Colts vs. Jets:
The problem with trying to call this game is that the Jets have some sort of gypsy mojo going on that seems to carry about 1 team each year way too far. Last year Arizona spontaneously went from crap to gold in 3 weeks and Pittsburgh was able to duck a much better Tennessee team in the AFC Championship because the Titans had 146 turnovers in the divisional round. In 2008 it was the Giants and stuff like the ridiculous Tyree catch. In 2007, Indy inexplicably figured out how to defend the run after 10 years of not stopping anyone, and made a miraculous comeback against an exhausted Pats team in Indy's dome, which had been raised to 85 degrees (no, I'm not bitter about any of this--why do you ask?). The point here is that when you look up close, there's crazy stuff happening. But when you take a step back, crazy stuff ALWAYS happens and the surprise is what it is and who gets the breaks.
As I mentioned above, the Jets are riding the mojo train right now. They had a great break playing a shitty Bengal club and then pulling the upset of the Chargers largely on the back of 3 missed field goals. When you have the NFL's all-time most accurate kicker screw up 2 short field goals (I'll give a pass on the long one) and then get that preposterous Revis interception in the same game you win by 3 points, things are going your way.
Against Indy, I just have a hard time seeing them able to put up enough points to win. I think they'll keep it close, maybe a 3 or 6 point margin, but does anyone feel comfortable betting against Manning at home now? Granted, Manning has never been as good in the playoffs as in the regular season, as his career playoff record is 7-8. (Odd stat I just learned: In the Colts' 2007 Super Bowl run--their only successful postseason-- Manning actually had his worst set of playoff games, finishing with 3 TDs and 7 INTs. How 'bout that?) I have a great deal of respect for the Jet defense, and they're playing as well as any unit except potentially Minnesota.
I just have some concerns about the Jets putting points on the board. Can someone tell me how the Jets are going to do things differently from the Ravens did? They're basically running the same type of game, and despite winning 2 games, Mark Sanchez flat out isn't doing enough for them to beat Indy at home. They're going to need to get to 20 to win, and I can't see them getting there. On the running side, the Jets have a hell of a combo with Greene and Thomas. But so did the Ravens. The Jets can pound Indy inside, and they'll have to if they're going to have a chance. I'm guessing Indy stacks it up in the front and forces the Jets to force it to the outside, where their ends and undersized linebackers can run them down.
For Indy, they'll occasionally try some draws and their stretch play in the running game, but it's going to be 90% Manning. Manning has been traditionally been tough against the blitz because he's able to find the open man quick and get it out, even if it's only for a short gain. The key element is going to be the Indy blitz pick-up. If they can prevent the first rusher from getting in Manning's face, Indy wins it by 7-10 points. If the Jets can get to him and force bad throws, they might be able to pull the upset. I think Revis will slow Wayne, but the other wideouts will get just enough space to make a few catches when they need them. I don't see who is going to cover Clark, and I look for him to have a pretty good game--maybe 70 yards and a TD.
I'm guessing it's sort of a grinding type game with some long drives for both sides. Neither team has the big play type of offense and both have enough defensive speed to limit the other side down field. The Jets play a style that keeps these games close, but I'm thinking Manning makes just enough plays to get the win.
The Pick: Indy, 20-16.
Minnesota vs. New Orleans:
I look at this game and for whatever reason, I just see the Pats-Giants Super Bowl. I know there are some differences, but my guess is that it plays out somewhat the same. Right now the over/under is about 53, but I'm guessing it finishes about a little below that. While I think the Saints have the higher potential upside, my sense is that the matchups in this game favor the Vikings slightly. Not only that, I hear Prince has written a song for the Vikings, so that's worth about a TD or so.
Clearly, New Orleans' approach to every game is to score a lot of points early with the pass game, and then allow the defense to attack while the other team tries to come back. It's a pretty good system, but by the same token, if you can get up on them or just stay conservative, you can put points on the board. The top element of this game is the way that the Minnesota front 4 matches up with the Saint O-line. I don't care how good the QB is: If he's running for his life, he's not going to be effective. What makes the Vikes so tough is that they can bring big-time pressure without having to being extra men. The general rule is that against bad quarterbacks you blitz, and against good ones, play coverage. The Vikings don't have a Revis-level corner, and they need to maximize their coverage with extra guys back there. I love Jared Allen and Kevin Williams up front, and I think they make an enormous impact in forcing early throws.
I don't like the matchup for the Saint run game. They're basically a finesse line who get their yardage as a change-up from the pass game, and when teams play extra defensive backs. Since Minnesota won't likely change what they do, I don't foresee much success up front for the Saints. They'll get some yardage, but it won't be a major element of the game, maybe a total of 22 carries for 80 yards or something. Bush had a big game for them last week, but he's so inconsistent that it's hard to gauge what he'll do. He's playing for a new contract, but I have a hard time seeing him having an impact like he did last week against an abysmal Cardinals defense.
On the other side, the key for the Vikings is to slow the game down and pound Peterson as much as possible. It's a big Viking line that had their best game in a long time against a good Cowboy unit last week, and they should be able to get some push up front. The Saints are a smaller unit, similar to the Colts, and they'll probably need to commit more men up front to slow the run game. If the Vikes are effective running the ball, this should set up more play action for Favre. I was surprised at the success Favre had throwing the ball down field last week, considering how many of them were basically just thrown up in the air. That being said, the safety Sharper will make plays if given a chance, and Jabari Greer is pretty tough. Using the play action to hold Sharper for a second will give the Viking receivers a big help in getting open.
As for the Saint pass rush, the Vikes should be able to handle it if they commit the extra man on Will Smith. They should be able to use Kleinsasser to chip on him, and he doesn't have the size to get off of McKinnie once they get locked up.
Certainly the absence of Percy Harvin would be a big loss if the migraines keep him out. He gives Minnesota another big play option and a special teams presence that could bring some serious impact. But overall, this game should come down to two matchups: (1) the pass rush of the Minnesota front 4 vs. the Saint blockers; and (2) the Minnesota O-line in run blocking vs. New Orleans' front 7, allowing Peterson to get into the second level of defenders. Essentially, the other matchups are lop-sided, in that there's no way the Viking defensive backs can match up with the Saint passing game without pressure up front. No Way. Similarly, I don't see how the Saints can effectively run on a consistent basis against the Viking front 7. In the end, it ends up being close in what should be a well-played game.
The Pick: Vikings, 27-24.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
My Jersey Shore Haiku Goodbye
You played the nice guy
And yet threw barbs at the clowns.
Is that Pink Eye gone?
Snookie
A tragic figure
Four-Nine and Sober...umm...when?
I didn’t bang—yet.
Pauly D:
Good God what is that?
Like Hair, Yet Plastic and Glue
Is Rhode Island Deaf?
The Situation:
It’s Gym, Tan, Laundry.
Perhaps we can rename you
The Desparation
Angelina:
It took two Thursdays
Before your trash bags were gone,
You Cock Block Master
JWoww:
You’ve got issues and
I Hope Surgeons give refunds.
Wait, is that a shirt?
Sammie:
More hassle than fun.
You make a wet blanket look
Like Six Flags on Crack
Ronnie:
You broke your love rule
But kept it lively with brawls.
Dude, what are you on?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Beef: It's What's For Dinner (Unfortunately)
I was inspired by a brief but interesting article in Time this week (thanks, btw, to the postal worker who mistakenly delivered a neighbor's Time to us) to look more deeply into the potential for major benefits in switching from beef raised on silage corn to pasture grass. This is serious business, since there are more greenhouse gases coming from livestock production than human transportation. How 'bout that? Let me insert a plug here that I'm not opposed to eating beef, even though I actually eat about 10% of what I used to growing up. Turns out turkey is the shizz.
OK, I get that it seems like a small change, but think about what happens when we eat beef that's raised on a major beef production plant, in, say Texas, the top beef producer in the country. Well, that cow on a giant plant in Texas needs to eat--a lot. But we're not growing the corn in Texas, we're growing it in Nebraska.
So we have to first grow corn on our happy little corn farm (well, 3,500 acres--more on this later), which creates its own production costs, dumps a shitload of chemicals all over the land, and uses a ton of fuel. Then we have to process all this corn into a mix that can be easily be digested and turned into beef fat ASAP. Then we have to truck all this corn mix 800 miles to the plant where we're finishing up cows. At this point, the cows are munching on their grub--I'd imagine it tastes like Fritos--but because they're way too close together, you have to give them a shit ton of cow drugs to keep them from getting sick. The other problem, well, it's the poop.
