NFC Championship Game

I have nothing to say about the Baltimore-New England matchup other than I think New England wins 30-24 and I hope that happens. Moving on.

NFL Divisional Round Preview

Apologies for taking some time off. I could sit here and make a bunch of excuses as to why I haven't been on here in several weeks... so I will. The holidays, work, high school winter sports and just a smidge of laziness. Oh, and I've been watching Skip Bayless talk about Tim Tebow for the last 60 days. It's a streak that has only been matched by Dan Shaughnessy spending decades talking about his cursed Boston Red Sox. Anyway, onto the matchups:

I just....don't...get it, do I?

Great Dr. Evil title, really excited about it. Moving on.

Can somebody please give me a rational explanation as to how Justin Verlander can be named 2011 AL MVP but 1999 Pedro Martinez was only good for second? For all you wise guys, I'm not looking for "He had more voting points."

Week 11 Picks

Well, thanks to this guy here, I'm Tebow and one (see what I did there?) with my week 11 picks already. How dare I think that supposedly one of the NFL's best defenses could shut down a guy who completed two passes in week 10. My bad.

Week 10 Picks

The Thursday night game between Oakland and San Diego begins in 20 minutes from the time I'm writing this sentence, so chances are these picks will be up after the game. (Go Chargers!)
Last week, I did something different with my picks, trusting my gut feelings for each game and betting the lines accordingly. And guess what... I went 9-for-14. I'm back!
Unfortunately, I won't be doing the same thing this week. Gonna implement a different strategy. A good friend of mine and Brandon's, Colin, is visiting and I ran this week's games by him last night. We agreed on most and the few we didn't see eye to eye on, went his way. So with that said, here we go...

Oakland vs SAN DIEGO (-6.5)
If one of Jason Campbell or Darren McFadden were playing in this game, I'd have the Raiders covering. If both were playing, they'd win outright (like they did in both games against the Chargers last season). But with McFadden out and Carson Palmer (who's making Tim Tebow look like a Hall of Famer) in, this game shouldn't, and won't, be close.
Also, because it's my blog and I feel like it, I'm going to predict exact scores. That way, if I ever hit one on the nose, I can gloat about it. And ignore those who tell me about the ones I don't just miss, but butcher.
Chargers 33, Raiders 17.

New Orleans vs ATLANTA (+0.5)
I've said it before, I'll say it again and I said it on the Leader Sports Report (shameless plug): the Saints are mediocre. The offense is really good, but can be stopped (by the Rams) and isn't close to the same level of the Green Bay offense. The defense is awful. And this game probably means more to the Falcons because it's in their backyard and they need it more to stay in the NFC South race than the Saints do.
Falcons 31, Saints 24.

Buffalo (+5.5) vs DALLAS
No, Bills!!!! You're my AFC horse! You can't lose home games like that to the J-E-T-S JETS! JETS! JETS! But you did and it was close for a while only because you were playing Mark Sanchez.
This is a great chance to move to 6-3, however. The Cowboys are struggling, looking inept against the lowly Seattle Seahawks. That was a game in which everyone expected them to bounce back after their embarrassing loss to the Philadelphia Eagles. Dallas makes a habit of playing close games against teams who aren't renting the cellar of the NFC West, so either way, it won't be a blowout. Come on, Buffalo!
Bills 30, Cowboys 28.

Pittsburgh vs CINCINNATI (+3.5)
I have several friends who are diehard Steelers fans. If you're one of those reading this, do yourself a favor and skip to the next game because I have nothing nice to say about the black and yellow.
I hate the Steelers now. I rode an 8-game win streak on ESPN's Streak for the Cash into last Sunday night's Ravens-Steelers tilt. I know the Ravens destroyed Pittsburgh in Week 1, but it was Week 1, so discount it a bit, especially since these teams always play close games.
Pittsburgh had every chance to win that game, despite not being able to do anything on 3rd down defense. Even after Ben Roethlisberger tried throwing a touchdown pass to Terrell Suggs, the Steelers still had the lead and the ball late.
But that "vaunted defense" rolled over like a cute puppy and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory (love that saying, it's so insulting). Thrown out the window was my streak, my faith in the Steelers and, later that night, Roethlisberger's date. Unforgivable.
Oh, the Bengals might actually be good too, but this is their first of four tests against the AFC North juggernauts. It's at home, which should help their chances, but I don't know yet if they can win outright. I hope they do.
Steelers 16, Bengals 9.

St. Louis vs CLEVELAND (-2.5)
Trying to figure out whether there will be more points scored in this game or more people watching the game. Really, it's a coinflip. For the record, I liked the Rams here, Colin didn't. But home field advantage can sway me.
Browns 17, Rams 13.

Denver vs KANSAS CITY (-3.5)
Two things you can be sure of: The Broncos (and Praymaker Playmaker Tim Tebow) aren't as good as they looked and the Chiefs aren't as bad as they looked. Also, you know how these AFC West tilts go. Hard fought and nasty. The Chiefs will be in a nasty mood and it'll show.
Chiefs 37, Broncos 19.

Sidenote: Chargers up 3-0 five minutes in. Only 3.5 more points to go!

Tennessee (+2.5) vs CAROLINA
Another game Colin and I disagreed on, though he was quite adamant Tennessee wins this game. Their best chance will be to put the ball in Chris Johnson's hands (yes, I said it!). I don't know necessarily about their run defense, but I do know that they allow the most fantasy football points to opposing running backs, so that can't be good. The Titans can't really stop the run either and are middle of the pack against the pass, so expect a big game from Cam Newton.
This might be the most surprising score I predict, but I think we're looking at a shootout here. I might as well prepare for the onslaught of fun that will be made at my expense in a few days.
Titans 38, Panthers 34

Jacksonville (-2.5) vs INDIANAPOLIS
Whenever you see the Colts in a game for the rest of the season, take the other team, regardless of the line, unless Indy's playing their practice squad.
Jaguars 27, Colts 13

Washington (+3.5) vs MIAMI
Colin and I didn't agree here either. Maybe I should take it easy with Miami a bit, but I think they're flat out better than the Redskins. I know the Fins are shaky at home, but the Skins are shaky everywhere.
Dolphins 21, Redskins 20

Arizona (+13.5) vs PHILADELPHIA
I think it's safe to say the Eagles are not good. They can play offense, but that offense can be stopped by a good defense (which Arizona doesn't have). The defense is so bad, however, that Kevin Kolb might throw for 200 yards on Sunday. The game won't be very close for the first three quarters, but the Cards can score a bit late to cover. By a half a point.
Eagles 36, Cardinals 23.

Sidenote: Just had dinner, so we're later into this Thursday Night game. Michael Bush rumbled in for the Raiders, 7-3 silver and black.

Houston (-3.5) vs TAMPA BAY
I know Tampa Bay isn't exactly Green Bay, but I think this is the tough task Houston needs to prove they're legit. A road test against an NFC South contender will be a good indicator of where Houston stands. Good teams win these games. OK teams lose them by a possession. Bad teams get rocked by 20. We'll know after this game which of the first two categories the Texans fall under.
Texans 23, Bucs 16.

Baltimore (-7.5) vs SEATTLE
Speaking of bad teams, how's it going, Seahawks?! Hey, you hung in there with the Cowboys, I'll give you that much. And for some reason, you play well at home (maybe it's all that fake stadium noise they pump in there to draw false start flags).
But I wouldn't get any ideas of doing what Arizona almost did a couple weeks ago. Or what Jacksonville did earlier this season. You're going down, hard.
Ravens 27, Seahawks 6.

Detroit (+2.5) vs CHICAGO
You think Vegas is making a big deal of the Bears beating the Eagles on the road this Monday? Uh, absolutely they are. And that's weird, because the Bears' opponent's combined record in Chicago's five wins is 16-24. In their three losses, their opponent's records are a combined 20-5. So you're telling me they can beat bad teams, but can't beat good teams? But I don't understand...
Also, Detroit's had two weeks to get ready for this game and I love bye week teams.
Lions 31, Bears 20.

Sidenote: Field goal Oakland, 10-3. This is going exactly how I planned it. I just need San Diego to outscore the Raiders 30-7 from this point on. Sigh...

NY Giants vs SAN FRANCISCO (-3.5)
I know people seem to think this will be a hangover game for the G-Men after their big win against the Patriots, but I'd be shocked if they weren't amped for a 7-1 team. That being said, the 49ers are just better than the Giants. Their coaching is better, the defense is better. Hell, even the offenses are pretty much a wash, considering the Niners have a better rushing attack and don't turn the ball over, while New York can put up big plays more often. It's another big test for the 49ers, let's see what they're made of.
49ers 23, Giants 17.

