Bottom of the Barrel

So What To Do about Peyton Manning?

2012-01-27T15:30:00.000-05:00

Many of you have probably read the insightful interview Peyton Manning did with Bob Kravitz recently and noticed that Peyton didn't seem that happy with the Colts personnel moves, the mood around the Colts organization or with the Colts in general. Not surprising. Peyton doesn't like change because he sees the Colts as his team and doesn't like any uncertainty that would cause him to think the Colts aren't "his" team. Firing Bill Polian and getting rid of a head coach Peyton Manning liked isn't a way to endear Manning to stick around. I think this interview was the beginning of the end of Manning with the Colts organization, unless something I am not able to predict changes. So I figured I would go line-by-line through the interview and then predict where Manning ends up if/when he gets traded. At this point, it is way too early to predict where Manning may go if he even leaves, but what it is just too much fun speculating.

I originally started writing this post earlier this week thinking we would have a few weeks before any further information on Manning would be known. I figured the Colts would read the interview and think about what Manning had to say for a few weeks. I was wrong. Lo and behold, Jim Irsay came out and said Manning sounded like a politician. So I think it is safe to say, Manning probably isn't sticking around in Indy. It just doesn't look like Manning will be with the Colts in two months, but a lot has happened regarding the Colts and Manning from two months back. So pretty much anything can happen I guess.

Back in November, I took a look at Andrew Luck. It's irks me how dated that post looks right now. Not because I think the writing was terrible, but because of how quickly things change in the NFL. I had Miami and the Broncos on the list of teams that could land Luck. The Dolphins turned their season around and the Broncos made the damn playoffs and won a playoff game. I floated the idea of the Colts passing over Luck in that post, which obviously isn't going to happen at this point, but my bigger point was that I can't see Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck co-existing. I still don't see those two co-existing very well and I think Peyton's interview manages to back this thinking up in some ways.

There had been a little fan fiction going around the sportswriting universe earlier in the NFL season that Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck could co-exist and Manning would "mentor" Luck. I'm not sure any sportswriters came out and said that Luck and Manning would be best friends, but there was general thinking out there the two could co-exist. I thought this was a crock of shit, but took the wrong point of view in analyzing this situation. I took the point of view that Luck wouldn't go to the Colts because the Colts would be loyal to Manning. I never thought that Manning would force a trade or want out, which he hasn't done yet, but at some point soon the Colts will have to make a decision to pick up Manning's option, trade Manning before the March deadline or let him go as a free agent. For fear of quoting myself from the post, here is what I said back in November,

I have no doubt Manning will be back on the field for the Colts and I can't think of any circumstances right now that would cause the Colts to trade him when they draft Andrew Luck. So knowing Manning will be on the roster, do you really think he is going to spend the last few years of his Hall of Fame career "mentoring" Andrew Luck, a guy who is by all accounts very NFL-ready? Or do you think Manning will want to try and win one last Super Bowl and not give a shit about Luck being mentored?

I see the Colts drafting Luck and ending up with a Favre-Rodgers situation (which turned out fine for the Packers, granted), except the Aaron Rodgers (Luck) in this situation probably wouldn't want to sit the bench for more than one year. Peyton Manning may be perfectly willing to "mentor" Andrew Luck, but given his stranglehold on the Colts offense and it is clear Manning likes having this power, I don't know if he would be willing to be a placeholder/teacher for a few years.

So I was wrong in thinking Manning would have the upper hand in this situation and Luck would be the guy who didn't end up on the Colts team next year. I couldn't foresee a situation where the Colts traded Manning because I thought Bill Polian would be around, so I was wrong about that. I think it is clear the Colts are drafting Andrew Luck at #1 overall and Manning will end up being the guy whose roster spot is in question. I think it is clear (at least when reading between the lines, which I acknowledge can be dangerous) from the Kravitz interview that Manning isn't necessarily happy with the direction the Colts are going. So he could very well be the one gone and any earlier thoughts about Manning willing to "mentor" Luck is fan fiction perpetuated by people that so desperately wants to see Manning groom his replacement in order to write stories about it.

A lot of Manning's frustration in this article is about the direction of the Colts in terms of front office moves, but I would submit some of his frustration lies in the Colts willingness to move on with or without him. Drafting Andrew Luck is one of the first steps in this process. Manning sees the Colts organization getting rid of Polian and Caldwell and possibly looking for a fresh start. He knows a 36 year old quarterback coming off major neck surgery probably isn't a huge part of this fresh start. So while it isn't official that Manning may be gone in Indy, the odds are pretty good right now I think he's isn't playing for them in 2012.

(I'm going to be doing a lot of translating what I think Manning actually means. Just a note, so I could interpret it wrong. If you think I do get it wrong, please tell me.)

He sounded comfortable. Which was strange for a man who wants to control every little detail in his life. Because he's at a point now where he's not in control -- of his health, of his future, of anything.

This is what I found to be interesting about those who thought, or even suggested, Luck and Manning could co-exist (the number of people who believed this in September is much less than those that believe this now). Manning wants to control everything. He is the Colts offense. He isn't going to want another quarterback looking over his shoulder nor will he want to be teaching a younger quarterback to replace him. Manning considers himself to be the offensive coordinator and the head coach of the offense. Do we really believe if the Colts start making changes he hasn't approved or ask him to "mentor" Luck, which would take away from Manning's game preparation in some ways, he would do it?

In a wide-ranging talk, the Indianapolis Colts future Pro Football Hall of Fame quarterback addressed a number of pressing topics, including his health, his sadness over the firings of several coaches, his minimal relationship with new general manager Ryan Grigson

For the record, Manning and Grigson finally met, briefly, last week when they ran across each other at the team's complex.

Awkward. He doesn't know Grigson and probably had no input in Grigson's hire.

"One thing he kind of, sort of told me, without really wanting to tell me, was that Irsay will be the guy I'm going to sit down and talk with,"

I'm going to do some reading between the lines. This tells me Manning feels like he is being left out of the loop in some ways like he hasn't been left out of the loop in a while. Manning refers to Grigson telling him something, but not wanting to actually tell him, meaning Grigson was holding back. He also calls Jim Irsay, "Irsay," which I am not sure is a lack of respect or possibly disdain that a non-football person will be making a football decision about Manning's future with the team. I think it is somewhat obvious Manning believes the GM should be talking to him, not the owner. I could be wrong.

"That's going to happen at some point, but we haven't had that conversation yet because we really don't need to have that conversation yet."

Basically, Manning is saying his $28 million bonus isn't due for another few weeks and Manning's health isn't in better focus, so there is no reason to talk about breaking up with each other quite yet. The breakup will happen, it just isn't time for "the talk."

Manning didn't express anger about the firing of coach Jim Caldwell and so many assistant coaches as much as he expressed sadness, wistfulness even.

To me, the fact Manning was sad and wistful tells me even more that Manning doesn't anticipate coming back to the Colts...or he at least anticipates if he is back that things won't ever be the same. It's the end of an era for Manning. Anger expresses rage at what has been done, while sadness and wistfulness indicates to me a sense of resignation to what will eventually occur.

When Manning hasn't been rehabilitating, he has been calling other franchises and offering recommendations on behalf of the departed coaches.

Manning has probably also gauged those team's interest in trading for him. You know Manning dropped hints on the phone. It is clear with all of this change in action that Manning isn't comfortable. So while giving recommendations, Manning can also allow a team to know his potential availability.

Through some of Manning's (perhaps) whining and wistfulness he should be also realize how fortunate he is. Other quarterbacks have to deal with coaching changes and personnel changes more often than Manning has had to. So while I understand Manning's feelings, it is hard to have sympathy for a grown man who has had major stability in his professional life for so long in an industry with very little stability. At some point, there is change within every organization.

But when it's every day in a relationship business . . . with Bill (Polian), with Marvin (Harrison), Edge (Edgerrin James), guys who retire, get cut, traded or fired, it's just really hard.

"I just want to pay tribute to all those guys. It's unfortunate because so many of them have been such a big part of so many big wins here, and this is so . . . so . . . so sudden. Their keys didn't work the next day. There's no other way to do it? I don't know.

When you fire someone, there isn't another way of doing it. You can't give a player who is a free agent a key to the facilities and once a guy gets fired (Polian) he probably shouldn't have a key either. I also find it interesting Manning brought up Edgerrin James. That was five or six years ago when James left and it is clear Manning still isn't thrilled over it.

"I don't want to get into some kind of fan campaign with the owner, but I think it's well-documented that I want to play in the same place my whole career,"

Manning doesn't want to get into a fan campaign. Which is why he is doing an interview with an Indianapolis newspaper saying he wants to stay with the Indianapolis Colts.

As for Manning's health, he's not all the way back yet, but he's not going to put any percentages on his recovery, nor will he predict whether he'll be at full strength by early March, when a $28 million option bonus is due.

"All I know is, I'm still under contract to the Colts. I'm still the quarterback of the Colts. That's why I'm in the building every day trying to get healthy."

Again, Manning refers to not knowing much when he says, "All I know..." You get the feeling he really feels out of the loop and knows he probably isn't as in the Colts' future plans as much as he would like to be.

And when it's time to make an announcement one way or the other, Manning hopes he can do it on his terms.

"Hopefully," he said, "Sodapop Curtis doesn't tweet it before I can say anything."

Manning referred to Rob Lowe twice in the interview as "Sodapop Curtis," which really isn't an insult, but I also get the feeling he was using this term derisively. Manning was probably pretty irritated Lowe announced his "retirement" on Twitter. You've probably read a lot of the other quotes Manning had, but this interview was my first big indication that Manning believes he will either (a) be traded or (b) released prior to his $28 million bonus being due.

There is a new GM, new coach, new players and the Colts even have a successor to Manning in mind. You can sense a little bitterness in Manning's quotes, where I get the feeling he feels like he should have been consulted or warned in some fashion about the Colts upcoming personnel moves. I am not sure if we will see another Favre/Rodgers situation because you get the feeling Manning sees the writing on the wall and he isn't an asshole like Favre was. Either way, I get the feeling if Manning is kept around he won't react well to the Colts drafting Andrew Luck and seeing the Colts build a coaching staff and team around a quarterback that isn't Manning himself. Manning sees himself as the starter and this probably won't ever change.

Now for the fun part. Let's take a guess at where Manning ends up if/when he gets traded or released by the Colts. I'm assuming Manning will end up being healthy enough to play in 2012. We know Manning is going to want to be the starter no matter where he ends up. I think that's a given. I have a hard time figuring out where Manning could go. Still, I will try to figure out which team Mannings ends up playing for, while including the percent chance Manning ends up with that team in parenthesis.

Arizona (10%): Doubt it. Just traded for Kevin Kolb and signed him to a new contract. Still.....if the Cardinals think Kolb doesn't have a future maybe they make a move for Manning. We know Larry Fitzgerald would love it. One of the worst things a team can do is insist on compounding mistakes by not fixing them. If the Cardinals consider Kolb to be a mistake, would they consider getting rid of him and handing the team to Manning?

Atlanta (0%): Have Matty Icccccccccccccccce. No way.

Baltimore (13%): I don't want to see Joe Flacco cry, so I'm going with no, but I can't rule it out. Ravens fans probably would say I am full of shit and they may end up being right. This would definitely be an "out of the box" move by the Ravens if they aren't high on Flacco long-term and would like to avoid giving him a contract extension. It sounds crazy, but the Ravens have had an offense that holds them back at times (though that wasn't necessarily the case in the AFC Championship Game as much as other times) and could the Ravens look to upgrade to make another Super Bowl while their defense is still dominant.

Buffalo (5%): Just signed Ryan Fitzpatrick to a new contract. The Bills probably wouldn't trade for Manning since they have quite a few other needs.

Carolina (0%): Have Cam Newton. No way.

Chicago (0%): They have Jay Cutler starting and he is going to have extra motivation to stay at the Bears' facility for extra preparation and film study since he will have a whiny baby and an even more whiny Kristin Cavialallairrri at home. Cutler will probably end up being an All-Pro QB in 2012. I can't imagine why he would want to go home to deal with all the whining, being constantly needy for attention and crying over every small thing...plus the newborn baby will make some noise too, of course.

Cincinnati (0%): Have Andy Dalton. No way.

Cleveland Browns (10%): Well, they have Colt McCoy, so basically they could use a starting quarterback. I could see them as a strong candidate if the Browns want to give McCoy another couple of years watching on the bench or want to draft a developmental quarterback later in the 2012 draft and then let Manning lead the team for a couple of years in the hopes their developmental quarterback is ready. This would be a good strategy because Manning wouldn't feel threatened because he knows he is the starter and he only has a few years left anyway, so if the Browns do still like McCoy they could keep him around. Still, I'm not sure I see the Browns going this route. It may just be easier (and less expensive) to draft their new starting quarterback in the 2012 draft.

Dallas (1%): I don't underestimate Jerry Jones ever. Still, I don't see this happening.

Denver (0%): Yeah, right. Not happening.

Detroit Lions (o%): Nope. Got Matthew Stafford.

Green Bay (0%): No way in Hell will this happen. I'm embarrassed I even included Green Bay on this list.

Houston (1%): Assuming Matt Schaub doesn't have a huge setback with his rehab there isn't any way this would happen. If Matt Schaub wasn't going to return from his injury, I think Houston would be a very intriguing place for Manning to end up. Regardless, it isn't happening.

Jacksonville (1%): I can only imagine Peyton Manning throwing to the Jags receivers. He would go insane and start doing the Dan Marino-like pointing at his receivers while berating them for running the wrong routes. I think Manning would veto this regardless, but I don't see Jacksonville making a run for him.

Kansas City (3%): Not likely at all. They have already done the "Acquire a Hall of Fame quarterback at the tail end of his career" thing with Joe Montana. It worked fairly well for them, but with Orton and Cassel on the roster I think we can rule this out. I believe the Chiefs will stick with Matt Cassel for the time being. Though I could see how they would be tempted.

Miami (4%): Not likely either. The Dolphins will probably look for a quarterback in the draft, rather than acquire Manning. If the Dolphins had a coach that wasn't in his first season, I could see them acquiring Manning. What I mean is new coaches generally like to bring in new quarterbacks they can build the team around and I'm not sure Manning fits the bill for Joe Philbin. Philbin will probably want a quarterback who is a placeholder for a year or two until the Dolphins draft another quarterback or bring in his own guy to play quarterback.

Minnesota Vikings (0%): The Vikings seem to like Christian Ponder. I know the Vikings got burned with McNabb and Favre sticking around for another year after he took them to the NFC Championship Game. I am going with a very confident "no."

New England (0%): No.

New Orleans (0%): Double no.

New York Giants (0%): Triple no.

New York Jets (15%): The Jets are a popular choice. It makes sense in that many believe Mark Sanchez is holding the team back and the Jets have never been around of making big acquisitions. Perhaps the reputation of the Jets plays into this more than it should, but it seems the Jets need leadership in the locker room and need their quarterback to take more ownership of the offense. Plus, can't you see the media salivating over a Manning-Brady matchup twice a year? Manning would seemingly be a short-term upgrade for the Jets and Rex Ryan has job security, but he also needs to make the playoffs and win games to keep this job security. I can see the Jets going for it.

Oakland Raiders (0%): Not unless the Raiders want to use the rest of their 2012 and 2013 draft picks to acquire Manning. Not that the Colts would ask for all those picks in a trade, but I have a feeling the Raiders would offer all of those picks anyway.

Philadelphia Eagles (1%): I know the Eagles just signed Mike Vick to a huge deal, but I give it 1% in case the Eagles and Andy Reid want to take a huge step towards "improving" the team (I put "improving" in parenthesis because I don't know if Manning would be an improvement) to save his job. Still, I think it won't happen. Eagles fans are probably laughing at me for putting it at 1% since it probably isn't financially feasible anyway.

Pittsburgh (0%): No chance.

San Diego (0%): No chance.

Seattle (2%): The only reason I put the Seahawks at 2% is if Pete Carroll seems to believe he will miss out on any franchise quarterbacks in the upcoming draft and doesn't want to go with Tarvaris Jackson in the upcoming year. I don't see Manning going to the Seahawks, but if Carroll sees a chance to win a few games in his third year and have his first winning season in Seattle, maybe he takes a chance on acquiring Manning. As much as we recall Carroll's playoff victory over the Saints, we have to remember he is 14-18 as the head coach for the Seahawks. A winning season would be nice and it doesn't look like winning games in the NFC West is getting any easier.

San Francisco (0%): Regardless of what you think about Alex Smith, even if he isn't re-signed I can see Colin Kaepernick getting a chance at the starting job. Of course, Smith will be re-signed.

St. Louis (1%): I don't see the Rams making a run at Peyton Manning necessarily for a couple reasons. First, they do have Sam Bradford under contract. Second, if they were getting a new quarterback it would be in the upcoming draft. Still, there is a chance Jeff Fisher will want to start over with a new quarterback and Bradford may have trade value. There's very little chance Fisher pursues Manning, but the option is open I would guess.

Tampa Bay (3%): Depending on what Greg Schiano thinks about his development there is a chance Josh Freeman won't be in favor with him and Schiano will want veteran leadership for this young team. Still, I doubt Manning ends up in Tampa Bay. The Bucs will probably just stick with Freeman, which I think is more likely. I put Tampa Bay at 3% since it is such a young, talented team and I think Manning would work well with them.

Tennessee Titans (0%): Nah. The Titans seem happy with Locker and Hasselbeck at this point.

Washington Redskins (30%): I know, I know. It is a stereotype. The stereotype is Daniel Snyder always wants to make quick fixes and will go after the best free agent or player out there in an effort to get this quick fix. Stereotypes are grounded in reality though and the reality is signing or trading for Peyton Manning is something I can see the the Redskins doing. I have a hard time believing Mike Shanahan will waste any more of his genius working with John Beck or Rex Grossman and is going to want to reinforce his reputation by attaching his star to another Hall of Fame quarterback. Not to mention, the Redskins could very easily miss out on the best quarterbacks drafting in the #6 spot of the NFL Draft. This just fits. Shanahan needs to win games and remind everyone what an offensive genius he is when he has a Hall of Fame quarterback and Daniel Snyder doesn't mind spending the money or taking the risk on Manning.

Thoughts?

Murray Chass Has Thoughts About Hall of Fame Voting, as Long as it Doesn't Interrupt Dinner

2012-01-26T15:00:00.000-05:00

We all know how much I love Murray Chass. I use the word "love" sarcastically, of course. He's close-minded and set in his ways. There's nothing I love less from a sportswriter than that. He also has a bizarre bro-mance with Fay Vincent, to the point he quotes Vincent religiously in his non-blog posts. Anyway, because the world hates me, Murray Chass has a vote for the Hall of Fame and he talks a little bit on his non-blog about Bud Selig (who he hates), Jack Morris (who he loves) and Hall of Fame voting (which he loves doing, as long as it leaves time for dinner).

This column wasn’t going to be about Bud Selig so that’s all I will say about him. Well, one more thing.

Bud Selig took over as acting commissioner once Fay Vincent was forced out. Murray Chass considers the forcing out of Vincent as one of the great tragedies of modern life, up there with the assassination of JFK, World War II, famine in Africa, war in the Middle East, the advent of the Internet age which led to the people who read newspaper columns to actually be able to give feedback and the cancellation of "Party Down" and "Arrested Development" while Ashton Kutcher and Rob Schneider are still free to smirk their way into viewer's hearts.

(Maybe that last one is just me)

After the owners forced Fay Vincent to resign in 1992, Selig became acting or interim commissioner because he was chairman of the executive council. Selig, however, denied that he was acting or interim. He also denied repeatedly that he was interested in being the commissioner.

It's a good thing this happened twenty years ago and Murray has let this drop.

He accepted the job in 1998, and now he will accept a new term instead of retiring. He is nothing if not consistent.

Yeah, Selig lied by saying he was retiring and now he isn't retiring. He lied, everyone knew he wasn't retiring, but the owners wanted him back so that has to mean something in the long run.

I want to write about the terrific, unexpected increase in Jack Morris’ vote total, but there’s another aspect of the writers’ vote that cries out for attention.

I would take out the word "terrific" because I don't know if I consider this terrific. Morris is still a borderline Hall of Fame candidate to me and any player that we aren't sure is one of the greatest players in MLB history shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame in my opinion. Morris was really good, but not dominant during his career.

Six players received no votes at all: Jeromy Burnitz, Brian Jordan, Terry Mulholland, Phil Nevin, Ruben Sierra and Tony Womack.

Why were they on the ballot?

Because they met the criteria to be eligible for the Hall of Fame. I don't think he deserves to get in the Hall of Fame, but I can't believe Ruben Sierra didn't get one Hall of Fame vote. I'm not saying Sierra deserved a Hall of Fame vote, and it probably is a good sign the voters are actually thinking about their votes, but I am surprised Sierra's early career statistics didn't sway a voter into giving him one vote.

Did the writers honestly believe Lopez and Young belong in the Hall of Fame? If so, how did those writers last long enough covering baseball – 10 years – to qualify as voters?

Murray Chass is really going to question the validity of a Hall of Fame voter's ballot? As you will see later, Murray doesn't seem to take his Hall of Fame voting too seriously.

The writers get enough criticism for voting for legitimate candidates or not voting for players fans think belong in the Hall of Fame without incurring criticism for voting for players with career records like Lopez and Young.

Here is the major issue I see...which player is a legitimate candidate for the Hall of Fame and who is not? Is Tim Salmon (he received 5 votes) more of a legitimate candidate than Lopez or Young? I am sure some people don't think Mark McGwire is a legitimate candidate for the Hall of Fame because he used PEDs. Maybe I'm picking nits, but I don't think Larry Walker is a legitimate Hall of Fame candidate and yet he appears on the ballot with 131 votes.

This is the way the system works. A screening committee of six members of the Baseball Writers Association receives a list of players eligible for the first time and nominates those they think should be placed on the ballot. Any player who is named by two or more of the six writers goes on the ballot, joining players who had been on the ballot in previous years.

Obviously, the screening committee would rather a player go on the ballot and then get zero votes then have "screen-out" a player who may end up getting a significant amount of votes during the actual Hall of Fame voting.

Considering that players need 75 percent of the votes to be elected to the Hall, I would think that newly eligible players should need at least 50 percent of the screening committee votes to get on the ballot.

My response is, what does it matter? Why does it matter that six players got zero votes? Who has it hurt to have these players on the ballot and then they ended up getting no votes? Six writers is a pretty small sample size and I could see a candidate not getting three votes to appear on the Hall of Fame ballot when that candidate could be a "legitimate" Hall of Fame candidate. I don't see as how it matters really. Better safe than sorry. Murray's beloved Jack Morris had a small vote total 13 years ago when he was originally on the ballot. I'm not saying Morris could have gotten left off the ballot by the nominating committee, but the committee would rather be safe than sorry. So I see why only two votes by the nominating committee are required.

I asked O’Connell if players might be embarrassed by being on the ballot but getting only one vote or no votes.

Say what you want about Murray Chass, but he does not have his pulse on what makes athletes tick. Why would a player be embarrassed by having his name on the Hall of Fame ballot, but not get any votes?

On the contrary, he said, players are flattered simply by having their names on the ballot.

Exactly. Sportswriters aren't the only ones who get off on seeing their name in print.

At this stage of his ballot history, Morris wants more than a piece of memorabilia. The pitcher has gone through 13 elections, and this year came closer than ever, falling 48 votes short with 66.7 percent of the vote.

I can only assume Morris' dramatic increase in vote total this year was the result of the Hall of Fame voters' drug use. If PED users aren't eligible to be voted into the Hall of Fame, then the BBWA voters shouldn't be allowed to use drugs and vote for Hall of Fame players.

Such a high percentage has always meant subsequent election, but Morris has only two years left on the writers’ ballot, and each year could present built-in problems for the pitcher.

Oh no! What if more qualified candidates come along and cause Morris not to receive an honor he may not deserve to receive anyway? The horror!

So basically, players who are actually qualified to be in the Hall of Fame may come along and cause Morris' vote total to reduce? Isn't that how it is supposed to be? Those who actually deserve to be in the Hall of Fame earn induction, while those who don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame don't receive induction? Or did I miss something and borderline players are supposed to be receive election because they have been on the ballot longer?

In two years, two certain first-timers will be on the ballot, Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine. It’s unlikely that writers would vote for those two pitchers and Morris, though they could consider that it would be Morris’ last year on the ballot.

Why wouldn't the writers vote for Morris if he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame? Is there a "no more than 2 pitchers on one ballot" rule I'm not aware of?

The past several years the voters have overwhelmingly rejected Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro for their use of performance-enhancing substances. Some voters, however, might have rejected them without the steroids link, believing their careers did not merit Hall of Fame election.

This is very doubtful. I think McGwire gets in without the steroids link. I find it hard to believe only 19.5% of voters think McGwire deserves induction in the Hall of Fame without the steroids link. Clearly, McGwire was rejected because of the steroids link.

Sosa and Piazza have never been convicted by testing or their own admission, but they may find it impossible to overcome the circumstantial evidence that has grown around them.

Just like with Jeff Bagwell, suspicion and circumstantial evidence shouldn't prevent a player from receiving votes for the Hall of Fame. Also, Sammy Sosa has tested positive for steroid use and he was caught using a corked bat. Sosa isn't in the same class as Piazza or Bagwell because he was caught.

I also want to add much of the "suspicion" around Mike Piazza comes from Murray Chass and his suspicion of Piazza's bacne.

If, on the other hand, writers vote for some or any of them, they may not want to add Morris to their ballot.

Honestly, I think Morris' numbers are going to be put in a negative light compared to Glavine and Maddux next year. Just compare their numbers side-by-side one day. You will see what a Hall of Fame pitcher looks like compared to a Hall of Very Good pitcher looks like.

When I voted for the first time, I submitted a full ballot, all 10 lines filled with names. By the time I voted a year later, I had reconsidered what I had done.

It does cause for a moment of reflection when you vote for 10 (what you perceive as) qualified candidates into the Hall of Fame. It's good of Murray to repent for this crime. You may ask yourself why Murray reconsidered filling in all 10 lines. Fortunately, Murray tells us. It's a doozy.

In voting for 10 players, I was saying in essence I wanted to see 10 players inducted into the Hall at the same time.

Very few things can get past Murray Chass. Brilliant deduction.

How foolish, I realized. Having 10 players enter the Hall at the same time would detract from the honor for each player.

Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't. 10 players being elected into the Hall of Fame at one time could potentially dilute the honor of what being in the Hall of Fame represents. I'm not sure if 10 players were elected at one time these players would think it was less of an honor because the class was large. Unless these players didn't want to sit through an induction ceremony involving so many speeches and players...but of course who on Earth would complain about a long induction ceremony for such an important honor being bestowed on these players. Well, about that...

In addition, the induction ceremony would take forever and require a break for dinner.

It's good to see Murray takes his Hall of Fame voting seriously. A break for dinner? What is this the People's Choice Awards? (Hi-fives Fay Vincent)

"Sorry Jack Morris, I think you deserve to be in the Hall of Fame because I couldn't vote for you this year because if more than 6 players were elected to the Hall of Fame in one year it would require a break for dinner. I neither have the time or the stomach to handle eating dinner during the Hall of Fame inductions. Not when my Crockpot makes such a delicious BBQ chicken meal and there is an 'NCIS' marathon on USA. Sorry about that and I hope you understand."

It appears Murray Chass' considerations when voting for Hall of Fame candidates go this way in order of importance:

1. What would Fay Vincent do?

2. Would voting for this player require a break for dinner at the induction ceremony?

3. What would Bud Selig do?

4. Does this player have any ties to PEDs, steroids, etc?

5. Have I heard this player's name used in the same sentence as "PED" or "steroid?"

6. How would this affect Jack Morris' induction?

7. If it does affect Jack Morris' induction, would voting for Morris cause there to be a break for dinner at the induction ceremony?

8. Would voting for this player piss off the "new-age statistics" crowd?

9. How many wins did this pitcher have in his career?

10. What was this player's batting average?

...

104. Based on this player's career statistics, does this player measure up as one of the greatest baseball players of all-time, thereby deserving induction into the Hall of Fame?

On subsequent ballots I placed an X next to three or four names at the most, sometimes only one or two.

Depending on how hungry Murray predicted he would be at the ceremony. One year Murray Chass actually didn't vote for anyone. It was during his famous "Starving January" during the winter of 1992 when he just couldn't seem to get full after eating his breakfast and lunch. Even snacking didn't help!

I have not voted for McGwire or Palmeiro and don’t expect to vote for Bonds, Clemens, Sosa or Piazza next December.

At least Murray is open-minded and hasn't already made his decision without seriously considering these player's candidacy for the Hall of Fame. Plus, if Murray voted for six people (seven, including Morris) it would require a break for dinner during the induction ceremony.

It really does stink to hear Murray not only has made up his mind about next year's Hall of Fame class, but would limit his ballot to a certain number of players to avoid having to sit through a long induction ceremony. It's sad to hear how non-seriously many of these Hall of Fame voters take the process. They want the honor of voting, but none of the responsibility of being open-minded and attending the actual ceremony that goes along with it.

I will vote for Morris.

Unless the ballot gets too big of course. That Crockpot at home will be calling.

Nick Cafardo Wants Red Sox to Toughen Up, Grit it Out Toughly, and Then Grittily Toughen Themselves Up for a Tough Year

2012-01-25T14:30:00.000-05:00

I probably should assume this column is a joke. No self-respecting writer would write the word "tough" over and over when talking about a baseball team. That would be crazy wouldn't it? No self-respecting writer would simply say the Red Sox should just toughen up and in his column about toughness completely ignore other less-relevant variables such as the team hitting or pitching the baseball well. Because no self-respecting writer who takes himself seriously would do this and obviously the idea toughness is all a team needs has got to be addressed, Nick Cafardo takes this burden upon himself. Grittily and tough-like. That's what this column is.

No, it isn’t football or hockey, or boxing for that matter, but toughness matters in baseball.

Grit matters too! Don't forget grit! Toughness matters more than pitching or hitting ability. Why did the Rangers lose the World Series for the second straight year? They weren't as tough as the Cardinals. The Cardinals were as tough as nails. As tough as a steak from Golden Corral. Tougher than an angry black bear protecting her young.

(I just tried to write like Rick Reilly. Seriously...anyone can write like Rick Reilly does. What I just wrote is exactly how he writes and I just did it for free. What does Reilly have no other writer has? When did smugness become a marketable trait for a writer and allows him to demand millions of dollars in compensation?)

The toughness to get through injuries.

Sure you needed Tommy John surgery, John Lackey, but you should have toughed it out like Adam Wainwright on the World Series Champion St. Louis Cardinals did. Wait, he didn't tough it out? Well I'm sure the rest of the Cardinals roster toughed and gritted out some major injuries in order to win the World Series that Red Sox players were too wimpy to get through. After all, the Cardinals had Nick Punto on the roster. It doesn't get much grittier than him.

The toughness to play in this market. The toughness to go the extra mile when you’re dog-tired.

I always enjoy it when sportswriters call for a professional sports team to be tougher. It's easy to ask the local team to become tougher when the most hazardous injury you could incur while working at your sportswriting job is a papercut that just won't freaking heal. It always amuses me to read writers who think attending a sporting event with a head cold is "toughing it out" criticizing professional athletes for not being tough enough.

The toughness to perservere and make sure that slumps don’t prolong themselves.

Really slumps that tend to perservere have very little to do with toughness. If Cafardo can explain why one player slumps and another player does not then he probably wouldn't be making a living as a sportswriter right now. He would be working for a major league baseball team. I would also like to add the Red Sox pitching was their downfall last year, not any prolonged slump by a batter. So unless Cafardo thought the Red Sox pitching wasn't tough enough, and that's why the staff had a bad September (which I think he actually believes), this point of perservering through slumps is irrelevant.

Some of that toughness left the Red Sox when Jonathan Papelbon signed a lucrative four-year deal with the Philllies.

I can't believe the Phillies paid $1.4 million additional each year in Papelbon's contract specifically for toughness. Sure, he is a great closer and his ability to celebrate after closing a game out was well worth the $900,000 per year that was set aside in Papelbon's contract. I do think the Phillies way overpaid Papelbon's market value toughness. Especially since Papelbon's toughness has decreased from a 91 in 2008 to a 82 last year. The Phillies are probably really glad to have Papelbon's toughness and to a much lesser extent his ability to pitch well.

The good news is that they got some of it back when Ben Cherington signed Mark Melancon and Andrew Bailey.

Need to see the true faces of toughness? Look no further than here and here. Who cares how these guys pitch? They are going to be so damn tough on the mound, the opposing batters may not even swing at a pitch because they are cowering in fear at the toughness being displayed by these two relief pitchers. After all, look at how much these two pitcher's toughness helped the Astros and A's when it came to winning games last year.

The tradeoff of utility guys - Nick Punto for Jed Lowrie - was a 180 for the Red Sox.

Punto's career batting line: .249/.325/.327 and he is 33 years old.

Lowrie's career batting line: .252/.324/.382 and he is 27 years old.

I'm not sure how I see this move is a 180. It seems like Punto is a less powerful, slightly older version of Lowrie. What am I missing?

Punto is as tough as nails and should fit well on this team.

That's right. Now I know what I am missing. Lowrie is a huge pussy, while Nick Punto isn't just as tough as nails, he actually eats nails and sometimes drywall, but only if it is necessary to prove his toughness.

One of his best friends is Kevin Youkilis, who shut it down last season after a sports hernia, sore hip, and back issues got the best of him.

Wimp!

Youkilis is as tough as they come, and his presence in the lineup should ramp up the team’s toughness meter quite a bit.

On a much lesser note, I bet Kevin Youkilis will also be good at playing the game of baseball, which may also help the Red Sox become a better team. I know actually being good at baseball is always secondary to toughness, but let's not overlook the awesome combination of toughness and actually being good at the game of baseball Youkilis brings to the Red Sox.

We know about Dustin Pedroia’s toughness and willingness to play through anything.

We also know Pedroia hit .307/.387/.484 with 21 home runs, 37 doubles, and 26 stolen bases. Who cares about that though? Look at his toughness!

Adrian Gonzalez has a quiet toughness about him. You think his shoulder wasn’t hurting the second half of the season when his production was way down?

I wouldn't know if Gonzalez's shoulder was hurting him because he is so quietly tough that he wouldn't tell us if his shoulder hurt or not.

Marco Scutaro might be the toughest guy on the team. This guy will play through anything. Know why?

Because you are using hyperbole to make this contention up?

Does a strained oblique count as "anything?" It must not because Scutaro certainly didn't play through a strained oblique last year. I feel like while over-hyperbolizing Scutaro's toughness, his stint on the disabled list from 2011 needs to be mentioned in regard to Scutaro's toughness and how he will "play through anything."

Because he has never taken his career for granted.

Gritty, gutsy, hustling, scrappy.

Part of that toughness, that dirt-dog mentality, is giving 100 percent effort.

Get rid of those lazy players like J.D. Drew. He takes his career for granted every single day. He doesn't have a dirt-dog mentality, he has a velcro-cat mentality! Fucking asshole.

We know some big guys feel they’re so slow that they wouldn’t beat out a grounder even if an infielder bobbled the ball, so they tend to not bust it down the line.

These guys aren't grinders! They have no place on this scrappy, gritty Red Sox team apparently comprised entirely of the most hustling, ass-busting team of white guys ever to put their dirt-dog uniforms on, which they do in order to honor baseball by playing the game the way it should be played. Fuck you Carl Everett and Manny Ramirez, you buncha lazy, career-taking-for-granted jackasses! We need more hustling, gritty players. Where's Kevin Millar at when you need him? He hustled and gritted the 2004 Red Sox to a World Series victory. It wasn't the skill of that team which caused them to win the World Series. That was a bunch of dirt-dogs who would do anything to win games, including being really fucking good at baseball if that's what it absolutely came to.

But consequences for not running balls out? You bet. Valentine has a history of fining players for dogging it. He’ll make those rules very clear to his players in spring training.

If you went through the list of things wrong with last year's Red Sox team, (which wasn't a bad team by the way. It was a very good team) players not hustling and dogging it would probably be 8th or 9th on the list.

I wonder if one of the fines coming from Valentine for "dogging it" is that certain player has to read this column 100 times over and then write a 5 page report on what it means to him.

Is there anything worse than a player jogging to first on a routine grounder, and the infielder bobbles the ball but still throws out the lazy runner?

As long as we don't include all the other things that are worse than this, no, this is absolutely the worst. I sure wish I could recall more times this anecdotal event has occurred, but it sure sounds terrible. If teams had more gritty players and fewer me-first players who aren't tough...(pauses wistfully thinking about this) baseball, well no, the world as a whole would be a better place.

Don't you hate it when a team is in the lead for the AL Wild Card and that team's pitching completely falls apart during the month of September and eventually that team blows the AL Wild Card? That is a better and more accurate anecdote to describe why the Red Sox did not make the playoffs last year.

Or a batter hitting a popup but still getting thrown out when the infielder drops it because he didn’t run it out?

You mean we get TWO anecdotal examples in one column of incidences that occur on the baseball field maybe 2-3 times per year, yet is being treated as if it happens every game? How lucky are we? I will never take this column for granted.

