NFL 2013: Week 14 Picks

Week 13: Didn't pick games

Year-to-Date: 99-74-3

Houston Texans (2-10)  @  Jacksonville Jaguars (3-9)  (HOU -2.5)

This has to be the biggest insult to the Jaguars. They have won three out of four, including a win in Houston, and are now underdogs at home to a team that has lost ten games in a row. The Jaguars still don't have much talent. It is a mystery how they've won any games, but alas they have. I think they get another, improbably giving them four when they looked like a shoo-in for 1-15 at best after losing Justin Blackmon for the season a month ago. I believe the Texans will have a big letdown after losing last week to New England when they seemed to give a whole lot in that game.

Texans 17  Jaguars 23  (JAX +2.5)

Kansas City Chiefs (9-3)  @  Washington Redskins (3-9)  (KC -3)

The Chiefs went through a string of games late in their 9-0 start where they were favored by very little against bad to mediocre teams. After three straight losses to the two best QBs in the AFC this season (yes, I still believe Philip Rivers has been better than Tom Brady in this here 2013 season), they can get back to being who they were: a good defensive team that makes enough offensive plays to beat its overmatched opponent. The Redskins might have some fight at home, but I think most of that fight ended with their loss last Sunday Night.

Chiefs 27  Redskins 20  (KC -3)

Minnesota Vikings (3-8-1)  @  Baltimore Ravens (6-6)  (BAL -6)

This is one of the handful of games that could be severely impacted by weather this weekend. The Vikings are probably better suited to be playing in freezing rain than Baltimore on offense, with a running game capable of taking over for a passing game that can do nothing, but the Ravens defense is so much better, and at home. The Ravens have been dominant at home for three seasons now, and picking them to cover against a bad team by less than a TD is a pretty safe bet.

Vikings 13  Ravens 23  (BAL -6) 

Oakland Raiders (4-8)  @  New York Jets (5-7)  (NYJ -2.5)

I want no part of this game. I enjoyed the brief Terrelle Pryor inspired renaissance the Raiders enjoyed in their 3-4 start, but watching Matt McGloin week after week is killing me. He's an absolutely average QB, and I hope to dear God the Raiders don't think he's a better option for 2014 than Pryor. The Raiders could easily finish 4-12, but I really hope they let Dennis Allen get more time to work with that team. This was a long rebuild, and I think Dennis Allen should be a part of it. I don't know why I turned this game pick into a long story about the Raiders, but I hate talking about the Jets. I really don't care in this game.

Raiders 17  Jets 20  (NYJ -2.5) 

Buffalo Bills (4-8)  @  Tampa Bay Buccaneers (3-9)  (TB -3)

Another game I really don't care to pick, but I'll try to give it more effort than I did with the Raiders vs. Jets pick. The Bills are a perfectly OK team that will keep most games close, and that is a nice recipe to beat the Buccaneers. Greg Schiano probably knows well how to stop a college-inspired offense like what Buffalo runs. This is probably the best opportunity for the Bucs to get a win in thei remaining games, but I really don't think that is going to happen. They got fortunate in their win in Detroit, but that team never should have won a 3rd game, let alone winning a 4th.

Bills 27  Buccaneers 21  (BUF +3)

Atlanta Falcons (3-9)  @  Green Bay Packers (5-6-1)  (GB -3)

Scott Tolzein again, and just like every game he or anyone not named Aaron Rodgers has started, I think it won't go too well. The Falcons have some pride. Matt Ryan is quietly having a very good season. His DVOA and DYAR has stayed pretty even with what he was last year, despite losing Julio Jones for a period of time and Roddy White being hobbled all year long. The Packers without Rodgers really aren't much more talented than Atlanta without all the guys they've lost. Yes, the Packers are playing for their lives right now, but I think they realize getting into the playoffs is an extreme improbability, and a loss here allows the Packers to do the smart thing and shut Rodgers down for the season.

Falcons 31  Packers 23  (ATL +3)

Cleveland Browns (4-8)  @  New England Patriots (9-3)  (NE -11.5)

So, it isn't the doomsday scenario of Alex Tanney starting against the Patriots. Instead, it will be Jason Campbell instead, who is 1-3 when he's started so far. He's definitely likely better than Tanney. Anyway, this is a high line, and I've all season rolled against double-digit favorites to good success apart from Jacksonville in the early season. On the other hand, I just can't see how they prevent the Patriots from scoring enough points to cover this line. This is an opportunity for the Patriots to flex their muscles ahead of two road games that will make or break their playoff seeding. They can't afford to make this even somewhat close to a loss, and I don't think they will.

Browns 13  Patriots 34  (NE -11.5)

Indianapolis Colts (8-4)  @  Cincinnati Bengals (8-4)  (CIN -6.5)

Weather is impacting a lot of games this weekend, including this one, with forecasts for high winds and a wintry mix. What you need to win these types of games: a good running game, a good talented defense, and dominant receivers that can run short routes that are easier to complete. Guess what? The Bengals have all three of these things, and the Colts barely have any of them. The Colts have gotten up for games against good opponents in the past, but this might be one task too hard. The bigger key is if they can win by a TD? I think they can, but if the Colts can pull something together to win this game or keep it close, I'll be more impressed than when they beat the 49ers when they were at their healthiest.

Colts 16  Bengals 27  (CIN -6.5)

Detroit Lions (7-5)  @  Philadelphia Eagles (7-5)  (PHI -3.0)

Another game that could be destroyed by bad weather, with snow showers. The forecast isn't nearly as bad as it is in Baltimore or Cincinnati, but it could still impact this game. The Lions should win the battle at the line of scrimmage, and honestly, if they avoid making mistakes they should win the game. I think the Eagles are riding a little too high right now, as their four game win streak includes three wins over bad teams, and a close win over Arizona. Detroit is better than those teams. I think Foles throws his first interception in this one, and the Lions end the win streak and effectively end the NFC North race.

Lions 31  Eagles 24  (DET +3)

Miami Dolphins (6-6)  @  Pittsburgh Steelers (5-7)  (PIT -3.5)

Big game in Pittsburgh and I'm feeling a bunch of mixed emotions about this one. On the one hand, the Dolphins are probably the better team, with an offense that has run really well in recent weeks, and a defense that is quite underrated and solidly in the top 10 of the NFL. On the other hand, it's the Steelers, who are still the Steelers, playing at home in a game they have to have. On the one hand, the Dolphins biggest weakness (o-line) is something that the Steelers haven't been good at taking advantage of (pass rush). On the other hand, I have no idea. I really have no idea.

Dolphins 20  Steelers 23  (MIA +3.5)

Tennessee Titans (5-7)  @  Denver Broncos (10-2)  (DEN -13.0)

This line is high, the forecast for Denver is mid teens (no snow). The Titans offense will probably be able to do about nothing, as I think the Broncos defense should take advantage of an offense that really cannot push the ball downfield (the easiest way to beat Denver offensively). The Titans have some nice pieces on defense, but Jurrell Casey's impact should be mitigated by the Broncos better part of their O-Line (interior line). The line is still high, but if I'm going to take the Patriots to cover their 11.5, I'll take the Broncos to cover this one.

Titans 13  Broncos 31  (DEN -13)

St. Louis Rams (5-7)  @  Arizona Cardinals (7-5)  (ARZ -6.0)

They played a good game back in Week 1 (a 27-24 OT win for the Rams), but both teams are quite different now. The Cardinals defense has realized every bit of its defense and has become one of the best defensive teams in the NFL, particularly at home. The Rams defense has been good on the whole, but has struggled more often than Arizona's has. What I definitely see here is a low scoring game. What I also have a hard time seeing is Kellen Clemens doing well against that Cardinals defense at home that has stopped basically everyone they've played in that buildiing.

Rams 13  Cardinals 20  (ARZ -6)

New York Giants (5-7)  @  San Diego Chargers (5-7)  (SD -3.5)

Both teams have essentially played their way out of the playoff picture, though the Chargers are definitely close to somehow stealing a playoff spot. The Giants offense should have time to operate against the Chargers defense that hasn't played well for a while now. The Chargers offense should also have good success against the Giants defense. This is a really close game on the whole, with no clear advantage for either side. If there weren't better options (or if both teams were 6-6 instead), this game could be a marquee game of the week. Instead, it will be shoved to the background. I have no particular position on this game, so I'll go with the slightly more desperate team to cover its low number.