New England vs NY JETS (-1.5)
The Patriots aren't great at anything anymore. Like with any quarterback, if you can pressure Tom Brady, you can force him into bad throws. The defense can't really make plays and the Law Offices of BenJarvus Green-Ellis (sorry, Bill Simmons, it's too good) might be closed this Sunday.
Meanwhile, you know what you're getting from the Jets more often than not. They can't really move the ball a whole lot, but they'll make sure you don't either.
I have a feeling the Jets are going to come out hungrier. Especially Rex Ryan, because he...well...you know...
Jets 24, Patriots 20

Minnesota (+13.5) vs GREEN BAY
The method of thinking is that home field is "worth three points." Well in Minnesota, the Packers won by six. Take away the Vikings' three points from their first meeting and give them to Green Bay and the Pack should win by 12. Thanks for the one-point safety net!
Packers 36, Vikings 24

Sidenote: Touchdown Raiders, 17-3. Might have to go back to the way I did things last week. I had San Diego -5.5, thus would have taken the Raiders. Dang it.

One more thing: I know not many people read this, but if you ever want to contribute or have your picks posted or whatever, let me know. That way, four people can read two sets of picks.

Week 9 Picks

I'm pretty awesome, so I'm not used to failure. I had a GPA well north of 3 throughout high school and college. I bowl well. I know how to work a VCR. My Monster Bash skills are immaculate.
So during the last two weeks of NFL picks when I've struggled mightily, I had to look in the mirror and examine what I could do differently to turn my failures into successes, so that my four readers don't abandon my blog.

Week 8 picks

I'm sorry. To the four of you who read these (and I probably already apologized to), please allow me to explain my 4/13 showing.
As always, I like to have a drink or two when I sit down to do this. As you get later in the picks, you'll see my St. Louis/Dallas and Indy/New Orleans gems. Thanks, Kokanee. Two down, seven to go.
Pardon me for the reigning Super Bowl champions not being able to beat a 1-5 team starting a rookie QB by more than nine and the Ravens laying a stinkbomb on Monday Night Football against a 1-5 team starting a rookie QB. Four down, five to go.
I didn't know Bears-Bucs were playing in London. That's completely on me, but had I known, who knows? Five down, four to go.
The Redskins weren't starting Rex Grossman. What was I supposed to do? Six down, three to go.
A 5-1 team at home against a 3-3 team. I'm not taking it back. Seven down, two to go.
As for the other two games (KC/Oakland, Houston/Tennessee) well, those are entirely on me.
This week, I'm currently on beer one, nobody is playing on another continent and I'm another week wiser, with the fullest of intentions to redeem myself. Here we go.

Home team in caps.

Indianapolis vs TENNESSEE (-9.5)

The battle of the two most underwhelming performances of Week 7! Indy needs to lose out to have a shot at Andrew Luck, a great successor to Peyton Manning with conceivable Favre/Rodgers parallels. The Titans can't lose if they want to stay in the AFC South race. Plus, the Colts' run defense is notoriously bad and Chris Johnson is so past due, he's getting collection notices. Also, Indy gave up 62 points last week, making Tennessee's 41 allowed look stingy.

New Orleans (-10.5) vs ST. LOUIS

To be honest, I still don't think the Saints are that good. I just think Indy's that bad, as evidenced by me taking 9.5 from a team that lost by 34 at home last week. Meanwhile, the Rams are also co-front runners for Mr. Luck. Now, I don't think they'll get him (or even want him... Sam Bradford is still decent), but I still don't see them being competitive here. Worst-case scenario, Saints-Cowboys are virtually a push. Dallas beat the Rams by about 91 last week, so take 3.5 on each side of the home-and-home tradeoff for St. Louis and New Orleans could still lay about 84 to the Rams and cover.

Miami (+9.5) vs NY GIANTS

I'm not falling for it again, Eli Manning. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. You screwed over my survivor pool against Seattle, I won't let you make me look bad again.
I'm probably about four days from regretting this, but we'll see. The Giants are like the Montreal Canadiens. If I pick them, they'll lose and vice versa. But here's the deal.
New York's next six weeks after Miami: at New England, at San Francisco, Philadelphia, at New Orleans, Green Bay, at Dallas. Wow. Pretty easy to overlook Miami with that on deck.

Minnesota vs CAROLINA (-3.5)

The Panthers are better than the Vikings. The only thing they have to do (obviously easier said than done) is slow down Adrian Peterson. And maybe Jared Allen.
Minnesota's job is to slow down Cam Newton, something that hasn't really been done yet. Oh, and the Viking secondary could use a few more guys with their ability to stop teams from passing on them.

Arizona vs BALTIMORE (-12.5)

Don't screw me over again, Ravens. This is your chance to make a New Orleans/Indy type statement.
Because of my logic hanging me out to dry, I'm retiring my Stone Cold Lock of the Week after back-to-back losses. But the logic still works here:
Kevin Kolb isn't getting Arizona to more than, say, 13 points, but it'll probably be closer to six.
Can Baltimore put up about 26 on Arizona's defense. Yes, the Orioles can.

Jacksonville (+9.5) vs HOUSTON

Like New Orleans, the Texans aren't that good. I don't know how their game against the Titans happened.
But Jacksonville might not be awful. And that's a lot of points to give to a not-awful team. The team played inspired ball against Pittsburgh and Baltimore and doing so against Houston easily puts them in line to cover, if not win outright. I'm counting on an inspired Jags team.

Washington vs BUFFALO (-5.5)

It's a good thing the Redskins can't play offense, because the Bills can't play defense. John Beck, Rex Grossman, Chris Weinke, it doesn't matter this week. No Santana Moss, no Tim Hightower. Oh, and Buffalo's offense is pretty good. I think you could double this line and I'd still jump on it. I'd call it the SCLotW, but Washington would win 33-24, so... I won't.

Detroit (-3.5) vs DENVER

OK, America, you can put away your Tebowners anytime now. Why is everyone going crazy for Tim Tebow? Sure, he's fun to watch and it's interesting to see 11 guys huddle to pray instead of call plays, but you realize he had 24 passing yards at one point in the third quarter against the same team that gave up 500 something to Tom Brady, right? And it took his team 57 minutes to score against one of the three worst teams in the NFL? And you'd be hard pressed to name two other starting Denver Bronco offensive players without looking it up? And Detroit was undefeated before two tough losses to pretty good teams?

Cincinnati vs SEATTLE (+2.5)

My favorite part of last week might have been picking the Seahawks to cover 3.5 points (which they did) and still losing (which they also did) in what can only be described as "The Worst Game of the 2011 Season." Cleveland's 6-3 win was highlighted by something, but I don't remember what it was. It may have been a nine-yard rush, I'm not sure.
That being said, Seattle is always better at home. Their fans are amazing (yeah, I'll admit it). They're like a bobo doll. Keep knocking it down, it's getting back up. Sonics, see ya. Mariners, awful since 2001. Seahawks, lost their only Super Bowl appearance since their inception in 1976.
Cincy is good, but definitely a one score, if not one point, game. Come on, Bengals, 14-13!!!!

Cleveland vs SAN FRANCISCO (-9.5)

I'm done betting against my 49ers until they give me a reason to. Jim Harbaugh has had two weeks to get ready for the Browns, who put up six points at home against the Seahawks. I really hope the Niners do what really good teams do in situations like this: win 34-6 or something.

New England (-2.5) vs PITTSBURGH

Two weeks to prepare for a 5-2 Steelers team that has played like it should be 3-4. I like it.
Pittsburgh has struggled with the Pats recently, including a 39-26 loss at home last season (when they went to the Super Bowl). The Patriots are better than they were last season, Pittsburgh isn't. The end.

Dallas (+3.5) vs PHILADELPHIA

Make or break week for the Eagles. They've already lost to the Giants at home, they're a game behind Dallas and two behind New York. Philadelphia has had two weeks to get ready for Rob Ryan's blitzes and aggressive defense, but an always-fragile Michael Vick is just one hit away from leaving the game.
Meanwhile, the Cowboy offense is thriving on momentum gained from throttling the Rams and shouldn't really take a step back against a mediocre Eagle defense. If it's a shootout, Philly might escape with a W, but a few stops against Vick and it could turn into a bit of a rout for Dallas.

San Diego vs KANSAS CITY (+3.5)

I got sucked into the Chiefs being awful thanks to getting annihilated against the Bills and Lions in the first two weeks, then scraping by against the Colts. They've been better recently, evidenced by a shellacking of a Raiders team missing Jason Campbell (oooooh). These teams already met (Week 3, following those aforementioned blowouts) and San Diego escaped with a three-point home victory. Granted the Chargers play poorly in September, but remember: The Chiefs won the AFC West last season. And despite their rough start, KC is only a game out of first place. If they win this game, it's a new season halfway through.
If nothing else, it's gonna be close. But I think the Chiefs want it more. Plus, I'm still not sold on Philip Rivers. Chiefs 30, Chargers 24.

Week 7 Picks

I didn't do too bad with my debut picks column. To be fair, I gave myself five weeks to analyze the NFL so I didn't come out here on the first week and hit five of 16 games.
Actually, I've been solid this season. On ESPN, I have yet to (knock on wood) be below average for a single week of all entries.
I am ashamed, however, of last week's Stone Cold Lock of the Week.