How many times a year does a player get thrown out after not running out a popout that was dropped? The Red Sox didn't lose the Wild Card last year because a batter didn't hustle to first base, a batter didn't run out a popup or because starting pitchers drank beer and ate fried chicken in the clubhouse. The Red Sox lost the Wild Card because their pitching was terrible in September. So being super-duper really tough and gritty can only help as much as it also helps to have really good pitching and batting.

Maybe you don’t see these things very often, but you see them often enough.

Great point. If only the Red Sox batters had hustled more last year it could have made absolutely zero difference in the year-end result. Unless you are a part of the group that thinks Carl Crawford should have caught the fly ball that let in the winning run during the last game of the season. We all know Mike Greenwell would have caught that ball in the air and then hit a 6-run home run to win the game in the very next inning.

You really come to appreciate players like Pedroia, Alex Rodriguez, and Derek Jeter who run out every ball as hard as they can. They play the game right.

Do you know who doesn't play the game right? 6-year olds playing T-ball. Most everyone else older than 6-years old who play baseball understands the basic rules and plays the game "right." Now there are varying degrees of skill and ability each person playing the game of baseball possesses, but not playing the game of baseball with a high level of skill or not running hard isn't playing the game "wrong."

Pedroia doesn’t have blazing speed, but he can make the infielder rush the throw and at times beat out balls that other guys wouldn’t because they don’t run hard.

Pedroia also hits the ball very well and isn't a pitcher, so it wasn't his fault the Red Sox missed the playoffs last year. I just want to be clear about this since I take the idea from Cafardo about how "the Red Sox need to toughen up" as actually meaning "I'm going to make up a reason that doesn't have to do with pitching to use as to why the Red Sox missed the playoffs last year."

The Red Sox didn’t exactly train hard last spring.

It is always funny when sports columnists can point to reasons AFTER the season is over as to why the team didn't succeed. Where was this "the Red Sox didn't train hard in the spring" and "need to toughen up" columns back in early April?

Valentine wasn’t specific but he said he’s always run spring training the same way.

Hiding in the dugout with a disguise on?

Valentine is expected to have a meeting with Tim Bogar, his bench coach, who will run spring training, to make sure they’re on the same page. Bogar is likely to have a lot of ideas after the Terry Francona regime, but we’ll see if that meshes with Valentine.

Enough about all of this "ideas" and boring talk about how Valentine will run Spring Training. Let's get to the major issue we all want to know:

Are the Sox tough enough?

They need more dirt-dogs. I know that for sure. I always knew, and can finally reveal what I knew back then but didn't say it because I didn't want to say so that doesn't mean I am making it up, that Carl Crawford was never going to work out for the Red Sox. He's not a grinder. He's used to things being handed to him, just like the Red Sox handed $140 million to him last summer. Dustin Pedroia would have done pushups or run an entire marathon in order to receive this money, but Carl Crawford, who is not a hustler/grinder/scrappy little guy, just took the money smiled and went about his business not training hard during Spring Training.

They have a first baseman who wants to play every game.

Jacoby Ellsbury would prefer to play every 4th game, while John Lackey just wants to eat fried chicken in the clubhouse and nurse his "injured" elbow that required major surgery. The worst part is that asshole Jed Lowrie didn't want to play any games at all last year. Zero games. That's how many games he requested to participate in. He isn't tough enough.

They have a second baseman who never gives up on anything. The shortstop plays in pain. The third baseman is as intense as anyone in the game. The catcher (Jarrod Saltalamacchia) can take a beating. The left fielder plays hard. The center fielder shed his image of not being tough with a tremendous breakout season.

I hope Nick Cafardo knows every single one of these players, except the shortstop, were on the Red Sox team last year. So if Cafardo thinks all of these players are tough enough this upcoming year, they were also tough enough last year. Which brings me back to the whole issue of why the Red Sox didn't win the AL Wild Card last year and it most likely was the 5.84 ERA the Red Sox pitchers had in September. I'm just guessing at this being the cause of course. It very well could have been the overwhelmingly lack of toughness and absence of grit.

The pitching staff needs to reestablish its toughness after the shenanigans of last season.

"Reestablish its toughness." I think what Nick Cafardo really means is "pitch better so they give up less runs and give the Red Sox a better chance to win."

The September collapse shed a new light on the Sox. They need to come out and play as if everyone is fighting for a spot on the 25-man roster. They need to show the effort and the hunger of the Tampa Bay Rays.

OR the Red Sox could just not collapse in September, so the Rays never would have made the playoffs and we would be talking about how the Rays may not have the payroll resources to keep up with the Yankees and Red Sox. It's toughness though. That's the issue. Apparently the key to playing good baseball isn't skill, hard work, or any other variable that involves improving the player's skill set. It is toughness. Being tough and playing through injuries improves a player's skill set more than repetition or any other variable related to increasing a player's skill level ever could.

We need to see that grit that Valentine has talked about.

They have the players with that grit.

Grit or Grit(s)? I ask this because I'm getting pretty hungry right now.

I really hope this upcoming year Red Sox pitchers are caught eating grits and drinking beer in the clubhouse on their off day and then claim they were wanting to be one of the players Nick Cafardo was talking about who needed more grits. This would amuse me.

The 2012 season is a good time to show it. Collectively.

Or the Red Sox could just try to avoid another historic collapse by not pitching poorly during one month of the season. Either way works I guess.

MMQB Review: Peter King Has Some Red Sox-Related Thoughts Edition

2012-01-24T14:28:00.000-05:00

A week after wondering when the Red Sox are going to sign a pitcher to compete with the Yankees. This week Peter is outraged to learn the Red Sox have to clear cap space to sign a pitcher. He's like a kid who has learned his parent's credit card has a spending limit. On more football-related topics, Peter informed us last week that Alex Smith is the real Tim Tebow. Then Alex Smith had a 46% completion percentage in the NFC Championship Game, a la Tim Tebow, so perhaps Peter King is right about that plus much more. Not true, says Peter King. No one knows anything, including Peter King himself. That's why gambling is bad, mmkay? This week Peter tells us football is unpredictable and you never know whose life will be ruined (possibly short-term or in the long-term) by the outcome of a football game. It's one of those things we love about the sport. Who will make a bad play on the field in an important game and get the honor of receiving death threats and the ire of a fan base? Step up, Kyle Williams and Billy Cundiff. It's your turn.

I laugh when people call me an idiot for my predictions.

I get this. Peter is paid to be an expert on the NFL, not make correct predictions. That being said, you would think these things go hand-in-hand a little closer than they do.

Sunday was a perfect example of why you shouldn't put a nickel down on big football games. Or any football games, really.

What Peter misses is part of the fun of gambling is not knowing what will happen. That's why it is called "gambling." So while I understand football games are unpredictable, the lack of surety in the outcome of the game is contained in what betting on football games is called...gambling.

1. Sterling Moore.

2. Billy Cundiff.

3. Kyle Williams.

4. Jacquian Williams.

Let's throw Lee Evans in there. I realize it was a good strip by Sterling Moore, but Evans had to hold on to that football in my opinion. Also, throw Joe Flacco on the list since he perhaps could have made a run for the first down on third down and used the Ravens timeout at that point instead of never using that timeout. I would even throw in John Harbaugh for not using a timeout to allow Cundiff more time to prepare for the kick. If Evans catches the ball, if Flacco runs for a first down, and if Harbaugh had used the timeout (especially since it is rumored Cundiff wasn't ready to kick when called upon to do so). I know Cundiff missed the chip shot, but there was more than just his miss that led to the Ravens loss.

But the Patriots and Giants are meeting in Super Bowl 46, a reunion of Super Bowl 42, because their 53 men are better -- at least more reliable -- than the teams they vanquished Sunday.

Deep. Just really deep.

Nice crowd the 49ers have on Twitter. One of their "fans'' tweeted to Williams (@KyleWilliams_10): "Jim Harbaugh, please give @KyleWilliams_10 the game ball. And make sure it explodes when he gets in his car.''

"I'm going to take what a few idiots on Twitter said and then make it seem like the entire fan base are crazed, homicidal maniacs. Hey, it's safer than gambling!"

It's only sports, people. Only sports.

We are getting lessons in perspective from Peter King. The same person who almost started a fight with a guy at a hotel because he cut in line for the elevator. Peter King. The same guy who eviscerated Hertz in MMQB for charging him $9 gallon (or something near that amount) to fill up a rental car with gas because Peter was too lazy to do it himself. Peter is right about having a perspective on sports, but this is the guy giving us perspective on sports. Peter has perspective on life, unless a hotel doesn't have coffee ready and brewed by 6am, in which case that hotel can go straight to hell.

It's 13 days early to say this is a team for the ages. But the Giants will be underdogs to New England again in the Super Bowl, just like they were four years ago when they won by a Velcro catch and three points. And if the Giants win, they'll go down as one of the most remarkable stories of our era. Imagine Coughlin and Manning beating Belichick and Brady three times in four years -- twice in the Super Bowl, the other time in Foxboro. It'd be extraordinary.

The Giants beating the Patriots in the Super Bowl is a big "if." A huge "if." Like I don't necessarily believe it will happen "if." I bet Ian O'Connor regrets his "The Giants should have signed Plaxico Burress" column now. Actually, sportswriters tend to have no shame when overreacting to one play or game, so he probably doesn't regret it.

In the championship game Sunday, I counted 23 pressures on Manning. This San Francisco defense deserves to be playing in a Super Bowl.

If only football wasn't a team game. Damn you, NFL rules that won't allow individual units on a team to go to the Super Bowl to compete against other individual units!

The two ends in the 3-4, Ray McDonald and Justin Smith, are every bit as impactful as the best ends the Steelers have had in their 3-4 prime, Aaron Smith and Brett Keisel.

Well, I personally didn't know the 49ers had as impactful defensive ends in a 3-4 defense like the Steelers have. If the Giants had known that I'm sure they would have allowed Kyle Williams five seconds to try and recover his own fumble in overtime...but only because the 49ers defense deserved to go to the Super Bowl. It is miserable to hear two defensive ends in a 3-4 defense aren't going to the Super Bowl and these ends are as impactful as two other defensive ends in a 3-4 defense who have won a Super Bowl. This will be the first time in NFL history quality individual players haven't made it to the Super Bowl.

How cruel is it for San Francisco that the Niners prepared for most every contingency during the season, Jim Harbaugh and GM Trent Baalke plugging most of the personnel holes they could. Who spends cap money and significant time on the backup punt returner?

Not really that cruel actually. It's the NFL, where injuries happen. The Patriots had a wide receiver playing cornerback against the Ravens. The Packers won the Super Bowl last year with multiple players on Injured Reserve. It wasn't cap money or significant time that hurt the 49ers, it was (a) Williams inability to do a basic thing like get the hell out of the way of a bouncing punt and (b) not properly secure the ball while running back a punt. Neither of these really had much to do with punt returning and had to do with basic football fundamentals. Williams has returned a few punts and kicks over the last two seasons with the 49ers. It isn't like he was picked up the week before the NFC Championship Game and thrown back there. Sure, he wasn't Ted Ginn but there is a reason you have backups.

What's cruel is having things out of your control that doesn't have much to do with play on the field bite you in the ass. Like if a team had the best defense in that franchise's history and then the starting and backup quarterback get hurt and that team has to start a rookie 5th round pick for the last several games of the season and in the playoffs. That's cruel. The starting punt returner getting hurt and his backup making two big mistakes, not from lack of experience, but from mistakes made concerning ball security, are simply a bad time for a bad couple of plays. You don't need experience to know to get out of the way of a punt and the ball being stripped is a matter of ball security.

Granted they were helped by The Tebow Factor, but New England's defense is getting well when it counts.

"Granted, I believe my own point about the Patriots defense getting better isn't true, but wouldn't it be cool if I just ignored my own conclusion and said the Patriots defense was playing better?"

Vince Wilfork was a monster Sunday, and what's helping him get free more than he has recently is the play of no-names like Kyle Love and Brandon Deaderick and Mark Anderson and Gerard Warren, who pushed the pile Sunday and only occasionally gave Ray Rice and Ricky Williams enough creases to run.

Not sure I would call Mark Anderson a no-name player and Gerard Warren was a Top 3 pick in the NFL Draft. He is only a no-name to some people because they may be surprised he is still in the NFL.

2. Should the replay assistant, Mark Burns, have stopped the game for a replay review on the Lee Evans catch/non-catch in the end zone with 27 seconds left?

I thought so.

I usually have no problem with booth replays in the last two minutes of a game, but this is a case where I wish the coach had control over whether to challenge the play or not. Peter and I are on the same page here. Why not review a potential scoring play that could give one of the teams the lead? This was a huge mistake in my opinion not to take another look at this play. Why not spend 2 minutes looking at the play since it would have such a huge impact on the game?

I just thought the gravity of the situation should have mandated a review. God knows the game is stopped for elbows hitting the ground and 12 inches of real estate on poor spots. "I'm surprised they didn't look at it,'' said John Harbaugh.

Again, usually I have no problem with replay being out of the hands of the coaches during the last two minutes of the game, but this is a case where I think there was no reason not to review it from the booth.

Now, for the many of you wanting to crucify Evans for the play: I don't. Should he have lock-gripped the ball to prevent stripping? Yes, of course. But New England cornerback Sterling Moore has a job to do there too, and that job is to chop down on the hands of Evans as soon as the ball is in his grasp.

No one is looking to crucify Lee Evans. If Billy Cundiff gets criticized for missing a field goal to tie the game, then I think Lee Evans should get criticized for having the game-winning touchdown stripped out of his hands. Moore may have made a great play, but a veteran wide receiver like Lee Evans knows if a ball hits his hands, he has to catch and secure that ball. Moore made a great play, but Evans should have had the ball in my opinion.

3. Why didn't Harbaugh call a timeout as the field-goal team came onto the field to try the tying kick -- and it appeared kicker Billy Cundiff was slow in getting on the field?

Harbaugh certainly should have. What was he saving it for? "That never occurred to me,'' said Harbaugh.

Harbaugh would have been better off not saying this. Really? It didn't occur to you to call a timeout to set up your kicker for more time before the game-tying kick in the AFC Championship Game? This amazed me. Again, especially if the rumor that Cundiff wasn't ready for the kick when he was being called upon. Yeah, I read that rumor on TMZ, but the information you get there is about as accurate as ESPN.com.

The Ravens were not getting the ball back and they could not stop the clock enough with one timeout if the Patriots got the ball. That timeout was just sitting there and served no purpose for the rest of the game unless Harbaugh was planning on trying an onside kick after the made field goal. You call the timeout because you have the timeout and there is no reason to make your kicker rush on the field when he can take his time to line his kick up. I really hope Harbaugh wasn't afraid he would be icing his kicker if he called a timeout. That seems silly to me.

"Look back on it now, maybe there was something we could have done. But in that situation, it didn't seem like we were rushed on the field.''

But you have a timeout to be used. Why not use it just to make sure your team is ready to execute the kick? I don't like the Ravens and I was screaming for them to call timeout there. I imagine I wasn't the only one.

Getting through this period will be difficult, obviously. And no one should pretend to tell a coach and his family how to mourn, or when to move. Those should be personal calls.

Not according to Gregg Easterbrook. He thinks the Packers should have forced Philbin to give up play calling duties and probably in some way blames Philbin for the Packers' loss to the Giants.

2. New England (15-3). The Patriots are going to their fifth Super Bowl in the last 11 seasons. If they win, they're immortal. If they lose, Eli Manning has their number.

If the Patriots lose, then Bill Simmons will consider it to be the worst loss in the history of the franchise. A loss so terrible that it will be mentioned on a monthly basis in Bill's columns in the desperate hopes of regaining the sympathy he garnered from readers before the Red Sox won the 2004 World Series. The same sympathy he eventually lost when he became insufferable after that time. Bill may, and I am just speculating here, not talk about the Patriots Super Bowl 42 loss to the Giants for at least...wait for it...two months if the Giants beat the Patriots again. Probably not, but there's a chance Bill would stop talking about Super Bowl 42 for two months. I'm not sure what I want more. A Super Bowl victory for the Patriots so Bill won't tell us all how bad a loss in the Super Bowl would have been or a Patriots loss so Bill will be humbled a bit.

9. Detroit (10-7). End of the season shows Lions need to be in play for Jim Schwartz's old buddy Cortland Finnegan in free agency.

Or perhaps a linebacker as well. A running back that can stay healthy would also help.

13. Arizona (8-8). Got a long way to go to catch the Niners.

It is the NFL. Last year I am sure the Cardinals looked in better shape than the 49ers, who had a new coach, an iffy defense and no real quarterback. It's amazing how one season of success changes everyone's perception.

15. Miami (6-10). I like the Dolphins a little better today now that they're the leaders in the clubhouse for Matt Flynn.

A free agent quarterback who has played sparingly as a backup quarterback, played well in that limited amount of time and will probably go to a team with inferior offensive players. What could go wrong?

Running back LaDainian Tomlinson, to Showtime, about the atmosphere fostered by Jets coach Rex Ryan and GM Mike Tannenbaum, and the feud between quarterback Mark Sanchez and wideout Santonio Holmes:

-- "I've been around some locker rooms and quarterback-receiver situations and what-not, but it was as bad as I've been around. I think the players could no longer do anything about it.''

Regardless of whether Tomlinson is right about this or not, doesn't this make two out of two franchises that Tomlinson has criticized after leaving the team? I can't help but wonder if the next franchise he signs with will keep this in mind.

Then Peter lists other comments that Rex Ryan and Woody Johnson had made and said their mouths rested on the weekends, as if he was tired of hearing them talk. Peter is obviously not understanding the idea the guys keep talking because the media is there to listen to them and report on it. For a guy who presumably wants the Jets to quit talking, Peter sure spends a lot of time in MMQB talking about what the Jets' head coach, players and owner have to say.

1. I think this is what I liked about championship weekend:

h. New England corner Sterling Moore, whose rags-to-riches story will be a good one at the Super Bowl.

I can't wait for TMQ when Gregg points out Sterling Moore was an undrafted free agent and knocked the ball out of the hands of Lee Evans, a glory boy first round pick.

k. Victor Cruz, who demolished Carlos Rogers in an eight-catch first half.

Yet, in the second half it seemed Rogers played better coverage on Cruz and Cruz only caught two more passes. Peter doesn't mention this of course.

n. Good to see Peyton Manning at Candlestick to support his little brother.

What else does he have to do? Where else would you expect Peyton to be? His brother is playing in the NFC Championship Game after all.

g. San Francisco's inability to replace a punt returner. I mean, how valuable does Ted Ginn Jr., look this morning? Had he played, there's a very good chance a different team is going to Indianapolis next week.

Oh my God, let it go. I think Peter is more distraught than some 49ers fans. He keeps writing about how the 49ers defense deserved to go to the Super Bowl, then named individual players who deserved to go to the Super Bowl, and keeps bringing up how the 49ers didn't have a backup punt returner. They did. His name was Kyle Williams and he had a bad game. It sucks, but them's the breaks. I really believe Peter is taking this loss harder than 49ers fans.

h. I feel for Kyle Williams, but I can't imagine Jim Harbaugh keeping a guy he can't trust next year.

What happened to all that positive technique coaching that Gregg Easterbrook was talking about last week? I don't know very much about the 49ers personnel needs, but I don't know if Harbaugh will get rid of Williams any more than he would make sure he has a quality backup punt returner that isn't Kyle Williams.

8. I think it sure feels like Chip Kelly's beating the posse out of Eugene if he takes the Tampa Bay job. After it seemed like he'd be leaving Oregon for the NFL, Kelly may have had a change of heart about joining the Bucs. If he does turn down the job, I'm told part of the reason is that the news of Kelly's possible departure leaked, killing his recruiting efforts.

Peter needs this sentence edited very badly. It's clear Peter wrote the first part,

I think it sure feels like Chip Kelly's beating the posse out of Eugene if he takes the Tampa Bay job.

before Chip Kelly changed his mind. Then Peter wrote this,

After it seemed like he'd be leaving Oregon for the NFL, Kelly may have had a change of heart about joining the Bucs.

which he obviously wrote after Chip Kelly decided to stay in Oregon.

But then Peter left this sentence in MMQB,

If he does turn down the job, I'm told part of the reason is that the news of Kelly's possible departure leaked, killing his recruiting efforts.

Which also seems like it was written after Kelly announced he was staying at Oregon. Why have that first sentence? The one about beating the posse out of Oregon. It feels out of place to me. Very weird string of thoughts in my opinion. I know it is hard to stay up-to-date while writing MMQB, but it was announced Kelly was staying at Oregon when MMQB got posted.

b. Marco Scutaro to the Rockies for Clayton Mortensen, a bottom-of-the-rotation candidate. Stupid, stupid, stupid trade. Did GM Ben Cherington watch the end of the Red Sox season, when Scutaro played hurt and played brilliantly -- the best player on the team over the last two weeks (when the team was dying and drinking) other than Jacoby Ellsbury, at a time when too many big-money players stunk up the joint?

More importantly, as we will find out later this week, Nick Cafardo will miss the enormous amount of grit Scutaro gave to the Red Sox lineup. What a terrible trade to get rid of such grit and heart in a trade. Clearly, this means the Red Sox are stuck with the overpaid assholes they have now and will never make the playoffs ever again. You can't trade grit and heart and expect not to be repaid with bad karma. Of course, if Mortensen turns out to be a decent player Peter will forget about his criticism of this trade.

All I heard after the deal was the Red Sox were clearing salary space to pick up Roy Oswalt. Oswalt turns 35 this year. He broke down last year, when he went 9-10 with a 3.69 ERA and missed 12 starts. Wait: The Boston Red Sox have to clear salary space? What?

Can't the Red Sox just continue to outspend every other team? This team that has some sense of a budget isn't the gritty, gutsy, blue collar team Peter King has come to know and love. What is Cherington trying to do with clear salary space? Develop players and make moves to strengthen the exact same pitching staff Peter bitched about not being strong enough last week? (Yes, Peter complained last week in MMQB the Red Sox staff wasn't strong enough, this week space is being cleared to sign a pitcher and Peter still isn't happy) Why would the Red Sox want to develop a plan to compete that doesn't include finding ways to spend more money right now?

If the Red Sox stop spending money or hold payroll at the same level, look for Bill Simmons to disown the team for a few years because they are being misers and then eventually jump back on the bandwagon once the team starts winning again.

Scutaro's not the centerpiece of a World Series winner, but he's the kind of rub-some-dirt-on-whatever-hurts gamer with good talent.

Thanks Nick Cafardo (I can't wait to post that one).

He obviously was undervalued by a team that now seems to value more the guys who drink in the clubhouse in the seventh inning than those scratching and clawing to try to win games.

Regardless of whether this was a good trade or not, this is just pure stupidity being written on Peter's laptop right now. Every team has had players who drink in the clubhouse and the public's perception of this depends entirely on whether that team is winning or not. The Red Sox collapsed last year so naturally the media clings to the idea fried chicken and beer caused the Red Sox pitchers to pitch poorly in October.

h. Coffeenerdness: Tried a latte at Blue Bottle Coffee in the San Francisco Ferry building Saturday -- and it was worth the 15-minute wait in line.

"How dare other people want coffee at the same time I do and cause me to wait in line to feed my addiction!"

j. Wish my father were around to see these Giants. He'd love Coughlin.

But he wouldn't love those cheapskate Red Sox who have to "clear salary cap space" now in order to sign players. Life is so unfair.

Attack of the SimmonsClones!

2012-01-23T14:10:00.000-05:00

When waiting that interminable long wait for Bill Simmons to post his Friday evening NFL picks, I realized I had not covered anything Bill Simmons has written lately. It isn't completely my fault to be honest with you. I don't read what Bill Simmons writes anymore on a weekly basis. He writes once a week and I'm usually not interested in what he writes about and I have no interest in hearing his podcasts, though I hear they aren't half-bad. Anyway, when I saw it was a Bill Simmons "real" mailbag full of SimmonsClones trying to appease their leader by completely copying the way he writes and just generally idolizing him, the Simmonsologist in me knew I had to not only mock Bill but those uber-Simmons fans who write into him in a desperate attempt to be exactly like Bill. Look, you can enjoy Bill Simmons' writing and not be a SimmonsClone. I call those who try to write exactly like Bill and seem to live for his acceptance "SimmonsClones." If their leader acknowledges and justifies their existence in this world by answering one of their questions in which they attempt to sound like Bill Simmons, well there is nothing else to live for at that point.

If I finish 11-0 against the spread in this year's playoffs, these Friday mailbags will keep going for the rest of my life, and yours, and your kids' lives, and your grandkids' lives, and for the rest of eternity, so help me Tebow.

I do like how Bill refers to "Tebow" in place of "God." It seems obvious, but I think it works fairly well. Bill can be a good writer at times. Also, I knew Bill would not finish 11-0 in the playoffs. His regular season picking record was 120-127-9, so if Bill finished 11-0 in the playoffs it would be like a #10 seed winning the NCAA Tournament.

As always, these are actual e-mails from readers.

Except for the emails Bill has made up of course. It's debatable to me at times whether these readers are just that pathetic to idolize Bill like they do, or it just turns out Bill makes some of these letters up.

Q: Congrats on going 4-0!!! Nobody believed in you!!!!!!

— David, Boston

SG: It took me 20 seconds to realize this wasn't a compliment.

I think David from Boston was going for the whole cliche that teams spout after they win a big game that "no one believed in them." At least I think that's what he was going for.

Q: The opening kickoff for Pittsburgh-Denver hitting the CROSSbar and coming to rest exactly on the 20 yard line sure seemed like an Omen, right?

Yes, it was an omen. The best part about Tebow's ascendance (see what I did there?) in the NFL conversation is the use of religious jokes and imagery in writing. I feel like its opened up a whole new avenue of jokes and imagery to use in sports.

A Tebow title coupled with a Clippers championship and you going 11-0 in the NFL playoffs … yeah, those things would make me quit my job and live off my 401k for the next six months until the world ends.
— Mike Desko, Chicago

SG: You don't have to worry about a Clippers championship, Mike — that's not happening on Vinny Del Negro's watch.

"Hi, I'm Bill Simmons and there isn't a single other executive or head coach that is as smart as I am. Everyone should hire me as their General Manager or head coach because I have the ability to make up fake trades and then ask 'who would say no' to the trade. Clearly this talent will translate perfectly to the real world. Someone please hire me."

You'd have a better chance of seeing Chris Paul and Blake Griffin French-kiss after an alley-oop.

I wouldn't put anything past Chris Paul. We all know how much he loves punching men's testicles. Maybe he likes that "athletic bi-racial Ginger" thing Blake Griffin has going for him. It's as if Derek Jeter, Michael Jordan and Carrot Top mated.

(Of course, if they fire Del Negro within the next few weeks and rent Phil Jackson for a four-month, $10 million playoff run … )

And the Clippers would only have to spend $10 million to do this? Where can they sign? Paying out the ass for a head coach is Bill's idea of an innovative way to improve the Clippers. There has to be some middle ground between keeping Del Negro as the head coach and renting Phil Jackson for a playoff run. I'm also not sure Phil Jackson can do much about the roster deficiencies that could plague the Clippers in the playoffs. I can't imagine why no one has hired Bill Simmons as a General Manager yet.

Q: A thousand years from now, will people build scenes of the 2010 NFL-Draft in front of their houses just like they do with the nativity play now? In the Pittsburgh game, they played in the stadium that's closest to heaven (Mile High). Tebow threw for 316 yards. Rothlisberger's interception came on 3rd and 16. Pittsburgh's time of possession was 31 minutes and 6 seconds.

SG: You just described why I have never been more frightened for a Patriots game. It's the first-ever Boston sporting event with zero upside. Name one result that would make Patriots fans feel fantastic afterwards.

How about the Patriots jumping all over the Broncos from the beginning and Tom Brady destroying the Broncos defense for nearly 30 points in the first half? Sure, I cheated and wrote this after the game, but I think Bill wants his readers to feel bad for what sees as the Patriots "no win" situation. He should probably just be happy his favorite team is in the playoffs, but whining about his teams' fate comes so naturally to Bill I'm not sure he can stop.

Even if Super Bowl XLII will always be the worst defeat in the history of the franchise, this particular loss would be more excruciating because we can see it coming …

YES! I love Bill's use of italics for emphasis at the end of a sentence. I would say for many franchises the loss in a Super Bowl is the worst defeat in the history of a franchise. Of course, most other franchises haven't won three Super Bowls over the last decade or so. This is why Bill gives Boston-area fans a bad name because of his inability to be self-aware. The Cleveland Browns haven't won anything significant in decades, yet Bill wants us to know how painful a loss in the playoffs would be for him.

How painful would a loss to the Broncos have been for the Patriots? It would even be worse than that one Super Bowl the Patriots somehow managed to lose. I realize the Pats had lost two straight playoff games and they expect more. Don't even get me started with Bill talking about how he can see the Patriots lose coming, while he also acknowledges what a huge upset it would have been if the Broncos beat the Patriots. No Pats fans wanted lose to the Broncos, but I feel like there should be a little perspective here. Bill is basically complaining his wallet can't fit all the one-hundred dollar bills he has and his diamond shoes are too tight.

If I were a Patriots fan, I would petition that Bill stop writing about New England area sports. I'm not saying Bill doesn't have a right to mourn a tough loss, but the way Bill writes is he seems to attempt to garner sympathy from his readers, many of whom would love their team to have a chance to lose a big game in the playoffs.

Here are four actual e-mails I received from gainfully employed, successful, rational people who root for the Patriots.

I don't want to spoil anything, but they all back Bill's point of view this would be the worst loss in the history of the Patriots team...or at least until next time the Patriots play a big game, in which case Bill sees that potential loss as the biggest loss in the history of the Patriots team. It's so tough being successful. I bet Bill thinks Jaguars fans have it good. At least they don't have to deal with the pain of losing big games.

E-mail no. 3 (a response to E-mail no. 2): "I have spent more time considering where to watch this game than what to feed my child this week

How about you feed your child a dose of perspective this week? Like maybe don't going around acting like someone you love or know has cancer or has died suddenly if the Patriots lose. How about feeding your child the reality that potentially losing a playoff game isn't the end of the world and quit acting like a playoff loss would literally be the end of your life as you know it? The Red Sox are going to be good this year, the Celtics---well they still have Rondo, and you can always jump on the Bruins bandwagon if all else fails.

Home seems like a bad call — I really might break something and it might lead to divorce. I'm a mess about this game too. I really have nothing soothing to say."

Home is a bad call, because breaking something out in public or at a friend's house is so much better than breaking something at home? Your wife won't divorce you if she finds out you destroyed a bar room stool in a hissy fit over your favorite NFL team not winning a game?

Who do you think wrote this next email "to" Bill? See if you can take a guess. Let's look at some characteristics of this email to figure it out.

E-mail no. 4: "My cousin Kristin's wedding reception is at the exact same time as this game. No TV's at the reception — my Dad already checked.

Talking about his father's obsession with his favorite sports team. Actually, talking about his father at all.

We are going to have 40 people grimly huddled around my iPhone watching what promises to be one of the biggest upsets in sports history as we're watching some stolen internet stream that cuts off right as Tebow's potential game-winning pass is soaring in the air, followed by me giving my father CPR for the next 20 minutes.

Another mention of his father reacting negatively to a Boston-related sports event. Extreme pessimism while also predicting the loss would be one of "the biggest upsets in sports history."

(Really? Would the Broncos having beaten the Patriots be one of the biggest upsets in sports history? The Broncos beating the Patriots probably would not have been one of the biggest upsets in sports history. The line on the game was 13.5 points, which is a lot and I am not denying it would be an upset, but one of the biggest upsets in sports as a whole? I think this is using hyperbole in order to prove a point. That point? Feel sorry for the writer of this email because his team is so good, it would stink to lose to a team that isn't very good.)

I have never felt more pessimistic about a sporting event in which my team would have to be beaten by a 7-to-1 underdog to lose — not ever."

Exaggerating what a potential loss would feel like and using hyperbole to describe how he feels before the game, while yet again acknowledging all of his sad feelings are unlikely since it would be a huge upset.

Guess who wrote it...

(By the way, that last e-mail was written by me. And it's all true. Cousin Kristin — you're lucky I like you.)

Bill Simmons wrote it to himself. Bill wrote this email much like the other "emails" in his mailbag that he presumably writes to himself but doesn't cop to it.

Q: The Saints/Lions game is happening as I'm writing this — in fact the Lions are up 14-7 with just under four minutes to play. Game over, Saints win. Why? The camera just showed Stafford with his hat on backwards. Brim-to-the-Back Guy cannot win a Super Bowl, and I don't think there's any way Brim-to-the-Back Guy out-duels Drew Brees in the Superdome.

Here is one Brim-to-the-Back Guy. I'm pretty sure he has won two Super Bowls.

Here is another Brim-to-the-Back Guy. He has won two Super Bowls.

Another Brim-to-the-Back Guy. He has one Super Bowl victory.

My point is perhaps Michael Keeney from Wisconsin should stop trying to be creative and funny in order to impress Bill. The quarterback for the Packers had his hat backwards at media day last year before the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl the Packers won. Fail. Stafford wears his hat backwards a lot, but this is a weak theory since quite a few Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks have worn their hat backwards at some point or another.

Has any Brim-to-the-Back Guy won the big game?

Tom Brady and the other two quarterbacks I linked. I can do what you didn't do and do more research on this non-pertinent issue. You have been in a Bill Simmons mailbag, so I am sure you now consider your life complete and don't care what I have to say.

Some'll claim Big Ben, you can't exactly say he was the leader of those Super Bowl teams.

Yeah, you can. The first Super Bowl the Steelers won despite Roethlisberger's performance, but he definitely led the Steelers to their second Super Bowl. A Brim-to-the-Back Guy won that Super Bowl.

You've got your finger on the pulse; you've the mighty combined forces of Grantland and ESPN's crack research teams.

The only thing Bill has his finger on the pulse of is whatever causes idiots like this to write in to Bill's mailbag and try to be exactly like Bill. To answer this question, you simply need a rudimentary knowledge of how to do an internet search.

SG: This was such a brilliant observation that, for about nine seconds, I thought about stealing the point entirely and pretending I never heard of Michael Keeney of Madison, Wisconsin.

Bill probably isn't kidding. We have reached the very bottom of the barrel when it comes to what is considered "a brilliant observation" if this observation, which also happens to be factually incorrect, is considered brilliant. Bill's mailbags are pretty much a masturbatory venture for him and his readers. The readers are thrilled to be in Bill's mailbag and it excites Bill to see idiots write in to his mailbag, come up with inane theories, and desperately attempt to write like Bill does. The readers get pleasure from seeing Bill print their emails and Bill gets pleasure from seeing how popular he is.

The only elite QB with less of a chance in a big game than Brim-to-the-Back Guy is Brim-to-the-Side Guy. In fact, the secret of Tom Brady's maturation into a franchise QB wasn't dropping to the sixth round; it was when he decided to stop being Brim-to-the-Back Guy.

Well, except for the fact he won a Super Bowl as a Brim-to-the-Back Guy. I'm guessing in order to keep this brilliant observation going, we can just ignore the theory not only is stupid, but also is factually incorrect.

Q: Did Marvin Lewis pull out the best Brad Childress performance of the season in Round One? It was just AWESOME!! I think he took pity on Bill Barnwell and decided to give him material until the end of the season.
— Pierre, Paris, France

Get ready for a Bill Simmons recycled joke. He changes the name, slightly changes the format, and then you have a ready-made recycled joke. Bill has done this quite a few times in his columns, but it started with the Atrocious GM Summit. I recall Bill writing about how a group of bad coaches/GMs should get together on a game show and compete against each other to prove their awfulness quite a few times. The joke worked better as the Atrocious GM Summit when it was introduced about 6 years ago, but because Bill has given up on thinking of actual creative ideas, he rips off his own idea and creates...wait for it...a Bad Head Coach game show. Creative, no? Actually I mean...creative? No.

SG: You know how ESPN tried to turn 2011 into The Year of the Quarterback? I wish we tried to turn 2012 into The Year of the Coach, if only so we could have created a 16-coach game show formatted somewhat like Chopped, with the contestants making impromptu coaching decisions instead of impromptu cooking challenges. Imagine Andy Reid, Marvin Lewis, Brad Childress and Norv Turner battling in the season finale of Botched.

Andy the Host: "Gentlemen, it's the second quarter of a playoff game, you're playing on the road and trailing by three, you're at midfield, the two-minute warning is coming up,

I'll save you the pain. It goes on like that. The idea was great the first time, the second time it wasn't so creative, and now once a few details have been switched around it is simply the same joke told a different way that has the same punchline of "these guys are clueless."

Basically, Bill is trying to pass this idea off as original, when it is just a variation on another one of his ideas. He tries to fool his readers into thinking it isn't recycled. When I used to do JoeChats (R.I.P.) I would sometimes do a "I wonder how this would work in real life..." scenario with one of Joe's responses. It was a continuing theme and I didn't change details around to pretend it wasn't a continuing theme. It's a continuation of a running idea. Bill changes the packaging around in an effort to think a Bad Head Coach show is different from his Atrocious GM Summit or any of the other ideas Bill has had for a coach/player/team/GM to make bad decisions in the company of each other in a competitive format.

