monsoon). Finally, they put up 10 against the Saints at home. They have the worst offense in the NFL. Hey, who knew getting rid of one of your two best receivers and then cutting your starting quarterback and replacing him with a McCown and a rookie would end badly?

27.) Indianapolis Colts 0-4

I always feel bad doing this, but without Manning, I can't see them beating any team. I think they will play more competitively day in and day out with most of these teams in this range, but the other QBs just can't pull games out. The defense has played well two straight games, and the running game has been a revelation. Apart from QB, this is a good team.

26.) Seattle Seahawks 1-3

How the Seahawks came close to winning that game is beyond me. Tarvaris Jackson actually looked decent. All of this is probably just due to that damn Qwest Field, which is still an evening factor of any game the Seahawks play. I think they are still in deep trouble, but that crowd will make games watchable, at least.

25.) Denver Broncos 1-3

Orton and that offense actually moved the ball pretty well against the Packers. It was that defense that is still recovering from bad personnel management since the end of the Shanahan days and through the McDaniels' dictatorship. I love that they finally brought in Tim Tebow for a useless play. If you told NCAA fans two years ago that Tim Tebow would amount to nothing while a renegade QB Cam Newton would be setting rookie passing records, I think they would have killed you.

24.) Arizona Cardinals 1-3

This team came within the following of being 4-0: Two missed field goals in Seattle. A 1-point loss in Washington. A controversial call being called the way a majority of the people in the world saw it. The Cardinals are the best 1-3 team in the NFL (other than the Eagles, who are easily the most talented). Since they haven't played SF yet, I still think they have a good shot at an NFC West title.

23.) Cleveland Browns 2-2

The two teams the Browns beat are both 0-4 (Indy, Miami), and their two losses have come to teams that are among the lesser .500+ teams (Cincy, Tennessee). The Browns are a team with average talent that is unsurprisingly getting average results. All of that amounts to optimism in Cleveland. This isn't the mirage 2007 team, but a team that is worth following, that will end up with single digit losses. That can be an upgrade, just ask Raiders fans' about the 2010 season.

22.) Cincinnati Bengals 2-2

AJ Green is really, really good. The Bengals defense is good. Their schedule, like everyone in the AFC North, is really weak (the AFC South and NFC West will do that to you). They have @JAX, vs IND, bye, @ SEA, @ TEN before their first meeting with the Steelers. There is a real chance they could be 5-3 heading into that game. That is incredible. And just think if Mike Brown and Carson Palmer didn't have to sooth their egos and if he was playing QB.

21.) Carolina Panthers 1-3

Cam Newton is a lot better that what I thought he would be. But that isn't as important as the sudden revival of one Stevonne Latrall Smith (his real name), the master of the rules and regulations of the game. Mr. 89. From 2003-2008, Steve Smith was, other than Moss and Johnson/Ocho, the most exciting receiver in the game. His touchdown dances were underrated (changing the baby). He singlehandidly made Jake Delhomme into a good QB. He's the real secret behind Cam having a great rookie year.

20.) Philadelphia Eagles 1-3

This is just sad. It is just pathetic. Lose to Atlanta: Fine, they were desperate at 0-1 in their home opener. Lose to the Giants: Less fine, but the Giants are still a good team. Blow a 23-3 lead at home to the 49ers: ABSOLUTELY INEXCUSABLE. Michael Vick isn't the issue. It is all the old Eagles' foibles, like not being able to score touchdown and not being able to prevent them when inside the red zone. It also is dumb shit like Frank Gore doing his best Aaron Brooks impression.

19.) Dallas Cowboys 2-2

Tony Romo is really the new-old-Brett Favre (2002-2006). Favre in those years won a lot of games, but he also lost just as many with dumb, idiotic interceptions. Picks #1 and #3 were just bad decisions and throws. Good NFL QBs just cannot make those decisions. I said in the offseason that getting Romo back isn't that big of a deal since the difference between him and Kitna's performance in 2010 wasn't that much. Romo can make throws Kitna can't, but he'll make idiotic decisions like those picks.

18.) San Francisco 49ers 3-1

I thought they would be bad. I'm still not sure they aren't. They don't really do anything well other than not turn the ball over and stop the run. They've been outgained by about 80 yards a game, have no one rushing for over 4.0 ypc, and have Alex Smith throwing for just 800 yards (Brady crossed that in two games, so did Cam Newton). They've given up 14 sacks. They honestly do nothing well, yet came within a Tony Romo comeback of being 4-0.

17.) Atlanta Falcons 2-2

They are what they are, an unexplosive team with good players on paper that aren't any more than the some of their parts. This doesn't mean they are bad. They were the same thing in 2009, when they went 9-7. I don't think they are headed to the playoffs, but they still are a tough out for anybody.

16.) Tennessee Titans 3-1

They have given up the fewest points in the NFL so far, and Matt Hasselbeck is completing 2/3rds of his passes and has a ypa of 8.7. They are 3-1, with Chris Johnson being among the worst RBs in the NFL in ypr right now. Kenny Britt is also gone, but they went out and blasted the Browns in Cleveland. This probably won't continue too much longer, but right now, the Titans are a legitimate wild card threat in the weaker conference.

15.) Washington Redskins 3-1

Holy Rex. He just wins games. He just does what is needed. Enter in whatever Rex Grossman platitude Lovie Smith used to use in 2006. The Redskins have a good defense, capable of winning games if the offense doesn't make too many mistakes. The Redskins have a good offense with a great play-caller running the show. The Redskins played pretty well in their only loss as well. Grossman is really doing a Jake Plummer impression, and that usually ended in January.

14.) New York Jets 2-2

I had a feeling that the Jets would take a step back in 2011 from 2009-2010, but my thoughts were mostly about their defense. I thought Sanchez would get better. Their receiving corp didn't make a great exchange of players, but Sanchez would get better. Well, bang me silly, that really hasn't happened. The Jets need Nick Mangold back, and quick. Seeing them without Mangold get destroyed, I think my selection of Mangold being the higher ranked player over Revis doesn't look as outlandish.

13.) Pittsburgh Steelers 2-2

The old Steelers never let a "finesse" team like Houston run for 170 yards. The Steelers just lost to the Texans in a defensive struggle. That sentence just made a terrible towel eat itself. I think they will snap out of it a bit, and that easy schedule is still there, but their close loss to the Colts was not a mirage. The Steelers o-line has somehow become worse and more injured. The defense still looks old, and now James Harrison is having orbital bone surgery. Black and Blue for the Black and Gold.

12.) Tampa Bay Buccaneers 3-1

I love that the Buccaneers win all these close games, but that just means that they aren't that great of a team. They haven't gone out and beaten a good team straight up. They play all these middling teams close (Indy, Minnesota). Can they just go out and blast a team like all the other good teams? It is like Freeman just wants to get as many 4th-quarter comebacks as possible.

11.) Oakland Raiders 2-2

That was a loss that is acceptable. They aren't ready to beat a team of New England's caliber when they make mistakes. They played Brady well, holding him to just over 50% completion percentage. They were the first team to shut down Gronkowski. If Campbell doesn't throw that ridiculous interception, the worst they go into halftime is 17-13 (or even 17-17). That game could've been different. I still took positives out of it.

10.) Chicago Bears 2-2

Devin Hester is ridiculous. Devin Hester is the greatest returner in NFL history. You know what, it is always fun to watch the absolute best. It was fun to watch Manning carve up teams to no end, to throw balls into tight windows to covered receivers. It was fun to watch Tiger in his prime, or Federer in his. Watching people who are the best to play their sport is fun, and Hester is one of those guys. He's the best ever at what he does.

9.) Buffalo Bills 3-1

That was a crushing loss. I picked that they would not cover the Bengals, but I truly didn't expect them to lose, and in that fashion. I don't think the Bills are the frauds that they were in 2008 when they started 4-0, but the Bills aren't going to the playoffs if they lose these winnable games. By the way, what exactly is CJ Spiller doing these days?

8.) New York Giants 3-1

Oh, G-Men. I'm sorry I doubted you. With Osi back, and Eli getting more acclimated to those new weapons, the G-Men are about to go on a streak. History tells us so. History also tells us that there could be problems in the 2nd half, but that can't last forever. The G-Men still have that great running game and have the best pass-rushing d-line in the NFL. Those two in tandem with Eli playing awesome make a combination ripe for 11-5.

7.) Houston Texans 3-1

Just like I wrote in the Steelers part, the Texans just out-physicaled a physical team. The Texans did what they did, most of the game without Andre Johnson, against the Steelers. Yes, the Steelers o-line is about as good as most Div-III colleges, but that doesn't take away fully from the fact that the Texans pass rush was just dominating on Sunday. The Texans don't have to play great offense to win their games, winning two games when scoring a combined 40 points.

6.) Detroit Lions 4-0

Congratulations for being undefeated one more week. They ripped the heart out of the Jerry Dome. The Jerry-Pire State Building opened in the beginning of the 2009 season. That year, the Lions were in a 5-47 run. A year after that ended (end of 2010), they outgunned the Cowboys in the Jerry-Canyon. Calvin Johnson is also a beast. But we always knew that.

5.) San Diego Chargers 3-1

The Chargers have looked tired and lazy in their three wins, and looked like the "same old Chargers" in their only loss. The Calendar is flipped, and this is when the Chargers start playing good again. That's a good thing, because in this season, the Chargers are already 3-1 in their lazy, tired phase of the season. Phil Rivers won't have more picks than TDs for long. That defense is still really good, and that offense will get better (hasn't score 30 yet this year, I expect that to change, maybe this week). The Chargers are still my pick to win the Super Bowl, but then again, after picking the White Sox to win the Super Bowl, that is probably going to make the Chargers miss the playoffs again.

4.) New England Patriots 3-1

This defense is still awful. They've given up over 410 yards in every game. They can't rush the passer at all. They are virtually the 2004 Colts, with less explosiveness and more efficiency (basically, they won't hit the same amount of deep plays as that Colts team did, but will get more long drives and YAC). That isn't a recipe for success. They've finished their transition to the 2003-2004 Colts. Have fun with that, Pats fans. You have become your enemy.

3.) New Orleans Saints 3-1

That was a game that good teams win in just that fashion. The Saints weren't playing 100%. But they still won by 13 on the road. That's how a good team gets it done. The Saints played the Packers damn tough in what has been the NFL's impossible game (road teams still haven't won the Week-1 game at the defending champ since it started in 2004. Many have been close 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, but the road team hasn't gotten it done ever). The Saints have since been the Saints, and now their defense finally had a great outing.

2.) Baltimore Ravens 3-1

My oh my. How the hell did they lose 13-26 in Tennessee. Even if you include that game, this team has the best point differential in the NFL. Their defense has been fantastic. Some of it will regress back to the mean (like already recovering 8 fumbles and having 14 takeaways through 4 games), but Flacco will probably not end the 2011 season with less than 50% completions. Torrey Smith looks really good, and Ed Dickson and Dennis Pitta look to be a solid 1-2 TE combo. The Ravens, in the conventional sense, are the most complete team in the NFL. They just aren't the best, yet.

1.) Green Bay Packers 4-0

They are really good. They are the champs and they are undefeated. They are the best team in the NFL right now. Aaron Rodgers cannot play at a 124.7 passer rating pace for too much longer since that is pretty much impossible (and as good as he looks now, he hasn't played as good as Peyton in 2004 when he had a 121.1). That defense, though, will probably get better. They still haven't had a great game, but they are still getting turnovers. Until they lose they won't drop. I honestly think they have a shot to lose this Sunday night in Atlanta, but that's just a gut feeling. My head is telling me it could be something resembling the 48-21 playoff game.

Playoff Projections/Predictions

AFC

1.) Baltimore Ravens 13-3
2.) San Diego Chargers 13-3
3.) New England Patriots 12-4
4.) Houston Texans 11-5
5.) Pittsburgh Steelers 10-6
6.) Oakland Raiders 10-6

NFC

1.) Green Bay Packers 13-3
2.) New Orleans Saints 13-3
3.) New York Giants 11-5
4.) San Francisco 49ers 9-7
5.) Detroit Lions 12-4
6.) Tampa Bay Buccaneers 10-6

'Till Next Time

Week 4 NFL Picks

2011-10-02T02:36:00.002-04:00

So, after a one week hiatus, where everything went right in my NFL world (Pats lost, Raiders won, Colts look competent for once without Manning), I've decided to forget my earlier decision to forget about football. Anyway, here come my Week 4 NFL Picks.

Detroit Lions @ Dallas Cowboys (-2.5)

Dallas beat Washington 18-16 at home. Detroit is a different animal, especially on that defensive line. Suh, KVB and the rest of the boys will tee off on an offensive line that still isn't really gelling. Tony Romo, for all his supposed heroics, played average, especially given that horrible pick he through in the 3rd quarter. The Lions offense should be able to take advantage of that still porous pass defense. The Cowboys should be able to get a good pass rush, but then again, the Vikings did too.

Lions 27 (DET) Cowboys 20

New Orleans Saints (-7) @ Jacksonville Jaguars

The Saints are good. The Jags are not. The Saints have been scoring at a really high rate, and the Jaguars defense, while being good so far, has yet to face a passing offense close to that of the Saints. Drew Brees is quietly having an excellent season through three games. The Jaguars offense will really struggle under Blaine Gabbert against a good blitzing defense. This one is quite easy to call.

Saints 31 (NO) Jaguars 16

San Francisco 49ers @ Philadelphia Eagles (-9.5)

That is a high number for a team that looked lifeless a week ago and with a QB who had a concussion and then a bruised (at one point close to broken) hand in his last two games. The 49ers offense is still not very good, but they have one key advantage over the Eagles: Vernon Davis. The Eagles' LBs are horrible. They can't cover anyone, and Vernon Davis should have a nice game. I still think the Eagles are too good to actually lose this game, but they 49ers will keep it close.

49ers 20 (SF) Eagles 24

Washington Redskins (-3) @ St. Louis Rams

I'm not sure if I like the idea of the Redskins and Rex Grossman being favorites on the road, but the Rams are not playing good at all. The Redskins defense has been really good so far this season, which is worse for an offense still struggling to just get off the ground. Rex Grossman still had a bad interception against Dallas, but mainly stayed protective of the ball. This is much like the old Shanahan reclamation project Jake Plummer. I like this Redskins team right now. Their defense plays tough. Their offense can make some moves and the running game is operating on a Shanahan-lite level.

Redskins 24 (WAS) Rams 16

Tennessee Titans (PK) @ Cleveland Browns

One of these teams will be 3-1. That is terrifying. Mike Holmgren stopped coaching Matt Hasselbeck in 2008, when Hasselbeck was washed up. Now, either a team QBed by Hasselbeck or run by Holmgren will be 3-1. Personally, I don't think either team has lasting power, and I like both teams, but when in doubt, go with the home team that isn't QBed by a 38 year old bald man who's really playing with house money.

Titans 17 Browns 23 (CLE)

Buffalo Bills (-3) @ Cincinnati Bengals

Are the Bills really going to be 4-0? I think for the first time in 2011 the Bills offense will be slowed to a point. The Bengals defense is good enough to keep this game relatively lower-scoring. The Bills defense then will have to play well against Andy Dalton, which really isn't a task too difficult for a team that just picked off Tom Brady four times. Andy Dalton has really looked like an overdrafted rookie in a volatile situation. The Bills will, in my estimation, be 4-0, as crazy as that sounds.

Bills 23 (BUF) Bengals 16

Minnesota Vikings (-3) @ Kansas City Chiefs

The only meeting of two 0-3 teams is a game where the two teams is a matchup where one team has lost three close games to three good teams. The other is a team that was blown out twice and then lost a game nowhere as close as the score indicated to San Diego (in KC's defense, Minnesota did as well). I'll go with the team that has played better, the team that has built up big leads, mainly because without Thomas Jones, the Chiefs can't really make the comeback.

Vikings 27 (MIN) Chiefs 20

Carolina Panthers @ Chicago Bears (-7)

The Panthers are a nice team, they really are. But what amazes me is that they've had a lot of success on offense without getting much from DeAngelo Williams ("not getting much" is actually an understatement, since he's been horrific), or that defense. That is not a good way to match up against a team that can play great defense, and limit the big play. The Bears are good enough to beat the Panthers.

Panthers 16 Bears 28 (CHI)

Pittsburgh Steelers @ Houston Texans (-4)

I'm amazed the Texans are favored in this game. I'm more amazed that I really like them here. The Steelers defense is just not the same. They need to replace Aaron Smith, James Farrior, James Harrison and that whole secondary quickly to be set for the next decade. The Texans have a huge game in this one. The division is going to be winnable anyway, but this is the type of game that they lay the hammer down. They will.

Steelers 17 Texans 24 (HOU)

Atlanta Falcons (-6) @ Seattle Seahawks

There isn't any point in picking this game. Weird things happen in that stadium. Most people view this game as a lock for the Falcons, but I think the Seahawks keep it close. I'm not really sure why I do, but it just looks like that type of game that could lose a lot of people a lot of money. The Falcons haven't done anything to prove that they can go into what is still a tough place to play and win by a touchdown.

Falcons 27 Seahawks 24 (SEA)

New York Giants (-1.5) @ Arizona Cardinals

I also think this game will be closer than most, and here the line agrees with me. I'm surprised after a win like that the Giants are only favored by 1.5. The Cardinals are better than that 1-2 record. They could easily be 3-0, losing their last two games in bad fashion. The Giants are playing a classic letdown game. Then again, I can't see the Cardinals winning, and that line is awfully low, so after all that, the Giants should cover.

Giants 33 (NYG) Cardinals 28

Miami Dolphins @ San Diego Chargers (-6.5)

The Dolphins stink. The Chargers are still getting better. The Chargers haven't played a great game yet, and Philip Rivers has been pedestrian for him. I won't waste time on a game that is really obvious pick.

Dolphins 13 Chargers 27 (SD)

Denver Broncos @ Green Bay Packers (-12)

This is more obvious than the Chargers pick. The Packers will lose eventually, but it sure as hell won't be to the Broncos. Orton will have time, and that Packers defense doesn't look nearly as good as it was in 2009-2010, but the Packers offense will easily score too many points.

Broncos 24 Packers 41 (GB)

New England Patriots (-6.5) @ Oakland Raiders

This is a homer pick. This is a pick that will probably be wrong, but fuck it. This is the biggest game the Raiders have played in a while. They can make a statement here. This is the type of team New England can struggle against. The Raiders can run clock to get a good time of possession (much like Baltimore in the 2009 playoffs). The Raiders have the d-line that can get good pressure without blitzing too often (like the Giants in the 2007 playoffs). I like the Raiders to stun everyone and beat the Pats.

Pats 20 Raiders 24 (OAK)

New York Jets @ Baltimore Ravens (-5)

I don't think the Jets are that good. I don't think they are making the playoffs. They made their offense worse with their free agent decisions, and then their defense has mysteriously regressed. The Ravens will be ready for this. This is their night game at home. I researched that they are wearing the black uniforms, and other than a loss to the Colts in 2007, the Ravens have NEVER lost a night game in the all-black uniforms (they've won the other 4). Ravens in Black, it is over.

Jets 13 Ravens 24 (BAL)

Indianapolis Colts @ Tampa Bay Buccaneers (-10)

I would love to pick the Colts in this game. I won't do that because I don't trust Curtis Painter at all to be anything more than bad. That said, I can pick this to be close because the Buccaneers just don't blow-out anyone. The Colts defense is playing amped up. They aren't quitting, and that is all that I can say about a team that will probably go 3-13.

Colts 17 (IND) Buccaneers 24

Last Week: 10-6

Season to Date: 17-14-1

MLB Playoffs: Breaking the ALDS's Down

2011-09-29T16:25:00.004-04:00

Picture credit to www.mw32.com

So, after that masterpiece on Wednesday night, we have to sit down and look at what lies ahead: October baseball. I'm already stocking up on extra nails to bite off over the next four weeks. Overall, this might be the best field we've had in the playoffs in years. For the second straight year, the fewest wins of any playoff team is 90, and this year we have more good teams then ever. The top three in the AL won 97, 96 and 95 games, and the top three in the NFL won 102, 96 and 94 games. These are all good teams, and other than Arizona, all teams that are not surprises in a way. The AL returns three teams from last years' playoffs, with the Verlanders replacing the Twins. The NL has the Phillies, which was kind of obvious, and the Cardinals, who while a surprise, have been playoff staples over the last decade. The Brewers were my pet team, so I'm not surprised in any way. The D'Backs are a huge surprise, but they were good from the beginning of the season, and then after that 11 game win streak took over the NL West lead and never really came close to blowing it. This is a deep playoff slate, and I'll be surprised if we get any sweeps.