Week 6 NFL Picks

(Subject to change...I haven't run them by Brandon yet)

Last week, I thought about my picks a bit, trying to figure out a few things beyond the actual game (Al Davis' death, Philly publicly revoking "Dream Team" status, Seattle not having won on the road since 1994) that might give me an edge over the rest of America. Like the four weeks that preceded them, however, my Week 5 picks were once again average (Week 1: 8/16, average 8, Week 2: 9/16, average 8, Week 3: 9/16, average 8, Week 4: 9/16, average 9, Week 5: 7/13, average 7).
The one thing I noticed about those picks was that I took nearly every favorite. Seriously. After my first draft, I think I picked two teams getting points. Knowing that wouldn't happen, I adjusted a few games and, obviously, broke about even.
This week, we're riding the underdogs. It's pretty clear there are three or four elite NFL teams, three or four awful NFL teams and about 25 that could beat any of the others under the right circumstances (see the Tennessee-Pittsburgh-Baltimore round robin). I touched on it on the blog last night (OK, I spent about two hours on it). San Francisco is good, but how much better are they than Cincinnati? Five points? How about Washington? The Giants? The list goes on. They could just as easily have defeated Dallas in Week 2. Or lost to Cincy and Philly in Weeks 3 and 4. The perfect formula initiated their blowout of Tampa Bay last week (short week for Tampa, big home game against New Orleans in Week 6, San Francisco coming off an emotional comeback against a Super Bowl favorite. You get the idea.


For the first time this season, I'm posting my NFL picks. You can bet your bottom dollar I'll either miss or hit four games. Make or break week and you'll see why:

(Blatantly copying Bill Simmons, home team in caps)


Carolina (+4.5) vs ATLANTA


Part of me is nervous picking against the Falcons at home, but in two Georgia Dome games this season, they eked by a possibly-terrible Tampa Bay team and easily blew a 14-point lead to the defending Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers.
The second of those games is the most telling. Atlanta-Green Bay met in the second round of last season's playoffs. Roddy White recently said that the Falcons were a better team than the Packers last year. Well, nothing really changed. The cheeseheads even spotted Atlanta 14 points and the Falcons responded by scoring zero after the first quarter. Not exactly inspiring. Better teams don't lose games like that. Hell, pretty good teams don't lose games that important in that fashion unless the Packers are THAT transcendent, which, I don't quite think they are.
Carolina, meanwhile, goes toe-to-toe week in and week out no matter who stands on the opposing sideline. They've lost by seven (Arizona), seven (Green Bay), five (Chicago) and three (New Orleans). And I'm supposed to be scared of the Falcons. No.

Buffalo (+3.5) vs NY GIANTS


Can we say Buffalo is good yet? Can we? Because they are. Sorry they only have one win against the Patriots and haven't beaten Green Bay, but you can't really pin that on the Bills. Blame the schedule-makers.

Meanwhile, the Giants are coming off an awful home loss to the pathetic Seattle Seahawks. Hell, they weren't even getting the job done against Tarvaris Jackson's Seahawks, much less Charlie Whitehurst's Seahawks. Obviously, they're not that bad, but they're not that good either. Beating St. Louis by 12 and Arizona by three is supposed to impress me? Knocking off a reeling Eagles team is your signature win? Sorry, I'm not buying you.


Indianapolis vs CINCINNATI (-6.5)



The Colts are definitely not getting a win before whenever they play Jacksonville at home. Forget about it. So now the question isn't if the Bengals will win, but by how much? Well, my guess is a lot. Like, around 14. Something in the realm of 24-10. Cincy's defense is third in the NFL against the pass (best of luck, Curtis Painter and the NFL's 25th-ranked passing offense) and seventh against the run (best of luck, three guys who all suck about the same and are collectively 30th in the NFL in rushing offense).
The Bengals don't wow you offensively (24th passing, 18th rushing), but fortunately, the Colts are about as bad defensively (19th vs the pass, 31st vs the run) as they are offensively. Also, the game is in Cincinnati, where the Bengals nearly beat the 49ers and did beat the Bills. Indy's best chance to cover might be a forfeit.


San Francisco vs DETROIT (-4.5)


See two blogs ago. I think San Fran can and will go toe-to-toe with the undefeated Lions. And I hope I'm dead wrong on this pick. But I just can't go all in with the Niners quite yet. Gimme a signature win against a talented team that's playing at their peak right now.
I like San Francisco's revamped secondary, but Megatron is a freak. Without a doubt the best receiver in the game. Three Cowboys couldn't stop him in the end zone two weeks ago and I'm not quite sure if Carlos Rogers has it in him yet.
The one advantage the 49ers might have is that Jahvid Best, despite his big game against the Bears, isn't really a threat against the game's best run defense (not by stats, but trust me on that). That might allow San Fran to drop back in coverage a bit. But with the weapons Matthew Stafford has (Brandon Pettigrew is really good, by the way), it's a tall task for the Niners to go on the road again and beat arguably the league's hottest team.


St. Louis vs GREEN BAY (-14.5)


Pretty easy week for the promotions department at Lambeau Field to plan out. Buy a front-row ticket anywhere in the stadium, get a Packers player to leap into you, FREE!!!


Philadelphia (+0.5) vs WASHINGTON


Sorry, Ryan. It's last-chance weekend for the Eagles to turn it around, not just for my betting purposes, but for their swiftly-fading playoff hopes. I know the Redskins have had two weeks to prepare, but they didn't do anything over that time to upgrade at quarterback from Rex Grossman to Not Rex Grossman. Washington's defense is good enough to create problems for Michael Vick and Co. and Roy Helu could very well run all over the Eagles front seven, eight, nine, twelve, sixteen, whatever they want to throw in the box. The more I write, the more I want to abandon this pick, so I'm gonna stop.


Jacksonville vs PITTSBURGH (-12.5)


If you don't believe me, go back a month to when the Jaguars went to New York to face the Jets. You should have gone into that game thinking "Jacksonville won't get to 10, the Jets will get to more than 20, ready, break!" Final score: 32-3 Jets.
This is like that game, except if the Jets were better. You think the Jags are getting to 10 points? Yeah right. You think Pittsburgh is getting to at least 23? Well, I mean by the end of the game, but if you're thinking second quarter, well, yeah, they'll do that too. This is the stone cold lock of the year. You know, besides the Jacksonville-Jets game.


Cleveland (+5.5) vs OAKLAND


All right, children, open your textbooks to page 1. We're going to discuss letdown games today.

Coming off possibly their most emotional win in team history, the Raiders get a Browns team that's had two weeks to prepare for them. Also, I'm not so sure the Browns are that bad (though their schedule is screaming at me that I'm wrong). Meanwhile, the Raiders have divison-rival Kansas City on deck and haven't won back-to-back games this season. If Oakland can keep the memory of Al Davis going two weeks running, they should win this game. But I also don't think they're six points better than the Browns.


Houston vs BALTIMORE (-7.5)


I understand the Texans losing to the Raiders last week. They didn't have Andre Johnson, lost Mario Williams and Oakland just had to win that game. Makes sense.
That said, I also understand the Texans losing to Baltimore this week. They don't have Andre Johnson or Mario Williams, the Ravens are better, at home and are coming off a bye week.
Houston's rankings across the board are good, but that'll happen when you take on Indianapolis and Miami your first two weeks.
As far as the Ravens are concerned, they're impressive. Borderline elite. Whatever happened against Tennessee was probably the result of destroying Pittsburgh the week prior, but I'm not 100 percent sure yet. If they whip a very beatable Houston team like I think they will, they may be in line for a promotion to elite status.


Dallas (+7.5) vs NEW ENGLAND


I'm all about these bye week teams not named the Rams. I hate the Cowboys, but you think they could come up with a gameplan somewhere along the lines of "Let's throw the ball as much as New England and hope we get the ball last" in two weeks. If anything, New England is coming off a big win over their rivals, the Jets, and Dallas can swoop in and make a game of it. On an unrelated note, I'm really happy I have Tom Brady as a fantasy quarterback this week.


New Orleans vs TAMPA BAY (+4.5)


The perfect way for the Buccaneers to erase the memory of a 45-point loss would be to climb back in the division hunt (albeit temporarily) with a win at home against the Saints. New Orleans hasn't wowed me yet. I'm not even throwing them into the NFL's elite pantheon. Their only decent win is a 17-point beating of the Bears at home in Week 2. Other than that, they lost to the Packers, beat Houston by seven, Jacksonville by 13 and Carolina by three. BFD. This game means much more to the Bucs than it does the Saints and it'll show on Sunday.


