Editors' note: Every week, these two idiots will play a Pick 'Em NFL game. The object is for each editor to pick four seemingly even NFL matchups from the upcoming weekend, challenging the other pick to the winners. A running record will be tallied. Feel free to play along at home. Leave comments with your own picks if you want to go on the record.
Standings (Week 14 in parentheses)
Ian 24-16 (2-2)
Saj 18-22 (2-2)
You must have been feeling pretty good last week at 4:00. I was sitting at 0-2 with Tennessee in overtime, while you were at 2-0 with two home teams still to play. And as good as you were feeling at 4:00 is how bad you must have been feeling on Monday night, when a potential huge swing was relegated to both of us going 2-2 on the week and you making up no ground.
Now, with three weeks of football to play, you need to make up 6 games. I'll do the math for you, because you're just a lawyer. If I go 1-3 for the rest of the season and you go 3-1 for the rest of the season, we tie in the overall standings. And since I never go worse than 1-3, it sounds like you're going to need a couple perfect weeks down the stretch.
Good luck with that. Your picks:
Miami at Buffalo (Sunday, 1:00) - Wait...is the AFC East not that bad afterall?
Jacksonville at Tennesee (Sunday, 1:00) - The Patriots' final two opponents.
Pittsburgh at Carolina (Sunday, 1:00) - Over-rated. Clap, clap, clapclapclap.
Dallas at Atlanta (Saturday, 8:00) - Yes, all 1:00 games. Your season could be over by 4.
You are such a trick. But replace the "tr" with a "d." Dick. That's it. You are such a dick. Here are your games:
NY Jets at Minnesota (Sunday, 1:00) - You hear that? That's the sound of the Jets breaking the hearts of the ten fans they still have left.
Denver at Arizona (Sunday, 4:05) - Denny Green might have bigger breasts than Bill Parcells.
Philadelphia at NY Giants (Sunday, 4:15) - You think Jeff Garcia could get away with going by J-Gar? Me neither.
Cincinnati at Indianapolis (Monday, 8:30) - Great Monday night matchup.
Go to it, hoss.
Only tricks call other people tricks. By the way, I've held you in high regard and you're a good friend. (Kill 'em with kindness, baby. Kill 'em with kindness.)
Game 1: NY Jets @ Minnesota: It's the first playoff game of the year! Both of these teams are one loss away from their season being over. It's actually a pretty tough game to call, as both teams are so inconsistent in their production. When in doubt, I usually go through this thought process: Who would Saj take? Well, I know he'd pick against the Jets in this situation, do he'd go with the Vikings. Therefore, I will go with the Jets. Pick: New York
Game 2: Denver @ Arizona: How much further can Denver fall? In early November this was a Superbowl contender. Now, in mid-December they're fighting for their playoff lives. Jay Cutler has yet to win a game. You know a Jake Plummer-led Broncos team would beat the Cardinals this weekend. I can't say the same for Jay Cutler, as despite the difficult schedule, he's winless in the NFL. The Cardinals are playing better of late, and you gotta figure Leinart is only improving down the stretch. Throw in that this game is in Arizona, and I'd be leaning towards them. However, I see a scenario developing. Cutler, via preformance or injury, won't finish this game. What's more, this is Plummer's return to the desert where he played his first six seasons, and that's always motivation for athletes. If Cutler struggles, I really think Coach Shanahan goes back to the Snake. Pick: Denver
Game 3: Philadelphia @ NY Giants: Game of the Week. These two teams hate each other. These two fanbases hate each other. The unborn fetuses of these two cities hate each other. It's that bad. Throw in the fact that these are the current 5 and 6 seeds in the conference, but the loser will drop down with an Atlanta win, and that makes this a yuge, yuge game. This is another difficult one to call because the Eagles could be 3-10 going to Giants stadium to play ab 11-2 Giants team and Philly might win. It's like UNC-Duke when one of the teams is in a down year. When they play, anything could happen. I think this game comes down to JGar being able to make more plays than EMan. EMan has yet to play well in a big game, and this is one of them. JGar is the wiley vet who has thrown 8 touchdowns to no intereceptions in his last 3 games. I love Philly doing all this without T.O. and now McNabb. This should really prove how absurd enormous contracts are in football. Anyway, since I can't pick two New York teams to win on one weekend, I gotta go the other way on this one. Pick: Philadelphia
Game 4: Cincinnati @ Indianapolis: This was the other game I was thinking about giving you. This will be the first time in Indy's slump that I will pick against them. (Apologies ahead of time if this singlehandedly turns their season around.) Still, they have yet to prove they can stop the run without putting 8 men in the box, and you canNOT put 8 men in the box against Palmer & Co. You just can't. We definitely have potential for a 40something to 30something game, but in the end, the team that can control the clock will come out on top. Pick: Cincinnati
Listen, Ian, I know I'm terrible at this and I need an 0-4 week from you but I draw the line at accepting charity. Come on, give me your real picks. As for me, the comeback starts... NOW.