Q: I understand why football coaches cover their mouth with their hand, clipboard, play chart, etc. during the game, but wouldn't it just make more sense for the headset manufacturers make the mouth pieces larger so that the full mouth is covered? Wait, did I just give away an amazing business idea??
— Doug, Oakland

SimmonsClones just want so desperately to be seen as creative in Bill's eyes. Do you know how stupid it would look to have a headset mouthpiece cover up the entire mouth? Not to mention when the coach wants to talk to someone who isn't on the headset he would have to push a rather large microphone to the side of the headset. The microphone would probably not go all the way to the side of the headset because the coach's face would be in the way of the huge microphone moving too far up and down.

Q: Has there ever been a more physically gifted WR than Calvin Johnson? Is it even close? He's clearly on the Bo Jackson All Stars (athletes we'll never see clones of.) I'm sure you have time to fill out the rest of that roster, which is way tougher than the NBA version, the Allen Iverson All Stars.
— Brock E., Denver

Another variation of the same theme. An All-Star team being named where each individual on the "team" have the same characteristic. I think Bill Simmons is very talented and when he gives a crap there aren't too many better writers. When he doesn't give a crap, we get another All-Star team named in a mailbag and then later posted to his Wikipedia page.

My list is short and sweet: Bo, Deion, Calvin Johnson, Randy Moss, Michael Vick, Steve Young, Lawrence Taylor, Walter Payton, Randall Cunningham … and we're done, unless you want to include Jerry Rice (for being a freak just for being so technically perfect/precise) or Rob Gronkowski (who probably would have made the list if not for Jimmy Graham, who's equally superfreakish, which somehow nullifies the superfreakishness of both guys because part of being a freak is having no frequal).

So two players at the same position can't be on the team because their "superfreakishness" cancel each other out. Yet, Calvin Johnson and Randy Moss are both on the team, as are Randall Cunningham and Steve Young. Bill makes the rules, then somewhat contradicts his own rules. Not to mention, the idea a person who is a freak has no equal is faulty. A freak is a person who is unusual or irregular. There can be more than two irregular tight ends in the NFL at the same time.

Q: I just read your newest mailbag. I was disappointed because I spent most of it reading the bold text. You are an excellent and intelligent writer. Your readers, typically, are not. I would like to hear more from you and less from them. Please consider my concerns.

Sincerely, Finney.
— Finney, Clemson

SG: I'm guessing Finney didn't enjoy the last few e-mails. And for the record — the mailbag is my favorite column to write and has been since 1997. So there.

Bill attempts to pass it off like he enjoys writing the mailbag because it gives his readers a chance to speak. I would submit that's false. Bill likes to write his mailbags because it is an ego trip for him to read so many people write in trying to sound, act and think like he himself does. Above all, it seems Bill has an innate need to be adored and be considered the smartest guy in the room. He needs confirmation he is adored and he is the smartest guy in the room. His mailbag confirms both of these things for him. Believe me, I don't dislike Bill Simmons but I also don't believe he has very much respect for the readers that have made him so famous and successful.

Q: An idea for the 18-game schedule: each team plays 18 games, but (except for kickers and punters), no player can play in more than 16 games during the regular season. And this should be strongly enforced — if a player plays in even one play in a game, that counts as one of the 16. Imagine the endless debates over what games you decide to rest your best players — do you rest your starting QB against the weakest team you play, or maybe the best if you figure you're not beating that team anyway? Do you rest all your best players in two games, or mix and match? NFL Countdown would have to expand to 5 hours!!
— Mark Wooster, L.A.

I kicked around this idea a bit a year ago when the owners seemed to want to go to an 18 game schedule. It's scary for me I have the same idea as a SimmonsClone. Of course, eventually Bill will claim this idea for his own like he did with the Ewing Theory.

In fact, here's a vague, loosely-held together theory for you. Bill Simmons is like the band U2. Here the parallels I draw:

Early career

Bill Simmons wrote differently from the perspective of his audience. He was one of them and wrote like you and your friends talked and talked about the same things you and your friends talked about. He was good enough to write mainstream, but didn't write like mainstream writers. There was something different about him.

U2 was a different band. Political, but still rock and with enough mainstream sound to be mainstream, but was different from mainstream bands. They were like a college band that made it big.

Reaction to success

Bill Simmons reacted to success by writing a lot of the same things he had written before. He expanded on his previous theories and attempted to start new theories. Then he attempted to expand on his success in different avenues by writing for the Jimmy Kimmel Show and doing a Sports Guy cartoon. The audience didn't like that as much.

U2 reacted to success well (Achtung Baby) and expanded on their previous sound on that album. U2 then tried to expand on the sound more to take the group's sound in a different direction, but still be U2 (Zooropa). This wasn't popular with the audience.

Response to initial failure

Bill Simmons responded to the (somewhat) failure of writing for a talk show by diving back into his columns, writing a book, and expanded his brand at ESPN by executive producing "30 for 30." He achieved success doing this. Bill Simmons had found what worked for him and he wanted to search out change, but within the cocoon of knowing he still worked for ESPN.com.

U2 reacted to the failure of Zooropa and Pop, by writing an incredibly U2-sounding album "All That You Can't Leave Behind." They achieved success by going back to their original sound. They had re-found success and wanted to search out slight changes in sound, but within the cocoon of still sounding like U2.

Later Career

Bill Simmons started Grantland.com, which is a site where he writes once a week, mostly writing non-challenging columns which doesn't really show growth in Simmons' writing ability nor does it really present anything new to the audience. It is popular, so Simmons is more comfortable being popular and re-creating his previous ideas than challenging himself to get better. He has seen mainstream success and failure and knows what it takes for each. His writing doesn't need to improve because people will read his columns and his Grantland.com venture is backed by ESPN (and other great writers), so the odds of failure probably aren't great.

U2 followed up "All That You Can't Leave Behind" with essentially two sequel albums that sound very U2-ish. It doesn't change the U2 sound around. The band knows what sells albums and what audiences want to hear. They don't want to see them expand on their sound, they want U2 to re-create previously successful ideas. They know what mainstream success requires and what could have the potential to fail. The band's writing doesn't need to improve because people will buy their albums and the band has enough name recognition and forums to get their music out a new album with the "U2-sound" won't fail at this point.

I have always thought of U2 as the same band as R.E.M. if R.E.M. re-wrote "Out of Time" every four years, which they didn't. This made R.E.M. less popular, but I think it gave them more credibility as artists. There's nothing wrong with either Bill Simmons or U2 doing this, but I would like to see both of them grow a little more in their art.

SG: A possible wrinkle: If every team plays 18 games, that's 72 quarters in all … so why not tweak it so every player (except kickers and punters) can only play 62 quarters total?

Because that overcomplicates the issue. Bill's need to always improve on someone's idea, because he can't he isn't the smartest guy in the room, backfires here.

Did I mention that, as I type this email, I'm down on knees literally praying that my Tampa Bay Buccaneers hire 68 year old Marty "One and Done" Schottenheimer instead of Wade Phillips, Brad Childress or Mike Sherman? Not that those two thoughts are related or anything.
— Brandon, Vancouver

SG: Here's why I think the Bucs should hire Marty — you know how old people reach that stage when they just don't give a crap anymore and it's awesome?

(Cue overly long explanation that could be summed up easily in two sentences, but won't be due to Bill believing he comes off as more creative by comparing one thing to another in order to explain what he means rather than just saying what the hell he means)

That reminds me, here's a good rule of thumb for trades and coaching hirings: Float the guy's name out as a possibility, then check out the reaction from fans of his old team (bloggers, message boards, sports radio, etc.).

Remember, this guy actually believes he can be an NBA General Manager. We all know the most intelligent, non-reactionary group of people in the world are bloggers, people on message boards and callers to sports radio. Checking the reaction of these fans from his old team in no way could fail, could it? What could go wrong?

If the consensus can be described as "incredulously, deliriously and overwhelmingly sarcastic," you shouldn't trade for that player or hire that coach. It's that simple.

Yep, it's that simple. Bill Simmons for Bucks GM!

As a quick aside, I want everyone to remember in his January 6 mailbag Bill Simmons said the 49ers would not make the Super Bowl because their quarterback is Alex Smith. Bill then predicted the 49ers would beat the Saints.

Then Ragnar from Honolulu, who I won't rip because he lives in Hawaii and I want to live in Hawaii, criticizes Jim Nantz's call of the Steelers-Broncos game.

SG: I mean, Nantz had 10 minutes between the end of regulation and the first play from scrimmage in OT to come up with a clearly-written-ahead-of-time line just in case Tebow threw a game-winning pass in overtime!

Let's look at these lines Nantz should have come up with if Tebow threw the game-winning pass:

"Eighty yards, no flags, one miracle!"

I can somewhat see this one. Nantz would have to predict the play was a miracle, which any touchdown by the Broncos in overtime would be called a miracle regardless of whether it was or not. Nantz would have just inserted the amount of yards on the touchdown pass into his call. Still, for this specific call Nantz would have had to predict Tebow would throw an 80 yard touchdown pass.

"This is the dawning of the age of Demaryius!"

So before Demaryius Thomas caught the game winning touchdown pass, Jim Nantz should have predicted it was Demaryius Thomas who would catch the game winning touchdown pass? Nantz was expected to predict the Broncos would not only throw a game-winning touchdown pass, but that Demaryius Thomas would be the one to catch that pass, and then think of a catchy phrase to reflect this? This is what Nantz should have been doing in between the fourth quarter ending and overtime beginning? It just seems like this is a lot of predictions to make. Does Bill expect Nantz to do this with every Broncos player prior to overtime?

"Sudden death, sudden life, Tebow rises again!"

The Broncos never trailed in the game. This phrase therefore doesn't make sense.

"Look out, New England — the white Bronco is still on the loose!"

Creative, but a white Bronco isn't really relevant to New England and this seems like it would be roundly mocked. Of course, who am I to argue with Bill Simmons?

Q: Imagine if a Tim Tebow sex tape came out. It would have to be the biggest sex scandal fallout since Bill Clinton right? I asked several of my friends if they would rather see that or their football team win the Super Bowl and we all went with the sex tape.
— Ben Kendrick, West Hartford

The idiocy of Bill's readers sometimes shocks me. This guy's friends would rather see a Tim Tebow sex tape rather than their favorite team win the Super Bowl? I think he's making this up.

Q: I've been sucked into the Tebow magic but the porn industry seems to be dragging its feet. My buddy Marc and I were trying to come up with a proper name for the inevitable XXX Tebow movie and the best I could come up with was Bible Banger. Marc had the better one: A Third That's Long.

— Mike, Chicago

SG: All that work and neither of you could come up with Raging Tebowner? Yup, this is your sports columnist.

Yeah Bill, Mike from Chicago's idea was better.

Trying to remain objective while breaking down what would unquestionably be the most horrifying loss in Patriots history — not the worst, not the most bitter, but the most horrifying — was tougher than I thought. But here's the key point: You can't call the Broncos a "Nobody Believes in Us" team anymore.

And yet, earlier in this column Bill said the Patriots losing the Broncos would have been one of the biggest upsets in sports history. I'm confused. So the Broncos can't say "Nobody Believes in Us" anymore, but if they had beaten the Patriots it would have been one of the greatest upsets in sports history?

On Football Outsiders, Aaron Schatz wrote that — if Denver beat New England — it would be the third biggest upset of the last 20 years by F.O.'s DVOA ratings, trailing only Super Bowl XLII (arrrrgh) and Colts-Chiefs in 1995 (a gloriously macabre combination of bad luck, turnovers and Marty being Marty).

Bill leaves out an important point. Aaron Schatz wrote it would be the third biggest NFL PLAYOFF upset in the last 20 years if the Broncos had won. I still somewhat question if the Patriots losing to the Broncos would have been one of the greatest upsets in sports history. Maybe it would be one of the greatest upsets, of course it didn't happen so it doesn't really matter.

Bottom-of-the-Barrel's Pickoffapalooza 2012: Conference

2012-01-20T17:30:00.001-05:00

I'm still pissed off about the Saints game, as you will all be subjected to in a bile filled rant soon. Something to look forward to.

BALTIMORE @ NEW ENGLAND (-7.0)
GIANTS @ SAN FRANCISCO (-2.5)

Picks...

Jimmy

First, some old fashioned ridicule of stupid journalism (something I haven't done on here for some time).

Brady orchestrated the humiliating 45-10 beatdown by carving up a number of team and league records, and serving notice that the demise of the drop-back, pocket passer has been grossly exaggerated.

Yes, Jackie, it's dismal how many people have talked about how the passing game is dead. It's all rushing and defense and three 5,000+ yard passers and line play and...oh, something's wrong here isn't there? Speaking of something being wrong with passing...

NEW ENGLAND (-7.0)
NEW ENGLAND 27-17

Flacco's shit. The Ravens had eight first downs deep in the fourth quarter. This week was a sobering reminder of the importance of turnovers, but I'm just not sure we're seeing the best teams in the conference title games because of them. Baltimore were not good last week, at home to a supposedly inferior Houston team. Jacoby Jones' stupidity (mainly the turnover obviously, but he was horrible returning the ball all game, with another drop and two negative returns, the second of which was a regulation evasion of the gunner) was basically the reason they won this game. Houston outgained them by nearly 100 yards, had nearly 50% more first downs, were better on third down, had five sacks to none and Baltimore had seven (count 'em, seven!) three and outs. You name anything aside from holding the ball (obviously not incidental, but still), Houston did it better. Foster (132 yards on 27 carries) was able to run on them consistently, and Suggs was invisible. So Houston was able to execute what it wanted on offense, namely to run - will Brady be able to throw?

I think so. The big question coming out of Saturday for me was - do you give the Patriots any credit for what just happened? Like, Denver is clearly much worse than New England, going there, lacking playoff experience, should we have expected anything less than 45-10? I think they deserve a boost in standing following the game. Sure, it was Denver, but they played as close to a perfect football game as you'll ever see. There was barely an offensive play that didn't do what New England wanted it to do. Denver had nine passing yards midway through the third quarter and 33 by the end of the third. Even with Tebow that's fucking amazing. At one point, Denver had 0.8 YPA. New England racked up 15 negative plays. Fifteen! Even if you think the offense was basically business as usual, the worst defense in the league shouldn't be able to do that to anyone, regardless of who or where they are playing. A bottom five defense shouldn't be able to. I still think they are a below average defense, obviously, but Baltimore is a below average offense too, and worse than that, a one dimensional below average offense (Baltimore has an almost impossibly low 402 yards passing in their last three games). You can gameplan for the Ravens, and the Patriots have the best such gameplanner in the business. In many ways they are similar to Denver, solid offensive line, inaccurate QB (Flacco was 26th, behind Rex Grossman - Rex Grossman! - in completion percentage), run the ball like it's 1957 (8th in rushing attempts per game and 4th among playoff teams) and the odd deep throw (namely Torrey Smith, who was 13th in yards per catch with 16.8). Baltimore's defense is obviously very good, but I don't think it's as good as it used to be. I have mentioned I don't think Reed is the same guy (dropped two relatively easy picks against the Texans, yes, even as he took one away from Andre Johnson late, that was essentially a jump ball on a double covered receiver) and he's hobbled by injury, Suggs has one sack in his last four games, and the run defense is hardly impenetrable (New England don't need 4.7YPC like Houston, something flirting with 4 will do). New England only seemed to have problems when they were almost deliberately trying not to score in the fourth quarter. Brady was hurried twice against Miller and Dumervil and not sacked at all. Is Baltimore's pass rush really that much better? Denver had twelve sacks in their final four games prior to meeting the Pats. Baltimore has three. Their offense is averaging less than 21 points in their last 12 games (and barely over 18 on the road) and haven't scored more than 24 in their last seven anywhere. Turnovers won't bail the Ravens out here, New England has four in their last five games at home and as mentioned last week, lead the AFC in giveaways. About the home thing, the Ravens are 14-15 on the road in the last three years and 4-4 this year despite playing no out of division playoff teams on the road, and considering New England's otherworldly home record, that's a bad sign. I'm not sure Baltimore's offense is much better than Denver's (Denver was a significantly superior rushing team to the Ravens who were 12th in YPC) and if New England's defense shows up with even half as good an effort as last week here, they should be able to hold them to about 20 or less and put the necessary points up themselves.

GIANTS (+2.5)
GIANTS 23-17

Run the ball, they said. New York had 95 yards on 27 carries. 23 of them came on Bradshaw's 23 yard gain against prevent defense on the second last play of the first half and 34 more yards came on the icing drive. New York had 14 yards until that Bradshaw run. Rush the passer they said. The Giants eventually had four sacks and five hits (one sack came on a hopeless Green Bay drive, down by three scores with two minutes left), but got absolutely nothing early (again) and considering how often Rodgers dropped back, and how many yards he gained on the ground (66), New York's pass rush was really quite dissapointing. I mean the first half or so (where they held the Packers to just 10), there was not anyone that seemed to even get past a block. Keep Green Bay's offense off the field, they said. Green Bay won the time of possession in the game, and ignoring the final kneel downs, they had the ball for 17:31 of the 28:13 played in the second half. So how did the Giants win? Yes, they got a well below average day from the Green Bay offense. That was always going to be necessary. The secondary that I said couldn't cover anyone, in fact played a pretty reasonable game. But the deeper answer is Manning. Eli is playing out of his fucking skull at the moment. He has nine touchdowns and one pick in his last three games. He has 953 yards and is completing 69.4% of his throws. The dropoff from Brees to Manning is smaller than you might think. And we know he has the playoff minerals to succeed on the road.

Green Bay handled the ball like it was greased up before every play (eight drops, three fumbles), but considering the Giants were on the road, and the officiating was probably hard on them, this was not a fluke performance. The Giants generally played better than Green Bay. That was not true of the Niners. Look, it's fair to say if you picked the Niners to win this game, you expected them to win the turnover battle - fine. They were +28 this year, so give them +2. Hell, give them +3. They were effectively plus five in this game when you consider the one San Fran turnover came at midfield with 17 seconds left in the first half, the Saints with no timeouts. Even for Brees that's not a meaningful possession. Plus five, with two on special teams (including one moronic kick return from the endzone). Lucky. Then, they were so incredibly outplayed in this game, that despite the turnovers, they magically are still down with 4 minutes to play. This is what every single person who picked San Francisco feared (be honest) and what everyone who liked New Orleans predicted; Alex Smith would have to throw. He does, and finishes the drive with a twenty eight yard touchdown run - the longest run of his career (he hadn't had a run of more than 14 yards since 2007). Lucky. Then San Fran are down again with one and a half minutes left and a single timeout. Now "you have to throw" isn't even an expression. You literally have to throw every down. This is really what those who picked San Francisco dreaded. Smith then throws 6/7 for 85 yards and a TD. This is a pretty good analogy to my thinking as I was sitting in my underwear watching this game, as someone that picked New Orleans. I was throwing popcorn at the screen by the end. INSANELY lucky. Lucky three different ways in this game. A game where their defense was a paper tiger. New Orleans had 472 yards, 4 touchdowns and those numbers aren't even misleading. San Francisco could not stop New Orleans in any way whatsoever when it counted. The only reason they won this game is because Drew Brees was unable to get a meaningful possession last. FOX flashed a stat that said only once in the history of the NFL had a team had a +4 turnover margin and lost in the playoffs before Saturday, and again, to remind you, it was really closer to +5. San Francisco were historically outplayed for 59 minutes (by the way, can you imagine if Tebow, and not Smith, did that? The internet might have exploded).

It is true that Dallas, Atlanta and Green Bay are all weaker pass defenses than San Francisco, albeit by less than most might think. But the difference is not in the secondaries. Dallas' secondary is a horror film, but Atlanta has disciplined players at the back, and two good man to man corners. Green Bay has Woodson, Tramon Williams, and one of the best ballhawking defensive backfields in football (and Manning had to throw into it, with his short targets being basically useless - characteristically, New York tight ends and running backs caught just five balls against Green Bay for 60 yards). No, the difference is simply in the pass rush. While San Francisco's linebackers lost the battle with Graham and Sproles, no one can question the exceptional play of the defensive Smiths. Aldon Smith is one of my favourite players in the league, and Justin Smith is just extraordinarily strong. There was an amazing play where he was pushing Jermon Bushrod back, all the way to Brees, and then grabbed Brees while still being blocked. New York's offensive line has been pretty good in the last three games, with four sacks and nineteen hits on Manning, but the only exceptional pass rusher they faced was Ware (check Matthews' numbers this year, he was invisible against the Giants too). However, the bigger problem is on the other line. Look, I think despite my grumblings about the pass rush being much more sizzle than steak of late, we can agree that Pierre-Paul, Kiwanuka, Tuck and Umenyiora are dangerous pass rushers, and San Francisco might be the worst pass blocking line in the league. The Niners conceded the seventh most sacks in the league, despite barely clearing 450 attempts this year (second last in the league)...if the Giants pass rush does get going, this could be a blowout. Even if it doesn't, New York has proven it can beat better teams than San Francisco without one, surprisingly. On the flip side, while I have done pretty well on this pick 'em thing the last three years, there is one, rather fatal flaw in my record - picking the Superbowl winner. The last two years in games involving the Packers and Saints, I am 2-5 against the spread (and 1-6 picking the winner). I am 10-5 in all other games. This year, if I have such a bogey team, it is all but certain to be the Niners. I just don't see what everyone else sees. Being 6-1 in games that don't involve them and picking against them back to back without success does concern me, but in the end, I can only pick what I think - the Giants to win.

Jon

NEW ENGLAND (-7.0)
NEW ENGLAND 30-19

How are we supposed to take a Baltimore team that lost to the Jaguars 12-7 on the road on MNF in late October (and has generally been a much different (read: worse) team on the road)? Not to mention that they looked mostly unimpressive last week (couldn't quite put away the Houston Texans, who to their credit aren't exactly bums, but let's just say I didn't walk away thinking the Ravens looked like a championship caliber team). We have all heard that defense travels well, but I don't see them faring well against New England.

On the other hand, the Patriots beat the shit out of the Broncos last week and what sucks is that no one can really take anything away from that victory. They already beat Team Tebow handily in Denver and then continued that to a further degree in Foxborough. A 13-3 team dominated an 8-8 team. Big whoop. What we do know is that the Patriots' defense, which is their biggest relative weakness in this matchup (and a huge one at that), did a pretty good job at getting to the quarterback. I think that could be huge. It looks as if the Patriots are content to go with a no-huddle offense from the get-go and well, that means that they will mostly likely jump out to a lead and force the other team to pass. Which means more Joe Flacco. On the road. In a conference championship game. I think this could end up being a great game, but Baltimore's defense will almost definitely have to score for them to have a shot at winning this game.

SAN FRANCISCO (-2.5)
SAN FRANCISCO 20-16

Anyone still wondering which New York Giants team will show up this week is an idiot. They are arguably playing the best football of any of the teams remaining. The real question is whether or not their A game is good enough to beat the 49ers in San Francisco. The weather this time around will not be as nice as last weekend. There will most likely not be any sunshine and the field will be wet. I think that this will lead to a lower scoring game and that plays right into the hands of San Francisco.

Now, I know some people will be like, well there's no way the 49ers' turnover advantage is sustainable. Well that may be true, and while the Giants didn't need any turnovers to kick the awful Falcons' ass, they were also the beneficiary of some turnover good fortune against the Packers. In my opinion this game comes down to which defense I think will be better at creating turnovers, and I'm going to go with San Francisco. As much as I hate the Giants, I still think they have a great shot at winning this game. These two teams played an amazing game in mid-November, and I'm sure this Sunday's game will deliver as well.

Chris

BALTIMORE (+7.0)
NEW ENGLAND 21-17

As a resident Hoosier and longtime Colts fan, let’s make one thing clear. I do not want the New England Patriots to win. Under no circumstances do I wish to have the Bill Belicheck led brood in my hometown dome on February 5th. A 2-14 season, the potential farewell of a Hall of Fame quarterback, and the current front office housecleaning has not put me in a good mood when discussing the potential for Tom Brady to hoist the Lombardi trophy in my backyard.

Football Gods, why haste thou forsaken me?

Not only are the Football Gods against me, but it seems that everyone with an opinion feels that the Patriots are a shoe-in for the Super Bowl. And why shouldn’t they? Of course any comparisons between the Ravens and Patriots begins behind center. Tom Terrific put on a clinic against the Broncos, throwing for six touchdowns and 363 yards on 26 of 34 passing attempts. His counterpart, Joe Flacco struggled to move the offense behind 176 yards on 14 completions in 27 attempts. Matter of fact, Flacco hasn’t surpassed the 200 yard mark in 7 of his 8 playoff appearances (Ravens are 5-3 during that span). Just this week, teammate Ed Reed made some not so flattering remarks about his quarterback’s play against the Texans. Will the public ploy by Reed serve to motivate his beleaguered QB, or have the seeds of doubt been sewn? There are no doubts about Tom Brady.

Baltimore’s chances rest primarily on the shoulders of their defensive unit. Albeit an aging defensive unit. The Ravens surrendered just 16.6 points per game this season, third best in the NFL. The Ravens also led the AFC with 48 sacks this season, led by Terrell Suggs with 14. The defensive line must have a great game and put pressure on Brady from all sides of the pocket. Each lineman has at least 5 sacks this season, which demonstrates their ability to do just that.

These are just some of the knowns. What will decide the outcome are some of the unknowns. Can the Ravens find some way to contain the dual tight end threats of Hernandez and Gronkowski? If anyone can, these Ravens can. But then do you expect to be able to contain Wes Welker and Deion Branch as well? Will Ray Race and the tenth ranked rushing attack of the Ravens be able to exploit a Patriots defense growing in confidence? After managing a paltry 87 yards against the Texans, I’m positive that the Ravens will lean on their running game early on, which if successful will take pressure off of Flacco.

All signs point to my prayers going unanswered. Last week the Ravens didn’t make many mistakes, playing penalty free football, while not turning the ball over once. Forcing four such turnovers by Houston. Conventional logic would tell one not to expect the same this week against a veteran led playoff ball club like the Patriots. But, if the Ravens can’t improve upon the anemic output from their offense, expect to see their championship hopes dashed. Maybe the last such run for players like Ray Lewis and the aforementioned Ed Reed.

I think that Baltimore has a better defensive line, and offensive line than the Patriots. And of course you have to win in the trenches first and foremost. But, I think that Baltimore’s woes on the offensive side of the ball will be too much to overcome, even with the Ravens defense putting forth all the effort needed for a trip to Indy. In the end…..despite my obvious bias, I am picking the Patriots to win.
Watching the Patriots win this weekend would be adding insult to a season that has already seen significant injury to the collective pride of Colts Nation.

Football Gods, don’t fail me now. As this is one time that I would be more than OK with being proven completely and utterly wrong.

SAN FRANCISCO (-2.5)
SAN FRANCISCO 23-20

Generally speaking, Super Bowls are won by the elite quarterbacks of the game. Ask most people and only one of the teams in the NFC Championship game has a great QB. Eli Manning has won over any remaining detractors with his stellar play this season, especially in the clutch moments. Damn that reporter earlier this season for questioning whether Eli was in the class of Tom Brady. He may be in the back corner of the room like some new kid that just moved into the neighborhood, but he’s there alright.

Alex Smith on the other hand has faced scrutiny of a different sort for most of his career with the 49ers. Questions about whether he was fit to be a starting quarterback at the highest level dogged Smith through seven different offensive coordinators in his first seven seasons. With the arrival of new head coach Jim Harbaugh this season, the confidence of Alex Smith began to show in his play. Never more so than in the waning moments of a thrilling home win against the favored New Orleans Saints and their powerful offense last weekend. Regardless of past grievances aired by naysayers, one thing is for certain. Both Manning and Smith come into this game off the highs of great divisional round performances.

For all of the talk about their respective QB’s, make no mistake, this contest will come down to defense. Both teams boast fierce defensive fronts that can wreck havoc on offenses. San Francisco allowed a league low 77 yards rushing per game, finished top ten in sacks and led the league with 38 takeaways. The Giants resurrected season and deep playoff push can be attributed to a renewed presence of their once feared pass rush, led by Pro Bowler Jean Pierre-Paul, Osi Umenyiora and Jason Tuck. The Giants were also top ten in sacks this season. When these two teams met in Week 10, it took a defensive stand by Justin Smith, Carlos Rogers and the 49ers defense to stave off Manning for a 27-20 victory at home. Furthermore, it should be noted that two of the game’s most prolific offenses ever, now sit at home in large part because of the efforts of these defenses.

Ahmad Bradshaw missed the November 13th meeting between these two teams and may be a bit of an X-factor this week. A steady one-two punch from Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs will likely be the key if Eli Manning is to have the time necessary to find dangerous wide receivers Hakeem Nicks, Mario Manningham and Victor Cruz. The Niners gave up less than 40 yards rushing against the Saints last week, so it really may not make a difference who is in the backfield for the Giants. Eli will need a stellar game in order for New York to advance.

Alex Smith had great success in the first game when targeting his tight ends, and coming off a 180 yard, two touchdown performance last week, Vernon Davis will be a big key for the Niners chances. The Giants bottled up the San Francisco rushing attack in that first meeting, but I bet that we see a bunch of Gore early and often in an attempt to establish ball control.

Because of how close this game will be, I think a crucial turnover will eventually be the deciding factor in this game. I think that San Fran poses just enough of a threat on the ground that Smith and the passing game moves the offense into scoring position several times throughout the contest. The 49ers have not been great in the red zone this season so I’m not predicting a dire need for several touchdowns like last week. I think a number of field goals are kicked and will be the margin of victory here.

Sean

BALTIMORE (+7.0)
BALTIMORE 20-17

Defense, defense, defense. Ed Reed was right, by the way: Joe Flacco really looked like shit. He'll probably look like shit again, too, which is why I think this one will go down to the wire. But the Ravens still have Ray Rice and I think he'll be the difference. You may wonder, "What, no credit for Tom Brady?" The man's a great quarterback. Obviously if the Patriots start strong, the Ravens will be in a lot of trouble. But I would take the Baltimore defense to win that battle any day of the week. Including Sunday.

SAN FRANCISCO (-2.5)
SAN FRANCISCO 24-20

Fine, I believe in the Niners. I'm not confident about it by any means, but if their defense can force Drew Brees to make mistakes, they can sure as hell do that to Eli Manning, too. Now that I've said that, watch the Giants win on Sunday.

Ben

New England (-7.0)
New England 34-20

You would think these games would get easier as the playoffs go along. At this point, we've seen these teams play 17-18 times this year and could have a feel for how good or bad each team is. It is just not true though, at least for me it isn't true. 17 games into the year and I still don't like the Ravens offense and still don't think they are good enough to make the Super Bowl. I've been critical of Joe Flacco over the last week, but I had a revelation a few days ago. I was critical of Flacco in the Ravens victory over the Texans. He looked bad, but he also didn't commit any turnovers, so I take that as a positive. The Texans have a very good defense too, so merely not turning the ball over is somewhat of an accomplishment. So that actually says a little bit that Flacco, who never will mistaken for Joe Montana. He played efficiently but not well during the game. So perhaps Flacco wasn't as bad as I said he was. Of course, he very well could have been as bad as I recall. I'm trying to give Flacco credit with the whole "he may not have been as bad as we recall" excuse. I mostly want to acknowledge he went up against a tough defense. He will get a lot of people off his back if he plays well on Sunday.

As far as the Patriots go, Tom Brady chewed up a good Broncos defense last week, but even if he takes a step back against the Ravens this week, I still think he is still going to put points on the board. The Patriots defense isn't seen as tough and was statistically one of the worst in the NFL this year. In theory, Flacco should be able to move the ball against the Patriots defense. The key to this game (and this may seem obvious) is the Ravens defense has to shut down Tom Brady enough to give Flacco and the Ravens offense a chance to not end up in an early hole. I'm not sure they will be able to do this. The Patriots offense is on such a roll and there has been so much attention paid to the tight ends on the Patriots roster that Wes Welker has become almost an afterthought. I think this week he reminds he us he is on the roster and has a big game while the Ravens are concerned with Gronkowski and Hernandez.

The Ravens are simply not a very good road team. They are 4-4 on the road this year with losses to Tennessee, Jacksonville, Seattle and San Diego. I don't believe the Patriots have a great defense, but I also don't believe the Ravens have a great offense. The Patriots offense is on such a roll that no matter how good the Ravens defense may be, I see the Patriots being able to score points. The Patriots are going to focus on shutting down Ray Rice and that will be the key to the game. The Patriots are going to the Super Bowl and your nightmare that involves reading running diaries from Bill Simmons while he is at the Super Bowl has become a reality.

New York Giants (+2.5)
New York Giants 17-13

This is a tough game to pick. These two teams played earlier this year in Candlestick Park and the 49ers won. Frank Gore spent much of the second half of the first game on the bench and the Giants defense wasn't playing quite as well then as they are now. This is the overpowering force versus the immovable object, at least in terms of momentum. One of these two teams has to win this game. Whether it is the Giants, who seem intent on reliving the 2007 season or the 49ers who have as much momentum as the Giants and seem destined to make the Super Bowl. It would set up a bizarro Super Bowl (against the Patriots) where a #1 overall pick (Alex Smith) would manage to be an underdog who few people believed in. That just seems weird to me.

I will disagree with J.S. that the 49ers were lucky. The 49ers forced the Saints into making turnovers in the first half and just like the 49ers defense couldn't stop the the Saints, the Saints defense couldn't stop the 49ers offense. The 49ers won that game because they had the ball last, but they proved they deserved to win the game with their play in the first half. So I disagree the 49ers were lucky and I think they weren't any luckier than the Saints would have been had they won the game.

The biggest question I've had all year with the Giants is their defense. I've never really questioned whether they could run the ball. I figured once Bradshaw got healthy the Giants running game would pick up and become more effective. I expect this to be a very good game. The 49ers came out throwing against the Saints and it worked effectively. The Giants secondary is still a bit of a question in my mind, so this plan may work in this game as well. It can help set the 49ers up for shorter second and third downs. The Giants were very effective against a weak Packers defense last week and the 49ers will pose a much bigger problem because they have the best defense the Giants have faced in the playoffs. We learned from last week the Giants need to control Vernon Davis and try to take away Frank Gore. I think the 49ers are going to limit the offensive opportunities for the Giants, but the Giants excellent defensive line is going to get more pressure (without blitzing) than the Saints could get last week. Alex Smith is excellent against the blitz and I think the Giants can slow down the 49ers run game and make Smith uncomfortable in the pocket. I hate to pick against the 49ers, but I'm finally on the Giants '07 deja vu train. Sorry Giants fans, I said I would pick against you to ensure your future luck, but I just couldn't do it.

Jimmy: NE (-7.0), NYG (+2.5)
Chris: BAL (+7.0), SF (-2.5)
Sean: BAL (+7.0), SF (-2.5)
Jon: NE (-7.0), SF (-2.5)
Ben: NE (-7.0), NYG (+2.5)
Bill Simmons: NE (-7.0), NYG (+2.5)

Ryan Braun Should Not Be Stripped of His MVP Award

2012-01-19T15:25:00.000-05:00

I'm all about some crime and punishment. Not the book. I found the book tedious and boring, though not as tedious and boring as the other selections my 11th grade teacher had chosen for the rest of the grade year. "Pride and Prejudice" is easily one of the worst, most tedious, unreadable novels I have ever (not) read. Yeah, I'm a loser. I read every single book I was assigned to read through my entire academic career, except "Pride and Prejudice." It was terrible. So...enough about me. Let's talk steroids and the stripping of postseason awards in regard to crime and punishment. I have fallen on the side of "don't take the postseason award away from a player testing positive for PEDs previously," and I will probably still be on that side of this issue. Doug Glanville thinks MLB should strip Ryan Braun of his MVP award. I tend to disagree.

I want to say, yet again, I love Doug Glanville's picture for ESPN.com. Brilliant. Hand to his chin as if he were in mid-thought? Fantastic. I am thinking of taking a picture of myself and posting it beside my posts in the same pose. So nothing I say about Glanville or his position will change the way I feel about his picture for ESPN.com.

After Ryan Braun's appeal of his positive test, if it is concluded that he broke the MLB's drug policy during the 2011 regular season, why can't we take back the MVP award?

Because then every winner of a postseason award would have to have their award taken back. At what point does this stop? Should we take away Jeff Bagwell's 1994 MVP award because he is suspected of using steroids? Some people won't vote for Bagwell for the Hall of Fame because this suspicion of steroid use. Should we take away Bagwell's 1994 MVP based simply on this suspicion? How is it consistent for some people wanting to take away Ryan Braun's MVP, but allow Bagwell to keep his MVP, when some people won't vote for Bagwell to be in the Hall of Fame due to suspected PED use? Isn't a hard line in how PED users or suspected PED users treated the entire point of a stripping Braun's trophy?

How about Jose Canseco's MVP award? Why not take it away? He's probably the most well-known and most admitted PED user. That's the problem with taking away awards, once you start doing this, you have to continue doing it. Life isn't fair, but it isn't right for Canseco to keep his MVP while Braun can't keep his when they are both proven steroid users.

His voters decided on an MVP with the information they had in front of them. That is all anyone can ask, but since they may be in the unprecedented position of being able to attribute Braun's season to a test that happened in the same season,

This isn't unprecedented at all. Alex Rodriguez admits to using steroids during a season where he won the AL MVP award. So the voters could easily take away his 2003 AL MVP award because they can attribute his performance to steroid use if they want. There is not only is a failed drug test, but there is an admittance by A-Rod of his steroid use. Sure, it has been eight years since A-Rod won the MVP, but is there supposed to be a statute of limitations on this? So taking away Braun's MVP because the test was failed during the season he won the award isn't unprecedented. A-Rod won the AL MVP and later admitted to taking PEDs that year. Take away Braun's MVP, then you need to take away A-Rod's MVP as well.