Detroit Tigers (95-67) vs New York (97-65)

The Yankees were the best team in the AL, but the talent difference between these two teams are not that huge. On offense, the Yankees got less than years from A-Rod, Teixeira, and Jeter (who did quietly build his batting average to .297 but didn't even reach 100 on OPS+), but got great years from Granderson and Cano. This might be the changing of the guard, but I'm not sure if that is a good thing. As for the Tigers, Miggy had a quietly great year, again with a .344/.448/.586. Alex Avila went from unknown to very good offensive catcher. V-Mart batted .330, which begs the question why the Red Sox ever got rid of him. Overall offense, the Tigers scored 80 fewer runs, but also played 81 games in an extreme pitchers park. The Yankees team OPS+ was 106, while the Tigers were 110+. They aren't just Verlander and a bunch of nothing.

On pitching, they really are pretty much Verlander and a bunch of nothing. Doug Fister has been brilliant since coming over from Seattle, but didn't really pitch great against any good teams in Detroit. Scherzer really fell off in the second half. The bullpen is good, especially in the back end with Valverde, but I've never had too much confidence in him. As much as the hitting is far closer than most people think, the Yankees have a surprising edge in pitching, The Yankees gave up just 657 runs (3rd fewest in the AL) and the Tigers gave up 711 (8th in the AL) despite having a great pitcher park. Verlander is great, but Sabathia is really 98% as good. A lot of the Tigers perceived edge in pitching is just the way Verlander has been mythologized this season.

Yes, Justin Verlander has been the most exciting pitcher in baseball this year. Yes, he is probably the best pitcher in the AL, but those two things are not the same (Clayton Kershaw had just as good of a year. Kershaw is in the NL, but plays in a good offensive division with Colorado and Arizona, and had better stats in most categories). Verlander's biggest draw is that 24-5 record, but if 2009 and 2010 thought us anything, it is that wins are meaningless. Three of the four Cy Young winners in that period had 13 (F. Hernandez), 15 (Z. Greinke) and 16 (T. Lincecum) wins. Verlander won 24, but really, that doesn't mean much. The rest of his stats are great, and are in all ways better than CC, but would I be surprised if the Yankees win one of the two possible Verlander starts? No, I won't. The Yankees are probably deeper at pitchers #3 and #4 (and Jim Leyland is promising he won't start Verlander Game 4). The Yankees have the far deeper bullpen. The Yankees are the better team.

Odd Stat That Doesn't Mean Much but is Interesting: The Yankees haven't beaten a team in the ALDS other than the Twins since 2001. They beat the Twins in 2003, 2004, 2009 and 2010, and were knocked out in the ALDS in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Pick: Yankees in 5.

Tampa Bay Rays (91-71) vs Texas Rangers (96-66)

They met a year ago in the ALDS, in what was a series totally opposite to this one. In 2010, the Rangers were the surprise, winning the AL West for the first time since the 90's with a 91-71 record, and the Rays were already making their 2nd playoff appearance in two years at 96-66. The records are opposite, and so are the teams. The Rangers don't have the offense they did back when it was Tex, Kinsler, Young and Blalock along the infield, but their offense is simply better than that of the Rays. The Rangers were 1st in batting, 2nd in SLG and 2nd in OPS. They are deep, with 9 starters and their top 2 backups having OPSes above .700 and OPS+es ranging from 84 to 171. Josh Hamilton had another great year despite missing six weeks. Their biggest strength might be that they had the fewest strikeouts of any team in the AL.

The Rays aren't built to put up big offensive numbers, and even in 2008 in their apex, they weren't. BJ Upton had a really nice second half, and has shown he can go on power surges. What they all collectively do is draw walks and a lot of them (3rd most in the AL). They also play in a pitchers park that depresses some of their stats. All of them are solid, with their top 11 having seven players with an OPS+ above 115. That all said, it is clear that, and for the 2nd year in a row in this matchup, the Rangers have the hitting edge.

Ironically, the Rangers have the sizable pitching edge as well. It isn't that the Rays are bad, but that the Rangers quietly were really, really good in 2011. They had the 3rd best run differential (+178) in baseball behind the Yankees (+210) and the Phillies (+184), and a lot of that is pitching. Unless the Rays want to pitch Matt Moore as a starter, the Rays will have to pitch either someone on short rest, or pitch Wade Davis or Jeff Neimann, neither of whom are that great. Hellickson, Price and Shields are all good, but Price did not have a great end to his season. On the surface, the Rangers don't look to be better, but they play in an extreme hitter's park. All five starters have an ERA+ over 100. CJ Wilson put up great numbers all year long. Matt Harrison and Ariel Ogando have been solid all year. What makes it better for them is that they have the better bullpen too. The Rangers just have a better team on offense and defense.

Odd Stat That Doesn't Mean Anything but is Interesting: 6 times two teams have met in back-to-back ALDSes since 2001 (The Angels and Red Sox met three straight times, but in this excercise, that counts as two different back-to-backs), and the winner of the first meeting is 4-2 against the other team. The two times it switches was the 2002 Cardinals beat Arizona after losing in 2001, and the 2009 Angels beat the Red Sox after losing in 2008. The 2003-04 Yankees beat the Twins, the 2009-10 Yankees beat the Twins, the 2005-06 Cardinals beat the Padres, and the 2007-08 Red Sox beat the Angels.
Pick: Rangers in 4.

NL Coming Tomorrow

For Just One Night

2011-09-29T00:35:00.006-04:00

After it all, the best part was three teams were one out away from winning, and all three needed to be blown for the Cardinals and Rays to clinch the playoffs, and all three were blown.

After it all, the best part is that all those people who said the Red Sox were dead after their 2-10 start to the season were somehow right.

After it all, the best part is the fact that the Yankees were up 7-0 before they trotted out guys named Golson, Romine, Ayala, Dickerson, Nunez, Laffey, Valdez, Brackman, Wade and Proctor.

After it all, the best part is that two of the best closers in baseball blew leads in the 9th inning, and for once, the Red Sox probably wished that Mariano Rivera pitched in the ninth.

After it all, the best part was that literally three minutes after the Orioles walked off with the 2011 Red Sox's scalps, Longoria hit a walk off home run to clinch the Rays 3rd playoff berth in three seasons.

But really, after it all, the best part is that October, a month filled with sacred, chilling, pulsating moments between pitches deep into cold nights, has not even started yet.

People say baseball is dead. People say the "national pastime" is so out of touch with the modern generation that it will soon be the 3rd sport in the US. People can say whatever the fuck they want, but on nights like last night, baseball is the best sport on earth. Facebook and Twitter erupted with baseball related statuses. Most of them were some knock on the Red Sox (whose fans will milk the living shit out of this collapse despite winning a championship in every sport since 2004). However, beneath all the silly jests on the Sox expense, there were many Facebook statuses that rang the same tune; "What a night of baseball!"

It was a night to rejoice in the game famous for having no clock and little action. It was a night to sit and watch three great games simultaneously going on, and all ending in stunning fashion. One of the biggest take-aways from last night was that the 2011 Braves and Red Sox have the biggest September collapses in the history of the MLB. However, even if those two teams hadn't blown huge September leads, and they were just in a daily battle with the Cardinals and Rays, that would have been the greatest closing night in MLB history.

That was a night that only baseball could give you. It is the only sport with rain delays, which allowed a 9 inning 4-3 game to end simultaneously with a 12 inning 8-7 game that started at the same time. It is the only sport where walk-off hits are common occurrences (in hockey, it isn't that common in the regular season, and then playoff hockey is just a different animal), and we got two within three minutes of each other that combined to give the Red Sox fans just one more thing to cry about. It is the only sport with 20 seconds between plays where that time is filled with tension (unlike the 35 seconds between plays in the NFL that is filled with nothing), and the tension was greater than anything I've seen in the regular season. Finally, baseball is the only sport where momentum changes often and that it is ingrained in the body of the game. The Red Sox had 1st and 3rd with no outs in the 9th inning, and didn't get an insurance run. The Yankees had 1st and 3rd with one out in the 11th inning, and didn't get an insurance run. Both teams would pay, or more exactly, the Red Sox would pay in both instances.

The drama in the AL really overshadowed what went down in the NL, and probably allowed the Braves to kind of be off the hook outside Atlanta, but it was as crazy. The Braves all season long have forced their top three bullpen arms to pitch way more than necessary, often to great results. They finally got tired, with star closer Craig Kimbrel blowing a 9th inning lead, just like what happened in Tampa Bay and Baltimore. The Cardinals were the only team to not give their own fans heart attacks, blasting the Astros 8-0 (in this, the Astros now had the worst season in the MLB since the Royals in 2005 - the same year the Astros made it to the World Series). The Braves finished their misery 25 minutes before the Red Sox and Rays decided to play play on two stages, and it was a great, if miserable, opening act.

Dan Johnson, Nolan Reimold and Robert Andino combined to kill a team that this offseason spent nearly 300 million in getting Carl Crawford and Adrian Gonzalez. Dan Johnson was hitting .108. Nolan Reimold is living off of one good year three years ago. Robert Andino is, well, Robert Andino. Those three wouldn't make the Red Sox roster, and they were the stars of the show. Jonathan Papelbon and the array of Yankee pitchers who decided to make cameos in the most important game for the Red Sox this season were the villains, and what better way to have it, with the Red Sox relying on their closer who had been brilliant in 2011, and the Yankees deciding to everything but openly throw a 7-0 game. It was dramatic, but it was comedic, with one team playing as hard as they could but still losing, and then needing their biggest rival to win, and that rival after taking a 7-0 lead playing as ambivalently as they could and inevitably losing.

The most dramatic part of all of the games was probably the 9th inning in the Red Sox-Orioles game, and that provided the most expansive ending. The best part was its finish, with speedy Carl Crawford messing up in the field and not getting to Andino's line drive. Carl Crawford never really wanted to go to Boston, but he was leaving Tampa, a place that couldn't afford him and had a replacement waiting in Triple A. Carl Crawford, like most mortal men, was won over by money to play for Boston, where he's done nothing but disappoint. In the end, Tampa used him well in 2011, capitalizing on his mis-field. The Rays, it seems, always know just when to get rid of players.

Going into last night, I was hoping for at least one 1-game playoff. All the one's in my time of watching baseball have been incredible. First was the Rockies/Padres 13-inning affair in 2007 where the Padres' Trevor Hoffman blew a 2-run lead in the 9th and it ended with Matt Holliday scoring a run in which he still hasn't tagged home. The next year, the White Sox beat the Twins 1-0 in a great pitcher's duel in game 163. The next year, the Twins closed out the Metrodome in 13 innings against the Tigers. I wanted a one game playoff. That said, I will take what I got last night every single time. I wrote last year that the chance to see Roy Oswalt pitch playoff games again will get me to love baseball again the way I used to when the Astros played back-to-back nail-biting NLCSs in 2004-05. That wasn't totally true, but it was last night. Night's like that, filled with drama and comedy and errors and struggle are what baseball is all about. Nights like that show why baseball is still around, still relevant, and can still captivate a nation of sports fans. Nights like that are why I, and so many others love baseball, because for just one night, anything, like winning when down to one strike, like Red Sox fans rooting hard for Yankee scrubs, like great closers blowing leads, like winning when down 7-0 in the 8th inning in a must win game, anything can happen.

Week 4 NFL Power Rankings

2011-09-27T15:13:00.003-04:00

So, after a great weekend of football from beginning to end, I'm back in for the 2011 NFL Season, and this time for good, starting here with the Power Rankings.

32.) Kansas City Chiefs (0-3)

The good news is that they actually looked like a competent NFL team for once, not losing by more than 30. The bad news is they should have lost by 30, and they don't have their best player for the rest of the season, and in a year when passing yardage numbers are becoming the home run numbers of the 2010's, Matt Cassel hasn't passed for 200 yards yet.

31.) Miami Dolphins (0-3)

I don't think they are any good, and for once, it is not really Chad Henne's fault. Brandon Marshall is not good enough to do it alone. Their defense also has become average, which is a big step down. They can't get a good pass rush, and their linebackers are old. Not a good combination.

30.) Seattle Seahawks (1-2)

They won a game, which only matters because now they cannot possibly go 0-16. They got lucky with Arizona suffering through two missed field goals. There was once a time when the NFC West was not horrible. I know it happened at some point. Hell, from 1984-1994, the NFC West consistently had two good teams each year. Now, that is not the case, at all.

29.) Jacksonville Jaguars (1-2)

That win in Week 1 is looking more and more like a mirage. Luke McCown is horrible. Blaine Gabbert looked like a raw rookie, which is no surprise. Maurice Jones-Drew hasn't exactly had a great year. Their defense is surprisingly playing quite well, especially up front, but they need more than that when their offense struggles to cross the 20 point number.

28.) St. Louis Rams (0-3)

Wow, I did not expect them to be this bad at all. But then again, it probably is not a total surprise. Sam Bradford seems to have not developed at all in year 2. His receivers are no better. The reason I don't have them below the teams above them is mainly because I think at some point they'll get better, while I think those teams will all get worse.

27.) Indianapolis Colts (0-3)

That was an awesome performance. I haven't been as proud of the Colts in a long time. They played incredible on rush defense and rush offense. They gave up big plays in the passing game, but more then made it up with the rush of Maths and Freeney. Those two better never get old.

26.) Cincinnati Bengals (1-2)

Andy Dalton looks like what I thought he was, a prospect who because of a run on quarterbacks was overvalued, and QB who because of Mike Brown's paucity, is a starting QB. The defense is good again, which should help them win four games or so, but they aren't doing any favors by losing winnable home games against teams of San Francisco's ilk.

25.) Denver Broncos (1-2)

Denver is a team that if they stopped making dumb mistakes, could've put together a KC in 2010 type run, because they are well coached with a capable QB, and a defense that actually has gameplans. It is amazing what losing a autocratic buffoon can do to a team. They don't need Tim Tebow to save them, they just need time.

24.) Arizona Cardinals (1-2)

Yes, they are 1-2 and a loss to Seattle is disappointing even if it was in Seattle, but I still like this team to get things right and sneak out this division. They lost two road games so far, one by 1 point on a last second field goal against a 2-1 team, and the other a game in Seattle when they missed two makeable field goals. They still have more talent than anyone in that division, and probably the best QB and head coach in it as well.

23.) Minnesota Vikings (0-3)

The Vikings aren't bad, but are honestly the same team they were a year ago, just with a different aging QB. They're defense has played three straight great 1st halves, and three straight bad 2nd halves, which happened a lot last year, just not to these extremes. The Vikings pass rush was incredible in the first half and then couldn't generate much in the second. That's the key to this team.

22.) Carolina Panthers (1-2)

I like Cam Newton, who ironically had his worst game against a bad defense. I never thought he would be a JaMarcus-ian bust just because he seemed totally committed, and I still think that. The other revelations of the 2011 Panthers are that Steve Smith can still designate "the rules and regulations of the game" (ahh, the classic 2009 season. If the Colts just recovered that damn onside kick, that would've really been a perfect NFL season for me).

21.) San Francisco 49ers (2-1)

Somehow, they are 2-1. Alex Smith is still the quarterback. Michael Crabtree is still underperforming everyone's projections for him out of college. More amazingly, they are a great Romo comeback away from being 3-0. If they were 3-0, I think they should just be automatically awarded the NFC West.

20.) Cleveland Browns (2-1)

They are also 2-1, and they've played no one. But look at their schedule. They play no one. Other than set matchups with Baltimore and Pittsburgh, their schedule features a trip to Oakland, and then the entire NFC West and AFC South (other than Indy). They can do exactly what KC did in 2011. Sadly for them, they have Pittsburgh and Baltimore. Those two aren't going away.

19.) Tennessee Titans (2-1)

Two questions? What is more surprising: Matt Hasselbeck having two games that easily could've come out of the 2005 season for him? or that Chris Johnson has yet to cross 100 yards... total? Actually the most surprising is that they are 2-1.

18.) Washington Redskins (2-1)

They blew that game. The Cowboys also blew it, but the Redskins played great defense for 58 minutes, all until that all out blitz on 3rd and 21. Just play freakin zone and make the Cowboys convert a 4th and 9 or whatever. What exactly was the point of that big blitz. Holy God, was that a stupid defensive playcall.

17.) Dallas Cowboys (2-1)

That was the most pitiful performance by a center ever. They stuck to what they do, and although they never got a touchdown, they finally started running the ball near the end, and Romo made some plays. At the end of the day, I can't be too excited about a team that won two games, one in overtime and the other with a last minute come-from-behind field goal against a Rex Grossman QB-ed team.

16.) Atlanta Falcons (1-2)

They aren't this bad, but they have the same problem they had last year: they can't score quickly. You need to be able to do that in 2011. They couldn't really do it last year, but their o-line play was better, so they could at least run the ball all day. Matt Ryan is stuck throwing short throws, and the odd deep ball. The defense really hasn't stepped up either.

15.) Chicago Bears (1-2)

That loss to the Packers was bad, but what was more telling was that the Bears lost the field position all day. They didn't play all that bad on defense, but the Packers just had shorter fields all day long, so they converted it into points. I will say that their o-line has been a lot better, despite giving up 14 sacks, and their two losses are to two damn good football teams. Finally, Brian Urlacher is a hall of famer., He's incredible.

14.) Tampa Bay Buccaneers (2-1)

They are 2-1, with a great chance to go 3-1 with Indy next Monday Night, and then a great chance to go 4-1 after a road date with San Fran. It would behoove them to win those two games, since they have two big home games with New Orleans and Chicago next. Other than Detroit, they are the team that has continued their upward trend from 2010 (unlike St. Louis and Atlanta), and that should be less of a surprise than it is for me.

13.) Philadelphia Eagles (1-2)

Thank God for them that Michael Vick isn't missing three weeks, because they would be screwed. Even with Michael Vick, their offense just isn't what it was a year ago, and that probably boils down to Avant not being the same and DeSean not being the same either. Their linebackers need serious work, and for all the money they spent on Babin and Cullen, you would've thought their d-line would be better as well.

12.) Oakland Raiders (2-1)

For the first time in years, they beat a good team without playing their best, and without getting lucky. This wasn't a fluke win, like the time in 2009 when the Bengals fumbled back to back drives, or when Bruce Gradkowski threw three 4th quarter TDs to beat Pittsburgh. No, this was real. That win over the Jets felt like two even teams. If they can even keep close with New England, I think the Raiders are truly serious wild-card contenders, if not in the division.

11.) Pittsburgh Steelers (2-1)

Their defense looks old. Of course, it is old, but they really show it. Mike Pollak may be many things, but the sight of him pushing Aaron Smith around was sad to see. James Harrison didn't get any pressure until the Painter fumble. Troy looked good for once, but the team just looks slower. Their offense is still good, but that defense is just not the same.

10.) New York Jets (2-1)

They made a mistake by essentially trading Jericho and Braylon for Mason and Plax. That isn't a winning scenario. The run defense was non-existent on Sunday. Yes, the Raiders are a very good running team, but what they are not are a very good pass-blocking team, and they held that Jets pass rush completely. Also, what is going on with Shonn Greene. All that said, they are still a good team, and if Mark Sanchez can just stop throwing ridiculous interceptions, should be fine.

9.) Buffalo Bills (3-0)

A lot of people are citing the Bills 4-0 start in 2008 as reasons to not believe. Well, here's why that's crap. In 2008, they beat Seattle (4-12), Jacksonville (5-11), Oakland (5-11) and St. Louis (2-14) in those four games (admittedly, the Seattle and St. Louis wins were blowouts). The Chiefs suck, but the Raiders are mediocre at worst and good at best, and the Pats are the Pats. These are legitimate wins. They overcame a 21 point defecit pretty easily.

