Lately we've all heard quite a bit from the GOP on whether Federal authorities were wrong to have given Miranda warnings to Umar Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bombing suspect. As their argument goes, we've made ourselves less safe and given a huge unfair advantage by letting him "lawyer up." Leading the charge has been the insufferable Sarah Palin and her band of error-wielding cohorts, now featuring Maine Senator Susan Collins. While I'm not surprised that Sarah Barracuda she didn't get into the subtleties (or apparently main principles) of Constitutional law at Hawaii Pacific University, North Idaho College, the University of Idaho, Matanuska-Susitna College, or back at the University of Idaho a second time, I at least wished Madam Collins might have suspected something was off. Don't get me wrong though, Susan Collins has always made me wonder if there was a radon leak in her home or something. Damn that woman is dumb.
The problem here is that those two have echoed a sentiment as to the mechanics of the Constitution that is absolutely flat wrong. They've repeatedly made arguments in essence claiming that the Obama administration completely messed up by issuing Miranda warnings to the suspect because only US Citizens possess the right to counsel or to receive Miranda warnings. And as much as they wish it were so, it just plain isn't. This whole "lawyer up" thing they're ripping on and selling as a way for Obama to let terrorists run amok is one of the central tenets of American law, and is basically just an argument to deny all rights to anyone we think is a terrorist. It's the same as arguing that he shouldn't be able to have a trial, refuse to speak, or cross-examine witnesses.
The Constitution has NEVER been limited to just American citizens. It just doesn't work that way. The entire premise of the Constitution is that it's a set of limits on the Federal Government, not a set of specific powers granted to Citizens (or people at all, really). The reason law enforcement officers read you Miranda Rights in the form of "you have the right..." is to make it easier for mainstream civilians to understand what the limits are on the government's authority. It's just easier for people to understand "you have a right to remain silent" when being arrested as opposed to the more complete but confusing, "you cannot be compelled under the Federal Constitution to make statements in a criminal prosecution or investigation under compulsion or non-coercive interrogation which may tend to incriminate you in the absence of emergency situations, imminent public safety threats, immunity brokered through state or Federal prosecutorial agencies, or various other scenarios allowing for governmental agencies to force you to speak under potential for civil or criminal sanctions." Yeah, it gets a little wordy.
It's sometimes easier to think of the whole Constitution/civilian question for other protections like speech limits. For example, when you want to protest something political, you can because the government can't make it illegal to do so. It's more of a limiting rule on the government as opposed to instilling a power in the speaker. The best way to see this is if you tell your boss to go fuck himself. The government can't set any laws against it, but you can be immediately fired by your private employer on the spot, even while you claim your free speech rights protect you They don't, by the way. And this doesn't matter whether you're a full-fledged citizen or a one-day tourist from Madagascar.
In this same context, Miranda warnings and counsel access have never been limited to citizens alone. Do you really believe that we can just deny normal Constitutional rights to aliens, illegal or not? Of course not. And it shouldn't in a society focused on individual liberty instead of creating a caste system of legal protection. Where there are particular provisions that do limit the breadth to Citizens (or other issues like age limits for voting and running for the Presidency), they're specifically listed and explained thoroughly. You better believe the core rights of a defendant aren't falling under those narrow exceptions.
The only context where you could deny the Miranda warnings or counsel is where you weren't going to try to use any of the statements in a criminal prosecution. I understand the argument that they were looking for information to use to intervene in international terror plots, and I think there is some merits there. But this isn't what they're tossing out into the public forum. They're just using it in this xenophobic drum-banging that we can just start interrogating anyone who we think is a terrorist and deny them the Constitutional protections that we don't want them to have.
It's scary as hell especially because it goes back to this whole idea that we ought to be treating any would-be terrorist as some sort of quasi-military setup. Hell, why are we even doing trials, Sarah? Why don't we just shoot everyone we think might make trouble? If he's a non-citizen, he doesn't get the protection from cruel and unusual punishment, right? Let's get out the torture racks!