What would a player have to do to have an award stripped from him? Agree or disagree, it has happened in the Olympics, and it has happened in the Miss America pageant.

So we are using the Miss America pageant as precedent in this situation?

College football goes into time machines and changes its history (see Reggie Bush). This certainly should be able to happen in baseball, especially with the past 20 years of PED use still looming large over everything that happens today.

The problem, at least as how I see it, is this isn't a case of one MVP award needing to be taken away. Look at the history of MVP winners in both leagues. By my rough count there would be a good reason to strip 13 MVP awards since 1990. That's not including winners of the MVP who later won an MVP after the time we believe he was juicing or suspected of juicing. Once we start stripping, there is no going back, and there is going to be more than one player who gets stripped of the MVP award.

Sure, it would be tough to take away Cy Young awards from Roger Clemens or MVP awards from Barry Bonds.

Why is it easy to take away an award from Braun, but not easy to take an award away from Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds? Glanville has already used the 2005 Heisman as precedent it can be done. Going back to 2000-2004 isn't that great of a leap from going back to 2005 to strip the Heisman away from Reggie Bush.

They never tested positive for PEDs, playing most of their careers when there was no mandatory testing.

There's so much circumstantial evidence against these two players it wouldn't be a stretch to say they both may as well have tested positive for PEDs. We want clean awards don't we? Isn't that the point? To make sure postseason awards are clean? Bonds has multiple MVP awards that are tainted in the minds of many, regardless of whether he tested positive or not.

But in Braun's case, if he's guilty, this wouldn't be hard at all. Everything would be right in front of us, in plain view.

Then we should take away A-Rod's 2003 MVP award.

Slippery slopes only stop being slippery when you take a stand, when you take off your skis and put on some mountain-climbing boots.

So there is no slippery slope with taking away Ryan Braun's 2011 MVP award and it is fine to allow Jose Canseco to keep his MVP even though he has admitted he used steroids and it is fairly certain he won that MVP award with the help of PEDs? How about Jason Giambi's 2000 AL MVP? We know he used PEDs and only the most naive person would believe he wasn't using them when he won the MVP award.

I realize I sound like I am attempting to take the MVP award away from anyone suspected of PED use, but that's not my intention at all. Quite the opposite. My intention is to show the narrow definition that would allow an MVP award to be stripped is too narrow and would betray the intent of protecting the integrity of the MVP award. To say an award can be stripped if a player fails a drug test in the year he won an award, and this created an advantage for this player, only goes to show how ineffective MLB drug testing used to be. It doesn't protect the integrity of the MVP, because we know PED users won the award and still have their name on the award. Such a strict definition essentially rewards known PED users who won the MVP, but didn't test positive for PEDs, because there was no strict testing for PEDs.

So let's go against the grain with a precedent-breaking, unapologetic stand.

Fine, but the stand has to punish known steroid users who have won an MVP award. Are we really naive enough to believe in 2000 when Jason Giambi won the AL MVP he wasn't using PEDs? Should we believe when he admits to using PEDs, it doesn't include the year he won the AL MVP? How naive can we be? Why is a failed drug test required when there is an admission of guilt, even if it isn't necessarily an admission for that specific year?

I don't believe any player should have the award stripped, but I also don't believe taking a hard stand does anything but to protect the integrity of the award. Take away Braun's award because it is "tainted," but it isn't any less tainted than the video game numbers that won Sammy Sosa his 1998 NL MVP award.

It is not like we would be asking to void contracts and World Series titles (ideas welcome, however).

Voiding World Series title is out of the question. I would not be a fan of this idea. No team would deserve the World Series title since I would bet every team in the late 1990's had at least one player using PEDs.

I love baseball too and I hate that the records are tarnished. I hate thinking about the racism that Hank Aaron endured to be a home run champ, only to watch it get asterisked away.

But there's nothing we can do about that, right? We don't have a failed drug test! Barry Bonds you have vexed us once again!

Also, remember Greenies? I'm guessing a good portion of 1970's postseason award winners have some experience using Greenies. Baseball has experienced players who bend the rules or cheat, even just a little, for years. It would be nice if we could pretend baseball can get clean. It's just not realistic.

Today's players are no more or less morally sound than those of yesterday -- that is the stuff of wishful nostalgia -- but we can take another dramatic step in a no-tolerance drug culture, today.

PED users are still cheating. Don't get me wrong. I don't like the idea of PED users winning awards. The no-tolerance drug culture today is a reaction to the names on the MVP trophy failing drug tests in the past. The new no-tolerance drug culture has a no-tolerance policy because nearly every MVP winner in both leagues were later found to have ties to PEDs. I'm all about no-tolerance, but why would we tolerate Sammy Sosa's name on the NL MVP trophy, simply because he never failed a drug test in the same year he won the MVP award? I don't think any awards should be stripped from a player, not unless other PED users have their award stripped as well.

But it would be a big step in lining up with what a USADA task force says is "rewarding what we value." At least what we say we value: clean play.

But it wouldn't be rewarding clean play because there would still be proven PED users with their name on the trophy.

Braun should get his day to explain it, but should his explanation be insufficient, I think it is fair to reconvene the MVP voters to take a second vote.

It's over. I am not even sure there should be a second vote. When evaluating Ryan Braun and his career we can take the information he won the 2011 NL MVP with a failed drug test into account and evaluate his career from there.

maybe figure out where we all stand on the issue of PEDs in sports, because maybe we find out that sticking to our decisions, even if they were based on deception, is more important to us than moving forward with a new standard.

That's fine and it makes sense. This is not how an NL MVP vote would work though. Instead of an MVP vote, it would turn into a referendum on PEDs and how we feel about players who are accused of using PEDs. Yes, Braun is a cheater and he deserves to be lashed with a cane 100 times for tainting the MVP award. He deceived us all and won an MVP award that was tainted by his deception. The problem as I see it is that he isn't the first person to win the MVP award through deception.

One way or another we are going to have an opportunity to tighten the screws even more on what we decide is important to us about the game of baseball.

Unfortunately, this generation of baseball fans have grown up with PED users being a part of the game. A clean game is important, but not necessarily seen as a given. If there is a line in the sand to be drawn, it should have been done a few decades ago by MLB...but it wasn't. Many people involved in baseball are now talking about, "Let's take away the MVP trophy from PED users from here on out." This doesn't address the large number of names on MVP trophies in both leagues that benefited from a lax drug policy. I'm not saying we let PED users populate the sport, but I have a hard time stripping Braun of his MVP award or re-voting the award because information was found later that put the award in a negative light. There has been information found about previous MVP winners that puts the trophy in a negative light anyway.

Is the statute of limitations for a re-vote supposed to be one year and after one year we just say "screw it, you fooled us?" Let's say Braun didn't test positive in 2011. If he gets caught testing positive in 2013, Braun just ends up getting away with it because we don't have a positive test from 2011? Are we really to believe even though Braun didn't test positive in 2011 he wasn't using PEDs? I think that's naive. He's still a PED user whose name is on the MVP trophy. When some people see his name they will think "PED user." The exception in this situation is Braun's name can stay on the trophy because "we don't have proof he used PEDs in 2011," which is stupid to me. If Braun's name is associated with PEDs in any fashion, doesn't it make sense for any MVP award won tainted, even without a positive PED test? So why stop at Braun? Re-vote Giambi's 2000 AL MVP award. Re-vote Sosa's 1998 NL MVP award. After all he used a corked bat AND used PEDs. If the issue is the negative reflection of the name on the MVP trophy, the negative reflection is there regardless of when the positive PED test resulted.

but we can make a statement right now, and it doesn't matter whether Braun is cleared or not.

If the MVP is re-voted, let's make sure Braun is either cleared or not. That matters a lot. Otherwise there is a re-vote on the MVP based simply on a false positive drug test.

Maybe legally the ship has sailed for action now for Braun's MVP award in 2011, but that doesn't mean we can't get started to prevent the next time something like this happens.

Yeah, drug testing with the results leaked to the public before the MVP vote.

The game now has one of the toughest drug policies out there. We might as well try to get ahead of the curve and create some similarly tough rules for the spoils.

Fine, set up rules, take away Braun's MVP trophy. MVP winners with ties to PED use will still have their name on the trophy. I'm fine with this, but not fine with only Braun having his name removed from the trophy. If rules are set up to prevent this from happening, these names of past MVP winners with ties to PEDs would have to be removed as well.

TMQ: Apparently the New Batman Movie Will Sway the 2012 Presidential Election

2012-01-18T14:42:00.000-05:00

Last week Gregg Easterbrook done learned us that modern day defenders don't care about playing good defense and they are only concerned with making spectacular plays. He don't learnt us this good. So naturally, this past weekend great defense and great defensive plays led the Patriots, 49ers, Giants, and Ravens to wins. Michael Crabtree contributed a touchdown to the 49ers victory (that's the same Crabtree that caused the "Crabtree Curse," which Gregg has mealymouthed his way out of admitting was bullshit) and a good amount of highly drafted players led their team to wins this week, but Gregg will of course ignore that. When Gregg finds himself wrong about something or the results on the football field don't directly back up Gregg's previous contentions, he uses the "look, something shiny" maneuver in order to distract us. This week Gregg talks about positive coaching and how this helps players turn their performance around.

It has come to this: Football is more popular than Hollywood.

Is this one of the signs of the apocalypse? I'm pretty sure it is, right next to Alex Smith quarterbacks a team to the NFC Championship Game and I openly root for the Patriots to win a playoff game (still bitter about the Super Bowl 8 years ago).

In 2011, nine of the 10 highest-rated television broadcasts were NFL programming, eight of them besting even the Academy Awards.

You mean boring four hour long award shows where Hollywood stars give themselves awards for how well they did during the year preceded and followed by vain, shallow, boring interviews that mostly discuss how excited the star is to be there and who made the outfit they are wearing doesn't draw as high of ratings as an athletic event? What is our world coming to?

Tom Brady is more popular than Christian Bale and Natalie Portman!

Let's take a step back. The fact the Academy Awards don't do as well as some NFL games doesn't mean Christian Bale or Natalie Portman are individually less popular than Tom Brady. Let's stay in our lane, or more appropriately just end this topic immediately.

The trend continues into the new year. The Pittsburgh-Denver playoff game drew a spectacular 43 million viewers, more than any TV show since the most recent Super Bowl.

If QB Broncos showed up at the Academy Awards, who knows how well the ratings would do?

at which point viewers who stayed home to watch the NFL rather than go out to the movies gave up and switched to the Miss America Pageant. Football is even more popular than beauty queens in bikinis!

As much as men like beauty queens in bikinis, I really doubt the target audience for a sporting event and a beauty pageant overlap very much. So I doubt these people switched over to the Miss America Pageant. If men really want to see women in bikinis, there are about 10 other better outlets than having to sit through the Miss America Pageant.

Of the 20 most-watched television events globally, all 20 were Super Bowls. Recent Super Bowls averaged more than 1 billion viewers worldwide.

So it had come to this many years ago that the NFL is more popular than Hollywood? Yet again, Gregg seems to act like an old trend is actually a new trend. He did this when commenting on the use of tight ends in the slot and when discussing the 3-4 defense in previous TMQs. So the fact the NFL is more popular than Hollywood isn't new or revelatory information?

Football's zany excesses, slamming bodies and scantily attired cheer-babes are the primary television image the United States presents to the larger world.

I hope Gregg understands he is part of the small, small percentage of people who watch football for the cheerleaders. I am starting to believe Gregg has some sort of weird sexual perversion dealing with cheerleaders. If I had a daughter, I would not allow her to be near Gregg, or at the very least make sure she never became a cheerleader.

Here are possible reasons for football's TV dominance:

Football is America's most popular sport, and Americans love sports.

So football may be dominant because it is so popular? Why didn't I think about this reason beforehand? What a discovery by Gregg.

Football is a great DVR sport. The advent of the DVR makes it convenient for viewers to go back through plays and understand what happened. This engages the viewer with the show.

I think a lot of sports are shows to DVR. Baseball, basketball, football...all of them. Maybe its just me. I think football is dominant because it is currently the most popular and exciting sport.

Football is live. You don't know what's going to happen. The people involved don't know what's going to happen.

Again, this goes for every sport or event on television. All sporting events are live and can be DVR'd. What makes football different is the excitement and its overwhelming popularity. This reasoning also somewhat directly contradicts the idea football is popular because it is a great DVR sport. It isn't live if it is DVR'd. I'm not sure these two ideas are mutually exclusive, but I also don't know if football is popular because it is live and because it can be DVR'd.

Other shows doing very well in recent years are "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars." As with football, viewers don't know what will happen.

Some weeks TMQ comes up with an interesting discussion at the beginning of his columns. This isn't one of those weeks.

Women are acquiring more social and economic power. Paradoxically, this is good for football. A quirky 1995 book, "The Stronger Women Get, The More Men Love Football," contended that increasing women's freedom will cause men to retreat into the realm of football, in which macho rules and women's sole role is to look pretty and cheer for the men.

Because apparently we are working under the assumption all men are sexist and don't want women to have an active fully-clothed role in watching or enjoying sports.

The author, Mariah Burton Nelson, a former Stanford basketball player, believed men would contrive to suppress women's athletics, a view that turned out completely wrong.

Whoops.

But her larger point has stood the test of time.

Gregg thinks her larger point has stood the test of time because it agrees with what he thinks is the reason for football's popularity.

And, finally, football dominates television because:

• Only men can understand flat-screen HD TV remotes.

Apparently Gregg believes bad jokes about women not understanding technology is funny not only in Tim Allen sitcoms, but in real life as well.

In other football news, last week this column warned that New Orleans "blitzes way too much … too much big-blitzing is playing with fire, and you know the saying about what happens to those who play with fire."

Yea, verily, it came to pass that the New Orleans Saints did themselves in by too much big blitzing.

Verily, the Saints also did themselves in by not covering Vernon Davis. Gregg doesn't want to talk about this though, because Davis is a highly drafted first round pick and to acknowledge he was unstoppable would be to also acknowledge a highly drafted player is good at football. Gregg also wants to blame the loss on big blitzing rather than the Saints coverage problems mostly because it just isn't as much fun to talk X's and O's and it is easier for him to just blame it all on big blitzing. We have seen Gregg's struggles with understanding defensive coverages in the past, so in lieu of providing in-depth information that may or may not be accurate, Gregg just blames the Saints loss on big blitzing.

New Orleans will prevail unless it allows a dramatic long gain -- and the Saints' call is a six-man blitz, exactly the sort of defense that allows dramatic long gains. Not only a big blitz but a big blitz with Cover 1, meaning only one safety deep when the opposition must go the length of the field!

What? I can't believe the Saints used this same defensive strategy of blitzing that led the Saints to a 13-3 record this year and a Super Bowl victory two years ago. Especially against a weak team like the 49ers who only had a 13-3 record this year. The Saints really blew this game by using a strategy of blitzing that had worked for most of the year successfully.

Is a six-man blitz really a big blitz? It leaves five men back in coverage, which depending on the play call by the offense, could be enough defenders to cover the offensive players.

Vernon Davis runs a short cross under the lone safety, who ignores him, allowing Davis to catch a 47-yard pass that positions the hosts for the winning touchdown.

It was a Cover 1 defense, shithead. The safety wasn't responsible for man coverage on Vernon Davis, especially since he was running a short cross. See, if the safety moves up out of Cover 1 and follows Vernon Davis across the field that leaves the Saints open to a deep pass. So the safety wasn't incorrect in ignoring Vernon Davis running a short cross, the defensive call was poor though. The safety was incorrect in not tackling well and reacting in a timely fashion. It would have not been smart to follow Davis on the crossing route because Davis could have been clearing out the safety to set up a deep pass.

Mike Singletary, who previously ran the Niners, used the negative-reinforcement technique of slamming Davis in public while denigrating him before his teammates at practice. Harbaugh used the positive technique of challenging Davis to improve.

I would love to know how Gregg Easterbrook knows the exact motivational technique Jim Harbaugh used on Vernon Davis. There isn't a link showing the positive technique, so I will just assume that Gregg assumes this is what Jim Harbaugh did to motivate Vernon Davis. Maybe Harbaugh did use a positive technique in coaching Vernon Davis, but assertions without some sort of citation annoys me.

Harbaugh discards that baggage, criticizes only in private, and hugs players when they excel.

Again, without a corresponding link, I would love to know how Gregg Easterbrook criticizes his players in private. There's no way without a documented article Gregg knows this since Harbaugh only criticizes...in private. So private conversations are private, so how does Gregg know this is when Jim Harbaugh criticizes players? I really enjoy documentation when it comes to Gregg Easterbrook's comments because I think he makes a lot of things up to fit his purposes.

Also, there are a lot of NFL coaches that presumably criticize their players in private, yet they don't have the success the 49ers had this year. So positive coaching isn't the major difference in the 2010 49ers and the 2011 49ers.

The Niners' season is in many ways the story of the difference between negative coaching and positive coaching.

In many other ways it is the story of the difference in a below average quarterback and an average defense and an above average quarterback and an excellent defense. But again, this type of improvement in the 49ers defense and quarterbacking isn't fun for Gregg to talk about so he talks about positive coaching being the difference. I would think in a column about the NFL, Gregg would acknowledge the 49ers real improvement has been because of the defense and quarterback.

Baltimore at New England: The Ravens finished 9-0 at home and are 4-4 on the road. The Bill Belichick-Tom Brady combo has followed a 10-0 postseason streak with a 5-5 streak. New England has not beaten any team that finished the season with a winning record.

This is a somewhat interesting statistic. The Patriots have beaten several teams that finished the season 8-8 and the Broncos did have a winning record before losing to the Patriots on Saturday. I'm not sure this statistic means too much though.

Note three of the four teams still standing -- Baltimore, Jersey/A and San Francisco -- play conventional, fundamentals-first defense, not the crazy blitz fronts that have been this season's fad.

I don't get what Gregg means by crazy blitz fronts and why New England isn't on this list. I didn't know the Patriots ran a crazy blitz front (or even what that really means). I did know of that 3 of the 4 teams left in the playoffs run a 3-4 defense which tends to show the quarterback interesting fronts in order to disguise who is blitzing. I am not sure if that is what Gregg means or not. Since Gregg has referred to the 3-4 defense as a "fad" in past columns, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't consider the 3-4 defense to be conventional. So I'm very confused about what Gregg means.

On the left, wideout Kyle Williams came in motion back toward the formation. Left tackle Joe Staley pulled left while Williams cracked back on a linebacker and Smith sprinted around left end -- a designed quarterback run. Staley and two other offensive linemen got blocks in the Saints' secondary. Many Saints didn't realize Smith was running till he already had the first down. Smith scored a 28-yard untouched touchdown on one of the sweetest play calls of the season.

Staley is a highly drafted player by the way. Gregg won't mention this.

But as he reached the 5, TMQ was hollering -- DON'T SCORE! Had Smith gone to the ground inside the New Orleans 5, the clock would have hit the two-minute warning; then San Francisco could have knelt three times, forcing New Orleans to use its final timeout; then San Francisco could have kicked a field goal for the lead, leaving the Saints only seconds to reply against the Niners' stout defense.

Doing the math on this, the field goal would have gone through the uprights with about 35 seconds left. So the Saints couldn't have won this game in 30 seconds, could they have? Wait, you mean the Saints scored a touchdown 34 seconds after this field goal that would have given the 49ers the lead? So the Saints could have won the game in 30 seconds? Actually, I will let Larry B at Fire Jay Mariotti break it all down for you.

Of course no player can think this kind of thing through when the end zone beckons. And had Smith deliberately gone to the ground, football enthusiasts everywhere would have been deprived of the 173 yards of offense and two touchdowns that occurred in the final two minutes.

And the 49ers could have been deprived of a win that led them to the NFC Championship game.

(When Jimmy Graham was running by his lonesome with 1:30 on the clock, New Orleans trailed by more than three points, so Graham could not deliberately stop at the San Francisco 1 -- he had to score.)

This would potentially have been the play that would have ended the game and led to a Saints loss if Alex Smith took a knee at the one yard line.

The Giants ran a toss to Ahmad Bradshaw, who motored unopposed for 23 yards and then was allowed by the Green Bay defense to step out of bounds, stopping the clock with a few ticks left.

It's not like the Packers didn't try to tackle Bradshaw, so he wasn't "allowed" to step out of bounds, the Packers just stunk at tackling on this play.

Maybe Capers' head was not in the game because he knew that former Packers executive Reggie McKenzie, new general manager at Oakland, was considering Capers for a head coaching vacancy.

That's probably it. This explains why the NFL's worst defense played so out of character all game by playing like the NFL's worst defense.

Voters in South Carolina are being barraged with claims that Bain Capital, which Mitt Romney once ran, represents either "vulture capitalism," as Rick Perry says, or created "thousands of jobs," as the Romney campaign counters.

Prepare for madness...

The sequel arrives this summer -- the title is "The Dark Knight & The Deathly Hallows," or something like that. Many readers, including Debbie Eckhart of Saratoga Springs, N.Y., note the "Dark Knight" sequel opening has already sold out,

The movie has sold out in New York and Los Angeles. Not every city in the United States. The qualifier of where the movie has sold out already is important when relaying this information.

Here's where the movie syncs to the election. The supervillain, played by Hardy, is the Bat's comic book adversary, Bane, who is mega-strong based on a mysterious drug. One hundred million Americans are about to see a guy named Bane as the personification of badness.

Of course most people will be clear that Bane, the comic book character, and Bain Capital, named for management consultant William Bain, have nothing to do with each other. But in the 2000 presidential election, popular vote winner Al Gore lost because a few thousand people became confused by a hard-to-read ballot in Florida. In the 2004 presidential election, popular vote winner George W. Bush would have lost if about 100,000 votes in Ohio had swung the other way.

I'm going to go ahead and spoil this. Gregg is suggesting people who see "The Dark Knight Rises" are going to confuse a comic book character with a corporation and vote for President Obama over Mitt Romney because they think Bane, the comic book character, works for Bain Capital. I'll be the first one to discuss the stupidity of Americans, but this seems like something even the dumbest of Americans wouldn't be confused by.

Suppose 100 million people see the new "Dark Knight" movie, and one-half of 1 percent come away confused about the Bane/Bain distinction. Elections have been decided by less.

Now I'm not one to underestimate the stupidity of Americans, but I would find the inability of people to understand this distinction to be nearly impossible. Gregg is afraid 500,000 people will be confused about this Bane/Bain distinction. This is assuming every single person who watched "The Dark Knight Rises" also voted in the 2012 Presidential Election. For a point of reference, the 2008 Presidential Election had 131,013,548 votes cast. So the majority of the 2012 Presidential Election voters would have seen "The Dark Knight Rises." No person would confuse a comic book character with a corporation. In fact, I would submit if a person is too stupid to understand the difference in Bane, the comic character, and Bain, the corporation, that person not only (a) isn't voting in the 2012 Presidential Election but also (b) would not pay enough attention to politics to know what the hell Bain Capital is in order to confuse it with Bane the comic book character.

The idiocy of Gregg's contention astounds me at times. I don't see this Bane/Bain problem as a big one.

So big blitzing helped New Orleans gets sacks and turnovers but also helped San Francisco get the long gains and touchdowns that won the game.

So is Gregg saying in the end big blitzing neither hurt nor helped the Saints?

Old-school defensive tactics were largely invisible: the objective was an incompletion or a run stopped for a short gain. Today's tactics are flashy, intended to result in highlight-reel sacks and defenders dancing wildly. But for every one defensive highlight, three big offensive plays are surrendered.

Not true. I just pulled some statistics from my ass that say something completely different. It says for every blitz of six guys or more, a turnover has been created 69% of the time. My fake statistics also say teams that big blitz have a 98% chance of winning a game.

Any football team can get sacks by big blitzing. But the points of defense isn't sacks, it is preventing scores. New Orleans' flashy blitz-wacky defense surrendered 22 points a game this season, and could not hold the lead with the opponent 85 yards from the end zone and less than two minutes remaining.

Just for the record, the conventional, old-school defensive tactics by the 49ers also couldn't keep a lead with two minutes remaining. It only took the Saints 34 seconds to score against the traditional, conventional, non-blitz wacky 49ers defense.

Perhaps right now New Orleans defenders are saying, "How could you expect us to win when the offense turned it over five times?"

Which would be a valid argument. Again, Gregg thinks this is bullshit because it doesn't support his point of view that blitzing is bad. Bottom line, no matter how well a team plays defense, if that team turns the ball over 5 times, most likely that team isn't winning the game. That's just common sense.

The offense had New Orleans ahead with 1:37 remaining and San Francisco needing 85 yards.

This is true, but the offense also turned the ball over 5 times.

If I were Jersey/A offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride, I'd go at San Francisco safety Donte Whitner, the sole Niners defenders who gambles trying to make "SportsCenter"-class plays. Whitner was juked out of his cleats on the Darren Sproles long touchdown that was the first of the late spate of touchdowns, then completely whiffed on Jimmy Graham's long late touchdown, leaping as if to try to intercept after Graham had already caught the ball and started upfield!

Whitner also had a forced fumble, which Gregg conveniently leaves out.

"Justified" has won praise for cinematography, acting and gritty realism. The cinematography and acting are good; the show is ridiculously unrealistic. In both season finales so far, Olyphant's character deliberately walks into a trap set by lots of heavily armed criminals. Yet he doesn't call for backup or even tell the Marshals Service where he is going.

I'm pretty sure Raylan was told to stay away from the heavily armed criminals, at least in Season Two, so that's why he didn't tell the Marshals Service where he was going.

Not only is the character both times saved by an implausible deus ex machine, any marshal who repeatedly injected himself into deadly situations without following procedures would lose his job.

It's almost like the show isn't a documentary and instead is a work of fiction!

Had the Packers become spoiled by the schedule quirk that kept them at home for a solid month?

So how would this have affected the Packers in the playoffs since they were playing at home against the Giants?

So the man who runs the Packers' previously efficient offense was seriously distracted, and in their playoff opener, the Packers' offense was a mess. Football games are irrelevant compared to lives. But why was Philbin even with the team, just after burying his son?

I don't know. Great question. So Gregg suggests the Packers should have told Philbin he isn't allowed to come back to work after losing his son to a drowning? You are supposed to be nice to people who have lost a child and allow them time to churn through their emotions in their own way, not limit them from what they want to do. Maybe Philbin shouldn't have been coaching, but who was going to be the person to tell him to stay away?

The story of the game was that the Giants wanted it more.

This was the story of the game. Remember, Gregg gets paid to provide this type of analysis.

And with Green Bay down by 10 points but ample time remaining, Ryan Grant had a first down at midfield, but then made the classic mistake of continuing to struggle while under tackle and having no hope of more yards.

How is Grant supposed to know he has no hope of gaining more yards? If his forward progress wasn't stopped and the whistle had not blown, then Grant has been taught to keep trying to gain yardage.

This was a disastrous failing of fundamentals by Grant. If a runner who cannot gain more yards doesn't get on the ground, he's fairly asking for the ball to be stripped.

Again, how does Grant know he can't gain more yards? How does Gregg Easterbrook now a Giant defender wasn't making sure Grant couldn't go down? Grant had already broken one tackle on the play.

Expect a sound, fundamentals-first game when the Giants play at the 49ers.

Also expect Gregg to criticize any defensive play that doesn't work.

T.J. Yates was OK for a rookie backup, but his three interceptions were forced into double coverage, and he forced another pass into double coverage that might have been picked except several Ravens collided trying for the ball.

Yates was a rookie 5th round pick who was the 3rd string quarterback. He played about as well as you expect a 5th round rookie to play. It's almost like Gregg doesn't realize most 5th round picks would play worse against a tough defense like the Ravens.

Yates finished with a 28.8 passer rating. If every pass a quarterback attempts clangs to the ground incomplete, his rating is 39.6 under the NFL system.

Gary Kubiak sent his kicker in to attempt a 50-yard field goal on fourth-and-6 from the Baltimore 32. The miss gave the Ravens possession nearly at midfield, and this was an old-fashioned low-scoring game, the kind that is determined by struggles over field position. Fourth-and-6 on the 32 is a classic Maroon Zone dilemma -- why didn't the Texans try for a first down?

I'll let Gregg explain to himself using his own words why the Texans went for a field goal instead of going for it on fourth down:

Yates finished with a 28.8 passer rating. If every pass a quarterback attempts clangs to the ground incomplete, his rating is 39.6 under the NFL system.

A field goal attempt was the better option.

If the Texans had punted, Gregg would criticize the Texans. If the Texans had gone for it and failed, Gregg would have asked why they didn't kick the field goal. It doesn't matter what happens, if a play fails Gregg will second-guess the coach's decision...even if the reasoning behind the decision was solid.

Now it's third-and-4 on the New Orleans 14 with 14 seconds remaining, the Squared Sevens holding a timeout, down by three points. This snap is San Francisco's play to win. A short gain is meaningless for San Francisco, since the Niners would call the timeout, then kick to force overtime. In overtime, the high-flying New Orleans offense would have the advantage.

I'm sorry, this conclusion is based on what evidence? The 49ers were at home and they would have scored exactly as many points as the Saints had scored in the game up until that point. So why would the Saints have the advantage in overtime? Because they have a more powerful offense? If the Saints win the coin flip, maybe they would have an advantage, but the result of that coin flip was yet to be determined.

Linebacker Scott Shanle lines up across from Davis. At the snap, Shanle does not jam Davis. All of the swagger by Williams about his supposed super-macho defense -- why don't the Saints jam receivers at the goal line? Davis runs a simple quick post -- and no one at all covers him.

Absolutely untrue. The Saints were clearly running a zone defense and Shanle was in Davis' zone. In fact, Shanle didn't play terrible coverage on the play. Obviously his coverage wasn't good enough. The defense being played didn't call for jamming the receiver and Shanle dropped back in his zone. There was no man coverage on the play. Gregg consistently can't understand zone coverage and seems to believe all NFL teams play man defense all the time. He's frustrating in that way. So after watching the play linked you can see Shanle dropped back in his zone and wasn't responsible for man coverage on Davis.

Shanle just stands like topiary, watching him blow by. It's easy to get open when no one covers you.

Shanle did not have responsibility for Davis after Davis passed Shanle's zone. It then became the safety's responsibility, which the safety actually reacted decently on the play and hit Davis exactly after he caught the ball. It was a great throw and a great catch. There was a small window to through the ball into and Smith threw the ball into that window.

On the winning touchdown, New Orleans defenders Shanle, Jon Vilma and Tracy Porter are near Davis -- all of them covering no one at all.

This is what frustrates me about TMQ. Gregg's stupidity and inability to understand NFL defenses causes him to criticize players. Porter was responsible for his zone, which he did cover. Vilma was responsible for the deep middle zone coverage, which means he wasn't responsible for Davis on the play until Davis entered his zone. Shanle did play his zone. I'm not saying the Saints played perfect defense, but Smith threw the ball well into a small window and Davis made a great catch. Gregg doesn't understand this isn't basketball where every player has a man he guards. The Saints were playing a zone defense, so each player covered a zone.

On the game-deciding snap, New Orleans defenders just stood around in a super-soft backed-off zone. New Orleans Saints, you are guilty of the single worst play of the season.

This super-soft backed-off zone was the play call. Criticize Gregg Williams, not the Saints defenders. This is another situation where Gregg criticizes a team no matter what they do. He has criticized the Saints endlessly for blitzing and leaving Davis open earlier on this same drive, but then the Saints don't blitz and Gregg criticizes them for playing "super-soft" defense. I would love for Gregg to tell me what the appropriate defensive call would have been here since he seems to have the answer to every defensive situation an NFL team may encounter. This will never happen because Gregg only has the right answer to the defensive situation after the play is over.

Why Chat If You Won't Answer the Questions?

2012-01-17T15:06:00.001-05:00

Dick Vitale, who as I have mentioned 100 times before seems like a really nice guy, is still chatting every Thursday at 11am with ESPN.com readers. I feel like Vitale is a lot of what I find wrong with modern sports announcing. The game tends to become more about him and the off-topic stories he tells during the telecast than it is up about the actual game he is supposed to be working. In regard to his ESPN.com chats, I expect more than the answers he gives to some of the questions in his chat. What good is experience calling basketball games if you don't use that experience to provide insight and instead choose to go off-topic about yourself or on to another topic? It's frustrating sometimes.

Concerning another person that frustrates me...Jon Gruden was just voted the NFL players favorite announcer. Well naturally, because he rarely has anything negative to say about a player and seems to avoid offending any player or team that may want to hire him in the future. It frustrates me. Gruden has shown himself to be a fairly competent analyst, I wish Gruden would be a little more critical of players or teams.

On to Dick Vitale not answering the questions he is asked...which I thought was the entire point of hosting a chat.

Dick Vitale: I'm happy to be back with you this morning for this chat...Happy holidays to everyone out there...Just got back from the City of Palms annual HS tournament. Spoke to the crowd before the game and that was a thrill.

This answers the pressing question I had about who spoke to the crowd before the City of Palms annual high school tournament.

Mike (Idianapolis)

Are you surprised with the Indiana Hoosiers start this season and how far do you see this team going?

Mike should know better than to ask two questions. It's hard enough for Vitale to answer one question, much less two.

DV: I am not surprised at all.

Vitale is not surprised at all that the Hoosiers have started off the season 12-0 (at the time of this chat). Except Vitale is a little surprised we will find out. But other than being a little surprised, he isn't surprised at all.

Great win over Kentucky...other than that, they beat everyone they should, with maybe NC State being the lone exception.

I'm confused now. So Vitale isn't surprised the Hoosiers are undefeated, but he says they possibly should not have beaten an unranked NC State team. So maybe he is a little bit surprised at Indiana's start.

I was a little surprised with the win over Kentucky.

So the whole "not surprised at all" thing was pretty much a lie then.

(Dan Shulman) "Dickie V, it appears Russian terrorists have taken 20,000 hostages at the Missouri-Texas basketball game and are demanding the immediate destruction of France by the United States military or they will detonate a nuclear weapon in a major US city. Does this surprise you?"

(Dick Vitale) "Not really Dan. Russian terrorists are pretty unforgiving people. The execution of the plan, the fact they have taken hostages and have the capability to destroy a major US city does surprise me a little."

(Dan Shulman) "So, you are not surprised this has happened then? You anticipated this could happen?"

(Dick Vitale) "I'm not surprised at all. Let me tell you about a 5 minute story about this specific event I attended two days ago that has nothing to do with our present discussion."

They have to sustain it by finishing in the upper echelon of the Big Ten and earn that NCAA tourney bid.

So Vitale thinks Indiana will have to continue to play the rest of their games to make the NCAA Tournament. Alas, we are left to guess how far he sees them going in the NCAA Tournament.

Scott (San Antonio)

You got some SUPER-SOPHS this season, Perry Jones III, Jared Sullinger, Harrison Barnes, and Jeremy Lamb. Who means the most to their team? And who's cutting down the nets in March?

DV: They all do.

This is an impossibility. When given a list of players and asked to name which one means the most to their team, it is impossible for them all to mean the most to their team. Pick one. There is no point in chatting if you don't answer the questions asked.

If you took away any of them, it would hurt the goal of winning the national championship, which is the goal of all four teams.

If you took away the best player on any NCAA team it would hurt that team's goal of winning the national championship. This doesn't mean much, so Vitale needs to make a choice. I wonder if Dick Vitale does this type thing in other areas of his life...

(Dick Vitale's wife) "Honey, what do you want for dinner tonight? I can cook spaghetti, chicken, leftover turkey, order a pizza, or we can just have sandwiches."

(Dick Vitale) "Let me tell you about this guy I spoke with at the store today. He told me---"

(Vitale's wife) "Focus, please. Which of those foods would you like the most for dinner tonight?"

(Vitale) "All of them."

(Vitale's wife) "You want me to cook spaghetti, make chicken, heat up leftover turkey, order a pizza and then make us sandwiches for dinner?"

(Vitale) "If you made any of those options for dinner, I would like them. So it is impossible for me to choose and I refuse to. Let me tell you about the guy I met at the store (25 minutes later)...but he was just a great guy, and let me tell you, he has to be one of the nicest guys I've ever met."

(Vitale's wife) "Dinner. What among those choices do you want?"

(Vitale) "All of them. They all sound good."

(Vitale's wife orders out Chinese food)

Owen (Milwaukee)

Dick:What is your take on Marquette's loss to LSU? Is this a bad loss or an expected hick-up in a long season? Will this affect them in March seeding?

DV: Obviously it is tought o sustain the unblemished record. Turner was hot and LSU needed as win badly. This may help ge Marquette to refocus. Johnson-Odom was suspended the game before and it may have affected chemistry.

Great. It appears Vitale had a seizure on the keyboard, but he still managed to not answer the question. So how will this affect Marquette in March seeding?

That said, I want to add that the court down at LSU should be named after Dale Brown.

That's just great. I like how Vitale not only doesn't answer questions he is asked, but he manages to go off on topics no one asks or cares about. Brilliant.

Alex (Louisville)

Hey Dick! My cards sure did struggle against C of Cha, in your mind, are they a top 5 team?