Turns out manure (and everything else coming out a cow's butt) is chock full of methane, the same stuff that comes out of your car. This is sort of bad. Back in the day, it was no sweat because it all just went on the grass, fertilized new grass, and the cows or whatever ate that later on. Circle of life, baby, circle of life. But when you have 8,000 cows all pooping around each other, it's more crap than a Tea Party rally (sorry, I couldn't resist). So beside the point of "hey wait, do I want to eat this cow that's been hanging around poop all day? Is there a hyphen in E. Coli" (No, and No), you have to haul this mountain of poop somewhere, which takes more fuel. Then there's the whole problem of having to truck all this meat to it's final destination, which is likely hundreds, maybe thousands of miles away, since I want my Big Mac in Maryland.
On the other hand, if you have cattle and let them just graze on a big field somewhere, you're pretty much just skipping a ton of these steps. The cow eats grass, he walks around, poops all over the field, the poop makes healthy grass, and in the end, things take a turn for the worse for him. I'm not talking anything crazy like making everyone raise their own cow and eat him. Sounds pretty good, right?
Two Problems (But ones we can fix!):
1) It's more expensive to do it the grass-fed way.
2) The people in the grain-fed chain of production don't want anything to change. Ever.
The solutions really overlap on this whole mess, which helps simplify somewhat, but also means you need to really bring the wood if you're going to fix this clusterfuck.
Right now, it's probably going to cost you about twice as much to go get grass-fed beef at the store (We'll call it $6 per pound for grass to $3 per pound for corn), but those costs aren't actually reflective of, you know, reality. Here's the issue: it doesn't really cost $3 to get that pound of beef. It's more than that. But all along the chain, the Federal Government is paying the producers straight cash money to keep doing what they're doing. Here's how this works, in essence: The government guarantees a certain price for corn, say $10 per bushel. In our hypo, the price of corn on the open market works out to be about $7 per bushel, because the producers grew way more corn than ever was needed, and because they know they get paid even if the price drops low due to an over-saturated market. The government pays the extra $3 per bushel to the producer, probably a big corporation like Arthur Daniels Midland (ADM). Repeat this for each of ADM's 50 million bushels of corn every year. Repeat this process for the company responsible for the beef as well. Literally, the Federal government spends Billions every year doing this crap. And you're paying for it.
So the first thing is to really blow up this process and start over. A 2007 study noted that agribusiness spent over $135 million in 2006 on lobbying and campaign donations, about 2/3 to Republicans. Every time it comes up, we all see ads showing a small farmer wistfully looking at his scraggly crop and aging house, and that's what they want. The problem is that that guy's probably an actor, and 75% of the money spent goes to 10% of the recipients. The bottom 80% get about $700 on average, so forget about about the happy little storyline.
We all need to be waaaaay more proactive about this funding issue, because we're getting completely screwed on this, and as it turns out, we as the public are the only ones. ADM, Cargill, and Tyson are pretty much wiping their ass with Franklins that we're throwing at them, and we're responding to all of this by sending more bills. We need to get on this ASAP, and not let it slide when people like Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) get a ton of money from these guys and then use their seats on the Senate Agriculture Committee to keep this sham moving. This is why ADM has a 7-foot bronze statue of Ronald Reagan outside their corporate headquarters, not because he was a flashy dresser.
Ultimately, we can do a hell of a lot of good by just eating less beef, and focusing on the grass-fed stuff when we partake. If you ever see an ad claiming that beef farmer Jones is going under because we're not eating beef ,think to yourself, "Wait, Farmer Jones can afford to be on a national TV ad, but not to eat on a regular basis? Hmmmmm." Because it's as fake as the day is long. Also, by choosing locally raised meat that doesn't involve the mega-industrial elements, we'll push the market towards more desirable stuff, who actually are small farmers, increasing the demand and then subsequently the supply, and the price goes...? Down, that's right!
Guess what else? We can save loads of fuel by eating locally, and eat way less of the bacteria and drugs that they have to put into the system to make it sustainable. And I'm not even getting into the issues of how they treat the animals. Jesus, it's a rough, rough, business (and another blog entry, but not for today). Moreover, Lord knows it's clear that red meat is a nutritional disaster, regardless of what McDonalds and Kroger say. Try that turkey, because like I said, it's the shizz.
Hope this all makes some sense, and maybe down the road we can be a little better about what we're eating. Like I said before, I'm not anti-meat or anti-beef. I love meat, and I love beef. But just handing over money to these giant corporations so they can tell us to look the other way while they screw us seems a little unnecessary, no?
OK, I get that it seems like a small change, but think about what happens when we eat beef that's raised on a major beef production plant, in, say Texas, the top beef producer in the country. Well, that cow on a giant plant in Texas needs to eat--a lot. But we're not growing the corn in Texas, we're growing it in Nebraska.
So we have to first grow corn on our happy little corn farm (well, 3,500 acres--more on this later), which creates its own production costs, dumps a shitload of chemicals all over the land, and uses a ton of fuel. Then we have to process all this corn into a mix that can be easily be digested and turned into beef fat ASAP. Then we have to truck all this corn mix 800 miles to the plant where we're finishing up cows. At this point, the cows are munching on their grub--I'd imagine it tastes like Fritos--but because they're way too close together, you have to give them a shit ton of cow drugs to keep them from getting sick. The other problem, well, it's the poop.
Turns out manure (and everything else coming out a cow's butt) is chock full of methane, the same stuff that comes out of your car. This is sort of bad. Back in the day, it was no sweat because it all just went on the grass, fertilized new grass, and the cows or whatever ate that later on. Circle of life, baby, circle of life. But when you have 8,000 cows all pooping around each other, it's more crap than a Tea Party rally (sorry, I couldn't resist). So beside the point of "hey wait, do I want to eat this cow that's been hanging around poop all day? Is there a hyphen in E. Coli" (No, and No), you have to haul this mountain of poop somewhere, which takes more fuel. Then there's the whole problem of having to truck all this meat to it's final destination, which is likely hundreds, maybe thousands of miles away, since I want my Big Mac in Maryland.
On the other hand, if you have cattle and let them just graze on a big field somewhere, you're pretty much just skipping a ton of these steps. The cow eats grass, he walks around, poops all over the field, the poop makes healthy grass, and in the end, things take a turn for the worse for him. I'm not talking anything crazy like making everyone raise their own cow and eat him. Sounds pretty good, right?
Two Problems (But ones we can fix!):
1) It's more expensive to do it the grass-fed way.
2) The people in the grain-fed chain of production don't want anything to change. Ever.
The solutions really overlap on this whole mess, which helps simplify somewhat, but also means you need to really bring the wood if you're going to fix this clusterfuck.
Right now, it's probably going to cost you about twice as much to go get grass-fed beef at the store (We'll call it $6 per pound for grass to $3 per pound for corn), but those costs aren't actually reflective of, you know, reality. Here's the issue: it doesn't really cost $3 to get that pound of beef. It's more than that. But all along the chain, the Federal Government is paying the producers straight cash money to keep doing what they're doing. Here's how this works, in essence: The government guarantees a certain price for corn, say $10 per bushel. In our hypo, the price of corn on the open market works out to be about $7 per bushel, because the producers grew way more corn than ever was needed, and because they know they get paid even if the price drops low due to an over-saturated market. The government pays the extra $3 per bushel to the producer, probably a big corporation like Arthur Daniels Midland (ADM). Repeat this for each of ADM's 50 million bushels of corn every year. Repeat this process for the company responsible for the beef as well. Literally, the Federal government spends Billions every year doing this crap. And you're paying for it.
So the first thing is to really blow up this process and start over. A 2007 study noted that agribusiness spent over $135 million in 2006 on lobbying and campaign donations, about 2/3 to Republicans. Every time it comes up, we all see ads showing a small farmer wistfully looking at his scraggly crop and aging house, and that's what they want. The problem is that that guy's probably an actor, and 75% of the money spent goes to 10% of the recipients. The bottom 80% get about $700 on average, so forget about about the happy little storyline.
We all need to be waaaaay more proactive about this funding issue, because we're getting completely screwed on this, and as it turns out, we as the public are the only ones. ADM, Cargill, and Tyson are pretty much wiping their ass with Franklins that we're throwing at them, and we're responding to all of this by sending more bills. We need to get on this ASAP, and not let it slide when people like Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) get a ton of money from these guys and then use their seats on the Senate Agriculture Committee to keep this sham moving. This is why ADM has a 7-foot bronze statue of Ronald Reagan outside their corporate headquarters, not because he was a flashy dresser.
Ultimately, we can do a hell of a lot of good by just eating less beef, and focusing on the grass-fed stuff when we partake. If you ever see an ad claiming that beef farmer Jones is going under because we're not eating beef ,think to yourself, "Wait, Farmer Jones can afford to be on a national TV ad, but not to eat on a regular basis? Hmmmmm." Because it's as fake as the day is long. Also, by choosing locally raised meat that doesn't involve the mega-industrial elements, we'll push the market towards more desirable stuff, who actually are small farmers, increasing the demand and then subsequently the supply, and the price goes...? Down, that's right!