Giants 23  Chargers 27  (SD -3.5)

Seattle Seahawks (11-1)  @  San Francisco 49ers (8-4)  (SF -2.5)

The big rematch. What I've learned about Seattle is when they play 'Games of the Year' at home, those games suck because the Seahawks get up for night primetime games at a level I've never seen. However, when they play big games on the road, those games are often fun and interesting. Take their only loss in Indianapolis, which was about as entertaining a game as we've had this season. Or how about their playoff game in Atlanta, or even their entertaining win in Arizona earlier this season. The public is backing Seattle big right now, but I think the Seahawks might be riding a little too, coming off of a short week, and this game really has no meaning for Seattle anymore. The 49ers have far more to play for, and this is a huge test for them to show people they still hold some of the toughness that defined the 2011-12 49ers.

Seahawks 20  49ers 23  (SF -2.5)

Carolina Panthers (9-3)  @  New Orleans Saints (9-3)  (NO -3.5)

Great game. I like the fact that the 2nd game is in Carolina, but I also don't like it since if the Saints win each of their next two games, the Panthers game is meaningless, since the Saints can lose in Carolina and still win the division with a win against Tampa. The Panthers defense has the ability to do what the 49ers defense did to them. They are great at tackling, allow little YAC, and can get consistent pressure. On offense, they can control TOP against a bad run defense. They match up really well with New Orleans, but those matchups are stronger at home. The fan in me wants the Panthers to win this game because I love their style of play, and it makes that Week 16 game more meaningful, and I think it happens. Teams playing a 2nd straight prime-time game have a pretty bad record ATS (Denver losing to New England, Washington losing to the Giants in the last two weeks) over the past few years, and that might hurt the Saints here.

Panthers 27  Saints 24  (CAR +3.5)

Dallas Cowboys (7-5)  @  Chicago Bears (6-6)  (DAL -1.5)

The Bears are a proud team. Their receivers are a matchup nightmare for this Cowboys defense. They have an outside shot at the division (and if the Bears lose on Sunday, they can tie the division on Monday). The Bears probably should be favored here. In many ways, the outcome of that Detroit @ Philadelphia game the day before impacts the importance of this one, and that is how I'll take it:

If the Lions win:  Cowboys 27  Bears 20  (DAL -1.5)

If the Eagles win:  Cowboys 20  Bears 27  (CHI +1.5)

Enjoy the Games!!

NFL 2013: Week 14 Power Rankings

I have family over and had a way too busy Thanksgiving weekend to really do any picks, so I just took the week off. Of course, by Sunday's end I had talked myself into believing that I would have gone like 14-2 picking games, but let's just move on and call it lost.

Year to Date Picks: 99-74-3


In the NFL's final month, I switch to conference only Power Rankings. The NFL has gone to great lengths to have nearly all of the inter-conference games in the first 13 weeks, so this is extra applicable since we don't really get many high profile AFC vs. NFC games until the Super Bowl.


AFC

The "Isn't It Hilarious We're Still Mathematically Alive?!" Trio

16.) Jacksonville Jaguars  (3-9  =  174-352)
15.) Houston Texans  (2-10  =  230-323)
14.) Oakland Raiders  (4-8  =  237-300)

The AFC's race for the #6 seed is so bad right now that all three of these teams are mathematically alive for a playoff spot. Hell, the Raiders, who have started Matt McGloin for a whole month now, are just two games back. Obviously, none have a real shot. Here's an interesting research study for me on a boring day: what was the earliest that each team in the NFL got to at least two wins. The Jaguars, who were historically bad through 8 games, are now just 3-1 in their last four. Somehow, they're still an underdog. The Texans might be the most talented 2-10 team ever. The Raiders may be the least disappointing 4-win team ever as well.


The "First Defectors from the Gang of Nine" Duo

13.) Buffalo Bills  (4-8  =  267-307)
12.) Cleveland Browns  (4-8  =  231-297)

Two weeks ago, there were nine teams either 4-7, 4-6, or 5-5. These were the first two teams to basically play themselves out of the #6 seed. The Bills have only played one game since, and it wasn't like they were bad, but they lost any shot of the playoffs with a loss to two win Atlanta. The Browns continue to be the most loved bad team ever. People want them to be good partly because they want the Browns to be good, but also because the Browns have various connections to Bill Belichick. Teams that have Belichick ballwashers in their management/coaching always get the love (any team Romeo Crennel has coached for, the Browns now, the Buccaneers, Chip Kelly, Saban, etc.). Anyway, I'm not bitter. Let's just remember that Josh Gordon was picked by Mike Holmgren, who quite gutsily gave up a 2nd round pick in the Conditional Draft to pick him.


The "Alive but Basically Dead" Trio

11.) New York Jets  (5-7  =  189-310)
10.) Tennessee Titans  (5-7  =  264-267)
9.) Pittsburgh Steelers  (5-7  =  263-278)

I think it will take 9-7 to get the #6 seed, and I really can't see any of these teams running the table. Sure, if it comes down to 8-8, they have a shot, but even then the schedules remaining for each three are quite difficult. The Steelers might catch a break if Rodgers is shut down for the season making that game a lot more winnable, but all three of these teams are under .500, and really deserve to be that way. The Titans fans can do wonders by convincing themselves that had Jake Locker never been hurt in the beginning of the season they would be a likely front-runner for the #6 seed, and that could be true. The Jets might be the strangest team ever, good enough defensively to beat both the Saints and Jets, but with one of the worst point differentials in the NFL. The Steelers just started off way too slow, but it is commendable how they've responded first to their 0-4 start and then the 31-55 loss in New England.



The "One of Us Will Be the #6 Seed, and That #3 Seed Will be Terrified" Trio

8.) San Diego Chargers  (5-7  =  279-277)

I like the fact that the Chargers and two other teams of the Trio have positive point differentials while the three 5-7 teams below have negative ones. To me, honestly, the Chargers are the best team of these three and the one I would fear the most sneaking into the playoffs purely because of how good Philip Rivers has been this season. They could've done some serious damage had either Donario Alexander or Malcolm Floyd not been lost for the season.


7.) Baltimore Ravens  (6-6  =  249-235)

Before anyone tries to claim this is a return of the 2012 Ravens, a team that will sneak into the playoffs with no fanfare and go on a run (and oddly, they could get Indy in Round 1, with potential trips to Denver and New England after), they more resemble a worse version of the 2009 Ravens, a team that went 9-7 and smacked New England before losing handily to a better Colts team. The Ravens may be getting Dennis Pitta back soon, which could greatly increase their chances of doing some sort of damage in the playoffs, if they get there.


6.) Miami Dolphins  (6-6  =  252-248)

The Dolphins don't have the tiebreaker with Baltimore, but they do have the easier schedule. It really, though, could come down to whether either team could beat the Patriots at home. They host New England in back-to-back weeks (Miami first). The Dolphins have a tough trip to Pittsburgh this week, while the Ravens have trips to both Detroit and Cincinnati. Again, the Dolphins have the edge in schedule, and as messy as the Incognito/Martin situation was, I'm rooting for the remaining Dolphins to get there and make sure Joe Philbin, who I think is a very good coach, desevedly doesn't lose his job.


The "Teams Everyone Will Want to Play in January" Duo

5.) Indianapolis Colts  (8-4  =  285-274)

The Colts are almost exactly what they were a year ago, but in a far more variant way. What they were a year ago was a decent team that would play about the same each week, good enough to beat bad teams by a little and bad enough to lose to any good team. This year, they've been maddeningly inconsistent, good enough to beat the Broncos and Seahawks one more time than the rest of the NFL combined, and bad enough to get smacked by the Rams and Cardinals (I wonder how many Colts fans could have imagined splitting their games against the NFC West the way they did). The Colts without Reggie Wayne aren't a scary team, but it is commendable that they're going to make the playoffs again.


4.) Kansas City Chiefs  (9-3  =  298-214)

The Chiefs were never as good as a 9-0 team (or 6-0, 7-0, 8-0 team), but they aren't as bad as they've been the last three weeks either. It is amazing that after getting 35 sacks in their first 7 games they've gotten just two the last five games, but that is still a good defense. Marcus Cooper has been good against anyone but Denver. Their offense is better than people think. They won't be an easy out in the playoffs, and I would give them a very good chance of beating Indianapolis in a potential 4-5 matchup.