DV: Right now they have earned that right. We will see whent hey face Georgetown and Kentucky. That is the type of game that will show if they are top 5. I disagree with you on the Charleston game, that is not cupcake city as Bobby Cremins has a very talented team.

No, College of Charleston isn't a cupcake team, but a Top 5 team should not struggle with College of Charleston at home.

Injuries to Blackshear and Marra have hurt too.

Let's add them to the "most important player" list with Barnes, Jones, Sullinger, and Lamb then.

Terry (Nashville)

Could it be the best team in the state of Tennessee is not Memphis, Vanderbilt or Tennessee but maybe Middle Tennessee State, baby! How about some love for the Blue Raiders!

DV: You can make that claim.

You could also make the claim humans are really the descendants of Xenu but that doesn't make it true nor a valid, fact-based claim.

Right now you could say Middle Tennessee State is up there and Kermit Davis' team just beat Mississippi. They beat UCLA out west too. In the end, I think it will be Memphis.

Memphis was the right answer. I'm glad we finally got there.

Jason (Ellicott City, MD)

Buy or sell Georgetown? Do they beat Memphis again tonight?

Again, two questions. Good luck getting one answered. Two questions? You are just pressing your luck. No whammies!

DV: The next few games will tell us more about the Hoyas.

Do you know what will tell us the most about the Hoyas? If Vitale could answer this question after the season is over. But, the question was asked as of right now, so why not answer it as of now rather than defer the answer? If you get paid to analyze and know college basketball, this should be an easy, opinion-based answer.

The rematch with Memphis and then the game against Louisville will tell us a lot.

How about you tell Jason from Maryland a lot right now, like if you think Georgetown can beat Memphis again? It defeats the purpose of a chat if you defer the answer to a question until after the game referred to in the question is played.

Dre Michigan [via mobile]

Is this the best Syracuse team since 03? An can they cut down the nets I'm march?

DV: This team should be number one right now but there are a lot of challenges ahead in the Big East.

Does ESPN tell their employees to not directly answer questions in a chat? This is the same kind of answer Joe Morgan would give in his chats (R.I.P. Joe Morgan ESPN.com chats).

This is a very good team and I had them in the top five in the preseason, so I am not surprised with the good start.

Unfortunately this response doesn't make sense when knowing the question asked. I can't help but wonder if Vitale is finally getting around to answering the question about whether he is surprised with Indiana's start. Actually, I shouldn't wonder this. The odds of Vitale actually paying attention to what he is doing during this chat is not very high. He is probably telling the moderator a 15 minute story about a dinner he had with Jamie Dixon two years ago and has no idea what question he was asked. He just saw Syracuse in the question and just started rambling out an answer.

Ryan (Albuquerque)

What do you think of the Ohio Bobcats win on Tuesday? they are 10-1 with only dropping a tight game to Louisville, is this team for real?

DV: John Groce has done a really good job there. Ohio almost beat Louisville in that game as it was a real defensive dogfight. The MAC has some quality teams and the Bobcats should be up there.

Yes, Ryan from Albuquerque mentioned in the question that the game against Louisville was a tight game. He probably would like an answer as to whether Ohio is for real or not.

joe (new jersey)

hey dickie v....Is seton hall for real this year? can they actually make the dance?

DV: I salute my alma mater. I was really thrilled earlier this season when I was honored won in Patterson, New Jersey and coach Kevin Willard presented me with a chair from the Pirates bench.

"Me, me, me. Let me tell you about me before I answer the question with a general, non-specific answer that will provide the questioner with zero information, while also offending no one. Me, me, me."

Herb Pope is experienced and a factor up front. The win over Dayton was a good one. I think the Hall could surprise some people in the Big East and finish above their preseason ranking in the conference.

Who cares whether Seton Hall can make the NCAA Tournament or not. They gave Dick Vitale a chair from the bench! That's all he cares about.

Jon (Victor, NY)

Any under-the-radar teams we should watch going into conference play? KSU strikes my eye, as does UVA and LSU.

DV: We will find out which teams are contenders and which are pretenders.

But Jon from Victor, New York wants to know NOW which teams are contenders and pretenders. Considering you get paid to be a college basketball analyst, I don't think this is a request that should be a terrible hardship upon your brain. There's no point in chatting or even getting paid to be an expert if the answers to questions only end up being, "We will find out later the answer to your question." Of course we'll find out later. We'll find out all the answers we want to know about college basketball after the season is over. Unfortunately, Vitale gets paid to be a college basketball analyst who should be able to provide answers right now to questions such as this.

Naturally, in grand ESPN fashion, their top college basketball analyst refuses to answer the question of which college basketball teams are contenders and pretenders.

Happy holidays to all of the fans out there. Ireally enjoy spending time with you doing these chats. I hope that Santa brings you all of the gifts you want.

What if the gift I want is for you to tell me who the college teams that are contenders and pretenders? So I guess I'm just screwed.

MMQB Review: Alex Smith is Tim Tebow Edition

2012-01-16T14:30:00.000-05:00

I know I'm not the nicest person in the world nor do I have room to brag about my polite discourse with others, but this week on Twitter someone Tweeted to Peter King they wanted Peter King to "suck their balls." Just stupid and pointless. Some people should not be allowed near a computer. Some people may say I am one of those people who should not be allowed near a computer, but oh well. Why would anyone follow Peter King and take the time to Tweet that to him? It just seems pointless to me.

Well, a week after Peter acknowledges QB Broncos is doing it again, it is no longer happening. Will Peter do an entire retrospective on the highlights of Tim Tebow's season like those assclowns at ESPN did, as if QB Broncos had passed away or retired? Will Peter simply talk about the game like a normal human being who isn't obsessed with all things QB Broncos? Will Peter finally notify Joe Flacco as to why he doesn't get any respect? Namely, he barely outdueled a rookie 5th round draft pick at home in a playoff game? Maybe Peter will explain why Jeff Fisher is worth the steep price the Rams have paid for him to be their head coach.

Here are two questions for you to start your Championship Week: What would have happened if Ernie Accorsi hadn't had such a backbone on April 24, 2004?

I'm not a doctor, but I'm guessing Accorsi would have either had severe physical handicaps or not be alive right now if he had no backbone. Perhaps I'm being too literal.

And what would have happened if A.J. Smith had played hardball with Accorsi as the clock wound down on the fourth overall pick of the 2004 NFL Draft, with just seven minutes to go and the Giants on the clock?

Ben Roethlisberger a Giant.

Osi Umenyiora (not Shawne Merriman) a Charger.

Eli Manning a Charger.

While we are playing useless "what if" games it is impossible not to comment that Eli Manning probably would not have been a Charger regardless of whether he became a Giant or not. Eli and his father did not want him playing in San Diego. So if Eli was drafted by the Chargers, he would have been traded to another NFL team if he wasn't traded to the Giants. So Manning probably wouldn't have been a Charger because the Chargers coveted Rivers and Manning had no want to end up in San Diego.

Also, I'm pretty sure Peter has done this "what if" story about the 2004 NFL Draft in MMQB before, so he's just repeating himself right now. I know Peter did pretty much this same story at the time of the 2004 NFL Draft, but I swear we've heard a version of this story as well since then.

"He brought up Umenyiora again,'' Accorsi told me last night, "and I said no. We were not giving him up. There was no way.''

Peter is telling this story a bit wrong up to this point. Accorsi not only had backbone, but way more importantly he had leverage. I would submit the leverage, not Accorsi's backbone contributed more to the hard line on not trading Umenyiora. Accorsi had another trade set up which would have netted him Ben Roethlisberger, another quarterback the Giants liked in the 2004 NFL Draft. Plus, Manning had stated he didn't want to play for the Chargers. So along with some backbone, Accorsi had leverage.

So now the trade teetered. If Smith had insisted on Umenyiora and killed the deal, Accorsi had an ace up his sleeve: He could trade down three spots and pick up a second-round pick from Cleveland ... and still draft the Giants' No. 2 quarterback on the board, Ben Roethlisberger from Miami of Ohio. The Giants liked Manning much more, but Accorsi wouldn't budge on Umenyiora.

So while Accorsi was very smart for not budging on Umenyiora, the fact he liked Roethlisberger enough to trade back and get a second round pick for his troubles helped Accorsi hold a hard line on not trading Umenyiora. Leverage is great.

"No Osi,'' he said. "That's still a deal-breaker. But we'll throw in a six next year.''

Pause on the line from San Diego.

Tick, tick, tick ...

"Make it a four,'' Smith said.

"I'll give you a five,'' Accorsi said.

Done.

I always wondered how good of a General Manager A.J. Smith really was. Given some of the players the Chargers have let go and some of the picks they have made, I wasn't sure if Smith was really a good GM or not. I think I gain some insight here. Instead of trading for a promising pass rusher, Smith took a 5th round pick instead. Again, Smith accepted a 5th round pick in lieu of receiving a pass rusher he liked. Either he had no leverage or Smith was holding up the Manning-Rivers trade for a pass rusher he saw as equivalent (or close) to a 5th round value. I'm guessing Smith just had to get the deal done, but in the end this trade was being held up because of a player Smith would substitute out of the trade to get a 5th round pick instead.

Accorsi liked defensive linemen, and he stocked this team with Umenyiora, Justin Tuck and Mathias Kiwanuka before he left the team after the 2006 season. In came Reese, and he's taken it up a notch: Chris Canty and Rocky Bernard in free agency, undrafted Dave Tollefson in free agency, and Linval Joseph and Jason Pierre-Paul in the draft. Can't have enough defensive linemen. That, plus their cool quarterback and his receiving weapons, is why the Giants are one win away from their second Super Bowl in four years.

I would actually say the reason the Giants are one win away from another Super Bowl is because of their quarterback and receiving weapons. The Giants defense wasn't exactly stellar for part of this year and the Giants may not have even made the playoffs if it weren't for Manning and his receiving weapons. It is nice the defense showed up at an opportune time though.

Five most noteworthy events of the playoff weekend, with Ravens-Patriots and Giants-49ers on deck:

1. How lousy Green Bay was -- or how bad the Giants made the Packers look.

Aaron Rodgers cut off a question before it was finished last night, about whether the long layoff -- he hadn't played in 20 days -- had anything with the stunning 37-20 loss to the Giants. "No,'' he said firmly. Sure looked it. The amazing thing about this game is that, without a couple of shaky calls by ref Bill Leavy, this could have been 44-13, or some similarly stunning score.

I have to say I am becoming more and more convinced it isn't a good idea to rest your starters the last week or two of the season. I think playing out the games is the best move. There obviously isn't one certain rule that always works, nor is the 20 day rest why the Packers lost, but I would just make sure my team stayed in rhythm and not rest my starters. Especially if my team has a first round bye. It is just a long time to go between playing games.

2. The Packers and Saints will be bitter about this weekend for a long, long time. Combined, the Packers and Saints were a plus-21 in turnover margin this year. This weekend, they were a combined minus-7. The Packers and Saints were 29-4 entering the divisional round because they were two efficient offensive machines all season. Efficient offensive machines don't turn the ball over nine times in eight quarters.

I thought Jason Whitlock had an interesting article on Drew Brees and the Saints on January 10. At the time, I didn't think the entire NFL knew this secret, but the Niners game did make me think perhaps Whitlock was correct.

5. Houston with Matt Schaub could very well have won in Baltimore. T.J. Yates threw three interceptions and was overmatched on the big playoff stage. Maybe Schaub would have had some jitters, but not like Yates. The Ravens scored three points in the last 46 minutes, and amassed 227 yards all day. That's not going to cut it Sunday in Foxboro.

Joe Flacco whined for part of the week about the lack of respect he gets. That game certainly isn't going to help him. He didn't turn the ball over, but he also didn't do much else for the Ravens. He wants to be taken seriously, but the Texans turned the ball over repeatedly and still they had a chance to beat the Ravens in the end, but failed. Flacco took a step back this year, at least statistically, and 227 yards of offense isn't going to shut his critics up anytime soon.

Simply put, Fisher wanted to avoid another situation like he had in Tennessee, where owner Bud Adams, if he chose, could tell him what to do on personnel. Adams told him in 2006 to take Vince Young in the first round. Fisher didn't want to do that, but it was Adams' call.

I think I would not give Jeff Fisher power over personnel. Ever. I am not normally a fan of coaches having power over personnel, except in specific cases and Fisher isn't one of those cases. So Fisher is bitter that Adams told the Titans to take Vince Young? Fisher does realize Young won a bunch of games for the Titans, right? It isn't like Young was a complete failure on the field. If "I didn't want Vince Young" is the main criteria for why Jeff Fisher should have the ability to get some control over personnel then I'm not sure I like his odds as a player evaluator.

All he wanted was the ability to -- in the event he was categorically opposed to a decision being made by the general manager -- have a mechanism in place for a third party, like an owner, to decide which way the team would go. St. Louis was fine with that. Miami wanted to leave ultimate personnel authority with the GM, Jeff Ireland.

I still don't like this set up. Maybe I am too traditional, but a coach coaches a team and the General Manager chooses the players. Yes, both parties need to be on the same page, but that doesn't mean one party should be able to overrule the other concerning their job responsibilities. Can the Rams GM overrule Fisher on a certain game plan? Of course not, nor should he be able to. Fisher needs to find a General Manager he can work with and worry about coaching the team and let the GM do his job without interference from a third party in the case of a disagreement between Fisher and the General Manager.

Seems like a little thing for Miami to surrender with owner Stephen Ross wanting Fisher badly, but consider this: The last six Super Bowl winners leave the final draft and personnel say up to the general manager. Maybe Miami should have given in, but that would have violated Ireland's contract and changed the structure Ross wanted in place. ... and flown in the face of the way most (but not all) winning teams operate.

This would be Peter King laying the boom down. NFL teams love to copy history. This is historically what works. Yet, the Rams don't seem to care to copy this structure. The Rams General Manager isn't even hired yet, so I would imagine Fisher would have some say in that hiring as well. There are exceptions of coaches who deserve personnel power in some fashion, but I don't believe Jeff Fisher is an exception.

Phenomenal finish. One of the best ends of a game of all time, with an embattled quarterback and formerly banished-from-the-sidelines tight end making the throw and catch of their lives, and the Saints fighting back, and so many big plays happening so fast you couldn't keep track of them. But the play I'll never forget is that weird Alex Smith bootleg called by offensive coordinator Greg Roman.

If the sportswriting world talked about what they should talk about, everyone would have been talking about Alex Smith's transformation this year. I didn't believe he be as good as he was on Saturday, but while the world was focused on QB Broncos on Saturday, Smith played very well. Smith drove the 49ers down the field twice to score touchdowns and beat the Saints. That bootlog was just a great play call. I'm happy for Smith because while everyone was talking about QB Broncos and how effective the Saints offense is, Alex Smith was great when he needed to be great.

"I assumed I was in front of Alex, but it's not like you can look around to find out exactly where he is,'' Staley said. "But when I was on the ground, I heard the roar of the crowd and I figured something good happened. It's pretty funny this play happens now, right when all the Tim Tebow stuff is happening. When we'd watch Tebow in college, we'd say, 'Alex was Tebow before Tebow.' You know, Alex was coached by Urban Meyer, and then Tebow was, and they did a lot of the same things.''

Let's not get carried away. Though they had the same coach, I don't remember QB Broncos and Smith being very comparable college quarterbacks.

1. No one uses two tight ends like the Patriots. Gronkowski blocks and catches, and the uber-athletic Hernandez has the moves of a wide receiver. Two tight ends, 261 total yards, four touchdowns. In one game.

Look for Gregg Easterbrook to pretend like the Patriots invented using tight ends as wide receivers. They didn't invent, but they have seemed to perfect it.

Bill Belichick's a mad scientist. He knew his defense had to change when it was getting strafed so badly in midseason, and he changed it, drastically. Who knows if it works another eight quarters. But 10 seasons after he used a bunch of middle-class free agents to help New England win its first Super Bowl, Belichick is scotch-taping another run together with Tom Brady playing at his peak, and a bunch of complimentary pieces on the chess board. Should be fun to watch.

I would make a crack here about the Broncos offense and how simple it is, but I actually felt bad for QB Broncos as he was getting killed Saturday night. Peter King goes on and on about the Patriots complimentary pieces in the secondary, but it was the front seven that won that game for the Patriots on Saturday night. They got in the backfield and forced a ton plays that lost yardage. That front seven has some fairly highly drafted players on it, so while I understand Belichick has messed with the secondary a lot, the front seven won the game in my mind and the Pats have some good players within that front seven.

Denver should backstop Tebow with a second- or third-round prospect and either Brady Quinn or an option type of quarterback like Tebow, in the event of an in-game injury; that way the Broncos won't have to revolutionize their offense in the middle of a game.

I feel bad for whatever quarterback gets drafted to backup QB Broncos. That person won't have a shot to win the starting quarterback job. The fans love QB Broncos and the coaching staff knows he can win them games, so I doubt QB Broncos will get real competition in training camp. Maybe he has earned the starting job outright anyway.

Finally, this: Denver cannot enter the 2012 season with the same predictable play-calling, with that inside handoff or Tebow sprinting into an option. It limits the offense way too much.

Unfortunately this is Fox's offense. Third-and-long draws. Predictable play calling. I remember reading a report on Pro Football Weekly two years ago where a scout said the Panthers offense was the most predictable offense in the NFL...because it was. I watched the offense every week and could predict what play would be next. This is the offense Fox likes and is the offense QB Broncos runs the best. I'm not saying a full offseason won't help QB Broncos, but I have a hard time believing after making the playoffs with this type of offense, the Broncos offense is going to suddenly be innovative and unpredictable most of the time. I hope this changes, but I don't expect it to.

The reality of Tebow's 2011 season is he had some great moments and eight wins. But he also plateaued. He simply has to be more accurate to have a chance to be a long-term NFL quarterback. Check out the first five quarterback starts of the season, with Kyle Orton playing, and the last five starts, all by Tebow.

Orton-Tebow Comparison

	W-L	Points	Comp.Pct.	TD-Int	Rating
First 5 games (Orton)	1-4	105	.587	8-7	75.7
Last 5 games (Tebow)	1-4	79	.402	3-4	60.5

You won't find Woody Paige quoting these stats all that soon. As much as he banged on Orton for his failings as a quarterback, he would never quote any statistic that could make his vested interest in QB Broncos look silly. Unfortunately, this is the reality though.

This is a critical offseason for Tebow. There's no question he'll put in the work. The only question is this: Is he physically capable of training his arm and his head to be a significantly more accurate passer? If so, he'll have a long career. But accuracy doesn't often increase significantly in NFL quarterbacks. It can get better, but most often the improvements come in small doses.

Who knows? I never thought the Broncos could make the playoffs with QB Broncos as the starter.

Green Bay couldn't hang on for the entire season, and I'm at a loss to separate New England, the Giants and San Francisco. Call it what it is: the honest-to-goodness Copout Fine Fifteen:

Peter ranks three of the current playoff teams as #1 in his power rankings. Booooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!! Have some guts.

1. (tie) New York Giants (11-7). Memories of 2007 are so valid they're scary. Eli Manning hitting every receiver even slightly open, and a pass rush that won't quit. Big, big trouble for anyone right now.

I'm still refusing to acknowledge parallels between 2007 and 2011. Just out of sheer stubbornness at this point.

4. Baltimore (13-4). Very good test for the Patriots Sunday in Foxboro. My only concern is whether Flacco has much of a chance to win a scoring contest with Brady.

Joe Flacco barely won a non-scoring contest against T.J. Yikes. I can only imagine how Tom Brady will fare against Flacco.

6. New Orleans (14-4). Second straight season that ended with a defensive meltdown at an NFC West champion -- a 41-36 loss at Seattle last year with Drew Brees throwing it 60 times, a 36-32 debacle Saturday in San Francisco with Brees throwing it 63 times. Balance, people.

Whoa. Weren't we hearing over the past couple of weeks how the Saints now have "running balance" and the Saints think they can run the ball on grass and this is a different team with four great rushers? When the Saints start struggling, they completely forget the running game and the defense doesn't look so great when it isn't protecting a big lead. I know we keep getting told the Saints aren't a different team on the road, but Brees is 0-3 as a Saint in playoff road games. At some point, this has to start meaning something.

15. (tie) Miami (6-10). Don't mourn over not getting Jeff Fisher signed. Lots of good Plan B's out there.

There are cheaper Plan B's that don't want complete personnel control too. 9 of the 12 head coaches in the playoffs this year were not coaches before their current head coaching gig. I have to think this should mean something to NFL teams that first-time coaches can have success with a team and a higher paid coach may not always be the best option.

New England QB Tom Brady. The best passing day in Patriots postseason history (368 yards) and six touchdown passes, tying the NFL playoff record set by Steve Young in the 49ers-Chargers Super Bowl 17 years ago. And a 48-yard, inside-the-20 punt. "I have no idea what the records are,'' Brady said dismissively after the game. And I think he means it. It's one of the reasons Bill Belichick likes him so much.

Well, that and the fact Brady has won Belichick three Super Bowls and made the Patriots the best team over the last decade. But mostly, I am sure Belichick loves Brady's humble nature.

"I'm sure if we win, I'll have nothing to do with why we won.''

-- Baltimore quarterback Joe Flacco, four days before Sunday's playoff game against Houston, sounding like he was lamenting not getting enough credit, because he doesn't put up glamorous numbers.

It sounds to me like Flacco wants more credit. He was efficient yesterday, but Flacco went against a good defense and looked just alright. Perhaps he should worry less about convincing everyone he deserves credit for the Ravens wins and actually showing us on the field he deserves credit.

You can make numbers say what you want them to say, and Flacco had a good passer rating for this game (97.1) after a 14-of-27 day with two touchdowns and no interceptions. But if you watched the game, you know Flacco missed his share of open receivers and didn't have a very good day.

Flacco took care of the football and was efficient. That won him the game because his defense was excellent. Even on the first touchdown pass he threw the ball behind his tight end, who had to reach behind him to catch the ball. Flacco is a good quarterback, but I get the feeling he wants more credit and worries he doesn't get enough credit when he should be looking at ways he can improve.

Then Peter goes through how screwed up the Raiders are. They have traded 7 of their 14 draft picks in the next two drafts.

"Ravens, Niners & Giants: the 3 teams that run & defend the best, all still alive. PATS will their hands full with any of them."

-- @DonnieWahlberg, actor and lover of all teams Boston, with a double-Tweet.

I wonder how Gregg Easterbrook will spin this one? All year he has talked about how teams that throw the ball are winning games and the NFL is being revolutionized by passing teams (though Wahlberg should probably watch a Giants game and he would know they are really more of a passing team) and teams that can run the ball aren't faring as well. I'm sure Gregg will have some sort of spin to put around his previous columns so he isn't seen as wrong.

j. Anquan Boldin's ability to catch the ball in traffic. I mean, who's better?

Do you want a list of players? Boldin is up there, but I'm not sure he's the best.

i. T.J. Yates. Look, he's a kid, and he was in an impossible spot. But he made two truly dumb throws (and was intercepted on a third), right into the hands of Ravens.

I am the last person who gives a crap about T.J. Yikes, but lay off him. He made some really bad throws, but he was a rookie 5th round pick starting his 5th/6th game on the road against a Top 5 defense. Rookie 5th round pick quarterbacks make bad throws. That's what they do. I can easily acknowledge the throws were bad, but I didn't expect much more from him. After all, he should be on the bench in a playoff game, not starting one.

l. Bill Leavy. I must be the only guy in America who didn't think his non-reversal on the Greg Jennings fumble or non-fumble was horrible.

I wouldn't just say it was horrible, it was one of the worst replay calls of the year. The ball was clearly out of his hands when his body had not touched the ground. I'm not sure how it could have been more clear on the replay.

4. I think the strangest call of the weekend came before the game started in Foxboro. Why on earth, Denver, would you defer when winning the coin toss? You'd choose to hand the ball to Tom Brady on the first series of the game? I don't care how little faith you have in your own quarterback to take it 80 yards. Isn't the pressure on your defense colossal, on the road, against Brady, to make a stop right away? Didn't like that call at all.

It was terrible, but John Fox probably wanted his defense on the field first. Does anyone else think this said something about how Fox feels about QB Broncos or am I reading too much into this decision?

d. Red Sox alive? Making any moves to combat the Yankees' 13-man starting rotation? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Go buy a team immediately Red Sox! Find the nearest available free agent and overpay for him in order to keep up with the Yankees. After all, the purpose isn't to win games, but to outspend and make sure you are keeping up with the Yankees on paper. That's the real goal apparently. I think the Red Sox are just fine with Lester, Bucholz, Beckett and Bard for the time being. They have plenty of time to sign an affordable free agent pitcher or make a move. I don't know if the Yankees signing an older Japanese pitcher moving from the National to the American League and the trade for a 23 year old pitcher is reason to freak out. The Yankees got better, but it doesn't mean the Red Sox got worse. It is also two and a half months until the season begins. Simmer down now.

g. Philip Seymour Hoffman: The Meryl Streep of male actors. He can do it all.

This is the most Peter King-ish of the Peter King comments in this MMQB. In fact, this would be a comment used in a parody of Peter King's MMQB.

h. Missed the Golden Globes. What'd I miss?

Nothing. Self important people giving themselves awards. Oh, and Angelina Jolie appears to be slowly withering away into nothing. So it wasn't all bad.

i. Coffeenerdness: So I was in Boston over the weekend, and I walked into one of my three former Starbucks there, and the gal behind the counter, who I recognized, pointed to me and said: "Triple grande hazelnut latte.'' Wow. Impressive. You've got me. Maybe that's not entirely a good thing.

If you were a regular at this Starbucks, it is the staff's job to know this stuff. I go get my haircut and they remember how I want my hair cut (don't touch my fade on top, leave the mullet alone, but trim the sideburns) and I go once a month maximum. Customer service jobs require good memory of your customers. So it doesn't necessarily say much of anything she remembers what kind of coffee you like, other than you went there a lot and she has a good memory.

k. Have a fun Championship Week. Home teams are 7-1 so far, but I don't see an easy road for either San Francisco or New England next weekend.

Don't worry Giants fans, I'll pick against the Giants again so they can make me look stupid by winning the NFC Championship.

Bottom-of-the-Barrel's Pickoffapalooza 2012: Division

2012-01-13T16:21:00.002-05:00

Sorry we posted this so late on Friday. We wanted to use the lines that Bill Simmons used and he tends not to post his Friday picks until Friday evening.

Here's your menu for this weeks football...

NEW ORLEANS (-4.0) @ SAN FRANCISCO
DENVER @ NEW ENGLAND (-13.5)
HOUSTON @ BALTIMORE (-7.5)
GIANTS @ GREEN BAY (-7.5)

This week, people either think the Saints win by multiple touchdowns, or lose, more of this and two of our contributors go head to head on every game on the board. Let's go to the roundtable and the respective knights contained therein.

Sean

NEW ORLEANS (-4.0)
NEW ORLEANS 38-17

Sorry San Fran, your return to the playoffs is the wrong game at the wrong time. Home field won't count for much against the red-hot Saints and the unstoppable Drew Brees, who shook off a tough first half against Detroit last week and was particularly dominant in the fourth quarter. The 49ers' defense is superb, but there's just one problem: they were average against the pass, ranking 16th in yards per game. The Niners were a great story this year and the team plays hard for Jim Harbaugh, but how do they keep up with the high-powered Saints offense? Expect to see Sean Payton's defense take Frank Gore out of the game and force the game into Alex Smith's hands. I think we all know how that'll turn out.

NEW ENGLAND (-13.5)
NEW ENGLAND 45-20

For as bad as New England's defense is, I don't see Tim Tebow shaking off the ass kicking the Broncos were handed the last time they faced the Patriots. Tom Brady and company can score on anybody, and although Denver's defense is solid, they aren't solid enough to keep the Pats from moving up and down the field at will. For all the hype about Tim Tebow's "great game," he only completed 10 passes (of 21) and, while he threw for 316 yards, he picked up 80 of them on one play in overtime. Do the math: In regulation he was 9-for-20 for 236 yards. Not only that, but 179 of those came on four passes of 51, 30, 58 and 40 yards each, all in the second quarter. In fact, in the other three quarters in regulation, he was 4-for-11 for 57 yards, and the Broncos scored three points. Don't be fooled by Tebow; the big second quarter and storybook ending was sufficient to mask his general lack of aptitude throwing the football, and don't think the Patriots aren't going to pack the box like the Steelers did and challenge Tebow to win with the deep pass again. Even if they land a few blows, the Broncos can't keep up with New England, and they won't.

HOUSTON (+7.5)
BALTIMORE 20-17

Baltimore's stubborn refusal to commit to the run will make this game far closer than it needs to be. Can we all just cut the shit and call out Joe Flacco for being the terrible quarterback that he is? If the Ravens ask Joe Flacco to throw the ball 40 times, this game will be far closer than it has any right to be. Houston's defense is fantastic and will keep them in this game. The question is if T.J. Yates can be good enough to put the Texans over the top? I can't sleep at night if I pick them to win, but I do think they'll cover the spread and shed even more light on Joe Flacco's mediocrity.

GIANTS (+7.5)
GREEN BAY 28-24

I get the feeling this will be less of a shootout than I imagine most people are expecting; I just have a hunch we'll see more of a ground attack than these teams normally feature. Green Bay is facing an emotional week with the death of Michael Philbin, the son of offensive coordinator Joe Philbin; that alone makes this a difficult game to pick, with the uncertainty of the team's response to tragedy and Joe Philbin's indefinite leave from the team. Clearly the outcome of the game is (and should be) a trivial matter to everyone in the Green Bay locker room, and if the Packers come out flat, who can blame them? Still, don't count on that with Aaron Rodgers leading this team. I do like the Giants to stay with the Packers though, largely because Green Bay's defense is so rotten.

Jon

SAN FRANCISCO (+4.0)
SAN FRANCISCO 26-24

New Orleans is not the same team on the road. And I know for a fact that they have a hint of doubt in the back of the heads that looks and sounds like Beast Mode. I'm sure that San Francisco will also be using "hell if Seattle could do it last year, we can" as a motivating factor heading into this game. On the other side of the coin, I'm sure the Saints will be determined to not let history repeat itself (not that the 13-3 49ers are anything like the 7-9 Seahawks of last year) but I'm just skeptical of their ability to do so. I'm sure the 49ers will give up a few big plays, but generally I don't see them having much of a problem stopping the Saints, since their defense is very good and very healthy. The Saints averaged 27.3 points on the road (as opposed to 41.6 at home) and the 49ers averaged 27.6 points at home (and 19.9 on the road). That's a pretty big discrepancy for both teams and one that plays right into San Francisco's hands.

DENVER (+13.5)
NEW ENGLAND 34-27

Tebow! Tebow! Tebow! Sorry, I had to get that out of my system. This Saturday we get to see Round 2 of Brady vs. Tebow and I have a feeling that the victor may be the same, but it won't be by knockout like last time. I know that Pittsburgh's defense was banged up, but letting Tim Tebow and his famous throwing motion go deep on them time and again had to surprise everyone. I have a feeling he will do well against the Patriots' defense (and I use that word lightly) as well. The Broncos were in the game (and even led) on December 18th. Then they turned the ball over three times in the second quarter and the Patriots, as they always do, capitalized. I think Denver will do a better job this time around, not only of taking care of the ball, but running better (in terms of luck) in recovering fumbles if they do happen.

This game comes down to the Broncos taking better care of the ball and also their ability to stop the Patriots offense. They will have to get to Tom Brady in order to stay in this game. New England is very hard to beat at home. While I think this spread is ridiculously high, I don't think it's out of the question that New England covers the spread. I just think it's improbable.

BALTIMORE (-7.5)
BALTIMORE 26-17

I am a believer in the Baltimore Ravens at home. On the road, not at all. They have a few things going for them. They head into this game with the knowledge that they have already beaten this Texans team (albeit without Andre Johnson) 29-14 in October. I'm sure that gives them a boost of confidence. The Ravens were also 8-0 at home this year, one of three teams to accomplish that this season (the other two being fellow playoff teams New Orleans and Green Bay). The Texans will have Andre Johnson this time around, but they have backup quarterback T.J. Yates under center. While it's not a huge dropoff, it's still a significant setback for a team that already lost by 15 points earlier this year to their opponent on Sunday. Yates will be under a lot of pressure (mentally and by way of pass rush) and I just don't see a rookie coming into Baltimore and defeating them. Houston's defense will have to do a better job (similar to the effort that shutout the Bengals in the second half of last week's game) if they want to compete.

GIANTS (+7.5)
GREEN BAY 37-33

Greg Jennings is back. Aaron Rodgers has to feel good about that. The Giants are playing some of the best football in the league lately and have a lot of momentum heading into this game. After the Packers' loss in Kansas City, I feel like everyone (including their opponents) realized that this is a team that can be defeated. I don't think anyone was thinking that around Week 8 or 9. And that's huge. The Giants usually show up against good teams, so they have that going for them and also they nearly won the matchup between these two teams a few months ago. Now that Green Bay is at home and rested, I don't have much faith in New York to march into Lambeau Field and win a playoff game. I do think that this will be a close game, however.

Jimmy

NEW ORLEANS (-4.0)
NEW ORLEANS 31-16

It's not that I think the 49ers will get a dose of reality in this game. No, I think the Saints will beat the Niners over the head, kidnap them, tie them to a bed with an intravenous drip of reality, shove a funnel down their throat, pouring down gallon upon gallon of reality and siphon reality gas into the room. That's how much of a nightmare I think this is going to be for San Francisco. It is not entirely fair to say San Fran have played no one on their way to 13-3, they beat Detroit, the Giants, Pittsburgh and lost to Baltimore. But Detroit and the Giants can't run, Pittsburgh can't block and Baltimore can't throw. There is absolutely no point trying to stop the Saints in a low, or even medium-low scoring game. This team had forty more yards a game than New England - New England! They have 279 points in their last seven games, forty plus in their last four straight. They are coming off a game where they had 626 yards, a playoff record, on the heels of the passing record. You need to at least get into the mid to high twenties (New Orleans has been beaten once in the last two years by a team scoring less than 26 points), even if this is the best defense in the league (which I don't believe it is) and probably more.

San Francisco ranked 26th in total offense and 29th in passing offense. Of course they did - it's Alex Smith! They were 11th in scoring (23.8), due to their opportunistic defense (38 takeaways, T-1st in NFL), and the one area where Brees is relatively mortal is in throwing picks (he threw 14), but it isn't enough to have to have your accountants work overtime to find ways to manufacture 24 points, you need to be able to score. Really, genuinely score. Another way they generated points was kick returns (1st in KR, 27.2)...New Orleans had touchbacks on over 64% of kickoffs, 3rd in the NFL. And don't rely on Frank Gore to save you - he had 9 yards on 7 carries against the Rams (31st in YPC against) in his last start. He has 3.5YPC over his last eight games. Plus, this defense isn't even that great against the pass. They gave up 6.9 YPA. They had 42 sacks. Those numbers are essentially exactly what Detroit had (1 less sack, 0.1 better in YPA for the Lions). I would take the Saints if they were laying 10 points, let alone a measly three and a half. It's a horrific read of the state of the NFL currently to suggest that the Saints are merely 6.5 points better than the tough, well coached, but hopelessly overmatched Niners. New Orleans are 19-7 away from Louisiana over the last three years. Am I worried about them playing outside? What the fuck? "Oh no, what is this soft feeling underneath my feet? What is this green, organic, brush like substance?...what's that? Griss? Grask?" Please. You'd think it was fucking lava the way people talk about it. Do I think they can survive snowy, cold, weather blasted San Francisco? Oh what's that? It's fucking San Francisco? Oh good. To those who would pick the Niners, just realise, there will come a point on Saturday when you realise you took Alex Smith against Drew Brees.

NEW ENGLAND (-13.5)
NEW ENGLAND 34-19

LOL. This game seems to be mocking me with its existence. I hate picking this game. Green Bay and New Orleans do not have good defenses, but as most are aware, often excellent teams, particulary offensive, passing teams, have better defenses than their numbers suggest. They get out to 31-7 leads and will give you basically however many yards you want, as long as you get them on eight yard throws in front of their safeties. This is probably at least partly the case in Green Bay and Norlans - they aren't that bad. This is not true for New England. They are every bit as bad as their 411.1 yards against a game looks. It really collapsed to another level against Washington in Week 14, a game where Brady was essentially burning holes in his linebackers chests with his eyes he was that furious. I watched all of their contest in Denver, and it was shockingly embarrassing. It reminded me of the Lakers sweep at the hands of the Mavs last year, when you just saw things you don't see in professional basketball games (players driving from the arc to the hoop without a hand on them for instance). New England's linebackers were running into each other. Their lineman were thrown down on the ground on almost every play. It was hideous, three stooges stuff, and only turnover after turnover seemed to get them out of jail. This is the worst defense in the league - by far. It's maybe one of the worst defenses in several years. In their last three games, the Patriots went down 16-7, 17-0, 21-0. They then responded with a 110-14 cumulative run. What the hell is going on here?