Guess what else? We can save loads of fuel by eating locally, and eat way less of the bacteria and drugs that they have to put into the system to make it sustainable. And I'm not even getting into the issues of how they treat the animals. Jesus, it's a rough, rough, business (and another blog entry, but not for today). Moreover, Lord knows it's clear that red meat is a nutritional disaster, regardless of what McDonalds and Kroger say. Try that turkey, because like I said, it's the shizz.
Hope this all makes some sense, and maybe down the road we can be a little better about what we're eating. Like I said before, I'm not anti-meat or anti-beef. I love meat, and I love beef. But just handing over money to these giant corporations so they can tell us to look the other way while they screw us seems a little unnecessary, no?
Friday, January 15, 2010
Divisional Weekend, Sunday Games
Cowboys vs. Vikings (Sunday Afternoon):
Let me start by saying that I love the way the Cowboys are playing right now, and this is the game I'm most interested in watching. Both teams look good on both sides of the ball, and they're doing things that they should be able to sustain throughout the playoffs. Running the ball hard and rushing the passer aren't fluky things the way that needing your QB to throw 350 yards and 4 TD to win can be.
As much as people have talked up the size of the Viking offensive line (the Fox guys are going to keep throwing it out there because Troy can't learn new material), they haven't actually been playing that well. The Dallas front 7 should be able to play Peterson and the run game well, and in general the Vikes haven't handled physical defensive lines well. Don't get me wrong, Peterson will get his yards, and it wouldn't be surprising if he ended up with 100 yards and a TD. If Dallas can keep him to around 100 yards on 25 carries, that's fine for the Cowboys. They need to avoid the big runs and make Favre beat them consistently.
The more Favre has to throw against this Dallas team, the more the game sways away from the Vikings. Favre is liable to make mistakes once he has to start making plays on his own, especially against a team with defensive play makers. The Vikings are at their best when Peterson can run effectively, setting up play action and some 2nd and 2 deep throws.
I love the Cowboy offense right now. It's an attack that can both grind the ball to wear you out and yet has potentially the top big play guy left in the playoffs in Felix Jones. The pass game tends to be safe and consistent, but I guess you could argue that the deep throw isn't really a big part of the game for them. Against Minnesota, I'm guessing they'll struggle with a lot of the interior runs with the Viking DTs being so tough to handle, but I do think they can break some runs on the exterior. Look for some draws to be run at Jared Allen, which should slow down his pass rush as well as create some opportunities for Jones and Barber to get out in space on the perimeter. The Cowboys are crazy to try to force the ball down field in the pass game because (1) the Viking pass rush is really tough, especially on the fast Metrodome turf; (2) Flozell Adams cannot consistently handle Jared Allen whatsoever without a ton of help; (3) they don't really have a downfield guy anyways.
I'm guessing the first half is going to be a somewhat defensive type game. There may be a big play, but the teams probably won't be able to just drive it. Maybe a halfime score around 13-10, 10-10, etc. The Cowboys have a little more explosion on a play to play basis, and I fear Favre might turn the ball over if he has to make plays on his own. I say the Cowboys do just enough to pull it out and head on to the NFC Championship. That being said, I do think these are the 2 best teams in the NFC, so I'll take the winner next week as well.
The Pick: Cowboys, 27-24.
Jets v. Chargers (Sunday Late Game)
As good as the Jets looked last week, we need to keep in mind that the Bengals really just weren't a very good team. They just weren't. That, and the Jets literally played their perfect game. People are underselling this Charger club and this week they'll make some big plays to show they're the real deal.
The Jets are clearly a run-first team, so look for a lot of heavy sets from the Chargers. San Diego isn't a particularly good team against the run game, so they'll have to commit extra guys up front. That being said, the Jets run game is more of a pound the rock approach as opposed to a big play team, so there still be situations where Sanchez needs to convert 3rd and 7. The biggest thing to watch out for, if you're the Chargers, is the Sanchez roll out where he's trying to get the TE Keller across the middle. They'll need to commit a safety to run with Keller, and they should be able to slow him a lot if they do.
On the other side of the ball, there is a huge hubbub about Darrell Revis and his ability to stop the passing game. The problem with this idea is that while Cincy only had one legitimate receiver, San Diego has Jackson, Gates, Naanee, Floyd, and Sproles, all of whom can catch the ball and make plays. Revis will generally be matched up with Jackson, and really close him off, but the Chargers are probably better equipped to respond to this than any team in the league (except maybe New Orleans or a healthy Arizona). The Jets will try to bring a ton of pressure, but the Chargers will respond by trying to get rid of the ball quick. Look for a lot of quick passes to the WRs and Sproles. The other issue is that the Chargers can throw a lot of the jump ball passes, and they should have a substantial advantage over the smaller Jet corners.
The Chargers aren't much of a running team, but it's not as bad as people made it out to be. Tomlinson has played better at home than on the road, and Sproles should be able to make some hay on sweeps and draws. That, and you can run on the Jets (Benson had 167 yards alone last week on the ground against 8 man fronts). All this being said, this game isn't going to be won or lost by the San Diego ground game--they're probably throwing it 35 times this week.
Overall, I like the Chargers to pull away once they get warmed up. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Jets score first or get an early turnover, but the Chargers seem like a team that's at least a touchdown better. Don't overvalue last week, since this happens every year.
The Pick: Chargers, 27-17.
Let me start by saying that I love the way the Cowboys are playing right now, and this is the game I'm most interested in watching. Both teams look good on both sides of the ball, and they're doing things that they should be able to sustain throughout the playoffs. Running the ball hard and rushing the passer aren't fluky things the way that needing your QB to throw 350 yards and 4 TD to win can be.
As much as people have talked up the size of the Viking offensive line (the Fox guys are going to keep throwing it out there because Troy can't learn new material), they haven't actually been playing that well. The Dallas front 7 should be able to play Peterson and the run game well, and in general the Vikes haven't handled physical defensive lines well. Don't get me wrong, Peterson will get his yards, and it wouldn't be surprising if he ended up with 100 yards and a TD. If Dallas can keep him to around 100 yards on 25 carries, that's fine for the Cowboys. They need to avoid the big runs and make Favre beat them consistently.
The more Favre has to throw against this Dallas team, the more the game sways away from the Vikings. Favre is liable to make mistakes once he has to start making plays on his own, especially against a team with defensive play makers. The Vikings are at their best when Peterson can run effectively, setting up play action and some 2nd and 2 deep throws.
I love the Cowboy offense right now. It's an attack that can both grind the ball to wear you out and yet has potentially the top big play guy left in the playoffs in Felix Jones. The pass game tends to be safe and consistent, but I guess you could argue that the deep throw isn't really a big part of the game for them. Against Minnesota, I'm guessing they'll struggle with a lot of the interior runs with the Viking DTs being so tough to handle, but I do think they can break some runs on the exterior. Look for some draws to be run at Jared Allen, which should slow down his pass rush as well as create some opportunities for Jones and Barber to get out in space on the perimeter. The Cowboys are crazy to try to force the ball down field in the pass game because (1) the Viking pass rush is really tough, especially on the fast Metrodome turf; (2) Flozell Adams cannot consistently handle Jared Allen whatsoever without a ton of help; (3) they don't really have a downfield guy anyways.
I'm guessing the first half is going to be a somewhat defensive type game. There may be a big play, but the teams probably won't be able to just drive it. Maybe a halfime score around 13-10, 10-10, etc. The Cowboys have a little more explosion on a play to play basis, and I fear Favre might turn the ball over if he has to make plays on his own. I say the Cowboys do just enough to pull it out and head on to the NFC Championship. That being said, I do think these are the 2 best teams in the NFC, so I'll take the winner next week as well.
The Pick: Cowboys, 27-24.
Jets v. Chargers (Sunday Late Game)
As good as the Jets looked last week, we need to keep in mind that the Bengals really just weren't a very good team. They just weren't. That, and the Jets literally played their perfect game. People are underselling this Charger club and this week they'll make some big plays to show they're the real deal.
The Jets are clearly a run-first team, so look for a lot of heavy sets from the Chargers. San Diego isn't a particularly good team against the run game, so they'll have to commit extra guys up front. That being said, the Jets run game is more of a pound the rock approach as opposed to a big play team, so there still be situations where Sanchez needs to convert 3rd and 7. The biggest thing to watch out for, if you're the Chargers, is the Sanchez roll out where he's trying to get the TE Keller across the middle. They'll need to commit a safety to run with Keller, and they should be able to slow him a lot if they do.
