Updated, No-Trade Mock Draft

Now this isn't exactly what's going to happen, because there are inevitably going to be a few trades. But in the scenario of any single team being in their starting point, here is my best guess:

1. Carolina- Cam Newton - QB
2. Denver- Marcel Dareus - DT
3. Buffalo- Von Miller - OLB
4. Cincinnati - AJ Green - WR
5. Arizona - Patrick Peterson - CB
6. Cleveland - Nick Fairley - DT
7, San Francisco - Blaine Gabbert - QB
8. Tennessee - Robert Quinn - DE
9. Dallas - Cameron Jordan - DE
10. Washington - Julio Jones - WR
11. Houston - Aldon Smith - OLB
12. Minnesota - DeQuan Bowers - DE
13. Detroit - Jimmy Smith- CB
14. St. Louis - Cory Liuget - DT
15. Miami Dolphins - Mike Pouncey - OL
16. Jacksonville - JJ Watt - DE
17. New England - Muhammed Wilkerson - DE
18. San Diego - Tyron Smith - OT
19. NY Giants - Gabe Carimi - OT
20. Tampa Bay - Ryan Kerrigan - DE
21. Kansas City - Anthony Castonzo - OT
22. Indianapolis - Nate Solder -OT
23. Philadelphia - Prince Amukamara - CB
24. New Orleans - Justin Houston- DE
25. Seattle - Jake Locker - QB
26. Baltimore - Cam Heyward - DE
27. Atlanta- Adrian Clayborn- DE
28. New England - Brooks Reed OLB
29. Chicago - Danny Watkins - OG
30. NY Jets - Phil Taylor - DT
31. Pittsburgh- Aaron Williams - CB
32. Green Bay - Mark Ingram -RB

It Must be Spring--He's Knocking Out Mock Drafts.

Here's a First Shot at Round 1 of April's Draft. Inevitably, things will come up that change the spots, and I'll end up modifying this at least a couple of times. Big things to expect:

1) Loads of the DE/OLB guys going in Round 1, especially in the 10-25 range.
2) Not much for the skill guys. Probably only 2 QBs, 2-3 receivers and only 1-2 RBs.
3) Expect a handful of the defenders to really jump when they inevitably have monster workouts, namely Robert Quinn, Corey Liuget, and Aldon Smith.
4) Most of the teams that need a QB will figure out they can wait until Round 2 to get a guy like Ryan Mallett or Jake Locker, rather than spend a top 10 pick on a slightly lesser gamble. The others, well, there's a reason why they pick in the top 10.
5) Things are going to get real congested between 15 and 25, because most of those teams are looking for the same 3-4 DEs and OLBs.

1. Carolina- Nick Fairley- DT- Auburn
2. Denver -Patrick Patterson - CB- LSU
3. Buffalo- Cam Newton- QB- Auburn
4. Cincinnati-AJ Green- WR- Georgia
5. Arizona-Robert Quinn- DE/OLB
6. Cleveland-Marcel Dareus- DT- Alabama
7. San Francisco-Blaine Gabbert- QB-Missouri
8. Tennessee-Von Miller- OLB- Texas A&M
9. Dallas- Prince Amukamara-CB-Nebraska
10. Washington-Corey Liuget-DT- Illinois
11. Houston- Akeem Ayers- OLB- UCLA
12. Minnesota- Jimmy Smith- CB- Colorado
13. Detroit- Nate Solder- OT- Colorado
14. St. Louis- Julio Jones- WR- Alabama
15. Miami- Gabe Carimi- OT/OG-Wisconsin
16. Jacksonville- Ryan Kerrigan- DE- Purdue
17. New England- Aldon Smith- DE- Missouri
18. San Diego- JJ Watt- DE- Wisconsin
19. NY Giants- Mark Ingram- RB- Alabama
20. Tampa Bay- Adrian Clayborne-DE- Iowa
21. Kansas City-Justin Houston - OLB
22. Indy- Tyron Jackson- OT- USC
23. Philadelphia- Mike Pouncey- OG-Florida
24. New Orleans-Adrian Clayborn- DE
25. Seattle- Torrey Smith- WR- Maryland
26. Baltimore-Cam Jordan-DE- Cal
27. Atlanta- Rahim Moore- S-UCLA
28. New England- Muhammed Wilkerson- DE- Temple
29. Chicago- Jonathan Baldwin- WR- Pitt
30. NY Jets- Phil Taylor- DT-Baylor
31. Pittsburgh- Anthony Costanzo- OT- BC
32. Green Bay- Benjamin Ijalana- OG/OT- Villanova

Weekend at Paulie's

It's hard not to look across the Conservative landscape and not try to pick out the likely challenger for 2012 and Barry O. That being said, the choices are pretty much a combination of the fringy deranged paranoids (Palin, Bachmann), the washed up self-parodies (Gingrich, Giuliani, Romney) and the melba-toast lingerers (Huckabee, Pawlenty). Realistically, any of these options are basically a sacrificial lamb, because there's no way they'd beat Obama in a head to head matchup.

Lingering in the background is the young Congressman from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan. He's a young, good looking guy, with facially moderate views, and no major skeletons thus far (I'm assuming there isn't a "wide stance" or Argentine Newscaster around the corner, but perhaps that's too generous). The interesting thing here, is the way he's being presented--the new economic expert. Within the last two years he's submitted his own version of the Federal Budget, and delivered the Republican response to the State of the Union. This cat's setting himself to be the rising star of the GOP over the next few years and the main player for them in 2016.

The Conservative set has tried to cast him as a not just a fairly smart guy, but as a straight up expert. The problem with this, is that he really just isn't. I think of it like "Weekend At Bernie's," where the two pals end up with a dead body that they have to convince everyone is really still alive and having a good time. Sure it didn't make sense, but hey, it was easier just to roll with it and throw Bernie on the boat for a spin. Is our man Ryan an economist? No. Does he have anything beyond a BA at decent school? No. Does he wear sunglasses at parties? Hmm....

Hell, by now he's gotten good at the "I'm actually very smart, even if I actually am not making any sense, because I smile a lot and sound calm." If we were watching this on Telemundo, we'd be all set if we couldn't translate and just assumed that what he was explaining wasn't 200% made up jibberish. He was talking recently in his State of the Union reply about how bad of shape Greece, Ireland, and the UK are now (presumedly because of high taxes, over regulation, and high government spending to support a derelict populace, etc.). The problem with this, are that Greece's problem was a combination of a decades-long fraudulent government scheme to hide debts, corruption, and an under developed economy. Ireland's problem was a lack of any meaningful banking regulation, wild speculation by investment houses, and a huge property bubble collapse. The UK is probably the most relevant comparison for his point, but it's important to note that the cost-cutting measures he's supporting haven't generated the promised fixes and they were, as of 2006, the UK was recognized by the Heritage Foundation as having more "Economic Freedom" than the US (5th Highest, overall).

Inherently, the response he's looking for is "Damn! He's talking about multiple countries and even comparing them. This must be important and smart!" The problem with all this, of course, is that it's pure hogwash, and the numbers just don't make any sense. Comparing these countries is basically akin to say that Detroit and Las Vegas are both struggling for the same reason--too many street lights.

Similarly, the whole budget proclamation is all about broad generalizations, with some wild speculations tied to made-up numbers. There's a pattern of basically using some numbers to make half a point, and then just making up the rest (Thus, a 50% increase in revenue divided by a 10% shift from the public sector to private sector= Obama's a Socialist). That, or they just don't exist, because he didn't actually, as the economic experts say, "use any actual numbers or do any math."

Anyways, the real takeaway is that this guy's not going away any time soon. He's going to emerge as the inexplicable economic theorist of the Conservative political class, largely by default. But the fact that we're being sold this story of his great financial mind shouldn't cloud the fact that he's really just some guy. He's alive, which gives him a leg up on Bernie, but they're bringing the same amount of legit material to the table.