8.) New York Giants (2-1)

So, they just beat the Eagles without Manningham, Hixon, a good tight end, good corners, and Osi. They were never going to be the 6-10 team some people said, and they might not be the 8th best team, but when they play well, they play really well and they usually string together a nice run. In the past four seasons, they've had a 6 game winning streak (2007), two five game winning streaks (2009, 2010) and a seven game winning streak (2008). This might be the start of a run, especially with some of the calvary coming back.

7.) Houston Texans (2-1)

A lot of the media sang the same tune about the Texans, that "they are not a new team, they haven't grown up". That's all bull. They were just outgunned by a powerful offense in their building. Anyone else loses 40-33 to the Saints and it is probably no big deal. Hell, the Packers came one yard away from blowing a 21-7 lead on the Saints in Lambeau. Their defense isn't good enough to shut down good teams on the road, but if just two of those field goals were touchdowns they are 3-0.

6.) Detroit Lions (3-0)

They are 3-0. Of course, they were down 20-0 to the Vikings, but then again, the other 3-0 surprise team was down 21-0. If the Lions keep Matthew Stafford healthy, they will make the playoffs. Calvin Johnson is a beast. Their d-line has underperformed, and they are still good. That team gets the Packers in their building on Thanksgiving, which will make all those "why the hell do the Lions get to host a Thanksgiving game from now to eternity?" jokes totally irrelevant. They also play in Lambeau Week 17. Should be fun.

5.) San Diego Chargers (2-1)

They are put here more because they are a great "buy" right now. Everyone knows the Chargers start slowly. The funny thing is that they are winning the games that the past Chargers teams lose, like their opener and even last week. They were much more in that New England game than the score indicated. Phil Rivers won't be this pick-prone for too long. The only worry is Gates' injury might be serious.

4.) New England Patriots (2-1)

Their defense sucks. It might be worse than last years. They get no pass rush. For all those offseason acquisitions, it looks like none of them have really paid divedends, especially Shaun Ellis and Mark Anderson. Brady remains on fire (although those picks were enjoyable). The biggest reason I still have them this high is that West Welker is 100% back from that ACL tear. He's gotten back the agility and quick-step that he didn't have in 2010.

3.) New Orleans Saints (2-1)

They lost a nail-biter to the best team in the NFL, then beat the Bears easily, and then made a spirited comeback against a good Houston team. I think they are over that Week 1 loss. Their defense still seems to have taken a step back from last year when they were legitimate top-10, but their offense has gone along fine without Marques Colston, which is a shock. With an easier schedule than Green Bay, I still like them to get HFA.

2.) Baltimore Ravens (2-1)

That loss to Tennessee is a mirage. It happens. Hell, just last year 14-2 New England lost to 5-11 Cleveland. What means more is they have crushed their other two opponents into submission 72-14. They have been great on defense as always, and this Torrey Smith, along with Lee Evans, will stretch the field. Joe Flacco has made the leap.

1.) Green Bay Packers (3-0)

They are still the champs. They are 3-0. They really haven't put together one great game from start to finish, winning by 8, 7 and 10. That all said, they are still the champs and have yet to lose. Jermichael Finley is a beast (on the other hand, Donald Driver looks completely burned out). Aaron Rodgers has thrown 10 tds to 1 int. Their defense has yet to hit their stride. Holy God.

Playoff Projections:

AFC

1.) Baltimore 13-3
2.) San Diego 13-3
3.) New England 12-4
4.) Houston 11-5
5.) Pittsburgh 10-6
6.) Oakland 10-6

NFC

1.) New Orleans 13-3
2.) Green Bay 12-4
3.) New York 11-5
4.) Arizona 9-7
5.) Detroit 11-5
6.) Tampa Bay 10-6

'Till Next Time.

Week 2 NFL Picks

2011-09-16T19:15:00.003-04:00

I didn't do these in Week 1, and wasn't even sure on doing them at all. Football just isn't the same without Peyton Manning, for me. Then the Raiders Monday Night game happened, where the Raiders went into Denver and did well what they do well. They ran the ball. They stopped the pass and dominated the line of scrimmage. Sebastian Janikowski kicked a super long field goal. And they piled up tons of penalty yards. The Raiders are back again. They aren't falling back into mediocrity like so many of the "experts" predicted (football outsiders, I'm looking at you. You continue to tell jokes about them when they've had an upward trend for three years now). They got me back into football. Not all the way, so the analysis here will be more curt than usual, but at least they inspired me to do it.

Chicago Bears @ New Orleans Saints (-6.5)

This line is too high. The Bears defense was, other than Baltimore, the most impressive defense in Week 1. That was at home, and this is in the Super Dome, but the Saints usually struggle against Cover-2 teams (like Minnesota the past couple of years, or Atlanta in general). Chicago's offense also looks better than ever. I have a fear I was wrong on them (and I have them staying better than most do). The Saints are also still, in my book, really good, but I worry about their offense without Colston. They need a consistent target against a cover-2 and without Colston they don't have that. In the end, the Saints probably won't go 0-2, but I don't see them winning that big.

Bears 20 Saints 24 (CHI)

Kansas City Chiefs @ Detroit Lions (-8.5)

That is a huge number for Detroit to be favored by, but that seems about right. Kansas City looked awful in every single way, and since Week 1, they've lost Tony Moeaki and Eric Berry. Unless Jamaal Charles goes off, which is always a possibility, I don't see the Chiefs scoring enough to keep pace. I hate trusting the Lions to cover this spread, but there offense looked really good in Week 1, and they have the weapons to exploit the Chiefs without Berry.

Chiefs 16 Lions 28 (DET)

Jacksonville Jaguars @ New York Jets (-9)

The jets usually don't blow out teams like Jacksonville, but I think this is different. The Jets' defense will be upset after not having a good performance in Week 1. The Jaguars are starting Luke McCown. The Jets' defense will be able to start teeing off for the first time against the Jaguars and their suspect o-line.

Jaguars 13 Jets 27 (NYJ)

Oakland Raiders @ Buffalo Bills (-3)

The Bills are not good at stopping the run. The Raiders are good at running. The Bills don't have a good o-line. The Raiders d-line is top-5 in the league. The only thing that gives me pause is that the Raiders are playing a 1 pm game on the East Coast. That said, if the Raiders really want to make the playoffs, then they win this game. They need to win this game if they want to make the playoffs. I think they will.

Raiders 24 Bills 16 (OAK)

Arizona Cardinals @ Washington Redskins (-3.5)

This is an interesting game. Rex Grossman has another chance to have a good game, and the Redskins can somehow be 2-0. The Cards are another team playing a 1pm game on the East Coast. I don't think they match up too well with a Redskins team whose defense was a lot better than I thought it would be. The Redskins at home are in a game they should win, and Mike Shanahan usually pulls these games off.

Cardinals 17 Redskins 23 (WAS)

Baltimore Ravens (-6) @ Tennessee

Baltimore's defense made Ben Roethlisberger look bad. They will kill Matt Hasselbeck, who is playing behind a line that has regressed so much over the past three years. The only thing that gives me pause is that the Ravens' run defense wasn't that great against the Steelers, so Chris Johnson can go off. I don't think he will though.

Ravens 27 Titans 10 (BAL)

Seattle Seahawks @ Pittsburgh Steelers (-14)

This is a really high line in any time. It is extremely easy for a favorite to not cover a two-touchdown line. Then again, Tarvaris Jackson against a defense that will be really jacked up to do anything on defense. That is not exactly a recipe for an upset, or even a underdog cover. The Steelers offense should get it going, but the Seahawks defense looked oddly impotent.

Seahawks 10 Steelers 30 (PIT)

Green Bay Packers (-10) @ Carolina Panthers

Another high line, but this one is lower, and makes sense. Cam Newton will probably have a falling back to earth game. The Packers defense will be something he's never seen. The Panthers defense will probably keep this from being a total blowout, but this looks like a total mismatch. Not much to really say here.

Packers 27 Panthers 13 (GB)

Tampa Bay Buccaneers @ Minnesota Vikings (-3)

This is a tough one. Both teams are desperate. The Buccaneers o-line is really good. Detroit barely got any pressure at all in Week 1 against them, and they should do a good job against a Vikings d-line that did a good job in Week 1. The Buccaneers offense is a little overrated though. As is their defense. I think these are two similar teams, so I'll go for a close game, and give the Vikings, since they are at home, a small edge.

Buccaneers 20 Vikings 24 (MIN)

Cleveland Browns (-2) @ Indianapolis Colts

There's no need for analysis. If the Colts can't win this game, then they are going 2-14 or 3-13, and Bill Polian should be fired. Peyton Manning doesn't mean that much. The Colts have to win this game. Take away Manning and they are still more talented. Lost in the Week 1 mess was that when the Colts defense wasn't given a short field after fumbles, they held the Texans to 13 points. Also, the Colts running game was actually present. The Colts get their shit together.

Browns 16 Colts 24 (IND)

Dallas Cowboys (-3) @ San Francisco 49ers

This is a classic Cowboys loss, but the Cowboys already had a classic loss and I'm not ready to give the 49ers a 2-0 start. The analyst in me says that the 49ers rush defense will definitely shut down Choice and Felix. It will be up to Romo, and I think he'll definitely be up to the challenge in this one. The Cowboys defense looked good, but after experience with Rob Ryan through the years, they have about one good game every three. So, I'm not quite sure what to expect this game.

Cowboys 27 49ers 17 (DAL)

Houston Texans (-3) @ Miami Dolphins

The Texans offense is basically as good as the Patriots offense. No, I'm not kidding. That said, what the Patriots did last weekend was one in a million. That won't happen again. Then again, the Dolphins offense played well in Week 1. Chad Henne got great protection. I see a shootout, but when that happens, I go with the better QB, and the team with the great offense.

Texans 31 Dolphins 27 (HOU)

Cincinnati Bengals @ Denver Broncos (-3.5)

I'm not sure I'm ready to have the Bengals at 2-0, but I love Bruce Gradkowski in these winnable games. They won't beat good teams, but they can win these types of games. But then again, I think the Broncos aren't exactly going to sit down. What I did like about the Broncos in Week 1 was their pass rush. Elvis Dumervil looked great, and Von Miller had an immediate impact. Also, Eric Decker looks like a player. I think the line is a half point too high. I think the Broncos win but don't cover.

Bengals 17 Broncos 20 (CIN)

San Diego Chargers @ New England Patriots (-6.5)

Man, is this a great Week 2 game. Rivers didn't look as good as Brady in Week 1 (obviously), but there is no way Brady puts up 516 yards. He's facing a team that gave up just 39 yards in Week 1. Rivers also looked good against great pass rush. The Patriots don't have that type of pass rush. They get free runs every now and then, but they are not consistent down by down at rushing the pass rush. The Chargers defense on the other hand looked great, but that was against the Vikings. The Patriots are a different animal. I don't know who wins, but that line seems awfully high. Other than the 2007 Spygate Revenge game, the Pats-Chargers games have all been close. This one will be too.

Chargers 27 Patriots 24 (SD)

Philadelphia Eagles (-2.5) @ Atlanta Falcons

The Falcons played bad in Week 1, but statistically it was close. A turnover on downs made it a lot less competitive, as did the fumble/touchdown. I don't see the Falcons going to 0-2. This is a great matchup for them. The Eagles are not great against the run, especially against physical runners like Michael Turner. Matt Ryan should be able to complete some passes over the middle to Gonzalez. On the other side, I think Vick will be pressure again. It will all rest on if the Falcons pass rush can get Vick on the ground. I think they can, just enough.

Eagles 23 Falcons 24 (ATL)

St. Louis Rams @ New York Giants (-6)

This is easy. The Rams have a banged up Bradford. Probably won't have Steven Jackson, and Danny Amendola will be out. The Giants still got a great pass rush against the Redskins, but their secondary was awful. That won't be as much of a problem here against a team without any good receivers. The Giants offense should get the running game going. The fact that this is a Monday Night game for the Giants makes it quite simple. If the Giants don't win this then they are in for a much longer game then I thought.

Rams 16 Giants 31 (NYG)

Enjoy the Games.

On Nole and The Chase

2011-09-14T01:07:00.006-04:00

"I want to first congratulate Nole for a great tournament. You are going to win this trophy [the US Open] and more slams very soon. I am sure of that. I also want to congratulate Nole too for his great attitude in losing a Grand Slam Final. I know how tough it can be, and you showed a great attitude, which is a great example for the kids."
- Rafael Nadal after winning the 2010 US Open,

Rafael Nadal never knew how true those words would be, and that less than a year later, it would be Novak trying to lift Rafa's spirits after beating him in a splendid US Open Final. Tennis is a sport that moves quickly, but usually not this quickly. It was only a year ago when the question "Does Rafa actually have a good chance to be better than Federer?" was a legitimate question. It still is, but there are more pressing issues. Rafael Nadal won the last three slams of 2010. He won the French Open without dropping a set (something he did in 2008 as well). He dropped just one set in his run to his first US Open title, being broken just 5 times in the entire tournament. He was the first man since Rod Laver to win three straight slams in the same season, and the first player EVER to win a slam on each surface in the same year (something that separates Rafa's 3-slam year from Federer's or Djokovic). Rafael Nadal, as he always does when he beats Djokovic and Murray, told Nole that he was sure he would win another slam. That he was too talented. That he was a great champion. Rafa is not #1 anymore, but he at least saw the next guy coming.

A year later, Novak Djokovic is 64-2, winning three slams and five more Masters 1000 events (the next best tournaments). He's 6-0 against Nadal on the year, all in finals. He's beaten him on hard court, grass, and even twice on clay, matches that were ironically the most one-sided of any of the six. Novak has had possibly the best year ever (although he really hasn't had too much better of a year than Federer in 2006). Novak owns Nadal. The head to head in early 2010 was 14-4, and by the end of 2010 it was still 16-7. Now it's 16-13. Now, Novak looks unbeatable, with a good enough serve, a great forehand, a better backhand, and an incredible return. He looks to be a complete player without weakness. Federer had a weakness. He didn't like backhands up high. Nadal could pound that weakness until it he won. Rafa doesn't have any such plan against Nole other than to just outplay him, and for 2011, he, and basically everyone else, could not.

This is really all Federer's fault (like most things in tennis, in my opinion). He created this monster, and he recharged it one year later. Djokovic prior to the 2010 US Open was known as an underachieving young player. Wildly talented, he made five straight semifinals from 2007-2008, at the age of 20-21. He won a slam at 20 (younger than Federer when he won his first). I always thought he was unfairly penned as underperforming, considering he was going up against Federer and Nadal. That said, he did have a penchant to lose close sets and choke at the worst times. The most notable example would be in his three successive US Open losses to Federer from 2007-2009. They played 10 sets. Federer won 9. Six of those sets ended either 7-6 or 7-5. Djokovic lost close sets like it was a disease. Djokovic also had an infuriating ability to retire from Grand Slam matches. All in all, Djokovic seemed like someone who didn't care hard enough about tennis to beat Federer and Nadal.

Then the 2010 US Open semifinal happened. In a match where he lost two of the first four sets 7-5, both times losing the 5-6 game on serve, he was about to choke again. Serving at 4-5, 15-40, Djokovic played two incredible points, mashing two forehand winners. He then broke Federer in the next game and served it out. Djokovic scored his first clutch win over Federer/Nadal in a Grand Slam (his 2008 win over Federer was later marred by Federer's bout with mono), in a match that in my opinion was better overall than the semifinal one year later, especially the 5th set. He held serve, literally, when facing incredible pressure. He manned up and downed a man who had made six straight US Open Finals. I'm convinced that the new Djokovic started that day. Ever since, he's always risen to the moment (save for two matches - the Final against Nadal and the French Open semi).

The creation of a tennis monster: the 5th set of the 2010 US Open Semifinal

One year later, Federer had the same situation. After playing the best match he's played in years, in my opinion, Federer, after looking old in the third and fourth sets, was on fire in the fifth. He again had two match points, but this time he was serving. When Federer was at his peak, this was the biggest lock in tennis. What Djokovic did next was what Federer at his prime used to do to people. He broke, held, then broke again, and before you knew it it was all over. I'll curse Federer, because I knew Nadal could beat him. Novak was a different story.

The 2011 US Open Final itself isn't interesting to talk about. Djokovic did what he did the previous five times against Nadal. He just played better than Rafa. It is that simple. What I want to talk about next is the state of Mr. Rafael Nadal. Nadal is now definitely facing the biggest test of his career. This isn't just his version of Nadal-Federer. It's worse. Federer at least beat Nadal every now and then in Federer's prime. Nadal has now lost his last 6. It's worse because Nadal's opponent is not just Novak, it is history as well. Rafa has a shot to be named the best player ever. Novak will never get there, but Rafa can. That's why there's more at stake than just not being #1. Rafa tries harder than any other player ever. No player forces a fourth set in that match. No one. Rafa had to exert an incredible amount of energy to win that third set. Rafa will solve this, because it isn't tactical. It is simple really, he just has to play better.

Rafa won six French Open's playing defense. He won his only US Open playing offense. He served over 130 for really his first time in his life. He became the lefty Federer, just standing in the middle and whipping incredible shots. He was dominant. He just wasn't as good this year. Things can change. Hell, Rafa once won six straight against Nole and that didn't stop Nole from turning the table. He'll have to work harder than ever, but I know he will. I know he can work harder than everyone else. I know he will beat Djokovic at some point. I might be wrong, but nothing lasts forever. Just ask Rafael Nadal, circa September 2010.

______________________________________________________

One last thing: I get infuriated by the "Djokovic is to Nadal what Nadal was to Federer." Although it is really one sided over the past year, that is nowhere close to the truth. Yes, the rivalry is really trending towards Novak right now, but if both players retire today, Nadal's the better player, and it isn't really close. Nadal's won a career slam. Nadal's has as many French Open's as Djokovic has Slam Finals. Also, to further the point, Nadal still has the 16-13 edge head to head. Yes, it was 14-4 18 months ago and 16-7 a year ago, but Nadal still has the edge. Nadal still has the edge head to head in slams 5-2. Wins at the end of the career don't mean more than wins in the beginning. If Djokovic never loses to Nadal again, then yes, he is the Nadal to Nadal's Federer, but let's wait and see.

Bonus List: Top Player Season's I've Ever Seen:

1.) Federer 2006 - The year that he was basically untouchable. 92-5. He played 17 tournaments and reached 16 Finals, winning 12 of them. He won the same three majors Novak did, plus making the Final in the 4th - which Nole didn't. That was also the closest he came to beating Nadal in a French Open final until this past one.

2.) Nadal 2010 - The reason I put this higher is because he won a slam on all three surfaces, something done previously by exactly NO ONE. He won a slam without dropping a set, and then won another dropping just one. It was probably the best performance by a player in a year if you just look at the slams, and that gives him the edge in my book over Novak who admittedly did better in non-slam events than Rafa did in 2010.

3.) Novak 2011 - The 64-2 record at this point is scary, but we'll see where he ends up at the end of the season. His year is probably the best year ever when you take away the performance at the slams. I just don't think he's been as dominant in the slams as Federer was in 2006 or Nadal was in 2010.

Yes, Rafa can beat Djokovic. If he plays like he did in the 2010 US Open Final.

Random Other List (just because I'm in a tennis-y mood and I won't write about tennis until at least the 2012 Australian Open) of the Best Matches I've Ever Seen (since 2005).

1.) 2008 Wimbledon Final: Nadal def. Federer 6-4 6-4 6-7 6-7 9-7.

It's still the best I've ever seen. The hitting was incredible, from an epic first point to the incredible tiebreak in the 4th set, to finishing it out in the last vestiges of daylight. Everything was so beautiful about his match. Tennis has never been more artistic.

2.) 2005 Australian Open Semifinal: Safin def. Federer 5-7 6-4 5-7 7-6 9-7

The 2008 Wimbledon Final was more artistic, it was more about shotmaking. This was more about hitting. Federer never seemed more unbeatable than at the start of 2005. We had never really see a man run through the field like Federer in 2004. This was not only a stunning upset, but an exceptional match between Federer and the only man of his generation that had the talent to beat him when Federer played well. Federer lost a match point after Safin hit an incredible lob in the 4th set.