I honestly think it's Belichick. I think he works things out in the game exactly how he can make this inept defensive team somehow put it together for this specific opponent, after he sees what they show. Perversely, I think the gulf between the Patriots and the Steelers defensively (basically an ocean) might actually help the Patriots. Pittsburgh were too proud against Tebow. They wanted to dominate defensively, hold the Broncos to something like 80 yards of offense, playing what looked like a cover negative three. New England will be happy to hold the run to 4.5-5 YPC, have Tebow complete sixty percent of his throws, get a couple of turnovers, make a couple of third down plays, force a couple of punts, hold them to field goals and score on nearly every drive. New England used this strategy to punch above their weight in scoring defense (15th) and red zone defense (23rd). Denver is predictable in the red zone, Tebow has only thrown one TD pass under 17 yards in his last nine games and New England can stack the line more or less safely. Even so, New England has only beaten two of their last five opponents by fourteen or more...and they were hardly a murderer's row; Indianapolis, Washington, Denver, Miami, Buffalo. Still, I'm going to take them. First, as I said with Seattle last year, I maintain that a fundamentally below average team only gets one of these, particulary at home. The emotional dropoff is going to be enormous. Second, Tom Brady (a healthy Tom Brady) versus Tim Tebow. Third, the Patriots are due, they have shockingly lost at home to the Jets and Ravens the last two appearances in the playoffs, I find it impossible to believe they will go 0 for 3. New England are 35-1 in the regular season at Gillette in their last thirty six. Fourth, turnovers - underdogs live on them. New England led the AFC in both takeaways and giveaways. They had a +17 turnover differential. Denver was -12. I tend to denigrate turnovers as lucky, but when it's 29 difference over a season, there's something to that. I don't care how bad New England's defense is, at home, if they win the turnover battle, they win the game. Fifth, the one hole in the Denver defense, with a busted Dawkins, is safety. Hi, Rob Gronkowski (1,327 yards, 17 TDs). Hi, Aaron Hernandez (910 yards, 7 TDs). Sixth, this is how the movie ends in real life when a pee wee team from Colorado plays one of the best teams in the sport. Finally, the difference between the home building and the road game for a team like Denver (or Seattle last season) is enormous, and when this gets ugly, expect it to be just as outrageously horrific as South Park's demonstration on the subject - no matter how many sick kids to whom Tebow has promised he will throw touchdowns. I'm not really comfortable sitting with New England, as I said, I hate picking this game, that's a lot of points and I do know just how atrocious defensively they are. But I'm not going to be with Tebow twice in a row, on the road, against Tom Brady - I'm just not.

HOUSTON (+7.5)
HOUSTON 16-13

A liability at quarterback, to be sure, but a dominant front seven, underappreciated offensive line and strong running game; for these reasons I give Baltimore a chance. Obviously I am being cute here, but these two teams really are very, very similiar in their construction. The difference between Flacco and Yates really is close to negligible, I'm not sure people realise how bad Flacco has been this year. He's thrown for under 200 yards in four of his last six games and has four picks in his last four games, despite throwing less and less as the season has worn on. He also has a terrible playoff record. In seven games (not that small a sample), Flacco has 4 TDs and 7 INT's with a 61.6 rating. Baltimore's front seven is better than Houston's though both are elite. Suggs has been a force of nature the last two years with 25 sacks. This was a career year, forcing seven fumbles and even grabbing two INT's. Ngata's dominance on the run is well known, and he has developed into a handy interior rusher the last two years as well, with 10.5 sacks. He can simply run over guys. Houston lack the star power but all seven players are superb. Where Houston have the advantage is in the secondary. Reed was not selected as an All Pro this year, and rightly so - he wasn't the same force at the back, babysitting Baltimore's perenially questionable secondary. Reed, who is now 33, had just 3 picks, and he is a player where his ball hawking is his best attribute. Joseph is the best defensive back in this game and Manning may just be the second best. Considering also that Andre Johnson, after a rusty start, rounded into form against the Bengals, is clearly the best receiver (by miles) in this game, and there's not much to choose between the teams. Foster and Rice are basically a wash, especially when you put Tate against Ricky Williams in the running game and that the Houston line is better.

I fully concede that Baltimore deserve favouritism. Houston in the Yates era certainly have not been overly convincing and Baltimore are 8-0 at home including, as has been well reported, a two score win over these Texans (with Schaub). But I have flown the flag proudly for Houston all year and will go down with the ship. I believe in this team - it has no holes. Even Yates has been presentable. Reading stuff around the net the last couple of weeks I kept hearing how Houston execute the best zone blocking in the league, they execute the best defensive stunts in the league, the best three tight end sets, the best play action etc. They are well coached, they execute, they are professional, they are tenacious and they are athletic. Baltimore were +77 in scoring differential after five games (culminating in the two touchdown win over this Houston team). They went +40 over their next eleven. Their biggest wins were over the Colts and Browns, by 14. Even reluctantly granting the Ravens favouritism, the spread of eight points (especially in an almost certain low scoring affair) again seems clueless to how good this Houston team is.

GREEN BAY (-7.5)
GREEN BAY 31-21

Certainly the Giants, by the end of the game, were absolutely humiliating a psychologically devastated Falcons team. They were dominant defensively (247 yards from Atlanta), even without much of a pass rush (2 sacks, 1 of which came in the final minute), which was a very pleasant surprise. Atlanta's offense was shut out. New York threw (3 TDs, 129.3 QB rating), they ran (172, 5.5 YPC), they did it all. So it's not surprising that everyone who watches football pursed their lips following the game with a prolonged "hmm", considering the Giants history as a lower seed. After all, Green Bay's offensive line, never that great, has been beat up and the Packers conceded eight sacks in their last three games. Including 4 at Kansas City, the supposed "blueprint" for beating the Packers (the Chiefs also have Brandon's Carr and Flowers to press, it should be said). No one seems better suited to get to Rodgers and stifle him based on this than Big Blue. But this is a tease. Green Bay wins their home games by nearly 19 points each. They knocked over the Giants in New Jersey, and then there's the matter of that secondary. Despite the gaudy total of 48 sacks (T-3rd, with Baltimore), this was a bad pass defense. They ranked 29th in YPG (255), 22nd in YPA (7.5), 20th in completion % (61.3) and even with 20 INTs, 21st in opp QB rating (86.1). And now the secondary might be without Aaron Ross and Deon Grant, and down to their squillionth defensive back. While it's easy to question the blocking or Green Bay's still terrible running game (3.9 YPC, 26th), the fact is you need to cover Finley, Nelson, Driver and Jennings. There's just no question whatsoever that the Giants literally can't do that with the personnel they have. You can't cover receivers of this quality with guys plucked from the stands. While it's nice that the Giants were great defensively without relying on the pass rush, the Packers are a different animal, and unless they are completely dominating the line (I mean to the tune of six or more sacks), there's no way they can stop, or even contain, Rodgers. When you find yourself saying "gee, the Giants are going to miss Aaron Ross", you're in trouble. Good luck hoping for turnovers to pull off the upset - Green Bay gave the ball up just 14 times this year, bested only by the Niners.

Green Bay has not lost at Lambeau since October last year. They are 19-1 (with the loss in OT) in Wisconsin over their last 20 there. I've read a lot about the 2007 NFC Championship game in Lambeau for some reason, but the last time they met the Giants in Lambeau, in late 2010, they won by four touchdowns. The Giants haven't played outside Jersey in a month. Their last road efforts were the miracle win in Dallas, a 25 point loss to the Saints and a loss by a TD to the Niners. I'm more interested to see Green Bay than any other team this weekend. Everyone seems to have literally gotten bored with their excellence. All you seem to hear recently about them is the Kansas City loss, as attention has moved to the Broncos and Saints. I expect Green Bay to respond, to remind everyone that they are the best team in the NFL, and did lose just one game all year. The Packers will be ok here.

Chris

SAN FRANCISCO (+4.0)
SAN FRANCISCO 23-21

The early game this weekend is easily the most intriguing matchup for me. The New Orleans Saints come into the contest after a decisive and unapologetic 45-28 victory over the Detroit Lions. Amassing an NFL playoff record 626 yards of offense, the Saints obliterated a mark that stood for nearly 50 years, further demonstrating why theirs is the most potent offense in pro football. Drew Brees, who threw for 466 yards and three touchdowns, refused to apologize for the Saints aggressive play calling at the end of the game, almost daring anyone to stop this irresistible force.

The immovable object opposing them this weekend will be the 13-3 San Francisco 49ers. A hard-nosed, unrelenting, blue collar team bred to win games the old fashioned way. The Niners resurgence back into NFL prominence is built on their eighth ranked rushing attack, sturdy run defense, and NFL best turnover ratio. The antithesis of their fast paced foes, San Francisco seems to be the perfect foil to the Saints. Just one of the remaining playoff teams threatening to render traditional playoff winning football a thing of the past.

I love teams with smash mouth defenses and punishing running games. So, it’s no secret that I favor the 49ers in this game. Let me rephrase that. I badly want the 49ers to win this game. In order for them to have any such chance of claiming victory, I think a couple of things absolutely have to happen. The first is, San Francisco must force turnovers. At least two, if not three. The Niners forced a league high 38 turnovers this season. Hooray team. Second and most importantly Alex Smith and their offense must convert said turnovers into points. And not just any ol’ points, but touchdowns. How they do either of these things, I don’t care. But, they must be done.

Twenty.

That is the lowest number of points scored by the Saints this season. Only four times in seventeen contests have they failed to score more than 25. Which means that New Orleans will score points. For all of the talk about the San Francisco defense, the praise is generally reserved for the front seven, and not the 16th ranked pass defense. Without question, opportunities in the passing game will be there for the Saints. Even if the Niners celebrated linebacker corp are able to neutralize Jimmy Graham, wideouts Marques Colston and Robert Meachem combined for eleven receptions and 231 yards against the Lions.

Personally speaking, I think the key will lie with the effectiveness of the Saints running game. If abandoned for any reason, it opens the door for additional turnover opportunities by the 49ers defense.

Another thing, all of this talk about New Orleans play outside the comforts of a dome is premature. Sure, wind could possibly be a factor, but I only see weather truly being an issue when the conditions are inclement. Say, in the frozen tundra of Lambeau field. But not in Candlestick, not this weekend.

I saw a stat that seemingly downplayed the Saints 23.8 scoring average in outside venues. As if 24 points a game were anything to sneeze at.

NEW ENGLAND (-13.5)
NEW ENGLAND 31-17

What we have in this AFC Divisional matchup is a telling of the classic story of David and Goliath. Save for a powerful passage in the King Goodell Version of the feat, in which Goliath has kicked David’s butt once already. Brady and Belicheck of course represent the Philistine giant who mocked the Israelites and eventually young David (played here by Tim Tebow) into battle. The legendary sling used to slay Goliath in the conventional telling of the story has been replaced by a rock carving of a kneeling figure that young David uses to crush the skull of hardheaded haters.

Last weekend the Denver Broncos did what I gave them absolutely no chance of doing. They won. I know the Steelers were besieged by injuries, but a playoff win is a playoff win, regardless of the circumstances. Ask the 2002 Raiders, or better yet, Tom Brady who was the recipient of a fortunate call in the now infamous “Tuck Rule Game”.

I don’t care how you win them, just win them. And you have to admit that the 80 yard, first play from scrimmage, game winning overtime catch and by Demaryius Thomas was a thing of beauty.

What worked last week may not work this week though. Sure, chances are the Broncos will have success running the ball against the same Patriots defense that surrendered 252 in their first meeting. Tebow may even connect consistently against the Patriots 31st ranked passing defense, especially if he can avoid fumbles in the pocket. But, if David is to slay Goliath in this NFL rendition, Tim Tebow might want to pray that the Broncos defense doesn’t retreat after seeing the whites of the Patriots eyes. Don’t expect the Patriots to fall behind early at home in the playoffs like the 16-7 deficit they faced in Week 15. Can defensive ends Robert Ayers and Elvis Dumervil put pressure on Tom Brady early and often? The defense combined for just two sacks in the first meeting, with both basically coming at inconsequential points in the game.

Thirteen of Brady’s twenty three completions in the 41-23 victory at Mile High went to Tight Ends Aaron Hernandez and Rob Gronkowski. For 182 yards, I might add. I fully expect Wes Welker to be more involved in the offense this time around. The running game will provide just enough support, as the embattled New England offensive line continues to serve Tom Slick well enough that he is able to methodically pick apart a solid Denver defense. I think that the Denver defense would need to play out of its mind to win at Gillette, and I just don’t see it, as they won’t be facing a hobbled quarterback and offense beset by a host of injuries.

HOUSTON (+7.5)
BALTIMORE 23-17

The other matchup that I am really looking forward to this weekend is the Texans versus Ravens contest. One word comes to mind most often when I think about this game.

Pressure.

Houston scored 24 unanswered points last weekend against the Bengals for the franchise’s first playoff win, 31-10. As expected, the Texans were anchored by a 153 yard, two touchdown performance from Arian Foster, and four turnovers from its second ranked defense. The most impressive of those turnovers coming at the cat like reflexes of lineman J.J. Watt, who intercepted an Andy Dalton pass, returning it 29 yards for the pick six.

In following the script of what has become a gritty drama since the departure of many of the show’s main characters, the Texans allowed their quarterback, rookie T.J. Yates to perform on the big stage without the pressure of being the lead. Yates sputtered a bit early on, but removed any doubts of being camera shy after finding returning co-star Andre Johnson for a third quarter score down the sideline.

The Texans should shun any thoughts of improv this week if they hope to extend their show’s run. Stick to the script of running the ball and playing stellar defense. Pressure from its front seven will be the deciding factor, as Ravens QB Joe Flacco has yet to demonstrate the chops to win on the big stage and can possibly be rattled into a subpar performance.

Speaking of pressure, the Baltimore Ravens, veterans of quite a few playoff wars may bear the brunt of it this week. As the last of three playoff teams from AFC North, the Ravens are obviously battle tested and should be the favorite to make it to Indianapolis. Especially with the dismissal of arch nemesis Pittsburgh who have eliminated the Ravens from the playoffs in two of the last three seasons.

Obviously, their defense will carry the day for Baltimore, as it always has. What will be different this time around is that the Ravens will depend primarily on the dominating play of defensive player of the year candidate Terrell Suggs and Heloti Ngata instead of Ray Lewis and Ed Reed to lead the team to victory. What hasn’t been consistent for the Ravens is their offense. Ray Rice must have a solid day for Baltimore to win this game. Flacco must also show immunity to pressure and find ways to get Anquan Boldin involved in the offense early on.

It should definitely be noted that the Ravens went undefeated in the toughest division in football, and is 6-0 against playoff teams this season. No pressure.

While their Week 6 matchup saw the Ravens post a 29-14 victory, I expect the outcome to be closer this time.

GREEN BAY (-7.5)
GREEN BAY 34-23

First off, I would like to give my condolences to the Packer football family and specifically to offensive coordinator Joe Philbin who lost his son Michael this week in a tragic drowning. There is no doubt that the team will open defense of their Super Bowl titles with a heavy heart.

While there is no question that the New York Giants empathize with the Packers organization during what must be an exceptionally difficult time, the games will go on. Aside from obvious feelings of empathy, I’m sure that every Giants players thoughts are on the 3 point home loss to Green Bay in early December. The Giants certainly gave a good showing of themselves, taking the league’s best team to the brink, losing on a last minute 80 yard drive, capped by a Mason Crosby field goal as time expired. The Giants were able to keep the game close by exploiting the Packers secondary and putting pressure on Rodgers, recording three sacks in the process.

I believe the formula will need to be very similar this weekend if the Giants are to give themselves a chance at keeping the game close enough to pull off a possible upset. The Packers secondary has struggled for much of the season, ranking last in the league, so I fully expect Pro Bowler Eli Manning to have another solid performance against this defense. What may be an even bigger factor this time around is the ground attack of the Giants. Ranked dead last during the regular season, Brandon Jacobs and Ahmad Bradshaw totaled more than 150 yards in their victory over the Falcons.

As for the reigning Super Bowl champs, a simple return to normalcy would be welcomed. The last memories of the Packers are of Matt Flynn thrashing the Detroit Lions defense for single game franchise records in yards and touchdowns. Aaron Rodgers cheered from the sidelines, resting up for the moment at hand. The rest was much deserved as Rodgers put together what many consider to be the single greatest season of quarterback play in NFL history. Rodgers 45 touchdowns, 4,643 passing yards, 6 Interceptions and NFL record 122.5 passer rating support that claim. Thing is, the numbers probably don’t do his play justice. Watching Rodgers pinpoint accuracy, deft mobility, and unmatched focus on the field this season was certainly something special.

The return of Greg Jennings to the offense after missing three games with a sprained knee will be important for the Packers. Jennings is the leader of an exceptional receiving corp that includes Jordy Nelson whose 1263 yards led the Packers, and garnered his first Pro Bowl selection.

The key to this game will obviously be the matchup between the Giants formidable pass rush and the Packers ability to protect Rodgers. If the Giants are able to have similar success that allowed them to rout the Falcons 24-2, a repeat of their 2007 title run could be a realistic goal. If that pass rush is unsuccessful or non-existent against the Packers, expect Green Bay to pull away in the second half of this game.

Ben

San Francisco (+4.0)

San Francisco 27-20

I feel like many people have been somewhat discounting San Francisco all year. Maybe it is the East Coast bias, perhaps it is that many people can’t accept a team led by Alex Smith is 13-3 and must think the 49ers record is an apparition, or maybe the 49ers just get lost in the shuffle among the sexier teams who score a ton of points. Tough defense and a ball-control offense doesn't play to the public as well as an explosive offense does. A not-so-secret is the Saints really aren’t that great of a road team. Granted, they aren't terrible on the road, but they aren't the same Saints teams as they are at the Superdome (or Mercedes-Benz Dome...whatever it is called). All three of their losses this year have come on the road, including losing games to Tampa Bay and St. Louis. Granted, those losses were all in the beginning of the season and the Saints are on an offensive roll right now. Still, here are the scores for the Saints road games this year:

@ Green Bay 42-34 (loss)

@Jacksonville 23-10 (win)

@Carolina 30-27 (win)

@Tampa Bay 26-20 (loss)

@St. Louis 31-21 (loss)

@Atlanta 26-23 (win)

@Tennessee 23-17 (win)

@Minnesota 42-20 (win)

Notice something? The Saints play close games on the road, especially compared to their home games. I'm not sure if this means anything, but it tells me playing in San Francisco gives the 49ers a better shot of beating the Saints. The Saints are 5-1 against playoff teams this year. Of course the 49ers are 4-1 against playoff teams this year. So I’m not saying the Saints are overrated or anything of the like. I’m saying this isn’t going to be a runaway game for the Saints, despite the fact they look unstoppable right now. The key to beating the Saints is to get pressure on Drew Brees and the 49ers defense can do that. The 49ers have 42 sacks on the year. The Saints blitz a lot, in fact they had the second-most blitzes in the NFL this year, yet they only had 33 sacks on the season. I’m not sure how significant this is, but it at least tells me the Saints aren’t exactly comfortable their front four can get pressure on the QB alone. What this means is they will blitz Alex Smith and Smith has a 96.7 rating when blitzed this year.

While I don’t buy the notion the Saints can’t score points on the road, I also recognize the Saints have been hanging 40+ points on teams ranked 23^rd, 28^th, 12^th, and 21^st in defense over the past four weeks. I probably harp on this more than I should, but the 49ers have the formula I look for to beat a team like the Saints. There are three keys I see to beating a team like the Saints. Here they are with the 49ers corresponding strength in parenthesis:

1. You must get pressure on Drew Brees and not allow him time in the pocket to go through his progressions. (49ers have NFL’s 4^th ranked defense and 7^th most sacks on the season)

2. You have to keep the ball out of Drew Brees hands and make the Saints defense stay on the field. (49ers have a strong rushing game and enough offensive weapons to give Alex Smith the opportunity to make plays in the passing game)

3. You must control have disciplined and talented linebackers who can begin to limit Jimmy Graham and Darren Sproles' touches. (The 49ers start Patrick Willis, NaVarro Bowman, Ahmad Brooks, Aldon Smith, Parys Haralson...all good linebackers)

Perhaps I have talked myself into this pick a bit too much because the 49ers meet some mystic “formula” I am looking for. Maybe I want the Saints to lose and I am picking against them for that reason. I believe the 49ers can slow down Drew Brees, control the ball on offense and take care of the football while causing Saints turnovers. The 49ers will beat the Saints on Saturday and for some reason I do feel a bit crazy even typing this. I shouldn’t believe it, but I do.

Denver (+13.5)

New England 35-24

Wow, this spread. I have been told by a couple of people the Patriots are going to blow the Broncos out in this game. I'm not as sure as others may be. Yes, the Patriots beat the Broncos by 18 the last time they played and this time the Patriots are at home. So all indications are this will not be a close game. I’m still kind of surprised at the spread in this game. This may be a game I am over-thinking a bit too much. I know ESPN has breathlessly reported Tom Brady is motivated to have a great game in order to beat Tim Tebow and I should expect him to be at his peak performance, but I’m not sure I can allow this to affect my pick. I have a lot of respect for John Fox and I can think of two examples of when Carolina (Fox’s old team) got beat in the regular season by a team and then Carolina came back to handily beat that team in the playoffs. The first is Dallas in the 2003 playoffs and the second is Chicago in the 2005 playoffs. Both times his team got handed their ass in the regular season and bounced back to beat that team in the playoffs. I have criticized Fox in the past, but he learns from what his team did wrong when they lose to a team. So I expect adjustments from the Broncos coaching staff in this game. I still expect the Patriots to beat the Broncos, but I think it will be a fairly close game.

On paper, I have no reason to believe the Broncos can win this game. The Patriots are at home, which despite recent history does mean something, and I believe Tom Brady can have success against the Broncos secondary. I also believe the Broncos can shorten the game by running the ball on the New England defense. As much of a defensive mastermind as Belichick has (had) a reputation for, the Patriots are going to have to stop the run and I’m not sure the Patriots will have success doing that. The Broncos showed an impressive downfield passing game last week because the Steelers left one man on the Broncos receivers. I can see the Patriots ensuring QB Broncos has to throw the ball into more traffic than that by keeping a safety back. Of course, this could inhibit the Patriots ability to stop the run, so that’s the Catch-22. Belichick knows he has an offense that can score, so he will want to make the Broncos work on offense and limit them to field goals. One other points...the Broncos secondary is somewhat banged up and John Fox defenses have traditionally struggled to stop tight ends and the Patriots have two great tight ends in Gronkowski and Hernandez. This game will be close, but I expect the Patriots to win. Though, at this point nothing the Broncos do will surprise me.

Baltimore (-7.5)

Baltimore 24-14

This is a playoff game between two similar teams. Both teams have very good defenses and quarterbacks I don’t completely trust. T.J. Yikes is a rookie who the Texans trust to be a game manager, but I’m not sure how much more than that he is capable of doing at this point. Joe Flacco seems to be regressing in some ways at this point in his career. He is not quite at the Mark Sanchez level in terms of receiving criticism for his performance, but I think many believe Flacco should be further along than he is at this point. The Ravens have tried to get Flacco weapons to work with and this year he rewarded them with a career low completion percentage and a career low quarterback rating. It’s not at the point he’s holding the Ravens back, but I still feel nervous betting he can win a couple playoff games. The Ravens beat the Texans earlier in the year without Andre Johnson, but with Matt Schaub. Now the Texans don’t have Schaub, but they will have Johnson for this game. I’m not sure that’s an even exchange.

To be honest, I’m not comfortable with this spread. I think it is too high. Of course, I am picking the Ravens to beat the spread, so perhaps the spread actually isn't too high. The Texans are going to try and pound the Ravens defense with the run and give T.J. Yikes some passing room to throw the ball. On defense, I expect the Texans to have a similar gameplan. They want to force Joe Flacco to throw the ball and take Ray Rice out of the game. If they remove Rice from the game, they have to believe there is a good chance to leave Baltimore with a win. I don’t really trust either quarterback, but I trust the Ravens defense at home to shut down the Texans running game and get pressure on T.J. Yikes. The Ravens are a much better home team than they are a road team, so I don’t know how I feel about them after this week, but I will worry about that next week. This week I think they take care of business at home and put a Texans team that was struggling at the end of the season and had their death rattle last week against a mediocre Bengals team.

Packers (-7.5)

Green Bay 31-17

I’ve heard a lot this week about how great the Giants front four is and how the Giants are going to rush four and flood Aaron Rodgers passing lanes. I’ve also heard how this Giants team is so similar to the 2007 Giants team. Unfortunately, there are no second acts in American lives (deep and a rip-off of a famous line, I know). This is a good Giants team, but the Packers are running like a well-oiled machine. They proved this in Week 17 by putting up 45 points against the Lions without Aaron Rodgers and with Matt “I’ll Take My Free Agent Payday in Straight Cash” Flynn as the quarterback. The Packers defense stinks. They give up a ton of points and yardage. While knowing this, I also will recognize much of the Packers defensive problems through the air are the result of teams passing the ball to catch up with them. I’m not making excuses for the Packers defensive deficiencies, just acknowledging that passing ranking may be a bit overstated. The ranking of 14^th against the run is not overstated. I’m not confident the Packers can stop teams from running the ball, but the game has to be close in order for their opponent to run the ball. This hasn't always happened this year.

As I stated last week, I believe the Giants can run the ball still. Bradshaw/Jacobs are still a good combination and Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks are fantastic receivers (Where is Ian O’Connor talking about how the Giants screwed up by not re-signing Plaxico Burress? He’s strangely silent about his overreaction to Burress’s first preseason game where he claimed the Giants needed to re-sign Burress) on the outside. I question whether the Giants will commit to running the ball like they possibly should. The Giants would have beaten the Packers the first time around in New York if it weren’t for the Packers marching down the field swiftly to win the game. I don’t believe this game will be quite as close as that game was. While the Giants looked good against the Falcons last week, that Falcons team wasn’t able to test the Giants defense like the Packers offense will. The two week layoff will probably not affect Aaron Rodgers very much and as great as the Giants front four is, it has to be good because otherwise Rodgers will be able to pick apart the Giants secondary. I see the Packers possibly allowing a tight end to stay in to help block the Giants pass rushers having full confidence Rodgers can put the ball in his receiver’s hands with seven defenders back in coverage. I can’t deny the similarities between the 2007 Giants and the 2011 Giants, but I think the similarities will end here. The Packers offense is too strong and the Packers defense will not allow Manning to beat them with big plays in the passing game. I believe the Packers will win by trying to slow down the Giants front four pass rush and testing the Giants weakened secondary. My wife’s parents are Giants fans and are in town this weekend, so I probably hope for a Giants victory…though I don’t think it will happen.

SEAN: NO -4.0, NE -13.5, HOU +7.5, NYG +7.5
JON: SF +4.0, DEN +13.5, BAL -7.5, NYG +7.5
JIMMY: NO -4.0, NE -13.5, HOU +7.5, GB -7.5
CHRIS: SF +4.0, NE -13.5, HOU +7.5, GB -7.5
BEN: SF +4.0, DEN +13.5, BAL -7.5, GB -7.5
Bill Simmons: SF +4.0, NE -13.5, BAL -7.5, GB -7.5

TMQ: Back in Gregg's Day Defenders Didn't Celebrate After Making a Great Play, Except for When They Did

2012-01-12T14:52:00.001-05:00

Last week Gregg used statistics to talk about how amazing it was the Packers and Patriots were the #1 seeds in each of their respective conferences while also having the lowest ranked defenses in the NFL. This week Gregg discusses the prevalence of the spread offense and how we should just learn to deal with its presence in the NFL. This has been an issue that has been keeping me up at night, so I'm glad Gregg is finally addressing this problem. Gregg also does his usual second-guessing of any coach's decision that didn't end up working and then blaming a team's playoff loss solely on that decision.

It's the year of offensive stat-a-rama throughout the NFL. There have been five 5,000-yard passing seasons in NFL history; three of them were this year.

And Dan Marino's single season passing yardage record, the same one Gregg said would not be broken, was broken by two players this year.

Three of the top five rushing teams missed the playoffs

On a possibly related note as to why these teams missed the playoffs, two of these three teams that missed the playoffs also had rookie quarterbacks.

while all the top five passing teams made the postseason.

On another possibly related note as to why these teams made the playoffs, the quarterbacks for these five teams are Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Matthew Stafford and Eli Manning. Perhaps the key to making the playoffs is to have a really good quarterback? If I were Gregg Easterbrook I would write 5000 words about how I just made the earth-shattering revelation a really good quarterback is important in order to win football games and then act as if I am the first one to observe this "new" development.

Detroit just gained a spectacular 882 yards passing in two games over six days -- and lost both because opponents gained 928 yards passing.

It sure sounds like having a better pass defense would have helped the Lions win these games. Of course last week we learned from Gregg that the new-age NFL may not require a good defense because the two best teams in the AFC and NFC don't have good defenses.

The league's No. 1 defense, the Pittsburgh Steelers, is already out of the playoffs, torched by Denver. In this year of offensive stat-a-rama, even a sputtering offense trumped the best defense!

Denver gained 447 yards of offense against the Steelers. The Broncos offense was sputtering, but it definitely wasn't sputtering against the Steelers. Plus, the Steelers were missing 2/3 of their starting defensive line, their starting safety and had an important linebacker (James Harrison) that seemed to be injured. I'm sure this isn't relevant at all to the Steelers giving up nearly 450 yards in a playoff game.

Much of the same is happening in college football. In the Rose Bowl, Wisconsin gained 508 yards on offense, which a generation ago would have meant a walkover triumph. Wisconsin lost because Oregon gained 621 yards. The University of Houston averaged 599 yards of offense per outing.

And Houston did have many a walkover triumph and lost only one game this year. So the indication that Houston didn't walkover teams, yet scored a lot of points isn't entirely accurate. Houston was 35th in college football in points allowed.

What is going on? I journeyed alone to a distant mountaintop -- OK, a distant parking lot -- to ask the football gods. Their answer: The children of the shotgun spread have come home.

I like how Gregg's own theories don't always support each other. Gregg loves to tell us college programs put their best athletes on offense, because offense is more entertaining than defense. So naturally one would think the best athletes in the NFL would also be on offense since that's the side of the ball these players played in college. This is not true now or this is now only partially true. Now Gregg says the children of the shotgun spread have come home. I can't wait to find out what this means exactly.

The children of the shotgun spread are advancing to the next levels. Players who spent their teen years in passing leagues -- and in seven-on-seven, everybody wants to play offense, nobody wants to be on defense -- have headed to college.

This is somewhat interesting. I don't know if "nobody" wants to be on defense, but I can see how passing leagues and seven-on-seven has caused an increase in passing at higher levels. Is this an interesting story to talk about right in the middle of the NFL playoffs? I'll let you as the reader decide that.

A generation ago, college coaches put their best athletes on defense and tried to shut people down. In recent years, with a few exceptions such as LSU's cornerbacks, colleges have put their best athletes on offense.

There are other exceptions in college football like the entire Alabama defense and pretty much any other team that has athletic players on defense. I also find it interesting Gregg is claiming colleges put their best athletes on defense, which I would hypothesize if this were completely true then the NFL Draft would have more offensive players drafted than defensive players. At the very least I would think a significant larger amount of offensive players would be taken in the first round as compared to defensive players taken in the first round. Maybe my hypothesis is wrong, but logic would dictate to me if the best players are on offense, those are the players that would get drafted higher in the NFL.

In the 2011 NFL Draft 129 of the 254 players were defenders, including 16 of the 32 first round picks.

In the 2010 NFL Draft 136 of the 255 players selected were defenders, including 18 of the 32 first round picks.

In the 2009 NFL Draft 123 of the 256 players selected were defenders, including 13 of the 32 first round picks.

In the 1994 NFL Draft, 104 of the 222 players selected were defenders, including 16 of the 29 first round picks.

In the 1995 NFL Draft, 119 of the 249 players selected were defenders, including 14 of the 32 first round picks.

In the 1996 NFL Draft, 120 of the 254 players selected were defenders, including 13 of the 32 first round picks.

I'm not sure this really proves anything to be honest and I randomly picked the 1994-1996 NFL Draft to see what the results yielded, so I had no ulterior motive to choosing those three years. It seems to be college teams may be putting their best athletes on offense, but this doesn't mean there aren't great athletes on defense nor is there a lack of top-end athletic talent coming into the NFL Draft. So Gregg may be right about why the NFL is becoming such a passing league, but I'm not sure the explanation is as easy as saying many of the best athletes coming out of college are being put on the offensive side of the ball.

At the same time, defense has moved from discipline to personal flash as its highest attainment. Ours is a visual society, and Clay Matthews -- flowing long hair, showing his biceps in wild celebrations after a sack -- is at the moment the epitome of the defensive visual. Jack Lambert would get the tackle, Bruce Smith would get the sack, then they'd just walk back to the defensive huddle.

YAY! More Gregg Easterbrook lies! Check out Bruce Smith 10 seconds into this video. Either Smith just shit his pants and has one last turd hanging on for dear life or he appears to be doing a sack dance of some sort. Reality is just never as much fun as fiction. Bruce Smith didn't get the sack and just walk back to the defensive huddle. He celebrated.

Today's defensive players are bored by topics like tackling fundamentals or stripping blockers so a teammate can make the play: They want to generate flashy "SportsCenter" visuals like Matthews does.

"And what's with today's music? It's all about creating an image and not about great music. The Beatles were never worried about an image, they only wanted to make music. Why doesn't my perceived reality match up exactly with the real world's reality?"

If that means boatloads of offensive yards surrendered for every one flashy sack, so be it. The defender who misses what should have been a routine wrap-up tackle, because he's hurled himself into space hoping to become a highlight, is as much an image of this football season as the big passing day.

Nothing is more persuasive to Gregg's point of view than talking in complete generalities about a subject. We all know there isn't a single defender that missed a tackle or missed a sack before the year 2000 (or whatever year Gregg believes these missed tackles by showboating players started). I'd love to hear about these boatloads of offensive yards surrendered for every flashy sack, and see examples of this in today's game versus video of NFL players "in the past" never missing a tackle or a sack. Of course Gregg can't provide this because he's just talking out his ass and hopes his readers don't actually do research to prove him wrong.

In other football news, just perhaps you heard about Tim Tebow's Broncos posting another implausible win.

Implausible? If I'm not wrong, the Broncos led the entire game. The Broncos also won the coin toss in overtime. I'm not sure how giving up a lead and then winning the game in overtime is seen as being "implausible," but I guess that's the standard fallback wording when talking about anything QB Broncos does. The Broncos can be leading for the entire game, yet QB Broncos led an "implausible" win.

Tebow should dress in a tunic, like Sir Galahad, whilst monks watch for signs of the devil incarnating around the New England bench.

Because the best thing for QB Broncos to do is buy into the hype and stereotypes the media is perpetuating about him.

A year ago, TMQ warned , "The new format does not guarantee each team a chance at the ball. If Team A receives the opening kickoff and scores a touchdown, the game simply ends." Back to the drawing board for overtime formats, please. How about alternating possessions beginning at the 50, and no kicking plays allowed?

I could possibly favor this rule.

Stats of the Wild-Card Round No. 3: Tony Gonzalez, No. 2 receiver in NFL history, is 0-5 in the postseason.

Clearly Tony Gonzalez is a drain on whatever team he plays for. No wonder the Falcons lost to the Giants. Did they even have a chance to win the game with Julio Jones and Tony Gonzalez on the roster?

Stats of the Wild-Card Round No. 8: The city of Houston got its first NFL postseason win in 20 years.

Of course the city of Houston didn't have an NFL team for a few of those years...but who cares about details such as this?

The only thing that did not go Houston's way on this decisive snap was that Texans corner Jonathan Joseph should have knocked the pass down, which would have given Houston possession at midfield, rather than catch the ball, giving Houston possession on its 24. Fourth down, knock it down! Even if Houston coaches were shouting this, every defensive back knows interception stats are essential to future contract offers.

Which is exactly why Nnadmi Asomugha (career interceptions: 14 in nine years) and Darrelle Revis (career interceptions: 3 in five years) are two of the highest paid corners in the NFL. Because they have so many interceptions and all.

(As so kindly pointed out by Justin in the comments, I am a moron. Revis has 18 interceptions for his career. I looked at the wrong column for that statistic when writing this. Very embarrassing. My larger point is quality cornerbacks often don't get interceptions because the ball doesn't get thrown their way)

Denver takes possession on its 20 for the first snap of an all-new postseason overtime format that supposedly ensures no team will face defeat without a chance to touch the ball. Denver scores to win, which is sweet; the overtime format fails on its very first try, which sour.

The new overtime format isn't specifically designed for both teams to get a score. This is fairly obvious. So Gregg is incorrect in believing this is the intent of the new overtime format. The new overtime format is designed to ensure the team with the ball at the beginning of overtime has to score a touchdown or else the opposing team gets a possession. So I wouldn't say the new overtime format failed in any way because the Broncos scored a touchdown on their first possession.

Demaryius Thomas ran a simple in route, then was able to leg it to the end zone because there was no one back for Pittsburgh. Ike Taylor, a cornerback, was the sole Pittsburgh player with any depth, and he got outrun.

Or as I look at it, a highly-drafted, highly-paid first round glory boy draft pick threw an 80-yard touchdown pass to another highly-drafted, highly-paid first round glory boy draft pick and a lowly fourth round pick was beaten on the play. Gregg would never look at it this way though, because it would ruin the continuous lie he tries to perpetrate on his readers that highly drafted players rarely perform well compared to lowly drafted players.

