Bye, Bye Jon Stewart

I first started watching the Daily Show (and for that matter, Colbert Report as well) in earnest in 2008. That summer, oddly the same summer that got me started watching soccer when my Dad was traveling to Connecticut five days a week and my Mom and sister were in India, I started watching The Daily Show each evening with my parents. Six-and-a-half years later, Jon Stewart has decided to call it quits. Six months ago, Stewart’s most successful protégé, Stephen Colbert, did the same on the same network. Ending his show to take a much more storied gig, taking over The Late Show from David Letterman’s esteemed post after his 21 years at the helm. Comedy Central, in just six months, has now lost two of the most iconic shows of the 21^st Century, but while Colbert leaving for greener (figuratively and literally, he will undoubtedly be paid more by CBS) pastures was not too surprising, Jon Stewart suddenly, without much indication, announcing that 2015 will be his last year in charge of the Daily Show, is just stunning, and truthfully, heartbreaking.

Jon Stewart did not invent fake news, but he perfected it. He took over a show that was actually quite handily managed by Craig Kilborn (who left, like Colbert, for a CBS late-night show) in 1999. Kilborn’s show, though, was satirizing the news-man (oddly, much like Colbert would on the Report – though Colbert was more subtle). Stewart took over, and with his stand-up already rooted in political and socio-economic topics, turned it into a fake-news show. It is a small difference, but for the legacy of both the show and Jon Stewart, it was an entirely important difference.

Jon Stewart took over the show leading into the 2000 Election. It was a perfect opportunity for him to root his place in the US pop-culture scene. For once, we had a close election. Nay, the closest election in modern history. Jon Stewart took on the election, and the months following, with amazing aplomb. It was his catalyst, and a most effective one. His election coverage has always been brilliant, but he was able to hone it well with arguably the most memorable presidential election ever. Stewart presided with a nightly fake-news show throughout the entire Bush presidency, and will do so for almost all the Obama presidency. And while he was probably sharper during the Bush years, he became more confident, more pointed, and more important during the Obama years.

It is hard to say what is the lasting legacy of Jon Stewart. On one hand, he perfected the fake news format, getting so good at it that millions of people, unashamedly, admitted to getting most of their real news from The Daily Show. He also, as years grew on, was able to inject more and more legitimacy and importance into his platform. The show stayed rooted in comedy, and he kept making people laugh, but he also made people think a whole lot more than a show on Comedy Central should. Then again, maybe his legacy is the people he got to do 1/3^rd of his bidding. His correspondents became the ‘Not Ready for Primetime’ version of the 2000s that SNL was in the 70’s-80’s. It started with the Steve’s, Carrell and Colbert, both putting in years of yeoman’s work before leaving to become two of the most important and impressive comedy minds of their generation. But behind them was Ed Helms, Rob Corddry, Larry Wilmore, Wyatt Cenak, and most recently and maybe most importantly, John Oliver. Jon Stewart was known for creating an impressively challenging but also nurturing work environment, the type that could cultivate this immense talent they had on hand.

Jon Stewart and his show won the Emmy for best Creative Program for 11 straight years. From 2003 through 2013 no one else won this Emmy. Before him was 5-straight years of David Letterman winning, and after has come two years of the Colbert Report. Of course, Stewart’s show had to bridge that gap, as Colbert will take over for Letterman probably around the time Stewart retires. In years past, that was Jon Stewart’s job to lose. In actuality, Jon Stewart had an open contract offer for years to have first right of refusal to accept or decline taking over from Letterman, a man Stewart loved and admired, when Dave finally stepped aside. Funny thing, though, Jon Stewart was so good at what he did and so entrenched in his particular universe, that he outgrew taking over the Late Show. He could have far more impact and far more fun, just hosting The Daily Show. In the end, when Letterman’s seat finally opened up, he also stepped aside, letting the man who once worked for him take the job instead.

It is unclear what Jon Stewart will do from here. The likely answer is that he will go deeper into movie-making, a sensible option given the (relative) success of his directorial debut Rosewater. Stewart is still relatively young. There is life, in both years and energy, left inside him. Jon Stewart will live again, in some form. What it is we don’t know yet, and we may not know for a while. The other intriguing question is who will replace him. Both he and Comedy Central have confirmed that ‘The Daily Show’ franchise will continue with someone else at the helm. In one sense it seems odd for anyone else to be at the end of the ‘This is the ‘Daily Show with….’’ Sentence, but we have to remember someone once was. Initial guesses have ranged from basically all the various established current Daily Show correspondents (Jessica Williams, Aasiv Mandvi, the married duo of Jason Jones and Samantha Bee), to past ones (Wyatt Cenak, Rob Riggle), to random prospects (Aisha Tyler, Tina Fey, Amy Poehler), to the man many saw would replace him (John Oliver – his HBO contract ends around the time Stewart would be leaving, and he was definitely the heir apparent when he filled in for Stewart in the Summer of 2013). No one really knows, and it doesn’t really matter. The franchise will live on in some form, but it will never be the same.

Jon Stewart has said on multiple occasions that he thinks of David Letterman as a God, as his idol. That’s why he so early on committed to CBS’s offer to have 1^st rights of taking over that show, and why he is downright submissive in his many appearances on The Late Show. Both are retiring their posts in 2015, and have held them for the lifespan of a high-schooler, 20 years for Dave, and 16 for Jon Stewart. While Letterman leaving will likely get more headlines, more public glorification and more interest, you can easily make the argument that Jon Stewart leaving is more important for 21^st-Century TV. Letterman is the last vestige of a dead TV format, if an ultimately successful one. Nightly 1-hour TV shows have been on since the 1950’s, and in premier spotlight since the 1960’s. Letterman is the last of the Greats. Everyone loves Jimmy Fallon, but he’s putting on a very different type of show that David Letterman is. Letterman is the lasting image of late-night TV of the 20^th Century. Well, though the Century is just 15% over, Jon Stewart is the main image of late-night TV in the 21^st Century.

For 15 years, from the 2000 election, through the Bush Years, through two wars overseas, through a global, and American-caused, financial crisis, through Obama’s election and through heightened partisan-ship across the US, Jon Stewart was able to give America what it wanted, with a brilliant mix of comedy and poignancy. Jon Stewart and his legacy will truly never be forgotten, a lasting memory of the modern comedian and modern newsman, all rolled into one. Jon Stewart will leave his post, someone else will take his place, but the Daily Show with Jon Stewart will remain among the most important artistic contributions to 21^st-Century culture. It speaks volumes, especially given the events recently happened with Brian Williams, that a fake-newsman leaving the TV stage is basically this Century’s version of Walter Cronkite retiring. Way too many people got their news from a fake news program, but Stewart made that program so good that it made all the sense in the world. 

Most to Least Annoying Fanbases of Dynasty's in Recent Times

This isn't a list of worst fanbases, but just fanbases that have achieved a lot of success recently. So no Packers fans (awful partly because they embrace this 'we own the team' thing when they're basically complicit in a giant scam), or Colts fans, or even Lakers fans. Haven't won enough. These are a list of fans that cheer for teams that have won a lot recently, and going form the most despicable to the Model Fanbase for 'How to Handle a Lot of Success'.