On the other side of the ball, there is a huge hubbub about Darrell Revis and his ability to stop the passing game. The problem with this idea is that while Cincy only had one legitimate receiver, San Diego has Jackson, Gates, Naanee, Floyd, and Sproles, all of whom can catch the ball and make plays. Revis will generally be matched up with Jackson, and really close him off, but the Chargers are probably better equipped to respond to this than any team in the league (except maybe New Orleans or a healthy Arizona). The Jets will try to bring a ton of pressure, but the Chargers will respond by trying to get rid of the ball quick. Look for a lot of quick passes to the WRs and Sproles. The other issue is that the Chargers can throw a lot of the jump ball passes, and they should have a substantial advantage over the smaller Jet corners.
The Chargers aren't much of a running team, but it's not as bad as people made it out to be. Tomlinson has played better at home than on the road, and Sproles should be able to make some hay on sweeps and draws. That, and you can run on the Jets (Benson had 167 yards alone last week on the ground against 8 man fronts). All this being said, this game isn't going to be won or lost by the San Diego ground game--they're probably throwing it 35 times this week.
Overall, I like the Chargers to pull away once they get warmed up. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Jets score first or get an early turnover, but the Chargers seem like a team that's at least a touchdown better. Don't overvalue last week, since this happens every year.
The Pick: Chargers, 27-17.
Divisional Weekend - Saturday Games
Cards at Saints: (Saturday Afternoon)
Right now, Warner and his offense are playing at an exceptionally high level, reminiscent of last year's monster run. He's throwing the ball all over hell and I don't actually see the Saints being able to stop them consistently. The run game is also looking tough, and Wells looks like a developing big-timer. The return of Boldin will help them somewhat if he can play, although he'll clearly be limited if he's out there at all.
That being said, Arizona's defense really is pretty shaky, and this should be what turns this in favor of an explosive Saint offense. Going to overtime with 45 on the board is never a good sign, especially when you're playing at home. The Saints have looked a little erratic but I'm thinking they'll be a little too much for the Arizona defense to stop. They seem like a team that can get a little sloppy against mediocre teams, but gets up for big games. Brees should be able to throw for a solid 300 yards and a couple of TDs. I'm actually expecting a very good game from the New Orleans running backs because you know Arizona's going to have to play a lot of nickel and dime sets. Pierre Thomas should be able to rip off a few big runs.
I think in the end Brees and his guys are able to get a lead and pull away. Warner should be very sharp, so I don't expect many turnovers from either side, although if New Orleans gets up they'll be able to start bringing heavy pressure. I'm guessing it's a pretty high scoring affair, but New Orleans wins it by about a touchdown.
The Pick: New Orleans, 38-30.
Ravens at Colts: (Saturday Night)
Maybe I'm putting too much weight on the Pats/Ravens game from last week, but I really like the chances of the Ravens to pull this out. I see it like this: if you're going to beat the Colts, you need to be able to (1) run the ball (check); (2) bring pressure without blitzing (check); and (3) put touchdowns on the board, not field goals (check).
It's pretty clear that the Ravens are going to try to just run it right at the Colts and try to both break a long one and wear them down. The Colt front 7 is fast, but they aren't a big group and Baltimore is going to be able to wear them down just banging away at them. Teams that have done this have, in general, had pretty good success against the Colts, even if they didn't win. My guess is that this game will be similar to what we saw in the first match-up with these teams, except Baltimore will be able to punch it in a couple of times. Remember, when they played earlier in the season, Baltimore was didn't get a single touchdown in four red zone trips when a single one would have won it. I think Rice and McGahee combine tomorrow for 180 yards and 2 TDs.
People are making a lot about Flacco struggling last week, but it's important to note that he never really had a chance to get into a rhythm because of the big lead. I don't foresee him having a huge game, but he'll be fine and make a few plays on pass action. Probably a final line like 14-20, 185 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT.
On the other side, Manning is of course fantastic. The only shortcoming here is that I don't see them being able to run it on the Ravens front 7, a big, strong crew. Wayne's tough, but the other WRs are pretty average and won't draw double teams. Moreover, Baltimore will be able to bring pressure against Manning without blitzing as much as they did last week. Keep in mind that since it's the 3-4, they can rush a linebacker without losing much in the way of coverage because they only have 3 linemen.
Overall, I'm guessing Baltimore comes out early and gets a lead. The Colts haven't played a serious game in about a month, and the Ravens are a team that's riding high with confidence and extremely physical. I'm saying the Ravens lead it 17-10 at the half and hold on for a 27-24 win.
The Pick: Ravens, 27-24.
Right now, Warner and his offense are playing at an exceptionally high level, reminiscent of last year's monster run. He's throwing the ball all over hell and I don't actually see the Saints being able to stop them consistently. The run game is also looking tough, and Wells looks like a developing big-timer. The return of Boldin will help them somewhat if he can play, although he'll clearly be limited if he's out there at all.
That being said, Arizona's defense really is pretty shaky, and this should be what turns this in favor of an explosive Saint offense. Going to overtime with 45 on the board is never a good sign, especially when you're playing at home. The Saints have looked a little erratic but I'm thinking they'll be a little too much for the Arizona defense to stop. They seem like a team that can get a little sloppy against mediocre teams, but gets up for big games. Brees should be able to throw for a solid 300 yards and a couple of TDs. I'm actually expecting a very good game from the New Orleans running backs because you know Arizona's going to have to play a lot of nickel and dime sets. Pierre Thomas should be able to rip off a few big runs.
I think in the end Brees and his guys are able to get a lead and pull away. Warner should be very sharp, so I don't expect many turnovers from either side, although if New Orleans gets up they'll be able to start bringing heavy pressure. I'm guessing it's a pretty high scoring affair, but New Orleans wins it by about a touchdown.
The Pick: New Orleans, 38-30.
Ravens at Colts: (Saturday Night)
Maybe I'm putting too much weight on the Pats/Ravens game from last week, but I really like the chances of the Ravens to pull this out. I see it like this: if you're going to beat the Colts, you need to be able to (1) run the ball (check); (2) bring pressure without blitzing (check); and (3) put touchdowns on the board, not field goals (check).
It's pretty clear that the Ravens are going to try to just run it right at the Colts and try to both break a long one and wear them down. The Colt front 7 is fast, but they aren't a big group and Baltimore is going to be able to wear them down just banging away at them. Teams that have done this have, in general, had pretty good success against the Colts, even if they didn't win. My guess is that this game will be similar to what we saw in the first match-up with these teams, except Baltimore will be able to punch it in a couple of times. Remember, when they played earlier in the season, Baltimore was didn't get a single touchdown in four red zone trips when a single one would have won it. I think Rice and McGahee combine tomorrow for 180 yards and 2 TDs.
People are making a lot about Flacco struggling last week, but it's important to note that he never really had a chance to get into a rhythm because of the big lead. I don't foresee him having a huge game, but he'll be fine and make a few plays on pass action. Probably a final line like 14-20, 185 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT.
On the other side, Manning is of course fantastic. The only shortcoming here is that I don't see them being able to run it on the Ravens front 7, a big, strong crew. Wayne's tough, but the other WRs are pretty average and won't draw double teams. Moreover, Baltimore will be able to bring pressure against Manning without blitzing as much as they did last week. Keep in mind that since it's the 3-4, they can rush a linebacker without losing much in the way of coverage because they only have 3 linemen.
Overall, I'm guessing Baltimore comes out early and gets a lead. The Colts haven't played a serious game in about a month, and the Ravens are a team that's riding high with confidence and extremely physical. I'm saying the Ravens lead it 17-10 at the half and hold on for a 27-24 win.
The Pick: Ravens, 27-24.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
What Was That Whole Trent Lott Thing About, Anyway?
It goes without saying that Harry Reid's had a tough week. First it was cold all weekend in D.C., then some extra office time on this health care stuff totally cut into the weekend. And then that whole racial business. Tough run, Harry, tough run. It's a pretty good rule of thumb that if you're ever being compared to Trent Lott, you've probably done something really dumb or illegal (fortunately for Reid, it was just dumb). At this point, let's take a look at what both people said, and compare them put them into context.
Turning first to Reid, there probably isn't anyone jumping in to argue that they loved to hear what he said, because it was stupid and inappropriate in the way he said it. And now the Republicans are trying to portray it as though he was burning crosses on Obama's lawn in a sheet. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, since half of what they argue every day is pure lunacy, but this is even more audacious because it flies in the face of both reality and their own actions.