(pick in bold)
Miami at Buffalo
The question any NFL fan has to ask themselves: is handing the keys to your team to J.P. Losman a bad decision or a bad decision? That's not a typo, there' s really only one option. And good news for the cold-averse Dolphins: it should be close to 50 degrees in "frigid" Buffalo this weekend. This just continues to prove my assertion that professional sports is the single aspect of civilization that will be most affected by global warming. And since I don't care to offer any real football analysis for this pick, here's a New York Jets knock-knock joke:
"Knock knock"
"Who's there?"
"Chad Pennington"
"Chad Pennington who?"
"Chad Pennington has the arm of seven year old retarded child who also suffers from early onset advanced amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease). Oh, and you probably should have drafted Matt Leinart."
Jacksonville at Tennessee
Jacksonville has had the most predictable inconsistent season in the NFL. Of their five losses, four of them have come against Washington, Houston, and Buffalo. They've beaten the Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, and Colts. What does this mean for this week's game at Tennessee? At first glance, it looks like another Jaguars loss- but wait just a second here. Tennessee has won four out of its last five, including wins over the aforementioned Eagles, Giants, and Colts. So they're playing pretty well. They might actually be a GOOD team at this point in the season. Pretty sneaky, Jacksonville, but you're going to win this game.
Pittsburgh at Carolina
Let me put it this way: you could have a roster full of Steve Smiths with another practice squad with more Steve Smiths and even some Chris Gambles, Julius Pepperses, and D'Angelo Williamses, and you would still lose almost every game you play if you were starting Chris Weinke at quarterback. Remember Weinke, the 28 year old who stole the Heisman trophy from Josh Heupel in 2000? Good news for Weinke though: as a member of the All-suck Heisman team he gets to be the one to hand Troy Smith a clipboard and/or tell him he has to switch to safety to even make it three years in the NFL on draft day. Apparently Danny Wuerffel and Eric Crouch are busy; the spring/summer season is a hectic one in the used car business. Wow, that was mean and completely baseless.
Dallas at Atlanta
Tony Romo showed me something last week. Namely that he sucks, but the NFL and opposing defenses just had to see it first to believe it. In lieu of actual football analysis, I offer you a link about some 17 year old Marcus Vick banged for almost two years. Apparently she was a honors student, but it took her two years to figure out that having intercourse with a star college athlete who has a rich famous star professional athlete brother was the wrong thing to do. I especially like the part about Marcus Vick telling her he "loved her" and that he wanted her "to have his child." Seems about par for the course when compared to the 6-under Kevin Federline must have pulled over Britney Spears before he got her to marry him. I'm not sure if that golf analogy works. POPOZAO!
Miami, Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, Atlanta. The only home team I picked was Atlanta, and they're playing a team that, two weeks ago, was earmarked for the second seed in the NFC. Should I just concede now?
Yes, I'm waiting for your concession call so I can make a ballroom full of people very, very happy.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Baseball: Daisuke Matsuzaka(!)
Scott Boras is a prick. And he is bad for baseball. My roommate Rob made a very cogent argument last night for how, objectively, that isn't the case, but I am not objective. And I think Scott Boras is prick who is bad for baseball.
But if ESPN.com is reporting correctly, the two sides are only $3 million a year apart at the moment and in spite of how much of a prick Scott Boras is, you have to believe a deal will get done today. On the Red Sox side, it's hard to justify losing a guy like that over $3 million a year when you just gave Julio Lugo $36 million dollars. On Matsuzaka's side, it's hard to justify letting your beelzebub of an agent hold you hostage and effectively take away the $8-14 million in earnings you'd leave on the table if you waited two years until free agency, not to mention the value of your exposure to the American market and how you'd be perceived in Japan for letting a few million be a deal breaker. There's a compromise in there somewhere, but whether it's closer to the Theo Epstein's figures or Scott Boras' is the question. Oh, and Scott Boras is a prick.