Absolutely Abhorrent Fanbases

9.) Barcelona Fans

I started this column with the Patriots as my worst fanbase, but Barcelona fans are the worst, in every way. First, they absolutely all bought into this notion that they are 'more than a club' that Barcelona is some puritanical religion that plays the game the right way. They bought into this that they made it a huge deal that Barca eschewed a corporate sponsor for their jersey till ~2011. Of course, then they aligned themselves fully with Qatar, the country running the most corrupt and despicable World Cup ever. When Barcelona's 'More Than a Club' thing was exposed as a fraud, they immediately swiveled onto the attack. They defended these shady signings and business dealings, immediately saying that 'everyone else does it' when they were penalized for first the Neymar signing and then the La Masia infractions. They also have never admitted to losing a game, always either having some awful excuse or turning to their favorite phrase "we far outplayed the other team", essentially deciding as a fanbase that possession should replace goals as the metric that decides soccer matches. Barcelona is like taking all self-righteous Montreal fans from Quebec, but then also giving the team they cheer for more money than anyone and still having defend their team like they're some small shop operating from Catalan Spain against hte Big Bad Royal Family, instead of a juggernaut, corrupt enterprise that has ruined a period of success pretty awfully over the past three years.


8.) New England Patriots Fans

There's really so little separating Pats fans from Barca fans. The Patriots fans have the same basic issue, they believe their whole organization is a level above the rest of the NFL. They bought into that idiotic 'Patriots Way' bullshit, despite them being just a team that won a lot of playoff games in a few years, and never let go even when the team became Chokers United from 2005-2013 in the playoffs. They really do think that everyone who comes to New England will immediately become better, and will never admit to the scores of examples when that is not the case. They'll make defenses for having a scumbag as a head coach, and a creep as an owner. They secretly all loath Brady for his umpteen magazine cover photos with livestock. They also didn't really exist before 1995. What I also hate about the Patriots fans, though, is that they think all of this awfulness is explained away by the fact that they were not a very good franchise before 1996. Of course, they did make the playoffs a few times and even a Super Bowl before that, but they basically think they were the 2000-2009 Lions for a 40 year time period. I have nothing good to say about this group of fans, people who can explain away cheating so much you really wonder if they were all complicit. I've never heard a group of fans use the childish defense of 'well, everyone else was doing it' so much. To those people, if you're organization is so damn smart, how come then, if indeed everyone else is doing it, how come the Pats are the only ones getting caught.


7.) Duke Fans

I mean, how is anyone a Duke fan. First of all, the school is basically either filled with braniac Asian kids who are too upset that they didn't get into the Ivy League of their choice that they're slaving away 20-hours a day, or uppity Southern folk descending from plantations. They basically latched onto this program that likes to reflect these things, as Duke players are better than your normal basketball player. They aren't thugs, they play the game the right way, and they are far more white than most. The Duke fans are ridiculously douchey, probably the worst of any in this list. They aren't entirely loathsome in the way they defend their team, but just hte fact that they embrace all the awful 1800's-type feelings surrounding the Blue Devils program is sadistic.


Holier-Than-Thou Fanbases

6.) St. Louis Cardinals Fans

The Cardinals have basically been something between the Patriots and Manning Colts, making the playoffs all the time, and having a really interesting mix between playoff failures, and a more interesting group of playoff successes. The Cardinals are always there, always in the thick of the playoffs, despite continuous roster turnover and churn. What is amazing is that this brilliant management is not what the Cardinals fans subject the rest of America to, it is the idea that St. Louis is the 'best baseball town'. I don't get mad at Cardinals fans because their team was able to draft fifty great players in the 3rd-80th round of the MLB draft, and develop them all, I get mad because they legitimately think they're the only MLB fan-base that will cheer at the right time, and stay silent at the right time, and never boo. I don't think any fanbase in America thinks more highly of themselves as fans as the Cardinals. It is one thing to be over-the-top arrogant about the team you support, but about yourself is just silly.


5.) Boston Red Sox Fans

Look, I think Sox fans from beginning of time through 2004 were great. The crowds in the 2004 World Series was fantastic. They helped that team tremendously. What I hate about the Sox Nation is how they reacted to that win, turning into one of the most conceited, overly prideful group of fans in MLB. They basically think that the Red Sox have solved everything, that all their prospects are gold, that their guys are better than everyone elses. They refuse to admit that 2013 was a complete fluke, a golden year surrounded by two 90+ loss seasons. They basically didn't admit that they became the Yankees, with their monetizing of everything in Fenway Park, to their gigantic contracts they gave out to old players, to trading away all their bad contracts because they could afford to. They basically became the Yankees on the field, but Yankee fans embrace their smug superiority in a slightly charming way. The Red Sox smugness is not a (pink) hat that fits them well. They seemed to think they were winning with Moneyball, not a giant checkbook, and some roided up sluggers (Ortiz, Manny). They sat by as management smeared player after player in their way out of town. And finally, they were pompous enough to just assume that Jon Lester was going to come back to the Red Sox after hte trade with Oakland, because, why wouldn't he?


Consistently Underappreciative/Conspiratorial Fanbases

4.) Real Madrid/Bayern Munich Fans

I'm putting these two together, because there's been some interesting connections between them. They've switched coaches all the time because their expectations are far too high. They are seemingly never happy with the current level of play, despite how incredible it can be. They always want to play the style that others play. Their fans always demean them of not playing 'Spanish' football (Madrid counter-attacks too much with Mourinho and Ancelotti) or 'German' football (Bayern doesn't counter enough with Guardiola), but at the end of the day, the fans love their team while also understanding the reasons why people may hate them. The Munich fans know Bayern has essentially pilfered the entire Bundesliga. Madridistas know that Real Madrid has more money than God and buys people for fun. They know these things, accept these things, but still want more from their team, not more respect from others.


3.) San Antonio Spurs Fans

I think the Spurs fans are fantastic. They've appreciated that team throughout the past 20 years, whether it was a Spurs group that was winning game after game 90-78, like they did from 2000-2007, or 110-100, like they've done the last five years. They keep the game atmosphere great, rarely arrive late or leave early, and love that team. What people don't like, though, is how the Spurs fans always have this utterly ridiculous inferiority complex. Spurs fans love to think that everyone dislikes the Spurs. Maybe that was true when they won their first 4 titles, though most hardcore NBA fans appreciated their brilliance, but now, ever since the Spurs basically became a Euro team since 2010, everyone loves the Spurs. They are basically the tentpole team for the statistical revolution in basketball, they are lauded as playing the highest form of the sport. The Spurs were so ceremoniously praised for their play over the last three years it became nauseating. The Spurs fans aren't arrogant, they aren't demeaning, they aren't nearly as holier-than-thou as they should be, given how the Spurs actually have a case that their team's management has solved the NBA, but their belief that no one likes them gets a little grating.


Actually Not Hateable, Generally Likable Fanbases

2.) Chicago Blackhawks Fans

There are some bad aspects of the Blackhawks fanbase. First, they refuse to admit that they basically tanked and got lucky and got two HOF players in Toews and Kane. Then, they are probably the biggest bandwagon fanbase in current sports. That place couldn't draw 10K before they struck gold in the NHL draft, and suddenly they get 22,000+ game after game? They understand hockey, but try to use their 'Original 6' status way too much. The Blackhawks, though, aren't overly offensive. They don't always defend their team. They don't all think Toews is better than Sidney Crosby (he's not) because of all the little things he does. They don't all excuse their players for hits. They accept defeat, as I don't know if one Hawks fan who thinks the Kings got lucky last year. The Blackhawks will perennially have success for another ~10 years, and their fanbase won't let it fully go to their heads. They don't demand coaching changes or trades, sticking with this team when it lost in the first round in 2011 and 2012. The Blackhawks are a reasonably good fanbase that has reacted well to having success, but will likely go back to dressing up like empty seats one Toews and Kane leave the building.