The "If One of Us Don't Win the AFC, Just Call it January Madness" Trio

3.) Cincinnati Bengals  (8-4  =  292-216)

The Bengals are underrated. They might be really underrated. They've lost four games, but two of those losses were in OT (admittedly, they were extremely lucky to get one of those to OT). The other losses were to Chicago with Cutler in Chicago and a bad loss to the Browns. They're point differential is better than New England. They have a tiebreaker over them. If the Patriots slip up once more, the Bengals and their easy closing schedule are right there to snatch away that #2 seed. I don't really trust Cincinnati to finish 4-0, but this team is really good, and I can't imagine that that will change for another 2-3 years.


2.) New England Patriots  (9-3  =  322-261)

The Patriots offense is good. I'll admit it. They aren't as good as the offenses from 2010-2012, but they are as good as the 2009 offense when it was fully healthy (so not when they without Welker and did whatever that performance could be called against Baltimore - and yes, I do love gratuitously mentioning that game). The defense is concerning because bad run defenses could kill them in potential playoff games with Cincinnati or Kansas City, but the pass defense has remained strong enough. Oh, and Stephen Gostkowski has been about as good as any replacement of Adam Vinatieri could have been.


1.) Denver Broncos  (10-2  =  464-317)

Down 21-7 after blowing a 24-0 lead the week before, on the road against a good defense, Peyton Manning put up his best performance of his Broncos career. He had 400 yards on 22 completions, with only one completion really aided by YAC (the screen to Moreno). His deep ball was as good as it has been for years. Denver isn't always cold in January. In fact, it is considerably warmer on average in Denver in January than Foxboro/Cincinnati/Pittsburgh/Philadelphia/Cleveland/New York/Buffalo/Green Bay/Chicago and all those other 'cold' places that people assume Denver is one of. It isn't.


NFC

The "Isn't it Hilarious That We Were Playoff Teams Last Year" Trio

16.) Washington Redskins  (3-9  =  269-362)
15.) Minnesota Vikings  (3-8-1  =  289-366)
14.) Atlanta Falcons  (3-9  =  261-340)

A year after the AFC repeated five playoff teams from 2011, the three worst teams in the NFC were playoff teams from the previous year. The Falcons lost three games all season last year. It took them 12 games to win three this year. There really is no precedent for what has happened to the Falcons. 13-3 teams rarely ever fall this much (13-3 seems to be a different level from 12-4, as those teams fall back a lot more often). As far as those other teams, well, if you were asked to predict which NFC playoff teams would fall back to the levels of a Top-10 pick, those were the best two picks. The Vikings and Redskins both had magical rides based on running offenses, which are more inconsistent year-to-year. An interesting race to watch out for is which talented team that had a bad season will be able to draft Jedaveon Clowney. The Falcons and Texans are in a good competition for that distinction.


The "Spoiler Alerted" Quatro

13.) Tampa Bay Buccaneers  (3-9  =  217-285)
12.) Green Bay Packers  (5-6-1  =  294-305)
11.) St. Louis Rams  (5-7  =  279-278)
10.) New York Giants  (5-7  =  237-297)

With their loss to Dallas, the Giants are basically out of the race. Because of this, they enter a situation with these other teams of being potential spoilers. The Buccaneers and Rams both have the solid defense and sputtering big-play offenses with backup QBs (though Glennon has been 10x better than Freeman). The Packers could be an ultra-spoiler if Aaron Rodgers does return this season. The Packers are still in it from the outside, but they'll have to go two games better than Detroit (who has an easy schedule) to win the division, as they're 2-2-1 in the division to Detroit's 4-1, making it impossible for them to win a tiebreaker against Detroit. Of course, I don't know why I brought this up since with a tie on their record, they'll never got to a tiebreaker. Wow, that was a waste of time.


The "Boring, but Inevitably Interesting Division Races, plus the Team No One Wants in the Playoffs but Won't Get There" Quatro

9.) Dallas Cowboys  (7-5  =  329-303)

How good are the Cowboys really? They've won close games against average teams the last two weeks, and didn't really look too great against the Raiders on Thanksgiving. They have the division squarely in their sights even if they lose that Week 17 game to Philadelphia as long as they end up with the same record. The big key for Dallas is that Green Bay game in two weeks, which could be the return of Aaron Rodgers. In reality, I don't know what would be worse for Tony Romo's reputation: losing to the Eagles in Week 17 to blow the division, or losing to the Panthers or Saints in the Wild Card Round at home.


8.) Chicago Bears  (6-6  =  323-332)

The Bears probably shouldn't have beaten the Ravens in OT, so that loss to Minnesota they probably should have won should be forgotten. I think McCown's performances have regressed to a point where it obvious that Cutler would have been better healthy. Jay Cutler is a good QB, and together with Jeffery and Marshall they can do some special things next season. The problem is they have to replace their aging defensive stars soon.


7.) Philadelphia Eagles  (7-5  =  300-281)

Last year everyone was questioning the 'gimmick' offense the Redskins were running as they started 3-6, and then they rolled off seven straight wins to win the division. This year, everyone was questioning the 'gimmick' Chip Kelly offense as they started 3-5 (including scoring just 3 points on offense in those last two losses), and now they've rolled off 4 straight. Nick Foles will throw an interception, and this could easily be a repeat of Damon Huard's surreally low pick year in 2006, but he's a good QB, that defense is playing so much better than it did early in the season. This week's game against Detroit should be another good test of the Eagles, this time a test for the Eagles revamped defense.


6.) Arizona Cardinals  (7-5  =  275-247)

I'm pretty sure no team wants to see Arizona in the playoffs in the NFC. I would gather that the Lions/Seahawks/Cowboys/Eagles would rather see San Francisco than Arizona. That might be wrong, but the Cardinals defense is capable of having scary good performances. The Cardinals offense has played better in recent weeks as Bruce Arians finally realized that Andre Ellington is just a lot better than Rashard Mendenhall. Carson Palmer has cut his interceptions. The offense is better than it was early in the season. They probably won't make it, and I don't know if they'll have a great chance going forward as that division is not getting any easier.


5.) Detroit Lions  (7-5  =  326-287)

The Lions are the biggest wild card in the NFC Playoffs. What do we know about them: They are supremely talented at a lot of high impact positions. They have the single most unstoppable player in the NFL. They have the capability to dominate the line of scrimmage. They commit terrible penalties and stupid mistakes that could sabotage them. That is the resume of a team that could easily lose in round 1 to San Francisco by 20, but could also beat them and then go into Seattle and beat the Seahawks because Calvin Johnson owns Richard Sherman for a night. Anything can happen.


The "Team That Gets Credit for Previous Years But Will Get Blowed Out" Uno

4.) San Francisco 49ers  (8-4  =  297-197)

Are the 49ers good? They're getting undue credit for beating a mediocre Rams team by 10 at home. They're 2.5 point favorites against the Seahawks this week (which means Vegas thinks the Seahawks are only about a point better on a neutral field). People think all the problems will be solved with Michael Crabtree back. Is that possible? Sure, but I think the problems with the 49ers were more systemic than solely personnel-based. Then again, they're the defending NFC Champions and Colin Kaepernick is the Greatest QB of All Time as per Ron Jaworski.


The "If One of Us Don't Win the NFC, Just Call it January Madness" Trio

3.) New Orleans Saints  (9-3  =  312-230)

The Saints got embarrassed last night, which is a good does of medicine before they play a very similar type team on Sunday Night with their game against Carolina. The Panthers swept them last season, and I can't see that happening. You're never as good as you look at your best (their performance against Dallas) and you're never as bad as you look at your worst (last night against Seattle). One bad loss doesn't end their chances, but they may need some other savior to knock off the Seahawks for them.


2.) Carolina Panthers  (9-3  =  285-157)

The Panthers were 1-3, and now are tied for the 2nd best record in the conference. Ultimately, the game that will kill them is their loss to Arizona compared to the Saints win against the Cardinals. Of course, the Panthers had to go to Arizona, while the Saints got them at home. The Panthers have a chance on Sunday, but even if they split and end up with the #5 seed, they'll be the best wild card team in years. Honestly, the last wild card team this good probably hasn't happened in the 32-team era. This is a special team right now.