Trying to just chip away at civil rights on the basis that we have to to protect ourselves is the crazy thinking that takes us places we don't want to go. As a Franklin quote my friend Len had posted summarizes well, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
At Long Last, Super Bowl Sunday
Setting It All Up:
I suppose it really did need to come down to this matchup to resolve the whole season. Indy and New Orleans have been the two best teams over the course of the year, and while I had some pretty serious reservations about the Saints' win over the Vikings, everybody deserves to be here. As of Saturday, Indy is about a 6 point favorite, so the majority viewpoint puts the Colts on top pretty substantially. Keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean that the oddsmakers believe the Colts will win by 6--it's just that this is the number they give the Saints to get a 50/50 split on the public betting. In don't see it quite like that, and lets take a look at how the Saints might win, and why they will.
Indy Offense vs. New Orleans Defense:
Clearly, Manning is playing at such a high level that he has every ability to win this one almost on his own. The guy is just throwing it all over hell and making it look easy, and it's hard to see them coming up with less than 24-27 points. He's generally been tough against the blitz because he's so good at assessing where the pressure is coming and finding the hot read quickly. That being said, if New Orleans plans on just sitting back and letting him consistently throw against 4 man rushes, they better pack their bags and head on home right now.
Here's the part where I think New Orleans actually is decently well-equipped to handle the Indy passing game: pass defense is what they do well. If Indy is able to consistently run it with Addai and Brown they're going to be extremely tough to beat, but I don't foresee this even being a big part of the game plan--they're going to rely on Manning to make their plays (not a bad plan at all). In essence, the entire game plan for New Orleans all year has been to (1) get points on the board early with the offense; (2) force the other team into throw the ball to catch up; and (3) play aggressive pass defense because they know the other team isn't going to run it at them. The reason Minnesota was so tough for them to handle last week was that Minnesota could pound the hell out of them up front while still posing a deep threat (also, the Vikings were a damn good team). The Colts don't seem to pose that same threat up front, and this should allow the Saints to basically attack them constantly the same way that they did Arizona. Granted, Indy's a better team than Arizona, but the approach for both teams are in essence the same.
Moreover, while New Orleans doesn't have a single corner on par with Revis of the Jets, they have a tough top man in Greer and solid depth. The Jets were able to seriously control Wayne, but Lito Sheppard, Lowery and the other corners were beaten consistently. Now we hear Wayne is banged up, which is obviously a help to New Orleans. Don't get me wrong, Manning and the pass game will generate offense and points. I just don't see them able to control the game like a lot of people are thinking.
New Orleans Offense vs. Indy Defense:
I can't for the life of me understand why people aren't more concerned about the Saint run game. New Orleans has the personnel to consistently spread Indy's corners, which should allow some great fronts for Pierre Thomas and Mr. Kim Kardashian to gain some good chunks. Thomas is a hell of a lot better than people give credit for, and the Colts sure as hell aren't set up like the Vikings up front. I like Thomas to have a pretty big game with a few long runs.
The other element is that the run game is going to set up some really solid play-action. Because they're a smallish defense, the Colts rely on their corners and safeties to help on the run defense. If New Orleans can consistently pose a run threat, this should force more Colt defenders close to the line and allow Brees to toss it down field against single coverage. Sean Payton is so damn good at structuring offensive plays to isolate single defenders against his wideouts, and he's going to get that done tomorrow.
Overall, I like, but don't love, the matchups for the Saints in the pure passing game. The New Orleans Offensive line is good without being great, and the matchup on the ends favors Indy even if Freeney is limited with the ankle injury. Mathis is too good against the right side of the Saint line to handle with a single blocker, so they'll have to chip with tight ends consistently to prevent him from making big plays. The Saint receivers didn't play all that well last week, but my guess is that they'll bounce back a little and make plays.
Summary:
All together, I actually like the Saints to win this, although in a way a little different from most of their wins this year. They aren't going to be able to just spread Indy out and throw it all over the field. Their coaching staff is probably the best in the league right now at creating mismatches and openings, though, and they'll be able to do this enough to get some big plays. And most of all, I like them running the ball. The Jets and Ravens couldn't run very well against Indy because their pass games were shit and Indy could stack everyone up front.