3.) 2009 Australian Open Final: Nadal def. Federer 7-5 3-6 7-6 3-6 6-2

The 5th set was anticlimactic, but for four sets, the tennis rivaled the 2008 Wimbledon Final. Nadal came up with amazing shot after amazing shot, and this after playing a 5 hour semifinal two nights before. Federer too was playing well, killing the forehand. If you have to watch just the highlights of a match, this is probably the best one.

4.) 2009 Australian Open Semifinal: Nadal def. Verdasco 6-7 6-4 7-6 6-7 6-4

It took five hours and fourteen minutes to finish. They played until two in the morning. Both being lefties, the angles hit in the match were ridiculous. It was really tennis being played at a video game level.

5.) 2010 US Open Semifinal: Djokovic def Federer 5-7 6-1 5-7 6-2 7-5

The match that started Nole's run had arguably the most dramatic 5th set ever. The first four weren't that great, but that 5th set made up for everything. Djokovic saving two match points with ballsy hitting. Federer saving break point after break point earlier in the match. This was the match that would create the monster.

Other matches worth Youtubing the highlights of: 2009 US Open Final (del Potro def. Federer), 2010 US Open Final (Nadal def Djokovic), 2009 Wimbledon Final (Federer def. Roddick), 2004 US Open Quarterfinal (Federer def. Agassi).

2011 NFL Season Predictions

2011-09-11T15:01:00.004-04:00

For these predictions I am assuming Peyton Manning plays at most 8 games, and probably in the 3-6 range if at all. This already makes me sad beyond belief.

AFC East

1.) New England Patriots 12-4 (3)

They're still good, but there is no way their offense can be that good and protect the ball that well again. Their defense still is average, as I don't think acquiring four thirty year old players will make much of a difference.

2.) New York Jets 9-7

I don't like what they did this offseason. Don't understand why they would replace Braylon Edwards and Jerrico Cotchery, with two similar players (Plax and Derrick Mason) who are both older.

3.) Miami Dolphins 7-9

I like their defense, but every day I feel embarrassed that I once said that Chad Henne would be a major player. I haven't been more wrong on anything, other than possibly picking the A's to win the AL West.

4.) Buffalo Bills 5-11

I like their offense, but their defense is still a few years away. In the past, the Bills at least had some intriguing players in the secondary, but even that pipeline has seems to have closed.

AFC North

1.) Baltimore Ravens 13-3 (1)

I'm not sure why I like the Ravens to have the best record in the NFL. Probably because it is statistically impossible for that defense to ever be bad. Also, Joe Flacco quietly had a great year in 2010 and I think he's ready to become an elite player in the NFL.

2.) Pittsburgh Steelers 11-5 (5)

They are still loaded but I am a full believer in the "Super Bowl loser" curse. The Steelers are talented enough and their schedule easy enough that this is considered a step down for a team that has an intriguing offense.

3.) Cleveland Browns 7-9

I like Colt McCoy, and I like their moxie. They are kind of like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers of 2010 of the AFC. They play in a really tough division, so it will be hard to match those Bucs' 10 wins, but they are still a good young team.

4.) Cincinnati Bengals 5-11

If they weren't starting a rookie QB, I might have them quite a bit better, because I really like their offensive skill position players. Their defense still needs to improve their pass rush by, how you say, a lot.

AFC South

1.) Houston Texans 10-6

Yes, it is finally their year. The rest of the division is mostly a mess now that the Colts are missing Manning for a long time. The Titans are relying on Matt Hasselbeck, who is basically living off of the Wild Card game. The Texans have, in my opinion, the best offense in the NFL.

2.) Indianapolis Colts 7-9

It is sad, because if Manning missed any fewer than 8 games, I might think they could sneak out a weak division. There is no way Manning is missing less than 8 games however, so the Colts are screwed. I now know how Patriots' fans must have felt in 2008. Except I'm not going to claim all year long that the NFL season is tainted.

3.) Tennesse Titans 6-10

They only reason they will win seven games is because they play in the AFC South. Their defense also has its moments, and CJ is god for about two wins himself.

4.) Jacksonville Jaguars 4-12

For the umpteenth year, I'm going to say the Jaguars will suck badly. They cut David Garrard and are going with Luke McCown which has never worked. Their defense is still mostly awful and somehow Jack Del Rio still has a job. I have no idea either.

AFC West

1.) San Diego Chargers 12-4 (2)

They probably won't have the #1 offense and defense by yards. Then again, they won't have a special teams that by itself costs the Chargers two games. Phil Rivers will have V-Jax back plus hopefully a full year of Antonio Gates. They are good. Real good.

2.) Oakland Raiders 9-7 (6)

I can dream, can't I? They have a doable schedule, including two pancakes in their division. They have a good defense that features one of the best d-lines in football. They have a great running game. Jason Campbell won't screw things up. That's a recipe for getting close.

3.) Kansas City Chiefs 5-11

This is going to be a major year after effect for the Chiefs, a team that was already getting exposed late last season. They just don't have the skill position players and I don't think Matt Cassel is any good at all.

4.) Denver Broncos 4-12

I like John Fox. I guarantee they won't lose at home 59-14. I like Kyle Orton. That all said, they still have an atrocious defense, one that is now switching to a 4-3. It will take a few years to rectify what Josh McDaniels screwed up.

NFC

NFC East

1.) New York Giants 11-5 (3)

The Giants are a team that should have made the playoffs a year ago. Their offense is very good, and that was with Eli throwing a flukily high amount of touchdowns. Hakeem Nicks and Mario Manningham, I predict, will become one of the better 1-2 combinations in the NFL.

2.) Philadelphia Eagles 10-6 (5)

The Eagles are not the "dream team" but they are very good. Michael Vick probably won't have that kind of year again, but he won't have to. The defense, especially the pass defense, should be better with the three corners that they have.

3.) Dallas Cowboys 8-8

Yes, Tony Romo is back, but in all honesty Jon Kitna was good last year. I don't know if Romo will make that much a difference for the Cowboys. The Cowboys defense will be a huge question with Wade gone.

4.) Washington Redskins 6-10

Yeah, I believe in Rex Grossman somewhat. He reminds me a lot of Jake Plummer when he came to Denver to play for Shanahan. The only difference here is that the Broncos that Plummer came to were a lot better than these Redskins.

NFC North

1.) Green Bay Packers 12-4 (2)

They are still among the most talented teams in the NFL. I don't make to much of a big deal about Grant and Finley returning. Finley can help, but Ryan Grant is an older running back coming off of a major injury.

2.) Detroit Lions 9-7 (6)

Yup, I'm a believer. I like Stafford. I love Megatron. What I love the most is that front seven on defense. We all know about the d-line with Suh, KVB, CLiff Avril and Nick Fairley when he plays. That said, the linebackers are quite good, especially after the pickup of Stephen Tulloch.

3.) Chicago Bears 9-7

I don't see too much of a drop off. They cannot have that good of injury luck on defense, but then again, I think that the offense will get better in year 2 under Mike Martz. He'll use Forte even more in the Marshall Faulk role, and I like Roy Williams in Martz's offense.

4.) Minnesota Vikings 7-9

Their defense is still very talented. Donovan McNabb is definitely an upgrade over 2010's Brett Favre and Joe Webb. That said, they are depending on Bernard Berrian and Percy Harvin as their top receivers.

NFC South

1.) New Orleans Saints 13-3 (1)

I still love this team. Yes, their defense couldn't stop a thing on opening night, but they still had a great chance to win that game (especially considering they were twice stopped on 4th down inside the 10 yard line). Also, that opening game is the biggest lock in gambling. The defending champ is now 8-0 since they started it in 2004.

2.) Atlanta Falcons 9-7

I think they will take a little step back. Julio Jones will need some time to develop and I think Michael Turner is on the edge of being spent. They still have a really bright future, but I think they peaked in 2010 (at least peaking for this current group).

3.) Tampa Bay Buccaneers 7-9

Talk about taking a step back. They don't have as easy of a schedule, and Josh Freeman probably won't only have 6 interceptions again. The Buccaneers are a year away from being legitimate threats and their future is bright.

4.) Carolina Panthers 4-12

I think this team is still a bit lost. Their o-line has really fallen off since their magnum opus in 2008. Cam Newton will take a while to develop. Also, they have no receivers other than Steve Smith, which is basically the same as 2005. However, this time Steve Smith isn't the same any more.

NFC West

1.) Arizona Cardinals 9-7 (4)

Yup, you heard me. Everyone loves St. Louis. I love the Cardinals.... well at least to go 9-7. I believe in Kevin Kolb. More specifically I believe in Larry Fitzgerald to have a monster season. I think their defense is good when motivated, and they will be as they can actually win games.

2.) St. Louis Rams 8-8

People like them a little too much. Sam Bradford didn't really have the greatest of rookie seasons. I get that he didn't have anyone to throw to, but then again nothing has changed in that arena for 2011. Steven Jackson is nearing the end of the line as well.

3.) San Francisco 49ers 5-11

Still going with Alex Smith? Really? I will take this moment to talk about one of my favorite subjects: Michael Crabtree. The Raiders were excoriated for not taking him and he's really been a nothing for two years.

4.) Seattle Seahawks 3-13

Somehow has to be the worst team. Why not the team relying on Tarvaris Jackson and Marshawn Lynch. The team also has few defensive playmakers. I'm probably way underselling them, but its really hard to pinpoint one team to be absolute shit in any given season.

Playoffs

Wild Card Round

Raiders (A6) 17 @ Patriots (A3) 27
Steelers (A5) 23 @ Texans (A4) 24

Eagles (N5) 30 @ Cardinals (N4) 17
Lions (N6) 20 @ Giants (N3) 27

Divisional Round

Patriots (A3) 17 @ Chargers (A2) 31
Texans (A4) 17 @ Ravens (A1) 24

Giants (N3) 28 @ Packers (N2) 24
Eagles (N5) 24 @ Saints (N1) 31

Championship Games

Chargers (A2) 24 @ Ravens (A1) 20
Giants (N3) 24 @ Saints (N1) 27

Super Bowl XLVI

Chargers 31 (A2) vs Saints (N1) 27

Enjoy the season (enjoy it extra, because I'll be enjoying it less).

The #3 Athlete of the 2000s: Zinedine Zidane

2011-09-07T16:59:00.005-04:00

Zizou

I'm writing this a week late, five days and seven years after Mr. Zidane played his final game, and made one final mark on the pitch in international football. Five years have passed since Zinedine Zidane, in which the world coronated four different players as his heir, as "The Best Player in the World." The crown went from Ronaldinho to Kaka to Cristiano Ronaldo from 2005-2008, all three having dizzying heights, especially the first of the three (we are all victims of forgetting just how good Ronaldinho was in his too-short prime). The crown finally landed upon Lionel Messi, and he's had it for three years running. Football has finally found a new heir, but it will take a while before anyone reaches the ridiculous heights that Zidane reached for ten years from 1996-2006. Since this is a best of the decade ranking, here is the short list of achievements that Zidane has that AREN'T included in this decade:

- 1998 World Cup (including two goals in the final)
- 1998 FIFA Player of the Year
- 1998 Ballod D'Or Winner
- 1996-97 & 1997-98 Champions League Finalist (with Juventus)
- 1995-96 UEFA Cup Finalist (with Bordeaux - a one man team)
- 1996-97 & 1997-98 Seria A Titles

Again, all of this is, in the case of this ranking, irrelevant. All of this preceded Zidane v 2.0, the player that made a superstar into a legend. Zidane is the odd player who's prime does not perfectly align with a particular decade. Michael Jordan actually had this problem as his true prime was from mid-80's to mid-90's (luckily for him the rest was amazing anyway). Zidane had five years at the end of the 90's and six years to start the 2000s that were the stuff of legend. Luckily for him, he did enough in those six years to better all but two athletes. Zizou, the man who made millions pour onto the Champs Elyssee, the man who made one of the sickest goals happen, the man who was the richest transfer fee of all time for 8 years and still holds it if inflation is counted, the man, the myth and the legend. Zinedine Zidane is the 3rd best athlete of the 2000s, despite him not playing a minute of the last 4 years.

What Lionel Messi does is easy to explain. He's incredible with the ball and has arguably the greatest left foot ever. He keeps the ball tied to his foot like it was literally tied to his foot. He is nearly impossible to take down and has every shot in the book. That is what Lionel Messi is, nothing more and nothing less. He does it extremely well, but that is what he does. You couldn't truly describe what Zidane did on the field other than saying it was magic. I'll make an effort to try anyway. Zidane had the ability to impact the game without scoring, but then again all defenders have that too. More so, Zidane had the ability to impact the game seemingly without moving, by just getting the ball and passing it off to streaking teammates in advantageous positions. Zidane was one of the most inventive passers in football history. Other than Peyton Manning, there might not have been a better quarterback in all sports.

Maestro is often the word we here associated with Zidane, and in a way it is perfect. He was the master orchestral conducter managing and directing the other 9 players on the pitch (I'm guessing he had no impact on the goalie, but then again if Tom Brady can make his kickers play better...) with ease. He rarely ever missed a pass, ever. What seperates him from modern pass-masters like Xavi Hernandez is that his passes weren't tiki-taka ones that went five feet, but sweeping, looping passes offsetted by back-heels and two-foot combinations. Zidane was everything a central midfielder should be, but limiting him to just that title would be selling Zizou way too short.

Zidane was also a beast with the ball, as rarely was any player able to strip him of it one-on-one. He didn't do it with the fleet footwork of Lionel Messi, or the galloping strides of Cristiano or the original Ronaldo before him, but with true magic. The magic was that he made the most ridiculous things like his famed spin to aerial kicks look easy and simple. He made the game look easy, like it was something anyone can do, and that is the height of his brilliance. Zidane made what was incredible look commonplace, look ordinary and all-the-more, because what he did that looked incredible was actually utterly insane.

It is still hard to believe it actually happened, and harder to believe how forgotten a moment it is outside of football fan circles. Real Madrid at the final peak of their galactico powers, was tied in the Champions League Final, the cap to the 2001-02 season. Zidane, in his first season in Real Madrid following that 75 Million Euro transfer fee, had already lost two Champions League Finals with Juventus - one to Real Madrid who had won two of the last four before Zidane joined. Zidane needed to make his mark and he did it with a 75 million euro goal. Solari flung the ball airborn in a high, tight arc, into the back of the 18-yd box. The ball was suspended in midair and every player on the pitch awaited its return to earth. Zidane didn't wait but readied himself, and then in one smooth move, swung his left foot (off-foot, it should be mentioned) perfectly into the descending ball, connecting with a sharp volley that slammed into the back of the net. The game was tied no longer.

Zidane had already won another FIFA Player of the Year award in 2000, but this was the real start to his decade. Tragically he got hurt in the run up to the 2002 World Cup and missed France's first two games, which were soulless goalless games. Zidane came back with a vengeance putting together another magnificent season to win the 2003 FIFA World Player of the Year spearheading Real to the La Liga title and managing to be the best player on the field during a Champions League tie with Manchester United, even with Ronaldo getting a hat trick. Zidane then scored the only goal in Real's tough semifinal exit to Juventus. In 2004, Zidane then led France to the late stages of the Euro 2004 tournament with a dramatic brace against England. First was an incredible free kick to tie the game in the 88th minute, a kick so brilliant, goalie David James didn't move an inch. He couldn't, frozen by its brilliance. Then he finished it off with a penalty kick to the collective groins of millions of Englishmen. Later in 2004, Zidane got arguably his most impressive honor.

In 2004 UEFA did a poll of the Best European Footballers of the Past 50 Years to cap its 50th Anniversary celebration. Zidane topped the poll, nudging out Franz Beckenbauer. Before people cry that there was some recency-bias, it should be mentioned that the next highest placing current player was Paolo Maldini at #10. Of course, this was a European only list, so it did not include Pele or Maradona or Ronaldo, but the message was clear, Zidane was the best European Football of the last 50 years......... and this was before his magical 2006 World Cup.

The French National Team's qualification for the 2006 World Cup was going about as well as the plight of the roid-free Tour de France riders. Zidane, who had already retired from international football, was begged to come out of retirement, to help his country. After Zidane returned on September 3rd 2005, France didn't lose another game until after he retired again (losing in penatlies is considered a draw). France ended up qualifying comfortably, and the 2006 World Cup was set and going in Zidane let it be known it would be his swansong from all football, at what a beautiful coda it was.

The group stage for France wasn't anything great, but the four successive knockout games were an epic all-to-themselves. First against Spain, a team who had the foundation of the same team that would dominate international football for the six years after the World Cup, Zidane controlled the game beautifully, many times showing off his trademark passing and eye for the game. His whipping free kick led to the game winning goal, and then in stoppage time added the capper, with his first goal in the World Cup, a goal that is often missed but Zidane made look incredibly easy. A date with Brazil was next.

Zidane made his first ever international statement against Brazil, scoring two headers to win the World Cup. In fact, since 1994, the only World Cup game Brazil lost was that World Cup Final. Coming into the game, the Selecao were on a roll and were the favorite. Then again, no one really realized that Zidane had one last breathtaking game again. Difficult made easy. The 2006 quarterfinal perfected that theme as he danced his way around the Brazilians. Pele later called him "the only Brazilian on the field." His free kick again set up the only goal, but Zidane controlled the match (though I should not France's defense was great throughout the tournament), one that was nowhere as close as the 1-0 scoreline.

The semifinal against Portugal was more of the same, highlighted with a picture perfect penalty kick. Eight years after his brace sent millions into the Champs Elysee, Zidane was back again in the World Cup Final, this time against Italy. The Final was marked by three incidents for Zidane. First was his second consecutive penalty kick goal. A kick so sublime, so insane that few would try it. Zidane chipped the ball so perfectly in bounced off the bottom of the cross bar slowly dropping behind the goalline. The second was his last great moment, a flying header that nearly broke a 1-1 tie in extra time. Gianluigi Buffon had to use every inch of his springing frame to knock it over the bar. The final one was the most memorable, the infamous headbutt, Zidane's act of vigilante justice.

The act itself was admittedly disgraceful, but was not really out of character. Zizou played the beautiful game about as beautiful as it ever has, but that grace belied a true temper. Zidane has a lot more bad tempered moments and red cards than most great footballers. His temper is his one true weakness, and it showed at the worst moment, fifteen minutes before the end of his career. But let the headbutt not spoil Zidane's incredible tournament, one that netted him one last award for the best player of the tournament. Zidane's play against Brazil should be sent straight to the Smithsonian, the equivalent of what Manning's insane game against the Jets in last years AFC Championship game was. Zidane was at his magnificent best in the biggest tournament in the world.

Zidane never played again after the headbutt, but his legacy is still set in stone. Just listen to the experts: "Zidane is one of the 5 greatest players in history, a truly magnificent player" (Beckenbauer). "Zidane is the greatest talent we've seen in the last 20 years (1986-2006), and it was an honour to be his manager" (Juventus manager Marcello Lippi who coached Italy in the headbutt game). "Zidane's the best player I've ever seen" (Roberto Carlos). "Technically, I think he is the king of what's fundamental in the game - control and passing" (Michel Platini). "There's never been anyone quite like him, anyone so magical" (Paolo Maldini).

Zizou was a true magician, and his best magic act might have been his quiet disappearance. It is hard to describe why Zidane isn't remembered as greatly as he should, especially since when it comes time for any true expert or football fan blog to do any sort of top-10 list, or have an irrational Zidane vs Ronaldinho or Zidane vs Messi thread, the cobwebs that lie over Zidane's legacy are dusted off and displayed. Maybe it is because it is all too recent. Maybe because Messi is doing splendid things, but Zidane isn't given the Maradona treatment yet. He will because he deserves it. My guess is his high-profile roles in the football business will only help. Zidane was the face of Qatar's bid for the 2022 World Cup. Zidane is now the sporting director of Real Madrid, a job Jose Mourinho wanted Zidane to get, making him the second most powerful man at Real Madrid after Florentino Perez. Zidane realizes that the world has gotten over the headbutt, that it is time to make that legacy eternal.