1.) Seattle Seahawks  (11-1  =  340-186)

The Seahawks are really good at home, and they won't have to play a meaningful game outside of home until the Super Bowl. That is a good thing. So, who can actually beat them in Seattle? For any team to do it, I think they have to score first, calm down that atmosphere immediately. Then, they have to dominate the Seahawks o-line, which teams have done on the road (Indianapolis, St. Louis, Arizona to a degree). Who can do this: Carolina is the obvious answer, and I think they only one that I would give better than a 30% chance of doing. The other team that has these traits is Detroit.


Playoff Projections

AFC

1.) Denver Broncos  =  14-2  (W vs.TEN, W vs.SD, W @HOU, W @OAK)
2.) New England Patriots  =  12-4  (W vs. CLE; L @MIA; W @BAL; W vs.BUF)
3.) Cincinnati Bengals  =  11-5  (W vs.IND; L @PIT, W vs.MIN, W vs.BAL)
4.) Indianapolis Colts  =  10-6  (L @CIN, W vs.HOU, L @KC, W vs.JAX)
5.) Kansas City Chiefs  =  11-5  (W @WAS, L @OAK, W vs.IND, L @SD)
6.) Miami Dolphins  =  9-7  (W @PIT, W vs.NE, L @BUF, W vs.NYJ)


NFC

1.) Seattle Seahawks  =  14-2  (W @SF, L @NYG, W vs.ARZ, W vs.STL)
2.) New Orleans Saints =  12-4  (W vs.CAR, W @STL, L @CAR, W vs.TB)
3.) Detroit Lions  =  10-6  (W @PHI, W vs.BAL, W vs.NYG, L @MIN)
4.) Dallas Cowboys  =  9-7  (L @CHI, W vs.GB, L @WAS, W vs.PHI)
5.) Carolina Panthers  =  12-4  (L @NO, W vs.NYJ, W vs.NO, W @ATL)
6.) San Francisco 49ers  =  10-6  (L vs.SEA, W @TB, W vs.ATL, L@ARZ)


Looking Ahead to Next Week's Games

16.) Houston Texans (2-10)  @  Jacksonville Jaguars (3-9)  (TNF-NFLN)
15.) Atlanta Falcons (3-9)  @  Green Bay Packers (5-6-1)  (1:00 - FOX)
14.) Buffalo Bills (4-8)  @  Tampa Bay Buccaneers (3-9)  (1:00 - CBS)
13.) Oakland Raiders (4-8)  @  New York Jets (5-7)  (1:00 - CBS)

I call it "Why Do These Teams Even Play These Games" Sunday, as these are the four games with no real playoff implications. The Packers are tangentially attached to the NFC North playoff race, and the Jets are technically in the AFC race, but let's be real, neither is happening. Let's just move on, because there are some good games this week.

 
12.) Minnesota Vikings (3-8-1)  @  Baltimore Ravens (6-6)  (1:00 - FOX)
11.) Kansas City Chiefs (9-3)  @  Washington Redskins (3-9)  (1:00 - CBS)
10.) Tennessee Titans (5-7)  @  Denver Broncos (10-2)  (4:05 - CBS)
9.) Cleveland Browns (4-8)  @  New England Patriots (9-3)  (1:00 - CBS)

I call it "Who Can Avoid Being Upset" Suunday, as four teams who have serious playoff aspirations (and in Kansas City, New England and Denver, are basically already in the playoffs) are playing four bad teams. Which is the most likely upset? Kansas City losing to Washington, but that's more because I can't see at all how the other three pull it off on the road against better teams. I won't be surprised if the Browns at least make the Patriots sweat it out for a half.


8.) St. Louis Rams (5-7)  @  Arizona Cardinals (7-5)  (4:25 - FOX)
7.) New York Giants (5-7)  @  San Diego Chargers (5-7)  (4:25 - FOX)

I call it "Fun Late Games that are Probably Inevitably Meaningless" Sunday, as these two games have teams kind of in the playoff race (Arizona just a game back, the Chargers a game back themselves). Both home teams have a lot more to play for, but the Rams and Giants are both able spoilers.


6.) Dallas Cowboys (7-5)  @  Chicago Bears (6-6)  (MNF - ESPN)
5.) Miami Dolphins (6-6)  @  Pittsburgh Steelers (5-7)  (1:00 - CBS)

I call it "Who Wants to Live Forever" Sunday, as all four teams try to make it another week in this playoff race. The Cowboys need to stay in front of the NFC East (which they'll know their position before the game). The Bears need to win to put any sort of pressure on Detroit. A Dolphins win here really helps them as it makes their game next week against New England slightly less important. The Steelers aren't the best matchup for the Dolphins, but this current Steelers team can't really do the one thing the Dolphins are really bad at stopping in rushing the passer.


4.) Detroit Lions (7-5)  @  Philadelphia Eagles (7-5)  (1:00 - FOX)

I call it "Show Me Sunday" as the Eagles and Lions play a really nice early game for two teams who have both playoff races and playoff positioning to play for. These games are quite rare. The Lions will really challenge the Eagles defense which has been good against lesser competition recently. The Eagles offense will get a good challenge up front against a dominant o-line with 10 days rest.


3.) Seattle Seahawks (11-1)  @  San Francisco 49ers (8-4)  (4:25 - FOX)

I call it "The Least Meaningful Game That I will Still Watch" Sunday, as the Seahawks can lose this game and still be one win away from clinching the division, and still be a game-and-a-half up in the race for the #1 seed. The 49ers don't need to win this game, as they can lock up a playoff spot by just having the same record as the Cardinals at the end of the season. The Seahawks offense will get a good test against a good pass rush on the road, something they've struggled with at times.


2.) Indianapolis Colts (8-4)  @  Cincinnati Bengals (8-4)  (1:00 - CBS)

I call it "Who Wants to Potential Steal New England's #2 Seed" Sunday, as both of these teams are in safe positions in their division (the Colts win the division with a win here), but will have massive seeding implications here. First, the winner has the inside track at the #3 seed at worst (and avoiding Kansas City for a worse version of Kansas City in Baltimore or Miami). The winner also goes to 9-4, and will really pressure New England. Both the Colts and Bengals have winnable games left, and both would win tiebreakers over the Patriots with similar record (h2h win for Cincinnati, strength of victory for Indianapolis).


1.) Carolina Panthers (9-3)  @  New Orleans Saints (9-3)  (SNF - NBC)

I call it "Can the Saints in Their Home to do Carolina what they had Done Upon Them" Sunday, as the Saints get to flex their muscles at home after being embarrassed. I'm almost positive were going to hear a lot of the 'the Saints will be angry' talk coming into this game, but I think the Panthers have a decent shot. They tackle well and can limit YAC just like San Francisco did in their near loss in New Orleans. The primetime part scares me, but the Saints lost some of their primetime aura after that mess in Seattle. It should be great, with the return leg in Carolina just two weeks later.

The 12 Worst Major Award Wins in Recent Years

11. Tied) 2011 NBA MVP (Derrick Rose over LeBron James) & 2012 NFL MVP (Adrian Peterson over Peyton Manning)

These two are kind of tied at the hip to me, both examples of great players having great seasons with good narratives beating two established all time greats having great seasons that had their cases denied. I will say this upfront, both Rose and Peterson have cases. Peterson's is more interesting because it brings up the argument of whether a non-QB should ever win the MVP. In the modern NFL, QBs are almost always the most 'valuable' player on their team. Peyton is more valuable than Peterson. There is no doubt about that. But was he 'better' at his position than Peterson was at his? That is arguable, and the answer is probably not, but they created an award with no positional bias just for those cases: the Offensive Player of the Year Award. Ultimately, Peyton won an MVP where he probably wasn't the best candidate (2009 - Brees & Rivers had as good if not better cases) so it evens out that he doesn't win when he arguably did deserve it. The award, taken at the literal value of the Most Valuable Player, should be a QB every year, but then why have the award? If there ever was a case for a RB, it was this (or Faulk in 2000 - who deservedly won it).