The issue with what Reid said (basically, Obama was "light-skinned" and had “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.") is that the point he was trying to make wasn't really that offensive because it wasn't making a judgment. I completely agree with every claim that the way he phrased it was in poor taste and demonstrated a lack of thinking about how this would sound. His point wasn't that he didn't like Obama, that he didn't respect African-Americans, or something to that point. His point was that as much as the country raves about racial equality, White America was going to be more receptive to someone who looked more like them. It's his speculation on how a segment of undecided voters might respond to him. It sounds bad when he says it, but the principal has long been known in studies whether we're talking about babies, choosing friends, NBA viewership, and long-debated in elections. The comment about the "Negro dialect" is a poor way to make the point, since what he appeared to have meant was basically the stereotypical/cliche jargon that the same people holding racial reservations would have found highly objectionable. If he had written the statement down, for example, we would see Reid's own quotation marks around the term to further his meaning.
The context is even more critical, as it establishes this as a poorly-phrased gaffe as opposed to a revelation of racial animus. You can't call the guy a racist if he's one of the earliest supporters of a candidate of the race he allegedly dislikes. Reid has always publicly and privately supported Obama, and put his ass on the line to push the healthcare bill.
In contrast to all this, the indignant GOP and it's lackies are pointing to Trent Lott and claiming a double-standard. But what really happened back in 2002?
Lott, let's remember, had already been known for: (1) voting against Martin Luther King Day; (2) voting against extending the Civil Rights Act; and (3) voting against the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And so, on this lovely day in South Carolina, Lott proclaimed that if Strom Thurmond had won the Presidency in 1948, the Country wouldn't have all the problems it does now. The problem with this, of course, was that the chief platform of Thurmond's 1948 campaign was maintaining Southern Segregation. Keep in mind this wasn't a fringy, secondary issue--this was the main point of his campaign. Maybe Lott would try to explain it as referring to something that was purely secondary, but that's like saying, "Man, I wish those Nazis had won! That Holocaust thing was a downer, but the mail never got delivered faster! And the brown shirts were a great earth tone, good for any season."
In the end, the comparison just doesn't add up to make any sense. On one hand we have a poorly-phrased idea that doesn't correlate with the speaker's background, while on the other we see a clearly intentional statement that fits squarely within a pattern of opposing racial equality. It's clearly a weak attempt by the GOP and the industry shills to try to make Reid look bad and distract the public from the health care legislation they've desperately tried to block. It's offensive and counter-productive, but it's all they've got. That being said, it doesn't seem to be working well. You know you're not playing the race card well when all the people who would have been offended aren't, and the only ones up in arms are angry white men and Michael Steele, who, to borrow a phrase from the "The Chappelle Show," "makes Bryant Gumbel look like Malcolm X."
Turning first to Reid, there probably isn't anyone jumping in to argue that they loved to hear what he said, because it was stupid and inappropriate in the way he said it. And now the Republicans are trying to portray it as though he was burning crosses on Obama's lawn in a sheet. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, since half of what they argue every day is pure lunacy, but this is even more audacious because it flies in the face of both reality and their own actions.
The issue with what Reid said (basically, Obama was "light-skinned" and had “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.") is that the point he was trying to make wasn't really that offensive because it wasn't making a judgment. I completely agree with every claim that the way he phrased it was in poor taste and demonstrated a lack of thinking about how this would sound. His point wasn't that he didn't like Obama, that he didn't respect African-Americans, or something to that point. His point was that as much as the country raves about racial equality, White America was going to be more receptive to someone who looked more like them. It's his speculation on how a segment of undecided voters might respond to him. It sounds bad when he says it, but the principal has long been known in studies whether we're talking about babies, choosing friends, NBA viewership, and long-debated in elections. The comment about the "Negro dialect" is a poor way to make the point, since what he appeared to have meant was basically the stereotypical/cliche jargon that the same people holding racial reservations would have found highly objectionable. If he had written the statement down, for example, we would see Reid's own quotation marks around the term to further his meaning.
The context is even more critical, as it establishes this as a poorly-phrased gaffe as opposed to a revelation of racial animus. You can't call the guy a racist if he's one of the earliest supporters of a candidate of the race he allegedly dislikes. Reid has always publicly and privately supported Obama, and put his ass on the line to push the healthcare bill.
In contrast to all this, the indignant GOP and it's lackies are pointing to Trent Lott and claiming a double-standard. But what really happened back in 2002?
Lott, let's remember, had already been known for: (1) voting against Martin Luther King Day; (2) voting against extending the Civil Rights Act; and (3) voting against the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And so, on this lovely day in South Carolina, Lott proclaimed that if Strom Thurmond had won the Presidency in 1948, the Country wouldn't have all the problems it does now. The problem with this, of course, was that the chief platform of Thurmond's 1948 campaign was maintaining Southern Segregation. Keep in mind this wasn't a fringy, secondary issue--this was the main point of his campaign. Maybe Lott would try to explain it as referring to something that was purely secondary, but that's like saying, "Man, I wish those Nazis had won! That Holocaust thing was a downer, but the mail never got delivered faster! And the brown shirts were a great earth tone, good for any season."
In the end, the comparison just doesn't add up to make any sense. On one hand we have a poorly-phrased idea that doesn't correlate with the speaker's background, while on the other we see a clearly intentional statement that fits squarely within a pattern of opposing racial equality. It's clearly a weak attempt by the GOP and the industry shills to try to make Reid look bad and distract the public from the health care legislation they've desperately tried to block. It's offensive and counter-productive, but it's all they've got. That being said, it doesn't seem to be working well. You know you're not playing the race card well when all the people who would have been offended aren't, and the only ones up in arms are angry white men and Michael Steele, who, to borrow a phrase from the "The Chappelle Show," "makes Bryant Gumbel look like Malcolm X."
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Coming to a Screen Near You? Not if the Right Has Anything to Say About It.
As if the overly-righteous Prop. 8 advocates weren't offensive enough, now they've been tried to close the proceedings as much as possible to make sure the public doesn't see them make their case for discrimination. In essence, the conservatives have made a strong push to have the cameras removed from the courtroom against the wishes of the gay marriage advocates. It's amazing how these people were so proud to be out in public on the ads when they could control everything and not be questioned as to their beliefs , but once they might have to answer a tough question, they're suddenly scared for their safety. Right. What a bunch of slime balls.
The law on these issues is a little uncertain as of right now. There's a generalized presumption that open courts are a good thing, and there's no way that this would be completely closed. Basically, the public and press has a well established right to have court rooms open (except in special cases involving children, vulnerable victims, private medical records, etc.), but the issue has to do with video and television. The element of the youtube broadcast is a new one for the court to take head on, and they'll address it soon. The most important case law on the matter is the 1980 decision Chandler v. Florida, where the court held that cameras in the court room are allowable so long as they don't infringe on the rights of the involved parties, but more importantly, that states have the right to "experiment with evolving technologies." This should carry the day, but you never know.
I have a hard time seeing how any of the parties are going to demonstrate that their rights are being infringed by the case being shown on youtube. The Prop. 8 supporters have consistently brought themselves into the public arena and the safety concerns are at best shaky.
How is this going to play out? Sotomayer and Breyer are almost slam dunks for allowing cameras in the courtroom, and I think they can get the 5 votes they need. My guess is that Stevens and Ginsburg will join on, so the question is really Kennedy. It's not clear, but I think he might go for it. He seems to be of the persuasion that the courts can decide for themselves, so I'm guessing he'll let the judge do what he wants. Of course Clarence Thomas will vote against it because he's an angry incompetent bigot, and that's how he rolls. Plus, if he's ever on TV he'll look like a moron, and he wants to do what he can to keep that from happening. Scalia probably will also close it down. Alito used to be more open to these things, but he appears to have turned towards closing them, and same for Roberts. One key part of this, of course, is that they're deciding whether a judge can open his own court room, and not whether the Supreme Court has to allow cameras in their court. That's a less likely proposition than letting the trial judge decide for himself.
Of course all of this overlooks the fact that at the heart of the matter is the fact that we should all be offended by the conservatives trying to keep the public from seeing what's happening. If they're as proud and firm in their beliefs, why do they need to hide from the public? Why hide if the facts and law are on your side? I think we can pretty reasonably draw our own conclusions.
The law on these issues is a little uncertain as of right now. There's a generalized presumption that open courts are a good thing, and there's no way that this would be completely closed. Basically, the public and press has a well established right to have court rooms open (except in special cases involving children, vulnerable victims, private medical records, etc.), but the issue has to do with video and television. The element of the youtube broadcast is a new one for the court to take head on, and they'll address it soon. The most important case law on the matter is the 1980 decision Chandler v. Florida, where the court held that cameras in the court room are allowable so long as they don't infringe on the rights of the involved parties, but more importantly, that states have the right to "experiment with evolving technologies." This should carry the day, but you never know.