The NCAA Playoff Blueprint

Now that we've reached the New Year and the peak of Bowl Season, it's time to hear the annual chants for a playoff. "Do it for Boise and the TCUs of the World!" we hear. And I get that. Now realistically, I'm not a big believer in the argument that Boise and TCU would be able to really challenge the elite teams in a game that mattered. As much as I was impressed with TCU yesterday against Wisconsin, it seems fairly apparent that: (a) Wisconsin on its best day was probably 2-3 Touchdowns worse than Auburn or Oregon; (b) Wisconsin had no business losing that game, and only did because of a bizarre strategy of throwing the ball waaaayyy to much when its huge advantage was pounding the ball on the ground. Anyway, I digress.

Regardless of that game, the playoff is an entirely workable system that we can use--and still keep the bowl system in place. I get that the NCAA and the member schools love the bowls as a huge moneymaker and to really highlight the sport. Fine. Yet because the NCAA has opted against instituting a playoff, they come off as arrogant and unresponsive to public sentiment. (Note: I recognize that the NCAA is, and has always been, arrogant and unresponsive, but there's no need to emphasize the point.)

In working this out, it's imperative to keep the bowl system in place, protect the relevance of conference plays and championships, and not just add another 4 weeks to the season. If a team has to cut an early non-conference smackdown, so be it (so Oregon may need to let go of the 2011 match-up with Portland State that it won this year 69-0).

The Plan:
Everything is normal through the week of Thanksgiving. Everyone can play their rival game just like they have. The next weekend, teams play their conference championship games, if they have one. In the week after all conference championships, we go to the polls and grab the top 8 teams. Those are the playoff schools, and generally this will be similar to the BCS schools as it stands now.

The next week, normally the first Saturday in December, we play the first round of games, 1 vs. 8, etc. The next week, we have the semifinals, and we're still only about mid-December. By this point, we have a clearly defined Championship matchup, plus there are still 2 weeks to get the Major Bowl games filled. To simplify, you can even prearrange the rankings to certain bowl games in advance, with the only changes being the teams who make it to the Championship. Or just set the most preferable match-ups. Everyone who wasn't in the top 8 is unaffected by this, and just goes to the normal bowl game they would have anyway (Helloooo Alamo Bowl!). You really need to have at least 2 weeks before the bowl games to let the tickets be distributed, hotel rooms booked, etc.

How would this look? Let's play it out:

December 4, 2010: (1) Auburn vs. (8) Arkansas; (2) Oregon vs. (7) Oklahoma; (3) TCU vs. (6) Ohio State; (4) Wisconsin vs. (5) Stanford.

December 11, 2010: (1) Auburn vs. (5) Stanford; (2) Oregon vs. (3) TCU

January 1, 2011: Fiesta Bowl-(3) TCU vs. (7) Oklahoma; Rose Bowl-(4) Wisconsin vs. (5) Stanford; Orange Bowl- (8) Arkansas vs. (6) Ohio State

January 3, 2011: National Championship: (1) Auburn vs. (2) Oregon

And there it is.

Week 11 (AKA Pats/Colts and Other Less Important Stuff)

Pats v. Colts:
And here we are, the yearly installation of what has become the most historically significant rivalry since Bird-Magic. Brady's Pats and Manning's Colts stand as the two top 3 franchises of the last 15 years (with Pittsburgh), with Brady and Manning inarguably the top two players of that era.

For this week, New England seems to have the overall better squad and is well-served by a cold-weather Foxboro afternoon. The Pats should be able to win the up front battles, both on offense and defense, setting up a better chance to succeed in the passing games. Look for the Pats to try to pound the undersized Colt defense with Mankins, Light, a combination of Crumpler and Gronkowski. By hammering consistently with Green-Ellis, the play action should be effective. Brady's pass protection has been excellent lately, and it should continue--sealing the deal with short and intermediate routes.

The Colts have little choice but to try to spread the Pats out on defense, and go after the weak links in pass coverage. They're going to put as much pressure as possible on Kyle Arrington and James Sanders, since they're both liabilities in coverage. Wayne will get his, even though the Pats will try to key on him and force the secondary receivers to make plays. Look for Pat Chung to lock down the tight end Tamme and raise hell in the run game. Also, we'll probably see more Gary Guyton this week in place of Spikes since he's faster and much better in coverage.
Pats, 27-20

San Diego v. Denver:
Does anyone know whether Denver's not crappy? Hmm...I think not. I'm guessing this week will look a lot more like the Oakland 59-14 loss than last week's bizarre win over KC. San Diego looks tough, albeit flawed.

The Broncos really don't have an answer for San Diego's pass game, even though Matthews looks like kind of a stiff. He'll get better, but probably not in 2010. Even if Denver plays nickel the entire game, they can't get any pressure and the coverage will inevitably break down. The Bronco offense is actually very similar to San Diego's but the Charger defense is still a few steps better.
Chargers, 30-16

Oakland v. Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh's injuries have really killed them lately. Their offensive line is in shambles, and their front 3 in the 3-4 have taken major hits with Aaron Smith and Keisel missing time. In a normal, healthy universe, this game, at Pittsburgh, should be about a 24-13 Steeler win. But...

...the Steelers aren't healthy and the Raiders are a team well-suited to take them on. The Raider front 7 is a physical, talented unit that is going to give the Steeler offense a ton of trouble. Seymour should have a monster game--7 tackles, 2-3 sacks. On the other hand, the Raider offense is ok, but probably not good enough up front to really cause major problems. And the passing game won't see much success. If McFadden can have some success, they could make some plays with a loosened up front 7. It's going to be a close one, but I like the Steeler defense just a little more.
Steelers, 16-13.

NYG v. Philadelphia:
This game is obviously going to be determined by the ability of the Giant front 7 to control Vick. If they can force Vick to stay in the pocket and throw with pressure, the Giants can probably pull it out. If Vick is able to move and make plays, Philly wins by 10 points. The Giants need to win this game with their offense--grind it out and keep the Eagle offense off the field. Philly's defense is more opportunistic than it is really a shut-down unit, so the Giants should be able to put up points if they can avoid turnovers.

We can't put too much into the Redskins game last week. Washington flat out quit early and is a terrible match trying to cover a fast team. The Giants have to commit a constant double to DeSean Jackson and force Vick to read progressions through the other receivers. And, they have to--HAVE TO--wrap up and make tackles when they can. Almost every big play against the Redskins last week involved a broken sloppy tackle by a broken sloppy team. Another thing to watch out for--the Vick injury potential. These games against big aggressive defenses are the types where he could take a hard hit and miss some time.
Eagles, 27-24

Week 9 NFL Picks

Week 9 NFL Picks:

New England at Cleveland:
The Pats are playing basically like a better version of their 2001-2002 Super Bowl club (Note: This isn't to say they're a Super Bowl team in the making, because that first Super Bowl was a crazy run with multiple upsets). Safe, extremely efficient, but able to make big plays a handful of times each game. The defense has improved immensely from the start of the year, and they look like they have rookie difference makers in Cunningham and McCourty.

In this matchup with Cleveland, the Pats should be able to load up against the run and force the Cleveland receivers to make plays on their own. Problem is, the Brown receivers can't make plays and the QB has NEVER seen the kinds of zone looks Belichick will put out there. The Pats offense will be able to grind out some points, and probably break a big pass with Hernandez or Tate. Probably not a ton of points, since New England won't play a risky offensive scheme.
Pats, 27-13

Miami at Baltimore
I'm really not a big Miami fan. That being said, Miami should be able to create some problems with the pass game in the same way that they always have given the Jets problems. Baltimore's problem is going to be Marshall making big plays on the crappy Raven DBs and Bess converting on 3rd Downs. I'd be surprised if Miami ran for more than 75 yards.

But Baltimore is going to score, since the Dolphins have a pretty good pass rush and corner in Vontae Davis. Baltimore's about a 5-6 point favorite. I like Baltimore to win, but not to cover.
Ravens, 20-16

Chargers v. Texans
How is this not a shootout, I first thought. But here's the thing: the Charger D is better than you think. And has anyone confirmed that the Texans have any heart? No evidence as of yet. Even at home, I like the Bolts. Big day for Rivers against a crappy Houston defense.
Chargers, 27-20

Giants at Seahawks
Are the Seahawks actually good? Hard to tell, since their wins are a little hollow-looking. I don't see it, and losing big to Oakland doesn't help their case. The Giants are for real, even if their wins are a little soft as well.
Giants, 24-10

Week 7 NFL Picks

Week 7 NFL Picks

Here's a look at a few of the weekend games. I'm not going to get into the obvious games, since there's no use wasting space on why Baltimore will beat a 2-14 in the making Bills club.