For the Colts, it's a matter of protecting Manning and getting good games out of their young receivers. Wayne more than likely won't have a huge game because of his injury and Greer, so Garcon and Collie take on an extra importance.
To beat the Colts, you have to flat out attack them on offense. If you remember the first 3 quarters of the New England game this year, the Pats were able to gain a big lead being extremely aggressive on offense, much as the Jets were able to in the first half last week. This is what New Orleans must do at all costs, be it with the run game or the pass--attack constantly. And fortunately for them, this is when they're at their best.
The Pick: Saints, 34-31
I suppose it really did need to come down to this matchup to resolve the whole season. Indy and New Orleans have been the two best teams over the course of the year, and while I had some pretty serious reservations about the Saints' win over the Vikings, everybody deserves to be here. As of Saturday, Indy is about a 6 point favorite, so the majority viewpoint puts the Colts on top pretty substantially. Keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean that the oddsmakers believe the Colts will win by 6--it's just that this is the number they give the Saints to get a 50/50 split on the public betting. In don't see it quite like that, and lets take a look at how the Saints might win, and why they will.
Indy Offense vs. New Orleans Defense:
Clearly, Manning is playing at such a high level that he has every ability to win this one almost on his own. The guy is just throwing it all over hell and making it look easy, and it's hard to see them coming up with less than 24-27 points. He's generally been tough against the blitz because he's so good at assessing where the pressure is coming and finding the hot read quickly. That being said, if New Orleans plans on just sitting back and letting him consistently throw against 4 man rushes, they better pack their bags and head on home right now.
Here's the part where I think New Orleans actually is decently well-equipped to handle the Indy passing game: pass defense is what they do well. If Indy is able to consistently run it with Addai and Brown they're going to be extremely tough to beat, but I don't foresee this even being a big part of the game plan--they're going to rely on Manning to make their plays (not a bad plan at all). In essence, the entire game plan for New Orleans all year has been to (1) get points on the board early with the offense; (2) force the other team into throw the ball to catch up; and (3) play aggressive pass defense because they know the other team isn't going to run it at them. The reason Minnesota was so tough for them to handle last week was that Minnesota could pound the hell out of them up front while still posing a deep threat (also, the Vikings were a damn good team). The Colts don't seem to pose that same threat up front, and this should allow the Saints to basically attack them constantly the same way that they did Arizona. Granted, Indy's a better team than Arizona, but the approach for both teams are in essence the same.
Moreover, while New Orleans doesn't have a single corner on par with Revis of the Jets, they have a tough top man in Greer and solid depth. The Jets were able to seriously control Wayne, but Lito Sheppard, Lowery and the other corners were beaten consistently. Now we hear Wayne is banged up, which is obviously a help to New Orleans. Don't get me wrong, Manning and the pass game will generate offense and points. I just don't see them able to control the game like a lot of people are thinking.
New Orleans Offense vs. Indy Defense:
I can't for the life of me understand why people aren't more concerned about the Saint run game. New Orleans has the personnel to consistently spread Indy's corners, which should allow some great fronts for Pierre Thomas and Mr. Kim Kardashian to gain some good chunks. Thomas is a hell of a lot better than people give credit for, and the Colts sure as hell aren't set up like the Vikings up front. I like Thomas to have a pretty big game with a few long runs.
The other element is that the run game is going to set up some really solid play-action. Because they're a smallish defense, the Colts rely on their corners and safeties to help on the run defense. If New Orleans can consistently pose a run threat, this should force more Colt defenders close to the line and allow Brees to toss it down field against single coverage. Sean Payton is so damn good at structuring offensive plays to isolate single defenders against his wideouts, and he's going to get that done tomorrow.