I have a hard time seeing how any of the parties are going to demonstrate that their rights are being infringed by the case being shown on youtube. The Prop. 8 supporters have consistently brought themselves into the public arena and the safety concerns are at best shaky.
How is this going to play out? Sotomayer and Breyer are almost slam dunks for allowing cameras in the courtroom, and I think they can get the 5 votes they need. My guess is that Stevens and Ginsburg will join on, so the question is really Kennedy. It's not clear, but I think he might go for it. He seems to be of the persuasion that the courts can decide for themselves, so I'm guessing he'll let the judge do what he wants. Of course Clarence Thomas will vote against it because he's an angry incompetent bigot, and that's how he rolls. Plus, if he's ever on TV he'll look like a moron, and he wants to do what he can to keep that from happening. Scalia probably will also close it down. Alito used to be more open to these things, but he appears to have turned towards closing them, and same for Roberts. One key part of this, of course, is that they're deciding whether a judge can open his own court room, and not whether the Supreme Court has to allow cameras in their court. That's a less likely proposition than letting the trial judge decide for himself.
Of course all of this overlooks the fact that at the heart of the matter is the fact that we should all be offended by the conservatives trying to keep the public from seeing what's happening. If they're as proud and firm in their beliefs, why do they need to hide from the public? Why hide if the facts and law are on your side? I think we can pretty reasonably draw our own conclusions.
The Plan to Fix the Pats
As bad as the Ravens game looked (and it was so, so bad), I actually don’t think the Pats are really that far from being a serious contender for a championship and not just the playoff fodder they resembled for most of this season. It’s a situation, for example, where the defensive backs looked shaky at times, but a lot of that was due to the complete lack of a pass rush, which left them exposed for too long. Fix the pass rush and bam! We’ve now fixed the pass rush and defensive backs look better.
I’ve broken down a number of the players who would seem to be the potential source of some changes:
Players to Let go, or include as trade chips if people want them:
Adalius Thomas:
He’s not a terrible player. He really isn’t. But he’s making too damn much money and has started to become a malcontent. The Pats aren’t using him effectively, so he’s basically wasted. This will save some serious dollars and give them some useful flexibility. In short, he has to go.
Matt Light:
Matt, we’ve had a good run. But the struggles against good pass rushers has become too much to withstand (ugh, that first Suggs strip sack was 110% Light getting beat. Again.) and we have a good, young replacement in Vollmer who already appears better. If Light is willing to take a pay cut, we can keep him as a sub/rotation guy. But $4.5 million for a middle of the road tackle isn’t going to work. He's only signed through 2010 anyways, and there's no cap hit if we cut him.
Ben Watson:
Just let him go. He drops too many passes and isn’t much of a blocker. We can replace him without much issue.
Derek Burgess:
It just didn’t work, and there’s not much more to add than that. There’s $2 mil off the books.
Fred Taylor:
I've got nothing against this guy, but at this point in his career he's a guy who's injured all the time and about a middle of the road guy when he's healthy. And he makes almost $3 mil, when you factor in his bonus cap charge. This isn't going to fly. Gotta renegotiate this or just cut him loose.
Guys to Re-Sign:
Wilfork:
They need to bring him back, one way or another. He’s a huge part of the run defense, and extremely tough to replace. He’ll want some serious money, and they need to give it to him. By the time the Pats can track down someone to replace him, Brady’s at the very end of his career. We need to make this happen.
Guys To Try To Re-sign, But Don’t Break The Bank To Do It:
Leigh Bodden:
We should be able to get him back with a decent contract. He had a pretty good year, and I like the trio of Bodden, Springs, and Butler moving forward. Maybe $5 mil per year should do it. If he wants more than that, let him go--he's not a $7 mil per year Pro Bowl guy. Overall, we aren't spending that much money on the defensive backfield, so we can pay him a little.
Logan Mankins:
Like Bodden, I’d like to keep him but if he’s demanding $7 mil per year, he can pack his bags. Contenders don’t pay that kind of money for interior linemen. The Vikings are paying Hutchinson that kind of money, but they’re winning because of Favre and Peterson. Keep him for $5 mil or let him walk. Interesting situation on him: if 2010 is an uncapped year, he won't have accrued the 6 years of tenure required to become a free agent and he's stuck in New England. If it's a capped year, he'll likely get the old rule, whichonly would have required 4 years, and he'll probably bounce. Let somebody like Tampa or Seattle throw $45 mil at him if they want.
Steven Neal:
They can keep him, but don’t go more than $2-3 mil per year. He’s an injury prone over-achiever who is good, but not that good.
The Big Trade:
To Pats: RB Steven Jackson
To Rams: Julian Edelman, Laurence Maroney, 2009 2nd Round Pick (#57)
OK, this is a big trade here. Jackson is a monster tail back in the prime of his career. He’s making some serious money, but if we cut costs by dropping Thomas and Maroney, that helps a lot. Same thing for Light, if we need to keep clearing space. As for Edelman, he’s somewhat redundant for the Pats when Welker comes back, and as much as everyone would love to keep him, you have to give something to get something. Maroney wasn’t a bad runner, he just wasn’t the best fit and the Pats can gamble on a big timer like Jackson for 3 years. Also, the Pats have 3 SecondRounders, so they can afford to lose one without suffering too badly. They might need to throw in another low pick, and if so, do it.
For the Rams, it makes sense as well. Jackson’s going to be done by the time they get close enough to contend for anything, and they’ll basically just win 2 games either with him or without him. They get a talented young receiver who can clearly play on a winning team, as we’ve seen the last few weeks. They have nothing for receivers and he would be a cheap, reliable starter next year. Maroney can step in as a primary ball carrier for 2010 and they can decide what to do with him at that point. And the 2nd round pick is a good one in a deep draft.
Draft:
We flat out need pass rushers who can come off the edge in the 3-4. We’ve been getting killed by the absence of a game changer at this position and trying to fill it in with guys like Tully Banta-Cain has a limited upside. The other big elements are a developmental DE to occasionally fill in for Warren and to replace Seymour’s position, a young Tight End, and a big receiver to develop.
Keep in mind also that there are a handful of young guys who we didn't see much of this season due to injury, namely WR Brandon Tate and LB Tyrone McKenzie. Both of them looked like solid prospects before they got banged up. OLB Shawn Crable looked like he had some potential, but he's always hurt and hasn't made any impact in his time with the team. He might get cut anyways if he can't get it figured out soon.
Free Agents to Target:
With the free agents, I don't see much point in picking out the big name guys and saying "We need Peppers! We need Brandon Marshall!" since those are pretty unlikely scenarios. The guys listed below are the types of players they'll likely target, since re-signing their own guys is a higher priority.
Deion Branch:
There’s no way Seattle keeps him around, based on his performance, price, and the team outlook. They’ll cut him this offseason and we need to grab him for an affordable price to play the 3rd Receiver role.
Bo Scaife:
I like this guy and the situation. Tennessee has a good young TE in Jared Cook, and Scaife seems like a guy who could be a decent short yardage TE and blocker.
Here's a guy who has done well as a situational pass rusher in the 3-4. He's an older guy, so a 2-year deal would probably work just fine.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Wildcard Weekend, Episode II
Patriots vs. Ravens:
If you ask some people, they'll say that this match-up is going to be controlled by the loss of Wes Welker. I'm not one of them. I love Welker and everything he brings to the Pats. That being said, New England will be surprisingly adept at playing without him. How, you ask?
The Pats are going to change what they're trying to do in a broader sense. Edelman will be able to give them about 75% of what Edelman would have, except that they're going to throw less to that position. Playing the Ravens creates a little bit of an odd match to start, as the Ravens have tended to be a tough defense to run on. You'll hear a lot about how tough the Ravens are to run the ball against and there will be some ranks and stats tossed out there. But when you look at the game breakdowns for the Ravens, they're a team that gave up some pretty big yardage totals to good teams and really shut down the run games of bad teams and good teams who don't run well (like San Diego and Indy). Teams like Minnesota and Cincinnati ran it right down Baltimore's throats. So don't think that you can't run on these guys. Granted, if New England wins, they'll run a heck of a lot more in the upcoming game(s).
The other reason teams didn't run it a ton is because the corners for the Ravens are pretty mediocre and give up big plays. Foxworth gets beat in coverage like it's his job, and outside of Ed Reed there isn;t much back there. My guess is that the Pats will try to establish the run and then work some play action off of that, likely a few deep throws to Moss. If the Pats get Moss isolated on a single Baltimore corner, mark it up for 6. Brady's going to be spreading the ball around, so I don't think any one receiver will have huge numbers. Moss will get his 100 yards and TD, but otherwise look for about 6 receivers to have 30 yards.