I'm really concerned with the amount of input DMat has on this matter. I definitely think Boras would stop at nothing to get the deal he wants, including misleading his client. It's obvious that Boras has a reason to not compromise with the Red Sox or with Matsuzaka; Whatever he ends up getting, that will be a measuring stick for Barry Zito's upcoming contract. Boras holds the top two free agent pitchers on the palm of his hand, and one contract will effect the other. So he's purposefully yanking Matsuzaka around in an effort to get leverage on Zito's first offer. Boras would rather let the best Japanese pitcher ever go home before letting him sign an 8 million dollar a year contract, even if it's in the best interest of his client. That way, a small DMat contract won't cause Zito's money to come down.
And to you roommate, I would explain to him that, like I just previewed, Boras only has his own well-being at heart, not his client.
Exhibit A: Alex Rodriguez. Arod could have signed with Texas for unreal money and never won a division OR he could have gone to the Mets (where he said he wanted to go before the 252 million dollar contract was signed). The Mets were ponying up 200 million, but Arod would have been happier. Instead, he signed his life away to Boras, as all of his clients are forced to go. (The Satan analogy is not lost on me.) When players sign with Boras, they forgo negotiating rights with teams. Boras handles it all. Why? Because a player will take less money to sign with a team he wants to play with, but for every dollar less he accepts, that costs X percentage. If X=10%, then that's 100 thousand dollars Boras loses for every million dollars less his client accepts. So, Arod breaks the bank, has some great years on a crappy team, then Texas trades him to the Yankees, and the rest is history.
Exhibit B: All players which don't get drafted because Boras represents them. This hurts their draft pick and their guaranteed money. Rick Ankiel comes to mind. If the Mets drafted Ankiel with the #6 overall pick, he makes more money. But they didn't draft him because of Boras. Ankiel ends up sliding to the 72nd pick, doesn't make a lot of money upfront, and ends up having a crappy career and never hits it big. He probably has to work when he's out of baseball now.
There are more exhibits, but I'll let you take it away. How about this: What's the max you would give him?
On a tip from my friend Dan around 12:45pm: http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/
Hopefully we get the details soon.
Details: 6 years, $52 million. Watch the video of Matsuzaka heading into Mass. General Hospital to get his physical last night. That is simply an AWESOME coat.
But if ESPN.com is reporting correctly, the two sides are only $3 million a year apart at the moment and in spite of how much of a prick Scott Boras is, you have to believe a deal will get done today. On the Red Sox side, it's hard to justify losing a guy like that over $3 million a year when you just gave Julio Lugo $36 million dollars. On Matsuzaka's side, it's hard to justify letting your beelzebub of an agent hold you hostage and effectively take away the $8-14 million in earnings you'd leave on the table if you waited two years until free agency, not to mention the value of your exposure to the American market and how you'd be perceived in Japan for letting a few million be a deal breaker. There's a compromise in there somewhere, but whether it's closer to the Theo Epstein's figures or Scott Boras' is the question. Oh, and Scott Boras is a prick.
I'm really concerned with the amount of input DMat has on this matter. I definitely think Boras would stop at nothing to get the deal he wants, including misleading his client. It's obvious that Boras has a reason to not compromise with the Red Sox or with Matsuzaka; Whatever he ends up getting, that will be a measuring stick for Barry Zito's upcoming contract. Boras holds the top two free agent pitchers on the palm of his hand, and one contract will effect the other. So he's purposefully yanking Matsuzaka around in an effort to get leverage on Zito's first offer. Boras would rather let the best Japanese pitcher ever go home before letting him sign an 8 million dollar a year contract, even if it's in the best interest of his client. That way, a small DMat contract won't cause Zito's money to come down.
And to you roommate, I would explain to him that, like I just previewed, Boras only has his own well-being at heart, not his client.