Pats at Chargers:
Why do we think the Chargers aren't crappy? They play decent at home, awful on the road, and haven't beaten anyone worth a damn. And that was when they were healthy. And now come the suddenly rejuvenated Pats coming off two solid wins over Miami and Baltimore. The pass defense for New England is still a work in progress, but the front 7 has gotten pretty solid in a hurry. Jermaine Cunningham is a baller. The difference is that Brady and the Pats offense is going to overwhelm San Diego's defense. And San Diego's special teams will hurt them, just like they have every game so far.
Pats, 34-20.

Bengals v. Falcons:
Part of me thinks the Falcons are kind of shitty. They just aren't physical enough to win on a consistent basis, especially with teams who can bang on them with a decent offensive balance. Cincinnati might just have enough to pull it out, especially if they run Benson about 28 times. Nobody's really giving them a chance, and I while I see picking the Falcons, I can't figure out why EVERYBODY'S picking Atlanta. Here's the other thing: Cincy should be able to play single coverage on the Atlanta WRs with their corners, and load up with extra guys in the box. This should be a pretty low-scoring, close, and pretty ugly affair.
Bengals, 16-13.

Redskins v. Bears:
The question, as it is every week, is whether the Bears O-Line can keep Cutler alive long enough to score a few points. The Chicago D is good, not great. That being said, McNabb is so damn inaccurate he's going to struggle in the large number of third and longs Chicago's going to force. It's probably close, but Chicago wins it at home. In DC, the Redskins probably win it.
Bears, 17-13.

Eagles v. Titans:
I really love this matchup. Good teams. But everybody's banged up. The problem is that Desean Jackson's gone, their LT Peters is gone, and Tennesee's D-Line's going to work them over hard up front. Without Jackson, the Eagles are going to struggle to move the ball all day long. On the other side, the Titans offense has Chris Johnson and not much else. Vince Young is out, but I suspect that against a team like Philly he's more a liability than Kerry Collins because the Eagles will bait him into bad throws all day. The fact that Philly's only impressive win was at home against a Falcon team that looks like a fringe playoff team gives me pause.
Titans, 20-16.

A Sunday of Fresh Starts

This Sunday saw two remarkable rebirths, one all together new and the other a long overdue return to a better place. Don Draper, he of the lost and found mojo, took the only road offering a clean break from the last few years in making it official with his Canadian flame. And, back in Foxboro, the newest Patriot Deion Branch made the long overdue return to Brady's side running 15 yard crossing patterns in the guttiest win the Pats have had in years. Did they find the entire solution to everything that's happened? Probably not. But it's clear each jumped at the only chance they had to make it back.

The Mad Men season finale left the lady and I searching for why Don inexplicably signed on to marry the Secretary du jour, Megan. For chrissakes Don what the hell are you thinking? What about the Doc? Wait--is this actually a dream sequence? No? Oh shit. Don's going to marry that goddamn secretary with the janky teeth (Side note: If you're still hot with janky teeth, you're really, really hot.) This can't work.

But wait.

Why the hell not? If he ends up running with the Doc, he's literally going to spend the next 20 years on the therapist's couch trying to come to terms with a past from which it's probably best to just run. And she knows all the things that are just going to linger like cigarette stains on a mod couch. Maybe it's the mature, healthy approach to handling his issues, but taking these things head on just isn't the way Draper rolls. Hey, he's not perfect.

With Megan, at least there was a chance to get away from the last few years. Maybe she'll turn out to be a social-climbing snake or a closet sociopath like Betty. But she's the only real option to just kick things off completely free of prior restraints. Faye wanted to conquer Don's issues, but Megan just doesn't care. Who's right? Who knows. In the end it doesn't matter. The one person who needed to resolve the issues was never going to, so why keep beating the dead horse.

In New England, the return of Deion Branch marked the end of an unfortunate odyssey of 4 lost years and probably 2 sacrificed titles. I remember when Branch started holding out and the whole situatuon became bizarrely hostile out of nowhere. New England loved Branch, and Branch loved New England. He was a team-first guy, a worker, and didn't need a lot of publicity. But at the same time, what made the relationship so perfect--the team-oriented pay structure the Pats have long observed--ultimately limited the adoration he could receive. He forced demands the team wasn't going to meet, and in the end was sent to a Seattle club with a system that just didn't fit. Seattle wanted their star receiver, and paid for one, but Branch just wasn't that guy. And deep down, he must have known.

Without taking the analogy too far, Branch's Seattle downfall aligns perfectly with the train wreck period we saw last year for Don. Like Branch, Don had his chance to be his own man. Both were free of what had seemingly been perfect situations gone awry. (It's important here to differentiate Betty in reality as opposed to an idealized version Don thought he had early on: gorgeous, non-threatening, and adoring. When things went to hell, she started hitting .333.) And both certainly had some decent moments sewing the oats and getting the prestige they sought. Sure Don won a Clio and had some good moments in cabs, and Branch made some serious money with a sporadically good team.

At the end of it all, though, where were they? Draper's mojo was so far gone he'd become a connoisseur of the NYC hooker circuit, either getting a package deal with Lane or getting slapped on his own. Branch was an unwanted part of what became a bottom-dweller who didn't care about his chemistry with Brady in 2003.

The ability of each to figure out where they went wrong--Draper straying too far from a safe and adoring female and Branch leaving a team where he could play his style and maximize his talents--was what saved them. We always have seen Don as the great womanizer, but it only really worked in the context of his own stability at home. Branch's brilliance on certain routes masked the fact that he was small and didn't run long patterns. As it turned out, each had a chance at the life raft on the same day, and grabbed it as fast as possible. Good thing, because it may have been the last chance for both.

The unfortunate part of all this, as that poor bastard Henry barked the other night, is that life doesn't just start over when you want. Draper's older and divorced, the kids are older and moving to Rye, and the firm with his name on the door is damn near going under. Branch is 31, with too many miles on the tires, and a team that has declined since the halcyon days of 2004 and 2005. But it offers the chance to move on to a better place, and that simply couldn't have happened until now.

There's no way to know how things will play out for either of them, although the earliest signs are decent. Branch looked great against the Ravens and we all felt a lot better about things seeing Megan's calm handling of the spilled milkshake. Even if things don't pan out, though, each of the new starts offered the only chance at a better future for the two. At very least, now we can root for them.

2010 NFL Forecast

Thursday marked the start of the NFL Season, so it seems time to actually make the 2010 NFL Forecast, this time from 32 to one. I actually had written some bits on all the teams, but it didn't save correctly and I was too damn angry to write anymore. But here's the rankings on things to start, and some quick notes.

Quick Points:

• I really like Green Bay, Baltimore, and Dallas. They seem like the three with the highest upside.
  
• I don't understand the fixation with Miami. They're decent, but not great and have a schedule that will leave them at 7-9. People get hung up about Marshall, but was anyone actually nervous about the Bronco passing game last year?
  
• The Jets aren't the Super Bowl contenders they made themselves out to be.
• If the Pats hadn't taken the personnel hits they have so far (Mankins, Bodden, Ty Warren), I'd put have put them in the top 4. But losing 3 of your top 10 players before week 10 is tough to overcome. As it is, they probably win the division but it's hard to see them making it too far in the postseason because of the young defense. Huge year for Brady and Moss.
  
• I'm saying Aaron Rodgers for MVP. He could throw for 35 TDs for a team that goes 11 or 12 wins.
  
• Seattle and Buffalo are going to be effing terrible. But at least next year's draft has solid QBs, which both need desperately.
  
• Not overly impressed with New Orleans or Minnesota the other night. New Orleans should have won that game by touchdowns, considering it was a home game against a heavily undermanned Minnesota club. They need to be a little more crisp on offense.
  