I don't want to really get into a Zidane vs Messi debate, partly because Messi isn't done and partly because they play different positions (Zidane vs Ronaldinho makes more sense, but that argument is as dumb as Barry Bonds vs Sammy Sosa but without the roids). That said, here is what I know: Messi has played his entire career with Xavi and Iniesta and that cartel in Barca. Zidane did have great teammates at both Juventus and Real Madrid, but not to the same effect. We haven't seen what Messi can do without those two men, and what evidence we have (World Cup mostly), isn't exactly impressive for Leo. As for Zidane, here are the results that France has put up in major competitions since 1998:

1998: Won World Cup (With Zidane)
2000: Won Euro 2000 (With Zidane)
2002: Lost in group stage (Zidane played 1 out of 3 games)
2004: Lost in Quarterfinals (With Zidane)
2006: Lost in World Cup Final (With Zidane)
2008: Lost in group stage (Without Zidane)
2010: Lost in group stage (Without Zidane).

France has done nothing without Zidane, and everything with him. France had other great players in this era like Thierry Henry, Lilian Thuram, Patrick Vieira and Claude Makalele, but none of those guys could do jack without Zizou, without the magic.

In his final game for Real Madrid, his final game in club football, Real Madrid sent him out like a king, with the whole stadium holding up posters of Zidane's shirt and each player having "Zidane 2001-2006" stiched at the bottom of their shirt. Zidane responded with a sublime header, a goal in his final game. The header was tough in actuality, with Zidane lightly arcing the ball off his head, almost placing it with his head rather than butting it, as it flew softly over the goalie. It was difficult but made to look simple, just like everything else in Zizou's magical career.

The Dismay in the Disaster

2011-09-06T21:47:00.004-04:00

No, this isn't a column about the impending loss of Peyton Manning for what will probably be more than just one game because of a mysterious slow nerve regeneration problem. That's bad enough. This is about something bigger. Peyton Manning will return, whether it be Week 2 (highly unlikely), Week 10 (probably close to the real date) or in 2012 (God Forbid). What won't return is what will probably end up being a bigger loss to me than the loss of Peyton Manning for several games. That said, I'll start with Manning. I first saw the news in a closed off bar at the tail end of an exceptionally entertaining wedding weekend for a long time family friend. I glanced over to the TV screen as it was on ESPNEWS. The bottom half of the screen was cut off, so all I could read was "Peyton Manning to be". The rest was cut off. The sound was fully off. I was left in a state of total speculation. I quickly went online to find any confirmation of what could be happening but found nothing. Immediately my mind raced; what was the missing phrase. To me the most likely scenarios were the two ends of the aray of possibilities, one being "to be... placed on injured reserve," while the other "to be... ready for Week 1." It probably was "to be... reevaluated." but I would never find out.

Later that night I looked again online and saw reports that Manning might need another surgery as the rate of nerve regeneration was going dangerously slow. Then I saw a post from my favorite trusted Colts blogger (Nate Dunlevy from 18to88.com) that Manning will indeed have to undergo another surgery. Within minutes I was at a loss for feelings, let alone words. This was the francise going down. This was one year of Manning's career taken away, and with an aging core that probably only had one or two cracks together as a unit (Freeney, Mathis, Wayne, Clark), to lose one of those years was just devastating. Anyway, the Colts said that Manning is just getting another opinion. I have no idea what to believe, but I am sure he won't play Week 1, and probably not for until the Colts are effectively out of playoff contention. My only real hope is that the Jags stay a mess (cutting Garrard really helps), the Titans Hasselbeck experiment fails (which it easily could), and the Texans defense doesn't get much better under Wade (probably unlikely), and Manning returns around Week 8 with the Colts 3-5, and pulls off a 6-2 type finish and sneak in the playoffs.

Either way, as I said, Manning will be back. Life will go on. Manning wasn't going to play without missing a game forever. I just feel that it was cheapened. It wasn't a ferocious hit that got him. It was his own body failing him in the oddest way possible, a man struck down by himself. I hope this is not a recurring injury. Anyway, now with the Manning part of this out of the way, let's get to what really has me depressed (to some extent, as there is no need to worry about my emotional state).

___________________________________________________

I was thrust back into the US last week after spending eight weeks abroad and what I found was a lot of change. The Northeast had experienced an earthquake (which I'm sad I missed) and a massive hurricane (I'm okay with missing that one). There was also one more change which I only found out during my "welcome back to being able to drive" drive that I took last Wednesday night. 94.1 WYSP was shutting down as a classic rock station. No more needed to be said, or as it were, heard, for me to become absolutely nonplussed. I grew up with 94.1. As far as music fm stations went, it was my station. It was the station that introduced me to Van Halen (my favorite band), to the beauty of old classic rock; to Zeppelin, to Sabbath, to Floyd, to the Who. To everyone. I'm a huge classic rock fan while also being an inherently lazy one. I'm not one to put in the work to find bands and music hidden under rocks, or as they were called "indie" groups. I'm under the impression that in a market that is already targeted to a slight niche group (rock fans, which is admittedly a large niche), that the bands that had the most success are most often very successful for a good reason. That said, WYSP made me listen to bands I hadn't heard. They made me listen to Blue Oyster Cult, to Megadeth, to Metallica (which are for more melodic and beautiful than I ever could've imagined), to Alice in Chains, to Cheap Trick, and I can't thank them enough.

It all started with Metallica. I had always thought of Metallica as some loud, dirty band that wasn't worth two listens, but that was because I hadn't really heard them before. Then one day I stumbled upon WYSP playing "Fade to Black." I had no idea it was Metallica until they told me when it was over. I was speechless. The song was truly beautiful. The guitar, the melodies, the riffs. The song was incredible, and I was thinking "This is Metal? This is the music the nation was supposed to be scared of along with Gangsta Rap?". Right after Fade to Black, WYSP played "Don't fear the Reaper" by Blue Oyster Cult. They were another band I never listened to, this time because of innocent fear of the "cult" part of their name. I again found the song moving, captivating. I listened to WYSP for an hour and was struck by the heavy beauty of all these songs by all these bands that were heretofore unknown.

WYSP's tagline was "the rock you grew up with," and although I wasn't really their target audience for that tag, WYSP was the station I grew up with. It was the station I lived with. WYSP played the music I liked and played it all the time. It was a tad more heavy than the other major "classic rock" stations in the NYC/Philly area (102.9 MGK and Q104.3). It was the only one that played Metallica, that played a lot of Guns 'N Roses, that played Van Halen other than just Jump (Unchained was a WYSP favorite). On the weekends, it simulcasted Eddie Trunk's 'That Metal Show', which as a kid I gobbled up, playing it when I was sleeping on Saturday and Sunday nights. WYSP was my radio home, my radio paradise; an oasis where I could listen to real rock amidst a never-ending Sahara of pop.

WYSP is now gone, the "rock I grew up with" is now the "rock I better get on iTunes because I won't be hearing it on radio again." There probably are other rock stations out there that play metal, but do those same ones play Queen and the Doors with equal frequency? That was the true beauty of WYSP. It wasn't for metalheads. It wasn't really for fans of rock in the 60-70's. It was for anyone who liked rock music (The one major group that was kind of ignored on the station was Nirvana, but that's defensible in my eyes since I was never a big fan). WYSP played everything. Their DJs loved everything. Their fans and listeners wanted everything. It was rock all the time and it was amazing. For whatever reason now, it is all gone.

I searched the internet for reasons why WYSP would lose it's face, why it would switch from the best rock station on the East Coast (my appointed title for them) to a simulcast of Philly's sports radio station. I couldn't find any. There was no other explanation other than a lack of ratings, which I guess is the only reason necessary. I guess in the end ratings will be king and lack of them will always spell the end. That said, I will always remember my time listening to WYSP fondly. It opened my eyes to rock music, to hard rock music, to bands I never would have listened to and to songs I never would've blasted in the car when driving. During long night drives they kept me company. When I couldn't get sleep as a 15 year old, the kept me company. WYSP was like family in a weird sense. They were comforting in an obvious sense. They were home, and now WYSP, like so many of the bands they once played, are gone.

Arrested NFL-opment

2011-08-22T12:11:00.004-04:00

This one doesn't need much of an introduction. NFL teams and their Arrested Development character doppelgangers. The characters range from the main characters to inanimate objects. The comparisons range from fraternal twin to "yeah, that doesn't make any sense at all." Either way, fun times all around.

Arizona Cardinals – Franklin Delano Bluth

Franklin Delano Bluth was GOBs black ventriloquist puppet that he used to perform his hilarious blackie comedy routine, or to take a stab singing (his debut album: Franklin Comes Alive! with the hit song ‘It ain’t easy being White, it ain’t easy being brown). Without GOB to give Franklin voice and movement he’s nothing, just stuffed fabric and clothes. Without a QB last season, the Arizona Cardinals were nothing, despite having quite a bit of talent. Neither Franklin nor the Cards can function without their master, but with the Kolb trade, the Cards can fly again, and entertain us all, just like Mr. Franklin Delano Bluth.

Atlanta Falcons – White Power Bill

No, this doesn’t have to do with any white-extremism/Atlanta Falcons connections (which I should say are not there, as far as I know). White Power Bill felt compelled to terrorize other inmates mainly because he was ashamed of himself. He lacked self confidence. The Falcons are similar in that they seemed to lack the self confidence to build the right way, mortgaging part of their future with that Julio Jones trade where they gave up a slew of draft picks. Let’s hope this act of hidden desperation doesn’t en up like White Power Bill, falling off a railing into death. (Admittedly, this was a weak comparison; they’ll be better. I promise).

Baltimore Ravens – Maebe Funke

The rebels without a cause. Maebe Funke was rebelled against anything her parents did. When her mother started being anti-leather, Maebe became “pro-leather”. When her parents wanted to kill a tree, then save it, then kill it again, she wanted to save it, then kill it, then save it again. The Ravens, like Maebe are also the rebels of the NFL, moreso than the Raiders. They go against anything Goddell does. Even more than the Steelers, they complain about refereeing decisions nearly every week, saying other QBs are protected and that the league is out to get them. The Ravens are rebels, and taking alleged bad-boy Jimmy Smith in the 1^st round only adds to that.

Buffalo Bills – Lucille 2

Lucille 2 as famous for suffering from vertigo (as well as nailing both Buster and GOB, but that’s for another time). The Bills are in an unending state of vertigo. They’ve fallen and really haven’t gotten up. They had brief periods where they were “stable as a table”, like in 2004 when they won six straight games to go from 3-6 to 9-6, and in 2008 when they were 5-1. Of course, they took that spin in Michael’s convertible and it was all over, as both seasons ended disastrously. The 2008 Bills lost 8 of their last 10 to finish 7-9, and memorably followed up a 54-31 win by putting up three points in two straight games. The 2004 team lost their final game to the Steelers, primarily against backups, when a win would have given them the #6 seed. They then fired Mike Mularkey, which has really set the whole team in a downward spiral ever since.

Carolina Panthers – J. Walter Weatherman

Just like the J, Walter Weatherman, the Panthers have long played seemingly with one arm. First it was that they always had just one receiver (this is post-Muhsin Muhammad of course). Then it became they had a great running game but bad passing game (2009). Now it is that they have a good defense, but bad offense. They can never be a complete team, but they are great in teaching lessons to the rest of the league; lessons like: That’s why you don’t cover Steve Smith 1-1, and That’s why you make sure you don’t give a QB coming off a 5-pick playoff performance a 5-yr extension.

Chicago Bears – Barry Zuckerkorn

Barry Zuckerkorn was the incompetent lawyer who secretly might have been competent. He had many obvious foibles, like his proclivity to not read plea bargains (“it’s very long”), or pick up male hookers, but he always claimed “I’m a lot more competent than you think,” while Lucille always claimed “He’s very good.” The Bears are similar. They have obvious foibles, like Cutler’s proclivity to getting injured, or their o-line being a vast oasis of suck, but they are quietly a lot more competent than you realize. Matt Forte had a nice season, that defense is still top-10 and they still have good ol’ Devin Hester.

Cincinnati Bengals – Carl Weathers

Cheap. It is one trait that describes both Weather’s fictionalized character and the Bengals and their wish-he-was-fictionalized-Owner. Just like how Carl Weathers screwed Tobias out of his last $1,100 dollars for “acting classes” which consisted mainly of Weathers telling Tobias how he was able to save up on the food he got at movie sets to make nice stews with the leftover chicken bones, Mike Brown is screwing up his team with his continual cheap behavior. How is it that Carson Palmer will not be granted his wish to be traded (a trade chip that could land the Bengals a 2^nd round pick minimum), but Ochocinco is allowed to go? I’m never sure what Mike Brown is doing, but just like Carl Weathers, I feel like he’s the type to eat at Burger King, a lot.

Cleveland Browns – Ann(abell) Paul Veal

This comparison was “as Ann as the nose on ‘Plain’s’ face” as Michael Bluth would say. She’s bland, and they are bland. In the yearbook, under Ann’s picture it said “not pictured” and it might as well for any picture of the Browns. The Browns have a nice QB, kind of like how by the end of S2, Ann had a nice face, but the rest of the skill positions/body parts were just lacking. Peyton Hillis is nice, but he’s got the Madden Curse on him. The WRs are about as bad as you can get. I guess the defense has something, but overall it’s just bland. Also, it kind of makes sense that Mike Holmgren’s team would be the character that most resembles a Walrus.

Dallas Cowboys – Maggie Lizer

Just like Maggie Lizer, the Cowboys trick us into making us like them year after year to do well. It’s probably the star on the helmet, which is the Cowboys’ version of Maggie Lizer’s fake blindness. The Cowboys really aren’t that great of a team. Romo has peaked. The team has peaked. Their defense will probably go to hell without Wade Phillips there to call plays, yet somehow people still pick them to do well. Lizer was someone who had very few redeeming qualities. She was a liar. She pretended to be blind, then pretended to be pregnant, then tried to steal two gay cops baby. The Cowboys are the same, as they have a dick owner, and they play in a palace built on cash and narcissistic excess, but we still like them.

Denver Broncos – Rita Leeds

This one would have been better if the man known as Josh McDaniels was still prowling the sidelines, but alas, they have a somewhat competent head coach now in John Fox. Then again, they have all the symptoms of the trainwreck that was Rita Leeds. They have a quarterback who’s really a glorified running back with a throwing motion that takes more time than the average golf swing. They have a WR who is so erratic and up and down that many people thought if he was, in the football sense, mentally retarded. The Broncos are one of the worst teams in the NFL, fully capable of, like Rita Leeds, winning first place in the “two-legged race” for Andrew Luck.

Detroit Lions – ICE

ICE was the bounty hunter/caterer that was hired to keep an eye on Michael, and then track down George Bluth in Mexico. This comparison really only works on one level: the bounty hunter aspect (I couldn’t think of any caterer connections to the Lions). The Lions have built a d-line to fear. They have a coach who worked wonders in Tennessee with his rotating bunch of d-lineman. They have a rookie who had one of the best rookie seasons in a long, long time in Ndamukong Suh. They drafted bad-boy Nick Fairley (who sadly is hurt). Add to that KVB, Corey Williams and more and the Lions have one of the best pass rushes in the game. There’s a bounty on every QBs head the Lions face, and they are as capable as ICE of hunting it down.

Green Bay Packers – Michael Bluth

The star, the straight man, the champion, the President and CEO of the company; the Packers and Michael Bluth are both on top, but they are both secretly not all that great and likable. Michael Bluth was, if you look at it, the craziest of them all considering he couldn’t fully grasp the crazy around him. Bluth was, in all honesty, detestable since he took advantage of people and played people all the while thinking of himself as a really good guy. The Packers are similarly underratedly hateable. Everything just worked a little too perfect, with their long-haired white Linebackers, and their fat Nose Tackle getting pick-6s and dancing around like a bafoon. Not to mention Aaron Rodgers just seem a little too cool for school, and that ‘title belt’ celebration is nauseatingly awful. It’s under the surface, but just like with Michael Bluth, the hate is there.

Houston Texans – Starla, the Business Model

Starla was the beautiful yet shallow boat-show model recruited to be a new secretary, although she had basic problems like thinking that photo-copying meant copying documents on photo-sized paper. Oh, plus she had a weird affinity towards Quincy Jones bordering on stalking him. The Texans are quite similar. They can be beautiful, with one of the league’s best offenses in that they have the defending rushing champion as well as the Matt Schaub – Andre Johnson connection. That said, they have problems with basic things like holding onto the ball or not giving up 350 yards passing. Also, they have shown a weird affinity to keep holding onto Gary Kubiak despite him coaching 5 years with zero playoff appearances. He’s probably one of the few coaches to not make the playoffs in any of his first five seasons but still make it to year 6.

Indianapolis Colts – Lucille Bluth

People think that the Colts are no longer a glamour team, just like Lucille Bluth was no longer living the life of luxury. However, she really was as everyone counted Lucille out a little too soon. Lucille continued to buy anything she wanted (“The SEC is making me document all my purchases to make sure nothing was bought with company money, and nothing will be after I doctor all these receipts”), and continued to be as biting and caustic and great as ever. The Colts are in a similar situation. People are counting them out, mainly because of them getting a little too flukily injured in 2010 and Manning having a flukey 3-game 11-int stretch. Don’t count on those things happening again, as Manning and the Colts offense still packed a strong bite in 2010. They’ll be back. They aren’t dead yet.

Jacksonville Jaguars – Oscar Bluth

Yeah, the Jags really are the lost, decrepid, stoner Uncle sitting on a worthless property. For the Jags, that property is Jacksonville, where the city has become the one city where the NFL has failed. Oscar Bluth of course has that head of hair, “Oh, that beautiful hair”, that one trait that makes him the least bit redeemable. This is just like the Jaguars who have one aesthetic trait, with their handsome head coach Jack Del Rio. Sadly for the Jaguars, Del Rio’s best if used by date was sometime in 2008.

Kansas City Chiefs – Rav Nadir “The Indian Kid”

Rav Nadir (AD’s hilarious Indian-ization of Ralph Nader) was the 3^rd candidate in George Michael Bluth’s high-school election. It was supposed to be a fight between George Michael and Steve Holt, a fight that was quite one-sided (Maebe called it, “comparing them is like comparing apples, and a fruit no one’s ever heard of”). Of course, because Steve Holt found religion, and George Michael was someone no one’s ever heard of, Rav Nadir walked away with the election. Anyway, this is much like the Chiefs in their improbably run to the AFC West Title last season. Just like Rav Nadir, the Chiefs capitalized by the Chargers bastardized special teams accounting for three early season losses (Chiefs, Seahawks, Raiders pt. 1). The Raiders were a little too spotty despite statistically in a lot of ways also being better than the Chiefs. It didn’t matter, as the Chiefs made the playoffs by default after those teams left the race, and were unsurprisingly slaughtered.

Miami Dolphins – Wife of GOB

This one is another comparison stretched really then, and it’s only here because I just loved the “Wife of GOB” character (aka: Crindy, Saul Zentzman, Usarmy). The best connection is that she deals seals, and seals are aquatic mammals, much like Dolphins. Also, she never “sealed the deal” with GOB (if that phrase is too hard to parse, that means had sex with GOB), much like the Dolphins never “sealed the deal” to bring Kyle Orton to Miami, much to the dismay of the Dolphins’ fans while also to the delight of Matt Moore and his family.

Minnesota Vikings – Kitty Sanchez (Post-Operation)

Kitty Sanchez was George Bluth’s fiercely loyal (aka: fuck-buddy) secretary. Of course, she had major problems in that she was revolting, with frazzled hair and googly eyes. This is much like the Vikings QB situation, with frazzled hair (Favre) and googly eyes (T-Jack) being the two options. Then, Kitty went and got surgery. The surgery was breast implants, but in reality, it made post-surgery Kitty quite attractive (as well, Judy Greer is quite attractive), just like the Vikings picking up Donovan McNabb got rid of the googly eyes and frazzled hair. Of course, the surgery wasn’t perfect, as her nipples were pointed in opposite directions, which is also kind of like how the Vikings are built, with many aging older star players declining, and young players who aren’t really any good. The Vikings are still a mess and a little delusional (“you don’t have the hiring and firing power!”), but at least they are a little better on the eyes.