1.) San Francisco Giants Fans

If any fanbase wants to learn with how to handle success, watch these guys. The Giants just won their 3rd World Series in 5 years. That even sounds weird to write and it is 100% true. They've won with thrilling comebacks, and solid wins over good teams. They've just won. They've basically pulled off what hte Patriots did from 2001-2004, but their fans are about 5% as arrogant as Patriots fans became. The Giants fans are the one fanbase that, despite ample evidence showing that their shit does work in October, admit they're lucky. They admit that their team isn't God's Gift to Earth, that they don't have the best players. Their only real knock is embracing the myth-making around Madison Bumgarner, but even there, they'll still embrace Tim Lincecum despite him sucking for hte past three years (Lincecum would have left with a full smear campaign calling him an unabashed pot-head had he been a Red Sox). The Giants fans crowd that beautiful ballpark of theirs, generally gave a crap during games, and are a whole lot of fun when they win. They also seem to appreciate how lucky they are. I don't think there was one column coming out of San Francisco asking people to call them a dynasty. They have the least amount of inferiority complex as I've ever seen for a team that won this many titles. I want all great dynasty-type teams to have such fans, such loyal, unassuming, appreciative and good fans.

Bye, Bye, Marty

** Quick Note: Just 14 days ago, I wrote a piece about having to cope with sports mortality. This was following the Broncos sullen loss to the Colts where an injured Manning was playing with one leg. I noted there that I was facing that same situation with Marty Brodeur. Well, little did I know, Marty would actually retire just two weeks later. Everything in that column holds for Marty, but for one of the 5 best goalies of All Time retires, and he is my favorite hockey player I've ever followed, it deserves its own space**

Marty Brodeur will retire officially in two days. Of course, he will retire with a St. Louis Blues's backdrop in his press conference. This may be sad, this may be an imperfect way to go, but to me it is a perfect way to go. Marty Brodeur played as long as he thought he could play for, he played for as long as he wanted to, and retired probably a year too late. But he retired just in time to pick up one last shutout, his 125th of his career. He picked up three more wins, the 688th-690th of his career. Both those records will likely never fall. In fact, he's smashed both. The old wins record was 551. Just think of that. Hockey, has been played since the 1910's. Goalies really haven't changed too much. It isn't like baseball where pitchers went from throwing 50 starts a year to 30. Marty Brodeur knocked that record by 140. Of course, the shutout record might be even more ridiculous, as he passed a Golden record in hockey, Terry Sawchuck's 103 shutouts, by 20%. Marty Brodeur is the most voluminously impressive goaltender in NHL history, and his peers are really of the Barry Bonds and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar types.

In fact, Jabaar might be the best comp, a guy who played a ridiculous amount of years at a high enough level to do things few ever will. We have proof in front of our eyes that Kareem's ~38,000 points is ridiculous, as Kobe's essentially done. Marty Brodeur is the same, but his legacy goes far beyond all of that. Marty Brodeur is a winner. Not in the Tom Brady sense, not in the Madison Bumgarner sense. He's a winner in the best sense of the word. He was the goalie for three Stanley Cup Champions, and two more teams who made the Stanley Cup Finals. He was the goalie of a team that made the playoffs all but three years of his career, including 13 straight right in teh square of his prime. He set records for most 30-win seasons and most 40-wins seasons, again records few will ever touch. He was the Goalie on 2 Gold Medal winning teams, including dominant performances for the 2002 Canada team, the first Canadian team to win Gold in a long, long time. Marty Brodeur just won, a lot.

In a way, the success of his teams has always been the one knock on Brodeur. It was always the system, a trapping system that squeezed offensive success away from the game. It was always the talent around him, as for the first half of his career he was surrounded by multiple HOF-level defensemen, including two first ballot guys in Scott Stevens and Scott Neidermayer. There was always reasons to knock Brodeur, but at the end of the day, he just one. He won despite players coming in and out all the time, without ever getting good offensive support apart from two seasons (1999-2001, which happened to be two years the Devils made the Cup Finals and were a game way from going back-to-back). He won even after Stevens and Neidermayer left, setting records with the mid-2000s Devils, who asked him to play more than anyone else. He did the most amazing thing I've ever seen: won so much that despite winning three Cups, he actually got a long line of questions of 'can you succeed in the playoffs.'

That might be the most incredible thing in his career. From 1995 through 2003, the Devils made the Stanley Cup Finals four times and won three Cups. They were essentially a dynasty. Yet Brodeur's Stanley Cup Playoffs credentials were questioned. He was questioned after the Devils failed to advance past the 2nd round for 6 straight playoff campaigns following the 2003 Cup. He failed in notable moments. But he was also a 3-time Cup Winner. He also has the record for most shutouts in playoff history, and essentially the 2nd best GAA in NHL Playoff History (taking away guys who played back in the 1920-30's. Marty Brodeur was the greatest Regular Season goalie of all time, but he was also a pretty damn fantastic Playoff Goalie too.

Marty Brodeur played in teh Golden Era of goalies. He is part of the Big-3 of himself, Patrick Roy and Dominek Hasek, and they were flanked by Ed Belfour, Curtis Joseph, Olaf Kolzig and many others, but those first three stood out. They all had their different descriptions, but Marty's was always the least complimentary. Patrick Roy was the innovator, as he perfected the butterfly style of goaltending that essentially runs the league now, but he was always the most clutch, as his playoff winning is absurd. Hasek was the ultimate highlight goalie, with the numerous dramatic saves that could fill a whole night's worth of Sportscenter. He was also the Valuable one, the guy on the bad team who was so good he won MVP a few times. Marty was just the other won, the guy that was consistently, boringly good.

Marty, though, was so much more. He was an innovator too. Marty Brodeur's excellence with stickhandling is legendary. He was basically a 3rd defenseman, ruining offensive rushes all the time. He was the central cog in the Devils break. He was so good at handling the puck, the NHL basically invented a rule to shackle his effectiveness, creating the trapezoid that is there today. Marty also was a great throwback goalie, with a convential stand-up style, one that was able to fight off the Butterfly advances far longer than any of his peers. Marty was so good for so long, it really got under the radar by the end.

Marty Brodeur kept that team competitive long past their natural expiration date. The Devils hemorraghed talent from 2003-2010, losing players all the time. Especially defenseman, through retirement (Stevens, Daneyko), and Free Agency (Neidermayer the star, but also Rafalski and Paul Martin). The Devils stayed good, consistently getting close to 100 points each year and winning that division, because of Marty. They had to overwork him, to the point he was playing 75 of 82 games. This had an impact where he was tiring by the playoffs, but he made the playoffs possible.

I love Scott Stevens, he was a fearless leader that helped instill a true personality with the Devils. I think the World of Scott Neidermayer, one of the most innately talented players I've ever seen. I find Patrik Elias one of the most underrated players in the last 15 years. Still, Marty Brodeur was the best player the Devils have ever had. He will likely be the best player the Devils ever have. Marty Brodeur cared about the Devils, but he also just cared about winning and cared about hockey. He cared enough to play all the games. He cared enough to keep going at 40+, despite slipping skills. He was good enough to get the Devils to the Stanley Cup Finals in 2012. He was so good for so long people forgot and started to hate. 