• Minny needs some wideouts to step up. They can't rely on Shiancoe to make all the plays in the passing game. People rip on Favre for being old and kind of a hassle, but the two throws he made over the middle to Shiancoe are ones only about 10 guys in the league can make.
  
• I like Cincy and Pittsburgh more than most. Cincinnati could be a top 8 team if things work out well. Pittsburgh, if they can stay healthy and in contention while Roethlisberger's out, isn't substantially different from the Super Bowl team of 2 years ago. They'll be tough if in contention in December. Brutal division, counting those two and Baltimore.
  
• I'm not as sold on the NFC East being as brutal as people make it out to be. Philly and the Giants have substantial flaws, and the Dallas could be due for a run of injuries. They'll all beat the hell out of each other.
  

32) Seattle

31) Buffalo

30)Tampa Bay

29) St. Louis

28) Cleveland

27) Denver

26) Chicago

25) Oakland

24) Arizona

23) Detroit

22) Jacksonville

21) Miami

20) Kansas City

19) Washington

18) Carolina

17) NY Giants

16) Philadelphia

15) Atlanta

14) San Diego

13) Tennessee

12) San Francisco

11) Pittsburgh

10) Houston

9) Minnesota

8) NY Jets

7) Cincinnati

6) New England

5) New Orleans

4) Indianapolis

3) Dallas

2) Baltimore

1) Green Bay

Preseason Football and Preseason Blogging

Time to get back into blogging training camp! Some quick notes from the last couple of games, nationally aired.

Pats vs. Falcons

• If you're the Pats, you've got to love the way the offensive skill players are looking right now. They look like they're a solid 4 deep for wideouts plus the TEs. Moss looks fast and like he's going to get after it. Good sign for August. It's easy to forget Moss was playing with a pretty messed up shoulder for most of last season.
  
• It's remarkable that Welker is already back from a complete knee blow-out about 7 months ago. He looks to be pretty well back in form, so he'll probably be ready to roll by Week 1. Having him back is nice, although they were realistically in a much better position to compensate for him missing time than they were last year in the Baltimore playoff game. Now they've got Tate and a more prepared Edelman, so they look much deeper.
  
• The rookies and second year players really seem to be ready to play in a hurry. Pat Chung looks like he's really going to be a ball player at safety after not playing much as a rookie. He's a hitter but doesn't have to play out of control (like McGowan always did). Vollmer similarly looks like he's going to make a big leap. He's better on the run than the pass, but he has the feet to improve on that. He was cleaning house on the right side the other night against a pretty good line.
  
• The rookie tight ends really look great for NE. Hernandez is going to be a playmaker for them and can create some matchup problems over the middle. I like Gronkowski overall, even though he's more of a traditional big TE. Hernandez only really blocks downfield, which is good, but not on 4th and 1. Gronkowski can move some peeps.
  
• The problem for the Pats, like we already basically knew, is going to be in the defensive front 7. With Warren out and Seymour never really replaced, it's going to be a band-aid situation all year long. Brace looked decent, but he's got a long way to go. Same thing for the pass rush. It's a little up in the air until Burgess gets more in the loop and Cunningham gets back on the field. They can compensate against the run with the MLBs (Spikes especially--that dude is a thumper) but they lose a little coverage range with those two.
  
• Count me in for the McCourty fan club. He looked tough out there and seems ready to rush in against the run. He's already in the top 3 for the corners and is going to get a lot of time with Bodden and Butler.
• I'm not sure how much I like the Falcons. This looks like an 8-8 team to me. It just does. They seem to be pretty good in a few spots, but not great at anything.
  
• That defense is just not physical at all. They're clearly built to beat the Saints (fine), but I don't see how they're going to match up with anyone trying to run the ball.
  
• Roddy White is solid, but the rest of the receivers are middle of the road guys on their best day. I'm not sold on Turner as being more than a grinder type. He'll get 100 yards, but it'll take 25 carries and he isn't much of a receiver.
  

Eagles vs. Bengals

• Really a pretty lackluster showing for the Eagles.
  
• The Eagles interior O-Line seems to be comprised of guys who shouldn't be in the league. They got worked over pretty well last night, and I don't see how this is going to improve. You can scheme help to the ends (TEs, RBs on fakes, etc.), but if you've got constant penetration in the A-gap because your center and guards shouldn't be playing on Sundays, it's damn near impossible to sustain success. Keep in mind that for all the trouble Philly had blocking, Cincy's two starting DEs didn't even play. Yikes.
  
• I like Philly's skill players, but they're not an overwhelming bunch. Kolb is a solid thrower but doesn't wow me right now. And I'm just not sure that any of the receivers other than DeSean Jackson are really better than average players right now. Vick looked pretty erratic, but they don't need him to throw in real games, so it's not a big concern.
  
• Can the Bengals really believe that Andre Smith is ever going to be a legit NFL tackle? That guy is terrrrrrible right now, and looks to be about 30 pounds overweight. He looks a legit 375. We're about a season from him getting cut next September.
  
• Overall I like the Bengals more than I expected (other than the helmets--I've always love the helmets. Those things are the effing jam.) They can run the ball, they've improved their talent level at the WR and TE position, and the defense still seems solid. TO looked better than I remembered from any point last year, although playing with that crappy Buffalo team will pretty much stifle any chance to make plays (See: Evans, Lee).
  
• The defense still should remain tough for the Bengals. The corners are both ball players, so they can overcompensate against the run. Good unit. They'll really be helped having Odom back in there after his injury last year.
  

So That's Why We Had to Sell All the Library Books on EBay...

Just to the Southeast of Downtown LA there's a fairly small city making a lot of headlines lately. The City of Bell, CA, with a working-class immigrant-heavy population of about 40,000 suddenly popped up on the radar last week when it surfaced that they happened to have the highest paid city officials in the country. Turns out that through a series of shady deals, the City ended up paying its City Manager nearly $800,000 annually in salary, his second in command about $375,000, and the Police Chief $450,000. Keep in mind that even in the largest cities in the country, the people with those jobs make at most half that amount. And then we need to consider the city council, all of whom were making $100K for their part time gigs sitting on irrelevant commissions. Yikes.

Like most people, my initial thought was, "how the hell do I get a job there?" Second,of course, was the question of how this possibly could have happened. We only have to look back a few years to see where the system went off the rails. In 2005, the State legislature passed a new law that limited the amount city officials could be paid. Of course this only came on the heels (and because of) a similar scandal in another city called South Gate, which happens to border Bell on the southwest side (of course it does...).

So if you're a scumbag city official and want to avoid all the hassle of state caps, what do you do? You bring a special election that no one knows anything about and turn Bell into a "Charter City." Basically, this is just a mechanism to allow cities to skirt some state control. It sounds good in theory, but then this shit happens and no one likes it anymore. The special election took place after the State passed the pay cap law, but no one made the connection. Only about 400 people of the 40,000 citizens voted (most by absentee), and no one really thought about it again.

Until now.

Problem at this point is that it's tough to undo all that's happened. The money's gone, first and foremost. The whole "drag them out in the street and shoot them" (aka "Option Eastwood") probably is off the list too. They may try to shake down the city council and officials and force retirements, but hell, even if they force them out they're still eligible for sweet pensions (LA Times reported that the manager would be on a $600K annual pension). It'll be hard to show pure fraud or other illegal conduct because most of what they were doing would have been technically legal, albeit offensive to any moral standard. There probably isn't any kind of smoking gun recording of kickbacks. So they're probably just stuck holding the bag, trying to learn for the next time.

I suppose the moral of the story is to make sure we all know who's writing the checks in these local governments, since this isn't just big city stuff. Hell, the town manager in my town growing up did some time for embezzling funds. And second, the song and dance about local control and getting rid of all those oppressive state rules isn't all its cracked up to be. One way or another, everybody's got a hustle. The trick is figuring it out before it's too late.

99 Problems But The Debt Ain't One

This summer we're seeing the next political death match du jour (werewolves vs. vampires excluded), the question of whether the economy is best served by major increases in Federal spending or by cutting back on spending so as to allegedly enable more private sector growth. What's so problematic about this, of course, is that while the cable news networks are reaping the rewards of unqualified political hacks pontificating on the issues and fictional economic theories, actual humans are getting their asses handed to them by a Lohan-esque economic downturn.