LeBron losing to Rose is more debatable. The thing is, LeBron could win every year. He is the best player in the NBA, with the highest usage rate. Maybe other 3's in the NBA could have that many assists if he was asked to control the ball as much, but none are. The NBA could really give LeBron the award every year, but just they could have given one to Jordan every year in the 90's, award voterss don't like doing that. They did pick the one year of the last five where LeBron was something less than an all-time great performer. In 2010-11, he was merely a very, very good player, instead of the clear best. Rose did have a great season for a Bulls team that surprisingly won more games than the Heat (in the first year of the Big 3), so it is hard to say that he wasn't deserving. But he wasn't the best player in the NBA.

10.) 2006 NBA MVP (Steve Nash over Dirk Nowitzki)

The mid 00's was a strange time where each year had a bunch of good candidates (Duncan, Shaq - though those two mainly in the first half of the decade - Nash, Nowitzki, Kobe), and all of them ended up winning the award at least once, but rarely in the year where they had their best season. I'm fine with Nash winning in 2005, though Shaq had basically the same impact to Miami than Nash had in Phoenix. The weird awards were '06 and '07, where Nash won over Dirk and 2006 and the reverse happened in 2007. They could flip the awards and I would be fine, but the bigger injustice was this one. This was Dirk's best season (career high 26.6 PPG, and 9.0 RPG). Nash had a very good season of his own (18.8 PPG, 10.5 APG), but where the edge goes to Dirk is defensively. That was Dirk's best defensive year of his career. Dirk also owned Nash in advanced metrics, with the NBA lead in Win Shares (and twice as many win shares defensively - win shares, by the way, is the loose NBA version of WAR), while Nash hovered around 5th. Finally, for those who love the whole how many games does a team win, the Suns won 54 in a bad division, while the Mavs won 60 in a great one. Dirk deserved this MVP, far more than he deserved it in 2006-07.

9.) 2002 AL Cy Young (Barry Zito over Pedro Martinez)  

There's one huge reason to not give the award to Pedro Martinez: he didn't pitch 200 innings. Now, that isn't some requirement to get the award, but no starting pitcher has ever won a Cy Young with less than 200 innings pitched. Problem is, apart from that, everything else points to Pedro. Zito's WAR is higher, but that is mainly due to Pedro's abnormally low BABIP (which he had throughout his career, so it wasn't that abnormal) and the innings difference. Pedro had a far better ERA (2.26 vs 2.75), WHIP (0.923 vs. 1.134), Strikeouts (239 vs. 182 - in 30 less innings), and BBs (40 vs. 78). Every per-nine stat favored Pedro. There is no good argument for Zito over Pedro other than the innings factor, and Zito only had 229 (this is why I had this as the bigger inustice for Pedro than 2003, when Halladay won with worse stats than Zito, but threw 80! more innings). Pedro Martinez was the best pitcher in baseball, and there might have been some voting fatigue, but he deserved it over Zito.

8.) 2003 NL Cy Young (Eric Gagne over Jason Schmidt or Mark Prior)

There is a school of thought that the Cy Young should probably never go to a reliever, that to produce enough value in 1-2 innings a night (and ~80 innings in a season) to make up for the innings difference is basically impossible. I don't totally suscribe to that theory, I think it is possible, but there has to be no really good starting pitcher in that league that year. Problem is for Gagne, there were good alternatives. Gagne did have a (later to be found out chemically altered) ridiculous season (137/20 K/BB in 80 innings, WHIP of .692), but both Jason Schmidt and Mark Prior had great seasons. They both had good W-L records (17-5 and 18-6), both had very good ERAs (2.34 and 2.43), had great K/BB numbers (208/46 and 245/50) and great WHIP numbers (0.953/1.103). They had identical ERA+'s of 180. That is a really good figure, would have led many of the seasons to come in one of the two leagues. Prior's WAR is higher mainly because of ballpark differences, but they are a tossup, both good enough to make it really hard to fathom how a reliever is a better pitcher over them. If there is any possible case for a reliever winning Cy Young, it wasn't Gagne, it is higher up the list.

7.) 2007-08 NBA MVP (Kobe Bryant over Chris Paul or Kevin Garnett)
6.) 2007 NL MVP (Jimmy Rollins over a lot of people, but mainly Matt Holliday)

I'm coupling these two because these are cases when the narratives that most MVP voters love don't work, despite those people having just as good statistical cases. Let's be real, just like Dirk's MVP in 2007, Kobe won his only MVP because people felt like he deserved an MVP. This was the same Kobe who was nearly traded to Chicago early in the season, and who's team only took off when they stole Pau Gasol from Memphis. Garnett and Paul both had awesome years and great narrative cases. Garnett became the centerpiece of the NBA's best team, instilled a defensive mindset that pervaded through that team. He had a great year (#2 in the NBA in win shares, pulling down and 18.8/9.2 shooting .536, playing amazingly well defensively). Paul case was even more easy to back. He lead the NBA in win shares, he had a ridiculous 21.1-11.6-4.0-2.7 season (p-a-r-s). That 21.6-11.6 is all-time good. And he did all of this for a team that miraculously finished #2 in the West (just one game worse than LA, who finished #1), for a team that was playing its first season back in New Orleans. He made the Hornets a draw in New Orleans again, making that a basketball town. That was the perfect MVP resume. Kobe was a great player and had a good season, but let's not kid around, this was absolutely a pity MVP to an all-timer who hadn't won the award before, but who honestly never really deserved it before.

Rollins win over Holliday (and Pujols, Wright, Utley) might have been more confusing, actually. Rollins isn't an all-time beloved player like Kobe. Rollins doesn't have giant home run numbers (the MLB version of Points per Game in terms of their gaudiness affecting voters). Actually, nothing about Jimmy Rollins season was that amazing in any way. He didn't have 100 RBIs. He didn't hit .300, he didn't have an OBP above .350. His OPS was below .900. There really are four candidates that had better seasons. David Wright probably had the best season in the NL (Pujols was close, with a lead in WAR, but playing a less premium position for a worse team). Wright had his best offensive season, playing good defense, added 34 steals and hit a .325/.416/.546 slash season. Of course, his team blew a 7 game lead with 17 to play, and despite the fact that Wright played well in that stretch, it eliminated him. Pujols had another great season, with his best defensive season to date, which made up for his worst offensive season to date (.327/.429/.568 slash, and yes, that is the slash-line from his worst offensive season of his first 7). His relatively low power numbers (32 HRs, 103 RBIs) ended his chance. The two strange ones are Chase Utley, who had a better year than Rollins playing an equally important position was overlooked (Utley had a lead in WAR of 1.7 - had a slash line edge of 36 batting points, 66 in OBP and 35 in slug). Finally, there's Holliday who finished in 2nd in a really close vote (353 to 336). Holliday had a better season offensively, worse defensively. He had an equal WAR, but really, voters didn't care about that. They do care about easy numbers, which Holliday had a major edge (43 more RBIs, leads of 44/59/76 in slash). And of course, Holliday's team had one of the best September's ever, which pushed the Rockies into the playoffs for the first time in nearly a decade. How does that not win over a good player having, let's be honest, merely a more than good season?

5.) 2006 AL MVP (Justin Morneau over Everyone)

This might have been the strangest MVP award race in recent memory, with no single position player in the AL with a WAR above 6.0, leading to a bevy of relatively good candidates. It isn't higher up the list because there was no great candidate that got jobbed, but there were definitely enough deserving of it over Morneau, ironically including one of his own teammates that would have seemed more likely to get some narrative-aided support. First let's tackle the Twins MVP, because Mauer was better. He was a better defensive player, slightly better baserunner, and a better hitter. Mauer beat Morneau by 26 points in batting average, 54 points in OBP, and while Morneau slugged higher, their OPS was equal. Morneau wasn't even the most deserving Twin. Go outside the Twins org., and you get a host of players who had a higher WAR than Morneau's 4.3, including David Ortiz (5.7), Travis Hafner (5.8) and, most amazingly, Derek Jeter (5.5). Hafner and Ortiz are explained away by old biases like 'you have to play for a playoff team' which takes away Hafner (who likely was the best positional player), and 'you can't be a DH' which takes away Ortiz (and Ortiz was a stronger candidate in 2006 than he was in the more publicized 2005 race that he lost to A-Rod). But how did Jeter not get it? This was the most public figure in all of baseball, having a year that actually merited serious MVP consideration, losing to a guy from a small-market who while having a good year, may have been the 3rd best MVP candidate on his own team (Mauer and Johan, who actually led the AL in WAR). Jeter was far, far, far more deserving in 2006 than he was in 2010 when people wanted him to win the award over Mauer who correctly ran away with it.