Overall, I like, but don't love, the matchups for the Saints in the pure passing game. The New Orleans Offensive line is good without being great, and the matchup on the ends favors Indy even if Freeney is limited with the ankle injury. Mathis is too good against the right side of the Saint line to handle with a single blocker, so they'll have to chip with tight ends consistently to prevent him from making big plays. The Saint receivers didn't play all that well last week, but my guess is that they'll bounce back a little and make plays.
Summary:
All together, I actually like the Saints to win this, although in a way a little different from most of their wins this year. They aren't going to be able to just spread Indy out and throw it all over the field. Their coaching staff is probably the best in the league right now at creating mismatches and openings, though, and they'll be able to do this enough to get some big plays. And most of all, I like them running the ball. The Jets and Ravens couldn't run very well against Indy because their pass games were shit and Indy could stack everyone up front.
For the Colts, it's a matter of protecting Manning and getting good games out of their young receivers. Wayne more than likely won't have a huge game because of his injury and Greer, so Garcon and Collie take on an extra importance.
To beat the Colts, you have to flat out attack them on offense. If you remember the first 3 quarters of the New England game this year, the Pats were able to gain a big lead being extremely aggressive on offense, much as the Jets were able to in the first half last week. This is what New Orleans must do at all costs, be it with the run game or the pass--attack constantly. And fortunately for them, this is when they're at their best.
The Pick: Saints, 34-31
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Nothing Says Political Unrest Like Surf &Turf
Today marks the kickoff of what's being called the "National Teaparty Convention," which was the promoters preferred over the other name being tossed around, "Giant Fleecing of Angry Scared Morons." There has already been some dissension among the whole tea party crew as to whether having a big single convention was actually a good idea, but the biggest hubbub has been over the money that's being tossed around, and ultimately kept by a handful of organizers.
Listen, I've got no beef with people getting together to stew angrily over some sort of misguided political disaffection. I get it. The economy is tough, that uppity Obama doesn't seem to care what you think, and there's someone telling you that the only way to fix the universe is to shout louder. It seems so damn easy, and that's the hook. Fine, go with it.
But here, in this Convention stuff, we have potentially the most obvious whoring out of the entire movement (and that's really saying something considering the underlying corporate funding that's been happening throughout this fiasco). Somehow, a for-profit corporation has been able to pass off a money making event with a--no joke--lobster and steak banquet and a $100,000 keynote speaker as the great symbol of everyday Americans taking back power. You also get to hear some of the local leaders tell you their strategies for fomenting your neighborhood government overthrow (you know they're not paying this crew anything--has anyone ever had to try hard to get a no-name conservative to talk about how smart and important they are? I think not.) All this for the low, low, price of $549, plus an additional $9.95. I'm assuming the extra fee is for Bald Eagle chow, but hopefully everyone also gets a flag ShamWow.
How are the angry masses supposed to pay the $549 you ask? To quote the organizers on their website (note: I kept the grammatical errors in there because it makes it funnier):
"Fifty people in a small tea party group for example each investing $10-20 dollars would take care of most of the costs to a delegate. This is not a huge investment money but information wise it will yield huge returns."
Ohhhhhh! Now I get it! Have the other shmucks at your local gun range/anti-government compound/Klan rally pay for you to go! Because that just screams "fiscal self-reliance."
Clearly, the big draw of the event is Sarah Palin, the darling of the allegedly oppressed right and current $100K per appearance speaker. She's taken some heat for all the money getting tossed around, and so now we're hearing she's planning on giving it to some organizations to do more funds. But when you think about it, isn't she just replacing the government if we make this a comparison to taxes? Why doesn't the organization just give the money to the organizations instead of to her, for her to redistribute it to those groups who need it? Consistency was never really her strong point anyways. (Side Note: I can't get over her answer to when she was asked which of the founding fathers she most admired: "You know. Well, all of them." I'm sure that's what Doris Kearns Goodwin said too.)