New England Patriots – George Bluth Sr.

Pats are kind of like the Patriarch of the NFL, as Belichick is seen as the lead coach, and they are still held up as the gold standard even though they haven’t won a Super Bowl since 2004. Also, they get away with anything. I’ve always sondered how George Bluth was allowed to be placed under house arrest in S3 after he fled then faked a heart attack, fled the country and then drugged his brother, shaved his head and tried to pass him off as himself. Then he gets rewarded with house arrest? Kind of like how the Pats haven’t won a playoff game since 2007, how Tom Brady has been bad in the playoffs two straight years, how they’ve choked away numerous playoff games since 2005, and people still genuflect at their presence.

New Orleans Saints – The Milford School

The Milford School is famous for its belief that kids “should be neither seen nor heard.” The Saints have been the perfect Milford student so far in 2011. No one in the mainstream-media is really talking about them. They haven’t been seen or heard on many Super Bowl picks, but they could be a juggernaut. They still have a great offense, and Drew Brees probably won’t throw 22 picks again. Their defense was quietly top-10 in 2010 (although horrible in their playoff game). They won the title in 2009 and were 11-4 before a rest-a-thon and the Seattle game in 2010. The Saints are flying under the radar. As GOB would say, the Saints have been “spectacularly quiet” after last offseason when they went on a 7-month party celebrating their Super Bowl win.

New York Giants – Wayne Jarvis

Wayne was the lawyer who Michael wanted to replace Barry Zuckerkorn, due to the fact that Jarvis was a professional in every sense of the word. Yet, in reality, Wayne was crazy, agreeing to hide under the table to avoid meeting Lucille (seeing it as a professional way to dodge a meeting), and then trying to bribe Michael into giving away his father’s secrets after the joined the prosecution. The Giants act like professionals, with their “each game is a business meeting” motto, but in the past two years, they haven’t been really business-like, with the late season collapses, Osi’s spat with Coughlin, getting rid of Steve Smith. Somehow, they still feel a lot more competent than they should, just like Wayne was still a lot better than Barry.

New York Jets – Steve Holt

Just like Steve Holt, the Jets have all the makings of the most popular team in the world. They have the good-lookin’ latino QB, the Super Bowl MVP Wideout, the fat, jolly, smarter-than-you-realize head coach, and the brash defense that talks smack to the Pats, and then backs it up. Their brashness actually perfectly emulates Steve Holt’s, who is known to yell “Steve Holt” before he enters the conversation. The Jets might as well yell “The Jets” before all their games. The other connection is Steve Holt dating an underage-girl in Maebe, which is kind of analogous to Mark Sanchez brief affair with a 17-year old from New Jersey. It’s amazing how little staying power that story had. I mean, let’s not forget, Mark Sanchez had sex with a 17-year old. The attractive QB of the New York Jets decided, on his own accord, to not sleep with the multitude of appropriately aged women, and instead bang a 17-year old.

Oakland Raiders – Annyong

Annyong was the son Lucille Bluth adopted, partly to make the family look compassionate, and partly to make Buster jealous. Annyong was a character that was unceremoniously sent away in the middle of season two, shipped off to the Milford School “to teach him a lesson.” Annyong really was just misunderstood, namely about his name, which was not Annyong (Korean for “Hello”), but ‘Hell-Oh’. The Raiders are also criminally misunderstood. People saw Al Davis giving out big contracts to players not named Nnamdi Asomugha. What they failed to totally get was that the Raiders had little shot of keeping Nnamdi, so instead they locked up the rest. By the end of the series, Annyong returns to plot his revenge, just like Al Davis hopes to one day return to the top of the league, and take reveng on all those who doubted him.

Philadelphia Eagles – GOB Bluth

Just like the Magician, GOB Bluth, the Eagles pulled quite the magic trick in the offseason. How they were able to fit Nnamdi, Domonique Rodgers-Cromartie (and keep Samuel), Cullen Jenkins, Jason Babin, and then to cap it all off steal Steve Smith from the Giants is beyond me. GOB Bluth hates to use the term “trick” (as a “trick is something a whore does for money”), instead going for “illusion” and the Eagles are pulling one of those anyway. They have the illusion of a super team, despite Jeremy Maclin having some hush-hush strange injury, a logjam at corner, a defensive-coordinator who was last employed at offensive-line, and Michael Vick who is due for some serious interception regression. They really are the jokers.

Pittsburgh Steelers – Sally Sitwell

Sally Sitwell, after finding out that her father wanted Michael to date her, told Michael that “I would rather date someone my father doesn’t approve of” (which was to the ironic dismay of Michael who finally decided to ask out Sally because his father didn’t approve). The Steelers are kind of similar. They love it when we don’t approve of them, when we don’t consider them entering into a season. The 2008 Champions and 2010 Runner-Ups both entered those two respective seasons a bit under the radar. In 2008, everyone was up in arms about the Patriots trying to go perfect again, and the Cowboys, and the Steelers went out and had the best defense since the 2002 Bucs. In 2010, with Roethlisberger’s suspension, no one really thought of them as Super Bowl contenders (other than ironically Peter King, who is usually hilariously wrong with his Super Bowl picks). They then cruised all the way through the season and got there again. This year everyone likes them, so they are set up for disappointment. The Steelers don’t perform to well when they have everyone’s approval; just like Ms. Sitwell.

St. Louis Rams – Larry Middleman (the Surrogate)

Just like the surrogate was able to be the de-facto George Bluth in public situations outside when George was on house arrest, the Rams have become the de-facto Giants. They have the Giants old d-coordinator. They have a #1 overall pick at QB. They have the belief that you can never draft enough pass-rushers. Of course, they haven’t emuylated everything the Giants did, much like Middleman couldn’t emulate tone or inflection to relay George’s sarcasm. The Rams don’t have the Plaxico deep threat, but they’re close to getting to where the Giants were from 2005-2008.

San Diego Chargers – Lindsay Bluth Funke

Lindsay is beautiful, funny, good-hearted, and sweet. The only problem is that she is not bright and married to a doofus of a husband. The Chargers are powerful, beautiful (at passing), explosive and youthful. The only problem is the make ridiculous mistakes, sleepwalk in the beginning of seasons and have a doofus of a coach (in terms of game management). How Norv Turner lasted this long is incredible. The Chargers glaring weakness was their special teams, which rebelled against the rest of that team (#1 offense & defense by conventional stats), just like Lindsay rebelled against her mother. That said, when you forget about Tobias, Lindsay is quite a catch.

San Francisco 49ers – Surely Funke

Surely Funke was the sick wheelchair bound girl Meabe pretended was her sister to cash in checks that went to Surely for fundraisers. Her affliction: B.S (What are the symptoms?”, “I don’t know, it’s BS”). The 49ers are kind of like the Surely Funke version of the Maebe Funke Ravens. First of all, they hired the Ravens’ coach’s brother in Jim Harbaugh. They also have an affliction of BS,QB, with Alex Smith somehow still a member of the 49ers (and also still just 27). The 49ers also tried to use ex-Raven LB Coach Mike Singletary, after using ex-Raven DC Mike Nolan as head coach. They really have a bad case of wanting to be Maebe Funke.

Seattle Seahawks – Mort Meyers (Maebe’s boss)

He’s not a very famous character by name, but Jeff Garlin’s recurring role as Maebe’s boss led to a slew of slightly pedophilic jokes about Mort wanting to have an affair with Maebe, who would always give her standard answer of “Marry Me!” The Seahawks are also desperately trying to get with the younger crowd, opening up their wallets in free agency. Like Mort, the outcome is one of rejection, as I’m sure the NFL Playoffs will reject the Seahawks 2011 application led by Tarvaris Jackson. Even in that division.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers – George Michael Bluth

The only redeeming character on the show was not Michael, the nominal straight-man. No, it was George Michael, the only one who could kind of see the lunacy behind his whole family. Of course, he was also madly in love with his cousin, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was the innocent one. The Buccaneers are the innocent of the NFL. They have a young team. They didn’t og out and get anyone in Free Agency, instead decided to steadfastly stick to their plan which is coming together faster than anyone could have hoped. If you want an NFL comparison, they remind me a lot of how the 1999-2003 Titans were built, although without an Eddie George. They are the rare virgin team in a league who’s teams usually whore it up.

Tennessee Titans – Stan Sitwell

The man without any hair (“You mean were meeting with a guy who can’t grow his own hair? Come ON!!”), will be paralleled with the team that lost its hair in every way. First the dreadlocked one is holding-out (although that probably won’t last). Then the sometimes-Afro/sometimes-cornrows Randy Moss was cut. Then they go out and sign the notoriously bald Matt Hasselbeck. To cap it off, they fire the man responsible for arguably the best facial hair in the NFL over the past 15 years: Jeff Fisher. His resume includes a brilliant mustache, and the sadly-forgotten great beards in 2002 and 2003. The loss of Jeff Fisher’s mustache in the NFL is huge.

Washington Redskins – Tobias Funke

I don’t know if this is really saving the best for last, but it might be the strongest comparison. Tobias was the joke. The other characters we laughed with sometimes (instead of laughing at), but for Tobias he was the joke: his obliviousness nature, his never-nude affliction, his not-so-hidden gay-ness. The Redskins, and moreso, Mr, Daniel Snyder, is the jok. He never learns from umpteen free agent disasters. He builds a non-descript giant bowl of a stadium and then squeezes out every penny. He tries to control the media to laughable results. Also, since coming to Washington, Mr. Shanahan has been o better, emulating Tobias in the way that he is making fun of himself when he says things like “I think Rex Grossman can do better than Donovan McNabb in my offense.” There’s even the case that Snyder, Shanahan and even Tobias were respected professionals in past lives (business magnate, coach in Denver, anal-rapist), but are ridiculously awful in their current venture (NFL owner, coach in Washington, actor). And finally, like Tobias, the Redskins under Snyder have been anal-raping their fans for a long, long time.

Characters That Just Missed the Cut

- Nellie the Stripper

- ‘Girls With Low Self-Esteem’ creator Phillip Litt

- Warden Stefan Gentiles

- Cindy Lightballoon (the mole)

- Tony Wonder (really sad I couldn’t include him)

- Judge Reinhold

- Mrs. Featherbottom

NFL is BACK 2011

2011-08-20T09:31:00.003-04:00

Yeah, the lockout ended a while ago, and yes, there was a frenzied free-agent signing period where I covered all of it, except for not covering it at all. Anyway, let's get straight back to what is here to stay (for at least the next 10 years, until the CBA expires and we get to do this all over again). The NFL will play football games in 2011. There will be a Super Bowl in Indianapolis next February (hopefully a Super Bowl parade in that same city a couple days after). Nothing much has really stayed the same in the NFL landscape since the lockout ended (other than people still blowing the Patriots and Bill Belichick for every move that looks questionable on paper even though for every Randy Moss they traded for there was a Derrick Burgess that did nothing - that's still here). So, here are my rambling post-lockout, pre-season-preview thoughts on what should be a fun season.

= The Eagles are really nowhere near a "dream team" except for their glut of corners. Obviously pairing Nnamdi and Asante together is amazing. This will probably just lead to Domonique Rodgers-Cromartie getting thrown at all the time. This usually doesn't bode well (see: DeAngelo Hall, 2008, playing across from Nnamdi), and I have a sneaking suspicion that Joselio Hanson (who was dominant covering slot receivers in 2010) will get the nickel-corner role above DRC anyway. They might trade DRC, or in what would be an odder move, trade Asante. As for the rest of the Eagles (and I'll cover this more in the season preview), I'm not sure I like a lot of what they did. Cullen Jenkins was really overpaid for a guy who has missed 17 games over the last three seasons and really wasn't all that great in 2010 (at least compared to what he's being paid to produce). Jason Babin was a one hit wonder, but at least there's thought there because he will be reunited with D-Line coach Jim Washburn. Then on offense, this whole Maclin illness thing is weird. They need Maclin to be healthy to allow DeSean Jackson to be their exclusive deep-threat. I'm not sure where Steve Smith fits in either. It is telling that the Giants basically didn't try at all to resign him. Finally, I find it laughable that Vince Young is apparently adding to the "dream team" label. If they have to depend on VY, they aren't going anywhere.

= The two teams that I'm most confused about are Seattle and Minnesota, which is ironic given their close history over the past six years (Koren Robinson, Hutchinson, Burleson and now Sidney and T-Jack). Minnesota seemed to want to start rebuilding, but instead kept all their aging stars, but let the younger ones go (Edwards, Rice). They then got in McNabb (admittedly giving up little), but apparently are fine letting him throw to Berrian and Percy Harvin. They are really building a team that will go about 8-8, which is really pointless. The Seahawks, on the other hand, are seemingly unsure whether they want to draft their way to success or go the FA route (drafting works a lot better, almost always). They have a nice nucleus of young players, but they went out and got Tarvaris Jackson? I'm not a T-Jack hater the way some are, and I find him average to a little below average, but still he's no better than Matt Hasselbeck. Plus, the Seahawks invested quite a bit in Charlie Whitehurst. It's odd that they would have given up on him so quickly. I think I already know one of the playoff teams that won't be making it back in 2011.

= The Falcons had an interesting offseason. On one hand they signed Ray Edwards, which is a move I love. Ray Edwards hasn't proven that he can produce without another playing drawing more attention, like he got with Jared Allen. Luckily for him and the Falcons. He probably won't have to, as he'll have John Abraham who will command at least as much attention from opposing o-lines. On the other side of the trench, I'm surprised the Falcons decided to resign both Justin Blalock (RG - 6yrs) and Tyson Clabo (RT 5-yr), but let Harvey Dahl (the superior player - and in my opinion the best lineman the Falcons have) go. Clabo at least I can understand as he's a tackle, but why pick Blalock over Dahl. Odd choices for a team that is still about as loaded as any other.

= Now let's get to those Patriots. They are a good team, if not a great one, but that is barely any more true after their glut of FA and trade acquisitions. In my mind, Albert Haynesworth is the only one that will more likely than not pay off - and not in the sense that he's going to become the 2006-2008 Big Al again. Ochocinco is done, just like Moss was last year. He did nothing most of last year, and the Bengals were a lot better when he left the field. As for all their D-Line moves, what exactly is the rest of the NFL supposed to fear. Andre Carter and Shaun Ellis are both firmly in the downside of their careers and are both coming off their worst years in a long time. Mark Anderson has done nothing since his rookie season on a team that has a great track record of getting a lot out of its d-lineman (Chicago). Bill Belichick is a great coach, but he's not a magician. He's not suddenly going to wave his wand and turn these aging vets into great players again. And what I really don't understand is that the d-line already was filled with some nice young players. Haynesworth was a great move. The rest have me shrugging my shoulders and saying "So what?

= The Colts moves are interesting in that they acquired three former 1st round picks. Unlike the Pats, a majority of these players are still in their prime. These types of moves - getting Ernie Sims who was miscast in Philadelphia's defense, and Jamaal Anderson who can stop the run quite well but isn't great against the pass, something he doesn't really need to do in Indy - are the types of moves that the Patriots used to make. If even one pays off, it can really help their defense. I think Tommie Harris is done. Like his former teammate Mark Anderson, it says something when a d-lineman doesn't produce in Chicago. I've heard people call Ernie Sims a "bust" around the internet which astounds me, as before he got to Philly, he was hailed as by far the best draft pick in the Matt Millen era. Anderson also is not a good pass rusher, but he's quite adept at stuffing the run, something Indy badly needs.

= The New York teams had very similar FA periods. Both teams really did nothing. The Jets scrapped the heap of old veteran receivers (Burress, Mason) and let two younger receivers go (Braylon, Cotchery). They also missed out on Nnamdi. The Giants didn't sign anyone of note (other than David Baas - which isn't really of note). But what they did that makes me think they came out of the FA period ahead of the Jets is that they resigned their key guys. They got back Bradshaw and Jacobs. They resigned Barry Cofield and Rocky Bernard. They did lose Steve Smith, but they have two WRs ready to explode (Nicks - who already has - and Mario Manningham). The biggest loss might actually be Kevin Boss. Anyway, I think the Jets got worse. The Giants stayed about the same, and they were probably better than their record in 2010.

= The new QBs (apart from Tarvaris) are all in interesting situations. Kevin Kolb obviously is the highest profile because he probably has the best chance to make the playoffs. The o-line is the only below average unit on the Cards. Even with Breaston gone he has the receivers. The defense has playmakers. And of course, I would be remiss to mention that playing in the NFC West helps a lot. The Titans' move for Hasselbeck is curious. He''s basically washed up and was having a lousy year before a brief rennaissance in the postseason. Chris Johnson is threatening a hold-out and Jeff Fisher is gone. Not really a stable environment for a older QB on a new team.

= I love what the Saints did. The only starter they lost was Jonathan Goodwin, but they went out and found a nice stop=gap in Olin Kruetz. Either way, their o-line is good enough to handle the loss of one guy. They resigned almost every other major FA they had (Carl Nicks, Lance Moore, Pierre Thomas, Roman Harper, Anthony Hargrove). Then, they were smartly active in FA. Their 1-yr deal for Aubrayo Franklin was genius. He'll have to be motivated since he's up for a new contract after 2011. Shaun Rogers also provides even more beef up front. Finally, their signing of Darren Sproles was great. Sean Payton is the best person to use someone like Sproles. WIth Ingram in they shouldn't lose much of Reggie Bush's running, but they are replacing Bush's receiving with Sproles. He's a little less consistent, but Sproles is more explosive.

= Finally, while the FA period is fun and all, there is a reason why the two teams that met for the Super Bowl signed exactly one FA from another team that anyone has ever heard of (Steelers signing Cotchery). That's because FA is the most overrated thing in football. This isn't baseball, where players are generally good until about 32 or 33, and then start declining. Most football players that last to a second contract are generally done around 28 or 29, and then start declining. This is especially true of positions like RB, TE, DT, CB (of course, like in anything, there are exceptions). Nate Dunlevy, the brilliant Colts' blogger over at 18to88.com did a draft study, to see what teams are the best at drafting over the past 10 years (2001-2010 drafts). It was a cursory study that used the draft value chart to assign an expected value to each pick, and then the players career AV (added value - a nice stat to judge the ability of a player; the stat was created by pro-football-reference.com). The study revealed some obvious things (like the fact that the Colts, Steelers and Packers were the best drafting teams), but also revealed something telling. I helped out in the project collecting the draft info for each team and Nate asked me to write down both AV by a player for the team he was drafted by and future teams, to get a sense of what team did the best job of getting the most out of their drafted players. The Broncos were the worst team at getting the most out of their own players, and they get 66% of their players career AV. Anyway, here is what this has to do with FA. The WORST team in the NFL at getting value out of its drafted players get 66% of its draftees career value. Most teams are in the 70s and 80s. Basically what this is saying is that FAs rarely produce much after they leave their original team. In fact, most produce very little. Football teams are great at squeezing every last bit of value out of their own players. FA is more often than not a mistake. That's probably why the Steelers and Packers stayed clear. They know the way.

The #3 Athlete of the 2000s: Zinedine Zidane

2011-08-10T13:34:00.000-04:00

(I was going to release this when I first wrote it on July 14th, but I was in India, land of the slow internet connection. Because of this, uploading the videos was near impossible, and since Zidane is basically impossible to capture in writing, the videos were absolutely necessary).