4.) 2012 AL MVP (Miguel Cabrera over Mike Trout)

This MVP award has been debated to death, so I'm not going to spend too much time on it. I will say, the exact same conversation was brought up this past season, but the 2012 MVP was a far bigger injustice than 2013, where Trout had a bad year defensively, and their WAR figures were closer than in 2012. The 2012 MVP was the Great Debate of Old School vs. New School. You had one guy who won the Triple Crown for the first time in decades against a young 20-year old who had the best season of anyone that age ever. You had Trout having a historic WAR season, while Cabrera had the numbers everyone loved. Here's why its an easy answer: defense and baserunning matters. Maybe not as much as some people say, but it does, and Trout was far better in those two than Cabrera (hence, why Trout's WAR was quite a bit higher). Also, Cabrera's triple crown was nice, but it was arguably his worst season of the past three offensively. That isn't a Triple Crown in any other season in recent memory in the AL. The worst were the dumb narratives like "Trout's team didn't make the playoffs," as not only did the 2012 Angels win more games than the 2012 Tigers, but that hasn't stopped voters before (one example of this is still to come). Trout should have won. 

3.) 2005 NFL MVP (Shaun Alexander over Peyton Manning or Steve Smith)

I had the 2012 MVP injustice far higher down the list, but this one has many of the same themes, but it is on the whole just a terrible decision. Shaun Alexander had a great year (1,880 yards, a then-record 28 TDs), but he was on a loaded offense (unlike Peterson, who had very little passing support), and was arguably the third or fourth most valuable player on that offense (behind Hasselbeck, Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson). Unlike 2006 MVP Tomlinson (or 2000 MVP Faulk) Alexander provided basically no value in the passing game. There are two good alternatives. Peyton had a great season for the league's best team, with a league high 104.1 passer rating, and led the first team in this recent string to make a real run at 16-0. But the real guy who had a really nice case for the award is Steve Smith. Receivers never win MVP, and they likely are never deserving since rarely does a receiver have an MVP caliber season with his QB not having one as well, but Smith was that rare instance. He led the NFL in catches (103), yards (1,563) and TDs (12). His QB that season was Jake Delhomme, who had a good if unspectacular season. In fact, the rest of the Panthers combined had just 166 catches for 1,922 yards and 13 TDs. Steve Smith was close to 40% of their passing offense, which is outrageous. If the NFL wasn't going to give the award to a QB in 2005 (which Manning, or even Carson Palmer had good cases for), then give it to Smith, by far the best player on his offense that carried that offense, and not Alexander, who ran behind the league's best offensive line with two Hall of Famers.

2.) 2006 NL MVP (Ryan Howard over Albert Pujols)

2006 was not a great year for MVP voting, and this was just a terrible, nonsensical choice. In no way, shape or form did Ryan Howard have a better season than Albert Pujols (or even Carlos Beltran, who did it for the league's best team in 2006). The only thing Howard did better was hit 9 more home runs and drive in 12 more runs, which even in old-timey thinking, is pretty negligible when the other guy does everything better. In Howard's best hitting season, Pujols had a higher batting average (.313 to .331), On-Base (.425 to .431), and slugging (.659 to .671). Yes, these are close differences (though Howard does play in a slightly better hitters park), but Pujols still had Howard in all of them. Pujols also played far better defense, is a far better baserunner back then. Oh yeah, Pujols had those counting numbers after playing 16 fewer games (Pujols was having an all-time start to the season before an injury in May). Here's the ultimate kicker, though it shouldn't matter: Howard's team didn't make the playoffs and Pujols's team did. Those same people who claimed Trout didn't deserve the MVP over Cabrera in 2012 better not have voted or supported Howard here. Pujols had a 3 WAR edge for the advanced folks. You can't even cite voting fatigue, because up to this point, Pujols had won just 1 MVP (though he deserved at least one of the three Bonds won from 2002-2004). This really was a more illogical reversal of the 2012 debate, where the not only didn't the winner make the playoffs, but also he didn't have a better season.

1.) 2005 AL Cy Young (Bartolo Colon over Johan Santana)

Nothing beats this. Nothing really comes close. Four years later, the BBWAA gave Cy Youngs to Tim Lincecum and Zack Greinke, who won 15 and 16 games. In 2010, they gave one to Felix Hernandez who won 13 games. Somewhere around that the voters started to realize that win loss record was a horrible way to judge pitchers. Now, the cynic would say that there were few candidates in those years that had gaudy enough win numbers to beat those guys. I would argue that in 2010 David Price (19-7) and CC Sabathia (21-7) had good numbers and good win totals, but didn't come close to Felix (same with Wainwright in 2009 - though he did come close to beating Lincecum), and I think this trend is based off of what they did in 2005, giving the Cy Young to Bartolo Colon purely because he had 21 wins.

Now, this was Santana's worst season from 2004-06, but he was still so much better than Bartolo Colon in every way. He pitched more innings, gave up fewer hits, had the far better ERA, struck out 80 more guys while walking just two more,  and had a WHIP lead 0.971 to 1.159. Of course, Johan went just 16-7 (ironically the same record that Brandon Webb would have just a year later when he won the NL Cy Young - though in 2006 that led the NL), while Colon went 21-8. There is absolutely no argument for Colon other than the win total. None. For basically every other one on this list (except maybe Morneau) there are some arguments. Here there are none except that win figure. Of course, the 2005 Angels were far, far better offensively than the 2005 Twins. I have to think voters were scarred by awarding a guy who had a merely good season the Cy Young. This is the worst season by a Cy Young winning pitcher maybe ever. Really, it is. There is nothing remarkable about Colon's season. Roy Halladay has like 8 seasons better than that one, Roy Oswalt had a handful - and Oswalt never won the Cy Young. Honestly, if Santana didn't exist, this was the best case to give a reliever the award, as Mariano Rivera had an awesome year (not quite as good as Gagne's in 2003), and Colon simply a good one (unlike Schmidt and Prior in 2003). How Colon ever won is beyond me, and the worst part is that the vote wasn't even close, with Colon getting 17 first place votes to Santana's 8. I hope nothing ever beats this because I can't imagine an award injustice this bad.

NFL 2013: Week 12 Picks

Bad week last time out, going just 5-9-1, my worst week of the year. Maybe that's because I started off the column saying 'this will be quick'. Well, this might be quick. We'll see.


New Orleans Saints (8-2)  @  Atlanta Falcons (2-8)  (NO -9.5)

This line is too high. Road teams have a tough time covering on Thursday Night, especially against inflated spreads. The Falcons have to show up for this game, and I think they will. The Saints offense is a little banged up, with Jahri Evans expected to miss the game. I just think this is way too high a line to pick to win and cover on a Thursday Night in a major rivalry game where only one side would be too interested in the rivalry aspect of the game (Atlanta), while the other has a far more important game 10 days later (New Orleans).

Saints 27  Falcons 21  (ATL +9.5)


Tampa Bay Buccaneers (2-8)  @  Detroit Lions (6-4)  (DET -8)

I also think this line is too high. At least in this game the team favored by a lot are at home, but the Buccaneers, under the Reign of Glennon, have come together to at least play consistently decent football. Detroit is good at home (losing there to just Cincinnati), but after mistakenly trusting them to cover on the road against Pittsburgh, I really don't have much faith here. I think they'll win, and they could easily cover, but I've really lost faith in them last week. And they, much like New Orleans, have a far more important game coming up.

Buccaneers 20  Lions 24  (TB +8)


Jacksonville Jaguars (1-9)  @  Houston Texans (2-8)  (HOU -10)

The Texans were 2-0. That happened. That was real. Now, they could have very easily lost either of those games, but they've lost their last 8 games, and now they are a 10 point favorite. That is how bad the Jacksonville Jaguars are. After their deserved win to allow them to avoid an 0-16 season, they were back to their best losing easily at home to Arizona. I've done pretty badly picking them to cover really high spreads. It hasn't worked. I'm giving up that theory. The Texans are still a far, far more talented team than Jacksonville, and they have to win sooner or later. Sooner happens now, they take out their frustrations.