Moreover, even if Palin says she has problems or even concerns over the huge charges, she's completely exposing that as utter bullshit by still going and getting her big paycheck. Hell, if she just gave back her fee to help cut the costs, that would be a pretty big chunk (for all the non-math majors, if they had 1,000 sign up, it's $100 per person). Other people have actually started to withdraw in light of all the negative elements. That goddamn nut Michelle Bachmann pulled out completely, although we can all be certain that it was because of all the Senate rules on shilling for corporations as opposed to any personal problems with the scam. The only exception, of course, it was the company who makes hoods for waterboarding. She'd stand up for those free-marketers, Senate rules be damned.
Hopefully by Sunday night the Republic will in fact still be intact despite the efforts of those leading the 2nd Revolution. If it is, we can only assume those fine Patriots were too weighed down by the lobsters and drawn butter to take arms against Obama and his Socialist pals. Next week, though, watch out, the Rebellion is On! Oh wait, next weekend is Valentine's Day and there are ex-wives to be stalked. Screw it, let's just go back to the shooting range.
Listen, I've got no beef with people getting together to stew angrily over some sort of misguided political disaffection. I get it. The economy is tough, that uppity Obama doesn't seem to care what you think, and there's someone telling you that the only way to fix the universe is to shout louder. It seems so damn easy, and that's the hook. Fine, go with it.
But here, in this Convention stuff, we have potentially the most obvious whoring out of the entire movement (and that's really saying something considering the underlying corporate funding that's been happening throughout this fiasco). Somehow, a for-profit corporation has been able to pass off a money making event with a--no joke--lobster and steak banquet and a $100,000 keynote speaker as the great symbol of everyday Americans taking back power. You also get to hear some of the local leaders tell you their strategies for fomenting your neighborhood government overthrow (you know they're not paying this crew anything--has anyone ever had to try hard to get a no-name conservative to talk about how smart and important they are? I think not.) All this for the low, low, price of $549, plus an additional $9.95. I'm assuming the extra fee is for Bald Eagle chow, but hopefully everyone also gets a flag ShamWow.
How are the angry masses supposed to pay the $549 you ask? To quote the organizers on their website (note: I kept the grammatical errors in there because it makes it funnier):
"Fifty people in a small tea party group for example each investing $10-20 dollars would take care of most of the costs to a delegate. This is not a huge investment money but information wise it will yield huge returns."
Ohhhhhh! Now I get it! Have the other shmucks at your local gun range/anti-government compound/Klan rally pay for you to go! Because that just screams "fiscal self-reliance."
Clearly, the big draw of the event is Sarah Palin, the darling of the allegedly oppressed right and current $100K per appearance speaker. She's taken some heat for all the money getting tossed around, and so now we're hearing she's planning on giving it to some organizations to do more funds. But when you think about it, isn't she just replacing the government if we make this a comparison to taxes? Why doesn't the organization just give the money to the organizations instead of to her, for her to redistribute it to those groups who need it? Consistency was never really her strong point anyways. (Side Note: I can't get over her answer to when she was asked which of the founding fathers she most admired: "You know. Well, all of them." I'm sure that's what Doris Kearns Goodwin said too.)
Moreover, even if Palin says she has problems or even concerns over the huge charges, she's completely exposing that as utter bullshit by still going and getting her big paycheck. Hell, if she just gave back her fee to help cut the costs, that would be a pretty big chunk (for all the non-math majors, if they had 1,000 sign up, it's $100 per person). Other people have actually started to withdraw in light of all the negative elements. That goddamn nut Michelle Bachmann pulled out completely, although we can all be certain that it was because of all the Senate rules on shilling for corporations as opposed to any personal problems with the scam. The only exception, of course, it was the company who makes hoods for waterboarding. She'd stand up for those free-marketers, Senate rules be damned.
Hopefully by Sunday night the Republic will in fact still be intact despite the efforts of those leading the 2nd Revolution. If it is, we can only assume those fine Patriots were too weighed down by the lobsters and drawn butter to take arms against Obama and his Socialist pals. Next week, though, watch out, the Rebellion is On! Oh wait, next weekend is Valentine's Day and there are ex-wives to be stalked. Screw it, let's just go back to the shooting range.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Conference Championships! Woo Hoo!
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)