Bye, Martin Brodeur, the best player in hockey I will ever root for, the best I will ever follow and care about. I hope retirement treats you well. I hope you come back to the Devils as reported in 2015, and be with this organization for years to come. I hope everything works out for you, and I hope people finally give you the respect you deserve. Marty Brodeur, the best I've ever seen.

Patriots Games

I feel like I have to write about it. I don't really want to. I'm biased, can't really help it in this case. I've hated this iteration of the New England Patriots, with their smug coach and their Golden Boy QB for far too long. I don't think any team comes close to them. The St. Louis Cardinals did for a time, and I'll always have a nice piece of contempt reserved for the Carolina Hurricanes, but nothing was close to the Patriots. So of course, I should feel happy that their enveloped by a cloud of suspicion once again, that the medical scalpel is revealing sordid layers of deceit. Yet, I'm not that glad, or even mad. I'm truly just nonplussed, in the literal sense of the word.

I loved the Spygate scandal, as it came at a very different time, when they had won Super Bowls more recently, when people still spoke of the 'Patriots Way' in the sense that the Patriots were just underdog kids who outworked everyone. Their nefariousness back then was more direct, more open, and more mockable. That was a true perfect storm, and it became the throughline for one of the more entertaining NFL seasons ever, from the events after Week 1, through the 'Eff-You' Pats run at 16-0, and through a Wild Playoffs ended with them losing a perfect season.

This was more rushed, and it did the one thing that I was hoping to avoid for these two weeks before the Super Bowl: care. I didn't want to care about this games, about two franchises I don't much like playing for a Super Bowl that, regardless of who wins, will be full of some truly hot taeks, like "Russell Wilson is the next Tom Brady', and "The Seahawks are a Dynasty", or "Belichick and Brady are the best Coach and QB of all time." I wanted to avoid that given the events of the last two weeks, with my favorite team possibly ending the career of my favorite player, and then laying the worst of eggs. Then I saw that tweet by Bob Kravitz. Many people cried Colts' homerism, jealousy and revenge at the tweet, but as someone who has followed the Indianapolis media, I know Kravitz would probably rather bash the Colts than prop up fabricated excuses. This rang true, and it has kept on ringing.

Despite the NFL messageboards being filled with physics lessons, calls of NFL sting's, claims by the Ravens, and tons of different reports pointing when this actually started (was it D'Qwell Jackson's innocuous interception, or the Ravens game, or the regular season game?), I held firm to what I believed in. Now, despite both Belichick and Brady today saying they have no idea what happened, I still think I believe strongly in what did happen.

Here's what I feel like I know: the Patriots deliberately under-inflated, or more accurately, deflated, their game balls ahead of the AFC Championship. Given the NFL wouldn't have truly cared, they likely did it in the Divisional Round, likely did it in the Regular Season game against hte Colts. They may have done it for years and years and years, though there's no proof, or even player/coach/team speculation of that.

Here's what I don't believe: I fully disagree with Belichick and Brady's claims that they didn't know this happened. Tom Brady is a QB, a QB so connected, so mindful and so anal about the little things in his game, that he, along with Peyton Manning, essentially forced the league for allow teams to 'rough' up their balls to the QB's liking for each game. Given that, I find it absolutely hard to believe that this happened without him knowing, if not outright directing it. I don't think McDaniels, or the equipment managers who this may get ultimately pinned on, would dare do something, nevertheless something illegal, to the footballs that Brady uses every game.

I'm less certain Belichick knew, but I don't think that changes anything. Belichick is the head coach of that team, he is, essentially the COO of the team, the man running the day-to-day operations of their main product: the players and their performance. If he didn't know this was going on, he should. Roger Goodell has done many things wrong, but I hold that his actions after the Saints bounty scandal was not one of those things. Back then he said, about Sean Payton, that ignorance is not an excuse. That applies here too.

Also, are we really supposed to believe that someone who will turn over every rock to find a small pebble of an advantage, as evidenced as recently as the previous week with his formations against Baltimore, does not know the rule, as he claimed today? Are we really supposed to believe that someone like him, who is the emperor in New England, did not know this was happening? If so, he should be ashamed that some underling could have done this under his watch and under his nose.

That all said, here is what I also know: This isn't that big of an infraction in isolation, but with the Patriots, we aren't dealing in isolation. Deflating the balls certainly gives you an (unfair) advantage. They are easier to control, easier to throw, easier to catch, and easier to grip. Things that help in every game, but certainly a game in adverse weather like the AFC Championship in the rain. Still, on its face, this isn't as big as the Bounty Scandal, or Spygate. But this can't be judged on its own. These are the Patriots, who, and their fans will always so otherwise, are hated as much for their reputation as their success.

The Patriots have few friends in the league. Bob Kraft may be respected, Bill Belichick may be even more respected, and Tom Brady may be the most respected, but I feel like none (other than maybe Brady) are particularly liked. Belichick has made no friends by pushing the boundaries, again as evidenced as recently as last week. That's why we get rumors and swirls that other players, management and even owners around the league want the book thrown at the Patriots. I don't know what the book means, and the book, especially if it involves suspensions, will occur after the Super Bowl, but something is going to happen. You get the sense that if this was just going to be a slap on the wrist, that would have leaked by now.

I also have some thoughts on the reaction. Not the reaction of Patriots fans, because they'll understandably try to defend their Leader at all costs, and not of the reaction of Patriots haters that want to see them suspended for the Super Bowl. I do have some other general thoughts. First, for the people that say "What does it matter, they won 45-7", there are two obvious counters:

1.) Does that implicitly mean it would matter if the game was close? I have a hard time believing those people would be immediately condemn the Patriots if this broke in full form after the Ravens game.

2.) Why does that matter, it is the process not the result.

The result does not matter. They could have cheated and lost, too. They still cheated their opponent and cheated the sport.

 The other area where I have issue with the reaction is those that other teams do it, or other QBs do it. I have never understood why people feel that this is a good, or even rational, defense. Isn't one of the first lessons society teaches kids that just because other people do it doesn't mean it is OK. I feel like many turn into five-year-old's when defending the Patriots, with the 'well... well... they did it too!" So what. If that is the case, either cheat better as this is the second time you got caught doing something 'everyone does', or don't belittle, show up and hate on teams and you won't get ratted out. There are tons of people that speed each day, far worse than you, but if you get caught going 77 in a 65, that doesn't really matter.

I have no idea what penalty the Patriots get, and assuming it isn't something franchise-altering, win or lose in the Super Bowl, people will likely forget about this come five years. When people look back at the Patriots dynasty, I'm still sure that Spygate will be the more infamous event; but it should be asked that here is a team always extolled as the class of the league, that has twice come out of shadows with blood on their hands. The only other institutional issue since Spygate was the Bounty case. 30 teams have, essentially, managed to steer clear of institution-wide controversy on-the-field, but the Patriots just seem to not be able to.

It doesn't matter that it would not have changed the outcome. It doesn't matter that Bill Belichick claims to not have known about this (his dumber lie - and this was definitely a lie - was claiming that he didn't know about anything until Monday, when the Patriots were forced to change balls at halftime). It doesn't matter that Brady pulled the same act and tried to distance himself, even bringing up ISIS for some reason. It doesn't matter that those two have a huge game to play in 10 days, and the Seahawks are sitting back. It doesn't matter if they did this once, twice, or have done it for every game since 2007. The Patriots did it, they attacked, embraced and finally exuded that beautiful shade of gray that they seem to permanently be attached to. I'll never feel bad for them, but I'll also never trust them again.