The #3 Athlete of the 2000s: Zinedine Zidane

I'm writing this a week late, five days and seven years after Mr. Zidane played his final game, and made one final mark on the pitch in international football. Five years have passed since Zinedine Zidane, in which the world coronated four different players as his heir, as "The Best Player in the World." The crown went from Ronaldinho to Kaka to Cristiano Ronaldo from 2005-2008, all three having dizzying heights, especially the first of the three (we are all victims of forgetting just how good Ronaldinho was in his too-short prime). The crown finally landed upon Lionel Messi, and he's had it for three years running. Football has finally found a new heir, but it will take a while before anyone reaches the ridiculous heights that Zidane reached for ten years from 1996-2006. Since this is a best of the decade ranking, here is the short list of achievements that Zidane has that AREN'T included in this decade:

- 1998 World Cup (including two goals in the final)
- 1998 FIFA Player of the Year
- 1998 Ballod D'Or Winner
- 1996-97 & 1997-98 Champions League Finalist (with Juventus)
- 1995-96 UEFA Cup Finalist (with Bordeaux - a one man team)
- 1996-97 & 1997-98 Seria A Titles

Again, all of this is, in the case of this ranking, irrelevant. All of this preceded Zidane v 2.0, the player that made a superstar into a legend. Zidane is the odd player who's prime does not perfectly align with a particular decade. Michael Jordan actually had this problem as his true prime was from mid-80's to mid-90's (luckily for him the rest was amazing anyway). Zidane had five years at the end of the 90's and six years to start the 2000s that were the stuff of legend. Luckily for him, he did enough in those six years to better all but two athletes. Zizou, the man who made millions pour onto the Champs Elyssee, the man who made one of the sickest goals happen, the man who was the richest transfer fee of all time for 8 years and still holds it if inflation is counted, the man, the myth and the legend. Zinedine Zidane is the 3rd best athlete of the 2000s, despite him not playing a minute of the last 4 years.

What Lionel Messi does is easy to explain. He's incredible with the ball and has arguably the greatest left foot ever. He keeps the ball tied to his foot like it was literally tied to his foot. He is nearly impossible to take down and has every shot in the book. That is what Lionel Messi is, nothing more and nothing less. He does it extremely well, but that is what he does. You couldn't truly describe what Zidane did on the field other than saying it was magic. I'll make an effort to try anyway. Zidane had the ability to impact the game without scoring, but then again all defenders have that too. More so, Zidane had the ability to impact the game seemingly without moving, by just getting the ball and passing it off to streaking teammates in advantageous positions. Zidane was one of the most inventive passers in football history. Other than Peyton Manning, there might not have been a better quarterback in all sports.

Maestro is often the word we here associated with Zidane, and in a way it is perfect. He was the master orchestral conducter managing and directing the other 9 players on the pitch (I'm guessing he had no impact on the goalie, but then again if Tom Brady can make his kickers play better...) with ease. He rarely ever missed a pass, ever. What seperates him from modern pass-masters like Xavi Hernandez is that his passes weren't tiki-taka ones that went five feet, but sweeping, looping passes offsetted by back-heels and two-foot combinations. Zidane was everything a central midfielder should be, but limiting him to just that title would be selling Zizou way too short.

Zidane was also a beast with the ball, as rarely was any player able to strip him of it one-on-one. He didn't do it with the fleet footwork of Lionel Messi, or the galloping strides of Cristiano or the original Ronaldo before him, but with true magic. The magic was that he made the most ridiculous things like his famed spin to aerial kicks look easy and simple. He made the game look easy, like it was something anyone can do, and that is the height of his brilliance. Zidane made what was incredible look commonplace, look ordinary and all-the-more, because what he did that looked incredible was actually utterly insane.

It is still hard to believe it actually happened, and harder to believe how forgotten a moment it is outside of football fan circles. Real Madrid at the final peak of their galactico powers, was tied in the Champions League Final, the cap to the 2001-02 season. Zidane, in his first season in Real Madrid following that 75 Million Euro transfer fee, had already lost two Champions League Finals with Juventus - one to Real Madrid who had won two of the last four before Zidane joined. Zidane needed to make his mark and he did it with a 75 million euro goal. Solari flung the ball airborn in a high, tight arc, into the back of the 18-yd box. The ball was suspended in midair and every player on the pitch awaited its return to earth. Zidane didn't wait but readied himself, and then in one smooth move, swung his left foot (off-foot, it should be mentioned) perfectly into the descending ball, connecting with a sharp volley that slammed into the back of the net. The game was tied no longer.

Zidane had already won another FIFA Player of the Year award in 2000, but this was the real start to his decade. Tragically he got hurt in the run up to the 2002 World Cup and missed France's first two games, which were soulless goalless games. Zidane came back with a vengeance putting together another magnificent season to win the 2003 FIFA World Player of the Year spearheading Real to the La Liga title and managing to be the best player on the field during a Champions League tie with Manchester United, even with Ronaldo getting a hat trick. Zidane then scored the only goal in Real's tough semifinal exit to Juventus. In 2004, Zidane then led France to the late stages of the Euro 2004 tournament with a dramatic brace against England. First was an incredible free kick to tie the game in the 88th minute, a kick so brilliant, goalie David James didn't move an inch. He couldn't, frozen by its brilliance. Then he finished it off with a penalty kick to the collective groins of millions of Englishmen. Later in 2004, Zidane got arguably his most impressive honor.

In 2004 UEFA did a poll of the Best European Footballers of the Past 50 Years to cap its 50th Anniversary celebration. Zidane topped the poll, nudging out Franz Beckenbauer. Before people cry that there was some recency-bias, it should be mentioned that the next highest placing current player was Paolo Maldini at #10. Of course, this was a European only list, so it did not include Pele or Maradona or Ronaldo, but the message was clear, Zidane was the best European Football of the last 50 years......... and this was before his magical 2006 World Cup.

The French National Team's qualification for the 2006 World Cup was going about as well as the plight of the roid-free Tour de France riders. Zidane, who had already retired from international football, was begged to come out of retirement, to help his country. After Zidane returned on September 3rd 2005, France didn't lose another game until after he retired again (losing in penatlies is considered a draw). France ended up qualifying comfortably, and the 2006 World Cup was set and going in Zidane let it be known it would be his swansong from all football, at what a beautiful coda it was.

The group stage for France wasn't anything great, but the four successive knockout games were an epic all-to-themselves. First against Spain, a team who had the foundation of the same team that would dominate international football for the six years after the World Cup, Zidane controlled the game beautifully, many times showing off his trademark passing and eye for the game. His whipping free kick led to the game winning goal, and then in stoppage time added the capper, with his first goal in the World Cup, a goal that is often missed but Zidane made look incredibly easy. A date with Brazil was next.

Zidane made his first ever international statement against Brazil, scoring two headers to win the World Cup. In fact, since 1994, the only World Cup game Brazil lost was that World Cup Final. Coming into the game, the Selecao were on a roll and were the favorite. Then again, no one really realized that Zidane had one last breathtaking game again. Difficult made easy. The 2006 quarterfinal perfected that theme as he danced his way around the Brazilians. Pele later called him "the only Brazilian on the field." His free kick again set up the only goal, but Zidane controlled the match (though I should not France's defense was great throughout the tournament), one that was nowhere as close as the 1-0 scoreline.

The semifinal against Portugal was more of the same, highlighted with a picture perfect penalty kick. Eight years after his brace sent millions into the Champs Elysee, Zidane was back again in the World Cup Final, this time against Italy. The Final was marked by three incidents for Zidane. First was his second consecutive penalty kick goal. A kick so sublime, so insane that few would try it. Zidane chipped the ball so perfectly in bounced off the bottom of the cross bar slowly dropping behind the goalline. The second was his last great moment, a flying header that nearly broke a 1-1 tie in extra time. Gianluigi Buffon had to use every inch of his springing frame to knock it over the bar. The final one was the most memorable, the infamous headbutt, Zidane's act of vigilante justice.

The act itself was admittedly disgraceful, but was not really out of character. Zizou played the beautiful game about as beautiful as it ever has, but that grace belied a true temper. Zidane has a lot more bad tempered moments and red cards than most great footballers. His temper is his one true weakness, and it showed at the worst moment, fifteen minutes before the end of his career. But let the headbutt not spoil Zidane's incredible tournament, one that netted him one last award for the best player of the tournament. Zidane's play against Brazil should be sent straight to the Smithsonian, the equivalent of what Manning's insane game against the Jets in last years AFC Championship game was. Zidane was at his magnificent best in the biggest tournament in the world.

Zidane never played again after the headbutt, but his legacy is still set in stone. Just listen to the experts: "Zidane is one of the 5 greatest players in history, a truly magnificent player" (Beckenbauer). "Zidane is the greatest talent we've seen in the last 20 years (1986-2006), and it was an honour to be his manager" (Juventus manager Marcello Lippi who coached Italy in the headbutt game). "Zidane's the best player I've ever seen" (Roberto Carlos). "Technically, I think he is the king of what's fundamental in the game - control and passing" (Michel Platini). "There's never been anyone quite like him, anyone so magical" (Paolo Maldini).

Zizou was a true magician, and his best magic act might have been his quiet disappearance. It is hard to describe why Zidane isn't remembered as greatly as he should, especially since when it comes time for any true expert or football fan blog to do any sort of top-10 list, or have an irrational Zidane vs Ronaldinho or Zidane vs Messi thread, the cobwebs that lie over Zidane's legacy are dusted off and displayed. Maybe it is because it is all too recent. Maybe because Messi is doing splendid things, but Zidane isn't given the Maradona treatment yet. He will because he deserves it. My guess is his high-profile roles in the football business will only help. Zidane was the face of Qatar's bid for the 2022 World Cup. Zidane is now the sporting director of Real Madrid, a job Jose Mourinho wanted Zidane to get, making him the second most powerful man at Real Madrid after Florentino Perez. Zidane realizes that the world has gotten over the headbutt, that it is time to make that legacy eternal.

I don't want to really get into a Zidane vs Messi debate, partly because Messi isn't done and partly because they play different positions (Zidane vs Ronaldinho makes more sense, but that argument is as dumb as Barry Bonds vs Sammy Sosa but without the roids). That said, here is what I know: Messi has played his entire career with Xavi and Iniesta and that cartel in Barca. Zidane did have great teammates at both Juventus and Real Madrid, but not to the same effect. We haven't seen what Messi can do without those two men, and what evidence we have (World Cup mostly), isn't exactly impressive for Leo. As for Zidane, here are the results that France has put up in major competitions since 1998:

1998: Won World Cup (With Zidane)
2000: Won Euro 2000 (With Zidane)
2002: Lost in group stage (Zidane played 1 out of 3 games)
2004: Lost in Quarterfinals (With Zidane)
2006: Lost in World Cup Final (With Zidane)
2008: Lost in group stage (Without Zidane)
2010: Lost in group stage (Without Zidane).

France has done nothing without Zidane, and everything with him. France had other great players in this era like Thierry Henry, Lilian Thuram, Patrick Vieira and Claude Makalele, but none of those guys could do jack without Zizou, without the magic.

In his final game for Real Madrid, his final game in club football, Real Madrid sent him out like a king, with the whole stadium holding up posters of Zidane's shirt and each player having "Zidane 2001-2006" stiched at the bottom of their shirt. Zidane responded with a sublime header, a goal in his final game. The header was tough in actuality, with Zidane lightly arcing the ball off his head, almost placing it with his head rather than butting it, as it flew softly over the goalie. It was difficult but made to look simple, just like everything else in Zizou's magical career.

Fun With Conspiracies

2011-08-01T09:45:00.007-04:00

When I have a lot of time on my hands, I like to look up something random on Wikipedia. This will ultimately lead to me traipsing around to many different Wikipedia pages, just reading up on different things. A couple days ago I was on Youtube and I was somehow linked over to a “Paul is Dead: The Evidence” video that gave evidence to the conspiracy theory that Paul McCartney has been dead for 45 years. That got me over to the “Paul is Dead” wiki page, which got me to the Wiki page for all conspiracies. The night somehow ended in me watching a documentary on Youtube about Jeffrey Dahmer (I shit you not – it was actually quite good), and one on alternative theories in the OJ case (his son killed Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, or some hitman for the drug mafia). Anyway, it got me thinking as to what my personal favorite conspiracy theories are, in both sports and the wide world. Here they are now, my Top 10 conspiracy theories, 5 related to sports and 5 related to the world at large.

Honorable Mention.) 9/11 Was an Inside Job

I don’t want to talk about this one mainly because it would be so abhorrently evil if it was true. It will ruin America forever, and I’m sure of that. It would be an injustice on the level of the Nazi Party and the holocaust, and I believe that, as everything that the US has done in war in Iraq, Afghanistan stems from the actions of 9/11. If it was an inside job, and the WTC were downed in a control demolition, it would be the biggest political scandal ever, BY FAR. It would be an event that reaches far beyond anything I can currently comprehend.

The Sports’ Conspiracies

10.) Brazil Threw their 2006 Quarterfinal against France

I first saw this conspiracy bandied about after the World Cup finish in a pretty shoddy Youtube video. The main claims were that many of the Brazilian players were seen crying before the national anthem (as in they were depressed that they knew they would lose), and more jarringly, only three Brazilians even attempted to defend Zidane’s free kick which was tapped in by Henry for the only goal. In fact, one Brazilian defender is noticeably seen tying his shoe when the ball is in the air for what would be the goal. I doubt this has any merit too it, mainly because the Brazilians did put on a spirited effort to tie the game in the last 10 minutes, and Brazil is notorious for not defending set plays (which is just how they lost in 2010 to Holland). That said, I wanted France to win, but to see them absolutely dominate Brazil in that fashion was a bit odd. In the end it gets chalked up to France’s great defense and Zidane playing out of his skull, but Brazil definitely played soullessly enough to merit a thought of whether they were really in the game for the long haul.

9.) Barcelona gets preferential treatment

This started back in 2009, when Barcelona, a truly incredible team headed by Messi, Henry and Eto’o (they weren’t yet made up of basically the entire Spanish National team minus Casillas, Xabi Alonso and Torres). They were exciting, free-flowing, and mostly new. People weren’t tired of seeing them string together 5-foot passes yet. They met Chelsea in the Champions League semifinal, and Chelsea, in the mold of their previous manager Jose Mourinho, played all-out defense for 90 minutes in the Camp Nou in the first leg. I remember seeing the game and claiming that their strategy was “any time we get, give it to Cech, let him kick the ball 100 yards, and have Barcelona try it again.” It worked well enough, and then with Michael Essien’s super strike early in the second leg at Stamford Bridge, it seemed that the plan might just work. Then the injustice began. There were six shouts for penalties, ranging from the hollow (a push in the box by a Barca player, something that rarely gets called), to the incredibly, heinously obvious (a handball that would make Luis Suarez blush). None of them were granted, and in the 93^rd minute Andres Iniesta scored. Barcelona went through on away goals and beat Manchester Utd. In the final. The only reason why UEFA would want Barca and not Chelsea would be to avoid a 2^nd consecutive Man U – Chelsea final. I chalk that one down to incompetence. After the last two years, I’m not so sure.

In 2010, in the CL Semifinals, Barca was given the advantage of basically playing the entire second leg 11 on 10 after Tiago Motta was given a straight-red for an arm-bar that at worst deserved a yellow. Sergio “The Rat” Busquets (nicknamed so by me) crumpled down and then peeked to see if the ref was buying it. The ref initially didn’t, so Busquets rolled around some more, and then the ref gave the straight red. Inter defended brilliantly with 10 men and knocked out Barca, giving way to a boring final between Inter and Bayern Munich that UEFA probably wanted to avoid. 2011 was worse, when Barcelona was given an 11 on 10 advantage in the second leg of the Round of 16 tie against Arsenal (after losing leg one 1-2), and then again in the first leg of the semifinal against Real Madrid (after being scoreless for nearly 70 minutes). The Arsenal one was ridiculous, when Robin van Persie kicked away a ball barely a second after the offsides whistle blew, resulting in his second yellow. Oddly (or not so oddly), Barca did the same thing later and weren’t given a yellow card. The game was tied 1-1 when van Persie left (Arsenal up 3-2 on aggregate), before Barca scored two goals to advance. In the semifinal, Real Madrid had basically equaled Barca with great defense mainly due to Pepe’s covering of Messi. Then, after in what was actually a play with little to no contact, Pepe was given a red for swinging his leg to kick and airborn ball, but missing and getting Dani Alves’ leg. Alves went down as if he would need the leg amputated, and the medical staff carried him off on a stretcher. The lasting sight was Alves wanting to get off the stretcher before it even left the field and the Barca health team pleading with him to stay until they reach the bench, just to make the flop look 10% more decent. After Pepe left, Barca scored two goals turning the second leg into a dud.

The main point is why would UEFA favor Barcelona?? It is obvious really. A lot of the UEFA heads are Spanish, and Barca has ties in UEFA upper management. Barca is also seen as the crown jewel of the sport, the Lakers of UEFA, as they were sponsored by UNICEF, and played the beautiful game beautifully. Referees probably had no financial reason to favor Barcelona, but the amazing string of calls and cards to go for Barcelona is jarring. Both their 2009 and 2011 CL Titles were won under a shroud of controversy (leading to Mourinho’s hilarious quote that Pep Guardiola should feel ashamed that he’s never reached the CL Final without cheating). Barcelona is given the benefit of the doubt on almost every call. It probably doesn’t help that they are the best floppers out there. If it is true, then that probably just adds to the legacy of cheating and shadiness in UEFA and FIFA. It makes Jose Mourinho not look like a madman, and probably makes Messi come under darker light. I don’t think it is true, but in a sport with rampant favoritism and bribing, it could easily be possible.

8.) The Patriots did tape the Rams Walkthrough (and other Spygate related conspiracies)

Let’s take a trip back to late-January 2008. Before the 18-0 Patriots were set to play the Giants in Super Bowl XLII, a Boston paper released a story from a certain Matt Walsh, alleging that the he, a former video employee for the Pats, taped the Rams walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI. This unleashed a 2^nd round of Spygate drama, and although it was eventually shot down by the Patriots and the paper admitted fault, I’ve always believed that there was more to that story, and Spygate as a whole, that met the eye.

Roger Goodell really screwed himself in the Spygate circus by burning the tapes. That was a silly move that makes everyone think if he was hiding something, if the tapes were more useful than the Patriots spun them to be, which is a legitimate thought. Goodell finished the discipline over Spygate in about two days, seemingly very hastily. It was all very hush-hush and them the walkthrough story comes out. Why would Matt Walsh just tell a bold-faced lie? How could he get so specific as to say he taped the Rams walkthrough? For a team who was caught cheating by stealing signals, was taping a walktrough that much of a step up? All in all, it has never been proven and the story died a quick death, but what if it was true? If the Patriots really did tape that walkthrough, I think they should be stripped of their 2001 Super Bowl Title. Taping the signals on game day is one thing. Secretly taping another teams’ private practice is about as low as it can get. In a way, I’m happy the story wasn’t true because that would have released a shitstorm on the NFL that I wouldn’t have wanted to see.

7.) Every NBA Draft Lottery is fixed.

Doesn’t it seem a bit odd that so many draft lotteries are won by teams with little chance of winning them? Doesn’t it seem a bit odd that so many players go to teams that make sense. The year University of Houston center Hakeem Olajuwon was the 1^st pick, it just so happens that the Rockets win the lottery? The year that Akron native LeBron James is the first pick it just so happens that the Cavaliers win the lottery? The year that Chicago native Derrick Rose is the obvious 1^st pick it just so happens that the Bulls win the lottery against tall odds? Doesn’t it seem strange that almost always when there is a sure-fire 1^st pick, the lottery is almost always won by a premier team or a team with close ties to the player?

The draft lottery’s most notable shadiest moment came in 1985 when Patrick Ewing was the prize. The Knicks were in need of a jolt, and they, against tall odds, one the lottery. Back then, they put a bunch of cards into a spinning cauldron and Stern spun the wheel and then picked out a card, so the story goes that the NBA put a Knicks card in a freezer to make it icy cold, so Stern would know which card was the Knicks and then to pull that card. The next bit of conspiracy evidence is that Stern really takes a while rummaging his hand through the vat of cards before choosing one. Now a days, the lottery is actually done off-site, and then they reveal the order, but how can you really trust what is going on? All in all, even if it is true, that the lottery is many times fixed, it doesn’t really change my perceptions of the NBA. The NBA is already the most crooked of the 4 major sports, and especially so after the MLB cleaned itself up. The refs have more impact in the NBA than any other league, and one player can have more impact than in any other league. I will say that notable examples of lotteries appearing shady are with teams that don’t have great histories (The Cavs, the Rockets), but it definitely is odd to see so many guys get drafted #1 to a team close to home, especially when those teams are rarely the odds-on favorite to win the lottery.

6.) Michael Jordan was suspended for gambling.