Minnesota (+3.5) vs CHICAGO


The Vikings are on the rebound. The Bears are on the debound. Minnesota could easily be 4-1 if they could hold onto 20-point leads and beat the Kansas City Chiefs. Meanwhile, everybody thought the Bears were going to be a player in the NFC North after throttling Atlanta, except now, the Falcons are bad and Chicago hasn't been within single-digits of the Packers, Saints and Lions. Sure, that's a murderer's row of sorts, but only against Detroit was Chicago really threatening. Oh, and the Bears only knocked off Carolina by five at home.
One more thing: If I set the over/under for Jared Allen sacks of Jay Cutler at 3.5, I'd take the under, but only because Cutler's going to be in a hospital bed before halftime.


Miami vs NY JETS (-7.5)


It's too bad the Dolphins and Colts didn't play each other in Week 1 so one team could officially be crowned "Andrew Luck Sweepstakes Champions." Instead, those teams, especially with Chad Henne out, are going to try to out-tank each other down the stretch.
The Jets are coming off three-straight losses and have to have a win to get back into the AFC East hunt. Pretty simple equation here.

High school fantasy draft breakdown. Seriously.

A few minutes ago, my colleague at the Lake County Leader/college buddy Brandon Hansen told me that tomorrow, him and I will be participating in a high school fantasy sports contest. We haven't quite worked out the kinks or how it will be scored, so really, we don't have a lot to work with yet. But anyone who reads our paper and likes fantasy sports will recognize the names I'm about to break down.



Football

Quarterbacks:

Vince DiGiallonardo, Polson: Very Michael Vick-like with his ability to throw and run. He averages about 2-3 touchdowns a week and can rack up yards all over the board (he's also a kick returner and safety).

Tra Ludeman, Charlo: Similar to DiGiallonardo and embedded in a run-happy offense. That's not to say they won't air the ball out, which they do on occasion. If they do, Ludeman has more weapons than Brad Pitt in Mr. and Mrs. Smith (maybe I'll leave the analogies to Brandon).

Dylan Evans, Mission: While Mission's offense isn't as explosive as DiGiallonardo's or Ludeman's, Evans can rack up yards and touchdowns in a hurry. Depending on the matchup, Evans is in the discussion as one of the areas elite QBs.

Admittedly, I'm not very familiar with the quarterback situation in Ronan or Arlee, which could prove to be a major disadvantage. Those are Brandon's schools to cover, but I'd feel comfortable matching up any of these studs against anyone in Lake County.

Running Backs:

Paul McClurg, Chris Cote, Polson: Both of these guys are big-play capable, but split carries week in and week out. Both have reached the 100-yard plateau during the season, but if either one was a feature back, 200 would be a regular occurrence.


Jacen Petersen, Charlo: Adrian Peterson racked up three first-quarter touchdowns against the Arizona Cardinals this Sunday. Jacen Peterson, of the Charlo Vikings, beat him to the punch when he hit pay dirt three times in the first quarter in Charlo's annihilation of Philipsburg on Friday. That's not really a fluke, either. He's that good.

Zach Tameler, Arlee: When Tameler doesn't reach the end zone three times in a week, something went wrong. The kid is virtually unstoppable. Every time the ball touches his hands, you can expect six points to come out of it.


Since we haven't worked out exactly how this fantasy draft is going to work, I can only assume I'll have the chance at two area players. You can't go wrong with any of these guys, but with Charlo racking up close to 50 points a game, you'd be hard pressed to find a better top two picks than Ludeman and Petersen. If Brandon nabs them, however, you can't even consider it settling for the other four. They're just as capable of putting up as many points as the Viking tandem.



Soccer

I'll make this brief. The choices are Riley "The Leg" Lemm and James "The Lawman" Larson, both from Polson. Each has a four-goal game under their belt this season, as well as multiple hat tricks. They could very well be the last two picks of the draft, simply because you'll flip a coin between the two and cross your fingers that they outscore their teammate. The wash of washes in the draft.


Volleyball

I might be at a slight disadvantage here. Brandon covers Polson, Mission and Charlo volleyball teams, while I oversee Ronan and Arlee. I know a bit about Charlo, but near nothing about the Lady Pirates and Lady Bulldogs.

Here's what I do know:

Arlee's Cortney Dix is the best volleyball player in Lake County. There, I said it. No offense to the many talented girls around the area, but Dix does it all. The Scarlets' best setter, Dix is constantly surveying the court, looking for opportunities to sneak sets where the opposing defense isn't. If nothing is there, she's laying up perfect sets for teammates Becca Nelson and Mahalia Hendren. She also has a tremendously consistent serve and is surrounded by enough talent to give her opportunities to thrive. Unfortunately, Brandon knows I'm a huge fan and it wouldn't surprise me if he swooped in to steal Dix.

The aforementioned Nelson and Hendren give Dix a very solid supporting cast and both are very sound volleyball players. It's amazing Nelson hasn't hurt anyone (at least that I've seen) with her spikes, while Hendren finds herself at or near the top of most of Arlee's stats night in and night out. Definitely a trio to look out for in the draft.

Ronan has several talented players, but the problem is that they're an extremely balanced team. Good for real life volleyball, but not so much for fantasy purposes. From game to game, four or five different girls will find themselves in the box score, leading the Maidens in one stat or another.

Charlo is similar to Ronan, with a lot of contributing parts. You can expect Rachel Hoyt or Deondra Brown to lead the team in kills. Cousins Dawn and Kelsie Blevins both play integral roles with the Lady Vikings, as do Kinley Pope and Derika Stipe. All warrant an eye in the draft.


Cross Country

Paden Alexander and Ashley Courville. That's all I know.

Regarding Courville, I'm not sure how this draft is going down (have I mentioned that?) but Courville is one of Lake County's premier two-sport athletes, also excelling on the Lady Bulldogs volleyball team. Considering there are currently no rules, she has to be the number one overall pick, right? She basically gives you a high school fantasy sports power play. You could draft a waterboy and still be on an even playing field.

Going into tomorrow's draft, here's my preliminary draft board:

1) Courville
2) Dix
3) Petersen
4) Ludeman
5) Tameler


Considering Lake County's talent, however, any of those aforementioned names, as well as many others, have the potential to bring home the inaugural High School Fantasy Sports Title. Let the games begin!

49ers: Contenders or pretenders??

Thank God this is a blog, because I'm about to be all over the map with my thoughts. I didn't exactly lay out a plan of how I wanted to talk about this, simply because it should reflect how I'm thinking. And right now, I'm going back and forth more than an 8-bit Pong game.
About 30 minutes ago, I was sold on my San Francisco 49ers. They're off to a 4-1 start. By my biased logic, three of those are quality wins...but...:

Win 1) 13-8 at Cincinnati. I think the Bengals are decent. Not good, not bad. But it was their home opener (granted it wasn't even sold out) and they have an underrated defense. Add to the mix that conditions weren't ideal and Andy Dalton isn't terrible and there were a couple things to like about that game. The Niners trailed for about three quarters and appeared inept on offense, not crossing midfield until the second half. Nothing new, right? What was new was that San Fran didn't let the game get away from them and, for the first time in seemingly a decade, snatched victory from the jaws of defeat with a couple late scores.
The defense was awesome. Dalton convincingly marched the Bengals down the field on Cincy's first drive. That was it. Cedric Benson, like about 26 running backs before him, didn't get to 100 yards rushing against the stingy Niner D. Alex Smith just did enough in the nick of time for the win.

Ohbytheway) Cincy needed a late score in Week 5 to beat a terrible Jacksonville Jaguars team, lost to the Cleveland Browns, eked out a win against Kyle Orton's Denver Broncos and beat a Buffalo Bills team who spend the first 55 minutes celebrating their win against the Patriots the week before. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the quality of a team whose offseason highlight coming off a 4-12 season was that their starting quarterback was in trade-me-or-I-retire mode. Throw in the fact that two big-name players (Benson, Jerome Simpson) were battling legal issues the week of the 49ers game and they still almost won and, well...how crazy can I be about that win?

Overall- Definitely a bigger "we didn't lose" game than a "we won" game. But in the NFC West, a win is 14 percent closer to a playoff spot, so...


Win 2) 24-23 at Philadelphia. If you would have told me the day before it happened that the 49ers won a game against the Eagles in which they trailed 23-3 in the third quarter, I'd have told you it probably happened in like 1984. If you told me it happened in 2011, I'd ask you if we traded Alex Smith to Philly at halftime. Yet, it did happen, Alex Smith still played for the 49ers and he didn't spend time on the bench. The thing about this game was that Michael Vick passed for over 400 yards and the defense didn't really look bad at all. Did the Eagles gift-wrap this game? Yeah. Will I take it? Of course.
Again, the team never panicked. Down 20 in the third quarter, the offense put its nose to the grindstone and found a way to win. The defense locked down and lucked out when it had to. Sure, Philly's rookie kicker Alex Henery shanked two field goals, but the Eagles also had a chance to win on their last drive and Justin Smith stripped Jeremy Maclin. That's skill, not luck. Also, it's a lack of skill on Maclin's part, but I digress. Kinda.