Coping with Sports Mortality

This isn’t the first time I got over a Peyton Manning playoff loss within a day. This happened once before, back in January 2008. That was a time before I had DVR, and I came back home from a Regional Orchestra Concert to check my computer and see that the Chargers had upset the Colts 28-24. I was stunned, left to live with another January failure for Peyton. I didn’t even care enough to read about how he lost; good thing, since I didn’t have to worry about the gory details (picks that were screen passes batted up in the air, drops on 3^rd and 4^th down on the final drive, top-ranked defense blows lead twice and gives up TD to Billy Volek). Then, within a day I got over it.

The 2007 Colts were the 2^nd best team in the AFC by any measure, and getting one-and-done’d by San Diego was most certainly a disappointment. Still, while they were quite clearly the 2^nd best team, they were equally clearly not the 1^st best. They wouldn’t have come close to the 2007 Patriots in Foxboro without Dwight Freeney and with Robert Mathis nursing his own injury. That team would probably have put up less of a challenge than the frisky Chargers did. It added up to another one-and-done, but it at least spared myself the ignominy of Peyton losing to Brady.

This year was different. I entered the weekend hoping the Ravens could knock off New England, and while they didn’t in their own crushing way, they exposed some flaws that I thought the Broncos could expose. Then I saw Peyton play, I saw him struggle to move, misfiring throws because he couldn’t step in to them. I was sure he was hurt, that something was wrong. That team, even if they eeked out a 17-14 win (you know, if that #4 ranked defense decided to show up), would have lost to New England. Word came out a day later that Manning’s thigh injury was worse than initially reported or thought, that he was really struggling all over the place since the San Diego game. Coupled with Manning’s diminished arm strength post-neck surgery, and the fact that he relies on his legs to generate power, it made sense that he was spotty. I was relieved to not have to deal with Broncos – Patriots (and, honestly, I can’t even talk myself enough into the Colts winning to care), but also saddened by the thought that seeing an injured Manning was my last sight of him.

Given the dramatic events that have transpired over the past 40 hours since the game ended, including the injury reports, to the millions of columns and tweets written his way calling for him to step aside (which I’m sure will burn him even more), to the firing of Fox and the uncertainty in the coaching staff, I was like a pendulum swinging between the idea that he was gone to he is coming back. I’ve know stuck on the ‘Manning is coming back for 2015’ side of the dial, but the fleeting moments where I thought he might have played his last game really got me thinking about my relationship with sports.

You always hear the phrase that you root for laundry, that the team is, and should, be more important than the players. That is a noble and serene frame of mind, held up rightfully as how to go about sports fandom, but it is a lie. It is a lie at least for someone my age. I’ve come to the point in my Sports fan life that I am seeing a full cycle of great athletes, but more importantly, a full cycle of favorite athletes, come and go. It started with Roy Oswalt, then it became Marty Brodeur leaving New Jersey, now it could be Peyton Manning. Rafael Nadal has seemingly been one bad slip away from the same roster for a few years now. I don’t remember watching football without Peyton Manning in the league, or watching the Devils without Marty. If I really am a sports fan, if I really will root for laundry, I can move on. As weird as it sounds coming from someone who has written primarily a sports blog for five –plus years now, maybe I am not.

When Peyton Manning left for Denver, I decided that while I will still follow and care for the Colts, my main goal as a fan will be rooting Peyton on to a 2^nd Super Bowl, the one thing he deserves. I told myself that Peyton will play 3-5 years, after which I get prime-Luck for 10+ years. Now that I may be facing that scenario within a month, I’ve realized that I’m not ready for that world. I’m not ready for Peyton Manning to not line up on Sunday’s. I’m not ready for having a Manning-Brady debate that uses retrospective, instead of perspective and prospective. I’m not ready to root fully for Andrew Luck. I’m not ready to move on.

No athlete is as meaningful for me as Peyton Manning, mainly because no one combined so many interesting qualities. Manning was a perfectionist, a savant, a genius, but also deeply troubled in terms of his team’s inability to win in the playoffs. He was lauded and stoned by the media, by fans, by critics and appraisers. I always loved and will love him; I will put him up as the best QB in the history of football, and in my heart I know that is true, but I’ve never wanted other people to accept that fact more with any other athlete. Peyton was the life-force that drove my involvement. I do love football beyond Peyton. Certainly, if I have to rewatch a game, there are many I’ll choose ahead of games he was involved with; but Peyton drove me to know, watch, love and live the game. He may not be gone yet, but he will be within 24 months, I’m sure of it. Am I ready for that brave new world?

I was in hockey. I still love the game, if not the Devils less. I was ready in baseball, as I still love the game, and still love the Astros, that weird concoction of a Master Plan set to work by 2018. I don’t know if I’m ready for football. I’ve spent so much time and effort defending Peyton Manning, gathering evidence and counter-evidence, I feel like a lawyer who spent years working on one major case, or a writer doing the same for a book.

I knew this day would come with Peyton Manning, and I know it will for all athletes, but it actually happening is one of those interesting fork-in-the-road moments for a sports fan. Coming to face-to-face with your favorites star’s career mortality makes you investigate your own fanhood’s as well. I’ve already past the first test with no issue: having and starting to root for players who are my own age, if not younger. I can do that without any problem. But can I replace the first wave of favorites, of stars, of idols? Can I do that and continue to love this game, or any game?

He may return. He probably will return. He may return and, with a new aggressive coach, and some new pieces, and a full healthy thigh and a knock-on-wood healthy year ahead, go 14-2 and ride off into the sunset with that 2^nd trophy. That could happen, but even then I’ll have to face this problem, I’ll have to move forward knowing that the most important piece of my life as a sports fan, the man that has lorded over my fandom and that league with equal importance for 15 years, is no longer there.

I once envied that day. Assuming he could win another ring, I couldn’t wait for both Peyton Manning and Tom Brady to retire. Then I could enjoy games against major rivals, I could stand to listen to sports talk radio toss up silly ‘who’s the best QB?’ questions. I can go back to doing what a sports fan should do: watch the game without alternating between gnawing off every fingernail in anxiety and gnashing your teeth to every inane argument. That day seemed so bright, but faced with the reality (or half reality, assuming Brady stays longer), it loom’s like a dark cloud.

This isn’t only about Peyton Manning. As stated, I faced a similar reality with Marty Brodeur, and I don’t know if I’ll ever care about hockey as much. It happened with Oswalt, the first of my sports heroes to exit the limelight; he was an even more tortured soul, someone who never got even 1% as many glowing career obituaries that Marty did and Peyton will. I’ll face it with Rafael Nadal, who will likely be forced into retirement. I root for laundry, sure, but I also openly, unabashedly, root for people. I got invested in Peyton Manning more than I got invested in the Colts. I got invested in Roy Oswalt more than the Astros. I got invested in them as people, to get the recognition they deserve, the get the success and joy they deserve even more. Through that, I lost some touch with the laundry, and with my own joy that I deserve as a fan.