Exhibit A: Alex Rodriguez. Arod could have signed with Texas for unreal money and never won a division OR he could have gone to the Mets (where he said he wanted to go before the 252 million dollar contract was signed). The Mets were ponying up 200 million, but Arod would have been happier. Instead, he signed his life away to Boras, as all of his clients are forced to go. (The Satan analogy is not lost on me.) When players sign with Boras, they forgo negotiating rights with teams. Boras handles it all. Why? Because a player will take less money to sign with a team he wants to play with, but for every dollar less he accepts, that costs X percentage. If X=10%, then that's 100 thousand dollars Boras loses for every million dollars less his client accepts. So, Arod breaks the bank, has some great years on a crappy team, then Texas trades him to the Yankees, and the rest is history.
Exhibit B: All players which don't get drafted because Boras represents them. This hurts their draft pick and their guaranteed money. Rick Ankiel comes to mind. If the Mets drafted Ankiel with the #6 overall pick, he makes more money. But they didn't draft him because of Boras. Ankiel ends up sliding to the 72nd pick, doesn't make a lot of money upfront, and ends up having a crappy career and never hits it big. He probably has to work when he's out of baseball now.
There are more exhibits, but I'll let you take it away. How about this: What's the max you would give him?
On a tip from my friend Dan around 12:45pm: http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/
Hopefully we get the details soon.
Details: 6 years, $52 million. Watch the video of Matsuzaka heading into Mass. General Hospital to get his physical last night. That is simply an AWESOME coat.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
NFL: Week 14 Recap
My half of the agenda today: Saints, Pats, Tomlinson, NFC 6 seed. Add to it as you wish.
I'll start. I've got four words for you, Saj.
Why not the Saints?
They just went on the road and picked apart my NFC pick. They boast the same type of diverse offense that I praise the Cowboys for having. They are very well coached. Their defense is underrated. New Orleans is in a weak conference whose top team has a clear deficiency. And the Saints have the best storyline for a team since the 2001-2002 New England Patriots and 2001 New York Yankees - two teams that went to their championship, with the former winning and the latter coming within 5 minutes of winning.
So why not the Saints?
Because Tony Romo is not that good. Because the NFL is a strange place where the confluence of parity and small sample size can make absolutely anything possible on any given play of any given game. A two yard loss can turn into a 40 yard gain by virtue of defensive end being late to jump the count. A ride home at 12:30 two nights before a game can turn into a DWI if you take the highway instead of the backroads and have one or two extra shots an hour before leaving. As in life, much of what happens in football is serendipitous. I'm going to stop myself before I get all David Halberstam on you with some grandiose sports-life philosophizing, but it should be noted that a lot of things affect the outcome of a football game and not all of them have to do with the level of talent you have on the field.
Why the Saints? Because of Reggie Bush. He has quietly registered 1,000+ yards rushing and receiving this season, seen the endzone six times, and leads his team in receptions. He's such a dynamic talent, that defenses have to change the way they play the Saints, and this is a fact that is often forgotten. Drew Brees is a very good quarterback, so far the best to come out of that 2001 NFL Draft, but does he ever have a weapon in Bush.
I have more to say (I always have more to say) but let's move on to the Patriots. When they were awful for all those years, a 9-4 season would induce backflips from me. But we've been spoiled by a great, almost unparalleled considering the way the game has changed since the early 90's, run and this season has been just a little disappointing. They're a frustrating team to watch: good but just not good enough. It's been almost like watching 13 extra Red Sox games. And watching Bill Belicheck get outcoached is like seeing Clark Kent bleed in Superman II. At least Bill was wearing a shirt with a collar last week. That's a positive.
All those reasons you listed as to why the Saints can't win are exactly the reasons why they can. I'll just come out and ask you then. If you had to wager on which team wins the NFC, who do you take? I go Seahawks, with Saints, Cowboys, then Bears behind them.
That was an outstanding Belicheck-Superman comparison you made. Dead on. And yet, I've been so brainwashed by his success that I think he's trying to dupe the league right now into sleeping on the Pats. He knows we were never getting a first round bye, so what's the difference between the 3 and 4 seed? Nothing. And that's why Maroney and Watson won't play until they're 100% healthy.
Okay, enough spin. This Patriots team has issues. They're not a top 5 NFL team anymore. There, I said it.
Who are the NFL top teams?
1. San Diego - No holes. None. I don't think even Marty Schottenheimer can blow this in the playoffs. This is the team to beat.
2. Baltimore - The showing in Kansas City on Sunday proved it. This defense is ready for the playoffs. The Baltimore - San Diego rematch (week 2) for the AFC Championship (read: Superbowl) is going to be the game of the playoffs.