Ohbytheway) Philadelphia didn't have to do anything fancy in the second half to win that game. They have too many weapons for any team (Maclin, Vick, DeSean Jackson, Brent Celek, LeSean McCoy, Jason Avant, to name SIX). If Andy Reid was anybody but Andy Reid, a 20-point second-half would be plenty, no matter how bad your overrated defense is. Yet it wasn't. San Francisco doesn't get a loss because they should have lost. Thank God.

Overall- While it's not a win to be proud of, it was definitely an effort to be proud of and it was something to build on. Philadelphia, while 1-4, is more talented than just about any 1-4 team ever. And any time you come back from 20 down to win, it's a testament to coaching and perseverance.


Win 3) 48-3 vs Tampa Bay. Jesus Christ. Where do you start with this game? Alex Smith looked like Joe Montana. First drive, touchdown in triple coverage. Not a lucky throw, either... a legitimate strike to Delanie Walker, and from 26 yards out to boot. After a Frank Gore fumble near the goal line, it was smooth sailing. Sure, the offense stalled (once), but after Carlos Rogers' (aka the offseason pickup of the year) pick-six early in the second, Andy Lee could pretty much call it a day. Pure domination rushing the ball, throwing the ball, stopping the run and stopping the pass. You win those four facets as convincingly as the 49ers did and 48-3 probably isn't such a shock. But still...shocking.

Ohbytheway) Tampa was coming off a short week and they looked mediocre at best against the winless Indianapolis Colts. Sure, they're 3-2, but their win against Atlanta looks bad because Atlanta is bad, they should have lost to Minnesota, they couldn't beat the Lions in their home opener and it really wasn't as close as the score indicated. If Tampa doesn't have 7-9 written all over them, I don't know who does.


I'm not crazy about their first two games, either. I'm convinced they would have lost to Seattle in Week 1 at home had Ted Ginn Jr. not split the Seahawks' special teams unit twice like a bomb was strapped to his chest.

If anything, their Week 2 loss was one of their best-played games this year...at least for the first three and a half quarters. The secondary stopped and nearly murdered Tony Romo and the offense withstood constant pressure from the Dallas pass rush. To think San Francisco is a Harbaugh "taking the points off the board to keep the ball and kill more clock" decision away from 5-0 is hard to believe.

This all brings me back to 30 minutes ago, which is now closer to an hour and 30 minutes ago. I felt great. Why shouldn't I? San Fran's record is 4-1 with two tough road wins and a dismantling of a supposed playoff contender. But is their resume as good as it appears?

Unfortunately, Bill Simmons, Cousin Sal and the rest of America, apparently, think so. During their recent podcast, I thought it was a red flag when Cousin Sal said the 49ers were good enough to not just win one playoff game, but two. In his hypothetical scenario, San Fran hosts a 9-7 Falcons team in round one, then moves on to defeat a second opponent (obviously, it'd have to be New Orleans or Green Bay) to reach the NFC Championship Game. Um, excuse me?
If that wasn't enough, later in the podcast, Simmons is ready to jump all over the 49ers at 30-1 odds to WIN THE SUPER BOWL. By comparison, the New York Jets, who are in the midst of a three-game slide, but reached the AFC Championship game two years running, are also 30-1. Those aforementioned Eagles? The self-proclaimed Dream Team? The team who, before the start of the season, experts proclaimed would be disappointed with anything less than a Super Bowl title? 40-1.
If you thought the San Francisco 49ers, who haven't had a winning season since 2002, would, according to Vegas, have a better chance at a Super Bowl Championship than the Philadelphia Eagles, who have some of the best talent ever assembled by a single NFL football team, by Week 6, well, kudos.

Other ESPN talking heads have gushed about the 49ers performance through five games. Best defense in the league has been thrown around. And while it's good, it hasn't exactly been tested...

...which brings us to the 5-0 Detroit Lions.

Like the 49ers, Detroit has struggled throughout the last decade, enduring an 0-16 campaign along the way. Unlike the 49ers, the Lions came into 2011 with some hype. Matthew Stafford, Calvin Johnson and Ndamukong Suh, among others, had sleeper seekers keeping one eye open. This team was on the cusp coming into the season.

Well, by this time, it's safe to say Detroit is off the cusp and in a good way. Season-opening road win at Tampa Bay. Destruction of the reigning AFC West Champion Kansas City Chiefs. Gritty come-from-behind wins on the road at Minnesota and at Dallas. All that followed up by a workmanlike Monday Night Football victory over division rival Chicago. Not the best lineup, but not exactly the bottom three NFC West teams either.

Anytime your team has a wide receiver nicknamed "Megatron," consider yourself a contender. The emergence of Matthew Stafford was only overdue because of his porous, but now improved offensive line. Jahvid Best made the Chicago Bears D look like the Washington State Cougars D (CIRCA ANY YEAR BEFORE THIS ONE!!! GO COUGS!!!). Brandon Pettigrew is the NFL's best-kept secret. It's a test unlike anything Patrick Willis, Carlos Rogers and defensive coordinator Vic Fangio has seen in 2011.

Are the 49ers ready? The answer is yes. They're hungry and eager for the challenge. But the ultimate question is: Are they for real enough to compete with a legitimately dangerous Lions team? We'll find out in about five days.

All I know is that if the San Francisco 49ers move to 5-1 on Sunday, Cousin Sal and Bill Simmons might actually be onto something. The NFC West would be all but secured. A first-round bye wouldn't even be out of the question. And my hopes would officially be sky high.

I don't know if I'm ready for it, but as long as the Niners are, I think be fine. I just hope I feel the same way 30 minutes from now.

Hopefully he can read this from way up on his pedestal

I know more time gets spent on whining about the current BCS system than time gets spent on actually doing something about it, and I hate fueling the fire or spinning the wheels or doing whatever idiom you believe is appropriate, but something needs to be said for the mindless statements made by Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee.

"Well, I don't know enough about the Xs and Os of college football," said Gee, formerly the president at West Virginia, Colorado, Brown and Vanderbilt universities. "I do know, having been both a Southeastern Conference president and a Big Ten president, that it's like murderer's row every week for these schools. We do not play the Little Sisters of the Poor. We play very fine schools on any given day.

"So I think until a university runs through that gauntlet that there's some reason to believe that they not be the best teams to [be] in the big ballgame.

"If you put a gun to my head and said, 'What are you going to do about a playoff system [if] the BCS system as it now exists goes away?' I would vote immediately to go back to the bowl system," he said.

"It's not about this incessant drive to have a national championship because I think that's a slippery slope to professionalism. I'm a fan of the bowl system and I think that by and large it's worked very, very well.
"You know, it's a mystery. We were No. 1, then No. 11, then No. 7 and we ended up playing for the national championship. I think I kind of like that mixed-up mystery."



Let's ignore the fact that the only time in the last five years that Boise State or TCU were given a chance to knock off a power school in a big bowl game was in 2007 when the Broncos defeated Bob Stoops, Adrian Peterson and the Oklahoma Sooners 43-42. Over the last two seasons, BSU and TCU have jockeyed for title of best small-conference school and their reward for being two of the best was playing each other back-to-back seasons rather than a "very fine school."

Rather, let's analyze what Gee had to say to see if it merits any validity:

"Well, I don't know enough about the Xs and Os of college football"

Good start.

"I do know, having been both a Southeastern Conference president and a Big Ten president, that it's like murderer's row every week for these schools. We do not play the Little Sisters of the Poor. We play very fine schools on any given day."

I can't really argue that, in conference, the SEC and Big Ten is like a murderer's row and the schedule is difficult. And I'm not discrediting it because that's life in those conferences... they don't get to choose that part of the schedule. But you'd think such strong words from a university president should be backed up by the part of the schedule which Ohio State does get to choose, right?

2010:

Home vs Marshall (win 45-7)
Home vs #12 Miami (win 36-24)
Home vs Ohio (win 43-7)
Home vs Eastern Michigan (win 73-20)

2009:

Home vs Navy (win 31-27)
Home vs #3 USC (loss 18-15)
Away at Toledo (win 38-0)
Home vs New Mexico State (win 45-0)

2008:

Home vs Youngstown St. (win 43-0)
Home vs Ohio (win 26-14)
Away at #1 USC (loss 35-3)
Home vs Troy (win 28-10)

2007:

Home vs Youngstown St. (win 38-6)
Home vs Akron (win 20-2)
Away at Washington (win 33-14)
Home vs Kent St. (win 48-3)

Three of those 16 non-conference games over the past four seasons were on the road, granted one was in the same state. And 12 of the 16 games were against Little Sister of the Poor schools. Two of the three games against ranked teams were in their own backyard and two of the three they lost (and by the way, the only win of those was against #12 Miami, who isn't a part of the top 25 anymore).

Meanwhile, Boise State does what they can to get big programs on their non-conference schedule. Sure, they have to to have national title aspirations, but it's also a way for them to prove they belong. This season, they went cross-country to defeat Virginia Tech who was #6 at the time and now stands at #13. They also hosted Oregon State (ranked at the time) and defeated them by double digits. Last season, it was Oregon who they took down 19-8. The year before that, they went to Oregon and took down the #17 Ducks 37-32. Oh, and those Ducks teams have a handful of returning players from those teams who find themselves on top of the country as the end of the regular season nears...not quite the Little Sisters of the Poor there, Gee.