I’ve cited a concept introduced to me by a Colts blogger (and somewhat e-friend through the years on various sites) Nate Dunlevy, that a team should be judged by how many ‘Happy Sunday’s’ they give you, not if they ultimately win a title. This was in backlash to the Manning era, on his release, that they only went to 2 Super Bowls, and only won one. He said that we didn’t appreciate the Manning era, as year after year, the Manning-led Colts gave us 12 Happy Sunday’s out of 16. It was a great point, and so true with those teams. They went 12-4 or better for seven straight years. They also lost a playoff game in all but one of those seasons. Did that make them failures? Even if the answer is yes, the better question is should that make them failures? And that answer is most certainly no.

Peyton Manning gave me more happy Sunday’s than any athlete ever will. Even this year he gave me a bunch, including him beating a TD record few thought he could three years ago when he was throwing so badly Todd Helton was embarrassed. The Colts gave me a bunch, and now the Broncos did as well. I have to embody that spirit of the ‘Happy Sunday’ as I move forward into the inevitable Manning-less NFL. Remember those days, bank those memories. Not the memories of promising seasons lost, but how those promising seasons were created in the first place – the games, and joys, laughs, cries, and heartburn that combined to make them something special.

The goal for a sports fan is to root for laundry, and I’ll have to do that to keep going. Everyone’s career will be shorter than your life as a fan. Laundry is the only thing that won’t. But I won’t feel bad for not doing so in the past, or continuing to attach myself to great athletes that intersect with teams I am passionate about. That is going against what gave me so many Happy Sundays in the first place. Sports life without Peyton Manning will be a hard place, but it will still be sports, it will still be there. To capture my future as a sports fan, I do have to enjoy the past more. Those memories are banked, from Manning, to Brodeur, to Oswalt, to Nadal, to even Duncan and Zidane and Ed Reed. I have to appreciate all that they gave me, but also all I learned from them about the games they mastered. Their lasting gift to their fans were the memories, but also the knowledge and excitement they gave us for the games they played, gifts that will carry on long after they’re gone.

2014 NFL Playoffs: Divisional Round Picks

The best weekend of the year, guys. It is here, Divisional Weekend. Four good games, three networks, 5 Super Bowl winning QBs, and the guy who will win at least one. They're all here on Saturday and Sunday Night!!

(A6)  Baltimore Ravens  (10-6)  @  (A1)  New England Patriots  (12-4)

Sat. 4:35  -  NBC    |    Patriots -7

State of the Teams: The Ravens have had some good success against the Patriots in recent years, don't you know? They have done some good work in this matchup, winning two of the three playoff games and close in every regular season game, apart form last year's 41-7 disaster. The Ravens also enter healthier than they've been in a while. They should get Eugene Monroe back, which should shore up their one large weakness on offense (LT). Their secondary is still injury riddled, but those riddles happened a while ago now, and they've settled on Rashaan Melvin on one side and Lardarius Webb, who's looking better each week, on the other. They've found a formula that somewhat works behind that great front. The Patriots have absolutely no injury concerns at all, though. Barely anyone's even 'questionable', and they usually put up half their lineup on the injury report. Edelman returns after missing his last two games with a concussion (and then rest). The defense is fully healthy. We are all healthy, living in Bill Belichick's world. Quietly, their offense struggled at times down the stretch, having 6 bad halves of their last 7 that they tried. The one expection was a scary 15-minute stretch against Miami to turn a 14-13 halftime score into a 41-13 laugher, but they struggled against San Diego, the Jets and the one half that the 1st-team was in there against Buffalo. They're not exactly entering the playoffs stronger than the team up in Denver everyone is picking apart.

The Matchup: We have evidence the Ravens match up well against the Patriots, or at least did from 2009-2012. They have a d-line that has won individual matchups against all members of the Patriots o-line, and a linebacker/safety grouping that can flood the middle and do a great job of anticipating the Patriots bread-and-butter routes. They also have an offense that can, when they play well, run and pass with equal efficiency and attack the Patriots deep. The difference this time is the Patriots of 2014 are not the Patriots of 2009-2012. They have a defense that matches up well with the Ravens. I don't think the Patriots are an inherently better team than the 2011-12 teams (DVOA would say they are not), but they are a different team. Their offense still does not mesh well with the Ravens. The Patriots can't really pass deep, and the Ravens are the #3 by DVOA defense on passes shorter than 15 yards (basically 90% of the Patriots passing offense), and the Patriots interior line struggles, and the Ravens can throw 8 different guys that are all good to very good (including Ngata, Suggs, who are noted Patriots beaters). The edges for the Patriots are on the other side. The Patriots struggle against other WRs and TEs. While Owen Daniels has played well in that scheme, he's not going to win many individual matchups, and the Ravens have no 3rd option. Torrey Smith and Steve Smith are not going to be nearly as good against that corner duo. I would like this matchup so much so even one year ago, but bringing in Browner and Revis can win them this game.

The Pick: I would love to pick the Ravens here. I'm not for a few reasons. First, they're a really public underdog, and the Patriots can get up for these types of games. The Ravens are seemingly being tabbed to win this game far more than they were in teh 2012 AFC Championship Game, and the Patriots already showed them up once last year in the 41-7 win (honestly, it was 27-7 before two NE defensive TDs against Tyrod Taylor at QB). The Patriots are better, healthier and have matchup edges. Sadly, I think they'll go to yet another AFC Championship Game.

Ravens 16  Patriots 24  (NE -7)

(N4)  Carolina Panthers  (7-8-1)  @   (N1)  Seattle Seahawks  (12-4)

Sat. 8:15  -  FOX    |    Seahawks -10.5

State of the Teams: The big injury actually happened in the week between games. It was the practice foot injury to Star Loutulelei, the massive, active and vitally important DT for the Panthers. His up and down play really mirrored the Panthers defense. He's not the best (or 2nd, or 3rd) best player on that defense, but against a historically good running team like Seattle, he may be the most important. He was really coming on lately, including a giant game against Atlanta in the division clincher, and it may be easy to state that any hopes the Panthers had just went out the window. They may actually have Philly Brown, and the Cam injury watch quieted as the week went on, but this team will miss Loutulelei dearly. The Seahwks are essentially really health and well set for this game. They enter the playoffs #1 in DVOA for the 3rd straight season, and even #1 in wDVOA (which counts more recent games more) for the 3rd year in a row. They are really good, really hungry, and gave up just 39 points in the last six games. Yes, those are against some pretty bad teams (49ersx2, Cardsx2, Rams, Eagles w/ Sanchez), but 39 points is kind of scary.

The Matchup: The last three times these teams played, the Seahawks won all three, but they won 16-12, 12-7 and 13-9 in the past three years. They trailed all three of those games in the 2nd half, and needed either a DeAngelo Williams fumble in the red zone (2013) and a Russell Wilson scramble-led drive (2014) to win. There are two caveats for all those games. First is they were all in Carolina, which is a large difference. The second, though, is more important: the Seahawks won all three! The Panthers played them tough each time in their own building, but they lost all of them. Now, the 2014 game was definitely a draw, but they were outplayed for a while in the 2013 game. The other issue is the Seahawks are just a better version of the Ravens. Their pass rush is about as good, especially without Loutulelei, and their LBs are about as good, but their secondary is far better. The Seahawks also have a good rushing QB, but they have a far better rushing QB right now (some of that is injuries), and they have more weapons and an overall better offense. The Panthers don't have a clear matchup other than I don't expect the Seahawks to run away mainly because I don't think they can score enough. The Seahawks are better everywhere, but there is something to those close games. It really means we have to quantify how much those games were close because they were in Carolina, or how much the loss of Loutulelei will impact the Seahawks easiest path to win (running).