Jaguars 10  Texans 27  (HOU -10)


Pittsburgh Steelers (4-6)  @  Cleveland Browns (4-6)  (CLE -1)

This pathetic Steelers team that is leaking Roethlisberger trade rumors, that has one of the worst hires ever as their Offensive Coordinators, which gave up 55 points 20 days ago, they are just one game back of the #6 seed (and they've beaten the current #6 seeded Jets). This can't be happening. The Browns are a decent team at home, but a checkdown machine like Jason Campbell is the exact wrong QB to take advantage of the problems in the Steelers defense. I think the Steelers win, setting up somehow what will be a really big game on Thanksgiving Night.

Steelers 20  Browns 13  (PIT +1)


Chicago Bears (6-4)  @  St. Louis Rams (6-4)  (STL -1)

This is a really tough game to pick. The low line essentially makes this about picking a winner. There's not one matchup on either side that I really like for either team. The closest to any real advantage is the Bears receivers against a secondary that just lost Cortland Finnegan, and a scheme that can neutralize the Rams pass rush. The other side should allow Zack Stacy to have a nice game against a terrible defense. I think the Bears are a better team, and Josh McCown is playing well, but the Rams are at home coming off of a bye. I really have no idea, but I'll give it to St. Louis, who's own backup QB could succeed against a defense that is more injured than ever.

Bears 20  Rams 23  (STL -1)


Minnesota Vikings (2-8)  @  Green Bay Packers (5-5)  (GB -5.5)

Aaron Rodgers might or might not be back for the Thanksgiving game, and there is a legitimate chance the Packers go 0-5 without Rodgers (Aaron playing one drive of the first game). The Packers were 5-2, cruising to the NFC North with an easy schedule ahead. A 1st-round bye was on the table, and now it is probably more likely than not the Packers aren't in the playoffs. Just sad. Anyway, Christian Ponder is starting once again, as is Scott Tolzein, who didn't look terrible. Considering the backup, this line seems a little high to me. I can easily see the Vikings winning, controlling the clock the same way the Giants did. I'll take the Packers to win, but not cover this number.

Vikings 21  Packers 24  (MIN +5.5)


San Diego Chargers (4-6)  @  Kansas City Chiefs (9-1)  (KC -4.5)

After taking way too many favorites last week and getting owned for it, I'm taking way too many underdogs in this week. This is a classic trap game for the Chiefs, combining a little come-down after a big loss, with a massive, massive game coming up next week. The Chargers have much more to play for in this game, as a loss here is so hurtful to their playoff chances. The Chargers quick-throw offense should do well against the Chiefs defense. It's the other side I worry about. I think this line is fine, and ATS, this is a 50/50 prop. I'll go with San Diego, but I don't feel too confident about it.

Chargers 23  Chiefs 20  (SD +4.5)


New York Jets (4-6)  @  Baltimore Ravens (4-6)  (BAL -3.5)

Ravens. Two years ago, Mark Sanchez took a 2-1 Jets team to Baltimore in Week 4. The Jets got slaughtered 34-17 (in a game where each team had two Defense or Special Teams TDs). Mark Sanchez was never really the same again. Geno Smith, honestly, has worse stats than Mark Sanchez did in his rookie season. He's had better games than Mark did, but also, and this is hard to believe, has had worse ones. The Jets are entering a buzz-saw, to me, right now. They'll finally break their win-one-lose-one streak in the worse of the two ways.

Jets 14  Ravens 24  (BAL -3.5)


Carolina Panthers (7-3)  @  Miami Dolphins (5-5)  (CAR -5)

This line scares me. The Panthers are a very good team, but there's some trends going against them. First, they're playing off of a short week. Then, they're playing a team playing its 2nd straight home game (teams cover a 2nd straight home game more often than not). The Dolphins quietly, are still in the thick of the Wild Card race, and they need this game. The Panthers do to, needing to keep pace with New Orleans. I'll go with the Panthers, a team I've ridden the past six weeks, where they're 6-0 straight up and ATS, but I wouldn't be shocked if the Dolphins win this. What decides it for me, though, is the Panthers front seven, and D-Line in particular (which will be without Charles Johnson) against that mess of an O-Line for Miami.

Panthers 26  Dolphins 13  (CAR -5)


Tennessee Titans (4-6)  @  Oakland Raiders (4-6)  (TEN -1)

Why are the Titans the favorite here? Both teams are starting a backup QB. Ryan Fitzpatrick has yet to win a game. The Raiders have won with McGloin as a starter. The Raiders defense has held up outside of one terrible performance against Philadelphia. The Raiders offense is missing McFadden but not like that has stopped them from being frisky before. The only thing Tennessee has going for it is they're coming off a Thursday Night Game. I think the Raiders will get way more of the public action, and that is why I'm taking Tennessee.

Titans 30  Raiders 20  (TEN -1)


Indianapolis Colts (7-3)  @  Arizona Cardinals (6-4)  (ARZ -3)

After claiming I was taking too many underdogs, I took three straight favorites, and I love the Cardinals here. What do we know about Indianapolis? They start slow. Even in the games the high profile games they've won, they have started slow (12-0 to Seattle, 7-0 to Denver). The Cardinals are good enough defensively that they won't let the Colts comeback from down by too much. Bruce Arians is playing his former team here. And, the Colts have far less to play for here, as yes, they still have to play to win a first-round bye, but a loss to an NFC team is the loss you can live with. The Cardinals need to keep pace with the other 6-4 teams in the wild card race (Chicago/Detroit, San Francisco). They can't afford to lose these winnable games. So... I think they will. I like the Colts, who's defense should do really well against this marginal offense.

Colts 24  Cardinals 20  (IND +3)


Dallas Cowboys (5-5)  @  New York Giants (4-6)  (NYG -2.5)

This line is dumb. It should be higher. Dallas is not very good. They're defense is really injured, and the Giants are finding some form offensively. The Giants offense has been good for a month now, and the Cowboys offense has been average for about as long. The Giants are at home, with more to play for, and they rarely get swept by the Cowboys (hasn't happened since 2007 - when of course they won the 3rd game between the two teams). The Giants should be favored by more, and I think they win and cover this low spread.

Cowboys 20  Giants 28  (NYG -2.5)


Denver Broncos (9-1)  @  New England Patriots (7-3)  (NE -2.5)
I listen to the Grantland NFL Podcast, and one of their co-hosts, Bill Barnwell, asked a really good question: "What do the Patriots do better than Denver?". In reality, because of injuries up front to Wilfork, Kelly and Mayo, and a banged-up secondary, the answer, really, is nothing. They have a better coaching staff, probably. They have a better special teams, but Denver's isn't bad. Denver's passing offense is better. It's rush offense is basically the same (DVOA has Denver's better). Their rush defense is better, and since the return of Von Miller, their pass defense and New England's have gone in opposite directions. That all said, this game is way, way, way more important for New England. A loss here, really, means nothing for Denver if they can beat Kansas City next week. That game is far more important. They can lose this game, and still be in full control of getting the #1 seed. The Patriots don't have that luxury. I don't think the Broncos are overlooking New England. But I think the Patriots are a good team, and they're desperate. This is going against the historical trend of the rivalry (which is, outside of 2008 when Brady wasn't there, the better record going into the game wins - held in 2003-4 playoffs, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010, it was tied the other years), but I think desperation matters.

Broncos 27  Patriots 30  (NE -2.5)


San Francisco 49ers (6-4)  @  Washington Redskins (3-7)  (SF -6)

I feel a lot about this game that I feel about the Saints vs. Falcons game, where the underdog will be throwing everything at this game. The one difference is the Saints may have misplaced focus, with a clearly bigger game coming next. The 49ers don't have that. They have to stop this losing streak and win. In many ways, there a ton of similarities between this game and the 49ers @ Rams game back in Week 4, when the 49ers were coming off of two straight losses and had to play a road primetime game. They slaughtered the Rams. If the 49ers have shown anything, it is that they can beat up on bad teams. The Redskins are a bad team, and the 49ers should beat them badly enough.