"So I think until a university runs through that gauntlet that there's some reason to believe that they not be the best teams to [be] in the big ballgame."

Translation: "I have never sat down and watched Boise State or TCU play a college football game against anyone." I could read box scores of the Carolina Panthers beating a high school team by 50 every week and think that they were one of the best NFL teams, but if I saw them play the Baltimore Ravens, I'd quickly realize that they're not worthy of a Super Bowl shot. Meanwhile, BSU beats the patsies on their schedule by 50 every week, but when they get a shot at a highly-ranked team, not only do they hang with them, but they defeat them. Sounds worthy of a title shot to me if they take care of business.

"If you put a gun to my head and said, 'What are you going to do about a playoff system [if] the BCS system as it now exists goes away?' I would vote immediately to go back to the bowl system."

Funny, someone who promotes the gauntlet that is the Big 10 and SEC is OK with one winner-take-all game. I'd think being in such a tough, rich conference, you'd leap at the prospect of proving your team is, without a shadow of a doubt, the best college football team in the nation. Yet every year, we hear "Sure, Team A won the National Championship Game, but don't you think undefeated Team B could have given them a run for their money if a playoff system was established?" And somehow, Gee is fine with that.

Let's say an 8-team playoff system was in order. The four remaining undefeated teams (Oregon, Auburn, BSU and TCU) are all in... can't fault them for running through their schedule and punishing teams along the way. The last four slots can be filled in via computer rankings. Almost always, this works out, as teams that have lost along the way can only look back to their own inability to win a certain game,which is a more attractive alternative than undefeated teams with no chance to begin with being left out. Assuming OSU takes care of business against Michigan, they would most likely be in, along with LSU, Wisconsin and Stanford.

E. Gordon Gee gets his way because six of the eight schools are rich and obviously have the best teams, so phasing out the poor schools (BSU, TCU) should be easy. Then, the rich schools can play for their national title with an unequivocal victor. BSU and TCU get their way, because they can keep taking down the college football rich kids until everyone realizes they're just as good as everyone else when they're playing each other for all the marbles. Everybody wins!

"It's not about this incessant drive to have a national championship because I think that's a slippery slope to professionalism. I'm a fan of the bowl system and I think that by and large it's worked very, very well.
"You know, it's a mystery. We were No. 1, then No. 11, then No. 7 and we ended up playing for the national championship. I think I kind of like that mixed-up mystery."

Sure, it's worked well for you Gee. Here are all of the BCS Title Games, by conference:

2010: SEC vs Big 12
2009: SEC vs Big 12
2008: SEC vs Big Ten
2007: SEC vs Big Ten
2006: Big 12 vs Pac 10
2005: Big 12 vs Pac 10
2004: SEC vs Big 12
2003: Big Ten vs Big East
2002: Big 12 vs Big East
2001: Big 12 vs ACC
2000: Big East vs ACC
1999: SEC vs ACC

Appearances- Big 12 (7), SEC (6), Big Ten (3), ACC (3), Big East (3), Pac 10 (2), every other conference combined (0).

As far as that mixed-up mystery you like so much where you were #1 until you lost at home to unranked Illinois 28-21, then fell to #7 and amazingly played for the title because everyone in front of you lost? How'd that work out for you when LSU embarrassed OSU with 31 unanswered points in a 38-24, not-as-close-as-the-score-lets-on drubbing? But, hey, as long as a 1-loss rich school is playing for a championship, everything is right in the world. You dunce.

This article cracks my top-5 nightmares list...

Question: Would the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees ever pull off a trade of any meaningful significance? It wouldn't have to be of the Babe Ruth sale magnitude, but we wouldn't exactly be talking a Single-A player swap either.

According to this guy who felt the need to freak me out today, there are a couple deals that would make sense for both sides.

The less scary scenario presented sent Mike Lowell and a pitching prospect to the Bronx for Mark Melancon. It solves the Yanks' DH problems and Boston's bullpen need.

The more scary scenario presented sent David Ortiz, Jose Iglesias and Ryan Kalish to New York for Joba Chamberlain and Jesus Montero.

First, for my own sanity, let's crush these two ideas. If Boston ever sent a World Series hero directly to New York, it would cause a backlash among Red Sox Nation that would make the 2004 Nomar Garciaparra trade seem like nothing more than a murmur. Both Lowell (2007 World Series MVP) and Ortiz (who hit roughly .914 in the last eight games of their 2004 title run) fit the bill there. Papi, even with his struggles over the past two years, is still the most beloved Sox player on the roster.

In the Lowell deal, the Yankees would send just Melancon to Beantown. While the Lowell/prospect combo isn't the sweetest of deals, Melancon has a career ERA of just under 5.00 and is the exact player people talk about when they describe a AAAA player: too good for Triple-A, but not good enough for the bigs. No thanks.

In the Ortiz deal, Boston would also ship Iglesias and Kalish out of town. Iglesias is Boston's long-term solution to their shortstop problems since the departure of Nomah. Since 2004, the 6-spot has seen Orlando Cabrera, Edgar Renteria, Alex Gonzalez (twice), Alex Cora, Julio Lugo, Jed Lowrie and Marco Scutaro for significant periods of time. It makes less than zero sense to both compound those problems and give the Yankees an heir apparent to Derek Jeter.

Kalish is a highly-touted outfielding prospect who could fit in well with Jacoby Ellsbury and a free agent in a couple years, assuming someone like Josh Reddick or Ryan Westmoreland doesn't step up by then. By offering Ortiz-Iglesias-Kalish, Boston would have to get something huge in return.

And technically, they would. Chamberlain is a fatty. Sure, Joba has shown flashes of brilliance, but he's also taken a big step back this season by being inconsistent and unreliable as Mariano Rivera's setup man. Boston needs bullpen help, but bringing in a guy with a 5.66 ERA isn't exactly a good fix. The only good side is that Chamberlain would become a pariah immediately. Heck, he would even replace Bill Hall as my least favorite Red Sox player. Barely.

Montero would be a nice addition and I haven't grown to hate him yet, but even New York's top catching prospect isn't enough to make this a good trade for Boston. He and Iglesias might be a push, which means you're offering Ortiz and Kalish for Joba? I'll pass.

Second, if any talks even surface that a deal is being kicked around, I'll never forgive the article's author for putting the wheels in motion. I can't figure out how a writer for boston.com could find humor in this, as well as not cringe with every word he wrote. Heck, I was cringing writing what I did and I shot down his ideas.

It's just the way it is with this rivalry and to not understand that is idiotic. I know the idea is to build the best team you can, but at the same time, you don't want the team you're chasing in the standings to become better. Especially at the expense of your fan base.

But thanks for the idea, Peter Abraham! Good luck finding a new job!

Show them the money

It’s not often in sports when a person or team does the right thing when it’s not also the easy thing to do. I would like to applaud USC and new AD Pat Haden in how they handled the recent misdoings in their Men’s Basketball and Football programs. They sent a clear and powerful message to all present and future USC student athletes. That message is that cheating will not be accepted.

USC has removed the Heisman Trophy awarded to Reggie Bush from its trophy case. O.J. Simpson’s Heisman is still there and he is a double murderer. But not only did USC remove the Heisman, they removed all images of Reggie Bush. USC has given the same treatment to O.J. Mayo. Two of the schools top and most celebrated athletes in the new millennium have been given this treatment. If I was an incoming frosh at USC I would be on the up and up.

Pat Haden could have easily pushed these issues to the back burner and give a statement about how “USC is focused on the future” and avoided it all. But he didn’t. He did the right thing and I am sure that many Trojan fans weren’t happy about it. Lane Kiffin, if you read this, be on your best behavior because I have a feeling you have one short leash right now.

The USC issue and the current situation with SEC football players and agents makes me wonder why these guys don’t get paid. I know Title IX would force the women to get paid too and they should. In 2010, the SEC signed a contract with ESPN for the rights to their football and men’s and women’s basketball games. That contract is worth $2 billion. Yah that’s right $2 billion. There are 12 teams in the SEC, so by some simple math that is roughly $11 million a year per school. You’re telling me each student athlete should get at least a small amount of that. I don’t blame the players for taking money from agents, especially with rules forcing players to go/stay in school a certain amount of time. One and doners in college basketball don’t even go to class the second semester. It’s a joke. I don’t care how little the amount is but give the kids some money and a lot of these problems will go away.

Devils' Advocate?

When this man's contract is up, I'll be 42 years old. I might be married with four kids. I might be writing something like this for a newspaper in Calgary. I might be dead. Who knows? The one thing I do know is that a SEVENTEEN-YEAR CONTRACT IS CRAZY!

Nevertheless, Ilya Kovalchuk secured his future by signing that aforementioned contract, worth approximately $102 million, to play NHL hockey in New Jersey until 2027.