The argument we're hearing from the conservative perspective essentially circles around 3 major concepts:

1. The government is spending too much money and needs to stop borrowing to keep it up.
2. Borrowing creates a larger total debt (aka Federal deficit).
3. The deficit is bad because eventually the amount of interest gets too high, becomes too expensive for us to repay, and the lendors will stop lending money. There's an inflation argument in here as well, but I'll address that in a follow-up post (in short, this is a bogus argument and the problem we're facing is deflation from inaction, not inflation--this is just a garbage scare tactic ala Death Panels and Obama re-education camps).

The beauty of this position, and what the GOP/Tea Party has seized upon, is basically that it makes sense from what most people see in their own financial mechanics, and it makes sense to punish the country for what people see as some sort of national wrongdoing. Hey, I get why this makes sense to a lot of people. If you run out of money and max out the Visa, you don't get any more (there's an argument that bankruptcy fixes this somewhat, but the Tea Party ain't big on nuance). And I get that.

I understand that it seems, intuitively, that we shouldn't try to fix a debt/growth problem by spending more money--and in our own house, that's possibly true. But we don't have a national economy in our living room and our checkbook doesn't have anything to do with structuring the GDP. If we all had a canoe, we wouldn't try to solve problems on a cruise liner by telling people to paddle harder and throw off deck chairs. And yet that's exactly what this "austerity" solution is doing (Note:I love how they all use "austerity" instead of "not giving money to laid off workers to eat and keep the lights on" because it sounds smarter). Paul Krugman recently stated this well, noting [paraphrasing here] that it all makes visceral sense that we should have to tighten down on everything. But we need to make economic policy with out minds, not our viscera.

The fact remains today, as it did in 1937 and 1941, that the key to a solid recovery from a crisis of this magnitude is a major jump in Federal outlays, even if the debt goes up dramatically. I use 1937 as a reference point because that was the year in which FDR halted the economic recovery dead in its tracks by stopping many of the government spending programs that had been helping to drag the economy upwards. The same sense of back asswards economics that had been the cause and an escalator of the Depression suddenly came back into vogue, and brought the Country right back where it had been trying to escape. It was the start of WWII that ended the Depression, plain and simple. And obviously nobody wants a war. But the point is that going to a global war was an enormous outlay of Federal spending, and that's what put the gears of recovery into motion. Whether it's a tank or a solar power facility, somebody's going to work.

The economics of all of this makes sense, but it does require more thought than most red states want to offer (this is, by the way, the simplified Keynesian view). The national economy is essentially based on a certain level of overall economic activity that creates jobs, profits, and thus tax revenues. When times are good, the government can ease up on spending, and make more money available for private sector investment and purchasing. People have money, so they spend it, creating increases in demand and supply, as well as innovation. This pattern basically played out in the Clinton administration when he was running budget surpluses. When the economy goes into a downturn, private sector spending decreases along with investment and jobs. If a worker loses a job, he stops spending, and because he stops spending, the suppliers stop making as many products and cut jobs and input resources. Rinse and repeat after that, and we have 2008. The Fed will try to cut interest rates to make investing easier and cheaper, and while that can help to a smaller degree, alone it's not enough for major problems. By this point, borrowing funds from the Federal Reserve comes with about zero interest.

Here's where the government spending comes into the picture. If the Federal government can spend enough to overcompensate for the decline in the private sector, this will buy time for the overall economy to normalize and re-energize the investment cycle. This comes through in multiple ways. You have the obvious manner of unemployment insurance, which keeps consumer spending up while the person finds new work or training. There is direct government lending to small businesses, who in turn make more capital investments and hire workers. Similarly, Federal dollars can go to the States to help them from making huge cuts in beneficial spending and education. My favorite is government development of national infrastructure projects that make the larger economy work. Power plants, communications, roads, mass transit, water projects--all of these create enormous advances in the ability of the economy to expand and streamline. Was it Socialism when Eisenhower pushed for the Interstate highways and when FDR brought power to rural areas in the 1930s? Of course not.

Obviously, spending like the country needs to will create an immediate Federal debt. No doubt about it. And while running a debt isn't a great situation, it's a means to a better end. By investing now, the economy stays afloat and then grows, paying off the debt accrued. You keep people at work and allow businesses to grow, which lays the groundwork for the next big jump. Conversely, cutting the spending does nothing to help the situation and is a killer for actually emerging from the problem. The biggest danger we face is seeing a contraction of the economy, cutting national output, consumer spending, and tax revenue. Businesses aren't worried about Federal regulation and taxes, they're worried about people (and other businesses) not walking in the door and buying. The solution to the debt is expanding the economy so that the government doesn't have to spend as much, and the private sector can stand on its own. When it does, the debt goes down and the federal spending goes back to normal.

As for the issue of other countries suddenly stopping all lending and suddenly demanding their money loan-shark style, it's just not realistic. If we were way worse off than all the other countries and were also seeing an increase in the treasury bond prices, maybe this would be a concern. But we aren't. The rate on the loans were taking through the securities is still only about 3%, and foreign countries are eating that up because they're more confident on our economy than their own. We're still the best bet in town, even if the corporate-funded hacks on talk radio are looking for the hordes to come riding in looking for their money. Screw it maybe we should just go buy gold from Glen Beck.

As I said earlier, the simple idea of cutting the federal spending and money magically showing up just doesn't make sense in economic terms. Cutting spending seems workable if the same amount of money is coming in the door, but for the country as a whole that's not happening and the necessary level of growth isn't going to just spontaneously pop up. It's an investment people, and we need it now. This Hoover plan of "austerity" was a trainwreck in 1930, just as much as it is now. Hoover could say that at that point they didn't know any better. What's our excuse?

Thoughts Before Celtics/Lakers Game 1

Here's a few things too keep an eye on both tonight and moving forward:

• As much as it drives me crazy, it's more than likely that Kendrick Perkins is going to miss a game in the series due to picking up a technical. I'd be stunned if he now goes more than 4 games without a tech after watching how fast the refs are with these inane Double Technical calls that aren't even for bad conduct.
• Even if Perkins misses a game, though, the Celtics have interior depth that LA doesn't. Now that Bynum's showing some serious knee problems, they're going to be even more shorthanded. If the Celtics have to play primarily with Wallace and Davis, they're not really screwed against the less physical Lakers (like they would have been vs. Cleveland or Orlando).
• Look for the Celtics to try hard to run a lot of pick and roll with Rondo when Kobe's guarding him. The Celts are going to try to hammer on Bryant when the get a chance and they should be able to exploit LA's shaky interior defense with this play.
• Allen should continue to have success running off picks and getting open looks, expecially with the shorter Fisher likely guarding him.
• I don't see Gasol or Garnett really being able to guard each other 1 on 1. But the Celtics can help more than the Lakers can.
• Lamar Odom is likely to give the Celtics a lot of trouble if he's able to get into the lane. Boston doesn't have a guy who matches up with him well. What's likely to happen is that for most of the minutes, Garnett will be on Odom and Perkins will play Gasol.
• I expect the Lakers may get into some foul trouble. Rondo and Pierece generate a ton of fouls on their own, and the Lakers will get into trouble with reaches and dumb stuff.
• Bryant will get his points. But he'll have to work, and that's fine for Boston. Basically, the Celts can handle stars, as they've already faced Wade and Lebron.
• Look for Glen Davis to have some success off the bench agaisnt LA's second team interior guys. They don't have a sub who can body with him.
• The improvement in the Celtics defense (especially on the interior) over Phoenix or Utah is going to give LA some major problems earlier. LA has been able to coast on offense against mediocre defenses for 2 rounds, and that's going to end abruptly.

Overall, I'll take the Celtics in 6 games. I'm thinking they'll take game 1, take 2 of 3 at home, and win in game 6. The defense for Boston should be good enough to keep LA in check and the improvement in Rondo is, hands down, the biggest change in these two teams since 2008. Pierce won't have the success he did two years ago, but the team overall has more weapons. The last 2 series for both teams are what seals it for me, with one team beating the top two in the regular season and the other a couple of injured stragglers.