The Pick: The game that screams out as similar to me is the last game the Seahawks just played, their Week 17 win against the Rams. That Rams team controlled the line of scrimmage (possible that Carolina does that), they had a 6-0 lead at the half, but their overall inability to move the ball and turnovers ruined the game for them. The Seahawks won comfortably, but it wasn't a blowout. I can see the same happening here, but I think the Panthers the way they are currently playing, are better than that Rams team, better enough to cover one of the higher lines we've seen in the playoffs in a while.

Panthers 13  Seahawks 20  (CAR +10.5)

(N3)  Dallas Cowboys  (12-4)   @   (N2)  Green Bay Packers  (12-4)

Sun. 1:05  -  FOX    |    Packers -6.5

The State of the Teams: The big question coming into this one is how much Aaron Rodgers' calf injury will impact him. We haven't really dealt with a clear and readily apparent QB injury before a playoff game in a while. Rodgers looked severely limited when he came back in the game against the Lions. He was still effective throwing, but he basically only stayed in the pocket. Against a team that doesn't rush all that well in Dallas that may not be a huge issue, but it changes the dynamism of the Packers offense. The Packers otherwise are healthy, but when their best player is in question, that changes everything. The Packers defense has really stabilized, and while it looked awful in the first 20 minutes against the Lions, in general they've done well in their Tampa-2 scheme. They are coached well, and while there are seemingly no great players, they did quietly rank #2 in the NFL in takeaways, and are consistent in getting them. The Cowboys o-line was awful, but that will most likely be an outlier rather than the new status quo. The only real injury to worry about is Rolando McClain, who left with an 'illness' (concussion). Nothing really defines the astounding nature of the Cowboys defense than Rolando McClain being a key cog.

The Matchup: To me, the key to this matchup is can the Cowboys offense absolutely win their matchup against the Packers to the point that it neutralizes Green Bay's offense. There is a recipe for them to do it. They have a great running game matching up against a not-so-good Packers rush defense. They are certainly in a more advantageous spot here than against the Lions and their historically good rush defense. Their o-line is bad against blitzes, but they'll likely be more prepared for that against a team that likes to blitz. Dez Bryant can win his matchup against anyone, and the Packers really struggle against TEs. The Cowboys offense can win that matchup; they really should win that matchup. The key is can they win in terms of scoring 7 instead of 3, and putting up 35 minutes. The key to hiding that Cowboys defense is literally hiding them, in terms of keeping them on the sidelines. Obviously, the other matchup comes down to Rodgers effectiveness. If he's close to 100%, the Packers will likely roll. If he's not, and he's likely not, they might struggle at times. That red zone offense hasn't been great this year and may be worse with a gimpy Rodgers removing his running threat.

The Pick: I have to pick an upset, and while I'm not confident of how easy this looks, given Rodgers' injury situation, this is my pick. The Cowboys offense is their defense, and their offense is good enough to win that individual matchup and dominate TOP. They are definitely better suited to do it here than against the Lions. They match up better here, where their running game can win the matchups, where Romo can get protection, and their offense can hide a defense that, in a limited time on field, can play well against a potentially injured Romo.

Cowboys 27  Packers 24  (DAL +6.5)

(A4)  Indianapolis Colts  (11-5)  @  (A2)  Denver Broncos  (12-4)

Sun. 4:45  -  CBS    |    Broncos -7

The State of the Teams: The Broncos last had a week off in Week 4, the week after their 'This is the Super Bowl Preview!' OT loss against the Seahawks. They had to live through Sanders having a concussion, Welker doing nothing, Julius Thomas getting hurt, and the O-Line shuffling around, but are now healthy. No real contributor is hurt in any way, other than for the people that think Manning is hurt (which I do not think is true). The Broncos are as healthy as they can be, and I'm hoping that week off gave Manning time to rest tat thigh. The Colts, on the other hand, have slowly back-sled into the team they were in 2012-13. The once decent o-line has become injury-riddled and bad. Their WRs are hurting with Hilton still nursing an injury and Wayne being marginalized. The defense is better than it has been in the past few years, but the offense can't really be counted on. Their running game is awful, as the only guy that can run also fumbles and is bad in pass protection. The Colts were a good team for a lot of this season, but injuries, for the umpteenth year in Indianapolis, have ruined this team.

The Mathcup: The Colts one kryptonite on offense is a good pass rush. Luck struggles against pass rush when he can't escape, and the Broncos are good at that. They generally do a great job of rushing while keeping their integrity and not letting mobile QBs get off. The Broncos defense on paper is great, by conventional stats and advanced. They give up bad 3rd downs, and that can definitely be an issue against a team that likes to throw deep, but the Broncos are one of the best defenses against deep balls. The Broncos defense will also shut down any hope of a running game. The more interesting question is the other side. Despite giving up 33 points, they did a great job against Denver last year, and did an average job this year (gave up 31), but it is hard to think they'll do it again. Over the year, the Colts have shown no ability to rush the passer against a good offense. Hell, they haven't shown any ability to do anything against a good offense. The Colts will likely put Vontae on Demaryius. The key here will be if Julius Thomas is finally healthy. If he is, then he can have a huge game against the bad team against TEs. The Colts do have one real advantage, though. They are quite good on Special Teams, while the Broncos, like every Manning team ever, is awful.

The Pick: This is the least competitive on paper. The Colts in Week 5 had a decent shot, but the Colts in Week 19 have a far less shot unless one of two things happen. First, if Manning is truly hurt, which I don't think he is and I'm not factoring in here, and second, if Andrew Luck has just a inhuman game, but I don't see either as likely. The Broncos are a better team, and what is odd is I haven't even mentioned the biggest name in Denver: CJ Anderson. The running game should work well against the Colts, and do well to perpetuate the 'Manning is hurt' myth.

Colts 20  Broncos 34  (DEN -7)

2014 NFL Playoffs: Wild Card Weekend Review

I've picked playoff games in the 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013 seasons. I've only gone 4-0 once, the divisional round in 2009. That was probably as tough as this past week, but I won my great upset pick, putting up the Jets to beat the 13-3 Chargers as 9.5-point underdogs.


Wild Card Picks:

Cardinals 10  @  Panthers 23  (CAR -6)  (CORRECT)
Ravens 23  @  Steelers 20  (BAL +3)  (CORRECT)
Bengals 16  @  Colts 27  (IND -3.5)  (CORRECT)
Lions 20  @  Cowboys 24  (DET +7.5)  (CORRECT)

Week: 4-0

Not only did I get all the picks right, I got the exact score right with Lions @ Cowboys. I got the score for the Arizona @ Carolina game in the Cincy @ Indy game, and nearly did the reverse (10-26 instead of 10-23 what I picked).


Player of the Week - Luke Kuechly (MLB - CAR)

This wasn't the best set of Wild Card Games, but there were some standout performances, none better than Luke Kuechly's to me. He was a deserving Defensive Player of the Year last year, and while he wasn't quite as good, he's been as good the last few games. I realize the Cardinals offense stinks, but he still played out of his mind, ruining screens and deep passes, brilliantly reading Lindley on that huge interception to hold the 27-14 lead, and generally being a monster. If the Panthers have any chance, he will have to do the same in Seattle, if not more.