There's a good chance I spend tomorrow gathering random notes, objects and thoughts and creating a time capsule to look back on when Kovalchuk's deal expires. Because, more than anything right now, I'm curious. I want to be in 2027 for a day to see what's new in the world, in my life and in the NHL. Has cancer been cured? Do we have the first female president in the history of the United States? Have the Cubs still not won a World Series? (Just kidding, we know that's a no. Sorry North Side.)

Who wins in this deal, you ask. There's no arguing a few facts. First, Kovalchuk is one of the top-five skaters in the NHL. Second, super-long-term deals have bombed spectacularly in the NHL in recent years (although Rick DiPietro will be fine once someone finds the person responsible for torturing his voodoo doll). Third, Kovalchuk hasn't exactly been a winner in his NHL career. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, Kovalchuk rejected several other deals (many one-year offers, but at least one 15-year contract from the talent-laden Los Angeles Kings) to remain a Devil. Sure, New Jersey's 2009-10 season lasted one fewer game than LA's did, but the Devils recent history is storied, while the Kings had just their third 40+ win season since 1991.

That last point is crucial. Despite falling short of expectations in last year's playoffs, Kovalchuk must expect long-lasting success in New Jersey, starting with his own play. While the Kings didn't offer as much annual money as the Devils, his one-year offers were lucrative enough to lure him away from Newark, yet he stayed. Also, there's no arguing the talent around him, with stud Zach Parise and the winningest goaltender of all time, Martin Brodeur alongside. But his statement signing could lure free agents now and in the future to New Jersey and potentially create a powerhouse in the relatively weak Eastern Conference.

What remains to be seen could change the landscape of sports as we know it, especially the NHL. Let me lay forth two quick hypotheticals: Kovalchuk averages 90 points a season over the next 15 years while remaining relatively healthy and leads New Jersey to five Stanley Cups. At what point do teams begin thinking, "Hey, this is one of the sport's premier players. He's proven it for almost a decade and if we can lock him up for the rest of his career, we gotta do it." It wasn't long ago Alex Rodriguez signed a similarly staggering 10-year, $252 million contract with the Texas Rangers. If they could have put a team around him, who knows whether he would be donning pinstripes today. The bastard.

Hypothetical two: Kovalchuk bombs, averaging just 20 goals and 45 points over his first five injury-plagued seasons, winning just one playoff series, before he bounces around from team to team like Kenny Lofton (I don't know enough about hockey to make a more appropriate analogy) for a decade after that. With the growing track record of long-term deals not producing, do teams become more hesitant giving out anything more than four or five years like they're the Boston Red Sox?

The answer to the 243 questions I've laid forth: I don't know. The only thing I do know is that I would really, really like to spend a day in 2027 to see how this turned out. Guess I'll just have to wait SEVENTEEN YEARS TO FIND OUT! Sigh...

Musn't See TV

By Ryan Callahan, guest contributor

I came to a realization last week. It’s one most sports fans come to some time in their 20s. It is a lot like when you first learned that Santa wasn’t real. It’s hard to believe because you never knew any better but in your heart you know it’s true. I’ve been shown the light about All Star Games/Events. They suck; and not NBA regular season suck, WNBA regular season suck.


MLB All-Star week can still be saved with some minor tweaks. The Home Run Derby is a fine event, it just lasts way, way too long. The ‘09 derby lasted three hours. Three hours is too long for anything; I couldn’t watch Blake Lively mud wrestle Jessica Biel for three hours. Just cut the Home Run Derby to two rounds and you have a watchable event. And love it or hate it at least having home field riding on the outcome of the game gives you some reason to watch.


NBA All-Star Weekend has the slightest sliver of hope. It has the best All-Star event, the 3-point contest but it also has the worst, the dunk contest. In homage to Dylan’s post, I give the slam dunk contest the World Cup award. It is something I only need to see every four years. And even then why do you need to have NBA players in it? It’s not like they bring anything special to the table. I want to see the best dunkers in the world not the best dunkers in the NBA. Show me James White, Ziani, John Clark and The Air Up There having a dunk contest. Go to you tube and look up those guys and tell me that wouldn’t be better than what the NBA puts out. The rest of All-Star Weekend can just go. There is no fixing the rookie/sophomore game or the actual All-Star game; they both could go join the dodo bird as far as I’m concerned.


The Pro Bowl is a joke. It can’t even hold the Poinsettia Bowl’s jock. It is the only All-Star Game where the rules are changed and no one is trying. At least in the NBA they keep the same rules. I mean what good is an All-Star Game when all the players from your sports’ two best teams can’t play? I can proudly say I have never watched a Pro Bowl. I will watch my first one after I get done playing one on one with Reggie Lewis.


If you read this and you think I am completely wrong, you probably didn’t notice your mom and Santa had the same handwriting until you were 11.

RIP George Steinbrenner

Former New York Yankee owner George Steinbrenner passed away at 80 this morning after suffering a massive heart attack.

For all the days and weeks I spent, thinking of why I hated him more than anybody else growing up, I am going to kind of miss him. Part of that is due to his character on Seinfeld, sure ("I smell CALZONES! COSTANZA'S in the BUILDING!"), but as a lifelong Boston Red Sox fan, I give a large chunk of credit to Steinbrenner for making the Red Sox who they've turned into today.

Growing up in the '90s, I saw Boston play second fiddle to the Yanks year after year. New York's seemingly endless run of World Series championships not only made me hate them more, but made me love the Sox more as well. When the pieces didn't fit for a Yankee team, Steinbrenner's bottomless pockets bought the pieces that did. He is the sole reason the New York Yankees are the most despised team in sports today and I say that as a compliment, not a criticism. The Boss did what he had to do to lead his team to victory and during his reign, he did it well.

What happened to the Red Sox during Steinbrenner's tenure was also momumental. Countless times, the Yankees twisted the knife in the collective back of the Red Sox and their fans when it came to trades and free agency, never in a more bitter fashion than when New York trumped Boston for the services of Alex Rodriguez. After swooping in to nab the most talented baseball figure alive at the time, Steinbrenner had the following to say, in February of 2004, regarding the front office of the Red Sox: "We understand John Henry must be embarrassed, frustrated, and disappointed by his failure in [trading for A-Rod]. Unlike the Yankees, he chose not to go the extra distance for his fans in Boston."

However, with new hotshot General Manager Theo Epstein running the show in Beantown, the Sox approached the trading deadline a bit differently that year, sending one of the most beloved Red Sox ever, Nomar Garciaparra, to Chicago in a three-team swap that landed Boston smaller names in Orlando Cabrera and Doug Mientkiewicz. No longer was it about fighting over the biggest and best players position by position. Besides, it was a fight Boston could never win with Steinbrenner anyway. It was about finding chemistry guys that would jell with the guys already in place. And roughly eight months after Steinbrenner's scathing comments landed on the ears of Red Sox Nation, Boston captured their first World Series championship since 1918.

Since that time, the two AL East powerhouses have traded shot after shot, with the Sox winning again in 2007, while the Yankees currently call themselves reigning champions after defeating the Philadelphia Phillies in 2009. With Steinbrenner's sons in charge, the rivalry has mellowed out in terms of front-office vitriol, but the desire to win burns as much as ever before. And more of that is due to Steinbrenner than any other figure in the Sox-Yanks feud.

Final World Cup thoughts...

The 2010 World Cup has come and gone, with Spain defeating the Netherlands 1-0 in a final that no amount of Starbucks could have kept me awake for. In fact, my favorite part of the championship match was the first 90 minutes of scoreless soccer, with my interest peaking in about the 22nd minute, seen here.

In honor of the event, I'm handing out awards named for participating countries based on the good and the bad from the last month in South Africa.

The Cameroon Award (first team knocked out/first thing that I didn't like about the 2010 World Cup): nonstop diving. Reason number 4,310 why hockey is better than soccer: hockey players wouldn't be caught dead pulling some of this stuff off, but if they tried, they'd get two minutes in the penalty box. Soccer players, meanwhile, are scorned, mocked and shamed, but that's about it. If you didn't catch any of the World Cup, or haven't ever seen soccer, I can't really blame you. Some of the acting done by players from the 32 countries was terrible enough to make Brendan Fraser blush. Three honorable mention videos to drive the point home: Keita vs. Brazil, Ronaldo vs. Germany and De Rossi vs. Paraguay. Just terrible.

The Netherlands Award (most underrated aspect of the World Cup): shots of fans crowded in streets from around the globe. For the few fans of soccer reading this, I hope you caught a glimpse of the masses because you will never see anything like this in the USA. Ever. Soccer will never be as big in America as it is around the world and the blocks and blocks of people jammed together like the end of "V for Vendetta" is a testament to that. Cameras in bars around the USA showed reactions of 40 or 50 people when Landon Donovan saved the day against Algeria. Meanwhile, for the World Cup Final against the Netherlands, a shot from Madrid showed thousands of people standing outside, waiting to celebrate Spain's first ever World Cup Championship. The image was unforgettable and unlike anything you would see in any sport in America. If you don't think soccer is the world's most popular game, one look at these crowds would change your mind.