Now Approaching Minute 15

It's looking more and more like we've come to the start of the long downward slide of the incomparable huckster of the North, Madam Sarah Palin. Recently we saw the smashing failure of her most recent choice for the Idaho House seat in the GOP Primary, as her pick Vaughn Ward lost by double digits to a local guy whom he outspent six times over. This follows on the heels of her jumping on board with the NY 23rd Candidate, Doug Hoffman, and leading that ship to defeat despite the district being consistently conservative. And hell, if you can't push a winner in the state where you went to at least 60% of the public universities, what does that say? The woman was classmates with half the state for chrissakes.

Moreover, recent polling from Alaska showed that even the people up there have had enough of her that 50% view her unfavorably, with more "very unfavorably" (37%) than "very favorably" (31%). What makes this especially remarkable is the fact that not long ago she was touting herself as the most popular Governor in the Universe, let alone the country. Hell, frostbite has a lower percentage of "very unfavorable" votes.

One of the more interesting elements of this Idaho story is the fact that in general, the majority of the Tea Party crowd/local lunatic community sided with the other guy as opposed to the former flag bearer for the organization. I'm not sure what this means for her ongoing relationship with this crowd. Clearly, they're not all working with a full deck, as you can figure out from a recent situation in Maine where a group of them vandalized an 8th Grade classroom and stole items they deemed unpatriotic, including copies of--wait for it-- the Constitution--because they had been donated by the ACLU. And yet some of these nuts seem to at least be sniffing the never ending stream of bullshit she's tossing out as Americana. Granted, it's like wondering about a smoky smell when you're standing outside a coal plant, but it's a start. They sure can't smell anything when they still had their heads up their asses. Well, something, but it wasn't smoke.

I digress. In reality we really shouldn't be surprised that the start of the end has come right about now. It's been about 2 years since she became a recognizable persona (albeit mainly for hokey phrases and a patent disregard for reality), and that's the basic arc of these situations. It's the same as Ross Perot a few years ago (and he wasn't half as crazy as he's made out to be and knew the issues waaayy better than she does). He popped up on the radar about a year before the 1992 election as a 3rd Party candidate mainly in opposition of the Republicans of the time, and ended up rallying that crew to a 19% share of the election. By 1994 he had really drifted out of the limelight, and by 1996 he was only able to get about 7% of the vote, campaigning with his own funds. Keep in mind that if Britney Spears funded her own campaign she could get about 10%.

The point of it all is that there's a lifespan to all these types of firebrand "man of the people" candidates that don't appeal to a broad enough spectrum, and it's about 30 months. All this stuff about being an outsider sounds great in the campaign, but the functionality of these would-be world changers really goes to hell when they have to do things like "actually make decisions without easy answers" and "read stuff." It seemed like a good idea to elect Jesse Ventura as Governor because he wasn't part of the establishment, but the establishment looked a hell of a lot better once everyone realized that Minnesota's budget problems couldn't be solved with a steel chair and a hidden razor blade.

Palin's legacy looks likely to eventually go a different direction than the garden variety overwhelmed ideologue because of her apparent willingness to chase a buck at any point. You can look at Ron Paul's period as a national player (basically 2007-2008; please don't even make the argument that he's a legitimate candidate nationally. He's just not.) and recognize that even though his candidacies never really went anywhere, he was at least had a point to make with regard to being opposed to the central government. I think he's nuts, but at least you can respect the guy for taking his stance, making a cogent argument in support of it, and sticking to it.

With Palin, you can't even determine what she's supporting, other than a big budget of handlers. It's small government except for when she wants the government to get heavily involved. It's low taxes but no cuts in the big ticket government items. She's all for self-reliance yet supports the Washington State candidate who's taken $275K in government dollars in agriculture subsidies while running a farm made possible only with New Deal-funded dams and irrigation systems.

Moving forward, these are the paradoxes that will become both more apparent and less defensible. Whether the economy picks up and Obama's riding high or if it slows and the Tea Party types push harder, she seems destined for the ice floe treatment from both sides. There's an Eskimo saying that goes, "You never really know your friends from your enemies until the ice breaks." For Palin, I suspect the cracks are sneaking up all too quickly.

It's Time Again To Disgrace the American Legal System

This morning President Obama opened up America's newest seasonal pastime, the embarrassing farce that is the Supreme Court hearings. This year it's current US Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the eminent scholar and attorney who will of course be made out by the GOP to be some sort of illiterate Bolshevik. It seemed like only yesterday we were trying to figure out what the hell "Wise Latina" meant and why Jeff Sessions was such an insufferable prick (Is it hemorrhoids, Jeff? E.D.? Wife and the gardener? Actually, it's probably because the Senate denied his appointment as a Federal Judge for making racist statements to other government lawyers. ).

Even for the normal Republican, though, they've jumped on the woman early, probably hoping to poison the well just enough to win a little public sympathy. We've already seen Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) announce that he's absolutely not voting for her, even though the confirmation hearings are weeks away. John Kyl (R-AZ) has already voiced his concerns over her "thin" experience in the biz. No doubt she would have gained more experience as a lobbyist and lawyer for giant landowners, such as Mr. Kyl. Because nothing says complex legal analysis quite like getting payoffs from condo developers and shady land schemes.

And no less a legal mind than Michael Steele is stirring up the disgruntled fringe by ranting about Kagan's statements years ago about the Constitution being defective at its origins. Of course he and the cronies will probably overlook the fact that she was discussing the fact that under the original Constitution African-Americans only counted as 3/5 of a human and remained property under the Constitution for about the first 80 years, but that's understandable. It's Original Constructionism baby! (That being said, if we could fine a way to take away suffrage from a few people I don't think I'd mind. That means you, Susan Collins.)

Perhaps the greatest irony of the process this time around is the fact that she's already come out and dismissed what the process has become as a "vapid and hollow charade," an observation even more spot-on than when she said it 15 years ago. What could be an enlightening and useful discussion about the role of the court and legal theory has unfortunately become nothing more than a sad joke. We're hearing and seeing supposedly incriminating pictures of her--wait for it--wearing a judicial style robe in the 8th grade! And talking about wanting to be a Supreme Court Justice! Sweet Jesus NO! If there's anything we can't have floating around the youth of America, it's aspiration. We need to stomp that shit out ASAP and get those kids back into Mickey Dees.

When it comes down to it, there really aren't many people who should be remotely challenged. We have to keep in mind that the hearings process isn't an election-style process where you get to pick your favorite. It's just an process to decide whether or not the appointment is qualified, not whether you'll like the way they would rule on your legislation. Senators have a vote on whether the person is qualified, not whether they like the viewpoints. There is an enormous difference, yet we're going to hear endless jabbering about why Congressmen can't vote for her on account of their differing views.

On a nauseating but serious note, this actually has a chance to get really ugly in the streets amongst the lowest of the Right's hate machine. The woman's 50, still single, and--gasp!--has a short haircut. You can see where this is going. It's not going to take much to push a few of the Tea Party loons and Bible thumpers into the streets rallying behind the argument that she (a) is gay; (b) is going to throw her gayness all over my America; and (c) doesn't like Jesus. Of course, the GOP, Fox News and talk radio will do nothing but froth up the venom or justify it in some deranged way, all the while claiming to be nothing more than passive bystanders to public sentiment. Keep in mind that at no point has she ever indicated that she was gay, and even if she was, it has zero relevance to the abilities of a qualified jurist. But, of course, you're dealing with the proto-humans who still eat that vile garbage up. I'm not saying it absolutely will happen this way, but I'll put it at 75%. When it does, let's hope the backlash is fast and carries some serious weight.