The absence of safety Ryan Clark was a factor on this play -- his backup, Ryan Mundy, was charging toward the line at the snap, guessing run. Mike Tomlin was right not to dress Clark, who has sickle-cell trait, which makes exertion dangerous for him in high altitude. But Mundy didn't charge the line of scrimmage because the mood struck him. He was coached to do this when the Steelers read rush, and did so several times on first down in regulation.

Oh so NOW Gregg believes cornerbacks and safeties play a certain type of coverage because the coaching staff tells them to do so. Week after week we have to endure Gregg acting as if cornerbacks and safeties just freelance in the secondary and don't cover players they are supposed to be covering (when most likely the defense being called is a zone defense) because they just don't feel like it. Week after week I try to point out defensive players could simply be executing the play that was called. But now to avoid criticizing a 6th round draft pick, Gregg points out Mundy was only playing the defense that was called.

Tuesday Morning Quarterback maintains that the essence of the short-yardage play is misdirection. Boy, did Atlanta offer misdirection. First the Falcons shifted to an unbalanced line; then a back shifted; then a player simulated man-in-motion; then another back shifted; then Matt Ryan barked a hard count; then a man went in motion.

And yet the play failed. It is almost like Gregg's contention misdirection will always help to pick up the first down is bullshit. That could never be true though, right?

At the conclusion of the waltz, Ryan tried a sneak and was stuffed.

But the Falcons used misdirection! How can this be?

Yet Ryan just plowed ahead. Why didn't he audible to a pass? With eight defenders in the box and Atlanta having three men split wide, the home run pass should have been open -- a touchdown for Atlanta here would have changed the game.

And of course the home run pass was guaranteed to result in a touchdown, so the Falcons are stupid for not changing their play which would have immediately resulted in a touchdown...obviously. Do you know what else would have changed the game? If the Falcons had converted the fourth-and-one.

Arguably, Atlanta did not go for it enough! On the possession after the first fourth-and-1 failure, the Falcons punted on fourth-and-1 from the Jersey/A 42. Sure the last fourth-and-1 failed, but just because a coin came up heads on the last 10 flips tells nothing about what will happen on the next flip.

Unfortunately, this isn't a coin flip and the Giants defense had shown it could stop the Falcons on fourth-and-one.

Punting on fourth-and-1 in opposition territory is a punk move.

That's right homie. It's a punk move. Ya' hear?

Seeing their coaches quit, Falcons players quit. In the third quarter, Jersey/A faced third-and-7. Megabucks corner Dunta Robinson, one of the highest-paid defenders in the NFL -- paid much more than Atlanta corner Brent Grimes, a better player --

Based on what evidence? None? Sounds great then Gregg, just don't let the truth get in the way of your story, that's all I ask.

I'm not saying Robinson is a better corner than Grimes. I'm saying Gregg Easterbrook has provided no proof, outside of his own opinion, this statement is factual. Gregg Easterbrook has a magical way of stating an opinion as if it was a fact without providing any evidence his contention is correct.

In a year of gimmick defenses -- two linemen, zone rushes, safety blitzes --

All of these are gimmick defenses soon to be gone tomorrow.

Can they do so again? Kansas City showed that the formula for beating Green Bay is to frustrate Aaron Rodgers' receivers with bump-and-run and then, once holding even a slight lead, control the clock with power rushing against the Packers' (relatively) lightweight front seven, which is built to stop the pass after Green Bay jumps ahead.

Another key to beating the Packers is to outscore them after playing four quarters of football.

But remember what happened the last time Jersey/A went to Lambeau in the postseason.

Brett Favre threw an interception in overtime?

The Falcons have already spent much of their 2012 draft position to obtain Julio Jones. The Raiders have already spent much of their 2012 draft position to obtain Carson Palmer and Terrelle Pryor. Atlanta and Oakland, the teams that in 2011 mortgaged 2012 draft picks to win now, did not win now.

Julio Jones is a rookie wide receiver. A rookie. Jones almost had 1000 yards receiving this year for the Falcons. As a rookie. Maybe this won't end up being the best trade in the history of the NFL, but the jury is still very much out on whether the Falcons "mortgaged" their draft picks and whether this trade was a failure.

Starting defensive coordinator Wade Phillips returned to action, and the defense performed better. Philips called a few "overload" blitzes, including one that produced a key third-quarter sack. With the Cincinnati offensive line looking confused and sluggish, the overload blitz was the right tactic.

But I thought all blitzes resulted in long gains for the offense? How could the Texans have blitzed and it ended up working? Was Wade Phillips simply calling an overload blitz to show how smart he is and remind everyone he is coordinating the defense again? Hasn't Gregg told us defensive coordinators blitz a lot to draw attention to themselves? Or is that only Rob Ryan who does this?

Two referees over the weekend referred to hits to "the head and neck area." What's the difference between the neck and the "neck area?"

I'm guessing the "neck area" is right above the neck, but below the jaw? Or perhaps it doesn't really matter so shut up.

Good pass blocking allowed Tebow to carve up the Steelers' No. 1-ranked pass defense. Zane Beadles, noted in this column last week as a Pro Bowl snub, had a tremendous game, including pulling and knocking down two men on Tebow's touchdown run

Doesn't Gregg mean "second round pick Zane Beadles?" Actually, I should remember Gregg only mentions a player's draft spot when it is convenient for him to prove a point he wants to make. Gregg avoids mentioning a player's draft status in the hopes of misleading his readers who don't care to do research in order to find out Gregg is often full of shit. So you can bet if Zane Beadles wasn't drafted in the second round and was undrafted Gregg would point out this little fact out to his readers.

What should the Flying Elvii be on the lookout for as Denver arrives? The Denver offense sputters. But there is no NFL playbook for countering what Tebow does.

There is no specific playbook to counter what a lot of NFL offenses do. It is all in the execution based on a strategy the defense is using to stop what the offense wants to do. The Patriots can try to keep Tebow in the pocket, get pressure in his face (up the middle), and ensure he doesn't have a clear throwing lane on passing plays. The Patriots defense can also try to stay with the play design to not allow the running back to break containment to the outside, force Tebow to pitch the ball early when running the option, and tackle well on running plays. Like most things in the NFL, it is all about the execution.

Twice in an NFL playoff contest, the Detroit defense had no one even attempting to guard a New Orleans receiver. It's not that the receiver beat his man -- there was no one to beat!

It is almost like the Saints are good at designing pass plays to get their receivers open.

Pittsburgh defeated New England in part by jamming its receivers at the line to throw off timing; Kansas City defeated Green Bay in part by the same tactic. Will the Broncos and Giants play bump-and-run against the Patriots and Packers?

They should! Because that's the one surefire way of beating the Packers and the Packers. Jam their receivers on the line and a win will immediately follow. Why haven't other teams thought of using this simple tactic to beat the Packers and Patriots?

Woody Paige Now Has Further Evidence the Patriots are Evil

2012-01-11T14:34:00.000-05:00

Woody Paige is not happy Josh McDaniels is working for the New England Patriots. McDaniels was released from his contract with the Rams and was free to get employment anywhere he wanted. Out of left field for no reason, he chose to get employment as an offensive assistant (and probable offensive coordinator next year) for the Patriots, a team he has no ties to other than having worked for them four years ago under the same head coach and the same quarterback. Then New England, using their magical psychic powers about who they would play in the next round, hired McDaniels before the Steelers-Broncos game as if to pretend they don't hold supernatural powers and didn't know the Broncos would win this game. Of course McDaniels was hired close enough to the Broncos victory over the Steelers to set off Woody Paige's bullshit meter.

Woody Paige also wants us to remember Spygate and that the Patriots are super-duper cheaters who are trying to ruin the playoff chances of the Broncos by revealing John Fox's coaching secrets to the Patriots. Apparently Woody has absolutely zero regard for Mike McCoy's offensive system and misses the entire point that teams have known for a while what the Broncos are going to do, they just can't stop it because the Broncos are executing very well right now. McCoy threw in new offensive wrinkles against the Steelers and I would imagine he will do it against the Patriots as well. So it isn't like McDaniels knows the entire Broncos offense.

I do get why some people have a problem with the Patriots hiring McDaniels. It seems like they want a person on staff with familiarity to the Broncos team and system. Of course the Patriots started talking to McDaniels before the Broncos beat the Steelers, but I guess that is seen as irrelevant. The Patriots beat the Broncos just a month ago in Denver without the help of McDaniels, so that may be seen as irrelevant as well. Not to mention John Fox is running a different offensive scheme (the option and all of that) and defense from what McDaniels ran while in Denver. Again, this point is probably seen as irrelevant by Woody. I think I would have more of a problem with this if McDaniels asked to get out of his contract with the Rams to go to New England, which there isn't any indication happened. I would also have a problem if this type of thing was against the rules, which it isn't. Maybe it should be, but it isn't against the rules right now.

Josh McDaniels is reuniting with Bill Belichick for "I Spy: The Second Sequel."

I wish I could say Woody goes ahead and gets the whole "Spygate" joke out of the way, but these jokes are all through this column. Spygate happened 4-5 years (depending on when you believe Spygate started) ago. Yes, McDaniels taped six minutes of the Niners practice last year and got fined $50,000. It's over now. We should let it burn.

The Broncos certainly should not hold a walkthrough practice at the razor stadium on the eve of Saturday night's playoff game. They don't know who'll be watching, taping and stealing signals, schemes and plays.

(shaking head sadly) Simply because these jokes are easy, doesn't make it right to use them. On second thought, it doesn't seem like Woody is even joking when he says this. We wouldn't want the Broncos super-secret offensive game plan of running the ball to set up long passes to be revealed to the public.

Will Belichick and McDaniels be rehiring Steve Scarnecchia too? The former Patriots and Broncos videographer is the son of Patriots longtime assistant Dante Scarnecchia,

Dante Scarnecchia? Just like "Dante's Inferno" which took place in Hell. Do you know who lives in Hell? Satan. Do you know who doesn't like Satan? God and Jesus. Do you know who likes God and Jesus? Tim Tebow. So this game is pretty much good versus evil. I hope this puts the hiring of McDaniels in perspective. It's just another way for Satan to claim a victory for his favorite NFL team, the New England Patriots.

He was a willing, admitted participant in both Spygate and McSpygate.

Has Woody contacted the police to notify them of this yet? He really should. The Patriots clearly have hired McDaniels to tape Broncos practices in order to discover the secrets of the Broncos offense that Woody Paige claims McDaniels already knows by being the Broncos head coach over the previous two years.

What a crock of a coincidence this is.

You mean like the coincidence that the Broncos signed Willis McGahee this past offseason FULLY KNOWING he played for the Ravens last year in preparation for the Broncos playing the Steelers this year in the playoffs? So the Broncos sign a player who has played the Steelers twice a year and is familiar with their blitz schemes? What a crock of a coincidence. Next year, the Broncos play the Panthers in Carolina. Well guess who used to coach in Carolina and knows those locker rooms and players inside and out? John Fox. To make matters worse, Dante Rosario played for the Panthers and guess who he plays for now? The Broncos. You're telling me Rosario and Fox can't tell the Broncos every tendency of the players that Fox drafted and Rosario played with while in Carolina? What a crock of a coincidence. Carolina may as well forfeit that game.

Belichick brought in Kid McCoach as an "offensive assistant" just in time to interrogate him before the Patriots' rematch with the Broncos and 32 of McDaniels' players and nine assistant coaches from last season's team.

Hey, remember that time the Broncos fired Josh McDaniels and this allowed him to choose employment with any other NFL team? Yeah, me too. Did McDaniels sign a non-compete with the Broncos I'm not aware of?

The Broncos fired McDaniels on Dec. 6, 2010, because of failure as a coach (17 losses in McD's last 22 games), his poor player-people-press skills

So let me get this straight. I am supposed to believe Josh McDaniels is a failure as a coach and lacks player-people-press skills. Yet I am also supposed to believe this failure who nobody likes is not enough of a failure that it would prevent him from easily helping the Patriots beat the Broncos (again) with his knowledge of the Broncos offense. Does Woody really believe the Patriots would re-hire McDaniels as offensive coordinator for the only purpose of beating the Broncos (again) in the playoffs? I am also supposed to believe his player-people-press skills aren't so bad this wouldn't prevent him from being re-hired by one of his previous employers as an offensive assistant? It's not like the Patriots hired McDaniels only for the playoffs. He is going to be the offensive coordinator next year as well, so Belichick and the Patriots organization must have some positive feelings about McDaniels. I would have two problems with the McDaniels hiring if either of these were true:

1. McDaniels had never worked for the Patriots before. But he had. As the offensive coordinator, which not-ironically is the same position he will probably hold again next year.

2. McDaniels was only being hired for the playoffs. This isn't true though. He appears to have a permanent position with the Patriots. If McDaniels goes somewhere else after this season, this something about that may smell foul, but every indication is McDaniels will work for the Patriots organization next year as the offensive coordinator.

He can provide inside information and tendencies of players and coaches, especially the offensive coordinator he worked closely with, Mike McCoy.

There are a few problems with this statement. First, the Broncos run a different type of offense under Fox than they did under McDaniels. Second, if Josh McDaniels can immediately stop the Broncos offense because he knows the tendencies of players and coaches on the 2011 team, these are also tendencies that are shown on tape the Patriots would watch anyway in preparation for the game. Third, knowing what the Broncos are going to do hasn't been a problem all year. As much as Woody doesn't want to believe this, the Broncos' offense isn't normally fooling everyone with its complexity. It is the execution of the Broncos that has them in the AFC Divisional Round. Fourth, if Mike McCoy's offense is so similar to the one the Broncos were running under McDaniels perhaps he should offensively coordinate his players some new plays and change their tendencies. After all, wouldn't in-depth knowledge of the team be a problem if any NFL team played their ex-head coach a year or two after that ex-head coach got fired?

Some aspects of his old playbook passing offense were retained.

That's not McDaniels' or the Patriots fault some aspects of the old playbook passing offense were retained. If the Broncos played the Rams or any offensive assistant to the Broncos under McDaniels this year they would have had the same issue of the passing offense being somewhat familiar. If the Broncos don't like this, change things up.

The Patriots would claim that they know all about the Broncos after defeating them Dec. 18 in Denver.

Which would be valid reasoning. What's better to figure out what the Broncos want to do against the Patriots than to use what the Broncos did against the Patriots a month ago?

Yes, but they knew all about the Jets and other NFL teams when they chose to tape defensive coaches' signals illegally during games over a span of several seasons.

I swear this was the next sentence. This is so completely irrelevant to the game this Saturday, it hurts my head. Woody's basic point is the Patriots are cheating by not breaking any rules in hiring McDaniels because they cheated another time. It's silly. Is Woody saying the Patriots taped the Broncos practices prior to playing in December? If so, that's a serious accusation. Or is Woody simply writing two sentences back-to-back that don't make much sense together?

Although Belichick won't acknowledge it publicly, McDaniels will return to his former role as coordinator next season.

I think it is pretty much a given McDaniels will be the offensive coordinator in New England next year. That's the indication I am getting from everything I read. The Patriots have no obligation to acknowledge this.

No league rules are being violated by the Patriots in the hiring of an assistant in the postseason, but NFL commissioner Roger Goodell should order McDaniels, who was fined $50,000 last year by the commissioner, to wait to join the Patriots until O'Brien leaves.

On what basis? Does Woody really believe McDaniels can tell the Patriots anything more in-depth about the Broncos that the Patriots don't already know by playing the Broncos earlier this year? I don't get why the commissioner should order McDaniels to wait to join the Patriots until O'Brien leaves. As Woody admits, no league rules are being violated.

I love Woody's attitude of, "I don't want Josh McDaniels to coach for the Broncos anymore because he's a huge failure. I don't want McDaniels to be able to coach for any other NFL team that may compete with the Broncos at some point either because he isn't a big enough failure to cause the Broncos to scrap his entire passing playbook nor was he such a failure the Broncos fired all of the assistant coaches that worked under him."

The Broncos gave up deciding where McDaniels coached once they fired him.

What's to keep the Broncos this week from temporarily using fired Dolphins coach Tony Sparano, who faced the Patriots twice this season, as a consultant?

Nothing. Do it.

Spagnuolo coached the Giants' defense in the XLII Super Bowl victory over the Patriots. Why can't he work for the Broncos on Saturday?

He absolutely can. Get it done.

Because that's not right.

Actually Woody is correct. That wouldn't be right if the Broncos did this because there would be one big difference in the Patriots hiring McDaniels and the Broncos hiring Sparano/Spagnuolo. The difference is Josh McDaniels has ties to the Patriots and used to work for them as offensive coordinator, while Sparano/Spagnuolo have never worked for the Broncos.

The Broncos did rehire Mike Shanahan as quarterbacks coach in 1989 a few weeks after he was fired as Raiders head coach, and weeks before the Broncos played the Raiders a second time.

HOW WAS THIS ALLOWED? WHY DIDN'T THE COMMISSIONER FINE THE BRONCOS AND IMMEDIATELY DEMAND THE BLOOD OF A VIRGIN AS REPAYMENT FOR THIS TRAVESTY?

The personnel decision made by owner Pat Bowlen, not coach Dan Reeves, in midseason also was wrong.

Let's ignore the Broncos have hired the ex-head coach of a rival 20 years ago because Woody doesn't want it to be relevant to the present discussion. I like how Woody tries to explain Dan Reeves didn't make the decision, as if this absolves the Broncos from any wrongdoing compared to the Patriots hiring McDaniels. What Woody (intentionally) leaves out is that Bill Belichick is the de facto General Manager of the Patriots, so as the head coach/General Manager he would have the authority to hire a coach to his staff. It isn't like Belichick is going above Robert Kraft and his General Manager's head (because New England has no GM) to make the hire. I would assume this move has the blessing of Robert Kraft.

But it was not as blatantly shameless as the manipulative maneuver by Belichick.

Because hiring the ex-head coach of a division rival you play twice a year is so much less shameless than hiring the ex-head coach of a conference rival a team will normally play once a year at most. Because, you know, it isn't like Mike Shanahan knew the Raiders offense that he was running EARLIER THAT VERY SEASON HE WAS HIRED BY THE BRONCOS and the Broncos and Raiders play twice a year or anything. Woody sees no wrongdoing here. Move on, everyone.

Nevertheless, the Broncos will be out for revenge against the Patriots. They are 2-0 in the postseason against New England.

The Broncos will especially be out for revenge now that the Patriots had the audacity to hire the Broncos ex-head coach, the same guy Broncos fans don't like and ran out of town. How dare the Patriots hire a coach the Broncos had no interest in keeping around because he was a huge failure.

McDaniels' knowledge about the Broncos probably won't help the Patriots. He's not a read-option, run- oriented coach.

Who cares if the facts don't support the idea McDaniels will be able to provide the Patriots crack the key to the Broncos offense, who cares if the Patriots beat the Broncos earlier this year without McDaniels on staff, and who cares if the Broncos did something similar to a division rival 20 years ago. It's still a huge outrage that Josh McDaniels got fired and had the audacity to look for a job with the team he had the most prior success with. Why would McDaniels choose to go to back to work for a successful organization in the hopes of eventually getting another head coaching job? Only a crazy person would do that!

Everything he has touched in the past two years has turned to compost.

Then Woody should have nothing to worry about with McDaniels on the Patriots staff. Why is Woody throwing a hissy fit if McDaniels is so incompetent? Since McDaniels is a huge failure and everything he touches turns to shit, then the Broncos have nothing to worry about with him on staff.

The Broncos were 3-10 before McDaniels slithered away, and the Rams, under his guidance as offensive coordinator this season, finished 31st in offense, last in the league in points averaged per game (12.1), and had a 2-14 record. In his last season as coordinator with the Patriots, 2008, they didn't make the playoffs.

Of course the Patriots also went 11-5 that year without their starting quarterback. This is just a small detail and the fact remains the Patriots didn't make the playoffs with their backup quarterback, further proving McDaniels incompetence that nevertheless has Woody so worried about McDaniels' presence on the Patriots staff.

Perhaps the Hoodie-Hoodie Jr. reunion will be more advantageous to the Broncos. But it smells.

Maybe it smells, but it isn't against rules. I would have a much bigger problem if McDaniels didn't have prior work experience with Tom Brady and the Patriots offense. It's not like he was hired specifically for his vast knowledge of the Broncos not-so-complex offense. McDaniels also has knowledge of the Patriots offense and working with Tom Brady.

Honestly, if the Broncos are afraid their 2010 head coach would be able to give game-changing information to the Patriots (which it doesn't seem the Broncos are worried at all), then perhaps the Broncos should not be running a similar system to the one McDaniels instituted with Mike McCoy as his offensive coordinator in Denver. The best team will win on Saturday, but it annoys me to know Woody Paige thinks it will be despite or because of Josh McDaniels presence on the Patriots coaching staff. I really am not sure it matters.

MMQB Review: Dammit, It's Happening Again Edition

2012-01-10T12:20:00.000-05:00

I'm back to calling him Broncos QB. I am at a loss for words as to how the Broncos keep winning games, but they do, and that's all that matters. A friend of mine wondered if the Steelers didn't keep suffering injuries but were instead being smite out by God. Regardless, Broncos QB became the first QB since T.J. Yates to win a playoff game in his first ever start (back on January 7, 2012) and the media has sustained a collective Tebow-gasm. Fortunately, we have Peter King around to pick up the pieces and explain what this all means...other than the obvious conclusion that Broncos QB is "magic" of course.

Not the greatest weekend for start-to-finish drama, but the Denver-Pittsburgh overtime thriller made up for those earlier 21-, 17- and 22-point playoff games.

Peter actually brings up a really good point later in this column. For all the running out of town that Josh McDaniels experienced, he and Brian Xanders did a pretty good job of drafting players while they were in town. Thomas, Tebow, Beadles, Walton, and Bruton were all drafted by Josh McDaniels and Brian Xanders.

Let me get some of the news of the weekend to you first, then get on to the dramatic non-game story of the weekend: the fight to beat tongue and throat cancer by veteran referee Tony Corrente, who worked Detroit-New Orleans Saturday night.

You may have noticed Corrente with no hair or eyebrows when the camera zoomed in on him calling penalties in the Superdome. Chemotherapy and radiation have changed his appearance. Things are going to get worse for him before they get better, and the 60-year-old Corrente was realistic enough when he walked off the field Saturday night to know he had no idea when or if he'd officiate another game.

I can't mock this. You've vexed me for the last time Peter King! I can't mock a cancer patient. I will say that Tim Tebow would tell Corrente this is all part of God's plan to force him through painful radiation, the painful aftereffects of radiation, and the potential loss of his livelihood. So that makes Corrente feel better to hear that.

"Lord,'' said Corrente, a religious man,

You don't have to be that respectful, call him "Tim" instead. That is his name, after all.

Thomas, the 22nd player picked in the 2010 draft, and Tebow, the 25th, were scouted, identified as cornerstone players and picked by former Denver coach Josh McDaniels ... who, as you may recall, was fired less than eight months after that draft, one of the most reviled fired coaches in recent NFL history.

I was not very high on Thomas when he came out of Georgia Tech. So I appear to have been wrong about him. Let me add this one tiny little caveat though...I criticized Thomas' ability to adapt to NFL coverage and the routes an NFL receiver has to run because Thomas only ran like two routes on the route tree coming out of Georgia Tech. I thought a first round receiver should be better prepared than that for the NFL in terms of knowledge of running routes. Little did I know he would end up in a Broncos offense that doesn't exactly have a complicated passing scheme. So I was wrong, but Thomas is also in a great system for his talents.

Thomas thought for a minute. "I remember on draft day when my phone rang. It was coach McDaniels. He said, 'We're gonna take you with this pick. Congratulations. Get out here, and let's ball.' I was so excited. It was the happiest day of my life. Then, when I found out we picked Tebow, I said, 'All right. We've got a winning quarterback.' ''

"Oh, thank God/Broncos QB. I was concerned I would end up in an offensive system that was somewhat complex. Now that I have Broncos QB as my quarterback I will feel comfortable with running the two routes I currently know while in the NFL."

Some people don't think he has the natural traits of a great quarterback. Here's what I think: Do Jim Furyk and Tiger Woods swing the club the same way, hit irons the same way? No. But they both win tournaments. There's different ways to throw, different mechanics, and you can still get the job done.''

While I acknowledge Broncos QB's success, this is a bad analogy by Josh McDaniels. Jim Furyk and Tiger Woods both can have different mechanics when swinging a club, but what if Jim Furyk can't read a green very well and his club selection is somewhat suspect? Then it is a problem. As much success as Broncos QB has had this year, he hasn't been overloaded with information when passing the ball, which is very necessary for his future success. Or maybe it isn't necessary for his future success, I didn't expect Broncos QB to throw as well as he did on Sunday.

Still hate Josh McDaniels, Denver?

Yes, they probably do.

The system, in essence, requires each team to get at least one possession in overtime, unless the first team possessing the ball scores a touchdown. This prevents the cheapie overtime loss, with one team running the kickoff back to the 30, then gaining 30 yards or so and kicking a field goal to win.

I guess I fail to see how a return for 30 yards, then another gain of 30 yards, followed by a successful field goal is any more of a "cheapie" than a completed pass to a receiver running a slant followed by an 80 yard run by the receiver for a touchdown. I don't know if a slant with a missed tackle and a great run is any less "cheap" than a return, followed by the offense gaining 30 yards and a successful field goal. My larger point is I favor an overtime system that allows both teams to get the football at least once and if the new OT rule is to prevent a "cheapie" overtime win by a team I would argue there either (a) isn't such a thing or (b) a short catch followed by a long run could still be considered a "cheapie" compared to other ways of scoring a touchdown.

Now if a team wins the toss and takes it the length of the field for a touchdown, it's earned a victory ... or so goes the theory.

I think Peter and I are on the same page here. Usually this would scare me, but we live in a world where Broncos QB throws for 300 yards in a playoff game against a quality defense. So down is up and up is down and I don't care if Peter King and I agree on something football-related for the time being.

(I believe strongly each teams needs to be guaranteed a possession in overtime; otherwise, the coin flip simply takes on too much importance. In the history of OT prior to 2010, the team receiving the kick to start overtime won the game on the first possession 41 percent of the time.)

And I agree. I think each team should have a possession in overtime, regardless of how or how many points the team that gets the ball first were able to get. I'm still not sure the Steelers would have won the game on Sunday even if they had gotten a chance to get an offensive possession.

I asked him if he was shocked to see zero coverage -- no deep safety help, anywhere.

"No,'' said Thomas. "They'd been doing it all day.''

Which shocked me. I am no defensive coordinator, but it amazed me to see the Steelers allowing Broncos QB to throw into single coverage to his receivers. I know the Steelers wanted to stop the run, but deep passes are a huge part of what Denver wants to do off play-action and the Steelers put their corners in single coverage often and didn't force Broncos QB to throw into traffic. Maybe there wasn't a better way, but the amount of zero coverage the Steelers ran shocked me...especially in overtime when Broncos QB had repeatedly shown he was capable of getting the ball to his receivers when he doesn't have to worry about a safety back there picking the ball off.

After spending five hours at the Rams' practice facility in suburban Earth City, Mo., Sunday, the former Titans coach returned to Nashville to consider his options. By Tuesday, I expect he'll have figured out whether St. Louis or Miami is the best place for him; and his agent, Marvin Demoff, will begin negotiating with one team, or both if it's every close. Expect a resolution by Thursday.

I always love it when coaches "retire" or leave a team before they have gotten fired. It feels like many of these coaches end up wanting to coach somewhere else. Teams are always after these coaches because they did the unthinkable and didn't leave their last team because they got fired. Jeff Fisher has a lifetime record of 142-120 and a career playoff record of 5-6. He coached for 16 years and made two AFC Championship Games and made the playoffs six times. He's not a bad coach, but is this the kind of coach a team should pay $8 million per year and also hand over personnel decisions to? I just don't think so. He's available though and since Cowher isn't coming back anytime soon, the fact Fisher has had more .500 or below .500 seasons than above .500 seasons doesn't seem to scare teams off that much. He's a good coach, I'm just not sure I would hand him the keys to the kingdom.

In Miami, the pros are he'd have a playoff-ready defense, some good offensive pieces and an owner willing to spend whatever it takes to win; the cons are he wouldn't have a franchise quarterback, and he'd be battling Bill Belichick and Tom Brady for (just guessing) at least the next three years.

And of course if you as an owner are paying a head coach $8 million per year, you want him to want to avoid a division with other quality teams in that division.

Pros in St. Louis: Sam Bradford's still likely an excellent quarterback prospect, the team is flush with cap room in the next two years, there's no franchise quarterbacks on the other three teams, and the Rams could leverage the second pick in this draft into two to four high picks.

Is Bradford still an excellent quarterback prospect? Quite possibly, but next year is a big year for him. He seemed to regress a bit, when he wasn't injured, this past year. Also, Pete Carroll and Jim Harbaugh have shown they can win games in the NFC West without a franchise quarterback, so it isn't like they are going to be pushovers for the next 2-3 years.

I said Saturday the Bucs want an authority figure to clean up Raheem Morris' mess, and they like former Packer and Texas A&M coach Mike Sherman ...

Yes, more coach recycling.

It's New Orleans at San Francisco (combined record: 27-6) Saturday afternoon, then Denver at New England Saturday night. Houston is at Baltimore early on Sunday, the Giants and Packers at Lambeau late. The best game might be Saints-Niners, with the rested 49ers likely to have hamstrung linebacker Patrick Willis back to full strength to help chase the hottest passer in the land, Drew Brees.

If there is a team that has the formula (in my opinion) to beat the Saints then that team is the 49ers. They have a great running game and an excellent defense. I'm excited for this game.

At one point Sunday in Denver, 35-year-old wideout Hines Ward was nailed to the bench in what might have been his last game as a Steeler; defensive linemen Brett Keisel (33) and Casey Hampton (34) were out with injuries;

You have been smite!

James Harrison (33) and James Farrior (37) were trying to give the Steelers some sort of pass-rush, and Ben Roethlisberger, who turns 30 in March, was hobbling around on his bad ankle like he was 45. Ugly way to end a season.

It's funny how the media can turn the Steelers team from a veteran team that has enough experience and talent to stop another team on defense into an old team that lacks the speed to defend a good team. It's such a thin line between these two positions, isn't it?

To give up 447 yards to the Broncos, who couldn't buy a first down the last couple of weeks, had to stun Pittsburgh into the realization the Steelers need some youth on defense and some bodies on the offensive line, a unit that is just awful.

I don't want to pat myself on the back, but when I have discussed the Steelers on this blog for the past few years I have tried to mention how Roethlisberger makes the offensive line look a lot better than it is. Roethlisberger runs all over the field making plays for a reason and it isn't because he just likes running outside the pocket or being chased by 300 pound men. The Steelers offensive line has needed to be improved for about two years now.

I have always found it funny how when one thing changes in sports, people's perception of that team changes. For example, once Peyton Manning gets injured the Colts team no longer has reliable undrafted free agents and a just-good-enough defense. Now the defense is seen as terrible and lacking ability at skill positions. When Manning was healthy, the Colts were good at finding players who could find their role on the team and the defense is good enough to win games. Once Roethlisberger can't run all over the place, the Steelers offensive line is now considered to be below average, though this was probably true beforehand, it is just that Roethlisberger's talent masked this issue.

Then Peter talks about Tony Corrente's story. Tony must really, really hate going to the doctor. Either that or he is super tough.

Corrente, a trim, veteran referee, felt fine and was in excellent physical condition entering the season. In the second half of the game at Baltimore, he stepped in the middle of some pushing and shoving between two Steelers and two Ravens, and he found himself shoved hard out of the scrum. He landed on his back and hit his head, and he felt it the rest of the game.

Afterward, with pain in his head, back and buttocks, Corrente had a choice in the referee's room -- Tylenol or Motrin. And he remembered a former member of his crew saying Motrin was better for pain, so he took 800 milligrams of Motrin and flew home to California.

At home, he noticed he was coughing up blood,

Time to go to the doctor.

and still was the next day. More Motrin.

Now it is time to go to the doctor.

The next week, after doing the Kansas City-Detroit game, Corrente was still taking Motrin, and noticed when he woke up Monday after the game there was blood on his pillow where his mouth had been.

Now he really needs to go to the doctor...and he did.

The camera spied a mass at the base of his tongue, where the tongue led into the throat, extending down the throat slightly. The mass was about the size of a full male thumb.

"What is that?'' Corrente asked the doctor.

"Sir, that is cancer,'' said the doctor, whose specialty was apparently not bedside manner.

Thanks for breaking it to him so gently.

During a TV timeout, Corrente was told Colts coach Jim Caldwell wanted to see him.

"He took both my hands, right there on the field,'' Corrente said. "And he said, 'I just wish you all the best. Our whole organization is praying for you.' ''

Then Jim Caldwell went back to staring out at the football field without blinking or making any other kind of movement for the next two hours.

As promised,

Or threatened, depending on your view of Peter's All-Pro choices.

Running back: Maurice Jones-Drew, Jacksonville. When your foes know you're the only even remote offensive threat on the team, and you win the rushing title by 242 yards, that's impressive. (I'm supposed to name two backs, which I never do. The AP wants two, and I've explained for years if you have two backs and two receivers, how fair is that?

It is probably more fair than having a fullback on the All-Pro team when most of the teams in the NFL don't seem to use a fullback in the offense anymore. Of course, this All-Pro team doesn't really matter, other than for writers to use this information 15 years from now as to why a player should/should not be in the Hall of Fame.

Actually, other than a complete homer opinion that Ryan Kalil should have been selected over Scott Wells at center I can't argue too much with Peter's All-Pro picks. Maybe I missed something.

MVP: Aaron Rodgers, Green Bay. See last week's column for reason.

Off. player: Drew Brees, New Orleans. Not a copout. The best stat season ever by a quarterback deserves this.

I understand why these two choices would have different players, but logically if Aaron Rodgers plays quarterback and is the most valuable player in the NFL, wouldn't he also be the best offensive player of the year as well? I don't know, maybe. It just makes sense to me if Rodgers was the most valuable player, he would also be the best offensive player as well, especially when compared to another player who plays his same position. Perhaps not.

Executive: Mike Brown, Cincinnati. Good draft netted long-term weaponry. Good trade raked Raiders over coals for Carson Palmer.

Mike Brown should get this award for getting two high draft picks for a quarterback the Bengals no longer wanted or needed AND the quarterback no longer wanted to be in Cincinnati. They had little leverage and still got a first and second round draft pick. Forget Brown's draft his past year, I base this award just on the Palmer trade.

7. Denver (9-8). I don't know how you watch that game -- that event -- in Denver Sunday evening and think the Tebow Broncos aren't the best, coolest, most fun story in the NFL in years.

Perhaps you can watch Denver and not believe it is the coolest, most fun story in the NFL in years if you hate the media coverage of Broncos QB's "miracles." Perhaps if you also hate how Broncos QB played well and won the game, yet the win is chalked up to "magic" or some other supernatural reason that doesn't have to do with the fact Broncos QB played well. I find the Broncos QB story to be the most annoying, least fun NFL story of the year and very little of it is a reflection of Broncos QB himself.

8. Pittsburgh (12-5). Too beat up to compete for anything right now. But that was a heck of a comeback while it lasted. I've got to think that safety Ryan Clark, who didn't play because of his sickle-cell trait, wouldn't have sold out as much as Ryan Mundy to play the run on the first play of overtime.

Perhaps Broncos QB would say it was God's plan that Ryan Clark lose some of his internal organs to a disease in order for His true plan of the Broncos winning a playoff game to occur.

9. Atlanta (10-7). The day started badly when vital cornerback Brent Grimes was declared inactive 90 minutes before the playoff game in Jersey. And it got worse.

Was Grimes planning on playing offense? If so, it wouldn't have mattered if he did play.

Denver QB Tim Tebow. He wrecks games. Sometimes for the Broncos, but mostly for the opposition. His 316-yard, two-touchdown passing performance against the Steelers (Tebow passer rating: 125.6; Matthew Stafford rating in New Orleans: 97.0) will be Colorado legend forever. That was the most exhilarating touchdown drive by the Broncos since The Drive.

The drive consisted of one play and started the 20 yard line. Let's not even start comparing it to The Drive in any way.

Coughlin never gets the credit he deserves for being on top of game management. Who knows if the Falcons would have converted 3rd-and-10; all I know is they were a yard short of converting 3rd-and-15, and moments later the Giants iced the game.

I feel like Coughlin is a master at saving his job. Maybe he's a great coach and I've just missed it, but it seems like every time the Giants are possibly getting rid of Coughlin, he manages to keep his job by winning important games.

Goats of the Week

Atlanta coach Mike Smith. Went for it on 4th-and-1, bypassing a 41-yard field goal in a scoreless game in the second quarter; Matt Ryan got stuffed. Went for it on 4th-and-1, bypassing a 38-yard field goal in a 10-2 game in the third quarter; Matt Ryan got stuffed ... and this one came with an empty backfield, with 245-pound back Michael Turner on the sidelines.

Gregg Easterbrook is going to destroy these 4th down play calls...and possibly rightfully so. How about Matt Ryan is currently 0-3 for his career in the playoffs? Matty Iccccccccccccccccccce plays like ice when it counts, right?

"I'd take it and run and probably pull both hamstrings."

-- Denver coach John Fox, asked after the playoff win over Pittsburgh if he'd have taken a division title and a first-round playoff win if told that would be his fate before this season.