3 (tie) - Seattle and New Orleans. Whoever finishes with the higher seed is winning the conference.
5. Indianapolis - But I'd take several teams winning the Superbowl before them, like Chicago, New England, Dallas, Kansas City, and Ohio State.
Your top 5?
And how about a quick commentary on that 2001 Draft. Everyone was killing San Diego for dropping down out of the #1 pick and Mike Vick. So who did they get out of it instead? Ladanian Tomlinson (MVP this year) and Drew Brees (runner up MVP this year in New Orleans.) Yeah. I think they did all right. And now they got Philip Rivers and draft picks instead of Eli Manning. In the last 6-8 years, has their been two bigger named quarterbacks coming out of college than Brees and Manning? And San Diego had shots at both of them?! And traded out of that #1 pick on both of them?!! And they're about to win the Superbowl because of it?!!!
If you look at Michael Vick in 2001 and Eli Manning in 2004, it's not like the Chargers intentionally gave up on them. In 2001 there was a falling out between how much Vick wanted as the number one pick in the draft and how much the Chargers wanted to pay him, catalyzing the trade that gave him to Atlanta (and gave the Chargers Tim Dwight and two draft picks). In 2004 they wanted Eli Manning. He just didn't want them. For their troubles they got Philip Rivers, Shawne Merriman, and Nate Kaeding. Between the two trades they received draft picks that amounted to Tomlinson, Brees, Merriman, Kaeding, and the recently departed WR Reche Caldwell (free agent, signed by Patriots) and DB Tay Cody (released, signed by Wendy's). The moral at the end of this fable: if you have the first pick in the draft and there is a consensus number one pick for better (Peyton Manning) or worse (Eli Manning) and for some reason you do not want/cannot sign him, TRADE DOWN. See also: exactly what the Houston Texans did not do in 2006.
My top five:
1. San Diego - Agree with your assessment. They're playing better than they were in the beginning of the season, which is very good. But we'll see what happens in the playoffs.
2. Chicago - Despite all this talk about Rex Grossman's inconsistent play they've scored more points than anyone but San Diego. And their defense has given up the second least points in the league behind Baltimore. Sure, not the toughest schedule but they've beaten up on a few potentially playoff bound teams and they have Devin Hester. When you give up an average of 13 points a game, a kick returner that can give you seven at any time is a game changer.
3. Baltimore - Sterling defense and a quarterback, however washed up, who has been there before.
4. New Orleans - Reggie Bush?
5. Cincinnati - They're playing very well right now.
Honorable mention: Dallas - one game and you turn on them. Bring Bledsoe back?
Seattle and Indy? No way. One lost to Arizona and the other plays what I like to call the Pepto Bismol defense: it tries to fool you into thinking it can stop the run(s).
I'll start. I've got four words for you, Saj.
Why not the Saints?
They just went on the road and picked apart my NFC pick. They boast the same type of diverse offense that I praise the Cowboys for having. They are very well coached. Their defense is underrated. New Orleans is in a weak conference whose top team has a clear deficiency. And the Saints have the best storyline for a team since the 2001-2002 New England Patriots and 2001 New York Yankees - two teams that went to their championship, with the former winning and the latter coming within 5 minutes of winning.
So why not the Saints?
Because Tony Romo is not that good. Because the NFL is a strange place where the confluence of parity and small sample size can make absolutely anything possible on any given play of any given game. A two yard loss can turn into a 40 yard gain by virtue of defensive end being late to jump the count. A ride home at 12:30 two nights before a game can turn into a DWI if you take the highway instead of the backroads and have one or two extra shots an hour before leaving. As in life, much of what happens in football is serendipitous. I'm going to stop myself before I get all David Halberstam on you with some grandiose sports-life philosophizing, but it should be noted that a lot of things affect the outcome of a football game and not all of them have to do with the level of talent you have on the field.
Why the Saints? Because of Reggie Bush. He has quietly registered 1,000+ yards rushing and receiving this season, seen the endzone six times, and leads his team in receptions. He's such a dynamic talent, that defenses have to change the way they play the Saints, and this is a fact that is often forgotten. Drew Brees is a very good quarterback, so far the best to come out of that 2001 NFL Draft, but does he ever have a weapon in Bush.