Looking forward, there's the way this should play out and the way that it actually will. It should be a open and shut matter, and she should be stamped on through without a hassle. And yet it won't. It's going to be a drawn out harassment of an enormously qualified woman who happens to be on the wrong side of some political hacks drumming up campaign dollars. We're hearing some talk of a filibuster, and while I wouldn't expect it, it could happen if only to bog down the Obama administration's attempts to actually conduct government business. In the end, we have only the public to blame for allowing it to happen. We've allowed it to trend this way for years and it's going to keep happening as long as people keep voting in these clowns to pull this crap or letting them do it when they're in office. Even if it involves a complete restructuring of the way Justices are confirmed, there needs to be some form of change. If and when it does, the process can transcend the useless and cynical character assassination it has become and reaffirm itself as a unifying and critically important part of the American judicial system.

My Very Final 2010 Mock Draft

Finally, the day is here. With that, I'm submitting my final (trade-free) mock of the first round. I don't doubt there will be a few trades that will throw off the works on this, but so be it.

(1) St. Louis Rams - Sam Bradford (QB)
(2) Detroit Lions - Ndamukung Suh (DT)
(3) Tampa Bay Bucs - Gerald McCoy (DT)
(4) Washington Redskins - Russell Okung (OT)
(5) KC Chiefs - Trent Williams (OT)
(6) Seattle Seahawks - Eric Berry (S)
(7) Cleveland Browns - Derek Morgan (DE) *Expect Trade action on this Pick
(8) Oakland Raiders - Anthony Davis (OT)
(9) Buffalo Bills - Dan Williams (NT)
(10) Jacksonville - Rolando McClain (LB) *Expect Trade action on this Pick
(11) Denver Broncos - Dez Bryant (WR)
(12) Miami Dolphins - Earl Thomas (S)
(13) San Francisco - CJ Spiller (RB)
(14) Seattle Seahawks - Brian Bulaga (OT)
(15) NY Giants - Mike Iupati (G)
(16) Tennessee Titans - Jason Pierre-Paul (DE)
(17) San Francisco - Jimmy Clausen (QB)
(18) Pittsburgh Steelers - Maurkice Pouncey (C)
(19) Atlanta Falcons - Brandon Graham (DE)
(20) Houston Texans - Joe Haden (CB) *Possible Trade Spot
(21) Cincinnati Bengals - Jermaine Gresham (TE)
(22) New England Patriots - Sergio Kindle (LB)
(23) Green Bay Packers - Kyle Wilson (CB)
(24) Philadelphia Eagles - Charles Brown (OT) *Possible Trade Spot
(25) Baltimore Ravens - Demaryius Thomas (WR)
(26) Arizona Cardinals - Jerry Hughes (LB)
(27) Dallas Cowboys - Nate Allen (S)
(28) San Diego Chargers - Ryan Matthews (RB)
(29) NY Jets - Linval Joseph (DE) *Possible Trade Spot
(30) Minnesota Vikings - Kareem Jackson (CB)
(31) Indianapolis Colts - Brian Price (DT)
(32) New Orleans Saints - Sean Weatherspoon (LB)

Trends I'm thinking we'll see:

• Corners going unusually late in the first round.
  
• Some of the "safer" picks dropping a little (Morgan, Bulaga, Haden)
• Look for teams to try to trade up to the mid teens to get a shot at Spiller, Haden, Clausen, or Pierre-Paul. Maybe something like Minnesota trading it's first rounder and a 2nd to get Clausen at 15.
  
• I don't believe the hype of Colt McCoy or Tebow in the first round. I just can't see why a team would do that when they can get a starter late in the first. This is a great draft, overall.
• The best spots to be are in the range of 10-16. There could be guys like Bryant, Spiller, Morgan, Haden, JPP and one of the top OTs left who would normally be top 8 picks. And there should be some serious pushes for teams to get up into that range.
  

Some Easy Trades That Sadly, Won't Happen

Here's a list of some snappy trades I'd love to see happen in the next day or so. Most of these are tied to draft picks, so it's easiest this time of year. Unfortunately, most teams don't trade as much as they should, since that involves at least 1 iote of risk, and they're more comfortable being mediocre and avoiding any potential blame. Think of these as the trades that all end up with both teams better in the long and short terms, and that seem pretty equitable.


Jacksonville Trades First Round Pick #10 for Philadelphia's First Round Pick (#24) and Second Rounder (from Washington, #37).
Why?
Philadelphia either can take Safety Earl Thomas or even trade up more to get Eric Berry. Safety is their biggest need by far and they can get one of the top 2 guys to start this year. Jacksonville is on the fast track to irrelevant, and they can turn one pick into two. They have multiple needs and can now get a solid linebacker (say, Weatherspoon) and a safety like Mays in Round 2.

Buffalo Trades Second Round Pick (#41) to Baltimore for Jared Gaither (OT).
Why?
This allows Baltimore to get good value for a player they don't really need right now with the development of Michael Oher. They can get one of the better wideouts if they don't get one in round one, or a tight end to replace Heap. Buffalo has a huge need for OL help and in Gaither, they fill the toughest position to find in one swoop. This also allows them to go any number of directions with their first rounder (Dan Williams would be especially helpful). I'd be a strong advocate of Kansas City making this trade with Baltimore, for basically a similar package, probably pick #36. Baltimore might have to toss in an extra 5th Rounder to make the #36 happen, or KC a 5th round extra (they have 3) if it was the 50th pick.

Carolina Trades DeAngelo Williams (RB) to New England for 2nd Round Pick (#53 overall).
Why?
Williams still has some mileage left on the tires, and the Pats can plug him right into the offense to give them a 3-down back with game-changing talent. Conversely, Carolina's basically in rebuilding mode and already has an excellent back in Jonathan Stewart. They need talent all over the roster, and they can turn Williams into an immediate starter elsewhere.

NY Giants Trade Osi Umenyiora to Cincinnati for 3rd Round Pick (#84):
Why?
Cincy needs to add more talent to their defensive front 7, and Osi can be a top notch pass rusher. He played every game last year, so he looks to be healthy, and they still have a 3rd Round pick left. The strength of the AFC is now in the passing units (Indy, NE, Miami, Pitt, poss. Baltimore, San Diego, potentially the Jets if Sanchez improves), so they can't get stuck with a crappy pass rush. NY is actively shopping Osi since he's apparently unhappy about the situation, and here they can get a solid pick to help replace or fill a different spot. Some people are talking about NY getting a second round pick for him, but I have a hard time seeing it since he's already 28 and has a little bit of an injury history.


Washington Trades Albert Haynesworth to New Orleans for a 2nd Round Pick (#64) and either 2010 3rd Round Pick (#95) or 2011 2nd Round Pick (Prob. about #60. )
Why?
OK, I admit that this one's pretty far-fetched. But doesn't it makes sense? Haynesworth doesn't really fit with the Redskins 3-4 front and has been publicly unhappy. Send him to New Orleans and the Saints fill their biggest need, a defensive tackle to stop the run, and Washington can recoup much of what they've lost. New Orleans can make the numbers work if they cut Charles Grant (which they've discussed anyways a lot) and either let Bush's monster salary leave or redo it. Redskins can take an actual 3-4 DE and then get more help in this draft, plus dump some salary on a guy they don't want. I love this trade, even though it won't happen. Haynesworth's value isn't nearly what it was a year ago, since it's clear he needs to be a 4-3 DT and makes a ton of money. And remember, Brandon Marshall was only swapped for a pair of 2nd Rounders, so it's not far from what they got.

Seattle Trades 4th Rounder (#127) to Washington for Andre Carter.
Why?
Seattle can get a productive 4-3 DE who can fill a starting position for about 3 years, and mentor their young defenders. The Redskins can get a developmental player for the price of an aging DE who didn't really fit in their 3-4 look.

This Just In: The Conservatives Are Still A Pack of Scumbag Liars

This is a pretty great video I came across the other day. Basically, Bill O'Reilly had Tom Coburn (R-OK) on his show lately and tried to claim that Fox News had been unfairly targeted by Coburn for misrepresenting the issues on health care, specifically the bogus claim that you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. O'Reilly proudly proclaims that despite their strident efforts, they could find no instances where anyone on Fox discussed going to jail. When Coburn refutes this, O'Reilly shouts louder and laughs. Fortunately, the rest of the universe lives in reality and the video is pretty great in hammering home the fact that this was a talking point on the network for about 2 weeks straight.