Michael Jordan’s abrupt retirement from the NBA in 1993, which led to a comical career in Minor League Baseball is probably the strangest story in NBA history. Here was an athlete that had just won three titles and was on his way to having a career that would eventually make him almost undisputably the best NBA player ever. He was at the top of his game when he just decided to give it all up to play baseball? Jordan claimed it was part of the fallout of the murder of his father and just a tiredness from the game, but that makes no sense for a guy so insanely driven by basketball and by winning. He wouldn’t want to go play a game that he was not the best in, that he could not win in. Over the years, the conspiracy theory developed that Michael was suspended from the league for 18 months for gambling too much (not necessarily on the game of basketball Pete Rose style, but that Jordan’s obvious gambling addiction was harming the league’s image, not only his personal finances). As weird as it seems, it makes perfect sense.

Jordan’s gambling problem was supposedly permeating through the team, as he would raise stakes on nearly everything, from a shootaround in practice to poker on the team plane. He was truly addicted (by all reports, he very well could still be). Stern, instead of publicly scolding the league’s biggest star, gave Jordan the option to temporarily “retire” from basketball as a way to serve his suspension and save face with endorsers. If any commissioner would think of such a plan, it is David Stern. Stern knew that a public suspension would be bad for the league, worse than even if Michael left for a while. Granted, Michael retiring still hurt the league tremendously, as attendance and ratings fell to a point that there was a legitimate discussion as to if the NHL could pass the NBA in popularity. Then, like the knight in shining armor, Jordan returns to save the league, win three more titles and put any questions over his “best-ever” worthiness to rest. I’m not sure if it is true, but I will say that out of all the conspiracy theory’s on the list, this is the one with the highest chance of actually being true.

Other Conspiracies

5.) There is a New World Order hideout under Denver International Airport

I’m guessing 99.9% of the population has never heard of this conspiracy and that is because it is patently absurd; but then again, that makes for the most entertaining conspiracy. Denver opened its new airport sometime in 1995 and it had a lot of architectural quirks. There is a bronze statue of a lot of symbols, one of which includes the phrase “New World Airport Commission”. The New World Order is a secret group of people conspiring to rule the world under one global government, and will use genocide to get the world to that stage, and part of the theory is that members of the order had a hand in building the airport (hence the “New World” Airport Commission). Anyway, after Denver International Airport was built, there were conspiracy theories that the US Military had built large underground bases, and one of them was supposed to be under Denver International. Then, a man who worked on building underground tunnels (reportedly to aid the quick transition of cargo, bags and fuel across the airport) claimed to have seen large “holding cells perfect for prisoners”, and “strange electromagnetic forces.” There are strange words, like “Cochetopa”, “Sisnaajini”, and “Dzit Dit Gaii” which conspiratists point to being a secret New World Order code. Finally, there is a haunting mural painted on the walls of the airport that depicts, of all things, genocide taking place, and after the genocide ends, the children of the world coming together under one rule (just like the supposed plan of the New World Order). Therefore, the theory states, Denver International Airport is a base for the New World Order to carry out part of their plans.

Of course, most of this has been debunked. The airport uses those tunnels (they do exist) to, as I said earlier, carry bags and cargo across the long airport. The words cut in the floor are Navajo words which are the words for different Colorado Native landmarks. Also, the paining is haunting, but it is about how the people of the world will come together to defeat genocide (not come together because of it…. And yes this is admittedly a stupid theme for a mural in an airport). However, the New World Airport Commission is pretty hard to explain. It looks like these evidences of a New World Order base at Denver International are really hollow, but nevertheless it is a wild theory that I, a lover of airports, am particularly smitten towards. Denver International is almost assuredly not a New World Order base camp/prison, but even then, the architects did a nice job of leaving enough strange elements to get people talking about the airport.

(I forgot one, although this has less to do with the New World Order aspect of it all: From the air, the layout of the runways of the airport make out what looks to be a Swastika. Of course, it takes a creative mind to fill in the gaps in the swastika, and this can also easily be explained, as the airport built runways in all directions, spreading them out so if crosswinds were to occur, at least two runways could be used. Then again, why a swastika type shape???)

4.) Elvis is Still Alive

To me, this conspiracy, if proven true, would be more meaningful and memorable than if the other theories about musician deaths were true, such as if Tupac was still alive, if Michael Jackson were still alive, or if Kurt Cobain was murdered and didn’t commit suicide. Elvis being alive has more merit than those (although the Cobain one is interesting, I ultimately put it right next to JFK as theories that wouldn’t really change anything if they were proven true). The basis for Tupac being alive was the proclivity of songs sampling him being produced after his death, though this can be explained through a catalog of recordings of his being made prior to his death and unused. The Michael Jackson ones have no merit at all. Elvis is a different story.

The amount of Elvis sightings since his death in 1977 are quite numerous, and deep in scope, with people claiming to know him well after death and being close friends (rather than just “saw him across the dark room” witnesses). Elvis would be just 76 today, so he could easily be alive. His death itself was quite mysterious, as he did amid a maze of drugs and illnesses, but he did not have any serious illness (cancer), nor was he the drug addict like a Jim Morrison or Jimi Hendrix. There is no reason for Elvis to have possibly made the career move of dying (other than the theory that many musicians find their greatest success after their death). If Elvis is still alive, he’s hid it well – which gels with a lot of the Elvis sightings as many people who claim to have seen him say that Elvis put on a totally new persona. Elvis is most probably dead, but it is always interesting to theorize that people who died are still among us.

3.) Osama was killed some time before the announcement

I’ll admit that this one is probably something I’m hesitant to talk about since it is political, but I feel it is an interesting theory, especially since if it was true probably doesn’t hurt Obama as much as it would seem. The theory is that Osama Bin Laden was killed well before the May 2^nd national announcement, one that was delayed about 2 hours from its originally scheduled time. The killing of Osama was a rallying day for the US as a whole, and really a perfect excuse for college kids everywhere to get hammered on a Sunday in celebration. More reverently, it was seen as a seminal day in the war on terror, and a day of rejoice across the world, that that madman would never harm another soul. The only question was when did he actually die? If he died that day, it would be extremely difficult to verify the body as him using DNA that quickly. If it was done a couple days earlier, which is not only likely but highly possible, there are two good reasons for Obama waiting on the announcement, one that especially doesn’t hurt his reputation. The first is the more scurrilous reason that he wanted to wait specifically for the 8^th anniversary of Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech, as a way of saying to all Republicans “The Mission is Accomplished Now, Bitches!”. The other was that he didn’t want an announcement of his death to coincide with the Royal Wedding earlier that weekend, which oddly makes sense. The Royal Wedding was a global event, and Osama wouldn’t have been more or less dead if he waited another day.

That said, there are darker theories, ones that claim that Osama died years earlier, and Obama was waiting to use the killing of Osama Bin Laden as a trump card to play anytime he felt his poll numbers were lagging. I say bunk to that theory since then why wouldn’t he wait closer to the election, when he knew his opponent. I mean, Obama’s approval ratings did get the inevitable bump (just like Bush’s did when Saddam was captured), but if the economy continues to lag, the specter of Osama Bin Laden’s death will shine less brightly upon Obama. Another theory is that Osama died of Farney’s disease, and that the US kept his body in a plan to use it, again as a trump card, although this is probably even less true as it alleges he died sometime during the Bush administration. Generally, most of these dark theories are just the mad concoctions of FOX NEWS and their viewers/supporters who are all a bit miffed at the credit Obama is taking for offing Osama. That said, I could easily see a case where he actually died a day or two before Obama’s national announcement, and then the delay with the announcement was caused by the administration making sure they covered their tracks.

2.) The 2000 election was fixed in Florida

Political again, but unlike Osama Bin Laden’s death, the 2000 Election has become something of a pop-culture event than a political race. Let’s go back to 2000, on a November night. Al Gore was winning a lot of the big states, but Bush was taking every last small state, and finally we were down to a situation where Al Gore was just three electoral votes away, and Bush 24, with Florida (and its 25 votes) the only state left. If Gore had won any of the 3-vote states (like Montana, the Dakotas), or even his homestate of Tennessee, or Clinton’s home state of Arkansas, the Florida result would have been moot. But alas, it was not, and it was first called to Gore, then Bush (leading to Gore conceding the race), to “too-close-to-call” (leading to Gore un-conceeding the race), back to Bush, and finally resting on “too-close-to-call”, the spot it would lie for several weeks. Over the next month, the country got all-too familiar with hanging-chads, Dade & Broward County, the prospect of a recount, absentee ballots, and the world got to laugh at a country who couldn’t effectively pick a president. In the end, the Supreme Court upheld a law that stated that recounts only had a certain time to be processed, and the state of Florida went passed that time, and basically awarded Florida to Bush and the presidency to Bush. After the dust settled, George W. Bush was our president, becoming just the 3^rd president to lose the popular vote. Al Gore became the world’s most prominent Global-Warming Awareness leader, and the country went back to forgetting what a hanging chad was. However, was Gore even given a fair chance in Florida?

A lot of the problems stemmed from the ridiculous voting results from two counties: Dade and Broward; two counties that both had a high percentage of Jewish residents as well as a shockingly high percentage of votes for 3^rd Party candidate Pat Buchannan. What really made the story ridiculous was that Pat Buchannan was a staunchly conservative Christian, which made it very unlikely that he would receive significantly more votes from two highly Jewish concentrated counties than in any other county in the country. A likely explanation was that the maddeningly confusing of the manual ballot made people who thought they were voting for Al Gore vote instead for Pat Buchannan. Al Gore lost those two counties big time, and if he would’ve gotten 90% of the Buchannan vote, he wins the counties and then the election. Of course, this is where the fix possibly comes in. The state of Florida, instead of issuing a re-election in those counties with a better ballot, decided to keep those results, but recount them. This was despite the many cries of people in Dade and Broward County claiming that they voted for Buchannan mistakenly, instead of voting for Gore. In the end, the recount took forever, and it was mainly held up in the state government bureaucracy, and it just so happened that in the state of Florida, George Bush had his own brother as governor. The recount was held up, and finally took too long to be completed within the deadline set by the courts. Bush was president.

Now, I don’t think Florida was fixed prior to the election, nor do I think that the ballots in those counties were intentionally made in a confusing manner to draw votes away from Gore (and it can be said that Bush would be affected from the same confusing ballot – although it should be noted that there was no irregular voting for the candidates surrounding Bush’s place on the ballot). However, I think it is entirely plausible that Florida, a state headed by a Republican governor who happened to be the main Republican candidate’s brother, and a sate with a high republican presence in its state courts, would try everything to slow down this recount. Lost in all of this is if they never did do a re-vote in Dade and Broward counties, Bush probably still wins, but the actions of everyone involved in Florida wreaks of shadiness and purposeful laziness. I’m not sure why any ballot would ever be made that confusing, or manual, but Florida for some reason thought it was a good idea.

1.) “Paul is Dead” is true.

The Grand-Daddy conspiracy theory. Not only is it among the most interesting to dissect, but it is probably the theory that would give the most “Holy Shit” reaction if it was in fact true (well, apart from the 9/11 one). The theory is simple, really: Paul McCartney died in a car accident (an accident that definitely did happen) in 1966, and was replaced by a look-alike. The Beatles, troubled with guilt for hiding the death of their band mate, littered the proceeding four or five Beatles’ albums with clues to reveal that Paul was dead. Some clues are quite interesting. If you play some songs backwards of the Beatles, you get a long drawn out noise of a car crash, a man screaming and a woman crying, and then an ambulance. In another song, when played backwards, John Lennon is heard saying “Paul is Gone.” There are more symbolic lyrics to Paul death than I can possibly write (all when played forward, mind you). Then there are many visual clues on album art. The cover of ‘Abbey Road’ is the most infamous, where Paul is barefoot and out of step with the rest of the Beatles, who are dressed as if going to a funeral (John in the preacher’s white, Ringo and George in mourning black). In ‘Sgt. Peppers Lonely Heart’s Club Band’, and a couple other albums, there are hands extended up in a blessed pose above Paul’s head. Then, there is the whole story of the look-alike. The Beatle’s held a Paul Look-alike contest shortly before his death, and the claim is that they used the winner in the contest to be Paul. Of course, the winner would have to both be left-handed, sound like Paul and be quite musical, but the theory goes that they found someone who was all three. Paul died in 1966, and the Beatles replaced him? Too crazy to be true, but alternatively, just as crazy that it might.

The evidence against this obviously is that it would have been extremely hard for the Beatles to find someone to emulate Paul so perfectly that no one could ever use Paul’s appearance or voice as clues. Think about that. Not one of the common clues for the “Paul is Dead” crowd is anything like “Paul stopped sounding the same” or “Paul looked different pre-1966 and post.” They are all just supposed clues littered along the album covers and in the songs of the Beatles. That said, the accident definitely happened, and there were talks of a premature TV report that Paul McCartney had died in a car accident. The Beatles did have a natural place to go with a replacement from the look-alike, and the Beatles were the type of band who would bandy about clues among their songs and the album artwork. There were also notable clues to the Beatles being reduced to “3” (John, George, Ringo) in songs post-1966. All in all, the circumstantial evidence is there, but they could all be the machinations of minds similar to those who claim the Dark Side of the Moon lines up perfectly with ‘The Wizard of Oz’ (which is a theory that just missed the list, mostly because I’ve never put it to the test). Paul is almost assuredly alive.

Then again, wouldn’t it be truly incredibly if the theory was true, if the Beatles were slyly employing a fake Paul for all those years, if the man now beloved as Paul McCartney, the last remaining relevant Beatle (Ringo Starr can count in millions in the relative obscurity that is his life now), is in fact an imposter, a replacement? The Beatles would have carried out one of the great hoaxes of all time, and done it under intense scrutiny over, what is now, 45 years. If Paul McCartney did die, that means millions have probably wasted their money going to Paul McCartney solo concerts these past 20 or so years. I will say that the replacement would have had to be quite an artist to be as successful as solo Paul. If Paul McCartney did die that night in 1966, it would probably have been one of the biggest “what-if?” deaths of all time, cutting off a bright bulb so shortly into a career. Paul McCartney, one can argue, is the biggest musical star right now, in that he could command the highest price. He’s still a Beatle, for shits sake. However, he easily could not be a Beatle, and the clues are there to say that we should have known it all along.

NFL Top 200: Breaking it Down by Position

2011-07-14T13:58:00.005-04:00

Before we start, here is a disclaimer: I was going to break this down by team as well but I realized that a ton of these guys are free agents, and the amount of guys on particular teams can drastically change (as can the teams in the broader sense of who is good or bad). Case in point - the Raiders have 8 players ranked, but three of them are free agents and can easily be gone (Asomugha, Gallery and Miller). When the FA period sorts itself out in a ridiculous frenzy that it will assuredly be, I'll do the team-by-team breakdown. Anyway, let's get to the positional groupings, and here are the Top-10 (plus 1) at each position by ranking

Safety

11.) Chris Harris, CHI

10.) Oshiomogho Atogwe, STL
9.) Michael Griffin, TEN
8.) Eric Weddle, SD
7.) Antoine Bethea, IND
6.) Charles Godfrey, CAR
5.) Adrian Wilson, ARZ
4.) Nick Collins, GB
3.) LaRon Landry, WAS
2.) Troy Polamalu, PIT
1.) Ed Reed, BAL

Cornerback

11.) Antoine Cason, SD

10.) Charles Tillman, CHI
9.) Tramon Williams, GB
8.) Jerraud Powers, IND
7.) Devin McCourty, NE
6.) Antoine Winfield, MIN
5.) Jabari Greer, NO
4.) Charles Woodson, GB
3.) Nnamdi Asomugha, OAK
2.) Asante Samuel, PHI
1.) Darrelle Revis, NYJ

Outside Linebacker
(both 4-3 and 3-4)

11.) Geno Hayes, TB

10.) Stephen Tulloch, TEN
9.) Elvis Dumervil, DEN
8.) Shaun Phillips, SD
7.) Lance Briggs, CHI
6.) Cameron Wake, MIA
5.) LaMarr Woodley, PIT
4.) James Harrison, PIT
3.) Terrell Suggs, BAL
2.) Clay Matthews III, GB
1.) DeMarcus Ware, DAL

Inside Linebacker
(both 4-3 and 3-4)

11.) Curtis Lofton, ATL

10.) DeMeco Ryans, HOU
9.) Daryl Smith, JAX
8.) Lofa Tatupu, SEA
7.) Jon Beason, CAR
6.) Jonathan Vilma, NO
5.) Jerod Mayo, NE
4.) Chad Greenway, MIN
3.) Ray Lewis, BAL
2.) Brian Urlacher, CHI
1.) Patrick Willis, SF

Defensive End
(4-3 only)

11.) Osi Umenyiora, NYG

10.) Justin Smith, SF
9.) Tamba Hali, KC
8.) Robert Mathis, IND
7.) Jared Allen, MIN
6.) Trent Cole, PHI
5.) John Abraham, ATL
4.) Mario Williams, HOU
3.) Julius Peppers, CHI
2.) Justin Tuck. NYG
1.) Dwight Freeney, IND

Defensive Tackle/Nose Tackle
(3-4 DE and 4-3 DT)

11.) Kyle Williams, BUF

10.) Kevin Williams, MIN
9.) Terrance Knighton, JAX
8.) Jay Ratliff, DAL
7.) Casey Hampton, PIT
6.) Ndamukong Suh, DET
5.) Darnell Dockett, ARZ
4.) Jonathan Babineaux, ATL
3.) Richard Seymour, OAK
2.) Vince Wilfork, NE
1.) Haloti Ngata, BAL

Guards/Centers

11.) Jeff Saturday, IND

10.) Todd Harremens, PHI
9.) Ben Grubbs, BAL
8.) Carl Nicks, NO
7.) Dan Koppen, NE
6.) Robert Gallery, OAK
5.) Chris Snee, NYG
4.) Logan Mankins, NE
3.) Jahri Evans, NO
2.) Harvey Dahl, ATL
1.) Nick Mangold, NYJ

Tackles

11.) Sebastian Vollmer, NE

10.) Tyson Clabo, ATL
9.) D'Brickshaw Ferguson, NYJ
8.) Andrew Whitworth, CIN
7.) Eric Winston, HOU
6.) Donald Penn, TB
5.) Ryan Clady, DEN
4.) Jordan Gross, CAR
3.) David Stewart, TEN
2.) Jake Long, MIA
1.) Joe Thomas, CLE

Tight Ends

10.) Brandon Pettigrew, DET

9.) Owen Daniels, HOU
8.) Heath Miller, PIT
7.) Dustin Keller, NYJ
6.) Marcedes Lewis, JAX
5.) Zach Miller, OAK
4.) Dallas Clark, IND
3.) Jason Witten, DAL
2.) Vernon Davis, SF
1.) Antonio Gates, SD

Wide Receivers

11.) Vincent Jackson, SD

10.) Austin Collie, IND
9.) DeSean Jackson, PHI
8.) Reggie Wayne, IND
7.) Hakeem Nicks, NYG
6.) Greg Jennings, GB
5.) Santonio Holmes, NYJ
4.) Roddy White, ATL
3.) Calvin Johnson, DET
2.) Larry Fitzgerald, ARZ
1.) Andre Johnson, HOU

*- Devin Hester is ranked as the 7th highest WR, but that is almost all due to his returning.

Running Backs

11.) Steven Jackson, STL

10.) Rashard Mendenhall, PIT
9.) Michael Turner, ATL
8.) LeSean McCoy, PHI
7.) Arian Foster, HOU
6.) Darren McFadden, OAK
5.) Jamaal Charles, KC
4.) Ray Rice, BAL
3.) Chris Johnson, TEN
2.) Maurice Jones-Drew, JAX
1.) Adrian Peterson, MIN

Quarterbacks

11.) Matt Ryan, ATL

10.) Joe Flacco, BAL
9.) Eli Manning, NYG
8.) Michael Vick, PHI
7.) Matt Schaub, HOU
6.) Drew Brees, NO
5.) Ben Roethlisberger, PIT
4.) Philip Rivers, SD
3.) Aaron Rodgers, GB
2.) Tom Brady, NE
1.) Peyton Manning, IND

There you have it, broken down by position. With the lockout hopefully ending within days, the Free Agent frenzy might really change some of those three letter abbreviations next to the players names.