I have more to say (I always have more to say) but let's move on to the Patriots. When they were awful for all those years, a 9-4 season would induce backflips from me. But we've been spoiled by a great, almost unparalleled considering the way the game has changed since the early 90's, run and this season has been just a little disappointing. They're a frustrating team to watch: good but just not good enough. It's been almost like watching 13 extra Red Sox games. And watching Bill Belicheck get outcoached is like seeing Clark Kent bleed in Superman II. At least Bill was wearing a shirt with a collar last week. That's a positive.
All those reasons you listed as to why the Saints can't win are exactly the reasons why they can. I'll just come out and ask you then. If you had to wager on which team wins the NFC, who do you take? I go Seahawks, with Saints, Cowboys, then Bears behind them.
That was an outstanding Belicheck-Superman comparison you made. Dead on. And yet, I've been so brainwashed by his success that I think he's trying to dupe the league right now into sleeping on the Pats. He knows we were never getting a first round bye, so what's the difference between the 3 and 4 seed? Nothing. And that's why Maroney and Watson won't play until they're 100% healthy.
Okay, enough spin. This Patriots team has issues. They're not a top 5 NFL team anymore. There, I said it.
Who are the NFL top teams?
1. San Diego - No holes. None. I don't think even Marty Schottenheimer can blow this in the playoffs. This is the team to beat.
2. Baltimore - The showing in Kansas City on Sunday proved it. This defense is ready for the playoffs. The Baltimore - San Diego rematch (week 2) for the AFC Championship (read: Superbowl) is going to be the game of the playoffs.
3 (tie) - Seattle and New Orleans. Whoever finishes with the higher seed is winning the conference.
5. Indianapolis - But I'd take several teams winning the Superbowl before them, like Chicago, New England, Dallas, Kansas City, and Ohio State.
Your top 5?
And how about a quick commentary on that 2001 Draft. Everyone was killing San Diego for dropping down out of the #1 pick and Mike Vick. So who did they get out of it instead? Ladanian Tomlinson (MVP this year) and Drew Brees (runner up MVP this year in New Orleans.) Yeah. I think they did all right. And now they got Philip Rivers and draft picks instead of Eli Manning. In the last 6-8 years, has their been two bigger named quarterbacks coming out of college than Brees and Manning? And San Diego had shots at both of them?! And traded out of that #1 pick on both of them?!! And they're about to win the Superbowl because of it?!!!
If you look at Michael Vick in 2001 and Eli Manning in 2004, it's not like the Chargers intentionally gave up on them. In 2001 there was a falling out between how much Vick wanted as the number one pick in the draft and how much the Chargers wanted to pay him, catalyzing the trade that gave him to Atlanta (and gave the Chargers Tim Dwight and two draft picks). In 2004 they wanted Eli Manning. He just didn't want them. For their troubles they got Philip Rivers, Shawne Merriman, and Nate Kaeding. Between the two trades they received draft picks that amounted to Tomlinson, Brees, Merriman, Kaeding, and the recently departed WR Reche Caldwell (free agent, signed by Patriots) and DB Tay Cody (released, signed by Wendy's). The moral at the end of this fable: if you have the first pick in the draft and there is a consensus number one pick for better (Peyton Manning) or worse (Eli Manning) and for some reason you do not want/cannot sign him, TRADE DOWN. See also: exactly what the Houston Texans did not do in 2006.
My top five:
1. San Diego - Agree with your assessment. They're playing better than they were in the beginning of the season, which is very good. But we'll see what happens in the playoffs.
2. Chicago - Despite all this talk about Rex Grossman's inconsistent play they've scored more points than anyone but San Diego. And their defense has given up the second least points in the league behind Baltimore. Sure, not the toughest schedule but they've beaten up on a few potentially playoff bound teams and they have Devin Hester. When you give up an average of 13 points a game, a kick returner that can give you seven at any time is a game changer.
3. Baltimore - Sterling defense and a quarterback, however washed up, who has been there before.
4. New Orleans - Reggie Bush?
5. Cincinnati - They're playing very well right now.
Honorable mention: Dallas - one game and you turn on them. Bring Bledsoe back?
Seattle and Indy? No way. One lost to Arizona and the other plays what I like to call the Pepto Bismol defense: it tries to fool you into thinking it can stop the run(s).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