Runner-Up: Andrew Luck (QB - IND)

Luck was my choice last year, and by all accounts he was better this year. Now, the Bengals lack of pass rush and injuries did not provide much resistance, but Andrew Luck somehow managed to be better than his stats of 31-44 for 376 yards. He had multiple drops on deep throws, and a TD taken away by a holding penalty. Those things do happen, I guess. Luck continues to get better, and showed amazing restraint by checking down to Boom Herron far more than even the Luck from three weeks ago would have.


Goat of the Week - Drew Butler (P - ARZ)

The two teams that lost badly were just not as good, and both the Steelers and Lions had no obvious worst player, so I'm going to give it to the player that was probably obejctively the worst player last week. When you have a performance like Drew Butler did, it goes beyond reason. He was bad during the season, but didn't approach that. Butler was lucky to get 35 yards on a punt, hitting three less than 30. Only one of those was altered by an unlucky negative bounce, too. The Panthers were better, but getting to start on the 40 each drive really helped. Butler didn't lose that game, but considering what field position would have done, he definitely helped.

Runner-Up: Pete Morelli's Crew

Doing a quick look down, this is the only award I am giving to anyone in this game, which is sad given it was by far the best game from the weekend, and due to the picked-up flag it becomes more memorable than it should be. Pete Morelli probably cost himself a shot at the Super Bowl (which many had intimated he was in line for) by being way too hasty to announce the penalty. His own crew botched the call, missing two obvious penalties and debating the third obvious one, adn then not flagging Dez Bryant. The Cowboys may win anyway, but that was a trainwreck.


Surprise of the Week - The Ravens Secondary

It was odd that the loss of Rashaan Melvin meant anything, but when he got banged up, Ravens' backers got nervous. That alone indicates how banged up, nameless, and pedestrian the Ravens secondary was this year. That said, they played reasonably well, and for them, reasonably well is about their limit. None were great, but they were able to hang with one of the best passing attacks in the NFL. Antonio Brown had a few big plays, but was held in relative check. Markus Wheaton was invisible, and Martavis Bryant had limited impact. The best player to me was Darian Stewart, who played quite nicely as the deep safety. I was expecting the Ravens front to dominate, but for the back end to relatively hold up was a great bonus.

Runner-Up: The Panthers Other Receivers

We all know about Kelvin Benjamin, the talented youngster who makes some highlight catches and makes some awful drops, but on the whole is just a nice player. what we didn't know about was the others. Philly Brown had a really nice game before leaving for injury. Jerrico Cotchery was not targeted much, but did well when he was. Finally, Fozzy Whittaker had the play of the game. Without natural talent aside from Benjamin and Olsen, the Panthers have to turn to these types of players on offense to really move the ball, and it worked once again.


Disappointment of the Week - The Steelers Creativity

I'm not a huge Todd Haley fan and I think he neutered Roethlisberger's best qualities in 2012 and 2013. I can't say his offense didn't work this year, it was amazing it times. However, without Leveon Bell, Haley gave up on the run and decided to rotate three running backs that he was never planning on using anyway. The Steelers tried to use screens, but they could have used Brown as a runner, or tried more intermediate throws. The Steelers just didn't have much creativity to their offense after having a year where that really didn't happen.

Runner-Up: Us for expecting anything different from Arizona and Cincinnati

It's confusing, but I was disappointed at myself at being disappointed at Arizona and Cincinnati. Let's pity the Cardinals, a team that manufactured a 9-1 start behind two competent QBs (and one good QB in Palmer) and a defense that made plays. They were a deep bomb offense that played balls to the wall, and won some close games. That team is gone and let's give them a moment of silence. For the Bengals, let's not get upset and ask questions on why this team can't win a playoff game. This wasn't losing to TJ Yates like they did in 2011, or losing to the 9-7 Chargers last year after going 8-0 at home, and losing 10-27. This Bengals team was flawed, injured and had a terrible matchup. It's sad, but not angry, and not worth thinking too much about.


Team Performance of the Week - The Panthers Defense

Once again, it is easy to dismiss what Carolina did because it was Arizona, and it was Ryan Lindley, but they held a team in the playoffs to under 100 yards. They gave up 50 yards net passing for the entire game. Their pass rush dominated, their linebackers dominated. Their secondary played well again. They never gave the Cardinals a real chance, despite Arizona lucking into 14 points. The Panthers defense resembled the unit that was so dominant in 2013, a team that was so good in the front seven there was literally no room to throw. Awesome job by one of my favorite pet units.

Runner-Up: The Ravens Offense

The Baltimore Ravens were one of the only teams to rank in the Top-8 in Points for and against. They are a good offense. In a tough environment, with their two normal starting OTs down, the Ravens were great. From that first long TD drive built on the run, to Flacco seamlessly playing the Kubiak offense, to Steve Smith continuing to be the ballsiest, toughest dude in the NFL, the Ravens played an A game on the road in a Wild Card game. Considering the Steelers were probably the best home team, the performance of the Ravens was just great.


Team Laydown of the Week - The Bengals Pass Defense

The Bengals have a bad rush defense. They had a bad offense due to personnel injuries. Yet, through that, they had a good, deep secondary. They could cover. They were still a Top-10 pass defense. That pass defense was just bad. Now, there were injuries to Rey Maualuga (their top cover linebacker), and Dre Kirkpatrick, but they even let Hakeem Nicks beat them. If there is one area of the Bengals to really criticize, it isn't Marvin or Andy Dalton, it is that pass defense.

Runner-Up: The Lions 2nd Half

I wanted to touch on that game one more time, so I'm putting the whole Lions here. I'm still not totally sure how the Lions went from 17-7 up, with just one bad play, to losing. I actually put it up mostly to coaching conservatism that took over that team in the 2nd half. They ran the ball to no real success. They didn't throw deep at all. They punted on 4th and 1 when another first down takes two minutes off and likely puts them in field goal range, and, maybe most crucially, they stopped blitzing on defense. Their blitz packages were working brilliantly in the 1st half and it mostly disappeared, and now the Lions have.


Storyline that will be Beat into the Ground - It's the Ice Bowl!, and did you know Peyton played for the Colts?

This may be the most easily hype-able Divisional Round ever, especially on Sunday. Packers @ Cowboys is probably one of the most hype-able Divisional Round games since Romo and the Cowboys last played in this round, travelling to Minnesota to play Brett Favre. Then again, the Colts and Broncos is about as easy as it gets as well. Manning against the Colts is one of the easiest sells ever. Why I think this is overrated is that I don't think these are two games close on paper. The Cowboys don't match up well with Green Bay, given their defensive deficiencies against a higher-powered offense. Also, unless Manning is truly hurt, or Andrew Luck decides to play like Aaron Rodgers circa 2011, Indy really doesn't match up well.

Storyline that Should be Beat Into the Ground - This Should be a Fun Two Days, not just One

That said, those are nice games and good storylines, but so are the two games on Saturday, and those are nice as well. Ravens @ Patriots is an easy sell, given the recent history between those two teams. Some of the punch is gone with Ed Reed and Ray Lewis gone, but there are some good additions, like Steve Smith. The Ravens do match up reasonably well, just because the they are good at everything. Along with their historical edges, the Ravens are just a good team. In the night, Carolina is not a good team, but has played like one over the last few weeks. The last time they've played the Seahawks, they've lost 12-16, 7-12 and 9-13. Yes, they lost all three and yes, those were all in Carolina, but I think the Panthers can keep this close.


More to Come This Week.