Baltimore will oppose this by trying to force 3rd and long situations and bring pressure with Suggs. New England knows they're going to need to help the tackles against him and as a result, I don't see Watson or Baker having huge games like some people are suggesting.
On the other side of the ball, the number one issue is whether Flacco can have a big game. My guess is that the Pats will absolutely focus on Rice, and limit his damage. They'll do this by playing a lot of men close to the line and they'll be helped enormously by the return of Wilfork and Warren. That being said, it's going to create opportunities for the Baltimore wideouts and Heap to make plays agaisnt single coverage. The matchups of Leigh Bodden & Springs vs. Derek Mason and Clayton are going to be huge, and likely will swing the game dramatically. I'm guessing those 2 corners will do a pretty good job and prevent them from making catches consistently. The other factor is the pass rush, and Tully Banta Cain should be able to make a play or 2 around the outside--he's the best rusher they have and is fast enough to turn the corner on the left tackle Gaither.
In summary, I think the Pats pull this one out. They've traditionally played well at home, and Baltimore hasn't shown itself to be a team ready to make big plays when it matters. I don't like their receivers or corners, and I think Belichick is going to be creative in bringing pressure on Flacco to get him on the move, where he's far less effective. New England will be able to grind out enough rush yardage to create opportunities downfield. I also expect an increase in the use of Faulk in the screen game to help slow the pass rush down.
The Call: Pats, 24-17.
If you ask some people, they'll say that this match-up is going to be controlled by the loss of Wes Welker. I'm not one of them. I love Welker and everything he brings to the Pats. That being said, New England will be surprisingly adept at playing without him. How, you ask?
The Pats are going to change what they're trying to do in a broader sense. Edelman will be able to give them about 75% of what Edelman would have, except that they're going to throw less to that position. Playing the Ravens creates a little bit of an odd match to start, as the Ravens have tended to be a tough defense to run on. You'll hear a lot about how tough the Ravens are to run the ball against and there will be some ranks and stats tossed out there. But when you look at the game breakdowns for the Ravens, they're a team that gave up some pretty big yardage totals to good teams and really shut down the run games of bad teams and good teams who don't run well (like San Diego and Indy). Teams like Minnesota and Cincinnati ran it right down Baltimore's throats. So don't think that you can't run on these guys. Granted, if New England wins, they'll run a heck of a lot more in the upcoming game(s).
The other reason teams didn't run it a ton is because the corners for the Ravens are pretty mediocre and give up big plays. Foxworth gets beat in coverage like it's his job, and outside of Ed Reed there isn;t much back there. My guess is that the Pats will try to establish the run and then work some play action off of that, likely a few deep throws to Moss. If the Pats get Moss isolated on a single Baltimore corner, mark it up for 6. Brady's going to be spreading the ball around, so I don't think any one receiver will have huge numbers. Moss will get his 100 yards and TD, but otherwise look for about 6 receivers to have 30 yards.
Baltimore will oppose this by trying to force 3rd and long situations and bring pressure with Suggs. New England knows they're going to need to help the tackles against him and as a result, I don't see Watson or Baker having huge games like some people are suggesting.
On the other side of the ball, the number one issue is whether Flacco can have a big game. My guess is that the Pats will absolutely focus on Rice, and limit his damage. They'll do this by playing a lot of men close to the line and they'll be helped enormously by the return of Wilfork and Warren. That being said, it's going to create opportunities for the Baltimore wideouts and Heap to make plays agaisnt single coverage. The matchups of Leigh Bodden & Springs vs. Derek Mason and Clayton are going to be huge, and likely will swing the game dramatically. I'm guessing those 2 corners will do a pretty good job and prevent them from making catches consistently. The other factor is the pass rush, and Tully Banta Cain should be able to make a play or 2 around the outside--he's the best rusher they have and is fast enough to turn the corner on the left tackle Gaither.
In summary, I think the Pats pull this one out. They've traditionally played well at home, and Baltimore hasn't shown itself to be a team ready to make big plays when it matters. I don't like their receivers or corners, and I think Belichick is going to be creative in bringing pressure on Flacco to get him on the move, where he's far less effective. New England will be able to grind out enough rush yardage to create opportunities downfield. I also expect an increase in the use of Faulk in the screen game to help slow the pass rush down.
The Call: Pats, 24-17.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Wild Card Preview, Episode I
Sweetness! The Playoffs are here and I'm pumped as all hell. The next two weeks are the best all season, with a pair of big time match-ups both Saturday and Sunday. So go grab a few brews and a half dozen pizzas and get it ready for the weekend.
I'm going to discuss each game, first the Saturday games and then post notes for the Sunday affairs separately.
Jets vs. Bengals:
This is going to be the ugliest game to watch, hands down. We're going to see 2 good defenses, 2 decent but predictable offenses, and some cold weather. It's a combination likely to max this game out at about 32 points total. An odd element here is that while I think Cincinnati is better overall, the Jets are a terrible match-up for them and pose some serious problems for a 6 seed.
I don't like the way Cincy's offense matches up here. Basically, their primary receiver (Ochocinco--BTW, this has given me endless laughs over the last 2 years. I don't care if it's corny, I love it.) is going to be seriously limited by Revis, the top corner in the game right now. After that, the Jets can commit 8 man fronts to stopping the Bengal run game, which is their bread and butter. I like Benson as a grinder-type running back, but I can't see them making a living when the Jets are stacked against the run. If Cincinnati is going to win, you're going to see some big plays out of Andre Caldwell Laverneus Coles. This of course reminds us of the age-old football proverb: if you're relying on Andre Caldwell and Laverneus Coles, you're probably screwed.
On the other side of the ball, the Jets have no choice but to focus on running the ball. To say rookie quarterbacks traditionally struggle in these situations is like saying trees traditionally struggle in wood chippers. Additionally, Sanchez doesn't really have the cannon that you'd like to see in a cold, breezy day. They'll try to mix in some play action so loosen the linebackers up a little. The Cincy corners are good, and the Jets receivers are at best a mediocre lot, so don't expect a lot of downfield stuff. I think we could see some good things out of TE Dustin Keller. Most of all, it's all about how well the Jets can pound out the rushing yards. I think you can run on the Bengals a little with the injuries they've had (like Maualaga's broken ankle) and that's something the Jets will try to exploit.
I'm guessing this one stays close, but the Jets are able to make a couple of big plays on defense. Maybe something like an interception or sack and fumble recovery for a TD. Cincy just can't put enough points on the board, and Jets squeeze it out with the D.
The Call: JETS, 17-13.
Eagles v. Cowboys:
First of all, don't put huge stock into what happened last week. Those week 17 games don't generally have much impact on the next week. That being said, the Cowboys have looked excellent the last few weeks and have shown they can handle the passing game probably as well as most anyone. I'm not as high on the Eagles as a lot of people. They look to me like a team that has feasted on teams that either weren't any good (like KC and Tampa) or who were all messed up at the time of the game (like the Giants late in the year or Atlanta w/o Matt Ryan or Turner). I don't see any quality wins on their schedule (link).
I like the way the Dallas defense matches up with the Eagles. The corners, especially Jenkins, have played real well in the last few weeks, and the Eagle receivers other than Desean Jackson are pretty unremarkable. The other issue here is that the Dallas defensive line is playing extremely well and should be able to dominate the Philly blockers. Look for the criminally underrated NT Jay Ratliff to make some plays and for Demarcus Ware to eat up Jason Peters, who's been living off his name for 2 years now. All this should allow for a lot of nickel and dime coverage for Dallas and a tough throwing day for McNabb. The Eagles are going to struggle running, so look for a lot of short screens and draws with McCoy.
On the other side of the ball, look for Dallas to try to wear down the Eagle defense with a big offensive line and it's tailback rotation. I like the Philly defense, but I'm thinking they may have trouble because of the versatility of the Cowboy offense. Dallas has to avoid the long 3rd downs, because the Eagles are going to blitz and have the defense designed to make big plays. Asante Samuel is excellent for the Eagles and he is going to make a big play. But by that same token, Dallas is going to run some double moves with the receivers and beat him on a long pass.
I think the home field will be a surprisingly big advantage for the Cowboys. They're going to pack the new stadium with some ridiculous number of fans, and it's going to be noisy as hell with the roof closed. The Dallas defense will surprise and really have a big game. I'm guessing it's close early and Dallas pulls away in the last 20 minutes.
The Call: Dallas 30-20
I'm going to discuss each game, first the Saturday games and then post notes for the Sunday affairs separately.
Jets vs. Bengals:
This is going to be the ugliest game to watch, hands down. We're going to see 2 good defenses, 2 decent but predictable offenses, and some cold weather. It's a combination likely to max this game out at about 32 points total. An odd element here is that while I think Cincinnati is better overall, the Jets are a terrible match-up for them and pose some serious problems for a 6 seed.