The Argentina Award (most overrated aspect of the World Cup): vuvuzelas. Oh my God, we get it. They're loud. They're obnoxious. They're nonstop. Give it a rest. Personally, I liked them. They gave a constant buzz to the stadium and a sport which has just a few exciting moments over an hour-and-a-half span. You think they're annoying and unnecessary? OK, fine. Can we talk about something else now? Awesome, let's move on.

The North Korea Award (I didn't think that was possible in soccer): two way tie between Giovanni Van Bronckhorst's goal vs. Uruguay and Robert Green's unforgivable goal allowed vs. the USA. This award, in honor of North Korea allowing seven goals in a match vs. Portugal (one fewer than Spain scored in their World Cup title run), was split between Van Bronckhorst and Green in very contrasting ways. Green's goes without saying because at the highest level, netminders shouldn't be allowing goals that high school JV soccer players wouldn't. But Van Bronckhorst's goal from outside the box was far and away the most impressive goal of the 2010 World Cup. How he was able to do what he did combined skill, precision, force and luck into one of the prettiest goals in soccer history. In fact, I just went back and watched it again, mid-paragraph. Wow.

The Spain Award (best team/favorite player): Uruguay's Diego Forlan. The 2010 World Cup Golden Ball winner for best player, Forlan was the reason I enjoyed the World Cup as much as I did. A deadly sniper on free kicks, Forlan carried an Uruguay team to the brink of the Finals without their second-best player Luis "The World Cup's most hateable player" Suarez, before falling to the Netherlands. When my good friend Pat Silvey turned on FIFA 2010 during halftime, he played as Atletico Madrid in homage to the World Cup's MVP. And while he fell 3-2 to Real Madrid, it was Forlan who helped rally Atletico Madrid from a two-goal deficit with an assist and the game-tying goal. Not by coincidence, either. "[Forlan] helped Anne lose weight." "Peter, she's anorexic." "Yeah, I know. The guy's really good." Three points in the fake 2010 World Cup standings for identifying that reference.

The France Award (most disappointing performance): World Cup referees. The refs almost got the nod for the Argentina Award because every media outlet around the globe hammered them for blowing just about every meaningful call. It wasn't just the faux (see what I did there?) foul call against the USA either. Goals were allowed that shouldn't have been. Goals were disallowed that should have counted. It's hard not to make the same Jim Joyce joke that has been done no fewer than 71,387 times over the last month, but seriously...you could have sent Jim Joyce to South Africa and improved the quality of officiating.

The France Award Part Deux (most stereotypical team): France. Hey, say what you will about the French, but when their backs were against the wall, they did what they do best: wave the white flag. When Nicolas Anelka was kicked off the team (pun intended), players got together and protested in a way that inspired nobody in France: refusing to practice. Would going about that adversity in a different way been a better way of handling the situation (say dedicating the tournament to Anelka and playing to spite the coach)? Yes. Was it stupid to waste four years of preparation to make a point that could have been made in a more constructive manner? Of course. Did France shame their country with their foolish decision? Oh yeah. Did they disappoint me? Nah, I got a kick out of it. Am I out of rhetorical questions? Yup.

The USA Award (got my hopes up, only to crush them): Spain vs. Paraguay. Easily the most entertaining game of the 2010 World Cup (odd, because it ended 1-0), but the game featured really good chances for both teams, including three penalty kicks in a three-minute span. After Paraguay's miss on a PK, Spain bolted down the pitch and received a PK of their own. Spain converted, but officials ruled a Spanish forward offside, resulting in a re-kick, which Paraguay saved. This was the game that sucked me into the World Cup and had me thinking "maybe this is something I could get into for real..." Unfortunately, I missed the only entertaining game after that (Germany-3, Uruguay-2) and am forced to settle for not watching soccer until 2014.

The Germany Award (team nobody in the USA was rooting for): Germany. Call it lame to give two countries awards named after themselves if you want, but I'm going with it anyway. It's another point that's been beaten into the ground like France's World Cup cameo, but nobody wanted Germany to do well because of the historical implications. The Axis vs. Allied match of 2010 featured Germany and England and didn't quite end as well as World War II did. Germany blitzkrieged the Brits to the tune of two quick goals before England responded with one of their own. With the tide seemingly turning, England scored what appeared to be the tying goal before Hitler...I mean Jorge Larrionda, overturned the call and took the wind out of the Merchant Navy's sails before Germany advanced with a 4-1 win. The Germs proceeded to crush Argentina 4-0 before falling short against Spain and allowing the good guys to collectively exhale before the World Cup final.

Finally, the Brazil Award (looking ahead): 2014 World Cup. Thanks to this year's event, the 2014 World Cup, ironically in Brazil, is looking like it won't completely suck. Soccer players have become more recognized for their headers (led by Puyol's statement goal against Germany) than their headbutting. Surprise teams like Uruguay and the Netherlands (who caught favored Brazil sleeping in their quarterfinal matchup) have given the World Cup parity and a plethora of teams to look out for next year. Even the USA is gearing up, having escaped group play for the first time since 2002.

Am I sucked into soccer now, thanks to Forlan, Spain and Van Bronckhorst's wicked goal? No. But I'll be watching in four years. Until then, bring on something other than soccer, please.

King Sidekick

By Ryan Callahan, guest contributor

Has anyone ever gone as Robin for Halloween? Did Gatorade have an ad
“I wanna be like Scottie?” Has the President ever left office to
become assistant Prime Minister of Canada? No, of course not. But in
the NBA the so called “King James” has just handed his crown to Dwyane Wade. I guess Skip Bayless was right all along - it was “Prince James.”
Think of the greatest wing players to ever play; they all had the ball in their hand when the game was on the line, they all hit game winners to clinch series or titles. Jordan over Russell, Magic with the running sky hook, Kobe had six just last year and sadly Lebron will never have a defining moment like this. I mean really who would you give the ball to? Someone with a track record of crumbling when it matters the most or someone who on the brink of going down 3 games to 0 in the NBA finals put his whole team on his back. That team had Shaq too so it was a lot of lifting. Wade has a consistent outside game to go along with his tenacity attacking the hoop while Lebron is much more one dimensional with his ability to score. Wade is the closest thing to Jordan the NBA has seen since 1996 and now he finally has his Pippen.
I don’t understand this move; Chicago was a much better fit for Lebron. He would still be the clear cut number one, they have a better power forward in Carlos Boozer who already knows how to be a number two, Joakim Noah who doesn’t need the ball on offense and still scores 10 a game while bringing down 12 boards (AKA the perfect teammate for Lebron), not to mention Derrick Rose and Luol Deng. I don’t understand what Lebron was thinking this offseason. From his choice of team to the way he handled it, it all baffles me. One thing I do know is if I ran a team I’d much rather have my superstar handle things the way Kevin Durant did.

Dramatic turnaround yields nothing but W's for Bad Luck Fan

It wasn't long ago that Dylan Kitzan couldn't attend a Spokane Indians game without being harassed about being the guy who sealed the Indians' fate before they even stepped on the field.

"It was a tough time for me," Kitzan said. "I didn't like it more than anyone else. But I still enjoyed going to the games, so even if they were seemingly predetermined, I tried to have a good time."

But lately, times have changed for the fan who once drew comparisons to Chicago Cubs fan Steve Bartman. After Spokane dropped eight of nine games with Kitzan in the stands, the Indians reeled off their fourth consecutive win last night with him in attendance, 6-4 over the visiting Boise Hawks. Timely hitting and solid pitching guided the Indians (31-33) to the victory, though the bigger story was the continued shift in fortunes of Kitzan, who can start to rest easy knowing that the entire season isn't weighing on his shoulders anymore. Last season, Spokane went 1-8 in games Kitzan was at. They went 50-17 in all other contests and won the Northwest League Championship with Kitzan absent for the entire series.

"For a team that was as dominant as Spokane was last year, it was bizarre that they could lose that often when I was there," Kitzan said. "Of course I felt responsible. I wanted to go to the playoff series, but kept myself away from Avista Stadium for the good of the team. What does that tell you?"

But now, with the Indians seven games back of the Tri-City Dust Devils for first place in the division, the pressure of a championship run is gone. The reason for that may be because Kitzan hasn't been in the ballpark enough.

"I suppose it was kind of my fault that Spokane struggled with me in the crowd last season," Kitzan said. "So I guess at the same time, if I would have gone to more games this year, Spokane might be in position to repeat."

For Kitzan, though, the Indians winning isn't the highest priority. How could it be when Spokane went through the stretch they did last season?

"It's just nice to be another fan again," Kitzan said. "It's fun to go to the games with friends and have everyone not fearing the worst. I'm not 'that guy' anymore."

Well, maybe he is. But "that guy" has a bit of a different meaning now that the Indians are winning games.