Well, damn, either Bill was lying or he just has the most amazingly bad research team in the history of both research and teams.

The Link

(Note: Video is about halfway down the page)

We Only Thought We Knew the Tea Party. Oh Wait, We Did After All.

There has been some discussion recently about a NY Times poll outlining the Tea Party crowd and how a different picture of them has come to light. They're not just angry old white guys, we're now hearing, it's much more of a reflection of the populace at large than that wacky leftist media has claimed. They're more educated and wealthier than we thought, as the argument goes. What we're supposed to do with this info is a little unclear, although my interpretation is that I'm supposed to be more sympathetic or respectful than before, because they're not just the yahoos spitting on Congressmen or flying planes into IRS offices.

But here's the funny thing: I actually come away from the polling data with a lower regard for that crew, because now it's just exposing these people as even more self-serving and arrogant than previously suspected. At least in the past, we could dismiss the crowd as being poor, uneducated, and struggling to find a place in modern society, but now it's even more clear that the majority of these people are doing just fine. Not only that, but they're happy to let the other people do all the hard work at these rallies while they sit at home and pat each other on the back for their patriotism.

Some of it we knew already, basically that it's 60% male and about 90% white. The arrogance is amazing, in that somehow 84% of these people think that most people agree with what they're doing. If that's the case, why is it that less than 20% actually do? The part I find most troubling is that while 92% believe the country is "headed the wrong direction," 78% of the Tea Party respondents described their economic situation as very good or fairly good. So basically these people are fine economically yet see the government as destroying America. OK then.

The other thing that comes up has to do with who they see as being the beneficiaries of all this Obama Socialism (92% claiming he's pushing Socialism), specifically the poor (56%) and minorities. In the eyes of this crowd, he's too focused on the problems of black people (52%) and over a quarter believe his policies are specifically intended to benefit blacks over whites. But of course, this all assumes people tell the truth, which is tough to be completely sure of on a poll like this. To be honest, I'm dubious of the education levels and income claimed by this crowd, but that's just me. I have a hard time buying that 75% of the Tea Party is over 44 years old, but almost 2/3 claim that neither they nor a family member are covered by Medicare.

We hear all these complaints about the deficit, and the reality is that every Conservative banging the drum on how Democrats raise the debt is absolute crap. It just is. Can you name the 5 Presidents since 1960 who left office with a smaller debt than when they came in? Try Clinton, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, and Kennedy. Oh, it gets better. The 3 Presidents with the highest rates of job creation since 1960? Clinton, Carter, and Johnson.

Yet where were all these principled fiscal conservatives during the 8 years of Bush deficits? We hear every one of these people describe the glory days of the Reagan America where he cut spending and we all lived happily in a state of economic responsiblity. And while this makes for great storytelling, it's just flat wrong. They always seem to forget the fact that Reagan drove the deficit from 32% of GDP to 53% of GDP. This isn't some kind of quirky numbers game, it's just a fact.

So what are we left with? A lot of aging white people hellbent on getting what they can but deathly opposed to paying for things. Everybody loves dead Presidents for reasons completely at odds with reality, and dislikes the current one for ones similarly made up in right-wing imaginations. Everyone's screwing them but they're still doing just fine, even though no one knows why. The evil President is trying to Socialize everything but the tax burden is okay and 62% say Medicare and Social Security (the 2 most Socialist programs on the books) are good plans that are worth the money.

Well, at least now we've cleared everything up. In the words of the imitable Dennis Green, "they were who we thought they were"-- deluded and self-serving.

What's in Your Easter Basket? My NFL Mock Draft (Part 2)

Part 2, hopefully, will be a little shorter. Great apologies on the delay.

(17) San Francisco 49ers - Jimmy Clausen
While the 49ers don't desperately need a QB, I can't imagine anyone really thinks Alex Smith is going to get them close to the playoffs either this year or in the future. The biggest question is whether Clausen would be available, but as we've seen, there just aren't that many teams who can afford spending a first rounder on a QB (STL, BUF, maybe WAS and OAK) with all the other needs they have. The 49ers would likely take Earl Thomas if Clausen's not there.

(18) Pittsburgh Steelers - Mike Iuapati
Iupati's a guy who will need some seasoning at the pro level, but he's got a ton of potential and the Steelers need to get bigger and tougher in their offensive line.

(19) Atlanta Falcons - Sergio Kindle - DE
They'd love to get a shot at Graham since they can't get any pass rush as things stand. I like Kindle here because he can either end up as a pass rusher from the DE or OLB spot.

(20) Houston Texans - Earl Thomas - SS
They need a lot of help in the defensive backfield. I was torn between Thomas and Kyle Wilson form Boise State, but in the end I figured they'd like the local kid a little better. Don't mess with Texas, or some reasoning like that.

(21) Cincinnati Bengals - Dez Bryant - WR
Maybe it's just because I want to see what happens, maybe it's because Cincy doesn't care what's on your rap sheet, and maybe because it's a fanstastic matchup of prospect, value, and need. I lovd Bryant here in this situation, and he really can help the Bengals a ton.

(22) NE Patriots - Jared Odrick -DE
I've really gone back and forth on this pick. My final stance is that the order they'd like to get is Pierre-Paul, Jared Odrick, Graham, Jerry Hughes. The biggest question on Odrick is whether he can make the switch from DT in the 4-3 at Penn State to the 3-4 DE he'd be for the Pats. He has the size and seems more like the 3-4 type anyways, so it would probably work fine. They need a long term replacement for Seymour, and he seems to fit the bill. The Pats can probably wait a little and get a 2nd rounder to play the OLB spot, maybe a guy like Ricky Sapp or Hughes if he drops to 44. I actually could see NE trading either up to get a guy like Pierre-Paul if he drops to somewhere near 11 at Denver, or also if they dropped and took one of these guys closer to 27. I just don't think they're real excited to get the OLBs who are under 6'2".

(23) Green Bay Packers - Kareem Jackson - CB

(24) Philadelphia - Taylor Mays - S
While I'm not a huge Mays fan, he does provide some elements Philly can use. They need safety help and even if he's mostly stays in the box, that's a huge help in the NFC East. The main knock on him is that he can't turn and run like you'd want to see in a safety, which is concering since he's the last line of defense. He can probably turn into a Rodney Harrison type, and be focused on run support and covering tight ends like Witten and Cooley.

(25) Baltimore Ravens - Demaryius Thomas -WR
I love Thomas for the Ravens, since he can be a big play receiver down the road, and provide at least a threat right now. I'm not a big fan of the TE option here, since you can find someone in the 2nd who can do what they need.

(26) Arizona Cardinals - Anthony Davis - OT
Davis, despite the concerns over his heart, is the best talent left at this point and fills a position of need. I doubt they'll reach to get a linebacker when you can find those guys in the middle rounds.

(27) Dallas Cowboys - Nate Allen - FS
They'd probably grab David if he was available, but it's a pretty iffy proposition that he would be.

(28) San Diego - Ryan Matthews - RB
For a team with a fair amount of talent, they have some serious gaps. Both lines are pretty shaky and the running back situation is a mess. Matthews gives them a legit running back with power to pair with Sproles. Some people might argue Terrence Cody here, but the fact that he probably is only a 2-down guy and may eat himself out of the league in 2 years both are major red flags.

(29) NY Jets - Arrelious Benn - WR
Probably looking to the offensive side of the ball, they'd really help Sanchez a ton getting a decent wideout.

(30) Minnesota Vikings - Devin McCourty - CB
If Clausen dropped this far they'd grab him. They might actually move up a bit if he started to get near 20. As it is, they need to start adding young players to the defense. If you're a contender in the NFC, you've got to be able to defend the pass, so the pick should be a corner. Probably McCourty or Patrick Robinson, depending on who they like better.

(31) Indy - Brian Price - DT
They need help on both fronts. Likely the better pick here is a thick DT. Price seems to fit well as a one-gap defender. They could also grab an OL if someone good were to be available, but there's a pretty marked dropoff after Iupati and Davis.

(32) New Orleans - Sean Weatherspoon - LB
Good fit for the Saints, who need help after Scott Fujita left town as a free agent.