I don't like the way Cincy's offense matches up here. Basically, their primary receiver (Ochocinco--BTW, this has given me endless laughs over the last 2 years. I don't care if it's corny, I love it.) is going to be seriously limited by Revis, the top corner in the game right now. After that, the Jets can commit 8 man fronts to stopping the Bengal run game, which is their bread and butter. I like Benson as a grinder-type running back, but I can't see them making a living when the Jets are stacked against the run. If Cincinnati is going to win, you're going to see some big plays out of Andre Caldwell Laverneus Coles. This of course reminds us of the age-old football proverb: if you're relying on Andre Caldwell and Laverneus Coles, you're probably screwed.
On the other side of the ball, the Jets have no choice but to focus on running the ball. To say rookie quarterbacks traditionally struggle in these situations is like saying trees traditionally struggle in wood chippers. Additionally, Sanchez doesn't really have the cannon that you'd like to see in a cold, breezy day. They'll try to mix in some play action so loosen the linebackers up a little. The Cincy corners are good, and the Jets receivers are at best a mediocre lot, so don't expect a lot of downfield stuff. I think we could see some good things out of TE Dustin Keller. Most of all, it's all about how well the Jets can pound out the rushing yards. I think you can run on the Bengals a little with the injuries they've had (like Maualaga's broken ankle) and that's something the Jets will try to exploit.
I'm guessing this one stays close, but the Jets are able to make a couple of big plays on defense. Maybe something like an interception or sack and fumble recovery for a TD. Cincy just can't put enough points on the board, and Jets squeeze it out with the D.
The Call: JETS, 17-13.
Eagles v. Cowboys:
First of all, don't put huge stock into what happened last week. Those week 17 games don't generally have much impact on the next week. That being said, the Cowboys have looked excellent the last few weeks and have shown they can handle the passing game probably as well as most anyone. I'm not as high on the Eagles as a lot of people. They look to me like a team that has feasted on teams that either weren't any good (like KC and Tampa) or who were all messed up at the time of the game (like the Giants late in the year or Atlanta w/o Matt Ryan or Turner). I don't see any quality wins on their schedule (link).
I like the way the Dallas defense matches up with the Eagles. The corners, especially Jenkins, have played real well in the last few weeks, and the Eagle receivers other than Desean Jackson are pretty unremarkable. The other issue here is that the Dallas defensive line is playing extremely well and should be able to dominate the Philly blockers. Look for the criminally underrated NT Jay Ratliff to make some plays and for Demarcus Ware to eat up Jason Peters, who's been living off his name for 2 years now. All this should allow for a lot of nickel and dime coverage for Dallas and a tough throwing day for McNabb. The Eagles are going to struggle running, so look for a lot of short screens and draws with McCoy.
On the other side of the ball, look for Dallas to try to wear down the Eagle defense with a big offensive line and it's tailback rotation. I like the Philly defense, but I'm thinking they may have trouble because of the versatility of the Cowboy offense. Dallas has to avoid the long 3rd downs, because the Eagles are going to blitz and have the defense designed to make big plays. Asante Samuel is excellent for the Eagles and he is going to make a big play. But by that same token, Dallas is going to run some double moves with the receivers and beat him on a long pass.
I think the home field will be a surprisingly big advantage for the Cowboys. They're going to pack the new stadium with some ridiculous number of fans, and it's going to be noisy as hell with the roof closed. The Dallas defense will surprise and really have a big game. I'm guessing it's close early and Dallas pulls away in the last 20 minutes.
The Call: Dallas 30-20
Thursday, January 7, 2010
The Alamo, Part II
Tonight's Alabama-Texas BCS game really doesn't look to me like much of a match-up. I have nothing against Texas in the broad sense (putting aside the Bush debacle and now the turf at Reliant Stadium), but I don't see this one ending well for the Horns. In bowl games like this, we tend to see the strength of teams accentuated because of the extra time to prepare and coach. Tonight we're going to see a ton of pressure on McCoy, and there are going to be some big plays made by the defense through their extensive blitz package.
McCoy simply doesn't have the skill or weapons to attack the Alabama defense. Tide defenders like Rolando McClain are going to look like superstars on account of their superior athleticism and the inability of Texas to handle that element. There's going to be a play early on where Shipley catches a 5 yard pass across the middle and gets decked when this all becomes pretty evident. Remember what Ndamukong Suh did against Texas last month? Suh is better than any individual Tide defender, but Alabama has a huge array of athletes of that same ilk.
The entire Texas offense is predicated on efficient passing from McCoy, and subsequently when opposing defenses are able to disrupt the timing (whether through pressure or coverage), things go all to hell. In the two games against competition similar to what he'll see tonight, Nebraska and Okahoma, he threw for an average of 155 yards, and a total of 1 TD and 4 INTs. On the running side, the Alabama defensive line is big enough and fast enough to control a mediocre Texas Offensive line without committing extra men to the box, and there's enough speed in the back 7 to prevent any long runs. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Texas only ran for 50 yards all night, and would be stunned if it really became a big part of the offense. It's just not their game.
On the other side of the ball, I've never been a huge fan of the Alabama offense but they appear strong enough to grind out some points. Ingram is tough, but I'm pretty ambivalent on the QB McElroy. That being said, I'm thinking they may get some short fields and I think you'll see a big play or two from Julio Jones. He's a monster WR and has been quiet for stretches, but he seems like someone who will make a big play on national TV. I like the Texas defense somewhat, but they seem like a defense predicated on playing from ahead. Look for Alabama to just wear them down.
The Texas defense absolutely lives on turnovers (they were tied for second nationally with 35--about 3 a game), but they are highly unlikely to get much help there tonight. Alabama has only had 10 turnovers all year, and they aren't going to get into the types of situations that tend to breed turnovers, like throwing into coverage on a 3rd and 13 situation.
Overall, I like the Tide, 27-13. I don't see Texas consistently moving the ball well enough to get past 20 points, and the Tide offense is tough enough to get that number. I'm guessing the Texas offense gets a little shell shocked in the first half and the halftime score is around 16-6. If Texas is going to win, they MUST get a big play or 2 from special teams or a defensive TD. But I just don't see it happening, on account of how safe the Alabama offense plays everything.
That's how I see it all playing out, but hey, they don't play it on paper. Unfortunately for Texas, this is going to go badly on both.
McCoy simply doesn't have the skill or weapons to attack the Alabama defense. Tide defenders like Rolando McClain are going to look like superstars on account of their superior athleticism and the inability of Texas to handle that element. There's going to be a play early on where Shipley catches a 5 yard pass across the middle and gets decked when this all becomes pretty evident. Remember what Ndamukong Suh did against Texas last month? Suh is better than any individual Tide defender, but Alabama has a huge array of athletes of that same ilk.
The entire Texas offense is predicated on efficient passing from McCoy, and subsequently when opposing defenses are able to disrupt the timing (whether through pressure or coverage), things go all to hell. In the two games against competition similar to what he'll see tonight, Nebraska and Okahoma, he threw for an average of 155 yards, and a total of 1 TD and 4 INTs. On the running side, the Alabama defensive line is big enough and fast enough to control a mediocre Texas Offensive line without committing extra men to the box, and there's enough speed in the back 7 to prevent any long runs. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Texas only ran for 50 yards all night, and would be stunned if it really became a big part of the offense. It's just not their game.
On the other side of the ball, I've never been a huge fan of the Alabama offense but they appear strong enough to grind out some points. Ingram is tough, but I'm pretty ambivalent on the QB McElroy. That being said, I'm thinking they may get some short fields and I think you'll see a big play or two from Julio Jones. He's a monster WR and has been quiet for stretches, but he seems like someone who will make a big play on national TV. I like the Texas defense somewhat, but they seem like a defense predicated on playing from ahead. Look for Alabama to just wear them down.
The Texas defense absolutely lives on turnovers (they were tied for second nationally with 35--about 3 a game), but they are highly unlikely to get much help there tonight. Alabama has only had 10 turnovers all year, and they aren't going to get into the types of situations that tend to breed turnovers, like throwing into coverage on a 3rd and 13 situation.
Overall, I like the Tide, 27-13. I don't see Texas consistently moving the ball well enough to get past 20 points, and the Tide offense is tough enough to get that number. I'm guessing the Texas offense gets a little shell shocked in the first half and the halftime score is around 16-6. If Texas is going to win, they MUST get a big play or 2 from special teams or a defensive TD. But I just don't see it happening, on account of how safe the Alabama offense plays everything.
That's how I see it all playing out, but hey, they don't play it on paper. Unfortunately for Texas, this is going to go badly on both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)