49ers 34  Redskins 17  (SF -6)


Enjoy the Games!!

The End of the Ultra Long Haul: Goodbye to Flight SQ21-22

A significant event in Aviation History is happening tomorrow. Some people know about it, but those people are generally ones like me, who care about random facts and developments in civil commercial aviation. Most people don’t know about it. Most people will not be in the least way effected by what is happening tomorrow, but it still is significant. It is a chapter in The Book of Aviation that is ending. Tomorrow, November 23^rd, 2013, Singapore Airlines is ending their non-stop Singapore-Newark-Singapore flight.

Flight # SQ 21-22, for the past nine years since it was installed, was the world’s longest flight. In fact, Singapore Airlines also, for almost that entire period, ran the world’s 2^nd longest flight, a non-stop flight from Singapore to Los Angeles and back. That flight ended about a month ago, and now this one is about to fly its final flight – chances are the final one from Singapore to Newark is in the air right now. This flight is flown by an Airbus A340-500. That particular plane, probably unknown to most, is as important as the flight route that is ending, the final vestige of a period in aviation where to fly as far as possible reigned supreme.

Most commercial aviation fanatics (the type of people that populate the Airliners.net forum – which I frequent but don’t post on due to their fee they charge) love this plane to an unhealthy level. In honesty, it is an absolutely stunning bird. A magnificent plane, the most beautiful plane in the sky. However, it is also a nightmare to run. Airlines have been getting rid of this plane prematurely for years now. Singapore Airlines held onto them for far longer than some of their competitors, running two legacy routes, but finally the costs didn’t justify the means of flying the two longest flights in the world.

30 Years ago, the longest flight in the world was from Los Angeles to Tokyo. 15 years ago, that grew to Chicago to Hong Kong. Between that time and even for a few years after, one of the biggest goals for Boeing and Airbus was to develop planes that could increasingly connect further and further city pairs. The Airbus A340-500 was supposed to end that fight and make Airbus the winner. Airbus A340 directly competed with Boeing’s 777, and the fact that the A340 had four engines gave it a huge leg up. First, it gave the plane slightly more power, and the fact that it had four engines allowed it to travel shorter routes that went over oceans, because back then there were severe restrictions placed on two-engine aircraft as to how far away from a potential emergency landing airport a plane could fly.

Over time, as Boeing developed sturdier, reliable two-engine aircraft, those restrictions loosened, and two-engine aircraft could start running the same routes that the four-engine aircraft could run. That leads to the 2^nd development that made Boeing’s 777 the ultimate winner: fuel prices.

Rising fuel prices in the 21^st Century made running four-engine aircraft increasingly less profitable. Now that two-engine aircraft could run the same routes (think any route from the US to Tokyo/China/Korea, or routes from the US to the Middle East/India), there was no need for a four-engine aircraft. But the A340-500 was different. It could go further than any two-engine plane. It could run routes that no 777 could run. That is what Airbus was betting on, and they lost – or more directly, the airlines that believed them lost.

Ultra-Long Haul (ULH) travel is what those two flights were deemed, as were a few other. And in the end what matters more than anything is if people want to fly those flights. Are there enough people to fly from New York to Singapore? In the end, not really. Singapore Airlines decided then to cut that supply by making their A340-500 planes business class only, and while they filled the plane, it still wasn’t profitable enough to hold onto these unsellable planes. In the end, what killed ULH travel wasn’t as much fuel prices as that people don’t really need to fly these routes.

There is a big debate going on at airliners.net (and other related aviation blogs) as to whether these types of routes will be brought back in the future, as Boeing and Airbus are developing planes that could fly these routes. All of them are two-engine and more fuel-efficient than the planes that came before them. The Boeing 787-9 can fly Singapore to Newark, and that plane should be out late in 2014. The Airbus A350-900R and yet to be manufactured but planned Boeing 777-9X could both potentially fly that and similar routes and they’ll be out near the end of the decade or beginning of the 2020s. So, the capability will be there, but will those routes return?

Probably not. The demand just isn’t there. The demand for New York to Singapore isn’t big enough to support a direct flight (there is a flight that connects those two cities, but stops in Frankfurt – and as someone who flew that flight the other way, very few people who came on board with me in Singapore flew all the way to New York). There isn’t nearly enough demand to support a direct flight from New York to Bangkok. Thai Airways, using an A340-500, once flew that route. At the time, it was the 3^rd longest in the world behind the two Singapore Airlines’ ones. They had far less patience, cutting it back in 2008.

The only ULH route that really has demand is Sydney to London. That is the ultimate goal, to create a plane that could fly that route, and none of these new planes can. In fact, most of the ‘next generation’ of aircraft (Boeing 787, Airbus A350 families of planes) have less range than the previous. Efficiency is replacing range, as airlines, due to rising fuel costs and lack of demand, have decided that getting people from place to place more efficiently is far more important than getting them as far as possible. For years and years and years, getting people further and further was the fight that both the airlines and the manufacturers were fighting. Airbus won the manufacturer battle, and Singapore Airlines won it for airlines, but both ultimately realized it wasn’t a flight really worth winning.

Spending 18 hours and 30 minutes is not appealing to most people. It’s really not appealing to any person except for crazy ones like me. I have come close to that, with my longest flight being the soon to be 11^th-longest in the world, a South African Airways flight between New York and Johannesburg. That was about 15.5 hours. That was one of my most enjoyable flights in my life, giving me enough time to get a good sleep and enjoy the plane flight itself. Those flights are the ones I wanted to take. On my recent trip, I took four flights that exceeded 10 hours (that one, Johannesburg-Bangkok, Melbourne-Bangkok, Singapore-Frankfurt), but that was the only one that would be classified as ULH, and I loved it.

I always wanted to take the flight from Newark to Singapore.  I wanted to be on that plane for that long. My Dad took it once, years ago back in the route’s infancy, before it became an all business class flight, before Singapore Airlines realized it was fighting a losing battle. I’ll never get to take it unless Singapore Airlines brings it back, but it won’t be on an Airbus A340-500. It won’t be on the world’s most beautiful plane. It may never come back, and I feel like if it ever does, it will be after a plane is built that could get from Sydney to London, this making the Newark to Singapore flight not the longest in the world.

I’ve been an aviation fanatic since I was a kid. I loved airplanes, airlines and airports. My first real love of an airport was JFK airport in New York. I was devastated when I was about 6 when my Uncle in Chicago told me that O’Hare Airport was busier than JFK (and it wasn’t close back then, it is somewhat closer now that many airlines have pulled out of Newark and relocated to JFK, couple with the rise of JetBlue). I was mystified when I found out that somehow, bizarrely Atlanta Hartsfield Airport was the busiest in the world, and it has been for more than a decade now. I was excited when I learned how to tell the difference between a Boeing 777-200 and a Boeing 777-300, and moreover the difference between a B777-300 and a Boeing 777-300ER (the –ER has bigger, GE made engines). But nothing in aviation made me prouder than when the airport closest to my home, little Newark Airport, that international airlines were constantly pulling out of, making it more and more a United-only airport, had the distinction of having the longest flight.

That will end tomorrow. That flight is gone. What is replacing it as the world’s longest flight? A flight between Sydney and Dallas (oddly, my family in Melbourne are taking this flight in three days, just getting it after it becomes the longest in the world). That seems less fun. Singapore to Newark just seems longer when you look at a globe. Singapore is so far, the quickest way is to fly directly North from Newark, cross over the North Pole, and fly directly South over Russia=>China=>Thailand and finally down into Singapore. They don’t fly that way because of wind currents and other stuff that is too complicated for even me to realize, but that is how the route should be done.

The world is far bigger than most people understand, and to think man made a device that could transport someone from two parts of the world so vastly apart is staggering. Aviation came so far in 100 years (about the time from the Wright Brother’s first flight to Singapore’s first flight to Newark). Because of fuel prices, the world will probably never go further in connecting itself until, in all honesty, some new technology is developed (that Sydney-London flight is not even on the table for planes that won’t be released until the mid-2020s). Flight# SQ 21-22 represented something amazing in aviation, as did the plane that flew it. It represented everything that was alluring about aviation, the longest flight in the world on the world’s most beautiful plane.-

The first flight - Picture taken on June 28, 2004.

All Credit to Airliners.net for the photos.