It's probably not a good sign when the head coach for a team seems surprised by his team's success during the season.

Thanks to Mike Florio for sending me scurrying to the 2010 draft, and the incredible tributaries from a single late-round trade. It just shows how smart Pittsburgh director of football operations Kevin Colbert is.

What? From earlier in this column:

To give up 447 yards to the Broncos, who couldn't buy a first down the last couple of weeks, had to stun Pittsburgh into the realization the Steelers need some youth on defense and some bodies on the offensive line, a unit that is just awful.

So Colbert hasn't put youth on the defense nor has he improved the offensive line, but we are supposed to believe he is really smart? I'm not denying Colbert is good at his job, but after Peter says the defense and offensive line need young bodies is this really the week to talk about how smart Colbert is?

Colbert turned a late fifth-round pick into one Super Bowl starter and one long-term explosive receiver and returner. That's a valuable personnel man.

That is impressive. It very much is. Perhaps Colbert can turn the 2009, 2010, 2011 draft picks into quality, younger players on the Steelers defense and improved offensive line depth. Since apparently these are their needs. Maybe Colbert thought he was meeting these needs by drafting Cameron Heyward, Jason Worilds, and Ziggy Hood for the defense and Marcus Gilbert, Maurkice Pouncey, and Kraig Urbik on the offensive line.

1. I think this is what I liked about Wild-Card Weekend:

h. Great internal protection by the Saints line, giving Brees plenty of time to be great. Center Brian de la Puente holds his ground better than Olin Kreutz did early in the season.

This accolade could go for the entire season. Brees can cook dinner or watch a movie in the pocket the Saints offensive line forms around him. As great as Brees is, he isn't that great if he doesn't get superior protection.

l. John Fox putting Tebow on notice. I like Fox making this a bottom-line business, and who knows? Maybe that's why Tebow responded so well.

(Being bitter) I'm glad Fox decided to make it a bottom-line business now after using the "he gives us the best chance to win" reasoning for starting a quarterback in the past at his other coaching stop and overall being unhappy to adapt to different personnel at times.

b. I hate ... no, detest ... that stupid NFL rule (the worst on the books, the one I'd erase if I could change one thing about the rule book) that makes a 52-yard defensive pass-interference penalty a monstrous game-changer rather than a 15-yard penalty from the line of scrimmage. Yes, Quin interfered with Green, but 52 yards? When Green might not have caught the ball anyway? I beseech you, Competition Committee -- change that this offseason.

I am becoming disturbed at how much I am agreeing with Peter King today. This isn't good for business.

2. I think this is what I didn't like about Wild-Card Weekend:

h. Roethlisberger's decisions, including playing when he shouldn't have in December.

Again, there is a thin line between a player toughing it out and trying to help his team win games when injured and a player who is hurting his team in the playoffs by playing hurt in the regular season. Roethlisberger would be seen as tough if the Steelers had won Sunday, but because the Steelers lost Peter thinks he shouldn't have played during the regular season in order to be healthy for the playoffs.

k. The Steeler pass rush. I know the injuries hurt the line, but that front seven failed to pressure Tebow into mistakes, which had happened the previous three weeks.

So Peter criticizes the Steelers defensive line while acknowledging injuries took 2 of the 3 starters out of the game. Maybe Kevin Colbert should have turned a 5th round draft pick into a front seven player Peter would have felt comfortable could pressure Broncos QB or found a way for God not to smite his defensive players.

4. I think if there's one college coach who could emerge as a candidate somewhere, this year or in the next couple, judging by the love he's getting from pro people, it's Greg Schiano of Rutgers. I've said this for the last couple of years, but if you ask Bill Belichick which young college coach he thinks could be a very good pro coach, it's the 45-year-old Schiano.

Well if Belichick says it, then it must be true.

On a more serious/sarcastic note, why would a team take a chance and hire Schiano when they can pay more money for a guy like Mike Sherman, Marty Schottenheimer, or Jeff Fisher? It's no fun to think outside the box!

Just for fun, I checked out the odds you could get by a sportsbook in Vegas, Bovada.ly Sportsbook, Rodgers is 1-10, Brees 5-1, and any other player 30-1. Said Bovada.ly's manager, Kevin Bradley: "The ironic thing is, if Mark Ingram scores on the last play of the game in the season opener and the Saints beat the Packers in overtime, the odds would be almost even."

I'm getting a headache hearing this. So if the Packers defense had given up a touchdown to the Saints running back in the season opener, this would have meant Drew Brees was more valuable to the Saints than Aaron Rodgers was to the Packers? Where the hell is the logic in this thinking? So a play that neither Rodgers or Brees were involved in would have affected the oddsmakers (and thereby most likely the MVP voting since the odds are based on what the voters would likely do) opinion of which player was more valuable? How does this make sense? This is just idiocy.

He has a point there.

Because he has a point doesn't mean his point is logical.

9. I think Mike Sherman would be a perfect fit -- today, for what the Bucs are and need right now.

As a Panthers fan, I'm not sure I would be upset by this coaching hire.

g. I'm excited about everyone telling me what a lamebrain I am for the next month. It's Hall of Fame Month!

"I want the honor of being able to vote for members of the Hall of Fame, but don't want any of the criticism that comes with this honor! Is this too much to ask to be immune from criticism?"

And coming Tuesday: My observations about the list of finalists for the 2012 Pro Football Hall of Fame class.

I hope I am not in the minority, but I find it so hard to judge which players should and should not be in the Hall of Fame. Floyd Little makes it in the Hall of Fame with 6323 rushing yards for his career. In other words, he has fewer career rushing yards as compared to Wendell Tyler and is just ahead of Larry Johnson. This makes no sense to me why he's in the Hall of Fame, so that's why I'm not the best at debating Hall of Fame credentials. Of course, it won't stop me from debating.

h. Coffeenerdness: Don't know how you fix this, Seattle. But the latte quality, overall, in New York Starbucks stores is significantly worse than in Boston or Montclair, where the stores are rarely as crowded as the packed ones in New York. Just a word to the wise.

The entire city of Seattle will get right on correcting this major issue.

k. Goodbye, Jorge Posada. Always admired you, even when you helped wreck so many lives on The Night Grady Little Ruined The ALCS in 2003.

Peter isn't being over-dramatic about it of course. Jorge Posada wrecked so many lives that night. Lives were literally and figuratively ended on that night. Thousands died or lived in poverty after Posada and Grady Little helped wreck so many lives that night. This statement comes from the same guy (Peter King) who wrote so eloquently about a person (Tony Corrente) who had cancer. You know, something that actually would ruin a person's life. I guess Peter's perspective on life comes and goes whenever it is convenient.

Ok, I Give Up

2012-01-09T14:15:00.002-05:00

I accidentally posted a "Coach K v. Roy Williams" post from Bleacher Report for a few hours on Saturday evening by mistake. It was supposed to post today. Then I tried to re-post it today and completely forgot to copy and paste the whole thing leaving us with what crap I had here for a few hours that was five sentences long. What a failure on my part. Sorry about that. I will post something tomorrow. So for now, with nothing else better to write at 6pm on a Monday.........

Who do you think will win tonight and why in the BCS National Championship Game where this time, not like the first game between these same two teams, really means something?

I am taking LSU, only for the reason that I never bet against LSU and though Alabama stunk in the first game by missing many field goals I think LSU will get it done tonight because I believe their defense will end up playing better and Jordan Jefferson will play very well tonight. I don't have good reasoning other than, because on paper Alabama looks like they'll win.

So tell me who you think wins in the comments and why...if you want to of course.

Bottom-of-the-Barrel's Pickoffapalooza 2012: Wild Card

2012-01-06T16:35:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the third iteration of Bottom-of-the-Barrel's Playoff Pick 'Em. This year we invite Chris (from Facebook Group "The Season Ticket") and Jon and Sean (from superb new sports and pop culture website Nowhere Plans) to join Ben and myself in our annual lapping of the self important Bill Simmons. First, the games, so we don't have to run through the lines for each matchup.

CINCINNATI @ HOUSTON (-3.0)
DETROIT @ NEW ORLEANS (-10.5)
ATLANTA @ GIANTS (-3.0)
PITTSBURGH (-8.5) @ DENVER

I won't lie to you, this is going to be a long fucking post. There's five of us writing about four games each, but if you can't find some aspect of these games in this post, that aspect basically doesn't exist. This is as in-depth and comprehensive analysis (hopefully) of these games you are going to find, from a variety of perspectives. Let's get stuck in.

Chris

HOUSTON (-3.0)
HOUSTON 21-16

Poll the coaches across the NFL landscape and you probably won’t find many to publicly admit that luck plays any factor in the game tape, attention-to-detail oriented league. The Bengals were certainly a benefactor of the elusive intangible on Sunday, making the playoffs despite losing to the Ravens to end the season. Losses by the Broncos, Jets and Raiders made them a playoff team for the third time in six seasons.

On the other hand, the Houston Texans probably aren’t feeling all that lucky heading into the Playoffs as first time participants and first time AFC South champs. Losers of three straight heading into Saturday’s matchup against the Bengals, Texans head coach Gary Kubiak held rookie starter TJ Yates out of the remainder of the game after a first quarter hit resulted in a bruised shoulder. Arian Foster was also rested this week. After losing Mario Williams, Andre Johnson, Matt Schaub and Matt Leinart to season long, or season ending injuries, who could blame him?

These two teams met in Week 14, and Yates played one of his better games, if not his best, in leading the Texans to a 20-19 comeback win on the road. Scoring drives of 83 and 80 yards in the fourth quarter gave Texans fans hope that all would not be lost with a rookie at the helm of what was the most balanced team in the NFL at that time.

The win against the Bengals was the last game the Texans won.

In this playoff rematch you can bet that Kubiak will be doing everything in his power to not have to rely on similar heroics from Yates. Houston will rely on the 2nd best running attack and arguably the best offensive line in pro football. Arian Foster totaled over 1800 yards from scrimmage and was aided and abetted by Ben Tate who was 53 yards shy of a thousand yard season. In their Week 14 meeting the Texans rushed for 144 yards against a fairly stingy Bengals run defense.

Can the Bengals run defense, which finished the season as the 10th best effectively limit the damage done by Foster and Tate? The same Bengals that just gave up 191 yards and 2 touchdowns to Ray Rice?

As for Cincinnati, they are a pretty balanced ballclub and have a team that tends to travel pretty well, as evidence by their 5-3 record on the road this season. I would normally expect to see Andy Dalton throw the ball downfield to fellow rookie AJ Green quite a bit, but opportunities may be limited by nagging injuries to Green. To replace some of this lost production, second year TE Jermaine Gresham should play a bigger role in the offense. I expect Cedric Benson to receive a healthy dose of carries considering the fairly successful day (21 rushes, 91 yards) he had in their first meeting.

I know that the running game will be the focal point for both teams in this matchup, but I think that the outcome will be decided on which team can handle the pass rush best, and keep their rookie QB in position to have success. While I do think that the Bengals can handle an active Texans pass rush, and even put continued pressure on Yates, I think that Houston will ultimately wear down the Bengals. The Texans haven’t score more than 22 points since their bye week, so I don’t expect the game to be high scoring, but I do think the Texans cover the spread.

NEW ORLEANS (-10.5)
NEW ORLEANS 45-27

With their season finale loss to the Matt Flynn led Green Bay Packers the Lions drew the short straw in the Wild Card matchups, having to hit the road for the Big Easy to take on the hottest team in football. In that loss to the Packers, the Lions defense surrendered 480 passing yards and 6 touchdowns. Hardly a confidence builder when your next opponent just steamrolled through a single season passing mark that was set before more than half the Lions roster was born.

The list of accolades and records set by this Saints team and specifically on the offensive side of the ball speak to their excellence. Ending the season on an eight game winning streak, the Saints posted 40+ in four of those eight victories. Their 13 wins this season also tied the club mark, and for the first time in team history, New Orleans can boast of an undefeated home record. Their average margin of victory was 23. League highs in passing yards (334) and scoring per game (34.2) mean that you would have an easier time stopping Terrell Owens from fading into obscurity without football than you would have stopping this Drew Brees led offense from torching your defense. And just to add extra fuel to the fire, those numbers were (492.62) and (41.1) at home.

Ndamakong Suh, nor Pro Bowl caliber safety Louis Delmas in uniform when Brees threw for 342 yards and three touchdowns in a Week 14 meeting in which New Orleans led 24-7 at the half.

The biggest question in this matchup for me is, can the Detroit front seven put enough pressure on Brees? The Lions defense certainly isn’t playing its best ball right now, but I do think this front seven has the potential to make life difficult for the Saints offense. What makes this particular offense so difficult to keep in check is if your blitz becomes effective, the Saints have a myriad of screen options to make defenses pay. The Saints are also sending three of members of an offensive line that allowed a league best of 1 sack on every 27 passes to the Pro Bowl.

Matthew Stafford, who is my choice for NFL Comeback Player of the Year, threw for over 5000 yards this season with 41 touchdowns. While Calvin Johnson bullied defensive backs for close to 1700 receiving yards and 16 touchdowns. Hardly the work of a pedestrian offense.

I didn’t spend a lot of time talking about defense in this matchup because, well…..

"I think that the best defenses allow one less point than their offense scores," Schwartz said. "I think we need to take more of a chess approach. Nobody cares in chess how many pawns you give up or if you sacrifice your queen. They care about if you win the game, whether you get checkmate or not. And I think that's the only thing that’s important, not stats."

Even the Lions coach realizes that defense will be a non mothafuckin’ factor!

I like the Lions, a lot I might add. As a fan of a Colts franchise now in complete disarray, I hold out a microscopic ray of hope that we’ll remodel or rebuild our team as somewhat of a mirror image of this youthfully talented ball club. On Saturday though, I just don’t see the Lions realizing their destiny of eventual deep playoff runs by beating the Saints in the Super Dome.

ATLANTA (+3.0)
GIANTS 23-21

This wildcard matchup holds the least amount of intrigue for me. There will be no battle of rookie quarterbacks, or any talk of miracle inducing quarterbacks, or a fascination with quarterbacks who just moonwalked through one of the sports most hallowed records. Just two steady, fairly consistent, above average quarterbacks. Both just boring enough in their play that you wouldn’t be at all surprised if you found them sporting argyles under their NFL mandated socks.

You know, and I bet that is just the way that both Eli Manning and Matt Ryan would prefer they, as well as their respective teams be viewed. Flying in under the radar, both the Atlanta Falcons and New York Giants come into this matchup with victories in three of their last four games. The Giants becoming the first NFC East division crown winner with less than 10 wins. Many pundits put their pre-season bets down on the Falcons as the NFC favorite for Indianapolis after adding some nice pieces to last year’s 13 win squad.

Both Ryan and Manning tossed 29 touchdowns this season, a similar number of interceptions (12/16), and post comparable completion percentages of 61%.

Widening the lens a bit in comparison of the offenses, the Giants have the higher rated passing attack, while the Falcons boast a vastly better running game. If healthy, Ahmad Bradshaw can be effective in keeping the Atlanta offense honest enough that Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks have solid performances. Key for an Atlanta defense ranked 20th against the pass will be to limit explosive completions of 20 yards or more through the air, of which Manning threw a league high thirty five.

The Falcons game plan will obviously include a healthy dose of Michael Turner, who finished third in the NFL with 1340 rushing yards. Success in this facet opens the prospects for Roddy White and Julio Jones to get upfield. The key will be how well the Falcons neutralize the Giants pass rush. The return of Osi Umenyiora last week, along with the dominant play of Jean Paul Pierre figures to be a factor in the outcome of this closely contested matchup. The deciding factor in my opinion. I think the Giants front seven causes just enough havoc to hand the show over to Eli Manning in the deciding quarter, where he’s been lights out. His 15 fourth quarter touchdowns and 110.0 passer rating led the league and will ultimately be the one outstanding factor in a matchup of two seemingly boring, underrated contenders.

PITTSBURGH (-8.5)
PITTSBURGH 20-3

The Broncos are a text book case for the proponents of playoff reseeding.

In all my years of watching professional football I can’t recall a team coming into the playoffs looking any worse than this Denver Broncos team. I know that last year’s 7-9 Seattle Seahawks team entered with a worse record, but that team proved its mettle with an upset of the Saints on a now famous jaunt by Marshawn Lynch.

This Denver team isn’t simply limping into the playoffs though, the Tebow led Broncos are being carried in on a gurney.

Facing them will be a 12 win Pittsburgh Steelers team coming out the AFC North as a wild card. Make no mistake that this division was the toughest in football, with three of the top seven defenses in the NFL. While defense is a trademark of 6 time Super Bowl winning franchise, what may be unfamiliar to long-time fans is the passing propensity of a Pittsburgh offense with two thousand yard receivers, and a running game that is clearly not the first option any longer.

Despite the emergence of wideouts Mike Wallace and Antonio Brown who may in fact resurrect memories of John Stallworth and Lynn Swann, this pass happy Pittsburgh offense will go only as far as Big Ben’s weathered body can take them.

The Broncos only proven commodity this season, its number one ranked run offense will be ardently opposed by the Pittsburgh’s number one overall ranked defense. So, there goes any advantage that Denver might have had. Combine that push with the Broncos anemic passing game and you have the makings of several entries for the ESPN Not Top Plays list.

The only chance that the Broncos may have of keeping the game close won’t come from their offense, but instead may come from the ailing Pittsburgh offense ability to move the ball themselves. Big Ben continues to nurse a high ankle sprain, and hasn’t looked good in recent appearances. His 68.4 passer rating since the injury proves this point. Roethlisberger has thrown 4 interceptions and just one touchdown during that stretch. Another concern is that Roethlisberger still continues to take too many hits behind a vulnerable offense line. His lack of mobility may result in errant or forced throws downfield or in the middle of the Broncos defense. Making things potentially worse is the torn ACL suffered by Rashard Mendenall in the season ending contest against the beleaguered Browns. Mendenhall rushed for 938 yards this season but certainly will not be available during the playoffs. This leaves the Steelers thin at the running back position although I don’t think much will be missed in terms of production with Isaac Redman as the fill-in.

Three of the last six Super Bowl champions punched their tickets into the playoffs as a wild card entry. Playing well going into the post season is an immeasurable confidence builder, and the Steelers have won 6 of their last 7, giving up more than 10 points only twice in that span. They cover.

Jimmy (J.S.)

HOUSTON (-3.0)
HOUSTON 23-10

The theme of this week has really been the "aren't Houston terrible?" bandwagon. And I'm here to inject some sanity into this discussion - they ain't. They have two elite units, their offensive line and their linebackers, both are top three in my view. They were second in QB rating against, thanks mainly to 44 sacks - most coming without Mario Williams. They were second in rushing (only to Denver's wacky offense) and eighth in YPC, despite using less deception than probably any top team in the league. And who is going to cover Andre Johnson? Certainly not Leon Hall (out for the season) or Jonathan Joseph (Houston's best defensive player now) but Nate Clements and Pacman Jones - good luck with that. With Carlos Dunlap coming off injury, can he be relied on to rush the passer? Who else can? Robert Geathers has 3 sacks all year. How are Cincinnati going to keep the ball out of Johnson's hands? Cincinnati's injury issues seem much more consequential than Houston's (guard Bobbie Williams, one of the league's best, is also out). And Johnson might be the least of their problems - this assumes they can stop the ground game or beat Joseph and the Houston pass rush.

While Houston has lost three straight, against mediocre opposition to close the season, you know what they did before that? Guarenteed a playoff spot. In Cincinnati. And if any team was going to take it easy it was these guys, injury riddled and trying simply to keep their best guys ready for the playoffs. By the way, while you'll hear about Houston's recent crimes, what about the Bengals? They lost five of their last eight, and their three victories were against St. Louis, Arizona and Cleveland, by a combined 17 points. This line suggests these two teams are identical quantities, with the home field being the only point of difference. Cincinnati hasn't beat anyone of note this year, and yeah, T.J. Yates vs Andy Dalton? QB ratings this year are 80.7 and 80.4...Yates is higher. The Texans are a much, much better football team than the Bengals; people have been underrating Houston all year.

NEW ORLEANS (-10.5)
NEW ORLEANS 38-24

This is one of those spreads that looks less and less insane the more you think about it. New Orleans really are this good. The Saints are averaging north of 42 points a game at home and no one has got within eleven points in Louisiana since September. I actually like Detroit, who recovered from a mid season swoon, but if they have one of their patented terrible halves (down 20-0 to Minny, surrendered 21 of final 27 to Minny, down 24-7 to Carolina, down 37-6 to Chicago, down 27-3 to Dallas etc) in this game...to quote Charlie Dale; where you're going you're not coming back from.

But there are two more nuanced reasons to like New Orleans to cover this humongous spread. I don't mind Detroit's defense, as bad as it can look, Delmas, Houston, Durant, Tulloch etc. they are all solid, van den Bosch too. But obviously Ndamakong Suh makes it go. He has been spotty at times this year, particulary after returning from the stomping incident. I don't think he has a prayer against Nicks and Evans, who, despite the hoopla around Suh, are simply much better players at this stage of their careers. In terms of defensive strength vs offensive strength, it's a terrible matchup for the Lions. No one protects the interior of the pocket better than the Saints. My second issue is that no one threw more than Detroit this year (666 times...make of that what you will) and only Tampa ran it less (356). Thankfully, Detroit are playing a Gregg Williams defense, reknowned for it's discipline and hatred of blitzing. So again, worst possible matchup basically. I think Detroit will function offensively - it's a great offensive team - but the task is just too hard to be genuinely competitive against possibly the best #3 seed ever.

GIANTS (-3.0)
GIANTS 27-23

Of all my picks on the board this week, this is the one I find least supported by the evidence. I was initially under the impression that the Giants pass rush would be overwhelming an allegedly poor Atlanta offensive line (a reputation that gets bandied about a bit). The numbers don't support this; Atlanta conceded an incredibly low 26 sacks this year, and while their YPC is just 4.0, I mark this down more to the carries over the years wearing on Michael Turner more than the offensive line. Maybe I rely on reputations too much, but Todd McClure, Justin Blalock and especially Tyson Clabo have always seemed like good offensive linemen to me. I also don't mind Atlanta's secondary. I'm a bit of a Thomas de Coud fan (he's disciplined and plays a very good zone coverage) and their corners are both basically good, if undersized. Put together with a versatile offense and a very clever QB in Ryan, Atlanta are a genuine challenge.

But they don't have the playoff pedigree, 0-2 with this Ryan/Turner/White group and were embarrassing last year at home - even to Green Bay. Then there is their road woes. They scraped past Seattle by two this year, lost by three scores to the Bears and lost to the woeful Bucs. They were down 23-7 to Carolina and lost by nearly 30 points to the Saints. The Giants, on the other hand, have one of the very best QB's in the game at the moment, and probably the hottest receiver. In what were essentially two elimination games against teams of similar talent to Atlanta in Dallas and the Jets, the Giants won by a combined 32 points. They beat the Pats, lost by just three against the Packers and were just ten yards away from the Niners in San Francisco. This is a tough out, battle hardened recently and have an enormously dangerous weapon in Manning, especially in the fourth quarter (where he just threw for more TDs in a season than anyone ever). Atlanta's famous lack of a pass rush will allow the Giants to have Eli throw 40 times or more in this game safely, and I expect him to. I have been waiting for a performance from the Falcons all year - they have not shown they are any better than "pretty good" and are not the same team away from Georgia. Give me the Giants.

DENVER (+8.5)
PITTSBURGH 16-10

Have we learnt nothing from last year? Huge road favourites are never a good proposition in the playoffs. Particulary when those home dogs have a big time home field advantage (Seattle, Denver) and are despised by the rest of the sports world (7-9, Tebow). Seattle didn't even have the talismanic figure of Tebow to Rocky around, so this game has very large red flags for me, in fact, this is the one upset I'd be least surprised to see in the first round - seriously. And I say that as a card carrying Tebow hater.

But what of the material concerns? Pittsburgh's offense. The Steelers have scored 13, 3, 14, 13, 17, 10 and 7 this year. My theory is that because of their poor offensive line, and without real ball catching threats at tight end and running back (I'm not at all concerned with Redman over Mendenhall for what it's worth), Pittsburgh relies almost solely on Brown, Wallace and the big play. There are worse things with Roethlisberger back there, but it leaves their offense prone to meltdowns like against Palko's Chiefs. He's also clearly a long way from 100%. Those 17 and under offensive displays, sometimes the defenses were great (Baltimore, San Francisco) sometimes only OK (Kansas City, Jacksonville, Cleveland). I think Denver is closer to the Baltimore end than the Cleveland end. After a horrific start, Denver's defense has tightened up considerably. If we give them the Minny game as a mulligan, and the Pats as being one of the triforce of invincible offenses this year, Denver's defense has conceded 69 points in the other six games with less than 300 yards. That would rank first and fourth respectively. The big issue in this game is can Denver limit the turnovers to one or two at the most? Pittsburgh had less takeaways (15) than anyone in the NFL this year, and when Denver holds onto the ball, they unfalteringly keep it close. Can I see Matt Prater booming a couple of 56 yarders in the thin air? Or a Dumervil sack fumble leading to an 8 yard drive for a TD? Sure I can, and I find it harder to believe Pittsburgh can put three touchdowns (with an injured Ben Roethlisberger) on the Broncos in Colorado - they couldn't on Kansas City, Jacksonville or Cleveland.

Sean

HOUSTON (-3.0)
HOUSTON 17-13

The Texans are the better team and that's a fact, but Cincy's defense is plenty game. Although this is likely the game the American viewing public cares about least (and with good reason), fans of solid defense will like this game. I expect plenty of turnovers and a close Texans victory.

DETROIT (+10.5)
NEW ORLEANS 41-31

These two teams played on Dec. 4, a 31-17 Saints victory where the Lions repeatedly took stupid penalties that ultimately cost them the game. Drew Brees and Matthew Stafford could combine for well over 800 yards passing in what should be a primetime slugfest. The Lions will be hard-luck losers, I think; the Saints are red-hot right now, and they'll cruise to the win and a date with the 49ers.

GIANTS (-3.0)
GIANTS 27-20

I'm not wild about Atlanta in the great outdoors, let alone in northern New Jersey in early January. The Giants could make it easier on themselves if they could establish the run, a feat that has proven very difficult this season. But even in the absence of that (which is something they should be used to), the Giants have the edge in Eli Manning and I expect to see them next week in Green Bay.

DENVER (+8.5)
PITTSBURGH 13-7

This won't be a defensive clinic so much as an offensive power outage. Tim Tebow has been patently horrendous, so my prediction of six points actually feels generous against a solid Pittsburgh defense. Not that the Steelers will do much with the football either: The Broncos are no slouches defensively either, and Ben Roethlisberger's limited mobility renders him a sitting duck. Expect the Steelers to eke out a stinker.

Jon

CINCINNATI (+3.0)
CINCINNATI 19-17

This game is probably the closest of the four this weekend, in my opinion. And honestly it has nothing to do with the fact that these two teams met a month ago and played a 20-19 contest. Saturday's game will likely be different because both teams were dealing with injuries to major pieces (most notably Texans wide receiver Andre Johnson and Bengals defensive end Carlos Dunlap). It'll be interesting to see which side's returning personnel has a bigger impact. I also don't expect there to be as many turnovers (six) as there were in their meeting earlier this season. Both of these teams rely heavily on their defense to keep them in games and I expect this to be close. I'm picking Cincinnati for the upset but I've already changed my mind twice just while writing this.

NEW ORLEANS (-10.5)
NEW ORLEANS 41-27

I know this has the potential to be a shootout, and while I think it will be a fairly high scoring game, I don't see Detroit keeping up. It's not that they can't, or that New Orleans defense is beastly, it's just that I think Detroit will probably start to get frustrated on both sides of the ball. This will result not only in stupid penalties, but in turnovers as well. I don't think anyone is playing as well as New Orleans is, and considering the fact that these two teams just played in the Superdome a month ago and the Saints won by two touchdowns, I think the Saints repeat history and cover again.

GIANTS (-3.0)
GIANTS 31-17

There's no way I'm picking Matt Ryan, outdoors in the New Jersey cold. With that said, the only thing that the Falcons have going for them is that they are remarkably consistent at being good but not great. The Giants are much more erratic. There's definitely a chance that the Giants don't play their best football this weekend and let Atlanta best them. I have a feeling that New York knows what is at stake. Generally when they don't show up for games it's against awful teams who they take too lightly and show up ill-prepared. I don't think Atlanta has the offense (on the road) to keep up with New York. If you look at their performance away from the Georgia Dome this year, it's been less than impressive, to say the least. The only time they put up points in away games was when they were playing sub-average teams.

DENVER (+8.5)
PITTSBURGH 13-6

I know that we have seen a banged-up Pittsburgh team do damage in the postseason but this is a wholly different level of injured. Big Ben is playing on one leg, center Maurkice Pouncey is doubtful with his own high-ankle sprain, running back Rashard Mendenhall tore his ACL a few weeks ago, James Harrison and Troy Polamalu will play but they are far from 100% healthy, you get the point. This is a dream match-up for a team as beat up as the Steelers. They will not have to play their best to beat the Broncos. They will have to take Team Tebow seriously though, especially in Denver. As much as I'll be rooting for Denver and hope that they can move the ball against the Steelers defense that has held five of their last six opponents to less than ten points. Although it's a less impressive feat when you hear who they kept from scoring much: Kansas City, Cincinnati (I'll give them this one), Cleveland (twice) and St. Louis. Combine this with the fact that Denver scored three points against the Chiefs last week, and I wouldn't be surprised if they throw up a goose-egg on the scoreboard on Sunday. I can't predict that though.

Ben

Houston (-3.0)
Houston 28-10

If someone told me in September T.J. Yikes would be starting in a playoff game AND I would predicting he'd cover the spread, well I would immediately have myself drug tested. Normally I have a problem betting on a rookie quarterback in the playoffs (Andy Dalton). I don't seem to have as big of a problem when the opposing quarterback is also a rookie and his team has losses to power houses such as Carolina and Indianapolis with him under center. So while I would rather bet on Andy Dalton over T.J. Yates (I can't believe I am betting T.J. Yikes may cover the spread), I can't get past the best team Cincinnati beat all year was Tennessee and they backed into the playoffs. I know, I know, "the playoffs are a new season" and it doesn't matter what a team during the season as long as they make the playoffs...blah, blah, blah. It's not like the Texans ran the gauntlet by being in the AFC South, but I think Houston is the better team right now. I respect how good Andy Dalton and the Bengals have been this year. They have a very bright future, at least until Mike Brown starts alienating the players again. For the Texans, Wade Phillips is back calling the defensive plays, which makes me think the Texans defense will be on top of its game.

Even if the Texans are starting T.J. Yates, I think the emotion of playing their first playoff game at home and being able to rely on Arian Foster and Ben Tate on the ground (along with that Andre Johnson guy) will help the Texans win their first playoff game in their first ever appearance. I feel like both of these teams backed into the playoffs and aren't playing at their peak. I believe the Texans will lean on the running game and pass the ball well enough to beat the Bengals. Contrary to my predicted score, I think this will be a fairly close game for most of the way.

New Orleans (-10.5)
New Orleans 35-20

I've watched the Saints a lot this year. I have to say, the past couple of weeks I have seen an offense that looks damn near unstoppable. Of course no offense is unstoppable, but the Saints have so many weapons and such an efficient director of the offense in Brees it sure seems that way. As much as it sounds like hyperbole to say this, the Saints offense and personnel are built for the Superdome and they haven't lost at home yet this year. This is an excellent team hitting its stride at the right time. The Lions also have a prolific offense, but their complete lack of a running game scares me. I know last year the Packers lack of a running game scared many people as well, but the Lions' rushing leader in a single game since Week 12 has 49 yards in a game. They don't seem to be doing it by committee either because since Week 12 the Lions have rushed for 85 rushing yards per game and that number is skewed by the 136 yards they gained against the Packers in their first meeting. My point is if the Lions are going to beat the Saints they are going to have to outscore them in the air because they can't run the ball and keep the ball out of Brees' hands. I don't know if that is a formula for success.

I repeat myself every single year, but I just don't know how good the Saints defense truly is. They are ranked 24th in the NFL in total defense, but that doesn't matter as much if the Saints can put up video game numbers on the scoreboard whenever they want. In my opinion, the way to beat the Saints is to keep the ball out of Brees' hands and have a defense that can eliminate big plays from the Saints offense. The Lions have an offense that can keep up with the Saints, but I don't know if their defense can stop them from making big plays. The Lions have a strong front four and as great as Drew Brees can be, getting pressure on him (like any other quarterback) is the key to beating the Saints. All year we have heard how great Brees is, but he is great because his offensive line has given him time to be great. This needs to continue against the Lions. I can see a scenario where the Lions win this game. The Lions front four is able to get pressure on Brees, move him off his spot, and allow the Lions to drop 6-7 men into coverage. I'm not hedging, I'm saying the Lions could cover the spread or beat the Saints because they have a talented, strong front four that can do this. There is a nagging part of me that says to pick the Lions to win this game because they can win. But...I am betting the Saints offensive line continues to protect Brees well and mayhem will ensue for the Lions defense.

Atlanta (+3.0)
Atlanta 24-17

I am in a bit of a predicament. I chose my NFC and AFC Championship games as being NE-Pitt and NO-Atl at the beginning of the season. It becomes a predicament because I try not to waffle on making picks. If I chose a team at the beginning of the year, I tend to stick with that team. For some reason, I struggle knowing I chose Atlanta to make the Super Bowl in the beginning of the year, while knowing I could end up picking against them in the playoffs. That's the problem with preseason predictions. What you think you know at the beginning of the season may not be what you know at the end of the season. That being said, I do think Atlanta will win this game against the Giants. I also haven't changed my mind on the Falcons and still really like them. The Giants defense hasn't been great against the pass this year and I think the Falcons are going to be able to exploit the Giants secondary with Roddy White, Tony Gonzalez and Julio "Gregg Easterbrook thinks I'm a diva" Jones. The Giants also haven't stopped the run exceptionally well this year and this is a strength of the Falcons as well, at least I believe it is.

On the other hand, the Giants can really throw the ball, and quite frankly they have played playoff games the last two weeks while the Falcons have beaten up on bad teams for the past month and a half. Eli Manning has been great this year and if Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers ceased to exist, Manning would get an MVP vote from me. I see a lot of "Packers 2010 playoffs" in the Giants. I say this because they haven't run the ball well, but I still think they can run the ball effectively, they have a passing offense that can quickly score points and they have a defense that can get a good pass rush from their front seven at times. Still, there's that secondary of the Giants. I have a hard time getting past that, even against non-elite passing team like Atlanta. I feel like the Falcons are going to be able to exploit the defensive weaknesses of the Giants and then Tom Coughlin will get fired a few days after the game is over.

DEN (+8.5)
Pittsburgh 20-17

I'm incredibly intrigued by which way this game goes. Tebow hasn't looked comfortable passing the ball (even more so than earlier in the year when he would only pass the ball well for 2-3 minutes in a game and that was enough to win the game) and the Steelers have a very good defense with a very good defensive coordinator. That being said, I think John Fox is an excellent coach and he had had success in the playoffs in the past. He's a great situational coach and I have no doubt his defensive game plan will give the banged-up Steelers offense fits. The Steelers are going to want big plays and Fox will want to take that away from the Steelers. I also can't help but wonder if Elway's "pull the trigger" comment about Tebow was an effort to get Tebow to throw the ball into tighter coverage and show off his deficiencies so he can draft another QB in the upcoming draft and not get murdered by a mob of angry Broncos fans. I'm jaded that way, but we do know Elway isn't the biggest Tebow fan.

The Steelers are really banged-up and their most crucial offensive player, Ben Roethlisberger, is injured and this will affect his mobility. That's one of Roethlisberger's greatest strengths and he will need mobility to deal with the Broncos defense. In my mind, the way to beat the Broncos is to score points early and force the Broncos offense out of its comfort zone. That isn't easy against as a Broncos defense that has been great lately. The Broncos comfort zone is running the ball, which works really well when the game is close, but not so much when the opposing team has a medium-sized lead. On defense, the Steelers have to stay at home in the running lanes and not allow Tebow to break containment. I can see the Broncos having a somewhat backwards game plan. I think they will ensure the Steelers aren't able to get a big play and take their chances on Isaac Redman beating them on the ground. This is either going to be a close game or an absolute blowout. We won't see any 21-10 scores. It will either be a 35-7 or 10-7 game. The Steelers haven't lost to a non-playoff team all year and I don't think they start this week. I've come to the point I don't underestimate Tim Tebow, but I tend to believe Dick LeBeau and the veteran Steelers defense will have a game plan that forces him to throw the football more often than he wants. If the Steelers were healthier I would easily pick them to win and cover the spread.

CHRIS: HOU -3.0, NO -10.5, NYG -3.0, PIT -8.5
JIMMY: HOU -3.0, NO -10.5, NYG -3.0, DEN +8.5
SEAN: HOU -3.0, DET +10.5, ATL +3.0, DEN +8.5
JON: CIN +3.0, NO -10.5, NYG -3.0, DEN +8.5
BEN: HOU -3.0, NO -10.5, ATL +3.0, DEN +8.5
Bill Simmons: HOU -3.0, NO -10.5, NYG -3.0, DEN +8.5